Date:         Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:24:56 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Petty squabbling

Pat Gaston wrote:

>I didn't miss the point, and the fact is that what you said in reply to my
>post (mistakenly addressed to another Forum member) is not what you are saying
>now.

You're losing it Pat. Nice try but I said virtually nothing in my mistaken post and most certainly nothing you want to think. Here is exactly what I said.

Bob Lee wrote:

>We know that AE and FN were on the 157/337 LOP at 8:43 am, and planned to
>continue running "north and south" on that line.

From Alan

That's exciting news Bob. Specifically just how do "we" know any of that? I don't know it nor do I know anyone else who knows that.

Enlighten me.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:31:03 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

I am somewhat concerned about the last message being heard that early by the Itasca and then no more: figuring that there was another 4 hours of fuel available after 8;43 am, unless there was one other later heard but not written in the log as rumored   I am sure you have written about that in the forum before, however, is there evidence of her kind of breaking the rules as set down by the engineers and Paul Mantz in regard to fuel and engine economy?  You know headstrong do it my way kind of stuff.  Things would mess up all our calculations.

The evidence is to my mind more than circumstantial that they ended up where it all leads [Nika whatever] and she could no longer transmit on that frequency for some reason that morning.

Are there areas on the island that have not been explored and is there a way to do so with present technology; radar sonar, etc.?

********************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not aware of any documented instance when AE deviated from recommended fuel management procedures.

Yes, there are many places we haven't looked and we use the best available technology.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:34:52 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      New forum rule

No more unsigned postings.  In the past I've often gone back to the subscriber's list to find the name for an unsigned posting but it takes too much time. If you're not comfortable taking responsibility for what you say - don't say it.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:36:20 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      E-Bay offering re AE Aug. 31, 2003

Would any of this be of interest to TIGHAR?

An early 1930s VIBROPLEX BUG used by Joe Gurr, Amelia Earhart's radio consultant on her 1937 Round-the-World flight and extensive Amelia Earhart Radio research file.

Serial number is 90919, a very early vintage bug, manufactured in 1923. Gurr used this bug to communicate around the world. In 1937, Gurr consulted for Amelia Earhart. This large file details numerous changes and modifications made to Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra in Burbank, CA. The 8x10 autographed photo is of Gurr with Amelia. She signed, "To Joe Gurr with 500 KCS of appreciation. Amelia Earhart 1937." The print is a duplicate of the 1937 signed photo.

Extensive Amelia Earhart Radio file: Some answers to communication equipment mysteries that surround Amelia Earhart's disappearance may be in Joe Gurr's personal file of correspondence and documentation.

It details how little experience Amelia Earhart had operating the radio equipment and perhaps why Amelia Earhart could not receive messages from the U.S. Coast Guard cutter, Itasca" the last 12 hours on her July 2, 1937 flight to Howland Island. "Gurr's file includes rare instructions and communications between Paul Mantz (Amelia's technical advisor), Lockheed," Fred Hooven, Fred Goerner, and others.


There is also a 10-page account of Gurr's recollections, "...about my connection with Amelia Earhart's Preparation for her around the world flight...mainly based on a technical point of view, with an ending of my opinion..."

The preceding information was provided by the seller, an Aviation Historian, Publisher and coauthor of the book "Amelia, My Courageous Sister, Biography of Amelia Earhart: True Facts About Her Disappearance". 

Radio shows signs of wear due to age, otherwise it appears to be in good condition for its age.

Radio has not been tested for functionality.

Paper work is clean with minimal signs of crinkling present.

Last 2 photos are pictured for reference and authentication, but are not included. 

**********************************************************************
From Ric

No.  We already have copies of the Gurr material.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:43:24 EDT
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

I know you must have postulated this in the past, but what is your "gut feeling" of their latitudinal position at local sunrise on 2 July 1937? Were they (in your estimation) too far south? Too far north?

I'm sorry to be bringing this up again, I'd just like a "best guess" from you as to where you believed their position to be.

LTM,

Dave #2585
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I think they were probably well south of where they thought they were.  Just how far is impossible to say but I think it was far enough so that when they reached the advanced LOP sometime shortly before 07:42 local and didn't see Howland, they could explore to the NW for as long as they dared and still not see Baker.  I think they turned back to the SE before 08:43 - hence we are running north and south on line.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:45:12 EDT
From:         Daryll
Subject:      "Splashed down" ???

Ric wrote:

>I'm not going to take the time to correct the many errors and
>unwarranted assumptions in the above but I will ask you to explain how
>the 281 message could have been sent from an aircraft that "splashed
>down"

"ERRORS" ?? Please point out the errors for me, because that implies you know the correct answers. "UNWARRANTED assumptions",...this is the TIGHAR Earhart research forum isn't it...!!?? Everything I say has circumstantial or direct evidence to back it up. I used a computer flight simulation to convert what I said into visual aids for those who can't picture it by reading the words.

I used "splashed down" to avoid a knee jerk reaction from the forum members who have been conditioned to disregard anything having to do with Mili Atoll and the Marshall islands simply because of the J-A-P-A-N-E-S-E capture connection.

"Splashed down" along side of an island, on a reef flat, seems far more preferable than hitting a tree on an island at ~65 kts. In such a landing there must be some kind of splashing going on. That's how you picture the Niku landing correct?

The airplane had to end up in a dry/wet  situation where it could be retrieved for the Marshall island eye-witnesses to report seeing it in a sling off the back of a ship some 10 days later.

Some Earhart researchers say that those Marshallese eye-witnesses were just making up that story. Well....those clever native eye-witnesses added that the left wing was broken off.  This is the kind of damage that you would expect to see when one wing tip stalls at slow airspeeds and it drops contacting the ground/water/reef. This would be consistent with AE slowing down and holding the Electra off until it quit flying. This seems to confirm that what the Marshall islanders saw was just a truthful observation, nothing more, nothing less.

Daryll
************************************************************************
From Ric

You've already demonstrated what I mean by unwarranted assumptions far better than I could.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:47:48 EDT
From:         Tom Byers
Subject:      Re: Clipper ditching

I think this story points to the conclusion that if Earhart did ditch at sea it is very likely that the airplane could well have sunk without leaving any floating wreckage.

For what it is worth, there is an interesting black and white photo of Earhart in the current issue of Vanity Fair magazine.

Tom Byers.
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't follow your logic.  Because the clipper had to be sunk by gunfire it provides no information about how much floating wreckage it may have left if allowed to eventually sink naturally.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:44:31 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Carl Peltzer said:

>the Itasca and then no more.

Carl, A lot has been said about the "last" message at 8:43 L But keep in mind what we are talking about is one message we have confirmed but not necessarily the last message. We are all of the opinion there were many more messages - some actually heard that we have reports of and no doubt many more we have not discovered yet. Many messages could have been heard and never reported.

As to fuel there is really very little a pilot can do about fuel efficiency. A given amount of fuel will produce a given amount of brake horsepower. That in turn produces a given thrust or airspeed. Reduce power and you reduce airspeed. Increase power and you increase airspeed. That is not an absolute but it would take an unusual fuel management to make significant changes and to no good reason.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:07:25 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric wrote:

> I think they were probably well south of where they thought they were.  Just
> how far is impossible to say but I think it was far enough so that when they
> reached the advanced LOP sometime shortly before 07:42 local and didn't see
> Howland, they could explore to the NW for as long as they dared and still not 
> see Baker.  I think they turned back to the SE before 08:43 - hence we are
> running north and south on line.

This is great stuff Ric. If I might ask the navigational experts on just how long it would take Fred to get a fairly useful fix on his position IF he started taking shots in that hour between 7:42 and 8:43? I am gonna assume (for purposes of this question) that he had to start out with no previous fix and only a general idea of where he was. How long would a 1937 navigator take to get a reasonably accurate fix on his position under these circumstances?

Bob
********************************************************************
From Ric

Remember that he's at 1,000 feet, probably to get below the bases of the scattered deck of clouds.  By now the sun is high enough to behind those clouds. To get any kind of celestial observation they have to make the decision to burn the gas and take the time to climb up to where they can see the sun.  During that time they will not be able to look for land.  I wouldn't do it.  Others feel differently.  If Noonan did take subsequent sun shots this is what he'd be faced with.

At 08:43 (20:13Z) the sun's angle has not moved enough since sunrise to give Noonan a reliable "cut" across the original LOP to know whether he is north or south of Howland.

By 09:30 (21:00Z) the sun has still only moved 11 degrees.  If he took a sighting at this time he'd need to be very sure that it was a good reliable reading before committing to turning back to the northwest.

By 10:00 (21:30Z) the cut is 17 degrees, enough to be sure that he really is south of Howland, but now he's beyond his point of no return.  Turning back is not an option.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:07:24 EDT
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric, with scattered clouds you don't have to climb to take a shot. Broken maybe.
Jim
************************************************************
From Ric

Have you ever taken a celestial observation from an airplane from below a scattered cloud deck?  I haven't, but I've talked to a lot of people who have done celestial navigation from airplanes and I have yet to find anyone who has done it.  Maybe you're the first.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:08:22 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

For Alan:

As a pilot/owner for 40 years, I realize all this, but others do not and am just attempting to address things feel need to be brought up.

After all, I am a fairly new member here.

Carl Peltzer
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 5 Sep 2003 10:03:07 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Betty's Notebook?

Not to distract from the Tighar Forum's refined art form of LOP speculation, but I do have two quick questions that have nothing to do with LOP's  - Has Betty's composition notebook been tested under laboratory conditions for fibre makeup and content?  -  Is there any way to validate that this composition notebook could be of 1937 vintage?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No, the notebook has not been laboratory tested for fiber makeup.  It is either a genuine mid-1930s notebook or an amazing forgery.  We have no reason to suspect the latter.  If you do, and if you're willing to fund its examination by the Winterthur Conservation Laboratory (a nationally recognized lab right here in Delaware) we'll be happy to submit it for their opinion.  My guess is that it would cost somewhere between $500 and $1,000 depending on how fancy you want them to get.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 5 Sep 2003 10:04:04 EDT
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

No I didn't but that's why I always carried a Navigator. As I flew the Pacific most of the time, they did it quite often. We flew at 8-12 thousand a lot and I never heard one say he couldn't take one. But then,  they were Air Force Trained, so were quite good. In Pilot training I asked to be trained to use a sextant and was told ,"if  you want to use a sextant go to navigator school". You will have one in your crew don't worry.

Jim
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 5 Sep 2003 10:08:13 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric, I guess you've forgotten all my posts on this.

gl
********************************************************************
From Ric

I remember many many posts sprinkled with "would haves" but if you ever claimed to have taken celestial observations from an aircraft soon after dawn from 1,000 feet while under a low scattered cumulous deck it has slipped my mind.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:55:58 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

>celestial observations from an aircraft soon after dawn from 1,000
>feet

I'm sure it is technically possible to put the sun in place in a sextant at low altitude but you're talking about an airplane traveling over a hundred miles per hour in air that is at least a little bumpy. Each few seconds a cloud will cause you to lose aim on the sun. That doesn't sound like a situation that will give any reasonable result.

I flew low level missions for many years in SAC and TAC and NO celestial was ever attempted or planned. The ride was so rough holding breakfast down was the major consideration.

Next, at 1,000' under scattered to broken clouds you will never see the sun at 10 degrees or more for an accurate shot.

Finally, on the inbound leg at 10,000' They are not likely to get a sun shot at all. I don't know what the tops were that day but CU usually runs up around ten thousand feet give or take.

When the sun rose to a visible height they would have been in pretty close. Two hours out they still had stars to shoot weather permitting. Noonan would have picked up his ground speed over the water not from sun lines.

Let me suggest you game this out from the Gilberts inbound checking position against sun rise and you will see this was not a good celestial situation.

Give up on the idea that someone could see the sun pop up over the horizon and get usable information from that event. Distortion error and visibility negates that.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:58:05 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Ric wrote:

> Remember that he's at 1,000 feet, probably to get below the bases of the
> scattered deck of clouds.  By now the sun is high enough to behind those clouds.
> To get any kind of celestial observation they have to make the decision to
> burn the gas and take the time to climb up to where they can see the sun. During
> that time they will not be able to look for land.  I wouldn't do it.  Others
> feel differently.  If Noonan did take subsequent sun shots this is what he'd
> be faced with.
>
> At 08:43 (20:13Z) the sun's angle has not moved enough since sunrise to give
> Noonan a reliable "cut" across the original LOP to know whether he is north or
> south of Howland.
>
> By 09:30 (21:00Z) the sun has still only moved 11 degrees.  If he took a
> sighting at this time he'd need to be very sure that it was a good reliable
> reading before committing to turning back to the northwest.
>
> By 10:00 (21:30Z) the cut is 17 degrees, enough to be sure that he really is
> south of Howland, but now he's beyond his point of no return.  Turning back is
> not an option.

**epiphany**

Thanks. I've already seen some comments on beating the LOP to death, but let me say that Ric's explanation above as well as some other recent postings have really helped *me* understand better the significance of the LOP and my own prejudices in judging what someone would do under the circumstances of our duo.

As only a somewhat reluctant airline passenger, I assumed that the first thing that I would do when I didn't find Howland initially is to do a short search and then find out where the &^(&*& I am. I don't have any problem with the short flight northwest to see if Howland appears and then a turn to the Southeast. Once on that leg I assumed that Fred would take some shots to establish their position -- maybe he did. But Ric's explanation clearly points out that *if* Fred and AE were confident in their east-west position they could have found their way  by either good fortune (their actual bearing on the LOP taking them close enough to see Gardner) or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner where a landing would at least be *possible*.

So thanks to all the forum members for putting up with what must seem like a rehash -- but this is a concise explanation that I've not found in the archives and further strengthens the Niku/Gardner theory.

In short this simplifies many confusing aspects of the final leg of the journey. Stay fairly low to be able to see any landfall (plus the added benefit of potentially being seen), Don't risk missing Howland and/or Baker on the SE leg of the LOP as this means they were actually north of the islands and would cast doubt on their ability to get the Gardner with their fuel load. And finally spend some time double-checking the calculations for hitting the advanced LOP to make certain they're as accurate as possible.

Bob
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:00:42 EDT
From:         Tom Byers
Subject:      Rain Squall

Did the Itasca report a rain-squall to the northwest of Howland around the time of Earhart's expected arrival?

Tom Byers / Springfield, MO
**************************************************************
From Ric

No.  The scattered cloud deck was apparently thicker to the northwest but there was never any report of a rain squall or storm.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:25:56 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Gee folks,  my  training shows that the Sun takes up about 2 percent of the sky finding the center is difficult enough especially with the problems of distortion early and late in the day: yes you can find some planets in the daytime: stars are more difficult, however possible, if you know where to look, but it is much easier to do a celestial just before sunrise, get your best position and then use that map position to find your target, or any  island.

It sounds, to me, with the radio report, that they were quite sure of their position at sunrise from the words written down, but I could be wrong, however am willing to bet that is the fact, of course there is no way to prove that thesis.  Perhaps that will help a little.

Carl Peltzer
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:51:33 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Theories of Disappearance

Carl Peltzer writes:

>..........the Sun takes up about 2 percent of
>the sky

It might take up much less of the sky than that.  --Something less than 1/100,000 of the sky.  The fraction I get when I compute it roughly is:

(pi times pi) / (32 times 180 times 180)

finding the center is difficult enough

It needn't be found with the precision that a surveyor needs.  With a handheld instrument, plus or minus 5 or 10 arcminutes is ok; averaging of sights can improve accuracy.

>especially with the problems of
>distortion early and late in the day:

Yes, this uncertainty applies directly to lines of position computed from such sights.

>yes you can find some planets in the daytime:

I have found Venus only by knowing exactly where to look.  Jupiter might be found--it would be interesting to see it in daylight.

>stars are more difficult, however possible, if you know where to
>look,

I've never succeeded at this; but at high enough altitude it seems possible.   Aren't some stars visible from very high flying aircraft during daylight?

>but it is much easier to do a celestial just before sunrise, get your best
>position and then use that map position to find your target, or any
>island.

Maybe they tried that (and more).  Maybe the combinations of visibility, cloud height, sun angle, and fatigue combined to make the task much more difficult when Noonan and Earhart had to do it that morning.

Mark Prange
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:56:36 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Carl Peltzer writes:

>Gee folks,  my  training shows that the Sun takes up about 2 percent of the
>sky finding the center is difficult enough especially with the problems of
>distortion early and late in the day: yes you can find some planets in the
>daytime: stars are more difficult, however possible, if you know where to
>look, but it is much easier to do a celestial just before sunrise, get your best
>position and then use that map position to find your target, or any  island. It
>sounds, to me, with the radio report, that they were quite sure of their
>position at sunrise

Exactly right, Carl. And I have no doubt Noonan had great confidence in their position but we can be sure they were not within 20 nm of Howland. I pick that distance as about how far they could see at 1,000 feet.

Although I just wrote a negative note on Noonan's ability to shoot the sun that was pure speculation coupled with a lot of experience. In fact the sky condition and visibility could have been far better than I suggested but that would mean his navigation was worse than appears reasonable.

One factor appears to me to be somewhat certain. Their NW/SE search was NOT taking them on a path close enough to Howland to see it. That could be for one of two reasons. Either they were more than 20 nm east or west of Howland or they were grossly south or north of Howland. Both could be true of course.

Reported cloud and wind conditions do NOT indicate it was impossible for Noonan to navigate celestially. With the winds averaging out of the East I can see no reason they would have deviated very far north or south of course.

Keep in mind if they were only a little more than 20 nm short or long of Howland they could fly north and south all day and never find it.

Also keep in mind that from 7:42 am local to 8:43 am local there was precious little time to do any kind of reasonable searching. It would have been a short trek up and back and then off to look for land.

The weather guys tell me we need local Howland temperatures and pressures to determine probable cloud tops which might give us an idea of whether climbing was an option. I'm with Ric on that. I think it was a doubtful choice.

We have a real mystery on our hands but maybe we are missing some pieces that can still be filled in.

Fuel usage and reserve has been beat to death yet AE's comment they were low on fuel remains troublesome to many. The "half hour" of fuel is clearly incorrect as they were still in the air an hour later. Also there was no more fuel comment, like "We're running on fumes" or something similar. That doesn't mean their fuel was not almost exhausted but all fuel computations show they should have had 139 to 150 gallons at 8:43 am local. In addition the fuel usage of the "Daily Express" shows comparable figures.

I wonder if it is possible that we can do a better job reconstructing the weather? And for what reason? Better weather information could help answer questions such as whether Noonan could get celestial navigation at points late in the flight which in turn could give us a better idea how accurately the inbound leg might have been from the Gilberts to Howland. The importance of this would be to give us a better idea whether they came in north or south of Howland. That, plus better local weather, could help us have a better idea of what they could or could not have done in that last hour.

Now, what good would this exercise do? Ric will probably say nothing. What do we care what they did? How would that help move the ball down the field when we already know they just continued SE to Niku? Ah, but that's the rub. We don't. We think so and we have reasons to think so but we actually don't know that yet.

Maybe Ric is right the exercise will produce nothing of value but suppose it does? Nothing ventured nothing gained. We have a small army of TIGHAR members basically doing nothing other than reading these foolish posts. We can all do some research and try to piece things together better than we have. My local TV weatherman has volunteered to help if we can come up with sufficient data. If nothing else we might be able to show that our Niku theory is even more probable than we now think.

As a start, I think it would be helpful to compute where the Electra was, longitudinally, when the sun rose at Howland and where it was when the crew could first see the sunrise. I've given it a shot already but I could use some help. Gary??

Alan
***********************************************************
From Ric

No need for me to comment.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:58:45 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      A corking good project

I'm hoping to get some help from a Forumite in the Southwestern US or another desert area.

Among the objects found with the partial skeleton on Nikumaroro in 1940 were a couple of small corks on chains.  We've long puzzled about what these might be.  A couple of months ago I woke up in the middle of the night with one of those "aha" feelings, thinking "water bags."  Recalling the self-cooling canvas water bag I'd hung on my bicycle as a kid when on long trips in the hot, dry California summers.  My bag had had a screw top, but it seemed sensible that earlier ones, like in the '30s, might have had corks.  So I did a Google search, and sure enough, there was an EBay ad for a "desert water bag, antique," and it had a cork on a chain.  Nice, but of course it didn't prove anything. Then I was recently perusing "Amelia, My Courageous Sister" by Muriel Morrissey and Carol Osborne, and there found a reproduction of a1937 new article in which Earhart was interviewed about what she was taking with her on the World Flight.  Water, the article said, would be kept in two "desert water bags."

This of course still doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting, and I'd like to lay my hands on a period water bag to get some idea of what parts could be easily consumable by crabs and what parts would not.  Now, however, I can't find the EBay ad I found before, and have been unable to find a 1930s bag anyplace else.  The large military antique store I went to last week (where I was told that the British military used such bags in North Africa during WWII but that they were uncommon in the US military) suggested that I check mining antique places, particularly in the desert.

So I'd like to bounce this one to the Forum.  If anybody can find a desert water bag from the '30s or thereabouts, with a cork top, that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, I'd be happy to purchase it.  Any information would be much appreciated.

LTM
Tom
***************************************
From Ric

Now this is real research.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:36:09 EDT
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Dados and what else?

So based on what we've heard so far, Niku V P found some aluminum bits that might be dados, which {usually} are only on civilian aircraft. We didn't find the Mother of All Wheels, but I'd like an indication of whether any of the bits brought back from this trip are adding anything to the current working hypothesis.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, #2189
*************************************************************
From Ric

No doubt about it.  With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team recovered the remains of two dados - in much worse shape than the one we found in 1989, but dados nonetheless.   What's more, it turns out that another previously unidentified aluminum structure we recovered in 1989 from the same general area is very likely part of yet another dado.  That's four dados, all from the same part of the old village, in various stages of disassembly.  Somebody has removed (not ripped) these assemblies from the flooring and interior wall of an aircraft and is taking them apart and cutting the flat sheet aluminum into smaller rectangles.  My guess is that they're making fishing lures - just something shiny to attach to the line.

The x-rays have also confirmed our original observation that all of these structures are devoid of stamped-in part numbers - a strong indication that they are from a civilian aircraft.  All of the dados seem to be of the same width - 6.5 inches overall - but are of varying lengths.  Of special interest is the placement of the mounting holes which should indicate the spacing of the underlying fuselage frames to which they were attached.  How well that spacing matches the structure of a Lockheed 10 remains to be seen but we now have a number of pieces to fit into our puzzle.

One of the artifacts recovered by the Niku Vp team, 2-7-V-5, is not part of a dado.  It's a rectangular piece of aluminum sheet 2.5 inches wide by something over 8 inches long (the end is corroded off) with two rivet or screw holes in the middle, not along the edges, which is kind of strange.  My guess is that it was some kind of cover plate.

We're very excited about these finds and we're doing all we can to learn as much as we can from them.  Tomorrow (Tuesday) and Wednesday I'll be working with two other TIGHAR researchers at the NASM Garber Facility archives in Suitland, MD going through the Lockheed 10 engineering drawings to see what we can learn.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:50:49 EDT
From:         Pete #2419
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

I did a quick ebay search and found 2 candidates for the desert water bags with cork stoppers.  The first is item 2190563480, currently in Gosport, Hants UK, and is said to be recently returned from Afghanistan.  The second one I found looks MUCH older in the image of Item 3625137338, and when I looked was going for less than $10 USD.

For the Files:  All the old bags (1960's and older) where "Desert Brand" and showed a registered Trade Mark.  Two manufacturers appear, Canvas Specialties of Los Angeles and Ames Harris Neville of San Francisco.  Construction appears to be overall canvas with rope handles.  The top closure and spout appear to be aluminum.

Love To Mother
Pete #2419, Florida
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:52:15 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      No forum Tues. & Wed.

I'll be out of the office doing research on Tuesday and Wednesday.  The forum will resume on Thursday.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:05:37 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

I am outside of Phoenix and work just a few miles from an Antique mall that's got a few military antique shops that are always a kick to visit. I'll see what I can do. Also -- I checked with www.janes.com (Janes Defence) and did a search for canvas water bags in their database of military suppliers. I got these hits:

Australian Field Equipment Pty Ltd, Australia
Avon Technical Products, United Kingdom
FELLFAB Limited, Canada
Jarvis Manufacturing, United Kingdom

In the little time I had today, I wasn't able to do much more than gather these names, but it would be interesting to find out if they were in the business in the 30's.

Bob
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:09:01 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Taking Celestial Shots south of Howland/Baker

Bob Lee writes:

>... or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner
>where a landing would at least be *possible*

I must have missed something, what is it about McKean that would have led AE to decide landing there was impossible and landing at Gardner was possible?

>Stay fairly low to be able to see any landfall (plus the added benefit
>of potentially being seen), Don't risk missing Howland and/or Baker on
>the SE leg of the LOP as this means they were actually north of the
>islands and would cast doubt on their ability to get the Gardner with
>their fuel load.

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this sentence, Bob. I don't think AE was ever looking for Gardner. I also don't see why you said they were actually north of the islands (Howland and Baker), as I don't think Ric implied that.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
*******************************************
From Ric

No, I didn't.

McKean is a very uninviting place.  Devoid of vegetation, jumbles of coral rubble, a million seabirds, and a very jagged reef.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:09:59 EDT
From:         Craig Knowles
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

I can't help with an actual bag, but I did find several on eBay using the "Completed Items" search, which goes back as far as Aug 24.  Several seem to be from the 30s, according to the sellers.  These ones have corks, and maybe chains (its hard to tell in some of the photos).

(cut and paste entire links for each of these into your address bar)

Completed Auctions

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2189420591&category=418

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=34204&item=2430406548

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3623608710&category=16035

Current (looks like cork, but no chain)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3626013227&category=16035


  Hope you can find one,
  Craig
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:11:17 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      FW: A corking good project

I did some research about canvas water bags used in desert conditions and I asked a guy who is familiar with military equipment having served in South Africa and Namibia. This is what I learned

  1) Canvas water bags are very practical insofar that they keep the water fresh, especially when hung at the front outer side of a vehicle, they are indeed "self cooling".

  2) The British Forces used canvas bags with cork-sealings. Several pictures of WW2 show men of the 8th Army using them in their campaign against Rommel and the Afrika Korps: many of these men knew why : many of them came from South Africa, where the Boers used these canvas bags for donkeys years.

  3) The South African Army and the Rhodesian Army used these canvas water bags still in the 1980s !

  4) In WW II the German Afrika Korps used Jerrycans (20 liters/5gallons) with a special inside coating for water. These watercans were marked on both sides with a rather large white cross. The British soon copied these German watercans.

  5) Canvas water bags were not used as standard issue by the French Forces in Africa and the Middle East in the 1920s or later. French Army issue water containers (man's canteens and larger containers) were at that stage made of aluminum, painted steel or enamel steel. But: Local Arab tribesmen used canvas water bags and water bags made of animals skin (often the bladder of the animal was also used to this purpose). It is not excluded and even very likely that French soldiers "switched" to this form of water container as it was more convenient in the North African climate than their issue water containers. It is however not sure that such canvas or animal skin bags became an official French Army issue item.

  6) Spanish Forces in North Africa used leather water bags with a cork sealing.

  LTM
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:18:31 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: "Expertise"

Recently I received an off forum email from someone who had nothing to offer for the Forum's work but merely wanted to make a personal attack on me. In the process he said I had not provided HIM with my credentials. Although that was quite pompous it is certainly true and few of us have ever done that. Mainly, I think, because we each offer our best common sense to this mystery and there is little significance to our "credentials" whatever that is.

We know Ric's background and the great value his experience brings to the Forum. Such is also true of many of our hardworking forumites. Other than when someone is being a jerk we rarely indicate an interest in someone's "credentials."

This is not a game of oneupsmanship in which we see how many degrees one has versus another. Someone with little or no education has as much chance of offering a good idea or clue as anyone else.

Personally I see little in my background that qualifies me as an expert or semi-expert in anything but since things are slow I'll list a couple things in my past. This is NOT an invitation for anyone to follow suit. I couldn't care less what anyone has done or what their strong points are and I'm sure you all feel the same about me. I'm only interested in what each person writes and although I am quite critical at times as are others it is all done in the spirit of moving the mystery ball forward and most certainly not in the vein of a personal attack.

I studied engineering and physics at a technical institute in Maryland, archeology under the chief archeologist for the Kansas State Historical Society, all forms of communication at a Missouri University, education at Florida Southern, Asian Government and Politics at Nebraska, Economics at Maryland Far East division, languages at several Universities, military tactics and history at a Military University and received a Doctorate of Jurisprudence from The University of Texas School of Law.

I have been flying airplanes for almost fifty years and last flew last week. I was qualified in fighters, bombers, airlift and utility aircraft. In SAC I was the top crew in the wing and among the top 5 % in SAC garnering spot promotions in the process. Our celestial navigation was surpassed by no one nor was our bombing accuracy. I flew eleven different aircraft and was an instructor pilot. Out of the cockpit I was NATO liaison to the Greek Air Force, Operations officer for an Air Division Detachment in Vietnam, Mission Commander for specialized operations in Vietnam and countries unnamed, and Airlift Command and Control Division Commander.

I hold the Distinguished Flying Cross, eight Air Medals and the usual assortment of other stuff.  I was clever enough not to get shot so I missed the Purple Heart. I flew 1193 combat missions in Asia and other places I can't mention. I first worked with the CIA in 1966 and continued working in USAFE and NATO throughout Europe, North Africa and special missions in Asia and the Dominican Republic.

None of this qualifies me to solve the Earhart mystery any more than anyone else nor does it give me the right to make a personal attack on anyone else unless... <G>

I make mistakes like everyone does and I care less if anyone buys my ideas or theories. They're free for the taking and if ignored or not believed I'm not devastated.

Most of my fellow forumites try very hard to make sense of this complicated mystery and most offer positive comments to help sort everything out. A very few contribute nothing of value but I'm glad they're part of this in some way.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:22:10 EDT
From:         Rebecca
Subject:      Re: Theories of Disappearance

Pat wrote:

>>Actually, if the skull turns up then DNA analysis will
>>probably trump all
>
> the above arguments provided Muriel's descendants will cooperate.

There are several maternal-line descendants of Amelia's maternal-maternal great-grandmother, who are therefore mtDNA matches to Amelia.

Bring on the skull.

Rebecca
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:05:37 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Dado clarification

This past Monday, as part of my response to a question about what was found during the Niku Vp expedition I wrote:

>No doubt about it.  With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland
>Archaeological Conservation lab we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team
>recovered the remains of two dados - in much worse shape than the one we found in
>1989, but dados nonetheless.

Apparently I did not make it clear enough that it was "we" (i.e. TIGHAR) who confirmed that the artifacts are dados and that we (i.e. TIGHAR) were aided in that identification by x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab.  What I wrote seems very clear to me but it apparently confused Chris Kennedy who took it upon himself to write to the MAC lab and ask them whether they had independently confirmed that the artifacts are, in fact, aircraft structures known as "dados".

The good people at the MAC lab are not, and do not pretend to be, aviation experts.  We would never ask them to identify an aviation artifact.  They are, however, expert at analytical techniques such as the x-raying of artifacts and they know how to keep fragile artifacts from getting any worse than they are. They have very generously donated their services and expertise to TIGHAR in helping us research and preserve these artifacts.  As you might imagine, I was less than amused to get an email from the lab asking if I knew Mr. Kennedy and wondering if and how they should respond to his email.  I said I'd handle it and I apologized for the inconvenience, explaining that Mr. Kennedy had apparently misread a posting on this forum.

I don't know how we could be more transparent in our research and it is, to say the least, disappointing when a supposedly educated person misreads something and then, behind our back, misrepresents it to a respected and valuable in-kind sponsor.  This sort of thing goes beyond healthy skepticism and can actually damage our ability to conduct the investigation.

I think Mr. Kennedy owes TIGHAR and this forum an apology.  How does the forum feel?

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:08:31 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Water bags

You might want to get in touch with the following web site re water bags:
http://www.tooltalk.org/members/collect/WaterBag.htm

There are pictures and this person seems to know bags!

Ted Campbell
************************************
From Bob Lee

Here's a website that appears to be a WWII diary of some type. About half way down a paragraph starting with the words 'With the extremely high temperatures....' the author goes on to describe a canvas water bag that they could purchase at the base PX -- in the Mojave desert! http://www.gallagher.com/ww2/chapter8.html

Bob
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:12:17 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: FW: A corking good project

Along the lines of "water bags," in the Luke Field inventory list there is a reference to two "canteens type 4N and type 6N."  Does anyone out there know what the "type" describes?  Could these be collapsible water bags?

Did you pass on my link to the water bag lady?

Ted Campbell
************************************************
From Ric

At least to me, a canteen is something quite distinct from a water bag and there are photos that show canteens with the equipment piled beside the door of the Electra.

By the way, Tom King asked me to pass along his thanks to everybody who is helping with water bag information.  He has had some computer problems lately but should be back in action soon.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:13:58 EDT
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: "Expertise"

Alan, glad to see another AF Pilot in the group. Are you going to Reno this weekend for the Races.

Jim Preston

**********************************************
From Malcolm Andrews

Phew. Alan's CV certainly makes me feel I've still got a lot to achieve in life. I'm just a humble author and journalist with no letters after my name. But I have to say with blokes as well-credentialed as Alan on board, it can only be a matter of time before AE's fate is revealed without any chance of contradiction. I hesitate to say it but...the truth is out there.

Malcolm Andrews #2409
Port Macquarie Australia
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:19:56 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Alan's expertise

So, Alan ... ah ... like, ah ... you know, done anything exciting lately? :-)

LTM, a picture of serenity
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:45:42 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Taking Celestial Shots south of Howland/Baker

Paige Miller writes:

> Bob Lee writes:
>
>> ... or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner
>> where a landing would at least be *possible*"
>
> I must have missed something, what is it about McKean that would have
> led AE to decide landing there was impossible and landing at Gardner was
> possible?

Ric's various descriptions tell me landing on McKean is not possible. I believe the next closest landfall is Gardner.

>> Stay fairly low to be able to see any landfall (plus the added benefit
>> of potentially being seen), Don't risk missing Howland and/or Baker on
>> the SE leg of the LOP as this means they were actually north of the
>> islands and would cast doubt on their ability to get the Gardner with
>> their fuel load.
>
> I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this sentence, Bob. I don't
> think AE was ever looking for Gardner. I also don't see why you said
> they were actually north of the islands (Howland and Baker), as I don't
> think Ric implied that.

1) I don't think that Gardner was a 'preplanned' destination. However, if the TIGHAR hypothesis is good, at some point it either became their destination -- they figured out where they were too late to go anywhere else -- or they just happened upon it via the advanced LOP. 2) Rick DID NOT imply that they were north -- you are correct. I was simply musing about Ric's comments about NOT going to a higher altitude to get a sun shot. One reason for not increasing altitude was the risk of missing Howland and/or Baker. I was simply pointing out that IF AE and FN were actually north of Gardner -- this even becomes more important as that means (if we believe the logs) that they might have gone even further northwest looking and then finally turned southeast -- under these circumstances had they done anything that would have risked missed sighting dry land, they would be in even worse shape fuel-wise and that *could* mean not having enough fuel to continue to a landable place on that SE LOP. I am not always clear and I apologize for the ramblings.

Bob
*****************************************************************
From Paige Miller

Ric says:

>McKean is a very uninviting place.  Devoid of vegetation, jumbles of coral
>rubble, a million seabirds, and a very jagged reef."

Would that be obvious approaching from the air at about 1000 feet? Specifically, would you decide not to land there based upon aerial views of McKean, knowing that you must be getting close to using up all of your fuel?

My original question to Bob Lee, was in response to Bob's statement "... or
stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner where a landing
would at least be *possible*"

I don't believe you need to answer this one Ric, unless of course you want to ... but suppose AE views McKean from the air, and decides not to land there, how does she know she can then proceed to Gardner where a landing is possible? Even if she has a map showing Gardner nearby McKean, the map isn't going to show whether or not Gardner has a good landing area, now is it, Bob? Further, AE may not even be sure what island she is really viewing in the short time she has available to make such a decision to land at McKean.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who wants to know: what's wrong with a million seabirds anyway?)
*******************************************************************
From Ric

The problem with a million seabirds is that they tend to get in the way. Many of them are frigate birds with a six-foot wingspan.  When the boys from the Colorado made a pass over McKean at 50 feet it scared them so bad that from then on they stayed above 400 feet at all the other islands.

But, for what it's worth, my personal opinion is that they never saw McKean.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:47:49 EDT
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Theories of disappearance

Rebecca wrote:  "Bring on the skull."

My sentiments exactly!  I have always felt that, of all TIGHAR's investigative efforts, the Bones Search had the biggest potential payoff for the least bucks.  Sadly, it now appears that we will have to trust to serendipity -- or sheer luck.

Of course you are right about using DNA from Earhart's maternal line - just blame it on my careless phraseology.  But wouldn't it be preferable (if possible) to obtain a sample from someone who shares >both< Earhart and Otis DNA?  That's what got me to thinking of Muriel's kids.

LTM
Pat Gaston
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:49:04 EDT
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      "Expertise"

Alan:

In third grade I won a spelling bee.  I have personally attended several county fairs and run with the bulls on the Estafeta.  I have never been at the controls of anything more exotic than an MGB.  Not that it actually ran.  In college I once took a whiz next to Martin Agronsky (1915-1999), semi-famous TV newsman.  I also "experimented" with marijuana.  Funny, I don't remember anything else about college.

I still say she splashed and sank.  Back to you!

LTK,
Pat Gaston
Noted Underachiever
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:50:01 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: "Expertise"

To Jim, no, I'll miss the races as I have a heavy schedule here in Austin for the rest of the month. It would have been fun though.

To Malcolm. Thanks for the nice words but I have no more credentials than you or anyone else. We each bring our own brand of common sense and perspective to the forum. Letters after anyone's name certainly designates some sort of accomplishment but most of our accomplishments don't result in such letters.

One nice thing about this forum is that we are all equal. We take each other at face value (with a few sad exceptions) and what we post is the measure to go by.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:50:21 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Dado clarification


This is a very long and, I think, interesting posting that deals with some issues that are very basic to our investigation.  *****************************************************************
From Ted Campbell

I am not sure an apology to the Forum serves any purpose other than an acknowledgment of getting one's hand slapped.

However, maybe in future post of plans of having something analyzed by an outside laboratory you should include something to the effect that you have instructed the institution to not reply to any e-mails regarding the subject unless it come directly from you and/or your designee.

Ted Campbell
*********************************************************************
From Ric

I have never, nor would I ever, attempt to give such an instruction to an outside laboratory.  Who they choose to communicate with is their business. I have found, however, that virtually all independent laboratories and agencies that do work for us - whether for pay or as a donation - will forward any outside inquiry to me as a matter of courtesy. The same thing happens with individuals who have offered information.  It is not uncommon for TIGHAR's critics to contact them in an attempt to verify that they really told us what we say they told us or to try to get additional information for their own research.  I usually know about it but I don't say anything about it as long as nobody is misrepresenting anything.  Most "Earhart researchers" have no grounding in the ethics of academic research and - hey, it's still a free country - sort of.

Several years ago the FBI lab did some work for us on the paint remnants that are on the Navigator's Bookcase.  They gave us a report and we published their findings.  One of our critics (not any of the current crop) contacted the FBI and demanded a copy of the report.  They suggested that the person ask us for a copy, which we would have gladly provided.  But no, the person wanted a copy directly from the FBI.  The FBI said, sorry, but we did that report for TIGHAR.  The person then filed a Freedom of Information Act request which was a hassle for the FBI to process.  The person eventually got a copy of the report which, of course, said exactly what we had said it said - and the FBI learned that no good deed goes unpunished.  It was years before we could get them to agree to do anything else for us.

**********************************************************
From: Mike Haddock

Hi Ric,

I think you said it very well. As I have said many times a lot of people just don't seem to appreciate the difficulty of the investigative process and how equally difficult it is to proceed with limited funding. I find it impossible to imagine how seemingly educated people just don't get it. While Mr. Kennedy's intentions may have been innocent, it seems very naive to me to contact a research firm without first discussing it with you. As much as I enjoy participating in this forum, it irks me when some people trample on the tireless efforts you and Pat have made for all these years. If for no other reason, I would think just out of common courtesy that any of us would consult with you before acting in such a manner. I'll say it once again that I have thoroughly enjoyed this forum and I appreciate all the work that you and Pat have done.

LTM,

Mike Haddock, #2438
*************************************************************
From Ric

Following his participation in the 2001 expedition Chris Kennedy became intensely critical of TIGHAR's statements and conclusions, especially with regard to the bone measurement analysis done by Drs. Burns and Jantz.  He became so disruptive that I eventually had to eject him from the research team. 
**************************************************
From Cam Warren

Ric -  
As I recall, the dadoes were basically wood (with aluminum sheathing?), and - if so - would probably float, thereby quite likely arriving at Niku by sea,  and thereby confirming a water landing somewhere (close to the beach, or 500 miles away?)

Cam Warren
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I don't blame you for being worried and reaching for the wash-up explanation. At this point the dados appear to have some real potential as significant evidence, but there's a great deal of research yet to be done. The dados are made entirely of aluminum.  We're quite sure that they once had some type of1/4 inch thick insulation glued to one side (there was a fragment still on the one we found in 1989).  We don't know whether that would be enough to make the assembly float.  If it did, it doesn't seem outrageous to think that one panel could float for some distance and wash up on an island, but now we have at least three and probably four separate units.  For reasons that I won't take the time to get into here, it appears that they were removed from one or more pieces of wreckage that included fuselage structure and flooring - but that they did not come from an intact aircraft. 
*******************************************************
From Angus

Ric,

I can't see that Chris's enquiry harmed TIGHAR in any way. And why should a sponsor be at all upset about such an enquiry? Perhaps it was not very diplomatic in that it might appear to question TIGHAR's version of what the MAC lab had told them. However, in any scientific investigation one has to be able to justify one's conclusions and the critic should be entitled to revisit the original sources without complaint from the investigator.  Chris's direct approach to the lab seems no different from the way in which TIGHAR questions the truthfulness of witnesses to events or facts. It's not pleasant for those witnesses to be scrutinised with the implication that they might be somehow in error but it is necessary to come to an objective conclusion.  Recent postings on the Canton engine are a good case in point. Bruce Yoho is represented as probably being mistaken in some way. (Personally I don't think from what was posted that there is enough evidence to make that suggestion. Those witnesses that had other memories of the engine than it being an R1340 engine were only casual observers. Bruce on the other hand spent time examining it). We didn't hear any complaints from Bruce about the posting however. One has to accept that people will be skeptical and will query the very basis for one's interpretation. TIGHAR can't just rely on avowed "transparency".

As for Chris misreading the post - you can't really take him to task for that. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm sure you'll admit Ric that from time to time everyone, including yourself, has misunderstood things that were really quite clear when read carefully. The fact that "we" refers only to TIGHAR and not both TIGHAR and MAC may be the correct grammatical construction but it is not difficult to imply that the identification was a joint effort without more careful reading.


Regards Angus.
************************************************************
From Ric

First of all, the lab was not upset - merely puzzled.  Chris was telling them that I had said that they did something that they knew they did not do and they know me well enough to know that I wouldn't do something like that.  No damage has been done to TIGHAR primarily because my credibility with the lab is greater than Kennedy's.

I do take Chris to task for misreading the post.  He's an attorney.  He knows how to read and he knows better than to take action without having his facts straight.

***************************************************************
From Richard Metzger

Apologize?

Too good, he should be dropped off on McKean Island for a week

Richard Metzger
Lyon Investigations, Inc.
*****************************************************************

From Christian D:

Ric sez:

> Kennedy who took it upon himself to write to the MAC lab and ask them whether
> they had independently confirmed that the artifacts are, in fact, aircraft

Sounds like a simple query to me?

and Ric adds:

> something and then, behind our back, misrepresents it to a respected and 
> valuable in-kind sponsor.  This sort of thing goes beyond healthy skepticism

"misrepresents"?

Ric: could you be the one who is thin-skinned this time?

Regards
Christian D

*************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, "misrepresents".  He told them I had said something that I did not say. Am I being thin-skinned?  There's nothing here to be thin-skinned about.  We've made no claim that we can't back up.  Am I thin-skinned about people spreading falsehoods about TIGHAR?  I plead guilty. **************************************************************

From Alan


I think you're familiar with the saying "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Those are the only choices. If a person wants to go off on their own they need to start their own group and then they can be king of their own hill.

Given the history in this case I'm not sure whether a sincere apology could be expected nor would I ask for one. I would certainly accept one, however, if Chris offers one on his own.

I think it needs to be made clear this is not acceptable and if someone has a problem they can go to the forum with it but they can NOT go on such a toot without permission. Otherwise we'll have chaos and things are already complicated enough.

There is no requirement that we believe everything we read here on the forum nor does anyone have to blindly trust here on the forum. Everyone is free to THINK what they want but as long as there is some structure here and an executive director at the top of the heap EVERYTHING needs to go through the existing structure. NO ONE has the authority to go off on his own, in particular for self serving reasons.

I didn't think it was necessary to tell educated adults this or have to explain to them, like children, the confusion and damage they could do by such unwarranted foolishness.

Alan, who had about another page of ire to vent. <G>

***************************************************************
From Ron Berry

Ric you did use MAC's name, and then  said we so that it sounded like you were working in conjunction with MAC to come to a conclusion. Mr. Kennedy was just trying to cross all of the T's and dot the I's. We all use sources that one time or other you have used. If we don't do this how can we keep the research pure?  Ric don't be so incensed when someone checks your work, your doing a good job keep it up.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Read it again.  It is not the least bit ambiguous:

>With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab
>we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team recovered the remains of two 
>dados...

People check our work all the time.  We encourage it.  That's why we put all those reports and documents on the website and why we have this forum to debate the evidence.  Kennedy wasn't debating the evidence.  He was checking to see if I had lied about what the MAC Lab did without even understanding what I had said.  He's a lawyer with a grudge.  I'm not surprised when he's nasty but he should at least have the courtesy to be competent.

*******************************************************
From Emmett

Ric

I couldn't agree with YOU more. Awaiting the apology and not holding my breath.

Emmett, MCFI (as of August!)

***************************************************
From Jim Tierney

Ric--This forum lurker thinks Mr Kennedy should apologize....There are courtesies and professional protocols and common sense good manners....Based on the information -I have at this time---I dont see why Mr Kennedy--who I understand is a lawyer--- would  not follow the basic procedures--and go back to you first-get clearance--and then contact MAC people.......

Jim Tierney
Simi Valley, CA
*****************************************************
From Pat Gaston

"I think Mr. Kennedy owes TIGHAR and this forum an apology.  How does the
forum feel?"

This member thinks it is you who owes an apology to Kennedy and the Forum. Your statement clearly implied that MAC was instrumental in "confirming" that the artifacts recovered by Niku Vp were in fact aircraft dados.  I don't know how any other fair-minded person could read it:  "With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab we've been able to confirm ..."

That statement led Kennedy and me, independently, to start wondering what methodologies "we" had employed to reach "our" conclusion.  If he had not written MAC, I would have.

Kennedy did not go behind anybody's back.  He has no obligation to run every Earhart-related question past you for approval.  MAC is an independent laboratory with its own website and publicly-available email address.  When you enlisted their good name (and therefore their reputation) in support of your cause, you opened up the door to fair inquiry.

I saw Kennedy's msg to MAC.  It was non-confrontational and misrepresented nothing.  However, if MAC's role in the identification process was being misrepresented by TIGHAR, whether expressly or impliedly, they had a right to know it.  Any damage to your "ability to conduct the investigation" was self-inflicted by your own careless phraseology.

Why does it seem that the value of peer review depends entirely upon whose ox is being gored?

LT Kamal

Pat Gaston

*************************************************************************
From Ric

The plot thickens.  So you were in on this little stunt.  How about the other members of  the Electra Group?  (For those who may not know, the self-styled "Electra Group" is a quasi-secret informal association of TIGHAR critics.)  So much for innocent intentions and "a simple query".

Why didn't you guys just ask me for clarification instead of jumping at what you saw as a chance to "catch" me?  Let me walk you through it.

In 1989 we recovered an object from Niku.  We didn't know what it was.  In 1991 I showed it to some long-time employees of the "completions shop" at Atlantic Aviation here in Wilmington (the shop that outfitted custom interiors for corporate aircraft).  They immediately and unanimously recognized it.  "Whatcha got there is a dado.  See - this part right here is called the veltrim.  The insulation tucks up under there - there's even a little piece still there - and this flange is where it attaches to the floor.  You mostly find these used on cabin class twins." Unfortunately, Atlantic has since closed their completions shop so you won't be able ask then if I'm lying.

When Van described to me over the satellite phone the artifacts that the Niku Vp team were finding I suspected at the time that they might be more dados ( I'm quite sure I voiced that suspicion to Pat but you'll want to check with her), and when I got a chance to see them in person there was no doubt in my mind. The type of aluminum, the thickness, the width of the pieces, the rivet spacing, the position and type of mounting fastener - everything matched.  There was even a surviving section of the "veltrim" there.  Roughly thirty members of our Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) have now seen the artifacts and, as far as I know, they all agree that the objects the Niku Vp team found match the artifact we found in 1989.  I'll save you the trouble and hereby ask any EPAC members who have seen the artifacts and do not think they are dados to please say so.

Although the identification seemed conclusive, the MAC lab offered to x-ray the pieces for us.  X-rays have the advantage of revealing features such as stamped numbers or holes that might otherwise be invisible to the naked eye.  One of the most interesting features of these objects is the absence of part numbers - a strong indication that they came from a pre-war civilian airplane - so we welcomed the MAC lab's x-ray offer in addition to the conservation/stabilization work they were doing on the artifacts.  When I later looked at the x-rays in the presence of the Mac lab staff it was apparent to everyone thatno numbers were present and that the various holes and features matched the artifact that had previously been identified (as described above) as a dado.


Now let's look again at what I said:

>With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab 
>we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team recovered the remains of two 
>dados.

You are correct when you say:

>Your statement clearly implied that MAC was instrumental in "confirming"
>that the artifacts recovered by Niku Vp were in fact aircraft dados.

The MAC x-rays were indeed "instrumental" in confirming the identification, and that is exactly what I said.  That is NOT, however, what Kennedy told the lab TIGHAR said.  

> it appears from a message I have read from TIGHAR that
> the Laboratory independently determined that these parts were, in fact,
> a feature of an aircraft that is generally referred to as a "dado".  Is
> there someone who might be able to provide further details on this
> aircraft part identification?

Surely you can see the difference, and it's an important one.  The lab did not "independently determine" anything and even if you misread my use of the plural pronoun "we" you can't get that from what I wrote.  Adhering to the axiom "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" I'm not accusing Kennedy of sabotage, just inept meddling.

LTM,
Ric
************************************************************************
From Monty Fowler

Well, as the poster of the original question, I certainly took the "we" to mean TIGHAR - and I've only got a lowly BA degree! I'm not sure where Mr. Kennedy was going with his logic, but I'm thankful he didn't ask me along for the ride.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, #2189
********************************************************************
From Alfred Hendrickson:

Ric, in your communication with the MAC folks, was it apparent that Mr. Kennedy had harmed TIGHAR in some way? In what way can this sort of thing damage our ability to conduct the investigation?

It seems to me that, as a courtesy to you, Mr. Kennedy could have penned a note to you beforehand, stating that he wanted to communicate directly with the MAC, for the purpose of getting the confirmation he sought, and asked was this okay with you. He did not do that, obviously, but what exactly is the harm that he has done? He clearly has caused offense to you; it is up to him now to step up and set the matter right with you, by apologizing. And, in the future, consider you and your wishes if he were faced with a similar situation. Similarly, if he has caused TIGHAR harm, it is best if he apologizes and repairs the damage and refrains from such behavior in the future.

But, in my opinion, he does not owe this Forum an apology. I can't see how he harmed the Forum. However, the cat is out of the bag now, so some assurance from Mr. Kennedy that he won't do this again seems in order.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
**********************************************************************
From Ric

As I have already said, Kennedy's inept meddling has not harmed TIGHAR - yet. Yes, his behavior is offensive to me, but there's nothing new in that.  I brought his shenanigans  to the attention of the forum because it is my impression that most Forum subscribers are interested in TIGHAR's pursuit of truth in the matter of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.  Behavior like Kennedy's, if left unchecked, could significantly damage our ability to do that.

Honest and open skepticism and debate are the bread and butter of this forum, but what Kennedy did is not "peer review".  Essential to any historical or scientific inquiry is an assumption of good will.  We may be out to prove each other wrong but we're not out defeat and discredit each other.  Mr. Kennedy doesn't seem to be able to make a distinction between the courtroom and the Forum.  Without his assurance that he will not again misuse the information that appears on this forum I'm having a hard time thinking of a reason why we should continue to allow such a person in our midst.

**************************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

Yes, Chris  Kennedy does appear at times to be a profoundly skeptical person. I always appreciate his input on complicated subjects but have often been bothered by his -- in my opinion -- needless nit picking on subjects that are irrelevant or unsolvable.  Healthy skepticism is a valuable tool for a researcher, but that skepticism needs to be coupled with trust of one's colleagues.  Attempting to independently verify a colleague's research without first discussing it with your colleague, seems at the least to be poor judgment, if not out right unethical.  I'm sure Tom King can educate us on professional ethics for researchers. 

My interpretation is that Chris essentially called you a liar and then surreptitiously set out to prove it -- using TIGHAR's own "sponsor."  I think Chris owes you a personal apology as well as one to the TIGHAR membership and the forum.  If he wants to prove TIGHAR wrong then let him cultivate and secure his own sponsors, don't harass ours using the shield of "research." 

LTM, a formerly serene person

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

*********************************************************************
From Pete...

Ric, I fail to understand why Mr. Kennedy thought it necessary to contact the lab at all.  Pat and yourself have been, and will be, the voice of TIGHAR.  If Mr. Kennedy believes he is more capable of acquiring funding, in-kind assistance, and expertise in launching expeditions then may he found his own group.

Please express to the fabulous staff at the lab my personal apologies for the interruption of their efforts and the expenditure of their valuable time by another forumite's attempt to gather information.

Love to Mother
Pete Gray, TIGHAR #2419 ***********************************************************************
From Jon Watson

Some kids, when they don't like what they heard from Dad, try the old end run to get a better answer from Mom.

While spanking is probably not appropriate, an apology certainly would be.

ltm
******************************************************************
From Jim Kellen,

Ric,

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if every member of our group sent a message to every agency etc. that you contact in your official capacity as our leader that there would soon be no TIGHAR. Come on folks, being a researcher also requires a little common sense. Chris Kennedy please apologize. 

Did you ever notice that most guys with a resume like Alan's ("resume" does not really seem to be the best word to cover such stunning accomplishments), also seem to have a larger than normal dose of good old common sense?

Jim Kellen
#2331
========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:58:21 EDT
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Qualifications

Alan, it was very interesting to read your list of qualifications. I am impressed. Thank you for the posting.

I have, in the past, asked individuals posting to this forum what their qualifications are. It is my sincere hope that my requests have not been a source of irritation. I frankly think that the widely varied backgrounds that are represented here are an asset to this forum. When I have asked for qualifications, it has not been with an intent to discredit anyone.

When I discuss an issue with someone, I think it is interesting to consider their view alongside of their background, their education (both formal and informal), their occupational experiences, and their interests. I learn from everyone, not just those with letters after their name. I agree with this statement of yours: "Someone with little or no education has as much chance of offering a good idea or clue as anyone else."

Personally, it would interest me a great deal to know more about those who post here. For instance, I wonder how many pilots are forum subscribers? How many archeologists? How many electrical engineers? How many armchair adventurers? How many Phd's? How many who never attended college? How many work in an aviation-related field? How many work in a totally non-aviation-related field?

I once asked Ric to have everyone post a note telling who they are, but, if I remember right, he pointed out to me that it would turn into a blizzard of postings. Just what he needs, right? More work! :-)

I'm a structural engineer myself; the letters PE after my name. I work with buildings, mostly. I've had an armchair interest in aviation since I was a boy. The AE disappearance has held me captive for about the last ten years. (My wife says AE is my mistress!) I stumbled onto the TIGHAR site a couple of years ago. I find following this mystery fun, so you all are pretty much stuck with me. :-|

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
Billings, MT
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:01:56 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: "Expertise"

Malcolm Andrews wrote:

>Phew. Alan's CV certainly makes me feel I've still got a lot to achieve in
>life.

Malcolm, you remind me of an age old question - "What is my purpose here on earth?"

At some time or another most of us wonder if we have some special reason for being here and if so what are we supposed to do. There's no real answer of course and each of us must decide whether we have already served our purpose or it is yet to come. All I can suggest is that one shouldn't wait too long to do whatever it is as we may not be around as long as we think. John Ritter is a good example, snatched away at 54.

My favorite example I posted here long, long ago but if all will bear with me I'll post it again.

Not long after the turn of the century an English girl of affluent parents disappointed her mother and father and left England to be a missionary in China. Her name was Faith Emmeline Backhouse. At the same time a young man in Pennsylvania, son of a minister, made the same decision. Of course they met, fell in love and married in Shanghai.

They had four sons and, John, their first born was a bright student going to both the missionary school and a Chinese school. His parents sent him to England for better schooling at St. Clare's near Walmer, Kent (1931-35) then Rugby School (1935-39). John excelled at Rugby playing many sports and courting the head master's daughter. He loved to write and won the Rugby Poetry Prize in 1939 for his "Brave New World." Against his wishes his parents sent him to America where he attended Avon Old Farms School, near Hartford, Connecticut (1939-40). Although he had been accepted at Yale University in July 1940, he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force that year. He received training in flying in Ontario at Toronto, Trenton, St. Catherine's, and Uplands. He passed his Wings Test in June 1941 and was sent overseas to Llandow in South Wales, Royal Air Force Digby (Lincolnshire), and Wellingore, during which period he had the rank of Pilot Officer. John flew the Spitfire as part of No. 412 Fighter Squadron. John loved flying and often spoke of the marvels of his machine and the glory of flying. He wrote a poem of his thoughts and sent it home to his parents as he did with all of his little poems. His father, Assistant Rector of St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C., printed it in the church magazine.

John's squadron duties were to guard the English Channel against intruding German aircraft and one day while returning from a mission collided with a plane from a nearby training base letting down through the clouds. Both pilots tried to bail out but were unsuccessful. John's chute caught in the tail structure and he was killed. The date was my Dad's birthday, December 11, 1941. John was 19 year's old. The poem he sent home was "High Flight" the most famous aviation poem of all. President Ronald Reagan quoted from this sonnet in a tribute to the American astronauts killed in the Challenger 7 space shuttle disaster in January 1986.

Not many achieve such greatness at nineteen. We're fortunate he didn't wait until he was our age.

"High Flight"
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew -
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.
John Gillespie Magee, Jr.
========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:02:46 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's expertise

Dennis McGee wrote:

>So, Alan . . ah . . .  like, ah . . .  you know, done anything exciting
>lately? :-)

Nothing to speak of, Dennis. <G>

Alan
========================================================================


Date:         Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:47:42 EDT
From:         Christian Duretete
Subject:      Re: Dado clarification

Is this:

> it appears from a message I have read from TIGHAR that
> the Laboratory independently determined that these parts were, in fact,
> a feature of an aircraft that is generally referred to as a "dado". Is
> there someone who might be able to provide further details on this

a "pointed question about", OR a "misrepresentation of":

>With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation
>lab we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team recovered the remains of
>two dados..

I think one could call it a pointed question, or at most a leading question -but then again, English is not my mother tongue... But if I wanted to get info from someone, I'd begin by implying they know a lot...

Cool it Ric! No big deal.

Ric adds:

>debate the evidence.  Kennedy wasn't debating the evidence.  He was
>checking to see if I had lied about what the MAC Lab did without even >understanding what I had said.  He's a lawyer with a grudge.  I'm not
>surprised when he's nasty but

Ric: are you saying that Kennedy believes that you are lying about the MAC data? Where do you get that from -if it's not private info, I mean? For what I've seen here so far, he was looking for "further details"... 

Ric also says:

>When I later looked at the
>x-rays in the presence of the Mac lab staff it was apparent to everyone
>that no numbers were present and that the various holes and features matched
>the artifact that had previously been identified (as described above) as a dado

So some MAC people indeed have an opinion on the id of what they were looking at? So Tighar staff n MAC staff have similar opinions; so there is indeed a "we" grouping, anyways?

Now, to get more on topic:

>corporate aircraft).  They immediately and unanimously recognized it. "Whatcha
>got there is a dado.  See - this part right here is called the veltrim. The
>insulation tucks up under there - there's even a little piece still there -

What's a "veltrim"?  What are the chances of finding any of a zillion of pieces of kapok which have either drifted in the bush, or been collected and put away in the old village? Any chance that it could be id'ed when doing excavations? (Tom?)  Could that insulation have been salvaged? Or was it glued too solidly?

Regards.

Christian D
******************************************************************
From Ric

You still don't get it, but at least you have an excuse.  As far as I know, English is Chris Kennedy's first language.

A new issue of TIGHAR Tracks is being mailed next week which will explain and illustrate the many complexities of the artifact much better than I can here - but, briefly, the "veltrim" is a small 180 degree flange that runs the length of the dado.  The insulation tucks up under it.  The thin (1/4 inch) strip of aluminum that is the outward facing surface of the flange is the only part of the dado visible when installed in an aircraft.
*****************************************************
From Alan

For the few who can't see the potential for damage to TIGHAR and thus to each of us I suggest you reread the comments about the FBI lab.

The statement made was quite clear and not subject to being misread unless one wanted to intentionally misread it.

The motivation here is also quite clear and despicable in my view.

Pat G., you don't want to be a part of that. Whatever your theory I take you as someone better than that. Am I mistaken?

Alan
========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:08:40 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Dado clarification

Cam Warren wrote:

>As I recall, the dadoes were basically wood (with aluminum sheathing?),
>and - if so - would probably float, thereby quite likely arriving at
>Niku by sea,  and thereby confirming a water landing somewhere (close to
>the beach, or 500 miles away?)".

While doing some research into other aircraft crashes earlier this week I came upon an interesting piece of information which may be worth mentioning when talking about aircraft debris found on Nikumaroro. During a WW II raid on the German city of Kassel in the night of 22/23 October 1943 a RAF  Halifax V bomber of 76 squadron LK664) crashed at Welda, 5 kilometers SW of Warburg, Germany, killing all eight crew members. It is worth noting that in 1996 the farmland on which the Halifax fell continued to yield small pieces of debris each time the land was ploughed, the farmer reporting that on several occasions his tractor tires were being punctured as a result.

In other words, it could be that  the dadoes found on Niku could had washed up from the sea. But it could just as well be that  they remained where they had been all the time, only to be discovered 66 years later.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:23:01 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Taking Celestial Shots south of Howland/Baker

Gardner, McKean, etc. Of course we are all speculating about what happened but some common sense can creep in also.

The first point to consider is we don't know where they were when and if they headed toward the Phoenix Islands. Nor do we really know what course they took. We have suggested many times that Gardner was pretty close to an extension of the "LOP" that went through Howland but if it went through Howland they weren't on it unless they were considerably south of Howland and Baker in the first place.

Given the distance between Howland and the Phoenix Islands I think it is logical to assume that there came a time when our heroes believed they were far enough SE they could not reasonably get back to Howland. I don't think it is reasonable to believe that they had no clue where they were for four or five hours and merely stumbled upon a Phoenix Island. At some point they had to have a fair idea where they were. At that time I suggest they made a conscious effort to get to one of the Phoenix Group. This is assuming they went SE in the first place or found themselves SE.

If Noonan had some knowledge of those islands I would believe he would have had strong reasons to pick one over another unless fuel dictated they put down at or on the first one they could reach or the first one they came to.

I think we are all familiar enough with each island to make some general assumptions at this point. It might be of some help, Ric, if you would summarize briefly the plus and minus of each island or just point to a reference on the web site. McKean appears to be a poor candidate. Gardner is good as we know and Enderbury might also be a possibility. I'm not sure I would have picked one of the others unless I was out of gas.

Alan
********************************************************************
From Ric

McKean
Plus:  Closest of the Phoenix Group to Howland.
Minus:  No place to land.  No vegetation.  Very obviously a desolate hell-hole of a place.

Enderbury
Plus:  None that I can think of. To get there from Howland you have to fly right past Canton which is much, much bigger.
Minus:  Nowhere near the LOP. No vegetation.

Gardner
Plus:  Near the LOP.  Easily seen from a distance due to size and lagoon. "Landable" areas on the dry reef flat.  Lush vegetation.
Minus: No public restrooms.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:25:05 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: "Expertise"

Pat Gaston wrote:

>In third grade I won a spelling bee.

You're one up on me, Pat. Without spell check I'm hopeless. However, I DID have a 68 MGB and drove it for many years.

Alan

*************************************************************
From Ric

No.  No, no, no, no, no.  No old car threads.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:26:54 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Qualifications

Alfred Hendrickson writes:

>qualifications are. It is my sincere hope that my requests have not been a
>source of irritation.

Alfred, I'm sure no one would find your requests irritating but I see no practical benefit from folks posting their background. I don't care what anyone's background is. I'm sure everyone has done things they are proud of and the Forum members would be equally proud for them but I don't see the relevancy to our endeavors.

I responded to a tacky request but I would ask Ric to end the "expertise" thread. It has no where to go and no value. I appreciate the kind comments from my fellow forumites but I'm no more an expert than any of you.

The experts are the various outside organizations the Forum uses when the occasion arises.

When someone writes a particular posting we need to take it at face value, irrespective of the person's background. Otherwise we will read into his posting something that isn't there.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:28:14 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Safe landing

For the crashed and sankers; ideas for you folks to ponder:

Take the weather [Itaska] reported as quite good in the area on the day in question,  a Lockheed 10e with empty tanks and its wing design [high lift] is a light, slow lander probably [unless I look it up] less than 60 mph, now, Add the many hours and landings she had done during the entire last few months, she most importantly had a great many years of experience with airplanes that were nowhere as easy to fly as stuff we use today, add that her life is at stake [again from personal experience] now factor all and more, then I feel they had a pretty good chance of a safe water landing if they never made one of the islands.

I personally feel that the Tighar expeditions have uncovered good evidence of a safe island landing and then their demise later!
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:33:43 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Landing at McKean or Gardner

Bob Lee writes:

>Ric's various descriptions tell me landing on McKean is not possible. I 
>believe the next closest landfall is Gardner.

Yes, I believe Ric has convinced me that if AE approached McKean from the air, you would choose not to land there.

But your original statement still baffles me. You said "... or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner where a landing would at least be *possible*"

How does AE know that upon leaving the area around McKean, she will find any better conditions for landing at Gardner? I'm quite sure she didn't have a map that pointed to the reef flat and said "possible landing area here". If she had a map of the Phoenix Islands, it was most likely that McKean and Gardner were just dots with no information about them whatsoever. And how does AE even know it's McKean over there with all the sea birds? If you're so totally lost, is your navigation by celestial shots going to be that accurate that you know that McKean is there to the left and Gardner is a little further ahead?

As Ric said, she probably never made it to McKean, but McKean seems to part of your explanation of the hypothesis, Bob, and I just don't get it.

-- 
Paige Miller #2565
LTM

***********************************************************************
From Ric

While reviewing some ancient TIGHAR writings from the earliest days of the Earhart Project (translating them from Olde English), I was bemused to see that we originally set out to test "The McKean Hypothesis".
========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:37:29 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Qualifications

Alfred Hendrickson writes:

>Personally, it would interest me a great deal to know more about those who
>post here. For instance, I wonder how many pilots are forum subscribers? How
>many archeologists? How many electrical engineers? How many armchair
>adventurers? How many Phd's? How many who never attended college? How many
>work in an aviation-related field? How many work in a totally
>non-aviation-related field?

Here's my two cents on the qualifications issue: many of the posting to this forum rely upon existing evidence and deductive logic. Thus, "qualifications" in the form of experience in the subject matter area, or advanced degrees, are not necessary. For example, it has been my experience that a science like archaeology is easily explained to laymen and although I value Tom King's words, I can understand the evidence and evaluate the quality of the logical deductions being made even though I have no formal training in archaeology. The same holds true for evaluating post-loss messages, Betty's notebook, the navigational logic that leads to Gardner, and a host of other issues.

On the other hand, there are topics that have appeared in the forum that are much more technical, and not easily understood by laymen such as myself. These topics include fuel usage, celestial navigation, the radio frequency propagation analysis done in conjunction with Betty's notebook, re-analysis of the bones measurement, and several other similarly technical issues. When I read those issues, I cannot completely follow the technical details and at that point, I need to rely on the background and training -- the qualifications -- of the person posting the information.

I wouldn't want to see a blizzard of postings of everyone stating their qualifications. On occasion, when someone posts something quite technical, a statement of qualifications would be helpful (although even then, the qualifications of certain individuals are already established in this forum, so repeating the qualifications isn't necessary).

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I think Paige has a good handle on the qualifications issue.
========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:38:29 EDT
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      More on the Dado

After reading everyone's post on Dado Clarification, it is pretty well unanimous; we should coordinate our efforts, and not go around behind each others' backs. If we do otherwise, we look less than professional (see FBI story). Best way to coordinate our efforts is thru Ric.

Mr. Kennedy, what say you?

LTM, who believed in the value of teamwork,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:41:09 EDT
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: "Expertise"

Alan said:

> At some time or another most of us wonder if we have some special reason for
> being here and if so what are we supposed to do. There's no real answer of
> course

Actually, there is a 'real answer' to those questions.

   John Rayfield, Jr.
********************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, I'd say it's time to end the "expertise" and "qulaifications" threads.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:58:55 EDT
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Gardner Reef

Ric, could you tell me what the actual reef at Gardner is like?  When I was stationed on Guam, their coral reefs were very hard to walk on - consisting of pitted holes and sharp coral. I can imagine that if a plane tried to land on Guam's Reef that the tires and wheels would be torn off and the plane flipping over.

Cheers from Bill
******************************************************************
From Ric

For some views of the reef take a look at now out-of-date (July 2000) research bulletin "Landing On the Reef" at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/7_7_00bull.html

During the Niku IIII expedition in 2001 we did an extensive survey of the reef surface in the area immediately north of the shipwreck where Emily said she had seen wreckage in 1940/41.  There is an area at least a hundred feet wide and 2,500 feet long near the ocean side of the reef that is dry at periods of low tide and is smooth enough to land a Lockheed 10 safely.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:01:07 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Taking Celestial Shots south of Howland/Baker

>Gardner
>Minus: No public restrooms.

And you actually think a woman would select Gardner?

Alan
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmm.  Good point.  So much for that theory.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:04:54 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Landing at McKean or Gardner

>How does AE know that upon leaving the area around McKean, she will find
>any better conditions for landing at Gardner?

If I remember correctly Noonan's maps from the first attempt indicate awareness of the Phoenix Islands. I think one of them was underlined. Pan Am did a survey of that area so I see no reason to assume Noonan knew nothing about those islands among many more in the Pacific.

How much he knew we will never know but I think from Ric's brief summary Gardner looks like a much better choice other than the lack of restrooms of course.

Alan
**********************************************************************
From Ric

There's a map of the Pacific in the Purdue collection that has some undated penciled notations suggesting that it may have been used for planning purposes. The islands of the Phoenix Group are shown and Enderbury is underlined.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:11:17 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Landing at McKean or Gardner

> If you're so totally lost, is your navigation by
> celestial shots going to be that accurate that you know that McKean is
> there to the left and Gardner is a little further ahead?

I don't know what Fred or Amelia may have known about the various islands in the Phoenix group.

I started this ugliness by simply wondering out loud how our duo could have reached Gardner. I'll be more careful in the future.<G>

Bob
**********************************************************
From Ric

If our thinking is at all correct they were not totally lost.  They were quite sure that they were on the advanced 157/337 LOP that passed through or near Howland, Baker, McKean and Gardner.  Any island that appeared pretty much had to be one of those four.   McKean is the only one that is well off to the left of the 157 course.  Even without a map that shows island size and shape it shouldn't be hard to figure out that this must be McKean.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:19:26 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: winds aloft

Wonder, as the group puts these ideas forward, the total factor winds had on the flight, of course assuming that they were on that line of position as reported.

I will do some more research as time permits, but there are a few things to remember: winds taken at the surface are lighter and from a different direction [as little as 100 ft in altitude] than the reporting stations.

How good were the weather reports at that time?

Can I get info to put up a concise weather map showing as much data as available?

Did he have and was Fred Noonan using a drift meter to help with navigation?

4 hours depending on fuel left at 8:45 am at 15-20 knots is a big area to move a target around.

Likely you have, but Has anyone used USAF search techniques on this one yet?  If so what were the findings?

This is a good one for me to put to an actual team who do this all the time on an exercise
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Forget it Carl.  The data aren't there.  The only winds aloft observation we have was taken at noon on Howland.

Surface - ESE 16
1,000 ft. - ESE 17
2,000 ft. - E 17

Noonan had a drift meter.  You tell me at what altitude he flew and what the winds were several hours earlier and whether he corrected accurately for them.

Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:21:22 EDT
From:         Ed Croft
Subject:      Re: Landing at McKean or Gardner

I never responded to the Chris Kennedy thread as I knew others would, but I too believed that he owed you an apology.  Your English was correct; this was preliminary research; there was no outrageous claim being made (e.g.,  Earhart's plane), etc.  But might as well complain about the weather I suppose.

Blue skies,

Ed
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:36:09 EDT
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Tempest in a Teapot

Ric wrote:

>The plot thickens.  So you were in on this little stunt.  How about the
>other members of  the Electra Group?  (For those who may not know, the self-
>styled 'Electra Group' is a quasi-secret informal association of TIGHAR critics.) 
>So much for innocent intentions and "a simple query".

Ric, Ric, calm down.  You're making far too much of this.  There was no "plot."  Chris Kennedy and I are both lawyers and we chat about a lot of stuff -- law, politics, history, Iraq, T.E. Lawrence and cars.  Both of us interpreted your post the same way, as did several others, apparently.  Furthermore, there was no indication in your initial post that a detailed report was forthcoming. You stated a conclusion and left it at that.

Attorneys are trained not to accept absolute statements ("we have CONFIRMED ....") at face value, just as you don't accept the Marshall Islander anecdotes at face value.  If Col. Reineck wrote, "Thanks to evidence provided by Juan Cabrera of San Mateo, CA, we have CONFIRMED that Earhart landed on Mili Atoll," would you just take Rollin's word for it or would you make a phone call to San Mateo?  If the latter, would that be calling Rollin a liar?

As for the self-styled, quasi-secret Electra Group, we are mostly splashed-and-sankers so if that makes us inherently "TIGHAR critics," I guess the shoe fits.  By that definition we also are "Mili critics," "Saipan critics," "Spy Theory critics" and "Bolam critics."  We decided to call ourselves something for purposes of joint research efforts -- like the Howard Hanzlick interviews, the Ahmad Kamal stuff and the Caldwell-Luc inquiry -- so I guess that makes us "self-styled."  For that matter, TIGHAR and General Motors also are "self-styled."  So?

But I do like "quasi-secret."  It makes us sound so mysterious and sinister. Much more appealing than "five or six guys who occasionally trade emails back and forth."

Anyhow, thanks for the report on the original dado identification.  As you say, it helped fill in some gaps.

LTM
Pat Gaston
************************************************************************
From Ric

>If Col. Reineck wrote, "Thanks to evidence provided by Juan Cabrera of San
>Mateo, CA, we have CONFIRMED that Earhart landed on Mili Atoll," would you
>just take Rollin's word for it or would you make a phone call to San Mateo?

I would ask the good colonel to explain just how that confirmation was made. Once he had provided more details I might disagree with his conclusion and tell him so, but I would not attempt to contact Cabrera directly unless Reineck refused to provide information to support his claim.  Even then I probably wouldn't contact Cabrera because a refusal to support a claim is an admission that it is unfounded.

What Mr. Kennedy did was a serious breach of ethics. He has chosen not to apologize and instead has left it to you to attempt to explain his actions.  I'm sure you lawyers chat about lots of things.  I'm going to give him one less thing to chat about and remove him from the forum.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:38:54 EDT
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      McKean vs Gardner

It seems that if you have flown around lost for a couple of hours and find some land, you would want to land immediately.  McKean, however, is a complete "hellhole" for aviation operations, so landing there seems to be an act of desperation.  Perhaps they did find McKean, but then circled it until they figured out where they were, and then proceeded to the nearest island (Gardner)...if it turned out to be just as bad as McKean, nothing was lost.  However, if it was better, then they could take their chances there.

Actually, how close are other, better places to land?  If they are circling McKean, they have options (Howland, Canton, Gardner).  How long they could have circled McKean and then been forced to go to Gardner depends on how long they would have had to take to find out where they were, and then have enough gas to go only to Gardner.  That might say something about how long Fred had to take to figure out their location, what time of day was enough for him to get good shots, etc.

It's all speculation, of course, but it's another possibility to consider.  Of course, unless we find Fred's map case in pristine condition, or a diary, then we'll never know.

                                        Reed
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:41:04 EDT
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Response to Hue Miller

For Hue Miller

In March, you posted comments concerning my analysis of whether Betty could have heard Amelia on a harmonic.  My response has been delayed until now because more important matters required my attention. 

You appear to have decided that Betty did not hear Amelia on a harmonic because no such signal detectable at her receiver originated from NR16020.

You have scoffed at the use of assumptions in scientific "methadology"(sic), but you have not presented any analytical results to support your position.

It appears that essential information has escaped your notice.  This might be due, at least in part, to (1) your not having read Mike Everette's analysis of the NR16020 radio equipment, in the 8th Edition of the Earhart Project Book, and (2) your self-described cursory reading of my analysis.

Whatever the cause, I think it will be instructive to present a brief summary of the analysis before addressing your comments.  Emphasis is added to enhance clarity.

The analysis addresses the question of whether Betty COULD have heard Amelia a harmonic of Amelia's transmitter frequency.  The analysis uses a HYPOTHETICAL set of harmonic power levels, "... assumed to represent a reasonable range of harmonic power levels that could be expected at the output of Amelia's transmitter", FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ANALYSIS.

The objective was to test whether a harmonic signal COULD have been received at Betty's radio IF the transmitter output power equaled or exceeded  the lower bound of the set of harmonic power levels postulated for the purposes of the analysis.   The principal conclusion of the analysis states:  "Betty COULD have heard signals from Amelia at Gardner Island on one or more harmonics PROVIDED that the POWER LEVEL at the OUTPUT of Amelia's transmitter was 0.1 watt or higher".  This conclusion is CONSERVATIVE since the probability trends in the reported data show that Betty could have heard signals even if the harmonic power level was significantly less than  0.1 watt.

And now to your comments.

1.   You questioned the credibility of Betty's notebook, implying that the TIGHAR decision to change the most likely reception date from 2 July to 5 July makes her recollections less believable because of "increasing logic problems".

1.1   There is no logic problem.   My report shows that the reception probabilities on the two dates were virtually identical on all four feasible frequencies, so changing the most likely reception date made no difference in the outcome or in the credibility of Betty's notebook.

2.   You ridiculed Betty's recollection of the characteristics of the signals she heard, alleging that she said they were "like static on the police scanner", and questioning whether she knows the difference between shortwave and VHF-FM scanner reception.

2.1   My report does NOT state that Betty said the signals were "like static on a police scanner".

2.2   The report states: "She recalls that the signals were 'scratchy' and that she couldn't always make out complete phrases.  She compares the quality of the signals to marginal signals heard on a police scanner, breaking in THROUGH the static and then fading out". (Emphasis added).

2.3   It is obvious from Ric Gillespie's video taped interview of  Betty shows that:  (1) she has a clear and credible recollection of the signal quality; (2) she was describing the behavior of a shortwave signal that she heard, and was using the scanner analogy only to illustrate the fading effect she noted; and (3) she does know the difference between shortwave and VHF-FM scanner reception.

2.4   It does not matter whether Betty's scanner analogy is technically accurate.   What matters is that her description of the signal ("breaking in through the static and then fading out") is consistent with the statistics of an ionospheric signal when the signal-to-noise ratio has mean and standard deviation such that the signal is below the noise threshold most of the time, with occasional excursions above the noise threshold.

2.5    Betty's description of the signal behavior is consistent with the computed signal statistics in my report.  It is important to note that she had no knowledge of my analysis at the time of the interview. 

3.    You stated that Betty's receiver was subject to drift on the high band, and implied that she was lying when she said she didn't move the tuning dial while listening to the signals she logged.  You may be interested to know that:

3.1.   The average July daily high temperature in St. Petersburg during the period 1971-2000 was 90.2 degrees F.  The average daily high in July 1937 probably wasn't much different.

3.2   Betty's house was not air conditioned, and she was listening to the radio during the afternoon.  Despite the use of fans for cooling, the temperature inside the house could have been close to the outside ambient temperature.

3.3   Betty had been listening to the radio for about an hour before she switched to the shortwave band.  The radio could have been at optimum operating temperature, and thus not drifting, while she was listening to shortwave. Hence no need to move the tuning dial.

4.    You argued that it was impossible for harmonics of the crystal oscillator frequency to appear in the transmitter output because the bandwidth of the interstage transformers absolutely prohibited passage of harmonics.

4.1   You selectively quoted fragments of text from "Aeronautic Radio" (Eddy, 1939) to suggest  that only the transmitter output frequency could pass through the interstage transformers.    The text you cited was excerpted from the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 303 and continuing on page 306.  You quoted as follows: "The oscillator is coupled to the first amplifier by means of a . . . transformer that in conjunction with . . . capacities forms a bandpass filter. . . .The first amplifier . . is coupled through another radio frequency transformer. . . this transformer. . . also forms a bandpass filter which freely passes the OUTPUT FREQUENCY. . ." (Emphasis yours).

4.2    You neglected to mention that the final sentence in the paragraph at the top of page 306 states: "As this transformer freely passes the second harmonic of the quartz plate frequency, it drives the first amplifier at the output frequency, or twice the quartz plate frequency".

Clearly, the output frequency is a harmonic of the crystal frequency.

4.3    You apparently interpret the phrase "freely passes the output frequency" to mean that higher frequencies were totally blocked from passing .   That interpretation is incorrect.

4.4    You cited the Western Electric 13C interstage transformers mentioned in "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment" (Morgan, 1941) and suggested that their bandpass of  "no more than 800 KHz" made it impossible for harmonics of the crystal frequency to get through. Morgan does not use the term "no more than 800 KHz".  His table on page 145 merely lists the 7 interstage transformers available, and the transmitter frequency range for which each was to be used.   For example, the 271D transformer set was specified for use with transmitter frequencies in the range 5700 to 6500 KHz, an operating frequency range of 800 KHz.

Arguing that the frequency ranges given by Morgan were absolute limits implies that the interstage bandpass response curves were rectangular, with zero response at all frequencies outside the notional bandpass boundaries.  This interpretation is incorrect.  You need only consult the universal bandpass response curves for a double-tuned amplifier to see why.  Instead of being rectangular, the response curve skirts flare out somewhat at frequencies beyond the notional pass band limits. Hence, in the W.E. 13C,  harmonics of the crystal frequency could have passed through the interstage transformers, although at significant attenuation.  But that attenuation could have been compensated, at least partially, by the tube amplification factor in the two power amplifier stages.   So, harmonics of the crystal frequency could have appeared in the transmitter output, although possibly at very low power levels.

4.5   However, my report clearly shows that harmonic suppression in the interstage transformers was not a consideration in the outcome of the analysis, because crystal harmonics were disregarded in selecting the four feasible frequencies on which Betty could have heard signals from NR16020.   Only harmonics of transmitter output frequencies were considered.

5.   You said that you plan to calculate the radiation resistance and impedance of the antenna on NR16020, and you cited a "chart of antenna impedances and efficiency formula" in "Principles of Aeronautical Radio Engineering" (Sandretto, 1942) as the apparent basis for your analysis. You  should not expect this approach to yield results applicable to the antenna on NR16020.

5.1   Sandretto's antenna efficiency formula, on page 286, requires certain antenna parameters.   You can't get the needed information from the curves in his antenna impedance curves (figures 171 and 172) because they are derived from empirical measurements on DC-3 and DC-4 aircraft, respectively, and apply only to end-fed single-wire dorsal antennas on those aircraft.  The data in those curves cannot be used to characterize the off-center fed vee-configured antenna on NR16020.

5.2   Sandretto's antenna impedance formula is an approximation and is applicable only to an end-fed single wire dorsal antenna.  If you are serious about calculating the resistance and impedance of the antenna on NR16020, you will need to use the method-of-moments technique.

5.3   Sandretto's plots of radiation patterns apply only to the horizontal plane of the fields radiated by dorsal antennas on the aircraft mentioned above.  The radiation pattern of the NR16020 antenna was more complex, and was 3-dimensional.  Sandretto can't help you there.

6.   You professed "shock" at learning from Sandretto that a horizontal wire antenna close to the fuselage of a metal aircraft has a low radiation resistance.   I am amazed that you did not know this basic and widely known fact.

7.    You argued that  "The WE transmitter was not Terman's "equal opportunity sprayer".  I assume that "sprayer" is your term for a harmonic generator.

7.1   I neither said nor implied that the WE 13C generated harmonics at the levels expected from a well-designed harmonic generator.

7.2   My analysis states: "Terman ("Radio Engineers' Handbook", 1943) gives the output power level of a well-designed harmonic generator, as a percentage of output at the fundamental frequency, as: 2nd harmonic, 65%; 3rd harmonic, 40%; 4th harmonic, 30%; and 5th harmonic, 25%."

7.3   The next sentence in the analysis states:  "The 4 reduced harmonic power levels used in this analysis, and their respective percentages of 50 watts are: 5 watts (10%), 1 watt (2%), 0.5 watt (1%) and 0.1 watt (0.2%)."   Each of these power levels was used in testing for signal reception at each of the final 4 harmonic frequencies, and all of them are well below the Terman levels.   For example, at 24840 KHz the 4th harmonic of Amelia's daytime frequency, Terman gives 30% as the relative output level of a well-designed harmonic generator.  This corresponds to a harmonic power level of 15 watts in nominal 50-watt transmitter, such as the WE 13C.   Table 1 in my analysis shows that Betty could have heard Amelia on 24840 KHz if the transmitter output power at that frequency was 0.1 watt, or 0.67% of the Terman level for a well-designed harmonic generator.

7.4    Furthermore, the probability trends in my data tables show that it was possible for Betty to have heard Amelia on 24840 KHz, albeit at a lower probability, even if the transmitter output power was less than one-tenth of 0.1 watt, or 0.01 watt, which would be 0.067% of the Terman level for a well-designed harmonic generator.

8.   You said that the harmonic power levels I used in the analysis were "scaled from" the levels for Terman's ideal harmonic generator.   That is not true.  As shown in section 7 above, the power levels I used values were not scaled from Terman's values in any way.

9.   You said  "But if the transmitter was as prolific a  harmonic source as you suppose, this would not have been allowed on the air at all".

9.1  You have not provided documentary evidence of any harmonic output tests of the transmitter as installed on NR16020, so I conclude that you are making an assumption here.

9.2   A harmonic power level of 0.1 watt hardly qualifies as "prolific".

10.   You objected to my statement that there was no harmonic suppression in the WE 13C output circuit.  You stated that the transmitter output is a tuned circuit, selecting against unwanted frequencies, and that the antenna can also be considered a tuned circuit, thus providing "2 poles of selectivity".

10.1   My analysis states that "Mike Everette showed that the design of Amelia's transmitter output and antenna coupling circuits did not have any means of harmonic suppression and that any harmonics present in the transmitter's output were passed directly to the antenna and could potentially be radiated".  The phrase "harmonic suppression" in this context clearly refers to a set of components organized into a circuit specifically designed to suppress harmonic radiation, and intended to be used in addition to any tuning circuits.

10.2   It is obvious to even the most casual observer that a tuned output circuit and a tuned antenna will provide some selectivity, and thus some harmonic rejection.  But it is equally obvious that those circuits cannot generally be relied upon to provide adequate harmonic suppression.

10.3   As for your "2 poles of selectivity", you may be interested to know that there was only a single tuned circuit, shared by the final power amplifier and the antenna.   Hence there was only a single pole of selectivity.  You would find it instructive to study the transmitter schematic and derive this fact for yourself.

10.4   With only a single tuned circuit in the output, there was obvious potential for harmonic radiation.

11.    You outlined a plan for obtaining empirical data regarding harmonic radiation from Amelia's transmitter.  You said:  "I have an acquaintance who just ran an old aircraft transmitter with  similar output circuit to AE's WE model into a typical aircraft antenna simulator and looked at the result with a spectrum analyzer. I am trying to convince him to run a couple more tests, for example with a high-impedance load, to simulate the *very  best scenario* for your harmonic theory.   I hope to have some real-life numbers for you in the near future. Will this be the silver bullet?"

11.1   I don't know what you mean by "silver bullet", but any results you obtain from a transmitter "similar" to the WE-13C, or from a "typical" aircraft antenna simulator, would be valid only with respect to the particular test environment in which they were generated. Attempting to extrapolate those results to the equipment on board NR16020 would be sheer guesswork.   To substantiate your position that no harmonic signals detectable by Betty's receiver emanated from NR16020, you would need to test the ACTUAL transmitter and antenna on NR16020, configured and operating exactly as they were in July 1937.

12.   You objected to the statement  "It is interesting to note that Amelia's antenna was broadly resonant between 15.5 MHz to 24 MHz, which would be conducive to radiation of harmonics in that range".   You asked "what do you mean?" and "how do you know".  And you concluded, erroneously, that I was declaring a broadband antenna.

12.1   The statement to which you objected applies to the resonant behavior of the antenna near the harmonic frequencies above 15.5 MHz. The term "broadly resonant" is easily understood if you realize that: (1) in addition to being resonant at the transmitter fundamental output frequency, the antenna also was resonant at higher frequencies;  (2) those additional resonant frequencies were near, but not necessarily equal to, harmonics of the fundamental; and (3) the antenna performance at each harmonic was close to that at the neighboring antenna resonant frequency.

12.2   The answer to your question "how do you know" is that I did the calculations.  Using the antenna model mentioned in the analysis report, the antenna was tuned to each transmitter fundamental output frequency and then was tested for resonance at frequencies from 15.5 MHz to 25 Mhz (and yes, the 24 MHz in the report is a typo).   The frequency spread between each harmonic and the nearest antenna resonant frequency was noted.  For example, the frequency spread was less than 1 percent at the 3rd harmonic of 6210 KHz, and less than 4 percent at the 4th harmonic of 6210 KHz.  The universal resonance curve showed that the response at each harmonic was close enough to the response at the antenna's nearest natural resonant frequency that the frequency spread could be disregarded for practical purposes.  Hence, the antenna was "broadly resonant" at its resonant frequencies near the harmonics of the transmitter output frequency.   Therefore the "broadly resonant" property of the antenna was "conducive to radiation of harmonics". 

LTM, who had no tolerance for those who prefer to indulge in ranting criticism instead of making  constructive contributions.

Bob
#2286
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:18:28 EDT
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      End of old car thread

No, Alan, if you actually drove (as opposed to sat in, tinkered with, spent a fortune on, cursed) a '68 MGB for many years then you are one up on me. What's worse is that I actually have owned TWO of them.  Obviously I am a glutton for punishment but since joining the Forum I have been able satisfy my addiction that way.

Favorite MG joke:

Q:  Why don't the British make color TV's?
A:  They can't figure out a way to get 'em to leak oil.

Runner-up:

Q:  Why do the British drink warm beer?
A:  Lucas refrigerators.

End of thread.

LTM
Pat Gaston
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:21:12 EDT
From:         Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: Response to Hue Miller

Thank you Bob for saying what I didn't have the patience or ability to say. I believe that the post lost signals are the key to the actual location of AE's landing. I'd really like to see an accurate list of all the post lost signals including all the DF bearings from all the stations.(If there is such a thing.)

LTM
Mike J.#2591

**********************************************************************
From Ric

When the Post-Loss Study is published it will have the most complete listing of signals and DF bearings we're able to compile.
========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:52:01 EDT
From:         Hue MIller
Subject:      Hue Miller's reply

I truly wish i had more time to devote to this interesting controversy. I am sure a conclusion (either way )that would convince all without a doubt could be arrived at, even if it required a full size mockup, with a replicated transmitter, and a calibrated field strength meter.

Unfortunately, this all has to go on the back burner.

Meanwhile, i address only a couple points. Let's look at an article from the Eitel-McCullough company, producer of radio transmitter components, undated but most likely late 1940s. Article by John Reinartz.

"It is not generally realized that most amateur transmitters, using but one tuned circuit in the final output stage [ i.e. similar to transmitter on the aircraft ] cannot meet the FCC rule stated in....Act of 1947, in regard to the reduction of the radiation of harmonic frequencies to not less than 40 db below the fundamental frequency..."

[ General discussion deletions ]

"...Harmonics are suppressed to a considerable extent even by a simple tuned circuit.

"Labus and Roder ( Proceedings of the IRE, Vol. 19, pp 949-962, 1931 ) derived expressions for the suppression of harmonics. For example, if the tuned circuit is shown as in Fig. 1....."

[ Follows the standard schematic equivalent for the LC tuned circuit loaded by an antenna represented by antenna capacitance and radiation resistance in series. ]

"...then the db reduction of harmonics due to the...circuit is.. ....[ formula , Terman's harmonic power list, etc. deleted, but text is available ]....

Table II

Q          N=2       N=3         N=4

5       -26.7 db   -42.3 db   -63.3 db

[ End of quoted material. ]


In the table above, Q= "quality factor" of transmitter output tuned circuit. In the text, 4 "Q factor" examples are worked. I chose the "worst" of these Q factors to quote here. This gives maximum benefit to the "harmonic theory", not to my bent.  "N="  means the harmonic number. So, N=2  for example, means harmonic 12420 kHz if the transmitter is set to channel 6210 kHz, and so on.

The " minus db" figure is the decibels of the harmonic power, in relation to the fundamental. The minus sign means less than, meaning the harmonic is a fraction, as we would expect, of the fundamental. ( The fundamental is where the transmitter channel selector is set. )   How much less? -10 db means 1/10 the power. -23.5 db is approximately 1/200.   -40 db is 1/10,000.  The larger this negative power, the lower the quantity we are looking at.

This is with one (1)  tuned circuit.

Why was the FCC concerned about the -40 db limit? Even 1/10,000 of a 50,000 watt or 100,000 watt radio or television signal is a usable power.  For lesser powers, output in the tenths of watts can go thousands of miles. ( Except for one case in 1937, these long range records seem to have been only achieved by non-voice modes, i.e. telegraphy and data modes.)

I am advised that the transmitter only had "one pole of selectivity". (Selectivity determining point". )

My contention is that the antenna effectively presents another pole, albeit with lower "Q factor".  If the antenna impedance- which varies with frequency - does not reasonably match the transmitter impedance - actual radiated power is greatly attenuated. Thus, i contend our situation asks for consideration of antenna impedance at each harmonic, and its relation to how the transmitter impedance was set, to accomodate the fundamental. ( My apologies for maybe getting too much into noninteresting technical point here, but this point can not be taken too lightly.)

I am advised that my contention, that the home radio in Florida is extremely unlikely to have been listened to for an hour and a half, without retuning, is unaware of the actual conditions. In other words, the home radio did not HAVE to drift" - no doubts about the reception on this account need entertained Anecdotal submissions here and otherwise indicate "old timers" seem to agree with me. Even if the house were thermostat controlled for an even temperature, the vacuum tubes in such a radio are constantly heating, causing thermal currents, and the radio is also subject to power mains voltage fluctuations. I have to stand by my suggestion that it is really, really remarkable, using a home radio, a vacuum tube radio, on one of the higher or highest bands, not to have to retouch the tuning dial at least each half hour or so.  ( In case you say, I had a vacuum tube FM radio, never had to retune it - that case does not apply, for technical reasons. )

The mathematic analysis of the Florida reception apparently proves this would be possible down to a harmonic power of 1/10 watt. This power is approximately twice the power of the toy walkie talkie sold for $10 the pair.  1/10 of a watt is 1/40 of the power of a good CB radio, without linear amp. I can't hope to impress the readers with any mathematical analysis of my own, i just want to provide some comparison examples in addition to the above quoted text. Mathematical analysis may be good, but what would thousands of people with actual, practical experience in  long range shortwave radio communication, say about this?

So how did the West Coast  USA  radio monitor stations, as quoted, report reception of aircraft radios operating on the third harmonic? Doesn't this support the Florida theory? I explain this thus: The commercial and military flyers of the Pacific area carried trailing wire antennas as a matter of routine procedure, to get maximum range. If you reel out an antenna to a resonant length, then on the third harmonic it presents a similar impedance as does the fundamental - thus the antenna is well matched to the transmitter on both the fundamental AND the harmonic. This is not easily the case with the antenna on the 10E aircraft. Also- the official report does NOT say "AM voice mode". An aircraft large enough to use a trailing antenna almost certainly had a full time radio operator, and used telegraphy for long distance working. I remind, telegraphy is reputed to be 10 - 17 db as effective as "double sideband amplitude modulation voice".

Maybe i can get around to some of the other points, but it will be a while. Meanwhile, i invite the readers to contemplate the implications of the quoted article with its table, and draw their own independent conclusion, both from it and from real world, documented experience they can find on their own.

And remember what happens when improbables are strung together. The overall probability does NOT improve!

The article i quote from is not any secret. For an SASE i will provide a photocopy of its 6 text pages.

Regards, Hue Miller

H Miller   # 204
1555  Waverly  SE
Albany  OR  97322
========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:54:56 EDT
From:         Brian
Subject:      reef landing

Would there have been any scarring on the reef if she landed and the plane was moved around by the tides??? If there was, was it visible on your last trip to Niku???

Brian
Nation of Lurkers
****************************************************************
From Ric

There may have been some scarring but the reef surface has many, many scars and trying to identify which ones might be due to that event would be hopeless.
========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:58:13 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Tempest in a Teapot

Pat Gaston wrote

>Chris Kennedy and I are both lawyers...........Both of us interpreted your
>post the same way,

I'm a lawyer also, Pat and lawyers as well as most educated people ARE taught not  to accept statements at face value but we are also taught to read statements literally and not read something into a statement to conform with our own agenda. Ric's statement clearly said MAC x-rayed the part and that's all. If it had been Lockheed you might have reasonably read into the statement that Lockheed made some kind of educated confirmation. You could not reasonably infer that MAC did.

The comment that you BOTH made the same interpretation is not persuasive of anything you would be comfortable implying.

Alan
**********************************************************************
From Ric

This is some kind of lawyer joke - right?  How many lawyers does it take to correctly interpret a sentence?
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:00:33 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Response to Hue Miller

>LTM, who had no tolerance for those who prefer to indulge in ranting
>criticism instead of making  constructive contributions.>>

We still have a few such folks, Bob, and if I read Ric correctly we now have one less.

I suspect there are a couple lawyers or maybe one lawyer now, who will not likely try to read more into what you wrote than your very precise comments say nor will they likely go off to some "expert" source to prove you are misleading us. You are not normally a target here. Ric usually is.

In fairness you were well challenged and you admirably responded. That took a lot of time and effort on both parts to arrive at the apparent conclusion that it WAS possible for Betty to have heard Amelia which was your original conclusion. Attempting to prove Betty could not possibly have heard Amelia seems to me to be an extremely difficult exercise. I think it was a constructive attempt but perhaps not as thorough as possible. Had it been successful it would have been exceptionally important so please don't anyone assume I object to Hue's efforts. I assume Hue does not believe Betty's reception was possible and if he is correct we need to know that. It has great significance.

I would also assume Hue will now respond to Bob's points and this will be a good exchange that may eventually resolve the question. If it comes down to probabilities let me point out the result can only be 100% or 0%. If there is "little" possibility that means it could have 100% occurred.

This is a technical exchange not one of personalities and a good example to all of us for positive and constructive information that will hopefully lead us closer to solving our mystery.

This is an incredible job by both Bob and Hue with the ball now in Hue's court.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:33:06 EDT
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Tempest in a Teapot

Too Many and we can't afford them. I always thought that lawyers were taught to read and them tell their clients "whatever the clients want to hear".

Jim
========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 19 Sep 2003 22:08:51 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Gallagher's Suspicion

I have been puzzling for some time why Gallagher assumed that the skeleton, shoes, etc., might have belonged to AE when he first reported the findings.

I have looked at the following chronology of his life in the Pacific and can't for the life of me find something definitive that would have kept the AE disappearance forefront in an Englishman's mind:

In July 1937 he sails from England to a new posting with the WPHC.  Granted this is when AE disappears and all the headlines throughout the world have carried the story.  However, during the height of the drama Gallagher is probably on board ship with little direct day-to-day contact with the outside world. Also, as this is his first posting I would have thought his mind would be full of WPHC stuff - where is he going to be posted, what's going to be his new assignment, who is going to be his new boss, etc.

Unless there was wide spread (world wide) belief that AE did land somewhere on a Pacific island and made the "post loss" transmissions I don't know why Gallagher would have stuffed that bit of information (the Pacific island possibility) into his brain to be brought out some three years later? Question:  Can you give us some idea of the prevailing theory at that time on AE's disappearance?

Next. Gallagher spends time getting his sea legs, so to speak, in the WPHC bureaucracy during the years 1937 to 1938.  He travels to Gardner with Maude in December 1938 to drop off the 10 laborers to start the groundwork for future colonization but he still has no real permanent assignment and nothing to remind him to look for AE.

England goes to war with Germany in 1939 and all of the war news would have been foremost in the mind of Englishmen and that of her territorial providence's of the time.  It seems to me that war preparations throughout the Pacific e.g. the manning of coast watchers, etc., which Gallagher was aware of, as he sailed on the same supply ship as some of the coast watcher material, and the anxiety of his first "real" assignment to the island of Sydney in early 1939 would have taken over his every day thinking and work activity.  The subject of AE by this time, I am guessing, would have been real back burner stuff unless the "AE spy theory" was a predominate belief throughout the Pacific. Question: Can you give us some idea of the perceived Japanese threat throughout the Pacific at that time?  What was the "AE spy theory" hype (if any) at the time in this part of the world?

Next.  Gallagher starts work, albeit from Sydney, in getting Gardner up and running during 1939 to 1940.  During the period before Gallagher arrives (in September 1940) there are residences of Gardner that have already heard of the bones near the shipwreck and some bones at the other end of the island, they have also seen or heard of an airplane on the island and, I would suspect, had already began salvaging material from the plane to convert into other usable objects. It's not until September 1940 when he moves his base of operation to Gardner that he learns of the "AE" bones found in April of that year. Question:  As Maude seems to have been Gallagher's mentor during this period have we any information from Maude that may indicate that Gallagher may have passed along "legends of an airplane" on Gardner?  This I think would have triggered the AE/Pacific island connection!

Gallagher seems to jump to a conclusion about AE but why?  This is countered by his unexplainable followup action on the matter (note his almost nonchalant dismissal of the whole AE affair once he gets a note from Isaac and his backing off of making something pretty for Isaac from the local wood); remember it wasn't until July of 1941 that Gallagher read the entire WPHC file on the bones.  Was it due to Gallagher being a pretty savvy guy by the late 1940s with regard to the politics of the WPHC and wave making wasn't a popular pastime - going from one extreme to the other is puzzling? 
********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Ted.  These are excellent questions.  Of course, I have no way of knowing why Gallagher thought what he did but I can offer a couple of observations that may make it less remarkable that he connected the bones with AE.

>However, during the height of the drama Gallagher is probably
>on board ship with little direct day-to-day contact with the outside world.

Gallagher sailed from England on July 17.  The search for Earhart was called off on the 18th, so he had access to the media throughout the drama of the disappearance and search.  Gerald Gallagher was a licensed pilot who carried his flying helmet and goggles with him to the South Pacific.  His fellow Cadet Officer, Eric Bevington, who was with him on the ship remembers that they were well-aware of Putnam's offer of $2,000 for information about Earhart's fate.  The was more money than a Cadet Officer made in a year, and she had disappeared in the same part of the Pacific where they were headed.

>Unless there was wide spread (world wide) belief that AE did land somewhere
>on a Pacific island and made the "post loss" transmissions I don't know why
>Gallagher would have stuffed that bit of information (the Pacific island
>possibility) into his brain to be brought out some three years later?
>Question:  Can you give us some idea of the prevailing theory at that time on
>AE's disappearance?

The prevailing theory, if media coverage is any measure, was that Earhart had landed on a Pacific island or reef and had called for help but that the searchers had failed to find her in time.  Many articles specifically mentioned the Phoenix Group as the most likely location.  It was only later that the "official" crashed and sank verdict became popular.

>It seems to me that war preparations throughout the Pacific
>e.g. the manning of coast watchers, etc., which Gallagher was aware of, as he
>sailed on the same supply ship as some of the coast watcher material, and the
>anxiety of his first "real" assignment to the island of Sydney in early 1939
>would have taken over his every day thinking and work activity.  The subject of
>AE by this time, I am guessing, would have been real back burner stuff unless
>the "AE spy theory" was a predominate belief throughout the Pacific.
>Question: Can you give us some idea of the perceived Japanese threat
>throughout the Pacific at that time?  What was the "AE spy theory" hype
>(if any) at the time in this part of the world?

Gallagher's correspondence makes it very clear that his concern was for the colonists of the Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme.  There is no mention by anyone of any perceived Japanese threat until Gallagher is drafted to supervise the distribution of coast watchers and their supplies in the Gilberts in the summer of 1941.  There was no AE spy theory until after the release of Flight For Freedom in 1943.

>During the period before Gallagher arrives (in
>September 1940) there are residents of Gardner that have already heard of the
>bones near the shipwreck and some bones at the other end of the island, they
>have also seen or heard of an airplane on the island and, I would suspect,
>had already began salvaging material from the plane to convert into other usable
>objects.

One of the most curious aspects of the whole Gallagher/bones story is that there is no indication that he was ever aware of the bones said to be at or near the shipwreck or of any kind of aircraft debris on the island.  The only story we have that tells of a known aircraft wreck that early is Emily Sikuli's account of the  wreckage that is only visible at low tide and only the fisherman who have been close to it recognize it as an airplane.  Emily arrived on the island in early 1940 and left in November 1941.  Gallagher died in September 1941.  It is at least possible that no one found the wreck until after Gallagher died.

>Question:  As Maude seems to have been Gallagher's mentor during this
>period have we any information from Maude that may indicate that Gallagher may  >have passed along "legends of an airplane" on Gardner?

Maude was out of the picture shortly after the first installation of colonists in the PISS in 1938.  He was sent to do administrative work at Pitcairn Island.  As mentioned above, there is no indication that Gallagher ever knew anything about an airplane at Gardner.

>Gallagher seems to jump to a conclusion about AE but why?

He finds what he believes are the remains of a female castaway in a part of the Pacific where there is only one female missing - Amelia Earhart - and she's right where it was thought she might be.

>Was it due to Gallagher being a pretty savvy guy by the late 1940s with
>regard to the politics of the WPHC and wave making wasn't a popular pastime -
>going from one extreme to the other is puzzling? 

Very puzzling, and it does seem to smack of signing on to the official line.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 19 Sep 2003 22:25:39 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Tempest in a Teapot

Jim Preston writes:

>Too Many and we can't afford them. I always thought that lawyers were
>taught to read and them tell their clients "whatever the clients want to
>hear".

Not at all, Jim. We tell our clients the way it is and rarely do they like that. Nine times out of ten what they want to hear is not supportable in court.

Alan
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We are not going to start a lawyer thread.  Lawyers are not bad and lawyers are not good. Lawyers are just lawyers.  As justice Learned Hand said, "The study of law sharpens the mind by narrowing it."

The study of law, like the study of medicine, is training - not education. Some doctors and lawyers also have an education.  It's a wonderful combination.
========================================================================


Date:         Fri, 19 Sep 2003 22:29:19 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Sextant Box

Something kind of interesting came to my attention while looking on the net for Sextant & Boxes re AE & FN.

I came across a box case containing a barometer and a pistonphone.  The pistonphone sure looks like it could pass for an inverting eyepiece to the casual observer (or to one trying to describe to Gallagher what he threw away) and the barometer was calibrated up to "3500" feet altitude.

Now I wonder if Purdue had any such "research" going on in the "aviation research Lockheed 10" that they had sponsored for AE?  I know nothing of pistonphone technology but what little I have read it seems this device, calibrated by barometric pressure, is used to measure sound levels in different environments.

I also believe I read somewhere that AE was concerned (maybe too strong a word) about flying all those hours in the plane and the effect it might have on one's hearing.

Do you have any contacts at Purdue that may be able to find out if any such research was planned or carried out regarding AE's flight?

Ted Campbell
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting hypothesis but there's nobody at Purdue who knows anything but what is in the university's publicly accessible collection of paper and photos.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:37:36 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's Suspicion

Thanks Ric, your response sheds a little more light on the matter.

**********************************************************
From Paige Miller

Ted Campbell writes:

>Unless there was wide spread (world wide) belief that AE did land somewhere
>on a Pacific island and made the "post loss" transmissions I don't know why
>Gallagher would have stuffed that bit of information (the Pacific island
>possibility) into his brain to be brought out some three years later?

What I find interesting about your comment, Ted, is that you must think the human brain works differently than I think it works. There are is a whole lot of information "stuffed" into my brain (and apparently my friends' brains work the same way) that I did not consciously place there. I just know it is still in there. I can tell you that Hoyt Wilhelm homered in his first major league at bat and never hit another home run, but I cannot tell you why that information remains in my brain. Information just sticks in there ... sometimes, whether I want it to or not. And I don't particularly think that Gallagher recalling AE's disappearance 3 years earlier needs an explanation.

>Gallagher seems to jump to a conclusion about AE but why?

The human brain is excellent at matching pieces of information. It does that, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. You may have found this in your life as I have in mine. The other day I was at a bookstore, and there was a woman I hadn't seen in 8 years (and probably hadn't thought about in 8 years), but there she was and my brain recalled the information about what she looked like and matched it with the information now in front of my eyes. I had no reason to expect this woman to be in the bookstore, but there she was. So now Gallagher is aware of a woman missing in this part of the Pacific, he finds a skeleton with parts of a female shoe, and ... well, you can finish the rest, I see nothing strange here, I see no reason to ask why he first thought it might be AE. If he thought it was anyone else, I'd ask why.

--
Paige Miller
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:02:17 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Sextant Box - Alternate Possibilities

This is from the Purdue web site and has a few tidbits regarding "research" aboard N16020 and may prove to be an interesting past time vis-a-vis the pistonphone & barometer question.

"In 1936 the Purdue Research Foundation established the Amelia Earhart Fund for Aeronautical Research that made it possible for Amelia to purchase an Electra airplane, which she referred to as a "flying laboratory." It was equipped to do experimental work on speed and fuel consumption under varying conditions; television experimentation; the use of oxygen; radio communication and navigation instruments and methods; the human equation of fatigue and endurance in relation to altitude, diet, sleep, and eyestrain. A year later when Miss Earhart was on an around-the-world trip, the plane crashed on takeoff from Luke Field near Honolulu. Miss Earhart and members of her crew were not injured. The plane was sent back to Los Angeles for repairs."

Tidbits worth following up: 1) television - sound levels may play a part! 2) radio communication - the pistonphone has a relationship to mic calibration from what little I have read about the device! 3) the human equation - sound does play a big role in fatigue! I think I will chase it as far as I can.  Hopefully, someone on the Forum who lives closer to Purdue and/or knows a little something about pistonphones" can assist in this.  If so, let me know and we can share info off line until we get (hopefully) something substantive to post on the Forum
*********************************************************************
From Ric

By 1936 the long-distance stunt flying game (i.e. flying from here to there just to see if it could be done) had played out.  Earhart's 1935 Honolulu/Oakland flight was widely criticized as pointless. Had it been unsuccessful it would have been counterproductive in selling air travel as a safe and efficient form of transportation.  AE and GP needed a new gimmick and Purdue needed publicity for their aviation programs.  The "Flying Laboratory" wasn't.

>It was equipped to do experimental work on speed and fuel consumption under
>varying conditions;

It had a Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer.  State-of-the-art, but hardly experimental.

>television experimentation;

I have never heard of any television experimentation done with NR16020.

>the use of oxygen;

I have never seen any indication that oxygen was ever carried aboard the aircraft.

>radio communication and navigation instruments and methods;

The Hooven Radio Compass was installed but then removed in favor of more primitive equipment.  To say that Earhart was doing experiments in radio communication and navigation sounds like a bad joke.

>the human equation of fatigue and endurance in relation to altitude, diet,
>sleep, and eyestrain.

Earhart talked about this some and carried a variety of sunglasses that she tried out. There was also an attempt to collect samples of microbes in the upper atmosphere.

To my knowledge there was never a single scientific report written or published about experimental work done by the "Flying Laboratory".  It was all just hype to keep the Earhart celebrity machine cranking.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:06:31 EDT
From:         Ed Croft
Subject:      Garble in postings

Regarding those quotes that were kinda funny looking for some people.

Characters are stored in one or two bytes and are stored basically as a number representing the character.  The 1st 127 characters are the same for every font (or way of displaying characters). Other than the first 127, the characters can be different for the different fonts.

If you pay close attention to those quotes, you will note that the writer  used left quotation marks and right quotation marks.  The standard quote mark (in the first 127) is just " (character #34). You could use "other characters" which here display properly for the Times Roman font but for other fonts may not.  Or vice versa.

So, the bottom line is that depending on the font, you may or may not see the correct characters. Using the standard keystrokes, everyone should see the same.  But for those non-standard characters, there is nothing to be done, assuming everyone will not use the same font, but to avoid them.  But since they are not standard on the keyboard, most people will never use them.

What you see is not always what they get.

Ed

**********************************************************************
From Ric

That's interesting Ed.  I always use a font called Geneva for email because it seems to cause the fewest problems.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:27:00 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Drift sights and navigation

Some time ago there was some discussion about navigating up or down the LOP. Unless you were sure of your position somewhere on the LOP, to navigate exactly along the 157/337 line became more and more difficult as time went on because each successive sun sight would produce a new LOP which had rotated anti-clockwise somewhat from the previous one. In the short term, whilst new LOPs remained essentially parallel to the one on which the original assumption of position was made, the correction needed at any latitude on the line as determined by a new sight was almost the same. As time went on however, if one had an error in latitude in one's origin on the line, the correction one needed to apply as indicated by a new sight could only be determined by reference to one's DR distance from the origin. Unless that origin was accurately estimated, the correction would be in error and a combination of hours of travel and uncertainty of latitude would make very accurate navigation impossible.

I note that FN had a drift sight with him. I would be most interested to know - from navigators with practical experience of the device - just how accurately it is possible to navigate a particular course, assuming that is done purely by means of calculating the wind vector from the drift sight readings and drawing the wind triangle to calculate a heading. Of course even if the wind vector parameter is calculated perfectly, there are inherent errors in the magnetic compass, assumed compass deviation (and DG drift if the aircraft is flown on autopilot). There is also the error involved in maintaining the aircraft exactly on the intended heading continuously.

What sort of deviation from course might be expected in these circumstances, in say 100 miles, if we assume light winds changing only slowly in direction? (We assume that the origin is somewhere exactly on our intended course line.) Would it be very surprising to maintain course to within say; one, five or ten miles for instance, (give an opinion on each) over such a distance using no other navigational aids?

Regards Angus.

****************************************************************
From Ric

As Charles Lindbergh is alleged to have once said, "The only thing wrong with dead reckoning is the name."

Once you have a handle on the wind - which they should have had by the time they started running south - all you have to do is hold the heading, and she even had an autopilot to do that for her.  I have personally DRed a similar distance (300 nm) at 1,000 feet and lower at a similar speed (130 kts) with no help from radio navigation and come out within 10 miles of where I was aiming. No big deal.
========================================================================


Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:54:15 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's Suspicion

To Paige Miller,

But Paige, Gallagher can see and knows about the Norwich City - lost crew overboard and not found.  Seems this would be the first thing that popped into your head!

The skeleton, what makes him think its a woman's skeleton?  He states in his reports (the bone chronology) that only the size of the shoe lead him to the conclusion it was a woman's skeleton.

He finds a shoe sole, albeit a "stoutish walking or heavy sandal - approx. size 10," is this enough to attribute the skeleton to a woman?  Remember, in his first report he has not had sight of the skull and only a few bones, he really doesn't have much to work on here.

Bottom line is that Gallagher seems to dismiss the obvious immediately, the Norwich City, and jumps to the AE conclusion as his "best guess" right from the get go.  I still find it puzzling.

***********************************************************************
From Ric

You've made a couple of errors but you've raised a very interesting and important point - what made Gallagher think it was a woman's shoe?

Your first error is to assume what Gallagher knows about the Norwich City. In his very first telegram describing the find to Resident Commissioner Jack Barley on Ocean Island he says:

"There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the "Norwich City"."

Barley goes on leave the next day and the new acting RC, Francis Holland, again quizzes Gallagher in a reply sent on October 1.

"Do you know anything of wreck of "Norwich City" --- e.g. when did it take place, were any lives lost and how long were survivors marooned at Gardner Island?"

Gallagher responds on  October 6, 1940 :

"'Norwich City' wrecked and caught fire 1930 or 1932. Number of crew sailed to Fiji in lifeboat, remainder picked up later at Gardner by "Ralum". Think Board of Enquiry held Suva - loss of life not known. This information derived from gossip only."

The ship went aground and burned in 1929.  Nobody sailed to Fiji and no ship named Ralum was involved in the rescue.  The board of enquiry was held in Apia, Samoa.  Gallagher is not aware that some of the missing and presumed dead were not accounted for.  He has no reason to connect the castaway with the shipwreck and, when challenged, seems quite sure that there is no connection.

>He states in his reports (the bone chronology) that only the size of the
>shoe lead him to the conclusion it was a woman's skeleton.

No.  That's not what he says.  In his first telegram to Barley on Sept. 23 he says:

"Shoe was a womans and probably size 10"

In his Oct. 6 telegram to Holland he elaborates:

"Only part of sole remains, Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal,"

In his October 17 telegram to Vaskess he says:

"Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's."

When Dr. Steenson examined the shoe parts on July 1, 1941 he concurred with Gallagher and commented on another shoe part that was apparently found later:

"Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say."

Nothing suggests that Gallagher or Steenson were basing their assessment of gender on the size of the "part of sole".  Indeed, a British size 10 is rather large for a woman. There is no mention of a heel.  So what was it about the "part of sole" that so convinced Gallagher and Steenson that it was from a woman's shoe?

I have a suggestion.  Color.  I think that what Gallagher found was part of the white, one-piece sole of the two-tone shoes Earhart is known to have had with her on the world flight.  You can see a picture of the shoes I'm talking about at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/04_05_01%20Bulletin/04_05_01bull.html
They're what we refer to as Pair No. 3 in our analysis of the shoes that appear in photos taken during the trip.  Scroll down to the photo of AE sitting on the step ladder.  Take away the uppers of those shoes and you're left with a white or cream colored rubber sole with the heel molded in as part of the sole, as is common in most sandals.  It's 1940 and you find part of a white rubber sole like that.  It's from a woman's shoe.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:55:12 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Sextant Box - Alternate Possibilities

You probably are right but I think it's worth a shot.  Seems somebody dug up the  research info. that I quoted, I'd like to know who and what's their source.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:58:13 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

Ric said:

>I have personally DRed a similar
> distance (300 nm) at 1,000 feet and lower at a similar speed (130 kts) with no
> help from radio navigation and come out within 10 miles of where I was aiming.
> No big deal.

OK- so it's possible - but that's just one flight. Lindbergh managed to perform even more impressively across the Atlantic. That does not mean he could do it tomorrow, were he still alive.

Flying a DR course is no doubt easier if your wind vector is based on local weather radio reports. Looking back at forum archives, I see that at least one experienced contributor regarded non-gyrostabilized drift meter readings as pretty unreliable, due to the pitch and roll of the aircraft, rarely achieving an accuracy of better than 5 or 10 degrees in wind direction. You yourself commented that perhaps the exercise of using the driftmeter, which involved opening the cabin door, was more entertaining than useful. Without a reasonably accurate wind vector, DR is guesswork.

Surely too, it is easy to confuse luck (admittedly perhaps based on good dead reckoning) with capability? To get a real handle on this we need some input from  navigators who have done this sort of thing many times and achieved consistent results.

Regards Angus
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:26:41 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's Suspicion

Ric says -

>The prevailing theory, if media coverage is any measure, was that Earhart had
>landed on a Pacific island or reef and had called for help but that the
>searchers had failed to find her in time.  Many articles specifically mentioned 
>the Phoenix Group as the most likely location.  It was only later that the
>"official" crashed and sank verdict became popular.
>
Hmmm. So many times you have bashed the media (except Katie Couric of course) for not having the slightest idea of what they're talking about, and now they're helping to substantiate the Niku hypothesis. And why is "official" in quotes?  Seems it's a sustained fact that the contemporary authorities (including a California court) shared the crashed and sank verdict to a man.

Cam Warren
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The question was what the prevailing theory was at the time of the search. Whether the prevailing theory was correct or not, media coverage is the best gauge I know of for answering that question.  If you know of a better one, please tell me.

"Official" is in quotes because the crashed and sank verdict was, and remains, utterly unsubstantiated and, to my knowledge (please correct me), has never been the subject of any ruling by the United States government.  I don't know how there could be because there was never any government inquiry into Earhart's death.  There was a search, to be sure - and the various agencies that participated in the search made reports and offered opinions - but I'm aware of no investigation or ruling that closed the case.  In short, contrary to popular perception, there is no official verdict in the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.

I'm assuming that the California court you're referring to is the 1938 probate court that determined that Earhart was dead so that Putnam could administer her estate in accordance with the will.  Putnam got a letter from CNO Admiral Leahy stating that "No trace of the Amelia Earhart plane or of its occupants was ever found."  True enough. What the court decided was that the woman was probably dead.  That's all. (They were probably wrong.)

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:39:50 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Sextant Box - Alternate Possibilities

>The Hooven Radio Compass was installed but then removed in favor of more
>primitive equipment.  To say that Earhart was doing experiments in radio
>communication and navigation sounds like a bad joke.

I'd be interested to know your source for claiming Earhart's Bendix Direction  Finder (very likely an HF version) was "more primitive equipment".

>To my knowledge there was never a single scientific report written or
>published about experimental work done by the "Flying Laboratory".

I'm inclined to share your general opinion about the limited scientific value of the Flying Laboratory.  However, you might be interested in Chapter 13 of the new hard bound edition of FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY (Paladwr Press, McLean, Virginia, 2003). The title is "The Radio Direction Finder". (Unfortunately, the publisher didn't print the very rare diagram and schematic for the Navy RDF-1, although I have it in my files.)

Cam Warren
***********************************************************************
From Ric

>I'd be interested to know your source for claiming Earhart's Bendix
>Direction  Finder (very likely an HF version) was "more primitive
>equipment".

From the preface to Frederick Hooven's paper "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight", on the TIGHAR website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html

"Before Miss Earhart took off on her Round-the-World flight she removed from her plane a modern radio compass that had been installed and replaced it with an older, lighter-weight model of much less capability. I am the engineer who had invented and developed the radio compass that was removed, and I discussed its features with Miss Earhart before the installation was made. I have reason to believe that it was the failure of her radio direction-finder to do what the more modern model could have done that caused her to be lost."
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:44:08 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Genesis of the spy theory

Although not directly accused of spying, the Smiths Weekly paper out of Australia in Oct 1937 suggested to the world that AE's disappearance in the Pacific near or perhaps in the Mandates offered a golden opportunity for the US to "spy" on suspected Japanese fortifications. No doubt the seed was planted.

And perhaps later as you point out some thought that AE, as the Flight to Freedom movie suggested, was part of the "big plan". I don't personally think AE was on a spy mission for the US.

LTM,
Ron B.
**********************************************************************
From Ric

I'd say that it's a bit of a stretch to say that the Smith's Weekly article suggested anything "to the world" or that it planted any seeds among the U.S. population.  As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations in the Australian tabloid got zero play in the American media.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:44:44 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

Thanks, Bob; that gives me some good leads.  Sorry for the delay; computer problems.

Tom King
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:47:36 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

>Unless you were sure of your position somewhere on the LOP, to navigate
>exactly along the 157/337 line became more and more difficult as time went
>on because each successive sun sight would produce a new LOP which had rotated
>anti-clockwise somewhat from the previous one.

--Rotated VERY slowly compared with the speed of the aircraft.

>in the short term, whilst new LOPs
>remained essentially parallel to the one on which the original assumption
>of position was made, the correction needed at any latitude on the line as
>determined by a new sight was almost the same.

Exactly the same.  No correction.

>As time went on however, if one had an
>error in latitude in one's origin on the line, the correction one needed to
>apply as indicated by a new sight could only be determined by reference to one's
>DR distance from the origin.

Regardless of latitude, there is no "correction."   What is tracked is not the original LOP across the destination; rather it is the current line because it is along that line that sun height is the same as it is from over the destination.

>Unless that origin was accurately estimated, the
>correction would be in error and a combination of hours of travel and
>uncertainty of latitude would make very accurate navigation impossible.

Running along a Sun line is not supposed to be  only a DR procedure.  It involves repeated observations to see how closely the Sun's height matches the predicted height  for a sight taken over the destination, and heading corrections aimed at tracking along the line.

Mark Prange
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:37:30 EDT
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's Suspicion

>I'm assuming that the California court you're referring to is the 1938
>probate court that determined that Earhart was dead so that Putnam could
>administer her estate in accordance with the will. Putnam got a letter from
>CNO Admiral Leahy stating that "No trace of the Amelia Earhart plane or of its
>occupants was ever found." True enough. What the court decided was that the
>woman was probably dead. That's all. (They were probably wrong.)

How long do you think she survived on that island?  Given the fact they just completed roughly 22 + hours of flight time and were probably exhausted and dehydrated to some degree to start with. Additionally, they were strapped for fuel weight so I am sure they did not bring along a lot of water with them.  Would 3-5 days without water be a reasonable amount of time to perish?

Don I.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I think she survived at least a matter of months and possibly as much as two and a half years.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:38:52 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

What many forum members probably don't know is that Dead Reckoning is not some sort of black art, but the standard method for navigating cross country.  You learn that from day one, then you learn the minor complexities of radio navigation aids later.  Navigating hundreds of miles across country by dead reckoning is commonplace.

Of course, pocket sized, cheap GPS units are often being substituted these days for proper navigation.

Th' WOMBAT
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:40:09 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

Angus writes:

>one experienced contributor regarded non-gyrostabilized drift meter
>readings as pretty unreliable, due to the pitch and roll of the aircraft, rarely
>achieving an accuracy of better than 5 or 10 degrees in wind direction.

That's probably right, Angus. What WAS the pitch and roll characteristics of AE's Electra or any Model 10E for that matter?

My B-47s had a very slight Dutch roll at times but most of the time none could be observed through the sextant.

I also wonder what data base any one could come up with to support the 5 to 10 degree accuracy statement.

In any case I would certainly rely far more on my drift meter readings in my exact location than anyone's weather report. I might also be more concerned with rough air at 1,000' bouncing the plane around. Of course it could have been smooth as glass.

Too much to speculate on to be usable, I think.

No, I've never used a drift meter or even seen one. <G>

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:41:13 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

Mark wrote

>Running along a Sun line is not supposed to be  only a DR procedure

Of course that is so, Mark. But I think it is important to point out, before we get deeply into angles and heights, etc. that it is possible and maybe probable that Noonan did NOT get any more sunshots. I say that only to keep us from narrowing down too much the scenario. If the summer air was too rough at 1,000' and they did not climb or could not climb high enough then sun shots may have been impractical or impossible. We won't ever know the answer to this.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:42:35 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

Angus wrote

>To get a real handle on this we need some input from  navigators who have
>done this sort of thing many times and achieved consistent results.

All Noonan had to do was do it once. Consistency was not required. If, in fact, the average was 5 to 10 degrees then we could have some results 20 degrees off and some right on, don't you suppose?

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:46:26 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

I wrote:

>>Unless you were sure of your position somewhere on the LOP, to navigate
>>exactly along the 157/337 line became more and more difficult as time went
>>on because each successive sun sight would produce a new LOP which had
>>rotated anti-clockwise somewhat from the previous one.

Mark Prange replied:

> --Rotated VERY slowly compared with the speed of the aircraft.

However the aircraft was flying for HOURS on an already old LOP (as it had been advanced from the time of dawn).

>>in the short term, whilst new LOPs
>>remained essentially parallel to the one on which the original assumption
>>of position was made, the correction needed at any latitude on the line as
>>determined by a new sight was almost the same.
>
> Exactly the same.  No correction.

You don't understand what I'm saying. If one deviates due to drift from desired course (in this case the 157/337 line through Howland), one obviously needs to make a correction to get back on course. Suppose that your new LOP you discover is a 152/332 line but running  ten miles to the east of Howland at closest approach. You need to correct by (for instance) flying approximately ten miles west at 242 degrees at Howland. However, where you make that correction in terms of latitude is important. If you make it at a more southerly latitude you will need to fly a greater distance to reach the original 157/337 line than if you make the correction at Howland's latitude because the new LOP has rotated with respect to the original one. The amount of correction varies with latitude. You can work out what the amount of correction you need to make by reference to how far north or south you have moved from your original position on the 157/337 line by DR but only if you know your starting point. If you don't you may under or overshoot the 157/337 line.

>>As time went on however, if one had an
>>error in latitude in one's origin on the line, the correction one needed to
>>apply as indicated by a new sight could only be determined by reference to
>>one's DR distance from the origin.

Mark said:

> Regardless of latitude, there is no "correction."   What is tracked is not
> the original LOP across the destination; rather it is the current line
> because it is along that line that sun height is the same as it is from over
> the destination.

You assume that all you are trying to do is get to one particular destination. (There is indeed a correction because the correction I was talking about was that needed to get back to course subsequent to experiencing wind drift and was not intended to mean a correction for LOP rotation.) You are considering a scenario where eg you want to find Howland and you successively abandon earlier LOPs, and draw  new "advanced" LOPs through the destination each time and then move to each advanced LOP. The distance between the observed LOP and the advanced LOP is then of course the same at any latitude since they are parallel.

I am not considering that scenario. I am considering trying to navigate down a fixed LINE (in this case the 157/337 line) not an LOP (except in so far as it once was one).

>>Unless that origin was accurately estimated, the
>>correction would be in error and a combination of hours of travel and
>>uncertainty of latitude would make very accurate navigation impossible.

Mark said:

> Running along a Sun line is not supposed to be  only a DR procedure.  It
> involves repeated observations to see how closely the Sun's height matches
> the predicted height  for a sight taken over the destination, and heading
> corrections aimed at tracking along the line.

Nor was I suggesting that running along a sunline in the manner you suggest was only DR procedure. The DR comes in in my scenario outlined in my original post to decide how far a new observed LOP is from the line you really want to navigate.

Navigating by successive sunlines advanced through the destination is fine if you have only one possible destination. If you are trying to fly a (say) 157 line you have drawn on the map which involves two alternate destinations you can't follow a sun line except at the instant that a sun line happens to coincide with that 157 line.

The procedure you are talking about involves running down segments of a series of successive sunlines, all on slightly different bearings. Your course would actually be a curve (or rather a segment of a polygon) convex as seen from the east if heading north and ending at the destination and concave as seen from the east if heading south to the destination.

Lets suppose FN is heading south towards Gardner thinking he must be north of Howland. Using successive sun sights (each giving rise to an advanced line drawn through Howland), then because he is traveling away from Howland,  his course would progressively diverge from the 157 line. He could end up 60 or 70 miles east of Gardner.

FN must have navigated a fixed 157 line by DR to be able to get close enough to Gardner to find it by accident or, if he used the method of navigation you are considering, he MUST have changed his destination and therefore found it by design. The latter scenario involves FN realising that he must be south of Howland and too far away to be able to return. If we assume he never saw Howland or any other island that could give him his position, it raises the question of how he could know this.

Regards Angus
**************************************************************
From Ric

You're making this waaay too complicated.
========================================================================


Date:         Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:56:02 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Sextant Box - Alternate Possibilities

In response to my question asking your source for the remark re Earhart's direction finder being replaced by "more primitve equipment", you cited the remarks of Frederick Hooven whose ADF was removed early-on.  (Note that the Flying Laboratory WAS apparently used for at least some DF experimentation, with several configurations being used at one time or another.)

I'm well aware of Hooven's remarks, made in a somewhat off-hand manner. As a former Bendix employee, he resigned in disgust, citing Vince Bendix' rather dubious business methods as at least one reason.  I know quite a bit about Mr. Hooven, and greatly admire his many accomplishments, which included automotive as well as electronic developments. Still, I'm of the opinion that his remarks about the direction finder were made in a moment of pique, and not worthy of citation as established fact. I was instead hoping that you might be able to supply a second or third opinion from other informed parties.

On the other hand, I stand solidly behind my belief (as explained on the Forum more than once, and rather well documented) that there was a prototype (or production version) of the high frequency (8 megacycle) Bendix RDF-1 aboard the Electra. If you - or anyone on the Forum - can adequately disprove this, I'd willingly withdraw the claim.

Bear in mind, that whatever your feelings about Amelia's pilot skills, she was certainly not a stupid woman. Removing good equipment in favor of something "more primitive" (no matter the weight-saving) just doesn't make sense. Taking a chance on something promising, albeit not fully proven, is much more in her style, especially if that equipment (already in use by the U.S. Navy) was provided by a long-time friend and financial supporter (Bendix).

Cam Warren
************************************************************************
From Ric

There is no document or photograph that I'm aware of that puts a Bendix RDF-1 receiver aboard NR16020.  There are, on the other hand, photographs that show Earhart with the new Bendix loop coupler at the time (early March '37) the Hooven unit was removed and the MN-5 loop was installed over the cockpit.

Your entire argument for the presence of an RDF-1 is based upon speculation that flies in the face of the existing evidence.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:21:05 EDT
From:         David Billings
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's Suspicion

Well now, how do you surmise that Earhart (and presumably, Fred Noonan) survived on the island in question for up to two (2) years.  Evidence please, acnecdotal evidence is no good.

David Billings.
*****************************************************************
From Danny Brown

>I think she survived at least a matter of months and possibly as much as two
>and a half years.

Ric:

This is the first time I've seen the estimate of how long you think she might have lasted. I'm curious as to how your estimate is derived.

LTM
Danny Brown
#2426

*****************************************************
From Don Iwanski

Do you have any research bulletins available on your website which supports this theory?  This island had no fresh water available and neither one had any sort of special training to survive in such conditions. Seems within days without water right along the equator they would of would be limited to days, not months or years.  Plus the fact the last pictures of the two that were taken in Lae they seemed to be very thin and possibly fatiqued from an already long journey. Seems kidney failure would set in quickly.
****************************************************
From Jackie Tharpe

Would you tell us more about the length of time AE may have survived?

*****************************************************
From Joe

I was astounded at your conclusion that she may have lived months or years....its a darn shame that no one took the post loss signals serious and re-looked for her...otherwise this site may never have been born!
Joe
********************************************************
From Ric

I thought that might get a rise out of you guys.  Let me state from the get-go that my opinion about how long AE survived on the island is only that - an opinion, and I'm happy to explain why I hold that opinion.  Let me also say that not all of my colleagues agree with me.  We debate the issue back and forth and (surprise, surprise) not everyone is willing to accept the same assumptions and not everyone interprets the evidence in the same way.  See what you think.

I start with the following assumptions:

Earhart and Noonan were cast away on Gardner Island.
The bones Gallagher found were Earhart's.
The location on the island we call the Seven Site is the place where the bones were found and represents Earhart's final campsite.

Based upon those assumptions I believe that a rational assessment of the objects found, and not found, by Gallagher and by TIGHAR tell a story that suggests a prolonged period of survival.

First of all, I'm struck by the paucity of material found by Gallagher.  It seems reasonable to me that the longer a castaway survives the more fewer accoutrements of civilization will remain.  Useless items will be discarded.  Clothes and shoes will wear out. Tools will break or be lost.  The campsite described by Gallagher is remarkable in that no coins, belt buckles, pens, wristwatches, or any of the hardware Earhart and/or Noonan might normally be carrying was found (neither wore jewelry or rings).  This, to me, suggests that the castaway had been on the island for some time.

Second, I note that the items that were found were in a condition that suggests protracted use in the island context.  The presumed sextant box contained no sextant and appeared to have been "used latterly merely as a receptacle" (Aug. 8, 1941 telegram).  What would cause someone to make that judgment?  I strongly suspect that  the interior furnishings of the box had been ripped out and the inside was somewhat beat up, indicating hard use in the island environment as a general purpose box.  The condition of the shoe parts is also interesting.  Only part of the sole of the woman's shoe was found.  As stated previously, I think the sole was the white rubber one-piece sole of AE's comfortable walking shoes.  I can easily understand how the leather uppers would rot away in the island environment, but all of the sole should deteriorate at more or less the  same rate if the deterioration is due solely to exposure to the elements.  If only part of the sole was present it seems to me more likely that it wore away from use.  We even have an artifact recovered from the site which may (and there is still much debate about this) be a crude sandal made from asphalt siding salvaged from the old 19th century work site.

Third,  although bereft of much in the way of items from civilization, the campsite nonetheless exhibits signs of protracted occupation.  Multiple deposits of fish and bird bones mixed with charcoal.  At least two deposits of large clam shells and, in another location, an abundance of smaller clam shells.  The bones of part, but not all, of a turtle.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the limited experiments carried out on the island during Niku IIII in 2001 suggest that a skeleton that still had as many bones present as the one Gallagher found in September 1940  could not have been dead for more than a matter of months.  Much better tests are planned for the Niku V expedition which should provide better information on this crucial point.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================


Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:52:13 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

Ric wrote:

> You're making this waaay too complicated.

The reply was intended for Mark and I'm sure he (and other navigation orientated forumites) will understand it. Its not really very complicated. The problem with explaining things on the forum is that we can't post diagrams which often make things far easier for the reader to understand. I would much rather scan a sketch than use a thousand words but there's no option.

Regards Angus..
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:01:45 EDT
From:         Cam Warrent
Subject:      Re: Sextant Box - Alternate Possibilities  (RDF-1)

Ric says:

>Your entire argument for the presence of an RDF-1 is based upon speculation
>that flies in the face of the existing evidence.

And apparently your "existing evidence" is the photo of AE  posing with a loop, which - incidentally - is prominently displayed on the back cover (and twice in the text) of Flight Into Yesterday.  First of all, are you sure it's an MN-5? Secondly, even if it was, I've said that loop (and the associated receiver) was replaced later (most likely in Miami). It seems to me, Earhart's acknowledged ability to pick up a 7.5 megacycle homing signal from the ITASCA is a rather strong bit of evidence that there was the 8 megacycle RDF-1 aboard the Electra, and you are obstinately refusing to admit it. Is there some other "existing evidence" that you've been reluctant to divulge?  (Remember, even if I'm right, you're still free to believe she flew on to Niku.)

Cam Warren
******************************************************************
From Ric

Am I sure it's an MN-5?  Well, it looks like an MN-5 and it fits the description of an MN-5 as published in the August 1937 issue of Aero Digest.  What do you think it is?

The Western Electric 20B receiver all the paperwork says was in the airplane was capable of receiving (but not homing on) that frequency.  Earhart was able to receive but not home on that frequency.

I'd be happy to put a Bendix RDF-1 aboard the airplane but I don't see any reason to think that one was there.
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:04:08 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Gallagher's Suspicion

Ted Campbell says: "Gallagher can see and knows about the Norwich City - lost crew overboard and not found. Seems this would be the first thing that popped into your head! The skeleton, what makes him think it's a woman's skeleton? He states in his reports (the bone chronology) that only the size of the shoe lead him to the conclusion it was a woman's skeleton."

Right there, that's enough to think it wasn't from the Norwich City (female sailors being extremely rare or nonexistent in 1940). To my way of thinking, it is a natural train of thought to go from a woman's shoe part to deciding the skeleton was female to thinking the most likely candidate for said woman was the only female known lost in the area, specifically AE. To my way of thinking, this requires no additional justification to think that a human mind would work that way. Any other train of thought does indeed require justification (like assuming there was a sailor from the Norwich City with a female shoe) or illogical steps.

I just don't follow you, Ted.

You use expressions like "first thing that popped into your head" and "dismiss the obvious immediately" (referring to the Norwich City) and "jumps to the AE conclusion". None of those phrases is factual. Gallagher doesn't tell us what his thought process was that day, nor does he tell us how quickly he reaches his conclusions, he only tells us his conclusions. He doesn't tell us he immediately concluded it was AE. You are concluding things about Gallagher that are not warranted. You are the one jumping to conclusions.

He might have concluded immediately that the skeleton was likely AE, or he might have thought over the evidence and sometime between finding the evidence and sending his telegram, he weighed the evidence in his mind and came to a conclusion. Either way, I see nothing unusual about it, I can see either happening to me if I was in Gallagher's shoes.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:04:59 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

Angus writes:

>If one deviates due to drift from desired course (in this case the 157/337
>line through Howland), one obviously needs to make a correction to get back
>on course. Suppose that your new LOP you discover is a 152/332 line but running
>ten miles to the east of Howland at closest approach.>>

Angus, All this is too speculative and you've made it too complicated, but if, for example, Noonan was north of Howland when his ETA was up, (or thought he was) he would have turned SE to the 157 degree COURSE corrected for the wind he believed he had. He would then watch for changes in his drift and make minor corrections to stay on track. If he gets 10 miles off track he will never know that nor will it be significant. If he gets farther off course AND is able to get a FIX (not merely another LOP) He will set a new course for his destination, whether that be Howland or whatever) NOT to get back on the original LOP. And of course that means where he THINKS his destination is. If he is wrong he will miss it and he did.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:05:54 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Wind direction, speed and sea state

Alan et al,

How difficult is it for a pilot to estimate wind direction and speed at low altitude from sea state alone (assuming waves are consistent with say a 12 or 13 knot wind - ie only occasional white horses)?

The foam on whitecaps falls forward with the wind, but it's soon overrun by the waves. This can create the impression that the foam is moving backwards, and tempt one into thinking that the wind is coming from the opposite direction.

However with Noonan's nautical experience would I be right in assuming that he would be unlikely to fall victim to this illusion even if the wind speed was rather low and few white horses and wind streaks were available to make a judgment?


Regards Angus
========================================================================

Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:21:15 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's Suspicion

Well, that brought a lot of interest to the forum. I don't think there is ANY anecdotal evidence but certainly artifacts can tell a tale depending on one's view coupled with scientific analysis of the various items. Clearly opinions will vary. I am not a scientist although I am quite familiar with the various analysis processes. I suppose I lean more to a practical estimate from folks living, working or having served in such environments to offer opinions as to how difficult or possible for two city dwellers to survive.

I had survival training for such areas but never had to use it nor am I certain how well I would have done.

I know David lives in the New Guinea area and has trekked into New Britain and might have a good handle on survival potentials. Others on the forum might have similar experiences.

I would consider what injuries they might have had as not insurmountable although infection might be. Water would have been their most immediate and important concern. Setting up methods of collecting and storing large amounts from whatever rainfall they had would have been paramount and not all that much beyond their capability. Food should not have been a problem.

My amateurish assessment tells me it should have been possible but I would hate to get into a probability argument.

If we generally conclude it was possible then duration shouldn't be too much of a consideration.

If you guys see reasons my logic off the top of my head is all wet fire away. I can see no rain at all the first X number of days as fatal and I know there was a serious drought period then but not the exact days or whether that precluded ANY rain in July 1937. Anyone have a handle on THAT? David, do YOU know?

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

New Gunea is not the Phoenix Islands.  Totally different environment.  We have some pretty good (not great but pretty good) rainfall information for Gardner during the period in question.  When Maude and Bevington et al visited the island in October 1937 the place was quite lush.  By the time the next known visitors arrived - the New Zealand Survey party in December 1938 - the island was a disaster because of lack of rain.  Normal rainfall in the Phoenix is ballpark 50 inches per year.  Rainfall at Hull (the next island over) for 1938 was about 10 inches.

In terms of expert opinion about a person's ability to survive on Gardner, we have the opinion of Harry Maude who designed and launched the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme.  When we were wondering if the stories about bones being found on Gardner were true (before we found the documentation that proves that they are true) Harry was dismissive of the idea because he felt that it would be easy for a castaway to make a living on Gardner.

Now we know two things to be true:

- somebody tried
- they eventually failed

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:52:29 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Drift sights and navigation

>>If one deviates due to drift from desired course (in this case the 157/337
>>line through Howland), one obviously needs to make a correction to get back
>>on course. Suppose that your new LOP you discover is a 152/332 line but
>> running ten miles to the east of Howland at closest approach.
>
> Angus, All this is too speculative

This is not speculation. I am giving you an arbitrary example here (above) to make it easier to understand! I am merely talking about two different methods of navigation - there's nothing speculative about that. One is by DRing along an intended course line, the other is Mark's idea of running along the current (at the latest sight) sunline advanced through the destination.

>and you've made it too complicated,

Maybe for you.

> but if, for example, Noonan was north of Howland when his ETA was up, (or 
> thought he was) he would have turned SE to the 157 degree COURSE corrected
> for the wind he believed he had. He would then watch for changes in his drift 
> and make minor corrections to stay on track.

This is just DR. Exactly what I suggested he did. I'm glad you agree Mark's method is not what FN did.

> If he gets 10 miles off track he will never
> know that nor will it be significant.

Not true that he will never know if he finds himself at Gardner. Not necessarily true that it would not be significant. You imply that a wrongly marked position for Howland of just 5 miles could result in FN missing his destination. A 10 mile error therefore, according to your argument, must indeed be significant.

> If he gets farther off course AND is able
> to get a FIX (not merely another LOP) He will set a new course for his
> destination, whether that be Howland or whatever) NOT to get back on the
> original LOP.

But we can be pretty damn sure he did not get a fix at this time.

Regards Angus
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:53:20 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Wind direction, speed and sea state

Angus wrote:

>How difficult is it for a pilot to estimate wind direction and speed at low
>altitude from sea state alone (assuming waves are consistent with say a 12 or
>13 knot wind - ie only occasional white horses)?

Angus, I can't answer your question or even speculate. Drift meters were before my time. All I can tell you is that my research in talking to old navigators who DID use drift meters was that there was a technique taught for using a drift meter over ocean. How well it worked or what the accuracy was I don't know. I've tried to find old navigation manuals but found nothing I could use to determine how successful the procedure might have been. I was told that white caps and flotsam was used.

I understood your email and I don't have any real problem with it other than what I mentioned. Noonan at the time we are talking about had the sun and at least one planet but whether weather and the presence of rough air precluded celestial is pure speculation.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:55:56 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's Suspicion

>New Gunea is not the Phoenix Islands.  Totally different environment.

True. I did not mean the areas would be the same but to the required techniques for someone roughing it in an area wherein there is no Walmart or MacDonalds. My survival training was in the Philippine jungle which is far from being similar to Niku but the basic survival requirements are the same. Find a way to collect and store water and find food all with little or no equipment.

I don't suppose any of us have actually had to survive some place austere but I thought someone who had been in an austere situation might have an idea of the practicalities.

From your reply I gather the drought period was not in 1937 so water should not have been a problem. Did I read that right?

Alan
********************************************************************
From Ric

Water is always a problem on Niku but rainfall did not fall below normal levels until 1938.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:27:42 EDT
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      RDF-1


Rick sez [in reply to Cam Warren.]

>The Western Electric 20B receiver all the paperwork
>says was in the airplane was capable of receiving (but not homing on) that
>frequency.  Earhart was able to receive but not home on that frequency.
>
>I'd be happy to put a Bendix RDF-1 aboard the airplane but I don't see any
>reason to think that one was there.

1.  A.E. did receive a signal on 7500 kc .. she said so ... and she added, "..but unable to get a min[imum] ", from the Itasca radio log.   So, what radio did she use to get 7500 & was unable to get a min  ?.. clearly indicating that she was trying to get a DF bearing...  that rules out the 20B.

2. Why is there no indication that she did not hear anyone on HF until telling the Itasca she heard them [above]?   Also Ric has explained earlier that he believed her HF receiving  antenna was wiped out at Lae and cites the puff of smoke on T.O. at Lae as likely wiping out the HF recv. ant. and also noted that some tangled antenna wire was later found on the runway .. That also rules out the W.E. 20B recvr.

3. What then was she left with that could DF on 7500 kcs ?   .. Could it have been a radio receiver that could tune 7500 kc and received its signals from a loop?   Hmm .. Something like the RDF-1 ?

RC

**********************************************************************
From Ric

>So, what radio did she use to get 7500 & was unable
>to get a min  ?.. clearly indicating that she was trying to get a DF
>bearing...  that rules out the 20B.

Why?  Why couldn't she try to get a bearing using the 20B?  The radio could be tuned to that frequency.  She should have been able to hear the "A"s sent on 7500 using the loop antenna, but she would not be able to get a bearing.

>Why is there no indication that she did not hear anyone on HF until
>telling the Itasca she heard them [above]

Because she is, for the first time, using the loop antenna.

>What then was she left with that could DF on 7500 kcs?

But she COULDN'T DF on 7500.  That's the point.  She could hear the signal because the 20B could receive on that frequency and when she switched to the loop she had a working antenna.

If Earhart had an RDF-1 why could she not get a minimum on the signals she said she received on 7500?

****************************************************************************
From Hue Miller

It has been a long time since i've been able to give much attention to these topics, but -- i thought the MN type loop accessory only tuned up to around 1200, and was an untuned broadband type.  I certainly do not think it tuned to anything like 7,500 kHz.

Regardless of whatever type of receiver the aircraft carried, it could serve as a radio-direction-finder at ANY frequency in its range, if provided with a suitable directional antenna. Manual direction finding, of course, the old way, just listening for a minimum signal point.

I actually own a type RDF-1 now, altho its probably a year before i can test this out, probably for my own interest at least, on high frequencies such as around 7,000 kHz. The appearance of the RDF-1 I have has the exact appearance, of course, as the instrument in that photo in the Long book. Do to lack of real dial markings on the unit, i understand Long's contention that AE was not able to correctly tune it to the needed frequency, but i don't really believe she would be so unprepared as to not have that jotted down. I think there must be some other explanation for failure to be able to get a successful bearing using the unit at Lae and near Howland. But i'm not yet at all favoring any one explanation. ( Just my opinion.)

-Hue Miller
************************************************************************
From Ric

Now we're getting somewhere.  You say that you have an RDF-1 and that it looks just like the box in the picture that Elgen Long says shows the cockpit of the Electra in Miami.  The photo does appear to be the cockpit of NR16020 but there is nothing in the photo to establish when or where it was taken.

If your RDF-1 looks just the box in the picture then it would seem to establish that there was an RDF-1 installed in the airplane at some time.  However, it is very apparent in the photo that the bottom portion of the box extends maybe two or three inches below the top edge of windshield and pilot's side window and should therefore be visible from the outside - and yet I can't find it in any of the many photos taken of NR16020 during the world flight.

The only way to get an argument like this one past disagreements about what so and so surely would have done is to find hard evidence that the device was there or that it was not there.  It seems to me that there is a relatively simple two-step process available to us to settle the issue.

1.  Compare a photo of Hue's RDF-1 to the box in the photo of the cockpit. If they are the same then we know what an RDF-1 looks like when installed in the Electra.

2.  Find a photo of the airplane taken after Miami which should show the box to be there.  If the box is there, then there is reason to believe there was an RDF-1 aboard the airplane at the time it disappeared.  If the box is not there, then there is reason to believe there was no RDF-1 was aboard the airplane at the time it disappeared.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:48:23 EDT
From:         Eric
Subject:      How long did Amelia survive

Ric wrote:

> When Maude and Bevington et al visited the
> island in October 1937 . . .

If AE and FN were still alive (or still on the island) in October, 1937, why didn't they make contact with Maude, Bevington, et al?

Eric, NAS North Island, San Diego, CA.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know, but I do know that their failure to do so does not mean they were not there.  The expedition was at the island for three days.  Their ship was tied off to the wreck of Norwich City and all activity was restricted to the west end of the island except for two occasions.  On the first day Bevington and a few of the Gilbertese delegates walked around the perimeter of the island.  On afternoon of the second day, Bevington gave a Maude (whose back was bothering him) a lagoon canoe tour of some of the more interesting spots he had seen during his hike the day before.  I think anyone who has been there can confirm that someone living at the Seven Site could very easily be completely unaware of any of these activities.

Later visits to the island, such as by the New Zealand survey party in late 1938/early 1939, and the first Gilbertese settlers who arrived about the same time, are more difficult to explain.  It seems like a castaway would have to be intentionally avoiding contact in order to remain unknown - but that requires only that the person be somewhat deranged and paranoid after a long period of isolation and extreme duress.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:49:41 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Wind direction, speed and sea state

I have seen and read manuals the names escape me  but are probably to be found in the Flying, Private Pilot and all the other magazines I have read over the past 40-50 years which detail wx conditions along with us coast guard publications there are standard factors to get those wind speeds from the way the waves and their tops look.
========================================================================

Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:51:46 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Sextant Box - Alternate Possibilities  (RDF-1)

>The Western Electric 20B receiver all the paperwork says was in the airplane
>was capble of receiving (but not homing on) that frequency.  Earhart was able
>to receive but not home on that frequency.

I thought just about everybody conceded the WE 20B receiver wasn't picking up anything.  Quite worthy of consideration is the claim (by Gurr and others) that a Bendix RA-1 receiver - a companion piece to the RDF-1 - had been installed in the Electra.  As for other details, I refer you once more to the paper which I sent you on this subject some time ago, and again to the final chapter of Flight Into Yesterday. (Now officially dubbed - by the publisher - "Earhart's Flight Into Yesterday".)

Otherwise, there's no sense wasting bandwidth on a "did-didn't"/ "could-couldn't" argument.

Cam Warren
************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:16:53 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: RDF-1

>Find a photo of the airplane taken after Miami which should show the box
>to be there.  If the box is there, then there is reason to believe there was
>an RDF-1 aboard the airplane at the time it disappeared.  If the box is not
>there, then there is reason to believe there was no RDF-1 was aboard the airplane
>at the time it disappeared.

A shrewd scientific deduction!  I've been looking for such a photo (post-Miami) for a decade without success. The picture in Long's book was taken by radio tech Ralph Sias - IN Miami. (There are other pix by him as well, which Elgen has shown to me). The box located above the windshield is the remote control unit, not the RDF-1 proper, but its presence is a good indication of what was installed. As Hue pointed out, the MN loop was for low frequency only. The RDF-1 loop was specially designed for high-frequency use. There are various reasons for AE failing to get a null, but operator inexperience is the most likely. Don't forget, the unit was still classified gear at the time, and the lack of photos - and/or  press descriptions - was probably intentional.

Cam Warren
*************************************************************************
From Ric

>The box located above the windshield is the remote control unit, not the
>RDF-1 proper, but its presence is a good indication of what was installed.

Then the thing that Hue has that looks just like the box in the photo must be a remote, not an RDF-1 as he stated.

>As Hue pointed out, the MN loop was for low frequency only.
>The RDF-1 loop was specially designed for high-frequency use.

A loop was installed in Burbank prior to the first world flight attempt. There are lots of photos.  If a new loop was installed in Miami then photos subsequent to that date - there are lots - should show a different loop.  Or do you contend that the loop for the RDF-1 looked externally identical to the MN-5 loop?  If so, can you provide a photo of the RDF-1 compatible loop to prove it? 

We're finally talking about things that can be objectively determined.

LTM,
Ric
***********************************************************************
From Ted Campbell

If we could get a picture of what the RDF-1 box looked like (on the TIGHAR Earhart web page I guess) then we all could be looking for conformation - many hands make for short work!

Ted Campbell
***************************************************************************
From Hue Miller

> The RDF-1 loop was specially designed for high-frequency use.

I would just add this tiny point: for both MF and HF use!

>There are  various reasons for AE failing to get a null, but operator
>inexperience  is the most likely.

I don't really jump to that conclusion quite yet. After all, don't we know that AE&FN had successfully used DF equipment previously?  My thinking is along the lines of limitations of the equipment (at those frequency ranges) and unavoidable operational difficulties with the HF-DF concept.

>Don't forget, the unit was still classified gear
> at the time, and the lack of photos - and/or  press descriptions - was
> probably intentional.
> Cam Warren

But-there was the Miami photo, used in Long's book, right? Is there any evidence the RDF-1 was "classified"? ( I don't recall. ) I am thinking at that date, late 1930s, HF-DF was not a secret any more but a technique that was out there to be exploited variously by various contenders, just as were typical electronic circuits and ideas. Are you sure the security classification of the RDF-1 was not just "Restricted", same as the military rated the  Bendix RA-1 and other communications equipment bought by both commercial and military buyers?

Hue
*********************************************************************
From Ric

If Mr. Long did not get the photo from a declassified government archival source it's a pretty strong argument that the device was not classified.  We really need a photo of Hue's box that looks just like the box in the photo.  That's how you identify stuff.  You compare a known object to the unknown object.

We also really need to know what kind of loop was used with the RDF-1/ RA-1. If there are no technical drawings or photos available we should be able to find a photo of some airplane that was known to have an RDF-1 or RA-1 aboard and see what it's loop looks like.

There should be no need to speculate about this.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:17:25 EDT
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Drift sights

Does anyone know if Pan Am used drift meters during their normal cross water navigation flights?  If so I would think that FN had experience in using one.

Ted Campbell
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:40:19 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Wind direction, speed and sea state

I have a question which Alan or others can answer. When I was a boy during WW II I witnessed 8th Air Force B-17s bomb a target in my hometown (Ghent, in Belgium). Before dropping their bombs lead planes dropped what was said to be "rocket bombs". In fact I suspect this were smoke markers, to enable bombardiers to compute drift over the target into their Norden bombsights. My question is: were these the drift markers we are talking about here or were they something different? Alan ?
**********************************************************************
From Ric

My Dad was a lead pilot in B-17s (447th Bomb Group, 708 Squadron) and I cut my teeth on stories of "how it really was".  I've never heard anything about dropping smoke markers but Dad was flying late in the war and Herman may be talking about a technique that was later abandoned.  In any event, I would be surprised if the aluminum powder markers dropped for drift assessment in the 1930s were nothing like any smoke bombs used during WWII.

By the way, if you'd like to see photos of my old man and his crew and one of their ships just go to http://www.447bg.com and click on Search 447bg.com in the menu and then type in Gillespie.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:45:40 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Wind direction, speed and sea state

Carl Peltzer wrote:

> I have seen and read manuals the names escape me  but are probably to be
> found in the Flying, Private Pilot and all the other magazines I have read
> over the past 40-50 years which detail wx conditions along with us coast guard
> publications there are standard factors to get those wind speeds from the way
> the waves and their tops look.

There's no shortage of information on the relationship between wave height, number of whitecaps, wind streaks etc and what the corresponding wind speed is and I have no doubts that that information was available to FN. The wind direction is at 90 deg to the wave crests and the 180 degree ambiguity resolved from wind streaks and foam movement.

What I am trying to understand relates to a very particular scenario however, viz 12 - 13 knot winds. That wind speed is easy to gauge to within a few knots as the sea state is easily observable at low altitude if visibility is good. When the whitecaps are few and far between the wind direction is much less easy to estimate. I think however, for someone with nautical navigation experience, at low wind speeds, where the wind vector has no enormous influence on course in any case, sea state may have been just as useful in estimating wind vector as drift sights, bearing in mind the difficulty of using the rather primitive type of sight FN had available.

On a separate topic - anyone know if the Beech model 18 is good or bad for Dutch roll?

Regards Angus.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I have maybe a couple dozen hours in Twin Beeches and I don't recall any tendency to exhibit Dutch roll.  It's my understanding that Dutch roll is a phenomenon that is almost unique to jets.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:52:58 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      RA-1

The following is a report on an interview with Malcolm Taylor concerning his history at Bendix spanning 37 years from June 1936 to his retirement in June of 1973. The interview took place on November 13, 2001 at Malcolm and Elizabeth Taylor's home at 610 Valley Lane, Towson, Maryland, 21286. The interviewers were Jack Shagena, Al Moeller and Charles Smearman, previous coworkers with Malcolm.

In the spring of 1937, Vincent Bendix gathered together Radio Research, Dayton Instrument Company and some other companies into the Bendix Radio Corporation, a subsidiary of the Bendix Aviation Corporation. Bendix moved the conglomerate,  except for the Radio Research office to Chicago in a building near the loop where Malcolm worked with about ten other engineers. In Chicago, Malcolm resided in a small, modest south Chicago Hotel that had previously been occupied by Al Capone and his gang. There he started work designing the coils for the superheterodyne six-band receiver prototype which was used by Amelia Earhart during her fatal 1937 flight . While on this project he was assisted by Karl Finsder, a very  knowledgeable radio technician. By 1938 this radio became the RA-1 with models RA 1B, RA 1I and RA 1J with remote control dynamometer and was perfected through shock and exposure testing. The six bands covered the range from 0.15 to 15.0 MHz. They built about 100 units for US Navy aircraft installation and also some units for the Argentine Navy. The RA 1 was later farmed out to the Sparks Worthington Company of Jackson, Michigan, a former producer of home radio receivers. Malcolm donated a copy of the RA 1 Technical Handbook to the Bendix Radio Foundation for the museum archives at 1415 Key Highway in Baltimore, MD.

Seems fairly conclusive!

Regards Angus

**************************************************************************
From Ric

It's fairly conclusive that in 2001 Taylor claimed that Earhart used the prototype.  This is an anecdotal recollection.  It may be true.  It may not be true.
========================================================================

Date:         Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:02:13 EDT
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Wind direction, speed and sea state

My Dad flew B-24's in the 448th BG, 714 SQ, stationed at Seething outside Norwich. His tour began in June 1944 and I remember him telling me about the Normandy invasion forces sending up smoke to identify the target. The tragedy was that the smoke drifted back over friendly lines and a lot of Americans were killed. I believe the mission was Guyancourt, France. That's a great picture of your dad and his crew. Have a great weekend.

Mike Haddock #2438
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:54:41 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: RDF-1

Ric - You really want to string this discussion along as far as possible, apparently, without accepting ANY information I've already given you?

Ric wrote:

>If Mr. Long did not get the photo from a declassified government archival
>source it's a pretty strong argument that the device was not classified.
>
>We really need a photo of Hue's box that looks just like the box in the
>photo.  That's how you identify stuff.  You compare a known object to the
> unknown object.
>
>We also really need to know what kind of loop was used with the RDF-1/ RA-1.
>If there are no technical drawings or photos available we should be able to
>find a photo of some airplane that was known to have an RDF-1 or RA-1 aboard
>and see what it's loop looks like.
>
>There should be no need to speculate about this.

There IS "no need to speculate".  I'm looking at the "technical drawings".

Sias was obviously allowed access to the Electra's cockpit during the DF replacement in Miami. I don't imagine anybody knew - at the time - that he took the photo.  During WW2, I climbed aboard an un-guarded B29 on a storage runway at Guam and looked over the whole plane from stem to stern., unchallenged.  Of course I could have been shot as a spy, but managed to get away with it.  (So much for "security".)  Long got the photo from Sias' widow, who found it in her late husband's files. Quite possibly that was the first time it saw the light of day. Especially if he had been cautioned - at the time - not to talk about (or photograph) anything in the plane.

As for Hue's "box", upon reflection I'd agree that it is/was the business end of the RDF-1; i.e., the coupler that goes between loop and comm. receiver.

The loop itself looks a lot like many LF ones, nothing to identify it as an LF/MF/DF one, but internally it had the necessary circuitry for that purpose.

The diagram - a copy of which I'm sure I sent to you some time ago, is of an RDF-1-A, for installation in a PBY. (The Navy bought 150 units). For that model, the coupler was physically attached to the loop itself. I assume the Model RDF-1-B had the coupler separate, for alternate mounting, as in the Electra. Again, as I've said all along, the diagrams CANNOT be found in any government archival records currently available, and I've spent a lot of time looking in the Washington, DC area and elsewhere. Hue Miller is responsible for digging up an "oops, we forgot to burn this!" file.

Cam Warren
***********************************************************************
From Ric

You've made your case shakier than it already was.  It is apparently NOT the case that Sias gave Long the photo and told him that it is a photo of Earhart's cockpit that he took while the plane was in Miami.  All we actually know about the photo is that Sias' widow found it in her late husband's files.  We don't know who took it and we don't know where or when it was taken.  All we know is that Sias had it.

>As for Hue's "box", upon reflection I'd agree that it is/was the
>business end of the RDF-1; i.e., the coupler that goes between loop and
>comm. receiver.

Yesterday it was a remote.  Today it's a coupler.  I think we need a photo from Hue and a clear identification from him as to what it is that he has that looks just like the box in the photo.

>The diagram - a copy of which I'm sure I sent to you some time ago, is
>of an RDF-1-A, for installation in a PBY. (The Navy bought 150 units).

The loop antennas mounted over the cockpits of PBY-1, PBY-2, PBY-3, and PBY-4 models look just like Earhart's loop before and after Miami - which supports your contention that the HF loop was not externally different from the MN-5 loop.

We're left with a photo of unknown origin that is alleged to be a photo of some component of an RA-1/RDF-1 installed in Earhart's airplane at some time.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:02:43 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      addresses on forum

Maybe home addresses shouldn't be posted on the forum.  Especially when one of the residents is named "Elizabeth Taylor."  Just a thought.

By the way Ric, I think you inherited your Dad's jawline.
--
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
*************************************************************
From Ric

I don't post any address that isn't submitted for posting - but I don't recall posting Liz's.

Thanks for the compliment.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:14:22 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: RA-1

Ric wrote:

> It's fairly conclusive that in 2001 Taylor claimed that Earhart used the
> prototype.  This is an anecdotal recollection.  It may be true.  It may
> not be true.

Aw C'mon Ric,

This is the guy who actually worked on the prototype talking to other Bendix employees. Would he really claim that if it wasn't true? He could easily be caught out by fellow employees including any of  the other ten engineers working on the project who were still alive - which would be pretty embarrassing. Not only that but he might suppose that there were still many other people alive who remembered what was installed in such a famous aviator's plane (yes OK - he'd be wrong!) OK so he could have been genuinely mistaken but it is difficult to understand how as he was someone at the heart of the project and would be very likely to remember its association - or not -with such a famous figure. I wonder if he'd read any of the Earhart books?

Regards Angus.
************************************************************
From Ric

About once a month I have to hammer this point.  It is probably the most fundamental principle that distinguished the Earhart Project from all other investigations of the mystery.

Anecdotal recollections are not hard evidence - no matter whose anecdotal recollections they are.  People remember things wrong.  I do it.  You do it. Everybody does it. Rarely do people who are interviewed on historical matters intentionally lie or mislead, but their recollections are frequently skewed by later events.  I could tell you a hundred stories about educated, responsible, highly-respected people who "were there" and have very clear memories of things that never happened.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:17:31 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: RA-1

Ric wrote:

>It's fairly conclusive that in 2001 Taylor claimed that Earhart used the
>prototype.  This is an anecdotal recollection.  It may be true.  It may not be
>true.

I'm confused. Sorry. Is this piece saying that the RA-1 used by AE was the RDF-1 Cam is talking about? I read it as though the write up was confirming the radio was an RA-1 and NOT the RDF-1.

In 1950 I worked for Bendix in Baltimore building HF radios. I haven't the slightest clue what they were or anything about them. I assembled them only. My electronic expertise does not go much beyond off on switches.

Alan
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I don't blame you for being confused.  Hue says he has some component of an RDF-1 that looks just like the box in the photo that Cam says shows an RA-1 but Taylor says it was the prototype that was in Earhart's plane.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:18:09 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: RA-1

I believe the manufacturer referred to as Sparks Worthington in this post, is actually Sparks-Witherington.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:20:10 EDT
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Re: RDF-1

I have to admit, when you two giants get into it ( Cam and Ric) and love this forum. Thank you.
************************************************
From Ric

I'm not quite 5 foot 10.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:23:00 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Off topic - WWII

How strange...my uncle was a copilot in the 446th Bomb Group, 707 Squadron (B- 24's).  Lost in action 03-08-44 in the second daylight raid over Berlin.

ltm
jon
***************************************************************
From Ric

Dad was lucky.
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:24:30 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Wind direction, speed and sea state

Herman De Wulf wrote:

>I have a question which Alan or others can answer. When I was a boy during 
>WW II I witnessed 8th Air Force B-17s bomb a target in my hometown (Ghent

Herman the last thing I want to talk about is my country bombing yours. <G>

Seriously, I can't answer your question. My navigator used pretty sophisticated equipment except when we practiced visual bombing. Then the drift was determined by finding smoke rising from a building or grass fire or something of that nature. It was never necessary to create the smoke nor did we have the capability.

Sorry about your hometown.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:25:40 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Wind direction, speed and sea state

Ric wrote;

>It's my understanding that Dutch roll is a
>phenomenon that is almost unique to jets

A quick check of the Internet found no recips. There may be some but it does seem related to jets predominately.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:26:52 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Off topic- Dutch roll

Dutch roll

http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/projekte/hlr-projects/1997-1999/cd/daten/pdf/t784aab.pdf

Angus, check out this URL for a mathematical analysis of Dutch roll. Of no great value but you might find it fun.

Alan
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:02:13 EDT
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Re: RA-1

Ric said:

> I could tell you a hundred stories about educated, responsible, highly-respected
> people who "were there" and have very clear memories of things that never
> happened.

For a great example, see
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i5/murphy/murphy0.html

It tells about the origins of Murphy's Law with the wildly differing recollections of the participants.  It's also a fascinating story. (Yes, Virginia, there really was a Murphy).

LTM

Art
****************************************************************************

From Dave in Fremont:

A good analogy would be the RCA dog "Nipper" and a Victrola (sp?) on the cover of The Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"...

Tons of people swear it's there... Until you show them the cover.

It never was... Go look for yourself.

LTM,
Dave
***********************************************************************
From Angus

>I could tell you a hundred stories about educated, responsible, highly-respected
> people who "were there" and have very clear memories of things that never
> happened.

I don't doubt this for a moment - and keeping the nature of  evidence in mind is essential to estimating its importance. That doesn't mean anecdotal evidence should be disregarded and only contemporary documented evidence admitted. It just means that contemporary documented evidence is far higher up the hierarchy of evidence in conflict situations. Taylor's account may only slightly advance the argument for the dual receiver theory but it is not valueless. The anecdotal evidence of an aircraft on Niku is not relegated to the bin because it is anecdotal - it is up there on the TIGHAR website.

If anecdotal evidence is good supporting evidence for the TIGHAR hypothesis, why is it not good supporting evidence for the Bendix receiver hypothesis?

Regards Angus.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

>Taylor's account may only slightly advance the argument for the
>dual receiver theory but it is not valueless.

What happened to "Seems fairly conclusive!"

Anecdotes are not valueless.  They invite a search for hard evidence to support them.  When the search comes up dry - as in the many anecdotes that tell or Earhart's capture - they stand only as stories awaiting some reason to regard them as something other than folklore.  When the search produces hard evidence - as in the tales of aircraft wreckage seen at Niku that are supported by photographic evidence of aluminum on the reef and the recovery of airplane parts from the village - the anecdotes deserve more attention but it's still the hard evidence that establishes the facts.

In the case of the Taylor anecdote about a prototype Bendix receiver in Earhart's airplane there is nothing to support it but other anecdotes and an undated photo that is alleged to show some component of an RDF-1.  Since his original claim that he has a box that looks just like the box in the photo, the silence from Hue Miller has been deafening.  Maybe he's just busy.

************************************************************************
From Alan

Ric said:

>RDF-1 that looks just like the box in the photo that Cam says shows an RA-1
>but Taylor says it was the prototype that was in Earhart's plane.

OK, that's clear as mud. One more question and I'm off the radio thread. I'm out of my pay grade there.

Whether the radio is an RA-1 or RDF-1, what is the significance to the Earhart mystery?

Alan
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's the significance.  If Earhart was secretly carrying some piece of "classified" radio gear it implies a conspiratorial, covert, government-related aspect to the World Flight that is entirely absent from everything else we know about the endeavor.  One of the reasons I have such a hard time buying the speculation is that it is so out of character for Earhart and Putnam.  To be sure, they were often very secretive about their plans and Earhart was not above making up stories to cover for her own failings, but everything she did had a commercial motive.  Her product endorsements - from autopilots to malted milk balls - were always up-front and hyped.
**************************************************************************
From Cam Warren

>We're left with a photo of unknown origin that is alleged to be a photo of
>some component of an RA-1/RDF-1 installed in Earhart's airplane at some time.

No, actually the more perceptive of Forum followers will realize we're left with the impression of a moderator who is being ridiculously stubborn in an attempt to protect a fading franchise. And I, of course, say so with all due humility and deference to a man of great accomplishment in the field of Historic Aircraft Recovery.

LTM

Cam Warren
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know what more I can do.  I've repeatedly said that if you can produce hard evidence that the Bendix receiver was there I'll be happy to acknowledge it.  I don't think the personal attacks advance your case and if you keep it up I'll have to shut you up.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:09:36 EDT
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Off topic - Dutch roll

Dutch roll is a phenomenon that only seems to be a part of the faster jets when they came upon us in 1940s:  a combination of long, thin wings, using ailerons on the trailing edge of the wing along with some opposite twist in the structure, part of the reason that spoilers are used more often today. I do not believe it was a factor of the slower aircraft during the time we are interested in and had little to do with difficulties in navigation. 

************************************************************
From Greg

I am not sure how this helps find the lady after whom my daughter is named but: Dutch roll can occur in many designs, including current production low speed straight winged transport aircraft with propellers and current airliners. Perhaps it is best known as a problem from the experiences of early jet airliners, until it became better understood by the average pilot. This is logical as Dutch roll is exacerbated by swept wings and relative changes in stability at high altitudes, which became more frequently used with jet airliners. To this day some aircraft have prohibitions on flight or lower maximum certified altitudes for flight when the yaw damper is unserviceable. That is about the sum of my knowledge on this subject. Lets just find Amelia and leave Dutch Roll to the test pilots.

Regards,

Greg
Australia

*******************************************************************

From Angus

> A quick check of the Internet found no recips. There may be some but it does
> seem related to jets predominately.

That's not cos they're jets. Its cos they have swept wings. The swept wings increase lateral stability but upset the balance between lateral and yaw stability. (One reason why they have such huge tail fins to try to redress the balance).

Low wing aircraft often have high dihedral for ground clearance and this also tends to improve lateral stability. Aircraft with high dihedral also suffer from Dutch roll.

The Electra doesn't seem to have much dihedral though - although the tail fin area doesn't seem vast either. Dutch roll is worse too at high altitude (where jets are often to be found). Perhaps we can safely conclude that it wasn't an issue when taking drift sights at 1000' in the Electra.

Regards Angus

************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  Let's safely conclude that and move on.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:21:14 EDT
From:         Daryll
Subject:      RDF-1 loop

Hue Miller wrote:

>The RDF-1 loop was specially designed for high-frequency use. I would
>just add this tiny point: for both MF and HF use!

We know that communication antennas have a certain length for the intended frequencies that they are supposed to receive. Longer (?) the length the lower (?) the frequencies. Does loop antennas have a similar formula for diameter?

Pictures of Hooven's ADF loop are shown under a streamlined bubble. Hooven's ADF was meant to receive the frequencies that were currently being used for navigation ie 500 kcs, isn't that correct? It's apparent that Hooven's configuration was smaller than the bigger exposed loop that went on the trip.

If loop diameter is an indication of frequency range then there seems to be an inversely proportional relationship to loop diameter and frequency range compared to the communications antenna.

>My thinking is along the lines of limitations of the equipment (at
>those frequency ranges) and unavoidable operational difficulties with
>the HF-DF concept.

The characteristics of High Freq radio waves is something we can't seem to get around in using them for navigation.  Their characteristics and limitations seem to have been known because the CG warned AE about using HF for navigation. At the same time Safford said the experimental HFDF on Howland, which he said was the same as AE had in her plane, came from a Navy patrol plane at Pearl. The question becomes are we dealing with navigation or equipment the Navy was using for intelligence gathering?

>Are you sure the security classification of the RDF-1 was not just
>"Restricted", same as the military rated the Bendix RA-1 and other
>communications equipment bought by both commercial and military buyers?

Capt. Zacharias related a story about the Army and Navy not being on the same page as far as security was concerned. The Army participated in an air-show in Detroit on July 26, 1935. An Army plane had a radio direction finder on display in the cockpit of one of their planes. The same DF was high on the Navy's classified list of secret devices. It was noticed that a Japanese person was taking notes and showed particular interest in the DF. The Navy found out what the Army was displaying and had them remove it from the airplane. The next day Capt. Sakurai of the Japanese Naval Purchasing Office in New York arrived by plane. He became verbally abusive to the guard who was guarding the plane when the instrument couldn't be found.

Ric wrote:

>If Mr. Long did not get the photo from a declassified government
>archival source it's a pretty strong argument that the device was not
>classified.

If you didn't put a "SECRET" "CLASSIFIED" placard on the radio who would know it's classification? I've heard of people caring large amounts of money to a bank for deposit in a paper bag to avoid attracting attention to themselves.

Angus wrote:

>The following is a report on an interview with Malcolm Taylor concerning
>his history at Bendix spanning 37 years from June 1936 to his retirement
>in June of 1973.

Ric wrote:

>It's fairly conclusive that in 2001 Taylor claimed that Earhart used the
>prototype. This is an anecdotal recollection. It may be true. It may not
>be true.

It's anecdotal but at the same time isn't that direct testimony?

Daryll
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not sure what you mean by "direct testimony".  It's not second hand, if that's what you mean.  There is no hierarchy of credibility in anecdotal recollections.  A story is a story until it's corroborated with hard evidence, no matter who is telling it.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:27:45 EDT
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      PAA navigation

In response to Ted Campbell's question, the following is extracted from an article titled, "Flying the Pacific by Radio", by an anonymous author, which appeared in the April, 1936, issue of the periodical Electronics:

"All manner of devices are provided in the Clipper planes to aid in position finding. The most self-sufficient means is the sextant, but even under favorable conditions a flight made solely by sextant would be sufficiently hazardous to prevent a regular and safe service. In flying (from Oahu) to an objective like Midway Island, an error of only 10 miles in 1,400, or less than half of one degree in bearing, may mean the plane is lost. Even under perfect conditions this represents an almost infinitesimal target.

"The Pan American (Adcock) direction finder equipment situated at the ground stations in (Alameda) California, Hawaii, Midway, Wake Island, Guam, and Manila has a range of 1,800 miles, making possible complete coverage of a course 3,600 miles long. The stations receive an ordinary c.w. signal from the plane in flight, determine the direction from which the signal is coming, and radio the bearing to the plane. The pilot, on receiving two such bearings from two separate direction finders, can plot the bearings on a map in the cockpit. The intersection of the two lines gives the position of the plane at the time the bearing was taken. The bearings are also received by all ground stations involved, and separate maps of the flight are kept by each station. The accuracy of bearings even at 1,000 miles is better than 1.5 degrees. The procedure is usually repeated at a stated interval of from 10 to 25 minutes. In a typical flight from California to Hawaii, 48 such bearings are taken.

"The ground stations operate on 3082.5 kc (99 meters), 5165 kc (58 meters), and 8220 kc (36.5 meters) for communication, and on 1638 kc (183 meters) for direction finding bearings. The frequencies are suitable for low-power work (input to the plane transmitters does not exceed 70 watts) over long distances. The power of the ground station transmitters varies. For local service and weather reporting, 15 watts is used.  There are four other sizes, 100, 200, 350, and 900 watts, the latter used on the long haul work (1,000 miles or more). Crystal control is used at Alameda, all others employ the master-oscillator, power-amplifier (MOPA) type. Half-wavelength doublet antennas are used.

"All of the system is code operated. Many tests showed conclusively that telephone communication could not be depended on over the long distances and severe conditions of static encountered.

"The standard receiver used in the planes weighs 6 pounds, has seven plug-in coils, in an untuned r-f, regenerative detector, two-stage audio circuit, and a frequency range from 250 kc to 25 mc. The transmitters are of the MOPA type and operate from a dynamotor having maximum voltage of 600 providing power input of 35 watts. Reduction to 450 volts reduced the power input to 18 watts, sufficient for all purposes except long-distance work on the lower frequencies. The plane transmitter has a frequency range from 250 kc to 8,500 kc. At low frequencies the antenna power is only 5 watts, so a push-pull power amplifier operated on 600 volts is used to increase the input power to 70 watts maximum. Trailing antennas are used in the smaller ships but on the Clippers both fixed and trailing antennas are available so that the radio can be used when the ship is on the water.

"The advantage of the Adcock system over the loop-type d-f is that the loop system does not eliminate the horizontally-polarized components of the wave, giving widely varying bearings as the polarization changes, especially at sunrise, sunset, and during night hours. The Adcock system uses four crossed and balanced dipole antennas in place of the loop, which do not pick up any of the horizontally-polarized energy. The vertical energy which remains gives the bearing with great accuracy."

For me, this article is specific documentation that supports Ric's frequent assertion that by 1935, trans-Pacific flight and navigation technology were well-established and quite sophisticated. I am also struck by how well it was established by that time that voice communication was unreliable (as during the subsequent Merrill-Lambie Daily Express trans-Atlantic flights).

Dan Brown, #2408
************************************************************************
From Ric

Very interesting.  Thanks Dan.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:28:19 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: RA-1

Mike Everette wrote:

>>I believe the manufacturer referred to as Sparks Worthington in this post,
>>is actually Sparks-Witherington.

Perhaps, but I recall that the former was correct.

Cam Warren
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:36:02 EDT
From:         Brian
Subject:      island resources

Had AE & FN survived on Niku...what resources would they have had accessible to them??? (ie... water, vegetables, fish...)


Brian

The Nation of Lurkers
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Water - if it rained and if they had some way to catch and store the rain.
Vegetables - some coconuts.  That's about it unless some of the other stuff that grows on the island naturally is edible (I've never tried.)
Fish - lots, both in the lagoon and on the reef-flat.  Some are toxic if eaten at the wrong time of year.
Shellfish - clams, crabs, and lobsters.
Birds - plenty of easy-to-catch seabirds that probably taste really nasty and fishy.
Turtle - best caught when coming ashore to lay eggs.  The eggs are good too.
Rats - if you're that hungry.
Ice cream - sorry.  No ice cream.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:37:56 EDT
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Off -topic Dutch roll

For what it's worth, "Dutch Roll" is oscillation about the longitudinal axis, (a sort of "wallowing" back & forth) that is usually caused by uncontrolled intermittent airflow on the top wing surface from the roots of the wings toward the tips.  Swept wings greatly increase the chance of this happening. High speeds also increase the chance of occurrence.  A "laminar flow" airfoil section also seems to induce this. Further, the absence of large nacelles and propeller wash also increase the chances of this happening, so the phenomenon is almost exclusively found in jet aircraft with swept wings, especially those with the engines buried in the fuselage or wing root, or suspended under the wings in pods.  (The B-47 was notorious for this.)   The strips of metal on top of the wings of the MIG 15 and it's developments, ("wing fences"),  were installed to limit this characteristic to enhance weapons aiming stability.  The Lockheed Model 10, a propeller driven straight (NON-laminar flow) wing aircraft with substantial engine installations on the wings, and traveling at the altitudes and speeds we suppose Ms. Earhart was using on the leg of their flight in question, would be highly unlikely to exhibit dutch roll.  Since it was used for commercial air transport, any tendency for this design or it's developments to do so should be widely reported, as this design was the basis for thousands of naval patrol craft in WW II, (Hudson, Harpoon, Ventura, etc.).

LTM (who prefers Swiss Cake rolls)
Richard Young
******************************************************************
From Ric

End of thread.
========================================================================

Date:         Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:04:40 EDT
From:         Cam Warrent
Subject:      Re: RA-1

Ric -

I have no desire or intention of making personal attacks on anyone, but I did suggest you were being unnecessarily stubborn in your effort to brush aside what is legitimate information. Maybe your mind is on other things, but you keep implying that you've never heard of the HF/DF theory before, despite my providing you with a good deal of solid information on the subject.

Case in point:

You wrote:

>Here's the significance.  If Earhart was secretly carrying some piece of
>"classified" radio gear it implies a conspiratorial, covert, government related
>aspect to the World Flight that is entirely absent from everything else we know
>about the endeavor.  One of the reasons I have such a hard time buying the
>speculation is that it is so out of character for Earhart and Putnam.

I've been under the impression that you were an intelligent, perceptive individual, but then you come up with statements like the above. (Makes us wonder how much you really do "know about the endeavor".) I don't believe in conspiracy theories, never have, never will.  It's common knowledge Putnam (and to some degree, Amelia herself) was a big time promoter. So was Vince Bendix, who built HF/DF equipment, and had - and sought more - government contracts. It's logical that the Putnams and Bendix had similar goals, and also that the latter would be glad to help his friend, Amelia.  Making some sort of mutually beneficial deal would be very much in character for all three.  I'm surprised you can't see that.

As to why her use of a HF/DF system wasn't "hyped",  that too should be obvious. Bendix, if he was indeed the source, was skating on thin ice, passing out restricted equipment. Had the flight been successful, I'm sure much credit would have been given to his direction finding equipment.  Amelia herself had gotten rather superstitious of trumpeting her activities, until the deed was done. Makes sense to me. Don't toot your horn until you've got some music to play.

Cam Warren
*************************************************************************
From Ric

In case anyone has any doubts, I am very familiar with the theory that Earhart had an HF/DF receiver with her.  I just haven't yet seen any evidence to support it.

If I understand you correctly, you think that Vince Bendix gave AE this new hi-tech classified piece of equipment to use on the QT hoping that she would make good use of it and then, only after the successful completion of the flight, she would say, "Guess what folks.  My World Flight was completed with the help of a wonderful new high frequency direction finder that Mr. Bendix illegally gave me to use." To which the  government would respond, "Vince, you're a real card.  What a swell stunt.  You're just the sort of guy to whom we like to award contracts for classified equipment."  Works for me.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:05:37 EDT
From:         Jackie
Subject:      Re: RA-1

No offense guys, but this DF stuff is gettin awful boring for those of us who don't know or care about such things.    Just my thoughts..

Jackie

**********************************************************
From Bob Lee

On the subject of the RA-1 and it's possible inclusion on the endeavor. Why would someone trust such a product to the hands of someone who possesses so little in the way of radio skills? Add to that the possibility of government reprisal for the 'loan' and the potential for a catastrophe -- I don't see the upside at all.

Bob
*********************************************************
From Cam Warren

Okay Ric. I get your point, and so happy it "works for [you]".

And I remind myself about "lead[ing] a horse to water . . ." (especially difficult to get him to drink if the water is not his favorite bottle variety).

Cam Warren
*******************************************************
From Ted Campbell

Ric/Cam Warren,

Cam, I think you are way out of line here.  I will admit that Ric gets very emotional from time to time regarding the "scientific" approach to archeological research (somewhat a contradiction of terms - how much science was involved in matters dealing with archaeological time and places?  Did cave man develop ink or did he just pick up something that made lines?) but his steadfastness to the principals of "proof" is valid and shouldn't be diminished.

From time to time I very much appreciate your fencing with Ric on various matters but to be truthful I get a little tired of your picking on the minutiae rather then trying to get your ideas accepted through valid "scientific" arguments and/or physical proof of your "statements of fact."

Finally, I am personally offended by your statement that "the more perceptive of Forum followers will realize we're left with the impression of a moderator who is being ridiculously stubborn in an attempt to protect a fading franchise."  I recently sent in my donation to TIGHAR to further the search for AE and I don't recall an alternative association (aka Cam Warren) offering a competitive alliance - where are your research papers published, where is your planned expedition schedule published, where can I find peer reviews of your hypotheses and theories?  Can I also join "Cam Warren Enterprises" or is it just someone surfing the Internet looking for clues or flaws in someone else's endeavors?

Cam, "show me the money" and I may just join your crusade!

Ted Campbell
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:12:33 EDT
From:         Eric
Subject:      Anecdotal Evidence

Ric wrote:

> That doesn't mean anecdotal evidence should be disregarded
> and only contemporary documented evidence admitted.

A point well taken.  For almost 100 years, the only information we had on the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876 was from the statements given months and years later by the Native Americans (i.e. Indians) who participated in that action.  Then, in the 1980's a scientifically-conducted examination of the battlefield was made.  Using modern forensic technology on the artifacts recovered, it was possible to determine how the battle had been fought.  And the anecdotal accounts provided by the Native Americans 100 years or so earlier proved to be generally accurate.

Eric, NAS North Island, San Diego, CA.
**********************************************************************
From Ric

I don't think I wrote that.

The experience of the Little Big Horn doesn't demonstrate anything except that sometimes anecdotal recollections are correct.  The trouble is, there's no way of telling which ones are correct and which ones aren't without hard evidence.
========================================================================

Date:         Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:14:13 EDT
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Hue Miller's reply

Your most recent posting requires comment.

You refer to an undated Eitel-Mcullough article by John Reinartz as the basis for some harmonic suppression calculations you have performed.  Although the disjoint nature of your remarks makes it difficult to follow your logic, it appears that you are once again relying on "factoids" and generalities instead of actual analysis.   Perhaps the following points will be instructive:

(1).   You quote a passage from the Reinartz paper mentioning the difficulty that amateur transmitters had in meeting the FCC rule circa 1947, in "regard to the reduction of radiation of harmonic frequencies to not less than 40 db below the fundamental frequency ...".   Apparently, you believe that the Western Electric 13C transmitter was subject to the 1947 rules.   That transmitter was developed in the early 1930s, and was in commercial airline service in the United States by 1936.   If it is your position that there was an FCC rule in effect in 1936/1937 specifying required quantitative reductions in harmonic radiation, then please cite the relevant rule.

(2)    You mention a paper by Labus and Roder, which appeared in the Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers in 1931, and which Reinartz apparently cited in his paper.   The full title of the the Labus and Roder paper, by the way, is "The Suppression of Radio-Frequency Harmonics in Transmitters".   That paper, which you evidently have not read, appeared in the June 1931 issue of the Proceedings and presents a general analysis of some of the factors associated with suppressing harmonic radiation.  One of the factors not treated in the paper is central to the question of whether Betty could have heard Amelia on a harmonic.   Labus and Roder state ""...it may happen that the frequency of one of the generated harmonics coincides with one of the natural harmonics of the antenna.  In this case an exceedingly strong radiation for that harmonic will occur."   Clearly, the notion of "coincides with" can be extended, without loss of rigor, to include "is in the neighborhood of".    Since the authors use a Thevenin circuit approach to the problem, the analysis reduces essentially to finding the ratio of current in the amplifier plate load inductance to the current in the antenna as a function of frequency and the values of the impedance components in the output circuit.

(3)   You quote some harmonic suppression results, without stating whether you calculated those results or just lifted them from the Labus/Roder paper.  You seem to believe that the result depends only upon the Q of the antenna.  But if you had read the Labus/Roder paper, you would know that the result depends on two other factors, one of which is a simple function of the harmonic ordinal.  The other factor is the current ratio mentioned in (2) above.   If you examine the equations in the paper, you will see that the result is critically dependent upon the unique frequency dependent impedance characteristics of the antenna in question.  Unless the results you cite were computed specifically for the antenna on NR16020, then they are useless for deciding how much harmonic suppression occurred in the output circuit of the WE 13C on NR16020.

Regarding the selectivity of the output circuit, you continue to contend that the antenna effectively "presents ANOTHER" (emphasis mine) pole of selectivity. Perhaps I didn't make this point clear enough in my previous response, but the antenna was the ONLY (emphasis mine) selective element in the output circuit. You state, correctly, that if the antenna impedance, which varies with frequency, does not reasonably match the transmitter impedance, actual radiated power is greatly reduced.   But "greatly reduced" is not the same as "eliminated". You are ignoring  the fact that even a small current in the antenna branch could generate a significant radiated field if the signal frequency was close to a natural harmonic frequency of the antenna.  You also are ignoring the facts that the antenna gain at harmonic frequencies was higher than at the fundamental frequencies, and that ionospheric propagation loss was much less than at the fundamental frequencies.   Combining these factors yields a small, but non-zero, probability that a detectable harmonic signal could have reached Betty's radio.

Finally, regarding the matter of whether Betty's radio drifted in frequency, you rely on "anecdotal submissions" indicating that "old timers" agree with you. The essence your previous argument on this point was that Betty is not to be believed, because it was impossible for her receiver not to have drifted.   I don't wish to put too fine a point on this, but unless you have documented evidence collected by someone who was actually there with Betty, it doesn't matter what anecdotal evidence you have.  Lest you think I m being disrespectful to "old timers",  I happen to be one.  I was designing and building my own shortwave receivers before you were born.

LTM, who says that factoids, generalities, and anecdotes are not substitutes for analysis.
Bob
#2286