Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:57:43 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      Welcome back and Happy New Year

The forum is back from Christmas break.  I hope everyone had a restful holiday.

The new year beckons.  Let's have at it.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:14:04 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Iwansky story

Don you state the following:

> I was trying to find a connection between a French
> vessel parked
> in the lagoon area that day and how that fit in with the aircaft
> wrecakge seen
> on the island.

Are you saying that there was a French Vessel in the Lagoon of the Island at the same time you say you saw the wreckage?

Will you describe this vessel?  How big, what tonnage, etc.  How did you know it was French?

Andrew McKenna
********************************************************************
 From Bill Leary

> I may be a bit harsh here, but I think Don Iwanski simply wanted some
> attention -- and we gave it to him in spades.

This is, of course, possible.  But I don't think this si the case.

> He has this cockamamie story using
> data from TIGHAR's website and tosses in a
> few more improbable items and expects
> us to swallow it.

Actually, the doubtful believability of the story is one of the reasons I think he's sincere.

I don't think he's correct, but I do think he's sincere.

> And to top it off, if we don't believe him AND official
> records don't support him, then OBVIOUSLY it was
> a conspiracy of silence.

But this is in no way unusual as compared to any other theory, including our own.  We've heard it proposed that we can't find obvious sign of the Electra on Niku is that "someone removed it."  Conspiracy has been proposed to explain what became of the bones and other items.

> Further, he admits to " . . .cramming my story down Ric
> Gillespie's throat because I don't appreciate being accused
> of making it up," which should give us additional insight into
> the guy's motives.

Mr. Iwanski is laboring under a very common assumption whereby he believes that because we think is story is not true we must therefore think he's lying.  What we actually think (subject to data to the contrary) is that he's developed a false memory, likely based on some incident he witnessed or was told about.

> On the other hand, he's great entertainment and it beats the dickens out
> of listening to Christmas carols.

Well, yeah, that too.

     - Bill

********************************************************************** 
From Pete

Don, what was your rate again?

CIC (aka CDC) keeps track of a great many things in defense of ownship and the Battle Group.  My hanger deck views are from USS Forrestal (CV-59) of many places and a lot of open ocean.

I borrowed the "Big Eyes" to check a merchant wreck in Tunisia aboard a Spruance-class destroyer, and was already qualified as an "Expert Lookuout" aboard.

Like I said before, if no noteworthy event happens, CIC's logs are gone after one year, first shredded then burned. If something does happen that endangers the vessel, the logs and the DRT trace get locked up in a safe with a quickness for the Board of Inquiry to review.

What procedures were in effect for Naval and Coast Guard vessels in 1937 I do not know...I enlisted in 1989.  BTW, the US Coast Guard is under the jurisdicition and command of the Department of Transportation unless Congress deems otherwise.

Ric, I had to threaten last year of putting snow down your pants for you to take some time off, I will come up from Florida to do it this year if I have to, and I will pack a great deal of snow.  The Forum can get into  research about desert water bags and other things as practice for when our favorite dive boat later makes her way to the little Pacific jewel.  Thank Pat for me for all she did keeping everything running last year, and again for the next expedition.

Pete Gray..TIGHAR member 2419
****************************************************************
 From Ric

Thanks Pete.  Yes, we took a nice break over the holidays.

The Coast Guard started out as part of the Treasury Department and at various times has been under the direction of the Navy Department (wartime), Commerce Department, Department of Transportation, and I seem to recall that it was a recently made part of the new Department of Homeland Security.
****************************************************************
 From Angus Murray

Just in case there's anyone who still thinks that Don's story might be true consider this.

Don claims that he saw a "big, red, beached ship":

The skipper came over the loudspeaker at some point and told us that there was another ship causing a bit of a traffic jam up ahead and we had to move of out of its way.  As he pointed the carrier's nose away from the island I could see now what he was talking about. It was a red ship, beached and deserted on the reef flat just ahead of us. I thought this was odd because when he said there was another ship I was expecting another Navy vessel and instead here was this big red beached ship.

In 1979 Norwich City looked very little different from the last photo on the page below:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/13_Niku4p/13_Niku4p.html

It is not even obviously apparent that it was ever a ship and looks more like some scattered scrap iron. Once again Don's imagination is at work because he never realised that the NC had deteriorated to such an extent from the condition shown in other older pictures on the Tighar website where it is very recognisably a ship.

No-one who had seen it would describe this as a "big red ship"  - only as some scattered wreckage that might have once been part of a ship.

He says:

I do remember when I first saw pictures of it on Ric's website in 1997 I was pretty zoomed in on it.  My first impression was, hey, I was by an island once and saw a ship just like this.

The picture shown on the page above was only taken in 1999. Don is remembering something that never existed in 1997.

Regards Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:17:25 EST
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      QZ5

Here is our "old time Radioman" checking in ..

While looking at the logs I see QSA5, which means "loud and clear, or very good". Now if you were working CW (the Itasca logs refer to it as "key", "code" or "A1" you would use the Q signal QSA5 in transmission. If you were working AM voice, "phone, fone, A3" in the Itasca Logs, you would transmit "Loud and Clear".  You would use QSA5 in your logs for brevity (you don't have much room to type entries, and you have to enter a lot of stuff quickly and accurately, so one tends to develop a sort of shorthand. What is in the Itasca logs is just as clear to me, who learned his USN style operating in the '60's as it was to the ops in the '30s who entered the info in the first place.

I don't see "QZ5 in the logs, cud you give me the position and page, I have the logs downloaded on my hard drive, and I will go over them again..

Greg Moore

(former RM1, USN)

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

QZ5 does not occur in the logs posted on the TIGHAR website. I'll send you the appropriate pages.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:22:04 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Norwich City

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

> Ric, I found this picture of the Norwich City. I have read many of the Forum
> Archives, and I don't think this has ever been posted. This website:
>
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/shipbuilding/shiprepa.htm
>
> has a picture of the Norwich City (scroll about halfway down), and it
> indicates that it was damaged in a collision with the "first Second Narrows
> Bridge" in 1928. I'm not sure where that is yet, but its a nice photo, all
> the same.

I seem to remember some speculation on the forum during the post loss message discussion or the Betty's Notebook discussions as to where the name of the ship might have been written.

There, in the photo, is at least part of the answer.

Th' WOMBAT
******************************************************************
 From Ric

Not necessarily.  The photos of the grounded ship taken by the New Zealand survey  party show a different paint job than the Vancouver photos earlier that year.  There's a white band painted along the gunwale and no name is visible on the side.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:23:50 EST
From:         Warren
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

>We have a photocopy of the Clarence Williams flight analysis data
>sheet from Howland Island to Lae (yes, first attempt) and it gives
>the island's longitude as 176 degrees 43 minutes.  No 3 degree
>discrepancy.

Mea culpa.  Ric thanks for the quick and gracious answer. I was actually looking at the same map from the "U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission" website, which obtained their copy from the Purdue archives.  The USCofFC copy is a poorer representation of Purdue's, which is clearly Lg 176, although myself and five people in the office were sure the USC copy said 179.  Always good to be as close to the original as possible.

Warren in
Houston.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:24:50 EST
From:         Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: KACA & KCWR

Just a couple of thoughts. Has anyone been able to get any Japanese radio records? And has anyone investigated the possibility that the aircraft heard by the "Golden Bear" could have been a Jap sea or scout plane sent to check the "back door" before they invaded China?If I were a Jap intel I'd send out a out a bogus signal just to see how many responses I got. Just a thought.

LTM
Mike J.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:25:52 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

It won't be necessary to send me a canvas waterbag.  I should still have one or two lying around the shed at my other house, if the tenants didn't throw them out.  One was a "neck bag" in a half moon shape attached to a leather backing which hung around my horse's neck.  The others were ordinary water bags with a wire handle at the top, which could be used for carrying the bags, or hanging them from objects.  I haven't seen the neck bag in a couple of years, but I did see the canvas bags hanging from the garage roof beams about 3 years ago.

We used water bags AND water bottles in the bush.  The bags were not used for their ability to store water - we had other containers for that purpose.  They were used rather for their unique cooling properties. Provided they were kept outside, preferably where there was a slight breeze (in the bush we often hung them off the outside of a vehicle for this) the water soaking through from the inside of the bag would evaporate and cool the water very effectively.  Water in canteens/water bottles may be too hot to drink, but water from the canvas bags would be quite cool.

The canvas is quite a coarse weave and at first glance one wonders just how the water stays in, but a half gallon bag does not lose all that much once the weave has expanded to stop leakage.

The bags in the shed were fairly recent (1980's) and by that time had a nylon neck insert But I can't recall whether it had a screw cap.  I do remember having bags with corks on my earlier travels.

Today I'm going in to check a store where the genuine article should still be available.  I'll let you know whether they are, just out of curiosity, as we still use a lot of this sort of thing in Aus.

Th' WOMBAT.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:29:39 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Mugs

My mugs got here this morning via FedEx - they arrived in excellent shape, and look great!  I have them on display in my office. Tomorrow I may actually drink coffee out of one of them...

Thanks again.  Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.

ltm
jon
2266
******************************************************************
 From Ric

As Jon can attest, we did manage to make our Christmas deadline on mug deliveries.  Everyone seems pleased.  We have plenty more.  You can order yours on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/mugad.html
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:34:23 EST
From:         Neil Barnett
Subject:      Re: QZ5

> "QZ5" seems to be functioning here as some kind of shorthand.
> It can't be a station identification; otherwise, O'Hare would not
> be asking the station to identify itself.

The usual reason for challenging a station to identify himself is where it is suspected, or known, that the station is bogus, or as we say, a "pirate".

Until 1927, ham operators could roam around the frequency spectrum at will, as they had been given freedom to experiment with wavelengths below 200 meters (all frequencies above 1.5 MHz).

During the 1920's, aviation became a recreational pastime, and it's likely that some hams took the opportunity to act as ground stations for the pilots. However, the authorities, reacting to increasing demands being made for radio spectrum allocations, and simultaneously desiring to put aviation communications onto a better-regulated footing, sought to restrict the frequency spectrum given to hams.

In the first (1927) of a series of international radio conferences, hams were allocated exclusive rights to certain frequency bands, and incredibly, these bands at 3.5, 7.0, and 14.0 MHz still exist today. These allocations meant that hams had to give up their right to "free-roam" around the whole spectrum. Ten years later, in 1937, maybe there were still a few die-hards who clung to the belief that they could operate out of band with impunity and communicate with aircraft and ships, perhaps even using assigned aviation and shipping frequencies. It's possible that QZ5 was such a "pirate". His failure to reply to O'Hare's challenge lends weight to the theory. KACA and KCWR may have been pirate callsigns, adopted by e.g. pleasure boat skippers, using e.g. their initials. A similar kind of thing happens today. Some hams act as contact stations for pleasure boats on 14.315 MHz. Many hams frown on this as non-ham related activity, but there's little that can be done so long as the stations hold valid callsigns. Sadly, there are still plenty of pirate operators around today, too.

Neil Barnett ZL1ANM
Auckland, N.Z.
********************************************************************
 From Ric

Sounds like a plausible explanation.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:35:58 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Noonan's Radio License

Cam, I think you need to reassess this statement...

> About all a 2nd Phone license let you do was turn a transmitter off and
> on, and talk into a microphone. No code requirement.

I believe you are in fact referring to a THIRD class radiotelephone  license, rather than a second class.

The Second Class technical exam is and was pretty tough.  (Been there, done that, got the shirt.) You are correct in that there is no code requirement for any of the Radiotelephone licenses, but the second class is far from a simple operator's permit.

For whatever it may be worth:  Yes, I have had experience with these exams... held a First Class Radiotelephone myself until they, and the Second Class, were morphed into the General class.  Also a Second Class radiotelegraph.  Both endorsed for radar (requires another exam element).

73
Mike E.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:27:33 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

Well, Th' WOMBAT did some checking, and canvas waterbags are still stocked  and easily available, although the only ones actually in stock were the ones with a leather or vinyl (depending on how much one wants to pay) backing.

These days, the backing protects the canvas from rubbing when it is suspended from the front of a vehicle.  In my day, it protected the canvas from rubbing on our horses' necks.

The ordinary ones are still popular with older people such as myself for their ability to cool the water inside them in very hot weather, so they do sell out.

The new ones all appear to use screw stoppers made of one of the plastics. My old waterbags appear to have been stolen, or more likely thrown out by tenants, who would have seen them as old bits of wire and canvas hanging in a shed.

I still think a canvas waterbag would have been a strange thing to take in a airplane, although I seem to recall that canvas desert waterbags appeared in inventory somewhere?

Th' WOMBAT
***************************************************************
 From Ric

Earhart mentioned two desert waterbags as part of the gear she planned  to take on her first World Flight attempt and one bag appears with gear stacked beside the cabin door in a photo that seems to have been taken around the start of the first attempt.  However, no waterbags are included in the Luke Field inventory. Whether she had waterbags with her on the Lae/Howland flight is another question.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:44:25 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Noonan's Radio License

You are absolutely correct re 2nd 'Phone license. I had a slip of the brain and was describing the 3rd Phone ticket.

Cam Warren (former 1st Phone, Chief Engineer for KRCW-FM)
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:43:08 EST
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Iwanski reponses

Andrew McKenna asked:

>Are you saying that there was a French Vessel in the Lagoon of the
>Island at the same time you say you saw the wreckage?

Yes, there was a French Vessel which was sitting in the inlet to the lagoon.

>How big, what tonnage, etc. How did
>you know it was French?

Tonnage? I have no idea.  It was large catamaran, not a recreational boat either, it was more industrial looking. 50 Ft +.  It had a large wheel house.  The logo "Pechiney" was pasted across the front of it and it had a flag which I was told at the time was French.

***********************************************************************
 From Bill Leary

> I may be a bit harsh here, but I think Don Iwanski simply wanted some
> attention -- and we gave it to him in spades.

Bill - I am not looking for any attention. Positive or negative. I knew you all would have a difficult time with this story. I felt it was important enough to bring some light to it. And I know eventually some really good information will come out of all this.  But it's going to take much more than just a few emails and quick phone calls to make that happen.
***********************************************************************
This is, of course, possible. But I don't think this is the case.

> He has this cockamamie story using
> data from TIGHAR's website and tosses in a
> few more improbable items and expects
> us to swallow it.

The similarity you see is because it's the same location, yes I agree. I expect you to swallow it? No. I expect some to look into it though. Honestly, I have no idea on how to go about looking for official records, talking to people on the phone, investigation.  I am clueless.  I guess if I knew how to do this perhaps I could generate some revenue from all this and not even bother with TIGHAR.  My intentions all along were to bring to light an event which took place on this island in 1979. It's a very difficult task to try and accomplish here.  The choice of just walking away from this would be much easier.

************************************************************************ *
> And to top it off, if we don't believe him AND official
> records don't support him, then OBVIOUSLY it was
> a conspiracy of silence.

What if official records do support the story?

************************************************************************ 
From Pete

>Don, what was your rate again?

I was an AD. ADAN or AD3 at the time.

****************************************************************
For Angus Murray:

It was more like this in 79

http://www.kiritours.com/Data/maps/gardener_1_1.jpg

That's a pretty good picture, especially the colors of the reef flat, and the position and color of the ship as well.  It still had the appearance of a ship but was deteriorating.

Maybe it wasnt 4 degrees, maybe it was 2 degress below the equator and it wasnt Gardner but the Isle of Spirits! Which would explain why there was a tail section of a Lockheed 10 Electra and no one has seen it since Earhart disappeared! No one except the crew aboard the Connie that day. WOw - talk about privledges!  We must of done a good job that cruise!
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:05:00 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      End of the Iwanski thread

Guys, I was not going to post anything regarding this subject but since Ron Bright has gone to the same sources I have I'll make a brief comment to the forum.

I went to former ship mates and to Vice Admiral Paul F. MacCarthy, skipper of the USS Constellation for the year 1979. The result of their comments is that the ship followed a similar northern route both going and coming as it did in 1980. It did not come anywhere near Kiribati, it did not stop at any islands but powered Hell bent for Lexington to get home after being extended three and a half months for a nine month tour. No one recalled ANY event that could have remotely been any part of Don's story.

As a final check the logs of the ship for 1979 are to be looked at during the next few weeks but it appears we simply need to get on with other rabbit trails. I see nothing to be gained by arguing with Don that his information is not supported by the facts. Don appears to be a nice, sincere guy. Let him be.

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

Yesterday I checked with the Navy Historical Center in Washington.  USS Constellation's route home across the Pacific from its 1979 deployment never went south of the equator and made no stops.

It has been repeatedly shown that Don's description of what he saw does not match Nikumaroro:

- He described seeing breakers in the lagoon.  There are never breakers in the lagoon.

- He described the Norwich City as a recognizable ship in 1979.  Photos taken in 1975 show the ship as a scatter of wreckage much as it is today.

- He described seeing a 50 foot "industrial" catamaran in the lagoon passage.   You can't get a 50 foot anything into that passage.  We have to walk a shallow-draft launch in at high tide.

This has gone far enough.  The whole episode has been useful as an illustration (as if we needed another one) of how unreliable undocumented anecdotal recollections can be.  I won't post anything further about Don's story.  I hope he takes down the story from his website to save himself embarrassment.  If he leaves it up we'll undoubtedly continue to get queries about it and we'll have no choice but to put a FAQ on the TIGHAR website explaining that it is completely delusional.  I'd rather not have to do that.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:31:50 EST
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

For what its worth on canvas bags, this is what I remember. In 1955, my uncle moved to Apple Valley, California. When we visited him in my other uncles's 1952 Plymouth, he carried two desert water bags. They were made of canvas and usually had some logo or advertisement printed on them. One bag had a cork top with a brass chain attached to it. The other had a screw top, I think made of aluminum with a brass chain attached.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:53:31 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Competition?

I noticed in the last several issues of "Air Classics" (AKA Air Comix) ads for a group called Aviation Archaeological Investigation and Research (AAIR) based in Mesa, Arizona, that is offer a course in aviation archaeology.   The weekend course involves a day of classroom instruction on historic preservation, research,  locating, and documenting crash sites followed by a day of on-site work at existing crash sites.

I know that TIGHAR "wrote the book" (at least from my perspective) on aviation archaeology and was wondering if AAIR is using the lessons we've pioneered and are they giving TIGHAR proper credit.

LTM, a real pioneer
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
****************************************************************
From Ric

AAIR is run by TIGHAR member Craig Fuller.  Craig is a super guy who has been and continues to be a great help in many of our projects and, in fact, wasone of the instructors for our 2002 Aviation Archaeology Course and Field School at YB-49 Flying Wing crash site near Edwards AFB.  If Craig is offering his own school, more power to him.  I consider Craig to be a colleague, not a competitor.

========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:04:33 EST
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: Competition?

AAIR, Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research

Ric, thanks for the kind words.

To Dennis,

Rest assured AAIR is not competition for TIGHAR. Unlike TIGHAR, AAIR does not have formal membership; our focus is on providing accident reports, research, search, and documentation services. The commonality between the two organizations is promoting the use of archaeological and scientific techniques to researching and documenting crash sites as well as historic preservation in the aviation field. This is one of the reasons I joined TIGHAR in 1993 and have been a card carrying member ever since. All people attending AAIR's  course will be given TIGHAR brochures and encouraged to join. Yes the course is created from the same lesson plan I used for the portion I co-taught of TIGHAR's course, but unlike TIGHAR's course, you only get one day in the classroom and one day in the field, not multiple days. Plus you don't get to have that snazzy CE at the end of your TIGHAR number! I plan to continue to help and support Ric on any and all upcoming TIGHAR courses -- assuming he is still able to put up with me after the last several!

Having said that, if there are any TIGHAR members who are interested in taking the course I am offering, I will offer them a 10% discount or they can have that 10% donated to TIGHAR in their name. Details on the course are available at AAIR's web site.

LTM
Craig Fuller
AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research
www.AviationArchaeology.com
aair@juno.com
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:08:28 EST
From:         Mark
Subject:      The McGuire 10E

Just noticed a listing in a recent copy of Trade-A-Plane under Antique/Classic aircraft for sale. Seems to be the Grace McGuire 10E since it has her name and phone number in the ad.

What a great gate guardian for Tighar Supreme Headquarters.

LTM,
Mark 1214C
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, I've tried to get in touch with Grace about that but no luck so far. We're not looking for a gate guardian but we WOULD like to have at look at the airplane.  It's the only true 10E in existence and she has always been extremely secretive about it.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:15:27 EST
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Top Ten List

Awhile back it was discussed that it sounded like a good idea to post a "Top Ten" project list on the TIGHAR web site.  Has any further thought been given to this idea?

I think it would be a good place to go and review what's in the mill for some of us that have some down time to spare.  Who knows what we could stumble onto in our spare time!

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

Now at the printer is a new issue of TIGHAR Tracks that includes:

- A "Summary of Evidence" that gives brief review of what we've accomplished in the last 15 years of the Earhart Project.

- An article titles "Yes, No, and Maybe" that gives a few examples of evidence that didn't pan out or is still in question.

- An article entiled "How We Do It" that includes expanded explanations of the Top Ten list I posted on the forum some time ago.

We should be mailing the new TIGHAR Tracks to members next week.  Later we'll put the articles up on the TIGHAR website.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:16:01 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

Thanks; that sounds consistent with our other data, except that we've not yet actually gotten a bag with cork and chain in our sights.  I don't suppose your uncle's is still lying around in Apple Valley......

LTM
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:19:26 EST
From:         Hilary
Subject:      Corks  of Wrath

A couple of years ago I read a Memoir by Rinker Buck titled The Flight of Passage. In it he references his trials about trying to buy a waterbag like his barnstormer father had in 1937.(Chap.6 page89). On the next page to buy one of these old waterbags the Author's brother Kern would describe it as "An old fashioned waterbag like Henry Fonda had on his truck in the Grapes of Wrath."

Hilary
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Grapes of Wrath was released in 1940.  The waterbag on the front of Hank's truck should be of the same vintage as the ones AE had.  Somebody want to rent the film and see if it has a cork attached with a chain?
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:27:31 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

Just a thought.  How likely is it that when Earhart referred to a couple of desert waterbags, that she may have been referring to a couple of "DESERT" waterbags?

DESERT "brand" canvas waterbags were available inthe 1930's.  A photo of one is at

http://users.erols.com/b-dwheeler/indexbag.html

Th' WOMBAT
********************************************************************
 From Ric

Interesting thought.  The photo isn't clear enough to be sure but that sure likes a cork and chain.  The bag is said to be owned by "Joe Domino in South Texas".  I wonder if we could get in touch with Joe.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:29:35 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: A corking good project PLUS CORKS

Follow up to my previous post.  A desert brand waterbag WITH A CORK STOPPER!

http://www.rubylane.com/shops/ashelford/item/rl-71952?

Th' WOMBAT
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:30:17 EST
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

Sorry Dr. King, both uncles are lying around, but the correct term is, "pushing up daisies."
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:09:36 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: A corking good project

And I don't suppose they were buried with their water bags.   Shucks.
***************************************
From Tom King

The newspaper article in which we first found reference to all this said that she was carrying water in "two desert water bags."  I've seen lots of "Desert Water Bags" on Ebay, most of the manufactured by Canvas Specialty in Los Angeles.  Canvas Speciality got its start in 1942, but its representative said the "Desert" brand might be something they got from a predecessor company, possibly in San Francisco, from which they bought their printing equipment.
*******************************************
 From Tom King

Good hit, Wombat!  I can't make out what the cork is held on with, but I've sent a note to the dealer asking.  If it's held on with a chain, I'll buy it.

I take it it's circa 1952, but that's better than nothing.
********************************************
 From Jon Watson

I tried cranking up the resolution a bit on the waterbag pic, without a great deal of success, but it sorta looks like bead-chain around the top of the cork.  Bead chain is available today in a brass color, but in 1937 I would suspect that it might really be brass.  I seem to recall that there was some discussion speculating whether the "corks and chains" chain might be bead chain, during the last year or so.
**************************************
From: Mike Haddock

Just a thought. I see in the photo that the waterbag was made by Ames Harris Neville of San Francisco. Maybe one of our members with lots of time could do a little research in the Bay area and maybe get some info on the manufacturer. Hope this is helpful.

LTM,
Mike Haddock #2438
*************************************
 From Bob Wilson

Just a thought.  I did a little research and found some of those bags for sale on E-Bay.  Here are the item #'s.

3652049622- This one is an older bag, and it looks like the one identified in the picture.

The other is item # 2212691403.  It has a description of what it was used for. Although, I don't really see a cork and chain on the first one.  It looks to me like a screw top.  Maybe it's just me and I have the screw top.

Bob
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:52:48 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Chater Report ?

Tighar document site lead in states that the Chater Report dated 25 July 1937 was created as a result of a request from the US Department of Commerce - Is this a documented fact or an assumption by Tighar researchers?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang   # 2559
************************************************************************
 From Ric

Now Tom, you know us better than that.  We originally got the Chater letter in December 1991 from Placer Dome Inc. in Vancouver, B.C.  Their manager of corporate communications had come across a file labeled "Amelia Earhart" while researching an article for the company magazine on gold mining operation in New Guinea.  By coincidence he had just read an article in the local newspaper about TIGHAR's recently-returned expedition.  He called me on the phone, described the contents of the file and asked if it was of any interest to us.  I immediately recognized it as the "lost" Chater letter but I was also very curious to know how the heck it had ended up in the files of a Canadian mining company.

Fortunately, other documents in the file told the whole story and we we have copies of all of them.  In a nutshell, here's what happened:

After the search for Earhart failed, Bill Miller of the Bureau of Air Commerce was eager to find out what had transpired at her last stop in Lae, New Guinea but he didn't know anybody there.  Miller did, however, know that his friend Maurice "Frank" Griffin, the Placer Mining representative in San Francisco, had dealings with the aviation community in Lae.  On July 21 Miller sent Griffin a telegram asking him if he would make inquiries in Lae on behalf of the Bureau of Air Commerce.  Frank was happy to oblige and the next day he sent a wire to Eric Chater saying that U.S. government would like information about Earhart's stay in Lae.  Chater replied by return wire on the 27th with basic information about how much fuel was carried, etc. and said that he'd post a full report by mail.  Griffin's office received the full report on September 10 and forwarded it to Miller, keeping at least two "flimsies" (carbon copies) for their file.  Nobody seems to know what became of the copy sent to Miller but it has never turned up in any of the government records.

Courtesy of Placer Dome, have copies of all of the correspondence and telegrams plus one of the original flimsies of the Chater letter typed in Lae on July 25, 1937.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:15:26 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Chater Report ?

Coincidentally, I conducted an independent search on the "Chater letter", Guinea Airways, Placer Dome Ltd. (nee "Placer Development" in those days) and Bulolo Gold (an affiliate, or subsidiary). Besides the Earhart involvement, I was quite interested in the New Guinea mining operations, having grown up in Auburn, California, close by to the extensive placer mines in the foothills of the Sierra, a source of expertise drawn on by the New Guinea people. Since the mines there were located in a difficult up country area, it was decided to establish what became the world's first sustained "airlift" operation, ferrying men and materiel - including two full-sized dredges in pieces - into the mountains. Junkers aircraft were used for this. (Details are laid out in "Wings of Gold" by author James Sincliar" Pacific Publications, Sydney, Australia 1938).

But - to the point - the identity of "Frank" Griffin, to which the "Chater Report" was directed.  No such person was known  to Placer Dome, whose San Francisco office still exists in the Flood Bldg.  (And - surprise - I found they also had an office here in Reno, Nevada).. They did have an M. E. Griffin, whose existance was confirmed by a 1937 telephone directory in the S. F. Public Library. Of course, I can readily believe your information that "Maurice" preferred to be known as "Frank".

I queried Hugh Leggatt at Placer Dome, as follows: " . . . documents in your 'Bulolo/Earhart' file also include a telegram to [W. T..] Miller on 7/27 signed "Frank Griffin". "Frank F. Griffin" is the addressee in a letter from J. Colclough" ("Sydney Secretary") dated 7/30 and a note to Chater on 8/17 is signed (apparently) by "Frank W. Griffin" . And there are several other similar occurances.  Comments?"

To which Mr. Leggatt replied "Placer had offices in Sydney and San Francisco (we still do) at which Colclough and Griffin were, respectively, the co. representatives."  Hmm. I'm still confused, because the founders of Placer Development, Australian Cecil Levien (for whom the Lae "Hotel Cecil" was named)  and Canadian Charles Banks, brought in two directors to serve with the new company, Frank W. Griffin and Frasnk R. Short. The former was a well-known dredge designer, Short a  placer engineer.  Somehow, there seem to be all sorts of  Griffins involved.  How did Miller manage to meet "Frank"?  Perhaps Frank W. was Maurice's father, and the latter assumed the "Frank", but Leggatt did not have that information.

All this may seem much ado about nothing, but knowing that you are a stickler for well-documented accuracy, I'm sure you'd like to get to the bottom of this.

Cam Warren

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

All of the letters are addressed to or from "M. E. Griffin" or "Maurice E. Griffin" whereas the telegrams from Miller and Chater are addressed to "Frank" or "Frank Griffin".  It would be interesting to know just how it was that Bill Miller knew Frank Griffin but that could be tough or perhaps impossible to discover and I don't think it's worth expending a lot of energy on.  I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the documents.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:30:36 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Chater Report ?

I enjoyed the reply to Ron's question about the Chater report. Seems to me that those of us who have to be considered peons in the TIGHAR world -- small sums of money & questionable additions to the forum -- often question just what roll we really play in all of this. The situation around the Chater report -- and I am certain there are others -- should tend to calm some of those concerns.

By keeping the Earhart mystery alive -- in a technically solid forum -- leads to these kinds of "providencial" discoveries. Not too mention many less important. We're getting old man, and potential discoveries of important materials may fall into the hands of people who are unaware of the Earhart story. One of the ways in which we can all contribute to the story is to pass it on -- whatever your hypothesis may be.

During the island raffle I mentioned to my mom my interest in Earhart. I grew up in a house with books on the last flight -- surely the source of my latent interest. She just said in passing that she had met Amlelia at Purdue (where her sister attended) in '35 and '36. A few months later she called and said that in going through some of her sister's documents they had found a picture of Amelia -- I have a copy and sent Ric one. This was described and appears to be a personal photo that was offered after my Aunt lent Amelia a pen to sign an autograph while visiting the Purdue campus in '36.

I suspect someday that one of us little folk will provide a great deal more than speculation and a blurry photo.

Thanks to Ric and everybody for the graceful and gracious way that the situation with Don was handled. First class in every respect. I didn't go to Don's website until the matter had been closed on the forum. It's a fascinating story and probably worth a bit more follow up to close all the loopholes -- but certainly not an official TIGHAR avenue at this time.

Sorry for the length and keep up the good work!

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

There are no little people here.  Everyone has something to contribute.  Many of our breakthroughs have come as a result of hard-slogging research but some of the most dramatic discoveries (such as the Chater letter and Gallagher's file on the bones) were simply a case of making it known that we are interested in this kind of information and being accessible when someone stumbled upon something.

Don's case was an interesting one but it was by no means the first time that the Earhart mystery launched someone into a flight of fancy.  In fact, it happens often enough that might be called a syndrome.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:32:28 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      Reineck review up

My review of Rollin Reineck's book is now up on the TIGHAR website.  You'll find a direct link right on the homepage at www.tighar.org.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:31:17 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Chater Report ?

Ric wrote:

> ... Don's case was an interesting one but it was by no means the first
> time that the Earhart mystery launched someone into a flight of fancy.
> In fact, it happens often enough that might be called a syndrome.

It seems to me that the police are often plagued by delusional people who try to solve notorious crimes or who confess to the criminal activity itself.  I imagine they have their own jargon to describe such people.

When Roger and I were in Fiji, we met a man who strove to ingratiate himself with us.  He bought me lunch and gave me a couple of cigarettes.  (I'm not a cigarette smoker, but I'll take them from time to time just to be sociable.)  Once he knew what we were looking for, he dreamed up possible leads for us to follow and suggested several field trips for us to go on.

He was well-dressed and claimed to be well-connected in the Tongan tribes who remain in Fiji.

The more he talked, the less I trusted him.  I tried checking one aspect of his story, but there was no confirmation.  As time went on, I realized that he probably had picked up the kernel of his tall tales from the 1999 bones search and was just ornamenting the story from a vigorous imagination and a drive to become part of our work.

I could sympathize with him: I, too, am motivated to be The Man Who Found Amelia's Bones.  I wouldn't have gone to Fiji if I didn't have that kind of drive.  As we used to say in my gang, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa."

We discussed this phenomenon at the Earhart Project Advisory Committee (EPAC) last summer.  Just to help focus my own thoughts, I call it "Helpful Witness Syndrome."  Criminal psychologists have other names that seem to cover this kind of behavior:

     pathological lying
     mythomania
     pseudologia phantastica (German literature)

"The pathological lie is active in character, a whole sequence of experiences is fabricated and the products of fancy brought forward with a certainty that is astonishing. The possibility that the untruth may be at any minute demolished does not abash the liar in the least. Remonstrances against the lies make no impression. On closer inspection we find that the liar is no longer free, he has ceased to be master of his own lies, the lie has won power over him, it has the worth of a real experience. In the final stage of the evolution of the pathological lie, it cannot be differentiated from delusion. Pathological lies have long been credited to hystericals, they are now known to arise in alcoholics, imbeciles, degenerates. All pathological liars have a purpose, i.e., to decorate their own person, to tell something interesting, and an ego motive is always present. They all lie about something they wish to possess or be."

Some qualities of pathological liars:

" (a) Their range of ideas is wide.
  (b) Their range of interests is wider than would be expected from their grade of education.
  (c) Their perceptions are better than the average.
  (d) They are nimble witted. Their oral and written style is above normal in fluency.
  (e) They exhibit faultiness in the development of conceptions and judgments. Their judgment is sharp and clear only as far as their own person does not come into consideration. It is the lack of any self criticism combined with an abnormal egocentric trend of thought that biases their judgments concerning themselves."

http://www.blackmask.com/olbooks/pathl.htm

The great problem for TIGHAR is to keep our balance when dealing with claims about past events.  On the one hand, we have to "keep an open mind" because strange things do happen.  On the other hand, we have to "doubt everything" because people sometimes make mistakes, deceive themselves, or become misled by others.

If TIGHAR had infinite resources, every allegation could be checked with equal attention to detail: search every Pacific Island, interview every person who has been in the Pacific, scour the entire ocean bottom, strip Niku of all vegetation and metal-detect every inch, etc.  With extremely limited resources, TIGHAR has to select the lines of inquiry that ***SEEM*** most promising.  Since there's nobody here but us humans, we may make mistakes in our choices and overlook promising lines of research.  I could cheerfully throttle Floyd Kilts for not being more aggressive in following up on the stories he heard in 1946 about bones and shoes being found on Niku.  In 1946, all of the people who knew the story inside out were still alive, except for Gerald Gallagher.  Many were alive in the 1960s when Kilts' story was published in a California newspaper.  It's most unfortunate that nobody took him seriously enough to press the inquiry at that time.

There is a forensic doctor who talks about Creative Witness Syndrome:

http://echo.forensicpanel.com/1999/9/1/callme.html

This seems to be an indictment of the use of pseudo-science in court.

Two non-technical analogues:

Roswell Witness Syndrome:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jun/m29-009.shtml

Impeachable Witness Syndrome (misleading stories about terror threats):

http://www.brief-intel.com/log/archives/00000032.htm

LTM.
Marty #2359
************************************************
 From Ric

Fascinating stuff.  Thanks Marty.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:51:02 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      Floyd Kilts follow-up

Marty says;

>Many were alive in the 1960s when Kilts' story was published in a
>California newspaper.  It's most unfortunate that nobody took him
>seriously enough to press the inquiry at that time.

Actually, they did.  When Van Hunn and I were doing archival research in Tarawa in the spring of 2001 we came across an interesting exchange.  On July 18, 1960 , Leo Bowler, the City Editor for the San Diego Evening Tribune (which would run the Kilts story on July 21) wrote a letter to the "British Colonial Secretary, British Embassy, Canton Island, Phoenix Islands, Central Pacific" relating the basics of the Floyd Kilts story and asking for corroboration.  The letter somehow ended up in Tarawa and on September 26, 1960 the Information Officer there forwarded it to D.J. Nobbs, the District Commissioner on Canton saying only that "The information requested is not available here."  Apparently the letter took a detour through Fiji because it wasn't until April 6, 1961 that Nobbs wrote to Bowler saying that he had just received his letter via the "Chief Secretary, Fiji".

Nobbs totally debunked the story.  "I have searched through the early records of the Phoenix Islands District and can find no report of the discovery of a skeleton on Gardner Island in 1938.  I am reliably informed, however that Te Tiriata the first magistrate of Gardner Island, committed suicide on Tarawa shortly after the end of the Second World War, so that the story of his death from pneumonia on the way to Suva is suspect.

"In addition, it would be most unusual for a ship to proceed from the Phoenix Islands to Suva direct and even more unusual for the Magistrate to have obtained leave to go on this mission, which would have involved many months delay before he could get back to Gardner Island.

"I am sorry I cannot be more helpful."

Bowler had said only that the bones were found by "the young magistrate" of Gardner Island and neglected to mention Kilts' description of him as " a young Irishman".  Nobbs obviously thought Bowler was referring to the "Native Magistrate" rather than to Gallagher who's title was "Officer-in-Charge, Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme".  No one named Te Tiriata was ever the Native Magistrate on Gardner.  The island's first Native Magistrate was the inestimable Teng Buake Koata and he did not commit suicide.

I don't think there is any cover-up going on here.  The entire bones episode was very tightly controlled and very few adminstrative people on other islands knew anything about it.  By 1960 it was as if it had never happened. Nobbs' reliable informant about the first magistrate on Gardner was not very reliable but the colonal officers were administrators, not historians.

Fred Goerner, too, tried to find out if there was anything to the Kilts story.  He made inquiries while he was in Tarawa in 1973 for the 30th anniversary of the WWII battle but got only assurances that it could not possibly be true. TIGHAR's uncovering of the truth behnd the Floyd Kilts story was a classic combination of dogged persistence and dumb luck.  The lesson is, you need both to solve great mysteries.  You have to be persistent enough to still be around when you finally get lucky.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:52:22 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Pathological liars

Marty said:  "Pathological lies have long been credited to hystericals, they are now known to arise in alcoholics, imbeciles, degenerates."

I know, I know; I work in Washington, DC.

LTM,  a truth-seeker of the nth degree
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:03:24 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Floyd Kilts follow-up

Ric wrote::

> ... TIGHAR's uncovering of the truth behnd the Floyd Kilts story was a
> classic combination of dogged persistence and dumb luck.

Ric, thanks for the clarification on the efforts made to follow up on Kilts' story.

> The lesson is, you need both
> to solve great mysteries.  You have to be persistent enough to still be around
> when you finally get lucky.

I'm not a Trekkie, but I hope TIGHAR lives long and prospers.

LTM.
Marty #2359
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:17:18 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      l'Oiseau Blanc?

Anything new on l'Oiseau Blanc investigation?

I know, I know . . .  this is the Earhart forum not the Nungesser-Coli forum, but thought forum members might want the latest skinny on this important project.  Also, has TIGHAR settled on when and where the next class/expedition in the U.S. is going to be held?

Yes, I do have too much time on my hands today -- only because the boss is out.

LTM, normally a conscientious employee
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

There's a new TIGHAR Tracks being mailed this week that will, among other things, mention the probable site for this year's aviation archaeology course and field school.

It will also mention, but not elaborate upon, some new rumblings from Newfoundland that may be significant for our oldest and dearest quest.  We'll say more about that when we can.

And there's a completely new project in the works that deals with an extremely rare World War Two aircraft.  There are TIGHAR assets on the ground overseas at this moment laying the groundwork for this major new effort.  We hope to be able to make an announcement within a few weeks.

Sorry to be so mysterious but be patient.  This is shaping up to be a very exciting year.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:57:00 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: l'Oiseau Blanc?

A new project? Dealing with a rare WW II aircraft overseas? Do I understand this right to be in Western Europe? Let me know ASAP. I'm rearing to go.

LTM

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

Whoa there big fella.  I didn't say anything about Western Europe.  As I said, we'll say more when we can.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:29:16 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      HAM or ham?

We all know that a ham is a licensed amateur radio operator but why are they called that?  Is it an acronym?  Is it "HAM" or is it "ham"?
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:04:02 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: HAM or ham?

ARRLWeb: Why It's Called Ham Radio

Read this!

Joe W3HNK
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, so "ham" was originally a pejorative term used as far back the days of wire telegraphy by professionals to describe amateurs.  (I wonder if it was originally short for "ham-fisted".) The amateurs adopted the term and it has since lost its negative connotations.  No capitalization is appropriate.  Thanks.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:06:18 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: HAM or ham?

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

6. An amateur telegraphist; now esp. an amateur radio operator. slang(orig. U.S.).

1919 C. H. Darling Jargon Bk. 17 Ham, a student telegraph operator.

1922 Glasgow Herald 18 Aug. 6 Any person who passes a test prescribed by the Government can obtain a licence to "send" radio messages in the United States, and in popular parlance one who has qualified and taken this "Radio Operator Amateur" First Grade' certificate is dubbed a "ham".

1928   Collier's 22 Sept. 26 The amateur radio 'hams' have the ends of the earth for neighbors.

1929 Amer. Speech IV. 288 At either end of a wire an unskillful operator is a 'lid', 'ham', 'bum' or 'plug'.

1936 Daily Herald 19 Sept. 7/5 (Advt.), Do you ever hear the 'hams'? It appears that 'hams' is American for amateur radio transmitters. Of course, the 'hams' use the short wavelengths.

1955 Sci. News Let. 19 Mar. 188/2 Now it will be easier for a blind person to qualify for a license as a radio 'ham'.

1957 Oxford Mail 9 Nov. 4/5 The Russians invited radio 'hams' throughout the world to send details to Radio Magazine, Moscow, of reception from their satellites.  

1967 New Scientist 11 May 322/3 The army of radio 'hams', who reach out over fantastic distances with their single sideband transmitters and receivers, are about to be reinforced.  

1973 D. Lees Rape of Quiet Town vi. 90 He'd heard the radio ham speaking into a microphone.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:17:07 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      New TIGHAR project

Herman said:  "A new project? Dealing with a rare WW II aircraft overseas? Do I understand this right to be in Western Europe? Let me know ASAP. I'm rearing to go."

Ric replied:  "Whoa there big fella.  I didn't say anything about Western Europe.  As I said, we'll say more when we can."

Awwww right!  A new thread, ripe for speculation, innuendo and false conclusion.  Exactly what we do best here!  :-)

C'mon gang!  Jump on the wagon and let's see if we can guess Ric's secret project.  First (and only) prize is a FREE one-year subscription to TIGHAR, which I will personally pay for.  The prize will be awarded to the first person to correctly guess the secret project.

A rare WWII aircraft, hmmm.  None of our (U.S) experimental aircraft flew in combat and the Brits were keeping their new jet Meteor at home, so because Ric's secret project is "rare" (probably late-development or experimental) the most likely candidate would be European.  Italy has surrendered in 1943 and the Soviets were concentrating on making more of what they already had.   The Germans were desperate for something to stop the Allied air forces and were cranking out all sorts of unusual designs.  So, I'm guessing German.

I'm guessing Dornier.  I'm guessing a Do-335, push-pull fighter, one of the coolest-looking aircraft to evolve during the war.  Only a few Do-335s ever got off the ground in the closing days of the war and it is possible to assume/speculate thata couple may have been lost through mechanical problems.  Go here, if you're aren't familiar with the Do-335.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dornier_do335.htm

I'm probably wrong, but if nothing else this is a case-study on how speculation evolves, using the author's knowledge, prejudices, and just plane hunches.  So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!   Whatever it is, please confirm for me it is NOT a Brewster "Buffalo."  :-)

LTM, a speculator at heart
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

Geez...you guys...we did this with the late, lamented Wheel of Fortune (WoF) and demonstrated that speculation based upon minimal information seldom comes close to the truth (a worthy lesson).  As you know, we don't withhold information without a good reason and we make it point to say as much as we can as soon as we can.

The new TIGHAR Tracks is going in the mail today.  TIGHAR members may notice a new project logo among the graphics.  If all goes well you'll be seeing a lot more of that logo but, rest assured, new projects or new work on old projects will in no way diminish our commitment to, or the intensity of, the Earhart Project.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:22:30 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: HAM or ham?

What does pejorative mean ? Is that lawyer lingo ?

Jimbo
*************************************************
From Ric

Yeah.  It means something that gives you diarrhea.

***************************************************
From Greg Moore

"ham" began as a derogatory term toward "Amateur" operators back in the early days.  Basically, it started out as  a combination of the :"ham" as bad actor, and "ham" as "ham FISTED" meaning one's" fist" when sending was bad.  This simply began, as a natural offshoot that at the  very beginning, there was one heck of a lot of anarchy, unlicenced stations, ops, and so forth.

However, all of the ops basically made this a name for themselves, and found it proud to be called such, and the name caught on.  There was (and is still), kind of a "difference in perception" of those who are strictly Professional radio people, and those who were always Amateur radio people..... Being both, (actually, MOST of us who are/were Professionals, are both, interested in preservation). and having been both for some time, at least we laugh at ourselves (most of the time).

its ham or Ham, not an acronym.
de Greg Moore
*****************************************
 From Ric

Thanks Greg.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:17:37 EST
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Goerner and Kilts

Ric wrote:

"Fred Goerner, too, tried to find out if there was anything to the Kilts story.  He made inquiries while he was in Tarawa in 1973 for the 30th anniversary of the WWII battle but got only assurances that it could not possibly be true."

Well, not exactly.  Here is the story in Goerner's own words from a letter dated 3/1/90:

"During our stay at Tarawa in 1968, I had some long conversations with a Mr. Roberts, who was a top assistant to the British High Commissioner. Roberts was sort of an unofficial historian for the Gilbert Islands Colony.

"I tried out the Kilts' story on Roberts, and he gathered together several of the older Gilbertese, who had been a part of the colonizing activities at Gardner shortly after the Earhart disappearance.  After much conversation and deep-thinking, it was decided that there was a legend about the remains of a Polynesian man being found on Gardner, what year or specific circumstances unknown.  They were firm, however, that the skeleton of a woman had NEVER been found.  There was, too, a strange story of a woman's 'high-heel shoes' turning up at some point on Gardner.  This was a matter of some hilarity.

"Roberts said he was absolutely certain the remains of a woman had never been found because it would have been a matter of considerable import to everyone.  He added that the Polynesian man story was plausible because Polynesians from Niau occupied Gardner Island sometime around the turn-of-the-century."

Thus, Goerner was assured only that a >woman's< bones had not been found on Gardner.  Since both Isaac and Hoodless identified the Niku Bones as those of a Polynesian or mixed-race male, the legend mentioned by the Gilbertese elders could well have arisen from the 1940 bones discovery.

Pat Gaston

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

Well, not exactly.  The letter you quote from was written by Fred to yours truly so I'm quite familiar with it.

Isaac did identify the bones as being those of an elderly Polynesian. Hoodless disagreed.

"I am not prepared to give an opinion on the race or nationality of this skeleton, except to state that it is probably not that of a pure South Sea Islander-Micronesian or Polynesian. It could be that of a short, stocky, muscular European, or even a half-caste, or person of mixed European descent." 

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bones_Chronology4.html

Because Goerner was making his inquiries on Tarawa and because Isaac was the Acting Medical Officer on Tarawa when he made his dismissive assessment, it seems likely that  Isaac was the source of the story Goerner was told.  I stand by my assertion that Goerner received assurances that the story told by Kilts could not possibly be true.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:22:37 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: New TIGHAR project

Ric wrote:

> Geez...you guys...we did this with the late, lamented Wheel of Fortune (WoF)
> and demonstrated that speculation based upon minimal information seldom comes
> close to the truth (a worthy lesson).  ...

Um, another worthy lesson is that if you let Dennis have some fun, then you'll get another $50 out of him for TIGHAR.

Utilitarianism isn't adequate as a complete philosophy of life, but it has its moments.  ;o)

LTM.
Marty #2359
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Are you suggesting that I can bought for a lousy fifty bucks?????  I'm holding out for the whole $55.
************************************************************************ 
From Hilary

Off at a Tangent....When I did my scuba instructor it was led by a DOD Logistics Capt. in the Canadian Armed Forces. He would tell us tales of aircraft and tanks that had been downed in the Mtns in Germany and following the war they were pushed into lakes etc. in a clean up attempt . Whilst Scott was stationed in Germany they used to go and dive a lot of these lakes (Most still were prohibited  due to unexploded ammo) and told a tale of an farmer who had directed them to a previously unexplored by them lake and told them to find the underwater river and then find where it descends further into the ground ....to cut to the chase they found a WW11 aircraft that seemed to be parked up against the wall...following this dive they were caught and never revisited. Maybe one of these dump sites has shown a treasure or two that was important.  HH
*********************************************************************
 From Ric

Perhaps...but the one thing that seems to be consistent with all such stories is their "friend of a friend" attribution and the lack of specifics.
*********************************************************************
 From Herman # 2406

What about North Africa? It's overseas and quite a few bombers got lost in the Sahara in 1942-43. The Brits only recently found a Hermes passenger plane that got lost because of a navigation error and ran out of gas in the Fifties. Anyway, anything still out there should have been made of metal to survive today. That excludes quite a few rare WW II Italian and German types. As for the Do-335... As far as I can remember they only operated over Germany and those that survived are all accounted for (in museums). And there are all those wonderful stories about underground shelters the Germans used to close when they retreated. One is believed to be in Belgium (under the former Brustem airbase). Then there's that lake near Florennes airbase where a Me-110 night fighter is said to be still lying on the bottom... And one rare aircraft (these days at least) is a FW-190 near Ghent. It crashed at Sint-Denijs Westrem while attacking the airfield (B-61 to the Allies) on 1 January 1945 and since it was lying in his way and nobody cared, the farmer dug a hole in the ground and dumped it into it, recovering the hole  with soil  and continued growing wheat until he sold the field to a development company in the Nineties. Someone built a supermarket next to it and the FW-190 now lies under the parking lot covered with tarmac, which makes it too expensive for treasure hunters to dig it out. Let me make another educated guess. Since the Russians have become our friends again lots of treasure hunters come back with German wrecks that were left in the wide open spaces of the former Soviet Union. And the Germans did use some rare types there! At the time of Stalingrad they used anything that flew to fly in supplies. Let's see... The Ju-52 is hardly rare. There are still some flying. We can exclude the six engine Me-321 transport which was really a glider made of wood and canvas and powered by six radials. I seem to remember they used some rare Ju-90 and Ju-290 too. Unless "overseas" includes Asia, in which case there must be quite a few C-109s and C-46 lying around in the Himalayas. And didn't the Chinese have wrecks of some of the B-25s that Mitchell's boys left there in 1942? And one could include Iceland which is covered by glaciers and crashed US multi engine airplanes that were being ferried to Britain.

Let me think again. It must be something TIGHAR heard of during a previous mission... I've got it! It's that Belgian DC-4 (registered OO-CBG) which crashed near Gander on 18 September 1946. Gander is overseas for it is in New Foundland and New Foundland is an island. The airplane crashed into the woods when it cleared low hanging clouds while attempting to land and refuel en route to New York, killing 27 of 44 on board. The wreck is still there. It has never been recovered. Ric, if that's the one you're after, I can help with some details. I even know the pilot who ferried the first DC-4 to Belgium.

LTM (who loves guessing)
************************************************************************ 
*
 From Ric

Dear oh dear oh dear.....okay McGee this is gonna cost you 55 big ones.

The object of the new TIGHAR project is an American type of which no example survives in captivity.  The location and condition of the aircraft (excellent) is known.  It is not a Brewster Buffalo.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:23:26 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: HAM or ham?

because way back  there was no voice communications just Morse code and it started  as a hamfist [using your hand on the key]  then over time was shortened to ham.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:30:01 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: New TIGHAR project

Since the Forum is a little slow, can we open it up to a little guessing game? Since you can't really spill the beans, can we at least get responses in the Hot-Warm-Cool-Cold range?

If so, I'd like to posit my top five guesses about the World War 2 aircraft:

1) Pacific - One of the Doolittle Raid's B-25s
2) Europe - An Me-163B or Do-335 (tip of the hat to Dennis)
3) Europe - Glenn Miller's Norseman
4) Europe - A dig at the site of Hess' Bf-110 crash
5) Pacific - Admiral Yamamoto's "Betty" (I know, it's already been found and surveyed)

Like Dennis said, I've got way too much time on my hands, too!

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
**********************************************************************
 From Ted Campbell

Let's step back and take a look at the wreaks that TIGHAR has on its radar scope.  If I recall each has an associated mystery with it e.g. missing famous person(s), an unidentified voice or Morse radio message indicating distress, etc.  Rarely do we find TIGHAR going after just a "unique wreaked aircraft" without something else to increase its intrinsic value.

Therefore, If the mystery wreak is indeed in Europe and it has something of historical value, other than the airframe itself, then my guess is it has something to do with a lost important person.  Glen Miller? However, Glen Miller's bird is thought to have been bombed out of the sky by returning British bombers on their way home from an unsuccessful mission into Germany.  Also, it is believed that this unfortunate accident took place over the English Channel.

If the Glen Miller aircraft is the target then I would have to ask why, how  and at what expense this type of search would take precedence over our beloved AE?  A possible answer could be that Glen Miller's aircraft et al (WWII and the people still alive to remember, his popularity during the time and the sometime speculation that he was either on a spy mission or committed suicide, etc.) could generate much needed funds for TIGHAR's other projects.

It will be interesting to see what develops!
**************************************************************
 From Rick Metzger

Ric,

At least tell us if it is on this list:

http://www.tgplanes.com/query.asp?action=quicklist

Rick
*****************************************************************
 From Ric

Yes, the aircraft is on that list.  As I've said:

> The object of the new TIGHAR project is an American type of which no
> example survives in captivity.  The location and condition of the  
> aircraft (excellent) is known.  It is not a Brewster Buffalo.

I'll add that this is a Pacific project.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:30:41 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: l'Oiseau Blanc?

Herman, if it turns out not to be in Europe I'll fly over and you can help me find a Sopwith Camel to restore. <G>

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:35:08 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: New TIGHAR project

Just wondered if it might be a Douglas TBD navy torpedo bomber?  Perhaps a Martin Baltimore or it's cousin whose name I cannot remember? They are very rare.  Northrop single engine bombers and cousins to the army A-17, maybe those are the only three I can think of  as possible so far.

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

Those are excellent guesses.  One of them is correct.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:56:05 EST
From:         Robert Wear
Subject:      Re: New TIGHAR project

Is it a TBD?
**********************************************
 From Ric

Yes.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:47:00 EST
From:         Rick Metzger
Subject:      Re: new TIGHAR project

Good thing I did not show you my looong list of planes, this narrows it down to a TBD Devastator, heard "rumors" of three together in shallow water (intact) and one inland (broken up).

LTL
everybody can guess, but only those that are wright are right
Rick Metzger
***************************************************************
 From Carl Peltzer

Gee, so glad to make the guess closer! likely the Douglas as the other last known one other than the those blown out of the sky north of Midway and the ones onboard Lexington and Yorktown is down here in the waters around Florida and the Navy Dept will not allow ANYONE to save it from the elements.  what a waste from a bunch of supposedly intelligent people.  everything the navy Dept owns is never abandoned. If one of these is it I wish a ton of luck in getting ownership! 

However I don't know of any Martin bombers in existence anywhere in the world. Those were outgrowths of the first B10 and ordered by the French, taken over by the free French and the Brits, used all over Europe and N. Africa till none left to my knowledge.

Carl Peltzer

Ps; I need to bring this to my Cadets so they might become both enlightened and fascinated.  My thanks to all and continue the quest, especially to Ric who suffers the slings and arrows with much humor and courtesy. I personally wish to help more as time goes on.
************************************************************
 From Dennis McGee

Robert Wear said:  "Is it a TBD?"

Ric said: "Yes."

OK.  Well, that was fun, wasn't it?   Next time Ric try to make it a little more difficult, OK?  We're professionals here, we can do it. :-)

LTM, who loves a good game
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

You guys are good.  Next question: would Mr. Wear care to be a TIGHAR member courtesy of Mr. McGee?
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:50:53 EST
From:         Larry Turner
Subject:      TBD Devastator

This looks like a good candidate.

http://www.centuryinter.net/midway/tbd.html
*******************************************************************
 From Ric

Doesn't it though.

*******************************************************************
 From David Hertog

SOME HISTORY OF THE DEVASTATOR

http://tbd_devastator.tripod.com/tbdpage.htm
*******************************************************************
 From Alexander

I found some stuff about the TBD-1 if thats the one you mean. I found it interesting so i thought i would share it with some of the others who like me are not up on all aircraft related info...

Specifications: Douglas TBD-1 Devastator
Dimensions:
Wing span:  50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
Length:  35 ft 0 in (10.69 m)
Height:  15 ft 1 in (4.59 m)
Weights:
Empty:  6,182 lbs (2,804 kg)
Gross:  9,862 lbs (4,473 kg)
Max T/O:  10,194 lbs (4,623 kg)
Performance:
Maximum Speed:  206 mph (331 km/hr) @ 8,000 ft (2,438 m)
Cruising Speed:  128 mph (205 km/hr)
Landing Speed:  68 mph (109 km/hr)
Service Ceiling:  19,700 ft (6004 m)
Range:  435 mi (700 km) with Mk XIII Torpedo
716 mi (1,152 km) with 1,000 lbs (453 kg) bombs
Powerplant:
Pratt-Whitney R-1830-64 "Double Wasp" air-cooled radial.
900 hp (671 kW) take-off
850 hp (634 kW) at 8,000 ft. (2,438 m)
Armament:
1 Mk XIII Torpedo - Diameter: 21 in (533 mm), Length: 15 ft. (4.57 m)
Weight: 1,200 lb (544 kg) or 1,000 lbs. (453 kg) bombs

The XTBD-1 first flew on April 15, 1935 and nine days later was delivered to Navy for testing. It was designed to a specification for aircraft operating from a new class of carriers the Navy was launching, the first of which was the USS Ranger. On June 25, 1937 Douglas began delivery of 114 TBD-1s and by 1938 the type had proved very successful in trials and combat exercises. There was an additional order for 15 aircraft in 1938 to replenish operational losses. Upon its introduction, the Devastator was the most modern and effective torpedo bomber perhaps in the world, the design often referred to as "radical". There were a number of "firsts" associated with the TBD; the "Devastator" was the first monoplane design ordered for service with the US Navy; it was the first with hydraulic (as opposed to "manual") folding wings; it was the first "all metal" aircraft ordered by the Navy. The carriers Saratoga, Enterprise, Lexington, Wasp, Hornet, Yorktown and Ranger were all equipped with the Devastator as the standard torpedo bomber. And, although Devastator production totaled only 129 aircraft, it achieved a notoriety completely out of proportion to its numbers (as we shall see).

During the first five months of 1942, the TBD seemed to lead a charmed life. By February 1942, the carriers were making raids on island bastions in the Marshalls and Gilberts held by the Japanese which were largely successful and the Devastator gave a good account of itself during these battles. On May 7, TBDs were instrumental in the sinking of the Japanese carrier "Shoho" in the Battle of the Coral Sea.

I hope this info is of interest to others out there.

Alexander
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:56:16 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Radio Operators at Lae

Has anyone ever seen the name of "Abe Jacobs" associated with Harry Balfour, radio operator at Lae, when AE took off?  On July 15th, 1982, he told a researcher that he was a radio operator out of Lae in 1937 along with Harry "Bait our" (sic), presumably Harry Balfour.

I have never run across that name from personnel identified at Lae by Balfour, Chater, and others.

Ron Bright
*****************************************************************
 From Ric

I've never heard the name but Chater's letter does not mention the name of the Lae radio operator and, as far as I know, Balfour's name does not appear in any contemporaneous account of the events at Lae (i.e. not mentioned by Earhart in her cables or in Last Flight and not mentioned by Collopy).  I think Balfour was probably there but he may not have been the only radio operator present.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:05:41 EST
From:         Bob Wear
Subject:      Re: New TIGHAR project

Don't remember where it is, but I do know there's a TBD in the water someplace that was supposed to be in good shape, and relatively accessible.

A little factoid about the Battle of Midway...there's a picture on the Enterprise of some of the surviving TBD's after the battle.  Interestingly enough, the 7th plane of each of the 3 squadrons (i.d. 5-T-&, 8-T-7 and 6-T-7) survived.  This is the only numbered plane that survived from all 3 Midway squadrons.

George Gay of VT-8 fame wanted to find and restore a TBD.  he was going to paint it to look like his old 8-T-14.

Regards,
Bob Wear
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:13:39 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      about the TBD project

My compliments to the forum on your rapid and accurate identification of the subject of our new project.  We're presently in an initial and somewhat delicate assessment phase to define the scope and goals of the project.  As I said before, we'll say more as soon as we can.  Historically, the TBD is a tremendously important type but it's off-topic for this forum and we have plenty of on-topic subjects we need to address - so let's move on.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:37:23 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      Questions and answers

By now many of you may have read my review of Rollin Reineck's new book "Amelia Earhart Survived" on the TIGHAR website.  For those who may have missed it I've included it at the end of this posting.

As the review says:

"In his Introduction the author acknowledges that, because the book presents new information, there are bound to be skeptics. He cautions that challenges will come from those who have their own agenda but he welcomes critiques that are based upon logic and facts.

"TIGHAR is pleased to accept Col. Reineck's invitation because if, as he claims, the Earhart case has been solved by virtue of forensic science, we would certainly like to know that. We'll review Col. Reineck's evidence according to the same rigorous standards we use in all of our work. Some of his points rely solely upon stories told many years after the fact. Such anecdotal recollections are always suspect unless supported by hard evidence, so we won't argue with Col. Reineck about whose memories are credible and whose aren't. Other points, as he clearly states, are merely his beliefs and we'll make no attempt to challenge him on matters of faith. A number of his key pieces of evidence, however, are subject to factual review and those are the points our research will address. As we proceed with our work we'll report on our findings here on the TIGHAR website."

I'm pleased to announce that Col. Reineck has agreed to answer questions I have about some of the factual assertions he makes in his book.  Our unedited "Q & A" will take place here on the forum.  You folks will be the audience but you'll have to sit on your hands.  This will be a one-on-one exchange between Rollin and me.  I'm won't post questions or comments from others pertaining to his book until Rollin and I  have concluded our discussion.  We'll also post the unedited questions and answers on the TIGHAR website as part of the factual review mentioned above.

Col. Reineck has said:

"Please be advised that I consider that the book speaks for itself.

"I suggest that your questions be direct and asked for information purposes and not for discussion purposes.  I don't intend to argue or debate.  Legitimate questions will get legitimate answers."

I entirely agree.  I'll post my first question on Monday.

LTM,
Ric
******************************************
After nearly 67 years of controversy, any claimed solution to the Earhart mystery qualifies as extraordinary, but this latest of the conspiracy-theory books raises the bar for extraordinary claims. Much of Col. Reineck's book is a recitation of articles of faith held by those who believe that Amelia Earhart was captured by the Japanese -- she landed in the Marshall Islands, witnesses saw her in Japanese custody, the Roosevelt administration knew what happened, etc. The evidence offered is the usual mix of selected anecdotes and imaginative interpretations of a few documents, but where Col. Reineck has broken new ground is in his re-examination of the charge that a woman by the name of Irene Bolam who died in New Jersey in 1982 was, in fact, Amelia EarhartCol. Reineck's assertions, if true,  resent a damning case.

*   He says that Irene Bolam was photographed under protest wearing items (medals and insignia) that had been presented to Amelia Earhart.

*   He says that after the publication of a 1970 book revealing her true identity Irene Bolam sued the authors and the publisher for approximately two million dollars, but when the defendants offered to pay and a judge asked that she consent to be fingerprinted, she dropped the lawsuit.

*   He presents numerous photos of Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam intended to demonstrate that they were the same person.

*   He presents a computer-generated illustration by a forensic artist showing what Amelia Earhart might look like at age 75 next to a photo of Irene Bolam at a similar age.

*   He says that there were actually two Irene Bolams and that a renowned forensic anthropologist finds it difficult to disagree with that conclusion.

While cautioning that the full story of Amelia Earhart's disappearance may never be learned, Col. Reineck does state in bold-face type that "[T]he case of the missing person Amelia Earhart, surely has been solved by virtue of forensic science." An extraordinary claim, to be sure.

In his Introduction the author acknowledges that, because the book presents new information, there are bound to be skeptics. He cautions that challenges will come from those who have their own agenda but he welcomes critiques that are based upon logic and facts.

TIGHAR is pleased to accept Col. Reineck's invitation because if, as he claims, the Earhart case has been solved by virtue of forensic science, we would certainly like to know that. We'll review Col. Reineck's evidence according to the same rigorous standards we use in all of our work. Some of his points rely solely upon stories told many years after the fact. Such anecdotal recollections are always suspect unless supported by hard evidence, so  we won't argue with Col. Reineck about whose memories are credible and whose aren't. Other points, as he clearly states, are merely his beliefs and we'll make no attempt to challenge him on matters of faith. A number of his key pieces of evidence, however, are subject to factual review and those are the points our research will address. As we proceed with our work we'll report on our findings here on the TIGHAR website.

Richard Gillespie
Executive Director
TIGHAR
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:24:03 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: End of the Iwanski thread

> This has gone far enough.  The whole episode has been useful as an
> illustration (as if we needed another one) of how unreliable undocumented
> anecdotal recollections can be.

I ran across a well document example of this phenomenon (remembering something which didn't happen) a few days ago.

http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/mushball.htm

It's fairly brief, and pretty interesting.  And shows how perfectly honest people can simply be mistaken about what they remember.

Bill #2229
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:47:43 EST
From:         Phil Carpenter
Subject:      GIS system

I have just read the newest TRACKS ,rec'd today,"cover to cover" and finally feel brave enough to ask something on this forum ... Please edify...expand ... explain further .... point number 10, G.I.S. Construction, of the 10 to research projects ... the verbiage in TRACKS makes it sound like just a site map...in ad agency language ... please this is not a criticism ... as normally a silent participant I enjoy TIGHAR immensely ... This issue is the one I will use to explain my interest to others ....

LTM... Phil Carpenter ..#2453

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

I'll try to describe the GIS system we hope to eventually have. Imagine a computer-image map of Nikumaroro something like the gorgeous satellite photo we have.  Now click on some part of the island and you get a menu that allows you to see what artifacts have been found there and zoom in to see exactly where they were found, or you could see what that part of the island looked like in 1941; or you could ask the sytem to overlay the artifact location on what that area looked like in 1941.  Maybe you want to track the breakup of the shipwreck and trace how specific pieces of wreckage have travelled over the years to get a better understanding of what forces have acted on the island. Or maybe you want to see all the areas on the island that TIGHAR has never examined or all the areas where we have done detailed archaeological work or just the graves we have excavated, etc. etc.

A GIS system is a tool that allows you to present and arrange lots of different kinds of data - really any kind of data that can be represented spatially - in a single integrated, interactive format.  It allows you to see how complex factors fit together and recognize relationships that may not be otherwise apparent.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:01:06 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      First question for Rollin Reineck

Col. Reineck,

On page 68 of your book there is something that seems to be an advertisement by Earhart and Putnam for a navigator.  I'd like your permission to reproduce it on the TIGHAR website so that people can see what I mean.

Unlike all of the other illustrations in your book, it has no caption nor is there a credit and you don't mention it anywhere in the text.  I've never seen that document before.  Where did it come from?

LTM.
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:02:12 EST
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      False memories

Bill Leary: Thanks for the excellent posting about recollections and human memory. I have been somewhat aware of this phenomenon, but this example nicely capsulizes it. For me, this was a real eye-opener.

Love to Mother, or is it Father?
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:36:46 EST
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      Navigator ad - Reineck

>On page 68 of your book there is something that seems to be an
>advertisement by Earhart and Putnam for a navigator. .... I've never  
>seen that document before.  Where did it come from?

Ric,

A good question. Yes you may put in on your web site.

The reason there is no caption is that I had nothing to say about the item.

I received the item from major Joe Gervais. His knowledge concerning the item is about the same as mine.

I did find the item interesting as it clearly spells out what type of professional they want.  It appears that GGP would make the selection. Of course in those days, the choice was rather limited.  The other thing I find interesting is that there is no mention of salary.

Another interesting point is that it appears to be in the shape of a bulletin to be place at airports or other places where aviators of the day would hang out.  I don't think it was meant for a newspaper.

Sorry I can't be of any more help.

Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI
****************************************************
 From Ric

Thank you.  We'll put it up on the TIGHAR website (credited to your book of course) as part of these discussions.  Do I understand you correctly that neither you nor Major Gervais know the origin of the document but that you both believe it to be authentic?  Have you considered the possibility that it might be a hoax?
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:38:14 EST
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: GIS system

too bad we could not put some very specialized equipment flying over the island that can find,  identify and show manmade objects which would make the task much easier for a search crew.  This does exist, unfortunetly the cost just for the equipment is 25thousand dollars by itself and the island is so far away.

I know that the military has equipment such as this  and perhaps someone has connections to get them to do that as a form of training mission, just a thought and I really cannot say too much more as a lot is classified secret. Also, willing to bet that some might be up in a sattelite in outer space and might have  already been done and only needs to be located.

 From Carl Peltzer
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:42:09 EST
From:         Robert Wear
Subject:      Re: new TIGHAR project

>Next question: would Mr. Wear care to be a TIGHAR member
>courtesy of Mr. McGee?

I'm game if he is.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:30:53 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Gallagher's House

Did you ever manage to get a fairly definite location of Gallagher's "other" house, or is it still mostly speculation, with the probability based on finding bits of screening, tar paper etc.?

Th' WOMBAT
*****************************************************

 From Ric

There is only one reference to a "house built for Gallagher" other than the main Government Rest House in the village.  It's a single sentence in Paul Laxton's article "Nikumaroro" which appears in the June/September 1951 issue of the Journal of the Polynesian Society.

"Turning the tip to return along the northern rim, narrow, thundering with surf driven by the north-east trade winds, the path ends in a house built for Gallagher on a strip of land cleared from lagoon to ocean beach so that the fresh winds blow easily through."

(The entire article is on the TIGHAR website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/laxton.html)

None of the former residents of Nikumaroro we have interviewed are familiar with such a house nor is there any reference to activity on that part of the island in the archival records we reviewed in Tarawa - except for the events surrounding the discovery of bones.  Our best guess at this time is that Laxton was shown the water tank at the Seven Site which had a corrugated metal roof erected beside it to collect and direct rainwater into the tank.  The structure was probably built at Gallagher's direction during the bone search or subsequent experimental cocnut planting operations. Laxton may have interpreted what he saw to be a "house" - thus he described as "a house built for Gallagher." 

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:57:14 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Membership

Ric said:  "Next question: would Mr. Wear care to be a TIGHAR member courtesy of Mr. McGee

Robert said: "I'm game if he is."

Dennis says: "The check's in the mail"

LTM, who is finicky about debt
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

Thank you sir.  Now all I need is Bob Wear's address and phone number so that we can process his membership. Bob, you can send that to me privately at TIGHARIC@aol.com

Welcome aboard!
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:08:56 EST
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      Re: Navigator ad - Reineck

Ric,

Naturally, I always consider the possiblity that a document or a statement made is a hoax.  However, I don't have a litmus test to make the determination.  As You, I look at other evidence that supports the document or statement.

In this particular case, I thought the document was somewhat innocuous. It would seem logical that AE would put out the word that she needed a navigator.  In so doing, she spelled out the type of mission and the type of equipmnt she was flying.

I have no strong feeling either way as to the document's authentisity. However, I think it is probably real.   Do you have a different opinion?

Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI
*********************************************************
Rollin,

There are a number of things about the advertisement that lead me to conclude that it is a hoax.

- As you know, the original plan for the world flight was for Amelia to be accompanied by a navigator only on the initial transpacific legs, not for the entire flight as described in the advertisement.

- The description of the planned route of flight in the advertisement is incorrect.  The South Atlantic crossing was to be from Dakar to Natal, not Fortaleza, and the originally anticipated route of return to the U.S. was via Mexico, not via Puerto Rico and Florida.  The route described in the advertisement appears to be a somewhat inaccurate reversal of the actual second attempt route.

- The advertisement shows the aircraft's fuel capacity as 1,202 gallons. According to the licensing and inspection records of the Bureau of Air Commerce,  Earhart's Electra never had that fuel capacity.  When originally flight tested by Lockheed as X16020 the tanks totaled 1,198 gallons. By November 27, 1936 modifications had reduced this to 1,151 gallons and that figure remained unchanged until the airplane disappeared.  The 1,202 figure seems to come from the 1967 biography of Paul Mantz {"Hollywood Pilot") in which the author, Don Dwiggins, quoted the recollections of one Clarence Belinn, superintendent of engineering at National Airways in Boston, who claimed to have designed the fuel system for NR16020.  Lockheed records make no mention of Mr. Belinn.  Lockheed drawing number "42681 Fuel System Diagram, Amelia Earhart Electra" was made by R.L. Hayman on February 6, 1937.

- The clincher is the advertisement's mention of the "Bendix loop antennae" (sic).  There was, of course, only one Bendix loop antenna installed on NR16020 (the use of the plural "antennae" is probably a typo) and it did not appear on the airplane until the first week of March 1937.  By that time the navigator for the flight had already been announced. As you know, Earhart and Putnam kept the planned world flight a closely guarded secret until the press conference at the Barclay Hotel in New York on February 12, 1937. Harry Manning was present at that event and was introduced as Earhart's selection as navigator for the Pacific crossing.

Could the advertisement possibly refer to the search for a second navigator that resulted in the recruitment of Fred Noonan?  In my opinion, no.  Besides the many errors in the description of the route and the airplane, posting an ad like this after Manning had already been named would be tantamount to saying "He's no good.  We need somebody else."  Noonan appeared on the scene only a few days before the flight's departure and the plan was for him to go only as far as Howland Island.

Because there was no time when the information presented in the advertisement could be true, and because the navigator was selected before the planned flight was made public, it appears to me that the advertisement is a transparent hoax.  I would welcome any additional information or observations you might have that would shed a different light on this document.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:41:49 EST
From:         Lee Boyle
Subject:      When is the next trip to Gardner Island?

I may have missed info on the next trip to Gardner Island. I would be interested in when this will happen.

Lee Boyle
2060
***********************************************************
From Ric

With so much happening this year we've pushed Niku V back a year to 2005.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:12:43 EST
From:         Lee
Subject:      Electra wrecks

RIC is there any more info  on the electra crash sights you mentioned in the latest tighar tracks ?

LEE 1821ce       ps  LTM
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Sure.  Lots.
We'll be writing them up in later issues of TIGHAR Tracks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:35:58 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Electra wrecks

There is a Electra 10 crash site just west of Palmdale California, check under, Aviation Wreaks of Southern California. This one happened in the late thirties. I have been working on this but I have not been able to come up with anything. A person who was involved with finding the site in the thirties and who also helped fined it in the last few years clamed to have a set of plans of AEs Electra that have been signed by her. His name is Howard Werner of Burbank California. Howard has passed on and I have been trying to find his family, but I have had no luck. If someone out there is good at this kind of thing please help.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:41:10 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      National Geographic

Ric, I just read the lastest issue about diving on the Phoenix Islands. Was that the same crew that TIGHAR was with ? Pretty nice article.

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

Same ship, different expedition.  That article is about the trip in 2002 led by marine biologist Dr. Greg Stone.  It was Greg who saw the late lamented Wheel of Fortune on the reef not far from the coconut tree in the photo in the article that shows a big coconut crab.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:42:30 EST
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      3 questions for Rollin

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.  My analysis is that it is a legitimate document.

Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI
********************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you.  Let's move on.

Before we get into the question of whether Irene Bolam was really Amelia Earhart, I'm curious about a few other assertions you make in your book that purport to solve long-standing mysteries in the Earhart case.  Here are three.

1. Did Earhart have the correct coordinates for Howland Island? The map of Howland Island prepared for Earhart by Clarence Williams sometime prior to the first World Flight attempt shows a latitude/longitude position for the island that is roughly 5 nautical miles in error.  As you note, the island's correct position was determined during an earlier visit by the Itasca and I agree with you that it is entirely reasonable to think that Earhart was advised of the corrected position.  However, to my knowledge, no documentation has ever turned up to confirm that she was so advised  and it remains one of the many annoying uncertainties in the Earhart case.

On page 97 of your book you claim to have put the matter to rest by observing that the 2, 556 statute mile distance from Lae to Howland used by Earhart is based upon the corrected coordinates.  As much as I would like to have this question settled once and for all, I must disagree with your assertion on three counts:

1.  As I'm sure you realize, a point that is 2,556 miles from Lae can be  anywhere on circle with Lae at it's center and a radius of 2,556 miles.

2.  The shortest distance (great circle) from Lae to the correct position for Howland is not 2,556 statute miles; it is 2,558.6 statute miles.  The great circle route from Lae to the erroneous position used by Clarence Williams is 2,553 statute miles.

3.  William's map of Howland that gives the wrong coordinates also specifies the 2,556 mile distance to Lae.  Clearly William's calculated that distance based on the wrong coordinates. (We'll put up a copy of William's map of Howland when we post this discussion on the TIGHAR website.)

So what does the 2,556 mile distance really represent?  It's the distance calculated by Williams using a series of straight-line segments (rhumb lines) rather than a great circle.  Flying a true great circle, shortest distance route would mean making constant tiny heading corrections.  Not practical. Instead, Williams laid out a series of heading changes that would approximate a great circle. (We'll put up a copy of William's route when we post this discussion on the TIGHAR website.) The distance he came up with - 2,556 miles - is only three miles longer than the true great circle distance from Lae to the incorrect Howland coordinates he used.

In short, it appears that both your logic and your information on this point are incorrect. Do you have other information that might change that impression?

2. Did Noonan have a Second Class Commercial Radio Operator license? On page 95 of your book you state that Michael A. Lange has done research that reveals that Noonan had such a license, but you don't say how he established that fact.  It's an important point because if Noonan did have that degree of competence in sending and receiving Morse code then he lied to Eric Chater, General Manager of Guinea Airways.

"On enquiry Miss Earhart and Captain Noonan advised that they entirely  depended on radio telephone reception as neither of them were able to read morse at any speed but could recognise an individual letter sent several times. This  point was again mentioned by both of them later when two different sets at Lae were used for listening in for time signals." (The Chater Report:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html)

As you may recall, recent discussions on the Earhart Forum have noted that attempts by researchers to obtain records from the Federal Communications Commission relating to any licenses Noonan may have held have not been successful. Please tell us.  Who is Michael A. Lang and what proof did he find?

3. Did Earhart know about the high frequency direction finder on Howland? As you correctly note in your book, Dept. of Interior representative Richard Black arranged to borrow a high frequency direction finder from the Navy. This receiver was set up on Howland Island and was intended to supplement the direction finding apparatus aboard the Itasca.  No mention of this unit appears in any of the official message traffic that preceded the Lae/Howland flight and it has always been a puzzle whether Earhart was aware of it. On page 90 of your book you state unequivocally that Richard Black advised George Putnam who then informed Earhart about the high frequency direction finder on Howland. How have you solved this aspect of the Earhart mystery?

There are many other similar issues we could discuss but let's get these three out of the way and then move on to Irene Bolam.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:52:15 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Electra wrecks

>There is a Electra 10 crash site just west of Palmdale California, check
>under, Aviation Wreaks of Southern California.

That's very interesting, Ron, but Google can't find anything under the title you gave, with or without misspelling "wrecks."  Any other suggestions for more information?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:20:24 EST
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      L-10 crash site in Mint Canyon, Saugus, California

Ron Berry stated, "There is a Electra 10 crash site just west of Palmdale California."

Good work, Ron.

I believe the L-10 Ron is referring to has been located in Mint Canyon and the crash site documented. Please refer to the web site, Aircraft Wrecks in Southern California, at: htttp://www.qnet.com/~carcomm/wreck17.htm.

Apparently, little wreckage remains today at the crash site.

LTM,
Roger Kelley
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Roger.  That's correct.  The site is of no help to us because the center section of the aircraft (where dados would be) was gutted by fire.  In our selection of old Electra crash sites to visit we've had to look for those in which the cabin area did not burn.  Unfortunately, that was a fairly rare event.

We had fully a dozen other forum subscribers who found the correct link to this crash.  Thanks to all but in the interest of saving everyone time and bandwidth I won't post the duplicate messages.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:27:05 EST
From:         Richard Metzger
Subject:      Re: Electra wrecks

Found these accidents so far...still looking for one in CA.

ACCIDENT DETAILS

August 05, 1936
22:00
St. Louis, Missouri
Chicago and Southern Airlines
4
New Orleans - Chicago
Lockheed 10B Electra
NC16022
8 (passengers:6 crew:2)
8 (passengers:6 crew:2)
0

Crashed while attempting to take off from Lamber Field. The making of a turn at an extremely low altitude, for reasons unknown, in which the wing of the airplane unintentionally contacted the ground.

ACCIDENT DETAILS

December 23, 1936
Near Dallas, Texas
Braniff Airways
Lockheed 10 Electra
NC14905
1018
6 (passengers:? crew:?)
6 (passengers:? crew:?)
0

ACCIDENT DETAILS
August 15, 1939
Off Copenhagen, Denmark
British Airway
Lockheed 10 Electra
G-ASEY
6 (passengers:? crew:?)
5 (passengers:? crew:?)
0
Crashed into the sea after a fire aboard.

ACCIDENT DETAILS

June 20, 1944
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Varig
Lockheed 10C Electra
PP-VAG
1008
10 (passengers:? crew:?)
10 (passengers:? crew:?)
0
Crashed into a river.

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

Thanks but you're reinventing the wheel.  The Summer 1978 issue of the AAHS Journal has an excellent article on the Model 10 by Bill Larkin and Tom Emmert.   It includes a listing of every Electra built, its ownership history, and its ultimate fate (if known).  We started with that list and have researched our way down to the list of target sites I previously posted.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:44:43 EST
From:         Dave Chase
Subject:      Locating and Interviewing  people

Just as a matter of courtesy to the Werner's (and others) of the world, I've the following thoughts for your review and comment:

I assume that when we identify/publish a name line 'Howard Werner' that folks who read this web site are savvy enough to know NOT to try to contact them without coordinating that activity through you. The last thing we want is twenty different TIGHARS - or worse yet - other 'characters/authors', calling up a slew of people in search of info.

Given that, I assume that if someone locates "Werners" in the general area and of the appropriate age, they would send a private email to you with the data rather than publishing it on the forum?

Perhaps this has not been a problem in the past and is not a big issue??? On the other hand, perhaps TIGHAR has regional teams qualified in locating and interviewing these folks already and you can just point out that the name(s) has been passed off to that group of 'headhunters'? In that case why specify the complete name on the forum to begin with?

Very curious since I've located several names/addresses/ph#'s of interest and I suspect others have as well.

Dave Chase
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for bringing this up Dave.  This is a public forum open to anyone who wants to subscribe, so we have no control over what people do with the information they obtain here.  We do, of course, hope that everyone shares our desire to get to the truth about the Earhart disappearance and recognizes that a coordinated approach is essential to effective investigation.  We would very much prefer that any new "lead" be discussed either here on the forum or, preferably, in a private email to me before any action is taken.  We're not out to steal anyone's thunder but, as the Wicked Witch of the West said, "These things must me done dellllicately."

Anyone who wants to communicate with me privately needs only preface his or her comments with "Private For Ric", or "Confidential", or "Eyes Only", or "Eat After Reading", etc.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:33:22 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: L-10 crash site in Mint Canyon, Saugus, California

Ric wrote:

>The site is of no help to us because the center section of the aircraft
>(where dados would be) was gutted by fire.  In our selection of old
>Electra crash sites to visit we've had to look for those in which the
>cabin area did not burn.

Ric, perhaps you are writing this off prematurely. You might check with some forensics folks and fire investigators. Just as DNA was of no value not too long ago we've come a long way in investigative techniques.

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

Let's remember that the purpose of our investigation of old Electra wrecks is to try to find existing examples of the same kind of dados we found on Niku.  I somehow doubt that even forensic experts can do that from a pile of ashes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:52:19 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Locating and Interviewing  people

Dave I would not have mentioned Mr. Werners name except it is in the public domain, and any who wishes to read the article about the search could see this information easily enough. My reason for bringing this particular site up is the fact that a set of plans to the airplane that everyone is interested in could very well be in the Werner family's sphere of influnce. I am not very good at this kind of searching so let me just say this if anyone can find the right information please send it to Ric.

Ron
**********************************************************
From Ric

We're taking steps to try to locate Mr. Werner but I should probably mention that it's not likely that anyone has a set of plans for Earhart's airplane because there probably never was such a thing.  Lockheed did not draw up an entire set of plans for every airplane.  Earhart's airplane was a standard 10E except for some fairly minor modifications (fewer cabin windows, no passenger seats, some special fuel tanks, etc.).

There were drawings done for at least some of the modifications.  We have the one for the fuel system (Lockheed Drawing 42681) and for the structural beef up of the landing gear attach points that was done during the repairs in April of '37.  It may be that Werner has a copy of other drawings done specifically for c/n 1055.  If so, we'd certainly like to see them.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:32:52 EST
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      Reineck re questions

I regret that due to some higher priority commitments, I have not had time to read or answer your latest questions.  I'm estimating at  least two weeks, possibly longer before I can respond.

Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI
*************************************************************
From Ric

That's okay.  It's up to you when and if you want to respond but so far I've raised four factual challenges to the credibility of your book and you have offered no defense except to say that you disagree with me.  I understand that you are busy with other matters.  So am I, but you're the one who wrote the book.  You've said that the book speaks for itself.  We'll let it do that and continue to examine the truth or falsehood of what it says.  I'll be happy to post your comments, rebuttals, or clarifications whenever you choose to offer them.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:41:00 EST
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Fred Noonan's Sailing Career

I found a possible early reference to Fred Noonan as a sailor, at ellisisland.org of all places. This F.J Noonan is described as the Purser aboard the United Fruit Company vessel "Santa Marta." The ship left Kingston, Jamaica on October 25, 1921 and arrived in New York City on November 17. There are a few inconsistencies: this FJN is described as 24 years old and 5 foot 6, but Ellis Island records often contain mistakes. Also, the "Fred Noonan, Sea Captain" Research Bulletin says he spent October-November 1921 on the "Lake Falama."

I think this could be the right FN, because the time period and location fit, he often signed his name as F.J Noonan, and sailed for the United Fruit Company in the 1920s. Has anyone looked into this?

Karen Hoy #2610

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

No, but this guy is too young, too short and doing the wrong job to be "our Fred." By 1921 Fred Noonan was living in Galveston, Texas and had his papers for 2nd Mate, Unlimited.  I wouldn't think he'd take a berth as a purser.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:08:01 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan's Sailing Career

Kill this thread quickly, it will only serve to feed the conspiracy theorists.  The "United Fruit Company" later served as a cover for the CIA operation to overthrow the government of Guatemala, and for parts of Operation Puma (the Bay of Pigs Invasion).

Robert Klaus

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

I'm not at liberty to discuss it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:13:45 EST
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      More Noonan Trivia

Who is researching Fred Noonan's parents? I am a little confused by the Cook County Voters Registration records.

In 1892, J.T Noonan (born in Maine) lived at 5033 S. Ashland Ave. The record says he had lived in the precinct for 1 year, the county for 10 years, and the state for 10 years. The 1890 registration found him at 227 Clark St, and says he had lived in the precinct for 6 months, the county for 4 years, and the state for 4 years. He wasn't listed for 1888.  I found the records on ancestry.com, but am wondering about the discrepancies (not that they're unusual for Chicago.)

I'm also trying to track down records from Taunton, Bristol County, Massachusetts. The 1870 Federal Census lists a Catherine Egan, born in England "about 1864. Could she be FN's mother?  Didn't someone find information that she was born on January 23, 1863?

Karen Hoy #2610
******************************************************************
From Ric

Catherine Helena Alice Egan born in London January 23, 1863.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:16:31 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: L-10 crash site in Mint Canyon, Saugus, California

With all this talk about Electra wrecks I can't help but think about Grace McGuire and her 10E. I know her secrecy has been alluded to in past postings. Now that she apparently is selling the aircraft -- have we had any luck getting in touch with her?

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

In a word...no.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:27:36 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      MSN Junk Mail Filters

I'm not sure how you'll let people know this, but since I just discovered it I thought I'd pass it on.

MSN / Hotmail has apparently recently changed their junk mail filter logic and numerous items which were previously being passed through successfully are now tagged as junk mail and handled accordingly.

One of the new ones (at least for me) is earhartforum@home.ease.lsoft.com

I blundered into this trying to fix something else.  I managed to find settings (under "my" hotmail, dispite my not actually being signed up for hotmail) which overrides this behavior.  I can detail the procedure for anyone who needs it.

This is with the mail system set to ENHANCED filtering.

I don't know if it happens when it's in DEFAULT mode.

    - Bill
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Hotmail has been a problem for some time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:41:40 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: L-10 crash site in Mint Canyon, Saugus, California

Who is this Grace McGuire and why is she keeping the L-10 such a secret? Can you give us the story?

Also, I know of a L-12 up in Hayward, CA... Would examination of that aircraft move the ball forward any?

LTM,
Dave (#2585)

P.S. Do I get a notification prior to my membership expiration, or am I committed to memory?
***********************************************************************
From Ric

You'll get a notification about six weeks prior to expiration and every month thereafter until you pay up or tell us to go to hell.

Grace McGuire is yet another Earhart wannabe who intends to fly an Electra around the world.  She has been intending to do that for about 20 years now. She bought her airplane in a fire sale (literally) after it was damaged in a hangar fire in Florida.  United Technologies was initially going to fund the rebuild and the flight but when they found out that Grace didn't have a multi-engine license they changed their mind.  She tried to line up other sponsorship but then she had a very bad bout with Lyme disease that left her debilitated for a long time.  The airplane languished in a locked hangar at the old Lakehurst Naval air Station (of Hindenburg fame) for years and years.  Grace has always been very closed-mouthed about the project but a couple years ago she moved the airplane to Old Bridge airport (a little single-strip general aviation field) and resumed work on it.  It is now assembled and the engines have been run (I've seen photos) and it is reportedly for sale.  That's abut all I know.

I don't know of anything we could learn from a rebuilt Model 12.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:49:49 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      Research needed

In preparing the draft first section of the Post-Loss Radio Study for mounting on the TIGHAR website for review I've come up with a question that I can't answer.  Perhaps the forum can help.

In the study I have written:

>No government agency made a comprehensive review of the failed search for
>Amelia Earhart. Officers and officials of organizations participating in the
>search filed reports describing their respective actions and expressing their
>opinions but there was no subsequent review comparable to a modern day National
>Transportation Safety Board inquiry.  Consequently, contrary to popular
>impression, there is no official verdict as to the flight's fate.

But the question remains - why not?  It's not like the Bureau of Air Commerce did not investigate accidents.  It's my impression that a comprehensive investigation was done of the 1931 crash that killed Knute Rockne, and I've seen the Bureau of Air Commerce report on the investigation of the 1938 Samoa Clipper crash that killed Ed Musick.  These were both air carrier losses but I see nothing in the Bureau's charter that exempts it from investigating fatal crashes of non-commercial flights.  Did the Bureau investigate the 1935 WileyPost/Will Rogers crash?

Earhart's Luke Field wreck did not involve fatalities and was not investigated by the Bureau but it did later officially admonish her for not reporting the accident.  The Army investigated the incident and expressed an opinion on the cause because it happened on their property.

Why was the loss of the Earhart/Noonan World Flight not investigated?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:47:14 EST
From:         Lee
Subject:      Nat'l Geo

Interesting photos and story  in Feb national geographic mag about expedition to Phoenix islands aboard Naia visiting lagoons on Kanton and Niku bygroup from New England Aquarium  led by David Obura in June of 2002 could this be the same group that saw the WOF ?

Lee 1821ce
******************************************************
From Ric

That's correct.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:24:22 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Research needed

There are TIGHAR members who are more qualified than I am to have the definitive answer to your question. However, it has been my understanding that the Bureau of Air Commerce investigated accidents with passenger or mail carrying aircraft only. The military investigated accidents with military aircraft. Individual flights like Amelia Earhart's were no commercial flights. What's more, the flight was mostly over foreign territory where foreign governments would be responsible for any investigation had she been lost in their territory.

You rightly indicate that the Luke Field accident was investigated by the military because it happened on a US military airfield. Therefore I would expect Earhart's disappearance also to have been investigated by the military because of military involvement in the world flight. I understand that the landing strip at Howland was constructed by the military, there was the coast guard cutter "Itasca" stationed near the island, military radio equipment was available (but eventually inoperative) and finally there has been the large scale search by the US Navy of the area. For all these reasons I believe the Colorado post-loss report was seen as the official document on the Earhart's disappearance.

LTM

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

If you have found documentation establishing that the Bureau only investigated accidents involving aircraft carrying passengers or mail please point me to it.

The landing strip at Howland was not constructed by the military.  It was built by the Department of the Interior.

The Itasca was not a military vessel.  The Coast Guard was under the Department of the Treasury.

The report filed by the captain of the Colorado did not draw any conclusion about the fate of the flight except that it was not within the area the ship searched.
*******************************************************************
From Jim Tierney

Ric --In answer to your question on the Post/Rogers crash investigation/report.....

According to two books-'Forgotten Eagle' and'Will Rogers and Wiley Post--Death at Barrow' by the authors--Bryan B. and Frances N. Sterling-- The investigation and report were a "travesty".

The Board arrived at its conclusions without any visits to Alaska, members of a board, hearings or the systematic investigation of witnesses. The entire investigation, conducted, largely via long distance by mail or by telegram, amounted to little more than hearsay and rumor.

Nobody  from the Bureau ever looked at or inspected the  plane after the floats were installed in Seattle-- and that made it very nose heavy  and difficult to control especially with an engine failure/loss of power on takeoff.

I assume the report is available somewhere... in the BAC files...

LTM--Jim Tierney
**********************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Jim.  Interesting.  At least there was apparently a report of some kind.

********************************************************
From Rick Metzger

No plane, no debris, no bodies, no signs of life (except on Gardner Is.)= no investigation

You don't mention the Navy report.

The other crashes that Bureau of Commerce investigated had sites and bodies.

Rick M.

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

I did mention the Navy report.  I said:

>Officers and officials of organizations participating in the search filed
>reports describing their respective actions and expressing their opinions but
>there was no subsequent review comparable to a modern day National
>Transportation Safety Board inquiry.

On July 31, 1937 the Naval officer in over-all command of the search for Earhart - Rear Admiral Orin G. Murfin, Commandant of the 14th Naval District - filed his report tithe Chief of Naval Operations.  In addition to Murfin's 8 page recitation of the search and its results, there are appended reports by the commanding officers of the Itasca, Colorado, and the Lexington Group.

Neither Murfin nor any of the other commanders offer any conclusion about the fate of the flight.  The entire Navy report can be summed up in the final statement of the Lexington's Captain Leigh Noyes:

Although unfortunately the fate of the missing fliers remains a mystery, it is considered that the search made was efficient and that the areas covered were the most probable ones, based on the facts and information available."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:38:58 EST
From:         Rick Metzger
Subject:      McGuire's 10E

what ever happed to the Buehler Foundation 10A that was being restored?

Is it the one that Grace McGuire bought?

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

No.  Grace's airplane is an honest to goodness 10E , c/n 1042. The "Buehler airplane" is a late model 10A (c/n 1130, one of the last Electras built) that was acquired many years ago by the Beuhler Foundation.  The plan was to rebuild it as a flying replica of Earhart's airplane.  The idea was to fly it around to airshows for a year or so and then retire it to a museum. Two guys worked for a couple of years in a hangar in Ft. Lauderdale replacing virtually every skin on the machine - the most extensive rebuild of an Electra ever attempted.  It's essentially now a brand new airplane, but when they were about two-thirds done the board of directors at Beuhler got cold feet about the liability exposure of flying it, so they decided that it would not fly.  The mechanics who had been rebuilding it were so discouraged by that decision that they quit and Beuhler gave the uncompleted rebuild to the Navy.

The Navy kept it in storage for several years, not knowing what to do with it.  Then last year somebody suggested that they complete the rebuild and do an Amelia Earhart exhibit.  The justification for such an exhibit at the National Museum of Naval Aviation was their mistaken belief that Noonan had held a commission in the U.S. Navy Reserve.  Once they were disabused of that little piece of convenient fiction they dropped the plan.

Just within the last few days I've received reports from informed sources that Pensacola has decided to complete the rebuild of c/n 1130 as c/n 1052, the XR20 -1, the only Electra built for the Navy.  The decision is understandable, given that they have an excellent Electra that they would like to somehow integrate into their collection, but rather bizarre given that the real XR20 -1 is at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT being rebuilt as a Northwest Airlines airliner.  In a sane world the museums would simply trade airplanes and Pensacola could have an authentic exhibit instead of constructing a stand-in, but the aviation historic preservation world has a long way to go before it approaches anything that resembles sanity.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:13:26 EST
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: Research needed

Here's the text of a document that sheds some light on the Bureau's attitude toward the Earhart loss.  The original is on Bureau of Air Commerce letterhead and is part of the official file on NR16020.

******************
May 5, 1938

Memorandum to Registration Section
Subject: NR-16020 - Lockheed Electra 10-E

The subject airplane was presumably washed out in an accident in the Pacific Ocean near Howland Island, on July 2, 1937, while being piloted by Amelia Earhart, owner.

Inasmuch as it is presumed that Miss Earhart was fatally injured in the above accident, no further action is being taken by this Section.

Jesse W. Lankford
Chief, Accident Analysis Section
***************************

In other words, you can take this aircraft off the registry because we presume that it was destroyed in some kind of accident out in the Pacific last year.  We presume that the pilot was killed so we're not going to do any kind of investigation.

I don't follow the logic, but it seems pretty clear that the Accident Analysis Section wasn't interested in looking into the case.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:21:23 EST
From:         Pete
Subject:      Re: Research needed

The conspirasists (spell) will have a good day with this one, but as far as the "$80,000 flying laboratory" registered as NR16020, was not this aircraft listed as G. P. Putnam as owner?

LTM ( who told the IRS boys not to come around if they can't do their math)
Pete
TIGHAR #2419 (whose own Mother knows he's proud to have it, THANKS DREW!)
********************************************************************
 From Ric

Nope.  The Bill of Sale is to Amelia Earhart.  It's in the file.
*********************************************************************
 From Rick Metzger

"Although unfortunately the fate of the missing fliers remains a mystery, it is considered that the search made was efficient and that the areas covered were the most probable ones, based on the facts and information available."

This is a conclusion based on lack  of (no) evidence. It is the same as "Undetermined cause". Holds up in court. As put by Herman de Wulf: "nobody had jurisdiction". maybe BAC felt they did not have to investigate it, maybe that is why it was disbanded in 1938.

Rick
***********************************************************************
 From Ric

It was, of course, never tested in court.

In 1938 the Bureau of Air Commerce became the Civil Aeronautics Authority with the passage of the Civil Aeronautics Act.

We still don't know why the Bureau's Accident Analysis Section never made an attempt to analyze this accident.  A trans-oceanic flight was lost due to communications failures - that much was obvious.  It was a time when trans-oceanic flying was just starting to become routine. The information available then was pretty much the same information that is available now - except it was a whole lot fresher.  Even if the ultimate fate of the lost flight could not be determined it seems like there may have been valuable lessons to be learned from examining the failures that led to the loss.

Or maybe I'm committing the sin of context anachronism.  I'm applying modern-day accident investigation attitudes to events that took place in a very different cultural, technological and regulatory environment.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:27:42 EST
From:         Rick Metzger
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

That would save many man-hours of work as well..

If Grace's plane is for sale, how do you get in touch with her to allow an inspection by a broker or dealer?

Rick
**********************************************************************
 From Ric

The trouble is, the New England Air Museum has already put years of work into reconstructing c/n 1052.  Any swap would likely be a complicated deal.

>If Grace's plane is for sale, how do you get in touch with her to
>allow an inspection by a broker or dealer?

Good question.  The Trade-A-Plane ad has a phone number that appears to be Grace's home phone but all you get is a machine and she doesn't return calls (at least, not mine).  So far I haven't been able to connect with anyone at the FBO on the Old Bridge Airport either.  No answer on the phone.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:28:40 EST
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Investigation

Ric wrote:  "I don't follow the [Bureau's ] logic, but it seems pretty clear that the Accident Analysis Section wasn't interested in looking into the case."

I think this is an example of viewing historic events through the lens of present-day procedures and technology.

If you're talking about an on-scene investigation, I agree completely with Rick Metzger:  What was there to investigate?  The airplane vanished without a trace.  No bodies.  Not a single hunk of debris.  The Coast Guard and Navy "investigated" within the limits of 1937 technology -- searching for wreckage, sending spotter planes to overfly nearby islands.  Also one needs to consider the challenges of even getting a crash team (if they had crash teams back then) to remote Howland Island.  It would have taken weeks.

If you're talking about some sort of official board of inquiry, what purpose would it have served?  I suppose the commanders of the Colorado, Itasca, Lambrecht and others involved in the search could have been called to testify, but their reports were in the file.  The Roosevelt administration already had come under criticism for allegedly squandering public funds on the Earhart search, and I can see FDR's political foes making hay over a "wasteful" blue-ribbon inquiry into the fate of a private pilot who was pretty obviously dead.

As others have pointed out, the Earhart flight was neither military nor commercial, but essentially a publicity stunt.  No innocent passengers died, and dereliction of duty was not an issue because the Navy and CG had no "duty" to Earhart in the first place.  As a matter of fact, recently I have spent quite a bit of time at the local library going over contemporaneous newspaper accounts of the tragedy.  At least in the first two weeks following AE's disappearence, I have not found a single  call for an official investigation.  Unlike today, when we're obssessed with pinpointing the blame for every unfortunate event, attitudes were different back then.

The public seems to have accepted the general consensus that AE rolled the dice and lost.

So while the Bureau's attitude may seem cavalier to our ears, one really wonders what else they could have done given the technological, logistical and financial resources available.

Pat Gaston

PS  I note that the Bureau lists AE as the owner of the plane.  I thought Purdue held the title.  Can you clarify the ownership status?

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

I think you're probably right.  The bottom line is, it just wasn't that important.

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the airplane was titled in Earhart's name.  Neither Putnam nor Purdue were shown as co-owners.  The airplane was owned by Amelia Earhart.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:49:17 EST
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Research needed

Was there insurance on the aircraft, AE or FN?  If so, and if the files still exist, there may be some reference to an "official report" that confirmed the loss.

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

As far as I know, there was no physical damage (hull) insurance on the aircraft.  I've never heard any reference to liability coverage either.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:57:07 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Research needed

Ric wrote:

>No government agency made a comprehensive review of the failed
>search for Amelia Earhart.

The possibility exists that you are looking in the wrong mouse hole for this mouse - USCG was on scene commander at begining of search, later relieved of that responsibility by the respective USN commanders that followed. It appears to me the Bureau of Air Commerce had little or no role in actual search effort - There is some question in my mind about whether William Miller was a Bureau of Air Commerce representative or an agent representing Amilia Earhart's interests - Which makes me question if the Bureau of Air Commerce had any role in actual search.

US Navy tradition un-hampered by progress entails reports and courts inquiry in cases of losses of life involving USN activity - There should be a mouse in that hole.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559
********************************************************************
From Ric

>It appears to me the Bureau of Air Commerce had little or no role in
>actual search effort

That's correct.  The Bureau didn't do searches.  That wasn't their job.

>There is some question in my mind about whether William Miller was a 
>Bureau of Air Commerce representative or an agent representing Amilia 
>Earhart's interests.

Miller was most definitely employed by the Bureau.  Why would you think he was an agent for Earhart?

>There should be a mouse in that hole.

The mouse hole is called the National Archives.  All the Navy reports and documents are there.  There is no record of an inquiry.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:04:23 EST
From:         Art Rypinzki
Subject:      For Forum:  FDR Interest In AE's Fate

Forumistas may remember a thread from last June-July to the effect that Betty recalled:

"there was a piece in the newspaper in which resident Roosevelt asked everyone to just drop the whole matter of Earhart's isappearance. There was even an implied threat that people who didn't could get in trouble." (Ric, 30 June 2003)

In August, "Art in Maine" (that's not me, BTW) searched the published public papers of the President, and found nothing. (21 August 2003).

So, anyway, I was hanging around the splendidly appointed reference library in the national archives in Washington today, and spied, sitting on a shelf, an unexpurgated thirty-volume or so edition of verbatim transcripts of President Roosevelt's Press Conferences.  With Index!

The citation is:  "Complete Presidential Press Conferences of Franklin D. Roosevelt"  Volumes 9-10, 1937.  New York:  (Da Capo Press, 1972.) ISBN: 0-306-77500-X.  It turns out that Amelia Earhart came up twice in Presidential press conferences in 1937.

-------------

The first time time was at 4:10 pm on 6 July 1937:

THE PRESIDENT:  "I don't think there is any news.  Of course we are all worried about Miss Earhart and doing everything possible to have the search cover as much territory as possible.  There isn't anything new on it in the last few hours."

Q:  Are you getting special reports at your request?

THE PRESIDENT:  "Oh, yes.  I have been ever since the thing started, every few hours."

-------------

The second occasion was on July 20, 1937. (i missed, the time, sorry). Volume 10, pp. 50-56.

Q:  Any comment on the House mutterings on the cost of the Earhart search?

THE PRESIDENT:  What was that?

Q:  On the house mutterings on the Earhart search--request for investigation and what not.

THE PRESIDENT:  I did not know there was any mutterings.  I saw a UP dispatch from Honolulu yesterday which said that the cost of the search has been $4 million to the Government. Of course, a thing like that is just plain prevarication.  That is the politest term to call it, a so-called news dispatch.

Actually, as you probably know every Navy plane on a ship like the Lexington or a ship like the Colorado has to do so many hours in the air during the course of a year.  Well, this counts towards the number of hours in the air.

Therefore there is no additional cost because of the cost of keeping the plane in the air because the money would be spent whether they were doing a search problem of this kind or whether they were doing a maneuver.

It is the same way on the fuel oil.  The Navy had a very skimpy--from the point-of-view of efficiency--a skimpy allowance of fuel oil.  They have to be very careful how they spend it and they have to stay within the allowance of fuel oil in the course of a year.  Each ship, as a general proposition, is limited to the amount of fuel oil she is supposed to use--within its quota of the appropriation from the Congress.  While the search entailed a slightly faster use of fuel oil than they would use on ordinary cruising, it is not any faster use of it than they would use on the annual maneuvers where the Lexington has to proceed at full speed, where a whole battleship squadron has to move at 19 or 20 knots in regular maneuvers.  So the cost to the Government is absolutely no greater on the use of fuel oil than it would have been had they not made any search.

There are two other points, of course.  A mission of this particular kind is a sad mission to have to go on, especially when it results in not finding Miss Earhart.  But, at the same time, it is a pretty valuable experience and training for the Navy.  The Lexington did a perfectly amazing job in getting away, the way she did from Los Angeles.  It was quite a feat.  It was practice, very excellent practice, and it was a good thing.  She took all of her planes on board and took on all of her officers and men and got under way in sixteen hours from the time the order was given.  It was a good job.

The only other point to make is that that the Navy would do this in the case of any American, rich or poor, where there was some chance of saving life and they know where to go.  In this instance we all thought we knew where to go.  We would have done it for the poorest citizen.

So much for that and the UP dispatch.

Q:  In connection with that phase of the situation, I think that Assistant Secretary of Commerce Monroe Johnson said that there would be no more stunt-flying permits granted.  It is not necessarily on account of the Earhart disappearance.  Do you believe that is good policy?  Will that policy meet with your approval?

THE PRESIDENT:  What he told me--it was not spot news quite of that kind. It takes a little explaining and that was that we are supposed--the Department of Commerce is supposed to keep on the ground any plane that does not seem entirely fitted, both in mechanism and its personnel, for a flight.

That is all there is to it.

-----------------

LTM,

Arthur Rypinski #2548

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

Thanks Art.  Thirty volumes.  Let's see, that would be an average of 7.5 volumes per term.  How times do change.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:13:25 EST
From:         Bruce
Subject:      Re: McGuire's 10E

Last year Grace's 10E was located at Monmouth Executive Airport, formally Allaire Airport.  I don't think she moved it to Old Bridge. The number for Monmouth is (732) 938-4800.

Bruce

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

I know that it was at Old Bridge for a long time.  I hadn't heard that she had moved it.  I just called Monmouth.  It's there all right.  Not hangared. Tied down out on the ramp.  The lady who answered the phone for the airport hadn't heard anything about it being for sale.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:34:35 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      More questions for Col. Reineck

While you're considering if and how you wish to respond to my earlier questions, here's another one that gets to the heart of the major premise of your book.  On page 194 you make the assertion (in bold face type) that:

"(T)he case of the missing person Amelia Earhart surely has been solved by virtue of forensic science."

It appears from the text that the forensic science you're referring to is Mr. Swindell's "extensve (sic) physical and personal traits comparisons" between Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam.  These comparisons, as I understand it, were performed using photographs, given that both subjects were dead and gone before Mr. Swindell began his work.

Are you or Mr. Swindell familiar with the Bertillion system of human identification?  If not, there is an explanation on the Central Missouri State University website at http://www.cmsu.edu/cj/alphonse.htm

As you will see, the identification of individuals by means of their physical characteristics, even when the measurements were taken from living persons rather than photos, has been discredited since 1903.  The fact is, a person can look a whole lot like another person without being that person.

My question is this:  How did Mr. Swindell (whom I believe is a filmmaker by profession), using only photos of the two women, make a determination that could not have been made had he been able to compare measurements taken of the living individuals?

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:42:19 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: MaGuire's 10E

Ric wrote:

> I just called Monmouth.  It's there all right.  Not hangared.
> Tied down out on the ramp.  The lady who answered the phone for the
> airport hadn't heard anything about it being for sale.

I think this is great news. From the little research I've done about Grace, it seems she is really committed to having the plane NOT be just stored away someplace -- she wants it on public display of some kind. Perhaps this is an angle that TIGHAR could explore to help both parties.

Of course, it would help if she'd return any of your inquiries.

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

If the airplane was an historic aircraft it would be a shame for it to be tied down on an airport ramp exposed to the elements.  But it's not an historic aircraft, it's a just rebuilt old airplane.  It's the only surviving Electra that was built as a 10E but it has had so much done to it since then that it has no value as a source of information about how 10Es were originally built. It's the same problem you have with all rehabilitated machines. The more careful the "restorer" was to use what he or she thinks were original type materials and techniques, the harder it is to figure out what aspects of the machine are authentically original and which have been replaced.

Still, it's a Lockheed 10 and it's worth looking at. Once the weather warms up I'll probably drive over there and take some photos of the airplane.

***********************************************************************
From Ron Bright

One researcher called Grace McGuire a "dead ringer " for AE! Has anyone ever met her, or was she formerly Irene Bolam.
REB
*********************************************************************
 From Ric

I've never met her but I've seen photos.  No particular resemblance to AE that I could see.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:39:35 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: FDR Interest In AE's Fate

>THE PRESIDENT:  "Oh, yes.  I have been ever since the thing started,
>every few hours."

So where are THOSE reports? I couldn't gather whether FDR meant he was getting reports from the start of the Round the World trip or just from the start of the search. At first blush I would say just from the start of the search but given their original interest maybe there were reports from Miami on. Thoughts?

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

If FDR was getting reports during Earhart's world flight every few hours somebody would have to be making those reports and I can't imagine who that would be or why the president would be interested.  (But I'm sure the Conspiracy Crowd has a better imagination than I do.)  If FDR was getting reports every few hours during the search then the CNO's office was probably forwarding the periodic messages they were getting from the search area.  Any information had to come by radio and we have all of those messages.  The White House is not an addressee on any of them.

It's also possible that FDR's interest was not as keen as his response to the reporter indicated.  As you may have noticed, presidents don't always tell the truth.
**********************************************************************
 From Greg Moore

>THE PRESIDENT:  What he told me--it was not spot news quite of that
>kind. It takes a little explaining and that was that we are supposed--
>the Department of Commerce is supposed to keep on the ground any plane
>that does not seem entirely fitted, both in mechanism and its
>personnel, for a flight.
>
>That is all there is to it.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, or a tinfoil-hatted type when it comes to this particular flight.  The actual facts show that the poorly suited radio equipment came as a direct result of the disdain both Earhart and Noonan showed toward the use of radio in general, and there extreme lack of professional knowlege concerning same.

In the :"radios" portion of the TIGHAR archives, as well as in most, if not all of the books published, regardless of their veracity, the common thread seems to be that both completely underestimated the use of radio, didn't really know basic operation procedures, and most important of all, didn't know CW (Morse).  It was also well known that AE dispised the trailing wire, despised having to crank the antenna in and out, which is an extremely necessary operation at MF (600 Meters, or 500Khz) which was the International Calling and Distress Freq. When operating MF, one makes an initial callup on 500, which was always guarded, and still remained guarded up until recent times when the "powers that be" decided that the "gee whiz" GMDSS system could replace the dependable CW/MCW on MF, with a trained and qualified Radio Officer at the key, and rely on nothing more than satellite comms. <Rant>  FYI this system has proven incapable of doing its job numerous times, and, as a matter of fact, is still not supported by the USCG, who, to my suprise, never really conducted serious qualification tests on such an allegedly important piece of equipment.  Losing the MF capability was, and still is, a severe blow to maritime safety and saving of life at sea.  OK, </Rant>

Now, in addition, with the removal of the trailing wire, Gurr, who modified the antenna system of the Electra by extending it somewhat, and adding a kluged together huge loading coil, actually degraded the whole system, since the lengthening of the antenna made it extremely easy to tune to a harmonic of 3105/6210 instead of the exact frequency, and if 500Khz was to be used, the massive inductor which Gurr designed and built, would have absorbed the RF in the coil itself, and not really put out any meaningful power on 500, which was, at the time, the only freq guarded 24/7, and which most ships and shore stations had DF capability for.  In addition, the key(s) were allegedly removed, and 500, to my knowlege has never been a frequency used for AM (A3) voice, at least this former RM1 USN never saw, nor used any microphone of any type attached to any MF transmitter.  A1 (CW) or A2 (MCW [modulated cw, which has an audio tone, that can be recieved by any HF reciever, regardless of the presence of a BFO (beat frequency oscillator, necessary to produce an audible tone from a pure unmodulated RF carrier) were the only modes which I ever used, and I spent a heck of a lot of time on MF circuits.

OK, why the radio lecture, well, since the proximate cause of the downing of the aircraft was fuel exhaustion, caused by a navigational error, further exacerbated by the total disregard for DF procedures, an Expermental station on Howland, powered by batteries, which may or may not have been dependable, as well as the quirky propagation of the 3105/6210 Khz freqs, which most ships were not equipped to DF (I don't even believe the Itasca had HF/DF capability, that type of unit only became commonly used several years later, spurred on by the needs of WW2, and the complete ignoring/unknowing of both AE and FN with commonly used radio procedures (the whistling into the mic for only 5 secs, not close to being long enough for a bearing cut using the mechanical loops of the time, we are not talking about ADF, which even to this day, doesn't have HF capability in most installations), as well as the "clockwork" like changing of frequencies instead of waiting for a change in propagation conditions, combined with what I think was a somewhat panicky situation aboard the Electra, possibly resulting in mistuning of either the transmitter, reciever or both, since nothing was heard (ZGN) on 6210 after the announcement she was listening on that freq, then 7105, which she had no transmit capability for, unless I am highly mistaken) basically cut her off from the world.

Given the inadequacies of the sunline, in that it is just that, only a line, and doesn't provide an exact position, requiring additional lLOP's, either a star shot or a  radio  DF (QDF) fix ( You really can't rely on a DR position as a cross line, because if, as suspected, she was far north of course, but believed she was on course, any "crossing" of the Morning sunline with a DF line, extended and moved for presumed speed and course would have been totally misleading.  Once that situation had occurred, I firmly believe that the circling, and multiple course changes, trying to fly up and down the sunline further caused disorientation, and fuel exhaustion ended the picture.  The fact that they may or may not have found an island to land on was pure serendipity,  and when reading TIGHAR's analysis, one sees what what looked like a great place to land, was in reality, a deathtrap, with razor sharp coral, holes, etc, which would have surely disabled the aircraft beyond flight capability.  While there may have been sufficient battery power to at least attempt radio transmission following either a ditching or crash landing, possibly even a working engine with generation capability, the spectre of mistuning, poor antenna radiation angle, and poor choices of frequencies would have completely cut them off from the outside world.

Now, there are many flights which occurred in the '30s with poorly equipped aircraft, either with the CAA's permission, or without.  Radio, at that point was suspect by a whole lot of people, who didn't know how to use all of the capability which comms offer. The equipment, while capable and robust (Vacuum Tube equipment is inherently robust, and generally overbuilt) was somewhat cantankerous and required a degree of skill in the setup and tuning of same.  For the time, AE's aircraft was, by, most standards, well equipped, albeit not for an extensive overwater flight where the lack of MF would have and did prove, disastrous.  If the A/C had 600M (500Khz) capability, the crew knowlege of CW and proper operational procedures, it is extremely possible that the flight would  not have ended the way it did.

Even today, there is a finite limit to the length of searches for missing aircraft and ships.  One has to factor the estimated survival time, the possiblity of survivors reaching land, and presumably with survival equipment, which, incidentally, also seems to have been somewhat depleted from the A/C prior to departure from Lae, that a search and rescue operation simply will not be carried on forever.

I see no conspiracy here, just simple brutal (but necessary) logic, predicated on estimated course, fuel exhaustion time, and local weather conditons, limited the length and area of the search.  The department of Commerce routinely would word A/C loss reports in the same brief government fashion, and nothing should be inferred from the wording. 

This is IMHO only, and comments and criticisms are welcomed.

-73-
Greg Moore WA3IVX / NNN0BVN
*******************************************************
 From Ric

Correcting a few misconceptions:

>It was also well known that AE dispised
>the trailing wire, despised having to crank the antenna in and out

The trailing wire installed for the first World Flight attempt was electrically driven.

>I firmly believe that the circling, and multiple course changes, trying
>to fly up and down the sunline further caused disorientation, and fuel
>exhaustion ended the picture.

She almost certainly never said she was circling.  A close examination of the original log entry for the 07:58 transmission:

KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE ARE CIRCLING BUT CANNOT HR U GA ON 7500 WID A LNG COUNT EITHER NOW OR ON THE SKD TIME ON 1/2 HOUR (KHAQQ S5 A3) 0758

shows that the operator originally typed "WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HR U" and later erased DRIFTING and typed in CIRCLING.  What she probably said was "We are listening but cannot hear you..".

>The fact that they may or may not have
>found an island to land on was pure serendipity,  and when reading
>TIGHAR's analysis, one sees what looked like a great place to land,
>was in reality, a deathtrap, with razor sharp coral, holes, etc, which
>would have surely disabled the aircraft beyond flight capability.

I don't think it was pure serendipity and the section of the reef where the landing seems to have been made is level and quite smooth.

>While there may have been sufficient battery power to at least attempt
>radio transmission following either a ditching or crash landing, 
>possibly even a working engine with generation capability, the spectre 
>of mistuning, poor antenna radiation angle, and poor choices of 
>frequencies would have completely cut them off from the outside 
>world.

Any transmission after a ditching was out of the question. Transmissions after a successful landing were not only possible but appear to have occurred.

>The department of
>Commerce routinely would word A/C loss reports in the same brief
>government fashion, and nothing should be inferred from the wording.

The Department of Commerce did produce extensive reports on accidents that were investigated in-depth.  It is quite apparent that no investigation of the Earhart loss was undertaken.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:41:25 EST
From:         Betty Brown
Subject:      FDR's press conferences

Ric, that was interesting about what the President said at press cons. all I remember is it was the talk around town, so I stopped trying to do any more until 1942, when I did try when I was on the switchboard...and when that man didn't call back I remember thinking the Goverment still must not want any one to bring it up yet...Those days were so different from now days, now I would ask more questions and why no one is doing anything with what I know I heard.

Lv Betty
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:54:39 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: FDR Interest In AE's Fate

>If FDR was getting reports during Earhart's world flight every few  
>hours somebody would have to be making those reports and I can't 
>imagine who that would be or why the president would be interested.

Don't you suppose that FDR, like other presidents, got a routine daily intelligence briefing?  My impression on seeing his statement about getting regular reports was that the state of the search was probably reported as part of such briefings, which were probably summaries by WH staff of reports received from the various departments.  Probably doesn't suggest any great specific interest on his part; just part of the daily flow of information on what the government's up to.
***************************************************************
 From Ric

What he told the reporter was that he was getting updates "every few hours" which seems to indicate more than a daily briefing.  AE was, after all, something of a friend of the family.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:01:16 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: FDR's press conferences

Betty wrote:

> so I stopped trying to do any more until 1942,
> ...
> Those days were so different from now days, now I would
> ask more questions and why no one is doing anything with
> what I know I heard..

I know this is a "second hand' sort of thing, and no need to "forum" if it  you don't feel the need, but I can second this from a comment my father, who was Navy WWII, said once.  We were talking about some government bungle in the mid '40's and I asked "And nobody questioned that?" and he said something like "Things were different then.  The government thought they knew what was best for us and, mostly, we thought they did too."

Bill #2229

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

I think it's a valid point.  The culture has changed for a lot of reasons and we need to acknowledge that when we're trying to understand why people did not do what we would do today.