Date:         Sat, 1 May 2004 09:07:21 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Devastator Survey

How about the burned up Electra?

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

No, no, no.....that's on Saipan.  Different island.

Jaluit is where Bilimon Amaran dressed Fred's head wound and saw the Electra on the stern of a Japanese ship.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 17 May 2004 10:49:45 -0400
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      The forum returns

Our team is back from the Marshalls and a very successful expedition. Some difficult and dangerous work accomplished with no injuries and no adventures (well, almost no adventures). Our divers gathered the information we need to make our recommendations about the management of the aircraft in Jaluit lagoon as cultural resources.  We also have lots of spectacular underwater photography, onshore footage and interviews with eyewitnesses with which to make a first class documentary film. We made many new friends and  delivered over a ton of educational and medical supplies to the good people of Jaluit.  We'll soon have a report up on the TIGHAR website.

While on Jaluit we did most of our shopping at the "Bilco Store" founded by and named for the late, great Bilimon Amaran (spelling varies).  Best Spam in town.  We heard no Amelia stories, but then, we didn't ask.

The forum is now officially back up and running.  It's good to be home.  Fire away.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 17 May 2004 11:43:47 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      He's Baaaack!

Ric said:  "The forum is now officially back up and running.  It's good to be home.  Fire away."

Yeah . . . about my theory she and Fred were captured by aliens.  Done any work on that recently?

It's a joke, OK?  Just wanted you to feel at home, ASAP.  :-)  Welcome back!  Glad to see you in the left seat again.

LTM, who is suffering earhartforum withdrawal

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 17 May 2004 13:55:21 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: the forum returns

Ric says:

>While on Jaluit we did most of our shopping at the "Bilco Store"
>founded by and named for the late, great Bilimon Amaran (spelling
>varies).

Any relation to Sergeant Bilko?
*************************************************************
From Ric

Well, both knew how to tell whoppers.

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

Glad you had a safe trip my friend. I'm very anxious to see the pics and your report. I think this is a very worthwhile endeavor for TIGHAR.

LTM,
Mike Haddock, #2438
**************************************************************
From Jim Tierney

Well--Well--Welll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Welcome home ,old son....
Nice to see you returned safely....
Will be waiting for the report on the TBD and the rest of the detritus of war....
But--please give us details on the school supplies and how they were received and how long they will last...That is an often forgotten aside in some of those starving islet nations --three feet above the high tide line......
Good work.
Jim Tierney
Simi Valley, CA

P.S.--Do I understand correctly that the Jaluit TBD--may become the only survivor of only 130 aircraft built before the war...I know they were being replaced by newer aircraft by Dec. 7th......
JimT
***************************************************************
From Ric

You understand correctly - but that's a long and delicate story that is still playing out and must wait for now.

The story of the school and medical supplies and how they were received is best told in the photos we'll include in the website report.  This is some of the most rewarding work we've ever done.  The materials we were able to provide  will vastly improve the situation on Jaluit for the next year, but much more help is needed and we're just getting warmed up on this project.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 17 May 2004 15:41:09 -0400
From:         David Carmack
Subject:      Re: the forum returns

From the looks of things over the course of the last few months on the forum, it would appear as though Rics Earhart mission is about out of steam. You can see a gradual shift towards other mysteries. Of course this was to be expected. In almost all circles outside of the forum Tighars premise on Amelia is totally wrong. The forum is totally biased towards Tighars theory, which to an extent is understandable, and any ideas or thoughts contrary to this are immediately dismissed as unsupported, unprovable, or inflammatory. Usually this is done in familiar and predictable fashion by the 'keeper of the gate', Alan. Most of the time ,although there have been exceptions I admit, people are just trying to offer up their own thoughts and ideas on what happened without any kind of antagonism towards Tighar. But they are immediately ridiculed. People who are so rigid in their beliefs that they dont even consider anything different unless it is presented with a video tape of the evidence are doomed to failure in most cases. Its ok to be focused on your idea but to make fun of people who are just trying to inject a thought or idea is plain wrong. Some say it is a waste of forum time and space to take anything different seriously , or that all the other ideas have already been considered.

You only have to follow the forum for a little while to see some of the outlandish tangents it is taken at times....and usually by the true believers or Ric himself. I do think that sometimes some of the more outlandish posts challenging Tighar are put there by some member of Tighar itself, although of course I have no proof of that. It seems they are just to silly and designed only to inflame Tighar members into response. I have followed Tighar ever since it was began, and there is much they are to be commended for. Much time and money and effort went into trying to prove the theory, and it was a good thing, as Martha would say. However, it has become obvious, even to Ric himself now I think, if I can read between the lines of the forum the last few months rightly, that his theory is either never going to be proven, or is just plain wrong. Thats why I think the forum is slowly being led to other areas of interest. The Tighar Amelia theory is dying a slow death, when it should be exterminated quickly. Of course something that has generated so much dedication, money , and time is not easy to let go.

Although I expect this post to re-energize the Tighar base in a tumult of rage and sarcasm, which again is to be expected and admired in some ways, interest is clearly waning on this topic in the forum. No I have never sent my finds for Tighar membership, although I must confess a certain amount of guilt for not doing so if for no other reason than in the beginning I too was hopeful Ric had the answer. Now though I have the distinct feeling...yes I said feeling, no evidence, no other theory, just a plain old fashioned gut feeling from years of reading watching and listening to all I can on this subject...that its time to let it go. Some of the attacks on people who post, real or maybe not real...as I said, some of the more outlandish post seem to be plants, or maybe just thrill seekers...., on the forum border on insanity. Its obvious some are so consumed by their feeling of superiority over others that their first response to criticism or opposing ideas even when presented in good faith, is one of rage and sarcasm. Some need to go back to their Perry Mason lives and get a grip. In short long..lol....I think it would be good for you Ric to invest all of your dedication to this mystery along other lines, or to at least reexamine some of the other ideas at length. You have done a lot of good work to further the search for Amelia and keep it in the forefront,but its time now to move on, in my humble opinion.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings,

David Carmack
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for your humble opinion, but any loss of Earhart Project steam has escaped the notice of the two expedition teams who are preparing to go into the wilds of northern Idaho and southern Alaska this summer in search of dados like the ones we found on Nikumaroro in 1989 and again last summer.  If they succeed we'll have smoking gun proof that Lockheed Electra parts somehow got to Nikumaroro and I'll be most interested to hear your humble opinion of how they got there.  The long awaited and woefully overdue Post Loss Radio Study will also be one of those commendable things you so charitably credit us with.

I share your humble opinion that forum postings sometimes seem like an essay assignment from a mental health clinic but let me assure you that at no time, ever, to my best knowledge, has any posting been "planted" or misrepresented - including yours.  Your opinions would be less humble if you actually read the material on the website or, lost your head entirely and actually joined  organization instead of judging the steam level of the Earhart Project by the tenor of forum postings.

TIGHAR has taken on a new and very demanding project because:

A. The need and the opportunity were there.

and

B.  The organization is now big enough and experienced enough to absorb the workload without compromising the Earhart Project.

I appreciate your humble opinion on how I should spend my time but I'll resist the temptation to return the favor.  Feel free to write this reply off as another example of TIGHAR's intolerance of dissent and let me encourage the mindless sycophants who blindly follow my every whim not to fulfill your prophecy by heaping burning coals upon your head. I'll be happy to remove your name from the list if we're boring you.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 17 May 2004 15:51:12 -0400
From:         Hilary
Subject:      Re: the forum returns

Oh so glad you are back.     I have been in Forum Withdrawal so e-mail away can't wait to hear all about it.. ..Hilary
******************************************************************
  From Ric

We'll get a report up on the TIGHAR website asap.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 17 May 2004 19:44:00 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: the forum returns

(This is kind of for David Carmack, too, I guess . . .)

I'm a real person (I'm here in Montana, honest! Look me up!) who supports TIGHAR because I want to see the mystery solved, and I want that enough to support it in the best possible way. I give what I can. I do not agree with everything Ric does or with everything TIGHAR does. (Shoot! That's okay! I don't even agree with everything my wife does, but she and I have been together long enough to make six kids, and we're planning to get old together!) But, someone's got to steer, and it can't be me. I support the effort to solve the AE mystery, and no one else is doing what TIGHAR is doing. No one. Not even close.

Don't change the Forum. Please. We make fun of everything here. We're equal opportunity. Nothing personal. Marty Moleski once described this place as "a peculiar social setting." I agree.

BTW: Ric, if you want to be rid of me, it's going to take more than a slow forum to do it!

LTM, she's still kicking, too!

Alfred Hendrickson, PE
TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583
************************************************************************
From Bob Lee

Welcome home Ric and all. I might suggest a nip of hard liquor for a few days before entering the forum after time away.....

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

Jaluit is dry (booze-wise. It rained a lot.)...but we somehow survived.

************************************************************************
From Ross Devitt

David Carmack wrote:

>You can see a gradual shift towards other mysteries.

Ric Gillespie wrote:

>B.  The organization is now big enough and experienced enough to absorb
>the workload without compromising the Earhart Project.

So my belief that TIGHAR, as described on its website, is about much more than the Earhart Forum was wrong?  My expectation that other aviation mysteries would be discussed or investigated was unfounded?

I'm disillusoned, hurt, heartbroken....    Oh Woe is me.....

The WOMBAT.
********************************************************************
  From Ric

Wombat, I'm not gonna bite.  You're joking again.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 18 May 2004 10:44:04 -0400
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Yoda
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606)

ric wrote ... Feel free to write this reply off as another example of TIGHAR's intolerance of dissent and let me encourage the mindless sycophants who blindly follow my every whim not to fulfill your prophecy by heaping burning coals upon your head.

Should we look upon ric as somekind of yoda figure ? i think not!

can i also ask that although this forum says 'Amelia Earhart Search Forum 'does it open its doors to other tighar projects as an when possible or would other projects require a new and seperate forum ? i can quite understand why other projects that need some brainstorming arrive here...its because all the members can take bits of it and search and test ideas... if we didnt then i suppose none of us would be here...

thnx
Alexander
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yoda?  Me? Ridiculous it is.

This is not a general TIGHAR discussion group.  If we wanted to have one we would limit it to TIGHAR members but our newsletter TIGHAR Tracks already serves as our primary instrument of communication with the membership.  The purpose of this forum is to discuss, debate and research the Nikumaroro hypothesis of the Earhart mystery with anyone who wants to participate.  In the process, we often digress into considering other hypotheses but, so far, none of those digressions has produced anything more than empty speculation.  I'm also happy to spend some forum time discussing other TIGHAR projects and historic preservation issues, but not to the exclusion of the forum's primary purpose.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 18 May 2004 10:49:29 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      TIGHAR projects

> Ric wrote:
> Wombat, I'm not gonna bite.  You're joking again.

No need to bite.  I was having a go at David's comments.

Let's face it Ric,  anyone who 'takes the time to read' the TIGHAR website will find that there really IS more to TIGHAR than the Earhart Forum.  It's just that the Earhart mystery is the flavour of the month (well , the flavour of the last several years really).

I see nothing odd about TIGHAR taking time out to investigate another mystery!  I'm sure if more likely information suddenly came to light about the White Chicken, you'd be off digging for that.  That wouldn't mean the Earhart Project had been shelved, it would just be on the back burner for a while - simmering.

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

White Chicken?  That thump you hear in the middle of the night is the ghost of Charles Nungesser.

You can bet that a solid lead on the whereabouts of whatever is left of l'Oiseau Blanc would have me on a plane to Newfoundland faster than you can say Nei Manganibuka.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 18 May 2004 10:53:49 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Carmack's eulogy

I'd like to add a few idle observations regarding David Carmack's eulogy for the Earhart Project.

"The forum is totally biased towards Tighars theory . . ."

First of all, it is not TIGHAR's theory; give credit where it is due - the U. S. Navy c.1937.  How else can you explain the Navy doing an aerial "search" of Niku a few days after AE's disappearance?  TIGHAR simply resurrected it (with encouragement and help from a couple of volunteers).  I see nothing unusual about TIGHAR sticking to its guns here and essentially dismissing most of the other theories about her disappearance.  Heck, TIGHAR started the ball rolling on this theory, TIGHAR funded it, TIGHAR researched it, and TIGHAR staffed it.  So, you're right, TIGHAR has a lot invested, monetarily, emotionally, intellectually and in a dozen other ways.

The forum is not a "What-do-you-think-happened-to-Amelia-Earhart" forum, inviting a plethora (I LOVE that word!) of wild ideas and speculation. Instead, it's a platform for discussion of ideas, concepts, musings, etc. surrounding the "Landed-at-Niku" theory.

" . . . .any ideas or thoughts contrary to this are immediately dismissed as unsupported, unprovable, or inflammatory"

Well, we get about 2-3 "Crashed-and- Sankers" every week, it seems. Then there are the monthly "Captured-and-taken-to-Saipan" posters, and the biannual "Irene Bolum" theorists.  None of these people have the common courtesy to read the TIGHAR web site before they post.  Ho-hum. So after about 5 years of this it gets more than tiresome to put up with the same rants.  Asking these people to please read the site before arriving at a conclusion seldom works.  Ric has done an admirable job (IMHO) keeping the howls to a manageable rumble.

". . . .  people are just trying to offer up their own thoughts and ideas on what happened without any kind of antagonism towards Tighar. But they are immediately ridiculed."

You mean the guy who claimed the aircraft carrier he was on mooring about 100 yards off of Niku and he witnessed people removing an airplane from the island?  It took TIGHAR about 3 days to debunk that story.  I thought that was handled very well, even though the guy insisted everything was true.

"People who are so rigid in their beliefs that they don't even consider anything different unless it is presented with a video tape of the evidence are doomed to failure in most cases."

Well, as much as we would like a video of AE and FN on Niku, WE know that is impossible.  If you want a copy you'll have to contact the AES. :-)

TIGHAR asks only for scientific evidence to support the various theories about AE's disappearance.  So far no one has come forth with anything that meets this standard.

"You only have to follow the forum for a little while to see some of the outlandish tangents it is taken at times....and usually by the true believers or Ric himself."

If you think we're outlandish here, you should see us in the field.  Ric still has one video tape that I desperately need to steal and destroy.

"The Tighar Amelia theory is dying a slow death, when it should be exterminated quickly."

Wishful thinking by the AES crowd, indeed! :-)

In closing, Dave, lighten up.  None of us are that important.  If you really wanted to make your point you could resign from TIGHAR.  But of course you don't belong to TIGHAR so, that option is unavailable. However, you can join and then in six months or so again take umbrage and then resign.  If you do that I will personally refund your membership, on a pro-rated basis.  Deal?

LTM, who is conciliatory today

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 18 May 2004 11:52:07 -0400
From:         Alan Cladwell
Subject:      Re: Carmack's eulogy

Dennis wrote:

> TIGHAR asks only for scientific evidence to support the various
> theories about AE's disappearance.  So far no one has come forth with
> anything that meets this standard.

Dennis, good summary. I would only add that it has become apparent, at least to me, that the Marshallites, crashed and sankers and similar groups have not understood what it means to support their ideas. If they do they must not believe they have a need to do so.

Curiously, seemingly very bright folks have failed to comprehend what is required to support their theories. Many have attempted to explain what legitimate support is but the effort has fallen on deaf ears. Just as you have pointed out, they also avoid reading the web site like the plague. Odd!

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

From the very beginning I have felt that the problem with previous efforts to solve the Earhart mystery was not lack of evidence but ignorance of methodology.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 18 May 2004 19:28:17 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Methodology

Ric wrote:

>From the very beginning I have felt that the problem with previous
>efforts to solve the Earhart mystery was not lack of evidence but
>ignorance of methodology.

A number of our followers have been critical when I or someone else has "put down" various postings as not being supported. The usual comment is we are not tolerant of other views. It could not be further from the truth. The problem is a lack of understanding of the methodology issue. You are certainly correct that has been the failure since 1937.

I'm a criminal defense attorney and I view evidence and support for a proposition very strictly. You (Ric) have been an aircraft insurance investigator and necessarily think along the same lines. I've dealt with aircraft accident and incident cases. Most of our friends here do not have that background or mind set however well qualified they are in their own right. That makes a big difference when we discuss evidence, theories, support and the like.

Maybe we need to add a class on "evidence" to the program you hold periodically.

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

That's a 3 credit hour semester-long course.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:58 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia under glass

While researching in Wash DC last week, I visited the new NASA Air Museum at Dulles. Wow! What a display of historic, military and civil aircraft under one roof, including the Enola Gay and the Space Shuttle.

But best of all is a 8 by 8 glass exhibit of Amelia Earhart, pioneer that she was  in aviation. She is portrayed with a mannequin wearing her "usual flying togs", which looks like black underwear. Also displayed are scissors from her last haircut, a "99" lapel pin, and her 1932 National Geographic Medal ( I think) along with some other pins. Not a lot, but the rest of the museum is sure worth it.

My wife purchased me a AE 24" doll with leather helmut, flying googles, and wearing a pair of boots.( Size 6.5! ) I can now sleep with it. The doll in some  strange way looked like Irene Bolam! But that is not very scientific for facial recognition. Hard to believe but she had a  silk map of Gardner Island inside her left pocket marked "For Emergency Only", with an "X" located near an old shipwreck, along with hundred dollars in Kiribati dollars.

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

Black underwear....hmmmm.  Maybe Victoria's Secret could market a line of Earhart lingerie.

But here's a question the forum can debate: Was Amelia Earhart indeed an "aviation pioneer" or is she more accurately described as an "aviation celebrity"?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 19 May 2004 13:51:35 -0400
From:         Terry Simpson
Subject:      Aviation pioneer?

An Aviation pioneer or Aviation celebrity,gee Ric I would think both to some extent.......Terry
******************************************************************
  From Ric

Perhaps we should define what we mean when we say "aviation pioneer". Our word "pioneer" derives from the French "peonier" meaning "foot soldier" and originally referred to advance military units that cleared roads and built bridges.  The dictionary now includes "a person who goes before, preparing the way for others, as an early settler or a scientist doing original work."

What do you have to do to become an aviation pioneer?
************************************************************************
From Mike Haddock

In my opinion she was, at best, an average pilot. She had limited navigational and communication skills. She was more of a stunt flyer than an aviation pioneer. She could be more accurately described as an advocate for women's right's than an aviation pioneer. I do admire her guts but I think she was reckless and, unfortunately, I believe that it cost her her life. Not a testable hypothesis--just a heartfelt opinion.

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

These question don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry.  They're always matters of opinion.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 19 May 2004 15:58:17 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: aviation pioneer?

In my opinion anyone who is the first or among the first to achieve something that hasn't been achieved before is a pioneer. Joseph and Jacques Montgolfier were pioneers (they built the first hot air balloon in 1783). Marquis Francois d'Arlandes was a pioneer (he was the first man to actually ascend in the Montgolfier brothers' balloon). Wilbur and Orville Wright were pioneers (they built and flew the first practical airplane). Louis Bleriot was a pioneer (he was the first to cross the English Channel in an airplane in 1909). John Alcock and Arhur Whitten Brown were pioneers (they were the first to cross the Atlantic non stop in an airplane in 1919). Charles Lindbergh was a pioneer (he was the first to fly non stop from New York to Paris in 1927). And therefore Amelia Earhart was also a pioneer. She was the first woman to fly across the Atlantic in 1928 (as a passenger) and the first woman to fly an airplane as a pilot across the Atlantic in 1932. Whether she was a good pilot or not is immaterial. Some of the other famous pioneers were no good pilots either.

LTM (who says there is always a first)

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

Defined broadly enough, we're all pioneers.  I think I was the first 17 year-old commercial pilot to fly nonstop between Syracuse and Binghamton, New York.

I would define "aviation pioneer" a bit more narrowly.  I'd say that an aviation pioneer is someone who breaks meaningful new ground that leads to genuine advances in air travel.  In that sense, Lindbergh's airline route surveys were more significant than his solo Atlantic crossing; Doolittle's work on instrument flying was more significant than his air racing victories; and Noonan's development of aerial celestial navigational techniques with Pan American was true pioneering work.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:34 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: aviation pioneer?

Celebrity for sure.

A pioneer?  What pioneering work did she do?  I think she was the first women to cross (ride along, actually) the Atlantic in an airplane, but she was only a passenger and didn't get involved in the planning or execution of the flight.  Other than that, I don't think she accomplished any significant "firsts" that added to the base of growing aviation knowledge.  She may have been the first woman to do certain things, which certainly had a significant social impact, but as for contributing ground-breaking milestones to the growth of aviation . . . history will be the judge.

LTM, who's a wall flower and follower

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************ 
From Dave in Fremont:

Well, Ric, AE was no Jackie Cochran. In my opinion, AE was "sorta" in the same league as Pancho Barnes... but Pancho Barnes had a better personality and was definitely a more colorful character.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
************************************************************************ 
From Tom Strang

Aviation pioneer or aviation celebrity? - I'll kick the dog on that question.

I'll say both describes Amelia Earhart well - A female aviation pioneer elevated to aviation celebrity status due in large part to male fantasies of how a female heroine should conduct herself.

Welcome back.

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

Thanks Tom.  It's good to be home.

I'd suggest that it's the other way around.  She was a manufactured aviation celebrity who tried to become a genuine pioneer.  Putnam selected her for her looks ( a female Lindbergh) and her name (Air Heart) to ride as a passenger on the 1928 Atlantic crossing in much the same way that the music industry selected The Monkees to be a manufactured hit rock group two generations later.  It worked like a charm.  Ticker tape parade, a medals, the whole nine yards.  To Earhart's credit, she chafed at the phoniness and did what she could to be worthy of the celebrity status that had been handed to her - but she was never able to escape being not quite what she was cracked up to be.

Her greatest accomplishment was undoubtedly the 1932 solo Atlantic crossing - the first successful crossing since Lindbergh's.  And yet, she did not duplicate Lindbergh's feat.  She rode as a passenger in her own airplane as far as Newfoundland and, even so,  failed to reach Paris.  What she duplicated was the 1919 flight of Alcock and Brown.

In my opinion, Earhart's real contribution to aviation was as a celebrity who helped popularize air travel.  She did a lot more driving than flying, traveling around the country speaking to the public about aviation and encourage women to let their husbands fly on business trips.  Her own long distance flights served primarily to give her legitimacy as a spokesperson for aviation.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 19 May 2004 19:57:56 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: aviation poineer?

Ric wrote :

>Her greatest accomplishment was undoubtedly the 1932 solo Atlantic
>crossing - the first successful crossing since Lindbergh's.  And yet,
>she did not duplicate Lindbergh's feat.  She rode as a passenger in her
>own airplane as far as Newfoundland and, even so,  failed to reach
>Paris.  What she duplicated was the 1919 flight of Alcock and Brown"

If she flew as a passenger in her own airplane, so did Charles Lindbergh. Anyone who read his memoirs knows that in order to get to Ireland AE had to do the same sums he had done... As for her failing to reach Paris, Lindbergh had to get there because that was where the prize money was. There was nor Orteig prize for the AE crossing of the Atlantic as far as I can remember. So she was probably to have proven her point by having crossed the Atlantic safely. Did she duplicate the 1919 flight of Alcock and Brown? Well, those who say she was a bad pilot should remember that Alcock and Brown actually crashed their precious Vickers Vimy upon landing in Ireland... AE landed safely.

LTM (who likes to give credit where credit is due)

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

Lindbergh flew nonstop from New York to Paris - a distance of roughly 3,700 miles in 33 and 1/2 hours - and won the $25,000 Ortieg prize.

Alcock and Brown flew roughly 1,900 miles from St. Johns, Newfoundland to Clifden, Ireland in 15 hours and 57 minutes - and won the $50,000 Daily Mail prize - twice as much as Lindbergh's reward.

Bernt Balchen flew Earhart's Vega from Teterboro, New Jersey to Harbour Grace, Newfoundland while Amelia and her mechanic Eddy Gorski  rode in the back of the airplane.  The trip was made in two hops, first to St. John, New Brunswick where they stayed over night and then on to Harbour Grace the next day, May 20th (5 years to the day after Lindbergh's departure from New York), where they landed at 2 p.m.  AE went in to town to rest while Bernt and Eddy serviced the plane.  Earhart made the takeoff at 7:20 p.m.  Fourteen hours and fifty-four minutes later she landed in Ireland having covered roughly 1,700 miles.  She flew less than half the distance in less than half the time as Lindbergh.  Her accomplishment was most analogous to Alcock and Brown's thirteen years earlier.

Earhart's was the first solo crossing since Lindbergh's and the first made by a woman, but several other aircraft had crossed the Atlantic by then, most flying greater distances (Chamberlain flew the Wright-Bellanca "Columbia" nonstop from New York almost to Berlin within weeks of Lindbergh's flight) and none in pursuit of a specific financial prize.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 19 May 2004 20:19:32 -0400
From:         Marcus
Subject:      Re; aviation pioneer?

Ric wrote:

>She was a manufactured aviation celebrity who tried to become a
>genuine pioneer.  Putnam  selected her for her looks ( a female
>Lindbergh) and her name (Air Heart) to ride as a passenger on the
>1928 Atlantic crossing in much the same way that the music industry
>selected The Monkees to be a manufactured hit rock group two
>generations later.

She obtained her aviation license May 16 1923 and was a competent pilot yet in California several years before 1928 flight. This is why she was really selected for the flight.  Lindbergh's look was just a lucky addition. What are you guys speaks about? Whether her achievements, risk and courage were "manufactured" - or she really did what she did? If it was "manufactured" - please prove it, but if  he really did that her flying of all kinds - just stop it!   Just read her bios before to judge... Yes she was actively promoted by Putnam but it doesn't mean she was incompetent or stupid herself... Everybody could have an accident then... it was such a time... And she never did any bad or immoral things - unlike many "more colorful characters" - for to be kicked in such an unkind manner... BTW somebody wrote in the rules of Forum that it is not for to discuss Earhart's or Noonan's personalities... Especially in such an prejudiced way...

LTM -  Marcus (who doesn't like myths and jealousy instead of facts)
************************************************************************
From Ric

Please explain why being a pilot was the reason Earhart was selected for the 1928 flight when it was never intended that she touch the controls.  The fact that she was a pilot was the "lucky addition".  I assure you that I've read her bios and they agree with that assessment.

No one has suggested that AE was stupid.  She was clearly quite bright.  As for her morals, there is abundant evidence that Amelia Earhart had feet of clay just like the rest of us.

As with George Washington, Ben Franklin, Davy Crockett, and a host of other American folk heros, most of the public's perception of Amelia Earhart is myth - but myths serve a purpose and the Earhart myth has inspired many a young person to become more than they might have become.  As historians, we're interested in fact, not myth.

Discussions of Earhart's personality and place in history are, admittedly, off-topic unless they help have a better understanding of the person whose fate we're trying to unravel.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 May 2004 10:41:49 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: aviation pioneer

Perhaps we will find AE was the first person to fly to and land on Niku, thus paving the way for numerous expeditions from you know who. <G>

Alan
**********************************************************************
From Ron B.

If Amelia appeared on American Idol she would win hands down with a demonstration of  clothes/luggage line. Her voice might disqualify her. Seriously, I think that one's personality traits ,albeit subjective, may lend it self to predictable patterns of behavior , and that those predictions can be useful in explaining a person's  "most likely " choices.

For instance, I believe it absolutely contrary and totally inconsistent for Amelia's  personality characteristics to have returned to the US and eschew her relatives, husband, mother, friends and in general the aviation community as a "lone" wolf. Lindbergh, maybe, but not Amelia Earhart! Brainwashed, no. And I don't believe for a second that all of the aforementioned people in her life were "sworn to secrecy", and "protected" AE from inquiry minds.

I would like the forum  clinical behavioral pyschologists, lawyers and cultural anthroplogists, take a whack at this theory. In the courtroom, defense frequently will attempt to show that the behavior, by expert testimony, is contrary to an accused behavior. Surprises of course, and perhaps a bit subjective, but a witness' character may well be relevant.

LTM,
Ron Bright
************************************************************************
From Ron Reuther

Ric et al,  Don't forget Earhart's solo non stop flight from Honolulu to Oakland, the first such solo by either sex.  Distance was considerably longer than her and Alcock and Brown Atlantic crossing. Also her other flight records.
************************************************************************
From Ric

The Honolulu/Oakland stunt was roundly criticized by aviation professionals at the time as being pointless and potentially damaging to the advancement of aviation if she went down.

When you think about it, successful long distance flying is really a matter of engine reliability, fuel capacity, weather, navigation, and the ability to stay awake.
************************************************************************
From Tom King

I can think of few sillier wastes of time than arguing whether Earhart should be called an aviation pioneer.  The question is largely one of semantics, and debating it is only going to unnecessarily irritate the many people who for very good reasons appreciate Earhart's many accomplishments.  I certainly don't subscribe to the Forum to read this kind of nonsense.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Lots of what is said on this forum irritates people.  While I agree that labels are a matter of semantics, I also think that having a realistic grasp of Earhart's former accomplishments is apropos to discussions of her final flight.
************************************************************************
From Herman De Wulf (2406)

Ric wrote:

"Earhart's was the first solo crossing since Lindbergh's and the first
made by a woman, but several other aircraft had crossed the Atlantic by
then, most flying greater distances (Chamberlain flew the
Wright-Bellanca "Columbia" nonstop from New York almost to Berlin
within weeks of Lindbergh's flight) and none in pursuit of a specific
financial prize".

There was also the first successful crossing from East to West on 12-13 April 1928 by Germans Koehl and von Huenefeld and Irishman  Fitzgerald in their Junkers W33, baptized "Bremen". They took off from Baldonel in Ireland, battled their way West against strong headwinds, rain and sleet which reduced their ground speed from 100 m.p.h. to a mere 60 m.p.h. and eventually landed in Labrador, having flown for 35 hours. Like Alcock and Brown they successfully crashed their airplane, smashing their landing gear and the propeller. Koehl was the pilot, Fitzgerald the co-pilot/mechanic and von Huehnefeld the navigator.

By the way, this airplane is still around. It was given to the Henry Ford Museum but was brought back to Germany a couple of years ago for an overhaul by Lufthansa at their Bremen maintenance center in Bremen. It was exhibited at Bremen airport afterwards, shining like new.  I understand it is back in the US today. Does anyone know where it is kept these days ?

And by the way, today it is 20 May. On this day in 1927 Charles Lindbergh took off from Roosevelt Field near new York for Paris.

LTM (who missed the opportunity to go and see it in Bremen)
************************************************************************
  From Ric

I didn't know the Bremen had gone back to Germany.
************************************************************************
From Marcus

Ric wrote:

>Please explain why being a pilot was the reason Earhart was  
>selected for the 1928 flight when it was never intended that she touch the
>controls. The fact that she was a pilot was the "lucky addition".

Incorrect. When Amy Phipps Guest's family  refused to let her make the flight the lawyer David T.Layman entrusted Putnam and Hilton Railey to find a girl that was a flier, well educated and with good manners. It was a set of minimal requirements. Railey asked his friend Rear Adm.Reginald Belknap who recommended AE because he knew her as a competent flier "about for years" (his words). Then Railey called to Dennison house. Thus the candidate (AE) was found yet before they saw her actual appearance.

If somebody doesn't takes this seriously please explain why Jean Harlow or Clara Bow  or any cute Hollywood or Broadway starlette  never were invited for that flight.

>As for her morals, there is abundant evidence that Amelia
>Earhart had feet of clay just like the rest of us

Rhetoric common statement without any factual support. Facts please (I mean hard facts not a tabloid rumors and hearsays for which crash and sankers and AES crowd are constantly blamed).

>As with George Washington, Ben Franklin, Davy Crockett, and a host of
>other American folk heros, most of the public's perception of Amelia
>Earhart is myth

Amazing statement. Whether Earhart flew alone across Atlantic? (just today BTW!) Or it was hoax arranged by media? Whether she flew from Hawaii to California alone? Or it was a hoax manufactured by media? Whether she flew in autogiro across the counry? Whether she set that altitude record in it? How about her other records in Vega and other ships? Or it all was myths fabricated by Putnam?

>Discussions of Earhart's personality and place in
>history are, admittedly, off-topic unless they help have a better
>understanding of the person whose fate we're trying to unravel

Absolutely right. And as historian I am interested in facts, not myths launched once by different people because of rivalry, sexism, jealousy or othe reasons of the moment. Let's be strictly factual and respect not myths but real people for what they really did.

LTM, Marcus (who really respects)
************************************************************************
From Ric

You're correct that being a pilot was one of the conditions set by the flight's sponsor, Mrs. Amy Guest.  According to Mary Lovell's biography of Earhart ("The Sound of Wings", St. Martins Press, 1989), Mrs. Guest wanted her lawyer to find "the right sort of girl"..."a pilot and well educated, preferably a college graduate.  She should be attractive and have manner that would be acceptable to members of English society." Jean Harlow or Clara Bow wouldn't cut it.  Earhart was not a college graduate but she was "the right sort of girl", well-spoken, attractive, and was a pilot - but it is certainly not the case that she was selected based upon her piloting ability.

Earhart's views about marital fidelity and religion are well-documented in her own hand.  Let's just say they wouldn't play well in Sunday school.  Our research has also uncovered several occasions on which AE's version of events doesn't agree with other, more credible sources.

Specifically, prior to the first World Flight attempt she ducked out of a government-required radio navigation flight test with the specious claim that the extra hours would force her to overhaul her engines at an inopportune point in the trip.  After the Luke Field crash she blamed a blown tire but an Army investigation found no evidence of pre-crash failure and cited pilot error as the cause.  Noonan's letters and his annotated chart of the South Atlantic crossing reveal her famous turned-the-wrong-way explanation for her landing in St. Louis rather than Dakar to be a fabrication.  All of these incidents, and more, are not evidence of moral depravity.  They are merely the obfuscations of a celebrity trying to protect her image.

I think Amelia Earhart should be remembered and respected for what she was - a tremendously popular aviation celebrity who helped launch the age of commercial air travel.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 May 2004 10:50:24 -0400
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: aviation pioneer

In trying to put Amelia in her appropriate place as a potential "Aviation Pioneer" it's probably important to assume that she completed the round the world trip successfully (or at least survived an uneventful end to the voyage). I feel in that scenario it becomes obvious, that in spite of her achievements, she does not belong in the category of a true "Pioneer".

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

It's interesting to speculate about what Earhart's legacy would have been had she successfully completed the trip.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 May 2004 13:12:28 -0400
From:         Marcus
Subject:      Re: aviation pioneer

Ric wrote:

>Earhart was not a college graduate but she was "the right sort of
>girl", well-spoken, attractive, and was a pilot - but it is certainly
>not the case that she was selected based upon her piloting ability.

Sorry but again just a claim reflecting purely personal view. Nobody disputes her personal manners and look were important (especially later after they met her and spoke with her). But you asked to explain why her piloting skills were related to Putnams choice. I did it. Sorry but I can't see any factual argument abandoning provided explanation.

>Earhart's views about marital fidelity and religion are
>well-documented in her own hand. Let's just say they wouldn't play well
>in Sunday school.

Huh - that prenup letter? Can't see what's bad or immoral in it. Don't look at this by eyes of person who remembers 60s. And don't interpret it by terms of sexual revolution. It was written long before sex revolution by a person of Victorian gentry background born in 19century. So let's read there exactly what is written there and nothing more. There is no any propaganda of free sex, poligamy, open marriage or something else of this sort. It doesn't refutes the idea of martial fidelity.  It just declares she's still a free person not a "property" if even in marriage... and will go if the real reasons will appear. She also declares that she will be honest about it and expects the same from her partner. Can't see what's wrong here. Looks OK for me and not only for me. Putnam accepted it readily altho being not so easy guy he just understood it well. And let's judge by actions. There is no any evidence that AE reaqlly had any adultery or immoral behavior in marriage. Rumors about affair with Mantz? Where are proofs? It was invented by Myrtle Mantz because she was a psychcally unstable woman (pathologically jealous andaggressive,  once she tried to shot Mantz...). It could improve her positions in divorce with Mantz. No proofs. Seems like all serious biographers are skeptic about it (see Lovell etc) and explains their reasons  - that looks good. The same about Vidal -- absolutely. Just words of Gore who says a lot of other much more bizarre things.

>Our research has also uncovered several occasions on  
>which AE's version of events doesn't agree with other, more credible  
>sources

If even so show me who never did it. (I always wanted to learn an exact color or real nimbus above the head of a Saint). And who proved these "another sources" are really more credible? Who can guarantee Army never protected their own image about Hawaii groundloop? (Who can say how much the state of the field contributed into the failure?) If about AE she was more honest than a lot of people who can take a lessons from her. BTW it was she who wrote "the failure was my own" or something like this about Dakar case.

Regards to Hermann De Wulf and Tom King (I have your book!) - it certainly doesn't matches declared goals of Forum to discuss Earharts personality in such a way...

LTM -- Marcus (who "for very good reasons appreciate Earhart's many accomplishments" and also doesn't likes this kind of nonsense)

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

Nobody said that Earhart was bad or immoral but to read her statement - "On our life together I want you to understand I shall not hold you to any medieval code of faithfulness to me, nor shall I consider myself bound to you similarly." - as anything but a refuting of the notion of marital fidelity takes more imagination than I can muster.

As far as I know there is no hard evidence that Earhart ever exercised the freedom she reserved for herself, but her feelings on the subject are a matter of record.

The Army's investigation of the Luke Field accident is also a matter of record.  You can postulate conspiracies and cover-ups if you need to do so to protect your hero.

As for the Dakar incident, Earhart did take responsibility and apparently invented a story that made the landing at St. Louis look like the result of an error on her part rather than a conscious decision to land at an unapproved airport.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 May 2004 13:58:55 -0400
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: pioneering aviator

The devil is in the definitions.  Perhaps Earhart was not an "aviation pioneer" in the same sense as the Wrights, Glenn Curtis, Kelly Johnson, etc., but she was certainly a "pioneering aviator."

She set several altitude and endurance records in the 1920s and early 1930s, most of which were soon eclipsed but she set them nevertheless.

She may have been a "sack of potatoes" (her own words) on the Friendship flight, but just to make the trip required daring and spunk.  The outcome was far from certain, and many others had lost their lives in the attempt.  AE always minimized her own role in that flight and gave total credit to Gordon and Stultz.  She couldn't help it that the press, then as now, preferred to focus on the young, attractive, articulate passenger rather than the somewhat nondescript duo who actually flew the plane.

As has been noted, she was the first woman (and second person) to solo across the Atlantic.  It matters not the exact distance she covered; flying across 1600 miles of water in a single-engine aircraft was not a task for the faint of heart, especially considering the rudimentary instrumentation of that era.  She failed to achieve Paris only because of an equipment malfunction, not because she planned it that way.

She was the first person to solo from Hawaii to the US mainland.  She was the first person to solo from Los Angeles to Mexico City, and the first to solo nonstop from Mexico City to New York (okay, Newark).  She was, I believe, the first woman to fly an autogyro, which was generally regarded as a difficult machine to handle.  She was an organizer and first president of the Ninety-Nines.

Of course she had her share of crackups.  So did the Wrights, Curtiss, and all the other early aviators.  The first aircraft fatality in the US occurred in 1908 during a demonstration flight at Ft. Myers, VA. Orville Wright was at the controls.  Wiley Post killed himself and Will Rogers in 1935 during an abortive takeoff from Barrow, AK.  Yet I have never heard anyone refer to Wright or Post as lousy pilots (perhaps because they were male?)

One could draw an analogy to the space program.  Alan Shepard was not an "aerospace pioneer" like Goddard and Von Braun.  Let's face it, he rode the thing up and rode it down again -- much like a sack of potatoes.  But I've not seen anyone deny that he was a "pioneering astronaut."

Yes, Earhart hung around for too long and the Last Flight was a textbook case of poor planning.  But she still made it three-fourths of the way around the world, over trackless deserts and through howling storms, with nary a crackup.  As many on this Forum have noted, just getting that overburdened hog of an Electra off the ground at Lae was no small feat of piloting.

Let's not allow AE's final, and fatal, errors in judgment to obscure her very real achievements.  She died trying, and few of us could hope for a better epitaph.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 May 2004 14:04:14 -0400
From:         Marcus
Subject:      Re: pioneering aviator

Ric wrote: "read her statement - On our life together I want you to understand I shall not hold you to any medieval code of faithfulness to me, nor shall I consider myself bound to you similarly." - as anything but a refuting of the notion of marital fidelity takes more imagination than I can muster.

Still can't see here any propaganda of immorality or adultery - just a promise to be honest and avoid to lie. Following events (her behavior as it was) shows it. Everyboby can see here anything that he or she likes to see however - especially after 60s.  But it was written in 1931.

Ric wrote:

"The Army's investigation of the Luke Field accident is also a matter of record.  You can postulate conspiracies and cover-ups if you need to do so to protect your hero".

The official investigation of Earhart disappearance is a matter of record and it says she chashed and sunk. You are not tend to buy it and have your own opinion what really happened (looks OK for me).

Why I (or anybody else) must buy the Army's investigation of the Luke Field incident as a Holy Grail necessary to accept as Final Truth from Heavens?

I never mentioned  yet any conspiracies or cover-ups so no reason to attribute it to me. But wheher some people in Army (and many other people - in different times) hadn't their own motives to present some own "versions of truth"? And they did - as at least several versions of this event already exists.

LTM - Marcus (who likes facts not "interpretations" and doesn't likes double standards)
************************************************************************
From Ric

If there was an official investigation of the Earhart disappearance it has escaped my notice.  The notion that there was ever an official verdict of "crashed and sank" is part of the myth.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 May 2004 14:44:55 -0400
From:         Ric
Subject:      Bremen

Herman has located the "Bremen" on display at the Bremen airport.  For anyone who is interested you can see a photo and a write-up at www.airport-bremen.de/2000

The ship is on loan from the Henry Ford Museum and looks like a million bucks.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 May 2004 21:18:00 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: pioneering aviator

Ric wrote :

"If there was an official investigation of the Earhart disappearance it has  escaped my notice.  The notion that there was ever an official verdict of "crashed and sank" is part of the myth".

Who coined the phrase that she was "lost at sea" ?
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Beats me...but the public's perception that she crashed and sank goes way back to the song "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" by Red River Dave McEnry.  Supposedly this song was the first ever performed on commercial television (from the 1939 World's Fair).

Just a ship out on the ocean, a speck against the sky,
Amelia Earhart flying that sad day;
With her partner, captain Noonan, on the second of July
Her plane fell in the ocean, far away.

There's a beautiful, beautiful field
Far away in a land that is fair.
Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart,
Farewell, first lady of the air.

She radioed position and she said that all was well,
Although the fuel within the tanks was low.
But they'd land on Howland Island to refuel her monoplane,
Then on their trip around the world they'd go.

There's a beautiful, beautiful field
Far away in a land that is fair.
Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart,
Farewell, first lady of the air.

Half an hour later her SOS was heard,
Her signals weak, but still her voice was brave.
In shark-infested waters her plane went down that night
In the blue pacific to a watery grave.

There's a beautiful, beautiful field
Far away in a land that is fair.
Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart,
Farewell, first lady of the air.

Now you have heard my story 'bout this awful tragedy,
We all pray that she'll fly home safe again.
In years to come, though others blaze a trail across the sea,
We'll ne'er forget Amelia and her plane.

There's a beautiful, beautiful field
Far away in a land that is fair.
Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart,
Farewell, first lady of the air.
Farewell, first lady of the air.
***************************************

It's interesting thing that the song says she went down "that night". It was evening on the West Coast when word was received that she was overdue at Howland.  There is also a reference to post-loss radio signals - "Half an hour later her SOS was heard, Her signals weak, but still her voice was brave."

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 21 May 2004 09:39:07 -0400
From:         Marcus
Subject:      official verdict

Ric wrote :

"If there was an official investigation of the Earhart disappearance it has  escaped my notice. The notion that there was ever an official verdict of "crashed and sank" is part of the myth".

... Whether it wasn't  position of the Navy (who conducted the officially approved and funded extensive search) and all other governmental institutions in different times? As far as I remember the search was well documented...  Or it can be said that the Government never had any official position and conclusion about the fate of AE and FN?

LTM - Marcus
************************************************************************
From Ric

The search was, indeed, well documented.  Reports were filed by all of the participating agencies.  The reports describe and explain the actions taken by the various search groups and, in some cases, opinions were expressed about what probably happened - but the only official conclusion reached is that nothing was found.  No comprehensive review of the flight, the disappearance and the search was ever made.  In recent years various government employees have publicly expressed their personal opinion that Earhart crashed and sank at sea, thus creating the illusion of an "official' government verdict.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 21 May 2004 09:40:45 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Myths

Ric said:  "It's interesting thing that the song says she went down "that night"."

And that is how myths/rumor etc. get started . . .
LTM, who can't carry a tune

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 21 May 2004 09:42:30 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Red River Dave

Red River Dave McEnry has passed on to that beautiful field himself. The story is that the song was written for a campfire, based on newspaper articles published at the time.

Daniel Postellon  TIGHAR #2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 22 May 2004 11:02:48 -0400
From:         Ric
Subject:      gone west

I was saddened today to receive an email from the wife of TIGHAR member and regular forum poster Tom Riggs requesting that his name be dropped from the list because he was killed in an airplane crash on May 6th.

Tom's postings were always thoughtful, articulate and gentlemanly. We'll miss him.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 22 May 2004 14:03:13 -0400
From:         Terry Simpson
Subject:      Re: gone west

My heart is heavy for Mr. Riggs and his family, thanks Ric for letting us know............Terry(#2326)
LTM(who also is missed)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 24 May 2004 09:47:08 -0400
From:         Kathy Brown
Subject:      Re: gone west

There is one good thing to think about, at least if you believe in the hereafter.....He now knows exactly what happened to Amelia.

LTM,
Kathy Brown
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 24 May 2004 09:48:46 -0400
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Lost at sea

Who coined the phrase that she was "lost at sea" ?

I don't know how the formalities work in the US, but in the UK in normal circumstances I believe you would need to be missing for seven years before you could be officially declared dead, i.e. before a death certificate could be issued. I assume there is an exact equivalent US document - what does Earhart's say?

Phil Tanner, 2276
************************************************************************
From Ric

Putnam was able to get the process accelerated so as to settle her estate.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 24 May 2004 10:59:09 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      R: Lost at sea

But what does the Death Certificate say with regard to the Cause of Death?

I think everyone is looking for "Lost at Sea" or something similar.  If it says "Unknown" then that should put this string to bed.

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

According to Marry Lovell's book "The Sound of Wings", Putnam was able to establish proof of death to the satisfaction of the court in September 1938 by getting a sworn affidavit from Capt. Leigh Noyes, commanding officer of USS Lexington, detailing the scope and and results of the search and concluding that "No trace of either the Amelia Earhart plane or its occupants was found."  Whether or not there was ever an actual Death Certificate issued is not clear.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 24 May 2004 11:16:22 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: lost at sea

Good remark, Phil. In Belgium one has to be missing for twelve years before being officially declared dead. Why was  Putnam in such a hurry to be declared a widower?

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

To settle debts.  Another part of the myth is that Putnam was wealthy.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 24 May 2004 11:22:41 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: gone west

Kathy Brown wrote:

"There is one good thing to think about, at least if you believe in the hereafter.....He now knows exactly what happened to Amelia".

The problem is that if we have to wait until we discover the hereafter to find out what exactly happened to Amelia Earhart, it might be of no use to TIGHAR...

LTM (who prefers to postpone the hereafter)
************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's a thorny question the forum should NOT address. Is the fate of those (like Amelia) who did not believe in a hereafter known to those who reside in a hereafter?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 24 May 2004 11:56:59 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: gone west

Ric wrote:

> Here's a thorny question the forum should NOT address.
> Is the fate of those (like Amelia) who did not believe in a hereafter
> known to those who reside in a hereafter?

I'm glad that we're not going to address that question.

TIGHAR exists to deal with historical questions and aircraft preservation, not metaphysical or theological speculation.

The question of whether there is life after life and, if so, the quality of such life, is not a question that is decidable by standard methods of historical and scientific research.

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

Amen.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 24 May 2004 13:47:32 -0400
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: lost at sea

I can't say for certain how "presumption of death" was handled officially in the '30's. but my best theory would be that the "cause of death" would remain as  "lost at sea as a result of an aircraft crash". Remains not recovered.   The official death certificate may have had some additional confusing sounding medico-legal jargon  to impress the peasants --hi-- but basically the above would have been said,  Nobody is going to put down "I don't know" on any of the lines of a formal Certificate of Death.

Now, I am most definitely NOT a lawyer, nor a Medical Examiner, even though I know quite a few.  I have never even seen a death cert issued in absentia by court order/  Perhaps the whole thing is simply a legal pronouncement by a judge that So-and -So having disappeared for X days/years/,months is now presumed dead. Just my .02

de Greg "GW" Moore former RM1, USN and one of the "other" radio specialists....
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't see how any cause of death could be specified.  Missing and presumed dead is all that could be said.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 24 May 2004 15:57:33 -0400
From:         Hilary
Subject:      Navy Drops Corsair Claim

Found this in AvWeb Newswire follow up to the case of Navy and L Cralley.

Congressional pressure has forced the U.S. Navy to say "uncle" in a case of David and Goliath. In 1991, vintage plane buff Lex Cralley of Princeton, Minn., went down to Craven County, N.C., and dug up the rusting pieces of a World War II-era Brewster F3A-1 Corsair that had laid abandoned there for 60 years. Cralley, an airline ground services mechanic, hoped to some day rebuild the plane, and had started putting the pieces back together when the Justice Department sued him for stealing the plane from the federal government, and demanded that he give it back to the Navy. Cralley didn't have the money or the stroke to fight the feds, but North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones did. When Rep. Jones heard what was happening, he stepped in and forced the Navy to back down. Jones reported to a grateful Cralley last week that the Navy has now agreed to transfer the title to him via congressional amendment. The House and Senate are expected to pass the measure this summer.

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

Thanks Hilary.  Very interesting.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 25 May 2004 08:41:48 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Navy drops Corsair claim

Is that not a Brewster Buffalo?

If so they are very rare and survivors or battles in Singapore and also the battle of Midway.  The only one or two left I know of are up in Finland: one found in a lake and the other saved  for being so effective against the USSR.
**************************************************************
From Ric

No, that is not a Brewster Buffalo.  It's a Corsair manufactured by Brewster under license.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 25 May 2004 14:34:22 -0400
From:         Ray
Subject:      Re: Navy drops Corsair claim

I recall reading somewhere that the Brewster company lost the contract to build Corsairs because of the poor quality of the aircraft they produced.
LTM
Ray.#2634.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 25 May 2004 14:50:45 -0400
From:         D. Hertog
Subject:      Re: Navy Drops Corsair Claim

Information from: St. Paul Pioneer Press, http:// www.twincities.com

Rare warbird may land permanently in Minnesota man's hands.

Associated Press
May 17, 2004CORSAIR0518

A five-year dispute over ownership of a rare U.S. Navy fighter plane from World War II could soon be decided in favor of an airplane mechanic from Princeton, Minn. - although it will take an act of Congress.

The beginning of the end came last week when a team of federal officials arrived at Lex Cralley's rural home while he was out of town. They spent hours inspecting the wreckage of the Corsair that had been resting in his machine shed since 1990.

"I had no intention of being there," Cralley said later. "For all I knew, they intended to interrogate me."

The dispute began when the Navy learned that Cralley, a 49-year-old Northwest Airlines mechanic, had salvaged the remains of the plane that had crashed in a North Carolina swamp back in 1944. Shortly afterward, a Navy report noted the death of the pilot and described the plane as "demolished."

Though more than four decades passed before Cralley salvaged the wreck, he learned the hard way that the Navy has a policy of exerting its ownership of things that have been long discarded - and that they can play hardball.

"In the past two years, things had gotten pretty ugly," Cralley said.

In March, the U.S. Justice Department, acting as the attorney for the Navy, filed a lawsuit in Minneapolis seeking the plane, the cost of returning it and compensation for "any damage to or alteration of" the aircraft since Cralley dug it out of the swamp.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, officials at the Justice Department declined to discuss the reasons behind the Navy's interest in getting the plane back. But historical aviation enthusiasts said Cralley's salvaged plane is a rare one - perhaps the only existing Corsair of its kind.

Specifically, it's a "Brewster F3A-1" Corsair, manufactured by the Brewster Aeronautical Corp. of Long Island, N.Y., after the original manufacturer, the Chance Vought Aircraft Corp. of Stratford, Conn., became overwhelmed by a wartime demand for new planes.

Brewster, which no longer exists, built only 735 versions of the F3A-1 - Cralley's was the 119th - compared to more than 12,000 F4U Corsairs built by Chance Vought.

A story about the lawsuit that was published in March by the St. Paul Pioneer Press and was picked up by The Associated Press and distributed nationally. Within days, Cralley said, the outraged calls started coming in.

One came from U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., whose district includes the original crash site near the Cherry Point Marine Corps Training Station. Jones later wrote a letter to Navy Secretary Gordon England in which he asked England to exert some "common-sense leadership" to avoid having the Corsair dispute become a "laughable poster child" for big government run amok.

Cralley also said he got support from Minnesota's former U.S. Sen. Rod Grams, a Republican who is now a Washington lobbyist, and from U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, also a Republican.

A spokeswoman for Jones' Washington office said the congressman would be introducing a "private bill" that will specifically convey the Corsair from the Navy to Cralley.

"The Navy has given their blessing on this particular option," said Anne Cassity, an aide to Jones. "Hopefully, it will be resolved in the near future."

Cralley's Minneapolis attorney Boyd H. Ratchye said a continuance on the federal lawsuit against Cralley is expected to stop it from going forward until July. By then, he hopes the action will be dropped.

"I don't have an argument with the Navy or anybody who served in it," Cralley said last week, the day after he returned from Washington. "But with some bureaucrats - yeah, I have an argument."

Cralley said his efforts to restore the Corsair have been largely "on hold" for the past five years because of the federal dispute.

"I spent five years just trying to locate the parts and collect components that were scattered all over the place," Cralley said.

Restoring the plane also means fabricating new parts, something Cralley says he can't do alone. For example, some of the gun access doors on the wings of the plane have been replicated by Art Aasland, a machinist from Lakeville.

"The quality of his work is amazing," Cralley said. "But it's a very slow, painstaking process."

Restoration of the plane by some estimates could cost millions. The plane itself could be worth more than $1 million if restored for flight. Only about 24 flyable Corsairs exist.

"We have to preserve some of these planes statically, as artifacts," Cralley said. "But it's also important to see them fly, so that young generations have an appreciation of what they were."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 25 May 2004 15:14:55 -0400
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re; Navy Drops Corsair Claim

Ray wrote:

> I recall reading somewhere that the Brewster company lost the contract
> to build Corsairs because of the poor quality of the aircraft they
> produced.

I'd heard they finished the Corsair contract completely, in a burst of employee enthusiasm, unpaid.  No, I don't recall where I read that.

Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 25 May 2004 16:55:51 -0400
From:         Hilary
Subject:      Corsair background

> A friend had sent me an article from the Charlotte Observer about this case
> sometime back which I forwarded to Ric. All thought the outcome would be not
> in favor of Mr. L. Crawley this last post was the conclusion of the case

I have added the original article for anyone interested. Sorry to others who are not. Hilary H.

NAVY HAS A SUDDEN INTEREST IN WRECK
U.S. ABANDONED PLANE BUT NOW WANTS IT BACK FROM MAN RESTORING IT
ASSOCIATED PRESS

The federal government has filed a lawsuit against a Minnesota mechanic to retrieve the wreckage of a Corsair fighter that the Navy abandoned after it crashed in an N.C. swamp in 1944.

Lex Cralley, who says he has a passion for preserving World War II aviation history, salvaged the pieces of the plane in 1990 and transported it to a storage facility near his home in Princeton, Minn. He then registered it as a "non-airworthy model" with the Federal Aviation Administration and began the painstaking work of restoration. The task is still long from complete.

Last week, the U.S. Justice Department, acting as an agent for the Navy, filed a lawsuit in Minneapolis seeking the plane, the cost of returning it and compensation for "any damage to or alteration of" the aircraft since Cralley dug it out of the swamp.

"As owner of this aircraft, I will vigorously defend my position," Cralley said Friday, though he added that the government's legal move has him rattled. "I'm just a little guy," said Cralley, 49, an aviation mechanic. "I have no wealth, work for a living, have four kids."

The lawsuit doesn't state why the pieces of the plane are so important to the Navy. "We're not going to provide anything more than what we'll be saying in court," said Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department's civil division in Washington.

But historical airplane enthusiasts say they know the reason for the government's interest: Though it looks almost exactly like all the other Corsair war birds from World War II, Cralley's plane is the only model of a particular Corsair fighter known to exist.

Specifically, it's a "Brewster F3A-1" Corsair, manufactured by the Brewster Aeronautical Corp. of Long Island, N.Y., after the original manufacturer, the Chance Vought Aircraft Corp. of Stratford, Conn., became overwhelmed by a wartime demand for new planes. Neither company exists today.

Brewster built 735 versions of the F3A-1, compared with more than 12,000 F4U Corsairs built by Chance Vought. Among aircraft historians, that's an important distinction that could amount to millions of dollars in value if the plane is ever restored to flying condition. "I don't know of any airworthy Corsair that sold in the last five years for less than $1 million," said Dick Phillips, a retired Northwest Airlines executive from Burnsville who writes books about World War II aircraft. He said only about two dozen Corsairs are still flying.

The lawsuit claims Cralley put a value of $5.5 million on the Corsair when officials first demanded its return. Cralley declined to comment about specific claims in the lawsuit. Originally designed to land on aircraft carriers, the single-engine Corsair is still one of the most recognizable fighter planes from World War II. Its distinctive characteristics were a long fuselage, a huge radial engine with a giant propeller and a unique inverted "gull wing" design that made it possible to land low without dragging the prop on the deck.

The plane was on a training flight Dec. 19, 1944, from the Cherry Point Marine Corps Training Station when it crashed a few miles away between Jacksonville and New Bern. The pilot died and Navy personnel stripped the downed aircraft of its weapons and other equipment before leaving it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 25 May 2004 19:43:18 -0400
From:         Tom Hickcox
Subject:      Re: Navy drops Corsair claim

Ray wrote:

> I recall reading somewhere that the Brewster company lost the contract to
> build Corsairs because of the poor quality of the aircraft they produced.

This point was brought up when the subject was discussed on a WW2 forum I belong to.  I don't recall the exact problem/problems, but it affected the craft's airworthiness.  Apparently, our government tried to foist the Brewster produced machines off on one of our co-belligerants.

Tom Hickcox
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 26 May 2004 09:42:32 -0400
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Re: gone west

I'd like to join many other forum posters in offering condolences to the family and friends of Tom Riggs.  I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but to me, regular posters to this forum seem to have a consistent "feel" to their posts, almost to the point that I feel like I know some of you, even  though we've never met.  A cyber family of sorts I guess.  One which has recently lost a member.  Ric, if you feel that it can be tastefully and respectfully done, please forward all of our condolences to the Riggs family.

Regarding another Forum family member.  Bruce Yoho, if you're out there, do you have a relative, nephew perhaps, who recently enlisted in the Army?  A certain young Mr. Michael Yoho, the son of Gene and Blaine Yoho of Weaverville, CA is a Private in the Basic Training Company that I've been assigned to since my Reserve Unit was mobilized.  You can reach me off forum at drp67@hotmail.com  I only check email a few times a week now, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

LTM,

SFC Dave Porter, Senior Drill Sergeant, 4th Platoon, A Co. 2/58 Infantry, Fort Benning, GA
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 26 May 2004 10:33:16 -0400
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: Navy drops Corsair claim

Does TIGHAR have a position on this?  On one hand a rotting airplane has hopefully been rescued from further exposure to the elements.  On the other hand, an old airplane has been removed from its historic context and altered by someone other than the person who put it there.  Preservation or grave robbery?  What should have happened to this plane or the next one that is discovered?

LTM, who's thinks there may be more rotting hulks than homes, but who wishes for more control of aviation's antiquities.
JMH
TIGHAR 0634C
************************************************************************
From Ric

Issues of ownership are decided by the courts (and apparently sometimes by political pressure), not TIGHAR, but there are some basic principles of historic preservation that we try to follow: 

- Historic preservation is the safeguarding of the physical material that was there then and is here now.

- Not all old things are worth preserving.  The best thing to do with some old objects is fix them up and put them back in use for the sake of education, nostalgia and entertainment - but that is not historic preservation.

- There is no such thing as permanent preservation.  The most secure museum can burn.

- Some historic properties serve best if left right where they are, even if they will deteriorate faster than if they were removed and preserved.

Individual cases must be judged on their own merits.  I don't know how badly wrecked the Corsair was but I know that returning it to airworthy condition will, by definition, destroy its historical integrity.  But then, is it a unique and significant enough object to warrant genuine preservation?  I rather doubt it, but that's not my decision to make.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 26 May 2004 14:15:42 -0400
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: gone west

Ric, pse pass on to  SFC Porter that this Navy-Marine Corps MARS Radioman will do his darndest to forward messages to those involved, if he would be so kind as to email me with the details of the outfit, Name, Rank, etc, limited to 100 Words, and I will see they get entered into the Army MARS gateway station. If their transit is aboard ship, then I most likely will be able to get the message to them thru NAVMARCORMARS.   I will check and see if we have routing info for messages, because during the initial phase of the campaign, I couldn't get messages into the theater, because nobody had thought to set up an endpoint.  As long as the people were on ship, I could get msgs to them (We were talking Navy-Marines here, but I will inquire as to the Army routers SAP and get them to SFC Porter as fast as I get them...

I realize this is a little off topic for the forum, but so loing as I am one of the unofficial radio analysts/engineers, I will offer my services for any of the combatants in this action. I only wish I could had tje quick comms 34+ years ago during my free "SE Asia Safari Park Tour"

73 es tnx de Greg "GW" Moore
WA3IVX / NNN0BVN
Tighar member (forgot the number right now)
Former RM1, USN,  still proud to be serving again by doing the most satisfying job for my country and C in C thereof  that one will never get paid for --hi-- (the telegraphic laugh)

Ok, that's out of the way, I would also like to join the other forum posters in offering condolences to the family, Friends and Acquaintences of Tom Riggs. His  insightful posts will be missed.
GW sends....AR
************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you misread Dave's posting.  He's got a recruit in his Basic Training unit with the unusual name of "Yoho" and he was wondering if our own Bruce Yoho (of Canton Engine fame) is somehow related.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 27 May 2004 11:44:30 -0400
From:         Marcus
Subject:      Re: gone west

My deep and sincere condolences to the family of Tom Riggs....   Marcus

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

The preliminary NTSB report indicates that he was flying a "Skyraider 1" homebuilt that crashed while turning base to final.  Sounds like a classic stall/spin.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 28 May 2004 10:33:02 -0400
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Oakland/Hono flight

After the first world flight attempt, did AE ever specify publicly how many miles were flown on the completed Oakland to Hawaii leg?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the flight duration time of 15 hours and 47 minutes was computed by a member of her flight crew - Was there ever a disagreement as to exact duration time or who was to calculate the time?

Just dusting off old notes.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

I'm not aware of any disagreement.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 28 May 2004 10:38:45 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Broken Wings

Ric, I'm watching "Broken Wings" on the History channel. One segment was a search for Gertrude Tompkins' P-51D in Santa Monica Bay. From shore they used equipment designed to detect metal, including aluminum, up to 1,000 yards out in the bay. (They say, not me)

They used magnetic anomaly detection and sub bottom profiler gear to "see" below the sand bottom. I know little of the equipment or its cost but thought it might have an application to the Niku search. I'm sure you already are familiar with this but just in case I'm passing it on.

BTW, they didn't find Gertrude or her plane.

An interesting sidelight was their initial methodology in which they figured out where to look based on known facts, assumptions and pure speculation. The latter two elements making up the bulk of their analysis. Haven't we frequently seen the same type of "investigative" techniques regarding Earhart?

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

I'm aware of no device that can detect aluminum 1,000 yards away but I am aware of bogus pseudo-scientific claims to that effect.  Sounds like the History Channel is maintaining its standards.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 May 2004 11:16:29 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Broken Wings

Ric, I watched the same show which is a repeat. Do you know the fellow who was involved ? Have you been to the B-17C up above Placerville, CA ? I saw a show that took place in late 02 which stated looters were taking all kinds of things off the site and the people were trying to get the site protected some way.
Jim Preston

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

Pat Macha is a TIGHAR member.  I've met him (years ago) but I've never worked with him.

I think the B-17C you refer to is the one we surveyed in 2001.  The only real way to protect remote sites from looters is through education.
************************************************************************
From Dan Postellon

Sounds like a magnetometer to me.  You might pick up a cast iron engine or a cannon at 100 yards.  Not good for small pieces of aluminum.
Dan Postellon

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

Or big pieces of aluminum.  Magnetometers only work on ferrous metals.

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

FWIW: I can only see it done with some beach-launched remotely operated vehicle. Sub-bottom profiling needs a seismic source close to the vertical above the target. Towed from a surface (or even submarine) vehicle. Might be applicable to a sand bar, but not much, I would guess, to the "tormented" face drop of the Niku reef. The resolution can be fairly high, by seismic standards, but I don't think sub-bottom profiling could be set up to detect "smallish" pieces of wreckage... But then I am into oil n gas seismic, not civil engineering.

Regards.

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

I agree, sub-bottom profiling would be useless on the Niku reef slope.