======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:47:57
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Great news Alan. Did you get all that from falling out of bed or off a Bar Stool ?
Jimbo
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:48:46
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Looking forward to your comments in 2006! Hopefully a happier year for most folks. Present national administration excluded.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang   # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:49:04
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Welcome back!  Here's to a further speedy recovery.
Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:49:26
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

For Alan Caldwell

I'm happy that you are recovering from this unfortunate accident. Good luck in the coming year.
Harvey
2387S
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 13:42:01
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Jimbo, it was a simple pub fight and she just didn't look that tough.
<G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:07:02
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

<<Jimbo, it was a simple pub fight and she just didn't look that
tough.>>

What a shame that we weren't all there to back you up, Alan.  Anyhow, welcome back.

LTM (who hates to miss a good brawl)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 18:51:07
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

For Tom Strang:

Geez, Tom... Who needs best wishes and good luck for the coming year more than the current administration?

God bless all the men and women in harm's way and bring them all home soon.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 18:51:31
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Good o Alan, you have to watch the Shelia's sometime they turn out to be guys in drag. Best Wishes for 2006
jimbo
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 18:52:01
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Or to continue buying brews and watching. I used to get a gal and hold her on my lap so she would keep me from getting involved.Happy New Year to all
Jimbo
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:07:33
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

For Alan,

Your injuries may not have been as bad as the one Noonan experienced on takeoff from Lae causing him to lose track of the DR to Lae, say some researchers. A couple of ribs, you should be r eady for the second half.
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 2 Jan 2006 09:52:01
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Alan, you're evidently a fighter! Congrats on beating the doctor's predictions!  Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year!

Here's a cute Shockwave Flash card:

http://www.icq.com/img/friendship/static/card_16961_rs.swf

Suzanne
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 2 Jan 2006 09:52:23
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Alan, I'm so glad things are turning out ok for you. I really enjoy your contributions to the forum, and learn much from you. I've had broken ribs and know how that is, so you take care, ok?

Jackie #2440
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:15:14
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Alan Caldwell writes:

> I have had a harder couple weeks than usual. I was released from the
> hospital last night and am resting at home.

Alan, we are definitely very glad you are getting better and we hope you are on your way to a full recovery. I think in order to speed your recovery, I would like to prescribe that you don't argue with anyone here in the forum for at least a month! Take care, and best wishes!

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5@rochester.rr.com
http://paiges-page.net

It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
If you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
   I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:50:21
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Thanks, Jackie. Sorry you had to go through this too.

> I would like to prescribe that you don't argue with anyone
> here in the forum for at least a month!

I'm not sure I could handle the withdrawal. <G>

Thanks, Suzanne. Enjoyed popping the balloons.

> Your injuries may not have been as bad as the one Noonan experienced on
> takeoff from Lae causing him to lose track of the DR to Lae, say some
> researchers. A couple of ribs, you should be r eady for the second half.
> Ron Bright

Yeah!. I think I could have still found Howland. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 3 Jan 2006 13:07:23
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Welcome back, Alan!  Here's hoping everyone's New Year is better than the old one.
--
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:48:22
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Thanks, Amanda. My New Year is SURE better.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:50:51
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Happy New Year for all the Members!

For Alan: I sincerely wish you a full and quick recovery, and good health in 2006 (and after it)! Take care, and best wishes!

LTM - Very Sincerely, Marcus

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:41:21
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      The Norwich City's name

I am still researching how the Norwich City's name was put on the bow of the ship, but it's going slowly (gotta love the glacial pace of international correspondence in this day of e-mail and instant messaging). Why is this important to me, and potentially TIGHAR? Two words - Betty's notebook.

There has been a great deal of debate about whether what Betty says she heard that day was New York (City) or perhaps something else - Norwich City - garbled by distance, atmospherics and maybe stress. If it WAS Amelia that Betty heard, and Amelia WAS trying to communicate a specific location, and there WAS that big 'old rusty hunk of ship on the reef that DID have a name on it...

Bob Brandenburg has sent me several closer views of the Norwich City before her demise in 1929, and I am trying to get the construction details confirmed through Lloyd's of London and hopefully, the company that actually built her about how the name was placed on the bow of the ship, which photos from the New Zealand survey expedition show was still intact when they arrived in 1938.

Here is the important part (braces because so far all he has is anecdotal information) - My Dad said common practice in the merchant marine in World War II, corroborated by several other old timers I have talked to, was to cut the letters of the ship's name out of sheet steel and weld them to the hull on each side of the bows and across the stern. That appears to be how the Norwich City's name was done on her bows as well, based on the few photos I have. Why is this potentially important? Because steel letters a quarter-inch thick and 18-inches or more high are not going to rust off or be burned off or disappear rapidly, even in the corrosive atmosphere of Niku. Which means it is possible that someone, a castaway maybe, could have walked up to the bow of the Norwich City and made out the name even though the ship had been rusting away for almost 8 years. And that would be one more indicator ...

LTM,
Monty Fowler, No. 2189CE (and still trying to get all that Maryland mud out of his tennis shoes)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:12:02
From:         Tom King (who's STILL in the Maryland mud)
Subject:      Re: The Norwich City's name

For Monty Fowler --

That's excellent information, Monty; anything more you can get on this will be very useful.  The bow was actually still present when we were first on Niku in 1989, though most of the hull aft of it had collapsed and it was pointing straight up in the air.  I certainly didn't see a name plate at that time, but of course it had experienced a lot of deterioration since 1938.

Your dad's description of how names were affixed during WWII certainly makes sense.  There must be quite a few ships of appropriate vintage sitting around, at least in mothball fleets and maritime museums. Anybody who can check on one or more of them could provide us some useful data by checking to see how their names are affixed and sending in the relevant information.

LTM (who says there's a lot in a name)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:39:49
From:         Tom King
Subject:      The legend continues

Awaiting a plane west at Baltimore-Washington this morning, I picked up "Islands" magazine (26:1, Jan/Feb 06), and thumbing through it found, on page 63....

"The three island groups of Kiribati -- Phoenix, Line, and Gilbert Islands -- are swirled in a thick broth of legend and mystery.  Amelia Earhart disappeared over the Phoenix Islands, and all kinds of weird anomalies exist throughout the area, especially off the small island of Nikumaroro.  At night here, unexplained lights dance and weave through the palm thickets, even though no one has lived on the island for decades.  If you come ashore on Nikumaroro you need to "wash" your face with sand to disguise your appearance from the mercurial island spirits.  No one is allowed on the island at night.  The last person to spend the night there, an Earhart researcher stranded by bad weather, allegedly refused to speak about what happened to him in the dark, alone on the island."

LTM (who's busy swirling a thick broth)
Tom (aka, I surmise, the last researcher)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:56:46
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The legend continues

> The three island groups of Kiribati -- Phoenix, Line, and Gilbert
> Islands -- are swirled in a thick broth of legend and mystery.  Amelia
> Earhart disappeared over the Phoenix Islands, and all kinds of weird
> anomalies exist throughout the area, especially off the small  
> island of Nikumaroro.

  From the shattered body of Alan

AHA! At last we are getting to the truth. Spirits! The only clear explanation. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:02:24
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

Hey Tom, did you scrub your face with reef sand or lagoon sand before dancing about in the dark with that flashlight?

LTM, who got her kicks
William Webster-Garman

PS: Ok, so... why do I think whoever's behind such a wacky article could be gently testing interest in chartered yachting trips or whatever into the area? I can see it already... Gilligan's Island meets Amelia's ghost. I mean, either way, never underestimate the ability of greed to chavel archaeological sites.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:03:00
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Home from the hospital

Alan, glad you're doing well. We lawyers need to stick together and keep everyone on the staight and narrow.

gl
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:03:39
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

" ... all kinds of weird anomalies exist throughout the area, especially off the small island of Nikumaroro."

You know, Ric has been called a lot of things -- some of them by me -- but "Weird Anomaly" is hitting below the belt.

PDG
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:33:51
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

For William Webster-Garman

Actually, the article isn't THAT far off -- in that we do, as per Kiribati custom, put sand on our faces when we come ashore, there were reports from Nai'a's crew of unexplained lights, and staying ashore overnight isn't generally "allowed" (on TIGHAR projects).  It looks to me like the author watched the ABC TV show on the '97 project, but hasn't read "Shoes."  As for what happened that night -- my fingers mysteriously freeze on the keyboard every time I try to write about it.

LTM (who has excellent relations with island spirits, thank you)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:40:55
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: The legend continues

> From Tom King
>
> Awaiting a plane west at Baltimore-Washington this morning, I picked
> up "Islands" magazine (26:1, Jan/Feb 06), and thumbing through it
> found, on page 63....

Now I remember why I let my subscription to "Islands" run out.

Kerry Tiller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:42:02
From:         Peter Polen
Subject:      Who is this person?

As a member of the oldest Aero Club in the country, "The Pittsburgh Aero Club," I have been asked by the board about the background of Andrea Niapas. She is on the club's list to be invited as a speaker to one of our dinners. Does this lady go by the facts???

Andrea Niapas, researcher/author, of Ligonier. She has completed shooting and at last contact was overseeing video editing of a documentary about Amelia Earhart intended for PBS.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Peter Polen

Peter Polen
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
1954 PA22-160 N9840D
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:42:45
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

Tom King quoted a magazine article: "The last person to spend the night there, an Earhart researcher stranded by bad weather, allegedly refused to speak about what happened to him in the dark, alone on the island."

So, Tom . . . what did you see that night?  Absence may make the heart grow fonder, but silence brings out the conspiracy crowd, usually after midnight on a full moon. :)

I checked with my palm reader, parapsychologist, channeler, seer, shaman, and exorcist and they all said it is OK to be frightened by that which we do not understand.  Embrace your fear, revel in your bewilderment, and celebrate your conflicts for they are essential to spur you to greater insight and serenity.  Well, at least that's what they tell me.

Do you and Ric have the beginnings of another book here?  Here are some suggested titles:    "The Ghost of Amelia: Wandering in Paradise," "Ghost Riders in the Pacific Skies," "Surf, Sand, and Spirits," "An Angry Amorphous Amelia," "Seeing Through the Legend of Niku's Ghosts," "I Survived the Curse of Amelia Earhart."

LTM, who hasn't a ghost of a chance
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:44:08
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

> As for what happened that night -- my fingers
> mysteriously freeze on the keyboard every time I try to write about  
> it.

Tom, put sand on your fingers and try again.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:08:26
From:         Alexander Gartshore
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

Dennis McGee mentioned....

> Do you and Ric have the beginnings of another book here? Here are some
> suggested titles: "The Ghost of Amelia: Wandering in Paradise,"
> "Ghost Riders in the Pacific Skies," "Surf, Sand, and Spirits," "An
> Angry Amorphous Amelia," "Seeing Through the Legend of Niku's Ghosts,"
> "I Survived the Curse of Amelia Earhart."

Now there's an idea! a book on the island and surrounding islands...there is plenty of history in that area from what i have read in this forum over the last 5 years or so.

Alexander [the longest lurker around]
LTM : is it true i get free membership at 50 ?

******************************************

> is it true i get free membership at 50 ?

No. Ya gotta make it to 80 to get the FREE membership :-)

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:30:41
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

> No. Ya gotta make it to 80 to get the FREE membership :-)
>
> Pat

Is That true?  I was 82 last May.

Vern  Klein  #2124  Member since 1998

********************************************

Well. Ahem. Actually, no. But you DO qualify for the $45 year rate....

Sorry to get your hopes up.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:14:16
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

> The last person to
> spend the night there, an Earhart researcher stranded by bad weather,
> allegedly refused to speak about what happened to him in the dark,
> alone on the island."

Hey, wait a minute, some of us sandpebbles stayed ashore at the end of the 2001 trip.  Wouldn't that make us the last persons to spend the night ashore?

We weren't stuck there due to weather, but the crabs sure made things interesting.

Andrew McKenna
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:27:30
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

For Andrew McKenna

If we were discussing reality here, of course a number of members of the 2001 expedition would qualify as the "last man on the island," as probably would members of the 2003 trip.  And Gary Quigg or John Clauss would qualify from the '97 trip, and who knows who else has camped on the island lately.  But we're not talking reality; we're talking magazine article.

LTM (who's beginning to be sorry she ever read the piece)

TK
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:27:30
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: the legend continues

Question:

> Ya gotta make it to 80 to get a FREE membership:-) <

Is it true about a FREE membership when a person reaches eighty (80)? I will reach 80 on 19 JAN 06.

George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member # 2630

PS. LTM - who always knew I'd amount to  more than a "Hill Of Beans!"

********************************************

No, sorry, that was a typo. It's ONE HUNDRED and eighty......

Pat

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:16:56
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Itasca Bridge log

For : Randy Jacobson

Quick question for you Mr. Jacobson. Have you reviewed the bridge log of Coast Guard Cutter Itasca dated 2 July 1937?

Respectfully,
Tom Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 

Date:         Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:48:25
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca bridge log

Yes I have.  Is there something in particular you are interested in?

> From: Tom Strang
>
>       Quick question for you Mr. Jacobson. Have you reviewed the
> bridge log of Coast Guard Cutter Itasca dated 2 July 1937?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:42:33
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum Query

I'd like to give everyone a short status report on "the book" and ask for some input from any and all who might like to give me the benefit of their opinion.

The original deadline for completing the manuscript was Dec. 31 but I have another 90 days if I need it.  I'm currently writing Chapter 16 and it looks like there will probably be a total of 21 chapters. With luck I should be able to finish by the end of February.

The writing has been going well but it's taking longer than anticipated because I decided to make a change in the way the book is organized. As you may recall, my original plan was to divide the book into two quite separate sections. The first part of the book would tell the story of Earhart's two world flight attempts, her disappearance, and the U.S. government's unsuccessful attempt to find her. The second part would present a study of the post-loss radio signals and an evaluation of their credibility.

As I began to write the narrative of the government search it soon became apparent that the story of the search IS the story of the post-loss signals.  The signals heard by the searchers, and the reports of signals heard by others, drove virtually every aspect of the search. When the effort was finally called off, for all the sea miles scoured by ships and hours flown by search aircraft, the only product of the search -- the only clues discovered -- were the post-loss radio signals.

I decided that, rather than treat the signals as a separate issue, I would deal with them in context.  The book now is a single continuous narrative.

What I have found throughout the experience of writing the book is that the tale told by the original source material is very different from what was written in after-the-fact reports. The story of the Earhart disappearance and search that has been accepted as fact for almost seventy years is largely myth. As I write the narrative of the search I find that hardly a day goes by but what I am surprised by something I learn (and I've been living inside this mystery for nearly 18 years now).

It turns out that the answer to what happened to Earhart and Noonan has been there all along in the original historical record.  To see it does not require faith, imagination, or speculative interpretation. All it takes is for all the verifiable, documented pieces of the puzzle to be collected up, arranged chronologically, and evaluated using quantifiable standards. Once the pieces are put together, anyone can see the picture. It's just that it's never been done before.

I hasten to add that I'm not the one who did all the collecting, arranging and quantifying.  Dozens of TIGHAR researchers, but most notably Randy Jacobson and Bob Brandenburg, are the giants upon whose shoulders I am privileged to stand. Even so, none of us can see the whole picture when the pieces are in a pile. I'm the lucky guy who gets to see the picture as it emerges.

So, somewhat to my surprise, what I'm ending up with is a book that tells the documented story of what really happened to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan.  The sweet irony is, if I'm right, I don't need to make that claim. If someone shows you a correctly completed jigsaw puzzle they don't need to tell you what the picture shows.

Then again, I've been living among the trees for so long that I'm not sure I can see the forest clearly.

My question to you, the esteemed members of the forum, is:

What sort of documented historical information would you need to see to convince you that at least some of the post-loss radio signals were genuine and that they (and this is admittedly tougher) were being sent from Gardner Island?

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:27:23
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Forum Query

> What sort of documented historical information would you need to see  to
> convince you that at least some of the post-loss radio signals  were
> genuine and that they (and this is admittedly tougher) were  being sent
> from Gardner Island?

How about documented, primary source text from a post lost signal containing a reference to a shipwreck which could only be the Norwich City?

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:27:58
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Forum Query

Any book on Amelia Earhart needs a new angle of approach from what has been published before. In my opinion the post-loss radio signals are the right approach for one simple reason : this is new, it has never been explained before.

As for what I think (who am I to have a valuable opinion on the matter?), the signals heard by the Pan Am operators and their conclusion they were coming from the Phoenix Islands, to me sounds convincing. After all they were professional radio operators. I give more credence to them than to all the hoaxers that followed.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:28:22
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Forum query

I would like to see the same message reported from two areas close to Gardner (in the Pacific) , but not reported further away.  The real proof that they were genuine would involve finding the plane, or some other artifact that was unequivocally AE's.

Dan Postellon
TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:28:51
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Forum query

Ric asks: "What sort of documented historical information would you need to see to convince you that at least some of the post-loss radio signals were genuine and that they (and this is admittedly tougher) were being sent from Gardner Island?"

Okay, I'll go out on a limb here. (Heck, I've done it before!)

If, back in the early days of July, 1937, an honest radio operator, doing his job, heard a voice over the radio saying that that person is/was on Gardner Island, and if that radio operator had heard that voice before and was therefore in a position to be able to recognize it as a person that could reasonably be on Gardner Island, and if that radio operator recorded all of this in a written transcript at the time it happened, then the transcript is a historical document that would probably convince me.

If, in the same time frame, a similarly-honest radio operator heard a radio transmission with a plausible call sign, describing a set of circumstances that could only take place on Gardner Island, and if that radio operator recorded all of this in a written transcript at the time it happened, and if I could see the transcript, I'd probably be convinced.

LTM, who's now waiting for someone to saw the limb off,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:45:14
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Forum Query

Ric:  In response to your query, I'm with Herman, and feel pretty unqualified to respond.  Nevertheless, I will.

I am totally convinced that most of the post-loss messages are genuine, for the following reasons:

The messages have been heard and reported by not only amateurs, but professional radio operators.

Pan Am was able to get a fix that indicated the signals coming from the Gardner area.  Even the Itasca heard some of these messages.

The Electra was incapable of sending radio signals from the water. I'm convinced that A/E landed her plane on Gardner or some other Atoll in the area.

Some of the content in the post-loss messages could only have come from Amelia herself.  She gave her call sign, tried to give her location, and also spoke of personal information that only she could give.

The Navy and George Putnam felt that she had landed on Gardner, although the Navy dismissed all post-loss messages as hoaxes.  It's such a shame that the Navy didn't follow through and search Gardner...

I'd like to see the post-loss message logs, and your analysis of it, but I am already convinced from my own research and the many, many books I've read on the subject.

Ric, your book is fascinating, and different from an other book written thus far.  I like the easy narrative style, and each time I read an excerpt, I find myself wanting more.  I can't wait for the post-loss chapters, and am impatiently waiting for the full story. My only complaint is that you're too hard on Amelia, but I do feel you have a right to your opinion.  Well done...

LTM, who did all she could to be found
Jackie   #2440
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:04:19
From:         Danny Brown
Subject:      Re: Forum query

For me, if any of the Pan Am signals can be documented as heard by others at or about the same time, and because Pan Am's triangulation indicated they were coming from the Phoenix Islands, then the conclusion would seem indisputable. The Pan Am boys were professionals, not prone to mistakes or exaggeration. Those documented signals can't reasonably be explained as hoaxes.

Of course, a second documentation of any signal received by Pan AM would not PROVE that they originated at Gardner, but only the ignorant and closed-minded could deny the obvious conclusion that they came from the area. Remember, there are some who will never be convinced, even if you turned up indisputable evidence of Amelia on Gardner. History has repeatedly shown that mankind chooses to ignore conclusive evidence when it clashes with one's pre-conceived paradigm. If even one signal can be proven to be real, regardless of it's place of origin, then, for me, any smoking gun physical evidence would never be needed. All of the other theories would simply "crash and sink."

LTM (who was hard of hearing, except when one whispered)
Danny Brown
#2426
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:53:21
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Forum query

I'm not sure you can PROVE a radio signal was genuine (short of a recorded message from AE, with a sworn affidavit declaring authenticity maybe).

I think what you are doing is constructing a theory. The proof of the theory is not in its internal logic or the circumstantial evidence supporting it. The proof of the theory is smoking-gun evidence found where the theory points.

I thought the original intention of the book was to make an extremely strong case, using post-loss signals, that AE must have reached some land somewhere. The idea being to increase interest in TIGHAR's efforts and generate more funding.

It sounds like you are now trying to make the larger case that the entire mystery is solved (like Long tried to do). His theory will only be proven when AE artifacts are found at the bottom of the ocean where he says to look. Ditto for yours where the post-loss messages point.

blue skies, JHam
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:54:41
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Forum query

For me, it would take a minimum of three simultaneous RDF measurements on the same frequency (3105 or 6210 kHz), triangulating in the general area of an island.  The signals would have to be voice, and not coming from the Itasca.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:30:30
From:         Peter Polen
Subject:      Re: Forum query

> The signals heard by the searchers, and the reports of
> signals heard by others, drove virtually every aspect of the search.

Here I am a little confused about the statement above. If the Navy considered all reports as false how did that drive the search???

> It turns out that the answer to what happened to Earhart and Noonan
> has been there all along in the original historical record.

I think you need to be cautious here. If I remember right some time ago the Earhart mystery was almost considered solved by TIGHAR. You don't want to make strong claims and than have to back track to cover that the mystery has definitely been solved.

However, if you can "prove" the radio transmissions were made from the Earhart plane and that the same (or nearly so) wording was heard by other people in other parts of the country, you may have enough for one of the greatest stories in aviation history.

Peter Polen
Director
Piper Aviation Museum
Pittsburgh branch
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:00:06
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: forum query

Another comment...

While evidence of signal triangulation in the primary sources would likely be the highest order of proof, I tend to agree with Mr Polen that if "the same (or nearly so) wording was heard by other people in other parts of the country, you may have enough..."

I also still believe that an unambiguous description of the wreck of the Norwich City (to the exclusion of all other possibilities) would sway.

Another thing to consider is that whatever the proof, Earhart's celebrity and the myths surrounding it are so widely present in the population that there is considerable inertia to overcome. If documented proof (or an overwhelming likelihood, based on documented circumstantial evidence and a scholarly interpretation of the probabilities) that Earhart and Noonan landed on Gardner is assembled, it could take a generation or more for general acceptance to culturally filter through.

The discovery of the skeleton and sextant box discovered and reported by Gallagher (along with their documented characteristics) leads me to informally estimate that the odds are very high they were Earhart and Noonan's. Any inconclusive but documented post-loss signal evidence would add to general acceptance of the Gardner hypothesis as the most likely explanation.

Either way Ric, it sounds like you're in the process of leading TIGHAR towards adding yet more reliable historical information and context to the historical record of Earhart and Noonan's last flight and you can be sure that many folks, including yours truly, commend you for that.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:02:46
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Forum Query

William Webster-Garman asks,

> How about documented, primary source text from a post lost signal
> containing a reference to a shipwreck which could only be the
> Norwich City?

I wish. There are only two possible references to a ship or shipwreck and both are highly speculative.

Dana Randolph heard "ship on reef" or "ship on a reef" but Earhart, as was common at the time, frequently referred to the Electra as "the ship."  The other reference is Betty's "N.Y. N.Y. or something that sounded like New York."  If that is shorthand for "New York City or something that sounded like New York City" (Betty doesn't remember) then Norwich City is a very good candidate.

Herman writes,

> Any book on Amelia Earhart needs a new angle of approach from what has been
> published before. In my opinion the post-loss radio signals are the right
> approach for one simple reason: this is new, it has never been explained
> before.

This book's new angle is that it is a genuine, honest-to gosh history book about the Earhart disappearance, researched and written according to accepted academic standards using only primary source material.

> As for what I think (who am I to have a valuable opinion on the matter?),
> the signals heard by the Pan Am operators and their conclusion they were
> coming from the Phoenix Islands, to me sounds convincing. After all they
> were professional radio operators. I give more credence to them than to all
> the hoaxers that followed.

The Pan Am bearings are very strong evidence, much stronger than has previously been recognized.

Dan Postellon says:

> I would like to see the same message reported from two areas close
> to Gardner (in the Pacific), but not reported further away.

How about Baker Island hearing "NRUI (Itasca's call letters) from KHAQQ" in voice at the same time Itasca is hearing a man's voice too weak to understand and Howland is also hearing weak voice?  Nobody farther away - Hawaii, Midway, Wake, California, etc. - is hearing anything at that moment.  A few minutes later Howland hears the plane calling Itasca at the same time Itasca is hearing a weak carrier. All of this is on Earhart's frequency 3105 kilocycles, a frequency that only U.S. registered civilian aircraft can use legally for voice transmissions.

> The real proof that they were genuine would involve finding the
> plane, or some other artifact that was unequivocally AE's.

I have to disagree. Finding artifacts would prove that the plane, or at least parts of the plane, somehow reached the place where the artifacts were found but artifacts can prove nothing about the source of seventy year-old radio signals.

Alfred Hendrickson writes:

> If, back in the early days of July, 1937, an honest radio operator, doing
> his job, heard a voice over the radio saying that that person is/ was on
> Gardner Island, and if that radio operator had heard that voice before and
> was therefore in a position to be able to recognize it as a person that
> could reasonably be on Gardner Island, and if that radio operator recorded
> all of this in a written transcript at the time it happened, then the
> transcript is a historical document that would probably convince me.

None of the alleged messages include an island name. One message quotes Earhart as saying she is on an "uncharted island . Small, uninhabited. The plane was partially on land, part in water." Two messages have her on a reef and Betty's notebook impies, but does not state, a similar situation.

The operator at Nauru said the voice he heard was similar to the one he heard from the plane in flight the night before. Some of the Itasca radio log entries imply, but do not state, that the operator recognizes the voice he is hearing as Earhart's (i.e "We hear her now.")  Walter McMenamy in Los Angeles claimed to recognize her voice but McMenamy later confessed that his reports were hoaxed.

> If, in the same time frame, a similarly-honest radio operator heard a radio
> transmission with a plausible call sign, describing a set of circumstances
> that could only take place on Gardner Island, and if that radio operator
> recorded all of this in a written transcript at the time it happened, and if
> I could see the transcript, I'd probably be convinced.

The circumstances and the transcripts certainly exist but I know of no way to be absolutely certain of a person's honesty.  I don't think any single report, no matter how compelling, can do the trick.  You have to look at the entire phenomenon.

Jackie Tharpe says:

> My only complaint is that you're too hard on Amelia, but I do feel
> you have a right to your opinion.

The chapters we've published in TIGHAR Tracks are drafts. Many changes have already been made based on the feedback from TIGHAR members and many more changes will be made before the book is published. I think you'll find that Amelia fares better in the final version.

Danny Brown writes:

> For me, if any of the Pan Am signals can be documented as heard by
> others at or about the same time, and because Pan Am's
> triangulation indicated they were coming from the Phoenix Islands,
> then the conclusion would seem indisputable. The Pan Am boys were
> professionals, not prone to mistakes or exaggeration. Those
> documented signals can't reasonably be explained as hoaxes.

I think you'll be pleased with what you'll read.

> Of course, a second documentation of any signal received by Pan AM
> would not PROVE that they originated at Gardner, but only the
> ignorant and closed-minded could deny the obvious conclusion that
> they came from the area. Remember, there are some who will never be
> convinced, even if you turned up indisputable evidence of Amelia on
> Gardner. History has repeatedly shown that mankind chooses to
> ignore conclusive evidence when it clashes with one's pre-conceived
> paradyme. If even one signal can be proven to be real, regardless
> of its place of origin, then, for me, any smoking gun physical
> evidence would never be needed. All of the other theories would
> simply "crash and sink."

No doubt about it. For some people Irene Bolam will always be Amelia Earhart.  This book is not for them.

Jerry Hamilton writes:

> I'm not sure you can PROVE a radio signal was genuine (short of a
> recorded message from AE, with a sworn affidavit declaring
> authenticity maybe).

I agree that it is not possible to prove the authenticity of any single message. There is always the possibility that the informant was lying.

> I think what you are doing is constructing a theory. The proof of
> the theory is not in its internal logic or the circumstantial
> evidence supporting it. The proof of the theory is smoking-gun
> evidence found where the theory points.

No, I am not constructing a theory. I am reporting what happened as documented in the primary source material.

> I thought the original intention of the book was to make an
> extremely strong case, using post-loss signals, that AE must have
> reached some land somewhere. The idea being to increase interest in
> TIGHAR's efforts and generate more funding.

I certainly hope that the book increases interest in TIGHAR and generates more funding, but I find that I don't need to make any kind of case (as a lawyer might do in a courtroom).  All I have to do is tell the story of what is known to have happened according to the best available sources.

> It sounds like you are now trying to make the larger case that the
> entire mystery is solved (like Long tried to do). His theory will
> only be proven when AE artifacts are found at the bottom of the
> ocean where he says to look. Ditto for yours where the post-loss
> messages point.

To be fair, Elgen Long never intended to claim that he had solved the mystery. He made the mistake of giving the publisher the exclusive right to put a title on his book.  Whatever title we settle on for this book it will be mutually agreed upon between me and Pat and the Naval Institute Press.

My position is that the answer to the Earhart mystery is apparent once all of the primary source material is presented. I am not selecting the facts that fit a particular hypothesis.  I'm just telling the story.

Jim Tierney writes:

> The smoking gun for me will be the expert analysis by Himself of
> the Pan Am  operators records/analysis/conjecture/opinions/
> decisions on where the signals came from....

Himself, in this case, is Bob Brandenburg. His analysis of the Pan Am bearings will be included on the DVD that accompanies the book.  I reference his work in the text but a real breakdown of all the considerations involved in evaluating the Pan Am bearings would put most readers to sleep.

> These guys were professionals and competent....I dont think they
> made many mistakes.....

And they were cautious in what they said.

> They had  a number of locations to triangulate from......I assume
> they would have been listening to any PanAm Clipper in the air
> during that week and on that day in particular....

Absolutely, and the Clippers did not use the frequencies Earhart used.

Randy Jacobson says:

> For me, it would take a minimum of three simultaneous RDF measurements on
> the same frequency (3105 or 6210 kHz), triangulating in the general area of
> an island.  The signals would have to be voice, and not coming from the Itasca.

You don't ask for much, do you? If that's the only standard that will convince you, you'll probably always remain a skeptic.

Peter Polen asks:

>> The signals heard by the searchers, and the reports of signals
>> heard by others, drove virtually every aspect of the search.
>
> Here I am a little confused about the statement above. If the Navy
> considered all reports as false how did that drive the search???

The Navy did not consider all the reports to be false, nor did the Coast Guard.  Quite the contrary.  The categorical denials came only after the search failed.  In a nutshell, here's how it went:

By July 5th they knew that the plane had to be on land to send messages. Several receptions, both by professional operators and amateurs, had been judged to be probably authentic. The majority of the Pan Am bearings indicated that the signals were coming from the southwestern part of the Phoenix Group (around McKean and Gardner). There was a high expectation that Colorado would find the plane. When Colorado concluded its search of the Phoenix Islands without finding the plane, the captain handed off responsibility for the search to the commander of the Lexington Group and reported that the islands had been thoroughly searched and the plane definitely was not there. If the plane had to be on land to send signals, and if it was definitely not on the land where the signals indicated it had to be, then the signals had to be bogus. The Lexington Group, therefore, focused its search on the open ocean northwest of Howland.

>> It turns out that the answer to what happened to Earhart and Noonan
>> has been there all along in the original historical record.
>
> I think you need to be cautious here. If I remember right some time
> ago the Earhart mystery was almost considered solved by TIGHAR. You
> don't want to make strong claims and than have to back track to
> cover that the mystery has definitely been solved.

We were right in 1992 but the public needed more proof.  As it turns out, there's far more proof than we ever imagined.

> However, if you can "prove" the radio transmissions were made from
> the Earhart plane and that the same (or nearly so) wording was
> heard by other people in other parts of the country, you may have
> enough for one of the greatest stories in aviation history.

I know of no way to prove that the radio transmissions came from the Earhart plane.  What I think we CAN show is that the transmissions could have come from the Earhart plane, that there is no known alternative explanation for the signals, and that to construct one requires a host of bizarre assumptions for which there is not a shred of evidence.  That's pretty much the way you prove any scientific hypothesis.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:41:50
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Forum query

I have given time and money to TIGHAR because I am persuaded that the Niku hypothesis is sound.

I don't think that I can force others to accept the same conviction.

Formal proof is possible in mathematics because the "proof space" is equally accessible to all who are capable of thinking mathematically.  Those who are capable of understanding mathematical questions have equal access to the resources needed to decide whether a hypothesis is proven or not.

In the case of an historical investigation, the "proof space" is not equally accessible to all investigators. If Floyd Kilts had pursed the bones story in 1946, he could have interviewed everyone except Gallagher. If the folks in the 1960s had been lucky enough to have found the bones file, they could have interviewed most of the people involved in the case.  When Roger and I went to Fiji in 2003, it was too late even to talk with Dr. Murphy, whose health had declined in the six months before we arrived.

I find the radio signals very persuasive.  I am not inclined to believe that all of them were hoaxes or errors on the part of the radio operators.  I understand that others may not take the same view.

If you're asking for advice about how to position the book, I would be very, very careful in "qualifying" what you say. Instead of saying, "This argument proves that AE and FN made a safe landing," it is better to say, "In my view, this argument proves ..."

Being careful in this respect will set you apart from other people who have claimed, without qualification, to have solved the mystery (e.g., Goerner).

LTM & the boys.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:42:41
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Forum query

> My question to you, the esteemed members of the forum, is:
>
> What sort of documented historical information would you need to
> see  to convince you that at least some of the post-loss radio
> signals  were genuine and that they (and this is admittedly
> tougher) were  being sent from Gardner Island?

If you are talking about the content of such messages, then here are my thoughts:

For a message to be considered genuine (i.e. truly from AE or FN), I would have to think that somehow a piece of information is transmitted that the public would not be aware of. That would eliminate hoaxers or other non-AE transmissions mistakenly attributed to AE. Simply transmitting the call sign isn't enough, as that would be one of the easiest things to hoax or mistake. What that piece of information is, I have no idea. It could be a statement to GPP (suitcase in the closet?), or a reference to a conversation or event while AE was at Lae. Or perhaps there was something heard by a station in the Pacific that matches well with what Betty heard.

I think that showing a transmission was indeed from Gardner would in fact be the easier thing to do, and if you can show it was from Gardner, I think that the only logical deduction would be that it had to be from AE or FN, who else would be out there transmitting? If such a transmission mentioned a feature of Gardner Island that was generally unknown by the public, that would probably convince me that it was from Gardner. Mentioning things such as the Norwich City, or the remnants left behind by the Norwich City (didn't they leave a cache of supplies?). Similarly, mentioning things about the geography of Gardner (shape of lagoon, location of trees and open areas, etc) would also convince me that the transmission was from Gardner. Now before someone chimes in that there had been surveys of Gardner prior to AE's flight, yes I know that, but in those pre-internet days, I would believe that the number of people who had that information on the tip of their tongues would be almost zero. These are not the kind of things a hoaxer or mistaken transmission would be likely to include.

And if AE was heard saying "Fred, put down that bottle of Benedictine, grab your sextant box and help me fight off these crabs...", I think that pretty much nails it.

But if you are talking about a statistical summary, or pattern, of such messages, then I think that you have a much more difficult task. Although I have already argued that I believe the likelihood of some of these messages being a hoax is so vanishingly small that I am convinced, I don't think that will convince the general public. I argued that simply two such post-loss messages were so unlikely to be hoaxes or misunderstandings that I was convinced. Certainly, as you have built up your database of post-loss receptions and ordered them chronologically (and maybe in other meaningful ways), that increases the confidence people will have in your conclusion, over and above the conclusion I drew from two such messages. Showing that these messages came from Gardner, simply by looking at the statistical summary or pattern? I don't think it can be done.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who never could be convinced of anything)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:44:03
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Forum query

Ric wrote:

> Dan Postellon says
>
>> I would like to see the same message reported from two areas close
>> to Gardner (in the Pacific), but not reported further away.
>
> How about Baker Island hearing "NRUI (Itasca's call letters) from
> KHAQQ" in voice at the same time Itasca is hearing a man's voice too
> weak to understand and Howland is also hearing weak voice?  Nobody
> farther away - Hawaii, Midway, Wake, California, etc. - is hearing
> anything at that moment.  A few minutes later Howland hears the plane
> calling Itasca at the same time Itasca is hearing a weak carrier. All
> of this is on Earhart's frequency 3105 kilocycles, a frequency that
> only U.S. registered civilian aircraft can use legally for voice
> transmissions.

This works for me.  I don't believe that people were more honest then, or less likely to hoax others.  I do believe that the Pacific was lightly inhabited, mainly by people without radio transmitters. The scenario above would be almost impossible to fake, but it does depend heavily on the Baker transcription.  Someone was near Howland and Baker making this transmission.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:29:11
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Forum query

Dan P or Ric,

What day and  time of day did Baker hear the NRUI and the Earhart call sign, later a mans voice heard at Howland?  Were there any signals after 9 July that were considered authentic?

REB
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:13:55
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      Re: Forum query

Has there ever been any alternate explanation given for the Pan-Am bearings on the post-loss signals intersecting at Gardner?  Or, put another way, is there a plausible explanation for that being an error?  That's always been the clincher for me, but I haven't heard a counterargument for how those bearings could be an error.  If there isn't one, there you go.

adam marsland
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:15:49
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Itasca bridge log

For Randy Jacobson

Appreciate you response to my question. Is there anything in the Itasca's bridge log of 2 July 1937 of particular interest to me ? Frankly I do not know at this moment. I'm waiting on some long promised information which may or may not be creditable. If the promised information generates a sense of creditability, I may have a question or two for you. I have no intention of wasting your time if this information lacks creditability please be assured.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang    # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:38:11
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Forum query

Ric asked: "What sort of documented historical information would you need to see to convince you that at least some of the post-loss radio signals were genuine  . . . . " Credibility is the key here, I'd think.

1.         Personally, I would start with the message externals;  location of the receiver, date/time of transmission, frequency, call  sign (if any), and comments by the receiving station regarding  clarity and strength of the signal and operator comments.

2.         Second, I would then examine the credibility of the person/organization that reported the transmission.

3.         Third, I would look at any DF shots that had been reported on that transmission.

4.         Lastly, I'd look at the text as it was interpreted by the receiver.

I would be more likely to accept as genuine those transmissions that  fit into accepted radio propagation patterns (harmonics, skips,  signal strength, time of day etc.) as reported by military or  professional radiomen, and if there is a DF shot associated with the  transmission.  To weed out hoaxers, amateurs' reports would be  accepted only after they pass a (unspecified) credibility review. The text of the message carries weight, in my opinion, only if points 1, and 2 (and 3 to a lesser extent) above are present.  Without the  correct propagation parameters being met, the text is meaningless.

Ric also asked: " . . . and that they (and this is admittedly  tougher) were being sent from Gardner Island?"

I'd accept Gardner Island as the source of the transmissions after  eliminating the possibilities of them coming from surrounding areas.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:41:21
From:         Peter Polen
Subject:      Re: Forum query

Does the reorganization of Ric's book mean we will not get a new chapter anytime soon?????

LTM (book starved this wintry day)

Peter
*****************************************

No, we're working on a new TIGHAR Tracks with two more chapters this week.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:19:22
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: Forum query

If I may also add - take all the transmissions based on their location, date and time received and adjust to the equivalent date and time on Gardner, is there a pattern ; for example they all occurred at night over a 3 day period at 4 hourly intervals had they been transmitted on Gardner.

*******************************************

And the answer is (the envelope please) YES. Very much so.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:41:47
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Proof of post-loss messages

> From Jerry Hamilton #2128
>
> Ric,
> I'm not sure you can PROVE a radio signal was genuine (short of a
> recorded message from AE, with a sworn affidavit declaring
> authenticity maybe)....

For Mike Everette:

Did I understand correctly, from a long time ago, that you had a "WE" radio like Amelia had on the flight? If so, I propose an experiment with an oscilloscope.

The radio (transmitter) must be powered exactly the same way via a 28 volt source powering a dynamotor, that powers the radio. You will also need a Mic. and a telegraph key WITH a switch on it. It is my understanding that a telegraph key that is intended to be used with this type of radio, that is powered by a dynamotor, that there is a switch on the key that keeps the dynamotor running during key operation.  The switch on the telegraph key is to keep the dynamotor (which powers the transmitter) running during pauses in the key strokes. This is opposed to operation with a Mic. where the Mic. button controls the operation of the dynamotor and subsequently the generation of the carrier wave.

The oscilloscope is necessary to show the carrier wave, that is generated by the transmitter, that is powered by a dynamotor.

As a test message tap out the "281 message" as received on July 5th.

First observation, can the key stokes from a telegraph key be seen on the carrier wave? If so, where on the wave do they occur in relation to the peak voltage of the carrier?

Second observation of the carrier wave using a Mic. Using the Mic. button as you would use a key, tap out the same message and observe where the spikes appear, if any, on the carrier wave.

Repeat test using a decreased voltage source to simulate a battery that is going down.

I am trying to explain the comment "KEYING BEHIND CARRIER" that was included in the 281 message. If this condition was normal, there would be no need to comment on it.

It is my feeling that the dynamotor, that has a rotor, which has mass, can influence the generation of the carrier and where any spikes caused by keying can appear on the wave.  In normal operation with this radio, a telegraph key with the switch on to keep the dynamotor running, should produce spikes (key clicks) near peak voltages of the carrier. The same radio, where the Mic. button (which also turns the dynamotor off and on) was used to produce the key clicks, should produce spikes on the carrier different than what the key could produce. This is because of the inertia of the dynamotor rotor speeding up and slowing down every time the Mic. button was pressed or released. If so, I could understand the "KEYING BEHIND CARRIER" comment.

If the test proved this fact out, then it could be said that the "281 message" was sent by someone using a Mic. button to send morse code. I think we all know the telegraph key story as it relates to AE&FN.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:42:42
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Forum query

For Adam M.

Ric has corresponded with longtime Earhart researcher Charlie Hill in 2004 who has recalculated the PAA bearings to intersect in the Mili area.(Marshall Islands) I have no idea if they are correct, but I am sure Ric will address this claim here or in his book.

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:55:03
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Forum query

I'm afraid this will have to be my last round of responses.  Gotta  get this manuscript finished.  Everyone's comments have been very  helpful and thought-provoking.  You guys are great.

William Webster-Garman had

> Another comment...
>
> While evidence of signal triangulation in the primary sources would
> likely be the highest order of proof, I tend to agree with Mr Polen 
> that if "the same (or nearly so) wording was heard by other people
> in other parts of the country, you may have enough...

Indeed, there are some very interesting coincidences.

> I also still believe that an unambiguous description of the wreck
> of the Norwich City (to the exclusion of all other possibilities)
> would sway.

Yeah.  I wish we had one.

> Another thing to consider is that whatever the proof, Earhart's
> celebrity and the myths surrounding it are so widely present in the
> population that there is considerable inertia to overcome. If  
> documented proof (or an overwhelming likelihood, based on  
> documented circumstantial evidence and a scholarly interpretation  
> of the probabilities) that Earhart and Noonan landed on Gardner is  
> assembled, it could take a generation or more for general  
> acceptance to culturally filter through.

I generally agree, although I think the amount of time it takes to  change public perception is, to a large degree, a function of the  intensity of exposure to the new information and it's endorsement by  authorities who are perceived to be knowledgeable and impartial.

> The discovery of the skeleton and sextant box discovered and  
> reported by Gallagher (along with their documented characteristics)  
> leads me to informally estimate that the odds are very high they  
> were Earhart and Noonan's. Any inconclusive but documented post-
> loss signal evidence would add to general acceptance of the Gardner
> hypothesis as the most likely explanation.

I agree.  Once the reader understands that everything pointed to  Gardner and that the Navy's abandonment of that hypothesis was based  on a gross misconception of how thoroughly the island had been  searched, Gallagher's discoveries three years later hit you like a  two-by-four.

> Either way Ric, it sounds like you're in the process of leading  
> TIGHAR towards adding yet more reliable historical information and  
> context to the historical record of Earhart and Noonan's last  
> flight and you can be sure that many folks, including yours truly,  
> commend you for that.

Thank you.

Marty Moleski writes:

> I have given time and money to TIGHAR because I
> am persuaded that the Niku hypothesis is sound.
>
> I don't think that I can force others to accept
> the same conviction.

My grandfather used to say: "A man convinced against his will is of  the same opinion still."

> ...If you're asking for advice about how to position the book,
> I would be very, very careful in "qualifying" what you say.
> Instead of saying, "This argument proves that AE and FN
> made a safe landing," it is better to say, "In my view,
> this argument proves ..."

I'm not even going that far. I tell the story of what happened,  whenever possible, in the words written down at the time. Every time  I say that something happened I provide a footnote citing the source.  On the few occasions when I cite anecdotal recollections I do not use them to establish facts but as indications of how someone remembered  the event years later.  I don't intend to say that anything proves  anything.  Once the puzzle is assembled, anyone should be able to  recognize the picture.

Paige Miller writes:

> For a message to be considered genuine (i.e. truly from AE or FN),  
> I would have to think that somehow a piece of information is  
> transmitted that the public would not be aware of. That would  
> eliminate hoaxers or other non-AE transmissions mistakenly  
> attributed to AE. Simply transmitting the call sign isn't enough,  
> as that would be one of the easiest things to hoax or mistake. What 
> that piece of information is, I have no idea. It could be a  
> statement to GPP (suitcase in the closet?), or a reference to a  
> conversation or event while AE was at Lae. Or perhaps there was  
> something heard by a station in the Pacific that matches well with  
> what Betty heard.

There are a number of elements in various messages that might qualify as "occult" information, but it's always a matter of interpretation.

> I think that showing a transmission was indeed from Gardner would  
> in fact be the easier thing to do, and if you can show it was from  
> Gardner, I think that the only logical deduction would be that it  
> had to be from AE or FN, who else would be out there transmitting?

There is what can only be described as abundant and overwhelming  evidence that a number of the signals were being transmitted from  Gardner or its immediate vicinity.  What cannot be conclusively ruled out is that they were being sent by a hoaxer.  However, such a hoaxer would have to have such a complex and unusual array of capabilities  (a transmitter that could send voice on 3105, the ability to mimic a  woman's voice, knowledge of Earhart and Noonan's ineptness at sending code, etc., etc.) that it quickly becomes much more difficult to  explain the signals as hoaxes rather than legitimate calls from the  plane.

> If such a transmission mentioned a feature of Gardner Island that  
> was generally unknown by the public, that would probably convince  
> me that it was from Gardner. Mentioning things such as the Norwich  
> City, or the remnants left behind by the Norwich City (didn't they  
> leave a cache of supplies?). Similarly, mentioning things about the 
> geography of Gardner (shape of lagoon, location of trees and open  
> areas, etc) would also convince me that the transmission was from Gardner.

There is nothing that specific.

> Now before someone chimes in that there had been surveys of Gardner
> prior to AE's flight, yes I know that...

Actually, the closest thing to a survey of the island prior to July  1937 was a sail-around by HMS Wellington in 1935.

> And if AE was heard saying "Fred, put down that bottle of  
> Benedictine, grab your sextant box and help me fight off these  
> crabs...", I think that pretty much nails it.

Wouldn't it though.

> But if you are talking about a statistical summary, or pattern, of  
> such messages, then I think that you have a much more difficult  
> task. ... Showing that these messages came from Gardner, simply by  
> looking at the statistical summary or pattern? I don't think it can be done.

I agree.  That's one reason I got away from the straight statistical  analysis. The numbers are still compelling but there is much, much  more to the story.

Ron Bright asks

> What day and  time of day did Baker hear the NRUI and the Earhart  
> call sign, later a mans voice heard at Howland?

Baker was not in direct communication with Itasca so everything we  know about what was heard by the operator art Baker was relayed to  Itasca by the operator on Howland.  No radio log from Baker is known  to exist.

According to the Itasca radio log, recording information received via Howland, Baker heard calls from the Earhart plane on two occasions.

On the night of July 3rd at 8:20 p.m. Howland Time ( 7:20 p.m. Itasca Time or 06:50 July 4th GMT), Baker "heard Earhart plane Strength 4,  Readability 7."  That's Strength 4 out of a maximum of 5, and  Readability 7 out of a maximum of 9.  S4, R7 is a "good, strong  signal such as copiable through interference."

On the next night, July 4th, at 10:40 p.m. Howland Time (9:40 p.m.  Itasca Time or 09:10 July 5th GMT). Baker heard "NRUI from KHAQQ" in voice.  Howland heard weak voice.

> Were there any signals after 9 July that were considered authentic?

No.

Adam Marsland asks:

> Has there ever been any alternate explanation given for the Pan-Am  bearings
> on the post-loss signals intersecting at Gardner?  Or, put another way, is
> there a plausible explanation for that being an error?

In a word, no. A bearing Pan Am Mokapu took on a 3105 transmission it assumed was sent by Itasca has been cited as evidence that the Pan Am bearings were unreliable.  The bearing misses Itasca's known position at that time by several hundred miles.  Trouble is, Itasca wasn't  transmitting on 3105 at that time.  The bearing passes through the southwestern part of the Phoenix Group.

Dennis McGee writes,

> I'd accept Gardner Island as the source of the transmissions after
> eliminating the possibilities of them coming from surrounding areas.

It's easy to establish that there were no known sources of voice  signals on 3105 anywhere in the region.  What you're left with is  either the signals were genuine or sent by a very sophisticated and  totally unknown hoaxer. Of course, there are plenty of Earhart  mystery fans who have no trouble at all accepting very sophisticated  and totally unknown explanations for documented events.

LTM
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:25:27
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Forum query

It has been my belief from reading the comments on the forum and  reading the book excerpts in TIGHAR Tracks that this project (the  book writing) would become more than an effort to prove the  authenticity of post loss messages in the AE disappearance saga.

If what is happening is what you wrote "It turns out that the answer to what happened to Earhart and Noonan has been there all along in  the original historical record." Then my hunch seems to be coming true.

The things that would most likely convince me that AE and FN landed  on Gardner and subsequently died there would be the following:

Finish teasing out the complete jigsaw puzzle by showing that the  various bits and pieces of "post loss evidence" start to fit as well into the story told by the "original historic record."  Such post loss evidence will be both the anecdotal and the physical that has  been collected and analyzed by TIGHAR and others over the years.

For example, show that the Lae takeoff movie and its subsequent  analysis, that lead people to believe that the belly antenna was  lost, fits into the story of the historical record where it becomes  apparent that AE's radios couldn't receive but she cold still transmit.

Another; The Chater Report wherein it shows, among other things,  there was sufficient fuel loaded aboard the Electra to enable it  reaching Gardner.

And still others; anecdotal recollections of the islanders on and  around Gardner about seeing a plane, the bones discovery by  Gallagher, the artifacts found by TIGHAR (shoe heel, Lockheed  aircraft like parts and various other "high tech," for the time, bits  and pieces) on an isolated and somewhat primitive island called Gardner.

Finally, round out the story by weaving in the emotional profile of  AE as the last flight unfolds.  Her early (post Lae) radio  transmissions being curt, professional and timely.  Mid flight -- a  little more stressed as they approached Howland and remained in the  general area.  Gardner landing-- early communications stressed but  controlled describing the immediate situation and finally the  rambling realization that she and FN were indeed in a desperate state and were losing hope of being found.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:35:29
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Hoaxes and hoaxers

I am puzzled about hoaxing and hoaxers. It really seems odd to me that there'd be people who would get into the middle of a search and rescue operation and send messages that were designed to confuse the matter and place lives in danger. If someone did that today, they'd be prosecuted.

I guess I'd ask this question: Are there any of the post-loss messages that are KNOWN to be hoaxes? Are there any hoaxers that we know of? Are there any people who came forward in the years afterward AE's disappearance and confessed to mischief during the search for her?

Are there hoaxers today? The only ones I can think of are the people who write computer viruses.

LTM, who believed that honesty is the best policy,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:00:47
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Hoaxes and hoaxers

Hoaxers today?  How about Frey, who wrote "A Million Little Pieces", or the "Hitler Diaries"

(I'm even leaving politicians out of this)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:54:10
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Hoaxes and hoaxers

Since Ric has (properly) gone away to ACTUALLY WRITE THE BOOK and not waste time writing about writing the book, I will answer the questions I can.

> are there any of the post-loss messages that
> are KNOWN to be hoaxes?

Yes.  McNemany (spelling?) clearly was making things up.  Read all about it in The Book when The Author ACTUALLY WRITES THE BOOK.  :-O

> Are there hoaxers today?

Many.

<http://www.uscg.mil/d17/allnews/news03/06703.htm>

LTM & the boys.
Marty #2359

**************************************************

McMenamy not only made it all up, he admitted it on tape about 15 years later.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:54:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Proof

Folks, I would suggest that when you start talking about "proof" "Theory" "hypothesis" and the like most of you are getting in way over your head.

Ric has tried to convey to you that he is laying out all the known information. He is telling a story as he puts it.

If any of you want to fret over whether there is proof or not of anything in particular you are wasting your time.

Some would require a sworn affidavit from Earhart herself. Most of you will be able to take in all the information and come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Although Ric has said he is laying out a case as would be presented in court he clearly is coming close. In the legal area of circumstantial evidence there is essentially no "proof" but rather such an array of evidence that a certain conclusion can be arrived at and that any alternative is too remote to be acceptable. As we have seen that idea in infallible but I think in the case of Earhart Ric has done an excellent job of presenting his case.

William Put it this way, "documented proof (or an overwhelming likelihood, based on documented circumstantial evidence and a scholarly interpretation of the probabilities)"

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:36:29
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: Hoaxes and hoaxers

And not forgetting the recent arrest after about 25 years of a suspect who (allegedly) forged and sent a tape in to the UK police from the "Yorkshire Ripper".   The wrong scent was followed and by the time Sutcliffe was arrested, a couple more murders had been committed.  There re sick puppies out there, and as to what the hell goes through their minds, who knows?

Rick B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:42:12
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Hoaxes and hoaxers

For Marty Moleski,

I know that McMenamy's alleged reception was some kind of hoax, not sure though it was deliberate in view of later mental problems as evidenced in his taped interview. But his cohort, Karl Pierson, also reported the same reception. His credentials seem impeccable. Do you think Pierson was in on a "hoax".

I would guess in Earharts case there were not many deliberate fabricated recepitons, but those that fall into the category of misheard communications between offical stations, the Navy, for example, and other amatuers all trying to contact her, or listen for some kind of signal. Maybe a bit of mass hysteria.

"In the providence of the mind, you may well think something is true, and it may be, but if not, it will become true." Old Chinese proverb.

Ron
PS Many of the bottle msgs that have floated up, one here in Washington, were clearly hoaxes.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:49:09
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Hoaxes and hoaxers

> From Ron Bright,
>
> For Marty Moleski,
>   I know that McMenamy's alleged reception was some kind of hoax,
> not sure though it was deliberate in view of later mental problems
> as evidenced in his taped interview.
> But his cohort, Karl Pierson, also reported the same reception. His
> credentials seem impeccable. Do you think Pierson was in on a "hoax"?

I've read Ric's argument that there messages were demonstrably false.  His reasoning seemed persuasive to me.  I can't reproduce it here exactly.  I seem to misremember that there was something so flagrantly wrong that there isn't any chance of it being a valid message; hence it was a hoax (on someone's part).

>   I would guess in Earharts case there were not many deliberate
> fabricated recepitons, but those that fall into the category of
> misheard communications between offical stations, the Navy, for
> example, and other amatuers all trying to contact her, or listen
> for some kind of signal. Maybe a bit of mass hysteria.

If you believe in "splashed and sank," then all of the receptions have to be accounted for as hoaxes or errors.

>    "In the providence of the mind, you may well think something is
> true, and it may be, but if not, it will become true." Old chinese
> proverb.

So you say.  I'm not inclined to take Old Chinese sayings as a reliable guide to life.  Some are, some aren't.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:49:51
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Forum query

> Although Ric has said he is laying out a case as would be presented
> in court he clearly is coming close.

I misspoke here. I meant to write Ric has said he is NOT laying out a case as would be presented in court.

I have the feeling some folks are expecting far too much from Ric's book. Also I have to guess most will open the book with preconceived ideas and will be disappointed. I've received off Forum emails clearly showing expectations of irrefutable proof of various issues.

I think if the book is read with a completely open mind the evidence presented suggesting the messages were valid Earhart messages and that she DID reach land coupled with a good analysis showing there was little or no chance of an alternative conclusion the book will have served its purpose and the reader will be inclined to accept the ideas therein.

Such is the way of all legal cases where the case rests on circumstantial evidence.

When all is said and done I think the case for Earhart reaching land will be made. As to what land I think there will be considerable doubt. The known bearings indicate the Phoenix Islands but such radio bearings are not accurate enough to pinpoint the location and of course there is no accurate distance other than that indicated by the intersections of the bearings.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:58:48
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Hoaxes

Ron Bright said:  "'In the providence of the mind, you may well think  something is true, and it may be, but if not, it will become true.'

Old [C]hinese proverb."

Yeah.  In the public relations field we say, "perception is reality," which isn't as eloquent as a Chinese proverb but it is more succinct.

LTM, who has few public relations
Dennis O. McGee #1049EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:00:02
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Forum query

I disagree with Alan that some of us might be expecting too much from Ric's book, and will be disappointed in the end.

I think the book will become known as the "definitive" Earhart Mystery research and analysis tool, and that no-one could write it better than our esteemed Tighar leader.

The Niku theory and all work done by and for Tighar has been a fascinating adventure for me to follow.  When I read about the bones and sextant box that were found, that was the moment I started to believe the theory, and started reading everything I could find, bought tons o' videos and books, and joined Tighar.  I admit that I'm a great fan of A/E, and was always curious about what happened to her, and I'm kind've a dreamer too, but I don't expect this book to solve the mystery.

What I expect is a very well written summary of all evidence Tighar has collected over the years pulled together in chronological order, with so many strange coincidences, facts and documents that the reader will come to believe the Niku theory on their own, just from the logic of all thats presented.    I don't remember how I found Tighar, but joined immediately.  I can't even remember what year it was, but since that moment I have been obsessed with finding out for myself what I think happened, and have been on the most rewarding and educational experience of my life.  I know that there is alot of data in Tighars possession that I haven't found yet, and it all just heightens my belief in the theory...

So you might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not that easily led.  I don't expect miracles from this book, but I DO expect to read one helluva book and learn more and more about what really did happen. And for that, I'm grateful, and proud to be a Tighar.
Jackie #2440
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:05:15
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Forum query

Jackie Tharp wrote:

>    I think the book will become known as the "definitive"
> Earhart Mystery research and analysis tool, and that no-
> one could write it better than our esteemed Tighar leader.

I agree.

Ric's doing great work WHEN HE'S NOT FOOLING AROUND WITH THE FORUM.  :-O

I saw some of his printouts years ago and read part of a chapter (I think).

It's great stuff and it's going to be a great book.

IF HE DOESN'T LET US DISTRACT HIM FROM WRITING.

(Sorry for yelling so much.  I know what writer's block is like and I know that writing about what we're planning to write is NOT a solution.)

Marty
************************************

Relax, Marty. No writer's block. Just wanted to wake up the Forum, and after all, even Ric can't write 15 hours a day. <G>

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:06:09
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Hoaxes and hoaxers

For Marty,

You didn't address my question regarding whether or not Karl Pierson's reception was a hoax. The Honolulu Bulletin, for instance, reports that Carl Pierson (sic)said the heard  "SOS KHQQ" (sic) about 4:12 and 4:30 (Honolulu time) on 3 July. These signals were heard on 3105 and also on 6210. As I understand he and McMenamy were at their personal radio stations, not together.

Pierson was Chief Engineer of the Patterson Radio Company and was an amateur. I am just wondering why his report would be considered a hoax or a misunderstanding?
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:06:58
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: forum query

Pat Thrasher wrote:

> Relax, Marty. No writer's block. Just wanted to wake up the Forum,
> and after all, even Ric can't write 15 hours a day. <G>

OK.  Maybe a few moments of tomfoolery every few months is OK.

I really value what Ric is doing.  The Forum is fun.  The book is going to reach a far wider audience.

LTM & the boys.
Marty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:07:38
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Forum query

Jackie, let me make my point clearer. You are quite right in what you believe the book will be and I think the same. The problem is that some folks expect or require smoking guns to get them off their preconceived ideas. They want DNA on the missing bones, pieces of the airplane and a video of the landing at Gardner.

Unlike you they will find it difficult to put together the totality of the evidence to see what you will more easily see.

I don't mean to demean the book or all of Ric's efforts in the least. I already know enough about the contents to know your analysis is accurate.

The book will clearly reenforce the Niku theory but the crashed and sankers will not be deterred. Well, maybe some. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:01:52
From:         Marty Moleski

Ron Bright wrote:

> You didn't address my question regarding whether or
> not Karl Pierson's reception was a hoax. ...

Sorry.

I am working on a fading memory from a quick visit to TIGHAR central a few years ago.  Ric showed me his charts and (I think) let me read a section he was working on at the time.  It had the story of McNemany (McMenany?) in it.

I don't remember how Ric classified KP's story.

The information Ric has will all be in the book. There will be a research CD available too, I gather, so that folks can work from the raw data and see what patterns they see.

I'm 100% behind the book project.  I think it is a huge step forward for TIGHAR's work.  Ric can't get into detailed arguments here (in my not so humble opinion) because writing about what he plans to write takes time away from actually doing the writing.

The Forum is boring without Ric here.  We have to put up with that for the sake of the book project.

LTM & the boys.

Marty #2359

*******************************************************

I'm not going to make a habit of this, but from Chapter 12:

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

McMenamy's friend, Karl Pierson, was the chief engineer for the Patterson Radio Corporation. He alleged that, at 8 p.m. he "picked up similarly weak signals on 3105 kilocycles, ... He said they were erratic and undecipherable." (New York Times, 7/3/37)

Both Itasca and Pan American were listening on 3105 at that time, but heard no signals. At the times reported by McMenamy and Pierson, nearly the entire radio propagation path between the mainland U.S. and the Central Pacific was in daylight. The calculated probability of anyone in California being able to receive a transmission from the Earhart plane on either of the aircraft's primary frequencies was less than one in one hundred million.

According to the AP story, "Both Mr. McMenamy and Mr. Pierson said the signals came from a hand-cranked generator. Miss Earhart carried one in her plane."(New York Times, 7/3/37)

There is no evidence that there was ever a portable generator or emergency transmitter aboard the Electra, but an exchange of messages between San Francisco Division and Itasca earlier in the day had mistakenly created that impression. Most Coast Guard radio traffic was sent in the clear and could be easily monitored by anyone with a good shortwave set.

That night San Francisco advised Itasca:

"Four separate radiomen at Los Angeles reported receiving Earhart voice this morning and verify '179 with 1.6 in doubt.' Position given as 'southwest Howland Island.' Above heard on 3105 kilocycles and call of plane distinctly heard and verified according to amateurs." (Message from COMFRANDIV to Itasca, 07:50Z, July 4, 1937)

The four radiomen were never identified by name in Coast Guard radio traffic but the message created the impression that four operators at separate locations had independently received the same transmission. That does not seem to have been the case. By McMenamy's own description, he, Pierson, and Rypinski were together at his house when the calls were allegedly heard. Bartell may have been with them. All four men were members of the same amateur radio club.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:02:18
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Hoaxes and hoaxers

"Perception is reality" can also describe the adventures of Amelia Earhart and Company.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:03:03
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Oddity

Some of you may have a computer program named Google Earth. (If you don't, you can download it for free from Google, but you will need a reasonably powerful computer to have it operate well)

Type in a search in Google Earth for "Nikumaroro Island" without the quotes. Google Earth then proceeds to zoom in on, well, this is really odd, it zooms in on Wilmington, Delaware. In fact, it zooms in to 2812 Fawkes Drive, Wilmington, Delaware.

Coincidence? I think not!

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5@rochester.rr.com
http://paiges-page.net

It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
If you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
   I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:03:51
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Forum query

> Chin Koon Fun says
>
> If I may also add - take all the transmissions based on their
> location, date and time received and adjust to the equivalent date
> and time on Gardner, is there a pattern ; for example they all
> occurred at night over a 3 day period at 4 hourly intervals had
> they  been transmitted on Gardner.
>
to which Pat replies

> And the answer is (the envelope please) YES. Very much so.
>
> Pat

I certainly haven't done the calculations, but how would this point to Gardner? It seems to me that the entire Phoenix group (or several of the Phoenix Islands) would be indicated as possible landfalls by using this method.

I think I recall somewhere that 15 degrees of is one hour of time. So given that the Phoenix Islands are about 4 degrees apart, that would mean that nightfall is about 16 minutes later on the westernmost Phoenix island than the easternmost Phoenix island.

If we use Hull Island, which is 2 degrees to the east of Gardner, then nightfall is about 8 minutes earlier on Hull than it would be on Gardner.

Are the data really that consistent? (I realize that Pat and Ric may not want to answer that so as to not give away some of the findings of the book...)

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5@rochester.rr.com
http://paiges-page.net

It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
If you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
   I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:05:00
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      The book

Alan Caldwell said: "The book will clearly re-enforce the Niku  theory . . . "

Do you think it will get him on Oprah???   He certainly has better  documentation than  that Frey fellow did. :-)


LTM, who admires Harpo
Dennis O. McGee #1049EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:07:20
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Oddity

Damn!  You're right, Paige, and in my version of Google Earth, it doesn't identify the street address but does label it as TIGHAR and spell out the name.  O Fame!
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:08:24
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Niku Stuff

Paige Miller said:  "Are the data really that consistent? (I realize that Pat and Ric may not want to answer that so as to not give away  some of the findings of the book...)

Paige, your statement implies that Ric has something to hide here  (". . . so as to not give away some of the findings . . .) and I find that irritating.  TIGHAR has always operated in the full sun light  and to my knowledge never held anything back.  In fact, just the  opposite has been true; they've put the organization's findings out in plain view on the web so everyone can read them and arrive at  their own conclusions. As far as I know, all of the data Ric is working with has been a  matter of public record for decades.  His task is simply (yeah,  right!) to put it all together. I expect no surprises in the book.  What I do expect is a  professionally researched and documented and well-written account of  AE's failed mission that will pull together nearly seven decades of  publicly available data showing a preponderance of evidence pointing  to Niku as the final resting spot for the aircraft and crew.  Not  asking for much, am I?  :-)

LTM, a ponderous individual in her own right
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:08:47
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Oddity

It's true!
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:10:33
From:         Alexander Gartshore
Subject:      Re: Oddity

> Type in a search in Google Earth for "Nikumaroro Island" without the
> quotes. Google Earth then proceeds to zoom in on, well, this is
> really odd, it zooms in on Wilmington, Delaware. In fact, it zooms in
> to 2812 Fawkes Drive, Wilmington, Delaware.........

it seems to have gave me TIGHAR headquarters ! [amonst other hits all over the U.S.A!] most impressive piece of software but not a complete coverage of the planet like it says it is as there is not much of the detail when it hits the united kingdom... interesting though.

Alexander
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:58:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The book

After Frey I wouldn't take a dictionary on Oprah.

Alan

**************************************

I would. Ric would. For whatever reason, when Oprah puffs a book millions of people buy it.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:59:31
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      assembling the puzzle

A few thoughts on the recent Forum Query:

There are some folks who will never be convinced regardless of the quantity and quality of facts presented.  These are the "true believers" in Japanese Capture/Alien Abduction/Secret Spy Mission/and really hard-core crashed and sankers.  To these folks, every shred of evidence for any theory other than their own is merely more proof of how deep the conspiracy goes.

The next group are the professional skeptics:  They will demand levels of proof that are simply unattainable, like DNA evidence from bones that have a unassailable chain of custody stretching back to Gallagher, along with sworn statements from the Gilbertese who witnessed him digging them up, coupled with a post loss message heard simultaneously by a dozen independent sources, half of whom triangulated it to Gardner, and text in the msg. containing occult info about both AE and Gardner Island.  They go through life smugly certain of nothing but their own skepticism.  By these folks' standard of proof, we can't prove that George Washington was the first President of the US.

Beginning with the third group there is hope for Ric's book to make an impact.  The third group is that large segment of the population that doesn't pay much attention to historical mysteries, but becomes "culturally aware" whenever something garners enough media attention to make the evening news.  They'll become convinced when Ric's book is selected for Oprah's Book Club, or when Ric gets interviewed by CNN.  They won't really care that they know the mystery's been solved, because they were only marginally aware of Amelia Earhart in the first place, but, whenever the subject comes up, they'll remember what they saw on TV and tell whomever asks that AE landed on Gardner, and died there as a castaway.  (they won't know about Fred Noonan, because they still labor under the impression that AE was on a solo flight)  It is through this group that most folks will come to accept the Niku hypothesis as settled history, but the bad news is that this same group is responsible for the popularity of Nostradamus.

Group four is a smaller, but more important demographic.  It is comprised of folks who have a working knowledge of historical events, a passing interest in same, and buy and read books on a subject when their interest is piqued.  Most of these will recognize Ric's book as an important new work on an interesting topic, and upon reading it will succumb to the logic of the presentation.  They will also tell their friends, and to those friends, these folks are considered a reliable source of historical information.  My dad, for whom I bought a copy of "Shoes" is a part of this group, and "Shoes" was enough to convince him.  Lots of people in this group will receive a copy of Ric's book as a holiday or birthday gift.

Group five is a small, but very involved group of people.  I confess that I am a member of this group.  To us, historical mysteries of all sorts are interesting, but we really get fired up when the mystery involves a famous person, a death or disappearance under not fully explained circumstances, and aviation.  We're pretty sure that the Red Baron was brought down by ground fire, and that Glenn Miller's plane was hit by jettisoned bombs.  We scan the news articles for tail numbers whenever someone pulls a Grumman Avenger out of the ocean off Florida, and we know that the local government pulled the nominally functional armament out of a crashed P-61 from WW2 that was found in New Guinea a few years back.  We're pretty sure who shot Yamamoto down, but saddened by the rancor surrounding the claims for credit, and we're waiting for the day some hunter will find skeletal remains, parachute fragments, and cash somewhere in the pacific northwest.  We even took notice a few years back when an engine was found in the jungles of Ecuador belonging to the plane flown by Jim Eliot and his fellow christian missionaries who were killed by a native tribe in 1955.  We bought our first copy (ok, not really our first) of Soldier of Fortune magazine to read the article about the expedition in Columbia that decisively identified the wreck of an A-20 that was flown in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Some in this group are conspiracy theorists, and some will take up an argument for its own sake, but for some, like me, finding TIGHAR (as I did through the January 1999 issue of Discovering Archaeology magazine) was a breath of fresh air when it came to reading about AE.  All information open to scrutiny; all sources documented.  No secret society here.  I was convinced that TIGHAR had a case based on preponderance of evidence back in '99.  In the years since, the website, the forum, and "Shoes" drew the big picture clearly enough to be understood by anyone without a contrary agenda.  Too many coincidences to explain away to chance, and fitting what TIGHAR has found into some other hypothesis requires logical gyrations that would make a 1980's era breakdancer jealous.  The picture is already clear, but maybe it's in black and white.  Ric's new book will bring it to living color.  And we can't wait to show it to our friends.

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:05:23
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Oddity

Alexander Gartshore is right. The Google Earth program is formidable but it covers only major places as indicated and not the whole planet. Anyhow I found my house, which is quite an achievement as to find it I had to navigate VFR like a pilot from a known point all the way to where I live. My house is about half an inch, which is a remarkable achievement given the altitude from which the picture is taken. I'm not sure that is me standing in the garden. It probably was.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:27:30
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      PAA bearings

For Randy Jacobsen most likely,

In trying to unravel the PAA bearings reports, Charlie Hill claims that the ITASCA sent a msg on 5 July at 9:45 pm to San Francisco requesting that Makapu take a bearing on 3105 and found it was 35 deg off. Have you ever come across this msg? Hill , of course, was trying to point out that the Makapu bearings on the weak 3105 signals was off by about 35 degrees, hence the intersection of the Wake, Midway and Makapu bearings would be in the Marshall Island vice Phoenix.
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:10:03
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

The Itasca did indeed ask that a bearing be taken upon them, and a message was sent back to the Itasca.  The return message is in the Thompson Radio Transcripts, but apparently, no one onboard the Itasca recognized what it was.  The true bearing at the time was 232.38*, and the measured RDF bearing was 196.5*.  Bob Brandenburg investigated the actual site of the Makapuu antenna site, and it was partially shielded in the direction of 230*, so some diffraction of signals were likely.  The bearings, if all were off the same, would place AE to the SE of the Phoenix Islands, further away from the Marshall Islands, if the bearings from other stations were accurate.  At these kinds of distances, errors on the order of 10 to 20* would not be unreasonable.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:10:24
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Randy

Thanks for the clarification. I have Thompson radio transcripts, maybe you can tell me what page. So a bearing of 232 degrees would not indicate the type of error that Charlie Hill claimed. He said there was about a 37 degree error when Makapu took a bearing from the Itasca. He didn't provide a cite of the msg. Hence Hills recalcultion of the bearings intersecting near Mili is incorrect. I see that Almond Gray used a chart showing Wake and Midway and his bearings intersected SE of the Marshalls. He considered the Makapu bearings "inferior" to the others and unreliable. Have you addressed Gray's work?

Ron Bright
Bremerton, Wa
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:42:31
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: An oddity

So sayeth Tom King:

> Damn!  You're right, Paige, and in my version of Google Earth, it
> doesn't identify the street address but does lable it as TIGHAR
> and  spell out the name.  O Fame!

If you double-click on the yellow-circled letter "A" where Google Earth has TIGHAR located, Google Earth will indeed show you the street address, the telephone number and what Ric and Pat ate for breakfast.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:45:04
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Niku stuff

Dennis McGee says:

> Paige Miller said: "Are the data really that consistent? (I realize
> that Pat and Ric may not want to answer that so as to not give away
> some of the findings of the book...)"
>
> Paige, your statement implies that Ric has something to hide here
> (. . . so as to not give away some of the findings . . .) and I find
> that irritating.  TIGHAR has always operated in the full sun light
> and to my knowledge never held anything back.

I did not use the word "hide", and I was trying to say that I would be understanding if an answer was not immediately forthcoming. Instead of "hide" think "delay". Ric has done lots of analyses for this book which he has not yet provided to TIGHAR members. Yes, TIGHAR has always operated in the full sun light. I am 100% sure that Ric will give us those ALL of those results, he is simply waiting for the publication of his book or other appropriate time.

I note that Pat has not replied to my specific question, and that's 100% okay with me, I can wait for the book.

--
Paige Miller LTM
#2565

*******************************************

The data are that consistent, yes. I'm not qualified to spout the
details, but things are very tight.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:46:00
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

The Makapuu message describing the bearing taken upon the Itasca is on pg 78, top, of the Thompson Transcripts.

I know see what you're getting at.  If the bearings have an error to the SE, then that correction needs to be applied to the bearings, rotating them to the West.  I'm not sure that is a proper way to proceed, as that assumes a constant bias, and we do not have any corroborating information that there was a bias, only an error.

Please remember that none of the PAA bearings were taken on the same signal, or at the same time, so they do not represent triangulation in the rigorous sense.

I'd prefer not to comment on Gray's work.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:09:47
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Randy, I am confused over the bearings. The RDF bearing is magnetic isn't it? If so that would mean a magnetic variation of about 36 degrees. Where am I going wrong?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:39:40
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Randy writes:

> I'd prefer not to comment on Gray's work.

Randy, I'm not that shy but I'll do it in a general manner. This whole thing about evidence, bearings and radio calls is much simpler than people are making out. We need to apply a credibility weight to each.

It is clear to me than some radio club consisting of some 184 or so members hatched the radio hoax plan weeks before our heroes left Lae cleverly anticipating they would never make Howland. Rushing out to the South Pacific they scattered with their radios in preparation for their great hoax. They also enlisted the aid of PanAm, Naval, Coast guard and other professional radio operators bribing them to falsify their logs. Clearly we can discount ALL the post loss messages.

As to the radio bearings we simply apply a doubtful rating to any bearing indicating SE of Howland or anywhere close to the Phoenix Islands out of hand and a high probability to any bearing close to the Marshalls. You see how simple this really is.

We do the same thing with all the other evidence. If there is the slightest chance they crashed at sea or were captured by the Japanese that evidence automatically gets a high credibility rating as opposed to all that niku nonsense.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:16:10
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Bearings are relative to true North, and have already been corrected for magnetic variation (usually less than 10*).  Radio signals get refracted by the ionosphere, and don't necessarily reflect the true shortest path to the source, particularly at long distances.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:16:31
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Randy Jacobsen

Thanks for the clarification re the Itasca/Mokapu bearing. The bearings were taken from Wake, Midway and Hawaii over two days, 4-5 July,  were weak signals, none voice. They would have been from about 1800 miles south, and as you point out there is room for plenty of error as the operator searches for the bearing.None were considered conclusively from the Eahart plane at the time. But GP did act upon them in good faith.

Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:00:24
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Ron Bright,

Did the PAA signal reception information ever reach BB-45 USS Colorado prior to it's short search of the Phoenix Island group?

Respectfully,

Tom  Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:51:20
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Tom Strang,

The PAA bearings were well know on the 4 and 5th of July and as we  said, caused GP to request a search of the Phoenix. Almost certainly the Colorado was aware of those bearings prior to the 7-9th of July.I don't have a specific log or msg that confirms that, but maybe Randy Jacobsen does.

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:39:57
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

There's no documented evidence that the Colorado had that information, but there was a meeting held between the Captain and the Commander, 14th Naval District in Honolulu prior to their departure on the 4th.  The Navy kept a map with numerous notations about the bearings, and probably shared it with the Colorado at that time.

Please note the spelling of my last name: Jacobson, not Jacobsen.
Thanks.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:21:49
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Squirrely DF shots

Randy Jacobson said:  "If the bearings have an error to the SE, then that correction needs to be applied to the bearings, rotating them to the West."

Single direction finding (DF) shots were notoriously inaccurate at least up until the early 1960s when I was a radio intercept operation in the Air Force.  I was stationed in Crete and we were responsible  for a variety of medium frequency and high frequency (300 kHz to  30,000 kHz) targets in Eastern Europe, Asia, and North Africa.  It  was not uncommon when we called for DF shots from Germany or Italy  that the bearing would pass directly through our base.  This would  occur when the DF operators in German or Italy picked up the signal  as it was re-transmitted from our sending or receiving antennas.   Though a couple of the radio gurus explained to me the reasons for  this phenomenon it was way over my head and I simply accepted their  explanation.

For intelligence purposes back in the 60s, DF had its limitations and we usually didn't give it a lot of credibility unless we could at  least get single shots from two DF stations, or better yet  triangulate the target.  But getting two or more DF shots from  different sites was difficult because of atmospherics and by the time the DF stations (us, Germany, Italy, etc.) all got on the same page  the signal had disappeared.

If the military was having this much trouble in the 60s I imagine  things weren't much better 25 years earlier.

LTM, who is heading in the right direction
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:58:46
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Alan Caldwell, still delirious from his recent hospitalization, writes:

> We do the same thing with all the other evidence. If there is the
> slightest chance they crashed at sea or were captured by the
> Japanese  that evidence automatically gets a high credibility
> rating as opposed  to all that niku nonsense.

Now come on Alan, everyone knows that the evidence that gets the highest credibility is the evidence that shows Amelia floated with her airplane to the Pacific coast of Paraguay. Why, even the bearings taken by Paraguay-Argentina Airlines (PAA) corroborates this. I can't understand why people can't see the obvious truth of these statements...

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who is also still delirious after all these years)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:55:51
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Paige, I'm sorry I had omitted such an obvious solution.

Seriously, my silly email was prompted by a number of notes over a span of time by detractors of the Niku theory albeit very serious researchers who have not noticed their ideas in opposition require a far more unbelievable stretch than does Niku. The post loss messages are a case in point. To believe ALL of the messages are hoaxes or even more difficult, misunderstandings by professional, experienced radio operators requires the most complex rationale I could imagine.

A quick comment on the bearings. some have pointed out they are not precision indicators. True but what they DO tell us is that they came from a general area of interest that does not include the Marshall Islands. It is not significant they don't point to a specific island but rather that they narrow the search to something a bit more manageable than 640,000 square miles of open ocean or the Marshall Islands.

Alan.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:56:49
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: PAA Bearings

For Ron Bright

"The PAA bearings were well known on the 4th. and 5th. of July".  May I ask by whom in particular?

Respectfully,

Tom Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:57:08
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Randy Jacobson

The PAA bearings under discussion, were they released by the PAA Pacific Division Oakland or through PAA HQ New York?

Respectfully,

Tom Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:38:34
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Tom Strang,

Randy Jacobson answered your question whether or not the USS Colorado was aware of the PAA bearings. He thought most likely but he had no specific msg to document it.

Who was aware of the PAA bearings? COMSECHAW, Wake and Midway, and Hawaii all reported the bearings as they exchanged information. PAA offered to monitor if they had the time 3105 . Which they did. COMHAWSEC told San Francisco as GP was aware of them by the 5th of July which is the reason he asked the Navy to search the Phoenix. As you know Almon Gray, former PAA,  believed the bearings intersected from the "eastern or southeastern Marshalls", which as A. Caldwell points out is a lot of ocean. I personally don't find the PAA bearings, all weak,  and their intersection of much value, as the amount of error is pretty big over nearly 2000 miles.

Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:30:15
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Alan Caldwell,

Contrary to the Navy and the Coast Guard,you claim that not all the msgs received during this search period could be "hoaxes" or operator "misunderstanding" of the various signals received. As I understand it, Tighar will attempt to show that some of the msgs were genuine from AE. If successfull,  then the question becomes from what land/reef. In the meantime, please give the readers of this forum 2-3 msgs that you feel were from Amelia? And what proof so we can so evaluate its merit. I have my own selections, but none from Niku.

LTM,

RON B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:07:02
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

I don't believe the PAA bearings were released at all to the public, until the memos were uncovered sometime in the late 80's or early 90's. Many of the bearings were relayed to the Coast Guard and/or Navy in Hawaii during the search phase.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:08:35
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

I'm sorry, Ron but it is not possible to take any one message and show proof positive it was from Amelia without Amelia herself validating it and you know that. There is no possibility of doing that 100% without Amelia to provide the proof. Nothing can change that. Just as there is no possibility whatsoever of anyone proving this email came from me without me personally providing the proof. Fact of life so to ask for proof of any message is a total waste of time and totally impossible. Everyone MUST know that. It takes very little thought to see that is so.

None of the existing messages tell where they originated, most likely because location was not known. They were lost as you know. It is certainly possible messages were sent that were not received or for whatever reason have not been discovered. If so they may have contained information we might like to have that might be more helpful. It is also possible there were no messages sent we don't have. It is likely we will never know so to attach significance to the lack of location verbiage is foolish.

No message and no radio bearing tells where AE was at any time so quit expecting there to be some information forthcoming that will tell you they arrived at some particular place.

All the post loss messages will show is that if any one message is legitimate they made it to land some place. Where that land was is totally unknown.

To believe ALL the messages and all the radio operators involved were hoaxes is beyond credibility. No rational analysis could possibly come to that conclusion nor is there the slightest evidence that could lead to that conclusion. If anyone has proof that they were all  100% hoaxes please provide us with that proof. Proof not idle speculation.

As to the radio bearings you need to have radio experts provide you with the technical parameters to show you the possible bearing error before you dismiss their significance. Having spent many years using those bearings navigating across the oceans I am comfortable believing they came from the Phoenix general area just as PanAm said they did. To disbelieve that you will need expert testimony to the contrary not just opinion.

Proof lies on BOTH sides of these issues not just one. TIGHAR believes there is adequate message traffic to believe AE made it to land. Prove TIGHAR wrong. TIGHAR believes the radio bearings show messages from the Phoenix area. Prove TIGHAR wrong.

All that has been done so far is to demand proof from TIGHAR and counter with totally idle speculation. If anyone has a reason to disbelieve something offer some proof to the contrary.

TIGHAR is not required to prove anything to anyone. TIGHAR has made certain claims if you disagree with them prove they are wrong. It takes no intelligence and no effort to sit back and offer unsupportable opinions and ask for proof. You want to disagree prove you have reason to do so.

Alan