======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:12:25
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Haggis

Isn't it the time of year to talk about 'Haggis'?

For an exhaustive review on the subject go to:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haggis <
I don't know about the 'neeps and tatties', though!

George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member # 2630

LTM who, after reading this article, said "YUK" !

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

We pretty much exhausted this subject last summer. Let's not start up again. I must say I'm with George on the "Yuk" factor.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:12:57
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

I got to thinking, after I issued my challenge for the detractors to offer proof of their contention, that they have never offered proof of anything before. I thought maybe some helpful hints might be in order.

Our proof  (Amelia) is dead and so we can't help you there. Your hoaxers were all women radio operators of course or perhaps eunuchs trained to sound like Amelia. Shouldn't be too hard to trace. They were exceedingly clever and resourceful being able to get in position in the South Pacific within a few hours after they found out Amelia was not going to make Howland. Where did they broadcast from? Not the States or every ham in the country would have heard and reported it. Not Hawaii as they weren't heard north of Howland but only slightly. Earhart's radio on 3105 was never heard more than a few hundred miles so your women hoaxers must have been on boats somewhere south of Howland and Baker but within a few hundred miles of the Itasca. Had to be boats as there were no islands within nearly 400 miles of Howland. Incredible task. Last minute boat charters to carry radio equipment with banned frequencies out into the ocean. It must have cost a fortune for the equipment, boats and the bribes to silence the ship crews.

Then to broadcast on 6210 they had to race hundreds of miles further away as Earhart wasn't heard close in on that frequency. So.....fast boats.

Now to imitate Earhart we can probably rule out Auzzies, islanders or any other foreign speaking women. So were they American women? How did they get out to the south Pacific? Did they preposition themselves say in the Gilbert's just in case they could perpetrate a hoax? Is that rational?

Anyway there's a start guys.

Actually I'm just having fun as I don't think for a minute any of you would actually attempt to prove anything you say. That's work. The easy way is to just lay back in your comfy chair and dispute everything anyone says and ask others to offer proof. That's what you've done so far and I expect no change. But the ball is now in your court. We've made our claims now prove we are wrong.

Alan

======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:14:06
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Alan Caldwell writes in:

> 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.

I seem to recall having a long drawn out argument here in the forum a few months ago with someone who insisted that it was reasonable (to him) that ALL known post-loss message could be hoaxes. I don't think any logical argument will convince someone who wants to believe that they ALL could be hoaxes how ridiculous this really is, and eventually I had to zero in on some of his more factual errors, such as there were search planes in the air during the time of the post-loss messages.

That form of argumentation sure is seductive however, because it leads you to any conclusion you want. Having a body of evidence to back up the conclusion simply isn't needed. Absence of evidence is equivalent to presence of evidence!

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:13:31
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Ron Bright says:

> 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.

I'll take a partial stab at this, Ron. I have argued in a message to this forum on 9 Dec 2002 that there were indeed two messages that had a vanishingly small probability of being a hoax. Your rebuttal, please?

(Note: that's not the same as arguing that they are from AE, although that's the next logical step; and that's not the same as PROOF)

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5@rochester.rr.com

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:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:28:57
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Paige, having even more time on my hands than normal and perhaps the medication has not completely worn off I have had another thought. My theory of all the women hoaxers is not the only possibility. Maybe there was just one hoaxer and there were no messages at all. He would have been the George Soros of 1937. Someone wealthy. Maybe Putnam's business rival. Who would that have been? Hearst?

Anyway all he would have to do is buy off Thompson and his whole crew, that of the Colorado, all the South Pacific radio operators, the Naval station at Hawaii and PanAm. Am I missing anyone?

That way we don't have to bring all that radio equipment out to the area and we can eliminate all the fast boats.

I don't know why I didn't see this before.

I have been selling our detractors short.

Alan

======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:49:37
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Paige Miller,

Now I like that answer. The way I understand it, you can list at least two msg that most likely were from AE after her last. I can't recall what they were. Tighar has listed more than that with his rationale, which is what we researchers are looking for. I only asked Alan, who still may be under meds, to cite what he thought were signals that could reseasonably be infered to have come from AE. He couldn't or wouldn't answer that. Certainly good , compelling evidence that there were post loss msgs would then focus on what land or reef they came from.

Could you specifiy what your msgs are, I have forgotten.

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:21:35
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Hi everyone,

All this talk about "proof" is not the angle to look at this from. In a scientific investigation, you never "prove" that your hypothesis is correct; instead, you demonstrate that it is the superior explanation for the gathered data.  If there are two explanations that are equally valid, then you must continue to gather new data to determine which is the best; gathering new data may in fact end up requiring the development of a new hypothesis to explain everything.

So, while it is impossible to "prove" that any single communication in fact came from Earhart, the hypothesis here is that the weight of communications can only be explained by Earhart sitting on an island after landing the Electra.  If all of these communications can be explained away in some other fashion, then the hypothesis will fail; however, that will require more effort than "well, I think they were all hoaxes".

Reed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:45:28
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Excellent posting, Reed. you are exactly right. I think we would ALL welcome a supportable explanation that the TIGHAR theory is invalid as opposed to mere idle speculation. We won't ever get that however.

There has been no effort to show any message to be from any source other than AE. Instead the idea is to sit back and demand impossible proof. That requires little or no thought but does not contribute to resolving any issue. A total waste of time.

To date I know of no supportable rationale being offered or any alternative idea. Only dismissals, put downs and pure speculation.

For example I have suggested our heroes arrived at 08:43 L with about 139 gallons of fuel. I have shown my reasoning based on the performance charts of the aircraft and the operation of AE's sister ship.

My figures are disputed in that she was out of gas at that time or that she had sufficiently more fuel to fly to the Marshall's but at no time has there been any suggestion offered as to how either condition could have come about. Oh, yes, fuel leaks have been suggested or engine malfunctions in spite of the fact that no such supportable evidence exists.

Anyone can make up stuff but it takes a real investigator to come up with a supportable rationale.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:31:43
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Caldwell states, again an assumption, disguised as a fact: "There has been no effort to show any message to be from any  source other than Amelia Earhart". [ Post/ Feb 1,2005)

Well you needn't go to far to find out this is simply wrong, and the explanation is in your backyard. Ric Gillespie went to extreme lengths to show that the signal receptions that McMenamy and Karl Piersonl,amatuer hams in LA, heard after the loss were most likely not authentic. He provided convincing evidence regarding the times, etc.

Gillespie  found many others signals were misunderstandings or impossible,.but he did find many that seem genuine. Capt Thomson thought, for example,that the 281 msg was a cruel hoax, and noone had proved it was genuine.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:20:52
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Sorry, Ron, I was not referring to TIGHAR's efforts to resolve controversies but rather to those who oppose TIGHAR suggesting without support the messages are ALL hoaxes..

You are quite right we have shot down some of the dubious messages.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:21:20
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Alan Caldwell says:

> Your hoaxers were all women radio operators of course or perhaps
> eunuchs  trained to sound like Amelia. Shouldn't be too hard to
> trace. They  were exceedingly clever and resourceful being able to
> get in position  in the South Pacific within a few hours after they
> found out Amelia  was not going to make Howland.

I understand you are being facetious, Alan, but that is the essence of my argument that I posted on 9 Dec 2002. It is nearly impossible for some of these post-loss messages to be a hoax. You couldn't just pick up a radio and broadcast -- on frequencies reserved for airline traffic -- in such a way that Itasca heard it strongest, Achilles heard it weaker and no one else heard it at all.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:21:46
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Ron Bright says:

> Could you specifiy what your msgs are, I have forgotten.

The full messages were posted by Ric on 5 Dec 2002 in this forum.

Ron also says:

> 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.

Now that I have shared what I have, perhaps you would be so kind as to return the favor? What messages are you referring to when you say "I have my own selections"? What is your argument that these are legitimate? And how do you know that your own selections are not from Niku?

George Werth adds:

> Haggis

No thanks!

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who never did well when she had to make selections)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:22:13
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Alan Caldwell says:

> There has been no effort to show any message to be from any source
> other than AE. Instead the idea is to sit back and demand
> impossible  proof. That requires little or no thought but does not
> contribute to  resolving any issue. A total waste of time.

Some messages, heard by Itasca approximately 8 hours after Amelia's "We are on the line 157 377 ... " message, have been known since 1937. And in that time, not a single person has been able to point to a possible source of the message, other than Earhart. All that time to research what other transmitters might have been out there, and not a single possibility!

I predict that when Ric's book comes out, the detractors will use words like "hysterical", "a fantasy", "imaginative", "inconclusive", etc. They will not provide an alternative explanation for the evidence presented. I predict that not one of those detractors will view it as incumbent upon himself to provide counter-evidence. I predict that none of Ric's detractors will use the standard so clearly explained by Reed Riddle:

> In a scientific investigation, you never "prove" that your
> hypothesis  is correct; instead, you demonstrate that it is the
> superior  explanation for the gathered data.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:26:30
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

The  "281 MESSAGE"

July 5th, 1937, from the Hawaiian Sector to Itasca:

   FROM :   COMHAWSEC
   TO   :   ITASCA
   8005   FOLLOWING COPIED NAVY RADIO WAILUPE  1130 TO 1230 GCT
   QUOTE
   281  NORTH  HOWLAND  CALL  KHAQQ  BEYOND  NORTH  DON'T  HOLD  WITH
   US  MUCH  LONGER  ABOVE  WATER  SHUT  OFF
   UNQUOTE
   KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGMENTARY
   PHRASES BUT COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS 0242

What's the problem with this post loss message? Is it because it was heard by the Navy in Hawaii? Is it because the ID of the sender was included in the message that makes this a hoax? Well, any legitimate message from the Electra would also include the transmitter ID.

Is it because a bearing of 281 points to the Marshall's from the LOP?

"KEYING BEHIND CARRIER" (carrier wave)  was a condition that was noted at the time of reception that no one has satisfactorily explained. It might be a clue that a MIC. button was used to form the dots and dashes or a condition of a decreasing battery supply (DON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER).

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:01:13
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Paige M.

I don't have the Tighar posting re the msgs you are referring to from 2002.

Me, I give the Nauru msg, some 12 hours after her last, some credibility in view of the VKT operators report that the voice, although indistinquishable, was "similar" to the voice heard last night as she was enroute to Howland. Unfortunately we don't have the Nauru log, the VKT operators name, nor was he interviewed back then. Nevertheless, it could be from the Electra.

What three selections do you have that you think were genuine?

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:01:30
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA Bearings

For Alan C.,

The reason we are all anxiously waiting for Tighars analysis and his epiphany re the 'puzzle pieces,. is that most of us have not spent the time or energy that Gillespie has in comparing times, frequencies, dates, content, etc., with the reported post loss msgs.

There is no shortage of them,  some 122 a few years ago.  Hence he certainly may provide, as he has promised, some compelling evidence that heretofore has been overlooked .

We are all acquainted with some of the hoaxes, but many of the msgs remain out there with little or no investigation and candidates for authenticity.

TheyCoast Guard unfortunately gave up early and there were no follow up, thorough investigations regarding those messagesf in 1937. Perhaps if someone had done that by the 19th of July 37, we would have resolved where AE went down with a chance of rescue.  She surely was within radio range of the ITASCA if it was she transmitting!
LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:07:04
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings
 
Well said, Paige.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:24:54
From:         Alexander Gartshore
Subject:      Following Earhart on Google Earth

I just had a very interesting idea but it would probably take a bit of time and someone with a good knowledge of amelias flights and such.... the idea is that using GOOGLE EARTH you could configure it to fly around as she did on her record attempts by placing the points she flew to within the program. i have noticed through using it that this is possible as every so often i find some info asking me to click a link that takes me on a tour someone has put into the GOOGLE EARTH program. it would be a good educational tool to show people the distances involved in her attempts and all the geographical places she visited. and depending how you have the program configured it already gives you info on each landmark although it is a bit thin down the south pacific!

im still trying to find NIKU ! any pointers would help... this would give the GOOGLE program a purpose instead of people just looking at the grand canyon and area ! 51! lol

Alexander

LTM : touring the world on google earth
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:25:23
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Nice going, Daryll. I can't answer your question but I have always worried we dismissed things too quickly at times. I would guess at least one problem is the 281 we don't like but our likes and dislikes shouldn't be the basis for disputing a message.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:26:06
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Ron, I well know that you guys don't have the luxury of all the specialists, experts and outside assets we do. I have never expected that. All I have ever wanted was a well reasoned explanation for whatever opposition one holds. To simply oppose is a waste of time. It does not move the ball forward. We do not have the time or inclination to constantly try to "prove" things to people who would not believe 12 bishops.

When one of the folks argues ALL messages are hoaxes that is ridiculous. No reason is ever given. No rationale whatsoever other that WE haven't satisfactorily proven the issue to someone else's criteria.

We really are not interested what folks like that think. We try to be kind but in truth they are just aggravating.

There is NO overlooked evidence. don't sit there expecting great revelations of things you have never heard of. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

Also neither you nor anyone else can take any one message or any three messages or any six messages and prove they are authentic. You are wasting your time and ours asking for that. Can you not understand that the ONLY proof is dead. Earhart. There IS no other proof nor can there EVER be any other proof.

Like any circumstantial case you have to take the totality of all the evidence to arrive at a conclusion. How do I make that clearer? ALL the evidence. The total amount of evidence. ALL the messages. ALL like in every one.

Is there ANYONE who can't get that?

Ric is putting together all the known evidence in one place. There is basically nothing new but such a compilation has never been made and from that compilation a much clearer picture emerges. A picture you cannot get from any one piece of evidence.

Now what I would like to see which I will never get is one of you saying, "I disagree with TIGHAR on this point because............" I won't get that. All I will ever get is someone disagreeing because WE haven't satisfied him with our proof.

I wish no one here would ever respond again unless there is a sensible reason given. I wish.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:26:37
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: PAA Bearings

> We are all acquainted with some of the hoaxes,

Ron, I have never been 100% certain about the so called hoaxes. The four guys (Pearson et al) is disturbing. Maybe they heard nothing and made it all up but to what end? They could only be successful if AE never was found and they didn't know that would be the result. If their message was a hoax AE would have made fools out of them and they would have been subject to prosecution. Hoaxers are typically anonymous.

Also keep in mind we have no recordings of any message. All we have is what a radio operator thought he heard and wrote down. That means we need to be less critical of the message content.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:09:09
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Alan,

All the msgs now are most likely from AE and not hoaxes.  I suggest you consult with Tighar. Over 120,. and the Coast Guard missed them. Perhaps the KGMB program recreating the flight was also real too, but to through the unwary off.
Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:02:17
From:         Dale Intolubbe
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro

Put 4.66 S 174.53 W in the Google Earth search box and something comes up but not much.

This shows something too but not much either.

http://globe.sintef.no/VirtualGlobeStarter.cgi?
request=page&dataset=http://globe.sintef.no/
globe.vgml&viewpoint=-174.53,-4.66,42000,0,-90


LTM

Dale Intolubbe #2656
Rathdrum, Idaho
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:02:58
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Daryll Bolinger

Would you know if the "281 MESSAGE" was passed on to BB-45 USS. Colorado and USS. Swan, or was CG Itasca only recipient?

Respectfully,

Tom  Strang  # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:03:28
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Following Earhart on Google Earth

For Alexander Gartshore

There's more than just the Grand Canyon ! I zoomed in and found my own house. Also those of friends living elsewhere. Entering the right coordinates should give access to a lot of places (not all). This is a thread to be taken up with Niku.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:04:02
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

Ron B. says:

> I don't have the Tighar posting re the msgs you are referring to
> from  2002.

They are all on the TIGHAR web site, in the Forum archives, for everyone to read.

> Me, I give the Nauru msg, some 12 hours after her last, some
> credibility in view of the VKT operators report that the voice,
> although indistinquishable, was "similar" to the voice heard last
> night as she was enroute to Howland. Unfortunately we don't have
> the  Nauru log, the VKT operators name, nor was he interviewed back
> then.  Nevertheless, it could be from the Electra.

And how do you know this was not from Niku, as you said earlier?

If we don't have the Nauru log or the VKT operator's name, how do we know about this reception at all?

> What three selections do you have that you think were genuine?

Just about anything heard that evening voice (or "FONE" in the logs) are candidates to be geniune, other than transmissions from Itasca
heard by Achilles, of course. At one point that evening, both Itasca and Achilles heard a series of dashes on 3105 in response to Itasca's request, so the transmissions of those dashes are on my list as well.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:28:13
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

According to a newspaper article in my collection, a Mr. McGill in Oakland also heard the message.  Only the text of the message he heard is considerably different that what is being reported here.

Don Jordan
Cal City, CA
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:33:57
From:         Alexander Gartshore
Subject:      Re: Google earth

yes the first thing i did was find my house, i have spent most of the last 3-4 days on google earth...i am currently searching for meteor impact craters around the world of which there are a lot. thank you for the niku refs. i think the google earth program when it gets start properly will be quite a force in geographical programs!

Alexander
LTM :  having fun with elevations!
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:34:29
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Nauru message

The Nauru message is available from the microfilmed diary of the wife of the colonial administrator of Nauru.

Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:16:24
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings

For Paige Miller,

Paige Miller asks how do we know about the Nauru reception. I thought all had seen the VKT msgs sent to Austrailia regarding the three receptions. Could the Electra be on Niku when these were sent. Possibly and that is the 64 dollar question.
LTM,
Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:02:02
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Earhart books

Talking about Ric's forthcoming book has gotten me thinking about Earhart Literature in general--including the really inaccurate stuff. For reasons best left to the imagination, I own several of these books.

I would like to get rid of them, having come to my senses. So if anyone would like any of these books (for entertainment purposes only), please contact me at solander2002@yahoo.com

Devine, Thomas. Eyewitness. Paperback. Thinks he saw the Electra being burned.

Keyzer-Andre, Henri. Age of Heroes. Hardcover with jacket. Says the Japanese Zero was based on the captured Electra.

Klass, Joe and Joseph Gervais. Amelia Earhart Lives. 1970 Hardcover. The Irene Bolam Hypothesis.

Reineck, Rollin. Amelia Earhart Survived. Hardcover with jacket. Irene Bolam Returns.

All books are in excellent condition. I'll ship them for free to anyone who is interested.

LTM
Karen Hoy 2610CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:16:20
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Freebies
 
Karen Hoy said:  "All books are in excellent condition. I'll ship them for free to anyone who is interested."

Thanks, but I have enough kindling and several very fine door stops already. <G>

LTM, who has plenty of reading materials
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:22:00
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: books
 
Karen, I'll take you up on your offer.

Please contact me off-forum: 

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:23:01
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: books

For Karen Hoy

I would love to get the Henri Keyser book for my collection.  My address is xxxxx. I will be happy to pay the shipping and handling. Thanks, if I am the "lucky guy".
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:46:24
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: PAA bearings
 
Alan, I agree with your outlook. What reasons are there?

1-Why would anyone try to sound like Amelia.

2-Who had that type of radio to broadcast.

3-If they were on the same period of time they could have been real.

4-Too much conjecture as gone around as to the source of the transmits.

5-I say for some one to go to all the trouble to fake the transmissions is something one would do now. Back them it just doesn't fly as people didn't have the equipment nor the incentative to fake them.

I believe the Marshall Is. theory as I've spoken to Saipanese you heard it from relatives.
Jim Preston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:46:52
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: books

Hi Ron,
You are the lucky guy. Don't worry about shipping. The book goes out today.
Karen
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:47:16
From:         Gene Tissot
Subject:      Re: Books
 
Hi Karen -
I'm interested in the Klaas book.  Tell me how much.
Gene Tissot
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:58:56
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: Books
 
Gene,
No charge for book or shipping.
Karen
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:59:56
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Re: 281  Message

Re:  Darryl B.'s challenge over the famous "281" message.

Don't I remember an extensive discussion here a few years ago about this?  Isn't Gardner 281 miles from the equator?  Didn't the "celestial choir" note that Noonan, even if he didn't know where he was, had the ability with the sextant to determine his latitude?

I thought we decided that the 281 msg was likely genuine, albeit fragmentary, and that it supported the Niku hypothesis.

Anyone else remember this?

LTM,  Dave Porter, 2288

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

Answers to your (admittedly rhetorical) questions:

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:22:09
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

Jim, the main problem I have with the Marshall Island theory is there was no way to get the plane there. It could not fly there and there was no Japanese ship that could pick it up.

Add to that there was no reason. The Japanese already had an Electra and would have had no need for another. They had no reason to capture AE or FN.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:31:05
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Daryll Bollinger asks:

> What's the problem with this post loss message?

He is referring to the "281 North" message, heard on July 5 by 3 Hawaii operators and forwarded by Navy Radio Wailupe.

I'd like to give my thoughts on why I think other messages are very likely to be from Earhart, while the 281 North message is not. I will first briefly mention why other messages are high on my list of likely to be from Earhart, and then I will discuss why the 281 North message is very unlikely, in my opinion, to be from AE.

The receptions I think are likely from Earhart, heard from 5:47pm (Itasca time) to 6:54pm (Itasca time) on July 2 are heard on Earhart's known frequency, are voice (although unintelligible) or empty carrier, and are heard best by Itasca, weakly (if at all) by Achilles and even more weakly (if at all) by PAA Mokapu. This implies that the sender was closest to Itasca. Geography, coupled with the fact that these receptions were about 8 hours after Earhart's last known message, make it virtually impossible for these to be a hoax. That leaves ... unidentified sender, which as I pointed out in another message, people have had almost 70 years to identify a sender ... or Amelia Earhart.

Why do I NOT think the 281 North message is genuinely from AE? Several reasons. First, AE was not known for her ability to key code. In fact, I consider it unlikely that under the best of circumstances she could have keyed such a message, and given the horrific situation she was in, being lost on a Pacific Island, I find it even more incredible and difficult to believe that somehow a panicky AE could manage such a feat. It would be much more natural for a panicky AE to broadcast in voice, as she did during her flight before Howland. But as a thought exercise, consider for a second that Earhart DID indeed have the mental clarity to manage to learn how to transmit such a message via code instead of voice. If she could pull of that feat, I would expect a little more clarity in the content of the message. Furthermore, we have to consider geography again. If AE was in the Phoenix Islands, the Gilbert Islands, the Marshall Islands or Tokelau or Tuvalu islands, it is hard to imagine such a message being heard in Hawaii by three operators, and not heard by Itasca, Achilles, PAA Mokapu, or other listening stations. Yes, I know that radio messages bounce sometimes in unusual ways and so it is within the realm of possibility that the message bounced in such a way that Itasca and Achilles did not hear it, but Hawaii did hear it. Such bouncing is way out of my pay grade, and I do not claim to understand it, but I think it is again very suspect that 3 operators in Hawaii could hear this message but not PAA Mokapu. That doesn't make sense to me.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:36:55
From:         Larry Turner
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Paige Miller said:

<Why do I NOT think the 281 North message is genuinely from AE?>
<Several reasons. First, AE was not known for her ability to key code.>

All anyone would have to have is a simple little chart of the code system. Just copy what you want to say to code. 2 or 3 hours if necessary. turn on radio and copy dot-dash-dot. In my opinion any one can do this. Sending code already printed out is easy. Try it yourself.  All that is required is the code. Can anyone say for sure that she did or did not have a copy of the code?  I have one on paper the size of a credit card.

Larry Turner
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:37:13
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands
 
ALAN, HOW ABOUT THE SPY THEORY ?
JIMBO
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:37:38
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Niku

Dale Intolubbe writes

> Put 4.66 S 174.53 W in the Google Earth search box and
> something comes up but not much.

I'm not sure those are the right co-ordinates, but regardless, Google Earth zooms in way too far. If you zoom out to about 300 miles, Nikumaroro and McKean are clearly seen, as are the other Phoenix Islands, but there is almost no detail.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:26:42
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: 281 MESSAGE

For Tom Strang;

"Would you know if the "281 MESSAGE" was passed on to BB-45 USS. Colorado and USS. Swan, or was CG Itasca only recipient?"

Tom, I can't really say. Was the USS Colorado under steam on July 5th or 6th ? The USCG Swan should have also copied the relay from Hawaii to Itasca which was sent in the clear and could have been heard in California by other radios. I seem to recall that three vessels (Itasca, Swan and a commercial vessel) converged on the search area 281 miles NW.

It is my belief that this message (281 message) was the genesis of the "hoax message" tag that was applied to the receptions that followed in the Earhart search. The reporters on the Itasca probably wanted to know why they sailed so far to the NW to search for the Electra. When nothing was found, someone related the time the Itasca tried to find a ship off of South America that broadcasted a distress call months earlier. They put the hoax tag on that instance when they didn't find anything there.

As has been noted, the message is open to interpretation by it's fragmentary nature. If you think 281 means miles then you have ask yourself what significance can I (one) mile have in the Pacific Ocean as compared to 1 (one) degree in 700 miles. I haven't found/seen any evidence that the three digit number, which is under 360, was even suggested to be a bearing or part of the compass rose by the Itasca.

The reason for this, I believe again, is because of the consequences that arise from that interpretation of the numbers. Whether the Itasca was north or south of Howland on the LOP, there was no landfall between them and the Gilbert's or the Marshall's, if the Electra was down on land.

Even if Thompson had sailed on that bearing they would have to cross 175E Longitude before reaching landfall. The German spy Klaus Mehnert in Hawaii, in 1937, had noted from fleet Problem 18 that year and quite possibly from the Earhart search that the Navy had set up an ultimate defense line in the Pacific that they didn't want to cross. This would later figure into the Japanese war plans. When Earhart search vessels did cross 175E Longitude, it was only the Coast Guard (not US Navy) vessels Itasca and Swan to search the Gilbert's. They had to get permission from Great Britian to go into the Gilbert's and they were denied permission from the Japanese to do the same in the Marshall's.

For Alan Caldwell:

I believe this note was passed from Ron Reuther to our forum and was wondering if you had seen any of these archived notes?

"....I just reread in a letter from Goerner to Leo Bellarts dated Dec 20, 1961 quoting Goerner;  "We know as a positive fact that the Lockheed had sufficient gas for twenty-four to twenty-six hours aloft...The planning for that 2556 miles flight is containted in Amelia's notes which were shipped back to the United States from Lae.  She had figured her fuel consumption to give her at least six additional hours to make a landfall if Noonan's navigational abilities did not bring the plane dead center to Howland.."

For Paige Miller; why he thinks the 281 message wasn't from Amelia.

1. Noonan would have tapped out the message, not Amelia.

2. Their radio was modified to send CW and MCW. If my terminology is correct CW (morse code) will travel farther than MCW (voice).

3. Why was it heard in Hawaii and not places closer? Have you ever wondered why those "three operators" were never interviewed about this message? Waliupe was at least in 1934 a Navy OP-20-G intercept station. The whole purpose and design of those stations were to pluck radio signals from the Pacific airways for intelligence purposes. A highly classified station like that could afford an expensive (at the time) Oscilloscope. I believe an Oscilloscope was used to make the comment "KEYING BEHIND CARRIER".  This would be a characteristic of a certain transmitter and the Navy in those years were attempting to ID transmitters using other means than only from their call signs.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:16:02
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

> From Jim Preston
>
> ALAN, HOW ABOUT THE SPY THEORY ?
> JIMBO

Jim, do you really think Amelia was going to over fly the Marshall's in the dead of the night and see anything? All that was there was the initial construction of non military commercial bases. There was nothing to spy on.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:33:31
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Daryll Bolinger wrote:

> ....I just reread in a letter from Goerner to Leo Bellarts dated Dec
> 20, 1961 quoting Goerner;  "We know as a positive fact that the
> Lockheed had sufficient gas for twenty-four to twenty-six hours
> aloft...The planning for that 2556 miles flight is containted in
> Amelia's notes which were shipped back to the United States from
> Lae.  She had figured her fuel consumption to give her at least six
> additional hours to make a landfall if Noonan's navigational
> abilities did not bring the plane dead center to Howland.."

Daryll, the Lockheed Electra required .047 pounds of fuel to create one BHP. That is set in concrete. Nothing could change that.

The Daily Express averaged 48 GPH configured the same as #1055 over the same flight time. It also had Cambridge fuel analyzers and fuel was quite critical as evidenced by the pilot landing early just to dip the tanks.

Do you actually think Amelia reported low fuel with 6 hours of reserve?

I have the operating charts for the plane and Kelly Johnson's test flight data on a 16,500 pound model E.

I assure you her plane functioned just as it was designed.

Any plane can be powered back to remain airborne far longer than normal but that cannot extend range. Only loiter time. The plane goes far slower for that longer time.

Goerner's comments are pure nonsense.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:33:53
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

As an after thought, Jim, had AE flown up to Truk and across the Marshall's she would have hit empty tanks about 100 miles short of Mili. In other words it would have been designed as a suicide mission. Hardly likely.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:05:16
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Marshall islands

> They [the Japanese] had no reason to capture
> AE or FN.
>
> Alan

Not unless they thought that FN might have some useful information re: Pan Am's Pacific routes.  And don't forget that the Japanese were masters at creating hoax radio traffic to mask their ship movements as happened during the days leading up to Pearl Harbor.

LTM (who had no use for radio traffic herself)
Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:30:13
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Marshall islands

Given the financial benefits of publishing sensational wartime secrets, never mind human nature:

If FN and AE had been captured for Pan Am route info or whatever else, what are the odds that after 70 years...

* None of the Japanese involved would have gotten around to mentioning it

* No trace of the somewhat valuable, captured and sequestered Electra would turn up

* No other artifacts or verifiable documents would appear

About nil, never mind they couldn't possibly have reached the Marshalls and were definitely heard in the near vicinity of Howland island.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:30:36
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

Good thoughts, Eric, but I doubt PanAm's routes were anything but public knowledge. All the routes and times had to be public and available to anyone who wanted to travel.

I don't know anything about Japanese radio traffic hoaxes but I can easily understand how they would want to keep their ship movements secret as did our Navy.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:21:25
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: books

For Karen H.

Thanks so much, but if you like send me your email address so I can give you my thoughts on Keyser, As I understand it, he had some screwy ideas on the disappearance.
Ron Bright
brightaway@aol.com
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:22:08
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 281  message

For Paige M.

I certainly agree with Miller that the 281 msg did not come from AE at Gardner. And strickly from a technical standpoint.

I depend on the Tighar radio authority Bob Brandenburg. He wrote in 2001 in the TIGHAR 8TH EDITION, his conclusion, Chapt V., sect A, page 11, under summary.

"This analysis (his computer modeling) has shown that the signals intercepted by Achilles on 3 July 37 and the "281" message intercepted by Navy Radio Wailupe on July 5th, could not have orginated at Gardner Island."

Brandenburg believed however that the signal received on 3 July by Nauru could have orginated from Gardner Island.

I suggest that tbose interested in his analysis check it out, it is far too complicated to post here. I haven't seen any corrections, but I assume here that his analysis remains valid.

And Capt W. Thompson also felt that the ITASCA should have also received the 281 signal, being much closer, but didn't.

Maybe AE transmitted it from another island or reef, or water, but not from AE on Gardner.

Brandenburg also commented on the PAA station's reception at Mokapu of four dashes in immediate response to KGBM's request for dashes on 5 July 0630 GMT. He  concluded that they too could not have originated from Gardner from NR 16020.

LTM,

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:22:50
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: 281 message

> 2. Their radio was modified to send CW and MCW. If my terminology
> is  correct CW (morse code) will travel farther than MCW (voice).

According to everything I have seen relating to modifications to AE's transmitter, it WAS NOT capable of sending MCW, or tone modulated telegraphy.

It had been modified to send CW, or regular on-off unmodulated keyed-carrier telegraphy.

In order for the radio to send MCW, there would have to have been some sort of tone oscillator circuit incorporated into the modification.  The material available to me does not show any such circuit.

Yes, regular plain old CW will "reach" further than voice or MCW.  As a matter of fact, MCW is the same thing as AM voice, except that a single tone modulates the signal instead of a voice signal from a microphone.

Again, this radio could not be used to send MCW, if the diagrams I have seen are accurate.  I believe they are indeed accurate.

We have been over and over and over this, time and again.  I think we need to convene a midnight meeting of SPADE (Society for Prevention of Abuse to Dead Equines).

73
Mike Everette
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:23:18
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: 281  message

Comments on the "281 Message"

Larry Turner:

> All anyone would have to have is a simple little chart of the code
> system

We don't know if AE had one. We do know she had a preference for voice broadcasts, despite the fact that the convention in 1937 was that almost everyone broadcast in code. Thus, I cannot imagine after 3 days of being stranded on a deserted island, that AE would make a decision to use a different mode of communication, one that requires a higher level of mental clarity and mental effort.

Daryll Bollinger:

> Noonan would have tapped out the message, not Amelia.

Why do you say that? What is the evidence that Noonan was any more competent that Earhart at Morse code?

> Waliupe was at least in 1934 a Navy OP-20-G intercept  station.

That does not explain why the message was heard in Hawaii and not places closer. Just because Navy Radio Wailupe may have had the most sophisticated equipment available at that time might explain why they heard the message ... it does not explain why Itasca did NOT hear the message.

Eric Beheim:

> Not unless they thought that FN might have some useful information
> re: Pan Am's Pacific routes.

So you are saying they would go through the effort of kidnapping AE to obtain publicly available information?

> And don't forget that the Japanese were  masters at creating hoax
> radio traffic

If indeed the Japanese created hoax messages in WWII and just before Pearl Harbor, it is because they knew what was about to happen AND they had the proper equipment in place to create those hoax messages. This clearly was not the case in AE's situation.

I find it absolutely astonishing the lengths people will go through to justify a "captured-by-Japanese" hypothesis. They have to know in advance that AE will not find Howland and then create hoax messages (why?) so they could capture her (how did they find her?) to find publicly available information. Astonishing.

Eric, a simpler theory explains the messages that were heard by Itasca, Achilles, PAA Mokapu and others. This simpler theory fits all the evidence.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:48:16
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Marshall islands

For Eric Blenheim

Pan Am's plans for establishing routes across the Pacific were well known. They may not have been known to the public at large but they were known to anyone who was in the aviation business. They were not secret. Anyone who cared to read aviation publications of the day can find all the information he wants. I have quite a few on my table by the way. They date back to 1937. I find all the information I want in them. What else would the Japanese have wanted ? If they wanted to know what Pan Am's plans were all they had to do was subscribe to specialized publications... Even daily papers were reporting on Pan Am's endeavors. In the 30s everybody knew about Pan Am's Sikorsky and Martin flying boats crossing the Pacific to New Zealand and to Hong Kong. What I want to say is that there was no need for the Japanese to believe Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan knew anything more about Pan Am's plans than anyone else.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:24:32
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: 281  MESSAGE

Ron Bright correctly cites my conclusions in the 8th Edition of the TIGHAR Earhart Project Book, regarding  signals heard by Achilles, Wailupe and Mokapu.   However, he incorrectly assumes that the analysis leading to those conclusions remains valid.

The conclusions reported in the 8th Edition were based on research conducted through about mid-2000.   However, research during the 5 years since publication of the 8th Edition led to new data showing, inter alia, that the signals cited by Bright could have originated at Gardner Island.   The details will be in the forthcoming TIGHAR book.

I hasten to point out that the new findings do not prove that the signals originated at Gardner, but merely establish that they could have orignated there.

LTM,

Bob Brandenburg, #2286
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:31:41
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Morse code

We are never going to resolve the Morse code issue. I flew in the days of ADF and had a class in Morse code. I never used it. I never had such equipment in my planes. Had I ever needed to send Morse code I could have done so. It isn't difficult. We had little charts of the code in our planes and in materials we always carried.

There is no reason to believe AE and FN did not KNOW the code whether they were proficient in sending or not. You can't fly all over the world listening to the radios and not know the Morse code. You heard it constantly and not just "A" and "N" but most all the letters as stations identified themselves.

Now this is an entirely different issue than whether they could send code proficiently. I would guess they couldn't but they had to know it and if necessary they could scribble out a coded message or just look at a chart and send. Personally I think that is unlikely but not impossible.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 5 Feb 2006 18:12:01
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Marshall islands
 
HOW ABOUT NAVAL SHIPPING AND CONSTRUCTION?

ALAN, I AM READING A INTERESTING BOOK "COMBINED FLEET DECODED"BY JOHN PRADOS AND THERE IS A REFERENCE ON P 93&94 TO AMELIA'S TRIP. MAKES FOR SOME INTERESTING READING ALTHOUGH DRY SOMETIMES.SINC I JUST RETIRED AGAIN I HAVE MORE TIME ON MY HAND.

JIMBO
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:32:17
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 281 message

For Bob B.

I noted in my message that I hadn't seen any corrections so assumed that your analysis was still valid. I didn't know you were reworking those analyses. We are anxious to see what errors were made, and the corrections, that  apparently make it possible for the signals to have originated at Niku.

What is your take that the signals received at Mokapu, Wake and Midway, could have originated from Gardner?
Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:33:03
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Bob Brandenburg writes:

> ... research during the 5  years since publication of the 8th
> Edition led to new data showing,  inter alia, that the signals
> cited by Bright could have originated at  Gardner Island.

Bob, does your research indicate why this message was not heard by other listening stations, most notably, Itasca? (Or am I wrong, did Itasca hear it?) I guess I am asking about this "radio skip" phenomenon -- is it within reason to think that Itasca would not hear it and PAA Mokapu would not hear it, but three Navy Radio Wailupe operators do hear it?

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5@rochester.rr.com

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, 6 Feb 2006 11:11:58
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: 281  message

Don't forget,  it was heard in Oakland too.  But that guy heard something about  "Drifting Northwest,"  and  "motors sinking in water", in addition to the 281 north Howland thing.  At least that's what the paper says.

Don Jordan
Cal City, CA
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:12:23
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Read the book.

Bob

> From Ron Bright,
> For Bob B.
>
>    What is your take that the signals received at Mokapu, Wake and
> Midway, could have originated from Gardner?
> Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:29:22
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Masters??
 
Eric Beheim said:  "And don't forget that the Japanese were masters at creating hoax radio traffic to mask their ship movements as happened during the days leading up to Pearl Harbor."

Eric, I think you've been watching too much TV lately. :-)

Just because someone accomplishes a task, i.e. moving large objects with out being seen, does not make them "masters" of that action. Yeah, they did it when they attacked Pearl Harbor and again when they invaded Alaska.  But then I guess we were masters also, because no one saw us coming until the last minute when we showed up at Midway in June, 1942, again in the English Channel in June, 1944, the invasions of the North Africa, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, Okinawa, etc. etc. etc.

It is misuse of the language in overstatements such as calling the Japanese "masters at creating radio hoax traffic" that incorrectly empower persons and objects with attributes they do not possess. This type of hyperbole is the life blood of the conspiracy crowd because their logic is: these people were masters of (blank), therefore we can reasonably assume (blank) suchandsuch.  I forget the Latin (I received only a C-) for this type of logic, but it encourages sloppy thinking.

I know this is picking nits, but if I've learned nothing in the 15--20 years I've been associated with TIGHAR it is that picking nits is where it's at.

LTM, who is nit free today
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:57:34
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 281 message

For Bob Brandenburg,

When is the book to be published? Will the signals origin include Almon Gray and C. Hills work re the Marshall Island convergence? I know, "read the book".  I can't wait!

R.Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:38:22
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: PanAm routes, etc.

The idea that AE and FN spent their last days in territory controlled by the Mikado is not high on my list of possible scenarios of what happened to the world flight.  As stated in the article I wrote for Naval Aviation News, I am of the opinion that AE and FN landed on Gardner Island and lived there for a time as castaways.   I don't rule out the possibility that the Japanese were keeping tabs on the world flight.  Given all the U.S. Government support that AE received (the use of U. S. military airfields, the building of a runway on Howland Island, etc.)  Japanese intelligence might well have attached greater significance to the world flight than it actually warranted. (Right at the time it took place, Japanese troops were within days of moving into China, and Tokyo was undoubtedly a little paranoid about any possible foreign interference.)  As for the Pan Am routes, it has already been discussed on this forum that foreign Governments often subsidized the development of commercial aviation routes.  If the Japanese believed that the U.S. Government was somehow involved in developing Pan Am's routes, they might also have been curious as to whether or not these routes had any military significance over and above what was public knowledge.

LTM (who had no military significance whatsoever)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:06:33
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: 281 message

I'm not the right guy to ask about the book.  Ric Gillespie is the author.   Best I can tell you is that the book will be published when it's published, and will contain what it contains.    I assume TIGHAR will issue a statement when the publication date is firm.

Bob

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

Yes, TIGHAR will. Nothing is certain in the publishing business but they are now back to talking about next fall.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:18:26
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Book date
 
Pat wrote: "Nothing is certain in the publishing business but they are now back to talking about next fall."

Pat; by this, do you mean Fall '06 or Fall '07?

LTM

Alfred Hendrickson #2583

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

Fall 2006 is what they are talking about right at the moment.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:04:15
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Masters?

Dennis, I passed on Eric's comment about the Japanese being masters of radio hoaxes but it would be interesting if Eric could provide examples of these masterful radio hoaxes. Just because they were able to move ships certain distances without everyone knowing speaks more of the fact no one had any way of monitoring ship movements in 1937. no satellites, no AWACs, etc.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:25:58
From:         Danny Brown
Subject:      Literary Guild

I apologize for taking so long, but I finally got around to joining the Literary Guild. I just sent my $100 donation via the webpage. I'm enjoying the forum and am looking forward to the book.

LTM (who, unlike her son, took care of business on time)
Danny Brown
#2426

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

Thanks so much, Danny. The book proceeds apace; Ric is now working on the chapter that covers Betty's notebook.

If anyone wishes to follow Danny's wonderful example, here's the link:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/guild.htm

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:26:52
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Morse code

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> There is no reason to believe AE and FN did not KNOW the code
> whether  they were proficient in sending or not. You can't fly all
> over the  world listening to the radios and not know the Morse
> code. You heard  it constantly and not just "A" and "N" but most
> all the letters as  stations identified themselves.

How true!

If you listen to the same ID letters sent over-and-over from a NDB, picking out the letters from a chart is pretty much a no-brainer.

Note well:  There is a HUGE difference in sending Morse, and RECEIVING it.

Anyone can "send Morse" just by looking at a chart.  It's kind of like plunking out a tune on the piano, one note at a time.  Making music, however, is altogether different.

Receiving a text message is much more difficult than decoding NDB or VOR identifiers.

Been there, done that, got a closet full of shirts.

73

Mike E. (Amateur Extra ham ticket, Radiotelegraph Second Class
commercial license, "a little" experience )
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:27:14
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Masters?

I fully agree with Alan Caldwell who states the Japanese were able to move ships across the ocean without anyone moving because they kept absolute radio silence. There was no way of knowing if and where enemy ships were when the did not transmit. therefore in wartime all ships kept radio silence. For that reason throughout WW II the British, the Americans, the Canadians and the Germans sent out recce planes to patrol the ocean, initially flying boats but later switched to B-24 Liberators and Focke Wulf FW-200 land planes because of their greater endurance. And let's not forget ship born airplanes like F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat and the vintage Swordfish biplanes operating from escort carriers (which were actually converted tankers used as stopgaps and carrying their airplanes on deck). One historic example of how things went was the sinking of the Bismarck as late as 1941. When she sailed from her hiding place in a Norwegian fjord the British were informed by Norwegian resistance but they had no way of knowing where she went because she did not transmit a single message. She was eventually sighted by a RAF Catalina flying boat (known as a PBY in the US Navy). Throughout WW II the Germans were very active over the Atlantic and the Mediterranean patrolling the sea lanes to detect Allied convoys, using their long range FW-200. They would signal convoy positions to HQ, which would inform the U-boats waiting on the high seas, each in preplanned sectors. Radar came into use in naval warfare rather later in WW II, however playing a decisive factor in 1943. By the way, the Italians lost control of the Mediterranean because their navy lacked radar. That's why they kept their capital ships in harbor most of the time. Coming back to Dennis' remark, in 1937 -and as late as 1943- finding a ship at sea was sheer luck and it was still no simple matter thereafter with airborne radar because of its limited range.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:27:43
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Masters?

Dennis is right about the Japanese able to move fleets about without anyone knowing because the ships kept radio silence. So did the Allies throughout the war. By the way, the 4,000 Allied ships used to invade Normandy on D-Day crossed the Channel in absolute radio silence while British aircraft bombed all known German radar station along the coast as they had been doing for days and misleading remaining German radar flying Lancaster and Stirling bombers at low altitude throwing out "window" strips over the sea to make German radar believe something was going on to the North. At daybreak the Germans were surprised to see 4,000 ships offshore which they had not seen coming and a first wave of 100,000 US, British and Canadian troops stormed ashore (in that order because of the different tides at their beachheads), not to mention US paratroopers of the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions and the British airborne infantry of 6th Airborne division landing in pitch dark in their gliders behind German lines. All this was done without any help of radio signals.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:01:15
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Marshall islands

Eric Beheim writes:

> The idea that AE and FN spent their last days in territory
> controlled  by the Mikado is not high on my list of possible
> scenarios of what  happened to the world flight.

Then, Eric goes on to give a rationale for the Japanese actually capturing AE. Not once does he answer the question I asked about how the Japanese found AE, nor does he give an answer to why the Japanese created hoax messages. I would also like to know how the Japanese created hoax messages heard by Itasca, Achilles, PAA Mokapu. (I note in contrast that one thing that is particularly admirable about the TIGHAR theory is that it proposes a plausible mechanism on how AE would wind up on Gardner Island; I would find Mr. Beheim more believable if there was a plausible mechanism proposed by which the Japanese could have found AE or could have broadcast hoax messages). I hope Mr. Beheim will explain these points in his future posts.

> I don't  rule out the possibility that the Japanese were keeping
> tabs on the  world flight.  Given all the U.S. Government support
> that AE received  (the use of U. S. military airfields, the
> building of a runway on  Howland Island, etc.)  Japanese
> intelligence might well have attached  greater significance to the
> world flight than it actually warranted.   (Right at the time it
> took place, Japanese troops were within days of  moving into China,
> and Tokyo was undoubtedly a little paranoid about  any possible
> foreign interference.)

Once again, I am astonished, as I find this almost beyond belief. The other day, Eric told us that we learn that AE might have been captured by the Japanese so that the Japanese could find out information about PAA. Now, he implies that the Japanese wanted *military* information from AE. He implies that just because the military helped AE, they also gave her militarily useful information. I think there is a wide gap between helping and providing military information. You can easily do one without the other and I can think of no reason why the US Military would give AE this information as they were helping her in her world flight. Perhaps Mr. Beheim could clear up that issue for us, what is the rationale for the US Military to give AE militarily useful information.

Now, it is indeed true that a few days after AE disappeared, there was a battle between the Chinese and Japanese forces which many people think was the beginning of the Sino-Japanese war. But Japan had occupied regions surrounding China (Manchuria, Chahar Province and so on) years earlier so the military tensions were not new. Here is the most astonishing thing to me ... after all these years of military tension, the Japanese would divert their attention from China to follow an unarmed aircraft, manned by non-military personnel, around the world. And I note that unarmed aircraft made no attempt to conceal its location or its planned route, nor was it going to fly anywhere near Japanese territory! I would have thought that if they were about to invade, all of their attention would be focused on the Chinese, not this unarmed and non-military aircraft whose flight plan didn't come near to Japanese territory. But that's just my opinion of what the Chinese would be focused on -- and you can mark me down as "astonished" by Mr. Beheim's assertion.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:08:07
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Masters?

Paige Miller wrote:

> if Eric could provide
> examples of these masterful radio hoaxes

It is general knowledge that when the Japanese task force set sail for Pearl Harbor, many of the radio operators stayed behind in Japan and continued to send dummy radio traffic to give the impression to anyone who was listening that their aircraft carriers were still in home waters, carrying out normal operations.  The use of the ships' actual radio operators to send this dummy traffic was particularly clever, since it is possible to identify individual operators by the way they send Morse code.  Some of this dummy traffic was actually picked up by the task force while enroute.  Since strict radio silence was being observed, at least one of the communications officers was chewed out before they realized what they were hearing.

Now, I'm not saying that the Japanese were responsible for any of the hoax radio traffic that was picked up at the time AE disappeared.  I only mention it because they were capable of  creating such traffic to mislead U.S. military listening posts.

LTM (who never misled anyone)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:47:35
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Innuendo
 
Eric Beheim said:  "Now, I'm not saying that the Japanese were responsible for any of the hoax radio traffic that was picked up at the time AE disappeared.  I only mention it because they were capable of  creating such traffic to mislead U.S. military listening posts."

So why did you tie them together in the same sentence, Eric, if you didn't want your readers to come to the conclusion you wanted or to plant the idea that the Japanese were in some way involved?

"Now I'm not saying Joe Smith stole the money.  I only mention it because he was capable of doing it."  See how that works?

LTM, who is always capable
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:47:50
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: 281  message

For Ron Bright

A while back I believe you stated that you had a copy of the USS Swan's ( AVP-7) deck log is that correct?

Respectfully,

Tom Strang    #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:02:40
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Marshall islands

For Paige,

RE Eric Beheim's theory of Japanese "hoax msgs",etc

One needn't look any further for "proof" as furnished by Henri Keyser-Andre. (Thanks to Tighar member Karen Hoy who sent me his book)

Andre says he, like Ric G., "unraveled the puzzle" by putting the pieces together. According to Andre,  the Japanese had trained two Japanese intelligence officers to speak "colloquial English" , put them on the island of Nonouti (Gilberts). There they  sent up "fake radio msgs" to lure Earhart to Nonouti rather than Howland. So think they were at Howland, AE landed the Electra, low on fuel, close to Nonouti's shore, where they were captured and slain. The Electra was then crated and shipped back to Japan for inspection. [Chapter 26, "Age of Heroes", 1993 , with Hy Steirman]

Maybe this is where the fake "hoax msgs " came from!!!

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:19:55
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Deck log of Swan

For Tom Strang,

Yes I have the deck log for the USS SWAN (AVP7) , the seaplane tender. She was ,attached to PATWING TWO. The log is f rom 1 July  to 4 July. Interestingly, on 3 July , 0945, Patrol Plane 6-P-3 passed overhead enroute to Pearl Harbor. (She was underway on 215 mag and 222 T about that time, heading for Howland.

The April 1939 log of the Swan is more interesting. She steamed from Hawaii south to Howland, then to Baker, then to Canton where she launched a seaplane to continue aerial photo  mapping. Landed in the lagoon at Canton.

The Swan then went to Sydney Island, with the USS Pelican. Photo flights over Sydney also.

28 April 39, while at anchor, 1800 , Mr Gerald Gallagher, Territorial Representative of the British Government, arrived for dinner.  At 2100 Mr Gallagher left the ship.

  From there they went down to Hull Island for photographic flights.

( PS No mention by Gallagher of seeing Earhart!!!}

LTM,

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:02:31
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Swan's guest
 
Ron Bright said: "28 April 39, while at anchor, 1800 , Mr Gerald Gallagher, Territorial Representative of the British Government, arrived for dinner.  At 2100 Mr Gallagher left the ship.  From there they went down to Hull Island for photographic flights. (PS No mention by Gallagher of seeing Earhart!!!)"

Very interesting, that's the first time I've heard that.  I'd thought Gerald would've been all a twitter to talk about what he found on Gardner. I forget, was there an official word from London that the PISS staff NOT discuss what Gallaghar found, or was it just an unspoken order from the PISS high-commissioner?

LTM, who wishes Gerald had survived
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:41:27
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Swan's guest

For Dennis O. McGee

In April of '39, Gallagher hadn't yet found anything, and he was residing on Manra (Sydney), whence he reported the visit by Pelican and Swan to the Resident Commissioner, G&EIC.  He had spent only a day or so on Niku in all his time in the Phoenix Islands; it wasn't till August '40 that he moved to Niku, and learned of the bones discovery that had taken place some months earlier.

LTM (who'd be satisfied with finding Gallagher's papers)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:42:57
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Swan's guest
 
> From Dennis O. McGee
>
> Ron Bright said: "28 April 39 ..."
>
> Very interesting, that's the first time I've heard that.  I'd
> thought Gerald would've been all a twitter to talk about what he
> found on Gardner.

I'm not sure that the colony was even in operation in April, 1939.

The bones were found in the spring of 1940.

They were shipped to Fiji in 1941.


> LTM, who wishes Gerald had survived

Amen.  Or that his heirs had kept better track of his diary and photo album!

Marty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:04:54
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Swan's guest

Huh? Why all the surprise at Gallagher not chatting about Earhart's bones onboard the USS Swan on 28 April 1939?

This was way over a year before he even found the skeletal remains. His first report to his superiors about it was on 23 September 23 1940.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:03:04
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

re Gallagher's dinner conversation aboard the SWAN

Tell you the truth I was kidding when I threw in the notation that Gallagher didn't mention "Earhart", or it wasn't noted in the deck log.  Of course the bones hadn't been found until much later, but the possible landing of AE at Niku was surely known to Gallagher.

In retrospect, Gallagher was on  the USS SWAN a Navy ship that participated in the Earhart flight plans, and search, and it would be natural for the Swan personnel to make an inquiry with Gallagher about finding any signs of "habitation" after 1938 or specific evidence of Earhart or a castaway when he visited Niku.

They may have or may not have occurred, but unless we talked to the CO, we will never know. Any conversation around the loss of Earhart in 1937or his thoughts probably woudn;t be in the deck logs.

Maybe Tom King knows this, but by April 1939, Gallagher would have known about the suspected Niku landing place. And was this Gallagher's first contact with the Navy in an official capacity.

REB
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:08:29
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

For  Ron Bright,

Thanks for the response Ron. My interest in the USS Swan's (AVP7) deck logs revolves around the 5 July 1937 "281 Message" and subsequent area search. Did USS Swan (AVP7) participate in the search? If you do not have the Deck logs beyond the 4th. of July 1937 period then that leaves a black hole in the thread I'm pursuing.

Mr Gerald Gallagher I think had not found "them bones" yet, but the visit to the Swan may have influenced his perception of those bones at the later date of discovery.

Before I go, one more question. You state at" 0945  3 July Patrol plane 6-P-3 passed overhead enroute to Pearl Harbor", was there an earlier reference in the Swan's Deck log concerning the outbound flight leg from Pearl of Patrol plane 6-P-3?

Respectfully,

Tom Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:08:54
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

Crews typically rotate on and off Naval ships, and only the officers were probably having dinner with Gallagher.  I'd imagine very few if any of the officers were on the Swan back in 1937.  It's worth checking the rosters, however (look at the first of each month).

======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:17:55
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

For Ron Bright

It's interesting to learn of Gallagher's dinner aboard Swan, and one can certainly speculate that What Happened To Earhart may have been among the topics of discussion, particularly given Gallagher's own background as a pilot, but I think it's a bit much to say that "by April 1939, Gallagher would have known about the suspected Niku landing place."  I don't know of anybody who actually SUSPECTED in 1939 that Earhart had landed on Nikumaroro.  There had certainly been more than suspicions that she'd gone down the 157-337 line into the Phoenix Islands somewhere, but in theory this possibility had been carefully checked out by USS Colorado, whose search had provided no support for it.  And the radio messages that had at first been taken to give weight to the Phoenix Islands hypothesis had been dismissed as a bunch of hoaxes.  And almost two years had passed with no widely reported sign of anything to suggest that AE and FN had done anything but plopped into the ocean.  While a landing on Nikumaroro might have been a subject for speculation, it can hardly be characterized as anybody's suspicion.  Recall that as soon after the disappearance as late 1937, Eric Bevington and Harry Maude could visit Nikumaroro without -- apparently -- the thought ever crossing their minds that they might run into Earhart's remains there.

LTM (who still would like to have been a fly on the wall of the Swan's officers' mess)
TK
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:18:15
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      That explains it!

Marty Moleski said:  "The bones were found in the spring of 1940. They were shipped to Fiji in 1941."

Yeah, I guess that would explain why Gallagher didn't mention them in 1939.  DUH! (in conjunction with a self-administered dope slap to the forehead.)

Thanks Marty, also thanks to Tom King and William Webster-Garman for their input.

LTM, who is occasionally slow on the uptake
Dennis McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 

Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:18:36
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Masters?

Eric Beheim continues his stream of irrelevant and incorrect statements:

He says:

> Paige Miller wrote:
>
>>> if Eric could provide
>>> examples of these masterful radio hoaxes

I most certainly did not say that. Please attribute your quotes properly.

> It is general knowledge that when the Japanese task force set sail
> for Pearl Harbor, many of the radio operators stayed behind in
> Japan  and continued to send dummy radio traffic to give the
> impression to  anyone who was listening that their aircraft
> carriers were still in  home waters, carrying out normal operations.

None of this is relevant. The post-loss messages we are discussing were voice (or empty carrier) heard strongly by Itasca, less strongly by Achilles and even less strongly in Hawaii. You could not broadcast from a station in Japan and create messages with those characteristics. You still have not provided any mechanism by which a hoaxer could do so.

> Now, I'm not saying that the Japanese were responsible for any of
> the  hoax radio traffic that was picked up at the time AE disappeared.

Although you have failed to provide any mechanism for these to be hoaxes, you continue to state clearly that these messages were hoaxes. You owe us an explanation.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:11:09
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Masters

Paige Miller wrote:

>> if Eric could provide
>> examples of these masterful radio hoaxes
>
> I most certainly did not say that. Please attribute your quotes
> properly.

If I remember correctly I am the one who said that not Paige. In any case Paige is correct that Japanese radio operators staying in Japan and sending out Morse code messages is not relevant to the post loss message issue.

The Japanese were just doing what all the military did and that was to hide military movements. They were not pretending to be Earhart for whatever ridiculous reason.

Some are losing track of what we are talking about. The post loss messages were voice not Morse code and the transmitter was a woman or someone who sounded like a woman. No significant accent was mentioned. The voice was heard in the south Pacific in our area of interest.

So if you want hoaxes you have to get some woman into that area with the proper radio equipment and provide some rationale.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:35:02
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

For Tom Strang,

The deck logs are to 4 July only and she was steaming towards Honolulu. Based on that she didn't participate in any searches around Howland. No report in the log that indicates they heard the PBY outbound.

The log entries are short and sweet.

R.Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:35:21
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

For Tom KIng,

As I recall when the bones were unearthed in 1940 by the natives on Niku, the first thing that went thru Gallagher's mind was it "could be Amelia", and with that thought dug up more bones and skulls, etc. He sent them off with that caveat.

Now earlier in 1939, those thoughts about Niku must have been in his head when he had dinner aboard the Swan, especially if they had oysters!

Anyway, even if we knew both parties were aware of AE possibly landing there, it can only be cocktail speculation that they discussed the event.

Commanding Officer: By Jove Gallahger,pass me the salt, and by the way have you found any trace of Amelia?

Gallagher:  Not as yet ,but if I do I will let you know. We are always looking.

Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:53:22
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Swan Deck Log/Correction

I misread the July 4 entry. The SWAN did participate in the AE search. The entry reads:

"Enroute to Pearl Harbor to Howland Island, steering course 213..."

I misread  that the Swan was enroute to Pearl, as my copy is really faded.

An astute reseacher , Ron Reuther, caught the bearings of 213 , heading southwest, was the wrong way!

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:53:55
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Taking some heat off Eric

I'd like to take some heat off of Eric, or draw some fire away from him anyway.

The phrase "Japanese Capture" during this specific time period is ludicrous. Anyone who uses that phrase has a mental bump in the road of logic. Unfortunately I have to give some responsibility for the mental bump in the road to the early Earhart researchers. The early researchers were  World War Two veterans or had a very real life experience with WWII that could have clouded some logic. Earhart research basically started with Briand's book, a military person.

I think Amy (mother) Earhart had a truer slant of the situation when she said in the '47' newspaper article that the Japanese at first just considered them lost wayward flyers.

Their arrival in the Marshall's was a result of them having "back to the Gilbert's"[EVidal] as their plan B. No spy mission, just an accident of being lost and geography. The intention was that Noonan was going to use the Gilbert's as a synthetic porous coastline for them to find. If they ended up in the open water, 175 mile gap, between the Gilbert's and the Marshall's he would know that by shooting another LOP.

One of the reasons why this Plan B wasn't publicized was because the Gilbert's were British Territory. Even though there were radios in the Gilbert's, they were ignored by AE. Britain was a competitor for trans Pacific aviation with Pan Am which was the American airline that blocked their access to Hawaii.

Anyone, even today, who crash lands because of fuel exhaustion in the Marshall's ends up being stranded. Capture doesn't enter into this at all. I can document a small Japanese presence on Mili with the native population. What the Japanese controlled in the lost flyer scenario is communication via radio. Without getting into a discussion about the radio range of these small Japanese outposts and their abilities to communicate, everything had to go though Jaluit to find it's way back to Japan. In this initial confused time period where Tokyo wasn't controlling the local situation was when the British intercepted the "fishing boat rescue".

Well you might ask why Japan seemed to keep this rescue a secret. They followed the World Flight very closely according to the Japanese newspapers. I think they viewed the flight as a survey flight for another American Pacific Airline. The Japanese already considered Pan Am a threat to their national security and stated that as far back as 1934. There were reports of active sabotage against the Clippers in S.F. with two Japanese being arrested. I think we have to consider that in 1937 any shrinking of the Pacific by Western Aviation influences could have created a motive for the Japanese to promote the image that Flying Across the Pacific was hazardous. So hazardous that it caught and sank the American heroine Amelia Earhart.

Contrary to other researchers, I think AE&FN were ordered by our government to stay away from the Japanese Mandates for political and economic reasons of the era. Pan Am was already avoiding the Mandates as was our own Navy. In the Morganthau transcript of May '38', that was what Morganthau meant when he said that AE had disobeyed orders. By implication, he admitted she did come down in the Marshall's.

I know Alan C. will want to present his fuel calculations showing the Marshall's were out of range. But I think he will have to admit that he doesn't know the actual winds that were encountered. I will concede that only Noonan would have known the winds and their actual fuel consumption that was affected by them. It would be Noonan that would manage the aircraft's path across the surface of the earth. He would be doing that keeping in mind that he has to preserve his Plan B which they passed earlier in the flight. Alan's calculations are nothing more than what a flight plan would show. The winds and other factors were the main reasons that Pan Am had to develop "Flight Control Technics" that would control a flight's progress in real time. Like stepping on stones to cross a stream, Noonan had to do the same thing by always preserving his Plan B.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:19:13
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Taking some heat off Eric

For Daryll:

I confess I'm not reading the forum 100 per cent diligently these days, but there's an "any idiot" question I have never seen a credible answer for. (Just as people who believe they were spying never seem able to answer how they could be doing this during the hours of darkness.)

If Earhart and Noonan did come into Japanese hands, WHY would they not have been handed back? I just can't get my head round the idea that the Japanese would be so keen to show that trans-Pacific aviation was hazardous that they would actually kill a participant in it. The lessons of technology over the previous quarter-century had surely been that sooner rater than later it would become commonplace. What were they going to do, kill everyone attemping it, ad infinitum?

ltm

Phil Tanner 2276
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:51:41
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      No slack at all!

Daryll Bolinger said:  "I'd like to take some heat off of Eric, or draw some fire away from him anyway."

The only way that would happen is if you could convince Eric to come up with some proof for his theories.  Absent that, he'll just have to take the heat like everyone else has.  Everything else you said is a rehash of old stuff that has been debated here for years with most of us agreeing to disagree on the Sunk, Captured, Marshalls, Gilberts, and even aircraft-carriers-moored at Niku theories.

TIGHAR's standards have not changed.  Just show us some evidence; something approaching scientific research, any artifact remotely connected to 30s-era Lockheed aircraft, bones sonograms, photos, radar kinescopes, diaries, whatever.

LTM, a data-seeking, fact-based creature
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:57:40
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Swan Deck Log

Ron Bright wrote:

> "Enroute to Pearl Harbor to Howland Island, steering course 213..."

Doesn't that mean they were enroute to Pearl by way of Howland?

> I misread  that the Swan was enroute to Pearl, as my copy is really
> faded.
>
> An astute reseacher , Ron Reuther, caught the bearings of 213 ,
> heading southwest, was the wrong way!

I don't understand why bearing 213 was the wrong way? It IS heading southwest.

I would read that as they were in a position NE of Howland and headed 213 to Howland and then off to Pearl. Is that not correct?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:58:23
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Taking some heat off Eric

Daryll Bolinger wrote:

> I know Alan C. will want to present his fuel calculations showing the
> Marshall's were out of range. But I think he will have to admit that
> he doesn't know the actual winds that were encountered.

Daryll, it is hard to know where to start. You are correct that neither I nor anyone else knows the actual winds encountered by the Electra. However, we DO have wind reports from the Ontario, from Nauru, from Ocean Island and from the Itasca. In addition we have the weather prognosis from Hawaii. Nothing in any of those reports would have caused the Electra to be so far north of course as to be within flight range of the Marshall Islands. You might want to look at a map and you will see that the flight path from close to Howland westward to the Gilbert's would not come anywhere near the Marshall Islands nor is it likely fuel would have permitted reaching the Gilbert's.

I would also like your explanation as to how Noonan would take a sun shot on the way back to the Gilbert's with the sun behind him. If he turned the plane around to do so he would have only obtained a speed line not information as to where he was north or south on that line.

As to the rest of your posting I know of no evidence to support any contention you made.

Apparently I have missed any evidence:

1. Of a plan B
2. Of a fishing boat capture
3. Our heroes arrival in the Marshall's
4. That Gilbert Island radios were ignored by Earhart
5. Of PanAm blocking British airline access to Hawaii
6. That today anyone landing in the Marshall's are stranded
7. Of documentation of a small Japanese presence on Mili
8. That the Japanese controlled radio communication.
9. That all communications had to go through Juluit
10. That this was a confused period of time where Tokyo wasn't controlling some local situation whatever that was.
11. That Japan considered PanAm a threat to their national security and so stated in 1934.
12. That two Japanese were arrested trying to sabotage clippers in San Fransisco.
13. That Morganthau's comment about Amelia disobeying orders meant anything other than her relationship with Thompson as has been fully dealt with long ago.

Daryll, if all that is just your opinion that's fine but if you think any of it is fact it would be most helpful to everyone if you could provide legitimate support for your contentions.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:58:57
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Taking some heat off Eric

In the book, it is noted that the original plan for the world flight had Earhart doing a mid-air refueling on a flight between Hawaii and Tokyo.  Why would Earhart be talking about a flight through Tokyo if there was any doubt that she might be captured along the way?  If relations between the two countries were good enough for them to consider flying through Tokyo, then there isn't any reason to believe that Earhart wouldn't have been given back if she landed in Japanese territory.  Additionally, the Japanese must not have been all that interested in the Electra or Earhart if they might have let her fly into their capital.....

Reed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Thirty Meter Telescope Corporation Site Testing Program
1200 E. California Blvd., Mail Code 102-8
Pasadena, CA 91125
Homepage:  http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/

"This life has been a test.  If it had been an actual life, you would
   have received actual instructions on where to go and what to do."
                                  -- Angela Chase, "My so-called life"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:27:21
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

Unraveling the mystery behind the disappearance of AE and FN is not my life's work.  Nor is this forum the center of my universe.  The opinions and comments I choose to submit to the forum are my own and are formulated upon my understanding of the known facts surrounding the disappearance of the world flight along with other events that took place in 1937 and afterwards.  Nor do I consider my opinions and comments to be the only ones that should be taken under consideration.  No one knows with absolute certainly what happened to AE and FN after their last radio transmission.  Therefore no one is in a position to disparage what another person may choose to consider as being within the realm of possibility.  Until new evidence comes to light to prove conclusively once and for all whose opinion was the right one, it behooves us to keep our minds open to all opinions, even when they differ from our own.

LTM (who kept her opinions to herself)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:13:19
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Marshall islands

Eric Beheim wrote

> Therefore no one is  in a position to
> disparage what another person may choose to consider  as being within
> the realm of possibility.

With due respect to Mr Beheim, this is a familiar and mistaken assertion that all superficially attractive theories and explanations are equivalent and worthy of deference. It wholly ignores the basic scientific notion of relative probability based on a preponderance of verifiable, refutable evidence, which is how scholarly theories reach wide acceptance.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:44:36
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Swan deck log

Alan,

Yes you are correct. They were northeast, then headed to Howland to help out. Then afterwards on to Hawaii. Their homeport was Honolulu. Good thing I turned down AEs request to be the navigator on the Lae to Howland leg!

Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:46:00
From:         Hermand De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Taking some heat off Eric

For Reed Riddle

Reed,

Why would Amelia Earhart want to fly through Tokyo if the plan was to fly around the world as close to the Equator as possible ?

LTM
**************************************
That was the original plan, with a midair <gulp> refueling over Midway. This was scrapped when the possibility of an airfield on Howland, Baker, or Jarvis was floated.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:46:26
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

For Ron Bright

Understand ship log entries can at times be short and sweet. The Swan's heading you gave indicates a southwesterly direction for the ship's movement, away from Honolulu.

You stated earlier that on 3 July , 0945, Patrol Plane 6-P-3 passed over head of Swan enroute to Pearl Harbor. I'm assuming from your post that this was indicated in the deck log. Was the deck log entry a specific reference to Patrol Plane 6-P-3 or just stated a patrol plane passed overhead at 0945 enroute to Pearl?

Respectfully,

Tom Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:46:54
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Japanese capture hypothesis

Eric Beheim writes:

> The  opinions and comments I choose to submit to the forum are my
> own and  are formulated upon my understanding of the known facts
> surrounding  the disappearance of the world flight along with other
> events that  took place in 1937 and afterwards.

We are still waiting for you to state the "known facts surrounding the disappearance of the world flight" to support your "opinions and comments", facts that do not contradict other known facts or facts that do not contradict simple common sense. I have asked specific questions of you regarding your "opinions and comments", none of which have been answered.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who never could be bothered with facts)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:47:32
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: taking some heat off Eric

The reason is simple. The Japanese never had them in their hands in the first place. Period. ;-)

Chin Koon Fun

> From Phil Tanner
>
> For Daryll:
>
> I confess I'm not reading the forum 100 per cent diligently these
> days, but there's an "any idiot" question I have never seen a
> credible answer for. (Just as people who believe they were spying
> never seem able to answer how they could be doing this during the
> hours of darkness.)
>
> If Earhart and Noonan did come into Japanese hands, WHY would they
> not have been handed back? I just can't get my head round the idea
> that the Japanese would be so keen to show that trans-Pacific
> aviation was hazardous that they would actually kill a participant in
> it. The lessons of technology over the previous quarter-century had
> surely been that sooner rater than later it would become commonplace.
> What were they going to do, kill everyone attemping it, ad infinitum?
>
> ltm
>
> Phil Tanner 2276
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:54:43
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

You are exactly right, Eric. The important thing on this forum is to make it clear when something is opinion and when something is supportable fact. THAT was my complaint.

We have a lot of new people and some folks who don't keep up as well as others. When you state things apparently as facts when in truth they are merely your opinions you do a great disservice to those people. We are here to resolve issues not entertain everyone's divers and unsupportable opinions. We are trying to sort out the facts and to do that they MUST be accompanied by some rationale or other support. There is another popular forum for fringe ideas.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:55:15
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Japanese Capture Hypothesis

Paige, you and I both know there will be no facts or support forthcoming. None exists. Eric's theories are not new or original. They have been hashed about for decades and no one has ever been able to support those ideas or reconcile them with known facts. This is just a repeat of garbage that has been spewed out forever. I am always disappointed when seemingly intelligent people buy into such nonsense.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:55:57
From:         Eric Beheime
Subject:      Re: Japanese capture

Paige Miller wrote:

> Although you have failed to provide any mechanism for these to be
> hoaxes, you continue to state clearly that these messages were
> hoaxes. You owe us an explanation.

In order to fully understand my comments, it is necessary to understand U.S.-Japanese relations in 1937.  In July 1937, right at the time of AE's disappearance, the Japanese launched a full-scale invasion of China.  Unlike 1931 when they invaded Manchuria, the White House was occupied by someone who fully understood Japan's imperialist ambitions and was determined to thwart them.  Indeed, the United States responded to the China invasion by stopping the export of strategic materials to Japan.  Deprived of these materials, Japan stepped up its plans to build a self-sufficient empire through the taking over of the East Indies and Southeast Asia.  (It was these expansionist intentions that necessitated the destruction of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.)

In the spring of 1937, at the time when Japan was well along with the planning of its invasion of China, the U. S. Government set about building a landing field on Howland Island.  WE know that this was done largely to accommodate AE and her World Flight.  However, the timing of the building of this field must have raised some questions in Japan as to U.S. intensions.  (We know that they were aware of Kamakaiwi Field, since they would later bomb it.)

During her World Flight attempts, AE, a private citizen, was allowed to land and take off from U.S. military airfields, where her airplane was serviced by U. S. military personal.  WE know that this special treatment was accorded to her because of her celebrity status and her many high-placed friends in Washington.  However,  at the time, this might have raised some questions in Japan since the World Flight had little or no practical value.  (Even the idea of a woman undertaking a stunt flight for personal profit must have seemed strange to them.)

It was well known that Fred Noonan had been Pan Am's senior navigator and that he had participated in numerous long-distance test flights to such destinations as Honolulu, Midway, Wake Island and Manila. (All of which would later figure in major military actions during World War II.)  It is also well known that the Japanese used their own commercial businesses as fronts for military and espionage activities (and probably assumed that other countries were doing the same.)   While it is open to question whether or not any of the techniques FN developed for navigating long distances over open water by air were adopted and used by the U.S. military, it is not too hard to imagine that the Japanese would have been interested to know more about his work for Pan Am.

Follow the disappearance of AE and FN (two private citizens engaged in a stunt flight with little or no practical value) the U.S. Government dispatched first a battleship and then an aircraft carrier to look for them.  WE know that this was because of AE's celebrity status and her friends in high places in Washington.  But all this military support must have seemed curious to the Japanese, particularly since it took place at the time of their large-scale invasion of China.  (Whether or not the Japanese were responsible for any of the hoax radio messages that were picked up at the time of AE's disappearance is open to question.  They would later use hoax radio traffic to mask the true location of the Japanese task force that was in route to attack Pearl Harbor.)

No one knows with absolute certainty what happened to AE and FN after their final radio transmission.  Nor is it known what the Japanese thought of the World Flight or if they viewed it as something other than what it was.  The above information was provided to (a) demonstrate that the idea of Japanese involvement is not totally inconsistent with the known facts and (b) to give the "experts" (who take all of this much too seriously) something to pick apart, while providing the rest of us with some harmless amusement.

LTM (who is now more confused than ever)
Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:57:16
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Japanese capture

Phil Tanner wrote:

> ...If Earhart and Noonan did come into Japanese hands, WHY would they
> not have been handed back? .......actually kill a participant...[PT]

There were two examples, that I can think of at the moment, of people who found themselves in distress while transiting the Marshall's. Ron Bright reported on the crew who suffered a boiler explosion and were taken to Jaluit, the seat of Japanese government in the Marshall's. I related the account of two French sailors in a Chinese junk that sailed into Jaluit in 1935. The case I related, it was 15 days they were questioned. It would seem that 15 days could suggest the bureaucratic lag in communications with Tokyo in the decision making process. One of the French sailors coined the word "spionitest" to reflect the Japanese paranoia of outsiders.

I question your impression that they were killed (executed) in the Marshall's. The native Marshallese who treated a white man with head injuries and women at Jaluit would suggest that they weren't under consideration for execution. If the witnesses are correct, AE&FN would have to been picked up at Mili and transported to Jaluit. By the time they would have arrived in Jaluit (by boat with the airplane  slung off the stern), the war with China, an American ally, was underway.

Witnesses on Saipan would suggest they were brought from the Marshall's by boat. What the time-line was can only be guessed at. At what point the pair started thinking that they weren't being rescued and returned to the US fast enough is anyone's guess. The Mafia in movies were masters of schmoozing someone to gain their cooperation to take a ride down to the east river. If you hang out with those kind of people, never ride as a passenger in the right front seat.

AE&FN were a pair. It's fair to say that if something happened to one of them, it could very well seal the fate of the other.

For Alan C.

Quoting him;

> ....Apparently I have missed any evidence:
>
> 1. Of a plan B
> 2. Of a fishing boat capture
> 3. Our heroes arrival in the Marshall's
> 4. That Gilbert Island radios were ignored by Earhart
> 5. Of PanAm blocking British airline access to Hawaii
> 6. That today anyone landing in the Marshall's are stranded
> 7. Of documentation of a small Japanese presence on Mili
> 8. That the Japanese controlled radio communication.
> 9. That all communications had to go through Juluit
> 10. That this was a confused period of time where Tokyo wasn't
> controlling some local situation whatever that was.
> 11. That Japan considered PanAm a threat to their national security
> and so stated in 1934.
> 12. That two Japanese were arrested trying to sabotage clippers in
> San Fransisco.
> 13. That Morganthau's comment about Amelia disobeying orders meant
> anything other than her relationship with Thompson as has been fully
> dealt with long ago.
>
> Daryll, if all that is just your opinion that's fine but if you think
> any of it is fact it would be most helpful to everyone if you could
> provide legitimate support for your contentions.
>
> Alan [AC]

1. Eugene Vidal
2. Hirota telegram July 13, 1937 to the Japanese ambassador in London.
3. Eyewitnesses
4. Record, no radio contact while passing over the Gilbert's.
5. Record, Pan Am was against landing rights in Honolulu for the British. Honolulu was essential for a route to Vancouver which would tie the world together for Great Britain and their sponsored airline.
6.If your out of gas you're not stranded ???
7.From the French sailors who reported it to the US Navy in Hawaii in 1935.
8.The French sailors reported that any of the small islands that had a Japanese presence in the Marshall's had a radio that wasn't listed on the list of radio stations.
9.From a map of the Pacific of the network of communications, both radio and cable, in the Pacific from that time period.
10. You seem to mix the speed of modern day satellite communication with the speed of 1937 radio communications. The confused period would have ended when the Japanese governor at Jaluit would have personally ID'd the pair for Tokyo.
11.Record
12.Record
13.What "order" by Thompson was disobeyed by AE since they were never in direct communication?

If you don't trust me, Ron Bright has been exposed to these very same points with the evidence that you don't seem to know about. Does Ron B. want to challenge me on this forum about these things?

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:03:46
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Japanese capture

Eric,

Every statement you make about the Japanese says they "might have" thought something.  I could as easily argue that they "might have" thought the complete opposite thing.  When you are able to provide communications within the Japanese government or military that supports your "might have"s, then you will have a case.  Until you do so, then your arguments are worth the electrons they are sent with...they add nothing to the research in finding out what happened to Earhart in the slightest.

And, there is still the matter of the original plan to fly to Tokyo...that plan was not changed for political reasons but for logistical reasons.  The State department would not have allowed consideration of that plan if there was the slightest hint that the Japanese would have done something to them.  We have evidence that there were no objections...you need to provide counter evidence that the Japanese were interested in any way aside from the expected curiosity.

					Reed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:08:59
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Japanese capture

Eric, can you not understand that when you post stuff like this without any cites or support whatsoever you will get treated as you are?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:09:15
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Swan deck log

The Deck Log was specific in describing the aircraft. How they knew it was it , I don't know..

LTM,
Ron Bright
Bremerton
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:28:07
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Japanese capture

For Daryll re Alans challenge

I will address just one of Daryll's points..

When one reads the full  Morganthau quote, it seems to me one of the most baffling, enigmatic comments about AE's fate in the literature.

"...I know how Amelia Earhart absolutely disregarded all orders, and to release this thing , goodby Amelia Earhart's reputation....And we have to report of all those wireless messages and everything else, what that woman-happened to her the last few minutes. I hope I never have to make it public, I mean, -o,k. - Well, still if she wants it I'll tell her -I mean what happened. It isn't a VERY NICE STORY..." [ my empahsis]

I have never full understood the rationale of Morganthaus extreme concern  if he was only referring to  AE "disobeying" some radio protocol en route or Thompson's "orders" into Howland.  Did Morganthau have additional information, not public at the time re AEs fate? Was he overeacting to AEs disregard of radio procedures? Were there "orders" we don't know about? Was he given erroneous information about AEs final hous? How would "disobeying " Thompson be so damning of AE's reputation?

It remains a puzzle to me.

The rest of Daryll's survival story as described in many, many books about AEs presence in the Marshalls and the Mariannas rests on, in the end, whether you believe eyewitness accounts, often inconsistant,  trump the ditch and sink or the Niku theory. It is hard to dismiss out of hand Josephine Blanco's sighting and the video taped testimony of Amran at Jaluit.But this forum is not concerned with reviewing the other evidence, as it is focused on the Niku theory.

But that's what makes the investigation of the final hours or days of AE a most interesting pastime.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:47:56
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Ultimate fate of AE

In my posting earlier today, I did not elaborate on my previous comments regarding whether or not I believe that AE and FN ended up in the Marshall Islands.  It is my opinion, based on what I've learned from being a member of TIGHAR, that they landed on Gardner Island and eventually became food for the crabs.  (Or at least AE did.  FN, perhaps delirious from the heat and his head wound, might well have run out into the ocean and been eaten by sharks.  This might help to explain why only one skull was found.)  I do not generally believe that they made it to the Marshalls.  (What, never?)  Well, hardly ever.  The only reason I am willing to even consider this possibility is because of the cryptic hints that Fred Goerner claims he got from Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz.  (Ric once said that Goerner was an honorable man and would probably not have lied about what Nimitz told him.)  To make this all happen, someone would have had to overhear one of the distress calls, determine the point of origin, and then rescue AE and FN from Gardner and take them to the Marshalls and the Japanese authorities.  This is not outside the realm of possibility.  Consider the case of Doug Hegdahl who was one my co-workers at Naval Air Station, North Island.  During the Vietnam era, Doug was a crewman onboard a Navy vessel operating in the Tonken Gulf.  (It was his first assignment out of boot camp.) One day, during a gunfire exercise, Doug was blown overboard unconscious.  When he was discovered missing, a sea search was conducted without finding any trace of him.  He was officially listed as "lost at sea," a memorial service was held for him, and his parents were notified.  It was not until several years later that the Navy learned he was alive and in the "Hanoi Hilton."  It seems that some native fishermen spotted him in the water and rescued (not captured) him.  The fishermen turned him over to the North Vietnamese authorities, who did not initially believe Doug's story about how he happened to fall into their hands.  After making things rather uncomfortable for him for a while, they eventually installed him in the Hanoi Hilton, a very junior enlisted man among mostly college-educated flight officers.  (Had Doug died during his initial questioning, everyone would probably have gone on believing that he had been lost at sea.)  Doug was one of the first prisoners to be released.  At that time, he performed a most valuable service by memorizing the names of some 400 prisoners who were still being held captive.  Following his debriefing by U.S. authorities, the status of many an MIA was changed to that of POW.  Doug later became a staff instructor for the Navy's West Coast Survival, Escape, Resistance and Escape  (SERE) School, where aircrew personal with a "high risk of capture" are sent to learn how to survive a POW experience with honor.  Doug's story (which is well-documented) is an example of the truth being sometimes stranger than fiction, and is why I am willing to at least consider the possibility that AE and FN might not have died on Gardner Island.

LTM (who likes a good non-fiction story too)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:06:47
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Alternates?

Ron Bright said: "It is hard to dismiss out of hand Josephine Blanco's sighting and the video taped testimony of Amran at Jaluit.But this forum is not concerned with reviewing the other evidence, as it is focused on the Niku theory."

Precisely!

Let someone else work for 18-20 years, try to raise a couple of million dollars, take several trips to a crab and rat infested strip of sand in the middle of the ocean, write a book, and support themselves and spouse (and a couple of horses), set themselves up for shots from all sorts of weirdo, kooks, and ill-informed people, and through it all remain relatively sane and in good humor.

Are there any takers out there?

LTM, who's on a short fuse today
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:58:31
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Japanese capture

Daryll,

1. Eugene Vidal's uncorroborated claim that mention was made of going back to the Gilbert's is not evidence. On the first and aborted flight Noonan had underlined Enderbury Island. THAT is not evidence of an alternative but far, far better than something Vidal was supposed to have heard.

2. Why do you try to pull things like this? Do you think we are stupid. Hirota's telegram #270 was only querying Ambassador Yoshida to confirm that a London newspaper had printed a piece claiming a Japanese fishing boat had rescued the Earhart plane. the telegram is reprinted below.

July 13,1937 11:20 A.M.
To: Ambassador Yoshida, England
From: Foreign Minister Hirota
#270 ( Most Urgent )
Re: Rescue of the Earhart Plane.

The ADVERTISER here reports that they received a LONDON INTERNATIONAL NEWS dispatch at 2:00 A.M. today to the effect that a Japanese fishing boat had rescued the Earhart plane. Please verify this and confirm by return.

You knew full well what the telegram said and it is NOT confirmation, evidence or any kind of support for your claim. Also you might explain to the audience you were trying to con how a little fishing boat rescues a Lockheed Electra out of the water.

3. none of the eye witnesses told the same story. Don't hang your hat on such things.

4., 5., 11., 12. "record" hardly suffices as evidence. Get real.

6. Doesn't deserve a comment.

7., 8. You are just repeating your conclusions. Do you have no idea what cites and evidence are?

9. Cable restricts the path of communication radio does not. If you can't support something just say so instead of trying to bluff it out. you're not in the right company to succeed at that.

10. You make no sense whatsoever. you take assumptions and try to create facts out of them. Can't be done, Daryll. I didn't ask when the "confused" period ended. I asked for evidence there ever WAS a confused period. If this is just your own opinion fine but you state it as fact and as such you have to show evidence there WAS a confused period and why it was confusing. You cannot use the unsupported capture of AE in your proof.

13. Daryll, you need to read up on the conflict between AE and Thompson and you will understand what that was about. The information is all available as is most of the evidence you cannot reconcile with your theories. I don't have the time to get you up to speed.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:59:06
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ultimate fate of AE

Good posting, Eric. I spent five years in Vietnam and I can assure everyone there were more heroes than anyone will ever know about. If you don't object I'll repost the part about Doug Hegdahl to my military friends. I'm sure they would appreciate it.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:57:23
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      281 Message

Questions for all you assembled experts.

The "281 North" message was heard 5 July 1937 from 1130 to 1230 GCT.

1. Is 1130 to 1230 GCT the same as 1130Z to 1230Z?

2. What are the local times on Gardner that these would correspond to?

3. Was the moon full or nearly so at that time?

4. What light would be available to AE from the airplane, or from flashlights, during the nighttime hours assuming that the plane had landed on a tropical island?

Thanks!

Here's why I ask. If the time of the 281 North message corresponds to darkness hours on Gardner, then AE would need some form of light either from the airplane, flashlights or perhaps the moon to transmit code (which is the way the 281 North message was transmitted). I say that because since she was not well versed in transmitting code, AE would need to write her message down and then use a "translation table" to turn it into code. All of this requires a source of light. In contrast, almost no light is needed to transmit voice.

--
Paige Miller #2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:14:36
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Swan deck log

For Ron Bright

Your response solidifies a long held assumption I've had regarding USS Swan's activities during the search for NR16020.

USS Swan (AVP 7) being under the command of PATWING TWO, primary purpose was to provide service to PATWING TWO's PBY's based at Pearl. Services provided included maintance,logistics, re-supply, and communication. Basically what we term today as forward base support services. I've assumed for a long time that Swan's on scene presents was a major consideration in the quick dispatch of PBY 6-P-3.

The 3 July 0945 Patrol Plane 6-P-3 overhead entry in Deck log suggests communication between Swan and 6-P-3 crew. Also suggests explanation to solving difficult navigational problems encountered by the crew of PBY 6-P-3.

Communication between AVP's and PBY's were by code in 1937. I have never found any reference to voice communication before 1940.

Appreciate your response Ron, fills a hole.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang  # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:15:05
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Left-right---left-right

Alan Caldwell said to Daryll:  "Eugene Vidal's uncorroborated claim  . . . . is not evidence.  . . . . Noonan had underlined Enderbury Island. THAT is not evidence  . . . . . Why do you try to pull things like this?  Hirota's telegram #270 was only querying . . . . You knew full well what the telegram said  . . . . none of the eye witnesses told the same story . . . Doesn't deserve a comment. . . . . Do you have no idea what cites and evidence are? . . . . just say so instead of trying to bluff it out . . . .You make no sense whatsoever. . . . You cannot use the unsupported capture of AE in your proof . . . . you need to read up on the conflict between AE and Thompson  . . . The information is all available as is most of the evidence you cannot reconcile with your theories. I don't have the time to get you up to speed."

God!  Is this a great forum, or what? <G>


LTM, who loves a good fight
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:15:47
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Japanese capture

Alan C says:

> Eric's theories are not new or original.  They have been hashed
> about for decades and no one has ever been able  to support those
> ideas or reconcile them with known facts. This is  just a repeat of
> garbage that has been spewed out forever. I am  always disappointed
> when seemingly intelligent people buy into such  nonsense.

I am disappointed too, as well as somewhat annoyed. Well said!

Reed Riddle adds:

> Every statement you [Eric] make about the Japanese says they "might
> have"  thought something.  I could as easily argue that they "might
> have"  thought the complete opposite thing. When you are able to
> provide  communications within the Japanese government or military
> that  supports your "might have"s, then you will have a case.
> Until you do  so, then your arguments are worth the electrons they
> are sent  with...they add nothing to the research in finding out
> what happened  to Earhart in the slightest.

Well said! I could easily argue that it is much more plausible that they did the complete opposite thing.

Eric then goes and tells the story of  Doug Hegdahl, who disappeared overboard from his ship off the shore of Vietnam, and then was rescued by the North Vietnamese and held as a POW.

Eric, once again, provides us with a story about Hegdahl that is irrelevant and not analagous in any way to AE, and implies that what happened to Hegdahl could have happened to AE. He says, "This is not outside the realm of possibility". But of course, the situation is soooooo different than the AE situation that it doesn't provide an analogy, yet Eric, like other things we have discussed with him, can't see that it is similar to AE's situation (unless somehow AE made it to the Marshall Islands, and that's a whole 'nother argument). Why is it different? Because when Hegdahl hit the water, it was in a populated area, an area frequented by fishing boats every day. When AE came down, it was in a remote, unpopulated area, an area where no fishing boats could be found. Somehow in Eric's mind, this is a match. In my mind, there is nothing that can be learned from the Hegdahl story that can help us understand what happened to AE. (By the way, I did enjoy the story about Hegdahl, a true American hero)

Eric writes about how the Japanese must have been interested in the US Military's plans in 1937. I have no problem with that. But then he implies that the cooperation of the US military (and other government branches) somehow means that AE had militarily valuable information. Once again, I note that there is no reason to think that AE was given such militarily valuable information. I believe that such information was provided even within the military, and within the government, on a "need-to-know" basis. And without demonstrating that AE had a need-to-know, or that cooperating with AE is the same as providing militarily useful information, Eric goes ahead and assumes that AE had value to the Japanese because of her military knowledge. I say "baloney".

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:17:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 Message

Paige, GMT and Z are the same. The time at Howland was minus eleven and a half.

On the second of July the moon was 33% waning so I would guess there was little moonlight on the fifth.

Alan

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

It is worth noting that starlight alone provides a surprising amount of light out there. You can read a book by the light of a full moon.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:17:29
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Left-right

Dennis, it IS a great forum. It DOES get exciting at times but I was too hard on Daryll and I apologize to him. Daryll, is not as well informed as some of the old heads here and he is not a debater. Daryll does not understand how to properly make an argument and support it but that can be said about most folks. That takes nothing away from Daryll. AES would be a better venue for him as this forum deals with Gardner Island.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:39:39
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: Ultimate fate of AE

I don't get the logic here. You believed they landed on Gardner and did not make it to the Marshalls based on what you learnt at TIGHAR. And yet you are also willing to consider that they did not die on Gardner because:

1. truth being stranger than fiction (sometimes) supported by irrelevant information
2. "Plausible" impossibilities of someone doing something for some undetermined, unknown reason to make all that happen.
3. Goerner probably didn't lie.

This is wishful thinking within the realms of impossibility.

It does not gel with the rational approach that TIGHAR and this forum is taking based on substantiated known facts about their flight and disappearance to arrive at consistent logical conclusions as to what might have happened to them.

Sorry if my words are rather strong but I feel we should stay focussed and not stray into discussing personal opinions and unsubstantiated conjectures on the subject.

Chin Koon Fun

**********************************************************
I do agree. Let's cool it on the unsubstantiated assertions and the wilder flights of fanciful opinion.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:01:49
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: fanciful opinion

Pat T. said: "Let's cool it on the unsubstantiated assertions and  
the wilder flights of fanciful opinion."

Oh, darn!  You're such a spoil sport. :-(

LTM, who's pouting
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:45:22
From:         George Werth
Subject:      General comment

After reading the endless debate in this forum about "What Might Have Happened" I am prompted to make the following comment"

"IF IS A LITTLE WORD WITH A LONG TALE!"

George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member # 2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:45:59
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Floyd Kilts visits the forum

Had Floyd Kilts first revealed to the world his "bones" story via a posting on this forum, it is quite likely he would have received a response such as this:

"It is Mr. Kilts' contention that Amelia Earhart's skeleton was found in 1938 on Gardner Island.  He comes to us with no credible evidence and bases his assertions entirely on what "a native" told him. According to Mr. Kilts, this skeleton was found with American-made woman's shoes, size nine narrow.  Really, sir!  Do you expect us to believe that a native, who probably never wore a shoe in his life is going to be able to recognize that a shoe was made in America, that it is a woman's shoe, and that it is a size nine narrow?  But Mr. Kilts' story gets even better.  It seems that the island's magistrate "a young Irishman" put the bones into a gunnysack and, along with four natives, set off in a 33-foot 4-oared boat for Suva, Fiji. Mr. Kilts, do you expect us to believe that they intended to row a distance of some 887 nautical miles on the open ocean?  Mr. Kilts then contends that, 24 hours out of Suva, the Irishman died and that the superstitious natives threw the gunnysack full of bones overboard.  (How convenient for Mr. Kilts, since there is now no way for anyone to contradict his story!)  You can mark me down as astonished by Mr. Kilts' claims, etc., etc., etc."

I think the point here is that even the most outlandish assertion might have a grain or two of truth among the chaff, and it we could be making a big mistake by writing it off too quickly.

LTM (who never heard of Floyd Kilts)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:38:43
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Bones

Eric: written evidence exists that bones were found on Gardner. Are you aware of that?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:17:46
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Left-right

Yes, this is a great forum as to giving insight as to where forum participants are coming from in their thought processes.

But on occasion reminded of a favorite quotation - "It is useless to reason someone out of a position he has not been reasoned into".

Respectfully,

Tom  Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:44:57
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Floyd Kilts visits the forum

Eric Beheim wrote:

> Had Floyd Kilts first revealed to the world his "bones" story via
> a  posting on this forum...

I guess Eric wasn't around when news of Gallagher's wireless messages about the bones hit TIGHAR, was he?

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:46:15
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

Following up on whether any officers from the Swan in June/July 1937 and April/May 1939, reveals only one person of that rank aboard ship both times:

W.F. Dunham, the boatswain.  While technically an officer (warrant), he was not a lieutenant, and probably was not one of the officers giving a dinner for Gallagher.  Of course, we have no evidence one way or another that he talked with Gallagher, but I thank the original author for suggesting that connection of planting the seed in Gerald's mind.  We'll never know for sure.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:38:13
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: 281 message

I proposed an hypothesis that it was too dark for AE to write out a message, translate it to code, and then transmit what would be become known as the 281 North message. I then began gathering facts about this situation in order to test the hypothesis.

Alan writes:

> Paige, GMT and Z are the same. The time at Howland was minus
> eleven  and a half.
>
> On the second of July the moon was 33% waning so I would guess
> there  was little moonlight on the fifth.

So, if the message was from AE on Gardner, the message was transmitted starting about midnight, Gardner time. It sure must be dark there. But wait ... there's moonlight, there's starlight, and Pat Thrasher says:

> It is worth noting that starlight alone provides a surprising
> amount  of light out there. You can read a book by the light of a
> full moon.

So it would appear that a combination of light from the airplane, light from the moon and light from the stars would be enough to falsify my hypothesis. Darn. But that's the way these investigations go, you have to let the data drive your conclusions.

The data do not support my hypothesis that it was too dark for AE to create the "281 North" message. (This is not the same as concluding that AE did transmit the "281 North" message)

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:38:33
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Kilts

The primary difference between Kilts' story, and the Japanese capture stories, is that verifiable evidence was found that supports Kilts' statement that bones were found on Gardner. And that's all we ask of the Japanese capture proponents: provide us some verifiable evidence that supports Japanese capture.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who hated it when I wore a kilt)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:39:32
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Kilts

> Eric: written evidence exists that bones were found on Gardner. Are
> you aware of that?
>
> LTM,
>
> Alfred Hendrickson #2583

You missed the whole point of my posting.  I am well aware that bones were found on Niku, and largely because TIGHAR researchers were able to sift through the chaff of Floyd Kilt's assertions and find "the grain or two of truth."  However, had Mr. Kilts' first made his assertions public on this forum, he would most certainly have received a reply similar to the one I wrote with tongue in cheek.

LTM

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:39:59
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Kilts

> I guess Eric wasn't around when news of Gallagher's wireless messages
> about the bones hit TIGHAR, was he?
>
> William Webster-Garman

You also missed the point of my posting.  Gallagher's wireless  messsages were only found AFTER TIGHAR researchers had became aware of Floyd Kilts' account and began looking into the possibility that some of what he said might have been based on fact.

LTM

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:40:37
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Bitter Fruit

The real beauty of the Earhart mystery is that it will probably never be solved conclusively.  Therefore, the various "camps" (crashed-and-sank, Japanese-capture, Niku landing, etc.) can go on believing what they believe with little or no fear that they will ever be proven wrong. Can you image what would happen if the Electra was discovered intact on the ocean floor, or if DNA positively identified human remains that were found on Niku (or in the Marshall islands?) Hundreds of people, some of whom hold their beliefs about AE with almost religious-like fervor, would instantly see their cherished convictions (and in some cases years of hard work) turned to dust. Their shock and dismay would be akin to that of Yul Brynner's Pharaoh, who, after just having witnessed the Red Sea close and engulf his army, had no choice but to acknowledge that Mose's god was THE God.   Where the "smoking gun" suddenly dropped into my lap, I would almost hesitate to make it public because of the pain and suffering I knew it would cause to others.

LTM (who was a Ben-Hur fan, herself)

Eric

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:35:31
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Kilts

Eric Beheim wrote:

> You also missed the point of my posting.  Gallagher's wireless
> messsages were only found AFTER TIGHAR researchers had became aware of
> Floyd Kilts' account...

By your own account then, the evidence contradicts your assertion that TIGHAR would have dismissed Kilts' story. Those telegrams were found by TIGHAR members searching for documented evidence relating to Gardner island.

Remember, TIGHAR was aware that the line of position Earhart mentioned while lost near Howland happens to run within sight of Gardner. Scientific thought is all about verifiable evidence and probability,

The Marshall islands notion offers only speculation, not any known supporting evidence and its likelihood cannot even remotely be described as equivalent to the Gardner hypothesis.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:40:49
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Paige, is it possible our heroes had a flashlight? Did they exist in 1937?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:41:07
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Well, I'll answer my own question. Conrad Hubert invented the first flashlight in 1898 but I don't know if Fred had one.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:40:51
From:         Alan  Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bitter fruit

Eric wrote:

> Therefore, the various "camps" (crashed-and-
> sank, Japanese-capture, Niku landing, etc.) can go on believing what
> they believe with little or no fear that they will ever be proven
> wrong.

Eric, they also have the onus of proving their theory correct. TIGHAR is trying to do that by searching for substantive evidence. The crashed and sankers are not. I don't know how they could with over 600,000 square miles of ocean to search. If I was a crashed and sanker I would opt for a different mystery. The Marshall folks at least try. My only problem with them is they only deal with our heroes once they have them in the Marshall Islands. They can't provide a rational way to get them and the Electra TO the islands that can be reconciled with known facts.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:45:33
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Marshall Islands

I think Paige should stop CRITISIZING(sp) people like Eric. Everyone is entitled  to his or her opinion and for some people to keep harping just makes some people wonder what the Forum is for.
Jimbo

==========================================

From Pat

I quote from the welcome message which everyone receives on signing up for the Forum:

---------------
Our purpose here is to promote an intelligent and productive discussion of the Earhart disappearance.  Specifically, we want to further our investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island (now known as Nikumaroro) in the Phoenix Group.  We will not discuss conspiracy theories on this forum, nor will we debate whether the airplane crashed at sea near Howland.  We feel that we have already established a strong probability that the flight arrived in the vicinity of Howland Island pretty much on schedule and, as of the last officially received radio transmission, had adequate remaining fuel to reach Gardner Island.  The question is, did it?

Likewise, we will not discuss Earhart's personality, previous record-setting flights, love life, place in history, etc. unless it directly pertains to the discovery, verification, or disqualification of evidence relating to her disappearance.

Prior to posting messages to the forum, subscribers are urged to familiarize themselves with the evidence described on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org

We recognize that this forum is not for every Earhart enthusiast. Some may find us unsuitably irreverent or excessively scientific in our approach.  But if you're interested in hard answers instead of idle speculation, we think you'll enjoy what happens here.
----------------

OK? That's what the Forum is for. I've let this go on too long as it is. The Marshall Islands thread is now dead.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:53:45
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Howland Island

The airstrip on Howland Island doesn't seem to have been built for Earhart and there may not be much mystery as to why the US government devoted resources to helping her land there: There were plans that Howland might one day be an important stop-over on a commercial air route to Australia.

In 1935, an attempt at colonization was begun on Howland island. This was part of a larger project to establish a permanent US presence on five of the equatorial Line Islands. Howland was supplied with a rotating population of four alumni and students from Kamehameha School for Boys, a military school in Honolulu. The recruits were told, "Your names will go down in history" and that the islands would be developed into "famous air bases in a route that will connect Australia with California."

They were given large stocks of canned food, water and other supplies including a gasoline powered refrigerator and radio equipment. They were paid $3 a day and had no expenses on the island. They supplemented their diet by fishing (and also dried lots of fish to take back to Hawaii when they rotated out),

The settlement Itascatown, near the beach on the island's western side, was a line of no more than half a dozen small wood-frame structures and tents named after the U.S. Coast Guard vessel that brought them and made regular visits during that era. Similar projects were started on nearby Baker Island, Jarvis Island and two other islands.

The airstrip on Howland was named after the young leader of the first group of colonists from Kamehameha Boys School, James Kamakaiwi. It was rarely if ever used. On December 8, 1941 two colonists, Richard "Dicky" Kanani Whaley and Joseph Kealoha Keli'hananui, were killed during a Japanese air raid on Howland during which about 30 bombs were dropped by 14 twin-engined bombers, three of which later came in low to strafe Itascatown with machine gun fire. Two days later a Japanese submarine appeared off the reef in the middle of the night and after sunrise shelled tiny Itascatown into ruins. A single four-engined bomber made two more raids during January 1942.

On January 31, 1942 the two surviving colonists saw a destroyer appear on the horizon. In hiding, they warily watched a landing party arrive on the beach, thought they were Japanese and decided to give themselves up. They got to within 100 feet of them before realizing they were Americans. The two were evacuated minutes later and returned to Hawaii where they were told not to talk about their experience on Howland.

The island was occupied by the US military for the duration of the war and then left uninhabited, as were the four other islands involved in the colonizaton project.

The airstrip was heavily damaged by Japanese air raids during the war and gradually disappeared. It is not visible in high resolution satellite photos of the island and a visitor in 2000 made no mention of seeing it (or much of anything else) on the island, other than a flat plain of bulldozed coral and traces of building ruins, not even any trees.

The Earhart Light is a day beacon (or highly visible landmark) built in the late 1930s which was damaged during the war and later rebuilt and maintained for a time by the US Coast Guard. However, by 2000 photographs showed the structure to be crumbling and its bold striped paint scheme hadn't been touched up in decades.

By the 1970s the island was over-run with feral cats, descendants of individuals brought by earlier human colonists. After some effort these were eventually "eliminated" and the island is now a bird sanctuary managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (US Department of the Interior). It is occasionally visited by the US Coast Guard, scientists, authorised amateur radio enthusiasts and one can only guess who else.

Some links/citations:

http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/archives/historical/huipanalaau/end.php
(Includes a grainy photo of Itascatown)

http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/archives/historical/huipanalaau/where.php

http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/archives/historical/huipanalaau/first.php

William Webster-Garman

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

Also worth noting is the fact that no airplane ever landed on Howland. The landing strips were never used.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:46:48
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Some mis-information was provided, so let me try and clarify things.

In 1935, the Bureau of Air Commerce established colonies on Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands.  Three islands only.  The first colonists were not students from Hawaii, but rather army personnel temporarily detached from active duty.  With a 3 month stint, these men bickered among each other, and adapted poorly to the lonely environment.  The next 3 month stint, Hawaiian students were used thereafter.  Early in 1936, the colonists were pulled, as the US Gov't wrestled with how best to provide sovereignty.  FDR finally decided to put the three islands under control of the Dept. of the Interior, and Richard Black was selected to run the colonies from Honolulu.  The Hawaiian school boys were re-placed on Baker, Jarvis, and Howland.

In late 1937, the US attempted to proclaim sovereignty in the Phoenix Islands, by colonizing Canton and Enderbury.  Unfortunately, Carton was already "homesteaded" by the British, so a condominium was signed between the US and Britain sometime in 1939, declaring joint sovereignty over Canton.

The Airstrip on Howland Island was funded by the WPA, more or less for Earhart's usage (near term), and possibly cross-pacific air travel (mail) in the long term.

Baker Island was used during WWII as a emergency landing strip (matson mat
runway), but I do not know if it was populated.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:47:16
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Kilts

For Eric Beheim

For what it's worth, I understood your point, and agree with it as it pertains to Kilts.  But there is a difference between Kilts' report and your hypothesis.  Kilts was reporting some actual data, as well as a speculation about the data.  You were hypothesizing without new data -- which is perfectly all right, but not something that necessarily requires the kind of attention we've given Kilts.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:47:48
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

What were the other islands, other than Howland, Baker and Jarvis?  I think that the airstrip was "a flat plane of bulldozed coral" with no paving, and the islands did not have any trees, other than those planted by the colonists.  I believe planes did fly from Baker in WW 2.  The first paragraph is self-explanatory.  AE's landing on Howland would help establish the US claim of Howland as US territory.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:14:59
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Howland island

As far as I can determine, the airstrip on Howland was never used. The airstrip in Baker was improved in WW2, and was used to ferry aircraft.  There were barracks, so I am assuming there were some troops stationed there.  Jarvis never had an airstrip.  Besides Canton and Enderbury, the US has had designs on other Pacific islands.  Palmyra had an airbase in ww2 as well.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:13:24
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Howland island

> From William Webster-Garman
>
> The airstrip on Howland Island doesn't seem to have been built for
> Earhart and there may not be much mystery as to why the US government
> devoted resources to helping her land there: There were plans that
> Howland might one day be an important stop-over on a commercial air
> route to Australia.

I think Ric's narrative of the official Government communications (TIGHAR Tracks  V. 21 #1, May 2005) clearly shows that the runway was in fact built for Earhart, being substantially completed under heavy pressure due to her expected arrival in March of '37.  She delayed her departure from Oakland pending the completion of the runway at Howland.

The use of flying boats had already make the plans for a commercial landing field obsolete.  That justification seems to be more of a smoke screen excuse used by Vidal for building a runway for his good friend Earhart, as well as bolstering the US's colonization plans.

The fact that no aircraft ever landed there, commercial or military, shows that there was never a real need for this landing field.

LTM (who dislikes smoke screens)

Andrew McKenna
*************************
Andrew McKenna
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:24:08
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Deck log of Swan

For Randy Jacobson,

My deck log for the Swann ends on 30 April 1939, not long after Gallagher visited the ship.

I have interviewed Jerry Berger in Seattle personally, and Ric G has interviewed him by phone a few years back. Berger, now about 86 got many things confused, including which ship he was on when he visited Gardner Island in 1939. It was the Pelican, he thinks.

Anyway he and a few others went ashore in a motorboat, stayed on the Island a few hours, then returned. He "thinks" he met with Gallagher, but he can't be sure.

He turned over his scrapbook with photos of the natives and a photo of the Norwich City from perhaps 500 yards. The ship was still on the reef in fair shape.

He learned nothing about AE at Gardner, although he claims he "asked" around.

I posted a full interview of Berger and it is in the archives somewhere.

Recall also that coincidently he was an eyewitness to the March 17 groundloop in Hawaii, and was one of the first sailors on the scene. He has many photos of the Electra on the runway.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:45:17
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

For Randy Jacobson and Dan Postellon (who asked about the other islands)

No, I don't think I provided any misinformation about Howland and the Line Islands project, though in the interest of summarizing I did omit some detail and I do understand how a summary with different emphasis can at first seem like disinformation to someone who is already familiar with a topic. Also, this is not to say that my references are error free! However, most of this looks solid and verifiable to me.

The project was administered by the US dept of Commerce, Bureau of Air Commerce.

There were ultimately five islands involved (cruises 5-24), not three, although colonies were started first on Howland, Baker and Jarvis. The other two were Canton and Enderbury, beginning in 1938 
(http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/archives/historical/huipanalaau/images/cruise9-12_700.jpg).

Howland, Baker and Jarvis were all intended as potential commercial air stop-overs. The students on all three islands made hourly weather observations (once every three hours at night) and worked on building rudimentary infrastructure, including air strips.

As Capt Meyer wrote in 1936,

"The duties performed by these men are severe. Isolated on a desert island...of only a few acres is per se, a strain. Under such conditions to be faithful in recording weather observations, keeping detailed daily logs, collecting scientific specimens, cleaning landing fields, establishing effective camps, preserving food supplies and keeping up morale are real accomplishments...

"I have been intimately associated with eleven classes at the U.S. Military Academy and feel that the representatives of your school measure up to the standard of selection insisted upon there...comment by Sergeant Austin Collins...who lived three months on Jarvis Islands,' In my twenty-one years of Service in all parts of the world I have never been associated with a finer group of men."

http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/archives/historical/huipanalaau/where.php

So they were clearing airstrips on all three islands well before Oct 1936. Perhaps there was some additional WPA funding to spruce up the airstrip on Howland for Earhart, but that airstrip was planned for and ground cleared for it well before her world flight was announced.

As George West was told by Capt Meyer while cruising to Jarvis on the Itasca, " These islands are going to be famous air bases in a route that will connect Australia with California."

Meyer added, "Your first purpose is simply to live on these islands and to keep a log of the daily occurrences faithfully. Then we are requiring you to keep a daily weather report. You are to describe the cloud conditions, to read the barometer, the thermometer, and to record the wind velocity. These duties are to be done every hour during the day and every three hours during the night. You are also to find a suitable spot for a landing field, to mark the area, and to improve the field day by day. You have already received instructions for your scientific work. That you may pursue at your own leisure."

On this first cruise (with students) Meyer was referring to the first three islands, Howland, Baker and Jarvis.

A landing field was attempted at Jarvis according to West... "We also worked on the landing field, improving it at odd times."

http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/archives/historical/huipanalaau/jarvis.php

Yes, soldiers were put on the islands for the first three months but this was a very short-lived, opening stage of the project. The arrival of the Hawaiian students signaled the beginning of serious colonisation efforts.

Both Baker and Howland had small garrisons throughout the war. Baker's airstrip was matted after hostilities began, Howland's clearly was not. I've read elsewhere that the strip on Howland was bombed from time to time after Jan 42 and was definitely a mess by the end of the war. The airstrip on Jarvis doesn't seem to have ever been used either but I'm nor sure right now about that. I also don't know if Jarvis had any US military personnel stationed there after the students were evacuated. My impression is that there weren't any (but I may have simply not seen a reference to them).

Characteristic for the time, the students were supplied not only with great stocks of canned goods and other necessities, but apparently, rather vast quantities of cigarettes, courtesy of the guvmint.

LTM, who liked her smokescreens well enough back in the day

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:32:34
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Howland island

Jarvis never had an airstrip built on it, nor did the colonists ever "clear" the island for an airstrip.  I've read all of the colonist's diaries, and they do not mention such work.  Jarvis was the first island intended for an air strip by Miller, but plans were changed to Howland to accommodate Earhart.  Similarly, colonists never worked on Baker Island for a landing strip either.  I do not believe Jarvis was colonized or inhabited during WWII, let alone having an airstrip, but on that, I could be wrong.  I did not follow in detail much of the island's histories once WWII began.  No work began on any island for an airstrip until Jan/Feb of 1937, with WPA funding for Howland Island.  There were some surveying on Jarvis prior to that time, but not any clearing.

The diaries are fascinating reads.  The colonists seemed to enjoy their time on the islands, catching fish, playing football, and exploring each island. This is in stark contrast to the first settlement attempt with Army personnel, who squabbled over who's chair could be sat on, etc.  One of these days, I plan to transcribe the diaries and re-publish them in their entirety.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:32:59
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: 281 message

In the for what it's worth dept, we know there was at least one flashlight in the cockpit - there's a photo of the copilot's seat with the flashlight visible in a bracket. If I recall correctly, without getting into my archives, it's on the forward side of the copilot's control column.

BTW my renewal will be along soon.

Ltm
Jon
2266
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:33:39
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland island

More evidence that some sort of airstrip on Howland predated the notion that Earhart would want to re-fuel there (though it does appear the Navy arrived and did some heavy work with WPA funds sometime in early 1937)

Literary Digest November 7, 1936

"Baker, Jarvis and Howland already have landing areas which could be used in emergencies by land-planes, for the waters surrounding these islets are too rough for seaplanes to make a safe landing. There are no lagoons, the seas beating directly upon the shore and at some seasons landing even by boat is dangerous.

Colonizing-The Coast Guard cutter Itasca has colonized these islets with Hawaiian youths, who are busy grading landing fields with tractors, planting seeds for purple and yellow passion fruit, sea-grapes, breadfruit, Hawaiian oranges, cashew nuts and ironwoods, collecting weather data with scientific instruments and building air bases."

http://home.att.net/~higley.family/LitDig1936.htm

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:34:09
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Criticism

Jim Preston said: "I think Paige should stop CRITISIZING(sp) people like Eric.  Everyone is entitled  to his or her opinion and for some people to keep harping just makes some people wonder what the Forum is for."

Well, I think Paige should continue criticizing people like Eric . . . and me . . .  and you, if we offer idle speculation without any evidence.  Woulda-coulda-shouldas don't cut it here.  Offer some evidence here and we'll listen; offer mindless speculative chatter and we'll (actually Pat has that honor!) pull the plug.

LTM, who often worked in the dark
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:11:10
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Randy Jacobson wrote

> Jarvis never had an airstrip built on it, nor did the colonists ever
> "clear" the island for an airstrip.

Given the sources I've provided in previous posts (including the account of George West who specifically mentions working on clearing a landing field on Jarvis), there were rudimentary landing fields, and I mean "primitive," on all three islands (Howland, Baker and Jarvis) before anyone knew Earhart planned on flying through the region.

It appears the Howland island airstrip already existed in makeshift form shortly before Earhart announced her plans and was hurriedly improved in 1937, apparently by the US Navy with WPA funds, in anticipation of Earhart's arrival. It is not yet clear to me if there was more than one landing strip, accounts vary but tend to mention only one (presumably oriented at roughly 0-180¡?).

The Air Commerce bureau was a single desk division of the US Commerce Dept. In 1935 they were talking about all three islands becoming important commercial air route stop overs (common talk, it seems, about almost any island in the central Pacific back then!).

Only as an aside, my impression so far is that the four colonists were looking forward to her landing on the island as a big "first." One can only imagine the range of their feelings as it became clear the Electra wasn't going to appear.

I should mention that most modern accounts about Howland island are woefully incomplete and absolutely riddled with errors. Moreover, a couple of US government websites say Howland was used as a seaplane stop-over, an account which is likely conflated with Canton's history, since with no harbors or inlets, Howland has also been described as unsuitable for seaplanes.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:11:37
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

I didn't know you had the diaries!  I agree that not much was done on Jarvis, and as far as I can find out, it was not occupied in WW2. "Howland Naval Air Station" was originally the major field, probably because the island was already nothing much but flat coral.  Although it had the "Air Station" title during ww2, no one seems to have ever used the airstrip.  "Baker Naval Air Station was greatly improved at the beginning of WW2 (1941?), but the Japanese then retreated from the Gilberts, and it became a backwater.  Reading between the lines, the "colonists" were there to reinforce a US claim to the islands, in particular against British claims, as our old friend John Arundel had a base on Howland for his guano operations.  King "K" military school trained most of the native Hawaiians who ran anything in the colony of Hawaii.  Non-natives or part natives went to US to fine Congregationalist schools like Yale or Oberlin.

Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:34:19
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Kilts

> From Tom King for Eric Beheim
>
> For what it's worth, I understood your point, and agree with it as it
> pertains to Kilts.  But there is a difference between Kilts' report
> and your hypothesis.  Kilts was reporting some actual data, as well
> as a speculation about the data.  You were hypothesizing without new
> data -- which is perfectly all right, but not something that
> necessarily requires the kind of attention we've given Kilts.

Dr. King,

Thank you for your comments and for recognizing the point I was trying to make with my Floyd Kilts posting.  And thank you also for all of the hard work that you and your associates have put in over the years to come up with some conclusive answers regarding the Earhart mystery.  This is why I continue to support TIGHAR through my membership, through occasional financial donations, and through my membership in the Literary Guild.

The purpose of my recent postings was not to put forth a hypothesis, but to point out that, in areas where no evidence exists to prove conclusively that such-and-such did or did not happen, then all opinions are equally valid and should be accorded a certain degree of  tolerance.  (Well, maybe not the "captured-by-space-aliens" opinion.)  About all I accomplished was to demonstrate that fervent passion exists among adherents to various beliefs.

Again, thank you for taking the time to comment on my posting.

LTM

Eric

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

> You were hypothesizing without new
> data -- which is perfectly all right, but not something that
> necessarily requires the kind of attention we've given Kilts.

And while perfectly all right, we don't need to give it space on the Forum, which is a place to deal with hypotheses *supported by data.*

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:51:10
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

William, without getting into the discussion of who came first or purposes I would like to point out to everyone your posting is a fairly good example of how to post information and provide cites or support. I won't get into a discussion of the quality of cites but any reasonable cite is better than none. <G>

alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:03:24
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

> I've read all of the colonist's diaries, and they do not mention
> such work.

Randy, just in case my comments to William are read I consider the colonists diaries good cites but again don't intend to get into the  fray. the purpose of my comments were directed at those few folks you plaster us with information without giving us a clue where it came from and not being quite selective enough in the few supports offered.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:59:50
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Criticism

> if we offer idle speculation
> without any evidence.  Woulda-coulda-shouldas don't cut it here.
> Offer some evidence here and we'll listen; offer mindless speculative
> chatter and we'll (actually Pat has that honor!) pull the plug.

Right, Dennis. I don't think we are really criticizing anyone personally just their lack of understanding on how to support their ideas.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:08:06
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

> Alan Caldwell wrote
> William, without getting into the discussion of who came first or
> purposes I would like to point out to everyone your posting is a
> fairly good example of how to post information and provide cites
> or  support. I won't get into a discussion of the quality of cites
> but  any reasonable cite is better than none. <G>

Thanks Alan. As for the quality of the cites I've used, I'd call them "reasonable" but minimally complete for what I've been trying to draw from them, except that they do seem to triangulate. Most of what I've found has come from the Kamehameha Schools website (http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/), which has a fairly extensive section on the subject, including scans of original documents.

Kamehameha School at the time had a military type school for boys and was the source of the rotating colonists on Howland, Baker, Jarvis, Enderbury and Canton. I've found many other fragments (significantly the November 7, 1936 Literary Digest article saying there were "landing areas" on all 3 islands),

I was originally trying to confirm that the Howland airstrip was called Kamakaiwi Field after one of the colonists killed in 1941... and found out it definitely wasn't. Young James Kamakaiwi seems to have been "the guy to know" on Howland from 1935 to 1938 or so <grin>.

The three significant things I think I'm learning are:

* There were definite, optimistic plans and government money spent, however modestly, to develop Howland, Baker and Jarvis as "famous air bases" for commercial Pacific air traffic well before Earhart's flight was ever announced.

* There is evidence the US government had multiple and justifiable reasons (other than a purported personal relationship between Earhart and Mrs Roosevelt) to cooperate with Earhart's World Flight on Howland: They were already developing Howland into an air base, with Hawaiian colonists taking hourly weather measurements and scratching out an airstrip, when the notion of Earhart needing a refueling stop between Lae and Honolulu came up. Thus, the spending of WPA/Navy resources to (as I've read in some accounts) rapidly complete the airstrip was justified by existing government policy centered directly on their commercial aviation goals in the Pacific, never mind the competition with the British to establish a presence on those islands. The Itasca was making at least 3 stops a year at Howland in 1936-37. Finally, there is some evidence FDR thought the islands might be useful as airbases in any hostilities with Japan.

* Although we now know that, given where aircraft technology was headed, Howland would ultimately be of less-than-marginal use as any sort of an air station in the Pacific, in 1937, the World Flight, conducted in a Lockheed civil airframe, offered publicity and practical value for the US Government in relation to its Line Island "air bases" project. In this context, their consternation and expensive efforts to find her seem much more reasonable (as opposed to being the result of excessive personal/celebrity influence in the White House or some sort of secret spy mission).

Here's a New York Times article from 1936 mentioning yet another take on preparing all three islands for aircraft with no mention of Earhart (further note, contrary to what the article implies, colonization had already begun in 1935):

Coast Guard Cutter Is Taking Group From Honolulu - Isle to Be Prepared for Planes

HONOLULU, Hawaii July 25 - Heavily laden with building materials and carrying a group of new colonists chosen from personnel of the Kamehameha Boys School, the Coast Guard cutter Itasca departed yesterday for Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands. Permanent development of these tiny specks of land along the equator will be started.

Aboard the Itasca with the group of boys were W. T. Miller of the Department of Commerce and R. B. Black of the Department of Interior, who are supervising the work of colonization and establishment of permanent stations from which weather observations can be made.

The colonists took with them large quantities of seedlings and cuttings for planting ironwood, cashew, mango, breadfruit, Hawaiian oranges, passion fruit and sea grapes.

Preparation of the islands for use by aircraft will start in about three months, when the Itasca makes another voyage carrying tractors and plows, which will be used to remove bumps from the natural runways. On her present trip the Itasca is returning in one month. She is sailing again in September.

New York Times August 17, 1936
http://home.att.net/~higley.family/NYT1936.htm

Jarvis trivia:

1) After reading two colonist accounts, my impression is that the reef was utterly infested with man-eating sharks!

2) In 1958 an American biologist arrived on Jarvis and described an intact "ghost town" left by the 19th century guano diggers, along with the remains of "Millersville," which the colonists had lived in from 1935 to early 1942. By the time he left, according to his account, immense waves had removed all trace of both the guano settlement and Millersville.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:46:36
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Kilts

I actually kind of like the "captured by space aliens" hypothesis, but have no idea how to test it.

LTM (who sometimes feels spacey)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:47:42
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Fanciful writing.  By the end of 1936, there were plantings of coconut trees and some small bushes, but not oranges, cashew nuts, ironwoods, seagrapes, breadfruits, or passion fruits, etc.  Nor were there any tractors or graders on any of the islands.

One thing that historical research leads one to is: don't believe everything you read in the media/press.

The account by George West is incorrect; what can I say?  I have copies of the colonist's diaries which clearly state no such work was performed.  At best, a rudimentary layout of possible airstrips was made on Jarvis, but again, no clearing was made.  If West believed a plane could land on any of the islands in their condition at the time, it would be only in dire emergency, and no plane could reasonably take off again, due to lack of grading.

I believe Mr. West was exaggerating or hyperbolizing what actually happened. He only went to Jarvis Island once, while many of the colonists went several times.  The time was 15 June to 14 Sept 1935.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:48:31
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Randy wrote:

> I've read all of the colonist's diaries, and they do not mention such
> work.

The Airfield on Jarvis Island

From the first official colony log, kept by the Hawaiian students on Jarvis in 1935-36 describes the rather leisurely but steady preparation of a "landing area" for aircraft.

March 28 1935 . Collins built a wooden table on which to draw maps of the island, showing where the airfield could be placed  ...During the days that followed, Collins plotted a good location for a landing field on the northeast side of the island about 1,240 by 1,000 yards. The distance between camp and the east end of the island was measured, 2,400 yards.

May 7 The airfield is completely staked out.

June 28 Frank and Dan went fishing. Henry inspected the landing field site. Several little mounds needed to be leveled and a few holes filled.

July 1 ...Henry and George spent the afternoon filling holes in the airfield.

July 22 ...We plan to whitewash the cottage and the beacon. Henry got some lime from the airfield, mixed it and spent the day whitewashing the cottage.

Sept 23 Kenneth, Jacob and Henry worked on leveling the airfield area and began to construct a large T-shaped marker, 20 x 30 feet to be visible from the air.

Sept 25 Henry and Jacob constructed another marker on the extreme western side of the airfield.

Oct 28 Henry... worked on a T-shaped marker on the air-field. ...The ocean began to get rough, with big breakers and a strong undertow. Kenneth, Jacob, Henry and Louis went surfing.

Oct 29 Henry worked on flattening a mound in the airfield

Nov 2 Henry collected shells and leveled a mound in the airfield.

Feb 1 1936 All worked on the "future, proposed landing field," leveling mounds and filling holes.

Feb 14 William Yomes on weather duty. The others started toward the airfield with picks and shovels. They stopped at 10:30 and returned to camp. The rest of the day spent in reading and music.

Feb 27 Henry took over weather observations at 6:00 A. M. The others started filling in various gaps in the airfield. After two hours they had to stop because of rain.

http://home.att.net/~higley.family/earlycolony.htm

George West, who spent the summer of 1935 on Jarvis, wrote in his memoir of the experience, "We also worked on the landing field, improving it at odd times."

http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/archives/historical/huipanalaau/jarvis.php

Memorandum from Rex L. Martin, director of air commerce for the Department of Commerce, to President Roosevelt, April 8, 1935 indicates that the islands were colonized primarily in against the possibility of hostilities with the Japanese, and implies that the "air navigation facilities" are a cover which may require "a tentative projection of an air-mail service in the Pacific":

http://home.att.net/~higley.family/MartinMemo.htm

By 1936 however, this Literary Digest article openly describes the islands as part of a US Pacific defense network which is based upon Hawaii. It also mentions, "Baker, Jarvis and Howland already have landing areas which could be used in emergencies by land-planes, for the waters surrounding these islets are too rough for seaplanes to make a safe landing. There are no lagoons, the seas beating directly upon the shore and at some seasons landing even by boat is dangerous... The Coast Guard cutter Itasca has colonized these islets with Hawaiian youths, who are busy grading landing fields with tractors, "

http://home.att.net/~higley.family/LitDig1936.htm

No mention of Amelia in any of these accounts: The US government was slowly preparing/grooming all three islands for aviation use, in rudimentary fashion to be sure, two years before her world flight.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:47:30
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Okay...Okay.  If you want to believe that hand filling of holes without scrapers or graders can make an emergency airfield, go right ahead. As I said earlier, perhaps these fields could be used for emergency purposes for land planes, but they never would be able to take off again.

Why do you think a grader and scraper were sent to Howland?  They were needed to properly condition a field for a landing and take-off.

All three islands were colonized with the idea that the islands could be stops along trans-Pacific routes for planes (whether sea or land-based). That was the reason why aerological readings were made each day on each island.  That doesn't necessarily mean that they could be used, even for emergency purposes.  An island's air field needed to be properly prepared for landings and take-offs.  The only island that came close to fitting that description was Howland, which required $60k of WPA money, and a lot of "free" labor, and about 3 months of intensive work by nearly a dozen people. That amount of effort simply doesn't compare to what happened on Jarvis Island, where a few holes were filled and a few mounds were smoothed out by manual labor alone.

The Literary Digest article presumably takes much of its information from Black (or more likely Miller), who had a vested interest in seeing their vision take root.  In reality, none of the islands at the time could support anything but a dire emergency landing.  In fact, TIGHAR would support the idea that Nikumaroro could also be used as an emergency landing site, without any preparation by humans.  Does that make Niku a viable island for airplane landings?  A landing, to me, implies that the intent is to take off again or otherwise become stranded.  Suppose there was an emergency landing on Jarvis...could the food ration allocated to the four colonists support one or more additional people for up to 3 months?  The kids barely had enough supplied provisions to last themselves; they had to resort to fishing to augment their meager supplies.  None of the islands had any real medical gear, equipment, etc., other than a first aide kit.  The biggest worry by Black was that someone would become seriously ill and had to be evacuated. By having a Coast Guard Ship stationed in Hawaii doing other things meant long delays in emergencies.  In fact, one boy did die in 1938 before he could be brought back to Hawaii for emergency medical care.  In reality, none of the islands in 1936 were equipped to deal with an emergency landing by any plane.

I guess our disagreement revolves around the use of "emergency" airfield and the suitability of such to support air travel.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:48:14
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Randy, my posts have nothing to do with lame journalistic assertions that cashew nuts were going to be grown on Jarvis island <grin>. I assume TIGHAR members can separate substance from background noise in the sources I'm providing (it's not hard). The pith is that the US government was, in the process of claiming them (and however cheaply or slowly), grooming these islands for aviation use. The colonists were taking hourly weather measurements and clearing landing fields (however primitive) and there was publicity to this effect before Earhart announced her world flight. That's all I'm citing.

The notion of using Howland as a refueling stop doesn't appear to have sprung from an empty mark on a chart. Earhart's flight through the area was compatible with known US interests at the time, hence my hypothesis that government assistance sprang from at least a bit more than a friendship between AE and ER.

By the bye, the government did supply the colonists on Jarvis with all sorts of seeds and seedlings but despite their efforts essentially nothing grew. I seem to remember reading they got enough radishes for one meal or whatever, that rats ate the planted seeds and coconut plantings died.

Cheers,
William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:49:26
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Sea-grapes and ironwood are basically weeds, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone attempted to plant them.  There are good descriptions of the coconuts not doing well, which suggests that this was a really tough environment.

Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:50:10
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Space aliens

Isn't this why I am around?  ;)

LTM (who thinks Tom watches too much Star Trek)

Reed

> From Tom King
>
> I actually kind of like the "captured by space aliens" hypothesis,
> but have no idea how to test it.
>
> LTM (who sometimes feels spacey)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Thirty Meter Telescope Corporation Site Testing Program
1200 E. California Blvd., Mail Code 102-8
Pasadena, CA 91125
Homepage:  http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/

"This life has been a test.  If it had been an actual life, you would
   have received actual instructions on where to go and what to do."
                                  -- Angela Chase, "My so-called life"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:50:32
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

I agree that the government had other fish to fry.  The major competition for island air bases was between the British and the US, continuing rivalries that started in the days of whaling in the Pacific.  The Japanese did not appear to have plans for trans-Pacific air service then.  AE's plans for an around the world flight could be used to reinforce US claims on Howland.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:23:53
From:         Chuck Boyle
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

For your information:

Four Islands, Gardner, Canton, Baker and Atafu had United States Coast Guard Loran Stations operating from 1944 till 1946.  A very secret Program.  We were stationed on these Islands for many months and could be up to l 1/2 years.  They were serviced monthly a few times but generally every  six weeks or longer.  From time to time large amount of supplies by boat and in between by PBY landing on the lagoon if possible.

Baker and Gardner were terrible Islands to find yourself stationed on.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:57:37
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Dan Postellon wrote

> AE's plans for an around the world flight could be  used to
> reinforce US claims on Howland.
> Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263

That's what I've been getting at.

Especially since, before Earhart and the WPA-funded work, Howland was already on the federal books as a developing "air field," "air navigation facility," "landing area" or "emergency landing area," depending on which source one chooses to name it by.

I don't think Randy and I disagree about anything meaningful by now. I'd only like to point out that he said there was misinformation in my original Howland post, asserting there were only three colonies in the project when I said there were five. I've subsequently shown that by 1938 there were indeed five. He in effect said there was no work at all on any air field on Jarvis, I've cited a log which confirms there was (a rudimentary) effort and I should quickly add, from what I've read about the landing area prepared on Jarvis, I sure wouldn't have wanted to try setting down on it in a tail dragger during an emergency, but they did work on it, to the point of placing markers.

Interesting note: In 1958 a biologist on Jarvis with the IGY noted "the Japanese shell holes" on the northeastern part of the island. This is spot-on where the colonists cleared their primitive landing area (the Japanese also bombed and shelled the more developed airstrip at Howland).

...and no, aside from two journalistic reports, I've seen no evidence the colonists ever actually received tractors for grading the landing areas before the field on Howland was rapidly and very significantly upgraded into an airstrip in 1937. Before this, it seems to have all been occasional pick and shovel work.

By the way, I'm not sure if Randy was referring to the colonists when he mentioned "free labor" being used on the airstrip. The sources say the colonists were paid $3 a day plus room and board (such as it was) throughout their rotating 4 month tours.

Again, my only goal has been to cite evidence that the US government already had at least some aviation related designs on these islands, including Howland, before Earhart announced her world flight, its potential enhancement of US interests thereby justifying the resources they contributed to Earhart's planned Howland stop and the subsequent government interest in finding her and Noonan when they didn't show up to produce results on the invested capital.

LTM, who was late for the party

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:01:12
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

For  William Webster - Garman

Why do you think Eleanor Roosevelt had played any part in the decision to construct the airfields on Howland Island?

Respectfully,

Tom Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:01:36
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Good Post Mr Garmin
For those forum members who are not pilots an emergency strip is what the name implies, to be used in an emergency. In my initial Air Force Pilot Training, T-42's 1966, we were taught right away when airborne to always look for a road,flat field or any place we could touch down in an EMERGENCY.An island with a flat area was considered more favorable then the H2O.
Jim Preston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:52:58
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Tom Strang wrote

> For  William Webster - Garman
>
>      Why do you think Eleanor Roosevelt had played any part in the
> decision to construct the airfields on Howland Island?

Hi Tom. I don't think Eleanor Roosevelt played any meaningful part in the decision to construct (or "hurriedly finish") the airfield at Howland and I've never seen any evidence for it. However I've heard steady speculation there was a personal relationship between her and Earhart and that ER "influenced" FDR to build the airstrip. This has always seemed more or less like codswallop to me.

My hypothesis, based on the citations I've posted, is:

* There is documented evidence that a rudimentary "landing area" existed on Howland by the second half of 1936 (and had been planned in 1935), before anyone knew about Earhart's plans for her world flight.

* There is documented evidence the executive branch of the US government, as part of its overall Line Islands geopolitical influence scheme, already regarded Howland, Baker and Jarvis as "developing, potential air bases for commercial traffic in the Pacific" and had expressed interest in extending civil flights (air mail was specifically mentioned by the one-desk Air Bureau director) in the area.

* By 1936 all of this had been more or less published in sundry newspapers and magazines (with journalists, typically, conflating "plans" for "tractors" and transplanted vegetation on the islands with reality).

* Therefore, the evidence implies that when Earhart's planning team was casting about for a refueling stop between New Guinea and Hawaii for her civilian world flight aboard an advanced, modern commercial airframe, one way or another they heard about the Line Islands scheme and its projected "air bases." Howland Island was mentioned, the existing "landing area" discussed and found to be inadequate and provisions were quickly made to upgrade it into a landing strip capable of handling the Electra.

* The landing of a widely publicized civil flight piloted by a national hero and celebrity would do much to establish a perception (and beginning) of routine aviation activity on one of its new Line Island colonial air bases, enhancing US claims to the islands and its influence in the central Pacific.

* However, she and Noonan never arrived and with the government's documented interest in extending its influence over the area, combined with a genuine and natural desire to respond to this human tragedy and find her (never mind her celebrity, never mind Noonan was an important figure in air navigation), the government had a solid geopolitical justification for launching a massive search and rescue operation in the region.

* This strongly diminishes the need to speculatively explain away the US government's involvement in supporting her flight and its subsequent search and rescue attempts as having been motivated by some "spy mission," or extraordinary interest and influence on the part of Eleanor Roosevelt arising from her personal friendship with AE.

No conspiracies, dark spook ops or gossipy White House relations, only mundane politics, as usual.

Comments are welcome.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:36:12
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Maybe I  am late for the party, but for those  wanting more on the history and colonization, there is a nice article in "Naval History", Aug 2002, re above title. By Capt Gretchen Gl Grover, USNR. "The program was part of the US attempts to counter Japan's growing influence in the Pacific"...

Maybe this has been cited, if so OBE'd (overcome by events)
LTM,
Ron Bright
Bremerton
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:31:28
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

My point is that the US was just playing at building an airfield, and was building it as legal evidence for colonization.  It didn't matter if you could land a plane or it, or even drive a truck on it.  What mattered was that someone was there building something.  Not until AE's flight was any equipment brought in, or any real airfield built.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:14:27
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Dan Postellon wrote

> My point is that the US was just playing at building an airfield,
> and  was building it as legal evidence for colonization.  It didn't
> matter  if you could land a plane or it, or even drive a truck on
> it.  What  mattered was that someone was there building something.
> Not until  AE's flight was any equipment brought in, or any real
> airfield built.
> Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263

What mattered was that, depending on what source one uses to characterise them, the US had "landing areas," "air fields," "air navigation facilities" or "air bases" on the books on Howland, Baker and Jarvis before anyone had ever heard of Earhart's world flight.

We can debate until the cows come home if anything could land on any of them (other than agreeing it would have been dodgy at best) but it has nothing to do with why I've been citing this material :)

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:25:18
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

I'm not sure what your point is.  I do agree that the US had a small group of recent high school graduates in the islands, with shovels, "building an airfield", prior to Amelia's flight plan.

Dan Postellon   TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:01:48
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Dan Postellon wrote

> I'm not sure what your point is.  I do agree that the US had a
> small  group of recent high school graduates in the islands, with
> shovels,  "building an airfield", prior to Amelia's flight plan.
> Dan Postellon   TIGHAR#2263

<lighthearted humour>
Hey, they were military school grads and had picks too!
</lighthearted humour>

My only point in all these citations, as I have plainly said several times previously, is that the US government had pre-existing and documented geopolitical goals in the region, including widely published assertions that "air bases" or "landing areas" were already in existence on Howland, Baker and Jarvis, which provided more than ample justification for the government to have a legitimate interest in spending money to support Earhart's stop-over on Howland (one of those publicised, soon to be "famous air bases" - as per my cite) along with the extensive search and rescue mission they mounted when she didn't show up at her US government sponsored re-fueling stop at their new air base in the Pacific. Which is to say, no spy missions or personal relations with First Ladies are needed to explain US government participation in AE's world flight.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:18:12
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      John Lambrecht

Does TIGHAR have any information on the career of LT LambrechAFTER he submitted his report to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics on 16 July 1937?  There is a CAPT John O. Lambrecht USN (1/11/03-1/9/72) buried in Arlington.  Has anyone confirmed if this was the COLORADO's Senior Aviator at the time of the air search of the Phoenix Islands? Lambrecht was obviously familiar with Coronado's silver strand, so he was probably stationed at the North Island Naval Air Station at some time during his career.  (Vought 03U-3 aircraft were concentrated there during February, 1935.)  Is there any indication that he retired in the San Diego area?  Has anyone tracked down his family? If the Lambrecht in Arlington is the same one who flew over Gardner Island, then it appears that he remained on active duty after 1937 and undoubtedly participated in World War II.  Since his report to the Bureau was not classified, it is not likely that he was under any order not to discuss his role in the search of the Phoenix Islands. The Earhart mystery being no less intriguing in the 1930's and '40's than it is today, he was undoubtedly asked about the search by other Naval aviators.  Has anyone determined if he later wrote any articles about the search or mentioned it in interviews?  If he went on record as saying that he'd seen "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner, apparently nobody seemed curious as to who made those signs, or why the official report submitted by the CO of the COLORADO stated that no signs had been seen at all.  But then again, even a professional investigative journalist like Goerner didn't "smoke" the potential significance of those signs when told by Lambrecht that they were "markers of some kind."

LTM (who never heard of LT Lambrecht either

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:32:37
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: John Lambrecht

For what it's werth (pun intended), the first thing found about John Lambrecht can be found at: http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist6/amelia.html There is also mention of Captain Osgood Lambrecht as commanding officer of USS Oriskany from July 1951 - July 1952 at: http://www.ussoriskany.com/id21.html

George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member # 2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:33:16
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: John Lambrecht

For Eric,

Yes, LT John Lambrecht was contacted by author Fred Goerner and Goerners report of his interview in the 70s as I recall  is  well known by Tighar. He may wish to publish it as it does address the "signs of habitation". Tighar  has a different interpretation than I do of Lambrechts Niku overflight, and recollections later in life of his diligence in looking for AE/Electra  in the Phoenix Islands. You can decide.

I believe Tighar may well answer as it is a critical issue in his book. Carol Osborne, author of "My Courageous Sister"  also befriended J.Ashley Wilson, the pilot with Lambrecht in the afternoon when they landed in Hull lagoon.

He became a PAA pilot later an attorney, now  retired. He may still be alive and well in California, if you can think of any questions for him. Photos of Lambrecht and Wilson are in Donahues book,pp 64,66. (Donahue claims that Lambrecht was directed to pick up a secret package from Jones, the manager on Hull.]
Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:51:45
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re; John Lambrecht

I think this is also our man:
John O Lambrecht
BD 11 Jan 1903
Died 9 Jan 1972
Buried:  Arlington National Cemetery, Section 35, site 2776
     Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:49:03
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: John Lambrecht

Ron, I'm not clear what we could possibly learn from Lambrecht we don't already know. If he was alive and mentally well I couldn't think of a new question for him.

It is patently clear he did not see anything that would lead anyone to believe Earhart had crashed on Niku.

Your thoughts.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:49:30
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: John Lambrecht

<<He became a PAA pilot later an attorney, now  retired. He may still
be alive and well in California, if you can think of any questions
for him.>>

Well, er, yes, I can -- like show him the aerial tour and see if it triggers any recollections, then at some point find a way, without leading him, to ask about the "signs" reported by Lambrecht.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:50:06
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: John Lambrecht

Apparently the flack Lambrecht got for the flippant/breezy style he used for his report to the Bureau did not impact his future advancement.

LTM,

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:42:46
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: John Lambrecht

> Well, er, yes, I can -- like show him the aerial tour and see if it
> triggers any recollections, then at some point find a way, without
> leading him, to ask about the "signs" reported by Lambrecht.

Tom, you are an eternal optimist. <G>

I have our video which was taken closer than apparently Lambrecht's "search" and unless there was a "help" sign or folks jumping up and down on the reef I don't think anyone would have seen anything. Clearly there was no airplane to be seen or people. If they constructed some sort of shelter it would not have been in a clearing.

I would think one of the first acts would have been to set out an SOS or HELP on the reef or a fire. Lambrecht wasn't zooming around there for very long so if they were inland they would have never made it back to the water's edge is my guess.

The "signs of recent habitation" must not have referred to anything remotely connected to the lost flyers. Therefore any expansion on that would not help us.

All opinion and nothing more.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:43:08
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: John Lambrecht

For Alan,

I agree. Lambrechts "report" or article and the Goerner interview have been hashed over many times. And Tighar will I am sure include some evaluation of that in his book. And as someone said, "read the book". Do you happen to know who Lambrechts observer was that morning of 9 July? I know Wilson was iln the afternoon. Wilson died last year, I am told.
Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:52:44
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

No, Ron, I don't know who his observer was. Sorry. I have truthfully pretty much ignored Lambrecht and his flight for a number of reasons in addition to his making it clear he saw nothing to suggest Earhart was on one of the islands.

He did not get to Niku until a week after her disappearance. His search was, in my estimation, somewhat cursory. Time and altitude, for example. His search pattern in the Winslow area was in error not that it makes much difference. Randy has me convinced there was little chance a reef was landable in that area.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:30:40
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

So far as Lambrecht goes, in spare moments I like so many others have tried hard to read something into the utter nothingness of those words... "signs of recent habitation." Personally, I speculate he may have glimpsed the rooftops of Arundel's long abandoned corrugated iron work camp buildings, which may have looked abandoned but less dilapidated from the air.

Did someone here on the forum recently write that Lambrecht said he meant he'd seen markers of some sort?

Anyway Ric's comments on his personal experiences on Nikumaroro, combined with what we know about the rather cursory check Lambrecht made in the midst of a long flight to a very remote island, have more or less convinced me that AE could have been waving frantically on the beach and still been easily missed, especially if she first heard the plane while under the foliage.

Likewise for the Electra... if I recall correctly it was high tide when he arrived and the hypothesised reef-site of the plane is all too near the wreckage of the NC, which was quite extensive in 1937.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:31:11
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

For Alan,

As I recall, Lt Lambrechts  opinion was that the Niku lagoon would have made sense for a landing, so that she could "wade or swim " ashore. Obviously she didn't, and Tighar believes it was a wheels down reef landing.

As a pilot and your view of Niku from the video, (I have seen it) you might have an  idea which would be the most "safe", whether the tide was in or out.

Althought Eric characterized  Lambrechts report as brezzy and flippant, I thought it was pretty candid and in plain English.He of course may have added more detail regarding the "sign...", If there is some criticism it might be of Capt Friedell's report that didn't mention any "signs of habitation" on Gardner. And his was an official Navy report! Contradictory reports, 'eh.

Happy landings,
Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:32:46
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Lambrecht is dead, so interviewing him would involve some artful efforts. As for the Winslow Reef survey, Alan Caldwell implied that the search techniques were in error; in fact, I have determined that they flew over Winslow Reef without seeing any sign of it.  Their techniques were quite valid for the time.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:33:27
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      More questions

Does anyone know off hand if the Earhart mystery has an equivalent to the Titanic's Colonel Archibald Gracie?  (Col. Gracie was a 1st class passenger who stayed with the ship as it went down and barely escaped with his life.  Almost as soon as he set foot onboard the rescue ship Carpathia, he started writing down first hand accounts taken from the surviving passengers, crew, and officers while everything was still fresh in their minds.  His book is still considered one of the primary sources for information on what took place that night.)  When did the Earhart mystery first start to receive serious attention from private researchers and enthusiasts?  Did they have some sort of informal network for sharing their opinions and theories with other researchers from around the world?  Did they have some sort of newsletter?  Is there any evidence that they corresponded with or talked to any of the key figures such as Paul Mantz, LT Lambrecht, the skipper of the Itasca, FN's widow, etc.?  Did any of them set up private archives for the material they collected?

Well before the wreck was located or there was such a thing as the internet, the Titanic enthusiasts formed the Titanic Historical Society.  Was there some equivalent organization for Earhart enthusiasts 30 or more years ago?  Just curious.

LTM (who still remembers when the Titanic went down.)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:34:03
From:         Rusty Metty

Seems if Ae's Electra was any where near the Norwich city you would think a PILOT would see it and not mistake it for old ship wreckage. I suppose it's a violation to question the tenant that she landed on the beach and not the lagoon but Lambrecht thought she could have. Would that have made it more difficult to spot the plane or less?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:34:29
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Willam Webster -Garman,

Are you suggesting that the Electra was on the reef site area where AE may have landed  when Lambrecht flew over on the morning of 9 July and that he missed seeing it? I thought the hypothesis was that by the 9th, the Electra had been swept over or went over with tidal action off the reef.

If you don't have Goerners  interview of Lt Lambrecht which was reported by Fred Goerner to J. Gordon Vaeth ( a friend and longtime AE researcher)  I can summarize it for you.


REB
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:34:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Ron, I don't read the two reports as contradictory. Lambrecht's was of a general observation as he was tasked to do. The second report was more specific in that there was nothing indicating Earhart was there.

I would have put down on the reef. A water landing is hazardous at best.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:35:15
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

No, Randy. I didn't mean their techniques were in error. I meant that the pattern they flew did not cover the eastern most possible "reef." I thought their basic search pattern was quit good but given their method of navigating at that time I'm not sure the pattern Lambrecht thought he flew was all that accurate. Be that as it may it was probably good enough to ensure there was no obvious land in that area. Whether they could have seen a downed plane is subject to conjecture. I'm satisfied they weren't in that area.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:35:44
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

How did Lambrecht and other naval flyers of that era find their ways back to their boats after flying around over the trackless ocean for several hours?  If their target island was a straight shot from the boat I can see simply taking the reciprocal bearing back to the boat.  But if they had to search island A then B then C and D before coming back a reciprocal bearing wouldn't do them much good.   I think a couple of our navigators here explained it but as usual I forgot to take notes. :-)

LTM, who lacks true navigation skills
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:13:38
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Ron Bright wrote:

> Willam Webster -Garman,
>   Are you suggesting that the Electra was on the reef site area
> where AE may have landed  when Lambrecht flew over on the morning
> of  9 July and that he missed seeing it? I thought the hypothesis
> was  that by the 9th, the Electra had been swept over or went over
> with  tidal action off the reef.
>   If you don't have Goerners  interview of Lt Lambrecht which was
> reported by Fred Goerner to J. Gordon Vaeth ( a friend and
> longtime  AE researcher)  I can summarize it for you.,
> REB
>

Thanks Ron, please do summarize Goerner's interview with Lambrecht, I've heard snippets before but I don't think I've ever read it.

I think there are three possibilities and I'm variously open to all of them, 1) Reef landing, Electra swept off reef before Lambrecht arrived (easiest to fit to the evidence, hence TIGHAR's reasonable hypothesis), 2) Reef landing, Electra got thrashed by the tides and wreckage was "mingled" with the NC (yes, the bright aluminum is a question but a couple of Gilbertese colonists told TIGHAR they later saw wreckage on the reef and from the air at certain angles water can be very shiny) or 3) Lagoon landing... but what happened to the Electra after only a week?

I tend to speculate on the reef near the NC and I do dwell on all that frickin' unidentifiable civil aircraft aluminium in the village.

WIlliam Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:46:27
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Dennis, if I remember correctly Lambrecht used a radio DF not only to get back to the ship but help with his search pattern. Not great accuracy. When I was in flying school we returned to base from training areas just because we "knew" where it was direction wise. I never used ADF for that. I used it for cross country navigation and it is easy to get close to a station but it is hardly precision navigation.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:46:54
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: More questions

For Eric Beheim

I'm not aware of an Amelia Earhart equivalent to the Titanic Historical Society this side of the Atlantic but AE is remembered here and her name has been used frequently recently, as has Charles Lindbergh's. The reason is that the hangar where they put their airplanes while they toured Europe after their flights still exists and so does the airport terminal where they set foot in Belgium. Until recently there used to be a museum there where her picture was on view. The museum seems to have moved because of recent events. If you still want to see the historical buildings you'll have to hurry for the government is going to knock them down to expand NATO headquarters. NATO HQ was built on the southern half of the former Brussels airport at Haren and the site was renamed Evere South. The airport closed in 1950 when the new airport at nearby Zaventem became available. The site was offered to NATO by the Belgian government when the defense organization was kicked out of France by Charles de Gaulle in 1967. The buildings that were then erected have now become too small to house the delegations of the new NATO member states that joined NATO since the demise of the Soviet Union. Ironically the site where Amelia Earhart landed will be used to house the Polish, the Hungarian and the Czech delegations. There is a TIGHAR equivalent in Belgium, called BAHA (Belgian Aviation History Association) which in trying to keep aviation history alive, including Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart. BAHA digs up airplanes too, mainly WW2 types that crashed. The one advantage BAHA has over TIGHAR is that the crash sites are usually known and well documented, which is quite different from AE's airplane. Gardner Island is now called Nikumaroro and the former Haren airport is now called Evere North. It housed Tactical Air Force HQ until 2003 when Evere North was handed over to NATO, which will now have the historical buildings knocked down because they are not interested in history.

LTM (who remembers AE well)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:41:51
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Three Possibilities

For William Webster-Garman:

I agree with you on your three possibilities, and the first two seem most reasonable. The third one, landed in the lagoon and sunk, is interesting. I need a reminder, though; what is the lagoon depth? Could it have landed, and then sunk out of sight? I think the lagoon was explored on one of the expeditions, but maybe it was not explored thoroughly enough?

As for the non-TIGHAR scenarios, they look too implausible and are full of conspiracy, with the possible exception of Fred Billings' supposition that the 10E is in New Guinea. There is considerable evidence that the fuel couldn't put it there, though, and there, as they say, is the rub. Somehow, though, it sticks in my craw.

LTM, who wondered exactly what a craw was,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:42:10
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

For Eric,

There is not only Goerner's interview of Lambrecht, there is as I recall a letter to Tighar from Goerner summarizing his interview. I believe  that Kenton Spading a Tighar member conducted a thorough investigation some 6 years ago.

The issue has been debated since 2000 and I don't think anything new has come up to change opinions of Lambrechts overflight, "signs", marks, Earhart's expected efforts to facilitate a rescue,etc that warrant a new post. The search issues will be discussed at length in Tighars book, so I suggest you wait until it is published.

Tighar also expressed his opinion of what Lambrecht saw and interpreted as "signs of habitation", see his post of 11-15-00 in answer to Spadings investigation.

For history's sake , I quote from a post that J. Ashley Wilson sent to me in Sept 2001 after I made inquiries with him about Lambrechts competence and reports. He replied that he was not an observer that morning with Lambrecht over Gardner. "As Jerry  (Jerry Hamilton, also a Tighar) may have told you, I do not agree with the TIGHAR version of Amelia's last flight. Come to think of it , I don't know of any of my contemporaries that do, or did". /S/ Ash Wilson.

Well everyone is entitled to an opinion, and Wilson was there at the time.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:43:38
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Correction from Alfred Hendrickson

....the 10E is in New Britain.  ----- not New Guinea.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:53:46
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Wait a minute ...

Ron Bright said: "The issue has been debated since 2000 and I don't think anything new has come up to change opinions of Lambrecht's overflight, "signs", marks, Earhart's expected efforts to facilitate a rescue, etc that warrant a new post.  The search issues will be discussed at length in Tighar's book, so I suggest you wait until it is published."

If all of those questions are answered in Ric's book, what the heck we gonna argue about then? <G>

LTM, who welcomes patience
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:54:06
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      That third possibility

Of course, if NR16020 went into the lagoon and sunk out of sight, it is not apparent to me how our duo could have transmitted any of the post-loss radio messages!

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:55:22
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Lambrecht and company found their way back to the ships by a combination of dead reckoning, and gaining altitude enough to see a very large ship (battleship!) on the ocean.  Being at 1000 feet elevation and seeing a ship that is nearly 30-50' above the water provides ample visual clues, along with the ship's smoke from the stacks and wakes.  Essentially, the same method (except Lambrecht and Co. sorta knew where the ship was!) as in the Battle of Midway.  Visual methods were good enough in those days and in those conditions.  As far as I know, the float planes they used did not have radios in them capable of direction finding.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:08:59
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

> "signs of recent habitation"

Folks seem to focus on this snippet of Lambrecht's statement, but there is more to it.  I urge everyone to go back and re-read it.

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html

First of all, read his report of the search of McKean Island.

"M'Kean Island was visited first and when first sighted  was about a half point to port, bearing out the statement in  Sailing Directions that the island's actual position is somewhat  WNW of that shown on the chart. M'Kean did not require more than  a perfunctory examination to ascertain that the missing plane  had not landed here, and one circle of the island proved that  it was uninhabited except for myriads of birds. Signs of previous  habitation remained and the walls of several old buildings apparently  or some sort of adobe construction, were still standing. M'Kean  is perfectly flat and no bigger than about one square mile. Its  lagoon, like those of several of the smaller islands of the Phoenix  Group, is very shallow and almost dry. This island had no vegetation  whatsoever. As in all of these atoll formations coral extends  out from the shore line a distance of 100 to 150 yards and then  drops precipitously into water many fathoms deep. There is no  anchorage off any of these islands.

As  in the case of the subsequent search of the rest of the Phoenix  Islands one circle at fifty feet around M'Kean aroused the birds  to such an extent that further inspection had to be made from an altitude of at least 400 feet."

Note that at McKean he reports signs of previous habitation, not recent habitation, and also reports the old structures.

Then on to Gardner / Nikumaroro

"From M'Kean the planes proceeded to Gardner Island (sighting the ship [USS Colorado] to starboard enroute) and made an aerial search of this island which proved to be one of the biggest of the group. Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll... a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coronado's silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms. Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there.

At the western end of the island a tramp steamer (of about 4000 tons) bore mute evidence of unlighted and poorly charted "Rocks and Shoals". She lay high and almost dry head onto the coral beach with her back broken in two places. "

His statement indicates to me that whatever Lambrecht saw, it indicated to him that there was a significant possibility that people were there, enough to justify "repeated circling and zooming" in hopes of stirring a response.  "Finally" they broke off when it proved unfruitful.

Sounds like more than a just cursory flyby.  His description of the McKean search indicates a cursory flyby, and he notes that that was all that was required.

Clearly, he thought there was a reasonable possibility that someone was recently there, as opposed to previously there, and acted on that by circling and zooming.  The combination is more powerful than just "signs of recent habitation".

It is interesting to note that he includes the wreck of the Norwich City almost as an afterthought.  To me, this means that he didn't think the signs of recent habitation were connected with the shipwreck, and therefore not the survivor's camp.

It is also interesting that the only photo that we know of from his flight is taken form the SE end of the island looking NW.  Why? Wouldn't you think they would have taken a photo of the Norwich City or the Arundel buildings, being the only man made items to see and photograph?  Was there a reason this photo includes the 7 site and not the NC?  Perhaps.

Would be interesting to find out where all that circling and zooming took place.  Are any of the flight crew still alive?

Also, William Webster-Garman writes:

> So far as Lambrecht goes, in spare moments I like so many others have
> tried hard to read something into the utter nothingness of those
> words... "signs of recent habitation." Personally, I speculate he may
> have glimpsed the rooftops of Arundel's long abandoned corrugated
> iron work camp buildings, which may have looked abandoned but less
> dilapidated from the air.
>
> Did someone here on the forum recently write that Lambrecht said he
> meant he'd seen markers of some sort?

It is interesting that in Goerner's interview of Lambrecht, he recalls the signs of habitation as being markers of some sort, not structures.  If the signs of habitation were the Arundel structures, why didn't he identify them as structures, as he did at McKean?  Structures, even dilapidated or collapsed structures or building materials, are far more easily recognized from the air than other objects and humans.  No, he reports signs of recent, not previous, habitation, and later "markers".  What were they?  I don't know but I doubt they were the Arundel structures.

Looking at the fuller text, I think Lambrecht was more of a trained observer than we give him credit for, one who makes distinctions between recent and previous habitation, and reports structures, wildlife, and vegetation as he sees them.

In my mind, it puts more weight on his recent habitation statement.

LTM (who loves circling and zooming)

Andrew McKenna
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:16:11
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Lambrecht report

Thanks, Andrew, for the posting. It is always helpful (to me, anyway) to go back and re-read things. Your comments are thought-provoking. Lambrecht saw things at McKean that apparently led him to conclude pretty quickly that AE had not landed there, but at Gardner what he saw caused him to think someone might indeed be there. I don't know a lot about McKean, but it seems to me that if NR16020 had landed and was sitting there, it would have been spotted right away. But Lambrecht didn't say that her plane was not there, he said that "the missing plane had not landed" [t]here. It is as though he was sure she had not been there, not even in the lagoon. I wonder about that. Gardner, though, is a different story. There's places where a plane could be concealed, and he specifically mentions the lagoon as a potential landing site. Is the McKean lagoon for some reason unsuitable as a place to ditch a plane?

I chuckle to think of him rousing all those birds at McKean, and seeking a higher altitude to get away from them! A hair-raising moment, perhaps? :-)

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:16:34
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Andrew, that is an excellent analysis. I could not argue with your comments. It is still obvious that whatever he saw did not indicate to him further exploration was needed. It is also unclear to me as to how he so quickly came to the conclusion there was no one there. True, he saw no one answering his zooming but given the size of Gardner and the vegetation it could have taken some time to respond if AE was a considerable way from the water's edge. His report is quite puzzling.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:16:55
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

It has been said here before on this forum that naval flying was about dead reckoning. Pilots knew where they left the ship. They knew where the ship would be when they returned after some time in the air. They could calculate its position after having been in the air for one, two or more hours and fly to that point. All depended on the navigator having his sums right. From personal experience I know how difficult it is to find a ship at sea. There is no better place to hide... Agreed, weather conditions in the Pacific are usually a lot better than in other parts of the world and since most ships were burning coal there would be telltale smoke trails on the horizon. Still, I find it difficult to believe pilots would rely merely on dead reckoning. There is a simple reason for that. Since warships are built to wage war one can expect that in wartime they might have to change course for a number of reasons while their airplanes are in the air. Therefore I expect pilots would rely solely on a mathematical approach to return to a ship that might have had to change course. Surely their must have been a more reliable system that allowed naval flyers to find their ship. After all radio was available to civil aviation. Why wouldn't it have been available to naval flyers ? Didn't warships have a radio homing system in the 30s ? The homing system used in civil aviation allowed ground stations to establish the direction from where an airplane was transmitting. In today's parlance this is called a QDR. That did not provide any information as to the distance at which the airplane was but by giving the pilot a reciprocal course, which is called a QDM in today's parlance, the pilot would then fly that QDM course until he would see the ship. That's how civil aviation found airfields in pre-radar days. I don't see why the military wouldn't have used such a homing system as it would not give away the ship's position. Is there any historian around who can confirm this ?

LTM (who hates getting lost over the sea)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:44:45
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

> Looking at the fuller text, I think Lambrecht was more of a trained
> observer than we give him credit for, one who makes distinctions
> between recent and previous habitation, and reports structures,
> wildlife, and vegetation as he sees them.
>
> In my mind, it puts more weight on his recent habitation statement.
>
> LTM (who loves circling and zooming)
>
> Andrew McKenna

Although not an expert on tropical flora, I have been told by those who are that jungle growth will very quickly reclaim and cover up signs of human cultivation.  If what Lambrecht saw were recent signs that the vegetation had been disturbed, then those signs must have been recent indeed.

LTM,

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:45:23
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Ron Bright wrote:

> The search issues will be discussed at length in
> Tighars book, so I suggest you wait until it is published.

You can be sure that I am looking forward to it being published!

LTM,

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:45:42
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: More questions

For Herman De Wulf:

Many thanks for taking the time to write your long and very interesting posting on Earhart research that was taking place during pre-internet days.

LTM,

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:52:25
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

For Alfred and Alan

Regarding the visibility of an airplane on McKean and what Lambrecht might have thought on the subject -- when we surveyed the island in '89, we figured there were two ways AE and FN might have wound up there.  One was to have landed on the rather narrow foreshore or reef flat, with the plane then washed off the shelf a la our current hypothesis about the Nutiran reef; the other was that they'd landed in the lagoon (actually a great natural bowl of bird poop) and promptly sunk.  Neither possibility very conducive to getting off the post-loss messages, but hey, we were leaving no tern unstoned.  I'd imagine that Lambrecht would have thought pretty much as we did, though it may be that from the air the lagoon looked like a pretty good place to land; it might have looked like a sort of marshy field -- in which case he wouldn't have been thinking of sunken aircraft but of an aircraft sitting in a field.  Either way, it wouldn't take him long to see that there was no sign of anything there other than the 19th century guano mining ruins; the island is indeed virtually devoid of vegetation.

As for his rather cursory inspection of Niku despite the signs of habitation (I agree; the distinctions Andrew points out are important ones), I think they were just getting tired and bored with the whole enterprise.  I know there has often come a time, during a survey on Niku, at about 3 in the afternoon after hours bashing through the scaevola in 120 degree heat, when I've found myself just thinking about getting through the next transect, or covering the next little plot of ground, and had to remind myself forcefully that we weren't just trying to cover ground, we were actually trying to find something.  I wouldn't be surprised if the same kind of condition set in with the Colorado pilots.  We've searched and searched and haven't found a thing, and we know in our hearts of hearts that we're not going to find anything, and we don't much give a damn about the crazy woman anyhow, and we're really ready to wrap up this gig and get back to our bunks.

Still, though, the signs of recent habitation had to be something that didn't jump right out at them as Earhart associations.  Signs of fires along the beach edge?  Piles of driftwood that might have been rude shelters?  We can speculate till the crabs come home.

And Eric -- yes, tropical vegetation grows over things real fast -- UNLESS the things are in an area where nothing's growing.  Like the beach/reef littoral around the edges of Niku, the "moonscape" area of sun-blacked coral shelves found mostly on the south-southwest limb of the atoll, the mudflat that extends from the lagoon up into the interior of Nutiran, and what we call "Crab City" on Ritiati -- a repeatedly flooded area full of crab burrows, where the salt keeps the vegetation down.  I think the "signs" must have been in one of these locations, OR they were, as you say, very recent.

LTM (who loves to speculate)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:31:55
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Alfred, if we land the plane in any lagoon we eliminate most all the post loss messages.

Add to the problem, Alfred, that at one point at least the planes were a hundred miles from the ship.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:42:29
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

I've reviewed the recent Forum traffic regarding Howland Island and can only say that I'm really glad that I took the time to put together the documented story in Chapter 1 "Kamakaiwi Field."  TIGHAR members have already had a chance to see a draft version.

And by the way, no, there was nothing remotely resembling an airfield on any of the islands prior to the construction the runways on Howland.  There may have been some brush clearing for the proposed landing field on Jarvis that was never built and that might be what George West was referring to in his 1977 description of his activities on that island.

The airport at Howland was built by the Bureau of Air Commerce, not the Navy, at a total cost of $9,981, mostly in in-kind contributions by various agencies.  The WPA put up $2,859 to cover cash expenditures and payroll.  There were three runways and the "WPA Howland Airport" aka "Kamakaiwi Field" was most definitely and very specifically built for Amelia Earhart.  It was probably Gene Vidal's idea; Eleanor Roosevelt had nothing to do with it.  The airport would almost certainly never have been built if it weren't for Earhart. Naval Intelligence did not have the slightest interest in the facility and it was never used by any airplane at all, ever.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:30:55
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht Report

> Is the McKean lagoon for some reason unsuitable as a place to  ditch a
> plane?

It is very shallow, and full of guano.  Like landing in a cesspit.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:31:19
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Research into this period of time suggests the origin of the US development of the so call "Line Islands" was due to the Japanese decision to pull out of the 1921 Naval Treaty in 1934. Research of this period also suggests that any international involvement by the US was tailored by the gloved hands of Franklin Roosevelt. History may eventually show that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were a polictical tag team unrivaled even by the Clinton's. So I would not arbitrarily rule out Eleanor's 2 cents in this continuing Earhart saga.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:22:36
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht's report

Andrew McKenna writes (in part):

> It is also interesting that the only photo that we know of from his
> flight is taken form the SE end of the island looking NW.  Why?
> Wouldn't you think they would have taken a photo of the Norwich City
> or the Arundel buildings, being the only man made items to see and
> photograph?  Was there a reason this photo includes the 7 site and
> not the NC?  Perhaps.

This is something I had not thought of. A very interesting comment! Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention and also thank you for writing up your detailed comments on Lambrecht's observations. You make some extremely important points (not just the one about the photograph). I agree, it sure would be interesting to know what part of the island he buzzed and circled.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:03:31
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

William Webster-Garman is right that the rationale for the annexation of the islands was for the construction of commercial airfields.

In the 1930s, transpacific air travel relied on flying boats which, in turn, relied upon sheltered water.  Pan American's route across the northern Pacific used Oahu, Midway and Wake, all of which had protected bays and/or lagoons.  The projected routes across the South Pacific to New Zealand and Australia posed a problem. The British already owned almost every island with a lagoon between Hawaii and Samoa.

Gene Vidal believed that advances in the development of long-range land planes would make flying boats obsolete and that islands with airports would be more valuable than islands with lagoons. He was right, but it took a whole lot longer than he anticipated. He grabbed Howland, Baker, and Jarvis in 1935 but by 1936 Pan Am was planning to survey a flying boat route to New Zealand and Vidal's three lagoon-less islands were already starting to look like white elephants.

Earhart's original plan was to fly non-stop from Hawaii to Japan, refueling in mid-air from a Navy PBY over Midway.  She got FDR to ask the Navy to cooperate.  The Naval aviation experts could see immediately that it was a totally screwball idea but they had to be tactful and at least consider the possibility.  This was late November/early December of '36.  Vidal and Earhart were very close and Vidal saw her World Flight as an opportunity.  If a commercial land plane used one of the islands as a transpacific refueling stop, his white elephants would be validated. He had his assistant, Bill Miller, meet with AE to discuss the idea of going Hawaii/Jarvis/New Guinea as an alternative to the Hawaii/Japan route. It was clearly a much better idea, but the route would be more direct if the airport was on Howland.  The problem was money.  There wasn't any.  The story of how the airport got built (and very nearly didn't get built) in time or Earhart's March 1937 takeoff is a real hoot.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:46:18
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht's report

> From Tom King
>
> Regarding the visibility of an airplane on McKean and what Lambrecht
> might have thought on the subject -- when we surveyed the island in
> '89, we figured there were two ways AE and FN might have wound up
> there.  One was to have landed on the rather narrow foreshore or reef
> flat, with the plane then washed off the shelf a la our current
> hypothesis about the Nutiran reef; the other was that they'd landed
> in the lagoon (actually a great natural bowl of bird poop) and
> promptly sunk.

Do we know that the electra would have sunk in the McKean Lagoon?

What's the density of bird doo?  I would imagine that the mostly empty Electra would be buoyant enough to float on top of the goo, or at least take significantly longer to sink that it would have been mostly / partially visible to the Colorado Pilots.

Anyway, it's a dead end as there is now way she could have transmitted from the Electra if it was mired in goop.

A. McKenna
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:06:02
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht's report

For Andrew McKenna

No, we don't know that the Electra would have sunk in the McKean poop lagoon.  We only know that Ric sank.  He doesn't want to talk about it.

LTM (who's too delicate to press for details)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:24:06
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Guano lagoon

Alfred's Q: Is the McKean lagoon for some reason unsuitable as a place to ditch a plane?

Dan's answer: It is very shallow, and full of guano. Like landing in a cesspit.

Alternate answer: It is very shallow, and full of guano, like a politician!

(Couldn't resist!)

LTM,

Alfred #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:04:43
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: Guano island

If there's so much "GUANO" around, perhaps TIGHAR could embark on a commercial venture to process the stuff and market it as a 6-2-0 fertilizer; the Milwaukee Sewer Department has successfully been marketing it's sewer sludge as "milorganite" for years!

For further information the reader is referred to: http://www.milorganite.com  and/or http://davesgarden.com/terms/go.1914/

George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member # 2630

LTM who is holding her nose!

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

Alas, the guano workings on McKean have been closed for ... what, 100 years?

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:11:42
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Re: Guano

Maybe the group would like to read the full story?  If so - here's a
bit of TIGHAR history:

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002

From Tom King

Ric, I really think you have to tell them about McKean....

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

Ahh McKean ... I can smell it now. 1989. We had gone ashore over the reef (no landing channel at McKean Island) riding the surf and slamming onto the beach like we were the 2nd Marine Division. We immediately came under heavy automatic droppings fire from the one million (count 'em) seabirds that are the island's only inhabitants. We divided our forces to recon the island and see if there was any indication of airplane wreckage. While the main group headed off for the far end, I set off alone (sheer genius) to investigate the "lagoon" which is really just huge a shin-deep pool with a bottom composed primarily of guano - Latin name: Bird Shit. Smithsonian ornithologists who had been there had assured me that the lagoon was only about 18 inches deep. True enough, but what they failed to mention and perhaps had been smart enough to avoid finding out for themselves, was that the bottom is made up of a crust of guano beneath which is a seemingly bottomless pit of the most disgusting ooze you can imagine. I was a good hundred yards out into the pool when the crust let go. I suddenly found myself up to my thighs in historic avian manure and every movement I made prompted further descent. At this point I said to myself, "Self, you have a problem." For lack of a better idea I got on the radio and called the rest of the team. "Hey guys, I'm sinking in the guano and I can't get out." "What do you expect us to do about it? We're on the other side of the island." "I guess I just wanted to let you know where to search for the body." "Okay, good luck." "Thanks."

By now I'm up to my crotch. The phrase "What a way to go" does not begin to express my disappointment at the prospect of continued sinking. Time to get creative. Sitting or laying down would distribute my weight over a wider area but if my butt broke through I'd be just that much closer to the unthinkable. I decided to compromise. I leaned way forward and supported some of my weight on my hands and gave a highly motivated heave on one leg. Sssssssmuck! Out it came. Now supporting my weight on two hands and one knee I hauled the other leg out and crawled to what seemed like a firmer spot. There I was able to stand up and make my way to the lagoon shore like a guy walking on eggshells. When I eventually caught up with the team they were ( I told myself) happy to see me but insisted that I keep my distance. They said I smelled bad. I recounted my adventure and then asked Russ Matthews, our video cameraman, to come with me.

"Where we going?"
"Back to the lagoon."
"Are you CRAZY? You just said that you damned near died back there, and now you want to go BACK?"
"Yeah, we need to document what that lagoon is like, but it's too dangerous to do alone."
"Swell."

Russ is a stout-hearted fellow and we succeeded in getting the documentation we needed and by very judicious selection of where we walked we only broke through a couple times and were able to help each other get unstuck. However, I can tell you that if there is airplane wreckage in the bottom of that lagoon, as far as I'm concerned, it can friggin' STAY there.
LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:12:35
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Guano

It might be an interesting chemical mix.  The lagoon is also described as "hypersaline" (think partially evaporated seawater).

Mix aluminum with salt plus phosphates plus nitrates plus ammonia...  suppose it might dissolve.

Dan Postellon

> From Tom King For Andrew McKenna No, we don't know that the Electra
> would have sunk in the McKean poop  lagoon.  We only know that Ric
> sank.  He doesn't want to talk about it. LTM (who's too delicate to
> press for details)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:37:44
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Guano soup

Great story! The idea of fetching up airplane wreckage from a place like that lagoon is unappetizing indeed. Happily, no one has had to go any farther down that commode, er . . . road. Pee-yoo!

Whenever we discuss the other islands around Nikumaroro, I think about that Kanton Engine. Just idle thinking, I admit. Does anyone know, is there anything new to report on this? Last I knew, the engine remains buried on Kanton, with no way to know exactly where it is and no practical way to look for, or dig for it, either.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:38:10
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Colorado

I have some questions regarding the COLORADO's search of the Phoenix Islands.  (Ric will probably cover these in his book, but I'd like to hear what everybody else thinks, too.)

When the COLORADO left Pearl Harbor, had it already been decided to search the Phoenix Islands or was that decision made AFTER the ship was already underway?

What determined the order in which the Phoenix Islands were searched?  One would assume that the islands closest to the 157-337 LOP south of Howland would have been searched first, but this does not seem to be the case.

Did the bearings obtained on post-loss radio signals identify which islands these signals were most likely coming from and did this determine the order in which they were searched?

Was an air search for wreckage, oil slicks, floating debris, etc. conducted between the Phoenix Islands and Howland on the line 157-337?

Someone mentioned that, in his book, Elgen Long said that while searching the Phoenix Islands, Lambrecht or one of the other pilots was given some classified material at one of the inhabited islands. Has anyone asked Long for more details about this?

LTM (who has a few questions of her own)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:48:30
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Re: Kanton engine

I thought the Kanton Engine ended up being an unsubstantiated fish story?

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

Not necessarily a fish story, but from what we have been able to put together it looks like the engine Bruce did indeed find and have and mess with came from elsewhere on Kanton, not from an outlying island.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:01:23
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Kanton engine

If memory serves, Bruce was never sure what island it came from. And he never recalled seeing the Norwich City. Two significant issues, to be sure.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:26:48
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      McKean Island

All this discussion about McKean brings up fascinating, but unanswerable, questions:

Did AE first visually find McKean? Did they decide, as Lambrecht did, that an airplane couldn't land there? In that scenario, did AE decide to continue on the 157 heading and hope that they would find Gardner? Did they have maps showing that McKean was followed by Gardner, roughly along the 157 heading from Howland? If so, could they know with any precision that it was indeed McKean that they happened to see and not Gardner?

As I said, all unanswerable questions, but fun to speculate -- well, fun for me in 2006, probably not as much fun for AE in 1937 if it happened that way.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:27:10
From:         Mike Zuschlag
Subject:      Re: Guano


> From Dan Postellon
>
> It might be an interesting chemical mix.  The lagoon is also
> described as "hypersaline" (think partially evaporated seawater).
>
> Mix aluminum with salt plus phosphates plus nitarates plus ammonia...
> I suppose it might dissolve.

...Or explode. I believe aluminum mixed properly with the right nitrates makes an impressive pyrotechnic. Not that it would really happen with an airframe.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:12:50
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Guano

You are right.  Monsanto made an explosive for strip mining that was ammonium nitrate and aluminum chips.  You may have had to add fuel oil or kerosene to this.  Dan

> From Mike Zuschlag
>
>> From Dan Postellon It might be an interesting chemical mix.  The
>> lagoon is also
>> described as "hypersaline" (think partially evaporated seawater).
>> Mix aluminum with salt plus phosphates plus nitrates plus ammonia...
>> I suppose it might dissolve. Dan Postellon
>>
> ...Or explode. I believe aluminum mixed properly with the right
> nitrates makes an impressive pyrotechnic. Not that it would really
> happen with an airframe.
*********************************************

Ummmmm....... guys? Could we stop talking about explosives? Big Brother may be watching..... <G>

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:13:33
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Guano soup

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

> Whenever we discuss the other islands around Nikumaroro, I think about that
> Kanton Engine. Just idle thinking, I admit. Does anyone know, is there
> anything new to report on this? Last I knew, the engine remains buried on
> Kanton, with no way to know exactly where it is and no practical way to look
> for, or dig for it, either.

If I remember correctly, three years ago, Arthur Rypinski gave a talk at EPAC that (in my view) absolutely demolished the idea that the Kanton engine could have been salvaged from Gardner/Niku. His talk was a model of how to do historical investigations--identifying names, dates, places; checking records; cross-checking stories; interviewing witnesses where possible; perhaps even some simple photo-analysis.

The conclusion was that there was an engine but, given the fuel loads, distances, and standard operating procedures of the helicopter service, it must have come from one of the known WWII multi-engine crash sites.

It was a most impressive presentation.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:32:19
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Kanton engine

Marty, thanks for the reply. Is there a report anywhere on Arthur Rypinski's research and findings? I'd like to read it.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:08:44
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Kanton engine

>  From Alfred Hendrickson:
>
> Marty, thanks for the reply. Is there a report anywhere on Arthur
> Rypinski's research and findings? I'd like to read it.

I didn't see a written version at EPAC.  If it's not on the TIGHAR website, it has probably not been published.

I'm moderately certain the talk was in 2003--at the same conference where Roger and I reported on our trip to the South Pacific.  I was a little distracted by working on our report at the time, but I haven't forgotten how much I admired the way in which Art (if it was Art!) methodically fitted the pieces of the puzzle together to show that, in all probability, the engine (which several people remembered) had to have come from a site much nearer than Gardner.

Marty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:09:12
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Colorado

The Colorado left Pearl Harbor primarily to search the Phoenix Islands, based upon reports of dashes requested from KGMB, and at that time, the belief that any radio signals had to have been from land.  The Phoenix Islands were the logical location to search.

The order of islands to be searched was one of time/distance: the closest island first (Winslow Reef), then McKean, Gardner, Carondelet Reef, etc. The Colorado was tasked to search just south of Howland/Baker along the way as well.

The radio bearings at the time were too imprecise to specify which island to search.

No intentional search for oil spills, floating wreckage, etc. was undertaken by the pilots between Howland and the Phoenix Islands, except in the area around Winslow Reef.  I believe some observers aboard the Colorado were on the look-out, however.

Classified material given to Lambrecht or another pilot from an inhabited island?  Give me a break!
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:08:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Colorado

Eric, I can give you some information but not all without going through my files which I am not quite up to yet.

I have tried to get folks off the 157/337 LOP kick for a long time. This is why. When inbound to Howland FN would have been expected to shoot a couple of sun lines to get a longitude and a ground speed. then he would have drawn a line through Howland on his map, measured the distance to that line from his last LOP, applied his ground speed and obtained a time over Howland or somewhere on that 157/337 line.

Due to inherent CEA, wind changes, etc. at the time he believed he was on his LOP he was NOT over Howland as we now know and he knew at the time. Therefore the 157/337 LOP he was on was not the same line he drew on his chart. We don't know whether it was short or long of the Howland line. That means we cannot follow a 157/337 LOP to anywhere because we don't know where on the surface it was.

Secondly, there is no reason to believe FN stayed on that course. If he was ever able to  get another sun shot he could have obtained a course line to ANY Phoenix Island.

As to the bearings PanAm took they could not pick out a specific island but only that they came from the general area of the Phoenix Islands.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:09:19
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: McKean Island

> roughly along the 157 heading from Howland

Paige, since they did not find Howland their 157 LOP did not run through Howland. See my note to Eric.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:09:43
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Colorado

> Classified material given to Lambrecht or another pilot from an
> inhabited island?  Give me a break!

Spoil sport. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:10:19
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Colorado

Re: Classified Material

As I recall James Donahue, see his book "The Earhart Disappearance: The British Connection", alleges that Lt Lambrecht was supposed to pickup some secret film from British Resident manager, Capt John Jones at Hull Island, about the AE disappearance. Hence Lambrecht lands at Hull, meets with Jones at Hull. Observer J. Ashley Wilson said no film was picked up there. If you recalll Donahue says AE landed at Hull, and was transported to Syndey Island by Jones. All hush hush of course.

Ron B.
********************************

Also complete BS of course and we are NOT going there.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:48:29
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Colorado

I should have added that it was pure BS, but someone asked about secret classified stuff. It must have been pretty secret, since noone has seen it!!!
REB
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:48:57
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Colorado

For Randy Jacobson,

Are you saying that USS Colorado ( BB-45 ) crew believed that NR16020 had to be transmitting from land rather than after a water landing at the time of Ship's departure from Pearl Harbor? USS Colorado departed Pearl 1300 3 July 1937.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang  # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:49:36
From:         George Werth
Subject:      CIA report on Howland Island

All of this talk about "GUANO" prompted an exhaustive search on the subject. A plethora of information was uncovered including, but not limited to, the following:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/hq.html
http://www.guano.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howland_Island
ad infinitum

George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member # 2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:57:16
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Secret stuff

Ron Bright said: "I should have added that it was pure BS, but someone asked about secret classified stuff. It must have been pretty secret, since noone has seen it!!!"

I couldn't agree more, Ron.

IMHO, too many of us put too much emphasis on "secret" or classified stuff.  The common impression seems to be that all classified material contains information that would upset the entire world order if it became common knowledge.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

A great deal of classified material is boring, mundane, everyday stuff that often is common knowledge to anyone involved in the particular business being discussed.  The true advantage of classified material is NOT the material but in all probability the source of the material.  So what is classified is not necessarily the information but the fact that you (the reader) have a method of collecting this information unbeknownst to the target entity.

And most often, in the case of national security, that source of information is a human spy, a photo-recon satellite, or a communication intercept facility that is able to decipher and read a target's codes.  THAT's what people want to protect and keep secret, not just the information they are gathering.

Most classified documents contain only a smattering of truly classified information.  For instance, a 100-page report might be classified "secret" when only one or two phrases are actually sensitive material, yet every page may be stamped "secret."  Therefore if a page is removed and given to someone it can be said "they received classified material," regardless of the content of that page.

Also, classified material can be incorrect as often as it is correct; mostly it is somewhere in between and it takes time to figure out what is what.  And lastly, seldom is a single piece of classified information the catalyst for a specific action; more often than not it is the accumulation of material that leads to actions.

The lesson here is that classified information should not in and of itself validate our arguments.  Like any other artifact we collect in the search for Amelia, that information must also withstand the rigors of scientific analysis.
Class dismissed.  For your assignment, read pages 34-56 in your text -- there will be a quiz on Friday. :-)

LTM, who has secret desires
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:57:41
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      CIA publications

George Werth gave this reference regarding guano:    

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/hq.html

It is interesting to note that this page, last updated January 2006, does NOT  contain any reference to the Norwich City, which I assumed was the dominant landmark of the island.  I guess that lack of observation is appropriate in view of today's headlines.

LTM, who always looks around first
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:35:01
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Secret stuff

  From Marty Moleski

>  ... The common impression seems to be that all classified material
> contains information that would upset the entire world order if it
> became common knowledge.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> A great deal of classified material is boring, mundane, everyday
> stuff that often is common knowledge to anyone involved in the
> particular business being discussed.  ...

One small anecdote to confirm your view.

In Auckland, I was able to read the index for some of the WPHC's "secret files."

As far as I could tell, they all related to diplomatic issues such as the conflict with the US over land claims in the Pacific.

I suppose the reason that they were more "secret" than the other files was that you wouldn't want the other side's lawyers to see your assessment of the strength of your own case.

Or something mundane like that.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:58:30
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Help Desk

It's a way-off-topic indulgence, but I need some help.

I'd like to take my sons to see some WWII planes. Boneyards are cool - that'd be best, but we may have to go with a museum. A B-29 or a B-17 would be nice to see. I live in Billings, Montana. Does anyone know where is the nearest place to me where we could see these or similar planes?

If so, please e-mail me direct, off-Forum, at

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:22:47
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      LOP through Howland

For Alan Caldwell:

Don't count the LOP out just yet.

Alan, you wrote

< Paige, since they did not find Howland their 157 LOP did not run
through Howland. See my note to Eric.>

and, of course, the note to Eric.

It's a small thing to quibble over, but you're a lawyer, and accustomed to quibbling over minute details, right?  ;-)

If NR16020 hit the LOP far enough south of Howland that the hypothesized brief search northwards ("we are on line 157-337, running north and south..." or some such) didn't get them there, the line they were flying could very well have gone straight through Howland.  This supposes a greater north/south error than many are comfortable attributing to Noonan, but that alone does not place it outside the realm of possibility.  If they hit the LOP say 100 miles south of Howland, a 30 minute run up 337 wouldn't get them in sight of Howland even if the LOP intersected it.  They then turn back to 157 and after 30 more minutes (now an hour of gas searching) they're back to where they started.  They continue down 157, eventually spot Gardner, and the rest is history.

The celestial choir made the point several years ago that the charts (even the charts of 1937) show nothing but ocean for a long, long way north of Howland on 337, but some chance of landfall on 157 south of Howland.  A reasonable person could be led to believe that our dynamic duo wouldn't waste much time on 337 if Howland didn't appear fairly quickly, but would instead follow 157 knowing that if they were too far north, continuing on 337 guaranteed failure, but 157 would eventually bring them to Howland, or if too far south, one of the Phoenix Islands.

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:25:27
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP through Howland

Dave, you are absolutely right that if our heroes were far enough south of course a NW search could miss Howland and Baker. We have no clue as to where the plane was at any time after take off at Lae so everything is pure speculation albeit there are some well thought out educated guesses. As you surmised I predicated my comments on the unlikelihood Noonan could have been off course that much. You may find examples of his off course positions but at destination on such a critical flight I cannot see it. Off course coasting into Africa hardly counts as one cannot miss an entire continent. Heading to a tiny island requires far more attention to navigation. Couple that with the very loud radio transmissions and you will be hard put to get their plane so far off course to the south that they would not even approach sight of Baker. Assuming 120 mph airspeed and flying NW for 30 minutes they would travel 60 miles no wind. Baker is 40 miles SE of Howland and with about 20 or so miles visibility you would need AE to be over 120 miles off course.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:25:55
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Colorado

To Tom Strang:

Thank you for pointing out my error in assuming the Colorado's assumption that the plane was on land when it left Honolulu.  In fact, they were under the assumption at the time that winds aloft carried the plane SE of Howland far enough to have missed Howland, and had developed an over-water search pattern based upon the "facts" at the time.  Subsequent to the Colorado leaving Honolulu, Lockheed engineers stated that if the radio signals were from AE's plane, then she had to be on land, so the Colorado changed its search plan to the Phoenix Islands accordingly.  This didn't really require them to deviate course at the time, since they were still far north of Howland.  After the three-ship search of the 281 north message, everyone pretty much gave up on the messages coming from sea and/or that the radio signals were hoaxes.  That left either a water landing (to be searched by the Lexington) or a land landing in the Phoenix Group.

Reading the Colorado Search Report pretty much clarifies their thinking in real time.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:26:12
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: CIA publications

For Dennis McGee

The website you made reference to was about Howland Island. The wreck of the Norwich City was at Gardner Island. NUFF SAID!

George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member # 2630

LTM who says, "Dennis, clean your spectacles!"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:21:06
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Island spotting

If AE/FN flew within sight of Howland and or Baker but they could not pick up the islands as landmarks what was so different about Gardner that caught their eye?

That is, does the Phoenix Islands form a "land mass" (I know it wouldn't be contiguous land) that is easier to spot than the "land mass" presented by Howland and Baker?  Also, doesn't the geographical relationship between McKean and Gardner somewhat mirror the relationship between Howland and Baker?

======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:29:49
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Ted Campbell

Re. how Niku is different from Howland and Baker in terms of visibility:

1. It's considerably bigger.

2. It's considerably more colorful.

3. It has more and higher vegetation.

4. It has a big aquamarine lagoon that contrasts greatly with the surrounding sea color.

5. AE and FN would have approached it later in the day than they did Howland and Baker, when the sun was higher, presumably altering the visibility of islands lying close to the ocean surface.

LTM (who says Niku is also prettier)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:45:05
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Gardner is an atoll, or a roughly donut shaped island with a watery lagoon in the middle, and green.  Howland and Baker are both just roughly round patches of coral, from the air, with little vegetation.  I would expect them to be harder to find.

Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:45:42
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Ted Campbell wrote

> If AE/FN flew within sight of Howland and or Baker but they could
> not  pick up the islands as landmarks what was so different about
> Gardner  that caught their eye?

Here we enter the wonderful world of speculation, where it has been proposed that with the scattered cloud cover in the vicinity of Howland Island at the time AE and FN arrived there, dozens, perhaps hundreds of cloud shadows, which in the Pacific can resemble islands, interfered with their ability to spot tiny, bean-shaped, even-featured, lagoonless, treeless, dark Howland. This has also been offered as a possible reason why they may not have been able to identify the smoke laid down by the Itasca.

As for spotting Gardner, it has a large, distinctive, bright turquoise lagoon surrounded by lush green vegetation and is much larger, likely impossible to confuse with a shadow. If Noonan was on the LOP he thought he was on (which is more likely than not) and which Earhart clearly broadcast, Gardner would have appeared directly out the starboard windows of the Electra, Norwich City and all, after 2-3 hours flying time.

LTM, who had her head in the clouds

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:31:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

> Also, doesn't the geographical
> relationship between McKean and Gardner somewhat mirror the
> relationship between Howland and Baker?

Ted, I am not clear as to what you mean by your question. If you are referring to their orientation like SE from Howland you have to over fly Baker just as heading to Gardner you must over fly McKean then I can answer you. That question assumes something we don't know. The location of the aircraft and the direction of flight.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:04:22
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Off-topic guano

This is way off-topic, but the extensive discussion about guano reminds me that it's time for my annual DVD viewing of Dr. Strangelove.  The exchange between Group Captain Mandrake and Colonel Batguano over the shooting of the Coke machine in order to get change for a payphone call to the President is stunningly hilarious.

LTM, who thinks everyone should watch both Dr. Strangelove and Monty Python & the Holy Grail at least once per year.

Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:04:59
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Thanks Tom. This has bothered me for a while. Now I understand why they may have been able to see Niku as opposed to Howland.

> From Tom King
>
> For Ted Campbell
>
> Re. how Niku is different from Howland and Baker in terms of visibility:
>
> 1. It's considerably bigger.
>
> 2. It's considerably more colorful.
>
> 3. It has more and higher vegetation.
>
> 4. It has a big aquamarine lagoon that contrasts greatly with the
> surrounding sea color.
>
> 5. AE and FN would have approached it later in the day than they did
> Howland and Baker, when the sun was higher, presumably altering the
> visibility of islands lying close to the ocean surface.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:23:00
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Off-topic guano

Dr. Strangelove was reputedly based on a real mathematician and game
theorist.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:05:35
From:         Alexander Gartshore
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

There is a way of checking to see what the view wouldhave been like from their plane at that altitude and that would be to use the google earth program in 3D view at that altitude. i have been viewing various locations in this mode which lets you see the elevations and depth in the image. the idea would be set the view they would have seen and slowly set the croll going and as it gets closer to the target area you would see more or less to scale what they would have on the flight path. just a thought!

Alexander

L.t.m : nearly got enough virtual airmiles to visit the space station!
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:18:17
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Colorado

For Randy Jacobson

Appreciate to your response to my question. Please understand I did not pose the question to point out an error, I just thought the landscape may have changed. I find your response equally interesting to the point it begets another question.

If when USS Colorado ( BB-45 ) departed Pearl her crew was setting course under the assumption that winds aloft carried NR16020 SE of Howland Island is true. How did they arrive at this assumption?

I find this interesting because I've long thought that USS Colorado's (BB-45) course was set due to speculation that the Phoenix Island Group offered the most logical alternate landing site to Howland Island.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:07:52
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

If I may add on to this speculation.

Assuming they had followed the LOP and flew SE at 1000 ft in search of Howland or for an alternate landing, how far from Gardner were they when they first sighted it ? Could they see the whole Island or just the Nutiran, the reef flat, part of the lagoon and the NC wreck ? I supposed by this time they would need to make a very quick decision whether to continue searching or attempt a landing.

I have no flying experience and I am just wondering how would they approach the island - lower the flaps and just head straight for the reef flats between Nutiran and NC or would they fly round the island and look for a clear patch of area to land. (I doubt they had this luxury of a fly round).

If they had just "glided" the plane in and land on the reef flat, is it possible to simulate what kind of damage the Electra would sustain ? Will the wheels, landing gear and tail section hold out ?

Like I have said this is pure speculation. I have no way to even make a guess - educated or otherwise. :-\
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:50:46
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Chin Koon Fun wrote:

> Assuming they had followed the LOP and flew SE at 1000 ft in search
> of Howland or for an alternate landing, how far from Gardner were
> they when they first sighted it ? Could they see the whole Island or
> just the Nutiran, the reef flat, part of the lagoon and the NC wreck ?
> I supposed by this time they would need to make a very quick decision
> whether to continue searching or attempt a landing.

Let me first reiterate we don't know where, geographically, the "LOP" was. Nor do we know they followed it anywhere. All we know was that they said they were running north and south on 157/337 (sort of). That could have been a track or a heading. We assume they were searching for Howland when they said that. We have very little idea where they were at the time. If you will look at a GNC of the area and do a little plotting you will see that it is unlikely they reached Gardner strictly by flying a 157 degree course.

If Noonan could get a sun shot (equipment, weather and aircraft stability cooperating) he could obtain a course line to any of the Phoenix Islands. Yes, even back to Howland but heading for a group of islands rather than two might have been a deciding factor.

I have been a pilot since 1955 and have flown in similar conditions many times in the Pacific in the areas of Hawaii, Wake, Guam, and the Philippines. I have also flown in the Atlantic in the areas of the Azores, Bermuda and the Caribbean.

The charts say that at 1,000 feet the distance to the horizon is 42.56 + Statute miles. You will need to reduce that for haze, clouds, etc. I would also guess that the direction of approach would be a factor but Gardner should have been fairly easy to spot.

If our fuel reserve estimates are close and I am confident they are they would arrive at Gardner with precious little fuel. They needed to land with as much fuel left as possible in order to be able to run one engine to operate their radio. I would have liked to have circled the island and made one low level pass on my selected landing area. That may have not been an option for AE. I've looked at Gardner carefully using the TIGHAR video and if necessary I would not have hesitated in just putting the plane down immediately on arrival.

Does that help?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:51:04
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Chin Koon Fun

On a clear day visibility at 1,000 ft is about 30 miles, provided you stay under the cloud base. There is no way of knowing how Amelia Earhart proceeded when landing on Gardner Island. Normal procedure was and still is to make a low pass over the strip first to make sure the surface is safe to land on. The pilot would then return and fly a normal landing pattern, almost certainly preparing for a short field landing. This means the aircraft would come in (gear down of course) with full laps and the engine power required to keep the airplane above stalling speed (theoretically coming in at 15 % above the latter). Gliding an airplane in without power is something you normally do not (although one Canadian Airbus pilot managed to glide an A330 safely down to  the Azores s recently, having run out of fuel over the Atlantic through erratic fuel management). One reason to believe Amelia Earhart did not glide down is the fact she had fuel remaining to keep an engine turning to generate electricity for the post-loss radio signals.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:47:05
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Alan,

how much confidence do you have that AE could have set the plane down in a manner that left engines intact? Given your experience as a pilot and with the area and the TIGHAR video of Gardner(Niku).

Sorry If you've already answered this highly speculative question.

Thanks!
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:47:27
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Alan Caldwell and Chin Koon Fun

One thing that intrigues me about the wise pilot's inclination to circle the island before committing to a particular landing site is that if they'd done this at Niku they would have seen the two pools at the SE end of the island, one of which in particular might well have looked like fresh water and be the reason one or both of them eventually abandoned Nutiran and went to the other end of the island, to die at the nearby Seven Site.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:23:59
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Now that's an interesting thought; would it imply that he/she/they died relatively quickly?  (Scenario: they go through the Norwich City cache, trek down to the Seven Site looking for fresh water thinking there was a fresh water pond there, whoops, hang on for a short while, die).

If they didn't die quickly, (which the "trails" would seem to indicate), why did they stay there?  Maybe just shear inertia (we walked all the way down here; one place is as good as another)? The Seven Site is a good distance from the Norwich City survivors' cache and the Norwich City itself, the most obvious landmark/attention-getter on the island for any searchers. If Ric is right, considerable effort was expended getting the sheet metal down there from the old settlement. What is it about the Seven Site that would make it compelling to a castaway and justify that magnitude of effort?

Until the Seven Site is fully excavated I guess we can't know if it was used for a week or a year but at some point they must have had a real problem getting an ignition source for a fire.  I believe that there were multiple fire pits found, not a single pit that could have been tended continuously which, to me, argues that the pits were from the later land clearing project or from the Loran Station crew. It would actually be a good thing if clam shells were found at the Seven Site that clearly were not cooked.

The whole "where did they get potable water" thing bugs me.  I hope that there is someone on the Forum who could state how much water a day a person would need to survive in that heat vs what could be collected from rainfall; I don't think that I've ever seen those numbers.

LTM (who made me study Maslow)

Art Carty

> From Tom King
>
> For Alan Caldwell and Chin Koon Fun
>
> One thing that intrigues me about the wise pilot's inclination to
> circle the island before committing to a particular landing site
> is  that if they'd done this at Niku they would have seen the two
> pools  at the SE end of the island, one of which in particular
> might well  have looked like fresh water and be the reason one or
> both of them  eventually abandoned Nutiran and went to the other
> end of the island,  to die at the nearby Seven Site.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:24:29
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Colorado

To: Tom Strang

The Colorado Report simply states that on the 3rd, the staff of the Colorado met with representatives of the 14th Naval District and Fleet Air Base.  The conclusion at the time was that winds aloft, if stronger than anticipated, would mean that the plane ended up SE of Howland.  That is what they said.

When I did my Monte Carlo modeling, I found that if AE anticipated a certain strength wind from a certain direction (say slightly starboard of being true headwind), and the winds were reduced in strength from forecasts, the compensation in the aircraft would take the aircraft to the right of the intended course (southward).  If the winds were more coming more from the east than anticipated, then the same thing would happen.  My Monte Carlo modeling said they ended up SW of Howland when they said "We must be on you", as I could not infer where they went after that time.  That position, however, was based upon dead reckoning from Lae without any navigational fixes and assuming the weather that was available to AE at the time of takeoff, and adjusting for known differences in winds aloft from that forecast.

I have a hard time justifying that any stronger winds would put them east of the intended LOP through Howland, but I can see and believe that AE might well have been south of the direct path from Lae to Howland.  Perhaps the SouthEast of Howland cited in the report simply meant to go search along the LOP area south of Howland, rather than a true SE of Howland.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:24:55
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

> how much confidence do you have that AE could have set the plane down
> in a manner that left engines intact?

I think it would have been a piece of cake, Rusty

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:25:32
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Let me first reiterate we don't know where, geographically, the "LOP"
> was. Nor do we know they followed it anywhere. All we know was that
> they said they were running north and south on 157/337 (sort of).
> That could have been a track or a heading. We assume they were
> searching for Howland when they said that. We have very little idea
> where they were at the time. If you will look at a GNC of the area
> and do a little plotting you will see that it is unlikely they
> reached Gardner strictly by flying a 157 degree course.

Can anyone tell me the LOP one would follow to get from Howland to Gardner?  (Just curious.)

LTM (who wants to know what an LOP is)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:35:52
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Allan, Tom and Herman.

Thanks. Yes it helps.

Agree with you - the biggest question is where exactly was the LOP they were mentioning about in their msg. and which direction were they going. These are critical but sadly unknown or perhaps unknowable now.

I have learnt a lot from you guys at this forum. No regrets signing up and there's never a dull moment reading the posting and exchanges. :-)

Chin Koon Fun
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:13:41
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Art Carty

You're jumping to the conclusion that Ric's right about the castaway (s) dragging in the sheet metal to the Seven Site, but that's only one hypothesis -- which I think is nutsoid.  I think it's far more likely that Gallagher had the sheet metal brought in to cover the areas he'd searched.  The two hypotheses are discussed in "Shoes," by the way.  I originally proposed the Gallagher-source hypothesis figuring he was trying to keep the scaevola from growing back, but it's recently occurred to me -- as I've been sort of modeling how his search might have progressed -- that if he did the searching himself, over a period of discontinuous time, he'd have to have a reasonably permanent way of distinguishing between areas he had and hadn't yet searched, and if he had a bunch of crappy old Arundel-era sheet metal on hand, it might have been a pretty obvious thing to use.

As to what makes the Seven Site attractive -- once you're there, it's at least as nice as anyplace else on the island, and nicer than some.  Good breezes, available turtle nesting area, plenty of fish, good access to both reef and lagoon, trees for shelter and from which to gather rainwater, birds.

LTM (who thinks it's a lovely place)
TK
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:13:21
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Sheet metal

Tom King said:  "[I]'ve been sort of modeling how his search might have progressed -- that if he did the searching himself, over a period of discontinuous time, he'd have to have a reasonably permanent way of distinguishing between areas he had and hadn't yet searched, and if he had a bunch of crappy old Arundel-era sheet metal on hand, it might have been a pretty obvious thing to use."

Tom, I think that's pushing the envelope at bit.

As I remember it, the steel sheeting was fairly heavy, according to the data posted earlier.  Dragging that stuff all of the way to the 7-site would require a substantial amount of energy to be used  . . . .just to mark areas they've already searched??   I can't see that.

That's a lot of work when he could just as easily mark off the searched area with a lot less effort.

Now, if you are proposing that the steel sheeting served a dual purpose, yeah, I can buy that.  I can see Gallagher dragging the stuff to the 7-site for some reason AND "as long was we got it here let's use it to cover the areas we've searched" would be reasonable.

LTM, who occasionally avoids reason
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:20:09
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Alan wrote "we don't know where, geographically, the LOP was". I think we do. If there was any place where one will still find it, it is by taking a protractor and draw the Line of Position (LOP) 157/337 running through Howland island. Since an LOP is a line drawn on the map at a 90 degrees angle to track, it means their track would have been 67 degrees. What we do not know is what the wind was at the time and therefore what the heading was Amelia Earhart had been steering to correct for drift. This is precisely why the LOP was invented because aviators at the time could not know exactly where they would be at the end of the flight. The imaginary line that ran through their destination would tell them they had flown the distance. By turning left (or right) the island would then have appeared on the horizon over the nose of the Electra.

What we also do not know is whether Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were actually on the LOP. They believed they were. That is the question that has kept this forum busy for years. When they reached the LOP Howland Island should have been either to the left or to the right of the Electra's course, depending on their position at the end of the long flight from Lae. . This is where they expected to pick up the radio signal from Itasca they did not pick up. The signal would have corrected any uncertainty about their position on the LOP and would tell them whether  to turn left or right. That was their problem. The only way of knowing they actually were on the LOP was by looking at their watches, preferably Noonan's because he had been making all the calculations en route, and believe his calculations were right. At the time the watch hands were where FN calculated they should have been they would be on the LOP and by turning left (or right) and fly along the line that ran  to 337 degrees to the left and to 157 degrees on the right, Howland should have appeared on the horizon. As we are all aware of, this is precisely where things went wrong. The island apparently was not where they had it expected to be.  Therefore we don't know where they were. Neither did they. But we do know they were very near the LOP and very near to Howland as the strength of their radio signal heard by Itasca proved.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:10:05
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

The  Course from Howland to Niku (Gardner) is 159 ¡ True. However, this is NOT an LOP. You can determine where you are in relationship to an LOP and make correction to get back onto it by use of celestial navigation techniques. A course is just the initial direction from one place to another and provides no guidance to detect deviation from it or a method to stay on it. All you can do is turn to a compass heading (which is the true course corrected for magnetic variation, magnetic deviation, and an estimated wind correction angle.) Then, with no additional information available, you can drift off that course just due to natural deviations in maintaining the compass heading and changes in the wind.

There are various estimates for the loss of accuracy in following a compass heading as time and distance from the known starting point increases. (It must be kept in mind that they were not starting from a known point, if they had had such a known point then they would have landed at Howland.) The estimates range from 5% of the distance covered, 10% of the distance covered  and to 20 nautical miles per hour flown plus 1% of the distance flown. About 350 nautical miles to Niku and about 3 hours flying time so these produce inaccuracy estimates of 17.5 NM, 35 NM and 63.5 NM respectively.

It must also be realized that there was NO LOP GOING FROM HOWLAND TO NIKU!!!! Just by coincidence the 157-337¡ LOP, determined within 1 hour of sun rise at Howland, if extended, passed close to Niku. This LOP would no longer have existed later after the sun had moved across the sky changing the azimuth to the sun which then changes the azimuth of the LOP derived from a sun sight.

To get a better understanding of these concepts see the resources available at http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/  including the chart covering the Howland to Gardner leg.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:10:37
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

> From Herman De Wulf
>
> Alan wrote "we don't know where, geographically, the LOP was". I think we
> do. If there was any place where one will still find it, it is by taking a
> protractor and draw the Line of Position (LOP) 157/337 running through
> Howland island. Since an LOP is a line drawn on the map at a 90 degrees
> angle to track, it means their track would have been 67 degrees.

Response from Gary LaPook:

Sorry, but you apparently have not appreciated what a celestial LOP derived from shooting the sun actually is. Such an LOP runs at right angles to the azimuth to the sun an the moment the sight is taken, not at right angles to the course. The azimuth to the sun at sun rise at Howland, and for about an hour after that, was 067¡ True so the LOP was 157-337¡ T. The actual course from Lae to Howland was 78¡ T.

> position on the LOP and would tell them whether to turn left or right. That
> was their problem. The only way of knowing they actually were on the LOP was
> by looking at their watches, preferably Noonan's because he had been  making
> all the calculations en route, and believe his calculations were right. At
> the time the watch hands were where FN calculated they should have been they
> would be on the LOP and by turning left (or right) and fly along the  line
> that ran  to 337 degrees to the left and to 157 degrees on the right,
> Howland should have appeared on the horizon.

Further response:

You have more than your watch.
You continue to take sights of the sun as you approach the LOP to determine when you are actually there. Then you take additional sights to ensure that you are staying on the LOP as you look for Howland.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:20:04
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Sheet metal

For Dennis McGee

I'd a lot sooner imagine a bunch of brawny Gilbertese schlepping the sheet iron down to the Seven Site on a boat than a couple of immaciated castaways dragging it around the shore.

The stuff doesn't make much sense where it is under any circumstances; whatever brought it there may have been a bit wierd.

LTM (who's pretty wierd herself)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:21:38
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Herman wrote:

> Alan wrote:
>
>> We don't know where, geographically, the LOP was.
>
> I think we do. If there was any place where one will still find it, it is by
> taking a protractor and draw the Line of Position (LOP) 157/337 running 
> through Howland island. Since an LOP is a line drawn on the map at a 90
> degrees angle to track, it means their track would have been 67 degrees.

Sorry, Herman, I stand by my statement. You are referring merely to the line Noonan drew on his chart. He arrived at that point by passage of time based on what he thought his ground speed was. The real LOP as far as Noonan was concerned was where he was when his ETA expired. We don't know where that was. Noonan had course lines and LOPs all over his chart but it is unlikely his flight path EVER coincided with them exactly.

We have no interest whatsoever about the line on his chart. What we are interested in is the point where he THOUGHT he was on his LOP. Factoring in winds, and shooting and computation errors that point, that line of position could have been anywhere within the parameters of those errors. So, no, we don't know where his LOP actually was.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:22:02
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Good post, Gary. I think we need to conduct a school on the LOP issue. Too few understand this concept, particularly as it is applied to our mystery.

Actually I would recommend for all to totally forget the LOP. It is of no practical use to anyone. All it did for Noonan was to give him a fair idea of his longitude and a ground speed.

It is apparent to me he was using it briefly to search NW/SE for Howland between 07:42 and 08:43. Beyond that it was of no use to him or any of us. Everyone needs to quit thinking he followed his original LOP to Niku or anywhere else. He didn't know where he was and so he didn't know where, on the surface, his LOP was.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:22:24
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

I would like to add that we don't even know what Noonan's inbound track to Howland was. Whatever course corrections he may have needed would have changed that from the 078 degree flight planned track.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:25:44
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

The 157/337 LOP is NOT, repeat, NOT 90 degrees to the flight line. The LOP is 90 degrees to the direction of the sun rise over the east-northeast horizon.  AE's flight line could be at any angle.  When the sunrise shot is taken (actually, just a sun shot...it doesn't have to be sunrise), one gets information as to how far away from the hypothetical LOP passing through an arbitrary point to your estimated location.  The problem is, that this distance is only the distance perpendicular to the LOP passing through the hypothetical point.  The difference in distance is the offset of the hypothetical LOP and the real-time LOP measured.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:03:55
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

An oldy but goody... Ric wrote on 10/5/01:

>  My opinion is based upon two beliefs:
>
>    1. I think that the most accurate piece of information Earhart
> transmitted was "We are on the line 157/337". I know of no reason
> why Noonan would not have been able to establish that position
> within an accuracy of about 10 miles. Therefore I do not think the
> airplane undershot or overshot the LOP running through Howland to
> any significant degree.
>
>    2. I think that the strength of the radio signals indicates that
> the airplane came within a reasonable distance of Howland. A
> maximum of two hundred miles is a liberal estimate based upon Bob
> Brandenburg's analysis in the Eighth Edition. Why a minimum of
> about 80 miles? The logic goes like this.
>
> Assumption: They were on the LOP that ran through Howland and Baker.
>
> Assumption: Failing to see Howland at 19:12 GCT they followed a
> logical course of action - i.e. they ran northwestward along the
> LOP as far as they dared then turned around and proceeded
> southeastward while they still had enough fuel to be sure of
> reaching land.
>
> Assumption: In carrying out this procedure they did not see Howland
> or Baker.
>
> Conclusion: They had to have started from a position on the LOP
> that was significantly southeast of Baker. Eighty miles from
> Howland puts them about 40 miles southeast of Baker.
>
> Like I said, it's just an opinion.
>
> LTM,
> Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:21:51
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

On the morning of 2 July 1937 the strenght of radio signals from NR16020 suggests that the aircraft was reasonably close to Itasca. But does the strenght of the radio signal prove definitely that NR16020 was close to Itasca? Can a strong radio signal be picked up yet be quite some distance away from the receiving station?

Respectfully,

Tom  Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:22:15
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Alan Caldwell

Would it be wrong then to believe that when Noonan shot the sun at sunrise establishing their then LOP, he would next have drawn the 158/337 LOP that ran through Howland on his map, then calculate the time it would take to reach that line ? Do you think it is wrong to believe that Amelia Earhart's radio message saying they were two hours out would have been based on this computation ? I think we are confusing LOPs here. You are right when you say Noonan did not now what his real LOP was when they found Howland was not where they expected it to be. I believe he did have an LOP drawn on his map running through Howland, which was the LOP where they SHOULD be on eventually. I can see no other reason why Amelia Earhart would radio they were flying along the 157/337 line. In my opinion the line she referred to was the LOP Fred Noonan had drawn on his map as the LOP they should reach by their Estimated Time of Arrival or ETA. It is clear they were not where he believed to be.

From that moment on Noonan would be shooting the sun again to find out on what line they really were. I is my understanding that when Amelia Earhart sent the message they were flying up and down the 158/337 line they were convinced they were on their LOP and searching for Howland. Hence the next message : "We must be on you but cannot see you".

In my opinion the whole confusion and the disaster that followed demonstrates it had not been a good idea not to have installed Hooven's Bendix ADF. It would have saved their lives. But then there would not have been a need for this forum, right ?

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:22:34
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

To: Tom King

Tom, would the sheet metal form a barrier to undergrowth while the rest of the site was being cleared for eventual planting of some other crop e.g. coconut trees, vegetables, etc.

I do not know how quickly the native plants would re grow and take over an area that had just undergone a clearing project.  I would guess within 1 or 2 weeks (depending on rain, etc.) things would be such that re clearing would have to be done if row crops were planted but trees - a single hole - may have been possible without a great deal of effort.

Do we know if the Coast Guard planted any crops to supplement their rations?

Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:36:44
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Sun line?

re: LOPs
For Navigators:

I see some researchers refer to a "sunline" as opposed to a "LOP". Are they in fact different? Or the same?

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:59:19
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

> It is my understanding that when Amelia Earhart sent the message
> they were flying up and down the 158/337 line they were convinced
> they were on their LOP and searching for Howland. Hence the next
> message : "We must be on you but cannot see you".

Herman, you have the messages reversed. "We must be on you..." came first at 07:42. It was at 08:43 that she transmitted the 137/337 message.

Sorry to repost most of your message, Herman but it will be easier to answer your questions and for others to follow the dialogue.
************
Herman wrote:

> Would it be wrong then to believe that when Noonan shot the sun at sunrise
> establishing their then LOP, he would next have drawn the 158/337
> LOP that ran through Howland on his map, then calculate the time it
> would take to reach that line ?

The LOP is 157/337. Noonan would most likely have shot several sun lines before drawing one through Howland because he needed them to compute ground speed and thus his ETA.

> Do you think it is wrong to believe that Amelia Earhart's radio
> message saying they were two hours out would have been based on
> this computation ?

Yes. They "arrived" at 07:42 and so two hours out would have been 05:42 which was a half hour before sunrise. No sun lines could have been obtained and thus no computations. That call most likely was based on a DR position.

> I believe he did have an LOP drawn on his map running through
> Howland, which was the LOP where they SHOULD be on eventually. I
> can see no other reason why Amelia Earhart would radio they were
> flying along the 157/337 line. In my opinion the line she referred
> to was the LOP Fred Noonan had drawn on his map as the LOP they
> should reach by their Estimated Time of Arrival or ETA. It is clear
> they were not where he believed to be. From that moment on Noonan
> would be shooting the sun again to find out on what line they
> really were.

Correct. Of course here lies a big mystery. Why was Noonan not able to refine his position when they did not immediately see Howland? Did he not try or was he unable to shoot further celestial? Weather or an unstable shooting platform could have prevented further shots. We know there were significant cumulus clouds based about 2400 feet but we don't know the tops. Rough air could have made shooting difficult but that is usually an afternoon rather than morning occurrence.

It appears clear they searched NW/SE for at least one hour but were unable to refine their position.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:59:47
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Sun line?

> I see some researchers refer to a "sunline" as opposed to a "LOP".
> Are they in fact different? Or the same?

Ron, you don't want to go there. <G> For all practical purposes they are being used to mean the same but a technically correct answer would confuse everyone.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:19:13
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      More questions about the Colorado

I have some more questions regarding the COLORADO's search of the Phoenix Islands:

Was the decision to search the Phoenix Islands made in Pearl Harbor or did it come down from some "higher authority" such as the CNO's office in Washington, D.C.?

Since the Phoenix Islands were under British control in 1937, did the U.S. State Department become involved by officially requesting permission for the COLORADO to proceed to and search these islands?

If permission was obtained in advance, did the British place any restrictions on the COLORADO such as where its planes could land or if search parties could be landed on shore?

Is there any evidence to suggest that British officials in the Phoenix Islands conducted searches of their own prior to the COLORADO arriving there?

Since the amount of radio equipment and the number of licensed radio operators in the Phoenix Islands must have been rather small in 1937, was any attempt made to find out who was responsible for sending the post-loss radio signals after they were "officially" declared to be misunderstandings or out-right hoaxes?

Again, just curious.

LTM (who is also curious)

Eric

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:19:32
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      LOP

Alan writes:

>Ron, you don't want to go there.

Amen. The LOP has been the topic of more discussion on this forum than anything else, by far. It is a tough thing to understand.

LTM, who never understood it, either,

Alfred #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:19:54
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: Sun line?

To: Ron Bright

In my days as a Navigator, a "sunline" and an LOP were one and the same. Each is the perpendicular to the azimuth of the body from the observer - a segment of the "circle of equal altitude" to the body.

PMB.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:20:28
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Submerged airplane

I keep forgetting to post this.

Some time ago I heard through someone in TIGHAR that there was a claim a California newspaper told of a cable laying ship that had spotted a twin engine airplane on the ocean bottom within 100 miles of Howland.

Sounded suspicious to me but was a rabbit trail that needed to be tracked down.

I found no such item in the California papers but it was not a thorough search. I found the company responsible for cable laying in that area. Southern Cross was the company. They knew of no such report but referred me to the company that did the actual surveying of the cable route. That was Fugro. They checked all their digital data, sonar, soundings etc and there was no such report in their files or data. That WAS a thorough check. Bottom line is it didn't happen.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:20:49
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Ted Campbell

<<would the sheet metal form a barrier to undergrowth while the
rest of the site was being cleared for eventual planting of some
other crop e.g. coconut trees, vegetables, etc.>>

Probably not an effective one, but it could have been used to protect the surface of the site from trampling feet.  I continue to think it's more likely the stuff was used simply to distinguish areas that had been searched from areas that hadn't -- particularly since it's possible that Gallagher himself did all the searching, in his spare time over the October-December 1940 period, when the weather was dreadful and would have blown loose vegetation from place to place.

<<I do not know how quickly the native plants would re grow and take
over an area that had just undergone a clearing project.>>

Scaevola grows fast, but not if the canopy is intact -- as it probably was at that point.

<<Do we know if the Coast Guard planted any crops to supplement their
rations?>>

Nothing in the records indicates that they did, and none of those we've spoken or corresponded with have indicated doing such a thing.

LTM (who might have planted pansies)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:21:37
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: More questions about the Colorado

I believe the Commandant, 14th Naval District, put forth the idea of the Colorado into the AE Search by asking the CNO.

No request to the Brits was undertaken.  Once Lambrecht landed at Hull, and talked to the colonial administrator there, there was quite a stir in the State Dept. and the Navy about proper procedures that should have been taken.  Suffice it to say, it was better to let sleeping dogs lie. There was no search of the Phoenix Islands by the Brits, as there were no ships in the area.  There was one colonial administrator on Hull, with some Tokelau planters, as well as some on Sydney.

Jones, the administrator on Hull, did have a radio, but it was out of commission at the time of the search.  No other radios are known to have existed in the area, with the exception of Howland, Baker and Jarvis Islands.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:04:28
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Sun line?

LOP (line of position) is more general than "sunline" as an LOP can be derived by other methods than shooting the sun. An LOP gives you part of the information needed to determine your position. If you can determine two or more LOPs at the same time (or make appropriate corrections to bring them to a common time)  then you can determine your position or "fix." For example, if you know that you are on State Street in Chicago (which runs straight north  and south) then you are on the "State Street LOP" and can look at that LOP on you chart (or map) of Chicago but you do not know exactly where along  State Street you are. If, at the same time,  you also see a street sign saying "79th Street" (which runs run due east and west) then you know that you are also on the "79th Street LOP" at the same time. You then know that you are on two LOPs that cross at right angles. You can then look at you map of Chicago and know that you are at the intersection of of the two lines representing 79th street and State Street. Those lines are LOPs.

LOPs can also be derived from natural features such as shorelines or rivers or manmade linear features such as roads and railroads. Suppose that you are standing on the beach in Chicago at 79th Street. You could then look at your map and know that you are at the intersection of 79th Street and the shore line of  Lake Michigan. You can also determine LOPs by the use of visual or radio bearings by using a compass or an RDF (radio direction finder) respectively. You can "mix and match" your LOPs such as using a radio bearing crossed with a celestial LOP.

A "sunline" is simply a celestial LOP determined by shooting the sun with a sextant (measuring its angle above horizontal) and then doing the necessary computations to determine where to place the LOP on the chart. I suppose that one could have a "moon line" or a Mars line" but that terminology isn't commonly used.

Peter Boor is correct in saying that a celestial LOP is a segment of a "circle of equal altitude" but since the radius of that circle is usually so great then a segment of it a hundred miles long can be accurately represented by a straight line for practical navigational purposes, especially in aircraft since less accuracy is achievable than from a ship. For instance, a zero altitude observation ( the sun at sun rise) the "circle of equal altitude" would have a radius of 5400 nautical miles and if the sun is at 45 degrees above the horizon then the radius would be 2700 NM.

Of interest on this forum is the celestial LOP derived by Noonan using the sun which was at an azimuth of 067¡ True (as measured from true north not magnetic or compass north) from the time of sunrise until about one hour later which results in an LOP at right angles running 157¡-337¡ True, so for our purposes we can use LOP and sunline interchangeably. (With the possible exception of  an LOP determined by Noonan using the moon which should also have been visible as they approached Howland, but this is rarely discussed on the Forum.)

For more information check out the reference materials available at http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:05:07
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

I have been out of town, so I am just catching up on the Forum.

Way back on 20Feb06, Alan Caldwell writes:

> I have tried to get folks off the 157/337 LOP kick for a long
> time.  This is why. When inbound to Howland FN would have been
> expected to  shoot a couple of sun lines to get a longitude and a
> ground speed.  then he would have drawn a line through Howland on
> his map, measured  the distance to that line from his last LOP,
> applied his ground speed  and obtained a time over Howland or
> somewhere on that 157/337 line.
>
> Due to inherent CEA, wind changes, etc. at the time he believed he
> was on his LOP he was NOT over Howland as we now know and he knew
> at  the time. Therefore the 157/337 LOP he was on was not the same
> line  he drew on his chart. We don't know whether it was short or
> long of  the Howland line. That means we cannot follow a 157/337
> LOP to  anywhere because we don't know where on the surface it was.

This is certainly a viable hypothesis. There is another viable hypothesis, espoused by Ric, that AE and FN were indeed on the LOP through Howland, but far south(east) of Howland and Baker when they arrived.

Now, what is the evidence that favors one hypothesis over the other? None, as far as I can see. They are both reasonable. I cannot reject either. (Alan, correct me if I have missed some evidence here favoring your hypothesis)

And under either hypothesis, it is still reasonable to suspect that they "arrived" at McKean first. Under the Caldwell hypothesis, they get a sun shot, realize that they are not on the LOP through Howland, and they look at a map for the nearest land. If they are far enough away from Howland and Baker that they cannot go to those two islands, then I think the most reasonable choice is McKean. I doubt that in 1937 AE knew that you couldn't land a plane at McKean.

Hence, my speculation on 20Feb06 that they went to McKean first, and then had to look for the next island, which was Gardner. That must have been very frustrating to have to fly another 80 or so miles to Gardner, and still not know if you would be able to land the plane...

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:41:32
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: Sun line?

Precisely correct, Gary. In my navigational days, I believe I shot the moon for position only a few times to practice, and was not happy with the results. The reason is that the moon is so large (where do you aim - center, limb?) and travels so relatively fast that any error is multiplied greatly. The sun and planets are better, but at night when planets were visible, the stars were too, and they were always the best (pinpoints, relatively slow motion).

As I think back to put myself in FN's place, my stomach turns when I come up to my ETA and can't hear anyone on the radio, or see my destination. No bearings. What to do? And there is that woman berating me from the cockpit...

Having been in the Pacific looking out the window for those minute islands - trying to spot an island among the many cloud shadows wasn't easy. I had a radar - and even when I knew where to look, it was a challenge - Peter Boor.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 26 Feb 2006 12:55:53
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Sun line?

> With the possible exception of  an LOP
> determined by Noonan using the moon which should also have been
> visible as they approached Howland, but this is rarely discussed on
> the Forum.)

Only by me. <G>

Good, clear explanation, Gary that only a few of us will comprehend and the rest will be further confused. I stick by my comment that everyone should forget totally anything about LOPs. The issue serves not one single usable purpose.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:22:02
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Paige wrote:

> This is certainly a viable hypothesis. There is another viable
> hypothesis, espoused by Ric, that AE and FN were indeed on the LOP
> through Howland, but far south(east) of Howland and Baker when they
> arrived.
>
> Now, what is the evidence that favors one hypothesis over the other?
> None, as far as I can see. They are both reasonable. I cannot reject
> either. (Alan, correct me if I have missed some evidence here
> favoring your hypothesis)

Paige, in order for our heroes to be ON the "LOP" but so far south as to not see Baker if they searched NW they had to be over 120 miles off course. THAT is not reasonable. Possible but to claim Noonan was that bad is too much of a stretch. To make that work their NW search had to be extremely short, say 40 or 50 miles or less then to the SE 70 or 80 miles to use up their hour of search. That would still put them closer to Howland than Gardner. My belief is that they were east of Howland far enough not to see the island considering the local conditions and whether they were north or south is not material as to why they didn't see Howland. I say this because the winds, as Randy pointed out shifted slightly counter clockwise, possibly putting them south but also diminished in intensity which would have put them east when their ETA expired. There is no doubt they could have also been west of Howland but I don't have as good a rationale for that. Stronger winds early on perhaps.

> And under either hypothesis, it is still reasonable to suspect that
> they "arrived" at McKean first. Under the Caldwell hypothesis, they
> get a sun shot, realize that they are not on the LOP through Howland,
> and they look at a map for the nearest land. If they are far enough
> away from Howland and Baker that they cannot go to those two islands,
> then I think the most reasonable choice is McKean. I doubt that in
> 1937 AE knew that you couldn't land a plane at McKean.

That is NOT my hypothesis, Paige. When they didn't see Howland all they could have known was they were far enough away in ANY direction that they couldn't see it.  They clearly believed Baker and Howland were nearest. (We must be on you) Having not flown in that area before how could they come to the conclusion one of the Phoenix Islands was easier to spot particularly not knowing what the weather would be like? Granted a sun shot would give them a course line to one of the Phoenix Islands but it would also give a course line to Howland and Baker just as well.

Personally, I have trouble believing that with low fuel they would strike out over a long distance of open ocean and fly over three hours to find islands that were widely spaced enough to miss. From over Howland Gardner is 403 S.M. They had to know they could be NORTH of Howland (or they would not have run north and south on the 157/337 LOP) which would have made the Phoenix Islands impossible to reach. Nor would I believe that if they came upon McKean they would pass it up and take a chance on finding Gardner before dry tanks. None of this makes any sense to me whatsoever. To make the slightest sense I think they would have to know they were south of Howland. If they knew that then they had to know roughly how far south. How could they know that piece of information? There were no surface features to tell them. Only a celestial fix could provide that. That means latitude information. It was possible, weather permitting, to get two LOPs to cross at that time which would narrow their location down to a CEA factor. Then a sun shot could provide a course but again one that would go to Howland as well as to Gardner. To be closer to Gardner they had to be more than 200 miles off course. I can't buy that. Someone help? <G> I'm not coming up with an acceptable scenario.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:00:20
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Alan Caldwell

Be calm, Alan -- there's no way any of us are ever going to have an answer to how and exactly where they flew, or exactly what decisions they made.  But isn't it within the realm of reason that they were pretty well south of Howland but thought they were a bit north, and therefore flew south?

LTM (who doesn't fly if she can help it)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:39:58
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Tom wrote:

> But isn't it within the realm of reason that they were
> pretty well south of Howland but thought they were a bit north, and
> therefore flew south?

Yes, Tom, that's possible but as a long time pilot I have trouble believing they could be that far off course and that confused. They were tracking their position all the way and certainly not playing it casual near the end. They could have flown no wind DR and come closer than that. One particular error could have caused considerable grief and that is applying magnetic deviation the wrong direction. On that day it was -9.5 degrees. If Noonan added it instead he would have been way south and short. The problem is that he had to be subtracting prior to the last few hours or he would have easily noticed. I doubt one last mistake of that nature.

But you're right. We will never know. What they seemingly did would not make sense to a good pilot and navigator. If they had over three  hours of fuel left they had time to get a good fix even if they had to climb back to altitude and still find Howland.

Alan, very calm <G>
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:17:36
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

For Alan,

This sounds like the "official cablegram" that I have from a survey company laying cable south of Howland area, I beleive. They picked up a aircraft debris, one with a NR 16020 on the side, but since there where many military planes on the bottom, they threw it back into the sea. Investigaton showed it was a neat forgery by some hoaxter. Details are available if wanted. It sure looked real....

Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:18:00
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

And there is always the deliberate offset to one side of the destination to make sure that you know what side of the destination you are on when you intercept the LOP through the destination. Normal navigation practice would call for an intercept of the LOP with a deliberate off set to the northwest, not the southeast. Baker also provides a second target 40 NM south east of Howland on the same LOP which acts as a backstop and provides an additional 40 NM of protection from being too far off course to find Howland, find Baker and you find Howland. If, for example, Noonan had deliberately aimed to intercept the LOP 60 NM northwest of Howland he would have had to have been more than 110 NM off course to the south of where he though he was in order to miss both Howland and Baker, (60 NM offset + 40 NM to Baker +10 NM visibility) a very unlikely event. He would also take additional sun sights to ensure staying on the LOP after interception.

Alan, I agree with you and we have been over this same ground many times and I am only writing about again for the benefit of the new people on the forum.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:18:35
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Alan Caldwell hypothesizes:

> Paige, in order for our heroes to be ON the "LOP" but so far south
> as  to not see Baker if they searched NW they had to be over 120
> miles  off course. THAT is not reasonable. Possible but to claim
> Noonan was  that bad is too much of a stretch.

And yet right here in this forum, others with impeccable credentials say this is reasonable and not too much of a stretch. As I said, I see no evidence that leads me to prefer the Caldwell hypothesis over the TIGHAR hypothesis, or vice versa.

> That is NOT my hypothesis, Paige. When they didn't see Howland all
> they could have known was they were far enough away in ANY
> direction  that they couldn't see it.  They clearly believed Baker
> and Howland  were nearest. (We must be on you) Having not flown in
> that area  before how could they come to the conclusion one of the
> Phoenix  Islands was easier to spot particularly not knowing what
> the weather  would be like? Granted a sun shot would give them a
> course line to  one of the Phoenix Islands but it would also give a
> course line to  Howland and Baker just as well.

I didn't mean to imply it was your hypothesis. I meant to imply that if your hypothesis was correct, that they were not on the LOP through Howland, then it is possible (Paige's amendment to Alan's hypothesis) that they would take a sun shot and obtain a course line to the nearest land, which was likely to have been McKean (but less likely to be Gardner) or Baker. Your last sentence quoted above implies that they would have taken the course to Howland and Baker, but you leave out the possibility that they would try to reach the Phoenix Islands if they were closer than Howland or Baker. And I never meant that AE would "come to the conclusion one of the Phoenix Islands was easier to spot" ... I simply meant that AE probably had zero information about the Phoenix Islands other than a spot on a map, and that to head for any land was better than no land, regardless of weather or other (at that time) unknown features of the island.

> Personally, I have trouble believing that with low fuel they would
> strike out over a long distance of open ocean and fly over three
> hours to find islands that were widely spaced enough to miss.

Which is why I prefer the TIGHAR hypothesis, in which they did not intentionally strike out to find the Phoenix Islands. But as I said, there is no evidence that lets me come to this preference, it is simply gut feel.

> Nor would I believe that if they came upon McKean they would pass
> it  up and take a chance on finding Gardner before dry tanks.

This was the whole point of my speculation. I find it difficult to believe as well, but ... remembering what Lambrecht found at McKean (birds posing danger to aviation) a week or so later, AE might have felt they had no choice but to look for that next island. Difficult decision, huh?

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:16:01
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Art Carty

Why did they go to the Seven Site instead of remaining at Nutiran ?

I can think of 2 possibilities, one is what Tom suggested. They saw and mistook the 2 pools as fresh water and made their way there when their own fresh water supply ran out. As to how much potable water they had with them when they landed, I have no idea. Apart from rain and coconuts, this would determine how long they could have lasted in that heat.

The other possibility is they expected rescue to come from that direction. I don't think they expected the Colorado by way of Honolulu. They didn't know about that but what they knew was the Itasca at Howland. This would mean that they did not know where they had landed and thought they were somewhere SW of Howland. I have a big problem coming to terms with this proposition as it would mean that the plane was way off course.

As to the question on fire, I suppose they had matches or lighter on board the plane. A magnifying glass / lens or some parabolic polished surface would do too. We don't know for certain. But it's one thing to start a fire and quite another to tend it and kept it going. Matches and lighter fuel will eventually run out and if they did not have a magnifying glass or some parabolic mirror with them, I don't know how they could start a fire short of rubbing 2 sticks over a stone and some dried leaves.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:16:18
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Alan and Paige

>> Nor would I believe that if they came upon McKean they would pass
>> it  up and take a chance on finding Gardner before dry tanks.
>
>This was the whole point of my speculation. I find it difficult to
>believe as well, but ... remembering what Lambrecht found at McKean
>(birds posing danger to aviation) a week or so later, AE might have
>felt they had no choice but to look for that next island. Difficult
>decision, huh?

Another thing to keep in mind is that McKean is rather to the east of the putative LOP, while Nikumaroro is virtually spot on it.  Another is that McKean is much smaller than Niku.  Another is that none of the islands were terribly well located on charts at the time. Particularly if one were just a tad west of where one thought one was when one got to what one thought was an LOP drawn through Howland, and then flew south, I think it would be pretty easy to fly right past McKean without seeing it, but Niku would be a lot harder to miss.

LTM (who likes nice green islands with turquoise lagoons)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:16:46
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

About island spotting and hypothetical decisions to fly towards the Phoenix islands on the sun line they clearly broadcast:

I guess one can't repeat often enough that we likely will never know what went on in that cockpit. We do know Noonan was not only one of the most skilled navigators in aviation at that moment, having personally navigated and charted Pan Am's early Clipper routes across the Pacific, but he was also a licensed sea captain with many years of practical maritime experience on the surface of the world's oceans. I wouldn't discount for a moment the *possibility* that FN had somewhat more knowledge about the Phoenix islands than their charted positions as ink spots on a map, or even being casually aware of the Norwich City's presence on Gardner's reef.

Attributing ignorance and incompetence to these people is so too rash IMHO. As for Howland island, almost 70 years later an airplane has yet to land there and if ever a featureless speck of an atoll resembled a cloud shadow, Howland does.

LTM, who had a clue and a sextant,
William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:22:38
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

I would like to see that, Ron, but you are right. It IS a forgery. Southern Cross was the ONLY cable company in that area and Fugro did their survey. I have spoken to officials of both companies at length over the last year.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:24:42
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Looking for an article

Maybe someone can help me out.  I have a recollection of an article published within the past few years by someone who was aboard USS Lexington during the Earhart search. He described how they fully expected to be recalled before the ship even got to Hawaii and how the flight operations were carried out.  It seems to me that it appeared in either Naval History or maybe Proceedings, but I can't find it.

Does this ring any bells with anyone?

Thanks,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:26:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Paige, I don't think I really have a hypothesis. No theory makes sense to me as a pilot or to my knowledge of navigation.

I don't disagree they could have gone to Gardner or one of the other islands or even that they might have purposefully over flown McKean. It is just not what I would expect from AE and FN. Certainly not what I would have done. I doubt any experienced pilot in this group would have done so.

In other words I can't come up with a supportable rationale for what we think they must have done. In order to do so we have to throw them so far off course without a rational reason as to be too big of a stretch for me. Just like the guys who want the plane to go to Mili Atoll they have to put the plane a ridiculous amount off course to the north. (My apologies to those adherents)

We suggest they were off course because they couldn't get any navigation information and had to DR. Even with DR they couldn't get that far off. Also keep in mind they said, "We must be on you..." That's not a statement from someone who hasn't had a clue where they were for the last five or six hours. They had to think they had good solid navigation information or they would have said, "We believe we are somewhere close but our position is uncertain."

Of course I'm putting myself in the shoes (sorry Tom) of someone who seemingly flew to the beat of a different drummer.

Here is another thought. We want to have our cake and eat it. We want Noonan to be so bad he is over 100 miles off course to the south and yet so good he hits his LOP smack dab right on. I don't think we can have it both ways.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:34:09
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Chin Koon Fun

>if they did not
>have a magnifying glass or some parabolic mirror with them, I don't
>know how they could start a fire short of rubbing 2 sticks over a
>stone and some dried leaves.

Remember that Gallagher, in explaining that he'd found a sextant box but not a sextant, said that something resembling an "inverting eyepiece" had also been found but discarded by its finder.  So there was a lens, or lenses, at the Seven Site.  That being the case, and since there was plenty of fuel and sunlight, it may have been easier to light a new fire each afternoon than to keep one going all the time, which in turn might account for the numerous smallish fire features at the site.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:43:16
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Good analysis, Tom. One piece of missing data is whether Noonan knew anything significant about the Phoenix Islands. If he did that could hange our thinking somewhat. Remember on the aborted west bound attempt his map had Enderbury underlined. My take on that is that he may have known it was just a flat pancake of an atoll where they could belly the plane in if necessary. There is no reason to suspect he knew ANYTHING about ALL the islands. Maybe he only had information on a couple. In any case he should have known Canton was the biggest.

The islands are spaced so that, depending on the direction of flight, a pilot could miss them all quite easily but if not he could also  just as easily hit two in a row. For example Canton and Enderbury or McKean and Gardner.

I could more easily believe he knew something of value about some or all of the islands because if our theory is correct he left the area of Baker and Howland for a three hour flight over open ocean not knowing the destination weather, not having a runway at the end with declared low fuel.

As I pointed out earlier he had to know he might be NORTH of Howland in which case he also had to know he couldn't reach the Phoenix group safely. The only way he could know he was NOT north is if he had celestial information that gave him a latitude. If so he would also have a longitude from a sun shot. See, how much trouble I'm having making sense out of this.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:57:13
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Question for Tom King

Tom, can you put a number on your present combined personal/archaeologist-having-been-there-with-eyeballs opinion of the likelihood that the 7 site is what Gallagher described as having been where the bones and artifacts were found? (.5 ... .9 ...?)

Only curious about your current thinking!

LTM, who, whatever her reasons, didn't drag 50-year-old corrugated iron almost the whole length of Gardner's lagoon for kicks,

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:36:01
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Alan writes: "We want Noonan to be so bad he is over 100 miles off course to the south and yet so good he hits his LOP smack dab right on."

I don't understand the second part of this, Alan. Maybe I just don't understand what you are saying. By LOP, I assume you mean 157/337 running thru Howland. The TIGHAR hypothesis does not require that our duo hit the LOP smack on. For my money, they could be some miles on either side of the line. When they headed SE, all they needed was to be able to see Gardner, they didn't have to cross precisely over it.

Alan writes: "I don't disagree they could have gone to Gardner or one of the other islands or even that they might have purposefully over flown McKean. It is just not what I would expect from AE and FN. Certainly not what I would have done. I doubt any experienced pilot in this group would have done so."

What would you, or another experienced pilot, have done?

Thanks for mentioning "We must be on you, etc". This transmission gets in the way of me seriously considering other hypotheses. For instance, I have spent some time with Billings' idea that NR16020 was found in the 40's on New Britain. But, I can't get them back there if they seriously believe that they were nearly on top of Howland on the morning of July 2. How could they be so far off, but think they were so right on?

LTM,

Alfred #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:36:16
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Good points, Alan.  And of course, if he didn't know for sure that he wasn't north of Howland, the only rational thing to do would be to fly south, since:

(a) if he was north of Howland, he might find Howland, or Baker, or one of the Phoenixes.

(b) if he was south of Howland, with any luck he'd find one of the Phoenixes.

(c) but if he was north of Howland and flew north, he wasn't gonna find nuttin unless he could make it to Kamchatka.

LTM (who's not wild about Kamchatka)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:36:34
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For William Webster-Garman

I hate to put quasi-quantitative labels on things that really can't be quantified, but if "10" means I'm sure the Seven Site is where Gallagher picked up the bones and "1" means I'm sure it's not, I suppose I'd give it at least a 7, if not an 8 or 9.  It's at the SE end of the island, has ren trees, has the remains of fire, bird bone, and turtle bone, had some kind of significance sufficient to get Gallagher to claim it for government, and was obviously the site of some kind of intense activity, including land clearing, probably at about the time the "intensive search" was made.  All that, to me, adds up to a pretty strong probability.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:05:21
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Capt Friedell, CO, USS COLORADO, searching the Phoenix Islands for AE, wrote in his 13 July report that "Sydney was the only island which showed any signs of recent habitation..." No further explanation was given.

Also, "McKean Island showed unmistakeable signs of having at one time been inhabited...there appered buildings of the adobe type.Noone was seen on either Gardner or McKean Island".

"McKean Island was such that aplane could have made a safe crash landing either on the beach of in the center of the island. No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of habitation".

Of course the later comment of  no signs of habitation on Gardner have confounded us in view of Lt Lambrechts article reporting "recent signs of habitation" at Gardner  to BUAIR .

In view of Lt Lambrechts status as Senior Aviaor aboard who lead many of the overflights with his observers, Capt Friedell must have got his information from Lt Lambrecht. In view of Capt Friedell's official report surely much thought about the facts must have taken place.  It is , it appears, irreconciable.

LTM,.
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:05:36
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Tom K.

You always figure they would fly south vs north but you always omit the other strong possiblity that was considered by the US Navy: They reversed course and headed West for the Gilberts which they had passed over earlier. And we do have some anectodal evidence based on Vidals recollections, they would reverse course. And also from Mrs. Noonan, who during the search, opined that Noonan might "reverse" course.( Paraphrasing).

We know the Navy didn't turn up any evidence they landed in or near the Gilberts, just as they didn't find any evidence of landing in the Phoenix at the time.

LTM

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:47:13
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

> What would you, or another experienced pilot, have done?

A lot of food for thought, Alfred. Howland had the only landing strip so that would have been my number one choice. To get any place other than by sheer luck Noonan had to get a position, some kind of fix. If he could do that why couldn't he go to Howland and Baker? So to answer your question I would get a fix and spend my three hours finding Howland. If I had to ditch close to Howland I think I would have had a better chance of being found.

If Noonan could shoot celestial to obtain his longitude he could also shoot celestial to find his latitude. Therefore if he could get within say 10 or 20 miles east/west he could get 10 to 20 miles north/south. If he couldn't get ANY celestial then he couldn't know his position from Howland in ANY direction. As Gary pointed out if he offset his track to Howland it would have been to the north. So if he instead ended up south that would have been the worst navigation of all time.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:47:32
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

You're correct, Tom. I don't think anyone would suggest he ever flew north other than briefly during his hour search. It may well be he never searched north at all.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:16:39
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

You are right Alan, to be off a 100 NM in their D.R. would imply that they had not been able to get a fix in the last 1000 NM of flight, from the island of Nauru,  which took  about seven and a half hours from approximately midnight Itasca time. This is based on the 10% of distance flown estimate of DR accuracy as mentioned in AFM 51-40 and is the maximum error allowed under FAR 63 for flight navigators on their flight test. Weems speaks of an accuracy of 5% of the distance  flown which is also the average accuracy required on the flight navigators flight test. At the 5% level, to be off more than 100 NM would require a DR of more than 2000 NM, virtually the entire flight from Lae without any visual or celestial fix. The aircraft passed near Nauru about 1000 miles from Howland and over the Gilberts about 500 miles from Howland. The DR accuracy estimate includes allowance for shifting winds, compass errors, imprecision in holding a heading, and everything that can effect accuracy of position.

Based on all this, I agree with you that it would be highly unlikely for Noonan to be off by 100 NM as he approached Howland.

See the information at http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/dr-accuracy.html
re DR accuracy and see the charts at 
http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/library.html.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:17:08
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Alan writes: "So to answer your question I would get a fix and spend my three hours finding Howland. If I had to ditch close to Howland I think I would have had a better chance of being found."

Thanks. Interesting answer. I recognize that this whole exercise is fairly useless mind rambling, but sometimes this sort of thing can turn up other thoughts.

What kind of flying would your three hours involve? Flying a grid or something like that? Some kind of pattern? Concentric circles?

Your assertion that ditching close to Howland provided a better chance of being found makes sense. It does, however, require that the pilot have a certain level of confidence in his ability to ditch without killing himself. I wonder if AE considered doing exactly what you suggest, but didn't do it because she was not confident in her ability to ditch safely. Is there such a thing as a safe ditching? :-)

LTM,

Alfred #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:17:35
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

For Alan & Ron,

Thanks for that info. I brought that story up on the forum some time back-- and thus can be blamed for the faulty info! ;-) I had at least one friend alert me to the article in the LA Times, but when I asked him for a copy of it he could not find it. Nor could I track down a copy. It was a story I felt too good to not check into or too good to be true. So if there was an article, it most likely came from the bogus cablegram. I too would like more details on it.

Craig Fuller
AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research
www.AviationArchaeology.com         aair@aviationarchaeology.com
Falcon Field Station Box 22049 Mesa, AZ 85277-2049
480-218-8198
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:59
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Ron Bright

They may, for that matter, have flown east.  Or straight up.  My point is simply that if one is hanging around Howland but not sure where one is, it makes better sense to fly south than to fly north.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:39:20
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Seems to me it makes even more sense to simply keep flying around looking for Howland. Why go south at all? Especially 3 hours south!

Could AE and FN have grabbed something that floats, any water they may have, the sextant box, food perhaps and ditched somewhere near Howland and drifted to Niku?

Or do the currents make this impossible? the plane would not end up there of course, but could they?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:24:08
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

Thanks, Craig. It always pays to check things out so we don't make the mistake of passing up good info.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:24:37
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

For Alan and Craig F.

re: Bogus radiograms

Here is a whooper from "AMALGAMATED WIRELESS LTD."  typed on official looking stationary from Sydney, Australia, etc.Origin is VSG( I think is Tarawa)

"3903 GANRY DERHS 030737 VIS DE VJQ 1542/3 BK PSE TO US EMBASSY SYDNEY BK VSG RPTS PLANE WING ID NR 16020 ON BEACH SINCE YESTDAY ES MAYBE FROM EARHART CRAFT PSE ADVSE BK CAREY GOVT HSE BK STODDARD ENDS 1015"

The radiogram contains official looking stamps "DOC 8077", etc. The telegrahic language is unfamiliar to me.

Lets hope it was a fakegram. I still cant find the cablegram re the cable laying company pulling up from the ocean floor a piece of a/c debris with "NR 16020", but I am sure I posted it a few years ago and it lies in the achives somewhere..

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:24:57
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

I would have attempted to get a fix by shooting the sun again and the moon, which was available, and then go and find Howland. If  I couldn't get a sight of the moon I would still continue to shoot the sun and correct back onto an LOP through Howland (which would not be 157-337¡ since the sun was moving) and use DR to get me back to where I calculated Howland should be. If  I could not get a sun sight I would still use DR back to the most likely position of Howland. Even though  there is a circle of uncertainty around your DR position say of 26 NM (10 % of the distance flown assuming a DR from a two hour old fix at 130 K) but you are much more likely to be near the center of that circle than near the edge. One half the time you are within the middle one third of the circle, in this case about 8 NM. Once there I would do the standard expanding square search pattern, find Howland, and land safely.

See  http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/search.html re standard search patterns.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:25:19
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

> What kind of flying would your three hours involve? Flying a grid or
> something like that? Some kind of pattern? Concentric circles?

I don't know, Alfred. It would depend on my visibility. I would have to fly some sort of pattern whereby the navigator can continually plot the position lest we become totally lost or is that sort of like being a little bit pregnant. A little bit lost. <G> It would also depend on whether I had offset my track to the north. In Noonan's case we don't know if he offset. If he had gotten a fix and was altering to destination or if he was driving straight in and depending on DF there would be no offset. If, however, he wanted to turn SE when he got to his LOP he would have offset to the north.

I suppose some sort of ladder pattern might be best.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:25:40
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Rusty, I've looked at currents there and I don't think that would work but Randy could best answer your current question.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:26:05
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

For: Craig Fuller

Craig I would check with the Los Angeles Public Library. They have quite a collection of the LA Times. Hope this is helpful.

LTM,
Mike Haddock, #2438

======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:26:25
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      The trouble with ditching

For Rusty:

If they ditched, none of the post-loss radio messages are from them. None. Zip. Nada.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:31:37
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

Mike Haddock wrote:

>Craig I would check with the Los Angeles Public
>Library.

Thanks Mike, but I do not even remember when it was, several years ago. (3, 4, ?)

Craig Fuller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:32:05
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

The currents flow generally from East-south-east to West-north-west.  It would be unreasonable for a ditching near Howland and have the currents take debris southeastward towards Gardner.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:39:00
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

Here is an attempt to "decode" the Amalgamated Wireless message. This is somewhat similar to message formats I am familiar with, but a couple of things puzzle me (see below).  Anyway:

3903 [message number?] GANRY [person sent to?] DERHS [?] 030737 [date, July 3, 1937] VIS [station sent to] DE [this is] VJQ [station sending] BK [break] "PSE [Please] to US Embassy Sydney BK [break, for end of first sentence] VSG [call sign] reports plane wing ID NR16020 on beach since yesterday ES [and] maybe from Earhart craft please advise Break Carey Govt House [sender of message?] break Stoddard [operator sending?] ends [end of message] 1015 [time sent?]

It seems as though there should be a number for word count, but I don't see one.  I get a count of 25 words, not including the signature "Carey Govt House" which would be standard practice.

I would also think the addressee would be more clearly understood, but if this was an "internal" company or government message, this may be all that was necessary.

So, VSG is the station reporting sighting debris.

LTM (who always measures her words carefully)
and
73
Mike E.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:11:34
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

For Craig,

The University of North Texas has the Los Angeles Times as far back as 1984. Do you remember much about the article, like names of the people involved? I'll search for the article, but the collection isn't indexed, so it may take awhile.

LTM (who isn't indexed either)
Karen Hoy #2610CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:14:11
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Ron Bright,

What if Ron, Captain Friedell, CO, of USS Colorado did not compose the official report pertaining to the Colorado's search for NR16020 and it's crew? What if Lt. Lambrecht had no input at all to Friedell's report?

Ron read Friedell's report then stand back look at the sentence structure, writing style, or styles, along with order of subject matter. Now consider the time constrains that this report was constructed under.

Was Lt. Lambrecht's article sent in after 13 July 1937, possibly even after Friedell's change of command in San Francisco? Why did Lt. Lambrecht find it necessary to write an article in the first place?

Bottom line - what if Friedell's report was a C.Y. A. report drawn up under extreme time constrains to placate the 14th. Naval District as to a job well done?

Respectfully,

Tom Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:15:20
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Alan is right. There is no way to know what exactly went on in the cockpit of the Electra. We can only formulate educated and more often uneducated guesses. I believe that Fred Noonan, being one of the most experienced navigators of his time, was able to navigate to any place on earth with a very high degree of accuracy, which has been said to be to within 10 NM. And with all the flying she had done, especially in long distance flying, Amelia Earhart was an experienced pilot, regardless the opinion of those who suggest she was not. I think we all overlook one aspect of the flight: after some 20 hours in the air they must have both have been tired. And when people are tired they sometimes think less clearly and begin to make mistakes. What that mistake was we shall never know.

Let me put forward one hypothesis (for which I have no proof). Gyroscopic compasses have to be checked with liquid compasses at regular intervals

and

reset for they tend to be off course 11 degrees after one hour's flying. Suppose Amelia Earhart at one crucial time overlooked this. They would have be 11 degrees off course. For how long ? That is anybody's guess. This one reason (I repeat that I have no proof of this) this could have put them anywhere on their LOP. We know Noonan would shoot the sun at sunrise an pinpoint their position to within 10 NM). He would next make several sun shots at regular intervals to establish their ground speed. Having drawn the Howland LOP on his map he would then calculate the time it would take them to reach the Howland LOP. But how reliable were his calculations of their ground speed ? Remember they had no DME or GPS at the time. There was not even a reliable NDB or locator beacon on Howland, which they expected the Itasca to be.

Taking all this into account I believe they were more to the south than they thought. So when they banked to the left and turned to fly 337 degrees towards where they believed Howland was, they must have been pretty close to the island and to Itasca as the reception of their radio signal by Itasca proves. How close we do not know. But they probably did not see Howland or the Itasca within what they thought to be a reasonable time. So they started flying the reciprocal course of 157 degrees and went looking the other way. This is an indication that -contrary to what many believe- they were not lost but merely flying within the circle of uncertainty that came with the state of the art navigation methods of their time.

Pan American Airways used the same method of navigation Fred Noonan applied. But the airline's Sikorsky and Martin flying boats could rely on radio assistance at their destinations. When they were near it they would pick up the radio signal from the ground station with their ADF equipment and fly to it. Or if for some reason that didn't work they could still fall back on assistance from the ground station operator who could establish the direction from where he received their signal and give them a course to fly to their destination. However, this equipment was lacking both aboard the Electra and the Itasca. The Itasca expected Earhart to be able to home in on their signal, which she couldn't. And Amelia Earhart  hoped Itasca would give her a course to steer, which Itasca couldn't.

All the rest is speculation. It stands to reason that when the realized to be unable to find Howland and being sure they were on the 157/337 LOP, they at one time decided the surest way was to head 157 degrees to the Phoenix islands. If the theory is correct that the did not land at Kean because flocks of birds made landing dangerous, that would mean Amelia Earhart decided they had enough fuel left to fly on to Gardner. Otherwise she would have put the airplane down regardless of the birds. However, the post-loss radio signals do not mention Gardner Island. Therefore it must be concluded she did not know where they had landed. We take it they were on Gardner Island because she mentioned "NC". But proof of this will only come with the finding of the airplane.

By the way, all the indications found by TIGHAR so far (the bones, the shoes, the sextant box, the sheet of metal, the recollection of an airplane wreck present on the island by later immigrants) to me are sufficient indications they were on Gardner Island. However, these indications are not proof. Therefore more proof will be needed. Perhaps with time something will turn up. That is what makes the forum so interesting.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:16:14
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Thanks Tom.

I remember now reading about the inverter eyepiece from the sextant. It make sense and goes along way to explain the fire features.

Chin Koon Fun
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:34:14
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

> From Herman De Wulf
>
> Let me put forward one hypothesis (for which I have no proof). Gyroscopic
> compasses have to be checked with liquid compasses at regular intervals    and
> reset for they tend to be off course 11 degrees after one hour's flying.
> Suppose Amelia Earhart at one crucial time overlooked this. They would have
> be 11 degrees off course.

I was flying home with a friend.  We probably had only been in the air four or five hours that day.  Some large thunderclouds were in our path and heading toward our destination.  We had to tack around them and beat them to our field.

The fellow who was giving us our vectors had to correct Bob twice.  It took me two or three tries to get him to see that he had failed to correct his gyroscopic compass and was simply flying the wrong headings.  So, based on my own personal experience I'd say that it wouldn't be hard for something like this to have happened at some point in the flight.

> We know Noonan would shoot the sun at sunrise an
> pinpoint their position to within 10 NM).

"Pinpoint" is the wrong expression.  All he would get from any single celestial observation (of the sun, moon, stars, or planets) is a LINE that he could draw on his map showing the POSITION on the face of the earth from which the observation could have been made.  There are no "pinpoints" in aerial navigation--there are only zones of probability.  The airplane moves between the time that one observation is taken and the next, so even when two or more "lines of position" are crossed on the map, the calculation of where one is depends on judging properly what happened to the plane between one observation and the next.

> ... This is an indication that--contrary to what many believe--they were not
> lost but merely flying within the circle of uncertainty that came with the
> state of the art navigation methods of their time.

Ah--"circle of uncertainty" is a much better expression.

> ... By the way, all the indications found by TIGHAR so far (the bones, the
> shoes, the sextant box, the sheet of metal, the recollection of an airplane
> wreck present on the island by later immigrants) to me are sufficient
> indications they were on Gardner Island. However, these indications are not
> proof. Therefore more proof will be needed. Perhaps with time something will
> turn up. That is what makes the forum so interesting.

Agreed.

Marty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:09:00
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

For Karen Hoy

Who said 

>>Do you remember much about the article, like names of the
people involved?<<

No, I got it second hand information, I was just told that there was an article about a company lying a trans continental cable (or surveying) and had an image of a twin engine plane show up on sonar. I do not recall if the mention Howland, think they mentioned the possibility of it being Earhart.

Craig Fuller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:09:18
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Submerged airplane

For: Craig Fuller

Craig, I'd give it a shot anyhow. They may be able to find the article by the subject. They have an amazing database. I used to work across the street from the library and their information is astounding.

LTM
Mike Haddock, #2438
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:13:56
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

An interesting forum lately, very helpful to the understanding of the way things were back then. Thanks, everyone. It is so difficult to take one's mindset away from the current state of aviation and put it into aviation as it existed in 1937. Primitive instruments and navigation techniques, a tiny target, poor communications, hubris perhaps, and no doubt fatigue with the attendant decline in mental capacity. Sometimes it occurs to me that the mystery is less that they got lost near Howland and more that they made it as far as they did.

LTM, who'd like to ask Amelia what happened,

Alfred #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:14:26
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

> I think we all overlook one aspect of the flight: after some 20
> hours in the air they must have both have been tired.

Herman, we also need to keep in mind they had every opportunity to take turns sleeping on the flight. In my many Atlantic crossings we took turns sleeping. It is easy to do.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:14:51
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

Good commentary, Herman. I think it is clear our heroes were expecting a radio steer when they got close to Howland. Noonan seemed to follow the procedures of most navigators including all of mine over the years. Navigators make as few course corrections as is necessary. They do not try to stay exactly on their little map line. When they get close to destination they ask for an alter to that destination. I would guess Noonan did the same altering to Howland from his last fix. It is also possible but not likely he altered to a course offsetting his desired course slightly. We can't know but what that DOES tell us is that we have no clue what their inbound heading was. It is also possible, if he offset that his last course was SE down his LOP. Let's say he DID offset and when his ETA expired he turned SE down his LOP. I think this is unlikely given the,  "We must be on you..." call. That would imply they flew straight to where Noonan computed Howland to be. Had he offset and turned down the LOP he would not have known when they were over Howland.

So, if they flew straight in they would have most likely continued that course for maybe ten or so miles in case they had arrived short then started their search. Inbound they could see they were not overflying Howland but they could not assume they were not still slightly west. Now they start their search probably turning NW and then back to the SE.

As many have pointed out there are all kinds of errors that could have thrown them off. Navigators are extremely heading conscious so I doubt Noonan allowed Earhart to stray from course even a degree and certainly he would have watched the Whiskey compass for gyro precession.

Given all this we have to go back to Ric's theory they just headed SE hoping to find Howland or Baker and kept going. Makes as much sense as any other idea. Our real question is why they did not get a fix because if they did they made decisions contrary to common sense.

Finally, if we are willing to let them decide to fly to the Phoenix Islands not knowing where they were or if they could reach that far then we have to allow them to decide to fly back to the Gilbert's.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:50:45
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Tom Strang,

You might be making this more complicated than it is. Capt Friedell, the CO, certainly from my experience in the Navy, would certainly get input, and simply had to be from Lambrecht re the searches, but it would be pretty darn solid based on the information he had. CYA, who knows.

Friedells report was 13 Jul and addressed to the Commandant of the 14th Naval District. Serious stuff.

Lt Lambrechts "report" or article was made on 16 July. But who knows when the material was actually written. Lalmbrechts was a news article for the "Weekly News Leter" to the Chief of the BUAIR. Now it may lack the rigorous standard of an official report to the Commandant, but nevertheless, I thought he was pretty comprehensive at the time for the purpose intended. (Now we wish there were more details about ":signs of ".... I am not sure I answered your question.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:47:03
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Phoenix Islands -- More observers?

re: Island spotting

A couple of years ago, a website published  supposedly first hand accounts of two observers who had accompanied pilots from the USS COLORADO on the overflight searches of the Phoenix Islands 7-9 July 1937. The authors were G. Richard Beckham, pilot not listed, and a Connie (Conrad) Wilcox, whose pilot was Fox.

Their reports about flying over Gardner, Syndey, McKean, et al, were detailed.

I asked recently if these accounts were non-fiction or fact-based fiction? The website didn't know but believed the authors lived in St. George , Utah.

Have any of  the forum seen these names associated with the Colorado search?

I don't know exactly which dates they accompanied the pilots, but on 9 July I do not find their names as observers.

In other words, is it worth tracking these folks down to see what there notes are and what they recalled?

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:47:56
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Radio transmissions

One of my friends asked why Earhart never gave any useful information in her messages after "arriving" in the Howland area. He felt she should have said where she thought she was, where she was planning to go and what her fuel situation was. Maybe he was right but I opined that I didn't think she had any usable information to give. This is only my opinion so I would be interested in your comments. Here is what I wrote:

I don't think so at all. In addition to the era of early flight and the fact most airplanes didn't even have radios you just shouldn't expect Earhart to be on the radios. Her whole round the world flight should tell you that. She didn't make routine position reports. There was no ICAO, no ATC, no air sea rescue, no one to tell anything to who had any capability of responding in a meaningful way. At the time she arrived at Howland all there was there was a little Coast Guard cutter. There was no big search armada as later appeared nor could she have known one would materialize.

Why would she tell Itasca she didn't know where she was? They knew that. She had already told them she had low fuel. Was she supposed to now tell them it was lower? Of course not. Now, given she didn't know where she was or how long she could stay airborne there was nothing, absolutely nothing to tell Itasca. She couldn't say where she was going if she didn't know where she was or whether she could get there. Was she supposed to say she was out of gas and ditching some place unknown? Where was Itasca to look?

Earhart was a pragmatist. A realist. She was not given to idle chatter. Remember her prenuptial agreement when she recognized she would do as she pleased in her marriage and not be bound by rules.

You are trying to make her into somebody she wasn't and put her in 2006 and expect her to act so different than her character would react in 1937.

Put yourself in Thompson's position and ask yourself what you would do if Earhart told you she had no idea where she was. What would you direct your ship to do? Nothing of course.

Ask what you would do if Earhart now said she was out of gas and ditching. Where would you look? You have a search area 360 degrees extending for at least 200 miles. Where would you direct your ship to go? With any search pattern the plane would have sunk to the bottom before you could ever cover that area.

I think you are expecting the impossible. If Earhart had usable information and could reasonably expect a response that would be of help I am sure she would have broadcast it. It is clear she had no information that would fit that criteria. She didn't know where she was or where she was going or if she could get there. And you want her to broadcast that to the world? I don't think so.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:49:02
From:         Tony Wood
Subject:      Electra's 100 Octane fuel supply

On start-up at Lae the Electra had only 50 gall of 100 Octane fuel (by all accounts I am aware of) - plus the 87 Octane in other tanks.

In Long's book, for the first attempt, when starting up at Luke the Electra had 100gall of 100 Octane of which 50gall was for their take off at Howland.

Do we know for sure that in July Howland had been provisioned with a supply of 100 Octane for the second attempt (i.e. after arrival from Lae) ?

One assumes so, but I wondered if inventory records of fuel, oil etc at Howland for the first and second attempt have ever been in the public domain.

Tony R. W
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:49:18
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Island spotting

For Ron Bright

I see your point, one can make it complicated.

Yes I agree the report to the Commandant of the 14th. Naval District should have been considered "Serious stuff", yet there was never a formal debrief of the USS Colorado's principle players in the search. Just a CO's report filed in passage past the Hawaiian Islands. Yes your right "Serious stuff".

Yes Ron, both you and Mr. Jacobson have both graciously answered my questions with regards to Captain Friedell's report to the 14th. Naval Dristrict. I now have a much greater understanding of the USS Colorado's involvement in the search for NR16020 and it's crew. I thank you both.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang   # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:49:47
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: Looking for article

Hi everyone,

I have checked:

Naval Aviation News 1997-present
Naval History 1987-present
Proceedings U.S. Naval Institute 1987-present (except 2004 which has gone to bindery.)

Haven't found this article Ric is looking for.

LTM (who can't find it either)
Karen Hoy