Date:         Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:47:19
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Swamp Ghost

This is a bit off-topic, but it relates to a former TIGHAR endeavor. I have news that the B-17E that was in the Agaiambo Swamp in New Guinea has actually been salvaged.

Go to www.theswampghost.com for details.

LTM, who is not sure she likes this,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:41:44
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Swamp Ghost

Alfred Hendrickson has asked that I weigh in on the "Swamp Ghost" issue.  First of all, it is B-17E 41-2446.  The bomber was lost so early in the war (February 1942) that the custom of giving individual airplanes nicknames had not yet started (and, in fact, was never as common as postwar mythology would have you think).

Over the years, we have referred to the bomber in the Agaiambo Swamp variously as "The Agaiambo E" and a "Lady In Waiting," but we never pretended to name the aircraft.  I remember very clearly discussing the issue of a name for the bomber with Fred Eaton, the man who put it there.  We were fortunate to get to know Fred and his wife Peg quite well during the time, twenty years ago, when we were all trying to figure out some way to recover the airplane. My dad flew -17s during the war and Fred and I hit it off right away.   Recognizing that it might be good, from a fundraising standpoint, if the bomber had a name, I asked him about it one evening over dinner.

"It's your airplane Fred. You didn't give it a name back then, but if anyone has a right to give it one now, you do."

He thought for a minute and said, "Yes, I suppose so, but somehow it would be wrong. That airplane isn't important because of me. It's important because of what happened back then. Giving it a name now would be ...well ... it would be phoney."

Fred died several years ago.  A part of me is glad that he didn't live to see the current fiasco. Here's a preview of a short article that will appear in the forthcoming issue of TIGHAR Tracks.

A Sad Story

In stark contrast to TIGHAR=92s work comes news of an aviation historic preservation catastrophe in Papua New Guinea.  In May, Boeing B-17E 41-2446, widely known by the regrettable and phony appellation "Swamp Ghost," was cut apart and moved from its resting place in the Agaiambo Swamp to the dockyard in Lae.  The salvagers, Aero Archeology LLC, had apparently purchased a permit to export the aircraft to the United States from Military Aircraft Restoration Corporation (MARC). MARC had obtained the permit several years ago after reportedly paying $100,000 to PNG museum officials. Aero Archeology LLC thought they had a valid permit to recover and export the aircraft. The government of Papua New Guinea felt otherwise. When the bomber showed up in Lae, it was impounded pending the results of an inquiry by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee.

Long-time TIGHAR members may recall that, in 1985 and 1986, in cooperation with the Travis Air Force Base Historical Society, we investigated the possibility of recovering this aircraft for the United States Air Force Museum collection.  TIGHAR's executive director Ric Gillespie and president Pat Thrasher traveled to Papua New Guinea and, with Bruce Hoy, head of the aviation section of the National Museum and Art Gallery, did an on-site evaluation of the aircraft.  They then met with senior PNG parliamentary officials and the American ambassador about the permissions that would be necessary before a recovery could be approved. Ultimately, to our profound disappointment, the Minister of Culture and Tourism imposed a moratorium on all recoveries of WWII relics. We had no choice but to abandon the project.

Over the years, we came to see the defeat as a blessing in disguise.  The aircraft is so historically significant that, if recovered, it should be genuinely conserved rather than subjected to the wholesale rebuilding that was, and is still, all too common in the air museum world.  Until the technology, the techniques and the will exist to save the airplane rather than destroy it for the sake of creating a "fully restored" exhibit, we felt that the bomber was better off right where it was.

Now it has been cut apart and removed from the environment that preserved it for sixty-four years.  What Aero Archeology LLC intended to do with this priceless artifact is not clear but, like the incredibly well-preserved P-38 that was recovered from under the ice in Greenland and dubbed "Glacier Girl," the B-17 was almost certainly destined to be converted into a performing replica of itself as fraudulent as its name.  Its export, for whatever purpose, now seems unlikely.  The government of Papua New Guinea may have the will, but it does not have the resources, to do what the Agaiambo Swamp did so well for so long.  It is difficult now to see a fate for 41-2446 that does not involve its destruction in fairly short order, either from "restorers" if its export is finally approved, or from vandalism and accelerated corrosion if it remains in PNG.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 6 Aug 2006 10:42:05
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Re: Swamp Ghost

I read with interest the attempt to "salvage and restore" the B-17 'Swamp Ghost' that was posted in here a few days ago. Having gone through TIGHAR's aviation archaeology course and coming to see restoration vs. preservation in a new light, I posted a link to this story in a scale modeling forum I frequent, with the opinion that it would have been better to leave it where it was rather that turn it into something it's not ... Man! You would have thought I'd gone looking for a gas leak with a blowtorch:
http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/658654/ShowPost.aspx

LTM, who plans to stick to labeling artifacts for awhile,
Monty Fowler,
#2189CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Aug 2006 09:40:10
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Swamp Ghost

>From Monty Fowler
>
>I read with interest the attempt to "salvage and restore" the B-17
((..omitted..))
>something it's not ... Man! You would have thought I'd gone looking for
>a gas leak with a blowtorch:

It's about the sort of response (set of responses?) I'd have expected.  The perception of "preservation" vs. "restoration" seems to be an acquired taste. If you don't know much about it, you support restoration, usually to flight-worthy.  As you get to know more about the idea of preservation, you tend to think it's a good (even better) idea.  My own take has evolved some since I joined TIGHAR.  I lean a good deal more towards preservation than I used to.  I suppose part of what bothers me about restoration, especially to flight worthy status, is that every time you fly it, there's a chance you'll destroy it.  It's *entire* historical value wiped out by the slip of a hand or a fatigued rivet.  I don't feel as adamant about restoration to presentation quality, but I do feel that doing so looses something.  I guess it depends on how much is lost by doing so that influences how I'll feel about it, and that on a case-by-case basis.  I find myself wondering if I'm going to become a full fledged "preserve, don't restore" person over the next few years.  :)

     - Bill #2229
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Aug 2006 09:40:42
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Swamp Ghost

Interesting exchange of ideas. anyway.  Dan Postellon #2283CE

>I read with interest the attempt to "salvage and
>restore" the B-17'Swamp Ghost'
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:22:51
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      The Agaiambo E

I'm amazed that PNG authorities seem to have placed such a low value on this thing. They had a real treasure sitting there in that swamp. This thing was one-of-a-kind. Where else in the world was there anything even remotely like it? I can't believe they allowed this to happen. Removal of the plane from the country has apparently been stopped for the moment. Fine. But now what?

In my opinion, this particular plane was a bit of an enigma. Sitting in the swamp, it was relatively safe, but inaccessible to most people. Now that it is out of the swamp, it is in real danger.

The "swamp ghost" website has some good information. I read a fair bit of it, but it is not clear to me what the salvagers had intended to do. Does anyone know? Did they intend to make it flyable?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Aug 2006 20:36:25
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Finding Amelia

The excerpt of Chapter 14 of "Finding Amelia" at
http://findingamelia.com contains what is new (to me) information, about a radio reception by Paul Lum on Baker Island on the second night after Amelia's disappearance. I couldn't find any reference to this reception on the main TIGHAR web site. Lum heard a strength 4 signal, readability 7 (on a scale from 1 to 9), on 3105 kHz. I wonder who that could have been? What this excerpt doesn't say is what exactly Lum claims to have heard, but only that Lum signaled that he heard the Earhart plane.

Boy, I can't wait to read the rest of that chapter.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who was always hearing things)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Aug 2006 22:47:28
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Finding Amelia

Paige Miller says:

>The excerpt of Chapter 14 of "Finding Amelia" at http://
>findingamelia.com contains what is new (to me) information, about a
>radio reception by Paul Lum on Baker Island on the second night
>after Amelia's disappearance. I couldn't find any reference to this
>reception on the main TIGHAR web site.

This was one of the many surprises I stumbled upon while writing the book. All of us missed it for a long time because of a small and extremely rare error in Randy Jacobson's otherwise terrific database. In translating and copying the Itasca radio logs, Randy broke a message in the wrong place (easy to do) and the significance of the entry was lost. When I was writing Finding Amelia I checked everything against the primary sources and discovered the error.  (I hasten to add that Randy has caught many more of my errors than I have caught of his.)

>Lum heard a strength 4 signal, readability 7 (on a scale from 1 to 
>9), on 3105 kHz. I wonder who that could have been? What this
>excerpt doesn't say is what exactly Lum claims to have heard, but
>only that Lum signaled that he heard the Earhart plane.
>
>Boy, I can't wait to read the rest of that chapter.

Although I hope you find the rest of the chapter equally interesting, I'm afraid it won't answer your questions.  We don't know exactly what Lum claimed to have heard.  Our only source of information on this is the Itasca radio log and all the log says is that "Baker heard Earhart plane S4 R7."  Itasca had no direct communication with Baker Island.  The Dept. of Interior operator on Baker, Paul Yat Lum, kept schedules with his counterpart on Howland and with the Coast Guard Hawaiian Section in Honolulu. Any information Itasca got about what was going on at Baker came secondhand from Howland or Honolulu. Itasca did not even know that the operator on Baker had heard Earhart until the night after it happened. (Baker heard Earhart at 8:20 p.m. on the second night after the disappearance.  Howland told Itasca about it at 10:14 p.m. on the third night.) It might seem strange that nobody made a big deal about it at the time, but when you read what else was going on you realize that on those first three nights it seemed like everybody in the Central Pacific was hearing Amelia.

Like I've been saying, the true story of what was going on out there is a whole lot different than the story that got told later.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Aug 2006 22:47:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Finding Amelia

Paige, if I remember correctly there was nothing of value. Itasca also heard the broadcast but weaker and another ship further north got a faint carrier wave.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:17:55
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Finding Amelia

Because of this database message, I interviewed Paul Yat Lum in Honolulu, circa 1992.  He did not remember hearing anything and insisted that the Japanese shot AE down from the air.  He also insisted that AE intended to arrive at Howland in the middle of the night.  Such are memories.

What Ric refers to as my error appears only in the CD version of the radio transcripts.  When I printed out the database for verification purposes, I put all messages in chronological order.  Unfortunately, the CD version of the radio logs only was not put in chronological order. Hence, it was difficult for others to find this tidbit in the right sequence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:14:39
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Finding Amelia

Randy Jacobson writes: "Because of this database message, I interviewed Paul Yat Lum in Honolulu, circa 1992. He did not remember hearing anything and insisted that the Japanese shot AE down from the air. He also insisted that AE intended to arrive at Howland in the middle of the night. Such are memories."

Darn! I hate it when that happens! Do we even know if the words in the Itasca log "Baker heard Earhart plane S4 R7" were because Lum himself identified the reception as coming from the Earhart plane when reporting it, or that this was the Itasca operator's interpretation? I presume that Lum's logs of his radio receptions are now lost.

By the way, Ric turns a very nice phrase when he says "It might seem strange that nobody made a big deal about it at the time, but when you read what else was going on you realize that on those first three nights it seemed like everybody in the Central Pacific was hearing Amelia." If I was writing, I would have said it much less effectively, using 21st century jargon, something like "Everyone was logging onto Amelia's myspace.com page..." Anyway, this seems to be another part of the argument in favor of Amelia reaching land, and a part of the argument that is tough to explain away.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who can't remember what happened in 1937 either)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:49:23
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: finding Amelia

Another radioman at Howland, Yau Fai LUM, claims in letters to Paul Rafford that Radioman Cipriani returned to the ITASCA when the ship left on the search for AE late morning, 2 July 37.

Lum believed logs showing Cipriani remained on Howland were forgeries. Lum states in a letter to John Riley in 1994 that  he stood no radio watches on Howland, and the he, Cipriani and Henry Lau were on Itasca when it left Howland. ["Amelia Earhart's Radio," Paul Rafford Jr., p. 95-98,published 2006]  My guess is that memories often are not correct!

Ron B
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:48:38
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia's use of radio after crash

Greetings -

Everyone may already know this and I just may be way behind the rest of you, but I found this in the archives in Purdue -

It is a Western Union Telegram dated July 5, 1937

"Care coast guard Oakland Airport Oakland, California -

NOT NECESSARY HAVE MOTOR RUNNING FOR OPERATION OF RADIO ON EARHART PLANE STOP TWO BATTERIES CARRIED WILL PERMIT OPERATION INDEPENDENT OF CHARGING GENERATOR MOUNTED ON MOTORS FOR EIGHT HOURS IF INTERMITTANCY  USED STOP SUGGUEST MISS EARHART POSSIBLY RUNNING GETNERATOR MOUNTED MOTOR SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH USE OF TRANSMITTER UNTIL GAS GONE WITH RADIO EQUIPMENT OPERATIVE FOR LONGER PERIOD STOP THIS WIRE TO CORRECT ERRONEOUS NEWSPAPER REPORTS"

SIGNED - J. H. GURR

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:48:55
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Amelia's use of radio after crash

Ron Bright quoted:

>Western Union Telegram dated July 5, 1937
>
>"Care coast guard Oakland Airport Oakland, California -
>
>NOT NECESSARY HAVE MOTOR RUNNING FOR OPERATION OF RADIO ON EARHART PLANE STOP >TWO BATTERIES CARRIED WILL PERMIT OPERATION INDEPENDENT OF CHARGING GENERATOR >MOUNTED ON MOTORS FOR EIGHT HOURS IF INTERMITTANCY  USED STOP SUGGUEST MISS >EARHART POSSIBLY RUNNING GETNERATOR MOUNTED MOTOR SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH USE OF >TRANSMITTER UNTIL GAS GONE WITH RADIO EQUIPMENT OPERATIVE FOR LONGER PERIOD >STOP THIS WIRE TO CORRECT ERRONEOUS NEWSPAPER REPORTS"
>
>SIGNED - J. H. GURR

Gurr's telegram was probably in response to a July 5 article in the Herald Tribune papers which quotes Mantz commenting on McMenamy's claim that he had been hearing transmissions from Earhart over a protracted period.

"Mantz, who serviced Amelia's plane, said she could send radio messages
only if her plane were on land.
"She has no hand-crank aboard to generate power," Mantz said.
The right engine, turning over at 900 R.P.M. creates about 50 amperes. This burns almost six gallons of gas hourly.
"To the best of my knowledge, Miss Earhart did not have much fuel when she was forced down. Yet, the signals appear to be sent regularly."

What Gurr seems to be saying is that he thinks the two batteries might run the receiver for eight hours if used intermittently. He thinks Earhart might only be running the engine when she wants to transmit (transmitting takes much more power than receiving.) The problem with that, of course, is that you need battery power to start the engine (ever try to prop a T-6?).  Drain down the battery running the receiver and you might not be able to get the engine started.  The scenario Gurr suggests would be possible but very risky.

Gurr's reference to "generator (singular) mounted on motors (plural)" is a non sequitur. Mantz seems very sure there is only one generator and that it is on the starboard engine. He should certainly know.

Mantz' estimate of "almost six gallons per hour" to run the engine at a high enough power to charge the batteries is far more interesting.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:42
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Amelia's use of radio after crash

Ric, there may be several issues here. I don't think there is any doubt Earhart could have transmitted using only battery power without running the right (starboard) engine. That doesn't mean she could have transmitted from a ditched airplane. One, the equipment would most likely quickly be shorted out and two, the plane should not have stayed afloat long enough to create all the days of transmission.

The comments above did not take into consideration drain on the battery. You are quite correct, engine start is a big drain. Radio transmission is also a big drain. Earhart would have had to start the right engine and run it long enough to make her transmission and keep it running long enough to mitigate the drain on the battery so she could repeat the operation the next time. I don't know how long that would be. It's just math so someone should be able to figure it out. At the moment I don't have the attention span. <G>

Finally, my calculations do not leave her with very much gas to play around with by the time she reached Niku.

Alan, whose body is slowly recuperating
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:41:38
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Amelia's use of radio after crash

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>I don't think there is any doubt Earhart could have transmitted
>using only battery power without running the right (starboard)
>engine. That doesn't mean she could have transmitted from a ditched
>airplane.

Nobody said it did. As far as I know, that's not even under discussion.

>One, the equipment would most likely quickly be shorted out and
>two, the plane should not have stayed afloat long enough to create
>all the days of transmission.

How long the plane could float is not an issue.  The transmitter can't work if the dynamotor is not working. The dynamotor can't work if it's under water.  The dynamotor was located under the pilot's seat.  If the airplane was ditched the dynamotor was underwater as soon as the plane came to a stop.

>Earhart would have had to start the right engine and run it long
>enough to make her transmission and keep it running long enough to
>mitigate the drain on the battery so she could repeat the operation
>the next time.

I agree.

>my calculations do not leave her with very much gas to play around
>with by the time she reached Niku.

As always, it depends upon whose calculations you use.  Elgen Long has her out of gas at  8:43 ( 20 hours and 13 minutes into the flight). On July 10, 1937, Lockheed engineers estimated the Electra's endurance with 1,100 gallons of gas aboard to be 24.5 hours. Then you have to decide when she got to Niku. If the plane was already 100 miles or so southeast of Howland at 8:43, it could have reached Niku as early as, say, 10:30 (22 hours into the flight) with 2.5 hours worth of gas still in the tanks.  How much gas is that?  A good guess would be in the neighborhood of 100 gallons. At 6 gallons per hour, that hundred gallons gets you better than 16 hours of engine operation for transmitting distress calls.  I haven't added up the time of all the credible post-loss transmissions but I would be very surprised if the total was anywhere near 16 hours.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:37:07
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Amelia's use of radio after crash

Ric wrote:

>Nobody said it did. As far as I know, that's not even under
>discussion.

And now it won't be. Preemptive strike. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:49:10
From:         Mike Zuschlag
Subject:      Smoking Map

I just looked at the August issue of TIGHAR Tracks which includes a reproduction of a map from the US Navy's search. Whoa. That's about as close to a smoking gun that a search document could possibly get. AE's reported line of position passing less than 10 nm from Gardner and then three radio bearings crossing at a small spot less than 60 nm SW of Gardner.

And more: An arc labeled "3.4 hrs 140 kts from 0520" apparently centered on a point labeled 0520 on AE's inbound course to Howland, along with a larger arc with the same center labeled "Max Radius." Apparently someone in the Navy had reason to fix AE position 5:20 am and then drew circles indicating perhaps a lower and upper bound on her range from that point. What made this person think they knew her position at 5:20? Gardner lies comfortably within the Max Radius arc and is under 60 nm beyond where the 3.4 arc cross the LOP.

Then there's a dashed horizontal line 1 degree N of Gardner labeled "Possible Lat. Line 5 July." It appears to have a companion over 9 degrees further N: "(Amelia's Lat. Line 5 July)." Was there a radio reception on July 5 apparently from AE that suggested she might be on one of these parallels?

Overall, we got a lot of lines crisscrossing around Gardner. I guess I'll have to wait for the book to learn the details of how the Navy could literally connect all the dots but still not extensively search Gardner. I'm predicting years from now, after the Gardner hypothesis is widely accepted, this story will become a case study on organizational error for academics all over.

Just a few things I don't understand from the map. On or just south of the equator are three points evidently (and cryptically) labeled B, A, and C using an old version of the phonetic alphabet. Any ideas what these might be? There's also a large square about 6 degrees on a side drawn W of Howland. Any clues?

--Mike

=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:15:03
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

Points A, B, and C were coordinates for various search assets (ships) to either meet one another to exchange fuel or to begin search patterns.  The July 5 latitude lines were based upon the "281 miles can't hold out much longer" message.  An interesting factoid about this map is that I was the first to uncover it in the San Bruno branch of the National Archives circa 1995; no other AE researcher had apparently stumbled across this document earlier.  On the map under a coffee or ink spill are notations regarding KGMB and KGU requests for dashes if on land or sea, and the results reported to the Navy.  This map was created in real time during the first few days of AE's disappearance at the 14th Naval District in Honolulu.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:15:35
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

Mike Zuschlag wrote:

>AE's reported line of position passing less than 10 nm from Gardner

Mike the line of position was a direction not a geographic position. It could have passed Gardner to the east or the west and at most any reasonable distance.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:38:41
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

Mike Zuschlag writes:

>I just looked at the August issue of TIGHAR Tracks which includes a
>reproduction of a map from the US Navy's search. Whoa. That's about
>as close to a smoking gun that a search document could possibly get.

Yes.  They had it figured out... and then they blew it.

>AE's reported line of position passing less than 10 nm from Gardner
>and then three radio bearings crossing at a small spot less than 60
>nm SW of Gardner.

There were a couple of other radio bearings that didn't cross, but whoever drew up the map chose not to plot them.  They used only the two bearings that Pan Am felt most confident about.  The third bearing is Cipriani's ambiguous NNW/SSE bearing from Howland.

>And more: An arc labeled "3.4 hrs 140 kts from 0520" apparently
>centered on a point labeled 0520 on AE's inbound course to Howland,
>along with a larger arc with the same center labeled "Max Radius."
>Apparently someone in the Navy had reason to fix AE position 5:20
>am and then drew circles indicating perhaps a lower and upper bound
>on her range from that point. What made this person think they knew
>her position at 5:20? Gardner lies comfortably within the Max
>Radius arc and is under 60 nm beyond where the 3.4 arc cross the LOP.

That arc is not explained in any of the Navy reports.  My interpretation:

The Navy was trying to reconcile a quandary. Commander Thompson insisted that the plane ran out of gas half an hour after the last in-flight message heard by Itasca.  However the PanAm radio bearings and reported distress calls indicated a position in the southwestern part of the Phoenix Group.

05:20 represents the estimated last time that Noonan could have gotten a celestial fix using multiple stars. Assuming the plane was on course at that time, the arc represents how far the plane could have traveled at 140 kts until the last radio transmission heard by Itasca at 08:43. The arc appears to support the idea that the plane could have reached McKean or Gardner even if you accept Thompson's estimation that the plane's fuel only lasted twenty and three-quarter hours instead of the predicted twenty-four and a half.

What I don't understand is why they would use 140 kts. The plane's expected cruising speed was 130 kts and nobody yet knew about Earhart's "speed 140 knots" report heard in Lae.

>Then there's a dashed horizontal line 1 degree N of Gardner labeled 
>"Possible Lat. Line 5 July." It appears to have a companion over 9
>degrees further N: "(Amelia's Lat. Line 5 July)." Was there a radio
>reception on July 5 apparently from AE that suggested she might be
>on one of these parallels?

The two lines are references to the "281" message.  It was Commander Thompson who interpreted the fragmentary, poorly-keyed Morse code phrases to mean that the plane was 281 miles north of Howland.  The Navy was not convinced he was right.  The map has a line 281 miles north AND 281 miles south of Howland.  Of course, if you draw the line 281 miles south of the equator ( a measurement Noonan could have actually made) it falls dead-on through Gardner.

>Overall, we got a lot of lines crisscrossing around Gardner. I
>guess I'll have to wait for the book to learn the details of how
>the Navy could literally connect all the dots but still not
>extensively search Gardner.

There were plenty of culprits. Warner Thompson's reports were inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. Wilhelm Friedell (Colorado's captain) was under pressure from the CNO to get home before the expiration of the 60 day legal limit on reserve officers being at sea, but he didn't to give the appearance that he had left the job unfinished, so he declared the Phoenix Group "thoroughly searched." Leigh Noyes (Lexington's skipper) and J.S. Dowell (CO of the Lexington Group) already had a search plan drawn up before they got to Hawaii. They were all set to sweep vast areas of ocean with dozens of planes flying in line abreast formation.  Buzzing around a bunch of little islands that the battleship boys had supposedly already searched was not what they had in mind.

>I'm predicting years from now, after the Gardner hypothesis is
>widely accepted, this story will become a case study on
>organizational error for academics all over.

That's an interesting prediction, and it is not the first time it has been made.

>Just a few things I don't understand from the map. On or just south
>of the equator are three points evidently (and cryptically) labeled
>B, A, and C using an old version of the phonetic alphabet. Any
>ideas what these might be?

Those are rendezvous points for ship refueling.

>There's also a large square about 6 degrees on a side drawn W of
>Howland. Any clues?

Yeah.  That was the area they decided the Lexington Group would cover.  The shocker is that they made that decision BEFORE Colorado searched the Phoenix Group even though there was wide consensus that the evidence justified an intense search of the islands.  When you read the "Known Facts" and the "Probabilities Arising From Rumor or Reasonable Assumption" (in Knoyes' report) upon which the decision was based it becomes apparent just how far Thompson's distorted reports had led them astray.


LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:39:34
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

I too found the "smoking map" to be a revelation, particularly since I'd never heard it mentioned before, or read discussions about it on this forum.   It also raises a number of questions:  who plotted this map?   Was Rear Admiral Murfin aware of this map?  Was it used to brief the COLORADO's CO before he got underway to search the Phoenix Islands?  Why didn't Lambrecht's "Here [Gardner Island] signs of recent habitation were clearly visible" set off some alarm bells up and down the chain-of-command and prompt CAPT Friedell to land a shore party there?  Why did Friedell officially state the no one was seen on Gardner Island when he was aware that Lambrecht had officially stated otherwise?  (Given the existence of this map, if Friedell deliberately choice to ignore Lambrecht's observation so as not to put his ship and his crew in harm's way by standing in closer to Gardner to land a search party, and then falsified his official report, he was guilty of a far greater offense than Thompson's mishandling of the radio logs.  Hmmmm.

LTM (no never falsified anything)

Eric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:32:12
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Smoking Map

Eric Beheim asks:

>who plotted this map?

In terms of who actually drew the lines - we don't know

>Was Rear Admiral Murfin aware of this map?

You betcha.  It was his map.  The original is in the San Bruno, California branch of the National Archives in the records of the 14th Naval District.  Murfin was Commandant of the 14th Naval District. There is every reason to believe that this is the map that Murfin used to manage the search.

>Was it used to brief the COLORADO's CO before he got underway to search
>the Phoenix Islands?

Maybe, but that briefing occurred on the afternoon of July 2nd and Colorado headed south the following afternoon, so there wouldn't have been much of anything on the map yet.

>Why didn't Lambrecht's "Here [Gardner Island] signs of recent habitation
>were clearly visible" set off some alarm bells up and down the chain-of-
>command and prompt CAPT Friedell to land a shore party there?

Good question.  No good answer.  There is no indication that Lambrecht made written reports of the search flights.  It seems likely that he, and possibly the other two pilots, were debriefed after each flight - but by whom?  Did they report to the CO, the XO, the Operations Officer?  How thoroughly were they debriefed? We just don't know.  We do know that Lambrecht didn't finish writing his newsletter article until July 16 when the ship was about to arrive in Hawaii en route home.

>Why did Friedell officially state the no one was seen on Gardner Island
>when he was aware that Lambrecht had officially stated otherwise?

Let's be clear. Lambrecht's comment is not part of an official report, but rather an informal article for the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics weekly newsletter - basically, Lambrecht was "hangar flying," regaling his peers with tales of the South Pacific.  There's no reason to think he was being less than accurate but it's important to note that his description of what happened at Gardner did not end up as part of the comprehensive "Report of Earhart Search by U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy" and was probably never seen by anyone (except Friedell) who could compare it to the official Colorado report and note the discrepancy.

We know that Lambrecht's article had to be submitted through his commanding officer and we have a copy of the transmittal cover sheet signed by Friedell.  What we don't know, of course, is how carefully Friedell read it, if at all.

>Given the existence of this map, if Friedell deliberately choice to
>ignore Lambrecht's observation so as not to put his ship and his crew
>in harm's way by standing in closer to Gardner to land a search party,
>and then falsified his official report, he was guilty of a far greater
>offense than Thompson's mishandling of the radio logs.  Hmmmm.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence.  Lambrecht certainly didn't think the signs he saw were worthy of further investigation.  The only other account we have of the Gardner overflight is a letter one of the other pilots, Lt.(j.g.) William Short, wrote to his father.  Short doesn't mention the signs of recent habitation or the circling and zooming at all.  We don't know whether the three planes stayed together over the island or whether they split up and looked at different areas.  Short may never have seen what Lambrecht saw.

As I recall, however, the current Sailing Directions for the Phoenix Group did say that Gardner was uninhabited, so it does seem like Lambrecht did not do his homework and was too quick to dismiss whatever he saw. It's also worth noting that, time and again, Lambrecht and the other pilots spoke of searching for "the plane."  The possibility that Earhart and Noonan might be there and the plane not be visible does not seem to have occurred to them.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:21:53
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Reversed photo?

The photo on Adm. Murfin on page 9 of the August 2006 edition of Tighar Tracks appears to have been reversed.  I always thought campaign ribbons were worn over the left breast; the admiral has them over his right breast.  Or is this the way things were done in the 1930s era Navy?

LTM, who's decisions are often reversed
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:22:36
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Reversed Photo?

Dennis McGee asks:

>The photo on Adm. Murfin on page 9 of the August 2006 edition of
>Tighar Tracks appears to have been reversed.  I always thought
>campaign ribbons were worn over the left breast; the admiral has
>them over his right breast.  Or is this the way things were done in
>the 1930s era Navy?

Nice catch Dennis.  Yes, the photo somehow got reversed.  The same photo is in Finding Amelia. I just checked and, fortunately, it's right way round. (whew!)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:47:14
From:         Tom Hickcox
Subject:      Re: reversed photo

The buttons should also be sewn on the right side of the tunic and the eagle on the hat looking to the left.

Tommy
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:43:19
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

You are right. the map was probably created based on info. coming in from various sources during the first few days. Somehow no one at 14th Naval District saw the picture emerging on the map or did not tell those searching in the Pacific.

Without this info., the search parties simply did what they were told, report and sailed home. I think it boils down to communication and coordination or the lack thereof.

Malice or incompetency ? I don't know. But I do see a couple of conspiracy / cover up hypothesis emerging over the horizon though ;-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:59:58
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

For Chin Koon Fun

Keep in mind this was search operations in July 1937, not the Internet world of August 2006.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang #  2559
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:38
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

For  Randy  Jacobson

You stated that this situation plot map (smoking map) was created "in real time during the first few days of the AE's disappearance". This would suggest that the entries are accompanied with an entry time line. Is this correct?

Are these entries accompanied by the entering party's initials?

What was the date of the last entry if the above assumptions are correct?

Respectfully,
Tom Strang
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:54:11
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

>Malice or incompetency ? I don't know. But I do see a couple of
>conspiracy / cover up hypothesis emerging over the horizon though ;-)

Rear Admiral Murfin had one advantage over modern researchers in that he undoubtedly knew CAPT Friedell very well and knew "the measure of the man."  If Murfin knew him to be a cautious skipper, not willing to trust his ship (and his career) to the uncertain charts he had available to him, Murfin would probably not have been surprised that more effort wasn't spent on searching Gardner Island.  (In a similar vein, Admiral Yamamoto wasn't surprised that Vice-Admiral Nagumo didn't allow the second attack on Pearl Harbor that had been a key part of the operation's planning.) If Murfin read or was aware of Lambrecht's account, he would undoubtedly have had even less confidence in Friedell's decision.  At that point, there might have been some effort made in the 14th Naval District to close ranks and present a "khaki wall" to protect its own.  (This "khaki wall" was very much in evidence in the Army investigation of the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945.  In that case, the Army put the blame on the civilians in Air Traffic Control at La Guardia when the facts indicated otherwise.)  Besides, had Friedell risked his ship and landed a search party on Gardner, they might not have accomplished any more than to disturb the coconut crabs from their feasting.

LTM (who never had much use for crabs, coconut or otherwise)

Eric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:18:55
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

No, there are no date/time stamps on the map.  I said it was created in real time due to the type and quality of information available during those first few days and available to COM14.  Later information is not portrayed on the map.  I'm inferring that the last date of entry is probably July 5 or so.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:39:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

Good analysis, Eric. I have always suspected we make too much of the Lambrecht/Gardner issue. I feel confident that if Lambrecht actually saw something that any one of us would have suggested a more thorough search I think Lambrecht would have made the same suggestion and given the situation quite strongly. That is not to say he didn't misread what he saw but I've seen no indication he saw something in regard to Earhart.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:40:13
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Earhart's Shoes

A lot has been written about AE's shoes in TIGHAR'S Earhart Forum.

A book was written about 'Amelia Earhart's Shoes' by TIGHAR'S Thomas F. King.

Whilst browsing through Lockheed Martin's website
(http://www.lockheedmartin.com)
this Old Geezer ran across a photograph of AE, her Model 10 Electra and her SHOES by

1) entering 'amelia earhart' in the Search Box,
2) selecting Model 10 Electra from the search documents displayed and,
3) scrolling down till AE's photograph appears.

Her shoes look kinda small setting up there on the nose of her airplane.

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who had small feet, too!
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:14:53
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

>But I do see a couple of
>conspiracy / cover up hypothesis emerging over the horizon though ;-)

We are dealing here with military behavior which is somewhat predictable.  Upon the COLORADO's return to Pearl Harbor, the first thing that Friedell would have done would have been to report to Rear Admiral Murfin and brief him on the Phoenix Island search.  Murfin, in turn, would typically have asked him questions including, we must assume, questions about the search of Gardner Island: how was it searched?  How long did the search last?  What was observed?  Murfin might also have requested Lambrecht to give him a first hand account of the Gardner Island flyover.  Even if the "signs of recent habitation" never came up, Murfin would have seen that the Gardner Island flyover was brief and inconclusive at best.  (By Ric's estimation, only 10-15 minutes were spent searching the entire island.)  Since we now know that Murfin was aware that Gardner Island had been identified as one of the likely places where the World Flight had ended, it is not unreasonable to assume that he might have come to suspect that Friedell had "dropped the ball" by not searching there more thoroughly.  If damage control measures were then undertaken, they would have included discrediting the radio signals coming the direction of the Phoenix Islands as hoaxes or misunderstandings, issuing a statement to the effect that the Electra had probably run out of gas, come down in the ocean, and sank without a trace, and having Friedell submit the report that he did. Lambrecht's official account didn't received wide distribution and was discredited by the flippant/breezy style in which it was written. Which leaves one question.  Why wasn't the "smoking gun" map destroyed?  Hmmm.

LTM (who never had to do damage control)

Eric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:19:02
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Smoking map

Danger of opinionated comments based on supposition.

Over time aspects of truth are as malleable as untruths to prove one's point of view.

Respectfully,

Tom Strang  #  2559

>From Eric Beheim
>
>>But I do see a couple of
>>conspiracy / cover up hypothesis emerging over the horizon
>>though ;-)
>
>We are dealing here with military behavior which is somewhat
>predictable. Upon the COLORADO's return to Pearl Harbor, the first
>thing that Friedell would have done
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:19:38
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Amelia's shoes

George R Werth says:

>Whilst browsing through Lockheed Martin's
>website (http://www.lockheedmartin.com)
>this Old Geezer ran across a photograph of
>AE, her Model 10 Electra and her SHOES by
>1) entering 'amelia earhart' in the Search Box,
>2) selecting Model 10 Electra from the search
>     documents displayed and,
>3) scrolling down till AE's photograph appears.
>
>Her shoes look kinda small setting up there on
>the nose of her airplane.

You can judge shoe size from that picture? I wouldn't make any conclusion of her shoe size (not even "kinda small") from that picture. I am suspicious of the accuracy of any shoe size determination made visually from a web photograph that is 300 x 237 pixels.

I think it would be possible to do a careful photographic and mathematical analysis from the ORIGINAL photo and get an estimate of her shoe size and also an estimate of the possible error. Of course, one might also argue that part of Amelia's shoe is obscured in the photograph by the nose of the airplane, and so it might not be possible to determine her shoe size at all from that photo.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who always thought her shoes were too big)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:43:28
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: Amelia's shoes

Paige Miller writes

>I think it would be possible to do a careful
>photographic and mathematical analysis from
>the original photo

It's OK by me If'n y'all go to the bother to exhibit your powers of photographic and mathematical skills. This Old Geezer, however, chooses to rely on Chapters 11 and 12 of T. F. Kings "Amelia Earhart's SHOES," wherein it 'KINDA' seems like the investigators settled on a shoe size of 8 1/2 or 9 for the shoes AE wore on her last flight.

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who always said, "Ya gotta trust somebody"
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:56:41
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Amelia's shoes

George Werth writes:

>It's OK by me If'n y'all go to the bother to
>exhibit your powers of photographic and
>mathematical skills. This Old Geezer, however,
>chooses to rely on Chapters 11 and 12 of T. F.
>Kings "Amelia Earhart's SHOES," wherein it
>'KINDA' seems like the investigators settled
>on a shoe size of 8 1/2 or 9 for the shoes AE
>wore on her last flight.

I don't get your point, George. You said earlier that based upon a photo, Amelia's shoes looked "kinda small" and I said, and I still believe, that you can't judge someone's shoe sizes from that web photo.

--
Paige Miller #2565
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:57:25
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Amelia's shoes

>This Old Geezer, however,
>chooses to rely on Chapters 11 and 12 of T. F.
>Kings "Amelia Earhart's SHOES," wherein it
>'KINDA' seems like the investigators settled
>on a shoe size of 8 1/2 or 9 for the shoes AE
>wore on her last flight.

Sheesh, George, you use THAT piece of trash as an authoritative source?  Next you'll be trusting Gillespie on post-loss radio transmissions.

Actually, what we reported based on Jeff Glickman's analysis of the Bandoeng photo was that the shoe AE was wearing in that photo was about a 6 1/2 (See AE's Shoes, 2004, p. 330).  We don't have good measurements on any other shoes she may have worn or carried with her on the trip.

LTM (who says not to be too trusting)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:58:00
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: smoking map

Tom Strang wrote:

>Danger of opinionated comments based on supposition.
>
>Over time aspects of truth are as malleable as untruths to
>prove one's point of view.

Navy protocol would have required Friedell, upon to his return to Pearl Harbor,  to report to the Commandant of the 14th Naval District to brief him on the COLORADO's search of the Phoenix Islands.  Given that we now know that the Navy had identified Gardner Island as a likely place where the World Flight terminated, it is not too much of a stretch to assume that there was some discussion between Murfin and Friedell as to the extent of the search of that particular island.

From what we know of that search effort, it was certainly not as extensive as it should have been, given the island's significance as indicated on the "smoking gun" map.  I feel sure that this point was not lost on Rear Admiral Murfin either

LTM

Eric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:09:35
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: Amelia's shoes

For Tom King

You wrote:

>the shoe AE was wearing in that photo was 'about' a 6 1/2

Is an 'about' equal to a 'kinda'?

That small of a shoe for AE seems strange to me. Why, the Paratrooper Jump Boots
worn by this Old Geezer in WWII were 6 1/2 and he was only 5' 5" weighing 135 pounds!

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who never understood why I volunteered to be a Parachutist.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:45:18
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Amelia's shoes

OK, I see what you're talking about now.  Yeah, one "about" is worth 1.5 "kinda's" or .86 "sortas."  You realize we're talking about extrapolation from a photograph here, not an exact first-hand (or foot) measurement.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:52:34
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Step right up

To our surprise, although the official release date for Finding Amelia is not until September 19, retailers (such as amazon.com) who have received books are now shipping. Apparently that's standard practice.  It's media that can't jump the publication date.  Go figure.

Anyway, you can now get the book.

We expect to receive a shipment of books here shortly after Labor Day.  As soon as we do, we'll get books inscribed and sent out to members of the TIGHAR Literary Guild ASAP.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:33:34
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Step right up

Don't panick ! Amazon is merely taking advance orders. Shipping will follow only when the book is available, which should be 19 September.

LTM
*******************************

Actually, they are shipping, as is Barnes and Noble. It's fine.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:44:01
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Step right up

>We expect to receive a shipment of books here shortly after Labor
>Day.  As soon as we do, we'll get books inscribed and sent out to
>members of the TIGHAR Literary Guild ASAP.

I see the book is on Amazon for $19.11 (says it will be shipped when it's released).  On the other hand, the TIGHAR Literary Guild price is $100.00.  I'm in favor of helping fund the promotion, and a signed copy would be nice, but I don't really have $100 ready at hand for this sort of thing.  $50 is more in line with my budget.  How about I get the book from Amazon and send you the other $30.89 for the promotion fund?  Or are you perhaps planning to have an option to buy a non-signed/inscribed version from TIGHAR which would profit TIGHAR better?

Bill #2229

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

If you don't want to or can't do the Guild, the thing that will actually do us the most good is if you buy from the Naval Institute Press directly. They are of course selling at list price, but TIGHAR gets a much bigger cut via royalties that way.

We will gladly accept and thank anyone for *any* size donation, believe me!

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:13:48
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Step right up

>If you don't want to or can't do the Guild, the thing that will
>actually do us the most good is if you buy from the Naval
>Institute Press directly. They are of course selling at list price,
>but TIGHAR gets a much bigger cut via royalties that way.

Works for me.  Thanks for the suggestion.

- Bill #2229