Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:19:11 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Smoking map For Randy Jacobson, Thank you for your response to my "Smoking Map" time line question. At first I assumed this map was a briefing tool use by the Admiral's staff as to situational awareness. The map becomes more interesting because if as you deduce the last entries were around 5 July 1937, the map generates more questions than answers. I do agree "Smoking Map" is a most appropriate title for this map. Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:55:45 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Forum Power Let no one question the power of the Earhart Search Forum. On Wednesday, Aug. 30, the ranking of Finding Amelia among all the books sold by Amazon.com was 368,247. Not too shabby considering that all sales were advance sales. On Thursday, Aug, 31, we found out that Amazon has started shipping the book (although their website still doesn't admit it) and we put out the word to the Forum. Today, Friday, Sept. 1, our ranking among all the books sold by Amazon.com is 16,471. You guys did that. Thank you. When you get your book and have read it, please go back to Amazon and give it whatever rating you feel it deserves and, if you're so inclined, write up a review for the Amazon page. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 12:27:10 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Forum Power I received my copy last night. Wonderful, terrific, brilliant--and that's the first three chapters! I plan to post reviews everywhere when I'm finished. Barnes & Noble is currently offering immediate shipping. I'll send copies of the reviews from Library Journal, Publishers' Weekly and Booklist when they are published. Karen #2610 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:38:32 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Forum Power How many books has Amazon sold, as I don't understand the ranking stuff? How about the other venues such as alibris, and ablebooks, etc? They must also carry it. Ron B ****************************** Amazon doesn't tell anyone how many of anything they've sold. It would be a big help if anyone who thinks of an outlet for the book could check and see if they have it. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:06:02 From: George Werth Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Just Googled >Finding Amelia< and 115,000 matches appeared. George TIGHAR Member #2630 LTM who loved to read ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:06:46 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Finding Amelia The Barnes & Noble stores in Manhattan don't have the book in stock (but I received a copy the same day by ordering from the website.) The stores are currently taking pre-orders. So is Borders books, which is affiliated with amazon.com. Karen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 18:18:45 From: Tony Wood Subject: Re: Forum power Try the UK flyer press/magazine circuit: www.aeroplanemonthly.com www.flypast.com www.flyer.co.uk www.todayspilot.co.uk www.pilotweb.aero/ The top two would be favourite for reviews as they cover a wider time span. The others are contemporary aviation interest but still worth trying. Am looking forward to my copy. Tony #2717 *************************************** Thanks, Tony. We have a book on the way to Aeroplane Monthly but the rest were not on our list. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:26:56 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Media Blitz Our Amazon.com ranking continued to improve from a sales ranking of 16,471 on Friday to 9,659 on Saturday. Those numbers almost certainly reflect a burst of purchases by Forum subscribers. I don't know how many books sold this represents but my guess would be we're talking dozens, not hundreds. Bursts are bursts and, predictably, the high ranking didn't last. On Sunday we were back to a ranking of 22,293. (The paperback edition of "Shoes" is currently ranked at 214,187 and "Amelia Earhart - The Mystery Solved" is at 594,873.) In a perfect world, a book would succeed solely on its merits but our world is far from perfect and, as George Putnam knew, a good promotional campaign is essential to a book's success. There are many thousands of people who might enjoy reading Finding Amelia but they won't have a chance to buy the book if they've never heard of it. Unfortunately, neither TIGHAR nor the Naval Institute Press has the budget for a nationwide promotional campaign, but fortune has presented us with a unique opportunity to light a regional fire that could quickly spread. The National Public Radio station serving our area (Wilmington, Delaware; Philadephia, PA; and south-central New Jersey) is WHYY. The demographics of the NPR audience closely parallel TIGHAR's membership - mature, white collar, well educated, with eclectic interests. WHYY is the home station for the nationally syndicated and very popular "Fresh Air with Terry Gross." Right now, and until the end of the month, the station is running a special promotion on "underwriting credits" (the public broadcasting euphemism for paid advertisements). As a nonprofit foundation, TIGHAR can get thirty-six 30-second spots over a two week period aired during drivetime and other peak times for $5,000. For comparison, a for-profit company would normally pay $7,670 for a like number of 15 second spots. If, for two weeks right after the book is officially released, we can blitz the one million households that regularly listen to WHYY, we should be able to create a significant spike in sales that will get the attention of national reviewers. If reviews of Finding Amelia appear in national publications and broadcast media we'll have a real chance for the book break out of the special interest market into the infinitely larger general market. I don't often come to the Forum with a fund-raising pitch, but this is a unique opportunity and I want to ask you to help us take advantage of it. TIGHAR member Barb Norris has already stepped forward with a $500 contribution toward the $5,000 we'll have to raise in the next two weeks if we're going to launch this blitz. Let's make it a Forum project to meet this goal. We'll keep the Forum informed of pledges and progress, and if we can raise the remaining $4,500 we'll post a transcript of the ads - sorry, underwriting credits - that will air. If we already have your credit card number just let us know how much you'd like to contribute. If we don't, you can contribute (securely) on-line at https://tighar.org/cardform.html. You can also send a check, payable to TIGHAR, to TIGHAR 2812 Fawkes Drive Wilmington, DE 19808 or fax your credit card info to us at (302) 994-7945. Or give us a call at (302) 994-4410. If you're not already a TIGHAR member and wish to contribute at least $100 toward the blitz, we'll throw in a one-year TIGHAR membership (a $55 value). How's THAT for an incentive? Let's hear from you Forum. Let's do this. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:13 From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Media blitz Ric - I think you already have my credit card # - you may hit it for $100 towards the blitz (I can hear the shrieking sirens) - pmb. ************************************** Many many thanks, Peter! Pat ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:55:28 From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Media blitz Ric: $100 from credit card. Dale Intolubbe #2656 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:17:52 From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Media Blitz From John Clauss The key to this would be to get Terry Gross to review the book. I'm in for $100 John Clauss ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:16:55 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Me too! Yeah, put me down for $100 bucks, also. I'll get the check out this week. LTM, who was nearly put down last week Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:23:44 From: David Jeanne Subject: Re: Media blitz I'm in........here's my $100 David R. Jeane #2498 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:26:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Blitz progress The goal is $5,000 for a media campaign that will run from 9/11 to 9/24. The deadline is Saturday 9/9 (we need at least two days to produce the ads). As of Tuesday morning (9/5): (Donations are attributed by name if sent as a forum posting.) $500 - Norris $100 - Boor $100 - Intolubbe $100 - Sivert $50 - Anon. $100 - Anon. $100 - Jeanne $100 - Clauss $100 - McGee Total raised so far - $1,250. We're a quarter of the way there. Still to raise - $3,750. Let's go gang. We can do this. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:41:50 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Yum and Lum? Ron Bright has raised a number of questions and, with his permission, we'll post them here along with my replies. >In view of the controversy started by Lum and Yum who now claim >they didn't hear Amelia Earhart , Lum and Yum??? Are you talking about Yau Fai Lum on Howland and Paul Yat Lum on Baker? Yum Yum is a character in Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Mikado." She is not mentioned in any of the reports. >I was interested in the 17 July 2000 post by Randy. Randy wrote >that he examined the smooth and rough Howland Radio logs at the >National Archives, I believe Randy misspoke when he said "I have examined both the smooth and rough Howland Logs, located in the National Archives, and neither version contain any handwritten signatures." If rough Howland logs exist, I have never seen them. The only Howland log I've seen is a transcript made by Cipriani. >including the diaries of the colonists, indicating they stood >nightly watches. To clarify; each colonist did not keep a diary (as far as we know). There was one diary kept for Howland Island that is included in Richard Black's report but it is unsigned. Judging from the author's references to other colonists, the Howland diary seems to have been kept by colonist William Tavares. The Howland diary does, very clearly, indicate that Yau Fai Lum stood radio watches listening for Earhart. >I suppose if Randy had found the original of Lum and Yums >handwritten notes/logs he would have copied them. I doubt they >exist. My impression is once they heard what they "believed" was >Earhart for whatever reasons, they noted the signal, then later >gave it, perhaps orally, to Cipriani, who in turn sent it on to >Itasca. Your impression of the little Chinaman running up to the big American sailor and saying "Me think me hear lady flier" is not supported by the logs and diaries. The operators on Howland and Baker did not say that they "believed" that they heard Earhart. They did not equivocate. They just flat stated that they heard her. You can question their certainty if you choose but you better have a reason other than that they have funny sounding names. >Cipriani may have used Yums call sign from the shortwave to Itasca. When Cipriani communicated with Itasca he used his own call sign, NRUI2. Yau Fai Lum's call sign, K6GNW, was his personal ham license number assigned to him by the FCC. Cipriani could no more use it than I could answer the phone, "Hello, this is Ron Bright." I think you have a distorted impression of the way things worked on Howland. Coast Guardsman Frank Cipriani was there only to operate the borrowed Navy DF. He had also brought ashore a portable Coast Guard radio to use for communicating with Itasca, but the thing was very low power and turned out to be virtually useless. Yau Fai Lum had an established set-up that he had been using to communicate with Hawaii and the other islands (Baker and Jarvis) for many months. The Itasca radio log clearly shows that Yau Fai Lum was handling the bulk of the communication between Howland and Itasca. It's important to understand that Cipriani was very much an outsider. He was on loan from USCG Taney and not part of Itasca's regular crew. Richard Black recruited him to run the Navy DF when Commander Thompson refused to allow Navy radio operators aboard Itasca. According to Leo Bellarts (in his 1973 interview with Elgen Long), "We didn't want him." Cipriani was probably pretty lonely on Howland too. The colonists were a tight little community made up of Hawaiian/ American and Chinese/American kids. Cipriani was the only Coast Guardsman left behind when Itasca sailed off to search for Amelia. His social isolation in Howland probably accounts for Lum's failure to remember him being there at all. >Were the colonists radio logs available? There are no colonists' radio logs and, as far as we know, there never were any. The only Howland log is the one Cipriani later transcribed. Itasca did not even assume that Howland was keeping a log. At 22:14 (Itasca time) on the night of July 4, Itasca sent a message to Yau Fai Lum which read, in part: "This very important from Mr. Baker (LCDR L.H. Baker was the ship's Executive Officer). Honolulu apparently getting Earhart signals. Want Howland keep loop in use, especially at night. Use Chinese operators under your control. Keep Baker (island) also on alert (for) plane data and to report to Itasca through Howland. Keep log. Captain expects results." This message was sent to K6GNW because Lum was the operator on duty, but it's hard not to think that it was intended for Cipriani. >I have another question re log [#1] that O'hara kept and >simultaneously the log Thompson kept, [log #2] No file here at my >cabin, but O'hare reported at 18:25 (?) he heard weak signals on >3105 and unintelligible voice, then logged something like "We hear >her on 3105". Of course with such weak signals and no call sign, we >will wonder just what caused him to believe it was AE. [ Later he >heard an unreadable voice, and made out "Earhart". I wonder if this >then influenced his mind when they reviewed the log.] You're being selective. Look at the entire entry. O'Hare logged, "We hear her on 3105 now. Very weak and unreadable voice." He hears a voice but it is too weak and unreadable to make out the words but he can tell that it is the same distinctive voice he heard earlier that same day when the plane was in flight. >My question is that Thompson on Log 2, doesn't record that signal >intercept that O'Hare heard at 18:25, but a few minutes later at >1834 he reports he heard something like a generator start or stop >and stop. Why wouldn't Thompson on the main log not hear what >O'hare heard? Was reporting these signals a bit random or selective? You're not reading the logs carefully. For one thing, it's Leo Bellarts who is on Log 2 at 18:25, not George Thompson ( see entry for 18:03) and at 18:24 he begins sending out an "all ships" alert. That's why he doesn't hear what Tommy O'Hare hears. >The question is did Paul Yat Lum on Baker handwrite an entry in >his radio log regarding the alleged reception that he "heard >Earhart's plane, S4, R7" reportedly at 8:20 pm, 3 July. You write >"Now a government radio operator...had heard a clear and strong >transmission he 'UNEQUIVOCALLY' identified as being from the >missing plane." (My emphasis) [ Chapter 14 ] > >Those are strong words. Yes they are strong words and they are true. The Baker Island report relayed to Itasca through Howland was unequivocal. >Thus I am interested on what basis he determined the "strong" >signal was from Earharts plane. Was it a call sign of KHAQQ? A >female voice? Some indication of position or other unique >identifiers to the Electra, or was it dashes, carrier waves on or >near 3105, or a specific response. We don't know on what basis he decided the signal was from Earhart. On another occasion he said he heard KHAQQ call NRUI, but since his report comes second hand via Howland we don't know exactly what he heard. We do know that, in both cases, his report was unequivocal. You can speculate that Yau Fai Lum did not accurately relay what the operator on Baker had reported, but there is no basis for that speculation. >Those intercepts would be quite convincing if we had Lum's >original, contemporaneous handwritten entries. I agree that original contemporaneous handwritten entries would be better than second hand reports via Howland. We don't have original contemporaneous handwritten entries for Howland, or Itasca (they were typed), or Nauru, or Pan Am, or COMHAWSEC, or COMFRANDIV, or anybody - except Betty. The only source we have for U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe's reception of the 281 message is second hand via COMHAWSEC. Nearly all of the amateur reports of post-loss messages are second hand via newspaper accounts. If contemporaneous handwritten transcription is your standard, you should regard Betty's notebook to be quite convincing. >Apparently he radioed Howland (Lum) and Lum (K6GNW) sent a signal >to Itasca re Baker's intercept. Yes, that's how it worked. >A photo of Lum at work on Howland by his radio on 2 July shows him >sending code and listening with earphones, no typewriter at his >reach. [ Photo of Lum in Long's book ] If you don't routinely keep a log you don't need a typewriter. I suspect that the original Howland log was handwritten. >ANOTHER TOPIC. >Is there some reason you didn't include the second bearing from >Mokapu of 215, and Midway's bearing of 175 degrees, all of which >converge in the Phoenix supporting your theory? The excerpts published in TIGHAR Tracks and on Finding Amelia.com are excerpts. The book describes all of the Pan Am bearings, the ones that support our theory and the ones that don't. Beyond that, the DVD includes a link to Bob Brandenburg's in-depth technical paper on the radio bearings. The paper is now available on the TIGHAR website at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/50_RDFAnalysis/50_RDFAnalysis.htm >Also, I would have thought you would have included some caution in >interpreting these weak signals based on the distance of 17-1900 >miles, and the error calculations, I have included the qualifiers and doubts that Pan Am expressed at the time. I'm not sure what error calculations you're referring to. Bob Brandenburg's paper includes a detailed discussion of the many factors that influenced the accuracy of the bearings. >Same with Cipriani's bearing taken on Howland on a "continuous >wave of unknown origin" . No call signal given and frequency was >"slightly above 3105 kcs". The bearing was done with a magnetic >compass showing south southeast BUT also could have been north >northwest. i guess you can't put everything in one book. I can assure you that the Cipriani's bearing is discussed at length. I respectfully suggest that you read the book before you decide what's there and what's not. The DVD that accompanies the book also links directly to Bob Brandenburg's technical paper that covers Cipriani's bearing as well as all of the PAA bearings. It's true that you can't put everything in one book without making the reader's eyes glaze over. We did, however, put everything on the DVD. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:03:44 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Yum and Lum? Ric, Thanks for taking the time to clarify those lengthy questions re LUM and LUM, or was it Lum and Abner? I have some follow up questions, but later. Maybe Bettys notes were written within a month or so of 5 July 37, but I do find them quite convincing- she didn't hear Amelia Earhart! [ But we have argued that back and forth] LTM, Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 23:47:56 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Yum and Lum? For Ron Bright, If as you say, Betty did not hear Amelia Earhart, then whom did she hear during that fateful afternoon broadcast? Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:03:27 From: Jim Young Subject: Yau Fai Lum, Paul Yat Lum, Frank Cipriani Years ago, I'd asked if there had been an "Oriental" radio operator on the Itasca based on what I thought my father-in-law had said about visiting such an operator in 1978. My father-in-law, James P. "Mac" McBride, was a highly thought of USCG warrant officer with HF/DF experience (I know of in 1946). He was stationed in Hawaii in the early 50s, and I assumed, met some of the coastguardsmen/ radio operators involved with AE. When he visited us in Hawaii in late 1978, he said he had met with an Oriental radio operator I assumed had been in the Coast Guard. From the recent posts, I now wonder if it could have been any of the three not on the Itasca ( Yau Fai Lum, Paul Yat Lum, or Frank Cipriani talking about an Oriental radio operator) All I know reasonably well, was that he said the person he talked to in 1978 was working for the FAA, I believe at the Honolulu Airport. He said he had cancer at the time, and didn't expect to last more than 6 months. Do you know if any of the three fit that description in 1978, or of any others involved who might have been stationed in Hawaii in the early 50s? Whoever it was, he strongly disagreed with the reported last communication reported from AE in a documentary that I believe was released in 1979, shortly before my father-in-law passed away. Jim Young ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:04:32 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Re: Media blitz I'm in - bill $100 to the credit card, if you would. LTM, who actually likes ramen noodles, Monty Fowler, No. 2189CE ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:20:09 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Re: bearings >I can assure you that the Cipriani's bearing is discussed at length. >I respectfully suggest that you read the book before you decide >what's there and what's not. I realize that my question will be answered once I receive my book, but since I'm impatient, I'll ask it anyway: what person or agency made the final/official determination that the post loss radio signals were nothing more than misunderstandings or hoaxes? LTM (who was very patient, herself) Eric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:46:12 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Yum and Lum? For Tom Strang Strang asks if it " wasn't AE that Betty heard, who was it?" A fair question. But Tom this issue was debated endlessly about two years ago, and I didn't want to start another lengthy forum debate since I doubt if anything new has surfaced. May have as my Tighar book hasn't arrived which contains a chapter on Betty, so I will wait. However, it may be helpful if you describe for the forum what you think is clear, convincing evidence that AE was transmitting on or about 5 July by voice late afternoon from the South Pacific. Anyway I am off to Berlin to practice my German. BEST, ltm, Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:31:19 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Blitz progress, 9/6 The goal is $5,000 for a media campaign that will run from 9/11 to 9/24. The deadline is Saturday 9/9 (we need at least two days to produce the ads). As of Wednesday morning (9/6): (Donations are attributed by name if sent as a forum posting.) $500 - Norris $100 - Boor $100 - Intolubbe $100 - Sivert $50 - Anon. $100 - Anon. $100 - Jeane $100 - Clauss $100 - McGee $100 - Anon. $100 - Anon. $100 - Fowler $100 - Anon. $100 - Anon. $100 - Anon. Total raised so far - $1,850. Still to raise - $3,150. Three days to go. Can we do it? The first large shipment of books to TIGHAR (60 copies) arrived yesterday. I'll be inscribing and shipping Literary Guild copies starting today. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:55:11 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Bearings Eric asked: >I realize that my question will be answered once I receive my book, >but since I'm impatient, I'll ask it anyway: what person or agency >made the final/official determination that the post loss radio >signals were nothing more than misunderstandings or hoaxes? It started with Warner Thompson (CO of Itasca) while the search was still in progress. At first he was chasing locations reported in post-loss messages and he was the one who decided that "281 north Howland" meant that the plane was afloat 281 miles north of Howland. Lockheed tried to tell him that it was impossible but he insisted on racing to that location and recruiting USS Swan and the British freighter SS Moorby to also converge on that spot. As they reached the area on the night of July 5 they saw shooting stars that they mistook for flares. Itasca sent a radio message that "We see your flares and are coming." Navy Radio Wailupe overheard the message and somebody leaked it to the press. There was an instant media feeding frenzy about Earhart's imminent rescue and Itasca was deluged with requests for photos and interviews. Of course, there was nothing there and the whole affair was a huge embarrassment for the Coast Guard in general and Thompson in particular. From that moment on he vehemently maintained that any and all alleged post-loss messages were bogus and probably "criminally false." His distorted reports had a tremendous impact on subsequent decisions about where to search. After the search was called off, both the Coast Guard and the Navy adopted Thompson's position. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:55:53 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Yau Fai Lum, Paul Yat Lum, Frank Cipriani Jim Young asked: >All I know reasonably well, was that he said the person he talked >to in 1978 was working for the FAA, I believe at the Honolulu >Airport. He said he had cancer at the time, and didn't expect to >last more than 6 months. > >Do you know if any of the three fit that description in 1978, or >of any others involved who might have been stationed in Hawaii in >the early 50s? Of course, Frank Cipriani was not "oriental." None of the Coast Guard radio operators aboard Itasca were "oriental." There were three Chinese/American radio operators on Howland Island during the search - Yau Fai Lum, Ah Kim Leong, and Henry Lau. Lau was later in the Army and, if I had to guess, I'd say it was probably he who ended up working for the FAA in Honolulu. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:39:32 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Blitz progress, 9/6 I have posted my review, titled "Ghosts in the Machine" on amazon.com. I also sent in a $100 donation for the Radio Fund. We need to make sure that Ric's radio messages are heard and understood, unlike Amelia's! Karen #2610 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:27:40 From: Van Hunn Subject: Re: Blitz progress Sign me up for $100. Check can be mailed today unless it's needed sooner. Van ****************** Many thanks, Van. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:03:11 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Bearings It was primarily CDR Thompson who articulated the position that all post-loss radio messages were misunderstandings and/or hoaxes. As for Cipriani's bearings, I believe there were two bearings made on Howland. One of them was made on the Itasca itself by request of the Itasca, and is often misinterpreted to be from AE. This particular bearing was on the second night after resumption of listening, which was 0832Z, July 6. The other bearing, obtained at 1105Z, July 5, was probably not from the Itasca. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:02:55 From: Tom Roberts Subject: Re: Blitz progress Sign me up for $300. You should have the credit card number, but if not, let me know. LTM. ************************ Thanks so much, Tom. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:03:48 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Re: Bearings >After the search was called off, both the Coast Guard and the Navy >adopted Thompson's position. By "the Navy" I'm assuming you're referring to Rear Admiral Murfin who apears to have been the most senior Naval officer directly involved in the search. By adopting Thompson's position, Murfin did not have discuss the so-called "smoking gun" map which he was aware of and which had identified Gardner Island as a location that should have been searched more throughly by the COLORADO and wasn't. Had the existence of the "smoking gun" map been made general knowledge at the time the search was called off, it would undoubtedly have brought up a number of embarrassing questions for Murfin and Friedell to answer. LTM (who had a few questions of her own to ask) Eric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 14:15:51 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Blitz Progress My reviews of "Finding Amelia" are now available on amazon.com and bn.com (Barnes & Noble). I didn't sign them. I don't like getting nasty messages from complete strangers who don't agree with my (correct) observations. LTM, (she says be nice!) Karen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:16:16 From: Jon Greenberg Subject: Re: Media blitz Check for $100 is in the mail. Jon Greenberg, #2047 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:24:12 From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Blitz progress 9/6 Put me in for a hundred. I think Pat has my CC # - if not, email me and I'll phone it in. Ltm Jon 2266 ********************* We've got it, Jon, and thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:30:24 From: Chin Koon Fun Subject: Re: Blitz progress I have your review on amazon regarding "Finding Amelia" as well as those on the Ripper. They are valid observations. Karen Hoy wrote: >My reviews of "Finding Amelia" are now available on amazon.com and >bn.com (Barnes & Noble). > >I didn't sign them. I don't like getting nasty messages from complete >strangers who don't agree with my (correct) observations. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:03:35 From: Charlie Sivert Subject: How much is needed to reach the $5000 goal? I was wondering if we are close to the goal which has been set, and tell us again the date for meeting the goal. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:01:51 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: How much is needed? Charlie Sivert asks: >I was wondering if we are close to the goal which has been set, and >tell us again the date for meeting the goal. Forum contributions and pledges toward the $5,000 Media Blitz goal presently total $3,900. Tomorrow is the deadline for making the decision and we have decided to go for it. With so many people stepping forward to help we don't feel that we can just say "never mind." You guys trust in us and we trust in you. We're sure that support will continue to come in and we won't actually have to come up with the money until 30 days after they invoice us. I'm presently working out the script for the ad with the station. There are some fairly picky FCC rules about what can and cannot be said in public broadcasting "underwriting statements." As soon as we have a script finalized I'll post it here on the Forum. Incidentally, $100 contributions to the Media Blitz count as memberships in the Literary Guild and get you an inscribed copy of Finding Amelia. I am signing and sending out books as time permits every day now. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 22:00:13 From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: How much is needed? For those of you who may be on the fence, you may want to think of it as leveraging your contribution. If this works, and sales of Finding Amelia are substantially elevated, your contribution will have brought in all that much more income for TIGHAR. Sort of like matching funds. --Mike ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:58:57 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Recoverists!? http://www.warbirdrecovery.com/ I ran across this organization in Air Classics the other day and thought I'd gamble the $17.95 for their soft-cover book, simply to compare methodologies in locating and recovering historic aircraft. I thought it was telling that TIGHAR is not on their list of links. Gordon R. Page is one in a long line of warbird "recoverists" that have emerged over the past few years, and I have truly mixed emotions when I read about these guys. The airplane-half of my brain is happy they are hauling these unique and valuable wrecks out of the wilds for preservation (but PUH-LEAZE don't call them restorations) but the historian-half is in a tizzy. Does TIGHAR have any soothing, calming balms that would allow my airplane and historian halves live happily in the same cranium? LTM, who is still recovering Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:56:40 From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: Recoverists!? Dennis wrote: >I ran across this organization in Air Classics the other day and >thought I'd gamble the $17.95 for their soft-cover book, simply to >compare methodologies in locating and recovering historic aircraft. I >thought it was telling that Tighar is not on their list of links. It is an *interesting* fun quick read. He got burned the first time and lucky the second-- but do not expect much about historic preservation, it is all about recovery. Between that book, and particularly "Hunting Warbirds" by Carl Hoffman, they give you a good feel for what the "bottom line" in warbird recovery is all about. I am looking forward to receiving my copy of "The Time Capsule Fighter, Corsair KD431" mentioned in the current issue of TIGHAR Tracks so as to reading something that is more in line with historic preservation in the "warbird" world. LTM (Who took antacids for her "historian-half" while reading) Craig Fuller #1589CE AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research www.AviationArchaeology.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:04:51 From: John Pratt Subject: Re: Media blitz $100 on the Credit Card and e-mail me if you need the latest number. *************************** Thanks, John, we've got it. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:11:59 From: Adam Marsland Subject: Re: Media blitz Sorry I'm late on this...I was dealing with making sure I had enough money on hand to replace a wrecked car. I'd like to contribute to this but not sure how...is there a special place for the Media Blitz or just do it on the tighar website under the Literary Guild section? ******************************** Just under the Literary Guild is fine. Thanks, Adam. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:07:35 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Recoverists!? Wow, right in my back yard. Interesting that you can't find an address anywhere on their site. I've seen the Mig fly at Jeffco Airport. Pretty impressive. I've also seen the T33 fuselage. My office is now in Lafayette, I guess I'll have to call and go and visit. Will let you know what I find out. A. McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:11:57 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Recoverists!? Dennis McGee says: >I ran across this organization in Air Classics the other day and >thought I'd gamble the $17.95 for their soft-cover book, simply to >compare methodologies in locating and recovering historic >aircraft. I thought it was telling that Tighar is not on their >list of links. Hardly surprising. TIGHAR's motto is "That they may escape the teeth of time and the hands of mistaken zeal." (John Aubrey, Stonehenge Manuscripts, 1660). Those guys are the hands of mistaken zeal we're talking about. >The airplane-half of my brain is happy they are hauling these >unique and valuable wrecks out of the wilds for preservation (but >PUH-LEAZE don't call them restorations) but the historian-half is >in a tizzy. > >Does Tighar have any soothing, calming balms that would allow my >airplane and historian halves live happily in the same cranium? I'm not exactly known for my soothing, calming balms, but I'll give it a shot. You have correctly identified the conundrum. Your emotions tell you, "They must fly again!" while your intellect shouts "They must be saved!" The airplane side of your brain marvels at the music of a Merlin and revels in the rumble of a radial. At the same time, the historian side of your brain knows that the essence of historic preservation is the safeguarding of the physical material that was there then and is here now. What happens to the wrecks the "recoverists" recover is neither preservation nor restoration - it's wholesale repair and reconstruction. From an historic preservation perspective, it is destruction. The same conflict exists in other contexts and has been dealt with more successfully. Take the American Civll War for example. Reenactments are very popular and authenticity is highly prized, but fixing up a Sharps carbine and using it in a reenactment is almost unthinkable. Original artifacts are carefully preserved in collections and museums. Great attention is paid to creating faithful reproductions to use in reenactments. But creating a faithful reproduction of an Me 262 is a bit more complicated and expensive than building a good copy of a Sharps carbine (although both have been done). Consequently, there is a much greater tendency in the aviation world to build reproductions around the bones of original artifacts. Because there is often a modicum of original material in the reproductions, aviation re-enactors habitually kid themselves, and their audiences, into thinking that they are flying genuine WWII aircraft. (Have you ever heard of a WWII airshow that billed itself as a reenactment?) Reenactments have real value, whether it's a Civil War battle or a World War Two airshow. The spectators get some idea of what it looked and sounded and smelled like, and the participants get some feeling for what it felt, like to march forward in massed formations swathed in smoke and surrounded by the din of battle, or haul a P-40 into a 4 G turn to try to shake a Zero off your tail. Those glimpses into experiences of the past are what the airplane side of your brain recognizes as compelling and valuable. While the appeal of reenactment is nearly universal, not everyone has a historian side of their brain. Its development takes education and introspection. No museum can compete with the bark of a Springfield or the roar of an R2800 for raw drama, but the very popularity of the cartoonish term "warbird" bears witness to the fact that reenactments are mostly about fantasy and entertainment. In the end, it is the information that reposes in truly preserved relics that provides our best window to the past. Largely intact examples of very rare types - such as the P-38Fs in Greenland, the B-17E in Papua New Guinea, and the TBD Devastators in Jaluit - are treasure troves of information. When they fall victim to the hands of mistaken zeal, as happened in Greenland and Papua NewGuinea, we are all poorer for the loss. That's why we're trying so hard in Jaluit. But as vital as it is to try to save the rare intact survivor, it's also important to acknowledge that not every scattering of sixty year old aluminum is sacred. There's no reason to mourn much of the debris salvaged by the "recoverists." They're simply supplying a demand for rebuildable airframes, or at least bones that can be used as patterns for replica airframes. To the extent that important historical information is lost in the process of rebuilding wrecks, we pay a high price for good airshows. We pay an even higher price when the behavior and ethics of the self-described "pirates" prompt governments to shut down access to historic properties. The good news is that things are changing. Increasingly, we're seeing the from-scratch construction of full size replicas of historic types for use in reenactments. It started in the 1960s with relatively simple designs from the Great War - Sopwith Pups, Fokker Dr1s, and the like. By the 1990s, complex between-the-wars types like the Grumman F3F and Polikarpov I-16 were being reproduced from the ground up. Today there are a number of new-build WWII types joining the replica ranks, including Me 262s, Hurricanes, and FW 190s. At the same time, air museums are beginning to hire more people with training in museum science and collections management. "Restoration shops" are starting to do more conservation and less reconstruction, and museum floors are starting to look more like museum floors and less like showroom floors. So my advice to you Dennis is to let the airplane side of your brain enjoy the reenactments. Don't feel guilty that your heart skips a beat (as mine does) when the P-51 sings its song. Applaud the fact that most of the parts in that airplane were built just yesterday and celebrate the new replicas as they come on line. With the historian side of your brain, support the museums who act like museums, decry the shoddy shenanigans of the pirates, and work to help save the truly rare survivors when they are discovered. Reenactment and historic preservation are different sides of the same coin. Like the airplane and historian sides of your brain, they complement each other. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:22:30 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Recoverists!? Ric, I think your reply below to Dennis on this subject is one of the most intelligent, concise, and eloquent I have ever read. I think you should keep it for future use as the occasions arise. Well done. blue skies, JHam ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:23:37 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Recoverists vs. preservationists Ric said: "Reenactment and historic preservation are different sides of the same coin. Like the airplane and historian sides of your brain, they complement each other." Thanks for Tighar's perspective on recoverists vs. preservationists. These are not mutually exclusive activities, though they sure come close at times. I'm sure I am not the only one on this forum with the emotional conflicts of this issue. I guess the best we can hope for is the both parties work together for the betterment of both. My concern is for the loss of historical context of some of these aircraft., such as the B-17 in New Guinea and the Me-109s in Russia. All three aircraft suffered battle damage prior to their forced landings and it is almost a given that this damage will be "repaired" by new owners to present to the public a more attractive (and airworthy?) specimen. The context of the drama (air-to-air combat followed by a forced landing and the survival of the crew) and the particular aircraft's role in the historical events it participated in will be lost forever when the aircraft is prettied-up for display and/or flight. As an example, the Russians still exhibit portions of Gary Power's U-2 spy plane they shot down in 1960. The pile of ruble with its sharp, twisted metal edges displaying both the zinc chromate protective interior coating and the dull black exterior paint with American military style letterings, bent tubing, bundles of electrical looms, etc. etc. is much more dramatic and thought provoking than putting a whole perfectly "restored" U-s on display. Anyways, thanks for your perspective. Well done. LTM, who has no protective interior coatings left Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:24:32 From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: Recoverists!? Beautifully put! Round of applause! You've put into words something long felt about all this. I used to use the example of Chippendale furniture. i.e. Utterly pointless to preserve at first ( they were just posh furniture) Later as they became rarer, worthy of repair or preservation, but to have a mere copy or replica made would be perceived as a poor mans solution to having the real thing. Now, an original with full provenance is worth thousands, and the market in replicas is very much worth it. But that explanation just went out the window, now I've printed off Rics spiel. Yours makes much more sense, Now, can anybody locate for me a He111 ? I'd like 2 actually. One "Pedro" from the 60s, and a perfect one from WW2 to gaze at in its air conditioned, warm hangar. Rick Boardman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:47:18 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Recoverists!? <> I agree; I forwarded it to the National Park Service's historic preservation people so they can plagiarize from it. LTM (who says it's the sincerest form of flattery) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:30:36 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Recoverists!? To Rick Boardman You can find an authentic Heinkel He 111 in the RAF Museum at Hendon (London). If you do not plan traveling to England soon you can also see it googling, typing "RAF MUSEUM", then choose Hendon (they have other airplanes at their museum at Cosford). The He 111 is part of the display in the Battle of Britain wing of the museum. They also have an authentic Ju-88, an Me-110, a Stuka (Ju-87D) dive bomber and of course their own Spitfire, Hurricane and even Gladiator fighters. All well preserved and in pristine condition. By the way, the Brits adore old cars and vintage airplanes and are know for driving 50 year cars which are admirably maintained. Not surprisingly they have one authentic airworthy four engine WW2 Lancaster bomber flying. It is not a replica, nor is it a rebuilt. It is simply a well maintained airplane that has survived time. It is not owned by a private business but by its first owner, the Royal Air Force. It is part of the "Battle of Britain Memorial Flight", which is an operational unit in the RAF. Besides operating about half a dozen airworthy Spitfires and a Hurricane the flight also operates an authentic Dakota (known as a C-47 in the US) to carry spares. The Lancaster nor the other airplanes are replicas or rebuilts. The Hurricane actually is the very last one ever built by Hawker and is therefore called "The Last of the Many". Would it be wise to keep these valuable aircraft on the ground lest they crash ? The Brits think it's better to keep them flying and show them to the public in flight. One can see breathtaking pictures of them on the website of the "Battle of Britain Flight". These airplanes are owned by the Royal Air Force and flown by RAF pilots for history's sake. Making money is out of the old airplanes is not their business. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:40:51 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Blitz progress I visited the Air force Museum at Wright Patterson AFB Sunday and the book is on the shelf in their gift store. ***************************** Great! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:35:18 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Recoverists vs. preservationists Dennis O. McGee wrote, "The pile of rubble with its sharp, twisted metal edges displaying both the zinc chromate protective interior coating and the dull black exterior paint with American military style letterings, bent tubing, bundles of electrical looms, etc. etc. is much more dramatic and thought provoking than putting a whole perfectly "restored" U-s on display." Roger that, Dennis. LTM (who knew why less is more) William Webster-Garman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:09:30 From: Tom Hickcox Subject: Re: Recoverists!? Herman De Wulf (# 2406) wrote: >You can find an authentic Heinkel He 111 in the RAF Museum at Hendon >(London). If you do not plan traveling to England soon you can also see it >googling, typing "RAF MUSEUM", then choose Hendon (they have other >airplanes at their museum at Cosford). The He 111 is part of the display in >the Battle of Britain wing of the museum. They also have an authentic Ju-88, >an Me-110, Quibbling a bit, but wasn't the prefix for the 109 and 110 Bf? Tom Hickcox #2725 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:02:49 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Recoverists? Tom Hickcox asked : "Quibbling a bit, wasn't the prefix for the 110 Bf ?" Technically speaking you are right. Actually this is an discussion without end between aircraft enthusiasts and people in the field. Enthusiasts rightly insist both the Me-109 and the Me-110 should be correctly identified as Bf 109 and Bf 110. Both types were developed before WW 2 by Willy Messerschmitt who had joined the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. The company went bankrupt and Willy Messerschmitt formed a new company to continue production. Messerschmitt AG was incorporated on July 11, 1938, with Willy Messerschmitt chairman and managing director. The renaming of Bayerische Flugzeugwerke to Messerschmitt AG resulted in all future types being designated Me instead of Bf. Pre-1938 types such as the 109 and the 110 retained their designation in official documents in accordance with RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium or Ministry of Aviation) practice although the newer designation Me were used as well. Most 109 and 110 aircraft produced were built after 1938 and therefore strictly speaking were Messerchmitts. not Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. Aircraft recognition booklets handed to German troops during the war identified the aircraft as Me-109 and Me-110 (I happened to own a copy at the end of the war, it was given to me by a German soldier before he fled for the advancing British army. During the war Messerschmitt had become a household word. Folks would refer to both aircraft as Messerschmitts. Never did anyone say: "This is a Bayerische Flugzeugwerke". The Bf/Me controversy is just as confusing with some other airplanes. One prize example of how confusing aircraft identification can be is the Boeing 717. Is there anyone who remembers this is actually a Douglas DC-9-95 ? Or should one say MD-95 ? The Douglas Aircraft Company was taken over by McDonnell in 1967, changing aircraft identifications into MD, with the DC-11 becoming the MD-11. Should we call a Boeing 717 a DC-9-95 ? This is the same confusing situation that started with the ever lasting Bf/Me discussion. LTM (who asks what's in a name ?) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:10:39 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Recoverists? For Ric Well said! Insightful thought provoking commentary. LTM. As for raw drama - Four 4360's at full power between a row of blimp hangers, on a take off roll one cold December morning, headed for a 24 hour maritime patrol over the North Pacific in an airframe older than its crew members. Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:14:25 From: Jeff Lange Subject: Contributions Ric Said, "Incidentally, $100 contributions to the Media Blitz count as memberships in the Literary Guild and get you an inscribed copy of Finding Amelia. I (am) signing and sending out books as time permits every day now." As the Great Wizard of Oz said, "Well now, that's a horse of a different color!". I wasn't aware of the fact that these would count as Literary Guild Memberships AND get us a copy of the book inscribed by our fearless leader! That is just the icing on the cake! Count me in for my $100 contribution. Pat you should have my CC info, if not, shoot me an e-mail and I'll get right back to you. What more incentive do the rest of you need???? LTM-who could never pass up a good deal Jeff Lange # 0748C ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:37:36 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Progress Report Pat, how's the media blitz progress? I'm guessing we're close to goal. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 **************************** I'll let Ric answer this, he's got the Master List. P ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:39:55 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Progress Report We're now at $4,500. Almost there. Keep them pledges coming. As promised, here's the text of the 30 second message that will be broadcast this week: "Supporting WHYY, The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, announcing the release of "Finding Amelia, The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance=94. Published by the Naval Institute Press, author Ric Gillespie's narrative draws on thousands of newly compiled primary sources to present the documented history of one of the great American mysteries of the 20th century. "Finding Amelia - The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance." Available in bookstores September 19th." Once the official release date has passed the last line will change to "Available in bookstores everywhere." or something like that. The Forum's response to this campaign has been fantastic and I have a whole lot of books to sign - which got me to thinkin'. It seems like there needs to be a way to distinguish the books that are inscribed for members of the Literary Guild who have helped support the writing and promotion of the book from the books that I'll be signing at book signings. Here's what I'll do. In books that I sign for TIGHAR supporters I'll use the big informal printed RIC that I use to sign personal notes and letters. In books that I sign for the general public I'll use a more traditional cursive signature. Not that it's ever likely to be a huge deal to anyone, but it's the only way I can think of to make the books I inscribe for you guys somehow different and special. RIC= ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:59:05 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Progress report RIC, who? Just kidding, of course. RIC can sign any way he wants. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:16:50 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Blitz progress I have certainly had my differences with Ric in the past but I have to admit that it is a very well written and thought provoking book. Kudos. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:17:36 From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Progress Report Okay - I'm in for $100 I'll send you new CC details shortly ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:51:38 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Blitz progress Gary La Pook writes: >I have certainly had my differences with Ric in the past but I have >to admit that it is a very well written and thought provoking book. > >Kudos. Thank you. I can aspire higher than to cause those who have seen the situation differently to reconsider their opinion based on new facts. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:38:46 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Inscriptions Is it RIC, or the more common Ric? Ladies and Gentlemen, I happen to have in my possession one of the last of the Earhart Project Books, the Eighth Edition, from just before they were discontinued. This issuance, which is now as rare as a mint '64 Toyota Landcruiser FJ40, was actually signed by RIC. I consider it to be a bit of a collector's piece. My copy of Finding Amelia, which will also have the much-coveted RIC signature, will be highly sought after some years hence. LTM, who enjoyed obscure antiquities, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:00:02 From: Tom Hickcox Subject: Re: Recoverists? Herman De Wulf wrote: >Technically speaking you are right. Actually this is an discussion without >end between aircraft enthusiasts and people in the field. Enthusiasts >rightly insist both the Me-109 and the Me-110 should be correctly identified >as Bf 109 and Bf 110. Both types were developed before WW 2 by Willy >Messerschmitt who had joined the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. Thanks, Herman. What I usually see on the WW2 list I frequent is the aircraft designations as Bf-109 or Bf-110 and called Messerschmitts. The 163 Komet has always been expressed as the Me-163. Tom Hickcox #2725 [which is 109x25] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:52:52 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Book promotions It's good to see that Ric will be back on the Today Show this Saturday. Can we look forward to any other quality television? LTM, Karen #2610 **************************** Don't really know yet. Time slot is 8:15. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:10:06 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: TV Spot I'm scheduled to be on NBC's TODAY Show tomorrow morning (Saturday). The show is on live from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. EST. Right now my interview is scheduled for sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 but that could change, and of course breaking news could knock me off entirely. That's show biz. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:18:42 From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: TV spot any idea what time you would air on the west coast? Gary ************************** No, sorry -- check your local listings for Mountain and Pacific time slots. It's NBC Saturday Today, or may be simply NBC Today. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:43:51 From: Lee Boyle Subject: Re: TV Spot Is the Time Day Light Saving time? What Channel? Lee Boyle (I do have a Tighar number but most times I forget what it is.) ********************************* Yes, we're still on daylight time. You'll have to check your local listings for channel, it's the NBC network however. In the Philly area it's channel 10 but elsewhere it could be anything. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:09:51 From: Danny Brown Subject: Finding Amelia I received my Literary Guild copy of "Finding Amelia" today (by Federal Express no less). I will start on it immediately, but wanted to say "Good Job" up front and also a hearty thanks for all the hard work by both Ric and Pat. I have first-hand experience as to what it takes to sit down and write a book, and then dealing with the associated headaches of getting it published. It's no picnic. I glad Ric's idea for an article in "TIGHAR Tracks" evolved into "Finding Amelia." It will become a must read asset of all serious students trying to determine the fate of Amelia and Fred. LTM (who, thankfully, has always declined to write the biography of her son, the "Journalist") Danny Brown ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:56:49 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Ric's and Today show I refuse to watch unless I am personally assured by Ric that he will be wearing his pith helmet, which I had assumed was one of the clauses in his publisher's contract. LTM, who is feeling pithy tonight Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ****************************** Damn, I KNEW there was something he forgot in the rush out the door..... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:51:40 From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: TV spot They got him on before the frank-talking sex therapist priest. Yes! Overall, it looked good, although, true to form, they seemed to spend more aggregate time talking about the segment than on the segment itself. Ric (in a suit, sans pith helmet) seemed to be bursting with information to fit in such a short amount of time (yeah, "spot" is a good word for it). The best part were the visuals they provided: an animated graphic of the line of position through Howland and Gardner, another of the PAA radio bearings criss-crossing over Gardner, and an actual newspaper with headline reporting distress calls being heard during the search. Helpful in summarizing a relatively complex topic. Conspicuously missing, however, was an image of the book, or even mentioning the title. Instead, they referred the viewer to the Today show website for an excerpt, where, if it's there (8:35 EDT), it's not exactly jumping out at me. What's that all about? --Mike ****************************** I can't find it either. Damn. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:23:26 From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: TV Spot Alas, I didn't see the TV spot, but then I've seen Ric before, although only once was he in long pants. I'd really like to have seen him in a suit... On the up side, I spoke to my daughter-in-law in Ohio tonight, and she was excited to tell me that her mother had seen the spot, and called to ask if that was the group I am part of. Of course I was pleased to be able to report that it is, and to tell her a little about the book. Ric, I suggest that you send a copy to Mike Rosen at KOA radio here in Denver. He regularly interviews authors about newly published books, and this could be a good forum. I can get the contact info for you if you want, but I'm sure he's on their website as well. Ltm, Jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:14:14 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: TV Spot Getting a 30 minute interview w/Terry Gross on NPR would be simply outstanding. She's one of the very best interviewers and attracts a wide audience. Since she's local (WHYY Philadelphia), it would be relatively easy to schedule, I would think. I believe Terry does all of her interviews NOT in person, which helps put the interviewee at ease. Go for it, Ric! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:20:20 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: TV spot Jon, I have the segment on video. Would you like me to send it to you? Karen Hoy Jon Watson wrote: >Alas, I didn't see the TV spot, but then I've seen Ric before, ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:50:14 From: Ken Leggett Subject: Re: TV spot To: Karen Hoy Any chance that you could send a copy of the video to me? Ken Leggett #2690 ******************************* Guys -- we should be getting a DVD from one or another source. It's certainly easier to burn copies of a DVD than running video tapes. I can start a signup list, we'll need, say, $8 to cover the media and the postage if you don't mind. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:13:39 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: TV spot How about posting an avi or quicktime copy on the TIGHAR or FA website? (No Windows mediafiles though, please!) LTM, who had her issues with physical media costs, never mind the postage William Webster-Garman ************************************ Well, the problem there is that it costs us $$$ to have such things done (because I don't have the technical skills) and also that is "publishing" in the legal sense which we can't do because of copyright issues. We can run stuff out for our friends at cost, but we can't "publish" someone else's stuff. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:02:54 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Congratulations! I received my copy of the book from Amazon this morning. Finished it this evening. It's magnificent. Well done Ric, Pat, Randy, et al! Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:48:07 From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: TV spot Thanks for your kind offer Karen, but I have already arranged to get a copy. Ltm Jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:46:41 From: Len Lazoff Subject: Finding Amelia Dear Pat and Ric, I received my copy of Finding Amelia today and in words of one syllable, It's awesome!! Thank you very much. LEN LAZOFF ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:47:46 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Here is Library Journal's rather snippy review. For the record, this librarian is technologically backward, and understood the book just fine. And "mind-bogglingly detailed" is not a bad thing, for those of us who have an attention span of more than 30 seconds. Karen Hoy #2610CE Unlike other, more speculative books on the disappearance of Amelia Earhart, this premiere study by Gillespie (executive director, International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery) offers a mind-bogglingly detailed perspective on the 16-day attempt to save both the aviatrix and her navigator, Fred Noonan, following their downing near Howland Island in the Pacific. Despite the deployment of numerous auxiliary vessels, a battleship, and an aircraft carrier, the flight and resulting rescue effort were doomed, according to Gillespie, for numerous reasons. These include micromanaging by Earhart's husband as well as the White House, U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and Department of Interior; Earhart's questionable airmanship; Earhart's and Noonan's inability to cope with Morse Code; and the loss of her plane's receiving antennae at takeoff on Lae, New Guinea. Gillespie suggests that Earhart may have set down on Gardner Island in the Pacific's Phoenix Group and lived well past her disappearance, but he offers no definitive evidence. Although this book is soundly researched, its highly technical style and scientific approach may be challenging to the casual reader. Recommended for aeronautical collections and large libraries.-John Carver Edwards, Univ. of Georgia Libs. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:03:02 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Mind-boggling? Mind-bogglingly detailed? I'll take it! I'm an engineer, so I love things that are mind-bogglingly detailed! Where do I sign up? I'm halfway through my copy, and I am savoring it. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:49:46 From: Monty Fowler Subject: What's that sound I hear? I've had my ear to the ground, listening for the howls and vituperation of the usual detractors and naysayers following the publication of "Finding Amelia," and all I'm hearing is ... silence. I'm thinking that the absence of noise amongst them is saying more than words ever could. LTM, who likes using 1-plus syllable words, Monty Fowler, #2189CE ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 09:33:04 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: What's that sound I hear? Monty, be patient. They are dissecting as we speak. Rest assured they are out there trying desperately to find some tiny issue to hang their opposition hat on. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:18:22 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Recoverists? Dennis, I met Gordon a week ago in Denver at his place and have his book. I have not read it but he seems to be Genuine and a nice guy. I am still traveling and look forward to reading it on returning home. His shop is interesting and when he finishes his shop and office next year in North Denver he will have a great rebuilding place. He has 3 ME-262's and at least 3 ME 109s in progress. Jim Preston ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:29:52 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Flyboys Totally off-topic and at no extra charge, here's my unsolicited review of Hollywood's latest aviation offering. Good Clean Fun on the Western Front "Flyboys" is an entertaining ride. Lots (and lots and lots) of rip-roaring aerial dogfight action, terrific digital special effects, and a few honest to gosh aeroplanes. There is also, lo and behold, an engaging, multifaceted plot with real character development and some decent acting. What could be rarer these days than an action flick that actually gets you to care about the characters? The film is supposedly "based on the true story" of the Lafayette Escadrille, young American pilots who flew for France before the United States entered the Great War. Okay, it's true that the members of Escadrille N.124 wore blue uniforms, flew Nieuport 17s with an Indian head insignia painted on the fuselage and had a lion mascot named Whiskey. That about covers the similarity of the film to the real Escadrille Lafayette - but hey, what were you expecting? History? They even have an ex-patriot African American flying with the squadron. In France it could have happened, but it didn't. The Nieuport and Fokker replicas have radial engines that look and sound completely different from the rotaries that powered the original planes. Picky, picky. At least the engines are round, and they swing big scimitar-shaped wooden props, and for once there's not a 1930s-era Tiger Moth or Stampe anywhere in sight. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure that any of the shots of Nieuports and Fokkers flying is real and all of the dogfight action is blatantly bogus. If those little 80 h.p. planes could really do the things they do on the big screen they'd give an F/A-18 a run for its money. The only genuine flying in the film seems to have been done by a very nice replica Sopwith One-and-a-Half-Strutter. The Sopwith, of course, is a British type, in British markings, but the American boys serving in the French air service learn to fly in it - apparently by just climbing aboard and having a go - and then are able to borrow it any time they need a two-seater. Go figure. Any aviation film buff will instantly recognize Flyboys as a montage of classic scenes from other films: - The attack on a Zeppelin and the bombing of a German ammo dump are, shot for shot, straight out of Hell's Angels. - The scene in the tavern where the new guy is appalled at his fellow pilots' willingness to party in spite of the day's losses is The Dawn Patrol redux. - The scene where a guy has to chop off his friend's hand rather than let him burn to death trapped in a wreck is only a slight modification of a scene from The Great Waldo Pepper. and on and on.... Predictable as the plot is, there are still some very entertaining twists and surprises and the film is never slow. Flyboys works hard for its PG13 rating. There is lots of shooting and death but very little blood. The love scenes don't go beyond a kiss. There is no strong language (unless it's in untranslated French). And the weirdest thing - although many of the rooms seem appropriately smoky, nobody is smoking. In 1917, among aviators who were almost always photographed with cigarette in hand, no one is smoking. Flyboys, like so many other historical action films these days, is basically a motion-picture comic book. Enjoy it for what it is and then go find a copy of "The Layfayette Escadrille" by Herbert Malloy Mason, Jr. (Random House, 1964). The true story is better. And "The Blue Max" (1966) is still the last real World War One flying movie. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:41:25 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Flyboys One of the best books of WW 2 is "FLYBOYS", the story of a six or seven carrier aviators shot down near Chi Chi Jima (close) and their capture and eventual execution by the Japanese as the US advanced. Cites war crimes by both sides and the runup to the atomic bomb attack. The story was classified for many, many years and only recently came to light. Re hopes of finding Amelia, did you read the story of the American soldier killed in 1918, went missing, then last month his bones were discovered in a small dirt grave in France. He was listed in Army records as 5' 1, but forensic anthropologists put his height at 4' 8". Maybe of some interest to Dr. King. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:20:08 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Flyboys Great review. Digital Computer generated stuff works well for Sci-Fi space flicks; but for real "down to earth" flying, Hollywood hasn't been the same without Talmantz Aviation. (Is there Two "L"s in Tallmantz?). Anyway, Frank and Paul knew how to fly for the camera like nobody else (IMHO, of course). Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:48:31 From: George Werth Subject: Re: Flyboys For Ron Bright -- Re: WW 2 Flyboys - Chichi Jima Not to be confused with the 2006 movie of the same name (Flyboys) about WW 1 aviators in the Lafayette Escadrille. For a comprehensive article about the movie see: http://emanuellevy.com/article.php?action=13&articleID=3194 George R Werth TIGHAR Member # 2630 LTM - who was born in 1900 and lived through all of WW 1 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:35:06 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Some stuff Thought some of you might be interested in the recent underwater search of the wreckage from the giant dirigible USS Macon. An amazing flying machine. Article headlines and SF Chronicle web addresses below: MONTEREY - Macon wreckage images on video New research into crash off Point Sur in 1 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/27/ BAGT3LDAAO1.DTL&hw=macon+crash&sn=001&sc=1000) Researchers map underwater wreckage of Depression-era airship (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/27/state/ n182234D57.DTL&hw=macon+crash&sn=002&sc=483) On a separate note, I have accepted TIGHAR''s two-for-one membership offer. Also threw in an additional hundred bucks towards the next expedition. As they say, checks in the mail. Ric, you owe me a beer. I saw Flyboys on your recommendation. Thought it was extremely sophomoric. They could have, at least, rendered all the tripes in something other than Richtofen red. Not to mention that all these wooden crates zoomed around like X-wing space fighters. OK, so I would have probably gone anyway 'cause I dig the knights of the air thing. Back to my Red Baron PC game. Much more satisfying. Aviation quiz - where did the term "whole nine yards" come from? blue skies, jerry