Date:         Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:10:58
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      History of flight

For those who like the history of aviation check this site. http://glennhcurtiss.com/id64.htm

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:23:26
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: History of flight

Alan,

This is a great site indeed. By the way, does anyone know if AE smoked? I've
never seen a picture of her holding a cigarette. When studying the Curtiss
website Alan suggests (glennhcurtiss.com) one comes across a 1928
advertisement in which she promotes the smoking of Lucky Strike. What's the
answer?

LTM

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

No, she didn't, and in fact regretted the endorsement later.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:34:41
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: History of flight

Pat wrote,

> No, she didn't, and in fact regretted the endorsement later.

Noonan smoked like a chimney though.

William Webster-Garman

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

Oh yeah. As did, it seems, most of the men around those days.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Jan 2007 18:04:06
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: History of flight

When I was doing research on Earhart at Purdue University, I ran across a
local article about Earhart showing up at a local store (soda fountain?),
smoking a cigarette.  Rumors, of course, since I did not Xerox the article.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:01:22
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Earhart and smoking

Pat, you said:

"No, she didn't (smoke), and in fact regretted the
endorsement letter."

What is the source of that conclusive answer?

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

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

From Ric

Page 210-211 in "East to the Dawn - the Life of Amelia Earhart," by
Susan Butler, Addison Wesely, 1997

"There was the odd matter of her endorsement of Lucky Strike
cigarettes (even though she didn't smoke)."

She later regretted it, not over any ethical concern, but because the
editor of McCall's magazine was so put off by the endorsement that he
withdrew an offer to have her be the magazine's aviation editor.
Butler's book also has a photo of the ad.

Page 101 in "Amelia My Courageous Sister" by Muriel Morrissey and
Carol Osborne, Osborne Publisher, 1987

"She was delighted, therefore, when the editor of McCall's magazine
offered her a staff position as aviation editor.  However, Amelia
never joined the staff of that magazine because just at this time a
cigarette advertisement appeared featuring a picture of the
Friendship fliers.  The endorsement said, 'This is the brand that the
crew of the Friendship carried.'  Amelia asked that she be left out
as she did not smoke, but the company would not run the advertisement
without Amelia's name.  By refusing, she would have kept Bill and
Slim from a nice bonus, which both of them wanted."

Not true.  As the photo of the ad in Butler's book clearly shows,
only Earhart's image appears.  The ad copy reads:
"Amelia M. Earhart, first woman to fly the Atlantic by aeroplane says -
'Lucky Strikes were the cigarettes carried on the Friendship when she
crossed the Atlantic.  They were smoked continuously from Trepassey
to Wales. I think nothing helped so much to lessen the strain for all
of us."

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:51:06
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: AE smoking

For Mr. Randy Jacobson

The statement about Earhart "smoking", that you found in Purdue,
is rather "rumors" not even because you "did not Xerox it" -
actually, i remember that statement too, and apparently you
remembered and quoted it in a pretty exact way.

   I'd say, it is rather rumors just because of hundreds and hundreds
of Earhart's friends, colleagues, relatives, rivals, coeds, students,
reporters, photographers, collaborators of all kinds - etc. etc. etc.
- who knew her quite well, and contacted with her in different times,
especially since the beginning of her "period of big fame" (1928).
   Apparently, nobody of them  ever noted that Earhart smoked -
neither in public writings, nor in the private remarks/diares/
memories that somehow reached us. At these circumstances, the idea
that Earhart could smoke all these years - or a part of them - and it
was totally unnoticed, by anybody who knew her well, and left no
credible confirming evidence,  - such an idea just seems quite
incredible for me.

   If I remember the description of the alleged "smoking incident
near the soda fountain" correctly,  the text was about some
"disapproving attitude" that Earhart met in some people of old
generation when she worked in Purdue - particularly from the older,
much more  traditional ladies of the University's local "high
society".  It was already "more then enough" for them that AE wore
slacks (!)... So, it seemed as a "natural guess" for them that "SUCH
(!) a woman must of course also smoke!...", etc. etc. etc.

   As it is known, in such a cases very frequently  there is a pretty
little "step" needed from the "guess" to the "rumor"... the border is
tiny !

    Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:56:01
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE smoking

I'm not exactly clear how the issue of Earhart smoking impacts on our
investigation unless I missed a cigarette butt in our list of artifacts.

Alan

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

Oh, it doesn't -- just gossip.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:16:13
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Ameliaschpiel in Phoenix

This just in from the Pueblo Grande Museum, Phoenix AZ:

The Archaeological Search for Amelia Earhart Lecture #22368
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Time: 7pm-9pm
Cost: Free
Guest Speaker: Dr. Thomas King
Topic: The Archaeological Search for Amelia Earhart Lecture

Please join Pueblo Grande Museum and Dr. Thomas King, Senior
Archaeologist with The International Group for Historic Aircraft
Recovery (TIGHAR), and co-author of Amelia Earhart's Shoes.  Dr. King
will present an illustrated lecture on the 1937 disappearance of
aviation pioneers Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan.  Several
drastically different hypothetical answers have been provided to the
question: "What happened to Amelia Earhart?"  The International Group
for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) has been conducting
interdisciplinary scientific research testing the Nikumaroro
Hypothesis since 1989, and may be coming close to an answer.  Amelia
Earhart's Shoes, first published in 2001 and republished in an
updated paperback edition in 2004, recounts TIGHAR's adventures and
presents the evidence.

Tom King is a Senior Archaeologist with The International Group for
Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), in charge of archaeology in
TIGHAR's ongoing Amelia Earhart Search Project.  He is also a
cultural resource consultant and trainer with SWCA Environmental
Consultants.  He has some forty years experience in archaeology and
cultural resource management in the western U.S., the Pacific
Islands, and Washington DC, and holds a PhD in anthropology from the
University of California, Riverside.  He is the author of six popular
textbooks on cultural resource management topics plus his co-authored
book, Amelia Earhart's Shoes, an account of the Earhart Search
Project and its adventures over the last twenty years.


Stacey Ray
Visitor Services Supervisor
Pueblo Grande Museum
602-495-0901
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:06:21
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      OT -- Midway Wreckage

To digress a moment from Earhart...

I was sent several pictures of aircraft wreckage that was recently wash
ashore at Midway Atoll by the airport manager. I am looking for help in
identifying the wreckage and have posted the pictures at:

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/midway.htm

I am particularly hopeful that our radio experts might be able to
identify the type of radio.

Thanks,

Craig Fuller
AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research
www.AviationArchaeology.com         aair@aviationarchaeology.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:14:33
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway Wreckage

Beats me, Craig but the one piece certainly looks like a gun turret.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:16:14
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway Wreckage

The radio is an R-9A/APN-4 LORAN receiver.  This is a component of
one of the first airborne LORAN sets.  The receiver and the scope
indicator in this set are separate units.  The receiver mounts in its
own shock mount rack (which is still attached, by golly) usually next
to the left side of the scope.

The scope indicator would be a bit larger than the receiver.  Its
nomenclature would be ID-6/APN-4.

The APN-4 was first introduced in mid to late 1944.  It was very
similar in design to the DAS-series LORAN sets carried aboard Navy
ships.  The APN-4 is definitely aircraft gear, however; it operates
from a 115V AC 400 to 2600 cycle power system.  Shipboard gear is
standard 115V AC 60 cycle power.  400 cycle gear won't operate on 60
cycle power.

These sets were carried aboard many aircraft; but the B-29 in
particular.

I wonder if the large piece with a good sized hole could be part of a
bulkhead that supported the bomb-bay tunnel in a  B-29?

Wonder if there are any serial numbers on the bulkhead (if that is
what it is) that could link it to a particular aircraft?

73

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:52:08
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

Mike Everette wrote:

>The radio is an R-9A/APN-4 LORAN receiver.  ...

You are GOOD!

I love this forum.

Amazing people are here.

LTM.

			Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:02:06
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

Yes, the cumulative brain power of this forum is quite amazing!

Thanks Mike. This is great!

Would you contact me off forum? aair@aviationarchaeology.com

I have a few more questions such as would only large aircraft such as
bombers and transports carry it, or would it fit in fighters? And a few
others, but don't want to clutter up the forum traffic and have Pat
after me!

Craig Fuller
AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research
www.AviationArchaeology.com         aair@aviationarchaeology.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:03:01
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

> I wonder if the large piece with a good sized hole could be part of a
>bulkhead that supported the bomb-bay tunnel in a  B-29?

Mike, look carefully at the picture enlarged. See the gear teeth? A
gun turret is my guess.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:03:26
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

That piece with the round opening may indeed be a gun turret ring.
Or, might it be the frame for a gunner's scanner blister on the B-29?

If it was part of the B-29 bomb bay tunnel, the bulkhead would be
round.  This thing is more or less square.  Is it sturdy enough to be
part of a pressurized bulkhead?  I can't make out any hinges or other
fittings for the hatch that would close the tunnel end; anyone else
see anything?

My first thought is still that this may be B-29 wreckage, though; but
other candidates could be B-24, PB4Y, B-32, perhaps a Martin PBM
Mariner.  I would lean toward four-engine aircraft first, then large
twins like the PBM because these were large enough to have room for
the LORAN gear.  I am not sure that an aircraft of the order of a
B-25, or a PV-1/PV-2 would have had it aboard, but maybe so.

73

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:10:05
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

For: Mike Everette

Didn't the old B-36 have a round passageway for access to the rear of the
plane? Or have I watched too many old Jimmy Stewart movies?

LTM,
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:21:23
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

Here's a website that explains the early use of the Loran and
actually shows a picture of the receiver, which looks as the same as
the one that washed up on Midway.

http://www.jproc.ca/hyperbolic/loran_a.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:23:41
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

>From: Mike Haddock
>
>Didn't the old B-36 have a round passageway for access to the rear of  the
>plane? Or have I watched too many old Jimmy Stewart movies?

You are quite correct.  The B-29, the B-50 (actually a "souped up"
B-29 and originally designated B-29B) and the B-36 had the bomb bay
tunnel.

I am almost positive, however, that the B-36  carried the later R-65/
APN-9 LORAN set, which has the receiver and scope indicator in the
same box and is somewhat smaller -- and easier to operate -- than the
APN-4.

Whichever airplane carried the APN-4, it had to be large enough to
carry a navigator (who operated the LORAN gear) and enough horsepower
to get it into the air.

73

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:52:48
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: OT-- Midway wreckage

The B-36s that I flew in (the D, the H and the J) had the APN-9 Loran
set at the navigator's station in the nose - pmb.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:58:56
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

SUGGESTION:
After wading through about a dozen Emails
about "Midway Wreckage," I suggest TIGHAR
open an 'Open Forum" to provide space for
TIGHARS to talk about "Non-Earhart" subjects
since there seems to be a dearth of "Earhart"
topics!

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who loved to talk!

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

The thread is clearly labeled "OT" -- Off Topic" -- for those who
don't want to "wade." For those who want to discuss Earhartia, the
Forum is open for business. There is a good bit going on but Ric just
doesn't have time to carry the Forum the way he used to.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:28:23
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

There are two possible ways to identify the plane from this piece of
wreckage.  The turret hole (I believe also that it is a turret) will
correspond to the diameter of the turret.  That should narrow down
the number of possible airplanes that mounted the turret.

Also, it looks like the plate curves around to join the lower
fuselage, so the turret covers the entire width of the fuselage
almost.  It reminds me of the B-25B-C rear turret, which covered the
width of the fuselage.  The width of the wreckage is likely close to
the width of the fuselage at the mount point, which should also help
to narrow down which aircraft it is.

I would bet that the features of the gearing for the turret and other
clues like that will also help to narrow down which plane this is.
Hope this helps.
	
					Reed


=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:11:37
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: OT -- Midway wreckage

Dialup makes seeing the images tough, but is it possible the parts
are from different planes?  I can envision someone hauling a pile of
wreckage from a boneyard and dumping it off shore.  In this can it
could be multiple planes or eras, and not documented as a wreck
site.  Any chance the turret is Japanese?

Just some random thoughts.

- JMH
0634C
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:02:36
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      What good bit then?

Pat Thrasher wrote:

>There is a good bit going on but Ric just doesn't
>have time to carry the Forum the way he used to.

Any pithy updates, Pat? Some of us like hearing AE stuff from you too!

William Webster-Garman

PS: I've much enjoyed the Midway thread.
************************************
I can tell you this much.  New primary-source information relative to
what was going on aboard the Itasca has recently come to light.  The
importance of this discovery is similar to the Chater Report in 1991,
the British "Bones file" in 1997, and "Betty's Notebook" in 2000.

Ric and a select group of TIGHAR researchers are currently working to
verify the document.  We're hoping to be ready to talk about it
within the next few weeks.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:02:53
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: the good bit

"New primary-source information ... has recently come to light."

This sounds good to me - I can hardly wait!

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583

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

Stay tuned -- film at eleven.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:56:34
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      For Tom King: Dating campfires

A recent television program on Lewis & Clark's Voyage of Discovery mentioned
that campfires were "self dating" and therefore as archaeologists uncovered
campsites along their trail, they were able to differentiate those of the Corps
of Discovery and those earlier used by Native Americans.  They also showed a
dating technique of pouring plaster over small samples of soil and removing
them to determine the date that magnetic orientation was "set" in these
samples.  Can this technique (or any) give us a dating of the campsites on
Niku with a resolution that would differentiate their use by known visitors to
the island?

Rick Jones, 2750
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:18:45
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Dating campfires

For Rick Jones re. dating campfires on Niku

Good question, but there are a couple of problems with applying
paleomagnetic dating to the Niku campfires.  The primary one is that
-- unlike places where the soil is made up of more or less fine-
particle clay or silt, the matrix of the campfires on Niku is loosely
consolidated (really not consolidated at all) coral rubble.
Paleomagnetic dating relies on particles that are aligned toward the
north magnetic pole getting "trapped" in their sediment when that
sediment is heated by a campfire -- turned into a semi-solid, semi-
ceramic by the heat of the fire -- and staying thus aligned while the
magnetic pole wanders around.  In the loose Niku matrix, there's
nothing to solidify and hold the particles in place.

The other problem is that if the fires date from any period that's
likely given the associated artifacts and known activities in the
area, they're not likely to be earlier than the late 1930s.  I really
don't know how much the magnetic pole has shifted since the 1930s,
but I doubt if it's much.  Of course, the fires COULD be older, but
all the associated stuff points to an origin little before WWII if
that.  The one radiocarbon date we got from one of the fire features
was simply "modern," meaning the last hundred years or so.

But still, you've raised a good point, and before we head back to the
Seven Site I'll look further into the matter and see what dating
techniques we COULD use.  Thanks for bringing it up.

LTM
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:15:43
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

Maybe Howard Alldred can answer this?  I would think that atolls have
very limited magnetic material on them, and that wind and overwash of
waves would eliminate any orientation.
Dan Postellon  TIGHAR 2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:32:56
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

Coral atolls on the surface (and probably 100+ meters in depth) are made of
calcium carbonate, and inherently do not contain enough magnetite to measure
for dating purposes.  The material best for this are weathered continental
rocks utlimately of igneous origin (shale, sandstone, granite, etc.) that
have been reduced to silt or clay sized fractions.  Coral is an organic
product of living beings, and contains only extremely small portions of
minerals derived from continents, typically by absorption of them from sea
water.

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:15:38
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

Thanks.  So not enough iron, and nothing to cement it into place? Too
bad, it was a nice idea.   Dan   TIGHAR# 2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:04:46
From:         Marjorie Smith
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

There is another problem with islands made up of coral. When I lived in
Micronesia in the '60s I attended a luau put together by a Hawaiian friend
in Ponape (now Pohnpei) with the traditional pig, cooked in a rock-lined pit
with hot rocks stuffed into cavity. My friend said that the Hawaiians living
in the Marshalls (coral atolls) actually imported igneous stones from
Ponape, a volcanic island, for their luaus after their first solution --
wrapping coral "stones" in tinfoil -- didn't work.

Marjorie Smith
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:21:43
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

Marjorie Smith wrote,

>... their first solution -- wrapping coral "stones" in tinfoil -- didn't work.

Come to think of it that would make sense, since calcites have a much
lower specific heat than igneous rock and moreover coral can be so
porous, there wouldn't be much mass... maybe only a quarter or even
less... to hold the heat!

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:13:12
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

What we have at the Seven Site are not earth ovens like the ones
Marjorie describes; they're surface campfire sites.  For the reasons
she gives, I doubt if one could do real earth oven cooking on Niku;
it's a looooong way (like about seven hundred miles, I think) to the
nearest basalt rocks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:14:07
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      When will we Ric be available to come back to the Forum?

Lee Boyle asked:

>A short time ago we were advised you were working on some new
>information of Amelia and Gardner Island and would be telling us
>about it.
>
>Maybe I thought it would not be this long to hear some new info.
>
>It would be great to hear new news soon.

I don't want to over-sell this.  The new information is not about
Gardner Island and Amelia has not turned up as queen of a forgotten
tribe in New Guinea.  The new information does, however, shed
important new light on ITASCA's role in the Earhart drama.
We should be able to release specifics sometime in the next couple
weeks.

Thanks for your patience,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:00:25
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

Au contraire, Dr. King.  The nearest igneous rocks are probably about 1 km
away, straight down!  Coral atolls are built upon volcanic edifices.
Charles Darwin was the first to propose this hypothesis, which turned out to
be correct.

>From Tom King
>
>What we have at the Seven Site are not earth ovens like the ones
>Marjorie describes; they're surface campfire sites.  For the reasons
>she gives, I doubt if one could do real earth oven cooking on Niku;
>it's a looooong way (like about seven hundred miles, I think) to the
>nearest basalt rocks.

=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:42:12
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

Point well taken, Dr. J, but getting to them would be, if you'll
excuse it, really boring.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:58:12
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Campfire dating

That's very punny, Dr. King...very punny.

>From Tom King
>
>Point well taken, Dr. J, but getting to them would be, if you'll excuse it, really boring.

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:41:39
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Finding Amelia

Alfred Hendrickson asked:

>Pat, can you give us a news capsule on the book? Specifically, how is it
>selling, are the sales and profit numbers looking good, etc ?

The initial printing of Finding Amelia was 5,000 copies.  Nearly all
of those have now been sold and the Naval Institute Press is about
ready to do a second printing.

Our sales ranking on amazon.com averaged around 15,000th (out of a
couple million) all through Sept., Oct., Nov., and Dec.  That was a
great run but now, with the holiday season past, we've dropped down
to around 125,000th.

We haven't yet received a royalty statement from the publisher but
I'm hoping the book has earned enough to repay the advance we got and
start bringing some dollars in the door for TIGHAR.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:16:02
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Bad press?

Dennis McGee asked:

>I seen all of the good press the "Finding Amelia" has received but
>was wondering if there were any reviews that panned it?

The most negative review I've seen is on amazon.com by a courageous
person named "Anon E. Mouse."

The reviewer spends several paragraphs praising the book with
comments such as - "I really have to take my hat off to Gillespie. He
poured [sic] over an amazing amount of documentation, more or less
resolving conflicting evidence by the two radio operators aboard the
Itasca and the Itasca's commander, Warner Thompson. This gives us a
very thorough and nearly exhaustive minute-by-minute account of what
took place and why things went down the way they did. This clearly
lays out the reasons for her disappearance (a confluence of poor
planning and communication, basically). Especially invaluable is who
knew what and when they knew it. For example, nobody aboard the
Itasca knew that Noonan was aboard the Electra until well after they
went missing." and so forth.

Then the reviewer says:

"I do have a few problems with the book. It starts out with the
requisite background information, which is not thrilling but is
necessary for understanding what follows. However, about a quarter of
the way through the book he really gets bogged down in describing
coordination of weather information (which mostly turns out to be
irrelevant) and radio communication (volumes of pages easily could
have been condensed into a paragraph or two without losing any
relevant information). It's as if he wrote this just to demonstrate
that he had done his research (boring us in the process). It got so
boring I nearly gave up on the book. Later on, he gets sidetracked
with useless details about equator-crossing hazing and other trivial
pursuits. I contemplated giving the book a 4-star rating based on
these problems.

On page 193, he criticizes Thompson for "selecting and interpreting
the ones that seemed to fit his theory and rejecting others,"
apparently without a hint of irony! For example, he portrays as
credible reported ham radio receptions by Dana Randolph of Wyoming,
even though he heard the transmissions at 16,000 kilocycles, which is
not on a harmonic (integral multiple) of 3,105 kc, which is the
frequency Amelia reported she would use, and therefore is unlikely to
have been Earhart. He also spends much time reviewing the transcripts
of Betty Klenck of Florida, even though the probability (as reported
by Gillespie) that she could have received the signals is less than
1%. Also unanswered is why nearly all of the possibly authentic radio
reports from the mainland heard Amelia speak her name, while none of
the supposed transmissions received by the government (Coast Guard,
Navy, etc.) or Pan Am or any other reliable source ever heard her or
Noonan's name spoken."

In response I'll say only that 15,525 is the fifth harmonic of 3105
and could easily have been near the 16,000 kilocycle mark on the
uncalibrated dial of a commercial radio.  At least, the Bureau of Air
Commerce technician who interviewed Dana and judged his report
credible apparently thought so.

In spite of his or her boredom, the reviewer gave the book a five-
star (maximum) rating.

What is interesting to me is that response to the book from both the
Japanese Capture and the Crashed And Sank camps has been deafening
silence.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:31:09
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bad press?

>... even though the probability (as reported
by Gillespie) that she could have received the signals is less than 1%.

I love the misuse of percentages. Hardly a rarity but the correct
percentage is either 100% or Zero. Betty either received the signals
or she didn't.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:32:04
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Bad press?

Dennis McGee wrote: "What is interesting to me is that response to
the book from both the Japanese Capture and the Crashed And Sank
camps has been deafening silence."

Quite the contrary, McGee.  Ric's book has sparked much discussion
and analysis in the C&S camp (and for all I know, the Japanese
Capture camp.) It's just not taking place on this Forum.  That would
be like showing up at Allen Fieldhouse -- home of the Kansas Jayhawks
-- wearing a Missourah jersey.

It's the height of arrogance to imply that Niku skeptics are cowards
because we haven't done a book review on Amazon.  Mine would take
several pages, but it's not the place.  I wish Ric well with the book
sales; we can save the arguments for later.  Not that we haven't been
through all this before ....

Pat Gaston

PS  I actually had seats in the Mizzou section for the big KU/MU game
a couple weeks ago.  It's not called the "Border War" for nothing.
My daughter, a KU student, showed up wearing her favorite T-shirt,
which reads (ahem) "Muck Fizzou."  This drew stares from the people
sitting around me. Fortunately they were all Missouri grads, so they
couldn't read it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:32:40
From:         George R. Werth
Subject:      Love to Mother

Whilst surfing the net, I ran across an erudite
report about the humble beginnings of the oft
used gaffe, "LTM," in the Earhart Forum.
As a relative newcomer, it occurred to me that
others may not have read the Subject Report
which may be found at:

http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/ltm.htm

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who says HO - HUM!
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:33:03
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Bad press?


Ric said:  "What is interesting to me is that response to the book
from both the Japanese Capture and the Crashed And Sank camps has
been deafening silence."

You think maybe it's a conspiracy?

LTM, who often crashed and burned, but never crashed and sank
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:02:09
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Bad press?

Alan Caldwell wrote

> I love the misuse of percentages. Hardly a rarity but the correct
>percentage is either 100% or Zero. Betty either received the signals
>or she didn't.

Before I try to deconstruct that one, Alan, could you elaborate a bit
more on what you consider to be "misuse."?

LTM, who shook the dice now and then,

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:50:49
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Bad press

Alan writes:

>I love the misuse of percentages. Hardly a rarity but the correct
>percentage is either 100% or Zero. Betty either received the signals
>or she didn't.

William Webster-Garman writes:

>Before I try to deconstruct that one, Alan, could you elaborate a
>bit more on what you consider to be "misuse."?

I don't think the percentages are being misused at all. The possibility that
AE's broadcast reached and was heard by Betty can be fairly characterized as
a low-probability event. Alan and I have had this argument before. As I
recall, his opinion is that you cannot discuss odds or percentages or
probabilities for historic events. To do so is to "misuse" the percentages.
I think otherwise. If one is looking forward in time and discusses whether
an event is likely or not likely to occur, a discussion of the probability
(odds, percentages) is appropriate. If one is looking back in time at
historical events, it is technically accurate to say, as Alan does, that the
event either did or did not occur. But in such a case, we can discuss the
probability of the event occurring if we do not know whether or not the
event occurred. We can, in my opinion, reasonably discuss what is (or was)
the probability that the event could have occurred.

The discussion seems to turn on excruciating definitions and rigid attention
to frames of reference. Alan plugs in to this every time. And every time he
does, so do I!

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:51:24
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: bad press

WWG, the reviewer wrote, "......even though the probability (as reported
by Gillespie) that she could have received the signals is less than
1%."

More correctly he could have suggested that the probability signals
could be received in general under those circumstances has been
quoted as being less than 1%. But as to Betty alone it was 100% or zero.

In 1976 my son was diagnosed with ontogenetic sarcoma. The survival
rate for that was quoted as 12%. For my son it was 100% or zero. One
cannot apply a percentage to a single event. A number of years ago
the average height of the US male was 5' 8".  It is technically
possible NO male was 5' 8". Percentages like averages have a general
utility not a specific one.

First of all there is no possible way anyone could know what the
probability is -- exactly. You would have to know how many signals
were sent out and how many were heard -- by someone. That percentage
was suggested by folks well versed in the subject and based on their
technical knowledge. If not correct I accept the figure as darn close
but it cannot be used to determine whether Betty did or did not hear
what she claimed. If someone wants to say she probably did or
probably didn't that's fine but it's a useless statement. Useless
because it doesn't move the ball in any direction or even keep it
stationary.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:52:03
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: Bad press

To Dennis McGee:

Ric said:  "What is interesting to me is that response to the book
from both the Japanese Capture and the Crashed And Sank camps has
been deafening silence."

My heartfelt apologies, Dennis.  I got lost in who said what.  Geez,
I shoulda known Ric was the culprit.

Re conspiracies:  Yes, all us C&S'ers believe that Joe Gurr and Harry
Balfour were hired by sinister agents of the Kampetai to remove AE's
trailing-wire antenna, mess up the other ones, sabotage her receiver
under the guise of "recalibration," and affix four quarts of Dewar's
to the underside of Fred's desk (few know that the wily Japanese
invented duct tape).  Some might say the chances of this happening
are remote at best, but in fact the probablity is either 1 or 0, and
I say it's 1.

Humblest regards,

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:38:17
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Papua New Guinea

It's all academic anyway - the wreckage has turned up in Papua New
Guinea. Again.

See http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20070125/news.htm
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:40:14
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Bad press

>More correctly he could have suggested that the probability signals
>could be received in general under those circumstances has been quoted
>as being less than 1%. But as to Betty alone it was 100% or zero.

Thanks for explaining and sharing your thoughts, Alan. Yes, in any
time frame after a given event we may stumble across enough
information about it to describe what happened more or less
dialectically. Moreover it's true, if we carefully define our terms
beforehand, we can say AE either 100% wound up on Gardner or 0% did
not (forgetting the possibility of spectacular in-flight
explosions... although Noonan was a heavy smoker, the Electra was low
on fuel, after all).

However, in the absence of foreknowledge (or a crystal ball), we do
tend to fall back on fuzzy, generalized estimates of statistical
probability based on observational experience, wherever we can gather
it and as you imply, these are indeed fraught with sundry worries.

For example, the probability is 1 that my beloved wife and partner
boiled some potatos last night. Whilst I've learned through hard
observational experience that the ways and magic of fetching witches
are far beyond my paygrade, given my knowledge of specific events and
long observational experience along with half a sack of spuds left
under the counter and our feeble, shared notion that they sprout very
fast around here, I'm ok with lazily estimating that the probability
is very roughly .5 she'll do it again tonight.

LTM, who liked fries too but hated cleaning up after,

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:10:47
From:         From Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Papua New Guinea

For Phil Tanner

Again its in New Guinea? I wonder if this is the same plane that Fred Billings is searching for?

I'd love to see the pictures that are referenced in the article.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583

=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:58:04
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Apology?

Pat Gaston said:  My heartfelt apologies, Dennis.  I got lost in who
said what.  Geez, I shoulda known Ric was the culprit."

No problem.  Ric and I are often mistaken for each other.  The
easiest way to tell us apart is that I'm the good looking one without
the mustache.  But mom always like him best.

LTM, in spite of my unrequited love
Dennis O. McGee #1049EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:28:25
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Papua New Guinea

Alfred, it is DAVID Billings. David is searching south of Rabaul in
eastern New Britain.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:29:43
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bad press

Thanks for keeping me honest, William. You were correct in making me
amplify my comments. The reviewer clearly read the book carefully and
tried to do a good job whether one agrees with his responses or not.
I doubt any reviewer is agreed with entirely.

I welcome your challenge each time, Alfred. How about sledge hammers
at 20 paces and ten fathoms. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:41:00
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Bad press

Alan writes: "I welcome your challenge each time, Alfred. How about
sledge hammers at 20 paces and ten fathoms."

I enjoy sparring with you, too, Alan. Most times, I'm outclassed - you have
expanded my education many times.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:40:43
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Papua New Guinea

Alan writes: "Alfred, it is DAVID Billings. David is searching south of
Rabaul in eastern New Britain."

Right you are, Alan. I looked at your posting and I thought, how'd I do
that? And who the heck is Fred Billings? Well, then I remembered: Fred
Billings is the man after whom Billings, Montana (my hometown), is
named.

Yeesh! What a complete synaptic misfire. Thanks for setting me straight.

I wonder how David is doing these days.

LTM (losing that memory),

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:30:50
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Bad press

Update for Alan:

She did not boil potatoes this evening. However, there were bits of
cold ones from last night, thrown into a salad. My Calvinist/
anabaptist ancestors and you both would likely nod patiently and
remind me that she was fated from the big bang not to do this, that
for her the probability was always zero. However, being fuzzy brained
and hopeless, I take comfort in my delusion that in a time frame not
too long ago or far away, the probability was somewhere around .5.

LTM, who rolled snake eyes in her day.

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:32:19
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      What was that sound again?

If the OSTRHFAFs (Other Schools of Thought Regarding the Hypothesized
Fate of Amelia and Fred) are talking, might we be permitted to know what
they are saying, or is that classified "Most Secret" for some reason?

LTM, who loves acronyms,
Monty Fowler, #2189CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:13:54
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Re: Bad press

That's very sad, Alan.  Did your son beat the odds and survive?

Alan Caldwell wrote

>In 1976 my son was diagnosed with ontogenetic sarcoma. The survival
>rate for that was quoted as 12%. For my son it was 100% or zero.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:15:25
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What was that sound again?

Monty, there is a significant difference between TIGHAR and the
"Other" groups. TIGHAR's theory is subject to testing where theirs is
not -- generally speaking. For example the crashed and sank folks
cannot test whether or not that occurred unless a plane is eventually
found somewhere in the depths of a vast ocean. That is not possible
due to cost alone. That is not to say they have no evidence but it is
along negative lines. We can't find the plane so it must of crashed
and sank. To win that argument they must ignore or dispute all the
post loss messages.

The Japanese capture folks are on more solid ground as they DO have
"evidence" of sorts. Unfortunately their evidence is all oral not
substantive. no way to test that.

Our evidence strength is in numbers each of which can be disputed but
at least it is testable.

The Irene Bolam theory IS testable but sadly it failed the test.

What really matters is method. All of us, other groups included need
to understand it makes little difference who is right and who is
wrong but rather how we go about solving the mystery. Learning what
is good evidence and what is secondary or tertiary. We are all
learning HOW to investigate -- not to solve the Earhart mystery but
how to solve mysteries period.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:16:45
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bad press

Very poetic, William.

Alfred wrote:

>I wonder how David is doing these days.

David and I don't always see eye to eye, Alfred but David is a good
and honest man. He is trying very hard to complete his quest.

>Most times, I'm outclassed -  you have expanded my education many times.

Not at all, Alfred. I feel honored to be in such good company as you
and our Forum regulars. Great bunch.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:18:22
From:         Ree Riddle
Subject:      Re: What was that sound again?

Actually, this would be a good thing.....if the OSTRHFAFs have come
up with problems with "Finding Amelia", then they should present them
here.  The only way to improve on a scientific theory is to develop
alternate hypotheses and test them to see if they are better
explanations for the data.

If the other groups have found places where the information in the
book has flaws, they should be presented in order for everyone to try
to improve the TIGHAR theory.  And, if they have not found problems,
that should be presented as well...if the book explains everything
then that should be the starting point for all the groups interested
in figuring out where the Electra finally ended up.

Science works poorly when evidence is hoarded by one group working on
a problem.  If anyone has an issue with the ideas presented in the
book, they should bring them to the table for examination by the
widest group possible.  If critics of TIGHAR can poke holes in the
information presented in the book, that only improves the possibility
of finding a final answer.  But, that only works if the holes are
shared between all of us.

Note that I have not had time to read the book yet, so I don't have
an opinion on what is presented within.  Yet.

					Reed

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

From Pat

If any of the OSTRHFAFs have a serious review/opinion about Finding
Amelia, I will suspend the TIGHAR members only rule and post it to
the Forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:38:38
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Reed wrote: 

>>I have not had time to read the book yet

The book is quite good. I liked being to able to read it and know that what
I was reading was well-researched and backed up with documentation.

I sincerely hope Ric writes more books. Anyone that writes as well as he
ought to write more.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:13:08
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

I'm still reading the book but I can already say it is well researched and
documented (as we could expect from Ric). It opens up the chapter of the
post-loss signals in a way never done before. Having read some of the
classics on Amelia Earhart, Ric's book to me looks like the definite story
on the AE mystery.

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:35:09
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: What was that sound again?

In my opinion, the reason we have not heard from the OSTRHFAF about Ric's
book is simple: They're blown away. I don't expect to hear much at all from
them.

LTM, who never read fiction,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:35:31
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Herman, it is difficult to argue alternative theories without simply
saying Ric's well documented research is wrong -- wrong without being
able to counter with like evidence. Is it possible that's why we are
not hearing much in opposition? I think there will be opposition but
only in the nature of unsupported opinion but who knows.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:33:59
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      I'll call, and raise it $25

Pat said:  "If any of the OSTRHFAFs have a serious review/opinion
about Finding Amelia, I will suspend the TIGHAR members only rule and
post it to the Forum."

And I willing to wager that Pat's offer goes unaswered.  In fact, I'm
so confident that they won't respond I willing to put my money where
my mouth is. (Famous last words, right?)
I willing to bet $25 "they" don't take the offer, but if they do then
I'll donate the $25 to the first OSTRHFAF that replies.

I'll leave it up to Pat and Ric to make the call whether the response
is from a legit group (and not some individual posing as a group) of
"Others," and as to whether or not the response is "serious."

This offer expires at midnight, Feb. 6th.

LTM, who watches too much Texas Hold'em
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

"Serious" in this context means showing some sign of having read and
understood Finding Amelia, and having substantive and demonstrable*
issues with the facts therein.

Pat

*As in a citation or other generally acceptable source.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:03:40
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      OSTRHFAF

Suppose for a moment that I wanted to read the theories, news, latest
evidence, expedition reports, etc, etc, etc, of the OSTRHFAF.

Do they, like us, have websites? I know David Billings has a website that
presents his hypothesis and discusses his supporting evidence. What about
the others? Does anyone know?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:04:17
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

While TIGHAR's hypothesis is made near irrefutable by well founded research
taken collectively, a "linchpin" assumption made by Lockheed engineers
regarding AE's inability to use her radio had she ditched rather than landed,
still nags at me.  Apparently the C&S'ers (and Navy) found a way of 
ignoring this information, by assuming all post loss signals were hoaxes.  But
has there ever been empirical data developed showing Lockheed's statement
is correct?  Intuitively, it would seem logical, but perhaps the center of
gravity of the aircraft after ditching, ability to relocate batteries, AH of
batteries vs the electrical load placed on them, etc., should be verified if it
has not been. Not easy to do with what we know at this point.

Rick J #2750
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:04:47
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      AE and fuel use

I am interested in estimates of the rate at which NR16020 used fuel 
during the Lae to Howland flight. Oscar Boswell posted to this forum 
a lengthy hour-by-hour discussion of this in February of 2002. It is 
quite interesting. Can anyone tell me if this has been refined and/or
updated? Or does Boswell=92s 2002 work represent our collective best 
estimate? Do we have a report of this in our research documents 
anywhere?

Thanks in advance for your help.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:34:52
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: what was that sound?

Rick Jones asks,

>While TIGHAR's hypothesis is made near irrefutable by well founded research
>taken collectively, a "linchpin" assumption made by Lockheed engineers
>regarding AE's inability to use her radio had she ditched rather than landed,
>still nags at me.  Apparently the C&S'ers (and Navy) found a way of of
>ignoring this information, by assuming all post loss signals were hoaxes.  But
>has there ever been empirical data developed showing Lockheed's statement
>is correct?

As explained in Finding Amelia (page 190), there is nothing
speculative about the Electra's inability to transmit if the aircraft
was afloat on the ocean.  As the Coast Guard's San Francisco Division
explained in a message sent to ITSACA on July 5, 1937:

"Dynamotors all mounted under fuselage would positively be submerged
if plane was in water."

The dynamotor (aka "4 B power unit") mounted under the pilot's seat
boosted the voltage of the battery current so that it could be used
by the transmitter.  Dynamotors really hate being wet and, in
virtually any scenario, if the plane is in the water the dynamotor is
going to be submerged.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:54:56
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: I'll call, and raise it $25

Dennis, you should qualify your wager in that the response has to be
substantive. By that I mean that if they dispute anything in the book
it must be supported similarly and/or if they provide their own idea
it ALSO must be similarly supported.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:55:27
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Ric quoted:

"there is nothing speculative about the Electra's inability to
transmit if the aircraft was afloat on the ocean."

"Dynamotors all mounted under fuselage would positively be submerged
if plane was in water."

Then, the presumption derived from Betty's notebook must be that messages
documented referred to the tide level outside the aircraft (which didn't
preclude operation of the radio and right engine).

      "waters high"  (F.A. p 175)
      "it's going" p. 177
      "waters knee deep--let me out" (p. 179)
      "knee deep over" (p 184)

Rick J, #2750
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:05:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

>"Dynamotors all mounted under fuselage would positively be submerged
>if plane was in water."
>
>Then, the presumption derived from Betty's notebook must be that messages
>documented referred to the tide level outside the aircraft (which didn't
>preclude operation of the radio and right engine).
>
>      "waters high"  (F.A. p 175)
>      "it's going" p. 177
>      "waters knee deep--let me out" (p. 179)
>      "knee deep over" (p 184)

My understanding is that the dynamotors were located IN the fuselage
not UNDER it. Is that wrong?

Now let me muddy the waters a little. I have read and reread Betty's
notebook. The scenario I read is a panic scenario. Where on Gardner
would the plane have to be to create such a desperate sounding
situation?

If they could move the plane they would have. If they couldn't why
could they not just climb out and move to a safer place?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:44:13
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

<<If they could move the plane they would have. If they couldn't why
could they not just climb out and move to a safer place?>>

Here's my fantasy.  They land, blow a tire or hang the gear up in a
crack; can't move the plane.  They get out, go camp on the beach.
Every evening for the next few days, when the beastly heat in the
aluminum plane on the reef goes down to a tolerable level, they go
out and crank out radio messages.  One day they look out from the
beach and see that the tide's come in higher than before and is
starting to move the plane.  They scramble out over the reef flat and
into the plane; AE fires up the radio for what she knows is likely to
be the last time, while Fred tries to grab stuff they may need.  The
plane begins to move and bump along toward the reef, and fill up with
water.  And there you have the Betty messages.

Pure fantasy, of course.

LTM, who loves a good story.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:38:33
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

...'If they could move the plane they would have. If they couldn't why
could they not just climb out and move to a safer place'...?  Alan

Alan raises a very 'sticky' question in responding to Rick Jones
posting,,,

What Alan did NOT mention was the TIGHAR contention insisting that
Betty's 'miraculous-reception' must have occurred on July 5th, (rather
than July 2nd) in order to 'fit' the combination of the (estimated)
timing of the tidal fluctuations at Gardner Island & the reconciliation
of the respective time-frames as between the Central Pacific & the East
Coast of the USA...

Which would seem to make Alan's point quite valid, ...WHY would AE & FN
be so much concerned with 'rising-water' when they (presumably) had been
experiencing such tidal fluctuations for THREE days...? (Every six
hours...) ...Would they not have been able to judge fairly accurately
the 'eb & flow' of incoming & outgoing tidal activity over such a THREE
day period of time...?

Especially since FN was an 'old-salt' from the days when 'iron-men'
sailed in wooden ships, ...certainly HE would have been acutely aware of
such tidal fluctuations & the effect (if any) such fluctuations might
have had upon the 'stability' of the Electra sitting in three to four
feet of water on the reef-flat & the 'safety' of those sitting in the
Electra's cockpit...?

So, as Alan questions, ...WHY, after having THREE days of experiencing
rising & falling tidal action on the reef-flat, would AE & FN seem to
demonstrate such great anxiety about what would have been (expected)
'normal' tidal fluctuations...?

Given the FACT that tides (even in the Central Pacific) take about SIX
hours incoming & SIX hours outgoing, ...even IF such tidal activity WAS
beginning to 'errode' the position of the Electra on the reef-flat,
...would not AE & FN have ample time to 'evacuate' the Electra's cockpit
& traverse the hundred(s) of yards (or so) from the aircraft to the
safety of the beach, without expressing such a high level of anxiety
about such a move, ...assuming (again) they had been executing such an
'evacuation' plan on each of the THREE days they'd been sending radio
signals from the Electra   ...?

Then again, while I'm about it, ...one other question (about Betty's
notes) which has always puzzled me... Why would it be necessary for BOTH
AE & FN to remain inside the cockpit of the Electra to transmit the
(so-called) post-flight messages...?

Since AE was 'Captain-of-the-Ship' & the one who had transmitted ALL the
pre-loss radio messages, ...exactly WHAT purpose would it have served to
have FN sitting with her in the cockpit...?

Since they were only a few (assumed) hundred yards from the beach,
...would it not seem quite reasonable (assuming the Electra WAS on the
reef-flat for THREE days) to expect that FN SHOULD have remained
'ashore' to (at least) gather material for & establish a large signal
fire to alert the Itasca (as it sailed to their rescue) that the island
WAS inhabited, ,,,a 'blazing' fire by night & heavy 'smoke' by day...?

Surely FN, ...having abandoned more than one torpedoed ship during WWI
was well versed in what steps 'stranded' mariners should take to
'maximize' their chances of being 'seen', located & rescued...?

Nice to see that the Forum once again might allow exploration of that
remarkable world of ...'woulda, coulda, shoulda'...!

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:58:58
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

I like your fantasy, Tom. Betty just missed the panics on the 2nd,3rd
and 4th. <G> Well we can't hang our hats on any of that but it IS a
curiosity if only for me.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:33:32
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bad press

Suzanne, I feel terrible for not mentioning that my son DID survive
and is now a CBS news editor in Houston. He celebrated his 45th
birthday in August.

I must have discussed that here so long ago not everyone knows about
it. I apologize.

Gerry had bone cancer just above the left knee and was diagnosed at
the military base in San Antonio. I was told they would have to
amputate his left leg and not to buy Christmas presents early. Not
their words but that was the essence.

Senator Kennedy got his son's doctors to call me from Boston and we
accepted an experimental program at Boston's Sydney-Farber cancer
center.

Although he is on crutches due to a break he still has his leg and
played high school tennis (singles) on the number one team in Texas.
tough kid. He's my only hero. We visit each other frequently and talk
several times a day. We take trips together every other year. He is
single and I am divorced so we have the flexibility for now.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:47:09
From:         Mike Zuschlag
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Tides of course increase gradually each day as the moon's position
aligns with the sun (from a neap to spring tide). In the process of
investigating the tides at Gardner, was it determined if it was
shifting from neap to spring through the first days of July 1937?

Another (probably untestable) possibility is that it wasn't the tides
that were higher on the 5th than earlier days, but the waves, maybe
due to an offshore storm or simply higher winds. Wave peaks smacking
the side of the Lockheed strike me as a bigger threat than simply
somewhat higher water than the day before. Perhaps those who've been
to Niku can tell us how much day to day variation they see in the
waves over the reef at high tide.

With the gear extended, the Lockheed cockpit floor is higher than the
aft cabin floor. The main battery and dynomotor are in or near the
cockpit. Noonan's alleged "knee-deep" comment could have been a
report on the maximum high of water being washed into the aft cabin.

--Mike
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:38:56
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Thanks, Mike Z.  Maybe Ric or Randy can explain what the data thus
far suggest may have been happening with tidal fluctuations on the
Niku reef.  As for weather, I don't think we have any real data, but
anyone who's been to the area knows how quickly and unpredictably
squalls can arise.

LTM (who's weathered many a squall)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:40:00
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: All in

Alan Caldwell said: "Dennis, you should qualify your wager in that
the response has to be substantive. By that I mean that if they
dispute anything in the book it must be supported similarly and/or if
they provide their own idea it ALSO must be similarly supported."

Yeah, I'm getting lazy in my new-found retirement.  Thanks for the
extra input and, as usual, you covered more bases then I knew
existed.  Pat gave her definition of "serious" and that pretty much
satisfied me.  (I'm such a slut sometimes! :-) )  If they want to add
your provisions also, it's their call.

Pat and Ric get to adjudicate any entries and I trust their criteria,
opinions and methods.  If they believe the review from the
"Osthaufers" (?) is serious and valid I'll cough up the dough.  It's
not the money so much as I'm curious to see if anyone will rise to
the bait and put their name on it.

I know, I know, it is a deliberate and premeditated provocation and
totally out of character for a mild-mannered retired feather
merchant.  But it's high noon, pardner, and time to slap leather.

LTM, who avoids being the slapee
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:40:29
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      For Alan

Alan,
Really very glad to know that the story had a positive outcome and
your son survived! . Thank you for sharing the full story to us all !
   Kind Regards - sincerely, LTM, Marcus Lind
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:41:08
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Don Neumann asks: "So, as Alan questions, ...WHY, after having THREE
days of experiencing rising & falling tidal action on the reef-flat,
would AE & FN seem to demonstrate such great anxiety about what would
have been (expected) 'normal' tidal fluctuations...?"

You make the whole thing sound so scientific. I can imagine FN and AE
saying calmly, you know the tides will be even higher next time and
the airplane will likely be washed away. We should be prepared... get
everything we need out of the plane and above all, remain calm!

Actually, I CAN'T imagine that.

You make it sound as if AE and FN should have no anxiety whatsoever
because the next tide could be predicted! In fact being stranded on a
deserted island produces many causes for anxiety.

I do imagine ... and I think it is reasonable that AE and FN thought
this as well ... that their most valuable possession, after having
been stranded on a deserted island for three days, was the radio. It
was their only way to contact the outside world. In Ric's book, there
is indeed evidence that AE was responding to signals from the outside
world. It was their best hope of getting rescued. It was probably
their ONLY hope of being rescued. Given the heat, and possible lack
of food and water, and the stress that AE and FN were under, and the
fact that they thought they were in contact with the outside world,
the likelihood of losing the radio would have indeed been a cause for
panic. I can imagine that easily.

Finally, I would like to point out that the exact height of the tides
could NOT be predicted after three days of observation. Storms in the
area could cause tides to be noticeably higher than what one would
predict due to simple lunar effects. It is possible that the height
of the next tide surprised AE and FN, which would certainly be
another reason for their anxiety.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:30:40
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Don Neumann says:

<<What Alan did NOT mention was the TIGHAR contention insisting that
Betty's 'miraculous-reception' must have occurred on July 5th, (rather
than July 2nd) in order to 'fit' the combination of the (estimated)
timing of the tidal fluctuations at Gardner Island & the reconciliation
of the respective time-frames as between the Central Pacific & the East
Coast of the USA...>>

Don, I don't know if you say things like that just to irritate other
people, or if you really don't know the difference between a
possibility worth consideration and a "contention."  I know that the
standard modus operandi for Earhart "researchers" is to stake out a
claim and defend it tooth and claw, but I don't think anyone's done
that with the Betty notebook or indeed with any aspect of TIGHAR's
research.  We have an hypothesis; we think it's probably correct;
we're looking at evidence that bears on it, pro and con.  Betty's
notebook makes its appearance and seems to support the hypothesis.
But is it possible that Betty could have heard Earhart?  We subject
this to analysis by experts like Bob Brandenburg, and find that, yes,
radio science suggests that it's at least not impossible.  But Betty
didn't record the date, so we ask (Ric asks), is there a date that
makes sense in terms of our hypothesis?  Looking at tidal
fluctuations at Nikumaroro (Will you guys EVER get the name
straight?), we find that, yep, there is such a date -- probably about
the 5th.  This is not a "contention."  It does not lead to a
"contention."  It is a tentative subhypothesis, subject to correction
by further data or analysis.  Reducing everything to contesting
contentions only gets in the way of responsible research.  And a lot
of postulating about what AE and FN woulda or coulda or shoulda done,
while it MAY be useful in formulating further testable subhypotheses
(If they coulda and therefore woulda dragged the radio and battery up
to the shore we oughta find radio parts on Nutiran if that's where
they wound up), such postulating has zero value as actual evidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:30:15
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

That's a good response, Paige. As the comments come in I think we can
see all kinds of possibilities and as you point out that wasn't
necessarily calm and collected folks stranded out there. sitting back
in our recliners and second guessing our heroes none of us would have
flown any part of the flight as they did, me thinks, 70 years later. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:51:02
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

The tides until July 9, as best as we can tell, were not unusually high.  At
the same time, weather logs (particularly swell and sea-state) from the
Itasca and Colorado indicate very benign conditions.  There's no indication
of a high swell, storm surge, or high windy conditions.  While it could be
possible a rogue wave or very isolated squall could hit Niku, any thing
longer lasting would be reflected in the sea state/swell conditions as seen
on the Itasca or Colorado.  There is still a controversy about the actual
magnitude of the tides from July 2 to 9, but nothing like spring or neap
tides.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:09:10
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Alan Caldwell quotes Rick Jones:

"Dynamotors all mounted under fuselage would positively be submerged
if plane was in water."

Then, the presumption derived from Betty's notebook must be that messages
documented referred to the tide level outside the aircraft (which didn't
preclude operation of the radio and right engine).

       "waters high"  (F.A. p 175)
       "it's going" p. 177
       "waters knee deep--let me out" (p. 179)
       "knee deep over" (p 184)

I would agree with Rick's assessment and offer a further possibility
(see below).

Alan then says:

My understanding is that the dynamotors were located IN the fuselage
not UNDER it. Is that wrong?

Remember that the information came from Lockheed in Burbank via the
Coast Guard in San Francisco (who were probably not aviation people)
so we probably shouldn't get too excited about the semantics.  After
all, a dynamotor (there was only one) could not have been mounted
under the fuselage unless it was installed on the exterior of the
aircraft - and it wasn't.  It was under the pilot's seat.

Now let me muddy the waters a little. I have read and reread Betty's
notebook. The scenario I read is a panic scenario. Where on Gardner
would the plane have to be to create such a desperate sounding
situation?

If they could move the plane they would have. If they couldn't why
could they not just climb out and move to a safer place?

Valid questions.  For the scene described in Betty's Notebook to be
credible, a number of circumstances must rationally exist:
- The plane must be in a place where it is threatened by rising water.
- The events described in Betty's Notebook fit best with other events
that occurred on Monday, July 5, by which time Earhart and Noonan had
seen a number of tidal cycles, so there must be a reason for them to
be particularly worried about the present rising tide.
- There must be a credible reason why the plane cannot be moved to a
safer location.
- For the radio to be operable, certain parts of the aircraft must be
above water. The cockpit area where the dynamotor and receiver are
located must be dry.  The transmitter is located on the cabin floor
just forward of the cabin door.  That part of the interior must also
be dry. The starboard side generator-equipped engine must be
operational.  That means that the starboard side main landing gear is
down and supporting the engine with sufficient clearance for the
propeller to rotate (and, no, the engine cannot be run without the
prop).
- The plane must be in a place where it could have landed and
remained intact enough to meet the above requirements.
- There must be a reason for Earhart to remain in the aircraft
despite the danger.
- There must be a reason for Earhart to want Noonan to remain in the
aircraft, even though he is not doing anything constructive and wants
to leave.
- There must be a reason why Noonan cannot exit the aircraft without
Earhart's approval and cooperation.

Those are pretty specific and complex demands.  Let me outline a
scenario that seems to meet them.

Earhart and Noonan arrive over Nikumaroro shortly before noon on July
2, 1937. The tide is out and much of the surrounding reef flat is
either dry or covered with only a thin film of water.  They can see
that the land area is covered with dense vegetation and that the sand
beaches are relatively narrow and often steeply sloped. It's obvious
that the safest place to land is on the reef but the only sections
smooth enough are out near where the waves break. Closer to the
beach, the reef surface is jagged and pitted. After a circuit of the
island they pick a relatively smooth stretch of coral just north of
the shipwreck on the west end.  The selected "runway" is roughly two
thousand feet long by one hundred feet wide, about seventy-five feet
in from the reef edge

The approach and landing go well but during the roll-out, once the
tail is down, Earhart's view forward is restricted and the left main
wheel hits a pothole causing that gear leg to collapse.  When the
left wing slams down onto the coral, the outer wing panel fails at
the attach point just outboard of the engine and the airplane
groundloops hard to the left and comes to an abrupt stop.  The
airplane was equipped with seat belts but not shoulder restraints.
Noonan, sitting in the copilot's seat, is on the outside of the arc
and smacks his head hard, possibly being knocked unconscious, and
sustaining a concussion. The right main gear remains intact and the
aircraft comes to rest with the left engine nacelle and the left
underside of the fuselage resting on the reef surface.

(Note: The groundloop in Hawaii that resulted in the failure of both
gear legs occurred at much higher speed and was a very different type
of accident.

Under the circumstances described above Earhart can still transmit
and receive radio messages and operate the starboard engine to
recharge the batteries.  However, the cabin door on the left side of
the plane cannot be used because its lower edge is jammed against the
reef surface. The only way out of the aircraft is via the hatch
directly over the pilot's seat.  This not only restricts access into
and out of the airplane but also greatly limits the size of objects
that can be removed from the cabin for possible use ashore.  For
example, the fuel tanks in the cabin might make great water
cisterns.  They were designed so that each would fit through the
cabin door, but removing any of them through the cockpit hatch is out
of the question.

Let's talk about tides.  As Bob Brandenburg has shown (see http://
www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/51_TidalStudy/
PLSigStatsandTide.pdf)  the water level on the reef flat for the
first several days, even at high tide, is not sufficient to reach key
components or prevent the engine from being run.  However, all tides
are not created equal and during the first week of July 1937 the
tides in the Central Pacific were gradually rising, with each high
tide being a bit higher than the previous one.  It saeems reasonable
to assume that Earhart and Noonan would have noticed this trend. By
the night of July 4/5, during the period when the "281 message" was
heard, the water level on the reef rose, for the first time, to 33
inches - enough to threaten the transmitter on the cabin floor if, as
I have speculated, the left main gear was collapsed.  The "281
message" ends with "...above water....shut off."  By late the next
morning, when we think the transmissions heard by Betty were sent,
the tide was once again on the rise with perhaps the expectation that
this time it would reach a level that would not only end their
ability to call for help, but also float the airplane out to sea.

The estimated water depth on the reef during the latter part of the
transmission heard by Betty is thirteen inches - "knee deep,"
especially with surf running across the reef flat.  Noonan's desire
to escape is certainly understandable, as is Earhart's reluctance to
abandon what is probably their last chance to call for help.  Noonan,
as portrayed in Betty's transcription, is clearly irrational.  Having
done it myself several times, I can tell you that negotiating the
reef flat from the putative landing site to the shore is a challenge
even at dead low tide.  Once you get off the smooth area out near the
ocean, the reef surface is pitted with waste-deep depressions between
jagged outcroppings and reef surface has a coating of algae that is
slicker'n snot.  A stout walking stick and a slow pace are required
to avoid slips and falls and nasty coral cuts. (Earhart's possible
reference to an ankle - "uncle" - injury may have been the result of
a previous trip across the reef.) I wouldn't try it with two feet of
water on the outer flat and surf running.  For Earhart to have
permitted Noonan to attempt the journey unassisted under those
conditions and in his state would be unthinkable.

Nonetheless, Noonan was trying to get out of the plane through the
cockpit hatch but to do so meant literally stepping on Amelia who was
in the pilot's seat trying to use the radio.  She can stop him, but
the result might be exactly the kind of chaos reflected in Betty's
transcription.


LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:39:43
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Missing Electra

Randy,

What is the best hypothesis about how the Electra was finally
swept over the reef by early morning 9 July, hence not seen by the
Colorado fliers? The Colorado fliers detailed observations of the
Norwich City, not far from that where Tighar has suggested the plane
was located, precludes them missing that big silver plane.At least it
wasn't there in Oct 37 when Maude and Bevington tramped by.

Would it be the increased tide/surf finally inundated the plane
and carried it off the reef?

Did anyone ever speculate just how far or close the Electra would
be on the ocean bottom in the known depths off Niku?

Ron B
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:41:10
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Very well explained, Ric; makes sense, may even be true.  But just to
be sure there are no misunderstandings, how does what you've just
said about tides, and Bob's analysis, square with what Randy just said:

<<From Randy Jacobson

*The tides until July 9, as best as we can tell, were not unusually high.*  At
the same time, weather logs (particularly swell and sea-state) from the
Itasca and Colorado indicate very benign conditions.  There's no indication
of a high swell, storm surge, or high windy conditions.  While it could be
possible a rogue wave or very isolated squall could hit Niku, any thing
longer lasting would be reflected in the sea state/swell conditions as seen
on the Itasca or Colorado.  *There is still a controversy about the actual
magnitude of the tides from July 2 to 9, but nothing like spring or neap
tides.*>> (Emphasis added)

LTM (who likes her kids to agree)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:41:33
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Ric's scenario beginning with "Earhart and Noonan arrive
over Nikumaroro shortly before noon on July 2. 1937."

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

After reading and rereading Ric's prose over and over,
I vote for his scenario -- well done, Ric.
At least, if we adopt Ric's scenario as the Model we will
have a common target to shoot at
Anybody care to second the motion?

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who always said, "Let's get organized!"
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:42:02
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Not very well reasoned out, Ric. I like Tom's fantasy better. OK, I'm
kidding and that was as well thought out as anyone could make it.

For those who have other ideas on our mystery and have had me jab
gently that they are not supporting their thoughts here is an
excellent example of how to lay out a plausible theory. One doesn't
have to have hard evidence or smoking guns but there does need to be
a fairly detailed rationale. I'm not saying it has to be accepted as
fact but it does have to show possibility and plausibility. Otherwise
it is just a baseless opinion.

You will also note in Ric's  explanation he added in support from his
having been on the island, the tide action, the distance to safe
ground and the hazards in getting there -- all from personal
experience. You will also note the absence of any mention of another
hazard -- quicksand. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:55:00
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: What was the sound?

Tom King writes:

>Very well explained, Ric; makes sense, may even be true.  But just
>to be sure there are no misunderstandings, how does what you've
>just said about tides, and Bob's analysis, square with what Randy
>just said:
>
>>From Randy Jacobson
>>
>>*The tides until July 9, as best as we can tell, were not unusually high.*  At
>>the same time, weather logs (particularly swell and sea-state) from the
>>Itasca and Colorado indicate very benign conditions.  There's no indication
>>of a high swell, storm surge, or high windy conditions.  While it could be
>>possible a rogue wave or very isolated squall could hit Niku, any thing
>>longer lasting would be reflected in the sea state/swell conditions as seen
>>on the Itasca or Colorado.

The scenario I described does not require any unusually high tide,
high swell, storm surge or high windy conditions. In fact, as I
understand Bob Brandenburg's research, the tides during the period in
question (July 2-9) were somewhat lower than usual.

>*There is still a controversy about the actual
>magnitude of the tides from July 2 to 9, but nothing like spring or
>neap tides.

As Bob has explained in the preface to his table "Post-Loss Signal
Statistics with Tide Information"
(http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/51_TidalStudy/
51_TidalStudy.htm),
  he starts the published tides at Hull (Orona) which have been
shown, by our own observations, to be a reasonable proxy for Niku.
With reliable tidal data it was the possible to accurately hindcast
the tides to 1937.  He then calculated the difference between the
reef height at Niku and the tidal datum at Hull through an exhaustive
analysis of dozens of photos of the Norwich City wreckage we took at
recorded times.  This enabled him to establish the approximate water
levels on the reef at Niku during the pertinent tidal periods in
1937.  It is incumbent upon anyone who feels that Bob's findings are
controversial to show an error in his methodology, observations, or
calculations.

Ric
}
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:05:57
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Amelia

Jim Preston asks:

>Does Ric have any seminars scheduled for CA or NV on Aviation
>Archarology or the week class. ?

Not at present.

>Recently I came accross a copy of Aviation History July 1997
>which had a nice article on Amelia. Do you have it ?

I seem to remember a piece about Amelia in Aviation History.  As I
recall it wasn't a bad summary, but that was 10 years ago (aaargh!).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:08:16
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Tides at Nikumaroro


I think the "controversy" Randy mentioned can better be characterized
as uncertainty, stemming from possible misunderstanding of certain
aspects of Howard Alldred's survey data from Niku Vp.   I don't want
to get into too much detail here because Howard and I have been
collaborating on this off-line, and I would prefer to wait until we
are finished.   But since Randy and Tom have forced my hand <G>, I
need to say something

The determination of water level in the Electra landing area is -- at
the risk of oversimplifying --  a function of two factors:  the slope
of the reef in the landing area, and the height of the water level
relative to the reef edge there, for a given tide condition at Hull
Island, which is about 140 nmi east of Niku.

The current uncertainty in the estimated reef slope in the landing
area is small.  We know it is greater than zero and less than 3
degrees, which is not a major concern. Even if the uncertainty can't
be resolved with the currently available data, the water level in the
landing area can be calculated for slopes between the limiting
values, for any given tide condition.

The tough nut to crack is determining the correlation between Niku
tides and Hull tides.   As Ric mentioned, our hypothesis assumes that
Hull is a valid tide proxy for Niku.   That assumption is based on
the proximity of Hull to Niku, and seems to be borne out by general
observations on Niku.  This is further supported by a 1975 paper by
Luther and Wunsch, "Tidal Charts of the Central Pacific
Ocean" (Journal of Physical Oceanography, Volume 5, Number 2, April
1975) presenting co-amplitude and cotidal charts of the Central
Pacific.   Although based on sparse data, their results suggest that
tides at Niku occur essentially simultaneously with tides at Hull,
and with approximately the same amplitude.   The best approach to
resolving the correlation question is to install a tide gauge at Niku
-- preferably on the Norwich City engine -- to collect enough data
for comparison with the Hull tide data.   That's not as good as
collecting enough tide data -- for at least a year --  to permit
derivation of  tidal harmonic constants for Niku, which would allow
direct tide computations for Niku, but that's probably not in the
cards.   The good news is that the data that could be collected with
a gauge during an expedition to Niku would be enough to get a pretty
solid correlation result, which would enable calculation of time and
height offsets to be applied to Hull tides to get Niku tides.

Meanwhile, we are left with squeezing out what we can from the sparse
data we currently have.   I just finished a least squares linear
regression analysis of Hull Island tides versus tide data we have for
the boat landing channel, which includes data collected by Howard's
tide gauge, plus some data collected by Ric with a meter stick in
2001.    The  correlation coefficient  is 0.965  (for non-
statisticians, 1.0 would be perfect), and the water level at zero
tide is 0.538 meter below the landing channel reef edge.
The remaining piece of the puzzle is resolving the height of the the
reef surface at the landing channel relative to the western reef flat
edge.    I'm confident we can do this.

LTM,

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:31:10
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

This tidal study that Bob Brandenburg posted about - what do we hope to gain
from this? How specifically does this help us?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:02:32
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

The objective is to find the water level in the Electra landing area
for times of interest.

This helps by allowing us to rule out post-loss signals that were
heard when the water level was too high to allow AE to run the
Electra's starboard engine.

LTM,

Bob  #2286
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:33:19
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Finding Amelia in libraries

According to the WorldCat Library Database, "Finding Amelia" is
currently in at least 175 libraries, in 38 U.S. states and the
District of Columbia, plus the British Library and university
libraries in Calgary and Singapore. This, of course, is not a
complete list of library holdings, and some libraries may own
multiple copies. The New York Public Library system owns 6 copies.

Has anyone else seen "Finding Amelia" in libraries?

LTM (a real bookworm)
Karen Hoy
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:18:31
From:         John Barrett
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Has anyone considered that it may not so much be an issue of the
water rising as the plane sinking. Going on the assumption that AE
and FN did land on the reef as Ric suggests, is it not just as
possible that the landing gear and or plane's structure was damaged
enough that the wave action continued to work on the weakened
structures, causing the plane to settle lower and lower to the point
that the water destroyed the radio equipment. Maybe the weight of the
plane crushed the underlying coral causing it to sink lower. If it
was on a sandy area the wave action alone could cause it to settle,
just as if you stand in the water at the beach and slowly sink in.
The tide may or may not have any real impact, short of making it hard
to get from the beach to the plane and back. Just some thoughts.   -
LTM-   John Barrett, (former lurker, I joined today via e-mail)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:08:34
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Bob Brandenburg wrote:

>The objective is to find the water level in the Electra landing area
>for times of interest.

You can accurately determine this for a time period 70 years ago?

I'm amazed.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:19:27
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Tidal forcing functions are well known, and can be forecast and hindcast
with accuracy to about 10 cm for several decades.  The key is to understand
the amplitude and time of all of the various tidal frequency components,
which is why it is best to have a year-long record or a surrogate. We have
hind-cast Canton Island records back 70 years and compared the hind-casts to
measurements, and got good results.  What we don't know is the difference in
tidal timing between Canton and Niku very well, if at all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:10:30
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

For Alfred,

If Bob Brandenburg conclusivley determines the tide at Niku was
way out past the possible Electra landing area, you can throw Betty's
book out the window.

LTM,
Ron B
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:10:55
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

For John Barrett

Welcome, John, and thanks for the idea of the Electra getting a
sinking feeling.  Good idea, and it could be, but if so it would, I
think, probably be because of gear collapse rather than breaking
through the coral or settling in sand.  The coral reef flat is very,
very, very solid, and since it's scoured by the tides and surf there
isn't a lot of sand; what there is is in fairly restricted pockets,
and probably not very deep.  If a plane's wheel went into one of
these I think it would penetrate down to the coral substrate pretty
fast.

Given how slick the surface of the flat is, though, it's not hard to
imagine that if the plane were on the lip of a depression it could
begin to slip and slide into it over time.  I think the bottom line
is that there are quite a number of ways to imagine the plane being
stuck for awhile and then going away, with the going-away motivating
Earhart and Noonan to behave pretty much the way Betty's notebook
portrays.

LTM (who's glad to have not been there)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:11:14
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Finding Amelia in libraries

That's interesting, Karen.  Do you have any figures on "AE's Shoes"
in libraries?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:28:39
From:         Karen Hoyt
Subject:      AE's Shoes in libraries

There are 745 libraries with hardcover copies of "AE's Shoes" and 86
with the softcover edition.

Broken down, this means there are copies in all 50 U.S. states, 4
Canadian provinces, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Lebanon, the
Netherlands, and Singapore.

Not every library is indexed in WorldCat, so the actual figures are
probably higher, and some library systems have multiple copies. The
New York Public Library has 13.

Karen
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:12:06
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

I can't, but the UK Hydrographic office can.   They have the tidal
constants for Hull Island, collected during a continuous span of 301
days during 1957.   I use their tide prediction model to do the
hindcasts.

LTM,
Bob  #2286

>From Alfred Hendrickson:
>
>You can accurately determine this for a time period 70 years ago?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:44:48
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Don't hold your breath, Ron.

It's not a question of how far the tide extended beyond the possible
Electra landing area, i.e. how much of the reef was wet,  but rather
how deep the water was IN the landing area.

Based on what we know now, Betty's book is safe.   The currently
available data solidly supports the Niku tide hypothesis, and I think
the likelihood of new data changing that situation substantially is
vanishingly small.

LTM,

Bob  #2286

>From Ron Bright,
>
>If Bob Brandenburg conclusivley determines the tide at Niku was
>way out past the possible Electra landing area, you can throw
>Betty's  book out the window.

=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:45:08
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: AE's Shoes in libraries

Thanks, Karen; that's fascinating.  It had never occurred to me that
of course the hardcover version, though not as up-to-date as the
softcover, would be more attractive to libraries, but of course it
would.  Interesting thing to keep in mind.

LTM (herself rather a soft cover)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:09:06
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Interesting scenario you lay out.  A couple of questions:

Could you expand on what you mean about (Betty's Notebook) "other
events" seem to fit with other things happening on Monday, July 5?

When you speculate that the left gear collapses on landing could it
be ripped from the aircraft?  What happened to the gear in the Hawaii
ground loop - did they separate or just fold back into the wheel well?

If the left gear did separate from the plane could the inflated tires
keep the gear afloat - take the worst case weight situation where the
trunnions ripped from the wheel well?

I believe you earlier indicated that on site observations of tidal
activity seem to indicate that things naturally seem to wash into the
lagoon through the reef opening.  If this is correct, then is the
tide high enough to let a gear float into the lagoon AKA the "wheel
of fortune."  Is there anything practical that can be taken to Niku
in July "07 that could be used to "sound the lagoon?"  By boat, I
think you said it was full of bird poop and we would hate to see you
sink outa sight.

Ted Campbell
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:10:30
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Bob B.,

Here is a possible  lead quite close by. In Buglosi's book "And the
Sea will tell", he had to determine the tidal height on Palmyra,
about 1000 miles south of Hawaii and 800 miles almost directly north of Niku.
He had to find out where the tide was at 4:40pm Aug 30, to Dawn Aug
31, and he is talking about a two foot critical measurement for tides in 1974.

He went to Tidal Datum Quality Assurance Section off the National
Ocean Service in Rockville, Maryland.

Since tides are  measured daily in Hawaii, the NOS could
determine  with the known corrective data to measure the tides on
Palmyra.. Tides have a daily cycle of twice approx every "24 hours
and 50 mins"..

Their tide tables cover the Central and Western Pacific, and
Indian Ocean. I would guess they would cover Niku in 1937.

By the way he got the tides, which were of value to his defense.
See pages 272-277 for a full discussion on his quest for the tides.

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:28:07
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

I've already done similar work, by getting the Canton tidal records, and
asking the Hawaii Center of Ocean Height (or something similar in name),
under the auspices of NOAA, to hindcast Canton records back to July, 1937.
They first took the Canton data, and hindcast it to the earliest records to
verify the ability to hindcast with less than 10cm accuracy, then projected
the data back to July, 1937.  This was back in 1994 or thereabouts. At the
time, I was unaware of any records from Hull to use as a database for
hindcasting.  Canton is a much better source of data than Palmyra, but it
appears Hull would be better still.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:06:22
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

I, too, am intrigued by Ric's scenario.  In dating Betty's notebook entries
one can keep a few contextual things in mind to help establish the date. What
I see doesn't seem to conflict with Ric's date of Monday, July 5th.

1.  The 4th of July in 1937 was on a Sunday.  It was sometimes
celebrated on Saturday or Monday, if it fell on a Sunday, but not
always.

2.  A 48 hour, six day workweek was common.  (Unions were
aggitating for overtime pay, an 8 hour day and 5 day work week but it was not passed
into law until later.)

So, if recollections are reliable, these events occured:

1.  Betty's father was at work and came home in the late afternoon. (It
was a "work day")

2.  Neighbor Russell Rhodes was at home.

3.  Mom and Sister Jean had been down town (shopping? Stores
open?)

4.  The Coast Guard office was open (who surely would close for a
Federal holiday--except for those saving drunken boaters)

Was FN mortally injured?  Could it have been too difficult for AE to lift him
up through the hatch, down to the reef, and get him to safety?  If one or the
other had died, would the survivor have to abandon an attempt at burial and
leave them to disappear with the aircraft?

Rick J, #2751
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:07:08
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Ron,

I have the 1936 tide tables for the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Palmyra Island tides were predicted by applying tabulated time &
height offsets to the Honolulu tides.   The only island in the
Phoenix group listed in the tables was Canton.   I suspect the 1937
tables had the same arrangement.

Hull Island is closer to Niku than Canton, and is at nearly the same
latitude.   These factors suggest that Hull is a better tide proxy
for Niku.  We have collected empirical data suggesting that Hull
tides agree closely with Niku tides, and we plan to collect more.
NOS predicts tides for Canton, but not for Hull.  The UK Hydrographic
Office predicts tides for Hull.  There are substantial differences
between the Canton predictions and the Hull predictions.

No tide prediction service publishes time&tide offsets for Niku.   If
they were published, we would use them.

So, what can we get from NOS that we can't get from UKHO?

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:08:27
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Ted Campbell asks:

>Could you expand on what you mean about (Betty's Notebook) "other
>events" seem to fit with other things happening on Monday, July 5?
See Finding Amelia page 174:

"Although Betty did not write down the date, the events described in her
notebook dovetail with the Itasca radio log on the morning of Monday, July
5. Betty started hearing the woman's voice at around 4:30 PM, whichwas
10:00 AM in the Central Pacific. The signal Bellarts logged on the morning
of July 5 was the only one heard on 3105 at that hour of the daytime during
the entire search."

And page 176:

"Aboard Itasca, Bellarts responded to the faint signal by calling Earhart
on 3105 using Morse code. Betty heard the woman say to the man who was
with her, "Here, put your ear to it." Was Earhart holding up an earphone so
that Noonan too could hear the dots and dashes?"

>When you speculate that the left gear collapses on landing could it be ripped
>from the aircraft?  What happened to the gear in the Hawaii ground loop - did
>they separate or just fold back into the wheel well?

The gear legs in the Hawaii groundloop failed as the result of
tremendous side loads. The failures were a result of, rather than the
cause of the groundloop. In that instance, neither gear leg was
ripped from the aircraft.  In the theoretical accident I have
described, the failure of the left side gear leg was the result of
the left main wheel striking a pot-hole in the reef surface deep
enough to impart a rearward force sufficient to overstress the down-
lock and cause the gear to fold back into the wheel well.

>If the left gear did separate from the plane could the inflated
>tires keep the gear afloat - take the worst case weight situation
>where the trunnions ripped from the wheel well?

Good question.  To find the answer to that we'd have to know the
volume of the tire and the weight of the gear leg.

>I believe you earlier indicated that on site observations of tidal
>activity seem to indicate that things naturally seem to wash into
>the lagoon through the reef opening.  If this is correct, then is
>the tide high enough to let a gear float into the lagoon AKA the
>"wheel of fortune."

Certainly a possibility.  Although - as I said - I don't see the
force of the accident being sufficient to detach the gear leg for the
airframe, subsequent surf action after the plane went over the reef
edge could disarticulate the wreckage in grand style.

>Is there anything practical that can be taken to Niku in July "07
>that could be used to "sound the lagoon?"  By boat, I think you
>said it was full of bird poop and we would hate to see you sink
>outa sight.

The bird poop and deep silt is only in a few areas.  Most of the
lagoon bottom seems to be a fairly thin layer of silt over hard coral
rubble.  the depth of the lagoon varies from only a few inches near
the shoreline to about 20 feet in the deeper areas.  A sonar sweep of
the entire lagoon bottom would be possible given enough time and
money - say, two months and a million bucks. That lagoon is huge.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:09:02
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

Everyone seems to be having a great time "imagineering" or
speculating on the reef landing, and all the whys and wherefores that
follow on.  From the outside looking in, I think it's good to keep
the grey cells active, but may be getting a tad away from the tennets
of deductive reasoning?

So here's my bit.

If the landing gear leg rips off that violently, surely the tire
would have burst, and therefore the chunk of undercarriage would have
no chance to float anywhere.  But if the bits that broke off included
the wheel as a lone chunk, with a flat tire attached, would the
landing run you've postulated correspond in any way to the "wheel of
fortune" sighting.

i.e. assuming the wheel is actually there, but has been missed, and
assuming the wheel is lying close to where it ripped off, does that
help draw a line on a map of the reef flat to narrow down a search
field for the rest of the 'plane?

Like I said, everyone's speculating, so I thought I'd join in!

LTM, who could do with some Indiana Jones music right now...

Rick Boardman
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:17:51
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

My question about the reef is a bit simpler.....

Is it possible that the reef would show signs of the crash after all
this time.  If a gear leg collapsed, you would expect a straight,
then curving, line, something that would not look natural.  My hunch
is that 70 years of wave action would have broken down any evidence,
but do we have any decent overhead, or on site, pictures to use to
look for evidence of propeller or fuselage caused damage?

					Reed
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:18:32
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

For Bob B.,

You seem to have a handle on the sources. Lets see what happens. It
seems like it will be some kind of calulated guess in the end. I know
our tides in the NW vary often from high and low pressure systems,
not just the normal predictions.
Good luck, but finding exactly the water depth on where the Electra
may have been sounds formidable.


REB
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:19:17
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

>Betty heard the woman say to the man who was
>with her, "Here, put your ear to it." Was Earhart holding
>up an  earphone so that Noonan too could hear the dots
>and dashes?

This does seem a bit odd, no? I mean, she is holding
down the microphone button, while talking to Fred.  It
was in the past suggested that their hearing was tired
from the flight, thus use of the radio's built in sidetone
(audio from transmitter microphone going to headhphones
at same time ) as a kind of intercom. However, this scene
is taking place days after landing.  They don't notice the
transmitter is on, they don't notice the transmitter dyna-
motor ( low voltage motor coupled to high voltage
generator ) noisily spin up, when she stops listening
to the signals coming in, and tells Fred to listen, whilst
broadcasting her comments to Fred over the world ?
Reminder, you cannot transmit and receive at same time.
And  the microphone is a  close talking to the (non-
studio, not highly sensitive ) carbon granule microphone.
Remember, the modulation systems of such radio
transmitter was not built to be well responsive to ambient,
sound, requiring for full modulation by voice, the user
holding the microphone quite close.  My point is, the
radio didn't just pick up her talking, with the microphone
just lying there.  I suggest if this
scene has to represent the duo using the radio, rather
than AE referring to signals she was hearing, perhaps
she was just trying to get FN to listen to the transmitter
sidetone audio in the headphone, as a kind of proof
that the transmitter was still working. ( Altho the sidetone
in headphone is not really proof of signal going out from
antenna. ) Am i missing something? -Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:19:51
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

For Rick J

<< If  one or the
other had died, would the survivor have to abandon an attempt at
burial and leave them to disappear with the aircraft?>>

That's an interesting idea, that I for one hadn't considered.  Emily
Sikuli, in talking about the supposed aircraft wreckage on the
Nutiran reef, said that bones had been found in the water close to
the same location.  We've generally discounted this story, or just
scratched our heads over it, because the likelihood of bones holding
up in the high-energy environment of the reef edge is pretty remote.
But suppose someone did get trapped in the plane, dead or alive, and
went over the edge.  Suppose then that some of the wreckage, with
body inside, got hung up in one of the "canyons" that cut through the
reef edge, or down on the slope or the submarine ledge.  Then suppose
it was coughed up in a storm, with bones still hung up.  I imagine
it's possible that some group of bones could have wound up deposited
on the reef flat or edge long enough for Emily's father and his
colleagues to find them.  No way of knowing, but it's an interesting
twist to the "injured Fred" scenario.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:20:11
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

<<A sonar sweep of
the entire lagoon bottom would be possible given enough time and
money - say, two months and a million bucks. That lagoon is huge.>>

Very true, and it also ought to be remembered that we HAVE done a
fair amount of "sounding" the lagoon, with walking and metal
detecting surveys in the shallows of the north end (from the supposed
wheel of fortune vicinity east) and diving and magnetometer sweeps in
the deeper water farther south -- besides dropping Ric in the poop
from time to time.  I don't have a good guesstimate as to what
percentage of the lagoon has been systematically looked at -- it's
certainly not a big percentage, but it's not negligible either, and
the results have been negative.  Not that stuff hasn't been found; it
just hasn't been Electra stuff.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:46:30
From:         Curtis Smith
Subject:      "Wobbly" reception

In reading 'Finding Amelia' I was intrigued by the number of post-
lost signals that were characterized as 'wobbly' at the receiving
station.

While putting around in my Aeronca Champ, I often experience radio
reception (aircraft to aircraft) that could be characterized as
'wobbly'. I have always explained it away to myself as being caused
by the propeller blades interfering with the reception. I have also
noted that this only seems to occur when either my plane or the other
aircraft is at or near idle engine RPM -- like taxiing to the runway.
Also, I've heard the effect when flying above a transmitting helicopter.

If the 'wobbly' reception was indeed caused by the Electra's idling
prop modulating (?) A-Es transmissions, wouldn't it (crudely) suggest
a possible orientation of the Electra in regards to the receiving
station? In other words, if all of the stations to the North of Niku
heard wobbly signals while others did not, could it be that the
Electra was facing North (actually Northwest when accounting for the
offset of starboard engine).

Also, with the 'V' shaped transmitting antenna arraignment on
Electra, wouldn't the xmit signal be stronger to the sides of the
aircraft vs. fore and aft? If so, I would think that the stations to
the West and to the East of Niku would receive a better signal than
those to the North if the Electra was as suggested above facing a
North or Northwesterly direction.

Granted, understanding the Electra's possible orientation on the reef
at Niku can't be anything earth-shattering. But who knows ...

Curtis Smith, Tighar Member # 2602
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:54:20
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Ron,

If it was easy, anyone could do it <G>.
But seriously, we don't need to know the depth exactly;  nailing it
with reasonably small uncertainty will be good enough.
Stay tuned.

LTM,
Bob   #2286

>From Ron Bright,
>For Bob B.,
>
>Good luck, but finding exactly the water depth on where the
>Electra  may have been sounds formidable.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:35:57
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

For Bob and all.

Even if you find that the  tidal water on the reef in the proximity
of the alleged Electra area is "consistant " with some of the
notations in Betty's notebook, that does not per se confirm it was AE
transmitting. There are enough notations that are not consistant with
the situtation.

    Repeated numerous times on this forum, the authenticity of AE
transmitting can not be proven, or disproved.

   For me, the Betty notebook is not at all essential to the Tighar
hypothesis. We have speculated for four years over the Notebook, and
it is inconclusive. I think we should move on.

    On another note, I wonder if Betty today is still monitoring the
Tighar forum?

   Finally, what is more important to me is  what forces caused the
Electra to slip off the reef from whatever location prior to the
morning of 9 July. As I recall storms or unusual winds were not a
factor. Could the Electra have been very close to the edge?

LTM,
Ron
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:36:52
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Bob Brandenburg wrote:

>But seriously, we don't need to know the depth exactly;  nailing it
>with reasonably small uncertainty will be good enough.

Another way to think of this, I'd say, is to keep in mind that this
is a thoroughly reductive and helpful process. Finding (or reasonably
extrapolating) strong evidence either way about the tidal flow on
Nikumaroro's NW reef flat in early July 1937 could not only yield
support for or elimination of theories about post-loss signals
originating from there but further, hard clues about where to look
for pieces of aircraft.

Meanwhile I think yes, Noonan's bones alone in the wreckage could
have been the seed which later grew into Emily's recollection of
stories about a man and a woman's bones being associated with it,
especially given Gallagher's opinion about who the castaway was and
the likelihood that he expressed this notion to others on Gardner in
1941.

As for Betty's notebook, when I first read it (almost ten years
ago?), all I saw were hoaxlike scribblings but my thoughts about it
have, at an excruciatingly slow and I must say wholly indifferent
pace, re-arranged themselves. For starters, a tipping point of
plausibility for me may have been her mention of "New York City" ...
which yes, could have been her (understandably uninformed and
sincere) take on "Norwich City."

Then we have that biologist who spotted a circular bit of machined
metal embedded in the reef a few years back.

LTM, who heard things wrong now and then.

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:16:08
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: What was that sound?

>Betty heard the woman say to the man who was
>with her, "Here, put your ear to it." Was Earhart holding
>up an  earphone so that Noonan too could hear the dots
>and dashes?

Hue Miller asks:

>This does seem a bit odd, no? I mean, she is holding
>down the microphone button, while talking to Fred.

If it is not credible for AE to have the push-to-talk engaged while
she is talking to Fred, and if it is not credible that Fred's voice
can be heard if he is not speaking directly into the mic, then
Betty's entire reported experience is not credible and we must
presume that either Betty made the whole thing up or stumbled upon a
hoax perpetrated by someone whose transmitting facilities did not
present the problems that make Betty's report incredible.

As far as I know, we have no information about what kind of
microphone Earhart was using, other than that it was necessarily
constrained by the limits of the technology available in 1937.

>Reminder, you cannot transmit and receive at same time.

Do we know that to be true?  The transmitter and receiver do not
appear to have shared the same antenna.  The two systems seem to have
been totally separate.  There were even two batteries.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:17:02
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Finding Amelia

>The initial printing of Finding Amelia was 5,000 copies.  Nearly all
>of those have now been sold and the Naval Institute Press is about
>ready to do a second printing.

Is it possible that an audio book version will be published?  These
seem to be quite popular, especially with people who have long
commutes every day.

LTM (who only reads LARGE PRINT books.)

Eric
*****************************

We are talking about the prospect of an audio book with the Press.
Nothing firm yet.

P