Date:         Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:24:43
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Historic Preservation

A question regarding historic preservation recently came to mind.

I have always had some vague childhood memories of a playground
visited on a family trip that included a slide made from an old jet
fighter plane.

After my mother passed away late last year I was going through some
old photo albums at my dad's house and found pictures of the slide.
Dad says it was at a park in Washington DC (the same album has photos
of the National Zoo) and that the trip was in 1970 or '71.

The aircraft was an honest-to-goodness real Chance Vought F7U
Cutlass!  One climbed a ladder up to the port side of the cockpit,
climbed through the cockpit, and slid down a slide off the starboard
side of the cockpit.

The Cutlass was an odd looking design- swept wings with a nosecone/
cockpit at the front, no traditional fuselage, twin vertical tails,
and no horizontal tail surfaces.  If memory serves it was in USN
fleet service in limited numbers in the late 1950's/early '60's.

Does anyone on the forum know if there's a museum quality Vought F7U
Cutlass anywhere?  (Pensacola perhaps)  Anyone  remember the DC park
and/or the plane?  I can't imagine that after 30+ years of weather
exposure and being climbed upon by children that it still exists.

LTM, who probably saw poetry in an instrument of war being made a
children's plaything;

Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:25:03
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Historic preservation

Dave Porter asks:

<<Does anyone on the forum know if there's a museum quality Vought
F7U Cutlass anywhere?  (Pensacola perhaps)>>

A quick Google search reveals at least six airframes, four of which
could be considered "museum quality" as they are in... well... museums.

1. National Museum of Naval Aviation (Pensacola, FL)
2. Museum of Flight (Everett, WA)
3. Wings of Freedom Museum (Willow Grove, PA)
4. USS Hornet (CV-12) Museum (Alameda, CA)

Apparently there is also one among in the collection of legendary
aviation pack rat Walter Soplata and an incomplete example in Pueblo,
Colorado.

<< Anyone remember the DC park and/or the plane? >>

Another forum included the following reference...

"At one point in time, the local (Damascus, MD) park commission had an
F7U Cutlass at Wheaton Regional Park and an FJ-1 Fury at Cabin John
Regional Park in Potomac as part of a playground (back when we were
allowed to play with REAL items), both were taken out of the park and
scapped."

Hope that helps.

LTM,
Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Mar 2007 06:47:37
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Pacific maps


A link to an extensive map collection.

Gary LaPook

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/cf0 pacific_islands_1943_1945.html

=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:58:58
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Expedition update

Okay folks of the forum, here's your chance to come along on a TIGHAR
expedition to Nikumaroro. To help fund the 70th Anniversary 
expedition we are making five of the fifteen berths on the expedition
available for Sponsor Team Members. But even if you can't afford to 
spend $50,000 for the experience of a lifetime (and a hefty tax 
deduction), there's still a lot you can do to help us make this 
expedition happen.

Here's where things stand:

Our original plan was for a mission aboard Nai'a, the Fiji-based 120-
foot ship we've used on three previous trips to Nikumaroro.  The 
funding required for that expedition, which would have given us 
twenty-one days at the island, proved to be more than we could raise 
in time to meet the January payment deadline.  After exploring a 
number of different options, we've now worked out an agreement with 
our friends at Nai'a Cruises for a somewhat shorter, more economical 
voyage that still gives us seventeen days at Nikumaroro -- but the 
$162,000 balance of the ship charter must be paid by April 3rd.  
We'll, of course, need to raise additional funding to cover airfares, 
equipment, etc., but the priority right now is to meet that $162,000 
goal by April 3rd.

As presently planned, the expedition team will depart Los Angeles on 
July 12 arriving at Nadi International Airport, Fiji on July 14.  
Transferring to the nearby port of Lautoka, we'll board Nai'a for the 
1,000-mile, 5-day voyage to Nikumaroro.  Archaeological operations on 
Niku will focus on the Seven Site -- the "castaways' campsite"
location we began excavating in 2001.  The goal there will be to 
determine whether objects or remains are present which reveal the 
identity of the castaway(s) who died there. On July 24 we'll 
celebrate Amelia's 110th  birthday at the very spot where she may 
have passed her 40th.  Further excavations in the abandoned village 
will look for more airplane parts in the same area where artifacts 
were found by the 2003 team which we suspect are "heat shields" from 
the Electra's cabin.

On August 4 the expedition will depart Niku for the 3-day, 600-mile 
trip to Apia, Samoa where the team will board a commercial flight 
back to Fiji and from there, home to the U.S., arriving back in Los 
Angles on August 9.

To help fund this expedition we are making five of the fifteen berths 
aboard Nai'a available for Sponsor Team Members -- individuals who 
will make a pledge of at least $50,000 to TIGHAR for the privilege of 
participating in this historic expedition. Sponsor Team Members must 
be at least 21 years of age (no maximum age limit), in good health, 
and be approved by me.  TIGHAR members will, of course, be given 
first consideration.  As of today - March 10 - one of the Sponsor 
Team Member spots is spoken for.  There are four left.

Obviously, the more money we can raise from other contributions, the 
less we'll have to rely on finding Sponsor Team Members.  To start 
things off, TIGHAR member Jim Thompson, our Global Information 
Systems (GIS) specialist on the Earhart Project Advisory Board 
(EPAC), has put up a $500 challenge grant.  Jim will match the first 
$500 donated by subscribers to the Earhart Forum.

You can make your contribution on line at https://www.tighar.org/
cardform.html
or you can phone us at 302-994-4410 with your credit card information
or fax it to us at 302-994-7945
or send a check, payable to TIGHAR, to 2812 Fawkes Drive, Wilmington,
DE 19808

Corporate and individual sponsors will be recognized (but only if 
they want to be) on a special Sponsors Page on the TIGHAR website. 
For corporate contributions of $1,000 or more we'll include a link to 
the company website.

If you are interested in becoming a Sponsor Team Member please 
contact me by email at tigharic@mac.com or by phone at (302) 994-4410.

LTM
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:14:16
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: Pacific maps

For Gary LaPook

Thanks for the link to the map collection.

George Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who loved to look at maps!
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:48:16
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: Carey's diary

James Carey's diary added a "you were there" dynamic to the Itasca
operation and provided some real flavor to the crew's sentiment at the time of
Earhart's loss.  Were there any facts as we understand them that were
changed by the information in the diary?  I'm anxiously awaiting the photos.
Thanks for the addition.

Rick J #2751
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:17:43
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Carey's diary

Rick Jones asks:

>Were there any facts as we understand them that were
>changed by the information in the diary?

I'm working on a detailed assessment of the Carey materials and how
they change our understanding of events.  At present, I can see three
main areas.

1. Did Earhart ever say she was encountering "overcast" conditions?
Commander Thompson's later claim that she did is contradicted by the
radio log.  Chief Radioman Bellart's, in a 1973 interview, dismissed
the Thompson's claims that journalists Carey and Hanzlick heard
Earhart say "overcast" because the transmissions were too weak to be
put over the radio room loudspeaker and could only be heard over
headphones.  Now, via the diary, we have Carey himself saying that he
heard Earhart say "sky overcast" and, in an article he wrote
immediately upon returning to Hawaii (soon to be published on the
TIGHAR website), he said that he heard those words over "phones."
Whether Bellarts let Carey borrow his headphones or there was a spare
set and an extra jack in the radio room; Carey's statement that he
heard Earhart say "sky overcast" at 02:48 a.m. and that he heard it
over headphones gives the allegation far greater credibility than it
has ever had before.  If we can now reliably say that Noonan
encountered overcast sky conditions during the early morning hours it
changes the navigation equation.

2.  When was the last in-flight transmission from Earhart received?
The radio log and the after-action reports say 08:43, and that time
has been widely accepted as accurate. But Carey says 08:55, as do the
very first reports from Commander Thompson.  When it was just
Thompson it had to be seen as a mistake that he later corrected.
With Carey's corroboration, and the fact that the original radio log
was clearly altered, it now appears reasonable to conclude that all
or part of the "we are on the line 157/337..." transmission was heard
at 08:55.  It's only 12 minutes, but it is significant given the
amount of excruciatingly detailed parsing that has been done by the
Crashed & Sank theorists to reconstruct the supposed last moments of
the flight.

3.  Who came up with the wildly inaccurate and distorted account of
Earhart's in-flight transmissions that was sent out by the Itasca on
July 4th, and was it an honest mistake or a deliberate effort to
cover up Itasca's culpability in the failed flight?  Carey discloses,
for the first time, that the supposed "complete log" of Earhart
transmissions was concocted by Commander Thompson and his XO, LCD
Baker. Carey also repeats the reasons given to him by the officers
for not simply releasing the radio logs.  We can now compare those
reasons to the actual logs and see that Thompson and Baker were
lying.  It's also clear from the diary that Carey was suspicious that
he was not getting the whole story.  In other words, Carey's diary
confirms that there was, indeed, a conspiracy.  Two Coast Guard
officers conspired to protect their careers by withholding possibly
incriminating records and submitting a sanitized and biased account
instead.

LTM,
Ric

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

see

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Carey_Diary/Careydiary.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:47:01
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Carey diary

Ric,
   Did I send you the transcript or the video interview of Carey's
newspaper companion, Howard Hanzlick?
    Hanzlick gave Carol Osborne his rough notes from about 0200 to
0630am, and many photos of the ship, etc. So far she wont cought them
up, unless I go down to California!
    Recall that Hanzlick returned to the Itasca around 0900 with the
landing party and Carey was in the radio room. Hanzlick says he
peeked over the shoulders of an operator and copied down stuff for
his UP releases. He didn't hear AEs last signals.

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:34:38
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Carey diary

Ron Bright asks:

>Did I send you the transcript or the video interview of Carey's
>newspaper companion, Howard Hanzlick?

Yes, you sent me the video tape.

>Hanzlick gave Carol Osborne his rough notes from about 0200 to
>0630am, and many photos of the ship, etc. So far she wont cough
>them up, unless I go down to California!

Ms. Osborne does not share our standards of ethics in respect to
making historical information and sources publicly available.

>Recall that Hanzlick returned to the Itasca around 0900 with the
>landing party and Carey was in the radio room.

Both Hanzlick and Carey were ashore with the welcoming party and both
returned to the ship at about the same time.

>Hanzlick says he peeked over the shoulders of an operator and
>copied down stuff for his UP releases.

Carey also writes about getting "over the shoulder" information, but
not with respect to Earhart's in-flight messages.  Hanzlick,
regardless of what he may have thought he remembered when he talked
to Osborne, did not file a story alleging to quote the original logs.

>He didn't hear AEs last signals.

Neither Hanzlick nor Carey was aboard to hear any of Earhart's
messages after about 6:15 a.m.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:59:41
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Carey diary

Ron:  I live just about a mile or so from Carol   Chuck Jackson & I
took her to dinner a few years ago [he is a NASA scientist [retired]
friend of mine] .. I invited her to the Hiller airport Coffee shop
one time to a lunch with Tom King, and Jerry [Noonan biographer] &
Chuck Jackson .. and she came to the bowling alley [and met my wife]
to show me some pics I had asked her about.    My point is perhaps
she would meet with Alice and I to discuss the material you are interested in.

Chuck and I believe that,  1. She wants to sell her stuff, not give it away, and
2.  Being 'a woman of the world' she is suspicious of any male attention.   That is why I
mention, 'Alice & I.'    If you can dream up any kind of a scenario
whereby  we can be of help .. i.e. a meeting with Carol ..  We are
ready to help any way we can ..   i.e. Alice will accompany me if
that would be a 'selling point'.   We would invite Carol to our
house, except we are in the final phase of selling it, thus it is
full of packing boxes, etc.  But if she doesn't mind, we'll help any
way we can.    Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:21:19
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      Carey photographs up

I have just mounted a selection of photographs from the Carey
collection on the TIGHAR website, at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Carey_Photos/Careyphotos.html

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:52:17
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Carey photos

Thanks for the interesting photos.  Were photos 9 and 10 shot on the
Itasca?  If so, it is interesting to see that the officers are in
their dress whites, which would be quite a concession for their
guests considering the locale.
I was disappointed to note in photo 3 that the coastal artillery
battery is unattended.  Apparently they weren't expecting any hostile
action.

LTM, who is often unattended
Dennis O. McGee   #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:16:21
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Carey photos

Amazing photos. They put you right there.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:19:17
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Carey's "corroboration" of the 0855 signal

Ron Bright writes:

>You indicate that Carey's diary shows  he "corroborates" that
>the last signal was heard at "0855". Carey could not have himself
>heard this signal or noted it contemporaneously  as he was on
>Howland with the landing party from 6:10 to 9:12.

That is correct. It's hard to say exactly when Carey left and
returned to the ship because the landing party required more than one
boatload, but it is safe to say that neither Carey nor Hanzlick was
aboard when Earhart's final in-flight message was heard.

>Thus like Hanzlick he either copied that time down from one of
>the operators, saw Thompson's msg,  or one of the operators told
>him about it after he returned to the ITASCA. His corroboration was
>not independently made.

I think that's a fair assessment.

>Does he indicate a source in the diary?

All he says is: "Aboard ship got news that at 8:55 am (last heard)
Earhart was believed to have given a sun line position; however, this
without a reference point -- presumed to be Howland."

>We know  a few researchers  used the time of "0855" as the time
>she said "...ARE RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH", separate from the "WE
>ARE ON THE LINE OF POSITION..." This appears in Osborne's book, p.
>290, in the summary matrix. I asked Carol where her cite was, but
>she couldn't recall.

So it is of no use.

>The first appearance I see of 0855 is in Thompsons "estimate
>opinion of the situation" msg sent to COMSF about 6 pm that night,
>2 July. He refers twice to the time:  for example "...have heard no
>signals from Earhart since 0855 this morning..." (p. 50, Radio
>Transcripts) I wonder if this was just a good  "estimate"because he
>was in a hurry to get something off to SF because of all the
>annoying "press situation". Nothing in the orginal logs support
>that time, and the original logs, such as the one Bellarts retained
>do not reflect a signal at 0855.

First let's talk about the original radio logs.  There are, of
course, two.

- We have the "smoothed" (i.e. retyped) version of the log kept by
O'Hare.  It makes no mention at all of the final in-flight transmission.
- We have a copy of the "smoothed" version of the log kept by
Bellarts.  It shows the final in-flight transmission as being heard
08:44-6.
- We have the "raw" version saved by Bellarts.  It shows the entry
prior to Earhart's final in-flight transmission (an unanswered
attempt to contact San Francisco) as occurring at 08:45, but that
entry was later Xed out and 08:43 typed in.  Earhart's final
transmission is logged in as also occurring at 08:43, but that is
also Xed out and a second 08:43 time is entered.

It seems very apparent (to me anyway) that no part of the final
transmission could have occurred at 08:43.  If you're making
chronological entries as events occur, you can't have something
happen at 08:45 and have a later event  happen at 08:43.  Bottom
line:  the original log cannot be correct.

The first appearance of the 08:55 as the time of Earhart's final in-
flight transmission is in Itasca's notification to San Francisco at
19:40 that evening (July 2) in which it is state twice.

The next appearance of the 08:55 time is in Carey's diary entry that
was made sometime later that night.

The next time is a few hours later at 02:05 on the morning of July
3.  Itasca sent Fleet Air Base, Pearl Harbor, the same information it
had sent to San Francisco early that night.
The next time is at 03:00 when Carey files his wire service story.

The first appearance of 08:43 as the time of Earhart's final in-
flight transmission (other than the altered and obviously incorrect
log) is in a wire service story filed by Hanzlik at 15:45 on July 3.
In other words, from 19:40 on the evening of July 2 until 03:00 the
next morning, the time of Earhart's final transmission was
consistently reported by all sources (twice by Itasca and twice by
Carey) as 08:55.  Sometime between 03:00 and 15:45 that afternoon,
the time of the final Earhart transmission was changed to 08:43.  The
next time it was reported was on July 4 when Itasca released the
supposed "exact text" of Earhart's transmissions (this was "complete
log" cooked up buy Thompson and Baker).  Now the time became 08:44.
Finally, in Thompson's "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight" report,
the time became 08:44-6 as shown in the smoothed log.

I think the sequence of events is pretty clear.  The first part of
the last transmission came in sometime after 08:45 but both operators
missed it and it had to be inserted in the log out of sequence.  To
maintain the appearance of chronology, the entry was recorded as
occurring at 08:43 and earlier entries were altered to support that
fiction.  The second part of the final transmission probably came in
at 08:55 and they had to cram it onto the same line with the first
part.  People who were there and heard it over the loudspeaker
(Ensign Sutter, the Communications Officer; and LCDR Frank Kenner)
probably noted, and later relayed, the time of the last transmission
to others (including Thompson and Carey). Hanzlik got his 08:43,
either first or second hand, from the altered raw log.  Thompson's
08:44, and later 08:44-6, came from the smoothed log.

None of it really matters much in the greater scheme of things, but
it does show how confused things were aboard the cutter and how many
times the story changed.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:35:37
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Carey's corroboration of 0855

Ric, do the logs indicate what frequency the calls were made on? I'm
referring to 0843 or 4 or whatever and 0855. Is it possible there
were two separate calls?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:36:53
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Carey photos

Dennis McGee asks:

>Were photos 9 and 10 shot on the Itasca?  If so, it is interesting
>to see that the officers are in their dress whites, which would be
>quite a concession for their guests considering the locale.

Yes.  In fact, the officers and noncoms are in whites in all of
Carey's photos, but that is probably because he only took photos on
special occasions.

>I was disappointed to note in photo 3 that the coastal artillery
>battery is unattended.  Apparently they weren't expecting any
>hostile action.

That cannon is a surprise.  I can only assume that it's a relic from
a 19th century (or earlier) shipwreck.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:58:45
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Carey's corroboration of 0855

Alan Caldwell asks:

>Ric, do the logs indicate what frequency the calls were made on?
>I'm referring to 0843 or 4 or whatever and 0855. Is it possible
>there were two separate calls?

The logs are on the TIGHAR website.  There were indeed two separate
calls logged on the same line.  Both were heard on 3105.  Nothing was
heard on 6210.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:19:48
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: the cannon

>That cannon is a surprise.  I can only assume that it's a relic from a
>19th century (or earlier) shipwreck.

I had the same impression. Surprise, then my assumption the young,
slightly bored colonists had run across it (having been more or less
dumped somewhere long ago), dragged the thing off and painted it.

What a barren looking spot. Meanwhile I've never seen so many
pictures of Howland Island at one time. Thanks!

ltm, who liked the odd snap now and then
William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:20:10
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Carey's corroboration

Thanks, Ric. I was pretty certain the second one was NOT heard on
6210 but had to ask. I have always believed 6210 could not easily be
heard within a close range. 3105 being just the opposite. Opinion,
opinion, opinion, guys. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:50:05
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Carey's corroboration

One quick question re the Bellart log. On line 44-6 at the start
reflects "LSNIN 6210 KCS" .
Is this Galten "listening " or is this Earhart's final comment?

R.Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:34:39
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Carey's corroboration

Ron Bright asks:

>One quick question re the Bellart log. On line 44-6 at the start
>reflects "LSNIN 6210 KCS" .
>Is this Galten "listening " or is this Earhart's final comment?

I don't know any way to say for sure, but I've always taken it to
mean Galten listening. Nobody ever claimed that she said that and the
other times in the log where that same notation is used it clearly
refers to the operator "lisnin" for signals.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:50:01
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Carey's corroboration

For Alan .. who said ..  "I have always believed 6210 could not
easily be heard within a close range."

In the DC-3 days, we called Towers regularly on the Day freq. 6210,
for landing clearance. [and LF range stations when we wanted something ..

The only difference between 3105 and 6210, was that the former was
more reliable for distance at night than 6210.    ..  and visa versa ....   Cheers,   RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:52:45
From:         Pat
Subject:      More Carey stuff

I've put up the despatches and some other things at this URL:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Carey_Article/Careyarticle.html

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:33:07
From:         George Werth
Subject:      The Final Hours: Amelia Earhart's Last Flight

PBS station KQED presented the Subject program on
20 MAR 07 as part of Pledge Programming.

I was, quite frankly, disappointed even if I weren't
a TIGHAR Member. It sounded like a CNN newscast!

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:00:24
From:         Lee Boyle
Subject:      Re: More Carey stuff

PaT,

I still can not find it.

Lee Boyle
********************************
Here's what happens: when the line is too long for your email, it
"wraps" -- breaks in two and goes to the next line, often adding
spaces and all sorts of garbage that keep the address from rendering
true. Try this:

http://tinyurl.com/2wgnp2

This is a utility website that allows me to paste in the full URL,
and generates a short version. It should click right through.

Pat

=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:14:02
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Most direct route to Carey photographs

1. Go to TIGHAR Home Page
2. Click on Earhart Project
3. Under NEWS click on Major Archival Find: The Carey
     Diaries
4. In Document Index click on Item 36: The Carey
     Photographs

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who never beat around the bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:31:23
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: More Carey stuff

Page 9, second paragraph. "up to 9:55 when the last message had been
heard"

There's many corrected typos in this letter, the reference to 9:55 is
not one of them. So are you assuming an unmarked typo?

Thanks
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:31:47
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: More Carey stuff

Don Iwanski asks:

>Page 9, second paragraph. "up to 9:55 when the last message had been heard"
>
>There's many corrected typos in this letter, the reference to 9:55
>is not one of them. So are you assuming an unmarked typo?

No.  As Carey says several times in the article, he is using Honolulu
time.  In 1937, Hawaiian Standard time was Greenwich minus 10.5
hours.  Itasca was using Greenwich minus 11.5 hours, so Honolulu time
was one hour later than Itasca time.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:47:09
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Leo, what time is it?

In reviewing my notes of my first telephone interview of Howard
Hanzlick on 18 Aug 2001, I found that Howard referred to two key
times. (Paraphrasing)

     0844  "AE radioed her line of position as 157-337.."

     0855   "We are running north and south".

     Hanzlick said he was  referring to his rough notes taken in
shorthand that morning based on what he copied from one
(unidentified) radio operator. [ We know Hanzlick didn't get back to
the ITASCA until 0912 or so]. The significance here is that one of
the operators heard and noted "0855".
      Comment: I have not seen his notes to confirm Hanzlick's time
as Osborne will not release them. Copies of his rough notes were
given to Long, then to Nauticos. Long uses 0843 as the last signal.

    Another reference to the 0855 time comes from Don Dwiggins book,
Hollywood Pilot. Dwiggins wrote that "Hanzlick and Carey and Bellarts
heard her..We are on the line of position..." at 0844." [ A
fictionalized drama, as this can't be true either]

But he continues, then "eleven minutes later, at 8:55 am, a NAVY
RADIOMAN AT ANOTHER RADIO ON HOWLAND ISLAND HEARD HER CRY
OUT :HEADING NORTH AND SOUTH".(sic)  The navy radio man must have
been Cipriani, but no cites.

The Howland log indicates that at "0859 BATTERIES WEAK VOICE ON 3105
CAME IN AT END OF TRANSMISSION". Did Ciprani hear the "last
transmisson"?

Dwiggins wrote that the last broadcast by Amelia, "ironically, was
missed by the ITASCA; Bellarts was tring to contact her on 6210 and
she was transmitting on 3105.

What does all this mean, maybe not much, except someone at one time
recorded the time at 0855 as the last transmission. And Thompson used
that time.

LTM,

Ron B
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:32:00
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: Leo, what time is it?

Ron Bright says:

>In reviewing my notes of my first telephone interview of Howard
>Hanzlick on 18 Aug 2001, I found that Howard referred to two key
>times. (Paraphrasing)
>
>  0844  "AE radioed her line of position as 157-337.."
>
>  0855   "We are running north and south".

That's very interesting Ron.  Thanks.  I'm working up a new Research
Bulletin that addresses this whole question.

>The Howland log indicates that at "0859 BATTERIES WEAK VOICE ON
>3105 CAME IN AT END OF TRANSMISSION". Did Ciprani hear the "last
>transmisson"?

Very possibly.

>What does all this mean, maybe not much, except someone at one time
>recorded the time at 0855 as the last transmission. And Thompson
>used that time.

And Jim Carey used that time. It's very apparent from the log that
08:43 cannot be correct.

Of course it's not all that important, except as yet another
illustration of how "accepted wisdom" in the Earhart case turns out
to be wrong.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:35:25
From:         Pat
Subject:      Even more Carey stuff

I have put up the rest of the pages of the Carey diary.

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Carey_Diary/
Careydiary.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/2ozofh

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:36:48
From:         Pat
Subject:      Website may be inaccessible

The TIGHAR website may be inaccessible off and on this weekend as we
are having some upgrade work done to it. If you can't load it, wait a
while and try again. This is on the server side, not the TIGHAR side,
so we don't have complete control over the timing, but by Monday we
should be 100%.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:01:07
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Leo, what time is it?

The Howland log should be one hour later than the Itasca log, due to them
being on Honolulu time and the Itasca being at 11.5 time zone. Cipriani's
last message would correspond to a 0759 time on the Itasca.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:21:14
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: Leo, what time is ti?

Randy says:

>The Howland log should be one hour later than the Itasca log, due to them
>being on Honolulu time and the Itasca being at 11.5 time zone. Cipriani's
>last message would correspond to a 0759 time on the Itasca.

Good point.  Cipriani was apparently referring to the Earhart message
logged by Galten at 07:58.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:10:47
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: What time is it, Leo?

Ric and Randy,
Good catch Randy,
If the Howland log was an hour ahead of Itasca, we should recheck the
times tbat Howland, Yau Fai Lum, heard what he thought was AE to
corrolate it with other post lost signals. Was Baker  on the same
time as Howland?

LTM,
Ron
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:11:56
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: What time is it, Leo?

Ron Bright asks:

>If the Howland log was an hour ahead of Itasca, we should recheck
>the times tbat Howland, Yau Fai Lum, heard what he thought was AE
>to corrolate it with other post lost signals. Was Baker  on the
>same time as Howland?

That has all been done (many times). It's all in the book.  Baker was
on Greenwich minus 11.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:12:46
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Book sales

Has the Naval Institute Press released any current figures on sales
of "Finding Amelia?"

The Barnes & Noble sales rank is currently 16,385 and the amazon.com
sales rank is 80,779.

Has TIGHAR acquired any new members as the result of the book? Two of
New York Public Library's 6 copies are checked out, so people are
reading it.

LTM,
Karen Hoy

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

It's hard to tell if it's the book directly, but yes, we have had
some new members.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:15:57
From:         Jerry Anne Jurenka
Subject:      AE Radios

I haven't written in a long time and barely get to read the daily
postings so am very far behind on what's going on on the Forum so
please don't be too hard on me. I have been more attentive lately,
knowing you are discussing AE's radios.

I got a new book this month called Amelia Earhart's Radio by Paul
Rafford, Jr. and published by The Paragon Agency. He joined Pan Am as
a Flight Radio Officer in 1940 and flew as a crew member until 1946.
After transferring to Communications Management, he continued to fly
as a technical consultant before transferring to the Manned
Spaceflight Program in 1963, retiring in 1988. He is now 87but his
publisher says he still has another book in him.

He says, "While most people wonder what happened to Amelia Earhart,
we Pan Am'ers wonder what happened to one of our greatest navigators.
We know very well he didn't just get lost. Fred Noonan had flown the
Pacific more times than any other navigator in history and the
navigational demands on Noonan during the world flight were no
greater than when he navigated the Pacific Clippers. After all, he
had three radio direction finders to lead him to Howland, while on
the Clippers he had only two."

The book is fascinating with great attention to detail and tests he
conducted. All you who speak technical radio should find real meat
here to fill in some gaps that I have seen discussed. I have not read
it yet but have just scanned through it. There is a section about
approaching Howland where he used Cipriani's log along with the
Itasca's logs from the Smithsonian. In the log where it states "we
are on the line 157 337 . . .running north and south", he states
"However, after careful inspection, I believe that the entry is a log
keepers's blunder. He starts by quoting Earhart's actual
transmission:  KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337 WL REPT MSG
WE WL REPT THIS ON 6210 KCS WAIT. He then tries to explain her
statement by adding his own words. However, he forgets to write the
'N ES S' after 'RUNNING', so adds it later on the top line just above
'ON':  KHAQQ XMISSION WE ARE RUNNING ON LINE LSNIN 6210 KCS/"

I don't know if that is important or not: whether she actually said
they were running north and south or whether the log keeper just
added his own interpretation but it seems very plausible.

Just wanted you to be aware of this new book because I think it has
lots of details that may be missing in the TIGHAR research and I am
so proud of TIGHAR that I want it to have the best info available.

Blue skies . . .
Jerry Anne Jurenka
TIGHAR #0772ES
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:25:17
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: Book sales

Karen Hoy asks:

>Has the Naval Institute Press released any current figures on sales
>of "Finding Amelia?"

We know this much - the original 5,000-copy printing was sold out
shortly after the first of the year and sales of the second printing
remain strong.  We're of course hoping to see an increase in sales
after the Associated Press story comes out.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:39:31
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: AE Radios

Jerry Anne Jurenka quotes Paul Rafford's book as saying:

>In the log where it states "we are on the line 157 337 . . .running
>north and south", he states "However, after careful inspection, I
>believe that the entry is a log keepers's blunder. He starts by
>quoting Earhart's actual transmission:  KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON
>THE LINE 157 337 WL REPT MSG WE WL REPT THIS ON 6210 KCS WAIT. He
>then tries to explain her statement by adding his own words.
>However, he forgets to write the 'N ES S' after 'RUNNING', so adds
>it later on the top line just above 'ON':  KHAQQ XMISSION WE ARE
>RUNNING ON LINE LSNIN 6210 KCS/"

The log is undoubtedly messed up but I disagree with Rafford's
interpretation.  The whole issue of what Earhart said in the last
transmission heard by Itasca, and when she said it, is a fascinating
one, and there is MUCH more to it than Rafford seems to be aware of.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:33:24
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: AE radios

Whatever the merits of Rafford's interpretations, he seems like
someone who might have some insights into or even real information
about Fred Noonan.  Is Jerry Hamilton on top of this?

LTM
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:34:08
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Nikumaroro May Be Innundated By Rising Sea Level

In http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0920-cu.html
it is reported that the melting of the Greenland ice
sheet would raise sea level by around 20 feet.
On 1 NOV 99, Tom King reports the maximum altitude
of Nikumaroro to be around 7 meters
The 2007 expedition may be the last chance to find
AE & FN's bones -- if they're there.
How about those "Road Apples?"

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:24:57
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro may be inundated by rising sea level

For George Werth

You got it, George.  We've already (over the last 19 years we've been
going there) seen sea level rise affecting Niku.  The water doesn't
just rise, it's that the storm surges come farther inland as the
water goes up, so they eat away at the island.  On Niku this is
especially evident along the SW side -- normally the lee shore, but
it's where the nasty big sou'westers come ashore.  Unfortunately for
us, the village is on the lee shore.  We've lost a number of house
sites on the west side of the Government Station, including "Noonan's
Tavern," where we found aircraft aluminum in '89.

The loss of coastal archaeological sites is one of the largely non-
discussed minor tragedies of global warming (whatever you want to
think its causes are).  I've heard some horror stories about
cemeteries washing away in (or from) Alaska, for example.  The fact
that we're going to have to find a place to move everyone from
Kiribati and the other Pacific atoll nations is even sadder.

We're probably not going to lose the Seven Site anytime soon, since
it's on one of the higher points on the island -- though all it would
take is one good tsunami.

LTM (who sympathizes with her colleague, Mother Nature)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:18:44
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: AE radios

>Whatever the merits of Rafford's interpretations, he seems like
>someone who might have some insights into or even real information
>about Fred Noonan.  Is Jerry Hamilton on top of this?

Paul Rafford has been a fixture in the pantheon of Japanese Capture
Characters for at least 25 years.  He was first proclaimed to be an
Earhart radio and navigation expert in the classic Vince Loomis/Jeff
Ethell book "Amelia Earhart - The Final Story" (Random House, 1985).
Rafford's great breakthrough discovery was that Earhart had received
a message while in Lae containing weather information for Nauru and
the  (unsolicited) news that there was a beacon light at Nauru that
could be seen for 34 miles.  To Rafford, this was forehead-slapping
proof that Earhart's planned route of flight included a dogleg over
Nauru, from which Noonan offset his navigation to the north and,
failing to spot Howland, doubled back and ended up at Mili in the
Marshalls where he and Earhart were ... well, you know.

Rafford didn't go to work for Pan Am until 1940. He has genuine
experience with Pan Am Pacific Division procedures in the 1940s,
which he has written about at length. Anything he knows about Fred
Noonan is folklore passed along by coworkers.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:56:08
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE radios

Tom, the only problem I see is Rafford's supposed comment regarding
all the DF capability Noonan had. Should have had, yes but actually
he had none. that makes the comparison between his vast Pacific
experience and the Lae-Howland flight nonsense.

I'm still having difficulty evaluating the effect of "overcast" in
the message reported in the Carey papers. That was a one time comment
that doesn't tell us how long they were in overcast conditions or
when they came out of it.

I think our initial feeling that it meant they had no celestial over
that last five hours might have been an over reaction.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:57:09
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: AE radios

I talked to Rafford a number of years ago and got the Noonan relevant
information which he was willing to share at the time. Most was
second hand stories. I am going to get his book to see if there is
any additional insight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:35:53
From:         Jerry Anne Jurenka
Subject:      For Jerry Hamilton

Thanks, Jerry, for your interest. The book is quite well done and no
where in it does Rafford expound any theory that does not coincide
with TIGHAR. Of course, I have't read all of it yet but  have scanned
it fairly thoroughly. I can't argue his points but think you will
find some new points to ponder.

LTM (who always kept an open mind)
Jerry Anne Jurenka
TIGHAR #0772ES
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:03:24
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro may be inundated

Tom, How do we know the Island isn't sinking ? From what you
already said the large storms beat up the Islands and water
going out takes soil with it when it moves. Case in point: the
Beach areas in Oceanside Ca alternate thru the years with the
Beach being  walkable about 100-200 yards out one year and 5-8
years later being only 10'-20 ft to the waters edge. All caused
by the Currents says the Army Corps of Engineers.

Jimbo
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:47:52
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro may be inundated

>From Jim Preston
>
>Tom, How do we know the Island isn't sinking ?

Whatever's happening with global warming, whether or not it's here to
stay (we don't know) or anthropogenic (not too likely, never mind
devastating pollution, wanton stripping of the biosphere and so on
make up another sad tale altogether and could still kill off billions
of vulnerable people in a heartbeat) it's rather much a lock that
natural weather and solar cycles will sooner or later bring about
thorough scourings of low lying places like Nikumaroro every few
centuries. So yeah, there's an inevitable, ever-increasing sense of
urgency to looking for artifacts which may have been left there by AE
and FN.

There are reasons why places like Howland Island have given up no
more than a few trail and terrace remains from the pre-European era.

When TIGHAR first set foot on Gardner there were still more or less
intact structures in the village. These have all since been blown
down and a chunk of the site has washed away forever, which does make
me think, maybe they were wise to abandon the colony back in the
early 60s, forget dodgy water lenses.

Meanwhile I do sometimes wonder of what the NZ survey party might
have found if they'd been looking.

LTM, who kept her waders and umbrella handy.

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:49:14
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro may be inundated

For Jim Preston

Sinking as opposed to the sea level rising?  Randy could speak to
this with far more authority than I, but my impression is that the
volcanoes on which coral atolls typically develop do naturally
subside, and the coral grows up as the mountains sink.  That's one
ongoing dynamic; sea level rise as the icecaps melt and dump more
water into the sea is another.

LTM (who gets a sinking feeling, anyhow)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:49:44
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro may be inundated

For William Webster-Garman

William, you said:

<<There are reasons why places like Howland Island have given up no
more than a few trail and terrace remains from the pre-European era.>>

Do you have any data on pre-European trail and terrace remains on
Howland?  I've never found anything on that island's archaeology
except a magazine article recounting a weird story about it being the
burial place of great navigators, whose spirits got upset about
Earhart's landing there and hence sent her awry.

LTM (who's pretty spirited herself)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:53:56
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      For Jerry Hamilton

http://www.specialbooks.com/docs/AERadioz.pdf

Heres an online version of Paul Rafford book if interested.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:44:31
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro may be inundated

Tom King wrote,

>Do you have any data on pre-European trail and terrace remains on Howland?

Only this sort of thing,

"The presence of this rat, kou trees and a few archaeological sites,
such as stone paths and pits in which food plants might have been
cultivated, suggest that the island was known and visited by
Polynesians."

http://www.janeresture.com/howland/ (Jane doesn't cite her source but
I've yet to catch her making stuff up from whole cloth)

Also see http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/um-hwlnd.html

Given that the latest eyewitness description of Howland I've seen,
written on the spot about 7 years ago, describes the whole island as
"bulldozed" (erm, don't ask?), I'd be hard put to guess what might be
left.

LTM, who'd rather clean up with a paint brush than a bulldozer.

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:13:14
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Howland buildings

After looking at the Carey photographs, I was left wondering what had become
of those small buildings on Howland. The current thread seems to be touching
on this. Am I to understand that we don't know what happened to them? Or
were all of those structures bulldozed after the search for AE ended? The
equipment that was there to grade the runways could perhaps have been used
to demolish the buildings.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:48:42
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland buildings

The buildings in the Carey photo (which I'm almost certain were
associated with the new airfield), along with the string of shacks
and tents on the western shore called "Itascatown", survived until
Japanese planes thoroughly bombed the island shortly after Pearl
Harbor (this included putting some craters on the air strips). A
Japanese submarine showed up a day or so later to finish things off
with some shelling. Two colonists died in the initial attack, the
other two hid out in a ditch and were picked up by the Navy more than
a month later, told to keep their mouths shut and shipped back to
Hawaii. Marines were apparently on the island (off and on anyway)
until the end of the war, when all was left to the sea birds, rats
and a large population of feral cats which weren't "removed" until the
1980s. Funny thing, although Howland Island was at times seen by the
US government as a possible way station for trans-Pacific navigation
and is known to the public mostly as the place AE and FN couldn't
find, I'm unaware of any fixed wing aircraft ever having landed
there. Meanwhile the US Dept of Interior has complained that, despite
the no trespassing signs, helicopters from large industrial fishing
boats regularly land on the island.

LTM, who knew when to leave the party
William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:50:18
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: More Carey stuff

Is there some secret about getting those pages? I haven't been able
to get them using the addresses.

Ron B right
PS Will they be in the next Tighar Track?

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

No secret at all. Sometimes older mail programs don't transfer links
very well.

Go to www.tighar.org. Click on the Earhart Project logo link. That
will take you to the Earhart Project home page. Under NEWS click on
Major Archival Find: The Carey Diaries. That will take you to the
Documents Index page. Select the item you want to see in the list and
click that. That will take you down the page to the description of
the item. Click on the title next to the description and that will
take you to the thing you want to see.

The Tiny URL for the Documents Index is:

http://tinyurl.com/26jsrz

No, we won't be putting all this stuff in TIGHAR Tracks; there's way
too much. Some, yes.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:42:56
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Howland buildings

The buildings were bombed by the Japanese during the beginning days of WWII,
and injured one of the colonists.  Since evacuation of those colonists, only
brief visits to Howland have been made and no semi-permanent habitation by
man has existed on Howland.  The lighthouse was repaired just after WWII,
and yearly visits were made by the Coast Guard.  Howland is now a federal
sanctuary for birds, IIRC.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:43:53
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro may be inundated

Right you are!  The sea level changes far outstrips the subsidence curves of
the deep ocean, where changes are measured in feet per million years.  In
fact, the flat-top features of most atolls are due to the current sea level
stands, and most have terraces offshore reflecting the lowered sea levels of
the ice ages.  The living coral lives in the shallow water levels, and when
it dies, it forms coral rock formations.  Wave action erodes the coral rock
formations when the coral is exposed at the surface.  Before the ice ages,
the sea level was higher than today.  During that time, the coral now
exposed was living and created the current features we see.

>Sinking as opposed to the sea level rising?  Randy could speak to
>this with far more authority than I, but my impression is that the
>volcanoes on which coral atolls typically develop do naturally
>subside, and the coral grows up as the mountains sink.  That's one
>ongoing dynamic; sea level rise as the icecaps melt and dump more
>water into the sea is another.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:45:43
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Nikumaroro may be inundated

We don't know that the island is not sinking, but there are multiple
long-term tide gauges out there to see if the sea is rising.  To see
if the island is sinking, you need a benchmark that you can measure
from, and a frame of reference to measure against.  GPS satellites
will give you the frame of reference.  A proper benchmark would
involve drilling into the reef itself, or maybe much further down
into volcanic rock.  There is a "sinkhole" on the island (I forget
the technical term) so it is possible that parts of the platform that
the island rests upon are settling.  Changes in glaciers and even
"solid" ground after earthquakes have been measured from satellites,
but these are changes of several feet in a short (less than 1 year)
period of time.  I think people are speculating on changes of a meter
(40 inches) in the next century, which is a considerably slower rate
of fall.  There are "raised reef" island, such as Henderson, in the
Pacific, so atolls can rise as well as sink.  I suspect that you
could measure if the island were sinking, but it would be difficult.
Atolls do change their configuration, and this is historically
documented for Oeno.  An Atoll like Niku is a loose pile of coral and
rubble, held together by roots and gravity, that sits on a much more
solid platform of consolidated coral.  It would not take much of a
sea rise to salt poison all the vegetation on Niku, and turn it into
a version of Kingman reef.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR# 2263 LTM (love that makatea)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:27:57
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Finding planes not easy

For those who think we should mount an ocean search for Amelia's 
Electra I suggest it is not easy even when the general site is known. 

Below is a good example. A new search is being organized -- in Lake 
Michigan for a plane they haven't found in 57 years. Some debris and 
body parts have been found but not the crash site.

Alan

HOLLAND, Mich.---  At the time, it was the nation's deadliest 
commercial airliner crash.

All 58 people on board Northwest Airlines Flight 2501 died when the 
DC-4 plummeted into Lake Michigan on June 23, 1950, en route from New 

York to Minneapolis and later, Seattle. The plane went down after 
encountering strong winds, lightening and turbulence so heavy it 
convinced three other pilots taking off from Detroit to turn back.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:01:32
From:         Bill Hillier
Subject:      Electra and Lodestar

An interesting article on the Lockheed Electra and Lodestar appears
in the May 2007 issue of World War II Magazine. The author , Sam
McGowan,tracks  the two aircraft from their original designs in the
days before WWII through the War years and all the modifications that
made them into very useful additions to the air arms of the US and
other nations. Only brief mention is made of Amelia Earhart as
"...famed--but not so skilled..."
He does say that the range of the Electra made it popular with many
aviators who were seeking to break records.

Bill Hillier 2264

LTM Was rather rangey herself and liked anything else that was rangey

=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:40:18
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      AE's bones

Did Fred Kilts ever say who he was talking to when he learned of the
bone find on Gardner?

Seems odd that someone on that island would have remembered the
details that were 9 years later related to Kilts e.g. finding shoes -
"American style and size 9 narrow", finding a bottle - a "cognac
bottle"; Gallagher only called it a "certain bottle" and a "bottle"
in his direct communications and not until Tarawa responded that they
had recovered the "Benedictine bottle" did it become something other
than a run-of-the-mill bottle.

To recall such details with regard to finding a skeleton on the
island leads me to believe that Gallagher didn't just dismiss (as
implied in the way the communications with H.Q. ended) his theory
that what was found was AE and not someone else.  For the details to
have survived 9 years, survived Gallagher's death (which was itself a
trumatic event for the islanders), 5 years of war, the setting up of
the Loran station, etc. something else was keeping the memory rather
fresh.  I wonder if another interview with those who were there at
the time would shed any light on this subject?

Ted
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:40:56
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Electra and Lodestar

Dear Mr. Bill Hillier,
Thank you for sharing your interesting information about this article
planned for publication!

  About the brief mentioning of AE (by the article's author)  as "not
so skilled" , i can only express  (again!... )  my disagreement with
this manner of "postulating" the statements that are just popular
"urban myths".
   Doing this, the authors participates  in unfair "canonization" of
such  myths based in fact just on a few claims of a few persons, the
historic credibility and objectivity of whose opinion is highly
disputable...(the best example is Elinor Smith - Earhart's strong
rival who apparently never missed any opportunity - for decades - to
share to media some derogatory comment about Earhart's skills... and
it all was repeated, totally uncritically, already hundreds of times
probably - even in AE's bios).      When the professional and
knowledgeable aviation authors are doing this, it is especially sad...

   But anyway - again, thanks for your interesting info.

    Kind Regards - LTM, Marcus Lind
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:20:16
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Amelia's skills

>From Marcus Lind
>
>About the brief mentioning of AE (by the article's author)  as "not so
>skilled" , i can only express  (again!... )  my disagreement with this
>manner of "postulating" the statements that are just popular "urban
>myths". ...

I received an e-mail yesterday from a friend of a friend of the man
who wrote it (see below).

It's a boy's-eye view of one of Amelia's famous wrecks, was not
written contemporaneously with the event, and may be shaded by
years of re-telling and re-thinking what he saw, so it needs
to be taken with a couple of grains of salt.

The effort to rank Amelia as a pilot among the pilots of her
generation seems to me to be an almost unavoidable by-product
of immersing ourselves in her life story as much as we do.
It is not a scientific endeavor.  Everyone uses their own
calculus to evaluate the facts (number and severity of
crashes, time in type, number of records attempted,
number gained, anecdotes from passengers or witnesses,
etc.).  In the end, I think everyone has the right to
form and express their own opinion of Amelia's skills and
say where they think she should be ranked among her peers,
both male and female.

I read a wonderful book, Jean Batten: Garbo of the Skies,
while I was in NZ.  She did some amazing things in her
six years of stunt flying.  Her last airplane is hanging
in the Aucklnad airport.  Some info about her:

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/jean_batten_bio.html

A funny, sad, tragic, extraordinary life.  She died in
obscurity and was buried in a pauper's grave.  A NZ reporter
tracked down the details and the grave site and tells the
story in the book I read.

I'd book Jean above Amelia in pure piloting and navigation
skills, but clearly she ranks below her in fame, number of
records attempted, etc.

And none of this fascinating debate about skills will get us
closer to finding the things we seek.  It's just part of
the scuttlebutt that we share on the journey.

The story from the boy witness:

>From: "Bill Burgess" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2007  05:35:32 PM America/Los_Angeles
>Subject: Amelia Earhart
>
>I saw Amelia Earhart crash in an autogyro at the Abilene, Texas airport in
>about 1935-36. I was seven or eight years old and was spending the summer
>with my grandparents. My grandfather took me to the airport to see her.
>She made her running takeoff toward power lines that ran left to right
>across her pathway. She was taking off from near a hangar and not a
>runway. She miscalculated her takeoff run and pulled up, apparently
>thinking that she could clear the power lines. However; she hit the power
>lines and came almost straight down; hitting three point. The rotor blade
>collapsed, and Amelia climbed out of the cockpit. Almost immediately the
>autogyro was stripped of its canvas covering by souvenir takers. It was a
>very impressive event for a young boy, and it is indelibly imprinted in my
>mind. (This is a true story,--not a figment of my imagination.)
						Marty
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:33:49
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: AE's bones

Ted Campbell asks,

>Did Fred Kilts ever say who he was talking to when he learned of
>the bone find on Gardner?

That's Floyd Kilts and all we know is what was published in the San
Diego newspaper.  All he said about his source was that it was a
"native."

>Seems odd that someone on that island would have remembered the
>details that were 9 years later related to Kilts e.g. finding shoes
>- "American style and size 9 narrow", finding a bottle - a "cognac
>bottle"; Gallagher only called it a "certain bottle" and a "bottle"
>in his direct communications and not until Tarawa responded that
>they had recovered the "Benedictine bottle" did it become something
>other than a run-of-the-mill bottle.

Yes, research has shown that some of the details in Kilts' story are
quite accurate. Conversely, research has also shown that many of his
details are flat wrong.  So what do we do with the details that we
can neither confirm nor deny?  That's the classic problem with
anecdotal accounts.

>To recall such details with regard to finding a skeleton on the
>island leads me to believe that Gallagher didn't just dismiss (as
>implied in the way the communications with H.Q. ended) his theory
>that what was found was AE and not someone else.  For the details
>to have survived 9 years, survived Gallagher's death (which was
>itself a trumatic event for the islanders), 5 years of war, the
>setting up of the Loran station, etc. something else was keeping
>the memory rather fresh.

From the time Gallagher first learned about the bones in September
1940, until February 1941 when he received a message from Dr. Isaac
in Tarawa saying that the bones were those of an "elderly male of
Polynesian race" he was of the opinion that the remains might be
those of Amelia Earhart.  There's no way to know for sure how
seriously he took Isaac's dismissal.  Hoodless made his examination
of the bones and wrote his report in April 1941 but there is no
indication that his findings were communicated to Gallagher before he
left Niku in June 1941 to go to Fiji.  So it could be that for nearly
a year the prevailing wisdom on Niku was that the bones were
Earhart's.  If we can believe the note Gallagher made to the file
while he was in Fiji (and I know of no reason not to), Gallagher no
longer believed the bones might be Earhart's by the time he returned
to Niku in September 1941.  But he returned a very sick man and died
within days.  In other words, in island folklore, the bones remained
Earhart's.

>I wonder if another interview with those who were there at the
>time would shed any light on this subject?

As far as we know, the only person still alive who was on the island
in 1940/41 is Emily Sikuli whom we interviewed extensively in 1999.
Personally, I don't think there is anything to be gained from
flogging her memory again.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:57:13
From:         George Werth
Subject:      The Curse of Howland Island

Realizing that the TIGHAR 'Old Timers' may have read this before; nevertheless your
attention is directed to:
>http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/17-4/howl.html<

If that URL doesn't work: type 'The Curse of Howland Island' in your
Search Engine.

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who always said, "IF is a little word
       with a long tale!"
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:00:47
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: AE's bones

>From Ric
>
>As far as we know, the only person still alive who was on the island in
>1940/41 is Emily Sekuli whom we interviewed extensively in 1999.
>Personally, I don't think there is anything to be gained from flogging
>her memory again.

Roger and I interviewed her again in 2003.  These are my notes
from that interview:

Visit with Emily:

She came to Fiji with Tofiga after H.S. in Tarawa to study nursing.  Met
her husband and stayed here ever since.  She and her daughter both seemed
to be touched by the presents from TIGHAR.  Emily took out a handkerchief
and dried away a few tears after looking at the photographs of her
parents in TIGHAR Tracks.

Tofiga's wife is a Pedro.  She should know where Jack Pedro's son is.

Emily thought that the structures identified as latrines in the photo
of village were "small jails" for holding 2 or 3 prisoners.  It was the
prisoners who broke the coral into gravel for the roads.  Emily also
remembers a police station of some kind.

When Emily was in the village, there were only four bures (native
buildings).  She lived in the third of the four.

Her father's workshop was right behind the white man's house.  Not
far from the beach.

When she was on Niku, there was only one boat house and one boat.
The boat was always drawn up on the shore, even when it was fully
loaded (?), and a man was always left to guard the boat.  Her
father never left the boat unattended.  He was very strict and
very responsible.  The boat did not belong to him.

The boat was not far from the workshop.  WJ-15.

Roger asked her where the airplane came down.  Emily pointed to
the same part of the reef that TIGHAR believes would have made
a good landing zone.

Emily went around the island as much as five times with her
father, hunting turtles.  He sometimes caught as many as seven.
When they were laying eggs, he could follow the tracks to their
nest.  He would take eggs and transplant them to beaches closer
to home so that eventually turtles would nest all around the
island. The turtles came in around the coastline, not in the
lagoon.  They would wait for the high tides to cross the reef.

Emily was the oldest in the family.  Her brother died.  She
got trained to do men's work.  She learned how to plant
coconut trees, and still does so at age 82.  Her daughters
are very proud of her independence and her skills.

Little children were kept away from coffins as a sign of
respect.

The little box for the bones was rectangular.  She does not
know whether the top was hinged, but it seemed to open
that way.  There were handles at either end.

Emily does not remember a dump.  People burned things that
could be burned.  Her father and uncle would dig holes for fish
bones and the like.  They made use of everything.

				Marty
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:59:35
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Amelia's skills

Dear Mr. Marty Moleski,

  Thank you for your comments and the evidence of Bill Burgess.

   It is interesting, however i do agree with your comment that it
must be probably "taken with a couple of grains of salt".... as it
seems certain that the "boy's-eye view" of the witness   - actually
(as you fairly noted) not written contemporaneously with the event -
is shaded by years of both "re-telling and re-thinking" and also,
possibly, by reading different other descriptions, opinions and
comments about the accident.

    Particularly, the phrase like "She miscalculated her takeoff
run..." doesn't look as a "real part of evidence" at all - as the
witness couldn't know what and how AE really "calculated" in the
moment - so it is already rather OPINION, or ESTIMATION... and it
doesn't look as the contemporary estimation of the 7-8 year boy.

    Rather, it looks for me as one of the later (published)
estimations, "adopted" by the witness and then - probably just
unconsciously! - gradually included into his story as the "part of
the evidence".

     I think it is quite a good example - just btw! - how the facts
may be quitely, almost "invisibly", substituted  by opinions... and
it illustrates why it is worth to be VERY careful and scrupulous when
analyzing such a stories.

    I don't think it is a productive thing to "compare" AE - as a
pilot - with Jean Batten, or anybody else.
    You (and possibly somebody else...) can think that Batten was
"better"... while I (and possibly somebody else...)  can think that
Earhart was "better"... and there is will be (again) the endless
dispute about exact terminology and criterias of comparison,  etc.
etc. etc. We all (the forum) were over this many, many times already.
Apparently it never was productive however, -  in any sense...

   So, without any pretensions to provide any kind of "ranking"
between women pilots, i can only try to remind again to the Forum
colleagues,  that actually the number of Earhart's "competent
critics" (i.e. the people who really knew her well "on professional
ground" and flew with her, and so knew the question "first-hand") was
noticeably small  (Smith, Mantz...).   AND, some "personal reasons"
of them  - rivalry, jealousy [Smith];  and some chauvinism plus
feeling of offence after being "fired from the team" [Mantz] - makes
the credibility and objectivity of their comments at least disputable.

     Meanwhile,  quite many contemporary top-league aviation
professionals (including some Earhart's rivals)  who knew her well
and  flew with her,  had a high respect about Earhart's skills...
particularly Wiley Post, Jackie Cochran (who said AE was a "great
pilot"),  Gene Vidal, Paul Collins, Leigh Wade, and others.
    "She was a born flier, with a delicate touch on the stick" -
General Leigh Wade remembered (D.Rich, p.85).
    In March 26 1929, during the airshow in Buffalo, Earhart
successfully piloted  in one day several airplanes that were new for
her -  obviously a convincing demostration of the pilot's quality...
and it goes on and no.
    Simultaneously, the number of her accidents was actually pretty
small - it may be even legitimate to say "noticeably small", -  in
comparison with the "wrecks" of other contemporary pilots of the
comparable "status" and "nature" of their flying work.

    It was actually just media (and some rivals...), who  - because
of different reasons - tried hard to make these few relatively minor
incidents in AE's 16 year (!) aviation career "famous", and gradually
made the statement about AE's "famous wrecks" almost a "common
place"   - and common belief...  while, actually, facts doesn't
support this perverted "legend".

    It is my opinion (maybe a bit "oldfashioned"... but i really
don't share this "anything goes" philosophy  so popular in our days)
that the writer who publishes something must be socially RESPONSIBLE
for his/her written words, its accuracy and exactness... and the
principle of "freedom of speech", although most important, is still
not an "excuse"  - in any degree - for the factually incorrect and
misinforming public statements.
    That's why i reject so definitely the practice when the
professional writers  - writing on "professional" topics (any ones) -
participates in "canonization of urban myths", instead of being just
strictly factually correct...

      Finally, i do agree with you completely that "none of this
fascinating debate about skills will get us closer to finding the
things we seek"... Truly so.

     Kind Regards! - very sincerely, LTM - Marcus

=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:16:51
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Amelia's skills

> From Marcus Lind
>
>Simultaneously, the number of her accidents was actually pretty small
>- it may be even legitimate to say "noticeably small", -  in comparison
>with the "wrecks" of other contemporary pilots of the comparable
>"status" and "nature" of their flying work.

Ric gave the best summary.  I forget whether it was in writing or
viva voce.  He said that there seemed to be a pattern of Amelia
crashing when going "up in type"--from a less complex kind of aircraft
to a more powerful or more complex type.

After climbing the learning curve, she then had relatively little
difficulty managing the aircraft.

The Luke Field incident fits that pattern.  The Electra was relatively
new to AE.  Once she got that out of her system, she flew the plane
very well.  The takeoff at Lae showed her courage and skill at its
best.

>Finally, i do agree with you completely that "none of this
>fascinating debate about skills will get us closer to finding the things
>we seek"... Truly so.

Yup.  Where are the bones?!  ;o)

					Marty
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:39:42
From:         Bill Hillier
Subject:      Re: Electra and Lodestar

Dear Marcus Lind,

The article in the World War II History magazine has actually been
published in the May 7 edition, a copy of which I received yesterday,
March 28.  The mention of Amelia was limited to just a few lines in a
quite long article. I agree with you that we should be careful in our
evaluation of Amelia Earhart. I think that we all have to agree that
she was a courageous lady with a great determination to reach her
goals. I hope that the author, Sam McCowan, with his "not so
skilled",  was referring only to her lack of mastery   of  the morse
code and other facets of communication between aircraft, ships, and
shore stations. In this area, we might have to admit that she did
lack certain skills and knowledge. Maybe, too, she was  obsessed
  with the idea that she could show that women could achieve like men
in the field of aviation. I'm sure that husband George was pushing a
little too. It is difficult to find unbiased evaluations of Amelia's piloting skills
from the 1930's. I was only 12 when she was lost. She will always be
a heroine to me.

Bill Hillier 2264

LTM Mother loved her too and couldn't wait to take flying lessons.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:40:47
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: AE's bones

For Ted Campbell

The problem with getting recollections from anyone else who was there
is finding any of them alive.  None of the surviving colonists we've
interviewed has recounted anything near as specific as the
"native" (as Kilts described him) recounted to Kilts, but they've
almost all been a generation or two away from the folks who were
actually there at the time.  The only real contemporary we've
interviewed, the late Edwin Petro (son of Jack Kimo) had no knowledge
of the bones, though he did recall a couple of airplane parts
stories.  The Loran Veterans we've talked with, including one who was
on Kilts' team, have known nothing of Kilts' story.  I agree, the
specificity of the story is odd, and suggests that it was something
that Gallagher (and others, presumably) talked about.  I've been
imagining how this could happen, sort of novelizing the discovery,
and find that there are plenty of reasonable scenarios, but all they
are are imagined scenarios.  There was one name that Mr. Petro gave
us before his untimely passing, of a guy who might have taken part in
the bones discovery, might have been Kilts' "native," and might still
be alive, perhaps in the Solomons, but we've not yet been able to
track him down.  Besides getting back to Niku, tracking down leads
like this needs to have high priority.

LTM (who loves a good story)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:40:49
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: AE's bones

>From Tom King
>... There was one name
>that Mr. Petro gave us before his untimely passing, of a guy who might
>have taken part in the bones discovery, might have been Kilts' "native,"
>and might still be alive, perhaps in the Solomons, but we've not yet
>been able to track him down.

Roger would have loved to have gone to the Solomons in 2003 to
interview the folks who were moved from Niku to Nikumaroro
village, but the civil unrest made that seem unwise.

I don't know how the Solomons are doing these days.

				Marty
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:41:34
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Electra and Lodestar

Whenever I read AE "was not so skilled" a pilot I remember that jet pilot
who ejected himself at night because he believed he was flying upside down
and didn't believe his instruments, only to find out he had mistaken the
stars above for lights on the ground and that there was nothing wrong with
his instruments.

I also remember several occasions only years ago, when qualified trained
airline pilots flying state of the art airplanes landed at the wrong
airports because they believed they suffered "a major electronic breakdown"
while actually they had selected the wrong VOR frequencies.
Whenever one says AE "was not so skilled" one should remember that airplanes
in the Twenties and the Thirties were not as reliable as those flying today
to begin with. They were taildraggers to boot, which can be a handful to
land or even taxi. Nor did pilots generally have the training today's pilots
have. One flew from London to Melbourne with as little as 100 hours of
flying experience. Even Lindbergh parachuted to safety one night having lost
his bearings in fog.

Anyone criticizing Amelia Earhart (and Fred Noonan) for failing to find
Howland should remember that British Air Marshall Arthur Harris of WW II
fame complained that only 20 % of his professional bomber pilots succeeded
in getting within 50 miles of their targets. And that was a mere four years
after Amelia Earhart. I wonder where the other 80 % ended up.

LTM (who recalls the days when pilots found destinations with a map, a
compass and a watch)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:42:04
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Electra and Lodestar

     Dear Mr. Bill Hillier,
Thank you for your kind message and comments... I hope your guess is 
right and Sam McCowan's remark is not an attempt to make a general 
"derogatory judgement" - contradictive to many facts - about 
Earhart's flying skills.
     It is my personal opinion that if speaking just "generally", her 
quality is well proven just by her 16 year career and numerous 
prominent achievements -- with noticeably small number of incidents 
during this period... Also, it seems not so hard for me to find the 
estimation of AE's flying skills from her contemporaries that we can 
reasonably consider as unbiased. The estimations of such a people 
like Jackie Cochran, Leigh Wade, Kelly Johnson, and some others (some 
of which i previously quoted) in my opinion can be reasonably 
considered as credible and objective.

    It is from the competent "top league" pilots - some of which 
(Cochran, Nichols) were AE's rivals ! - and from the people who (like 
Leigh Wade for example) had no personal motives to "promote" Earhart 
somehow, "crediting" her with something she actually "didn't deserve".
Wade flew with Earhart - yet in 1929 - in the pretty whimsical 
Consolidated's "trainer" aircraft, specially constructed with 
neuthral stability and pretty difficult to handle, and was most 
impressed with her quality... and i think it is reasonable to guess 
that he just honestly reported what he really saw and experienced in 
that flight.

   Also, i don't tend to think that the "pressure" from GP was 
actually so much a significant factor. GP was a strong character of 
course; but for sure AE wasn't a "weak" character too... and, i have 
doubts that GP could ever somehow "force" or "push" AE to do anything 
that she didn't actually want to do herself... as AE's stubborness 
was famous yet since her childhood.

     Naturally I tend to agree with you that the radio/morse 
knowledge of AE - and Noonan - could be better.. and thus could help 
them better if they would use it in a more competent way.

     However i would just remind that the radio navigation 
thechnologies were still relatively new in Earhart's time.. and in a 
long flight around the world (having one of the best navigators 
aboard) she could just rely rather on the traditional methods of 
navigation then to these new technologies.

      AND, i wouldn't call it so stupid as it may seem for some of us 
(the new generations totally dependent on the modern electronic 
technologies) now, after 70 years! - and the proof is that until that 
unlucky Lae-Howland flight this "formula" worked pretty well for AE 
and FN.

...NOW - after we KNOW the tragic outcome of this flight (although, 
actually, we still don't know for sure the EXACT reason why it 
happened so) -   it is quite easy to speculate (and many people are 
doing this) that this outcome was caused by this or that "failure", 
"lack of skills", "misjudgement" etc. etc .etc. of Earhart, or Noonan...

    But it was always my strong impression that there is a lot of 
what i like to call a "post-factum knowledge syndrome" in such a views.

    "Everybody is here to kick a dead lion!", the old idiom says... 
and i'm pretty sure that if Earhart and Noonan just would have a bit 
more luck and would complete their flight, nobody would criticize 
them today; and the things now criticized as their "misjudgement", 
"unnecessarily accepted risks" etc would be rather praised as 
"perfectly calculated risks of high professionals"!

...Looking "from the heights" of our today's high and strict 
standards of the aviation safety, we are frequently just forgetting 
today that the luck was still much more significant part of the 
flying (especially the record flying!) in Earhart's era, then it is 
today...

Kind Regards! - LTM, very sincerely - Marcus
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:42:24
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Amelia's skills

    Dear Mr. Marty Moleski,
Thank you for your kind reply and comments!
  If about the Luke field incident, actually -- as we remember -- the 
exact cause of it was never established for sure, and what we are 
"having" now is just a "collection of more or less educated guesses" 
and opinions about these exact reasons.
    Some of them assumes Earhart's error and "guilt" about the 
accident, some aren't... and i would rather avoid to "judge" somehow 
about such a thing as "general quality" of the pilot with 16 years of 
distinguished career on the base of the one incident never fully 
investigated.

    About Ric's remark that you reminded; I think it is quite natural 
that every professional, "facing the challenge" of the new kind or 
generation of some technique and equipment, is having some "period of 
adaptation, learning and training" with it; and during this period 
the "risk of accident" is higher then it will be later, after the 
professional will collect some experience. It is natural process, and 
Ric's attemt to interprete the Earhart accidents using such a logic 
looks reasonable and legitimate.

A bit "off-topic", but interesting... many years ago (so can't 
remember the source now), i read some article analyzing the number 
and nature of the accidents with the F-104 plane -- that was known for 
its "high demands" to the pilot's qualification; particularly the 
"dependence" of the number of accidents on the "collected flying 
time" and experience of the pilots.

     There was a graph of this dependence, and it looked quite 
interesting and unusual.

Contrary to what can be expected, it was not a straight (or even 
curved) line showing the decreasing of the number of accidents with 
the flying time and experience collected... Instead, it was a 
"concave" curve -- with a high number of accidents for 
"novices" (that's quite understandable), then there was a decreasing, 
and a "minimum" on the curve... but then it again started to 
increase! - so the most experienced pilots actually had a higher 
percentage of accidents then the "average" ones! (although, still 
less number then the "novices" had).

The interpretation of the curve by the authors of the study was, that 
this phenomena was caused by the tendency of the "top-class" pilots 
to "loss the cautiousness" sometimes, overestimating their own 
possibilities -- OR the "ability" of the plane to do what they tried 
to do in it... It was just their interpretation of course, and it is 
difficult to say how credible (alas, as i said, i even can't remember 
the source now). Anyway, it just shows that the analysis of such a 
things is a preddy difficult matter, as it is a matter of many 
factors that can "influence", and it is difficult to estimate these 
factors in a really exact scientific way. There's just too many 
"subjective " stuff in all this -- just like in these discussions like 
"who was the best pilot", etc....

    Kind Regards -- very sincerely, LTM - Marcus=
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:17:16
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Amelia's skills

The accidents vs. experience curve has been described in hang
gliders, and has been called an "Icarus Curve", for obvious reasons.
This got quite a bit of press in medical journals 25 or 30 years ago.
Daniel Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:23:46
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: AE's skills

There were two issues which caused me to join TIGHAR: 1) The
scientific integrity which Ric applied to his research (not to
mention his superlative writing skills), and 2) The questions
concerning Earhart's skills as a pilot and how those may have
contributed to the unsuccessful flight. The latter point was of
particular interest due to the forty years I spent as a flight
instructor.

When a popular celebrity or politician dies unexpectedly, there is a
tendency in our society to dismiss those events or situations which
cast the person in an unfavorable light. For example, JFK is
remembered for facing down the Russians during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, but his failure to provide support for Cuban exiles at the
Bay of Pigs is widely forgotten.

I can recall a few accidents and incidents in which the pilot was
credited by the press and public for "extraordinary skill" when, in
fact, analysis of the flight (including data and voice recorders in
modern airplanes) showed quite the opposite to be true. The operative
expression is, "The pilot was so far behind the airplane that he
wasn't hurt in the accident."

Regarding Earhart's skill, the "red flags" are how little time she
spent training to improve her proficiency, her lack of understanding
of communication and navigation radios, and the loss of control at
Luke Field. In 2002, Ric wrote:

"Competency is always relative to the particular task.  I'm competent
to drive a car on public roads.  I'm not competent to drive in a
Formula One race. Competency is obviously also not constant. In
February 1937 Earhart was competent to fly the Lockheed 10E Special
across the U.S. and back in a series of hops.  In March she was
clearly not competent to make a takeoff in the same airplane at a
very high gross weight. At the time of her disappearance, Earhart was
apparently competent to operate the Lockheed 10E Special under the
conditions she had experienced on her World Flight.  The Lae/Howland
flight, however, was a very different animal and its successful
completion under the circumstances she encountered required a level
of competence that she did not possess.

"There are limits to any pilot's competence.  The trick is to
understand where your limits are.  Earhart did not die of
incompetence.  She died of hubris. She made the fatal error of
believing her own press releases."

I concur.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:00:37
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Amelia's skills

Dear Colleagues,
  Thank you for your kind comments.

For Mr. Skeet Gifford:

  Sorry, it seem quite difficult for me to agree with some of your
points... You wrote:
"When a popular celebrity or politician dies unexpectedly, there is a
tendency in our society to dismiss those events or situations which
cast the person in an unfavorable light" -

  - some time ago, at least inside the Western civilization, it was
really so.
   But in our times - just my impression - the opposite tendency is
already prevailing: "DEBUNK the celebrity!!!"
   It may be conditioned, particularly, by the fact that in last
decades quite many celebrities - especially from show-business -
discredited themselves by their irresponsible and antisocial behavior
and claims, that outraged (and still outrages) many people.. and made
quite many feeling rather skeptic and critical about the entire
"world of celebrities".

   Still, i would make a difference between these "celebrities" and
the real ones - who (like Earhart) earned and deserved their status
and place in history by a very real courage, skills, doings, feats
and achievements, important for MANY people.

    You wrote: "Regarding Earhart's skill, the "red flags" are how
little time she
spent training to improve her proficiency, her lack of understanding
of communication and navigation radios, and the loss of control at
Luke Field. "

  - sorry but this "little time spent to improve the proficiency"
seems as highly disputable statement.
    In fact it is not a "fact" at all, but rather just the opinion of
Paul Mantz, reproduced probably hundreds of times already - during
the last decades - by different sources, and accepted by some authors
(at least in my opinion) just too uncritically.

    I don't think however that Mantz's opinion can be really
considered as historically credible; just because of he obviously had
a "motivation" for derogatory comment about Earhart's skills - after
being factually fired from the "team". It seems too obvious that in
all his following published  comments the actual "point" was to
"prove" how important his role actually was, how "unprepared" Earhart
was  - OF COURSE because of lack of his advice... etc. etc. etc.

   Some other contemporary (and competent) aviation professionals,
however, presents a different evidence. Kelly Johnson flew with
Earhart in her Electra and said she was a good and "sensitive" pilot.
Jackie  Cochran also flew with her in that plane, and her opinion on
Earhart's quality was complimentary. Both of these persons had no
visible motives to be dishonest; so i tend to accept their
estimations more seriously then Mantz's one.

    Just for the matter of fact, Earhart flew this plane without any
significant problems or accidents yet since summer of 1936.

    In my previous message i already commented about the "lack of
understanding of communication and navigation radios".
    Just reminding, the year was not 2007, or 1987, or even 1967 or
so... It was 70 (seventy) years ago, when the electronic and radio
navigation technologies were still relatively new things. And it was
pretty natural for that moment for the veteran pilot (flying already
for 16 years)  and  the veteran expert navigator to count rather on
their skills in a more traditional methods of long distance flying
and navigation.

   For us today, the electronic devices and technologies is important
and inseparable part of our lives - in ALL aspects already, far not
only when travelling. We are now TOTALLY dependent on these things;
and it already seems for us as absolutely natural, so we can only
wonder why some people can (or could) think otherwise.. and even
suspect that such people must be  incompetent of just stupid.

   But, just reminding: 70 years ago it all was NOT so yet; so, the
people - including the professionals - had a slightly different
mindset about these things.

    About the Luke Field incident and the "loss of control" over the
Electra. Yes, since the plan groundlooped, it is obvious that the
pilot "lost the control" over it.
    However, the exact reasons of this accident - just reminding
again - were never actually established for sure.
     And the Earhart's "guilt" in it is still not a proven fact, at all.
    It is - again - just one of OPINIONS, and - again - mainly the
one of Paul Mantz, accepted by many totally uncritically - while
there ARE some reasons to accept the Mantz's statements on Earhart at
least "with a grain of salt" (please see above).

    After all, Mantz was NOT there in cabin with Earhart during that
ill-fated incident... so his opinion - competent or not, and biased
or not - is still just an opinion. And, i still don't think it is
reasonable - considering all the abovementioned - to use this opinion
for to "judge" about Earhart's general piloting quality in any
derogatory way, factually ignoring all the evidence of other
competent contemporary professionals that rather confirms the
opposite  (as, if speaking just generally, all the Earhart's 16-year
career does.)

   For Herman De Wulf:

  Thank you for your thoughtful comments.. i do agree completely.
  Many skilled and brave aviators of World War Two  died not even
over the target but just being unable - because of different reasons
- to FIND this target...
  Still, we respect these people, their courage and professionalism,
and our standard explanation about their fate is usually quite simple
- "it was just such a time then" with the aviation and navigational
technologies and methods characteristic for that particular time...
Ad to criticize or even ridicule that people for their failure would
be both factually unfair, and totally unethical. I never could
understand why any different "standards of judgement" must be applied
to Earhart - with only negative "evidence" and opinions taken
seriously, and reproduced and quoted - totally uncritically - again
and again, for decades... and the positive evidence and competent
opinions just ignored.

    I can only guess about actual reasons for this... and my guess is
that it is probably a "cumulative effect" of the chauvinism (still
alive), the mentioned tendency to "DEBUNK the celebrity", and the
"dedicated work" of some Earhart's rivals... Like Elinor Smith  - who
never missed an opportunity to criticize Earhart, but "conveniently"
avoided to mention in those tirades that the Earhart's Vega NR 965Y
was actually a repaired  ex-Smith's Vega - that she CRASHED at
landing in Garden-City, NJ...

    Kind Regards - LTM, Marcus
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:40:35
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      News Coverage

Ric, I'll bet even you are surprised at the great news coverage you
just got. TIGHAR is everywhere. <G>

Fantastic job.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:41:02
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: news coverage

The Associated Press story about AE has hit the street:

"New clues in 70-year-old Earhart mystery"

http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/national/M143135/

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:03:04
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: News coverage

Alan Caldwell says,

>Ric, I'll bet even you are surprised at the great news coverage you
>just got. TIGHAR is everywhere.

Yeah, it may turn out to be a case of "Be careful what you wish for."

The really nice thing is that the story won't even hit the papers
until tomorrow morning and the Amazon.com sales ranking numbers for
Finding Amelia and Shoes are already through the roof.  Finding
Amelia is at 1,518 and Shoes is at 3,066.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:03:23
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: News coverage

George Werth says,

>The Associated Press story about AE has hit the street:

The version that is on the AP website at
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEARCH_FOR_AMELIA?
SITE=NJMOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
includes an interactive section with maps and video of your obedient
servant.

The graphics have a couple of errors that I think I can get them to
correct on Monday.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:55:14
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: News coverage

>The really nice thing is that the story won't even hit the papers
>until tomorrow morning and the Amazon.com sales ranking numbers for
>Finding Amelia and Shoes are already through the roof.  Finding
>Amelia is at 1,518 and Shoes is at 3,066.

3067. I just bought a second copy.

Alan