Date:         Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:40:10
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      Re: News coverage

Tremendous job Ric!

adam
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:06:25
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      AP article

Two more clean links to the article:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070401/D8O7FHD00.html

And to the natively hosted AP version (the one Ric gave is to an AP
licensee's page on their servers):

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEARCH_FOR_AMELIA?
SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-03-31-20-10-33

The TinyURL to AP's natively hosted version (above) is:
http://tinyurl.com/yr8ckx

This is the cleanest, most thorough and helpful treatment of the
TIGHAR hypothesis I've ever read in the MSM. Wonderful!

LTM, who understood the name of the game, fame.
William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:58:52
From:         Peter Ferris
Subject:      Earthquake and the Geographically Challenged

Not having a good map of the South Pacific islands at my fingertips, and
Google Maps not immediately co-operating with me, I'm having a hard time
correlating the distance between the Phoenix Islands and Solomon Islands. So
I was just curious is yesterday's earthquake in the south pacific and
subequent tsunamis (have there been any yet?) have / would / could inpact
(ed) Nikumaroro and TIGHAR's plans for Niku V?

In other news: BTW, the AP story made page 11 of tthe "A" section (first
section, nation headlines, etc.)  of the Sunday edition of The Tulsa World.
Excellent. Color map "and everything"!

Cheers,

--Pete
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:39:45
From:         Curt Smith
Subject:      Re: Earthquake and the Geographically Challenged

Peter:
Does this link help?

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/
us2007aqbk.php#maps

The Solomons are getting hammered right now with maybe as many 50+
after shocks at 5 and above!

Curt Smith # 2602
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Apr 2007 20:14:20
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Earthquake and the Geographically Challenged

Not a problem.  Probably inches at most at Nikumaroro itself.
Dan Postellon
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Apr 2007 20:14:53
From:         Malcolm Andrews
Subject:      Re: Earthquake

The Solomons were hit by a 5-metre tsunami. There was a warning for
the east coast of Australia. They closed all our beaches and a lot of
people in North Queensland moved to higher ground - but nothing
happened.

Niku should have been safe as the Solomons lay between it and the
epicentre.

Malcolm Andrews
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:55:52
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Earthquake and the Geographically Challenged

The scary thing about the earthquake and tsunami from our particular
perspective is not that it might have damaged Nikumaroro Island in
the Phoenix, but that it almost certainly did damage Nikumaroro
Village in the Solomons, where most of the Niku colonists were
resettled in the early 1960s, and where they and their descendants
live today.

LTM (who sympathizes with her geographically challenged children)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:07:01
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      July 2007 Expedition to Niku

What do you think of lifting the ban on non members posting to the
forum for a period of now through the departure date in July?

I would recommend we do so for the following reason:
With all the publicity currently being given to the "cause" because
of the Carey Diary discovery we might reap some other useful tidbits
from folks who were there or happen to know someone who was.  We
might also luck out in getting more "stuff" from that island/period
in time.

Ted Campbell

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

We have consulted here at TIGHAR Central and think Ted has a good
idea. From now until at least the end of August, all ON TOPIC
(Earhart disappearance vis a vis Nikumaroro) will be posted whether
you're a member or  not.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:14:03
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      Open posting reinstated

Acting on a suggestion by Ted Campbell, from now until at least the
end of August we are reinstating open posting to the Forum, no TIGHAR
membership required (although it would be really really nice if you
did join).

For a review of The Rules:

1)	ALL posts are reviewed by Pat before posting. Off topic,
insulting, obscene, or otherwise problematic posts will not be posted
unless they're really funny.

2)	Remember, please, that this Forum is read by at least some
children. Profanity is discouraged. Intellectual reach is strongly
encouraged, as is technical expertise.

3)	On Topic is defined as concerning Amelia Earhart, Fred Noonan,
their disappearance, and the search for them vis a vis Nikumaroro. No
Japanese capture, crashed-and-sank, or abducted by aliens theories
will be posted or debated in this Forum. We do not discuss or even
reference politics or religion on this Forum.

4)	Ric probably won't be able to participate much. Sorry, but putting
together a trip like Niku V is complex and harrowing even when you're
an old hand.

5)	If you don't like the rules, get your own Forum. Yahoo will let
you set one up for free.

Those who would like to join TIGHAR are referred to

https://tighar.org/membernew.html

Love to Mother,
Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:08:31
From:         David Billings
Subject:      The TIGHAR hypothesis

Richard Gillespie,

Under the rules just published, as a non-Tighar member, I understand
that I am allowed to ask a question or questions.  I have six (6)
questions....

Question 1.

The Tighar Hypothesis was first mooted by two USAF Officers.  You
took up the glove of their Hypothesis and turned it into Tighar (as I
understand what happened).
Do these two personna still have the same theory ?

Question 2.

You have always denied that Noonan may have entered an overcast
period despite other authors reporting from record that there was
overcast.  Do you now accept that there was a period of overcast ?

Question 3a.

You have always considered that Fred Noonan navigated his way towards
Howland by using Astro.  In the light of the Carey Diary do you now
consider that he actually did get sufficient Astro or have you
changed your position on the Astro question ?

Question 2b.

I note that in the blurb by Richard Pyle, that you now speak of Dead
Reckoning Navigation.  I cannot recall you mentioning dead reckoning
navigation by Noonan in the period of darkness before.  From which
fixed point do you consider Fred Noonan dead reckoned towards Howland
Island ?

Question 3.

I note that Alan Caldwell, gratiously said (in his opinion) that
Noonan might not have been bereft of Astro for the whole period
after1418GMT.  What is your opinion on Alan's remark ?

Question 4.

Have you considered, or do you have a defined position (or an
opinion), on what the strength of the wind was and what the direction
of the wind was at the following positions at an altitude of 10,000
feet on July 2nd 1937, Eastern Hemisphere and perhaps on July 1st
1937 Western Hemisphere, on approach to Howland:

a. Nukumanu Island (Tasman Group)

b. USCG Ontario (1278 Miles from Lae)

c. Nauru

d. Funafuti (Ellice Islands)


Question 5.

Overall, the wind and the strength of the wind played a major part in
the failure of AE & FN finding Howland.  Would you say this statement
is correct  ?

Question 6.

The Tighar Hypothesis depends on the 157-337 degree Line of Position
actually running through Howland Island, for by the hypothesis, an
extension of the 157 degree line running southward cuts through
Nikumaroro and as you have also stated it is close to other islands
in the Phoenix Group.

For your Hypothesis, Earhart has to be running on the 157 degree line
southwards and landing on the reef on Nikumaroro, which in the light
of the Carey Diary and an overcast situation for a navigator cannot
be possible.  Tighar has to be able to say, without doubt, that the
LoP ran through Howland.  In this knowledge, confirmed, after all
these years, Noonan may not have got accurate Navigation and this
makes the Tighar Hypothesis implausible.

Question 6 basically is:  Would you still say that you can hold that
position....the position of the Tighar Hypothesis ?  Can you still
say with certainty that the LoP ran through Howland Island ?

I would greatly appreciate your answers,

Thankyou,

David Billings.

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

Please note my remark that Ric will not be able to spend much time on
the Forum. We are inundated at the moment.

If anyone else wants to answer some or all of these questions, have
at it.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:10:10
From:         Pat
Subject:      Use correct address

A bunch of youse guys have gotten in the habit of sending Forum mail
to me personally. This causes mailbox clogs and delay in posting.
PLEASE us the FORUM email address to send mail to the Forum:

EARHARTFORUM@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

It can be upper or lower case, the server doesn't care.

Much thanks.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:27:23
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Use correct address

Pat Thrasher wrote:

>A bunch of youse guys have gotten in the habit of sending Forum
>mail to me personally.

Oops, I'm sorry Pat! I've done it because the listerv sends me back a
bot notice, like a receipt, which I shall put up with in the future.
Thanks for speaking up about it.

LTM, who cut corners 'n got scolded,

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:27:45
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: The TIGHAR Hypothesis


Ric has a lot on his plate right now. Nonetheless, I'd like to hear him
weigh in on David's questions, as time permits. Please consider this a
humble request to that effect.

In his posting, David Billings wrote: "For your Hypothesis, Earhart has to
be running on the 157 degree line southwards and landing on the reef on
Nikumaroro, which in the light of the Carey Diary and an overcast situation
for a navigator cannot be possible."

David, I'm not following this. Please elaborate a bit for me.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:40:19
From:         David Billings
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Alfred,

It seems to me that what none of you Tighar people have realised is
that the Carey Diaries WORK AGAINST the Tighar Hypothesis.

If Noonan did not get ACCURATE Astro Navigation then it would be
impossible for him to hit the sunline at the right time.  Don't you
see that ?

At the time of 2:48 am LOCAL time the Electra on my plot is still 850
odd miles from Howland, way too far for accurate Dead Reckonong
navigation.

Noonan was too good a Navigator to miss Howland....if he had got
Astro through the night he would have been able to Dead Reckon onto
Howland after sunrise and then be picked up by the HFDF ...  whose
Batteries were flat...

The offset plan and the sunline HAD TO HAVE BEEN a desperate attempt
by Noonan to get back on the pad.....

Regards,

David Billings
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:43:12
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

For Alfred Hendrickson:

I think David Billings is asking Ric to "prove" FN drew the LOP
through Howland.

LTM, who was keener on archaeologists,

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:53:34
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

>From David Billings
>
>If Noonan did not get ACCURATE Astro Navigation then it would be
>impossible for him to hit the sunline at the right time.  Don't you
>see that ?

There are two different Lines of Position.

One is the one that FN would draw on his map when he observed
sunrise from the cockpit.  It doesn't matter where he thought
he was prior to that.  As soon as he observes the sunrise,
notes the time, runs through a few calculations to take the
plane's altitude into account, and backtracking a smidgeon
to deal with the time spent in calculations, he can draw
a sun line on his map that shows where they were at sunrise.

A parallel to that line then gets drawn through Howland Island
on the map.

The distance from one line to the other gives FN a clue about
how far they have to travel eastward before they intersect
the parallel line drawn through Howland.  Calculating that
distance is a matter of figuring their heading, drift,
and groundspeed, which should have been fairly accurate
after sunrise, since Fred could look at the waves below to
estimate the strength and direction of the wind.

Once they dead reckon to the second line, it's time for
AE to say, "We must be on you but cannot see you."

				Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:10:04
From:         David Billings
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

For William and Alfred,

YES, definitely....

In the light of the Carey Diary and the "Sky overcast", said by Carey
to be 2:48am Howland time (1418GMT 2nd July Eastern Hemisphere), when
the Electra would have been "approximately" 850 statute miles from
Howland (on my plot).....and due to the intricacies of navigation....

....Then: How can it be said, that the TIGHAR Hypothesis holds that
the advanced Line of Position actually DID run through Howland Island
and therefore the southern extension of 157 dgrees Magnetic was used
by Earhart to grace the airplane to Niukmaroro and thence cause the
total TIGHAR Hypothesis to have cause and effect ?

That indeed is the question............

Best Regards,

David Billings
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:14:55
From:         David Billings
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Marty,

Don't confuse the issue.

Did the LoP, the advanced LoP run through Howland, that is indeed the
question.

How can the TIGHAR Hypothesis be so sure that the LoP ran through
Howland in the light of the Carey Diary.

Do not forget that the whole basis of the Tighar Hypothesis rests on
this.

Regards,

David Billings.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:16:30
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

I thought we had gone through all that ages ago. The first to mention the
337-157 line was Amelia Earhart when she said over the radio she was on it.
Anyone familiar with flying understands this to be the Line Of Position she
was supposed to reach before starting to look for Howland. Therefore 337-157
was not thought up by TIGHAR, nor was it first mentioned by USAF officers
either. The USAF wasn't formed until after WW II. In 1937 it was US Navy
officers who were the first to try and make sense of the radio messages to
start the search. Hence George Putnam, Amelia Earhart's husband, at an early
stage in the search insisting the Navy should search to the southeast of
Howland along the 157 line. It is true this line crosses the Phoenix group
of Islands. That was not thought up by TIGHAR. It just happened to be so.
That's why the USS Colorado steamed towards the islands and launched an air
search with its catapult seaplanes. As for wind, it is a factor in any
navigation as it determines the ground speed of any aircraft. Knowing the
ground speed is essential in calculating one's position when dead reckoning.
As for dead reckoning, Fred Noonan started his calculations at Lae. He
continued calculating all the way to wherever they went; correcting their
heading according to the results he got from shooting the stars and the
moon. Pilots carry watches too. They are a useful tool in navigating.

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:47:06
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

David Billings asks:

>Question 1.
>
>The Tighar Hypothesis was first mooted by two USAF Officers.  You
>took up the glove of their Hypothesis and turned it into Tighar (as
>I understand what happened). Do these two personna still have the same theory ?

Tom Gannon is a former USAF officer.  Tom Will is a former USN
officer.  They were the first to describe to TIGHAR the navigational
logic that would put Earhart and Noonan on one of the islands of the
Phoenix Group.  They felt that either McKean or Gardner (Nikumaroro)
were possibilities. We found the idea interesting and a little bit of
checking quickly revealed that the U.S. Navy had reached the same
conclusion in the first days after the disappearance.  Over the years
it has become know as the TIGHAR Hypothesis (we usually call it the
Nikumaroro Hypothesis) but it might more accurately be call the U.S.
Navy Hypothesis.  They only abandoned it after Colorado's search of
the Phoenix Group failed to find the plane.

>Question 2.
>
>You have always denied that Noonan may have entered an overcast
>period despite other authors reporting from record that there was
>overcast.  Do you now accept that there was a period of overcast ?

What I have always denied is that there was reason to believe
Commander Thompson's later assertion that Earhart was heard to say
anything about encountering overcast conditions.  Neither of the two
radio logs support that claim.  Thompson claimed that that the two
journalists - Carey and Hanzlick - heard her say "overcast" in the
very first itransmission heard at 0245-8.  In Bellarts' 1973
interview with Elgen Long he said that it would have been impossible
for the journalists to hear any of that transmission because it was
heard on his headphones, not on the loud speaker. Without a credible
reason to believe Thompson we had no choice but to discount the
statement as being yet another of the many inaccuracies in Thompson's
reports.

It's actually Carey's July 26 article, rather than his diary, that
changes the picture.  In his article Carey wrote:

"Friday, July 2---"Quiet everybody," yelled one of the radiomen at
2:48 AM, "I think I've contacted the plane." A pin-drop silence
ensued. With my ears to the phones, I could hear the voice of Amelia
Earhart, somewhere out in the South Pacific, speaking on the voice
phones. "KHAQQ calling Itasca; KHAQQ calling Itasca," she said and
then the static drowned out a part of the message. "Sky overcast,"
she continued somewhat audibly, and that was all for the rest of the
message was lost in noisy rumblings of static interference."

"With my ears to the phones..."  Now Carey's statement, and by
extension Thompson's (at least with respect to the 0245-8
transmission), must be accepted as credible.

>Question 3a.
>
>You have always considered that Fred Noonan navigated his way
>towards Howland by using Astro.  In the light of the Carey Diary do
>you now consider that he actually did get sufficient Astro or have
>you changed your position on the Astro question ?

By "Astro" I presume you mean celestial navigation. Noonan's usual
method of navigation was dead reckoning supplemented by celestial
observations. It's very clear that he intended to use celestial
during the flight to Howland because he didn't leave Lae until he had
an accurate check on his chronometer.  Obviously, Noonan did not get
sufficient navigation information during the flight to find Howland.
Now, courtesy of the Carey diary, we have reason to believe that he
did encounter overcast conditions for some portion of the flight
explanation.

The scanty information we have suggests that Noonan was able to keep
the airplane quite accurately on course at least until they passed
south of Nauru ("Ship in sight ahead") and possibly as late as when
they passed over Tabiteuea in the Gilberts. You can't do that by dead
reckoning alone, so no, I have not changed my mind about Noonan using
celestial navigation.  It now looks he didn't get much, if any, help
from celestial during the early morning hours

>Question 2b.
>
>I note that in the blurb by Richard Pyle, that you now speak of
>Dead Reckoning Navigation.  I cannot recall you mentioning dead
>reckoning navigation by Noonan in the period of darkness before. 
>From which fixed point do you consider Fred Noonan dead reckoned
>towards Howland Island ?

Lae and any identifiable land mass he could identify en route.  For
example, he may have been able to see Nukumanu Island. That Noonan
used dead reckoning goes without saying. As far as I know, nobody
navigates purely by celestial.

>Question 3.
>
>I note that Alan Caldwell, gratiously said (in his opinion) that
>Noonan might not have been bereft of Astro for the whole period
>after1418GMT.  What is your opinion on Alan's remark ?

Sounds reasonable to me.  All Alan is saying is that Noonan might
have been able to get a star shot if there was break in the
overcast.  He doesn't know for sure.  Neither do I. Do you?

>Question 4.
>
>Have you considered, or do you have a defined position (or an
>opinion), on what the strength of the wind was and what the
>direction of the wind was at the following positions at an altitude
>of 10,000 feet on July 2nd 1937, Eastern Hemisphere and perhaps on
>July 1st 1937 Western Hemisphere, on approach to Howland:
>
>a. Nukumanu Island (Tasman Group)
>
>b. USCG Ontario (1278 Miles from Lae)
>
>c. Nauru
>
>d. Funafuti (Ellice Islands)

I have considered the question many times and I always come up with
the same answer.  I don't know of any way to know.  I don't know what
the surface winds were.  I don't know what the winds aloft were.  I
don't know how high she was flying.

>Question 5.
>
>Overall, the wind and the strength of the wind played a major part
>in the failure of AE & FN finding Howland.  Would you say this
>statement is correct?

Yes.

>Question 6.
>
>The Tighar Hypothesis depends on the 157-337 degree Line of
>Position actually running through Howland Island, for by the
>hypothesis, an extension of the 157 degree line running southward
>cuts through Nikumaroro and as you have also stated it is close to
>other islands in the Phoenix Group.
>
>For your Hypothesis, Earhart has to be running on the 157 degree
>line southwards and landing on the reef on Nikumaroro, which in the
>light of the Carey Diary and an overcast situation for a navigator
>cannot be possible.

Nonsense.  Noonan can fly all night long under an overcast and still
get the 157 337 line of position from the rising sun.  He can still
advance the LOP until it falls through Howland.  He can still
determine his ground speed by observing wind drift.  He can still
calculate when he will reach the advanced LOP.  What he can't know is
where he is on the LOP.  If he did experience overcast conditions
during the night and couldn't read his wind drift off the waves in
the dark, he may have been well off course by sunrise.

>Tighar has to be able to say, without doubt, that the LoP ran
>through Howland.  In this knowledge, confirmed, after all these
>years, Noonan may not have got accurate Navigation and this makes
>the Tighar Hypothesis implausible.

David my friend, you not only need a lesson in navigation, you need a
lesson in logic.  You can't make a statement of absolute truth ("the
Tighar Hypothesis implausible") from a conditional proposition
(Noonan may not have got accurate Navigation).

>Question 6 basically is:  Would you still say that you can hold
>that position....the position of the Tighar Hypothesis ?

Yes, of course.

>Can you still say with certainty that the LoP ran through Howland Island ?

I hope I have never stated with certainty that which I cannot
possibly know.

Love to Mother,
Ric

Ric Gillespie
Executive Director
TIGHAR
www.tighar.org
tigharic@mac.com

author of
"Finding Amelia - The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance"
Published by the Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:47:59
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

>From David Billings
>
>Marty,
>
>Don't confuse the issue.

David, you are the one confusing the issue.  It was clear, more or
less, at Howland and all around that morning.  It was clear, more or
less, when Earhart departed, and apparently it was clear enough for
her to see a ship along the way.  Why are you making the presumption
that it was overcast during her entire trip, based solely on one
comment in the middle of the night?  If anything, it must have been
clear for some part of the trip, as they got relatively close to
Howland (based on radio signal strength), and that would have been
pretty much impossible without some kind of celestial navigation
during the flight.

>How can the TIGHAR Hypothesis be so sure that the LoP ran through
>Howland in the light of the Carey Diary.
>
>Do not forget that the whole basis of the Tighar Hypothesis rests
>on this.

The Carey diary says nothing about where the LoP was, except what
Earhart herself said (which was that they were on the LoP).  Again,
you are presuming that it was completely overcast, so that they could
not see sunrise.  Even on a partly cloudy day, it is still possible
to see the Sun come up; it's only when the Sun is completely behind a
cloud that you can't get an accurate reading on the time (and even
then you're probably within a few minutes with a guess).  The LoP is
just a line drawn on a map, and Noonan could have drawn it anywhere.
The way navigation is done, it makes perfect sense for him to draw it
through Howland in this case.

					Reed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Research Scientist, Thirty Meter Telescope Corporation Site Testing
Program
2632 E. Washington Blvd.
Pasadena, CA 91107
Homepage:  http://web.mac.com/drriddle/iWeb/Home/home.html

"This life has been a test.  If it had been an actual life, you would
  have received actual instructions on where to go and what to do."
                                 -- Angela Chase, "My so-called life"
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:13:25
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Carey diary

Reading the Carey Diary something draws my attention. On page 4 the
typed text refers to radar reports. Question : who was scanning the
skies with radar in 1937 ?

LTM (who always checks what she reads)

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

Nobody. It's a typo. In the handwritten document it's "radio."

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:29:47
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

>From David Billings
>
>....Then: How can it be said, that the TIGHAR Hypothesis holds that the
>advanced Line of Position actually DID run through Howland Island and
>therefore the southern extension of 157 dgrees Magnetic was used by
>Earhart to grace the airplane to Niukmaroro and thence cause the total
>TIGHAR Hypothesis to have cause and effect ?

The actual LOP derived from observing the sun would give FN a pretty
good idea of where he was in terms of his longitude (East-West).

Flying moderately accurately from that LOP to a LOP drawn on his
map parallel to the LOP derived from his observation was not hard
to do in the daytime.  It's not a big leap of faith to think that
when his calculations said he was on the "advanced Line of
Position" that it did, indeed, run through Howland Island
(plus or minus the normal degree of uncertainty inherent
in such calculations).

The TIGHAR hypothesis says that they failed to get close enough
to Howland to find it by eye but did get close enough to Niku
to find it by eye.  The idea that they were using a sun sighting
and an advanced LOP comes from the final transmissions that
were heard from them along with the information that the observation
of dawn would have produced a LOP of 337/157 on that day in that
part of the world.

					Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:59:16
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

David, since you mentioned me let me add a little to what Ric
answered. Please keep in mind this group is only dealing with the so-
called Niku theory. We are not nor do we have time to deal with any
other theory. We certainly respect other investigators and their
ideas but we have no time nor interest in supporting or refuting them.

That said let me go through your questions.

1. Ric answered this so you can see this was originally a Navy idea.

2. Yes, of course. We now have for the first time a piece by Carey
that gives "overcast" information. We have never denied there were
overcast conditions at some point in the flight. Our overcast
discussions generally centered on Thompson's claim that we had no
confirmation of and indeed all evidence pointed to him having made
that up.

3a. We have no way of knowing whether or not noonan got sufficient
celestial navigation. No one could ever know that. The fact that he
didn't land at Howland is not evidence of insufficiency of celestial.
Certainly it COULD have been a factor but not necessarily. Accurate
navigation depends on many factors.

2b. Noonan started his DR from Lae. As Ric pointed out the whole
flight was DR supplemented by visual sightings perhaps, wind drift,
sun shots, planets possibly, star shots, maybe the moon and many
years of experience. What he didn't have was DF.

3. What I was trying to imply, David is that we know ONLY that at
0248 Earhart said "overcast." no one can know whether they had BEEN
in overcast conditions or were just entering it or in either case how
long it was overcast.  Therefore there can be no estimate of the
significance. It changes nothing other than lending credibility to
Commander Thompson's claim.

4.
            a. The weather at Nukumanu is not relevant. Even if we
knew it it would have been a spot report and of no value. I checked
the Australian Weather Bureau and they kindly checked their archives
for me. They told me no weather reports existed beyond 50 miles east
of Lae and in 1937 no one reported upper air.


            b. We DO have Ontario weather from their bridge logs.
 From 0800 to m0900 GMT force 3 winds from the east changing to force
4 (11 to 16 K) at 1000 GMT ENE from 1100 to 1300 GMT. At 1300 GMT sky
changed fro 30% to 70% cloud cover and at 1400 wind force 3 80% cloud
cover. Earhart would have passed by at 1030 GMT give or take.

           c.  Actual obsevations at Nauru were:
Baro. 29.898 Themo. Wind easterly 3 cloudy but fine clouds ci ci str
cu cumi moving from easterly direction sea smooth. Nauru 8 a.m. upper
air observation 2000 feet ninety degrees 14 mph 4000 feet ninety
degrees 12 mph 7500 feet ninety degrees 24 mph.

d. I have no clue what the weather at Funafuti was.

Finally, David let me write about the infamous LOP. I think it has
been well covered but let me emphasize that the LOP really has little
to do with the Niku theory. Certainly Noonan drew an LOP on his map
and on that map it no doubt went through Howland. But that was ONLY
on his map. Where the airplane was when their ETA to the LOP ran out
no one will ever know. That time was based on Noonan's estimate of
ground speed and position. The line may have actually put them on a
line through Howland but where they were on the line no one knows nor
did Noonan. The line could also been physically well short or long of
Howland.

Clearly at one point they were searching north and south on a line
running in that direction but no one knows for how long or where they
were at the time. The weather in the Itasca area and on SE was fairly
good and there is no reason to believe Noonan did not subsequently
fix his position and if so he would have then altered course to his
best choice of land. It is our opinion based on Randy's Monte Carlo
simulation, my estimates based on scantily known weather and
predictions, and estimates of others our heroes were considerably
south of course. If so and given their stated fuel conditions the
Phoenix Islands may have been their only choice. As you can see the
infamous LOP was not what got them to Niku. The sun line would have
been constantly changing as would their position. In my opinion they
either navigated there from a late fix or stumbled upon it.

I might add the "LOP" has confused most everyone. there was too much
early discussion of it and it was given far too much significance. It
is actually of little relevance.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:23:14
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

A little more confusion has surfaced I see.

Earhart NEVER said they were on the "LOP." What she said was,
".....we must be on you but can't see you...."

We assume that meant their time to the advanced LOP had run out and
they had reached the line on Noonan's map AND they thought they were
SO close to Howland on their line of position that they should have
been able to see the island.

About an hour later she said she was on the line 157/337. That was
NOT a sun line as the angle had changed. It was merely a direction.

The Howland area weather was NOT clear but as I recall about 3/8 CU.
I think the bases were about 2400' although that's off the top of my
head. The Itasca deck logs show from 1328 to around 2030 GMT the
visibility was 20 miles, wind from the east at around 7 knots
average, barometer steady at 29.82.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:09:03
From:         George Werth
Subject:      The New Britain project

After plowing through all of the verbiage
foisted on us today, some Googling seemed
to be in order; to make a long story short
go to: http://www.electranewbritain.com/Titlepage.htm

Isn't science wonderful?

Cheers

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:10:16
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Noonan might have been able to dead-reckon from an astronomical observation
anytime during the flight at night, when there was a break in the clouds.
No one has any idea whatsoever when or where that position was that he was
able to dead-reckon from.  During previous flights (e.g. Oakland to
Honolulu), we have excellent evidence that numerous celestial navigational
fixes were made (some good, some with errors), but when reported by Earhart,
they did not include the time that the fix was made.  In addition, some
fixes that were reported were dead-reckon positions from a prior fix.

If Noonan had overcast skies during the entire 10+ hours of darkness, then
he was in the proverbial deep doo-doo.  Typical weather patterns for that
time of year and that latitude would strongly suggest that complete overcast
over 1500 nautical miles of travel is ludicrously small.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:15:02
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis


Randy Jacobson wrote:

>Typical weather patterns for that
>time of year and that latitude would strongly suggest that complete
>overcast over 1500 nautical miles of travel is ludicrously small.

Moreover, Howland Island is an oval, flat, dark brown disc which
could have been easily confused with the hundreds of dappled cloud
shadows present around Howland that morning. Nikumaroro (then called
Gardner) meanwhile, is much larger, has a big, bright turquoise
lagoon, lots of lush green vegetation, bright sandy beaches and a big
reef flat, altogether much easier to spot from the air, even from
some distance.

As for the LOP, along with Earhart's comment she was flying along the
the line 157/337, this immediately pointed both the US Navy and
Putnam towards Gardner. When search planes arrived there they had not
a clue the island had been uninhabited for 40 years, so the signs of
"recent habitation" they saw were less striking than they otherwise
might have been.

Lastly, when TIGHAR did start looking into Nikumaroro almost 20 years
ago, lots of documentation and anecdotes about castaways, skeletons
and plane wreckage began turning up, never mind the artifacts.

The TIGHAR hypothesis is founded on likelihoods and bodies of
evidence taken together, not unknowable certainties about lines FN
may have drawn on a chart.

LTM
William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:16:08
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR Hypothesis

For Alan Caldwell:

"The line may have actually put them on a line through Howland but
where they were on the line no one knows nor did Noonan. The line
could also been physically well short or long of Howland."

Yes, Alan, but that's the problem.  If they turned "long" or "short"
of the line through Howland, this diminished anywhere from moderately
to substantially their chances of stumbling upon Gardner Island.

"The weather in the Itasca area and on SE was fairly good and there
is no reason to believe Noonan did not subsequently fix his position
and if so he would have then altered course to his best choice of land."

In that case Betty's notebook is out the window because they knew
where they were.  Why transmit 1 1/2 hours of melodrama when all they
had to say was, "KHAQQ down on Gardner Island 390 miles SSE Howland,
come get us"?

"It is our [i.e., TIGHAR's] opinion based on Randy's Monte Carlo
simulation, my estimates based on scantily known weather and
predictions, and estimates of others our heroes were considerably
south of course."

If I recall correctly, those estimates are based largely on
assumptions that FN was unable get celestial fixes during the night
and further unable to calculate, and therefore correct for, drift.
Arguably this results in a navigational error of 200-250 miles.  But
the underlying assumptions are tendentious at best, given that
weather conditions along the entire route were indeed "scantily
known." We do know, however, that AE's 0758 and 0843 xmissions were
logged at S5.  Several years ago Bob Brandenburg opined that Itasca's
chances of receiving an >intelligible< signal, to say nothing of a
strong signal, from NR16020 at a distance of 200 miles were approx 1
in 10. If he has changed this opinion I'm unaware of it.

"In my opinion they either navigated [to Gardner] from a late fix or
stumbled upon it."

If they stumbled upon Gardner while looking for Howland, they were on
a 157/337 line that ran smack through Howland.  If they navigated to
Gardner then, as mentioned above, they knew where they were and could
have given a clear position report.  Undoubtedly this position report
would have been repeated several times during the 1 1/2 hours Betty
was listening in, and should appear at least fragmentarily in her
notes.  Yet there is no mention of island, reef, shipwreck, Phoenix,
Gardner, or anything remotely approximating its position.  Instead
Our Heroes burned 90+ minutes of precious fuel talking of suitcases
in closets, Marie, New York, and my favorite:  "Bob, come here just a
moment."  In answer to the question, "How do you know what AE would
have said?" I can only guess what a reasonable person would have said
if she wanted to be rescued and was not a complete idiot.

"Earhart NEVER said they were on the 'LOP.' What she said was,
'.....we must be on you but can't see you....'"

Galten log entry for 0843 7/2/37:  "KHAQQ to Itasca. We are on the
line 157 337."

Patrick Gaston

PS  Please note I did not mention religion or politics in the above.
Too bad, because I can prove that Earhart was abducted by militant
Presbyterians bent on revenge for FDR's landslide victory over Alf
Landon in '36.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:56:47
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Reread my post, Pat. They didn't know where they were or where the
LOP 157/337 physically was. They were simply on a heading parallel to
their original LOP. Clearly they were not over Howland. Following a
heading or course of 157 would NOT get them to Niku unless they were
on an LOP of 157 that DID go through Howland or close to it

Once they left the Howland area or wherever they were there is no
reason to believe they stubbornly remained on that single heading or
course. Don't lock yourself into 157/337. That was their "search for
Howland" track. It does not have anything necessarily to do with
finding Niku.

If you stick with 157 to Niku that line had to run through or close
to Howland. If they were on it and north they would have over flown
Howland and Baker. If they were south they had to be so far south
that they were still out of sight of Baker after a search NW on 337.
That means at least 60 miles SE of Howland even AFTER a half hour
search to the NW. Big stretch but possible.

My post DID quote Earhart saying they were on 157/337 but she never
used the term LOP.

I agree her signal strength indicated she was quite close. That's
further evidence she was at least 20 miles short or long or as
William pointed out unable to distinguish Howland from cloud shadows.
She was also out of hearing and sighting range of the Itasca and
those on Howland.

Betty clearly did not capture verbatim everything she heard and as
Betty said the transmissions faded in and out. There is no evidence
Earhart never transmitted a location. All we know is no one has
reported such. There is no reason to believe we have every single
transmission she made.

Finally look at a map of the area. On the infamous LOP Earhart would
have had to almost purposely bypass McKean and fly out into open
ocean to find Niku with desperately low fuel. I don't think so. More
likely she was short of destination when she went SE. That is the
only way to clear McKean.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:16:46
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

I'll weigh in here because I always enjoy a couple of fast chukkers
with Pat Gaston.

>If they turned "long" or "short" of the line through Howland, this
>diminished anywhere from moderately to substantially their chances
>of stumbling upon Gardner Island.

Agreed, but although I can readily see how Noonan may have strayed
off course during the night (overcast sky and no wind drift info in
the dark), I have a hard time imagining why he might not get an
accurate 157 337 sun line at, or shortly after, dawn.  With a good
sun line LOP and now being able to use the drift sight to get a
handle on the current wind, he should be able to predict quite
accurately the time at which the plane will reach the LOP advanced
through Howland.  Do you know of some reason why his lines of
position - both observed at sunrise and the same line advanced
through Howland - should not be dead on?

>Why transmit 1 1/2 hours of melodrama when all they had to say was,
>"KHAQQ down on Gardner Island 390 miles SSE Howland, come get us"?

It's more like an hour and three quarters, but I agree with you that
in the few instances where intelligible, credible messages were
received (the Howland and Baker Island receptions, the "281" message,
Dana Randolph's message, and Betty's notebook), nobody reported
hearing Earhart say "Gardner" or any other island name.  Instead,
there are what appear to be various attempts to describe the location
- "281 north Howland beyond north" and "ship on reef southeast of
Howland" and possibly "Norwich City, Norwich City."  If Noonan was
indeed incapacitated, as Betty's notebook implies, I do not find it
at all difficult to believe that Earhart didn't know what island they
had found.

>>"It is our [i.e., TIGHAR's] opinion based on Randy's Monte Carlo
>>simulation, my estimates based on scantily known weather and
>>predictions, and estimates of others our heroes were considerably
>>south of course."
>
>If I recall correctly, those estimates are based largely on
>assumptions that FN was unable get celestial fixes during the night
>and further unable to calculate, and therefore correct for, drift.
>Arguably this results in a navigational error of 200-250 miles.
>But the underlying assumptions are tendentious at best, given that
>weather conditions along the entire route were indeed "scantily
>known."

The weather conditions encountered en route are, indeed, scantily
known, but they are not completely unknown.  I think we can now say
with some certainty that overcast conditions were  present during at
least the early morning hours.  And it's not terribly tendentious to
say that Noonan can't use the drift sight in the dark.

>We do know, however, that AE's 0758 and 0843 xmissions were logged
>at S5.  Several years ago Bob Brandenburg opined that Itasca's
>chances of receiving an >intelligible< signal, to say nothing of a
>strong signal, from NR16020 at a distance of 200 miles were approx
>1 in 10. If he has changed this opinion I'm unaware of it.

I don't recall Bob saying that. I'll have to leave it to him to respond.

>>"In my opinion they either navigated [to Gardner] from a late fix
>>or stumbled upon it."
>
>If they stumbled upon Gardner while looking for Howland, they were
>on a 157/337 line that ran smack through Howland.

Yup.

>If they navigated to Gardner then, as mentioned above, they knew
>where they were and could have given a clear position report.

Nope, not if Noonan was out of his head after they landed.  Even if
Noonan was shooting for Gardner, and even if he knew it was probably
Gardner when they sighted land, that doesn't mean that Earhart knew
what island it was.  One thing that's very apparent from the notes
and communications that survive from the various flights is that
Earhart's understanding of what Noonan was doing navigationally was
sketchy at best and verbal communication in the cockpit, especially
after 24 hours of flight, was nearly impossible.

>In answer to the question, "How do you know what AE would have
>said?" I can only guess what a reasonable person would have said if
>she wanted to be rescued and was not a complete idiot.

Your guess about what a reasonable person would have said makes all
kinds of assumptions about the situation the person was in and, in
fact, disregards the context described in the very document you want
to debunk.  I'm glad you're a lawyer and not a 911 operator.
"Quick, send the fire department, my house is on fire! What? Just go
ahead and jump! No, use a towel. I don't care! You've got to help us!
I've got to get out of here!" (click)

Obviously this call was a hoax. A reasonable person would have given
the street address and not waste time talking about towels unless
they were a complete idiot. No need to send the fire department.

>Galten log entry for 0843 7/2/37:  "KHAQQ to Itasca. We are on the
>line 157 337."

Yup.  Not "We think we are on the line 157 337" or "We are
approximately on the line 157 337."  The phrase implies a high degree
of confidence that they were on the line, but AE does not say "We are
on the line of position 157 337."  I think she's reading off a note
handed to her by Fred.  All she knows is what is on the note.  Ditto
with the earlier, "We must be on you but cannot see you."  "We must
be on you...?" Fred would never say that.  He knows darn well that
they don't have enough information to say that, but all AE knows is
that Fred gave her an ETA for the time they would reach the advanced
LOP and there's no island here.

At some later time, probably 08:55, AE says "We're running on line
north and south."  She's just describing what Fred has been telling
her to do.  They went north (actually NNW) on the line for a while
and now they're going south (actually SSE) but she has only the
vaguest understanding why other than that it's Fred's way of
searching for Howland.

You're right. Earhart's transmissions to Itasca and the various post-
loss messages, including Betty's notebook, make no sense if they were
sent by the famous aviation pioneer of legend.  They make perfect
sense if they were sent by Amelia Earhart.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:19:15
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>They didn't know where they were or where the LOP 157/337
>physically was. They were simply on a heading parallel to their
>original LOP.

My take on this is a bit different. Earhart did say "we must be on
you."  For me, the evidence suggests Noonan had the same opinion.
With no working radio nav (which he had routinely used with Pan Am
and was depending on to find Howland once he'd gotten them into the
vicinity), unable to spot that speck of land among the cloud shadows,
it's reasonable to guess FN, sea captain, vastly experienced
celestial navigator, may have said something like, "Look, I know
we've come within ten or twenty miles of Howland. I know it. But for
the last hour we've been burning up fuel, running up and down this
157/337 line I advanced and meanwhile, look, it passes within sight
of Gardner island which is still within range and a lot bigger. What
d'ya say?"

LTM,
William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:28:30
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      New Britain hypothesis

I have had e-mail discussions with David Billings concerning his belief that
NR16020 lies in the jungles of New Britain. It is hard for me to believe
that there was sufficient fuel to go from Lae to somewhere near Howland then
back to New Britain. David explained his fuel usage reasoning to me, but I'm
far from an expert in that area so I have no summary opinion on it. I'm not
sure of David's opinion of the post-loss messages, but if AE crash-landed in
a jungle, I doubt that transmitting messages for three days afterwards would
have been possible.

So, to believe the NB hypothesis, we have to rethink fuel usage and discard
the post-loss messages.

David, what say you to the post-loss messages?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:29:43
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

>From Ric
>
>Pat Gaston wrote:
>
>>Several years ago Bob Brandenburg opined that Itasca's  chances
>>of receiving an >intelligible< signal, to say nothing of a  strong
>>signal, from NR16020 at a distance of 200 miles were approx  1 in
>>10. If he has changed this opinion I'm unaware of it.
>
>I don't recall Bob saying that. I'll have to leave it to him to
>respond.

Pat,

I may have said that, but I don't recall doing so.   Perhaps you can
refresh my memory as to the circumstances and context.   And, while
you're at it, perhaps you can explain what significance you attach to
such a probability, and what relevance it has to other circumstances.
LTM,

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:35:57
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR  hypothesis

>From Alan Caldwell
>
>Finally look at a map of the area. On the infamous LOP Earhart
>would have had to almost purposely bypass McKean and fly out into
>open ocean to find Niku with desperately low fuel. I don't think
>so. More likely she was short of destination when she went SE. That
>is the only way to clear McKean.

Except that McKean was full of birds...landing there without a bird
strike was probably a dicey proposition at best.  But, if they find
McKean, and they know they have X amount of fuel left, then they have
all the information they need to go for Gardner.  That presumes that
they knew something about Gardner (bigger, easier for survival) that
pushed them to go further south instead of taking the first shot at
land then had.

					Reed
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:45:59
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Re the "overcast and cloudy"

Dwiggins in his 1967 book says AE's voice "crackled throught the
"loudspeaker" at 1418, saying "cloudy and overcast"....".  Three
heard the signal-Bellarts, Hanzlick and Carey. "Thats her!" Carey
said, "I'd know her voice anywhere".Bellarts looked over to Hanzlick,
and Hanzlilck  said there was no doubt about it, because that is the
way she broadcast, "flat monotone". Dwiggins offered no cites.

Hanzlick said he listened to her on her Hon--Oakland flight, a couple
of years ago. I have never confirmed that.

I interviewed Hanzlick about 6 years ago and he confirmed he was with
Carey in the radio room at 1418 and that the loudspeaker was turned
on by Bellarts. So maybe Carey did hear it through the loudspeaker.

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:59:11
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Ron Bright says,

>I interviewed Hanzlick about 6 years ago and he confirmed he was
>with Carey in the radio room at 1418 and that the loudspeaker was
>turned on by Bellarts. So maybe Carey did hear it through the
>loudspeaker.

So you prefer the Hanzlick's 64 year-old recollection to Carey's 24
day-old written statement.  The transmission was so weak and static-
filled that Bellarts logged it as unintelligible.  His statement to
Elgen Long in 1973 that he would have surely been on the phones, not
the loudspeaker, makes perfect sense.

Ron, if you don't set standards for the credibility of sources you
wander endlessly in the wilderness wondering whom to believe.

Remember why we say "Love to Mother?"
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:12:33
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

<<Except that McKean was full of birds...landing there without a bird
strike was probably a dicey proposition at best. >>

McKean also doesn't have any very obviously good places to land,
except the guano lagoon.

LTM (who tells her children to stay out of the s--t.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:15:05
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Ron Bright wrote:

>Dwiggins in his 1967 book says AE's voice "crackled throught the
>"loudspeaker" at 1418, saying "cloudy and overcast"

Only 24 days after it happened, Carey reported hearing this "with my
ears to the phones."

We have three very conflicting accounts. Memory being what it is, I
do tend to give the earliest one (Carey's) more sway.

LTM,
William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:03:28
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      TIGHAR hypothesis, round 3

Ric:  Glad you find me irresistible (blush).  Here we go:

"With a good sun line LOP and now being able to use the drift sight
to get a handle on the current wind, he should be able to predict
quite accurately the time at which the plane will reach the LOP
advanced through Howland.  Do you know of some reason why his lines
of position - both observed at sunrise and the same line advanced
through Howland - should not be dead on?"

Ric, you oughta know better by now than to use the old prove-a-
negative gambit.  Wx or not FN turned on the LOP at the right time
depends on the accuracy of his dead reckoning.  However, the argument
works both ways. With drift information and sunshots now at his
disposal, FN would have realized they drifted off course during the
night, and plotted a correction. Of course this assumes that FN had
absolutely no way of getting drift info during the night.  See below.

"If Noonan was indeed incapacitated, as Betty's notebook implies, I
do not find it at all difficult to believe that Earhart didn't know
what island they had found."

Oh, come on, Ric.  Noonan was capable of navigating a course to
Gardner but never told Earhart, in the course of 2 or 3 hours, where
they were heading? Well, maybe the fishing pole broke.

"I think we can now say with some certainty that overcast conditions
were present during at least the early morning hours.  And it's not
terribly tendentious to say that Noonan can't use the drift sight in
the dark."

I agree with your first point, but one mention of "overcast" 700
miles out does not a solid cloud cover make.  And AE never mentioned
it again.  As for the drift sight, it's my understanding that
navigators of that era, fully realizing they couldn't see in the
dark, used flares.  Can you prove FN didn't have them?

"Your guess about what a reasonable person would have said makes all
kinds of assumptions about the situation the person was in and, in
fact, disregards the context described in the very document you want
to debunk. I'm glad you're a lawyer and not a 911 operator. 'Quick,
send the fire department, my house is on fire! What? Just go ahead
and jump! No, use a towel. I don't care! You've got to help us! I've
got to get out of here!' (click) Obviously this call was a hoax. A
reasonable person would have given the street address and not waste
time talking about towels unless they were a complete idiot. No need
to send the fire department."

If I were on the phone with 911 for over an hour and a half, I
imagine I would remember to work in my address at some point.  This
also gets into the issue of why AE would be in such an utter panic on
July 5 or 6, when she has had 3-4 days to observe the tidal ebb and
flow.  >Suddenly< they're hysterical over rising water?

"AE does not say 'We are on the line of position 157 337.'  I think
she's reading off a note handed to her by Fred.  All she knows is
what is on the note.  Ditto with the earlier, 'We must be on you but
cannot see you.'  'We must be on you...?' Fred would never say that.
He knows darn well that they don't have enough information to say
that, but all AE knows is that Fred gave her an ETA for the time they
would reach the advanced LOP and there's no island here.  At some
later time, probably 08:55, AE says 'We're running on line north and
south.'  She's just describing what Fred has been telling her to do.
They went north (actually NNW) on the line for a while and now
they're going south (actually SSE) but she has only the vaguest
understanding why other than that it's Fred's way of searching for
Howland."

Wow, talk about assumptions.  You have re-created not only what AE
and FN would say and wouldn't, but what each of them knew, what they
didn't know, and what was going on in AE's head.  Makes for a nice
story, but it's raw speculation.  Your depiction of Earhart as a
mindless robot also contradicts TIGHAR's theory that FN was not back
at the nav station during this period, but seated in the cockpit -- a
theory which which I agree.   If Fred was indeed in the copilot's
seat, you don't think he would have kept her somewhat informed?  In
any event, I think it's splitting hairs to imply that, simply because
AE used the term "line" instead of "line of position," she was
clueless about Fred's intent.  Let's go back to you 911 analogy.  If
in the heat of the moment (and this was a very brief xmission) I give
my address  as "123 Oak" instead of the correct "123 North Oak
Drive," does that mean I'm out of it?

"You're right. Earhart's transmissions to Itasca and the various post-
loss messages, including Betty's notebook, make no sense if they were
sent by the famous aviation pioneer of legend.  They make perfect
sense if they were sent by Amelia Earhart."

I guess you are saying that AE was a human being with faults and
foibles, like the rest of us.  I've never assumed she was anything
else.  But any human being marooned on a desert island and >knowing
what island it was< would make every effort to communicate that
information as clearly as possible.  The contention that FN would lay
in a course for Gardner without once mentioning that fact to the
pilot strikes me as beyond belief.  If they stumbled upon the island,
that's perhaps a different story.  But the main point of my pvs post
was to challenge Alan's statement that FN navigated to Gardner.

LT Kamal

Pat Gaston

PS  Back to the militant Presbyterians:  Unfortunately, the kidnap
boat subsequently hit a submerged reef enroute to Saipan and plunged
beneath the waves.  Yes, it crashed and sank.  Earhart's last words:
"Boy, if they knew what happened back home, it would sure Bolam over."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:57:20
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

That's a good point, Reed but if I'm close to running on fumes and
have already missed finding two other islands I would have put the
plane down birds or no birds. The landing no matter where other than
Howland means the end of the mission and the end of the Electra. What
difference a few hundred bird strikes?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:57:54
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

>From Tom King
>
>McKean also doesn't have any very obviously good places to land,
>except the guano lagoon.

Oh well, so much for eating lunch in front of the computer.  Not the
sort of mental picture that goes with eating gloopy cafeteria chicken
salad.

LTM (who also said to finish it anyway because she didn't go to the
trouble of making it for us to pick at, and besides didn't we know
there are children starving in China?)
--
Amanda
#2418CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:48:14
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Except, Alan, that they weren't "on fumes", if the post loss
transmissions came from Earhart's plane.  My reading of the book
gives them something like six hours of possible transmissions, maybe
more if I really add it up.  That probably corresponds to another
hour of flying time after they reached Gardner.  If they knew where
they were at McKean (which I think likely if they did manage to find
it), then they would have known that they had enough fuel to make
Gardner (again using the information above, it's all of course
speculation).

Besides, landing in a guano lagoon didn't fit with Earhart's
image...  :)

					Reed
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:37:37
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

>McKean also doesn't have any very obviously good places to land,
>except the guano lagoon.

That's true, Tom except it most likely didn't make any difference.
The mission was trashed and the plane was not going to be
recoverable. Of course Earhart may have still held out hope. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:42:54
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

Back in June 2005 (see forum dated Sat. 18 June 2005, From: Ted
Campbell, Subject: Betty's Notebook (her page 3) - A coincidence or a
clue) I posted a question as to whether or not AE and FN did know
where they were and if the entry in Betty's notebook picked it up:
You will have to go to the Forum's archives to see the details and
analyses of Betty's notes.

If this was the case - as questioned in the above reference - then
Pat Gaston's question posted on April 4, 2007 "Why transmit 1 1/2
hours of melodrama when all they had to say was ' KHAQQ down on
Gardner Island 390 miles SSE Howland, come get us'" was indeed
answered as Pat asked

Ted Campbell
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:23:23
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

My my, what a controversy we have.
Lets look at the known evidence. (not theories)
1. AE and FN got very close to Howland. -  Very loud radio reception.
2. They did not see Howland. -  Reasons stated by William Webster-Garmin
Also, a haze can look clear from down looking up and obscure the
ground looking down from up with the sun reflecting off the haze. - 
Personal information observed over forty years of flying.
3. They then looked to the North along the 337 line to no avail. Did
a 180 and returned along the 157 line again passing close to Howland
-  More loud radio reception.
4. The second leg of the "LOP" travel was the 157 line. -  See map of
DF directions from distant places in Ric's book.
5. They arrived at Gardner. -  Description of Norwich City ship that
was understandably taken by Betty to be "New York City".
6 The attempted
landing probably was along the long straight shore line to the SSE
of the Norwich City wreck. - This would appear from the air as the
best place and also they seem to be able to see the Norwich City
wreck from where they stopped.
7. Shortly after touchdown, they came to a sudden stop. -  Nature of
injuries to AE and FN.
8. Calls for help not very rational due to effects of
injuries and a probable state of complete panic on AE's part.
As to why the Navy plane did not see the Electra, see Ric's book
concerning the probability of detection. (Civil Air Patrol Observer
Course text book). A distraction such as looking at the signs "of
recent habitation" could have been instrumental.
What happened to the Electra? High seas from storms could have caused
it to slide to deep water. The empty fuel tanks could have provided
enough buoyancy that it floated a considerable distance before sinking.
Does this mean that they crashed and sank? Well sort of maybe.
Alan, as a lawyer you have a professional talent for causing doubt.
Where am I wrong? Ric, with a world of knowledge of the subject and
the intelligence to interpret it, where am I wrong?
LTM who just wanted the facts.
Chuck Buzbee
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:24:00
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      McKean

Before I start work today... McKean is a tiny, rat infested sandbar
of coral, guano and brine with almost 100,000 birds, meaning clouds
of them. Smacking into 5 pound sea bird at a combined velocity of
say, 200 knots is not trivial. Try landing a tail dragger on a
sandbar with your shattered windscreen covered in blood and feathers,
or an aluminium wing no longer offering symmetrical lift and control
because of a big dent on the leading edge, or a bent prop throwing
off engine balance, grinding its bearings into metal shavings and smoke.

Anyway maybe they did see McKean, which is why TIGHAR visited the
place years ago. Meanwhile the evidence of skeletons and aircraft
wreckage turned up on Gardner.

LTM who, like the Gilbert and Ellice Island colonial authority in
1938, thought McKean was for the birds (and helpfully left it to them).

William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:24:28
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

...'Nope, not if Noonan was out of his head after they landed'...

Except for Betty's 30 (+) year, latter day 'recollections' about her
very fragmentary notes, describing the hour & three-quarter long,
continuous 'conversation' she heard, ...the ONLY other allegations that
Noonan was even 'injured' when they (supposedly) 'landed', ...are
contained in some of the 'conspiratorial' writers' 'versions' of the
R/T/W flight's terminus...

While  Betty's 'notes' clearly suggest the 'man' participating in the
'conversation' was ...quite 'aggitated' (presumably) about being
'trapped inside' by rising water & insisting upon 'getting-out'... there
is NO confirmation in Betty's (raw) 'notes' that the man was either
'injured' or 'out of his head'...

...In fact, Betty's (raw) 'notes' contain (as previously mentioned) NO
reference to an island, a reef, a wrecked ship, no 'call-sign'' or even
any mention of an  'aircraft'... with NO indication that either the man
or woman she heard were injured, ...

Don Neumann
sandon@webtv.net
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:25:01
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: Hypothesis

...'As for the LOP, along with Earhart's comment she was flying along
the line 157/337, this immediately pointed both the US Navy and Putnam
towards Gardner'...

Actually, the official report submitted by Friedell makes NO (specific)
mention of Gardner Island until AFTER Lt. Lambrecht's 'over-flight' of
the island...

In fact, according to Friedell's report, the ORIGINAL search plan for
the COLORADO called for proceeding EAST from the vicinity of HOWLAND,
along the Equator, with the COLORADO scout planes flying ahead of the
ship, in a rectangular 'pattern', no more than 60 miles North & no more
than 60 miles South of the Equator...

Only after receiving a special messge from Putnam, requesting an aerial
'recon' of the Phoenix Island Group, did Frieell's report indicate any
'alteration' of the ORIGINAL search plan for the COLORADO:

...'The Commanding Officer therefore decided to hold to his ORIGINAL
decision, that of searching to the southeast of Howland, with one
MODIFICATION, that being to search by planes, the land areas of the
Phoenix Group, ...prior to the large water areas. ...Large areas of
intervening water, of course would be covered at the same time'...

No special priority was assigned to searching ANY 'specific' island in
the Phoenix Group, ...nor any effort made or urgency expressed in
proceeding directly to any of the individual Phoenix Islands...

...So, Lt. Lambrecht's flight first spent their time (futilely) trying
to locate the 'elusive' Windslow Reef, ...then flying on to Mc Kean
Island, ...before finally 'zooming' over Gardner Island...

While the Navy clearly considered the 'messages' placing the Electra as
being 'down' somewhere to the North of Howland, as being 'incorrect',
...& agreed that searching the SE QUADRANT from Howland was the most
'logical' course, ...the Navy did NOT express any special interest in,
or urgency about, searching the islands of the Phoenix Group; ...until
AFTER Putnam's request & a message from the USCG that Noonan's
(probable) 'modus operandi' would have been to seek the CLOSEST land,
having failed to locate Howland...

Don N.
sandon@webtv.net
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:02:16
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

>...the Navy did NOT express any special interest in,
>or urgency about, searching the islands of the Phoenix Group; ...until
>AFTER Putnam's request & a message from the USCG that Noonan's
>(probable) 'modus operandi' would have been to seek the CLOSEST land,
>having failed to locate Howland...

And your point is, Don?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:02:49
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: McKean

>Before I start work today... McKean is a tiny, rat infested sandbar
>of coral, guano and brine with almost 100,000 birds, meaning clouds
>of them. Smacking into 5 pound sea bird at a combined velocity of
>say, 200 knots is not trivial.

William, I certainly agree although the approach would have been
around 60 knots or less rather than 200 knots. I certainly would not
have wanted to land at McKean either but if the alternative was going
down at sea I would have.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:04:44
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Phoenix Islands vs. Gilberts/Marshalls

I'm trying to limit what I can say and still take advantage of the
"free posting period".

The "Crash & Sankers" have to acknowledge that the Lea / Howland leg
had only one hour of fuel to find Howland. This would have to have
been seen in the pre-flight stage when considering a plan "B".

The Phoenix island "catchers mitt" and the finding of Niku by
accident depends on the Electra's fuel consumption at MAX gross
weight. If I remember correctly from Oscar Boswell's calculations,
the Electra was down to max gross weight about an hour or so from
Howland.

The north to south orientation of the Gilbert / Marshall island
"fence line" for plan "B" is dependant on Pan Am having developed a
method of "flight control" in long distance flying. Part of  "flight
control" was the ability to measure fuel consumption and remaining
fuel in real time during the flight. Hence the importance of having a
working Cambridge fuel analyzer.

AE & FN would have to had come to the conclusion that they were lost
in the 20th hour of the flight.

If they headed south toward the Phoenix island catchers mitt during
daylight hours, Noonan could only dead / ded reckon down to there. He
had no tools to determine their location on the face of the earth
other than LOPs or control the flight other than a compass and airspeed.

If on the other hand we consider Noonan's work experience with Pan
Am, their "flight control" methods would enable him to reserve enough
fuel to attempt the Gilbert / Marshall island fence line for plan
"B". I like to think of the fence line formed by these island groups
as a metaphor for a coast line.  He then had LOPs, often referred to
as speed lines, to measure their progress in that direction. Noonan
would have known when they arrived on that fence line and if no
islands were in sight and the engines were still running, a turn
north or south would find them land. It's about 170 mile open water
gap between the Gilbert and Marshall groups.

Since the obvious must be ignored in light of the "free postings"
conditions I am compelled to opt out for the disappearing island that
Putnam chartered the boat out of the Gilbert's to find.
That can't be as far fetched as a storm washing the Electra back into
the water before the Lambrecht overflight.

Daryll

=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:01:52
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

<<Yet there is no mention of island, reef, shipwreck, Phoenix,
Gardner, or anything remotely approximating its position.>>

Actually, this is not strictly true.  As I and others have noted,
when the seemingly random strings of numbers are deconstructed
phonetically, parts of 158/338 (1 degree off the line of position)
appear with regularity.  This seems like it's a stretch, but it's
not, when considering that Betty was transcribing a radio
transmission that faded in and out and that ends of numbers and
certain letters sound alike.  People looking at the random strings of
letters and numbers view this as the biggest roadblock to the book's
credibility, but I think it's just the reverse -- they're thinking as
if it was an exact transcription, rather than the human ear trying to
decipher figures in bad reception.  The ear responds to what it's
familiar with, and coordinates and such are going to unfamiliar to a
15 year-old girl, and thus more likely to be misunderstood.

If the TIGHAR hypothesis is true, and also Betty's Notebook is true,
what makes sense to me is that AE and FN knew they were on the line
of position, but not exactly where.  So that jumble of numbers may
well have been an attempt to give the best information that they had
without causing people to look on the wrong island.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:33:40
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Carey and Hanzlick

Based on Long's 1973 interview with Leo Bellarts, Bellarts recalled
that one of the newspaper men, Carey or Hanzlick, got "canned" when
they got back to Honolulu. Apparently Bellarts sent one of the
dispatches to the other reporters paper by accident. [p.30, Long transcript]
Has anyone heard which one got fired and if that was the real reason?

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:47:12
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Carey and Hanzlick

>Based on Long's 1973 interview with Leo Bellarts, Bellarts recalled
>that one of the newspaper men, Carey or Hanzlick, got "canned" when
>they got back to Honolulu. Apparently Bellarts sent one of the
>dispatches to the other reporters paper by accident. [p.30, Long transcript]
>Has anyone heard which one got fired and if that was the real reason?

As far as I know, neither Carey nor Hanzlick was "canned."

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:56:29
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: McKean

Alan wrote:

>William, I certainly agree although the approach would have been around
>60 knots or less rather than 200 knots.

Truth be told, there are a couple of things which would easily make
such an impact closer to 200 knots. First, I mentioned a combined
speed: One must add how fast the bird is coming from the other
direction, which could be anywhere from 10 to 40 knots depending on
the wind and what the bird's up to. Second, at 60 knots the Electra
would be falling out of the sky. Its more likely approach speed as it
swooped in would start at around 160 knots and gradually slow down.
So we're looking at a real possibility of getting smacked by a 5-7
pound weight at anywhere from 100-200 knots.

Anyway Gardner was within sight of the LOP and, going by the last
transmission heard on Howland, it sounds to me as if Noonan thought
he was rather close to the line he'd advanced to Howland. Why didn't
they see Baker? Maybe Earhart truly botched and got them too far
south, maybe it was cloud shadows, who knows?

On the subject of Adam Marsland's comments about Betty's notebook I
tend to agree. Forget most of what she's said recently, nobody's
memory can be relied upon that much after all this time, never mind
she was 15 and listening to fuzzy demod off upper harmonics, when her
notes are taken phonetically they become so too plausible. We have
what could be the LOP, maybe the name of the freighter (New York City
Norwich City), the first name of Fred's new wife, GP's given name,
some kind of talk about a battery, rising water and so on.

When looking at this sort of evidence it's important not to project
onto it what we "think" Betty "should" have heard, or what AE and FN
"would" have done. That stuff's unanswerable.

What we have is thorough documentation of their reported LOP, a first
rate, pioneering aerial navigator with all kinds of tricks up his
sleeve (who had flown with Ed Musick on Pan Am's first round trip run
between San Francisco and Honolulu), an assertion that "we must be on
you," Gardner on the SE end of that LOP with enough fuel to get
there, a big docking reef flat to land on, post-loss radio signals
DFing to the Phoenix islands and a British civil servant on Gardner
wiring his boss 3 years later to say he think's he's stumbled across
Earhart's skeleton.

I'd say TIGHAR has already changed the history books on this one,
that was more or less done deal as of Ric's book last year. All
that's missing now is a scrap of DNA, a serial number or an artifact
big and/or unique enough to definitively identify as having come from
NR16020.

LTM, who could take a hint.
William Webster-Garman
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:08:15
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: The curse of Howland Island

Thanks, George; the curse of Howland Island is a new one on me.  AE
had a lot going against her.

LTM (who, of course, never curses)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:01:47
From:         Terrence Thorgaard
Subject:      The Lambrecht photos

Thank you for temporarily opening this forum to non-members.

Since I saw the article that was published on the 'net recently, I
have been reading just about everything on the TIGHAR site with great
interest.  I have not, however, read all of the archived posts to
this forum.  So what I am asking may be there, but I haven't found it
yet.

The caption in the section of the TIGHAR site referring to the
Lambrecht photo says, and I quote:

"This U.S. Navy photo is the only picture known to have been taken of
Gardner Island during the 1937 search for Amelia Earhart. The
photographer is unknown, but this print of the photo, obtained from
an archive in New Zealand, is inscribed "U.S. Navy (pilot) July 9,
1937" on the reverse. That is the date the three aircraft from U.S.S.
Colorado flew over Gardner Island. The senior aviator on that mission
was Lt. John O. Lambrecht. The handwritten north arrow points due west."

I am puzzled by this.  Can we get a more exact story on the provenance?

How did the print arrive in a N.Z. archive?  Was it given to the
archive by a U.S.N. archive (who presumably would have kept the
negative)?

I assume the photographer would have been a spotter on one of the
three planes, not a pilot.  Lambrecht mentions, when he landed at
Hull, that he had a "cadet" spotter.  Would this cadet have been a
NROTC cadet, or was there such a rank in the regular navy at the
time?  My hunch is that the NROTC cadet took the shot with a personal=

camera, and never submitted the photo to anyone on the Colorado. 
Perhaps later he sent a print to the N.Z. archive.

Lambrecht's report suggests that he overflew Gardner in the late
morning or early afternoon.  What looks like glare in the photo
appears to come from the N.W., setting the time as several hours
later.  Is it glare, or is the print just showing signs of age?

As I am sure someone has already thought, if the provenance of the
print can be traced, it might be possible to find more photographs of
the Lambrecht overflight.

Thank you,

Terrence Thorgaard
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:03:39
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Phoenix Islands vs. Gilberts/Marshalls

>From Daryll Bolinger
>
>I'm trying to limit what I can say and still take advantage of the
>"free posting period".

Daryll, you should say whatever you want.

>The "Crash & Sankers" have to acknowledge that the Lea / Howland leg
>had only one hour of fuel to find Howland. This would have to have
>been seen in the pre-flight stage when considering a plan "B".

Daryll, our fuel calculations indicate around 4 to 4 1/2 hours of
fuel once they arrived in the Howland area. I computed 139 gal and
others have figured around 150 gal. My figures are based on Kelly
Johnson's 1936 test flight of a heavy airplane and the fuel
consumption of the Daily Express.

>The Phoenix island "catchers mitt" and the finding of Niku by
>accident depends on the Electra's fuel consumption at MAX gross
>weight. If I remember correctly from Oscar Boswell's calculations,
>the Electra was down to max gross weight about an hour or so from
>Howland.
>
>The north to south orientation of the Gilbert / Marshall island
>"fence line" for plan "B" is dependant on Pan Am having developed a
>method of "flight control" in long distance flying. Part of  "flight
>control" was the ability to measure fuel consumption and remaining
>fuel in real time during the flight. Hence the importance of having a
>working Cambridge fuel analyzer.

Daryll, I am not understanding what your term "flight control" means.

>AE & FN would have to had come to the conclusion that they were lost
>in the 20th hour of the flight.
>
>If they headed south toward the Phoenix island catchers mitt during
>daylight hours, Noonan could only dead / ded reckon down to there. He
>had no tools to determine their location on the face of the earth
>other than LOPs or control the flight other than a compass and
>airspeed.

Daryll, why do you say that? Noonan had the sun off his left wing to
get course lines.

>If on the other hand we consider Noonan's work experience with Pan
>Am, their "flight control" methods would enable him to reserve enough
>fuel to attempt the Gilbert / Marshall island fence line for plan
>"B". I like to think of the fence line formed by these island groups
>as a metaphor for a coast line.  He then had LOPs, often referred to
>as speed lines, to measure their progress in that direction. Noonan
>would have known when they arrived on that fence line and if no
>islands were in sight and the engines were still running, a turn
>north or south would find them land. It's about 170 mile open water
>gap between the Gilbert and Marshall groups.

Daryll, how does Noonan get LOPs with the Sun behind him to the East?

>Since the obvious must be ignored in light of the "free postings"
>conditions I am compelled to opt out for the disappearing island that
>Putnam chartered the boat out of the Gilbert's to find.
>That can't be as far fetched as a storm washing the Electra back into
>the water before the Lambrecht overflight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:04:01
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Number crunching

Using an ONC map and on line navigation calculators from NOAA and
USNO I came up with the following:

1. Distance from Howland to Niku 404.517 SM

2. If Earhart was ON the 157/337 LOP but south of course she had to
be around 120 miles minimum SE to keep from seeing Baker while
searching NW. At that point she would have been about 200 SM from
Niku and 455 SM from the nearest Gilbert Island

3. Regardless where on the 157/337 line she was she would have passed
McKean to the west by 40 SM and east of Niku 15 SM. -- IF the
airplane was exactly on the line. If she was long at 0712 she would
have never seen Niku staying on that track. She could not have been
as much as 35 SM short and still seen Niku.

The weather was reasonably good at this time and SE so I see no
reason Noonan could not get a fix of some kind. He had the Sun, Moon
and the planet Venus. A 62 degree cut on the Sun, 300 degree on the
Moon and 22 on Venus. IF he could see them to shoot he could get a
fix. IF he got a fix it had to be at a time and position and fuel
reserve that Niku was his only or best choice.

Clearly his LOP for Howland could have been 10 to 15 miles off
shooting the Sun at such a low elevation -- less than ten degrees.
His navigation from the Howland area to Niku may well not have been
precise. Either or both condition could have resulted in a pure DR
that reached Niku on the money without getting another fix on the way.

What that means to me is that the airplane at 0712 had to be in a
very small box. 15 sm west of the LOP to 60 sm east of the LOP (that
would have come within sight of McKean from which he could find Niku)
and 120 sm SE of Howland to maybe 200 sm miles SE of Howland (to stay
within a strong radio transmission).

If the plane was out of that box Noonan could not have found Niku
using the 157/337 track. If he was out of the box he almost had to
get a fix to alter in to Niku.

BTW, the 157/337 degree LOP was a True bearing. To fly that track
Earhart had to fly 147 1/2 degrees on her mag compass further
corrected for wind. The Mag dev on that day was 9 1/2 E.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:05:06
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: McKean

William, you are correct. My 60 mph was a little low. The web site
had a comment from Ric that the stall speed was 65. I'm certainly
willing to add 5. <G>

I did a little more computation on the idea that the plane at 0712
was around 120 sm south on the LOP. This presents a problem. there is
an unconfirmed report a native on Tabiteau reported hearing a plane
fly high over head that fateful night. If so they had to be heading
about 13 degrees south of track 575 sm out. I'm not sure I could find
a rationale for that.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:07:02
From:         From Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The Lambrecht photo

Terrence Thorgaard asks:

>The caption in the section of the TIGHAR site referring to the
>Lambrecht photo says, and I quote:
>
>"This U.S. Navy photo is the only picture known to have been taken
>of Gardner Island during the 1937 search for Amelia Earhart. The
>photographer is unknown, but this print of the photo, obtained from
>an archive in New Zealand, is inscribed "U.S. Navy (pilot) July 9,
>1937" on the reverse. That is the date the three aircraft from
>U.S.S. Colorado flew over Gardner Island. The senior aviator on
>that mission was Lt. John O. Lambrecht. The handwritten north arrow
>points due west."
>
>I am puzzled by this.  Can we get a more exact story on the
>provenance?

Probably not.

>How did the print arrive in a N.Z. archive?  Was it given to the
>archive by a U.S.N. archive (who presumably would have kept the
>negative)?

Dunno.  The same photo appears in Jim Donahue's 1987 conspiracy
masterpiece "The Earhart Disappearance - The British Connection"
captioned " Amateur aerial photograph taken with Kodak 616 Camera of
Gardner Island, Phoenix Group, from Earhart Electra on 2 July 1937."
It is credited to "USN Office of Naval Intelligence Report."  There
is, of course, no explanation of what USN Office of Naval
Intelligence Report he's talking about nor is any proof offered for
the startling statement that the photo was taken by Earhart.

>I assume the photographer would have been a spotter on one of the
>three planes, not a pilot.  Lambrecht mentions, when he landed at
>Hull, that he had a "cadet" spotter.  Would this cadet have been a
>NROTC cadet, or was there such a rank in the regular navy at the
>time?  My hunch is that the NROTC cadet took the shot with a
>personal camera, and never submitted the photo to anyone on the
>Colorado.  Perhaps later he sent a print to the N.Z. archive.

Lambrecht's observer on the morning flight to McKean/ Gardner/
Carondelet Reef was Seaman 1st class J.L. Marks.  His observer for
the the afternoon flight to Hull was Naval Aviation Cadet (not an
NROTC student) Ashley Wilson.  Fox's observer on the morning ride was
Radioman 3rd Class Williamson.  Short's observer was Colorado's Ass't
1st Lieutenant, Lt. Chillingworth.

>Lambrecht's report suggests that he overflew Gardner in the late
>morning or early afternoon.  What looks like glare in the photo
>appears to come from the N.W., setting the time as several hours
>later.  Is it glare, or is the print just showing signs of age?

According to Colorado's deck log, the planes were launched at 0700
and returned roughly three hours later (the launch and recovery times
for each plane are specifically stated).  Calculating the distances
and times, the Corsairs were over Gardner for 10 to 15 minutes 
shortly after 0800 local time.

>As I am sure someone has already thought, if the provenance of the
>print can be traced, it might be possible to find more photographs
>of the Lambrecht overflight.

Donohue's book includes a second photo which also attributes to
Earhart and credits to a "USN Office of Naval Intelligence Report." 
The photo shows part of Hull Island.  If the photos are from the same
collection and presumably taken by the same photographer, then they
had to have been taken by one of the pilots - Lambrecht, Fox or Short
- because all of the observers were different on the afternoon flight
to Hull.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:08:26
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Hypothesis

Don Neumann writes:

>...'As for the LOP, along with Earhart's comment she was flying along
>the line 157/337, this immediately pointed both the US Navy and Putnam
>towards Gardner'...
>
>Actually, the official report submitted by Friedell makes NO (specific)
>mention of Gardner Island until AFTER Lt. Lambrecht's 'over-flight' of
>the island...

Nobody said it did.

>In fact, according to Friedell's report, the ORIGINAL search plan for
>the COLORADO called for proceeding EAST from the vicinity of HOWLAND,
>along the Equator, with the COLORADO scout planes flying ahead of the
>ship, in a rectangular 'pattern', no more than 60 miles North & no more
>than 60 miles South of the Equator...

Not true. The plan you describe was not formulated until the night of
July 3-4 and it was the first step in a plan to search southeast of
Howland (which, of course, is toward Gardner Island). As early as the
afternoon of July 2 navy experts had figured out that Earhart had
probably made a forced landing southeast of Howland.

"While at Pearl Harbor the Commanding Officer of the
U.S.S. COLORADO received instructions from the Commandant,
Fourteenth Naval District, Rear Admiral Orin G. Murfin, U.S.
Navy, and conferred with the Commanding Officer, Fleet Air Base,
Captain Kenneth Whiting, U.S. Navy, and other officers of the
District and Air Base relative to the probable path and location
of the Earhart Plane in the event of a forced landing. This
information seemed to indicate that the most probable reason for
missing Howland Island would be that of stronger winds than
normally expected in the region, and that the plane had probably
been carried southeast of Howland a greater distance than that
from which Howland could be sighted. These opinions lead the
Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. COLORADO, at this time to
believe that southeast of Howland was the most likely area."

>Only after receiving a special messge from Putnam, requesting an aerial
>'recon' of the Phoenix Island Group, did Frieell's report indicate any
>'alteration' of the ORIGINAL search plan for the COLORADO:

You fail to note that by the time Putnam's message was received
Friedell had already written that the "The planes radio was believed
to have been heard, if some of the many reports were presumed to be
authentic, hence on land."  Putnam was merely requesting the obvious.

>...'The Commanding Officer therefore decided to hold to his ORIGINAL
>decision, that of searching to the southeast of Howland, with one
>MODIFICATION, that being to search by planes, the land areas of the
>Phoenix Group, ...prior to the large water areas. ...Large areas of
>intervening water, of course would be covered at the same time'...

Yes, that's correct.  So what?

>No special priority was assigned to searching ANY 'specific' island in
>the Phoenix Group, ...nor any effort made or urgency expressed in
>proceeding directly to any of the individual Phoenix Islands...

There's no need to shout. While it is true that no special priority
was assigned to search any specific island in the Phoenix Group, it
is also true that the search map used at 14th Naval District
headquarters shows the Pan Am radio bearings crossing near McKean
Island and Gardner Island; and it is also true that the map doesn't
go far enough south to include those islands so the map was extended
with hand-drawn lat/long lines so that McKean and Gardner could be
plotted (none of the other islands of the Phoenix Group are
plotted).  It is furthermore true that those were the islands closest
to the 157 337 line of position and that they were the first islands
of the Phoenix Group search by the planes from Colorado.  Your
attempt to suggest that no particular significance was attached to
those islands as desperate as it is groundless.

>...So, Lt. Lambrecht's flight first spent their time (futilely) trying
>to locate the 'elusive' Windslow Reef, ...then flying on to Mc Kean
>Island, ...before finally 'zooming' over Gardner Island...

Colorado searched the reported land areas as they came to them.

>While the Navy clearly considered the 'messages' placing the Electra as
>being 'down' somewhere to the North of Howland, as being 'incorrect',
>...& agreed that searching the SE QUADRANT from Howland was the most
>'logical' course, ...the Navy did NOT express any special interest in,
>or urgency about, searching the islands of the Phoenix Group; ...until
>AFTER Putnam's request & a message from the USCG that Noonan's
>(probable) 'modus operandi' would have been to seek the CLOSEST land,
>having failed to locate Howland...

You've cherry-picked quotations from a single report to create a
distorted and dishonest picture that serves your own agenda. It is
posts like yours that remind us why we normally restrict the forum to
serious subscribers. For those who are interested in history rather
than hysteria, Chapters 19 and 20 of Finding Amelia provide an
accurate account of Colorado's search that draws upon and cites all
of the available sources. The DVD that comes with the book reproduces
those sources so that the reader can verify the author's
characterization of them in the narrative.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:36:32
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      AVWebFlash

The following was in this weeks second AVwebFlash email.

EXPEDITION WILL SEEK RESOLUTION OF EARHART MYSTERY
A diary that was kept by a journalist who was covering Amelia
Earhart's round-the-world flight when she disappeared has recently
resurfaced and is fueling new speculation about her fate. Earhart and
her navigator, Fred Noonan, vanished over the South Pacific 70 years
ago in July 1937. The diary raises questions about the early hours of
the search and what transmissions were sent from the aircraft. The
International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) is
planning an expedition this summer to return to Nikumaroro, a tiny
island where they believe Earhart and Noonan may have landed when
their Lockheed Electra ran out of fuel. The investigators will search
for artifacts, and they also hope to find human remains that could be
used for DNA testing.

Also to Daryll

I never meant to say that the Electra washed off the beach before
Lambrecht overflew Gardner. If it was there then, then Lambrecht
missed it which is a high possibility. Again, consult Ric's book. It
gives the probability of detection for a single pass. It is not very
good. If the Electra washed off the beach then it happened sometime
later, maybe a lot later.
Chuck Buzbee
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:39:43
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Re: Electra on beach

Chuck, you ought to understand that if the Electra was where we think
it was, it wasn't on a "beach" -- which implies a gradual, sandy
slope -- but on hard coral, close to the edge of a precipitous drop-
off.  Rising mean high tides could have been sufficient to float it
over the edge, whereupon it would (a) float away; (b) sink, (c) be
broken up in the high-energy environment of the reef edge, or (d) be
mangled on the reef edge, obscured in the whitewater breakers that
occur there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:43:30
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Friedell's report

From Pat: This post has been trimmed to conform to "Substantive
Posting" rules.

From Don Neumann

Anyone can read the entire Friedell report on the website & draw their
own conclusions about just how 'significant' the Navy considered the
fact that the (supposed) LOP (cited in AE's last (confirmed) radio
transmission) ...extended near the location of Gardner Island...

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

Don, the real point is that Friedell's after action report is NOT the
final word on the subject of the Navy's opinions as the search was
being planned. It is a report on what the Colorado did. That's all.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:25:16
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Tsunami

The village highlighted in the following news item, Titiana, is the
one formed by the ex-colonists of Manra (Sydney) Island when the
Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme was given up in the early '60s.  I
don't yet know about impacts on the village of Nikumaroro, where the
Nikumaroro (Gardner) Island colonists went.  I also don't yet know
what the best means may be for NGOs and private parties to extend
assistance, but am trying to find out.

SOLOMONS VILLAGE BURIES CHILDREN

HONIARA, Solomon Islands (SIBC, April 5) -- The people of Titiana
village on the outskirts of Gizo Island today buried four more young
children.

The four comprised two pairs of a brother and sister.

The village of Titiana is still looking for four missing people, two
children and two adults.

One of the missing is a six year old whose little sister and brother
were buried today.

Meanwhile, the village of New Manda near Titiana also buried a woman
today.

Villagers of New Manda are still looking for 10 missing people, seven
of them toddlers.

Dalavera says the deaths have not been reported by the National
Disaster Management Office in Honiara.

Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corp.: http://www.sibconline.com.sb/
Copyright -- 2006 Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corp. All Rights Reserved
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:25:48
From:         Terrence Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: The Lambrecht photo

So then the only evidence we have that this photograph was taken at
the time of the Lambrecht flight is the legend on the back: "U.S.
Navy (pilot) July 9, 1937".  Is the legend written by hand?  In the
same hand as the erroneously pointing "N [arrow]"?

Would it be a reasonable assumption that whoever wrote "U.S. Navy
(pilot) July 9, 1937" was not the pilot himself?  For, if I were the
photographer, I believe I would not have written "U.S. Navy
(pilot)" , at least without first writing my name.  I don't know. 
This choice of words suggests a couple of things:

By writing "U.S. Navy" the writer suggests that he himself is not
U.S. Navy.

By writing "pilot", the writer suggests that, while he might or might
not know the identity of the photographer, he does know that the
photographer was the pilot, as opposed to the spotter.
So, Donohue alleges that it's an "Amateur aerial photograph taken
with Kodak 616 Camera"?  "Amateur" as opposed to a pilot or spotter,
I guess this means.  Is it a fair guess that a Kodak 616 wasn't
standard equipment on board naval float planes of the period?  And is
there really any way to determine whether the picture was indeed
taken with a Kodak 616?

It seems fairly possible that the photo wasn't really taken on July
9, 1937, but was instead taken some time else, possibly for the New
Zealand Pacific Aviation Survey?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:26:53
From:         Peter Ferris
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR hypothesis

I'd likely go along with you on points 1 through 4. But the rest of
your "evidence" presumably presented as fact makes me a little nervous.

Normally, factual evidence doesn't contain words & phrases like
"understandably taken", "probably was", "could have", etc. You get
the idea. Probability / possibility does not fact make.

Even if I may personally agree with some / much of what you've said.

Hate to nitpick, but you opened the door - or Pandora's box - of
"evidence".  Indeed, it's my understanding that it's the very lack of
factual evidence that is necessitates Niku V. If TIGHAR had engine
serial #'s in hand, bones (DNA), etc; we wouldn't be having this
great discussion. Granted, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence,
probability, etc.

Sidebar RF (radio) rant:  BTW, personally, as a former broadcast
engineer and licensed amateur radio operator, I put great interest
and stock in Betty's Notebook and amateur (ham) operator reports.
And, the possibility of translating "Norwich City" to "N.Y.C." isn't
out of bounds of human error, in my humble opinion. I've had the
pleasure of communicating with hobbled mobile radio systems (antennas
broken off in car washes, vandals, weak final PA's, etc.).  I've
seen / heard screwy things with RF. It's not always the hard science
we may think it is {or want it to be!}. I've had RF do screwy things
- heard things I shouldn't have been able to, haven't heard things I
would have bet the farm I would be able to hear, etc. And sometimes
it does what you want. ;-)

Have a great weekend! Peace to all!

LTM (who knows how to pick & chose nits!),

--Pete
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:27:40
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht photo

For Terrence Thorgaard

"How did the print arrive in a N.Z. archive?  Was it given to the
archive by a U.S.N. archive..."

There is another possibility for the Gardner island photo being in
the N.Z. archive.

It was taken from a Walrus aircraft carried onboard the HMS Achilles,
Wellington, Leander or Leith and shared with USN at the outbreak of
WWII.

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:51:34
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Hypothesis

for Alan

"...Daryll, I am not understanding what your term "flight control"
means...."

It doesn't mean controlling the flight or attitude of the airplane
with it's control surfaces. It means controlling the flight as it
progressed from point A to point B.

It's my understanding that Pan Am's engineering offices in New York
wrote the procedures that are covered under the heading of "Flight
Control". We talked about this before when I mentioned the "howgozit"
graph. The "howgozit" is only part of "Flight Control" in relation to
long distance flying.  It was intended to relieve the Clipper Captain
from making some critical decisions about whether to proceed or not
with the flight or turn back. Pan Am didn't want a Clipper floating
on the open ocean because it ran out of fuel due to un-forecast winds
or the drag of an inop engine which increased fuel consumption. The
navigator could show the Captain that a plot on the "howgozit" had
dropped below the slope on a graph. The company's rules then dictated
that the Captain turn back if it was before the PNR.

The PNR (point of no return) is not half the distance of a flight
leg. The PNR and it's position on the course line is dependant on
actual winds and actual fuel consumption. Kelly Johnson said that
long distance flight in the Electra should not be attempted without a
working Cambridge fuel analyzer, this was to measure and control fuel
consumption.

In the case of the Lae to Howland leg, part of Noonan's job was not
to let the airplane run out of gas over open water but to always
retain a land mass or chain of islands within fuel range. This is
what AE meant when she said to Vidal that if they missed Howland they
would try and find a nice sandy beach in the Gilbert's.

Alan, I would try and answer your other questions but I think I've
already used up my portion of the free bandwidth.

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:52:01
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Howland, Baker, and Gardner

Since the LOP and the islands have come up again, a few thoughts come
to mind.

It has been shown by those on this forum with nav. skills who've done
the math that AE & FN likely hit the LOP through Howland, Baker and
Gardner, but didn't know where they were on that line.(this is also
supported by AE's transmission "we are on line 157-337...")  I fully
understand that by the time they hit it, it maybe wasn't an LOP or
sun line or anything else other than a line on FN's map, reached by
some combination of Celestial and DR, that passed through Howland,
Baker, and Gardner.

Obviously (duh) they missed Howland. (for whatver reason)

With regards to Baker, it has been suggested that A. they saw it and
rejected it as a possible landing site   B.  they overflew it, but
didn't see it due to cloud shadow  and C.  they were never far enough
north on the line to have seen Baker, much less Howland.  Take your
pick--Ric  (Colonel Birdguano--if that really IS your name) and Co.
have been to Baker, and the Electra isn't there.

Details regarding the above have value and are both interesting and
useful for fuel calculations, navigation technique discussions,
scenario postulating, and hypothesis development, but in the end, the
Electra isn't on Howland or Baker.

Gardner (Nikumaroro) is a completely different can of crabs.  There
is an amazingly large body of research (courtest of TIGHAR) showing
that SOMETHING happened there.  That something is most easily
explained by the presence of AE, FN, and NR16020.

The 157-337 line that AE said she was flying on to search for
Howland, if drawn through Howland, passes within visual range of
Gardner.  Lambrecht and Co. reported signs of recent habitation (on
the then uninhabited Gardner) during their 09 July 1937 overflight.
Then there are the bones, shoe parts, and other artifacts found by
Gallagher, the reports of aircraft wreckage seen by villagers, the
trinkets made from aluminum, and yes, even the supposed Spirit of Nei
Manganibuka reportedly seen by Teng Koata's wife.  Also, all of the
post-loss radio receptions, including, but certainly not limited to,
the Pan Am reception triangulations, the reports of Betty Klenk and
Dana Andrews (does anyone else get a lump in your throat when you
read those?) and even the cryptic 281 message. (Gardner is 281 miles
south of the equator, and it has been pointed out that even if a
marooned FN didn't know exactly where he was, he could have easily
calculated how far south of the Equator he was)

Fast forward to more recent times.  More shoe parts, more aluminum,
some plexiglass, the Castaway Campsite, the elusive Wheel of Fortune,
and all the other artifacts found by TIGHAR.

Yes, I know that all of the above can be explained by a convoluted
series of coincidental events, but they can also all be explained by
one single event.  The arrival via NR16020 and the subsequent
marooning and eventual deaths of AE and FN on Gardner Island.

Fire Away.

LTM, who said the aluminum could've been carried there by swallows
(who were looking for coconuts to take back to England)

Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:14:31
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Howland, Baker, and Gardner

>Take your pick--Ric (Colonel Birdguano--if that really IS your name) and Co.
>have been to Baker, and the Electra isn't there.

We're looking forward to his promotion to Brig. General.  Actually,
we've NOT been to Baker; we've been to McKean (and Canton and Niku,
duh), but not to Baker or Howland.  But there were enough folks on
Baker in '37 that she'd probably have been noticed if she landed there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:15:23
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Beach

To Tom King

Tom, thanks for correcting my shortcoming. I have known all along
that there was little if any real beach and that the surface was
rough coral. I believe that this uneven surface that has been
described as difficult to even walk on caused a sudden stop resulting
in injury to the aircraft and it's occupants.

There have been many comments referring to the high tide not being
sufficient to float or move the Electra. That is why I mentioned
storms. They could have been minor ones.

If I had gone into detail about my personal take on the subject, I
would have written a book. That is what Ric did and he did it so well.

There are so many posts that argue points that can not be determined
that I just wanted to state the bare facts as I saw them without
detailed description.

Again, thanks for correcting my error.

Chuck Buzbee
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:56:31
From:         Terrence Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht photo

Ah.  The suggestion by Daryll Bolinger that it was taken by "Walrus aircraft
carried onboard the HMS Achilles, Wellington, Leander or Leith" makes good
sense.  It would explain why the photo was in N.Z.

I hadn't gotten around to researching these vessels and was surprised by the
suggestion that all they had aircraft.  Didn't know that.

The only fly in the ointment is why it's mistakenly labeled 7/8/37/ USN.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:56:54
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: Howland, Baker and Gardner

For Dave Porter

Your mention of  "Colonel Birdguano"
leads me to think that you're confusing
someone with Colonel Bat Guano (the
character played by Keenan Wynn in
the movie Dr. Strangelove)

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:57:13
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Beach

For Chuck Buzbee

Thanks, Chuck.  There are a lot of variables involved in what may
have happened on the Nutiran reef.  Parts of it are indeed rough and
crevassed; other parts -- notably one very long area where Skeet
Gifford says he could land a 747 (and he's landed lots of them) are
remarkably smooth.  The reef generally is pretty flat, but it slopes
this way and that in particular areas.  So a lot of what might have
happened to the Electra depends on just where it was put down and
where it taxied after landing.  It's easy enough to envision a
smooth, safe landing and then a short taxi to -- oops, there goes one
of the wheels into an unseen crack or hole.  As for the tides vs.
storms -- Bob Brandenburg and Randy Jacobson are still working on
tidal hindcasting, but it looks like the tides -- both low and high
-- were relatively depressed around 2 July '37, and got steadily
higher over the next week or so.  There's no indication of storms
during the period in the logs of any of the naval vessels cruising
the area, but little pocket squalls are not uncommon in the central
Pacific, and can be quite localized.  A lot of these variables are
things we just can't control, can't know about, so it's pretty
fruitless to speculate with a lot of precision about what might and
might not have happened to the Electra.  It probably wasn't picked up
by a Pleidean towtruck and taken off into another dimension, but
beyond that there are lots of possibilities.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:30:36
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Howland, Baker, and Gardner

You go forum, excellent, fascinating reading from all.

To Dave Porter:
I especially enjoyed reading your post to the forum.
I agree with your thoughts completely, and don't think
anyone could have put things in a more understandable
or thought provoking way (other than Ric that is).
I'm growing very tired of the posts from non-forum
naysayers who try and fail to debunk our evidence,
but the responses to those posts are truly refreshing.

To Ric:
It seems you have total disdain for Amelia as a pilot
and person, and that your only interest in this is to find her plane,
but do you really have to be so sarcastic about it?  Obviously her
radio was malfunctioning, and maybe some important info was
not heard.  And maybe in a very loud cockpit she
reported what she thought she heard Fred say.
Or maybe she thought what she reported was
perfectly understandable.  Who knows.  Please give our girl a break
already.

Thanx,  Jackie #2440
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:31:03
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht photo

Here's an idle thought that is of no particular use -

The Lambrecht photo has what appears to be a hand-drawn north arrow. I have
looked at that photo and have wondered how the person who put that arrow on
there got it wrong. It occurs to me that perhaps what they did was put on a
west arrow - indicating that the photo was taken looking west. They wrote
the letter "W". But when they did, they hastily scribbled it, and the
leftmost two strokes of the "W" ran together, making it look like an "N".

It's a guess. I, of course, have no way to know.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:46:35
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht photo

Terrance T,

Perhaps you don't have Donahue's book, where the photo appears on p.
50. The caption reads that  the "Amateur aerial  photo"  was taken
with a "Kodak 616 Camera" of Gardner Is,  "from Earharts Electra" as
she passed by on 2 July 1937. Presumably it was Noonan who took the
photo from the Electra. Photo credit was "USN Office of Naval
Intelligence Report"

FIO, Donahue claims Howland and Baker were rejected as principal
destinations and Gardner Is and Hull were substituted. AE used a
radio homing device secretly planted on Gardner as a navigation aid
and she continued on past Gardner for another 160 miles to Hull,
where she landed wheels down.  The reason was to give secret film to
Jones, the resident mgr, then  to Lt Lambrecht when he landed there
on 9 July. All very convoluted, but fascinating fantasy!.

For Ric, on page 49 of Donahuefs book, he prints a photo of Gardner
Island, 1939, National Archives Neg #80-G-41096. It sure doesn't look
like the Gardner Island photos you have.

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:48:58
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Hypothesis

Thanks, Daryl. I appreciate the clarification. That was how we
normally flew in B-47s and C-130s. we maintained a fuel log and
compared it to the preflight prediction. We also had a go no go
point, of course.

" Kelly Johnson said that long distance flight in the Electra should
not be attempted without a working Cambridge fuel analyzer, this was
to measure and control fuel consumption."

The Cambridge fuel analyzer did that sort of indirectly. This
instrument utilized a Wheatstone bridge as the measuring element
around which flowed a sample of the exhaust gases. Resistance in the
bridge wires vary as exhaust gas thermal conductivity changes. The
resulting thermal conductivity can be related to the input mixture
ratio producing these gas mixtures. So what it did in layman's terms
is help the pilot adjust the mixture for best fuel efficiency
consistent with the particular altitude and selected TAS. As you can
visualize the plane could not always maintain best fuel flow under
the required conditions. for example the Electra operating manual
dictates a climb speed of 120 mph, a descent speed of 120 mph and
Earhart's cruise speed was selected as 150 mph. She also varied her
altitude as required by conditions and personal preference. (she
liked 8,000')

Not to get into forum business but I think if you have something to
say, Daryl, Pat will probably allow you to do so.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:03:36
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Howland, Baker, and Gardner

Dave, thanks for understanding the "LOP" issue. It is quite confusing
for a lot of people. As our heroes arrived in the area the zn of the
sun was 067 degrees. A perpendicular to that was 157/337. At 0712
when Earhart said 'we must be on you..." the zn was 65.8 degrees
which is too close for the equipment they used to be of significance
under the conditions so the infamous "LOP" was essentially the same.
An hour later the zn was 62.9 degrees but that was of no consequence
as they were no doubt simply flying a parallel to the original LOP.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:17:11
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      New postings

I looked forward to the temporarily expanded postings hoping someone
might have new information but sadly most of it is the same old
drivel giving unsupported opinions attempting to debunk rather than
trying to move the ball forward.

The threads through most of those postings are "I don't have the time
or inclination to read the web site" and the "Niku theory is nonsense."

As to the first that results in poor postings that make everyone
waste their time correcting misstatements that at best merely confuse
the new folks. As to the second they may certainly be right but
offering only opinions don't make it so. Opinions are a waste of
time. We're trying to deal with facts as best we can and well
reasoned ideas.

All the stuff to the contrary has been debated hundreds of times before.

alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:17:33
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht photo

Ron Bright writes,

>For Ric, on page 49 of Donahue's book, he prints a photo of Gardner
>Island, 1939, National Archives Neg #80-G-41096. It sure doesn't
>look like the Gardner Island photos you have.

If that's Gardner Island, I'm Admiral Yamamoto.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:29:19
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht photo

Terrence Thorgaard asks:

>So then the only evidence we have that this photograph was taken at
>the time of the Lambrecht flight is the legend on the back: "U.S.
>Navy (pilot) July 9, 1937".

No, not really.  Your queries prompted me to do some digging.  I
think I know what "Naval Intelligence Report" Donohue is talking
about.  It's a May 15, 1942 "Field Monograph of Islands on Northward
and Eastward of Samoa" by "Office of Chief of Naval Operations,
Division of Naval Intelligence."  What we call "the Lambrecht photo"
is labeled simply "Gardner Island 1937." There are also 20 photos of
Gardner dated 1942 and 4 dated June 1941, but the Lambrecht photo is
the only one dated 1937.

>Is the legend written by hand?  In the same hand as the
erroneously pointing "N [arrow]"?

I know we have a photocopy of the back of the photo someplace but
it's not where it should be.  I'll try to track it down.

As I recall (highly suspect anecdotal recollection), the "U.S. Navy"
was stamped and the rest was handwritten but in a much lighter hand
than the erroneous north arrow.

>Would it be a reasonable assumption that whoever wrote "U.S. Navy
>(pilot) July 9, 1937" was not the pilot himself?  For, if I were
>the photographer, I believe I would not have written "U.S. Navy
>(pilot)" , at least without first writing my name.  I don't know.
>This choice of words suggests a couple of things:
>
>By writing "U.S. Navy" the writer suggests that he himself is not U.S. Navy.

But if my recollection is correct, a "U.S. Navy" stamp would almost
certainly be applied by the U.S. Navy.

>By writing "pilot", the writer suggests that, while he might or
>might not know the identity of the photographer, he does know that
>the photographer was the pilot, as opposed to the spotter.

Perhaps.

>So, Donohue alleges that it's an "Amateur aerial photograph taken
>with Kodak 616 Camera"?  "Amateur" as opposed to a pilot or
>spotter, I guess this means.  Is it a fair guess that a Kodak 616
>wasn't standard equipment on board naval float planes of the
>period?  And is there really any way to determine whether the
>picture was indeed taken with a Kodak 616?

Not that I know of.  Donahue seems to be incapable of distinguishing
between what is true and what he wants to be true.  His book is a
seamless free-style blending of fact and fantasy.

>It seems fairly possible that the photo wasn't really taken on July
>9, 1937, but was instead taken some time else, possibly for the New
>Zealand Pacific Aviation Survey?

No, I think that the photo's inclusion in the "Field Monograph" with
the caption "Gardner Island 1937," which agrees with the notation on
the back of the NZ Archives print, establishes quite conclusively
that the photo was taken in 1937.  Unless you want to subscribe to
Donohue's theory, that means it had to have been taken during the
Colorado over-flight on July 9.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:37:29
From:         Terrence Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht photo

Ric wrote:

"No, I think that the photo's inclusion in the "Field Monograph" with
the caption "Gardner Island 1937," which agrees with the notation on
the back of the NZ Archives print, establishes quite conclusively
that the photo was taken in 1937.  Unless you want to subscribe to
Donohue's theory, that means it had to have been taken during the
Colorado over-flight on July 9."

Two scenarios are possible:
1.  The 1942 Field Monograph got the picture directly from someone in
the
USN.  The print afterward got to N.Z. somehow, after the USN stamp and
handwritten notation was put on the back.
2.  The Field Monograph was assembled by drawing upon New Zealand
resources (including the archive).  How the NZ archive got it would
remain an
open question.

I believe that proper application of Occam's Razor would encourage use of the
first scenario.  If so, it would indeed be a 7/9/37 Colorado pic. The NZ
Archive would therefore be immaterial, other than containing anonymous
hearsay that the photo was taken by the Lambrecht flight.

Of course it remains plausable that the picture was taken by someone else (a
flight of which there is no record) in 1937 (which would agree with the Field
Monograph) and that the notation on the NZ Archive print was made in error.

============================================================================
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:16:31
From:         Russell Spreeman
Subject:      Electra radios

Was the Electra equipped with a radio that worked like a CB, where
you key the mike to talk and then release it to listen? Or as I
surmise was it equipped with something which would answer Mr. Miller's
objection, i.e. separate transmitter and receivers which would work
well with the idea of transmitting and receiving on different
frequencies?

     Russ Spreeman

> Dave, when you become emotional over what i still uncharitably call
> "The Big Broadcast", do you wonder at all about, for example, how
> AE could broadcast and listen at the same time, so she could broadcast
> her comments about hearing things on the radio? -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:17:13
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Wait, don't tell me:  the tide depths are in inches, not feet.

I now see that about 2 hours before low tide (the time of the
overflight) the tide is about 10" to a foot higher than low tide.
Still doesn't seem "high".
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:19:33
From:         Al Fleming
Subject:      LTM

Hello from Scotland,
As an avid follower and reader of this forum, I can contain my
curiosity no longer!! Why exactly, do you finish your postings with
LTM (love to mother)?
Lang may yer lum reek.
Al Fleming

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

You'll find a lengthy but informative explanation here:

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

And, in general, the FAQs are a great place for new Forum members to
start:

http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:20:33
From:         Terry Simpson
Subject:      Re: Hello from Australia

To Wombat,glad to here from you,I've missed you.Always enjoyed your
imput and learned a lot from you.Appricate your effort and THANKS a
lot Tighar.

Terry L Simpson(#2396) LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:20:58
From:         Malcolm Andrews
Subject:      Re: Hello from Australia

Welcome back, Wombat, from Malcolm Andrews at Port Macquarie.

And as an Aussie I know why people are dubbed Wombats!
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:21:48
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

> From Ric
>
> "...
> Not at all.  I think you misunderstood Randy."
>
>>   They could only access the plane at extreme low tide.
>
> ...
> "[at the time of the Lambrecht overflight] The tide was high and
> there was a considerable surf
> running (as we see in the Lambrecht photo)."

I'm confused.  Ok, take July 5th which you suggest is the most likely
date for the Betty transmission.    The tidal study shows that at
14:19 Greenwich time (= 3:10 local Colorado time), the tide was at 51
feet.  The next transmission was at 21:00 Greenwich (10:00 local),
(which happens to be the beginning of the time period Betty would
have heard the transmission) two hours after the Colorado's planes
would have arrived.  At that time the tide would have been at only 5
feet and still ebbing.  Are you saying the tide would have been
"high" only two hours before it is calculated to be at 5 feet?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:22:32
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Earhart's legacy

Dear Mr. William Webster-Garman,

Thank you for sharing your comments.
Unfortunately it seems difficult to agree with the statement that "by
most accounts her
technical flying skills were barely middling" .

Accordingly to all the available info i could fing (during 25
years), it is rather the urban myth - "supported", first of all, by
just two contemporary accounts: from Earhart's strong rival Elinor
Smith, and from her "technical advisor" Paul Mantz who was factually
fired from the "Earhart team" just before her departure for the
second attempt of the World Flight.

    Both these persons had a strong personal motivations for making
such a biased derogatory statements about Earhart's  competence.. we
were over this all just recently, so i will not repeat all the
argumentation that was already provided in details.

     The huge majority of the "competent contemporary evidence" - both
from the pilots who knew Earhart well and flew with her, and the
aviation technicians who worked with her - actually pictures her as a
competent professional with a high level of skills and good and
competent understanding of the technical matters related to the
pilot's profession.

    The radio-equipment  - and the radio-procedures of the crew in the
last flight - were always a topic of discussions... but since it is
NOT actually known for sure why the flight ended in such an unlucky
and tragic way,  i still don't think that any guesses and
speculations about the radio matters gives any legitimate base for to
question Earhart's "general skills and competence" as a pilot..
especially considering her previous prominent record-breaking 16-
year aviation career.
      Kind regards - Happy Easter! - LTM, sincerely - Marcus

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:22:53
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Hello from Australia

For Ross Devitt

G'day, Wombat!  I, for one, have missed you and was a bit worried
about what might have happened to you; thought you might have carried
out another of your island living experiments and found out exactly
what happened to Earhart.  Welcome back.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:23:09
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Tide action?

For Hue Miller

Hue, I think you're over-analyzing based on insufficient data.  We
simply can't know precisely what happened when and if our heroes
landed on the Nutiran reef, or exactly what situation they wound up
in, or what sort of opportunities this presented for tidal forces to
work on them.  If they landed on the smooth part of the reef flat but
found more water there than expected, it's easy to imagine them
slipping out into the rough zone close to the reef edge.  Where, yes,
the tide comes in and goes out, but along the face of the Nutiran
reef, when it's going out the water literally falls off the reef edge
as though it were a waterfall.  If a floating something goes over
that edge, it's not going to come back, at least on a falling tide.
You saw Randy's post about there being a ca. 2' rise in the tides
over the several days following 2 July '37.  If that's the case, and
the plane is sitting more or less intact not too far from the reef
edge and mostly a foot or so off the reef flat on partly collapsed
gear, it would surely float, and while it then might float in a bit
toward the shore, it would surely also float out.  At Ritiati, across
the Tatiman Passage from Nutiran, I've watched high-tide waves on a
somewhat stormy day reach way back into the village and drag hundreds
of fallen coconuts out, which then marched north like good little
soldiers on a localized along-shore current.  A fragile aluminum
airplane behaving in similar fashion would soon find itself bashed up
against the reef edge and crumpled up into something that would not
be easily seen from the air, particularly in the white water along
the reef edge, if it weren't broken up completely and scattered down
the reef face.  I'm speculating, of course, and there are lots of
alternative possibilities; change one variable and something else
would happen.  But it's easy to imagine the variables of landing
place, water on the reef, final location of the plane, condition of
its gear and fuselage, tide, waves and wind coming together in such a
way as to leave the Electra sitting more or less high and dry for
several days and then lifting it over the reef edge to be bashed to
smithereens.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:36:04
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Electra radios

As I understand it the transmitter and receiver were wholly separate
devices, both Western Electric. I can't remember ever reading that
the mic button cut off the receiver when depressed.

I'm not sure it matters because, mind, in Betty's notebook we have
about 60 seconds of "dialogue" to represent 3 hours of Betty's
listening experience. Her notebook shouldn't be taken as a
transcription, but as a teenaged girl's impression, filtered through
her vocabulary, understanding and perceptions.

Taken alone it doesn't mean much but when considered with all the
other evidence Betty's notebook becomes much more interesting.

LTM, who knew selectivity runs strong both in superheterodyne AM
receiver circuits and teens.

William Webster-Garman

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

For a truly awe-inspiring technical paper on the Electra's radios, see

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/52_ElectraRadios/
52_ElectraRadios.htm

or use this link:

http://tinyurl.com/yqzyas

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:40:14
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Legacy


Marcus, "barely middling" does not mean "inept." She cracked up a lot
of airframes but walked away every time and broke many aviation
records. Personally, I way admire AE but neither for her technical
skills on the stick, nor her planning abilities.

LTM, William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:53:31
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Electra radios

William Webster-Garman's observations on Betty's notebook, with which
I entirely concur, remind me of a sort of cautionary tale that's
worth keeping in mind.  Back in about 1997, we sent the Floyd Kilts
story (The account by a U.S. Coastguardsman of a "native's" story
about the discovery of a skeleton and woman's shoe on the island) to
a couple of very experienced specialists in the interpretation of
oral history and folklore.  We asked them what sorts of grains of
truth they thought might be embedded in the story.  The verdict was
that there was really nothing we could trust in the story as a
reflection of fact.  A few months later, Peter MacQuarrie found the
WPHC papers documenting the discovery -- albeit not with all the
ruffles and flourishes that the Kilts story contained, but clear
verification that the core of the story was factual.

LTM (who loves a good story)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:27:56
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Boston & Maine Airways

"...Thank you for giving us a perfect example of how the acceptance of a
marginally ridiculous supposition, bolstered by some outright
falsehood (Earhart did not own an airline of any description), can
lead to propositions which are truly insane...  Ric"

The author below claims that Amelia was a VP of Boston & Maine
Airways and implied she was in it for 16% of the stock, the same as
the President of Boston & Maine Airways and the railroad.

Daryll

> Formed by:
> Boston & Maine Railroad
>
> Maine Central Railroad
>
> Pan American Airways Co.
>
> First Passenger Flight: August 1, 1931
>
> Originating & Arriving At: Boston to Bangor
>
> During the early days of flight, scheduled air travel was very
> limited to those who lived and worked in major metropolitan areas.
> This was true until in 1931, Boston & Maine, and Maine Central
> Railroads formed a partnership to create a new company, Boston-
> Maine Airways. Pan Am was to be the acting contractor to Boston-
> Maine Airways to provide summer service. One of the vice-presidents
> of early Boston-Maine Airways was the famous aviatrix Amelia
> Earhart...
*********************************************

Daryll, this does us NO GOOD because we don't know who the author is,
where the item is published, or anything whatsoever about the source
for the information.

We aren't going to just accept an anonymous article from who-knows-
where as evidence of anything.

O.K.?

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:39:50
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

For Terrance Thorgaard

Sorry to be late in responding to Pat's call for help.

I see that since then you have noticed that the tide column units are
inches, not feet.

As for the tide being high when the Lambrecht photo was taken, 0930
local time on 9 July 1937 corresponds to 2030 GMT, using an 11-hour
time difference.  That's the time difference used in the UK
Hydrographic Office tide calculations for Hull Island -- see the
header of the table you looked at.

As you will see in the header, the empirical data we have suggests
that the tides at Niku agree fairly well with the Hull tides.    So
the Niku tide at the time of the Lambrecht flyover was about a foot
or so.    I don't know see one could estimate high tide from the
photo -- I'm not aware of any data comparing tide heights or reef
height at that part of the island, to the conditions at the Norwich
City wreck site.

LTM,

Bob
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:46:23
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      New Britain Hypothesis

David Billings' recent questions prompted me to take a look at his
website and review the case he makes for the wreckage reportedly seen
in the New Britain jungle in 1945 being that of Earhart's Electra.
Aside from the obvious physical impossibility of the airplane being
there, there are some big problems with the evidence Billings offers
to support his contention.

Most of his evidence is anecdotal recollection by a handful of
veterans. As with all such evidence, maybe they are remembering
correctly and maybe they're not. There is no way to tell unless
corroborating hard evidence can be found. But if one of the memories
is accurate, the wreckage is disqualified as being NR16020. Quoting
from the website:

"The W.O. (Warrant Officer) said that there was yellow paint inside
the nacelle on the interior surfaces of the sheetmetal. This would be
Yellow Chromate anti-corrosion finish. It is said that both yellow
and green chromate finishes were applied to certain places on
Electras. Art Kennedy, the engineer, could not recall which colour
was used on C/N1055."

Our examination of several Electra wreck sites has established that
Lockheed did not use a chromate wash in the construction of the Model
10.  Indeed, the process does not seem to have come into common use
in the industry until 1939. Lockheed specs for the Model 10 call for
the interior surfaces to receive a coating of aluminum paint as a
corrosion inhibitor.  The wreckage of crashed Electras in Idaho, New
Zealand, and Alaska examined by TIGHAR exhibit traces of aluminum
paint on interior skin surfaces and a light blue wash on stringers
and other extruded structures. No chromate anywhere.   Of course,
Electras in museums often have chromated interiors because, by
definition, they are airplanes that were in service long after the
technique became common practice.

The only piece of hard evidence that Billings has is some information
jotted on the edge of a map, but even that information is wrong for
NR16020.  The numbers written on the map are "600 h/p  S3H/1 C/N 1055
(24/5/45)."  NR16020 was Lockheed constructors number (c/n) 1055 and
its engines were the 550 hp (not 600 hp) S3H1 (not S3H/1) variant of
the ubiquitous Pratt & Whitney R1340.  To make the notations on the
map a credible clue instead of a clumsy hoax, Billings constructs a
convoluted and entirely speculative scenario that involves the U.S.
Army Air Forces (which Billings erroneously calls the USAAC)
examining and misreading a metal tag supposedly taken from an engine
mount on the wreck in the jungle. The tag, of course, is missing.

I do not for a moment believe that David Billings is party to a hoax,
but it does appear that he may be the victim of a hoax and  - in the
best tradition of would-be Earhart sleuths before him - the victim of
his own wishful thinking and less than rigorous research.

Forum "on topic" rules notwithstanding, we'll be happy to post any
rebuttal David Billings may wish to offer.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:59:24
From:         George Werth
Subject:      General Observation

The latest flurry of Emails to the Earhart Forum
reminds me of a line in the Mission Statement
of the Marine Corps League, i.e.,

> "Usually, 'the first liar doesn't stand a chance.'"<

The reader is referred to:

http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/marine_corps_league.htm

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

LTM who was never in the Marine Corps.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:28:48
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

For Terry Thorgaard:

Terry, you have your dates severely messed up.  It is believed Betty heard
Earhart on July 5 or so, and you discuss tidal values during the times she
may have heard Earhart.  You then state that one of the times was 2 hours
after the Colorado planes overflew.  The Colorado planes arrived on the
scene on July 9.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:46:55
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Bob, et al,

    Have we conclusively found that the "Lambrecht Photo" was indeed
taken on 9 July? I know Ric was addressing the origin and date, but I
may have missed the conclusion.  In other words unless we can
establish the  exact date, where the tide was is just conjecture.
    If Lambrecht or any of the other pilots or observers took photos
of Gardner, seems they would have taken photos of Hull, and the other
islands. Have any of those surfaced? Why just Gardner?

LTM,
Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 14:14:24
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Ron,

Our estimate of the tide conditions does not depend in any way on the
Lambrecht photo.  We know, based on empirical evidence, that Hull
Island tides correlate fairly well with Niku tides.   We plan to
acquire additional Niku tide data during the upcoming expedition, to
further refine the correlation between Hull tides and Niku tides.

I have no way of knowing whether planes in Lambrecht's flight took
photos of other islands, or what may have happened to them if they
were taken.

LTM,

Bob
#2286
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 14:48:51
From:         Don Robinson
Subject:      Re: News coverage

I too recently bought a copy of SHOES and FINDING AMELIA , and was
very much pleased with both of them. I recommend them to all regulars
and lurkers who have not already done so.

Don Robinson
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:06:08
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Bob Brandenburg says:

> Ron,
>
> Our estimate of the tide conditions does not depend in any way on
> the Lambrecht photo.

Yes, I understand that.

The point I was trying to make with the tidal study was this: the
statement that the Lambrecht photo shows high tide is inconsistent
with the tidal study, and therefore the tide-high-in-photo suggestion
must be incorrect. That, in turn, leads to one of two possible
conclusions:

1. Looking at an old picture of an island taken from a plane isn't a
good way to estimate tide levels, or
2. The "Lambrecht photo" wasn't taken by the Colorado overflight.

Incidentally, my discussion of July 5th, was primarily related to
playing with the tide study and the time conversion problem.
Unfortunately I mistakenly got the overflight mixed in there, why I
don't know.  Must have got confused for a second.  Sorry.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:07:14
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Tides at Niku

Ric writes:

> Terrence Thorgaard writes:
>
>> The naval aviators' failure to see the Electra is still very
>> puzzling.
>
> No it's not. The tide was high and there was a considerable surf
> running (as we see in the Lambrecht photo).  If the airplane is in
> the relatively shallow water just over the reef edge among the coral
> boulders (where Emily Sikuli says she saw wreckage at low tide circa
> 1940) it is totally obscured by breaking surf at the time of the
> Colorado overflight.

Ok, I think it's now established that the tide was low, not high at
the time Lambrecht flew over (about one foot).  But I can imagine how
breaking surf, even at low tide, could still obscure the Electra.

And, the 9th of July being near the end of reported radio
transmissions, it's totally plausable that, by then, AE & FN were no
longer to access the Electra &/or to make radio transmissions.  The
Electra might have slipped further into the water, run out of gas,
run out of charge in the battery, the radio or engine or battery made
nonfunctional by water damage, or any number of combinations.

I'm looking at the online copy of the "Contour Plan of Aerodrome
Reserve" prepared by the Pacific Islands Survey Expedition in March
of '39, in an attempt to get a better idea of the topography of the
Norwich City region. I can't make out some of the writing. Near the
wreck it appears to say "edge of reef".  Is this line, some 280 yards
from the shore, where the reef drops off abruptly?   Where, in
relation to this line and the wreck, is it believed that Emily saw
something?

Which line, if any, shown on the PISE plan would correspond to the
"zero" tide line?  And what numerical tide level (as used in the
Gardner tide model) would correspond to the "edge of reef" line?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:28:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Tide Action?

Hue, I can visualize a scenario such as this. If the plane's left
gear collapsed it would tend to veer to the left or ground loop. That
could put it close to an unintended edge.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:29:25
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Howland, Baker, and Gardner

> How the two-way radio type microphone could pick up the cabin
> conversation, but not engine noise?

Well, it could if the engine wasn't running. The radio would work off
of the battery -- for a while. A reasonable approach to the radio use
and I saw very little reason in the flight, would have been to use
battery until the engine needed to be started to recharge the
battery. That offers us a nice little exercise. I figure on landing
they had maybe an hour and a half of fuel. How long would that last?
We would need to know how much fuel an engine start takes first of
all. Then we need to know how many minutes of radio transmission the
battery would last and still have enough amps to start the right
engine. The transmissions were short and you can see why. Let's say
they crank up the radio and make a short transmission and we know
what some of them were. How much of a fully charged battery would
that use?

We have no idea how many transmissions were made as we certainly
didn't get them all. That exercise might give us a better idea of
their radio capability.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:30:17
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Boston and Maine Airways

Daryll, there are a number of sites on the Internet in regard to
Earhart and Northeast Airlines. If you would add cites to your
comments it would help hold down the criticism., although I have lost
the significance of her being connected with the airline or connected
with any other endeavor for that matter.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:30:50
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Hello from Australia

> G'day, Wombat!  I, for one, have missed you and was a bit worried
> about what might have happened to you; thought you might have carried
> out another of your island living experiments and found out exactly
> what happened to Earhart.  Welcome back

I thought he had made a personal visit to Niku and was washed off the
reef.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:31:33
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Boston and Maine Airways

> Boston & Maine
> Airways

The National airways Hall of Fame says about Amelia Earhart, "With
Jackie Cochran she founded the Boston-Maine Airways, later known as
Northeast Airlines."

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:32:30
From:         David Billings
Subject:      New Britain Project

My Dear Richard Gillespie,

  From you now comes a further attempt to discredit the New Britain
Project. How many times is this now ? Ten, twenty ?  Perhaps I don't
know them all....

When speaking of "obvious physical impossibilities" that the Electra
could be on New Britain as per our evidence, you must remember that
Earhart's Contingency Plan was not to go to the Phoenix Group at all
but was indeed to use her reciprocal and return to the Gilbert
Islands.  Why on earth she would venture to the uninhabited Phoenix
Group when she has a populated friendly group of islands on her
reciprocal just does not make sense.  From your research the Electra
is close to Howland (doesn't the "Strength 5" say so ?), then it
grinds on for some two hours, fixed on an advanced LOP and heading
157 degrees TRUE ?  I think not.  So bear that in mind when you speak
of "obvious physical impossibilities".

Also bear in mind that despite another inference from you that our
Veterans are playing loose ball with the truth, there is a wreck in
the area we search which was seen by the Veterans and there is
documentary evidence to support that fact.  Where is your evidence
that the Electra was ever/is now/lays there/is covered/is sunk,
anywhere on Nikumaroro ? Yours is a "Hypothesis" with a capital "H",
for dear fella, you have no sighting and you have no documentary
evidence.  You have been leading your followers into the void without
evidence whereas I have been leading mine with evidence.  There is a
difference there which even your astute followers would see.

Throughout your writings your suppositions one day become fact the
next.  The supposed aerial loss at Lae is a prime example.  I have in
my possession a fax dated 20 February 1996 in which you say, quote:
"An American veteran who was stationed in Lae during WWII has told us
that local people who had witnessed the take-off in 1937 told him
that a length of antenna wire was, in fact, found on the runway after
her departure" unquote.  Note that you said "in fact".  Let us just
dissect that a little.  From my knowledge of New Guinea, I would say
that if such a piece of wire had been found then it would have been
taken to one of the bosses at Guinea Airways or one of the other
operators at Lae.  The word would have gone around that some wire had
been found and there would have been a fleet check of all aircraft
operating at Lae.  If none had an aerial wire missing what conclusion
would have been reached ?  What other aircraft had been there ?
Would we have been reading of the loss of Earhart's aerial wire as
early as July 1937 ?  I say yes, we would or at least it would have
been a well known "possibility".  Would Eric Chater have mentioned it
in his report ?  Would you consider that the American serviceman you
mention had anecdotal evidence or contemporaeneous evidence ?  Was
his memory recollection correct, Hmm ?  Is his story to be believed
because he is American ?  Did he have a name ?

Now, I see another supposition, in that Noonan is trapped inside the
Electra on the reef flat because the rear door won't open !  I take
it you have done the measurements, No ?  Thou hast a fertile
imagination, Jim Lad.  You speak to me of wishful thinking, give me a
break.

The yellow paint was said by Keith Nurse, yes, you are correct in
saying that.  I report what Keith said.  Who knows what colour paint
was applied to the inside surface after it left the shaping hands of
Lockheed at Burbank ?  Peter the Painter could have come along and
offerred to use some new-fangled anti-corrosive paint to prove his
product for free.  The website does not say the "whole" inside of the
aircraft was painted yellow, just the inside of the nacelle examined.
Before you guffaw with merriment, compare that one supposition to all
of your multitudes of suppositions.

So now the numbers on the map edge are incorrect too.  Oh Dear !  The
R-1340 was 550 H.P. not 600 H.P. you say.  I agree that most
references make that the engines were 550 H.P. with 600 H.P.
available for Take-off.  The R1340 S3H1 was rated at 600 Horsepower
for take-off.  I refer you to Lockheed Report 487, dated June 4th,
1936, Page 4, second paragraph:

"The airplane under consideration is a Model 10E Electra equipped
with Pratt and Whitney S3H1 engines rated at 600 BHP at 2300
rpm.....etc".  I can't for the life of me see where Lockheed in that
Report 487 mention "550 H.P." in the text.  You believe everything
that Lockheed say, don't you ?  This information is on your own CD.
Try and criticise that.

It really is splitting a hair to say that a forward slash ( / ) in
S3H/1 automatically disqualifies the engine seen from being an S3H1.
Surely you can do better than that with your imagination ?  At least
you do agree that Earhart's NR16020 was indeed C/N1055.  Good, I'm
glad about that....

You call what I write "convoluted" ?  How many different explanations
have you given for the failure of Lt. John Lambrecht to see the
Electra sitting on Nikumaroro ?  Let us see:

1.  The Electra had landed on the reef flat and had taxied in under
the shade of the "Ren" trees and therefore that's why Lambrecht could
not see it (this is my favourite).

2.  No, that's not correct, it was hidden in the foliage on the
island after being washed off the beach.

3.  No, even that's not correct for it was washed into the Lagoon and
has sunk into the mire of bird guano.

4.  No, wait a minute, what if the surf is bubbling over it ?

5.  No,no, no... It was washed off the edge of the reef and is now
conveniently at 200 fathoms.

Or, another of my favourites, Earhart & Noonan had hacked out a clear
strip for an improvised runway.....  Perhaps they had dragged it over
to this clear area and parked it in the shade of some Ren trees over
there while they had lunch.

In reality, it wasn't there (ever).

I think if you could go back in time and ask any serving member of
the United States Army Air Force in 1945 whether they were in the
USAAC or the USAAF you might not have got a satisfactory answer.  Are
we "Army" or "Air Force", does it really matter ?  The fact was that
the U.S. Military came back some four or five weeks after the find to
let the Australian Army know that the wreck they had seen was NOT one
of theirs.

So whose is it ?

As to the tag, which I consider to have been a Repair Tag, Ken
Backhouse is of the opinion that it would have been sent along with a
hard copy report to the USAAF in Port Moresby.  So, where it went
from there is anybody's guess.  Maybe they saved it and it went into
archives in the States or maybe it went into Bin 13, who knows ?

I'm glad I have a sense of humour.

Keep spending OPM on Nikumaroro, ".....nice work if you can get it...".

David Billings.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:34:52
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      TIGHAR's everywhere

If, while looking at Google Earth one "goes" to Nikumaroro and opens the
information icon "Gardner Island Theory" you will see a succinct overview of
the Tighar hypothesis.  On "Nikumaroro" you will see a more comprehensive but
brief history of Nikumororo with links to Tighar and attributions to "Finding
Amelia", and Richard Pyle's AP article >http://tinyurl.com/3yanm9<.

Speaking of Richard Pyle--his outstanding journalistic talent prompted me
to see if there was a familial link with erstwhile aviation correspondent and
famed WWII columnist Ernie Pyle.  While looking through the Indiana University
School of Journalism website, I found no apparent relationship, but there was
an Amelia Earhart connection.  Amelia presented Ernie Pyle with a watch as an
award on behalf of aviation writers of the period.  Pyle was wearing the watch
when he was killed on a small island near Okinawa by a Japanese sniper's
machine gun.

Rick J  #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:04:09
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: New Britain Project

Okay David.  We've both had our say.  Let's leave it to the public to
decide who has made the better case.

We now return to our regularly scheduled forum.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:20:43
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      USAAF

To settle a controvesity of a few days ago.

"Shortly after Pear Habor, the U.S, Army was reorganized. The Air
Corp and Combat Command were merged into the Army Air Forces. The
Infantry, Calvary, Field Artillery and other surface combat elements
were merged into the Army Ground Forces."  Page 9 of
THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO THE ARMY AIR FORCES, 1944
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:21:26
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Hello from Australia

I had considered it Alan.  I would need about 2 feet of water over
the reef to get Volcano in through the passage.  The surf worries me
a bit though.  :-)    She's capable of making the trip, but I'm not
sure I am.  lol

Th' Wombat

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> I thought he had made a personal visit to Niku and was washed off
> the reef.
>
> Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:21:59
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Islands can rise, too

Another gentle reminder (related to Pacific islands and by inference,
Nikumaroro) that the planet we live on is a bit more complex and
dynamic than some "media-friendly" spokespeople and politicians would
have us think:

Quake lifts Solomons island out of the sea

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070407/sc_afp/
solomonsquakeisland;_ylt=AmWxTgtJeBcLwaF8np6Dex0DW7oF

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/26hkzl
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:22:26
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Earhart's legacy

     Dear Mr. William Webster-Garman,

Thank you for your kind reply. Sorry but the popular statement that
Earhart as if "cracked up a lot of airframes" is exactly what can be
called as "canonized urban myth", and is not substantiated by facts.
    Yes, i do agree, it is a very popular statement. Already for many
years i can see this statement again and again - repeated in
articles, expressed opinions, etc. - that as if Earhart had more
ground mishaps them most famous aviators.. of left after her a hype
of bent airplanes... and so on.

    Usually, however, if to ask the questions like: what a planes,
exactly? How many, exactly? Please which were the types of these
crashed airframes, their registration numbers, dates of accidents,
where it was (which airfields), etc.? - the discussion stops right here.
      Because of the simple reason: the notorious hype of crashed
airframes simply never existed.

     That's why i like to call this a "canonized myth"... a sort of
factually wrong legend that still continues to be quite a "common
belief" - or even dominates! - exclusively because of uncritical
acception by too many people, and endless repeating in the media.

      In reality during Earhart's 16 year flying career, she had
pretty FEW accidents...especially if to consider with the "record" of
many other pioneer pilots of the era.

There were the Avro Avian that went by its wheel into the invisible
hole covered by a high grass on the field (1928)... also the Vega
"flipped back" at landing because of the seat collapsing under AE
(1930).. two accidents in autogyro (1931)  - a modern type of
aircraft that (just btw)  was nicknamed by the test pilots themselves
as "Black Marie" - because of NOBODY (even of them) could fly in it
more then a few hours without making accident (Earhart safely flew it
across the county, making tens and tens of landings);  and of course
the notorious Hawaii groundloop (1937) - for which NOBODY actually
somehow proved that it was Earhart's fault because of "lack of
skills" or so.

   That's all. A pretty FEW accidents for a 16 year career of the
record-breaking pilot of those times - that were really a "tough"
times in aviation, with the number of accidents of all sorts much
higher then it is acceptable and normal now, in the modern civil
aviation. That was just such a time,  when even the great Colonel
Lindbergh was forced to jump with a parachute from the plane at least
4 times (Earhart did never lose the plane in flight... just a BTW
note! - NOT for to blame Lindbergh in anything of course... repeat,
it was just such a time then  - such a period in the development of
aviation, with its natural specificity).

       If about the "planning abilities", i still think there is a lot
of what i like to call a "postfactum knowledge syndrome" in this
modern tendency to blame Earhart in such a bad planning.
      It is pretty easy to blame after knowing  the tragic outcome of
the flight... all the errors - real and even just speculated ones -
immediately  becomes "so obvious"... But i am more then sure that if
only Earhart and Noonan would just have a bit more LUCK  (that was a
much more vital part of the flying - especuially the record flying! -
in Earhart's times than it is now)  - and would complete all their
flight successfully, as they completed already the biggest part of it
- then NOBODY would blame them in a "bad planning" etc.., and even
the things now criticized as "planning errors", would be rather
praised as "thoughtfully calculated professional risks", or something
like this. Such is the law of the human psychology, i'd dare to say.
In my opinion, the numerous successful long-distance flights of
Earhart rather proves that actually her planning abilities were far
not so bad as many people tends to think about it today.
      Kind Regards - LTM, sincerely - Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:24:50
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Hello from Australia

To:  Wombat

     Hey Ross!!!  Welcome back.  I remember and have
missed your posts...  Glad  you're doing better.

Jackie #2440
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:36:15
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Earhart's legacy

For Marcus Lind, ten documented Earhart aircraft mishaps:

1928 August 31, Pittsburgh, groundlooped her Avro Avian, damaging the
landing gear and breaking the prop.

1928 September 30, Tintic, Utah, forced landing in a ploughed field,
nose-over, broken propeller.

1929 March, Giuseppe Bellanca refuses to sell her an airplane after
she performs poorly during a demo flight.

1929 August, Yuma, Arizona, runs off the end of a runway whilst
landing, tips the Vega, bends the propeller.

1930 September 25, Norfolk, Virginia,  wrecks her new Vega in nose-
over landing, airplane lands flat on its back, fuselage is totaled.
Earhart gets a cut on her scalp, passenger breaks a finger.

1931, June, Abilebe, Texas, crashes autogiro in a rotor-strike,
receives official reprimand for negligence (Clarence Young, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Aviation).

1931, summer, Camden, New Jersey, lands autogiro on a fence.

1931, September, Detroit, Michigan, while landing she drops the
autogiro in a free fall from about 20 feet, wrecking it.

1932, May 21 Earhart lands her damaged aircraft at Culmore near
Londonderry in County Donegal, 200 miles north of her intended
course, 600 miles shy of Paris, her destination, with insufficient
fuel to get there (she was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross as
the first woman to solo across the Atlantic).

1937, March 20, Luke Field, Ford Island Hawaii, groundloops and
wrecks the Electra on a paved runway.

I never said anything about "popular statements" in my forum post,
please stop misrepresenting my remarks, thanks. Again, "barely
middling" does not mean "inept," I admire AE and I do think she had a
knack for flying. How else could she have broken all those records
(never mind survived) with such average technical skills at the stick?

LTM, who had a thing for reckless girls, maybe.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:37:39
From:         David Billings
Subject:      Yellow Chromate anti-corrosion primer

"Zinc Chromate Yellow

In US aircraft use in the 1930s to 1940s, the Zinc Chromate primer
was frequently used in the raw mixture yellow tone. This is sometimes
referred to as Zinc Chromate Yellow. Like stated above, there is no
definitive colour pattern as this may have varied between
manufacturers and batches of these primers.

In the immediate pre-war and early war period, the raw yellow Zinc
Chromate primer seems to have been dominating."

This is an exerpt from:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/
stuff_eng_interior_colours_us.htm

For your information; so you are not factually correct in saying
yellow chromate was not used until the 1940's, according to this
article.

David Billings
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:38:35
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Yellow chromate

David Billings writes:

> "Zinc Chromate Yellow
>
> In US aircraft use in the 1930s to 1940s, the Zinc Chromate primer
> was frequently used in the raw mixture yellow tone. This is
> sometimes referred to as Zinc Chromate Yellow. Like stated above,
> there is no definitive colour pattern as this may have varied
> between manufacturers and batches of these primers.
>
> In the immediate pre-war and early war period, the raw yellow Zinc
> Chromate primer seems to have been dominating."
>
> This is an exerpt from:
>
> http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/
> stuff_eng_interior_colours_us.htm
>
> For your information; so you are not factually correct in saying
> yellow chromate was not used until the 1940's, according to this
> article.

Thanks for the correction.  To quote further from the same article:

"In the aircraft industry of the 1940s, Zinc Chromate was used as an
anti-corrosive barrier primer; it could be described as a sort of
painted-on galvanizing. It has been developed by Ford Motor Company
by the late 1920s, subsequently adopted in commercial aviation and
later by the US Military. Official USAAC notes mention successful
application of Zinc Chromate primer starting from 1933, but it has
not been adopted as standard until 1936."

Of course, the Lockheed Model 10 was not a military aircraft.
Lockheed did build one for the U.S. Navy (c/n 1052, now at the New
England Air Museum) and one for the U.S. Coast Guard (c/n 1053,
ditched off Cape Cod, MA in 1967). Lockheed never built an Electra
for the Army, although a number were "drafted" and designated as
UC-36s during the war.  The point is, none of the three crashed
Electras that we have examined (c/n 1021, c/n 1024, and c/n 1103)
exhibit any sign of chromate. Note that the constructor's numbers are
for aircraft built both before and after c/n 1055.  None of the many
photos of Earhart's plane under construction in 1936 and under repair
in 1937 show any sign of chromate. In some of the photos taken of the
Electra as it lay on its belly at Luke Field, the engine cowlings
have been removed and are stacked in the foreground.  The interiors
of the cowlings are clearly visible, including the Alcoa labeling
stamped on the bare aluminum.

In order to make your jungle airplane into NR16020, you have to
either discount the Warrant Officer's recollection as inaccurate (in
which case you have to question the rest of the various witness
reports - something you should always do) or you have to postulate
that at some point during the world flight a yellow chromate wash was
applied to the interior of the aircraft's cowling.  David, I've been
down this road many times myself. We desperately wanted to believe
that a PBY navigator's bookcase had been installed in the Earhart
aircraft and we tried our darndest to explain how the repairs made to
the Electra might have resulted in the rivet pattern on the piece of
aluminum sheet we found on Nikumaroro.  We eventually uncovered
information that showed both of those hypotheses to be highly
improbable - so we dropped them.  We're presently testing other
hypotheses about other airplane parts we've found on the island. If
we find new information that disqualifies them as being from the
Electra, we'll drop them too.  Some people recognize this process as
the scientific method of inquiry.  Others call it "changing our story."

We all want to find good, solid evidence but, in my experience, the
harder it is to make the piece fit the rest of the puzzle, the more
likely it is that the piece is from a different puzzle.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:43:27
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Record of a plane seen near Norwich City

It might be productive to summarize possible sightings of the Electra
in the vicinity of the Norwich City.  Discoveries or anechdotal
evidence concerning pieces of an aircraft which may have been found,
in this area or elsewhere on the island, are beyond the scope of this
summary, as is photographic evidence which, after the fact, can be
thought to be possibly plane wreckage.

The Colorado overflight didn't see it.

Bevington makes no mention of seeing it.

Gallagher never mentioned it.  There is no record of a sighting by
any other "westerner" from this period.

Emily Sikuli remembers a rusted steel frame of what she assumes (and
remembers being told) was an airplane, near and to the north of the
Norwich City.
Did the Electra have a steel frame? If not, it seems likely that what
she saw would have been a piece of the Norwich City.  This goes for
statements which may have been made to her when she was on the island
by adults.  If the adults believed it to be a plane it seems likely
that they were mistaken.  Or she may be mistaken as to what the
adults believed when she was a child.
Pulekai Songivalu  remembers seeing what sounds like an alumunum
airplane wing to the south of the Norwich City.
Adults also may have suggested to him, when he saw it, that it was
from an airplane.  It's impossible, of course, to cross-examine those
adults.  Or he may be mistaken in his testimony that they thought it
was from a plane.
There is no record of any sighting later, including the TIGHAR
expeditions.

Am I forgetting anything significant?  Not much to go on, in my
opinion.  Again, did the Electra have a steel frame?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:50:59
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Record of a plane seen near Norwich City

edit:  my reference to "Pulekai Songivalu" should have been to
"Tapania Taiki"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:42:20
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      TIGHAR's everywhere

Here is a posting made today on Google Earth Community (board) on Google
Earth's "Gardner Island Theory".  I can see that it may bring in some new
contacts.  This was a really good idea, Ric.  Does TIGHAR get cc'd on these
postings?  (Posting Follows)
Rick J #2751

"Gardner Island Theory [Re: A30]

I worked on Canton Island, Phoenix islands 1972-1975. This was an
operational location for SAMTEC and supporting SDC and NASA. We had
several helocopters operated by a contractor that ferried me and my
suppervisor to Enderbury Island. Hull Island had a crew to operate
the tracking equipment located there.

In their rare visits to the the other islands, they would drop off emergency
fuel and supply caches in case the case an emergency landing was required.
They would do some exploring. We later found out that the 65' Korean tuna
fishing boats that worked these waters raided these emergency caches. So it
was discontinued. A loss to all. The flight operations to these island where
discontinued in "late 73"

The story I got from the flight crew was that they had found a sole from a
small shoe ( the hermit crabs eat it if it doesn't move) and a metal box and
the remains of a collapsed make-shift shelter. The box was made of aircraft
metal, due to its size and shape, described by them as a map box. The
description was that it had been mounted but was removed. The discussion
turned to the hole pattern fotfor its mounting would not prove anything since
the planes were hand built, with no set mounting pattern for the rivets.

None of anything that was found was removed from the island. This was the
rule as all plants, animals, objects on the island was protected. It was grounds
to be fired for removing it. They said they left what they found.

This is the story that was on the island at the time.

From the air, the leeward side of the coral reef looks as a good landing
location for a belly landing for a plane. The -10-20Kt winds from the east
would have made any other areas a bad choice. In reality, once it made
contact with the reef, the plane would have come to a violent stop, with the
reef tearing holes in the bottom of the plane. If the plane survived enough for
the plane's radio to work, the radio's signal would skip to reach only distant
receivers, being at near water level. The discussion talked about some
scattered HAM radio operators on the west coast having received calls for
help purportedly from Emilia.

While living on the Island, I experienced sea states generated from Antarctic
storms. 30-40' waves drain the reef, then hit the exposed wall of the reef,
throwing massive spray 60-100 feet into the air. The impacts can be felt
through your feet. The look just like the waves that every one is familiar with,
generated from Baltic storms, hits the North Shore of Hawaii. These powerful
waves flush off the reef of "anything" loose on the reef. There was reference
to such a storms' waves arriving in the area two days after she went missing
would easily washed the wreckage off the reef. Eliminating any further radio
contact.

The waters in the area are far to deep to find anything after all there years to
prove her having been here. Yes, this is all hear-say, But the shoe sole and
the map box does give it some credence. Its up to you if you want to believe
it. As for me, it's a plausible answer.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:45:07
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: possibly of interest

Terry Thorgaard writes:

> It might be productive to summarize possible sightings of the
> Electra in the vicinity of the Norwich City.  Discoveries or
> anechdotal evidence concerning pieces of an aircraft which may have
> been found, in this area or elsewhere on the island, are beyond the
> scope of this summary, as is photographic evidence which, after the
> fact, can be thought to be possibly plane wreckage.

> The Colorado overflight didn't see it.
>
> Bevington makes no mention of seeing it.
>
> Gallagher never mentioned it.
>
> The New Zealand Survey in late 1938/early 1939 didn't see it, and
> they camped on the beach opposite Norwich City.
>
> The USS Bushnell survey in November 1939 didn't see it.
>
> There is no record of a sighting by any other "westerner" from this  
> period.

That is true.

> Emily Sikuli remembers a rusted steel frame of what she assumes
> (and remembers being told) was an airplane, near and to the north
> of the Norwich City.
> Did the Electra have a steel frame?

The Electra was a stressed aluminum structure.  It did not have a
steel frame, but I think it's a mistake to reduce Emily's
descriptions of what she saw to the phrase "a steel frame."  First of
all, Emily was speaking in Tuvaluan and her words were being
translated/paraphrased for us by Foua Tofiga who is not a
professional translator.  There was lots of potential for
miscommunication. That's why I made a point of getting beyond a
verbal description and asked Emily to draw a picture for us.

Emily told her story twice.  Once for Tom King on July 15, 1999 and
once for me on July 27, 1999.

Here's a compilation of everything she said specifically about the
appearance of what she saw.

To Tom on July 15:

"The struts were there. [holds up hands in circle, apparently
indicating that the struts were round in cross-section, about 20 cm.
in diameter]"
"The steel of the plane was there sometime before we got there.
[asked specifically about aluminum, she says no]"

TK:  Did people use parts of the airplane?
ES:  I don't know for sure. When we got there only the steel frames
were left, only the long pieces were there. We were frightened to go
close to the plane. Where the shipwreck was -- the remainder of the
plane was not very far from there. The waves were washing it in low
tide.

And to me on July 27:

RG: Did you ever see any part of that plane?
ES: Only the frame, a piece of steel. [Mr. Tofiga offers clarification,
"Uh, it's not a piece. The term she uses 'afiti,' it could be this
long or this long." Moves his hands close together then far apart.
"But it's steel. Only the framework."]

ES: It was a long steel. [draws a line] There was a round part of it.
[adds a small solid circle at the end of the line] I do not know what
part of the plane it was. We were forbidden to go there. I was
following my father. When I went there my father stopped me.

RG:  How big was this piece?
ES:  About four arm spans. [holds her arms out]

RG:  How did you know that this was part of an airplane?
ES:  I heard it from those who were there before us that it was part
of an airplane.

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

Okay, so what do we have?  I think we can discount the term "frame."

Nothing she drew or demonstrated with physical gestures describes
what we would call a "frame."  She seems to have seen a rust-
colored, cylinder which she judged to be roughly 20 cm (almost 8
inches) in diameter and about 12 feet long.  Attached to one end was
a circular structure roughly 17 inches in diameter - if the
proportions of her sketch are accurate.

> If not, it seems likely that what she saw would have been a piece
> of the Norwich City.

That is certainly possible, but I don't think it's likely if only
because of the location she describes  - north of the shipwreck and
out where the waves break.  Because heavy weather at Nikumaroro comes
out of the northwest, the distribution pattern of Norwich City debris
is southeastward and shoreward from the wreck.

> This goes for statements which may have been made to her when she
> was on the island by adults.  If the adults believed it to be a
> plane it seems likely that they were mistaken.  Or she may be
> mistaken as to what the adults believed when she was a child.

People can be mistaken, but that is not sufficient reason to conclude
that they were mistaken. It's kind of hard to mistake an airplane for
something else.  They're rather distinctive.

> [Tapania Taeke]  remembers seeing what sounds like an alumunum
> airplane wing to the south of the Norwich City.
> Adults also may have suggested to him, when he saw it, that it was
> from an airplane.

Tapania is female.  When I asked her what color the object was she
pointed to the dull silver-colored underside of the metal roof over
our heads. There is nothing of the Norwich City wreckage that is that
color.

> It's impossible, of course, to cross-examine those adults.  Or he
> may be mistaken in his testimony that they thought it was from a
> plane.
> There is no record of any sighting later, including the TIGHAR
> expeditions.
>
> Am I forgetting anything significant?

Yes, the 1953 aerial mapping photo which appears to show light-
colored metal debris on the reef flat "downstream" from the place
where Emily says she saw the cylindrical object with the round thing
on the end.

Let's look at the chronology:

July 9,1937 - Lambrecht - no airplane visible but reef edge obscured
by surf.

October 1937 - Bevington - no airplane or airplane wreckage visible
on reef or beach.
Ditto for all other visitors until

1940/41 - Emily - one piece of debris visible at the reef edge at low
tide. Emily is told that it is part of an airplane.

1944 - PBY pilot John Mims - airplane debris being used for local
purposes.  When asked where it came from, locals say there was an
airplane here when our people first arrived.  When asked where the
plane is now, the locals just shrug.

1953 - mapping photo - debris filed of light-colored metal on reef flat.

Late 1950s - Tapania Taeke - piece of airplane wing on reef flat. 
Other parts found along beach.

Possible scenario:

July 1937 - Electra is washed over the reef edge and gets hung up
among the coral boulders in the relatively shallow water just past
the reef edge.

1940/41 - The island is colonized and, for the first time, men
begin to fish along the reef edge near the shipwreck (because the
fishing is good there).  The plane is inverted, with one landing gear
leg and wheel sticking up and visible at times of unusually low
tide.  Fisherman see that it's an airplane but nobody tells Gallagher
because they have no reason to think he would be interested and he
speaks very little Gilbertese. Westerners never see it because they
never fish there.

1942/43 - the plane is beginning to break up and a few pieces wash
ashore where they are collected for local use.

1953 to late 1950s - the plane wreck continues to break up and
aluminum debris starts to appear on the reef flat. The debris is
collected, brought to the village, and cut up for local uses. During
this period there is no resident Western overseer on Nikumaroro.

Eventually the plane breaks up enough for the larger chunks to tumble
down the reef slope into much deeper water where they remain to this
day.

Ric Gillespie
Executive Director
TIGHAR
www.tighar.org
tigharic@mac.com

author of
"Finding Amelia - The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance"
Published by the Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:45:38
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      The Seven Site

When I revisited the AE web site I see under "Gallagher's Clues" that
the map of Niku shows 99 percent of the coconut plantings (thus area
cleared or will be cleared) is on the Western side of the island.  If
this is the case what is it that caused TIGHAR to focus on the 7 site
on the Eastern side?

I know the 7 site has yielded clues re fire pits, clams, turtle
bones, etc. but nothing that I am aware of that indicates that AE may
have died there.  This area is also contaminated with the remnants of
the Coast Guard occupation and other unusual activity i.e. the
corrugated iron, the water tank, 20th century can labels (yet to be
explained how they may have gotten there),etc

It seems to me if we were following the clues of Gallagher we would
want to concentrate where he and the islanders were working or
planned to work along the Western side of the island.  Isn't this the
area where you found the shoe parts, etc.?  Also, isn't this the area
were the tide washes up most of the debris from the Western side of
the island e.g. the "landing site" , from the reef drop- off, the
wheel of fortune, the Norwich City, etc.  Assuming for the minute
that the shoe parts that Gallagher found and the ones that TIGHAR
found are somehow related, it seems odd that if Gallagher found his
at the 7 site AE would have carried only one shoe over there.
Wouldn't it seem more logical to assume both shoes were found in the
same general area?  Gallagher did say that the bones and things he
found were on the South end of the island.  Wouldn't the South end of
the Western side be a logical assumption in this case?

If Lambrecht's sighting of "recent habitation", 7 days after AE
landed, is to be equated to AE's activity, wouldn't it be logical to
assume that this area would be somewhere near were we think she set
the aircraft down?  Keep in mind that Lambrecht approached the island
from the north and if the photo is authentic departed to the north
but at the southern end of the island - what chance would AE have in
flagging him in if she was at the northern end?

In summary, I find it difficult to believe that AE would venture too
far away from where she could have landed:  The Electra and its
contents would continue to wash up on the Western shore line, the
Norwich City was a beacon of sorts, any ships looking for her would
most probably be coming south from the Howland area.  If either AE or
FN were seriously wounded they most likely would have found shelter
fairly close to where they came down not half way around the island.
Finally, from what I've read about your past expeditions isn't it
difficult to cross the Bauareke Passage to get around to the 7 site
especially if you were wounded -wearing only one shoe?  What would
motivate one to leave a fairly familiar side of the island to go to
the other side where chances of a rescue coming from the south is
remote, no more wash ups from either the NC or the Electra to provide
survival stuff and moving away from a known food source - the early
coconut plantings?  The only thing that I can think of is getting
away from where she buried FN.

I hope you guys have taken all the above into consideration for your
next trip to Niku.  Please take a step back and put yourself in AE
shoes and ask what would you have done; forget for the moment what
you have found and what you suspect happened instead put yourself in
survival mode and live the moment.

Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:46:01
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      "Where is Amelia Earhart"

To those forum members in the Pacific NW, Seattle Metro area, etc.

The National Geographic Channel is showing the broadcast on channel
273, 9 PM Tuesday,10 April.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:45:20
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Hue's radio questions

For Hue Miller,

Hue, I don't know the answers to your questions about how the radio
(s?) worked.  What I have done is trusted the assessment of those who
are recognized experts in this field, like Bob Brandenburg and the
rest of TIGHAR's radio experts, who have shown that the Klenck and
Andrews receptions were possible.  I won't argue with someone on a
subject that I don't know enough about to make coherent arguments.
I can and do ask questions to increase my own understanding of the
given subject, but for me to go toe-to-toe with someone in regards to
a subject in which their knowledge far exceeds my own would be
foolishness.

This is not to say that I avoid arguments.  If I have a base of
knowledge to stand on, then stand I will.  A few months ago, I argued
with a guy at work who assured me that he knew exactly what kind of
hand-to-hand combat training Army recruits get in Basic Training.
Since he had never served in the military, and I had just returned
from a 2 year stint as an Army Drill Sergeant, I could and did argue
with him.  In the end, he was unwilling to accept the word of someone
with first hand knowledge and experience of the subject being
discussed, thereby proving his own foolishness.

The point I'm trying to make is that barring personal knowledge of
some disqualifying information, one can generally accept (in any
field unrelated to law, politics, or religion) the assessments of
experts, and that is what I have done in the case of Earhart's
radios, and the post-loss receptions.

As regards my "emotional response," what I described as a lump in the
throat when reading the accounts of Dana Andrews and Betty Klenk, let
me make one thing clear.  The content of the messages they reported
hearing are fascinating bits of the puzzle, and may be emotionally
compelling to some, but to me just describe a situation in which
adults, through poor planning and over reliance on other adults have
gotten themselves into dire circumstances.  What chokes me up is that
these kids had information that could have helped the situation, and
they desperately wanted to help, but in the end, nobody outside of
their own families took them seriously.  I'm glad that TIGHAR is
giving them their due.

LTM, who thinks that the real heroes of the Earhart disappearance
story are Betty Klenck, Dana Andrews, and Gerry Gallagher.

Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:00:16
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Welcome back Wombat!

To Ross Devitt,

Welcome back Ross.  I had feared the worst, and am very glad to know
you're doing better.

LTM, who remembers that your full name is W.O.M.B.A.T
B.A.T.H.T.U.B.  (Went On My Boat And Took Boxes And Things Hopefully
To Uninhabited Beaches)

Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:00:52
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Earhart's legacy

Replying to Mr. William Webster-Garman:

     Thank you for your kind reply.
The list of "mishaps" that you composed may seem "impressive" - from
the first look... but actually it "mixes together" a pretty different
things.  I think is not very correct to do(especially considering the
historic specificity of the period and the specificity of Earhart's
flying), and it even can be quite confusing.

      Several of these "mishaps" you mentioned are actually a quite a
minor incidents. These "forced landings", "bent propellers" etc. can
seem significant from the heights of the today's super-cautious
standards of the aviation safety - about the planes, airstrips, and
everything; but in the Earhart's days that kind of "incidents" were
rather just a part of the everyday's routine.

     The engine "dying" in flight was not a rare thing at all; such
were the standards of the relaibility of the equipment of the era.
    NATURALLY it caused  forced landings; and - naturally - such a
landings on unprepared places (just some fields, meadows, with a high
grass, holes, stones etc. etc.) could easily lead to groundloops and
other such a things.

     To avoid this at those circumstances was beyond the power and
possibility of the pilot - whoever it was; so the only thing the
pilot could do, it ti try to survive at it and minimize the
consequences somehow. The fact that Earhart was successful in this,
rather confirms - in my opinion - the good quality and skills of her
as a pilot.

      It must be specially noted that Earhart - being an "air
vagabound", by her own definition - flew a lot by the routes new for
her, making a lot of landings and takeoffs in a new, unfamiliar, and
unprepared places - frequently not even "unfamiliar airstrips" but
just some fields (of the "doubtful quality", as is noted above).
      NATURALLY such a flying is, potentially, MUCH more dangerous
then, for example, the flying of regular airline pilots or the
military pilots - who usually flies between a few well prepared
aerodromes, in a regular way, so it is NATURAL to expect that their
"rate of accidents" must be low, and will tend to decrease with time
and training.
      But you can't be "trained" in landing the airplane - because of
engine cut or other such a reason - on some unfamiliar place, not
knowing at all what can "wait" for you on the ground.

      Considering all this, i still continue to think that the
Earhart's number of incidents (during 16 years of flying!) was not
too big, but rather SURPRISINGLY SMALL - for such a circumstances.

      The things can be understood properly only considering the
context properly, and using comparisons.
      So - again, just reminding - the great Colonel Lindbergh lost at
least 4 planes in the air... but, apparently, nobody blames this
great pilot in some "lack of skills" etc.
      And i do agree he must NOT be blamed for it; for exactly the
same reasons i tried to present above.
      What i can't understand is why there must be one criterias for
some pilots, and other criterias for Earhart. Repeating again
(sorry!) - i can't find other explanation then a "cumulative effect"
of some chauvinism - still "alive and well" in the society - plus the
"propaganda" of some rivals, and plus the "Debunk the Celebrity! -
syndrome".

      Your listing says: "1929 March, Giuseppe Bellanca refuses to
sell her an airplane after she performs poorly during a demo flight" -

- sorry, but it is not a "documented fact" that Earhart "performed
poorly" in that demo flight.
It is just one of the many anti-Earhart claims of Elinor Smith,
uncritically accepted and canonized by some authors.
     Smith, a strong and too obviously jealous rival of Earhart, never
missed a chance to make a derogatory claim about Earhart's skills; so
I don't consider her as a credible and unprejudiced witness.

     The first really serious "incident" in your listing is the Vega
accident of 1930 (Sept 25) in Norfolk, Virginia. Reportedly the
accident was caused by a seat that collapsed under Earhart in the
moment when the plane touched the ground; and she lost control over it.

     Sorry, but not sharing the popular "Debunk-the-celebrity
syndrome", i don't also share the tendency to reject any explanation
assuming the defects in equipment as "a-priori wrong or false" - just
because of it is from Earhart herself. Considering that she flew Vega
a lot, and flew it competently - why not to guess that her
explanation was true?...

       About the autogiro.
    Again, the way to understand things properly is to make a
comparisons, and consider the context.
     Blanche Noyes, who was hired to fly the autogiro forthe oil
company, remembered that the trial ship was called a "Black Marie" by
pilots because almost all of them cracked up in it.
     "I think ten hours was the longest any pilot flew it without
cracking it up", as she said.

      Earhart successfully crossed the continent in this aircraft, in
9 days - making as many as 10 landings per day, at most different
conditions. So THIS is THE CONTEXT, from which her pilots's skills in
it can be reasonably estimated.    Just my opinion of course.


      About one of the "autogiro incidents" you mentioned - the
undated about, with "landing on a fence".
      It is not actually documented and -apparently - is not mentioned
in the Earhart books; the single source it is known from was a letter
from Helen Collins MacElwee (Paul Collins' sister ) to the author
Susan Butler.

      Sorry, I don't have the Butler's books right now near me to
check, but i don't think she mentions it; other biographers ignores
it too, although describing other AE's incidents in a quite detailed
way.
      It reasonably prompts to think that the "accident" was actually
a minor incident without any noticeable consequences... and
apparently it's the only possibility to explain why it did not
attract any media attention.


      Sorry but it is really difficult for me to understand why you
listed the Earhart's famous thansatlantic flight in 1932 as her
"mishap".(?...) Because of the words "damaged aircraft" you used in
the description of it?...
      Very sorry, but just reminding - there was a "reason" why the
aircraft was "damaged"... the FLIGHT itself. And i am sure you know
perfectly well the weather and other conditions at which the flight
was made.

       Finally, the 1937 Hawaii groundloop. Very sorry but just forced
to repeat again: NOBODY ever proved the Earhart's guilt in this;
several versions of this crash exists, and the famous phrase of Mantz
about "jockeying the throttles" was just his personal opinion - of
the person who wasn't there in the cockpit with Earhart in the moment
of accident. The opinion that Mantz made public... after being fired
from the "AE's team".

      Finally... you wrote: "I never said anything about "popular
statements" in my forum post, please stop misrepresenting my remarks,
thanks."

- sorry sir, but i did not "misenterprete your remarks".
    I just mentioned that the statement that Earhart as if "crashed a
lot of airframes" is quite "popular" one; and i wrote it just because
of it is really so.
     So i just mentioned this, and presented some arguments why i
consider this statement/opinion as just a "canonized urban myth" -
naturally without pretensions to "reconvene" you or any other
Colleague. Naturally we the people are always entitled to our
opinions; but the FACTS are available for everybody to compose these
opinion in any way it may seem reasonable to us.

       Kind regards - respectfully submitted, Marcus Lind
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:07:49
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Hello from Australia

For Ross Devitt:
Welcome back! - happy Easter and sincere wishes of good health and
exciting research!
    Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:18:09
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Legacy

Marcus Lind wrote:

> - sorry sir, but i did not "misenterprete your remarks".

Thanks for your reply Marcus, I have no need to go on about this.

LTM,
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:05:07
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: possibly of interest

> From Ric
>
> [Emily Sikuli] seems to haver seen a rust-
> colored, cylinder which she judged to be roughly 20 cm (almost 8
> inches) in diameter and about 12 feet long.  Attached to one end was
> a circular structure roughly 17 inches in diameter - if the
> proportions of her sketch are accurate.

What part of the Electra could this cylinder have been?
On the other hand, what part of the Norwich City could this cylinder
been (The fact that a part of the Norwich City is unlikely to wash to
the north of the shipwreck is noted, but just to lay all the cards on
the table.)?

My unspoken assumption is that anything rust-colored could not be
aluminum and part of the plane. If someone can come up with a theory
which could explain aluminum picking up a rust color I'd love to hear
it.

And the possible scenario that Ric gives us today is convincing.  I
want to believe it, but as I pointed out in my previous post, the
hard evidence upon which belief can be based seems to be slim, other
than the small aircraft pieces which seem to have come from the
general direction of the Norwich wreck.

Some material I read on the TIGHAR site earlier suggested to me that
part of the hypothosis has major portions of the fuselage washing
into the lagoon. Would it be correct to say that the hypothosis has
changed in this regard (or that I mis-read it)?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:15:32
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Earhart's legacy

For William Webster-Garman:

    Thank you for your kind reply.

    Just a few more words on this topic... again, without any
"pretentions" to reconvene you, or Ric, or any other Forum Colleague.

     It seems difficult to accept uncritically the statement about AE
that "the personna and the legend are largely illusion"... just
because of the simple fact that Earhart really did what she did, and
what for she is remembered; and there was no "illusion" in it.

     A lot was said - by many people and during decades already -
about the "Putnam's publicity machine", which   "made a celebrity"
from Earhart... etc. etc. etc.

     However the specific aspect here - completely ignored in this
opinion -  is, that while "earning" her "celebrity status", Earhart
worked in such area where there is simply no room for illusory heroes
or false achievements.

     Of course it's true that the Putnam's "media support" certainly
helped AE - first of all providing a good opportunities for her to do
what she wanted to do, in all - particularly the financial  -
aspects... etc. etc. etc.

    Still, however, any Putnam's support and publicity didn't  - and
couldn't  - make any of the very real Earhart achievements "less
real", in any way... just as any "media support" in the world
couldn't help the lonely pilot to survive in the night over the ocean
in a thunderstorm - if the pilot wouldn't be REALLY good.
    In short, when the one tries to fly alone across the ocean, he/she
is able to do it - or not able; thus, he/she is doing this - or not
doing this. And no "third option".

     It is pretty possible in the show-buziness  - to "create",
purely artificially, a popular "movie star" from the person not
having any real talent, or a "famous singer" from someone not having
any real voice - especially using the modern technologies and just
the "media hysteria".
     No way for this in aviation however: it's about REAL things.

     In a personal aspect, Earhart is remembered by a lot of people in
a very positive way... that it really rare for the "celebrities",
just by the way.
    Accordingly to a huge amount of available accounts, she is
remembered as intelligent, erudite, educated person with a good
mannerism -  friendly, kind and cooperative to her colleagies and
friends; and not "connected" to any dirty stories related to some
scandals and amorality.
    Accordingly to all the available sources, as a private person she
believeed sincerely and without hypocrisy in all her ideas which she
so avidly "preached" publicly... So, both as aviator and the person,
she was pretty real - not "illusory" in any sense.
    Just my opinion of course.

    Best Regards - LTM, Marcus


======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:38:58
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Red aluminum parts?

Red aluminium airplane parts? This is eyewitness stuff told from long
ago memories, then translated into English so one must avoid over-
lingering on each word. Here we have several colonists reporting
aircraft wreckage on the reef in sundry detail. The aluminium could
have been stained by red algae or some other substance from the reef
environment, which a young Gilbertese girl may have interpreted or
later remembered as rusty steel.

LTM, who, speaking of red algae...

William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:05:01
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Red aluminum parts

Speaking of which, the red algae cyanidium caldarium seems to be more
than tolerant of aluminium.

http://merolae.biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/intro_cyanidiaceae.html

So tolerant, aluminium foil seems to be routinely used as a light
mask in experiments involving red algae.

http://www.ebc.uu.se/norr.malma/research_school/red_algae.pdf

Is this significant? Dunno.

LTM
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:09:48
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Red aluminum parts

I mean, I wondered then and I'm starting to wonder again why red
algae was more successful out on that patch of submerged reef than
elsewhere.

LTM,
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:43:17
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Red aluminum parts?

> From William Webster-Garman
>
> ... The aluminium could have been stained by red algae or some
> other substance from the reef environment, which a young Gilbertese
> girl may have interpreted or  later remembered as rusty steel.

Possibly, I suppose.  Does anyone know if there is such algae stuff?

But Emily figured it was a strut.  The Electra didn't have a strut.
What she saw from  the beach, when her father pointed it out
(possibly saying "There is a wrecked airplane there.  Do you see that
piece of it?") from several hundred yards away, she describes as a
cylinder some 20 cm. in diameter and 12' long, with a larger circular
piece on the end.  Isn't it more likely that what she saw was reddish
piece of driftwood?

Note that at the time she saw it, she, and presumably her father, had
seen another airplane (from H.M.S. Achilles) fly over Funafuti in
1938.  So what they saw would be influenced by that earlier experience.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:08:08
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Hue's radio questions

For Dave Porter,

I think you mean "Dana Randolph", the young man at Rock Springs, Wy.,
who may have heard AEs signal, not Dana Andrews, the movie actor.

This reception is somewhat controversial as Tighar member Randy
Jacobsen thought that this was bogus, as Randolph received the signal
on 16000ks. He wrote that Earhart "could only transmit on 3105, 6210m
and 7500KhZ or Kc ; 16000 Kc is not a harmonic of these three
frequencies and could not come from Earhart. [ EOS American
Geophysical Union publicationJune 14, 1994]

. Ric in his book, p 143, adds an explanation that the operator
(unnamed) who investigated Randolf's report believed that the
"frequency Dana read from the dial of his commerical set was very
close to 15,525 kc-the fifth harmonic of 3105." Whether 475 kc off
makes a difference is left up to radio experts Jacobsen and Brandenburg.

I looked into the Randolf reception and found no reasons to doubt his
trustworthiness. In fact of all the post loss signals attributed to
AE, this one did have some specific information that the"ship was on
a reef south of the equator" plus the name "Amelia Earhart" and a
call sign similar to KHAQQ.

REB
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:08:41
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Red aluminum parts

Terry, the only reason we think it may have been more than
driftwood, given that what she saw from a distance, in visual
perspective, parallax, colour perception and all, with a child's mind
and life experience as a Gilbertese colonist's kid, filtered through
decades of memory and a translator doesn't count for much at all, but
for these recurrent early colonist tales of aircraft wreckage. She
described it as a rusted steel frame, the Electra was structurally
all aluminium and I'm only thinking that red algae has a documented
tolerance for aluminium.

Meanwhile I'm not a marine biologist but apparently, from what I've
been reading, even marine biologists aren't much up to speed on the
ecological permutations of coral red algae.

If she saw aluminium and described it as rusted steel, maybe that's
why, maybe not. If blooms of red algae are unusual enough on
Nikumaroro's northwestern reef flat to stand out in satellite photos,
maybe red algae's known tolerance for aluminium means that red patch
bears more checking out.

LTM, who did a bit of gardening herself,
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:31:40
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Red aluminum parts

If the Electra was structurally all aluminum, perhaps what she saw
was one of the spars from inside of one of the wings (colored red by
hypothetical red algae).  Were the spars approximately the shape she
described?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:01:32
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Coral red algae

General comment

I Googled >coral red algae< and came up
with about 106,000 matches.
Some of them were from >edu< sources which,
in all honesty, this Old Geezer tends to believe!

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:02:08
From:         From William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Red algae and aluminium

From Gregory Stone's reported description of the WoF in late 2002:

"The metal was not rusty but "looked old" and was covered with a
smooth coating of marine vegetation, possibly coraline algae, but not
coral per se or barnacles."

(http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/41_WheelofFortune/41_Wheel.html)

William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:55:23
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: red aluminum parts

> From William Webster-Garman
>
> Terry, the only reason we think it may have been more than
> driftwood, given that what she saw ... doesn't count for much at
> all, but  for these recurrent early colonist tales of aircraft
> wreckage.

Ok, what you are saying is that she remembers her father saying that
there was a wrecked aircraft there.  Keep in mind, their idea of an
aircraft would be the Super Walrus both of them apparently saw a
couple of years previously.  Be that as it may, he may well have seen
an aircraft.  It's just questionable that she saw any part of one,
however.  If my suggestion that what he pointed out to her was in
fact a spar from the Electra is correct, she may have.  But what she
saw isn't that probative.  What her father and possibly others told
her is probably more significant.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:42:39
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: red aluminum parts

Terry, all I'm saying is that if Emily saw something she perceived as
rusted steel there is a faint possibility she may have seen aluminium
smeared with a layer of red algae, given that organism's tolerance
for the metal and its presence on coral atolls.

Clearly, her account means almost nothing unless taken along with all
the other Gilbertese reports of pre-war aircraft wreckage on Nikumaroro.

LTM,
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:43:24
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: Possibly of interest

Firstly, it's encouraging to see such an increase in the traffic on
the forum, surely a sign of brain power at work.  Just because the
TIGHAR collective and its outcrops is going over old ground a little,
doesn't make the ruminations invalid.

Secondly,

>From Ric
>
> [Emily Sikuli] seems to have seen a rust-
> colored, cylinder which she judged to be roughly 20 cm (almost 8
> inches) in diameter and about 12 feet long.  Attached to one end was
> a circular structure roughly 17 inches in diameter - if the
> proportions of her sketch are accurate.

Emily was recalling things seen as a child.  Is it possible that her
recollections of dimension are based on a childs eye view?

We have all experienced the shock of revisiting places and things
last seen as a child, and finding them to be so much smaller than we
remember.

If so, is it possible that those hands held up and arms widths are
describing an undercarriage leg, with a rusting wheel/brake assembly
at the end?  If you half those dimensions you have a 4 " dia. tube
about 6 feet long, and with an 8 " disc on the end....main wheel oleo
and brake?

LTM, who sees all through a childs eyes....

Rick Boardman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:45:20
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR's everywhere

Interesting.  I'm sure he meant "Arctic storms" and not "Baltic
Storms".  Hawaii is long way from Lithuania.

Dan Postellon

> "Gardner Island Theory [Re: A30]
> The look just like the waves that every one is
> familiar with, generated from Baltic storms, hits the North Shore of Hawaii.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:45:50
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Red aluminum parts

Wasn't there a big patch of red algae that showed up on the satellite
photo? As far as I remember, it wasn't associated with anything.

Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (lost the metal)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:52:03
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Rust vs. algae

I think all this talk of red algae is stretching things.  Somewhere
on this site there is a fine collection of Latin IV verbs, nouns etc.
that say something to the effect "the simplest explanation is
probably the most likely explanation."  The closest I can come up
with is "Hold 'em est simplicito, dumkopf." :-)  I'm sure Marty and
Ric have a more exacting and refined version, if not the actual text..

   LTM, who flunked Latin I - twice
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

See http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/razor.htm
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:13:42
From:         Terry Thorgaard
Subject:      Re: Possibly of interest

> Secondly,
>
>> From Ric...
>
> Emily was recalling things seen as a child.  Is it possible that
> her recollections of dimension are based on a childs eye view?
>
> We have all experienced the shock of revisiting places and things
> last seen as a child, and finding them to be so much smaller than
> we  remember.

She was viewing whatever she saw from the beach, several hundred
yards away. I'm not sure the "child remembers things as being larger"
phenomenon works under those circumstances.  It's also possible that
she saw an adult, her father or someone else, near the object.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:23:59
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Rust vs. algae

> From Dennis O. McGee
>
> I think all this talk of red algae is stretching things.  Somewhere on
> this site there is a fine collection of Latin IV verbs, nouns etc. that
> say something to the effect "the simplest explanation is probably the
> most likely explanation."  The closest I can come up with is "Hold 'em
> est simplicito, dumkopf." :-)  I'm sure Marty and Ric have a more
> exacting and refined version, if not the actual text..

The one that I half-learned seems not to have been written
by Occam himself:

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

Literally: "Entities should not be multiplied except
when necessary."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor>

I do like the Curtiss Aircraft Company's banner,
which read, "Keep It Super-Simple."

The application of the Razor to particular arguments
is fraught with difficulties.  It is double-edged
and is liable to cut the person working with it.

In this case, which is the simpler argument?

1. All of the suggestive data gleaned from Niku is
explained by the aircraft landing on the reef.

2. All of the suggestive data gleaned from Niku was
explained by disconnected events.

I'm personally betting that the Niku Hypothesis is true.
But it has some wretched difficulties in it, not the
least of which is the failure of so many Western
observers to see the wreckage of the aircraft.  That
bugs me a lot.

Again, which of these two competing theories is simpler?

1. Landed at Niku.

2. Crashed and sank.

The first explains the radio messages.  The second
treats them all as "bad data."  I think the first is
more complicated, but it's more satisfying to me than
the second.

LTM.

			Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:08:16
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Emily Sikuli

Rick Boardman stated, "Emily was recalling things seen as a child. Is
it possible that her recollections of dimension are based on a child's
eye view?"

Marty's recent comments regarding our interview with Emily Sikuli,
provided forum members with insight into our activities in Suva in
2003.  His notes provide a glimpse into the memories of Emily and her
life on Nikumaroro Island in the early 1940's.

I would note that our objective in interviewing Emily was twofold. 
First, to maintain contact with her and relay greetings and
salutations from Ric, and others,  in addition to presenting her with
various gifts from TIGHAR.  Second, and most urgent, to develop
information which would assist TIGHAR's team on Nikumaroro who were
in the process of searching for the Wheel of Fortune at the time the
interview was conducted.

Without leading Emily, Marty and I inquired into the use, number, and
storage of boats used by the villagers on the island.  Emily provided
recollections of her youth, her relationship with her father and
other memories of her residence on Nikumaroro Island.  Emily's
memories, once again, provided valuable information assisting
TIGHAR's quest for insight into various events on Nikumaroro Island
following Earhart's disappearance and Gallagher's recovery of human
remains.

My transcribed notes relating to the interview are attached below for
the edification of forum members, and like Marty's, provide an
accurate record of Emily's interview.

Roger

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

May 29, 2003

Emily Sikuli and her daughters Tausie (TA SO See) and Sera (Sarah)
came to our hotel where we had a delightful visit which at times,
brought tears to Emily's eyes.

Following introductions and relayed greetings from Gillespie, King
and others, I presented Emily with copies of TIGHAR Tracks, the sat-
photo, Final Approach, T-shirts, a TIGHAR hat and one copy of "An
Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro".  All were received with humble appreciation.

When Emily saw the photograph of her father, Temou Samuela, on the
cover of one issue of TIGHAR Tracks, and the photographs of her
mother and father attached to an article inside, tears came to her eyes.

Later, we watched "An Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro."  Several times
during the viewing Emily became excited when she recognized various
features of the island while her daughters, especially Sera, watched
in awe.

During our visit Emily made several spontaneous statements about her
youth and events on Nikumaroro.

First, Emily viewed the aerial photograph of Nikumaroro village. She
identified Gallagher's house, the flag pole, at the base of which he
was buried, and pointed to the area between Gallagher's house and the
lagoon shore. Emily said this was the location of her father's wood
shop.

Second, I ask about the two buildings with catwalks leading from the
shore which TIGHAR identified as latrines. Emily said the buildings
were used as jails during her residence on the island. The buildings
held 2 prisoners or 3 at most. She stated the prisoners were used as
forced labor and spent most of their time breaking down large blocks
of coral into coral sand. The sand was used to pave roads and paths
throughout the village and other locations on the island.

Third, I ask how many and where the boat houses were located. Emily
replied that she knew of only one boat house which was located
between her father's work shop and the lagoon beach. There was only
one boat on the island at the time of her residence. The boat was
owned by the Chief and was the most important possession or tool, on
the island. The boat was never moored in the channel or anywhere else
on the island. The boat was never left unattended.  It was always
pulled up on the beach for loading and off loading. When not actually
in use or on a voyage, the boat had one person assigned to watch over
the boat and protect it. When not in use at the village, the boat was
secured inside the boat house to protect it against weather and sun.

Comment: At the time of Emily's residence on the island, it appears
that the Wheel of Fortune was not a mooring device and Emily had no
knowledge of any mooring device used by the islanders. If a boat
attached to the W of F were to break lose, it would be swept into the
lagoon and possibly damaged, or swept out over the reef where it
would be destroyed.

According to Emily's statements, boats were too valuable to risk loss
or damage by leaving unattended or moored in Tatiman Passage.

Fourth, in response to questions about life in the village and on the
island Emily recalled adventures with her father.

Emily was the oldest child in her family. Emily and her family lived
in a typical village house or "hut." There were only five native
houses in the village, in addition to Gallagher's house, at the time
of her residence on Nikumaroro Island. Emily's house was the fourth
house from the end across from Gallagher's house. The first hut in
the row was immediately east of Gallagher's house, the row of huts
running roughly north to south.

Her father treated her and trained her as if she were his son. She
went with her father everywhere and assisted him with various
projects. She mentioned walks with her father on the beach and
crossing Tatiman Passage to get to where coconut trees were being
planted. She recalls walking around the entire island with her father
and crossing Tatiman Passage and Bauareke Passage in the process.
Emily remembers Kanawa Point and the stand of trees there.

Emily thinks she walked around the island four or fives times. Never
alone, always with her father. She pointed out on the sat-photo map
various terrain features as she spoke. Without being prompted she
specifically pointed out the wreck site of the Norwich City. Again
without being prompted, she pointed to the area north of the
shipwreck, (WC-7), and said, "The airplane was here." Without
discussing her statement about the airplane we continued with her
recollections of life on Nikumaroro Island.

Emily pointed out that she is now 82 years old and in good health. As
a matter of fact, when she left with her daughter Sera, Marty
attempted to call a cab which was refused by the girls. Emily was
last seen, with a big smile on her face, wearing her TIGHAR hat,
walking down St. Fort Street towards downtown Suva. As Emily put it,
"To spend a couple of hours window shopping and to see the town again."

Comment: Emily stated her age as 82 years old which indicates her
birth occurred in 1921.  At the time of her residence on Nikumaroro
Island, Emily was approximately 19-20 years old.

Comment: The two hours I spent with Emily and her daughters were the
most enjoyable of the entire trip.

End notes.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:16:11
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Hue's radio questions

I would not discount any reception report from that era on the basis of
a discrepancy of 5% or so in the reported frequency from the actual -
in this case about 3% for the 16,000 kHz report. Radios of that era varied
greatly in the resolution and repeatability of the dial readout. Some of the
best radios did not even have a dial calibrated in kHz, rather a zero to
a thousand counter type dial, requiring a look-up table or graph - which
can introduce errors also. Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:16:56
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Rust vs. algae

Dennis O. McGee wrote:

> "Hold 'em est simplicito, dumkopf." :-)

All I'm saying is that aluminium was an otherwise unexpected metal on
the reef flat in 1940 or so and red algae has a documented tolerance
for it. In 2002 a marine biologist on Nikumaroro indeed reported
observing unrusted metal with a possible growth of coraline algae.
This could be a simple reason why Emily interpreted reddened metal as
"rusted steel" from a distance, or not.

LTM, who thinks Anglicized modular Latin can be an easy road to ruin
so far as clear thinking goes, but that's another tale :)

William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:21:27
From:         Roger Ciere
Subject:      Re: Possibly of interest

Short of being something in the nature belonging to an inflight
refueling system, this large tube with a disk on the end appears that
it would be part of the Norwich City and not the Electra.

> From Rick Boardman
>
> Firstly, it's encouraging to see such an increase in the traffic on
> the forum, surely a sign of brain power at work. Just because the
> TIGHAR collective and its outcrops is going over old ground a little,
> doesn't make the ruminations invalid.
>
> Secondly,
>
> From Ric
>
>> [Emily Sikuli] seems to haver seen a rust-
>> colored, cylinder which she judged to be roughly 20 cm (almost 8
>> inches) in diameter and about 12 feet long. Attached to one end was
>> a circular structure roughly 17 inches in diameter - if the
>> proportions of her sketch are accurate.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:23:13
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Roger wrote:

> Emily stated her age as 82 years old which indicates her birth occurred
> in 1921.  At the time of her residence on Nikumaroro Island, Emily was
> approximately 19-20 years old.

Thanks Roger, for posting your narrative about the meeting with
Emily. Meanwhile I'd like to retract anything I've said about Emily's
perceptions being those of a child.

LTM
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:40:45
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Emily's recollections, in all our interviews with her, are certainly
valuable, but there's one that troubles me.  From Roger's notes:

<<Second, I ask about the two buildings with catwalks leading from the
shore which TIGHAR identified as latrines. Emily said the buildings
were used as jails during her residence on the island. The buildings
held 2 prisoners or 3 at most. She stated the prisoners were used as
forced labor and spent most of their time breaking down large blocks
of coral into coral sand. The sand was used to pave roads and paths
throughout the village and other locations on the island.>>

But we have references in Gallagher's quarterly reports to privies
that would seem to have been similar structures, and no references in
any of the WPHC documents to keeping prisoners locked up and busting
coral.  There are references to the construction of gaols on Manra,
and the reference is to plural gaols, not a single lockup, but I have
a hard time imagining the Niku colonists going to the trouble of
building over-water solitary confinement cells for troublemakers.
Particularly given the small size of the population -- 50-80 people
or so -- during Emily's period of residence.

I don't think this calls all Emily's recollections into question, but
it does make me just a tad skeptical.

LTM (who warns her children to stay out of gaol)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:44:27
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Earhart's competency and Noonan's drunkenness

Earhart's competency and Noonan's drunkenness are often topics in
forums.

The underlying reason for the discussions are meant to defend the
logic of some scenarios or theories.

The Crash & Sankers focus on pre-planning and not having enough fuel
to find Howland and no consideration for a "plan B". All or nothing
was the goal. E. Long's position requires a higher than normal fuel
consumption to go un-noticed by the crew and no ability to control
the progress of the flight during the flight. It's as if there was no
consideration of the land & islands between Lae and Howland.

The Niku theory also depends on a certain level of incompetency.
Couldn't work the radio. No "plan B" or a "plan B" made up on the
spot when the sunline, for a brief period of time, had the 157/337
degree orientation. Noonan would have to had AE take up that 337
heading at the time of the sunshot and hold it, regardless of winds,
to fuel exhaustion.

The "Mysterious Island theory". I'll use the term "Mysterious
Islands" because an Army General used the term during the Pearl
Harbor hearings. That theory demonstrates a successful "plan B" that
resulted from being truly lost in a competently controlled flight,
due to radio equipment malfunction. The reason that the successful
part isn't part of the historical record can be attributed to the
Pacific Politics of the time.

Pacific Politics was a big factor in AE's route when you consider the
great circle route, the shortest distance between two points, between
Lae and Honolulu passed over Jaluit. The US Navy, by standing orders,
was politically restricted from operating in the Mysterious Islands
ergo no support for AE.

Even "Plan B back to Gilbert's" had political considerations because
it was held so close to the vest. This plan B would only work
politically if AE and Noonan just showed up on the beach with a
wrecked airplane. If the plan was pubicized the British could have
taken the pre-flight position with the US government and deny the
Gilbert's if it was needed in the flight because Pan Am was blocking
them from landing rights in Honolulu. Honolulu would have given the
British trans Pacific airline capability. As it was the Itasca and
Swan had to get permission from the British to search the Gilbert's.

So, my two cents on AE's competency and FN's drunkenness has a lot to
do with what theory a person subscribes to.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:50:12
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: Possibly of interest

You say, "Firstly it's encouraging to see such an increase
in the traffic on the forum, surely a sign of brain power
at work."

Maybe it's a corollary of Parkinson's Law that reads:
"If you have some spare time, write a letter to the
Earhart Forum and stir up the pot again!" (Werth's Law)

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:24:26
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Dana Randolph

For Ron Bright

Thanks Ron, I indeed meant Dana Randolph, not Dana Andrews.

I guess I'm on a roll this week in demonstrating how faulty memory
can be.  First I mentioned an incident at Baker that actually took
place at McKean, (Ric's guano bath) and now this--sheesh, I must be
getting old ;-)

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:41:37
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

William Webster-Garman wrote, "Thanks Roger, for posting your
narrative about the meeting with Emily."

You're welcome, sir.

Tom King responded to my post stating in part, "But we have
references in Gallagher's quarterly reports to privies that would
seem to have been similar structures, and no references in any of the  
WPHC documents to keeping prisoners locked up and busting coral."

Tom, I don't contest the theory that the structures offshore, with a
connecting catwalk, were latrines.  In fact, I believe that is
precisely what they were.

I would imagine Emily's memory of the latrines being used as a jail  
was provoked by infrequent use of the latrines as a place of
confinement.  A convenient place to, "sleep it off." I doubt if
resources and funds were available to provide for incarceration and
punishment within the colony. Emily's memories of prisoners being
used as forced labor were most likely provoked by a very few isolated  
incidents resulting in the punishment of some poor fellow for minor
trespasses.  Consider this scenario.  After sleeping it off in the
privy, the offender was required to work it off, in addition to
suffering considerable social disgrace.

Inquiring about the latrines, while not identifying the structures as  
latrines, was a convenient technique allowing us to enter into
conversation about various objects on, or near the surrounding
shoreline of Ritiati and Tatiman Passage.

Don't forget that our conversation with Emily had one primary
objective, to gain information which would assist the team on
Nikumaroro in their search for The Wheel of Fortune.  Specifically,
were boats moored in Tatiman Passage, or at any other location in the  
lagoon?

Marty and I accomplished that objective.


LTM

Roger
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:38:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Earhart's competency

Daryl and others, there has been speculation that going back to the
Gilbert's was plan "B" or at least the wisest course because the
Gilbert's were populated.

In my view the Phoenix Islands were the wisest choice. I say that
because they were much closer and fuel was clearly a consideration.
All the guesses about how much fuel reserve Earhart had falls to her
comment she was low on fuel. Her statement trumps all the guesses.

As to whether one group of islands were populated or not what does
that matter? The important factor was that there was no place to land
in either group. They had no way of knowing their transmissions were
not being heard and indeed there was evidence they DID know the
Itasca heard them. So they land on a beach anywhere and tell someone
to come get them. Why would they not go to the nearest land?

As to the great circle route between Lae and Honolulu over flying
Jaluit I miss the point. They weren't flying from Lae to Honolulu.
Nor could they. They were flying to Howland.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:41:35
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Tom, isn't less likely that Gallagher would be interested in making a
formal report he had folks jailed and was using them as forced labor?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:54:10
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Hue's Radio questions

Using my Grandfather's floor model Zenith in 1937 there was no way I
could tell what exact frequency I had. Only if the broadcaster IDd it.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:32:41
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: Possibly of interest

Yes, George....for the record, I have absolutely no spare time, these
days, but this continues to be a fascinating read, night after
night.  My continued admiration to you all.  MAybe one day I'll have
enough spare time to really contribute.

Rick Boardman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:33:58
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Earhart's competency

QUOTE
"...when the sunline, for a brief period of time, had the 157/337
degree orientation. Noonan would have to had AE take up that 337
heading at the time of the sunshot and hold it, regardless of winds,
to fuel exhaustion."
/QUOTE

I don't know how many times the LOP/sunline thing has been thrashed
out here over the last several years and people still either don't
bother reading the vast amount of information on the topic or can't
be bothered understanding it.

The above statement is ridiculous in the context of a LOP.

TIGHAR has stood by the idea that 157/337 was a LOP that Nonnan had
derived from a dawn sun shot and had advanced to Howland.  I suspect
this is a likely scenario based on an assumption that the 200 miles
out transmission was made shortly after a dawn sun shot from the
Electra.  The way a LOP works is described in so many posts.  Suffice
it to say that Noonan would NOT have had Earhart turn onto that line
during that "brief period of time".  He would have advanced the line
to where he calculated Howland "should be" and THEN had Earhart turn
and fly along it, either towards 157 or towards 337, depending which
side of Howland he had intended them to arrive.

As I understand it, Noonan used the offset navigation technique
pioneered for the air by Sir Francis Chichester when he flew a single
engined biplane across vast stretches of ocean to islands not a lot
larger than Howland.  (Slight exaggeration there - they were pretty
big, but still "specks in the ocean - just really big specks...)

The technique had been used by mariners for centuries.  Chichester
was simply the first person "known" to use it in the air.  His
pioneering flights were in 1929.

Chichester planned his flights so he arrived in the general vicinity
of his island but some distance to one side.  When he was sure he was
on a line that passed through the destination island, he knew he only
had turn ONE WAY left or right and search that line.  As I understand
it, Noonan adopted and taught the same "offset navigation" technique.

Chichester had some scary times, including circling in a hole in the
middle of heavy cloud, holding the stick between his knees, so he
could get a sun shot.  We all seem to picture Fred having Amelia keep
the Electra dead on course and steady as she goes and panicking about
the latest fix.  If Chichester could fly a single engined biplane
solo across oceans and take sun sights while circling in a hole in
the cloud and flying the plane with his knees, I suspect Noonan
managed to navigate decently enough to know where he should have been.

A couple of quotes about Chichester from Wikipedia:

" Though the concept of "off-course navigation" is probably as old as
navigation, Chichester was the first to utilize it in a methodical
manner in an aircraft. The technique allowed him to find tiny islands
in the Pacific without any aids, apart from a compass and an estimate
of the distance flown."

"Chichester enlisted at the outbreak of World War II, serving in the
United Kingdom as a navigation expert. He wrote the navigation manual
that allowed the pilots of single-handed fighter aircraft to navigate
across Europe and back using kneeboard navigation similar to that
which he used in the Pacific."

I know wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but a bit of
searching will verify the statements.

Of course it is also just possible that the LOP was some other
combination, and that when they couldn't find Howland, and were low
of fuel, Noonan just drew a line from howland down through the middle
of the nearest group of islands and said "Amy my love, let's head for
the middle of this bunch of islands.  We might be able to see at
least one of them..."

For myself, I think it was a LOP.

Cheers,

Th' WOMBAT

As a matter of interest, Noonan was a maritime navigator first, then
an aerial one.  Chichester was an aerial navigator first, then became
a maritime one.
I doubt that Noonan would have had any chance to get drunk while
flying from Lae to Howland and suspect that they emptied the
Benedictine bottle after they landed at Niku....  :-)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:34:35
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

> Tom, isn't less likely that Gallagher would be interested in making a
> formal report he had folks jailed and was using them as forced labor?

Well, I suppose, but I don't know who'd be doing the forcing.  I
think Roger Kelley's explanation is probably more or less correct,
that for one reason or another the privies were used as temporary
lockups for people who misbehaved one way or another, and it made a
major impression on Emily as a young girl.  Somebody did have to
break up the coral for the roads and parade ground, but I don't think
it would have been a terribly onorous job, and probably was something
everyone worked on.

LTM, who discourages crude jokes about conditions in the Niku gaol
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:54:04
From:         Alaln Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Tom, I think you are most likely correct. In almost any society, even
small ones, there is probably some infractions of the rules and folks
who need their attention gotten by a little extra labor. However,
given the small colony almost everyone was busting their fannies anyway.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:54:23
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Tom,etal,

Emily arrived best we can tell about mid Jan 1940, although she
thought it might have been  between 1938-9. Did anyone ask Emily what
structures, shelters, walls, etc, were there, if she could remember,
prior to the more recent buildings erected by the colonists. For
example could she recall any older, shacks with corrogated roofs,
shelters, etc, that would be consistant with the "signs of recent
habitation" such as the Arundel buildings?

LTM,

R. Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:14:04
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

For what it's worth, I've never run across a shred of evidence for
any structures existing on Gardner before the arrival of the NZ team
in late 1938, other than the collapsed corrugated iron shelters from
the late 19th century Arundel project and the nearby, makeshift cache
left after the Norwich City grounding.

So far as the latrines go, it's reasonable to assume that now and
then, a colonist got himself briefly banished to the latrines and/or
coral-busting duty for some anti-social screw up like petty theft or
throwing a punch and that Gallagher thought minor administrative
stuff like that wasn't at all worthy of including in an official report.

Meanwhile I'd glark Emily wasn't too keen on talking about latrines
and she may likely have assumed her so-well-mannered interviewers
knew spot on what they were more wontedly used for.

LTM, who had a thing for keeping talk on a certain level in mixed
company,
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:01:23
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

William,

      If I recall correctly, there were some type of structures on the
island left behind by some kind of project in the  1890s.  I'm trying
to recall from memory something I read  many years ago.  So I may not
have everything perfectly accurate.  I believe it was a coconut
plantation, or a guano mining project.  I don't remember now!  But
the island was inhabited decades before July of 1937, and several
decades before the NC came to grief on the reef.  It would only seem
logical that there would be some signs of human activities left over
from that time.

     Also, there may not have been any intact structures on the island
before the NZ team got there, but there was a large cache of supplies
covered by a tarp on the island.  These supplies were place not far
inland from the bow of the NC.  This was, as shown in the photo taken
by the team, a large stash appearing to be some 5 or 6 feet high.  In
addition to the food articles there was a "Life Boat" left over from
the wreck of the NC.  Not far away there were also graves from the
recovered dead crewmen.  I forgot how many died.  There were also a
small number of bodies that were never recovered. They spent some
time on that island trying to survive before finally being  rescued.
I don't know for how long.

     At one time I read a list of the supplies left behind by the NC
crewmen rescuers.  The list of supplies included water, food, First
Aid supplies, Liquor (I don't remember  what kind), a tent, and
assorted survival gear.  I'm sure all of this information can be
found and verified in the archives of the TIGHAR web site, as it was
discussed on this form in 1998 or 9.

Don J.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:15:53
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Earhart's competency

For Alan and Ross

"As to the great circle route between Lae and Honolulu over flying
Jaluit I miss the point. They weren't flying from Lae to Honolulu.
Nor could they. They were flying to Howland.

Alan"

Alan, Howland was a refueling stop to enable them to reach Honolulu.
There was no other reason to go to Howland except that it was under
U.S. control. Pacific politics prevented them from being more
efficient in their route planning.

"..The above statement is ridiculous in the context of a LOP.

TIGHAR has stood by the idea that 157/337 was a LOP that Nonnan had
derived from a dawn sun shot and had advanced to Howland...Ross"

Ross,

I did mis-speak in my posting when I said 337 instead of 157 to the
Phoenix group.
My understanding of the past discussions of LOPs is that a 157 / 337
LOP is more indicative of the time the sunshot was taken and 157 /
337 was derived from the astro tables at a specific time. AE
broadcasted 157 / 337 at 20:13 or 8:43 local time which I think
implies that Noonan had just taken another sunshot to confirm his
calculations for the advanced LOP through Howland. If AE had
broadcast the initial sunshot that morning, 17:44 or 6:15 local when
they were about 200 miles out, it might have been designated on
Noonan's astro tables as something like 170 / 350.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:21:16
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

That's what I said, Don, there were some collapsed corrugated iron
structures on Gardner, from the failed 1892 Arundel coconut planting
project.

The Norwich City survivors (8 died) were on the island for only a few
days. They camped by the collapsed Arundel shelters. Evacuating the
27 survivors off across the reef was, by all accounts, difficult and
very dangerous.

The "cache" was the extra, unconsumed supplies brought for the
survivors and was left (I believe) under a canvas tarp near the
Arundel ruins.

By the time the NZ survey found the cache, it had been thoroughly
scattered, nobody knows by whom. Whatever one's conclusion may be
about the Gardner Island hypothesis, it's helpful to bear in mind
that these islands do get undocumented visits, mostly from commercial
fishing boats. Either way the Benedictine bottle found with the
skeleton reported by Gallagher likely came from the Norwich City cache.

Some of the heavy corrugated iron sheeting from the Arundel site made
its way, at some point, to the Seven Site (where Gallagher may have
found the skeleton, which may have been AE's). As I recall, Ric has
speculated it was for water collection, Tom King thinks Gallagher may
have laid it down to inhibit vegetation growth in the area where the
castaway was found. I can't imagine Amelia draggin' all that iron
halfway across the length of the island, but I can imagine some
Gilbertese colonists doing it for Gallagher.

That sheeting is now mostly a layer of oxidized iron dust.

The cryptic "signs of recent habitation" reported by Lambrecht have
stirred up endless talk. He was apparently unaware the island had
been uninhabited for 4 decades. He may have only seen the corrugated
iron and litter from the Norwich City cache, or he may have seen
something else, we don't know.

LTM,
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:48:58
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

re: "signs..."

Tom King writes in is book "Shoes", page 345, note 8:

     "Arundel's plantation workers were on the island for serveral
years, leaving a least a couple of buildings....The buildings were
observed by castaways from the Norwich City, ..wrecked in
1939...remnants noted by Tighar in 1989 may represent the remains of
these buildings, which may account for Lambrecht's "signs of recent
habitation".  Lambrecht et al flew over 9 July 37.

    Sounds like to me what Lambrecht saw and reported, but no signs of
a castaway there for about 7 days.

LTM,
Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:50:07
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Re: glark

Nice word:

http://faqs.org/docs/jargon/G/glark:html

George R Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:55:13
From:         Pat
Subject:      Glark

For those who don't want to bother following the link:

"glark: /glark/, vt.
To figure something out from context. "The System III manuals are
pretty poor, but you can generally glark the meaning from context." "

Of course, one could glark the meaning of glark...

Pat, always helpful.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:56:30
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Data vs. opinion

Daryll said:  "So, my two cents on AE's competency and FN's
drunkenness has a lot to do with what theory a person subscribes to."

We have a good amount of hard data to reach a conclusion regarding
AE's competency, but please provide us with data to support your
opinion regarding Mr. Noonan.

LTM, who is also opinionated
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
********************************

Anybody else a little gun-shy about the word "data"? Oh, what was her
name and where is she now, our data intern....?

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:58:01
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Earhart's competency

> From Daryll Bolinger
>
> I did mis-speak in my posting when I said 337 instead of 157 to the
> Phoenix group.
> My understanding of the past discussions of LOPs is that a 157 /
> 337 LOP is more indicative of the time the sunshot was taken and
> 157 / 337 was derived from the astro tables at a specific time. AE
> broadcasted 157 / 337 at 20:13 or 8:43 local time which I think
> implies that Noonan had just taken another sunshot to confirm his
> calculations for the advanced LOP through Howland. If AE had
> broadcast the initial sunshot that morning, 17:44 or 6:15 local
> when they were about 200 miles out, it might have been designated
> on Noonan's astro tables as something like 170 / 350.

TIGHAR has always assumed that 157/337 was derived from a LOP.  There
is no way to know if this is the case, but there has to be a logical
reason for the "running on line 157-337" transmission.  The only
other logical reason is that Noonan had another LOP and had worked
out that he was somewhere on that, close to Howland, but because he
couldn;t find Howland, he just drew a line from Howland to the
nearest group of islands he thought they could reach with available fuel.
Assuming 157/337 was in fact a LOP, it really doesn't matter when he
took the sight.  At some point, he takes a sight and draws the line.
Another sight a few minutes later gives his speed.  The post below
goes into detail.

I'll reprint a post from Alan Caldwell from our LOP discussions in 1999.

Alan mentions that if the moon was up Noonan might have been able to
fairly accurately "fix" his postion because the a shot of the moon
would give a different LOP and where they crossed would tell him
where on the LOP he was (north or south).  One thing Alan fails to
mention (probably because Alan is not very prone to speculation) is
that had Noonan been able to get a sun shot 2 hours after his first
one, it should have been at a different angle (assume something like
325/125 for the sake of this post).  By drawing that line on his
chart he would know fairly accurately where he was because the lines
would cross and that would be "X marks the spot", within a few
miles.  A wider angle would give him an accurate fix, a very sharp
angle would give him some error, but probably only about 20 miles.

Cheers,

Th' WOMBAT

Anyway, back to Alan's simplified LOP description:

> Ric, I've seen several comments similar to this one which leads me
> to believe the LOP is not fully understood by all. Noonan did NOT
> need to know whether he was north, south, east or west of Howland
> to turn in either direction on the LOP to correctly over fly
> Howland or navigate on to the Phoenix group. It would have made the
> choice much easier and if he turned in the correct direction he
> could not miss Howland or the Phoenix except by visually missing
> them. Let me explain how the LOP is made and used.
>
> For sake of argument and referring to the diagram below let's
> assume Fred was around 200 miles west of Howland and flying a
> course (a) of due east. (so my drawing below will come out) Fred
> shoots a 2 minute sunshot giving him the altitude of the sun and
> its azimuth. In this case 67 degrees of azimuth. Using that
> information he plots his LOP (1) angled across his course. He knows
> now that he was on that line some place at the mid time of the
> shot. Ten minutes later he takes another sun shot and again plots
> the LOP (2) angling across course. Using the distance between the
> two LOPs and the time between them he now has his ground speed in
> addition to a new position. Next he draws a line parallel to the
> first two lines so that it will pass through Howland Island (LOP
> 3). Now he measures the distance between the second LOP and the
> line running through Howland and applying his ground speed to that
> distance he arrives at an estimated time to the Howland LOP. He
> still does not necessarily know where on the line he is. Now let's
> say he believes he is north of Howland so on his ETE he will turn
> right to 157 corrected for what he believes is his wind from the
> ground speed calculation. He will have Amelia lead the turn onto
> the LOP by a number of seconds calculated using her rate of turn
> indicator (turn and bank) and the number of degrees to turn.
> Perhaps ten minutes later Fred will take another sun shot which
> will NOW tell him whether he is drifting right or left of his LOP
> course. He now has a good wind to navigate by but still no north --
> south position -- maybe.
>
> If Fred thought he was south of Howland he would do exactly the
> same thing. Remember the LOPs are all parallel so again when his
> ETE arrives he has Amelia start her turn and again leading the turn
> but this time left to 337. When his ETE comes up he is ON the
> 157-337 LOP that goes through Howland no matter WHERE on the line
> he contacts it. In either case he has only two problems. One, where
> he is on the line; and two, visually spotting Howland.
>
> As to knowing where he was on the LOP he could know that because he
> offset his course either north (b) or south (c) on the way in or
> because he also shot a moon shot to cross an LOP with his sun LOP
> or because he shot a running LOP on the way in. The running LOP
> takes into account the sun's azimuth changes over time thus making
> a subsequent LOP at a slightly different angle. By moving an old
> LOP up to the newest one the LOPs would cross at a very narrow
> angle and give him a rough idea of his position. The timing
> involved in doing a running fix leads me to believe there was
> insufficient time to do that in the approximately two hours from
> sunrise to his last radio call.
>
> The bottom line is that Noonan had to know he was on an LOP that
> ran through Howland and they were ON that line unless he was unable
> to get a ground speed as noted below. He had the capability of
> fixing his position north and south and knowing reasonably how far
> they were north or south. I think they just flat could not see the
> island visually.
>
> The distances between LOPs are the same no matter whether they were
> on course (a) north of course (b) or south of course (c). For the
> sake of explanation assume LOP 1 was taken at 6:30am and LOP 2 was
> taken at 6:40am and the distance between the two is 20nm. That
> gives a ground speed of 120k. Now Fred draws LOP 3 through Howland
> and measures the distance between LOP 3 and LOP 2. Let's say the
> distance is 120nm so he now knows he will hit the LOP 3 some place
> in one hour or at 7:40am. It is at that time (less turning time) he
> has Amelia start her turn to 157 or 337.
>
> The point is that getting on the LOP 3 passing through Howland was
> simple and I can think of no reason he wasn't on it. He had to be
> able to shoot the sun or he couldn't have obtained the 157-337 LOP.
> There remains the question of whether he could figure his north
> south position. If he could see the sun he could see the moon. It
> was up and at a good cross angle. That would give him a fair fix.
> It is also possible, of course, that because of weather he was only
> able to get one sunshot and so had to "guesstimate" his ground
> speed and thus his ETE to the LOP through Howland would not
> necessarily be all that accurate. I hope this was clearer to you
> guys than it appears to me after I have reread it. :-) One caveat
> here is that I have over simplified the procedures by leaving out
> all the DR figuring but the explanation still holds.

(from Alan Caldwell's post 15 Dec 1999)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:58:40
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Earhart's competency

> From Daryll Bolinger
> I did mis-speak in my posting when I said 337 instead of 157 to the
> Phoenix group.
> My understanding of the past discussions of LOPs is that a 157 /
> 337 LOP is more indicative of the time the sunshot was taken and
> 157 / 337 was derived from the astro tables at a specific time. AE
> broadcasted 157 / 337 at 20:13 or 8:43 local time which I think
> implies that Noonan had just taken another sunshot to confirm his
> calculations for the advanced LOP through Howland. If AE had
> broadcast the initial sunshot that morning, 17:44 or 6:15 local
> when they were about 200 miles out, it might have been designated
> on Noonan's astro tables as something like 170 / 350.

I recall figuring this out at one point...that line should be the
perpendicular line to the direction of sunrise on that date.  The one
measurement that Noonan could make where he could be absolutely
certain of direction and time is sunrise; that measurement should
have given him an accurate longitude of his position (since his
chronometer was bang on at the start of the trip).  It doesn't give
you latitude, however.

So, that means that Noonan should have had a very accurate longitude
reading two hours or so before he expected to reach Howland,
presuming he could get a good observation at sunrise and remembered
to adjust for altitude of course.

					Reed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:30:27
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Ted Campbell asks

> Where would Don Jordan have read a list of the stores left behind
> by the Norwich City and where would he have seen a picture of the
> cash taken by the NZ survey party.

I'm aware of no detailed list of stores.  The only mention we have of
the cache is in Capt. Hamer's statement
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Norwich_City/
NorwichCity3.html

"We assisted in getting the boat to the beach, took the water and
provisions which Capt. Swindell of the Trongate had thoughtfully
provided and made for camp, where I assure you they were made full
use of.

Before leaving camp all provisions etc., were placed in the shelter,
but I sincerely hope that no-one will ever be so unfortunate as to
need them."

They left the camp near the site of the shipwreck and moved over to
the lee side of island in search of calmer water for evacuating out
over the reef.  When Hamer sent the first load of survivors out to
the Trongate -

"I sent a message with them to Capt. Swindell asking him for water,
biscuits and tobacco in case some were stranded for another night. I
must say that he was very liberal with the rations, sending enough
for month."

So it sounds to me like there may, in fact, have been two caches of
provisions left on the island.

We don't know exactly where they were on the lee side but in 1937
Maude and Bevington saw "signs of previous habitation - like someone
bivouacked for the night" over there somewhere and, of course, it was
on that side of the island that we found the shoe parts.  The
possibility exists that what Bevington saw and what we found was
associated with the Norwich City survivors and also possibly with
Earhart's use of the second Norwich City cache.

The New Zealand Pacific Survey Expedition took a photo of what they
assumed was the "shipwreck survivor's campsite" on the shore near the
shipwreck.  It's not one of the photos we have up on the website but
I may have sent a copy to Don Jordan at some time.  It shows a
scattered mess of stuff under some trees, not an orderly stack of
provisions in a shelter.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:44:23
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Data vs. opinion

> Anybody else a little gun-shy about the word "data"? Oh, what was
> her name and where is she now, our data intern....?
>
> Pat

Oh, yeah, what's-er-name!  If you want to have some fun while I try
to think of it, Google "Carol Dow" - along around the second page of
links it starts to get reeeeeeeeally interesting.
Amanda
--
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:55:02
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Earhart's competency

Reed Riddle wrote:

> So, that means that Noonan should have had a very accurate longitude
> reading two hours or so before he expected to reach Howland,
> presuming he could get a good observation at sunrise and remembered
> to adjust for altitude of course.

Nice thought Reed except the sun wasn't up two hours out. If you
would like a fun exercise, try figuring where the Electra would have
been (longitudinally) when Noonan first saw the sun peak up over the
horizon. You will be surprised how close in he was.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:16:18
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Earhart's competency

Alan,
  From memory, former PAA navigator Weisheit, said on a Nat Geo
speciaL some time ago, that FN aimed at the International Date Line,
some 200 miles west of Howland intending to arrive at precisely (?)
sunrise. I think sunrise was 6:00 am plus or minus.  I have no idea
how accurate Weisheits calulations were, but he sure looked
impressive behind the desk with charts and maps and rulers!!!!  Like
Gillespie! If you like I can check the video again, not that it will
change anything.

LTM,
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:42:18
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Earhart's competency

Ron, sunrise at Howland was 06:15 but of course Noonan saw sunrise on
the way in. The sunrise shot was essentially a time check. To get an
accurate sun shot for an LOP the sun really needed to be at least 10
degrees above the horizon. He didn't get that. That means he may have
had a distortion error in addition to his own errors of shooting and
computing plus the movement of the airplane. I think he would have
been lucky to get a sun line accurate to 20 miles.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:44:42
From:         David Billings
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

> Note from Pat: This post has been edited to remove offensive
language and innuendos.<

W-W-G

  From the Norwich City (pronounced Norritch City, for those that do
not know, ...."No Elmer, it is not Nor-witch City"), of the souls on
board, Eleven (11) were lost.  Three (3) were buried on Gardner.
Twenty-four (24) were rescued.

Bones found in 1940 were probably from one of the lost who made it to
shore either dead or washed up or from one of the known, who was
buried.  The island is Coral.  How deep do you bury people in coral
rock (with no tools) ?

You Tighar guys seem to forget that it is highly likely that the
bones have absolutely NOTHING to do with Earhart, who in my opinion,
and from our evidence, was NEVER there.  The Karen Burns computer
"opinion" from Hoodless's measurements is pure speculation which you
all favourably like to hear.  Get real.  Question the sources.
Question the Computer that made those specs.

Where is the evidence that the bones came from Earhart ?  Where is
the evidence that the Electra was EVER on Nikumaroro ?  At least six
trips and US$3.6 Million spent already.  Surely the Tigers would have
smelt blood somewhere.

David Billings
The New Britain Project.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:23:37
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Re: Glark

I'm curious if anyone has a definitive origin of "glark."  It seems
very close in meaning (and spelling) to "grock" from the Robert
Heinlein novel "Stranger in a Strange Land," which I think was
written in 1961.

Pat, since this is rather off topic, feel free to direct any replies
to me off-forum

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288, who grocked the fullness of glark, and vice
versa.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:24:30
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

David Billings writes:

> You Tighar guys seem to forget that it is highly likely that the
> bones have absolutely NOTHING to do with Earhart, who in my opinion,
> and from our evidence, was NEVER there.  The Karen Burns computer
> "opinion" from Hoodless's measurements is pure speculation which you
> all favourably like to hear.  Get real.  Question the sources.
> Question the Computer that made those specs.
>
> Where is the evidence that the bones came from Earhart ?  Where is
> the evidence that the Electra was EVER on Nikumaroro ?  At least six
> trips and US$3.6 Million spent already.  Surely the Tigers would have
> smelt blood somewhere.

Mr. Billings, I've been practicing archaeology now for some fifty
years, and think that maybe I have some idea of how to evaluate
evidence of what happened in the past, so let me offer a few comments
on your statements.

"Highly likely to have absolutely nothing to do with Earhart."  What,
pray, makes this "highly likely?"  It's your opinion, period.  If one
should question one's computer, one should surely also question one's
assumptions.  As I see it, while it's true that the bones at the SE
end of Nikumaroro may have come from a Norwich City survivor who
wandered to the end of the island opposite the shipwreck in a woman's
shoe, carting a sextant box, it's also not unreasonable to think that
they may have come from a woman last heard of flying an airplane that
has a pretty good chance of having been pointed straight toward the
island.

"Karen Burns computer opinion."  It's not Kar Burns' computer
opinion, it's a well and widely tested analytic system used by
forensic anthropologists all over the world.  Does it give us
certainty?  Of course not, but it is hardly entitled to no
consideration whatever.

"Where is the evidence?"  If you'll forgive my use of a technical
term: Duh.  Try reading "Finding Amelia" and "Shoes."  Just off the
top of my head...

1. The LOP message
2. Post-loss messages and DF bearings
3. Anecdotal accounts of aircraft parts
4. Archaeological evidence of aircraft parts
5. Anecdotal accounts of someone camping on the island before 10/37
6. Airphoto evidence of pre-colonization trails
7. The bones/shoes/sextant box/corks/bottle discovery
8. Our own shoes discovery
9. The peculiar clams, artifacts, and burn features at the Seven Site

... and I've probably left out a thing or two.  I think the
preponderance of evidence points toward Earhart having wound up on
Niku.  But since I thought the preponderance of evidence suggested
that Saddam Hussein had WMD, I've learned to take my own opinions
with a grain of salt.  I'd suggest you do the same; it's remarkably
liberating.

LTM (who consumes a lot of salt)
Tom King, TIGHAR guy
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:41:07
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

I'm not aware of any documentation supporting the notion there were
any unaccounted-for victims of the Norwich City grounding.

What Mr Billings may not be considering is that the physical context
in which the skeleton was reportedly found, taken with the Gilbertese
rumours of airplane wreckage on Gardner and AE's last transmissions,
suggest a likelihood the skeleton belonged to either AE or FN. The
modern, software based forensic analysis of Hoodless' measurements
tends to narrow the skeleton down to that of a European female of
about AE's size.

Those snarky remarks about the money TIGHAR has spent looking for AE
don't hold much sway. TIGAR has always been transparent about its
hits and misses and truth be told I think lots of folks contribute
because TIGHAR's rigorous, scholarly approach to problem solving and
research into the Gardner Island hypothesis is, in and of itself,
rewarding and worthy. Never mind this research recently produced a
book which has been characterized as the most thorough and rigorous
study of Earhart's disappearance we may ever see.

Regarding the simultaneous discussion here about FN's LOP, bear in
mind that (given the Electra's altitude and cloud conditions were
appropriate) he would have seen the sun crack over the horizon
sometime after sunrise on Howland. I tend to agree with others who
have said he had to have been rather close to Howland when he shot
the sunline. Based on his well documented navigation techniques (and
Earhart's "we must be on you" transmission) it's clear he was
confident he'd not only nailed the latitude, but was very confident
about their longitude (which he would have determined more or less by
estimating true airspeed against his chronometers).

An offset in latitude, either deliberate or within an acceptable
error, was wholly expected, which is why the radio navigation tools
were prepared. These failed on at least two or three levels. AE and
FN, at least partly through their own inexperience and lack of
thorough preparation, were unable to cope with that technological
failure. Moreover, Noonan's chart seems to have erroneously placed
Howland a few miles from its true position. Taken together, the
offset and chart error could have combined to put them no closer than
20 or 30 miles of that tiny, dark speck which under some conditions
was indistinguishable from a cloud shadow.

Meanwhile FN seems to have had what he thought was a reliable sunline
and a solid notion as to his longitude. He had a chart showing
Gardner within sight of that LOP on its SE extremity and meanwhile,
Gardner is an order of magnitude larger than Howland, with an almost
fluorescent aqua lagoon, so easy to spot if you're in the neighbourhood.

So, three years later there are rumours on the island of plane
wreckage associated with the skeletons of a man and a woman. Along
comes a (by all accounts keen) British civil servant who has a shufti
at some bones found by Gilbertese workers and straight off he thinks
they might be Earhart's. Never mind a sextant box associated with
those bones has reported features which more or less match only one
or two other known sextant boxes, one of which was owned by Noonan.

LTM, who could be rash but wasn't daft.
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:16:50
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

> David Billings wrote:
> Bones found in 1940 were probably from one of the lost who made it
> to shore either dead or washed up or from one of the known, who was
> buried.  The island is Coral.  How deep do you bury people in coral
> rock (with no tools) ?

David, you should probably keep in mind that there are people on this
forum who've actually been to the island in question and exhumed
graves (with permission).
--
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:18:37
From:         Matt Harrison
Subject:      Aluminum's effect on sea water

Pat, Ric, Alan, Tom, et al;

I've been a lurker now for a couple of years, have just purchased
"Finding Amelia" with "Amelia's Earhart's Shoes" next on the list, as
is a TIGHAR membership.  I'm not sure if the forum is still open to
non-members to at this point, and if not I'll resubmit the following
questions after I've joined up.

Regarding the hypothetical disposition of the Electra, assuming it
has been beaten to bits which are lying somewhere off the shelf upon
which the Norwich City precariously perches, some affect of the wreck
should be made upon the surrounding environment.  The most obvious
effect one might expect would be unusually high levels of aluminum in
seawater.  The water's pH level might be affected as well.  Other
effects to look for might include higher than normal presence of Al
in fish and disruption to flora growth in the wreck area.  My
understanding is that the Electra would have had some amount of fuel
on board at the time of the landing, and I presume that the post-loss
messages, with the necessary engine operation, would not have burned
all the remaining fuel.  How might that fuel have affected the area,
and what traces might it have left?  What about the Electra's oil,
batteries, etc?  Has TIGHAR performed a systematic environmental
analysis of the suspected landing site(s) and area(s) previously?  I
don't remember having read anything along these lines.

LTM, who wants all her lost children to come home.

Matthew C Harrison
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:55:32
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Glark

The etymology seems more like: German glitschen (to slip, slide) >
glitch (1960s) > glork (hacker jargon, surprise at a glitch, also
glitch, also to infer from context, 1980s) > glark

LTM, who I guess had a glork when she grokked she could glark by.
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:56:01
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

> From David Billings
>
> Where is the evidence that the Electra was EVER on Nikumaroro ?

Please give us your explanation for the messages described in
"Finding Amelia".  Not the ones heard in the US; instead, explain the
location bearings for Pan Am, the strength of messages (stronger
towards Garder, weaker further away), and the fact that responses
were heard when calling Earhart directly.

					Reed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:57:01
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

The official report, see Tighar Document of the  Month Feb 2002,
indicates that three crewman, who had washed up on the beach,  were
buried on the island, exact spot not identified.  Eleven were drowned
when their lifeboat capzised, but it is unclear if they took those
with them when they were rescued. There is no comment on those bodies.

So for sure we would have three skeletons buried somewhere in the
Norwich City area, one had a cross of coral.

I am not sure any of  those skeletons have been positively accounted
for by later visitors to the island. If not,they certainly could be
the remains found by the natives in 1940, based on the description of
the bones and later measurements.

LTM,
Ron B

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

In terms of the eleven drowned, eight of whom were apparently not
found and buried: There are a LOT of sharks around Nikumaroro.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:57:30
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Aluminum and oil

Matthew Harrison said: " The most obvious  effect one might expect
would be unusually high levels of aluminum in  sea water . . .  and I
presume that the post-loss  messages, with the necessary engine
operation, would not have burned  all the remaining fuel.  How might
that fuel have affected the area,
and what traces might it have left?  What about the Electra's oil,
batteries, etc?  Has TIGHAR performed a systematic environmental
analysis of the suspected landing site(s) and area(s) previously?  I
don't remember having read anything along these lines."

Due to the unimaginable volume of salt water pouring over and around
Niku over the past 70 years, I can only assume that any trace of
oxidized (?) aluminum from the Lockheed would be undetectable or
inseparable from any naturally occurring traces of aluminum in the
water.  The mass of aluminum, in comparison to the amount of
surrounding water, would be quite small and over time would shrink
even more.  Add to this the slow rate of oxidation and finding traces
of the Lockheed aluminum would appear, in my humble opinion, to be
virtually nil.

The same would apply to any gas and oil.  Natural forces would've
have absorbed and/or redistributed  all traces.  The Coasties used
oil and grease for their generators, as I recall, and left some of
the barrels behind.  As far as I know no oil/grease residue has been
found in any of the remaining barrels.  Ric could offer greater
insight on this piece of minutiae.

LTM, who supports greasing the wheels
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:57:52
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Total post-loss time on radio?

I have not done the math, perhaps i should, but perhaps someone
already has the number: what might be the total time we could say
the various reported AE post-loss radio transmissions add up to?
What i am getting at is, with engine idling to run the radio, at 20
gal/hour approximately - is that ballpark? - how many gallons would
we expect were expended in running the radio?  -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:58:30
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      LOP/Betty's notebook

OK, here's a thought that just occurred to me.

I was one of the people who pointed out a long while back and again
recently that if you break the numbers and letters down phoenetically
(keeping in mind the transmission would have been fading in and out
and distorting, so that, say a three would be heard as a "Z" and
numbers would also tend to be fragmentary, so 158 could be heard as
one, or 58), the last in Betty's Notebook, a large part of it seems
to be the line of position, plus one degree (158/338), repeated and
simply partly transcribed or misheard.  Lest this seem a stretch, at
one point early on the digits 58 338 are actually right next to each
other in the notebook.  All you have to do is add a "1" at the
beginning -- and that's an easy sound to lose because it's soft and
it comes at the beginning of the phrase before the ear knows what's
it's listening for -- and it's staring right at you.

Anyhows, here's something that never occurred to me;  When I
originally pointed this out, I asked the forum how much of a
navigational difference was between 158/338 and 157/337.  Ric had
responded that it was navigationally insignificant.  OK, fine.  But
then if so I have to ask WHY would they change their reported LOP
from 157 to 158?

I know this is pure speculation, but assuming this was all true,
would this indicate that a second sun shot was taken later?  I admit
the LOP stuff goes over my head but my meagre understanding of it
would be that it would not.  Still, I wanted to put it out there for
the folks that understand this stuff better.  Assuming that's
actually what's in Betty's Notebook (and since I arrived at that
conclusion from examining the numbers for any old meaning and the LOP
correlation then just popped out at me, rather than me looking for it
and finding what I was looking for, I personally believe that it is)
is there a reason that one could think of to make this minor change?

It could simply have been a refinement of the original reported LOP,
like if they wanted to make absolutely sure that folks were looking
in the right place, and the original reading had been between 157 and
158, or they felt they'd moved a little to one side of the line, or
whatever.  But even so, it seems like kind of a fussy thing to do,
change the LOP by one degree.

Any thoughts?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:25:31
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: LOP and Betty's notebook

Adam Marsland wrote:

"I was one of the people who pointed out a long while back and again
recently that if you break the numbers and letters down phoenetically
(keeping in mind the transmission would have been fading in and out
and distorting, so that, say a three would be heard as a "Z" and
numbers would also tend to be fragmentary, so 158 could be heard as
one, or 58), the last in Betty's Notebook, a large part of it seems
to be the line of position, plus one degree (158/338), repeated and
simply partly transcribed or misheard. Lest this seem a stretch, at
one point early on the digits 58 338 are actually right next to each
other in the notebook. All you have to do is add a "1" at the
beginning -- and that's an easy sound to lose because it's soft and
it comes at the beginning of the phrase before the ear knows what's
it's listening for -- and it's staring right at you."

and asked:

"is there a reason that one could think of to make this minor change?"

The "ZN" or bearing of the sun changes with time (hence the ability for
the "noon day fix").  It would also change with the date, and if July 5th was
the date of Betty's messages, then at sunrise it would be different than on
July 2.  So, yes, under your scenario, an updated LOP could have a different
azimuth.  Remember though,  FN could compute his distance from the equator,
and with another sun observation, he could just give his Latitude and
Longitude. (assuming he still had a chart to plot this information on).

Rick J #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:26:02
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

Let's all try to remember that the "LOP" direction is not necessarily
the result of a "shot" taken on the sun. Sun shots give the altitude
of the sun above a horizon (real or bubble), not the azimuth of the
sun. The azimuth to the sun (the perpendicular of which gives the
"LOP") is derived from the tables carried by the navigator. Only a
sextant like the latter-day periscopic had the ability to estimate
azimuths, because it was bore-sighted into the aircraft. Right, Alan
and Gary? pmb.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:49:56
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

Hue, did you see the question I previously posted on that subject?
Figure engine start and run for what? two minutes max? They were very
short messages. But a bigger question is how well could they manage
the battery? We need to know what the start up battery drain is, how
much the amperage is recouped over the next two minutes, and what it
takes to bring the battery up to full charge.

We also need to know what the amperage drain is to operate the radio
for two minutes. How many times could the radio be run for two
minutes and still have enough battery power to start the engine?
There is evidence the radio WAS operated engine off. I think we have
two indications off the top of my head.

I computed about one and a half hours of cruise fuel reserve at Niku.
That's simply a wag based on them arriving about 200 miles south of
Howland originally.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:50:20
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

> From Peter Boor
>
> Let's all try to remember that the "LOP" direction is not
> necessarily the result of a "shot" taken on the sun. Sun shots give
> the altitude of the sun above a horizon (real or bubble), not the
> azimuth of the sun. The azimuth to the sun (the perpendicular of
> which gives the "LOP") is derived from the tables carried by the
> navigator. Only a sextant like the latter-day periscopic had the
> ability to estimate azimuths, because it was bore-sighted into the
> aircraft. Right, Alan and Gary? pmb.

I seem to recall seeing a pelorus installed in the Electra
somewhere.  If I am correct, this gives Noonan the ability to plot
the angle from the heading of the aircraft to any object on the
horizon, such as the sun just peeking over the horizon.

Cheers,

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:50:47
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP/betty's notebook

Adam, one possibility could be that Noonan just wagged a course of
158 believing he was slightly beyond Howland some place and thought a
track one degree higher would account for his adjusted position.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:51:10
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

> Right, Alan
> and Gary? pmb.

Es correcto. <G>  That LOP could have been from an earlier moon shot
at, if I remember, around 4:30, a sun shot later that morning or a
preflight computation.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:06:01
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Hue, did you see the question I previously posted on that subject?
> Figure engine start and run for what? two minutes max? They were very
> short messages.

Betty heard upwards of an hour and a half of radio transmissions.
This is "key down" time - Betty says she heard no interruptions barring
the periodic fade in-out. Not to mention she tuned in while the transmission
already was in progress for who knows how long.  The batteries would
certainly not stand a half hour transmission on their own.  So the engine
had to be running, right? However, Betty reports no engine noise, altho
the microphone picked up the cabin conversations, including, per Betty,
sound indications that they were even wrestling for control of something.

(Not the microphone, since they each? had their own microphone with
which to converse, because otherwise the engine noise was prohibitive.)
Confusing?
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:48:00
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Hue, did you see the question I previously posted on that subject?
> Figure engine start and run for what? two minutes max? They were
> very short messages. But a bigger question is how well could they
> manage the battery? We need to know what the start up battery drain
> is, how much the amperage is recooped over the next two minutes,
> and what it takes to bring the battery up to full charge.

Was it in fact necessary to start the engine?

The following info in the Electra's radios suggests it was possible
to run the transmitter on battery alone, using the dynamotor(s) which
was the forerunner to the DC/AC inverters we have today:

QUOTE:
The transmitter operated from the 12-volt DC electrical system aboard
the aircraft. The tube filaments and the relays in the control
circuitry were powered directly from 12 volts. High-voltage power for
the tubes was provided by a dynamotor, a motor-generator unit which
operated from the 12-volt system and produced 1050 volts DC at
approximately 300 milliamperes.

Primary power requirements for the transmitter were approximately 11
amperes on standby (tube filaments alone), and 65 amperes on transmit
using voice (tube filaments, relays, and dynamotor). The tube
filaments were energized continuously in standby mode; instant-heat
tube technology had yet to be developed. The dynamotor operated, in
voice mode, when the press-to-talk circuit was activated using the
microphone button. When the transmitter was switched to C-W mode, the
dynamotor ran continuously.

and

The receiver was powered from the aircraft's 12-volt DC electrical
system. High voltage of 200 volts at 55 milliamperes for the tubes
was provided by a small dynamotor power supply. Primary power
requirements were approximately 5 amperes, including tube filaments,
dial lights and dynamotor.
/QUOTE:

> We also need to know what the amperage drain is to operate the
> radio for two minutes.

That can be worked out from the info above. What cannot be worked out
is what Amp Hour rating the Electras batteries had. Perhaps that info
is on file somewhere.

> How many times could the radio be run for two minutes and still
> have enough battery power to start the engine? There is evidence
> the radio WAS operated engine off. I think we have two indications
> off the top of my head.

Should also be able to be worked out once the battery reserve is known.

> I computed about one and a half hours of cruise fuel reserve at
> Niku. That's simply a wag based on them arriving about 200 miles
> south of Howland originally.

As a matter of interest I have been running battery drain experiments
on the refrigerator of my yacht. It amazes me how quickly the voltage
recovers once given a rest after a short period of current drain.

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:29:45
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Aluminum's effect on sea water

Matthew C Harrison asks:

> Has TIGHAR performed a systematic environmental analysis of the
> suspected landing site(s) and area(s) previously?

We already know from visual inspection that there is no apparent
aircraft wreckage within roughly 100 feet of the surface. The reef
environment seems far too dynamic for traces of the type you mention
to be detectable 70 years later.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:13:14
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio?

Hue Miller asks:

> I have not done the math, perhaps i should, but perhaps someone
> already has the number: what might be the total time we could say
> the various reported AE post-loss radio transmissions add up to?
> What i am getting at is, with engine idling to run the radio, at 20
> gal/hour approximately - is that ballpark? - how many gallons would
> we expect were expended in running the radio?

Fortunately, we have no less an authority than Paul Mantz to help
answer the question.  In a newspaper interview that appeared on July
5th (see Finding Amelia, page 140) he said,

"The right engine, turning over at 900 R.P.M. creates about 50 amperes.
This burns almost six gallons of gas hourly."

To determine how many hours she would be able to transmit we would
need to know how many gallons of fuel were on board when she landed.
to make a reasonable guess at that, we'd need to know when she
landed.  To make a good stab at when she landed we'd need to know
where she was the last time Itasca heard her, what the winds were
doing at whatever altitude she was flying, and how hard she was
pushing the engines.  Way too many unknowns.

But just for jollies, let's say she landed at Gardner with an hour of
fuel left (at economical cruise power settings).  That would be 38
gallons.  At 6 gph she could transmit for a total of a little over 6
hours.  With an hour and half of in-flight fuel left (57 gallons) she
could transmit for 9 and a half hours.  And so on.  It wouldn't make
sense to repeatedly start the engine, rip off a 3 minute call and
shut down. It seems to me that the reasonable thing to due would be
to fire up, alternately transmit and listen for a response for an
hour or so, shut down, and try again later.  You might do that two or
three times a night.  And, in fact, the more credible reports of post-
loss signals seem to be batched like that over the first three nights.

Ric
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:13:36
From:         
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

  From Ric

Adam Marsland writes:

> It could simply have been a refinement of the original reported
> LOP, like if they wanted to make absolutely sure that folks were
> looking in the right place, and the original reading had been
> between 157 and 158, or they felt they'd moved a little to one side
> of the line, or whatever.  But even so, it seems like kind of a
> fussy thing to do, change the LOP by one degree.
>
> Any thoughts?

It's an interesting point. A sun line taken within a few minutes of
sunrise would be 157 337.  To get his groundspeed, Noonan would
typically be making repeated observations - "shooting speed lines" -
to check his progress toward the advanced LOP.  At some point, the
sun is going to have moved enough to give him a 158 338 speed line.
Maybe someone could figure out how long after sunrise that would be.
The one degree of difference would not be significant navigationally
(no pilot can fly to a one degree tolerance) but there might have
been a good reason for Noonan to have drawn a 158 338 line on his map
or at least write down a 158 338 notation which Earhart could have
broadcast in the hope that it would make sense to somebody.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:14:04
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Some thoughts on Betty's report

Bob Brandenburg concludes that Betty most likely heard AE's Niku
radio on (rounding off, approximately ) 25 or 31 MHz. Now, Betty
says she never retuned her radio; she just reclined and took notes.

I would like to ask you readers who date to pre-solid state electronics,
and have used vacuum-tube based radios, to recollect what it was like
to use such a radio on the top of their frequency range, say, the 10 meter
ham band, or the 25 MHz international broadcast band. How long did
the radio stay put, without needing dial tweaking? In 1937, did spending
a half year's income on a top of the line home radio buy you radio
stability? I say no, if you don't already know: the limitations were of the
technology, and you could not beat the system, especially with an all-band
type of home radio, never mind its price, a good part of which was in
the radio's audio power, speaker system, and cabinetry. So how long
could you go without having to retune the radio? Five minutes, seven
minutes? And if you didn't retune, to readjust the drifting radio, what
happened? If you were lucky, the radio drifted back on to the station in
a few minutes. If other conditions dictated, it might drift out for a half
hour or so, then drift back on to the station. Does this explain what
Betty experienced, when she said the AE signals faded in and out?
As i recall, "fading" is not much of a phenomenon that frequencies in
the 10 meter wavelength range are known for: the signal is usually pretty
surprisingly steady, while it is there; sometimes remarkably so; then, it's
in short order, a few minutes, faded out and gone for the day.  We
really could, if we wanted, determine drift for a typical console-type 1930s
radio, using either a frequency counter or a current ham receiver with
digital readout to monitor the console. We wouldn't even have to use
a top-level Zenith, as Zenith engineers could not exceed the common
technology of the day.

Also, do i recall Betty referring to the AE signals as being in the static?
I don't recall frequencies above 20 MHz being plagued by static; in fact,
static, atmospheric noise, electrical storm caused, or caused by electrical
machinery, is commonly a phenomenon of bands under 10 MHz.  At the
higher frequencies of our supposed harmonics ( overtones of 3105 or
6210 ) the limitations are not atmospheric noise, but internal noise of
the radio equipment: no static unless maybe a car with a bad ignition
system happens to be cruising right by.  Also, consider that although
these harmonic frequencies favor low power, long range transmission
( but not with simple, day in and day out predictability ), the capability
of these old-time radios really fell off above 20 MHz, due to internal
noise generated by the amplifier tubes. ( And it doesn't matter how
many tubes you stack up in sequence - the all-important "mixer tube"
is the noisiest tube in any radio of the era, and there's no alternative
technology. )

So, what frequency was Betty hearing on?
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:16:35
From:         Patrick Demski
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

For Alan Caldwell & Hue Miller

Hi, I've been lurking on this forum for at least the last five years (and
feeling like I should have joined TIGHAR a long time ago -- cc no. coming
your way real soon Ric).  I also have read both Shoes and Finding Amelia,
and spent godknowshowmany hours browsing the archives on the TIGHAR Web
site.

Alan & Hue, the discussion about engine-on/engine-off, fuel consumption &
battery drain during post-loss transmissions always seems to spiral down
into a long wail about the need for more intense and detailed calculations.
That's certainly one approach and I sincerely hope that someday someone of
Bob Brandenburg's caliber will undertake it.

Meanwhile, let me offer my own observations.  Alan, you just stated that:

"There is evidence the radio WAS operated engine off".

Really?!

TIGHAR's reconstruction of the Electra landing scenario says there's a good
probability that the left landing gear leg folded up, leaving the plane
tilted down-left (and possibly nose high depending on what else folded).
Ric points to some of the more unambiguous passages in Betty's Notebook
indicating that the cabin door was unusable, wedged against the reef flat,
and the rising tide brought water into the back of the plane up to
knee-level.  If you buy into this scenario, it means that the Electra is
badly damaged, as-bad or probably even worse than after the Luke Field
ground loop.  And there's no horde of technicians with equipment to help
right the plane like there was at Luke Field -- just Amelia, who is no doubt
utterly exhausted, deaf from engine noise, filthy and scared -- yeah, normal
human-response scared -- because her navigator is badly hurt, her plane is
wrecked and she has scant idea where they are at.  To me, this doesn't seem
to be something you bounce back from in a few days, especially in a place
like Niku.  So things aren't much more promising on July 5 than they were on
July 2, which is to say that she is under continual, unyielding stress.

OK, she knows enough about the radio to know that the batteries have to
recharge by running the right engine, which fortunately didn't take the hit.
Does she immediately start calculating two minute fuel burns vs. battery
charge level and power consumption during transmission?  Heck no.  She
showed little inclination to tackle calculations like this when she had
ample time and comfortable circumstances.  Why start now?  No, her signaling
protocol was improvised by trial-and-error, seat of the pants.  And one of
the first things she figures out is that you don't want to run that engine
at all unless your very life depends on it.  Because at the best of times
the vibration and noise in the cockpit is unbearable; with the Electra in an
unnatural stance and going decidedly fragile after the reef landing, running
the engine even at idle RPM is guaranteed to cause certain of your
anatomical parts to go into a tight pucker as you contemplate which piece
will next fall off.  An especially acute feeling if the smart money is on
that next piece being the engine itself (c'mon, how smoothly would that big
Pratt & Whitney run if the prop was the least bit nicked or bent?).

So she makes as many transmissions as possible, most of which are heard by
no one, with the engine off and one eye on an ammeter that shows when the
battery charge has dropped to the point where her life depends on running
the engine.  I doubt that she thought about or cared how much fuel was left
in the tanks; if she was awake and alert, the tide was right and the heat in
the cockpit bearable, she transmitted.  I've taken the long way around to
say so, but my contention is that she made few, if any, post-loss
transmissions with the engine running; too dangerous and too much noise to
hear yourself think.

Now I realize that the intent of the proposed calculations is to demonstrate
that the total time duration of the post-loss transmissions doesn't exceed
some threshold of possibility that's bound by available fuel and battery
charge capability.  All I'm saying is that if your fundamental assumption is
that the engine ran during most post-loss transmissions, you're looking
through the wrong end of the telescope.  She ran the engine only when the
battery level dropped low enough to risk not ever being able to start the
engine again, and then only long enough to bring the battery back to full
charge.  I'll bet she was really getting the hang of it right about the time
the plane washed off the reef.

LTM (who also knew a few things about taking the long way around)

Patrick Demski
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:17:52
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Not about Amelia

This has absolutely nothing to do with the current debates on the forum
- I just wanted to say how much I'm enjoying my TIGHAR Project Midnight
Ghost coffee mug. Like everything else TIGHAR does, be it research,
poblications or products, it is first class - well made, functional,
attractive and exactly as advertised.

And THAT is why we are going to find out what happened to Amelia and
Fred.

LTM, who doesn't function well without his morning cups of java,

Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189CE

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

Well, thanks. You got the very last one, btw. We have other mugs, but
no more PMG.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:05:54
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Aluminum's effect on sea water

<<We already know from visual inspection that there is no apparent
aircraft wreckage within roughly 100 feet of the surface. The reef
environment seems far too dynamic for traces of the type you mention
to be detectable 70 years later.>>

I agree with Ric in terms of what we can see, and interpret with our
level of expertise in such things, but I wonder if there's anyone on
the Forum with expertise in the kind of environmental analysis
necessary to discerning minute traces of aluminum in the coral along
the reef edge.  I have a very hard time imagining that such an
analysis would be worth doing -- there are just too many variables
involved.  But my imagination on this project has often turned out to
be too limited.

LTM (who's very imaginative)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:06:13
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

Suppose AE runs the engine during transmission, would Betty have
heard the "hum of an engine" (Like Nauru didn't), with an open mike
inside the cockpit. Or would the noise be too faint? As I recall
there is no mention by Betty of hearing an outside "noise".

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:06:50
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

Rick Jones says:

> The "ZN" or bearing of the sun changes with time (hence the ability for
> the "noon day fix").  It would also change with the date, and if July 5th was
> the date of Betty's messages, then at sunrise it would be different than on
> July 2.  So, yes, under your scenario, an updated LOP could have a different
> azimuth.  Remember though,  FN could compute his distance from the equator,
> and with another sun observation, he could just give his Latitude and
> Longitude. (assuming he still had a chart to plot this information on).

So, can the Celestial Choir figure out what the LOP would have been
on July 5th?

Andrew McKenna
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:07:17
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Some thoughts on Betty's report

Hue, I don't recall, if I ever knew, what frequencies I listened to
in 1937. I only know there were 5 or 6 bands and I roamed all around.
There was always some static and the stations DID fade in and out. I
sat often with my fingers on the dial tweaking best I could to keep a
station but just as often let it come and go which it did.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:07:42
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

Patrick, that was a well thought out post unless it took 5 years to
come up with it. <G> As to the transmissions without engine noise see
Betty's notebook and the post loss transmissions for at least one
other. I could be wrong but I think it was one picked up by Nauru.

I agree with you Earhart did not seem to be the technical type but
there is no way to know what her expertise was in her machine.

I've flown the R1340 S1H1 engine and at idle it is not at all over
whelming. It is two of them on either side of you at cruise RPM that
is deafening. I see no problem cranking one up and using the radio,
however, I tend to agree she probably used battery alone a lot of the
time. THAT's the purpose of the exercise. We take nothing at face value.

Finally, gauges at that time were not the precision instruments we
have now. I would not have relied on fuel gauges, gyros, ammeters or
anything else in 1937. I've flown planes with such and I would never
have bet my life on the accuracy of those gauges.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:08:56
From:         Jeff Lange
Subject:      Re: Not about Amelia

And I sit here reading this with my PMG mug on my desk. The others
are either in the back room, or at home. I got the complete set :-)

LTM (who always like to show off her mug)
Jeff Lange
# 0748C
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:09:44
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

Here's a set of calculations off my boat's navigation program, which I hope
reliably used the dates for 1937.  (Maptech, Nautical Technologies,
www.thecapn.com)

I reduced the variables to these:

For 2 July 1937 I ran five times each for the positions 100 NM out (my choice)
and Howland Island.  (to show the trend of results.)

100 nm out:  ZN,      HC,      LOP
1830z:       066.8,  08-19,  157-337
1930z:       065.3,  22-02,  155-335
2030z:       061.7,  35-28,  152-332
2130z:       054.7,  48-16,  145-325
2230z:       040.9,  59-29,  131-311

Note the ZN's decrease with time.

At Howland Island:

1915z:      065.7,   19-45,  156-336
2015z:      062.7,   33-17,  153-333
2115z:      056.6,   46.15,   147-327
2215z:      044.4,   57-55,   134-314
2315z:      020.5,   66-11,   111-291

Then for 5 July 1937 I ran two times at Niku:

1800z:      066.9,   02-12,   157-337
1900z:      060.6,   29-10,   151-331

And out of curiosity ran 281 N of Howland for 5 July 1937:

1800z:      067.4,   03-55,   157-337
1830z:      067.7,   10-50,   158-338
1900z:      067.6,   17.44,   158-338

Computation methods and tables could vary between then and now, but if FN
used the "assumed position" method, and THOUGHT he was north of Howland,
then his computation would have given him an LOP of 158-338 on 5 July 1937,
near the time of sunrise.

This is a quick look, and should be verified before serious use.

Also note:  upper limb would be around 15, and the refraction correction near
sunrise would have been near 35.

LTM, who best liked her tables with food on them.

Rick J #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:41:42
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Aluminum's effect on sea water

Tom, you gave me a thought. I agree with Ric's comment that all the
water that has rushed by Niku over 70 years there would be such
minute atoms of anything as to be of no significance but what about
the lagoon water? If the wreck was on the reef and water rushed over
it many times might there not be something of significance there? Has
the lagoon been dragged or otherwise examined for artifacts? Water
analysis?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:53:06
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

> Suppose AE runs the engine during transmission, would Betty have
> heard the "hum of an engine" (Like Nauru didn't), with an open mike
> inside the cockpit. Or would the noise be too faint? As I recall
> there is no mention by Betty of hearing an outside "noise".

Maybe not, Ron. but that's testable.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:54:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

> So, can the Celestial Choir figure out what the LOP would have been
> on July 5th?
>
> Andrew McKenna

To what end, Andrew?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:29:36
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

Rick Jones says,

> Computation methods and tables could vary between then and now, but if FN
> used the "assumed position" method, and THOUGHT he was north of Howland,
> then his computation would have given him an LOP of 158-338 on 5 July 1937,
> near the time of sunrise.

Very interesting. If Noonan thought he had found an island north of
Howland it would have to be an uncharted island.  We know now that
there were no uncharted islands north of Howland, but he wouldn't
know that. And July 5 is the day that Betty's transcript fits best.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:31:09
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

Rick, you can get accurate celestial data on the Naval observatory
web site for any date, time and place.

For example, Jul 2, 1937 at Howland at 19;12 GMT the Sun data was:

GHA        Dec          Hc          Zn
107 02.3   N23 02.1   +19 02.6    65.8

The Moon had a Zn of 328.8 It was 36% illuminated as a waning crescent.

One hour prior at a rough position I thought they might be the sun's
Zn was 66.9 with an Hc of only 3 degrees 31.4 minutes. The arbitrary
position for purists <G> was N 0 22.0 W 178 22.0

Here is a gloss over idea of the methodology.
Suitable bodies for celestial sights are selected, often using a Rude
Star Finder. Using sextant and stopwatch, a sight is taken. The name
of the body and the precise time of the sight is recorded. Then the
sextant is read and the sextant altitude (Hs) is recorded. Once all
sights are taken and recorded, the navigator is ready to start the
process of "sight reduction" and plotting.
The first step in sight reduction is to correct the sextant altitude
for various errors. The instrument may have an error, IC or index
correction. Refraction by the atmosphere is corrected for. The
observer's height of eye above sea level results in a "dip"
correction. If the Sun or Moon was observed, a semidiameter
correction is applied. The resulting value is "observed altitude" (Ho).

Next, the altitude of the celestial body is computed for a selected
position (assumed position or AP). This calculated altitude (Hc) is
compared to the observed altitude (Ho, sextant altitude [Hs]
corrected for various errors). The difference between Hc and Ho is
called "intercept" and is the observer's distance from the assumed
position. The resulting line of position (LOP) is a small segment of
the circle of equal altitude, and is represented by a straight line
perpendicular to the azimuth of the celestial body. When plotting the
small segment of this circle on a chart it is drawn as a straight
line, the resulting tiny errors are too small to be significant.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:57:36
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The Seven Site

I've finally got a minute to reply to Ted Campbell's questions about
the Seven Site:

> When I revisited the AE web site I see under "Gallagher's Clues"
> that the map of Niku shows 99 percent of the coconut plantings
> (thus area cleared or will be cleared) is on the Western side of
> the island.  If this is the case what is it that caused TIGHAR to
> focus on the 7 site on the Eastern side?

Long story but, in a nutshell:

1990 - Coast Guard veterans told of seeing a metal "water collection
device" somewhere along the northern shore on the eastern end of the
island. We wondered if it might be an airplane fuel tank converted
into a cistern.

1991 - We searched the heck out of that shoreline but found zip.

1995 - Analysis of 1941 aerial photos of the area by Photek indicated
man-made objects back in the bush.

1996 - Using the Photek work as a guide, we went into the bush and
found the tank.  Big disappointment.  Not an airplane fuel tank but a
steel water tank of the same kind we found in the abandoned village.
There was also a partially filled-in hole, some bird bones, and bits
of other junk scattered around.  We collected a couple of things,
photographed the rest, and wrote the site off as a bust.

1997 - A file discovered by accident in the Kiribati archive in
Tarawa proves that, lo and behold, the old Floyd Kilts story is true.
Bones were indeed found on Niku that were suspected of being Earhart's.

1998 - The Tarawa file led to the discovery of the Western Pacific
High Commission file about the bones (and many other files) in an
obscure archive in England.  Gallagher's description of exactly where
on the island the bones were found is ambiguous but he does say that
he conducted a "thorough search."

2000 - The light bulb goes on.  What if the tank we found in 1996 was
meant to provide water for Gallagher's "thorough search?"  What if
the hole we found was where the skull was dug up?

2001 - An preliminary archaeological examination of the site finds
some of the same things Gallagher reported - remains of a fire, dead
birds, dead turtle - and other indications of the presence of a
Western castaway.  An excavation of the hole reveals that it is
actually two holes - an original small hole surrounded by a later
larger hole that was not completely filled in.  That fits with the
skull being buried and Gallagher later digging it up.  There's little
doubt that the Seven Site is where Gallagher found the bones.

> I know the 7 site has yielded clues re fire pits, clams, turtle
> bones, etc. but nothing that I am aware of that indicates that AE
> may have died there.  This area is also contaminated with the
> remnants of the Coast Guard occupation and other unusual activity
> i.e. the corrugated iron, the water tank, 20th century can labels
> (yet to be explained how they may have gotten there),etc

You're correct except for the 20th century can label.  That was found
at the Aukeraime shoe site on the other side of the island.

> In summary, I find it difficult to believe that AE would venture
> too far away from where she could have landed:

Ten minutes on Nutiran would change your mind. It's a horrible place.
The Seven Site, by contrast, is the best place on the island to hang
out if you're a castaway in 1937 (when the area was open Kanawa
forest instead of the tangle of Scaevola it is today).  We didn't
realize that until we had spent some time there, but it's the the one
place on the island where the land is narrow enough to give you easy
access to both the lagoon and the reef for food; where a low ridge is
cooled by the prevailing easterly trade winds; where you can climb a
tree and watch both the northern and southern horizons for any sign
of a ship.  Whoever the castaway was, he/she really knew the island
and picked the best place to try to survive.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:58:14
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

> From Alan Caldwell
>
>> Suppose AE runs the engine during transmission, would Betty have
>> heard the "hum of an engine" (Like Nauru didn't), with an open mike
>> inside the cockpit. Or would the noise be too faint? As I recall
>> there is no mention by Betty of hearing an outside "noise".
>
> Maybe not, Ron. but that's testable.

The Electra's transmitter used about 11Amps when it was turned on and
65 amps when actually transmitting (when the microphone key was
actually held down for someone to speak).  The receiver used about 5
Amps.

That makes a worst case of about 70 Amps current draw if the mike
button was held continually and the receiver was running.  The rest
of the time during any given transmit session it would only be
drawing about 16 Amps.

Does anyone know what battery/batteries the Electra used?  If you can
work out the reserve current in Amp Hours you can work out a
realistic time the thing could have transmitted without the engine
being started and the answer might just come as a surprise.

There seems to be some idea that the radio could only run with the
engine running, but I am fairly sure this is incorrect.  I believe
there was a report when Earhart was being searched for that said the
aircraft could not transmit if it had ditched and was floating in the
water and I suspect this may have led people to believe it needed to
be on land so an engine could run to transmit.  My reading of the
available evidence suggests both the receiver and transmitter could
have operated satisfactorily for some time without an engine having
to be started.

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:58:38
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Drifting of tube radios

for Hue Miller

Hue, I remember chiming in on this subject of drifting frequencies on
the old radios when Betty's note book first came to light. I was in
the "Yes they drifted" camp, but I have since changed my position. I
based my initial reaction on my experience as a novice HAM in the
late 1960s (WN2IVM) with an old (circa mid 50's) Hammarlund HQ110. It
drifts (I still have it) horribly for the first 20 minutes or so and
requires occasional tweaking there after. BUT, we are talking CW/SSB
mode here. An AM (Amplitude Modulation) signal is, of course, a much
broader band width. Last year I became the proud owner of a Zenith
Transoceanic "portable" short wave receiver made in 1947. I can tune
in a short wave broadcast station (amplitude modulated) and leave the
dial alone for a couple hours. Audio fading, yes, but no appreciable
frequency drift.

As an OT (AE) aside, the HF frequency drift question is not really a
vacuum tube vs solid state issue. Frequency drift in short wave
radios wasn't resolved with the advent of solid state components. It
took PLL synthesized frequency control technology in the early 1980s
to finally cure the problem. My Panasonic RF-B600 that I bought new
in Japan in 1984 has a PLL synthesizer and digital frequency read
out. It does not drift and has genuine "instant" warm up. My Yaesu
FRG-7 built in 1978 is all solid state, but the circuitry design is
vacuum tube in origin (the vacuum tubes in the circuit were simply
replaced by transistors and solid state diodes). The front end is
traditionally analog (which is why I fell in love with it) and,
despite its initial "instant" warm it up, it drifts as bad as the
Hammerlund.

LTM (who never understood why listening to Radio Japan from Upstate
New York excited me):
   Kerry Tiller (ex-WN2IVM and WB7SIQ)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:07:03
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

Thinking about this 158/338 thing some more.

An LOP on the July 5th with Noonan thinking they were north of
Howland doesn't work.  If Noonan is competent enough to take any kind
of celestial observation he has to know that he's south of Howland.
A simple noon observation will tell him that he's at 4 degree 40
minutes South latitude.   The only island on that latitude for
thousands of miles is Gardner.

The otherwise credible post-loss transmissions that contain
intelligible information (i.e. Betty Klenck, Dana Randolph, Mabel
Larremore, the 281 message, some of the messages heard on Howland and
Baker) include no mention of any island name.  The messages reported
by Randolph and Larremore include physical descriptions of the
general location and surroundings, and Klenck and the 218 message can
be interpreted to do the same, but nowhere is there an island name.
In other words, in order for the messages to be credible, Noonan must
be unable to take even the most basic of celestial observations once
the plane has landed.  The weather was good.  For the plane to be in
good enough shape to send radio transmissions there's every reason to
expect that Noonan's octant and tables would also be in good shape.
So if Noonan was not able to celestial observations, it would seem
that the problem was most likely Noonan himself.  Some of the
otherwise credible voice messages report a man's voice, but none
report an intelligible man's voice.  Klenck and Larremore
independently describe an incapacitated Noonan.

So, everything seems to point toward Fred whacking his head in the
landing. If he's in the right seat and the left gear hits a pothole
and folds; and the airplane groundloops violently to the left; he's
on the outside of the arc and more likely than AE to smack the
instrument panel with his head (no shoulder restraints) when the
motion stops.

If Fred was hurt and if the numbers in Betty's notebook do represent
a 158/338 LOP, the observation had to have been taken before the
airplane arrived at Gardner. According to Rick Jones' boat navigation
program, an observation of the sun at 1830Z that morning would yield
a 157/337 LOP.  My theory about the 158/338 line coming from later
"speed lines" doesn't work because the change is going in the wrong
direction.  A 158/338 line would have to come from an observation
taken earlier than 1830Z.  How much earlier? Rick can ask his boat,
but it looks to me like the LOP is changing at a rate of one degree
per half hour. That would mean that an observation of the sun taken
at 1800Z would yield a 158/338 LOP.  Would it have been possible for
Noonan to shoot the sun at 1800Z (0630 Itasca Time)?  Sunup at
Howland was at 1745Z (0615 local) but NR16020 was some distance to
the west so sunrise would come later, but if the plane was at 10,000
feet where it should be the sun would become visible earlier than at
sea level.

It seem possible that the 158/338 LOP represents an initial
observation of the sun right at, or very shortly after, sunrise.
But, as I understand it, observations taken when the sun is at or
very close to the horizon are less reliable than shots taken after
the sun has climbed a bit.  The 1800Z observation that yielded the
157/337 line might understandably be the one to go with in advancing
the LOP through Howland.

All this started out to be just a way of explaining how there might
reasonably have been a piece of paper with "158 338" written on it
for Earhart to grab and read over the air hoping that it would mean
something to somebody.  But if the reasoning here is correct, we
should be able to draw that 158 338 LOP ourselves and know what Fred
Noonan knew at 1800Z.

I'll be very interested to hear whether any of this makes sense to
those on the forum who know a whole lot more about celestial
navigation than I do.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:07:56
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Drifting of tube radios

> From Kerry Tiller
> for Hue Miller
>
> Hue, I remember chiming in on this subject of drifting frequencies on
> the old radios when Betty's note book first came to light. I was in
> the "Yes they drifted" camp, but I have since changed my position. I
> based my initial reaction on my experience as a novice HAM in the
> late 1960s (WN2IVM) with an old (circa mid 50's) Hammarlund HQ110.

I do not think you can equate your experience with hambands-only 1950s
product. Your  radio tunes, for example, narrow bands instead of a 3:1 or
so spectrum on each band. Think about a home radio, using minimal
stabilization in its circuitry and the large, old tubes, and operating up around
the CB band.  Not only did the performance fall off markedly above 20 MHz
or so, in terms of sensitivity; but they were notorious for drift at the high
end of each range and particularly on the upper limits of the SW range, which
we are talking about here. Frankly, there is NO way the home radio stayed
put on 25+ MHz for a session of that long, no way. So, if the account
description is true, the radio may have been picking up content from nearby
frequencies as it drifted up or down and back. I say "may". I don't know if
this is significant to the contents of the report or not; at the least it "may"
explain some fade-out of hearing that Betty experienced.  There's been a
lot of water under the wings since we were first going around on Betty's
report, but if i recall, there was some odd thing in there about a ham station
call letters, too, which we never cracked.  I'll have to review that.
Maybe i can find some actual numbers for such a home radio's sensitivity
and stability figures, i'll look. - HM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:08:17
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radios

Re AE transmit time on batteries only:
Will this give a reasonable idea?
Find out what actual battery a similar plane ( Beech 18 ? )
or even a surviving 10E has on board. Determine the amp-
hours of the battery and double it ( AE plane had 2 batteries,
right? Were they simply paralleled? )  Would this information
be a starting point? I don't know. It might be a starting point
to how long you could "comfortably" run the radio before
you reckoned you needed a recharge, or wouldn't be able
to restart the engine at all. -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:39:07
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Drifting of tube radios

Hue, if you are talking 25+MHz I would have to agree. Any frequency
above the 19 meter band was shaky with vacuum circuitry. The 16
meter band is as high as my 1947 Zenith even attempts to go.

Kerry
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:00:06
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

My big question about post-loss signals from AE is: what did she use
for antennas for transmitting and receiving?  Originally, the ventral
wires were for one function and the dorsal wire was for the other.
We hear that the dorsal wire got ripped away, but would have been
under water if it hadn't been ripped away.  This leaves the dorsal
antenna only, and the loop, which is lousy for receiving unless the
signals are strong and vertically polarized, best at low frequencies
and in line-of-sight or ground wave distances from transmitter to
loop-implemented receiver.  And we also know that AE and Noonan
reported, much earlier, a defective receiver when the only problem
was that the antenna lead-in had disconnected from the receiver
terminal.  So we have a "radio operator" (AE) who can't even tell
when an antenna is disconnected suddenly able to connect the dorsal
antenna alternately between transmitter and receiver, two boxes that
are some distance from each other?   Remember that her push-to-talk
button did not switch the antenna from receiver to transmitter; that
had to be done by hand.  Makes the post-loss signals even more
problematic.

Ed Lyon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:02:03
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Drifting of tube radios

Not true about the beginnings of drift-less radios, Kerry.  The drift-
free HF radio era started with the Collins and Racal radios of the
1960s, not the PLL-equipped radios of the 80s.  My Racal RA-17 is a
tube-type that will not drift appreciably.

But the gist is clear from your message.  Those old parlor consoles
did drift, especially as they warmed up.  But the really important
item is the frequency that certain listeners claimed to have heard AE
signals on.  These were up in the region of the fifth harmonic of
possible AE operating frequencies.  AE's transmitter final would have
cut the fifth harmonic down to the order of 40 dB below the
fundamental, even with a short dorsal antenna, so with a total plate
input power of 300 watts, which is optimistic, her radiated power at
the fifth harmonic would have been 0.02 watt, making it a tough
journey to Georgia, or wherever the listener was located.
Ed Lyon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:02:34
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

Yes, Ric, you're probably right. As William of Occam told his kids, "when you
hear thundering hooves, think of horses, not zebras."  One thing to remember,
though, is that the ZN is a product of the computation (HC) using an assumed
position which can be anywhere (closer the better), and not a product of the
observation. The difference between what is observed  and what is computed
is used to plot the LOP perpendicular to the ZN.  In other words, "am I closer
or farther from the sun's subpoint than I thought?" (Thanks Al, for a very clear
discussion on this process.)

I did play a little more with the celestial computer, and found that for the
locations we used, and on the selected dates, the ZN started to decrease
(even at 1800z).  We seemed to be right at the "top of the curve" around
sunrise where the ZN increased,  "peaked" and then decreased.  If too early,
of course the sun was below the horizon.  (didn't play with that). This was
true for all computations except the northern position (281N), which peaked
out around 067.7 (158-338) at 1830z in this area on 5 July 1937.

I supposed one could say that a befuddled FN could make a N vs S latitude
error in his computations on Niku, (who among us hasn't plotted a reciprocal,
or made a similar error?) or maybe truly thought he was north.  (I agree, it's
not logical)

I have also re-read FA's "Betty's Notebook" and offer a couple of
possibilities:

P. 175-6 "Bob"  may mean "bobbing" as in "do you feel it bob?"

P. 180  "fig. 8... could it be "figure out" or figure it" followed by some
numbers which could represent distances, celestial observations, etc., passing
along the chore to the listener to finish.  "3.30 500Z"  Maybe this is the time
of an observation.  (03:30 Itasca time plus 11:30 =1500Z  so was it 3:30 [1]
500Z followed by some data?  (By the way, I looked at the nav almanac on
the computer and didn't see any obvious correlation, but wondered if
the "MJ3B " may be some reference to bodies like Mars, Jupiter, etc.)

p. 181  "bail out" could also mean bailing out the water, vs bailing out with
a parachute.  (neither could be done).

LTM, who was really looking for Zebras

Rick J #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:49:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP/Betty's notebook

> One thing to remember, though, is that the ZN is a product of the
> computation (HC) using an
> assumed position which can be anywhere (closer the better), and not
> a product of the
> observation.

Rick, maybe I confused you but the Zn comes out of the book or
celestial computer in my case. It is found by entering the date, time
zone, lat/long, and observer's altitude in meters. For example I am
using 3048 meters corresponding to a flight altitude of 10,000.

I have my own Naval Observatory software which is free by the way but
you can access their web site and use their computer as well. The "A"
section is just for the US and the "B" section is world wide.

Ric G. is correct that during the first few degrees the sun shot is
not quite accurate although there IS a correction for atmospheric
distortion. I was taught to not use a celestial body less than ten
degrees in elevation but if Noonan needed a sun shot earlier than
that I'm sure he would take it anyway.

In determining where the Electra would have been to take a shot at
the sun as it first appeared I am arbitrarily using 10,000' flight
altitude and putting the plane fairly well on course. I am also using
150 MPH TAS and guessing at 20 MPH headwind. All that ought to be
reasonably close. I have no evidence to indicate otherwise so I'll
give Noonan the benefit of the doubt. <G>

This is a trial and error problem.

Alan

======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:49:27
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

Ric and Rick I've moved the Electra all over the sky and changed the
time back and forward. The sun's Zn increases to 67 degrees and then
decreases. It will NEVER be 68 degrees. The max Zn is 67 degrees.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:49:47
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

Ed, i believe the thinking so far is, the bottom antenna, lost, was the
receive antenna (and possibly "sense" antenna for use with the loop),
and the topside antenna was for transmit, since it was larger. The
transmitter did have a transfer relay. One of the late 1930s aviation
radio texts has the schematic wiring diagrams of the receiver and
transmitter. The change-over was not manual. -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:51:11
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Total post-loss time on radio

As I understood it the dorsal antenna was the one altered in an
attempt to make up for the lack of a trailing wire.  If this is the
case it was the transmitter antenna.  Which would account for Earhart
getting a signal out but having trouble receiving.  Receivers work
remarkably well with all sorts of pieces of wire as an antenna, but
transmitters need an antenna tuned close to the right length for best
operation.

I should qualify that statement by saying "years of experience have
shown me..."  I have hooked all sorts of things to trees and vehicles
to operate transmitters and receivers over the years.  Some have
resulted in permanent damage to the transmitter.  Others have worked
when they should not have worked at all.

I was once rescued after I accidentally parked my car in the branches
of a tree some considerable distance off the ground.  The CB antenna
was ripped off the car and as a radio tech I "knew" there was no
point transmitting.  Since I couldn't even get the car doors open and
the car couldn't be seen from the road, and there was no safe way to
get out the window and climb down from the tree, I amused myself
stripping some co-ax cable with my teeth and attaching a couple of
pieces of wire from my speakers to it.

I couldn't measure the correct length of wire and as I mentioned, I
was an Air Force trained radio tech, so I knew it would not work, but
my transmission was in fact picked up on skip and relayed to a town
not far from where I was.  A semi driver looked in the place
described and found my vehicle, then arranged a rescue.

One can never take the "rules" of radio propagation for granted.

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:21:36
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP

Alan says,

> Ric and Rick I've moved the Electra all over the sky and changed
> the time back and forward. The sun's Zn increases to 67 degrees
> and then decreases. It will NEVER be 68 degrees. The max Zn is 67
> degrees.

If that is true then Rick's boat navigation program is faulty and
Noonan could not have gotten a 158 338 LOP from a sun shot at any
time.  Do I recall correctly that the moon, by coincidence, also
yielded a 157 337 LOP around sunrise?  Would a moon shot just before
sunrise have resulted in a 158 338 LOP?  Earhart's "200 miles out"
estimate at 1745Z can't be based on a sun shot.  Sun's not up yet.  I
wonder if it was based on something more than pure DR, like maybe a
moon shot.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:49:03
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: The seven site

1. When you visited Niku, was it possible to wade across Tatiman
Passage and Baureke Passage during low tide ? If that was not
possible and the plane came down at Nutiran, then they might have
made their way to the Seven site from Nutiran along Aukaraime North.
Was the entire northern shore checked for signs of the castaways'
camp sites during your visits ?

2. There were some discussion on whether FN knew where they had
landed on (whether they were north or south or Howland). Regardless
of whether they knew exactly where they were, they knew that rescue
would either come from Howland (Itasca) or from Hawaii further north.
If they thought they were south of Howland, the Seven site would gave
them the best vantage point to sight any ship. If they thought they
were north of Howland, the Seven site still offered the best chance
of sighting any ship coming from either Howland or Hawaii.

3. Does the Seven site provide better shelter from the storms and
tidal surges that hit the island ? If so it will make more sense to
be at the Seven site than elsewhere on the island.

Chin
#2689
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:33:12
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: LOP

Alan and I are in agreement.   Only when basing the extraction of the ZN
from  the table (which I had considered to be part of the "computation
phase") on the N 281 latitude, and for a later date (5 July) did the
ZN  change with my computation...and then barely sufficient to "round up".
(067.5 and 067.6). We can't "reverse engineer" this approach much longer.

But Ric's Moon question was a good thought.

Here's what the moon was doing using Alan's "Purest Position" of N 00-22, and
W 178-22 on 2 July 1937.  (used an underline as a "place holder" below)

Time____ZN______LOP________HC

1515Z__073.3___163-343____38-19.5
1545Z__071.3___161-341____45-11.9
1615Z__068.3___158-338____51-58.0*
1645Z__064.0___154-334____58-33.5
1715Z__057.3___147-327____64-50.1

For comparison, using Howland Island on 2 July 1937 for computations.

1800Z__034.1___124-304____76-16.1
1900Z__337.9___068-248____75-47.2
2000Z__305.0___025-215____66-12.6
2100Z__293.3___023-203____53-25.3

The moon was just more than a sliver and may have been difficult to see after
sunrise.  AE may have had to alter heading briefly for FN to get a shot at the
later times.

Regarding my post about an observation of Betty's notebook of what looked
like an Itasca time and a Zulu time:  "3.30 500Z" The imputed "1" in brackets
was truncated from the rest of the time and it may not be clear what I was
trying to say. (that it could have represented a time of some event at 03:30
Itasca time, plus 11.5 to make it 1500Z.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:33:58
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: LOP

Why isn't it logical to think that Noonan shot the 157 / 337 sun line
shortly before 19:12 Z or 7:42 local when Rick Jones's tables show
the Howland Island LOP at 1915z as 156-336 ?

AE transmitted " we must be on you..." at 19:12 z / 7:42 local. I
don't think she could have said that if only using a watch to time
the arrival at the advanced LOP when Noonan could fix the actual LOP
through Howland with a sunshot.

The 281 message ;

   281  NORTH  HOWLAND  CALL  KHAQQ  BEYOND  NORTH  DON'T  HOLD  WITH
US  MUCH  LONGER  ABOVE  WATER  SHUT  OFF

   UNQUOTE

   KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGMENTARY
PHRASES BUT COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS 0242

When this reception was forwarded to Thompson and the Itasca from
Hawaii, it was he that determined that 281 meant miles and when
nothing was found north of Howland, it was he that put the hoax label
on the message for the reporters onboard. It has been argued on this
forum that Niku can fit into that tolerance of miles with it's
location south of Howland. If that was the case then Noonan felt that
he had to be more accurate and use 281 instead of 280. I guess his
rationale was to not have the searchers waste time searching the
other end of Niku.

When it does make sense to transmit 281 is if the numbers meant
degrees on the compass rose. Then 1 degree in several hundred miles
becomes important enough to use and convey in an SOS. Thompson had to
ignore that interpretation because of what the consequences implied.
If he believed "NORTH HOWLAND" and "BEYOND NORTH" were credible
enough to sail in that direction for hours, then applying 281 degrees
anywhere north of Howland would take them into the "Mysterious
Islands". This, for the Coast Guard and the US Navy was out of the
question.

"...So, everything seems to point toward Fred whacking his head in the
landing...Ric". Yes and Bilimon Amaran seems to confirm this when he
treated the white man that was with the lady flyer.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:24:33
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> If that is true then Rick's boat navigation program is faulty and
> Noonan could not have gotten a 158 338 LOP from a sun shot at any
> time.  Do I recall correctly that the moon, by coincidence, also
> yielded a 157 337 LOP around sunrise?  Would a moon shot just before
> sunrise have resulted in a 158 338 LOP?  Earhart's "200 miles out"
> estimate at 1745Z can't be based on a sun shot.  Sun's not up yet.  I
> wonder if it was based on something more than pure DR, like maybe a
> moon shot.

Ric, it is my belief that 67 degrees is the max. The moon DID yield a
67 degree Zn at 16:25 GMT. I am arbitrarily using a position of just
north of the equator and 179 degrees west. No particular reason for
the latitude but the longitude puts the plane west a couple hundred
miles give or take. Nothing precise about the plane's position.

Here is the data for 1800 GMT.

Celestial Navigation Data for 1937 Jul  2 at 18:00:00 UT

For Assumed Position:  Latitude    N   0 48.0
                       Longitude   W 179 00.0

Almanac |Altitude Corrections Object GHA Dec Hc  Zn |   Refr   SD   PA  Sum
Data    |
             o   '      o   '       o   '       o   |     '    '     '     '
SUN         89  02.4   N23 02.3   + 0 21.0    67.0  |    ---   --- ---   ---
MOON       167  36.9   N13 46.0   +72 49.3    40.5  |   -0.3  16.4 17.8  33.9
VENUS      137  04.8   N15 57.0   +45 59.3    67.6  |   -1.0   0.2  0.1  -0.6
JUPITER    254  24.1   S21 38.0   +13 14.7   247.5  |   -4.1   0.4  0.0  -3.7
SATURN     184  53.4   S 0 08.7   +84 02.1   260.9  |   -0.1   0.1  0.0   0.0

You will notice that Venus ALSO gives roughly a 67 degree Zn. Moving
the plane south or north by 2 degrees has NO effect on the Zn.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:24:59
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> Earhart's "200 miles out"
> estimate at 1745Z can't be based on a sun shot.  Sun's not up yet.

That's correct. The sun was slightly more than 3 degrees below the
horizon. Venus was at 69 degrees Zn but nothing at 67 degrees.

I am leaning more to a precomp.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:32:27
From:         Alan Caldwell

Ric, thinking more about this LOP issue the question is when did
Noonan think he was going to get to Howland. The preflight time we
know would get him there at dark. I could guarantee he would not plan
to arrive in the dark. He had to have daylight to find the island. In
my estimation the ideal plan would be to be able to get a star fix
then DR toward Howland using a precomp LOP based on a planned
position shortly after sunrise then shooting speed lines for the last
100 miles or so.

The down side of that argument is the requirement his estimates were
a lot better than I think he could predict. I don't think that is
fatal to the idea, however. The precomp did not have to be made at
Lae. It could have been precomped in the air at some point where he
had a far better idea of his position and rough arrival time.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:46:20
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

OK, one last thought on the LOP thing. We are trying to figure where
a 158/338 LOP could have come from. Certainly not before departing
the Howland area because Earhart said they were on 157/337. Betty's
notebook if on the 5th gives us three days for our heroes to come up
with a 158/338 line of position. Could that have been their estimate
of the line they were now on at Niku? I can't think of any other
purpose for having a bearing other than to say we are on this line
somewhere. the argument would be why didn't they say we are southeast
on a line of 158 degrees. Maybe that is not significant and that's
how Noonan called the line.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:46:38
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> From Daryll Bolinger
>
> Why isn't it logical to think that Noonan shot the 157 / 337 sun line
> shortly before 19:12 Z

Daryl, that is certainly possible and to me most likely if it was not
originally a precomp. good thought. the airplane is traveling at
about 130 MPH if still at 10,000' or so. If she has already descended
to 1,00' she is traveling at 120 MPH less headwind. Maybe 100 miles
per hour. Given the radio calls, however I'll opt for still at
altitude. At any rate during the last 100 miles or 150 miles Noonan
could certainly get enough speed lines if the sun was visible to him
to get a ground speed.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:20:03
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: LOP

We may be reading far too much into the 158/338 number than is there;
remember, it was a broken transmission.  Anyways, just as a simple
exercise, what is the angle between Niku and Howland?  Or, for that
matter, any of the other islands in the area?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:46:44
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> Anyways, just as a simple
> exercise, what is the angle between Niku and Howland?

Generally SE, Reed. You don't want to get into a precision drill here
as there wasn't much in the way of that in this case. Their
instruments weren't that precise. Flying at low level in the summer
the plane bounces around making flying a heading difficult as well as
shooting the sun. Keep in mind they had a gyro heading instrument
that precesses and has to be reset using the Whiskey compass which is
hardly a precision instrument either. Add to this that the islands
were all misplotted.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:47:33
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LOP

I suspect, based upon previous trans-pacific flights made by Earhart, that
the 200 miles out was a DR position provided her by Noonan prior to her
reporting it on the radio.  It could have been anywhere from 10 to 45
minutes before when the plane actually was there.  The distance was probably
based upon a DR extrapolation based upon a prior fix by Noonan.  It
certainly was not a celestial fix made at the time of her radio
transmission, nor very likely a timely position report. based upon analysis
of prior flight reports and navigation.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:48:14
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LOP

While not a practice at the time, I disagree that AE and FN shouldn't arrive
at dark prior to sunrise.  Having spent several years in oceanography
recovering gear that pops up from the seafloor, our standard operating
procedure was to recover things at night, primarily because we could see the
attached flashing light easily.  For the aviators, arriving an hour or so
before dawn would give them the opportunity to see a bon fire on the island
from the air, as well as a search light from the Itasca.  Each of these
visual aides would have certainly helped guide them to Howland.

There is nothing in the written record to indicate these ideas were considered
in planning the flight.

I'd rather attempt to land the plane in the dark then contemplate ditching
the plane in the ocean should I be unable to find the island.  AE and FN
were extremely lucky to find Niku (if the hypothesis is true) with the
available gas left to them.  They would have been better to loiter around
Howland in the dark for an hour or so, in my not so humble opinion.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:48:43
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LOP

The 158 line may be the "true" line from Niku to Howland, given Howland's
original reported position, and not the mag.  Can anyone check on that?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:49:51
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP

Daryll Bollinger says:

> When it does make sense to transmit 281 is if the numbers meant
> degrees on the compass rose. Then 1 degree in several hundred miles
> becomes important enough to use and convey in an SOS. Thompson had
> to ignore that interpretation because of what the consequences
> implied. If he believed "NORTH HOWLAND" and "BEYOND NORTH" were
> credible enough to sail in that direction for hours, then applying
> 281 degrees anywhere north of Howland would take them into the
> "Mysterious Islands". This, for the Coast Guard and the US Navy was
> out of the question.

Let's consider the possibility that "281" was degrees, not miles.
The intended phrase then becomes "281 degrees north Howland."  For
that phrase to have meaning we need a preposition.

281 degrees north of Howland?  No, you can't be 281 degrees north of
anything.  281 degrees is a direction, not a location.

281 degrees north to Howland?  That would put them in open ocean
somewhere north of the Phoenix Group.

281 degrees north from Howland?  281 degrees north from Howland puts
them near Marakei in the British Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony.
Nothing mysterious about those islands. In fact, Itasca and Swan
visited most of the Gilberts later in the search.

In order to put the airplane in the Marshalls (which is what I
presume you mean by the "Mysterious Islands") you have to postulate
that the message was intended to say something like,
"We are 281 degrees from a point north of Howland."

> Bilimon Amaran seems to confirm this when he treated the white man
> that was with the lady flyer.

Yes, it's almost always possible to find someone who tells a story
that fits your theory.  We have Emily Sikuli.  You have Bilimon
Amaran.  David Billings has Corporal Angwin.  Dave Jourdan has Elgen
Long.  That's why we can't rely on stories.

Ric

Ric Gillespie
Executive Director
TIGHAR
www.tighar.org
tigharic@mac.com

author of
"Finding Amelia - The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance"
Published by the Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:51:19
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The seven site

Chin Koon Fun asks:

> 1. When you visited Niku, was it possible to wade across Tatiman
> Passage and Baureke Passage during low tide ?

I have waded across Tatiman on one of the early trips but it wasn't
much fun. We were up to our bellies in water and the sharks hassled
us.  Since then, we either cross by boat or take the long way around
and go out near the ocean on the reef flat at low tide.  It sounds
counterintuitive, but the water is much shallower out near the edge
of the reef than in closer to shore.  Bauareke is quite deep and not
wade-able but, again, there's no need to.  Just walk across out on the
reef.  Piece of cake.

> If that was not possible and the plane came down at Nutiran, then
> they might have made their way to the Seven site from Nutiran along
> Aukaraime North.

Certainly the north shore is the most direct route from Nutiran to
the Seven Site but there's no particular reason to think that they
went directly there.  If I was a castaway, I'd want to explore the
whole island to pick the best spot.

> Was the entire northern shore checked for signs of the castaways'
> camp sites during your visits ?

That might be possible if we had the entire 1st Cavalry Division with
us, but they're currently busy elsewhere.

> 2. There were some discussion on whether FN knew where they had
> landed on (whether they were north or south or Howland). Regardless
> of whether they knew exactly where they were, they knew that rescue
> would either come from Howland (Itasca) or from Hawaii further
> north. If they thought they were south of Howland, the Seven site
> would gave them the best vantage point to sight any ship. If they
> thought they were north of Howland, the Seven site still offered
> the best chance of sighting any ship coming from either Howland or
> Hawaii.

No doubt about it.  The Seven Site is (or rather, was) the best place
to hang out.

> 3. Does the Seven site provide better shelter from the storms and
> tidal surges that hit the island? If so it will make more sense to
> be at the Seven site than elsewhere on the island.

The Seven Site is on the side of the island that regularly gets
pounded by waved driven by the Easterly Trades. It's routinely
rougher, noisier, and windier there than over on the lee side, but
the beach is steeply sloped and there's a low ridge that runs down
the length of the island in that area.  There no evidence that waves
- even storm surges - ever come ashore as far as the ridge and, if
you camp on the ridge you get the cooling breeze of the Trades.  When
really heavy weather hits the island it comes out of the northwest
so, at those times, the Seven Site is actually on the lee side.

Whoever made their camp at the Seven Site had the island pretty well
figured out.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:07:20
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: LOP

AE did know when the sun would rise over Howland, the time, and when
she saw the sun rise.  Wouldn't this give her a rough idea of her
longitude?
Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:08:16
From:         Dave Osgood
Subject:      Usable fuel

There have been some discussions recently about how much fuel may
have been left when AE arrived at Niku and whether the total radio
time of the post loss messages could have been accomplished using the
remaining fuel.  There have also been some discussions recently about
the possible damage to the plane during the landing with the current
hypothesis stated that the port side gear may have collapsed with a
resultant permanent list to port.  It's also been stated that
transmitting with the radio required the starboard engine to be
running due to the high current necessary for the dynamotor.

I have a general understanding of the full tank arrangement in the
plane that includes sizeable tanks in the cabin and a tank in each
wing as well.  If this is true, did each engine draw from its
corresponding wing tank which in turn was fed by the cabin tanks via
gravity or pumps?  Were there any provisions in the entire fuel
system to prevent fuel from pooling in undesirable locations such as
baffles and/or one way check valves?  Was it possible to pump fuel
from one wing to the other?  Did the fuel pickups in the wing tanks
accommodate for a permanent list to one side or the other?

The reason why I bring up these issues is one of total full left in
the plane vs. total USEABLE fuel left in the plane when it arrived at  
=20=

Niku.  If the plane is on the ground with a permanent list to port
due to gear damage, was there any possibility that most of the
remaining fuel could have accumulated in the port wing tank due to
gravity and thus making it difficult or impossible for the starboard
side engine to run?  With such a limited amount of fuel on board at
landing, it seems as if where the fuel was located and the attitude
of the plane could have been critical for how much radio time was
available.

Dave Osgood 2353CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:02:58
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: LOP

> From Alan Caldwell
>
>
>> Anyways, just as a simple
>> exercise, what is the angle between Niku and Howland?
>>
>
> Generally SE, Reed. You don't want to get into a precision drill
> here as there wasn't much in the way of that in this case. Their
> instruments weren't that precise. Flying at low level in the summer
> the plane bounces around making flying a heading difficult as well
> as shooting the sun. Keep in mind they had a gyro heading
> instrument that precesses and has to be reset using the Whiskey
> compass which is hardly a precision instrument either. Add to this
> that the islands were all misplotted.

Yes, Alan, all of that is true, if I was asking about their course in
the air.  However, that is not the bit I was getting at.....

> From Randy Jacobson
>
> The 158 line may be the "true" line from Niku to Howland, given
> Howland's
> original reported position, and not the mag.  Can anyone check on
> that?

If Noonan is on the ground, and has a map and his instruments, then
he can take a reading and figure out how far from Howland and what
angle.  Some of the numbers we see in the various messages are likely
related to such measurements.  So, the question is what are the
actual measurements?  And, what would Noonan have plotted on the
charts he had?  If Niku is 281 (miles, degrees, furlongs) from
anything, that may help us understand the messages.

					Reed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Research Scientist, Thirty Meter Telescope Corporation Site Testing
Program
2632 E. Washington Blvd.
Pasadena, CA 91107
Homepage:  http://web.mac.com/drriddle/iWeb/Home/home.html

"This life has been a test.  If it had been an actual life, you would
   have received actual instructions on where to go and what to do."
                                  -- Angela Chase, "My so-called life"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:03:26
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

Randy, was there a bon fire and search light? And I don't think you
would want to try a landing on an unlit short field at night.

In Vietnam I put a C-130 down on a short muddy dirt runway
illuminated solely by two 55 gallon drums of lit kerosene at the
corners of one end of the runway. I would never try that again.

When our heroes arrived wherever at 1912 GMT Earhart said they were
low on fuel. Doesn't sound like they had much in the way of loiter fuel.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:03:48
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Regarding this red-algae/aluminum question, let's not forget that the
Electra was painted with orange - close to red - leading edges and
horizontal stabilizers. It could be that what looked like a strut to Emily
may have been the leading edge of the wing, edge-on, and clearly a reddish
color.

It's a thought.

Ltm
Jon
2266
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:04:16
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> From Randy Jacobson
>
> The 158 line may be the "true" line from Niku to Howland, given Howland's
> original reported position, and not the mag.  Can anyone check on that?

You're correct, Randy. The mag variation was - 9.5. 158 degrees mag
would have really messed them up. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:44:24
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LOP

Oh my!  Apparently, I mis-wrote the original reply.  I meant that the 158
line might be the true line from Niku to the reported position of Howland
and not the true line from Niku to the real position of Howland.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:44:44
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LOP

There was a bon fire on Howland, but it was only lit when it was thought
Earhart was lost.  I did not mean to imply that AE should try landing at
night; rather, if she took off from Lae a bit earlier (perhaps 2 hours
earlier), she would have arrived at Howland about an hour before dawn, and
could have used a bonfire and a searchlight on Itasca as beacons to help
find the island.  She did have loiter fuel, as she already spent about 2
hours searching for Howland prior to her last message.  If there was no
loiter fuel available, then she would have spent it all in transit, and not
having any reserve fuel would have meant she would have to ditch short of
Howland.

In hindsight, this is another example of poor planning or missed
opportunities.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:45:55
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> If Niku is 281 (miles, degrees, furlongs) from
> anything, that may help us understand the messages.

It's not.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:46:25
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli

Jon Watson wrote:

> Regarding this red-algae/aluminum question, let's not forget that the
> Electra was painted with orange - close to red - leading edges and
> horizontal stabilizers. It could be that what looked like a strut to Emily
> may have been the leading edge of the wing, edge-on, and clearly a reddish
> color.

A helpful one, too.
LTM, William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:47:24
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: LOP

"..In order to put the airplane in the Marshalls (which is what I
presume you mean by the "Mysterious Islands") you have to postulate
that the message was intended to say something like,
"We are 281 degrees from a point north of Howland." Ric"

Yes. That's my take on trying to fill in the words to make sense of
what was received. Microsoft's recreation of the earth / world in
their flight simulator and their version of a GPS makes the southern
end of the Marshall's accessible on a 281 degree heading from roughly
a point 50 miles north of Howland.

    281  NORTH  HOWLAND  CALL  KHAQQ  BEYOND  NORTH  DON'T  HOLD  WITH
US  MUCH  LONGER  ABOVE  WATER  SHUT  OFF

The message was described as fragmentary and there was no clue as to
the length of the pauses between fragments. "BEYOND" what is a good
question. It would seem that Noonan was trying to relate to some kind
of restraint that was exceeded in the approach or navigation to
Howland or BEYOND something that was current to their location.

"DON'T  HOLD  WITH  US  MUCH  LONGER" could very well relate to
battery power that was remaining for transmissions.

"ABOVE  WATER  SHUT  OFF" could be an attempt to explain intermittent
transmissions when the radio was shut-off due to fluctuating water
levels, i.e. tides.

I am suspicious that the entire 281 reception was NOT forwarded to
the Itasca from Hawaii. Consider this telegram that GPP saved. It
carries a July 5th time stamp, same as the 281 message. In reading
this telegram replace "EMINENT PSYCHIC" with NAVY RADIO WALIUPE . 200
miles seems coincidental to the interpretation that 281 meant miles
and that the Itasca was steaming northwest at this moment to rescue
them. Notice that Earhart is in better condition than Noonan which
fits with his head injury scenario from the source of your choosing.


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

WESTERN      UNION

?A100 67  DL=CD  NEWYORK NY JUL 5  1937  458P

OPERATIONS MANAGER=
                 OAKLAND AIRPORT OAKLAND CALIF :

=PLEASE GET THIS INFORMATION TO GEORGE PUTNAM EMINENT PSYCHIC
SAYS BOTH SAFE ON REEF LESS THAN 200 MILES NORTH WEST OF
HOWLAND ISLAND PLANE PRETTY WELL CRACKED UP BUT BOTH ARE SAFE
MISS EARHART IN BETTER SHAPE THAN NOONAN ITASCA WILL FIND THEM
IN MORNING THEIR TIME HASTE IS NECESSARY BUT THEY WILL BE
RESCUED PLEASE TAKE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH FROM WELL WISHER

                                              =UNSIGNED.
                                                          225PM.

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

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:11:55
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP

Alan Caldwell says:

>> If Niku is 281 (miles, degrees, furlongs) from
>> anything, that may help us understand the messages.
>
> It's not.

The southeastern part of Niku is 281 nautical miles from the
equator.  A local noon celestial observation gives you latitude, in
this case 4 degrees 41 minutes South.  If latitude is the only
information you have, and you don't know the name of the island, and
if you're mashing out morse code using a push-to-talk switch and
trying to conserve fuel/battery, are you going to send "4 degrees 41
minutes south" or "line 281 north"?


Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:03:19
From:         Dennis Mcgee
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

Randy Jacobson said:  " . . . if she took off from Lae a bit earlier
(perhaps 2 hours earlier), she would have arrived at Howland about an
hour before dawn, and could have used a bonfire and a searchlight on
Itasca as beacons to help find the island."

Only if Noonan was spot on in his navigation.  Ric's (?) belief is
that he came in as much as 50 miles south of Howland.  At that
distance she wouldn't have seen anything regardless of her altitude,
would she?  Even at 10,000 feet the visual range is about 30 (?)
miles.  But wasn't she was also dealing with an undercast that
would've hampered her line-of-sight observations?  So, if Noonan's
error was as large as people are now theorizing, they could've blown
up the Itasca and she wouldn't have seen it.

LTM, who blows up frequently
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:54:02
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: LOP

For Alan Caldwell:

Alan, can you help me on some questions re: FN's navigational
techniques and
those commonly used at that time?

1.  Charts:  Were they Mercator or what?  On the S. Atlantic chart
(FA's CD), it is difficult to tell because of the low latitude.

2.  I believe the Electra's IAS was in MPH.  Did they use Knots or
MPH for radio calls/position reports? (e.g. 200 hundred miles out)

3.  Did FN navigate using nautical miles or statute miles.  It looks like his
preplanned hourly tic marks of 150 miles plotted on the S Atlantic chart may
have been statute miles, but it's difficult to tell. I would think with his
background as a mariner though,  he would follow nautical convention.

4.  Do the archives have any of his celestial computations in them?  Are
there copies anywhere on the TIGHAR website?  I am curious about the
navigation that ended with the landing at St. Louis vs. Dakar.

Thanks for your mentoring.

Rick J #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:58:37
From:         Chris Ferro
Subject:      The Forum

I don't know if the list is still "open" at this point, but I wanted to
say I am pleased to see the group is still as vigorous as ever. I had
the privilege of making some maps for TIGHAR's web site a few years ago
(and I see at least one map lives on, though much better presented -
great job Pat!). When resources permit, I'll rejoin the group, but
until then, keep up the great work. Good luck with Niku V.

Christopher Ferro

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

Yes, it's still open, under the usual rules of on-topic and
substantive, and no insults or attacks unless they're really funny.

And I still use your basic maps as the first layer for many of our
graphics, Chris.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:05:24
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> From Randy Jacobson
>
> Oh my!  Apparently, I mis-wrote the original reply.  I meant that
> the 158 line might be the true line from Niku to the reported
> position of Howland and not the true line from Niku to the real
> position of Howland.

I knew that. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:05:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> In hindsight, this is another example of poor planning or missed
> opportunities.

No question about that. Wouldn't a bon fire and searchlight have
changed history. They sure would have beat out DF.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:25:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

Daryll, being a cynic as everyone knows, I have absolutely zero
confidence in a psychic.

The 281 message clearly should not be read as a whole or as the
entire message. It makes no sense at all in its present form. You
made a good try to do so but I think there must be some other sense
to it.

Also I don't think 281 could refer to miles. That's too precise. No
one could know their position at that distance down to the last mile.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:25:30
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> The southeastern part of Niku is 281 nautical miles from the
> equator.  A local noon celestial observation gives you latitude, in
> this case 4 degrees 41 minutes South.  If latitude is the only
> information you have, and you don't know the name of the island, and
> if you're mashing out morse code using a push-to-talk switch and
> trying to conserve fuel/battery, are you going to send "4 degrees 41
> minutes south" or "line 281 north"?

Too precise, Ric. They couldn't know their position to the mile.
Perhaps "4 40 south" or "about 280 south of the equator."

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:25:53
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Navigation

I can answer these questions.  The maps were Mercator projections.

I don't know about the gauges in the Electra, but AE and FN used both
nautical and statute miles depending upon where they were.  Noonan liked
statute miles across the Atlantic, as it was easy to plot 150 mile
projections (once an hour).

Both Bob Brandenburg and I have dissected the Oakland to Honolulu flight and
the cross-atlantic flight, and uncovered the celestial fixes used. See the
Eighth Edition of the Earhart Project for details.  The cross-atlantic
crossing was very different than described in Last Flight.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:26:16
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

> So, if Noonan's error was as large as people are now theorizing,
> they could've blown up the Itasca and she wouldn't have seen it.

NOW you think of it. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:38:14
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

Rick, I was five years old then. I believe Randy and a couple of the
other guys can give you far better answers than I can. I CAN tell you
her panel instrument was in MPH. When I was flying everything was in
knots after flying school. Maps are in statute miles but there was a
lot of back and forth between the two in practice.

Earhart said she was going to fly at 150 MPH.

We DO have Noonan's work from California out to Hawaii on the first
and aborted flight. I haven't seen that although I have been privy to
most of the information. The guys who have seen that data will jump
in here and set you straight.

We also know Noonan like my navigators did not like making little
corrections on long legs but instead would get a fix periodically
then alter to destination off the last fix near the end of the
flight. My navs used sun lines and THREE star fixes -- rarely the
moon or planets. Noonan used mostly two star fixes. (Am I right?)

We have had a lot of discussions about the offset technique where the
navigator offsets to one side of course so that upon reaching final
ETA he knows which way to turn to destination. I think the general
consensus is that Noonan did not purposefully offset Howland.

When he had DF Noonan would fly to near destination and get a DF
bearing in to his target. As you know by now our heroes thought they
would have a DF steer from Itasca and be able to use their own DF
equipment. Alas that was not to be.

As to the Dakar incident, Ric would love to answer that one. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:38:44
From:         Roger Ciere
Subject:      Re: LOP

There may be something to that.  281 miles.  Niku is considered 300
miles from AE's last reported position.  Maybe she was 19 miles south
of where she thought Howland should be when she reported "we are
circle'n"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:39:10
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      Re: LOP

Could 281 north mean something  phoenetically?  Could it have been
misheard as 281
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:39:34
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: LOP

Maybe I'm going to draw a lot of flak, but what if Fred Noonan, having been
smashed on the head with an Electra, is so confused he forgets that south of
the Equator the Sun stands in the North ? I've met plenty of people in my
life saying "left" when they actually mean "right". And they were under less
strain than FN. In this case isn't it thinkable that having shot the Sun
red Noonan then calculated their position as 281 miles south of the line
(the Equator). Being confused by the crash and with the search for Howland
in the nearby northern hemisphere still haunting him, he is convinced the
Sun should be standing in the south. Hence his message to be 281 miles north
of the line.

There is no way to prove this. It is just a way to try and understand the
message and to explain possible irrational behaviour.

LTM (who one day met an admiral who had written "backboard" and "starboard"
on the inside of his cap)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:44:43
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: LOP

"Daryll, being a cynic as everyone knows, I have absolutely zero
confidence in a psychic....Alan"

I feel the same way, that's why I asked the readers to replace those
two words with NAVY RADIO WALIUPE. I wanted to briefly suspend the
initial prejudice and concentrate on the content of the telegram.

Remember, in those years the Navy and US government's successful code
breaking efforts was referred to as "Magic". The use of metaphors in
open communications or discussions can offer plausible deni-ability
and deflect attention from the true source.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:45:17
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      AE's search vessels

Do we have navigation logs of the primary search vessels showing
where they were on July 5, 1937?

With regard to the 281 message, could it have been that AE heard some
ship give its position report that it was 281 (degrees, statue or
nautical miles, etc) north of Howland?  If she had missed the
vessel's name but heard the 281 maybe what we have recorded is her
attempt to have that vessel call KHAQQ.  She may have also said that
the vessel had to call back quickly because she couldn't hold on the
radio much longer because the water level will require her to shut off.

We know that she did hear the Itasca's "A's" at one point en route
and Betty's note book records AE as saying "hear put your hear to it"
and "hear it."  Perhaps AE was able to pick up bits and pieces of
search vessel transmissions and was trying to reply to them for help.

One final question Ric, does Betty recall how she heard the numbers
from AE that she recorded?  e.g. was 58 338 heard as five, eight,
three, three, eight or fifty-eight, three hundred thirty-eight or
some other combination.

If we can get a sense of how she heard the numbers reported then
maybe we can get a better idea of what might be missing in the
messages that Betty did report.  An example: in Betty's record "fig
8" could be reasonably explained as fifty-eight but if she heard
"five, eight" getting fifty-eight would be a little stretch.

Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:45:41
From:         Chin Koon Fun
Subject:      Re: LOP

Yes I an equally curious on the landing at St Louis.
One school of thought claimed that AE messed up and another
blamed it on FN's navigation.

Whatever happened there might have some bearing on their decision
making when they realised they were not on Howland.

Chin Koon Fun
#2689
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:46:30
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: LOP

> Daryll Bolinger wrote:
>
> Microsoft's recreation of the earth / world in their flight
> simulator and their version of a GPS makes the southern end of the
> Marshall's accessible on a 281 degree heading from roughly a point
> 50 miles north of Howland...
> 	(edited)
> ...In reading this telegram replace "EMINENT PSYCHIC" with NAVY
> RADIO WALIUPE.

1)  Microsoft Flight Simulator is a game, NOT a navigational aid. The
programmers' main focus is making wonderful, realistic imagery for
your monitor that's also easy to use.  For them, "navigation" is
helping gamers & simmers wend their way through menus.  Using this
software to find real places is like using Monopoly as your only
retirement planning advice.  (I'm not slamming MS Flight Sim - loads
of fun.)

2)  Why?  Was Jeanne Dixon or Sylvia Browne working for the Navy in
Hawai'i but vacationing in New York?

LTM, who never let us spend too much time playing games,
Amanda
--
#2418CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:49:16
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: Navigation

For Randy Jacobson or Pat,

Could you give me the URL for the celestial data of the S. Atlantic
Crossing (Eighth Edition of Earhart Project).

By the way, for those interested in recently discussed navigational topics, this
would be a good time to re-read FN's 1935 Pan Am memo on the FA DVD. Wow!

Rick J
***************************************

Try

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ResearchPapers/Worldflight/prepdepart.html
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:11:23
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP


> Niku is considered 300 miles from AE's last reported position.

Where did that come from Roger? Her last reported position other than
"we must be on you" was at 159 degrees 7' E, 4 degrees 33' S. You'll
confuse folks. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:11:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> From Herman De Wulf (2406)
>
> Maybe I'm going to draw a lot of flak, but what if Fred Noonan,
> having been smashed on the head with an Electra, is so confused he
> forgets that south of the Equator the Sun stands in the North ?

No flak from me, Herman. Not a bad thought.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:12:19
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> I wanted to briefly suspend the
> initial prejudice and concentrate on the content of the telegram.

Daryll, you have a good point here wherein we often tend to lock in
on things when we really need to be more open to other ideas. Not the
Marshalls however. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:12:40
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> maybe what we have recorded is her attempt to have that vessel call
> KHAQQ.

Ted, that occurred to me to as the message at that juncture makes
more sense, at least to me.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:13:56
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

Amanda writes:

> Microsoft Flight Simulator is a game, NOT a navigational aid.

Spoil sport.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:17:44
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: LOP

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Amanda writes:
>
>> Microsoft Flight Simulator is a game, NOT a navigational aid.
>
> Spoil sport.
>
> Alan

Sorry, Alan.  It's just that when you've flown the shuttle landing
simulator, everything else pales.  ;-)

LTM, who got tired of trying to explain to her grandchildren that
their great grandpa didn't fly his DC3 using a keyboard and a mouse.
Amanda
--
#2418CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:34:58
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: LOP

Herman,

That is a mistake that an experienced navigator is not going to make,
no matter how confused they are.  In the summer, the Sun is way to
the north, so you're even less likely to make that error.  As an
astronomer, that is a mistake that I would never make when looking at
the Sun, and Noonan should have had much more experience calculating
his position from the sky than I do.

					Reed

> From Herman De Wulf (2406)
>
> Maybe I'm going to draw a lot of flak, but what if Fred Noonan, having been
> smashed on the head with an Electra, is so confused he forgets that south of
> the Equator the Sun stands in the North ?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:29:03
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

> In the summer, the Sun is way to
> the north, so you're even less likely to make that error.

Reed, I'm cheating since I visited my daughter in Australia but I
have to tell you a secret. In the summer here in the northern
hemisphere it is winter below the equator.

In July (of any year including 1937) here in Texas it has always been
summer but at the same time it has always been winter below the equator.

OK, I was being tacky. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:29:23
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: LOP

I think history is making too much out of the St Louis landing.  When
you consider that almost the entire flight across the South Atlantic
was "Blind flying" (on instruments), and the fact that when they made
landfall in Africa the visibility was down to 1/2 mile, it's a wonder
they found any airport at all.   Also, their radio was out of order
for the crossing.  Fred said that it was the worst weather they had
encountered so far.  That meant that navigational aids, (i.e., radio
beacons, celestial navigation, and pilotage) could not be used at
all.  All they had was Dead Reckoning for 10 of the 13 hours in
flight.  And still they only missed by I think it was 20 miles.  I
think they did pretty darn good.

Don J.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:39:33
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: LOP

Alan, we always call the Earhart flight a "summer" flight, which is
where the reference came from.  The flight didn't become a flight
during the "winter of 1937" when they crossed the equator.

And, you do realize that astronomers are the ones that explained how
the seasons work, right?  I think I know a fair bit about that
stuff.....  ;)

					Reed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Research Scientist, Thirty Meter Telescope Corporation Site Testing Program
2632 E. Washington Blvd.
Pasadena, CA 91107
Homepage:  http://web.mac.com/drriddle/iWeb/Home/home.html

"This life has been a test.  If it had been an actual life, you would
   have received actual instructions on where to go and what to do."
                                  -- Angela Chase, "My so-called life"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:41:48
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: LOP

Reed,

I understand your point. It seems hard to believe such a monumental error
could have happened, not with Fred Noonan. But then what's the answer? What
was he trying to tell with the 281 message ? It makes no sense. Unless one
allows for human error.

There are a lot of things experienced pilots would never do. Like flying a
reciprocal course by mistake. Or fly a state of the art airliner into a
mountain notwithstanding GPWS0. These things are known to have happened.
Human error is a major cause for flying accidents today as it was 70 years
ago. As I said, we'll never be able to prove it but I just wonder if this
could possibly be the explanation for the senseless 281 message which is
leading us nowhere.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:42:37
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: AE's search vessels

We do have the nav logs of all the primary search vessels during July 5, and
they were all far away from the 281 nm line north of Howland of the time of
the reported reception.  During the day, the Itasca, Swan and the commercial
vessel Moorby converged on that line and searched it during the early hours
of the evening.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:43:08
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Navigation

The celestial data for the crossing of the S. Atlantic consisted solely of
sun shots, primarily at noon, and a late afternoon LOP.  Since it was
daylight, there were few stars to make fixes upon.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:43:43
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

I think you missed the point Reed. Regardless of what "they" called
the flight it was still winter below the equator as you well know.
And the point that was made that Noonan might have been dazed and
confused was a good one in my opinion. your comment that no good
navigator would make that mistake I assume did not include dazed and
confused ones.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:03:20
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: LOP

Actually, I have stood on several mountains at altitude in Chile, as
have my colleagues at work.  At high enough altitudes, you can get
very dazed and confused.  None of us have ever managed to get north
and south mixed up.  And, even if Noonan had it wrong the first day,
he and Earhart would have sorted it out after the first sunrise on
Gardner, or the first time Noonan took a latitude measurement at
local noon.

But, all of this really is pointless speculation...without more
information we can put all kinds of meanings into the 281 message, or
any of the others that were heard as broken up sets of words.  The
message strengths and directions, and messages that were heard in
immediate responses to calls to Earhart, are the strongest
indications of what happened to the Electra.

					Reed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:33:35
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP

Chin Koon Fun wrote:

> Yes I an equally curious on the landing at St Louis.
> One school of thought claimed that AE messed up and another
> blamed it on FN's navigation.
>
> Whatever happened there might have some bearing on their decision
> making when they realised they were not on Howland.

There is really no question about what happened.  See pages 41-45 of
Finding Amelia.

The map Noonan used on that flight (in the Purdue collection) and
Noonan's June 9 letter to Eugene Pallette (on the Finding Amelia
DVD)  and it tells the whole story.

In a nutshell, they hit the African coast well south of Dakar, turned
northward, decided to by pass Dakar due to very poor visibility, and
deliberately proceeded on to St. Louis.

There was no disagreement between Earhart and Noonan.  Earhart made
up that story, apparently to avoid potential French disciplinary
action for landing at an airport other than Dakar.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:43:32
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: LOP

> From Herman De Wulf (2406)
>
> Maybe I'm going to draw a lot of flak, but what if Fred Noonan, having been
> smashed on the head with an Electra, is so confused he forgets that south of
> the Equator the Sun stands in the North ?

No flak from me on this. Although after re-reading 'Finding Amelia'
and more posts on the subject, I find myself a bit dissuaded from
this, it's interesting to ponder as the impact of this scenario,
simple as it is, touches quite a few puzzle pieces of this mystery at
the end of the flight.

What if Fred was injured well before landing on Niku?

A minor stroke, or other injury from climbing around in the cabin
getting to or from the nav station.

A pre-flight LOP plotted at estimated location at sunrise based upon
no 'unusual' weather based upon experience. An extended LOP, again
plotted in Lae based upon 'best guess' distance/time measurement.
Perhaps a mid flight confirmation of time/distance. Then an injured
Fred. No late N/S correction and Amelia having no way to no where on
the line she may be. She heads north and then south, is lucky to find
Gardner, but really has no firm idea where she is. Fred has recovered
enough to make some radio calls, but may have been further injured (or
not) upon the landing on Gardner. Really, a pretty terrifying scenario
considering the communication difficulties in the cabin during flight.

Totally uproveable. Sorry to create more noise on the board, but I
find this pretty darn interesting.

Bob
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:44:37
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

Herman I was at 20,000' over Vietnam heading for Qui Nhon on the
coast. I had my long time regular navigator and crew. The nav was
making a teardrop radar approach to the field in weather. On his
signal I started my let down to 3,000' on what was supposed to be an
out bound leg heading out to sea. Then I was to turn about 180
degrees inbound to the field letting down to 500.' But I thought we
were going in the wrong direction and instead of heading out to sea I
thought my nav was heading me into Qui Nhon mountain. He assured me
he wasn't but I over rode his decision and turned 180 in what I
thought was really out to sea.

Well as you guessed I was right -- or I wouldn't be telling the
story. <G>

My nav was devastated that with his many years of experience he
almost got us killed.

I can assure you those kinds of mistakes ARE made. And Calvin wasn't
even dazed. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:44:55
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

I agree, Reed. We can speculate endlessly. The message is not making
sense to me but given it wasn't really received in the nice tight
form we are used to seeing there is little chance we'll work it out.
Too many possibilities.

The only brush I have had with hypoxia other than in the altitude
chamber was at 25,000' over a country I wasn't supposed to be over
bombing a Viet Cong access road off the side of a mountain. I was off
oxygen with my head out the paratroop door trying to get 35mm film of
the results without losing my camera. I had an oxygen bottle by my
side and as things got blurry I would take a big whiff.

But to get back on point I am certain someone will tumble on to a
combination of the 281 message and speculations that will either give
us the correct sense of the message or turn on someone's light bulb.
That's why I encourage the free thinking ideas even if they sound too
far fetched for some.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:49:32
From:         David Billings
Subject:      Paige Miller's challenge

I refer you to an e-mail in the TIGHAR Archives from Pat Gaston to
Paige Miller, dated 19th of December 2002 (12/19/02).

Paige invited personnel to respond to Richard Gillespie's claim that
the TIGHAR Hypothesis was correct.  Pat Gaston replied and it makes
interesting reading....

Basically, Tighar members should take a good hard look at the Hypothesis.
Forget the euphoria, get down to hard evidence.

David Billings
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:49:56
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: AE's search vessels

Randy,
Do any of the logs indicate one of the ships being on a heading of
281 from Howland?  We don't know what units of measure the 281
message referred to.

Ted
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:50:57
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      281 message

Why all the new confusion regarding the 281 message?  It was a
fragmentary, poorly heard message that was almost unintelligible.
If, as TIGHAR now holds, it was sent by AE/FN using the PTT as a
crude morse key, what would be the shortest way to say that they were
281 miles south of the equator?  (which, as Ric has pointed out, Niku
is)  I remember some discussion regarding navigator jargon on this
forum years ago, and if I recall correctly, the word "line" refers to
the equator.  So, if you're getting a nav. fix of some kind while
standing on a particular chunk of Niku real estate, "281 north line"
is navigator shorthand for your current latitude, 281 miles south of
the equator.  If FN has been injured, and AE has been trying to
transpose some of his notes into morse, the above seems quite
plausible, does it not?

Incidentally, the 281 message was not always viewed in this light by
TIGHAR.  Its fragmentary and cryptic nature made even the 281 miles
from the Equator to Niku seem coincidental at best.  It was only when
Ric did the monumental study of all the post-loss radio receptions
that the peices fell into place and the 281 message got a closer
look.  The point of which is that TIGHAR did not first compose a
theory and then go out looking for evidence which supported it.
Initial testing of the Niku hypothesis tended to discount the 281
message.  Later, after the hypothesis became more refined as more
data came to light, previously discounted evidence was re-examined,
and given new credibility.  Just as important, none of the above was
done in secret.  Anyone who wished to was free to follow the
discussion on the forum, and members could even ask questions during
the process.  I know I've said it before, but this open-ness and
flexibility to new data is what separates TIGHAR from other Earhart
research organizations, and I'm proud to be a part of it.

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:00:41
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Paige Miller's challenge

For David Billings

<<Basically, Tighar members should take a good hard look at the Hypothesis.
Forget the euphoria, get down to hard evidence.>>

Duh.  David, what do you think we've been doing for the last 19 years?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:52:19
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Paige's challenge

David, I think you are referring to the following note on the 18th
rather than the 19th.

I'll take a shot at it, Paige.  First of all, let me emphasize that I
don't know whether Ric is wrong or right.  Having said that, here are
some problems I see with the Niku Hypothesis:

> 1.  The 1940 bones:  Gallagher first identified them as a woman's.
> This identification was based, apparently, on part of a shoe sole
> (at least Gallagher gave no other basis for his conclusion).  No
> personal effects, clothing, hair, etc., were found near the
> remains.  Gallagher confidently identified the shoe as
> approximately a women's size 10.  Assuming he was using British
> sizes, this would translate to a US woman's 11 or 12 -- far too big
> for Earhart, who wore a 7-8.

David, Pat cannot "assume" the shoe size was British and neither Pat
nor anyone else knows Earhart's shoe size. We have debated that and
done all kinds of photo forensics and have not pinned that down.

> The only medical men who actually saw and handled the bones (Isaac
> and Hoodless) agreed that they came from a male and had been
> exposed for a long time, perhaps 20 years.  Burns' and Jantz' "re-
> analysis" calls this conclusion into question.  However, what Burns
> and Jantz didn't tell you is that the pelvic bones are regarded as
> the most reliable indicator of gender. Hoodless' identification of
> the remains as male is based upon firsthand observation and
> measurement of a partial pelvis (the "innominate bone") and
> associated structures.  Burns and Jantz' identification of the
> remains as >possibly< those of a female is based upon a
> computerized "re-interpretation" of Hoodless' cranial measurements
> -- a less reliable indicator.  And even then it's a verrrrry close
> call.

David, there is more to research than cursory looks. Hoodless was a
teacher and then somehow added a medical education and was mostly an
administrator. There is no information to indicate he had the
necessary qualifications as a forensic osteologist. There is no
evidence Isaac actually examined the bones other than by implication.
Dr. Burns, however, IS a forensic osteologist with great experience
in the field. FORDISK is a highly reputable tool although nothing is
a sure thing. the data input was NOT just the cranial measurements
and the reason Karen did not tell us the pelvic bones were the most
reliable indicator of sex is because that isn't so due to the wide
variations in men and women. The age of the bones could not be
reliably determined but there was nothing to eliminate the bones as a
possible.

> Further, Earhart's skull should have had a dime-sized hole in
> either or both maxillae, resulting from Caldwell-Luc operations
> performed at Massachusetts General Hospital in 1928 and at Cedars
> of Lebanon Hospital, Los Angeles, in June 1935.  (It is unclear
> whether Dr. Joseph Goldstein, the 1935 surgeon, performed a second
> Caldwell-Luc or simply re-opened the 1928 portal).  A recent
> medical study at the University of Reykjavik  found that, in about
> 70% of patients who underwent Caldwell-Luc surgery, the drainage
> holes remained open >four to seven years< after the procedure;  in
> 1937 Earhart was only two years out from the Goldstein surgery.
> TIGHAR speculates that the telltale surgical holes couldn't be seen
> because the skull's maxillae were  missing, but cannot explain why
> Hoodless failed to mention this when he clearly noted that the
> right zygomatic arch and malar bone were missing. When I brought
> this up on the Forum, Dr. Burns responded, "We really don't know
> what Dr. Hoodless was looking for."  With all due respect,
> horsefeathers.  Dr. Hoodless was looking for indicia of who this
> person was and where he/she came from.  He was certainly aware of
> speculation that the remains were those of Earhart; that's
> undoubtedly why the job was entrusted to him and no one else.

Again you are injecting your own opinions into something you have no
expertise in. you are also assuming greater expertise in Hoodless
than the record supports.

There are other serious problems with the Burns/Jantz reanalysis, but
I don't want to turn this into a treatise on Dem Bones, so let's move
on.

> 2.  Sextant box:  There is no particular reason to believe this
> came from the Electra.  It could just as easily have come from the
> Norwich City, or floated in from hundreds of miles away.
> (Parenthetically this is a problem I have with most of TIGHAR's
> evidence;  there is a tendency to ignore or ridicule alternative
> sources of an artifact in favor of TIGHAR's own hypothesis.  A good
> example of this is the 1940 bones:  The body of at least one
> Norwich City crewman was never recovered, yet TIGHAR all but sneers
> at the notion this crewman could have been the unfortunate
> "castaway.")

We well recognize other explanations exist. The issue is can you
prove one explanation is that the sextant box did NOT come from Noonan.

> 3.  Benedictine bottle:  See (2)

Same as above.

> 4.  Emily Sikuli:  I still can't figure out whether Emily actually
> saw the "airplane wreckage" sticking up from the reef flat, or
> whether her dad saw it and told her about it.  In any event her
> recollections are considerably less than clear, and were given some
> 60 years after the fact.  (Why do I suspect that, if Emily's story
> did not support the Niku Hypothesis, TIGHAR would dismiss her tale
> as "mere anecdote," just as it does with Blas, Galten and others?)
> In any event, neither Maude nor Bevington (1937) nor the NZ survey
> crew, which spent >two months< on Niku in 1938-39, nor anybody else
> from 1938 through 1964, ever reported seeing this wreckage.
> However, Emily's remark about numerous skeletons on the beach does
> correlate with the story of Hull Island's John Jones, who, in
> 1937,  told members of the Itasca crew that his ship, the "Makoa,"
> had recently visited Niku and saw "the bodies of nine men lost in
> the [Norwich City] wreck, drown or killed by sharks were buried
> ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on
> the beach."  If these skeletons were still exposed when the first
> colonists arrived, that would be a plausible alternative
> explanation for much of Emily's story.

Of course. Who says otherwise? We DO count Emily's tale as anecdote.
No one says otherwise.

> 5.  The 1991 shoe:  For a variety of reasons, TIGHAR no longer
> contends that this shoe was Earhart's, and I agree.

You pick and choose, David. And that is not true. What we say is we
can't prove it but nothing disproves it. And don't give me the tiny
Earhart foot crap. We have evidence to the contrary.

> 6.  Dado, plexiglass, etc.  Apparently the dado is a "dado" because
> Ric showed it to one guy who said that's what it was.  Based upon
> photos of the artifact, it seems overbuilt for its humble task, but
> that's just my impression.  However, various other types of
> conveyances, including ships and automobiles, also have dados.
> Unless this hunk of metal can be specifically linked to a Lockheed
> aircraft, it's just a hunk of metal.  The same is true of the
> plexiglass.  It is also worth noting that the presence of a B24/PBY
> bookcase on Niku shows there was an inter-island trade in aircraft
> scrap.  Any aircraft materials found on Niku must be viewed against
> this background.

No one claims otherwise, David, although it is unlikely the "dado"
came from an automobile. I assume your extensive research also knows
about our European who rebuilds Electras and his opinions on the so-
called dado. Right? you're aggrating me, David. If you spent half the
time trying to prove your theory correct as you do trying to  nitpick
the TIGHAR theory your mystery would have long been solved. Why don't
you get off this kick and present supportable evidence the Electra in
New Britain? I'm not going to bother with the rest of the guestions.
you're wasting your time and mine. I think you have a good project
going but all this crap is beneath you.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:11:44
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Paige's challenge

Well said, Alan.  One additional observation regarding the famous
Caldwell-Lucs hole that should have existed in Earhart's skull:
Caldwell-Lucs involves cutting through the maxillary bone -- the very
thin bone of the upper jaw/sinus region.  In my experience (I've
excavated or been responsible for the excavation of a couple thousand
skeletons), the maxilla is often badly damaged and/or eroded, even in
a skeleton that's been relatively safely put away in the ground.
Exposed on the surface to the attentions of coconut crabs, it's hard
for me to imagine the maxilla surviving.  Neither Gallagher nor
Hoodless says the maxilla was gone, but neither says anything about
how eroded it was, and both indicate that there were no teeth in the
upper jaw -- that is, the maxilla -- which is consistent with the
idea that the maxilla was seriously eroded.  In a seriously eroded,
crab-chewed skull, I'm not at all sure that a Caldwell-Lucs hole
would be noticeable.

We can't know, of course, until and unless we find the skull.

LTM (who always uses her head)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:46:37
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: LOP

Ric, I would like to agree with Alan. Since most of my flying
was from the West Coast to SEA via HNL my navigators did the
same thing. They were all very experienced and most of them just
checked their figures perodically, as the winds were pretty
dependable for the different times of the year. I was told and
experience proved right that winds were pretty dependable except
when heavy storms were around and then we went further south
like thru Krajelin vs Wake. or Midway.
Jimbo
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:51:35
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: AE's search vessels

The Swan was to the NNE of Howland, and the Itasca was almost due west,
IIRC.  The Moorby was in transit from New Zealand to Honolulu, and was
somewhat west of Howland.

If the 281 message referred to a degree from Howland, why would the message,
if coming from Earhart, refer to a ship's position relative to Howland?
They didn't know where the ships were, and if they could beamform on their
transmissions (doubtful because of the higher frequencies than the rotating
antenna's capabilities), wouldn't it make more sense to state the direction
relative to where they were?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:54:33
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Shoe size

For Alan,

       One needs to visit the Atchinson Co Museum to get the size of
one pair of Amelia's shoes which are on display there. The outside
3X5 card used to say size "6 1/2" but I believe that card was
removed. But a Earhart researcher relates that some years ago he and
his wife persuaded the curator to take the shoes out of the glass
display box. An inspection of the shoes, he said, showed a size "6
1/2" on the inside of the right rear above the heel. These are the
I.Miller evening slippers that AE had.
        I attempted via email to have the curator measure them, but he
declined. Two Amelia researchers in Aug 2004 took photos and examined
best they could the inside from outside the case and could not see
any size.  They too asked the curator to remove the shoes for a
moment for an inspection, but were refused.
        Now of course this type of shoe wasn't worn by AE while flying
and she may have had blucher oxfords, etc.,for everyday use, and we
know from news reports she was taking along walking boots, just in
case, on the World Flight.
        So to date you are right, the size has not been conclusively
established, but there they are in full view, pending a precise
measurement!

LTM,

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:49:47
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: shoe size

> The outside 3X5 card used to say size "6 1/2" but I believe that
> card was removed.
>
> But a Earhart researcher relates..........................
>
>  An inspection of the shoes, he said, ....................

These are the I. Miller evening slippers that AE had.

I attempted via email to have the curator measure them, but he
declined.

Two Amelia researchers in Aug 2004 took photos and examined
best they could the inside from outside the case and could not see
any size.

They too asked the curator to remove the shoes for a
moment for an inspection, but were refused.

Ron, can't you see what you have? REMOVED, RELATES, HE SAID,
DECLINED, COULD NOT SEE, REFUSED.

Two questions. Who says they were Amelia's shoes and if so at what age.

Muriel supposedly said (See! I'm doing it now. <G>) her sister had
tiny feet but she didn't say at what age. Again supposedly one of
Earhart's close girl friends said she had big feet. If you'll look at
all the pictures you will see her feet were far from tiny -- more on
the larger size. We have not found a picture whereby an accurate
measurement could be taken but I have pictures showing good sized feet.

Alan

======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:04:19
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Old, old story, guys.  See pages 129-134 and 329-330 of AE's Shoes
(2004 edition).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:10:57
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: AE's search vessels

Randy,
You have missed my point re the 281 message.
What I am wondering is; if one of the search vessels was either on a
heading of 281 degrees north of Howland or 281 miles north of Howland
or 281 something else north of Howland (we don't know for sure what
the units are relative to the number 281) and that search vessel sent
a message to HQ or whoever and AE heard a "281-- north of Howland"
but didn't pick up the call sign from the vessel, that's all she
had.  Then when she sent her message she meant whoever is 281-- north
of Howland please "---call KHAQQ,etc, etc---."

As I said earlier, we know that AE could hear some things on her
radio e.g. the Itasca's A's inbound and if Betty's note book is
relative AE saying "here put your ear to it," etc. perhaps she heard
a position report also.

Why all the interest in this?  What I am looking for is something
that adds a little more creditably to the post loss messages.  We
have all focused on trying to make sense of AE's fragmented
transmissions based upon a "one way" stream of thoughts or
expressions.  We haven't analyzed AE words with regard to her trying
to respond to what she may have received on her end.  As an example:
If AE did hear 281 "something" she may have been trying to respond to
that:  If any of the vessels or listening station were asking AE to
send dashes (in order to obtain a DF bearing) then maybe some of the
dashes heard post loss was in response to that request: If some ham
gave AE his name as Bud maybe she repeated the name and it was
recorded in Betty's note book:  and so on.

Ted

======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:26:17
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Niku V reports from the field

Notwithstanding covenants or embargoes by participating media, it would be be
a real thrill to receive daily e-mails of raw journals/pictures of activities
during Niku V, right from the field.  It might even offer an opportunity for an
interactive role of some of TIGHAR's scholars at home, while the team was still
in place.  For such a possibility, what kind of "contribution" would be
appropriate to subscribe?  $50?, $100?, $????.

LTM, who always wanted to know what her kids were doing.

Rick J  #2751

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

In the past, we have handled news from the field in a fairly low-tech
way. Ric calls me on the sat-phone every morning and tells me what
they did the previous day and what the plan is for the coming day. I
write that up, pick some illustrative pictures from our library, and
post it on our website. When it's up and linked in (takes about an
hour from the time the call ends) I post to the Forum that it's up.
We will certainly do at least that, if not more (depending on our new
satellite phone) -- for instance, we may be able to capture some
photographs, and so on.

But send money anyhow <G>.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:26:49
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Shoe sizes

For Alan ,

For the past 60 plus years those shoes, the I Miller dancing
slippers, located at the Atchinson Museum have been attributed to
Amelia. I have no reason to doubt that they are Amelias. See the
National Geo , Jan 1998,  for a nice photo of the shoes up close.
You are probably the only one in the world that doubts their
authenticity.
    However if you are not convinced they came from AE, please contact
the Museum for the curators information concerning their provenance.
After that you can check with Muriel Morrisey's daughter, Amy, who
may be able to help you track down the store receipt from Macy's or
wherever she bought them.
Much like OJ Simpons shoe history. Many pairs of  Bruno Mali shoes
were sold, so why would those be OJs?
    Then after determining that they were bought by AE or GP, you
could see if she ever wore them, for they might have been too small.
     Alan, you got to get a life.

Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:27:13
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: shoe size

Thanks, Tom. Confirms my comment that the artifacts cannot be
eliminated by the scoffers or by Ron. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:27:39
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

For Tom K,
Thanks, now I recall page 132. However if you wish to subscribe to
the rigorous standards of scientific methodolgy as advocated by Alan
Caldwell, you fail to cite how the Atchinson County Historical Museum
attributed the "brocade dancing" shoes size 6 1/2  that "once
belonged to her" that are on display.!! You indicate that noone
seemed to know when she owned the slippers and how old.
But the question of their ownership was not questioned.
I agree that it would have been reasonable for the Museum to note in
their records who donated them, when, and the proof they were AEs. I
believe they were AEs.
Maybe we can start a new line of inquiry about the dancing slippers,
perhaps formerly owened by Cinderella.
I will email the curator and ask what the story is and leave the
measurement up to Alan!

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:44:49
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Alan,

I  made no  mention of "eliminating" artifacts, which I suppose you
mean the shoe(s) found on Niku. We were discussing the size of AEs
shoe, just as Tom did in his book,  that so far doesn't support the
shoe artifacts found. Nothing more.

We are all know that shoe measuements of fragments, photo analysis,
etc are quite difficult, but if we could measure what has been
reported as an authentic shoe from AE for size it would be of
evidentiary value, one way or the other. I mentioned that to date the
size of this shoe has not been firmly established. The curators have
not been helpful, which surprises me.

Rather than always just comment on these issues, I encourage  and
suggest you  do some independent research, as in this case track down
the size. AT least I tried to find out but failed. I have tried my
best to help Tom King determine the size of AEs shoes and have sent
him photos that might help.

LTM,

Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:45:28
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Niku V reports from the field

> From Rick Jones
>
> Notwithstanding covenants or embargoes by participating media, it
> would be be a real thrill to receive daily e-mails of raw journals/pictures of
> activities during Niku V, right from the field.

I would like to second that. This would be the closest thing to being there that
most of us could ever experience. I realize that adding another level of
complexity with a sat phone and some kind of PC interface just adds to your work
load, which will be full enuff already.

Such in-progress report and graphics might be a decent way to garner some
publicity also, altho already past the fund-raising period when it is most
needed.

-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:45:53
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      281 Message keying

The "281 Message" was apparently sent by telegraphy ( as opposed to voice ),
albeit in very poorly hand-sent characters.  Has there been some talk here
about how this was possibly accomplished? -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:46:34
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

For Ron Bright --

> you fail to cite how the Atchinson County Historical Museum
> attributed the "brocade dancing" shoes size 6 1/2  that "once
> belonged to her" that are on display.!!

Uh... yeah, you're right.  Is there some reason I should?  I don't
think the dancing slippers are relevant, regardless of who they
belonged to.  We and Rollin Reineck have measured the shoe in the
refueling photo; it's no size 6 1/2 dancing slipper, but it's smaller
than the shoe parts TIGHAR found at Aukaraime South.  We can debate
whether Earhart wore bigger shoes with thick socks at altitude, and
things of that nature, but whatever arguments we kick around have to
relate to the refueling photo, which gives us an unequivocal fix on
the size of at least one of the pairs of shoes that Earhart wore at
the time of the World Flight.  What size she may have danced in 20 or
10 or 5 or 2 years before the flight really doesn't matter, as far as
I can see.

LTM (who'd be happy to step away from this one)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:53:32
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

> But the question of their ownership was not questioned.

Sure it was. I question anything that is not documented. You know
that, Ron.

You make a good point. I need to quit being so rigid and allow all
kinds of nonsense in. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:53:51
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

> and leave the
> measurement up to Alan!

Ron, I would be happy to take on that chore once ownership is
satisfactorily documented to include the age when the owner wore them.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:00:40
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: shoe size

> I  made no  mention of "eliminating" artifacts

I know you didn't, Ron but if you could prove they weren't Earhart's
size that is exactly what you would be doing.

> "We were discussing the size of AEs shoe, just as Tom did in his
> book,  that so far doesn't support the  shoe artifacts found."

I beg to differ. I think Tom's book DOES support that possibility.

If the evidence doesn't eliminate something then it supports the
possibility. It doesn't prove it is all.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:02:18
From:         AlanCaldwell
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

> LTM (who'd be happy to step away from this one)

I think we should until additional evidence is found. Debating old
stuff will not make anything more certain in this case.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:08:35
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: AE's search vessels

Ahhh...I didn't understand that this would be a relay of another ship's
message.  The answer is probably not.  I searched the radiomessage and
telegram message database for "281" and the only instances of that is the
Wailupe reception and the aftermath.  Navy and Coast Guard ships normally
broadcast their position via weather reports, and the ship position is
encoded in such a way that someone not familiar with the reporting format
would have no clue as to the meaning of essentially jibberish set of
numbers.  The messages would also be sent in rapid morse code, and we know
that both AE and FN were not proficient in rapid morse code.  That leaves
the possibility of an intercept of a voice communication, which is why I
examined the radiomessage database.  It's possible the Itasca sent something
out along those lines, but highly unlikely; but if they did, it was not
recorded.  This, then, becomes a rabbit hole in which one could follow
forever without results.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:14:14
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: shoe size

Tom brings up a good point in that the dancing slippers will hardly
be the standard of what other shoe parts are found,if any at Niku.
It would give some frame of reference if we can find out that the
shoes did come from AE, and when, etc, which Alan has a point.

But supposing we find that she wore those shoes at the Farewell
Dinner at Lae at the annual Lae-Howland ball, it might be helpfull!
Maybe she left the slippers with Balfour along with her pistol!

And if my efforts fail to get the curator to help, strickly from a
collateral historical interest, you may have to have Pat G drive up
there and break the case open to measure those slippes...

LTM,

reb
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:14:29
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Alan, are you saying that Kings book re the size of the dancing
slippers of size 6 1/2 supports the Niku theory?
Sorry forum to carry on this debate, which should be off  forum...
Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:18:17
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Sorry to have failed to read the shoes book, but I was taught once by
a milner that hand size matches shoe size....

If you had her glove size, you might have a better angle on her feet!

Not super accurate, but as an example, my shoe size is UK 12, and my
hands are large to match.  Worth a further look?

Rick Boardman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:56:03
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

For Ron Bright

<<I have tried my
best to help Tom King determine the size of AEs shoes and have sent
him photos that might help.>>

Indeed you have, Ron, and I very much appreciate it.  The photos you
sent turned out not to have closely measurable data, but it was a
good try.

Those were photos of Earhart on the Electra with her shoes on,
however, which is a far cry from a shoe in a museum that's said to
have been worn by Earhart at sometime in her life doing something
other than flying the airplane.  Given that there were lots of
pictures taken of Earhart on the World Flight, I think THOSE are very
much worth looking at to see if we can calculate shoe size.  Old
dancing slippers are just a whole lot less interesting, I think.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:13:31
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Paige's challenge

David Billings says:

"Paige invited personnel to respond to Richard Gillespie's claim that
the TIGHAR Hypothesis was correct."

That was 4.5 years ago, so at this time, I would like to amend my
challenge based upon my expanded knowledge.

Come up with an explanation that better accounts for ALL of the
artifacts, documentation, post-loss message and other components of
the TIGHAR hypothesis.

You can't just chip away at one element, you have to show come up
with an explanation for all of these pieces of evidence.

The only alternative explanation I have ever heard is that these are
a random combination of circumstances that allows dados and
plexiglass and skeletons and sextant boxes and Benedictine bottles
and post-loss messages on airline frequencies and the fact that
Gardner is on the line 157-337 through Howland and on and on. But
such a random combination of happenings is extremely unlikely. Hence
the challenge ... how else do you explain all these things pointing
to Earhart?

I know an explanation that nicely accounts for all of these pieces of
evidence and more ...

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who never did have good explanations)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:14:42
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

I am curious about the statement "Even at 10,000 feet the visual
range is about 30 (?) miles."

What visual range is referred to in that statement?  As a pilot and a
sailor I am fairly sure that from an altitude of 10,000 feet the
horizon would be around 120 miles or so (can;t find my tables to
check it at the moment).

What can be seen at various distances is pretty subjective.  Factors
such as colour, contrast and angles of objects need to be
considered.  A small fire can be seen from a considerable distance at
night, and a ship's searchlight under various conditions might also
be seen further than expected.  It is amazing how far a searchlight
can be seen when it is reflected off the bottom of cloud.

Anyway, just curious about what the statement refers to - not trying
to be picky.

Cheers,

Th' WOMBAT

> From Dennis McGee
>
> Randy Jacobson said:  " . . . if she took off from Lae a bit
> earlier (perhaps 2 hours earlier), she would have arrived at
> Howland about an hour before dawn, and could have used a bonfire
> and a searchlight on Itasca as beacons to help find the island."
>
> Only if Noonan was spot on in his navigation.  Ric's (?) belief is
> that he came in as much as 50 miles south of Howland.  At that
> distance she wouldn't have seen anything regardless of her
> altitude, would she?  Even at 10,000 feet the visual range is about
> 30 (?) miles.  But wasn't she was also dealing with an undercast
> that would've hampered her line-of-sight observations?  So, if
> Noonan's error was as large as people are now theorizing, they
> could've blown up the Itasca and she wouldn't have seen it.
>
> LTM, who blows up frequently
> Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:15:17
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: shoe size

    In 2004, during the AE Festival, we (my friend - also the AE
researcuer,  and I) saw these shoes, and observed it with most
careful attention.

    Alas we were not permitted to open the glass box.  However, the
size and shape of this  box - in which the shoes are presented -
permits to look at them from quite a different and various angles,
and to see pretty well what is inside... so i'm still quite convinced
that we two could not "miss" somehow this "6 1/2" - if it would be
there inside, as some people claimed.
     No...  there was definitely nothing like 6 1/2 inside.. nothing
at all except that
"Last 9", and the Miller's manufacturer' s "Label".

     For us both, the shoes seemed definitely LONG - in length
(certainly not like 6 1/2, but LONGER) - but, simultaneously, pretty
NARROW in width.

      I can remember that while looking at them I thought that THIS
may be the reason of this  continuous confusion about AE's shoe
size.  The people who says AE 's feet
(and shoes) were "small", could actually mean that they were "narrow"
- while the ones who said that her feet (and shoes) were "big", could
mean they were LONG... and,  both claims are technically correct!
    And, by the way, i think it is what the numerous AE's photos
confirms.. please look... her feet looks pretty "narrow" - in
"width".. but pretty "long" on the "profile" shots.

    The proposed guess that AE could purchase and wore the shoes
bigger then her actual
feet size is interesting... However, I'm somewhat skeptical about it
- just because of
it is DANCING shoes... For to dance with a comfort and convenience -
(and, AE was a big fan of dancing) - the person must have the shoes
that FITS PERFECTLY!

      Kind Regards - LTM, Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:16:10
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

> From Hue Miller
>
> The "281 Message" was apparently sent by telegraphy ( as opposed to
> voice ), albeit in very poorly hand-sent characters.  Has there been some
> talk here about how this was possibly accomplished?

Hue

It's my opinion that Noonan sent the 281 message and not AE. There
were comments by his co-workers at Pan Am that he could send morse by
key. Below are the comments that apparently are from the operators
who received the message.
" KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGMENTARY
PHRASES BUT COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS 0242 "

"..EXTREMELY POOR KEYING.." fits with AE's description of their Morse
abilities, I believe at the Lae stop-over.

"..KEYING BEHIND CARRIER.." has haunted me if no one else. I have
asked the radio experts what this meant, on this forum and other
forums with no definitive response.

It is my thinking that the operators who heard the morse reception
had to have had an oscilloscope to be able to make that statement.
When I asked the "radio expert" on this forum, who's name escapes me
at this moment sorry, he said that oscilloscopes were around in 1937
but were probably very expensive. Expensive to the average consumer
maybe but not to a government agency. My research, if you want to
call it that, has revealed attempts by the Navy's OP-20-G during WWII
to fingerprint transmitters, presumably using oscilloscopes to see
the carrier wave on a scope. The carrier wave would be represented as
a sine wave on the scope.

My comments are based on elementary radio theory because I have
limited radio knowledge and no ability to experiment.

In viewing the sine wave on a scope, the wave peak would represent
the highest carrier wave voltage that the transmitter was capable of
producing. It would seem to me that the key strokes produced in the
morse code could appear on the sine wave during transmission. To be
most efficient in transmission it would seem to me that the key
strokes should appear at the peak voltage of the carrier wave. I
think the Navy operators were saying that this was NOT happening and
that the keying was taking place OFF the peak voltage of the carrier
wave.

It's been pointed out by some sources that the Electra didn't have a
Morse key onboard, which may or may not be true. For discussion
purposes concerning the 281 message let's presume that they didn't
and they were using the push-to-talk button for morse code.

The radio that the Electra had was capable of both voice and morse
code transmissions. When in the morse code mode there was a switch on
the morse key pad that had to be thrown to the "on" position. This
switch activated the dyno on the transmitter and kept it running
during transmission. When using the Mic for voice transmission, the
Mic button operated the dyno on the transmitter. The dyno, we all
know by now, was needed to step up battery voltage for transmission.

"..KEYING BEHIND CARRIER.." could indicate that the push-to-talk
button was being used to form the dots and dashes. Because of the
mass possessed by the armature in the dyno and using the push-to-talk
button to turn the dyno on and off, it never allowed the dyno to
reach full speed for full voltage production during transmission and
match up to the dots and dashes. This was not the norm in morse
transmissions and was duly noted by Navy Radio Wailupe by their
statement  "..KEYING BEHIND CARRIER.."

My 2 cents anyway.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:41:24
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Daryll,
You seem to be the most familiar with the 281 signal heard by
Wailupe. Maybe I asked this before, but why would AE or FN resort to
using a push to talk mic button for code (or key)  when they were
used to sending only by voice? Not only were they not proficient, but
the former method is rather awkward and time consuming. Was the
nearly identical signal heard in the US by code or voice the next day?

LTM,

RON BRIGHT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:13:48
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: 281 Message keying

I believe we can dispose of the "microphone-keying theory".
Every time the sender makes a pause, either to figure out what
letter to send next, or between "words", the motor-generator speed
is going to spin down. When the next dot-dash character is sent,
with the motor spinning up again, and not developing a usable
voltage output until approaching half the operating speed, the
problem is your first morse character, altho "keyed" by the mic.
button, doesn't get sent out, as the transmitter voltage isn't up
yet. BTW i reckon the transmitter in common with other vacuum-
tube equipment would operate with diminished power down to
easily 50% of normal on the high voltage, maybe down to about
1/3 of normal motor-generator output. ( Note, this flexibility does
not apply to "primary power", the actual battery voltage - if the battery
goes  down to 7 or 8 volts, from nominal 12, you're out of the radio
business. )

Now a complication occurred to me: what if the above scenario
explains missing parts of the 281 Message? Or scrambled parts,
discarded by the hearers? I mean, i cannot rule it out, this
microphone-keying idea.

One good thing is, the above scenario is in fact testable. Maybe
i can drum up a "volunteer" with the equipment.  Maybe no one
would want to do this to their equipment, because it's got to be
hard on it. If no volunteer, i have the equipment, but i cannot just
even think of loading on another task, at present.

Now here's another scenario - as if we don't have enough.
Our duo try the microphone keying way, realize it doesn't
work very well, the motor generator is trying like crazy to
follow the microphone button pushing, and the noise is so
confusing that it makes it near impossible to concentrate
on sending the characters from the written-down message
lines. They do ( i suggest ) have a loose page with typed
list of letters and Morse code equivalent, stuffed into their
"Radio Aids to Navigation" book, for use in recognizing the
low frequency navigation beacons which just send one, two,
or three Morse letter indentifiers continually. FN writes down
a message of couple lines, underneath he translates it into
dot-dash form using his Morse code list. FN crawls back to
the transmitter. He focuses on the antenna leadin, where it
ties to transmitter. He grasps the antenna leadin, pulls it a
bit to expose a tiny length of bare wire under the screw head
of the antenna tie-down on the transmitter. He tuges the
antenna wire side to side til it breaks at the transmitter.
He sets the paper
down where he can refer to it; he grasps the antenna wire
an inch back from where it broke off, where a tiny bit of bare
metal is showing. Maybe he will use a knife to bare some more
of the wire under its heavy, ignition-wire insulation. He signals
AE to press the mic button. Then referring to his list, he touches
the antenna wire to the transmitter antenna post.
We note that in this transmitter, the antenna is actually part of
the transmitter circuit - a different situation from ours, where
you buy an off the shelf antenna of 50 ohms, and it's connect
it to the radio and away you go, plug and play. With the wire
antenna disconnected from the aircraft's transmitter, the
circuit becomes mistuned, and the transmitter actually draws
more power, altho that raw input power is doing nothing except
to build up heat in the transmitter. So when FN touches the
antenna wire to the transmitter to complete the outgoing circuit
and send a Morse character, the transmitter is again in tune as
it was, draws less power, the motor-generator speeds up, the
radiated power - and received signal - increases in strength
somewhat after the Morse character actually begins. You could
say, "The carrier ( raw signal strength, apart from the intelligence
sent ) is 'behind' the keying".   Which conclusion is slightly
different from "Keying behind the carrier" - but perhaps the person
who recorded this appraisal didn't know quite how to label such
an unlikely sound. However as opposed to the first scenario
described, the transmitter high voltage source is "always on",
the radio ready to send as soon as the antenna wire is touched,
which is a lot more practical than the first methode.

Please forget the "backwave" idea we previously hashed over as
an explanation for the "keying behind carrier" remark. That is NOT
going to happen in a transmitter where an antenna relay 100% cuts
out the transmitter.

The above scenario is also testable. You need a dynamotor-powered
boat radio from the 1950s, or a military aircraft radio transmitter of
similar features. Even if the transmitter is not the same power level
as the AE radio, the effect could be demonstrated or disproven. I am
thinking about it. I will post a request elsewhere also.

Now one more thing: the rationality required for FN to accomplish this,
is however much at odds with the portrayal of him in Betty's account.
After this resourcefulness, how does he become a raving animal in
one day?  -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:14:23
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

> "Last 9", and the Miller's manufacturer' s "Label".

If it is printed in the shoe, "Last 9"  should mean they were a size
9 shoe, 9 being the size of the last that they were made on.  I'm
sure this has been discussed somewhere, but I was not aware of the
"Last 9" in reference to the dancing shoes.

Cheers,

Th'  WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:10:30
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

> From Hue Miller
>
> Now one more thing: the rationality required for FN to accomplish this,
> is however much at odds with the portrayal of him in Betty's account.
> After this resourcefulness, how does he become a raving animal in
> one day?  -Hue Miller

That's easy:  Betty's notebook is a broken account of what is
possibly going on in the plane.  There is a lot of conjecture thrown
into those broken bits, so we have an incomplete picture of what
might have been happening, and the interpretation being put on it may
have nothing whatsoever to do with what was really going on.  Another
possibility is that Fred ate/drank the wrong thing, which combined to
make him ill and ill tempered.

No offense to Betty, but I wouldn't bank the entire TIGHAR hypothesis
on what is in that notebook and the conjecture built around it.  And,
I wouldn't stop pursuing any avenues of thought that were stopped
because they weren't consistent with the conjecture.

					Reed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:11:01
From:         John Barrett
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Just a thought but, if I were stranded on an island, or in a jungle,
and I had been trying to call for help on the radio by voice and no
one seemed to be able to hear me, I think I would try Morse via the
PTT button. What could it hurt? You already know your're not getting
help the other way.

LTM (who can barely Morse an S-O-S)
John Barrett ( I have a number but don't know it)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:21:23
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

For Ron Bright,

> Maybe I asked this before, but why would AE or FN resort to
> using a push to talk mic button for code (or key)  when they were
> used to sending only by voice?

Maybe they thought the Mic itself was defective and were trying both
methods. The only indication that they had that the Mic worked, since
leaving Lae, was when they heard the Itasca respond with "A"s on
7500. They could probably hear the dyno spin up and down when they
pushed the Mic button, which may have been their only indication that
they were transmitting and getting anything out.

> "..Was the nearly identical signal heard in the US by code or voice
> the next day?..Ron B."

Was what was heard in the US the original 281 reception or the
forwarded reception from Hawaii to the Itasca? Did someone translate
the forwarded Wailupe reception into words for a AE news hungry public?

This so called "EMINENT PSYCHIC" sends GPP this telegram on the same
day that Wailupe received the 281 reception. Is it coincidence that
the condition of AE, FN and the airplane in this telegram parallels
what Bilamon Amaron related to the president of the Matson Line in
the late 1940s? This so called Psychic in 1937 not only could see the
condition of AE, FN and the airplane in the current time frame but
could predict what Bilamon Amaron would say years later. Mixed in
with this vision of AE and FN this Psychic accurately sees the
movements of the Itasca AND adjusts for time zones that the Itasca is
operating in.

What this suggests to me is that the forwarded documented "281
message" to the Itasca could have only been enough to get the Itasca
moving and there may have been more to it.

There is recorded history and there is unrecorded history which helps
to explain why the Earhart mystery is divided into three camps.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:18:57
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

Ross Devitt said:

> 1.   I am curious about the statement 'Even at 10,000 feet the visual
> range is about 30 (?) miles'.
> 2.  What visual range is referred to in that statement?  As a pilot and a
> sailor I am fairly sure that from an altitude of 10,000 feet the
> horizon would be around 120 miles or so (can;t find my tables to
> check it at the moment).
> 3.  What can be seen at various distances is pretty subjective. Factors
> such as colour, contrast and angles of objects need to be
> considered.  A small fire can be seen from a considerable distance at
> night, and a ship's searchlight under various conditions might also
> be seen further than expected.  It is amazing how far a searchlight
> can be seen when it is reflected off the bottom of cloud.

1.  As my statement indicated, I was unsure -- thus the question mark
-- of visual range at 10,000 feet.  The number 10,000 was used
because it often is stated or misstated as being AE's altitude at any/
all points of her flight.

2.  It was used in the context where Randy Jacobson suggested AE may
have been able to find Howland in the dark had the Itasca and ground
party used searchlights or a bonfire to guide her home.  My argument
(?) was that if she was up to 50 (?) miles off course, as some here
believe, then it is doubtful she would've seen any beacons at all.

3.  I do not know the visual range at 10,000 but I certainly agree
that a host of conditions could alter that range, which makes Randy's
suggestion of using bonfires and searchlights more improbable if AE
was in, above or under clouds.

LTM, who hopes this clarifies the issue
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:12:49
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

How knowledgable of the radio system were AE and FN?  Did they
actually know that the Dynamotor needed to spool up to full power,
before they'd actually be at peak efficiency transmitting?

I can't count how many times messages would be "clipped" on
transmitters in Germany in the 80s, because officers either couldn't
or wouldn't understand that they had to have the mike keyed for a few
seconds before starting to speak.

Although AE had knowledge of aircraft maintenance ( I read that
somewhere?), and FN obviously had knowledge of all things navigation,
it doesn't follow that they knew everything backwards on the
Electra.  Remember, this was not the best organised and planned
trip.  If it had been, we wouldn't still be discussing it!

For example, they seem to have had virtually no survival training,
despite at least starting the trip with a lot of survival gear on
board...

LTM (Learn Training Manuals)  Rick Boardman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:13:32
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

> 3.  I do not know the visual range at 10,000 but I certainly agree
> that a host of conditions could alter that range, which makes
> Randy's suggestion of using bonfires and searchlights more
> improbable if AE was in, above or under clouds.
>
> LTM, who hopes this clarifies the issue
> Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

Thanks Dennis, it does.
As I said, I wasn't trying to be picky, I was just curious.  I
checked my tables.  At 10,000ft the horizon is supposedly 126 miles
BUT..  I doubt many people would see anything clearly much more than
50 miles and maybe even 10-20.  It all depends.

To see a bonfire at any distance would depend entirely on looking at
the exact place and on how dark the night was.  A searchlight might
be another matter.  If she was under the clouds it may have reflected
off a large area of cloud and been seen for a lot further.  If she
was over the cloud it may have diffused up through the cloud as an
eerie glow and been unusual enough for them to see.  If there was
moonlight they may have seen nothing at all.

I can go to the top of a local hill and see lights down the valley
around 30 miles away on a good night, but I have never looked for a
bonfire at that distance.  I can see the searchlight from the airport
at that distance, but it is aimed almost horizontally, not upwards.
Flying at 4500ft at night you can tell where you are from the lights
of the various towns, farms and mines at a considerable distance.

It might have been a dodgy exercise overall....

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:51:31
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

Ross Devitt said:

> 1.  "At 10,000ft the horizon is supposedly 126 miles"

Really?  That is amazing.  I assume that figure is theoritical, not
actual.

Even in CAVU weather, I assume there is a small percentage of
moisture in the atmophere that would create haze to obscure vision,
so the 126-mile limit is seldom if ever reached.

(That's twice I've used the forbidden "A" word here.  I better watch
out or I'll get lecture from one of our more learned members/lurkers
about the intricasies and traps of investigative terminology.)

> 2.  "BUT..  I doubt many people would see anything clearly much
> more than 50 miles and maybe even 10-20.  It all depends."

When flying patrols for the Civil Air Patrol in summer haze over
Chesapeake Bay years ago we used to consider 10 miles as good
visibility.  There was one leg on the patrol that forced us to cross
the entire bay, a distance of about 10 miles.  More than once when we
had visibility of around 5 miles I had to fly the middle 2-3 miles in
IFR because I couldn't see the other shore from my starting point.
Though at 110 mph it took less then two minutes to cover that 2-3
mile segment it was unnerving for a non-IFR pilot.

LTM, who runs no scud
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:54:52
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and search lights

The distance to horizon thing is quite misleading when applied to the
distance you can see.  I am 5'8", so if I am standing in a few of
inches of water we can say my eye is about 5' above sea level.  At
that height of eye the apparent horizon is only a little over 2.5
miles BUT, I can see buildings on an island 15 miles away.

On some days I can see the sandy beach and individual buildings, on
others only a blur of buildings and the vegetation.  It all depends
on, as you observed, haze.  6 miles  is a comfortable distance for me
(53y.o.) to see individual roof colours on houses.  3 miles and I can
easily see separate windows and cars in the driveway.  At 3 miles I
can see a 1 foot diameter pipe standing vertically.  At ten miles I
can differentiate between different 30ft yachts.

In the air other things come into play as you, being a pilot will
appreciate.  There are days when someone on the ground can see 15
miles but we in the air can barely see the ground.  Smoke haze and
fog come to mind.

At night though, it is amazing what you can see on some nights, yet
the same object is impossible to see a week later.

Anyway, I suppose this thread is a bit off topic.

Cheers,

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:26:24
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

> Remember, this was not the best organised and planned trip.  If it
> had been, we wouldn't still be discussing it!
> For example, they seem to have had virtually no survival training,
> despite at least starting the trip with a lot of survival gear on
> board...

Sometimes planning and survival training amount to little.  We
currently have 3 yachtsmen who set off Sunday before last from my
home port.  Their large sailing catamaran was found unattended a few
hundred miles north, 6 days later.

To quote directly from a report today: "When the boat was boarded,
authorities were confronted with clothes reportedly folded neatly on
the deck, a laptop computer still turned on and the engines running.

"Of the three Perth men - Des Batten, 56, James Tunstead, 63, and his
brother Peter Tunstead, 69 - there was no sign.

"Insp Webber said: 'At this stage, we have nothing to suggest
anything else than this was three men setting sail on a lifetime
experience and unfortunately they have come across some tragic
misadventure.'

"He said investigations - including an extensive forensic
investigation of the vessel - had turned up no evidence of foul play."

Now, I was sailing the same waters in a much smaller (26ft) yacht and
apart from a few squalls that would not upset a catamaran, the
weather was ok.  The yacht was found with the tender still hanging on
the davits, the engine still running after 6 days and the sails set,
albeit by that time, torn from flogging while the vessel was under
power.

All 3 men disappeared.  No evidence of chickens on board.  Everything
neat and in running order, other reports were that the table was set,
suggesting it wasn't all that rough and no, the yacht was not called
"Marie Celeste".

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:26:50
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Daryll, if the 281 message was sent by key do we have that keyed message?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:27:29
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: shoe size

> From Ron Bright,
>
> Alan, are you saying that Kings book re the size of the dancing
> slippers of size 6 1/2 supports the Niku theory?

Reread what I said, Ron. I am very literal. Here is what I said, "I
beg to differ. I think Tom's book DOES support that possibility."
"That possibility" meaning the shoe parts COULD be Earhart's.

If the evidence doesn't eliminate something then it supports the
possibility. It doesn't prove it is all.

So if the shoe parts can't be eliminated as possibly being Earhart's
then the thought they might be Amelia's has some support but not
proof. I wouldn't go the next step and say it supported the Niku
theory until the shoe parts are proven to be Earhart's.

I will say that there is nothing about the shoe parts that ELIMINATES
Niku.

This is a step by step process. You can't make leaps.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:09:55
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

> Daryll, if the 281 message was sent by key do we have that keyed
> message?
>
> Alan

   FROM :   COMHAWSEC

   TO   :   ITASCA

   8005   FOLLOWING COPIED NAVY RADIO WAILUPE  1130 TO 1230 GCT

   QUOTE

   281  NORTH  HOWLAND  CALL  KHAQQ  BEYOND  NORTH  DON'T  HOLD  WITH
US  MUCH  LONGER  ABOVE  WATER  SHUT  OFF

   UNQUOTE

   KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGMENTARY
PHRASES BUT COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS 0242

The only documented "281 message" that exists is the "keyed"
reception heard by Wailupe that was sent to the Itasca. I dare say
that we only know about that because of the "haste" in the rescue
effort. "Haste" in the rescue effort could have been a legitimate
reason to breach secrecy or security measures by the Navy's OP-20-G.

The other similar receptions that Ron Bright referred to that were
heard in the US have to be studied under the constraints imposed by
chronology.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:21:23
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Thanks, Daryl, but I meant the morse code itself unless no one ever
wrote that down.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:41:09
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

I've been thinking about what "keying behind carrier" meant. If I
understand it, using the PTT button will send out the carrier. If you
don't talk, the carrier is still there. Might there have been a way
to send out something that sounds like code while continually
pressing the PTT button? That way, the dynamotor is up and running -
carrier going out without modulation. pmb #0856CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:40:39
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: shoe size

Some of the shoe parts found do not fit AEs blucher oxford, the one
she was wearing at Lae, namely the heel. The  estimated sole size of
ten eliminates that as a AE shoe.On th other hand I suppose any piece
of shoe or soles found on the island could conceivable be from AE.
Trying to link shoe parts to Amelia seems to me an impossible task,
unless of course you found the shoe with her name imprinted
inside.Size alone will not lead us to any conclusive evidence.

As a collateral issue, of interest, Amy Kleppner reports no knowledge
of the origin of the slippers at Atchison, nor who donated them. As I
have reported so far the curator will not review the acuisition
records, here just for historical interest.

Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:40:57
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Alan and Daryll,

As I understand it the three Wailupe operators were never identified
or interviewed. Is that true?

Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:41:19
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Daryll,

Not surprisingly, Brink cites Walter McMenamy, AEs friend and amateur
ham, as hearing the 281 msg by voice. Brink interviewed McMenamy in
1980. I don't know if Brink  examined McMenamy's log. McMenamy's
trustworthiness has been questioned.

As a side note, Brandenburg , Tighar's radio expert,  concluded that
the 281 msg received by Wailupe could not have come from Gardner
Island. ITASCA didn't hear it.

So what is your best guess, if you believe the 281 was genuine from
AE, where the Electra was located. If on land , where, if at sea, where?

LTM,
Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:59:23
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

> From Ron Bright,
>
> As a side note, Brandenburg , Tighar's radio expert,  concluded
> that  the 281 msg received by Wailupe could not have come from
> Gardner  Island. ITASCA didn't hear it.

Ron,

You are using obsolete information.  If you read Research Bulletin
#49 on the TIGHAR website, you'll see that the "281" message could
have come from Niku.  The difference between my earlier conclusion
and the finding in Research Bulletin #49 is that a better software
tool became available in the interim, and I revisited my previous
finding.

As for Itasca, the fact that they didn't hear the "281" message only
proves that they didn't hear it.   Itasca's radio receiver setup was
suspect from the early days of comm planning for the RTW second
attempt, when COMFRANDIV noticed a problem with Itasca's receiving
ability and advised Itasca not to use a then-new type of receiving
antenna.  Itasca claimed there was no problem, but subsequent events
seem to support COMFRANDIV's observation.
LTM,

Bob
#2286

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

The Bulletin in question is

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/49_PostLossSignals/
49_PostLossSignals.htm

which will allow you to read a PDF of the article.

I refer all interested parties also to Bulletins 50, 51, and 52. All
can be accessed by going to

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/ArchivedBulletins.html

and clicking on the desired link.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:55:16
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: shoe size

> The  estimated sole size of
> ten eliminates that as a AE shoe.

Thanks for the museum update. That is certainly sloppy work on their
part. It is difficult to imagine they would show something they know
nothing about. Someone somewhere must have documented the shoes when
they were offered and received, don't you think?

As to eliminating the sole you can't. Someone has already mentioned
this but many aviators, yours truly included, wore extra large
footwear with several pairs of sox because of the cold at altitude.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:55:39
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Ron, the 281 message is a mystery to me. good radio guys I would
guess would just write down the letters and numbers corresponding to
the dots and dashes they heard but possibly someone might have
written the code down and translated it later if it was so difficult
to hear and poorly sent.

As to who received it Ric probably knows more about that.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:55:56
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

OK, guys was the 281 message voice or Morse code?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:05:04
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: shoe size

> As to eliminating the sole you can't. Someone has already
> mentioned  this but many aviators, yours truly included, wore extra
> large  footwear with several pairs of sox because of the cold at
> altitude.
>
> Alan

Yeah, but what are we talking about for "altitude" here? Did they really
fly at altitudes where temperature was a factor? And you wouldn't
want to hang around Lae too long with several pairs of socks.  So
maybe she had flying shoes and street shoes with her?  -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:15:24
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Alan,
Carey's dispatch to the AP about the 281 msg indicates only that the
Wailupe "intercepted a message...." No indication whether voice or
code. In an AP release the report was that "today...three Wailupe
operators...heard a message they believed came from the globe
circling plane. It was fragmentary, FAINT WORDS between others that
had been blotted out by static." (my italics)
Maybe Brandenburgs analysis would tell which had the better
probablity of being heard from the Electra, fragments of voice or
keyed code.
LTM,
RON Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:15:39
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: shoe size

Alan,
Photos show AE getting into the Electra with those nice Blucher
Oxford shoes. However she may well have changed into heavy flying
boots. Newspaper accounts say that she took along a pair of "high,
stout walking boots , just in case". Perhaps referring to landing on
some godforsaken island or in Africa!

For historical interest, I telephoned and sent a nice request
regarding the acquistion of the formal shoes, but no reply at all.
They could be Eleanor Roosevelts for all I know.

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:19:27
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 281 Message keying

There is no evidence whatsoever that the 281 message was sent in voice; the
Wailupe operators said it was keyed, which in most reasonable minds means it
was sent in some type of morse code and not voice.  C'mon people...pay
attention!

LTM, who is most exasperated when speaking in code...
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:19:56
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: shoe size

That's the way it was done in WWII, Hue.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:20:44
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Ron, if the message was voice why are folks talking about keying in
regard to the message. I'm getting lost. <G>

I can answer your question subject to be over ridden. <G> A keyed
message has better distance than voice.

BTW, not to open up old stuff but supposedly Earhart had two keys and
left both of them home to save weight. I don't buy that. their weight
is insignificant. I don't even buy them leaving them home because
they weren't good at code. They had to know code had better distance
and was the only communication with a lot of stations - ships for
example.

But maybe so.............

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:21:11
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

I might as well jump in. I don"t recall finding islands in the
Pacific, even Hawaii  from more than 50 miles because of the
shadow factor. As I flew a lot between 10 & 16 thousand we even
had the benefit of ADF and had to look hard. However coming in
to  SOCAL,(the West Coast  for you Easterners) the LA basin
could be seen for at least 200 miles at night (Clear), but that
was because of the lights. On a moonless night a Bonfire could
probably be seen for a long ways, depending on the size of the
fire. Firefight in VietNam could be seen for quite a distance
also, tracers are wonderful thing if they are not directed at
you.
Jimbo
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:21:45
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

Perhaps i was looking in the wrong report, and i haven't looked at the book CD
yet, but i missed any refernence in the reports to Itasca radio trouble. I
suggest there was plenty of time from the planning for the RTW  for Itasca to
rectify their possible radio problem.

Seagoing military vessels normally had redundancy in radio receivers.
The shipboard antenna was no more complex than a wire to high point. Surely
preparing a receiving antenna wire ahead of time for the RTW flight was no
major challenge. Since we like to talk probability, let's agree that is was
more likely Itasca DID NOT hear any hear 281 message rather than was DISABLED
from hearing such message.

I did note the following in one of the reports we were referred to:

"In actual practice, these odd fractions of a resonant wavelength are
often difficult to properly match. The reason for such difficulties lies in
the R-F voltage and current distributions over the length of the antenna wire,
and resultant standing waves along the antenna. This is particularly true of an
antenna 3/4 wavelength long, as this one was at 6210."

It's not any secret that 3/4 wave antenna functions impedance-wise same as a
1/4 wave antenna. A 1/4 wave antenna is resonant, non-reactive, and simple to
match - same idea as 1/4 wave, 108 inch CB antenna. My question is, without
searching other mistakes: does TIGHAR submit these reports to a second opinion,
vet them at all before publication? If not, why not?

BTW, if the V itself was 54 feet, what can we reckon the leadin at, and how far,
as well we know, to an end does it attach? The leadin needs to be calculated
as part of the overall length, unless we are looking at one mode of the
antenna's function, similar to a "Windom" off-center fed antenna.
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:37:47
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: shoe size

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> As to eliminating the sole you can't. Someone has already mentioned
> this but many aviators, yours truly included, wore extra large
> footwear with several pairs of sox because of the cold at altitude.

What I haven't seen mentioned is that some of us wear looser than
normal shoes in the air because our feet tend to swell a little at
altitude.  In my case, even 4500ft is enough after abouot 3 hours of
flight for a firm fitting pair of shoes to feel tight.  I learned
early on to fly in looser fitting shoes than I would normally walk in.

Any other pilots on the forum who do the same thing?  I don;t even
think about it these days.  I simply have one pair of shoes I keep
for flying.  Oddly though I don;t recall it being a problem in
commercial airline flight. just in light aircraft.  It might have
something to do with the trip duration being shorter on commercial
flights.  It might have something to do with the fact that my feet
are always "doing something" if I am flying a light aircraft.

Anyway, just some more wood for the bonfire.

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:14:33
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

Jim, I agree. Finding Bermuda or the Azores was not easy. I never had
trouble hitting North America from either ocean though. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:04:27
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: 281 message keying

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Thanks, Daryll, but I meant the morse code itself unless no one ever
> wrote that down.
>
> Alan

> From Ron Bright,
>
> Alan and Daryll,
>
> As I understand it the three Wailupe operators were never identified
> or interviewed. Is that true?
>
> Ron

Alan & Ron

I think we have to acknowledge that there were two types of Navy
Radios during this time period.

Navy Radios that were engaged in Fleet business and Navy Radios
engaged in intercept work.

Navy Radios engaged in Fleet business had certain frequencies they
used and communicated on a regular basis. It was one of these Radios
that forwarded the "281 message" to the Itasca. What was the
archiving criteria for these logs?

Navy Radios engaged in secret intercept work were part of OP-20-G.
The last letter further defines different parts of the organization
into "Traffic Analysis" "Direction Finding" etc. Wailupe was listed
as an OP-20-G station until 1934, if I remember correctly, then it
was moved to Heneia (sp?).

During Safford's tenure anyway, 1936 until he was scape-goated out,
it was his policy never to let a raw intercept to be seen. He
insisted that it be "typed smooth" before sharing any intelligence
with an outside agency.

I think the "281 message" that was sent to the Itasca can be
classified as a raw intercept minus frequency details. It was the so
called "EMINENT PSYCHIC" who felt it was necessary to use the word
"HASTE" in his telegram that he sent to GPP.

I surmised this policy was intended to conceal the sources that were
being listened to and the frequencies they were listing on. Also
there was a legal concern by OP-20-G in doing this because of the
"1934 Radio and Communications Act". Safford said that there were
legal concerns from some of the more knowledgeable people and I
include Supreme Court Justice Roberts who headed one of the Pearl
Harbor Hearings. Safford testified during the hearings that he read
the "Winds" message but couldn't find it later in the archives. Even
today, most of the declassified stuff is from the war years and very
little from the pre war period for obvious reasons.

Good luck in trying to find out the names of the three operators. I
would skip the archives and try looking in Morganthau's brief case
after his trip to Hawaii.

Daryll
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:51:48
From:         Marjorie Smith
Subject:      Re: shoe size

The Wombat wrote:

> Oddly though I don't recall it (foot swelling at altitude) being
> a problem in commercial airline flight. just in light aircraft.

As someone who habitually kicks my shoes off when I'm seated for a long
time, I always have trouble getting them back on when I'm on an airliner
because my feet have swollen. Of course, commercial jets are flying at much
greater altitudes than AE, but then again, they are pressurized to a certain
degree.

Marjorie
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:34:58
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

> From Marjorie Smith
>
> As someone who habitually kicks my shoes off when I'm seated for a long
> time, I always have trouble getting them back on when I'm on an airliner
> because my feet have swollen. Of course, commercial jets are flying at much
> greater altitudes than AE, but then again, they are pressurized to a certain
> degree.

Over here, the altitude the cabin is pressurised to on domestic
services is about 10,000ft if I remember correctly.  Just happens to
be about Earhart's cruising altitude....

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:23:36
From:         Wiulliam Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Foot swelling at altitude will vary widely among individuals and
circumstances. Meanwhile, given informal cockpit practices which
linger among some pilots to this day, along with AE's relatively low
BMI, the notion she had a bigger pair of shoes (in addition to
walking boots) on board to accommodate layers of warm socks is wholly
plausible.

I have to agree with Tom King that the dance shoes in the Earhart
museum don't have much bearing on what she might have worn while
flying or hiking.

Gallagher's description of woman's size 10 "stoutish walking
shoes..." (called "walking boots" in a newspaper report, which then
as now are widely known for getting little details wrong) has some sway.

Meanwhile I agree with TIGHAR's opinion that the shoe pieces found at
Aukairame S don't seem to match anything visible in known photos of
AE but let's not forget she may have had up to four pairs of shoes on
the Electra, coral shreds leather footwear to bits, if she was
stranded there she was bound to have done some exploring and, USS
Bushnell survey or not, I still wonder how a Cat's Paw replacement
heel manufactured in the 1930s, closely associated with what could
have been leather uppers with stitching characteristic of a woman's
shoe, got there.

LTM, who they say never got cold feet, at least
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:25:14
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Isn't it closer to 5,000 Ross?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:20:10
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Bonfires and searchlights

Yeah your right No Problem hitting a large land mass. After a
while experience sets in and I started taking the same heading
after the Faralone Islands after the Golden Gate to Hickam and
guess what I always found HNL/Hickam AFB. Day or Night.
Jimbo
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:20:45
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: shoe size

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Isn't it closer to 5,000 Ross?
>
> Alan

Yes, you are correct Alan.  I was going by the legal requirement, which states:
"Commercial aircraft cabins are required to be pressurized such that
the cabin pressure is not less than that at an altitude of 8,000ft."
And the "stated" cabin pressure of 10,000ft.

In reality, on 42 flights between 2002 and 2004 using Suunto wrist-
watch altimeters the cabin altitude at 30,000 to 34,000ft was only
around 5,000ft.  I had forgotten about those tests.

Cheers,

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:34:33
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      The 7 Site

To: Dr. King

Ref. is made to the Research Bulletin # 23 "The ' 7 ' Site" and the
resent discussion on the forum regarding the presents of the
"corrugated" roofing material and how it got to the site.

If you look at the above ref. bulletin and the photo supposedly taken
by a Navy PBY on June 20, 1941 you can see two things that may be a
clue to the above forum question, "how did the roofing material get
there?"

If the object described as a possible distillation tank is indeed
such a tank then maybe during its erection the roofing material was
brought to the site about the same time.  If you look at the area on
the photo marked as "discoloration" could this be where the tank and
roofing material was dragged up the beach from some form of floating
barge, boat, raft, etc. that carried this heavy stuff from around the
other side of the island.

Having said this I guess the next question would be what was going on
in this area between Sept. 1940 (when Gallagher first found the
skeleton) and June, 1941 when the above photo was taken?

If I recall correctly wasn't there correspondence to the effect that
the Gov. House was being moved?  That land was being distributed to
the workers? and so on.  Could a new village area be in the works?

Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:47:17
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The seven site

Ted Campbell asks:

> what was the date that P.B. Laxton wrote his "Nikumaroro" and what
> period did it cover?

Laxton was there in 1949/50.

> It seems that he came up "Gallagher's house" as he was traveling up
> the East side of the island from where the Coast Guard station was
> mothballed and awaiting dismantling.  If so he was in the 7 site area.

So it would seem.

> I may have just answered my own question of earlier today as to
> what was going on in the 7 site area between Sept. 1940 and June
> 1941.  It is not hard to believe that in June 1941 "Gallagher's
> house" was in the process of being built with a scheduled
> completion date of around Sept. 1941 when he was to/did return from
> Fiji.  Unfortunately Gallagher died before he could move in.

Laxton's account is puzzling.  The Coasties who were there from 1944
to 1946 reported seeing no such "house."  Gallagher certainly had no
intention of moving his place of residence from the large Rest House
at the Government Station to the far end of the atoll. On later maps
of the island which show the allocation of property to various
families, the Seven Site area is set aside as
"Komitina" (commissioner) or "Karaka" (Gallagher).  We're not sure
why.  One theory is that he planned to use that area for experimental
plantings to see if coconut palms would grow in that relatively harsh
environment.  The project apparently never got very far before
Gallagher was called away and then subsequently died.  Exactly what
Laxton saw and how much of the explanation his was given may have
been lost in translation remains a bit of a mystery.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:51:48
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: the seven site

Wasn't there some musing on Gallagher's part (or behalf) about
putting up some kind of a little "rest house" elsewhere on the island
for him? Or have I gotten that muddled?

Carrying on with that thought, is it possible that

a) Gallagher becomes acquainted with the 7 site because of the bones

b) As Ric has said its got a nice sea breeze

c) Gallagher decides he might build a "getaway" there someday, with
privacy and cool breezes (we know he had planned on settling on
Gardner before news of his promotion came in and he died agonizing
over that).

d) The water tank and apparent Arundel roofing wound up there as prep
work for "Gallagher's getaway," never mind castaway bones had been
buried and reburied there.

LTM, who thought ClubMed was too structured
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:21:21
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: the seven site

<<Wasn't there some musing on Gallagher's part (or behalf) about
putting up some kind of a little "rest house" elsewhere on the island
for him? Or have I gotten that muddled?>>

Yes, you have it muddled.  Laxton refers to the "house built for
Gallagher" at the place where the breezes blow through from the
ocean, which kind of makes it seem like a place to rest, but we've no
evidence that Gallagher ever proposed such a thing.  The "Rest House"
was the house in the village where Gallagher lived and visiting
dignitaries stayed.

<<Carrying on with that thought, is it possible that

a) Gallagher becomes acquainted with the 7 site because of the bones

b) As Ric has said its got a nice sea breeze

c) Gallagher decides he might build a "getaway" there someday, with
privacy and cool breezes (we know he had planned on settling on
Gardner before news of his promotion came in and he died agonizing
over that).

d) The water tank and apparent Arundel roofing wound up there as prep
work for "Gallagher's getaway," never mind castaway bones had been
buried and reburied there.>>

Yes, it's possible; we just have no evidence to support it, while we
do know that Gallagher was directed to do an intensive search of the
area and the weather got rotten about that time, perhaps justifying
construction of a little house for work parties staying over at the
site.  Personally, I tend to think that once the area was cleared,
Gallagher did the searching by himself, in which case the house would
literally have been built for Gallagher.  The problem, however, is
that Laxton describes it as though it were a standing structure in
'49, and the Coast Guardsmen don't mention it at all in '46.

<<LTM, who thought ClubMed was too structured>>

That's why we have Club Fred on Niku.  She loves it there.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:21:42
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: the seven site

William Webster-Garman asks:

> Wasn't there some musing on Gallagher's part (or behalf) about
> putting up some kind of a little "rest house" elsewhere on the
> island for him? Or have I gotten that muddled?

"Rest House" was the official term for the large government
headquarters buildings on British atolls.  In addition to being the
residence of the local administrator they had accommodations for
visitors.  There is no mention in Gallagher's reports or
correspondence of any intention to erect any kind of "getaway."

> Carrying on with that thought, is it possible that
>
> a) Gallagher becomes acquainted with the 7 site because of the bones

yes

> b) As Ric has said its got a nice sea breeze

yes

> c) Gallagher decides he might build a "getaway" there someday, with
> privacy and cool breezes (we know he had planned on settling on
> Gardner before news of his promotion came in and he died agonizing
> over that).

Building a "getaway" would be, in my opinion, totally out of
character for Gallagher.  He was utterly committed to the success of
the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme and quite literally worked
himself to death in that cause. He was famously negligent about his
own health and well-being.

> d) The water tank and apparent Arundel roofing wound up there as
> prep work for "Gallagher's getaway," never mind castaway bones had
> been buried and reburied there.

I just don't see him diverting resources from the colony to build a
private vacation home.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:46:32
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: The seven site

For Tom and Ric,

Yep, when I hit the send button earlier, I knew I shouldn't have
called a hypothetical "Gallagher getaway" a "rest house." This, I did
not muddle.

However, I thought perhaps there was an account somewhere that he'd
proposed building something for himself, though now it does seem I
muddled that with Laxton.

Truth be told, I can imagine a dedicated colonial British civil
servant working himself to death while simultaneously having a bit of
land set aside and placing some heavy "building materials" on it in
anticipation of setting up his own place as time might later allow. I
say this only because, up to his last return to Gardner, he seems to
have fully expected to stay there permanently.

Maybe Laxton saw the tank and the corrugated iron (either collapsed
from having been user earlier as a shelter, or still laid out from
1941), had been told it was the "site of Gallagher's house" but
through Laxton's perhaps less than wholly precise written account, we
infer a standing house where there was none.

I'm not asserting this to be so, only thinking "aloud" as it were.

Did any of the coasties ever mention all that iron at what we call
the 7 site?

>> That's why we have Club Fred on Niku.  She loves it there.

Haha!

William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:05:49
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: The seven site

If this is the "spirit side" of the island, would the bones be moved
there intentionally?  Maybe the equivalent of a "potter's field" or a
"decent burial"   Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:06:24
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The seven site

For William Webster-Garman

<<Truth be told, I can imagine a dedicated colonial British civil
servant working himself to death while simultaneously having a bit of
land set aside and placing some heavy "building materials" on it in
anticipation of setting up his own place as time might later allow. I
say this only because, up to his last return to Gardner, he seems to
have fully expected to stay there permanently.>>

Oh, I can IMAGINE it too, but as Ric says, it really seems unlike
Gallagher, and I don't know of any British colonial officer in the
immediate area who wound up living long-term on any of the islands,
other than Fiji.  More likely, I think, if the "house" wasn't
associated with the intensive search, that it was associated with
whatever enterprise Gallagher had in mind when he set the land aside
for government.

<<Maybe Laxton saw the tank and the corrugated iron (either collapsed
from having been user earlier as a shelter, or still laid out from
1941), had been told it was the "site of Gallagher's house" but
through Laxton's perhaps less than wholly precise written account, we
infer a standing house where there was none.>>

That's certainly possible.  It's also possible that the colonists
rebuilt the house after the Coasties left, for reasons of their own,
and continued to refer to it as Gallagher's house.  This would seem
entirely in keeping with Aram Tamia's seeming reverence for
Gallagher's memory.  And the corrugated adjacent to the tank,
apparently the roof of a structure, is galvanized steel like the
stuff at the Loran Station, while the stuff on the ridge is non-
galvanized iron, hence probably older.

<<Did any of the coasties ever mention all that iron at what we call
the 7 site?>>

Nope.  The tank, yes; the corrugated, no.

LTM, who finds it all rather ironic, but has steeled herself to it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:18:38
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The seven site

Dan Postellon asks:

> If this is the "spirit side" of the island, would the bones be moved
> there intentionally?  Maybe the equivalent of a "potter's field" or a
> "decent burial"

Conceivably, though I'm not aware of any tradition of burial on the
windward side, and it's arguable that the ghostly side of the island
is the last place you'd want to bury somebody if you want them to
rest easy and not bother you.  In any event, the bones in question
were lying out on the surface, with evidence of being crab-chewed,
with associated artifacts and evidence that someone, presumably the
deceased, had been camping.  I'd say the weight of evidence points
toward just what Gallagher inferred -- that the unfortunate castaway
had died on-site.

LTM, who wishes the bones hadn't been spirited away
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:59:23
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: The seven site

I've known some British civil servants (foreign service) who tended
to work very hard indeed, all the while dreaming of their island in
the sun (mad dogs, Englishmen and T.E. Lawrence, by the bye).

One thing we do have is a relatively high amount of unexplained, off-
and-on activity along with iron-derived building products at the 7
site for those dozen years between the time AE and FN went missing
and Laxton showed up. Never mind it's documented as having been
allocated to GG.

LTM, who forged ahead.
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:00:06
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Howland Island

From a Sep 18, Article in Literary Digest.
Of interest to Tom King, anthropologist.

    "Despite the savage natural handicaps of the place (Howland),
there is some slight evidence of South Sea Islander occupation. There
are marks of digging and remains of low flat mounds which may have
been the foundations for primitive huts.  Traces of FOOTPATHS remain,
and in 1862 fragments of a canoe, a few bits of bamboo, a blue bead
and a HUMAN SKELETON were discovered..." (Emphasis mine)

After the island was abandoned circa 1875, only a few rough graves
are left to mark where New England seaman used to land. There is no
inference that the skeleton was from the guano harvesters, just old
remains found on a remote island, by some unnamed visitor or
castaway. Sound familar!

The article is not bylined but appears to be written by airport
expert Robert Campbell, who was directed to build an airport on
Howland, landing there in Jan 1937. Several photos of Howland are
attributed to him.  Of note Yau Fai Lum, radio operator, accompanied
the team.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:17:34
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Thanks, Ron, that's interesting.  September 18 of what year?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:18:38
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Ron Bright wrote:

> There is no
> inference that the skeleton was from the guano harvesters, just old
> remains found on a remote island, by some unnamed visitor or castaway.
> Sound familar!

Not unless it was associated with a Benedictine bottle, remains of
stout walking shoes and a sextant box which seems to match only a few
others known to exist in the world, including one which belonged to
Fred Noonan.

LTM, who knew when she was washed up.
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:25:21
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: shoe size

Ron, I doubt anything not documented. I have not submitted those
shoes as Amelia's. If you want to believe they are without any
knowledge of their authenticity or at what age she wore them and if
they even fit at that time then be my guest but I'm not doing your
research for you. I see no value in the shoes whatsoever.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:25:50
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

Tom,
It was Sept 18, 1937, when they were reviewing the Howland Island as
a place that AE aimed for. History of, etc.
Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:26:20
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

I believe that there were guano diggers on Howland, but not
"Gardner".  The diggers were not treated well, and may have been
buried without ceremony.  Many of the whalers were Quakers (Friends),
and at least early in US history, they often did not mark their
graves, as it was considered ostentatious (according to a friend who
is a Friend).  Quite interesting, though.   Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:27:06
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Seven site

For Ted Campbell

<<If the object described as a possible distillation tank is indeed
such a tank then maybe during its erection the roofing material was
brought to the site about the same time.>>

The tank was pretty clearly for catching rainwater, and the smaller
of the two recorded deposits of corrugated metal is pretty clearly
the roof of a small shelter (the "house built for Gallagher?") off
which the rainwater was collected.  This is corrugated galvanized
steel, very likely from the Loran site and post-War.  The rest of the
corrugated is apparently non-galvanized iron, and is up the ridge
from the tank; we don't have a firm fix on its total distribution.
Being non-galvanized, and iron rather than steel, it's probably
older, though that doesn't mean it wasn't brought to the site at the
same time as the other stuff.

   << If you look at the area on
the photo marked as "discoloration" could this be where the tank and
roofing material was dragged up the beach from some form of floating
barge, boat, raft, etc. that carried this heavy stuff from around the
other side of the island.>>

I suppose, but if you're Gallagher and the colonists, living at the
other end of the lagoon, why go all the way around the island on the
ocean side and drag the stuff in over the reef?  Why not just take it
down the lagoon?  The "discoloration" is very strange, though; it
certainly looks (to me, at least) like something was dragged very
straight across the reef one way or the other, or both.

<<Having said this I guess the next question would be what was going on
in this area between Sept. 1940 (when Gallagher first found the
skeleton) and June, 1941 when the above photo was taken?>>

Indeed.  The intensive search, presumably, which would have probably
required clearing vegetation -- which shows in the airphoto.  We know
that the weather went sour at this point, so building a little
shelter makes sense, and if you're going to be there awhile, so does
catching rainwater.  But sheets and sheets and sheets of corrugated
iron?  Dragging something across the reef?

<<If I recall correctly wasn't there correspondence to the effect that
the Gov. House was being moved? >>

No, not in 1940-41.

<< That land was being distributed to
the workers?>>

Yes, but not at the SE end.

<<Could a new village area be in the works?>>

Maybe, but if so Gallagher didn't say anything about it in his
quarterly reports, which are pretty detailed.

LTM, who knows all but isn't talking.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:41:01
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

For Alan,

Ric disagrees with you about the importance of the size of those
shoes, as he made inquires with the Museum years ago.King mentions
the size in his book.Contrary to your opinion, the shoes would give a
pretty good idea of the size she normally wore, such as Blucher oxfords.

But with that said, the curator has declined to respond to telephone
calls and emails asking him to check acquistion records or even take
the shoes out and see what , if any,the size is. No luck. My
colleagues in 2005 tried to persuade the curator or an official to
check them out.  A relative of Amelia said she has no idea of the
origin of the shoes or who donated them.

The only reference I know regarding the size is Earhart researcher
Joe Klaas. He says he and his wife physically held them and found the
size 6 1/2 inside the left heel rear.

The size may be 6 1/2 but in view of the lack of documentation,I
doubt very much they are AEs.They could be your grandmothers. Unless
they are documented, I agree that they are of no value.
REB
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:12:18
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: shoe size

The 6 1/2 shoe size came from Joe Klaas? I'd call him neither a
researcher nor a reliable source for anything having to do with AE.
He did tabloid fiction.

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/BookReviews/earhartsurvive.html

LTM, would that she were a shoe-in for Manganibuka
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:12:50
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Ron, it is always a disappointment when rabbit trails lead nowhere OR
one gets stopped in one's tracks. I can't imagine the reluctance of
the museum unless they can't document their item and would then be
forced to take it off display. Am I being too cynical?

You have certainly done all you could do to track this down.

To be of value we need to know:

1. If they are Amelia's shoes?
2. When were they purchased?
3. Did she purchase them for herself or as a gift?
4. If for herself how old was she and did she actually wear them?

That ought to cover all the bases. What do you think?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:59:36
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Howland Island

For Dan Postellon

> I believe that there were guano diggers on Howland, but not
> "Gardner".  The diggers were not treated well, and may have been
> buried without ceremony.

Howland, Baker, and many of the Phoenix and Line Islands were
"bonded" by the U.S. government on behalf of the American Guano
Company under the Guano Act of 1856 (Congress didn't mince words in
those days).  According to Harry Maude, guano was actually discovered
on Baker by a whaler (Capt. Baker) who landed there to bury one of
his crew members and found the -- er -- stuff.  McKean Island was
heavily mined for guano, and there was mining on Orona (Hull) and to
some extent on Manra (Sydney), but the Americans -- well, THOSE
Americans -- never got to Niku, where there's little evidence of
major guano deposits anyhow.  Later the American companies mostly
withdrew from the area, and British subjects like Arundel took over,
leading to the very intensive mining (and virtual destruction) of
Nauru, Ocean, and other islands, though Arundel was a diversified
entrepreneur who did copra and other industries as well as guano.  A
lot of I Kiribati worked in the Guano mines, though I believe the
American Guano Company and its spin-off the Phoenix Guano Company
used mostly Hawaiian labor.  I doubt if they were treated very well,
but the big scandals that erupted over British mining operations in
the 20th century seem to have been mostly about wages and royalty
payments.

We didn't see any miners' graves on McKean (or at least didn't
recognize them as such) but that doesn't mean they weren't there.
There obviously wouldn't have been miners getting buried on Niku, but
there could have been coconut planters in the late 19th century.

LTM (who doesn't approve of her children talking guano)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:42:53
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

For Alan,

    Although I think both of us consider this a collateral issue with
little significance to the mystery, I just can't understand why the
Museum won't be co-operative. They must have a record of that
acquistion. It wouldn't take 5 mins to check the shoe and look at the
card.
    Without this documentation, as you describe, we are stuck at this
point.
     I don't want to put much effort into it, but maybe some folks
this July who are at the Atchison Earhart Festival can approach him
or a County supervisor and find out.
     It has become sort of a challenge!!

Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:43:41
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Betty's Notebook

Forgive me for obsessing, but some things need to be said. Maybe.
Some thoughts about this narrative:

"Finding Amelia", pg. 176: "Was Earhart holding up the earphone so that
Noonan could hear the dots and dashes?"

The receiver power supply switches off, via a relay, when the transmitter
power supply comes on. This is standard in all two way radios. So what
was she using to hear with?

If you accept that AE was listening at the same time the transmitter was
on, you have no choice but to accept that there was a second receiver
onboard. A second receiver dedicated only to direction-finding use,
could well have not been tied in to the Bendix two-way communication
receiver and transmitter. Again, this would have been the standard. The
second receiver could have been a WE low-frequency and broadcast
band type intended only for direction finding, not capable of high-frequency,
or it could have been the very state of the art Bendix RA-1 that Cam
Warren suggested. If she was trying to direction find on 7500, and we
know she was, this rather leans toward the RA-1, doesn't it? Otherwise
there's a whole lot of cranking the dial back and forth while trying to
juggle direction finding and communicating.

And BTW, altho it was pooh-poohed when we discussed it, i recall that
the Lae technician stated he calibrated "her receiver  AND her direction
finder". Emphasis mine; but there really is no way to misinterpret that
conjunction.

pg. 176: "It sounded something like  'W40K [ HEM: written words indeterminate
as to whether W -4 - letter O or zero - K ]  Howlandport' or maybe 'W O J
Howlandport'. The phrase may have been 'WPA Howland Airport'".

Why go for the more obscure interpretation? W4OK and WOJ were both
federally registered, legitimate call signs for radio stations operating in the
South East USA, Florida in fact. This would have been an easy daytime
reception from Betty's home, in fact a one-hop trip from the transmitter
site to her home.  Why would AE feel the need to refer to the landing field,
airstrip, or airfield as "airport" or actually, "Port anything?" (I don't think
there was US customs at this airport. )  Why would AE need to mention WPA?
That's kinda pushing it, isn't it?

Of course, this brings up the issue of whether Betty heard WOJ or W4OK
or AE did. As we discussed before, W4OK was not in AE's little network
of ham radio helpers on the previous Pacific flight, California to Hawaii.
AE didn't have a lot of radio training, but she no doubt realized that Florida
was beyond the reach of her radio. Is this perhaps extraneous material,
items noted from earlier in her listening session, while she was tuning
around, and before Betty heard AE? If so- does this bring up the question
of whether extraneous material from these or this station, the W station, or
another shortwave station, is mixed in with the numbers or whatever, further
down her notebook?

pg. 181 "Earhart's 3105 kilocycle frequency can also be expressed as
31.05 megacycles." Incorrect.

pg. 183 "...a careless step could easily damage the battery" Easily?
I have seen people work on truck engines and stand on a battery to
get at something. More likely to damage one's ankle. Even if you
cracked one of the caps, this battery was not going to go anywhere
else ever. Why worry about it?

Or did this mean, watch the battery charge/ discharge meter?

Last page of Betty's notebook:  "She said a few cuss words and sounds like she
was having trouble getting [ ?? out ?? ] water so high the plane was slipping "
How is it that we are able to hear her broadcast her problems climbing out of
the plane?

P. 172: "Russ [ Russell Rhodes, a neighbor ] couldn't get
it....although he had the same kind of set but hardly any aerial".
For  what Betty identified as a top of the line Zenith, costing a few 
months' pay, that is excellent and quite surprising market penetration for a
working class neighborhood. How many neighbors, i wonder, besides Betty's
utility meter-reader father, bought a top of the line radio?

I need to learn how much of the Niku hypothesis Betty already knew when she
or relative first approached TIGHAR. Her narrative is actually almost entirely
comprised of her more recent interpretation of her very fragmentary and minimal
1937 notes - in my opinion.

-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:44:13
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Canton Island photos

For those interested, Dr. Jane Resture's website contains some interesting
recollections of WWII operations on Canton Is, including early Pan Am pictures
from Carl Oates' book "Aerial Crossroads of the Pacific".

http://www.janesoceania.com/canton_book/index.htm

http://www.janeresture.com/kiribati_phoenix_group/index.htm  (scroll
down)

Rick J #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:17:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

I understand how you feel, Ron. It IS a challenge. After my last note
I thought more about the problem. Perhaps I was too harsh and cynical
regarding the museum director.

The possibilities I see are:

1. They just don't want to bother.
2. They fear it will open a can of worms of all the AE folks wanting
to see the shoes. If they do for one they must do for all.
3. They truthfully cannot find the old records.
4. The old records are stored somewhere in boxes and they don't have
the time or staff to go through all that.
5. The records are lost.
6. The records never existed.
7. They know the exhibit is fraudulent.

Take your choice.

Are we dealing with the director or the owner or who? There may be a
board or some influential donor who might help.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:57:23
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook

Hue, a few amateur radio comments.

"And BTW, altho it was pooh-poohed when we discussed it, i recall
that the Lae technician stated he calibrated "her receiver  AND her
direction finder". Emphasis mine; but there really is no way to
misinterpret that conjunction."

I don't know, Hue, but with a RDF could you not calibrate the
receiver AND its direction finding capability. I'm thinking of the
old "birddog." And that's just ONE radio.

"pg. 176: "It sounded something like  'W40K [ HEM: written words
indeterminate as to whether W -4 - letter O or zero - K ]
Howlandport' or maybe 'W O J Howlandport'. The phrase may have been
'WPA Howland Airport'". Why go for the more obscure interpretation?
W4OK and WOJ were both federally registered, legitimate call signs
for radio stations operating in the South East USA, Florida in fact."

When I listened to my Grandfather's old Zenith floor model other
stations DID cut in on occasion. could that be all Betty heard -- the
other two stations briefly overriding AE's signal?

"Last page of Betty's notebook:  "She said a few cuss words and
sounds like she was having trouble getting [ ?? out ?? ] water so
high the plane was slipping " How is it that we are able to hear her
broadcast her problems climbing out of the plane?"

How about a stuck transmitter button? Which reminds me. How do we
think she tried to transmit code? Keying the mike button off and on
or leaving it on and tapping out code on the mike or what?

"P. 172: "Russ [ Russell Rhodes, a neighbor ] couldn't get
it....although he had the same kind of set but hardly any aerial".
For  what Betty identified as a top of the line Zenith, costing a few
months' pay, that is excellent and quite surprising market
penetration for a working class neighborhood. How many neighbors, i
wonder, besides Betty's utility meter-reader father, bought a top of
the line radio?"

My Grandfather did, Hue. He was a disability (lost an arm when a
train ran over him) retired brakeman on the C&O. (Cincinnati and
Ohio) He was quite proud of his expensive radio AND his four door
Studebaker. The antenna ran from the side of the house to a pole
about 50 or so feet down the side yard. We were dirt poor folks but
we had almost no expenses. He built the house and raised all our
food. All we bought was salt, flour, cornmeal and the like. The radio
and car were the only two big expenses I remember he ever made.

"I need to learn how much of the Niku hypothesis Betty already knew
when she or relative first approached TIGHAR. Her narrative is
actually almost entirely comprised of her more recent interpretation
of her very fragmentary and minimal 1937 notes - in my opinion."

That could certainly color her narrative, Hue but would have nothing
to do with her notebook. Where in her narrative do you see the
possibility of Niku theory affecting her oral commentary. I have the
video but I missed anything significant about prior knowledge of
Niku. I'll look at it again.

I erred the other day in implying rehash is somewhat a waste of time.
Clearly it isn't. We've learned something about the "281" message
that had sort of been glossed over. I'm referring to its source(s)
and the mode in which it was transmitted. We've learned we may need
to do a better job researching Dr. Hoodless' qualifications.
Certainly more than a book by his own daughter. She ought to know the
most but she is hardly impartial. I wouldn't offer it in court.

I think Ron has done a great job in showing the "dancing slippers"
could actually be of value IF complete documentation could be
obtained. Cynical Alan has a suspicious concern as to why that
information is not forthcoming.

And finally you (Hue) have really pointed out some radio
discrepancies that need looked into or hashed out a bit more.

Alan

======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:25:29
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook

In a message dated 4/26/2007 3:58:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Alan
Caldwell writes:

> We've learned we may need
> to do a better job researching Dr. Hoodless' qualifications.

I've missed out on what you think we need to research, Alan.  We know
where and when he went to med school, what his pre-medical background
was, what his job was at the Central Medical School -- all from
sources we've inspected other than his daughter's book.  I think it
would definitely be useful to get a look at his papers, which his
daughter has (She's told Kris Tague that there's nothing in them
about the bones, but we might see something that she doesn't
recognize), but his qualifications don't really seem to be at issue.
He had a background in education, and he'd quite recently completed
his formal medical training.  What's odd is that he was the one
assigned to look at the bones and not Macpherson, who was the listed
forensics specialist at the CMS.  I have three guesses: (1)
Macpherson was too busy; (2) Sir Harry or Vaskess thought it would be
an appropriate gesture given Hoodless' relatively new status; (3)
Hoodless' training had included more up-to-date osteological analysis
than Macpherson had.

I'd caution against appearing to question Hoodless' qualifications
unless there's some very good reason to do so.  He is quite rightly
revered in Fiji and the western Pacific for his role in creating the
Native Medical Practitioner system, and people in the area get
understandably peeved when pushy Yanks start talking bad about their
revered figures.

LTM, who says to respect reverence
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:44:59
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Hue Miller says,

> Forgive me for obsessing, but some things need to be said. Maybe.
> Some thoughts about this narrative:
>
> "Finding Amelia", pg. 176: "Was Earhart holding up the earphone so that
> Noonan could hear the dots and dashes?"
>
> The receiver power supply switches off, via a relay, when the transmitter
> power supply comes on. This is standard in all two way radios. So what
> was she using to hear with?

As far as we can tell from the available photos, the transmitter and
receiver in NR16020 were completely independent systems.  The
transmitter had the capability of using the same antenna as the
receiver but there is nothing connected to that terminal.  The lead
from the transmitter in the cabin goes to the dorsal vee antenna.
The lead from the belly wire antenna goes into the bottom of the
fuselage under the copilot's seat where the receiver is mounted.

> If you accept that AE was listening at the same time the transmitter was
> on, you have no choice but to accept that there was a second receiver
> onboard.

If it works for a second receiver it seems to me that it would work
for an independent single receiver.

> A second receiver dedicated only to direction-finding use,
> could well have not been tied in to the Bendix two-way communication
> receiver and transmitter. Again, this would have been the standard.

The transmitter and receiver were Western Electric.  The loop itself
was a Bendix unit of a type that could be used with a Western
Electric receiver.

> The second receiver could have been a WE low-frequency and broadcast
> band type intended only for direction finding, not capable of high-frequency,
> or it could have been the very state of the art Bendix RA-1 that Cam
> Warren suggested. If she was trying to direction find on 7500, and we
> know she was, this rather leans toward the RA-1, doesn't it? Otherwise
> there's a whole lot of cranking the dial back and forth while trying to
> juggle direction finding and communicating.

We've been over this a hundred times.  There is no mention of a
separate receiver for direction finding anywhere in the literature.
All this business about a Bendix RA-1 is total woulda-coulda-shoulda
speculation.  What we do know is that the loop was a Bendix MN-5A.
Regardless of what receiver it was attached to, loop could not
respond to frequencies above 1500 kcs. As I explained and documented
in Finding Amelia, during the world flight and prior to the takeoff
from Lae, both Putnam and Earhart on separate occasions told the
Coast Guard what the frequency limitations of her direction finder
were.  Putnam said 1500 was the maximum it could handle.  Earhart was
under the (mistaken) impression that it could go up to 4800.  You're
alleging that her request for "a long count on 7500" is evidence that
she had a DF system that could handle that frequency.  If that was
the case, why could she not get a minimum?  Why did she tell the
Coast Guard only a few days before that her DF couldn't handle
frequencies higher than 4800?  Why did she ask for a "long count" on
a frequency the Coast Guard had earlier told her did not have voice
capability. The only way I know of to explain Earhart's documented
utterances and actions on the subject of radio direction finding is
to accept that she had no idea what she talking about.

> And BTW, altho it was pooh-poohed when we discussed it, i recall that
> the Lae technician stated he calibrated "her receiver  AND her direction
> finder". Emphasis mine; but there really is no way to misinterpret that
> conjunction.

I can't find your conjunction. The only reference to "calibrating" in
the Chater letter is in the following paragraph.

"At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart, in conjunction with our Operator,
tested out the long wave received on the Lockheed machine while work
was being carried out in the hangar. This was tested at noon on a
land station working on 600 metres. During this period the Lockheed
receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone, and
this was, on the next day, tested in flight."

The phrase "long wave received" above is apparently a typo.  It's in
the original. He probably meant to type "long wave receiver." In any
case, it seems very clear to me that there was only one receiver in
the Lockheed.

> pg. 176: "It sounded something like  'W40K [ HEM: written words indeterminate
> as to whether W -4 - letter O or zero - K ]  Howlandport' or maybe 'W O J
> Howlandport'. The phrase may have been 'WPA Howland Airport'".
>
> Why go for the more obscure interpretation? W4OK and WOJ were both
> federally registered, legitimate call signs for radio stations operating
> in the South East USA, Florida in fact. This would have been an easy daytime
> reception from Betty's home, in fact a one-hop trip from the transmitter
> site to her home.

So you want to accept either W40K or WOJ as being a correct
transcription.  How about "Howlandport"?  Is that accurate too?  Why
would either W40K or WOJ say something like that? And then there's
the problem of this phrase being a totally separate transmission on a
totally separate frequency from the rest of what Betty transcribed. I
think that's a pretty tough presumption to support.  The alternative
is to postulate that the operator at either W40K or WOJ was
perpetrating an elaborate hoax but including his real call letters.
If we're going to speculate, doesn't it make more sense to try to
find something that fits in the context of the rest of the notebook?

> Why would AE feel the need to refer to the landing field,
> airstrip, or airfield as "airport" or actually, "Port
> anything?"  ( I don't think
> there was US customs at this airport. )  Why would AE need to mention
> WPA? That's kinda pushing it, isn't it?

This is why it's so important to understand the context.  There were
three runways at Howland and it was referred to repeatedly in in the
press and in correspondence as an "airport" and in some cases "the
WPA airport" because it was built with WPA funds (like so many
airports around the country at that time.)

> pg. 181 "Earhart's 3105 kilocycle frequency can also be expressed as
> 31.05 megacycles."
> Incorrect.

Yes, I screwed that up.

> pg. 183 "...a careless step could easily damage the battery"
> Easily?
> I have seen people work on truck engines and stand on a battery to
> get at something. More likely to damage one's ankle. Even if you
> cracked one of the caps, this battery was not going to go anywhere
> else ever. Why worry about it?
> Or did this mean, watch the battery charge/ discharge meter?

Whether stepping on the battery would actually hurt it or not (I sure
wouldn't step on a battery that my life depended on) is not the
point.  "Watch that battery" is something I can easily see Earhart
saying in the context of the scene implied.  Conversely, I can't see
Earhart asking an obviously off-the-wall Fred to keep track of any
sort of meter.

> Last page of Betty's notebook:  "She said a few cuss words and
> sounds like she
> was having trouble getting [ ?? out ?? ] water so high the plane
> was slipping "
> How is it that we are able to hear her broadcast her problems
> climbing out of the
> plane?

That is not an entry in Betty's notebook.  It's Betty's anecdotal
recollection and interpretation after many years and it is no more
reliable than any such recollection.

> P. 172: "Russ [ Russell Rhodes, a neighbor ] couldn't get
> it....although he had the
> same kind of set but hardly any aerial".
> For  what Betty identified as a top of the line Zenith, costing a
> few months' pay,
> that is excellent and quite surprising market penetration for a
> working class neighborhood.
> How many neighbors, i wonder, besides Betty's utility meter-reader
> father, bought a top
> of the line radio?

Alan has answered that concern very nicely.

> I need to learn how much of the Niku hypothesis Betty already knew
> when she
> or relative first approached TIGHAR. Her narrative is actually
> almost entirely comprised
> of her more recent interpretation of her very fragmentary and
> minimal 1937 notes -
> in my opinion.

Forget her narrative.  Discard it entirely.  Maybe it's accurate.
Maybe it's not.  Probably parts of it are accurate and parts of it
are not, but there's no way to tell.  The notebook has to stand on
its own, and I think it does so admirably.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:54:30
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook

>> pg. 181 "Earhart's 3105 kilocycle frequency can also be expressed as
>> 31.05 megacycles."
>> Incorrect.
>
> Yes, I screwed that up.

Dumb question from a radio ignoramus: If you could screw it up, might
Earhart have done the same?  It CAN be EXPRESSED as 31.05 megacycles,
whether that's an accurate way to express it or not.  All one has to
do is express it that way.

LTM (who prefers a unicycle)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:57:12
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> ... We've learned we may need to do a
> better job researching Dr. Hoodless' qualifications. Certainly more
> than
> a book by his own daughter. She ought to know the most but she is
> hardly
> impartial. I wouldn't offer it in court.

I've read the book and passed it on to TIGHAR Central.  Roger and I
bought a copy from USP in 2003.

Author: Guthrie, Margaret W.
Title: Misi Utu : Dr. D.W. Hoodless and the development of medical
       education in the South Pacific / by Margaret W. Guthrie.

Published: Suva, Fiji : Institute of Pacific Studies, University
           of the South Pacific in association with the South
           Pacific Social Sciences Association, 1979.

Physical Details: vi, 60 p., [6] p. of plates : ill., ports. ; 22 cm.

            Subjects: Hoodless, David Winn, d. 1955.
                      Physicians--Fiji--Biography.
                      Medical teaching personnel--Fiji--Biography.
                      Medical education--Oceania--History.
                      Medical care--Oceania--History.
                      Central Medical School (Suva, Fiji)

      LC Call Number: R684.H66 G88 1979
                 DDC: 610/.7/119611
                LCCN: 82-174786

The book makes it clear that Hoodless' medical education was
sandwiched into relatively short trips home to Britain.  He
had begun as a tutor in Fiji--I think his field was mathematics.

Nothing in his daughter's telling of his life embellishes his
credentials as a forensic pathologist.

David Winn Hoodless:

	Founding Tutor, later Principal of CMS/FSM
	Set to retire 31 May 1942
	Stayed on as acting director until 1 Feb 47
	Succeeded by A.S. Frater
	Went to Tarawa to give a doctor relief
		November 1948
	1953: Second trip to the Gilberts
	Died 15 Ap 1955/56 in England.  His wife had problems
		proving that he was a Fijian citizen.  He
		is buried in Britain.
	Hilda Hoodless died Dec 31, 1956.

Hoodless came and "really helped" the people of the
Pacific (Tofiga).

"Hoodless was intelligent and good, as was Gilchrist"
(Gatty).

He probably did his level best to take the measurements
required by his textbooks and to apply the formulas he
found in them as best he could to determining ethnicity
and gender.

					Marty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:31:01
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

It's not the Smithsonian.  There is a museum saying that nothing is
ever lost in a museum, just under-cataloged.  I would bet on 3,4,5 or
6 below, but I agree that any of these reasons is likely.  Of course,
it could have been donated by a board member or influential donor,
and be suspect from the start.  This is not unheard of in art museum,
as in the mythical painting "Christ supported by attributions".
Dan Postellon

> The possibilities I see are:
> 1. They just don't want to bother.
> 2. They fear it will open a can of worms of all the AE folks
> wanting  to see the shoes. If they do for one they must do for all.
> 3. They truthfully cannot find the old records.
> 4. The old records are stored somewhere in boxes and they don't
> have  the time or staff to go through all that.
> 5. The records are lost.
> 6. The records never existed.
> 7. They know the exhibit is fraudulent. Take your choice. Are we
> dealing with the director or the owner or who? There may be a
> board or some influential donor who might help. Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:37:20
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Ric
> As far as we can tell from the available photos, the transmitter and
> receiver in NR16020 were completely independent systems.  The
> transmitter had the capability of using the same antenna as the
> receiver but there is nothing connected to that terminal.  The lead
> from the transmitter in the cabin goes to the dorsal vee antenna.
> The lead from the belly wire antenna goes into the bottom of the
> fuselage under the copilot's seat where the receiver is mounted.
>
>> If you accept that AE was listening at the same time the
>> transmitter was
>> on, you have no choice but to accept that there was a second receiver
>> onboard.
>
> If it works for a second receiver it seems to me that it would work
> for an independent single receiver.

Well, it's time for me to dig out the schematics again. Every other aircraft
had some way to ground the receiver antenna and switch off the receiver
power, but AE's ship did not?

When you have a wire antenna for receiver in proximity to a transmit
antenna, this receiver wire picks up a LOT of voltage when the transmitter
is on. The circuit in the receiver steps this up - even without the amplifiers
working in it - to hundreds of volts. The solution is a relay contact that
grounds the receiver input circuit when the transmitter is on. This control
wiring is controlled from the transmitter. If you lack this feature, you risk
damaging the receiver, and you're treated to a blast in the earphones
that will be like a slap to your ears. Also, how would the "transmit sidetone"
work ( this is a little bit of your speech into transmitter fed into earphones,
so you can hear what's being sent out - explanation for some of the
readers ), work with the receiver being blasted by the transmitter?
There's no avoiding this fact: AE did NOT receive anything when her
radio transmitter was ON. If you want to, you can go to contortions to
say she heard something, in the receiver, then pushed her transmitter
to tell Fred about it. We'll debate that, then.

It doesn't matter if in the receiver - transmitter pair, the receiver is in the
same box in your car's CB, or it's an Army receiver in a dugout a quarter
mile away from the transmitter: the receiver antenna is grounded, audio is
removed during transmit.

> We've been over this a hundred times.  There is no mention of a
> separate receiver for direction finding anywhere in the literature.
> All this business about a Bendix RA-1 is total woulda-coulda-shoulda
> speculation.  What we do know is that the loop was a Bendix MN-5A.
> Regardless of what receiver it was attached to, loop could not
> respond to frequencies above 1500 kcs. As I explained and documented
> in Finding Amelia, during the world flight and prior to the takeoff
> from Lae, both Putnam and Earhart on separate occasions told the
> Coast Guard what the frequency limitations of her direction finder
> were.  Putnam said 1500 was the maximum it could handle.  Earhart was
> under the (mistaken) impression that it could go up to 4800.  You're
> alleging that her request for "a long count on 7500" is evidence that
> she had a DF system that could handle that frequency.  If that was
> the case, why could she not get a minimum?  Why did she tell the
> Coast Guard only a few days before that her DF couldn't handle
> frequencies higher than 4800?  Why did she ask for a "long count" on
> a frequency the Coast Guard had earlier told her did not have voice
> capability. The only way I know of to explain Earhart's documented
> utterances and actions on the subject of radio direction finding is
> to accept that she had no idea what she talking about.

She said, "We hear you but cannot get a null". ( or similar words. )
She didn't say, cannot hear you at all on loop.
What did she use to pick up 7500?

>> And BTW, altho it was pooh-poohed when we discussed it, i recall that
>> the Lae technician stated he calibrated "her receiver  AND her
>> direction
>> finder". Emphasis mine; but there really is no way to misinterpret
>> that
>> conjunction.
>
> I can't find your conjunction. The only reference to "calibrating" in
> the Chater letter is in the following paragraph.
>
> "At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart, in conjunction with our Operator,
> tested out the long wave received on the Lockheed machine while work
> was being carried out in the hangar. This was tested at noon on a
> land station working on 600 metres. During this period the Lockheed
> receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone, and
> this was, on the next day, tested in flight."
>
> The phrase "long wave received" above is apparently a typo.  It's in
> the original. He probably meant to type "long wave receiver." In any
> case, it seems very clear to me that there was only one receiver in
> the Lockheed.

Okay, i grant that the above is inconclusive. I would have assumed that
reference to a "long wave receiver" refers to something different from
the HF receiver.  I saw a 1930s magazine article that had such a setup,
regular Western Electric HF transmitter, receiver, as in the Lockheed,
with a separate, simpler receiver for DF. But that is no proof in
this case.

>> pg. 176: "It sounded something like  'W40K [ HEM: written words
>> indeterminate
>> as to whether W -4 - letter O or zero - K ]  Howlandport' or maybe
>> 'W O J
>> Howlandport'. The phrase may have been 'WPA Howland Airport'".
>>
>> Why go for the more obscure interpretation? W4OK and WOJ were both
>> federally registered, legitimate call signs for radio stations
>> operating in the
>> South East USA, Florida in fact. This would have been an easy daytime
>> reception from Betty's home, in fact a one-hop trip from the
>> transmitter
>> site to her home.
>
> So you want to accept either W40K or WOJ as being a correct
> transcription.  How about "Howlandport"?  Is that accurate too?  Why
> would either W40K or WOJ say something like that? And then there's
> the problem of this phrase being a totally separate transmission on a
> totally separate frequency from the rest of what Betty transcribed. I
> think that's a pretty tough presumption to support.  The alternative
> is to postulate that the operator at either W40K or WOJ was
> perpetrating an elaborate hoax but including his real call letters.
> If we're going to speculate, doesn't it make more sense to try to
> find something that fits in the context of the rest of the notebook?
>
>> Why would AE feel the need to refer to the landing field,
>> airstrip, or airfield as "airport" or actually, "Port
>> anything?"  ( I don't think
>> there was US customs at this airport. )  Why would AE need to mention
>> WPA? That's kinda pushing it, isn't it?
>
> This is why it's so important to understand the context.  There were
> three runways at Howland and it was referred to repeatedly in in the
> press and in correspondence as an "airport" and in some cases "the
> WPA airport" because it was built with WPA funds (like so many
> airports around the country at that time.)

Your context is immaterial to the logic here. WHY would AE use such an
odd phrase? This was no "airport", no "Howlandport" ? Who talks like that?
You're getting close when you state that such terms were used in the press, etc.
I think this suggests a non-AE source: someone who gets their information
from the "press and correspondence", not someone who IS right there.

>> pg. 183 "...a careless step could easily damage the battery" Easily?
>> I have seen people work on truck engines and stand on a battery to
>> get at something. More likely to damage one's ankle. Even if you
>> cracked one of the caps, this battery was not going to go anywhere
>> else ever. Why worry about it?
>> Or did this mean, watch the battery charge/ discharge meter?
>
> Whether stepping on the battery would actually hurt it or not (I sure
> wouldn't step on a battery that my life depended on) is not the
> point.  "Watch that battery" is something I can easily see Earhart
> saying in the context of the scene implied.  Conversely, I can't see
> Earhart asking an obviously off-the-wall Fred to keep track of any
> sort of meter.
>
>> Last page of Betty's notebook:  "She said a few cuss words and
>> sounds like she
>> was having trouble getting [ ?? out ?? ] water so high the plane
>> was slipping "
>> How is it that we are able to hear her broadcast her problems
>> climbing out of the
>> plane?
>
> That is not an entry in Betty's notebook.  It's Betty's anecdotal
> recollection and interpretation after many years and it is no more
> reliable than any such recollection.

Yes-  "interpretation".  That, it seems to me, is the gist of the
Betty narrative: interpretation, and fairly recent.

> Forget her narrative.  Discard it entirely.  Maybe it's accurate.
> Maybe it's not.  Probably parts of it are accurate and parts of it
> are not, but there's no way to tell.  The notebook has to stand on
> its own, and I think it does so admirably.

You all are maybe sick of hearing about Betty from me.
If you just want to present Betty's notebook and story with no judgements,
just the note that it's an artifact from the time, fine. But then it should
not have any value as evidence of anything. It's nice that it seems to fit
with the Niku hypothesis. As nice as that is, there is extraneous information
in the notebook, not just the later interpretation, that defies logic. To start
with, the basic picture of this dramatic scenario being broadcast. If you're
going to tout the notebook, you ( plural ) need to deal with that basic problem,
not gloss it. -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:42:43
From:         Dennis Mcgee
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Ron Bright said:  " . . .I just can't understand why the  Museum
won't be co-operative."

As I understand it, they (the museum administrators) don't like us.
Appearently our investigation of this episode has uncovered some less
than flattering aspects of AE's career and publication of this
information threatens to tarnish the many myths -- all positive --
that have evolved over the years.

However, as we have all learned here, some of the best evidence is
that which is provided by one of the participants of an event and
which can be corraborated by other sources.  For that, we need to go
back to TIGHAR Central in Wilmington . . . Ric?

LTM, and all her friends at TIGHAR Towers,
Dennis O. McGee #1049EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:44:50
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Ventral antenna

Ventral antenna, possibly damaged during Lae takeoff.
I just want to ask readers ideas on this:
Okay, so the ventral (lower hull) antenna's stanchion,
or support, was broken by ground contact due to the
aircraft's bounce while taking off. Later, people found
wire on the runway. I just want to check my logic.
Regardless of the finding of wire on the runway, think about
this: if the antenna brace collapses, why would the antenna
necessarily be torn off? It would have to catch on something,
wouldn't it? The airfield is pretty smooth- it's not like driving
thru a field of bushes or a gravel pit - so isn't the antenna w
wire just going to drag along with it? Later, while flying, the
antenna is going to whip in the wind, and the repeated movement
at the bending moment will, i think, with the force of the wind,
eventually break the antenna - but how long til this happens, i
have no idea. It is maybe 18 gauge wire, i guess???  I don't
know if the antenna flapping in the breeze under the plane would
work at all - i suppose it would be most likely not, or extremely
poorly - the antenna wire was probably bare copper and may
have wrapped or snagged the remainder of the antenna stanchion.
Anyway it just didn't seem to me that  the wire itself would be
broken or snagged and torn off during takeoff. -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:38:59
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook

> From Tom King
> Dumb question from a radio ignoramus: If you could screw it up, might
> Earhart have done the same?  It CAN be EXPRESSED as 31.05 megacycles,
> whether that's an accurate way to express it or not.  All one has to
> do is express it that way.

Why would she bother to reformat the standard way of expressing that,
"thirty one oh five" ?  Yes, it CAN be done, but why ? Did she need
filler material?  I think not.

6210 x 5 = 31050 = 31.05 MHz = 31.05 megacycles, in the old terminology.
Was this the frequency Betty's radio was tuned to? Fits with the Harmonic
Theory, sort of? However, if material originated by Betty, NOT AE, is present
right in the supposed transcription notes, what other material NOT from AE is
noted right there in Betty's handwriting? That's a rude thought, isn't it?

BTW, the "Harmonic Theory" doesn't only work trans-Pacific, okay?
In other words, some other transmitter on 6210, closer to home?
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:39:31
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Dennis McGee says,

> Apparently our investigation of this episode has uncovered some
> less than flattering aspects of AE's career and publication of this
> information threatens to tarnish the many myths -- all positive --
> that have evolved over the years.
>
> However, as we have all learned here, some of the best evidence is
> that which is provided by one of the participants of an event and
> which can be corraborated by other sources.  For that, we need to
> go back to TIGHAR Central in Wilmington . . . Ric?

What episode are we talking about?

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:54:52
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Thanks for your note and comments, Alan, which i do appreciate.
Now-

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Hue, a few amateur radio comments.
>
> "And BTW, altho it was pooh-poohed when we discussed it, i recall
> that the Lae technician stated he calibrated "her receiver  AND her
> direction finder". Emphasis mine; but there really is no way to
> misinterpret that conjunction."
>
> I don't know, Hue, but with a RDF could you not calibrate the
> receiver AND its direction finding capability. I'm thinking of the
> old "birddog." And that's just ONE radio.

I think we were taking "calibrate" more to mean like marking the dial
so the dial could be more quickly, accurately repositioned to desired
channels. Other than that, "calibrate" in tech jargon might mean more
like taking the receiver out to the workbench, taking the cover off,
making some screwdriver type tweaks to make sure the dial markings
were as true as possible.

I am fairly certain in this instance "calibrate" the DF didn't refer
to calibrating the direction finder, directional errors - like the Navy did when
installing a DF system - for pattern distortions and such - because that's a
major undertaking.

> "pg. 176: "It sounded something like  'W40K [ HEM: written words
> indeterminate as to whether W -4 - letter O or zero - K ]
> Howlandport' or maybe 'W O J Howlandport'. The phrase may have been
> 'WPA Howland Airport'". Why go for the more obscure interpretation?
> W4OK and WOJ were both federally registered, legitimate call signs
> for radio stations operating in the South East USA, Florida in fact."
>
> When I listened to my Grandfather's old Zenith floor model other
> stations DID cut in on occasion. could that be all Betty heard -- the
> other two stations briefly overriding AE's signal?

Neither of those (possible) stations were licensed to operate on any
frequency which would conflict with the aircraft channels.  Remember,
AE can only transmit on 3105 and 6210 and, accidently, we assume,
some single-digit whole number ( 2, 3, 5, etc. ) multiples of 3105 and
6210. So Betty could ONLY hear AE on one of such.
The ham call, W4OK, could only transmit in one of certain hambands,
none of which multiply to match AE. WOJ, license held  by ATT or ITT
if i recall, would be transmitting in one of several shortwave bands, but
i'm confident that no multiples to match AE. Also, you can be confident
that the telecomm company transmitter was about the best-managed
equipment available and did not have the harmonic leakage problem.
So - where did these, or this, callsign originate? It makes NO sense
for AE to have voiced them. AE could NOT hear them at that time
of day - that has been established.  The clearest answer is that Betty
was tuning around, listening to all kinds of things. And: noting down
all kinds of things in the notebook. Not just material from AE.

> "Last page of Betty's notebook:  "She said a few cuss words and
> sounds like she was having trouble getting [ ?? out ?? ] water so
> high the plane was slipping " How is it that we are able to hear her
> broadcast her problems climbing out of the plane?"
>
> How about a stuck transmitter button? Which reminds me. How do we
> think she tried to transmit code? Keying the mike button off and on
> or leaving it on and tapping out code on the mike or what?

Why the transmitter button now conveniently stuck?
The microphone now picking up all the cabin discussion, movement
sounds, etc. ? But no engine noise when flying?
Too many convenient unlikelihoods, miracles!

This is "anecdotal", but i've never encountered a stuck micrphone button
except where one has been in damp dirty storage for years.
We don't know how she tried to transmit Morse code. I think we can rule
out microphone button. That might sound like trying to send Morse code
with your table saw.  Maybe as i suggested by touching the antenna
wire to the transmitter's antenna connector while the mic button was held
down. That "would work", definitely. Or, maybe she did NOT send any
Morse code message, i don't know.

> "P. 172: "Russ [ Russell Rhodes, a neighbor ] couldn't get
> it....although he had the same kind of set but hardly any aerial".
> For  what Betty identified as a top of the line Zenith, costing a few
> months' pay, that is excellent and quite surprising market
> penetration for a working class neighborhood. How many neighbors, i
> wonder, besides Betty's utility meter-reader father, bought a top of
> the line radio?"
>
> My Grandfather did, Hue. He was a disability (lost an arm when a
> train ran over him) retired brakeman on the C&O. (Cincinnati and
> Ohio) He was quite proud of his expensive radio AND his four door
> Studebaker. The antenna ran from the side of the house to a pole
> about 50 or so feet down the side yard. We were dirt poor folks but
> we had almost no expenses. He built the house and raised all our
> food. All we bought was salt, flour, cornmeal and the like. The radio
> and car were the only two big expenses I remember he ever made.

I don't remember how much this top-flight model of radio cost. It was
kinda one that movie stars and captains of industry bought. I'd be surprised
but maybe it was correct, that some average wage earners spent a good
portion of their annual income on a prestige radio. Your grandfather, i note,
got a serviceable Studebaker, not a Rolls Royce or such. I just thought it
odd that two neighbors, working people, owned the best radio available
on the market - at least, that was the radio Betty identified. At fourteen
years of age, but she did identify it more than a half century later. Why
this has any bearing, is that the radio's technical qualifications entered
into the hearing AE probability analysis.

> "I need to learn how much of the Niku hypothesis Betty already knew
> when she or relative first approached TIGHAR. Her narrative is
> actually almost entirely comprised of her more recent interpretation
> of her very fragmentary and minimal 1937 notes - in my opinion."
>
> That could certainly color her narrative, Hue but would have nothing
> to do with her notebook. Where in her narrative do you see the
> possibility of Niku theory affecting her oral commentary. I have the
> video but I missed anything significant about prior knowledge of
> Niku. I'll look at it again.

Your'e correct that i was going out on the limb there, speculating about
the massaging of the narrative to find a wecome from TIGHAR.

I am not just attacking the narrative, the interpretation,  however. I am
questioning the actual material in the 1937 notations.

> I erred the other day in implying rehash is somewhat a waste of time.
> Clearly it isn't....
> Alan

I don't think a rehash necessarily is a waste, if we make even some
miniscule progress on these challenges. -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:55:11
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Although 31.05 = 5 x 6.210, i just realized a minor snag in
my speculations:

Betty's radio, no matter how expensive, could not resolve
a frequency in the 31 Mcs.  region down to a resolution that
fine, 0.05 MHz. The dial was marked at best with 0.5 Mcs.
gradations, and much more likely at 1 Mcs. or more increments.
So, it's nigh impossible to resolve, without ancilliary equipment,
the frequency down to this.
So, she had no way to know 31.05 megacycles.
This must, then,  be miswritten for 3.105 Mcs.
or something like that.....
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:12:57
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Shoe size

Thoughts from a long time lurker--....

Come on Folks--The size 6 1/2 dancing slippers in the AE Museum---
dont mean diddley squat in the overall scheme of things on the
forum.....
THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets please move on to something more interesting AND important....

Jim Tierney
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:13:51
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> But no engine noise when flying?

I don't recall such an instance, Hue. could you point me to it?

The other point you left me with is my Grandfather's car. In those
days Studebaker was a very prestigious vehicle. It had amber glass
vases on the center posts between the front and back doors and pull
down window blinds. My Grandfather had one suit. A three piece gray
pinstripe and he had a pocket watch with Roman numerals. On Sunday
we'd drive downtown and hang out at the Courthouse. He attracted a
good following.<G>

In the thirties, Hue, folks like us poor Irish were very careful with
the little money we had but used it on big things when we could.
Generally we had very little expense. Mom made my clothes, we had
farms or large gardens, chickens, cows, a pig, and fruit trees. We
really didn't have much to spend money on. (I grew up in the Hocking
River Valley in south east Ohio. Athens and Nelsonville)

I remember the radio as a floor model Zenith but I couldn't tell you
the model or how much it cost. I know it was quite powerful and the
wood finish was beautiful. It LOOKED expensive. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:15:04
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Is somebody really serious that a 1937 Zenith console radio could
tune to 31.05 megacycles (the old format for frequency)?  No way.  I
have several of those radios in my collection and none tunes to
anywhere near that high a frequency.  In 1937 only a relatively
expensive ham receiver could tune to that frequency, plus the Philco
116 series of household radios.  And please try to forget about fifth
harmonics of AE's actual frequency.  If someone heard AE say "thirty
one oh five," she was very likely referring to 3105 kilocycles per
second, which is one of the three frequencies for which she had
transmitting crystals.  The others were 6210 kHz and 500 kHz.
If "Betty" heard something up around 15 MHz, it was not from AE's
transmitter.

My diagrams of what are said (by this forum) to be her transmitter
and receiver show a third little box, the loop antenna coupling unit,
that is needed to adapt the Bendix loop to the WE receiver.  This
unit is interposed between the loop and the receiver when DF is being
attempted, and the receiver will actually tune to any frequency for
which it is capable, and for the WE receiver she had, that is far
above the highest reliable frequency for the loop.  It would likely
still pick up signals, but the direction-finding capability is shot,
mainly on account of the mixed polarizatiuon of signals at
frequencies above about 2 MHz.

But there is nothing that prevents her from having both the
transmitter and receiver powered at the same time.  The transmitter
would simply choke the receiver and prevent it from being able to
receive signals.

I don't know if she had a ventral antenna on the plane after the Lae
takeoff, but that antenna was likely under water when she was
allegedly in the surf at Niki. Its receiving capability was zilch.
So maybe she had the loop connected to the receiver, via the adaptor
box.  The transmitter would still choke the receiver, and quiet it,
but the receiver would come back to life after the transmitter shut
down.  And some reception capability would exist, however poor in
sensitivity at either 3105 or 6210 kHz.


You guys need to talk more to real radio people.

Ed Lyon, who has over 65 years of radio experience.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:16:19
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Marty, I found a copy of her book on her father and it is on its way
but you have probably made a good assessment of what I will find.

I rarely accept off hand comments without checking myself. I have an
insatiable curiosity. My head is chock full of zillions of useless
pieces of information. <G>

Thanks Marty.

I would tend to go along with you, Dan.

> If you just want to present Betty's notebook and story with no
> judgements, just the note that it's an artifact from the time, fine.

I think what Ric was saying was the significant item is Betty's
notebook -- not her later story. The judgments are to the notebook
not her later testimony.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:16:40
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Hue,

I seem to remember it's on record that the lost antenna was found at the
airfield after the airplane had taken off.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:17:02
From:         Michael Craig
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Ric - and (lots) of others

I just had a thought about DF on 7500kcs.

Maybe AE or FN thought they could use the plane to DF on 7500? By flying
round in a (big?) circle while Itasca was doing a 'slow count' they could
possibly have got some sort of null from their fore and aft wire antenna. Do
you think they could have worked that?  FN did have some experience of DF
work didn't he?

Just another theory.  Sorry if it's already been suggested - I haven't
followed the forum for a while

LTM who doesn't like going round in circles!

Michael
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:38:34
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Hue Miller
>
>> From Ric
>> As far as we can tell from the available photos, the transmitter and
>> receiver in NR16020 were completely independent systems.  The
>> transmitter had the capability of using the same antenna as the
>> receiver but there is nothing connected to that terminal.  The lead
>> from the transmitter in the cabin goes to the dorsal vee antenna.
>> The lead from the belly wire antenna goes into the bottom of the
>> fuselage under the copilot's seat where the receiver is mounted.
>>
>>> If you accept that AE was listening at the same time the
>>> transmitter was
>>> on, you have no choice but to accept that there was a second
>>> receiver
>>> onboard.
>>
>> If it works for a second receiver it seems to me that it would work
>> for an independent single receiver.
>
> Well, it's time for me to dig out the schematics again. Every other aircraft
> had some way to ground the receiver antenna and switch off the receiver
> power, but AE's ship did not?

I'm a bit surprised that you've checked every other aircraft.

> When you have a wire antenna for receiver in proximity to a transmit
> antenna, this receiver wire picks up a LOT of voltage when the
> transmitter
> is on.

How close is "proximity."  The Electra's transmit antenna was
ballpark 8 feet from the receiving antenna.

> The circuit in the receiver steps this up - even without the amplifiers
> working in it - to hundreds of volts. The solution is a relay contact that
> grounds the receiver input circuit when the transmitter is on. This control
> wiring is controlled from the transmitter. If you lack this feature, you risk
> damaging the receiver, and you're treated to a blast in the earphones
> that will be like a slap to your ears. Also, how would the "transmit sidetone"
> work ( this is a little bit of your speech into transmitter fed into
> earphones, so you can hear what's being sent out - explanation for some of the
> readers ), work with the receiver being blasted by the transmitter?

I think we need to figure out how much "blasting" there would
actually be.  Perhaps Bob Brandenburg could offer an opinion.

> There's no avoiding this fact: AE did NOT receive anything when her
> radio transmitter was ON.

I think I'd like a second opinion.

> It doesn't matter if in the receiver - transmitter pair, the receiver is in
> the same box in your car's CB, or it's an Army receiver in a dugout a
> quarter mile away from the transmitter: the receiver antenna is grounded,
> audio is removed during transmit.

So "proximity" is within a quarter mile?  No receiver is going to be
able to receive if there's a transmitter functioning on the same
frequency within a quarter mile?

>> We've been over this a hundred times.  There is no mention of a
>> separate receiver for direction finding anywhere in the literature.
>> All this business about a Bendix RA-1 is total woulda-coulda-shoulda
>> speculation.  What we do know is that the loop was a Bendix MN-5A.
>> Regardless of what receiver it was attached to, loop could not
>> respond to frequencies above 1500 kcs. As I explained and documented
>> in Finding Amelia, during the world flight and prior to the takeoff
>> from Lae, both Putnam and Earhart on separate occasions told the
>> Coast Guard what the frequency limitations of her direction finder
>> were.  Putnam said 1500 was the maximum it could handle.  Earhart was
>> under the (mistaken) impression that it could go up to 4800.  You're
>> alleging that her request for "a long count on 7500" is evidence that
>> she had a DF system that could handle that frequency.  If that was
>> the case, why could she not get a minimum?  Why did she tell the
>> Coast Guard only a few days before that her DF couldn't handle
>> frequencies higher than 4800?  Why did she ask for a "long count" on
>> a frequency the Coast Guard had earlier told her did not have voice
>> capability. The only way I know of to explain Earhart's documented
>> utterances and actions on the subject of radio direction finding is
>> to accept that she had no idea what she talking about.
>
> She said, "We hear you but cannot get a null". ( or similar words. )
> She didn't say, cannot hear you at all on loop.
> What did she use to pick up 7500?

Her Western Electric 20B receiver - the only receiver aboard the
airplane.  The loop is nothing but a specialized receiving antenna. 
She can receive signals on 7500 over the loop using the WE receiver
just fine, and she can hear the morse code "A"s in her headphones,
but the direction finding ability of the loop won't work at such a
high frequency.  Hence, "We received your signal's but unable to get
a minimum." Had she used the loop as a back-up receiving antenna she
could have heard Itasca on 3105, but she switched back to the
(missing) belly antenna.

>>> And BTW, altho it was pooh-poohed when we discussed it, i recall
>>> that
>>> the Lae technician stated he calibrated "her receiver  AND her
>>> direction
>>> finder". Emphasis mine; but there really is no way to
>>> misinterpret that
>>> conjunction.
>>
>> I can't find your conjunction. The only reference to "calibrating" in
>> the Chater letter is in the following paragraph.
>>
>> "At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart, in conjunction with our Operator,
>> tested out the long wave received on the Lockheed machine while work
>> was being carried out in the hangar. This was tested at noon on a
>> land station working on 600 metres. During this period the Lockheed
>> receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone, and
>> this was, on the next day, tested in flight."
>>
>> The phrase "long wave received" above is apparently a typo.  It's in
>> the original. He probably meant to type "long wave receiver." In any
>> case, it seems very clear to me that there was only one receiver in
>> the Lockheed.
>
> Okay, i grant that the above is inconclusive. I would have assumed
> that
> reference to a "long wave receiver" refers to something different from
> the HF receiver.  I saw a 1930s magazine article that had such a
> setup,
> regular Western Electric HF transmitter, receiver, as in the Lockheed,
> with a separate, simpler receiver for DF. But that is no proof in
> this case.

I don't think it's inconclusive at all. The WE 20B was not just an HF 
receiver.  It had four bands covering frequencies from 200 to 10,000
kcs.  To suggest that the receiver referenced in the first sentence
of that paragraph ("At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart, in conjunction 
with our Operator, tested out the long wave receiver on the Lockheed
machine while work was being carried out in the hangar.") is a
different receiver than the one reference in the third sentence
("During this period the Lockheed receiver was calibrated for
reception of Lae radio telephone, and this was, on the next day,
tested in flight.) strikes me as absurd.

>>> pg. 176: "It sounded something like  'W40K [ HEM: written words
>>> indeterminate
>>> as to whether W -4 - letter O or zero - K ]  Howlandport' or
>>> maybe 'W O J
>>> Howlandport'. The phrase may have been 'WPA Howland Airport'".
>>>
>>> Why go for the more obscure interpretation? W4OK and WOJ were both
>>> federally registered, legitimate call signs for radio stations
>>> operating in the
>>> South East USA, Florida in fact. This would have been an easy
>>> daytime
>>> reception from Betty's home, in fact a one-hop trip from the
>>> transmitter
>>> site to her home.
>>
>> So you want to accept either W40K or WOJ as being a correct
>> transcription.  How about "Howlandport"?  Is that accurate too?  Why
>> would either W40K or WOJ say something like that? And then there's
>> the problem of this phrase being a totally separate transmission on a
>> totally separate frequency from the rest of what Betty transcribed. I
>> think that's a pretty tough presumption to support.  The alternative
>> is to postulate that the operator at either W40K or WOJ was
>> perpetrating an elaborate hoax but including his real call letters.
>> If we're going to speculate, doesn't it make more sense to try to
>> find something that fits in the context of the rest of the notebook?
>>
>>> Why would AE feel the need to refer to the landing field,
>>> airstrip, or airfield as "airport" or actually, "Port
>>> anything?"  ( I don't think
>>> there was US customs at this airport. )  Why would AE need to
>>> mention
>>> WPA? That's kinda pushing it, isn't it?
>>
>> This is why it's so important to understand the context.  There were
>> three runways at Howland and it was referred to repeatedly in in the
>> press and in correspondence as an "airport" and in some cases "the
>> WPA airport" because it was built with WPA funds (like so many
>> airports around the country at that time.)
>
> Your context is immaterial to the logic here. WHY would AE use such an
> odd phrase? This was no "airport", no "Howlandport" ? Who talks
> like that?

How about the guy in charge of building it?  From Finding Amelia,
page 13, "Later that day Richard Black in Honolulu sent a cable to
his boss in Washington:

"Mainland press releases give Earhart itinerary. Mainland releases January 14
announced WPA airport project Howland. Many requests here for story and pictures
of landing and airport construction."  Also, RICHARD B BLACK DEPT
INTERIOR ANNOUNCED TODAY AIRPORT OFFICIALLY NAMED KAMAKAIWA (sic)
FIELD (see Finding Amelia DVD, Chapt. 2, footnote 28)

> You're getting close when you state that such terms were used in
> the press, etc.
> I think this suggests a non-AE source: someone who gets their
> information
> from the "press and correspondence", not someone who IS right there.

Whether or not it seems odd to you, the facility at Howland was known
as an "airport" to virtually everyone associated with the flight.
This is what I mean by context.

>>> pg. 183 "...a careless step could easily damage the battery" Easily?
>>> I have seen people work on truck engines and stand on a battery to
>>> get at something. More likely to damage one's ankle. Even if you
>>> cracked one of the caps, this battery was not going to go anywhere
>>> else ever. Why worry about it?
>>> Or did this mean, watch the battery charge/ discharge meter?
>>
>> Whether stepping on the battery would actually hurt it or not (I sure
>> wouldn't step on a battery that my life depended on) is not the
>> point.  "Watch that battery" is something I can easily see Earhart
>> saying in the context of the scene implied.  Conversely, I can't see
>> Earhart asking an obviously off-the-wall Fred to keep track of any
>> sort of meter.
>>
>>> Last page of Betty's notebook:  "She said a few cuss words and
>>> sounds like she
>>> was having trouble getting [ ?? out ?? ] water so high the plane
>>> was slipping "
>>> How is it that we are able to hear her broadcast her problems
>>> climbing out of the
>>> plane?
>>
>> That is not an entry in Betty's notebook.  It's Betty's anecdotal
>> recollection and interpretation after many years and it is no more
>> reliable than any such recollection.
>
> Yes-  "interpretation".  That, it seems to me, is the gist of the
> Betty narrative: interpretation, and fairly recent.
>
>> Forget her narrative.  Discard it entirely.  Maybe it's accurate.
>> Maybe it's not.  Probably parts of it are accurate and parts of it
>> are not, but there's no way to tell.  The notebook has to stand on
>> its own, and I think it does so admirably.
>
> You all are maybe sick of hearing about Betty from me.
> If you just want to present Betty's notebook and story with no
> judgements,
> just the note that it's an artifact from the time, fine.    But
> then it should
> not have any value as evidence of anything.

I disagree.  If the notebook, just as it is, had surfaced but Betty
was no longer around to offer her recollections, it would be no less
important as a piece of evidence than it is now.  The notebook stands
on its own.  Either it's a transcription of words spoken by Earhart
and Noonan or it's not.

> It's nice that it seems to fit with the Niku hypothesis. As nice as
> that is, there is extraneous information in the notebook, not just
> the later interpretation, that defies logic.

The information that you consider extraneous may defy your ability to
understand why it's there but that does not mean that it defies logic.

> To start with, the basic picture of this dramatic scenario being
> broadcast. If you're
> going to tout the notebook, you ( plural ) need to deal with that
> basic problem,
> not gloss it.

I don't think anyone is glossing over anything.  The transcribed
words do describe a dramatic scenario in much the same way that
transcriptions of 911 calls and the cockpit voice recording from
Flight 93 describe dramatic scenarios.  I assume you don't question
the authenticity of those transcripts, even though they may contain
information that seems extraneous.    Desperate situations create
dramatic scenarios.  Today's widespread availability of recording
devices - video cameras, cell phones, 911 systems, etc. - means that
dramatic scenarios get captured more often than in the past (just
turn on your television).  What we have with Betty's Notebook is
nothing more than a very early example of the same phenomenon that is
now commonplace.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:28:28
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Ventral antenna

Hue Miller writes:

> Ventral antenna, possibly damaged during Lae takeoff.
> I just want to ask readers ideas on this:
> Okay, so the ventral (lower hull) antenna's stanchion,
> or support, was broken by ground contact due to the
> aircraft's bounce while taking off.

No.  You misunderstand the hypothesis.  All we know for sure is that
the antenna is there when the plane taxis out and that it's gone when
the plane comes back by on it's takeoff run.  Now you see it, now you
don't.  Exactly when and how did it go away?  We don't know.

> Later, people found wire on the runway.

Maybe. We have one second-hand anecdotal account.

> I just want to check my logic.
> Regardless of the finding of wire on the runway, think about
> this: if the antenna brace collapses, why would the antenna
> necessarily be torn off? It would have to catch on something,
> wouldn't it? The airfield is pretty smooth- it's not like driving
> thru a field of bushes or a gravel pit - so isn't the antenna w
> wire just going to drag along with it?

Try this:
We can see that the rearmost mast supporting the belly antenna is
just barely clearing the top of the grass when the plane taxis out.
Not surprising.  The plane is heavier than it has ever been.  Once it
reaches the far end of the runway, far away from the witnesses who
are gathered near the departure end, it has to turn around, so the
tail has to swing around.  Maybe Earhart does this in the over-run so
as to get as much runway as possible (I would).  Regardless, as the
tail comes around, any perturbation in the ground is going to cause
the tail to bounce.  If that mast strikes the ground as it's moving
sideways it's going to break off (it's not stressed for side loads).
At a gross weight of about 15,000 pounds, that event is not going to
be felt in the cockpit.

As the airplane starts down the runway, the broken mast is being
dragged along the ground by the wire. At some point it snags on the
ground.  The field doesn't need to be rough.  The mast just has to
bounce wrong and dig in.  Bang, the middle mast fails and the rest of
the wire pulls free from the pitot tube which serves as its forward
anchor point.  Maybe the "puff" we see in the film of the takeoff is
the mast snagging the ground.  Maybe not.  Doesn't matter.  The
antenna is gone.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:01:23
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Ric wrote:

> The transcribed words do describe a dramatic scenario in much the
> same way that transcriptions of 911 calls and the cockpit voice
> recording from Flight 93 describe dramatic scenarios ... What we
> have with Betty's Notebook is nothing more than a very early
> example of the same phenomenon that is now commonplace.

Even experienced professional investigators can have trouble
deciphering the vox track of a cockpit recorder. Here we have 15-year-
old Betty who, last I heard, had very little aviation and navigation
(never mind stenographic) experience. It's a lock that if she was
hearing AE and FN on a fuzzy harmonic, she got lots of stuff wrong.

LTM, who didn't think to keep a Webster wire recorder by her Zenith
console.
William
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:03:02
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Ric,

In your reply to Hue Miller's post, you write that perhaps that W40K
or Woj are not accurate transcripitons made by Betty, same with
"Howlandport". Fair enough. You add that "there is the problem of
this phrase being a totally separate transmission on a totally
separate frequency from the rest of what Betty transcribed." I don''t
understand as  I thought that Betty received all receptions on the
same frequency that the radio was set on.

Would this  mean that while Betty is receiving the AE transmission,
the Ham transmission would have entered the receiver on a different
frequency. Or it was sent on a different frequency but came in on the
same frequency that Betty was listening to.

Perhaps you could clarify.

LTM,
RON Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:40:20
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Betty's note book

Ric,

> From Ric
>
> I think we need to figure out how much "blasting" there would
> actually be.  Perhaps Bob Brandenburg could offer an opinion.

Unless I've missed something, Miller has not established which
receiving antenna he's talking about,  nor have I seen his quantified
estimate of the energy coupling between the transmitter antenna and
the receiving antenna in question.   Since "blasting" in this
specific circumstance is Miller's hypothesis, it's up to him to do
the electromagnetic coupling calculations to back up his claim.

Seems to me the question of the dorsal antenna as receiving antenna
has long since been settled.   If the ventral antenna, or its stub,
is the hypothetical receiving antenna, the plane's fuselage was
between it and the dorsal antenna.   If the loop antenna is the
hypothetical receiving antenna, the receiver output response to a
transmission from the dorsal antenna would depend on the amount of
electromagnetic coupling between the dorsal antenna and the loop --
which would be a function of the loop's orientation at the time, the
distribution of current nodes along the dorsal antenna, and the
frequency the receiver was tuned to.

>> There's no avoiding this fact: AE did NOT receive anything when her
>> radio transmitter was ON.
>
> I think I'd like a second opinion.

The assertion implies that AE did not receive anything on ANY
FREQUENCY while her transmitter was on.    It would be interesting to
see Miller's proof.

LTM, who always did her homework.

Bob
#2286
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:05:09
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

OK, maybe I'm remembering incorrectly that my Grandfather's radio was
a Zenith. I know exactly what it looked like, however. I say this
because I've been doing a little research. The idea the radios were
priced out of common man's pay grade doesn't hold water.  Below is a
1937 ad for a Philco for $129 bucks. sure, that was a lot of money in
1937 but not prohibitively so. Below that is a table model with five
bands similar to my Grandfather's console. I also found a GE model
E126 which covered 535 KC to 70,000 KC says the spec sheet. (70,000
KC seems high??? but that's what the sheet says)

Most of the Zenith radios I found had round dials. My GF's radio had
a dial like the Philco or the GE. No Victrola and there were two
doors that opened at the lower half where the speakers were.

Most of the radios of those days seemed to have round tuning dials
wherein my GF's was as you see below. Ric, do you know what kind of
dial Betty's radio had?

Not all the radios had short wave or police bands such as these. I
can do a lot more searching but I can see there were a lot of SW
radio bands of different spans and I see a lot of affordable old
radios (Original price).

Alan

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

Alan, attachments don't go through on the list. Here is a TinyURL
link to the illustration:

http://tinyurl.com/2efsju

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:23:04
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Alan:
That GE radio you mentioned, Model E126, tuned only up to 18 MHz with
any decent sensitivity.  The highest band, 17 MHz to 70 MHz was a
joke.  It was included to attract TV experimenters and those who
wanted to play with the anticipated FM technology.  It did not
perform well in this top band, and it drifted horribly, often
drifting several MHz during warmup, even though it had a "frequency-
control" circuit.  The Philco was genuine, though, as it covered up
to 30 MHz with only moderate drift and with some sensitivity.

Ed Lyon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:21
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Ed Lyon
>
> Is somebody really serious that a 1937 Zenith console radio could
> tune to 31.05 megacycles (the old format for frequency)?  No way.  I
> have several of those radios in my collection and none tunes to
> anywhere near that high a frequency.  In 1937 only a relatively
> expensive ham receiver could tune to that frequency, plus the Philco
> 116 series of household radios.

I have in my paws a "RCA Victor Information and Service Data, Presented
at Service Meeting, Fall 1936".  It shows among their models, 3 floor
standing consoles. Two stop at 18 and 22 MHz ( = megacycles, old
term, for other readers ); the third adds an "Ultrashort Waves" range
of 23 - 61 MHz. I believe the brand "Midwest Radio" also had consoles
with the high range. So- it was not real common, but they were out there.
I brought up the issue because it seemed to me unlikely as can be that
in a working class neighborhood, two immediate neighbors had the same
model of top of the line, rich-people's type Zenith. However, that was
the radio identified by Betty, so it must have been so, right?
Also, i point out that altho some such consoles tuned this high range,
for inquisitive or loaded (money wise) people, there were reasons that
most radios didn't: there was not much going on at all on these frequencies,
back then; a few police departments and such, no broadcasters at all.
So reception was pretty much local, or occasional freakish long distance.
Also the radios suffered from limits of technology of the time: the old tubes
began to fall off at about 20+ MHz, and you know how unstable the radios
were at these frequencies, exacerbated by the heat the tubes generated;
that's why my objection when Betty declared she never retuned the radio
at all during her 1.5 hours + listening session.

And for Allen, i'd point out the the consoles were all made to look expensive:
the big cabinets were mostly air and a speaker; the radios were very often
the same radio as in a table top radio. The big Zenith claimed by Betty was
an exceptional model, not a repackaged table radio, but still subject to some
unavoidable limitations - it surely did drift, no matter what Betty or Bob
Brandenburg tells me.

> And please try to forget about fifth   harmonics of AE's actual
> frequency.

Ed, it does seem unlikely, but Bob Brandenburg has done an analysis that
says that with small but nonzero probability, it could have happened; so in
this case what we call common sense doesn't cut it, you would have to
provide some numbers.

> It would likely
> still pick up signals, but the direction-finding capability is shot,
> mainly on account of the mixed polarizatiuon of signals at
> frequencies above about 2 MHz.

Ed, the Forum has gone over a lot of this material already. You
cannot rule out DF above 2 MHz. I'm sure you yourself have
seen in magazines or radio books, projects for DF loops as
high as CB ( 27 MHz. )  So yes, there were big problems for
HF-DF, but it COULD be done, with limitations and cautions.

> But there is nothing that prevents her from having both the
> transmitter and receiver powered at the same time.  The transmitter
> would simply choke the receiver and prevent it from being able to
> receive signals.

Ed, this is just silly. Can you show me one two-way radio installation
for aircraft,ever, that had the receiver powered up at the same time?
You're going to tell me the pilot turned down the receiver volume, then
pushed the microphone button? You are aware of the protective circuits
to prevent the receiver front end from burning out? Have you ever tried
this?

> I don't know if she had a ventral antenna on the plane after the Lae
> takeoff, but that antenna was likely under water when she was
> allegedly in the surf at Niki. Its receiving capability was zilch.
> So maybe she had the loop connected to the receiver, via the adaptor
> box.  The transmitter would still choke the receiver, and quiet it,
> but the receiver would come back to life after the transmitter shut
> down.  And some reception capability would exist, however poor in
> sensitivity at either 3105 or 6210 kHz.

Yes- i think that's what we now think, i think i'm safe in saying that.
Certainly her shortwave reception was limited.
-Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:48
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> I think what Ric was saying was the significant item is Betty's
> notebook -- not her later story. The judgments are to the notebook
> not her later testimony.
>
> Alan

That is absolutely fine with me, Alan.
Then, you must address such items as:
the call letters of Florida shortwave stations
the "Howlandport" business
"Hear it" while transmitting
studio microphone effect of  cabin goings-on

Even without a later interpretation that massages them to the Niku
hypothesis!  -Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:25:15
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Herman De Wulf
>
> Hue,
>
> I seem to remember it's on record that the lost antenna was found
> at the airfield after the airplane had taken off.

I agree. I don't have a problem with that at all. However, that's in the
"anecdotal" realm if i'm not mistaken. I just wanted to understand how
the antenna wire itself could have broken. The stanchion or support
broke. I'm not trying to rule out the wire breaking, just trying to
understand.
Maybe the wire scraped the ground before the stanchion broke....
-Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:25:45
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Michael Craig
>
> Ric - and (lots) of others
>
> I just had a thought about DF on 7500kcs.
>
> Maybe AE or FN thought they could use the plane to DF on 7500? By flying
> round in a (big?) circle while Itasca was doing a 'slow count' they could
> possibly have got some sort of null from their fore and aft wire antenna. Do
> you think they could have worked that?  FN did have some experience of DF
> work didn't he?

Michael, the fore & aft was not simple straight wire, but a V shape, fed
midpoint one leg of the V. You could figure out the response pattern, but i
think it would be a pretty complex project, not to mention the antenna also has
vertical polarization response as well as horizontal. I think ( only think )
the antenna would have a mild and hard to predict directionality, with maybe no
strong null effect; in any case it would have taken maybe hours of
experimenting with it, in the air, to map this; i don't think AE had the
patience to be experimenting with that! For example, at Lae, they gave up on
their loop tryout after only minutes. -Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:32:56
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's  notebook

> From Ric
>
> I'm a bit surprised that you've checked every other aircraft.

Thanks, Ric. Instead of you showing me why AE's aircraft would
have a radio system set up different from the prevailing, common
sense, practically usable standard, the onus is on me to prove it
WAS NOT standard.

> When you have a wire antenna for receiver in proximity to a transmit
> antenna, this receiver wire picks up a LOT of voltage when the
> transmitter is on.

How close is "proximity."  The Electra's transmit antenna was
ballpark 8 feet from the receiving antenna.

Proximity is is a mutiple of this.  8 foot is not enuff to protect
the receiver from burnout from 50 watt transmitter.

> I think we need to figure out how much "blasting" there would
> actually be.  Perhaps Bob Brandenburg could offer an opinion.

I'm fine with that. However, let's agree that when this analysis is
done, there will be a second opinion ( not mine. )

> There's no avoiding this fact: AE did NOT receive anything when her
> radio transmitter was ON.

I think I'd like a second opinion.

> So "proximity" is within a quarter mile?  No receiver is going to be
> able to receive if there's a transmitter functioning on the same
> frequency within a quarter mile?

This was an examle of the principle, the standard. It depends on the
transmitter power.

>>>> Why would AE feel the need to refer to the landing field,
>>>> airstrip, or airfield as "airport" or actually, "Port
>>>> anything?"  ( I don't think
>>>> there was US customs at this airport. )  Why would AE need to
>>>> mention
>>>> WPA? That's kinda pushing it, isn't it?
>>>
>>> This is why it's so important to understand the context.  There were
>>> three runways at Howland and it was referred to repeatedly in in the
>>> press and in correspondence as an "airport" and in some cases "the
>>> WPA airport" because it was built with WPA funds (like so many
>>> airports around the country at that time.)
>>
>> Your context is immaterial to the logic here. WHY would AE use
>> such an
>> odd phrase? This was no "airport", no "Howlandport" ? Who talks
>> like that?
>
> How about the guy in charge of building it?  From Finding Amelia,
> page 13, "Later that day Richard Black in Honolulu sent a cable to
> his boss in Washington:
>
> Mainland press releases give Earhart itinerary. Mainland releases
> January 14
> announced WPA airport project Howland. Many requests here for story
> and pictures
> of landing and airport construction."  Also, RICHARD B BLACK DEPT
> INTERIOR ANNOUNCED TODAY AIRPORT OFFICIALLY NAMED KAMAKAIWA (sic)
> FIELD (see Finding Amelia DVD, Chapt. 2, footnote 28)

Well, fine. So AE was trying to contact Richard Black, or the press?
Who was she trying to inform about "Howlandport"?
"People, i  missed Howlandport".

>> You're getting close when you state that such terms were used in
>> the press, etc.
>> I think this suggests a non-AE source: someone who gets their
>> information
>> from the "press and correspondence", not someone who IS right there.
>
> Whether or not it seems odd to you, the facility at Howland was known
> as an "airport" to virtually everyone associated with the flight.
> This is what I mean by context.

Context where, Ric?
Context on the beach at Niku, plane washing around in the rising tide?

>> You all are maybe sick of hearing about Betty from me.
>> If you just want to present Betty's notebook and story with no
>> judgements,just the note that it's an artifact from the time,
>> fine.    But
>> then it should not have any value as evidence of anything.
>
> I disagree.  If the notebook, just as it is, had surfaced but Betty
> was no longer around to offer her recollections, it would be no less
> important as a piece of evidence than it is now.  The notebook stands
> on its own.  Either it's a transcription of words spoken by Earhart
> and Noonan or it's not.
>
>> [ HM ] It's nice that it seems to fit with the Niku hypothesis. As
>> nice as
>> that is, there is extraneous information in the notebook, not just
>> the later interpretation, that defies logic.
>
> The information that you consider extraneous may defy your ability to
> understand why it's there but that does not mean that it defies logic.

WOJ or W4OK does not defy logic? How did those get in there, Ric?
Is the onus on me to prove AE didn't try to call W4OK?
Alright, so both AE AND FN were out of their heads?

>> To start with, the basic picture of this dramatic scenario being
>> broadcast. If you're
>> going to tout the notebook, you ( plural ) need to deal with that
>> basic problem,
>> not gloss it.
>
> I don't think anyone is glossing over anything.  The transcribed
> words do describe a dramatic scenario in much the same way that
> transcriptions of 911 calls and the cockpit voice recording from
> Flight 93 describe dramatic scenarios.  I assume you don't question
> the authenticity of those transcripts, even though they may contain
> information that seems extraneous.    Desperate situations create
> dramatic scenarios.  Today's widespread availability of recording
> devices - video cameras, cell phones, 911 systems, etc. - means that
> dramatic scenarios get captured more often than in the past (just
> turn on your television).  What we have with Betty's Notebook is
> nothing more than a very early example of the same phenomenon that is
> now commonplace.
> Ric

But let's get back to the starting point-

How did the microphone record the cabin conversations?
Your own book describes AE's microphone technique as "lips
close to microphone". The microphone won't allow for both
conditions: close talking while flying, or studio type pickup of
dramatic arguments and "wrassling" ( Betty's term ) in the same
aircraft cabin.

We have a single receiver. You want to believe that contrary to
standard radio technology, AE's aircraft is setup so the receiver
and transmitter work at the same time.

Rather than you prove the exception, and explain why such oddities
can exist, the onus is on me to prove such illogicalities didn't exist.
I'd call it "tendentious logic."

The Betty story seems to fit the overall Niku hypothesis: therefore,
where it doesn't fit, just bend and massge, for best fit.
I keep thinking of some lines from a Bob Dylan song:
"Why clear, no doubt, somehow."  -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:33:21
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Bob, is this my task:
1. to present  numbers to show that AE's receiver did
not receive while transmitting - electromagnetic energy
coupling calculations, etc.

2. To present numbers to establish that this receiver
did not need protective circuits.

Will you accept testimonial from people experienced
in aircraft radio (not Miller ), having used and installed
them, or do you require energy coupling calculations?
Thank you- Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:16:37
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Hue Miller
>
>> From Ric
>>
>> I'm a bit surprised that you've checked every other aircraft.
>
> Thanks, Ric. Instead of you showing me why AE's aircraft would
> have a radio system set up different from the prevailing, common
> sense, practically usable standard, the onus is on me to prove it
> WAS NOT standard.

Hue, I was merely taking you at your word.  You said, " Every other
aircraft had some way to ground the receiver antenna and switch off
the receiver power, but AE's ship did not?"
You're saying all occurrences of A are B.  C is a B, therefore C must
be A.  That logic works only if the original premise - all
occurrences of A are B - is true.  You clearly have not established
that it is true, so the argument is doesn't hold up.

I do not expect you to prove that Earhart's system was or was not
standard.  Without having the aircraft in front of us to examine, I
don't know how anyone could do that.  All we can do is look at the
available documentary and photographic information pertaining to that
particular aircraft. I cited the photographic evidence that suggests
how Earhart's radio system was set up.  There's no cable connected to
the terminal that connects the transmitter to the receiver. If you
can find a later photo that shows a connection I'll happily concede
that the weight of evidence is on your side.

>> When you have a wire antenna for receiver in proximity to a transmit
>> antenna, this receiver wire picks up a LOT of voltage when the
>> transmitter is on.
>
> How close is "proximity."  The Electra's transmit antenna was
> ballpark 8 feet from the receiving antenna.
>
> Proximity is is a mutiple of this.  8 foot is not enuff to protect
> the receiver from burnout from 50 watt transmitter.
>
>> I think we need to figure out how much "blasting" there would
>> actually be.  Perhaps Bob Brandenburg could offer an opinion.
>
> I'm fine with that. However, let's agree that when this analysis is
> done, there will be a second opinion ( not mine. )
>
>> There's no avoiding this fact: AE did NOT receive anything when her
>> radio transmitter was ON.
>
> I think I'd like a second opinion.
>
>> It doesn't matter if in the receiver - transmitter pair, the
>> receiver is in the
>> same box in your car's CB, or it's an Army receiver in a dugout a
>> quarter
>> mile away from the transmitter: the receiver antenna is grounded,
>> audio is
>> removed during transmit.
>>
>> So "proximity" is within a quarter mile?  No receiver is going to be
>> able to receive if there's a transmitter functioning on the same
>> frequency within a quarter mile?
>
> This was an example of the principle, the standard. It depends on
> the transmitter power.

Agreed.  Do you have the numbers to back up your contention?  How
much power was actually delivered to Earhart's transmitting antenna?
Is that sufficient power to "blast" the loop antenna (the only
receiving antenna available at the time in question)?

>>>>> Why would AE feel the need to refer to the landing field,
>>>>> airstrip, or airfield as "airport" or actually, "Port
>>>>> anything?"  ( I don't think
>>>>> there was US customs at this airport. )  Why would AE need to
>>>>> mention
>>>>> WPA? That's kinda pushing it, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> This is why it's so important to understand the context.  There
>>>> were
>>>> three runways at Howland and it was referred to repeatedly in in
>>>> the
>>>> press and in correspondence as an "airport" and in some cases "the
>>>> WPA airport" because it was built with WPA funds (like so many
>>>> airports around the country at that time.)
>>>
>>> Your context is immaterial to the logic here. WHY would AE use
>>> such an
>>> odd phrase? This was no "airport", no "Howlandport" ? Who talks
>>> like that?
>>
>> How about the guy in charge of building it?  From Finding Amelia,
>> page 13, "Later that day Richard Black in Honolulu sent a cable to
>> his boss in Washington:
>>
>> Mainland press releases give Earhart itinerary. Mainland releases
>> January 14
>> announced WPA airport project Howland. Many requests here for
>> story and pictures
>> of landing and airport construction."  Also, RICHARD B BLACK DEPT
>> INTERIOR ANNOUNCED TODAY AIRPORT OFFICIALLY NAMED KAMAKAIWA (sic)
>> FIELD (see Finding Amelia DVD, Chapt. 2, footnote 28)
>
> Well, fine. So AE was trying to contact Richard Black, or the press?
> Who was she trying to inform about "Howlandport"?
> "People, i  missed Howlandport".

Earhart may very well have been trying to contact Black, whom she
knew was in charge of the government support of her flight.
You seem to have decided what Earhart should have said and any
deviation from your script somehow  proves it wasn't her.

>>> You're getting close when you state that such terms were used in
>>> the press, etc.
>>> I think this suggests a non-AE source: someone who gets their
>>> information
>>> from the "press and correspondence", not someone who IS right there.
>>
>> Whether or not it seems odd to you, the facility at Howland was known
>> as an "airport" to virtually everyone associated with the flight.
>> This is what I mean by context.
>
> Context where, Ric?
> Context on the beach at Niku, plane washing around in the rising tide?

You still don't understand the term.  Context is more than a place.
Context is also time. Earhart, Betty, Black and everyone else, were
operating in a specific set of circumstances at a particular time in
history. Their knowledge, their assumptions, and their language were
different from ours.  Things that might seem strange to us were
routine to them.  For example, most people today do not refer to
airplanes as "ships," but it was quite standard in the 1930s and
'40s.  In the context of the Earhart flight in July 1937 "WPA Howland
airport" was a perfectly normal way of referring to the closest place
Earhart knew there were people who might be able to help her.

>>> You all are maybe sick of hearing about Betty from me.
>>> If you just want to present Betty's notebook and story with no
>>> judgements,just the note that it's an artifact from the time,
>>> fine.    But
>>> then it should not have any value as evidence of anything.
>>
>> I disagree.  If the notebook, just as it is, had surfaced but Betty
>> was no longer around to offer her recollections, it would be no less
>> important as a piece of evidence than it is now.  The notebook stands
>> on its own.  Either it's a transcription of words spoken by Earhart
>> and Noonan or it's not.
>>
>>> [ HM ] It's nice that it seems to fit with the Niku hypothesis.
>>> As nice as
>>> that is, there is extraneous information in the notebook, not just
>>> the later interpretation, that defies logic.
>>
>> The information that you consider extraneous may defy your ability to
>> understand why it's there but that does not mean that it defies
>> logic.
>
> WOJ or W4OK does not defy logic? How did those get in there, Ric?

I don't know how they got in there.  I can only guess.  My best guess
is that Earhart actually said "WPA Howland airport" but it came
through very poorly and WOJ or W40K were Betty's attempts to
transcribe the sound she heard.

> Is the onus on me to prove AE didn't try to call W4OK?

No, the onus is on you to prove that AE could not have said something
that sounded to Betty like W40K or WOJ.  I don't think you can do that.

> Alright, so both AE AND FN were out of their heads?

I think they were both very upset and I think it's apparent that Fred
was acting irrationally for some reason.

>>> To start with, the basic picture of this dramatic scenario being
>>> broadcast. If you're
>>> going to tout the notebook, you ( plural ) need to deal with that
>>> basic problem,
>>> not gloss it.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is glossing over anything.  The transcribed
>> words do describe a dramatic scenario in much the same way that
>> transcriptions of 911 calls and the cockpit voice recording from
>> Flight 93 describe dramatic scenarios.  I assume you don't question
>> the authenticity of those transcripts, even though they may contain
>> information that seems extraneous.    Desperate situations create
>> dramatic scenarios.  Today's widespread availability of recording
>> devices - video cameras, cell phones, 911 systems, etc. - means that
>> dramatic scenarios get captured more often than in the past (just
>> turn on your television).  What we have with Betty's Notebook is
>> nothing more than a very early example of the same phenomenon that is
>> now commonplace.
>> Ric
>
> But let's get back to the starting point-
>
> How did the microphone record the cabin conversations?
> Your own book describes AE's microphone technique as "lips
> close to microphone". The microphone won't allow for both
> conditions: close talking while flying, or studio type pickup of
> dramatic arguments and "wrassling" ( Betty's term ) in the same
> aircraft cabin.

Again, you seem to have much more information than I have. Exactly
what kind of microphone was Earhart using and what were its
capabilities?  Mantz described her technique as  "lips close to
microphone" but the Nauru radio operator said he could hear the "hum"
of the engines in the background during Earhart's in-flight
transmissions on the night of July 1/2, so apparently the mic could
pick up background sounds.

> We have a single receiver. You want to believe that contrary to
> standard radio technology, AE's aircraft is setup so the receiver
> and transmitter work at the same time.
>
> Rather than you prove the exception, and explain why such oddities
> can exist, the onus is on me to prove such illogicalities didn't
> exist.
> I'd call it "tendentious logic."

I'd call it the scientific method of inquiry.  I've offered a
hypothesis and cited specific photographic evidence to support it.
You have not shown that the hypothesis can't be correct, only that
you believe it to be unusual if it were correct.

> The Betty story seems to fit the overall Niku hypothesis: therefore,
> where it doesn't fit, just bend and massge, for best fit.

The Niku hypothesis certainly does not rely on Betty and I can't
imagine how we'd ever know for certain whether Betty really heard
Amelia.  At this time, I don't know of any reason why Betty's
Notebook cannot be a genuine, if imperfect, transcription of
transmissions heard from NR16020.  Some of the entries can be
interpreted as "occult, " but those are admittedly interpretations.
Right now, I think the weight of evidence comes down on the side of
authenticity.  I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion in the
light of new information, but so far you haven't provided any.

Ric

Ric Gillespie
Executive Director
TIGHAR
www.tighar.org
tigharic@mac.com

author of
"Finding Amelia - The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance"
Published by the Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:54:07
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Simultaneous transmit and receive

Now - regarding whether AE's aircraft radio receiver and
transmitter could function at the same, necessary for the
scene as portrayed in Betty's notebook:

Bob Brandenburg has requested of me an electromagnetic
energy coupling analysis. In gearing up for this, i need to ask:
is this for the case of topside antenna to bottomside antenna?
What about the earlier situation where the aircraft had a trailing
wire antenna, let out thru a port in the belly of the plane, reeled
in and out? Should i do an analysis of this case also? When this
antenna was used (well before her world flight), the receive
antenna and the trailing antenna were maybe 2-3 feet apart and
ran approximately parallel for part of their run. Shall we reckon
whether that would have endangered the receiver, if the receiver
input was not grounded or otherwise protected during transmit
sessions? Remember, at some certain lengths of transmit
antenna, the voltage developed on the antenna can be in the
thousands of volts. Yes, thousands, so for example there can
be flashover from insulators to nearby ground.

If the receiver didn't need input  protection from a nearby antenna
(trailing antenna) with potentially thousands of volts on it, fine,
the receive-and-transmit-at-same-time theory can live happily
ever after: this was the way her radio was set up.

If the receiver DID  need protection from such a case, and such
protection was provided, then, when the trailing antenna was
removed, back in the states, before her world flights,
was the transmitter - receiver setup modified at the same time,
to allow her to receive and transmit at same time? If so- why??
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:55:16
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook

For Hue Miller:

Virtually none of the radios for the home, built in the mid-to-late
1930s had a usable band that extended up to above 30 MHz,
notwithstanding some high-priced sets like the aforementioned GE  and
a few other big sets.  E.H. Scott did make a couple sets that could
operate at these frequencies, but they cost more than automobiles.
Let's go back and see why we are discussing radios that receive at
frequencies above 30 MHz.  It is because someone on the forum wanted
to interpret AE's (or was it Noonan's) remark of "...thirty one oh
five..." as meaning 31.05 MHz.  Now, AE couldn't have meant that, and
nobody could have heard her signals at that frequency.  As to who was
on these frequencies, not even the police were there.  Just TV
experimenters and people experimenting with new systems, like FM,
facsimile, and the like.  The few "home" receivers with the
capability, however poor, to use these frequencies was to attarct the
avant garde in the well-heeled world who wanted to be ready for
television, touted then to possibly play through your well-equipped
radio.

Let's use some numbers:  Her transmitter tuned to 3105 and 6210 kHz
in the HF band, and it has three good tuned circuits in its signal
path to the antenna.  These provide at least 20 dB attenuation per
octave of frequency. Now, 31 MHz is ten times 3105 kHz, or somewhat
over three octaves.  That's maybe 60 dB attenuation of the tenth
harmonic.  If she intended to use 6210, instead, the 31 MHz frequency
is five times that frequency, or somewhat over two octaves, or 40
dB.  You see where this is going, right?  If she used the 3105 kHz
transmitter settings, her 31-MHz power output was one-millionth of
what it was on 3105 kHz.  If she set the transmitter for 6210 KHz,
her 31-MHz output would have been one ten-thousandth the power out at
6210 kHz. Both of these 31-MHz power levels are in the milliwatt
regime, not watts or kilowatts.

Now, what was the sunspot number in July 1937?  The NOAA records show
it at about 40 or 50, whereas a high number would be 120 or so, and
alow number would be 10 to 20.  So it was pretty low.  I looked up
maximum usable frequencies for Washington DC for that time, and
depending on time of day, it ran from 5.5 MHz to 15.5 MHz.  That
means that at 31 MHz, signals from Niki or anywhere else couldn't
propagate to anyplace at Washington's latitude.  And to get to
anyplace on the east coast of the USA, they have to pass through
latitudes high enough that they will not propagate.  They simply
escape the earth, via a transparent ionosphere.

Well, now, maybe the people who heard AE's tenth harmonic or fifth
harmonic, whichever, at 31 MHz, were extraterrestrials.  Hmmm?

Now, as to whether AE's Bendix loop would DF at frequencies above 2
or 3 MHz, the answer is, very poorly, with the "null" wandering with
polarization rotation of the signal.  This is not to say that radio
engineers could not make a DF set that worked at higher frequencies.
Many have done it, including yrs truly, but we trying to stay focused
on AE's situation, not something in some lab or signals intercept
station.  And any signal she would have been able to hear, and most
of them are well beyond line-of sight, and most would be
ionospherically propagated to Niki, if that is where she was,
Possibly Itasca's signals, if Itasca were within a few hundred miles
of her receiver, could have propagated a surface wave to her, but it
would be a very lossy propagation path at any frequency above 3 MHz,
because of sea surface roughness.  Check with Sommerfeld, or, if you
prefer the living, with Don Barrick, about surface wave losses at
higher frequencies.  As for the polarization rotation at HF, for
ionospherically-propagated waves, it's common knowledge, not simply
common sense.  Ask Faraday.  In fact, we call it Faraday rotation.

I was not intentionally trying to be silly when I said she could have
powered up both her transmitter and receiver simultaneously,
especially if she had to do some makeshift keying.  You are right in
one sense, that sensible airline radio designers usually put a relay
to transfer the antenna, audio circuits (since most use some common
audio circuits for reception, intercom, and transmitter), and power
circuits, and most transfer relays (T/R relays) also dunk the
receiver gain by dumping the screen voltage from the RF amplifier
tubes, when the realy is switched to "Transmit."  But it is possible
in a jury-rigged system, like AE had (remember she had thrown away
most of her good radio circuits, like the Hooven (or Bendix) loop
receiver, her long-wire antenna, her key(s), and God know what else),
and she could have run both at the same time.  Why she would do that
is a mystery, maybe, but she was terribly ignorant of radio
principles.  For a while she didn't know whether she was talking
about frequency or wavelength when she spouted off numbers, and
prpbably misled Itasca this way.  The result would be a very high RF
input voltage to the receiver, choking it into silence, or possibly a
loud hiss.  It would recover, though, as soon as she stopped
transmitting.  If she were keying the transmitter in true Morse CW,
her receiver might come back to life after each pause of a few
seconds in her keying.  If, however, she keyed on and off her
dynamotor, as some have said, her keying would be very s-l-o-w, maybe
two characters per minute, as the dynamotor spun up and then coasted
down (it ran at perhaps 4000 rpm) with her "keying."  This would
allow the receiver to come back to life during each character, after
each dit or dah. Very annoying, to be sure, but possible.

You challenged me to show you any aircraft two-way radio system that
allowed both transmitting and receiving simultaneously?  During WW2,
we did it all the time.  Most coordinated systems, like the AN/ART-13
transmitter and companion BC-348 receiver, such as was on a B-29, did
use T/R relays and the rest, but on the same plane were four to nine
other radios,  AN/ARC-5 types, and they worked independently, and
simply choked when the ART-13 fired off its 300-watt signal.  They
all had neon bulb protectors in the RF tuned circuits, not to take
the brunt of the induced transmit signal, but to lower the Q of the
receiver tuned circuit, to reduce the induced voltage.  Worked all
the time.  I don't know of a single command receiver damaged by a
transmitter that barked when the receiver didn't expect it.  Choke
up, yes, but destroy, no.

Anecdotes are fun, but the fundamentals are vital.

Ed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:55:47
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Hue Miller
>
>> From Michael Craig
>>
>> Ric - and (lots) of others
>>
>> I just had a thought about DF on 7500kcs.
>>
>> Maybe AE or FN thought they could use the plane to DF on 7500? By
>> flying
>> round in a (big?) circle while Itasca was doing a 'slow count'
>> they could
>> possibly have got some sort of null from their fore and aft wire
>> antenna. Do
>> you think they could have worked that?  FN did have some
>> experience  of DF
>> work didn't he?
>>
>
> Michael, the fore & aft was not simple straight wire, but a V
> shape,  fed midpoint
> one leg of the V. You could figure out the response pattern, but i
> think it would
> be a pretty complex project, not to mention the antenna also has
> vertical
> polarization response as well as horizontal. I think ( only
> think )  the antenna
> would have a mild and hard to predict directionality, with maybe no
> strong
> null effect; in any case it would have taken maybe hours of
> experimenting with
> it, in the air, to map this; i don't think AE had the patience to
> be experimenting
> with that! For example, at Lae, they gave up on their loop tryout
> after only
> minutes. -Hue

Whoa.
I have looked at the directional pattern of the aircraft plus V-
shaped dorsal wire antenna, and it has no definitive nulls at 7.5
MHz.  Where there is a slight null for horizontal polarization is
also a bulge in the pattern for vertical polarization.

Having said that, we should realize that when at altitude, say
several thousand feet, even though the radio horizon is pretty far
away, Itasca is thought to have been farther away, and signals from
Itasca would have to be received via surface wave part of the way and
line-of-sight the rest of the way, in which case the polarization
would NOT rotate or be mixed.  That is because ONLY vertically-
polarized waves propagate via surface waves.  What were Itasca's
antennas like?  I have looked at photos of Itasca and see what seem
to be HF antennas and they all seem to have vertical feeders and
horizontal top-wires, being either horizontal dipoles, or top-loaded
vertical radiators.  In either case the polarization would be
vertical for all directions in the case of the top-loaded monopole
but it would be horizontal in broadside directions and weak but
vertical for fore-and-aft directions from Itasca,  for the case where
Itasca's antenna is a horizontal dipole.  Therefore, if AE were
beyond line-of-sight of Itasca, AE's antenna would pick up strong
vertically-polarized signals or very weak vertically-polarized
signals, depending on Itasca's antenna construction, and her
orientation WRT the propagation line to AE's aircraft.

So, as a conclusion, AE could actually fly in tight circles, and do
some sort of DF on Itasca, if all of the above conditions for strong
signals were present, but she would have no idea whatever where the
nulls were pointed for her dorsal antenna.  Now, she MIGHT assume the
nulls were out her wings (090 and 270 WRT the nose), but if she DFed
Itasca and made that assumption, she was certain to get lost as a
result.

Ed Lyon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:56:12
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Harmonic analysis

For Bob Brandenburg:

in the harmonic power analysis, you cite power ratios
of harmonic to fundamental.

"The WE-13C schematic diagram (Morgan, 1941) shows that
the transmitter did not have harmonic suppression circuitry at its
output."

Just to help me understand the above quote, does this consider that
the output tank circuit is a resonant circuit, with selectivity of
its own, or
do you consider its  transformer action only? What about the effects of
antenna impedance, does this offer some selectivity or preference for
certain
harmonic frequencies?

Do we mean "limited harmonic suppression circuitry", as yet
unquantified,
apparently, in your report, unless i am mistaken, or do you really mean
NO harmonic suppression?  -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:00:05
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Dorsal antenna

"The existence of the belly antennas is an established fact.
However, they may not have been employed for communications
reception at all, but rather as sense antennas for radio direction
finding purposes. Unfortunately, no available source can confirm
their exact function. "

The above is from a research report by Mike Everette,

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/52_ElectraRadios/
52_ElectraRadios.htm#2

TIGHAR thinking is that there was only one receiver aboard, and the
loop antenna was a standard WE model. This receiver and loop have
as far as i can tell, no "Sense" feature (which eliminates the 180
degree
ambiguity of signal direction ). Hence, there is no sense antenna.
Hence, the ventral antenna must be a receiving antenna, and the above
research report wants correction. -Hue Miller

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

TinyURL  http://tinyurl.com/3ydbhv
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:00:39
From:         Michael Craig
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Hue Miller

Ah - thanks for clarifying that for me, it just seemed like an idea nobody
had thought of!

I had assumed the wire to be a pretty straight run end fed arrangement.

LTM
Michael
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:01:20
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: shoe size

...I don't think that  that Curator "don't like" specially TIGHAR...
In 2004, i was there with a friend - also AE researcher  not
associated with TIGHAR at all.

   She asked the curator to measure the shoes, and he refused...
Moreover, later  - to my great amazement - i learned that that
Curator later complained to somebody that we were "rude" with him,
that is very definitely not true and simply weird statement. My
friend is a very kind and polite person, and she asked him in a most
polite way.

    I just can't even guess by what such an inadequate reactions of
the Curator could be conditioned. The ONLY - purely speculative! -
guess that i can generate, is that (just MAYBE)  these questions  (to
measure the shoes, etc.)  were addressed to this Museum already SO
many times, that it finally just made this Curator "sick" about it.

    Repeat, just my purely speculative guess.

    It doesn't seem clear for me how exactly these "shoe questions"
can somehow "uncovered some less than flattering aspects of AE's
career", and how exactly the publication of anything connected to
these "shoes questions" can "tarnish the many myths -- all positive
-- that have evolved over the years"...
    The "worst" thing that i can imagine is that if these shoes can be
somehow "debunked" as "not authentic" - i.e. not actually AE's... If
so, it can possibly "uncover" and somewhat "tarnish" the credibility
and "professional reputation" of the Curators of the Atchison County
museum and AE exhibit there...   but obviously not  AE's own career
and reputation... If about the "myths", it is my opinion that "many
myths" about AE that "evolved over the years" are rather negative -
not positive... but we were over all this already for too many times
i guess...

     Kind Regards - LTM, Marcus

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:01:46
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Betty's notebook and radio questions

To: Radio guys

Reading the forum and the most recent discussion about how it is that
in Betty's book it seems that Betty has recorded AE talking into her
mic, background noise from FN, both AE and FN on the mic at the same
time and seemingly AE is hearing something coming in on the radio all
at the same time.

Questions:
In the 1930s was there an intercom system between the two front seats
that would allow the pilot to transmit over the radio but at the same
time pick up voice from a copilot who is just carrying on a
conversation in the cockpit?  That is, no muting effect on the push
to talk system.

If there were two mics in the cockpit - pilot/copilot - and one was
stuck open would this account for hearing all the background noise
while AE was trying to transmit?

Was there a selection switch in the radios that would have permitted
the pilot to listen to one channel while the copilot listened to
another?  Consider AE tuning in to transmit/receive on one radio but
using the headset from the copilot to listen for receptions coming in
on the loop antenna.

I know we don't have much information on exactly how the Lockheed was
equipped with radios but maybe some of the ole timers remember what
was state of the art at the time.  A final thought, keep in mind that
if the cockpit windows were open, the surf pounding and the engine
running hearing the dyno spinning during all the above may have not
be possible.

Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:58:54
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Aircraft microphones

The following is by Mike Everette:

"Additionally, the audio fidelity was poor, mainly due to the
microphones employed. Carbon microphones of the 1930s
and 40s were very similar in design and construction to a telephone-type
microphone element. These microphones had to be close-talked; that is,
held up almost directly in front of the lips. They were not noise-canceling,
so any background noise from the aircraft engines and propellers was
also picked up, further reducing intelligibility. It was necessary to speak
slowly and deliberately, usually with a raised voice, to make oneself
understood. "

When we consider the Betty notebook, it's useful to refer to TIGHAR
reference material. The above is from:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/52_ElectraRadios/
52_ElectraRadios.htm#3

Good work, Mike.
Now, how could we have missed this report, when we had to think about
AE's microphone picking up the whole cabin discussion, including
wrestling noises, climbing out noises, etc???

I only wish Mike when he was testing out the Navy GF transmitter, had tried
the microphone-keying of Morse code, but i can understand him not
wanting to damage his gear, now a historic collectible. BTW, I suggest the
US Navy type GF transmitter, as it has a very similar output circuit to the
WE CO. model on AE's plane. This would be a good scaled down model
for the WE, for both microphone button keying and touching the antenna wire
to the transmitter post, as i suggested. -Hue Miller
-Hue Miller

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

TinyURL for the above link:

http://tinyurl.com/yqzyas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:03:16
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Hue Miller
>
> Will you accept testimonial from people experienced
> in aircraft radio (not Miller ), having used and installed
> them, or do you require energy coupling calculations?
> Thank you- Hue Miller

Anecdotal testimonials won't cut it.  Unless you can find people who
have installed and operated the same equipment AE had, on the same
model aircraft, in exactly the same configuration -- or you can find
contemporaneous records left by such people, it'll have to be the
energy coupling calculations.

Bob
#2286
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:25:40
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Harmonic analysis

For Hue Miller

If you read the harmonic power analysis carefully, you'll see that
the power ratios refer to the power spectrum at the output of final
power amplifier and are based on Fourier analysis of the pulse waveform.

"Harmonic suppression circuitry" means just what it says -- circuitry
expressly included in the design to suppress harmonics in the output.

Your questions about circuit selectivity, antenna impedance, etc,
suggest that you are venturing into analytical territory unfamiliar
to you. I won't do the analysis for you, nor will I walk you through
it, giving a seminar along the way. I will, however, give you a few
hints to get you started:

1).   You need the details of the 3-dimensional antenna
configuration:  segment lengths and distances from the fuselage
(ground).  You can get these by careful measurements on scale
drawings of the Electra, and from photographs of the Electra
interior.  If you ask nicely, Ric may provide copies.

2)   Get the 4NEC2 antenna model.

3)   Enter the antenna configuration details into 4NEC2, being sure
to use the coupling capacitor specified in the schematic, for the
frequency of interest (3105 or 6210), and compute the impedance
without any load impedance other than that of the antenna itself.

4)   Resonate the antenna by inserting loading coil inductance in
series with the antenna -- in 4NEC2 -- in accordance with the WE-13
tuning procedure.

5)   Enter the transmitter output power  -- 50 watts -- at the
fundamental frequency of interest, and run the model with the loaded
antenna to get the radiated power, antenna radiation efficiency, and
other useful data.

6)   If you plan to do signal propagation analysis, you need to have
4NEC2 generate a 3-dimensional antenna gain table (for use in the
ICEPAC model) at each freequency of interest, and use the appropriate
table for each ICEPAC run.

7)   To get the output at harmonic frequencies, you leave the antenna
loading in 4NEC2 as it was for the fundamental of interest, then for
each harmonic of interest enter the frequency and the corresponding
WE-13 output power at the harmonic, and run the model to get the
radiated power and other parameters.

8)   If you're interested in seeing the antenna impedance and
resonance points at various frequencies, 4NEC2 will do a frequency
scan over any range of interest.  It will also show you current
distribution along the antenna wire, and other useful things.

So there you have a general outline of how to proceed.   The rest is
up to you.  Get the software, read the user documentation and any
ancillary source material you need to get up to speed on analysis,
and have at it.

Good luck.

Bob
#2286
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:56:38
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      WoF and SAMTEC: Dead issues?

Questions regarding two subjects I have come across recently, unless
they are no longer relevant.

_1._The 2003 National Geographic article by Greg Stone depicts a crab on
the "45 degree tree" near the WoF area.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0402/nfeature3/index.html
and a picture taken of sharks in the Niku lagoon.  Were any other
pictures shared with TIGHAR that would cause us to reactivate this search?

_2._A SAMTEC employee on Canton, (contemporary of Bruce Yoho?) Aras
Mardosa (amardosa@yahoo.com) posted on Google earth: (Speaking of
helicopter flights to Niku)

"they would drop off emergency fuel and supply caches in case the case an
emergency landing was required.  They would do some exploring. We later
found out that the 65' Korean tuna fishing boats that worked these waters
raided these emergency caches. So it was discontinued. A loss to all. The
flight operations to these island were discontinued in "late 73"."

Do we know the names of any pilots who may have been involved in this
operation?  Do we know where such caches may have been placed on Niku.  I
have not been able to get a reply from Mardosa to date.

Rick J #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:04:03
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Wof and SAMTEC

Rick Jones has

> Questions regarding two subjects I have come across recently,
> unless they are no longer relevant.
>
> _1._The 2003 National Geographic article by Greg Stone depicts a
> crab on the "45 degree tree" near the WoF area.
> http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0402/nfeature3/index.html
> and a picture taken of sharks in the Niku lagoon.  Were any other
> pictures
> shared with TIGHAR that would cause us to reactivate this search?

We determined that the place where Greg saw the WoF was a bit further
toward the lagoon end of the passage than he originally thought, but
the 2003 team did cover that area very thoroughly. Whatever Greg saw
in 2002 was gone (or had moved) in 2003. We'll certainly keep an eye
out for it this summer.

> _2._A SAMTEC employee on Canton, (contemporary of Bruce Yoho?) Aras
> Mardosa (amardosa@yahoo.com) posted on Google earth: (Speaking of
> helicopter flights to Niku)
>
> "they would drop off emergency fuel and supply caches in case the
> case an
> emergency landing was required.  They would do some exploring. We
> later
> found out that the 65' Korean tuna fishing boats that worked these
> waters
> raided these emergency caches. So it was discontinued. A loss to
> all. The
> flight operations to these island were discontinued in "late 73"."
>
> Do we know the names of any pilots who may have been involved in this
> operation?  Do we know where such caches may have been placed on
> Niku.  I
> have not been able to get a reply from Mardosa to date.

We came upon what apparently had been a fuel cache down at the SE end
in 1989.  Just some empty drums marked JP4. No sign of any supplies.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:23:39
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Corrected URL

Please try this URL for Nat Geo. It also has a couple blurbs on TIGHAR.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0402/feature3/index.html

Rick J
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:24:02
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Harmonic analysis

For Bob Brandenburg-

Thank you for the outline of procedure.
What i was wondering about, is if this procedure takes
into account the Q factor of the resonant tuned circuit
comprised by the antenna coil, in the fraction of the
basic harmonic power developed by the Class-C
amplifer, and then available at the antenna post.
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:37:21
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> For  Bob Brandenburg
>
>> From Hue Miller
>>
>> Will you accept testimonial from people experienced
>> in aircraft radio (not Miller ), having used and installed
>> them, or do you require energy coupling calculations?
>> Thank you- Hue Miller
>
> Anecdotal testimonials won't cut it.  Unless you can find people who
> have installed and operated the same equipment AE had, on the same
> model aircraft, in exactly the same configuration -- or you can find
> contemporaneous records left by such people, it'll have to be the
> energy coupling calculations.
>
> Bob
> #2286

In other words, altho every radio manual and text i have seen, and schematic,
silences the receiver, by grounding the antenna post of the receiver (for
example, the model 13 receiver ) and/or cutting the B+ voltage to the
receiver front end, i must find Amelia's radio to prove that her setup was
unique?

Do you and RG really imagine AE turned down the volume, or switched off the
radio receiver, before she could push the microphone button?
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:37:59
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Ed Lyon

i didn't follow everything in your note, but-
i agree the Itasca antennas would be vertical
polarization (same as on aircraft - the horizontal
wire currents largely cancel out due to opposite
currents in ship or ground or fuselage. )

Now on the DF and sense bizness-  we think
only radio a type 20 and MN53 loop - basic
stuff. No sense capability i can see from looking
at the schematic (also posted on TIGHAR.org, ,
altho a real workout to trace out wiring. ) Thus even
if she had got the null thing working, she would still
have to deal with the 180 degree ambiguity business-
would she still have had to expend some more fuel
flying in another direction to take another null, in order
to triangulate the source? -Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:43:53
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Ed Lyon wrote:

> Let's use some numbers:  Her transmitter tuned to 3105 and 6210 kHz
> in the HF band, and it has three good tuned circuits in its signal
> path to the antenna.

This is not correct, Ed. The schematic, tho small, is at
TIGHAR.org, with a lot of other useful text. The transmitter
circuit at the output has the most basic of tuned circuits.
Harmonic attenuation is a lot less than you reckon.
( However, it is not zero, as Bob Brandenburg seems
to think, unless i misunderstand him; thus my recent
question to him. ) -Hue Miller

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

see

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/52_ElectraRadios/
52_ElectraRadios.htm

or

http://tinyurl.com/yqzyas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:49:32
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Hue Miller wrote

> Thus even if she had got the null thing working, she would still
> have to deal with the 180 degree ambiguity business-
> would she still have had to expend some more fuel
> flying in another direction to take another null, in order
> to triangulate the source?

No.  Noonan's sunrise LOP established that they were still well west
of Howland.  If she was able to get a bearing she would know that the
destination was generally ahead of her and not behind her.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:57:05
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Harmonic analysis

For Hue:

The hints by Bob Brandenburg need to have one more item added:

The aircraft is not very large, electrically, at either 3.1 MHz or 6.2 MHz,
so it must also be modeled in the NEC setup, if antenna patterns and
impedances are to be derived.  The aircraft at these frequencies is not a
big ground plane, but a tiny antenna component.  That's why I modeled the
dorsal V antenna with the aircraft also modeled, requiring some 3000 NEC
segments, itself, and I only did it coarsely.  NEC, and other
method-of-moments models, insist that currents flow in filamentary elements
or segments, except for ground currents, which it can accept as lossy and
dielectric-like, or as a metallic sheet that goes on forever.

Ed Lyon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:57:35
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Harmonic analysis

For Hue Miller,

Everything you need to know is in the schematic and the mode
documentation.

Bob
#2286
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:57:59
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Hue:  Your level of theory is not deep enough.  You said both Itasca
and the Electra's polarizations were vertical.

Not necessarily vertical polarization, for either Itasca's or AE's
aircraft V-shaped antennas.  Itasca's photographs, admittedly taken
at a different time, show at least two horizontal dipole antennas,
and from the scale I have of her size, they look like half-
wavelengths at maybe 6 to 7 MHz. These would produce a mild V-pol
signal end-fire, but a powerful signal H-pol broadside.

As for AE's antenna (Dorsal one, since I'm not sure any other
survived to her final prang) it must be considered along with the
aircraft skin, and you cannot consider the skin as a groundplane,
because it's too small.  Her output polarization would be strongly
azimuth and elevation-sensitive.

Ed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:58:25
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Hue:
That kind of flying to get a sense of where you are located, based on only
one radio transmitter, was done all the time in the older days.  But you
didn't have to fly off in another strange direction, most of the time, since
any flight distance, followed by another quick 360-degree tight circle,
would tell you another azimuth to the transmitter.  Only time it doesn't
work well is if the transmitter is dead ahead or dead astern.

But the main point I made was that she had no idea where the nulls were
located WRT the aircraft axes, for the V antenna, on 7500 kHz or any other
frequency, for that matter.  This is not to say she didn't think she knew,
but she was very likely to guess wrong.  So flying around and getting fixes
via misplaced nulls would lose her, for sure.  I don't think she had the
moxie to do even that, however, but that might be bias on my part.

Ed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:59:13
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Hue Miller

> In other words, altho every radio manual and text i have seen, and schematic,
> silences the receiver, by grounding the antenna post of the receiver (for
> example, the model 13 receiver ) and/or cutting the B+ voltage to the
> receiver front end, i must find Amelia's radio to prove that her setup was
> unique? Do you and RG really imagine AE turned down the volume, or
> switched  off the radio receiver, before she could push the microphone button?
> -Hue Miller

Last time I checked, the WE-13 was a transmitter.
Tell me where in the transmitter schematic there is a provision for
cutting the receiver B+ voltage.

As for grounding the receiver antenna post -- which is done by the
antenna transfer relay in the WE-13 schematic -- Ric has told you
several times that the available evidence shows there was no antenna
cable connected to the receiver terminal post on the transmitter
cabinet. Is there something about "no cable connected" that isn't
clear?

Bob
#2286
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:59:48
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

I have the WE transmitter schematics, and the notes from the people
who modified it to allow it to transmit both 500 kHz emergency
messages (on the long-wire), and HF, extending to just ablove 6.2
MHz, so she could use 3.105 and 6.210 MHz standard aircraft frequencies.

The radiated output for that transmitter at 31 MHz, when it is tuned
to the 3.1 MHz aircraft frequency is more than 60 dB below the
fundamental, when the set is connected, via the wire flex she had, to
the dorsal antenna. Brandenburg might analyze the hell out of various
simulated circuits, but in the real world, when you try to squeeze
signals at 30 MHz and above out of radio transmitters and antennas
like she had, the going is very tough.

I noted before:  Why are we concerned in the least about 31 MHz?
What is it about this frequency that is relevant to anything that has
to do with Earhart?

Ed
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:36:36
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Bob Brandenburg

It is clear to me that the setup used separate antennas.
If it had been set up to use only one antenna, it is clear
that the transmitter relay distributed the antenna to the
transmitter or receiver as needed. At the same time,
when going over to receive, the receiver antenna input
was grounded. Why? to protect receiver input and lessen
the racket at the headphone.

The TIGHAR line seems to be that in the case of two
antennas, this was unnecessary. That now, it is possible
that AE could receive and transmit at the same time. This
of course permits the scene depicted in Betty's notebook
to be possible.

I am saying wait a minute. Why would her aircraft setup,
which wasn't designed by her for any kind of special
broadcasting that i know about, be set up in some strange
non-standard fashion, so she either has to turn the volume
control up and down, or turning the radio off, between turns
when talking to someone via radio.

You have challenged me to show the numbers, it couldn't
be this way.

And RG says "Well, why couldn't it be this way".
I posted this issue on a couple other lists, for input, but you
know what, not very many people are interested in the AE issue at all.
It's really (maybe unfortunately) a smallish band.
One person advised me, and maybe it's good advice, "Let
them believe what they want, and move on."

I have no texts on hand at all. However, for whatever small
worth it is, i will try to get some relevant texts and at least
establish what in such a transmitter and receiver setup, the
cautions were and how the receiver was controlled during
transmit sessions.  Of course, that still won't prove the
"special case".  -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:37:01
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's Notebook

> 180 degree ambiguity

I don't see how that could ever be a problem no matter where she was
in relation to the station.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:37:32
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Ed Lyon

The only reason the 25 or 31 MHz figures are at all
bandied about here, is their relevance to the supposed
hearing by Betty Klenck in Florida of a transmission
from AE's radio from the island. Since Florida was in
afternoon hours then, the 3 or 6 MHz channels would
not work this distance. Because her transmitter was a
pretty simple device, with the output circuit i think i
mentioned before [ single tuned circuit, tapped coil ],
it's suggested this could only have occurred on a higher
harmonic. ( If this posting is redundant, i apologize. )
This is all in chapter 17 of "Finding Amelia".
Only relevant to AE in the sense that the Betty narrative
would seem to support the Niku hypothesis.  -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:37:58
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For  Ed Lyon

Ed, do you think it's possible to get a handle on the AH
capacity of the plane's two batteries? If they were car batteries,
i was guesstimating a max of maybe 200-250 AH. Then i was
thinking about the discharge curve. And the voltage at which
the transmitter would actually cut out. ( I guesstimate about
8-9 volts, just a guess, but this IS testable. )

You ( or anyone ) have any thoughts on this, or is this line
entirely too speculative?

I do have the type 13 transmitter, so it WOULD be possible
both to analyze the harmonic levels, with a spectrum analyzer,
and an atenna simulation for best and worst cases, and also
to find the drop-out voltage of the transmitter, but i REALLY
am not enthusiastic about taking on all that work. Maybe i will
look for a dynamotor this summer.  -Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:38:24
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Ed Lyon

In the Betty (Florida reception) picture, we're told Betty, once she
tuned in AE, never touched the dial for the 1.5 hours + listening
session. When i heard that, it seemed to me quite a feat, considering
a 1937 radio. I'd like to get your opinion - you've been in the radio
business for a while. I know here it's "show me the numbers" to
prove it couldn't happen, but i'd like your comments on whether
a 1937 radio would stay put when tuned in on some signal in the
25-31 MHz range.

Also, do you have any idea if the sensitivity of the radio falls off
on this range, if so, to what degree? ( We could probably use the
specs for the Hammarlund SP series of about the same year, i
think it has the same circuit layout as the top-of-the-line Zenith. )
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:42:16
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Generally

Well, I am certainly learning a lot lately. Most if not all of the
technical radio stuff is over my head but I am still being constantly
amazed. I have always believed we needed facts in order to resolve
questions but clearly and happily I see that is not so. In spite of
the fact we do not know exactly what the Electra's radio setup was
when she left Florida nor what the Itasca radio setup was we can
still specifically answer all the communication issues. What a great
relief. If I gather correctly, however, no matter what the two ships
had in the way of radios it doesn't matter.

Also in spite of not knowing exactly what Betty's radio was or its
capabilities or Earhart's radio setup we now know it was totally
impossible for Betty to have heard anything from Earhart. That is
truly stunning. Now all we have to do is figure out how 15 year old
Betty could have made notes of things she could not possibly have
known and how she could have made up such an incredible notebook. I'm
sure someone can explain 31.05, Marie, Marie and other references to
Marie and "get the suitcase in my closet" and all the number/letter
sequences. Should be a piece of cake after all we have just solved.

I might add she never said anything about not stepping on a battery.
She said she heard, "watch the battery." That could easily have meant
be careful not to run it down. If you guys are going to make
arguments get the basic information right first.

We also now know we can eliminate the shoe parts found even though we
don't know absolutely for sure the sizes or even Earhart's foot size.
We also know the shoes could have belonged to a woman who arrived
years later still frugally wearing 1930s shoes. A rare woman indeed.
In all fairness since Ron revitalized this issue he has also done a
lot trying to resolve the size problems. Eventually we will, I think.

Have a nice Sunday,

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:18:46
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Generally

For Alan Caldwell

Forgive me, i may have missed something, but which
number sequences tell you something?
What does 31.05 tell you?
-Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:19:27
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Hue, my ancient experience with possibly a similar console radio was
that it didn't much matter whether I fiddled with the tuning dial or
not. Eventually I just sat and listened and the signal would fade in
and out.

alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:19:50
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> Ed, do you think it's possible to get a handle on the AH
> capacity of the plane's two batteries?

I went back to the archives and saw mention of both one battery and
two. What did the plane have?

I also saw mention of Lockheed adding an extra battery. did they? If
so was it hooked up or just a spare. I also found this wire from a
site Ron is familiar with:

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

Alan

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:22:27
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Tom King wrote:

> Hoodless' training had included more up-to-date osteological analysis
> than Macpherson had.

That is my only question, Tom. The rest of Dr. Hoodless' work and
accomplishments are above question. I only want to know how well
qualified he was to make conclusions about the bones.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:37:21
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Alan Caldwell

<<I only want to know how well
qualified he was to make conclusions about the bones.>>

Fair enough, and everything we know about him suggests that he knew
bones, but no better than any other medical doctor of the time.  The
reason I'm a bit uncomfortable making much of this is that in the
original Burns et al paper on the bones, we said that, and were later
told that some in Fiji took what we said to be disparaging of
Hoodless, and accordingly weren't as cooperative as they might
otherwise have been.  I don't know if that's true, and we certainly
didn't mean to slam Dr. Hoodless in any way, but I've learned (I
hope) to be careful about people's feelings toward the memories of
distinguished colonial officials.

In any event, we've no reason to think that he was a heavy-duty bones
guy, but every reason to think that he made a competent examination
based on the standards of the day.

TK
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:14:07
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> What does 31.05 tell you

Hue, as you well know AE transmitted on 3105. Are you going to fault
Betty for putting a decimal place in a number she didn't understand?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:14:30
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Thanks, Tom. that answered my question. And, of course, I meant no
disrespect to the good Doctor or for that matter any of our forumites
I take to task. I'm as wrong as anyone and I'll always admit it or at
least usually if I can't wiggle out of it.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:56:49
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> From Alan Caldwell
>
>> What does 31.05 tell you
>
> Hue, as you well know AE transmitted on 3105. Are you going to fault
> Betty for putting a decimal place in a number she didn't understand?
>
> Alan

Alan, who else in the USA knew that AE transmitted on
3105? This is not "occult knowledge", is it?
-Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:24:25
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Hue Miller:
To answer your question quickly, we have to look at HF propagation
characteristics for July 1937.  Now, it's been some time since I read
TIGHAR's account of Betty's alleged reception session, and I don't
remember what time of day she was listening, but it seems to ring a
bell that it was in the evening or late afternoon.  If it was
centered on, say, 1800 Eastern time, the time on Niku would be nine
hours earlier, from a longitude aspect, but Niku's low latitude,
comapred with that in Florida, means that the days are far shorter on
Niku than in Florida.  Dawn occurred in Florida at 1000 GMT, and it
was not nine hours later, but more like 11 hours later that it was
dawn on Niku, ionospherically.  To propagate a signal from Niku to
Florida, you need to be nearly at the Maximum Usable Frequency for
the path. Much lower and D-region losses eat your breakfast, and if
higher, the signal escapes earth through the ionosphere.  A good rule
of thumb is: the maximum usable frequency is about 3 or 3.5 times the
f0F (vert. crit freq.), for good antennas that have low angles of
fire, and have sea water as groundplanes. AE's antenna was sad, but
let's say it was good, in this respect.  Betty's antenna also has to
be good in this respect, able to see signals at all polarizations at
angles like 20 degrees off the horizon and lower.

So at dawn on Niku, July '37, the f0F is 6 MHz, and AE could expect
harmonics of her transmitter up to about 20 MHz to propagate away
from Niku, toward the 'states. But once well east of Hawaii, enroute
to Florida, the MUF is up at 28 MHz, and the 20 MHz signals start to
get attenuated by D-region losses.  It is only about three hours
after local dawn on Niku that the local MUF will allow signals at 30
MHz to escape Niku and survive all the way to Florida, but about an
hour later, Florida starts into dusk, and the MUF starts to drop.

In other words, the ionospheric path needs to have an f0F above 9 or
10 MHz for a 10 to 11-hour period in order for signals above 30 MHz
to get from Niku to Florida.  The duration of the contact then adds
to this number. According to the then-National Bureau of Standards
data, the path from Niku to Florida is 10.4 hours long, solar-wise,
at ionospheric altitudes.  So any contact above 30 MHz could have
lasted but a fraction of an hour.  And I haven't looked at Spaulding
and Washburn to see what the atmospheric noise was in Florida in
July, 1937, from 5 or 6 pm onward, but my experience at Homestead,
FL, would indicate that it is noisy, and received signals have to be
strong to overcome the noise.  So we're asking for a tenth harmonic
of 3105 kHz or fifth of 6210 kHz.

And we're asking Betty's radio to cover 31 MHz, where there were no
allocated signals.  I'd sure like to know what kind of radio she had,
and why in the world she was listening at 31 MHz.  Grab any issue of
Radio News, Radio Craft, Radio, QST, or any radio magazine for July
1937, and there's just nothing being transmitted at that frequency
except for lab work and preparation for war, with radar research,
aircraft  radio altimeters, and the like.

As for the battery AH ratings for aircraft of her type, they ran in
the neighborhood of 300 AH, and there were often two of them, because
the engine cranking current was horrific.

Ed Lyon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:35:13
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> Alan, who else in the USA knew that AE transmitted on
> 3105? This is not "occult knowledge", is it?
> -Hue

I doubt more than a handful and probably no 15 year old girls.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:35:47
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

For Ed Lyon

Ed, i think i overemphasized the 31 MHz ( 5 x 6210), when the analysis
at

   http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/
HarmonyandPower.pdf

points to 24840 (4x 6210 ). My mistake.
Your point about why listen to this band, when there was nothing there, i had
to chuckle when i read that- that had not occurred to me. However, I suppose
one could say, "There only had to be one signal there".
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:15:07
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

I believe 3105, 500,  and 6210 kcs were  common aviation frequencies
at the time.  I know they were during the war years.

Don J.

> From Alan Caldwell
>
>> Alan, who else in the USA knew that AE transmitted on
>> 3105? This is not "occult knowledge", is it?
>> -Hue
>
> I doubt more than a handful and probably no 15 year old girls.
>
> Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:35:51
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Alan,

     The St Pete newspaper, from 2- 12 July, was full of the reported
signals received all over including the various frequencies, such as
6210 and 3105. Probably thousands of residents followed the story,
including high school girls. The newspaper was full of "faint
signals" as reported by amatuers and Navy, etc.
     And to top it off, there was a full cutout diagram of an Electra
10 showing the inside including the full cockpit layout.
     A yacht named "Marie" with a Capt named "Bob" was  participating
in the regatta that weekend off of St Pete.
      Other references were to the Ontario, SOSs, KHAQQ, KGMB AND KGU,
MAIN battery under fusilage, map of Howland Island, a report on the
5th of July that almost hourly radio workers picked up signals of
voice, sounds of a radio squeals on 3105, Noonans wife "Beatrice" ,
Amelia's husband George Putnam, the entire 281msg of "...don't hold
with us much longer...above water...shut off...",Putnams belief she
was in the Phoenix Island area, the strange telegram from George T
Huxford, California, 5 degrees south latitude, 173 west, east
Howland, must hurry, can't hold, and that a Capt George Steed of
Norwich City, NY, a ST Pete visitor was killed. Putnam was noted to
be at his North Hollywood home, etc.
     Hence there was a rich source of information available.
    Words not seen in the paper were Uncle, Howlandport, W40K,
suitcase, closet, "Bud" ,and various number sequences.
      Lots of Hams in St Pete were reading and listening too. Do you
see anything that could have only come from Earhart? Or perhaps that
doesn't matter, as she heard what she heard, and it is not necessary
to have an occult reference to make the transmission authentic.
LTM,
Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:29:04
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

> Do you
> see anything that could have only come from Earhart? Or perhaps that
> doesn't matter,

Not at all, Ron. that's good information but by now you know me well
enough that I'll ask deeper questions.

We would only be interested in what the newspapers said between the
2nd and 5th not all the way to the 12th.

Then I would need to see those papers to see with my own eyes what
was actually printed those days. I would also ask the basic question
-- Did Betty read any of those newspapers?

In 1937 I was not 15. I was only 5 and of course I didn't read
newspapers or anything else. My Grandmother read the socials but I
never saw anyone reading newspapers or magazines. When I WAS 15 in
1947 I never read newspapers. We didn't get the paper. none of my
friends had papers either. The only media we had interest in were the
15 minute kid serials on the radio -- Jack Armstrong, Green Hornet
and so on.

But Betty ought to be able to tell us.

Have you seen those papers or have a copy, Ron?

You know I'm not doubting anything you say. I am just a born sceptic.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:03:28
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Folks my age and older will tell you that in 1937 the sky was not
full of radio equipped airplanes chatting on 3105 or 6210 or any
other frequency. The CAB didn't exist until the following year and
basically there wasn't anyone much to talk to. We didn't have much in
the way of ground to air communications except the mail service and
the small amount of commercial flights.

Today everyone is far better informed than in the thirties. Kids
particularly had far more things to do than memorize aircraft radio
frequencies.

Some of you are thinking 2007 instead of 1937.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:52:43
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

for  Alan Caldwell

I think part of Ron's point was that much of this material, the non-
graphics stuff, would be endessly repeated on local broadcasters.
Your family and friends didn't read newspapers? Well, okay...
-Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:25:24
From:         Alaln Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Hue, we were dirt poor Irish in a tiny town in Ohio. That money was
needed for better purposes than newspapers. My Grandfather took the
paper but my Dad didn't. We didn't even have a radio. That's one of
the reasons I loved staying at my Grandparent's home.

I think you forget what it was like in the thirties. Folks weren't
glued to the radio like we are now glued to the TV. News was not of
any great interest. We listened to Let's Pretend, The Lux Radio
Theater, I love a Mystery, Jack Benny, Fred Allen and for the kids
all the day time serials and soaps like Stella Dallas, Lum and Abner,
Amos and Andy, Hop Harrigan, Little Orphan annie and so on.They were
out trying to earn a few dollars to put food on the table and clothes
on their back. Folks had far more important and necessary things to
focus on besides airplanes and foolish stunts.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:51:56
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Alan, judging from the money Betty's father
spent on this Zenith radio, several months pay maybe,
i'd wager  they weren't worrying about where their next
meal was coming from. That was in the 1930s too.
-Hue
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:55:46
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

About 95 % of those terms, words, names, descriptive scenarios,
etc appear in the St Petersburg Times, up thru July 5th. The cutaway
view of the Electra was on 12 July. Remember we don't know for sure
the exact date she copied the signals, but I guess the consensus is
on or about. 5 July., a Monday.
      I have copies of the relevant pages made from a microfishe of
the paper.I think Tighar published a summary given by Harry Poole
from 2-11 July from the paper and should be in the archives.
      Betty "was crazy about airplanes" and was a longtime listener to
short wave. She believed she was aware of AEs flight.. In view of AEs
earlier visit to St Pete in 1936 that stirred up a lot of interest,
along with her interest in aviaton, my bet is that Betty was
following  AE as a heroine and read all about Amelia.Hence when she
heard "This is Amelia Earhart" her ears must have perked up!
       Does that mean she cooked up the story, of course not.But a lot
of others in the area were reading the news and listening to the radio.
       Also Monday, July 5th at St Petersburg was their Fourth of July
huge holiday celebration, when the city celebrated with everything
closed. We therefore questioned whether her Dad came "home from work
that day"., trying to pinpoint the exact day she heard the
transmissions. To me this suggested 6 July, a regular work day.But as
Tighar has pointed out he could have been out doing handyman jobs on
the holiday too.
        Now it wouldn't take much imagination for any one, a ham
hoaxer for example, to have read the newspaper with that smorgasboard
of Amelia reports and rattle off a "fake" SOS. I know it might be
against the law, but with a fictionalized "Amelia" signal, who
knows.  Particularily on the 5th of July when there was an emphasis
on "faint messages" being heard.
         Betty recorded as best she could  the intermittent traffic,
(frequency unknown) fading in and out, for a long period of time. She
could have missed many significant parts. I wonder if her s/w  could
pick up Marine broadcasts?
         If we can prove the Electra was on Niku on 5 July that would
go along way to supporting the story.

LTM,
Ron

======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:56:11
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

Re Alan Caldwells latest post...

I strongly support and second Alans brief comments on the 'Old Time
Radio' programs and the  lack of interest in News events--in the 30s..
The comparison from then to now is light years of difference--with
todays constant 24/7 coverage of a lot of non news worthy events
versus the 30s focus on survival and a decent existence  for the family...
I am  not saying --Lets go back to Then---but Jesus --it was simpler
and less stressful.....

LTM-who always listened to Our Gal Sunday and Ma Perkins daily..

jim Tierney