Ric
I see, no evidence found for A, nor B, therefore it must have been C, even though there is no evidence for C (straight line route).
Your "nverted " annology is beneath you and doesn't deserve serious consideration nor comment.
I'll have to look at the Itasca radio log info to source the info for you.
Absence of "A" and "B" may provide evidence of "C", given a couple of things:
- FN had before expressed use of celestial and radio beam in what sounds alot like direct routing for Pan Am
- FN appears to have been expecting a similar approach by the presence of NR16020's RDF equipment, etc.
We'll never know for sure in this world - the truth of it evaporated from the grey matter in a couple of skulls somewhere in the Pacific long ago, and NR16020 can never reveal that secret (short of a message in a bottle).
All would not be 'lost', however, if a direct route attempt failed at first: the off-set principle could have still been applied after the fact of realizing your original plan failed. Consider: if the Gardner theory is correct, then it was not a failure of FN's navigation so much as a failure to be detected on Gardner, for whatever set of reasons.
As to 'inverted', well, don't be too hard on Ric - AE did seem to spend a lot of time standing on her head.
LTM -