Print

[Jerry Germann]

Dr Ford,
I editing my post, but you must have copied my unedited edition beforehand. I see now the information used in trying to establish the dating of Betty's notebook....I mentioned that Ric had likened the notebook to a 911 call ...this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiUScofSlPw .... but after reviewing it a bit more, realize, he didn't state that message occured on the day of July 2nd...I was always under the impression that her notebook, was an account of what happened immediatly after a reef landing....some of the wording, the description of actions taking place, seem to me, to describe that. If the actions described by Betty took place some three days after a reef landing, both crew members returned to the plane ( Noonan seriously injured) to make another attempt at sending a new message. I believe the notebook as a whole was broken down line by line, and discussed by members, but I can't seem to locate that thread at the moment.

[Jeff Scott]

Granted I work in the hard sciences and soft sciences often abide by a different set of rules...

"Different set of rules." Hmm. Jeff, I'd appreciate a couple of references per that declaration. Thanx.
...
   I appreciate all of your comments, Jeff….er, um, well maybe not so much your whack at "soft" sciences. Your words do show that you apparently read closely and thought about my work, and no better reward can a reader give a writer.
 LTM, Guthrie

Guthrie, the "hard" vs. "soft" sciences comment was not intended as an insult. It is a common expression in my family that my mother often uses to explain the different perspectives of myself (working in a physics and mathematics-based engineering field) and my sister (working in an archaeological/anthropological field). I often question the accuracy of conclusions in her field because it so much based on interpretation and subjectivity as opposed to the more deterministic results in my occupation. That is the reason for my questions on your paper--it occasionally makes statements of what is fact that I see as opinions and interpretations based on the few real facts available in the Earhart case.

[jgf1944]

Guthrie, the "hard" vs. "soft" sciences comment was not intended as an insult. It is a common expression in my family that my mother often uses to explain the different perspectives of myself (working in a physics and mathematics-based engineering field) and my sister (working in an archaeological/anthropological field).

Acknowledged, Jeff. I guess I got too thin skinned about the "dicotomy" by being, as per my family, in your sister's shoes! It's all good. And besides, you made me put the thinking cap on, and that's just what my seventy-plus year-old brain needs. Ciao, Guthrie

[Ric Gillespie]

Guthrie has amended and expanded his paper based on input from the Forum.

[Jerry Germann]

Dr. Ford,

Reviewing the non credible post loss messages,....the "all is well" message...

JULY 5 SC# 153
Reporter claimed to hear Earhart (possibly Noonan) gave her location and say “all is well so far." A new text color for a new language type called Positive, P, language, which positively describes things as going along just fine: "all is well..."  Score, O+

 I found this source of information that a hoaxer may have drawn upon;
 
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/Amelia_Earhart_Hawaii_to_California_pdf

My previous assumption that the all is well statement was something one could say,if he/she were expecting life to end and has made his peace with his/her fate..( acceptance) .... I believe other thoughts were; that during the transmission , rescue seemed apparent and everything was fine ...but, do you think this may have been the hoaxer's angle?, that being the use of a "catch" phrase, that helps identify someone by it's use?

[jgf1944]

do you think this may have been the hoaxer's angle?, that being the use of a "catch" phrase, that helps identify someone by it's use?

    Hi Jerry. This is what I understand to be the focus of what you wrote (correct me if I am wrong). A hoaxer reported hearing AE say "all is well so far" because those words were, in the public's ear, associated with the famed aviatrix. The hoaxer used the "all is well…" expression--catch phrase as you wrote--in order to enhance the authenticity of his or her report. I understand your question to me is whether that might have been the hoaxer's angle as a way to sell his or her lie. You even included--I am mightily impressed by your archival research, Jerry--a document in which the hoaxer may have seen the "all well" words associated with Earhart.
    If I have all of that right (phew!), then in my opinion your thinking in this forensic matter, Jerry, is spot on. Yes, I believe people can be identified by just hearing or reading their words. Of course the most obvious case to point is identifying someone upon hearing the person's name. But there are certainly other "word" cases. For example, "Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn't be done," tells me automatically that I'm dealing with AE, because those are her words that I particularly like and hence remember. Technically, this linkage of words with a person is called associative learning, and Pavlov was the guy who discovered it via this famous dog experiments.
    It seems quite reasonable to me to think that the hoaxer included the "all is well" catch phrase to convince people that he or she had actually heard AE. It also seem reasonble to think that the hoaxer had seen that phrase in some sort of media, as per the reference you provided.
    Let me take this opportunity to say something about TIGHAR. i became aware of the organization three years ago by surfing into the webpage and Forum in the context of an AE Google adventure. I throughly approved of TIGHAR's scientific orientation and the Niku Hypothesis, but what really swayed me to become a dues paying member was the Forum. I was mightily impressed by the energetic participation of the Forum folks relative to "finding" Amelia Earhart. Ric has said many times that the real backbone and strength of TIGHAR lie in its rank-and-file, and I could not agree more. Battles are planned by the generals, but they are won by the troops!
   Guthrie

[Ric Gillespie]

Speaking of post-loss message language, I just realized that the Dana Randolph reception on Sunday July 4 is more complicated than we have realized.

The initial notice to Itasca by Coast Guard San Francisco Division on July 4 said "Unconfirmed reports from Rock Springs, Wyoming state Earhart airplane heard 1600 KCS, reported position on a reef southeast of Howland Island ..."
Note that there is no mention of the word "ship."

The newspaper article that came out at least three days later quoted Dana Randolph as having heard Earhart say, "This is Amelia Earhart. Ship is on a reef south of the equator. Station KH9QQ."

So which was it? 
In the first case, San Francisco Division is not quoting Randolph.  They are just relaying information that they have received, presumably from someone who had talked to Dana or his father
In the second case, a newspaper reporter is quoting what Dana told him several days after the fact and undoubtedly after many retellings of what he heard - and the story has changed. The reef is no longer "southeast of Howland" but "south of the equator,"  there is now reference to a "ship," and the radio station call sign is given. (Earhart's call sign was KHAQQ, not KH9QQ.)

"Southeast of Howland" is more contemporary with the event and therefore more credible than "south of the equator."  If Earhart said "ship" did she's say, "Ship is on a reef ..." or "Ship on reef....."?  It makes a big difference. "Ship is on a reef ..." clearly refers to the airplane. "Ship on reef...." could refer to Norwich City.  Or maybe she didn't say "ship" at all.  Unfortunately, there is no way to know.

[jgf1944]

Unfortunately, there is no way to know.

    Ric. I think your words are the operating principle for any exercise in this context! That said, I had this thought. The Coast Guard got the info it sent to Itasca on the 4th, the same day that Dana reported having heard AE. That makes me think from the primacy perspective that the "reef southeast of Howland Isl." component is what Dana heard and reported to the C.G., or more likely to the party that contacted the C.G. (Do we know who that was? Dana's father?)
    You can imagine what Dana's experience created in the Randolph family and the neighborhood. I can see maps coming out and many fingers pointing at Howland sitting there just above the equator. But SE of Howland there was nothing written about a "reef;"and how many people know that reef and island atoll are a peas in a pod expression anyway? What I am saying is that reef southeast of Howland may have morphed into the simpler, barebones description of, "Dana heard her say that she's on a reef south of the equator." And with enough repetition, that is what Dana recalled three days later when the paper interviewed him.
     I hear you regarding the implication of Dana hearing "a ship" (Norwich City on Gardner) versus "[my] ship" as per the Electra. I put it to scholars more knowledgable about AE minutiae than I: did AE regularly refer to aircraft as ships? (I think I recall seeing that somewhere). Well, if she did, then that, in conjunction with what Dana recalled, probably swings the odds over to AE meaning her aircraft was on a reef SE of Howland Island, which isn't a bad consolation prize!
Guthrie
 

[Ric Gillespie]

That makes me think from the primacy perspective that the "reef southeast of Howland Isl." component is what Dana heard and reported to the C.G., or more likely to the party that contacted the C.G. (Do we know who that was? Dana's father?)

I agree.  We do not know who first contacted the Coast Guard but San Francisco Division asked for verification and received the following message the same day from KDN, the Bureau of Air Commerce radio facility in Rock Springs:
"Investigation reveals signals heard near sixteen megacycles thought to be from KHAQQ."

    "What I am saying is that reef southeast of Howland may have morphed into the simpler, barebones description of, "Dana heard her say that she's on a reef south of the equator." And with enough repetition, that is what Dana recalled three days later when the paper interviewed him.

It's a basic characteristic of folklore that everyone wants to be believed so recollections trend to evolve in such a way as to make them sound more believable.

[Joe Cerniglia]

I put it to scholars more knowledgable about AE minutiae than I: did AE regularly refer to aircraft as ships?

I enjoyed your paper, Dr. Ford. The question about the word 'ship' was interesting enough to me to at least attempt to research.

A Google search for the word 'ship' in Earhart's second book, The Fun of It, published in 1932 by Brewer, Warren, and Putnam shows Earhart to have used this word to refer to an airplane (hers or someone else's) a total of 25 times. She uses 'ship' to mean ship at sea a total of 10 times.

A Google search for the word 'ship' in Earhart's last book, Last Flight, originally meant to be titled World Flight, shows Earhart to have used the word to refer to an airplane (hers or someone else's) a total of 24 times. She uses 'ship' to mean ship at sea a total of 11 times.

For comparison, Charles Lindbergh in his first book, We, published in 1927 by G.P. Putnam's Sons, uses the word 'ship' to refer to an airplane 73 times. He refers to a 'ship' as a ship at sea a total of 10 times.

The word 'ship' as synonym for aircraft seems to have been part of the lingo of those early aviators. It would be interesting to know if the general public of the time used it in this fashion.
I tend to doubt it.

Joe Cerniglia

[jgf1944]

I put it to scholars more knowledgable about AE minutiae than I: did AE regularly refer to aircraft as ships?

The question about the word 'ship' was interesting enough to me to at least attempt to research.

   Sir:I can only imagine what you produce as a researcher when you upscale "attempt" to "did"! There is no
   more question in my mind about Earhart's usage of the word "ship." Thank you!!
   Guthrie

[Ric Gillespie]

It's a term that was once common but has fallen into disuse.
My father was a B-17 pilot during WWII.  He always refers to his bomber as his ship.
I learned to fly in 1965. I don't think I've ever referred to an airplane I flew as a ship.

We don't know whether Dana Randolph heard AE say ship and if she did we don't know how she used the word.

[Jeff Scott]

The word 'ship' as synonym for aircraft seems to have been part of the lingo of those early aviators.

This is common lingo still today, especially in the military. Air Force and Navy operators will often refer to an aircraft and it's tail number as something like "ship twelve," for example.

[Bill Mangus]

No doubt a shortened version of "airship".

[Ric Gillespie]

No doubt a shortened version of "airship".

Perhaps, but "airship" historically refers to a steerable lighter-than-air craft, aka a "dirigible". (A free balloon is not an airship.) There was usually a clear distinction in terminology between devices that flew by "aerostation" (use of lighter-than-air gas) and "aviation" (French for bird-like flight). Of course, the general public may not have made such fine distinctions.