Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?  (Read 167259 times)

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #105 on: December 19, 2011, 01:11:43 PM »

We pilots would like to have two of everything but, in spite of this desire, most planes get by with only one engine, one compass, one altimeter, etc. So Noonan with one drift meter and  one octant is certainly within normal bounds.

gl

Maybe so, Gary.  But we're not in FN's shoes, and he'd certainly done otherwise on at least one other occasion, regardless of how you might see it.

The circumstances of flying the Pacific with AE may easily have prompted the same caution in FN that led him to carry a "preventer" on at least one previous occasion. 

No amount of argument from me or you can prove what he did aboard NR16020. 

We do have one record of FN having carried a "preventer" in a certain circumstance once before. 

He apparently also thought enough of that detail to not only mention it in a personal letter to a colleague, but to state it in a Pan Am memo.
I just re-read Noonan's April 29, 1935 memo to Pan Am  and I didn't see any mention of a preventer, can you point it out?
Quote

I am not aware of any other record where FN stating that he did otherwise, on any occasion.  Which proves nothing about the AE flight. 

But it does tell us something about what may have been important to FN, at least at a point in history that is recorded, regardless of what another might find important or rational. 

Now, if there were a record of FN having said something like:

"I later found the carriage of a 'preventer' to be a waste of time, space and weight and elected to go without it",
He did say that all sights were taken with the bubble octant.
Quote

- then we'd have an equally compelling record about FN deviating from something he previously had bothered to point out, wouldn't we? 

That would be far more than speculating about what you or I might do, if we were FN, as we see it today.

I guess the probabities are that we'll never know what he did for certain.  I guess we can also draw our own conclusions about what we think he probably did, too.

LTM -
If you guys want to believe that they landed on Gardner you will have to do it based on evidence other than the sextant box. To get the sextant box to Gardner you first have to get it on the plane and you have no evidence for that except a two year old letter talking about what Noonan did when he was employed by Pan Am. My first job was in a machine shop and there was a drill press there. I worked on the drill press but when I quit they didn't let me take the drill press home with me. If you want to now prove that I do have a drill press then produce an invoice from Sears or a photo of me with a drill press in my home or at least a witness statement saying they saw me using a drill press at home. You can't, so it is completely unjustified to make the leap that I have a drill press just because I used to work on one at my job. Even if I haven't made a statement that "I don't have drill press" you can't make the absence of such a statement proof that I do have a drill press as you have done above where you point out that there is no statement from Noonan saying he didn't have a marine sextant, that he found them to be a waste of time.  You are turning logic on its head.

All you have is Noonan's letter about a flight for his employer, Pan Am, in his employer airplane, using his employer's equipment, two years prior to the Earhart flight on which he says a marine sextant was carried. (I guess you believe that everything on the plane belonged to Pan Am with only one exception, the marine sextant, does that make any sense?) This statement is just like my statement that I there was a drill press in the machine shop where I was employed. You do not have any photos or witness statement showing a marine sextant carried on the Electra anywhere around the world. There was no marine sextant mentioned in the Luke Field Inventory. 

Before you can place the sextant box in Earhart's plane you first must prove that Noonan had a marine sextant in 1937.
Noonan's letter said that "two sextants were carried" it didn't say "I brought my own sextant" on the flight, (see attached.)
What makes you think he could take the marine sextant home with him when he left the employ of Pan Am? Do you think he took the bubble octant home too? What about the fire extinguisher? What about the chart table? What about the left engine, did Pan Am let him take that home? Wait, we know that Pan Am didn't let him take the bubble octant home because they had to scrounge one up for the Earhart flight. Where did they go to scrounge up a marine sextant? If you believe that he had a marine sextant from his days on the sea then you must take into account that he had been working for Pan Am since 1930, seven years prior to the Earhart flight so didn't need a marine sextant to navigate his ship. And do you have any evidence that he even had a marine sextant of his own when he was a sailor? Even if he did have one when he was at sea it is certainly reasonable that he would have sold the valuable instrument in the intervening seven years since he didn't need one at Pan Am.

Marine sextants are expensive now and they were expensive then, see: http://www.celestaire.com/Cassens-Plath/View-all-products.html
Some have claimed that the marine sextant was modified for use aloft by adding a bubble horizon attachment although there is nothing in Noonan's letter or any other evidence that was the case. Today, a bubble attachment for a marine sextant costs $950 in addition to the $1795 cost of just the sextant and they weren't cheaper in 1937, see prior link. Do you think that Pan Am would allow Noonan to take home such a valuable piece of equipment when he quit, or was fired? If Noonan bought one after he left Pan Am then where did Noonan get the money to buy one since he was unemployed for some time prior to hooking up with Earhart? A couple of days ago I posted that Earhart had a Colt Pistol, Ric demanded "documentation." Where is your "documentation" showing Noonan owning a marine sextant in 1937? Do you have a bill of sale? A photo of him with his marine sextant at home in 1937? A statement from any witness saying that they saw him with a marine sextant at home in 1937? Or even a statement that Noonan had told them that he owned a marine sextant in 1937? I'll answer that for you, no you don't.

What we do have is an interview with Helen Day, a friend of Noonans. In sum, Day recalled that she was at Noonan's room in Miami, helping the party gather their equipment and stuff for the flight. Helen said she helped carry down some of their stuff, including a pith helmet, thermos, a machete (in case they were forced down in a jungle, ."Someone carried AEs small suitcase......Fred carried only his octant". Nobody was carrying a "preventer" out to the plane for the departure from Miami. Noonan obviously did not leave the octant in the plane when they were in Miami and he certainly would not have left the equally valuable marine sextant in the plane either. Day's statement is direct evidence that they did not load a marine sextant aboard the Electra and you have no evidence in any form to contradict that statement nor any evidence that Noonan even owned a marine sextant in 1937.

So believe all you want that they landed on Gardner but do it without relying on the sextant box.

gl

Gary,  The sextant box is one piece of a larger puzzle.  Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that FN had at least one octant or sextant on board from Lae to Howland?  There was a sextant box found on Gardner.  Is there any dispute of that fact?  If we, TIGHAR believers, could find a direct link between that box and FN then you have strong evidence that suggests FN was on Gardner.  Not absolute evidence because someone may ask if the native really found it there and not on another island and brought it to Gardner.  It would be likely that the crashed and sunk at sea theory would be in troublle unless people believed the empty wooden box broke free of the sunken wreck, floated to the surface and was found by natives.  But those theories are stretching the bounds of what "likely" happened given the other evidence we have.   I don't believe the TIGHAR hypothesis hinges on a single part of the theory but on the "collective" nature of the evidence as pulled together over the years.  Ric and TIGHAR have been adding to this "collective" over the years.  They have even done research on their some of the evidence only to determine they were wrong about it.  And you are still focusing on debunking TIGHAR and have not yet put your own hypothesis on this forum.  Make it a Christmas Present to all of us. 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #106 on: December 19, 2011, 02:29:10 PM »

Invoking the presence of a second sextant/octant on board the Electra weakens the argument for a Gardner landing.  The most likely “sextant” box to be found on the island that could be associated with Fred Noonan is the one he borrowed from Harry Manning (see http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Noonan_Octant_Receipt.jpg).  I think it safe to assume that FN took that particular octant on the Lae-Howland flight.  I’m trying to find out more about that box.  Inquiries to the Naval Observatory Records department regarding the box reported to have been found on Gardner haven’t turned up anything, so I’m trying a different approach, asking them what records of Manning’s instrument may be available, if any.  GL believes the instrument was an “A5” style instrument, which would be reasonable assumption for 1937.  However, we need to keep in mind that this is an assumption.  We also need to keep in mind another assumption – that the box that Harry Manning’s octant was in wouldn’t have been confused for a “sextant” box.  We know from existing examples of Octant boxes at the Smithsonian that some octants of the era used low-profile boxes typical of traditional marine sextants, and others used tall profile boxes.  Tall boxes were becoming the normal style for Aircraft Octants just before the year of the flight.   It is possible, if unlikely, that the box that Manning’s sextant was stored in was a low profile “sextant box” like the one found on Gardner.  If we discover that Manning’s box doesn’t fit the Gardner box description, then the source of the Gardner box will remain a mystery, and the TIGHAR hypothesis will not be supported by that approach.  If Manning’s box matches the Gardner box, then the case for AE/FN landing on Gardner is supported.
At this point we cannot say definitively what style of Octant box was on board the Electra.  We may be able to say what sort of box Harry Manning’s Octant had, if Naval Observatory records are available.  Some day we might even be able to say more about the box found on Gardner, if the numbers on it turn up in some record.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #107 on: December 19, 2011, 06:55:54 PM »


See  TIGHAR TRACKS,Vol. 14, No. 1
Letter accompanying gift of sextant to the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, FL
"6 June 1968
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I, hereby, certify that the accompanying
Navigation Sextant was the property of Mr. Frederick J Noonan,
who was copilot-navigator on the World flight with Amelia Aerhardt [sic]
when their plane was lost in the Pacific Ocean.
This instrument was borrowed by the under-
signed who at that time was studying navigation under Mr. Noonan
in preparing for service in the Pacific Division of Pan American
Airways, for use in practice praticle [sic] navigation. Identification
marks are not in evidence, however, the undersigned hereby certifies
as to the authenticity of the above remarks.

W. A. Cluthe
Retired Captain, Pan American
World Airways.
Ex. C.A.P. USN, Number 12.
4312 Winding Way,
Mobile, Alabama-36609"
Manning used a Bausch and Lomb octant, also known as the A-6, so there is a good chance that your photo of a possible sextant box is for this instrument. See attached photos and manual.

gl
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 07:10:06 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #108 on: December 19, 2011, 07:10:52 PM »

Well said Jeff and John.  I like your approach on the Manning Sextant box John. Good approach. 

To your point Jeff, if I recall we were thinking that the sextant box might be evidence of a sextant on the island that might have been used by FN to do a star sight to locate their position. Lots of "mights". They also likely had a chart but the common thinking is the chart did not mention Gardner by name. Although recent postings in another thread that has pictures of AE and FN posing with their world trip mark does show the Phoenix island group on the chart.

As Gary has stated recently, sextants were quite valuable.  Would someone else have brought a sextant to the island and somehow the valuable sextant and it's specially designed protective case we're separated?  This isn't very likely. How many of the people who visited or inhabited Gardner would have reason to bring a sextant to the island?  Isn't it likely to be a very small number?  It's not likely anyone who stayed on the island would have a need for one.  It's not like the island moves. Your position isn't going to change. So possibly someone who may be transient or just visiting. Taking up on John's idea who could this person(s) be? 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #109 on: December 19, 2011, 08:34:13 PM »

Well said Jeff and John.  I like your approach on the Manning Sextant box John. Good approach. 

To your point Jeff, if I recall we were thinking that the sextant box might be evidence of a sextant on the island that might have been used by FN to do a star sight to locate their position. Lots of "mights". They also likely had a chart but the common thinking is the chart did not mention Gardner by name. Although recent postings in another thread that has pictures of AE and FN posing with their world trip mark does show the Phoenix island group on the chart.

As Gary has stated recently, sextants were quite valuable.  Would someone else have brought a sextant to the island and somehow the valuable sextant and it's specially designed protective case we're separated?  This isn't very likely. How many of the people who visited or inhabited Gardner would have reason to bring a sextant to the island?  Isn't it likely to be a very small number?  It's not likely anyone who stayed on the island would have a need for one.  It's not like the island moves. Your position isn't going to change. So possibly someone who may be transient or just visiting. Taking up on John's idea who could this person(s) be?
______________________
Gee, I wonder whatever happened to the sextant carried on the Norwich City.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #110 on: December 19, 2011, 08:48:50 PM »


Gary
I haven't seen the Helen Day letter but, accepting your summary, her statement is "evidence" only that she didn't carry a sextant (octant) onto the plane nor did she see anyone else except FN carrying a sextant (octant) to the plane.  She didn't know what was already on the plane or what others might have carried when not in her eyesight.
Helen day was a good friend of Noonan's and lived in Miami. Helen and Noonan went out for dinner and, since she was the only one with a car, Noonan asked her to pick them up at the hotel and drive them to the airport in the morning. Helen went up to Noonan's room where he was gathering up equipment. Helen helped them "carry down their things-various items including pith helmets, thermos jugs, and a machete in case they were forced down in the jungle. Someone carried Amelia's small suitcase, which held five shirts, two pairs of slacks, a change of shoes, a light working coverall, a weightless raincoat, linen, and toilet articles. Fred carried only his octant." East To The Dawn, Susan Butler.
Seems like a pretty detailed report. She even remarked upon unremarkable items such as the clothing and the thermos jug, so why no mention of a more remarkable and unusual item, the second sextant? Oh, I see, because there was no second sextant.

gl
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 08:52:56 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #111 on: December 19, 2011, 08:56:36 PM »


Perhaps it was left locked up in the navigator's station in the locked Electra and FN carried his "preventer" on with him (the one Helen Day saw him carry).
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Daniel Paul Cotts

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #112 on: December 19, 2011, 09:34:34 PM »

Here's an eBay listing for a manual for the B&L A-6 and A-8. Posted in case someone wants to buy it to see if the specs for the box are included.
BAUSCH & LOMB BUBBLE SEXTANT, MANUAL, A-6 & A-8
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #113 on: December 19, 2011, 09:45:44 PM »

Well said Jeff and John.  I like your approach on the Manning Sextant box John. Good approach. 

To your point Jeff, if I recall we were thinking that the sextant box might be evidence of a sextant on the island that might have been used by FN to do a star sight to locate their position. Lots of "mights". They also likely had a chart but the common thinking is the chart did not mention Gardner by name. Although recent postings in another thread that has pictures of AE and FN posing with their world trip mark does show the Phoenix island group on the chart.

As Gary has stated recently, sextants were quite valuable.  Would someone else have brought a sextant to the island and somehow the valuable sextant and it's specially designed protective case we're separated?  This isn't very likely. How many of the people who visited or inhabited Gardner would have reason to bring a sextant to the island?  Isn't it likely to be a very small number?  It's not likely anyone who stayed on the island would have a need for one.  It's not like the island moves. Your position isn't going to change. So possibly someone who may be transient or just visiting. Taking up on John's idea who could this person(s) be?
______________________
Gee, I wonder whatever happened to the sextant carried on the Norwich City.

gl

Gee, thanks Gary. That's a good lead to follow up on. Again we might find out what we can about this one and verify it was the sextant or eliminate it.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #114 on: December 19, 2011, 10:59:09 PM »


Perhaps it was left locked up in the navigator's station in the locked Electra and FN carried his "preventer" on with him (the one Helen Day saw him carry).
Oh, I forgot about the ten ton safe they had in the plane for locking up valuables. I don't know about you, but I've had stuff stolen out of my locked plane. But if they had a safe in the plane then why did Noonan take any octant or sextant to his room?

gl
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 03:01:06 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #115 on: December 20, 2011, 03:22:09 AM »

Invoking the presence of a second sextant/octant on board the Electra weakens the argument for a Gardner landing.  The most likely “sextant” box to be found on the island that could be associated with Fred Noonan is the one he borrowed from Harry Manning (see http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Noonan_Octant_Receipt.jpg).  I think it safe to assume that FN took that particular octant on the Lae-Howland flight.  I’m trying to find out more about that box.  Inquiries to the Naval Observatory Records department regarding the box reported to have been found on Gardner haven’t turned up anything, so I’m trying a different approach, asking them what records of Manning’s instrument may be available, if any.  GL believes the instrument was an “A5” style instrument, which would be reasonable assumption for 1937.  However, we need to keep in mind that this is an assumption.  We also need to keep in mind another assumption – that the box that Harry Manning’s octant was in wouldn’t have been confused for a “sextant” box.  We know from existing examples of Octant boxes at the Smithsonian that some octants of the era used low-profile boxes typical of traditional marine sextants, and others used tall profile boxes.  Tall boxes were becoming the normal style for Aircraft Octants just before the year of the flight.   It is possible, if unlikely, that the box that Manning’s sextant was stored in was a low profile “sextant box” like the one found on Gardner.  If we discover that Manning’s box doesn’t fit the Gardner box description, then the source of the Gardner box will remain a mystery, and the TIGHAR hypothesis will not be supported by that approach.  If Manning’s box matches the Gardner box, then the case for AE/FN landing on Gardner is supported.
At this point we cannot say definitively what style of Octant box was on board the Electra.  We may be able to say what sort of box Harry Manning’s Octant had, if Naval Observatory records are available.  Some day we might even be able to say more about the box found on Gardner, if the numbers on it turn up in some record.
Are you talking about the box for the Pioneer 12-36 octant or the box for Manning's Bausch & Lomb octant? The Pioneer octant was developed in 1931 and I know it was used by Lindbergh in 1933 and it is the only bubble octant discussed in Dutton, 1934 ed. The photo of Lindbergh's octant shows that it had reached its final form and is virtually indistinguishable from the later models, Mk III, A-5 and A-7. The shape of the octant determines the shape of the box and the box for the Pioneer looks nothing like a box for a marine sextant.

gl
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 03:00:11 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #116 on: December 20, 2011, 03:24:19 AM »

Invoking the presence of a second sextant/octant on board the Electra weakens the argument for a Gardner landing.  The most likely “sextant” box to be found on the island that could be associated with Fred Noonan is the one he borrowed from Harry Manning (see http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Noonan_Octant_Receipt.jpg).  I think it safe to assume that FN took that particular octant on the Lae-Howland flight.  I’m trying to find out more about that box.  Inquiries to the Naval Observatory Records department regarding the box reported to have been found on Gardner haven’t turned up anything, so I’m trying a different approach, asking them what records of Manning’s instrument may be available, if any.  GL believes the instrument was an “A5” style instrument, which would be reasonable assumption for 1937.  However, we need to keep in mind that this is an assumption.  We also need to keep in mind another assumption – that the box that Harry Manning’s octant was in wouldn’t have been confused for a “sextant” box.  We know from existing examples of Octant boxes at the Smithsonian that some octants of the era used low-profile boxes typical of traditional marine sextants, and others used tall profile boxes.  Tall boxes were becoming the normal style for Aircraft Octants just before the year of the flight.   It is possible, if unlikely, that the box that Manning’s sextant was stored in was a low profile “sextant box” like the one found on Gardner.  If we discover that Manning’s box doesn’t fit the Gardner box description, then the source of the Gardner box will remain a mystery, and the TIGHAR hypothesis will not be supported by that approach.  If Manning’s box matches the Gardner box, then the case for AE/FN landing on Gardner is supported.
At this point we cannot say definitively what style of Octant box was on board the Electra.  We may be able to say what sort of box Harry Manning’s Octant had, if Naval Observatory records are available.  Some day we might even be able to say more about the box found on Gardner, if the numbers on it turn up in some record.
I thought that TIGHAR had claimed the the sextant box found on Gardner was for a Brandis sextant and that they have spent a great deal of time tracking numbers on Brandis sextant boxes.

gl
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #117 on: December 20, 2011, 06:47:18 AM »

"...they have spent a great deal of time tracking numbers on Brandis sextant boxes."
Yes they have, but the specific numbers haven't turned up yet in any records.  We can consider the numbers to be valid identification, if we find the matching N.O. record.  The box description is vague, but we assume it was a low-profile box, typical of marine sextants, although the Smithsonian has some similar boxes that hold aircraft bubble sextants.  The Brandis identification is also an assumption.

This seems like an interesting enough subject (to me at least) so I started a new thread at http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,554.0.html

Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #118 on: December 20, 2011, 08:02:43 AM »

I thought that TIGHAR had claimed the the sextant box found on Gardner was for a Brandis sextant and that they have spent a great deal of time tracking numbers on Brandis sextant boxes.

I think that TIGHAR's claims are more modest than you make them out to be.

The box found on Niku was identified as a "sextant box" by people who knew what sextant boxes looked like.

One of the examiners was Harold Gatty, "Prince of Navigators," who invented a bubble sextant.

The reasons to speculate that the box was a Brandis are:
  • the numbers on the Niku box fit a pattern found on extant Brandis boxes
  • bubble sights had been developed for Brandis sextants
  • a box with two numbers on it said to have come from Noonan is in a Florida museum
TIGHAR hasn't found any other numbering system with pairs of numbers marked on sextant boxes using different techniques (inked and die-struck). 

Here's the really cool thing: if we could locate the list of numbers issued by the Naval Observatory, this line of reasoning could be supported by further evidence or demolished.  It is, in principle, a testable supposition.  Until the N.O. list is found (if it still exists), it remains an open question whether Noonan might be the source of the Niku box.
I believe that is a fairer statement of where things stand at present.


LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #119 on: December 20, 2011, 08:34:27 AM »

Nicely stated and clarified Marty
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP