I'm with Gary on this one.
I certainly agree - already made same point.
I might add, before someone brings it up, that because Itasca went NNW and AE and FN did not see it does not mean they were not NW of Howland. Tiny ship on a big ocean with WX. It was interesting to read the report from Colorado skipper. My opinion, stated enough so agree or disagree as you wish.
I wish I had more time to browse. That excerpt from Colorado is very useful to understand conditions better. Unfortunately back at the grindstone and no time for fun.
The world still wonders with baited breath.
JB
What your comment about "I might add..." makes me realize is that my playful jab at Gary about the search pattern, etc. put me into relative 'thread drift' - unintended.
So, what's to disagree with? As to the topic, I well agree with the rationale we seem to have about why Thompson did as he did. I don't see how I'd do differently if in his shoes, by all I can understand.
But woe to any who think they have a lock on where the bird was, or wasn't, or could not be. We will always be stuck with so much that is ambiguous in the whole big picture. They could have slipped right by the ship within a few miles, hit the LOP, done a cursory north-north-west, then reversed and flown 157 right into oblivion for all we know; or, Itasca may have sailed right over NR16020's shattered remains a couple of miles beneather her keel for that matter.
One thing is for certain: Itasca never found a trace of her despite Thompson's best and worthy efforts.
LTM -