TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on September 25, 2015, 04:27:06 PM
-
J. Guthrie Ford, Ph.D., was a teaching and research psychologist at Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) from 1972-99. At the millennium, Ford began a second career as a historian specializing in life and times on the Texas coast as per the Port Aransas (Mustang Island) area. For R&R from that history enterprise, Ford rekindled his childhood interest in Amelia Earhart. On "discovering" the Niku Hypothesis in 2012, he was impressed by TIGHAR's empirical standards and scientific rigor.
Ford's psychological research included the development of a psychological test, with which he gathered data relevant to testing propositions from his Temperament/Actualization concept (theory). When Ford began thinking analytically about the Niku Hypothesis, it seemed there must be some aspect of Earhart's behavior that would point to the possibility that she had been on Gardner Island. He could not put this finger on what that was until he isolated the credible records of Earhart's putative words. That is when he saw a distinctive pattern of change in Earhart's post-lost language from early (July 2) to late (July 7). That is when Ford changed from TIGHAR reader to researcher. What he did in that capacity, be it successful or not, is the topic of the attached paper, which he now lovingly kicks out of the nest and into the stark reality of the Forum!
Guthrie feels privileged to publish in the space that has seen the work of TIGHAR scientists Bob Brandenburg and Tom King (and certainly other luminaries as well).
-
Ric,
If the author of this report will allow you to publish it the “TIGHAR Tracks” please use my Literary Guild II contribution to do so. This is a very important analysis and should be preserved in a formal publication.
Ted Campbell
-
Dr. Ford's work on these last words of doomed aviators is very compelling, not to mention heart-wrenching. This is to offer another case history for his analysis: The journals of Robert Falcon Scott, who died with his companions on the return journey from the South Pole. I found an excellent compilation of his entries from January 17, 1912 (when they left the Pole) to March 29, when Scott and two others were trapped in their tent in a blizzard, too weak to march to the next food depot 11 miles away. I did not want to copy the compilation here due to concerns for TIGHAR on copyright issues. I found it by googling "Robert Falcon Scott Journal". (The material is copyrighted by American Museum of Natural History, Rice University, and Education Development Co., Inc.). To my untrained eye, the same pattern emerges of objective, scientific fact reporting at the start (Scott was a gifted writer with a real talent for science), to growing concerns over dwindling food and worsening conditions -- "we hope to die in our traces" and "desperately cold", with a final anguished scrawl: "For God's Sake, look after our people." This might add to Dr. Ford's model and strengthen this very significant perspective on AE's language.
Scott
#3292
-
Excellent read. A very compelling and well-thought out analysis. Thank you for posting this!
-
Ric,
If the author of this report will allow you to publish it the “TIGHAR Tracks” please use my Literary Guild II contribution to do so. This is a very important analysis and should be preserved in a formal publication.
Ted Campbell
Thanks Ted but that won't be necessary. Guthrie is making a donation and we'll be including his paper in the next TIGHAR Tracks.
-
Gentlemen,
A wonderful read by J. Guthre Ford! MORE reason for me to believe in the Niku landing.
PEACE
-
Sorry, I don't agree. If Mr. Ford is right, it does not confirm the Niku-hypothesis, it could also confirm the "Captured by the Japanese"-hypothesis. Only "Crashed and sunk" would be out of play!
-
Oskar,
I would like to hear your rational in thinking that the "Captured by the Japanese - hypothesis" is given some support by Mr. Ford's work.
Ted Campbell
-
Sorry, I don't agree. If Mr. Ford is right, it does not confirm the Niku-hypothesis, it could also confirm the "Captured by the Japanese"-hypothesis. Only "Crashed and sunk" would be out of play!
Dr. Ford's work supports the hypothesis that post-loss radio signals judged by TIGHAR to be credible are, in fact, genuine distress calls sent by Amelia Earhart. His work is another nail in the coffin for Crashed & Sank but does it also support Captured by the Japanese?
If the post-loss signals are genuine, the Electra made a relatively safe landing and had sufficient remaining fuel to periodically run an engine to recharge the battery over a period of at least five days.
TIGHAR has shown that:
There is a place on Nikumaroro where the plane could have made a safe landing.
The plane could have arrived with enough fuel to keep the battery charged for the requisite time period.
The times when the water level on the reef was low enough to permit an engine to be run correspond to the times of the credible post-loss messages.
Some of the post-loss messages contain information that can be interpreted to describe Nikumaroro.
None of the above has been shown to be true for any island where there was a Japanese presence. It is difficult to construct a scenario that gives the Electra enough fuel to reach anywhere in the Japanese mandate. Getting it there with enough remaining fuel to send the post-loss messages is not in the cards.
None of the credible post-loss messages make reference to the Japanese.
None of the Japanese Capture scenarios I've heard of suggest that the Electra remained undiscovered for at least five days (all of the islands in the Japanese mandate were inhabited).
In short, the post-loss messages are not compatible with the Japanese Capture hypothesis. Any analysis that supports the validity of the post-loss messages, by definition, argues against Japanese Capture.
-
A very impressive paper. To me, this is one more solid argument supporting the Niku hypothesis. I appreciate the time and effort Dr. Ford invested in this.
In the interest of trying to strengthen the argument, I'd like to play devil's advocate and explore what may be a weak spot.
I found the paper compelling, but I already had an opinion. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who's not already sympathetic to the Niku hypothesis. As a skeptic, then, when I read the paper, are any parts of it less than convincing?
Yes. An obvious issue, it seems to me, is the small sample size for the baseline. The baseline comprises two example cases and three people. Is this strong enough to establish a pattern?
My knowledge of psychological research is nonexistent, so I'm asking this out of total ignorance: Is it acceptable practice to use a small sample size, when the circumstances require it? Does it affect how we view the conclusions?
I can easily see how this could be valid:
- The reason the baseline population is small is that there's a very small number of similar cases to draw from. Dr. Ford found cases that match the Earhart situation extremely well: All are aviators, who were unable to reach their destinations and unable to establish communication with anyone. And they left a record of their words, from their diaries.
- In this study, unlike studies where statistical rigor is needed, we're not dealing a large number of different values -- for example, fuel temperatures, burn rates, radio frequencies, propagation distances. These would be expressed in numbers, and we would look for statistical validity. We're dealing here with how people behave and the things they say under certain circumstances, and we're examining patterns of language, not patterns of numbers. There's no need to find an average or a standard deviation. From the baseline, Dr. Ford finds exactly one pattern among the people studied.
Maybe this is a case where a sample size of three is perfectly adequate. Dr. Ford has worked in this field for decades, and he doesn't even mention the sample size. One possibility is that it's so clearly acceptable and obviously within standards that it wasn't worth mentioning.
-
Oskar,
I would like to hear your rational in thinking that the "Captured by the Japanese - hypothesis" is given some support by Mr. Ford's work.
Ted Campbell
Ted,
the Ford paper gives support to the idea A.E. landed on an island at last. A.E. didn't say anything about the name or the place of that island, as we all know. So it could be Mili atoll as well, theoretically...
-
Oskar,
I would like to hear your rational in thinking that the "Captured by the Japanese - hypothesis" is given some support by Mr. Ford's work.
Ted Campbell
Ted,
the Ford paper gives support to the idea A.E. landed on an island at last. A.E. didn't say anything about the name or the place of that island, as we all know. So it could be Mili atoll as well, theoretically...
The "Captured by Japanese" theory and all it´s variations ( at least all I know ) is based on the "witness testimony" of local people seeing the aviators captured immediately "on arrival" - whether landing, or crash landing". How could they possibly transmit they messages for almost the week? Moreover, all the credible signals were nailed as originated from the Phoenix islands area - not from Mili or any other Japanese controlled territory. I don´t see any support for Japanese theory by the work of Dr. Ford.
-
No. There are different variants of "CAPTURED BY THE JAPANESE". One theory says AE landed at Mili atoll and was picked up by the Japanese five days later. (Nobody can know if she was aware of inhabitants watching her) That means she would have stayed there for some days, rather upset about her situation...
-
Let's look at the fuel.
• The Electra leaves Lae with 1,100 US gallons of gas, enough for 24.4 hours of flight if AE follows Kelly Johnson's recommendations.
• She hits the advanced LOP ("We must be on you...") 19.2 hours later. She has 5.2 hours of economical cruise (130 kts burning 38 gph) fuel remaining. That's 197 gallons. In calm winds she can fly another 676 nm before running out of gas.
• A little over an hour later, 20.9 hours into the flight, she says she is "on the line 157 337...running on line north and south." ITASCA is hearing at Strength 5 so she is somewhere on the LOP roughly 200 nm from ITASCA. She now has roughly 3.5 hours of economical cruise (130 kts burning 38 gph) fuel remaining. That's 133 gallons. In calm winds she can fly another 455 nm before running out of gas.
Now.... let's put her on the LOP 200 nm northwest of Howland at this point in the flight. Let's say she turns and flies toward Mili (perhaps thinking that she is heading for the Gilberts). Mili is 600 nm miles away. Winds aloft (2,650 ft) at Howland are 17 kt out of the East so let's give her a 17 kt tailwind and a groundspeed of 147 kts. With the 3.5 hours of fuel she has left she can fly 515 nm. She goes into the drink 85 nm short of Mili. To reach Mili with bingo fuel she needs a 41 kt tailwind. To reach Mili with enough fuel to send the post-loss messages she needs the Jet Stream.
Now let's put her on the LOP at 200 nm southeast of Howland at 20.9 hours into the flight. As in the above scenario, she has 3.5 hours of economical cruise (130 kts burning 38 gph) fuel remaining. That's 133 gallons. In calm winds she can fly another 455 nm before running out of gas. If she continues down the LOP, Gardner is 145 nm away. Let's give her a 17 kt headwind which reduces her groundspeed to 113 kts. It takes her 1.3 hours to reach Gardner. She arrives over the island 22.2 hours after leaving Lae (10:42 Itasca Time, 11:12 Gardner Time). She has 84 gallons of fuel remaining. Once on the ground, she can recharge the battery by running the right hand engine at 900 RPM burning 6.6 gph (as confirmed by actual engine tests). With 84 gallons remaining she can run the engine periodically for a cumulative total of 12.72 hours.
Conclusion:
If the post-loss signals are genuine as suggested by Dr. Ford's work, Japanese Capture is eliminated as a viable theory.
-
A very impressive paper. To me, this is one more solid argument supporting the Niku hypothesis. I appreciate the time and effort Dr. Ford invested in this.
In the interest of trying to strengthen the argument, I'd like to play devil's advocate and explore what may be a weak spot.
I found the paper compelling, but I already had an opinion. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who's not already sympathetic to the Niku hypothesis. As a skeptic, then, when I read the paper, are any parts of it less than convincing?
Yes. An obvious issue, it seems to me, is the small sample size for the baseline. The baseline comprises two example cases and three people. Is this strong enough to establish a pattern?
My knowledge of psychological research is nonexistent, so I'm asking this out of total ignorance: Is it acceptable practice to use a small sample size, when the circumstances require it? Does it affect how we view the conclusions?
I can easily see how this could be valid:
- The reason the baseline population is small is that there's a very small number of similar cases to draw from. Dr. Ford found cases that match the Earhart situation extremely well: All are aviators, who were unable to reach their destinations and unable to establish communication with anyone. And they left a record of their words, from their diaries.
- In this study, unlike studies where statistical rigor is needed, we're not dealing a large number of different values -- for example, fuel temperatures, burn rates, radio frequencies, propagation distances. These would be expressed in numbers, and we would look for statistical validity. We're dealing here with how people behave and the things they say under certain circumstances, and we're examining patterns of language, not patterns of numbers. There's no need to find an average or a standard deviation. From the baseline, Dr. Ford finds exactly one pattern among the people studied.
Maybe this is a case where a sample size of three is perfectly adequate. Dr. Ford has worked in this field for decades, and he doesn't even mention the sample size. One possibility is that it's so clearly acceptable and obviously within standards that it wasn't worth mentioning.
-
oops. The absence of my reply to Brian T. in the preceding post was a function of me having forgotten some Forum lessons. I know good Father Moleski must be shaking his head.
Back to the deep end after a bit of splashing around in the kiddie pool.
Guthrie
-
An obvious issue, it seems to me, is the small sample size for the baseline. The baseline comprises two example cases and three people. Is this strong enough to establish a pattern?
My knowledge of psychological research is nonexistent, so I'm asking this out of total ignorance: Is it acceptable practice to use a small sample size, when the circumstances require it? Does it affect how we view the conclusions?
Super question, Brian. And BTW, I would invite you to strike the word "ignorance" relative to anything you wrote in your posting. You're the type of "student" that profs dream about having!
No question that language informaton from 100 lost aviators in life-threatening situations would be preferred to the three lost aviators I reported. For example, with this larger "norm group," there might not have been any of the sequence patterning (i.e., Desperation follows Objective and Subjective) found in the LBG and Lancaster diaries. In that event, I am not sure where I would have taken the research…if anywhere! My point being that in science, there is no such thing as too much data.
Frankly, I was able to find only three cases with the needed bulllet points: professional aviators, lost, few survival assets, incommunicado in a life-threatening situation (as per heat and absence of fresh water), and producing enough language to be scored. One thing I particularly like about Ric's understanding of science is that scientific knowledge is not static, but rather an organic, growing thing. Indeed, one reason that I was happy that Ric posted my work was to see if Forum members might offer more "Lady Be Good" cases (that I might have overlooked). Also, do my findings pertain to other types of cases, like people trapped unto death in freezing situations or in lifeboat situations; the tough part is the necessity that some sort of language record is needed for scoring and comparing to baseline.
I may have some more info on the baseline question soon. My bookfinding service alerted me that a copy of an out of print book on the psychology of extreme situations has been found in England, and I ordered it…arrival in a couple of weeks I'm told by the middleman….I keep my fingers crossed. The book may have info relevant to your small baseline question.
Thanks for your close attention to my work, Brian. Perhaps your analytical mind might be more at ease with the synopsis that this Ford fellow presented somewhat limited evidence suggesting that Amelia Earhart may have been the person who made transmissions from a place that might have been Nikumararo. Such dubiousness, BTW, has a postive effect on most scientists through motivating them to make their cases even more compelling and bullet-proof.
It's working on me right now.
Guthrie
-
Ric,
1."Strength 5" means 200nm (or less) off Itasca. Why are you so sure about that?
2. 157 337 is what AE said. There is no evidence she was ever on that LOP.
-
Dr. Ford,
Were there any written words from any of the survivors of the soccer team crash in Peru (I believe)?
Ted Campbell
-
1."Strength 5" means 200nm off Itasca. Why are you so sure about that?
Sorry. I thought that by now everyone on the Forum was aware of Bob Brandenburg's computer modeling of the Electra's antenna system and his discovery of "The 3105 Donut (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2008Vol_24/1008.pdf)." See attached.
2. 157 337 is what AE said. There is no evidence she was ever on that LOP.
The evidence that she was on that LOP is that she is reported in a primary source document (the Itsaca log) to have said she was "on the line 157 337." Noonan certainly had the capability of determining such a line. It made perfect sense for her to be on that line. What basis do you have for doubting that she was on that line?
If we're going to discount information in a primary source document we have to have a good reason. We can reasonably assume she did not say she was "circling" because we can see in the original document that the original entry was "drifting." That word was erased and "circling" was added later. See Things Not Said (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1995Vol_11/said.pdf). If we're going to willy-nilly start picking and choosing which of her statements we're going to believe we can put her anywhere.
-
Dr. Ford,
One more possible data set might be found by following the tail of the crash here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_at_Kufra
Ted Campbell
-
Were there any written words from any of the survivors of the soccer team crash in Peru (I believe)?
Hi Ted;I am Guthrie (thanks for complimenting my work per the LGII offer). We'll soon know about that Andes crash. The book was just republished last year and a copy is speeding to me as I type. I remember reading about his survial case close to when it occurred, and I do not think that individuals kept private diaries or logs. Of course we know Desperation was in the mix relative to the life/death necessity of consuming human flesh. I can imagine the initial period being Objective as per making factual observations and performing survival behaviors to prevent death from hypothermia. In turn, I presume there was a Subjective period when attention began to focus inwardly. But I will soon know and will post once I become informed. Thanks for the headsup.
Guthrie
-
Some other possible sources
Nada Jean Chaney (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19910510&id=5AxQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=o1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3836,3112576&hl=en)
Jerry William McDonald (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8514271/Man-in-a-van-kept-two-month-diary-of-life-stuck-in-a-snowdrift-until-he-died.html)
Edit :also
Mike Turner (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700258378/Pastors-dying-words-still-an-inspiration.html?pg=all)
-
One more possible data set might be found by following the tail of the crash here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_at_Kufra
Good catch, Ted! Essentially another Lady Be Good situation, except the crewmen were members of the South African Air Force--SAAF. And blessings of blessings, what appears to be the definitive study of this case has been digitized:2001 Journal (http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol122jc.html).
Synopsis. A flight of three twin-engine bombers commanded by Major J L V de Wet became lost during a training mission in May 1942. Fuel shortage caused the aircraft to land (without incident), thus commencing the crew's tragic end. Unlike LBG, the crews stayed with their aircraft. All expired apparently of dehydration or gunshot wounds self-afflicted or via "mercy" pleadings. Psychological and behavioral information are provided by de Wet's diary, quotes from which are in the Journal and from the later testimony of Air Mechanic N St M Juul who barely survived the EIGHT (8) day ordeal.
I scored each day per the scoring system described in my paper. Below I list left to right the Day1 to Day8 SAAF. Directly below those scores are the corresponding Aviation Language Baseline Test baseline values. ("none" means not addressd in Journal article; IMO, if de Wet wrote those days, the scores would be OD.)
SAAF O O OD none OD OD none OD
ALBT O O OS OD OD OD OD OD
The important Desperate preceded by Objective rule obtained, and the six SAAF scores attained five matches with baseline--just about as good as it gets for the ALBT. (Yo Brian Tannahill: I hope you're reading about this additonal case for the language baseline norm group!)
Thanks, Ted, for birddogging yet one more piece of evidence to strengthen the proposal that Amelia Earhart trasmitted on the Electra radio between at least 2-7 July, 1937; and did so most likely on Nikumararo Island (aka Gardner)--I view my data as the conceptual complement of the Brandenburg Direction Finding data--see paper, page 17.
Guthrie
-
Some other possible sources
Thanks Greg. I've seen one but will check out the others.
Guthrie
-
This is to offer another case history for his analysis: The journals of Robert Falcon Scott, who died with his companions on the return journey from the South Pole
.
Scott, thank for your interest in my work. I did read the R F Scott Journal (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/scott.htm) per your suggestion. Is is, IMO, somewhat different from the sources I used in the paper in that Scott wrote quite a bit about what was happening to his colleagues rather than what was happening to him. In other words, the journal seemed to me in the mold of a journalist describing a complex situation rather a diarist describing his or her private subjective and desperate thoughts and feelings. Nevertheless, please keep an eye peeled for historical cases of extreme survival that would increase the validity of the ALBT findings about Amelia Earhart. LTM.
Guthrie
-
Dr. Ford: Captain's Scott's writings may be in a different category altogether. In the first place, he was known as a first-rate writer, so he strove to write well and coherently. No stream of consciousness text in his journals, just lucid scientific reporting with plenty of British Edwardian grace under pressure. Even more important, from a psychological standpoint he had lost the race for the South Pole to Roald Amundsen, and Scott's team had been falling apart, with two men lost already, on the return journey. So during those last days, he knew he was not coming back to glory. His journal would be his testament. All he had to live for was the hope that he could be seen as an example of how an English explorer faces down death as a gentleman, so his writing reflects that. What actually passed between him and his doomed companians will never be known. Finally, several polar explorers have described how easy and comfortable it can be to freeze to death. The soporific effect of deep cold and endless wind outside the tent was a different scene from your aviator examples who used "hell" to describe their circumstances of dying of thirst in a scorching environment. (Must say, though, I was once caught lost on a mountain in west Texas in a blizzard, and I am sure my diary, if I had kept one, would be rather consistent with your standard model. It's a amazing--emotionally jarring--how fast a situation can go from normal to desperate.) - Scott #3292
-
DR Ford,
There may be something in the record on John Morgan (see enclosed link) that can give us additional data points in the D and O categories of your analysis. John Morgan and I were good friends while we both worked for Texaco's International Aviation Dept. John didn't crash but he did get the plane back to base. He received the Medal of Honor for his efforts and subsequently the movie "Twelve O Clock High" was based upon his story.
I received the Texaco's "John Morgan" award and cherish it to this day.
Ted Campbell
http://www.merkki.com/morganjohn.htm
-
I received the Texaco's "John Morgan" award and cherish it to this day.
Without even knowing what warranted you receiving the "John Morgan" award, I offer congratulations to you for being distinguished in the context of such a stellar American…seriously!
G.
-
No stream of consciousness text in his journals, just lucid scientific reporting with plenty of British Edwardian grace under pressure.
Scott. In the genre of tragic farewells, Wm. Lancaster's diary is a magnus opus that I believe you would enjoy; particularly given your apparent appreciation of Edwardian grace under pressure--Mr. Lancaster even works in "with chin held high" without it sounding cliché. The 16-page diary is in R. Barker, Verdict of a Lost Flyer, St.Martin's, NY, 1969, and Amazon has very reasonably prized used volumes (the work is out of print). Enjoy. Cheerio.
Guthrie
-
Dr Ford,
Would you identify the six post loss messages used in this study? Did you consider using in flight radio messages, such as low on fuel, and we are circling, we must be on you, but cannot see you, etc? Some state earhart near the end of her transmissions was nearly shouting/crying/etc...since these are somewhat verified post loss transmissions, some may disagree,...what would they score? Curious,....when analyzing a diary, how does one assign a value to those written words, for sometimes only the author knows in the manner they are expressed...Oh, if for public consumption,he does his best to try to enable the reader to grasp his emotion...but, as mentioned before by others, was wondering about the use of diaries to score the authors real emotions. In earhart's case, she made mention to some that she rated her chance of success on her world flight attempt,at about 50/50....another instance she made out a will, in the event that she did not succeed.....can these be used as bases for scoring her purported post loss messages? for by them ,she seemed to ready herself in the event of failure.....would this frame of mind, affect score values in any subsequent post loss messages?
In grief loss five steps, one goes through during and following the loss are recognized ....denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance....From your paper= ( Desperation language, the language of urging rescuers to hurry, about being unable to go on, struggle, prayer, sensing the coming of death, and finally wishing for death itself.) You mentioned that the message " All's Well" is regarded as bogus....if acceptance is considered the final step in dealing with loss,..why is that message so readily dismissed as bogus?
-
Granted I work in the hard sciences and soft sciences often abide by a different set of rules, but this analysis seems to rely on a great deal of subjectivity and assumptions. Among them are:
- Deriving a baseline from direct written words yet comparing these to second- or third-hand reports of what Amelia or Fred might have said. The reports of post-loss messages remain highly controversial and debatable considering they are fragmentary, garbled, often incomprehensible, and always someone else's impression rather than a direct recording of her words. How can one have any confidence in the comparison results when there is so little confidence in her words themselves?
- There is inherent subjectivity in what defines objective, subjective, and desperate language. In many of the messages used to define the baseline, only a single word is used to classify that entry in one category or another. These assessments seem arbitrary. Also, adding to the first point and Jerry German's post above, consider the arbitrariness of the listener's interpretation of her tone and how this may influence what they thought she said. Case in point is some aboard Itasca who listened to Earhart's final transmissions described them as calm and professional while others considered the same messages panicky and hysterical.
- The analysis hinges on the assumption that a person in distress will make the same kinds of statements over a radio for everyone to hear as he would write in a private diary. Is there any evidence to support such a belief?
- The section attempting to use this psychological analysis and Brandenburg's analysis to prove each other is very convoluted logic. The statement "It is the author's scientific opinion that the empirical evidence–Brandenburg's DF findings and Ford's ALBT matching results–strongly confirms the proposition that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were, post lost, in a life-threatening situation called Gardner Island" is especially flawed. If the psychological analysis showed Earhart was not in a life-threatening situation, does that mean she wasn't on Gardner Island? Of course not--the two issues are unrelated. It sounds as logical as "The fact that the weather is cold and that ice cream is cold strongly confirms the proposition that it is cold today because I ate ice cream."
The general concept of this analysis may have some value, but I don't see how it can ever be convincing evidence. Whether Earhart and Noonan ended up on Gardner, the bottom of the ocean, New Britain, or involuntary guests of the emperor, the only evidence that will prove it is to find the plane. If the Electra is one day found off the shore of Nikumaroro, items like this study may provide insight into the pair's last days. But it will never be the "confirmation" of TIGHAR's hypothesis that the title claims it to be.
-
I view Dr. Ford's paper as an intellectually interesting exercise, but frankly I don't see how it can ever be anything more than that due to the extremely subjective nature of the items that are being analyzed and held up as examples and proof.
It's fun to speculate, but as far as advancing the Nikumaroro hypothesis, not at this time. Maybe at some point in the future. Maybe never. That is the nature of true science.
Still, I applaud Dr. Ford for a novel way of looking at tragedies, and air tragedies in particular.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
I agree Monty....
Concerning post loss messages; I align myself with the statement by Earhart " We must be on you but cannot see you" as their starting point. Along with what Jeff Scott mentioned;
Granted I work in the hard sciences and soft sciences often abide by a different set of rules, but this analysis seems to rely on a great deal of subjectivity and assumptions. Among them are:
- Deriving a baseline from direct written words yet comparing these to second- or third-hand reports of what Amelia or Fred might have said. The reports of post-loss messages remain highly controversial and debatable considering they are fragmentary, garbled, often incomprehensible, and always someone else's impression rather than a direct recording of her words. How can one have any confidence in the comparison results when there is so little confidence in her words themselves?
It seems confusion and disagreement about correct wording abound, even in these early transmissions .....drifting? listening,(circling)?......low on fuel ( sez she only has 1/2 left) ....
How does one arrive at conclusive test results, if the content, context of the material is in question?
-
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.
Deriving a baseline from direct written words yet comparing these to second- or third-hand reports of what Amelia or Fred might have said. The reports of post-loss messages remain highly controversial and debatable considering they are fragmentary, garbled, often incomprehensible, and always someone else's impression rather than a direct recording of her words. How can one have any confidence in the comparison results when there is so little confidence in her words themselves?
Had the credible reports of AE putative post-lost language not been transcriptions, I would not have conducted this study, Jeff. I refer you to Appendix 3, and therein to the appearance of quotation signs bracketing what ostensibly are AE's exact words--the exception being the paraphrased material in the 2 July report.
There is inherent subjectivity in what defines objective, subjective, and desperate language. In many of the messages used to define the baseline, only a single word is used to classify that entry in one category or another. These assessments seem arbitrary
Well, I presume there was plenty of subjectivity (reflection and thinking) when the meter was defined as one ten millions of a quarter of a meridian. Yes, I did score some language units on the basis of a single word, however one word can convey lots of subjective meaning. For example, if you asked what your very despondent friend was thinking and he or she said, "suicide," that single word says enough to spur you into some serious action, yes?
The analysis hinges on the assumption that a person in distress will make the same kinds of statements over a radio for everyone to hear as he would write in a private diary. Is there any evidence to support such a belief?
That is a solid methodological question, Jeff. I am not aware of research exactly aligned with all the variables at play here. When i designed the study this was my thinking on the point you are raising. The Lady Be Good diarists wrote about desperation in various ways: struggling, feel very weak, praying and wishing for death. I figured AE would not radio to the world that she was praying nor wishing to die; that public sharing just does not, IMO, fit AE's personality and self-image. Even this ole soft scientist saw that that would load the odds against him finding positive (matching) results, and so it was OK to proceed even if the public/private factor might be a significant consideration.
The section attempting to use this psychological analysis and Brandenburg's analysis to prove each other is very convoluted logic. The statement "It is the author's scientific opinion that the empirical evidence–Brandenburg's DF findings and Ford's ALBT matching results–strongly confirms the proposition that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were, post lost, in a life-threatening situation called Gardner Island" is especially flawed. If the psychological analysis showed Earhart was not in a life-threatening situation, does that mean she wasn't on Gardner Island? Of course not--the two issues are unrelated.
Ford's logic is "especially flawed." Hmm. Seemed rather syllogistic to me. Brandenburg empirically showed a zone wherein voice transmissions were made by a woman saying she was AE; the zone included Gardner and McKean islands. However, investigation of McKean McKean Data (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/McKean/McKean.html) showed no sign of AE, and so logically that leaves Gardner as the possible location of the radio transmitter used the the woman saying she was AE. Independent of Brandenburg's DF data, Ford showed AE may have produced language in a life-threatening situation, which Ford assumed describes Gardner Island. That appears, to me, as the overlap of two Venns: Gardner with transmitter used by woman saying she was AE, and lift-threatening place AE putatively transmitted from. The overlap looks to me to be the entity, "Amelia Earhart." I had fun thinking about your reference to me fnding negative results--AE did not match ALBT baseline. Well for sure I would not have called Ric to tell him to shut down the Earhart Project because AE was never on Gardner Island and I have data to prove it. I shudder just typing those words; heaven knows how I will react seeing them on the TIGHAR Forum! What I would have done with negative results is to conclude that the life-threatening situation as per the LBG and Lancaster scores, which was the Sahara desert, was not sufficiently comparable to Gardner Island, and/or that I had overemphasized in my mind that the island was a life-threatening situation. Realistically, I would have probably abandoned the language-matching idea altogether…but then I would have missed getting to know Forum readers, like you Jeff; and I would have missed feeling that even though only a tiny gear, I am part of the TIGHAR effort to "find Amelia."
The general concept of this analysis may have some value, but I don't see how it can ever be convincing evidence. Whether Earhart and Noonan ended up on Gardner, the bottom of the ocean, New Britain, or involuntary guests of the emperor, the only evidence that will prove it is to find the plane. If the Electra is one day found off the shore of Nikumaroro, items like this study may provide insight into thehttps://tighar.org/smf/Themes/core/images/bbc/unformat.gif pair's last days. But it will never be the "confirmation" of TIGHAR's hypothesis that the title claims it to be.
I hear you. And, BTW, I agree that there is nothing like an identifiable piece of NR16020 in the domain of Earhart evidence. Your reaction to "confirmation" brings a LOL that I think you'll enjoy. I tested the AE data on the ALBT baseline after the nightly news, at about 10:45; I remember my wife had drifted off when I turned off the TV. The AE scores matching the ALBT was for me an Eureka! moment, and I said to my wife, loud enough to wake her, "Honey, I have found Amelia Earhart!" Wife: "That's nice Guthrie, but your language project alone will not be enough; let's talk it in the morning. Goodnight!" So I now officially own that my paper is not the "smoking gun," and I will pull back my language to say that Ford's language matching data are in line with the Nikumararo hypothesis that AE landed on the reefing encircling a south central Pacific atoll that appears to be Nikumararo (nee Gardner) Island.
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
-
Would you identify the six post loss messages used in this study?
Hi Jerry. The messages are in the credible reports given in Appendix 3. Did you consider using in flight radio messages, such as low on fuel, and we are circling but cannot see you, etc? Some state earhart near the end of her transmissions was nearly shouting/crying/etc...since these are somewhat verified post loss transmissions, some may disagree,...what would they score?
I did not consider using AE's "airborne" language because there was nothing comparable in the sources (Appendices 1,2) I used for the ALBT baseline. Curious,....when analyzing a diary, how does one assign a value to those written words, for sometimes only the author knows in the manner they are expressed. You have struck a major chord in psychological science, and that is how to measure quantitatively behaviors like emotional words. ...Oh, if for public consumption,he does his best to try to enable the reader to grasp his emotion...but, as mentioned before by others, was wondering about the use of diaries to score the authors real emotions. In earhart's case, she made mention to some that she rated her chance of success on her world flight attempt,at about 50/50....another instance she made out a will, in the event that she did not succeed.....can these be used as bases for scoring her purported post loss messages? for by them ,she seemed to ready herself in the event of failure.....would this frame of mind, affect score values in any subsequent post loss messages?
Whoa, Jerry; you covered a lot of ground here. You've raised some issues that psychological researchers think about a lot; for instance, how does one measure the intensity of emotion in expressions like "I was afraid" or "We were ecstatic." After all, what might be very intense for one person might be felt less intensely by another. I refer you to an intro psychology text, therein check out the "method" chapter or perhaps "psychological scales." In the research we are discussing, I will be alarmed if a perponderance of readers, after learning the scoring protocol on page 6, say that they would have scored the languages in the appendices differently than how I did. If that feedback, and explanations thereto, do not appear, then we can use consensus as a way to give validity to the measurement of subjective states expressed by words.
Regarding the "all's well" issue, check out the "all's well" usage in App. 4, 5 July. There is no hint that this a grief scenario. Thanks for your attention to my work.
Guthrie
-
I view Dr. Ford's paper as an intellectually interesting exercise, but frankly I don't see how it can ever be anything more than that due to the extremely subjective nature of the items that are being analyzed and held up as examples and proof.
You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time; but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
Thanks, Monty, for associating my name with "intellectually." That coming from you, and I am serious here, is in my book a reinforcer. LTM, Guthrie
-
I find this a very interesting angle and topic. I encourage you to expand the paper itself and I share my point of view specifically to better understand how you are or are not reaching an audience. I feel like this was an executive summery and I would love to see a different depth/approach to it.
I think you did an good job of presenting the Post-Loss Language theory itself.
I got lost in the stories of the aviators used in your study that were thrown in the Appendix. I really disliked the Appendix approach used like that. I am not 100% familiar with the stories of the aviators used and even those who are could use a better outline and comparison of how you applied your methods to them. I would suggest one accident/survival situation at a time flushed out from start to finish with the language scores in it. Specifically complete summery of the accident/survival situation then note examples available from it like diaries, then specific quoted material as you used with scores, remaining accident/survival situations, and then compare them. IMO this would make it easier to follow rather than jumping around so much. I am not sure in the paper who is associated with what accident/survival situation as you are discussing them.
The main reason for my post was the following text:
"The author strove to complement Brandenburg's work by showing that the chances are excellent that Gardner is where the post-lost transmissions originated, and chances are also excellent that Amelia Earhart made those transmissions." After sleeping on it I still feel this shows bias in the paper that you don't or shouldn't intend. Specifically working backwards from a foregone conclusion. May I suggest that you introduce TIGHAR in the introduction and state your research is evaluating the Post-Loss Language from known transmissions specific to Brandenburg's work? Further mention of TIGHAR is a distraction and shouldn't be necessary rather you could be presenting your Post-Loss Language theory in context of the introduction that already mentioned TIGHAR's and others work. In short I gather your paper is discussing the theory that Post-Loss Language from known Amelia Earhart radio transmissions match that of other Post-Loss Language accident/survival situations and therefore add credibility that they were real rather than hoaxes.
Again just my perspective of reading the paper itself and request that the accident/survival situation stories are presented better. After all who doesn't like revisiting the complete story and then seeing how your work is applied to the stories.
Above all thanks for the enjoyment of a new angle.
-
You guys are sure giving Guthrie a run for his money. That's good. I'll weigh in and hope that I can match his tactful and scholarly restraint.
Guthrie's paper asked a simple question. Does the language people use to describe their situation become increasingly emotional the more distressing and frightening their situation becomes? He confined his study to a narrow set of specific examples and the answer was "yes," but the basic premise could be easily, albeit sadistically, demonstrated on any member of this forum. It's pretty much a no-brainer. The ingenious thing about Guthrie's approach is his simple method of characterizing and categorizing the language in his examples so that it can be compared to the language in the alleged Earhart post-loss radio messages. He found that the language in the otherwise credible post-loss messages tracks well with the examples of known language used by people in similar situations. The language in messages otherwise judged to be hoaxes does not. Does Guthrie's paper "confirm" the Niku hypothesis? Of course not. Is it a fascinating observation that adds support to the authenticity of the post-loss messages? You betcha.
-
Concerning post loss messages; I align myself with the statement by Earhart " We must be on you but cannot see you" as their starting point.
How you align yourself is up to you, but TIGHAR's study defines a "post-loss" signal as one that was received after the aircraft had to be down, i.e. roughly noontime on July 2. We use that definition because the authenticity of the in-flight transmissions is not in question. If even one post-loss transmission was genuine the airplane did not go down at sea.
It seems confusion and disagreement about correct wording abound, even in these early transmissions .....drifting? listening,(circling)?......low on fuel ( sez she only has 1/2 left) ....
How does one arrive at conclusive test results, if the content, context of the material is in question?
It isn't. Both the "drifting (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1995Vol_11/said.pdf)" and the "1/2 hour gas left (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1996Vol_12/logjam.pdf)" issues have been thoroughly addressed.
-
Whether Earhart and Noonan ended up on Gardner, the bottom of the ocean, New Britain, or involuntary guests of the emperor, the only evidence that will prove it is to find the plane.
Does anyone imagine for a moment that finding the wreckage of the Earhart plane at Nikumaroro would end controversy about how it got there? From what I've seen in the course of 27 years of debating the evidence in the Earhart case, the evidence many people accept as convincing and the evidence they reject has more to do with their own world view than anything else. I could start a huge fight by citing examples of other mysteries and issues that remain controversial despite being thoroughly settled - but I won't. :-)
-
Would you identify the six post loss messages used in this study?
Hi Jerry. The messages are in the credible reports given in Appendix 3.
Regarding the "all's well" issue, check out the "all's well" usage in App. 4, 5 July. There is no hint that this a grief scenario. Thanks for your attention to my work.
Guthrie
Thank You, Dr Ford
I admit , I fell short of reading your entire work, and skipped over the appendix section, you gave me too much credit. If in any classroom,... I could imagine a scenario, in which upon asking this question of my instructor, concerning the sources used, I would expect a scolding for not doing my homework, and rightly so....thank you, for responding in the polite manner you did. It would have been a pleasure to be in your classroom.
And that answers another statement for me as well..now referring to the appendix section of your work, I see the timeline argument against the message " All's well" ...it seems to be mid stream...and agree, it doesn't seem to fit in with any acceptance of fate declaration.
-
Thank You, Dr Ford
Wow. One of my fondest memories of teaching is when I chatted with students on this certain bench at the end of a beautiful lawn opposite the university library. I got to tell you, Jerry, that when I read your words they took me back to that bench and the many enjoyable exchanges I had there. Thanks. Professor Ford!
-
You are most welcome....In my profession ,I am surrounded by, and interact with teachers on a daily basis,...I see the efforts they put forth to try to reach young minds, hearts, and souls, and feel they deserve praise/credit for their efforts.
Ok, some more questions.......In the study, is the position of a presumed credible message of utmost importance , in regard to how it is therefore deemed credible? I note that Betty's notebook is given an entry date of July 5th, some 3 days after the first post loss message...It is given an OD rating....I believe it was stated by Betty she didn't know the exact date she heard the message, and if memory serves me, I believe Ric stated he felt that the notebook read like a 911 call,... forum discussion on the notebook, I believe by several members seemed to give an impression that this radio message may have been first day....very soon after earhart's last in-flight message. Do you feel the Betty message is in the proper order, and would the rating or credence given it , be subject to change if it's position were to be changed to number one?
Respectfully,
Jerry
-
forum discussion on the [Betty's] notebook, I believe by several members seemed to give an impression that this radio message may have been first day....very soon after earhart's last in-flight message. Do you feel the Betty message is in the proper order, and would the rating or credence given it , be subject to change if that were to happen?
Jerry, for Betty's Notebook I went with the 5 July day as per what appears in the Signal Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html). The accompanying note in the catalog indicates 5 July is the best choice because of Radio propagation analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/HarmonyandPower.htm). Other evidence for the 5 July was gathered from an interesting Forensic analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights108.html#6).
I am not quite clear what you mean by rating or credence relative to, I presume, Betty's Notebook having the first post-lost day date of 2 July. The language score given the notebook, given any language unit, was absolutely unrelated of its date; a score reflects only the presence or absence of the Objective, Subjective, Desperation score categories. If the notebook had had the 2 July date, which it did not, then its OD score would have been a major mismatch with the ALBT baseline; indeed, that result might have caused me to re-evaluate my language-mathcing idea. Guthrie
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Guthrie has amended and expanded his paper based on input from the Forum.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
No doubt a shortened version of "airship".
-
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.
-
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.
Thanks Jeff. Come to think of it, in our Army aviation battalion I recall that we might refer to a "20 ship formation" of Hueys but I don't think we would say, "The ship is out on the ramp."
Here's another post-loss message phrase that has puzzled me. The phrase "We can't bail out" occurs in [url]Betty's Notebook[/url=http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html].
Did the speaker mean "We can't evacuate" or "We can't remove water"?
First question: When did the emergency evacuation of an aircraft by parachute become known as "bailing out"? Parachutes were not in common use until after WWI except by some German pilots and by observers in tethered observation balloons. Whatever term the German pilots used it wasn't "bail out." Did a British or American observer "bail out" of a balloon that was on fire? Or was that a term that came along later? Certainly by WWII the term was in common use but was it part of the aviation lexicon in 1937?
The verb "bail" derives from the Middle French "baille" and Middle English "bayle" meaning a bucket. To bail is to scoop up water to remove it, usually from a boat. Presumably the evolution of the phrase "bail out" to mean the emergency evacuation of an aircraft is a metaphorical comparison of a person leaping out of an aircraft to water being flung out of a boat.
But what is the meaning of the phrase in Betty's Notebook? Let's look at the context. The phrase occurs on the third of five pages of transcriptions and is part of an exchange between AE and FN about water.
"Where are you" (AE according to Betty's later recollection)
"Waters knee deep - let me out" (FN according to Betty's later recollection)
"Where are you going (AE according to Betty's later recollection)
"We can't bail out" (Betty was not sure which one said this)
"See" (Betty recalled that AE was saying the water is coming up like she could see water rising)
"Yes" (FN?)
"Amelia - yes" (presumably FN)
It seems to me that "We can't bail out" must mean "We can't evacuate the aircraft." If the water inside the aircraft was "knee deep" and subject to being "bailed out" the transmitter would be submerged and inoperative. If the phrase "bail out" had not yet entered the aviation lexicon that would call into question the authenticity of Betty's Notebook. Can we find the phrase in 1920s or 1930s sources?
Noonan clearly wants to exit the aircraft ("let me out") and AE seems to be trying to convince him that the water on the reef is too deep to permit a safe evacuation. However, TIGHAR's calculation of the water level on the reef at the aircraft's presumed location at the presumed time of Betty's reception on July 5 indicates that the reef was essentially dry, not "knee deep." In the attached graphic Betty's reception is the hashed block on the right. In fact, at no time over the entire post-loss message period was the water level on the reef "knee deep" at the time of day when Betty heard transmissions.
If my interpretation of "We can't bail out" is correct, the airplane must have moved during high tide in the early morning hours of July 5 from its previous position on the reef, closer to the edge and subject to deeper water levels. That would be consistent with Betty's impression that the aircraft was "shifting", thus contributing to the level of anxiety. Such a shift would call into question the credibility of the few otherwise credible post-loss messages heard on July 6 and 7. It may be that Betty heard the last transmission from the aircraft.
-
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bale-out-bail-out.html
1925 , this term was used;......accourding to this source
another source; ....http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bail, mentions 1930's usage by pilots
-
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bale-out-bail-out.html
1925 , this term was used;......accourding to this source
another source; ....http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bail, mentions 1930's usage by pilots
Bingo! Good work Jerry!
"The earliest reference I can find to the naming of the jump from an aircraft is from the USA, in a September 1925 edition of The Oakland Tribune:
The pilot who has to ‘bail out’ hurriedly from a crippled or burning plane."
-
Here's another post-loss message phrase that has puzzled me. The phrase "We can't bail out" occurs in [url]Betty's Notebook[/url=http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html].
Did the speaker mean "We can't evacuate" or "We can't remove water"?
Funny you mention the "We can't bail out" words from Betty's Notebook. Just yesterday I dusted off a content analysis a colleague and I conducted on the notebook in May anticipatory to writing a TIGHAR paper, which I am outlining, on "a behavioral/psychological treatment of Betty's Notebook." This is the immediate context for the sentence:
FN speaks: waters knee deep ‒
let me out*
AE speaks: where are you going.
AE speaks we can’t bail out. See.
Toward understanding what may have been the psychological context of this exchange, I assume that FN was not in his right mind; indeed, pretty much a loose canon at this point of the post-loss period; for example, you may recall Betty's recollection of FN physically struggling with AE over possession of the microphone. My currrent thought, and things may change as my analyses continue, is that in answer to AE question, "Where are you going?", he may have answered--response not in the record because of erratic signal or Betty missed writing it--something about getting a parachute and bailing out. And yes, that sounds crazy, which is my point: I think that FN's mind was well off center at this point, to include the possibiliity of him hallucinating and having delusional thoughts; remember, Ric, your astute observation in Finding Amelia that FN was mimicking a 1930s broadcast newsman with, "Take it away Howland." If that is what he was doing, then it would be symptomatic of a delusion.
AE's next words, "We can't bail out. See," seem to make sense relative to the apparent get-a-parachute declaration by Fred. I presume the "See" is AE giving FN a reality check by pointing out the aircraft's sea level altitude!
Of course my tenative intrepretation of "We can't bail out" leads to the oft asked question about FN: if he was behaving so abnormally, what had happened to make him that way? Well, that project is somewhere between the back and front burners on my "to do" stove. (By way of a trailer, I have an idea about what happened to FN that no one has yet come up with.) Guthrie
-
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bale-out-bail-out.html
1925 , this term was used;......accourding to this source
another source; ....http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bail, mentions 1930's usage by pilots
This source http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai2.htm sites this term was used in a 1929 issue of the same paper, rather than 1925 ( conflicting, but both well precede our date of interest) ....and adds another incident , whereby, departing from the plane was described as bailing out...1932.
-
Of course my tenative intrepretation of "We can't bail out" leads to the oft asked question about FN: if he was behaving so abnormally, what had happened to make him that way?
Betty was under the impression that he had suffered a head injury. On Page Two of her transcriptions she recalled for TIGHAR that Fred "complained of his head" but there is nothing in her original transcript that supports that interpretation other the than Fred's obviously irrational behavior. A head injury is one explanation but we need to ask if there is anything to support an alternative hypothesis. How well could fifteen year-old Betty distinguish between trauma-induced dementia and plain old inebriation? Was Fred drunk?
For that answer I would suggest that we look at AE's responses to Fred's behavior. If Fred was injured I would expect AE to be as sympathetic and nurturing as her own distress would permit. If Fred was just drunk on his ass I would expect her to be critical and admonishing. Take a look at the exchanges in Betty's Notebook (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) and let me know what you think.
-
For that answer I would suggest that we look at AE's responses to Fred's behavior. If Fred was injured I would expect AE to be as sympathetic and nurturing as her own distress would permit. If Fred was just drunk on his ass I would expect her to be critical and admonishing. Take a look at the exchanges in Betty's Notebook and let me know what you think.
After reviewing Betty's notes, I visualize a person who is struggling to maintain composure while working with someone who is incapacitated for one reason or another. I don't see a preponderance of sympathy or disgust but kind of a mixture of both along with tones of having to deal with a grave situation. Her comments of "here put your ear to it" and "come here just a moment " seem to be more of a calming, nurturing nature while "where are you going" or "what did you tell me to do" appear they could be said in a tone of frustration. Then there are the comments of "help us quick", "send us help ", and "Oh, if they could hear me" which seem to have the emotion noted by J.G. Ford as being said in desperation. "Will you help me" and "are you so scared" have a sound of encouragement or challenging someone to "pull it together" to save their lives.
I have a co-worker whose 20-something-year-old son, though he can function, will never be able to live away from home unless some kind young woman were to marry him knowing full well that she would have a challenging lifetime with a mentally-challenged spouse (he's a real lovable character at times). I have heard her speak to her son in similar tones of encouragement, disappointment, and nurture. Of course, we are reading from a transcription and so we don't have a full understanding of the intention behind the words. If Amelia were having to deal with an adult who was slipping in and out of coherence, we might also hear varying levels of the emotions of encouragement, disappointment, and nurturing - all the while trying to keep the engine running, operating the radio, keeping her own level of panic in check as (it may seem) the Electra is shifting precariously. I think I can read/hear that in Betty's words.
Gripping human drama....
-
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html
If Betty's notebook is proven .....The line that may, in my opinion, have expressed a bit of criticism toward FN by AE ...is one that seems to follow an expression of pain ...that being; are you so scared,...or possibly both lines were meant as one phrase, oh , oh, ouch, are you so scared! For me, the insertion of the word so, seems to change the meaning of it ,for me, from a question to a statement. Much depends on how it was stated by Earhart.
-
Amelia things are
here I come - oh
let me out of here in here he complained of his head
Concerning ,this line, was he starting to feel dizzy?, and near the point of nausea,..caused by what?
In either scenario; injured or inebriated, I see a huge challange for Amelia, .....assisting or ordering Fred across the slippery reef and aboard into the Electra....whatever the case may be. Amelia must have thought it worth the effort to bring him along, however; from what little it seems he offered it seemed another mis-calculation.
If Fred were inebriated, I can see how many of the words used by Amelia,could be viewed as being critical .....put your ear to it, come here just a moment, where are you going, what did you tell me to do?...all seem like commands or questions that demand an answer. When both were being heard, such as in they were both saying NY. NY ....do you suppose fred was mimicking her?
If Injured, ...As Friend stated,and I agree with his reasoning,.... that the same words "come here just a moment", sound calming....but, are the actions louder than words? In the injured scenario,....Leaving an injured Fred in the comfort of the shade,and proceeding to the plane by oneself, along with any pertinent information Fred may have relayed to you, ....seems a better option. I sense a lack of compassion in that scenario, whereby an injured Fred would have navigate the reef, climb into the electra,(treading high water), then endure 3 hours of intense heat ,before finally exiting the plane , along with Amelia's continued protests not to do so,...and after doing so, recieves a few explicitives from Amelia.
With all that said, maybe Fred was inebriated.
-
With all that said, maybe Fred was inebriated.
One thing to consider with that scenario - it would probably only work if Fred had hidden a bottle or two of something on board. It would almost have to be hidden because Amelia was such a fanatic about the aircraft's weight, especially on the Lae to Howland leg.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
One thing to consider with that scenario - it would probably only work if Fred had hidden a bottle or two of something on board. It would almost have to be hidden because Amelia was such a fanatic about the aircraft's weight, especially on the Lae to Howland leg.
In weighing the chances that Fred's apparent irrational behavior was alcohol-induced we're not starting from zero. Three facts bear on that possibility:
• Whether he was fired or quit, there is no doubt that Fred had a drinking problem at the time he parted company with Pan Am in late 1936/early 1937. His drinking was probably behind the failure of his first marriage and may have been the cause of a couple of car accidents. His association with AE and his marriage to Mary Bea were an attempt to put his life back together.
• A Benedictine bottle was found by the work party that found the skull on Gardner.
• Among the bottles found by TIGHAR at the Seven Site was a pre-war (prior to 1940) 12 oz. American export-style beer bottle. The bottle was one of two that had once stood in a fire presumably for the purpose of boiling water for drinking. The second bottle was a 3 oz green bottle, probably liniment.
How did the Benedictine and beer bottles get to the castaway campsite? They had to have been brought there by the castaway. (The site is too far inland for wash-ups.) Where did the castaway get the bottles? Beach combing? Possibly. Or they could have been aboard the plane.
We need volunteers for an experiment. Drink a 750ML bottle of Benedictine with a 12 oz beer chaser and have a friend record your behavior.
-
Is it possible that a duo cause/condition existed to explain fred's words and actions.....Maybe both injury and alcohol contributed. July 2nd , Larremore message, mentions a head injury......Is there a possibility that Fred had a celebratory bottle of Liquor aboard during the entire flight, to be enjoyed upon completion,with wife and friends at home? If at Gardner and in the condition that Fred seems to have been, would Amelia let him indulge a least bit,( But, what she felt was not to the point of intoxication) ...an act of compassion,...to ease the pain.... considering? In this instance, ( Betty timeline) maybe Fred convienced Amelia he was fit to give it a go, and Amelia probably not wanting to go to the plane by herself, agreed......but upon arrival,....things didn't turn out so well.
-
I guess since I'm not an alcoholic I don't understand the thought processes of someone who is. Still, It's hard for me to get my head around that someone who is in a desperate survival situation would deliberately dull their senses. Perhaps as a pain killer, for physical pain? Psychological pain? Fear control? Or, I suppose, if you are in fact an alcoholic, just because you're an alcoholic. What a terribly tragic disease.
Benedictine is a very sweet, sugary tasting cognac-like liquor. If I were to deliberately set out to get drunk, it would be pretty close to the bottom of my list for that purpose. I suspect the cloying sweetness (which is pleasant in a sip but would be gagging in quantity), would make me sick before it made me drunk. If Fred were secreting a bottle of alcohol on board, and frankly it's hard to believe that would have escaped Amelia's attention, wouldn't he more likely have chosen something more palatable in quantity? On the other hand, I understand Benedictine may have been higher than 80 proof in some cases. While Fred's drinking seems to have been established, have we any information that he was a Benedictine fan?
While he might have gotten away hiding a bottle or three, in the confines of a cockpit Fred couldn't possibly have hidden alcohol on his breath. Would Amelia have tolerated that? The abusive use of alcohol appears to me to have been more common among non-alcoholic adults in those days than it seems to be today. Might she have tolerated a little alcohol? Man, I sure wouldn't have tolerated it in any on-duty crew in my airplane! But the public perception of negativity involving having "just having a drink or two" may have been more tolerant in those days, as it seems to me that routine daily consumption of alcohol was a more common part of broader American society than it is today. Anybody concur or disagree on that point?
Beer bottles seem to make even less sense to me for Fred to have carried. They are physically large for the amount of alcohol they yield. Maybe it was "just beer" and so less threatening to Amelia?
Oh, to have the cockpit voice recorder tapes! There was of course not a CVR in the Electra, and if there had been it would be as gone now as the rest of the airplane, but wouldn't it be a fun fantasy to be able to hear those conversations?
-
We need volunteers for an experiment. Drink a 750ML bottle of Benedictine with a 12 oz beer chaser and have a friend record your behavior.
LOL. Maybe first check for vital signs. "Turn out the lights, the party's over"!
-
How did the Benedictine and beer bottles get to the castaway campsite? They had to have been brought there by the castaway. (The site is too far inland for wash-ups.) Where did the castaway get the bottles? Beach combing? Possibly. Or they could have been aboard the plane.
Have been a member of the site for quite sometime and have enjoyed reviewing Tighar's research on this mystery. Never thought I would have anything to add of substance.
But, is it possible that the alcohol was part of the supplies left on the island by the rescuers of the Norwich City crew?
-
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,
Here is some possible evidence that the use of the term "ship" for airplane was common in the mid-1930s.
Shirley Temple was of course a major star during that era. Her popular movie "Bright Eyes" of 1934 featured the song "On the Good Ship Lollipop." The Good Ship Lollipop was not actually a maritime vessel, but an airplane. Note that she sings the song in the cabin of a commercial airliner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLLSqpYyPD8
Although the projected views out the windows seem to be at ridiculously low altitudes (are the taxiing down Rodeo Drive??), comparing the cabin to pictures suggests it matches the DC-2.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM---Royal/Douglas-R2D-1-%28DC-2-142%29/0982336/L/
Shirley even sounds like a young Amelia in the making!
Some day I'm going to fly.
I'll be a pilot too.
And when I do, how would you
Like to be my crew...
On the good ship lollipop.
Sorry, but I also can't resist posting this clip. CDR Riker apparently followed Shirley aboard the Lollipop: "It's a good ship."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_XjXeWyfxM
-
Well, apparently I should have looked at the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Eyes_%281934_film%29). It confirms my observations:
Shirley's aviator father died in an airplane crash before the film opens, and she now spends most of her time at the Glendale, California airport with her godfather, bachelor pilot James "Loop" Merritt (James Dunn), and his dog, Rags. After Christmas morning she hitches a ride to the airport. The aviators bring her aboard a ship and taxi her around the runways, where she serenades them with her rendition of On the Good Ship Lollipop.
American Airlines and the Douglas Aircraft Company, recognizing the potential of the film in advertising air travel, cooperated in the production and distribution. They provided a DC-2 aircraft for the exterior shots while a true to scale mock up was provided for the interior scenes. In the famous Good Ship Lollipop scene, members of the University of Southern California football team served as extras.
-
Still, It's hard for me to get my head around that someone who is in a desperate survival situation would deliberately dull their senses. Perhaps as a pain killer, for physical pain? Psychological pain? Fear control?
In Fred's defense,.... when I mentioned Fred may well have been inebriated, ...I agree with you, I don't think it was intentional on his part,.....maybe, over medicated, would be a better term. I don't see Amelia making another attempt at contact, with Fred exhibiting obvious signs of being in an intoxicated state, rather,it may have taken time from Fred's last dosage ( just prior to the attempt) , until the effects showed themselves while in the plane.
-
But, is it possible that the alcohol was part of the supplies left on the island by the rescuers of the Norwich City crew?
In a word, yes. Not the American beer bottle but certainly the Benedictine.
-
From Ric:
In weighing the chances that Fred's apparent irrational behavior was alcohol-induced we're not starting from zero. Three facts bear on that possibility:
• Whether he was fired or quit, there is no doubt that Fred had a drinking problem at the time he parted company with Pan Am in late 1936/early 1937. His drinking was probably behind the failure of his first marriage and may have been the cause of a couple of car accidents. His association with AE and his marriage to Mary Bea were an attempt to put his life back together.
Ric, not in any way challenging your concept that FN had a drinking problem, but I would enjoy knowing a bit more, specifically what your sources are for his drinking at the time of his departure from Pan Am.
Do we know if there was any reference to alcohol in the police reports of the vehicle accidents?
-
Ric, not in any way challenging your concept that FN had a drinking problem, but I would enjoy knowing a bit more, specifically what your sources are for his drinking at the time of his departure from Pan Am.
Do we know if there was any reference to alcohol in the police reports of the vehicle accidents?
You're free to challenge me on anything I say. Fred's drinking has long been a scape-goat in the Earhart disappearance. Stories abound and can be found in most of the Earhart biographies but what has always been lacking is any kind of contemporaneous written documentation that Fred had a drinking problem. There is certainly no indication of anything like that in the records of his maritime career and the police reports of his automobile accidents reportedly do not mention alcohol.
Eight years ago I received an email that seemed to indicate that written proof does exist. It came out of the blue addressed simply to info@tighar.org; subject Fred Noonan.
"Hello,
This may sound very crazy but I am in possession of letters from Fred's wife
Jo detailing his drinking, and partying on his flights to Honolulu. I have a
letter written by Fred to my wife's grandmother(my wife's stepfathers father
was Frank Brown, who was an early figure in PAA. Frank died in Central or S.
America of appendicitis while establishing PAA routes in the late 1920's and
early '30's). We have a framed 8x10 professional portrait of Fred which is
autographed to my wife's grandmother. The last item, which I never saw
before today is a postcard in an envelope, my wife's grandmother wrote the
following on the envelope, "This card was written by Mr. Noonan on his
fateful flight with Amelia Erhart on her round-the-world trip when they both
lost their live. This was the last communication anyone received from either
of them before they perished at sea when their plane failed to reach a safe
landing port after leaving New Guinea, homeward bound" Fred expected to
reach the states before the card.
My wife's mother recently passed and left her these items and we are
exploring possible options. We are interested in a possible sale or a tax
deductible donation. If interested we can scan a few items.
Thanks,
Wm. Schildgen & Teri Noland-Schildgen"
I immediately replied:
"Hi,
Thanks for writing. Your email does not sound a bit crazy. We knew that Fred Noonan and his first wife Josephine were having trouble and I always suspected it was due to the pressure Fred was under at Pan American. That Jo would have written to close friends about her concerns is hardly surprising. As you probably know, Fred and Jo were divorced in early 1937 and Fred re-married almost immediately.
The letters you describe would be very interesting to us. Fred's drinking problems have long been the subject of rumor, stories, and speculation - but very few contemporary written sources have come to light. Your letters could shed important light on that subject.
We also know that Fred wrote many letters and post cards home to friends and family during the world flight. Several of these have surfaced in recent years and have given us a much clearer picture of Fred Noonan's life and personality. Your letters could be an important addition to that fund of knowledge. That the postcard is "the last communication anyone received from either of them" is rather doubtful. Earhart made a telephone call from New Guinea to the Herald Tribune in New York and sent several telegrams prior to her departure. Nonetheless, all of these primary source documents are historically important. Whether they are financially valuable is a different question.
Despite the continued public interest in the Earhart mystery, original documents relating to the case do not bring significant prices at auction. Case in point: An item was recently put up for bid on eBay that was described as "Amelia Earhart's Original Flight Plan" for her 'round the world flight.
(http://cgi.ebay.com/AMELIA-EARHART-ORIGINAL-FLIGHT-PLAN_W0QQitemZ22003131651
4QQihZ012QQcategoryZ378QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
The winning bid was $26. Fortunately, the winning bidder was one of our researchers. The item turned out to be not "Amelia Earhart's Original Flight Plan" (of course) but a transcript of the personal diary kept by one of the wire service reporters aboard the Coast Guard cutter ITASCA. A tremendously important discovery from an historical perspective, but even as "Amelia Earhart's Original Flight Plan," it brought only $26 on eBay.
As historical researchers, our interest is in the information contained in the documents, rather than in the physical documents as collectibles. We are, however, able to - and often do - accept contributions of original documents. We're a recognized 501 (c) (3) public charity and all contributions are tax deductible to the full extent of the law. We would give you a letter with a generous estimate of the dollar value of your contribution. We're not a licensed appraiser of Earhart-related historical documents, but neither is anyone else and getting an appraisal of something like this would probably cost several times what the collection is worth.
One of the biggest concerns about a newly-discovered collection like yours is that it not end up in the hands of a private collector or Earhart buff who will keep the information private. As a nonprofit historical foundation, it is our policy and practice to make new information publicly available via our website (www.tighar.org) and in our journal TIGHAR Tracks. My recently-released book "Finding Amelia - The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance" (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2006) includes a DVD with hundreds of primary source documents - letters, telegrams, reports, maps, ships' logs, etc. If you like, I'll be happy to send you a complimentary copy.
I hope you'll decide to donate the collection to TIGHAR. In the meantime, I would very much like to see scans of the material and I'll be happy to answer whatever questions you may have. You can reach me at this email address or by phone during the east coast business day at 302-994-4410
Best regards,
Ric"
Schildgen did phone me and we discussed the letters. He read me several passages but he never sent me scans and then he stopped replying to my emails. I don't know why. I think the letters are probably genuine and, from the bits that Schildgen read to me over the phone, it sounds like the brutal schedule of the transpacific Clipper service combined with the generous pay the crews enjoyed was more than Fred could handle.
-
My guess is they were not thrilled to have you telling them something they thought was going to be a financial windfall wasn't that valuable (financially speaking). I collect antique firearms, and I've had the same experience with people when they find out Grandpa's old rifle isn't going to buy them a trip to Hawaii. Too bad, as it sounds like it could have been interesting information.
-
Ric said:
from the bits that Schildgen read to me over the phone, it sounds like the brutal schedule of the transpacific Clipper service combined with the generous pay the crews enjoyed was more than Fred could handle.
Can you share any specific details he read you of her accusations about Fred's drinking?
-
Of course my tenative intrepretation of "We can't bail out" leads to the oft asked question about FN: if he was behaving so abnormally, what had happened to make him that way? Well, that project is somewhere between the back and front burners on my "to do" stove. (By way of a trailer, I have an idea about what happened to FN that no one has yet come up with.) Guthrie
Ok, Dr Ford,
You haven't gave kudos to anyone yet for solving the reason for Fred's behavior, so....If alcohol is off the table ,..what else besides a head injury???? Well , I am here to take another stab at the answer....Does the answer to Fred's behavior, come from a tiny bottle...if no,not alcohol, what?..... Well if Fred were in need of something to ease his pain , certainly Amelia wouldn't object to using treatment issued from a first aid kit! The Luke field inventory contains two such kits..http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html ....one seems rather basic, bandages and the like...the Bauer and Black #42 ...but the other, the Burroughs Wellcome & CO. "Tabloid" model, well , that one seems to contain more, ... much more ...Here is a link; http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/01/14/tabloid_medicine_kits_burroughs_wellcome_first_aid_kits_placed_with_famous.html
Inside we find such things as ....Morphine, yes that is great for pain,....what else ...Humm, a little opium, perhaps ....what are the side effects of these? Opium...http://www.drugs.com/sfx/opium-side-effects.html Morphine....http://www.drugs.com/sfx/morphine-side-effects.html
Now, I can't know for sure this first aid kit was carried aboard , when they lifted off from Lae, just as I can't say any alcohol was aboard....but if it was, and it was used by Amelia, in her treatment of Fred, is that the project you have going on inbetween the burners?
If not, well then, on to Idea C....but I don't have that yet.
-
Ok, Dr Ford, You haven't gave kudos to anyone yet for solving the reason for Fred's behavior...
Hi Jerry. I am just absorbing. Actually, I have planned for the near future a get together with a colleague to do what is called a differential diagnosis relative to what might have caused FN's apparent unusual, if not bizarre, behavior. We will write down every scrap of post-lost info about FN's behaviors (which of course includes his putative words). Then we will list all of the causes that could reasonably explain the FN information. The goal is to figure out how the causes differ from each other (thus the term "differentiate"). For example, regarding head injury and alcohol, it might be decided that these differ in terms of opportunity for occurrence. If there was a post-lost chance for a head injury but no chance for alcohol consumption, as in no alcohol aboard the Electra, then alcohol can be eliminated from the "causes" list. Now remember folks, I used that only as an example; as I said, the differential diagnosis work is yet to come.
I think you are spot on with what you wrote, Jerry: "Is it possible that a duo cause/condition existed to explain fred's words and actions…" A psychological ground rule is that behavior has multiple causation; each of us is attracted, for instance, to the Earhart mystery for more than just one reason. My intuition, which I will set aside to do the scientific analyses, is that FN's apparent bizarre behavior was caused by more than one variable; the accompanying intution is that one of those variables may have been a psychiatric condition; but we will see where all that shakes out once the differential diagnosis work is done. Ciao.
-
Can you share any specific details he read you of her accusations about Fred's drinking?
They weren't accusations. This was a woman conveying her frustration and anxiety about her relationship with her husband to a close friend. Fred's first wife was Josephine Sullivan. Fred and Josie were married on July 11, 1927 in Jackson, Mississippi. They lived in New Orleans while Fred worked as a mariner. He was hired by Pan Am in 1930 and moved to Miami. He was the station chief in Haiti for a while. In 1935 he became the senior (and only) navigator for the newly-formed Pacific Division. He developed over-water navigational techniques in test flights over the Caribbean from the Pan Am seaplane terminal at Dinner Key. He moved to California when the Pacific Division began the Pacific survey flights in 1935. I don't know whether Josephine was with him through all those moves.
Once the survey flights were completed Pan Am started passenger service across the northern Pacific. The schedule for aircrews was brutal. In the passages from the letters that Schuldgren read to me over the phone Josie complained of Fred being gone so much and that he was spending up his pay drinking and buying drinks for his buddies during layovers in Hawaii. She also wrote that he had a car accident in Hawaii that was due to drinking. This would all be in the latter half of 1936.
Fred was divorced from Josie in Juarez, Mexico on March 3, 1937 just ten day before he joined Earhart's team.
-
Is it possible that a duo cause/condition existed to explain fred's words and actions.....Maybe both injury and alcohol contributed. July 2nd , Larremore message, mentions a head injury......
No, it does not. Larremore wrote, "She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan."
The only other credible post-loss signal to mention an injury is the one reported by Thelma Lovelace heard on July 7th.
"My navigator is badly hurt. We are in need of medical care and must have help. We can't hold on much longer."
-
In looking up answers to these questions it becomes clear to me that much more needs to be done in comparing the language reported to have been used in the several credible post-loss messages that had intelligible content.
I just don't have time right now. I'm trying to get TIGHAR Tracks written but it's hard to stay focused. Fresh research is always more fun.
-
Ric wrote:
Josie complained of Fred being gone so much and that he was spending up his pay drinking and buying drinks for his buddies during layovers in Hawaii. She also wrote that he had a car accident in Hawaii that was due to drinking.
It's all in the semantics, of course, but FN having a few howling off-duty nights with buddies doesn't qualify as alcoholism per se, it doesn't seem to me.
I can remember --or more likely not completely remember!-- somewhat frequent times in my college days when I had a few too many. OK, Fred wasn't a college kid in '36 and '37, he was a responsible grown man, but it's not hard to understand a guy away from home and stuck in a miserable layover (been there!) tilting down a few across an evening with some friends, and maybe even a few too many. If people had seen me in my alcohol-induced behavior back in my college days they might easily have thought me a "heavy drinker" or an "alcoholic" when in fact neither was really true of me.
I'm as ready as anyone to crucify Captain Noonan if indeed he was flying, or even driving, while intoxicated. But it seems to me that a man of his stature and noted accomplishments is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. There seems to be an attitude among many that it is an established fact that he was an alcoholic, and I am still waiting to be convinced of that.
That he drank, OK, so did probably half of the American population in those days. That he drank to excess; most of us have at one time or another. But to attribute full-blown alcoholism to him based on only the evidence I have so far see seems to me to be an inappropriate stretch.
Ric, Shuldgren related Josie accusing Fred of having been drinking in the auto accident in Hawaii in 1936. You said there was no police reporting of alcohol involvement in Fred's other accidents; do we have the PR from this one?
-
For the record, I see no evidence that Fred was an alcoholic, i.e. that he was addicted to alcohol. There do seem to be indications that he self-medicated with alcohol to an inappropriate degree under stress. I've known quite a few people who do that.
Today we're adamant about "24 hours between bottle and throttle" but it was not always so. Paul Mantz regularly mixed alcohol and avgas in liberal quantities.
Ric, Shuldgren related Josie accusing Fred of having been drinking in the auto accident in Hawaii in 1936. You said there was no police reporting of alcohol involvement in Fred's other accidents; do we have the PR from this one?
No. I had never heard on of an accident in Hawaii. On April 4, 1937 (Fred's birthday) Fred and his new wife Mary Bea were involved in a head-on collision car accident near Fresno. Fred skinned his hand, Mary Bea was cut on the knee and scalp, and the driver of the other car and the infant with her were “cut and bruised but not seriously hurt” according to the April 5, 1937 Oakland Tribune. Fred was cited for driving in the wrong lane, but there was no mention of alcohol. In his 1966 best-seller, The Search For Amelia Earhart, Fred Goerner alleges that “a notation at the bottom of the ticket said: No injuries. Driver had been drinking.” But there were injuries. Mary Bea, in fact, spent some time in the hospital. We've never seen the accident report.
-
Ric said:
Today we're adamant about "24 hours between bottle and throttle" but it was not always so. Paul Mantz regularly mixed alcohol and avgas in liberal quantities.
The modern equivalent of what until a few years ago was called the Federal Aviation Regulations, now the Code of Federal Regulations CFR14.91.17(a)1, states eight hours for civil aviation today. Virtually all the professional pilots I know live by a personal twelve hour rule. Our company policy requires 12 hours. Ric, did your military background have more stringent rules?
My husband met Paul Mantz once. It is my understanding that the autopsy revealed Mantz had a high blood-alcohol content after he fatally crashed the "Phoenix" while filming the original "Flight of the Phoenix" movie. See pic.
Alcohol is bad enough in an automobile, but in an un-pressurized aircraft there can be the added debilitation brought on by mixing alcohol with altitude. (That wasn't he case with Mantz, but I have seen it and it's a really bad show.) I have not seen any indication in any of the videos I've seen that Fred Noonan was alcoholically impaired. He looks to me to be sober, bright, happy, and having a good time. I don't want to beat this to death, but absent better evidence to the contrary I don't personally think Fred deserves the rap of a drunkard.
Here is a link to a report on the Mantz crash. http://www.aerovintage.com/phoenix.htm
-
I don't think anybody here is trying to paint Fred as drunkard. I hope we're objectively discussing the possibility that the behavior described in Betty's Notebok was alcohol rather than injury related. Concerns about sullying someone's reputation have no place in historical investigation. Earhart herself has not fared well in our inquiry into the probable causes of her demise.
-
Or it could be that what has been discussed here has nothing to do with alcohol/drugs or hard landings. Good ol' fashion, text book style, heat stroke and dehydration could explain it all. I think had an affect on both of them. Fred may have been in a more serious state. Fred and Amelia may have walked away from the landing on the reef unscathed, only to succumb to injuries do to the harsh environment. One of the first symptoms of heat stroke is dizziness and loss of spatial orientation. Fred may have fallen and struck his head on the coral or something else. It may not have even that bad of an injury. Until infection sets in, then it's serious!
Don't get me wrong. I'm not challenging Dr. Fords' Transactual analysis(TA) of ALBT or his scoring of the post lost transmissions. Quite the contrary. It is a proven method. I was exposed to it at the Naval Post Graduate Schools' Aviation Safety Officer Course back in 1986 and was intrigued by it. Some of my classmates were not so receptive. But I found it an invaluable aid in interviewing witnesses of all genre, from farmers to engineers. You just have to know what to look for. And you have to be able to know when to turn it (TA)off, ie; When around family and friends! It's not that easy! But the science behind it is solid and I'm sure Dr Ford is far more advanced and up to date in the art than I. My point is that even though it was a life-threating event from the get-go,(the whole idea of finding Howland Is.) once they did arrived at Gardner I do believe they acted in a rational manor given the situation, as best they could, together, to the end. Not TV reality show stuff, but real life and death stuff. As was borne out by Dr Fords' scoring of the false Vs the creditable post lost transmissions. This is good science, it will be fun to see where it takes us.
LTM,
Dave
-
Is there any evidence that Fred Noonan could have had carbon monoxide poisoning? Symptoms can include impaired judgment and confusion.
According to http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:carbon-monoxide-poisoning#toc3
The exhaust of piston powered aircraft engines contains high concentrations of CO, particularly at mixtures settings rich of peak EGT. Most piston aircraft obtain heat by routing fresh air over surfaces of the muffler. When cabin heat is used, any cracks or holes in the muffler case can allow CO rich exhaust gas to contaminate the cabin air.
Other possible causes include inadequate sealing of the firewall, wheel wells or other air leaks that allows exhaust to leak into the cabin.
Could this explain his irrational behavior? Or is alcohol or a head injury more likely?
-
Is there any evidence that Fred Noonan could have had carbon monoxide poisoning? Symptoms can include impaired judgment and confusion.
Hi Karen. I understand you are asking if CO might have entered the aircraft and thus caused the bizarre behaviors in Betty's Notebook that she attributed to the man (ostensibly FN). This is a good place to demonstrate the differential diagnosis system I mentioned a few postings back. Let's say we are considering the CO cause, the dehydration cause (Dave McDaniel's suggestion), and the brain injury cause. If CO and dehydration were causatively involved, then it seems that the woman in Betty's Notebook (ostensibly AE) should also show comparably bizarre behavior; it makes no sense that CO and dehydration would affect FN and not AE. However, I personally do not find anything bizarre about the language that Bettty attributed to the woman; and I find it very unlikely that AE was hoarding whatever water there may have been, or that CO contaminated only the air in the right side of the cockpit. According to my logic, that disrules the CO and dehydration variables. What about brain injury? Well, the very day that the flyers ostensibly arrived on the reef (2 July), AE appears to have radioed that her navigator was serously injured and required immediate help. But what kind of injury? Compound fracture? Deep laceration(s)? Here we go back to the man's bizarre behaviors. Would those type injuries cause a person to think, apparently, that he could bail out of a sitting plane? No. Could a brain injury cause such behaviors? There is a better chance that it could. Is it reasonable to think that the man could have hurt his head? Yes, the Gardner reef apparently is very slick, and the tide tables show that the tide was low enough that the man and woman could have stepped out of the Electra right after it landed, thus making it feasible that the man took a bad fall and bashed his head.
As you can see, Karen, differential diagnosis is very much like detective police work, where different suspects (causative factors) are either retained for further investigation or thrown out for logical reasons (e.g., had an airtight alibi). Ciao, G.
-
I don't think anybody here is trying to paint Fred as drunkard. I hope we're objectively discussing the possibility that the behavior described in Betty's Notebok was alcohol rather than injury related. Concerns about sullying someone's reputation have no place in historical investigation. Earhart herself has not fared well in our inquiry into the probable causes of her demise.
I agree that research discovers what it discovers, and the chips of that fall where they fall. A substantial body of research has revealed the failings in Amelia's pre-flight preparations. So those chips indeed fall where they do, and there is clearly a pretty big pile of chips at her feet.
But Fred's drinking "problem" does not appear to have anywhere near that amount of discovery behind it, and I'm still trying to see what if any substantive chips are at his feet over that issue. It seems to me that it is very widely accepted, even among many TIGHAR members, that Fred Noonan had a drinking problem severe enough to have possibly impacted the flight, yet the evidence of that seems remarkably scanty. At least to me, at least so far.
-
Karen Hoy quoted the wiki: "Most piston aircraft obtain heat by routing fresh air over surfaces of the muffler. When cabin heat is used, any cracks or holes in the muffler case can allow CO rich exhaust gas to contaminate the cabin air."
Karen, the wiki got it wrong. The cracks would have to be in the exhaust pipe where the pipe passes through the muffler case. Only that would let CO into the cabin heat system. Cracks in the muffler case would only let hot air leak away before it got to the cabin vents. Actually, the cabin-heat shroud on the exhaust pipe isn't even a muffler since it does nothing to reduce engine sound.
I agree with John that if CO were involved it would have affected them both, probably her more than him due to body weight difference.
-
If Mabel Larremore is to be believed Noonan was seriously injured and AE had sustained a lesser injury by 9 PM of the first day. (Entry 28 in the Post-Loss Message Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html))
If Betty Klenck's impressions are correct, three days later Noonan was acting irrationally due to a head injury. Entries in her notebook can be interpreted to mean that she herself was suffering from a painful ankle injury at that time. (Entry 142 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html))
If Thelma Lovelace is to be believed, at 1:30AM Gardner Time on Wednesday July 7 Earhart said “we have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can’t hold on much longer.” (Entry 170 of the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html))
Note that "we" need medical care.
These three reported receptions spanning five days each report serious injury to Noonan and less serious injury to Earhart.
Larremore and Lovelace only came forward with their stories in 1990 and 1991 respectively in response to media coverage of TIGHAR's first expedition to Niku in 1989. The two women did not know each other. We didn't find Betty until 2000.
-
Here is some possible evidence that the use of the term "ship" for airplane was common in the mid-1930s.
American Airlines and the Douglas Aircraft Company, recognizing the potential of the film in advertising air travel, cooperated in the production and distribution. They provided a DC-2 aircraft for the exterior shots while a true to scale mock up was provided for the interior scenes. In the famous Good Ship Lollipop scene, members of the University of Southern California football team served as extras.
I agree with you it's possible.
I'm still not entirely convinced.
You're claiming the man on the street at the time would find the word 'ship' interchangeable in meaning between ship at sea and aircraft.
There are a lot of very sophisticated lyrics at the time but I'm not certain how many represent the vernacular.
I see figures of around 500,000 in annual ticket sales for U.S. airlines in the early 1930s (Source: Daniel Rust, Flying Across America, Univ. Oklahoma, 2012, p. 92.)
That's less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the U.S. population at that time. To most Americans in 1937, a trip by air should have been as exotic as, say, a trip to Niku. Note that regular airline passenger service had only existed for about 11 years in 1937. In my experience, people settle on new meanings for old words when they've experienced something at least a few times.
In my view, 16-year-old Dana Randolph's alleged hearing of the phrase "ship is on a reef south of the equator" on his radio is nearly - but not quite - on par with Betty's hearing "get the suitcase in my closet" or "watch that battery."
I wonder if use of the word 'ship' was part of the general push by the airline industry itself, and cooperating aviators such as Lindbergh and Earhart, to try to impress upon the public that airplanes were as safe as ships. Recall Earhart said in her first book, 20 Hours, 40 Minutes, "I can only hope that ... some of the charm and romance of old ships may be seen to cling similarly to the ships of the air." Earhart was someone with a keen interest in promoting air commerce in the passenger realm. Your mention of the cooperation of the air industry in promoting the Shirley Temple film is possible evidence of this as well.
I could be wrong about all of this, or reeling off facts to feel more comfortable in my opinions. But something seems a bit too easy to me to assume that people defining ship in 1937 would instantly reach for the word airplane. I'm sure many knew it could mean that. But how many really embraced that meaning?
There's probably no right answer in all this. I'm just introducing new things to ponder and appreciate your taking time to ponder it as well.
Joe Cerniglia
-
Decades before long-distance airplane travel there were already the German "Luftschiff" lighter-than-air dirigibles making headlines. While few Americans had ever flown in one, the concept of them being called "airships" in English seems pretty well established. So perhaps it was already in the American mind that passenger-carrying things that flew could be called "ships."
While I have always personally resisted the temptation to call an airplane anything but an airplane, including eschewing "plane" as being a carpenter's tool, I do know people including pilots who routinely refer to their airplanes as "my ship." I don't find the phrase very common today in my experience, but I do hear it.
-
You will find the US Army Air Corps standard term for an airplane to be "ship" prior to WWII and still referred that way well into the war years but seems to have fallen out of use as the war wound down and post war. Perhaps the great influx of wartime aviators and the reduction in pre-war aviators over time saw it fall away as, I agree, it probably was not common vernacular to John Q Public who flooded the USAAF. The only carry over I saw in my USAF career spanning 1981-2014 was our reference to flights as 2-ship or 4-ship. I feel very confident that AE's aviation acquaintances (Mantz, etc.) all referred to aircraft as ships.
-
I would urge anyone who wonders whether the general public of the 1930s was familiar with the word "ship" as a synonym for airplane to review the newspapers of that era. Most major papers had an Aviation Section just as papers today have a Sports Section. Records for speed, distance, altitude and endurance were being set almost daily. The public had aviation fever and clamored for news about the latest "ships." There was a whole line of racing planes known as "Mystery Ships." Watch any of the many aviation-themed Hollywood films of the 1930s and count how many times somebody says something like, "Say, that's a swell ship you have there."
-
I would urge anyone who wonders whether the general public of the 1930s was familiar with the word "ship" as a synonym for airplane to review the newspapers of that era.
My mother has a book in her collection that if I recall correctly belonged to her uncle nine years her senior. The book was published in 1932 as part of a young readers series and several times in the story, the characters' Curtis Robin (with OX-5 motor!) is referred to as a "ship" as are other aircraft in the book.
(Yes, the dust jacket shows a biplane where the Robin was single-winged....call it artistic license.)
-
They don't call it The Golden Age for nothin'. Jimmy Stewart said it best as Capt. Frank Towne in Flight of the Phoenix (1965):
"I don't know, Lew, I suppose pilots are
just as good now as they ever were...
...but they sure don't live
the way we did.
Well, I can tell you
that there were times...
...when you took real pride
in just getting there.
Flying used to be fun.
It really did, Lew.
It used to be fun."
-
It seems to me that it is very widely accepted, even among many TIGHAR members, that Fred Noonan had a drinking problem severe enough to have possibly impacted the flight, yet the evidence of that seems remarkably scanty. At least to me, at least so far.
Diane,
Again, in defense of Fred, I personally don't feel that way. I don't believe he would intentionally become inebriated ( or drink any alcoholic beverages of any kind) just prior to the liftoff from Lae,or anytime during the flight....,..if he did come to be in that condition at any time post loss, I again feel it wouldn't have been deliberate, but as a result of treatment for a pain related injury.
-
I would urge anyone who wonders whether the general public of the 1930s was familiar with the word "ship" as a synonym for airplane to review the newspapers of that era. Most major papers had an Aviation Section just as papers today have a Sports Section. Records for speed, distance, altitude and endurance were being set almost daily. The public had aviation fever and clamored for news about the latest "ships." There was a whole line of racing planes known as "Mystery Ships." Watch any of the many aviation-themed Hollywood films of the 1930s and count how many times somebody says something like, "Say, that's a swell ship you have there."
Without a doubt, you've convinced me. This could easily have been a common usage in the 1930s.
Why, even the mystery series the Hardy Boys, popular with boys of Dana's age, has 2 references to ships as airplanes. From The Great Airport Mystery (1930): "We can use one of the single-engine ships."
I entered the ship debate because I thought it bore upon the authenticity of Dana Randolph. I'm no longer sure it does. Here's why:
One could say Dana knew about the usage of the word 'ship' and put it into his story to enhance a false claim, or perhaps to enhance a true one.
One could not say use of the word 'ship' as airplane is anything approaching 'occult information,' such as Betty Klenck's reception appears to have contained.
One could say these things or not say these things, but, as Finding Amelia shows, one thing is certain: Dana Randolph had no reason to be expecting to hear Earhart when he tuned in his radio on the morning of July 4, 1937. The news demonstrably had not reached Rock Springs that receptions had been claimed heard. There appears to have been, as the book states, "no bandwagon effect."
Therefore, regardless of any semiotic analysis, faulty (as mine was) or otherwise, Dana's story is credible.
Joe Cerniglia
-
it makes no sense that CO and dehydration would affect FN and not AE.
Would the concentration of CO be the same throughout the cabin?
Where did Fred spend most of his time during the flight? Up front, next to Amelia, or at the navigator's table toward the rear of the plane?
The Electra is 38 feet long (38 feet 7 inches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Model_10_Electra#Specifications_.28Electra_10A.29), to be precise). The navigator's table was at about station 307, to pick a point (based on the location of the window that was patched); that's 307 inches, 25.5 feet, from the tip of the plane, so 20(?) feet behind the pilot's seat.
If Fred had consulted the charts at some point between daybreak and the time of the landing, he would been at the navigator's table. (I presume the charts were at the navigators table, correct me if I'm wrong.)
How did the plane's air circulation work? Is it possible for Fred to have been breathing enough CO at the navigator's table to affect him, while Amelia up front took in a lower concentration?
-
Where did Fred spend most of his time during the flight? Up front, next to Amelia, or at the navigator's table toward the rear of the plane?
Of course there is no way to know for sure but based upon what Amelia wrote in Last Flight it sounds like Fred spent much of his time up front.
How long do the effects of CO last if it doesn't kill you outright? We're talking about Fred's behavior three days after their arrival.
-
It depends on severity, but the Merck Manual (http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/injuries-and-poisoning/poisoning/carbon-monoxide-poisoning) says "Most people who develop mild carbon monoxide poisoning recover quickly when moved into fresh air."
According to NIH (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002804.htm),
"Carbon monoxide poisoning can cause death. For those who survive, recovery is slow. How well a person does depends on the amount and length of exposure to the carbon monoxide. Permanent brain damage may occur."
Another source (https://www.headway.org.uk/symptoms-and-treatment-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning.aspx) says:
"Like other types of anoxic brain injury, acute CO poisoning may lead to quite severe long-term neurological problems, with disturbances in memory, language, cognition, mood and behaviour. The damage to the basal ganglia, which is a particular feature of CO poisoning, may lead to a movement disorder resembling Parkinson's disease. An unusual feature of acute CO poisoning is the delayed deterioration in neurological condition which may be seen in some cases, occurring anything from a few days to as long as five to six weeks after the initial exposure."
I have no expertise in this. I'm just looking it up in medical sources.
For what it's worth I'm skeptical of the carbon monoxide poisoning idea. But since it's a possibility I'm interested in looking at the details. It seems unlikely that Fred would be affected severely enough to still suffer effects three days later, while Amelia was (apparently) not affected at all.
-
From photos, it seems at every stop the pair appear tired , but not outwardly suffering from effects from CO, Fred is usually seen in them lighting up a cigarette and conversing alongside Amelia, during the photo shoots. If an escape of CO occurred to affect Fred,it would have seemed to have had to happen during that last flight,....However; , it seems Fred was able to convey to Amelia that they were on a LOP 157/337 very late into the flight...if he was impaired from the effects of CO at that point , how reliable would that information be?
-
Where did Fred spend most of his time during the flight? Up front, next to Amelia, or at the navigator's table toward the rear of the plane?
Of course there is no way to know for sure but based upon what Amelia wrote in Last Flight it sounds like Fred spent much of his time up front.
How long do the effects of CO last if it doesn't kill you outright? We're talking about Fred's behavior three days after their arrival.
A thought for pondering.....2-2-V-1 "removed" to create greater ventilation in the cabin (heat, gasoline fumes) allowing the intake of exhaust fumes from the starboard engine running just fast enough to charge the battery. The cockpit has windows and the overhead hatch for a degree of fresh air ventilation. The aft cabin door may or may not be able to be opened (rising water, airframe distortion) preventing much cross-cabin airflow. Perhaps CO was a contributing factor in Fred's demise, especially if he had to spend much time at the navigator's desk trying to figure out where they had landed.
-
One could say these things or not say these things, but, as Finding Amelia shows, one thing is certain: Dana Randolph had no reason to be expecting to hear Earhart when he tuned in his radio on the morning of July 4, 1937. The news demonstrably had not reached Rock Springs that receptions had been claimed heard. There appears to have been, as the book states, "no bandwagon effect."
Therefore, regardless of any semiotic analysis, faulty (as mine was) or otherwise, Dana's story is credible.
Joe Cerniglia
Joe,
I agree Dana had no reason to expect to have heard Earhart on his radio on July 4th,...but what of his habits , ...was he a daily user of his set? Had he already heard of the Earhart loss and the purported messages coming from the Electra beforehand by it's use? What of national newspapers, some of these may have been delivered on a daily basis to Rock Springs, and then there is word of mouth...maybe the best tool for relaying information...Word spreads quickly....Telephone, Telegraph, Tell the lady down the street... He seemed to known about Earhart and her predicament , and thus his excitement concerning possibly having heard her.
-
Where did Fred spend most of his time during the flight? Up front, next to Amelia, or at the navigator's table toward the rear of the plane?
Of course there is no way to know for sure but based upon what Amelia wrote in Last Flight it sounds like Fred spent much of his time up front.
How long do the effects of CO last if it doesn't kill you outright? We're talking about Fred's behavior three days after their arrival.
A thought for pondering.....2-2-V-1 "removed" to create greater ventilation in the cabin (heat, gasoline fumes) allowing the intake of exhaust fumes from the starboard engine running just fast enough to charge the battery. The cockpit has windows and the overhead hatch for a degree of fresh air ventilation. The aft cabin door may or may not be able to be opened (rising water, airframe distortion) preventing much cross-cabin airflow. Perhaps CO was a contributing factor in Fred's demise, especially if he had to spend much time at the navigator's desk trying to figure out where they had landed.
Wouldn't the prevailing winds have prevented much CO from accumulating in the cabin. Doesn't take much circulation to dilute CO below any harmful level.
-
it makes no sense that CO and dehydration would affect FN and not AE.
Is it possible for Fred to have been breathing enough CO at the navigator's table to affect him, while Amelia up front took in a lower concentration?
Hi Brian. At least during the post-loss period, I wonder just how much time FN spent at the nav table. To be heard by radiotelephone FN had to be in the cockpit where the microphone was; and in 9 of the 16 credible radiotelephone reports a male voice was heard. Also, going back and forth between cockpit and nav table involved crawling along a platform installed above the fuselage fuel tanks. Given the putative dehydration factor and the putative "serious injury," I am skeptical that FN was a good candidate for using the cockpit-to-aft crawl platform. And of course AE was not going to let FN go aft by crawling over her to exit the aircraft, which AE appears to be dead set against happening in Betty's Notebook. LTM, Guthrie
-
Joe,
I agree Dana had no reason to expect to have heard Earhart on his radio on July 4th,...but what of his habits , ...was he a daily user of his set?
Based on the report from the July 6th and 7th edition of the Rock Springs Rocket, reprinted here (https://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf), Dana Randolph appears to have been a radio hobbyist for eight years prior to hearing what he heard. Details of his use of his radio are not specified.
Had he already heard of the Earhart loss and the purported messages coming from the Electra beforehand by it's use?
Based on what I read in Finding Amelia (pp 142ff) the news story, linked above, left the impression, later shown to be false, that Dana Randolph was the first to claim hearing Earhart. I think the working assumption has been that the local news outlet, the Rock Springs Rocket, reported based on the information they had and that this is likely the best information the Randolphs had. To be a motivated hoaxer, one has to think one has a shot at believability. It does not appear Dana Randolph had any basis to believe he would be believed - unless, of course, he was telling the truth.
What of national newspapers, some of these may have been delivered on a daily basis to Rock Springs, and then there is word of mouth...maybe the best tool for relaying information...Word spreads quickly....Telephone, Telegraph, Tell the lady down the street...
I would say Dana's 'alibi,' if he needed one, was not airtight. However, Rock Springs, according to Finding Amelia, was a coal-mining town in the Great Depression. Home delivery of the New York Times, or even the Wyoming Tribune, was still a rarity, I am guessing, based on limited means of the residents. The local paper went to press only once every two days. Radio reports had to be local receptions (had shortwave news updates arrived yet?). The bottom line is the profile is a fairly unlikely one for a hoaxer. But, yes, of course it is possible Dana Randolph had some advance notice to listen for Earhart.
He seemed to know about Earhart and her predicament , and thus his excitement concerning possibly having heard her.
The Rock Springs Rocket news item states Dana Randolph heard "This is Amelia Earhart." As with other casual listeners at the time, that had to be pretty startling on its own.
Bear in mind - the opinion expressed in Finding Amelia is that Dana Randolph's account is credible. Credible does not necessarily mean unimpeachable. One can always find ways to create a contrary opinion. Facts that tend to support an interpretation as true do not mean unequivocally it is true.
Based on what I have read, however, and for what it is worth, it seems to me Dana Randolph was telling the truth.
Joe Cerniglia
-
JULY 4, 0400-0425 hrs.
Dana Randolph, Wyoming, SC# 81
Randolph claims he heard Earhart say, “This is Amelia Earhart. Ship is on a reef south of the equator. Station KH9QQ.” The woman then began to give her location, but the signal faded before it was given. That sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period.
All Objective material. Score, O.
Thank you for your response Joe. I don't believe Dana was a deliberate hoaxer....., I am trying to get a grasp of the whole report concerning the message...the last line .... That sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period. Does that mean her name and call numbers and ship on a reef were heard an unknown number of times, ( each and every time)...however ; when it came to her location,... each and every time that part of the message faded out? If that is the case, that may seem suspect to some.
-
And it has been discussed before, but let's not forget the racial aspect of Randolph's claim. He, more than any of the others who say they heard Earhart and Noonan, ran the risk of a public excoriation, or worse, if he was found to be lying.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
And it has been discussed before, but let's not forget the racial aspect of Randolph's claim. He, more than any of the others who say they heard Earhart and Noonan, ran the risk of a public excoriation, or worse, if he was found to be lying.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
Monty, I concur. Even today, Rock Springs is a rough town. I've been there, done business there, worked there. There's friendlier places in the west. I can only imagine that public excoriation would have been the least of Dana Randolph's worries for falsifying a report of this magnitude in 1937.
-
A thought for pondering.....2-2-V-1 "removed" to create greater ventilation in the cabin (heat, gasoline fumes) allowing the intake of exhaust fumes from the starboard engine running just fast enough to charge the battery. The cockpit has windows and the overhead hatch for a degree of fresh air ventilation. The aft cabin door may or may not be able to be opened (rising water, airframe distortion) preventing much cross-cabin airflow. Perhaps CO was a contributing factor in Fred's demise, especially if he had to spend much time at the navigator's desk trying to figure out where they had landed.
Wouldn't the prevailing winds have prevented much CO from accumulating in the cabin. Doesn't take much circulation to dilute CO below any harmful level.
Still gnats, mosquitoes, and other minute insects find sheltering eddies in strong winds near concavities next to structures. I can't help but think of when I'm at the transmitter site and even in a strong wind that you would think would clear the air of all insects, opening the truck door immediately sucks these critters in the the cab of the truck for my dining, dancing, and driving pleasure.
Depending on the prevailing wind and propwash, if 2-2-v-1 was removed from the fuselage this may have created a propensity for a vacuum funneling airflow into the cabin and out through the cockpit fenestrations. CO levels may have been higher in the aft cabin and perhaps on the starboard side of the cockpit. Fresh air entering through the overhead hatch and the port side cockpit window may have resulted in cleaner air near the left-hand seat. Of course, we don't know the possible orientation of the aircraft on the reef nor can we easily prove any of the CO poisoning possibilities but it's worthy of consideration. Then again, FN could have simply whacked his head on the airframe or taken a septic tumble on the reef resulting in his putative injury.
-
If my understanding is correct, the "patch" shows evidence of having been torn outward from the airframe by water pressure. If that's so, at the time the patch was torn free the radios would have been inundated with seawater. None of the radio transmissions, therefore, could have been made after the patch came off.
-
If my understanding is correct, the "patch" shows evidence of having been torn outward from the airframe by water pressure.
That's a whole different and incredibly complex can of worms. The artifact has no surviving finished edge so it is, without question, a section of sheet that was forcibly removed from a larger sheet. A variety of forces acted on the artifact to separate it from the larger sheet. Water pressure may have been one of them.
-
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
Another tidbit
.......http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/epurdue/id/559/rec/1501
The husband of our aviator of interest, made use of the term "ship" (about 10 times), in this correspondence,.....I see the word plane, but once.... written records seem to suggest husband and wife often used the same terminology....when referring to the Electra.
-
Dear Dr Ford,
It has been some time since the introduction of your paper, and I must say I had drifted off to other areas of research, however; coming back to review the paper and all of the comments concerning it, a curious detail came to my attention, this concerning the name that Noonan was said to have called out several times. In Betty's notebook she says she heard Fred call out Marie several times, during the entire episode. Scanning some of the letters Noonan sent home, it appears he never used the name Marie, when referring to his wife, ( Mary Beatrice) or if he did, I missed it, but rather he used a pet name for his new bride, that being a shortened version of his brides middle name Beatrice .... Bee. In all of the letters I have viewed, they begin with or include his pet name for her, ....Bee.
In scenarios such as the one Fred has been described as being involved in, are there any studies or data available to suggest why someone in his suggested impaired state , would revert to calling a loved person by a more formal name, than what he usually tenderly called her?
It just seems puzzling to me that he, in a moment of pure anguish, would try to reach out to that special someone, by using a name or version of her formal name less frequently or never used.
Your thoughts?
Jerry