TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Michael HALL on June 23, 2010, 03:55:03 PM
-
I understand 3 months after AE's landing an exploration took place to the island.
Was anything found at that time? What was meant by "signs of recent habitation?
Could the Electra have dissapeared that quickly? Or could we be looking at a water landing with the loss of the plane more swiftly?
But that rules out the accounts of the plane being spoken of by locals and also the ability to transmit messages.
Is there a time line of the locals reports of seeing a plane and also when the exploration took place? if the plane was seen after the exploration why was it not seen at the time?
-
I understand 3 months after AE's landing an exploration took place to the island.
The 3 day visit (hardly an "exploration") is described in Bevington's Journal. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html)
Was anything found at that time? What was meant by "signs of recent habitation?
Bevington wrote seeing "signs of previous habitation" which doesn't mean quite the same thing as ""signs of recent habitation." When questioned many years after the event, Bevington described what he saw as "It looked like someone had bivouaced for the night."
Could the Electra have dissapeared that quickly?
Easily, if it was washed over the reef edge. In fact, there is photographic evidence to support the hypothesis that part of the plane was still visible when Bevington was there. See Hiding in Plain Sight (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/57_Bevingtonphoto/57_HidinginSight.htm)
Or could we be looking at a water landing with the loss of the plane more swiftly?
The post-loss radio signals rule out a water landing. The airplane was on land for several days after the disappearance.
Is there a time line of the locals reports of seeing a plane and also when the exploration took place? if the plane was seen after the exploration why was it not seen at the time?
Most of the plane seems to have gone over the edge and into deep water before July 9, 1937. Only some wreckage was visible on the reef and then only at low tide.
July 9, 1937 - Navy search pilots see "signs of recent habitation" but no plane.
October 15, 1937 - Photograph taken by Bevington inadvertently reveals presence of foreign object on reef edge.
1940-41 - Island resident Segalo Samuela (now Emily Sikuli) sees wreckage on ref edge that her father tells her is from an airplane.
-
Great info thanks Ric, and shows I clearly have a lot more to learn.
I appreciate your time :)
-
not sure if this should be a new thread but will ask here anyway ;)
Have you received the High res photo of Nessie yet?
My mind seems to make out what would be an engine casing vertical with a prop attached? Anyone else see the same thing?
-
We have the higher resolution image but we can't release it because of restrictions by Oxford University who now own the original image. We can only use the scan for internal research. I'm working closely with Jeff Glickman, our forensic imaging specialist, and LCDR Bob Brandenburg, our tidal conditions expert, to learn as much as we can about Nessie's size and constituent components. I can tell you that the higher resolution image shows the object to be more complicated than it appears in the published image. It does appear to be man-made. We do not yet have a hypothesis about what it is but we don't see anything that would rule out airplane wreckage .
-
wow, sounds so close to that all important "smoking gun" evidence.
Shame you are restricted in sharing.
Are you at least able to tell us all what your thoughts might be of what it is now you have seen the hi res ??
wheel under carriage? engine?
-
Anything I said at this point would be just wishful thinking. It doesn't look like anything immediately recognizable - but wreckage, whether from a boat, plane train or automobile, is often like that. We need to quantify the image and narrow the possibilities. In any event, we'll probably never be able to say that we know for sure what it is.
-
And there was me getting my hopes up ;) But I understand exactly what you mean. Unless the image is clean enough that it can show beyond reasonable doubt, it will never be that crucial final puzzle piece.
Hoping things come together for a new expedition in the very near future!
-
Just trying to better understand the hypothesis, would the following be an accurate recap?
The theory of events on the first few days is pretty clear. The plane lands on the reef ledge sometime late morning July 2nd. The landing is rough with a lot of splashing and tires possibly blown. Perhaps when tires are blown occupants receive injuries as severe as broken bones. Tide is low enough at landing for occupants to initially make their way to the beach and look back out at their craft pondering their predicament.
Over the days, as the tide rises and lowers, through it all AE and FN are able to get to and from the plane multiple times moving small items and making radio transmissions. Possibly at times the reef is almost dry and possibly at other times water is high enough to threaten the electrical circuity on the craft.
Sometime before the July 9th flyover the craft is washed into deeper water. The aviators scouting the island see only parts of the plane they presume to have come from the SS NC. AE and FN are already too debilitated if not one or both already deceased, and no ground signal profound enough to be visible is made to the planes.
Later, the expedition of Oct 1937 does not detect evidence of the wreck. Later still it is common knowledge among island inhabitants there was a wrecked plane in the vicinity of the presumed landing.
--- Sounds about right?
In the interest of better understanding, some quick questions come to mind:
Do historical tide charts for that part of the world support a low tide necessary for landing late on the morning of July 2nd?
Is there any significant breakup of the ship upon landing?
Upon final approach why is landing location chosen that could put the plane dangerously close the the existing wrecked ship?
In that part of the world what was the approximate tidal shift for the first few days after July 2nd? Six feet? Eight feet?
Is there any way to know how strong the surf was running in the first few days after July 2nd?
How high would the the electrical circuitry of the Electra stand with wheels blown? High enough to still be out of the surf at high tide?
How much of the ship is coming apart due to daily tidal and surf action alone?
Sometime after the last radio reception but before July 9th the ship goes into deeper water. How large a time window is that?
Does the ship just slip over the edge or does it float some distance out into deeper water?
Was there particularly high surf shortly before July 9th? Was there a storm? What event exclusive of ordinary surf and tide puts the plane into deeper water?
Does FN possibly go down having been still inside the craft when it slips into deeper water? Could rising tide and surf ever acted quickly enough to trap the fliers on the disabled craft when they would have preferred to return to the beach?
The 1937 expedition does not see evidence of the wreck, but noteworthy is that they aren't looking for it. Yet, how do islanders three years later report a visible, well known airplane wreck on the reef?
How much of the plane washes back up onto the reef over time? Does a large section wash back up intact? How would the islanders identify it as an airplane wreck if only bits and pieces wash back up?
I'm not trying to make a case against the hypothesis, just better trying to understand what might have happened and how the pieces of the puzzle would most naturally come together. Would enjoy any thoughts.
-
You have picked up two points that I was struggling with last night
Why land so close to an obsticle? is it really the only place to land?
If the plane had gone over the edge and was hardly noticeable in october, as you say why is a plane noticeable later down the line by locals?
I cant imagine the tide washing it back up.
My thoughts are the plane landed and as already assumed was washed over the edge pretty quickly, but maybe the red herring is the locals memory, as that is the only part that does not add up for me.
My other thoughts are, if the plane was in a fit state to run the engines, would of AE not wanted to "move" it to a more salvageable location, or was it too damged to be moved? My assumption would be yes.
For a living I deal with corals and know how incredibly sharp skeletol coral can be, tyre punctures would be very likely
-
Some additional thoughts...
AE and FN are flying along the LOP with a feeling of dread and impending doom. They spot Gardner in the distance and their hearts jump; they initially don't know if it isn't Howland. As as they get closer they again get a sinking feeling with the realization it isn't Howland and FN scrambles to identify it. Possibly FN does successfully identify or guess it to be Gardner, but why is there is no report of post loss transmissions referring to Gardner or similar? Ultimately, on the final approach they're feeling a lot better, believing it must be very clear to potential rescuers where they are and that they'll ultimately survive.
Still a ways out from Gardner it is wholly clear they will be compelled to land the craft on this small atoll. They know they are running on fumes and there might not be enough fuel to reach the island, much less to make multiple inspection runs. Perhaps, though, they do make one or two low passes. If so, from the air traveling 150 MPH how clearly could they identify the depth of water on the reef ledge? Would tide have been low enough for the reef to have been exposed? If exposed, would an aerial inspection reveal that the reef was smoother out closer to the edge? How could they have told the difference of a water depth of one or ten feet? Do the engines sputter on their first approach to the island and do they simply crash land at the closest point?
I wonder what the depth profile is from the sandy beach out to the edge of the reef? From the sandy beach is there a drop off of eight or ten feet and then back up to the sometimes exposed outer reef or is the depth uniform from the sandy beach out?
Yes, to the degree that the pilot maintains control and the ship will move, assuming there isn't an area of deep water, the best idea would appear to have been to taxi the craft as close to the sandy beach as possible, away from the dangerous surf and reef edge. Probably, however, shortly after touch down they were just along for the bumpy ride with essentially no control of the craft.
I wonder, had the ship come to rest closer to the sandy beach, further away from the pounding surf, would the flyover of July 9th identified the Electra and the outcome have been very, very different?
-
Thanks guys. Good questions and thoughts. I can offer some answers when I get a minute.
-
Just a few of my thoughts as a former aviator:
"Why land so close to an obsticle? is it really the only place to land?"
- If I'm looking to put down an aircraft and hoping to be spotted, I would choose to land it as close to something that will catch the eye as possible. The wreck of the Norfolk is just that - extremely eye catching. From the diagrams I've seen of the reef there is PLENTY of room to put down there without fearing a collision with the wreck. The coral, however, could be an entirely different story...
"Yes, to the degree that the pilot maintains control and the ship will move, assuming there isn't an area of deep water, the best idea would appear to have been to taxi the craft as close to the sandy beach as possible, away from the dangerous surf and reef edge. Probably, however, shortly after touch down they were just along for the bumpy ride with essentially no control of the craft."
- I concur: the first thing I would try to do is to focus on getting the aircraft as far up onto the beach as possible. However, the aircraft may not have been taxi-able depending upon the condition of the tires and landing gear after the coral landing. They may have been stuck where the aircraft came to a stop or in a spot where the gear became stuck in a crevasse, etc.
-
Ric, I'm still a newbie as you can see from my posts but coming up fast. I'm half way through your book and boy what an outstanding job you did. My, my, what painstaking detail. I'm rereading each page about three times trying to absorb as much as I can. What a tale of courage, vanity, over-confidence, luck, determination, faraway places (that might otherwise be idyllic), potential ticker-tape parade super-stardom and ultimately the running out of luck and tragedy.
Yes, would love any observations to questions/thoughts above...
-
I'm working closely with Jeff Glickman, our forensic imaging specialist, and LCDR Bob Brandenburg, our tidal conditions expert, to learn as much as we can about Nessie's size and constituent components. I can tell you that the higher resolution image shows the object to be more complicated than it appears in the published image. It does appear to be man-made. We do not yet have a hypothesis about what it is but we don't see anything that would rule out airplane wreckage .
Ric.....
Not to beat a dead horse here...just seeking deeper understanding....
Are you saying that, in the higher res view it no longer appears to be a main mount stanchion? Just some other as-yet-unidentified man-made object..still possibly of Lockheed manufacture?
....Thom
-
The aviators scouting the island see only parts of the plane they presume to have come from the SS NC. AE and FN are already too debilitated if not one or both already deceased, and no ground signal profound enough to be visible is made to the planes.
A photo taken during the search confirms that the tide was high with significant surf along the reef edge. An aircraft hung up on the reef edge would obscured by the surf. AE and FN need not be debilitated or dead to not be seen. If they were any distance inland in the shade they could easily have not had time to get out into the open in time to be seen. I can tell you from personal experience that, due to the ambient noise of wind and surf, you don't hear a low flying plane on Niku until it is almost directly overhead. Even if the were able to get to the beach in time there is a good chance they wouldn't be seen. Again from direct personal experience from a helicopter in 2001, it's very difficult to pick out people on the ground at Niku. The vegetation is deceptively bigger than it looks so people are smaller than you expect them to be. Even if they wave, the vegetation along the beach is also waving in the wind so there is no relative motion to catch your eye.
Do historical tide charts for that part of the world support a low tide necessary for landing late on the morning of July 2nd?
There are no historical tide charts for Nikumaroro. We've had to reconstruct the tides by taking the modern tables for nearby Orona (formerly Hull Island), correcting them based on tidal observations we've made during our expeditions to Niku, and "hindcasting" the tides to 1937. We've then verified the calculations by comparing them to historical aerial photos of the island taken at known times. During the window of time on the morning of July 2nd when the aircraft could have arrived over the island, the reef was dry enough to permit a safe landing.
Is there any significant breakup of the ship upon landing?
All we can say is that the plane was apparently intact enough to be able to run the right-hand, generator-equipped engine to recharge the batteries for radio transmissions.
Upon final approach why is landing location chosen that could put the plane dangerously close the the existing wrecked ship?
There is no indication that the landing was made dangerously close to the shipwreck. The "Nessie" feature is over 400 meters north of the wreck.
In that part of the world what was the approximate tidal shift for the first few days after July 2nd? Six feet? Eight feet?
At low tide the reef was dry. At high tide on July 2nd the water level on the reef at the hypothetical landing location was less than half a meter. The water level at high tide increased over the next few days until, by July 8th (the day before the search planes arrived), the water was nearly a full meter deep at high tide. Those calculations are for still water, but the water there is almost never still. Surf running across the reef would raise the water level by as much as another half meter.
Is there any way to know how strong the surf was running in the first few days after July 2nd?
Not that I know of.
How high would the the electrical circuitry of the Electra stand with wheels blown? High enough to still be out of the surf at high tide?
Yes. That shouldn't have been a problem.
How much of the ship is coming apart due to daily tidal and surf action alone?
I would say not much. As long as the plane can "weathervane" freely it should be okay. Maybe some damage to the vertical tail surfaces due to surf impact.
Sometime after the last radio reception but before July 9th the ship goes into deeper water. How large a time window is that?
Probably two days.
Does the ship just slip over the edge or does it float some distance out into deeper water?
I wish I knew.
Was there particularly high surf shortly before July 9th? Was there a storm? What event exclusive of ordinary surf and tide puts the plane into deeper water?
No indication of a storm or high surf, but high tide does get steadily higher. All it would take is for one of the wheels to drop into a hole or groove in the reef surface and get stuck there. The plane would then be prevented from "weathervaning" as the waves hit. At that point something has to give, most likely the landing gear attach points on the side with the stuck wheel.
Does FN possibly go down having been still inside the craft when it slips into deeper water?
Possible? Yes.
Could rising tide and surf ever acted quickly enough to trap the fliers on the disabled craft when they would have preferred to return to the beach?
I suppose, but if they both went down with plane who is the castaway at the Seven Site?
The 1937 expedition does not see evidence of the wreck, but noteworthy is that they aren't looking for it. Yet, how do islanders three years later report a visible, well known airplane wreck on the reef?
Nobody reports a visible well-known wreck. Circa 1940 or '41, Emily's father reportedly pointed out some wreckage that was only visible at low tide. By 1944, there was only a story that there was a wrecked plane somewhere when the first settlers arrived in late 1938.
How much of the plane washes back up onto the reef over time?
No way to tell.
Does a large section wash back up intact? How would the islanders identify it as an airplane wreck if only bits and pieces wash back up?
One islander told of seeing part of a wing on the reef flat in the 1950s.
-
Are you saying that, in the higher res view it no longer appears to be a main mount stanchion? Just some other as-yet-unidentified man-made object..still possibly of Lockheed manufacture?
I'm saying that it's easier to imagine that it's a main gear assembly in the fuzzier image but we've haven't ruled out anything.
-
The aviators scouting the island see only parts of the plane they presume to have come from the SS NC. AE and FN are already too debilitated if not one or both already deceased, and no ground signal profound enough to be visible is made to the planes.
A photo taken during the search confirms that the tide was high with significant surf along the reef edge. An aircraft hung up on the reef edge would obscured by the surf. AE and FN need not be debilitated or dead to not be seen. If they were any distance inland in the shade they could easily have not had time to get out into the open in time to be seen. I can tell you from personal experience that, due to the ambient noise of wind and surf, you don't hear a low flying plane on Niku until it is almost directly overhead. Even if the were able to get to the beach in time there is a good chance they wouldn't be seen. Again from direct personal experience from a helicopter in 2001, it's very difficult to pick out people on the ground at Niku. The vegetation is deceptively bigger than it looks so people are smaller than you expect them to be. Even if they wave, the vegetation along the beach is also waving in the wind so there is no relative motion to catch your eye.
yes, I agree that with the surf noise and wind it would be hard to hear any aircraft, but a turbine powered helicopter and a radial engined grumman seaplane are TOTALLY different from a noise standpoint. modern helicopters like the one you used are specifically designed to reduce noise signature. I live in between hartford and springfield, there's a wing of national guard helicopters to my north and an airport full of private ones to my south. when they fly over my house on a quiet night they are only within audible range for 10 seconds or so and the noise is scattered and hard to detect the source.
when the PT-19 flies over you can hear it for 5 minutes and point it out in seconds.
I know it was pure luck that you got any sort of aircraft to overfly the island, but IMO the helicopter should not be used as an indicator of whether a castaway would have heard an overflying plane. especially one that "zoomed" over the island.
-
In 1999, two separate teams working on different parts of the atoll reported hearing what sounded for all the world like a radial-engined airplane fly low over the island. None of us saw it due to the overstory of vegetation but nobody heard it coming for more than a few seconds. To this day we have no idea what it was.
-
In 1999, two separate teams working on different parts of the atoll reported hearing what sounded for all the world like a radial-engined airplane fly low over the island. None of us saw it due to the overstory of vegetation but nobody heard it coming for more than a few seconds. To this day we have no idea what it was.
not to be argumentative, but the bold alone precludes its use in any sort of argument one way or the other.
-
The aviators scouting the island see only parts of the plane they presume to have come from the SS NC. AE and FN are already too debilitated if not one or both already deceased, and no ground signal profound enough to be visible is made to the planes.
A photo taken during the search confirms that the tide was high with significant surf along the reef edge. An aircraft hung up on the reef edge would obscured by the surf. AE and FN need not be debilitated or dead to not be seen. If they were any distance inland in the shade they could easily have not had time to get out into the open in time to be seen. I can tell you from personal experience that, due to the ambient noise of wind and surf, you don't hear a low flying plane on Niku until it is almost directly overhead. Even if the were able to get to the beach in time there is a good chance they wouldn't be seen. Again from direct personal experience from a helicopter in 2001, it's very difficult to pick out people on the ground at Niku. The vegetation is deceptively bigger than it looks so people are smaller than you expect them to be. Even if they wave, the vegetation along the beach is also waving in the wind so there is no relative motion to catch your eye.
It is most apparent that the Niku hypothesis turns on the issue of whether or not the scout planes from the Battleship Colorado missed seeing Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan on Gardner Island on July 9, 1937 either because they were not there or were there on the island and simply overlooked. The official report of the search by the Colorado stated that no one was seen on Gardner Island while a report written by Flight Leader Lt. John O. Lambrecht stated that it was taken for granted that no one was on the Island. This issue had been discussed many times in the old forum and I would recommend reading all of those discussion posts as they are very informative.
It appears to me that previously there were very good arguments in favor of the scout/search planes not seeing the Electra nor the crew because they simply were not there, however, the consensus now seems to be that the scout planes did not see the Electra because it had disappeared into to the sea and the crew was concealed in the bush. It has also been inferred that the Colorado planes did a cursory search and were simply in a hurry to get to the next island. For whatever reasons, Lt. Lambrecht and his three scout planes did not find Amelia, Fred nor the Electra, and if they were really there on Gardner Island, then that is the essence of the tragedy.
Notwithstanding Ric’s comments about the ambient noise of the wind and surf and his personal experience with the helicopter ride, which I can identify with, I believe that competent aviators in three search planes should have found Amelia and Fred if they were indeed there. I say this admitting that I am biased in my opinion because of my experience as an aviator and flying scouts in Vietnam for three years. We were so well trained and experienced in flying at treetop level in the OH6-A (Hughes 500) that we could detect even the slightest signs of human activity and could distinguish a human form from a tree or bush while flying at 80 kts a half mile away.
I would assume that the Colorado aviators were not as keen and proficient as we were in the 1968 air cavalry, but the record indicates that Lambrecht was indeed a competent individual. He was a Naval Academy Graduate, 1925, an engineer, and attended flight school at Penascola and San Diego in 1930. In later service he was promoted and commanded two aircraft carriers and served on the staff of the National War College.
According to what I have read, Lambrecht’s flight plan was to proceed to Gardner at 1000’ and at three mile interval. This interval put the three planes about two minutes apart. In current terminology that would be a loose trail formation. Once at the Island they descended to about 400’ and circled around looking for the Electra and signs of life. The three scout planes were Vought 02U-3s and were powered by R-1340 wasp engines and certainly made enough racket to alert anyone on the island. The photo that was made appears to be from about 2500’ so one of the planes climbed up and the observer probably snapped that picture. That photo indicates that the tide and surf were high and could have very well concealed aircraft wreckage.
If it were possible, it would be interesting to talk flying with Lambrcht or Lt(jg) Short and Fox, his wingmen. It might be plausible to understand just what they thought they saw and did not see and how they went about it. Lambrecht and the other two pilots did give several taped interviews on the subject in the 60’s and 70‘s, but of course by that time it appears that they were strongly defending the position that they saw nothing that would warrant a further search of the Island.
-
How easy is it to imagine the searching fliers missing the lost crew and craft? I'd say effortless...
Regarding the fliers, it's still the relative infancy of aviation. You don't have years of detailed training in exotic techniques of air search and rescue, you're focusing on flying you're bi-plane and you've got a long way to go. You've got three planes whose observers are deaf from the roar of the engine and numb from spending the majority of time over trackless ocean. You've got wind blown skin and mostly what you're seeing from your open cockpit is the inside of your goggles. You have no voice communication with your fellow fliers to ask, "Did you see something down there?" and in fact you've only got hand signals to indicate whether the search on this particular island is over or not yet. You're overflying the island for ten minutes, and much of that time is spent trying not to crash into each other or into one of the frigate birds. You're not really aware of the RDF lines crossing at Gardner and you possibly don't even believe you're looking in the right part of the world.
Regarding the unseen aircraft, I can tell you as a former surfer, being hit by big surf coming in in a meter of water is like getting hit by a freight train. A lightly constructed aluminum craft that is mostly skin/shell could be battered and hidden in a matter of minutes. You get lines of heavy silvery surf overrunning the silver aircraft and it disappears easily. Besides, isn't it just more debris from the SS NC?
Regarding the survivors, let's say you've got howling wind and the roar of big surf and you're screaming in the other person's ear to be heard. You've mostly got your eyes closed due to sand blowing in the wind and you're focusing on keeping the crabs away. You've possibly got broken bones and you're dehydrated and limbs are sore from sitting because you can barely stand up. If you do hear the whisper of an engine above do you dash up and run out to the beach like a hundred other false-alarms with the mirror in your compact to signal them? Can you see them over the sixty foot tall trees? Maybe if you even hear them, maybe if you can even get up, maybe if you can even get into a clearing where you can see them, all you see are the planes departing in the distance.
-
In modern Search & Rescue terminology, what the Colorado fliers performed was a "hasty search." It's the first step in the search process. Statistically, the probability of finding what you're looking for in a "hasty search" is about 10%.
-
Once TIGHAR find the plane (and they will ;) ) The search in 1937 I am quite sure will go down in history as the biggest failure in search and rescue ever to take place.
Based on everything I have read AE SHOULD have been found, COULD have been found and FOUND alive.
My gut feeling is the leaders of the search were too caught up in the belief she landed at sea "so whats the point of looking further"
In regards to being alive in October, this i still struggle with, AE would have by then made quite clear tracks down to the lagoon, daily walking paths that would be impossible to miss, even after one week on a tiny maldivian island i had made my own track from my little beach bungalow to the sea, and those tracks were still there two weeks later. If the exploration in 1937 did not go anywhere near that end of the island then I guess there is a chance she could have been missed, but my understanding is the whole island was explored, even if it was a quick scout about.
But we will never know, what we do know thanks to Ric is AE did make a safe landing she did survive "for a time" and we can only hope her demise was not met with immense suffering.
Once the plane is found, the How did she survive and how did she die questions will become a lot more talked about i am sure, but these answers I think can never be answered sadly :(
-
In 1999, two separate teams working on different parts of the atoll reported hearing what sounded for all the world like a radial-engined airplane fly low over the island. None of us saw it due to the overstory of vegetation but nobody heard it coming for more than a few seconds. To this day we have no idea what it was.
I think that may have been AE coming to see how you were getting on in her search ;)
-
In modern Search & Rescue terminology, what the Colorado fliers performed was a "hasty search." It's the first step in the search process. Statistically, the probability of finding what you're looking for in a "hasty search" is about 10%.
interesting. I just did a little reading on SAR terms and probability based on that. seems there are lots of variables that they can take into account that push the stats around.
they said a hasty search is actually very effective if the person is in good condition to mildly injured. up to 70% effective. given injuries, unconsciousness and terrain they go WAY down.
-
Not sure of when or where studies have been done or what assumptions have been made...
I'm seeing potentially a very different set of search presumptions from what was the case in this situation. When stats are talked about is it presumed that the highly trained observers will be in air conditioned cabins without a hair out of place in big swiveling chairs wearing blue jump suits and looking out specifically designed side-viewing windows through high power binoculars and on head phones talking to each other about what they see? The actual search was done by dedicated guys that enjoyed flying working in harsh conditions, pre-WWII and therefore peace-time fliers with no experience searching bloody war wrecks for possible signs of life, just guys that flew well and were told to go look to see if you see anybody.
Again, I'm with Ric. I'd say a 10% chance of them having been seen. However, even in hindsight, one could ask why they didn't identify any pieces of the plane. I'd say poor search conditions were contributed to by poor equally poor luck.
-
My personal opinion after seeing the helicopter overflight of Niku is that it would be very low odds to see someone on the ground (maybe 10%). With all due respect to the aviators from the Colorado, it's also well known that our military was in a sad state during that period of time. The country was still suffering from the effects of the Great Depression and pilot readiness was low. The military in 1937 was a far cry from 1968 or even 1943.
As far as the Bevington expedition is concerned, I would agree with Ric that it would be easy to miss someone if each party had no knowledge that the other was on the island. About the best chance that Bevington would have had would be to spot foot prints in the sand near the 7 site, but that means being in "search mode".
-
Once TIGHAR find the plane (and they will ;) ) The search in 1937 I am quite sure will go down in history as the biggest failure in search and rescue ever to take place.
Based on everything I have read AE SHOULD have been found, COULD have been found and FOUND alive.
My gut feeling is the leaders of the search were too caught up in the belief she landed at sea "so whats the point of looking further"
In regards to being alive in October, this i still struggle with, AE would have by then made quite clear tracks down to the lagoon, daily walking paths that would be impossible to miss, even after one week on a tiny maldivian island i had made my own track from my little beach bungalow to the sea, and those tracks were still there two weeks later. If the exploration in 1937 did not go anywhere near that end of the island then I guess there is a chance she could have been missed, but my understanding is the whole island was explored, even if it was a quick scout about.
But we will never know, what we do know thanks to Ric is AE did make a safe landing she did survive "for a time" and we can only hope her demise was not met with immense suffering.
Once the plane is found, the How did she survive and how did she die questions will become a lot more talked about i am sure, but these answers I think can never be answered sadly :(
If you look through the site you will see that TIGHAR has photographic evidence of tracks leading to the Lagoon and Windward Shore from the Seven Site.
-
If you look through the site you will see that TIGHAR has photographic evidence of tracks leading to the Lagoon and Windward Shore from the Seven Site.
Eh? I hadn't heard this before (my apologies for playing catchup). I checked the FAQ but didn't see mention of footprints. By site do you mean the Forum or elsewhere on the website?
-
My gut feeling is the leaders of the search were too caught up in the belief she landed at sea "so whats the point of looking further"
It's a bit more complicated than that. As I explained in Finding Amelia, Colorado's search had focused on the Phoenix Group for good reasons but the battleship's CO, Captain Wilhelm Friedel, was under pressure to get headed back home to the U.S. west coast. Friedel had 196 NROTC cadets aboard and federal law prohibited the Navy from keeping the kids at sea more than 60 days. The CNO was all over him to get out of there. The aircraft carrier Lexington was on its way to take over the search and and it was expected that Lexington would resume the search of the Phoenix Group, but Friedel insisted that the islands had been thoroughly searched. Lexington's officers already had a plan drawn up to search vast swaths of open ocean with planes in line abreast formation. They were happy not to have to mess with the Phoenix Group and, instead, concentrated their search north and west of Howland.
-
Yes its on the main site, sorry way too much info to go digging but if i come across it later I will post the links.
This brings me back to my heory that AE and FN where long time expired by october as yes there were tracks but no sign of life.
I still question where they would of slept as i do not see sleeping on the ground as being even remotely possible taking into account the crabs. I wonder if they built some sort of Hammock which was later used by new inhabitants for material in other structures.
-
Cant wait to get my copy, I think it will answer many of my outstanding questions.
But from what you have just posted, my thoughts come back to the biggest failure in land and sea search of the time. And I do think there is little excuse for them not to have been found and found alive. But sadly we can not change history.
-
Ric's book is brilliant - thoroughly researched and thoroughly compelling. Reading the book you'll understand how the loss and search became riddled with misinformation, casual attention to detail, presumption... then the covering to hide presumption, failure to effectively communicate, and ultimately wild proclamations without basis. To me the book is really a study in how systems fail.
I find it entirely amusing when reading something like an historic interview where a key player is saying, "Well, forty years later I can say we probably searched as well as we possibly could have. We made all the right decisions." Well, either they really believed that or clearly they had learned to believe it. WHAT ELSE would they say?...
-
WHAT ELSE would they say?...
Indeed. Who wants to go down in history as the person who missed the prime opportunity to save Amelia Earhart? But if Ric is successful at finding the smoking gun, that is exactly how they will be remembered.
I have no doubt that had GP been in one of the planes from the Colorado, the overflight of Niku would have been longer and any "Signs of Recent Habitation" would have been thoroughly investigated.
-
History, particularly recent history, is riddled with voices of reason saying something like, "You've interpreted the problem incorrectly. What you're suggesting is a step in the wrong direction. Let's do what we know has worked in the past." And guess what? Even when the voices of reason are proved to have been right, are they retroactively vindicated? Not at all. Unfortunately, not at all.
When Ric and staff does find the smoking gun, even though Ric thoroughly, thoroughly documented what went wrong and how they could have probably found her while still alive. It will simply be reported that, "Well, too bad the original searchers didn't know what we know now. Yes, Ric and TIGHAR have stumbled upon the remains." I believe Ric and TIGHAR will get well earned and deserved recognition, but I don't believe the extent of the failure of the original bumbled search will be revealed.
-
Wow - looks like my thread here has caught many peoples attention 35 replies and counting ;)
Do I win a prize? ;D
-
If you look through the site you will see that TIGHAR has photographic evidence of tracks leading to the Lagoon and Windward Shore from the Seven Site.
Eh? I hadn't heard this before (my apologies for playing catchup). I checked the FAQ but didn't see mention of footprints. By site do you mean the Forum or elsewhere on the website?
Link for your information;
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/21_RecentHab.html
-
I love the last line in that Research Bulletin I wrote in February 2000.
"In any event, this part of the atoll clearly merits further attention."
Yeah.
-
Do we know why the seven site clearing is like it is? As opposed to being covered by bush.
-
Do we know why the seven site clearing is like it is? As opposed to being covered by bush.
LOL!! Yeah, we know. We busted ass for three days clearing the bush. Every time we return to the site we have to start over, cutting and hauling out the dense bush that grows back between expeditions. It's brutal, dangerous work with chainsaws and pneumatic loppers (powered with scuba tanks) in 100° heat. The worst part is dragging the cut bush out to the lagoon and ocean shore.
Aerial photography from 1937 and 1938 shows that site was open forest then. The trees were later cut down and coconuts were planted, but the planting failed and the area grew up to dense bush.
-
Hey, Ric! I've noticed Stihl is one of TIGHAR's sponsors and sure enough I've seen some Stihl chainsaws in several photos. Hey, take me with you on the next expedition! ...In addition to several degrees including computer science and geography w/minor in anthropology, senior roles in several technologies including air photo interpretation, GIS/GPS (geodetic GPS), systems & database administration, familiarity with small engines/all types of workshop tools and equipment and similar and having seen a lot of ocean beaches surfing ...I'm one heck of a good woodsman with my Stihl chainsaws and similar equipment! ;D
-
Hey, Ric! I've noticed Stihl is one of TIGHAR's sponsors and sure enough I've seen some Stihl chainsaws in several photos. Hey, take me with you on the next expedition! ...In addition to several degrees including computer science and geography w/minor in anthropology, senior rolls in several technologies including air photo interpretation, GIS/GPS (geodetic GPS), systems & database administration, familiarity with small engines and similar and having seen a lot of ocean beaches surfing ...I'm one heck of a good woodsman with my Stihl chainsaws and similar equipment! ;D
LOL join the queue I think ;)
I can do absolutely none of the above impressive stuff but can make an awsome English breakfast fry up, do I qualify? ;)
-
You guys both sound like good prospective victi...I mean...team members. You'll want to sign up for the next TIGHAR Aviation Archaeology Field School (a pre-requisite to selection for the team). We won't be doing one this year. Not enough time. But we're planning one for September of 2011, probably in Utah.
-
wahey! Looks like a trip to Utah next year for me then :)
-
If you look through the site you will see that TIGHAR has photographic evidence of tracks leading to the Lagoon and Windward Shore from the Seven Site.
Eh? I hadn't heard this before (my apologies for playing catchup). I checked the FAQ but didn't see mention of footprints. By site do you mean the Forum or elsewhere on the website?
Link for your information;
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/21_RecentHab.html
Thanks for the link! Very interesting.
"the surface survey made by USS Bushnell in November 1939, the map maker noted the presence of an "old trail" between the lagoon and the ocean at a location about one kilometer northwest of the “7.” The feature can be seen in the 1939 aerial mosaic and in the 1938 photo. "
What do we know about the old trail described in the bulletin? (apologies again if this has already been discussed).
-
Yes - Utah it is. Good stuff!
Hey, Ric, just wondering about how several different items I've come across on the site might potentially intertwine together...
First, I've read you're looking at the next expedition possibly being in two years, 2012. I recall you writing that that would be the 75th anniversary of the flight, which would be a good media hook. Next, I've read the upcoming expedition might have for the first time a higher-profile sponsorship, which to me sounds like might entail things like multiple ships and professional camera crew and similar. Finally, I recall hearing serious consideration is being given to devoting the next expedition primarily to ROV exploration, with possibly of access to more expensive/sophisticated/deeper going/sensitive equipment than ever used at Niku for that purpose.
So, were a high-profile sponsor to kick in the funds to use exotic sensing gear, the expedition could potentially have confirmation of the smoking gun on the actual day of discovery - that evening TIGHAR could have an Electra engine proudly identified. Maybe the expedition needs to take some bottles of champagne this time? Do I see a several part television show in the crystal ball?...
Regarding team members for the next expedition, I see bios for an earlier expedition but not for the most recent one. Just wondering, are most of the expedition members already chosen for the next expedition? Also, if the next effort will focus on remote sensing of the sea floor will you have a reduced on-island effort and consequently smaller team?
Just wondering, practically speaking, if some form of what I've described is accurate, and if so, wondering if there wouldn't be strong competition for places on the next team considering the possibly higher expectation it will come back with a conclusive find. Thoughts?
-
At this point, any discussion of the next expedition is wishful thinking. We need to figure what we found on this trip before we know what another expedition could or should look like. We've always wanted to do a conclusive search for the airplane in the deep water near the island. We are, after all, The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery. But deep water searches are expensive. We search on land because that's where we can afford to look, hoping to be able to establish a strong enough case that AE was there to be able to raise the money for a deep water search.
We should get bios up on the website for the Niku VI team. They are an extraordinary group of people.
There is always strong competition for places on the team, but we always try to take several rookies. On this trip we had a total of 15 regular team members (volunteers whose way was paid by TIGHAR). Four were first-timers.
BTW, there was a professional camera crew covering this trip and the crystal ball seems to show a two-hour special on a major network possibly later this year. I'll tell you more when I can.
-
well there's two rookie positions taken, two down two to go
Oh for wishful thinking! ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In modern Search & Rescue terminology, what the Colorado fliers performed was a "hasty search." It's the first step in the search process. Statistically, the probability of finding what you're looking for in a "hasty search" is about 10%.
I have read in some of the discussion posts from about eight years ago that the three observers on the Colorado planes were ROTC cadets. I wonder where the trained observers were and why they were not aboard on this important mission. Instead of having six pair of trained eyeballs looking for signs of Earhart, Lambrecht had only his pilots to count on. Those cadets probably were clueless and lost as a goose on the entire flyover. That is the one part of the operation that does not set well with me, it seems unprofessional.
I hesitate to label the Colorado search as “hasty” because that is tantamount to labeling it a cursory search and that seems to be the major objection that the Lambrecht supporters and heirs have. Cursory denotes perfunctory and even nonchalant. Lambrecht and his aviators should be given the benefit of the doubt and granted credit for doing the best job that they knew how to do. Not seeing signs of Earhart nor the Electra on Gardner Island on July 9, 1937 does not make Lambrecht and his aviators incompetent nor does it make them guilty of malfeasance. They were honorable men sent forth on a mission and they did it to the best of their ability. From my days as a combat helicopter pilot, years ago, we were sent on missions where we were not all that successful and some days suffered heavy combat damage, it was all part of the tour of duty.
-
I have read in some of the discussion posts from about eight years ago that the three observers on the Colorado planes were ROTC cadets. I wonder where the trained observers were and why they were not aboard on this important mission.
The observers on the Gardner Island search were not ROTC cadets. Two were regular enlisted observers and one was the ship's Ass't 1st Lt. and Damage Control Officer. The "trained observers" were not trained in aerial searching. The mission of the battleship's planes was to act as forward observers to adjust the fire of the big guns.
I hesitate to label the Colorado search as “hasty” because that is tantamount to labeling it a cursory search and that seems to be the major objection that the Lambrecht supporters and heirs have. Cursory denotes perfunctory and even nonchalant.
"Hasty search" is a technical term. The pilots did what they were ordered to do. Nobody is faulting them.
-
I have read in some of the discussion posts from about eight years ago that the three observers on the Colorado planes were ROTC cadets. I wonder where the trained observers were and why they were not aboard on this important mission.
The observers on the Gardner Island search were not ROTC cadets. Two were regular enlisted observers and one was the ship's Ass't 1st Lt. and Damage Control Officer. The "trained observers" were not trained in aerial searching. The mission of the battleship's planes was to act as forward observers to adjust the fire of the big guns.
I hesitate to label the Colorado search as “hasty” because that is tantamount to labeling it a cursory search and that seems to be the major objection that the Lambrecht supporters and heirs have. Cursory denotes perfunctory and even nonchalant.
"Hasty search" is a technical term. The pilots did what they were ordered to do. Nobody is faulting them.
Not to belabor the point but the aerial search was a very significant event. It is central to your hypothesis.
According to your records, what specifically were the orders given to Lt. Lambrect in regards to the search of MeKean and Gardner? I have read Capt. Friedell’s and Lambrect’s report but find no mention of specific orders for the search planes. In the absence of specific orders how do you know “the pilots did what they were ordered to do.”
Are the records of the U.S.S. Colorado available and if so where are they on your website? If not, why? It would be interesting to review the logs and mission briefings if available, also what exactly was the stated mission of the float planes? I am not sure that the sole mission of the plane was aerial adjustment of Naval gunfire. The sea plane was used as a scout and for patrol duties and later in search and rescue.
-
According to your records, what specifically were the orders given to Lt. Lambrect in regards to the search of MeKean and Gardner? I have read Capt. Friedell’s and Lambrect’s report but find no mention of specific orders for the search planes. In the absence of specific orders how do you know “the pilots did what they were ordered to do.”
We haven't found any record of written orders issued to the pilots or notes of briefings or debriefings so I guess we don't know what the pilots were ordered to do. We do know that they went out and searched for the Earhart plane and it seems unlikely that they did that on their own initiative.
Are the records of the U.S.S. Colorado available and if so where are they on your website? If not, why?
The Colorado deck log is on the DVD that comes with hard cover edition of Finding Amelia.
It would be interesting to review the logs and mission briefings if available, also what exactly was the stated mission of the float planes? I am not sure that the sole mission of the plane was aerial adjustment of Naval gunfire. The sea plane was used as a scout and for patrol duties and later in search and rescue.
Great. Let me know what you find out.
-
I am not sure that the sole mission of the plane was aerial adjustment of Naval gunfire. The sea plane was used as a scout and for patrol duties and later in search and rescue.
Ric didn't say the sole mission, he said "the mission" meaning the primary mission. It's common knowledge that sea planes from battleships from that era were primarily used as Ric has stated. I doubt that pilots had a lot of training related to searching desert islands. The depression era navy of 1937 had scant funds to work with which is why we started the war with torpedoes that didn't work and poor night fighting capability. I'm sure that the pilots did the best with what they had though.
-
Some insight into the attitude of at least one of the Colorado pilots toward the Earhart search may be had from Lt. jg William Short's letter home, written during the search (also on the Finding Amelia DVD). In the mid-1930s U.S. Naval Aviation was somewhat like that of the Royal Air Force in those years - small, laid back, everybody knew everybody, sort of an exclusive flying club.
-
I am not sure that the sole mission of the plane was aerial adjustment of Naval gunfire. The sea plane was used as a scout and for patrol duties and later in search and rescue.
Ric didn't say the sole mission, he said "the mission" meaning the primary mission. It's common knowledge that sea planes from battleships from that era were primarily used as Ric has stated. I doubt that pilots had a lot of training related to searching desert islands. The depression era navy of 1937 had scant funds to work with which is why we started the war with torpedoes that didn't work and poor night fighting capability. I'm sure that the pilots did the best with what they had though.
The problem I have with that argument is that the inference is: that the pilots and observers on the planes from the Colorado were primarily adjusters of Naval gunfire, were not well trained, under funded in the depression, therefore, they knew nothing about reconnaissance much less how to scout an Island, however, bless their hearts, they did the best that they could and it is no mystery why they did not find Earhart.
This is the inference that I have observed throughout this forum and website and I don’t think that it is correct. It is an indictment of Lambrecht and the USS Colorado and appears to be made for the purpose of impeaching the report of Lambrecht that he saw no signs on Gardner that would warrant a further search.
-
Some insight into the attitude of at least one of the Colorado pilots toward the Earhart search may be had from Lt. jg William Short's letter home, written during the search (also on the Finding Amelia DVD). In the mid-1930s U.S. Naval Aviation was somewhat like that of the Royal Air Force in those years - small, laid back, everybody knew everybody, sort of an exclusive flying club.
Ric, from my experience, that is still the atmosphere in Naval aviation, at least it was at Subic Bay with the 7th Fleet in the 60s and 70s.
-
Some insight into the attitude of at least one of the Colorado pilots toward the Earhart search may be had from Lt. jg William Short's letter home, written during the search (also on the Finding Amelia DVD). In the mid-1930s U.S. Naval Aviation was somewhat like that of the Royal Air Force in those years - small, laid back, everybody knew everybody, sort of an exclusive flying club.
Ric, from my experience, that is still the atmosphere in Naval aviation, at least it was at Subic Bay with the 7th Fleet in the 60s and 70s.
You say that like it's a BAD thing...
~ A former Naval Aviator
-
Some insight into the attitude of at least one of the Colorado pilots toward the Earhart search may be had from Lt. jg William Short's letter home, written during the search (also on the Finding Amelia DVD). In the mid-1930s U.S. Naval Aviation was somewhat like that of the Royal Air Force in those years - small, laid back, everybody knew everybody, sort of an exclusive flying club.
Ric, from my experience, that is still the atmosphere in Naval aviation, at least it was at Subic Bay with the 7th Fleet in the 60s and 70s.
Hey, I was at Subic, not stationed but just visiting from the Midway AirWing, in the '60's and I can tell you that if we were given a mission we did our level best to do it properly.
Additionally, I have some experience doing air searches and I can tell you that under the best of circumstances they are not easy. People are small objects and it's a big world.
The Mark 1 Mod 2 eyeball is not the optimal location device .... but it's what we have to make do with.
Bill Torgerson (who has about a 50% success rate)
-
Jeff, well said! I think your post nails it on the head.
-
Some insight into the attitude of at least one of the Colorado pilots toward the Earhart search may be had from Lt. jg William Short's letter home, written during the search (also on the Finding Amelia DVD). In the mid-1930s U.S. Naval Aviation was somewhat like that of the Royal Air Force in those years - small, laid back, everybody knew everybody, sort of an exclusive flying club.
Ric, from my experience, that is still the atmosphere in Naval aviation, at least it was at Subic Bay with the 7th Fleet in the 60s and 70s.
You say that like it's a BAD thing...
~ A former Naval Aviator
Not a bad thing at all my friend. I did service with the Navy Seawolves and they were some of the finest aviators that I ever knew. Quite a number of them are fellow members of the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association. (VHPA).
-
I just watched the TIGHAR video of the helicopter tour of Nikumaroro again (for about the 10th time, but the first time in awhile). What strikes me is how much larger the island looks in the video compared to the Sat photo. It also convincingly shows how difficult it would be to spot someone on the ground even at the low altitude that the helicopter was flying.
I once sat through a presentation on human visual perception that was given by a ph'd researcher and former director of a lab at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. I wish that I could remember his name, but his lab did some of the pioneering post-war research into this subject for the Navy. It was a fascinating presentation and he said that the part of the eye (the fovea) that is responsible for resolving fine details such as reading text in a book, or looking for cars or pedestrians when driving, is tiny and represents an area that is about the same size as the tip of a thumb when held at arms length. The rest of the eye is used for peripheral vision and is good at detecting motion but not at resolving detail. He went on to say that the way that humans have evolved to use the fovea is to constantly scan the eye around which is used to "stitch" an image together in the brain. One of the points that he made in his presentation is that while scanning or searching with the fovea, a significant period of time can elapse before the fovea covers a wide area and finds something of interest. One of his key points was that if the viewer is in motion (like flying in a plane) then large areas will not be scanned before it passes by. Psycho-perceptual factors can also play a role. For example, if there is something visually interesting (sort of like a false positive), the fovea may linger on that object longer than necessary at the expense of searching other areas of interest. Looking at the shoreline at Niku, it is full of visually distracting objects that would make it hard to spot a person on the ground. This is especially true when one considers that the apparent size of a person on the ground (after factoring in the angle due to the height of the plane) is probably no more than a few feet. It would be interesting to hear his perspective of the 1937 Lambrecht search, I'm sure that after watching the helicopter video that he would put the odds of successfully finding someone on Niku based on a 5 minute overflight at higher altitude at close to nil. If this is of interest to Tighar I can put out some feelers and contact him, he seemed to be the type that would be very interested in the research that TIGHAR is doing and I'm sure that he would want to delve into this.
-
... It would be interesting to hear his perspective of the 1937 Lambrecht search, I'm sure that after watching the helicopter video that he would put the odds of successfully finding someone on Niku based on a 5 minute overflight at higher altitude at close to nil. If this is of interest to Tighar I can put out some feelers and contact him, he seemed to be the type that would be very interested in the research that TIGHAR is doing and I'm sure that he would want to delve into this.
There's no harm in approaching him in your own name and explaining your view to him.
The odds of a formal invitation from TIGHAR seem to me to be slight at this stage. The #1 activity these days is sorting through the material collected on Niku VI. Explaining how six pairs of eyes could have missed seeing them on the island comes second to trying to find evidence that they were there to be missed.
-
Hi Marty,
Okay I'll get in touch with him. It should be interesting to hear his perspective. My guess is that he'll think that 6 eyeballs won't change things very much because the overall probability is so low (6 times 0 is still 0). He may have some insights that could prove valuable though.
-
Okay I'll get in touch with him. It should be interesting to hear his perspective.
Agreed.
My guess is that he'll think that 6 eyeballs won't change things very much because the overall probability is so low (6 times 0 is still 0). He may have some insights that could prove valuable though.
His work certainly does help to account for how AE and FN might have been overlooked. In and of itself, that helps weaken one argument against the Niku hypothesis ("If they were on Niku, they would have been spotted on the 9th of July"), but it does not provide guidance for testing the hypothesis itself.
-
I have read in some of the discussion posts from about eight years ago that the three observers on the Colorado planes were ROTC cadets. I wonder where the trained observers were and why they were not aboard on this important mission.
The observers on the Gardner Island search were not ROTC cadets. Two were regular enlisted observers and one was the ship's Ass't 1st Lt. and Damage Control Officer. The "trained observers" were not trained in aerial searching. The mission of the battleship's planes was to act as forward observers to adjust the fire of the big guns.
In Lambrecth's report he writes about his cadet observer, "Writers of south sea island legends to the contrary, it took those natives exactly forty-five minutes to paddle three-quarters of a mile. But the wait supplied the Senior Aviator and his Cadet observer with sufficient time to take stock of their surroundings."
This was in the lagoon at Hull Island in the afternoon after the Gardner search. Do you know who this "cadet" was?
-
I have read in some of the discussion posts from about eight years ago that the three observers on the Colorado planes were ROTC cadets. I wonder where the trained observers were and why they were not aboard on this important mission.
The observers on the Gardner Island search were not ROTC cadets. Two were regular enlisted observers and one was the ship's Ass't 1st Lt. and Damage Control Officer. The "trained observers" were not trained in aerial searching. The mission of the battleship's planes was to act as forward observers to adjust the fire of the big guns.
In Lambrecth's report he writes about his cadet observer, "Writers of south sea island legends to the contrary, it took those natives exactly forty-five minutes to paddle three-quarters of a mile. But the wait supplied the Senior Aviator and his Cadet observer with sufficient time to take stock of their surroundings."
This was in the lagoon at Hull Island in the afternoon after the Gardner search. Do you know who this "cadet" was?
In answer to the question, on page 7 of the Colorado Lookout (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/ColoradoLookout/page7.pdf), the aviators who took part in the search are listed. “Aviators who took part in the search in addition to Lieut. Lambrecht, were Lieuts. (jg) L. O. Fox and W. B. Short, and Aviation Cadets J. A. Wilson, W. Jordan and R. A. Leake.”
-
The observer in the back seat of Lambrecht's airplane for the second flight on July 9 ( the flight during which Lambrecht landed in the lagoon at Hull) was Aviation Cadet J. Ashley "Ash" Wilson. He was a NAVCAD - Naval Aviation Cadet. NAVCADs went through flight training at Pensacola and then did what amounted to an internship before becoming full-fledged Naval Aviators. Ash Wilson went on to become a Capt. and served with distinction during WWII. I had a long and delightful telephone conversation with him early in the project. Great guy. I expect that he's probably gone by now.