TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on August 26, 2015, 08:49:46 AM
-
As as as we know, she never said that. Why didn't she say where she was?
In none of the post-loss distress calls is there any mention of the name of an island. That suggests that she did not know the name of the island where she had landed, although several of the credible messages reportedly included latitude/longitude coordinates (sadly, none has survived). How could she know the lat/long but not know the name of the island? One possible answer. The map used by the U.S. Navy to plot the search was the best map available that covered the Howland Island area but it didn't go as far south as Gardner. When the radio bearings on the distress calls indicated that the plane was somewhere south of the southern border of the map, the Navy extended the map with hand-drawn lines and drew in Gardner Island. If Earhart and Noonan were using that same chart they were off the map when they landed at Gardner.
-
Ric, I'm curious about this. I know Gardner wasn't the only island along the line they were on, but if Gardner wasn't on the map, how would they have known it was there? Or would they have happened upon it because it was on the line, not previously knowing of its existence? Fortunate find (I guess, seeing how it turned out) if they didn't know it was there.
-
Ric, I'm curious about this. I know Gardner wasn't the only island along the line they were on, but if Gardner wasn't on the map, how would they have known it was there? Or would they have happened upon it because it was on the line, not previously knowing of its existence? Fortunate find (I guess, seeing how it turned out) if they didn't know it was there.
Good question. I don't think they were ever intentionally headed for or looking for Gardner. I think the plan was always to find Howland. They hit the Line of Position and Howland wasn't there. They searched north on the line as far as they dared then they turned around and searched south ("We are on the line 157 337 running on line north and south). They found an island but it clearly wasn't Howland. Any port in a storm. They landed and Fred got their latitude by shooting the sun at local noon. At that point he knows they're off the map to the southeast of Howland. Maybe he gets an accurate lat/long that night but it doesn't help. They're off the map.
I used to think that Fred saw the Phoenix Group as an alternate from the start but if that was the case he should have known they were on Gardner.
-
That's what struck me, that if you were using a group of islands as a backup, you'd probably know what islands they were. If he didn't know they were there, what incredible luck that there were any islands there to be found. Would it be possible that he did know, but the alleged head injury made that information unobtainable to A.E.? If we don't know what coordinates they broadcasted, they could have been whatever she read off his notes after they landed, perhaps the last position he wrote down before being injured. (I realize this is all supposition. Just thinking through it to see how it may fit.)
-
Okay, the more I think about this, the more loathe I am to think a navigator of Fred's training, experience, and ability wouldn't know the Phoenix Group was there. It would seem an incredible coincidence those islands would be on the 157/337 line without him realizing it. Suppose he had the same map the Navy had, and just as they did, just extended the lines and drew in the Phoenix Group, maybe even writing in latitude and longitude for them. He may not have even written the names in, as he would have considered it an absolutely last ditch option anyway. I could see him not sharing the information with A.E., as her lackadaisical approach to navigation and Morse Code would indicate she was moving more into the entertainment/fame business that serious aviation, and would probably not be interested. After the alleged head injury, he was unable to share any of this with A.E., and she would just give the coordinates she could find on the map.
Of course, none of this can be proved, but is just an exercise in thought. It may help in putting some pieces in place (or not).
-
If he didn't know they were there, what incredible luck that there were any islands there to be found.
Well, the islands were there whether he knew about them or not. If he wasn't intentionally headed for them it doesn't matter whether he knew about them.
Would it be possible that he did know, but the alleged head injury made that information unobtainable to A.E.?
Sure. Anything is possible. What I like about the "off the map" explanation for why AE never said Gardner Island is its elegant simplicity. Occam would love it.
If we don't know what coordinates they broadcasted, they could have been whatever she read off his notes after they landed, perhaps the last position he wrote down before being injured. (I realize this is all supposition. Just thinking through it to see how it may fit.)
Or the coordinates could have been exactly correct. Another clue as to how much information she had is the mysterious "281 message." Howland is 280 nautical miles north of where we think she landed. Not quite accurate, but close.
-
That's why I think my second post fits pretty well. Everything seems to fit without needing any alien abductions, secret Japanese war construction, time/space warps, etc. It would all be pretty difficult to prove, though.
-
Okay, the more I think about this, the more loathe I am to think a navigator of Fred's training, experience, and ability wouldn't know the Phoenix Group was there.
Fred had no experience in the South Pacific. I see no reason to think he would be familiar with every island group in that part of the world.
It would seem an incredible coincidence those islands would be on the 157/337 line without him realizing it.
Your logic doesn't follow. The 157/337 line of position was determined by the time the sun rose. Fred did not select that line because he knew that Gardner was on it. The island was there whether Fred knew about it or not. The coincidence is that the island happens to be on a 157/337 line drawn through Howland. It was indeed fortunate but it had nothing to do with Fred.
Suppose he had the same map the Navy had, and just as they did, just extended the lines and drew in the Phoenix Group, maybe even writing in latitude and longitude for them.
Why would he do that? The Phoenix Group was over 300 nm from his planned destination. The only reason the Navy extended the map is because the Pan Am bearings crossed below the map's southern border.
He may not have even written the names in, as he would have considered it an absolutely last ditch option anyway.
You just fell into the "would have" trap.
Of course, none of this can be proved, but is just an exercise in thought.
That's right, but it's a worthwhile exercise.
-
I wouldn't expect he was familiar with the area. It just seems that as a professional navigator, Fred would likely do the research as to what land might be out there. While the Phoenix Group is over three hundred miles from his intended destination, it's still land, which beats the heck out of landing on water. Sorry about the "would have". I just meant it would seem to me that a careful navigator would try to plan for ANYTHING. (Same reason he carried a "preventer".) "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."
Would Fred have known what angle the Line of Position would be before the flight commenced? (I know very little about celestial navigation. Probably obvious.) If he did, it would seem reasonable that he would look to see if there were any usable landing spots along that line. It would probably come under the heading of "I don't really expect to ever have to use this, but just in case.........."
By the way, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. This is where I wish I could sit down over a cup of coffee with you and discuss it face to face, instead of this somewhat cumbersome method.
-
Would Fred have known what angle the Line of Position would be before the flight commenced? (I know very little about celestial navigation. Probably obvious.) If he did, it would seem reasonable that he would look to see if there were any usable landing spots along that line. It would probably come under the heading of "I don't really expect to ever have to use this, but just in case.........."
Once Fred knew within a day or two when they would be making the flight to Howland he could pre-compute the line of position he would get at sunrise, but if he didn't have a map that showed the Phoenix Group it still wouldn't help him. We just don't know how much he familiarized himself with the general geography of the region. That would seem prudent. Did he know there was an island group several hundred miles off to the southeast of his intended destination? Maybe, but without a good chart of the area he couldn't do any meaningful navigation toward an island.
By the way, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. This is where I wish I could sit down over a cup of coffee with you and discuss it face to face, instead of this somewhat cumbersome method.
That would be fun but then we couldn't share our profound wisdom with the rest of this august group.
-
I'm glad they're getting to see your wisdom, but I figure they're just putting up with whatever I have to offer.
Were there any good charts available at the time that would have had an accurate position of the Phoenix group? I ask because I seem to remember the Navy was worried about grounding a battleship on shoals that weren't even there. It's too bad we don't have an accurate list of what charts and such Fred had to work with. It would seem helpful to at least know what knowledge was available, even if we can't know exactly what he did with it.
-
Were there any good charts available at the time that would have had an accurate position of the Phoenix group?
Logically there should have been a chart that picked up where the northern one left off.
-
Is there a higher resolution version of that map available?
-
Although we know Noonan carried a lot of charts, he described his method of using plotting sheets for overwater work in his letter to PVH Weems outlining his Pan Am navigation techniques. Plotting sheets have only printed grid lines with values assigned by the user for latitude and longitude. It is possible he was using such a method because of insufficient space in the cockpit for a large chart. Plotting sheets are devoid of cultural and geographic features and would not have had any islands printed on them.
Noonan wrote:
“The actual chart work was carried out on VP-3 and 4 Aircraft Plotting Sheets. By working along the track from Alameda to the left-hand border of the chart, then transferring that termination of the track back to the right-hand border in the same latitude, and continuing in this manner, two sheets sufficed for the entire crossing.” (Weems, Air Navigation, p 423, 1938)
Examples of plotting sheets can be found here. (https://www.google.com/search?q=plotting+sheets+for+celestial+navigation&sa=X&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0CB4QsARqFQoTCJLhgsDKx8cCFUY6iAod_NcDgg)
-
Is there a higher resolution version of that map available?
There is a high-res facsimile of the map on the DVD that comes with the hard-cover edition of Finding Amelia. I'll put the PDF (51.8 MB) in a Dropbox. Any TIGHAR member who wants a link can just send me an email at ric@tighar.org
-
Although we know Noonan carried a lot of charts, he described his method of using plotting sheets for overwater work in his letter to PVH Weems outlining his Pan Am navigation techniques.
Whether it's radio or navigation or flight planning, it's easy to forget how differently Earhart and Noonan operated from the way we do things today.
-
Maybe the island was named. But never heard. Such as we are on Gardner island just north of Norwich city (NYC) as betty noted.
-
The U.S. Navy didn't have a nautical chart showing Gardner Island or the Phoenix Islands? Then how did the COLORADO navigate to Gardner Island? How was CAPT Friedell, CO of COLORADO, able to report to the Naval Hydrographic Office that the shape of Gardner Island, as depicted on the nautical chart he was using, was significantly in error, based on the observations Friedell and his crew collected as it sailed past Gardner Island? How was LT Lambrecht able to fly accurately to Gardner Island before the COLORADO sailed within sight of Gardner? How was Lambrecht able to accurately fly to all the other islands in the Phoenix group? C'mon, Ric. The Navy didn't have a chart of the Phoenix Islands? Try another explanation.
Jeff P.
-
Ricker, Would it have been standard procedure to pencil in any geographical features you felt to be important? (Such as the Phoenix Group?) In land navigation in the Marine Corps we would sometimes use a map overlay instead of needing a whole map sheet. We would draw in anything we felt we needed, leaving out stuff we didn't. Would it have been along those lines?
-
Is there a higher resolution version of that map available?
There is a high-res facsimile of the map on the DVD that comes with the hard-cover edition of Finding Amelia. I'll put the PDF (51.8 MB) in a Dropbox. Any TIGHAR member who wants a link can just send me an email at ric@tighar.org
Thanks. I apparently already have it then.
-
In reading about Fred and his background in navigation, particularly his work for the airlines in plotting the routes all across the Pacific, it would seem likely he knew just about every nook and cranny of the islands and at least an approximate location in relation to Howland, Baker, Gardner and the rest of them that were well known to aviators and military. Even if officially accurate charts were not yet available, wouldn't somebody like Fred have to know where the islands were and their proximity to each other? He was a pilot as well as a well established ship officer to say nothing about his better than ordinary general navigation skills. In 1937 it was only a few years before the landing strips and bases were built on many islands including Baker, Howland and others in the Phoenix Group.
-
I remember from the one of the videos that the shape of Gardner Island was drawn more "square" with a keyhole-shaped lagoon on maps prior to 1938. IIRC, this was how the island was represented until a refined shape was published in 1938. If Fred had seen other (USN) maps prior to the flight with Gardner on it and perhaps remembered it's "incorrect" shape (but as we we are discussing here, it is not on the USN maps of the Howland/Baker vicinity) it may be that he knew there was land to the south but as Howland was the destination, memorizing the names of those islands may not have been a priority or worrying about their shapes on a map back in the States. As you say Ric, "Any port in a storm". ???
-
The U.S. Navy didn't have a nautical chart showing Gardner Island or the Phoenix Islands? Then how did the COLORADO navigate to Gardner Island? How was CAPT Friedell, CO of COLORADO, able to report to the Naval Hydrographic Office that the shape of Gardner Island, as depicted on the nautical chart he was using, was significantly in error, based on the observations Friedell and his crew collected as it sailed past Gardner Island? How was LT Lambrecht able to fly accurately to Gardner Island before the COLORADO sailed within sight of Gardner? How was Lambrecht able to accurately fly to all the other islands in the Phoenix group? C'mon, Ric. The Navy didn't have a chart of the Phoenix Islands? Try another explanation.
The chart I posted was used by Admiral Murfin's office (14th Naval District HQ at Pearl Harbor) to record the search. Logically there should have been a chart that picked up where that one left off. As you say, COLORADO must have had a chart. So why did Murfin's office draw in the Gardner Island area instead of using the published chart? Maybe it was just easier.
The point is that the chart that included Howland Island did not show Gardner Island.
-
Maybe the island was named. But never heard. Such as we are on Gardner island just north of Norwich city (NYC) as betty noted.
That's possible but it seems odd that the name does not appear in any of the reports of post-loss receptions. Did everybody miss it?
-
In reading about Fred and his background in navigation, particularly his work for the airlines in plotting the routes all across the Pacific, it would seem likely he knew just about every nook and cranny of the islands and at least an approximate location in relation to Howland, Baker, Gardner and the rest of them that were well known to aviators and military.
Fred did not plot routes all across the Pacific. Fred worked only for Pan Am and only on the route across the North Pacific. His experience as a mariner was confined to the Atlantic and South America.
Even if officially accurate charts were not yet available, wouldn't somebody like Fred have to know where the islands were and their proximity to each other?
No. Officially accurate charts almost certainly were available. The charts he needed were the charts that covered his proposed route.
-
The missing aviators, if they lacked both a map and a name for their island, obviously might attempt to communicate their location by determining geographical coordinates, or proximity to other islands etc. I have sometimes enjoyed speculating that they might also have attempted to describe the shape of the island itself.
I was intrigued by the reference in Betty's notebook, page 53, to 'Fig 8', because from certain viewpoints Niku looks a bit like a figure 8. Well, I think so anyway! From low elevations and an appropriate viewing angle the point of land which extends into the lagoon near the top of Aukaraime North visually "comes close to" Bauareke Passage, thus one may perceive a lagoon in two parts partly separated by land.
I wonder if amongst the confusion of words and numbers Betty's half-heard snippet records an attempt by Earhart to describe the island's shape. Clearly there is nothing to be proven here. But its fun to speculate. The visual trick only works from some viewing positions, and not from others.
I encourage readers with Google Earth to have a little fly around and see what they think. I also wonder what that very select group of people who have actually seen Niku from the air think about my Figure 8 hypothesis.
-
I also wonder what that very select group of people who have actually seen Niku from the air think about my Figure 8 hypothesis.
I have to say that it never struck me as a figure 8 but I think it's a fascinating idea.
-
Ricker, Would it have been standard procedure to pencil in any geographical features you felt to be important? (Such as the Phoenix Group?) In land navigation in the Marine Corps we would sometimes use a map overlay instead of needing a whole map sheet. We would draw in anything we felt we needed, leaving out stuff we didn't. Would it have been along those lines?
It is sometimes done, for example aids or hazards to navigation, if the plotting sheet covers a significant area. Because celestial potting gets kind of busy, a simple large scale sheet is easier to use and the fix or position can be transferred to a chart for maintaining track, speeds, winds, etc.
-
See if this accurately summarizes the situation:
Unable to find the mapped island with their planned navigation and Coast Guard assistance, they were able to successfully locate an unmapped/unknown island 350 miles away starting from an unknown position while under life or death pressure running out of fuel... during which time they failed to communicate the change of plans and must have flown through clear enough sky to get a bearing and known their actual position, yet decided to continue further away from their target and support vessel.
-
See if this accurately summarizes the situation:
Unable to find the mapped island with their planned navigation and Coast Guard assistance, they were able to successfully locate an unmapped/unknown island 350 miles away starting from an unknown position while under life or death pressure running out of fuel... during which time they failed to communicate the change of plans and must have flown through clear enough sky to get a bearing and known their actual position, yet decided to continue further away from their target and support vessel.
The radio log evidence indicates were flying on a LOP, North and South to try to locate Howland, not knowing if they were north or south of it on that line. There is no evidence they were 350 miles from Gardner when doing this. See when they changed frequencies and the "donut" for the chances they could be heard. The donut provides a clue on how far they were from Howland. I think the evidence suggests that they were well south of Howland and while flying south on the LOP to locate Howland, spotted Gardner instead.
-
See if this accurately summarizes the situation:
Unable to find the mapped island with their planned navigation and Coast Guard assistance, they were able to successfully locate an unmapped/unknown island 350 miles away starting from an unknown position while under life or death pressure running out of fuel... during which time they failed to communicate the change of plans and must have flown through clear enough sky to get a bearing and known their actual position, yet decided to continue further away from their target and support vessel.
The radio log evidence indicates were flying on a LOP, North and South to try to locate Howland, not knowing if they were north or south of it on that line. There is no evidence they were 350 miles from Gardner when doing this. See when they changed frequencies and the "donut" for the chances they could be heard. The donut provides a clue on how far they were from Howland. I think the evidence suggest they were well south of Howland and while flying south on the LOP to locate Howland, spotted Gardner instead.
All of which held me spellbound for years - but we have the problem of clear skies in that sector ('stellar' conditions to S-SE and around Howland through night / into morning - according to Commander Thompson of Itasca, Cruise Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archivessubject.html#six) - see FACTS (b) and (h) on page 5).
By Thompson's words he speaks to clear skies for a 40 mile radius around Howland, so we can't know for certain what lay well outside that radius to the S-SE, it is realized, but Thompson also noted that the plane had reported "flight through cloudy and overcast skies throughout the night and morning" (see page 5 "FACTS" item (d) in above report), hence his belief that the plane was lost in the cloudy sector N and W of Howland beyond the horizon (40 miles or more away).
None of that disproves a Niku arrival per se - but we do have the problem that the airplane likely might have broken into clear skies and made a different report to Itasca had she gone to the S-SE sector, given what Thompson reported. We can at least see why his initial reflex was to search to the North and West from these things.
We also have the fact of the sun and moon both being visible in that clear area. Those bodies could have provided welcome references for Noonan had he been where he could see them.
Which also does not disprove Niku - odd things do happen - but it seems more odd to me than not as I reflect on these things that Earhart wound up in a clear sector given the record Itasca left us.
Before I am dismissed as a naysayer, I'll add that Friedell of the Colorado (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html) also used good evolving logic - and that is one strength behind the Niku idea: at the time, radio signals were believed to be coming from the plane, and as it had to be on land for that to happen, the Phoenix group was the best likelihood; Gardner (Niku) lay among those and not terribly far off the LOP as extended SSE from Howland as it is deemed determined at sunrise on July 2, 1937. We of course have Earhart's confirmed call that she believed the flight to be flying north and south along that line. We also know that Friedell knew that Itasca had already searched to the N and W of Howland, and that Friedell reasoned that Noonan might attempt to err toward alternate lands since he was in a landplane.
A conundrum, perhaps - but Thompson's observations were timely and made by an experienced crew and commander who felt the brunt of the responsibility to find the lost flight with all haste - and I'm reminded that most often one's first choice of answers in a multiple choice question is said to be correct. YMMV, of course - but Niku is no shoo-in to me at this point.
-
Or Baker, maybe Greg?
-
Or Baker, maybe Greg?
You seem to be referring to Greg's,
"I think the evidence suggest they were well south of Howland and while flying south on the LOP to locate Howland, spotted Gardner instead."
There were people on Baker.
-
See if this accurately summarizes the situation:
Unable to find the mapped island with their planned navigation and Coast Guard assistance, they were able to successfully locate an unmapped/unknown island 350 miles away starting from an unknown position
The radio log evidence indicates were flying on a LOP, North and South to try to locate Howland, not knowing if they were north or south of it on that line. There is no evidence they were 350 miles from Gardner when doing this.
All of which held me spellbound for years - but we have the problem of clear skies in that sector ('stellar' conditions to S-SE and around Howland through night / into morning - according to Commander Thompson of Itasca, Cruise Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archivessubject.html#six) - see FACTS (b) and (h) on page 5).
By Thompson's words he speaks to clear skies for a 40 mile radius around Howland, so we can't know for certain what lay well outside that radius to the S-SE, it is realized, but Thompson also noted that the plane had reported "flight through cloudy and overcast skies throughout the night and morning" (see page 5 "FACTS" item (d) in above report), hence his belief that the plane was lost in the cloudy sector N and W of Howland beyond the horizon (40 miles or more away).
I agree that Thompson describes conditions at or near Howland, within a “radius of 40 miles” for example. Based on the 3105 Donut (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_propagation), the chances they could be heard within 40 miles are not as good as them being heard from around 100nm to 200nm.
In addition to cloudy conditions being a possible problem, there are examples of people getting off course from equipment problems. Some were mentioned a few times on this forum. The Croyden (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_a_Reef:_A_Case_Study) and the example of Rickenbacker's B-17 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,525.msg7324.html#msg7324).
-
All of which held me spellbound for years - but we have the problem of clear skies in that sector ('stellar' conditions to S-SE and around Howland through night / into morning - according to Commander Thompson of Itasca, Cruise Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archivessubject.html#six) - see FACTS (b) and (h) on page 5).
Unfortunately, Thompson's after-action reports - both his Cruise Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Reports/ThompsonCruise.pdf) and his Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Reports/ThompsonTranscripts.pdf) are full of "facts" that are contradicted by more contemporaneous sources. The skies were not clear.
The ITASCA Deck Log (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/Itascadecklog.pdf) recorded "bc" (blue sky with detached clouds, what we would call "scattered') conditions throughout the morning. Having spent many a morning in that part of the world I can tell you that a scattered deck at about 1,500 feet is routine - which is probably why Earhart said she was flying at 1,000 feet when she was looking for Howland.
Thompson's reports were written after the search failed. They're full of errors and distortions that cover his butt. You have to go back to the original source material. It's all in Finding Amelia.
-
Not having Gardner & surrounding islands on a map makes it even less likely for me they would end up there. With fuel running out, they decide to probe ever southward, hour after hour, into the blank space of open ocean... ?
-
Not having Gardner & surrounding islands on a map makes it even less likely for me they would end up there. With fuel running out, they decide to probe ever southward, hour after hour, into the blank space of open ocean... ?
You really don't understand the situation. They were trying to find Howland. They were following the best procedure available to them under the circumstances. They came upon Gardner by accident while trying to find Howland. They did not "probe ever southward, hour after hour." If they hit the LOP 200 nm south of Howland they were within a little over an hour's flying time of Gardner.
-
I agree that Thompson describes conditions at or near Howland, within a “radius of 40 miles” for example.
Good example of Thompson's BS. ITASCA never ventured south of Howland. Thompson could not possibly know what conditions were like 40 miles away.
-
If they hit the LOP 200 nm south of Howland they were within a little over an hour's flying time of Gardner.
If they hit the LOP in that area they should have had clear enough skies, at that point, or during their exploration along the line, to pinpoint their location.
-
What would have been the "normal" degree of error north and south on an over-water leg of that length? I realize that would depend on wind, cloud cover, etc. I'm curious as to what Fred or other navigators would consider acceptable accuracy at the time. It would make a difference in how far out you'd plot potential landing spots (not too plentiful in the area) in case you missed your primary target.
-
I agree that Thompson describes conditions at or near Howland, within a “radius of 40 miles” for example.
Good example of Thompson's BS. ITASCA never ventured south of Howland. Thompson could not possibly know what conditions were like 40 miles away.
And do you know what conditions were there?
A 1000' high object can be seen at 46.95 statute miles by an observer 15 feet above the surface (http://www.terrypepper.com/lights/lists/visibility.htm). Don't you think significant weather at much greater altitudes than 1000' might have been seen by Itasca?
Commander Thompson was a professional seaman. I respect your research and writing, but it leaves me far from willing to impeach a professional observer and reporter and officer of the U.S. Coast Guard like Thompson as you just did upstream. We both seem to be amateurs at that sort of observation compared to Thompson.
---
Added: Examples of distant weather - and clear air beyond at 40+ miles:
-
As I see it, the problem with Thompson's report was that it didn't match the observations made at the time of the search. That tends to impeach his credibility. He certainly wasn't the first (or last) military officer to try to cover his butt by rewriting what happened to make himself look better.
It occurred to me that if Fred did have the Phoenix Group in mind as a backup landing spot (sort of a "preventer"), it would have been prudent to let someone know about it before setting out on that leg. "If we don't show up at Howland, you might look at some islands southeast of there." On the other hand, if they ended up on Gardner it could have been a total surprise to them that there were even islands there.
-
In Larremore's words, she reports hearing that "plane was down on an uncharted island. Small, uninhabited. Plane was partially on land, part in water" [my underlining]. Signal Catalog, credible report #28. AE apparently describing the island as uncharted is, IMO, pretty convincing support for Ric's incomplete-chart hypothesis.
Guthrie
-
What I find most unreal. Is that no answering wave was seen on the search flyover.
Unless they went down with the plane. But where did the bones and box come from then.
-
As I see it, the problem with Thompson's report was that it didn't match the observations made at the time of the search. That tends to impeach his credibility. He certainly wasn't the first (or last) military officer to try to cover his butt by rewriting what happened to make himself look better.
It occurred to me that if Fred did have the Phoenix Group in mind as a backup landing spot (sort of a "preventer"), it would have been prudent to let someone know about it before setting out on that leg. "If we don't show up at Howland, you might look at some islands southeast of there." On the other hand, if they ended up on Gardner it could have been a total surprise to them that there were even islands there.
From Itasca's deck log (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/Itascadecklog.pdf) -
Deck weather observation key (as to the essential attributes appearing from 1 a.m. to 10 a.m.):
Wx type:
B = Blue sky, cloudless;
BC = Blue sky with detached clouds
Cloud form:
a cu = Alto cumulus (larger white or greyish balls, with shaded portions, in flocks or rows, often so close that edges meet);
s cu = Strato cumulus (A succession of rolls of dark cloud which frequently cover the whole sky. The characteristic cloud of storm areas, especially the forepart of those areas);
cu = Cumulus (Thick clouds whose summits are domes with protuberances, but whose bases are flat, "woolpack" clouds).
Coverage: in 10ths ("2" = 2/10's, etc.)
Visibility factor:
8 = Prominent objects not visible at 20 miles
9 = Prominent objects visible above 20 miles
Hourly deck observations from July 2, 1937 (taken verbatim from log as to hour, Wx type, cloud form, direction and coverage and visibility) -
Hour Wx type Cloud form Dir. from Amt. Coverage Vis. factor
1 B - - -
2 B - - - 8
3 B - - - 8
4 BC a cu E 2 8
5 BC cu E 2 9
6 BC s cu ENE 4 9
7 BC cu E 3 9
8 BC cu E 3 9
9 BC cu E 2 9
10 BC cu ESE 3 9
11 BC s cu NE 5 9
12 BC cu ENE 5 9
From this it can be seen that the worst local conditions reported by the deck watch on Itasca during the crucial hours of 1 a.m. through 10 a.m. (regarding Earhart's approach and loss) was a sky coverage of 4/10ths of Strato cumulus at 6 a.m., visibility 9 (prominent objects visible at greater than 20 miles).
With predominantly blue skies and broken clouds (mostly cu's) at 2 to 3/10ths coverage and visibility factor of 9 for most of the hours involved, I don't see the problem with what Commander Thompson recorded. IMO he could have well seen 'stellar' navigation conditions off to the south and east for celestial work, and large cloud masses beyond the distant horizon to the west and north.
As I review this, I certainly don't see anything that would cause me to seek to impeach his record as 'butt covering'. We at least seem to lack the smoking gun needed to discredit a ship's master.
---
Added 8/28/2015 -
Example of distant weather taken from Statesboro / Savannah, GA areas on 8/28/2015 at around 6:30 p.m. - 45 miles+ distant:
-
A couple of thoughts on whether AE and FN knew where they were:
Gardner did have one unique feature: the Norwich City shipwreck. A couple of years ago I found a book at a library sale, copywrited 1940, as I recall, with a title like "Islands of the South Pacific". [Aside: my father fought on some of those islands in the 6th Marine Division, which was my original impetus to pick up the book.] I turned the pages to the Howland Islands, and there was Gardner, with a notation "Shipwreck" and an arrow pointing to the beach. [I later fowarded that book on to TIGHAR HQ, where I'm sure they need more stuff to archive.] So here's the point: If the wreck of the Norwich City was such common knowledge as to appear in a popular-reader book, it would not be surprising if it would have been common scuttlebutt among Pacific navigators and mariners, including Fred. Speculation, of course -- but we do know the one unique characteristic about the island that AE was broadcasting was "New York , New York" -- aka "Norwich City." If FN recognized the name from what he may have heard in countless airstrips and dockyards, that would be the priority message to send regarding their location. The other thought was, that may have been the limit of FN's contribution, if he had a head injury or was otherwise disabled. His comments in the Betty notebook transcript sound disoriented, helpless, almost raving at times. So real navigation may have been beyond him, even if his instruments were intact. Hence, no steady stream of precise longitude & lattitude figures to offer over the radio, just the random scraps of whatever data was at hand, primarily the ship, and maybe some half-remembered navigational aids (like, 280 miles from Howland)
Scott
#3292
-
All,
To add to Scott C. Mitchell’s points in his post no. 46 is the following quote from Ric’s post no. 1 under “Can’t help but wonder”;
"That’s the Pitcairn PCA-2 Autogyro AE flew across the country in May/June 1931. Six years later, on July 4, 1937, 16 year-old Rock Springs resident Dana Randolph picked up her distress call on his home shortwave set. “This is Amelia Earhart. Ship on reef southeast of Howland.” Dana reportedly hollered to his father in the kitchen, “Hey Paw! I got Miss Earhart!” The Randolph family were African American."
I wonder if Dana and/or his father went to the airfield to see Amelia when she came through in 1931. The guy on the extreme left in the photo could be African American."
It seems that AE did not know the name of the island. However, if Dana Randolph’s recorded transmission is accurate AE describes her location rather accurately – “ship on reef southeast of Howland”, the “281 message” (north to Howland), “figure 8 island”, etc.
These “location hearings” all give weight to the TIGHAR hypothesis of Niku being the place of landing.
Ted Campbell
-
What I find most unreal. Is that no answering wave was seen on the search flyover.
Unless they went down with the plane. But where did the bones and box come from then.
Here's link to a post I made a few years ago. I think this could be a possible explanation as to how they might not have been seen if they were indeed on the island when the searchers flew over.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg18644.html#msg18644
-
I know that this has probably been answered elsewhere (although I couldn't find it), but I have often wondered whether or not the loss of the starboard rear navigation window (patched during the week in Miami) might have played any role -- ever so slight -- in Earhart's and Noonan's ultimate failure to reach Howland Island. Whether it would have assisted in navigation or simply provided a better, unobstructed view of what was below, I just wonder if the window had not been patched would they have more readily found Howland.
-
I have often wondered whether or not the loss of the starboard rear navigation window (patched during the week in Miami) might have played any role -- ever so slight -- in Earhart's and Noonan's ultimate failure to reach Howland Island.
If we're right about the aircraft never coming within sight of Howland it's hard to imagine how the lack of another window would make any difference.
-
From Last Flight;
(Emphasis mine)
"...When you plan an automobile journey through New England, or, say, to Yellowstone, the needed maps can be had at any filling station. But with a flight around the world, much of it off the beaten paths of established air transport, there are complexities. It took many weeks to get all the maps and charts we wanted. Once secured, the courses to be followed were laid out in detail on them, mostly by Commander Clarence Williams of Los Angeles, who had helped me plot previous flights.
In final form flight charts are really lovely things. On them are drawn the compass courses with their periodic changes, distances, airports and the like. As supplementary data accumulates the marginal notes assume encyclopedic proportions. They concern details about airports, service facilities, prevailing winds, characteristics of local weather and terrain, critical altitudes, emergency landing possibilities and the like....{ end quote}
The line in green, if true and written by Earhart I believe is telling; It suggests to me that a lot of study went into the effort, not merely a skimming over. The purpose of the gained knowledge seems spelled out for us in the next line in bold.....yes, the necessary things, but note, the unexpected is also included...Emergency landing possibilities....
Clarence Williams, is credited in helping develop the planned route along with Amelia;
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/223/rec/561
I wonder the brainstorming that must have taken place during the discussions, when it came to trying to handle what many people would agree was the most difficult leg (Howland) .... one may reason that there was a 'what if plan' ,..... what if we can't find it?...someone mentioned she thought the Gilberts would be that plan, ...what else? Why not the phoenix group? Did she know about them? Looking at several images of Amelia with maps seem to show her intended route , and if my eyes don't decieve me, the Phoenix group seems to be included in most of them.( See attachments).
Fred ,....Fred, is holding a map alongside Amelia, does that map show the Phoenix group....unclear to me, but it seems too. Timezone maps of the era, http://cartotecadigital.icc.cat/cdm/ref/collection/monregions/id/394 indicate the Phoenix group as well.
I agree , if the pair landed on Gardner, they may well not have known what island they were on,... but , if Fred and Amelia both did their homework, I don't know how they wouldn't know about the Phoenix group to the South?
-
Jerry...Interesting read! Thanks!!!! As I was reading your post, I wandered this possible scenario as to find Gardner Island. In most cases if we get lost or have gone too far we either have to turn around or make a complete circle back to where we started. The map illustration with Amelia glancing at it helps out alot to define this scenario. So basically, once she crossed that starred point in red, she had to circle back to find Howland. If you think about it...I don't believe they thought for one minute that it was Gardner Island, but Howland Island! Anyway, just a thought!
-
Randy,
Circling back to your destination can take two widely recognized forms.
1. Get a fix due to now being out from under overcast or figuring out the DF and make a U turn back to your destination.
2. Run an expanding search, fly an expanding square with the first leg equal to visibility, say 20 miles. Turn right or left, most illustrations show a left turn, and fly 20 miles. Turn left again and this time fly 40 miles expanding your square.
IF the navigator hasn't had a fix for several hours but is able to get a sun line, then he would be much more lost north and south along the line than east and west of the line. An accepted rule of thumb says you get 10% more lost for each hour you fly without a fix. In this case it can be argued that searching up and down the advance LOP is the most efficient search. Remember unless you get additional sun sights you get lost on the LOP too since you are not flying the LOP but a DR magnetic course that takes you up or down the LOP. The only way to stay on a LOP without DR drift is by the single body approach method
Neff
-
I don't understand the point of this discussion.
-
I can't speak for others,.....but the area of interest for myself is whether or not Earhart was educated about any surrounding Emergency landing areas in the event Howland was missed, per her quote from the last flight...
In final form flight charts are really lovely things. On them are drawn the compass courses with their periodic changes, distances, airports and the like. As supplementary data accumulates the marginal notes assume encyclopedic proportions. They concern details about airports, service facilities, prevailing winds, characteristics of local weather and terrain, critical altitudes, emergency landing possibilities and the like.
I realize the last flight book,and any statements, quotes within it,may have been embellished upon a bit,by George P....so some may have to be taken with a grain of salt....However; it seems that she surrounded herself with those who knew the who, what and where's ( Williams, Noonan,Mantz,) to mention some, in fact in her employ for that purpose. If Earhart didn't know of the existence of the Phoenix chain, maybe a share of the blame lies with them, and that is why the word Phoenix or Gardner is never heard in any radio transmission.....but consider,....even if Earhart was dis-interested in their existence, even up until her last in air transmission, and later, they did indeed spot Gardner,....Now, I will try not to say Wouldn't....But, Before Fred possibly became incapacitated upon landing may he have enlightened her, to the term Phoenix, if he didn't know which island they saw? What was Fred's reason for being along , if not to know these things?
-
But, Before Fred possibly became incapacitated upon landing may he have enlightened her, to the term Phoenix, if he didn't know which island they saw?
If he did, why does neither the word "Gardner" or "Phoenix" occur in any of the post-loss messages?
What was Fred's reason for being along , if not to know these things?
Fred's reason for being along was to provide navigational guidance for the flight through pilotage, dead reckoning, and celestial observations.
-
If he did, why does neither the word "Gardner" or "Phoenix" occur in any of the post-loss messages?
Therein , lies one of the problems concerning the credibility of the post loss messages. Please rationalize;....How does one go off into the night, searching for a sliver of land that means your life, without exploring all of options available to save that life (yours), in the event you miss your target?
-
Remember, just because they weren't heard (or recorded) doesn't mean they weren't 'said'.
-
Therein , lies one of the problems concerning the credibility of the post loss messages. Please rationalize;....How does one go off into the night, searching for a sliver of land that means your life, without exploring all of options available to save that life (yours), in the event you miss your target?
Although you didn't express it in those words, you are employing the "would have" fallacy. Earhart (or Noonan) could not have (fill in the blank) because he/she would have (fill in the blank). "Would have" is a guess masquerading as a fact.
How does one go off into the night, searching for a sliver of land that means your life, without knowing how to use or verifying the reliability of the one piece of equipment that is essential for finding that sliver of land? How does one set off to fly around the world in 1937 without knowing Morse code? Neither is rational and yet we know she did both. For that matter, she might also have blown off Kelly Johnson's recommendations and run out of gas an hour after only 20.2 hours of flight - except we know that she didn't do that because we know that she reached land somewhere, landed, and sent radio distress calls for nearly a week.
If you want to question the credibility of the post-loss signals come up with credible alternative explanations for them.
-
Remember, just because they weren't heard (or recorded) doesn't mean they weren't 'said'.
That's true, but if she knew the name of the island or the group of islands why did she try to give her location by describing her surroundings rather than just saying the name. "Ship on reef southeast of Howland"; "281 north"; "NY NY": "near little island"; etc.?
-
Ted. This is the first I have read about Dana Randolf. I know sometime in my life. I heard of ship on reef etc. Where can I read about this? I did a search and it only came up with betty's notebook threads and posts.
-
Ted. This is the first I have read about Dana Randolf. I know sometime in my life. I heard of ship on reef etc. Where can I read about this? I did a search and it only came up with betty's notebook threads and posts.
At the top of every page of the Forum, there is a tab called "Search TIGHAR." (http://tighar.org/info)
Inside the page to which the tab leads is a special Google Search box for the TIGHAR website.
If you put "Dana Randolph" in the special TIGHAR Google Search box, you get 79 results (https://www.google.com/search?q=dana+randolph&sitesearch=tighar.org&gfe_rd=ssl&ei=YQT4VfukBoum-AXU4ZSYCw).
All of those results are references to "Dana Randolph" on the TIGHAR website.
-
How does one go off into the night, searching for a sliver of land that means your life, without knowing how to use or verifying the reliability of the one piece of equipment that is essential for finding that sliver of land? How does one set off to fly around the world in 1937 without knowing Morse code? Neither is rational and yet we know she did both.
I agree 100%,.....I believe when asked a similar question by someone , she responded " Why do I need those things? I have a navigator" ....or something to that effect.
It seems Amelia, was very fond of map H.O. 5192, I already attached a few images of this map in my preceding post,....here she is with another one; http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/221/rec/684
This one seems the clearest, and one can make out various cities in the legend.
That makes at least three times she posed with that particular map, and seem to show the Phoenix group. Here is another version; http://www.wdl.org/en/item/6776/
Ric,
You posted this in late August-
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1728.msg38138.html#msg38138
"...Fred did not plot routes all across the Pacific. Fred worked only for Pan Am and only on the route across the North Pacific. His experience as a mariner was confined to the Atlantic and South America.
Quote from: Bob Smith on August 26, 2015, 04:39:37 PM
Even if officially accurate charts were not yet available, wouldn't somebody like Fred have to know where the islands were and their proximity to each other?
No. Officially accurate charts almost certainly were available. The charts he needed were the charts that covered his proposed route.
-------------------------------------------------
Ric,
Most of the charts actually used to plot the route around the world were probably ordered directly from the "General Catalogue of Mariners' and Aviators' Charts, Corrected to January 1935 U.S. Hydrographic Office"
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822008699613;view=1up;seq=166
The H.O. chart that depicts Howland Island in large scale, and in the greatest detail- No. 1198- is listed
under the heading- "Islands Northwest of Phoenix Islands."
http://i.imgur.com/1qBOLvD.png
20 cents !...mark that a bargain
Another item; A bit before the Earhart lifeoff from lae, there was an expedition to study the solar eclipse at canton island;
This article;
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/PA.../0045//0000253.000.html
It has been covered here on Tighar before as well ; http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,360.0.html ....one wonders how much Amelia and Fred knew about the group and their activities on Canton?
-
Ted. This is the first I have read about Dana Randolf. I know sometime in my life. I heard of ship on reef etc. Where can I read about this? I did a search and it only came up with betty's notebook threads and posts.
At the top of every page of the Forum, there is a tab called "Search TIGHAR." (http://tighar.org/info)
Inside the page to which the tab leads is a special Google Search box for the TIGHAR website.
If you put "Dana Randolph" in the special TIGHAR Google Search box, you get 79 results (https://www.google.com/search?q=dana+randolph&sitesearch=tighar.org&gfe_rd=ssl&ei=YQT4VfukBoum-AXU4ZSYCw).
All of those results are references to "Dana Randolph" on the TIGHAR website.
I was spelling it wrong.
Ted had mentioned recordings. That is what I wad asking about finding out about. It does seem there may not actually be any recording though.
-
I was spelling it wrong.
Ah.
BTDT, got the scars to prove it.
Ted had mentioned recordings. That is what I wad asking about finding out about. It does seem there may not actually be any recording though.
Ted did not mention "recordings." He called the reports from various and sundry listeners "hearings":
"... Six years later, on July 4, 1937, 16 year-old Rock Springs resident Dana Randolph picked up her distress call on his home shortwave set. “This is Amelia Earhart. Ship on reef southeast of Howland.” Dana reportedly hollered to his father in the kitchen, “Hey Paw! I got Miss Earhart!” The Randolph family were African American."
...
These “location hearings” all give weight to the TIGHAR hypothesis of Niku being the place of landing.
-
All,
To add to Scott C. Mitchell’s points in his post no. 46 is the following quote from Ric’s post no. 1 under “Can’t help but wonder”;
"That’s the Pitcairn PCA-2 Autogyro AE flew across the country in May/June 1931. Six years later, on July 4, 1937, 16 year-old Rock Springs resident Dana Randolph picked up her distress call on his home shortwave set. “This is Amelia Earhart. Ship on reef southeast of Howland.” Dana reportedly hollered to his father in the kitchen, “Hey Paw! I got Miss Earhart!” The Randolph family were African American."
I wonder if Dana and/or his father went to the airfield to see Amelia when she came through in 1931. The guy on the extreme left in the photo could be African American."
It seems that AE did not know the name of the island. However, if Dana Randolph’s recorded transmission is accurate AE describes her location rather accurately – “ship on reef southeast of Howland”, the “281 message” (north to Howland), “figure 8 island”, etc.
These “location hearings” all give weight to the TIGHAR hypothesis of Niku being the place of landing.
Ted Campbell
Marty, I think that Craig's question comes from a misinterpretation of a phrase elsewhere in Ted's post.
Craig, "recorded" in this case merely means that Dana Randolph's report of hearing something was written down ("recorded") in a newspaper ... Not that what he heard on his radio was saved on some kind of electronic device.
-
Marty, I think that Craig's question comes from a misinterpretation of a phrase elsewhere in Ted's post.
Craig, "recorded" in this case merely means that Dana Randolph's report of hearing something was written down ("recorded") in a newspaper ... Not that what he heard on his radio was saved on some kind of electronic device.
Thanks, Bruce!
That does make sense. :)
I was searching the thread for "recording." ::)
-
Yes it was the recorded statement.