Hunt the Electra (Drift in the Dark Part 9)

[Colin Taylor]

Hunt the Electra

Now that the sediment has settled on the aircraft-shaped rocky outcrop on the ocean floor, we can return to the sport of Hunt the Electra. With a copy of the Electra 10 Flight Manual, I have revisited the Lae-Howland flightplan and the calculations for the actual wind and the reserve fuel.

In the recreated flight plan the ETA for Howland at 19:10GCT (07:40L) tallies closely with Earhart's call at 07:42L '..we must be on you..' but that just means that her time was based on the forecast wind (ENE (068+/-12)/15kts), and revised with the fix at 159E longitude. It seems more likely that the wind and therefore the headwind were stronger than that because Earhart had reported a stronger wind (23kts) at 159E, and the upper wind had been measured by Itasca the previous day as Easterly (090+/-12)/22kts.

 Instead, if we assume that her call at 07:57L '..circling..' was the revised ETA at Howland based on the sunrise observation, then we can use that time to calculate the actual wind. We can project the air-position forward to 19:27GCT (07:57L), as on the chart. Then we can plot the triangle of velocities based on the forecast wind, 2 degrees right drift and 12hrs 13mins elapsed time between waypoint 4 at 07:14GCT and the air-position at 19:27GCT. The line from the air-position back to Howland is the effect of the forecast wind-vector, during 12hrs 13mins.

 The line from the air-position to the supposed ground position on the 157/337 line of position 140nm North of Howland is a wind-vector illustrating the effect of the wind during 12hrs 13mins to give a wind of 103T/18kts which is closer to the 090T/22kts measured by Itasca the day before. Using the Electra flight manual, the reserve fuel can be recalculated at 19:31GCT (19:27 plus 4mins circling) giving 3hr 53min at 36gph and 120kts.

Search pattern

I theorise that Earhart must have hit the 157/337 position line about 140nm North of Howland because, given her fuel reserve, she could fly South for an hour at 120 kts but she never saw the island or the ship and must then have been about 20 miles short. On the other hand, to reach the position line further North than 140nm would require a greater crosswind component and a much greater wind from a more South Easterly direction, which is unlikely.

As an example, after 19:27GCT (07:57L) if she flew at 120 kts and 36gph in a search pattern comprising 4 mins circling and then flying 1 hour South and 2 hours North, she would have reached about 5 degrees North Latitude, about 281nm North of Howland at 11:01L before turning South again. With 53mins spare, going South again, she ends at position 3.50N 177.50W at about 11:54L. This position is about 165 nm North of Howland.

5 degrees North

At about 09:00L, when they may have been within a half degree Latitude North of Howland, an observation of the low, rising Sun may not have been sufficiently accurate to resolve the ambiguity whether they were North or South of Howland. 

If Earhart flew North then at about 11:00L it should have been possible for Noonan to shoot the Sun and determine his Latitude, which would be about 5 degrees North and unambiguously North of Howland. They would then surely have turned South again.

 Itasca reported heavy clouds to the North of Howland. To sight the Sun, it would be necessary to climb above the clouds which would mean they would lose sight of the surface and any chance of sighting the island or the ship. A difficult decision to make.

 That search pattern North and South on the Howland position line is a track distance of 465nm plus say 250 miles since the initial position line at sunrise to give a 10% circle of uncertainty of 72nm radius.

  North of that position, radio reception for Itasca would be S3 to S4 – readable with difficulty, but nothing was heard.

[Colin Taylor]

 
Itasca's search cruise

In this particular scenario the ditching was at 11:54L on the 2nd July and the drift was about 12 miles per day to the West. The ditching location was in an area which was not searched, as shown on the chart.

 Two days later Itasca was searching about 200nm West of Howland and was diverted late on the 4th to sail to 281 North Howland, taking about 21hours at 12kts arriving in the evening of the 5th. En-route they would have passed close by any floating wreckage about 36 nm West of the ditching position at about 09:30am local time on the 5th. Two weeks later any floating wreckage was in the area searched by aircraft from the Lexington on the 18th, but again nothing was found.

[Ric Gillespie]

Any serious hypothesis that the Electra ditched at sea (for which there is no evidence) must provide plausible explanations for the abundant evidence that it didn't.

[Colin Taylor]

Any serious hypothesis that the Electra ditched at sea (for which there is no evidence) must provide plausible explanations for the abundant evidence that it didn't.

My hypothesis is that the wind forecast used by Earhart and Noonan was wrong, leading to a deviation North of track. My conclusion is that the flight ended North Northwest of Howland. But the area was never searched.

My analysis is supported by actual weather reports. The post-loss circumstantial evidence can plausibly be explained away but that is a matter of opinion.

[Ric Gillespie]

The post-loss circumstantial evidence can plausibly be explained away but that is a matter of opinion.

So, by all means ... explain away. For starters:

•  Who was sending transmissions on 3105 kcs from Gardner Island?

•  What is the object visible in the 1937 Bevington photo?

•  Who was the female castaway whose remains were found in 1940?

[Colin Taylor]

The post-loss circumstantial evidence can plausibly be explained away but that is a matter of opinion.

So, by all means ... explain away. For starters:

•  Who was the female castaway whose remains were found in 1940?

The castaway was not female. 

The bones found on Gardner Island were described by Dr Hoodless, who actually handled them, as those of a 5ft 5in (stocky) male aged 45 to 55 years. The bones are now lost.

On the basis of Hoodless' measurements, Dr Jantz said, it might be a tall woman. He then said that the bones were more likely Earhart than 99% of women. If the bones were male that would not be surprising!

In his report Jantz' observes that 11 men from the SS Norwich City died but were undocumented so he disregards them. He uncritically thinks Earhart was 'in the area and went missing'. His conclusion was to suppose that Earhart was on the island and then the bones were more likely her's than Noonan's.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Jantz' FORDISC computer program: 'A 2009 study found that even in favourable circumstances, FORDISC 3.0 can be expected to classify no more than 1 per cent of specimens with confidence'.

[Colin Taylor]

The post-loss circumstantial evidence can plausibly be explained away but that is a matter of opinion.

So, by all means ... explain away. For starters:

•  Who was sending transmissions on 3105 kcs from Gardner Island?

In my opinion nobody transmitted from Gardner Island.

Of the eight Pan Am/Howland DF signals, only two were concurrent. They were all weak and bi-directionally ambiguous which indicates multiple different sources, not one single source. You may as well ask who was transmitting from Japan, Aleutians, North America Fiji or New Zealand. Yes, I know that Brandenberg dismissed these possibilities. 

If Earhart had found an Island to land on and was subsequently able to transmit from the ground, she would have been able to transmit from height before landing. No such message was heard. No pre-loss signals from her were heard by anyone other than Itasca, Nauru and Lae. All the islands where they could have landed were inspected from the air and no traces of the Electra or the crew were seen.

The Pan Am radio bearings were described by Brandenberg as follows: 'All of the bearings were approximate at best, due to weakness and short duration of signals, and potential terrain interference effects in the case of the Mokapu site. And none of the signals included conclusive evidence as to the source identify'.

The signals were typically described for example as '...rough bearing only possible,  due to weakness and swinging of signals....and....close to 3105 but signals so weak that it was impossible to obtain even a fair check. Average seems to be around 215 degrees – very doubtful bearing'. 

The bearings were reported to the nearest degree but were unlikely to be that accurate because the range was far beyond the tested service range of the DF stations which were intended to be used over ranges of a few hundred miles. In my opinion a tolerance of at least +/- 10 degrees was more likely which equates to +/- 300nm at a range of 1800nm.

Two of the bearings were thought to be test signals from Itasca. One was plotted within 5degrees but the other was 40degrees off.

The signals heard by amateur radio enthusiasts in the continental United States were weak and barely readable, improbably distant and off frequency. There were no callsigns or position reports. Although characterised as distress calls, listeners reported only single words or sounds of voices or conversation as if in a radio play or radio discussion. Even the operator at Nauru could not decipher the faint signal he heard.

[Colin Taylor]

The post-loss circumstantial evidence can plausibly be explained away but that is a matter of opinion.

So, by all means ... explain away. For starters:

•  What is the object visible in the 1937 Bevington photo?

The artifact in the Bevington photo is simply a few grains of photographic emulsion in the print resulting from dust or a blemish on the negative.

At the time the picture was taken the photographer did not remark that there was an object visible nor did the subsequent inhabitants of the island. Nothing was found during the modern underwater search.

[Kenton E. Spading]

Colin,  Thank you for the insightful hypothesis of Earhart's flight plan/execution and other topics of interest.  Your discussion of "deviation north of track" [to NW of Howland] aligns with other published analyses.  I have studied these and now yours and are unable to discount them outright.   I want to discuss your flight plan analysis and other research in more detail.   I will private message you.

I came to the same conclusion you arrived at regarding the Pan-Am/Direction bearings.  For example: bi-directional, few concurrent, approximate at best and doubtful bearings.  The post-loss messages heard in the USA and elsewhere, although suggestive of Earhart, lend themselves to various non-Earhart interpretations. 

Regarding the question of the Niku Castaway's bones belonging to Earhart or someone else; In 2019 [updated in 2024] I published a paper outlining an hypotheses the castaway was the lost sailor Saleh Ragee from the 1929 shipwrecked SS Norwich City.   Saleh Ragee's 5-foot, 6-inch height is consistent with the castaway's height.  The paper is published here: Niku Norwich City Castaway and attached to this forum post as a PDF. 

I published this paper because in Dr. Jantz's 2018 Niku Castaway/Earhart/Bones paper in Forensic Anthropology Volume 1, No. 2: on page 96 [also see p. 94] he challenged researchers to dig deeper with this statement:

"From a forensic perspective the most parsimonious scenario is that the bones are those of Amelia Earhart.  .......it is impossible to test any other hypothesis, because except for the victims of the Norwich City wreck, about whom we have no data, no other specific missing persons have been reported. It is not enough merely to say that the remains are most likely those of a stocky male without specifying who this stocky male might have been."

I took up the challenge given I had been researching the lost Norwich City sailors since 1998 while I was in the United Kingdom.   Dr. Jantz collaborated with me on my Norwich City/Castaway 2019/2024 paper as noted in the text and references. Dr. Jantz is currently collaborating with me on a second Niku castaway-related paper that attempts to take the research to the next level by estimating the length of Ragee's long bones using techniques Jantz utilized in his 2018 paper for Earhart.   We now have an estimate of Ragee's long bones which are similar to the castaway's.  However, the remaining step involves calculating a Radius/Humerus (R/H) ratio to align with the R/H Jantz 2018 calculated for the Castaway and Earhart.  Calculating the R/H ratio for middle eastern/Yemeni proxy populations is proving to be a challenging next step. However, I remain diligent. 

Your discussion above includes a response to this question [from Ric]:
"Who was the female castaway whose remains were found in 1940?"

Kenton replies: No where in the published literature has it been stated the castaway was conclusively female.  Neither Dr. Jantz or Dr. Burns in their 1998 TIGHAR Tracks, Volume 14, No. 2 [pgs. 4-11] paper, or Dr. Jantz in his 2018, paper stated the castaway was female.  To the contrary: From Page 9 in the Jantz/Burns 1998 paper:

"Assuming the skull represents a person of European ancestry, the FORDISC analysis indicates that the individual represented was most likely female. Unfortunately the level of certainty is very low; the female/male probability is ca. .65/.35. If Hoodless measured orbit breadth in a different way, such that the orbits were in fact a couple of millimeters greater as measured today, this would change the classification to male, with male/female probabilities of .53/.47."

And from Page 88 in the Jantz 2018 paper:
"The most prudent position concerning sex of the Nikumaroro bones is to consider them unknown."

Gerald Gallagher, who recovered the bones and artifacts, suggested the castaway might be female based solely on the recovered sole of shoe which he described as:

"Part of" [a shoe] "sole" [that] "appears to have been a stoutish waking shoe or heavy sandal"   My conclusion ... [that the] Shoe was a woman's... [is] based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's ... probably size 10."

As I point out in my 2019/2024 paper, given Saleh Ragee was Arab, he wore sandals.   The soles of Arabian sandals often times contain decorative stitching that appears female to western eyes/culture.

I concede the point that Jantz's 2018 paper suggests the castaway was Earhart and therefore female by outlining an impressive amount of data. Indeed the castaway could have been a female. However the forensic analysis does not say that. It is implied the castaway was "Female" based mostly on the similarity of the measurements of the castaway's long bones compared to an estimate of Earhart's long bones.  I am not saying the castaway was not Earhart.  However, as Jantz points out on pages 94 and 96 of his 2018 report, if he knew more about the lost Norwich City sailors the paper's conclusion could change.  With Dr. Jantz's kind assistance, I am working on pursuing this line of research which will include, similar to Jantz's 2018 paper, a discussion of the prior odds and posterior probability of either Earhart or Ragee being on the island.

Which brings us to a discussion of the prior odds Jantz considered regarding Earhart dying on Nikumaroro Island which have changed since he published in 2018.  He cites the [Tom] King 2012 paper while specifically mentioning the shoe and sextant box Gallagher recovered.   

Quoting Jantz 2018, Page 1:
"Also found were part of a shoe, judged to have been a woman's; a sextant box, designed to carry a Brandis Navy Surveying Sextant manufactured circa 1918; and a Benedictine bottle."

Quoting Jantz 2018, Page 94:
"The woman's shoe and the American sextant box are not artifacts likely to have been associated with a survivor of the Norwich City wreck."

Quoting Jantz 2018, Page 96:
"In the present instance, readers can supply their own interpretation of the prior evidence, summarized by King (2012)."

My 2019/2024 paper casts reasonable doubt on the shoe sole being conclusively female and the sextant box has, since 2018, Thanks to John Kada, conclusively been attributed to a box lost on Niku by the US Navy ca. 1938.

King 2012 lists the aluminum aircraft skin, Artifact 2-2-V-1, as being potentially Earhart related. However others, including Tom Palshaw, NEAM, and Jeff Glickan, Phototek, attribute it to a C-47. Within that vein, Ric Gillespie has announced a paper he will publish soon suggesting 2-2-V-1 is attributable to Earhart's electra so the jury is out.  That is a story for another day.   A lost Norwich City sailor surviving as a castaway is a "Null Hypothesis".  The introduction to my 2018/2024 paper by Tom King, linked above and attached below, touches on the "Hull Hypothesis".

Thank you,
Kenton Spading,
Inquiries welcomed at: KSpading@Comcast.net

[Colin Taylor]

Quoting myself:

As an example, after 19:27GCT (07:57L) if she flew at 120 kts and 36gph in a search pattern comprising 4 mins circling and then flying 1 hour South and 2 hours North, she would have reached about 5 degrees North Latitude, about 281nm North of Howland at 11:01L before turning South again. With 53mins spare, going South again, she ends at position 3.50N 177.50W at about 11:54L. This position is about 165 nm North of Howland.

I just realised that 165nm North of Howland is within 4 nm of 2.81 degrees North of Howland. Small world full of coincidences, or what?

[Greg Daspit]

Regarding the Radio, Bevington Object and Castaway responses I have a few comments:

Quote: "If Earhart had found an Island to land on and was subsequently able to transmit from the ground, she would have been able to transmit from height before landing. No such message was heard"
The landing window occurred after she changed frequency to 6210kcs, a frequency Itasca could not hear. Earhart:"WL REPT THIS ON 6210KCS", Itasca:"PLS STAY ON 3105 KCS DO NOT HR U ON 6210" The only Itasca signals Earhart acknowledged hearing were 7500khz signals on her DF Antenna. She didn't hear the "stay on 3105" message and changed to 6210. Not hearing her didn't mean she crashed. She just changed to a frequency they couldn't hear.

"Bi-directional" bearings or Reciprocals:
I don't think Brandenburg analysis "dismissed the possibilities" but he calculated probabilities. For example, some reciprocals were 4 and 8 million times less likely than coming from Gardner.  He did not dismiss them. Brandenburg's analysis of the bearings including reciprocals strongly supported Tighar's Hypothesis.
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/RDFAnalysis/RDFpaper.htm
For Mokapu's  213 bearing. Brandenburg calculated that Gardner was 71,000 times more likely the source than the possible reciprocal source. See more related to that one below.

Quote: "Only two were concurrent"
Two is enough.

Quote: "There were no callsigns or position reports" ,"listeners reported only single words or sounds of voices"
Dana Randolph heard the position in a sentence. Quote: "Ship is on a reef south of the equator."  The Coast Guard message reported "position on a reef southeast of Howland"
He heard the call sign with only one letter wrong (or mistranslated) in the reporting. He also heard the sentence "This is Amelia Earhart" .  Randolph heard this coincident to Mokapu's 213 bearing. There are others that heard more than single words, including a woman who heard Earhart at the same time as the Dana Randolph heard her.

Quote: conversation as if in a radio play
Randolph heard Amelia July 4. The March of Time radio play wasn't until July 8

Quote: The artifact in the Bevington photo is simply a few grains of photographic emulsion in the print resulting from dust or a blemish on the negative.
The professional photo analysts disagree.  I also did a study of the landing gear with the lighting at the time and place the photo was taken calculated using a computer program. Placing the fender in the model resulted in a reflection on the water in the same place as the image. Cutting the tire like what occurred in the Luke Field accident allowed light to hit the worm gear like in the image. At the same time, this cut created a cave shadow in the tire, in the same place as in the image. Part sizes, shades and hues are the same from studies Jeff Glickman did.  My opinion is that the object is the landing gear, and it is not based on just looking at the image. I am interested to see how anyone determined it is the result of dust or a blemish in the negative.

The Castaway:
A modern forensic anthropologist has a far bigger database for bones than a doctor who measured them did in in 1940 .  At the fire features indicating castaway behavior there were small bottles associated with women cosmetics, and some dated well after the Norwich City wreck and well before the Loran Station. For example 1933 Campana Italian Balm.  It was the #1 hand lotion in US in the America during the 30's. Just one of many artifacts found there suggesting the castaway was an American woman of the 30's.

[Colin Taylor]

I am only offering plausible alternatives but I will add this

"Bi-directional" bearings or Reciprocals:

As I see it, a weak signal bearing or a reciprocal is equally likely. Daytime operational transmissions and night shift maintenance signals are equally likely. Hawaii is equi-distant between N America and Gardner. Midway is closer to Alaska than Gardner. Wake Island is nearer to Japan than Gardner. A weak signal received through the side-lobe is likely to be stronger than a weak signal received through the 'minimum'.

 So, how can anyone say that a weak signal is thousands or millions of times more likely from Gardner than from elsewhere?

...the Bevington photo is simply a few grains of photographic emulsion...

The print is only 2.5 x 3.5 inches. I can easily count 20+ blemishes.