Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Remember also that Fred Goerner, the guy who interviewed Lambrecht many years later, was firmly invested in Earhart NOT being on Gardner.  We do not have a transcript of the interview.  All we have is Goerner's later recollection of what Lambrecht told him.  There MAY be a transcript or an audio recording of the interview among Goerner's papers which are housed at the National Museum of the Pacific War (formerly the Nimitz Museum) in Fredericksburg, TX.

Dope slap.  Goerner's questions to Lambrecht and Lambrecht's answers..

[Doug E Shaw]

I live just NW of Austin and may be able to make a trip to Fredericksburg this weekend. Been a few years since I've been to the museum plus good food around the town. I'll send a note to the museum w/ the ask may I review "transcript or an audio recording of the interview among Goerner's papers".

Doug

[John Klier]

Hi Doug,

I live in Austin and grew up in Fredericksburg. I've been a volunteer with the living history program at the museum for a while as well.  If you are planning to head up there I could find out who would be the best person to talk to. I know a  number of the staff members there.

John Klier

I live just NW of Austin and may be able to make a trip to Fredericksburg this weekend. Been a few years since I've been to the museum plus good food around the town. I'll send a note to the museum w/ the ask may I review "transcript or an audio recording of the interview among Goerner's papers".

Doug

[Doug E Shaw]

John -
I would absolutely appreciate an introduction and the personal relationship you have will probably go a lot further than an e-mail from a stranger. I secured the wife's approval and I'll drive up Sat Aug 9 w/ ETA around 1300. Other than gas should only cost me stops on the wine trail, food and shopping...

Ric/Jeffery -
Other than the obvious am I looking for anything else?

[JNev]

John -
I would absolutely appreciate an introduction and the personal relationship you have will probably go a lot further than an e-mail from a stranger. I secured the wife's approval and I'll drive up Sat Aug 9 w/ ETA around 1300. Other than gas should only cost me stops on the wine trail, food and shopping...

Ric/Jeffery -
Other than the obvious am I looking for anything else?

John Klier and Doug Shaw - you are both very generous gents.  Do look at Ric's post above though (Dope slap  ) - he may have answered this for us (not to deprive anyone of a drive through that lovely country or a visit to that fine museum).

[Ric Gillespie]

Per my "dope slap" posting, I don't think you're going to find an interview with Lambrecht.  Goerner seems to have done it all via letters.  You should find correspondence with Betty Klenck in the late 1960s.  We have that correspondence via Betty.  (she tried to get him interested in her notebook but he blew her off.)

Be sure to check out Goerner's collaboration with Fred Hooven in the early 1980s. Fascinating research that led them to - wait for it - Gardner Island.

[Doug E Shaw]

Rgr, got it.

[JNev]

Per my "dope slap" posting, I don't think you're going to find an interview with Lambrecht.  Goerner seems to have done it all via letters.  You should find correspondence with Betty Klenck in the late 1960s.  We have that correspondence via Betty.  (she tried to get him interested in her notebook but he blew her off.)

Be sure to check out Goerner's collaboration with Fred Hooven in the early 1980s. Fascinating research that led them to - wait for it - Gardner Island.

How Hooven came to believe Gardner was the place, and what he thought happened next (why not found there) is a fascinating parallel story itself.

[Dave Ross Wilkinson]

How Hooven came to believe Gardner was the place, and what he thought happened next (why not found there) is a fascinating parallel story itself.

The Hooven report (1982) is fascinating reading for anyone like myself who hasn't 'been there before'. 

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html

He offers his own theory of the loss of the Electra, and throughout much of his narrative he is virtually 'dead on' every aspect of Tighar's Niku hypothesis; right up the point that credible post-loss radio signals ceased to be heard. 

He offers an alternative explanation for Amelia's inability to hear radio from Itasca:  She had planned to use the DF loop antenna (rather than her belly antenna) for 3105 and 6210 receiving.  He explains why the DF loop was totally unsuitable for such short wave use:  Only when Earhart's plane was nearly on top of Itasca would she be able to hear their 3105 and 6210 transmissions.  And that DF loop couldn't be 'nulled' at those high frequencies. Which pretty much squares with the evidence. 

He also explains that short wave frequencies were unreliable over relatively short distances.  Lower frequency 3105 would, presumably  be more reliable than the higher frequency 6210.  Which, in simple terms, explains why her last inflight signals were heard on 3105 and vanished when she switched to 6210.   

To my mind, then it would suggest that the Electra was very, very close to Howland when she reported hearing signals from Itasca.

I have to admit that when I read Hooven, a few years ago, I started to tune him out when he seemed to ascribe personal motives to her leaving his ADF behind.  I'll certainly be more careful from now on.

[John Klier]

Per my "dope slap" posting, I don't think you're going to find an interview with Lambrecht.  Goerner seems to have done it all via letters.  You should find correspondence with Betty Klenck in the late 1960s.  We have that correspondence via Betty.  (she tried to get him interested in her notebook but he blew her off.)

Be sure to check out Goerner's collaboration with Fred Hooven in the early 1980s. Fascinating research that led them to - wait for it - Gardner Island.

Understood. Consider it a standing offer. If you ever need anything from the museum there I'd be happy to help or assist anyone else interested in doing the legwork like Doug. I spent many hours at that museum as a kid both looking at the artifacts and volunteering for things like building model dioramas. Moved into volunteering with living history and military vehicle maintenance/restoration as an adult.

This is a good lead in to tell what caught my interest in Earhart. When I was very young I remember a display they had at the museum that was just a rusty pile of gears from an engine.  The display said that initially it was thought these could have been from the electra but later they found Japanese part numbers on them so they were ruled out. I remember wondering how someone could actually disappear without a trace and I found that fascinating!

[Michael Calvin Powell]

I never noticed before but Lambrecht's answers focus on the possibility of the plane landing in a lagoon, "inside the barrier reef" or on a beach.  He didn't seem to consider the possibility of a landing directly on a reef.  That might have lead him to neglect a close inspection of debris on the reef - such as the Brevington object.  All speculation of course.

[Ric Gillespie]

He offers an alternative explanation for Amelia's inability to hear radio from Itasca:  She had planned to use the DF loop antenna (rather than her belly antenna) for 3105 and 6210 receiving.  He explains why the DF loop was totally unsuitable for such short wave use:  Only when Earhart's plane was nearly on top of Itasca would she be able to hear their 3105 and 6210 transmissions.  And that DF loop couldn't be 'nulled' at those high frequencies. Which pretty much squares with the evidence.

I think Hooven was jumping to a conclusion when he wrote:
"Before taking off on her fateful round-the-world flight Miss Earhart had announced that she did not intend to use her radio receiver for communication, that she would broadcast her position on the quarter and three quarter hour, reserving her receiver for direction-finding purposes. From this it can be concluded that her receiver was connected only to the loop antenna and that she did not realize that the loop would be substantially useless at frequencies above 1500 kc, either as a loop or as an antenna. Thus it was that she did not hear the Itasca’s signals until she was closest to Howland, at which time she finally reported hearing the signals but that she could not get a minimum."

That's not quite right.  The belly antenna was connected to the receiver.  You can see the lead-in wire from the belly antenna to where the receiver was located under the co-pilot's seat.  Earhart's statement implies that she would only use the receiver for direction finding and would not listen for messages. We know that she did, in fact, listen for messages.

The only time Earhart heard anything on the morning of July 2nd was when she decided to try to DF on Itasca and asked them to give her a "long count" on 7500 kcs.  They sent "A"s in Morse code (they had no voice capability on 7500) and she heard them.  If she had been listening on the loop all along why did she hear the "A"s and not hear Itasca's voice transmission on 3105?  I think she could switch back and forth between the belly antenna and the loop (otherwise, why have the belly antenna at all?).  The belly antenna was missing so she heard nothing until she decided to try to DF and switched to the loop.  When she didn't get a minimum she switched back to the misusing belly antenna and heard nothing.  Had she stayed on the loop she would have heard Itasca's voice transmissions on 3105.



 
He also explains that short wave frequencies were unreliable over relatively short distances.  Lower frequency 3105 would, presumably  be more reliable than the higher frequency 6210.  Which, in simple terms, explains why her last inflight signals were heard on 3105 and vanished when she switched to 6210.   

To my mind, then it would suggest that the Electra was very, very close to Howland when she reported hearing signals from Itasca.
[/quote]

Others have been of the same mind.  That's why four expeditions have spent millions of dollars searching the ocean bottom near Howland. Nothing has been found.

Computer modeling of the Electra's transmitting antenna reveals a flaw in the propagation pattern.  See "The 3105 Donut"  and the graph attached here..  For Itasca to hear transmissions from AE as loudly as they did, she had to be at least 150 and maybe as much as 250 miles away.

[JNev]

How Hooven came to believe Gardner was the place, and what he thought happened next (why not found there) is a fascinating parallel story itself.

The Hooven report (1982) is fascinating reading for anyone like myself who hasn't 'been there before'. 

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html

He offers his own theory of the loss of the Electra, and throughout much of his narrative he is virtually 'dead on' every aspect of Tighar's Niku hypothesis; right up the point that credible post-loss radio signals ceased to be heard. 

He offers an alternative explanation for Amelia's inability to hear radio from Itasca:  She had planned to use the DF loop antenna (rather than her belly antenna) for 3105 and 6210 receiving.  He explains why the DF loop was totally unsuitable for such short wave use:  Only when Earhart's plane was nearly on top of Itasca would she be able to hear their 3105 and 6210 transmissions.  And that DF loop couldn't be 'nulled' at those high frequencies. Which pretty much squares with the evidence. 

He also explains that short wave frequencies were unreliable over relatively short distances.  Lower frequency 3105 would, presumably  be more reliable than the higher frequency 6210.  Which, in simple terms, explains why her last inflight signals were heard on 3105 and vanished when she switched to 6210.   

To my mind, then it would suggest that the Electra was very, very close to Howland when she reported hearing signals from Itasca.

I have to admit that when I read Hooven, a few years ago, I started to tune him out when he seemed to ascribe personal motives to her leaving his ADF behind.  I'll certainly be more careful from now on.

I'm sure I'll draw some fire, but my belief is that she may have been very close indeed and failed to see the island - and more incredibly, was failed to be noticed for whatever set of reasons.

We've talked about noise and how a twin of the Electra's order might be heard for several miles, and the cloud shadows vs. definable island point of view many times.  Smoke from Itasca has been debated as well.  Fact is, we don't know exactly how conditions looked from her vantage point in the morning sun there, and how it may have obscured the island.  She might have passed within 10 miles and never clued in and gone unheard by people on the ground at Howland.

We'll never know - but as mentioned elsewhere, Tantalus would be piqued.

[Tim Gard]

I'm sure I'll draw some fire, but my belief is that she may have been very close indeed and failed to see the island - and more incredibly, was failed to be noticed for whatever set of reasons.

The closer they are presumed to have been to Howland, the less credible their arrival at Gardiner.

I agree with Ric. I think they hit the LOP so far to the south east that their search efforts never took them even as far north as the equator.

The notebook suggests their Gardiner Island transmissions were terminated by the rising tide rather than fuel exhaustion.

[Dave Ross Wilkinson]

Had she stayed on the loop she would have heard Itasca's voice transmissions on 3105.
...
Computer modeling of the Electra's transmitting antenna reveals a flaw in the propagation pattern.  See "The 3105 Donut"  and the graph attached here..  For Itasca to hear transmissions from AE as loudly as they did, she had to be at least 150 and maybe as much as 250 miles away.

Help me out with this apparent contradiction.    Earhart was receiving the 7500kcs signal from Itasca at a time she was being heard S5 at Itasca, seemingly in the donut, 150-250 miles out.  But Hooven is emphatic about the loop antenna being unable to respond to only the strongest signals.  It would see to be a "pretty good" antenna if her loop was picking Itasca at a distance of 150-250 miles.