Print

[john a delsing]

Good article (s) bill. Information we didn't have. Thanks.

[Matt Revington]

Bill, interesting tale and another example of the problem with depending on witness statements to recreate an event.

However I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of what Glickman did, he stated that he could not prove that the film was fake based on the way he analysed it, he did not say the film was genuine, to go back after the hoaxers had admitted their fraud and say whoops now I see it's a fraud would not add to his credibility.
As for the bevington photo, I believe he said only that the object was consistent with that part of the Electra, there are many other things that would be consistent with that shape but few others that would have likely been found on the beach at that point.  His conclusions have been supported by other analysts.  No one that I know has claimed it was smoking gun , just a piece of evidence that supported the idea that AE had landed in that part of reef and which encouraged further searching in that part of the reef slope.
Glickman is not infallible but when you check his online cv it's impressive and indicates he's probably as good as anyone out there for this kind of analysis .  In the end given the bluriness of the image the best that anyone can do with this is say something along the lines of what he said and then go there and see if that object is around that site.

[Chuck Varney]

I do hope that you noticed that in addition to a link at the top to the source of that chart, that I had also provided a link below "This report discusses each of the eight Bearings" and that report with several pages on each bearing discusses all of the problems you have posted and more.

Over 50 pages in that report and I advise anyone with an interest to spend some time to read it.  I see that Gary has a link to a different report and perhaps it is a simplified version of the same as it is only 10 pages.

Art,

Yes, I did take note of your link.

If you go to the beginning of the RDF report version that Gary linked and compare the report in its entirety to the version that you linked, you’ll find them to be effectively identical in length and content.

One point of my last post was that if one has source material at hand—whether it’s for lines drawn on a map or for assessing someone else’s conclusions—it’s a good idea to read the source material before drawing your own conclusions about meaning or content.

BTW, additional RDF-related material is accessible from these links:
   DF site tables
   Pan Am Memos

Chuck

[Bill Roe]

Bill, interesting tale and another example of the problem with depending on witness statements to recreate an event.

.........  In the end given the bluriness of the image the best that anyone can do with this is say something along the lines of what he said and then go there and see if that object is around that site.

Yupper and I understand.  At the same time there's millions being spent on expeditions and running Tighar.  Given what we know.......Wait a minute - even before we knew it - .....it may have been a wise investment to locate an expert in private industry, provide him with what we know, provide him with what we believe based on other evidence and obtain a second opinion.  Now that would make believers of all of us.

[Bill Roe]

One more thing and this was brought to my attention by PM -

Back in September 1937 Bevington and his cohorts were there at Gardner Island.  They had to know about Earhart missing in that geographical area.  I'm wondering why Bevington or at least one of his cohorts did not recognized a piece of flotsam as something man made - something with a big rubber tire on it?

Sure the picture shows it as a dot, however the human eye is certainly capable of discerning something unusual and out of place.  In fact I've done it - from two miles away.  Standing on my beach on Lake Ontario and observing people on Gull Island.  But no one in his party or himself saw it.

[Malcolm McKay]

This reply should really be in the Bevington object thread but as this has drifted slightly a short response is warranted here. In the other thread I have asked, and I am awaiting a reply from Ric, if there was any analysis done of the other anomalies present in the Bevington photo (which I and others have noted) to see if they have similar image characteristics as that which has been used when enlarged and with the overlay of scale drawings to claim that it is the u/c of an Electra. I base this request on conversations I have had with people I know, who are photo experts, regarding their interpretation of what is shown in the enlarged anomaly. That is not to claim that Mr Glickman is wrong only that there can be other interpretations.

[Malcolm McKay]

However I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of what Glickman did, he stated that he could not prove that the film was fake based on the way he analysed it, he did not say the film was genuine, to go back after the hoaxers had admitted their fraud and say whoops now I see it's a fraud would not add to his credibility.

You are right in the sense that the film is real, it is only the subject of it which is a fake. So in that sense Mr Glickman is right in the broad sense, however if one takes the analysis to the accuracy of the film's subject it is apparent that Mr Glickman didn't have the necessary basic knowledge of primate physiology to take that one step further and show that the subject was a fake. But that is not a criticism of Mr Glickman - he stuck to his brief regarding whether the film showed an actual living moving being - it did.

Once, a fair old time back, I had the task of teaching first year archaeology students the rudiments of human evolution in a highly condensed form as a preface to the actual prehistory part of the course. Naturally one did a fair bit of preparation for this and accordingly I did build up a good basic knowledge (probably more than was necessary to pass on to the students in time allotted) and although Sasquatch didn't cop a mention (after all why should it in a legitimate university course) I knew the first time I ever saw that film many years ago that it was a fake. The walk, the skull structure etc. are all simple giveaways and I am surprised that this fake still seems to hang around the fringe. But then that is what the lunatic fringe like and who am I to spoil their fun.   

[pilotart]

I do hope that you noticed that in addition to a link at the top to the source of that chart, that I had also provided a link below "This report discusses each of the eight Bearings" and that report with several pages on each bearing discusses all of the problems you have posted and more.

Over 50 pages in that report and I advise anyone with an interest to spend some time to read it.  I see that Gary has a link to a different report and perhaps it is a simplified version of the same as it is only 10 pages.

Art,

Yes, I did take note of your link.

If you go to the beginning of the RDF report version that Gary linked and compare the report in its entirety to the version that you linked, you’ll find them to be effectively identical in length and content.

One point of my last post was that if one has source material at hand—whether it’s for lines drawn on a map or for assessing someone else’s conclusions—it’s a good idea to read the source material before drawing your own conclusions about meaning or content.

BTW, additional RDF-related material is accessible from these links:
   DF site tables
   Pan Am Memos

Chuck

Chuck,

Thank you for your response and your links to further information.

It had been after my last post that I read Gary LaPook's link and of course soon realized that way beyond just the ten pages I had first glanced at, that it contained links within to seven more sections.  It is actually a much easier read than the one I posted a link for, as it not only has all of the text that my link contained, but is more logically laid out with all those graphics seen on the pages with the discussions.  As long as it was, mine was sort of a condensed version (lacking most of the graphics).

Also thank you for the link to those Pan Am Memos, it had been a long time since I had read those.

It would probably be best for a reader to look at the Pan Am Memos first, (your link) and then go to Bob Brandenburg's exhaustive analysis of RDF bearings (the one from GL's link).

I certainly agree with you that in order to form an opinion on RADIO DIRECTION FINDER BEARINGS (your link to the Large version) that they should be approached within the context of the above 'Memos' and 'Analysis'.

I do think that the above information adds greatly to the TIGHAR hypothesis and should not be rejected outright for the reasons Gary LaPook mentioned.

The poor signal qualities at those Pan Am HF/DF stations should certainly be expected under the circumstances. 

I agree that if they had just added some 'dots' to go along with the 'dashes' that were heard as Gary pointed out would have been so simple to do, we probably would not have this marvelous mystery at all.  Since they evidently were hearing those Honolulu Radio Station KGMB broadcasts requesting the plane to transmit four long dashes on 3105 KC, perhaps KGMB could have requested some 'short dashes' in a Morse Code format along with those long dashes that were being copied.  If they were able to transmit a 'carrier' for two hours, as Gary mentioned they could have included a lot of 'code' in that time.

It seems that the small amount of "poor" code that was copied, (by other than the Pan Am Stations) was mostly just gibberish and the only 'voice' that was copied did not reveal much about location either.  There were anecdotal stories of receiving position information that was recorded and then lost long ago.  No one knows what their mental (or physical) condition was at that time.

The only hope I see to completely resolve this portion of the mystery would be to find a miraculously preserved copy of a detailed log or diary or something somewhere....

As Malcom indicated 'few of us believe in miracles' but that just might be possible.

[pilotart]

Jeff,

In response to Malcom I had started this diversion into Radio Bearings with Gary and Chuck responding to me.

I don't know if those posts would fit better into 'Radio Reflections' but of course they had fit into this discussion as the Radio Bearings should be considered part of the Colorado search and why Lambrecht was looking at Gardner Island.

Earlier in a response to Bill, I had posted about "Landing on a Reef" to point out the possibility of the Electra existing on the Reef at Gardner Island for the Post-Loss Radio Messages to be transmitted from and draw the Colorado down to have a look.  (Gary; I know that Capt. Friedell did not include that in his report, they swept all the PL Radio Messages under the rug.)

Should I have used those responses (containing the quotes from Bill and Malcom) to begin new topics?

I have seen topics that contain quotes from other topics and don't know if that was a result of your hard work in organizing the forum by creating those topics, or if Forum Members had created those topics or posted into (appropriate) topics including the quotes that inspired the answer.

I would agree that the information about the Bevington Photo has little connection with the Colorado Search.

Anyone who has searched the old (email) forum will appreciate how easy it is to find information in this forum.  I thank the Administrators and Moderators for keeping this board so well organized.

I see that if I do a Forum Search for "reef landing" it produces twenty-two topics on eight boards and ten topics in General discussion with this topic at the top for both and then if I search again in this topic, my post shows at the top.  A Forum Search for "Radio Bearings" did not work quite the same...

[jgf1944]

Looking for an opinion from aviation folks. On the reef, is it feasible that the engine could have been run for 16 continuous hours (seems awfully long to me). If not, opinion, please, on the longest you think AE (or FN) would have run the engine...all for the purpose of operating the radio of course. Thanx, John #3245

[Bob Lanz]

Looking for an opinion from aviation folks. On the reef, is it feasible that the engine could have been run for 16 continuous hours (seems awfully long to me). If not, opinion, please, on the longest you think AE (or FN) would have run the engine...all for the purpose of operating the radio of course. Thanx, John #3245

Electra--burned 6 gallons per hour at 900 RPM. TIGHAR verified the engine and generator performance in 2009, in an experiment using an S3H1 engine and an E-5 generator. This result established that 900 RPM was the lowest speed Earhart could use for battery charging, and that she would burn 6 gph while doing so.


http://tighar.org/wiki/Lockheed_Electra_10E_Special_-_NR16020

[Bob Lanz]

May I remind all and especially new members, that many questions can be answered by using the How do I search tighar.org search engine and the TIGHAR news search.

[Gary LaPook]

Earlier in a response to Bill, I had posted about "Landing on a Reef" to point out the possibility of the Electra existing on the Reef at Gardner Island for the Post-Loss Radio Messages to be transmitted from and draw the Colorado down to have a look.  (Gary; I know that Capt. Friedell did not include that in his report, they swept all the PL Radio Messages under the rug.)

See Lambrecht's letter in which he discusses the planning for the search, no mention of radio bearing as affecting that planning. Lambrecht said exactly wht Fiedell said about this planning so I don't understand your comment about sweeping the bearings under the rug.

gl

[pilotart]

Gary,

Since they were of the opinion that the lost Electra had gone down into the sea, it would have been impossible in their view for any Post-Loss Radio messages to have come from the Electra.

I am not surprised that they did not mention any radio calls in their reports, perhaps it would be better to just say that the radio calls were ignored after their search had been completed.

[Gary LaPook]

Gary,

Since they were of the opinion that the lost Electra had gone down into the sea, it would have been impossible in their view for any Post-Loss Radio messages to have come from the Electra.

I am not surprised that they did not mention any radio calls in their reports, perhaps it would be better to just say that the radio calls were ignored after their search had been completed.

They might have come to that conclusion later but I was directing you to his comments about the planning the search when one hypothesis they were considering was that she was on one of the Phoenix islands which is why they searched them and that planning did not rely on any radio bearings, just as Freidell said, the 157 LOP and that they had to be on land to transmit and the Phoenix islands were the closest land.
gl