Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:39:07 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Responses to 1992 article Just a couple of comments on that article that Ric "wouldn't let us see": 1. I subscribed to the Pacific Daily News for the two years I lived on Saipan and in Chuuk (1977-79) and for a couple of years thereafter, and had some articles about me published therein. It's a pretty decent rag, but it ain't the New York Times. 2. Regarding: "Mary DeWitt, 43, of Fort Worth, Texas, was the photographer hired by TIGHAR to take pictures on the island." Comment: As far as I know, Mary was a volunteer like the rest of us. She had, and I presume still has, a deep interest in the Earhart mystery. Like a number of us, she experienced a good many interpersonal problems on the '89 Niku expedition, and afterwards was quite bitter -- and pretty vindictive -- about the whole thing. "She said the box was found on the first day out." I think that's true. It was near the Cooperative Store, which is close to the landing. I think we first noted it when we first came ashore. At this point we weren't picking up anything, and assumed that the village was the last place we'd want to look for airplane parts. "She said it was used as a firebreak, and after inspection, was discarded." I don't think she means that WE used it as a firebreak, but that it had been used as such by the colonists. I think that was something we speculated about as we kept stumbling over the thing en route to and from the landing. The implication that it was "discarded" after "inspection" is misleading. It was left in place after we first noted it, and thereafter, because we weren't yet focussed on the notion that airplane parts might be in the village. We thought the plane was probably elsewhere, and that it would be harder to separate them out from all the other junk in the village than to just find the plane, which we thought was sitting on the reef or in the jungle someplace (We were SO naive!). "It wasn't until the day the expedition team left Nikumaroro that Gillespie decided to bring it back as evidence, DeWitt said." I think that's true. By the end of the first expedition we'd sadly concluded that the plane wasn't sitting happily around someplace, and we HAD begun to find suggestive items in the village. The potential value of scattered parts collected by the colonists began to dawn on us, and we picked up a lot of aluminum pieces toward the end of the expedition. "DeWitt said the aluminum box was probably left by the Gilbertese or members of the Coast Guard because it was found in an area where both groups picnicked." Well.... It was found in a Gilbertese house site near the Cooperative Store. It's pretty certain that the Gilbertese were there, and it seems probable that the Coasties visited. "There was a general feeling that not much else would be discovered," said DeWitt, who braved the island's hot weather for three weeks. "We were all over that place." There was a general feeling of tremendous let-down and disappointment at the end of the first expedition, but the very fact that several of us also "braved the hot weather" (among other things) have been willing to go back and do it some more, and invest a good deal of thought and effort in the overall project, suggests that Mary's opinion may not have been universal. Of course, maybe RIC'S BRAINWASHED US, DICK!!! As for having been "all over that place," the '89 expedition was, in a way, our most EXTENSIVE reconnaissance; we did indeed go "all over" the island. But it was a once over lightly for the most part, and there were big areas that got only the most cursory of inspections. Southwestern Nutiran, for example, where the anecdotal and photographic evidence now suggests the possibility of wreckage, was barely touched. We walked the beach and poked into the brush a bit, but since we had no particular reason to think anything was there, and because the Scaevola was real thick, we didn't look into it in great detail. Anyway, thanks for finding lower case, dick. Tom King *************************************************************** From Ric Yes. Mary DeWitt was a volunteer like everyone else. *************************************************************** From Simon Ref: the article that Dick posted:- Still doesn't eliminate the possibliity that AE & FN died through eating poisonous fish relatively soon after landing. I sincerely doubt they had training in tropical survival techniques. Maude could easily miss bodies - especially in the location where the parts of a skeleton were found. I don't see anything that contrdicts TIGHAR's basic theory here - obviously a few details have been updated after the subsequent trips and further document discoveries. Simon ************************************************************** From Bill > From Dick Strippel > > hi, gang:: here's something ric may not want you to see: > > ((..large article omitted..)) > > From Ric > > I'll be happy to answer any questions forum members may have about the > information presented in the above article. Please don't be shy. While I'd find a "blow by blow" response to the points in the article interesting, I don't know that they'd actually be all that useful. I've had the experience of being first-person to a few incidents I later read about in news papers. The news reports have usually painted a picture of the event that didn't match my own experiences. I've usually written this off to the reporter working from notes, the need to compress large events into small columns, the natural tendency of humans to view things through their own experiences and/or conceptions (even when they try not to, one of the reasons for the scientific method), editors getting a hand in, the desire to find a story or a bring out a dramatic turn, and so forth. I don't see why Ric wouldn't want us to read this. It seems like a typical reporters - eye - view of a series of incidents. - Bill **************************************************************** From Mike Ruiz and the No Land Club*. The Pacific Daily News article by Santos is a good example of speculative journalism. TIGHAR'S detailed answers to our questions on this forum helped me to quickly sort fact from fiction. While interesting, the article is full of holes, and is not applicable to helping us solve this mystery. Next. *************************************************************** From Tim Please inform me why TIGHAR hates Strippel, and why he hates you. I'm confused. Tim ************************************************************** From Ric If I hated, or felt threatened by, Dick Strippel do you think that I'd post stuff like that article? Dick once wrote a book arguing that Earhart crashed at sea. Now he seems to be upset that not everyone agrees with him. His hatred, if that's what it is, is not reserved only for TIGHAR. Our problem with Mr. Strippel has not been with his opinions, but his manner. At least with this most recent attack he has abandoned ALL CAPS invective and is now dredging up old, poorly researched newspaper articles. Eventually he'll figure out that the harder he tries, and the more he fails, to knock holes in TIGHAR's work, the better we look. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:59:44 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: AE time in type >Bottom line: It's hardly surprising that she lost it in Hawaii, but by the >time she took off from Lae she was very proficient in the airplane. Also, seems to me that the number of hours here could be a little misleading. AE seems to have done quite a lot of long hops resulting in, perhaps, fewer landings & takeoffs (the "difficult" bits :-) so her "experience" may have been less than the hours indicate. I agree with Ric's comments about it not being surprising she ground looped at Hawaii due to low multi hours. With those big engines you'd have to be quick to react to a problem. However, relating this to the July 2nd disappearance, surely her lack of specifically multi-engine experience doesn't really come into play here. If both engines are functioning then isn't it just like having two sets of levers instead of one ? (I'm showing my inexperience here - I only have a single rating - Ric's gonna tear me to pieces :-) She was obviously a seasoned enough pilot to know that if she was gonna have to ditch or force land on an island then it should be done whilst still under power with some fuel left, avoiding the possibility of one engine stopping before the other when fuel was very low. Simon *************************************************************** From Ric I agree with Simon that, once the takeoff was successfully accomplished, multi-engine experience (or lack thereof) had little to do with the July 2nd flight. AE's attitude toward the prospect of ditching the Electra is worth discussing. She never actually expounded on the subject, as far as I know, but certain of her actions seem to indicate that she didn't think much of the idea. The inventory of the airplane taken after the March 20 crackup reveals that no liferaft was aboard - just personal life vests. But no parachutes were in the inventory either. "Last Flight" claims that, to save weight, parachutes were sent home from Darwin, Australia during the second world flight attempt. However, newspaper articles datelined Darwin report that parachutes were shipped there in advance and picked up by AE and FN when they arrived. We have no way of knowing whether the 'chutes were aboard for the Lae/Howland leg or whether there was a liferaft on the airplane at that time. Interestingly, when Linda Finch was planning her recreation of the world flight she was very concerned about the prospect of having to ditch her Electra. She pointed out that the nose structure of the airplane forward of the wing (i.e. the cockpit) is of extremely lightweight construction which might well collapse, trapping the occupants in the event of a water landing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:02:53 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Fred's head Ric wrote: >I talked to Jeff Glickman at Photek about Mike Ruiz's idea of comparing Dr. >Hoodless's 1941 measurements of the skull with photos of Fred's head. > . . . >Biometrics is a well-established and well-accepted form of identification. >The standard is usually six measurements of a skull. If all six match photos >of the person in question, the ID is considered to be absolutely positive. > >We don't have six measurements. We have four - the width and height of the eye >socket and the length and breadth of the skull. We do have lots of pictures >of Fred and Amelia. In Jeff's opinion, it's worth a shot. Sounds very promising and exciting. Where is the skull now - you obviously have access to it ? Simon *************************************************************** From Ric Lord no. That's the point. All we have to go on are the measurments taken by Dr. Hoodless in 1941. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:07:40 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Biometrics Here's a quick tidbit to add about this: In March, 1992, Christopher Joyce and Eric Stover published a book entitled, "Witnesses From The Grave," which is an excellent accounting of the forensic pathology involved in human identification from skeletal remains, as was undertaken by scientist Clyde Snow. He identified the remains of Nazi Death Camp Doctor Josef Mengele, among others. Maybe Clyde's the expert to look at the bones in question! Thanks, Gene Dangelo :) **************************************************************** From Ric Look. Guys. Read my lips. We don't have any bones (yet anyway). We have some measurements taken of the bones by a British doctor in 1941. We worked with Clyde Snow in excavating the baby grave on Niku in 1991. We were in daily contact with him via satellite phone while we were conducting the dig. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:23:18 EDT From: Mike Strickland Subject: Wreck photo resolution Simon wrote: > I'm trying to do some more studying of the Wreck Photo. > Believe it or not, I get a much better image to study if I scan the > photo in the latest TRACKS rather than use the one on the web page. This is somewhat off-topic, but the reason you get better image quality from the photo in TRACKS vs. the website is because images for the web are generally no better than 72 dots per inch (dpi) in resolution, whereas print quality images are generally 150dpi resolution or better. Just thought this might help.... Michael Strickland A budding AE fan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:56:37 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: On Strippel I believe this Forum must stay as open as possible to all views. I vote that you continue to choose which of Strippel's comments to send out to the Forum, as you do with everyone else. Besides, I think every group needs a curmudgeon as part of the mix. In any case, a click of the mouse deletes the message - even before reading it. Blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:58:15 EDT From: unknown Subject: the biometrics project There is an excellent picture of FN with Mantz, AE, and Manning in the photograph section between pages 48 and 49 of the Loomis book. Fred has his face turned ever so slightly, but I remember the picture because I thought that it was the best picture of him that I had ever seen, and, indeed, he was a handsome man. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:31:25 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: 1992 response-comedic relief I know this is off the subject...but I just want you to know that you make me laugh out loud when I read your responses (like today's for example). That's not to say that I don't find what you write interesting, au contraire! but it's nice to have a little comedic relief :) Thanks for your refreshing outlook. P.S. Do you provide the entertainment on TIGHAR's expeditions? Keep 'em smilin' Tom Barb ************************************************************ From Ric To Tom I you don't tell her, I will. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:34:14 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: On Strippel Jerry Hamilton wrote: > I believe this Forum must stay as open as possible to all views. I vote > that you continue to choose which of Strippel's comments to send out to the > Forum, as you do with everyone else. Besides, I think every group needs a > curmudgeon as part of the mix. In any case, a click of the mouse deletes > the message - even before reading it. I agree with Jerry. Lets see what Dick has to say. We can make up our own minds and I know how to delete. Don ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:51:19 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Noonan - attn Wiley You're back on the Forum, good. The last time, early April, you mentioned some interesting info about Fred Noonan and his first wife. You said she lived in Florida and he had two sons. Do you have any more detail on the sons, or the dates she lived in Florida? Do you know, or have contact with, Helen Day Bible who is mentioned as a friend of Noonan's in the Susan Butler book? Since you weren't able to contact me last time, I'm hopeful I'll hear from you this time. You can contact me at jham@ccnet.com. Thanks for the help. Blue skies, jham (#2128) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:58:20 EDT From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Sextants/octants >Since the late '30's at least (can't vouch for Fred) all aircraft bubble > 'sextants' were octants. Their field prism rotated 45 deg. (one octant > of a circle) to scan from the the horizon to the zenith ; usually with a > 2 deg over run at each end. Wouldn't a scan from the horizon to the zenith be 90 degrees? Jerry W. Ellis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:17:46 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Reef-flat/Beach landing >At low tide portions of the reef flat might look really good.> My question has probably been answered somewhere but I don't remember... Was it low tide when AE and Fred arrived at Gardner around mid-day? I'm trying to visualize an alternate scenario in which they almost succeed in making a wheel-down landing on the beach. Sloping beach too soft... they loose a wing and an engine and the plane is well on the way to looking somwthing like The Wreck Photo. It's on the beach and not far from being in the trees as we see it in the photo. But I've got a problem getting the lost engine out on the reef where Bruce Yoho found it. As pointed out earlier engines are not much inclined to migrate. And another question occurs to me... Is the island growing? Does vegetation tend to hold the sand in place and gradually increase the perephery of the island? Maybe the plane just sat there and the vegetation grew up around it? Time scale? Who knows? **************************************************************** From Ric We can't be sure what the tidal state was at noon on July 2, 1937. Hindcasting the tide 61 years is tricky, especially when you don't have good current tidal information to begin with. If you're off just 6 hours it's the difference between low water and high water. We've considered the possibility of a botched beach landing. It could put a damaged airplane in the bushes, but as you note, it doesn't put an engine on the reef flat for Bruce to find. Neither does it leave a "piece of a wing" on the reef flat for Tapania to see. Also, the kind of damage to be expected from a ground-loop/cart-wheel accident would include impact damage to the nose that we don't see in the wreck photo. On the other hand, no matter how it got there, an airplane in the bush is worth a hundred on the bottom of the ocean. The island does not appear to be growing. The outline and dimensions seen in the earliest aerial photography (1937,'38,'39) are no different than what we see today. The vegetation is a different story. It shrinks and expands with the rainfall over the years. The beachfront treeline is also affected by storm activity - growing toward the shore in calm years and being ripped up and pushed back in stormy years. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:38:00 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Niku survival We tend to think AE and Fred may not have had much in the way of survival skills, but they might have learned. Food was plentiful and there was little that would have got them in trouble. With pieces of an airplane available, they might even have figured out a solar water distillation gadget. This little piece of that article caught my attention... >According to Maude's report, 111 full-bearing coconut trees with plenty of >nuts were on the ground, the island's lagoon teemed with fish, and fish were >plentiful along the reef. He also noted thousands of enormous coconut crabs, a >common food among Pacific islanders. The Survivor's Handbook cautions about drinking too much coconut "milk," it has a laxative effect! It also says that all crabs are edible. Quite a large number of animals are all edible regardless of species. Perhaps surprisingly, all snakes are edible including the poisonous (bite) species. It's pretty safe to eat fish with scales. Given any choice, I think one would not be much inclined to try those strange looking ones without scales. ************************************************************** From Ric Assuming that you can solve the water problem, the biggest obstacle to survival on Niku (in my opinion) would be illness. In order to gather food you must be active - fishing on the reef flat, gathering and opening coconuts, abducting turtles, stalking birds in the bush, wrestling with crabs, etc. All of these activities present ample opportunities for minor injuries - cuts, scratches, abrasions. In that environment, without immediate antiseptic care, infection is a given. The coral on the reef, especially, is a problem. One little abrasion and you've got trouble (wanna see my scars?). When I think of bones found in the shade of a tree, I think of somone maybe with a swollen leg and a high temperature, in pain and feeling like hell, unable to go on and just trying to hang on but every day getting worse and worse. I think I'll stop thinking about that now. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 10:23:08 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Landing on a reef platform There is one question which puzzles me more than most, if AE did do a forced landing on the reef...would she do it wheels down? It is impossible to know what she would have seen from say 200 feet looking down at a reef, however, she would not probably not have been able to be certain if the wheels wouldn't dig into something and the aircraft cartwheel. It would have been safer, I think, to belly land. We dont know what she did at this point, so all we can do is relate what we think she may have done based on our own perceptions and experience.... As for Mr Strippel, the mere fact that his comments have raised such responses has to be good for generating and testing ideas, theories and speculation. The only word of warning is we have to be careful we dont get caught up in personal criticism at the expense of progressive work. **************************************************************** From Ric Gear up or gear down? Interesting question. I think that you're absolutely right that we tend to look at such questions based on our own perceptions and experience. Trying to view such decisions through the prism of historical context is difficult. Here are my observations: 1. The Electra was the first and only retractable AE ever flew. Retractables were still the exception rather than the rule in 1937. It was WWII that established the wisdom that, when in doubt, go in wheels up. 2. Getting a bit lost and landing at other than her intended destination was nothing new to AE (Ireland 1932, Mexico 1935, etc.). Off-airport landings were also de rigeur. Her thinking may well have been, "Well damn. Wrong island. Okay, let's land this thing and figure out what's wrong with the radio, then we'll have the Itasca bring some fuel to us and we'll fly to Howland, top off, and continue the trip." 3. Based upon what we see from the aerial photos and our experience on the ground, the reef flat tends to look better from the air than it really is. 4. The decision to land wheels up would have been a big one for AE. It would be a decision to admit final failure of her world flight aspirations, accept the certain loss of the airplane, and insure catastrophic personal financial loss. The decision to not extend the undercarriage would have been nothing less than a decision to end her career. It's as simple as that. I'm with you regarding Mr. Strippel. If we can get past the personal junk, I'm eager to hear and consider genuine critiques of our work. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 15:10:40 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Sextant/Octant Jerry Ellis wrote: >Wouldn't a scan from the horizon to the zenith be 90 degrees? Yes it would. But the name came from the amount of prism rotation; i.e. 45 deg. to do the intended job. Perhaps it should have been called an 'Octo-Quad'. RCS ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:27:02 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Customized mounts? Ric: You may not know of the customized mounts, but Art Kennedy, an associate of his in Monterey, CA, Kelly Johnson and many others with their paper trails can testify to that part of the fabrication of the flying laboratory. Barb ************************************************************** From Ric I must assume that what you mean by "customized mounts" are the structural modifications to the center section detailed in Lockheed Engineering Drawings 41713, 41714, 44541 and 44542 which were approved by the Bureau of Air Commerce on May 19, 1937. Those documents are now on file in the NASM archive special collections room. We have copies. The modifications involve some rather straightforward reinforcement of the landing gear attach points to accommodate the added weight and stress occasioned by the unusually high gross weight of the airplane. The engine mounts aren't involved at all. Any "paper trail" of other work would have to be in the BAC file. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:29:04 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: Noonan Myth Ric: That is exactly what I am saying. Preponderence of evidence is a great way to ferret out greatest likelyhoods. Barb ************************************************************* From Ric Then we're in agreement. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:33:14 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Wiley to Strippel Dick, You are so knowledgeable of the work of the AE authors. After All you are one. I had the pleasure of talking with Carrington and Knaggs by telephone in 1989. I like the idea of having gone to the horse when talking about what has come from the horse's mouth. Barb You authors deserve lots of credit in this venue. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:36:51 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: exclusives Dick: Certainly not necessarily unethical, just rather ego-manic. There were other reasons, perhaps, for the under wraps activities, for instances, Navy Personnel "guarding" the work at Oakland, the hush, hush at Pacific Motor Works in Burbank with A. Kennedy. Many, many documented visits of Government officials visiting at Oakland, many eye-witness accounts of what appeared to be a very private operation in preparation for the final flight. And, of course, AE and Putnam's personal secretary, Margo, making it clear that the money for the operation, was coming from the government. It is one thing going back over fifty - sixty years attempting to validate 1939, technology, records, etc. to find the smoking gun. Why not take a close look at the lengthly persistent work done by individual since the 40's, gathering and documenting information about and from the people who had been involved. Barb **************************************************************** From Ric Sounds like a conspiracy to me. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:39:24 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Ping pong balls (again) Mike: In Stand By To Die, Myers, there is a picture of the gentleman who worked at Lockheed during time of fabrication of AE's plane, he saw the pp balls and there was much talk about it in those daze. Yes, Merrill, was the first. It would be very interesting to find out just how many pp balls were place in the Electra 10-E and this info. can be found since it was part of the plan and there were at least four to ten Airplane mechanics and fabricators involved. Time is running out, even those, (young, young men at time) are getting very old. Barb ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:03:42 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Ping pong ball eyewitness Ric, No he did not just say this 50 years after the fact. I just met him at that time. Let me suggest that you think about some memorable things that went on with you, and others that may have been involved in a memorable experience. Just because you mention it many years later when someone spurs you thoughts, doesn't mean we can't believe you. People's lives are a collection of experiences and events, this man was only part of something in which you and I share an interest, take heed. Barb ************************************************************** From Ric Let's try this one more time because it's basic to the difference between TIGHAR's approach to solving the Earhart mystery and most of the other attempts of the past 61 years. When I tell you a story about something that supposedly happened in the past, whether the past is yesterday or 50 years ago, you make a decision to believe me or not believe me based upon several factors including: A. How reliable you consider me to be. B. How normal or outlandish you consider the information to be. C. How important the information is to you. If I tell you that I had a tuna sandwich for lunch yesterday, you will probably believe me because: A: You don't consider me to be a complete wacko (let's just make that assumption). B. A tuna sandwich is a normal sort of lunch. C. It probably makes no difference to you what I had for lunch yesterday. However, if I told you that the tuna sandwich was served to me by Amelia Earhart who is now working as a waitress at a local diner, you might require something more than my eyewitness testimony before you accepted it as fact. That's how we view all anecdotal accounts. The ping pong ball story is totally undocumented and contrary to the volumes of documented information we have about the flight. You may choose to believe it. In the absence of some kind of documentation, I don't. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:10:06 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: Ric Bio & TIGHAR History Ric, This is good. I want to revere those who have had the true grit to study this subject and really believe you fall into the category of "devotee". ************************************************************** From Ric Thank you Barb, but I'll pass on being revered and ask that you consider me to be a professional rather than a devotee. I get paid to do this. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:13:41 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: A talk with Harry Canaday Ric, this is great stuff, now magnify it by hundreds and hundreds of personal stories and you will be amazed at the links to the "research stuff". Barb ************************************************************ From Ric The point of my talk with Canaday is that his recollections, like the hundreds and hundreds of stories you mention, are just stories (usually conflicting stories) without solid corroborating evidence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:15:13 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: Truth Jackie, keep this up, the personal, spiritual factors of the AE mystery may be the avenue to the truth. Barb ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:50:41 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: 1992 response-comedic relief <> Maybe you'd better. I blush. KB TK ************************************************************** From Ric Forum subscriber Barb Norris complimented Tom on the humor and wittiness of his postings and asked if he provided entertainment on the TIGHAR expeditions. Hence my threat and Tom's demurring blush. I don't make idle threats. In addition to being one of the country's leading archaeologists (they name awards after this guy), Dr. Tom King is the official songwriter laureate of the TIGHAR expeditions. His hilarious parodies of popular tunes help defuse the inevitable tensions and remind us to take the work seriously, but not ourselves. Here's an example from the 1989 expedition. Less-than-optimal radio communication between teams on the island led to the phrase, "difficulty with the terrain" being received as "difficulty with the train" to which I replied, "It's not a train, you dummies! It's a plane. We're looking for a plane!" From then on we were (and still are) searching for Amelia's train. Frustration mounted as artifact after artifact proved disappointing. Tom's response was the following gem entitled "Artifact Analysis" and sung to the tune of Chatanooga Choo Choo. Pardon me, tin, Are you a piece of Earhart's choo choo? Or just a can, Or something used in Loran? Oh dear, Oh dear I think I really made a boo boo. You're just a bore. I should have left you ashore. We had been choppin' through Scaevola fields for day after day, Fightin' sharks and Moray eels down under the waves. Still we couldn't sight her, Gettin' much uptighter. Best thing we found yet was an old Ronson lighter. Found some battered batteries down under the sea, And a couple tools that date from prehistory. Chunks of Norwich City (they weren't very pretty) Nothing yet that qualifies as nitty-gritty Then I found you. I said, "Now there's a piece of choo choo!" Good as they come. It's made of a-lu-min-um. But what's this I see? A manufacture date of '63! Oh, little piece of tin stuff, I'm throwin' you in the sea. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:59:47 EDT From: Tom Cook Subject: "The Sound of WIngs" pictures Interesting pictures in Mary Lovell's book. #46, AE lying down, looks like Blucher - style oxfords to me, same as page 26 TT V 12 ,#2/3. Photo # 53 has 3 real Classics; AE, a Cord 810 automobile, and the Electra! The Brand New Electra is pictured at nearly the same angle as the Wreck Photo. I measured the propeller from tip to hub and the diameter of the cowl opening (easier to see than the curved outer edge of the cowl) I came up with a ratio of 1.50 to 1 between prop, tip to hub center and cowl ring opening in wreck photo, TT V 14#1 p15 and a ratio of 1.52 for new ELectra in picture # 53. concidering that I was measuring magazine reproductions with a tape measure that reads in 32nds,I would consider that to be within a reasonable margin of error , not as precise as your measurement of an actual cowl, of course! #59 shows Paul Mantz ,AE, Harry Manning, & FN. Could this picture of FN be compared to Dr. Hoodless' mesurements of the skull found on Gardner? This picture also shows what appears to be an antenna mast, insulater, & wire under front of A/C, however this was before the first attempt! #60 shows much of the instrument panel, but is undated! #61 appears to show 2 antenna masts under belly of A/C, but again it is at beginning of first attempt. #67 shows AE & FN Mr.& Mrs. Eric Chater prior to departure from Lae. AE's slender figure should dispel any rumor that she was pregnant! There is an antenna mast on top of the cabin and what appears to be part of the DF loop in the background. #69 is a photomontage of newspaper head lines reporting the disappearance of AE & FN. One paper, appears to be NY HERALD TRIBUNE of about July 10 headline " 3 Earhart Search Planes Launched Off Colorado; Weak Signals Buoy Hope." subhead: US Battleship reaches Phoenix Islands where 2 flyers are believed marooned on reef -Lexington speeds to widen search. TOO BAD SOMEONE DIDN'T PAY ENOUGH ATTENTION TO SEARCH GARDNER ON THE GROUND!! TC TIGHAR 2127 PS was there a TT V13 # 3 & 4 ? ************************************************************* From Ric No. It was a lean year. I've sent off ten photos to Jeff Glickman for consideration for the biometrics project. What we need are full face and profile shots (like mug shots). The shot of Fred in Lovell's book is not quite a profile and we have nothing to use for scale. I found a couple of other images that are better. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:07:51 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: Plethora of stories Ric, the stories you've indicated came out of stories by others who had a vested interest. Talk to some of the real men and women of those daze, hurry, they are dying off fast. For instance, B. Goldwater, he was seen and heard in the eary seventies making some revelationary comments about AE, souce one of our illustrious, astronauts, pretty credible stuff. I almost made it in to see B. Goldwater, 1997, October. His personal secretary at the time took my three carefully worded questions and said she would talk with him. I've not gotten back to her, plan to see if she ever did talk with him. Too bad, I was on my way to meet him in 1989, after General Dolittle had given me his address in AZ. Dolittle said, "He (referring to B. Golfdwater) was one of my best friends. I have the upmost respect for him, beyond all others." You mention a file "3 inches thick" - try four four drawer filing cabinets, stuffed full. From the generals, commandants of MC, hollywood actors to the GI Joe who had sold newspapers on the corner the day she disappeared (largest cash day of his life) who ends up in the Pacific becoming an innocent bystander in an AE event. **************************************************************** From Ric I guess we missed our chance to find out what Barry Goldwater learned from an astronaut about Amelia Earhart. Does it strike you as just a little bit odd that, despite your four filing cabinets full of eyewitness accounts of "AE events", there is still not one document or photograph or artifact (unless you want to count Buddy Brennan's blindfold) to support them? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:12:55 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Strippel request Ric: Merrill See very knowledgeable on subject email: mtsee@complink.net. Dick: Hi, what a place, huh? Merrill's last known address on line: mtsee@complink.net Barb on line amelia@packlink.com ************************************************************* From Ric I'm not sure that Mr. See would like it here, but he's welcome if he wants to follow the protocols of the forum. As we've said before, we're really not going to waste everybody's time debating conspiracy theories. There's too much work to do. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:15:03 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: Truth To Tom King: So well spoken, written, or beamed. The process of stories fed from one ear to the next makes up our history. Just as the "game" of gossip shows the original stories changing as moved from ear to ear, parts and pieces of the original somehow stay in tact. Something like the making of the book. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:24:31 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: A talk with Harry Canaday Theorist have it that Juan Trippe had been approached by Roosevelt to map a direct attack route to Japan four years prior to the war. When the world flight came up, it was a natural to recruit AE and Fred was the best to map this route. As former Commandant of the MC, later General said, "in those days it would have been unlikely that they were not used.... like Pete Ellis... any civilian with skills for service were asked to serve their country in those days." Barb ************************************************************** From Ric Dick Strippel is right. There are things that I don't want anybody to see. The CIA has asked me to suppress this kind of information. I've posted this only as an example of the kind of post that I will, in the future, (to quote Amelia's illegitimate son Elvis ) "Return To Sender." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:26:44 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: Strippel To Jim (Tierney?) Jim, this electronic communication does have it's down side - we can not pick up the humanity that would be part of a person to person conversation. Overlook the caps, request Dick's very comprehensive bibliography (Rgstrippel@aol.com) up to date on the printed material on the subject. Be prepared for a Rip Van Winkle's experience, since, to date, so much has been written, it would take a long time and honest dedication to the subject to become informed - this is truly the effort of Dick Strippel, he has done his homework and and cares so much to sometimes to shout to those of us who would just like to be led down a chosen path. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:29:23 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Noonan Family Jerry The Gularte Family in California - near Gilroy was the family of Noonan's last wife. There are collections of memorbilia still in the family, I think. The person who has the most updated info. on Katherine and Noonan's two sons is Ann Pellegreno, Story City, Iowa - don't think she is on line. She is an author of Iowa Takes To The Air, Vols 1 & 2. Ann knows a lot, just like Dick Strippel. Barb ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:32:55 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Sextant/Octant >Wouldn't a scan from the horizon to the zenith be 90 degrees? > >*** Yes it would. But the name came from the amount of prism rotation; >i.e. 45 deg. to do the intended job... You do get a 90 degree scan, horizon to zenith, with only 45 degrees of prism rotation. As with the old nautical sextant, your line of sight swings through twice the angle you rotate the mirror. I would presume the scale of the octant reads zero to 90 degrees (plus a little) although the prism rotates only 45 degrees (plus a little). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:04:49 EDT From: Tet Walston Subject: Most likely ending The last flight of AE and FN was a formula for disaster. Whilst I admired Amelia -- yes, I'm that old, all evidence seems to show that she was not a very good pilot. Yes,she made a solo crossing of the Atlantic, and this showed her courage, but all she had to do was fly easterly, hope that the engine kept going, and a large land mass -- Britain or Europe would appear -- and it did! Other indications of her skill are not always positive, on the African leg of the last flight, she was 165 miles north of intended track. Neither she nor Noonan were accomplished in radio D/F, or indeed in proper radio communication. AE had little true skills in instrument flying, and who knows how far off course they were on their final dawn. According to reports, they had a small reserve of fuel --too small. Noonan was a good navigator they say, but Manning didn't think so. The whole last leg of the flight was almost bound to fail, as evidence tells. The almost impossible task of flying to, and finding, a small Island in a large ocean, low on fuel and without radio skills !! The mind boggles. My qualifications? A WW2 Royal Air Force pilot, also trained as navigator. There is no wreckage, there is much more water than land. Dream on!! ************************************************************** From Ric This, of course, is the classic crashed-at-sea argument. Does it hold up? Let's take a look. >..all evidence seems to show that she was not a >very good pilot. I would argue that you don't fly 2/3 of the way around the world in 1937 without being a very good pilot. >Neither she nor Noonan were accomplished in radio D/F, or indeed in proper >radio communication. No argument here. [something got lost here, don't know what, sorry] ...ng were solid instrument flying and several other legs of the trip were through severe weather. In any event, the point is irrelevant to the Lae/Howland leg. >...who knows how far off course they were on their final dawn? Earhart's position report over the Nukumanu Islands, the sighting of a "ship in sight ahead" at the halfway point, the reports of an airplane heard over Tabituea in the Gilberts, and the strength of the radio transmissions received by the Itasca are all excellent indicators that the flight proceeded very close to its intended course. >According to reports, they had a small reserve of fuel --too small. On the contrary. The available evidence indicates a planned 20 percent (almost 5 hours) reserve - standard for long distance flights at that time. >Noonan was a good navigator they say, but Manning didn't think so. I have no idea where that comes from. I've never read such an allegation attributed to Manning. Noonan's credentials as a navigator are well established. In the opinion of the Bureau of Air Commerce which granted specific permission for the flight, the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy which agreed to provide logistical support,and in the opinion of Earhart's peers and contemporaries, there was nothing outrageous or foolhardy about the planned flight. It now appears that the primary cause of the flight's failure was an accident on takeoff at Lae which deprived the aircraft of its ability to receive voice communications. That neither AE nor FN had sufficient radio skills to overcome that difficulty is apparent. The failure, therefore, was due to an insufficient margin of safety. It's not possible to draw valid conclusions from bad facts. I have yet to see an argument for the crashed-at sea scenario which accounts for the known facts of the case. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:51:34 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: the last on ping pong balls Hey Ric! Remember how Robert Ballard managed to find the Titanic by looking for the debris field instead of the wreck itself? Maybe on your next trip to Niku, you should forget looking for the plane and hunt down all those scattered ping pong balls... Love to Mother, Amanda *************************************************************** From Ric Hey, wait a minute. No ping pong balls on Niku. No ping pong balls seen floating at sea during the Navy's search. Logical conclusion: the ping pong balls were captured with Amelia and taken to that Chinese prison camp (remember the mysterious Love to Mother telegram?). AE came home after the war to become Irene Bolam, but the balls stayed behind, leading to the tremendous popularity of table tennis in China which finally became known to the world in the early '70s. You just can't supress the truth. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 15:33:38 EDT From: Michael Strickland Subject: Re: Most likely ending > It now appears that the primary cause of the flight's failure was an accident on >takeoff at Lae which deprived the aircraft of its ability to receive voice > communications. Ric-Can you provide more on the above statement? I've never heard this before; I have heard that the aircraft had trouble getting off the ground at Lae, but have not heard of any 'accident.' Thanks, Michael Strickland **************************************************************** From Ric Looking at the reports and logs of what was heard and what was not during the Lae/Howland flight, we noticed that there was no documented occasion when Earhart is known to have received a voice transmission. Was her receiver busted? Apparently not, because she was successful in hearing the letter As (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah...) sent by the Itasca at her request. She was not able to take a bearing, probably because the frequency (7500 kc) was far too high, but she did say that she heard the signal. What, we asked ourselves, did she do differently at that moment that permitted her to hear something? The logical answer was that, because she (for the first time in the flight) was preparing to take a radio bearing, she switched from her voice receiving antenna to her Df loop. It seemed, therefore, to be a reasonable hypothesis that the problem was not in the receiver per se, but in the voice receiving antenna. Next question: which antenna was the voice receiving antenna? There was a V antenna which extended from a mast behind the cockpit to each vertical tail. The lead-in wire ran into the cabin just where her transmitter was mounted. This, we reasoned, was probably the transmitting antenna (duh). There was also a wire antenna which ran along the belly supported by the starboard-side pitot mast on the "chin" of the airplane, through a mast near the main spar, to a final mast on the belly just forward of the cabin door. The lead-in for this antenna entered the airplane just under the co-pilot's seat, which is where the receiver is known to have been mounted. We, therefore, concluded that the belly wire was probably the voice receiving antenna. Next question: what can go wrong with an antenna? It's not a terribly sophisticated device. A connector can vibrate loose, or the thing can get knocked off. We found it interesting to note that the antenna which seems to have failed was also the antenna which was most at risk to being knocked off. That aftmost mast sticking down from the belly only cleared the ground by about a foot or so when the airplane was lightly loaded and parked on pavement. With the airplane burdened with the heaviest load it had ever carried, and taxiing on the turf at Lae, the tip of the mast virtually brushed the grass - as shown in film of the Electra taxiing out for its final takeoff. A forensic analysis of the takeoff sequence conducted for TIGHAR by Jeff Glickman at Photek revealed that while the aft antenna was clearly present when it taxied past the camera on its way to the end of the runway, when it came back by on the takeoff run, the antenna was no longer visible. Now you see it. Now you don't. What is visble on the film is an unexplained puff of something - probably dust - which erupts under the middle of the airplane fairly early in the takeoff run. Here's what we think happened. In turning around at the far end of the runway, the tip of the mast struck a hummock of ground or a tire went into a slight depression. It wouldn't have taken much. Any appreciable side load on the mast would be enough to snap it off, leaving the wire trailing the broken mast on the ground. No impact would be felt in the cockpit of the heavily overloaded machine. As the takeoff run began the broken mast bounced along until it snagged the ground, ripping the rest of the wire off the airplane and causing the puff of dust visible on the film. Earhart and Noonan had no hint that they had suffered a crippling radio failure until well into the flight and even then they had no way of knowing whether the problem was with them or with the people they were trying to talk to. A caveat to this theory: we can't prove that the antenna wasn't there just because we can't see it in the film. (You can't prove a negative hypothesis.) However, as a theory it seems to hold together quite well. As an aside, I was giving a talk to a group in Indiana several years ago (before we had analysed the film) and afterwards a gentleman came up to me and said. "I was in Lae, New Guinea during the war as a guest of Uncle Sam. The old timers around there used to say that they weren't a bit surprised when Amelia Earhart got lost. She left her trailing wire antenna laying on the runway when she left." Well, it wasn't the trailing wire. But I think I know what it was. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:55:38 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Most likely ending While there is much comment about the fact that AE did not have as many hours flying time as many of her contemporaries (certainly not flying twin engined aircraft), by the time she landed at Lae, New Guinea she was certainly a very seasoned pilot (in all sorts of weather & limited visability situations) & I might point out that up until that point Noonan's navigational skills had proved more that adequate to the task! Until her plane or remains are discovered, there can be no final judgement rendered as to the reason for her failure to reach Howland Island, or if she crashed at sea or reached landfall. I for one, would speculate (as you have) that given any choice in the matter, AE would have opted for a "wheels down" landing on any possible landfall as opposed to a "belly" landing on water or land, given her propensity for always seeking out the more dangerous challenges throughout her career, as she never seemed to be a person for "playing it safe". Also, "wheels-up" would have negated any longterm radio communication. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:59:28 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Noonan Family Thanks for the lead on Pellegreno. As you've probably already noted by Forum comments, other members are currently in contact with Mary Bea's relations about their memorabilia. Best regards, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:36:21 EDT From: Craig Fuller Subject: More on ping pong balls OK Ric, quit being so hard. Lets find this mechanic and interview him, we might as well have this recorded in the files. Lets also see if we can track down any other mechanics. If they all say there were ping pong balls then there is some substance to the story, but still antidotal. Barbara, please accept that until a purchase order signed by AE or such is found, or a spec by Lockheed calling for ping pong balls is found, the information is only antidotal! I think I can safely say that most of us on the forum like facts rather than antidotal hear say. Craig Fuller Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research AAIR ************************************************************** From Ric I'm glad you raise this issue because it brings up an important point that is often not appreciated. In the course of any investigation as complex as this one, we're constantly presented with avenues of inquiry which invite exploration. Our assets are always limited, so we have to chose carefully those avenues which seem most likely to produce results which will bring us closer to our ultimate goal. The ping pong ball story is only one of hundreds of bizarre allegations surrounding the Earhart case which appear to be based soley on anecdote. Trying to substantiate anecdotes by gathering more anecdotes is what the conspiracy crowd has been doing for decades - and look where it has gotten them. If I was going to try to corroborate the ping pong ball story with useful evidence, I'd search out all of the available paperwork on the airplane to see if there is any mention of the balls. We've already done that. There isn't. Then I'd check for mention of ping pong balls in the hundreds of contemporaneous news accounts describing Earhart's preparations and activities. We've long-since covered that base. Nothing there. We have more than we can handle trying to follow the good leads we have. If I seem hard on this it's because the money which makes the Earhart Project possible comes so very hard. I have an obligation to the contributors to make sure that we spend it wisely. Likewise, I have an obligation to TIGHAR volunteers not to waste their time. On the other hand, if someone wants to go talk to the guy, by all means, go talk to him. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:58:21 EDT From: Mike Ruiz Subject: Gardner Search Tom Cook wrote: >TOO BAD SOMEONE DIDN`T PAY ENOUGH ATTENTION TO SEARCH GARDNER ON THE >GROUND!! I think the US navy did pay attention 3 planes (3 pilots & 3 observers) searched Gardner. A review of the Lambrecht Report (available to any one who wants to see it from linvil@msn.com) clearly shows that careful observations were made during the course of the entire search. There was no reason to search Gardner on the ground. The search team saw nothing there. The was no visible evidence to support that the plane had been there. *************************************************************** From Ric For once I find myself in agreement with the No Land Club* One could be picky and say that the searchers should have checked the Sailing Directions for Gardner and seen that there should have been no "signs of recent habitiation." But keep in mind that there were still six islands of the Phoenix Group waiting to be searched. For all they knew, the Electra was parked on the beach on the next island, with AE and Fred about to expire from thirst or whatever. Putting a party ashore at Gardner would have delayed the Navy's search of the other islands for at least 24 hours. Under the circumstances, it's hard to fault the decision to press on. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:11:32 EDT From: Tom Ruprecht Subject: Voice Receiving Antenna > "I was in Lae, New Guinea during the war as a guest of Uncle Sam. The > old timers around there used to say that they weren't a bit surprised when > Amelia Earhart got lost. She left her trailing wire antenna laying on the > runway when she left." > > Well, it wasn't the trailing wire. But I think I know what it was. Couldn't this be an anecdote leading to a hypothesis that could be tested? Of course all those people might be deceased, but isn't it possible that one of them thought it might be a good souvenir and have handed it down to descendants who are unfamiliar with this forum but know of family stories about that piece of AEs plane in the attic? Rupe ************************************************************** From Ric In theory, yes. Now - how would you go about trying to find such a hypothetical person? Is it worth a trip to Papua New Guinea to see if it's possible to find out who was at Lae in 1937? Where would the money come from? And what if we got incredibly lucky and somebody produced a length of wire that they said was picked up on the runway that morning. How could we possibly prove that it was indeed from NR16020? I'm afraid that this is another example of a lead that is not economically feasible to follow up on. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:15:42 EDT From: Dean Alexander Subject: Equine anatomy 101 Barbara Wiley wrote: > Dick, You are so knowledgeable of the work of the AE authors. After All, > you are one. I had the pleasure of talking with Carrington and Knaggs by > telephone in 1989. I like the idea of having gone to the horse when > talking about what has come from the horse's mouth. Barb You authors > deserve lots of credit in this venue. Just let's all make sure we know the difference between the horse's mouth and the other end ! Dean A. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:28:33 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Hull Island sequence? Answer from The Discovery Channel: "Thank you for contacting Viewer Relations. We appreciate your interest in our programming. The Search for Amelia Earhart is scheduled to air again on July 7 at 10:00PM (ET/PT) on Discovery Channel. It is not available on video for purchase. Unfortunately, this is the only information we have about this program. If you have further questions, please call us toll free at 1-888-404-5969 Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:00PM (ET) and we will gladly help you. Thanks again for writing. Sincerely, Viewer Relations" I've seen this before and don't remember the Hull Island flight sequence--there may be two different programs. Ron D. 2126 *************************************************************** From Ric The Search for Amelia Earhart is the show they did about our 1997 trip. I don't remember any Hull Island sequence either, but I have the show on tape. I'll check it out. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:42:21 EDT From: Frank Kuhre Subject: ping pong documents? Ric, as I told you in an earlier comment, while researching the data available to me during the building of the Finch Electra,I recall something in print regarding the ping pong balls! As you know Linda probably will not be very co-operative in allowing any research of the data she has, but it may be worth a try. (she might be looking for some more media attention!) I only bring this to you as, I remember the reference being something factual. Not to say that I remember it being in Amelia's aircraft, but that it was being considered and tested and actually say drawings ( or photos of the balls in the wing.) I am only interested in the facts, but it was my impression that's what this forum was for, discussion and exhaustive research of all available resources to find out what happened. Frank K ************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. If ping pong balls were, at some point, considered and some test balls put in a wing, that could be the start of the stories. I've never had any luck even getting Ms. Finch to acknowledge a letter. Anybody got any ideas how we could follow up on this? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:43:38 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Swirling seabirds You are right, I think they identified the wrong program in the first message they sent to me, as they don't i.d. any particular program in the second message they sent. I'm going to try callig the "888" number & see if I can speak with someone there who knows what they are doing! I can't imagine they don't keep some record of who produces the programs they air, or can at least identify the name of the segments that are broadcast. (I know I saw those "swirling" sea birds on that film clip!!!) Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:45:26 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Reef/Beach landing Ric wrote: > Also, the kind of damage to be expected from a ground-loop/cart-wheel > accident would include impact damage to the nose that we don't see in the > wreck photo. I was visualizing an almost, but not quite, successful beach landing... less drastic than the above but with severe damage. But not an end-over-end sort of thing. Whether landing on the reef or on the beach, how do you loose a wing and tear one engine from its mounting, but avoid smashing up the nose of the airplane? The wing and the engine end up on the reef. I'm wondering just what it would take to tear the engine from its mounting. And how do you get the rest of the airplane into the bush, on its wheel(s) with the other engine and propeller intact? The wind blew it there from the reef and it just happened to end up on its wheels? Maybe we're trying to put together pieces that were not part of the same whole to start with. The answer to that will have to wait until you dig up that engine on Canton and find what's left of the airplane on Niku! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:52:43 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Canton engine excavation I hope efforts to get a backhoe for the tractor on Canton are meeting with some success. I still wonder about the possibility of working out something with someone not terribly far from Canton. A contract arrangement or some such. I remember that you found no equipment rental outfits in the Canton Yellow Pages! May there be someone you could do business with on Fiji? Someone with equipment and the means to get it to Canton and do the digging for you. Is there still a phosphate mining operation on Nauru? Mining implies earth moving equipment and the means to move heavy stuff to and from the island. Maybe whoever runs the operation could be persuaded to lend some assistance to such a worthy cause. There may be other possibilities even closer to Canton that I know nothing about. Or people who might be more cooperative. I presume a major problem is the lack of contacts to ferret out possible sources of help in the south pacific. Are there any TIGHAR people in the area? *************************************************************** From Ric Actually, it's not a problem of lack of contacts. There are plenty of backhoes scattered about the Pacific and we could probably even find somebody who would lend us one (or rent it to us at a good price). The problem is the sheer vastness of the Pacific and the remoteness of Kanton. That translates into immense cost in transporting anything there. But fear not. We're pursuing another avenue of potential help and are having some preliminary success. It would not be prudent for me to say more at the moment, but I'll provide details when I can. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:57:09 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: maps I'm a new subscriber to this mailing list and, alas, not yet a TIGHAR member. In reading and studying all the terrific articles on TIGHAR's web pages, I find I'm frantic for a good map of Nikumaroro Island, one showing the geographical locations mentioned in the articles (the lagoon, the village, etc). Is such a map posted somewhere on the web? Thanks, Tom ************************************************************** From Ric Not yet, but with the latest issue of TIGHAR Tracks we mailed an 11 x 17 pull-out map of the island with all the locations where stuff has been found or reported seen. If you'll send in your membership we'll get one to you asap. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:24:32 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: ping pong documents? Has anyone ever contacted a ping pong ball company to see if they are aware of the theory? Perhaps somewhere deep in their company archives is some info about ping pong balls and airplnes. Also wondered if anyone else, say a non-TIGHAR rep, has attempted to contact the quiet Ms. Finch about this. (Maybe she's just not fond of wild animals). Regards, Barbara Norris ************************************************************** From Ric Randomly phoning ping pong ball manufacturers and asking them to dig into the company files for any record of a sale to Amelia Earhart doesn't sound like a terribly efficient expenditure of research resources. The problem with Finch is not particulary TIGHAR-related. She has an apparently well-earned reputation for treated everyone badly. Pratt & Whitney dropped five million bucks to recreate Amelia Earhart. What they seem to have gotten is Leona Helmsley in a leather jacket. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:33:23 EDT From: Ronnie Subject: Attack routes and fuel supplies Direct attack route to Japan??? From the South Pacific?? For who or what?? In 1936-8 we had an army the size of a glorified police force and a navy of obsolete battleships from the 1920's. Does this mean no one in the US military could find Japan?? good grief... Roosevelt was not nearly as worried about the Japanese then as he was about the Republicans. A nice Iowa girl may have been better used spying on the real enemy around her home town. Maybe the Glibertese were contemplating an annexation of Mt Fuji and needed a "best catamaran route" mapped out from Howland... After reading forum postings for a couple of months and trying to get familiar with the circumstances of the disappearance I have a question for the "crashed at sea" crowd that needs to be answered to my satisfaction. I keep coming back to the fuel. If the fuel situation is as Ric describes then Amelia and Fred had five hours to fly an LOP and find land that they were well aware was on that line. Since they could fix the LOP accurately why would they not find any of the islands on this line within the five hours they had to find. Also why do those who maintain the crashed at sea theory (that's all it will ever be) get so apoplectic when others say that just maybe they found a spot of land. After all the description of a lot of water and little land is applicable to Mother Earth in general. What were ping pong balls made out of in the 1930's, and can DNA testing aid in identifying them? *************************************************************** From Ric The question of fuel is central to all of the theories. The crashed-and-sank crowd does not accept our assesment and is quite sure that she ran out of fuel near Howland. Dick Strippel's treatise on the fuel (he says she had only 950 gallons) is an example of a conflicting viewpoint on that issue. Several forum members have requested copies, which I have, of course, provided. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 07:53:06 EDT From: Frank Kuhre Subject: Getting to Finch Barbara, It might be worth a try from another of the same gender. She seems to be a I am woman hear me roar type. She also is only in it for what it will get her, so give it a try on that slant, but I know she won't talk to me (she owes me money) she beat me out of around $10,000 in overtime ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 08:02:42 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Attack routes to Japan From the historical perspective, the U.S. was already QUITE aware of the proximity of routes to Japan, if we were so inclined, as evidenced by the political/military beating General Billy Mitchell took in the 1920's for even suggesting the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor from the Japanese vantage point. Though demoted and disgraced, he was vindicated by time (and his rank was posthumously restored, though HE never knew it), since the only ones who heeded his words in fact, were the Japanese. Certainly our government, which had spent lots of time arguing the case against Mitchell, knew the possibilities, and wouldn't have wasted an American icon such as Amelia Earhart on this issue. I agree with Ric on this point entirely. By the way, I believe it was Gary Cooper who played Mitchell in the movie about his life.--Best regards to all,--Gene Dangelo :) *************************************************************** From Ric I'll just add that our opinion that Earhart was not involved in any covert government mission is not based upon any assessment of what the Roosevelt administration would or wouldn't do. It's based upon the complete lack of evidence that any such relationship existed and the abundance of evidence which suggests that it did not. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 08:07:00 EDT From: Merrill See Subject: Ping Pong Duty Ping pong balls? How do you suppose they got them past so many customs agents? Merrill T. See *************************************************************** From Ric Good point. I also wonder what happens when you take a ping pong ball to 12,000 feet in an unpressurized airplane? I know what happens to a bag of potato chips. POW! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 08:26:06 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Perpetual Ping Pong Balls Ric wrote: >I've never had any luck even getting Ms. Finch to acknowledge a letter. >Anybody got any ideas how we could follow up on this? Looking for an angle... Does anyone know what Finch is up to presently? What's she into that might suggest an angle of approach? What were ping-pong balls made of in 1937? Interesting question. Did they even exist at that time?? Evident how much I'm into games involving balls of any sort! *************************************************************** From Ric Once more, I will restain myself in commenting on this subject. Yes. Ping pong balls existed in 1937. The 1936 Dick Merrill/Harry Richman transatlantic flight actually did use 50,000 ping pong balls to insure flotation of their single-engine Vultee in the event of a ditching. I don't know what their balls were made of. But I could guess. Best place to find Ms. Finch these days might be down at the courthouse. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 08:28:01 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Ping-Pong: Some answers A little effort answered my questions about ping-pong balls in 1937. The game was, in fact, going strong well before that date. The balls were made of celluloid which was the earliest thermoplastic on the scene (patent 1869). How to get Linda Finch interested in cooperating a little remains an open question. *************************************************************** From Ric That's our Vern. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 08:34:26 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Juarez adventures Regarding Fred's divorce papers: After several weeks of frustrating attempts to pry information out of Juarez city officials at various levels, I was leaving the Palacio Municipal somewhat dejectedly, when I got the Spanish equivalent of "pssst - buddy, over here" (like a scene out of a bad movie). I did go talk to this character and in a nutshell, he indicated my problem was I had not applied "mordida" to the situation. In my naivete, I had assumed the "mordida" was no longer necessary in the age of NAFTA, etc. Wrong. This guy offered to take me to where old records were kept, for a price. Well, my loyalty to TIGHAR didn't include getting in an ancient Ford with a disreputable looking character and going God knows where in a foreign city now approaching a million people where crime is epidemic. However, with a little mordida, I did get a location out of him. Then, I was able to confirm that through an acquaintance who was born there and goes over shopping often. This repository supposedly has records back to 1932. We will go on Wednesday, the 10th and see what we come up with. Worst case scenario: the file will be missing or will contain only a decree with no other info. Hoped for scenario: confirmation of birthdate, listing of possible children, sample of signature or handwriting. Keeping my fingers crossed. Ron 2126 **************************************************************** From Ric Holy Guacamole! Be careful Ron. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:04:03 EDT From: Ronnie Subject: The Fuel Question I have gotten replies indicating three different quantities of fuel (from three different people). No matter if the measurements are in gallons, liters, cups, or benedictine bottles the real question is what range does the fuel carried give the aircraft. There must be some indication of an official nature, and not merely anecdotal or best guess, as to the capacity of the aircraft. I know that the folks posting these figures have done a lot more research than me but I find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would leave on a long flight over water at night knowing that they had 30 minutes to live if they blinked and missed the island. Based on the state of direction finding procedures in that era it would likely take that long just to get a bearing if you were within close proximity. My lack of suicidal tendencies would cause me to demand that every drop of fuel that could be carried would be on board. Then I'd add another 50 gallons. I also recall from one of the postings that Ric asserted that the transmission attributed to AE that she had 30 minutes of fuel left is legend. Who would map out a leg knowing the range of the aircraft that would allow such a small margin for safety?? I assume these folks were not absolute idiots. The fact that some allege that AE was not a good pilot does not work in favor of "lost at sea". The people who knew best how good a pilot she was were in the cockpit. If I often miss by 150 miles or more then why would I take off with a safety factor of less than 100. Heck, I'd carry enough fuel to turn around and come back (and a long string to boot). Dunno guys?? You're saying that that flight was made by an incompetent pilot, guided by a drunk navigator, and mapped out by a damn fool. It's would be surprising if this crew could crash into the ocean successfully without hitting land purely by accident. Maybe these conditions support the Niku scenario after all. ************************************************************** From Ric I love it. I'll write up the fuel situation as I see it as a separate posting. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:13:07 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: more about balls Even if ping-pong balls were aboard, they obviously didn't keep the plane afloat (assuming in the first place that they landed in the water & if they made landfall, they really don't make very good eating!) long enough for them to be sighted & rescued. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:15:08 EDT From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: Juarez adventures I'm telling you. This made for TV movie is turning into a miniseries. *************************************************************** From Ric We're holding out for Spielberg. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:00:49 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Ric's treatise on fuel The question of how much fuel the Earhart Electra could carry, and how much it, in fact, was carrying when it left left Lae, New Guinea is central to any debate about the aircraft's fate. It all comes down to how much fuel (how much time) was available to Earhart and Noonan at 0843 local time when the last message received by the Itasca was heard. The crashed-and-sank advocates need the airplane to run out of gas right then and there. The conspiracy crowd needs the airplane to have vast reserves of gas (at least another 6 hours) which enable it to reach the Marshall Islands and fall into Japanese hands. Those of us who favor the Gardner Island theory need for the plane to have at least 2, and preferably 3, more hours of fuel (enough to reach the island, land, and run an engine to recharge batteries one in a while) but not a lot more than that (not enough to fly to Gardner and then backtrack to Howland). Of course, what capability any of us want or need the airplane to have is irrelevant to the question of what capability it did have. To answer that question we have to look at the historical record and see what information is available. I have written a paper on that subject which is too long to post as an email, but I'll be happy to forward it as an attached file to anyone who requests it. Just drop me an email at TIGHAR1@aol.com. I'll also mount it on our website as part of a major update we'll be doing in the next week or so. For the less passionate, I've excerpted the meatier portions of the paper below. THE FUEL CAPACITY OF THE EARHART AIRCRAFT AND THE FUEL ABOARD AT TAKEOFF ON JULY 2, 1937 (excerpts) FUEL CAPACITY Before we attempt to determine how much fuel was probably aboard at takeoff, let's be sure that we know how much gasoline the airplane could carry. ...An inspection report and license application, complete with fuel system sketch, dated November 27, 1936, shows 12 tanks now installed, broken down as follows: 6 wing 102-102-81-81-16-16 and 6 fuselage 118-118-149-149-149 for a total of 1,151 gallons. The next and last time the airplane was inspected by the BAC (Bureau of Air Commerce) was on May 19, 1937 when it came out of the Lockheed repair shop prior to the start of the second world flight attempt. The report of that date verifies the same tank set-up and the 1,151 total fuel capacity. ... To the extent that we can be sure about anything regarding historical events, we can be quite sure that the airplane's fuel capacity on July 2, 1937 was 1,151 U.S. gallons. FUEL ABOARD AT TAKEOFF, JULY 2, 1937 Most of the debate about the actual fuel load at takeoff from Lae has been carried out without benefit of the most detailed, contemporaneous, and credible primary source of information on this point. That's because the source, an eight page report written by Guinea Airways manager Eric H.Chater (Earhart's host in Lae), was lost until 1991. Prior to its discovery, the best source was a letter written by District Superintendent of Civil Aviation James Collopy, who says the airplane carried 1,100 U.S. gallons. (Some Austalian press reports, however, quote Noonan as saying that the airplane carried 950 gallons.) ... On the subject of fuel, Chater says (page 5): "July 1st - - after the machine was tested the Vacuum Oil Co.'s representatives filled all tanks in the machine with 87 octane fuel with the exception of one 81 gallon tank which already contained 100 octane for taking off purposes. This tank was approximately half full and it can be safely estimated that on leaving Lae the tank contained at least 40 gallons of 100 octane fuel - (100 octane fuel is not available in Lae). A total of 654 imperial gallons was filled into the tanks of the Lockheed after the test flight was completed. This would indicate that 1,100 US gallons was carried by the machine when it took off for Howland Island." That's about as straightforward a statement as anyone could hope for. Chater and Collopy, the only aviation professionals on the scene who submitted reports, agree on the total fuel aboard - 1,100 US gallons - but disagree over whether the tank that was half full of 100 octane had a capacity of 100 gallons (Collopy) or 81 gallons (Chater). Because there was no 100 gallon tank aboard the airplane but there were two 81 gallon tanks, Chater would seem to be the more credible source on this point. So what are we to make of the Australian press's claim that Noonan said the airplane carried "950 gallons of petrol - sufficient to give a still-air cruising range of 2,750 miles."? The story does not specify U.S. or Imperial gallons, nor does it specify statute versus nautical miles. Because the information was intended for an Australian audience, it might not be unreasonable to assume that Noonan gave the figure in Imperial gallons. But 950 Imperial gallons is 1,141 U.S. gallons, which doesn't correspond to any other report. However, 915 Imperial gallons is 1,100 U.S. gallons. Using the fuel consumption tables worked out for Earhart by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson, 1,100 U.S. gallons (915 Imperial) would yield a range of 2,750 nm. It seems likely, therefore, that the apparent discrepancy of Noonan versus Chater, and Collopy is nothing more than an American/Australian language barrier across which the Aussie reporter heard Fred's 915 as 950. Some researchers whose hypotheses require that the airplane run out of fuel shortly after the last transmission heard from Earhart (08:43 on July 2, Howland time) have presented elaborate computations which allege to show that the airplane could not have left the ground with more than 950 U.S. gallons aboard. Such computations are attempts to do hard science using soft data. We don't really know the airplane's take off weight, we don't really know the density altitude for Lae that morning, and despite the recollections of eyewitnesses decades later, the film of the take off shows not a calm wind condition but clear indications of at least some wind down the runway. It is also true that any professional pilot (myself included) who has worked in a just-get-the-job-done environment can relate tales of successful overgross take-offs which, according to the book, should have ended in the trees. In the Earhart case, we have two aviation professionals on the scene (Collopy and Chater) who make independent contemporaneous reports which agree on the amount of fuel carried aboard the airplane. The only contradictory evidence is a press account for which a plausible explanation seems apparent. Further evidence for the accuracy of the 1,100 U.S. gallon figure comes from the fuel consumption tables prepared especially for Earhart by Lockheed engineer "Kelly" Johnson. According to Johnson's figures, 1,100 gallons should yield roughly 24 hours of endurance. Because the Lae/Howland flight was anticipated to take 18 to 19 hours, this would provide the 20% (five hour) fuel reserve considered standard for long-distance flights at that time. Lieutenant Daniel Cooper, aboard the Itasca as the U.S. Army Air Corps representative, made specific mention of that standard in his report dated July 27, 1937. At 0843 local time, the flight was 20 hours and 13 minutes into its theoretical 24 hour maximum endurance with three hours and forty-seven minutes of fuel remaining - not because that's how much fuel TIGHAR would prefer the airplane to have, but because that's how much fuel the historical record says it should have had. Many mysteries remain in the Earhart enigma, but the airplane's fuel capacity, it's fuel load at takeoff from Lae, and its expected endurance are not among them. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:07:21 EDT From: Peter Ifland Subject: Sextant Answers In answer to the question "Why would a navigator ever want to use an inverting telescope?" I would say: Inverting telescopes have two advantages over erect telescopes - the image is brighter and the eyepiece can be fitted with cross-wires to aid in aligning the sight. The inverting telescope would be used for star sights at dawn or at dusk for ease in picking out a faint star or in visualizing the dim horizon. The inverting telescope also is useful for taking noon sights when the sun is high in the sky and dark filters must be used to cut down on the brightness of the sun without obscuring the horizon. It takes a lot of practice for a navigator to feel comfortable taking sights with an inverting telescope. ______________ Why use a sextant when an octant can measure angles up to 90 degrees? The first doubly reflecting instruments, invented in the early 1730's, were octants. "Doubly reflecting" means that the image of the celestial body is reflected twice - first by the rotatable index mirror and then by the silvered portion of the fixed horizon mirror and then into the observer's eye. In this optical arrangement, the reflected image moves through twice the angle that the index mirror is rotated. Thus, an octant with an arc an eighth of a circle (45 degrees) can measure angles up to 90 degrees. Similarly, a sextant with an are of a sixth of a circle (60 degrees) can measure angles up to 120 degrees. So, why would anybody need to measure angles greater than 90 degrees as with an octant ? Why do we need a sextant to measure angles greater than 90 degrees when the angle from the horizon to the zenith, the point in the sky directly overhead, is only 90 degrees? Finding longitude at sea depends on knowing time accurately. Sufficiently accurate sea-going chronometers to tell time had not yet been perfected. The technique in common use was called "lunar distances" and involved measuring the angle between the moon and the sun, a planet or a fixed star. Frequently, the angle to be measured was greater than 90 degrees. The Royal Navy officer who conducted the very first sea trials with the newly invented octant observed that the capability to measure larger angles would be useful. A sextant was quickly produced. In fact, quintants, a fifth of a circle to measure angles up to 144 degrees, and quadrants, a fourth of a circle to measure angles up to 180 degrees, were produced in limited numbers. Why has the sextant been the instrument of choice for so long? The lunar distances technique was used to check chronometers for accuracy well into the twentieth century and was finally displaced only when telegraphic and radio time signals became available. Even then, sextants were used to measure large horizontal angles sometimes needed for surveying and chart making. Only very recently, the US Navy concluded that octants were big enough and sextants were not required for sea-going navigation. Most W.W.II and later aircraft sextants actually were octants although they frequently were erroneously called sextants. Hope that helps. Peter ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:16:14 EDT From: A Stewart Subject: Fame & Fortune Ric wrote: >We're holding out for Spielberg. Off topic and, I know, not getting the irony, but Spielberg is prepping a movie on Lindbergh, for himself to direct, based on the new biography due out soon. A Stewart *************************************************************** From Ric Hmmmm. Spielberg does Lindbergh film. Lindbergh film is big success. Spielberg gets message that films about aviation heroes sell big. 'Bout that time we're wrapping the project with a spectacular find. Phone rings. "TIGHAR. Ric Gillespie." "Hello, Ric? This is Steve Spielberg. ...." Alarm goes off and I wake up. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:35:55 EDT From: George Mershon Subject: fuel reserves Please keep up the good work. At flight school (1998) we were taught to calculate the necessary fuel using the manufacture's specs and add 20%. In theory, this would get us there on time, safe and sound, and yet not delay the time of arrival because of excess weight. I don't know the 1930's theory. George Mershon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:57:59 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: fuel usage Ronnie wrote: >...what range does the fuel >carried give the aircraft. There must be some indication of an official >nature, and not merely anecdotal or best guess, as to the capacity of the >aircraft. I know that the folks posting these figures have done a lot more >research than me but I find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind >would leave on a long flight over water at night knowing that they had 30 >minutes to live if they blinked and missed the island. [first a disclaimer: 1) I'm new to this list and not up to speed on what recent discussions have been, so forgive me if I repeat an old thread; 2) I'm not a pilot, nor do I play one on TV, so if I make dumb generalizations about flying, forgive a poor landlubber; 3) I'm not a member of the "crashed and sank" club.] Some wags claim that Amelia used more fuel than she thought she would due to strong head winds. How do they know that? If they know the winds were stronger than normal, then they must know exactly what the winds were, therefore it should be possible to compute a nearly EXACT determination of her fuel consumption. Merely stating that she encountered head winds, as some "historians" have done, proves nothing. Do we know what Amelia's "habits" were regarding fuel management? Did she fully understand what throttle and prop settings gave the best endurance? I would have thought, by this stage in her journey, that she would have had some idea of what settings provide the best range, and knew that these settings were critical on the Lae-Howland leg. My bottom line is this: Even if Amelia wasn't the best pilot, she wasn't stupid, either, and by this stage she had garnered enough experience to understand what was required to get from Lae to Howland. I agree with Rich. No sensible person would have cut her margins of safety so close. Tom ************************************************************** From Ric Of course, nobody knows or can know exactly what winds were encountered during the flight. What we do know is that the flight reached the vicinity of Howland Island pretty much on schedule, which argues for winds that were not a big factor either way. To suggest that AE experienced strong headwinds and arrived at Howland on schedule by carrying ineffeciently high power settings is to suggest that she was virtually suicidal. By means of test flights in the airplane in early 1937, a max-endurance power management profile was worked out specifically for Earhart's Electra by Lockheed's legendary engineer Kelly Johnson. Those numbers are a matter of public record. We used them to predict the airplanes endurance with the known 1,100 U.S. gallon fuel load. I can't imagine why Amelia, with her life at stake, would not also use them. Also, as you point out, she had had many, many hours to fine-tune the procedure to get the best possible range out of the airplane. Let's remember. This woman was one of the most successful long-distance aviators of her time. To suggest that she managed her fuel like a rank amateur on what she knew was the most dangerous flight of her career just doesn't make any sense. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:04:01 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: more about balls Don Neumann wrote: >even if ping-pong balls were aboard, they obviously didn't keep the >plane afloat (assuming in the first place that they landed in the water >& if they made landfall, they really don't make very good eating!) long >enough for them to be sighted & rescued. If there had been a large number of ping-pong balls aboard, wouldn't some of them still exist? Wouldn't some of the former residents of Nikumaroro have mentioned seeing funny little white balls laying, or floating around? (Or did the Coconut crabs adopt them as their own?) Seems to me like the fella who flew over the island on (what day was it? the 3rd of July?) would have seen little white spots all over the place, if indeed there were ping-pong balls on the plane. Tom ************************************************************* From Ric The Navy overflight was on the 9th. If it were to be proven that the airplane's wings were full of ping pong balls, the absence of ping pong balls on Niku (or floating around on the ocean for that matter) would be an indication that the airplane, or at least its wings, remained intact. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:12:38 EDT From: Ronnie Subject: Re: Ric's Fuel treatise Ric, Thanks for the breakdown on the fuel. A 20% margin does seem prudent for a flight of that length, especially if there were some other landing sites within the "range probable error". Though I don't have all of the calculations and data that some seem to have compiled I tend to distrust pure mathematical data in issues of this sort, since this type of data must assume "facts" that may not be facts at all. Aviation was far from pure science in 1937, or even today. It's pertinent to remember that these were two human beings in the cockpit, not a couple of crash dummies. They would have been very humanly aware of all of the condittions and potential risks of the flight and had been prudent enough in the past to get all the way to the South Pacific in the airplane. They were the number one experts in the world at that time of a few subjects important to any investigation of the flight. First, how good a pilot Amelia was. Second, how good a navigator Fred was. Third, the exact distance that that plane could fly with a particular amount of fuel. They had flown the plane a goodly part of the way around the world. Miles per gallon would have been pretty well known to them by that time. Others may make mistakes regarding Imperial or US gallons but they wouldn't. They had to know how far they could fly... and how little time would be left... carrying only 950 gallons. The idea that they needed to be lighter for takeoff is not compelling. Why not take 800 gallons and make taking off a breeze (no pun intended). They may have saved enough weight to carry water wings. I am assuming a few things too. First, that they both had a healthy respect for their lives. This is fairly usual in humans, even in daredevil humans (remember Evel's parachute). Second, they were both relatively knowlegeable about their jobs as pilot and navigator. Third, that they were in full possession of their faculties. If all three of these are valid then leaving Lae with 950 US gals of fuel is a non-starter. Without doing any fancy calculations simply draw a line in scale representing the length of the flight and then draw the circle representing the maximum range left for error. Better yet, do it in the dark. Don't worry about taking off, just pray the plane doesn't get airborne. The Japanese angle may work after all if they took off under these conditions. Are there any pictures before takeoff of AE and Fred in white headress drinking a ceremonial cup of sake. None of this proves they did not crash at sea, simply that the logic behind some of the assertions that they undoubtedly did give AE and Fred little credit in the area of intelligence, or maybe even plain common sense. So much for fuel... to follow some of the other more interesting threads... Any chance they had a ping pong table on board also? The presence on an old table and paddles on Niku could be proof positive in this case. No-one cares about Linda Finch. She didn't get lost, Pratt and Whitney only wishes she had. Relative to Ric's reply about the lack of evidence being more pertinent than the intentions of the Roosevelt administration - lack of evidence has never been germane to a political investigation in search of truth. -ronnie- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:31:34 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Fuel usage Seems I recall that during WWII that Lockheed sent Chas Lindbergh to the Pacific theatre to instruct Army Air Corp pilots on the art of fuel conservation while flying Lockheed's P-38 "Lightning" aircraft. So it would seem that "stretching" fuel capacity was an integral part of Lockheed's program (thanks in large measure to Kelly Johnson's incredible quest for perfection in all aspects of his work in the design & development of his aircraft) & I also recall that fuel conservation by P-38 pilots during their Yamamoto mission, played a very significant role in their ability to reach their target & return safely. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:38:45 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Engine condition Should we also consider factoring-in that those engines had flown over three quarters of the way around the earth, under some pretty extreme conditions, with relatively primitive maintenance performed by a variety of hands in some of the locations where they landed; so it would seem to me they may not have been performing entirely up to specs by takeoff time from Lae, which might lead to some variation in fuel consumption from the norm that might otherwise have been expected from the same engines, operated under more favorable conditions? Don Neumann ************************************************************** From Ric Good point, Don. Fortunately, we have quite a bit of information about the maintenance performed on the airplane prior to the Lae/Howland flight. On the way down to Australia and New Guinea, AE spent several days in Bandoeng, Java having work done. She actually made one false start and returned to Java for more work. When she reached Lae she had the advantage of the fact that her host, Guinea Airways, used Lockheed 10s and were familiar with the airplane. The Gen'l Manager, Eric Chater, included in his July 25, 1937 report a lengthy description of work performed in Lae according to his Chief Engineer, E. Finn. Among the tasks performed was the installation of a new cartridge in the Cambidge Exhaust Gas Analyzer (vital to setting proper mixture), and a new fuel pump for the starboard engine. Although there's no question that the engines had been run almost daily for the preceding month, that's what they're designed to do. They still had less than 400 hours total time and had been extensively examined after the Luke Field wreck (at the 182 hour point). It's clear that Earhart was paying lots of attention to those engines and that the quality of available maintenance was high. We have no reason to suspect that they weren't performing normally at the time of the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:52:47 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Ping pong experiments Ric wrote: >Good point. I also wonder what happens when you take a ping pong ball to >12,000 feet in an unpressurized airplane? I know what happens to a bag of >potato chips. POW! They might take it. A sphere is an ideal geometry to hold pressure and there isn't much area for the pressure to act on, as compared to a bag of potato chips. The ping-pong balls are not a bad idea for floatation. The idea may well have been considered and some experimentation done. But I think the idea would ultimately have been discarded due to weight considerations. If any of the stories about small things AE elected to leave behind are true, she was obsessed with weight. A valid concern relative to getting off the ground with every drop of fuel you can. ************************************************************** From Ric Okay. Any of our flying TIGHARs want to take a ping pong ball to 12,000 feet in the interest of science? And just for the fun of it (Vern, you're gonna love this) let's establish the volume of a ping pong ball and calculate how many it would take to float a 7,000 pound (empty-weight) Lockheed Electra. Then let's weigh a garden-variety ping pong ball and see what the wieght penalty would be. Incidentally, we've already calculated the buoyancy effect of the empty fuel tanks. Sans ping pong balls, and assuming that the tanks remained intact, NR16020 would be 1,100 pounds buoyant. She'd bob like a cork, but she'd be standing on her nose. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:01:28 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Attack Routes To Japan Ric wrote: >I'll just add that our opinion that Earhart was not involved in any covert >government mission is not based upon any assessment of what the Roosevelt >administration would or wouldn't do. It's based upon the complete lack of >evidence that any such relationship existed and the abundance of evidence >which suggests that it did not. In the area of pure speculation, I've long believed that the direction of the second attempt made no sense relative to a spy mission. The first attempt would have made more sense. Why place the operation in jeapordy by flying more than 2/3 around the world to get to the area of interest? Go west and get there more quickly and with less risk of something happening to plane and/or crew. And losing all that special spy equipment they were carrying! Big, fancy cameras, etc, etc!! Various writings have it that there was concern that they would be into the storm season in the Atlantic by the time they had to make that crossing in early summer. So, they headed east to get that behind them before the storms fired up. If it had been a spy mission in the Pacific, I think they would have headed west regardless. ************************************************************ From Ric Conspiracy author Jim Donahue ("The Earhart Disappearance- The British Connection", Sunshine House,1987) has that one covered. You see, the entire world flight was a spy mission. AE was working not only for the U.S. but also for Britain. She gathered valuable intelligence as she flew across Africa, through Italian-held Eritrea, not to mention the Japanese strongholds in the Pacific. Never underestimate the paranoia of a conspiracy buff. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:15:11 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: more about balls OK, Ric, the jig's up. You're going to HAVE to tell them about the Gerald Gallagher Memorial Table Tennis Team that had the big shoot-out with the coasties.... Love and a jump over the net to Mother TK *********************************************************** From Ric Oh my god. I had forgotten about that. Come to think of it, remember all those seabird eggs over on Nutiran? What if...... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:21:48 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Ping Pong Balls Forever Ric: Your best follow-up for the ping pong balls question is Ann Pellegreno - Do not think she is on-line, but maybe? You must know her addess, telephone in Story City, Iowa? Forget Linda Finch, also the young lady author, I Was Amelia Earhart - these two are interlopers. Barb *********************************************************** From Ric No, I've never talked to Ann Pellegreno. Never thought that she'd have much to contribute to the investigation. She rode/flew around the world in an Electra in 1967 and wrote a fairly interesting book about the experience. The TV interviews I've seen recently indicate that she has bought into the conspiracy nonsense. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:32:47 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Movie deals Ric and Clyde: If Spielberg, or other of power comes on board, be sure to let me add what's missing in your magnaminous efforts so far. In 1989, I came very close with Bernie Kowalski, maker of Clint Eastwood, Baretta, Air Wolf, etc and CE to putting the movie story line together. All agreed, the story was "in the people" - people like Ric Gillespie, who, although a short timer, is paying his dues. Of course, in those daze and since D-Day in 1937, the "smoking-gun" sought, the stories started and continue to keep us hooked. Barb ************************************************************** From Ric Barb. I was kidding. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:36:55 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Documents (Wiley) I have copies of correspondence to FBI head in 1937, documented reports of radio signals as many as nine to twelve daze following her ETA somewhere....... Barb BTW these documents all public domain, no secret, open to anyone who devoted to taking time, effort, money to find out. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:46:23 EDT From: Barb Wiley Subject: Re: Juarez adventures (Wiley) Ron (Dawson): You are among the chosen who, for what ever reason, has become part of an intriguing scenario wrapped around the mystery of A.E. You should hear some of the stories related by individuals, like yourself, who just were curious - stories that go back as far as 1937. Your story, stories of others over the years are captivatingly interesting, highly suggestive of something rotten in this trip (the world flight) and that there was more than meets the eye. It is my opinion that the story now, after all the years, miles, and motives to hide truth, the story lies in the "stories". The conclusion must be left to the reader - listener - viewer. I do not believe a plane or parts of will be found or, if so, recognizable, so what we have is a volume of interesting stories, some plausible, some bizarre, but interesting, no doubt. This forum is evidence of the human interest in this mystery. Barbara ************************************************************* From Ric A gentle reminder. The following is from the published guidelines for postings to this forum: "Our purpose here is to promote an intelligent and productive discussion of the Earhart disappearance. Specifically, we want to further our investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island (now known as Nikumaroro) in the Phoenix Group. We will not discuss conspiracy theories on this forum, nor will we debate whether the airplane crashed at sea near Howland. We feel that we have already established a strong probability that the flight arrived in the vicinity of Howland Island pretty much on schedule and, as of the last officially received radio transmission, had adequate remaining fuel to reach Gardner Island. The question is, did it? "Likewise, we will not discuss Earhart's personality, previous record-setting flights, love life, place in history, etc. unless it directly pertains to the discovery, verification, or disqualification of evidence relating to her disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:54:04 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Evil twins Barb Wiley wrote: > Jerry The Gularte Family in California - near Gilroy was the family of > Noonan's last wife. There are collections of memorbilia still in the > family, I think. The person who has the most updated info. on Katherine > and Noonan's two sons is Ann Pellegreno, Story City, Iowa - don't think she > is on line. She is an author of Iowa Takes To The Air, Vols 1 & 2. Ann > knows a lot, just like Dick Strippel. Barb I don't think I understand this post. Who is the Gularte Family. Did I miss something while I was on vacation? I've never heard of this family! Somebody fill me in... Don ************************************************************** From Ric You didn't miss anything. The best I can figure is that there were actually two Amelia Earharts and two Fred Noonans who disappeared in 1937. Barb's reference must be to the other pair. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:56:13 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: engine condition As usual, you've done your homework! In fact it is possible (assuming all the maintenance was done & replacement parts installed as recorded) those engines may have been performing better at the end of the flight than at the beginning, as they had certainly undergone a thorough "breaking-in" period & I would assume that AE had certainly had ample opportunity to "fine-tune" her fuel consumption measurement technique over the course of her flight. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:15:04 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Attack Routes To Japan There is yet one other possibility, the AE flight was merely a "cover" to focus the Japanese attention on her flight while the US Navy attempted some type of covert effort to penetrate the Japanese secrecy cloaking their mandate islands, to coincide with the Lae to Howland leg of the flight. The trouble with that "theory" is that there is absolutely no documented proof that such an effort was made, at least not in any of the pre-WWII documentation revealed to date & given the ingenuity of the current crop of hackers surfng the nets, I'm certain if any such documentation existed, it would have surfaced by now! Don Neumann ********************************************************** From Ric That's right. For people who have only read what has come out in the various books and seen what has been shown on TV, it is perfectly natural to wonder if there might be at least a spark of fire behind all of the conspiracy smoke. As soon as I can get to it I'll post a full debunking of the conspiracy theories on our website. Then I'll be able to just refer those who are curious about that aspect of the Earhart legend to it and we won't need to discuss it on the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:00:34 EDT From: John Hudak Subject: Conspiracy theories May I remind Mrs. Wiley and her followers that they have yet to publish anything that would make me or anyone else believe that Earhart was part of some grand conspiracy/alien abduction, etc. My suggestion to the conspiracy buffs is to quit this forum and publish a web page. Start a mailing list, or see if you can get some of your views published and supported in REPUTABLE magazines. I understood the purpose of this forum was to discuss plausible scenarios as they relate to the TIGHAR theory. In defense of Mr. Gillespie and TIGHAR, they are the only group in 60 years who have provided hard evidence of their claims. Through careful scientific research, actual artifacts have been produced that point to their hypothesis as being true. It is up to everyone involved to remain open minded and objective until such time as an engine is recovered, or some form of human remains can be identified. To date, my mailbox has been deluged with discussions of FBI reports, ping pong balls, and various other nonsense. What does this have to do with the TIGHAR theory? The answer is nothing. I thought we had an interesting discussion going with the gentleman who suggested that Fred Noonan's head measurements be taken from a photo and compared to the measurements of the remains that were found on Gardner. Alas, that was short-lived and now we are back to ping pong balls. Could we please stick to the subject? It is far more intriguing than unsupportable conspiracy theories, and could lead to many interesting and detailed discussions based on EVIDENCE, and not fantasy. Thanks, John Hudak Network Engineer IPC Technologies ************************************************************* From Ric Thank you John. I have to take the blame for digressions from productive discussion. Nothing appears here that I don't have the opportunity to squelch. I'm probably too First Amendment oriented. I'll try to keep things more on track, (but an occasional ping pong ball is good for a laugh). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:07:47 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Movie deals Any chance of a cameo role for me ?? :-) Being a Brit. I could play Gallagher (about the right age) - stoically holding forth with a stiff upper lip - wrestling his concience about being told to keep the discovery of AE's bones quiet by his bosses back at the High Commission.... LTM Simon ************************************************************** From Ric Well, this is off-topic but it's more fun than conspiracy theories. So Simon has the role of Gallagher. Who do we get to play AE and Fred? (I'm sure Steve would appreciate it if we had all this worked out for him in advance.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:10:16 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: engine condition Ric wrote about the L10's engines.... >We have no reason to suspect that they weren't performing normally >at the time of the disappearance. Yes - I agree. If AE had any engine problems then I'm sure she would have mentioned them in the radio reports. Itasca's radio logs indicate that AE's sole concern towards the end of the Lae-Howland leg was navigation - i.e. finding Howland. Even so, had she lost an engine late in the flight (maybe after communication had been lost with Itasca) I'm sure the L10E with its big PW1340's would have had little trouble in staying aloft on one engine with the tanks pretty empty. Not sure what that would do to the speed/range/endurance equations though - slower speed but increased endurance I would suspect as there'd be only one engine drinking. The product of the two - the overall range would probably go down some as the L10 would not be flying optimally, with a boot load of rudder in. LTM Simon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:26:14 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Ping pong calculations Ric wrote.... >Okay. Any of our flying TIGHARs want to take a ping pong ball to 12,000 feet >in the interest of science? > >And just for the fun of it (Vern, you're gonna love this) let's establish the >volume of a ping pong ball and calculate how many it would take to float a >7,000 pound (empty-weight) Lockheed Electra. Then let's weigh a garden- >variety ping pong ball and see what the wieght penalty would be. > >Incidentally, we've already calculated the buoyancy effect of the empty fuel >tanks. Sans ping pong balls, and assuming that the tanks remained intact, >NR16020 would be 1,100 pounds buoyant. She'd bob like a cork, but she'd be >standing on her nose. Great - I love stuff like this. How many ping pong balls ?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Volume of a sphere = 4/3 x Pi x R^3 (four thirds times Pi times R cubed) Sorry about the metric dimensions - I work better in them. My ping pong balls are 1.5 inches in diameter = 3.8cm => radius = 1.9cm volume = 4/3 x 3.14159 x 1.9^3 cm cubed = 28.73 cm^3 volume Call it 28cm^3 after deducting a trivial amount for the volume of the skin. Since 1cm^3 of water weighs 1 gram (exact for pure water, approx. for sea water with dissolved salts etc.), then bouyancy per ball = 28 grammes (almost exactly 1 ounce) The Electra weighs 7000lbs = 7000/2.2 Kgs = 3182 Kg = 3,182,000 grammes therefore, number of balls required = 3,182,000/28 = 113,600 balls approximately !! Not sure what the weight of each ball is - I don't have anything that will weigh that accurately - Vern ?? ************************************************************ From Ric I have created a monster. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:24:09 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Conspiracy theories It's a lot of work, but a super idea & in the long run will probably pay for itself by saving you all that time responding to individual inquiries! Also, any in the forum who are truly interested in the conspiracy theories & their respective origins, should append their individual e-mail addresses to their messages so they can correspond with one another "off forum" & not clutter-up the normal traffic of the forum's main objectives. Don Neumann ************************************************************* From Ric Good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:03:58 EDT From: Tom Roberts Subject: Fuel Thank you, Ric, for the copy of Dick Strippel's paper on Earhart's last flight. As anyone can see from its many references/sources, Dick has done a lot of research. It is also evident from his paper that he can be an effective communicator, his forum postings notwithstanding. However, Dick bases his "crashed at sea" stance on his belief that AE only had 950 gallons of fuel onboard when she took off. He cites the Collopy Report (1100 gallons), the figures of William Polhemus (950 gallons, maximum) and the Sydney Australia Daily Telegraph (950 U.S. gallons). We now have the Chater report which supports the 1100 gallon figure. Numerous forum members have commented on the conservatism with which take-off distances and weights (and most aircraft performance characteristics) are routinely determined; the Polhemus numbers are questionable for this reason. And Ric has provided a plausible explanation for the Daily Telegraph numbers, if anyone is inclined to take the newspaper accounts too literally. Dick Strippel concludes that AE made it to the vicinity of Howland Island with little fuel left, and burning it at the rate of 35 to 38 gallons per hour, assuming she began with 950 gallons. This is virtually the same conclusion Ric would reach under the same assumption. And if she had 150 gallons more fuel, as the more solid evidence suggests, she had about four hours to reach Nikumaroro, per Mr. Strippel's calculations. That sounds like a consensus to me! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:07:34 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Pellegreno Regarding Pellegreno and PP Balls: Per Wiley, I contacted Pellegreno last week on the subject of Josie and possible Noonan children. She is not on line, and she no longer lives in Iowa. And she had no information beyond what we already know about Fred. I mentioned TIGHAR in our conversation and she indicated awareness, but not anything else that I recall. She is concentrating her time now on writing a third volume about Iowa aviation history, although she still has an interest in things Noonan. If someone else wants to contact her about PP Balls, or whatever, email me at jham@ccnet.com. blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:32:58 EDT From: Dustoff1 Subject: Couple Questions (& Silliness) 1. Interesting stuff in your Fuel Post. Could you please elaborate just a tiny bit on how/where the Chater Report was "lost" and then became found? Sounds like a story in itself. Is there a record of the Electra's actual fuel consumption during the flight, or could one be established from fueling records at each stop? The data wouldn't be definitive, but might prove useful in supporting theories. Cliche: The three most useless things in aviation: The altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel you didn't get. No doubt in my mind. Those two had as much fuel as physically possible on takeoff, checked it a million times enroute, and nursed it to the last minute. 2. The "post lost" radio transmissions are fascinating stuff. Will they ever be more than anecdotal? What would it take to move them into the realm of "hard evidence". In your opinion, which -if any- are credible? 3. Don't paddle me, but as you know -AND stripple HAS POINTED OUT- I'm not especially sharp. Given that, why, exactly, do we care about PP balls? Where would this line of reasoning take us? Bouncing right along, and buoyed that you've not sunk me,...Yet. Any chance the Jack-in-the-Box PP Balls are involved in some conspiratorial way? Remember the commercial where they' re all gathered in a meeting hall? What could they be discussing? Hummmm? Some look suspiciously the worse for wear. Coulda just rolled out of a wing, or be hung-over, or floated (no extremities, can't swim. Hey, it would take sixty years!) in from Japan. (Just my very own Gumpian theory.) With that, I'll table my discussion. Keep up the good work. Dustoff1. ************************************************************** From Ric 1. Here's the story behind the lost Chater report (excerpted from the fuel treatise): "Following Earhart's disappearance and the failed search, William T. Miller of the U.S. Bureau of Air Commerce was anxious to get information about what transpired in Lae. Miller knew that his friend Maurice E. "Frank" Griffin of Placer Management Limited, a Canadian mining company with offices in San Francisco, had connections in Lae via the company's gold mining operations there. On July 21, 1937 he sent a telegram to Griffin asking if he could "obtain information from Lae relative to Miss Earhart's departure." Griffin had a good relationship with Eric Chater, the General Manager at Guinea Airways in Lae and Earhart's host for the time she was there. On July 22nd Griffin sent a cable to Chater saying that the U.S. government was requesting information about Earhart's departure from Lae. On July 27th Chater sent Griffin this cable: MISS EARHART DEPARTED LAE TEN AM LOCAL TIME JULY 2ND ELEVEN HUNDRED US GALLONS GASOLENE SEVENTYFIVE GALLONS OIL ABOARD MOTORS PERFECT CONDITION LENGTH TAKE OFF RUN 850 YARDS LAE GROUND STATION RECEIVED RADIOPHONE MESSAGES FROM MACHINE UNTIL FIVE EIGHTEEN PM LOCAL TIME JULY SECOND STOP FULL REPORT POSTED VIA SYDNEY. Griffin passed the info on to Miller by telegram the same day. On August 5, 1937 Chater's full eight-page report reached J. Colclough at Placer's Sydney, Australia office and was duly forwarded on to Griffin in San Francisco. It was September 10, 1937 before Griffin's office received the report and wrote to Chater thanking him and saying that a copy had been sent to the U.S. government. On September 15, 1937 Miller wrote to Griffin acknowledging receipt of Chater's report. As far as we know, that's the last anybody heard of the Chater report until December 1991 when Hugh Leggatt, Manager of Corporate Communications at Placer Dome Inc., Vancouver, B.C. telephoned TIGHAR's Executive Director, Richard Gillespie, to say that he had come across an Amelia Earhart file while going through old company records. He said the file contained an eight-page report and two "flimsies" from a Mr. Eric Chater along with a number of associated letters and telegrams. He graciously offered to send one of the original flimsies plus photocopies of the supporting correspondence. As for reconstructing fuel consumption for earlier legs of the world flight, that would require having fuel receipts that no longer exist (as far as I know). We have one fuel receipt from Darwin that was in the Purdue collection. It shows that they took on 365 gals (assume Imperial?) of "Stanavo 87" (Standard Aviation Oil Co. 87 octane). That, by itself, doesn't do us much good. 2. The post-loss messages are not anecdotal. We have authoritative contemporaneous documents which establish that the signals were heard. What is really hard to prove is whether any of them were really from the airplane. The only thing I can think of that would do that would be finding Amelia's journal with the notation that such and such a message was sent at such and such a time. We can dream. 3. We don't actually care at all about ping pong balls except that the forum seems to find them fun to play with. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:35:28 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Heller article I imagine that most of you who have done extensive web searches have come across this article. For those of you who may not have, I encourage you to read *Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan: WWII's First Casualties in the Pacific?* at http://www.npri.org/nj97/05/lindy.htm It was written by Ralph Heller, "Senior Research Fellow" of the Nevada Policy Research Institute (whatever that is), published in their monthly online newsletter "The Nevada Journal". Apparently the only book Heller read about the disappearance is the one by Vince Loomis and the late Jeff Ethell, because he talks the Loomis line throughout. Among several astounding statements in his article is this one: "The truth is that neither Earhart nor Noonan were skilled navigators and neither of them knew how to work the state-of-the-art navigation equipment designed especially for their 'round-the-world journey." Noonan, not a skilled navigator? Am I not correct in my impression that Fred Noonan was one of the most experienced navigators alive in 1937? Tom ************************************************************* From Ric Your impression is correct. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:52:49 EDT From: Mike Ruiz Subject: Casting the film The No Land Club* will be the USS Colorado aerial search team. I will play Lt. Lambrecht. Upon return of the Colorado to Honolulu, I would like to be interviewed by a reporter about what I didn't see. I would like the reporter to be Claudia Schiffer. Ric, thank you for your consideration in this matter. LTM, Mike ************************************************************* From Gene Dangelo: Re: Movie deals---don't forget me, I have a Master's degree in Music Composition---I can write the score!!!! :) *************************************************************** From mike@strick.net Oh boy... Here we go.... Earhart: Juliette Binoche Noonan: Robin Williams Putnam: Dick Strippel ***************