Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:46:37 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: History Channel Crib Sheet Ric wrote: >- Crouch, "We have a list of serial numbers of everything on that airplane." >He's talking through his hat. The engines and props had serial numbers and >the airframe itself had a constructor's number. That's about it. Ric, wouldn't all of the radio equipment have also had serial numbers on the various 'units'? John Rayfield, Jr. **************************************************************** From Ric I don't know (and neither does Crouch). How about it Mike Everette? Would a W.E. 13C or 20B, etc. have serial numbers? I do know that none are recorded in the airplane's surviving paperwork. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:07:53 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Document of the Week >Every week we'll mount a new primary source document related to the Warhart >disappearance. ... Is Warhart her brother? I don't think we can afford another search. Sorry Ric. . . .just had to! **************************************************************** From Ric Ya got me. (I gotta stop doin' this stuff when I'm tired.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:12:49 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: The Curse of the Lady Be Good > Right now you're probably asking yourself, > "Why does Ric keep posting this totally off-topic LBG stuff when he is much > tougher on other off-topic threads" > > Answer: > 1. Because so many forum members seem genuinely interested and, after all, it > is a lost (or rather, formerly-lost) airplane. > 2. The postings, while off-topic, are not stupid. Ric: They are off topic, but tangential to our search, since they point out various effects of weather on aircraft and artifacts, former hardships encountered in searching in a remote and hostile environment (ie the first failed search for the bodies), and how the media can turn it into a really good story. Think of the same scenario with AE/FN waiting to be found and their "ghosts" released from bondage. We are in the archeological business and I think anything that adds knowledge for our readers/subscribers is On Topic. LTMovies, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:10:12 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Randomness of Nature Ric: I'll add my two cents worth about the randomness of MN (mother nature) - I was a teenager when hurricane Carla hit Galveston Island. Many tornados hit the island and did a lot of damage. I, too, saw a "doll house", but don't remember any particulars on it. The one that I remember most vividly was the house that was nothing but rubble scattered about the whole lot. My mother walked over and lifted a door that was still in its frame, but laying flat on the ground. On the backside was a full length bevelled edge mirror - intact and unharmed! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:17:10 EST From: Vern Kleine Subject: Re: Post-crash radio contact Pondering the imponderables. >From Ric > >1. It's important to note that there was no true triangulation on any of the >post-loss signals. Bearings were taken on different signals by different >stations. Several of these separate bearings cross near Gardner. On no >occasion did two or more stations take bearings on the same signal. It may be worth mentioning the more positive sort of speculation about this. IF any two of those bearings were, in fact, taken on signals from the same transmitter location, then the triangulation would be valid. The fact that the bearings were taken at different times would make no difference. Several bearings indicate a source in the DIRECTION of the Phoenix Islands from the DF station. The source could be anywhere along the bearing, near or far, but the Phoenix Islands area is on each of the lines. If any two bearings were on signals from the same transmitter, the intersection is very close to the Phoenix Islands. It gives one some basis to feel this MIGHT be real, but that's about all. **************************************************************** From Ric Agreed. Certainty is a rare commodity in this business. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:02:22 EST From: John Thompson Subject: AE Centre(Ireland) > I presume the Amelia Earhart Centre has all the books and any > other photos that may available. My apologies for my seeming absence from discussion, but illness and now this problem have been pre-occupying my time. I regret to inform you and other members that the Amelia Earhart Centre in Ireland will close on 31 March 1999 due to lack of funding. It is a matter of national embarrassment, not to mention personal sorrow,that the local " Powers that be" seem not to appreciate the unique and momentous achievements of AE. Would it be presumptive for me to ask members of this Forum to consider individually registering their concern by emailing letters to the Editors of local media here? John Thompson **************************************************************** From Ric John, we'll certainly help any way we can. Some more information will help us help. 1. How does this sort of thing work in Ireland? Do you have to rely on government funding or can you appeal to local businesses and individuals? 2. Do you have any sort of status as a recognized entity? In the U.S. you can become a recognized nonprofit organization and be exempt from some taxes and contributors can get a tax deduction. 3. Surely you have value to the community as a tourist draw. How many visitors to you get in a typical year? They all have to sleep and eat. Do you charge admission? 4. What level of funding do you need to keep going? 5. Let us have email addresses for local media and we can certainly let them know how many of us would definitely make a point of visiting the Amelia Earhart Centre on a visit to Ireland. There are 575 subscribers to this form. We can fill up a lot of mail boxes. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:23:41 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Post landing signals Still pondering the imponderables. >From Ric > >...The question we have asked ourselves is - How likely is it that Earhart and >Noonan were able to RECEIVE signals while on the ground/reef/whatever at Niku? We know they were NOT receiving when approaching Howland. If they got down relatively intact on Niku, they may have soon found why the receiver had not been working. It may have been something as simple as the antenna lead being disconnected from the receiver. In my opinion, those push-type terminals used on the receivers and transmitters of the time are not well suited to aircraft usage. It's just too easy to simply pull the wire out of the spring-loaded connection. It would not be easy to see this in that "rats nest" of wiring. We, and the Russians, have lost a few spacecraft because the last person to work on some part of it disconnected something and failed to reconnect it. I believe it's been determined that there is no problem in receiving broadcast station signals on Niku, such as from Hawaii, etc. *************************************************************** From Ric That's right. And there are at least three reported incidents when simple, easily repairable failures caused a loss of communication aboard the aircraft. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:28:10 EST From: Dennis Mcgee Subject: Creating evidence Sactodave said: >TIGHAR's job, as you put it, is to create >evidence. Dave. please believe me, I am NOT picking on you. But, really Dave, you've got to learn to be more careful with the English language. TIGHAR does not create evidence. Create means "to bring into existence." I think the word you wanted is "locate", or "discover," or "find" etc. There are dozens of applicable synonyms for this process, but create is not one of them. Creating evidence is fraudulent, and if TIGHAR "created " evidence it would have been out of business years ago. The group's major asset is its credibility, and if you create evidence -- and the fraud is discovered -- your credibility disappears (*snap*!) -- like that! This is not the first time you have done something like this. Your credibility on the forum is quite low because of the above statement and others similar to it. I don't know if you do this intentionally, or if . . .well, never mind that. But, please, pay closer attention to what you say if you want us to respect any future postings. LTM, who was a math major Dennis McGee, #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:32:29 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Post crash engine running without a prop... I still think if you run an engine with a constant speed prop configuration, if you removed the prop you would shoot oil to the next island out the hole in the end of the crank shaft. The only radial engine I ever worked on was the R-985 in Vietnam, so I am not an expert and don't claim to be. (Where is Bruce Y. when you need him)?But I seem to remember if we took a prop off an engine we always stuck a rag in the end of the crank to cover up the oil hole. The pitch change of the prop was made possible by the oil pressure in the engine. It has been a few years. . . I hope I am remembering my 67J20 class at Ft. Rucker. Anybody else? **************************************************************** From Ric I think John Clauss has provided adequate reaming on this subject. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:35:42 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Earhart myths > 6. Spend the next six months trying to figure out why the ring wasn't where > you thought it would be and explaining to the international press why you're > quite sure that it really is there somewhere. Ric, Sure, hog all the excitement... ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:38:21 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Starting the Engine without a Prop Like you I have felt that it would be next to impossible to start and run most aircraft engines without a prop attached. None the less, we do know that most helicopters have aircraft engines that start without a prop or flywheel attached. After starting the engine the rotor system is connected by way of a clutch or belt drive to the rotor blades. Thus I have to rethink my position on the engine starting and running. Test stand props do serve as a flywheel and provide cooling air but are they required? I don't know. The whole point is really unimportant. Special tools and stands would have been required to remove the 10E prop which Fred and Amelia would not have had. Any landing damage to the prop causing it to depart the engine would certainly damage the engine to the point it could not be operated. If the engine was operated to charge the batteries after landing almost certainly it was with the prop attached and the landing gear extended. Dick Pingrey 0908C A & P Mechanic ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:41:07 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: History Channel Crib Sheet >From Ric > >I don't know (and neither does Crouch). How about it Mike Everette? Would a >W.E. 13C or 20B, etc. have serial numbers? I do know that none are recorded >in the airplane's surviving paperwork. I just took a look at an old BC-696-A transmitter that I've got laying out in the shop, and it has a serial number on it. When I made the other post, I was at home and couldn't check this one out. John Rayfield, Jr. **************************************************************** From Ric Serial numbers are like DNA. Doesn't do you any good without something to match it to. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:08:26 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: AE Centre(Ireland) In my sheltered existence I had no idea there was an AE Centre in Ireland. What a shame that it has to shut down. Can anyone advise what arrangements have been made for their collection/materials/etc? ltm, jon 2266 **************************************************************** From Ric The arrangements are that TIGHAR and the Earhart Forum are going to do all we can to keep the Earhart Centre in Ireland alive lest the ghosts of Frederick Joseph Noonan and Gerald Bernhard Gallagher rise up from their very graves and ask each of us in the blackness of the night why it is that they must lie beneath Pacific sands without there being at least one place among the green hills of Donegal where they are remembered. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:21:16 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Starting the Engine without a Prop Re -Starting Helo engines--- Dont the driveshafts go into a gearbox which would absorb some loads and then at the proper time,speed and temp the rotor is clutched in to start rotating for takeoff,etc. I am going to have to go back to my manuals and look.. Jim Tierney **************************************************************** From Dave Bush QUESTION: How does the starter engage the engine if it doesn't have a flywheel? Every engine I have ever seen (tho, admittedly, I haven't seen them all) has a toothed fly-wheel that the starter engages. This is a BIG metal thingamabob and has to be to handle the forces to spin the engine. BY THE WAY - off topic tho it may be - why are 18 wheelers called 18 wheelers when they actually have 21 wheels (not including spare tires). Don't forget to count the steering wheel, fly-wheel, and fifth-wheel. I win $20.00 bucks from every truck driver when I bet them their 18 wheeler has 21 wheels. What'd WC Fields say - There's a sucker born every minute (he was using remote viewing when he said it, too, I'll bet). Love to motors, Dave Bush #2200 ***************************************************************** From Ric That was P.T. Barnum. W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump." He said it in the film "Poppy" (1923) but the saying was originated by Edward Francis Albee. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:27:46 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: AE Centre(Ireland) Ric-By all means- Get us more info and addresses......... I had already slotted the centre on my schedule for my next trip to Ireland... Jim Tierney ***************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf An AE Centre in Ireland ? Where is it ? How do I get there ? What does it have to show ? Ireland is only minutes an $ 100 away (by plane) from where I live. Herman De Wulf Belgium ***************************************************************** From Ric John Thompson can tell you much more, but I can tell you that it's in Derry, very close to the field (Gallagher's Field) where Earhart landed in 1932. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:44:33 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: questions on forum stuff Loved the lightbulb joke, keep 'em coming. I'm going to drop Reader's Digest a line about the article in Discover Archeology magazine in particular, and TIGHAR in general. Hopefully, publicity, memberships, and funding will result. On the forum, just whose mother is everyone sending love to? Each to their own? All to Ric's mom? To Ric himself as (no offense Ric) the "mother hen" of TIGHAR? Perhaps to AE, as she is "the mother of all" aviation mysteries. Please clarify. Do I understand correctly that there are feral canines on Niku? If so, I humbly offer my services to accompany the Niku 4 expedition as a shooter to keep the project from going "to the dogs". That's providing, of course that the Prime Minister/President/whatever of the nation of Kiribati doesn't object to my "Michigan coyote rifle", a sweet little Marlin lever-action that fires .357 magnum pistol bullets at velocities handgunners can only dream about. (don't be alarmed, I'm not a militia/gun nut type, just a humble collector trying to weasel my way to Niku) When (not "if") TIGHAR and the AE/Niku projects are ultimately successful, those folks who write books attempting to harmonize our own real history with the fictional one of "Star Trek" will need to revise their storylines. There was a "Voyager" episode wherein the trekkers discovered AE alive and mostly well in the "delta quadrant". Best snide remark about non-believers of alien/trek mythology came from Capt. Janeway speaking to AE: "in your time the most scoffed at theory of your disappearance was that you had been abducted by aliens." For the record, to limit further postings about it, the episode aired in 1998, starred Sharon Lawrence as AE, and portrayed FN as having a drinking problem. LTTF (love to the forum) Dave Porter P.S. I know that this is a pretty disjointed posting, and I apologize. It's just the way my brain works. Friends who know me say its a pity I couldn't use by brain for something useful, like memorizing sports statistics. ************************************************************** From Ric Heyyy......just what we've been looking for! A guy with a disjointed brain and a sweet little Marlin lever-action that fires .357 magnum pistol bullets at velocities handgunners can only dream about. Sorry to spoil the fun, but there are no feral dogs on Niku. A few years after the colony was aboandoned the authorities went in and left poison bait for any dogs that had been left behind. Here's why we say Love to Mother. A few years ago, a woman named Patricia Morton was doing Earhart research at the National Archives and stumbled upon a telegram dating from 1945 which contained a whole list of messages to friends and relatives from internees at a recently-liberated camp in China. One was addressed to Mr. G.P. Putnam, 10042 Valley Spring Lane, North Hollywood, California The text reads: Following message received for you from Weihsien via American embassy, Chungking: Camp liberated; all well. Volumes to tell. Love to mother (*). The (*) is explained at the bottom of the page as meaning signature omitted. The State Department forwarded the message to Putnam via SpeedLetter (a type of quick-notice letter) on August 28, 1945. The letter was sent by Eldred D. Kuppinger, Assistant Chief, Special War Problems Division. The document has no stamp to indicate that it was ever classified, nor does it have a stamp indicating that it was ever declassified. Anyone who has ever obtained formerly classified documents at the National Archives knows that they are real careful about that. There appears to be no indication that the document was ever classified. That's hardly surprising given the explanation of what a SpeedLetter is, which appears in the upper right corner of the document; "This form of communication is used in the interest of speed and economy. If a reply is necessary, address the Department of State, attention of the Division mentioned below." In Putnam's reply he merely updated his address and asked to be notified if anything else was heard. Weihsien was not a prisoner of war camp. It was a Civilian Assembly Camp - an internment camp. According to a 1995 letter by one of the American soldiers who liberated Weihsien on August 17, 1945 there were no Japanese military personnel in charge of the camp. It was run by a Mr. Izu of the Japanese Consular Service. All internees were well documented. Amelia Earhart was not there. On the 18th a general inspection was made of the camp and twelve internees were hospitalized and selected for early departure due to poor health. They were evacuated by C-47 on the 28th, the date of the telegram and the SpeedLetter. Why was such a message sent to Putnam? Sadly, it was most likely a hoax. In the years following Amelia's disappearance GP was beset by dozens of false leads and scams. Some were financially motivated. Others were apparently just cruel jokes. Whether the Weihsien message was a joke or a mistake, it's quite clear that it was not from Amelia Earhart. Nonetheless, the letter is frequently held up by conspiracy theorists as evidence that Earhart was "captured" by the Japanese, held prisoner, and returned to the U.S. after the war. This telegram and the nonsense which has surrounded it in recent years has prompted those of us most involved in TIGHAR's Earhart research to adopt the "Love to mother" closing as a reminder to keep our objectivity and skepticism intact when evaluating any new evidence. Love to mother, Ric You can order your very own Love to Mother shirt and refrigerator magnet on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:47:48 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Technical Remote Viewing Vern Klein wrote: > Can anyone suggest a good do-it-yourself book on reading > chicken entrails? As some of you may know, for some years years I flew search and rescue missions (not CAP). We flew about 22 hours a week. One of the other pilots was quite religious and always used to say that "God drove his airplane". He was quite committed in his belief too, so it should be fitting that he would be the one who would find this one particular group of Cuban refugees one Saturday morning. That day, off the coast of Florida, a group of Cuban refugees was adrift in a tiny homebuilt raft. On board was a Santeria Priestess (this is sort of a Cuban variant of Voodoo mixed with Wickan lore and a touch of Catholic faith as well). After three days at sea, there were in pretty bad shape and probably would not have survived another day. In their desperation and with their last chance of survival rapidly slipping away, they asked the Santeria Priestess to do some of her magic. She pulled some chicken's feet out of her little bag, and laid in with a black magic chant, waving them around over her head. At exactly that moment, this fine pilot friend of mine spotted them, dove down on them in his plane and... they were saved. A day later, I had the opportunity to meet with the Priestess and her cohorts -- as you can imagine, they were all true believers in Santeria. It was a miracle, they said, the way she had "summoned" the plane. I think she probably still has those chicken feet somewhere, so if you want me to give her a call, we'll have the whole AE thing solved in no time I'm sure. For all I know, she may have written a good book about it by now -- it is, after all, the "American Way". Just doing my best to help move the whole psychic viewing thing in the right direction (all of the above story, by the way, is true). Thomas Van Hare **************************************************************** From Ric We'll try to think of some way to repay you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:51:35 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: "Battery Power" Ric wrote: > The main battery was in a well beneath the center section and the > aux battery was in the aft cabin. If the plane was "landed" on the reef, would not both of these batteries have been underwater with the first tide? And with the rapid corrosion and destructive effects of water (salt water in particular), they probably would not have been able to have been recharged, ne c'est pas? Thomas Van Hare **************************************************************** From Ric Ever stand up next to a Lockheed 10? Big sucker. A 4.5 foot tide might threaten the aux battery in the aft cabin, but just barely. The main battery up under the center section would be high and dry. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:31:06 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Tides at Niku Wouldn't the fact that there is such an abrupt drop-off at the edge of the reef, into extremely deep water, also effect both the timing/level & velocity of tidal movements at Niku? Don Neumann ***************************************************************** From Ric I don't know. I do know that the shallowness of the passages into the lagoon greatly dampens and delays the tidal effect along the lagoon shore. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:38:43 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Smartening up a chump The first talking motion picture was 1927, so how could WC Fields say that in the movie in 1923? **************************************************************** From Ric Duh. Just goes to show that even Bartlett's can have a misprint, unless there was a stage play called Poppy. I know I've seen the film. Gotta be 1933. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:53:55 EST From: Ted Whitmore Subject: Post Crash engine operation This post crash engine removal and run is worse than WAG data, definitely not Scientific WAG data, so it must be TWAG (Tongue WAG). Anyone that thinks AE and FN could dismount, move, re-mount, attach fuel lines, batteries, etc. etc. should try just taking the engine out of their car with nothing but a few hand tools and bare hands with main strength and awkwardness. My sympathy to Ric. Ted W. #2169 <\\\>< ***************************************************************** From Bob Sherman Dave Bush wrote: > QUESTION: How does the starter engage the engine if it doesn't have a > flywheel? The starter on that and most other radials engages in the planetary accessory drive gears in the back of the engine. They drive the mags, oil & fuel pump, & others stuff like genarator, etc. if installed. For what it's worth, the engine could be started without a prop! However engine oil from the prop govenor would pour out the end of the prop shaft, depleting the engine oil supply in short order, which would bring the operation to a screeching, shuddering halt. Moving the throttle too far above idle would be a thrilling experiece. As for charging the battery, would three to five minutes do it any good? RC 941 **************************************************************** From Chuck Jackson Is it possible to run P&W radial w/o prop? YES! Not many P&W experts around any more. DAYAIR at Stockton ,CA(SCK) MUNI is one of the few remaining rebuilders -- Ray Anderson said, predictably, "I wouldn't recommend it!!". But, has it ever been done? "YES, call Tom Cheers (at SCK). Tom said that an oldtimer told him to NEVER run one without a prop. Having an old 985(cousin to 1340) around, he couldn't resist! Says successfully started and ran it 15 times UNTIL IT BACKFIRED AND BLEW ITSELF APART. Said it ran very smoothly, until... Said first time he had it hanging from a chain... AND it bobbed like a yoyo, got to tie her down tight! Asked Ray if it could tolerate a bent prop? NO -- very sensitive to slightest unbalance. "Chances of AE and FN removing prop without special tools?" NONE! **************************************************************** From Don Iwanski You can run the engine up to ground idle without the prop. Test Shops typically install a dummy prop to check the seals on the gearbox and to allow higher than idle RPMS when testing the engine. Don I. ***************************************************************** From Bob Lee Sorry I meant to respond to this earlier, but the radial engine will not run without a prop, the engine will try to run backwards, The only way for it to run without the prop is if AE/FN knew enough to change it to fire after "top dead center" instead of before TDC. Regards **************************************************************** From Bruce Yoho Helicopter engines do have flywheels. The fly wheel is most often part of the cooling fan assembly. Test clubs provide cooling air near the center of the engine where the cylinders are attached. This is why a test club is made with 4 blades and very short, but it also is one that has a lot of weight to provide a flywheel effect for the engine. To Don Jordan Yes, as Ric stated John Clauss did enlighten the group to running an engine without a prop. There are many reasons, as a lot of them have been stated, that an engine would not run without a prop or with one damaged to the extent a wheels up landing or prop strike would cause. Yes, if you remove the prop oil will shoot out the propshaft for over a hundred feet probably. If you attempted to run the engine with a damaged prop even at idle the viberation would be so bad that the engine would come loose from its mounting, that you may have configured, as was suggested. I do not think you could even get it to start without a prop. The power stroke would be so violent that the piston would be driven to Bottom Dead Center without any inertia to carry it up and threw the other strokes of the Otto Cycle. To end this question for the forum I do have an engine at School we will remove the prop and attempt to start it and I will post a step by step accounting as to the results. ***************************************************************** From Ric (oh no) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:09:40 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Post-crash radio contact Some facts to consider when considering post-crash radio signals. Measured errors from Itasca on 3105 kHz as determined by PAA Honolulu were on the order of 20 degrees. There is a big assumption stated below that IF there was a single transmitter, then two bearings made at different times makes a triagulation. Radio hoaxes and transmissions from afar were commonplace; the Itasca chased a series in November, 1936 to no avail. No signals were intelligible, nor could any be accurately ascertained to be 3105 kHz exactly. Finally, and this is my speculation, but a good bet, is that everyone knew that the signals were coming from the general area of Howland, so all DF's were "tuned" to that general direction. I suspect that there is some of 180 degree ambiguity involved. Considering the uncertainty in bearings, and the numerous (approx. 10+) ships on radio traffic, plus Itasca continuously broadcasting for every ship to be on the watch for 3105 kHz, the chances for a random ship to hoax is high. Personally, after studying all available radio fixes and transmissions purported to be from Earhart, I cannot convince myself that any of them were from her. Love to Rocket and Morgan. *************************************************************** From Ric The post-loss radio signals are a case of the glass being half-full or half- empty. Even finding the airplane won't solve that riddle. (Rocket and Morgan are TIGHAR's resident cats.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:11:27 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: The Curse of the Lady Be Good Dave Bush wrote: >> Ric: They are off topic, but tangential to our search, since they point out > ((..omitted..)) > adds knowledge for our readers/subscribers is On Topic. It also adds data for when we have debates with people. If someone makes some comment about "plane was perfectly preserved in that desert crash, why isn't Earharts plane just sitting there?" we can draw comparisons between the circumstances. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:15:15 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: AE Centre(Ireland) Nice Thoughts regarding FJN and GG-and the ghosts thereof... Jim Tierney **************************************************************** From Ric I thought you might appreciate that, your name being Tierney and all. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:56:42 EST From: B. Conrad Subject: Re: "Quicksand" Is there any signs of "quicksand" on the island? What I'm driving at is something that my wife brought up tonight. We were talking about batteries and the idea that you said that her plane was big enough that it wouldn't sink in the water. She, though brought up the point about the crash of the plane that landed in the muc and quicksand of the Everglades. Is this a possibility of happening. I know you said that the reef is flat and is dry as a bone. But, is it possible of happening. Also, I know alot of people are thinking this can happen. But, in all cases how fast can two people disassemble a plane; to keep them from falling into the hands of the enemy or somebody. Let's just say, that you landed a plane in adverse weather conditions, and on your entry say a couple thousand feet, you notice a Japanese patrol boat in the distance. As you approach land, can a person disassemble that plane; take what they need and let the rest float off into the ocean. It's possible that they got off the post-crash radio messages. But, in a war-time situation such as Vietnam...to keep yourself from falling prey to the enemy...You either shot yourself...destroyed or disassembled your weapons...or ran. If you say that plane is as big as it is...Then I'll buy the guy the first six-pack that can go there whenever and tell me that plane isn't there! How deep is that reef anyway? Too, are we for sure that she was able to land the plane, and didn't try to take off again, and then ended in fate. O.K! I'll stop while I'm ahead. Anyway, there are alot of things adding up that haven't been looked at lately. Anyway, sooner or later a puzzle will be solved and completed! **************************************************************** From Ric Well, if your intent was to stop while you were ahead, you missed by quite a bit. There is no "quicksand" on or near Niku. The reef-flat surrounding the island is rock hard coral. The beach sand can be quite soft but in the same way the beach sand is usually soft. All this talk of "the enemy" is a not-uncommon problem in addressing the Earhart disappearance. In 1937 Japan was not the enemy. There were no Japanese patrols. The closest Japanese were over a thousand miles away in the Marshall Islands where, contrary to legend, they had no secret fortifications, or airfields, or aircraft carriers, or anything that was in violation of the League of Nations mandate. (Later they did, but not in 1937.) Had Earhart and Noonan seen a "Japanese patrol" approaching they would have been delighted. Had any Japanese, civilian or military, come upon them no matter where - Nikumaroro, the Marshalls, Truk, Saipan, or Tokyo - they surely would have rendered assistance and notified U.S. authorities. There were numerous other incidents when they did just that. The very fact that speculation about Japanese involvement in the Earhart disappearance is always characterized as her "capture" is a dead give away that it is based entirely upon erroneous assumptions about the historical context. If an American were to disappear today in Japanese territory we might wonder if he or she had been "detained", "arrested", "taken into custody", or even "abducted", but we would not say "captured." The entire myth about Japanese involvement in the Earhart disappearance is a relic of World War II. And let's not even talk about disassembling a Lockheed 10. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:52:57 EST From: John Clauss Subject: Starting the Engine without a Prop I haven't been around that many helicopters. Most of the ones I remember have fans to cool the engine and other rotating components that provide the mass to substitute as a flywheel. I would also agree with you on the need for special tools to remove the prop and the fact that a prop strike would damage the engine. It is fairly obvious that for AE to broadcast at any length the right side of the plane had to be substantially intact and the engine capable of being run. LTM John Clauss 142CE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:00:56 EST From: G. Spruyt Subject: Re: Post-crash radio contact Tom Van Hare wrote: >Of course, the engine could run pointing skyward from the ground, Was the engine injected? An engine without injection or a pressure carburetor could not be run if it was pointing skyward, could it? And would the lubrication system still work? And what about all the accessories on the back of the engine? There would be a thusand pounds resting right on top of them. Oh yeah, I had a two stroke engine without a flywheel. No starter either, someone stuck an electric motor with a hex on the end into the crank and pulled it out when it fired. Same basic setup as indy cars use **************************************************************** From Ric The engine was not injected. I think that we have pretty well established that if that airplane was sending radio transmissions it was essentially intact. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:08:49 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Post Crash engine operation Thank you Bruce. . . Can't wait to hear what happens. And, to make it more realistic. . . take the prop off with with the same kind of tools AE and FN had. Maybe this will put an end to this nonsense! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:00:05 EST From: John Larrabee Subject: Re: Smartening up a chump >Duh. Just goes to show that even Bartlett's can have a misprint, unless >there was a stage play called Poppy. I know I've seen the film. Gotta be >1933. I know it's off-topic, but out of respect to Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Fields: 1923: Fields appears in the stage play POPPY, a Broadway hit. 1924: Silent film version, re-titled SALLY OF THE SAWDUST. 1936: Sound version of POPPY. Solid proof that you are a master at making logical conclusions based on the available evidence. Except the 1933 part. John Larrabee **************************************************************** From Ric It actually is an interesting example of the process we go through all the time - not just me - all of us. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:05:49 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: AE Radios In response to Ric's question regarding serial numbers on Western Electric equipment: I have never actually seen either a WE 13CB or 20BA receiver, in the flesh, but can offer these educated opinions, or speculations, about what sort of information would be found on them. Yes, the receiver and transmitter -- and very likely, also, the remote control heads -- would carry serial numbers. More than likely these would be in the form of brass nameplates, square or rectangular, about 1 or 1-1/2 square inches in area, with the lettering in natural brass, raised, and the background in an enamel finish, probably black. The serial number would be stamped with a die, into a raised brass "pad." This pad would, probably, contain the WE logo, which was the company name "Western Electric" in stylized letters resembling lightning bolts. For a sample, look on the handset of almost any phone manufactured by Western Electric, even through the 1980s. The plate would also contain the radio equipment model number, i.e., 13CB (transmitter) or 20BA (receiver). These number plates would probably be found on the radio chassis, rather than the covers or housings; but perhaps not. If Western Electric did not use number plates, the serial numbers would probably have been paint-stamped onto the chassis, in black paint. Bear this in mind: without some sort of record, somewhere, to indicate which serial numbers were installed in that aircraft, the numbers themselves don't mean much. Perhaps Western Electric's archives may produce something... or maybe Purdue University may have a bill of sale, a work order, whatever. I don't have time to search for these things right now; anyone want to try? As for removing the radio gear and battery, stringing an antenna, etc... The whole idea is LUDICROUS. For one thing, the WE 13CB transmitter was, according to the technical information I have studied (which includes the tuning procedure) a boogerbear to make work properly. If the antenna characteristics were at all different from what was on that airplane, the likelihood of it being able to put a signal out was none to slim. It would take a good-- no, a REAL good -- technician to make it work under such conditions. AE and FN probably do not meet this criterion. And without a bunch of special tools and test gear, they'd never make it go. Despite the fact that the stuff drew so much primary current from the battery that battery life would have been measured in terms of a couple of hours, max, with a good hot battery to begin with. It takes a lot of tools to do this kind of work. Just removing a battery from an aircraft can be a major job... yes, I have done it, including on a Twin Beech which is something near to a 10E Electra. The darn things are heavy... and not at all easy to manhandle out, either. Making this gear work is not as simple as pulling it out of the plane, hooking up power and throwing an antenna over a tree limb... not by a long shot. I think a lot of people are looking at this like the radio gear of that time was as neat and user friendly as the stuff we are used to in the Age of Solid State. No way. This stuff was Late Medieval. Lots of boxes, lots of accessories (all required), and above all, lots of cable ans connectors which one just does not "remove" from the aircraft. Ric addressed the problems well the other day. I myself have made a great many items of radio gear work in a different manner from which they were intended, and this includes quite a bit of ex-aircraft equipment. It is not simple at all. There is a lot of cut and try, as well as luck and good radio horse sense involved in doing it. I think we can say with a 100% assurance factor that this did not happen on Niku. If there were messages sent after a landing, they were sent from the aircraft... ON DRY LAND. If the plane was in the water, the batteries and the dynamotors (motor generators which supplied the high voltage power to run the receiver and transmitter) would have been submerged. Quite likely the cockpit would have been waterlogged, because the weight of the engines would cause the plane to float in a nose-low attitude. Remember, the receiver was mounted on the cockpit floor... glug glug glug. And if sea water shorted out the battery in the belly (as it would have within minutes), remember that the auxiliary battery in the aft cabin was connected in parallel with the main... so they would both have been shorted out. Zap. End of story. 73 88 AR Mike E. #2194: ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:10:16 EST From: Bob Heine Subject: Re: Post Crash engine operation Reading the comments about running an engine with bent prop and looking at the mystery photo got me thinking. Say AE had a hard landing at Niku and damaged the right gear and bent the prop. They try starting the right engine to charge the batteries. The engine then tears itself off its mounts and drops onto the reef in shallow water. A couple days later the plane is pushed back amongst the coconut trees, destroying what remains of the right gear, but keeping the left gear and engine intact, as seen in the photo. Even if they knew the prop was bent badly I think they still would have tried running the right engine to charge the batteries, because they would have had no choice. -Bob Heine ***************************************************************** From Ric I dunno. It would take a lot of shaking to rip an engine right off its mounts. If we're going to rip the engine off the airplane, isn't it easier (i.e. more logical) to attribute that to the same forces that throw the rest of the wreck up into the bushes? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:25:22 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Smartening up a chump Ric wrote: >I know I've seen the film["Poppy"]. Gotta be 1933. >> "Poppy" was released by Paramount Pictures in 1936 (according to the Internet Movie Database). That ought to smarten you up. LTM, Russ ***************************************************************** From Ric Yup. Now we have to work on you. I drew the wrong conclusion because I didn't test my alternative hypothesis. You confirmed that my conclusion was wrong but you failed to explore my alternative hypothesis. Consequently, you and I both reached the erroneous conclusion that Bartlett's had misprinted the date. John Larrabee was the only one thorough enough to discover the real answer to the mystery. Lesson: When things don't add up, try to think of all of the reasonable explanations and then be sure to investigate them before drawing a conclusion. Follow through, follow through, follow through. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:25:02 EST From: Alan Faye Subject: Re: Technical Remote Viewing Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez ! Nuff already - - - Sorry I ever mentioned Remote Viewing. Kill it NOW before it multiplies. Thanks. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:35:25 EST From: Alan Faye Subject: Re: Post-crash radio contact One should consider that HF radios are very cantankerous, just getting them tuned. The antenna has to be just the right length to get a "null" for a tuned antenna. Without the "null" the radio transmission output is virtually nil. I used to ferry light twins across the Pacific from Calif to Hawaii and Australia. I used a trailing-wire antenna for HF radio contact. (HF being the 3105 kc and higher freqs). To get radio propagation, I had to lengthen or shorten the antenna trailing-wire just right or no null and no contact. Do you think AE & FN could have stretched a a length of wire just the right length to get a null and be able to transmit? I don't think so. Further, at ground level the tuning and propagation can be next to impossible. They probably had some pre-tuned coils in the aircraft installation for each frequency, instead of trailing an antenna wire. However, you have too many changes in impedance and resonance when you take the wire and coils out of the aircraft and try to hang it on a tree or whatever. I hated the HF radio. It was subject to so many atmospheric and ionospheric changes. They should have stayed on 3105. That was always a good freq. You all keep beating the "engine-generator" theory to death. Try postulating that they could have used just battery power alone for quite a few calls IF they had an antenna that could be tuned. I had a 40-ft sailboat and would go (trans-Pacific) for days without running the engine to charge batteries. However, I called home every night on the Pacific Maritime Net on the HAM bands (HF - 14,305khz and 7285khz). With batteries alone you can talk quite a bit before they go down and need to be charged. And I tuned my backstay for an antenna. And it was quite technical. Not a lay-person's bag. AE or FN technical on radios? I doubt it. Aloha from a retired, tired pilot. (No more ferry flights for me. They just lost one yesterday going from Honolulu to Hayward, CA. Ditched and went submarine.) **************************************************************** From Ric Having just extricated yourself from the Remote Viewing stewpot you seem intent upon crawling into the radio stewpot. Trust me. There are guys on this forum who really do understand HF radio and they'll make you wonder how you ever managed to talk to anybody. Let's just leave it that your decision not to ferry light airplanes across the Pacific is a sign of great intelligence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:18:05 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: AE Radio/ post-landing contact: Would not the fact that the Electra was transmitting from a stationary, ground-level position (assuming a successful, wheels-down, undamaged landing on the reef flat), have a significant bearing on the direction & range that could be expected from it's radio transmissions, as opposed to such transmissions broadcast while still aloft? Since there appears to be no record of any transmissions being received, (following the last transmission recorded by the Itaska) during the time frame while the plane was presumed to be still airborne and making the assumption A.E. was still transmitting or at least attempting to transmit messages enroute to the Phoenix Island Chain, why would such transmissions suddenly occur after the plane is determined to have landed? I guess my point is (not too well explained), since aircraft radio systems are designed to operate primarily from airborne aircraft, why would such transmissions suddenly occur after the plane is presumed to be down, from a more remote location than when the plane was airborne (unless, of course, the listeners were trying to transmit while A.E. was transmitting)? Don Neumann ***************************************************************** From Ric You're thinking VHF such as is used in modern aircraft. Those signals travel line -of-sight so that the higher you are, the farther you reach. That's not true of HF frequencies such as Earhart was using. I'm sure that our resident radio gurus will hasten to elaborate, but the bottom line is that NR16020 should have been able to transmit from the ground nearly as well as from the air. I do think that it's safe to assume that Earhart continued to transmit after the last message received by Itasca. Their failure to hear her seems most likely to have been caused by the skip characteristics of the frequency to which she changed (6210 kcs). They may also have "stepped on" her transmissions with their own attempts to contact her. The logs show that they were doing a lot of transmitting. How long Earhart would have continued to send transmissions in the face of no replies is an open question. At what point do you say, "What's the point? The thing is obviously broken."? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:35:40 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Request from Ric We're (finally) setting up a LINKS section on the TIGHAR website and we'd like suggestions from forum members for good links to good sites. Too many links only serves to hide the good stuff, so we're going to be very selective and include a brief review of the site with each link. We're specifically looking for good research sources, air museums, Earhart- related sites, specialty bookstores - that sort of thing. Send your nominee to Pat at TIGHAR@mac.com and please check the link or URL before you send it. Thanks, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:34:42 EST From: Sandy Cates Subject: Search Has there been any answers as to why the navy or coast guard didn't send search parties to the Pheonix Islands. It seems that if one of the search planes saw evidence of "recent habitation" and with the post loss radio transmissions gave a vague triangulation to the same group of islands wouldn't the lack of any other tangible leads to go on give them cause to pursue the ones that did have? It just seems to me that they should have pursued any leads knowing that the last place they wanted to do was ditch at sea and that they were on a defined bearing with some land masses within range. Just my two cents worth - Thanks for the opportunity and I really look forward to getting to work in the morning and reading what has happened on the forum - it really gets my day started off right. Sandy Cates *************************************************************** From Ric Try to put yourself in the shoes of the captain of the USS Colorado (probably about size 10 1/2, brown). This is your final trip as captain of the battleship. It's the annual ROTC training cruise and you started from the West Coast with 196 college kids and 4 university VIPs. You sailed to Hawaii and stopped at Hilo where they threw a big farewell party for you. Your next job will be at Pearl Harbor as assistant to the admiral who is in charge of the 14th Naval District. (There's a rumor that Pearl will soon be made the home of the Pacific Fleet.) At the Lahaina Roads firing range you let the kids fire the ship's big guns and then you tie up at Pier 2 in Honolulu for four days of liberty. Just as most of the ship's company heads into town, the word comes down that Amelia Earhart has gotten herself lost someplace 2,000 miles to the south and the Navy is going to try to find her and - guess what? - yours is the only capital ship in the Pacific. Swell. You round up your people, call your airplanes back from scheduled maintenance at Fleet Air Base, and move the ship over to Pearl for fueling. Meanwhile, you get together with other senior officers and try to figure out where you should look. Everybody agrees that she should be somewhere on the line of position she said she was on. As you prepare to get underway you find out that you'll be bringing along a bunch of newspaper reporters too. The next day you head south at flank speed, slamming through heavy seas and taking water over the number two turret. For the next couple of days, as you travel south, half the world seems to be hearing unintelligible distress calls from the lost airplane. At one point, the Navy in Hawaii interprets one message to mean that the Electra is floating in the ocean 281 miles north of Howland. The Itasca and a British steamer are sent to check it out but find nothing. Then Lockheed says that if the plane is transmitting it has to be on land. Pan Am says that some of the signals seem to be coming from the Phoenix Islands. This reinforces your original opinion that the plane is on the line of position but now you decide that it makes the most sense to search land areas rather than the ocean. After about six days at sea you finally reach the area of the first possible land to be searched. Something called Winslow Reef is supposed to be right over that way a few miles. You don't get too close because you don't want to risk putting this battleship aground on a reef so you send the airplanes out to check it out. They come back and report that they can't find the reef. You send them out again, and they still can't find it. The newspaper boys are loving this. These pilots are supposed to find Amelia and they can't even find a reef that's on the map. The next day (July 9, a full week after the disappearance), having given up on finding Winslow Reef, you launch the planes to search McKean Island, Gardner Island, and Carondelet Reef (if they can find them). While that search flight is going there are some real festivities aboard the Colorado. A couple of days ago you crossed the equator and you have all these people aboard (pollywogs) who need to be initiated into King Neptune's Kingdom. At the very time when the airplanes are over Gardner island, the ship's company is busily whacking the living daylights out of anybody who has never before crossed the equator. When the pilots return later that morning they make their report to you and you somehow get the impression that they saw no sign of anything. And that's what you later put in your written report. But when the Senior Aviator writes up an account of the flight for the weekly newsletter of the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics he says that he saw "signs of recent habitation." The search continues with more flights that afternoon and the next day with everybody hoping that the Electra will turn up on the next island. But it doesn't. Meanwhile, all these kids and VIPs were supposed to be home by now and the romance of this voyage is rapidly wearing thin. You're greatly relieved when the aircraft carrier Lexington arrives to take over the search and you can head home. That's the way it happened. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:44:09 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Aviation links Ric asked for: >We're specifically looking for good research sources, air >museums, Earhart-related sites, specialty bookstores - that sort of thing. As usual, you have demonstrated once again the weakness of your Scottish heritage: Not knowing when to let well enough alone. "Good research sources" are like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. The most obvious first stop, I think, would be the Aviation Ring at www.intertex.net/aero/airring/html . The good (?) news is that the ring has nearly 1,000 aviation-related links. The bad news is that a lot of it can be pretty piss-poor stuff, i.e. Joe's love affair with his 1946 Taylorcraft, Mike's visit to the Darwin Airshow etc. The ring does have a lot of stuff on it but like any good research, it takes a while to find it. I have found some excellent resource sites for everything from Brewster Buffaloes to F-111s, Vulcans, Lancasters, B-52 etc. I guess, you just gotta dig. (I think I have too much time on my hands.) LTM Dennis McGee, #0149 *************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:51:27 EST From: Gary Moline Subject: AE Stepped on You stated that possibly the Itasca "stepped on" AE's transmissions with their own transmissions. Doesn't that theory assume that they were both on the same frequency? LTM, Gary Moline **************************************************************** From Ric Assume nuthin'. They WERE transmitting on the same frequency. It's right there in the log. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:13:53 EST From: Gary Moline Subject: AE TV Mystery I know that we've talked a lot about the History Channel special that was shown again this week and your crib sheet was almost excellent! The show goes into detail about how the Japs wanted that airplane so badly for the new technology that they supposedly promoted two Jap officers to Admiral for capturing the plane! Let it be known that that theory is totally false as the Japanese government had purchased their own L-10 the year before! A few weeks back there was another special (25 minutes worth) on the Learning Channel about the mystery. They don't mention a rumor of a hard landing in Hawaii but they do go on to say that the repair work performed after the take off accident was an opportunity to install spy gear for the next attempt. They say that there was discussion of swapping planes for an XC-135 (of which they say there was only one built and it is in a museum). What is an XC-135, circa 1937? They then follow the journey eastbound and mention two new theories that I had never heard. One is that she was sick in the mornings and might have been pregnant! (Oh no, a pregnancy theory!!) and the second was that her crash position was identified from a long post crash radio transmission to have been located in the Mali atoll located in the Marshall Islands. They say that this is some 600 miles northwest of Howland and in Japanese held territory. Another radio message states that she and FN were located about 280 miles northwest of Howland. This message was supposedly received by Pan Am folks in Wake Island. The show says that GP went to Saipan after the war and searches for AE but finds nothing. The show concludes that they feel that the airplane ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean near Howland Island. They do mention that the spy mission stuff was impossible in that the L-10 had no cameras aboard and that they islands that were to photograph would have been hidden under the cover of darkness. There is a lot of good video of the airplane and AE, especially while the airplane is being repaired after the Hawaii accident. Did you see this show? LTM, Gary Moline ***************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure which show you saw. There's so much junk floating around out there now and I guess that we're probably responsible. We uncover new evidence and get good press, so the TV types want to capitalize on the popularity of the subject and they fill out their shows with anything they can find (it's called "balance"). All it takes to establish a new Earhart theory is for somebody to make an allegation, no matter how stupid and unfounded. Bingo - it's on television and it's instantly part of the legend. Briefly: The one and only XC-35 is in storage at the Smithsonian's Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland. I've crawled all through it. It was an experimental Lockheed 10 with a pressurized fuselage and it won the Collier Trophy in 1937. It wasn't secret and it never had anything to do with Earhart. The "pregnancy theory" was started by photogrpaher Al Bresnick (now deceased). It's too stupid to even talk about. One Pan Am radio bearing on a post-loss signal passes close to Mili Atoll in the Marshalls, thereby obviously proving that Earhart was Hirohito's mistress. The "281 message" was not heard by Pan Am at Wake but by U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe in Hawaii. It is, perhaps, the most interesting of the post-loss signals and can, in fact, be construed as evidence that the plane was on Gardner. But it's not proof of anything. As I recall, GP may have been at Saipan briefly toward the end of the war in his capacity as an intelligence officer, but it didn't have anything to do with Amelia. She had died back in 1937 ya know. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:13:55 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: AE TV Mystery Any idea which L-10 model the Japanese bought? I bet it had the same "more powerful" Model 12 engines that were secretly installed [NOT] on AE's L-10... Seriously, do we know which one they got? ltm jon 2266 ***************************************************************** From Ric Fully realizing that after that last posting about the blucher oxfords, nobody is ever going to believe another thing I say... On March 26, 1935 Lockheed delivered Electra 10A c/n 1017 to Okura & Co. of NY who exported the aircraft to Japan. Japanese records show that Okura & Co. was acting on behalf of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The airplane was equipped with the 450 hp Pratt & Whitney R985-SB "Wasp Jr." engines that were standard for the 10A. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:35:40 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Search Are you saying the official Navy search report and debrief does not reference signs of habitation? What exactly was the weekly newsletter? What was the time difference between the flight (official report) and the newsletter article? And is this strong evidence suggesting the Navy screwed up big time because they were caught up in seagoing celebratory festivities? blue skies, -jerry ***************************************************************** From Ric 13 July 1937 Subject: Resume' Earhart Search by USS Colorado From: Commanding Officer To: Commandant, Fourteeth Naval District By: Wilhelm L. Friedell, Captain, USN EXCERPT: "No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation." 16 July 1937 Subject: Weekly News Letter - Aircraft Search of (sic) Earhart Plane From: Senior Aviator, USS Colorado To: The Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics Via: (1) Commanding Officer, USS Colorado (2) Commander Battle Force, U.S. Fleet By: John O. Lambrecht, Lieutenant, USN EXCERPT: "Here (Gardner) signs of recent habitation were clearly visible..." Draw your own conclusions. I'm just quoting the sources. The newsletter was an aviator to aviator publication within the Navy, but Lambrecht's write up was clearly routed through Friedelll. How closely Friedell read it, if at all, we have no way of knowing. Friedell had already written up his report three days before Lambrecht wrote his and the captain may have been hesitant to go back and amend his version, especially to include what, in retrospect, might be interpreted as a stone left unturned. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:00:09 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Search Being Naval uniform shoes, would those have been Blucher Oxfords??? ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************** From Ric Yes. Few people realize that throughout the Depression, as a cost cutting measure, all captains of capital ships were issued women's blucher oxfords (the Navy got a great buy on a Macy's overstock). As a further economy measure, regulations specified that worn out heels had to be replaced. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:41:37 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Post Crash engine operation From Ric -- > I dunno. It would take a lot of shaking to rip an engine right > off it's mounts. If we're going to rip the engine off the airplane, > isn't it easier (i.e. more logical) to attribute that to the same > forces that throw the rest of the wreck up into the bushes? An unbalanced prop (bent, etc.) will absolutely rip an engine right off the mounts. It has happened, many times in history. I can remember a Beech 18 crash where the prop hub threw a blade, the engine vibration then tore the whole mount off the wing, and the blade punctured the gas tank in the nose and starting a blazing fire into the cockpit. This was right after takeoff. Flames in the cockpit and all, the pilot ditched it in the water and survived (lots of injuries). German ace Max Immelmann shot off part of a prop blade early in WWI and subsequently crashed to his death. The vibration ripped the engine off the nose of his Fokker E.III Eindecker (Oberursel 100hp engine). Don't quote me on the horsepower numbers, etc., as I haven't researched Immelmann in some years. Anyway, you could probably go on an on with actual real world examples. Suffice it to say that vibration from an unbalanced prop can be VERY destructive. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:39:41 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: XC-35 and sons Ric said: >The one and only XC-35 is in storage at the >Smithsonian's Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland. ... >It was an experimental Lockheed 10 with a >pressurized fuselage . . ." Indeed it was and the Collier Trophy it won was for its advances in pressurization technology. One of the stories (unsubstantiated, as far as I can tell) we docents used to tell about the aircraft was how the Lockheed engineers solved early problems of the fuselage not holding pressure. It seems that early in the program the engineers rolled the modified aircraft out of the hanger to test the pressurization system. They fired up the engines and activated the pressurization system but determined that the fuselage was leaking, but they didn't know where. Allegedly, the best engineering minds could not come up with a simple solution, until a assembly line worker suggested they cover the fuselage with soapy water. So the engineers got a few buckets of soapy water, fired up the engines, pressurized the fuselage and tossed the buckets of water on it. Sure enough, every seam and rivet hole that leaked emitted a small stream of soap bubbles as the pressurized air from inside the airplane squirted out the holes and "foamed up" the soapy water. After marking each hole and driving a few more rivets into the fuselage, it was finally air tight and, as they say, the rest is history. For our nonairplane-oriented forum members, the importance of pressurization in aircraft can not be overstated. The major benefit of this technology is that is allows the cabin to be kept at a constant air pressure (equivalent to about 6,000-8,000 feet above sea level) and temperature (maybe in the 60s-70s). By maintaining a constant air pressure and temperature, the crew could get rid of its bulky and cumbersome flying suits, oxygen masks, electrically heated socks etc. giving them complete freedom of movement and comfort within the pressurized area. This was an important consideration in war planes, such as the W.W.II B-29, that flew long (10-16 hours) missions at high altitude where the air is thin and temperatures routinely are around MINUS 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Improvements in the technology lead to pressurizing the entire cabin area, not just the cockpit, and made possible the pressurized airliners of today. Today, nearly all scheduled airlines have pressurized aircraft. All of which is why you can now fly New York to Los Angeles without asphyxiating and freezing to death -- unless of course you do it in winter in a Yugo. LTM, who carries her own oxygen bottle Dennis McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:57:31 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: AE TV Mystery Ric wrote: > The "281 message" was not heard by Pan Am at Wake but by U.S. Navy > Radio Wailupe in Hawaii. It is, perhaps, the most interesting of > the post-loss signals and can, in fact, be construed as evidence > that the plane was on Gardner. But it's not proof of anything. What was the text of the "281 message". I would love to read it. Thomas Van Hare ****************************************************************** From Ric Oh Lordy, have you just opened a can of worms. Okay, here we go. Early on the morning of July 5th the following message was sent from the Commander of the Coast Guard's Hawaiian Section (COMHAWSEC) to the Itasca: FOLLOWING COPIED NAVY RADIO WAILUPE 1130 TO 1230 GCT QUOTE 281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF UNQUOTE KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGEMENTARY PHRASES BUT COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS We've only spent about a gazillion hours working on this particular puzzle but I won't say anything about our observations until the forum has had an unbiased crack at it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 21:04:24 EST From: Bette Norlund Subject: Re: AE TV Mystery I have been patiently following comments made the last few weeks and finally have to add this-OH NO! The next thing you know there will be someone showing up on the scene claiming to be AE's offspring and wanting a share of the estate and then we we'll be into one long soap opera! LTM also. Bette ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 21:08:29 EST From: Gary Moline Subject: Re: AE Stepped on My recollection is that you said that AE switched freqs and that's when the Itasca could no longer hear her. I agree that she could have been stepped on with the original freq as the Itasca was recieving her, but if she switched and then could no longer be heard how could there be any stepping on? LTACM (Love To A Confused Mother) Gary Moline **************************************************************** From Ric AE said she was switching to 6210 kcs. Let's assume she did that and continued to try to call the Itasca. Meanwhile, the Itasca starts trying to call her on 6210 kcs. If they happen to be calling at the same time she was calling they were "stepping on" her and wouldn't be able to hear her. We'll never know whether that actually happened. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 21:10:02 EST From: Gary Moline Subject: Re: AE TV Mystery Along with being Hirohito's mistress, don't forget that AE was also the voice of "Tokyo Rose"! LTM, Gary Moline ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:58:30 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Search opinion You have consistently either stated or implied that the Colorado pilots performed incompetently on their air search, leading one forum visitor to assume that "they were looking for an airplane" and ignoring any humans (or sign of) on the beach. Now you'd have us believe the skipper of the Colorado was too busy throwing parties to pay any attention to the pilot's reports. I know you are so totally convinced that Amelia & Fred landed on Nikumaroro (nee Gardner) that you refuse to accept that the Navy did not see ANY signs of airplane or crew, but don't you feel a tad guilty about bad-mouthing them so consistently? Won't you admit the possibility that a Colorado pilot would probably given his right arm to find the missing fliers? And don't you think that the skipper felt the same way? So I think it's a 1000-1 shot you'll ever find Amelia on Niku, but if you want to pursue a will-o-the-wisp that's okay with me. And if you find ANYTHING identifiable as an Electra part (with or without serial numbers) I'll applaud your incredible perseverance. Meanwhile, just BACK OFF insulting anyone that disagrees with you. Cam Warren **************************************************************** From Ric I'm not clear about just who it is I am supposed to have insulted. Our job is to discover the truth about the Earhart disappearance. If, in the process of establishing the facts of the case, it turns out that some traditional viewpoints have been in error, so it goes. If the holders of those viewpoints feel insulted when they are shown to be wrong, there's not much I can do about that. We think that the flight ended on Nikumaroro because that's where all of the available evidence seems to point. If further research leads us somewhere else, we'll go there - and gladly. We've done it before. We searched in Maine for the While Bird (1927 French transatlantic attempt) for eight years before shifting our operations to Newfoundland. In our Earhart investigation we started with a hypothesis that suggested two possible islands - McKean and Gardner. Further research enabled us to eliminate McKean and the closer we've looked at Gardner (Niku) the more evidence we've found to indicate that it might be the right place. I've never impugned the competence of the Navy search pilots. I think they were good aviators who carried out their assigned duty with integrity. My representation of their attitude toward the search and the general atmosphere aboard the Colorado is drawn from contemporaneous documents. Three pilots participated in the aerial search of Gardner Island on July 9, 1937. Lt. John Lambrecht flew aircraft 4-0-4 Lt. William Short flew aircraft 4-0-5 Lt. Leonard Fox flew aircraft 4-0-6 Lt. Short kept a personal diary of sorts during the voyage in the form of a letter to his father to which he made daily additions. Here are some excerpts: "Monday, July 5, 1937 (enroute southward from Hawaii) "Friday afternoon (July 2) I went into town (Honolulu) with Bill Williams, had lunch with them and thence back to the ship to change clothes as we were all going to a cocktail party that little Edna (daughter of the commander of Fleet Air Base, Pearl harbor) was giving for her house guest - her old roomate or something. We no sooner got out there than the news broke that the Colorado might be designated to search for the missing Earhart plane. That kind of put me on a spot as you can well imagine - with the planes all out of commission and everybody scattered all over the place on liberty. ... We finally got everything aboard and underway at 1 p.m. on Saturday (July 3) afternnon, with the firm conviction that even if they were still alive they would probably die of old age before we could arrive on the scene. ... This whole business is certainly a royal pain in the neck - not but what I welcome this opportunity for a cruise down to this part of the world, mind you, but it's the principle of the thing. First place I can't see it as anything but a publicity stunt. "Flying Laboratory" indeed! Even if she had been successful what would have been proven thereby except that she was the first woman to fly around the world? As it stands now she has only demonstrated once more that long flights over water in a land plane are foolishly dangerous. It is my own personal opinion that she should never have been permitted to attempt this flight or, having once started it more elaborate measures safeguarding it should have beeen established." "Thursday July 8th (Commenting on the failure to locate Winslow Reef.) "What's the answer? -- Your guess is as good as mine, - or anybody's. In any case you can imagine what a nightmare it is for the Captain in command of one of the U.S. Navy's best battleboats charging around in waters where the latest charts and Sailing Directions provide such reliable information. Tomorrow we expect to look over the westernmost islands of the Phoenix group McKean I., Gardner I., and carondelt Reef and possibly Hull I. We at least ought to be able to find the islands - I hope. The ship crossed the 'Line' yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon but due to the search operations His Majesty, King Neptune Ruler of the Raging Main postponed His arrival on board to greet His loyal subjects and to mete out just punishment to the lowly polywogs, until tomorrow morning. As the schedule calls for an early launching for us I will probably miss most of the fun. However, if I can only keep my date with Amelia it will be worth it!" Friday, July 9 "Well, the search continued as per schedule - we were catapulted at 7:00 this morning, went directly to McKean I. thence to Gardner Is., on down to Carondelet Reef and back aboard about 10:45. We found nothing, but this was none the less a very encouraging flight for we at least had the satisfaction of making our landfalls as expected. ... Gardner was... a ring of land surrounding a lagoon about 2 1/2 miles long by about a mile wide. Almost completely covered by short bushy trees including two small groves of coconut palms. There was the wreck of a fairly large steamer - of about five thousand tons hard up on the beach - her back broken in two places and coverd with red rust, but otherwise fairly intact. Apparently it had been there less than ten years." Of the visit to Hull Island later that afternoon Short says, "Johnny Lambrecht landed in the lagoon and talked with the white overseer in hopes that he might have heard or seen the plane passing. He had not even heard about the flight in the first place - lucky fellow! .....All the pollywogs were converted to shellbacks in due form this morning and now they are all going around sitting down as little as possible and that very gingerly. I can well sympathize with them as this constant exposure to a parachute for three hours at a clip has much the same effect." But was Short's attitude unique among the pilots? The irreverent tone of Lambrecht's write up for the Bureau of Aeronautics Weekly News Letter brought this comment from C.C Bloch, Commander Battle Force, United States Fleet in a letter to the Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet dated 27 July 1937: "Certain undesirable features of this correspondence, including the informality of expression in certain portions, are being taken up with the Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Colorado, in separate correspondence." And finally, an indication of the crew's view toward the search can be obtained from the ship's newspaper The Colorado Lookout. The issue dated July 22, 1937 is headlined PLANE SEARCH HALTS CRUISE. Sub-headline; "Colorado Departs From Honolulu To Search Area At Equator". Sub-sub-headline; Three Planes Cover the Phoenix Group. Other front page stories: "Domain of Neptunus Rex Entered By Colorado - Pollywogs Initiated In Proper Mode by Shellbacks" and "Civilian Guests Comment On Cruise." All of the seven photographs that appear in the publication depict scenes from the initiation celebration. Cam, you ask if I don't "feel a tad guilty about bad-mouthing them so consistently?" I don't feel a bit guilty about trying to reach an historically accurate assessment of the atmosphere in which the Colorado's search was carried out. You also ask if I will "admit the possibility that a Colorado pilot would probably (have) given his right arm to find the missing fliers?" I certainly think that the pilots were doing the best job they knew how, but I do not think that the available evidence indicates that your characterization of their attitude is justified. And no Cam, I will not back off. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:03:28 EST From: B. Conrad Subject: Re: "Possible Landing Sites" This morning I was glancing at the picture of the island and was wondering if there are any pilots out there; if given the proper coordinates at the time of AE last transmission and you are close or near the island...Where would you sit the plane if you had too. I think that you and the Tighar staff members should do a mini research and find out people's opinions if they were placed in this situation. I myself personally would take the most left part of the island(which is the left-side of the picture. Mainly, because you have enough take-off speed and enough feet in distance for landing. Another thing that you may also be able to do is simulate a scenario in which two people can sit in a makeshift simulator of the Electra and given the situations, try to land the plane under given circumstances. From this data and people observed and researched, you might have a good idea where the plane could have been landed. Anyway, hope to see more people get excited about this search. It's getting excited by the moment. **************************************************************** From Ric All the activities you describe would be a lot of fun but would not yield anything but a lot of opinions. Opinions we got, in abundance. What we need are facts. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:22:26 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Wreck photo Even though the dialog about AE and FN pulling an engine off the Electra, or removing radio equipment was interesting reading, I hope we are through with it. Anyone with common sense and a knowledge of the radios of the time (or even now for that matter) knows it would be next to impossible to make one work. I doubt if an average pilot could take the radio out of the average Cessna of today and make it work. Yes, there are those who could! But not many. As for this engine nonsense. . . forget it! They did not pull and engine off the Electra. . . they did not pull a bent prop off and start the engine. . . . no way in H---! I expect to get jumped on from the "Were you there"? crowd. Go ahead. . . make my day! I have to admit. . .it was interesting reading. Ask Bruce Yoho to describe, step by step how to remove a radial engine. And don't forget the oil tank. . . it's a dry sump. Here is a more logical question I would like to ask. Did anyone make a computer model of the crash photo engine. Then make a computer model of the Electra engine in one of the Lae photos. If you superimpose one onto the other, wouldn't that kinda tell us if we have an Electra engine? I would think there are different kinds of two bladed props. Different cowl opening and so on. I'm not sure what it would prove, but might be interesting to try. Maybe do the whole wreck and see if the firewalls would line up. Maybe this has been done. Bruce. . . did you get that engine running yet? How did you stop the oil leak out of the crank shaft? Ric, my renewal is on the way. It's been a good year! **************************************************************** From Ric The Wreck Photo is too dark too permit us to see much inside the engine cowling so there's not much we can do with that. I'm not sure what you mean by "computer modeling" but we certainly have done a great deal of very hi-tech digitizing and enhancing and measuring and comparing. There is nothing in the photo from which we can derive a known scale but we do know that the ratio of prop length to cowling diameter is correct for a Lockheed 10E and that the appearance of the prop hub is consistent with a Hamilton-Standard 12D-40 hub such as NR16020 had. And let's all agree that a couple of non-mechanics with no tools on a Pacific island could not take an engine off an airplane. I don't think we need a step-by-step description of the procedure. Thanks for your renewal - and yes, it has been and is going to be a very good year. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:33:34 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: AE TV Mystery Gary Moline wrote: >Along with being Hirohito's mistress, don't forget that AE was also the >voice of "Tokyo Rose"! Also don't forget, she was healthy and well and living in New Jersey in 1979! (whatever happened to that lady, anyway?) LTM Tom #2179 ***************************************************************** Irene Bolam died of cancer in 1983. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:38:53 EST From: Craig Fuller Subject: Electra Prop Blade Electra Propeller Blade Found in North Carolina Lake may be Amelia Earharts! Sorry about the header, but I was trying to figure a way to make this posting on topic, and it came to me while standing in the checkout line at the supermarket... A friend of mine is working on an archaeological survey of a PBJ (USN B-25) that crashed in a North Carolina Lake. She was contacted by a local resident who has a propeller blade that he dragged up from a nearby lake.Tracing the part numbers on the blade Hamilton Standard had this to say: "The blade number you describe is the same as those manufactured at Hamilton Standard from the mid 1940's to the mid-1950's. The specific blade number (-A8) indicates that it was most likely used on a Lockheed 10A Electra, or a Lockheed 12A Electra. The -A8 nomenclature on the latter part of the blade number indicates that the tip of the blade was cutoff by 4 inches from the basic 6531 blade, resulting in an 8 inch reduction in diameter on the aircraft. Our records indicate that while many 6531 blades with various cutoffs in diameter were manufactured for installation on various aircraft, the 6531-A8 blade was used only on the Electra." I was wondering if any of our know-all forum members have knowledge of any 10A or 12A Electra accidents in or around North Carolina. The blade is bent back as if from a crash. No other parts were found in the lake so the blade could have been from a gear up landing at an airport and found a second life as a boat anchor. For those interested in the PBJ project, newspaper articles can be found at: http://www.Charlotte.com/observer/0211lake.htm http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/features/people/airplane.htm Craig Fuller **************************************************************** From Ric Nice try Craig. Incidentally, the blades on NR16020 were 6095A-6s. The 6531 blade came along later. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:55:12 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: GP, Intelligence ?? Ric stated, >As I recall, GP may have been a Saipan briefly toward the end of the >war in his capacity as an intelligence officer, but it didn't have >anything to do with Amelia. She had died back in 1937 ya know. What was your source for that statement ? George Putnam an intelligence officer ?? Every impression that I have of GP is that he was a promoter, a pitch-man, from the hats he tried to get AE to endorce to the luggage. I expected him to have a job in the USO or with Bob Hope in WWII, not in intelligence. What this looks like is that somebody had something to tell GP that was secret. To make sure of his silence, they brought him into the faternity and put him under oath. You said his trip to Saipan at the end of WWII had nothing to do with AE. In 1960, Paul Briand in his book made reference to the Saipan story as told by Dr. Casimer R. Sheft, the Navy dentist. In 1946 Miss Blanco told Dr. Sheft the story. From what I understand the 1960 book would be the first PUBLIC knowledge of the Saipan story, it is likely the Navy could have learned of the Blanco story as early as 1946 from Dr. Sheft. If GP was an intelligence officer, there seems to be a scenario here that has the correct time line for his trip to Saipan. With GP being an intelligence officer also casts a different light on the LTM Speedletter, it could have had nothing to do with AE, hoax or not. The Speedletter has every characteristic of an open code, not classified, says nothing, only the sender and receiver know the meanings of the words. Daryll ***************************************************************** From Ric Well Daryll, I'll say this for you - you're consistent. You present me with a classic example of the kind of dilemma that gets me into trouble with Cam Warren and his ilk. (I'll bet you didn't even know he owned an ilk.) How do I point out that your suppositions are uninformed and wrong-headed without insulting you? These days the politically correct thing to do is to make condescending statements about how everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The trouble with that approach is that stupidity goes unchallenged and is given equal status with sound reasoning. If nobody ever says that anything is stupid, then nobody is ever forced to really defend a position and we end up with television shows about UFOs and websites about Technical Remote Viewing, and - most tragically - classrooms full of kids who grow up without the tools to tell fact from fiction. George Putnam enlisted in the spring of 1942, despite being in his mid-fifties, because he wanted to do what he could for his country. He graduated from the Army Air Force Training School in Miami Beach, Florida on October 17, 1942 and went from there to the Air Intelligence School in Harrisburg, Pa. where he was commended for his "superior performance." In March 1943 he was transferred to the 468th Bombardment Group, a new B-29 outfit then based at Salina, Kansas. As Intelligence Officer for the unit, he went with it to India and then to China from which the first raids on the Japanese home islands were mounted. During his visit to Saipan in 1945 he was very much aware of the many rumors circulating about Amelia having been "captured" and held for a time there. According to Mary Lovell's biography of Earhart ("The Sound of Wings" 1989) he "drove all over the island making extensive inquiries about the white woman flier but got no answers that gave him any hope that Amelia had ever been there." (page 326) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:02:21 EST From: Darll Bolinger Subject: Re "281 message" Can anyone on the Forum lay out a 281 degree radial course line from Howland and identify any land masses along that line? Daryll ************************************************************** From Ric Doesn't sound like such a difficult task. Why don't you do it yourself? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:28:35 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: This And That Weems Air Navigation Sometimes this internet stuff is magic. I decided to try for my very own copy of Weems' book. Got lucky. Scored the 1931 first edition (and I assume original book). Wonderful. Has the heft and comfort of a well worn hymnal. Of course I hoped a previous owner had left his name (say FJN just for the heck of it). But, alas, my copy apparently spent most of its days at the Groton public library, probably collecting dust on a back shelf. Having paged through it, I was struck by a couple of things: 1) Avigation and avigators - at first I thought this was a typo. But no, its even in my dictionary. Aerial navigation. Guess it didn't stick too well. Weems uses it throughout the book. Was he still using it for the 1938 edition? He also uses aerology, what I call meteorology. 2) Chronometers - A 14 page chapter on timepieces. Weems says he suggested to the Navy that they could use a "movable second-hand dial" to facilitate setting a watch to exact (to the second) time, which they developed and designated the "Second Setting Navigation Watch" (gotta love military naming protocol). A picture shows the latest commercial-type chronometer, a wrist watch made by Longines. He recommends that, "The best position for the watch during actual air navigation is on the left arm, carried as an ordinary wrist watch." Noonan carried two watches in 1935, one a (you guessed it) Longines second-setting watch. So, if you find a Longines with movable second hand dial on Nikku.... 3) DF loops - He calls it the radio compass, and says, "A radio compass is merely a useful application of the well-known directional characteristics of a loop antenna." So much for the radio stuff being secret military experimental equipment. He says the RC or DF in a plane may be rotatable or built into the wing. Also that, "...radio beacons and radio stations have been found more useful than radio compasses installed in the plane itself." He gives the procedures for working with US and International RC stations. I didn't realize that radio navigation was this far advanced in 1931. Hard Landings Butler, in East To The Dawn makes the claim that Mantz was flying the landing in Honolulu and, "The landing was terrible - so hard in fact that the impact weakened the landing gear." She says Mantz and AE were not getting along well and implied AE may have thought the hard landing led to the takeoff mishap. She gives as source an unpublished AE biography (Lady In The High Wind) by Janet Mabie, an AE journalist friend, which is in the Schlesinger Library at Radcliffe; chapter 13. blue skies, -jerry ***************************************************************** From Ric It doesn't surprise me that Butler tells this story. Her biography frequently glosses over or provides excuses for Amelia's mistakes. Butler's account of the landing (attributed to Mabie) does not agree with Dwiggins' (Mantz's biographer). The most compelling reason to believe that no damage was done to the Electra is that the Army's subsequent inspection didn't find any. It's also hard to beleive that Paul Mantz botched a landing that badly. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:30:37 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Search The explanation by Ric on the Lambrecht report and Search Report timing is good, and to add icing to the cake, the Colorado was only in Honolulu for about four hours on the 16th, when the reports were turned over to Commander, Mine Battle Group (Senior Officer Afloat) and 14th Naval District, Respectively. Hardly enough time to revise a typewritten long document. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:58:42 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: 281 message I interpreted the 281 message to read: [We are] 281 [nautical miles] north [of] Howland. [Our] call[sign is] KHAQQ. [We are] beyond north ((i.e north-northeast, northeast??)). Dont ((hope for, vs. hold with?)) us much longer. [We are] above water, shut[ting] off [radio]. If in fact this was from AE/FN and they were floating, I am amazed at the sudden accuracy of FN's navigation. While he had 4-5 hours to find Howland after he missed his first ETA, he still couldn't locate it. But now he has a real good idea where he is, exactly 281 miles -- not about 280 or around 300, but exactly 281 miles, north of Howland. I'd be suspicious of that, it's too accurate. Also, the comments by the Coast Guard Commander in Hawaii, who was relaying the message to the Itasca, don't jibe with reality. My interpretation of his comments are: [This message was a] KEYED TRANSMISSION. [It was] EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER [wave]. [The message consisted of] FRAGEMENTARY PHRASES BUT [was] COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS If we are to believe that the keying was "extremely poor" then I would have to question the accuracy of the text even if it was copied by three operators. My experience in copying code -- or more accurately, watching it being copied and analyzing the results -- would lead me to believe that with three ditty-boppers copying the same "extremely poor" keying, I would probably end up with three different versions of the text. All three operators will not hear the same exact thing. Just as the operator on the Itasca changed the text of some of his messages, the same would apply here. I have often witnessed multiple operators copying the same signal and when things -- the signal itself or the keying -- starts to head south, the operators usually enter their best guess. ((I've even seen them peek at the other guy's copy and then type that in!)) Consequently, the same text can vary significantly from operator to operator. The text presented by the Coast Guard was probably a consensus between the operators and their supervisors of what everyone thought they heard. This does not question the integrity of the Coast Guard or its personnel, it simply recognizes human reactions (we all want to do a good job) and reflects a common practice (as documented earlier by TIGHAR). I don't doubt that the Coast Guard heard something, but I don't think it was AE/FN. LTM Dennis McGee #0149 **************************************************************** From Ric The trickiest thing about the 281 message is separating out the "fragmentary phrases" which are all run together in the reporting message. Note that the message does not come from the people who actually heard the message - Navy Radio Wailupe - but by the Commander of the Coast Guard's Hawaiian Section. In other words, this is second hand information. Where is the original transmission of the report from Wailupe to ComHawSec? My guess is that the information was passed from Wailupe to ComHawSec by telephone. They were both right there in the Honolulu area. Maybe the guys at Wailupe just phoned the Coast Guard and told them what they had heard. At any rate, we don't know what words go together and that makes it a lot tougher to fill in the blanks. Here's my best guess on how the phrases break down: .....281 north..... .....Howland call KHAQQ.... .....beyond north..... .....don't hold with us much longer.... .....above water...... .....shut off..... If this is not a genuine message from Earhart or Noonan then it must be either a misunderstood message from someone involved in the search, or an outright hoax. I can't think of any other possibilities. This message was circulated to virtually everyone associated with the search and was widely reported by the media. No one came forward to say, "Hey guys. That wasn't Amelia. That was me." Also consider that any experienced operator would not send a message that was poorly keyed. I think we can say that the likelihood of it being a misunderstanding is remote. That leaves two possibilities - a genuine communication or a hoax. Let's consider whether it might have been a hoax. What would a hoaxer have to know to perpetrate this stunt? He'd have to know AE's frequency and call sign - but those were easy to find out. He would also need to know that neither AE nor FN was adept at sending code and that a believable message from them would have to be extremely poorly keyed. At that time practically no one knew that AE and FN could not send code smoothly. If this message was a hoax, it was perpetrated by a real insider. But the most interesting coincidence about the 281 message is the number 281 itself. Any navigator with an almanac can establish his latitude with considerable accuracy merely by noting the elevation of the sun at local noon. Longitude is a lot tougher, but latitude is a piece of cake. Latitude is nothing more than distance from the equator. 281 nautical miles is 4 degrees 41 minutes. Go to that latitude north of the equator in the Central Pacific and you better be on a boat because there's no land on that line. But go to 4 degrees 41 minutes (281 nm) south of the equator and you'll find one place where you can stand on dry land - Gardner Island, Aukeraime District, right in the same area where we found the shoes in 1991 and one of the places where we suspect Gallagher found the bones, shoes and sextant box in 1940. With that in mind you might want to take another look at those fragmentary phrases. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:03:56 EST From: Dave Leuter Subject: the curse of the Lady Be Good Lets set the record straight at last. According to Allmovie.com the movie "Sole Survivor" was made for TV in 1969 and was directed by Paul Stanley. Here is the cast list: Lou Antonio - Tony Richard Basehart - Brigadier General Russell Hamner Alan Caillou - Corey Larry Casey - Gant Brad David - Elmo Vince Edwards - Major Michael Devlin Noah Keen - Major General Schurm William Shatner - Lieutenant Colonel Josef Gronke Brinke Stevens -not listed Patrick Wayne - Mac OK guys, lets get on with it! Enough of the anecdotal evidence! I'm sure that Ric would agree that the real curse of the Lady Be Good is to take up precious time and resources in forums such as this one! Love to Movies "X never ever marks the spot" Professor Henry Jones Dave Leuter PS I wouldn't be surprised if Ric posts no more on this including this message! **************************************************************** From Ric I wouldn't want you to feel insulted. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:02:01 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Kiribati Not Earhart-specific, but it does go to the current priorities of the government hosting her plane, as they might say in a US courtroom drama. This is from the Radio Australia web site: The Pacific country of Kiribati has proclaimed a nationwide state of emergency following prolonged drought. Radio Kiribati quotes President Teburoro Tito as appealing for international help as most of the underground fresh water supplies have dried up. The report says because of the dry weather most islands in Kiribati have become dustbowls, making the estimated 81,000 population prone to airborne viruses. ***************************************************************** From Ric This is also of concern to our research team who are scheduled to visit Tarawa later this year. We'll want to make sure we have our immunizations up to snuff. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:08:46 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Don Jordan wrote:- >Here is a more logical question I would like to ask. Did anyone >make a computer model of the crash photo engine. Then make a computer >model of the Electra engine in one of the Lae photos. If you >superimpose one onto the other, wouldn't that kinda tell us if we have >an Electra engine? I did a fair amount of comparison work on engine sizes - quite some time ago now - between what we see in the photo and the L10E. One of the reasons I had for favoring the Tachikawa Ki-54 (spar holes notwithstanding) over the L10E was the relative diameters of the engine compared to the bulkhead right behind it. The photo seems to show an engine which is of similar diameter to the bulkhead (that's my interpretation). Take a look at the L10E with it's cowls off though (pictures of AE's Hawaii crash are good examples), and you will see that the engine appears substantially larger than the bulkhead. You could argue that maybe the cylinders have been removed from the engine in wreck example - but my feeling is that this would result in an engine core diameter much SMALLER than visible in the wreck. The ring cowl also bothers me considerably. Sure - the theory that reverse flow of water (strong wave action on the reef perhaps) could peel the rear of the cowlings outwards so they break leaving only the securely fastened ring cowl is plausible, but I can't believe that this process would leave a pristine and undeformed ring cowl - no warps, bends etc. and it's rear edge appears absolutely sharp as if it's a manufacturer's edge. Just picture trying to bend a curved piece of metal (say a bean can with a couple of slots cut in it lengthways) and you'll see what I'm getting at. Simon #2120 ***************************************************************** From Ric All fair concerns - but I will say that upon close examination of a real "killer" scan in Photoshop 5.0, the rear edge of the ring cowls do appear somewhat ragged. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:38:07 EST From: Tom Ruprecht Subject: batteries vs flooding Regarding "The main battery was in a well beneath the center section and the aux battery was in the aft cabin.", how does this relate to the depth of water at high tide after the landing? Would there be any possibility of the aux battery getting shorted and damaging anything when the water flooded the lower tail section? T ***************************************************************** From Ric The aux battery (assuming that it was still where it was prior to the first attempt) was mounted in a box secured to the floor of the cabin on the starboard side just about opposite the cabin door. With the airplane in the three-point attitude, the floor at that location is about 3 feet off the ground (assuming normally inflated tires). With a four or four and a half foot tide, that raises real doubts about whether the aux battery would be usable. Was it still there on the second attempt? Could they have moved it to protect it? Could they have simply disconnected it and used only the main battery? We can speculate, but at this time we just don't have any way of knowing for sure. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:06:21 EST From: Dave Baker Subject: Re: Search opinion That's right, Ric. All you have to do is publish the opinion of one disgruntled Navy Lt., and that means they all think that the search for Amelia is a poor utilization of Naval forces, and they all will expend as little effort and expertise that is necessary to fill a square. I notice you went out of your way to get opinions from other crew members. Have you ever been in the service? Then you would know that there are bad attitudes, adverse opinions about everything, and just plain sloth that is displayed by certain people. There are also dedicated professionals, duty bound and respectful of authority who perform the daily operations of the Navy without questioning or complaining. Mr. Cameron is correct, TIGHAR is focusing on the opinions of a single sailor to cast doubt on the thoroughness of the Naval search efforts. ***************************************************************** From Ric Cameron is his first name. I most certainly did not focus on the opinion of a single sailor. Not only Short's letter , but the tone of Lambrecht's article (which brought official reprimand), and the entire tone of the ship's newspaper make it clear that, in general, the men of the Colorado saw the Earhart search as an interuption of their primary mission (PLANE SEARCH HALTS CRUISE). Being good sailors, they made the best of it. That there is a significant discrepancy between what Lambrecht says he saw on Gardner Island and what the captain says Lambrecht saw, is absolute fact. In any review of any search, that sort of thing deserves attention. My main purpose in reviewing the available information about the atmosphere in which the Colorado's search was carried out was to dispel any notion that the searchers felt that they were on some kind of holy mission to find Our Lady of the Skies. They were just doing the job they had been handed. Sure they wanted to find her and their efforts were certainly not half-hearted, but neither were they completely thorough. And yes I was in the service. I'm not automatically impressed by military officers because I was one. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:10:48 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: 281 message - a 2nd try at it O-o-o-o-o-o, am I ever embarrassed! My first hack at guessing -- and that is what it was -- at the meaning of the "281 message" ignored a few salient facts. 1. The message was copied over a period of one hour, "1130 to 1230 GCT" 2. There is no indication that any part of the message was ever repeated. 3. There is no indication that it was copied "by three operators" simultaneously. 4. The Coast Guard said the message was "fragmentary phrases." Assumption: The message was in voice, not Morse code, because neither AE or FN could copy code worth a damn. The Coast Guard copied a total of 17 words (those between quote and unquote) in one hour that could be spoken in 15-20 seconds. It is obvious that a lot was missed. Because there is no indication of any repeated data, whatever it was may not have been a "formal" message, as opposed to someone simply talking into an open mike. It would not be unusual to have three operators taking turns at listening to the message. With the bad signal and poor keying, their ears would get tired in a hurry. I am surprised the CG commander didn't include other pertinent data in his message to Itasca, such as gender of the voice, if discernable; the frequency used; the strength of the signal; noticeable breaks in the transmission, as if the CG was hearing only one side of a two-sided (or more) conversation; that the "fragmentary phrases" were all run together as if they logically followed one another. It is a tantalizing clue, but with only 17 words in one hour? It could just as easily be someone talking about current events in Des Moines and the CG picked it up on a weird skip or other atmospheric anomaly. Close, but no cigar. LTM, who is eating crow right now Dennis McGee #0149 ***************************************************************** From Ric The message was not voice. It was "keyed" which means it was ent in morse code. It was "extremely poor keying" which means that whoever was sending it was not adept at sending code. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:36:43 EST From: Robert Klaus Subject: Wreck Photo It looks like a flying boat to me. Forgive this intrusion if the point has already been discussed, but just how was the Grumman Goose ruled out? My first impression on looking at the photo was very definitely that this was a former Goose. In fact it looks remarkably like several photos, and one real life Goose I have seen that were lost due to hard landings. There is a photo in the book "Zanek!" of a Goose that crashed in the Dead Sea which shows an almost identical breakup pattern. The fuselage is cracked just ahead of the wing, and one engine has carried away. This damage was the result of a heavy landing on the water. The crew walked (or waded) away. The Goose had (originally) R-985s and mechanical constant speed propellers. It had an immensely strong center section (typical of Grumman, the rumor was that Grumman had hired engineers who first worked on the Brooklyn Bridge). It had a center post windshield. It had boat hull planing surfaces starting at the lower nose. These features are all consistent with the wreck photo. I read the analysis of the photo relating to the cowl diameter based on prop length. Were other critical measurements compared, such as engine spacing, fuselage width at cockpit, wing spar thickness, etc.? Robert Klaus **************************************************************** From Ric The Goose was eliminated because: 1. All Gooses (Geese?) had a big hatch on the top of the nose section that very clearly isn't there in the Wreck Photo. 2. The nose looks way too short for a Goose. 3. The ratio of prop length to cowling diameter is wrong for the R985s of the Goose. Other ratios, such as engine spacing and cockpit width were not calculated because of the time and expense involved. You wouldn't believe the mathematical gyrations Jeff Glickman at Photek went through to do the prop/cowling calculations. It's a complex process involving corrections for plane and angle and it took weeks of work that were all donated time. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:22:14 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: 281 message > .....281 north..... > .....Howland call KHAQQ.... > .....beyond north..... > .....don't hold with us much longer.... > .....above water...... > .....shut off..... What if it says: <281.....> miles south of equator on <.... north ...> end of island xxx miles south of < ....Howland> ing Itasca <... KHAQQ....> calling Itasca we are on island <.....beyond north.....> end of peninsula batteries <.....don't (won't) hold with us much longer....> we are on beach, well <.....above water......> to conserve fuel and batteries we will end transmissions and <....shut off.....> engine in 20 minutes Just my take on it. There are endless possibilities and probabilities, and without the original logs showing gaps and time, it is made even more difficult. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ***************************************************************** From Ric Not bad. You're right that there are many possibilities, but there are some interesting generalizations that can be drawn from the few words we have. The fact that these fragmentary phrases were copied over the period of an hour raises the possibility, if not the liklihood, that it was a set-piece message that was sent repeatedly and only little bits of it came through. If that was the case, then the beginning of the message could be somewhere in the middle, as in "KHAQQ calling Itasca, KHAQQ calling Itasca" which could come out as ".....call..........KHAQQ...". You've also figured out that it is almost impossible to construct a grammatically correct sentence in English which contains the phrase "don't hold with us much longer." The word was almost certainly "won't." Morse code for d is dah dit dit and w is dit dah dah - a simple transposition. The phrase "beyond north" is interesting. North, in this case, can not refer simply to the compass direction because it is impossible to be "beyond North." North, in this case, must be an adjective modifying a noun (you suggest "end of pennisula"). Why would the message include such a phrase if not as an attempt to describe where the searchers should look? If so, then they must be in a place that has an identifiable feature that has a north side that they can be "beyond." The phrase "above water" would seem to describe a location or a condition. It would hardly seem necessary for them to point out that they were not underwater (duh). I strongly suspect that the three phrases "won't hold with us much longer", "above water", and "shut off" are all part of the same attempt to convey and explain a sense of urgency and concern about an impending event. Before much longer, rising water will force them to shut off. Your reconstruction of the "281...north....Howland" portion seems reasonable but requires a lot words to be missing and giving the distance from the equator and from Howland seems a bit redundant. You see what I mean about this message being a can of worms - but it's also very intriguing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:31:32 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Cutting one-liners As some of you may have noticed, I have stopped posting many of the cute but pointless one-liners that various subscribers are prone to offer in response to more substantial postings. My reason for doing so is not to pass judgement on your wit but to try to hold down the sheer volume of postings generated. Every week we lose people who just can't deal with the volume of messages and a smartass one-liner takes up just as much room in somebody's in-box as does an interesting or useful observation. I don't want the forum to be any less fun than it is, but we do need to make more efficient. Thanks, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:47:15 EST From: Jack Subject: Re: This And That Just read your Weems info and very interesting. Two comments: 1. The word Avigation is still used today. Jeppesen & Co. calls their charts Avigation Charts. 2. Re. hard landings... I read AE's in Hawaii was caused by a tire blow-out. I'm not sure where I saw that but will see if I can find the item. There are so many different slants on the stories, it's hard to weed out the junk and end up with the facts. Regards, Jack ***************************************************************** From Ric Aviation etymology is a fascinating subject. When I was learning to fly (1965) stunts were still called "acrobatics", a term that was soon replaced by "aerobatics." And, as we've previously discussed, airplanes with "conventional gear" became "taildraggers." The "stick" used to be the "joy stick" (although I'm not sure any pilot ever really called it that) and "elevators" were once "flippers" believe it or not. A blown tire as the cause of Earhart's wreck in Hawaii was the excuse that Amelia gave at the time. The Army investigation found that the tire blew as the result of the groundloop, not the other way 'round. AE had a long history of blaming her pilot error accidents on mechanical failures. It was not simply to protect her own ego. She and GP made their living by promoting Amelia as the world's best woman pilot and failures of piloting skill did not fit the image. Similarly, delays caused by maintenance or equipment problems were often blamed on the weather. That's show biz. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:57:04 EST From: Jack 2157 Subject: Re: GP, Intelligence ?? On your reply to Daryll, you left yourself open for a broadside and I going to take the shot. You censure Daryll for his comments and reference to Paul Briands book and then you use Mary Lovells Bio to substantiate your comments. Is one book better than the other? Come on Ric. Dog six king, Jack, #2157 ***************************************************************** From Ric That's not a broadside or even a shot. Of course one book can be better than another. Secondary sources must be judged by the extent to which they support their information with citations referencing primary sources. Briand's book has no footnotes and cites no sources other than anecdotal allegations. Lovell's book is extensively footnoted and references numerous primary sources. Her treatment of GPs military career references various contemporaneous letters and records. This is basic stuff for any researcher. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:59:04 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Search opinion Cam Warren wrote: > ((..omitted..)) > Meanwhile, just BACK OFF insulting anyone that disagrees with you. Ric wrote: > I'm not clear about just who it is I am supposed to have insulted. > ((..omitted..)) Nor am I. I suppose his agreement (with qualifications) with those of us who observed that Amelia had problems landing aircraft were insults to her or us? His opinions and comments of the pilots and captain seemed to be drawn from solid historical data. I recall in an earlier message (last year?) his comments on the difficulty these people faced searching those islands from the air. Overall, I sense an air of frustrated understanding rather than insults of any form. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:02:54 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Request from Ric I'd like to see a section with links to sites that convey other points of view. Perhaps broken into sections, like three "The Japanese got her" sites along with a link to a TIGHAR page on why we think they didn't, and perhaps another with "no land" sites and again reasons why we think she didn't ditch in the ocean. - Bill *************************************************************** From Ric I think that's a great idea, except I'm not aware of any websites that provide any explanation of any of the other theories. Anybody know of any? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:07:26 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Consistency Ric wrote: >Well Daryll, I'll say this for you - you're consistent. You Might Want To Give It A Try Sometime !!! RIC said: >As I recall, GP may have been a Saipan briefly toward the end of the >war in his capacity as an intelligence officer, but it didn't have >anything to do with Amelia. She had died back in 1937 ya know. Then Ric said >During his visit to Saipan in 1945 he was very much aware of the many >rumors circulating about Amelia having been "captured" and held for a >time there........ he "drove all over the island making extensive >inquiries about the white woman flier but got no answers that gave him >any hope that Amelia had ever been there." LTM, What this Forum needs is a Forensic Historian ! Daryll **************************************************************** From Ric ...or a kindergarten teacher. There is no evidence to suggest that GPs visit to Saipan had anything to do with Amelia but while he was there he did take the opportunity to try to check out rumors about her. (sigh) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:10:31 EST From: Mark Kreitz Subject: Re: 281 message For those of us with little knowledge of celestial navigation techniques, how difficult is a NORTH/SOUTH determination 281nm from the equator? **************************************************************** From Ric Good question. Any celestial navigators out there? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:14:54 EST From: Ted Subject: About Being Off Topic I love the "off-topic" conversations. Yes, they can be useful as comparisons to the Earhart mystery, but as I get my early morning collection of the previous day's forum, those added bits of conversation add some "spice" to the readings especially after just reading the specs to the turboshaft of a General Electric T700-GE-701. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "spice" - there are other areas on the internet for that. Up,Up and Away, Ted **************************************************************** From Ric It's like the rest of life - all about striking the right balance. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:01:47 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Wreck Photo What's the chance of getting a high-res scan of the wreck photo? Maybe TIF on a CD - how's this - include some of the other pictures from the web site, and perhaps some that are either rare or which illustrate support of the evidence (ie: close up of the Blucher Oxfords) and that sort of thing. I'd pay a reasonable amount for that. Also, may we Tighars use images from the website for personal use? I confess I copped the logo, and have the image installed in my Windows waving banner screen saver (showing my colors). And the aerial photo of Niku makes a great "desktop" - although I had to stretch the image to get it to fill the screen. Unrelated to the pictures, I was puttering around on the 'net for a while last night and ran across a site with what is purported to be a letter in a bottle written by Fred Noonan, found on the Washington coast in 1996 by a guy named Chauncy Doty. Have you heard anything about this? My first reaction is HOAX. The letter can be found at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/tennant/ . Text of the document is not included, and I have not pursued it - I wanted to check with you first - but there are some photographs, including some close-ups of segments of the letter. It is written in pencil, in block style lettering, and is signed with the initials F.N. According to the info on the site, there has been some comparative analysis with known samples of Fred's handwriting as recorded on charts in the library collection at Purdue, which are also block lettering, but it says there is not a sufficient quantity of known samples to get an analysis. Did Fred always write in block letters? LTM jon 2266 **************************************************************** From Ric Your suggestion about a Wreck Photo CD and possibly other rare and interesting Earhart Project related photos on CD has prompted a serious discussion here. At present, the only CD we are putting out is the Earhart Research Library CD, Vol. 1 which we outsource. If there is sufficient interest in other TIGHAR CD products it would make sense for us to buy the hardware and do the production in-house. We're going to do some research into hardware and I'd be interested to have feedback from the forum about what you'd like to see. The issue of the use of the TIGHAR logo and images is a difficult one. While I like the idea of TIGHAR images being used as you described, the fact is that they are copyrighted and if we give blanket permission for their use, the horse is out of the barn and we can never get it back. A TIGHAR Screensaver and Desktop CD is just the sort of product we may want to market. Worse yet, envision a day when Earhart's airplane is in a museum and the TIGHAR logo is as famous as the NIKE swoosh. It would be a bummer for it to be in the public domain because we haven't policed its use. Sorry 'bout that. The Noonan letter-in-a-bottle is a crude hoax. I have known about it for a couple of years and I have seen the complete text - although I can't disclose it because I agreed to keep it confidential as a condition to helping ascertain its possible authenticity. I'm disappointed that its still being touted as being possibly genuine. Both the handwriting and the content are about as unFred as anything could be. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:09:32 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: batteries vs flooding Ric wrote: > With a four or four and a half foot tide, that raises real doubts > about whether the aux battery would be usable. Someone else made a very astute comment that sea water hitting the aux battery would have created a short running the full circuit, meaning that it would have shorted out the other battery and the radio gear as well (please note that for this reason, it is hard to imagine broadcasting from a floating airplane with water coming in). > Could they have simply disconnected it and used only the main > battery? We can speculate, but at this time we just don't have > any way of knowing for sure. This assumes that our intrepid expert radiographers suddenly have the skill, knowledge and fo