Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:14:16 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Radio and Antenna Info Request


I'm hoping the forum can provide the following information:

For ITASCA's shortwave receivers:

1).   What was their sensitivity at 3105 KHz and 6210 KHz?

2).  Were the S-meters scaled from S1 to S5, or from S1to some higher S-number?

3).   What was the sensitivity calibration  corresponding to the highest S-number on the scale?

4).  What was the scale factor in dB per S-unit?

For AE's  shortwave transmitter:

1.)  What was the output power (input to the antenna) at 3105 KHz and at 6210 KHz?

2.)  Was the dorsal vee antenna on the Electra intended to excite the entire aircraft structure as a radiating body?  If so, what would be a good approximation for the gain of the composite radiating body?

3).  If the dorsal vee was intended to be the principal radiator, what would be a good approximation for its gain in each of the 000, 090, 180, and 270 degree relative bearings with respect to the aircraft's nose?

The antenna gain (directivity) is significant not only for analyzing the implications of the observed signal strength changes during the approach to the vicinity of Howland Island, but also for estimating the radiated power from Niku under the assumption that AE successfully landed the aircraft intact on the tidal flats, and was transmitting with the aircraft in its normal three-point attitude on the ground.  This would have elevated the front end of the vee antenna at an angle of about 20 degrees from the horizontal.  And the effective  radiated power in the direction of Wailupe in Hawaii could have been significantly different depending on whether AE landed heading Northwest or
Southeast.

Thanks in advance for any insights you can provide.

LTM,
Bob Brandenburg

******************************************************************
From Ric

I'm way outside my pay grade on this stuff but it occurs to me to wonder whether ITASCA even had an "S meter" or if it was purely a judgment call by the operator. Let's hear from the gurus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:32:59 EST
From:         Dave Baker
Subject:      Re: More info on Book--"Record Setting Pilot"

This sounds reasonable. I would like to meet the Longs and discuss their research, as Ric should.  I have always theorized that they went down at sea, the single question is...which direction from Howland?. Ric demands proof of this theory before he will abandon the Nikku version, and that has been his saving grace in this forum. I told Ric that he is wasting time and money re-exploring Nikku, and that I would donate money to an organization that would explore the ocean near of Howland. I also told him that this would cost a lot of money, and weeks..possibly months,  of tedious searching. If Ric is  willing to put off the next Nikku adventure, and donate some of TIGHAR's expertise to help the Longs, that would probably go a long way towards solving the great mystery we all want solved.

****************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not often at a loss for words, but this one came close.  Do I give everyone the impression that I just fell off the turnip truck?  We've been working on this thing for ten years.  We started from where Elgen is now.  Do you really think that I have not sat with Elgen and Marie in their home and discussed Earhart theories with them?  Have you somehow gotten the impression that Elgen and I haven't freely shared information?  That I haven't seen his videos and heard him present his case in person at several events?   Elgen is a fine gentlemen and he and Marie have been working on the Earhart case far longer than we have - but his theory is deeply flawed and does not stand up to rational scrutiny.  The notion of a deep water search for NR16020 (besides being not justified by the evidence) is logistically ludicrous given the available technology.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:37:03 EST
From:         Dave Baker
Subject:      Re: On Becoming Over Critical of Opposing Viewpoint

I had to look up "invective" I assume you are using that term in it's proper context. I have been as reasonable in this forum as any TIGHAR member. To express the views I hold would tend to brand me as an iconoclast among the fiercely devoted TIGHAR "litter" but I have not been abusive toward anyone, nor have I used profanity. Your interpretation of my position is that I am against locating AE because I don't believe she crashed at Nikku. That is absolutely incorrect. There are many people like myself who would enjoy the challenge of locating historically significant aircraft. However, the odds of actually finding AE or the White bird are as long as the time it would take in a treacherous environment to locate a hulk that would not resemble an airplane, but much more like another rock on the bottom of the ocean. It is next to impossible to find such wreckage after sixty years of exposure to all the elements beneath the surface. That is why Ric's position is safe, because he has no proof other than a few insignificant traces of human habitation on Nikku, yet,  he challenges anyone else to locate AE's airplane where it can't be found, but in all probability, where it actually is.

****************************************************************

From Ric

Now I'm really confused.  Aren't you the guy who just suggested that I should help Elgen Long look for NR16020 on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:42:40 EST
From:         Dave Baker
Subject:      Re: Opposing viewpoints

>From Mike (miker@primenet.com)
>
>I suspect he could count them on whichever finger he doesn't have up
>his...... (Sorry, Ric.)

If that isn't "abusive" I don't know what is!!

****************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  That was abusive.  I shouldn't have posted it.  I'm sorry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:49:29 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Elgen Long book

Ric says:

>I'm quite sure that at one time or another we've walked every inch
>of shoreline, but that doesn't mean much.  In many, if not most, areas there
>could be a 747 parked 40 feet back in the bush and you wouldn't know it.

Let me elaborate a bit, and give Jon a bit more background.  In '89 we foolishly set out to look at the whole bloody island; I anticipated being able to cut transects across the thing about every five to ten meters and look at it intensively.  Didn't work; the veggies are just too dense and nasty.  But we DID look as closely as we could at the whole place.  In some cases this involved organized transect surveys; in other cases it was just getting through the bush as well as we could and looking as carefully as we could, and in some cases all we did was kind of poke around the edges.  We did walk the entire perimeter, and boated along the lagoon shore, as well as working our way through the interior wherever we could; I have a rather complicated map showing survey coverage.  The area where the wreckage was reported by the folks on Funafuti is, naturally, one of the areas where we didn't look very hard.  We walked the beach, sort of peered back into the (VERY thick) Scaevola, and then a couple of team members came at the area from the inland side, looked over the area inland from the heavy bush, and then hacked their way out to the beach.  There's lots of opportunity for stuff -- Electras, 747s, a Klingon Bird of Prey -- to be down in the bush, and/or buried in the surge ridge that runs back of the beach in many places (and tends to support dense Scaevola).

As for dirt bikes, the problem isn't getting around the beach; the island isn't so big that it can't be accessed, and walking along the shore is pretty much like walking along the shore anyplace else in the world -- pretty nice. It's the vegetation that's a problem, and that can be handled as long as we're looking at a defined area of reasonable size.  What we can't do is look in detail at the whole island -- at least not without Agent Orange or napalm, which wouldn't go over at all well with the natural environment.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:57:09 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Capitol statues

Don't forget that Rocky Marciano died in a plane crash!

****************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  Please submit future nominations for Capitol statues of Famous Americans Who Bit The Big One In Airplanes to the United States Congress (trivia@capitol.gov)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:08:53 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Aircraft Skin (2-2-V-1)

Aluminum is aluminum is aluminum....  But it ain't all the same.  I'm speaking of the element aluminum, not an aluminum alloy.

This may be about as far out as looking for Fred Noonan's fingerprints on that sextant box.  The box we don't have!

But we do have some peices of aluminum that might still tell us something more. Of course, one of particular interest is artifact 2-2-V-1.  Alcoa says the alloy produced in the 1930s is indistinguishable from that produced today although the designation has changed.

I presume they mean that the proportions of aluminum, copper, manganese and magnesium in alloy 2024 is the same as in the 24S produced in 1930s.  A chemical (metallurgical) analysis would not distinguish a piece of a mid-1930s aircraft from a piece of some WWII aircraft.

Maybe a closer look would reveal some differences.  I've not looked into this critically but it seems that aluminum produced from ore (usually bauxite) from different parts of the world may have different proportions of the several isotopes.  Why this should be is apparently not understood. Perhaps the same is true for isotopes of some of the other constituents.

I find indication that prior to about 1938, most aluminum produced by Alcoa was from bauxite from South America.  Around 1938, there began a concerted effort to reduce our dependence on foreign sources for our aluminum.  There are large deposits of bauxite in a number of areas within the US.  Arkansas is a major source of bauxite used by Alcoa begining in the late 1930s.

A mass spectrometer might show differences in the aircraft aluminum available in the mid-1930s and that produced shortly thereafter.  This would by no means be definitive but it might be one more of the many "could be" sort of things that cause us to persist in thinking Amelia and Fred may have been on Niku.

It might be interesting to do comparative mass spectrometry on some of the various pieces of aluminum we have, or know to exist, that might have come from Amelia's Electra.  Of course, there's artifact 2-2-V-1 and somebody has a wood box with inlaid pieces of aluminum said to be from the airplane that was on Niku when the first settlers arrived... and there's that piece of the Electra recovered from the mishap in Hawaii (the paint color sample).  These could, in turn, be compared to more recently produced aluminum.

If we were inclined to engage in this kind of wild-goose chase, we would need someone who could get some mass spectrometer time for free.  I don't know that I could do anything with this aspect of it.  It's been too long. All the people I once knew are long gone, on way or another.

One further thought relative to the box with inlaid aluminum pieces... If the thickness of these pieces has not been altered (if hammered or sanded, it would show), it would be interesting to know how thick they are.  Maybe they're 0.032 inches thick and maybe they were once part of artifact 2-2-V-1.

****************************************************************
From Ric

I think we have an adequately large flock of wild geese at the moment so we'll pass on the isotopes in the hope of finding something a bit more conclusive.

The inlaid aluminum from the box is indeed .032 thick, but that's a fairly common thickness for airplane skin and 2-2-V-1 does not have any pieces cut out of it (except the hunks cut out by Alcoa for testing).
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:14:10 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: ITASCA smoke

If someone is going to study the Itasca smoke, I think the interest will be in what was burned to heat the water in the boiler... Uh, pressure vessel, that is! What were they burning?  Oil?  Surely not coal.

*****************************************************************

From Ric

Oh, it's a lot better than that....but I won't steal Bob Brandenburg's thunder.  I'm sure he'll be happy to share his thoughts when he's ready.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:16:46 EST
From:         Dev
Subject:      Ms. Found in a Bottle

"Nippon nom"

"Nipp—n" is Japanese for "Japanese"

"nom" is French for "name"

"Japonais" is French for "Japanese" (singular)

"namaŽ" (sometimes abbreviated to "na") is Japanese for "name"

Deb
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:41:38 EST
From:         Tracy Edson
Subject:      Re: Elgen Long book

In a recent reply concerning the wreck photo, jon 2266 closes with the oft- cited "ltm" for "love to mother".  I know this refers to the Brink book (which has its own wrecked plane photo), but I'm new enough here not to know TIGHAR's conclusion on the note and the plane.  Compared to notes in bottles, or your own photo of unknown origin,  would you give a brief summary of their validity?  You could also point me and other newcomers to any Archives for homework.

Love to matriculate,
Tracy Edson

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Yes indeed.  It's time once more for the "Love to mother" briefing.  But first - Brink's "wreck photo" can be dealt with very quickly.  In his book "Lost Star" he reproduces a wartime aerial photo of a Japanese airfield on Taroa atoll in the Marshalls.  He enlarges the image of what he says is a twin- tailed airplane with a missing wing and raises the suspicion that it is NR16020 because "The Japanese built no twin-tailed monoplanes either before or during WWII."  It is not apparent from the photo that the airplane is twin-tailed, but even if it is, the truth is that the Japanese built and used several twin-tailed types before and during the war, including many license-built Lockheed Model 14s.

Errors of historical fact are not uncommon in Earhart books, but Brink probably holds the record for outright fiction.  His treatment of the "Morgenthau transcript" is another whopper and has been discussed at length on this forum.  Due to space limitations we have to limit the available forum archives to the past few months.  Currently, January through March of 1999 are available by the following procedure:

First, send an email to:

listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com

with the command:

INDex earhartforum   (that's all you have to put in the body of the message)

You'll get back a list of all the archive files available. It will look like
this:

  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9901
  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9902
  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9903


Choose the one you want and send another email to

listserve@home.ease.lsoft.com with the command:

GET EARHARTFORUM LOG [whichever one you wanted]

so if you wanted the log for February, your message would read:

GET EARHARTFORUM LOG9902

Within a few minutes you'll get back a confirmation message, and a separate file with the log you wanted. It will come as a downloadable text file, too large for most email software. They'll open in any word processor.

And now, about 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:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:49:26 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Elgen Long book

Tom,
Thanks for the additional insight.  Sounds like a fun place to visit!
ltm
jon
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:58:26 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Radio and Antenna Info Request

Re the receiver S-meter:  What type receiver was it, aboard Itasca?

The only thing I have ever seen to offer a clue, is some video from one of the TV shows over the last couple or three years, which is of a shipboard radio room.  Anybody know the source of this video or film?  Is it actually the Itasca's radio room, or only "stock footage"?

The receivers I saw in that video were of the correct vintage... they looked like RCA Model AR-60.  Someplace, I have a technical review article of that radio, in a 1936 magazine.  I'll look it up to see what clues there are to the S-meter... but let me warn you!  There were no real "standards" for sensitivity vs. S-meter calibrations in those days, and even today this is still an almost arbitrary relationship.  Manufacturers want their receivers to "look" sensitive, so they often "fudge" the S-meter scales to make the meter read somewhat higher on weak signals than it really should.

What this article will tell us, is RCA's CLAIMED specs for the AR-60... and some idea of how the reviewer feels they are/are not valid.

As for the aircraft antenna:  I don't know any way to definitely establish its gain or directivity at either frequency... but this is not an "ideal" antenna.  Aircraft antennas are quite unpredictable, because of the close proximity of the mass of the aircraft structure, which is at GROUND potential.  This airplane did NOT have any means for using the entire aircraft as a radiating element... and even today this is quite uncommon (I think the C-5A uses an arrangement like this in which the wings may be used for an antenna... but that is about the only one I know of).

Any time you get a large mass of metal closer than one-quarter wavelength in distance from an antenna wire, it will REALLY screw up the radiation pattern.  The dorsal Vee was only a few feet away from the fuselage and wings, and there is no way to know the radiation pattern of this device without actually measuring it... a very complicated task, in those days.

Not that it really would matter much anyway.

These characteristics would also vary extremely widely with frequency.

It is just impractical to answer the antenna questions, without developing some kind of complex computer model.

The transmitter was designed to put 50 watts into the antenna.  Whether it actually did that well, can be questioned.  I'd say between 25 and 50 watts out, the power decreasing as the frequency increased.  It would also depend upon how closely the rig was tuned (and the WE 13C series was a BEAR to tune correctly, if the instruction manual procedures are any indication... by the way, an external test set was required to do it -- a technician's tool, which AE and FN did not have, so it would be ludicrous to think they could have just pulled the radio out of the plane after a landing, thrown a wire over a tree limb, and put out any kind of signal!), and the condition of the tubes.

I'll look into the receiver issue.

73
Mike E.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I've never seen any motion picture or still photo that is known to have been taken aboard ITASCA.  Don't believe anything you see on television (especially interviews with Gillespie).

As an aside, Elgen Long's entire case about where the airplane had to have crashed at sea is based upon a precise constraint of it's distance from ITASCA according the strength of the signals received.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:32:36 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Elgen Long book

To Tom King---Thanks for the explanation........I am getting a good picture of how very dense and thick the pretty green stuff is...

Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:37:02 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Capitol statues

Ric wrote:

>Yes.  Please submit future nominations for Capitol statues of Famous
>Americans Who Bit The Big One In Airplanes to the United States Congress
>(trivia@capitol.gov)

And don't forget Carol Lombard

**************************************************

From Ric

I done it again, haven't I?  This forum is like a rotary engine. Swing the prop once and, if it fires, all semblance of control is gone forever. 
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:41:00 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Donations

Sactodave said:

>I told Ric that he is wasting time and money
>re-exploring Nikku, and that I would donate money to an organization
>that would explore the ocean near of Howland

Pssst, Dave.

Ah, my name is, ah . . . Henry Ponzi.  And, ah, I'm putting together a group of, ah, experienced deep-ocean diving and optical research professionals to search for AE and FN somewhere around Howland Island.  The group is called Scientific Camera And Monitoring, Inc. and we need $150,000 to get this project off the ground and would love to take you up on your offer.

Just send the check to S.C.A.M. at 1492 Santa Maria Drive, Ninapinta, CA 01999-1492

Thanks in advance.

LTM, who's made millions this way!
Dennis McGee #0149

*****************************************************************
From Ric

That's probably abusive too.  I shouldn't have posted it .  Sorry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:50:49 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Itasca Radio Room

Mike asks:

>Anybody know the source of this video or film?  Is it actually
>the Itasca's radio room, or only "stock footage"?

Typically these shows will use "stock shots" that were included in the original 1937 newsreels released immediately following the disappearance, though sometimes they may also use some additional WWII era stuff.  The closest thing I've ever seen is a nice still photo of the radio room on board USCGC "Tahoe" (another of the "Lake" class cutters) taken in 1936.  For what it's worth, I have a copy and will be happy to loan it to you - just drop me a line off-Forum.

  LTM,
  Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:36:57 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      E. Long & Other Comments

Glad to hear you've talked to Elgen; he's got a lot of good information (and some - I suspect - he's been sitting on for some years and not telling anybody).  I've also come to near fisticuffs with him on a couple of occasions, but that's all part of the learning process. Will Rogers (probably quoting Socrates) said it best; "We're all of us ignorant - only about different things" - a very wise observation that should never be ignored.

As you should know, the theory of an Earhart splashdown 40-250 miles NW of Howland is a viable one, and although no hard evidence exists (obviously) is the most popular amongst serious researchers. (A group you heartily detest, although it includes the US Navy, the US Coast Guard, Capt. Safford, Cmdr. Anthony, Kelly Johnson, the Longs, Cam Warren, etc. etc.).  So, don't be too hasty to characterize Elgen's reasoning as "deeply flawed".

And a deep sea search is not logistically - nor technologically - "ludicrous". According to Scripps Institute of Oceanography and Dr. Ballard, who I've heard, has been sniffing around again.

Ludicrous cost-wise perhaps;  Scripps quoted $25,000 per search-day six or seven years ago. Don't forget, an engineering group located and recovered a cargo door that blew off a United Airlines plane somewhere between Honolulu and San Francisco some years back. I'll concede it hadn't been under water for sixty years, however, but very cold water (three miles down) is a pretty good preservative - for metal objects AND human remains.

Cam Warren

******************************************************************
From Ric

Let me get this straight.  You're suggesting that the prospect of searching the bottom of the Pacific Ocean at a depth of roughly three miles for a swath (how wide?) 210 miles long (40 to 250 miles NNW of Howland) for an object that is (best case scenario) 55 feet wide by 38 feet long is not ludicrous?

The company that found the cargo door you mention is Oceaneering International, the same outfit we hired to do a sonar sweep around Niku in 1991.  We talked to them about that find and it wasn't quite the way you describe it.  Their search area was quite well constrained by radar returns from the incident.  In other words, they knew where to look.

The only way a deep-sea search for an object as small as NR16020 would make any sense would be if you could precisely define the search area - and you can't.  If Elgen can sell the folks at Scripps on the notion that he can pin down the spot where the airplane supposedly went in the drink, more power to him.

And by the way, your prediction about the preservation of human remains on the ocean floor is just as accurate as the rest of your information.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:00:14 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Deep water survival

Cam Warren said:

> ...very cold water (three miles down) is
> a pretty good preservative - for metal objects AND human remains.

Not really.  I've just finished reading "Blind Man's Bluff" a book on the U.S. Navy's spying activities using submarine's.  In the book they talked about the "Glomar Explorer"" effort (financed by the CIA, or course) to raise a 1960-era Soviet sub that sank in the Pacific in about 15,000 feet of water.  As we all know, the Glomar Express did finally get a chunk (about 30 feet) of it up and it had the remains of at least three Soviet sailors  -- nothing but bones.  And they'd been down for only about 10-12 years.

Also, look at the photos from the Titanic wreck site -- there are plenty of shoes and metal but no bodies or even bones.

The deep ocean may be a good place for storing metal but it isn't good for human bodies; there are enough little bugs and parasites down there to eat the remains of any type of life form or life-form products - humans, wood, cloth etc. -- slowly perhaps, but they do disappear.  (Shoes survive because the tanning agents in the leather make them unappetizing to the deep sea critters.)

Could the airplane survive after 35-plus years, yes.  The bodies, no.

LTM, who gets squeamish over this type of talk
Dennis McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:25:09 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Re: E. Long & Other Comments

I salute Ric for his patience in dealing with his detractors, and I couldn't resist taking a poke at this one myself...

Cam Warren wrote:

> And a deep sea search is not logistically - nor technologically -
> "ludicrous". According to Scripps Institute of Oceanography and Dr.
> Ballard, who I've heard, has been sniffing around again.

Using Dr. Ballard's famous name in this context promises nothing, since he has become famous for finding objects that are nearly 1,000 feet long, made of tens of thousands of tons of steel, and are known to have gone down around a certain specific lat/long.  Let's not also forget that he had huge amounts of money and the National Geographic Society behind him.  Finding an airplane, much smaller and much more fragile, in such a vast area is really far out!  Until we can scan the entire ocean floor cheaply and in great detail from satellites, whatever is on the bottom in that area (and most other areas) is almost guaranteed to stay there.

> ...very cold water (three miles down) is a pretty good preservative
> - for metal objects AND human remains.

Obviously Mr. Warren has never heard of an obscure little boat called the Titanic!  Despite the intense cold at it's depth of around 13,000 feet, thick hull plating is oozing away in 'rusticles', and the human remains are all long since gone, which includes all bones and teeth, which dissolved in the calcium-starved water.

I can see why Ric likes defending himself against his opponents so much, since people beg to have the errors of their ways pointed out publicly when they make statements that lack even a basic understanding of the subject in question.  Honestly, sometimes I wonder if some of these turkeys (analogy here to a turkey-shoot) are secretly working for Ric just as easy targets in order to make him look better!

Love to Morons,

David  :-)
*****************************************************************
From Ric

"Love to Morons" is abusive.  I shouldn't have posted it.  Sorry.

It has been frequently alleged that I have invented certain contributors to this forum for just the purpose you suggest  Such charges have, on occasion, elicited outraged (and hilarious) assurances from the purported figments of my imagination to the effect that they are indeed sentient beings. I will state now, as I have stated in the past, that I am not nearly creative enough to have invented such wonderful characters.  Truth, my friends, really is stranger than fiction.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:44:35 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Niku density

If the island is that densely cover in growth, how could anything big work its way past the tree line.  Maybe it would be a good idea to start the search on a section of the island that wasn't covered in 1937.  Is it possible to identify those areas?

****************************************************************

From Ric

The photos we have from 1937 (Lambrecht's and those taken in October by Bevington) show a typically dense vegetation pattern that is not noticeable different from what we see today.  In general, the foliage waxes and wanes with the rainfall, but a big storm can fling stuff way up into the treeline or rip out whole sections of beachfront undergrowth.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:17:07 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      How deep is the ocean?

>Their theory is that AE and FN went down in the Ocean NW of Howland Island
>and she is 17,000 miles under the water.

17000 miles under the sea?  Surely you mean feet!
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:18:34 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Message in a bottle

I have several examples of FJN's cursive and block writings, should anyone seriously want to do a handwriting analysis.  Most of the material resides at the Purdue Library.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:22:31 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca Radio Room

After examining hundreds of files on radios from the USCG and Navy at the National Archives during the 1930's time period, ALL of the photos were restricted at the time.  I doubt very seriously that anything on video from that time period was really from the ships or radio stations involved.

*****************************************************************

From Ric

Video?  Surely you mean film.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:25:41 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: E. Long & Other Comments

I have worked with Bob Ballard when he was at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for well over a decade, and we occasionally discuss searching for Earhart on the ocean floor (which is my professional area of expertise).  We both agree that the available technology is not feasible, given the lack of clues of where to search, search rates, ship cost rates, time, and logistics.  Estimates range up to $100M.  I doubt that  anyone could come up with that figure based upon such scanty (non)evidence of a downing at sea.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:35:08 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      From Ric's Book of Snide Remarks . . .

Ric - you are SO predictable! (Which you can spin into a compliment for your consistancy!)  Mercy, I should have realized I was treading on dangerous ground, mentioning the possibility of a deep sea search for the Electra. (Can't have the loyal Mother Lovers thinking there MIGHT be an alternative choice to downtown Nikumaroro and poor old near-sighted Lambrecht).

"Alas, what ignorant sin have I committed?"  (Othello)

Bowing to your vast and superior knowledge,  I'll recall the "human remains" remark. Again, citing W. Shakespeare as my reliable source: "Full fathom five thy father lies; of his bones  are coral made . . ." (The Tempest - since  I'm sure you'll want to verify this).

Actually, I was thinking of that B-24(?) that wound up in a Sierra lake (altitude 7000 feet above mean sea level) during WWII, and not discovered until the lake (part of the Big Creek hydroeletric project) was rountinely drained some 50 (?) years later.  The crew's bodies were quite well preserved, as I recall, as was the aircraft. (Your good buddy Fred Goerner did a story on it).

Cam Warren
(A member of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (aka The Nasty Boys), ready to discredit TIGHAR no matter the cost).

******************************************************************
From Ric

Cameron my friend, as ever, you represent yourself magnificently.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:40:31 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Deepwater search

You folks who are suggesting that a deepwater search will find AE's Electra are obviously not familiar with the amount of time and technology and money that it took to find the Titanic, which was a much MUCH larger target, made almost exclusively of ferrous metals, and lay in a much smaller search area.

Ballard and those before him at least had a set of (admittedly flawed) coordinates to begin with. Where do you start when searching for Amelia? Yes, Elgen Long has a set of coordinates in mind, based on guesses and assumptions.

IF the Electra is in the water, it is under nearly three miles of water! It is a small aluminum airplane. How do you detect it? And how do you prove that a lump of aluminum you may have found down there is actually NR16020? Are you just going to read the number off the wings? I doubt it. 

Ballard at least had the resources of the US Navy behind him. What do the Longs have?

A search of this type will take years, millions of dollars, incredible dedication, and hundreds of people. A great many possible targets may be found, but with no way to verify them.

I suggest that TIGHAR's exploration of Niku is a bargain by comparison.

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:47:26 EST
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Piles of Sand on Niku

Recently on the Forum someone speculated about whether or not Amelia or Fred would have written a note (maybe put it in a container) and placed it somewhere on the island for someone to find at a later date. Someone who was about to die might do this in order to leave some sort of record behind. I believe it was then suggested that we should keep our eyes open for this type of thing.

In response to that Tom King wrote:

>But there's no use hiding something for someone to find, if you don't
>leave something to guide future discoverers to its location.  So one would
>expect a cairn [pile of rocks] or something, and there's no evidence of
>this unless you interpret the Maude/Bevington story of piles of sand or
>heaps of debris to  be such.  Which could be, but if so, our searches
>haven't turned them up.  Which all leads, I guess, to a sort of
>shoulder-shrugging conclusion: "Good idea, but what can we do with it?"

My response to this should in no way be interpreted to imply that I am suggesting a message was left behind. Or for that matter that Amelia or Fred left a marker of some sort behind. However, we did find "piles of sand" during the 1997 Niku trip. The following is a short version of the story.

Maude and Bevington visited Niku on Oct 13-15 1937 (a few months after Amelia disappeared). While walking around, Bevington indicated that he saw signs of "previous habitation" on the island. He later described it as a bivouac site. The Arundel group had been there from 1892-94 (a reasonable source) and, of course, the Norwich survivors were there for a short time in 1929 (less likely source). Amelia and Fred could be another source. A few years ago, Tom King asked Maude (yes, he is still alive) what he thought Bevington meant by the statement. Maude responded something to the effect that he thought it consisted of piles of sand.

While we were working around the Aukaraime South shoe/babies grave/fire pit site on Niku in 1997 I discovered, a short distance away, a pit in the ground with a pile of sand next to it. To say that this had anything to do with Amelia would be pure speculation. It probably was dug by the colonists. All that can be said is the "piles of sand" were found near a bivouac site. However, I agree with Tom K., the pit and piles did not look like a "sign left behind."

LTM
Kenton Spading
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:51:18 EST
From:         Pat Robinson
Subject:      Nippon Maru

There actually was a ship called "NIPPON MARU".  She was a tanker built in 1936...She was sunk by a torpedo from the USS SCAMP on January 14, 1944.

Source:  Dictionary of disasters at sea during the age of steam (1824 - 1962)" by Charles Hocking

Patrick N. Robinson
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I wonder if that poor Frenchman was still down in the hold.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:04:33 EST
From:         Suzanne Tamiesie
Subject:      abusive language

For the sake of a scientific and factual exchange of theories and ideas, I think that the emails containing obviously abusive language regardless of what position the writer is supporting be eliminated from the forum. I think the posting of such language i.e. "love to morons," "finger up his..." should stop. Repeated apologies after the fact quickly lose their effectiveness and carry little weight. Such language adds nothing to the search for AE nor to our credibility. If individual forum readers would like to use such insulting language let them write directly to the author of the email to which they object. It is easy to go for the broad stroke put down, much harder to address such comments directly to the person with whom one has a disagreement.

Thanks for listening,
Suzanne T. #2184

*****************************************************************
From Ric

You're right of course.  But then again, if we limited these discussions to scientific and factual exchanges of theories and ideas it wouldn't be nearly as much fun  Same old problem.  Striking the right balance.

But there's no excuse for bad language.  Correction noted.

Thanks,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:56:48 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: E. Long & Other Comments

Ric:  The use of Moron is okay, it is really code for "More On" The Ball.

Let's hope everyone understands that we are all human, all prone to mistakes, and have our own little idiosyncracies which make us unique human beings, even if sometimes that means we are also a little cranky.  (a little cranky is what you use to start a Model T Ford)  Let us hope we can all keep a sense of humor about ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously.  That is what usually leads to trouble is when we let our huge egos get in the way.  The talk of the Titanic reminds me that it is the largest monument to the foolishness of the human ego. Someone's ego said it was unsinkable.  Someone else's said it can therefore go as fast as possible.  Another's said it didn't need lifeboats or lifeboat drills.  So much for man's great intellect.

Back on track.  If the Electra crashed in the sea, and it had all those ping pong balls, would it have floated?  Since the big radials are so heavy, would it have floated in a tail up position?  I saw a program where they made a scale model of the Titanic and put it in a water tank and re-inacted the sinking, changing factors to test different theories, ie. water tight doors open, water tight doors closed, etc.  Do we know for a certainty how the Electra would have fared in the water.  Of course, that depends on the condition after touchdown.  If they made a good water landing with everything intact versus losing a wing or the tail section, etc.  Yeah, yeah, I know, they didn't go down in the drink, they landed at Niku.  What I'm trying to get at is this:  the theorists that say she ditched assume the plane and its various parts would not float.  However, my
contention is that some or all of the plane would have floated and some "evidence" of a downing would have survived and by now would have washed up on a beach somewhere! Maybe Niku!  The navy never even found an oil slick, so where did the plane go?  How fast would a gas/oil slick have dissipated in the Pacific?  Or rather, how long should it have been expected to last and how far would it have been visible, etc from the air and sea?  I can't believe that nothing has ever been found.  Are there any reports of items being found from other similar losses such as airplane crashes and ship sinkings in the ocean that would give us some reference?

Love to mother,
and blue skies to all,
Dave Bush
#2200

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Everyone please note:  Dave is kidding about the ping pong balls.  There were no ping pong balls.  We're not going to talk about ping pong balls.  Ever, ever again.

How would the Electra float?  Not too hard to figure.  Those engines weighed a thousand pounds each.  Nothing forward of them was watertight.  The buoyant objects (empty fuel tanks) were all aft of the engines. How do YOU think she'd float?

How long would she float?  We've debated that one up one side and down the other.  Bottom line:  Maybe only a few minutes, maybe quite a while (how's that for an answer?).

Once she sank, what would logically remain on the surface?  That would depend largely on how much she broke up in the ditching.  If she remained intact, maybe only some scattered objects and an oil slick. (The airplane left Lae with 80 gallons of oil aboard.  Some would be used during the flight but there surely would have been a whole bunch of oil aboard when she went down.)  If she broke up on impact there could be fuel tanks, oil tanks, pieces of aluminum skin with kapok insulation, life jackets, empty tomato juice cans, etc. all over the place.

And no.  Nobody ever saw anything either on the ocean or washed up on a beach.

How fast does an oil slick dissipate?  I guess it would depend largely upon the weather.  As I recall, the debris from the loss of the Samoan Clipper was easily found the next day, but that airplane blew up.  I expect that we have some forum subscribers who can provide other examples.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:59:20 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Niku density

> a big storm can fling stuff way up into the treeline
> or rip out whole sections of beachfront undergrowth.

Surf action in major storms, ie hurricanes, can do unbelievable damage.  I lived in Galveston county, Texas when hurricane Carla came ashore.  The beach line that had been over 100 yards from the nearest road was now past the road, the road having been completely washed out in places and only a big gaping hole left.  I actually lived on the mainland and drove past a large shrimp boat that was over 1 mile from the nearest water, sitting in the middle of Hwy 3 in La Marque!  My mother stayed on the island since she worked as an operator for the phone company and my dad and I went back on the island before the National Guard even got there.  We drove down Broadway (6 lanes, divided) maneuvering around debris, boats and even caskets that had washed out of the local cemetaries!  So, could the plane be in the vegetation - YES!  Could the plane be at the bottom of the ocean - YES!  If it is at the bottom of the ocean now, could it be on the island in 2000 - YES!  That is how the ocean works, it gives, and it takes away, and it is very capricious in its activities.

Love to mother,
and blue skies to all,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:10:02 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Piles of Sand on Niku

Seems I remember something about a pile of oyster(?) shells in one place that had become cemented together over the years.  In previous places and times, people have left behind cairns made of stone.  No stone on Niku, why not a cairn of shells?  Did anyone take this stack of shells apart to see what was under them?

Love to mussels,
and blue skies to all,
Dave Bush
#2200

****************************************************************
From Ric

Clam shells near Kanawa Point.  In all likelihood from somebody eating clams. But who?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:05:35 EST
From:         Mike Rejas
Subject:      abusive language

Dave Baker wrote:

>If that isn't "abusive" I don't know what is!!
>From Ric:
>Yes.  That was abusive.  I shouldn't have posted it.  I'm sorry.

To anyone who thought I was abusive, my apologies (to SactoDave, to Ric, to Ric again if he's actually SactoDave, Mom, etc.) It *is* a common expression, but sorry anyway.

I find it abusive when people malign the credibility of others without basis; when people blast unproven theories of one party while supporting unproven theories of another; when people imply others are idiots, fools, or con artists; and when people ignore volumes of collected evidence to make blanket statements involving another's character. SactoDave, I think you've had your 'abusive' moments too, and Ric has been gracious enough to accept them as 'part of the job'.

Ric has done a fabulous job in collecting and organizing evidence, managing TIGHAR, moderating the forum, and in general keeping things going. He puts up with a lot of things most people wouldn't - that's a good trait for a leader who wants to get something done. He deserves the same respect for his (TIGHAR's) theories and opinions that anyone else does, until somebody somewhere manages to prove one.

Ric, I will henceforth constrain myself to self-abuse only.

LTM.
Mike Rejsa

****************************************************************
From Ric

Perhaps others will follow your example.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:18:52 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Niku density

A little more on this topic -- Although the overall density of veggies (at least as perceived from above) is about the same today as it was in '37, the nature of the vegetation is different.  In '37 there were lots of Bukas (Pisonia grandis) and (seemingly) Kanawas (Cordia subcordata, with just a few patches of coco palm.  The large-scale clearing that took place in the '40s and '50s removed much of the indigenous forest and replaced it with coco palm.  Since the island's been left alone (since the early '60s), the cocos have gone ferile and other stuff, notably Scaevola, has grown up.  I suspect (but have no way of proving) that the Scaevola was less dense along the shore in '37 -- maybe a lot less dense.  Plus, as Ric says, a storm event can wreak havoc with the shoreline.  The island's pretty dynamic, especially along the shore.

And actually in both '89 and '97 we did check areas that had been relatively clear in '37, with no particular results.

Good thought, but .....

LTM
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:29:47 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: abusive language

I agree.  At least when I disagree or post an opposing viewpoint.. . . .I'm polite about it!  Name calling is for little kids!  Even Dick's posting are not abusive, but the last few I read from a couple people are!  Maybe you should return them to the sender for a rewrite before posting.

****************************************************************
From Ric

Hey, Dick!  Now do you see why I don't post that stuff?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:09:08 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Piles of Sand on Niku

>Did anyone take this stack of shells apart to see what was under them? 

Nope.  The shells weren't actually stacked; they were scattered (fairly densely) along the surface of a coral ledge on the edge of the lagoon, firmly cemented to the coral.  We looked carefully for associated artifacts of any kind (at the time I thought it was probably a prehistoric site, and it may have been), but found nothing.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:25:55 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: E. Long & Other Comments

Dave Bush 2200 wrote:

> The Navy never even found an oil slick, so where did the plane go?
> How fast would a gas/oil slick have dissipated in the Pacific?

When people talk about the oil slick from an airplane crash, it is usually a combination of oil and gasoline on the surface. The gasoline evaporates much faster than the oil, though it still leaves a residue behind. Sea conditions are critical to the length of time it takes to both evaporate and spread the slick out. The larger the waves, the less time the slick is visible (before it becomes too dispersed to see with the naked eye). {So what were the waves at the time of the loss, again?}

If AE/FN crashed into the ocean, you can be nearly sure that they did it with empty fuel tanks. They would have switched tanks and milked everything dry as they flew back and forth (circling?) to try to find Howland. Put yourself in their position, and you know that you'd only ditch it if you simply didn't have any other options. This means no gas on board or you'd keep right on searching and calling on the radio.

So, how much of an oil slick would less than 80 gallons of engine oil make? I cannot imagine much, particularly if it was in the oil tank in a plane that sank in 17,000 feet of water and only bled out a little at a time, slower and slower as the frigid cold of the deep turned the oil into sludge.

Of course, if the plane landed on an island beach, there wouldn't have been any oil slick in the water whatsoever.

Thomas Van Hare
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Sea conditions were just sort of average throughout the period in question.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:35:23 EST
From:         Jim Van Hare
Subject:      Go-Getters and Goat-Getters

Forgive me if I am intruding here, but it appears to me that there are folks out there who enjoy "getting your goat" and who, with a minimum of effort on their part, manage to alter the entire tone of the Forum. Instead of a scientifically-based forum for free exchange of information the Earhart Forum is in danger of degenerating into a series of attack and defense postings.  The result is that Ric Gillespie wastes a lot of his time defending a position that, in the opinion of the majority of Forum subscribers, he really doesn't have to defend at all.

I suggest that you ignore disruptive influences and avoid posting disruptive and argumentative messages.  If someone has an opposing viewpoint to express and does so without implying that you are a charlatan running the Earhart Forum for personal gain, fine.  But anything that denigrates the character of yourself or anyone else has no place here.  If an opposing opinion is posted without supporting evidence, the rest of us will see through it anyway, and there's no need to spend your energies trying to show that the posting is without value.

Cheers!

Jim Van Hare (family physician and former USAF navigator)

****************************************************************

From Ric

Thank you.  Sounds like just what the doctor ordered.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:45:47 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Opposing views

Cam Warren asks:

>"Alas, what ignorant sin have I committed?"  (Othello)

I'll let him answer his own question.

> Actually, I was thinking of that B-24(?) that wound up in a Sierra
> lake...The crew's bodies were quite well preserved, as I recall, as was the
> aircraft.

Yes, cold FRESH water is an excellent preservative.  However, the Pacific Ocean (where you maintain the Electra went down) is composed of SALT water. There's a BIG difference.  Even a "junk scientist" can tell you that.

If you're planning to "discredit TIGHAR no matter what the cost," you'll have to do a lot better than that.

LTM,
Russ

*****************************************************************
From Dave Porter

I have become convinced that Dave Baker, Cam Warren, and Dick Strippel are the smartest men on the planet, and most able to solve the AE/FN mystery.  I met with these men recently in the 5th dimension, aboard their starship KHAQQ, piloted by Capt. Carrington, USN (ret.)  They showed me a marvelous device called a Howland 281 Interdimensional Space Modulator, which transmits a morse code like pulse at 6210 kilocycles, and is capable of locating an object as small as a dime, on the ocean floor, from space.  Another machine, the Knaggs/Goerner 10E Astral Spectrometer then detects the psychic aura of the most recent carrier of the found object, which can then be compared via remote viewing with the aura of known objects belonging to the subject.

I propose that you immediately shut down TIGHAR and forward all available funds to these men, in the interest of science.  They also told me that if we fail to comply, they will bombard me with cosmic theta rays from their NR16020 Gillespicizer, which in controlled, secret military tests has turned people into bleating sycophants.

LTM,
Dave Porter (waiting for my # and refrigerator magnet)

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Never fear.  Your # and refrigerator magnet are enroute.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:52:23 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      New Policy

I think Dr. Van Hare hit the nail (or goat) on the head.  This forum is too valuable a research tool to be allowed to be distracted by a handful of people who have already demonstrated that all they really want is attention. Sacto, Cam, Dick - the party is over.  From here on in, no substance, no posting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:54:27 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Piles of Sand on Niku

Well, while there is some hope that AE/FN left some type of message or sign that they were there, it is my personal opinion that they would not have left any message.  Why, you ask?   Because (just conjecture on my part) they most likely would be expecting a massive search and rescue within a few days.  Being novices at island survival, they would not have realized right away that they might not be able to survive - ie no water, little food.  Also, they probably would not have realized how quickly an injury could become septic, and once infected there physical state would probably deteriorate so quickly as to leave them no time to think, let alone act, to leave a message.  As I said, just conjecture on my part, but using my little bit of rationale, what's left of it anyway, points me in that direction.

Love to meditate,
and blue skies to all,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:32:10 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Legends and facts

Let me open by saying that I'm NOT flaming you here Dave.  You're a victim of popular mythology and it gives a chance to show the difference between popular opinion and facts.

Dave Bush wrote:

> The talk of the Titanic reminds me that it is the largest monument to the
> foolishness of the human ego. Someone's ego said it was unsinkable. Someone
> else's said it can therefore go as fast as possible.  Another's said it
> didn't need lifeboats or lifeboat drills.  So much for man's great intellect.

1. The builders and owners never claimed she was unsinkable.  Their claims were pretty specific in that they believed that the worst thing that could happen to a ship was to be struck at the junction of two watertight compartments by the bow of another ship.  Titanic (and her sisters and some other ships) were built to survive this.  Popular opinion, however (perhaps based on a Ship  Builder article calling them "practically unsinkable") was another thing entirely.

2. It was common practice to go full speed until ice was actually sighted.

3. No ships traveling the Atlantic at the time had enough life boats.  It had nothing to do with believing the ships unsinkable, it was just the way they did business.  Among other things, life boats used up valuable deck space.

4. Life boat drills almost never involved passengers at that time.  It was purely for the crew, and a select "life boat drill" crew at that.

The Titanic wasn't really unusual, except that she was really big.  Then history stepped in and made it obvious that the beliefs and practices about building and operating ships were (at best) misguided.

So, point number one, is that you expressed very popular, but incorrect, beliefs about Titanic, which don't stand up to actual research of the facts. This is not unlike many theories we all keep running into about AE & FN.

On the other hand, you were right that it was huge ego (conceit?) on the part of those who built and operated ships of that era to believe that Mother Nature wouldn't find subtle ways to do in their creations.

> I saw a program where they made a scale model of the Titanic and put
> it in a water tank and re-inacted the sinking, changing factors to test
> different theories, ie. water tight doors open, water tight doors closed, etc.

I saw the demonstration you mention and we discussed it at length in the Titanic news group.  It was actually rather badly flawed.  I.e.: no simulation of the mass of the engines, no simulation of the behavior of flooding after fhe forward well deck submerged, no simulation of the change when the inflow of water into the #5 boiler increased room took place, and more.  The discussion in the Titanic forum went into these and other issues with that demonstration.

Again, the point is, that impressive theories and even "proofs" can be built on inaccurate data and can be quite misleading.  The more I read up on the lost world flight, the more convincing I find Gardner as an answer to where it ended up.  Not because TIGHAR has answered ALL the questions to my satisfaction, but because they've answered MORE of them in ways I find convincing and which take into account the situation at that point in history.

    - Bill #2229
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:38:20 EST
From:         David Dunsmore
Subject:      Flotation issues

Dave Bush wrote:

> Since the big radials are so heavy, would it have floated in a tail up
> position?

I've seen photos of a British Lancaster bomber that ditched in the North Sea during the War and was floating perfectly level and intact for over 24 hours!  The crew were picked up after a chilly night in their dingy, and the Royal Navy finally had to expend considerable ammo to rupture enough of the empty fuel tanks to get it to go down (before it drifted east into German hands).  The pilot made a great water landing, as it was all in one perfect piece!  The water was lapping across the top of the wings, and all four Merlin engines were just below the surface, but it was sitting perfectly level in the water, however, the upper half of the fuselage, the wingtips, the twin tails, the mid-upper turret and the cockpit were all high and dry.

> Are there any reports of items being found from other similar losses such
> as airplane crashes and ship sinkings in the ocean that would give us some
> reference?

I have a friend who knows several of the folks who were involved in the recovery efforts of Swissair 111 off the Nova Scotia coastline last fall, and it seems that most of the floating debris consisted of plastic interior pieces and smaller things like luggage and stuff that would have trapped a pocket of air in them enough to remain afloat.  Also, the Air India 182 crash off the Irish coast in 1985 left a few personal belongings and some fragments of honeycomb structure, such as part of a nacelle, that were picked up the next morning.  We're probably all familiar as well with the scenes from TWA 800, when more luggage was found, along with that famous chunk of flap (sticking out of the water) that must have been the rear cone of the streamlined cover over one of the flap jacks. All three of these aircraft were very large (an MD-11 and two 747s), and involved the loss of 229, 289, and 230 people respectively, so there was plenty of material left behind by the machines themselves as well as the occupants.  One tiny Electra with only two people would be a whole different story.

I'm not an expert of maritime matters, but I know that literally tons of floating debris was recovered from the Titanic for months afterwards. Some of the crews that were sent out from Halifax, Nova Scotia to recover bodies were able to find stacks of really exotic woods that had been part of the great ship's magnificent interior.  Since these guys were just relatively poor fishermen, and couldn't dream of affording such materials themselves, they eagerly kept the wood for their own use and made it into such things as beautifully inlaid tables and picture frames.  I've actually seen some of these items on display with other things that were recovered in the weeks and months after the disaster.  There is even one first class deck chair and one second class deck chair known to exist, along with numerous cork-filled life belts that failed to save the lives of their owners.  If I'm not mistaken, things were even turning up on the Irish and Scottish coastlines all through the summer of 1912 (keeping in mind that she sank on April 15).  We must not forget though, the Titanic was... well, titanic - and scattered masses of 'evidence' on the surface of the ocean, and for later technology to find, all over the bottom too.  The Electra in question certainly wouldn't have left much behind, and even though the navy had looked, they could still have missed lots of things just because the Pacific is one very big ocean.

Love to Mother,
David Dunsmore  :-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:40:16 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Navigation Books

I've answered one of my own questions about the state of the art in aerial navigation.

I recently found a copy of "Practical Air Navigation" by Thoburn C. Lyon, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, published by the CAA, dated September 1940.  It deals with basic private pilot navigation, not going into over water work to any extant.  However it does mention aim-off.

On page 64 it says; "Under some conditions it is good practice to fly a course at some distance to one side of the destination.  Suppose that a pilot is flying through an area where there are very few landmarks, to reach a town located on a railroad at right angles to his route.  If he heads directly for the town, but reaches the railroad at some point other than the town, he may be uncertain whether the town is on his right or on his left.  If, on the other hand, he deliberately heads for a point at some little distance to the right of his destination, when he reaches the railroad he knows to turn left, and reaches his objective with no time lost other than the small amount of time required to fly the added distance."

So apparently the concept of aim-off was common even for sport flyers of the time.

LTM
Robert Klaus
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:43:53 EST
From:         Jim Tweedle
Subject:      Re: E. Long & Other Comments

The frigid cold of the deep would have been around 39 degrees Fahrenheit, about the same as cruising at 10,000 feet on a warm summer night.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:52:06 EST
From:         Jim Tweedle
Subject:      Re: Piles of Sand on Niku

Has any thought or attention been given to examining the environs of the Norwich City in search of any sign or message relating to Amelia and Fred's stay on Niku.  While I recognize that a rusted out hulk has to be among the most uninviting objects on the planet, it was still the most noticeable man-made artifact on the island, and may have attracted the downed crew for a number of reasons.

LTM,  Jim Tweedle

*****************************************************************
From Ric

In 1937 Norwich City was a burned out, rusted hulk - but still very much recognizable as a ship.  Today she's a pile of rusted iron, battered down almost flat by over half a century of waves.  The most prominent surviving feature is her massive triple-expansion steam engine that still towers probably 20 feet or more above the edge of the reef.  Any message left aboard Norwich City is long gone.

Incidentally, the family of the captain of the Norwich City is sponsoring a plaque that we'll be bolting (somehow) to the engine in tribute to the eleven men who died in that disaster.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:00:51 EST
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: New Policy

Not, to tie up the forum with any more clutter, but THANK YOU! I was getting burned out reading all of those postings.

Craig Fuller

**************************************************************
From Ric

Both Cam Warren and Sactodave have responded to the announcement of the New Policy in their accustomed fashion, but you won't be reading it here.  Sacto advises that he's letting his WebTV subscription lapse, so he'll be gone anyway.  It is the end of an era.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:10:56 EST
From:         Bob Brown
Subject:      Vegetation

Don Jordan asked:

>If the island is that densely cover in growth, how could anything
>big work its way past the tree line.  Maybe it would be a good idea to
>start the search on a section of the island that wasn't covered in
>1937.  Is it possible to identify those areas?

My observation of Scaveola, Beach Naupaka, is that you could drive a truck into it and it would give just enough to absorb the vehicle even losing branches in the process and then quickly recover and grow back to conceal it completely.  It escaped from cultivation here in Florida in 1982 (Wunderlin), was promoted in the early 80's for use in beach stabilization.  It has escaped and become established on many south Florida beach dunes, coastal berms, coastal rock berms, along saline shores, and in coastal hammocks.  It appears to be supplanting native coastal vegetation in some Florida areas (Nellis 1994).  The problem here is that it has begun to displace rare native beach plants, such as inkberry, S. plumieri, and the Florida endangered sea lavender, Tournefortia gnaphalodes (L.).   This information is from "Identification and Biology of Non-Native Plants in Florida's Natural Areas" by Langland, Burks, et. al.

I can see how a dense growth of this plant could easily grow over and conceal a large object such as an airplane that may have gotten washed inland from the beach.  The very action of the plane being washed inland would also break and bend branches as well as distribute seeds and fruit.  The new growth would rapidly fill any path opened in the vegetation by the plane quickly concealing it.

Bob Brown in West Palm Beach,  Florida
****************************************************************

From Ric

Last October a stand of Scaevola escaped from a cultivated area near Boca Raton and robbed two 7/11s and a liquor store store before being apprehended in a bloody late night shoot out with local police.  This stuff is not to be messed with.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:12:39 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca Radio Room

Video clips (e.g. newsreels) used a lot of still photos.  The only thing close I ran across that showed a legitimate radio station is the USCG station in Oakland/San Francisco area, where GPP was shown in the picture. In the background one can see some radio equipment.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:33:54 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Sinking of Nippon Maru

Website for the USS Scamp I (SS-277) does show that the Scamp did sink a single large tanker on it's sixth patrol, in the area of Truk-Kavieng, between mid-December 1943 & February 1944.(The Scamp was presumed lost with all hands off the Japanese coast in November 1944 due to enemy action.)

If in fact the Nippon Maru was the only Japanese registered ship with the name 'Nippon', one would wonder why such a ship (tanker) would be sailing in the vicinity of the French coast, assuming of course that the "message-in-a-bottle' has any credibiliy!

Don Neumann
sandon@webtv.net

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I think that this whole line of discussion has been a classic example of how the astounding availability of information via the Internet does not necessarily promote meaningful research.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 18:52:01 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Itasca Radio Room

As someone with experience in commercial broadcast and production, my advice would be never to accept  accompanying stock footage in an historical piece (especially in historical videos about popular subjects like Earhart, the Titanic, the space program, etc) as authentic unless it is specifically referred to and described in the narration (ie, "This is a picture of the radio room of the USS Itasca taken in early July 1937..."); and in that case, be reasonably  skeptical and look for a way to confirm the claim before examining the image for useful information.

Accurate, scholarly research in the production of historical documentaries is enormously time consuming and expensive and there's a real temptation for producers (who are often not fully trained researchers) to skimp, especially if the production is intended for a commercial, ratings driven market on the networks or on cable.

I guess, to drive my point home, that I'm saying not to take video historical documentaries too seriously; I enjoy them but see mistakes in them all the time-- they're not even close to being primary sources.

******************************************************************
From Ric

Having had a bit of experience working with documentary producers I can say amen to that.  And don't let anybody kid you that Public Television is not a commercial, ratings driven market.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:29:37 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      FW: Legends and facts

Bill Leary is right. I don't want to become off-topic, but having researched the Titanic shipwreck in a previous professional life I want to add a few words in support of Bill before the Forum explodes in another burst of off-topic rethoric.

Neither the builders (Harland & Wolff of Belfast), nor the owners (the White Star Line) ever claimed Titanic to be unsinkable. This became part a myth after the disaster, perpetuated untill this day. She was discribed in the press as state of the art, having watertight bulkheads that normally speaking should make her virtually unsinkable. Saying that a Boeing 747 is a safe airplane does not mean no 747 can ever crash. Yes,

Titanic was the biggest ship of the day, being some three feet longer than her sister ship Olympic which was launched one year earlier. So was the third sister ship, Britannic, which hit a mine in WW I and sank in the Mediterrranean (much faster than Titanic). The reason why the three ships were so big had nothing to do with someone's ego, as it has become popular to believe, but with the flood proportions of emigration to the US at the turn of the century and with shipping companies, such as Cunard and White Star Line, responding to it by introducing bigger ships to carry more people and make more money. Like what the airlines did in the Sixties when introducing Boeings 747.

Titanic did not carry too few life boats because she was unsinkable or because they took up deck space, but because in 1912 the Board of Trade regulations stipulated that any ship of 10,000 tons or more should carry 16 lifeboats (Titanic was a 46,000 ton ship and carried 20).

She was not, as some still believe, going at full speed to break a record. Titanic was not a fast ship. She was sailing at a sedate 21 1/2 knots. She didn't reduce speed because visibility was good and because in 1912 it was normal procedure to maintain speed unless visibility deteriorated. Having no rada they doubled the number of men in the crow's nest.

The reason why Titanic foundered was because of Murphy's Law. When Olympic, Titanic and Britannic were on the drawing board nobody foresaw  the possibility of a ship striking an iceberg a glancing blow that would dent the hull and spring leaks over 250 feet and flood no fewer than five watertight compartments. Murphy was proved right : If anything could have gone wrong, it had done so, at the worst possible moment and at a time it could do the utmost damage.

That brings us back to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. They too met Murphy.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I think Herman is dead on topic.  Any great disaster - any great historical event for that matter - quickly becomes mythologized.  To really understand what happened you have to get beyond the mythology, and myths die hard.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:45:52 EST
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Amelia's radio

Ric wrote:

>Earhart, by commercial radio messages sent prior to
>departing Lae, told the Itasca:
>                  -what radio frequencies she would be using,
>                  -that they should send only voice messages to her,
>                  -what times she would transmit,
>                  -what times she would be listening,
>                  -that she would use Greenwich Mean Time,
>                  -to send signals on 7500Kcs for her to home on,
>                   and specifically asked if that frequency would be OK.

To the best of your knowledge:

Did Amelia ever receive any reply or confirmation to the above msgs?

Did she ever know she should transmit on 500Kcs to realize maximum benefit from Itasca's Radio Direction Finding capability?

Do you think she was promised HF Dir. Finding by someone?, else why the DF setup on Howland?  The logic doesn't add up?

If the Coast Guard knew she was expecting to DF on 7500Kcs, why didn't they warn her?  Or did they warn her?

Thanks in advance.  LTM, HAG 2201.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

>Did Amelia ever receive any reply or confirmation to the above msgs?

Yes.

>Did she ever know she should transmit on 500Kcs to realize maximum benefit
>from Itasca's Radio Direction Finding capability?

I can't say what she knew.  I do know that her ability to put out signals on 500 kcs was severely limited by her short transmitting antenna.

>Do you think she was promised HF Dir. Finding by someone?, else
>why the DF setup on Howland?  The logic doesn't add up?

I know that Thompson (the captain of the ITASCA) later claimed that it was never intended that the Coast Guard would provide bearings to Earhart.  They were just supposed to provide transmissions upon which she would take bearings.  It is clear, however, that Earhart did not share that opinion.  We have found no evidence that Earhart knew anything about the HF/DF on Howland.  It seems to have been entirely an idea cooked up by Richard Black of the Dept. of the Interior and Air Corps Lt. Dan Cooper as an experiment to supplement the ITASCA's DF capability.

>If the Coast Guard knew she was expecting to DF on 7500Kcs, why didn't
>they warn her?  Or did they warn her?

Good question.  No -  they replied to her message but they didn't say anything about 7500 being a bad frequency for DFing.  Of course, they also ignored her request for voice-only messages and use of Greenwich time for the radio schedule.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 4 Apr 1999 09:20:42 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Legends and facts

I hesitate to carry this further, and you can biff this message if you want, but Herman glitched a few details himself.

If you DO decide to post this, I'd be pleased to take any further discussion by questioners as direct mail (Bill_Leary@msn.com)  rather than clutter up the Earhart forum with Titanic myths vs. facts.  I have my reference materials handy and can quote sources for my statements.

Herman wrote:

> ((..portions omitted throughout for brevity..))
> Titanic was the biggest ship of the day, being some three feet longer than
> her sister ship Olympic which was launched one year earlier.

There are rumors that Titanic may have been three inches (not feet) longer, but (except, perhaps, for building errors) all three Olympic class ships (Olympic, Titanic and Britannic) were the supposed to be the same dimensions.  Each was successively slightly wider because each enclosed more space.  This "enclosed space" is how size was judged, and it was this additional enclosed space that made each ship successively "larger" than its previous sister.

> Board of Trade regulations stipulated that any ship of 10,000 tons or more 
> should carry 16 lifeboats (Titanic was a 46,000 ton ship and carried 20).

And those extra four were builders/owners "flourish."

What isn't generally known was that the Board of Trade took its advice on regulations from a consulting body which was made up of the shipbuilders themselves.  So, in practice, the shipbuilders were writing their own regulations.  The builders didn't want more lifeboats for a variety of reasons.

> She was not, as some still believe, going at full speed to break a record.

Correct. The Mauretania, for example, had a designed service speed of 25 knots and a maximum of over 30 knots.  The Olympic class ships (including Titanic) were 21 and 24 for the same figures.

It's possible Titanic was trying to beat Olympic's maiden crossing time (as illustrated in the recent movie).  However, researchers opinions are mixed as to how likely it was that Captain E.J. Smith would have tried this, either of his own accord (most think "no") or if encouraged by his boss, who was on board (opinions are mixed here).

This business of trying to read E.J. is a lot like people trying to read AE and FN today.  What would EJ have done if pushed by Ismay to go faster? What would AE have done once it became obvious she'd missed Howland?  What navigational techniques did FN use in trying to find Howland?

> Titanic was not a fast ship. She was sailing at a sedate 21 1/2 knots.

Actually, she WAS going "full" (but not maximum) speed. 21.5 knots may be "sedate" by todays standards, but it was pretty quick for 1912.

> She didn't reduce speed because visibility was good and because in 1912 it
> was normal procedure to maintain speed unless visibility deteriorated.

This is all true.  The real error, to my mind, was that they didn't recognized that, dispite the crystal clear night, the visibility HAD deteriorated because there was no wind and no moon, making icebergs at least as hard to see as under foggy conditions.  All things being equal, if they'd reduced speed as if it were foggy, they'd have avoided this particular collision and perhaps the others that were looming in her course as well.

> Having no radar they doubled the number of men in the crow's nest.

Two lookouts was normal for White Star Line, at least on the Olympic class ships.  They were, however, told to keep a sharp eye out for ice.

> The reason why Titanic foundered was because of Murphy's Law.

Correct.

> That brings us back to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. They too met
> Murphy.

I definitely see parallels, and perhaps it's these parallels that draw
people to these two mysteries and, in fact, draws a number of us to both.

Ric wrote:

> I think Herman is dead on topic.  Any great disaster - any great historical
> event for that matter - quickly becomes mythologized.  To really understand
> what happened you have to get beyond the mythology, and myths die hard.

I watched a show on Discovery last night about various disasters.  Several of them, including the Titanic, I knew either a bit or a lot about.  It was amazing to see how much error gets recorded on the tube as fact.  The thing to me, though, was since I could see in these cases how much error was introduced it caused me to have some healthy skepticism about the accuracy of the "facts" presented about the other disasters.

When someone expresses opinions about what happened to AE, FN and the plane I like to take into account their track record.  If their responses to criticism or questions amounts to "because I said so" I have to doubt that they've really done the homework to back up their opinions.  When, for example, they dismiss the recorded fuel capacity, load and usage rates for the Electra in coming to their conclusions I have to wonder what else they've ignored.

One of the most gratifying aspects of TIGHAR research been the handling of the evidence.  When it turned out the navigators book case wasn't the confirming find that would have been desired, TIGHAR was public with the facts right away.  This is one of the reasons I send in my dues, and one of the reasons I support the search.

- Bill

****************************************************************
From Ric

I posted this, in part, because I think it says something about the type of person who joins and supports TIGHAR.  Journalists are often astounded to learn that only about 25 percent of our membership are pilots, but TIGHAR is not about flying.  It's about history.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 4 Apr 1999 09:48:12 EDT
From:         William Webster Garman
Subject:      Re: Itasca Radio Room

Yes, while the pressure to "economize on fact" is higher on purely commercial outlets, it is certainly true that PBS is in its own way a big commercial enterprise and provides its own unique pressures on producers (and ultimately on the producer selection process), which can and does sometimes skew the objectivity of the content. And sometimes the facts presented are well-established, while others are simply ignored (for a variety of possible reasons), which can really change the overall impression or impact of a documentary.

Also, PBS documentaries that run during "pledge week" are often chosen for their pure ratings and image building appeal, where the "mythology" factor may be stronger.

******************************************************************
From Ric

Having dealt with major network, cable, and public television as a subject of their gentle attentions, I have noticed some surprisingly consistent characteristics in each category:

1.  Network people have big budgets, beat up equipment, cluttered and frantic offices, and they work like dogs.

2.  Cable people have miniscule budgets, no equipment (because they rarely shoot their own footage), you never see their offices, and they work like dogs.

3. Public television people have humongous budgets, equipment that should be on the Space Shuttle, tidy offices with art in the hallways and lots of people standing around with coffee cups in hand, and who work very hard at making sure that everyone understands how much more money they could be making if they weren't so noble.

It has been quite an education.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:34:45 EDT
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re: Radio and Antenna Info Request

meter:  What type receiver was it, aboard Itasca?I've never been able to determine this, altho one excelldent researcher postulated it was an RME product. That co. furnished the USCG with lotsa sets just prior to WWII, when National became the major supplier to the "sea services".

Re:The Antennas, I read somewhere they were Windoms, as teh ship's photos show (i.e. off-center-fed half waves)

btw-Regardless of what some radio "experts" will tell you , the Smeter scale on any receiver or CB set (especially CB sets) is arbitrarily marked off.  At one time Halicrafters claimed its meters were calibrated so that a 50 micrivolt signal was S9++(probably 20 db over). Read up on the definitions of "R" or"S"signal strengths in contemporary military manuals.  Perhaps the best is "Ship-board Electronic Equipments" a Navy manual available from the USGPO.
            Sorry, gang                  --Dick
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:06:19 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Al isotopes

Jerry Ellis checked out my idea to try dating some of the aluminum found on Niku by looking at the proportions of the isotopes of aluminum present. There is reason to believe Alcoa's sources of ore may have changed in about 1938.

Another good idea shot down!!  There's only ONE isotope of aluminum to be found in nature.  I thein there IS a conspiracy!!  I've quoted part of Jerry's message below.  Maybe someone has some thoughts about the possibility that engineering materials properties might enable dating a sample of alloy sheet stock.

From Jerry...

>I looked in my Chemistry and Physics Handbook and to be sure Al has isotopes 
>with masses of 24 through 30.  The catch is that the 27 isotope is 100% 
>abundant meaning that, if these data are correct, it is the only isotope found 
>in nature, the rest are man-made.  In that case, there wouldn't be any 
>difference in Al from different parts of the world.  Do you know of evidence to 
>the contrary?

No, I do not have such evidence.  There would, in fact, be no difference.

>But isn't there some other difference one could find between the
>Al of the 30's and that of more recent production that would allow such a
>distinction to be made.  I'm thinking of some materials science type
>measurements that engineers do.  I don't know much about that area.

>Jerry W. Ellis                      Carbohydrates, polymers and
>Professor of Chemistry              Chemical Education
>Department of Chemistry
>Eastern Illinois University         (And bluegrass)
>Charleston, IL  61920
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:13:53 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Clancy/Gallagher Search

Do you have any idea why the "Clancy Search" should have just been front-page news in the local Malvern newspaper?  My contact in Malvern reports that it has been in the local paper twice in as many days.  Due to technical problems, I've not yet seen the articles so I don't know just what it's all about.

I've not yet made waves around Malvern of a magnitude to attract the attention of the media.  Is TIGHAR up to something there that I don't know about?

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Nope.  But I've learned never to underestimate the power of Amelia.  Back in December when we announced that we'd be giving a press conference about the bones at the American Anthropological Association meeting in Philadelphia I figured that we might get some decent local coverage.  We got page one of the L.A. Times and from there it absolutely hit the fan.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:17:20 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Aircraft Floating Position After Ditching

I tend to agree with David Dunsmore's posting on how most aircraft float after ditching.  It an airplane is intact I would expect it to float relatively flat in the water rather than with the engine pointing down and the tail up.  The center of gravity for nearly all airplanes is about 1/3rd of the wing chord measuring back from the wing leading edge.  It would certainly depend on what areas did and didn't fill with water but if the wing fuel tanks remained empty I would expect the Electra to float level. Once again, the effective weight of the submerged engines is lightened by the volume of water they displace.

There are quite a few items from almost any airplane that will float. The fact that none were found floating by the Navy tends to go against a water landing although the Pacific is a very big chunk of water.

I do think it was time to cut off those that simply wanted to use the Forum to discredit TIGHAR.  There are a lot of topics to research so I agree, enough space has been given to those that have nothing positive to add to the search effort.

Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:07:48 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Modeling

Someone has earlier suggested creating a model of AE's Electra and see how long it takes to sink.

The modeling may be a good idea, but it is impossible to accomplish.

As a kid I used to routinely build and sink model ships (hey, I was just curious, OK?).  I sank the USS New Jersey about a dozen times by drilling ever larger holes in her hull and timing her demise.  The problem, of course, is that the "experiment" did not account for the many internal compartments and the mass and weight of the ship. Consequently that ragged old battleship would go under real quick.  (Her final journey was an reenactment of the sinking of H.M.S Hood (of Bismarck fame) when I put a firecracker in her superstructure and let her go.  Sure, enough she disintegrated and disappeared just like H.M.S. Hood!)

The same modeling problem exists for "real scientists."  It is impossible to scale down the mass and weight.  As an example the Electra 10E TIGHAR is offering for sale is a 1/48th scale model, meaning that one inch of model equals 48 inches of the real airplane. Proportionally, this model 10E with a real empty weight of 7,000 pounds (??) should then weigh about 145 pounds.  Even made of sold depleted uranium this 14' (wingspan) model would come in at about . . .  what, 8-10 pounds?

Trying to "model" the 10E beyond her physical dimensions is an exercise in futility.

(Remind me to tell you what we did with our model flying aircraft . . . Ka-BOOM!)

LTM, who is no model herself
Dennis McGee #0149

*****************************************************************

From Ric

I guess we'll just have to buy Finch's airplane, ditch it, and see how fast it sinks.  Finding a pilot could be tricky.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:14:08 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Photo

Has anyone been able to find that computer program that can make a computer model of the wreck photo and overlay it on a like picture of the Electra.  Surely someone has heard of it.

Also, has there been any progress in finding the crew on the chopper that Bruce was on when he found the engine?  Has Bruce found any photos yet?  Maybe you could give us a run down on anything new to do with the engine.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not aware of the software you're talking about and I'm frankly pretty dubious that anything this side of a Cray would have the computing power to accurately manipulate imagery to correct for angles and distances.

So far, Forest Blair has found one operations guy and one pilot from the timne that Bruce was on Canton.  It is their opinion that the helicopters never went to Gardner during that time period.  We're trying to track down another pilot and think we're getting close.  Stay tuned for further developments.  Film at 11.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:32:07 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Nippon Maru

Ric said regarding the Nippon Maru story:

>I think that this whole line of discussion has been a classic example
>of how the astounding availability of information via the Internet does not
>necessarily promote meaningful research."

I disagree.  I had never heard the Nippon Maru story until it was brought up on the forum.  And I'm sure it is probably one of many more AE/FN-related myths out there that most of us have never heard before.

The benefit of the Nippon Maru episode on the forum was that I am now able to better deflect critics who complain that TIGHAR is purposely avoiding certain areas in its investigation.  If anyone mentions the Nippon Maru story I now have the facts to explain why we believe that story is a fabrication and why we haven't pursued it.

While defending TIGHAR is above my paygrade, it is good to have as much background as possible.

Thanks for the exercise.

LTM, who avoids things French
Dennis McGee #0149

******************************************************************
From Ric

While I see Dennis' point, what struck me about the whole episode is that the logic of the whole thing was so flawed.  Somehow we got from a phrase in the letter which supposedly said "Nippon Nom" (the meaning of which is impossible to fathom with any degree of certainty but which probably meant nothing more than "some kind of Japanese name") to "Nippon Maru" as the name of the vessel.  Then it turns out, not surprisingly, that there was a ship named the Nippon Maru and that it was sunk during the war by an American submarine. The mind boggles.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:34:08 EDT
From:         Tom Ruprecht
Subject:      Re. Finch's 10E

>I guess we'll just have to buy Finch's airplane, ditch it, and see how fast
>it sinks. Finding a pilot could be tricky.

Aren't you a multi-rated pilot, Ric?

****************************************************************
From Ric

And your point is.....?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:47:47 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Scaevola

Having read the descriptions on the forum, and checked out the picture on the website, scaevola would seem to be a first class adversary to TIGHAR's efforts on Niku.  How does it compare with Normandy hedgerows, circa 1944? (I bet you know where this is headed)  It may be that you are entirely satisfied with the brush clearing capabilities of NIKU4. It may also be that logistics or budget won't allow it, or that such a thing doesn't even exist, but what about some sort of vehicle mounted "hedgehog" similar to the ones mounted on allied tanks shortly after D-Day which allowed penetration of the notoriously thick Normandy hedgerows?

I only ask because adding such a thing to NIKU4, while expensive, would surely be cheaper than mounting NIKU5 should 4 (horrors!) fail to find conclusive proof.  Also, it seems a bit safer than a bunch of guys attacking the treeline with chainsaws.

A couple other thoughts:

re Norwich City:  Bolting a plaque to the remains of the Norwich City should be fairly easy.  At my day job, we use a "powder actuated fastening tool" which uses .27 caliber blank cartridges, color coded for charge strength, to, in extreme cases, drive a threaded stud through a steel beam, allowing whatever is necessary to then be simply bolted to the beam.  Movie fans will note that the bad guys in the original Die Hard used a similar tool to bolt their rocket launcher to the concrete floor of the skyscraper.  Any local building trade supplier should be able to help you get what you need in this regard.

re Kiribati:  Is the drought still in progress there?  Don't our heroic leaders in D.C. supply things like water desalinization plants to friendly seaside developing nations at fairly low cost?  Could a good TIGHAR P.R. opportunity be lurking hereabouts?  I'm willing to write my congressman...

re the Forum:  As I mentioned to Ric privately, I would've joined TIGHAR on the strength of the magazine article and website alone.  The forum is "icing on the cake" to an amateur like me.  The members who contribute regularly, as well, I'm sure, as those who don't, are an extraordinary bunch of intelligent, well spoken folk.  So, to the Van Hares, Mike E, Dave Bush, Kenton Spading, Tom King, Bill Leary, Craig Fuller, Herman, Pat, Ric, and all the rest of you who've probably already forgotten more about airplanes, radios, history, and archaelogy than I could ever hope to learn, I proudly throw my lot in with yours, and promise to try mightily to keep my questions intelligent and my comments useful.

LTM,
Dave Porter (# en route)

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Scaevola:

Unfortunately, our dedication to sound archaeological methodology pretty much precludes our use of hedgehogs, naplam and Agent Orange.  Our objective is not simply to remove the pernicious stuff from the face of the Earth; we need to look carefully at what might be hidden in amongst it.  That means hand work - chain saws and bush knives.  It's physically demanding and dangerous as hell in a place where we have no way of dealing with a massive blood-loss injury.  So we're REAL careful.

Norwich City:

Hmmm.  We'll have to look into that.

Kiribati:

We assume that the drought is still on but it's very hard to get information out of Kiribati.  As far as we know they're getting no help from the U.S. and there's very little international awareness that they even have a problem. They have no U.S. embassy and no representation at the U.N.  I suspect that it would be hard to get the State Department's attention right now given the other humanitarian catastrophe on the Balkans.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:54:09 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Clancy/Gallagher Search

The passage below is from a local press site covering the English Midlands which includes news supplied by the Malvern Gazette, the weekly paper for that part of Worcestershire.

The site is at

http://www.thisisworcestershire.co.uk/worcs/malvern/index.html

Another line of approach might be through the local branch of a family history society. (Hope I won't patronize too many people by pointing out that UK census returns are published only once 100 years has elapsed, so that route can't be used to track a family as recently as the 1940s).

These societies are mostly organized on a county basis, i.e. Malvern would fall under Worcestershire FHS. I am a member of the Herefordshire FHS, one county further south. Links at their site indicate that Worcestershire doesn't have a stand-alone FHS but is covered by the Birmingham and Midland Society for Genealogy and Heraldry (http://www.bmsgh.org/). This in turn has a Worcestershire branch with its own sub-branches. Malvern doesn't have its own but would logically fall under the Worcester sub-branch, for which the BMGHS site gives no email address but a contact point as Miss C.A. Stormont, 18 Osprey Close, Lower Wick, Worcester, WR2 4BX (Tel: 01 905 748 075)

Another link at the BMSGH site is to family history mailing lists. These include:

ENG-WORCESTER. A mailing list for the discussion and sharing of information regarding family, local, and social history for the county of Worcestershire, England. Mailing address for postings is eng-worcester-l@rootsweb.com. To subscribe send the word "subscribe" (without the quotes) as the only text in the body of a message to eng-worcester-l-request@rootsweb.com (mail mode) or eng-worcester-d-request@rootsweb.com (digest mode).
----------------------------------------------------

The resting place of the pioneering female aviator Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, remains unknown despite repeated attempts to locate the crash site. The pair were trying to circumnavigate the globe when their plane disappeared as they tried to reach Howland Island, a small island in the middle of the South Pacific on July 2, 1937.

Now it is hoped an answer can be turned up by looking again at some bones found on the nearby Gardner Island by native settlers in 1940. The trail has been traced to Malvern and the relatives of the man who first examined the bones, Gerald Gallagher, Officer in Charge of the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme.

He died on Gardner Island in September, 1941, aged 29, and is buried there, his effects, including a photo album and a sextant found with the bones, were returned to his aunt, a Miss Clancy, of Clanmere, Graham Road, Malvern.

The search is the work of Florida-based internet aircraft publication HistoricWings.com and The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR).

HistoricWings.com editor Thomas Van Hare said Gallagher examined the bones with Earhart's fate in mind.

He had them closely examined by a doctor who measured the bones, logged his findings, and then declared that they were of a Polynesian native man, he said. With that, the mystery was considered solved as not being the bones of Amelia Earhart. The sextant box was left unexplained though it remained in the possession of Mr. Gallagher.

Supporters of the theory that the doctor was mistaken in his conclusions are urgently trying to trace members of Mr Gallagher1s family for any paperwork they may have.

Forensic experts have recently revisited archive material held in Britain and say they cannot discount the possibility they are Earhart's, although too few measurements are available to be conclusive, hence the hunt for any of Gallagher1s papers which may have made it to Malvern.

Ultimately, it may be that someone in Malvern may have the key to solving the mystery of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan almost 61 years ago, said Mr Van Hare.

Some resident in Malvern may have the photo album or even the sextant box in their hands or information that would lead us to Miss Clancy's descendants.

Anyone with information about the Clancy family can ring the Malvern Gazette newsdesk on 01684 892200 or write to us at Broads Bank, Malvern, WR14 2HP.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

There's your answer Vern.  Looks like Tom Van Hare has been helping out.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:57:47 EDT
From:         Tom Roberts
Subject:      Re: Modeling

Dennis McGee wrote:

> As an example the Electra
> 10E TIGHAR is offering for sale is a 1/48th scale model, meaning that
> one inch of model equals 48 inches of the real airplane.
> Proportionally, this model 10E with a real empty weight of 7,000 pounds
> (??) should then weigh about 145 pounds.  Even made of sold depleted
> uranium this 14' (wingspan) model would come in at about . . .  what,
> 8-10 pounds?

In fact, mass/weight scales according to distance (length) cubed.  A 1/48 scale model of a 7000 pound aircraft would weigh approximately one ounce. Of course this assumes all materials are the same (density is preserved) and all dimensions (including skin thicknesses) are scaled proportionally (very difficult).  Also I assume Dennis meant 14 inch wingspan.

LTM

Tom Roberts, # 1956

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Our models will not be to scale weightwise.  They'll weigh maybe a pound and a half.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:25:42 EDT
From:         Colette Stoneking
Subject:      Re: Photo

That is called 3-D rendering with AUTOCAD Releases 12 or 13 or 14 it works with 12 and 13 the best!

Colette Crowder Stoneking Daughter of USMC Captain H.B. Crowder III.

******************************************************************
From Ric

Wonder if there's a MacIntosh version.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:32:47 EDT
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      ITASCA Smoke

Vern recently raised a question about what kind of fuel was being burned in ITASCA's boilers.

Here is a summary of what we know about ITASCA and her smoke generation on the fateful morning.

ITASCA was 250 feet long, painted white, and was steam-powered by two Babcock and Wilcox boilers that burned fuel oil.  More about the properties of that fuel.

According to her deck log, ITASCA was "drifting to westward of Howland Island"  just a few hundred yards offshore,  began "laying down heavy smoke" at 06:14 local when Earhart was estimating  that she was 200 miles out, and the smoke was observed to "stretch out for ten miles and not thinning out greatly." There is no log entry indicating cessation of the smoke.

0614 local time was about an hour and a half before Earhart was expected to arrive at Howland.

During the next two hours, ITASCA's weather log reports wind direction as East, with speed varying between 7 and 11 knots.

It is worth noting that ITASCA's estimate of the length and density of the smoke is not credible.  Consider that since the ship was drifting, the ship's view of the smoke was along the axis of the smoke plume, which was drifting downwind. Consequently, it would not have been possible to estimate the length of the plume, or its downstream density.

The boiler fuel oil most commonly used in those days was know as "bunker oil", which essentially was crude oil right out of the ground - - - very heavy with a high soot content, and hard to burn- - - required extensive preheating just to get it to atomize properly in the boiler feed nozzles.  It was somewhat like burning liquid tar.  The smoke therefore was "heavy" and tended to sink rapidly to the surface.  During and after WW2, the Navy switched to Navy Special Fuel Oil (NSFO) which was processed so that it was easier to preheat and burned more efficiently, producing a somewhat lighter smoke.  It is unlikely that ITASCA was burning NSFO.

But having laid down many NSFO smoke screens in my day, including a fair number in combat with North Vietnamese coastal batteries, I can tell you that that even NSFO smoke screens are not very durable.  In anything more than a light breeze, say 5 knots or so, the smoke is pushed rapidly down onto  the surface where it flattens and  thins out within three to five miles.  This results in rapid vertical thinning of the smoke, thus drastically reducing its visual contrast with respect to the sea surface.

So, within about five miles from the ITASCA, the smoke plume would have been virtually invisible from the air.   Smoke is really only useful as a visual detection aid when the wind speed is less than about 5 knots, when there is a significant vertical plume, which is readily visible in contrast to the sky luminance.

AE's problem was further complicated by the fact that at the reported wind speed, there would have been white capping, a condition in which the wind-driven waves break like surf on a beach.  The fact that ITASCA was painted white and was relatively small would make her tend to blend in with the whitecaps, and make her nearly invisible from the air beyond a few miles.

If ITASCA had been steaming at 10 knots or so, her Kelvin wake (the vee-shaped wave pattern caused by the ship's movement throught the water) would have been quite visible from the air, looking like an arrow pointing right to the ship.  But the drifting white ITASCA would have been nearly invisible unless AE was within a very few miles.

Furthermore,  it is unlikely that ITASCA made dense black smoke for an hour and a half, which would have been necessary for AE to have a chance to reach and see the smoke plume.

In a steam powered ship such as ITASCA,  under normal steaming procedures, the boiler watch crew would take particular care to ensure that the fuel-air mixture being sprayed into the boiler fire box was as close as possible to ideal, so that combustion would be nearly complete, thus minimizing soot buildup on the tubes within which water was boiled into steam within the boiler firebox.  The combustion exhaust observed at the smoke stack under ideal conditions was described as a "light brown haze", and was not visible from more than a mile or so.  In order to minimize soot buildup on the boiler tubes, the ship would "blow tubes" once each four-hour watch.  This was accomplished by activating a valve system which literally sprayed live steam onto the boiler tubes in the firebox, thereby dislodging loose soot from the tubes.  The dislodged soot was carried up and out the ship's smokestack by the exhaust gas plume.

But there always was an accumulating residue that could not be removed by blowing tubes, and eventually, about every 600 steaming hours or so, it was necessary to shut down each boiler and (after it had cooled!!!) send sailors into the fire box  to remove the residual soot  by hand, with wire brushes, etc.

Since ITASCA had only two boilers, the Captain would NEVER have taken a boiler off line for tube maintenance while at sea, even though one boiler would suffice for the ship's needs while on station, because if the on-line steaming boiler were to sustain a major casualty requiring it to be taken off line, the ship would be dead in the water with no power.  So, cleaning fire box tubes (known as cleaning firesides) was done in port, not at sea.

A smoke screen was created by reducing the amount of air in the fuel-air mixture being pumped into the boiler fire box.  This made a lovely black smoke, but rapidly increased the rate of deposition of soot on the boiler tubes, thus hastening the time when it was necessary to shut down the boiler for hand cleaning.

And making heavy black smoke for a protracted period - - - more than 30 minutes or so - - - was inviting trouble in the form of a tube rupture (caused by uneven heating of the tube surface due to rapid and uneven soot accumulation)  which resulted in water and steam spewing into the fire box, dousing the fire and, worse, causing the firebrick lining the inside of the fire box to crack from chill shock and crumble into a pile of rubble in the middle of the firebox.   Such an event would require major and expensive shipyard repairs, and avoidance of such a failure was uppermost in the mind of any ship Captain.

To have laid black smoke until AE's scheduled arrival at Howland would have been courting disaster, and there is nothing on the record to indicate that ITASCA was under orders to incur such a risk.

So there you have it .  ITASCA almost certainly was not making black smoke when AE needed it, but even if the smoke was being laid right up to AE's estimated time of arrival, AE wouldn't have seen it until she was just a few miles away.

LTM,
Bob Brandenburg,  #2286
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:44:18 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Kiribati drought

> re Kiribati:  Is the drought still in progress there?  Don't our heroic
> leaders in D.C. supply things like water desalinization plants to
> friendly seaside developing nations at fairly low cost?  Could a good
> TIGHAR P.R. opportunity be lurking hereabouts?  I'm willing to write my
< congressman...

My inquiry about this to the American Red Cross got me sent to the British Red Cross, which has not had a thing to say.  Actually, a few letters to Congresspeople expressing concern about the situation in Kiribati and asking what's being done about it might be interesting.  All members can be reached via www.senate.gov or www.house.gov.  Thanks for the idea, Dave.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:53:44 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Al isotopes

It is not the isotopes of Al that can be measured, but the impurities always found with Al in its manufacturer.  You could probably determine different batches of Al used during the same year.  Then the issue becomes what is original to compare the Niku samples to.  I contacted some geologists who do ion mass spectrometry, and they said it would be easy to calculate parts per trillion or less for any sample of aluminum, but it does cost money.  This was well before the time that TIGHAR took their pieces to Alcoa for overall analysis.  It still might be worth doing, if someone can come up with the bucks (approx. 50-100k for thorough analysis of a variety of samples).

****************************************************************
From Ric

Lockheed did not build each Model 10 from a discreet batch of aluminum.  The best you could come up with would be something like,  "This aluminum found on Niku seems to be from the same batch of aluminum that was used to build Earhart's plane.  Of course, we don't know how many other planes of what types may have been built from that same batch or whether aluminum from that batch hung around for years and may have been later used for wartime repairs, etc." I can think of better ways to spend $100,000.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:55:35 EDT
From:         William Webster Garman
Subject:      Re: Modeling

Yes, as I calculate it here, using an empty weight of 7000 pounds, a true 1/48 size & weight scale model of the Electra would weigh in the vicinity of an ounce.

For amusement only, it's important to recognize that at 1/48 scale, if the model were built to scale in weight too, the physics of elastic tension on water surfaces alone are a much larger factor at that scale and would tend to skew the results of any flotation experiment <big grin>. Not to mention that if the skin thicknesses and compartments were generally accurate, the model would be exquisitely fragile.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:19:53 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: ITASCA Smoke

Bob Brandenburg wrote:

> The fact that ITASCA was painted white and was relatively
> small would make her tend to blend in with the whitecaps, and
> make her nearly invisible from the air beyond a few miles.

As a former search and rescue pilot (just about 750 hours of low altitude actual SAR time in the logbook), I can tell you that a 250 foot vessel would so far supersede whitecaps that they would not matter much in terms of visibility. If the ocean is dead calm (I recall seeing it that way twice), then visibility for a ship this size is something like 8 or 10 miles, but in the usual waves, with or without whitecaps, visibility is still four miles or greater.

The USCG ships we worked with were almost all 110 footers (such as the USCGC Padre), and painted white with an orange stripe. From four miles away, they were quite easy to make out in most wave conditions, but you would not generally discern the orange stripe until about one or two miles out. The ocean appears quite dark greenish blackish in deep water and the white of the vessel is the best contrasting color for maximum visibility. Conversely, the whitecaps are not generally individually visible beyond three miles or so.

As another piece of interesting information, if the vessel is underway (plowing through waves, etc.), it will create a wake that is oftimes more visible than the ship itself from greater distances. The implication here is that since Itasca wished to be seen, they really should have been underway, cutting tracks off the shore of the island, as opposed to right next to it and drifting.

Instead, they were drifting fairly close in.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:25:03 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Kiribati drought

Dave Porter wrote:

> re Kiribati:  Is the drought still in progress there?  Don't
> our heroic leaders in D.C. supply things like water desalinization
> plants to friendly seaside developing nations at fairly low cost?

Dave --

First I'd like to amplify what Ric said about the lack of international interest -- and I will go into greater detail for those who have the time to read another one of my lengthy missives (see what follows this next paragraph).

More importantly, you should understand that purification is much easier than desalination. There are numerous low-cost purification machines available that are about the size of a pick-up truck bed, but desalination (particularly on a grand scale to address drought conditions) would be a major installation -- think millions upon millions of dollars and a huge construction project and a one to two year timeframe.

And, to return to the first point, there are few authorities at State or Defense to do this sort of thing. I'll run down the authorities and actors involved:

Under AID/W policy, this small country is not a target for major development assistance programming. Other places like Ethiopia, Bangladesh, etc., have a much higher priority, and much of the funding that is there is actually programmed for political purposes, hence the large share going to Egypt, etc., despite lesser need there than in much of east and west Africa and central Asia.

Defense humanitarian assistance is limited to work in Excess Property and H/CA, which must be approved through State/Pol-Mil on an individual basis. H/CA activities typically involve training programs (doctors doing jungle operations in Honduras, engineers building a road in El Salvador, etc.). Excess Property distribution which is handled and distributed locally with management through the USAID in-country or, barring that, a State officer. Property shipments are typically MREs, military clothing, and other non-lethal supplies that have been declared excess through age or the drawdown that has been going on for the past nearly decade.

Conversely, OFDA (Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance) has the authority but is far more interested in larger scale catastrophes, such as those generated by the ongoing problems in Kosovo and massive natural disasters like the impact of the hurricane in Honduras and Nicaragua this last summer. A drought in Kiribati is an ongoing issue of water management rather than emergency assistance.

Kiribati is far off the agenda of the Federal agencies involved. There is neither the authority, nor the general public interest, nor the budget, nor the politico-military importance in undertaking these sorts of programs in such a small country in the middle of the Pacific. As it is, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief budgets have seen an even greater cut than the military since the "peace dividend" was first the focus of budget cutting across the Congress.

> The members who contribute regularly, as well, I'm sure, as
> those who don't, are an extraordinary bunch of intelligent,
> well spoken folk.  So, to the Van Hares, Mike E, Dave Bush,
> Kenton Spading, Tom King, Bill Leary, Craig Fuller, Herman,
> Pat, Ric....

Dave, thank you for your kind words. The only problem I see here is the old line about not wanting to be in any club that would have the likes of me as a member....

Thanks again,

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:28:19 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Modeling

Ric wrote:

> I guess we'll just have to buy Finch's airplane, ditch it, and see
> how fast it sinks.  Finding a pilot could be tricky.

Ric, I recall that there actually was a series of tests on aircraft ditching done in a Cessna 152(?) off the beach at Melbourne, Florida, some years ago. As I recall, they managed to ditch the same plane four times before it was unflyable upon being pulled out of the water. All four flights were the same pilot. I recall that three out of four times, the plane flipped over onto its back when it hit (the landing gear catching the water).

Anyway, there are test pilots who are willing to undertake this sort of thing -- but the rationale has to be real and not just for idle purposes (where there is funding, there is a way).

There was also the fellow who flew into tornados on purpose to measure wind and pressure....

Thomas Van Hare
******************************************************************
From Ric

Maybe we could get Finch to do it as part of a plea bargain.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:35:32 EDT
From:         William Webster Garman
Subject:      Re: Modeling - correction

Well, I just realized that I made a careless mistake. I was taking square roots when I should have been dividing by cubes (4). A 7000 pound object reduced to 1/48 original scale, made of the same materials and having the same average density, would weigh around 2 1/4 pounds (roughly twice as heavy as what Ric says the TIGHAR models will weigh). My earlier confirmation that it would weigh around an ounce was quite wrong-- sorry.

***************************************************************
From Ric

I'll have to weigh one when they're finished.  It would be cool if the weight was more or less to scale.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Apr 1999 10:43:49 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Clancy/Gallagher Search

Since we now have several people trying to track down the Clancys (and the Gallaghers), I think we need each to be aware of what the others are doing, and what has been learned by any of them.

Tom Van Hare appears to have been instrumental in getting the Malvern Gazette to run a couple of articles about the search for Clancy family members who may have some knowledge Gerald Gallaghers personal effects that were returned to a Miss. Clancy residing at "Clanmere" on Graham Road in Malvern at the end of WWII.  This may get us in contact with someone who knows something of the Clancy family, if there are/were Clancys in the Malvern vicinity.  The Miss. Clancy of Clanmere may prove to be a dead end. (Not to start the "dead" thing again!!)

Simon Wiseman, of Malvern, has visited Graham Road and located "Clanmere." The building now houses several offices of one kind and another.  The structure has certainly seen better days.  Simon believes the building was probably a lodging house during WWII.  If this is correct, and Miss. Clancy simply had lodging there, that may be about all there is in the way of a Malvern connection to the Clancy family.  I think this is very possibly the case although it does not jibe with the idea that Miss. Clancy's Malvern address was more permanent than Gallagher's mother's London address.

During WWII, the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (RSRE) was relocated to Malvern.  Some will remember that Malvern is the birthplace of radar. The basic development was carried out on the playing fields of Malvern College.  It is very possible that Miss. Clancy was employed at RSRE and roomed at Clanmere.  This may be the extent of any Clancy-Malvern connection.  Incidently, RSRE has now become the Defense Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).  I wonder if there would be employee records from WWII time?

Simon Ellwood (yes, two Simons), working from Leeds and from Cambridge, has identified three Clancy women in addition to Gerald Gallagher's mother, Edith Annie Clancy Gallagher.  At the moment I can not cite the sources of this information, but it appears that Edith Clancy had two sisters, Elizabeth Rachel Clancy and Mary A. Clancy.  There is also a Lousia Clancy who was a witness at the marriage of Edith Clancy and Gerald Gallagher.  It seems that Lousia Clancy was not a sister of Edith Clancy, nor was she Edith's mother.  The relationship is unknown at this time.

Any one of these three Clancy women could have been the Miss. Clancy of Malvern.

Simon Ellwood, having little time to devote to the search, and feeling that he lacked expertise in genealogical research, engaged the services of a professional researcher.  I presume that it is she who turned up the names of the Clancy women and the relationships, known and unknown.  No doubt she will provide information relative to the sources she found.

I've told Simon that I feel the cost of the services of the genealogical researcher amounts to a contribution to TIGHAR.  However, I doubt that he will be able to take it as a tax deduction!

It will be most interesting to know where the marriage of Edith and Gerald Gallagher took place. That might provide some idea of where the Clancys