Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 08:46:56 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Sextant Numbers We have discussed a lot about the significance of the numbers on the Sextant Box, but what about the use of the term "stenciled"? That is a quite specific term, meaning different from affixed label, handwritten, etc. What are your thoughts on the use of that terminology? ***************************************************************** From Ric I KNOW you Randy. This is some kind of a trap - right? Okay, I'll bite. Stencil, stencil, stencil ... A stencil is a paper or cardboard cutout which allows the rapid application of legible letters, numbers or symbols to a surface with paint without requiring any particular expertise on the part of the person doing the painting. Yes? So what does that tell us about the box upon which a number was stenciled? Well, it seems reasonable to assume that it was one of many boxes or objects which required numbering. That implies that it was part of a large (or at least largish) inventory that was "charged out" by number. By contrast, this was not a treasured, one-of-a-kind personal possession at time the stenciled number was applied. However, there was another number on the box which was (we assume) not stenciled. What does THAT mean? Well, it seems safe to assume that the number was applied by a different entity than whoever applied the stencil. If the box needs two numbers on it, why not stencil them both? For that matter, why put a number on the outside of a box except for accounting purposes? (We already discussed and dismissed the notion that calibration numbers would be permanently written on the outside of a box.) So why TWO accounting numbers apparently applied by different people? The answer that comes most readily to mind is two different successive owners, each of whom has his own accounting system. Because an organization large enough to require stenciled numbers also probably buys new equipment, the stenciled number most likely came first. A second owner, possibly an individual with a collection of instruments, seems the most likely author of the presumably handwritten number. How'd I do? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 08:54:29 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Weisheit Book > As I stated before, FJN did use offset navigation on the Atlantic crossing. > It is documented in the map used. > > **************************************************************** > From Ric > > On the coast of Africa there was no expectation of navigational assistance > from DF bearings. I thought we were talking about the approach to Howland. > Do you see any evidence that offset navigation was used on that occasion? **************************************************************** (Whimper) No. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 09:20:15 EDT From: Mark Camerson Subject: Re: Lights Still maybe off topic, maybe not --- Limited experience in aviation, more in radio; doesn't DF (either visual or electric) rely more on the recipient knowing where he is than where he is going? Something tells me (remote viewing?) that AE/FN had a pretty good idea where they were but needed the extra help from the ground/sea to find the island. If the Itasca had broadcast on frequencies our heroes could respond to then the results may have been different than known -- LTM ( who is lost among us) (I know, I know, just couldn't resist) Mark ***************************************************************** From Ric From a pilot's perspective DF (direction finding) is just what it sounds like. You're trying to find out what direction you need to fly in order to get to where you want to go. In that respect, it doesn't much matter where you are as long as you know what direction to point the airplane and have enough fuel to get to where you're pointed. In Earhart's specific case, there were two ways she might find out which way to point the airplane. The easiest way, and the way she tried first, was to send out a signal on which the Coast Guard was to take a bearing. They would then call her on the radio and tell her which way to point the airplane. That way didn't work for two reasons: 1. She sent the signal on a frequency that was too high for them to get a bearing on. 2. She wasn't hearing anything they were saying anyway. The other way was for the Coast Guard to transmit a signal and Earhart would use her loop antenna to take a bearing and figure out for herself which way to point the airplane. The problem here was that Earhart asked them to send a signal on a frequency that was way too high for her to take a bearing on, but at least she did hear the signal ( a series of morse code As on 7500 kcs). It just didn't do her a lick of good. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 09:25:59 EDT From: William Subject: Re: Forum purpose Well said Ric, now let us continue the search. P.S. know about LTM, reality or hoax? Thanks, William **************************************************************** From Ric Maybe a hoax. Maybe a mistake. But certainly not reality. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 09:39:00 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Sextant Numbers Ric wrote, regarding the box and stencils: > How'd I do? Ric, not bad. Except that I rather think that it was two different divisions of a large organization -- one the original owner, the other a division to which or through which the box was transferred. There is also the possibility that it has to do with a second item in the box at the time of sign-out, say, the inverting eyepiece which was separately logged. Thomas Van Hare **************************************************************** From Ric Would a separate division within the same organization use a totally different accounting system? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the parent organization is Pan American Airways and they have so darn much stuff that stencil numbers on all the boxes of various instruments, special tools, etc. so that this sextant becomes Pan Am Item Number 3500. Now let's say that Item Number 3500 gets charged out to the new Pacific Division of Pan American Airways. Naturally, they need to keep track of the thing, but why don't they just call it Item Number 3500? And if component parts (like inverting eyepieces) are accounted for separately (which, as far as I know, they normally are not) why aren't both numbers stenciled? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 08:31:18 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Sextant numbers I was indeed surprised to learn that at one time, Pan Am regarded their Pacific and Atlantic Divisions as two autonomous airlines. As recently as the DC-6 operation, they published two distinct flight manuals. From an outsider's observation, I'm not sure the two Divisions even talked to each other. A modern-day corollary might be Boeing's Everett and Renton plants. It would not surprise me if they did, in fact, have two separate numbers for the same piece of equipment. Skeet Gifford, TIGHAR 1371CB *************************************************************** From Tom King This is probably a silly idea, but what if the non-stenciled number has nothing to do with the sextant? What if somebody uses the box as a convenient surface on which to scribble a number for future reference? Does the non-stenciled number resemble any number that anybody on the island (like Fred) might have jotted down? Re. Tom Hare's post -- isn't it interesting that nautical sextants were regarded as more accurate than those made for aerial use? Wonder if Fred thought so, too. And do we have anything, Tom, on numbers assigned to nautical sextants? LTM (who wonders where she is) Tom King **************************************************************** From Ric Well, the second number was 1542. Doesn't look like Lat or Long. Could be time. Any significance to 3:42 p.m. other than nearly tea time? It's also the year that Mary Queen of Scots ascended the throne and Fred could have just jotted the number down to jog his memory. No, that's probably not it. Other ideas? ***************************************************************** From Randy Jacobson No trap...you're too paranoid for me to lay out a good one. I brought up stenciling because so far, no one has identified a sextant box with stenciled numbers or letters. Pretty good, huh? That means that the stenciling is somewhat unique in the world of sextant box users, and might be a good lead to follow if we can ever find stenciling on another sextant box. **************************************************************** From Ric You're just saying that to get me to let down my guard. Yes, apparently stenciling of numbers on the outside of sextant boxes is not a terribly popular activity. It's also clear that neither the stenciling nor the numbers themselves were at all familiar to anybody who looked at the thing in 1941. The British authorities immediately focused on the sextant box numbers as the best means of ascertaining the identity of the castaway but despite their best efforts (including showing the box to Harold Gatty who had worked for Pan Am), they came up blank. At least we have the Pensacola box. *************************************************************** From Tom Van Hare Ric, this whole sextant number puzzle is quite important if for no other reason that if the record can be found, the mystery of the identity could also be solved -- and it may be as simple as that. With that said, I can now report, as of this week's final search through Archives, that the USN sextant logs and tracking numbers were not turned over to Archives and preserved. While they may be somewhere out there, it is quite more likely that they have been destroyed. With that said, the importance of these numbers does not diminish, just the difficulty of solving the puzzle. At this point, my best guess on this is that the number of the sextant would definitely be placed on the outside of the box and that the very fact of it being numbered indicates clearly that this was organizational, meaning a bureaucratic function. This can only mean large business (ala Pan Am) or the US Government, including the Navy. ***************************************************************** From Ric 'Scept neither number on the outside of the Pensacola box matches the sextant inside. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 09:46:41 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: USCGC Buttonwood Logs Better sit down. The logs for the USCGC Buttonwood for the date in question are simply gone. We've pulled and copied everything from October onward, but all logs before that date have been removed and are nowhere in the Archives system or records. This is VERY STRANGE. Thomas Van Hare ****************************************************************** From Ric NOW we've got us a mystery. Let's review it. In "Episode One - The Wreck Photo" we come upon a mysterious photograph of a wrecked airplane in a tropical setting said to have been taken by British sailor Ray Elliot (Eliot, Elliott?) in "either the last week of 1946 or the first week of 1947" while serving in HMS Adamant, a large submarine tender. Trouble is, there is no record of a Ray Eliott (of any spelling) serving in Adamant and for this entire time period the ship was tied to the dock in Hong Kong. And yet exhaustive analytical work with the photo leaves us with the distinct suspicion that his could be a picture of Earhart's wrecked Electra on Nikumaroro. In "Episode Two - The Children's Story" we are stuck in the tropical paradise (not) of Funafuti enroute home from our storm-tossed 1997 expedition when we come upon some former residents of Nikumaroro. An old man who had been the island's schoolmaster in the late '50/early '60s tells us of airplane wreckage he had seen along the lagoon shore. His daughter, who was a child at that time, tells us that she and the other children had played on airplane wreckage in the bush on the island's western shore. Just before we leave she says, " Some white people came once in a government boat...to take pictures of the airplane parts." In "Episode Three - The Voyage of the Buttonwood" we receive a phone call from Dan Skellie of Toledo, Ohio who tells us that in January 1947 he was in the Coast Guard serving aboard the cutter BUTTONWOOD. They sailed out of Honolulu for Canton Island, crossing the equator on Jan, 9th (he has his "shellback" certificate). From Canton they went to Howland and Baker to "dismantle lighthouses." He said that he and most of the shore party had to wait on the beach while an officer and some senior NCOs did whatever they did. It was real hot. At Howland they came back with a really thick piece of glass. (My guess is that it was the lens from the light - the only really valuable part of a lighthouse.) They returned to Canton and then went to Gardner Island where they dropped off an officer who had been with them since Hawaii but was not attached to the ship. Mr. Skellie doesn't recall the officer's name or exact rank but he was junior to the ship's CO who was a Lieutenant-Commander. Nobody in the enlisted crew knew for sure what this guy was about, but the scuttlebutt was that he had screwed up big-time back in Groton (CG headquarters in Connecticut) and was to do 6 months disciplinary duty at a 2-man radar site on Gardner. Anyway, they left the guy on Gardner and continued down to Pago Pago, then returned directly to Hawaii. End of story. This struck us as rather strange. The Coast Guard just doesn't do stuff like this We're quite sure that there never was any kind of "radar site" on Gardner and the wartime Loran station was disassembled and packed up in 1946. We had previously checked out another visit to Gardner by a U.S. ship (the USS SWAN in 1942) by examining the ship's logs and found nothing suspicious. But the date of the incident reported by Mr. Skellie - January 1947 - (supported by his "shellback" certificate) matches almost exactly the date ascribed to the Wreck Photo - "either the last week of 1946 or the first week of 1947" Perhaps the logs of the BUTTONWOOD would explain what really happened. And now we have "Episode Four - The Missing Logs." Tom says that the BUTTONWOOD's logs for dates prior to October 1947 are missing. This does seem to be very unusual, especially for a ship which should be on a routine peacetime mission. We need to get to the bottom of this. Maybe all these things that look like they may be connected, aren't. But if we learned anything from the whole episode of the bones it's that, despite more than 60 years of fascination with the disappearance, there can be big chunks of the Earhart story that nobody knows about. Let's have some suggestions about where we go from here. And it is at times like this that we must especially remember why we say, Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 10:06:52 EDT From: Jon Greenberg Subject: Report of Earhart Search (long) I don't know if this is news, but the complete "Report of Earhart Search by US Navy and US Coast Guard, 2-18 July 1937," is available for perusal at the National Archive and Record Administration's (NARA) Archival Information Locator (NAIL). The NARA web site URL is http://www.nara.gov/nara You can search on Amelia Earhart; there were 26 hits, most of which were newsreels, modern references, etc. Three items seemed interesting. There is the formerly classified correspondence from the 11th Naval District Commander's office concerning the 1936 request for Naval assistance for fueling. There was a reference to Amelia Earhart in a listing of boxes from the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Economic and Scientific Section Industrial Production and Construction Branch, 1945-1950 with no further description (these items weren't in digital form). Then there was the complete Report. It's 100 pages, each page an individual GIF file. The quality is pretty poor, but it's legible in most places. The report, which is from the Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District, Pearl Harbor, to the Chief of Naval Operations, consists of a summary of the search and many of the pertinent radio transmissions between the Navy, the vessels concerned, even the PBY that couldn't get through the weather. It also has the reports of the commanders of the Itasca, Colorado, and Destroyer Squadron Two, who was the overall search commander after the arrival of Lexington. You can also go directly to the image files at http://media.nara.gov/media/images/21/1 where you will find each individual GIF file and its related thumbnail. I assume that Ric has all these documents. I would like to quote a few paragraphs of the summary, as it makes very interesting reading and gives insight into the thinking at the time. 15. The details of the plan and the reasons for its various provisions were sound and met with the full approval of the Commandant. The operation was well conceived and skillfully executed. It reflects great credit on the Search Commander, Captain J. S. Dowell, and on the commanding officers, officers, and crews of the vessels and plane squadrons under his command. 16. The performance of duty of the Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard Cutter ITASCA, Commander W. K. Thompson, USCG, has been commended by letter to his immediate superior. His intelligent and zealous conduct of the initial phase of the search under most trying conditions deserves especial commendation. His reports, together with the wholehearted cooperation of the Commander, Hawaiian Section, U.S. Coast Guard, were of great assistance to the subsequent conduct of operations by the Navy. The performance of the ITASCA was excellent in all respects throughout the flight and the search. Careful study of all communications and other information pertaining to the flight, and the preparations therefore, indicate clearly that the ITASCA left nothing undone to insure the safe completion of the Earhart flight. 17. The USS SWAN was the smallest vessel engaged in the search and the last to return to port. She was at sea for thirty-seven days during which she steamed approximately 7,000 miles. Despite the onerous operating conditions involving shortage of provision and supplies, she carried out all assigned duties in a manner reflecting great credit on the commanding officer, Lieutenant H. F. MacComsey, the officers and crew... 19. To Summarize briefly: The initial phase of the search was based on the ITASCA's well reasoned belief that the plane was north of and fairly near Howland. A reasonably complete search of this area was made on 2-3 July. Then, on the strength of radio intercepts which appeared too reliable to be ignored, the search shifted to the westward and then 281 miles to northward of Howland. Both areas were searched without success and subsequent analysis discredits the radio intercepts on which this search was based. The second phase of the search moved to the southeastern quadrant on the basis of radio intercepts and bearings and other considerations which indicated the plane was on land and probably in the Phoenix Islands. With this assumption eliminated, the third phase was logically based on the assumption that the plane had landed in the water probably within two hundred miles of Howland and that the subsequent drift of wreck or boat would have moved well to the westward and northwestward in the 11 day interval prior to arrival of the LEXINGTON. The LEXINGTON group covered an area approximately 300 miles square to the west and northwest of Howland which included all probably positions of plane or passengers if afloat. As an additional but unlikely possibility the Gilbert Islands were searched. It is regrettably unreasonable to conclude other than that the unfortunate fliers were not above water upon conclusion of the search. Miles steamed by vessels en route to and during the search 48,000 Miles flown by planes 149,000 Plane hours in air 1,654 Square miles search: By vessels 94,800 By aircraft 167,481 TOTAL 262,281 20. Due to the geographic location of the search area and the composition of the force, certain features of the search were of outstanding interest: The extensive weather and current data should prove a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the area. It is believed that the plan used by the LEXINGTON and her squadrons is unique, and was particularly well designed for the management of widely separated forces and for communications concerning the operation. The experience in false messages, interference, and confusion on critical frequencies indicates the need for some provision for authoritative control of such frequencies in emergency. Obviously, such realistic radio programs as the March of Time should not be broadcast when they may affect relief measures in progress. If the Navy or the Coast Guard are to be involved in future private transocean flights, the licensing authority for such flights should be prevailed upon to require from the fliers a specific minimum performance in giving to those concerned reliable information prior to and during the progress of the flight. 21. It may be assumed that the Navy will be called upon to attempt rescue of crew and passengers of a transpacific clipper should one unfortunately be forced down at sea. Plans for coordinated rescue effort in the Hawaiian Area have been under consideration for the last several months. They provide for joint action by local agencies of the Navy, Coast Guard, and Pan-American Airways. The greater part of the transpacific air route is beyond the effective radius of local forces. Therefore, it would appear desirable to provide tentative plans for such rescue effort by units of the Fleet as may be anticipated. etc. Could it be that, as seen in paragraph 20, the search for AE and FN actually helped improve readiness for the later operations in the Pacific? I also detect a bit of censure of their communications capability. LTM Jon Greenberg 2047 **************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jon. We, of course, have that material but I didn't realize that it was now available on-line. The tone of the report is pretty self-congratulatory for a failed mission and there is a strong blame-the-victim implication in paragraph 20. In response perhaps to paragraph 21, on August 26, 1937 Pan American submitted something called "Pan American System Report on Proposed Joint Rescue Procedure." We've never been able to find a copy of it but we do have the Coast Guard's reply dated March 22, 1938 which echoes the tone of the original government report on the search. Basically, Earhart was incompetent and we did a great job not finding her. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 10:23:15 EDT From: Skips Abode Subject: AE's Competence as a Pilot/Antenna I have just downloaded the film clip showing Amelia taking off from Lae. Very interesting. In the commentary it is stated that the belly antenna support was shown in one frame and was missing in another. Is this item the same as a trailing wire antenna? I read somewhere, probably in the book "Last Flight" that the trailing wire antenna was removed in Miami on AE's second attempt. Also, she said that she had wished that it hadn't been removed, as she would have gladly reeled it in and out especially for the leg between Lae and Howland. Please let me know if this is correct or if I am hallucinating. AE's Competence: It is stated that Amelia wasn't the best pilot in the world and that she had a lot of crashes. But one must remember when and where future pilots received their training. The standards in the 20's are nowhere near what they are today. Some pilots had just a few hours of so-called training. I am sure that if Amelia was taking flight instruction today, she would have been a better pilot or she wouldn't have received a license. And we must look at what she accomplished. I don't think too many people would have survived flying across an ocean if they didn't have some degree of ability. To me, taking off from Lae with nearly 7,000 lbs. fuel on board requires some expertise. Even though I am a pilot myself, I don't think I would like to try that unless I really knew what I was doing. So as for the time, I feel that she was a damn good pilot. ***************************************************************** From Ric The antenna which may have been lost during the Lae takeoff was not a trailing wire. It was the fixed wire that ran along the belly supported by masts and was probably related to radio reception (although we're not sure of its exact purpose). Popular mythology has the trailing wire removed in Miami, but photos taken the day after the airplane came out of the repair shop in Burbank establish that it was already gone by then. Most likely it was never reinstalled after the Luke Field wreck. As far as I know, Earhart never expressed any regret about its absence. Was Earhart a good pilot? Certainly by the time of the Lae takeoff she had mastered the stick-and-rudder aspects of the Lockheed 10E (which was a beast of an airplane). It is, however, equally apparent that she was not prepared to meet the difficulties, and ultimately the emergencies, that faced her. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 10:56:28 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory Some good news... and a new puzzle. Simon Ellwood's latest report: I've heard further from my researcher concerning Miss Clancy. On her own initiative, she checked out four electoral registers for Worcester (the Malvern area) at the British Library covering the period 1938-1957. In the 1938 register she found our Miss Clancy of "Clanmere", Graham Road, Malvern. The surprising part of the discovery was her full name :- "Julie Marie Clancy" !! This is very strange as this name doesn't match either of Gallagher's mother's sisters - indeed, this is the first we've heard of this lady. I'm not sure how we can reconcile this with Ric's information about Miss Clancy definitely being a sister. Clearly we're missing at least one piece of vital information here. Further information yielded by the register is that "Clanmere" was a nursing home at the time and that Julie Marie Clancy was on the staff of the home and resided there. Four other names are given as ladies who also resided there (whether as patients or staff is unclear) - but none of these names seem to be of relevance to us (yes, I've checked - none of them have "Ruby" as a first name :-). The same register for 1947 still has Miss Clancy there, but the 1952 one doesn't - indeed the Clanmere nursing home appears to have disappeared entirely from the register by then, so we can assume that the nursing home closed down between 1947 and 1952. ************************************************************************ From Vern So, it appears there's another sister we had not identified. Now our Miss. Clancy has a full name! She was on the staff at Clanmere. She may have been some sort of registered nurse, or a professional of some kind. That may lead somewhere. Of course, the question is -- where are all the Clancys now? Miss Clancy of Clamnere may be the only one ever to have been near Malvern. And this seems to clear up the question of what Clanmere was, and is today. It was a nursing home but is no longer. Simon Wiseman went to Graham Road to find it and reported that it's now a run down old building housing some offices. ***************************************************************** From Ric Mysteries, mysteries.... okay, in Edith's letter to Sir Harry of December 20, 1941 she says, "In these difficult days I know that it will be difficult to send home his effects - but I know they will be in safe keeping with you, so please keep them and send them when you think best. The address will be to:- Clanmere Graham Road Malvern Worcestershire My sister's home. This address is only for Gerald's effects. I should be grateful my Bank address can be used for all letters please...." Note that there is no mention of "Miss Clancy." In the WPHC directive (dated August 7, 1945) to finally ship Gallagher's effects (in four tin trunks) home, the address specified is: Mrs. E. Gallagher c/o Miss Clancy "Clanmere" Graham Road Malvern, Worcs., England Yet we know that Edith's maiden name was definitely Clancy. Best theory would seem to be that we have a sister we didn't know about. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 10:58:47 EDT From: Suzanne Subject: Sextant numbers You would be amazed and a bit appalled at the different accounting/inventory numbers used by different departments, divisions, etc., in large institutions and organizations. For example at the two large Universities at which I worked most department had their own in-house designed inventory system & numbers, PLUS an overall University system. One was a large state University, the other an Ivy League university. The in-house system was used because the University wide ones weren't kept up to date centrally. I'm sure many other places use sub rosa their own department systems to keep things in order. Best regards, Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 20:08:51 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Report of Earhart Search (long) >The tone of the report is pretty self-congratulatory for a failed mission >and there is a strong blame-the-victim implication... Military SOP (standard operating procedure). There are always the smooth trajectory of careers to think of in any military project (and its spin). ***************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, and the only people who could point up the errors in the report were either dead or sitting on an island waiting for the rescue that would never come. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 20:15:40 EDT From: Ellie Subject: Re: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory Do they have birth records in England as they do here? If so, why couldn't they search the records of Gallagher's mother to see how many daughters she had? This mystery is getting deep. Good luck. Also National Geographic may have a documentary on Earhart that shows a large portion of Amelia's plane. Did you check? I think I saw the documentary and will check to see if I taped it. If so I'll let you know. **************************************************************** From Ric Yes Ellie, they have birth records in England. Edith Gallagher had two sons - Gerald who died on Gardner Island, and Terrance who died on Malta. There is no mention of any daughters but, come to think of it, I guess we're not sure that there were none. There is no National Geographic documentary on Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 20:24:37 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: USCGC Buttonwood Logs Might it be possible to publish on our forum basic information on the USCGC Buttonwood? Such as; class of ship, date of commission and decommission, ship sold for scrap or transfered to an another nation/navy, commanding officers, home port, known dates o cruse to the Phoenix Islands, etc, etc. With this information, forum members might develop names of crew members serving on board during the cruise in question. We might even find the officer who went ashore on Niku. I think it's worth a try. Who knows what might develop? LTM, Roger Kelley, #2112 ***************************************************************** From Ric By all means. Let's get the basic data on the boat and start looking for people. I'll call Dan Skellie and see what names he remembers and whether there is a reunion organization for Buttonwooders. Also, Tom Van Hare says that the logs before October 1947 are missing. Does that mean ALL the logs before 1947 or just for the year 1947? Are Coast Guard ships' logs all in one volume or are they in sequential separate books? If separate books, how many months or years to a book? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 20:30:34 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Gallagher/Clancy advisory Maybe when Gallagher's mother says the effects should be sent to "My sister's home" she means "the [nursing] home owned by my sister"? I hadn't realized the shipment wasn't made until 1945, but of course this makes sense in the context of the times. It was apparent to Mrs Gallagher that getting his stuff back would take a very long time. And in those circumstances her sister's address wouldn't necessarily have been permanent enough to be passed on to the authorities in the Pacific as a destination for GG's things if her relationship with "Clanmere" was only as a live-in employee. My betting is she was the proprietor and the "Clan" in the house's name is derived from her own. I don't suppose any of the others on the electoral roll had the syllable "mere" in their names? If we can find out when between 1947 and 1952 the house ceased to be a nursing home we might get closer to where Ms Clancy went next. The new info gives enough detail for a letter to the local property rating office, which I'll try and get off this week unless advised someone else has already done this. I have had a reply from the local county family history society, who point out that Malvern has its own FHS and give a contact address, to which I have a letter in preparation which can now be amended in light of the new background. LTM, Phil Tanner 2276 ***************************************************************** From Ric Sounds logical to me Phil. Edith does describe the address as "My sister's home" rather than "my sister's address" or "my sister's place of employment." There is a clear implication of ownership. I betcha you're right. I like the Clan/Clancy connection too. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 10:32:52 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Buttonwood Fantasies I'm gonna do this before someone else does. I'm going to outline a (gasp!) conspiracy to explain the missing Buttonwood logs. Let me be the first to say this is pure fantasy but it's useful to lay these things out to be considered, debated and almost always disproved. In the process, we're bound to learn something. With those caveats and rationales in mind - here we go. It's March of 1946 and the Coast Guard is busily dismantling the Loran station on Gardner. (Fact) Chief Carpenter's Mate Floyd Kilts hears a wild story about bones and Amelia Earhart from an island resident (FACT) and (Speculation from here on) tells his commanding officer who makes some further inquiries. Lo and behold, the CO is ultimately shown an old airplane wreck back in the bush which he suspects just might be Earhart's. He doesn't say anything about it to the enlisted men, of course, but he does report it to his superiors when he gets back to port and word goes all the way up to Coast Guard HQ in Groton, CT. This creates something of a dilemma for the Coast Guard. Nine years ago they told everybody that she crashed at sea and the great Coast Guard/Navy search that failed to find her never really had a chance anyway. All those radio messages were either hoaxes or misunderstandings. Nobody screwed up - except Earhart. Now it turns out that the damn airplane may be on one of the islands that was suspected in 1937. If Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan died marooned on a desert island it could be very embarrassing for the Coast Guard. Better check it out. In January 1947 the BUTTONWOOD is scheduled to be down that way anyway, so they put a young officer from Groton (somebody's aide) aboard with specific instructions to check out this airplane wreck on Gardner. As a cover story, word is spread that this guy is being disciplined for some indiscretion. He doesn't really get left at Gardner (Skellie is simply misremembering that part) but he does go ashore and is taken to the wreck (as described by Tapania) where he confirms that - son of a gun - it is NR16020. He takes a picture of the wreck but he's not much of a photographer and it's not a very good picture. He leaves BUTTONWOOD when the ship gets to Pago Pago and flies home to Groton with the bad news. Now what? The natives claim that the bones were dumped in the ocean, so there are no human remains to worry about. (Nobody knows about the bones that were sent to Fiji.) In the past ten years, interest in Earhart has faded. There were a few wartime rumors about her being captured by the Japanese after that Hollywood film came out, but otherwise nobody is worrying about Amelia Earhart. Dead issue. Why dig it up? It wouldn't change anything except to bring discredit to the Coast Guard. Let's just forget it. The only written record is the log of the BUTTONWOOD for that period. The captain was probably in on the deal and the log will at least make some reference to secret orders. That log will have to get misplaced. Like I said, the above is fantasy - or you might call it a reasonable hypothesis constructed to explain the known facts. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 10:51:04 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: USCGC Buttonwood The Buttonwood was not a USCGC-Cutter. She is listed as a seagoing buoy tender- Hull number--- WLB 306 . One of the 35 ships of the Balsam/Ironwood/Basswood Class. All constructed between 1942-45. With WLB-306 built between 43-44 Built at Marine Iron and Shipbuilding, Duluth, MN Specs- Full Load 1025 tons, Length 180 ft. oa, Beam 37 ft, Draft 13 ft. Propulsion- Diesel electric-1200 shp-1 shaft Speed-15 knots Complement- 53 people- 6 off, 47 EM Probably armed with one 3 inch AA and 2 or 4 40mm AA guns when commissioned. My source-11th edition of Polmar's -Ships and aircraft of the US Fleet- does not give commissioning/decommissioning dates... More on WLB-306 Polmar's- 16th edition of US Ships lists the following on Buttonwood-WLB-306 Launched on 30 Nov 1942 Commissioned on 24 Sept 1943 Still in active service in 1997 Modernization completed in 91-93 at Coast Guard Yard. This class in addition to other duties-assisted in construction and servicing of LORAN Stations.... Jim Tierney *************************************************************** From G. Brenegan For your information,you can get great results by logging on to fred@fredsplace,org for CG info.We ex Coasties stay in touch using this easy to reach forum. There are good historical facts available but better yet,you can log onto ship sites and I'm sure if you log onto the BUTTONWOOD site you may raise up an ex crew member who knows someone who knows someone etc. The CG being our smallest branch of the armed force's actually makes it easier to glean personal info regarding ships,stations,crew etc. I'm sure if you made the request, you would get interesting results. As an aside,the BUTTONWOOD just recently was recommisioned after a complete rebuilding at the CG Yard Curtis Bay MD. Not to shabby for a bouy tender who spent most of her active life in the 14th and 17th Districts. Also she is 56 years old this year having been commisioned 11/30/43. The CG Yard sure knew how to build them Hope his helps. LTM (From a soon to be member this payday) G.Brenegan **************************************************************** From Ric Good info. We need to make an organized search for ex-Buttonwooders. Just as Vern is coordinating the Clancy/Gallagher search, we need a TIGHAR member (not just a forum subscriber) who will volunteer to shepherd this line of research. Hands please? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:03:13 EDT From: Jon Pieti Subject: Re: USCGC Buttonwood Logs A couple thoughts which may have already been worked over before I got here: 1. So where DID the name of Ray Elliott (from HMS Adamant) come from? And what is the genesis of the wreck photo? Has this thread been pulled to the end? 2. Does the wreck photo purportedly from 1947 - 48 show degradation of the aircraft consistent with 10 years decay in the tropical environment of Garner Island? 3. Has anyone attempted to get info related to a possible Navy/OSS/Govt. "mission" to Gardner during the appropriate time period via the Freedom of Information Act? Interesting stuff! LTM - Jon in California **************************************************************** From Ric 1. Yeah, I'm afraid that thread has been run out to a very dead end. It stops with George Carrington, the guy who first came up with the photo and the story attached to it. Carrington is a world class conspiracy buff who won't even talk to TIGHAR. 2. Yes. 3. This has just come up so no FIA requests have been submitted. We'll need to know a lot more before we do that because you need to be sure you're asking the right question in the right place. At this time we have no reason to think that the Navy or OSS or anybody but the Coast Guard might be involved. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:07:06 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: USCGC Buttonwood Logs Where to go from here? Only route I can see is to identify all the living crewmembers from the ship and talk to them. Also, follow up with the families of the ships officers to see if any info is in their possession (assuming the ships officers are deceased). The negative to the photo is out there somewhere, provided that it hasn't been lost or destroyed over the years. We'll just have to do this part of the puzzle one piece at a time, same as the rest. LTM, and Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:14:38 EDT From: B. Conrad Subject: Re: Report of Earhart Search (long) Is there any evidence or documentation that would lead people to believe that Amelia had several enemies out there. People, who would love to see her dead! The reason, I am saying this is that I read the forum this morning, and what you had said about how they boasted about a successful mission on not finding her. It makes it as if she was a problem from the start. Who did she upset, prior to this trip or during this trip. I know a lot of people have down-sized the theory that the Japanese did this. But whose to say it wasn't someone else. Someone, who was tired of all her publicity and what she was trying to accomplish. What if you guys don't find the wreckage and there's no evidence? Have you ruled out the possibility of a bomb on the plane. Where does Fred fit into all of this. During, the flight data of her fatal mission we always hear her and never Fred. Why was that? I'm just curious, because if she was in trouble...beings from just illness or mechanical problems. Don't you think someone else would take over? Lately, from all the evidence and the theories and ideas; it makes you wonder? Anyway, what did you guys think about the discovery of the Liberty Bell mercury space capsule of Gus Grissom that they found on the ocean floor? Anyway, Ric...I'm not trying to mislead you guys in your search...but we've looked at a major number of options on what could have happened! Question is, how much do you guys have left? Anyway, I'm pulling for you and I wish I could be a part of this next expedition back to Niku! Take Care! **************************************************************** From Ric Don't worry. You won't mislead us. I think that it's great that Liberty Bell 7 has been found. Like the Titanic and the Bismarck and the Yorktown, it proves once more that it's possible to find something on the ocean floor as long as you already know pretty much where it is. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:17:17 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Pan Am Divisions As late as 1960 the three Pan Am Divisions, Atlantic, Pacific and Latin America were very much like three separate independent companies. Even in 1967 when I started to work for Pan Am in the Atlantic Division the three divisions acted quite independent of each other in many ways. A major effort had been made to standardize pilot training but each division had its own training department, simulators, etc. and often the training was to quite different standards. By the mid 1970s training was shifted to a central training center in Miami, FL and things did get standardized as far as flight crews were concerned. I don't recall Pan Am putting numbers on things such as sextant boxes but there could have been such numbers and I simply don't remember them. The Divisions certainly were very different and quite independent in the early history of Pan Am and it is possible that each division had their own accounting number system. There should be Pan Am people around today that would know. Dick Pingrey 0908C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:22:18 EDT From: Natko Katicic Subject: Aero vs. Nautical sextants Tom King wrote >Re. Tom Hare's post -- isn't it interesting that nautical sextants were >regarded as more accurate than those made for aerial use? >Wonder if Fred thought so, too... Doesn't the fact that he always carried a 'preventer' on his flights strongly indicate so? LTM (who also carries a preventer) Natko. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:46:13 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re. Sextant boxes Ric said: >. . . .So why TWO accounting numbers apparently applied by >different people? The answer that comes most readily to mind is two different >successive owners, each of whom has his own accounting system. Because >an organization large enough to require stenciled numbers also probably >buys new equipment, the stenciled number most likely came first. A second >owner, possibly an individual with a collection of instruments, seems the most >likely author of the presumably handwritten number. > >How'd I do? Pretty good for a Scotsman, but if the box did have two owners, wouldn't it be logical (o-o-o-h, THAT word, again!) that the second owner would remove, deface, erase, obliterate, scratch out, etc. the first number so that even a casual observer would not mistake the "old" number for the "new" number for inventory purposes? ***************************************************************** From Ric If both numbers were similarly rendered (both stenciled or both handwritten), yes. But if the "old" number is stenciled and the "new" number is handwritten, and especially if the present owner of the box is an individual rather than an organization, there is little danger of confusion. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 14:17:55 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: USCGC Buttonwood Jim Tierney wrote: > The Buttonwood was not a USCGC-Cutter.- > She is listed as a seagoing buoy tender- Hull number--- WLB 306... You are absolutely right. Really, really sorry about using the USCGC (that just flows off my fingertips because I used to work with the USCG and, also, it is a family thing for me too -- my grandfather). Here is what we started with, from the USCG webpages: Tradesmen at the Yard worked 18 months on Buttonwood's $15 million overhaul. Improvements included an updated electronics package, upgraded living and messing facilities, a new main propulsion system, and new main engine and generator mufflers. The Cutter BUTTONWOOD is one of 37 180 foot seagoing buoy tenders built for the U.S. Coast Guard between 1942 and 1944. The Marine Iron and Shipbuilding Company of Duluth, Minnesota, built the Cutter. It was commissioned in September, 1943. Immediately following commissioning, Buttonwood plunged into the midst of World War II. The ship joined the Seventh Fleet in the Philippine Sea and assumed duties in surveying and maintaining aids to navigation (ATON). Due to the nature of this work, the ship was often the target of enemy attacks. In fact, Buttonwood survived 269 air raids, including eleven attacks in a single day. History of the Buttonwood The Buttonwood is a 180-foot sea -going buoy tender, commissioned on September 24 and built by the Marine Iron & Shipbuilding Corporation in 1943 in Duluth, Minn. The Buttonwood was initially assigned to the Seventh Fleet in the Philippine Sea during World War II. Its duties were the surveying and maintenance of aids to navigation, but it was often the subject of enemy attack. As a result, the Buttonwood survived 269 air raids and even downed a twin engine Japanese bomber in November of 1944. At the conclusion of World War II, the Buttonwood continued to maintain aids to navigation in the Coast Guard's 14th District until 1981. Then in April of that same year, the Buttonwood was transferred to Galveston, Texas. The ship extended its long tradition of performing multi-mission operations throughout the Gulf of Mexico until April of 1991, when it journeyed to the Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland. There, the Buttonwood underwent two years of remodeling in the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). In March of 1993, the Buttonwood made its latest move to its current home port of San Francisco, California. Buttonwood downed a twin engine enemy bomber using 20mm and .50 caliber machine guns in November, 1944. At Tulagi Harbor, Buttonwood established buoys after the Guadalcanal Campaign. It repaired lighthouses in and around Australia while assisting in deployment of submarine nets. As WWII came to a close, Buttonwood assumed the peacetime duties of maintaining aids to navigation in the Coast Guard's 14th District, Honolulu, Hawaii. The ship's operations also involved LORAN-C station replenishment, search and rescue, U.S. fisheries law enforcement, and service as a platform for scientific research. In April, 1981, Buttonwood transferred to Galveston, Texas. The ship received the Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation in 1984 for participation in the disposal of unstable hazardous chemicals following the tragic explosion aboard the Motor Vessel Rio Newquen in the port of Houston. More recent operational activities include extensive aids to navigation restoration following hurricane Alicia in 1983, and hurricanes Danny and Elela in 1985. The ship also participated in Universal Trek 1985, a large scale joint military exercise off the coast of Central America. Buttonwood arrived at the Yard from Galveston, Texas, in the spring of 1991 and was decommissioned under SLEP. Buttonwood's crew took over the newly commissioned Cutter Papaw which departed Baltimore for the Lone Star State. Buttonwood earned the following awards during its half century of service: Coast Guard Commendation, Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation, American Area Campaign Medal, WWII Victory Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and Philippine Liberation Ribbon. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 14:24:01 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: USCGC Buttonwood Logs Ric wrote: > Also, Tom Van Hare says that the logs before October 1947 are missing. > Does that mean ALL the logs before 1947 or just for the year 1947? All prior to October 1947. We've got copies from that point forward. Also, we ran copies for the other two ships that were mentioned. Finally, we're hot on the trail of a VERY extensive survey done prior to the installation of the LORAN. > Are Coast Guard ships' logs all in one volume or are they in > sequential separate books? If separate books, how many months or > years to a book? Archives actually keeps things in boxes and we've searched the entire box, as the one before and after it. It simply isn't there. The on staff archivists are also in agreement that that specific box is where the earlier logs should have been. Thomas Van Hare ***************************************************************** From Ric Because ALL the logs prior to October 1947 are missing, and under the maxim "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by mere negligence." I would say that chances are the logs are missing due to a screw up rather than a cover up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 14:31:41 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re. Sextant boxes The old marks wouldn't necessarily be obliterated. In my experience, professional people who legally acquire used equipment for or from their work-- especially from well known organizations-- frequently retain the old markings and just add new ones. And, also from experience, I know that attempts at erasing old markings usually leaves an unsightly mess. Finally anyone who deals in expensive hardware knows that signs of removed markings are an immediate indication that the object might have been stolen. So (again, in my experience) the tendency would be to leave old markings intact. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 14:30:00 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Fantasies? "Buttonwood Fantasies" sounds very likely... just like, the way the crucial "Winds Execute" message turned up "missing" from the Pearl Harbor files. ("East wind, rain" sent about Dec. 4, 1941... the signal to carry out the attack) Hmm... a similarity noted here: USCGC Buttonwood is a BUOY TENDER. "HMS Adamant" was a SUB TENDER. Anyone see a pattern? Things remembered, but not too clearly....? Was there ever a Ray Elliot (?) in the USCG? Enlisted? Officer? Wonder how we could get his service record? Would it be so detailed that it'd reveal whether he ever went aboard the Buttonwood, TDY or otherwise? It's out of my field, but maybe someone can run it down.... Another fantasy: The OSS?USCG/USN/GIB (guys in black) blew up the wreck, to make sure no one ever found it. What if? 73 Mike E. ***************************************************************** From Ric Hard to keep an explosion secret on a little island. Tapania said that the white men from the government ship took pictures of the airplane parts. If they had also blown the wreck sky high it seems like she might have mentioned that. Let's remember, our Fantasy Hypothesis involves a couple of curious Coasties, not Delta Force. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 15:37:50 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Buttonwood Search coordinator New TIGHAR member George Brenegan will be coordinating the search for BUTTONWOOD veterans who may be able to shed more light on the January 1947 cruise. George is a Coast Guard veteran and is already plugged into the reunion network. If you have a particular resource you want to explore on this topic please check with George at Badge725**** so we're not duplicating effort. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:54:31 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: More news about Ruby!! Good news! We believe we have identified Ruby. Bad news! It appears she is probably now deceased. The staff at Malvern Girls' College is really getting into this. I have invited them to join the forum. Attached is Mrs. Hardy's letter. ltm jon > Dear Mr Watson > > Great news, I hope!! We have found Ruby. > > Ruby appears on our staff listing for the period from 1918 - 1945. Her > full name was Ruby Helena Margetts, the only address we have for her is: > St.Mary's, West Malvern. > Her date of birth: July 3rd, 1885. > She was employed here first in 1918 as a music mistress, teaching > piano. We believe that she also taught at the same time at Abbotshill and The > Priory (possibly other small schools in the area), but from Autumn term 1939 > she was resident and employed here at a salary of £3200 per year. (While > teaching piano, prior to this, she charged £32.12s 6d per pupil!) possibly a > year? > She was resident at Hatley St. George, which was the primary school > area of Malvern Girls' College, which is why she went to Horsington, since > that is where they were all evacuated to. Her salary eventually rose to £3352 > in 1945. After this we have no further records. Her qualifications > included 2 R.A.M and A.R.C.M. and she went to London College. > > It would seem from her date of birth that Ruby is now dead, however we > may be able to find out more by tracing the house that she lived in > West Malvern, and then if possible find where she is buried and follow > further leads from this. Mrs Pam Hurle & Miss Bailey here in college have > become fascinated by the project and so have rushed away to delve deeper into > local records. I hope that we have further news shortly. > > I hope that all this news is of some use to you. Do let me know if > you wish us to pursue this search any further, we are all becoming enthralled > here. > > Kind Regards > > Judy Hardy. > > Malvern Girls' College > 15 Avenue Road > Malvern > Worcestershire > UK > WR14 3BA **************************************************************** From Ric Way to go Jon! Yes, I'd say it's a safe bet that Ruby has passed on. I'm frankly quite surprised that she was 27 years Gerald's senior. From the tone of her letter I would have thought she was his contemporary. I do hope that the folks from the college join the forum. In any event, please pass along my sincere thanks for their help. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:13:58 EDT From: Tet Walston Subject: Ruby etc. How wonderful to have found Ruby. My guess at her surname was way out. I thought "Mariott"! Too bad it's too late. But how could we know. On the subject of Noonan's navigation habits and skills, are ANY of his logs still around? They would give some clues as to how he worked. Did he use the airplot method, the convential "running" method, with w/v corrections, and how accurate were his astro sights? How often had he used the "offset" system? As a Pan Am navigator, he would have access to the many radio aids of those days. After all, it was the US who introduced the Radio Range which was around even in those early days. If you question my insistance on checking ANY logs which Noonan kept, just go to the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson. Examine the so-called log which was kept by the navigator of the "Lady Be Good" which crashed in the desert, having flown on a D/F bearing, without checking whether they were flying TO the base, or AWAY from. The log if one can call it thus, from the time they left the Italian target until they bailed out, is a disgrace. If that's what passes for navigation, give me strength!! No, Ric, I'm not an armchair aviator, well maybe now, but in my heyday I was a fully trained Pilot and Navigator in the RAF Coastal Command - I flew many miles over the sea, alone, as a Photo Reconnaissance Pilot -- in a Spitfire no less. A Noonan log would help any researcher to formulate the possible reason for the failure of that ambitious flight. Tet **************************************************************** From Ric While no navigational logs seem to have survived, we do know quite a bit about Noonan's navigational technique from articles and memos he wrote and from studying the maps he used earlier in the world flight. See the (new and improved) FAQ section of the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:21:47 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Buttonwood Fantasies Sounds good to me until something better comes along. Lets pursue the Buttonwood and find her surviving crew members. Maybe they can provide infromation that will fill in the gaps. Roger Kelley, #2112 *************************************************************** From Ric That's the plan. Anyone who wants to chase former Buttonwooders should coordinate through George Brenegan (Badge725@******). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:32:33 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Coast Guard Website According to the Website account, Itaska just "happened" to be in the "neighborhood"! Don Neumann **************************************************** US Coast Guard History FAQS ************************************************************** From Ric Pretty interesting. Itasca had, in fact, made several cruises down to Howland and Baker in support of Dept. of Interior "colonists" ( mostly Chinese/American Hawaiian kids who made decent Depression-era money by hanging out for the sole purpose of helping establish American claims of ownership of the islands). The Earhart cruise was indeed another such mission, but it was hardly routine. The Coast Guard merely parrots the party line about the Earhart disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:35:32 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Fantasies? > Another fantasy: The OSS?USCG/USN/GIB (guys in black) blew up the wreck, to > make sure no one ever found it. > > What if? > > 73 > Mike E. > > ***************************************************************** > From Ric > > Hard to keep an explosion secret on a little island. Tapania said that the > white men from the government ship took pictures of the airplane parts. If > they had also blown the wreck sky high it seems like she might have mentioned > that. > > Let's remember, our Fantasy Hypothesis involves a couple of curious Coasties, > not Delta Force. Also, no need to blow it up given the remoteness of the island and that it is very doubtful that anyone would everyone wind up there and identify the wreck. Also, explosions create questions while the wreckage has been here years without creating a stir (or so they thought). LTM Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:44:35 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re. Sextant boxes Do the handwritten numbers correllate to anything we know about FN - date of birth, driver's license #, pilot's license #, etc.? I for one use a special code of my own on all my personal items, which is rendered in such a way that the casual observer would be unlikely to detect it as a code. But then, we live in less trusting times. Who knows (only the shadow knows). LTM, Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 ***************************************************************** From Ric Good thought, but it's not his birthdate and we don't know his driver's or pilot's license numbers. I've checked through his maritme papers and he had lots and lots of license numbers but none of them is 1542. Those license numbers are all 5 or 6 digit numbers anyway. Darn. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 12:04:20 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Buttonwood - It gets better. I talked to our original informant, Dan Skellie, again last night. There is another aspect to the story that he reminded me of and which I had forgotten about. According to Skellie, after the BUTTONWOOD dropped off the unattached officer at Gardner, the ship proceeded southward to Apia, which was then British Samoa (now Western Samoa) and then to Pago Pago, American Samoa where the captain - much to the crew's astonishment - flew to Fiji for a "vacation." Skellie thinks he was gone about a week. This was VERY unusual, especially because Fiji was considered by the American sailors to be "a stinking hole, hot and dry, where the people all smelled of fish" whereas Pago Pago was considered to be a highly desirable liberty port. (These days it's pretty much the reverse of that.) The crew, of course, was delighted to have the old man gone, especially since he was something of a disciplinarian much given to assigning extra duty for minor infractions. Skellie doesn't know whether the captain's flight to Fiji was via military or civilian aircraft, but there was an American military airbase at Pago Pago at that time. (I wonder if civilian air service from Pago to Fiji was even available then. We should be able to find out.) Skellie remembers that the captain's name was Lieutenant Commander J. L. Jenkins. He also gave me the names and phone numbers of three of his shipmates with whom he has stayed in touch. I talked to two of them with the following results: Frederick Avery really doesn't remember much about the cruise. He has a "shellback certificate" dated January 9, 1947 just like Skellie but he only remembers calling at Howland, Baker, Canton and Apia. He does remember something about there being someone aboard who wasn't a member of the crew. Avery doesn't dispute anything skellie has said. He just doesn't remember as much. William Catron similarly has few memories of that cruise. All the islands were the same to him. He remembers that at one island they just waited on the seashore with a lot of birds while the officers did something. (This sounds like Skellie's description of Howland.) He says he never did know the purpose of that whole trip and it seemed to him like just busywork. He does remember that the captain went "to the Fijis." I have another Buttonwooder to talk to this evening. Ed Ziegler reportedly has very clear memories of that cruise. We'll see. So....how might this flight to Fiji fit into our fantasy? Try this: While photographing the airplane wreck on Gardner with the unattached officer, the captain hear's credible local stories about how bones were sent to Fiji. Maybe he even sees Gallagher's correspondence file. In any event, he decides that this needs checking out. After leaving Gardner the ship goes to the closest British possession, Apia, and Jenkins makes inquiries and perhaps the local British authorities contact the WPHC in Suva. I've checked the Service Histories and by 1947 all the players in the bone drama of 1940/41 are either dead or gone (except I'm not sure about Henry Vaskess, the Secretary. The last record we have of him he is Assistant High Commissioner in 1942.). Whatever Jenkins does or doesn't find out in Apia, he flies to Fiji to run this thing down. There is no entry about any of this in the WPHC file about the bones, so apparently Jenkins' inquiries never got that far. Maybe Dr. Hoodless was still around (do we have that information?) or maybe somebody else remembered that the bones had ultimately been dismissed as being male and not associated with the Earhart flight. In any event there is nothing to worry about. Jenkins returns to his ship and the matter is closed. Lots of questions remain. Was an officer really left on Gardner? Or did he go to Fiji with Jenkins? And let's remember that ALL of this, at this point, is based upon anecdote. We do not yet have any real evidence that BUTTONWOOD went to Gardner at all. Let's see what Ed Ziegler has to say. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 12:09:38 EDT From: Tony Gomez Subject: THE KANTON ENGINE Ric, I would like to ask regarding the engine Mr. Yoho found. Are engines manufactured as "left engines" and "right engines"? or do they become right or left engines upon installation? I ask this in case Mr. Yoho, when "tinkering" with his engine might have noticed if his was a right or a left engine. This, together with the "wreck photo" engine could make a pair of engines. Has Mr. Yoho given up looking for the reel of film? Thank you Ric Antonio (To–o) G—mez Abraham *************************************************************** From Ric Right and left engines on the Lockheed 10 are identical. I don't think Bruce has given up looking for the film. He has just run out of places to look. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:17:46 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Buttonwood - It gets better. I almost hate to say this, but I believe I've read that Harold Gatty (Post's former navigator, and the "expert" who actually saw the sextant box in Fiji and said in effect that it probably had nothing to do with Earhart) was flying a civilian charter operation around Fiji at that time. william *************************************************************** From Ric What Gatty reportedly said was that the box had probably contained a nautical rather than an aeronautical sextant. If he was still around Fiji in 1947 and he somehow came across Jenkins, his opinion would only reinforce the idea that the Coast Guard had no need to worry about anything that was sent to Fiji in 1940. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:52:24 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Thoughts about Ruby Pat has pointed out that a "nursing home" in the England of 1941 was not what we think of as a nursing home in 1999 America. This is not necessarily an old folks home but more likely a privately run convalescent facility, almost like a private hospital. This suggests a possible answer to the question of how it is that Gerald has this friendly relationship with a woman of his mother's generation (Ruby is a woman of 56 years when she writes to 29 year old Gerald) who lives in a place that has no connection to Gerald that we know of except that his Aunt Julie apparently ran a "nursing home" in the same town. We have speculated that Gerald's abrupt departure from medical school in June 1935 may have been due to a physical/emotional breakdown because in September he went to "study agriculture" on a farm in Ireland. What if he spent July and August recovering at Aunt Julie's nursing home in Malvern where he was encouraged to get out in the fresh air, maybe do some horseback riding. At the local stable he meets Ruby Margetts (who may be a friend of Aunt Julie's) who is the doyenne of the local hunt. Ruby takes Gerald under her wing and introduces him to the other regulars at the stable - Harry, Jim, Jack, Ted, Molly and Mary. Gerald takes so well to the country life that arrangements are made for him to spend a year in County Kilkenny on the farm of a friend of the family. Speculation - but it fits. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:34:01 EDT From: John Bayer Subject: Cutter? RE: Jim Tierney's message: The USCG Buttonwood is properly referred to as a "cutter"; I believe that all USCG "named" ships can be colloquially referred to as cutters. Check with the ex-USCG guys on this. Regards, John Bayer First Across (and 20 yrs. Navy) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:40:25 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Ruby and Gerald? Ok, I know you won't post this, but I couldn't resist . . . >This suggests a possible answer to the question of how it is >that Gerald has this friendly relationship with a woman of his >mother's generation (Ruby is a woman of 56 years when she writes >to 29 year old Gerald) . . . Does "The Graduate" ring a bell? LTM, who feels randy today Dennis McGee #0149CE ***************************************************************** From Ric What ever you and Randy do is none of our business. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:42:47 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Buttonwood - It gets better. >If he was still around Fiji in 1947 and he somehow came across Jenkins, his >opinion would only reinforce the idea that the Coast Guard had no need to worry >about anything that was sent to Fiji in 1940. Gatty was definitely flying passengers around Fiji in 47-- running the small charter operation that eventually became Fiji Airways (founded twice by Gatty, the 2nd time in 1951) which ultimately became today's Pacific Air. Fiji still regards Gatty as something of a national hero. william ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:58:36 EDT From: Bob Heine Subject: Re: Buttonwood - It gets better. Regarding "The seaman's other photo showed the beach of a tropical island from just offshore. A group of perhaps 40 men in shorts are standing about on the beach and in the shallow water. Most are shirtless." Is there any way we can confirm that any of the men in this photo were on the Buttonwood in January 47? This picture may have been taken on one of the other islands that the Buttonwood visited. This would not, of course, be proof that someone on the Buttonwood took the crash photo, but it would be very compelling, since both photos were presented at the same time to Carrington. -Bob Heine ***************************************************************** From Ric Good thought Bob, but I'm afraid that all the men in the second photo are much too far away to be identifiable even if we had a real print of the photo instead of the crumby photocopy we have. And they're all in bathing suits so we can't tell anything from uniforms. The photo was taken from a launch standing maybe three hundred yards offshore. The island in the background definitely has significant elevation so it's not Howland, Baker, Canton, or Gardner. It could be Samoa, but it could also be about a gazillion other places. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 20:02:31 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re. Sextant boxes > Good thought, but it's not his birthdate and we don't know his driver's or > pilot's license numbers. Ric, a gentle reminder - reference letter from FAA dated 7-30-98, :"Frederick J. Noonan was issued limited commercial pilot certificate 11833 with ratings single engine land." (5 numbers instead of 4). Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ***************************************************************** From Ric Ahh, bless you gentle sir. I had forgotten that you had found that number. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:25:29 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Buttonwood - It gets better. Yeah, let's PLEASE remember that the whole Buttonwood fantasy is just that -- a "just so" story based on a plausible interpretation of anecdotal and negative evidence. Worth pursuing, certainly, but let's not get too attached to it. Tom King ***************************************************************** From Ric I tried to call Ed Ziegler last night. No answer. I'll try again today. At this point we have no real evidence that BUTTONWOOD ever called at Gardner. So far, only Skellie has made that allegation. He and Avery have "shellback certificates" dated Jan 9, 1947 and both are quite sure about what ship they served on (duh), so we can be reasonably that BUTTONWOOD crossed the equator on 1/9/47. Skellie and Catron both recall that there was some non-crewmember aboard, so that part of the story is supported by two anecdotal recollections. Skellie and Catron also agree that the captain went "to the Fijis" from Pago Pago. At this point, that's all we have. Whenever the conspiracy urge strikes, chant this mantra: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF OF A COVER UP. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:33:35 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Thoughts about Ruby Maybe we don't need to postulate that Gallagher would have spent time in Malvern while recuperating from a possible collapse coinciding with quitting medical training - if his father was abroad with the colonial medical service he would have had numerous holidays from secondary school and university to fill. Nowadays kids would just fly out to be with Mum and Dad. On the second Buttonwood photo, do we know the ship's complement? Do the numbers on the beach seem greater than the number likely to have been aboard, even if individuals can't be identified? LTM, Phil 2276 **************************************************************** From Ric Aaargh - let's not call it the "Buttonwood photo" unless and until we have some inkling that it may have something to do with Buttonwood. It's alleged to be an "Adamant photo" if anything. But to answer your question, we don't know exactly what BUTTONWOOD's complement was but it should have been (ballpark) fifty men. There seem to be about forty men on the beach in the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:37:53 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Retraction I blasted Phil Tanner's use of the term "Buttonwood photo" before reading his amended/corrected posting in which he caught it himself. My apologies. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:17:13 EDT From: Chuck Subject: Trailing Wire Antenna (TWA) Ric----You say TWA could not have been left in Miami, as photos after the BUR rebuild prove it was not installed at that time. You also tell us you believe that the "puff of dirt" seen near to the beginning of the LAE takeoff film is the TWA being ripped from the belly of AE's L10E. PICK ONE. You are ready for an all expenses paid vacation to paradise. How about Niku? Chuck. ***************************************************************** From Ric You seem to be a bit confused. I never said, and never suspected, that the trailing wire antenna was lost on takeoff at Lae. That would make no sense at all because a trailing wire antenna is not even deployed until the aircraft is airborne. The antenna that I suspect was lost on takeoff at Lae (as fully explained at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/ameliavideo.html) is the fixed wire that ran from the starboard "chin" pitot mast, through a mast roughly amidship, to a mast on the belly under the cabin windows. (see drawings at http://www.tighar.org/airplane.html) That aftmost mast only cleared the ground by about a foot when the airplane was lightly loaded and standing on pavement. With a 1100 gallon fuel load, and on the turf at Lae, it was clearly at risk. And if you think that an expedition to Niku is "an all expenses paid vacation to paradise" you're more confused than I thought you were. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:52:58 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Sextant Numbers It could be that when they eyepiece was loaned, it was done on a more "informal" level - which does happen - and Fred (or whomever) was simply told, 'when you bring this back, make sure it gets back where it belongs', so he/she wrote the control number on the bottom (side? top? - I can't recall right now) of the box, realistically thinking that would be a place where it wouldn't get lost. Just a thought... ltm jon 2266 ***************************************************************** From Ric I think it's a mistake to get too fixated on the inverting eyepiece thing. It's just one routine accessory to the basic sextant and is normally kept in one of the little sockets in the box. No reason to think that one accessory for a particular sextant would get swapped out for use on a different instrument. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 16:54:05 EDT From: Christian Subject: Re: Colorado report. I looked at the Colorado report just posted. ===I can't find the part telling of the search of Gardner by the 3 planes: did you edit it out by error? ===If I understand correctly, the Colorado report states that the Celebrations for the Crossing of the Line were delayed until after the end of their search: the opposite of what the Lambrecht report says, if I remember correctly... Christian ***************************************************************** From Ric Ooops! You're right. A page got skipped. We'll fix it right away. Thanks for pointing that out. I can't find where Friedell says that they delayed the celebration until the conclusion of the search. If he said that he was fibbing. The ship's newspaper (not to mention Lambrecht) leaves no doubt that the festivities were taking place while the planes were searching Gardner. By the way, thanks for sending the photocopies of the Ordnance Survey map of Niku. I don't think we need to lose any sleep about getting a copy. There is not nearly as much detail as we have on the 1939 New Zealand survey and the 1939 American Survey maps we already have. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:09:28 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Thoughts about Ruby Doyenne ???? ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************** From Ric Hey, this is a classy outfit. We use lots of big words to show how smart we are. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:17:03 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Canton Engine I have not given up looking for any evidence that I may uncover in my humble home. Places to look have become slimmer as we uncover each area that we may have missed. As you were all waiting for the development of some very old 620 film that we had found, that could have been taken at Canton. The film has been developed and I am sorry to report that it is during my Navy days and when I was aboard the USS Picking DD-685 it is not of during my time at Canton. I was very depressed that it did not give us the proof of the engine that I speak of. I will be continuing to keep an eye out for anything further that might show up. LTM Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:08:27 EDT From: Jon Greenberg Subject: Re: Colorado report. Everyone may be right. The Colorado crossed the equator 7 July, sometime between 1435 and 1645. At that time the planes were searching for Winslow Reef and Reef and Sand Bank. Friedell's report states that the planes were recovered that afternoon "in a position south of the Equator in Longitude 174 degrees 30 minutes West. The Gardner search was conducted 9 July. So if the ceremony was held on the 9th it had been delayed by two days. Friedell does explicitly say on page 12 of the Colorado report that they were delayed: "The fact of crossing the equator was not neglected by Neptunus Rex and his court, although they postponed their visit in order not to interfere with the operations in connection with the search." One other previous discussion item - the Itasca smoke fiasco. Near the end of the search, the commander of the Itasca sent a message to the Lexington stating "Itasca had laid heavy smoke screen for TWO HOURS which had not disintegrated and clearly visible from south and east for 40 miles or more at altitude one thousand." The more I look at that report the more real it becomes. I keep wanting them to make a few more circles of Gardner. LTM Jon Greenberg 2047 ***************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for digging that out. Thompson (captain of ITASCA) sent that message on 7/16/37. It really is quite amazing for the assumptions and apparent fictions that it contains. The complete text is as follows. I have edited it into sentences, inserted punctuation, and added small words in () for readability. Message is in all caps. My comments are in lower case. *********************************************** The message in response to this request from the captain of the Lexington who has just taken over command of the search: ASSUMING THAT EARHART PLANE OR RUBBER BOAT STILL AFLOAT, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR ESTIMATE, AS OF NOON TODAY, MOST PROBABLE POSITION FIRST OF PLANE (and) SECONDLY, OF RUBBER BOAT. To which Thompson replies: ON ASSUMPTIONS GIVEN (below), ESTIMATE MOST PROBABLY AREA (of) ORIGIN LATITUDE 2 NORTH, LONGITUDE 179.30 EAST; THENCE LATITUDE 5 NORTH, LONGITUDE 178.15 EAST; THENCE LATITUDE 5 NORTH, LONGITUDE 175.45 EAST; THENCE LATITUDE 2 NORTH LONGITUDE 177.5 EAST; THEN TO ORIGIN. ESTIMATE BASED ON FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: END OF FLIGHT, CLEAR BLUE SKY SOUTH AND EAST OF HOWLAND; HEAVY CLOUD BANKS APPROXIMATELY 50 MILES NORTH AND WEST OF HOWLAND. ITASCA HAD LAID HEAVY SMOKE SCREEN FOR TWO HOURS WHICH HAD NOT DISINTERGRATED [SIC] AND CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM SOUTH AND EAST FOR 40 MILES OR MORE AT (an) ALTITUDE (of)1000 (feet). According to Itasca's deck log, she started putting down smoke at 06:14 local time. Thompson here claims that she continued laying smoke for 2 hours, or until 08:14. As Bob Brandenburg has pointed out, it is highly unlikely that the ship could have made smoke for more than about 30 minutes without causing damage to the ship's boiler. Earhart did not arrive in what she believed to be the vicinity of Howland until 07:42 and the last transmission ITASCA heard was at 08:43 (a half after Thompson says the smoke stopped). ITASCA never told Earhart that the ship would be making smoke and it appears very likely that there was no smoke for Earhart to see at the time she may have been close enough to see it. DOUBTFUL IF (smoke) VISIBLE OVER 20 MILES FROM NORTH AND WEST, SIGNAL STRENGTH AND LINE OF POSITION WOULD INDICATE EARHART RECKONING CORRECT AS FOR DISTANCE THOUGH SHE PROBABLY CARRIED LINE OF POSITION EAST BEFORE CIRCLING AND AFTERWARD PROBABLY FLEW NORTH AND SOUTH ON THIS LINE. Thompson can't seem to make up his mind whether the clouds he says were to the northwest were 50 or 20 miles away. He provides no explanation for why he thinks that she "carried line of position east before circling." The very notion that Earhart ever said she was "circling" seems, from the appearance of the original radio log, to have been an after-the-fact assumption. HER REPORTS INDICATE HIGH FLIGHT WITH OVERCAST AND CLOUDY WEATHER AND EVIDENTLY FLYING IN CLURDS [SIC] UNTIL THE LAST FEW MINUTES OF FLIGHT. This allegation is absolutely unsupported by the ITASCA's original radio logs. Earhart never said any such thing. SIGNAL STRENGTH INDICATES THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE 250 (miles). ESTIMATED PLANE DOWN WITHIN 250 MILES OF HOWLAND BETWEEN 337 (degrees) AND 45 (degrees) TRUE AND NOT NEARER THAN 30 MILES. AT LATTER DISTANCE COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO SEE SMOKE SCREEN IF SHE PASSED SOUTH. There appears to be no legitimate basis for such an estimate. OUR EXPERIENCES (are that) SEA AND WIND DRIFT (of) THIS VESSEL (are) MAXIMUM 1 MILE (per hour?) (in the direction of) 270 (degrees) AND DOUBT IF PLANE OR LIFEBOAT WOULD EXCEED (this rate of drift). ON THESE ASSUMPTIONS MOST PROBABLE AREA AS OF 1200 TODAY (is) AS INDICATED ABOVE. (The fact that Noonan was an) EXCELLENT NAVIGATOR AND EXPERIENCED, JUSTIFY ASSUMPTION (that the) PLANE (came) DOWN ON LINE OF POSITION OR THAT (the) LINE (of Position was) ADVANCED EASTWARD ONE HOUR ON LINE OF FLIGHT WHICH ASSUME WAS APPROXIMATELY 78 TRUE FROM LAE. If Noonan was such a good navigator, why would he overshoot Howland by a full hour? Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:12:36 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Kiribati This was on Radio Australia. Hope they stay put. Regards. ---------- A team from the United States Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii has arrived in the Kiribati capital, Tarawa, to carry out excavation and recovery work on the remains of American soldiers killed in battle during World War Two. The team will carry out their work on Tarawa and Butaritari Islands where major battles were fought between American Marines and Japanese troops in 1943. Radio Kiribati reports this is the first recovery mission of American soldiers' remains in Kiribati by U-S authorities since the end of the war more than 50 years ago. The team is expected to spend a month in Kiribati before returning to Hawaii. **************************************************************** From Ric I wouldn't worry about them going to Niku. No war dead there. I just hope they stay healthy. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:25:53 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: More Buttonwood Stories From Ric I finally interviewed BUTTONWOOD crewmember Ed Ziegler last night and, not surprisingly, his recollections are somewhat different from everybody else's. For one thing, Ziegler is quite sure that all of this happened in 1946, not 1947 (despite the fact that he acknowledges that he crossed the Equator for the first time with his shipmates Skellie and Avery, both of whose "shellback certificates" are dated Jan. 9,1947). Ziegler's conviction is based upon his memory that this cruise came before the ship's participation in Operation Crossroads (the Bikini atomic bomb tests) which happened in 1946. Anyway, he at least has something that passes for documentation of where they went. During each cruise the yeoman would print out the Sailing Directions for each island the ship visited and pass them out to the crew. Ziegler still has his for this cruise and he is photocopying them for me. Gardner is one of the islands. He remembers no unattached officer being left at Gardner or even being along on the cruise. In his recollection they spent a couple of days at Gardner doing the same thing they did at the other islands they visited - not much. He remembers that Gardner had "lots of palm trees, brush, and lots and lots of sharks" (yup, sounds about right). There was "an old Navy warehouse" there, but no current installation. There were a couple of jeeps that they got running and drove around the island, and a flat-bottomed boat that they used from a dock that had been built out into the lagoon (there was such a boat and dock at the Loran station as well as at least one vehicle). He says they found a diving helmet in the "warehouse" and took turns using it in the lagoon. There were natives on the island, some of whom spoke English, and who sang God Bless America for the visitors. At first he said they sang "God Save The King" and then corrected himself. I suspect that they actually sang "America" ( you know, My country, 'tis of thee...) which would be a tune they already knew. Ziegler remembers nothing about any airplane wreckage at Gardner. According to Ziegler, after BUTTONWOOD left Gardner they got a radio message to return to the island because rising water was threatening to inundate the whole place, but when they got there it turned out to be nothing more than an unusually high tide which had already subsided. (This sounds really strange.) Ziegler doesn't remember the captain's name and has no recollection of him going to Fiji, but he is sure that they went to Pago Pago because he had to go into the hospital there for a leg infection. He also remembers sneaking out to party with the local women. Bottom line: I sure wish we had those logs. It does look like BUTTONWOOD went to Gardner early in 1947 and some hard-to-explain things may have happened. At this point BUTTONWOOD is still our best theoretical source for the "white men in a government ship" who allegedly photographed the airplane parts. More anecdotes from more veterans may help, but may also serve to merely confuse the issue more. This is the hardest kind of research there is. The best we can hope for is that the inevitably conflicting stories may lead us to real evidence of what actually happened. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 15:17:29 EDT From: D. Leuter Subject: Re: More Buttonwood Stories It sure is a shame that none of these bored sailors kept a daily journal! **************************************************************** From Ric They seem like nice guys but, putting it delicately, they're not what you'd call the journal keeping type. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 15:22:58 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Fair warning It being Mother's Day weekend and (contrary to popular opinion) having a mother, I'll be away and uncomputered from Friday until Tuesday. Pat will be handling the Forum so you'll have to behave yourselves. Love to mother (my own, for once), Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:06:28 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Fair warning Does your mom have email? We can send her excerpts of how you don't always play nice with the other kids. LTM, who is touched by Ric's tenderness Dennis McGee #0149CE *********************** From Pat-- Nope, no email at Ric's mom's house, but he may surprise us..... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:10:58 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Thoughts about Ruby > From Ric > > Hey, this is a classy outfit. We use lots of big words to show how smart we are. Well hush my mouth. And here I was assuming that the reason to use big words was to enable precise and concise communications. Silly me. - Bill ************************ From Pat Oh, come on Bill, you know we just like to show off. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:13:56 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: More Buttonwood Stories Re- Journals/Diaries... Isn't it against regulations to keep a journal or diary while you are in the military???? Yeah- I know that many people did keep them and some have written some good and bad books...But I always thought that it was against the rules to keep such a journal. Jim Tierney ********************** From Pat-- Gee, I dunno, seems somehow unlikely.... anybody know? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:15:57 EDT From: B. Conrad Subject: Re: Colorado Report IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE CLOUDS THAT AMELIA HAD SEEN WERE PART OF THE EARLIER SMOKE SCREEN LAID DOWN BY THE ITASCA? ****************** From Pat Randy? And let's remember to pop that caps lock key off, guys..... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:17:09 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Colorado Report >Everyone may be right. The Colorado crossed the equator 7 July, sometime >between 1435 and 1645. You mean we've narrowed down the crossing to a 210-year window? Progress! ;} LTM, Tom #2179 ****************** Some people are soooooooo funny.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:24:09 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory I've just received this in response to my letter to the Malvern Library: >In the 1942 Kelly's Directory of Malvern, Clanmere is listed as a nursing >home with Miss J M Clancy as the occupant. In the 1950 Directory, it is >still a nursing home but with a new occupant - Mrs C Llowry. > >Clanmere is now an office building, containing the local Careers advice >office, Accountants and Insurance Brokers. > >According to an article in our local newspaper, The Malvern Gazette, Miss >Clancy's daughter , Deidre Clancy has been located in Wiltshire in the South >West of England. If this news has not been passed on to you by your >colleagues in TIGHAR , perhaps you could contact the Malvern Gazette direct >on (01684) 892200. Alternatively we can send you the article by post. > >Catherine Lees >Librarian ************************** From Pat--- Cool! Proceed according to instructions, Mr. Klein . As more of an observer and compiler than participant, I must say that this particular bit of the saga is riveting to me, anyway, I dunno about the rest of you guys. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:29:41 EDT From: William MacGregor Subject: The wreck photo I was looking through my notes recently and I have a few questions. Is it true that the wreck photo is of an Electra 10E? I understand that only 15 of these aircraft were made. And the only Electra 10E every to fly in the South or Central Pacific was NR16020. Then, according to the vernacular of my New Jersey friend, BINGO, this must be Amelia's aircraft. I also understand that this photo was given to George Carrington by an unknown sailor. What year was this photo supposably given? And why is Carrington so tight lipped? More to follow. ************************ From Pat We *think* that the aircraft in the photo is a 10E. That's a fur piece from *knowing* that it is a 10E. Your conclusions are otherwise correct. The whole Carrington story is beyond the scope of my talents as a fill-in for Ric. Someone else want to help Mr. MacGregor? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:32:44 EDT From: Ellie Subject: FAQ comment Hi Pat since Ric is gone, thanks for taking over. I'm a new member and was just reading the FAQ and on the one about what's the significance of Amelia's comment that "We are on the line 157/337" Could that mean that she was flying on a heading of 157/337 since that number is 180 degrees difference. Sounds like she could have been flying from south east to north west and about her saying it was overcast and your reports say it was clear in the North west could she have been in the South east instead and can you find out what the weather there was at that time? This has probably been suggested before but the answer to that question was "FAQ not finished {what ever that means????} and being new, I just had to add my two cents. Great Forum. Ellie ********************** From Pat That FAQ is now finished, and your question is answered in full there. In FAQt, they are all finished except the one about Noonan and did he drink, which we are discussing over drinks. If anyone sees any obvious errors, gaping holes, or other problems in the FAQs, I would appreciate knowing about it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:36:53 EDT From: Antonio Gomez Subject: Re: Kiribati >From Ric >I wouldn't worry about them going to Niku; No war dead there. I just hope >they stay healthy. How about Kanton? ********************* From Pat: I wouldn't think so. Kanton was always in U.S. hands and was used as a staging area. If anyone is buried there (and I'm reasonably sure there are U.S. graves there), it was with full benefit of clergy and so on, not as a result of enemy action. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:38:27 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: More Buttonwood Stories It certainly wasn't illegal to keep a journal in the Navy when I was on duty (1960-62), or at least nobody ever told me to stop. There's a bad book boxed up in my attic as a result. Tom King ************************ From Pat Anyone else have a terrible book in their attic? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 09:54:26 EDT From: Carol Richards Subject: Re: Love to Mother and FAQs Hi, I just discovered your website and forum last weekend (new to the web) and am fascinated, as this has, from childhood, always been one of my favorite subjects. I now start my day by taking a cup of coffee to the computer and reading the previous day's digest. So of course, I am curious, what is the significance of "love to mother?" Sincerely, Carol Richards Bellingham, WA ******************************* Ooooooh, I just love this, it makes me look like a real hotshot computer guru . Go to http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaqs.html and the very first FAQ explains all about Love To Mother..... who is so glad to be of use. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 09:57:28 EDT From: Robert Klaus Subject: Diaries and Journals To: Our Gracious Temporaty Moderator, The US Air Force didn't discourage, and in fact recommended, keeping a journal during my tenure ('73 to '97). The only restriction was that I could not carry it while flying over hostile territory as the contents could be used against me, or other POWs, or as a source of propaganda material. I don't think there was much chance of a Coastie in the Central Pacific in '47 becoming a POW. Don't be LTM (late to Mothersday)! Robert Klaus ******************************* Those who have been members of TIGHAR for a while will probably recall articles in TIGHAR Tracks featuring excerpts from wartime (WWII, that is) diaries kept by members of Ric's father's airplane crew (Ric's dad was a B-17 lead pilot). It wouldn't surprise me if it was/is SOP for at least some people to keep journals. Anyone else? Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 09:59:15 EDT From: Ray Howard Subject: Re: Journal keeping Tom King wrote: > It certainly wasn't illegal to keep a journal in the Navy when I was on duty > (1960-62), or at least nobody ever told me to stop. There's a bad book boxed > up in my attic as a result. The Army didn't care either while I was in ('61 & '62). But the Military frowns bigtime on diaries or personal journals in combat areas. They would be good sources of intelligence information if they got into the hands of the bad guys. During the Korean War, a Marine serving on the line in Korea kept a daily journal secretly, later published as a book, and mentions in it that the Officers were adamant about prohibiting such goings on. If I remember correctly, "The Last Parallel" by Martin Russ. LTM Ray Howard ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 10:01:59 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Journal keeping > Isn't it against regulations to keep a journal or diary while you are in the > military???? Can't cite the reg, but it is my understanding that, it the wartime Navy, sailors were not allowed to keep journals which might include information about ship movements which could fall into the hands of the enemy. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ************************* OK, I think we are reaching a level of consensus here which bears some relationship to reality: In wartime, if you keep a journal, you don't have it with you in a combat zone. So ships at sea in wartime are less likely to have diarists active than air crews operating out of friendly bases in peacetime.... too bad, the guys at sea in the war have more to write about... Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 10:04:14 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory It seems somewhat intriguing that MISS Clancy has a daughter, also named Clancy... LTM, jon 2266 ******************************* Ummmmm, well, uh, maybe she married late and married a cousin named Clancy?---no, sorry, I forgot, she wasn't in West Virginia.... Love to Mother, who is a trifle shocked at such goings-on. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:16:08 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Colorado Report If I remember correctly, AE never did specifically state she saw clouds on her approach to Howland. Speculating, AE could misconstrue a heavy smoke as clouds, particularly from far away and into the sun. But if true, she would have also seen the island, which would have been bigger than the smoke cloud. > IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE CLOUDS THAT AMELIA HAD SEEN WERE PART OF THE > EARLIER SMOKE SCREEN LAID DOWN BY THE ITASCA? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:17:05 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Ruby and Gerald? Perhaps Miss. Ruby was his piano teacher? And I resemble that remark about being Randy.... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:18:15 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: More Buttonwood stories For Tom King: Why don't you post your diaries on the TIGHAR web site? It might provide some insights into your musical and punny talents... ****************************** The mind boggles...... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:26:19 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: The Buttonwood http://www.mil.org/navyhist/ Here's a naval History web site that may have some helpful info. Also, I discovered that the USCG Buttonwood has its own web site. There is nothing astounding in the way of info, but there is a nice photo of the ship. http://www.uscg.mil/d11/buttonwood/index1.htm Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:28:06 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Why not take off? After some discussion of what happened to the airplane (Colorado pilots did not see it) Ric wrote on the Forum: >The scenario that makes the most sense to me is: > >1. Airplane is landed safely on reef-fat and radio signals are sent, off and >on, for 2 to 3 days........High seas and violent surf destroy the airplane Lets throw this question out to the Forum. Let's assume a safe wheels down landing (which you need to run the engines/radio). Then after sending out radio signals for many days (with no response), why not take off again and scout for another (hopefully inhabited island? I could see Earhart asking, "how about the island we saw off to the north when we were coming in here (McKean Is.)? You are dangerously low on water and food by this time. One more day without water and you are dead. You have fuel and a reef or beach runway. Why not leave with the act that got you there? What is the option? Wait one more day and die? LTM Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:29:04 EDT From: Van Hunn Subject: Re: Journals and the service Tom King wrote: > It certainly wasn't illegal to keep a journal in the Navy when I was on duty > (1960-62), or at least nobody ever told me to stop. There's a bad book boxed > up in my attic as a result. It isn't against USAF regulations for a member to keep a journal or diary and I doubt other services would have such restrictions. LTM, Van ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:31:57 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory >Cool! Proceed according to instructions, Mr. Klein . Yes, Sir!! [saluting smartly] Er... Ma'am, that is! [sheepish grin] We're fortunate to have some very good researchers on the ground in England. Deidre Clancy has been located in Wiltshire County and Phil Tanner lives in adjoining Berkshire County. Phil has offered to visit Deidre Clancy on behalf of TIGHAR. This certainly seems the next step in our quest for Gallagher's photo album and whatever else might still exist. However, there are still a couple of problems. First, at this point, we do not know an exact location in Wiltshire County. I suspect the Gazette article was not more specific than that. Moreover, Deidre Clancy probably married thereby leaving us with another "last name" problem! Second, it's clear that there is an independent search being conducted and more may be known about the whereabouts of Deidre Clancy than we are made aware of. We don't want to risk virtually "harassing" Deidre Clancy with two, or more, different people trying to make contact with her. That might prove to be counter productive. We will certainly continue to pursue the Deidre Clancy lead by every avenue open to us and attempt to discover where and how we might make contact. I'm unsure how to proceed from that point. Any suggestions as to how to deal with this situation would be most welcome. ************************** From Pat It seems to me that Phil may want to call and/or visit the newspaper before going to far in trying to find Deirdre--if a reporter has already talked to her, it would be good to know what the reporter said/did before Phil goes to huge lengths to meet her. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 13:06:21 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Why not take off? One reason AE did (may?) not take off again from Gardner is that she didn't have enough gas. At best, we have calculated she landed with 50 gal or so, and some of that was trapped in the lines and couldn't be sucked out. While she might be able to take off, she would immediately dive down, and go into the drink. So, is it better to stay on land, or take a chance on a crash landing? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 13:06:13 EDT From: Randy Conrad Subject: Re: Why not Take off? >After some discussion of what happened to the airplane (Colorado pilots >did not see it) Ric wrote on the Forum: > >The scenario that makes the most sense to me is: >1. Airplane is landed safely on reef-fat and radio signals are sent, off >and on, for 2 to 3 days........High seas and violent surf destroy the >airplane > >Let's throw this question out to the Forum. Let's assume a safe wheels >down landing (which you need to run the engines/radio). Then after >sending out radio signals for many days (with no response), why not take off >again and scout for another (hopefully inhabited island? I could see >Earhart asking, "how about the island we saw off to the north when we were >coming in here (McKean Is.)? > >You are dangerously low on water and food by this time. One more day >without water and you are dead. You have fuel and a reef or beach >runway. Why not leave with the act that got you there? What is >the option? Wait one more day and die? Several weeks ago I had mentioned this to Ric; about was it a possibility that AE & FN had done this as mentioned above! My guess is, that had they had enough fuel and had they had enough clearance to take off; it might have been successful! How much clearance do you need to take off on Niku? What are the conditions like? Anyway, going back to the part of dying and all. My question to someone is didn't somewhere down the line that Amelia was sick on this last leg of the trip! I keep thinking that I've heard that somewhere before! Someone, please confirm? Also, how far is it between Niku and McKean Island? What was her fuel usuage showing at the time of the approach to Howland Island and how much extra fuel did she have on board? With the amount of fuel she had left and possibly landing and refueling again. What are the chances in percentage that her and Fred did take off and headed for McKean Island? Could they have made it? Also, with Ric's theory on the plane landing and breaking apart...wouldn't if you were put in this position, save everything that you could to get off of this island? Maybe he was right? Maybe the two, got sucked out to sea and drowned trying to salvage what they could on this plane! Question...if a person is sick and dehydrated from a long flight; wouldn't you have problems with fatigue and coordination! Think about it. If she was sick and all...(say you've been driving all day for hours...and your on the last leg. What are the chances with fatigue setting in that she did in fact give the wrong coordinates. Let's say that some of the numbers ran into one another! Or she was having a hard time focusing on the dials, because of eye strain and all! Anyway, I'm really baffled by some of these things that are coming up! I like what I see with the Buttonwood Report, and everything else! Maybe, Ric's mother can figure this one out! Anyway, have a great weekend guys! ************************* From Pat Many of these questions are covered in the FAQs and in the TIGHAR Tracks articles concerning the Earhart Project which are on our web site. If anyone wants to cover specific items, be my guest. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 13:07:55 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Why not take off? Kenton Spading wrote: > ...why not take off > again and scout for another (hopefully inhabited island? I could see > Earhart asking, "how about the island we saw off to the north when we were > coming in here (McKean Is.)? This would be a BIG mistake. The first thing we teach Cub Scouts is that if you get lost - HUG A TREE - stay put, don't move. By moving, continuing to try to "find" your way, you will most likely get further away from searchers, and be more likely to be injured. By staying in one spot you increase your chances of being discovered. Its hard to hit a moving target. The other biggest mistake for those who are lost - letting searchers go right by without even acknowledging them. Children especially do this because they are taught "not to speak to strangers" and searchers have been known to walk within a few feet of a lost child and have the child not even speak to them or make a sound of any kind. So the second rule for the lost child is to take a stick and keep beating on the tree (no, it won't hurt the tree, Tommy). Yes, Earhart and Noonan were adults, but even adults make such mistakes, thinking, oh, they have heard our distress calls, they are here to rescue us, the planes will go back to the ship and tell them they saw us and the rescuers will be here by tomorrow morning or sooner! Sure they saw us, we were standing there waving our hands and they circled a lot, they must have seen us, we saw them. LTM, Blue skies, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 13:09:14 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Why not take off? The prevailing evidence seems to indicate that if the plane did land on Gardner, it did not take off, which is why it may not be necessary to ponder "what ifs" about the plane taking off again. Speculation as to why it stayed put is not so hard: Perhaps the aircraft was damaged upon landing. Fuel might have been very low. There may have been injuries. There are many possible reasons. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 13:10:55 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Why not take off? I never flew an airplane barefoot. Skeet Gifford #1371CB ************************ From Pat When put that way, it does seem a little silly, doesn't it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 09:58:15 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Why not take off? I love it! > From Skeet Gifford > > I never flew an airplane barefoot. > > Skeet Gifford #1371CB > > ************************ > > From Pat > > When put that way, it does seem a little silly, doesn't it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:00:24 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Miss. Julie Clancy Miss. Julie Clancy -- an unmarried woman with a daughter named Deidre Clancy. Two of Edith Clancy-Gallagher's sisters were identified. Neither was Julie. Something is wrong here. A hypothesis... Edith Clancy-Gallagher, Gerald Gallagher's mother, had two sisters and two brothers. Neither sister was named Julie. In Edith's letter to Sir Harry she said, "My sister's home" (Clanmere). She did not mention "Miss. Clancy." So, where did that come from? Was she actually speaking of her sister-in-law? The Julie who had married one of her brothers and had a daughter named Deidre Clancy? And how did the trunks end up being shipped to: "Mrs. E. Gallagher, c/o Miss. Clancy?" Again, where did the "Miss. Clancy" come from. Edith had not supplied such a name. Who can say what had become of Edith's brothers, and Julie's husband, by the end of WWII? ************************* Many questions.... some of these will no doubt be answered by finding and talking with Deirdre, should that be possible. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:01:29 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Why not take off? One factor that occurs to me is that if indeed the coral is as treacherously sharp as has been mentioned in past forum discussions, it may have made short work of the Electra's tires during the landing process, making academic any future takeoff attempt, even if the rest of the plane had been unscathed. Certainly, that is one consideration. A Happy Mother's Day to any Mom's on the forum today! Love To all Mothers, Dr. Gene Dangelo # 2211 :) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:03:42 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Miss. Julie Clancy, Cont. Still pondering "Sister" and "Miss. Clancy" I presume we have a photocopy of the actual letter from Edith Clancy to Sir. Harry -- no transcribing involved. She did definitely say, "Sister." The "Miss. Clancy" that Edith did NOT specify... Perhaps there is another letter that we did not find. Or, perhaps someone found something among Gerald Gallagher's belongings that indicated to them that "c/o Miss. Clancy" was an appropriate way to address the shipment to Clanmere on Graham Road. Gerald may have had some letters from "Miss Clancy" at that address. These were possibly letters from Deidre Clancy, his cousin who lived with her mother at Clanmere. A return address might have been simply, "Miss. Clancy." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:04:59 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Clancy/Gallagher advisory Pat wrote: >It seems to me that Phil may want to call and/or visit the newspaper before >going to far in trying to find Deirdre--if a reporter has already talked to >her, it would be good to know what the reporter said/did before Phil goes to >huge lengths to meet her. I agree, and we might wait a bit and see what Tom Van Hare may tell us... or what may appear in the Malvern Gazette. I do hate to think of a newspaper person appearing at Deidre's door! Newspaper people don't understand what they're told. They don't ask the right questions, then they go back to the office and just make up something. ************************* So, worked in press relations long, Vern? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:09:18 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Re: why not take off? Kenton Spading asked the question, Why not take off after 2 or 3 days on the reef flat at Gardner if there was no response to the radio signals being sent. I can think of quite a few reasons why not to take off. 1. You probably would not land until you were quite low on fuel hoping you would find an inhabited island while still in the air. Also, after two of three days of using an engine to charge the battery it is unlikely there would be sufficient fuel for a flight of more than a very few minutes at best. 2. Taking off from an unimproved landing strip would be questionable at best even if there was no damage to the airplane during landing. 3. If you have been telling the world your position by radio would you really want to change that position if you had hope that help was on the way? 4. would you really want to come back and land on that reef flat again assuming you didn't find an inhabited island and risk damage to the landing gear and thus be unable to use the radio again? I don't think I would risk taking off once I have successfully landed on an island even if it was not populated. Dick Pingrey 0908C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:10:08 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Finding Deirdre Clancy Vern Klein asked how to proceed in finding Deidre Clancy. If she married there should probably be a record of her marriage and thus her married name and the name of her husband. I would suggest getting help from a local area genealogical society in locating a marriage record and go from there. Dick Pingrey ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:13:38 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Why not take off? This has got to be the best response yet...! Roger Kelley, #2112 "Richard E. Gillespie" wrote: > >From Skeet Gifford > > I never flew an airplane barefoot. > > Skeet Gifford #1371CB > > ************************ > > >From Pat > > When put that way, it does seem a little silly, doesn't it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:16:12 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: why not take off? But I have flown one with only one shoe, seriously. I was doing a practice SAR for the Civil Air Patrol when my foot felt like the circulation was cut off. So I took off the boot, flipped it into the back seat and flew the remaining 2.5 hours wearing only one boot. The right-seat instructor never said a word but the scanner in the back seat wasn't too happy. LTM, who is getting nauseous Dennis McGee #0149CE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 15:07:31 EDT From: William Subject: wreck photo Just a few more questions regarding the wreck photo. Why did the pilot attempt a wheels down landing in that thick jungle? Does it appear that the wreck has been scavenged? I imagine that locals would use parts of the crash for their everyday survival, but what about those massive engines. Surly, the natives did not have tools to dismantle the engines. Then, what has become of them? Is it possible the Japanese found the wreck and removed the engines for study? Just thinking out loud. William ***************************************************************** From Ric The Wreck Photo makes no sense as a photo of a landing accident. The condition of the unbent port prop establishes that the aircraft's last landing was a reasonably safe one. It was either taxiied or washed into the thick jungle, or the thick jungle grew up around it later. The missing engine appears to have been ripped from the airframe rather than dismantled. This, and the other missing components, would seem to argue for a scenario that had the aircraft washed into the thick jungle by wave action. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 15:20:49 EDT From: Tet Walston Subject: Landing/takeoff Gardner I wonder how many contributers are, or have been,pilots!! From some of the suggestions seen, I think not many. And even fewer navigators!! Allowing for the best possible conditions on Gardner at the time, long stretches of FIRM sand, free from obstructions, no crash or tyre blow out during landing etc. The attempt to take off again would be very foolhardy. The aircraft should be inspected to assure that it is still flyable. If the engines were to be stopped, could they start again? How much fuel would they have remaining? I know that Ric is trying his best to prove that AE/FN were on Gardner, but as I have said before, that's a hell of a long way from Howland, and though it's on the reported LOP, it would appear that a false assumption was made at ETA Howland as to which way to turn, OR the assumed position was very wrong. From Noonan's known log/plots, it seems that he did not concern himself with possible W/V changes -- the easiest to determine. Strange. If they were at 1000' as reported and "Could not see you", they would be able to see about 36 miles in each direction (if haze was not a factor) supposing AE had not flown the courses accurately from the last star fix the accumulation of innaccurate W/V, plus the 1 in 60 rule (One degree at 60 miles = 1 Mile) then BOTH ETA and actual position would be wrong. Alas, I feel, we will never know. Too bad Occam didn't have an electric razor. LTM on Mother's day. Tet ***************************************************************** From Ric In 1967, from 1,000 ft, in a Lockheed 10, Ann Pellegrino's crew was within about 12 miles before they could pick out Howland. Based upon the information gathered over the past ten years, the possibility that the flight reached Gardner Island is by far the best-supported hypothesis - far stronger than the crashed-and-sank theory, and we don't even need to talk about the various conspiracy theories. There will be nay-sayers and skeptics right up until the day that the discovery of the wreckage is announced. And it won't stop then. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:39:21 EDT From: Christian Subject: Excavating the Kanton engine on the cheap? Now that I have spent several weeks getting a good handle on what this website is all about, it is time I put together my idea of the best way to excavate the "Kanton engine". Based on the time I spent in the area in late 1996, including 3 weeks on Kanton. It seems to me that most Tighar people are quite busy with their careers in the US... So they can only go on Missions of short duration, and planned to a date fixed months in advance. Hence, one way to dig Kanton that was suggested was to charter a Boeing 727 to bring 200 volunteers for a frantic one day hand dig... As Ric said, Tighar doesn't have that kind of money. It's not easy to arrange for the fuel at all... I knew about the jet fuel which had been "recently" positionned in brand new tanks in Kanton, but I had no idea it could go "bad" so soon... And then Niku-IIII is a higher priority as well. Soooooooo, lets approach the problem the way the local I-Kiribati do: for transportation we use the 4-5 times a year Government ship. As this would put you on Kanton for over 2 months, and the dump seems to have a volume of approx 100-200 cubic yards, we then need only one man. I would think that it is possible to find in the US a reliable, knowledgeable person, willing to dig dirt for a non-astronomic wage???? A few thousand pounds of gear (groceries, tent, hand tools, small power winch, photovoltaics, tiny desalinator...) would have to be shipped ahead of time. Either to TRW (Tarawa) to be put on the ship whenever it would start on its trip. (They have no planned schedules to speak of...). Alternatively the stuff could be put on the charter cargo plane which brings used cars once in a while to Xmas Is. The way the Govt ship works, it starts its trip from TRW, stops in Kanton ('not sure if it does it W'bound as well as E'bound...) and then spends 2-3 weeks unloading supplies and loading exports, by surfboats, at Fanning and Washington. In Xmas, the containers are brought to the dock on a lighter, on which they remain, to be unloaded by hand, as the crane which used to transfer them to the dock has been broken for a few years: so the ship spends quite a bit of time in the 3 Line Is..... So: once KSSL (Kiribati Shipping Services Ltd)