Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:13:24 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: chopped props and wheels down > I just recently saw an excellent 30 minute documentary on "The Lost > Squadron" on PBS. It was about the P-38 recovery, and it included a lengthy > interview with the pilot of the first P-38 to land. I missed the doc, but this post reminded me of something else. As I recall, the first P-38 attempted to land wheels down. It was only after he ended up on his back that the others came in on their bellies. LTM, Russ **************************************************************** From Ric Proof positive that Earhart landed successfully on Niku. Otherwise the island would be littered with other Electras on their bellies. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:24:28 EDT From: Tony Stapleton Subject: Re: Fred Noonan are we talking about paul mantz as this fellow manning? i always thought it was the famous paul mantz? tony stapleton *************************************************************** From Ric Mantz (the famous Paul Mantz) was Earhart's technical adviser. Harry Manning was a sea captain, private pilot, ham radio operator, personal friend - whom Earhart chose to be her navigator. Noonan was a last minute addition to the flight to assist with overwater navigation. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:45:04 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Battery life I worked on radios in the mid 40's, including ones from the 30's. These were the days of less sophisticated circuits and vaccumn tube heaters (filaments) requiring separate power. In those days some portable radios had three batteries; a A-battery for the filament power, a B-battery for the plate supply; and a C-battery as a bias or grid supply. In mobile operations, the B-battery supply would often operate on a vibrator based system, sharing a 6 volt rechargable battery with the filament supply. However, there were also radio's which used dry-cell type batteries only (not able to be recharged). The B and C batteries of this type would take up less space and less bulk in an airplane, and could easily last for many days, after which they must be replaced. Showing my ignorance, I have little experience with aircraft radio batteries in that time period, but did have experience with mobile radios. Those would, I believe, last several days if limiting actual transmissions, since receiving signals requires much less power. Ric said radio contacts went on for two days [I agree], "far longer than was possible unless the battery was being recharged periodically" [This may not be correct]. and George also asks "Absolutely sure about this?" In my experience, batteries worked for at least a week on occasional transmitter use, and a lot longer if it was just in receive mode. I would not rule out the possibility that the batteries would last for several days of occasional transmissions, and fairly heavy reception. I don't know the details of the story Ric mentioned "story involving a single engine IFR flight in a snowstorm with a slipping alternator belt and a stuck mic button" But two key points would be - was AE's transmitter key stuck? [not likely]. And how long had there been a slipping alternator belt before it was noticed. Perhaps many hours before the trouble occurred. Which brings me to my question: Nauru radio reported transmissions they thought were from AE at 8:55, 9:01, 9:03 and 9:24 (Howland Time), with a carrier with no airplane vibration (no hum). Can we assume that the estimated arrival was therefore before this time (perhaps near 8:46 when Itasca assumes flight is down)? Or should we assume it is most likely still be airborne a few more hours until the gas runs out. This would result in a few more hours of potential battery life? This crash time, if it can be established, would distinguish some of these transmissions as to actually have occuring before the crash, thus not draining the batteries. Perhaps they were last frantic calls just before the crash landing Ric said "If, in fact, a considerable number of transmissions were made, then the airplane was above water, on its gear and able to operate their starboard engine." You may be right - perhaps the engine was running. But consider the possibity it might run for days on internal batteries, (without the engine running). Any thoughts on when in time AE made her crash landing? LTM ***************************************************************** From Ric Let's back up a minute. Based on what we know about the fuel load aboard the airplane and the power management tables worked out for Earhart by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson, the airplane should have run out of gas sometime shortly after noontime (local time) on July 2nd. The last call heard by Itasca was at 08:43 a.m. The calls heard by Nauru were in the evening, not the morning. It seems quite safe to say that NR16020 was not in flight when Nauru heard those calls. It also seems safe to say that the aircraft made a landing of some sort at some time between 08:43 a.m. and shortly after noon - but we do not at this time know whether it was a ditching at sea, a crash, a crash landing, or a safe landing. We also have no hard data on how many transmissions were possible using her radio and her batteries before it would be necessary to recharge - but we do know that people who presumably had a better handle on that than we do were of the opinion that recharging would be needed if she were making the transmissions attributed to her. Until we have better information than they had, I think we have to assume they knew what they were talking about. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:48:28 EDT From: George Kastner Subject: Radios Thank you both for this interesting exchange. I have no radio knowledge at all, but I think that transmission ability is the foundation upon which a lot of TIGHAR's current efforts rest: IF the batteries couldn't provide radio power without frequent recharging, THEN the starboard engine must be running; IF the starboard engine is running, THEN the aircraft must be safely wheels down; IF it is wheels down, THEN the wreck photo is worth investing limited resources on; etc. Just curious, here, and Harry Poole has made me curiouser. Mini Tanks to All/ George Kastner #0862C (who hopes to be an ''E'' someday) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:00:48 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Birds Don Neumann wrote: > There is one other hazard A.E. faced in making a wheels down landing on the > reef flat, that being the flocks of seabirds that Lambrecht encountered upon > his first low-level flyby at each of the islands he visited, forcing him to > make additional circuits of these islands at a higher altitude than his > original 50 feet level. I would think that Amelia would buzz the island several times prior to landing. Why? To spook the birds for one, and in order to select the best landing site possible. LTM, Roger Kelley, #2112 ************************************************************** From Ric You don't make low passes to spook the birds. They're not that bright. They just come right back. However, it is (and was) standard procedure to "drag the field" before making any landing on an unknown surface. This is usually done in landing configuration (gear and flaps down), low and slow so as to get a good look at the ground you're thinking of landing on. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:14:32 EDT From: DFarkaly Subject: prop specs I am also intrigued by another apparent inconsistency regarding the engines on AE's aircraft. My 1940 copy of "The airplane and its Engine" lists side by side comparison of P&W Wasp Jr. SB2 (985) and Wasp S3H1-G (1340) actually (1344). Takeoff ratings are given as 450 HP @ 2300 RPM for the former, and 600HP @ 2250 for the latter. this leads me to believe that the propellers for these two engines must be significantly different. If both are two bladed, 9 ft dia. (diameter same possibly for adequate ground clearance on same length landing gear and similar tires), then the propeller blades used on the 1340 should be noticably wider than those used on the 985 (the increased horsepower at similar rpm must result in a larger "absorber') I am so far unconvinced that this 150 bhp difference would be compensated for strictly by resetting the high rpm pitch stops alone. Do you have the propeller blade P/N's as installed on AE's engines, and if so are there significant enough blade profile differences on Ham Std's prints to effect a positive ID from the wreck photo? ***************************************************************** From Ric According to the Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report dated May 19, 1937 (the last inspection before the second world flight attempt) NR16020 had Hamilton Standard 6095A-6 props, serial numbers 66570-71 and 65672-73. Your assumption that the two engines (R985 and R1340) required different props is not correct. Lockheed specs for the 10A and 10E call for the same prop blades and hubs on both aircraft. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:24:57 EDT From: Dfarkaly Subject: P.S. Propeller Forgot one additional point about the propellers on the 985 vs. the 1340, text I have says no reduction ratio on the SB2 985, wheras the S3H1-G lists a 0.67 PRR (.67x2250=1507.5 propeller rpm at takeoff). This leads me to believe that these two conditions cannot be achieved with the same propeller blades a.) 450 hp @ 2300 rpm vs. b.) 600 hp @ 1507.5 rpm, although I have not performed any genuine analysis to this point. At first glance, it would seem that the difference should be obvious enough to spot in the photo, possibly profile comparison. PSS, about 8 yrs ago when looking at a friends airplane at a GA field in or near Monterey, CA ( I only remember it was close to Laguna Seca Raceway ), I ran across an aircraft painted entirely red with a for sale sign on it that reminded me of a Lockheed 10, does any forum member live around there? Might be a source for photos and measurements if it is ( parked in the back and pretty neglected at the time ) **************************************************************** From Ric Just goes to show that a little bit of documentation is better than a whole bunch of speculation. Both engines used the same prop. I don't know of any red Lockheed 10, but then, an airplane that reminds you of a Lockheed 10 is not necessarily a Lockheed 10. Sure it wasn't a Twin Beech? We've taken detailed measurements and even rivet pattern rubbings of at least a half dozen of the 13 surviving Lockheed 10s. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:37:56 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Lost Squadron Just viewed a Public Broadcasting program on our local PBS affiliate, which documented the recovery of a P-38 Lockeed "Lightning", which had been buried under 200 feet of snow & ice on the Greenland ice cap, since the early days of WWII. The plane recovered was one of six P-38s which were being ferried to Britian via the Greenland/Iceland route, along with several B-17s, all of which became lost in heavy cloud cover over the North Atlantic & when attempting to return to a U.S. base in Greenland, ran out of fuel & made forced landings on the ice cap. Of particular interest to TIGHAR fans is the fact that the radio operator on one of the B-17s was able to run one of the starboard engines with an undamaged prop, so he was could send S.O.S. signals which were eventually heard by U.S. forces on Greenland, who dropped supplies & dog sleds, in order to permit the crews involved to walk across the Cap to open sea & the Coast Guard cutter that rescued them. Very fascinating program, unfortunately when the plane was finally removed from the ice cap, the recovery team tried to take it apart, thus causing substantial damage which has resulted in having to rebuild the entire aircraft from "scratch". When they are finished, they plan to fly the plane back over the same original route to Britian. Don Neumann **************************************************************** From Ric Snort! The real problem with the Greenland P-38 recovery was that it was, from the beginning, conducted by people who didn't have a clue about the ethics of historic preservation. The intention was always to salvage the aircraft and rebuild it as an airworthy replica of itself to be flown for the entertainment of airshow crowds. There was never any recognition that they had uncovered a virtual time capsule which could have been preserved as the only surviving example of a 1942 P-38. The story of "Glacier Girl" (a totally bogus name invented for the replica) is a classic illustration of how aviation historic properties are being butchered in the name of "restoration." But that's another topic. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:43:21 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: bottle cap Didn't Gallagher die from a "stomach" ailment? Wouldn't this, then be a possible remnant of his medication? Or was the Warner product purely an American item that Gallagher would have been unlikely to have purchased? LTM, Blue Skies, Dave Bush ****************************************************************** From Ric Interesting thought. Warner was indeed an American company but we don't know that they didn't export their products. We do know that Gallagher had a number of medications on Gardner (see MacPherson's report). If the bottle cap is Gallagher's it lends credibility to the notion that the Aukaraime site may be where the bones were found. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:13:01 EDT From: R. Johnson Subject: Silence? How is it possible that AE was not heard from after 8:43 local time. If TIGHAR is correct in assuming approxiamately 4 hours of fuel remaing after last transmission, and with a signal strength of 5 {according to Itasca}at time of last transmission, then we must consider why she was never heard again. I have not seen this issue addressed in this forum, although I am relatively new to this forum and it may have previously been discussed. I can't buy into the argument that both Itasca and AE were trying to contact each other simultaneously for the next four hours and were merely blocking each others transmissions. This was mentioned by TIGHAR as occuring prior to the last transmission {8:43} on occasion. To be constantly blocked out by sending while other is sending or vice versa for 4 more hours seems a remote possibility. Can anyone offer a convincing argument for the radio silence? Did AE just choose to quit trying the radio? Did Itasca choose to quit listening? Did the radio go out? Did they crash soon after 8:43 and this explains the silence? Could a radio signal just north of Niku be heard by the Itasca at Howland? R. Johnson **************************************************************** From Ric Obviously, something must have changed after the 08:43 transmission. As you say, up until then Itasca was hearing her just fine. Itasca did not stop listening and while their continued attempts to contact her may have blocked some tranmissions, it's not reasonable to see that as the entire problem. Did Earhart stop transmitting? That is certainly one possibility and there are many who feel strongly that her sudden silence is strong evidence that she hit the water shortly after 08:43. But let's look at what she said in that final tranmission: KHAQQ TO ITASCA. WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337. WILL REPEAT MESSAGE. WE WILL REPEAT THIS ON 6210 KILOCYCLES. WAIT. Then a few minutes later the radio operator was surprised by another transmission which he recorded as: WE ARE RUNNING ON NORTH AND SOUTH LINE. (usually represented in Earhart mythology as "We are running North and South.") Note that Earhart says that she is going to change her transmitting frequency. She has had no luck on 3105 kcs so she'll switch over to 6210 kcs. Itasca has never heard her on that frequency. Could the change of frequencies be the reason that Itasca stops hearing her? A study of the known characterisitics of 6210 shows that if Earhart was between 40 and 120 nm from Itasca it is quite possible that her transmissions could not be heard. This seems like the most likely explanation for the silence. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:22:21 EDT From: Chuck Jackson Subject: WRECK PHOTO PROP Your assumption that the diameter of the port prop in wreck photo is 9 ft. may be faulty. The Type Certificate for the L10E (I'll send you a copy) specifies: hubs 12D40, blades 6101A-12 to -14, diameter 9' 1"max to 8' 10 5/8"min. Howard Brakens,Mgr, oprns,U.S. Propeller (SCK) says that prop can be trimmed as short as 101(with FAA OK) for experimental a/c. Shown a photo of AE's 10E "squatting" sadly on it's belly after the failed takeoff in Hawaii, Brakens pronounced the props unrepairable(even with today's technologies). So, who knows what prop blades Lockheed "grabbed off the shelf" to rush the rebuilt 10E out the door at Burbank? I don't! "back to the drawing board, huh?" **************************************************************** From Ric No Chuck. The only assumption I'm making about the props on the repaired Electra is that the official paperwork describing the replaced propellers is correct. They were 6095A-6 blades, serial numbers 66570-71 and 65672-73. Hamilton Standard confirms that this would result in a prop disc diameter of precisely 9 feet. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:24:18 EDT From: Tony Subject: Re: Fred Noonan thankyou, now i've learned something and feel stupid. tony ************************************************************** From Ric Good. That makes you just like the rest of us. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:35:00 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Earhartian? Earhartian? Is that pronounced "Air-har-tee-an" or "Air-harsh-ee-an"? Curious people need to know. LTM, a former "phonician" Dennis McGee #0149CE ***************************************************************** From Ric That's Air-harsh-ee-an, an adjective invented by Tom King used to describe anything pertaining to Amelia Earhart. Not to be confused with the noun "Ameliana." (invented by me) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:41:41 EDT From: Ross Schlichting Subject: Re: Lost Squadron AMEN Brother! I watched it too, and thought the EXACT same thing. Why rebuild a preserved P-38 from scratch? This does not do the historic community much good. It might as well be a new Beechcraft. Ross Schlichting **************************************************************** From Ric Like most things, it's about money. An airworthy P-38 is worth far more than a preserved historic property to a culture that values experience over knowledge. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:51:05 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: chopped props and wheels down > As I recall, the first P-38 attempted to land wheels down. It was only > after he ended up on his back that the others came in on their bellies. > **************************************************************** > From Ric > > Proof positive that Earhart landed successfully on Niku. Otherwise the > island would be littered with other Electras on their bellies. All right, wise guy. The point is that we have another instance from roughly the same time period where a pilot, faced with landing in unfamiliar terrain, first chose to try and save the airplane by landing wheels down - and he didn't even own it! LTM, Russ **************************************************************** From Ric Actually a good point. Those P-38s were in one of the first batches being ferried to England and there was a strong feeling that these were rare and valuable assets. Later in the war there was much more a feeling of there-are-plenty-more-where-this-came-from. In my own experience, I can remember being shocked when flying with USAF FACs in Cessna O-2s (Oscar Deuce or Suck 'n Blow) at the willingness of the pilots to routinely and needlessly abuse the aircraft. Same thing with trucks, jeeps, radios, etc. Military mind set. When speculating about what Earhart might do, I think that it's important to remember that she was a private aircraft owner flying an uninsured airplane upon which she still owed money for repairs. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:05:01 EDT From: William Subject: Re: Lost Squadron >An airworthy P-38 is worth far more than a preserved historic property to a >culture that values experience over knowledge. Yes. One could also say "thrills" over knowledge. ***************************************************************** From Ric The argument, of course, is that there is "educational" value in seeing/hearing/smelling or even flying an operational example rather than studying a museum exhibit. And that is perfectly true. What is important is to not confuse the two. When people fool themselves into thinking that reconstruction is preservation, irreplaceable properties are destroyed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:11:12 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Clancy/Gallagher Advisory Phil Tanner has spoken with Deirdre Clancy by telephone. The following is a summary of his report. It seems we're off again in search of another of the Clancy (Harling) women! I believe the weekend of June 5 = 6 will be when Phil visits the in-laws north of Worcester. ************************************************* Just off the phone, after a lengthy chat. She has three photographs of Gerald Gallagher, at least one apparently taken in the Pacific - this shows him and a dog, a terrier - but nothing else that relates to him, no diary, paperwork or artefacts. I said we would still be interested in copies of the photos and said I would pay if she wouldn't mind having copies made from the prints, which she will ask her husband if he wouldn't mind getting done - she is very busy currently on a filming project and away from home during the week, working long hours. She does, however, know of a branch of the family with which she has lost touch in recent years which might be able to shed further light. I'll backtrack a little on the family history side of it. I wonder if maybe Simon's researcher came up with the wrong Clancys when s/he reported Edith's two sisters as called Elizabeth Rachel and Mary A. and the oddity of Edith apparently misrepresenting her age when she married - i.e. if Edith's age at marriage was as she gave it and she was a different individual. Deirdre Clancy is the adopted daughter of Julie Clancy of Clanmere, unmarried sister of Edith. (She was adopted when Julie was around 50.) A brother of the Clancy sisters was killed in the first world war, in which Julie served as a nurse. She subsequently set up the nursing home Clanmere in Malvern and the name is indeed derived from her own - her partner (I assume in the business sense, I didn't pry) was called Meredith. Gallagher's grandmother was cared for there before her death. The other sister, Louise - must be the "Louisa" who witnessed Gallagher's parents' wedding - married someone whose name Deirdre doesn't know, but she does know Louise's daughter married someone with the surname Harling who lived in Worcester, which is about 15 miles north of Malvern. My in-laws live about 10 miles further north again and I'm visiting them the week after next, so I'll check their local phone directory for Harlings. Deirdre was last in touch with this couple's daughter, unmarried name Susan Harling, some years ago when she lived in Fleet, Hampshire (about 20 miles from me in Reading). She and her husband will see if they can track down her current address or anything else which might point in the direction of other family members. I have given her my home address and phone number and my email address. Her husband is on the Net, but if I understood her correctly has temporary technical problems. I gave her the address of the TIGHAR site. My overall impression was that she was willing to help and intrigued, but too busy to with other things to become engrossed. I stressed that the project is all about paying due respect to history and told her about the plan to replace the plaque on Gallagher's grave, which I think pleased her. Incidentally, Deirdre recalls reading something about the discovery of bones which might be Earhart's in the National Enquirer (!) but didn't make the connection with Gallagher at the time, she thinks because the name of the island had changed. One completely Earhart-unrelated coincidence to close - Deirdre's daughter used to attend a very upper-crust public school here in Reading in whose pool my daughter's swimming club trains. ....Continuing with a more recent communication from Phil.... I'm sure she didn't have any personal recollection of Gallagher and couldn't have, but it seemed she did know about him before the story appeared in the Gazette, though obviously not the Earhart link. If Edith Clancy was indeed 25 when she married in 1911, she was born 1885-6. The next sister, Louise/a, must have been at least 21 to be a witness at the wedding, so born not later than 1890. I believe Deirdre said her adoptive mother was much the youngest, so let's say born in the last few years of the century. She then adopted Deirdre aged around 50 - mid to late 1940s. It would be very unusual for a woman to be working past 60 and Deirdre works, so was presumably also born in the 40s and adopted as a baby. And Gallagher left for the Pacific in 1937. I mentioned the mystery of the letter to Gallagher and she asked who wrote it, but the name Ruby Margetts didn't mean anything. I have had an email from Deirdre's husband saying they were impressed by the TIGHAR web site and have forwarded his address to Ric, so with luck they will establish an online contact and our profile of The Man Who Found Earhart (But No-One Believed Him) will expand. **************************************************************** From Ric I've received from Deirdre's husband a really wonderful portrait photo of young Gerald which we'll put up on the website soon. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:25:32 EDT From: Angelo Subject: Re: Silence? >But let's look at what she said in that final transmission: > >KHAQQ TO ITASCA. WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337. WILL REPEAT MESSAGE. WE WILL >REPEAT THIS ON 6210 KILOCYCLES. WAIT. > >Then a few minutes later the radio operator was surprised by another >transmission which he recorded as: > >WE ARE RUNNING ON NORTH AND SOUTH LINE. (usually represented in Earhart >mythology as "We are running North and South.") That time sequence is new to me. Up to now I thought that the last local (to Itasca) transmission ended with ..ON 6210 KILOCYCLES..." >Note that Earhart says that she is going to change her transmitting >frequency. She has had no luck on 3105 kcs so she'll switch over to 6210 That agrees with my reading of the facts. >kcs. Itasca has never heard her on that frequency. Could the change of That agress with my reading of the facts. >frequencies be the reason that Itasca stops hearing her? A study of the >known characteristics of 6210 shows that if Earhart was between 40 and 120 >nm from Itasca it is quite possible that her transmissions could not be heard >by the Itasca since the skip distance for 6210 KC waves is much >different from (longer than) the skip distance for the 3105 KC waves. >This seems like the most likely explanation for the silence. Yes. Ang. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:37:00 EDT From: Angelo Subject: Re: Birds >Niku is very different. You'll see an occasional Booby cruising the reef >flat and at a few locations there are flocks of Frigates riding the thermals, Hey! That strikes a nerve. If there are thermals and birds, wouldn't that sight catch a pilot's eye and attact him/her to that site? Ang. *************************************************************** From Ric You're gonna see the island long before you see the Frigates. The Frigates circle where the thermals are. I've most often seen them high over the northern part of the atoll about 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning. They're waiting for the Boobies to come home from fishing expeditions. They then dive on the Boobies and scare them into puking their catch, which the Frigates intercept in mid-air. Charming. A gaggle of circling Frigates with wingspans of up to six feet is the sort of thing you'd think a pilot might want to avoid. A bird strike in an airplane is no joke. Energy equals mass times the velocity squared - in other words - a couple of pounds of feathers can tear the hell out of airplane. I once watched half a seagull (he came through the prop) put a whopping big dent in the wingroot of my Beech Debonair. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:38:57 EDT From: Christian Duretete Subject: Wreck Photo Just thinking about a small detail: is there anything in the picture, like markings or the pitch of the prop, which tells us that the negative was not upside down, when the Wreck print was made? That would make the left engine into a starboard one... Although, as Ric explained, we can still have a port engine in the photo, and still easily tie together the different pieces of evidence we have. Just curious. Christian D. ***************************************************************** From Ric Yes. The prop pitch confirms that the neg has not been reversed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:54:26 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Stupidity vs ignorance Tony wrote: >thankyou, now i've learned something and >feel stupid. tony > >************************************************************** >From Ric > >Good. That makes you just like the rest of us. >************************************************************** A wise man I worked with once upon a time had a favorite saying: "Ignorance can be fixed; stupid is forever". We are all here ignorant about various aspects of the subject, but our ignorance is diminishing with each passing e-mail message [and each trip to Niku]. I doubt that anyone here is genuinely stupid. Tom ***************************************************************** From Ric Fortunately, feeling stupid and being stupid are not the same thing. There's another great saying: "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Heinrich Schiller Stupid is out there. Lots of it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:47:59 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re Silence R. Johnson wrote: >How is it possible that AE was not heard from after 8:43 local time..... >Can anyone offer a convincing argument for the radio silence? Did AE >just choose to quit trying the radio? Did Itasca choose to quit >listening? Did the radio go out? Did they crash soon after 8:43 and this >explains the silence? A few Forum members have asked that same question before. Capt. Safford covers this question in his manuscript, that I have recently acquired. Under the heading, ESTIMATING THE POINT OF SPLASH-DOWN page 4-15. Safford makes the argument under item 10 page 4-16. " Tenth, we know from Comdr. Thompson's official report that AE's distress signals on 6210 KC, sent after she had crashed, were heard by Nauru but not by the Itasca , although the cutter was listening on that frequency. " Capt. Safford is referring to VKT/Radio Nauru. The radio station was located on the island of Nauru. There were two, possibly three transmissions that Nauru heard at 08:31, 08:43, 08:54 GMT on 48.31 meters ( 6210 kc ) on July 2, 1937. To paraphrase, the station reported, "speech not intelligible, no hum of plane in background, but voice similar that emitted from plane in flight last night between 4:30 and 9:30 PM. ". These transmissions were not positively identified as coming from AE, but it is Capt.Safford's belief that they did. He converted the times to HST ( Howland Standard Time ) and made a chronology on page 5-32. 0844-46 (HST) last transmission Itasca heard. EARHART BROADCASTS TO ITASCA ON 6210 KC. 0901 (HST) Unheard by Itasca. Heard by Radio Nauru (VKT), unintelligible. 0912 (HST) ( From Itasca's log : "Landing party returned to the vessel from Howland Island".) 0913 (HST) Unheard by Itasca; heard by VKT- but unintelligible. 0924 (HST) Unheard by Itasca ; heard by VKT- but unintelligible. "Radio Nauru ( VKT ) continued to guard 6210 KC but heard nothing more." Capt. Safford explains why the Itasca did not hear the transmissions was because of the skip characteristics of 6210 Kc at that time of day. He goes on to say that because of these skip characteristics of high frequencies ( 3105 and 6210 ) the signal strength recorded by the Itasca can be misleading in trying to determine how close AE/FN was to Howland. Capt. Safford's estimated point of splash down was 325 nautical miles west of Howland, Lat. 1 degree north, Long. 178 degrees west. In Capt. Safford's narrative on page 6-10 he makes a curious statement about AE and FN that I find odd, and I don't know from what bases he makes the statement. "If a squadron of Navy patrol planes could have taken-off from Howland as soon as AE's ' RUNNING OUT OF GAS ' signal had been received, the ELECTRA would have been sighted while still afloat , Miss Earhart rescued alive, and Capt. Noonan's body at least recovered." Daryll ****************************************************************** From Ric Safford is right about the skip characteristics of 6210 but he had his time zone conversions screwed up. The original source for the Nauru receptions was a telegram received by the U.S. State Dept. on July 3, 1937 which said: "At 6.31, 6.43, and 6.54 PM Sydney time today (July 2nd) on 48.31 meters fairly strong signals speech not intelligible no hum of plane in background but voice similar to that emitted from plane in flight last night between 4.30 and 9.30 PM...." Sydney Time was Greenwich plus 10 hours so 18:31 Sydney Time on July 2nd was 04:31 July 3rd GMT. What you're calling Howland Standard Time (i.e. local time as used by Itasca at Howland) was Greenwich minus 11.5 hours, so when Nauru heard the first transmission it was 17:01 local time aboard Itasca. The other transmissions came at 17:13 and 17:24. It looks like somebody is transmitting every quarter hour but is jumping the gun a bit. These transmissions are NOT occurring in the morning while Earhart is in flight, as Safford claims. They are being heard in the evening a good five hours after Earhart must be down somewhere. It is still daylight and she is transmitting (if the transmissions are from her) on her "daytime" frequency of 6210 kcs. I agree that Safford's estimated "splash down" point and his comment about rescue possibilities appear completely unfounded. And Earhart never said she was "running out of gas." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:52:28 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: wheels down landing & stuff I think you and Dick are on the right track with the wheels down landing theory. Evidence favoring: the wheels down wreck photo, the need to run the engine for battery recharge/radio use, (much less complicated--tip of the hat to Mr. Ockham--than sawing off/removing the prop, digging a hole for the prop, or (horrors!) removing the engine/batteries/radio and running it elsewhere) and the possibility of continuing the flight. I gave a little thought to that last item, and as much as I hate the idea of assuming motivations of people I don't know, here goes... To us, AE represents the #2 mystery of the 20th century, (I read that paper of yours Ric) but to AE & FN the stop on Gardner was, at first, only a minor delay. They could, as you've noted that they did previously, get located, in this case by others, get some fuel, and continue the flight. I think a very strong motivation for this could have existed. She cracked up the plane early into the first world flight attempt a year earlier. This time she made it almost all the way. After Howland, she'd only have to find Honolulu, and then the North American continent, and Oakland, (maybe first, maybe not) and then be a hero for life, role model for all, etc. Point is, she wanted to finish the flight, and could have if events early in the search had gone even a little bit differently, and, above pure, unabridged speculation nonwithstanding, if she had made a wheels down landing. Count me in for an advance purchase of the Niku 4 video also. The Voyage of Discovery stuff looks FABULOUS. Great big tip of the hat to Barb, Tom, Randy, and all involved. Any thoughts on developing an adult version of the curriculum? I know plenty of "older" folks, self included, who could benefit from a course in How To Think. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************** From Ric Interesting thought. There might be some major corporations who would see a course in logical problem-solving to be a benefit for key employees. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:01:47 EDT From: B. Conrad Subject: Re: Silence? With all these battery issues with the Electra I've decided to get involved again. Please forgive me for showing so much of an interest here. Anyway, number one...has anyone to this date done any research as an reenactment of the chain of events...such as putting an aircraft in the air with the same type of radio on the same type of frequency in the same area...using the same coordinates and weather inclements? Also, if you think about it...when your driving along down a highway and you have your radio on...at one time or another you occasionally run into static on the radio caused by static electricity interruptions. Same as if you had a walkie...talkie! Also, let's just say that you have the mic...to close to part of the Electra at the time of transmission. What I'm saying is that sometimes when you drag a radio, a cb, walkie talkie, or any time of communicative device close to metal it has a tendency of being drowned out with interference and static. Also, the radio that she was using at the time of her flight...did it have a squelching device on it. If this isn't so...then this is possible that she was being drowned out alot by interferrence. Also, sometimes...weather...whether it's good or bad will effect the way radios work. As from what I've learned from you and Ric and checking with several sources at my job at the battery plant. There is no reason why those batteries shouldn't have worked days after the crash and continued on working. Question...is it possible that she never heard anyone after she reached the ground? Also, if the Electra did crash...just say belly landing, O.K! What kind of a jolt is that radio capable of taking? Was the radio durable enough to keep from screwing up after a sudden jolt of hitting land really hard? Like others I'm not real big on radio analogy; but I've dropped enough cameras and radios and electrical communicative devices to know, that if something is dropped really hard...it goes haywire. Also, what kind of an antenna was she using. Or did they have those on radios back then? If so...was it damaged when it landed? Anyway, these are some critical areas where your team will find the greatest value and information from. It's not so much if you find the plane...but going on key areas of information will let you know exactly what happened! As far as the plane being imploded from the waves several days after the landing...well, let's just say that I don't buy that? Anyway, if this is so, then your team should have found some pieces of wreckage strewn across that beach somewhere with metal detectors? Also, how much sand can be placed in a square foot in less than a few seconds. As far as not seeing any wreckage from an aircraft...I don't buy that either. Someone had to see something, unless she did land in the water and the tides pulled the plane back down into the reef! Now, that I can buy or take to the bank. Question has anyone gone this far to check the reef out? Well, talk to you later! **************************************************************** From Ric (sigh) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:15:43 EDT From: Christian Subject: Battery life, radios ... I read a bit at the forum and now a question turns up to me. Following the line: wheels down landing, transmitting on the batteries, recharging the batteries on the generator at the starboard engine, engine above ground to run with the unbent prop as seen on the picture, I have to ask how the engine was started? It has shurely not been running all the time between the landing and the end of transmissions. If started like a car of today, the starter would have to live on the batteries as well. How long would the engine have to run to recharge the batterie for both purposes. What about temperature problems, the engine might face? On recharging the batteries, the engine is shurely not running at max. RPM. How much cooling effect is produced by the prop, when running at low RPM? At Greenland they might have been able to ignore this, thanks to the climate but as I understand it differs from Niku.. What is known about the weather at the region at touch down time at all? Excuse my selection of words and phrases, english is not my mother language. By the way, PLEASE avoid abbreviations. To understand some of the terms used, is sometimes quite difficult, but if someone throws in some abbr. I running circles... Watch your habits... LTM, (that one I understood) Christian **************************************************************** From Ric I'll try to watch my habits. Your English is far besser als meiner Deutsch. Starting an engine on Nikumaroro should be no different than starting an engine in any other hot climate. Having flown the aircraft for several weeks in hot climates, Earhart should have been adept at the procedure. Overheating would be a concern and running the engine in the heat of the day would probably be inadvisable. A fairly low RPM should be sufficient to recharge the battery (something like 800 rpm?). I really don't have a feel for how long you'd need to run the engine and what kind of cooling problem this would present. Maybe someone who has direct experience with R1340s could provide an opinion. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:16:04 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Silence? From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: The receiver(s) on NR16020 had no squelch circuit of any kind. As for battery life: This is not modern, low-drain solid state gear. The transmitter drew approximately 50 amps at 14 volts, when on the air. The receiver drew about another 4 amps. For the sake of rounding off, let's call it a total of 55 amps. That will suck the life out of a battery real quick. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:32:54 EDT From: Lars Subject: Wreck photo and other Lockheed 10 Just curious.. How many Lockheed 10's has an unknown fate ? In other words, is there a list of how and where all ended up? Not that I want to discredit the wreck photo, but there where owners that operated in tropical places even if not in the Pacific. (Spain with its african colonies, BOAC) I don't know if they operated their Lockheeds in tropical climate, but it would be nice to confirme that no other Lockheed 10 ended its career in tropical climate and know what became of the "other ones...." Best wishes Lars "not yet qualified to say LTM?" Larsson **************************************************************** From Ric To make a long story short: If the Wreck Photo is a Lockheed 10 it is a "big engined" Lockheed 10, i.e. either a "C" or an "E". All of the Cs and Es are accounted for but 9. Some of them served with Central American carriers so the possibility exists that one of the unaccounted-for airplanes was wrecked in a tropical setting. We do know of one E that fits that description. Earhart's. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:22:27 EDT From: Mark Donnell Subject: Re: Silence Been reading this forum for over a year now but this is the first time I've burst into print. I think some gremlins have crept into your calculations of time zones re the radio transmissions received at Nauru. I'm a New Zealander, currently working and living in Australia. Aussies & Kiwi's are quite used to doing the time zone calculations - too much good sport happens in Europe so we've got to know at what time of the night we need to get up to watch it! If the first signal was received in Nauru at 18:31 Sydney time on July 2 then that translates to 08:31 GMT on July 2. If Howland is a further 11.5 hours behind GMT then that's 21:01 on July 1 in Howland. As a check, Sydney is two hours from the dateline and Howland is a further half an hour to the east of the dateline. So add 2.5 hours to the time in Sydney and drop back one day - 18:31 Sydney time on July 2 becomes 21:01 on July 1 in Howland. Mark ****************************************************************** From Ric Damn! I guess I'm no better than Safford. Earhart being heard at 21:01 Howland time on July 1st doesn't make any sense so it must be that Nauru heard her at 18:31 Sydney time on July 3rd - just as the original message says - making it 21:01 Howland time on July 2nd. The point is the same. If what Nauru heard was Earhart, she was on the ground somewhere. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:23:56 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Stupidity vs ignorance My personal favorite is: There is never a stupid question, only a stupid answer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:25:34 EDT From: Tony Subject: Re: Stupidity vs ignorance thanks for the encouragement ! good tail winds to all, tony ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:40:35 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Charging system I read your estimate of engine RPM to charge a battery with a generator. Is your estimate of 800 RPM a guess or from experience? The reason I ask is because I used to own a 1960 Cessna 210 with a generator, not an alternator. I remember I had a lot of trouble with the charging system, especially if flying at night. Several times while taxing to the terminal after landing, the battery would get very low on power. Taxi lights and all. That engine was always a hard thing to start when hot. More than once I needed a jump start after about 10 blades due to low battery. What I remember the most is that after engine start, I needed about 1,300 RPM just to get the generator light to go out. Also, even with the cowl flaps full open I had to watch the temperature close if I tried to recharge on the ground. This wasn't a problem after I installed an alternator. I would think the Electra would need a bit more than 800 RPM to have the generator kick in. I think the temperature would also be a big problem if the engine was run at that RPM for any length of time during the day. But, by that time she probably figured the plane was a write off way. Night time would be better to use the radio and try to recharge. Of the post loss radio signals attributed to Earhart, how many were received at night (Niku time)? ***************************************************************** From Ric The 800 RPM was a pure guess based upon my limited experience with radials. They tend to develop more horsepower at lower RPM than opposed engines. Virtually all of the credible post-loss radio signals were received during hours of darkness, Niku time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:42:56 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Charging Have no experience with that particular model & engine. However R-engines immediately above and below AE's idled at 900 to 1,000 rpm. Although most alterrnators (ac) will put out full voltage at idle, most generators (dc) will not. It usually takes 1200 rpm or a tad more. Not a problem for 15 min. if downwind & for hours with a decent breeze. Ergo your scenario of post (landing) msgs. well within the realm of possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:49:35 EDT From: Don Subject: Wreck Photo I am very skeptical about this wreck photo. You have a picture of this aircraft which had obviously crashed before it ended up in it's current position with the main spar of the wing sitting on top of the fuselage in a very peculiar position with one of the engines attached. I can not visualize mother nature pitching this aircraft through the brush into this field and resting the wing spar on top of the fuselage. It had to be moved there by some mechanical means. Even during intense surf, the prop of the remaining engine would have dug in somewhere as parts of fuselage tried to float with the surf. And the prop shown in the picture is in pretty good condition, which does not appear to be bent at all. The bulk of this would not float under any conditions. But it does not discount the possibility that this might be the Earhart Electra or at least part of it. Something that does discount it right off the bat is that the front portion of the engine cowling which remains is not the same construction of the cowling which is pictured on Earhart's Electra. Maybe the wreck photo is actually a picture which was taken during or most likely some period after a cleanup/salvage operation of some sort where there is actually two aircraft seen here and the spar and engine do not belong to the fuselage underneath. The fuselage does have some interesting aspects to it such as the design of the center post and known aircraft which you have mention previously that might have the same design, and the Electra being one of them. But the fairing still attached to the engine of the wreck photo which is very clearly shown leads me to believe that if that engine and spar belongs to the fuselage underneath then it is not the Electra. Whatever the case, it is still interesting to look. Do you have any information on it's orgin? **************************************************************** From Ric It's actually a Rohrshach inkblot test. Everybody sees something different based, primarily, on their toilet training. You'll find several articles about the Wreck Photo and its alleged origins on the TIGHAR website (www.tighar.org) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:03:28 EDT From: Angelo Subject: Time Zone headaches (About time-of-day establishment difficulties) >The original source for the Nauru receptions was a telegram received by the >U.S. State Dept. on July 3, 1937 which said: Was the date of receipt by the State Dept past midnight GCT so that it was stamped 3 July (GCT) while it was received in San Francisco late on 2 July Local and also the Howland date? I keep in mind that Amelia took off @ 10am Lae time which was also 00hrs GCT. Some say that this was her (Noonan's?) express intention in order to minimize hours confusion on this leg over the 180th meridian. She arrived around at Howland around 19 hrs GCT which corresponded to 19 hours of flight and fuel consumption up to that point. These other times referenced below need to be converted to GCT. The local (Lae) date and time were 2July'37 and 10am. That instant was also 00hrs GCT 2July'37 and also just past local noon 12:30pm at Howland 1July'37. Sydney has nearly the same local time as at Lae. It was July 1st all over the US. >"At 6.31, 6.43, and 6.54 PM Sydney time today (July 2nd) on 48.31 meters These would be 8:31 to 8:54 Nauru time, while other reports have stated times more like 10:30+-pm Nauru time. (Nowhere was it 3 July yet.) >fairly strong signals speech not intelligilble no hum of plane in background >but voice similar to that emitted from plane in flight last night between >4.30 and 9.30 PM...." With my time line, The 4:30,9:30 remarks must refer to a local test flight by AE; or the (July 2nd) statement was not about the Sydney location, or do I have my dates mixed up? It is not a given that airborne transmissions shall always be modulated or accompanied by "hum of plane in flight". But voice recognition would be commonly experienced. >Sydney Time was Greenwich plus 10 hours so 18:31 Sydney Time on July 2nd was >04:31 July 3rd GMT. What you're calling Howland Standard Time (i.e. local Take 14 hours off of Sydney time to get GCT. It was still the 2nd in London when AE flew over Nauru. The "new" day starts at noon at the 180th meridian (aka "international date line"). When it is just after noon on the 1st of July at Howland, it is declared by our savants that it is also simultaneously just before noon on the 2nd of July west of the 180th meridian and earlier that same "day" further westward, etc at that same instant. The pertinent Itasca logs of her arrival nearby all have morning, July 2nd dates, local (Howland) time, which was some 19 actual hours after her Lae takeoff. >time as used by Itasca at Howland) was Greenwich minus 11.5 hours, so when >Nauru heard the first transmission it was 17:01 local time aboard Itasca. >The other transmissions came at 17:13 and 17:24. It looks like somebody is >transmitting every quarter hour but is jumping the gun a bit. > >These transmissions are NOT occurring in the morning while Earhart is in >flight, as Safford claims. They are being heard in the evening a good five >hours after Earhart must be down somewhere. It is still daylight and she is >transmitting (if the tranmissions are from her) on her "daytime" frequency of >6210 kcs. Are you sure of your times? You have to go back to original references. We'll get this straightened out yet..... >I agree that Safford's estimated "splash down" point and his comment about >rescue possibilities appear completely unfounded. And Earhart never said she >was "running out of gas." True. My agreement extends to the notion that she back-tracked hundreds of miles westward. Ang. ***************************************************************** From Ric I had a couple of things messed up, but if the time of the Nauru receptions was on the evening of July 3rd (not the 2nd), then it all works out fine. I don't, however, see any reason to think that Earhart backtracked hundreds of miles westward. That's not what she said she was doing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:21:08 EDT From: Suzanne Subject: Re: Rebuilt P-38 It is also about a culture which substitutes ersatz experience over the genuine article -- i.e., visit Europe by going to Disney World's Epcot, experience New York and Egypt by visiting the mock ups in Las Vegas...Go figure. LTM, Suzanne #2184 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:12:42 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Captive of Air Classics Jim Tierney, TIGHAR 0821, was kind enough to fax me a copy of the article appearing in the June issue of Air Classics magazine entitled Captive of the Japanese. It's a rehash of the "Love to mother" story (see the FAQ section of the TIGHAR website). No new information is offered except the author's interview with a mysterious former-OSS lieutenant who was supposedly the second-in-command of the unit that liberated the Weihsien Assembly Center. The author conveniently declines to reveal the officer's name so there is no way to resolve the discrepancies between his allegations and the recollections of James Moore, another member of the unit who thoroughly debunked the whole story in a 1995 letter. Moore freely provides the names of other members of the unit and insists that all internees were well documented. The camp was liberated on August 17, 1945 (not March 17th as the article says, but that is almost certainly a classic Air Classics misprint). There was no "Betty bomber" in which "the Yank" was supposedly evacuated. Twelve internees who required hospitalization were evacuated by C-47 on August 28th, the date of the "Love to mother" message. The fanciful tale presented in Air Classics doesn't even hold together within itself. The phantom-lieutenant describes a "nearly comatose" woman who lay motionless on a bed with her face turned to the wall and muttered only cryptic words like "howling" or maybe it was "how-and" (ooooh). This is supposedly the same person who at this same time wrote "Camp liberated. All well. Volumes to tell. Love to mother." There is a desperate tone to "Captive of the Japanese" with the author shouting at the reader in all caps that "The Earhart/Putnam message was NO MISTAKE." as if the vehemence of his own conviction should suffice to convince where facts and logic fail. With luck, it will be the last gasp of a theory that was born of racism, jingoism, and paranoia, and now only finds voice in the pages of pathetic publications like Air Classics. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:32:03 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: TIME???? I am TOTALLY confused on this time thing. I think it could only be explained with a graph, but that can't be put on the Forum. Maybe the website. We must keep in mind that there is a difference between GCT and GMT, a 12 hour difference. You cannot give a time and just say Greenwich. GCT, Greenwich Civil Time = 180 th Meridian. (Pacific Ocean). GMT, Greenwich Mean Time = 0 Meridian. ( England). Safford covers this in his Preface. QUOTE "The matter of Time can be even more confusing, because so many systems of time were used during the Earhart flght and search. These times are defined as follows:- GCT- Greenwch Civil Time - 0000 to 2400, the day commencing when the fictitious " Mean Sun" crosses to 180th Meridian ( International Date Line ). GCT was in use by the U.S. Navy in 1937. It took the Navy twenty years to educate the Army to the fact that the world is round and that GCT should be used in all communications. One of the few benefits resulting from the Earhart flight was world-wide agreement to use GCT exclusively for Distress Communications. GMT - Greenwich Mean Time - from 0000 to 2400, the day commencing when the Mean Sun crosses the meridian of Greenwich ( London ). The British and " Commonwealth " Navies were using GMT in 1937. The U.S. Navy had used GMT up through World War I. Unfortunately, some writers have used GMT when they meant GCT, a discrepancy of twelve hours. HMS Achilles used GMT correctly; the others did not. Zone Time - expressed as plus if West or Minus if East of Greenwich and a number representing the difference in hours between the meridian of Greenwich ( Zone Zero ) and the central meridian of the Time-Zone. The hours ran from 0000 to 2400, with local noon at 1200. The time zones were normally in integral hours, but Honolulu and Howland were on the Half-hour. PST - Pacific Standard Time - Zone plus 8. Honolulu Time - Zone plus 10 1/2 HST-Howland Standard Time-Zone plus 11 1/2 ( HST could also have meant Hawaiian or Honolulu Time, but fortunately was not used. ) Sydney Time - Zone minus 10 Lae Time - Zone minus 10 Nauru Time - Zone minus 11 Zone plus or minus 12 - rarely used because of ambiguity. To eliminate confusion so far as practicable, we will use GCT throughout except where activity is confined to a small area, in which case we will used the local zone time, identifying it in each case .". UNQUOTE I would like to clear this up, does Capt. Safford know what he is talking about or not ? Who is confused, Safford, the people who are copying the messages and relaying them, or the people who are trying to interpet what took place in 1937??? Daryll ***************************************************************** From Ric You're right. We have to be sure we have this straight and I'm not at all sure that we're there yet. This is the first I've heard that GCT is different from GMT. Safford's definition of both says that the new day starts when the "Mean Sun" crosses a meridian (180 degree and Greenwich, respectivley). This strikes me as very odd because it seems to imply that the new day starts at noon instead of midnight. That can't be right. Much has been made of Earhart's departure time of 10:00 local time at Lae being the same as 00:00 GMT, but Earhart said specifically that she would use GCT, and if Safford is correct about GCT being 12 hours different from GMT, it means that she would be starting at 12:00 GCT. Is Safford correct? Was GCT really different from GMT? Either way, I don't see how it effects the question of whether the Nauru receptions happened in the morning or the evening. The original message makes it clear that they were heard in the p.m. and Safford's allegation that they were heard when the airplane was still in flight is just as clearly in error. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:37:18 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Captive of Air Classics Just can't resist interjecting that a nice, juicy, conspiracy speculation is a whole lot easier (since the fact that there is no proof of the conspiracy proves the conspiracy!) and more titilating than all this dreary, plodding research stuff . . . I also liked what Suzanne 2184 said. Ersatz. Good word. Anybody who doubts this has only to look on the web . . . Love to mother, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:43:40 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Captive of Air Classics Ric---Thanks for responding to the article on AE in the Forum... I have been surprised at the lack of questions on it since it has been released. There was only one mention of it last week on the Forum... Maybe Col. Reineck will respond and defend his position....... You mention a letter from Moore in 1995...Has that been published by Tighar anywhere?????? Did I miss it????? Can it be released to those on the forum who wish to see it????? I had a lot of problems with the article and the general confusion of dates, figures, characters and celebrities,etc... I wonder where the B-29 landed with the 'Yank' and the priest and sundry followers and aides... ?????? Could it be McGuire AFB in NJ---close to the home of Mrs. Irene Bolam............... Onward and upward..... LTM Jim Tierney **************************************************************** From Ric I expect that the lack of questions is due primarly to the intelligence and good taste of forum subscribers. We haven't published the letter from Moore because, frankly, the whole "Love to mother" thing has always been such a joke that it never merited that much attention. Somebody (I'm not even sure who) sent us a copy of the letter years ago. I'm a bit hesitant to publish it in its entirelty without Moore's permission but if there is sufficient interest I'll try to contact him. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:00:43 EDT From: Delilah Subject: Re: Captive of Air Classics With regards to the conspirisy theories...after reading in the paper and on the web about Pres. Kenedy's casket after 35+ years being discarded at sea......I wouldn't put anything past our government. LTM Deliliah **************************************************************** From Ric What paper? Where on the web? You're right to not put anything past our government but you'd also be wise not to believe everything you read. There's only one thing that the U.S. government is not capable of doing - keeping a secret for very long. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:24:07 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: TIME?? We have lots of good commentary on the topic of GCT vs GMT. **************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg 2286 I don't know who Safford is, but I just consulted with my old friend Nathaniel Bowditch, who assures me that GMT and GCT are synonymous. Good thing, too, because I've won bar bets on this. Also, see http://gauss.gge.unb.ca/GMT.UT.and.the.RGO.html for a brief discussion by Richard Langley at the University of New Brunswick, Canada, concerning the history of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. Langley mentions that in 1928, the International Astronomical Union recommended that "the time used for compilation of astronomical almanacs, essentially GMT, or what was also sometimes called Greenwich Civil Time, be referred to as Universal Time". Safford's definition of midnight GCT (which we know as GMT) is correct, albeit clumsy. When the sun crosses the 180th meridian, which is local apparent noon there, the time at Greenwich is midnight and a new day is beginning . . . i.e., the day for which it is noon at the 180th meridian. But he gets tangled when he defines the start of the GMT day as being the time the sun crosses the Greenwich meridian. As you observed, the day can't start at noon. The best way to compare event times in the AE saga is to think in terms of GMT. Trying to correlate events observed simultaneously at different local times in different time zones is a recipe for error. The KISS principle applies here. Love to Mother, who knows what time it is. Bob 2286 ***************************************************************** From Randy Jacobson 1364 Quoting from the 1938 edition of the American Practical Navigator: "It is therefore necessary to have a standard meridian to which the local civil times can be referred, hence the meridian of Greenwich is chosen to be the standard meridian." Greenwich Mean Time is a later description of the same time, and was not available in 1937, or at least was not in common usage. Today, we use Universal Time Code, which has the same reference, the Greenwich Meridian. Safford, if he said this is his manuscript, was absolutely wrong, and is a major howler. ***************************************************************** From Terry Linley Out of curiosity, I consulted my trusty old Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Edition, 1988) concerning the time terminology. Originally, 00:00 GMT denoted the start of a solar day and occurred at noon. In 1925, the numbering system for GMT was changed so that the day began at midnight, as did the civil day. Because the terminology was so confusing, the International Astronomical Union (in 1928) changed the designation of the standard time of the zero meridian to Universal Time, which remains in general use. So, you were right to assume that there should have been no difference in GMT and GCT at the time of AE's journey. Terry **************************************************************** From bethpage89 "Note--Zero hour Greenwich Civil Time is twelve hours before Greenwich Mean Noon of the same date" --According to the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for 1937. ***************************************************************** From Ric Okay. We're all in agreement. GCT and GMT are the same thing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:28:17 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Time Zone headaches Time zones are such a headache. Let me confuse the forum some more with facts. 1. The first information came from a radio intercept by the Itasca from Radio station KPH (Bolimas Radio, near San Francisco) to the CG radio station in San Francisco. It was received sometime between 2 and 3AM on July3 local time (101X GMT time - based upon the raw radio transcripts): "NMC de KPF following from VKT (radio Nauru) voice heard fairly strong sigs strength to S3 0843 0854 GMT 48.31 meters speech not interpreted owing bad modulation or speaker shouting into microphone but 3S ce similar to that emitted from plane in flight last night with exception no hum on plane in back ground bkt has not yet contacted with NRUI on 500 kcs VIS gives es Hearing voice about 1000 GMT. PSE that to NRUI". 2. Based upon the context of this message, it is clear that the times are given in GMT times. The question is what day? 0800GMT is roughly early evening in Nauru, and the message refers to the previous evening when AE passed Nauru. This must mean that the reception was heard on 3 July local time, evening. Let's say for argument at 8PM local time, which is 2000 local time. To obtain GMT time from Nauru, you must subtract something on the order of 11 hours, but it is still the same day, therefore 03 JULY 37.. 3. 0843 GMT 3 July equates to 2213 Howland local time (which is +10.5 zone) and 2113 local time for Itasca (which is +11.5 time zone). Clearly, this is the evening of July 2, local time. To get local time from GMT, you must subtract the time zone. Thus, the message was heard Itasca time sometime the evening that AE went down. 4. Dick Stripple argues that from 0854 GMT(time of last message) to 10XXGMT 03 JUL. (time of receipt of message in San Francisco, that this is too short a period of time for radio stations to set up and transmit a message of this type. While extraordinarily fast, commercial systems usually can set up faster than Navy systems. VKT was part of Amalgamated Wireless, and KPH was also a commercial station. Dick argues that this is too short a time, thus, the message was wrong, and there is a 12 hour difference, suggesting that these messages were heard in the morning of July 2, when AE could still be up in the air. ***************************************************************** From Ric And what do you think? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:40:21 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Don wrote: > I can not visualize mother nature pitching this aircraft through the brush > into this field and resting the wing spar on top of the fuselage. Momma Nature can do anything she wants to, with ease. Fly through a typhoon sometime, and after that observe what a typhoon (or hurricane, same-same) does on the ground. There are no limits. None. Mother Nature can and will do things that "experts" claim impossible. She is the personification of Murphy's Law. Tom #2179 ***************************************************************** From Ric True enough.. but if the airplane in the photo is a Lockheed 10 (and I think it is), there is no need for the wing spar to be pitched anywhere. A Lockheed 10 does not have a conventional main spar. It has a "sheer beam" that runs from engine to engine right through the cabin. We can't see the sheer beam in the photo because it is behind the panel with the big lightening holes. The photo appears to show a perfectly normal Lockheed 10 centersection with the upper part of the fuselage missing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:46:19 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Birds Ric wrote: >A gaggle of circling Frigates with wingspans of up to six feet is the sort of >thing you'd think a pilot might want to avoid. A bird strike in an airplane >is no joke. Energy equals mass times the velocity squared - in other words - >a couple of pounds of feathers can tear the hell out of airplane. I once >watched half a seagull (he came through the prop) put a whopping big dent in >the wingroot of my Beech Debonair. And recall that it was a flock of Canada Geese that brought down an AWACS at Elmendorf a few years ago. Tom #2179 ***************************************************************** From Ric My favorite bird strike story is about a Border Patrol Super Cub that took a Turkey Vulture through the windshield. The bird ended up in the pilot's lap, profoundly undead but sufficiently distressed to vomit its last meal all over the inside of the airplane. The pilot made a hasty, if rather messy, landing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:55:42 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Battery Life Although my original thought that the period of time AE could transmit was for several days, a more considered estimate now comes up to about 8 hours, or even longer. This is based on the percentage of time transmitting, compared to either receiving or non-operating, since the time period available for transmitting AE depends upon its use. I believe the battery power was rated at 85 amp-hours (two Exide 6-FFHM-13-1). With the (Western Electric) transmitter requiring perhaps 50 amps and the receiver perhaps 5, expected life can be calculated. Assuming transmissions of 6 minutes each hour (pick your own number), and a constant drain of 5 amps by the receiver, each hour would drain a total of (5 + 0.1X50) or 10 amp-hours from the battery. With those assumptions, the battery life would last 8 or so hours, longer if transmit time utilization was less, and/or if the radio was completely shut off for time periods (no reception). I am still not clear at what time the Nauru signals were received, but if it was in the evening hours, and were very weak, that could indicate a failing battery, and not require the engine to supply generator power. Ric - does/will the radio log CD include information about the time of transmission, and the time zone the time is referenced from (i.e. whether it is GMT, GCT, Howland or Nauru)? Again, I am sure that the existance of radio signals verifies the fact that AE's plane landed on land, not water. The question is at what point in time must we assume that further messages must be hoaxes or misunderstandings? Even if the engine could run, supplying the radio, the lack of gasoline would stop transmissions. LTM, HH Poole ***************************************************************** From Ric The CD shows what time the various messages were received and all messages on the CD include a conversion to GMT. The existence of radio transmissions is proof of nothing but the fact that transmissions were received. There is no way to be sure who was sending them. The more credible transmissions seem to end with the "281" message shortly after midnight (Niku time) on July 4th. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:59:27 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Air Classics Personally I would like to see the letter from Mr. Moore (assuming he approves) if only to put on record his recollections. While I don't think TIGHAR should use its meager resources to track down any remaining members of Mr. Moore's unit, I believe that placing his story and the names of the unit members in a public forum provides other researchers with the opportunity to check the facts on their own. A short rebuttal of the Col. Reineck's story and Mr. Moore's letter on the forum should be enough to get the ball rolling. Let's not waste too much time and effort on Col. Reineck's b.s. LTM, who never got past major Dennis McGee #0149CE ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:46:25 EDT From: Delilah Subject: Kennedy coffin http://cnn.com/US/9905/29/jfk.coffin.ap/ ***************************************************************** From Ric Okay. Looks like a legitimate news story. If ditching the casket was part of some nefarious conspiracy to destroy evidence it illustrates my point that the U.S. government is really lousy at keeping secrets. However, I think that it's much more likely that this is just one more example of gov't officials exercising poor judgement. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:25:49 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Time Zone headaches >Dick (Strippel) argues that this is too short a time, thus, the message was >wrong, and there is a 12 hour difference, suggesting that these messages >were heard in the morning of July 2, when AE could still be up in the air. >***************************************************************** >From Ric > >And what do you think? Are you asking my opinion? I believe that commercial stations CAN transmit information in an hour's time, if they are set up to do so. Most commercial stations were up all the time. It was the Navy and other government stations that had specific schedules that they had to keep, slowing communications. I believe that the messages were transmitted the night that AE disappeared. **************************************************************** From Ric I agree. I think we have to take original sources at face value unless we can show solid reasons (as opposed to unsubstantiated opinions) why they are mistaken. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:27:08 EDT From: Bethpage Subject: Re: Birds? --An Electra missing Howland and managing to stay aloft long enough to reach an alternate? A bird strike would be the least of her worries! ***************************************************************** From Ric No, not the least of her worries. Just the next of her worries, and a legitimate one when contemplating a landing. Birds were a big concern at Howland also. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:30:06 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Kennedy coffin >However, I think that it's much more likely that this is just one more >example of gov't officials exercising poor judgement. Being employed by the Navy, I resemble that remark... **************************************************************** From Bill 2229 > If ditching the casket was part of some nefarious conspiracy > to destroy evidence it illustrates my point that the U.S. government > is really lousy at keeping secrets. And if it wasn't an attempt to destroy evidence, it's another glowing example of our beloved government not knowing when NOT to keep a secret. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:41:15 EDT From: William Subject: Wreck Photo Just a quick question, did the Electra 10E have the capabilities to feather it's props? William LTM **************************************************************** From Ric No. The 12D40 hubs had no provision for feathering. "Full-feathering" hubs have a dome covering the end of the prop shaft. Earhart's aircraft (and the airplane in the Wreck Photo) have a flat end on the shaft. ("Feathering" is the term used for the ability to turn the propeller blades knife-edge to the wind. In the event of an engine failure in flight, this allows the pilot to keep the dead prop from "windmilling", which would cause far greater air resistance than a motionless blade. The ability to feather a dead prop is a major safety feature and the Lockheed 10 was one of the last multi-engine designs to lack this capability.) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:50:42 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: TIME, & the Nauru intercepts Safford - Flight Into Yesterday - Exhibit 78 - "The ship in sight" message: Telegram from Sydney NSW via Tutuila and Navy Radio. July 3 1937 Received 2:42 P.M. SECRETARY OF STATE, WASHINGTON JULY 3 10:00 P.M. AMALGATED WIRELESS STATE INFORMATION RECEIVED THAT REPORT FROM NAURU WAS SENT TO [RCA] BOLINAS RADIO QUOTE AT 6:31, 6:43, AND 6:54 SYDNEY TIME TODAY ON 48.31 METERS (i.e., 6210 kcs) FAIRLY STRONG SIGNALS, SPEECH NOT INTELLIGIBLE, NO HUM OF PLANE IN BACKGROUND, BUT VOICE SIMILAR [TO] THAT EMITTED FROM PLANE IN FLIGHT LAST NIGHT BETWEEN 4:30 AND 9:30 PM UNQUOTE MESSAGE FROM PLANE WHEN AT LEAST 60 MILES SOUTH OF NAURU RECEIVED 8:30 PM SYDNEY TIME JULY SECOND SAYING QUOTE A SHIP IN SIGHT AHEAD UNQUOTE SINCE IDENTIFIED AS STEAMER MYRTLE BANK WHICH ARRIVED NAURU DAYBREAK TODAY REPORTED NO CONTACT BETWEEN ITASCA AND NAURU RADIO CONTINUOUS WATCH BEING MAINTAINED BY NAURU RADIO AND SUVA RADIO DOYLE Cam Warren **************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, we got that. We have established that Safford's explanation of GCT versus GMT was in error and so, naturally, his interpretation of the significance of the transmissions ( I think "intercepts" is a bit misleading) was also wrong. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:41:57 EDT From: R. Johnson Subject: Fiji Update I am very interested in the latest on the Fiji bone search. I understand TIGHAR is sending a two man crew there in June in search of AE remains. I must know the status of this trip. When do they leave for Fiji? How long there? When will we know more about their findings? What is happening now? I must admit, I have become totally obsessed with finding AE since discovering TIGHAR's web site. I honestly can't sleep some nights. Please update the trip to Fiji as soon as possible. I need the sleep. R. Johnson **************************************************************** From Ric Well, if it's any consolation I'm having some sleepless nights myself trying to complete the funding for this summer's field work. Here's where we stand: On June 28th our "two man team" made up of Dr. Tom King (Earhart Project archaeologist) and Dr. Karen Burns (Earhart Project forensic anthropologist) will arrive in Fiji to begin a building-by-building search for the bones with the cooperation of the Fiji Museum and the office of the President of Fiji, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. On July 3rd the Niku Recon team will arrive Fiji and begin loading the expedition ship Nai'a for departure on July 5th. Dr. Burns will sail with the expedition while Dr. King remains in Fiji to continue the bone search. He will be joined on July 10th by Kristin Tague. Barb Norris also plans to travel to Fiji to assist in the bone search. Dr. King will return to the States on July 15th while Kris and possibly Barb will remain is Fiji until the Niku Recon team returns on July 26th. At that time Dr. Burns and I will deal with the results of the search - whatever they may be. At this time, the Niku Recon team is made up of eleven individuals. We have room for three more (four if two are a couple who can share a double bunk). A prospective Sponsor/Team Member must be able to make a $20,000 contribution to the project (which should be fully tax deductible for U.S. citizens) and must be in good enough physical condition to be away from hospital medical care for three weeks (there will be a physician aboard the ship). You're responsible for your own transportation to and from Fiji (about $1,000 round trip from L.A.) and any expenses while you're there (which should be minimal). You'll have no additional expenses while you're on the expedition (July 5th-26th). There are, of course, the usual waivers and releases to be signed. We're presently $50,000 short. We're committed to the expedition and have already paid over $65,000 in nonrefundable charges. If we can find acceptable Sponsor/Team Members for the remaining berths we'll be okay. In any event, as you can see, we need all the help we can get. If you might be interested in becoming a Sponsor/Team Member please call me at (302)994-4410. If you can help with a contribution of any size please send it to: TIGHAR 1999 Expedition 2812 Fawkes Drive Wilmington, DE 19808 Or you can call or fax us with credit card information. Fax number is (302) 994-7945. Let's get this job done and we can all get some sleep. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 12:09:21 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: birdstrikes The best birdstrike story I ever heard (I'm probably getting some details wrong, and I don't even know for sure if it's true) had to do with the FAA loaning out its "chicken cannon", used to test aircraft windshields by launching chicken carcasses at them at high speed, to the Brits who wanted to test the windscreen of one of their high speed trains. The Brits, alarmed at their test results of penetrating not only the windscreen, but also several bulkheads rearward, ask the FAA for advice. The FAA responds, "first, thaw out the frozen chicken carcass..." LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 12:40:01 EDT From: Terry Linley Subject: Re: Fiji Update Thanks for the update on Fiji and the expedition in general. If my children were older and I had $20,000 gathering dust, I'd send it to you in a heartbeat (and join you on Nai'a as your resident biologist). Since those two conditions cannot be met right now, please accept my $100 donation as a start. I am sure there are many more members of TIGHAR who can do the same for the sake of finding Amelia's plane....if we cannot be there on Niku with you, then we'll contribute to the effort. Love to Mother (and the entire Niku team), Terry Ann Linley ***************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Terry. As of today (6/6/99) there are 623 subscribers to the Earhart Forum. If every forum subscriber followed your example we'd be in Fat City. This forum is a valuable research tool, but real progress doesn't come from sitting around whacking our keyboards. From the beginning, what has distinguished the Earhart Project from other Earhart research has been the field work. We go. We do. We find. And that takes money. We've never had a sugar daddy - indivdual or corporate. Everything we've done has come primarily from many small contributions from ordinary people who just want to help us get to the truth. This is a grassroots movement, and as we've said before "the people will find Amelia." Well, the people is you. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:17:24 EDT From: Bethpage Subject: Lines of position Sun and moon observations on July 2, 1937, would provide nearly perpendicular lines of position for finding Howland Island. ************************************************************** From Ric The problem with the moon observation is that you can't see the moon, or take another shot on the sun, from where Earhart says she is (1,000 feet) when she's looking for Howland. There's a deck of scattered cumulus with bases at about 2,000 feet. You can't hope to see an island unless you get down below the clouds. Noonan can take his initial sun shot at dawn when they're still at altitude (they should be at 10,000 feet) and he can advance that LOP by dead reckoning through Howland. But once they get in close they have to descend. By the time they know they have a problem, the clouds have built to the point that it would be extremely expensive in time and fuel to climb back up to where they can take more observations, ands by then the moon may be gone anyway. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:25:35 EDT From: Bethpage Subject: Moon Line of Position So that he would know where Howland lay on the 157-337 (Sun) Line of Position, Noonan would have precomputed a second Line of Position running through Howland using another body visible in daylight. The Moon was in its phase of Last Quarter on July 2, 1937. That would give a navigator half of the Moon's disk. It would be very high at sunrise, be up all morning, and quite visible unless obscured by clouds. It would set just before Local Noon. The Moon Line of Position and the Sun Line of Position would have been nearly perpendicular. ***************************************************************** From Ric As noted in my earlier reply, the clouds were certainly a problem once they were down low. A very high moon could also have been difficult to observe from an aircraft with no astrodome. For whatever reason, (and none of us can know for sure), Noonan was not able to get the accurate position you feel he should have been able to get. It's also important to remember than anytime we find ourselves using the term "would have" in discussions like this it means we're guessing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:44:36 EDT From: Angelo Campanella Subject: BEVIS and McMenamy Palmer Bevis report of McMenany & monitor radio signal receptions in Los Angeles 2-7JUL37. In February of 1940, Palmer Bevis, hired previously by the "Amelia Earhart Foundation " of Oakland, sent a detailed report to Eleanor Roosevelt to inspire a new expedition to find AE. I quote from a copy of Bevis' report copied from the Roosevelt Library: That report includes an account of Walter McMenamy who was one of AE's previous radio experts that was noted for being able to " pick up AE's signals when others could not". The story goes that after Lockheed learned that AE was overdue, they called McMenamy and asked him to listen. In the company of another radio amateur, Karl Pierson, some signals were picked up that they "positively identified as being from the Earhart plane". Shortly after 11pm 2 July 37 (LA time, GGT-8= 07CGT 3JUL37, Howland +3:30 = 19:30 2JUL37, trip-hour 31), a weak signal was received on 6210kc, not understood. On another radio receiver set tuned to 3105kc in the same room, they heard two distinctly separate signals they say were from the Itasca and from the plane; apparently not hearing each other. [Itasca ship's log indicates searching near Howland at that time. I do not have Itasca radio log information for that time.] Early the morning of 3JUL37 (LA time) McMenamy & Pierson heard a distress signal on one of those frequencies, that McMenamy positively identified as being "...from the plane, poorly sent". All three radio operators now present in the room "state that this first SOS signal was repeated over and over again for about five minutes". Further distress calls and garbled attempts to give position were received until about 9am (06:30 Howland time). Some signals were sufficiently loud to be heard on the loudspeaker. On 3July the British cruiser HMS Achilles in the Pacific had reported that "at 11:30am we heard an unknown station on 3105kc make a report as follows: "Please give us a few dashes if you get us'. The station then repeated KHAQQ twice, then disappeared." Later, the Government San Francisco monitoring (receiving) station made several receptions with their antenna that was beamed to the pacific. The more credible (my opinion) were: 4JUL37 shortly before midnight (about Howland 9pm) Itasca was heard calling the plane, asking for an answer. Shortly after a carrier was heard on the Earhart frequency and this was reported 15 to 20 minutes past each hour until 9:05 the next morning 5JUL37 (Howland 5:35am). That same morning, McMenamy et al telephoned (to the monitor station?) to say that they picked up more Earhart signals - the "first in two days". They reported hearing the Itasca call Earhart, and also definite answering signals from the plane, the last of which ended "in a decided sputtering". At 6:17 the same morning (Howland 02:47 5JUL37) the monitor heard Itasca call KHAQQ, and a man's voice answered on the Earhart frequency. Only one word, "one", was distinguishable. The "Press Wireless" also reported hearing signals which they could not identify on the Earhart frequency. Howland Island (Itasca?) reported that same morning at 10:43 (5JUL37, but who's location?) hearing "KHAQQ" quoting a bearing of 281 degrees - with no reference & hence of no use. Pan American Airways also the same morning heard apparently the same signal on which they found a bearing of 155 degrees from Wake Island. The next morning - 6 JUL37 - a Los Angeles operator, Louis Messier, reported he heard a weak code signal at 3:30 am (Howland midnight). It was sent very slowly and Messier logged it as: "17 na u 61 4 southwes 1 23 sou owl 23 ja so not nx call equen 170 sou sec will sou nant now sou". (In my opinion, radio Hams might recognize some useful meanings from this poorly sent and received message.) The next morning (7JUL37) McMenamy and Pierson heard their last sounds from the Earhart frequency, a rippling carrier at 1:22am (Howland 9:52pm). This same effect was heard by Honolulu amateur stations from 9:17pm to 10:37pm (Howland 8:47pm to 10:07pm) the same day. Ang. Campanella 6JUN99. ***************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. I wasn't aware of the Bevis Report and I'd love to have a copy of the complete report for our files. This information illustrates the difficulties in assessing the post-loss messages. Walt McMenamy is a problem. He represented himself as "one of AE's previous radio experts" but we've never been able to find any independent documentation to back that up. He and Pierson got lots of media attention at the time of the disappearance but McMenamy later made all kinds of wild claims about the Navy and secret missions. I have a 1955 audio tape of an interview with him that should be called the Butthead Report. I suspect that we could have a lot fun with the fragmented message reported by Messier, but in the end it would all be guessing. I think that the best we can say about the post-loss messages is that some of them may have been genuine but there is no way to tell for sure - yet. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:52:04 EDT From: Angelo Campanella Subject: The CHATER (Lae) New Guinea Airways report. Chater (Lae) Report Details Eric H. Chater (New Guineas Airways Manager) on 25 July 1937 wrote a detailed report to a Maurice.E. Griffin of Placer Management Ltd of San Franciso. (Also,a Frank W. Griffin was a bystander in San Francisco.) Eric Chater was a direct witness to AE preparations, departure and some later radio message receptions in Lae. I provide the following excerpts on such timing events: On 6:35am 1JUL37 AE did a 30 minute communications test flight. Two-way communications was established with the New Guinea Airways Lae station. The Lae operator also sent out a long dash while AE tried to get an RDF null. She later said she was unable to get a minimum and concluded that the Lae station was "... too powerful and too close.". AE delayed takeoff that day subject to getting an accurate time signal for Noonan's chronometer. It was not until 10:20pm that night after all east Australian coastal stations requested shipping to maintain 10 minutes of radio silence while the Adelaide time signal was transmitted. This was then received clearly in Lae and FN duly found his chronometer to be 3 seconds slow. At 8am the next morning, 2JUL37, FN found a time signal from Saigon to check exactly the same. Therefore, FN was "calibrated" +- one second or better, in my opinion. It was Chater's opinion that the plane carried 1100 US gallons of fuel overall when it took off. It was his understanding that the plane had a full-fuel capacity of 1150 US gallons. The New Guinea personnel filled all tanks with 87 octane fuel except one 81-gallon tank that was "already about half-full" with 100 octane fuel for take-off purposes. It was agreed by AE for her to transmit 18 minutes past each hour to report her enroute weather encountered. Due to local 6210kc interference, the first such report was not until 2:18 (trip-hour 4:18) stating "Height 7000 feet Speed 140 knots...". At 3:19 (t-h 5:19) "Height 10000 feet Position 150.7 east 7.3 south Cumulus Clouds..". At 5:18 (t-h 7:19) AE reported "Position 4.33 south 159.7 east Height 8000 feet over cumulus clouds Wind 23 knots. No further radio signals were picked up. by Lae New Guinea Airways. Chater believes that AE switched to 3105kc in her belief that it was better for night radio wave propagation. Chater says that "..both AE and FN could read Morse Code letters only if sent very slowly and repeated often. Consequently, the radio direction finding apparatus on the Electra would be useless or misleading unless the radio station used voice for identification". Ang. Campanella 6JUN99 **************************************************************** From Ric The importance of the Chater letter can hardly be overstated and, I'm proud to say, it came to light in 1991 as a direct result of TIGHAR's work. You'll find the entire report on the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:00:35 EDT From: Angelo Campanella Subject: Re: TIME???? In working through the promised "diagram", I foud a lot of references, which in addition to my interprtation of the 3JUL37 telegram, two of which (Chater and Bevis reports) I will separtely detail in two separate additional message. re "Telegram" Nauru Intercepts Timings: I interpret the timings of the 3July 37 Telegram from Sydney to DCA this way: The telegram origin place and time is Sydney, 10PM 3JUL37(12 GCT 3JUL37) (Washington time 07am 3JUL37). It relays that in their morning, at 6:31, 6:43 and 6:54 (Howland times 9:01, 9:13 and 9:54, and through the trip-hours 21:01 to 21:54) Sydney heard "..strong signals, speech unintelligible, no hum..., voices familiar..". Sydney also states that previously, between Sydney hours 4:30-9:30pm (Trip-hours 6:30 through 11:30) they heard clear broadcasts from AE. In particular one message at 8:30pm (trip-hour 10:30) that Sydney reckons that AE was "at least 60 miles south of Nauru "...ship in sight...". Sydney stated further that Nauru and Suva are maintaining continuous watch. The telegram reception time in Washington is 2:42pm. That implies 7-3/4 hours in transit, in my opinion credible for a 1937 relayed-radio message. Ang. Campanella 6JUN99. ***************************************************************** From Ric No. Your statement that "It (the telegram) relays that in their morning, at 6:31, 6:43 and 6:54 (Howland times 9:01, 9:13 and 9:54, and through the trip-hours 21:01 to 21:54) Sydney heard "..strong signals, speech unintelligible, no hum..., voices familiar..". is incorrect. The telegram specifically states that it was Nauru, not Sydney, that heard the transmissions and that they were received at "6.31, 6.43 AND 6.54 PM SYDNEY TIME TODAY." The messages were not heard in the morning. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:04:47 EDT From: Angelo Campanella Subject: Ground Radar? On a 'way out' topic, what has been your opinion of ground radar to find metal object in the bush? I have an OSU colleague in town that has built "ice radar" sets for the OSU Antarctic expeditions for finding under-snow and ice metal. Range seems to be a few dozen feet. I know no more, but the Island brush and jungle face pose a similar screening problem. Ang. **************************************************************** From Ric We've looked at GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) several times as a possible technology for use at Niku but at this time its limitations in the island environment far outweigh any possible benefit. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:11:40 EDT From: Angelo Campanella Subject: Ground Radar (Any Aircraft Radar Altimeter) Colleague Frank Huffman, K8OVP gives the following: For locating metal objects (1'-10' in size) at short range (5-100' or more), surplus aircraft radar altimeters have been found to be most practical. A PPI display of some sort is needed. Useful units have ranged from the APN-1 (operating at 400 mHz, 75 cm wavelength) through the APN-22 (4 gHz = 7.5 cm). The commercial SCR-714 is also useful. The larger ones are sled-mounted (to find things buried under ice). Frank also says that a JPL scientist, Alina Moussessian (alina.moussessian@jpl.nasa.gov) has recently converted such sets into ice radars. Frank suggests ideally that these could be flown over the suject terrain in a helicopter, looking for "strong" return blips. Hand-carried up a tree is a viable alternative. My thought was taht even beamed horizontally while walking on the dsurface, it still beats slogging through every square yard of overgrown jungle-bush. You would beam it at right angles to your walking path, looking for strong blips. Strips at least 50' wide (SWAG) could be searched that way. Ang. ***************************************************************** From Ric There's a big difference between towing a GPR sled over ice and trying to use it horizontally to see through vegetation. There are vegetation-penetrating versions of GPR that have been deployed from the air but they're a lot more complicated, larger and heavier than a little aircraft radar altimeter. We've been down this road. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:19:12 EDT From: Don Subject: Re: Wreck Photo This is sort of off the record, but I want to recant my earlier post where I expressed skepticism regarding the wreck photo. Last week I had purchased a book about Amelia and was flipping through some of the photo pages and they had a side shot of the Electra after it crashed in Hawaii. The picture is a shot of the starboard engine at night with the brightest part of the flash from the camera reflecting off the forward most section of the ring cowl and you can distinctly see where the ring cowl separates from what appears to be panels just aft of it. All photos I have seen prior to this failed to reveal that seam which led me to believe that the cowling of of the Electra's engine was a different type construction than that of the wreck photo. Just when I was about to "humbug" the wreck photo away, I am starting to see it in a new light and find myself again sitting here staring at it. I suppose it is more conversation than help but only fair to recant earlier comments made regarding this photo. **************************************************************** From Ric I hope you don't mind that I posted this. It came in as a submitted posting rather than a private message and you said it is "sort of" off the record. Anyway, I'm always happy to post recantation of heresy. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:31:09 EDT From: Angelo Campanella Subject: Re: Time Zone headaches >1. The first information came from a radio intercept by the Itasca from >Radio station KPH (Bolimas Radio, near San Francisco) to the CG radio >station in San Francisco. It was received sometime between 2 and 3AM on >July3 local time (101X GMT time - based upon the raw radio transcripts): >"NMC de KPF following from VKT (radio Nauru) voice heard fairly strong sigs >strength to S3 0843 0854 GMT 48.31 meters speech not interpreted owing bad >modulation or speaker shouting into microphone but 3S ce similar to that >emitted from plane in flight last night with exception no hum on plane in >back ground bkt has not yet contacted with NRUI on 500 kcs VIS gives es >Hearing voice about 1000 GMT. PSE that to NRUI". I presume that NRUI the Itasca radio call sign. I read this as an "intercept" by the Itasca of West Coast radio traffic not primarily directed to the Itasca. In that case,we need a more primary reference: The San Francisco CG monitor radio log for instance. The problem with the Sydney message, relayed and unfortunately paraphrased "6:31, 6:43 and 6:54 today.." omitted the am/pm distinction. But they did use the pm distinction in referencing events the afternoon and evening before. I took the absence of pm to infer "am". Granted, the Itasca log quotes GMT values. Was that yet another paraphrasing action, or was it literal? Only Sydney, Nauru and San Francisco radio logs (not commercial news releases) can add better facts. (BTW, for the record, in your past TIGHAR tracks you refer to an earlier Itasca log entry "... NRUI2 DE NRUI1 P AR 0800-0803...". Was that the Itasca calling Cipriani on Howland island who was using an HF-RDF set trying unsuccessfully to get directional bearings on AE still en route?) (Also, my referencing an AE final flight westward was based on my confusion of your favored Nikumaroro (Gardner) Island with Nikunau Island that I thought your meant - and in the Gilberts, previously overflown by AE). **************************************************************** From Ric You say that the Itasca log quotes GMT values. Where does it do that? The radio logs all use local time as does the deck log. As I recall, NRUI1 was Ciprianni but I'm not sure who NRUI2 was. Randy (Jacobson), do you know? If AE and FN were on course the only island of the Gilberts they should have flown over was Tabetuia and, indeed, in 1940 people on that island told the captain of an American yacht seeking information about Earhart that they had heard a plane pass high overhead that night. As witness testimony goes it's pretty shaky, but that's what was reported. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:38:30 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Fiji Update Terry wrote: >if we cannot be there on Niku with >you, then we'll contribute to the effort. >Love to Mother (and the entire Niku team) Absolutely - my donation for the same sum is in the post. Look at it as an investment in brain exercise. How much would you spend on membership of a gym or a pair of running shoes? LTM, Phil 2276 ****************************************************************** From Ric Look at that! And Phil's a Brit! He doesn't even get a tax deduction. Okay, who's next? Tell you what - everyone who pledges $100 in the next week gets a FREE video tape of this summer's expedition (and you thought it was going to cost you 50 bucks). So far we have two - Terry Phil only 621 forum subscribers to go. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:22:02 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Time out ? I haven't had so many headaches since I was trying to learn how to analyze simple electrical circuits using ohms law. Knowing that hundreds of people have covered all this before, makes me hesitant to point this out. From the Tighar website ( Log Jam ): "The previous evening the ship received word that Earhart had departed Lae at 00:00 Greenwich time (10:00 a.m. in Lae and 11:30 a.m. at Howland) that morning and should be expected at Howland 18 hours later, or 05:30 a.m. on July 2nd." I am looking at a flat " World Map " with meridians that have a little clock at the bottom, every 15 deg.s is one hour difference. Starting at 0 deg. meridian ( 0000 Greenwich time, GCT/GMT ? ) I move westward 11 hours to 165 deg. W. long. Howland island is just short of the 180 deg. meridian, between 165 deg, W. Long. and 180 deg.s. I can understand 11:30 a.m. From Howland I keep moving westward. I pass the 180 deg. meridian, the 165 deg. E. Long. meridian and the 150 deg. E. Long. meridian, each one of these is 1 hr difference, before reaching Lae N.G. I seems to me that there is a TWO ( 2 ) hour difference between Lae and Howland island. Daryll *************************************************************** From Ric And you are correct - for 1999. But in 1937 the Navy and the Coast Guard were using half-hour time zones in the Central Pacific. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:19:00 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Expedition Funding This could work. Yesterday (6/7) we had two $100 contributions by Terry Linley #2297 Phil Tanner #2276 toward our $50,000 shortfall for this summer's field work in the Pacific (Fiji Bone Search and Niku Recon). I offered to give each $100 contributor a copy of the video we'll produce from tape we'll shoot during those expeditions. In the past 24 hours the following forum subscribers have responded with pledges: Tom King, 0391CEB - who is also sponsoring two additional video recipients. We suggest - Tom Crouch, Chairman of Aeronautics at NASM - who thinks Niku is a small island. Rollin Reineck, author of numerous captured-by-the-Japanese articles. Also responding were - Tom Abran #2296 Peter Boor #0856C Jim Tierney #0821 Mark Cameron (not yet a member but we're no less grateful for his support) Dean Andrea #2056 Dave Eberle #0921 Dennis McGee #0149CE who says - Let's see, for $100 I can fix my air conditioner or support the Niku expedition and give up the A/C for the summer. Hm-m-m-m, what's a guy to do? I think I'll make the donation. Then, I'll go out to the Chesapeake Bay and net a few of Blue Crabs, throw the crabs and some sand on the living room floor, drag my brush pile inside, and it will be just like being on Niku. Crabs, sand, rotting vegetation, and sweltering heat. Hey man, it doesn't get any better than that! The only thing missing will be those cool tropical evening breezes wafting over our semi-naked bodies in the twinkling starlight as we sing camp songs and tell ghost stories. The check is in the mail. LTM, who prefers the Hyatt Dennis McGee, #0149CE ****************************************************************** Right. That's 12 so far and our $50,000 shortfall is now a $48,800 shortfall. There are still 611 forum subscribers we're waiting to hear from. Who's next? Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:23:38 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Time Zone headaches >You say that the Itasca log quotes GMT values. Where does it do that? The >radio logs all use local time as does the deck log. > >As I recall, NRUI1 was Cipriani but I'm not sure who NRUI2 was. Randy >(Jacobson), do you know? The source is from Thompson's radio transcripts, and it was intercepted and not expressly meant for them. The GMT time stamp, if accurate, matches all other information (the cable and references to it). If it was AM, then it wouldn't match. Nauru had two time zones, if I remember correctly, neither of which were +or-12. One was 11 (civil), the other was 11.5 for official business. NRUI2 was Howland Island. I don't believe NRUI1 is accurate; I'd have to check the originals and I am on travel for a couple of weeks. Randy *************************************************************** From Ric I checked the original logs. You're correct. NRUI2 is Howland (Cipriani). There is no NRUI1. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:47:41 EDT From: Don Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Lightning holes? I never really looked at them as lightning holes, they looked more like holes in the wing spar used for strengthening. I'm sure it has a shear beam, and if I am correct, it is actually two beams riveted together in case the wing ever cracked from stress or corrosion, this would allow for the structure to remain intact without completely snapping it in half, but you are saying that this is not the beam at all - interesting. I spent about an hour today looking at the super high resolution image hoping to find "serial numbers" but came across some strange lines instead, especially on top of the sloping treeline in the background. I wonder if the type of film used for this picture or maybe the brownie camera itself caused all those lines which makes the image look as though it has been cropped together. ('visions of Oswald holding that gun run through my mind') And the glare! That drove me nutz. The glare in back of the engine is irritating as well. Everytime I got close to really seeing something, my 64 megs of ram would crap out and my system reboots. It is a very interesting image, reeks of conspiracy. I love it. Ill take this over the alt.binaries any day. I've been trying to find actual blue prints of the Lockheed's structure on the internet, anyone have any information where they might be. Im sure there is a drawing or two out there somewhere. As always, many thanks. **************************************************************** From Ric Not lightning holes ( I guess that would be holes caused by lightning strikes). Those are lightening holes - holes to lighten the structure without reducing its strength. The Electra wing structure is very unusual. As shown in the Research Bulletin on the TIGHAR website, the Lockheed 10 has precisely the structure that appears in the wreck photo. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:14:14 EDT From: Bethpage Subject: Mischarted. I read that Howland Island's position was given wrong--placing it just a few (6?) miles northwest of its true position--in some charts that may have been used by Noonan. Is this true? ************************************************************** From Ric It is true that Howland's position as plotted by Clarence Williams (a chart-preparer hired by Earhart prior to the first world flight attempt) was off by about 5 nm, but it is not at all clear whether Earhart and Noonan had updated and correct information at the time of the July 2nd flight. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:16:50 EDT From: Angelo Campanella Subject: Re: Time Zone headaches Ric wrote: >You say that the Itasca log quotes GMT values. Where does it do that? The >radio logs all use local time as does the deck log. I give you part of your (Randy?) message provided previously: >From Randy Jacobson 1364 > >Time zones are such a headache. Let me confuse the forum some more with >facts. >1. The first information came from a radio intercept by the Itasca from >Radio station KPH (Bolimas Radio, near San Francisco) to the CG radio >station in San Francisco. It was received sometime between 2 and 3AM on >July3 local time (101X GMT time - based upon the raw radio transcripts): >"NMC de KPF following from VKT (radio Nauru) voice heard fairly strong sigs >strength to S3 0843 0854 GMT 48.31 meters speech not interpreted owing bad >modulation or speaker shouting into microphone but 3S ce similar to that >emitted from plane in flight last night with exception no hum on plane in >back ground bkt has not yet contacted with NRUI on 500 kcs VIS gives es >Hearing voice about 1000 GMT. PSE that to NRUI". Note that A-Inferred is an intercept (reception) by the Itasca. B-Quoted is the GMT qualifier. Question: Who's deed was it to install the GMT qualifier in this message statement? I notice some apparent errors in that paragraph: '3S ce' may be a corrupted reception of the word 'voice'. 'bkt' may be a corruption of 'VKT' >As I recall, NRUI1 was Cipriani but I'm not sure who NRUI2 was. Randy >(Jacobson), do you know? My understanding of sub-station#1 and sub-station#2 is that the main station is implicitly #1 and hence not usually stated. But if a sub-station is created, it is designated #2 while the main station assumes the suffix of #1. Hence I believe that Itasca was NRUI1 while Cipriani as a shore detachment from the Itasca was designated NRUI2. I think that this process is the knee-jerk reaction of communications personnel. In that case, the 8:03 entry was a run-together entry, as you already noted had become a convention on that very busy morning in the Itasca radio room. Ang. ***************************************************************** From Ric I think I see where the problem is. You and Randy both seem to be using the message as it appears in Cdr. Warner Thompson's (captain of the Itasca) report entitled "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" dated 19 July 1937 as a source for the messages. (The GMT notation is Thompson's.) The message as it appears in Thompson's report is actually a paraphasing of the original telegram sent to the Secretary of State. You're struggling to explain ambiguities that don't exist in the original message. The original telegram (on file at the National Archives) reads: From Sydney N.S.W. via Tutuila and N.R. Dated July 3, 1937 Received 2:42 p.m. July 3, 10 p.m. Amalgamated Wireless state information received that report from Peru (corrected to "Nauru") was sent to Bolinas radio "at 6.31, 6.43 and 6.54 p.m. Sydney time today on 48.31 meters, fairly strong signals, speech not intelligible, no hum of plane in background but voice similar that emitted from plane in flight last night between 4.30 and 9.30 p.m." Message from plane when at least 60 miles south of Nauru received 8.30 p.m., Sydney time, July second saying "a ship in sight ahead". since identified as steamer MYRTLEBANK which arrived Nauru daybreak today. Continuous watch being maintained by Nauru radio and Suva radio. Doyle NRUI was Itasca's call sign. NRUI2 was Cipriani's sub-station on Howland. There was no NRUI1. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:39:30 EDT From: Darrell Houghton Subject: Re: Expedition Funding Wish I had the 20 grand to join you on the expedition. The next best thing would be a copy of the video tape, so charge my credit card for $100. Darrell Houghton 2188 ****************************************************************** From Dave Morris I am so new to this forum I am uncertain as how to respond. I want to donate to the trip, and will do so in 2 checks, as I am a student (old man though! 32 :) ) and have all the bills that accompany the search for a better education. $100 is a small investment in history and peace of mind for those closely involved, and those who have a familial tie to Ms. Earhart and Mr. Noonan. One can only hope for the success of the expedition, and any effort toward this end must be made as achievable as possible. I am certain TIGHAR will meet their goal. I know if I can cough up a few stray dollars anyone on this forum can as well! So please follow the lead and contribute as you are able. Now, what is that address for the check again ahahh. Dave Morris PS I have to secure a membership as well, and will do so promptly! **************************************************************** From Ric I'd say you reponded perfectly. That's 14 heros as of 14:20 on 6/8/99. By name: Terry Linley #2297 Phil Tanner #2276 Tom King #0391CEB Tom Crouch (courtesy of Tom King) Rollin Reineck (courtesy of Tom King) Tom Abran #2296 Peter Boor #0856C Jim Tierney #0821 Mark Cameron (not yet a member but we're no less grateful for his support) Dean Andrea #2056 Dave Eberle #0921 Dennis McGee #0149CE Darrell Houghton #2188 Dave Morris (number pending) What if this summer's work finds the proverbial "smoking gun" that ends 62 years of speculation and solves The Last Great American Mystery? It could be bones in Fiji or airplane wreckage on Nikumaroro, or both. What if that happened and your name wasn't on this list? How would you explain that to your grandchildren? (Yeah, I knew all about it but I wasn't part of it.) Did I mention that everyone who helps sponsor the work will get a credit on the video? Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:36:02 EDT From: Rolling Reineck Subject: Re: Expedition Funding I vehemently object to any one giving you money in my name. I have personally and proudly paid for all my reserch and have no intention of contributing one single penny to you personally or through some surrogate. **************************************************************** From Ric Try not to take it so hard. Nobody is suggesting that you're a TIGHAR supporter and it was my idea, not Tom King's, to send you a video when it's completed. Think of it as a gift from me to you. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:56:34 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Expedition Funding > Think of it as a gift from me to you. I don't accept charity. I pay my way. **************************************************************** From Ric Okay. Have it your way. Make the check payable to TIGHAR. It's tax deductible. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:02:59 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Donations?? Ok, so this may be a bit off-topic, but what the heck. Rollie said: >I vehemently object to any one giving you money in >my name. I have personally and proudly paid for all my reserch and have >no intention of contributing one single penny to you personally or >through some surrogate. Rollie believes he is too proud to take a gift from TIGHAR but obviously isn't too proud to hang around the table and pick up whatever scraps he can by reading the forum. Notice how Rollie twists the facts in one short sentence; like a lot of conspiracy buffs, he has trouble keeping the facts straight. TIGHAR, the organization, is soliciting donations, but Rollie turns that around telling Ric he will not give "one single penny to you personally . . . " Ok, Rollie, don't give a donation to Ric. Give a donation to TIGHAR. And Rollie . . . lighten up, dude. Life is terminal, but it's not serious. LTM, who abhors freeloaders Dennis McGee #0149CE ***************************************************************** From Ric Now, now...let us not be harsh. This is a free and open forum and we do not begrudge anyone's benefiting from the erudition of our esteemed contributors. Besides, I'm not sure that it is very respectful for you to refer to a retired USAF colonel as "Rollie." Love to mother, Lieutenant Gillespie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:27:13 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Time fix There might be some Forum members who are wondering why the timing of some of the radio messages are of interest to others. Some believe that the radio transmissions that Nauru heard. >.....VKT (radio Nauru) voice heard fairly strong sigs strength to S3 >0843 0854 GMT 48.31 meters speech not interpreted owing bad modulation >or speaker shouting into microphone but 3S ce similar to that emitted >from plane in flight last night with exception no hum on plane in back >ground ... Came at or near the close of AE/FN's flight ( i.e. fuel exhaustion ) in the morning. Some believe that those transmissions came in the evening, after the aircraft had been down for a few hours. I keep remembering the last part of the Morganthau transcript of May, 1938. "... And we have the report of all those wireless messages and everything else, what that woman - happened to her the last few minutes. I hope I've just got to never make it public, I mean.- O.K. - Well, still if she wants it, I'll tell her - I mean what happened. It isn't a very nice story. - Well, yes. There isn't anything additional to something like that....... You ( Gibbons ) know the story, don't you? "Gibbons: We have evidence that the thing is all over, sure. Terrible. It would be awful to make it public..." I haven't seen any official radio messages that even come close to explaining Morganthau's impression of AE's last few minutes. It seems that Mr. Morganthau's statement is in consideration of the next-of-kin. Or Gibbons statement of "evidence" that they have. Then Capt. Safford in his manuscript makes the unfounded statement: ".....the ELECTRA would have been sighted while still afloat , Miss Earhart rescued alive, and Capt. Noonan's body at least recovered....." Where does Capt. Safford's notion come from that AE survived the crash and Capt. Noonan did not? It makes me wonder if VKT Radio Nauru is the source for the impressions that Mr. Morganthau, Mr. Gibbons, and Capt. Safford have. How unintelligible was the voice that VKT heard ? Daryll ****************************************************************** From Ric We have established beyond any reasonable doubt, from primary source documents, that Nauru heard the transmissions in question in the evening, not the morning. Therefore, any conclusion that Safford may have drawn based upon his mistaken belief that the transmissions were heard while the aircraft was still in flight are in error. As far as anyone knows, Morgenthau's only source of information was Thompson's radio transcripts report and possibly a personal interview with Thompson himself. We know that Thompson was putting considerable spin on the story to exonerate himself by painting Earhart as incompetent and insisting that she hit the water shortly after her 08:43 transmission. From what I've seen, if there's a culprit in the Earhart disappearance it's not Moregnthau, or FDR, or Emperor Hirohito. It's Commander Warner K. Thompson, USCG, commanding officer ITASCA. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:35:03 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Time Zone headaches As for some of the "corruptions" in the message, addressed below, I offer this further comment. I hope it makes sense and helps more than it hinders. > 1. The first information came from a radio intercept by the Itasca from > Radio station KPH (Bolimas Radio, near San Francisco) to the CG radio > station in San Francisco. It was received sometime between 2 and 3AM on > July3 local time (101X GMT time - based upon the raw radio transcripts): > "NMC de KPF following from VKT (radio Nauru) voice heard fairly strong > sigs strength to S3 0843 0854 GMT 48.31 meters speech not interpreted owing > bad modulation or speaker shouting into microphone but 3S ce similar to that > emitted from plane in flight last night with exception no hum on plane in > back ground bkt has not yet contacted with NRUI on 500 kcs VIS gives es > Hearing voice about 1000 GMT. PSE that to NRUI". > > I notice some apparent errors in that paragraph: > '3S ce' may be acorrupted reception of the word 'voice'. I agree with this. "VOICE" is sent as "di-di-di-dah/dah-dah-dah/di-dit/dah-di-dah-dit/dit" "3S ce" is sent "di-di-di-dah-dah/di-di-dit dah-di-dah-dit/dit" Actually there is no upper and lower case in morse. As for the space between 3S and ce, there's no morse character for a "space" either. Spacing is inserted naturally by the operator as he/she perceives the interval between the di-dah groups for individual letters. What this "3S ce" looks like, to me, is a garble, a mis-copy, or a very tired operator using a hand key and his wrist is starting to lock up on him (been there,done that, got the shirt!). > 'bkt' may be a corr