Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:26:38 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: precomputing

bethpage98 asks:

<<I have never seen what tables of corrections for parallax or
refraction were available in 1937.  Has this already been looked into by
TIGHAR researchers?>>

Air navigation tables for 1937 reside in our library: the Libary
of Congress.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:30:20 EDT
From:         Jim Thompson
Subject:      Bushnell Survey

Pat,
  Thank you for posting my request for more information about naval survey methods that may have been used for the Bushnell survey. I've noted a few questions about aspects of my post. Here is a response. I've included a note at the end asking anyone interested in more info to contact me directly.

Thank you.

The Bushnell survey contains four sheets number 9, 10, 43, and 45. No. 10 is 1:20000
scale, No. 9 is 1:7500 scale, and both No. 43 and No. 45 are 1:5000 scale. The large scale maps are concerned with the island itself; the smaller scale maps are concerned with the ocean. No. 43 contains depth information for the southern "half" of the lagoon; No. 45 concerns the northern part of the lagoon. Sheet No. 10 covers the area bounded approximately by latitude S4.58 - S4.77 and longitude W174.37 - W174.65. Sheet No. 9 covers the area bounded approximately by latitude S4.64 - S4.71 and longitude W174.47 - W174.56. Note that although Sheet 10 includes the area of Sheet 9, there is only blank space where Sheet 9 would fit [actually there appear to be cut lines where a
(reduced) Sheet 9 could be inserted.] 

 Sheets 43 and 45 indicate a total of 22 (survey?) stations arranged around the perimeter
of the island and perimeter of the lagoon. Clockwise from the northernmost tip of the
island, the ocean-side sites are: "Tow", "And"(which appears on Sheet No. 10 only),
"Line", "Base" "Ile", "Ner"[the southernmost ocean-side site], "Den", "Gar", "Age", "Vil", "Bri", and "Rec" (a.k.a. "Rex"). The lagoon-side sites (again going clockwise from the north) are "End", "Mark"(which appears on Sheet No. 45 only), "In", "Sid"[the southernmost lagoon-side site], "The", "Nog" (a.k.a. "Nug"), "Wit" and "Astro".

Site "Astro" located at  S4 40 18.6 W174 32 27.7 is listed as "origin" on Sheet No. 9. In
addition, there are notations of "80' tower" at three of the sites: "Tow", "Line", and "Base" (a.k.a. "Bas" on one sheet). For reference, "Line" is about 11 deg NW of Bauareke Passage, "Base" is about 30 deg NE of the Passage.

As mentioned in my previous post, I am interested in knowing how the station names may
be derived. Although "Vil" is in the area near the 1938-1963 village,"Tow" is near one of the previously mentioned towers, and "Rec"/"Rex" is near the S.S. Norwich City, are these merely coincidences or was there some methodology used on such surveys?

Because this all is somewhat off-topic, please respond to me directly if you have any
thoughts on the matter. 
Thank you.

james thompson (2185)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:40:41 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: Sunrise observation

Vern Klein wrote:
        (clip)
> Fred knew it was not going to be easy.  Everyone knew it was not going to be
>  easy.  I think there is little doubt that Fred had given this a lot of
>  thought long before they left Lae.  He knew full well that, if they were
>  near Howland but could not sight it, there was only one way to go.  He knew
>  what bearing to fly to get into the Phoenix island group.  If they flew a
>  heading of about 157 degrees from somewhere near Howland, it would take them
>  to the Phoenix Islands.
         (clip)

-----Yup, and Fred Noonan wrote in one of his Pan-Am reports after a long
cross-water leg, that he considered radio direction finding mandatory to find
an island after a long cross-water flight, even though he didn't trust RDF
entirely.  Question is: why did Fred agree to the Lae-Howland leg without
a trailing-wire antenna?   LTM(who is always getting lost),  HAG 2201.

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

Maybe because the Electra's own RDF system didn't use a trailing wire.  The
trailing wire's only function, as I understand it, would have been to allow
efficient transmission of morse code signals on 500 KCS, the marine emergency
frequency.   That frequency would also have been within Itasca's capapability
for taking DF bearings.  The plan, however, (at least as the Coast Guard
understood it ) was for Itasca to be the passive partner in the DF process.
The ship would transmit signals upon which the plane would  take bearings.  A
trailing wire would play no role in that procedure.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:42:50 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 39/40 Bushnell survey

> Ric and I have had a number of arugments about this...one tower
> is quite close to the location of the shoe remnants.  It is entirely
> possible that the fire remains as well may be due to that Bushnell
> party.
>
> ************************
>
> Well, the can label dated the fire we found to th 1970s or later---the bar
> code, you know.

Yeah, but those nasty aliens and Voyager crew knew about time travel....
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:55:39 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Sunrise observation

Vern wrote:

> He knew what bearing to fly to get into the Phoenix island group.  If they flew a
> heading of about 157 degrees from somewhere near Howland, it would take
>them to the Phoenix Islands.  Actually, the Sunrise LoP had nothing to do with
> that.  157 degrees, more or less, is just the direction to the Phoenix
> Islands from Howland Island.  Any other direction would take them over
> more open water than they had fuel enough to cross.

Good post, Vern!  Actually, on one of the old Nat'l Geographic Maps in the
Earhart collection at Purdue has the island of Canterbury underlined.  If
FN wanted to go towards the Phoenix (or is it Pheonix?) Islands, he would
lay in a course for the middle of the group from Howland, and take that
line (about 154 degrees), not 157 degrees.  It would give him the best
chance of at least sighting one island if he was off on the E/W position
around Howland.  Lots of ifs and speculation, but at least it makes sense.

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

From Ric

Canterbury Island?  The map in question actually has both Canton and
Enderbury islands underlined in pencil.  Those happen to be the islands of
the Phoenix Group for which the U.S. was claiming ownership.  There are also
pencil marks to the north and south of Howland which roughly correspond to
the aircraft's anticipated max fuel range. We don't know when the marks on
the map date from (1st attempt, 2nd attempt or post-loss).
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:03:47 EDT
From:         JT
Subject:      Re: Home Again

A hearty congratulations and some well-earned sleep for the TIGHAR team!
Reading and digesting (burp...excuse me) the digest daily was a
mind-expanding exercise.

If I had a hat on, I'd take it off to you all.  Anyone critical of your
hard work, policies, etc. should be summarily tarred & feathered (Pat,
you have the honors).  You all should be held in the highest regard!

LTM (who would probably say, "I'm so proud to be your Mom.")

                           JT

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I seem to have lost some weight and don't wish to mar my image.  I
cannot reveal exactly how much weight.  I can only say that had I lost
ten more pounds, I would have had to file a missing persons report.

               -Alfred Hitchcock
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:29:32 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Bushnell Survey

Regarding the Bushnell Survey:

What was its purpose?  Who ordered it?

Have the reports from this survey been located?  If not, where might they
be, if they exist today?

Was this possibly in connection with some sort of radio nav-aid?  (At this
stage it would not, I believe, be LORAN... this system did not come into
being until a little later, proposed in 1941 and entering the test phase in
July 1942... but it was developed from the principles behind the British GEE
system, which operated at a much higher frequency, around 200 MHz if I
recall correctly).

Could this nav-aid been something for use by Pan American Airways?  Could
our PAA historians tell us if the airline was contemplating route expansion
into British or Dutch territory?  (My impression, which may be faulty, is
that PAA was primarily concerned with China and the Phillippines, plus the
US possessions in the Pacific).

Why was the US Navy or USCG conducting a survey of a British island, at this
stage?

Now for the big question...

If the Bushnell survey was so extensive as to require the clearing of land
to erect these four big towers... then this must have required a LOT of
people.  (Ever tried putting up an 80 foot tower, on a prepared site? ...
let alone, in tropical jungle and heat?)

Surely somebody saw  -- or even plotted? -- the wreckage of the aircraft if
it was on the reef.  It must have been a lot more intact than when the later
colonists saw it.  Wonder if it was reported?  Wonder if anyone went out
there to investigate it?  Surely someone must have.  Yes, I know, this is
not always a correct assumption to make... a freighter hulk is one thing;
but, an airplane?  When there were none for hundreds of miles?  I think
somebody might have gone for a look-see.

73

Mike E. #2194

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

The survey of Gardner was part of a massive mapping of many of the islands of
the Central Pacific.  It was done by the U.S. Navy and was probably part of
general strategic planning as the political situation in the Pacific
deteriorated.   The British were not especially pleased but went along with
the survey of the Phoenix Group.

We're not sure how many men were involved but the survey seems to have been
accomplished between November 28 and December 5, 1939 - that's only a week.
The work of the on-the-ground team from Bushnell was augmented by an aerial
photo-mosaic taken the previous April 30th by a floatplane launched from the
seaplane tender U.S.S. Pelican.

To our knowledge, nobody mentioned, much less plotted, any aircraft wreckage
on the reef.  But I would caution about drawing any conclusions about what
someone MUST have noticed or what condition the wreck MUST have been in.
Emily Sikuli seems to have arrived at the island very shortly after the
Bushnell survey team departed.  She described the wreckage as being only a
few pieces of heavy structure, very rusted, and visible near the edge of the
reef "where the waves break" only at low tide.  Nothing she saw from the
beach was obviously an airplane.  The common knowledge that it was an
airplane came from native fisherman who had been out to look at it some time
earlier.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:36:40 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      One for the conspiracy theorists

Noting Ric's comment that:

"The discussions about breaking Japanese codes, while interesting, are way
off topic.  I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the Japanese played any
significant role in the Earhart story - period."

-- I have to mention that in typing up my notes on our first interview with
Foua Tofiga, I have the following:

"In 1937 (vague about date), he was on Tarawa (at St. Joseph's, apparently),
remembers being sent out with others onto the reef to look for a boat or
dinghy.  A plane flew over; he was told it was Japanese, from the Marshall
Islands.  Apparently associates this with AE disappearance (TK: My impression
was he meant that he and others had been sent out in response to some report
or assumption about AE floating around in a boat.  Probably should pursue)."

This was literally one of the first things Mr. Tofiga said, and it quickly
got submerged in discussion of the Kanawa box, the bones, the sextant box,
Vaskess, Emily, etc. etc.  So we never returned to it.  It's scarcely
"evidence," being a 60-year-old recollection of seeing something as a child
(albeit something VERY unusual at the time) and being told by somebody what
it was, but there it is, for what it's worth.

LTM (who didn't follow up on it either)
Tom King

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

Swell.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:43:11 EDT
From:         Choirgirl
Subject:      Re: Noonan's seat

Excuse me, but Fred Nooman was drunk. He had sworn off drinking but broke his
promise and was drinking the night before in Lae. Amelia was NOT a good
navagator, that's why she had Fred but he wasn't much help. He was
drunken--he couldn't navagate or fly!!
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for straightening us out on that.  Just cite your sources and we'll be
happy to consider your opinion on Noonan's character and various spelling
issues.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:45:27 EDT
From:         William
Subject:      Re: Home Again

> 1.  Barring any last minute revelations, no bones were
> located in Fiji that
> were consistent with the bones known to have been sent there
> in 1941.

This is no surprise. Although continuing "reasonable" searches for them is
necessary, after 58 years of obscurity, they may very well no longer exist,
or be so dispersed as to be unretrievable in practical terms.

> 3.  In Fiji, valuable contacts and cooperative associations
> were made which...may eventually lead us to the sextant box and perhaps
> even the bones.

This possibility has obviously increased because of TIGHAR's efforts this
month.

> 5.  New, totally unexpected, and highy credible anecdotal
> reports from two
> independent primary sources indicate that the early settlers
> on Nikumaroro in
> 1939/1940 were well aware of an airplane wreck on the
> island's reef..explains why we've had such
> difficulty finding
> the proverbial "smoking gun"

Also not a surprise. It has been pretty clear that there was plane wreckage
on the reef from the late 30s through perhaps the early 60s, and that the
remains of two people, possibly of European ancestry, possibly a man and a
woman, dating from approximately the same time, were found on the island.
Something relating to an aircraft landing and marooning obviously appears to
have happened on Gardner before the war, and the evidence is probably still
there, somewhere, making possible a solution to this mystery.

Congratulations on your safe return and on TIGAHR's continued excellent
work.

LTM (who knows that island mysteries take time to solve)

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:15:21 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Sunrise observation

Oops.  Enderbury it is!  Must be the druid in me to suggest Canterbury.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:16:32 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Bushnell survey

I can speculate that the Bushnell Survey derived in part from the Colorado
search for Earhart in 1937.  The Captain submited a report to the
Hydrographic Office of the US Navy decrying the poor maps, inaccurate
locations, etc. of the Phoenix Group.  Coupled together with the claim of
the US in 1938 to Canton, it would make great sense to map out these
important islands.  Bushnell afterwords went to Panama to map out the
offshore area there (another obvious strategic area).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:27:06 EDT
From:         William Dohenyguy
Subject:      Welcome home

     Welcome home to all the crew. Ric, I know you are preparing a report
for the Forum, but I would like to ask a few thousand questions. Did you
concentrate your search on land or sea? If the islanders reported a down
craft on the reef, did you take the proper equipment to search below the
surface? Will there be a fifth trip to Niku? Finding nothing on Niku this
time, will you look at other islands in the area as a possibility? Ok,
that's all for now. Welcome home.

William LTM

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

<<Did you concentrate your search on land or sea?>>

Land.

<<If the islanders reported a down craft on the reef, did you take the proper
equipment to search below the surface?>>

The reef is virutally at the surface and most of it dries at low tide.  You
can't search below the surface of the reef.  We did do a visual survey of the
portions that are underwater even at low tide.

<<Will there be a fifth trip to Niku?>>

This was the fifth trip to Niku.  Niku I (1989), Niku II (1991), Niku III
Preliminary (1996), Niku III (1997), Niku IIII Recon (1999).  There will
probably be a sixth trip (Niku IIII) but the date will not be finalized until
we've had a chance to analyze what we learned from this past trip.

<<Finding nothing on Niku this time, will you look at other islands in the
area as a possibility?>>

On the contrary.  The information obtained on this trip appears to greatly
reinforce the hypothesis that we have the right place.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:42:56 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      LOP

The message relating to LOP 157/337 which AE/FN reported, is of little value
unless a similar LOP (preferably at 90 degrees) was observed.  I assume that
this LOP was observed at Sunrise, and that FN calculated their arrival at a
LOP of that bearing which would intersect Howland on their ETA.  This report
of being on LOP 157/337 is no more than giving a position on a Longitude,
without checking the Latitude!

If FN was such a wonderful navigator, and if AE was such a good pilot, how
did this flight end in tradegy?  Answer, neither were able/trained in radio
communications, or the equipment they had on board. Noonan knew the value of
this -- his experience with Trans Am proved it.  We have, alas, a poorly
planned flight (wrong way round), the task of a fatigued crew to find a tiny
island. Despite the organised assistance, they were simply unable to use that
assistance.  I still believe that the flight ended in the sea, but I would
like to know if that was so.

Full praise to Ric and the Team, but take care, don't make it into what some
critics do call "an industry"

LTM
Tet
******************************************************************************
From Ric

It should be apparent to anyone that there is a great deal of industry in
TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance.  We've tried to be
industrious in making sure that we understand the context in which the
disappearance took place and that we fully appreciate the known facts of the
case.  Perhaps if you were a bit more industrious in familiarizing yourself
with the products of that industry your representation of what happened would
be more accurate.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:36:05 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Japanese search for AE

Tom king reported that Foua Tofiga said;

>A plane flew over; he was told it was Japanese, from the Marshall
>  Islands.

------FWIW(probably little), I recall seeing photos of the NY Times front
page from July/37 stating: "10 U.S. warships and English and JAPANESE
warships search for Amelia Earhart" in a TV doc.  Maybe a Jap'se catapult-
launched recon plane?   LTM, HAG 2201.

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

I suppose we need to deal with this.  I spent quite a bit of time with Tofiga
in Fiji but he never mentioned any of this to me so I have to go entirely
upon his brief comment to Tom King.  I generally found Tofiga to be an
excellent source of information regarding the Western Pacific High
Commission, its procedures and personalities.  However, a Japanese plane
over Tarawa in 1937 is hard to swallow.

1.  There was no Japanese search for Earhart in July 1937.  It wasn't until
September that Putnam asked, through diplomatic channels, if he could pay for
a search by the Japanese of the islands in the mandated territories.  The
reply came on September 17 from Isoruku Yamamoto, Vice Minister, Ministry of
the Imperial Navy, saying that:  "...or Imperial nation will have all of the
vessels and fishing boats in the area make every possible effort to search
for the remains."  The Japaneses later claimed that two ships searched the
southern Marshall islands - the seaplane tender KAMUI (often mistakenly named
in Earhart books as the "Kamoi") and the survey ship KOSHU.  We know that in
July, KAMUI was enroute from Saipan to Futami in the Osawagara Islands, far,
far from the Marshalls and heading west.  We don't know where KOSHU was but
she had no aircraft.

2.  It wasn't until 1940 that the Japanese had seaplane ramps or airfields
anywhere in the Marshalls, so any Japanese airplane in that part of the world
would have to be ship-based.  I'm not sure how many carriers the Imperial
Navy had in 1937, but I do know that AKAGI was in drydock undergoing a refit
throughout this entire period.  We know of no Japanese naval vessels in or
near the Marshalls anytime in 1937 other than possibly the KAMUI anf KOSHU in
late September.

3.  Had the KAMUI, by any chance, been so bold as to send a flying boat as
far south as Tarawa it is hard to understand why there was no British
diplomatic protest similar to that filed when a U.S. Navy seaplane flew over
Canton Island.  Tarawa was not a lonely tropical atoll.  It was a major
British colonial center with offices, adminstrators, a hospital, a school and
a radio station.  For the Japanese to come prowling around so far outside of
their own neighborhood should have brought a serious diplomatic response.  No
such traffic appears in the offical record.

4.  It seems far more likely that what Tofiga saw was a scout plane launched
from one of the British cruisers that were in the area from 1935 through
1939.  HMS Leith, HMS Leander, HMS Wellington, and HMS Achilles all carried
at least one Supermarine Walrus.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:39:05 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Japanese seaplane ops

Re: Dr. Tom King's 8/1/99 post relating to possible Japanese involvement
in the AE/FN search.

Here is a web page originally posted by our Radio Historian, Mike E.
#2194:
**********************************************
Spennemann, Japanese Sea Plane Operations in the Marshall Islands
Address:http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/VIRTPAST/Papers_DRS/SeaPlane/SeaPlane
Ops.html
Changed:8:36 AM on Monday, August 2, 1999
**********************************************
This page, (maintained by Dr. Dirk H.R.Spennemann, Senior Lecturer,
Cultural Heritage Studies at Charles Sturt University, New South Wales,
Au.) provides a brief description of the establishment of Japanese
seaplane routes, throughout the Mandated Territories, during the
mid-1930's.

In subsequent E-mail correspondence I exchanged with Dr. Spennemann, he
suggested that the development of any military facilities in the
Marshalls did not begin until the 1940s, however, given the very minimal
facilities required for the operation of seaplanes from such areas, it
would seem possible that the Japanese may have flown such planes from
the Marshalls; Yet it does seem unlikely they would have overflown
British Mandated Territory (the Gilberts) without prior notice or
permission, especially given the territorial "touchiness" of the several
powers involved in the pre-war administration of these islands & the
general suspicion generated about the Japanese because of the "security"
measures they involked regarding their own mandated territories.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:37:50 EDT
From:         Angelo
Subject:      RDF and GP

>for taking DF bearings.  The plan, however, (at least as the Coast Guard
>understood it ) was for Itasca to be the passive partner in the DF process.
>The ship would transmit signals upon which the plane would  take bearings.  A
>trailing wire would play no role in that procedure.

That's where the trip unraveled: AE did not heed the results of her July 1
1937 test where the Electra's RDF did not work even on a nearby LAE radio
transmitter.

The only reason that she would have rationalized this RDF failiure as due
to being "too close" to a transmitter would be in response to Husband
Putnam's plea to "get to the US by the 4th of July".

Our analysis of the 'fallback' navigation strategies have merit in that
they should identify what was really done by AE and FN in response to the
Howland results of the RDF failure.

Ang.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm afraid that you can't lay that one on GP's doorstep.  By the time Earhart
made the test flight on the morning of July 1st it was already too late for
her to make Oakland by July 4th.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:09:28 EDT
From:         Barb Norris
Subject:      Re: Japanese search for AE

<< Tom King reported that Foua Tofiga said;
 >A plane flew over; he was told it was Japanese, from the Marshall
 >  Islands. >>

I was present during that interview with Mr. Tofiga and the key words here
are, "he was told."  It was my impression that Tofiga seemed skeptical of the plane's identification at the time.

LTM,
Barbara Norris

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

Sounds reasonable.  I hope nobody ever bases any historical conclusions on
aircraft identifications my buddies and I made from the schoolyard at Erie
Street School.

**************************************************************************
From Daryll

Greetings to Ric and the Forum;

<Subject: Japanese search for AE
<From Ric
.......I suppose we need to deal with this...>

O.K. at the risk of posting something that doesn't conform to the stated
goals or hypothesis of the Forum.

<...... However, a Japanese plane over Tarawa in 1937 is hard to
swallow......>

<2. It wasn't until 1940....>

   You have quoted this year (1940) before. I do not believe that year
is written in granite and is subject to challenge.

<..... that the Japanese had seaplane ramps or airfields anywhere in the
Marshalls, so any Japanese airplane in that part of the world would have
to be ship-based.>

   There is contemporaneous documentation in the Archives in Washington
: "CONFIDENTIAL Enclosure No. 1 to Despatch No. 3605 of January 8, 1939,
from the Embassy at Paris."  An eyewitness account of a seaplane ramp
and airplane hanger on Jaluit in the Marshalls. This account is based on
information at least a year old if not 2 to 3 years old.

<1. There was no Japanese search for Earhart in July 1937..... "...or
Imperial nation will have all of the vessels and fishing boats in the
area make every possible effort to search for the remains......"

   Fishing boats by their very nature and business are at sea the
majority of the time. The Japanese fishing grounds can be said to be
their own waters and international waters ( Mandate Islands and
surrounding waters ). There is contemporaneous documentation ( Japanese,
11:20 a.m. July 13, 1937 ) that has been previously posted on the Forum.
Concerning the London international news inquiry about the report that a
Japanese fishing boat had rescued the Earhart plane.

< 3..........it is hard to understand why there was no British
diplomatic protest ....... For the Japanese to come prowling around so
far outside of their own neighborhood....

   This ads some credibility to the time frame. If a massive air and sea
search is being conducted by several nations, then a brief Japanese
over-flight of one of the northern most islands in the Gilberts, can be
explained by the most inept diplomat.

Daryll
**************************************************************************

From Ric

The year 1940 that I have quoted before comes from an article in U.S. Naval
Institute PROCEEDINGS entitled "How Japan fortified the Mandated Islands" and
is based upon Japanese as well as U.S. Navy records.  I'm not sure that the
unattributed "eyewitness account" in the 1939 despatch is a better source,
but just play to the game - if there was a seaplane ramp and hangar at Jaluit
in 1937 it's pretty clear that the sneaky Japanese were trying to keep it
secret.  How dumb would they have to be to fly the plane over a British
administrative center low enough so that even the schoolboys could identify
it?

It may be true that the most inept diplomat might be able to explain such a
flight.  My point is that they didn't.  Where is the British protest to which
the inept diplomat replied?  Conspiracy theorists love to make big fires out
of wisps of smoke, but there isn't even any smoke on this one.  Sure sign of
a cover up.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:24:25 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: LOP

> This report
> of being on LOP 157/337 is no more than giving a position on a Longitude,
> without checking the Latitude!

Er, I know nothing about navigation techniques but isn't that one of the
planks of TIGHAR's hypothesis? That if you can place yourself in terms of
both longitude and latitude you aren't lost and don't stay lost, but if you
can only manage one or the other you're semi-lost and it might go either
way? Still think Ric's response was a bit fierce, though. LTM, Phil 2276.

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

Fierce?  Perhaps.  But the person who made that statement is not a newcomer
to the forum and has read, or at least has had the opportunity to read,
countless well-informed discussions about the navigational situation that
faced Earhart and Noonan.  That kind of thing makes me fierce.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:06:20 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      Clutching at straws

Thanks Ric,

I know that you are as critical of my analysis of AE/FN flights
as I am of your conclusions.

Whilst I admire your efforts to "find" AE, the clutching at sraws approach,
report of bones, shoe remains etc. are at best ephemeral, and by themselves
provide only possible info of the end of the flight.

My navigation observations and comments are valid.  Amelia was not fully
trained in instrument/night flying, and FN's reputation as a navigator was
based on his TransAtlantic flights with Pan Am. where the use/need of a
radio operator was imperative.

Neither were fully able to avail themselves of the superb facilities
arranged by the US Navy etc.

As far as the reported LOP is concerned, this bearing was ONLY valid
if they knew where they were ,in reference to this.

Noonan had clocks set to GMT and LMT. At sunrise he would "observe"
and calculate his LOP. the TIME of this observation should have given
what in fact was his Longitude, so now he would have a position. not
the best., the cross bearings were too close.

So, he did know where they were?  Where were they?

Wherever they were was not at Howland.

I truly would wish that their end can be established, but I have so many
doubts.

Ric may not like my comments, but to be fair, he allows me to make them!
Wherelse could this happen??

LTM, and Ric and the crew- not forgetting Pat.
TET
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:13:33 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Kilts: a challenge for the Forum

One of the pieces of the "bones on Niku" puzzle that continues to be missing
is the account given by ex-coastguardsman Floyd Kilts to the San Diego
Tribune in 1960.  That is, the account's not missing; what's missing is any
associated detail, like notes, maps, other information that may have been in
Kilts' possession.  Kilts reported what seemed to us, for the first 10 years
of the project, to be a pretty crazy story about bones being found on Niku
and taken to Fiji.  We now know, of course, that the story's not crazy,
though many of the details in the Tribune article are.

Kilts is dead, but he had a daughter, and it would be really good to track
her down, see if she has recollections of her father's story or, better yet,
supporting documents.  Using internet people-finding resources that I don't
understand very well, I've ascertained that Kilts died in September of 1964,
in California, at the age of 73, that he was born on August 17 1891, and that
his social security number was 557-14-0142.  Now, is there anybody on the
Forum who'd like to take up the challenge of tracking his daughter?

LTM (who thinks this is rather morbid, but understands)
Tom King
******************************************************************************
From Ric

For starters, Ron Dawson's San Diego contact "Sue" has come up with the
following:

The San Diego Tribune carried this death notice:

Kilts- Floyd C. husband of Ethel Kilts, father of Mrs. Jay
Josselyn and Adion ( hard to read name- ink fuzzy) Kilts,
brother of Howard and Hilda ( again hard to read- blurred)
Kilts. Member of ship no. 5454 VFW San Diego. Services
Tuesday 12:20 pm of Bonham Bros Mortuary. Military
interment. Ft Rosecrans. Auspices San Diego County
Council Burial Team VFW.

I also took the liberty to check on his death certificate while
I was at the county administration bldg.  it read:

Floyd C. Kilts found Sept. 11, 1964 8:25 am
male-white- born in New York
date of birth was August 17, 1891
73 years old
Father: Jessee Kilts born in NY
Mother: Lulu Hall born in NY
Citizen of USA  Soc Sec # 557-14-01428
( researcher's note: the 0 attached to 01428 looked as if someone
was trying to erase it but was not successful. )
Occupation:  Engineer/Construction for 40 years with the State of Ca.
Industry was State of California
Served in WWI & WWII
married- wife Ethel Kilts   housewife
Place of death (was not written in)
address  3615 Oleander Dr San Diego Ca.
in county of San Diego for 32 years in California for 44 years
Burial 9-15-64  Ft Rosecrans
Bonham Bros Mortuary
He died from : Acute myocardialinfraction - time  listed as Sudden
Arterioscurotic heart disease  9 years
other factors: previous mycardial - essential hypertension

I also looked in our city phone directory and I did not
see any Josseylns or Kilts listed

Ron says: On the internet white pages there is a Jay Josselyn listed in San
Diego. No address, just a phone. Jay Josselyn San Diego, CA 92101 ,
619-223-7219. Seems likely to be the same. I have not called them yet. You
would know better the questions to ask. Concerning the son, Sue is sending me
a hard copy of the obit and I will see if I can make out the name.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:16:46 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Japanese

Greetings to Ric and the Forum again;

   Yeah, I know, I don't even know why I try. I know you always have the
last word, so I guess it's for some of the other members on the Forum.

   I am replying to your reply in case those questions were directed to
me about the posting.

   It is apparent that you consider the U.S. Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS
as the last word in Historical Documentation, if that is the case, so be
it. All I did was offer CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTATION from a highly
regarded source that predates findings of The U.S. Naval Institute
PROCEEDINGS by a year or more.

   The Japanese when given the Mandate for those islands were permitted
to govern the islands as they see fit. They were permitted to have open
and closed ports. You view them having seaplanes and facilities for them
as fortifications and consequently a violation of the Mandate, that
necessitates secrecy on their part. I think you have already admitted
that they acknowledged having a seaplane tender and a survey ship in the
Mandate waters at sometime. Wouldn't that fall under your criteria as
violation and also be something they would want to keep secret.   I just
don't understand it.

   The British:

   I wasn't aware that TIGHAR had copies of all British diplomatic
messages ever produced in those years. But you are probably right. I can
see the island official initiating the complaint and going through all
the channels all the way to London. The complaint would probably have
read " The Governor of the island of Tarawa respectfully complains about
the Japanese over-flight while they were assisting in the search and
rescue efforts for Amelia Earhart."

Daryll
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No last word.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:46:50 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Japanese search

The Koshu was a hydrographic ship doing oceanographic surveys in July,
1937.  I have documented evidence that it went on July 4th to the
Marshalls, arriving July 9th, and resumed oceanographic surveys in late
July.  It did conduct some sort of a limited survey, probably around the
Marshall Islands.  Documentation from correspondence from the Japanese
Gov't to the US State Dept. and oceanographic research bulletins.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:56:11 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: New forum subscriber

After you have had a good night sleep in your own bed and a day or two of
rest, I'm sure you will be able to handle these posts a little differently.
If I were a 17 year old Spanish boy, I don't think I would post anymore.  I'd be
too embarrassed.

Welcome back!

To Norgren,

If you would like to contact me by private E-mail, I would be happy to
discuss Amelia Earhart, Fred Noonan and general aviation with  you.

Don Jordan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:41:41 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: clutching at straws

Well, while we're being fair, I have to respond to Tet's characterization of
our attention to the bones, shoe remains, etc. as "clutching at straws," and
"ephemeral at best."  First off, documented discoveries of very tangible
things like bones and shoes are far from "ephemeral," and certainly no more
so than cogitations on navigation.  Further, while they certainly "by
themselves provide only possible info of the end of the flight," the end of
the flight is rather critical to what we're interested in, isn't it?

I used to study prehistoric social organization in California.  I could have
done thought pieces for many years about how folks might have been organized
2,000 years ago around San Francisco Bay, based on extrapolation from general
social theory, environmental conditions, and so forth, but none of it would
have been particularly meaningful without some hard data.  And such data
could be gotten only by seeking out the distribution of tangible things like
bones in the ground and settlements on it.  However interesting it may be to
cogitate about Earhart's and Noonan's qualifications, navigational and flying
abilities, the state of their equipment, and so forth, it's not going to
prove anything without some "ephemera" like bones and shoes and plane parts
in places consistent with a plausible hypothesis.  If looking hard for such
things is clutching at straws, so be it.

LTM (who prefers picking straws to clutching them)
Tom King
******************************************************************************
From Ric

I let that one pass hoping that someone with more patience than I have right
now would attempt enlightenment.  Thank you Tom, for taking up that cross.
Perhaps our greatest problem in trying to solve the mystery of the Earhart
disappearance is the expectation - our own and everyone else's - about  what
MUST be left. We talk about "the smoking gun" and the "any-idiot artifact" as
if it is a given that such a thing still survives after 62 years.  Maybe it
does.  Maybe the aircraft component with a serial number or the bone with
recoverable DNA still waits in a bush or a box somewhere just waiting until
we look in exactly the right place.  I sure hope so.  But what if it doesn't?
 What if the forces of nature that have reduced a 400 foot, 5,000 ton steel
ship to a scattering of debris have obliterated the remains of a 38 foot,
7,000 pound aluminum airplane?  Nothing vanishes without a trace, and traces
are what we've found.  We can hope for more, but we have no right to demand
more.

If the "any-idiot artifact" does not exist, or can not be found, then it is
likely that the fate of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan will not be accessible
to any idiot.  Only those with the interest, the education, and the patience
to examine the evidence will be able to reach the correct conclusion.  The
others will go on fantasizing about an intact Electra on the ocean bottom or
stewing about government cover-ups.

Our job is to be sure that we find all that can be found, within the
practical limits of funding and technology, to make it as easy as possible
for any interested person to draw a reasonable conclusion.  We have to
accept, however, that no matter what we find there will be those who cling to
their own pre-conceived notions.  So be it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:33:18 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Kilts: a challenge for the Forum

That's too fast even for the Forum.  Ron and "Sue" had already been working
on this, right?

LTM (who's astounded at the Forum's abilities)
Tom King

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

No, actually they are psychic and they knew you would be asking <G>.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:34:05 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Re: Sextant sights

>  Since the moon's movements are very quick (astronomically
>speaking) and predictable, building a table for moon positions for each day
>for each hour just isn't done.

Before the advent of the Air Almanac positions for the moon weren't
tabulated; but the Nautical Almanac for 1937 does have daily tables of the
moon's right ascension and declination for each hour of GCT.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:39:25 EDT
From:         David Eberle
Subject:      Oshkosh

Ric Greetings and welcome back!!

While at the E.A.A. convention at Oshkosh last Thursday, I unfortunately
witnessed a collision between a Bearcat and a Corsair. The Corsair pilot's
wife was interviewed recently. She was from Texas and her name was Linda
Finch Doctor. The interview mentioned she to was a pilot also. Could this be
the one and the same?

BTW I pledged $100 prior to your departure, will I be billed or should I
just put my cc# on file for future convenience? (dumb question)

Dave Eberle

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

Well, a Bearcat and a Corsair doesn't sound survivable, what is the status?

And sure, you can send us your credit card number. Also, be sure to tell us
what your credit limit is and how much is available :-).  (Just kidding.)
---Actually, don't forget the expiration date.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:42:40 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Clutching at straws

>>Wherever they were was not at Howland.

This is not necessarily supported by the evidence. They could have been
within a few miles of Howland and simply missed a visual sighting in the
haze.

william #2243

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

Is it not the case that pilots generally need to be within 15 or so miles of
one of these Pacific islands in order to see it? They really are very flat
and very small. Ann Pellegrino reported sighting Howland at 10 to 12 miles.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:43:37 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Clutching at straws

FN never flew cross-Atlantic but cross-Pacific.  The LOP info does not
provide longitude information, because it was not a 360/180 LOP, the only
LOP that provides longitude.  I do agree that both were poorly trained in
radio navigation, and did not make optimal use of available, but limited
Coast Guard (not Navy) assets to assist in homing in on Howland.

Speaking for Ric, I believe it is these kinds of inaccuracies that caused
his previous posting.

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

Also speaking for Ric, thank you.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:45:01 EDT
From:         Sactodave
Subject:      Re: Clutching at straws

It's true that TIGHAR is assuming many facts, and relying on anecdotal
accounts and meager physical evidence to justify continued research on
Niku, Tet. Some retired Air Force navigator suggested my comments were
not substantive. (They should never have given them authority..)
What Ric and the forum never acknowledge is that our observations are
true. What was touted to be the "Niku to end all Nikus" turned out to be
several days of shipboard nausea, suffered by the Niku contingent, in
conjunction with several days of supposed aecheological effort, enjoyed
by the Fiji crew. They've found nothing, and they will find more
nothing. Niku is NOT where Amelia, Fred, and a Lockheed twin came to
grief.

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

It's so nice to know we can always count on your support and encouragement,
Dave.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:48:20 EDT
From:         Skip
Subject:      Re: Clutching at straws

I get so tired of skeptics who say this and say that, when in fact, they have
no hard evidence that what they say is fact. When people put forth effort in
search of the truth, why is there so many who try to put them down? I have
been interested in this cause from the very first time that I read "Last
Flight" back in 1955. Tighar's research into this mystery has provided
answers to many questions. Your conclusions make sense. I feel that you are
headed in the right direction and that direction will produce results. Your
goal is in the right direction. You can achieve it only if you don't give up.
Keep up the good work.

Skip

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

Wasn't it Edison who said that genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration?
Thanks, Skip.

I will reiterate:  Any person who can produce *evidence*---not theory, not
allegation, not point of view, but evidence----- we will embrace with glad
cries. But without evidence, it's just an opinion.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:53:26 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: Clutching at straws

Throughout the long history of the search for Amelia Earhart & Fred
Noonan, there has been much criticism of the piloting skills of Earhart
& the Navigational skills of Noonan.      However, lest we forget, AE/FN
had successfully flown over three quarters of the way around the earth,
with no serious problems arising regarding either the manner in which
the plane was being piloted or navigated, in spite of severe weather
problems over the subcontinent (requiring them to reverse course & land
on one occasion, to avoid the consequences of trying to fly through
monsoon storms) & with much of the flight occurring during hours of
darkness.

Whatever the shortcomings of Earhart as a pilot or Noonan as a navigator
may have been, I think even their severest critics must give (at least
grudgingly) credit to this duo for reaching Lae unscathed.

Whatever went wrong on the Lae to Howland leg of their ill fated journey
may never be fully known or understood, even if the remains of the plane
& crew are ever found;  However that should not discourage those who
continue the search in an effort to at least try to find such remains,
based upon reasonable evidence (both tangible & documentary) which
continues to surface, even 62 years after the fact.      That is the
reason why the publishers of history books are still in business
printing constant revisions & up-dates, because history is not a static
subject & often subject to change without prior notice.

We may not all agree entirely with the TIGHAR hypothesis concerning the
outcome of the flight, but at the moment it's the only effort being
undertaken, in such a broad area of disciplines, to locate & recover (if
possible) whatever remains can be found of the plane & it's crew.

The recent investigations in Fiji have developed much additional
information that would never have surfaced, except for the persistence
of the TIGHAR volunteers in digging through reams of paper & searching
all available cellars, attics & tunnels.       Constructive criticism is
a very necessary & valuable tool in the pursuit of any investigative
effort, however lets be careful not to be throwing bricks at the hod
carriers!

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:03:17 EDT
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Brushfires

Let me preface this note by saying that I am an admirer of TIGHAR and its
work.  You're the only organization making an on-the-scene effort to solve
the Earhart mystery, as opposed to us armchair detectives.  I can only
imagine how tough it is to fund repeated Pacific expeditions without
corporate or government backing, and the fact that you are able to scrape
together the required bucks year after year is a testament to Ric's
leadership and the loyalty of TIGHAR members.

However, I do wish you would stop referring to anyone who disagrees with the
Niku hypothesis (and that's still all it is) as a "conspiracy theorist".
One does not have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe that AE >>could<<
have come down someplace other than Nikumaroro.

For example, there is no documented evidence of Fred Noonan, one of the
world's finest aerial navigators, ever missing a target when he had four
hours of fuel left to look for it.  There >>is<< documented evidence of the
following: (a) at one time, AE disclosed that her backup plan, in the event
she missed Howland Island, was to head toward the British-controlled
Gilberts; and (b) AE overrode Fred's navigational advice on at least one
prior occasion, when they were approaching the west coast of Africa.
Luckily, Africa is a big place and AE's stubbornness on that occasion did
not prove disastrous.

Given these facts, however, it is at least possible that a fatigued and
disoriented AE could have again decided that she knew better than Fred, and
turned back toward a preplanned emergency landing in the Gilberts rather
than continuing on into parts unknown (at least to her).  If FN had indeed
coolly and logically determined that all they need do was fly southeast on
the 157/337 LOP in order to reach the Phoenix group, then why did AE radio:
"We are running north and south" (or "northwest, now southeast" as Ric would
have it)?  Why didn't she just say, "We are running southeast"?  I do not
think it inconceivable that, in a crisis and with her judgment impaired by
lack of sleep, AE would finally tune Fred out and trust to her instincts.
She had done so before, and she had gotten herself lost before.  In addition
to the African incident, let's not forget the Mexico City flight, when
Amelia had to land and ask directions!

One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that this course of
action led to a splashdown somewhere ENE of the Gilberts.  I suppose that,
if AE throttled back to save fuel and set her propellers to maximum pitch,
it is just barely possible that she could even have made Mili Atoll,
depending upon how far east the duo were when they began cruising the
157/337 line.  Obviously I am no navigator.  However it is difficult to
accept that the anecdotal evidence gathered by Goerner,  Knaggs, Brennan, et
al., although inconsistent in detail, does not have >>some<< basis in fact.
In this regard, I note that, having for years dismissed the Marshalls/Saipan
yarns with thinly-veiled contempt, Ric now apparently believes that this
same sort of anecdotal evidence carries conclusive weight as long as: (a)
it's "credible", and (b) it points to Niku.  Quote:   "If reports of
aircraft wreckage on the reef at Nikumaroro anytime prior to December 7,
1941 are credible, then we know what happened to the Earhart/Noonan flight.
It's as simple as that."

With all due respect, it is not as simple as that.  There are dozens of
anecdotes placing Fred and Amelia in the Marshalls and/or the Marianas,
which are no less "credible" for the fact that they were recorded by others.
TIGHAR has yet to find a single piece of wreckage which can be traced
conclusively to NR16020.  All of the people who examined the Niku bones
firsthand, including two physicians who had lived on the islands for years
and presumably were familiar with the decomposition process in that
environment, agreed that they appeared to have been around considerably
longer than three years.  Finally, the contention that "It's as simple as
that" assumes that TIGHAR can account for each and every other airplane that
was flying anywhere in the Central Pacific in the roughly 15 years prior to
1941.  (I recall how, at one point, TIGHAR was certain that absolutely
>>no<< WWII-vintage aircraft had gone down anywhere near Niku -- until
reports of the Canton crash surfaced.)

But that's what makes TIGHAR so endearing -- its rigorous commitment to
intellectual honesty, including the willingness to admit when it's wrong.
In fact, I hope that TIGHAR is right.  I hope that the bones are found,
still resting in their Kanawa wood box, and that DNA testing proves them to
be the mortal remains of Amelia Earhart.  I hope the sextant box has
"Property of Frederick Noonan" etched into the side.  I hope that Niku V or
VI or VII turns up a hunk of airplane wing with "NR16020" still faintly
visible on the surface.  Your efforts over the past ten years deserve such a
reward.  But until that happens, how about keeping our minds just slightly
open to other possibilities?  Not that Amelia was a spy, nor that she was
shot down .... but that, maybe, and for reasons we'll probably never know,
she simply turned the wrong way.

LTM (who can't think of a good tagline)

Patrick Gaston

P.S.   If AE did somehow end up in Japanese custody (notice I'm saying IF),
it seems to me there's a fairly simple explanation as to why she might have
been kept under wraps.   Consider how the Japanese of that era treated
female prisoners in general (it wasn't called the Rape of Nanking for
nothing).  Now suppose some low-ranking Japanese colonial officer abuses, or
permits his men to abuse the captured "spy", only to find out a day or so
later that she's the World's Most Famous Female Flyer.  At that point the
options are to let her go so she can tell the press about Imperial Japanese
hospitality, or simply warehouse her someplace in hopes that she eventually
will succumb to any one of several nasty tropical diseases.  Maybe you don't
even tell Tokyo, if you want to keep your head.  It's a thought....

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

From Ric

Thank you Patrick, for a well-reasoned and articulate argument.  I'll try to
respond in kind.

First, a conspiracy theorist is one who postulates that the unavailability of
information about an event is due to the conscious and intentional
withholding of such information by two or more individuals who have conspired
to do so.  In the context of the debate over what happened to the
Earhart/Noonan flight, those who support the theory that the aircraft crashed
at sea are not conspiracy theorists unless, for example, they suggest that
authorities had proof of a crash at sea and purposely kept it secret for some
reason.

Not to put too fine a point on it, a conspiracy may involve a cover-up (as in
Nixon, Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Mitchell and company) but a cover-up need not
involve a conspiracy.  For example, there is ample evidence to show that, in
a successful effort to absolve himself from blame, Commander Warner K.
Thompson, captain of the ITASCA, intentionally misrepresented, and in some
cases fabricated, crucial aspects of the events of July 2, 1937 in his
official report entitled "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" date July 19,
1937.  However, if none of his subordinates or superiors was in on the
cover-up (and I've seen no direct evidence that they were), there was no
conspiracy.

In recent years the lable "conspiracy theorist" has taken on a pejorative
connotation due to the flimsy evidence often used to support many alleged
conspiracies, but there are certainly such things as conspiracies and those
who uncover them are not necessarily paranoid schizophrenics.

Second, the premises upon which you base your argument for a turn back to the
Gilberts are not as solid as you suggest.   Her "disclosed back-up plan" was
nothing more than a comment to Gene Vidal at some unspecified time prior to
the world flight and later recalled by him.  As for AE's oft-cited
over-riding of Fred's navigational advice on the coast of Africa; the
notations on the original chart used by Noonan (now in the Purdue archives)
tell a very different tale than the story presented in the heavily-edited,
posthumously published "Last Flight."  Neither the chart nor the note passed
between the crew support the notion of a disagreement about which way to
turn.  As with Thompson's report, distortion and embellishment have raised
questions about the professionalism of the crew which are not warranted by
more primary sources.

You ask why AE said, "We are running north and south" if, in fact, she was
running southeastward on the line of position.  The answer, of course, is
that she probably didn't say that.  We don't know what Amelia actually said.
What is clear is that shows clearly that whatever she said at that moment
caught the radio operator totally off guard.

It is important to understand that two radio logs were being kept aboard
ITASCA.  One log, supervised by Chief Radioman Leo G. Bellarts, was dedicated
to attempts to communicate with the Earhart flight while a separate log,
maintained by Radioman Thomas O'Hare, was supposed to record all other
traffic but O'Hare, who could overhear what was coming over the speakers,
included many Earhart-related entries into the log he was keeping. Both logs
are now in the National Archives.

At 07:42 local time the Bellart's log shows a transmission from Earhart:
KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA  WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW
BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT A (sic) 1000 FEET

At 07:40 local time, O'Hare's log says:
EARHART ON NW SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT CANT HR US AT ALL WE HR
HER AND ARE SENDING ON 3105 ES 500 SAME TIME CONSTANTLY AND LISTENING IN FER
HER FRQUENTLY

At 08:15, Earhart's normally scheduled transmission time a half hour later,
ITASCA heard nothing (they were blocking 3105 with their own transmissions).
Commander Thompson apparently decided that the "1/2 HR LEFT" version was
correct and he ordered the men ashore on Howland to return to the ship in
preparation for getting underweigh to begin a search.  At 08:43, Earhart's
next regularly scheduled transmission time, a full hour after O'Hare thought
she said "RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT", and as the ITASCA was
preparing to get underweigh, suddenly Earhart was back on the air.  It's
little wonder that whatever she said came as a surprise and was not recorded
with great precision.  In fact, O'Hare's log doesn't mention it at all.
Bellarts' log says:
KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337  WL REPT MSG WE WL REPT THIS ON
6210 KCS WAIT, 3105/A3 S5 (notation indicating that this was a voice
transmission received on 3105 at maximum strength).

Normally this would be the end of an entry but crammed into the available
space on the same line is an appeneded entry that can be interpreted as
either:
(?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON LINE N ES S
or
(?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON N ES S LINE

The traditional, and unsupportable, "We are running north and south." comes
from Thompson's later report.  In any case, it sure doesn't sound like a turn
back to the Gilberts.

Your allegation that I regard anecdotal accounts that agree with TIGHAR's
hypothesis differently than I view those which support other theories is
simply not true.  You correctly quote me as saying: ""If reports of aircraft
wreckage on the reef at Nikumaroro anytime prior to December 7,1941 are
credible, then we know what happened to the Earhart/Noonan flight.  It's as
simple as that."  I am just as comfortable saying:  "If reports of Amelia
Earhart being imprisoned on Saipan are credible, then we know what happened
to the Earhart/Noonan flight."  You seem to have utterly missed my point that
the question here is the credibility of the anecdotes.  Whom do we believe?
No anecdote or collection of anecdotes can stand by itself.  Anecdotes, if
they are true or even partially true, should lead the diligent researcher to
some kind of hard evidence corroboration - documents, photographs, artifacts,
human remains.  An excellent example is the tale of bones being found on
Nikumaroro.  Fro years we regarded it as interesting folklore worthy of
investigation until perserverance and luck turned up solid proof that it
actually happened.  Accounts of aircraft wreckage on the reef at Niku prior
to WWII are, in themselves, no more credible than the tales of imprisonment
on Saipan unless and until corroborating hard evidence is found.

And finally, yes, it IS as simple as that.  Not just TIGHAR but any
interested individual can account for every airplane that flew over or near
Nikumaroro prior to 1941.  Until the Pacific war brought unprecedented forces
and resources to those remote regions for strategic purposes, any airplane
flight was a newsworthy event.  It's a bit like wondering whether TIGHAR can
document with confidence every manned landing on the moon.  And your
recollections about TIGHAR's assertions regarding aircraft losses in the
Central Pacific during WWII are equally incorrect.  We always knew and
acknowledged that there had been crashes at Canton, and we had anecdotal
accounts of a wartime crash at Sydney Island which, again, diligent research
and a little luck brought to light as a documented loss.

This posting is far too long, but it illustrates a basic problem we have to
solve.  We can not correct the myths and answer the misinformed piecemeal.
It is essential that we get the 8th Edition of the project book completed so
that accurate information is publicly available in an easily accessible form.
 I can't do that if I'm spending all my time stomping out brushfires like
this.  Consequently, I have asked Pat to resume her moderating of the forum
while I concentrate my efforts on putting out the next (and woefully overdue)
issue of TIGHAR Tracks, oversee the writing of the 8th Edition, and producing
the video.  I'll continue to chime in on the forum as needed but in the role
of a regular contributor rather than as moderator.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:50:04 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Oshkosh

I saw a pic in the paper Washington Post or LA Times?) of the
Corsair standing on its nose with a sheet of fire trailing behind it.  From
the cutline and photo I surmised the accident happened on the ground.
neither aircraft was identified as to type and there was no mention as to
the condition of the pilots.

    LTM, who has a checkride Thursday in a Cessna
    Dennis McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:51:55 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Niku IIIIP

Well!  I guess that settles that!  Here we are only 3-4 days after
the conclusion of Niku IIII and Sactodave has already declared it a failure.
Boy, oh boy, am I ever . . .ever . .  .(sputter) . .  .(sputter) . . .ticked!

All that money I spent and that mean old Ric Gillespie and his
TIGHAR pirates come up empty handed.

"They found nothing" Sactodave declared.  I guess Sactodave must
have had a call into Dionne Warwick and her friends to come to that
conclusion (1-800-GET-REAL).

Hey, Sacto at least let us sift through the evidence before you
declare Niku IIIIP a failure.  I won't say you made a rush to judgement, but
I'll bet you're the type of juror Judge Roy Bean would love to have in his
court.  "Give 'em a fair trail and then hang 'em."

Lesson one, Dave, is tolerance.  Lesson two is patience.

    LTM, who is not a lawyer
    Dennis McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:54:24 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Oshkosh

A friend of mine who followed the Oshkosh
event told me yesterday that the pilot of the Corsair, I believe,  was in
serious condition and that the plane was totally destroyed by fire.  My
best to you and Ric (more to follow).
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:56:20 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: clutching at straws

>>>>It's so nice to know we can always count on your support and
encouragement, Dave.<<<<<

To say nothing of being able to count on Dave's unquestionable authority
about what's "true."

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:57:46 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Brushfires

Just a word about anecdotal evidence of landing/capture in the Marshalls
and/or Saipan.

There's something of a cottage industry in Earhart sighting reports
throughout Micronesia -- probably because people have gone in and asked a lot
of leading questions, sometimes paying for the answers.  And the answers are
often worse than anecdotal; they're second and third hand.

Example: the other day my wife mentioned in passing that when she was doing
her dissertation research in Chuuk (Truk) back in the 1970s, her adopted
Chuukese father said  that a relative of his (deceased, I think) had seen
Amelia Earhart killed by the Japanese, in Chuuk; he then proceeded to recount
the story, which featured imprisonment and execution.  Had this had anything
whatever to do with her dissertation research, she would doubtless have asked
questions like: "how did your relative know that it was Earhart and not
somebody else?"  In asking questions about Chuukese land law -- which were
central to her research and also much dearer to the hearts of Chuukese than
questions about the fate of some American pilot -- she often found
discrepancies and uncertainties that could be sorted out (if at all) only
through painstaking interviews with multiple parties.  It's safe to say that
in order to get at the truth about the various Earhart sightings, one would
have to do similar research.

In a way, the very ubiquity of Earheart capture and execution stories argues
against their validity.  She couldn't have been captured and killed in ALL
those places, but there HAVE been unprofessional interviewers in all those
places asking leading questions.  Goerner was certainly among the most
professional; he was after all a reporter.  But even with Goerner (and here I
go into second-hand anecdote), I was recently told about a guy who said he'd
translated for him on Saipan and repeatedly told him he was being lied to.

I don't know what one does with all this, but I do know that if I were going
to try to research AE in the Marshalls, Carolines, or Marianas I'd need a
whole lot of time and money, and I wouldn't be very hopeful for the results.
The oral historical record is just too tainted.  She may have wound up there;
she also may have crashed into the sea, or may have been abducted to the
Pleides.  The trouble with all those propositions is not that they're
obviously not true, but only that they're virtually impossible to test.  Our
own proposition is real HARD to test, but it's clearly POSSIBLE.

LTM (who's open-minded but thrifty)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:00:28 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Howland DF

Randy Jacobson states that AE/FN "did not make optimal use of
available, but limited, Coast Guard (not Navy) assets to assist
in homing in on Howland."

True of course, but I think he inadvertently indicates the
hardware on the island was CG, which it wasn't. The Howland
HF/DF, which was limited to 3105 kc, was of Navy origin (a portable,
battery powered unit, the "DQ" model, if memory serves) and came
from the Navy radio intercept station at He'eia, Hawaii. Comdr.
Thompson vetoed the trained Navy operator, insisting on a
CG man (Cipriani), who wasn't at all knowledgeable about the
gear, but did the best he could.  Officially, the Navy had
nothing to do with the deal.

The account of CG Radio Electrician Anthony and USN Adm. Detzer
(OP20-G) is my source, and seems more authentic than the Dwiggins
story about Mantz, Lt. Cooper and Richard Black being the
instigators. But, feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:01:32 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Re: grasping at straws?

Ric,

First off, welcome home, and congratulations to you and all other Fiji and
Niku team members on a job well done.  Looking forward to detailed findings
of both expeditions.

Now, let me see if I have this right...At the first landfall along NR16020's
last known course, TIGHAR has found several artifacts (plexiglass, aluminum,
shoe parts, etc.) consistent with that craft and it's occupants.  TIGHAR has
also collected first-hand, eyewitness reports positively dating the Niku
aircraft debris as pre-war.  Further, TIGHAR has followed up on reports of
other items consistent with NR16020 that have been previously recovered from
Niku.  (the kanawa wood box, the bones, and Bruce's engine)  In the case of
the former, previously anecdotal reports have been both clarified and
confirmed by TIGHAR research as historically accurate, and the latter case
consists of a first hand eyewitness report from (at the time) an independent
third party.  If this is "grasping at straws", then sign me up as an
apprentice straw grasper.

LTM (who knows that TIGHAR has collected more evidence than any other AE
researcher, and used more scientifically valid methods than any others while
doing so)

Dave Porter, 2288   ( grrr...  )
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:04:38 EDT
From:         Stumpy Longbottom
Subject:      Re: brushfires

Dear Ric and Pat et al,

Tis the old Stumpen Meister here to say thanks to the forum for the high
level of interest and to Ric for your great response.  You must be very
tired old son so take care of yourself.  Isn't TIGHAR a great place to be.

We can have different points of view and be friends and grown ups about it
and we can learn.   I just hope the next expedition has the BIG cosmetics
bag ready for dear old AE when she wakes up from that cool cave she found
back in 37 and comes out to see what all the fuss is about.   Also, I think
a cooling lemonade for Fred might well be in order.   Yours in the ether,
Stumpy.

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

Thanks, Uncle Stumpy. Your diplomatic touch is always the best, and let's
hear it for Friday Prayers. :-)

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:39:36 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: grasping at straws?

One tiny correction, Dave.  Niku wasn't "the first landfall along NR16020's
last known course."  Besides Baker, just south of Howland, the first landfall
would have been McKean.  McKean is a much smaller island than Nikumaroro, and
quite barren though alive with birds.  We searched it (in one day -- an
adventure in itself) in '89.  Found lots of ruins and artifacts from 19th
century phosphate mining, several wrecked fishing boats, lots of sharks
around the periphery, almost lost Ric in the -- uh -- guano pit that occupies
the middle of the island, otherwise found nothing even WITHOUT Sactodave's
help.  Concluded (a) that if NR16020 HAD landed there the Colorado pilots
couldn't have missed it, since there's nothing to hide it (unless it sank in
the guano pit, which would be an interesting proposition for someone else to
investigate) and (b) that there sure wasn't anything to suggest to us that it
had landed there.  So we've focused on Niku, which is the second of the
Phoenix Islands along the LOP.

LTM (who likes birds, but really....)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:45:41 EDT
From:         Max Standridge
Subject:      Changes

I read Ric's exchanges with the various postings pertaining to conspiracy
theories, conspiracy theorISTS and interpretations of reports, data, etc,
with some interest.

One thing I've learned in recent years, for example, is that it is
possible to INTERPRET at least one set of anecdotal evidence pertaining to
the Saipan-based Earhart "conspiracy" scenario in an entirely different
way. That claim pertains to the possible sighting of James Forrestal on
Saipan during World War II.

My own data suggests that Forrestal may, indeed, have been on Saipan
during that period of time, and may even have burned or otherwise destroyed
an aircraft. It's a long story, but the bottom line is that it wasn't
Earhart's aircraft and it gives an entirely different spin to this
particular account.

My data suggests James Forrestal was involved in some intrigue during
World War II which is possibly off-topic for the Forum. And, just as we
must change our interpretation of data as new data come in on top of it, so
we must re-examine our current "conspiracy" theories every so often. Often,
conspiracy theories even have some grains of truth to them, but have been
misinterpreting actual events and placing them in the wrong contexts.

For myself, I'm switching, at least for now, to the Digest format. I need
the time and drive space for other things, I'm making such changes as I
must to cope with graduate school and so forth-- but I've followed with
interest the developments of this current expedition..  Best wishes.
                Max Standridge

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

Thanks for reminding us to stay a bit flexible, Max. And for the reminder
about the Digest format, which allows a Forum member to receive one longish
email per day with all the Forum postings in it, rather than each posting as
a separate email. It can be a sanity saver. If you want to get the Forum as a
Digest, send an email to

LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

with the message

SET EarhartForum DIGEST

-----nothing else. No please, no thanks, nada, because it is an automatic
computer command and no human will ever read it. Be sure you send the message
from the email address you're subscribed to the Forum on, and all will be
well---you will receive a message back confirming the change.

Other useful commands, to send to the same address (note that it is different
from the address you use to send postings):

SET EarhartForum NOMAIL

to stop mail coming while you are on vacation so your mailbox doesn't fill up

SET EarhartForum MAIL

to start your Forum up again when you get home.... and if you've been out of
town and come back and aren't getting your Forum, send this command, because
your mailbox probably filled up and I set you to NOMAIL.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:47:23 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: grasping at straws?

In my opinion, the most significant find of the last few years has been the
Canton engine.  To me, that's cold hard steel found by a real live person living
in southern California with expertise to  know an aircraft engine from a hole in
the ground.  That certainly got my attention when I first read the report in the
news last year.  That engine may, or may not be from the Electra!  There is
only one problem,  that engine was not found on Niku!  Am I right Bruce?  I
think we need to find that engine, or at least find out where it came from. Any
success in that respect Bruce?  I think an engine on an uninhabited island is
just as, if not more important than, bones in a box.  We need to find that
engine!

I know, I know. . . easier said than done.  I feel that engine is our most
significant find to date, if we can believe Bruce, and I think we can.  We tend
to believe an elderly islander who said they saw airplane wreckage on the reef
59 years ago, when in fact it could have been something from the old ship wreck.
Then again, it could have been airplane wreckage.  Who knows?

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't!  Bruce found an engine from an airplane.
Definitely, for sure, no question about it!  An airplane engine  where it
shouldn't have been.  We have a photo of an Electra look alike in a tropical
setting, missing one engine.  And we have an engine found in a tropical setting,
missing an airplane.  Makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand right up!
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:48:01 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Oshkosh

There were in fact two F4U-4 Corsairs involved in a collision on the runway
at Oshkosh.  Nobody killed. One over ran another war bird on take off, a
Bearcat I think.  The other Corsair ran off the runway trying to get out of the
way and was substantially damaged.  It's on the Web at the NTSB site.  I will
give the address if anyone is interested.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:57:42 EDT
From:         Sactodave
Subject:      Re: Niku IIIIP

Good luck on your checkride. Now, as to the Niku trip, Gillespie didn't
find a Lockheed twin, the engines to a Lockheed twin, serial numbers
from a Lockheed twin, nor it's crew members, their property, remains, or
any valid account of the airplane's presence on Niku. What they DID find
is the same type of second-hand rumor fodder that now has been imbued
with enough significance to justify yet another expedition. Now, tell me
YOUR truth.

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

And what is Truth? said jesting Pilate....

Our Truth, right at the moment, is that----as usual---- it is far far too
early in the process of analyzing the results of the expedition to know what
exactly was accomplished. Generally speaking, it takes somewhere between
three and twelve months to understand fully the evidence and the implications
of that evidence following on any field work. That is one of the major
reasons that archeology is generally done in "seasons" (aside from weather
conditions, of course). You go, you do your field work, you come back with
whatever you come back with, you spend the next year figuring out what the
heck you found, then you go back to the field with the new understandings.

No, we didn't find the great silver airplane lurking in the scaevola. There
is a pretty fair chance that it's not there to be found, but is in tiny
shards and/or in the waters off the reef. We can't control that. All we can
control is our research, our methodology, and our attention to the myriad of
details which make up an archeological project.

I do wish to take exception to the phrase "second hand rumor fodder."  Rumor
fodder it may be, but it is definitely first hand. The people in question saw
what they say they saw (whatever that was) personally; we're not talking
about something someone they talked to saw. There is always a line to be trod
between gullibility concerning orally transmitted evidence/anecdote, and
unwarranted dismissiveness of same. We have always said that the plural of
"anecdote" is not "evidence"----but anecdote (or, to be PC, oral history) can
definitely lead a researcher to hard evidence: written accounts from the time
in question, in this case. That's what happened with the bones story, if you
will recall.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:58:43 EDT
From:         Sactodave
Subject:      Re: clutching at straws

Tell me this one thing, Tom. Are you paid to do research for TIGHAR?

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

I can answer that.

No.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:09:42 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Money

I believe TIGHAR possesses the most accurate information concerning the
disappearance of AE. You people are without question the definitive
authority concerning AE. All one has to do is examine the host of other
info and this conclusion becomes obvious. To think otherwise is not to
think at all. Ric, your scientific approach to the mystery is the only
credible way to solve this mystery. Anything less would destroy your
credibility and lump you with everyone else who has an opinion. Your
efforts this summer in Fiji and Niku, whether they are eventually
fruitful or not, are a testiment to your commitment to the truth. Now,
might I suggest, it is time to throw some serious money at this thing. I
honestly believe that money is the problem here. There is a " smoking
gun " on Niku. You can feel it, I can feel it, and I'm sure the forum
members feel it. Instead of responding to your uninformed critics, take
that time to search for funding. Hire a professional fund raiser to
advocate your cause. You might be surprised. Just think for a moment how
you could solve this mystery if you had the money to do what you need to
do. Honestly, just ponder the possibilities tonight before you sleep. I
think you will begin to feel as though I might be right. Boy, what if we
could put a permanent team on Niku. If we only had the equipment, the
time, the this, the that, etc... All this can be had. It's simply a
money matter. Nothing else. Find the money and you find the truth!  I
know it sounds simplistic, but the evidence awaits you on Niku. Find it
while I'm still young!

Richard Johnson
TIGHARS biggest fan

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

What say the rest of you? Obviously, we here at HQ (note my slick use of
jargon) hold this subject near and dear to our hearts as money makes all
things possible....

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:15:42 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Brushfires

> From Tom King
>
> The trouble with all those propositions is not that
> they're obviously not true, but only that they're
> virtually impossible to test.  Our own proposition
> is real HARD to test, but it's clearly POSSIBLE.

I've been meaning to comment on statements similar to this for some time,
but haven't been quite able to nail down exactly how to say it without being
offensive.  I'll comment anyway and hope that people see what I'm getting
at, even if I don't say it very well.

There's an old joke about a guy who's trying to get into his car one night
and drops his keys.  His friends come along a bit later and find him looking
for them under the street light.  The start to help him look but discover
that he dropped them as he was putting them in the lock, and his car is
parked twenty feet away in the shadows.  Why is he looking over here then?
Because it's easier to look here... there's more light.

My point is, that the comment by Tom King, and other similar comments, seem
to come off as saying that the search is aimed as it is because it's easier
than the other searches would be rather than because it's the one that best
fits the available data.

I'm talking perception here.

    - Bill #2229

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

I can certainly understand the point you are making, Bill, and do not take
offense.

We are convinced, by the body of evidence we have collected, that the *best*
fit for the available data is Niku. That is why our search has focused on
that island.

One thing that we would like to do, however, is test the null hypothesis:
that any given uninhabited Pacific atoll would yield similar bits and pieces
and stories and trails. We've never been able to do that, because it would be
wildly expensive.

The other hypotheses usually put forth as solutions to the Earhart mystery---
that she crashed and sank, that she was captured by the Japanese--- are not
hypotheses we are anxious to test because we do not think they account for
the established evidence. Crashed and sank accounts for more than capture,
but still leaves some big holes that evidence waltzes through.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:21:21 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: clutching at straws

So can I, Sactodave.  No.  Why do you ask?

LTM (who doesn't pay real good, either)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:27:24 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Brushfires

There is one thing everybody overlooks.  It's Murphy's Law.
Remember that -amongst other things- Murphy's Law says that "you will always
find lost things at the last place you look". I think TIGHAR will simply have
to go on looking.

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

And we intend to do so.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:30:00 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Brushfires

Sorry if my comment misled you, Bill, but your analogy isn't quite apt.
Let's suppose your man with his car keys wasn't sure where he'd been when he
dropped them.  Maybe he was standing in the dark next to his car; maybe he
was fumbling for his wallet to pay the mugger who accosted him under the
streetlight.  He doesn't have a flashlight.  It makes sense for him to search
under the streetlight first, and only invest in the time and trouble to go
get a flashlight and search around his car if his initial search doesn't pan
out.

LTM (who has her keys)
Tom King

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

Which is the essence, if I understand it correctly, of the true
interpretation of Ockham's Razor----do the cheaper, easier stuff first.

Not that what we've done is either cheap or easy... but compared to
searching, say, the moons of Jupiter it's no' so bad.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:35:29 EDT
From:         Ang.
Subject:      Re: Money

>From Richard Johnson
>
>think at all. Ric, your scientific approach to the mystery is the only
>credible way to solve this mystery. Anything less would destroy your
>credibility and lump you with everyone else who has an opinion. Your

I'm in full agreement.

>time, the this, the that, etc... All this can be had. It's simply a
>money matter. Nothing else. Find the money and you find the truth!  I

Correct in my opinion. There is all sorts of money out there.
Its pursuit is an art called "grantsmanship".

In my opinion there will always be philanthropists and realists in our
global society that are willing to fund reasonable and professional
searches for the truth. These sources are both private and public. It's not
too far a reach to project that solution of the AE mystery is in our
national interests. Look at what was spent by all concerned parties in
finding John Kennedy's remains.

So.. Keep up the good work. Keep on a high professional plane. Document
your findings, plans and theories. Publish your results in recognized
journals. Keep the juices (information) flowing.

Ang.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:37:16 EDT
From:         Ron Feder
Subject:      No bucks, no Buck Rogers

> We have a photo of an Electra look alike in a tropical
> setting, missing one engine.  And we have an engine found in a tropical
> setting,
> missing an airplane.  Makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand right up!

I concur. Finding Electra hardware anywhere near Niku would energize the
search and probably lead to substantial cash donations. Remember the
lines from THE RIGHT STUFF (paraphrasing): "What makes rockets go up?
Funding....no bucks, no buck rodgers."
TIGHAR cannot sustain itself without some breakthrough. We've plateaud
and need to get to a higher level of material discovery.

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

How about some concrete suggestions for acquiring said bucks? We've been
doing this 15 years.... we are about out of fresh ideas.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:38:06 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Wreck explanation

George Hurd wrote:

<<Do not exclude Widgeon from consideration....>>

We didn't, but then we did.  The ratio of prop length to engine diameter is
wrong for even the radial engined Widgeons.

I still think that the aircraft in the Wreck Photo is probably a big-engined
Lockheed 10, either a "C" or an "E", but the new anecdotal information we've
gotten from former residents of the island, when combined with the other
anecdotes, the historical documents, the photos, and the artifacts we've
found - all paint a rather clear picture of what happened at Gardner Island,
and it doesn't include a scene like what we see in the Wreck Photo.

LTM (who is never afraid to change her mind),
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:39:21 EDT
From:         Jim Myers
Subject:      Oshkosh accident

[From Pat: This is the last posting on this subject, since it is really off topic----but
I know it is of great interest.]

The best information is at the following URLs:

Press Release:

http://www.avweb.com/oshkosh/osh99/day2/oshwire.html

Photos:

http://member.aol.com/lainey533/help.html

More aircraft stuff at:

http://www.avweb.com

Jim Myers
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:42:11 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Clanmere Revealed

We've wondered and speculated about this place and its occupant, the
enigmatic "Miss Clancy," for a long time.  Thanks to Simon Wiseman of
Malvern, we finally get to see it, as it exists today.  It's on Graham Road,
approximately across the road from the Malvern Library.  The librarian had
told us the building now houses the Local Careers Advice office and
Accountants and Insurance Brokers.  The partially visible sign at the right
seems to fit that.

The British opinion is that the building was originally a residence.
Sometime between the wars, the owner could no longer afford the servants
needed to maintain a large home and it became available for other use.
Sometime in that period, Julie Clancy and her partner Ms. Meredith (hence,
"Clanmere") set up a nursing home in the building.  As Phil Tanner observed,
Malvern is a Spa and there are a lot of nursing homes there today.  I was
disappointed not to see "CLANMERE" carved in stone above the entrance!  I
suppose there was a sign such as that of the accounts, etc., seen there now.
The balcony and stairs may be an addition to provide a required fire-escape.

CLANMERE.JPG is a large file.  I'll attach it to a separate message.

Vern

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

And I will post same to the TIGHAR web site. Thanks, Vern.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:44:43 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      cold hard steel?

Don Jordan said:

<<In my opinion, the most significant find of the last few years has been
the Canton engine.  To me, that's cold hard steel found by a real live person
living in southern California with expertise to  know an aircraft engine from
a hole in the ground.>>

Bruce Yoho would be the first to admit that the Canton Engine is not "cold
hard steel."  It is his recollection of an event that occurred nearly 30
years ago for which there is no contemporaneous written or photographic
documentation.  It is anecdotal.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:46:32 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Brown University----off topic

Very much off-topic but maybe Pat will let it sneak through! <G>

Brown University, in Providence, RI, has been mentioned in the news quite a
lot in recent weeks.  I'm reminded of a pet project of my own that has been
hanging fire for years.

Is there anyone who would be interested and who could do some research at
the Brown University Library?  This has nothing whatever to do with the
Earhart Search, nor with airplanes.  It relates to the very first female
writer of science-fiction (more like science-fantasy) to be published in the
good old days of the pulp-magazines (1930s).  Published as C. L. Moore, it
was a well kept secret that the author was Catherine Lucile Moore.  If
anyone is interested, I'll be happy to fill out the story and cite exactly
what is in the Brown University Special collections.  It won't require any
digging to find it.

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

Just this once, Vern....

If anyone is interested, please reply directly to Vern.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:47:33 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Niku IIIIP

RE Sactodave: It is high time to cut him off, direct him to the nearest
talk radio show where his talents can shine, and get on with the business
of moving forward. Enough of his drivel!

blue skies, -jerry

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

Well, let's see how he goes on. I hate to cut off such a promising source of
amusement.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:48:57 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Brushfires

Taking the same story, if after searching for several hours under the lamp
post, you still don't find the keys, then the obvious conclusion is that
they must be elsewhere.  If after several expeditions to Niku, nothing
substantive was found, it would be time to move on.  However, there is
enough evidence to suggest continue searching.  Think of it this way: you
found some some scraps of paper that you knew were in your pocket near the
lamp post, so you would think your keys would still be nearby.  Doesn't
prove it, but it does suggest continue searching.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:49:27 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: clutching at straws

I don't get paid either, but it would sure help out in paying the bills!
 Both Tom and I do it because it is intellectually challenging and fun,
even when arguing with Ric.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:58:13 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Brushfires

From Pat:

> We are convinced, by the body of evidence we have
> collected, that the *best* fit for the available data is
> Niku. That is why our search has focused on that island.

I agree.  I'm not saying that it's not the right thing to do.  I believe
it's the most LIKELY place to look.  It was the perception given by the
comment that it's being researched because it's the EASIEST place that I was
commenting on.  Or perhaps cautioning about would be a better way to put it.

> One thing that we would like to do, however, is test
> the null hypothesis: that any given uninhabited Pacific
> atoll would yield similar bits and pieces and stories and
> trails. We've never been able to do that, because it
> would be wildly expensive.

Agreed again.  This would be a bit like the experiment done many years ago
where they performed a Martian life-finder experiment in the middle of a
desert here on earth.  Within the limits of the experimental package, they
found nothing.  What it proved was that perhaps they needed a different set
of experiments.

In our case, I don't think that such an operation could possibly be
justified, nor do I think it's necessary.  Perhaps we'll reach a point where
we really need to develop some kind of "anecdotal evidence comparison
baseline" like this, but at the moment I'm satisfied that the inquery method
has been careful enough.  Or, in cases where it's possible the interviewer
may have poluted the source, it's been clearly stated as such.  I'm also
satisfied that the artifacts have been given proper attributes (i.e.: it's
not said that it's the window of the Electra, but rather that its'
COMPATABLE with the window of the Electra.)

> The other hypotheses usually put forth as solutions to
> ((..omitted..))

I agree with this too.  I'm only talking about the way the comments can be
perceived, not what I believe is actually happening.

From Tom:

> Sorry if my comment misled you, Bill, but your analogy
> isn't quite apt.  Let's suppose your man with his car keys
> ((..omitted..))
> get a flashlight and search around his car if his initial search
> doesn't pan out.

It didn't mislead me at all.  *I* know what you're getting at.  I was
cautioning, I guess, against the potential perception of that sort of
comment.  This project is already seen, in some circles, as being performed
by people who just won't give up in the face of the "obvious" fact that
Amelia went down at sea.  The chance of us also be perceived as looking
where we are because it's easier to prove this theory as opposed to one of
the others is something we can ill afford to have happen.

Unless I missed something, we're trying to prove this theory because it's
more LIKELY rather than because it's EASIER.

    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:10:57 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: cold hard steel?

You mean there is the possibility that Bruce did not find an aircraft engine
on an island in the Phoenix Group?  You would know better than I if he is
mistaken.  I have just felt from day one that the engine was real and I would
give anything to prove it was found on Niku. That would close the deal for me.
The story of that engine is the only thing that is keeping me from believing
100% that Niku is the right island.  That damn engine keeps coming to mind.

    When I think of the other items found, I can think of several logical ways
for them to get on that island and several ways for them to end up in the
condition there were found in.  And then I think of that engine.  There is no
other way that engine could have gotten to where it was found, unless it was
once attached to an airplane.  A single row radial engine of fairly low horsepower
did not come from a very big airplane.  Certainly not one that was capable of
trans Pacific flight, unless it was modified for such flight.

    Yes, it could have come from a lost, undocumented military flight.  Very
possible!  But, where ever that engine was found, you can bet the rest of the
airplane it was once attached to is not too far away.  There has to be a way
to continue the research on Niku, but also make a concentrated effort to locate
the source of that damn engine.

    We can do it with out a lot of money!  We can do it like we did the Noonan
Project.  Look at what all that turned up when we put our minds to it.  I'm
sure there are those on this Forum who feel as I do about that engine.  We don't
even have to dig the thing up!  Just find out where it came from and then decide
what to do with the information.  Maybe Bruce was wrong and the thing was found on
Niku.  Put me on the Hog train. . . wouldn't that be a kicker. . . .

    Tomorrow I am gong back to the TIGHAR Web site and read Bruce's account
again.  I haven't looked lately, but  assume it is still there.  I also wish
we could hear from Bruce on the subject.  Is he still a member of the Forum?

Don
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:13:11 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Emily's story

For Tom King... And Ric?

Re:  "...The previous anectodal accounts placed wreckage SOUTH of the
Norwich City.  Emily's anecdote places it NORTH of the shipwreck.  It's also
different kinds of wreckage; Emily was quite specific that it did not
include aluminum; it was heavy steel pieces.  The wreckage reported earlier
was quite explicitly aluminum."

Looking at the map...  There does appear to be a lot of reef flat extending
both north and south of the Norwich City wreckage.  Would this look like a
good place to try to put a plane down?  And I wonder what the shipwreck
looked like from the air in 1937?  Might it have been mistaken for a sign of
habitation?  In any case, it was an unmistakable landmark... if one had any
hope of communicating his location.

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

Yes, the reef is very broad and flat there, and would look attractive I dare
say. The shipwreck would have looked like a ship. The stern had not yet
broken off.

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

Emily's story -- North of shipwreck.  No aluminum.  Heavy steel pieces.  It
sounds more like some part of the Norwich City, but she was told it was
aircraft wreckage, presumably by people who had seen it close up.  I see
some steel in landing gear, mostly tubular and, of course, engines.  What
about that "bridge beam" that ran from wing to wing through the fuselage?  I
would expect that to be aluminum.  Did Emily's description sound at all like
a couple of engines?

Futile Speculation... How did Emily characterize aluminum?  Perhaps, to her,
aluminum was thin sheets, not heavy structural members.  That heavy stuff
was steel.  Or did she think of steel as rusting while aluminum did not rust
away and remained relatively bright?

Tapania Taiki's story -- South of the shipwreck.  A piece of airplane wing
on the reef.  And Pulekai Songivalu said there were pieces of an airplane
across the lagoon from Taziman Passage.

A scenario?...  If a wheels-down landing, north-to-south, ended in disaster
with landing gear being torn away (perhaps an engine being lost) might some
of the heavier steel structures have remained near the point of touch down?
These heavy parts had momentum to carry them forward but they may have
remained where they came to rest.  Larger and lighter parts such as wings
and fuselage pieces may have been moved about by wind and sea.  Perhaps they
traveled southward and remained, for a time. south of the shipwreck.
Perhaps even through the passage and across the lagoon.

We need a time-line.  When was a piece of airplane wing in evidence south of
the shipwreck.  And when was that not in evidence, but large steel parts of
an airplane were still to be seen north of the shipwreck?  Do the stories
fit together if one views them in the proper time sequence?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:16:08 EDT
From:         Sactodave
Subject:      Re: Niku IIIIP

There is good reason to eliminate my posts from this forum, I admit it.
However, you must admit that TIGHAR has pursued Gillespie's theory as
far as any organization should. The only reason TIGHAR is still going to
Niku is BECAUSE of Gillespie and King. They are "in charge" of the
research group, though I would not spend my money on their hunches. If
anyone else was directing TIGHAR's research, they would forget about
Niku after the first visit.

************************************************
From Pat---
I'm glad that you are so tuned in to what everyone who is a member and
supporter of TIGHAR is thinking. Do you by any chance have a patent on this
mind-reading device? If it were not for the support of hundreds of people,
there is no way TIGHAR could possibly fund field work on Nikumaroro.
************************************************

There is some validity in the Niku theory.
That is, the island is on the 157/337 LOP. Aside from that, the official
record of the ariel search effort after AE's disappearance would tend to
cast doubt on the Niku landing/crash scenario. (Now, if the search pilot
would have spotted "signs of a recent Lockheed twin landing"....) To add
insult to injury, someone says the bones they've found on Niku may be
AE's! Well, they weren't!

*************************************************
And your substantiation for this allegation would be....?
*************************************************

Furthermore, these wild goose chases to Fiji
have cost TIGHAR's contributors hundreds of thousands of dollars,

*************************************************
True; but so long as the contributors are not complaining, what's it to you?
As you have gone to great lengths to point out, you have not given us a
nickel and never will. You don't have a dog in the fight, Dave.
*************************************************

 and
turned up nothing but second-hand rumors, and whining accounts of
government red tape. (It is amusing to note how much veracity Gillespie
attributes to the Niku inhabitants, and how little he attributes to the
so-called "conspirator theory" anecdotes...)

***************************************************
The stories told by the former Niku residents are not second hand; they are
first hand accounts. The reason we accord them more respect than we do the
tales of conspiracy theorists is that there is independent primary source
evidence to support their tales, unlike those told on Saipan and in the
Marshalls.
***************************************************

The difficult treks to Niku
have done much to beautify the island with all that sifting, raking, and
trash removal, though I believe a garbage and landscaping contract with
one of the local island companies would be cheaper.  Yes, you really
should remove my posts from this forum. They are not "substantive"

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

And you know what, Dave? You're gonna get your wish.

This is the last posting that will appear under Sactodave's name on the
Earhart Forum. For those who miss him, you can always go read the newsgroup
alt.flame.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:16:51 EDT
From:         Jerry Gerdes
Subject:      Re: Money

I recall years ago a high degree of concern about loss of independence if
money was accepted from certain people or organizations. Fund raising in
recent years seems to have found an acceptable compromise or solution.

Unfortunately money is the answer. Properly obtained and managed will allow,
even demand, more rapid progress.

I vote for a professional fund raiser who will work for a reasonable fee.

Jerry Gerdes

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

Anybody know any fund raisers?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:23:43 EDT
From:         Fred Macio
Subject:      Re: Money

Pat & Ric:

FWIW I absolutely endorse Mr. Johnson's idea of hiring a professional
fund raiser.  Or otherwise calling a short "time out" to regroup and
raise some serious cash.  If your board of directors isn't already
supporting the concept, they should.

BTW Pat did you ever get a chance to "tap" my credit card for the $200.
that we talked about on the telephone almost a month ago?  I don't think
I've seen it on the monthly statement --- but I could be wrong.

Regards/   Fred

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

I'll check, Fred. But we come back to the first question: how do we find a
fund-raiser to work with us? We've tried the various local avenues with no
luck... they don't get it. Ideas?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:24:37 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Clanmere revealed

> The British opinion is that the building was originally a residence.
> Sometime between the wars, the owner could no longer afford the servants
> needed to maintain a large home and it became available for other use.

Should point out as a free-with-my-opinions Brit that I suggested to Vern
that this is a typical scenario for such a house moving from private to
business use around that time, but I have no knowledge that this was
definitely the case with Clanmere. Anecdote rather than cold bricks! LTM
Phil 2276

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

I'll try to get the pic up on the website today, and will send a notice out
when I do.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:25:21 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Why go eastwards?

A question for the Forum's experts in navigation and maybe an FAQ. Is it
right to assume that in 1937 it was no more difficult to navigate your way
around the world starting in the US and going westwards than it was
eastwards, and that the distance between Hawaii and Howland is a bit less
than that between Howland and Lae? If so, why did Earhart's second attempt
go eastwards when the first went the other way?

Prompted by Patrick's point about there being no evidence of Noonan ever
failing to find a destination with four hours' fuel with which to do so.
With respect, I think the argument is a bit specious because the challenge
of finding a tiny island after a 19-hour, two-handed flight was highly
unusual if not unique. However, there's no doubt that the more fuel Earhart
had, the greater the chance of finding Howland, and that she'd hardly be
likely to fly towards New Guinea westwards with four hours' spare fuel and
fail to find it. So if Hawaii-Howland was even marginally shorter than
Lae-Howland, why not maximize the chances of success?

LTM, Phil 2276
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:25:57 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Brushfires

Fair enough, Bill.  Point well taken.

LTM (who STILL hasn't found those @#$%$# keys!)
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:51:44 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: Wreck explanation

Ric wrote:

> but the new anecdotal information we've
>  gotten from former residents of the island, when combined with the other
>  anecdotes, the historical documents, the photos, and the artifacts we've
>  found - all paint a rather clear picture of what happened at Gardner Island,
>  and it doesn't include a scene like what we see in the Wreck Photo.

------I realize that Ric is very, very busy, but when can the forum expect
to be informed of "the rather clear pic of what happened on Nikumaroro"?
   LTM (who tends to believe "anecdotal" evidence that is logical), HAG 2201.

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

Probably the first part of next week.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:53:08 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Professional fundraisers

Yes, but . . . .    To raise serious money you do need a serious
and professional effort.  As an example, look at the new museum in England
dedicated to the World War Two 8th Air Force and its heroes.  That project
had been in the talking stage for decades, but it wasn't until the early 90s
when they finally decided to get serious about it.  Within about 5 years the
building was up, the aircraft were found and restored and the whole project
is a booming success.

    That being said . . . I get real ticked at the arrogance of some
professional fundraisers who demand as payment for their services of up to
40 percent of the funds they find.  That is true piracy.

    Nonetheless . .  . I vote for a professional fundraiser picked by
TIGHAR's Fundraising Selection Committee.  The committee should primarily be
comprised of TIGHAR members who have experience in fundraising operations,
and it should be chaired by a member of the TIGHAR Board of Directors.   The
Board of Directors would select the committee members and also would have
the option of including on the committee any non-TIGHAR members it believes
would add substantial insight and experience to this project.  I would limit
the committee to a membership of about nine to eleven people.  Meetings
would be via tele-conferencing with the costs shared by the committee
members as a tax deductible contribution to TIGHAR.

    I believe it is important to involve as many TIGHAR members as
possible from as diverse a geographic area as possible to make this project,
as always with TIGHAR, a true membership-run effort.

    LTM, who still plays the Lotto
    Dennis McGee #0149


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

Did I just hear you volunteering to put this together, Dennis, or was that my
imagination?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:55:33 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: alternative theories

Couldn't agree more with Max Standridge's comment that we should, from
time to time, consider at least a mental re-evaluation of all the facts
(real & alleged) related to the Earhart Mystery, including even some of
the most illogical & evidentially improbable scenarios.

If the TIGHAR investigation has proven nothing else, it has shown how
often long held, seemingly irrefutable theories can be challenged, with
the development of new factual or documentary evidence, uncovered as a
result of persistent & painstaking research & inqury.

Along that line of thinking, I wonder whether Mr. Standridge would share
with us his data concerning the involvement of James Forrestal in the
destruction of an aircraft on Saipan, as this story has always generated
a particular interest in my mind (of all the many conspiracy theories),
since it actually names a particular representative of the U.S.
government as being directly involved in the conspiratorial cycle of
events surrounding the disappearance of AE/FN, at a specified time &
place.

Since I realize the Forum might judge such interest on my part as
being... "off-topic"..., perhaps Mr. Standridge might wish to respond to
my inquiry directly.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:56:33 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Money

Well, I do know a couple of professional fund raisers, but when I've brought
this up in the past you guys have said you'd had such bad experiences with
their ilk, you didn't want to pursue them.  I can talk with somebody if you
think it'd be a good idea.

Incidentally, I'm really honored to see that Sactodave is now blaming me, as
well as Ric, for squandering the money of all those poor benighted
contributors.  It's good to spread the blame, I think.

TK

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

Please do, Tom.

And Sactodave is now history. I booted him off the Forum.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:03:54 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Money

Talking of fund raising, has anyone tried  Lockheed-Martin and/or Pratt &
Whitney ? If anyone could be interested in the project, then this two big
aviation names -who were directly involved in the 1937 flight- certainly
would After all, wasn't P&W behind the Finch flight of 1997 ?

                        Herman

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

Endlessly. Lockheed has, over the years, been supportive in non-cash ways,
but they don't give to any aviation-related causes so as to avoid being
inundated. P&W did indeed support the Finch flight. That well is now dry.
They never want to hear the name Earhart again.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:05:09 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Null hypothesis

I nominate Henderson Island for our null hypothesis
<http://winthrop.webjump.com/hender.html>   This is a remote,
uninhabited Pacific island, complete with skeletons (disputed European or
Polynesian) and an archeological record.  No airplane parts, though.  It has
some connections to both Moby Dick and the Mutiny on the Bounty.  You can
find quite a lot on these places.  They may be less visited now than they
were in the days of the whalers and sealers.

Dan Postellon TIGHAR 2263

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

Um, gee, Dan, you wanna run out there and do a survey and get back to us? :-)

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:05:48 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Brushfires

Bill says:

<<Unless I missed something, we're trying to prove this theory because it's
more LIKELY rather than because it's EASIER.>>

Absolutely. When we started this project ten years ago we did so reluctantly.
 We had to admit, however, that the theory that the flight ended on either
Mckean or Gardner seemed logical on the face of it.  Since then, although
we've tested and disporoved many sub-theories about exactly what happened and
where things may have ended up, the basic hypothesis has become increasingly
supported by the information we have uncovered.

If there's something easy about testing this hypothesis it has escaped my
notice.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:08:58 EDT
From:         Jim Van Hare
Subject:      Re: grasping at straws

Welcome back from Niku, but please don't fall into the trap that one particular
person has once again set for you and for this forum.  As the kids say, you've
"been there, done that, and even bought the t-shirt" in the not so distant past.
There's a game being played here:  A few posted messages have forced you on the
defensive and have forced your truly interested and supportive forum members on
their defensive, and there's nothing out there to defend against!

This discussion forum has always carefully and scientifically presented
information, and has always honestly tried to determine the reliability of
that information.  The forum moderator has no need to waste his time and energy
defending himself or defending a very legitimate hypothesis.

If TIGHAR's hypothesis is correct and irrefutable supporting evidence is
discovered, the matter is settled.  If another person or group finds irrefutable
evidence that TIGHAR's hypothesis is incorrect, the matter is also settled.
And either outcome will once again validate the scientific approach as a method of
answering a question.

Cheers!

Jim Van Hare

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

The person in question is now history, Jim. Thanks for your support. I don't
intend to allow this sort of situation to arise again. Anyone who doesn't
like our approach, our hypotheses, our fund-raising, or our hair color can go
get their own Forum if they can't figure out a way to criticize
*constructively*.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:09:30 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Cold hard steel

<<You mean there is the possibility that Bruce did not find an aircraft
engine on an island in the Phoenix Group?>>

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.  That possibility has nothing to do with
Bruce's character.  I am absolutely convinced that he is telling us what he
believes to be the truth - and it may well be the truth.  My point is that
human memory - his, mine, and yours - is fallible.  Our only defense against
the inherent fallibility of our recollections is to seek less fallible
sources of corroboration.  So far, in the case of the Canton engine, we have
been unable to find such corroboration.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:10:11 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Vern asks:

<<Do the stories fit together if one views them in the proper time sequence?>>

That's part of what we really need to look at now.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:10:57 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Sacto Farewell

Just a quick note to say that I completely agree with Pat's decision to
terminate Sactodave.  While we occasionally decline postings that are
off-topic or excessively rude,  we've never before forcibly ejected someone
from the Forum.  Sactodave worked hard for that honor.  Now, if he wants to
know what's happening on the Earhart Forum he'll have to read the highlights
on the website.

I do want to make it clear that this action was not taken because he was
critical of TIGHAR or me or Tom King or you, the members of the forum.  We
booted him because his criticism was consistently mean-spirited and utterly
lacking in substance. I truly hope that he'll have the further honor of being
our only exile.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:11:27 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Why go eastwards?

My understanding is that the decision to reverse directon had to do with
prevailing winds during the monsoon season in India that would not have been
a factor earlier in the year.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:12:16 EDT
From:         Barb Norris
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

<< Futile Speculation... How did Emily characterize aluminum?  Perhaps, to her,
 aluminum was thin sheets, not heavy structural members.  That heavy stuff
 was steel.  Or did she think of steel as rusting while aluminum did not rust
 away and remained relatively bright? >>

Maybe not so futile.  I have to agree with Ric's speculation. Emily's ability
to identify aluminum was more than likely limited the thin sheets her father
used to his decorate the wooden boxes and combs he made.  During our first
interview, she mentioned nothing about "rusting" that I recall, only that
"the steel struts, the long pieces, were there.  The waves washing them in
low tide."  Emily has led a relatively simple life by comparison to our daily
grind.  I'll bet she hasn't had much exposure to, or experience with,
identification of various metals.  Kris, Tom...any thoughts?

LTM (who knows aluminum when she bites it),
Barbara Norris
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:13:47 EDT
From:         Barb Norris
Subject:      Re: Niku IIIIP

Sacto wrote:

<< There is good reason to eliminate my posts from this forum, I admit it.
 However, you must admit that TIGHAR has pursued Gillespie's theory as
 far as any organization should. The only reason TIGHAR is still going to
 Niku is BECAUSE of Gillespie and King. They are "in charge" of the
 research group, though I would not spend my money on their hunches. If
 anyone else was directing TIGHAR's research, they would forget about
 Niku after the first visit.
  >>

Perhaps you'd like to consider the fact that King did NOT go to Niku this
trip.  None of us get paid in money to participate in TIGHAR's research or
expeditions.  We get something far more valuable.  But I'll let you figure
out what that might be.

Meanwhile here's a quote to ruminate:

"We are more in need of vision or destination and less in need of a map.
Leaders create their own destiny by following their internal compass.  They
make their life a mission, not just a career."

So long Dave, and remember to be careful what you wish for, you just might
get it...

LTM (who says, "Play nice!"),
Barbara Norris
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:32:45 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Why go eastward

Good question about East to West vs. West to East.  I wish I had a really
good answer, other than weather.  Consulting with my meteorological
friends, it appears that the winds across Africa shift dramatically from
April through June, and AE's explanation is approximately correct.  There
appears to be no other reason postulated, and this one seems somewhat weak.
 Despite all of this, I would still have favored the tail wind by going E
to W.  The jump from Howland to Lae would have been a piece of cake: just
find the continent of New Guinea!  The flight from Hono to Howland would be
difficult, but with a full load of gas, one could search for much longer
upon arrival in the area than from Lae.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:33:27 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Money

For Tom King:
My wife will be pleased to hear that it is you, and not me, that is
responsible for wasteful expenditures in my household.  Bless you, my good
man!
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:34:11 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Null hypothesis

I've been advocating a survey of Hull or Sydney Island for quite some time.
 It appears that the colonists did trade among the islands, and it would be
interesting to determine the density of artifacts that might be compatible
with AE among the islands.  It's possible, but now unlikely, that the plane
wreck was on one of these islands, and the various physical plane artifacts
made it to Gardner.  The bone story, however, puts an entirely different
slant on things.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:34:55 EDT
From:         Jerry Gerdes
Subject:      Re: Money

Next week I have a business and dinner meeting with the President of an
aviation related organization. They too have funding problems at about the
same order of magnitude we do. I know in the last three years they have
increased their fund rasing activities with some success. I'll inquire about
their techniques and their access to the Pros.

I'll get back with anything useful.

Jerry Gerdes

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

Thanks, Jerry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:36:48 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Alternative Theories

I don't agree that we should spend valuable time disproving the other's
theories.  It is easier to prove ours, then by inference, theirs are
disproven.  Anything that you can "prove" about Forrestal being on the other
side of the universe would be only a "cover-up" to the conspiracy theorists,
so you can't really "disprove" anything in their minds.

Blue Skies & LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200
*********************************

In general, this is the approach we have taken--- in large part because it is
not possible to prove a negative hypothesis. However, investigating the null
hypothesis is a valid procedure in scientific work.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:37:50 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Barb, if I read you correctly (quote below), Emily was not describing big,
massive junks of metal of whatever kind.  Rather, she was speaking of the
kind of long, slender structural members you would expect to be left after
the "skin" of an airplane had been pretty well torn away and had "migrated"
to other places under the influence of sea and wind.

This seems to say the airplane landed (not necessarily crashed) at that
location on the reef-flat to the north of the Norwich City shipwreck.  Some
of the pieces not so easily moved about by sea and wind remained more or
less where the plane landed.  These pieces may have eventually also been
dispersed by continued wave and wind action -- and whatever storms occurred.

Curious... that's about where the engines should have been and they should
have stayed put.  If the airplane virtually disintergrated in a crash
landing, the engines would have continued going for some distance.  I expect
some of our folks with crash investigation experience will have something to
say about that... At the landing speed of the Electra, wheels up or down,
would the engines be likely to tear free? And how far might the engines have
traveled?

>From Barb Norris

>Maybe not so futile.  I have to agree with Ric's speculation. Emily's ability
>to identify aluminum was more than likely limited to the thin sheets her
>father used to decorate the wooden boxes and combs he made.  During our first
>interview, she mentioned nothing about "rusting" that I recall, only that
>"the steel struts, the long pieces, were there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:39:59 EDT
From:         Ang.
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

>used to his decorate the wooden boxes and combs he made.  During our first
>interview, she mentioned nothing about "rusting" that I recall, only that
>"the steel struts, the long pieces, were there.  The waves washing them in
>low tide."  Emily has led a relatively simple life by comparison to our daily

Have you thought of other twin-engine aircraft of that era?

Sikorsky was a prolific producer of a a variety of amphibians. The most
common was the S-38, a replica of which has been recently touted on the
cover of their EAA Nov.'98 "Sport Aviation" periodical. These are the
forerunners of his Clipper series. The Sikorsky style of structure, the
S-38 through S-40 at least, included lots of steel tubes, etc. that would
be a crude match to the array of pieces described by Emily. (These along
with their years of production after 1928 alonf with theri flying activites
are outlined in his biography "The Story of the Winged-S".

Ang.

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

Yes, we have looked at all the aircraft that might, by any wild stretch of
the imagination, have been in that part of the world. Nothing matches.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:40:45 EDT
From:         William Dohenyguy
Subject:      Frustration

     Ever since Ric and the crew came back from Niku, and Tom and the mob
returned from Fiji, there has been alot of hostility on the Forum. I guess
we all thought Ric would return with a wing, bearing a certain number. And
I'm sure we all thought Tom would bring home two flagged draped coffins.
Well, it didn't happen. Sometimes you don't get what you hoped for.

     It takes alot of money for a trip like that, and when there are sparse
results, backers head for the hills, and the avid curious tend to get
frustrated. It's understandable, but, yes, frustrating.

     Ric, I think it is time to talk to George again. Not over the phone,
but in person. He can't be that elusive, he must want to solve the mystery
too. The wreck photo is a smoking gun, who took the pic, when, and where?
You have to corner this man, and make him understand the significance of his
knowledge.

Willian LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:44:14 EDT
From:         Dave Forum
Subject:      Fundraising

Ric mentioned off-forum to me a few months back that TIGHAR has a mechanism
in place that will hit donor's credit cards once a month for an agreed upon
amount.  Perhaps it's time to publicize that option.  Perhaps a minimun
level ($20) in leiu of the regular $45 annual membership fee, bringing in
$240 annually rather than $45 from those who choose the option?  Of course,
a larger amount could be given if desired, and the option of $45 or $50 one
time payment, one year "trial memberships" should probably be kept as well.

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

Yes, this is still very much an option, and anyone who wishes to make a
monthly gift to TIGHAR, automatically on their credit card, should email me
(Pat, that is) at TIGHARpat@mac.com to make the arrangements for which we would
be very grateful indeed. Practical minimum is $10 a month.

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

On another front, I can't imagine the folks at the Smithsonian NOT being
interested in this.  Could a presentation of what TIGHAR and the Earhart
Project has accomplished thus far serve to open up their coffers a wee bit?
Please correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here, but wouldn't the
Smithsonian be the eventual "final resting place" for aircraft debris
conclusively proven to have come from NR16020?  If that's true, it can be
coupled with the fact that the evidence definitely points to Niku, and
perhaps they can shake loose some "exhibit acquisition" funds.

Just some ideas.

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288

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

We know all the folks at the Smithsonian quite well, and you bring up a
popular misconception concerning their level of funding which I will now
correct:

The National Air and Space Museum has NO, that is NO funding for
acquisitions. None whatsoever. Very few museums do. The museum world
scrambles for every penny just like we do.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:44:47 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: why go eastwards?

My own recollection of the reason given for reversing the direction of
the AE/FN flight from westward to eastward (after the groundloop mishap
of the aborted takeoff from Hawaii) was to avoid storms (hurricanes)
that could be developing in the South Atlantic, at that time of year,
upon the flight's return trip from Africa to South America, if they flew
a westerly route.

Considering the fact that by traveling eastward they did run into very
heavy monsoon storms across the subcontinent & had to turn back & land
on at least one occasion, due to the severity of such storms, it doesn't
seem to me that it was the most well thought out decision made by the
planners of the flight.

Must admit I've often wondered why they would choose to travel the
longest, most difficult, overwater (mostly at night) leg of the flight
at the near end of the journey, (when both plane & crew are probably the
most air weary & fatigued) trying to find a narrow strip of an island in
the mid-Pacific.      Though I'm not a pilot or navigator, I still
believe I would rather face the _possiblity_ of flying through, over or
around South Atlantic storm systems, with two entire continents as my
potential landfall, than trying to plot a course through the night to
such a small speck of land in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Conversely, AE/FN probably considered that Noonan's navigational skills
& the prospect of having a radio beam from Itaska to guide them would be
sufficient,  not anticipating that a failure of their radio
receiver/antenna system or directional ring would leave them totally
dependant upon the accuracy of Noonan's calculations & Earhart's ability
to fly the course he charted.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:17:29 EDT
From:         Barb Norris
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

You're right, Vern.  The crash investigation experience lies in the capable
and talented hands of Ric.  He'll no doubt offer a bit of feedback on the
subject.  But my husband, Jeff and & I have been discussing possibilities
over the past couple of days and here are a few of our random thoughts...

1. There's always the possibility that it was a relatively soft landing and
the plane was in tact.  It's our thought that anything light that may have
fallen off the plane or was torn off in severe weather would either be washed
onto the beach or wash back to the reef face and fall over it.

2.  Our thought about the engines, is that if they were torn off or
eventually fell off, they were surely heavy enough to sink.  Over time, the
sand and sinking action would eventually cover the engines.  So, they may
just be buried in the sand.

3.  If you just think of normal shoreline action and something heavy sitting
in shallow water, as waves wash over that object the sand softens under the
weight and it sinks.  If an object lays on the beach even over a short period
of time it becomes buried in sand due to wind and wave action.

4.  In the event of heavy storms, a mound of sand could be leveled off,
giving the appearance that nothing's there.  We've experienced this first
hand.  On a barrier island of North Carolina where we spend a lot of time,
the dunes were completely wiped out by a hurricane.  They were later
reestablished by the placement of old Christmas trees and snow fence along
the beach front.  It was amazing how quickly the dunes rebuilt themselves.

In the event of a hard or soft landing, some debris should be there.  Our
teams haven't spent much time searching that area due to the debris field
from the Norwich City.  They KNEW they'd pick up a lot of noise with the
detectors in that vicinity.  Hopefully, those struts Emily described are
there amid the wreckage of the ship.  We just have to sort it out.  But hey,
this group loves a challenge!

There you have it Vern...our amateur musings on the subject.

LTM (who was a real beach bunny),
Barbara Norris
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:19:14 EDT
From:         Mike Rejsa
Subject:      Re: memories

Ric wrote:

> My point is that human memory - his, mine, and yours - is fallible.
> Our only defense against the inherent fallibility of our recollections
> is to seek less fallible sources of corroboration.

Ric, while you were gone I announced that I had just been successful in
finding an item stolen twice, the first time being some thirty years
ago. My intent was to cheerleader a little bit about searches - I spent
about a year and a half collecting data etc. and was eventually
successful, as I expect TIGHAR will be.

Relating to annecdotal evidence: I had a 30-year-old memory of one
aspect of this thing that, over the years, I had begun to question; in
retrospect it seemed technically very unlikely. When I finally found the
person who had done the modification (and also when I found the item
itself), I discovered my memory was perfectly accurate and correct.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:20:10 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: frustration

William dohenyguy writes:

<<It takes alot of money for a trip like that, and when there are sparse
results, backers head for the hills, and the avid curious tend to get
frustrated. It's understandable, but, yes, frustrating.>>

Understandable perhaps, but it's not happening.  No backers have headed for
any hills and the avid curious, while just as frustrated as the rest of us,
remain just as avid and just as curious as ever.  If there has been an
increase in hostility on the Forum since our return I suspect that it is due
almost entirely to my own lack of tact.

<<Ric, I think it is time to talk to George again. Not over the phone,
but in person. He can't be that elusive, he must want to solve the mystery
too. The wreck photo is a smoking gun, who took the pic, when, and where?>>

Au contraire.  The new information resulting from this expedition leads me to
think that the Wreck Photo has nothing to do with the Earhart disappearance
except as a tantalizing and very misleading red herring.  If George
(Carrington) wants to talk to me my phone number is (302) 994-4410 but I'm
kind of busy these days.

This may sound strange, but if a genie had given me this choice before the
expedition:

"Which would you rather find - more pieces of aircraft debris that are
consistent with a Lockheed 10 but not conclusively from Earhart's - or - new
anecdotal accounts that greatly clarify the picture of what may have happened
and could eventually lead to conclusive proof?"

I'd have gone for the anecdotes.  I'm delighted at what we found.  I think
we've got this thing nailed and I think we'll eventually be able to prove it.
 That may sound like a brash statement (Me? Brash statements?) but I have the
benefit of more information than you guys do at the moment.  I'll correct
that as soon as possible.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:20:49 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Help from NASM?

Dave Porter says:

<<I can't imagine the folks at the Smithsonian NOT being interested in this.
Could a presentation of what TIGHAR and the Earhart Project has accomplished
thus far serve to open up their coffers a wee bit?>>

Pat has already explained that the Smithsonian (that is, the National Air &
Space Museum, aka NASM) doesn't have any acquisition coffers to open, but
it's also true that, like all of us, they can often find the money to do
things they really want to do.  Helping TIGHAR to solve the Earhart mystery
does not fall into that category.  NASM, through the chairman of its
Aeronautics department, has adopted the role of learned skeptic toward
TIGHAR's hypothesis.  It's not a question of them not having access to the
facts or being urged to familiarize themselves with the facts.  It's a matter
of intellectual inflexibility that fosters such arguments as:

*  Nikumaroro is a tiny island.  If there was anything there somebody would
have seen it and TIGHAR would have found it by now.

*  TIGHAR says that photogrammetric measurement of Earhart's shoes shows her
to be wearing a size 8 or 9 shoe at the time of her death, but shoes from
Earhart's youth in a Kansas museum and the recollections of Earhart's sister
prove that she had small feet.

*  The only way the Earhart mystery will ever be solved is by the recovery of
a "smoking gun" - an aircraft component with a serial number.

Can you hear an anthropologist at the Smithsonan's Museum of Natural History
saying, "The only way we can ever be certain that apes and humans evolved
from a common ancestor is to find a 'smoking gun' - an early human with the
stump of a tail."  ?

Far from being a champion of sound historical investigation and scientific
method, NASM has become the voice of simplistic popular opinion.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:25:10 EDT
From:         Jon Pieti
Subject:      A basic premise

Bill Leary wrote:

>Unless I missed something, we're trying to prove this theory because it's
>more LIKELY rather than because it's EASIER.

More likely than the scenario where they just went down at sea somewhere?
How can you say that? I've been following this forum and the progress of
TIGHAR with great interest for some months now, and I admire the thorough
work and discipline being put forth in attempting to solve the mystery, and
I hope that they are correct and eventually successful...

But - the one thing that has been bothering me all along is that just
because it isn't feasible for TIGHAR (or anyone else) to expend resources
looking for evidence of a loss at sea, or likely that it would be possible
to find it after all these years, that doesn't mean that ending for Amelia &
Fred is any less probable.

I understand that the only place where there is any possibility of finding
evidence after 62 years is on one of the islands in the vicinity they are
searching.  But it's a darn big ocean out there, and just because the
Colorado and the rest of the Navy didn't find any evidence of a loss at sea
in 1937, doesn't rule it out as a possibility.

Let me say it this way:  The selection of any group of data to examine does
not make a particular outcome scenario of the event being studied any more
or any less likely to have occurred.

- Jon Pieti

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

I think, Jon, that the situation is not as simple as "there's a lot of ocean
but we can't look there." The truth is, that the *only* explanation which
fits *all* the known FACTS---not surmises, not suppositions, but facts--- is
that Earhart reached land, almost certainly Nikumaroro.

I'll let Ric carry this farther than I can, but remember that any hypothesis
about a mystery must account for everything known. If my keys are lost, the
most likely place for me to look may well be on the kitchen counter or in my
jeans pockets.... unless the last time I saw them the dog was playing with
them in the back yard.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:30:23 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Canton Engine, again

I must confess that I've not kept notes on all this.  I believe we have
pretty good, although anecdotal, corroboration that Bruce did, indeed, have
an old engine on Canton.  But where did he get it?  Have all possibilities
of finding people who might know where the engine was picked up been
exhausted?  Do we know who any of those people are?  Have we been unable to
find them... or found that they are no longer with us?

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

One of the other mechanics does recall that Bruce had an old engine.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:27:31 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Big money

If I ever win the Texas lotto, I promise a one million dollar donation
to TIGHAR. But I want to go to Niku with ya'll. Seven come eleven baby!

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

Hey, for a million big ones, you can buy the boat!

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:28:06 EDT
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Re: Canton engine

To Don Jordan

Don, I am still on the forum and very much still interested in the A.E.
search. I still contribute what I can and intend to remain a member until the
results prove something.

The engine is not a fabrication, but is and was a real incident in my life
that only, became important after learning of Tighar's existence.

Don, If you want to contact me by e-mail I would be happy to discuss any
aspects and questions you may have of the engine.

LTM (Who knows what she knows)
Bruce
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:28:39 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Help from NASM?

NASM (Tom Crouch) also insists that Earhart didn't have enough fuel to make
it to Niku, and discounts the bones because Hoodless didn't identify them as
Earhart's.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:29:49 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: A basic premise

Pat wrote:

<I'll let Ric carry this farther than I can, but remember that any hypothesis
about a mystery must account for everything known. If my keys are lost, the
most likely place for me to look may well be on the kitchen counter or in my
jeans pockets.... unless the last time I saw them the dog was playing with
them in the back yard.>>

I can't say it any better than that.  Crashed-and-sank would be a great
hypothesis if the traditional premises were true:

* That it is reasonable to assume that the aircraft ran out of fuel within
minutes of the 08:43 transmission heard by ITASCA.

*  That all of the alleged post-loss radio signals were proven to be either
misunderstandings or outright hoaxes.

*  That the Navy's aerial search of the Phoenix Group (acknowledged at the
time as being the most likely place) turned up nothing suspicious.

*  That nobody ever came across anything during the subsequent settlement of
those islands that might indicate that the Earhart/Noonan flight might not
have crashed at sea.

In short, the dog had the keys.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:30:29 EDT
From:         Terry Ann Linly
Subject:      Re: Niku IIIIP

Wow!  I left for a week of vacation, and all Hell broke loose on the Forum in
my absence!  I'm sorry Sactodave could not contain himself; he will miss out
on much intensely interesting information until results are posted on the
website.

Barb Norris' quote on 6 August (Re:  Niku IIIIP) really hit home:  TIGHAR is
about vision and mission.  It is also about RISK ("You always miss 100% of
the shots you DON'T take"), TIMING ("Believing that things happen too slowly
or too quickly is an illusion.....timing is perfect"), and about ACTION and
PASSION ("As life is action and passion, it is required of a man that he
should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not
to have lived."...Oliver Wendell Holmes).

One of the characteristics that makes TIGHAR different from other
organizations is that we ALL contribute in some way to the effort:
monetarily, intellectually, physically and/or emotionally.  I'm glad to be a
part of the organization, even if only a small part.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:31:05 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Canton Engine, again

Vern asked:

<<Have all possibilities of finding people who might know where the engine
was picked up been exhausted?  Do we know who any of those people are?  Have
we been unable to find them... or found that they are no longer with us?>>

***********************
To which Pat replied:

<<One of the other mechanics does recall that Bruce had an old engine.>>

But he doesn't remember it being airlifted to Canton.  What we have for
Bruce's story is partial anecdotal support.  True corroboration would be:
*   a helicopter flight log describing the event
*   photos of the event
*   the engine itself

Similarly, if a wartime resident of Saipan says there was an American lady
flier held in Garapan Prison, another resident's assertion that there was a
woman in the prison is not enough to say that Earhart was there.  True
corroboration would be;
*  official records that mentioned prisoner Earhart
*  photos of Earhart in Garapan Prison
*  Earhart's remains in a Saipanese grave

By the same token, if a former resident of Nikumaroro says there was an
airplane wreck on the island in 1939-1941, another similar report is not
enough to say that a plane was there.  True corroboration would be:
*  mention of the wreck in official records
*  photos of the wreck datable to 1939-1941 which match the description and
location given in the anecdotal account
*  pieces of the wreck

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:31:42 EDT
From:         Mark Cameron
Subject:      Re: frustration

Ric and Pat

Yes, the Forum has been more hostile as of late, but not due to any fault of
yours. Most of us are waiting in the wings for the complete story on
NikuIIIIP and sometimes frustration leads to outbursts and confrontation, but
we're only human. Support for this project seems to be as strong as ever, in
spite of the detractors, and the newest info makes it clearer than ever that
we're on the right track.

In a way, I'm sorry Sactodave abused his role as devil's advocate, his
postings were always interesting when he wasn't being abusive. He inspired my
first post to the Forum a while ago, leading to membership, and I'll miss his
ravings even tho he HAD to go, good decision, Pat.

LTM (who knows a good wait makes the results more tantalizing)
Mark Cameron #2301
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:44:18 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Money-frustration

A couple of days ago I suggested it was time to throw some serious money
at this problem. I did not make this suggestion out of pure frustration.
I am not frustrated with Rics' progress. As a matter of fact, I think he
has acquired a massive amount of information in ten years, and all of it
quite promising. Furthermore, I have no right to be frustrated with
anything TIGHAR has done. Hell, I've never done anything to help them.
I'm just a guy who is very interested in someone discovering the truth.
People like Ric who endeavor to persevere will always have my
admiration. "Endeavor to Perservere", man that sounds good! Maybe a motto
for TIGHAR.

Richard Johnson
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:44:47 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: frustration

Ric wrote:-

>>Au contraire.  The new information resulting from this expedition leads me to
>>think that the Wreck Photo has nothing to do with the Earhart disappearance

Wow ! - Ric joins the  "the Wreck's not AE's L10E"   club !!    I've seen it all <g>.
So presumably the new anecdotal evidence you have seems to preclude what's
visible in the wreck photo ? I can't wait to hear about the evidence !!

LTM
Simon #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:47:41 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: A basic premise

Pat, who ones suspects is even more fixated on Niku than Ric, has
stated:

"The truth is, that the *only* explanation which fits *all* the
known FACTS---not surmises, not suppositions, but facts--- is
that Earhart  reached land, almost certainly Nikumaroro."

Well, that's a reasonable enough statement, providing all those
known FACTS can be presented to us. (Just a brief concise list, with sources,
will suffice).

May I respectfully request TIGHAR provide the list, since I seem
to have missed something in prior postings?

Cam Warren

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

I think I'll let Ric do this one. However, I will say that as islands go,
Niku is one of my least favorite places and I am far from "fixated" on it.
Too bad that's where the evidence leads, I'd much prefer Bermuda.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:48:14 EDT
From:         William Dohenyguy
Subject:      Don't need George any more

     Ric Wrote, "...new information... the wreck photo has nothing to do
with the Earhart disappearance"..." I'm certainly impressed. When will the
Forum be exposed to this new information? I'm waiting with baited breath.

William LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:49:00 EDT
From:         Mary Joy
Subject:      Re: Canton engine

Actually Vern, there is no corroboration of Bruce Yoho's
story with the exception of one of his personal friends
that told Ric on the phone, as I recall "Yeah,Bruce had an old
engine that he was fooling with". Bruce can't seem to come up with
anyone else, including the helicopter pilot or any crew that
was on this "sightseeing" trip to some "other island" to verify
this story. There are, however, several management types
that were on Canton at the same time, that never heard
of an interesting old radial engine in the area.

Marty Joy
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:50:03 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Canton engine

>One of the other mechanics does recall that Bruce had an old engine.

Yes, but have we found anyone, such as a chopper pilot, who might be able to
say where the engine was picked up?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:51:11 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Canton engine

Please disregard previous message! <Grin>

I should have asked, have we identified any people who might be able to say
where the engine was picked up?  If so, do we have any ideas about how to go
about finding them?

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

Too late, it got posted in order .... I don't read everything and then post,
I read/post/read/post.

Too bad there isn't an "unsend" option on internet email....

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:51:45 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Barb,

>2.  Our thought about the engines, is that if they were torn off or
>eventually fell off, they were surely heavy enough to sink.  Over time, the
>sand and sinking action would eventually cover the engines.  So, they may
>just be buried in the sand.

Was this wreckage not on the reef-flat?  I wonder how it plays out there?
And Bruce picked up his engine from a reef-flat.  But we're not sure what
reef-flat!
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:55:20 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Should Emily's description of aircraft debris on the reef flat, in the
general vicinity of the Norwich wreck, be considered an accurate
observation, we must again confront the fact that the Lambercht
overflight of the island (a week after last radio contact) failed to
observe any sign of the aircraft or identifiable aircraft debris, even
though he clearly described the remains of the Norwich in that same
general area of the island.

Since I believe Randy Jacobson, in a previous post, determined that
there had been no record of any unusual storm activity or wave/tidal
action in the vicinity of Niku island for that time frame, doesn't it
seem unlikely that the aircraft could have made a safe, wheels down
landing on that particular area of the reef flat & then in a week's time
been demolished or washed off the flat by relatively normal tidal
action, to the point where no identifiable portions of the aircraft
remained to be seen from Lambrecht's plane?

Naturally, the possibility does remain that the aircraft made it's
initial landing in such close proximity to the outer edge of the reef
flat that even normal tidal activity could have sucked the aircraft off
the flat, into the much deeper surrounding waters, within a week's time
& then in the interim time period from Lambrecht's flight until Emily's
observation, portions of the plane could have been washed up fom the
depths, onto the reef flat, by any subsequent storm & unusual wave/tidal
activity.

So much speculation, so little solid evidence, I guess that is what
makes this search so compelling!

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:56:29 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      AE's shoe size

> >From Ric
>
>*  TIGHAR says that photogrammetric measurement of Earhart's shoes shows her
>to be wearing a size 8 or 9 shoe at the time of her death, but shoes from
>Earhart's youth in a Kansas museum and the recollections of Earhart's sister
>prove that she had small feet.

Excuse me, but I wear size 8 or 9 shoes and my feet are very small.
I'm sure you didn't mean it... ;-)

LTM, who's also dainty
Amanda Dunham

"Well, I take a size 6.  But a 7 feels so good, I wear a size 8."
Dolly Parton in "Steel Magnolias"
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:27:44 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Don Neumann says:

>So much speculation, so little solid evidence, I guess that is what
>makes this search so compelling!

Absolutely, Don.  The nearness of Emily's wreck to Norwich City really is a
head-scratcher, and one always has the option of saying something like "Oh,
the Colorado pilots couldn't help but have seen it, so therefore Emily's
testimony actually REFUTES the Nikumaroro landing hypothesis."  However, one
then has to account for Emily's testimony some other way.  Around and around
we go.

But here's a question for all the airplane folks -- two questions, really.

(a) It an airplane on a reef is going to get ripped apart by the waves, is it
likely that the aluminum body and wings would come off in large chunks,
leaving the heavy undercarraige sitting on the reef?

(b) If you've got only the undercarraige sitting on the reef, how hard is it
going to be for the Colorado pilots to see it?

More speculation, obviously, but just wondering.

LTM (who's not above speculation)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:28:34 EDT
From:         Blake Herling
Subject:      Re: Canton engine

Until Ric & the team get all their info sorted out & presentable, I guess
we all want something to continually chew on.
Re enter.....
the "Canton" engine.....
Its been a while since the Canton engine thing all came about, & I should
have gone back to the web site & reviewed all this stuff before I wrote,
but I didnt have the time, so I'm going from memory.
Wasnt the engine found during somewhat of a  "joy ride" by board, off
duty, personel?
I read that one of the other mechanics remembers Bruce having an old
engine, but where did it come from? I guess thats the $20. question.
Joy rides probably dont stick out in the minds of flight crews, but as far
as I know, joy rides dont usually go back some where to recover an
artifact half buried in the sand of an island beach that was previousley
over flown either. Add to this the fact that the whole thing was the idea
of one of your passengers (a mechanic) & that there would be a fair amount
of effort involved. You think this would stick out in your mind, at least
more than other joy rides where all you did was "ride"
Well heres where all this is going. I am not a pilot yet, but I do alot of
flying with a friend who has a plane. Alot of times one or the other of us
will call & say hey I've got an extra $20. wanna go for a ride? & we go,
but never & I mean never do we not know where we are. We live & fly around
the Rockies so getting lost has potentially nasty side effects. Much like
the Pacific ocean. So I said all that to say this ( & to take up time till
the latest updates become available) I dont understand how the pilot of
any joy ride could not know where he was while flying over the Pacific.
Youd have to know, or you may wind up dead. & if you picked up an artifact
during your flight it would seem logical that at that point the joy ride
would be over & with cargo slung you would head straight home.
Is the pilot, or any of the flight crew still around?
If so, have they been contacted, or do other documented facts lay waste to
the probability of the engine being Earhart's?
LTM (who's just trying to pass the time)     Blake
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:29:13 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Concerning the tidal/wave action that was going on at the island at the time
of the Lambrecht flyover, something to keep in mind is that (as I understand
it) there was a very strong storm to the northwest of Howland soon after
July 2nd.   Waves travel fast, and there is always the possibility that
these could have travelled to Niku and done their work notwithstanding clear
and calm weather conditions on the island at the time of the flyover (also,
if the waves were high they could have been breaking over the Electra or its
remains, making it impossible to see).  It's also interesting that the post
loss messages stop abruptly on July 4th. Perhaps this is because of a sudden
event such as surf?   I believe the webpage has a photo taken by Lambrecht,
and as soon as I get this message out I will see what the wave action looks
like, as having been on the island gives me some idea of what calm
conditions look like.

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:56:09 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Canton engine

Vern Klein asked:

>>One of the other mechanics does recall that Bruce had an old engine.
>
>Yes, but have we found anyone, such as a chopper pilot, who might be able to
>say where the engine was picked up?

So far we have not been able to find anyone who remembers the engine being
picked up at any island.  We're still looking.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:56:43 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      AE's shoe size

<<,"Well, I take a size 6.  But a 7 feels so good, I wear a size 8."
Dolly Parton in "Steel Magnolias">>

Dolly stole the line from Popeye's girlfriend Olive Oyle who said (in pre-war
cartoon):
"I take a size 6 but a size 9 feels soooo good."
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:58:04 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: a basic premise

> From Jon Pieti
> Bill Leary wrote:
>
> > Unless I missed something, we're trying to prove this theory
> > because it's more LIKELY rather than because it's EASIER.
>
> More likely than the scenario where they just went down at sea
> somewhere?

Yes.

> How can you say that?

When people ask me that I usually give some snide remark about how human
speech works.  I do this because by the time I've gotten around to offering
an opinion I've usually considered the facts that lead me to an opinion
pretty carefully.  However, we all know that friend Jon means "how can I
believe that" or "what leads you to that" with the implication that I
haven't really thought it through or I'd not say it.

> I've been following this forum and the progress of TIGHAR with
> great interest for some months now, and I admire the thorough work
> and discipline being put forth in attempting to solve the mystery, and
> I hope that they are correct and eventually successful...
>
> But - the one thing that has been bothering me all along is that just
> because it isn't feasible for TIGHAR (or anyone else) to expend
> resources looking for evidence of a loss at sea, or likely that it would
> be possible to find it after all these years, that doesn't mean that ending
> for Amelia & Fred is any less probable.

No, inability to perform the search doesn't make it less probable.

Trying to match a loss at sea with other data, however, DOES (in my opinion,
and as always pending any new information) make it the less probable ending.

> ((..omitted..))
> Let me say it this way:  The selection of any group of data to examine does
> not make a particular outcome scenario of the event being studied any more
> or any less likely to have occurred.

If this were a mathematics discussion, I'd agree.  But then, the whole
concept of the term "likely" implies judgement and evaluation, not
mathematical precision.  In a mathematical domain, if I randomly fling an
object into a large target area which contains a smaller target, then the
chances are damn good that I won't hit that smaller target.  However, this
isn't a random occurance.  The object in thsi case was an airplane operated
by persons who had some control over what happened to it.  It was operating
within certain pretty clearly indisputable parameters (i.e.: it could only
go so far, so certain search areas can be eliminated) and with certain
desires from it's operators (given a chance to land in the sea or a small
island, one expects she'd have chosen the island).

I see Pat has responded and has prompted Ric to do so as well.  I'll refrain
from a list of "I believe" items since I expect he'll do a better job than I
will, and will likely remember things I won't.

    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:58:43 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Landing speculation...

>Should Emily's description of aircraft debris on the reef flat, in the
>general vicinity of the Norwich wreck, be considered an accurate
>observation, we must again confront the fact that the Lambercht
>overflight of the island (a week after last radio contact) failed to
>observe any sign of the aircraft or identifiable aircraft debris, even
>though he clearly described the remains of the Norwich in that same
>general area of the island.
>snip<
>Naturally, the possibility does remain that the aircraft made it's
>initial landing in such close proximity to the outer edge of the reef
>flat that even normal tidal activity could have sucked the aircraft off
>the flat, into the much deeper surrounding waters, within a week's time
>& then in the interim time period from Lambrecht's flight until Emily's
>observation, portions of the plane could have been washed up fom the
>depths, onto the reef flat, by any subsequent storm & unusual wave/tidal
>activity.
>

Yep.  Speculation.  And more speculation.. Maybe they really smashed it up.
There was no airplane to be seen, just a debris field near the wreck of the
Norwich City... not recognizable?  That might also explain shoe parts in
various places and pieces of an airplane in various places... And the bones
of one castaway.  The other is probably buried somewhere.  Speculation.....
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 11:01:14 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Wreck photo location?

Here is an interesting tidbit. While watching "Animal Planet" on cable
last night, the host, an Austrialian fellow named "Steve", climbed into
the cockpit of a WWII vintage aircraft that was in a jungle setting. The
aircraft was gutted and looked like it had suffered years of exposure to
the elements. He stated this was a resting place for many old airplanes
from the WWII era. So evidently, there are more like the one he was in.
This old graveyard of planes just happened to be in the area where they
were searching for crocodiles, thus the reason for showing it on tv. He
went on to give their location, Northern Austrailia, that is the
northern most point, closest to New Guinea. The jungle had palm trees
and much vegetation. Much like in the wreck photo. Maybe we should ask
the guy who had the wreck photo if he was ever in Austrailia.

Richard Johnson
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:14:34 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Canton Engine

Blake Herling asks:

<<Is the pilot, or any of the flight crew still around?
If so, have they been contacted, or do other documented facts lay waste to
the probability of the engine being Earhart's?>>

 A concerted effort has turned up four individuals who were on Canton at the
time Bruce Yoho says the engine was recovered.

Tom Lawrence, a site manager for Global, the contractor who operated the
helicopters.

Gerry Kobelski and John Holland, both of whom worked in the SAMTEC operations
section which monitored the helicopter contract.

Forest Blair,  who worked in the SAMTEC civil engineering section for the
monitoring of all the construction/refurbishment and was also site's
commanding officer.

None of these people can support Bruce's account.  We don't know and Bruce
doesn't remember who the pilot was for the flight in question. We're still
looking for any of the helicopter pilots or other crew members who were at
Canton during that time period.

Speculation about what somebody would or wouldn't have known is not terribly
useful at this point.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:18:33 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: The Traditional Premises

"Possible alternatives" are now being described (with some
implied scorn) as "traditional premises".

Well, trying to be gentlemanly about it, let me offer a rational
response to your TP list:

1) Running out of gas (or serious engine failure) a couple of
minutes after 0843 is a distinct possibility, so is flying off (in the
direction of your choice) until gas ran out another, and she had switched
to 6210.

2) The best Coast Guard radio intercept authority, Comdr. Anthony
didn't "buy" any of the post splash messages, and the Navy (and other
respected sources) agreed. (And spoiled a great story, darn!)

3) No, the Navy search did NOT turn up anything suspicious,
despite your insinuations. (Of course, had the Colorado dispatched a landing
party, they wouldn't have seen anything either, 'cause AE/FN and the
Electra were  hiding in the scaveola).

4) "anything that MIGHT (my emphasis) indicate . . . ." OK, but
don't try that in court as "proof". Random bits and scraps, and old wives
tales don't discount the most likely conclusion to the flight of the Electra
(which is splash down). (Boy, am I a party pooper! I'll never sell a TV
script at this rate!).

And please post your list of supporting FACTS as mentioned by
Pat. You may convert a skeptic or two! (And they may send MONEY!!).

Cam Warren

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

Jeesh, and you're the one who is always calling ME snide.

Let us, indeed be gentlemanly about this.  Whether you prefer to call them
"traditional premises" or "possible alternatives", I think you'll agree that
the evaluation of any of the various propositions requires a search for
supporting evidence.  Those propositions for which supporting evidence can be
found must be seen as more probable than those lacking any such support.

For example:  One possibility (let us call it the Jacobson Hypothesis) is
that the flight was abducted by aliens.  The absence of UFO sightings in the
immediate vicinity of Howland Island would seem to argue against such an
event, but it does remain a possible alternative until some other answer is
irrefutably proven.  In the meantime, it does not seem to be an explanation
that merits further investigation.

Now let's look at:

<<1) Running out of gas (or serious engine failure) a couple of
minutes after 0843 is a distinct possibility, so is flying off (in the
direction of your choice) until gas ran out another, and she had switched
to 6210.>>

You ask for facts.  Let's talk about facts.

Fact:  Two independent, expert, contemporaneous sources -- Collopy and
Chater -- writing in response to inquiries shortly after the disappearance, assert
that the aircraft left Lae with 1,100 US gallons of fuel aboard.  The only
contradictory contemporaneous accounts are a press release telegram by
Earhart, sent the day before the takeoff, stating that the aircraft was
"weighted with gasoline and oil to capacity" (the full capacity of the
Electra's tanks was 1,151 US gallons) and an Australian newspaper story that
quotes Noonan as saying that the aircraft carried "950 gallons of petrol -
sufficient to give a still-air cruising range of 2,750 miles".  Is that US
gallons or Imperial gallons?  Nautical miles or statute miles?  If Imperial
gallons, that's 1,141 US gallons, a number which bears no relation to any of
the other reports.  But a load of 950 US gallons would yield a still-air
range (according to Kelly Johnson's recommended fuel management tables) of
2,626 nm, not the 2,750 figure attributed to Noonan. If he meant 2,750
statute miles that would be only about 2,400 nautical miles.  This would mean
that Fred was saying that they were embarking on a journey of 2,223 nautical
miles with only enough fuel, in still air, to go another 177 nm.  That's a
pretty good definition of suicide.

However, if what Fred actually said was 915 Imperial gallons (an easy enough
misunderstanding) that's 1,100 US gallons, and if he meant 2,750 nautical
miles that's right in line with the range to be expected using Kelly
Johnson's figures.

In short, without being there to stick the tanks ourselves, it seems most
reasonable to accept that the fuel load aboard the Electra at takeoff was
1,100 US gallons.  That fuel load, if managed according to the tables Johnson
provided specifically for Earhart, should have left the aircraft with nearly
4 hours of remaining fuel at the time of the last transmission heard by
Itasca.  Could she have run out of gas, or had an engine failure, or zip off
to Alpha Centauri within a couple of minutes 08:43?  Sure.  There's just no
evidence that she did and lots of reason to suggest that she didn't.

<<2) The best Coast Guard radio intercept authority, Comdr. Anthony
didn't "buy" any of the post splash messages, and the Navy (and other
respected sources) agreed. (And spoiled a great story, darn!)>>

Where oh where are the voluminous Coast Guard records to support Anthony's
claim that all of the hundreds of alleged the "post-splash" messages were
investigated?  Let's pick just one - the infamous "281 message" heard by
Navy Radio Wailupe.  Who investigated that one?  Or is it possible that Cmdr.
Anthony was merely expressing an opinion that was very much in the Coast
Guard's best interest?

<<3) No, the Navy search did NOT turn up anything suspicious,
despite your insinuations. (Of course, had the Colorado dispatched a landing
party, they wouldn't have seen anything either, 'cause AE/FN and the
Electra were  hiding in the scaveola).>>

You've been holding out on us Cam.  You apparently have conclusive proof of
what John Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation."

<<4) "anything that MIGHT (my emphasis) indicate . . . ." OK, but
don't try that in court as "proof". Random bits and scraps, and old wives
tales don't discount the most likely conclusion to the flight of the Electra
(which is splash down). (Boy, am I a party pooper! I'll never sell a TV
script at this rate!).  >>

You know, Cam,  it sure sounds like it's not our research or our conclusions
that bother you nearly so much as the fact that our work attracts some
measure of public support and media attention.  Your supposed intellectual
outrage comes across as petty jealousy - but that's just my impression.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:59:20 EDT
From:         Scott Betteridge
Subject:      Re: emily's story

Could it be that if the aircraft landed on it's undercarraige, and was hit by
heavy/high waves it could flip the aircraft over. Leaving only the landing
gear sticking out of water (what height was the tide at again?), which
against a breaking surf i guess would be very difficult to see.

Just my thoughts
Scott Betteridge
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:00:00 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Re: Tom King's recent post...

>Absolutely, Don.  The nearness of Emily's wreck to Norwich City really is a
>head-scratcher, and one always has the option of saying something like "Oh,
>the Colorado pilots couldn't help but have seen it, so therefore Emily's
>testimony actually REFUTES the Nikumaroro landing hypothesis."  However, one
>then has to account for Emily's testimony some other way.  Around and around
>we go.

Aside from speculation whether or not the Colorado search could have seen
it, I think it's a likely place for the landing to have been attempted.  As
Tom stated in response to one of my earlier questions, the Norwich City
wreck looked like a ship from the air in 1937.  It had not fallen apart very
much yet.

If one was looking for an expanse of reef-flat to set down on and did not
get a close look at the Norwich City, it would just look like a ship.  A
ship would seem to be a "sign of current habitation."  A pretty good place
to try to set it down.

To me, it lends a certain plausibility to Emilys account of that being the
place she saw airplane wreckage... the more massive stuff not so easily
carried away.

Does Emily's story suggest some re-thinking about bones, etc?  Maybe there
were skeletons up there in the vicinity of the Norwich City.  A man and a woman?
Maybe Gallagher's bones were neither Amelia nor Fred, but just some poor
soul who had picked up a sextant box and was carrying it around -- If the
box did'nt get where it was found without human intervention.  Maybe the
finding of the Tarawa File was just a bit of serendipity that helped to keep
TIGHAR's nose to the trail until we could figure out what really happened on
Nikumaroro.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:02:12 EDT
From:         Jim Tweedle
Subject:      Re: Wreck photo location

Around 1955 I recall seeing an aerial photo (in a school textbook, I
believe) of a Pacific (island?) covered with dozens of  WWII military
aircraft (twins, I believe) which had been rendered inoperative and
abandoned rather than be transported home.  It is my understanding that
almost no land-based aircraft were returned home (except maybe B-29's) from
the Pacific theatre.

Jim Tweedle
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:06:14 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Radio broadcast

I have been following this list for a few days and decided to get brave and
post.  I am responding to why I think AE didn't land in the Drink, and why I
am following with great interest the TIGHAR  project.  The bottom line it
makes sense.  I have read on the capture by the Japanese theory and the
Biography AE sister wrote on her (prejudice perhaps, but it gave a human
look to AE).  Anyhow what keeps me hook to your project is the radio
broadcast.

When you look at the nature of HF (High Frequency) and the
broadcast reported after the disappearance, it fits perfectly with HF traits
and also makes sense.  If you are AE and FN, what would you do, you have
fuel for several hours you have a ship nearby looking for you, and you have
a radio and you have land nearby, why not set down and use the radio to give
the ship your location, why try anything else?  When you consider HF radio
with AM broadcast (Medium Wave for any Europeans out there) it makes even
more sense.

AM radio uses a carrier and two side bands but only one side
band is working with the broadcast, if you listen to AM radio at night time
you can here some very distant stations, but sooner or later you here it
fade, the fade is cause by one of the sidebands over powering the carrier
signal (if you have a radio that has a single sideband tuner and can tune to
the side band and hear the broadcast but only until the carrier signal comes
back, some shortwave radios come with Synchronous Detectors, which will tune
between the sideband and the carrier automatically, so you don't get the
fade).

Now with HF radio this becomes more of a problem because of the
Ionosphere (today to avoid that problem and use less power for more
distance, most broadcast on HF are done on the sideband instead of the
normal AM mode with the exception of Shortwave broadcast by International
Broadcasters, who are putting out usually 100 watts of power), with HF radio
you can send  a long distance because it bounces off the Ionosphere, the low
end of HF 2000 - 9000 kHz will bounce off the Ionosphere between dusk
through the night and early morning hours until the sun is up and then the
Ionosphere will absorb the signal, the bounce during the lack of sun would
make the signal audible at a distance better then if you were nearby, in
essence you may hear a signal Stateside (depending on the sunlight where you
are listening from) better then from a few miles away.  During the Daylight
hours the frequencies from 11000 kHz and up will not be absorbed by the
Ionosphere (but will be absorbed from nighttime on) now if AE and FN
broadcast during the strongest amount of sunlight on the lower end 6000 kHz
and down, eventually the Ionosphere would absorb the signal and the only
thing you get is the hum from the carrier band, but nothing else would be
audible, if it is during the dusk or at night time it would take the bounce
and deal with the sideband causing a fade making it inaudible (the advantage
to doing code with a key is that it is still legible even with the fade
cause from the sideband, but keying the mic. would be worthless since the
sideband would cause it to fade out even missing some of the code).

I suspect (and please correct me if I am wrong) the reason Lockheed said they
could not be sending from there radio if they where in the water, was
because of the antenna for the radio on the Electra, I believe the antenna
was a wire that was hung out of the belly of the plane, if the belly was in
the water no antenna and no broadcast without one ( I know it has been said
she took off the antenna, but I highly doubt it, since there has to a least
a wire hook to the antenna leads to get out any signal).

My reason for following this is because the broadcast after the
crash make sense and it is reasonable to think they would set down and call
for help with a ship so nearby to them and the description on your web site
of the broadcast after the crash makes sense.  That said I will be on
vacation so I won't be able to see your post again until Sunday.  Sorry for
such a long post.

Regards
Warren Lambing
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:07:17 EDT
From:         Jon Pieti
Subject:      Re: The traditional premises

In response to Cam Warren, you wrote:

>*****************************************
>>From Ric
>
>Jeesh, and you're the one who is always calling ME snide.
>
>Let us, indeed be gentlemanly about this.  Whether you prefer to call them
>"traditional premises" or "possible alternatives", I think you'll agree that
>the evaluation of any of the various propositions requires a search for
>supporting evidence.  Those propositions for which supporting evidence can be
>found must be seen as more probable than those lacking any such support.
>
>For example:  One possibility (let us call it the Jacobson Hypothesis) is
>that the flight was abducted by aliens.  The absence of UFO sightings in the
>immediate vicinity of Howland Island would seem to argue against such an
>event, but it does remain a possible alternative until some other answer is
>irrefutably proven.  In the meantime, it does not seem to be an explanation
>that merits further investigation.
******************************************

I'm sorry, but if you are trying to correlate the plausibility of the "UFO
Hypothesis" with the liklihood that they went down at sea, it just doesn't
compare.  You have no evidence to indicate that they did not go down at sea
- only some interesting possibilities that they *might* have made landfall
instead.

As tantalizing as the shoe parts, sextant box, aircraft aluminium pieces,
bones, etc. are, NONE of them can be directly linked to AE & FN as of yet.
It is still possible that there were other sources for these items than the
wreckage of AE & FN.  Thus, they do not yet constitute actual proof (yet),
and thus, they in no way diminish the "other" possibility that they went
down at sea.  The wreck photo, the Canton engine story, the stories of
wreckage are very interesting, but are all ancedotal thus far.  The wreck
photo could have been taken anywhere there was jungle.  It's a big world out
there, and a big ocean covering most of it, especially where they
disappeared at.

As I said in an earlier post; I sincerly hope that TIGHAR is on the right
track, and that they are able to solve the mystery - what a story that would
be!  But please try to step back and take a fresh look at one of your basic
premises: that the evidence is stronger that they landed on Niku than that
they went down at sea.
Just because an island is the only place where it is practical to recover
any evidence doesn't mean that other evidence that you don't or can't look
for does not exist.  To go back to the analogy: Just because I stay under
the streetlamp looking for the keys because it's the only place where it's
light enough to see - that doesn't make it any more likely that that's where
they really are compared to the possibility that they are up the driveway
somewhere.  Not until I actually find them anyway.

Sometimes we can get so invested in a particular premise, belief, or scenaio
that it becomes hard to see it in a truly objective way after a while.  I
think this may be one of those situations, as I notice that since I've been
lurking the forum tends to "shut down" any serious consideration of possible
outcomes other than a landing on Niku as being distracting from the search
for the truth.  Now I don't buy into conspiracy, UFO, Japanese prisoner, or
other "junk" scenarios, and I believe that a landing on Niku is a very real
possibility, but I think the automatic dismissal of the outcome where they
went down at sea is due to it's being virtually impossible to prove at this
point, and not an intellectually stimulating scenario.

Best of luck - Jon Pieti
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:07:53 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Re: Chris Kennedy's suggestion about the tide/wave action and the strong
storm NW (sic - NE) of Howland:

The storm you refer to is the one that the PBY pilot flew into on the way
down from Honolulu, which he could not penetrate and had to return.  That
"storm" is due to the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), where the
southern and northern hemisphere trade winds interact, and is an area of
continuous nasty weather.  Located at the meteorological equator, in July,
at about 5 degrees north latitutde.  Every AE search ship went through it
and their bridge logs denote nasty weather, fog, high sea state, etc.  The
records at Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands record nothing unusual for
surf during the periods of the AE search, as the Itasca, Swan, Colorado,
and Ontario deck logs do not record unusual sea swell contditions either.
 Sorry, but the weather during early July simply does not cooperate for the
hypothesis of a major event that helped to break up the plane on Niku.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:44:06 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The traditional premises

I don't disagree with Jon about the need to be objective, but I think it's
worth keeping in mind that there actually isn't any evidence for the "crashed
and sank" hypothesis.  It's just a logical conclusion given the absence of
any evidence supporting an alternative hypothesis.  We do have evidence --
albeit circumstantial, but if this were a regular old archeological problem
we'd regard it as pretty impressive -- for the Nikumaroro hypothesis.  That
doesn't mean our evidence is any good, of course, but when it comes to
"crashed and sank," there isn't really anything to compare it with.

LTM (who's crashing and sinking)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:01:50 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Expedition Report-Part One

TIGHAR's fifth expedition to Nikumaroro, known as "Niku IIIIP," was conducted
July 1-27, 1999 and ran concurrently with an on-site investigation in Fiji,
known as the "Fiji Bone Search," which attempted to locate the bones and
artifacts known to have been sent there from Nikumaroro in 1941.  Tom King
has already presented an overview of that operation.

This is Part One of a three part report on what we've accomplished with this
summer's field work.

Part One (this posting) will describe the Niku IIIP expedition, its
objectives, costs, team, and offer a day by day summary of operations.

Part Two, to be posted in a day or two, will describe the interviews
conducted in Fiji after the expediton's return from Nikumaroro and discuss
the significance of the new information obtained.

Part Three will present a revised hypothesis and suggest avenues of
investigation which may move the project closer to establishing conclusive
proof of what happened to the Earhart/Noonan flight.

Niku IIIIP

OBJECTIVES

The expedition's first mission was to determine whether the anecdotal
accounts gathered in Funafuti at the end of Niku III in 1997 might lead
directly to discovery of the main body of wreckage and, thus, permit the Niku
IIII expedition to be organized as an archaeological recovery operation.
Recognizing that the identification of conclusive Earhart wreckage would, by
definition, put those artifacts at risk, this purpose of the expedition was
not widely publicized.  No such wreckage was found on this trip, so the
point is now moot. The secondary mission of the expedition was as a
preparatory operation to gather information for Niku IIII, an intensive
search operation scheduled for 2000.  The specific objectives of the
expedition were:

1.  Test the hypothesis that airplane parts could be found in the dense
beachfront vegetation of Nutiran district near a "European-style house," per
an anecdotal account by Tapania Taiki who was interviewed by TIGHAR on
Funafuti in 1997.  Ms. Taiki lived on Nikumaroro as a young teenager with her
family in the late 1950s/early 1960s just before the settlement was abandoned.

2.  Conduct a reconnaissance of the beachfront areas on the lagoon shore
where Pulekai Songivalu, interviewed by TIGHAR on Funafuti in 1997, said he
saw airplane wreckage when he served as the island's schoolmaster during the
late 1950s/early 1960s.  Mr. Songivalu is Ms. Taiki's father.

3.  Conduct a reconnaissance of Kanawa Point, one of three geographical
locations identified by TIGHAR researchers as possibly fitting the
description of where a castaway's remains and campsite were discovered by
Gerald B. Gallagher, Officer-in-Charge, Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, in
September 1940.

4.  Familiarize the project's forensic anthropologist, Dr. Karen Ramey Burns,
with the site where shoe parts were found during Niku II in 1991 (known as
the "Aukeraime Site") and conduct a further investigation of the site with
the aid of remote-sensing data gathered during Niku III in 1997.  The
Aukeraime Site is the second candidate for where the bones were found in 1940.

5.  Familiarize Dr. Burns with the site near the southeast end of the island
where village-related artifacts were found during Niku IIIP in 1996.  This is
the third location suspected of being where Gallagher's discovery took place.

TEAM

The team assembled to conduct these operations consisted of:

Richard Gillespie - TIGHAR Executive Director

Karen Ramey Burns, PhD, TIGHAR #2071E - forensic anthropologist

Richard Reynolds, TIGHAR #0981CEB - member of TIGHAR's Board of Directors,
veteran of the Kanton Mission, and project sponsor

Richard Gifford, TIGHAR #0001CEB - member of TIGHAR's Board of Directors and
project sponsor

Chris Kennedy, TIGHAR #2068E - TIGHAR member and project sponsor

Ronald Rich, TIGHAR #2267E - TIGHAR member and project sponsor

Jerry Ann Jurenka, TIGHAR #0772E - TIGHAR member and project sponsor

John Clauss,TIGHAR #0142CE - veteran of Niku I, II, IIIP, III, and the Kanton
Mission.

Veryl Fenlason, TIGHAR #0053CE - veteran of Niku I, II, IIIP, and III

Russ Matthews, TIGHAR #0509CE - veteran of Niku I, II, IIIP, and the Kanton
Mission

Gary Quigg, TIGHAR #1025CE - veteran of Niku III

Van Hunn, TIGHAR #1459CE - veteran of Niku III

Accompanying the expedition as an official representative of the Republic of
Kiribati was Senior Examining Officer, Kiribati Customs, Manikaa Teuatabo.
Mr. Teuatabo also accompanied the Niku II and Niku IIIP expeditions.

COST

The direct cost to TIGHAR for the Niku IIIIP expedition was:

Airfare - $5,785 (note: several team members paid their own airfare)
Ship Charter - $99,492
Kiribati repesentative - $1,904
Equipment and incidentals - $2,500
Total - $109,681

The cost of the Fiji Bone Search was:
Airfare - $1,982 (note: one team member paid her own airfare)
Accommodations - $1,300
Meals and Incidentals - $2,849
Car rental - $1,351
Total - $7,482

In addition to these direct expenses, TIGHAR's operating expenses during the
period of preparation and execution of the expeditions (February through
July, 1999) were roughly $90,000.

Grand Total - $207,523

OPERATIONS

July 1-3  team flies to Fiji and boards expedition vessel Nai'a at port of
Lautoka.  One large bag of expedition gear (with essentials such as metal
detectors and laptop computer) is missing and it takes two days to track it
down and get it to Fiji.  When the bag finally arrives the screen of the
laptop has been cracked in transit, but the computer is still usable.

July 5  Nai'a departs Fiji.  Once clear of Fijian waters, seas become quite
high with head winds and conficting currents slowing progress at times to a
little as 6 knots.  Structural problems with the mast prevent the use of the
sail with consequent loss of its stabilizing and fuel saving effect.

July 6-10  Continued high seas make for an unpleasant passage.  No one can go
out on the exposed decks, the galley is limited in what foods can be prepared
and served, spills and breakage are commonplace, and just moving about
requires constant vigilance.  Most of the team is seasick to at least some
degree and a few are truly miserable.

July 11  Having arrived at Nikumaroro just before dark the previous evening,
the team goes ashore at 07:45 and spends the day surveying and building a
trail from the landing to the shore of the lagoon passage where a skiff,
walked in over the reef at high tide, will be based to ferry the team over to
Nutiran.  Seas in the lee of the island are relatively calm - a welcome
relief. However, tropical downpours during the day make the heavy work of
clearing the trail through the jungle a soggy endeavor.  It is also
discovered that the ship's water maker, which had been unusable during the
voyage out due to the extreme rolling, is not working.  Without the ability
to make fresh water the expedition must depend entirely upon the tanks of
water aboard the ship.  This supply should be adequate if carefully
conserved, but luxuries such as laundry are out of the question.

July 12  In the morning a base camp is established on the Nutiran shore and
base lines are "shot in" with the pulse laser from known features on the
village shore to permit accurate mapping of the search area.  More heavy rain
slows the work.  In the afternoon, the team begins the process of setting out
grid lines 20 meters square in the sector where aerial photography indicates
there was once a structure which may be the "European style house."  Nearby,
the 1953 photo also shows a cruciform feature in the beachfront vegetation
which looks alarmingly similar to an aircraft.  Hopes are high for a
significant discovery but the day's searching yields no sign of a European
style house (a structure built of wood frame and boards rather than local
materials), let alone an airplane.  A grave about four feet in length is
found not far from the beachfront.  Like the grave excavated on Aukeraime in
1991 and found to be that of an infant, this burial seems to be anomalous in
the context of the island settlement and fits folklore about bones said to
have been found and buried on Nutiran by the early settlers.

July 13    Further gridding and searching reveal a scattering of cultural
material (nails, wire, cans, etc.) indicating that a structure of some kind
once stood on the spot where the putative European style house is seen in the
1953 aerial photo, but the absence of boards or framing suggests that the
structure was made from local materials.    An area around the grave is
cleared and, after consultation with Dr. Burns, the decision is made to seek
permission from the Kiribati representative to excavate the grave.

July 14    After a discussion at the grave site with Senior Examining Officer
Manikaa Teutabo, permission to excavate is granted and digging begins.
Meanwhile, a detailed search of the area where the cruciform object appears
in the photo finds only vegetation and what may be a broken oarlock  -
possibly from one of the lifeboats from the SS Norwich City.  Two divers, Van
Hunn and Jerry Jurenka, inspect the lagoon passage and inshore reef area at
high tide for any anomalous material.  The results are negative.  Search
operations are extended northward along the Nutiran shore in the hope of
finding something that better fits the description of a European style house.

Late in the day, Chris Kennedy comes upon boards and sheets of corrugated
metal.  Further investigation reveals the ruins of a structure incorporating
wood framing and boards.  There are pipes, a faucet, and even a shower head.
It seems quite likely that this was a European style house but it does not
seem to be present in the 1953 aerial photos. Plantings of coconut and
pandanus just inland from this location support the possibility that this
structure is a relic of development in the later days of the settlement.
That would conform to Ms. Taiki's time on the island in the late 1950s.
Among the debris where the house once stood is a small (1.5 inch by 5 inch)
piece of aluminum aircraft skin which had been cut through rivet holes along
one long edge.  The presence of zinc chromate corrosion inhibitor would
appear to disqualify it as being from Earhart's aircraft.

July 15  On doctor's orders, one team member with a foot infection remains
aboard ship and is on antibiotics. Ashore, while Dr. Burns and two
assistants, Quigg and Gifford, proceed with the grave excavation, the rest of
the team begins to lay out grids and search the area southward from the
newly-identified European house.  Heavy iron debris from the shipwreck is
found as much as ten meters back into the beachfront vegetation along the
shoreline directly in front of and southward from the Norwich City, but no
aluminum or aircraft-related material is in evidence.   Because it will be
roughly the half-way point in the expedition, the following day is declared a
"day off" for anyone who needs to take a break.  Aboard ship, the water maker
is still not working.

July 16  On this "day off" the entire team turns out for duty except for two
people with minor injuries.  Further gridding and searching southward from
the European house fail to turn up anything of interest.  Dr. Burns' team
reaches the interment in the grave and finds the bones of a two or three year
old child.  As previously agreed, as soon as the grave is established to be
unrelated to the Earhart mystery, further excavation ceases and the grave is
later restored to its original condition and appearance.

At 13:00 a satellite telephone communication with TIGHAR's office in Delaware
brings the news that Dr. Tom King in Fiji has interviewed a former resident
of Nikumaroro who reports having seen aircraft wreckage (heavy structures,
not aluminum sheet) on the reef north of the Norwich City shipwreck in the
years prior to WWII (1939-1941).  Reports dating from the late 1950s had
placed scattered aircraft wreckage on the reef and along the shoreline south
of the shipwreck.  This new information matchs our previously-formulated
hypothesis that the landing had been made on the reef and the airplane
destroyed by surf action, but indicates a more northerly specific location
than we had previously contemplated.

Later in the afternoon Gillespie and Clauss conduct a reconnaissance of the
lagoon shore in the area where Mr. Songivalu reported seeing airplane
wreckage.  While access to the area by skiff is not as difficult as had been
anticipated, the beachfront vegetation is quite heavy in most areas until a
low ridge of land about 50 meters inland from the lagoon shore marks the
beginning of open Buka (Pisonia grandis) forest.  A variety of lightweight
flotsam (plastic, styrofoam, etc.) indicates that this first 50 meters of
shoreline is occasionally subject to flooding, but conducting a thorough
search of the entire shoreline by visual means would be labor intensive and
time consuming.

July 17  Temperatures hover near 100 degrees Fahrenheit as they have since
the team's arrival on the island.  Shifting the Nutiran shoreline search
northward based on the new information, the team begins inspecting the dense
beachfront scaevola from the point of land just off the bow of the Norwich
City wreck and working northward.  In an attempt to inspect open areas
inland, Gillespie leads several team members into vegetation so thick that it
takes hours to cut their way out and resume an organized search.  The
methodology developed for searching what can only be described as the
beachfront scaevola wall is for transects to be cut into the bush on a
heading 90 degrees to the shoreline and flagged with colored tape.  The
flagged transects are spaced 25 meters apart and go back into the scaevola
far enough to be well beyond any evidence of washed up material (typically 30
or 40 meters).  Searchers then space themselves along the beach closely
enough to be sure they can visually cover the area between themselves and
their colleagues on either side - and start cutting their way in, staying on
line as much as possible, much like the beaters in an old-fashioned tiger
hunt.  When the line reaches the end of the flagged transects the searchers
make their way back to beach, move down to the next block, and start all over
again.

Yet another grave is identified on the point just off the bow of Norwich City
but excavation is not an option due to lack of remaining time.  In the
afternoon, at low tide, an inspection of the reef north of Norwich City
permits a preliminary evaluation of areas that appear flat and smooth enough
to permit a Lockheed 10 to land intact.

That evening aboard Nai'a the water maker is still not working despite heroic
attempts at repair by the ship's crew.  Team members accomplish some
semblance of laundry by showering fully clothed.  Quasi-clean clothes are
then dried overnight in the ship's drier.

July 18  In the morning, while most of the team continues to work northward
along the Nutiran shore, cutting 40 meter transects back into the bush at
five to ten meter intervals, Gillespie, Matthews, Clauss and Burns conduct a
reconnaissance of Kanawa Point.  The cove just east of the Point is found to
be very deep in soft silt, making the landing of a skiff difficult (and
dangerous if you don't realize that what looks like a sandy bottom is, in
effect, quicksand.  Hop out of the boat to push it ashore and - gloop -
you're gone).  Kanawa Point, while probably orignally quite open and pleasant
when shaded by Kanawa trees, is now so covered in dense scaevola as to be
impossible to search visually from any practical standpoint.  On the lagoon
shore across the cove to the east of Kanawa Point, a feature first noted by
Tom King in 1989 was noted.  The coral shelf above the water line is strewn
with the shells of an estimated 300 giant clams over an area easily 20 meters
long by perhaps 5 meters wide.  In some cases the shells have been there so
long as to be cemented into the coral and, in at least one spot, a number of
shells are neatly stacked, back to front.  There is no doubt that this is
where a human or humans harvested, opened, and possibly ate clams.  A few
clams still grow in the surrounding shallow water.  A scattering of shells
was also found on the shore of Kanawa Point itself.

The Aukeraime Site was also visited briefly.  There has been a significant
increase in lagoon shore scaevola growth since TIGHAR's last visit in 1997. A
metal detector inspection of a spot where remote-sensing data gathered in
1997 suggested there might be metal in the ground was negative.
With time short, a decision was made to forego a visit to the southeast
corner of the island.

In the afternoon, at low tide, further inspections and measurements were
taken on the reef flat north of Norwich City and the pulse laser was employed
to measure the length of areas that were smooth enough to permit a safe
landing.  The longest area measured was 213 meters (700 feet).  It has been
estimated that Earhart's aircraft, at near empty weight and landing into a 10
to 15 knot wind as is common on the reef flat, could come to a stop in as
little as 91 meters (300 feet).

With one more full day of work remaining before the ship must depart for
Fiji, the water maker is finally working.

July 19  Inspection of the heavy beachfront vegetation north of Norwich City
continues.  In addition to the search conducted at the southern tip of
Nutiran in the area around the initially-supposed "European style house" and
the gridding and searching done near the ruin that does seem to fit that
description, the entire length of the Nutiran beachfront from the north point
southward to the west point just below the shipwreck, a distance of some 700
meters (nearly half a mile) has been searched visually to a depth into the
vegetation of 30 to 40 meters.  The search turns up no aircraft-related
debris.  Norwich City debris is present on the reef and in the first few
meters of beachfront vegetation from a point perhaps 50 meters north of the
bow to at least 500 meters southwestward down the beach.  The reef and
shoreline north of the wreck are free of any type of cultural debris other
than flotsam (buoyant objects) and these occur primarily on the open beach
and in the first 20 meters of vegetation. After nine solid days of heavy
physical labor in the intense heat, many team members are becoming
dangerously exhausted.

July 20  Departure day.  The skiff must be brought out of the lagoon by noon
at high tide and the morning is spent finishing up some last minute
searching, breaking camp and recovering all of the equipment back across the
lagoon passage.  By 14:00, everything and everyone is off the island and that
evening Nai'a sets a course for Fiji.

July 21-25  As if to make up for the rough outward passage, the trip back to
Fiji is smooth and fast, arriving in the port of Suva a full day ahead of
schedule.  This permits us to terminate the charter a day early and thus save
nearly $5,000.

Part Two of this report will detail the interviews conducted in Fiji after
the expeditions return from Nikumaroro and before its departure for the
United States.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:00:58 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Does Emily's story suggest some re-thinking about bones, etc?  Maybe there
were skeletons up there in the vicinity of the Norwich City.  A man and a
woman?
Maybe Gallagher's bones were neither Amelia nor Fred, but just some poor
soul who had picked up a sextant box and was carrying it around -- If the
box did'nt get where it was found without human intervention.  Maybe the
finding of the Tarawa File was just a bit of serendipity that helped to keep
TIGHAR's nose to the trail until we could figure out what really happened on
Nikumaroro.

Whose bleached bones are those on the forecastle, skipper?

Did anyone check the wreck for signs of anyone trying to inhabit or scavenge?
 Of course, with so many years gone by there may be precious little evidence
of past habitation.  Was it the fire and the tent on the bow of the ship that
the pilot listed as "signs of recent habitation; or was it the "Vacancy" sign
on the nose of the twin engine airplane parked on the beach?

Blue Skies & LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200

--
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:02:33 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: The traditional premises

>From Jon Pieti
> and I believe that a landing on Niku is a very real
>possibility, but I think the automatic dismissal of the outcome where they
>went down at sea is due to it's being virtually impossible to prove at this
>point, and not an intellectually stimulating scenario.

If we were to become heavily invested in believing that the only scenario of
any value was the lost at sea hypothesis, then it would be a huge waste of
time and energy to look anywhere, period. So the whole Niku thing would be a
waste.

Blue Skies & LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:27:53 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Premises, premises

Replying to Cam Warren:

<<Hey Ric, this is more fun than a pillow fight! But seriously, if
you're still willing to discuss the matter ->>

Indeed I am, but let's make it more than yet another exchange of cute jibes.
Let's see if we can nail down some points we can agree on and then see where
the logic leads us.

<<1) I've long been sold on the full fuel load.>>

I can't think of a better place to start than to see if we can agree upon how
much fuel was aboard NR16020 when it left Lae.  It sounds like we're close,
but let me ask you specifically:

Given that nobody can ever really, really know for sure without the help of
Mr. Peabody's WayBack Machine, do you agree that 1,100 US gallons is the most
well-documented number to use as an amount of gasoline aboard the aircraft
when it left Lae?

We can squabble about the other stuff in due course but let's start with this
piece of information which, as points of discussion in the Earhart mystery
go, is one of the simplest to discuss.

<<And tell me, shall I assume your two page answer re "Premises"
constitutes the factual proof that Niku is THE place as Pat so
indicated? Or is the brief list still in the works?>>

If our objective is to find areas of agreement, doesn't it make more sense to
proceed a step at a time?  A shotgun approach would almost certainly result
in nothing more than another agreement to disagree.  I'm willing to try to
convince you and I'm equally willing to be shown the error of my ways.  Who
knows how far we'll get but at least the other forum subscribers will have a
chance to look at each point of evidence along the way from both sides.

So - 1,100 US gallons.  Yes?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:28:47 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Radio broadcast

Warren Lambing wrote:

<<I suspect (and please correct me if I am wrong) the reason Lockheed said
they could not be sending from there radio if they where in the water, was
because of the antenna for the radio on the Electra, I believe the antenna
was a wire that was hung out of the belly of the plane, if the belly was in
the water no antenna and no broadcast without one >>

No.  The transmitting antenna was a wire that led from a mast behind the
cockpit back to each vertical tail - in other words, a V.  The opinion that
the aircraft could not transmit if afloat was based upon crucial radio
components being submerged and the fact that the supposed transmissions
continued for several days which would have required that the battery be
recharged from the right-hand, generator-equipped engine.  To do that, they
obviously had to be able to run that engine.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:04:12 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The traditional premises

Jon Pieti writes:

<< I'm sorry, but if you are trying to correlate the plausibility of the "UFO
Hypothesis" with the liklihood that they went down at sea, it just doesn't
compare.  You have no evidence to indicate that they did not go down at sea
- only some interesting possibilities that they *might* have made landfall
instead.>>

What we're talking about here is fundamental logic.  All premises for which
there is neither supporting evidence nor disqualifying evidence are, indeed,
equal.  Fuel exhaustion, mechanical engine failure, in-flight fire, or being
abducted by aliens would seem to fit into that category.  Abduction by the
Japanese can be included only if you postulate that the abductors traveled
outside of their territory to someplace the aircraft could have reached.

Your statement "You have no evidence to indicate that they did not go down at
sea - only some interesting possibilities that they *might* have made
landfall instead." is self-contradictory.  You're saying, ""You have no
evidence to indicate that they did not go down at sea - only some interesting
evidence that they did not go down at sea."  We continue to test the
hypothesis that the flight ended at Nikumaroro no because we are somehow
fixated on it because it is the only hypothesis (at least, that I am aware
of) for which supporting evidence has been, and continues to be, found.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:08:08 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Randy Jacobson writes:

<<Sorry, but the weather during early July simply does not cooperate for the
hypothesis of a major event that helped to break up the plane on Niku.>>

Granted.  But neither is a "major event" necessary to accomplish a thorough
break-up of an airplane on the reef in the area indicated by Emily.  Based
upon personal (and very recent) experience on that same stretch of reef, I
can say with great confidence that an airplane parked there would be okay as
long as the sea remained very calm but any appreciable swell results in
formidable surf running across that reef-flat.  The hypothesis works without
a storm.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:09:41 EDT
From:         William Dohenyguy
Subject:      Re: Niku IIIIP Report

     I read your first report with great enthusiasm and interest. I know I'm
going to sound like an armchair quarterback, but that's the way of the
world. There were several aspects of your report which seemed very
delinquent in it's presentation.
     First, two divers in the water searching the reefs edge. Can you please
tell me what equipment they took with them to aid in their search for
metallic parts? Considering wave and tidal action may have buried "smoking
guns" two meters below the surface. How did they conduct their search? Are
they qualified research divers or recreational divers?
     Second, it appears to me, from your report, that a hand full of your
searchers, staff, crew are really not qualified to make the journey. I do
not make that statement to be antagonistic, I simply ask if backers with
money can go and qualified individuals with less funds stay behind.
     I have great admiration for the Tighar organization and greatly respect
the work that you do. I'm a subscriber, not a member, yet.
     Third, $95,000.00 for a ship from Lae to Niku? Is this a quality craft
or the only Tug available?
     If I did not word this correspondence correctly and it angered you,
then I humbly apologize, it was not meant to be a derogatory inquiry.
William LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:02:30 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Canton engine

Thanks for the conversation about the Canton engine. I hope I will be able to
help in some way.  I have tried to contact Bruce Yoho, but have been unsuccessful
so far.  I hope if he reads this post he will contact me by the above E-mail
address.

Again, I don't think we need to find the engine, just find out where it was
found and make a determination as to what to do.  I still think that where there
is an engine, there will be pieces of airplane.  If we don't at least rule out
the engine, we may see in the tabloids in 10 years.  "Earhart engine found and
then lost by TIGHAR". At that point it will then become fact!

    One other quick question.  Did you say that the Electra did not have an
corrosion resistant paint on the inside. I think the US plane had a green color
paint and the Japanese had a blue color.  If the Electra had none at all, that
might help to identify parts if they are found.  I know you probably covered this
on the Web site, but I hate to go back there and read the whole thing again when
I can just ask you...

Thanks and hope to hear from Bruce soon.

Don
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:03:08 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Dave Bush asks:

<<Does Emily's story suggest some re-thinking about bones, etc?  Maybe there
were skeletons up there in the vicinity of the Norwich City.  A man and a
woman?>>

The information offered by both Emily Sikuli and by Otiria O'Brian merits
close examination and comparison with the other information we have before we
go modifying hypotheses.  The first steps in that process are accurate
transcripts of the videotaped interviews.  I'm workin' on that.

<<Did anyone check the wreck for signs of anyone trying to inhabit or
scavenge?>>

Norwich City carried no cargo and she burned at the time she went aground, so
scavenging does not seem like it would have been a fruitful endeavor.  Early
visitors to the island often used the wreck as a mooring and we have photos
taken aboard the wreck by Bevington (October 1937) and by the New Zealand
Survey  (Dec. '38 - Feb. '39).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:05:44 EDT
From:         Dave Niimi
Subject:      Re: Radio broadcasts

One thing to think about also with these Radio transmission theories and the
wreck photo both can't neccessarily be true if the photo is of AE's plane. I
say neccessarly just in case the plane landed in one piece but was wrecked
say in a storm or something that passed on top of or near the island. Maybe
Rick and answer this since he's been to Niku but unless there is a large
field on Niku the plane would have touched down probley on the beach IF there
were Radio signal heard anywhere in teh world from AE after the crash.
Obviously if the wreck photo is AE's plane then Radio transmission would only
be possible for battery life as long as all radio functions worked right
after the crash and from wreck photo not sure what would be possible with the
wreck. Just somethings to consider when putting both in the same thought.

DN
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:09:45 EDT
From:         Came Warren
Subject:      Re: Premises, premises

<<So - 1,100 US gallons.  Yes?>>

Yes, 1100 gallons, according to the absolute best source, Bob
Iredale, the Standard Oil (Socony Vacuum) rep at Lae. He said
Earhart took off with full tanks.

Cam Warren

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

Okay.  This is precisely the sort of thing we need to get straight.  Eleven
hundred gallons is not "full tanks."  Bureau of Air Commerce records make it
very clear that the total fuel capacity of NR16020 was 1,151 US gallons.
That 51 gallons of gas represents about 150 nautical miles of range that the
airplane either did or didn't have.

Both Chater's written account (dated 25 July, 1937) and Collopy's letter
(dated 28 August, 1937) explain that one tank containing about 50 gallons of
100 octane fuel was not topped off because only 87 octane fuel available in
Lae and they didn't want to dilute the higher grade fuel that was needed for
the very heavy takeoff.

I am not familiar with a contemporaneous report by Iredale.  Please explain
why he is the absolute best source.  What did he say and when did he say it?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:11:13 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Expedition Report - Part One

William Dohenyguy says:

>There were several aspects of your report which seemed very
>delinquent in it's presentation...
>
>First, two divers in the water searching the reefs edge.

What the report said was, "Two divers, Van Hunn and Jerry Jurenka, inspect
the lagoon passage and inshore reef area at high tide for any anomalous
material.  The results are negative."  I say again " lagoon passage and
inshore reef area."  Not the reef edge.

>Can you please tell me what equipment they took with them to aid in their
>search for metallic parts?

Eyeballs.

>Considering wave and tidal action may have buried "smoking guns" two meters
>below the surface. How did they conduct their search?

As is apparent from the aerial photograph available on the website, the
lagoon passage and inshore reef areas are solid coral.  No sand.  No need for
remote sensing equipment.  What you see is what you get.

>Are they qualified research divers or recreational divers?

Van has been trained in search diving.  As far as I know, Jerry Ann has not.
No diving was contemplated on this expedition.  I had originally planned to
put people out on the reef flat on foot at low tide to search the shallow
water on the off chance that some piece of aircraft wreckage had somehow
survived in that dynamic environment.  Van noticed that the water at high
tide was very clear and suggested that a snorkel search might be much faster
and just as thorough.  He was right.

>Second, it appears to me, from your report, that a hand full of your
>searchers, staff, crew are really not qualified to make the journey. I do
>not make that statement to be antagonistic, I simply ask if backers with
>money can go and qualified individuals with less funds stay behind.

Five of our twelve team members on this trip were also sponsors.  They would
not have gone had they not been sponsors but neither would anyone else.  It
was a compromise that, I'll admit, made me a bit nervous  - but I was
pleasantly surprised.  All of the team gave all they had.  Niku is a very
tough environment in which to do the work we do.  Casualties are a fact of
life, but we've never hurt anyone seriously and I hope we can maintain that
record.  As it turned out, there were no veteran team members who could have
gone but were left behind for reasons of funding or to make room for a
sponsor.

>Third, $95,000.00 for a ship from Lae to Niku? Is this a quality craft
>or the only Tug available?

As explained in my report, the expedition did not go from Lae to Niku.   It
went from Fiji to Niku.  Lae is a city in New Guinea.  Fiji is an island
nation about 1,000 nm from Niku.  As has also been explained previously, the
expedition vessel Nai'a is the same ship that brought us through the cyclone
in 1997.  It is a fine vessel with fine crew.  It's not clear to me whether
you think that the cost of the charter was too high or too low.  It also
doesn't much matter.

>If I did not word this correspondence correctly and it angered you,
>then I humbly apologize, it was not meant to be a derogatory inquiry.

No need to aplogize.  Didn't anger me a bit.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:13:04 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Circumstantial evidence

 I confess to being one of the sources of irritation during Mr. Gillespies's
absence.  I noted in his "catch-up" of 07/31/99 @ 12:35 his reply concerning
engine changes ala Goerner.  Unfortunately I haven't been with this program
as long as a number of other people and thus I, as well as other newcomers,
must often make irritating inquires.  As I understand it the 7th edition of
the "facts" is no longer in print and the 8th remains uncompleted.

    I read all of the other background volumes, Goerner et. al. to gain
perspective.  Most, if not all, have substantial anecdotal evidence,
"stories", from any number of native sources.  Goerner anecdotes, in the
circumstantial world, are as credible as Emily.  TIGHAR is the only entity
that has found any hard evidence, albeit also circumstantial, to substantiate
its theory, thus my interest in TIGHAR.  However, circumstantial evidence is
not the oft refered to "smoking gun".  In order for circumstantial evidence
to "prove" a theory, it must be overwhelming to the exclusion of all evidence
to the contrary.  Thus when I read Goerner, who claims to have a "document"
that substantiates an engine change, that document must be excluded,  found
to be an "illusion", or its contents explained in the context of TIGHAR's
theory.  Several postings after my inquiry seem to indicate that Goerner's
records exist, that some, or many of his claims were not totally accurate.
However, there appears to be no complete inventory of these assets or their
content.  Merely stating that the issue is analogous to cantaloupes or
pumpkins does not resolve the issue

    In reference to the Japanese code issue, although I did not raise it, I
do believe it relevant.  Not because aircraft transmissions would be
monitered, to my knowledge they weren't, but because  Japapese merchant ship
and IJN movements could have been.  Admiral Layton's history, "And I Was
There", indicates that a number of Japanese codes, merchant, naval, and
others were monitered and tracked from the 1920's.  U.S. Naval intercepts
could once and for all reject the various theories that involve the movements
of KOSHU and KAMUI or any other vessels that could be identified.  They
certainly didn't move or operate without instructions.

    finally, I have reservations about the current excitement over Emily's
recollections.  I appears contrary to most of what TIGHAR has developed to
date.  Why these ancecdotes are any more valid than the natives interviewed
by Goerner, Loomis/Ethel, el al. escapes me.  We seem to be stretching a
number of theories, or suddenly discounting others, to make her recollections
fit.  Since I have only a limited knowledge of her statements, this comment
may well be premature.  A  full report on the content of her interviews may
well dispell my concerns, but that will have to wait until a full report can
be distributed.  Until then, please excuse my inquires if you feel that they
are inappropriate.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:13:41 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: the traditional premises

Ric wrote:

> We continue to test the
> hypothesis that the flight ended at Nikumaroro not because we are somehow
> fixated on it because it is the only hypothesis (at least, that I am aware
> of) for which supporting evidence has been, and continues to be, found.

I agree: Rather than "fixated", I think the term "focused" would be a more
accurate description for TIGHAR's continued investigations into a possible
landing on Gardner.

LTM (who likes her words well chosen)
william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:43:02 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Re. habitation of or scavenging from the Norwich City: there's a reference in
one of the early colonial accounts to storing stuff in the hulk, I believe.
As for checking it NOW for signs of habitation or scavenging, which I take it
was the intent of Dave's question, the wreck is far, far too wrecked for that.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:44:19 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Circumstantial evidence

Mike Muenich says:

>Why these (e.g., Emily) ancecdotes are any more valid
>than the natives interviewed by Goerner, Loomis/Ethel,
>el al. escapes me.

Two factors make them more valid from the standpoint of this perhaps biased
correspondent.  For one thing, we collected 'em, and we've tried to be very,
very careful not to lead the witnesses, put words in their mouths, and
otherwise pollute the sources.  We've also not paid them, or given them any
reason to think they had anything to gain by telling us what we wanted to
hear.  The other factor, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is the very fact
that there are so many anecdotes about Japanese capture, all over the place.
They can't all be right; they contradict one another.  Maybe some of them are
right; we have no way of knowing.  We don't know if Emily is "right," either,
and we don't take what she says as gospel.  It's a bit of anecdotal data,
which gets fed into the mill along with everything else as a basis for
generating hypotheses that we can test against harder data.

But this whole "smoking gun" business is a bit troubling.  How many gunshot
murder cases have been conclusively solved, I wonder, without ever finding a
gun, smoking or not.  In archeology, definitive proof of how specific events
occurred is very, very rare.  Reaching a conclusion is almost always a matter
of generating hypotheses and testing them by piling up lots and lots of
little bits of data that either support the hypothesis or don't.  Right now
we've got some pretty good pieces of data supporting the Niku hypothesis, but
none is by itself definitive, and there are lots of soft spots and
contradictions within the data set.  This is very characteristic of real
data; it would be very strange if it were any other way.

LTM (who's wary of smoking guns)

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:48:04 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Premises, premises

So strike "full tanks". I was factoring in the short hi-octane
tank as containing only 50 gallons, which I guess was misleading.
Chater and Collopy obviously got their (correct) info from
Iredale. Copious correspondence between Iredale and Goerner can
be found in the Nimitz Museum.

Another matter, re "circling". The AP man aboard ITASCA, who
was in the radio room monitoring all the Earhart messages,
quoted her as saying "circling" in a dispatch filed July 3.
(Check Randy's CD #1) Under the circumstances, I'd say that
pretty well settled the question. (From memory, don't have the
time to dig up all the quotes) others present seem to agree.

Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:50:44 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Amelia on British TV

Channel 4 showed a half-hour biog documentary last weekend - appeared to be
an American programme dated 1996 made by an outfit or channel called
something like A&E, with a fresh voiceover. The script seemed simplistic,
but I enjoyed the archive footage. Am I allowed to say she seemed hugely
attractive in an unconventional way? There were soundbites i.a. from her
late sister, Tom Crouch and Doris Rich. The idea that her last flight landed
anywhere but in the sea got very short shrift.

The script repeated the unsubstantiated claim that Noonan had a drink
problem, but interestingly said so did Earhart's father and one of the two
men who flew across the Atlantic with her. No evidence for any of this, but
I think if she had these earlier experiences it makes the scenario of her
taking an alcoholic on a round the world flight all the less likely.

LTM, Phil 2276

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

AE's father did have a drinking problem, as did one of the guys on the early
transatlantic flight. I agree with you, Phil.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:52:41 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Premises, premises

I think we are exagerating the fuel aspect. I'm confident that AE/FN would
never take off with insufficient fuel for the flight. As for the 1,100
gallons/1,151 gallons riddle, I'd like to remind that no airplane has empty
tanks after landing (unless it crashed because it ran out of fuel). Therefore
if N16020 was refueled with 1,100 gallons at Lae, it stands to reason that
there were 1,151 gallons in the tanks when it  took off and that Bob Iredale
of the Sonoco Oil Company was perfectly right when he said the airplane took
off with "full tanks". I think we can safely assume there were 1,151 gallons
on board. That would give the Electra ample range for the flight to Howland.

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

The amount of fuel on the aircraft is very well documented in the Chater
Report, which is on TIGHAR's website as a Document of the Week (but I don't
remember which one so you'll have to go and look). "Stands to reason" is fine
unless there is paper, which there is.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:57:46 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

This question may have been aswered before and in that case I apologize for
asking again. But what were Bevington and the New Zealand Survey party doing
at Gardner Island in 1937 and 1939 ? Had their visit anything to do with the
AE/FN disappearance or did they have other business to attend to ?  How sure
are we today that the wreck photo was taken around 1941and by whom ?. Could
it be that the wreck photo was taken by Bevington or the New Zealnd party ?

                        Herman

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

Bevington and Maude were surveying a number of the Phoenix Islands in order
to report back to the Western Pacific High Commission on the advisability of
placing Gilbertese colonists on some or all of the islands. There is no
chance that Bevington or Maude took the wreck photo, as both are still alive
and well and have the photos they did take.

The Kiwis were surveying Gardner against the possibility of using the lagoon
as a seaplane base. They decided it wasn't suitable, but did make good maps.
I suppose it is barely possible that one of them took the photo with a
private camera; the official photos they shot are in the custody of (we
think) the National Archive in Wellington. We have photocopies of same.

I don't know that we "know" the photo was taken in 1941---that's the story
that came with it. We don't know who took it; the story that gave that
information did not check out at all.

HTH.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:01:47 EDT
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Eighth Edition and so on

Mike Muenich writes Aug. 12.:

>As I understand it the 7th edition of the "facts" is no longer in print and
the 8th remains uncompleted.<

Mike,

Like the reef flat on Niku, the search for AE by TIGHAR is a very dynamic
environment - to say the least. I have been monitoring the proceedings on
the Forum carefully for over a year now and in this short time so much has
happened, been discovered, so many hypotheses checked and discarded, other
avenues of investigation taken upon yielding new insights and information
again that it is next to impossible to put a document together that would
contain anything that you could call 'facts' with justification. At best you
can call it 'facts as of Aug. 99' because some will be outdated before the
document comes out of print (or CD burner). Mix into this two cups of day to
day administration, taking forward the search project (the primary
objective), organizing the expeditione,  and (at least until now) moderating
this Forum and you will understand that the day having only 24 hours there
was no one to do it.

Ric has now asked several TIGHARs with numbers and lots
of letters behind their names (see Forum Highlights) who have expertise in
certain aspects of the search to take the responsibility to put together their
'facts' update which they luckily accepted (and we are grateful). Naturally
as dedicated as they may be, these are people with lives, jobs and families
so we have to give them some time.

But even then there will be no silver tablet, no royal road to wisdom and
expertise. Just hang on Mike and follow the Forum carefully. By the way, the
web site has developed into a very comfortable tool for bringing yourself up
to speed. Also don't forget the Forum archives at
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/earhartforum.html
Just read Ric's answers to all the stupid questions since November 1997 and
you will have all the facts.

LTM (who also likes to have all the facts together)

Natko.

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

No, guys, Natko is NOT on the TIGHAR payroll <G>. Thank you, sir. I do
recommend the FAQs and the Forum Highlights. After all, I put a lot of work
into those pages, I'd like to see people use them!

Because of space limitations on the server, we don't keep a complete set of
archives on Listserv. I believe the ones there now go back to Jan. 1999. We
do, however, have the complete set on our computers, and are happy to send
them out as plain text files attached to email to anyone who is a true
glutton for punishment.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:09:51 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Niku graves

If I'm reading the website and Ric's report correctly, the Niku graves
discovery summary is as follows:

1.  The grave found on an earlier TIGHAR expedition was excavated, found to
contain the remains of an infant, and restored.

2.  A grave found on the recent expedition was excavated, found to contain
the remains of a child, and restored.

3.  Another grave found on the recent expedition was not excavated due to
time constraints.

4.  All three graves are thought to be from the P.I.S.S (rather unfortunate
acronym) settlers.

5.  All three graves are isolated, single graves in different locations.

My question then is this:  Did the Gardner Island settlers have a regular
cemetery somewhere on the island, or are we going to continue to run across
isolated, single burial sites on each trip?  If no regular cemetery, I
imagine there must be quite a few graves about the place with twenty years
of settler history there.  I suppose that on the chance that one of them may
yield up the mortal remains of AE or FN they'll all have to be excavated in
turn?  (much thanks for the patience and understanding of the Kiribati
governmental officials)  Do you plan to excavate the recently found grave on
the next trip?

Ric, the expedition narrative was fantastic.  I now have pictures in my head
of what Niku must be like.  Can't wait to compare them to the video.

LTM  (who likes videos MUCH better than grave excavations)

Dave Porter, 2288

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

You are correct in your memory of each grave site.

It is the cultural norm in the Pacific (you see it in Fiji as well as on Niku
and so on) to bury relatives on the family property. In the yard, IOW. So
each plot of land on Niku generally has one to several grave sites on it.
These are very organized, very formal, burials. They all look alike, and are
clearly what they are even all these years later. So no, no cemetery as we
know cemeteries, but defined burials with all honor given. Why the two
children were buried not on the family land is open to question.
Illegitimacy? Tom?

Also, Tom, what do you think about the other isolated grave(s)? I am
personally inclined to think that an adult's grave away from the family is
going to be either a visitor or a person who has no family on the island for
some other reason. I wouldn't see a traditional Gilbertese grave for a
Norwich City body.... the Gilbertese weren't there at the time, and they'd
have no reason to go back and set up such a site later, would they? But this
is out of my pay grade.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:11:02 EDT
From:         Matt Mondro
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

> we have photos
> taken aboard the wreck by Bevington (October 1937) and by the New Zealand
> Survey  (Dec. '38 - Feb. '39).

 Is there any chance you guys could put more pictures such as this on
the website, id love to see them, along with any electra photos or ones
from the expeditions to Niku? I know its probably not on your priority
list right now.

--
Matt Mondro
mmondro(at)mail.ford.com

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

Yes, there is a serious chance that this will happen. I gotta get this
scanner humming, we haven't done a document of the week in about.... five
months :-(. Before Labor Day, I promise.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:07 EDT
From:         Ross Schlichting
Subject:      Re: Emily's story

Could you post on the website the S.S. Norwich City Photos taken by
Bevington and The New Zealand Survey party?  Also it would be great to see
some of the photos from the recent expedition.  Just want to see more of how
NIKU looks today.

Thanks,
Ross Schlichting

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

Yes, I promise!! Really!

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:38:04 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: Radio broadcasts

On 8/12/99, Mike Muenich wrote:

"In reference to the Japanese code issue, although I did not raise it, I
do believe it relevant. Not because aircraft transmissions would be
monitered, to my knowledge they weren't, but because Japapese merchant
ship and IJN movements could have been. Admiral Layton's history, "And I
Was There", indicates that a number of Japanese codes, merchant, naval,
and others were monitered and tracked from the 1920's. U.S. Naval
intercepts could once and for all reject the various theories that
involve the movements of KOSHU and KAMUI or any other vessels that could
be identified. They certainly didn't move or operate without
instructions."
***********************************************
Unfortunately, the radio intercepts from Station Baker (Guam), prior to
WWII, were probably never decoded or translated, as they were "bundled"
together & shipped to Hawaii &/or Washingon, DC, since the personnel at
Station Baker was not trained to decode or translate the messages.
They were able to identify call signs & locations of the various
Imperial Navy vessels, which did enable them to trace any large movement
of the fleet, especially pre-war fleet maneuvers of special interest to
the US Navy Dept.     Believe Randy Jacobson has traced the location of
such intercepts, however they have never been sorted or properly
organized & filed, although there is an ongoing effort by some WWII
Cryptanalyists to undertake the tedious task of sorting, decoding &
translating all such intercepts.     Whether this daunting project will
ever see completion in our lifetime remains questionable.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:39:44 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Niku graves

Pat says/asks:

>Why the two children were buried not on the family land is
>open to question.  Illegitimacy? Tom?

Response:  Maybe, but we don't actually know that they WEREN'T buried on
family land.  As the land was cleared it was surveyed and parcelled out, at
least after the initial period when the people were working for government
rather than working their own plots.  We have sketch-maps from Paul Laxton
(administrator in the late 1940s) showing land divisions in some areas.  I
suspect that the baby burials at Aukaraime and Nutiran are kids who died
after their parents had received land parcels there, even though they may
have still lived most of the time in the village, and that the kids were
buried there in accordance with custom and in the expectation that the land
would eventually be settled.

Pat goes on...

>Also, Tom, what do you think about the other isolated grave(s)? I am
>personally inclined to think that an adult's grave away from the family is
>going to be either a visitor or a person who has no family on the island for
>some other reason. I wouldn't see a traditional Gilbertese grave for a
>Norwich City body.... the Gilbertese weren't there at the time, and they'd
>have no reason to go back and set up such a site later, would they? But this
>is out of my pay grade.

Response:  I dunno.  The only foreigner's grave we know about on Niku is
Gallagher's, and he was buried on government land, in a rather elaborate
version of a traditional Gilbertese grave (i.e., it's got a coral-slab-lined
platform, but then it has a concrete structure on top that, in accordance
with his wishes, is similar to Robert Lewis Stevenson's in Samoa.).  I
suspect that burial of an outlander on government land would be the norm if
there was one, and government land could have been defined to include "bush
reserve" -- i.e., unallocated land.  I'd guess (but I'm only guessing) that
people would not want to bury a potentially dangerous dead guy on land that
was going to be allocated to somebody in the future.  As to whether they'd
make an outlander's grave a traditional one, I don't know that, either, but I
suspect they'd mark it somehow, to keep track of where it was, try to avoid
stepping on it, etc., and if you're going to mark it, why not mark it in a
way that says "grave" to whoever may see it?

Incidentally, there's a fair amount of variability to the character of graves
in the village.  We found one that was lined with upended bottles rather than
coral slabs.  Some alcoholic navigator, no doubt.

LTM (who's gravely concerned about all this)
TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:41:43 EDT
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Niku IIIIP Report

With regard to Mr. Dohenyguy's challenging the qualifications of
some members of the team, TIGHAR is not now, nor will it
ever be, an organization with an unlimited assets. To Ric's credit,
he makes excellent use of the fiscal and human resources available.

Also, as anyone who has assembled a project team knows,
the synergism of the group can be as important to the success
of the mission as are the specific skills that each individual brings
to the table. In this regard, it would be hard to imagine a more
capable team.

All twelve members of the team put in 9-hour work days in a
tropical environment, where dense scaevola and loose coral
rubble hindered all activity. Had proficiency with a machete
been a requisite, then a couple (myself included) would have
been excluded.

As to the Nai'a, she's no tug, and a lot of bang for the buck. Probably
the minimum size for open ocean, but she was operated by an
excellent crew. As a first-timer, it exceeded my expectations
as the support vessel.

The search for Amelia is both physical and intellectual. With
this in mind, I would ask Mr. Dohenyguy to delineate qualifications
for his team and explain how it would be funded.

Skeet Gifford, TIGHAR 0001CEB
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:42:11 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Canton Engine

Don Jordan asks:

<<Did you say that the Electra did not have an corrosion resistant paint on
the inside. I think the US plane had a green color paint and the Japanese had
a blue color.  If the Electra had none at all, that might help to identify
parts if they are found. >>

Most US aircraft from 1939 onwards were either treated with a zinc chromate
wash (yellowish green in color) or were anodized ( an electrolytic process
that left the aluminum rather dark instead of silvery).  The Lockheed Model
10 was just plain Alclad 24ST aluminum.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:42:49 EDT
From:         John Clauss
Subject:      Re: Niku graves

The third grave was right on the edge of the beach under a large tree a
little SW of the Norwich.  It appears to be quite old  and has been
disturbed by over wash from large waves.  Manakaa Teuatabo  (the rep from
Kiribati) and one of the Fijian crew members looked at the site and also
felt that it was old.

Before getting too excited about this let me say that there are property
demarcations and the remains of houses just inland from this area.  That
argues that this grave is located on the shore side of a designated
property which is in line with what we have observed  in the village.

We really didn't have time to take it any further than that.

John Clauss
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:43:57 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: circumstantial evidence

Mike Muenich says:

<<Thus when I read Goerner, who claims to have a "document"
that substantiates an engine change, that document must be excluded,  found
to be an "illusion", or its contents explained in the context of TIGHAR's
theory.  ... Merely stating that the issue is analogous to cantaloupes or
pumpkins does not resolve the issue.>>

I don't recall Goerner ever claiming that he had such a document, but if he
did it was his responsibility to make it public if he expected anyone to
believe him.  There is abundant documentation (Bureau of Air Commerce
inspection reports, photographs, etc.) to establish beyond doubt that
Lockheed 10E c/n 1055 was delivered with Pratt & Whitney R1340 S3H1 "Wasp"
engines in July 1936 and took off from Lae, New Guinea a year later with
those same powerplants.  The credibility of Goerner's allegations on this
issue is not helped by the fact that he quite obviously has no idea what he's
talking about.  On page 82 of "The Search For Amelia Earhart" he says, "The
Lockheed Electra's power had been publicized as twin 550-horsepower Pratt &
Whitney Junior Wasp engines...".  The truth is that all Lockheed 10Es came
equipped with 550 hp Pratt & Whitney Wasps.  The 10A featured the 450 hp Wasp
Junior (not Junior Wasp).

Later in the book Goerner claims that Earhart's engines were replaced with
"Wasp Senior" engines of greater horsepower.  There never was any such thing
as a "Wasp Senior" of any horsepower and the Model 10 airframe was simply
incapable of carrying any engine larger than the 550 hp Wasp.

<< In reference to the Japanese code issue, although I did not raise it, I
do believe it relevant.  ... U.S. Naval intercepts could once and for all
reject the various theories that involve the movements of KOSHU and KAMUI or
any other vessels that could be identified.  They certainly didn't move or
operate without instructions.>>

It would be nice to have copies of such intercepts if they existed but, as
far as I know, the U.S. Navy was not monitoring IJN movements in the Central
Pacific in 1937.  if you know otherwise and can direct us to those records we
would be most appreciative.

  <<finally, I have reservations about the current excitement over Emily's
recollections. ... A  full report on the content of her interviews may
well dispell my concerns...>>

I hope so.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:44:30 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Smoking guns

Tom King wrote:

<<But this whole "smoking gun" business is a bit troubling.  How many gunshot
murder cases have been conclusively solved, I wonder, without ever finding a
gun, smoking or not.  >>

Just recently here in Delaware we sent a prominent attorney to Death Row for
murdering his mistress and there was no gun (smoking or otherwise), no
witnesses, and no body.  Just ask Tom Capano if you need a smoking gun to
prove a case.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:44:55 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Premises, premises

Herman de Wulf writes:

<<Therefore if N16020 was refueled with 1,100 gallons at Lae, it stands to
reason that there were 1,151 gallons in the tanks when it took off.>>

NR16020 was not refueled with 1,100 gallons at Lae.  Chater and Collopy both
state that the total fuel load aboard the aircraft at departure was 1,100 US
gallons - and anything Iredale told Goerner is anecdote and, by definition,
is less useful than a contemporaneous document.

I'm really glad that Cam Warren has given us the opportunity to address this
issue of how to weight various kinds of evidence.  It's the all-important
first step in any investigation.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:46:13 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Premises, premises

Cam Warren writes:

>So strike "full tanks". I was factoring in the short hi-octane
>tank as containing only 50 gallons, which I guess was misleading.
>Chater and Collopy obviously got their (correct) info from
>Iredale. Copious correspondence between Iredale and Goerner can
>be found in the Nimitz Museum.

Okay.  So we agree that 1,100 US gallons is the best figure, but I'm not sure
we agree on WHY it is the best figure (and this could become an important
point in future discussions about facts that are not so easy to determine).

I say that 1,100 gallons is the best figure because it is documented in two,
independent, written, contemporaneous accounts by aviation authorities.  I
also say that your assumption that Chater and Collopy, who were both present
at the takeoff, got their information from Iredale is purely speculative.
Most importantly, I maintain that any anecdotal account Iredale may have
given Goerner at least 23 years after the fact (Goerner did not begin his
investigation until 1960) is of far less value than the contempraneous
written accounts.

Do you agree?

(It's pointless to get into the "circling" question if we don't first get our
rules of evidence straight.)

LTM,
Ric

>Another matter, re "circling". The AP man aboard ITASCA, who
>was in the radio room monitoring all the Earhart messages,
>quoted her as saying "circling" in a dispatch filed July 3.
>(Check Randy's CD #1) Under the circumstances, I'd say that
>pretty well settled the question. (From memory, don't have the
>time to dig up all the quotes) others present seem to agree.
>
>Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:46:39 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Wreck photo date

Herman asked:

<< How sure are we today that the wreck photo was taken around 1941 and by
whom?>>

The Wreck Photo was supposedly taken in 1947, but as Pat said, we really have
no idea when it was taken or by whom.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:47:14 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Niku graves

In the report I neglected to mention that there was yet one more *possible*
grave encountered near the base of tree about 20 meters in from the veggie
line quite a ways up the beach beyond the Norwich City.  (Sorry to be vague
about the location but all the mapping isn't in yet.)

I say *possible* grave because the "headstone" was supported by a big ol'
gnarled tree root which may have simply pushed up the coral slab so that it
gives the appearance of being a headstone.  Then again, the tree root could
have come along later.

As for excavating graves on Niku, I don't like to do it and we only do it if
we come across what appears to be a highly anomalous burial in the context of
what we know about the practices of the people who lived here (accurately
described by Pat).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:48:22 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Wreck photo date

I thought the story was from Carrington that the photo was taken near the end
or just after WWII.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:21:30 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Wreck photo date

>From Randy Jacobson
>
>I thought the story was from Carrington that the photo was taken near the end
>or just after WWII.

The most original source we have for what Carrington said are notes kept by a
Lockheed employee who was present when Carrington first brought the photo to
Lockheed.  I quote:

"The photos had come from a former British seaman, a diesel mechanic, who had
been (he said) on H.M.S. Adamant, a submarine tender, when it was in the
central Pacific in late 1946 and early 1947.  Either the last week in 1946 or
the first week in 1947..."

Adamant's logs indicate that she was moored in Hong Kong for all of December
1946 and January 1947.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:22:34 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      1100 Gallons More or Less

Well, I came across one quote from Bob Iredale, in a July 28,
1985 letter to Goerner he said:

"Yes, I fueled the Lockheed and did it personally.  Fred [Haig,
'our Aviation Officer'] arranged 20x44 gallon drums [presumably
he's talking Imperial gallons, since 44x1.2= 52.8 US, since
they were most likely US 55 gal. drums] of Avgas 80 octane
shipped out to us from California many months before. I can
assure you all tanks [in the Electra] were absolutely full -
the wing tanks and those inside the fuselage. After she had done
a test flight I topped them off again before her final take off.
I think she took somewhere around 800 gallons all up.  Fred
Noonan was with me at the fueling and checked it out.  He was
also with me when we changed the engine oil as was Amelia. . ."

Iredale later reconfirmed this at Goerner's request, both in a
telephone call and by means of a written questionnaire. I don't
recall off-hand if there was mention of the "take off tank".

Note that Elgen Long says the volume of fuel "shrank"
considerably while in storage at Lae, due to the high ambient
temperature. (I do know for sure that you can get MORE gas in
a tank if the gas is chilled - but you'll have to check with a
petroleum engineer to get the precise hot vs. cold figures).

Cam Warren

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

From Ric

So Iredale, reminiscing nearly half a century later, says that all of the
tanks were topped off prior to the final takeoff.  He later confirms this
memory to Goerner by phone and in a written questionnaire, and you don't
remember him changing his mind and mentioning that one tank was not topped
off.

And yet you accept the 1,100 gallon figure which directly contradicts Iredale
whom you have described as "the absolute best source."

I submit that it is just as important to understand WHY we believe something
to be true as it is to know WHAT we believe to be true.

Let me say this one more time.  Eleven hundred US gallons is the most
credible figure for the Electra's fuel load at takeoff because that is the
number specified in the best available contemporaneous documentation, i.e.
Chater and Collopy.  Agreed?

(Elgen Long's speculations about shrinking fuel are not relevant to this
discussion.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:23:49 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      IJN

>From Ric
>It would be nice to have copies of such intercepts if they existed but,
>as far as I know, the U.S. Navy was not monitoring IJN movements in the
>Central Pacific in 1937. if you know otherwise and can direct us to
>those records we would be most appreciative.

   The "Mid-Pacific Strategic Direction-Finder Net" was designed for
just that purpose. The on-line date that has been given as July 1937.
"The Code-breakers" by David Kahn.

   Capt. Safford said the most important pre-war information obtained
with the "Blue Book" was the post-modernization trails of the NAGATO
(1936). It showed a speed of 26+ knots. That meant the MUTSU and the
MUTSU class battleships would have the same speed. This caused the 12
new U.S. battleships to have to raise their maximum speed to 27 knots.
This prompted Capt. Safford to quote Shakespeare- " there is a Divinity
which shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we may."  SRH-305.

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:43:18 EDT
From:         William Dohenyguy
Subject:      Clarification

To Skeet Gifford:

     I knew I was going to step on a few toes with my last correspondence,
but I was hopeful my size nine Reeboks would cause no permanent damage.

     Let me preface this next paragraph by saying I'm no expert in arranging
expeditions, but since you asked. I do not believe it is a good practice to
allow unqualified individuals to take part in an adventure such as the Niku
expedition simply because they can afford to go. I realize without their
support there would be no expedition, certainly a Catch 22 situation.
However, this conundrum can be conquered. On all the digs I went on, the
hard work, the dirty work, was always done by the locals. They were hired
because they were familiar with the area and could overcome the hostile
environment simply because they were used to it. And just as important, each
dig crew, contained only the most qualified individuals, there was no room
for dead weight or excess baggage (there I go again).

     As far as raising funds for such an adventure is concerned, that is
outside of my pay grade. Skeet, I'm not questioning Ric's ability to put
together an expedition. Obviously, he knows what he is doing. I was just
bring up a point. I apologize for stepping too hard.

William LTM

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

From Pat

You know, you're making some assumptions that aren't actually justified.

"I do not believe it is a good practice to
allow unqualified individuals ..."

Who says these folks were unqualified? (Skeet? Dick? Chris? Did you feel
unqualified? Did you feel like excess baggage or dead weight? From what Ric
said when he got home, you were essential to the work that got done and
desperately needed.) Other than experience level, they were as qualified as
the others. And the *only* way to get experience on Niku is ... to go to
Niku. Let me know if you can find a flight.

"On all the digs I went on, the
hard work, the dirty work, was always done by the locals."

Fine. You tell me where to find the locals. Or have you simply forgotten that
Niku is uninhabited? Not to mention that training "locals" is time-consuming,
expensive, and inexact to say the least. No matter --- the point is that
anyone who is going to work on Niku is going to be imported there. We have
found repeatedly that for the kind of work *we* are doing (which is search
work, not dirt-moving) we need educated, intelligent people who are familiar
with technological society and can differentiate between cultural "noise" and
the Real Stuff. Every time we have attempted to use "locals" (members of the
ship's crew, for instance) it has resulted in hours, if not days, of wasted
time and effort.

"Skeet, I'm not questioning Ric's ability to put
together an expedition. "

Actually, you ARE questioning our abilities and the qualifications of the
participants. So let me clue you up:  we have run almost 50 expeditions, in
various parts of the world, most of those parts being hostile as to climate
and distant as to medical care. We have done so in extremes of financial
crunches, with the barest minimum of equipment, and we have done so
successfully and SAFELY. The sum total of injuries requiring medical care
beyond a sticky bandage: two---in 15 years. A broken wrist, caused by unsafe
(in retrospect... at the time it seemed ok, but we wouldn't permit it now)
behavior on the part of an individual who was not part of the expedition and
was not under our control, and some stitches needed by another individual,
who was not part of the TIGHAR team and was not under our control, and who
was clowning and showing off. (We now make it clear that *all* participants,
no matter who they are working for, are under our control or they don't leave
the ship.)

"As far as raising funds for such an adventure is concerned, that is
outside of my pay grade."

Yup. And so is staffing and leading field work, obviously, or you would not
refer to it as an "adventure." Adventure is what happens when things go
wrong. Adventure is a sign of incompetence. We don't have adventures.... at
least not on the ground, where we can control things. Usually the weather
throws enough at us that there is plenty of "adventure" to go around---the
other leading definition being "terror and discomfort remembered from the
vantage of security and safety."

I would *really* like to hear from Veryl, John, Kenton, and some of the other
"veterans" on this topic.

LTM, who thinks there's more to running an expedition than most people think
there is,

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:44:39 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Armchair Archeologists

In recent days there seems to be a frenzy of posts, the gist of which
seems to be demanding a "rush to judgement", for conclusions as yet not
supported by factual evidence developed to date.

The AE/FN mystery is now over 62 years old & given that basis there is a
strong possibility that it is going to take some additional years in
time to uncover such factual evidence.      Additionally, even if TIGHAR
is successful in locating & properly identifying the remains of the
Electra, (or its crew) it will not necessarily follow that all the many
questions about the reasons why the flight failed its objective
(reaching Howland safely) will be answered satisfactorily or completely
& as Mr. Gillespie has often warned, such discoveries will probably not
convince some folks to abandon their long held, contrary theories about
the causes which resulted in the flight's failure to achieve its
objectives.

From my perspective, given the fact that there doesn't appear to be any
other group or individuals actively working to locate the plane & crew,
(TIGHAR's primary mission) I'd suggest the rest of us "armchair
Archeologists" allow the mission to proceed, unless or until such
activity proves successful in finding the plane &/or it's crew or that
the evidence or lack thereof forces us to conclude that the..."Well is
finally dry"... & that we must reluctantly concede that "Mother" was
right all along & doesn't really want the mystery solved, at least not
by this generation of seachers....but of course there is always "next
year"!

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:24:54 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: IJN

Okay, Daryll.  We'll stand by and eagerly await your report on the movements
of KOSHU and KAMUI in July 1937.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:28:36 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Clarification

While ALMOST entirely supporting what Pat has said about qualifications and
such, let me make a couple of points as the project's long-term archeologist,
with the appropriate Piled-higher and Deeper in the subject, founding member
of the Soc. of Professional Archeologists (defunct), etc. etc. etc. --

First off, the question of "qualifications" is something that archeologists
argue about all the time -- who has 'em, what they are, what kind are
necessary for what kinds of work, etc.  The jury is by no means in on the
subject, and probably never will be, and my personal belief is that
professional qualifications, in terms of degrees and such, are highly
overrated.  You need to have technically qualified people in charge, but to
do the work you simply need people who are bright, observant, careful, able
to work in a team, able to make judgements, willing to question authority,
and in decent condition.  Experience helps a lot, too, but even it can be
overrated; the downside of experience is that it can make you jump to
conclusions, or miss things that a fresh eye will see.  Then there's the
matter of what kinds of experience are relevant.  Personally, I wouldn't know
a piece of a Lockheed Electra if it fell on my head (well, I would now, but I
certainly wouldn't have ten years ago), so people with airplane experience
are real important members of the team.  There are lots of other kinds of
non-archeological esperience that are important -- some of which we've had
access to, others of which we'd dearly love to have but haven't.

Bottom line is that there are lots of definitions of what a qualified team
is.  I think the Niku IIII team fell well within reasonable parameters.

Re. William Dohenyguy's statement that "On all the digs I went on, the
hard work, the dirty work, was always done by the locals." --

I reckon the digs you've been on have been in countries other than the U.S.;
here the hard, dirty work is usually done by undergraduates and what we
sometimes call "shovel bums" -- people who migrate from dig to dig and make a
living at it (Actually they're unionized now, and I'll probably get in
trouble for calling them that, but I regard it as a rather honorable term).
However, you make a point that's actually not been entirely lost on the
TIGHAR team over the years, and it's one that we've argued about.  It's the
one point in Pat's response that I kind of disagree with.

I've worked with teams of "locals" in places like Chuuk and Yap, the Marianas
and Palau, and they're certainly as able as anyone else to get on top of a
project's purposes and to master the necessary techniques.  They sure beat a
lot of college students.  Moreover, they're used to working in the
environment, with the tools (e.g., bush knives), and they can do a lot of
things a whole lot more efficiently than we can.  I think there's a lot of
merit in the idea of having a small team of "locals" to do the cutting and
clearing and other heavy work -- AND to apply their own unique areas of
intellectual expertise.  Foua Tofiga suggested to us in Fiji, for example,
that we take along some Fijians who know all about coconut crab behavior, to
work on the possible bones discovery sites by tracking down crabs to see
where they may have taken stuff.  I'm rather embarrassed to say this had never
occurred to me, in all the time we've talked about learning how crabs do
their thing with bodies.

Of course, Pat's right about the distinct dearth of "locals" on Niku, but
there are Fijians, Samoans, I Kiribati, and Tuvaluans within easy enough
striking distance.  The downside is that, unlike us idiots, they won't work
for free, so it would be cost item.  But I think it's very much worth
considering.

LTM (who doesn't much like hard work)
Tom King

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

Well, as I said---when we tried using the ship's crew, it worked out very
poorly indeed. I think I'd rather have undergraduates <G>. By the time we
finished finding, paying, equipping, training, monitoring, and cleaning up
after a gang like that, we're better off doing it ourselves with educated
volunteers.

But this is an old argument between Tom and us, and no doubt will never be
fully resolved...

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:35:30 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Premises, cont.

I suppose if you can create your own junk science discipline -
"aviation archaeology" - you get to make your own rules,
including your own flexible definition of objectivity. How silly
of me to assume you'd be interested in hearing what THE MAN THAT
FUELED THE ELECTRA might have to say on the subject. Ordinarily
one would consider Chater and Collopy secondary sources. They
were not in charge of, nor apparently had nothing whatsoever to
do with the fueling procedure, and were merely reporting what
they were told by someone else (more than likely Iredale).
Incidentally, I have a photo of Iredale in his white STANAVO
(the local Standard Oil avgas brand name) coveralls, servicing
AE's plane.  So he WAS there. And - I think we agree - the
plane DID have at least 1100 US gallons of fuel on board at
takeoff.

Re "circling"; Hazlick's report saying Earhart used the
expression "circling" was filed the next day, from the ITASCA,
which is pretty contemporary in my book, and I'd think he'd
qualify as a "primary source".

Reflecting on our recent exchanges, I somehow get the impression
that TIGHAR "evidence" is highly selective, and heavily weighted
in the direction of Ric's current mindset. But maybe you'll
convince me other wise, when you send me (or publish on the
forum) that list of "facts" that will assure us the Electra landed on
Nikumaroro.

Let's see - I think the TIGHAR position is that AE made a smooth
wheels-down landing on the reef flat, ran the engine as necessary
for several days while sending a series of (ambiguous) radio
messages.  Then along came a big wave that washed the plane into
the depths, where it was when Lambrect & company flew over. The
Navy guys didn't see AE/FN since they were resting in the trees.
And the radio signals were heard by Pan Am DF stations hundreds
of miles away, but not by any ship searching in the vicinity, nor
by Comdr. Anthony standing a 24 hour radio watch in Honolulu.
Later, another wave washed the Electra back up on the reef, or
into the trees, and AE/FN died of thirst, (perhaps boredom!) to
be later buried by passing samaritans. Feel free to correct me
if I'm wrong - I'm just trying to summarize the situation.

Oh, and here's a bone for you; Paul Mantz told a reporter (at
the time of AE's disappearance) that he was sure she'd head for
the Phoenix Islands. Am I a nice guy or what?

Thank you for your courteous attention.

Cam Warren

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

You've made it pretty clear where the problem is.  You may be a nice guy but
you call  the most basic standards of evidence evaluation "junk science."
You somehow think that we made up standards that are fundamental to any
historical inquiry.  You can't even differentiate between a primary source
and a secondary source.  Debating the Earhart case under these circumstances
is like trying to play poker with someone who doesn't understand what the
numbers and pictures on the cards mean.

There are rules to this game.  I didn't make 'em up.  You can learn this
stuff in school.

There are two general categories of sources - primary sources and secondary
sources.

Primary sources are:
"Accounts by eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the events, or surviving
objects from the time."  (A Preface to History, Carl Gustavson, McGraw-Hill,
1955)

Secondary sources are:
"...(H)istorical accounts written by persons who have studied the primary
sources, or who are using the works of those who have." (ibid.)

Thus, Iredale, Chater and Collopy (and others) are all primary sources for
the takeoff from Lae.  Anything Goerner, you or I have written on that subject
is a secondary source.

Bellarts, Thompson and Hazlick (and others) are primary sources for what
Earhart said on the radio.

Gerald Gallagher, Emily Sikuli, Bilimon Amaran, Thomas Divine, and about half
the residents of Saipan are primary sources for Earhart's ultimate fate.
Primary sources that are "survivng objects from the time" include
photographs, pieces of airplane debris found on Nikumaroro, and a piece of
cloth dug up on Saipan said to a blindfold used in Earhart's execution.

Obviously, a primary source is not necessarily an accurate source of
information so conventions have been established to evaluate the different
forms that primary sources can take.  Central to these conventions is the
recognition of the frailty of human memory.  Accounts written down at or near
the time of the event are given greater weight than accounts written down, or
given verbally, after the passage of time.  When two or more accounts written
down at or near the time of the event disagree (a not uncommon problem) an
effort must be made to assess which account is more credible.
Where information is in the form of recollections written down or given
verbally many years later (anecdotal accounts) the only way to assess its
accuracy is to seek more reliable forms of evidence (contemporaneous
documents, photographs, artifacts) which might support, fail to support, or
actively reject the anecdotal information.

It should be clear from the above that no matter how loudly you shout about
"THE MAN THAT FUELED THE ELECTRA", the information he gave Goerner in 1985
was a 48 year-old memory.  If his was the only information we had about the
subject we would begin a search for real documentation.  Fortunately, we
already have that documentation via Chater and Collopy and can say with some
degree of certainty that Iredale's recollection was correct except that he
seems to have forgotten about the one partially filled tank.

Now, since you insist upon talking about Hanzlick, let's talk about Hanzlick.
The question at issue is whether or not Earhart said she was "circling" in
her transmission received by Itasca at 07:58 local time.  Fortunately, we
have the most contemporaneous document possible, short of a tape recording,
to tell us what the people in Itasca's radio room heard, or at least thought
they heard.  The log kept by Chief Radioman Bellarts, typed on the form as he
heard the words, shows very clearly that the original entry was:
KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR U .....

Some time later (how much later is impossible to say) the word "drifting" was
partially erased, the platen of the typewriter was realigned
not-quite-accurately, and the word "circling" typed over the erasure.  All
later representations of that transmission, including Hazlick's, quote it as:
KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA WE ARE CIRCLING BUT CANNOT HEAR U .....

What did she really say?  It's impossible to know for sure.  What we do know
is that Bellarts, typing along, essentailly taking dication from Amelia,
thought she said "drifting."  Why did he later change his mind?  It's not
hard to envision a scene where either he or someone looking over his shoulder
says,

"Wait a minute.  That can't be right.  Drifting doesn't make any sense."
Someone, possibly even Hazlick, says, "I thought she said she was circling."
And Bellarts says, "Yeah, you must be right.  I'll change it."

All we can say for sure is that there was some question about that word.
Drifting doesn't make much sense, but frankly neither does circling.  What
makes sense in the context of the message is:

KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA WE ARE LISTENING BUT CANNOT HEAR U .....

But this is speculation.  My point is that Hanzlick's  statement (a primary
source, as you say) does NOT trump Bellart's log (a more
contemporary primary source).  This is not a judgement call about whether you
prefer to believe the radio operator or the newspaper reporter.  It's a
simple, straightforward evaluation of physical evidence, in this case, the
original Itasca radio log.

As for giving you a list of facts, there seems to be little point in dealing
cards to someone who thinks that a pair of fours beats three kings.  And by
the way, your understanding of TIGHAR's hypothesis is not correct.  I'll be
setting our hypothesis and the evidence for and against it in subsequent
postings to the Forum.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1999 13:25:56 EDT
From:         Doc Holloway
Subject:      Possible funding source

Have you thought about the possibility of contacting Clive Cussler?
According to his books, he is very much into finding lost ships.  Why not a
lost airplane?

LTM

R.L."Doc" Holloway
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I've talked to Clive.  We use pretty much the same techniques and technology.
 In fact, way back in 1989 we used an underwater magnetometer belonging to
Schonstedt Instrument Co. that they had previously had on loan to Mr. Cussler.
We'll do our thing and let him and Dirk do theirs.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:40:46 EDT
From:         John Clauss
Subject:      Re: Clarification/team members

William,

After having been on many of those 50 expeditions I would put forward that
two of the most important qualifications for the team are the ability to be
compatible with one another in tough situations and close quarters and
dedication to the project.  This assumes that all are physically capable of
doing what is required of them.  As Skeet and Pat have said these
operations require a diverse array talents and capabilities.  If we had
only athletic types that could work all day and barely break into a sweat
we probably wouldn't get anywhere.  In the last five years Tighar has been
able to field teams with impressive depth and diversity.  At any given time
during these expeditions there are at least a dozen things going.  Ric
can't direct every task, he must delegate the work to the rest of us and
act as the team's manager pulling all the components together so that we
end up with a cohesive focused operation.  You can't imagine how tight and
productive one of these teams is till you have done seen it.

As far as the team member/sponsor thing goes there is no differentiation
once we step onto the plane in LA.  There are only team members and we work
that way.  We are extremely grateful for our sponsors' ability to make an
operation like this possible (that goes for all of you out there also).
Do they get any slack when it come to work load.....NO!  Does Ric take
every person that wants to write a check and come along.......no.   He
interviews and pre qualifies each one and seems to do a pretty good job
walking this tightrope.

I am not sure how much more discussion is warranted on this subject.   We
field excellent teams that get the work done.

LTM , who loves to sweat

John
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:41:47 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: 1100 Gallons More or Less

> From Cam Warren:
>  Well, I came across one quote from Bob Iredale, in a July 28,
>  1985 letter to Goerner he said:
>  "Yes, I fueled the Lockheed and did it personally.  Fred [Haig,
>  'our Aviation Officer'] arranged 20x44 gallon drums [presumably
>  he's talking Imperial gallons, since 44x1.2= 52.8 US, since
>  they were most likely US 55 gal. drums] of Avgas 80 octane
>  shipped out to us from California many months before.
         (snip)

-----Hi Cam:  Hate to nitpick, but 44 Imp. gals.=44x1.25=55 US gals,
as you correctly surmised.

LTM(who always remembers that it takes 5 US gals. to make up 4 real gals.
:>')

HAG 2201.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:44:13 EDT
From:         Earl Kindley
Subject:      Written Conduct

Mr. Warren,

I am interested in your perspectives and point of view --when submitted
within the bounds of civility.  Be advised, neither your point  --nor your
credibility-- are well served by shouting, sarcasm, bitterness, or "written
conduct" that is....  less than gracious.

E.G. Kindley.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:45:45 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Premises, cont.

Dear Mr. Cam Warren,

Your comments on the Earhart Search Forum are most interesting.

Do you have a web site representing you position? If so, do you moderate an
open forum for discussion of your position on the fate of Amelia Earhart?

Please advise of the internet access address for the web site and forum if
they exist.

Thank you,
Roger Kelley, #2112
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:46:41 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: IJN

Ric said on 8/14/99:

..."It would be nice to have copies of such intercepts if they existed
but, as far as I know, the U.S. Navy was not monitoring IJN movements in
the Central Pacific in 1937. if you know otherwise and can direct us to
those records we would be most appreciative"...

According to John Prados book: ..."Combined Fleet Decoded"... , Station
Baker (Guam) was able to identify & locate the ships participating in
the Imperial Japanese Navy's Combined Fleet Exercises in 1930 (decoded,
translated & analyzed by 1934), which led to a major revision of the War
Dept.'s War Plan Orange, changing the Asiatic Fleet's role from one of
defending the Phillippines to "fleeing" that theater of operations at
the outbreak of hostilities in the Pacific; further providing for a
series of intermediate stages of setting-up advanced bases across the
Pacific mandated islands, generally following the original
recommendations of Marine Lt. Col. "Pete" Ellis, who died (was killed?)
while attempting to conduct his own personal, unauthorized, covert
inspection of the Japanese Mandated Islands in the 1920's.

Subsequently, the US Navy installed HF/DF stations at the advanced
listening posts in the Phillipines (Cavite) & Guam (Baker) during the
first half of 1937, after further intercepts by the Guam station during
1933 provided additional, more detailed analysis of IJN Combined Fleet
Exercises conducted in that year, simulating Japanese defense of an
American attack of the Japanese mainland through the Bonin Islands.

All of which seems to suggest that the US War Dept. & the US Navy Dept.
were exceedingly interested in maintaining very close radio surveillance
of IJN Fleet activities, in & around the mandated islands, throughout
the 1930's.      In his book..."And I was There"... Rear Adml. Edwin
Layton also confirms that such monitoring of IJN Fleet radio activity
from Guam continued right up until the Island was captured by the
Japanese, early in 1942.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in a previous post, most of the intercepts
from Guam were probably never decoded, translated or analyzed, unless
they involved major IJN Fleet activity, such as the combined fleet
exercises; therefore any "local" traffic involving the AE/FN flight (if
in fact there ever was such radio activity by the Japanese) will
probably remain forever buried in the massive bundles of similar
"routine" message intercepts, unless or until some enterprising person
(with no other kind of life) volunteers to visit the facility where all
this material is stored & begins sorting through the bundles, a document
at a time!

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:48:56 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      The Great Fuel Debate

I do not enter this controversy without a great deal of trepidation, but it
seems to me that the entire debate comes down to how much fuel was left in
the "takeoff" (100-octane) tank when AE departed Lae.

Chater could not know for certain how much fuel was in AE's plane prior to
the final refueling.  All he knew was that Vacuum put in 654 imperial
gallons, which was enough to fill 'er up.  (By the way, 654 imperial gallons
translates into 785.4 US gallons, which might coincide nicely with Iredale's
recollection of "somewhere around 800 gallons all up," except that he
apparently was talking Imperial gallons, too.)  Chater guesstimates that the
takeoff tank was approximately half-full on departure. I have no idea if this
tank was equipped with a dipstick or glass, but if that were the case Chater
probably would not have used the term "approximately."  I think he eyeballed
it, or talked to someone who did.

Chater also refers to the short tank as having a capacity of  81 gallons,
which seems a rather odd size unless he was again using the measure with
which he was most familiar:  Imperial gallons.  Eighty-one imperial gallons
is just shy of 100 US gallons.  So, knowing that the Electra's reported fuel
capacity is 1,151 US gallons, Chater subtracts 50 US gallons to account for
the half-full "takeoff tank," et voila! the Lockheed leaves the ground
carrying 1,100 US gallons of fuel.  In other words, Chater's "1,100 gallons"
is an estimate based upon another estimate -- the amount of fuel left in the
short tank.  He could have been off 20 gallons either way.

As for Iredale, I wouldn't rush to dismiss his story as a mere reminiscence
dimmed by 50 intervening years.  You think the guy who fueled AE's plane
never once thought about it before Goerner looked him up?  I'm betting that
in the days and weeks following AE's disappearance, Iredale mentally
reconstructed the refueling procedure again and again, step by step, to make
sure he hadn't left anything undone.  And he remembers filling up *every*
tank.  I will leave it up to others to debate whether AE could have gotten
the heavily-laden Electra off the ground with a half-and-half mixture in the
takeoff tank, or whether an extra 50 gallons would have made much difference
in the long run.

And, of course, there's the continuing debate over whether the Electra
actually held something more than 1,151 gallons, which would make Yorkshire
pudding of Chater's estimate, and which I am, accordingly, not about to touch
with a 10-foot dipstick.  Hey, I just bring up these little questions so the
smart people can solve 'em.

LTM (who liked those '59 Imperials with the great big fins)

Patrick Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:52:35 EDT
From:         Mike Rejsa
Subject:      Re: Circling

> Drifting doesn't make much sense, but frankly neither does circling.

Just a thought - "drifting" makes sense if you consider them to be
talking about their radios. If AE was having trouble staying on
frequency??? Or possibly if Hanzlick was thinking about his frequency
drifting while AE said some other word (or someone else in the room said
"You're drifting" while he was busy listening to AE). Frequencies are
often spoken of as "drifting" in my experience.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:35:21 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: IJN

> Unfortunately, as I mentioned in a previous post, most of the intercepts
> from Guam were probably never decoded, translated or analyzed, unless
> they involved major IJN Fleet activity, such as the combined fleet
> exercises; therefore any "local" traffic involving the AE/FN flight (if
> in fact there ever was such radio activity by the Japanese) will
> probably remain forever buried in the massive bundles of similar
> "routine" message intercepts, unless or until some enterprising person
> (with no other kind of life) volunteers to visit the facility where all
> this material is stored & begins sorting through the bundles, a document
> at a time!
>
> Don Neumann

     As you mention there was monitoring of the Japanese fleet, I remember
watching a TV documentary concerning Naval Intelligence before the bombing
of Pearl, and the question was asked with all of the information concerning
the intelligence leading to the conclusion of the bombing of Pearl, why was
not action taken earlier?  The answer ,there was lots of information, to
much to be analyze and put together, easier now after the fact to put it
together, I suspect there are lots of radio messages not decoded, after
Pearl what would have the reason to decode the previous radio intercepts.
It would be interesting to see if any intercepts talk about the Japanese
naval search for AE, which I read was suppose to be taking place from
microfilms from Newspapers of that time.  However I don't believe AE was
involved in spying, or even capture by the Japanese.
Regards
Warren Lambing
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:36:05 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: IJN

Mr. Neumann, do you have some more precise idea of the volume of documents
which may exist for, say, all of 1937 and into the middle of 1938?   Any
ideas on how they are being kept (just stuffed in boxes/divided by year)?
Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:36:33 EDT
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      Re: Premises, cont.

Cam,  You're doing great.  You've got him running.  You are correct
about his theory, but he changes it so often that it is hard to keep
current.  I can't imagine anyone making a wheels down landing on
anything except a runway, or well known hard surface. Land a tail
dragger in 3 to 4 inches of water is asking for real trouble.  I also
want t point out that two of the pivital points of the Gillespie theory
are the shoes (partial sole and heel) and the the no-offset navigation
by Noonan for the last leg of the flght.  I have the evidence that
completely destroys the shoe evidence and i'm now putting something
together on the 157/337 LOP.
************************************************
From Ric

I can hardly wait.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:37:10 EDT
From:         Chuck Boyle
Subject:      Re: Niku graves

The grave that Tom King referred to lined with upended bottles rather than
coral slabs are most likely similar to those upended bottles that marked some
of the grave locations on Atafu Island.  Atafu is about 200 miles from
Gardner Island.  I seem to remember when I was stationed at the Atafu Coast
Guard Loran Station during WW11 that some graves were marked with beer cans.
I checked the pictures I have and saw only upended bottle marked graves.  No
Beer cans.  They also have traditionally marked grave.

We did not have any alcoholic navigators while I was on Atafu.

Chuck Boyle   2060
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:37:50 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Adamant Odyssey

Was there any indication that HMS Adamant was ever in the region of Niku
during that era.

Regards
Bob Lee
PS:  Your trip report was great, like reading an adventure novel.

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

Adamant's logs were checked from 1945 (when she was in Australia) through
1948 (when she returned to Portsmouth, England).  During that time she was
never anywhere near the Phoenix Group.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:39:12 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Circling

> Mike Rejsa wrote:
> Just a thought - "drifting" makes sense if you consider them to be
> talking about their radios.

"Drifting" is a part of the radio venacular and it could very easily be
what AE said, or was understood to have said, especially in the context of
AE's reported adjacent remark that she and Fred are "listening" but cannot
hear the Itasca's transmissions.

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:38:33 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Possible funding source

>>From Doc Holloway
>Have you thought about the possibility of contacting Clive Cussler?
>According to his books, he is very much into finding lost ships.  Why not a
>lost airplane?
>**************************************************************************
>>From Ric
>I've talked to Clive.  We use pretty much the same techniques and technology.
> In fact, way back in 1989 we used an underwater magnetometer belonging to
>Schonstedt Instrument Co. that they had previously had on loan to Mr. Cussler.
>We'll do our thing and let him and Dirk do theirs.

Maybe there's a money-making avenue here, Ric...

Talk Cussler into writing his next book about the search for Amelia. Let
him throw in all the Japanese angles and the extra-terrestrial angles and
whatever  other crazy theories are out there. Send Dirk Pitt on a couple
slam-bang, shoot-em-up expeditions to Niku.

And offer TIGHAR's expertise as technical consultant to the story... for,
oh, say, 20 per cent of the royalties. That ought to bring in a dime or two.

[Actually, I'm a little surprised that Cussler hasn't already had Dirk Pitt
out there looking for Amelia]

LTM,
Tom #2179
*************************************************************************

From Ric

Pardon my ego, but I write for a living.  I'd be loath to suggest that Clive
Cussler write about Earhart even if I thought he was a good writer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:42:14 EDT
From:         David Kelly
Subject:      My two cents here

I have not paid enough attention to the forum over the last month or so.
However, I gleam from the postings that nothing of significance was found
on Niku.  However, some interesting interviews were made in Fiji.  To this
is significant criticism of you and the forum in general.  The fact is that
the thoery which the forum has built up maybe right, maybe wrong or even
somewhere in between.  However, unless we pursue this thoery, modifiying it
according to the evidence which becomes available or even scrapping it if
some evidence from an unquestionable source (if there is such a thing)
reveals its flaws, we will never know what the truth is.  Truth itself is
very subjective, and even if you came back with bodies or an electra, there
would be no doubt that someone would say that it was all false.

My attitude is quite simple keep pursuing the theory until someone produces
evidence that throws it into disarray.  To date there has been a lot of
criticism, but no real evidence.  Best of luck in future expeditions.  One
day, the fate of AE/FN will reveal themselves.

Regards
David J Kelly

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

From Ric

Thanks David,  but let me correct any impression that this year's field work
turned up nothing of significance.  The Niku Team accomplished exactly what
it set out to accomplish - we conducted a reconnaissance that will allow us
to organize and equip Niku IIII so that it stands the best possible chance of
finding the conclusive proof we're all seeking.  We did not come across the
big silver airplane lurking in the bushes, but the Fiji Team uncovered new
anecdotal evidence that may explain why and may give us a better idea about
where to look for conclusive proof.  As we've said a hundred times, anecdotal
evidence can not stand by itself, but it can point the way toward hard
evidence.  I'm very pleased with the results of this summer's work.

Is truth subjective?  "What is truth?, said jesting Pilate, and would not
stay for an answer." (Francis Bacon, Essay "Of Truth",1625) I guess that
depends on what truth you're talking about.  Certainly religious truths are
subjective.  What is gospel to one is superstition to another.  But it's hard
to debate the truth of, say, gravity.  Historical truth is, of course, the
subject of constant debate and the acceptance of historical "facts" depends
on the weight of the evidence.  The better the evidence, the more widespread
the acceptance.    But is it true?  The fundamental paradox of historiography
(the study of the study of history) is that, no matter how hard we try and no
matter what "proof" we find, we can never really know what happened.

We continue to investigate the hypothesis that the Earhart/Noonan flight
ended at Nikumaroro, not because we don't have anything better to do, and not
because it's the easiest theory to investigate (the Japanese capture theory
is much easier) or because we've already dropped a pile of time, energy and
money on it, or because our egos won't let us admit that we may be wrong.  We
continue to follow this trail because it is producing results.  If some have
difficulty recognizing those results, that's okay.  If we're right, the
harder we look the more we'll find and the easier it will be for them to
understand the evidence.  And, as you say, no matter what we find, some will
disagree.  That's okay too.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:43:49 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: smoking guns

> Just recently here in Delaware we sent a prominent attorney to Death Row for
> murdering his mistress and there was no gun (smoking or otherwise), no
> witnesses, and no body.  Just ask Tom Capano if you need a smoking gun to
> prove a case.
>
> LTM,
> Ric

I didn't mean to suggest that a "smoking gun" was necessary, although it
would be nice.  If however you intend to rely solely on circumstantial
eveidence, then you must carry a far higher standard of proof.  The shoe
sole, the heel, the aircraft skin and plexiglass come begin to approach the
level of the so called "smoking gun" although I suspect that some would then
claim that they didn't originate on the island, but were brought there by
parties unknown.  The point is, unless you can find some piece of evidence
that is so conlcusive, not subject to any other explanation, and without
reproach, then you must rely on circumstantial evidence so strong that it
excludes other hypothesis.  Thus each time you eliminate some element of
someone elses hypothesis, Goerner, et. al., you strengthen your own.  If you
fail to do so, you weaken your case and expose it to rejection.  Just ask
O.J. and the L.A. prosecutors about DNA testing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:45:57 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The great fuel debate

Patrick Gaston writes:

>...it seems to me that the entire debate comes down to how much fuel was
>left in the "takeoff" (100-octane) tank when AE departed Lae.

No.  Chater's explanation of where the 1,100 US gallon figure comes from is
nice to have but the only reason that there is a debate at all is the lack of
understanding among the debaters about basic issues of source credibility.
Is there ANYONE out there who has at least a BA in History who does not agree
that contemporaneous written sources are superior to decades-old
recollections?

>Chater also refers to the short tank as having a capacity of  81 gallons,
>which seems a rather odd size ....

We don't have to guess about this.  The Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection
Report of May 19, 1937 (the last one done before the flight) certifies that
the aircraft had 12 fuel tanks of the following capacities -

In the wing centersection:
2 ea. of 81 galllons
2 ea. of 16 gallons
2 ea. of 102 gallons

In the fuselage:
2 ea. of 118 gallons
3 ea. of 149 gallons
1 ea. of 70 gallons

Total - 1,151 gallons

>In other words, Chater's "1,100 gallons" is an estimate based upon another
>estimate -- the amount of fuel left in the short tank.  He could have been
>off 20 gallons either way.

No. Chater says that the 81 gallon tank containing 100 octane "was
approximately half full and can be safely estimated that on leaving Lae
contained at least 40 gallons."  The only estimate involved is how much fuel
was in the tank that was not filled.  Chater says that that amount can be
"safely estimated" as "at least" 40 gallons.  In other words, Chater is quite
sure that there was not less than 40 gallons of gas in that tank.  If the
amount was exactly 40 gallons, that would give the airplane a total fuel load
of 1,110 US gallons (1,151 minus 41).  It would appear, therefore, that
Chater's 1,100 figure at departure allows for warm-up, taxi, and run-up.  In
any event, I see no reason to dispute the figure as a number to start with
when we attempt to determine how long the airplane could remain aloft and how
far it could go on the flight in question.

>As for Iredale, I wouldn't rush to dismiss his story as a mere reminiscence
>dimmed by 50 intervening years...

But that's exactly what it is.  That doesn't make it wrong and it shouldn't
be dismissed.  The point is, if credible contemporaneous sources disagree
with anecdote, you go with the better source.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:47:22 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Conjunction junction

Mike Rejas writes:

>..."drifting" makes sense if you consider them to be
>talking about their radios. If AE was having trouble staying on
>frequency???

Here's one for the English majors.  Let's say that Earhart is having trouble
with her receiver frequency drifting.  Would she say:

WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU

Or would she say:

 WE ARE DRIFTING AND CANNOT HEAR YOU

I still like

WE ARE LISTENING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU

because
1.  It makes the most sense in the context of the message.
2.  It contains the same key phonetic sounds as "drifting" and "circling"
(the short "i" and the "ing").

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:48:12 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: Premises, premises

        At the risk of getting my hand slapped again, I am, with trepidation
entering the fuel debate.  Does anyone have any knowledge about how much of
the fuel load was "usable".  Most current POH, "pilot operating handbook" for
various aircraft list fuel capacity as "x" gallons, "y" gallons usable.  The
difference is found in fuel sumps, lines, pumps, etc. which remain when fuel
starvation occurs.  Generally the more tanks and fittings, the larger the
amount of residule fuel that can't  be used.  Given the age of the aircraft,
these calculations may not have been published or generally known.  Also
given the nature and purpose of the aircraft, It is also possible that the
tanks and fuel system were designed so that all of the fuel load could be
used.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:46:47 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: The Great Fuel Debate

    Excuse me but I am getting lost again.  This message refers to a "short"
tank and a "takeoff" tank, both in the singular.  Are we discussing the same
tank with two "common" names or two different tanks?  There is only one
reference to a single tank in the air commerce report, a single tank of 70
gallons (less if Imperial gallons are used) which doesn't seem to match any
of the discussion about either the "short" or "takeoff" tanks.  Is it
possible to identify the common named tanks with the air commerce report to
eliminate the confusion?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:00:55 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Radios adrift...

>>..."drifting" makes sense if you consider them to be
>>talking about their radios. If AE was having trouble staying on
>>frequency???

How would she/they know the radio (receiver or transmitter) was drifting in
frequency?? The receiver wasn't working in any case and the transmitter was
xtal controlled.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:12:38 EDT
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Scientific Truth

Ric writes Aug.15. :

>Is truth subjective? [...]  But it's hard to debate the truth of, say, gravity.
>Historical truth is, of course, the subject of constant debate and the acceptance
>of historical "facts" depends on the weight of the evidence.  The better the
>evidence, the more widespread the acceptance...

Granted that Newton's law of gravity goes largely unchallenged by now.
Nevertheless, even in the so called exact sciences like Physics and
Cosmology the "truth" that we teach our childern in schools  only coincides
with the *current* scientific opinion (and consensus) which is by no means
always unchallenged. Physics has advanced into dimensions that cannot be
observed directly (neutrinos & Co.) but are "proven" by indirect
experiments.

The implications of new (anything that happened in this century is new)
mathematical models are so mind boggling that even their discoverers
ultimately deny them.

A. Einstein and E. Schroedinger after postulating Quantum Mechanics became
its most fervent opponents because they couldn't *belive* the implications
of their theory  (see the thought experiment called "Schroedingers Cat" in
which a cat bound into a quantum mechanical observation would be in a
neither dead nor alive state before observation and only at the instant of
measurement assume one of the two states).

Still the overwhelming evidence (indirect of course - no smoking guns -
nobody ever *saw* a neutrino) brought forward by decades of experiments
convinced the majority (by far not all) in the scientific community and thus
QM became the current scientific opinion and is thought as the *truth* (sic!)
in Universities all over the world today. And Physics is supposed to be an
exact science.

LTM (who is appalled at sacrificing a poor little kitty in a thought
experiment)

Natko

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

We have actually dabbled with the thought of modelling the whole Earhart
thing as a probability study, haven't found a volunteer mathematician who was
willing to crunch it for us but it would be quite interesting.... probably
too many variables.

Historical truth is of a different flavor than mathematical proof, in many
ways. But even in physics and mathematics, the "best" models are those that
work in the real world, accounting for all the facts. That's why QM is
generally accepted now---- when applied to the "real" world (granted, at that
level, the reality of the world is a little fuzzy) QM explains things and
predicts things quite well, whether Einstein and Schroedinger liked it or
not. While no one has ever seen a neutrino, cannot one observe their paths,
and also their effects on other objects?

If we're right, then our models will continue to predict and explain with a
fairly high degree of success, whether Cam Warren et al likes it or not. We
cannot be there for the actual end of the Earhart flight (lacking a time
machine) but we can certainly observe the evidence and the effect of their
presence on the island, and later on the island's people.

Pat, who agrees entirely with Mother about the poor cat.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:13:46 EDT
From:         Mike Rejsa
Subject:      Re: Circling/drifting/listening

> Would she say:
>   WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU
> Or would she say:
>   WE ARE DRIFTING AND CANNOT HEAR YOU

Actually I thought of that, Ric... AE was not a radio expert and it is
conceivable that when she was trained she heard people talk about
'drifting' as frequency variation by the radio, and misused the word as
frequency variation by the operator. In other words, "We are varying our
frequency around the desired one *but* cannot hear you."

"Listening" of course makes more sense. "Drifting" just has the advantage
of being what the guy wrote.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:14:14 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Beer cans

Chuck Boyle writes:

<< I seem to remember when I was stationed at the Atafu Coast
Guard Loran Station during WW11 that some graves were marked with beer cans.
I checked the pictures I have and saw only upended bottle marked graves.  No
Beer cans.  They also have traditionally marked grave.>>

I didn't think that the world had yet been blessed with beer cans in WWII?
When, I wonder, beer first sold in cans?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:15:20 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Still circling

William Webster-Garman writes:

<<"Drifting" is a part of the radio venacular and it could very easily be
what AE said, or was understood to have said, especially in the context of
AE's reported adjacent remark that she and Fred are "listening" but cannot
hear the Itasca's transmissions.>>

I must not have been clear on this. There was no "adjacent" remark that they
were "listening."  The question revolves around the single phrase which was
originally copied down as:

WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU

"Drifting" makes no sense in that context. If she was trying to explain that
frequency drift was why she couldn't hear ITASCA she should have said, "We
are drifting AND cannot hear you."

"Drifting" was erased and changed to "circling."  It is my opinion, guess,
hunch, speculation that what she said was, "We are listening but cannot hear
you."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:16:09 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Circling again

To repeat my previous contention; "circling" would fit right
into the Earhart's behavior pattern, as it now appears to me.
Noonan would be opposed to it, as a "by-the-book" navigator,
since search patterns are ordinarily done in a precise
mathematical way, with straight lines and right-angle turns.
Conversely, seat-of-the-pants Amelia thought she knew better,
and overrode Fred.

Cam Warren
(Who participated in more than a few sonar searches for
submarines in WW2)

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

I've never met or flown with either Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan, and I sure
wasn't standing in the companionway looking over their shoulders during the
world flight, so I don't feel qualified to make pronouncements about behavior
patterns.  The historical record leaves no doubt that there was, at the very
least, some confusion at the time over just what she said.  Nobody really
knows, or can know, what that word was.  If you prefer "circling" that's
fine.  I like "listening" simply because it makes the most sense.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:17:05 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: smoking guns

Mike Muenich writes:

<<Thus each time you eliminate some element of someone elses hypothesis,
Goerner, et. al., you strengthen your own.  If you fail to do so, you weaken
your case and expose it to rejection.>>

The danger here is getting bogged down demonstrating the invalidity of bogus
allegations when, the truth is, it is impossible to prove a negative
hypothesis (i.e. no one can prove that AE was NOT captured by the Japanese or
aliens or that she crashed at sea).  We can only eliminate those
possibilities by establishing that something else DID happen.  That's why we
don't like to spend time speculating about stuff like what prewar Japanese
naval transmissions the U.S. may or may not have monitored.

<<Just ask O.J. and the L.A. prosecutors about DNA testing.>>

Excellent analogy.  It would be interesting to get a list of people who were
on that jury and see if we recognize any of the names...

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:17:31 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Usable fuel

Mike Muenich asks:

<<Does anyone have any knowledge about how much of the fuel load was
"usable". >>

It's a good question to which, unfortunately, there is no good answer as far
as I know.  We have a Lockheed drawing dated March 12, 1937 entitled "Fuel
System Diagram Amelia Earhart Electra" which is a schematic of the system
with the same tanks described in the May 19, 1937 Inspection Report.  No
notation about "usable" fuel appears in any of the paperwork, but the
schematic does show that on March 10, 1937 a "stripping valve and wobble
pump" was added to the system.  This would appear to be an understandable
attempt to insure that as much of the fuel aboard as possible was usable.
But that's as good as it gets.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:00:12 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Beer cans

Ric;

Beer was first sold in cans in 1935.  From 1942-1947, domestic
beer production was ceased but beer was still canned for
military use - in silver or olive drab cans (D.B.S. Maxwell,
"Beer Cans: A Guide for the Archaeologist", in Historical
Archaeology 27(1):95-113, 1993).

Spam was first produced in 1936, but that is another story...

LTM (who prefers bottled beer herself),

Tim Smith 1142C

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

Now is this a great Forum or what?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:01:05 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      DFing

> WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU
>
>"Drifting" makes no sense in that context. If she was trying to explain
>that frequency drift was why she couldn't hear ITASCA she should have
>said, "We are drifting AND cannot hear you."  "Drifting" was erased and
>changed to "circling." It is my opinion, guess, hunch, speculation that
>what she said was, "We are listening but cannot hear you."
>LTM,
>Ric

   I said this on the Forum before, but it seems no-body listens or
cares.

Can "Drifting"  have been " DFing".

"We are DFing but cannot hear you"

   I know someone will say. How can you DF if you can't hear anybody? I
think AE was rotating the loop in an attempt to increase the sensitivity
of the antenna enough to be able to hear someone. She was doing the only
thing she could do to the radio to help pick up something. She was
telling the Itasca in as few words as possible what she was doing.

   If I recall correctly, Capt. Safford used the loop antenna as one of
the reasons that he felt that AE wasn't within a 100 miles of Howland.
He felt the loop antenna would have worked under 100 miles.

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:01:42 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      Beer cans and radio

Ric,
    Chuck Boyle's mention of Beer cans as grave marker, and availability of
beer cans in WW2. Yes, there were such things in WW2. The Australians were
issuing beer in cans in Egypt/Libya in 1941. I seem to remember sone Pabst
in cans in Middle East in 1942.

Vern Klein says radio transmitter was crystal controlled. In those days, the
best they could do was have prewound coils to control frequency. Crystals
were not in use until VHF came along.

"Listening" in the message makes more sense, "Drifting" doesn't seem to fit.

Regards and LTM

Tet
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:28:50 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Possible funding source

> Talk Cussler into writing his next book about the search for Amelia. Let
> him throw in all the Japanese angles and the extra-terrestrial angles and
> whatever  other crazy theories are out there. Send Dirk Pitt on a couple
> slam-bang, shoot-em-up expeditions to Niku.

Can't do it.  According to "Sahara" they already have her body in storage.
But I do like the bit about Niku.

    - Bill

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

Yes, but what in heck would he shoot? A crab?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:29:19 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: DFing

Good one Daryll: We are DFing but cannot hear you.  It doesn't explain,
though, why they heard the 7500kHz signals later on.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:30:20 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Still circling

> WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU
>
> "Drifting" makes no sense in that context. If she was trying
> to explain that

Remembering that this is all almost pure speculation (including the idea
that she might have said "listening"), from TIGHAR's reading of the logs,
the documented fact is that the radio operator originally transcribed the
word as "drifting" as he listened to AE: Drifting is a common broadcasting
term, and in general, early receivers and transmitters both tended to drift
off frequency substantially. Perhaps she was misunderstood by an operator
accustomed to hearing the word "drifting" when communications were poor, or
perhaps she really said it, erroneously using it to describe a manual
"sweeping" of the frequency dial on her receiver. Or perhaps the operator
misunderstood another word in the sentence.

I agree that it would be easier if she had originally been interpreted as
having said "listening". I also agree that the later change to "circling"
has a bureaucratic ring to it. Finally, I certainly agree that the syntax
doesn't make sense when "drifting" is plugged into the sentence (unless she
is misusing the word).

I think all three words are candidates (circling around the presumed Howland
area for a short time wouldn't hurt the Gardner landing scenario anyway).

LTM (who likes good diction)

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:30:59 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: DFing

> >From Daryll
>    I said this on the Forum before, but it seems no-body listens or
> cares.
>
> Can "Drifting"  have been " DFing".

Good point. She may very well have said "dee-ehfing" (DFing). Rotating the
loop to try and pick up a weak signal coming from a somewhat uncertain
direction would be a reasonable response to their situation. With all due
respect to Ric, I like that speculation better than "listening".

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:32:49 EDT
From:         Forest Blair
Subject:      Winds

Have been reading article in TIGHAR Tracks, Vol. 12, No. 2/3 entitled  "Log
Jam" again.  Also looking at map on pg 4 of same issue.  Do we have any
information concerning wind speeds/directions Noonan used to establish
headings for Amelia to steer to arrive at Howland?  Since they were flying
many hours at night over water at an altitude of 8000-10000 feet (am
guessing this altitude for best power settings per chart in article) and
probably couldn't observe the sea state to estimate wind conditions, how far
off target and in what direction would they be if Noonan had estimated an
easterly headwind of 5-10 knots more than actual?  I ask this since my
roommate-the station meteorologist--at Canton claimed he had the most boring
job in the AF.  His daily forecasts were normally all the same---easterly
winds at 5-15 knots.  Some days, however, there was not even a breeze-the
dog days.

To partially answer my last question above, while neither being a pilot nor
navigator, I would guess the Electra could be 50-100 miles northeasterly of
Howland after 8-10 hours of night flying without weather info necessary to
make heading corrections.  Such a location would also provide radio signal
strengths of S5 as recorded during the last 2-3 transmissions from Amelia.
As Ric reads this, he will say something like, "Forest WOULD want this
answer since he wants Bruce's engine to have been found on an island closer
to Hull".  Yes, I guess I do if the engine turns out to be Amelia's since I'
m 99.99% certain Bruce didn't go to Niku to find it.  About all the
artifacts found on Niku?  Isn't it possible the natives brought them when
the natives were taken from Sydney and Hull?

Anyway, would enjoy any discussion on the above.

Forest #2149

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

Randy, this wind stuff is your department, especially when Ric is out of town
which he is.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:34:07 EDT
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Expedition Report

Dear Ric
Im only a reader to this forum, nothing more nothing less. I think the
evidence you have collected so far especially  the Cats Paw heel convinced me
completely!  I can't believe the number of people that continue to write here
in a negative manner and putting the Tighar Organization down!  There is a
"Silent Majority" out here who do believe in your accomplishments and are
rooting for you to prove them wrong! Continued success.....
Joe W3HNK

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

Well, free debate is what it's all about.... keeps us on our toes, anyway.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:36:33 EDT
From:         Marty Joy
Subject:      Re: Wreck photo

Ric

I may have missed your response, but you said
earlier that the wreck photo had become "irrelevant"
or words to that effect?

Marty Joy

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

Well, in light of what we found out this summer, and what we are now
thinking, if we are right, the wreck photo cannot be Earhart's aircraft.
That's a lot of ifs.

This should be covered fairly completely in the next section of the
Expedition Report, which will be out (I hope) this weekend on the Forum.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:37:16 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: DFing

>Can "Drifting"  have been " DFing".
>
>"We are DFing but cannot hear you"
>
>   I know someone will say. How can you DF if you can't hear anybody? I
>think AE was rotating the loop in an attempt to increase the sensitivity
>of the antenna enough to be able to hear someone. She was doing the only
>thing she could do to the radio to help pick up something. She was
>telling the Itasca in as few words as possible what she was doing.


You know, Ric, Darryl might just be on to something here.
Imagine yourself in the Itasca radio room, straining to hear her words.
"DF'ing" would probably not come through very clearly in the best of
conditions.

This makes sense to me. Does that put me in the whacko camp with Darryl?

LTM (who always did mutter a little on the radio)

Tom #2179

Tom Robison
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:46:43 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Beer and drifting

Sure there was canned beer around back then.   My dad's overseas "command" in
1944-45 was the Deepak Mahal, a luxury hotel in Bombay, India, which the US
Army had commandeered as a R&R camp for weary GI's.   Dad had hotel
experience so they shipped him out of Fort Dix to run the place.  An
immediate headache upon taking command was what to do with an oversupply of
government-issue Falstaff, in the olive-drab cans mentioned by Tim Smith.
The stuff wasn't that good to begin with and it wasn't getting any better
under in an unrefrigerated warehouse.  The men wouldn't touch the stuff, and,
to make matters worse, the lease on the warehouse was about to expire.
What's a fella to do with a couple thousand cases of warm, skunky GI beer?

You guessed it.  The British R&R camp down the street was sitting on a huge
shipment of Ballantine's scotch, which was sitting largely untouched while
King George's boys were clamoring for their pints.  So dad traded the Limeys
straight up.  One case of scotch for one case of beer.  Cleaned out the whole
warehouse.  Obviously, since then my father has not been much impressed with
British intelligence (military or otherwise).

I know that's not much of a war story, but for you veterans and sons of
veterans out there, remember it was guys like my dad who provided the real
heroes a brief respite from the horrors of war.

Now to keep this post even arguably on topic:  I agree with Vern Klein.
Don't think there's any way Amelia would have known she was "drifting" unless
someone on the receiving end told her, and her receiver obviously was hors de
combat.  Much as it pains me to agree with Ric, I think "listening" makes
more sense and the words are congruent phonetically, unlike "DF'ing".  Thanks
for the info on Electra fuel capacities.  Knew I could get it out of you....

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

That's actually a pretty good war story, Patrick---- a little reality,
although not very John Wayne-ish.

No more beer posts, though. Sorry, everyone, but I have a feeling that it's a
topic that could *really* subsume the list.

Radio types, could AE have known she was drifting off-frequency unless
someone on the receiving end told her?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:47:11 EDT
From:         Mike Rejsa
Subject:      Re: DFing

>  Darryl
> "We are DFing but cannot hear you"

Darryl, I like that even better than my guess ('drift' misuse). Sounds
very similar, expresses a likely occurence, *and* is reasonably good
English for our acronym-laden century.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:48:32 EDT
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Crystals

>Vern Klein says radio transmitter was crystal controlled. In those days, the
>best they could do was have prewound coils to control frequency. Crystals
>were not in use until VHF came along.

Western Electric, who made AE's Model 13 transmitter, offered 2 crystal & 3
crystal models.  AE had the '2 crystal model', 3105 & 6210 kc. Vern was correct.
If Tet had said 'not in wide use before the war' he would have been right.
However, even before WW II when I worked for W.E., they  were 'growing crystals' for their K-2 carrier system and their radio business.

RC  941
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:26:46 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Winds

There is not a lot of wind information at elevation other than
at Howland itself, and that only during the day.  We can extrapolate
winds at the sea surface from the Itasca and Ontario/Nauru, but
that doesn't give us a lot of constraints.  Running Monte Carlo
simulations on AE's navigation suggests that the more likely
scenario is that she ended up SW of Howland, due to stronger
headwinds at the beginning of her flight, and slightly more northerly
winds at the end than forecast.

LTM, who doesn't like winds to pick up her dress ala M.Monroe.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:33:20 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Other islands

    Thanks to Forest for bringing up the subject of the other islands.
As long as the subject was brought up, I would like to know what islands
the TIGHAR group visited.  I think Tom King said you visited one or two
of the other islands early on.

    I know it is probably in the TIGHAR tracks articles somewhere.  I
would like to read it there also, it you can point me in the right
direction.  It is so much easier to ask the Masters than to go searching
in all that stuff.

Don

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

The only other island we visited was McKean, a barren outcropping of coral
which is home to roughly one million seabirds. You can smell it from a mile
off shore, and hear it farther than that. The vegetation there maxes out at
about 24 inches, and the lagoon is a skim of water over an apparently
bottomless pit of guano. There are the remains of walls of buildings from the
guano mining activities of the late 1800s there, and nothing else. It is
quite certain that had the Electra landed there, it and its crew would have
been clearly visible to the Colorado pilots, who overflew it. Check out the
TIGHAR Tracks which had reports of the first expedition.... probably winter
1989/spring 1990... don't remember which issues.

We've never had the funds to investigate any of the other islands. The ship
charters at $4200/day plus food and fuel, and you are talking a number of
days to go 'round the group.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:36:17 EDT
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Drifting

She couldn't drift if she was crystal-controlled...if  vfo (variable frequency oscillator) controlled,  yes,  unless she had a scope or if her gear was digital
and I doubt that. Otherwise it would have to come from the receiving source to
tell her she was "drifting" off frequency!

W3HNK

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

Mike Everette! Where are you now that I need you?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:37:02 EDT
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      DFing

 To jump into the phonetics debate: If she was stating that she was
using the DF loop she might have used the word "Deefing" (two syllables)
rather than "Dee Eff ing" (three syllables.  This would match the sound of
"Drifting" much more closely.

I've never heard that particular contraction used in aviation English (the
manual DF loop being out of service) I have used similar created words.

Robert Klaus
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:38:39 EDT
From:         Forest Blair
Subject:      Itasca actions

When radio signal strengths from Amelia reached the maximum S5, which meant
that she probably was within 100 miles of the Itasca, did the Itasca start
making extra smoke, fire rockets, play searchlights (even in daylight), fire
star shells, etc that could possibly be seen by the Electra?  The next
question is, if not why not?

I just keep thinking that with the partial cloud cover, Amelia just flew by
Howland.  We once flew over it on purpose at 1000-2000ft.  It's pretty darn
small.  Could still see a landing mat runway, though.  Doubt the mat was
there for Amelia since it probably was developed in WW2.

From a true Monday morning q-back

Forest #2149
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:40:39 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: IJN broadcasts

From Chris Kennedy :

..."Mr. Neumann, do you have some more precise idea of the volume of
documents which may exist for, say, all of 1937 and into the middle of
1938?   Any ideas on how they are being kept (just stuffed in
boxes/divided by year)? Thanks"...
***********************************************
In his post of 7/21/99, Randy Jacobson said:

..."I tracked US Navy message traffic increases during the AE loss/No
apparent increase in message traffic from May through August, 1937,
despite well over 2,500 Naval messages related to AE!"...
***********************************************
...However, such messages tracked for that period did not include any of
the Japanese intercepts, which messages are _still_ classified &
probably most are not deccoded or translated.     Don't have any idea as
to the exact manner in which they are being stored in the National
Archives, but Randy said they were kept  separate from all unclassified
material, probably in file boxes.      We have no information as to how
they are organized (if at all) nor as to the exact number of intercepts
or boxes involved.       Randy suggests that it would require proper
security clearance to obtain any access to such records.   He also
learned from an old Washington Post article that ex-WWII crytographers
were still engaged in sorting the Japanese & German messages, trying to
decode those that weren't during the war years, somewhat of a very
daunting task, to say the least.

You might find this web page of some interest:
**********************************************
NCVA-CRYPTOLOG Frames Pages
Address: http//www.usncva.org/clog/index.html
***********************************************
This is the publcation for the Naval Cryptological Veterans Association
which published a special edition (Fall-1993) on the Naval radio
listening post (Station Baker) on Guam, including some very interesting
articles written by veterans who served on Guam prior to, during &after
WWII.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:43:57 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: DFing

>From Randy Jacobson
>
>Good one Daryll: We are DFing but cannot hear you. It doesn't explain,
>though, why they heard the 7500kHz signals later on.

I think the radio experts should jump in. If the signals were skipping, how would that affect the reception on a loop?

She replied about 5 min. after " We are DFing but cannot here you"  with
"we received your signals but can't get a minimum"( 7500 kc ). I think
those quotes are pretty close.

   I don't know what a signal would sound like between a "skip" and a "
just barely in range" signal on a loop.

   It would seem the direction finder is tuned to 7500 kc and she's
talking on her other Frequencies. Wasn't 7500 kc the frequency the
Itasca was transmitting weather in 'code' on for the flight? Someone
(Itasca ?) requested Tutla, Hawaii, San Francisco to monitor 7500 kc,
why they wanted to monitor weather transmissions I don't know. I could
be wrong, have to check the radio communications while AE was on Lae,
N.G.

Daryll

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

I *think* Mike Everette is on vacation. We may have to wait until he gets
back to see what's what.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:44:39 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: DFing

I wanted to amend my earlier posting.
The Itasca was transmitting the letter "A" and the call letters on 7500
kc, not the weather. The Itasca wanted NMC, NPU, NPM ( Hawaii, Samoa,
San Francisco ) to listen for the letter "A" (?) or what ever.


**********************************************
On 6/26/37 Earhart, for the first time, communicates directly with Black
aboard Itasca from Bandoeng, Java:  SUGGEST ....... ITASCA TRANSMIT
LETTER A POSITION OWN CALL LETTERS AS ABOVE ON HALF HOUR SEVEN POINT
FIVE MEGACYCLES STOP....... I WILL GIVE LONG CALL BY VOICE THREE ONE
NAUGHT FIVE KCS QUARTER AFTER HOUR POSSIBLE QUARTER TO: EARHART

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

 On 6/28/37, the day Earhart arrives in Darwin, Itasca sends the
following message to Lae:  FOLLOWING FOR AMELIA EARHART PUTNAM LAE QUOTE
ITASCA TRANSMITTERS CALIBRATED 7500 6210 3105 500 AND 425 KCS CW AND
LAST THREE EITHER CW OR MCW.........

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

The same day Itasca sends this message to Navy Radio Wailupe (Hawaii),
Tutilla (Samoa), and CG Hq in San Francisco:  TRANSMITTERS CALIBRATED TO
7500 KCS PERIOD WHEN EARHART IS IN FLIGHT IT IS REQUESTED THAT NMC NPU
NPM STAND WATCH ON THIS FREQUENCY OF 7500 FOR ITASCA IN ORDER TO
ELIMINATE FREQUENCY CHANGES IN TRANSMITTERS

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

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:45:42 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Drifting

> Radio types, could AE have known she was drifting off-frequency unless
> someone on the receiving end told her?

For what it's worth, (I guess I can't say is worth the cost of a cold
beer-:), I don't know much about this radio, but I will bet it had an analog
tuner, if for some unknown reason the tuner was moving (slide rule tuners
can tend to be touchy to tune), and I don't know how much it would have to
move to get off frequency.  If the indicator needle moved, you can assume
your drifting off frequency.

Regards.
Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:47:07 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Beer (but no drifting)

YES, it's off topic, and YES, I know Pat cut off the discussion, but I must
send along one fine story about beer, and courage.

After the failure of the hostage rescue mission in Iran in 1980, the crews
who survived flew back to a staging base in Oman, to regroup, lick their
wounds, and prepare to return to the US.

The best book published about the Iranian hostage rescue mission is "The
Guts to Try", by Col. James Kyle. Kyle was the on-scene commander at Desert
One. He wrote:

"By 8:00 a.m. on the morning of April 25, only the C-130 crews, combat
controllers, and maintenance personnel remianed as Masirah.

"As we were talking, we spotted a small lorry coming down our flight line.
It seemed to have come from the other side of the base, near where several
British airmen were billeted.

"The lorry bounced to a stop in front of our maintenance tent. Two men
stepped out, set two boxes down, and sped off in a cloud of dust.

"Inside each box was a case of ice-cold beer. Written on the top of one box
was a note: 'To you all, from us all, for having the guts to try'."

And so as to make this note a little bit on topic, I say all of us
"armchair Tigers" here should raise a cupper to Ric and the rest of the
expedition crew, for having the guts to try.

LTM
Tom Robison
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:48:01 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Crystal frequency control

For those who may be interested and who were not around in the old days when
radio was fun.  They didn't have the advantage (and fun!) of growing up with
the technology.  Sure Amelia's transmitter was crystal controlled. Radio
technology had advanced a lot more than many realize by that time.

As Bob Sherman has pointed out, the Western Electric 13C transmitter, which
appears to be what Amelia had, was offered in several versions.  The
transmitter could be had with a 500 kc xtal in addition to the two normal
communication frequencies.  And we have a circuit diagram of a modified 13C
transmitter with five xtal controlled frequencies -- 2,000 to 6,000 kc.  At
that time (mid-1930s) there was still a problem with xtals for frequencies
above about 7,000 kc.  Radio amateurs were using available commercial xtals
in the 40-meter band (7,000 kc) but had to use frequency multiplication for
the higher frequency "ham" bands.  Harmonic mode xtals had not come on the
scene yet.

The piezoelectric properties of quartz crystals had been studied since
before 1900, however, the first of several patents on xtal circuits for
frequency control of radio transmitters was issued to G. W. Pierce in 1924.

The first commercial use was in about 1923.  In 1926 AM radio broadcast
station WEAF, in New York City, became the first station to use xtal
control.  Within just a few years, all broadcast stations went to xtal
control.

If you can get hold of an ARRL Handbook, or an issue of "QST," from the
early-1930s, you'll see ads by half-a-dozen suppliers of quartz crystals for
frequencies up to 7,000 kc.  And practically every circuit for any kind of
transmitter shown in those publications will use a quartz crystal.

The real boost for xtal manufacturing came in late 1939 with the decision to
make large scale use of xtal control in military communications.  The wisdom
of this decision was emphasized by Major General R. B. Colton at a 1944
conference on frequency control in Chicago.  He is quoted as saying:

"... The Army had radio before they had crystals.  Now the Army has
communications.  That's the difference.  Crystals gave us communications."

If this isn't already more than anyone really wanted to know about it,
There's a very good paper titled:  "A History of the Quartz Crystal Industry
in the USA," by Virgil E. Bottom at:

http://bul.eecs.umich.edu/uffc/fc_history/bottom.html

Incidently, that paper made clear why it was that when I arrived in Kansas
City, Missouri, shortly after WWII, practically all the engineer types I met
had worked in xtal manufacturing.  Kansas City and Chicago had been selected
as the two inland cities where war-time xtal production would be concentrated.

LTM (Who likes to always be on frequency)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:48:46 EDT
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Re: alternate theories

Bill Leary writes Aug. 18:

>According to "Sahara" they already have her body in storage.<

Wasn't that Kitty someone or other? And they even found a diary of her last
days. Every TIGHAR's dream. I don't think it was AE. Even CC knows she
didn't disappear in the desert. Or do we have a new Theory here?

kidnapped by Japanese
abducted by aliens
down in Sahara
...

LTM (who also enjoyed her first off-topic posting)

Natko.

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

Why do I let myself get involved in these things?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:49:33 EDT
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Hams

If TIGHAR's  search for AE  teaches us something, then it is perseverance.
So I will try once again:

I have always wondered what the expression "Ham" exactly means (amateur,
semi-pro ?) and where it is derived from (is it an acronym?). Can someone
please explain?

LTM (who likes to fiddle radio dials)

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

I have often wondered the same thing. Anyone?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:28:49 EDT
From:         Gene Dangelo
Subject:      Re: Drifting

W3HNK is quite right about crystal-controlled units not drifting.
Do we have the specs for the equipment that AE was using to receive and
transmit? They would certainly clear up a great deal of speculation
about the "drifting" quotation. Also, could it be possible that AE was
using the term "drifting" in a navigational connotation, as if to
suggest that they had somehow lost the ability to reckon or stay on
their course? Something to consider, perhaps!

Best Wishes To All,
Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211   :)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:29:32 EDT
From:         Gene Dangelo
Subject:      Re: Drifting

 One more quick comment: don't forget also that tube-type equipment
was also greatly subject to frequency drift if the the temperature of
the tubes was altered by external conditions. Literally, if a breeze
blew into the back of the set and chilled the tubes by a few degrees,
the radio would drift.

Best wishes,
Gene Dangelo, N3XKS,  # 2211 :)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:32:35 EDT
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: alternate theories

I thought the body in the confederate ironclad in "Sahara" was President
Lincoln.  Unless of course we're talking about the movie "Sahara" and then
it would have been Humphrey Bogart in an iron tank.  Which some how brings
us back to fuel "Tanks" and now we're back on topic!

Clyde
(who has too much time on his hands)

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

Enough!!! UNCLE!!!! stop this before we hurt ourselves <G>

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:33:18 EDT
From:         Ken Knapp
Subject:      Re: Drifting

AE couldn't know if she was 'drifting'. if her transmitter was drifting, she
would have to be informed of that fact by the receiving station (Itasca). And
since she states that she cannot hear them, she would have no way of knowing
if her receiver was drifting.

Also, I think the thought that she may have said "DFing" rather than
"listening" has merit. I just wonder, though, if that term would have been
used at that time. We could be applying a term used today to a time when it
was not used.

Ken Knapp
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:34:11 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Re: shoe evidence

So, what happened to the guy with the evidence "to completely destroy"
TIGHARS' shoe and heel evidence? I am listening but can not hear you!

Richard Johnson

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

Dunno. I guess he'll surface.....

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:35:16 EDT
From:         Margo Still
Subject:      Re: Hams

The most common explaination of "HAM" is that it is a corruption of the word
amateur.  There are other explaination floating around but this is the most
generally accepted among HAM operators.  Hope this helps.  Love the forum.

MStill
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:36:07 EDT
From:         Kathi Hilton
Subject:      Re: Hams

Here is the explaination I was given thirty some years ago. I can't say as to
it's accuracy, however.

Years ago there were some radio operators who used Hammerlund radio
equipment; the word 'Ham' (so I was told when I asked the same question)
sort of stuck as a nickname even tho not all 'Hams' of that era used the
Hammerlund equipment. Rather that calling these people Hammerlund
radio operators, which would give the Hammerlund Radio Company count-
less free advertising, the name was simply shortened by the press to 'ham'.
The words 'Ham Radio Operator or 'Ham' are still used to this day; although
personally, I prefer Amateur Radio Operator. However, the press will always
use 'Ham' because it takes less space to print and is instantly recognized
pretty much world wide.

I've been licensed continuously since 1967, and served a year in Vietnam with
the Air Force as an airborne radio operator for a search and rescue unit.

       73 (best regards)

         Kathi Hilton - N0FKA
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:36:38 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca actions

Sorry, but the mat was installed on Baker Island, not Howland.  Howland
never had a plane land on it in its entire career.  One plane ditched just
offshore, and motored up to it, though, during WWII.  Itasca started making
smoke about 0630 that morning, but nothing else we are aware of.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:38:02 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: alternate theories

> From Natko
>
> Bill Leary writes Aug. 18:
>
> >According to "Sahara" they already have her body in storage.
>
> Wasn't that Kitty someone or other? And they even found a diary
> of her last days.

No.  They FOUND Kitty Mannock crashed in a dry wash, with her log.

When St. Julien Perlmutter gets into the Archival Safekeeping Depository
looking for information on the C.S.S. Texas the text mentions "The bones of
Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan and the Japanese records of their execution
in Saipan,...".

> Every TIGHAR's dream. I don't think it was AE. Even CC knows
> she didn't disappear in the desert. Or do we have a new Theory here?

No, you just remembered the wrong person.  CC, however, does seem to think
she was captured by the Japanese... at least for the sake of this book.

Back on topic for a moment, did Amelia keep a log or diary or anything like
that in the plane with her?

    - Bill

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

She was writing chunks of the book "World Flight" and sending them home... no
doubt there was an aircraft/flight log. We don't have any specific info about
anything else.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:41:33 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Beer cans and radio

Tet, I am afraid you're definitely mistaken.

Crystal control was most assuredly in use in 1937 and had been since the
20s.

I have the schematic diagram of this transmitter, a Western Electric Model
13CB.

Vern Klein is indeed correct with regard to AE's transmitter.  It most
emphatically was crystal controlled.  The receiver was of the tunable
variety.

73

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:42:10 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Circling

In my opinion, considering radio technology and the circumstances, neither
"drifting" nor "DFing" make any sense at all.  I could buy "listening" but I
like "circling" better.  And it does have the merit of being
"contemporaneous documentation," although involving a change of mind about
what she was believed to actually have said.

Amelia and Fred believed thay had arrived in the near vicinity of Howland.
Amelia had just said, "We must be on you but cannot see you."  Why fly away
from that location?  It seems very reasonable to me that they would circle
about while continuing to attempt to make contact with the Itasca.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:43:43 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The great fuel debate

Mike Meunich asks:

<<Is it possible to identify the common named tanks with the air commerce
report to eliminate the confusion?>>

There is no confusion. The Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report specifies
that the aircraft has two 81 gallon tanks.  The locations of these tanks, and
the others, are shown in a schematic attached to an earler (November 1936)
inspection.  The 81 gallon tanks are in the forward part of the inboard wing
sections between the engines and the fuselage.  It was one of those tanks (no
way to be sure which one, but it doesn't matter) that was not filled.

None of the original sources make any reference to a "short" tank or a "take
off" tank.  Those are not standard aviation terms and, as far as I can tell,
are merely descriptive phrases used by the author of that message.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:44:18 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Verbosity Unlimited

Way to go, Ric! If you don't want to answer the question,
smother them with erudition!

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to
deceive . . . ." (Little Orphan Annie, quoting Sir Walter Scott)

Politely, without a hint of sarcasm (really!).

Cam Warren

[space here for snappy comeback]

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

I take it then that you are now openly accusing me of trying to deceive.  Is
that correct?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:45:27 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Radio issues

Pat, I have not been on vacation... have had much computer problems such
that I couldn't access my e-mail for several days.

I, too, think Daryll may be onto something with the "Dee-Eff-ing" idea (vs.
"Drifting")

As for the actual use of the term "drifting" I don't think AE would have
used the word.  It is indeed correct that she would not have known her
transmitter was "drifting" unless someone ELSE told her.  And, with crystal
control -- which this transmitter most definitely used -- "drifting" was not
likely, albeit possible if the crystal was defective... but I am 99.9999%
sure we can discount that possibility and let the thread die without further
debate.

In the case of the receiver, it could indeed "drift" off frequency since it
was tunable rather than crystal controlled; however, this is not a term I
see AE using... I don't think she'd have known this 'radio jargon" unless
she was indeed misusing a term she'd picked up in a conversation somewhere.
I don't believe this though. The term is more properly used by radio
operators, technicians or engineers to describe what happens electrically in
an oscillator circuit.

As for tuning-around on the receiver in an attempt to find the Itasca's
signal, this isn't the same as "drifting."

By the way, this radio was tuned remotely from a control head mounted near
the instrument panel.  The dial was circular, not slide-rule style.  The
control head was connected to the receiver tuning mechanism through a
tach-shaft, similar to an aotomotive speedometer cable. The receiver was
mounted underneath the right-hand seat in the cockpit.  (And if the plane
was ditched, the cockpit floor undoubtedly would be underwater, which would
nuke the receiver REAL QUICK; not to mention many other key parts of the a/c
electrical system... we can rule out radio use after a ditching.)

I don't think the loop's range should have been considered as limited to
only 100 miles or so either, especially on low and medium frequencies.  I
have used aircraft ADF sets (including one dating from near this era) to
take bearings on broadcast stations clean across the continent at sunrise
and at night. (I live in NC)

As for what it might have done at HF... well, we still have not settled the
issue of whether AE carried any HF/DF gear aboard NR16020, or whether she
might have been trying to use her low/med freq loop in a manner and at a
frequency for which it was not intended.

One posting wondered whether AE might have had a "scope" to set frequencies
on her radios.  No.  She would have not carried an oscilloscope because (a)
she would not have known how to use one, and would not have wanted the extra
weight -- 'scopes were big and heavy then and also required AC power, not
available on the Electra; (b) use of an oscilloscope to set RADIO
frequencies was not standard practice in the 30s because the 'scopes
available did not have the frequency response capability to reach the HF
range -- 100 KHz to 500 KHz was the typical cut-off range of a 'scope video
amplifier then; (c) a 'scope by itself was useless for this purpose; a
frequency standard was also needed; (d) the accepted method of setting
frequencies at this time was comparing them to a calibrated oscillator which
was in turn checked against a crystal of high accuracy; this instrument was
known as a "heterodyne frequency meter," i.e. a frequency standard.
Those who are radio-literate may recognize the US Army BC-221 and Navy
LM-series, and the commercial Lampkin 103/105 as examples; there are many
others.

And AE did not have any kind of digital equipment.  Digital was not even a
concept in the 30s.  The advent of digital technology came along with the
first digital computers in the late 40s-early 50s; then began the process of
reducing everything to "bytes."  Digital really was not viable until the
late 60s-early 70s for many applications, because the technology to process
the information properly was not yet refined.

Again, let's not rule out the possibility that what AE actually meant to say
was, "D-Fing" and it might have come out garbled, especially if she was not
sure of herself in using the term. Or that she might have voiced it thusly:
"deeEFFing" so it might sound like "drifting" especially with the generally
poor voice quality of a carbon microphone (which she did use), or that the
signal went into a "fade" at that instant which could distort the audio.

73

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:46:16 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: DFing

Daryll writes:

> I said this on the Forum before, but it seems no-body listens or
> cares. Can "Drifting"  have been " DFing". "We are DFing but cannot hear you"
>
>   I know someone will say. How can you DF if you can't hear anybody? I
>think AE was rotating the loop in an attempt to increase the sensitivity
>of the antenna enough to be able to hear someone. She was doing the only
>thing she could do to the radio to help pick up something. She was
>telling the Itasca in as few words as possible what she was doing.>>

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

Let me review for you what was going on and them you can decide whether you
still think she may have said "DFing."

Up until this transmission it is very clear that Earhart was trying to get
ITASCA to take a DF bearing on her and then tell her which way to fly.  She
had been whistling into  the mic and saying things like "PLEASE TAKE BEARING
ON US...."

At 07:42 a.m. local time it was apparent that the flight had reached the
place where they thought Howland should be, but it wan't there and they
hadn't heard any of ITASCA's replies.  "WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U
BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT
1000 FEET"

A few minutes later, at 07:58, Earhart says:
WE ARE (?) BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU GA (go ahead) ON 7500 WID (with) A LNG (long)
COUNT EITHER NW (now) OR ON THE SKD (scheduled) TIME ON 1/2 HOUR

She has apprently given up on the idea of having ITASCA DF on her and decides
to try it the other way 'round.  She tells ITASCA to transmit " a long count"
(count slowly to ten and then back down to one) on 7500 kcs, not realizing
that ITASCA has no voice capability on that frequency.  She want the signals
sent either right now or two minutes from now "on the scheduled time on half
hour."  (Remember that Earhart is using GCT and, for her, the time is 20:28.
ITASCA, contrary to Earhart's earlier request, is using local time.)

ITASCA immediately sends out the repeated morse code letter A (dit dah, dit
dah, dit dah.....) on 7500 kcs.

At 08:00 Earhart says:
WE RECD (received) UR (your) SIGS (signals) BUT UNABLE TO GET A MINIMUM
(unable to get the loop to give her a "null" so that she can take a bearing)
PSE (please) TAKE BEARING ON US AND ANS (answer) 3105 WID (with) VOICE.

That didn't work so she goes back to trying to get the ITASCA to do the DFing.

It should be clear from the above that it makes no sense for her to say, at
07:58,
WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU
She can't be "DFing" if she doesn't have a signal to DF on (which she clearly
does not).  She is about to request, for the first time, a signal upon which
she hopes to DF.

Do you agree that we can eliminate:
WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU as a reasonable possibility?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:46:45 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Two cents more

"We continue to investigate the hypothesis that the Earhart
/Noonan flight ended at Nikumaroro . . . . because it is
producing results."

Forgive me for being so dense, but could you please tell us
what results?

Are you referring to a) the bones that you think might be in
Fiji and might be Amelia's, b) some anecdotal evidence that the
witness describes as some rusty wreckage on the reef, c) a very
dubious "heel from Amelia's shoe" and d) a piece of aircraft
aluminum that's never been identified?

Please explain and maybe you'll win some new converts to the
TIGHAR Method of Historical Aircraft Recovery.

Respectfully,

Cam Warren

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

I will, Cam, I will.  But I'll do it on my schedule, not yours.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:48:15 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Other islands

    Things have been awfully quiet on this Forum lately.  What is going
on?  Are there no posts, or are you too busy to respond?

    I have a question about the other islands in the Phoenix Group.
Again it is probably on the Web site, but it is easier to ask the
Masters.  Can you tell me what has happened to the islands of Hull and
Sydney since the war years. In your research, I'm sure you have some
information.  I know Hull was inhabited for a period, but for how long
and is it still?

    I do have a  printed copy of the Lambrecht report and the report
from Capt Friedell, so I know what was going on there at that time.

    Also, do we know of any other airplane crashes in the Phoenix
Group?  Besides the C-47 on Sydney I mean.  More question later....

Don

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

None of the Phoenix Islands is inhabited at this time, nor since 1964.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:49:39 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Itasca actions

Forest Blair asks:

>(D)id the Itasca start making extra smoke, fire rockets, play searchlights
>(even in daylight), fire star shells, etc that could possibly be seen by the
>Electra?  The next question is, if not why not?

According to the captain's report, the ship was making smoke.  According to
the ship's log, it started making smoke at about 06:15 which is about an hour
and a half before Earhart said, "We must be on you but can not see you..".
According to ex-destroyer captain Bob Brandenburg, about a hal-hour's worth
of smoke is all a ship can do without seriously endangering the integrity of
it's boiler.  In other words, there is reason to doubt that ITASCA was making
smoke at all at a time when it would have done Earhart any good.  No other
actions by ITASCA are mentioned in the various sources.  As to why not,
you'll have to ask the ghost of Commander Warner Thompson.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:57:28 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: DFing

> Do you agree that we can eliminate:
> WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU as a reasonable possibility?

Ric --

I might not be so quick to eliminate that as a possibility. For all we
know, she might have referred just the act of listening while you idly
spin the loop as "DFing" and, also, the more frustrated she might be,
the more she might have said something like that, even if it was a
little out of context.

The one thing I would do though would be to try to determine if the
term, "DFing", had entered any kind of common colloquial usage at that
time. Any old time radio DFers out there who might enlighten us from
their memory?

If the term was in use, then I think that the word DFing does make some
sense, particularly in light of the fact that we also know that the log
doesn't necessarily reflect ALL of the radio traffic -- they might have
"stepped on" some of the transmissions, or failed to record parts of
transmissions, as I recall that this is evidenced elsewhere in the logs.
Also, Amelia was not always known to use standard radio terminology (nor
do most of us, actually).

All the best,

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:09:17 EDT
From:         Pat Ward
Subject:      Silent majority

>I can't believe the number of people that continue to write here
>in a negative manner and putting the Tighar Organization down!  There is a
>"Silent Majority" out here who do believe in your accomplishments and are
>rooting for you to prove them wrong! Continued success.....
>
>Joe W3HNK

I'd like to comment on "negative manner" and "prove them wrong". Somehow (ok,
I know how), this whole issue of what happened to Amelia Earhart and Fred
Noonan turned into a brawl between various theorists. There are as many who
rally around one general theory as the other. The Silent Majority is whoever
you think you are siding with at the time, whatever flag you find yourself
rallying around.....at the time. That's human nature.... to want to be a part
of the majority. It's how you justify what you think at the time (or where
you're putting your hard earned cash), with the information available to you.

If this search for the truth about Amelia Earhart is ever.....ever?.....
solved, then The Vast Majority of the people of the world aren't going to
really care who was "proved wrong".

The Vast Majority (in my opinion) will wonder why in the world all these
interested people didn't cooperate with each other instead of trying to prove
each other wrong!

Serious researchers with the purest of motives  will put solving the
mystery above being "right".  They won't mind being "proved wrong".  They
might wish they had seen it first, or sooner, but they will be infinitely
happy that somebody finally did it! .... unless, of course, solving the
mystery has some other meaning for them......pmw

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

From Ric

Let's clarify why TIGHAR is looking for Amelia Earhart in the first place.

We're not trying to solve the mystery because it is historically important to
know what happened to Earhart.  It isn't.

We're not trying to solve the mystery to honor Earhart's memory.  She already
has plenty of admirers.

We're not trying to solve the mystery to prove anybody wrong.  That's just
petty.

We're trying to solve the mystery to prove a point - that the truth is
accessible to anyone who will take the time to learn and employ the basic
principles of the scientific method.  This is about learning how to think,
how to gather and evaluate evidence, how to develop a hypothesis, how to test
that hypothesis, how to analyze the results of that testing to improve the
hypothesis and test it again, and perhaps ultimately, to be able to reach a
rational conclusion.  The Earhart Project is an educational vehicle - for us
and for everyone else who struggles with the puzzle along with us.

That's why I'm so insistent that Cam Warren and others accept some basic
principles of historical investigation before we debate specific points of
fact.  The process of getting there is far more important than the
destination.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:11:08 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: other islands

  << None of the Phoenix Islands is inhabited at this time >>

  Then who were all those people we met on Kanton?

  LTM,
  Russ

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

Obviously, they were figments of your imagination.... or else, residents of
an island which is part of the Phoenix Group but a certain person (moi) has
trouble remembering that fact.

Love to Mother, who occasionally (just occasionally) makes stupid mistakes...

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:11:45 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Drifting (aimlessly!)

Sheesh! Talk about flogging a dead horse! And trying desperately
to prove a premise that was flimsy to begin with!

So maybe you've divined that the ITASCA operator changed
"drifting" to "circling". Maybe because the concensus was that
AE really was heard to say "circling". Odds are she did, and
was. She was that kind of a pilot.

No, she wouldn't have said "drifting". (I'd bet 1000 Kiribati
clam shells on that!). And most particularly not with reference
to her transmitter; it's common knowledge that was crystal-
controlled. As for her communications receiver, it wasn't
working anyway, and finally, AE didn't know diddly about radio.
(And please, no lectures on the TIGHAR "scientific approach"!)

What deep dark secret do you expect to discover with "drifting"?
And why do you fight "circling" (the accepted, and most logical
word? By your own admission, "listening" would be seem more
likely, but didn't fit.)

You people are capable of serious research - or so you claim -
why are you grabbing at specks while the pepper blows away?

Cam Warren

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

Well Cam.  We agree on one point.  "Drifting" doesn't make any sense and I
hope we're through with it.

I fight "circling" for the same reason you like it.  Circling is not a
rational thing for Earhart to be doing and you believe that irrational
decisions were part of her pattern of behavior.  I don't.  The image of AE as
an imcompetent stumblebum is one that was cultivated by Warner Thompson in
his official report in order to exonerate himself from any culpability in the
tragedy.  To buy into that image and say that "circling" is probably correct
because that's the kind of pilot she was is - well - circular.

We will, of course, never know for sure what that word was, but in trying to
make an accurate assessment of whether or not the crew of NR16020 was
functioning professionally in the emergency it is important to know that
there is reason to doubt that she was ever circling.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:13:01 EDT
From:         Jaume Balaguer
Subject:      Re: DFing

    I'm enjoying a lot the discussion about the radio broadcast, and I think
you are very near of the real words of Amelia, you are doing, as usual, a
great job. I agree with Daryl, DF is a good possibility, I also believe Ric
have another good one. But reading some information about Amelia, I find a
word that could also be possible: SHIFTING. Shifting making reference to the
action to shift the radio transmitter frequency, trying to find an "usable"
frequency. I know that is as not as good as some of your hypothesis, but its
a possibility. SHIFTING, contain -IFTING like drifting, and know imagine that
the radio listener remember that the word begins or sounds like SH... He
thought it was Circling but maybe it was Shifting. Amelia must be very tired
from his Trans pacific flight, and she could omit some words like:

WE ARE SHIFTING THE RADIO TRANSMITER BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU.

If a made a mistake or if my hypothesis is impossible, please, don't keep in
mind my fault, I'm learning English and I'm not sure if I'm right.

    One thing more: Was the sky cloudy that day? Because if it was, maybe she
had problems to distingish the islands, because "If there are any clouds
about to make shadows one is likely to see much imaginary land" (words of
Amelia).

LTM (Hope to be useful...)

Jaume
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:14:17 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: DFing

Jaume Balaguer writes:

>... reading some information about Amelia, I find a word that could
>also be possible: SHIFTING. Shifting making reference to the action to shift
>the radio transmitter frequency, trying to find an "usable" frequency.

I agree with you that "shifting" is a possiblity but I still prefer
"listening."  We'll never know for sure.  The important thing is to recognize
that there is reason to question that she was circling.

>One thing more: Was the sky cloudy that day? Because if it was, maybe she
>had problems to distingish the islands, because "If there are any clouds
>about to make shadows one is likely to see much imaginary land" (words of
>Amelia).

Yes.  There were scattered clouds whose shadows on the water may have looked
like islands. (and your English is mucho mejor than my Spanish)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:15:08 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Circling

Vern says:

>Amelia and Fred believed thay had arrived in the near vicinity of Howland.
>Amelia had just said, "We must be on you but cannot see you."  Why fly away
>from that location?  It seems very reasonable to me that they would circle
>about while continuing to attempt to make contact with the Itasca.

Well, this is another one of those opinion things we could probably debate
forever without really resolving anything.

I would say that AE and Fred had surely anticipated the possibility that
Howland might not appear on schedule.  The "we must be on you" transmission
came at 07:42 and it hardly seems reasonable to me that they would still be
hanging around the one place where they knew Howland wasn't a full quarter of
an hour later.  If they were on the LoP (as indicated by the 08:43
transmission), the rational thing to do would be to head northwestward along
that line as far as they dared before turning back to the southeastward while
they still had enough fuel to guarantee landfall if not at Howland, then at
Baker, McKean or Gardner.  They can continue to try to raise Howland while
they take meaningful action.  Circling just burns precious fuel.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:15:44 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: DFing

Mike Everette writes:

>Again, let's not rule out the possibility that what AE actually meant to say
>was, "D-Fing"

I say again, look at the context of the message.  She is not DFing.  At his
time she doesnt have anything to DF on.

R
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:17:15 EDT
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: DFing/Circling

For What It's Worth Department....

Talked to two old capt.'s  and a '36 'pursuit pilot'.  None of them had
ever heard the term, DF-ing.  All three came up with RDF which was
the name of the radio direction finding charts [in use until 1955 at least]
and of course ADF; but DF-ing was something new to them.  Does not
prove that AE didn't say that, but sure doesn't substantiate the use of the
term.

On 'circling', they chided me.  All agreed - with grins - that circling was
a perfectly good navigational manuever, and whoever denied using it
it was a liar.  Two of them had extensive over water experience and all
said that when they first heard of the event in '37 that they thought anyone
attempting to hit an island ... even the size of Hawaii (which had a radio
range) without expecting to either take or receive a radio bearing was nuts.

In any event they think that given the same circumstances of believing they
were there but didn't see the ship or island, they would have made a circle
or two first before agonizing about what to do, but might not xmit the fact.

RC  941
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:18:03 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Other islands

To elaborate a little on Pat's answer to Don Jordan's query about the history
of the other islands Phoenix Group:

Hull was the only island of the Group that was inhabited at the time of
Earhart's disappearance.  A guy named John Williams Jones was there
supervising a work party of Tokelau islanders who were planting coconut trees
under contract to Burns Philp Co., an Australian firm.  They had done some
work at Sydney also but had moved everyone back to Hull by July. (That's why
Lambrecht and company saw huts but no people at Sydney.)  No work was done at
Gardner.  The British put a couple of guys and a radio on Canton late in 1937.

When the British set up P.I.S.S. they settled only three islands of the
Phoenix Group - Sydney, Hull, and Gardner.  Because Sydney and Hull already
had trees planted they could support larger populations than Gardner which
was still undeveloped.  Pan Am developed Canton as a seaplane base for
refueling flights to Samoa and New Zealand.  During the war, of course,
Canton became a huge facility.  After the war it became a major refueling
stop for transpacific traffic.

When Canton was shut down in the early '60s with the coming of jet travel,
the British also shut down the settlements on Sydney, Hull and Gardner.
Nobody has lived there since.  Canton became the downrange headquarters of a
USAF missile testing program (SAMTEC) in the early 1970s.  During that
operation helicopters visited all of the other islands of the Group but there
was no permanent settlement.  When the islands became part of the newly
formed Republic of Kiribati in 1979 a small administrative population was put
on Canton (now Kanton) and is still there.   No settlement or resettlement of
the other islands has yet been undertaken.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:18:51 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: circling

As I have said before, I too have no problem with "circling". AE and FN
could have circled for some period of time before possibily heading off in
the direction of Gardner.

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:19:45 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Itasca actions

I was under the impression that there has been an airstrip on Howland at
least since the WW2 era. Anyone?

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:22:37 EDT
From:         Forest Blair
Subject:      Winds again

For Randy Jacobson,

Don't understand how you obtained your wind data.  What is Ontario/Nauru?
How do you know the winds were "slightly more northerly" at the end?  Do you
have weather logs from the Itasca?  How come in the article "Log Jam" it
reads the Itasca was reporting "easterly winds at 7 knots" in the AM on 2
July?  What if Noonan had calculated headings on the basis of the stronger
headwinds at the start for a longer period than they actually were?  Was
weather info sent to him during the flight?  Since in "Log Jam" the comment
was made that the Itasca sent weather in code which neither Amelia nor Fred
could "read", how did they get weather info after Lae?  Is that the
Ontario/Nauru bit?  What are Monte Carlo simulations?

Forest #2149
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:27:41 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: Circling

> From Vern
>
> In my opinion, considering radio technology and the circumstances, neither
> "drifting" nor "DFing" make any sense at all.  I could buy "listening" but I
> like "circling" better.  And it does have the merit of being
> "contemporaneous documentation," although involving a change of mind about
> what she was believed to actually have said.
>
> Amelia and Fred believed thay had arrived in the near vicinity of Howland.
> Amelia had just said, "We must be on you but cannot see you."  Why fly away
> from that location?  It seems very reasonable to me that they would circle
> about while continuing to attempt to make contact with the Itasca.

Circle about what?  Depending upon the great fuel debate, they could have
circled for minutes or hours.  Minutes might make sense, since there aren't
many alternatives, but after the first few circles without success, they are
going to plan "B" if they have any fuel reserves.  The island isn't going to
suddenly appear and I don't see Noonan staying in the vicinity longer than
he has fuel remaining to get to an alternate.  AE and FN both  knew the
time/distance/fuel equation and I think we can assume they knew how much
fuel was left, even if we don't.  If you are an advocate of TIGHAR's theory,
and as previously noted during the series of comments in late July, in this
forum, the sunrise LOP gave them their position easterly, (not necessarily
east of Howland), and someone elected 157/337.  157 takes them to the
Phoenix group, his only realistic alternative, plan "B", and he is leaving
the area while he still has fuel to get there.  While they both made
numerous errors in judgment about the flight, I don't see either of them
aimlessly circling a spot on the ocean, like McAwber (sic), waiting for
something to turn up--they both had to know it wouldn't.  Circle to a watery
grave, 157 to the Phoenix Group, or 337 to ?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:19:11 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      LOP

    Here is a thought about the LOP and the procedure FN may have used
when he reached that point.  In an earlier post, Ric said something
like, "Why circle in one spot.  That would just burn precious fuel".
True, but so would flying back over your same track!

    I believe the theory is that when Fred reached the 157-337 LOP, the
may have circled for maybe 30 minutes while trying to figure out what
the hell went wrong.  That would be logical.  They may have tried to
figure out whether they were short or long.  They were trying to make
contact, but when that failed, they had to decide  which way to turn on
the LOP.  As discussed before, turning north to 337 degrees would be
logical.  Flying that heading for about one hour would be logical.

    But then, at the end of the run, turning around and flying right
back down the line on 157 degrees over the same track of empty ocean
would not seem logical!  It would have only burned two hours of fuel for
nothing.  One hour to get up there and one hour to get back.

    I would think that the thing to do, would be to turn 90 degrees left
or right and fly that heading for about 30 minutes, so that when you
turned south to 157 degrees, you could cover new ground. (water)

    As I understand this "LOP" thing, if FN could see the sun rise and
new the time of sun rise at Howland, then he would have been on the LOP
line that passed Howland.  At that point, flying up or down the LOP
would have found the island.  Piece of cake!

    Obviously his LOP didn't go through Howland, if it did I think he
would have found the island, or seen the smoke.  I think he would have
to have been short or long. (Unknown head wind, or lack there of.)

    If he were long and turned 90 degrees right before going south,
they  could have flown right in between McKean and Birnie and hit Hull
Island.  Depending on how "long" of course.

    If they were short and turned right 90 degrees before going south,
they would have seen Howland, Baker McKean or Niku.

    But if they were short and turned left 90 degrees before going
south. . . it's all over.  There is nothing there but water, water and
more water.  Because of that fact, I don't think they would have turned
left.

   You would have to over shoot  Howland by about 380 mile before a turn
to the south would not hit land somewhere in the Phoenix Group.

    Of course this is only my opinion, but the point is that I don't
think they would have turn right around and flown directly over the
route they just covered.  And, since virtually all the islands are east
of Howland, making a jog to the left (west) would not seem logical.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:20:53 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Circling

Ric, you say:

>The "we must be on you" transmission
>came at 07:42 and it hardly seems reasonable to me that they would still be
>hanging around the one place where they knew Howland wasn't a full quarter of
>an hour later. (The "We are circling..." message is entered as: 07:58 A.M. VK)

I agree that is rather a long time to be "station keeping" while fiddling
with the receiver hoping to hear something -- and trying the loop.  I'd not
noticed there was that much time difference in the two messages.

I still think circling a few times in the place where they believed the
island should be would be a reasonable thing to do before giving up on the
radio (or sighting the island) and heading for the Phoenix islands.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:21:43 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca actions

The only airstrip on Howland was the one build in 1937, and no plane ever
landed on Howland.  During WWII, Baker had a metal runway installed, and
was used as a staging area for flights between Canton, Samoa, Funafuti, and
I believe one of the Gilbert Islands.  Photos from circa 1979 show lush
vegetation (grasses) between the metal links on the runway, whereas the
rest of the island is bare.  This is because iron is a nutrient needed for
vegetation growth.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:23:41 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Winds again

> From Forest Blair
>
> For Randy Jacobson,
>
> Don't understand how you obtained your wind data.  What is Ontario/Nauru?

USS Ontario was the ship located 1/2 way between Lae and Howland.  Nauru is
an island about 80 miles north of the Ontario position, and provided
weather information to Lae prior to takeoff.

> How do you know the winds were "slightly more northerly" at the end?

They were more northerly than the forecasts provided AE prior to her
takeoff.

> Do you have weather logs from the Itasca?

Yes, including those provided by the radiomen to AE as she approached
Howland.  We do not think she received or understood the code.

> How come in the article "Log Jam" it reads the Itasca was reporting
> "easterly winds at 7 knots" in the AM on 2 July?

More northerly means in this case winds coming from less than 90 degrees.

What if Noonan had calculated headings on the basis of the stronger
headwinds at the start for a longer period than they actually were?
If it was a pure headwind, no course correction was needed.  The available
data (first real position report and report of sighted ship) implies that
they were essentially on track for the first part of the trip, but
potentially delayed due to stronger headwinds.

> Was weather info sent to him during the flight?

Yes, but it is unknown if they ever received it, and if they did,
understood it.

>Since in "Log Jam" the comment was made that the Itasca sent weather in
>code which neither Amelia nor Fred could "read", how did they get weather
>info after Lae?

No one has implied that they in fact did get weather info after Lae.

> Is that the Ontario/Nauru bit?

No.  See above.

> What are Monte Carlo simulations?

They are brute force computer simulations, based upon statistical
variations, and literally thousands of runs are made in accordance with
guestimated statistical variances of wind speed, wind direction, flight
direction, etc.  The results, if the inputs are reasonable, provide an
indication (careful use of phrase) of what might have happened, and can
show inconsistencies between individual input data.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:24:19 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Deceivery?

<Way to go, Ric! If you don't want to answer the question,
<smother them with erudition!

<"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to
<deceive . . . ." (Little Orphan Annie, quoting Sir Walter Scott)

<Politely, without a hint of sarcasm (really!).

******************************************
<From Ric

<I take it then that you are now openly accusing me of trying to deceive.  Is
<that correct?

******************************************************************
I quoted Sir Walter Scott - you'll have to ask him what he
meant! (Besides, his comment was "anecdotal").

Cam Warren

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

Your courage is inspiring but you STILL don't understand what "anecdotal"
means.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:53:01 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: DFing

>[at 0758 Earhart says] ,
> WE ARE [DEE-EFFING] BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU

> At 08:00 Earhart says:
> WE RECD (received) UR (your) SIGS (signals) BUT UNABLE TO GET
> A MINIMUM
> (unable to get the loop to give her a "null" so that she can
> take a bearing)
> PSE (please) TAKE BEARING ON US AND ANS (answer) 3105 WID
> (with) VOICE.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see why she couldn't have
said she was DFing at 0758 when she was clearly DFing two minutes later.

william #2243

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

Aside from indications that the term "DFing" was not in use in 1937, she
couldn't have been DFing before she had even asked for the signals she was
hoping to DF upon.

Maybe an analogy will help.  Guy walks into a bar.  He trys to order a beer
but the bartender won't wait on him.  So he says:
I AM (?) BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION.  PLEASE GIVE ME A HEINEKEN DRAFT.

The "circling" advocates are arguing that he probably said,
I AM PACING BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION.

You're arguing that he might have,
I AM DRINKING BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION.

I'm suggesting that he most likely said,
I AM TALKING BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:54:18 EDT
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Re: Scientific Truth

Natko Katicic, in his posting of Scientific Truth, and Pat, in her
response refers to science and historical truth.  In particular, Pat
stated:

>We have actually dabbled with the thought of modelling the whole
Earhart thing as a probability study [but] haven't found a volunteer
mathematician who was willing to crunch it for us ...
Even in physics and mathematics, the "best" models are those that work
in the real world, accounting for all the facts.<

Perhaps I can help in modelling AE's flight.  I had independently
taken a similar approach several months ago, and developed a
computerized program to track, as far as is possible, AE's actual
flight.  I put my spherical trigonometry experience and computer
backgound into good use, breaking the problem into four steps:

A)  Determining a most likely path that AE followed assuming "perfect"
great circle navigation.

B)  Comparing this with actual information from the flight.

C)  Reviewing sources of potential errors and their likely impact.

D)  Forecasting AE's most probable final position.

In the first stage, I tried to include such factors as great circle
position, the increase in Air Speed as a function of fuel (i.e.
weight) remaining, the effect on altitude changes, wind and direction
on the distance flown each hour, etc.

During the second I compared the known flight information with this
computerized flight plan.  This stage produced a few surprises (to me,
at least), especially bearing on when and where Noonan might have
selected an offset and follow a 157/337 LOP.

The third and fourth steps are being checked now, and the results
should be available shortly.  However I have progressed far enough to
develop preliminary information which supports (surprise) the theory
that she landed on Nikumaroro (Gardner Island).

If this is of any interest, I can send you a aeries of postings (every
couple of days) stepping the forum through this approach, listing the
major assumptions, and a series of conclusions.

Of course I realize this approach may not be accurate or even of
interest, but I still believe it might be helpful as a "scientific"
approach.

Harry  #2300

PS - I still hope to be of help on the next edition.

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

Sounds fascinating.  The validity of the conclusions, of course, depend upon
the validity of the assumptions and I see a couple of problems right away.
Airspeed does not increase as fuel is burned off.  Power is reduced to
conserve fuel and airspeed remains constant at the most efficient figure for
a particular aircraft (in the case of NR16020, 150 mph/130 knots).
You also seem to be assuming that Noonan selected an offset on his approach
to Howland.  I know of no evidence that he did so and some pretyy compelling
evidence that he did not.

What you're doing sounds somewhat similar to the Monte Carlo simulation that
Randy Jacobson worked on.  Assumming we can all agree on what assumptions can
be made, it might be a useful exercise.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:55:25 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      2 x 4

Greetings to Ric,

The old man lifted his Grandson up onto the wagon
seat. The old man reaches under the seat and grabs a 3 foot length of 2
x 4. He walks to the front of the wagon and stands before the team of
mules. He raises the 2 x 4 and WHACKS them once each between the eyes.
The old man then walks back and climbs aboard and sits next to his
grandson. The little boy asks,  " Grandpa why do you whack the mules on
their heads with the board every time we take the wagon somewhere"? And
the Grandpa said, " I just do that to get their ATTENTION boy".

**********************************************
<From Ric,
  ITASCA immediately sends out the repeated morse code letter A (dit
dah, dit dah, dit dah.....) on 7500 kcs.>

   The Itasca has BEEN sending out signals on 7500 kc all along, on
schedule as agreed upon by AE, GP, and the Itasca.

**************************************
< from Ric
 It should be clear from the above that it makes no sense for her to
say, at 07:58,  WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU  She can't be "DFing"
if she doesn't have a signal to DF on (which she clearly does not). iShe
is about to request, for the first time, a signal upon which she hopes
to DF.  Do you agree that we can eliminate:  WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT
HEAR YOU as a reasonable possibility?
 LTM,
Ric >

No!  

   The only reason I'm not letting this go is because I just can't
understand (believe) how your process of deduction operates.

   You base your conclusion on this one little item because you think
that the Itasca was sitting idly by waiting for AE to contact them so
they could start transmitting a homing signal ??  If the officer that
was in charge of the radio room performed his duties that way, He should
have been court-martialed . She has had signals being transmitted to
her all along from the Itasca. The Itasca is transmitting the Letter "A"
and call letters, since at some point after the flight became airborne.

   I have presented your own documentation below to back up my position
that the Itasca had a schedule for the transmission of the homing signal
and it wasn't dependant on AE's request. On 6/30/37 Earhart indicates
that she will be expecting a LONG CONTINUOUS  SIGNAL ON APPROACH. That
was the signal she was "DFing" for that she could not hear. I don't
think I can explain it any more clearly, whether you accept it or not.

   If you can't present documentation to back up your position, then I
consider this matter not debatable.

Daryll  
   
**********************************************

  On 6/26/37 Earhart, for the first time, communicates directly with
Black aboard Itasca from Bandoeng, Java: SUGGEST..... ITASCA TRANSMIT
LETTER A POSITION OWN CALL LETTERS AS ABOVE ON HALF HOUR SEVEN POINT
FIVE MEGACYCLES STOP POSITION SHIPS AND OUR LEAVING WILL DETERMINE
BROADCAST TIMES SPECIFICALLY ...... I WILL GIVE LONG CALL BY VOICE THREE
ONE NAUGHT FIVE KCS QUARTER AFTER HOUR POSSIBLE QUARTER TO: EARHART
**********************************************

 On 6/28/37, the day Earhart arrives in Darwin, Itasca sends the
following message to Lae: FOLLOWING FOR AMELIA EARHART PUTNAM LAE QUOTE
ITASCA TRANSMITTERS CALIBRATED 7500 6210 3105 500 AND 425 KCS CW AND
LAST THREE EITHER CW OR MCW PERIOD .....REQUEST WE BE ADVISED AS TO TIME
OF DEPARTURE AND ZONE TIME TO BE USED ON RADIO SCHEDULES PERIOD ITASCA
AT HOWLAND ISLAND DURING FLIGHT
**********************************************

 The same day Itasca sends this message to Navy Radio Wailupe (Hawaii),
Tutilla (Samoa), and CG Hq in San Francisco: TRANSMITTERS CALIBRATED TO
7500 KCS PERIOD WHEN EARHART IS IN FLIGHT IT IS REQUESTED THAT NMC NPU
NPM STAND WATCH ON THIS FREQUENCY OF 7500 FOR ITASCA IN ORDER TO
ELIMINATE FREQUENCY CHANGES IN TRANSMITTERS
**********************************************

  Later on 6/30/37 earhart sends this message to Black aboard
Itasca:.......... NOW UNDERSTAND ITASCA VOICING THREE ONE NAUGHT FIVE ON
HOUR AND HALF HOUR WITH LONG CONTINUOUS SIGNAL ON APPROACH ..... EARHART
********************************************** 

Earhart receives this message in reply:
....... ITASCA WILL TRANSMIT LETTER A WITH CALL LETTERS REPEATED TWICE
END EVERY MINUTE ON HALF HOUR AND HOUR ON 7.5 MEGACYCLES WILL BROADCAST
VOICE ON 3105 KCS ON REQUEST OR START WHEN WITHIN RANGE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You are correct.  It's very clear that the agreed upon plan was for ITASCA to
send "A"s on 7500 on the hour and half hour.  The ship's log documents that
they did send "A"s on 7500 at the prescribed times.  It is also clear that
Earhart did not hear any of these tranmissions until she asked ITASCA, at
07:58, to do exactly what they had been doing all along.  When, at 08:00,
ITASCA sent "A"s on 7500, Earhart miraculously hears them.  I can think of
only two reasonable explanations for this phenomenon:
1.  ITASCA's signals are so weak, or Earhart's ability to receive them is so
limited, that she has to be very close before she can pick up the
transmissions.  If that is the case, then she could have been trying to DF
all along and only now was close enough to hear the "A"s - and she might have
said, "We are DFing but cannot hear you." IF the term "DFing" was in use and
IF she was misusing the term to mean listening for a signal rather than
trying to get a minimum, and IF it has slipped her mind that, at 07:58,
ITASCA shouldn't be sending "A"s anyway.
2.  A more reasonable explanation would seem to be that she had made no
attempt to DF on ITASCA until it became apparent that the easier method of
letting them DF on her wasn't working.

I don't dispute the documentation you have quoted.  I just don't see how it
proves, or even suggests, that Earhart was attempting to use her loop antenna
prior to 08:00.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:39:01 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      BASIC PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED

It appears the good ship TIGHAR has taken a couple of direct
hits, and the decks are starting to get slippery with blood.
Well, I guess that happens when you keep insisting on "damn the
torpedoes, full speed ahead!".

In all sincerity, may I politely point out that much of the
misery you have been experiencing is a consequence of your own
actions. And even a few of your faithful followers have
expressed concern with your frequently abrasive remarks. We
"heretics" have occasionally responded in a like manner, mostly
due to frustration that a reasonable exchange of dialog
apparently cannot occur without potshots from your pen.

I can sympathize somewhat; the hundredth question on some bit
of trivia can get pretty annoying, but that's the price one
pays when you open the floor to all comers.

As for your "basic principles of historic investigation", I'll
repeat yet again that your rules are just fine with me. The
root of the problem is that you continue to break them yourself
when convenient (which seems to be most of the time). You
honestly may not realize that this is the impression you give
people, but instead suffer some subconscious paranoia that
THEY are out to get you.

I've copied out a few of your past statements to disk; egregious
examples of "do as I say - don't do as I do". Suffice to say
they prove my point. At the moment, I have no plans to make it
public, so you can breathe a sigh of relief. However, it sits
here on my shelf.

You recently suggested comparing notes to see what we might
agree on; and I'm sure common ground exists. Unfortunately
that program got no further than the infamous fuel load
question. Curiously, we seem to agree on that point, but
nothing further has been forthcoming.

Older and wiser heads have largely written off Nikumaroro;
for reasons I'm sure you are familiar with. (Take another
look at your correspondence with Fred Goerner early in 1990,
for example). AGAIN I repeat; if you wish to pursue research
there by all means do it, but do NOT belittle other theories,
at least some of which have as much - or more - circumstantial
evidence in their favor as Niku.

Incidentally, I certainly do NOT believe Earhart was an
"incompetent stumble bum" as you indicate Thompson thought.
I note, with interest, that a few other Forum correspondents
think that "circling" was quite possibly the proper word. I
know you discount Hazelick's report but he was there - you
weren't. Yet another case of the Gillespie steam roller at
work. And as for my 'profiling" of Earhart, I believe you'll
find that such analysis is a perfectly legitimate path to
solving a puzzle.

I have formed an opinion about Mr. Gillespie too, and it's
not altogether complimentary. Note "not altogether"; there
ARE some good points to your favor as well. To cite one - you
have reluctantly admitted disappointments, such as the Canton
engine business that pretty much fell apart.

Well enough said.  I'm looking forward to your well reasoned
and carefully presented case for Nikumaroro. I like to think
of myself as an "old school" journalist (circa Cronkite) that
maintains an open mind, so if you sell it well enough, I'll
be happy to buy it.

Sincerely,

Cam Warren

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

From Ric

Allow me to assuage your concern.  I am experiencing no misery.  If there's
blood on the deck I'll leave it to the Forum to decide whose it is.

Please spare me (and Amelia) your amateur psychoanalysis and please don't
pretend to speak for what impression I give anyone but you.  I have
tremendous faith that the Forum subscribers are all quite competent to speak
for themselves.

As for your collection my "egregious examples of 'do as I say - don't do as I
do'" let me encourage you to share them with the Forum and anyone else who
may be interested.  I'm confident that they'll say more about you than about
me. (Is attempted blackmail an example of what you mean when you call
yourself an "old school journalist?")

I'm glad to hear that you accept basic principles of historical investigation
but I'm less than encouraged when you turn right around and say something
like:

<<I know you discount Hazelick's report but he was there - you weren't. Yet
another case of the Gillespie steam roller at work.>>

One more time, Cam.  I don't "discount" Hanzlick's report. It's simply that a
better source - Bellart's log - makes it clear that there was a question
about what Earhart said.  Sound investigative methodology is, indeed, as
powerful as a steam roller.

I'll take your word for it that we agree that NR16020 left Lae with 1,100
U.S. gallons of fuel and we agree that the reason that figure is the best one
to use is because it is confirmed in the best available contemporaneous
documentation (Chater and Collopy).

Next point.  Do you agree that the power/fuel management recommendations
prepared for Earhart by Kelly Johnson are the best indicator of the
aircraft's potential performance?  If not, what is the best source for this
information and why?

**A word of caution.**

Your recent postings have been personally insulting and largely devoid of any
meaningful content.  I have done my best to answer your charges while trying
to establish some guidelines upon which we can hold a productive debate, but
you're trying my patience.  Remember that the rotting skull on the pike at
the entrance to the forum is the head of Sactodave.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:39:56 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Circling

Vern writes:

<<I still think circling a few times in the place where they believed the
island should be would be a reasonable thing to do before giving up on the
radio (or sighting the island) and heading for the Phoenix islands.>>

In my experience, the only times a pilot circles are to:

1.  Practice making circles.
2.  Look at something on the ground.
3.  Kill time.
4.  Ponder what do next if he has failed to plan properly.

I don't see any of those applying to this situation.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:41:37 EDT
From:         Jaume Balaguer
Subject:      Re: Circling

I agree with Ric, that "circling" is least possible. The first thing that I
learned in the Pilot course was that in case I get lost I NEVER to do 360 or
circles, the only thing that you will obtain is to get more disoriented. And
Amelia knew that thing very well... Some experts had advised her to do some
human-flight experiments, she acceded to realize some of it. During the test
flight before depart the first time from Oakland to Honolulu, Amelia flew to
Los Angeles, and there she did some turns (circles) and then she asked to his
navigator (Manning) what heading they had to follow to return to San
Francisco. Manning made a terrible mistake, and he got wrong about the
heading to return to SFO by more than 60°. I think that Amelia lerned a lot
form this experiment and I hope that she didn't do such mistake.

A experienced pilot should have alternatives in case he get lost, and as Ric
said the better chance to find land was "head northwestward along
that line as far as they dared before turning back to the southeastward while
they still had enough fuel to guarantee landfall if not at Howland, then at
Baker, McKean or Gardner."

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:43:06 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Deceivery?

Cam Warren wrote,

>>I quoted Sir Walter Scott - you'll have to ask him what he
>>meant! (Besides, his comment was "anecdotal").

Ric, why do you keep posting this guy's sophomoric drivel-? (Do you like the
easy target he offers? <grin>)

william #2243

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

Please note the warning appended to the latest exchange concerning personal
remarks from Mr. Warren........
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:20:30 EDT
From:         Terry Ann Linley
Subject:      Re: DFing

I hate to throw yet another monkey wrench into this discussion, but I just
picked up a book entitled East to the Dawn...the Life of Amelia Earhart,
which I believe you said was one of the best on the subject.  Out of
curiosity, I skipped ahead to the section of Susan Butler's book to see if
she had anything to say about this circling/DFing/listening subject.  She
quotes Itasca as hearing at 19:27 GMT:

     We are circling but cannot see island cannot hear you go ahead on 7500
     kilocycles with long count either now or on schedule time on half hour.

Where did the part about not being able to see the island come from????  Was
that in the original Itasca logs?  If so, then circling makes sense.

LTM (who loathes going 'round in circles),
Terry
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:21:16 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: DFing

> Maybe an analogy will help.  Guy walks into a bar.  He trys to
> order a beer but the bartender won't wait on him.  So he says:
> I AM (?) BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION.
> PLEASE GIVE ME A HEINEKEN DRAFT.

I'm not sure this analogy holds beer.

When us kids tried direction finding lo these 35 years ago, we found that
we could get a direction based on any transmission from the other kids.  It
was just easier if they transmitted continuously, usually just counting, but
anything would work.

Having said that, was the DF equipment on the same frequency as her voice
receivers, or was it some other frequency and specifically required that
they transmit on the DF frequency for Amelia and Fred to DF at all?

    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:22:40 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: DFing

Ok, thanks Ric, I understand your logic now.

Consider these speculations:

If I am in an airplane trying to find an island on a vast cloud-dappled sea
and think I am near it and a position where a navy radio is broadcasting a
signal trying to communicate with me, but I can't see the location and can't
hear the signal, I still think it reasonable that I might start to circle
briefly in the area and say,

WE ARE CIRCLING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU

(After several minutes, still not finding the island or establishing a
satisfactory radio bearing, with a large fuel reserve remaining, I may
decide to head towards the Phoenix group where I know there's a pretty
reasonable chance I'll find land.)

After giving the the other possibilities (drifting, DFing, listening) some
thought, for what it's worth, I offer the following opinions:

Drifting: Syntax and definition (in radio terminology) don't make any sense
here, unless she's misusing the word, which doesn't sound like Earhart.

DFing: If the term wasn't in use in 1937, I agree that it's unlikely she
invented it for use near Howland Island. However, if she had heard the term,
and was using it correctly, I still don't see why she couldn't logically
say, first,  that she was DFing, trying to capture a signal, and a few
minutes later, that she had caught a signal but couldn't find the minimum
and take a bearing on it.

Bear in mind that your analogy of a crowded bar doesn't quite relate to
radio communications, where one can be sending a signal to a recipient, and
be heard clearly by the recipient, but can't hear the responses (on whatever
frequency) of the recipient.

I'd be interested to hear more about whether or not the term "DFing" existed
in 1937. Based on forum postings, I agree that the term probably didn't
exist then, but we don't know with any certainty.

Listening: Phonetically similar to "drifting", not a bad candidate. But it's
still a stretch for me when "circling" makes perfect sense and is part of
the documented record (even though it was a contemporaneous correction that
has a bureaucratic ring).

If I had to make a choice, based on my own rough estimation of the
probabilities, I would say that she most likely said "circling", followed by
"DFing" (unless it is established that the term was simply unused in '37),
followed by "listening". It seems to me that if she did say "drifting", she
was misusing the word and I choose to doubt she would have done that.

LTM (who knows that spotty radio communications enhance any mystery)

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:23:35 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Itasca actions

Thanks, Randy.  That's ironic.

LTM (who says she needs nutrients, too)
TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:26:44 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Circling

A final clarification of my thoughts about "circling":

I recognize that circling is not a generally accepted response to being lost
in an airplane, and further recognize that this plays a significant part in
Ric's reasoning that Earhart probably didn't say she was circling.

Noonan was an experienced and highly skilled Clipper navigator looking for a
tiny island in an immense ocean, where expensive resources had been gathered
to meet them. [speculation begins here] After a long flight over empty
ocean, they may have been a little surprised and certainly somewhat
disconcerted that they couldn't actually spot the island when everything
told them that they were near it. At that time and place, thinking that
perhaps they had simply missed spotting the island in the clouds, shadows
and haze, a circling response of some sort, perhaps to make a more thorough
visual search and to establish reliable radio contact of some kind, might
have made reasonable sense to them before possibly embarking on a search for
an alternate location to land.

In absence of any further information, I prefer "circling", although "DFing"
and "listening" are also reasonable candidates. None of these choices affect
a Gardner landing scenario, in any event.

LTM (who knows that unexpected circumstances in risky business sometimes
require unorthodox techniques)

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:40:53 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: DFing

And I'm suggesting he said I AM THIRSTY . . .
(Which makes even MORE sense!)

Cam Warren
(Who likes Heineken)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:43:46 EDT
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: DFing

Welcome back to the fray.  It looks like everyone was saving up their
comments until you got back.
  To the point.  I've been trying to find contemporary reference to use of
the term "Dee Effing" or "Deefing".  Nothing on point yet, but I have found
several textual uses of the contraction "D/F" (not however "DF") for Radio
Direction Finding.
  In English, rather than American the terms "Huff Duff" and "Huff Duffing"
appear for High Frequency Direction Finding.
  Not long after the events in question, during WW-II, there are numerous
examples of acronyms becoming words.

LTM

Robert Klaus
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:44:41 EDT
From:         Skip
Subject:      Re: Basic principles considered

Cam Warren sincere? He uses the word much too often. I can't speak for the
others, but his notes and insults are very annoying. If you ask me, he is the
one who is circling seeking attention at the cost of others. I don't believe
he has any desire to seek the truth regarding Amelia Earhart and because he
feels that it will make him a big noise, he feels that it is his duty to
destroy. Whether or not Tighar or anyone else finds out what happened to her
or she forever remains a mystery, at least an honest attempt is being made to
solve it. Does Cam Warren think that he is an expert on Amelia? I doubt it,
just a lot of hot wind and blowing in the wrong direction. I would love to
see his face when your efforts produce results. Stick to your guns, Ric.

Skip
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:46:38 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Circling

Ric, I think we've about beat this one to death.  I, for one, am going to
drop it with this posting.  We'll just never really know.

My one further thought is that when pondering the drifting/circling
question, one needs to remember that the quality of the audio being heard
may have been very bad.  There are several stories (anecdotal) to the effect
that the modulation of Amelia's transmitter left much to be desired.
Screen modulation, used in the WE-13C to reduce battery drain and to reduce
transmitter weight, presents some sticky design problems.  Antenna loading
can easily upset the design operating conditions.  And we know they did a
lot of fiddling with the antenna.  There's also reason to believe they knew
there was a modulation problem.

Add to this the engine noise (prop. noise), poor microphone and probable
bursts of atmospheric electrical noise -- it may have been pretty difficult
to understand what Amelia was saying.

I do concede that "drifting" seems one of the less likely things for the
Itasca operator to have thought he heard.  Unless the expected they might
already be in the water!

Finally, you said:

>In my experience, the only times a pilot circles are to:
>
>1.  Practice making circles.
>2.  Look at something on the ground.
>3.  Kill time.
>4.  Ponder what do next if he has failed to plan properly.

I guess I'll have to take some number-2 (Look FOR something...) and more of
number-3.  Killing time while fiddling with the receiver hoping to hear
something while not getting far from the location they believed they should
be in -- near enough to Howland that they should surely hear the Itasca.
There might be a little number-4 in there too.

I'm confident that Fred would have had no problem giving Amelia a compass
heading that would take them to the Phoenix Islands, no matter how many
times they might have circled!  So long as they had not got too far from the
place his advanced LoP said Howland should be -- circling! <grin>
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:50:36 EDT
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Re: Basic principles considered

In Ric's reasonable response to Cam Warren, he asked:

>Next point.  Do you agree that the power/fuel management recommendations
>prepared for Earhart by Kelly Johnson are the best indicator of the
>aircraft's potential performance?

A very good approach - however, I only have limited information on these
power/fuel recommendations.  Are more detailed notes available?

Incidently, my computer program assumes that the plane throttles back as its
weight decreases, after reaching planned airspeed.  However, I also use an
increase in airspeed with lower fuel weight during the initial phase, namely
the time between takeoff and reaching nominal airspeed.  Is this wrong?

LTM (who was another "Kelly" Johnson fan)
Harry #2300
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:53:06 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Re: Circling

        I don't think it would be unreasonable for Amelia to circle the area
when she reached the point where she and Fred expected to see the island.
There are several reasons why I feel this way about the possibility of
circling.  She still would have quite a bit of fuel.  She would be reluctant
to leave the area where they expected to find the island.  Circling in fairly
wide circles by increasing the radius by 10 miles on three or four circles
would allow them to check out a fairly large area for the island in a short
period of time. Lastly, I recall that is exactly what I did on my student
cross country in a J-3 Cub when crossing a range of low mountains in an
unexpected cross wind put me north of track.  I climbed a couple of thousand
feet, circled and was able to pick out recognizable landmarks as a result.  I
am certain Amelia and Fred would be reluctant to leave the area where they
expected to see the island without making a reasonable local search.  We have
already established that visibility due to possible low clouds shadows may
have limited visibility to a few miles.  All the more reason to circle the
area a few times.

Dick Pingrey 0908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:53:45 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Silent majority

Ric wrote:

> We're trying to solve the mystery to prove a point - that the truth is
> accessible to anyone who will take the time to learn and employ the
> basic principles of the scientific method....

I would like to commend Ric on one of the most erudite and positive
answers I have ever read on the subject of why Amelia. For TIGHAR, there
is little doubt that the public face of Amelia forms the perfect
rallying point to further the organization's core goals -- research and
study, archaelogy, preservation, and understanding the value of history.

For others, however, the whole Amelia affair has more to do with
personal profits. Put the search and others under the harsh light of the
sun, and ask that Latin question, "Cui Bono?" -- which translates to
"Who is to benefit?" Anytime you ask this of TIGHAR, you find a
wonderful set of answers -- most laudable being in the field of
education and preservation.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:56:33 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Circling

William Webster-Garman says:

>In absence of any further information, I prefer "circling", although "DFing"
>and "listening" are also reasonable candidates. None of these choices affect
>a Gardner landing scenario, in any event.

Thank you, William.  I've been puzzling over just what difference it makes
whether she was saying "circling" (given that if she was, we don't know how
long she was, and therefore what it might have meant re. fuel consumption),
"drifting" (which doesn't seem to take us anywhere), "listening" (which also
doesn't convey any relevant information as far as I can see), "DFing" (which
seems to have the same relevance as "listening"), or "whistling," "thinking,"
"shifting," "drinking," "glistening," or any number of other possibilities.
Am I missing something, or is this whole argument just a tad tangential?

Tom King

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

Nope, you're not missing anything. This thread dies a long overdue death
today.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:57:59 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Rules of Logic

You're doing a commendable job of explaining why some evidence is given
greater weight than other evidence, but some folks just don't seem to get
it.  Sources closest to a given event, in either distance or time, get the
greatest weight of validity.  This is why the Itasca radio operator's log
gets more credibility than the report of the guy who used it as a source for
his own report.  Why then, some might ask, isn't Iredale (who fueled the
Electra) given more credibility than Chater (who reported the fueling)?  The
answer is simple--and by the rules-- Iredale was closer in distance, but his
report isn't--it's a 50 year old oral recollection.  Chater, who was at
least one step further removed from the fueling operation than Iredale, has
a written report FROM THAT DAY.  Using the Kennedy asassination as an
illustration, the Zapruder film was shot from a distance, and isn't really
clear.  If then Texas Governor Conally, who was actually in the car with
Kennedy, had made some statement prior to his death a few years ago that he
distinctly remembered shots from the grassy knoll,(VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:  HE
MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT) it would be an oral recollection of events 35 years
past, and as such, even though he was closer, in distance, to the event than
Zapruder, Zapruder's evidence (the film) carries more weight because it is
actual documentation from that day.  This is why Ric correctly gives greater
weight to contemporaneous documentation, and lesser weight to anecdotes
(like 50 year old memories) even if they come from sources closer to the
actual event.

This is why politicians give polling results rather than the raw data.  Raw
data (what were the exact questions asked, and of whom) cannot be spun for
favorable effect.  Iredale's memory might be perfectly accurate, but it is
subject to 50 years of possible, unintentional, spin.  That's why Chater's
report MUST be given more weight.

As regards TIGHAR's Niku landing theory, it too is based on logic.  The only
known sources of aircraft debris on Niku are the C-47 crash on Sydney, and
NR16020 (which was certainly lost in the vicinity).

The plexiglass shard found on Niku by TIGHAR searchers is not consistent
with any plexiglass found in C-47s, but is consistent with plexiglass found
on Lockheed 10Es.  The logical conclusion, since there were no other
Lockheed 10Es lost in the vicinity, is that the plexiglass shard came from
NR16020, which was last known to be within range of, and on a bearing to
Niku/Gardner.  Now, if new facts surface which could better explain the
evidence found, Ric has already stated that we would go "back to the drawing
board".  Despite claims on this forum to the contrary, no such new facts
have been found or presented.

The shoe fragments found are dealt with in the same manner, and have the
same conclusion.  Shoe fragments found on Niku are from a mid 1930's woman's
blucher oxford.  Earhart, who disappeared in the vicinity in the late
1930's, was photographed shortly before her disappearance wearing blucher
oxfords.  The crew of the Norwich City would have been wearing shoes made
prior to 1930, because she wrecked on Gardner in 1929.  Also highly unlikely
that any of them wore women's blucher oxfords, of any vintage.  Neither
Bevington, Gallagher, or any of the P.I.S.S. settlers were known to wear
women's blucher oxfords.  Unless some facts surface that show someone else
on Gardner island in the mid to late 1930's--someone who wore women's
blucher oxford shoes, then the fragments found can be safely assumed to have
come from Earhart.

The beauty of logic is that when you do it correctly (by the rules) it
cannot be refuted unless new, previously unknown, indisputable facts are
brought to light which better explain your previously arrived at logical
conclusions.

TIGHAR's logical conclusion, based on the indisputable facts available, is
that NR16020 landed on Niku.

I'm only an amateur logician, and new to TIGHAR, so Ric, or anyone else
should feel free to correct any errors I've made above.

On a decidedly illogical note, the movie MARS ATTACKS was on TV a few nights
ago.  Did anyone else notice that the main word in the Martian vocabulary
was "KHAQQ"?

LTM (who apologizes for this being such a long post) Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:27:40 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: circling

Terry Anne Linley writes:

<<... I skipped ahead to the section of Susan Butler's book to see if
she had anything to say about this circling/DFing/listening subject.  She
quotes Itasca as hearing at 19:27 GMT:

     We are circling but cannot see island cannot hear you go ahead on 7500
     kilocycles with long count either now or on schedule time on half hour.

Where did the part about not being able to see the island come from????  Was
that in the original Itasca logs?  If so, then circling makes sense.>>

Mythology strikes again.  Although Butler's book is among the better Earhart
biographies, that's not much of a compliment.  Like the other Earhart books,
Butler's treatment of the disappearance is riddled with inaccuracies - and
this is one of them.  The "cannot see island" bit is pure fiction.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:28:23 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: DFing

Bill Leary asks:

<<..was the DF equipment on the same frequency as her voice
receivers, or was it some other frequency and specifically required that
they transmit on the DF frequency for Amelia and Fred to DF at all?>>

We don't even know for sure that she had a separate DF receiver, but we
suspect that she did.  We know that her voice receiver (the Western Electric
20B) was tuned to 3105 kcs and that she wasn't hearing anything.  She was
also transmitting on that frequency and asking ITASCA to "Please take a
bearing on us". (It's worth noting that she did not say "Please DF on us."
ITASCA was replying with voice on 3105 and saying that they couldn't take a
bearing on that frequency, but - of course - she couldn't hear them.

Had she asked for signals on a low frequency -  say, 400 kcs - she should
have been able to take a bearing with her loop.  But she asked for signals on
7500 kcs, a frequency far higher than was commonly in use for direction
finding.  This is commonly seen as the great error that cost her her life.
Maybe it was, but without knowing what the frequency range of her DF receiver
was (if she had a separate DF receiver at all), it's impossible to say
whether Earhart's request for signals on 7500 kcs was a mistake or not.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:29:18 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Circling

William Webster-Garman writes:
<<In absence of any further information, I prefer "circling", although "DFing"
and "listening" are also reasonable candidates. None of these choices affect
a Gardner landing scenario, in any event.>>

Indeed they do not.  What she actually said is unknown, unknowable, and
ultimately of little relevance.  The only important point to be made from all
this discussion is that the original ITASCA log makes it clear that there was
some question about what she said at the time.  It's entirely possible that
we're unwittingly replaying an argument that was first debated in the
ITASCA's radio room 62 years ago.

"How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted o'er in states
unborn and accents yet unknown?" (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:51:19 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Step Two - Fuel Consumption

Yes, I agree Kelly Johnson is an excellent choice, but - a word
of caution - he also said (I paraphrase) Earhart ran out of gas
and splashed down (it's in his book).

Cam Warren

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

From Ric

Forum please note:

The above posting has been edited to remove irrelevant offensive passages.
The only reason I didn't bounce the submission entirely is that the question
of Johnson's remarks in his autobiography does come up from time to time and
is worth discussing.

Over the past few days there have been a number of postings and quite a few
private emails to me expressing what can only be termed disgust with Cam
Warren's behavior and annoyance with me for letting that behavior intrude on
the Forum's work.  We have received no postings or private communications to
the contrary.  Therefore, in a last ditch attempt to avoid banning Mr. Warren
from the forum altogether, I'll post only those portions of his submissions
that deal with facts and evidence.

My response to Mr. Warren:

Do you agree that the validity of Kelly Johnson's opinion of how far the
airplane could go (as expressed in his autobiography) depends entirely upon
whether or not he had an accurate figure for how much fuel was aboard?
Remember that prior to the discovery of the Chater letter in 1991, the
Electra's fuel load was the subject of much debate.  The most widely known
proponent of the crashed-and-sank school was (and still is) Elgen Long who
was very sure that the airplane could not have taken off with more than 1,000
gallons (see the section on "Fuel" in Appendix B of Mary Lovell's "The Sound
of Wings").

I don't have a copy of Johnson's book.  As I recall the title was something
like, "More Than My Share Of It All."  Can somebody give us a publication
date and quote exactly what Kelly had to say?

LTM
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:52:05 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      Offset

Ric,
    Harry Poole made a reference to fuel/airspeed.

The paradox is, alas, that the more fuel is used, if the throttle/pitch
settings remain the same, then the endurance of the aircraft flight
increases, due to decreased weight.

This, does not keep going to infinity (otherwise we'd have perpetual
motion) so, at the time the weight is reduced by the exhaustion of
the fuel carried, the consumption per hour/minute/second is zero!!
but the a/c has lost all power!!!

Regarding the LOP. IF Noonan calculated this to intersect Howland at
his DR ETA, (and a forward plot could do this) then he should have
used the "offset" systm. There is previous evidence that he not only
was acquainted with the procedure, but had used it.

So, what happened?

TIGHAR has their theory, and are trying to prove a scenario which they
consider has merit.

You know that I believe that they "sank without a trace", but belief
is not proof.

Thanks for allowing me to have input to your website.

LTM and regards.

Tet

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

Whether or not Noonan "offset" his interception of the LoP is a bit like the
"circling" debate.  Unknown, unknowable, of little relevance, but endlessly
arguable.

Here's a question for you.  The "offset" method is, by definition, not an
attempt to fly directly to the destination but is the introduction of an
intentional error so that, even though you won't know exactly when the
destination should appear, you can be confident that you're heading in the
right direction and it eventually will appear.

At what point then, in the application of the "offset' method, would it make
sense for Earhart to say:

WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE YOU... ?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:57:15 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson 
Subject:      Re: Rules of Logic

Beautiful, Dave Porter!  One of the best, clearest descriptions of logic in
the use of the scientific method.  Bravo!

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

From Ric

I'll second that.

In case anyone missed it first time around, here it is again.

> From Dave Porter
>
> You're doing a commendable job of explaining why some evidence is given
> greater weight than other evidence, but some folks just don't seem to get
> it.  Sources closest to a given event, in either distance or time, get the
> greatest weight of validity.  This is why the Itasca radio operator's log
> gets more credibility than the report of the guy who used it as a source for
> his own report.  Why then, some might ask, isn't Iredale (who fueled the
> Electra) given more credibility than Chater (who reported the fueling)?  The
> answer is simple--and by the rules-- Iredale was closer in distance, but his
> report isn't--it's a 50 year old oral recollection.  Chater, who was at
> least one step further removed from the fueling operation than Iredale, has
> a written report FROM THAT DAY.  Using the Kennedy asassination as an
> illustration, the Zapruder film was shot from a distance, and isn't really
> clear.  If then Texas Governor Conally, who was actually in the car with
> Kennedy, had made some statement prior to his death a few years ago that he
> distinctly remembered shots from the grassy knoll,(VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:  HE
> MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT) it would be an oral recollection of events 35 years
> past, and as such, even though he was closer, in distance, to the event than
> Zapruder, Zapruder's evidence (the film) carries more weight because it is
> actual documentation from that day.  This is why Ric correctly gives greater
> weight to contemporaneous documentation, and lesser weight to anecdotes
> (like 50 year old memories) even if they come from sources closer to the
> actual event.
>
> This is why politicians give polling results rather than the raw data.  Raw
> data (what were the exact questions asked, and of whom) cannot be spun for
> favorable effect.  Iredale's memory might be perfectly accurate, but it is
> subject to 50 years of possible, unintentional, spin.  That's why Chater's
> report MUST be given more weight.
>
> As regards TIGHAR's Niku landing theory, it too is based on logic.  The only
> known sources of aircraft debris on Niku are the C-47 crash on Sydney, and
> NR16020 (which was certainly lost in the vicinity).
>
> The plexiglass shard found on Niku by TIGHAR searchers is not consistent
> with any plexiglass found in C-47s, but is consistent with plexiglass found
> on Lockheed 10Es.  The logical conclusion, since there were no other
> Lockheed 10Es lost in the vicinity, is that the plexiglass shard came from
> NR16020, which was last known to be within range of, and on a bearing to
> Niku/Gardner.  Now, if new facts surface which could better explain the
> evidence found, Ric has already stated that we would go "back to the drawing
> board".  Despite claims on this forum to the contrary, no such new facts
> have been found or presented.
>
> The shoe fragments found are dealt with in the same manner, and have the
> same conclusion.  Shoe fragments found on Niku are from a mid 1930's woman's
> blucher oxford.  Earhart, who disappeared in the vicinity in the late
> 1930's, was photographed shortly before her disappearance wearing blucher
> oxfords.  The crew of the Norwich City would have been wearing shoes made
> prior to 1930, because she wrecked on Gardner in 1929.  Also highly unlikely
> that any of them wore women's blucher oxfords, of any vintage.  Neither
> Bevington, Gallagher, or any of the P.I.S.S. settlers were known to wear
> women's blucher oxfords.  Unless some facts surface that show someone else
> on Gardner island in the mid to late 1930's--someone who wore women's
> blucher oxford shoes, then the fragments found can be safely assumed to have
> come from Earhart.
>
> The beauty of logic is that when you do it correctly (by the rules) it
> cannot be refuted unless new, previously unknown, indisputable facts are
> brought to light which better explain your previously arrived at logical
> conclusions.
>
> TIGHAR's logical conclusion, based on the indisputable facts available, is
> that NR16020 landed on Niku.
>
> I'm only an amateur logician, and new to TIGHAR, so Ric, or anyone else
> should feel free to correct any errors I've made above.
>
> On a decidedly illogical note, the movie MARS ATTACKS was on TV a few nights
> ago.  Did anyone else notice that the main word in the Martian vocabulary
> was "KHAQQ"?
>
> LTM (who apologizes for this being such a long post) Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:52:51 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Johnson's Tables

Harry Poole writes:

<<I only have limited information on these power/fuel recommendations.  Are
more detailed notes available?>>

Here are Johnson's recommendations:

Time      Altitude       Manifold Pressure        RPM       Gallon/per/hour
1 hour    0-8,000 ft      28.5 inches HG         2,050        100
3 hours     8,000 ft      28 inches HG           1,900         60
3 hours     8,000 ft      26.5 inches HG         1,800         51
3 hours     8,000 ft      25 inches HG           1,700         43
Remaining  10,000 ft      24 inches HG           1,600         38

<< I also use an increase in airspeed with lower fuel weight during the
initial phase, namely the time between takeoff and reaching nominal airspeed.
 Is this wrong?>>

We don't have any hard data on what airspeed was recommended for the climb so
anything I say here is just old pilot talk.  In a situation like this I would
expect that there was a very narrow window between stall and maximum speeds.
Anecdotal witness reports suggest that, at first, the best they could do was
stagger along just above the water in ground effect.  As fuel burned off
they'd be able to begin a slow climb but their airspeed might remain pretty
much the same.  Normally, on a long flight you'd use a slightly higher
airspeed than normal for slightly better efficiency - what's known as a
"cruise climb" - but I'd be surprised if they had that option.  Johnson's
tables call for 28.5 inches and 2,050 RPM for the first hour during which
they're going to climb to 8,000 feet and burn a 100 gallons (600 pounds) of
gas.  If it takes the full hour to reach that altitude that's an average rate
of climb of only 133 ft/min.  Nothing to write home about but I'll betcha
they didn't do much better than that.  This is just a guess, but I'd say that
during that first hour their speed ranged from maybe 100 mph to no more than
about 120 mph.  Even after they leveled at 8,000 I'd be surprised if they saw
their target cruise speed of 150 mph until several hours later.  That puppy
was HEAVY.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:04:56 EDT
From:         John Clauss
Subject:      Re: fuel consumption

KELLY
More Than My Share of It All
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986
by Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson with Maggie Smith

pages 42 thru 46 (hardbound) describe a letter and conversations with
Earhart.

page 46
"They had been in the air for 23 hours and, so help me, that's all the time
they had fuel for.  They did not know their location when they sent their
SOS.  The Navy mounted a tremendous search effort and attempted to locate
them with direction finders but couldn't, The two had a rubber dingy with
them, and, if undamaged, the plane could have floated with its gas tanks
emptied.  I am convinced that they attempted to ditch the airplane and
didn't get away with it."

LTM

John
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:06:21 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group

David Porter made the following statement,
************************

As regards TIGHAR's Niku landing theory, it too is based on logic.  The only
known sources of aircraft debris on Niku are the C-47 crash on Sydney, and
NR16020 (which was certainly lost in the vicinity).

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

    This is not an entirely  correct statement.  There were at least two
known and possibly a third known crash in the Phoenix Gp.  There is the
C-47 on Sydney for sure. And there is another aircraft crash site not
too far from where Bruce found that  "Kanton Engine".  Unless someone
dumped that old engine on the island as scrap, then there is a wrecked
airplane close by.  An undocumented wrecked airplane! Now whether that
airplane wreck is N16020 or not remains to be seen.  Most likely it is
from an old military wreck.  But it is there!!! That is FACT.  And if
this wreck is undocumented. . . how many more are undocumented?

    Just because you can't document an event, doesn't mean it didn't
happen.  That engine can only be explained in one of 4 ways.

1,  It was discarded as scrap from a repair ship which was taking it
back to the US for an overhaul or salvage or what ever.

 2,  It is from an old military crash site as yet undocumented.  U.S.,
Japanese or who ever was in the area at the time the plane crashed.

3, It is from a lost civilian flight that disappeared without a trace
many years ago. We already know of one such flight that disappeared in
the 20's or 30' with a woman pilot and male crew aboard. Granted it was
enroute from Hawaii to San Francisco.  A long way from the Phoenix Gp.!

4,  And last. . . it was from the Electra.

    We know for a FACT that an engine was found on an island in the
Phoenix Gp.  We are 99.9% sure it was not on Niku!  Again. . . .it could
be old military.  That is possible!

    It did not drift ashore, or drift from another island.  It is within
feet of where it was originally deposited when the even happened.  What
ever that event was!

    Everything found on Niku so far has been brought there by man (or
women).  It could have simply been picked up from another island and
found on Niku.  There was a lot of travel between the islands by boat.

    Here is a theory I have been thinking about for some time.  It's
logical and possible and would make everybody happy.  We are trying
hard to find a way for the Earhart drama to have been played out on one
island. What if there were two islands involved?

    My theory goes like this.  What if the Electra makes a water landing
and the crew take to the rubber boat.  They think the plane is going to
sink, so they abandon it.  But it doesn't sink! It drift on and on.
Soon the floating plane and the life boat are separated.  The crew ends
up on one island and the plane washes ashore on another.  What supplies
the crew salvaged from the "sinking" plane were lost as they tried to
come ashore.  They were either too weak, or dead from injury or thirst
by the time the search plane few over.  The Electra was torn to pieces
as it washed ashore on the other island.  All that was left was the
engine.

    Who said it had to be just one island?  Maybe they did find their
way to Niku, but there just isn't anything left there to find!

Don (Who tries so hard not to P.I.S.S. people off.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:08:03 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Step two, fuel consumption

Ric wrote:

>I don't have a copy of Johnson's book.  As I recall the title was something
>like, "More Than My share Of It All."  Can somebody give us a publication
>date and quote exactly what Kelly had to say?

I have the book, Ric, but it is late. I'll send chapter and verse tomorrow,
unless someone beats me to it.

LTM,
Tom Robison
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:08:59 EDT
From:         Marty Joy
Subject:      Wreck photo

Ric

You are keeping us in suspense.
What did you discover on the recent expedition to Niku
that leads you to believe the wreck photo is no
longer valid? You made a great case that it was a photo
of an E-10. Correct dimension for the cowl ring, apparent
mounting points for large oil tank on firewall, curved
lower windshield center-post, correct lightening holes
at wing spar area, etc ?

What happened to make you change your mind?

Marty

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

Ric is writing that part up now, it will be posted on the Forum and elsewhere
as soon as it's finished.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:11:30 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Circling (FINAL!!!!)

Ric cited,
>>"How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted o'er in states
>>unborn and accents yet unknown?" (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1)

Agreed (of course): Times without number, sometimes sadly, sometimes
happily, but certainly.

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:14:30 EDT
From:         Jaume Balaguer
Subject:      Working the DF

Were they using the 3,105 frequency?

I've read in the New York Herald Tribune that they used the 3,105 at night
and the 6,210 KC during the day... why they used the 3,105 arriving at
Howland ?

I've also read that during the Miami stay they modified the radio
communicator..., it seems that trying to improve the 3,105 and 6,210KC
frequencies they had canceled the 500 KC emergency channel, because Amelia
thought that the powerful equipment of the Itasca constituted sufficient
coverage. I don't know if that information will be useful trying to discover
why they were not using the 400KC. May be they "ignorance" in how to use the
DF (they haven't used a DF before) had contributed to get lost.

LTM (who loves everybody and doesn't want to annoy anybody) : )
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:15:21 EDT
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Forum track record?

Ric,

    I'm not a member of any other internet forum so I can't speak with
authority, but it certainly appears to me that the TIGHAR forum has been
tremendously successful and is perhaps the pioneering forum for research
available to the general public (I can believe that scientific circles have
their own forums etc, but they would be exclusive groups).  Forum members
from around the world, some who were just dropping by out of curiosity, have
contributed tremendously to new information concerning the search.  Details
and information that would have taking years of research, if ever, keep
flowing into the mill because forum members have taken the quest for truth
very personally.  Perhaps a short review of the details and successes that
are directly attributed to the forum's activities (TIGHAR members or not)
would be a breath of fresh air.  I believe that the forum's direction and
successes reflect more than just a search for a lost aviator and navigator.
I think it demonstrates the global village at it's best.  Here we are all
sitting in our homes and offices around the world debating, contributing,
detracting, and sniping.  What a wonderful time to be alive and what a
tremendous use of the super highway. Kudos to TIGHAR for once again being in
the frontlines of research.

Clyde Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:17:21 EDT
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: Lockheeds

Hi all,

Any idea where I can order a copy of "Lockheed Aircraft since 1913" by Rene
Francillon these days ?

Herman
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:15:58 EDT
From:         Kari
Subject:      Re: LOCKHEED BOOK REQUEST

HERMAN---TWO SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE BOOK YOU ARE AFTER:

#1
The Book:
FRANCILLON, RENE J LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT - SINCE 1913 1982. Putman, 1st edn,
526pp, cond vg, plates, ills, diags, d/w. The design, development, and
service histories of each type of Lockheed are covered in
great detail. Book # WIIBK02244 US$ 103.00

The Seller:
WORLD WAR II BOOKS , PO BOX 55, WOKING, GU22 8HP, ENGLAND , WOKING, SU ,
United Kingdom, GU22 8HP Phone 44 1483 722880 / Fax 44 1483 721548 , Email ww2books@churchill.net.uk See their homepage here!

Seller Terms:

A Note about Privacy:
ABE never gives out or sells its client information, other than to bring a
bookstore and a buyer together. Your privacy is always respected.

#2
The Book:
FRANCILLON, RENE J. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT SINCE 1913. NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS,
ANNAPOLIS, MD. 1987. AN UP-TO-DATE SURVEY OF ALL LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT FROM THE MODEL-G
FLOAT-PLANE TO THE HIGH PERFORMANCE PLANES OF THE PRESENT, INCLUDING THE F-19
'STEALTH' FIGHTER, AS WELL AS THE POLARIS, POSEIDON,AND TRIDENT MISSILES. 5 1/2
X 8 1/2, 430 PHOTOS, 72 G/A DWS. 576 PAGES. HB FINE/FINE. A PUTNAM AERONAUTICAL BOOK.
Book # 2013 US$ 39.95

The Seller:
TENNANT'S AVIATION BOOKS , P O BOX 1695 , Auburn , WA , U.S.A. , 98071-1695 ,
Email TENNGB@AOL.COM ... A member of AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION

Seller Terms:
POSTAL MONEY ORDERS,BANK DRAFTS, & PERSONAL CHECKS. CASH ACCEPTED, BUT BE
ADVISED IT ISN'T PRUDENT TO SEND CASH. NO CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS ACCEPTED.

GOOD LUCK
KARI
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:21:33 EDT
From:         Tet Watson
Subject:      Offset etc.

Ric,
    I am checking the Radio Communications as reported in "The Sound Of Wings"
by Mary Lovell. Much of what I will say is conjecture, as is much which is
written in the TIGHAR forum. Please bear with me.

The Itasca log reports sunrise at 06.15 Local time Howland.
AE/FN were now 17.45 into their flight. At 06.45 AE, requesting a bearing
says they are "About 100 miles out"

IF they were using the offset system, they would now, or earlier, be steering
course which would put them in a position where Howland would lie to right
or left of their track (preferably at 90deg.) when ETA is reached.

They would, or should know how long it takes to reach Howland from that
turning point.

There is my presumption that a sunrise astroshot, plus observed W/V now it was
daylight, would have provided a reasonably accurate DR position, so when ETA
Howland/offset is reached, the correct turn is made.

This, would be in the region of LOP 157/337.

At 07.42 AE reports "WE must be on you, etc".(Itasca log states loud signal
strength) Fuel is low.

My opinion is that this is when AE/FN calculated that their turn to Howland
had brought them over, or close, and that they fully expected to see the
Island, though they said that they were down to 1000'

At 07.58 "We are circling" etc

They had reported that fuel is low, yet it is not until 08.44 that the LOP
157/337 message is heard. The radio logs do not give a clear picture "D/Fing,
drifting or whatever.

The mystery is what happened to them in that last 1hour2minutes?
Their fuel could not have been critically low at 07.42, they were still
flying. Bur WHERE were they?

That's where your Gardner possibility comes in!!

Regards, and thanks,
LTM. Tet
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:38:14 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Exped. Report - Part 2, 1st installment

The Interviews

While still on Nikumaroro during Niku IIIIP we had received word via
satellite phone that the team in Fiji had talked to a woman who was a former
resident of the island.  She described seeing aircraft wreckage on the
Nutiran reef north of the Norwich City shipwreck.  A few days later, another
interview with an early settler, said to be the widow of the island's radio
operator, appeared to confirm that villagers on Nikumaroro in the prewar
years were aware that an airplane had come to grief there at some time before
their arrival.

During the voyage back to Fiji, again via sat/phone, we made arrangements to
do follow-up interviews with the two women.  No video or audio tape had been
made of the initial interviews out of concern that cameras or recorders might
create an intimidating atmosphere, but a friendly rapport had been
established and we hoped that it would be possible to videotape the second
interviews.  We arrived in Suva, Fiji early on the morning of Sunday, July 25
and were scheduled to fly back to the U.S. the night of Tuesday, July 27, so
it was imperative that we waste no time in arranging and preparing for the
interviews.

Foua Tofiga (pronounced "fowOOa towFINGa")
That afternoon, July 25, Kristin Tague and I met with Foua Tofiga who had
worked as a clerk for the Western Pacific High Commission in Suva during the
years in question and had been instrumental in helping our Fiji Team locate
and contact the two women.  He also served as translator during the
interviews.  Kris and I spent a pleasant two hours or so with him at his
home.  I found him to be a pleasant, well-educated, articulate, and
soft-spoken man with an excellent command of English.  Having studied the
files of the Western Pacific High Commission, I was quite familiar with the
names, procedures and personalities of the WPHC and in chatting about those
times and those people it was immediately apparent that Mr. Tofiga was
entirely genuine in his representation of his experience.  He was, in fact,
able to clear up several questions we had about the meaning of various
abbreviations in the files and flesh out our picture of the various officials
with personal anecdotes.

Tofiga at Nikumaroro
Mr. Tofiga has only been to Nikumaroro once, in late November 1941 with High
Commissioner Sir Harry Luke who was touring the Phoenix Islands settlements
in the wake of the death of Officer-in-Charge Gerald Gallagher in September.
His presence on that trip is confirmed in the published diary of Sir Harry
Luke ("A South Seas Diary" Nicholson & Watson, London, 1945) who says:
"The party consisted of Dr. Macpherson and 'Mungo' Thompson with Tofinga
(sic), the Ellice Islander clerk from the High Commission, as interpreter."
Tofiga has no recollection of seeing or hearing about bones or airplane
wreckage during that visit but Sir Harry's diary indicates that the ship was
only at Gardner one day (Sunday, November 30, 1941).  Mr. Tofiga's
recollection that it was during his visit to Nikumaroro that the party
learned of the attack on Pearl Harbor is apparently in error.

The Sextant Box
Despite his close association with the top officials of the WPHC, Tofiga had
not been aware of the discovery of bones and artifacts on Gardner nor had he
seen any of the official correspondence about attempts to identify them.
This was because he worked in the Accounts section rather than in
Correspondence and, as we know, the whole issue of the castaway of Gardner
Island was kept "strictly secret."  Tofiga does, however, remember that Henry
Vaskess, Secretary of the WPHC, kept a collection of curios on a credenza in
his office.  The center piece was a wooden box which, Tofiga says, looked
very much like the photos we showed him of the Pensacola sextant box. His
recollection matches the official record which last mentions the sextant box
as being stored in Vaskess' office.  Mr. Tofiga doesn't remember whether it
had any numbers on it and has no idea what may have eventually become of it.

Otiria O'Brian  (pronounced "ohSEEria O'Brian")

Mrs. O'Brian was interviewed twice by TIGHAR.  Once by Kristin Tague, with
Foua Tofiga serving as translator, on Monday, July 19th and again by me,
accompanied by Kris, with Tofiga again translating, on Tuesday, July 26th.
The latter interview was videotaped. Mrs. O'Brian, despite her Irish surname,
is a Gilbert Islander by birth.  Her late husband, Fasimata O'Brian, was not
Irish either but was born in the Ellice Islands.  (Perhaps there was an
Irishman involved somewhere along the line but that was not clear.) Otiria
speaks and understands virtually no English  The interviews were conducted
in her bedroom in her son's home where she is confined by her frail health.
Tofiga translated the questions into Gilbertese, and her answers into
English.

Throughout both interviews she appeared to be alert and lucid, and although
some of her memories seemed to be jumbled, others tracked quite accurately
with known documented events.  Otiria O'Brian is a Protestant Christian and,
to my astonishment, began her videotaped interview by turning to the camera
and singing several verses of a Gilbertese song which Mr. Tofiga later
explained was a hymn about "Standing firm for Christ."  She says she is 80
years old which would make her year of birth 1919, and her general appearance
seems consistent with that age. But when asked what year she was born she
said she was born in August of 670 and went to Nikumaroro in 178.  It is
possible that she was using a numbering system that is not familiar to Tofiga
or to us.

Otiria says she was born on the island of Onotoa in the southern Gilberts.
When asked how she and her family came to live in the Phoenix Islands, she
says that the government came and told the people that "Those who wished to
own land - they could go."  That's a good description of what happened and
most of the first settlers did come from the southern Gilberts, including
several from Onotoa.

In both interviews Mrs. O'Brian made it clear that she never lived on
Nikumaroro but only stopped there briefly enroute to Sydney Island (Manra)
where she and her family settled.  Fortunately, the specifics of the
settlement of the Phoenix Group are well documented in the official record.
From clues gleaned from her answers to various specific questions it is
possible to pin down when she was there.

- Although she doesn't remember the name of the ship that brought her to the
Phoenix Group, she does recall that it was a "big ship" that "belonged to
Banaba" (Ocean Island).  "Word came from Heaven saying that it was all right
to go on this ship because it was from the government."  This could be a
reference to an endorsement of the Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme
(P.I.S.S.) by the London Missionary Society, the predominant religious
presence in the southern Gilberts.  Ocean Island was the headquarters for the
Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony which administered P.I.S.S.  Its
principal vessel was the Royal Colony Ship (RCS) NIMANOA.  Indeed, most of
the settlers for Gardner (Nikumaroro), Hull (Orona), and Sydney (Manra) were
transported in NIMANOA.

- Sailing from the Gilbert Islands they came first to Nikumaroro where they
went ashore in boats that belonged to the ship and spent one night in the
village where there was a "wooden house".  About "20 or 10" people, including
some women and children, "whose names were for Nikumaroro" stayed behind
when, the next day, the others numbering "20 or 30" reboarded the ship and
continued on to Orona where some disembarked.  The rest, including Otiria and
her family, came finally to Manra.

- Gerald Gallagher, Officer-in-Charge of the Phoenix Island Settlement
Scheme, whom Mrs. O'Brian refers to as "Kela", was already in residence on
Nikumaroro when she got there.  He had "a house that was just built" and he
had "servants to cook for him."  She says that he came with them when the
ship continued on to the other islands.

- Being from Onotoa, I wondered if she might remember the name of the headman
on Nikumaroro who had been a prominent figure on Onotoa before becoming
Native Magistrate on Nikumaroro.  To my surprise, the name she came up with
was not Teng Koata, but "Tikana."  Bauro Tikana was Gallagher's clerk and
interpreter.  He arrived with Gallagher in September 1940 at the same time
that Koata took a leave of absence and traveled to Tarawa.

It seems clear that Mrs. O'Brian was on Nikumaroro, albeit very briefly,
sometime after Gallagher's arrival in early September 1940 but before his
departure for Fiji in early June 1941.  We can further constrain the time
because, according to Gallagher's "Progress Report, Fourth Quarter 1940", his
house on Nikumaroro was not sufficiently completed to permit occupancy until
the middle of November.  It is also clear from his report that no ships and
no new settlers arrived between his arrival in September and the end of the
year.  He does mention that "RCS NIMANOA paid a very hurried visit to the
District to distribute essential stores" in early January 1941.  The ship
called at Nikumaroro first, apparently on the 11th, and Gallagher accompanied
it to Orona and Manra to check on the progress of those settlements.  No
mention is made of the ship bringing any new settlers but neither is it
specifically stated that it did not.  The "Progress Report, First Quarter
1941" specifically states that aside from NIMANOA's brief visit in January,
"No shipping has been available for the transport of settlers, stores, or
equipment..." through the end of the quarter (March 1941).  During the spring
of 1941 RCS NIMANOA was being overhauled in Suva and no other ships are
mentioned in the record as having visited Nikumaroro.

It would therefore appear that there is really only one documented
possibility for when Otiria O'Brian spent her night on Nikumaroro - January
11, 1941.  This places her visit well after Gallagher had found the bones in
September.  Indeed, the same ship that brings her to the Phoenix Group
carries the box of bones and the artifacts away from Nikumaroro when it
leaves (Gallagher's letter that accompanies the shipment is dated December
27, 1940).  This may help explain her response to my question:

"Was there a shipwreck at Nikumaroro?"
"No.  It went aground, but was not broken up. Maybe it is still there. There
was no damage to it.  It was right on the reef but there were no people on
board. I remember seeing it.  Standing there firm.  Nothing broken.  No
people.  Another ship came and took away the people from the ship. The
government put a stop to people going on board.
When Mr. Kela (Gallagher) arrived he went to that ship and found a person
that had been killed but he was put under the ship, below the ship.  Mr. Kela
then directed certain ones to come and build a box and put this person in it
and take it to be buried.  The person was lifted and put in the box.  The one
who died was not a European.  He came from Onotoa."

The story about the body and the box may be a very garbled rendition of
something she heard on the island about the bones Gallagher found and the box
built to contain them.  We've heard other stories about bones being found
near the shipwreck which may or may not be true, but Gallagher certainly made
no mention of any such discovery.  Her assertion that the one who died was
from Onotoa could stem from the fact that the original discovery of the skull
seems to have been made by Teng Koata, the Native Magistrate from Onotoa who
left the island when Gallagher arrived.

If Mrs. O'Brian's recollections about Kela finding a body are difficult to
match with known events, her account of an airplane wreck at Nikumaroro is
even more confusing.  Greatly complicating the issue is the fact that she
spent the war years on Sydney Island (Manra) where we know that a C-47
crashed catastrophically on December 17, 1943.  How much of what she
remembers of that event is mixed up with what she says about what she heard
talked about on Nikumaroro is hard to determine.

In her initial interview, Kris Tague asked her whether she had seen wreckage
of any kind at Nikumaroro.  She answered:
"Many things I have seen.  Things that float or move about in the sea.
People said they were parts of an airplane."
(Note:  As far as we know, Mrs. O'Brian had no idea that Kris had any
interest in anything about an airplane.  I later asked Mr. Tofiga if, in
setting up the initial interview, he had told Mrs. O'Brian that we are
searching for an airplane.  He was quite sure that he had not.)
"People and even members of the government came to look at it.  ... Men were
making expressions of sadness about the fate of those whose plane crashed.  I
didn't see because we were there only briefly. ... It is said that they broke
up and sank in the ocean.  They said that the parts were seen by a ship and
they went to look for more of them."

In her second interview eight days later, I tried everything I could think of
to give her an opportunity to talk about the airplane wreckage without
"leading" her.  I asked if there was anything unusual about the island.  She
said the fishing was very good.  I asked if there were other wrecks on the
island besides the ship that was on the reef.  She said there were other
wrecks there and on Orona, but volunteered no details. (There were no other
shipwrecks at Nikumaroro but there was a shipwreck at Orona).  Finally, in
desperation, I asked:
"Did the people on Nikumaroro say anything about an airplane?"
She replied, "We did not stay on Nikumaroro.  I was on Manra."
(Okay, I thought, let's see if she knows about the crash on Manra.)
"How long did you live on Manra?"
"We were there when we were young and when we were girls." (giggles)
"During the war?"
"Yes."
"Do you remember an airplane crashing on Manra?"
"There was one, but it landed in the lagoon. (As indeed it did.)  Nobody
died. Only a few days and they went away."
I said nothing while she thought for a minute.
"We buried three of them and maybe the one who piloted the plane.  One died
and one lived. I do not know for sure if they were American or British."
(In fact, there were nine fatalities in the Sydney Island crash.  All died on
impact except one who lived for about fifteen minutes.)
I then said to her as a statement, not a question, "But you remember nothing
about an airplane at Nikumaroro."
After a long thoughtful pause she said, "There was a plane that crashed at
Nikumaroro. There was a woman.  No.  A couple. A man and a woman. The man was
the pilot.  He was the one flying the plane."
(Another long pause during which I said nothing.)
"A bullet hit in the eye (gestures toward her eye) and of course that made
him lose control (moves her hands as if rocking a steering wheel).  One died.
 The Onotoa people came and lifted him out and made a box for him.  When he
was questioned why he didn't take care, he said that he was hit and he didn't
have any control.  The Onotoa people were very angry so that that one became
very frightened (here she laughs) and he was saying, 'I didn't kill him.  I
didn't do anything bad to him.  He was my brother.'  And he left his plane
and followed the Onotoa people.  One died.  The other lived."

I then asked, "How did you hear about it?"
"This happened before the war.  He died.  He was buried a day after the war
happened."
I decided to try again.  ""How did you hear about this thing that happened on
Nikumaroro?"
"This I heard because this happened before we arrived at Nikumaroro.  We
arrived and we followed the burial procession.  The man who died was a
government official.  He was buried under the flag, not in the common
graveyard."

This sounds very much like Gallagher's death.  He was the only government
official to die during this period and he was buried at the foot of the
flagpole on Nikumaroro, but that wasn't until September of 1941.  Was she
there or did she just hear about it?  More importantly, how much of her
airplane story or stories are rooted in fact?  Which details belong to which
crash?  The pilot of the plane who was questioned by the Onotoa people could
be the one brief survivor of the Sydney crash.  The C-47 had been circling
the island and inexplicably hit a palm tree on a low pass.  Was the fatally
injured pilot trying to explain to the islanders who found him that a bird
had come through the windshield and struck him in the face?  Were the
protestations of innocence that Mrs. O'Brian found so amusing, in fact, the
hysterical apologies of a guilt-ridden dying pilot?  We'll never know.

It would be tempting to ascribe all of her memories about crashed airplanes
to the one accident we know happened on the island where she lived, except
that some of the details she offers about the Nikumaroro wreck don't fit the
Sydney wreck at all.  The mention of "a woman, a man and a woman, a couple"
is remarkable.  She also describes not a witnessed crash but parts said to be
"pieces of a plane."  The phrase "the parts were seen by a ship" can be
interpreted as "the parts were seen by people on a ship" or it could mean
"the parts were seen near a ship."  If she meant the latter, then her
recollections match those of Emily Sikuli who says she saw aircraft wreckage
on the reef at Nikumaroro near the wreck of the S.S. Norwich City.

In the next installment we'll review Emily's story.  She is younger and much
clearer in her memories than is Mrs. O'Brian.  She also lived on Nikumaroro
for two years.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:43:38 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: fuel consumption

So Kelly Johnson in 1986 said:

<<They had been in the air for 23 hours and, so help me, that's all the time
they had fuel for.  They did not know their location when they sent their
SOS. ....>>

Interesting.  No indication of how much fuel he thought was aboard the
airplane. ITASCA stopped hearing their transmissions at 08:43 local, at
which time Earhart had been in the air 20 hours and 13 minutes.  Johnson
seemed to think they could remain aloft for another 2 hours and 47 minutes.
At 130 knots that will take them 362 nm.  Niku is 356 nm southeast of
Howland.  Looks to me like Kelly Johnson thought they had enough fuel to
reach Niku as long as they weren't starting from someplace north of Howland
(in which case they should have found it by running down the line).
Not to be picky, but Earhart never sent an SOS.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:45:36 EDT
From:         Bethpage
Subject:      Sumner Line

>From Mike Muenich
>
>......the sunrise LOP gave them their position easterly, (not necessarily
>east of Howland), and someone elected 157/337.  157 takes them to the
>Phoenix group......

At sunrise and in the early daylight 157/337 was the orientation of the LOP
that ran through Howland.  (As the morning wore on, the LOP's alignment
would be very slowly be backing around through 156/336, 155/335, etc., but
if "157/337" is how Noonan labeled the LOP on his chart, it is only natural
that Noonan and Earhart would refer to it as the "157/337 Line").
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:06:44 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Editing,Radios

Greetings to Ric and the Forum,

    I don't like butting heads, but I will speak out if I think
something is wrong or there is a potential for something to go wrong.  

   I want to make a brief comment about this editing business before I
go onto what this posting is about.

   I have been edited before on this Forum, not for something that was
offensive, but just because someone felt that it wasn't the proper slant
or perspective on things.

   Where does this editing stop? The extremes would be "changing the
author's meaning" to " the alteration of evidence". We have been told
that freedom of speech does not exists on this Forum. Then the term
"Forum" should be changed to the word "Club". If Ric feels that a
submission is not appropriate, then don't post it, don't use just what
you want to use. Ric says he writes for a living and hopes to publish
his own book on Amelia Earhart, then that is the place for editing.    

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

   I want to refer to some of Ric's replies to Forum members that have
been posted lately.

<From Ric
 We don't even know for sure that she had a separate DF receiver, but we
suspect that she did....... But she asked for signals on 7500 kcs, a
frequency far higher than was commonly in use for direction finding.
This is commonly seen as the great error that cost her her life. Maybe
it was, but without knowing what the frequency range of her DF receiver
was (if she had a separate DF receiver at all), it's impossible to say
whether Earhart's request for signals on 7500 kcs was a mistake or not.
LTM,
Ric >

   Ric presents AE's request for signals on 7500 kc as a mistake or
error on her part because this was far above the frequencies used for
the day. In my recent postings I have refreshed everyone's memory that
this mistake was allowed to happen over several days. This mistake
involved not only AE but GP, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard.
This mistake covered thousands of miles in numerous radio
communications. Yet no one said "hey this ain't right". Knowing this can
we really say it was a mistake on AE's part ?       

************************
< From Ric
  .....Indeed they do not. What she actually said is unknown,
unknowable, and ultimately of little relevance. 
LTM,
Ric >

*******************
< From Ric
.....Whether or not Noonan "offset" his interception of the LoP is a bit
like the "circling" debate. Unknown, unknowable, of little relevance,
but endlessly arguable.....
LTM,
Ric >
*********************

   The discussions the last few days about what she said,
"DFing","Circling", "Listening" is as Ric puts it " of little relevance
". I am surprised to say the least, to hear this coming from a former
accident investigator. All of the possibilities are verbs showing the
actions that were taking place in the cockpit. How many investigators
have agonized over CVR's trying to figure out if the Captain said "
gear-up" or "cheer-up".

   These are all links in our " chain of logic ". If AE's request for
signals on 7500 kc was not a mistake and it does not appear to be a
mistake since no one wanted to correct her. By implication that would
mean that AE had radio equipment on board that was not documented. If AE
carried radio equipment that TIGHAR's accepted research techniques have
not uncovered, what does that mean? Could it be "secret" radio
equipement? The dilemma is that secrets are a foundation for
conspiracies and we all know that TIGHAR's hypothesis does not support
that position. So there will be no effort in that direction.

   I know a researcher who claims to know the designation of the radio,
has a manual for it with supporting documention but I feel it will not
be shared with the Forum.

   I recall a Forum posting where someone had a schematic of the radio's
that showed a modification with a selector switch added to the cicuit. I
forget the details but maybe that person is still on the Forum.

   AE heard nothing on the com. radios but she heard signals on the DF,
with only a loop antenna, that she was requesting signals on 7500 kc. I
hope this whole affair cannot be blamed on her forgetting to throw a
selector switch.

   I wonder if Vern remembers his posting from a year ago.

< Subject: DF trouble in Darwin, 8/15/98 14:57

<<Miss Earhart regretted that the D/F receiver installed in her aircraft
was  not functioning therefore an inspection of this receiver was
carried out and a ground test arranged between the aircraft and the D/F
wireless station. It was discovered that the fuse for the D/F generator
had blown and upon renewal in Miss Earhart's presence the ground test
was completed. Miss Earhart was advised to inspect fuse in event of
further trouble."<<
**********************************************
From Vern
I sure hate to lift the lid on this can of worms! This wording suggests
that there was a dedicated DF receiver. It may be nothing more than the
choice of words, and it is at least 2nd hand information.
**********************************************
From Ric
Yeah I know. Drives ya nuts. >

Daryll
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We never edit anything except to delete offensive or off-topic material and
we don't do that often enough (as should be apparent). 

The Coast Guard's failure to question Earhart's choice of 7500 kcs is not
evidence that there was a secret receiver aboard the Electra any more than
the Coast Guard's failure to heed her requests that they use Greenwich time
and communicate with her exclusively voice indicate anything but negligence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:07:24 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      A Bendix DF?

(edited)

Ric says:
"  . . . without knowing what the frequency range of her DF
receiver was (if she had a separate DF receiver at all), it's
impossible to say whether Earhart's request for signals on 7500
kcs was a mistake or not."

AE stated quite clearly in LAST FLIGHT that she had a Bendix DF
aboard. Isn't she a good source under the circumstances? So why
say "IF she had a separate DF receiver . . ."? (Emphasis mine).

Cam Warren

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

Let's take a look at what actually is said in Last Flight.  In the chapter
entitled "Karachi" she is describing the layout of her instrument panel.

"One group of instruments has to do with the engines and is completely
duplicated for each motor. There is another nest of flight and navigation
instruments, aids in establishing the ship's position in space and its
location geographically.  In the first are numbered turn and bank, rate of
climb, air speed, artificial horizon, and similar indicators.  In the latter
are compasses, directional gyros, the Bendix direction finder, and various
radio equipment.  In the center of the instrument board is the Sperry Gyro
Pilot, the automatic device which can relieve the human pilot.

There are twelve fuel tanks (holding in all 1,150 gallons), six of them in
the wings and six in the fuselage, whence complicated plumbing leads to the
engines.  On long flights there always a tidy bit of bookkeeping to do, for
one should know exactly how much fuel has been used and how much remains.

The receiver for the Western Electric radio is under the co-pilot's seat and
the transmitter is in the cabin. The main dynamo is under my seat.  The
radio's cuplike microphone is hung beside the window at the left. ....." (She
goes on to inventory practically the whole darned airplane.)

The loop antenna over the cockpit and the display on the instrument panel are
clearly Bendix products.  No argument.   The question whether the antenna and
display are coupled to the Western Electric receiver or whether there's a
separate Bendix receiver in the airplane.  When Earhart says that the "Bendix
direction finder" is on the instrument panel she is clearly talking about a
display, not a receiver.  The receiver would be far too large to mount the
whole thing in the instrument panel.  Earhart then goes on to describe the
location of all of the components of the radio system right down to where the
mic is hung, but no mention of any receiver other than the Western Electric
under the co-pilot's seat.

I wish you could show me some real evidence that there was another receiver
aboard the airplane.  It would sure answer some puzzling questions.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:16:06 EDT
From:         William Dohenyguy
Subject:      shoes

To Dave Porter:

     Hi Dave, just wanted to play Devil's advocate for a minute. I have a
picture of five of my Aunts, taken, circa 1945. They are all wearing Blucher
Oxfords. Evidently, a very poplar shoe in the 30,s and 40,s. My point being,
Tighar found, on Niku, the remains of a shoe in 1991. However, in the early
1940's, there was a great war in that area, and many women, presumably
wearing Blucher Oxfords might have been in the area too. Also, Tighar
believes the shoe is a size 8 or 9, I read on the Forum that Amelia's foot
was smaller. Just food for thought.

William LTM

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

You wanna handle this Dave?  (You might ask him who all these women in
Blucher Oxfords were who visited Niku and why they don't show up in the
islands extensively documented history. The last FAQ on the website deals
with the shoe size question.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:18:23 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: working the DF

Jaume Balaguer asks:

"..they used 3105 at night and 6210 KC during the day.  Why did they use 3105
arriving at Howland ?"

I've always assumed that it was because the initial part of their approach to
Howland was before dawn and she didn't think of trying the other frequency
until well after sun up.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:19:19 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Forum track record

Clyde Miller writes:

<< Perhaps a short review of the details and successes that are directly
attributed to the forum's activities (TIGHAR members or not) would be a
breath of fresh air. >>

I have to agree that the forum is the most awesome research tool I've ever
seen.  To compile even a short review of what we've learned here would be a
daunting task.  I have to keep moving forward but if somebody wanted to
review the Forum archives and assemble such a list we'd be happy to post it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:20:40 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group

What was the flight from Hawaii to San Francisco that was lost
with a female pilot and male passenger(s)?  Curious minds wish
to know.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:23:33 EDT
From:         Bethpage
Subject:      Sumner Line

>     As I understand this "LOP" thing, if FN could see the sun rise and
>knew the time of sun rise at Howland, then he would have been on the LOP
>line that passed Howland.  At that point, flying up or down the LOP
>would have found the island.

If FN could see the sun rise and knew the time of sunrise over Howland, and
compared the two, then he could compute how much longitude separated him
from the LOP that passed through Howland.  For example, if he noted the time
of sunrise as being 7 minutes later than that predicted over Howland, then
he'd know he was west of the LOP by about  {[(7/60)15] = 1.75} 1.75 degree,
or 1 degree and 45 minutes, of longitude.  --About 105 miles in that part of
the world.  As the sun rose FN would be right near the LOP once his sextant
observations of sun height matched what would be predicted for Howland.  If
his course was straight for Howland, then he'd expect Howland right about
where he would hit the LOP  In that case, reaching the LOP and not seeing
Howland might call for a methodical search or diversion to an alternate, or
both.  Staying on that LOP first involves a turn onto a compass heading that
would carry the plane in the direction of either 157 degrees True or 337
degrees True.  Straying off the LOP is detected when the trend of sextant
observations of the sun's height show it to be higher, or, lower, than what
should be the case along the LOP--that is, higher, or lower than a
computation of the sun's height if observed right over Howland.  (If the sun
were observed to be consistently 10 minutes of angle higher than what was
predicted, then the plane had drifted 10 miles off the LOP, in the direction
of the sun.  A heading correction would be called for to get back nearer the
LOP).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:25:05 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Working the DF

You are correct about frequencies and time.  AE had used 3105kHz
all night long, and past dawn.  Since it was then daylight, she
apparently switched to 6210kHz just after her last transmission,
or so we all think.  Dawn and dusk are intermediate times for
radio transmissions, so one carries on until one is sure that
the old frequency doesn't work anymore.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:43:42 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Part 1 on the website

The Niku IIIIP Expedition Report, Part 1, is now up on the TIGHAR website
complete with a few photos from the expedition.  You'll find it under
Research Bulletins. There's also a photo there of the Norwich City as she
looked when Bevington visited the island in October 1937.  Enjoy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:39:45 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group

Since I made the statement about the two flyers, I will try to
answer the question.

    I found the article in an old newspaper clipping while looking at
microfilm in Modesto, California.  It was about the AE search and the
hazards of over water flight.  It named several flights that had
disappeared, or were otherwise unsuccessful. Not all were in the
Pacific. In fact I think that was the only one mentioned as being in the
Pacific.

    When I found the article, I read it but didn't copy it because the
main subject was about AE and I already had all that information.  It
was just two or three lines in the paragraph.  I did mention it on the
Forum about a year ago, but it was dismissed as being way too far from
Howland to be of any importance.  I agreed, but at the time I was trying
to make the point that there could have been other flights in the area
that we don't know about.  I used this one as an example, because I have
done aviation research for many, many years and had never heard that
story before nor since.

    All I remember about the story is that a plane disappeared while
trying to fly from Hawaii to California, sometime before Earhart.  On
board was the female pilot and her mechanic.  I believe there was one
other man also on board.  They gave the name of the plane, but I don't
remember it.  It was something like "Miss ??????" something or other.

    I think I gave more details in the original posting to the Forum a
year ago, if someone would like to research it.  The next time I am in
Modesto, I will go to the Library and look again.

Don

> From Randy Jacobson
>
> What was the flight from Hawaii to San Francisco that was lost
> with a female pilot and male passenger(s)?  Curious minds wish
> to know.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:41:50 EDT
From:         Forest Blair
Subject:      Re: Howland and Baker

For Randy,

Thanks for the correction on the Howland-Baker bit.  It re-kindled the
discussion several of us had as we flew over them.  Since we were flying
from Canton to the Marshalls, we first passed Baker and saw the landing
field; then as we passed Howland, we saw no special features to indicate a
landing  place.  Since we were aware of Amelia's flight, but weren't the
greatest on the details, some of us assumed Baker was her destination
because of the landing facility; some of us said we thought she was headed
for Howland.  That's where my confusion must have set in.  Now, thanks to
you and TIGHAR, I'm straight on both of these.  One final question-was any
grading, marking, fix up, etc. done on Howland to prep for AE, or was she to
land on whatever surface she might think looked OK?

Forest #2149
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:45:20 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Shoes

Excuse me for jumping in on this one...

> >William Dohenguy wrote
>>> My point being,
> Tighar found, on Niku, the remains of a shoe in 1991.
> However, in the early
> 1940's, there was a great war in that area, and many women, presumably
> wearing Blucher Oxfords might have been in the area too<snip>

1) There is no documented record of any female of european ancestry being on
Gardner in the 30s and 40s (that is, the roughly 20 year period when the
Blucher Oxfords in questions most likely arrived on the island). No
shipwrecks, no cruise ship visits, no military or medical personnel: Several
males of european ancestry, mostly British and American, visited the island,
but we know of no women. This tends to lead to a logical possibility that
Earhart was the owner of the shoes. Note that this is not proof, just a
heightened probability. There may well have been a small number of
undocumented visits to Gardner by one or more females of european ancestry
during this period. One of those women could have been Earhart, because she
disappeared while piloting an airplane in the general vicinity.

2) When we correlate the shoe fragments with Gallagher's discovery of the
human remains of a man and a woman, dating from the 1930s and probably of
european ancestry, combine this with the island's well-documented history
and then factor in all those anecdotal accounts of plane wreckage
(remembering that there is no documented instance of any plane ever crashing
on Gardner during that period), a body of circumstantial evidence begins to
build, pointing to the possibility (but as yet, not proof) that these things
appeared on the island because Earhart was there in 1937.

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:46:01 EDT
From:         Bill Zorn
Subject:      Radial engine applications

Re. Don Jordan's  discussion of logic and the canton engine.

Three of his four of  points assume that the radial engine is from an
aircraft application.
Radial engines, gasoline and diesel were used to power some models of the  M4
(Sherman tank) and various tracked vehicles in the 1940s. I'm sure there are
other applications for air cooled radials as well.

It is illogical to assume a radial engine has to be from an aircraft.

LTM
Bill Zorn 1562c
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:48:47 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Sunrise LoP revisited

I find this interesting to consider, although, like "circling," it has
little to do with much of anything.  It's my impression that Fred's  sunrise
LoP was what first caused TIGHAR to seriously consider the possibility that
he and Amelia might have ended up on Nikumaroro. This impression is largely
from one of the TV programs -- "You're telling me that nobody has looked in
the most likely place..."

There is little doubt that Fred did make a sunrise observation.  The 157/337
line fits a sunrise LoP on that date.  This observation, made somewhere
considerably to the west of Howland, was the last time he knew with some
accuracy where they were east and west.  Unless he made some celestial
observations during the night, his knowledge of where they were north and
south was strictly dead reckoning and without aid of wind data.

It's only coincidence that a sunrise LoP on that date passes through both
Howland and Nikumaroro.  At another time of year, this would not be the
case.  Anyway, that LoP had nothing to do with their probable decision to
make for the Phoenix Islands, nor with the heading chosen to get them there.
That was simply logic -- and they probably did not fly a 157 degree heading.

Fred had charts of that part of the Pacific.  He could see that the Phoenix
islands were the only bits of land they could hope to reach.  He had little
choice but to assume they were near Howland -- according to his navigation,
that's where they should have been.  That had to be his starting point to
plot a course to the Phoenix Islands.  As someone pointed out recently, he
probably shot for the middle of the island group -- a heading of about 145
degrees.

So, how would they have ended up on Nikumaroro?  If Randy Jacobson has
correctly figured their probable location, taking what little is known about
winds into account...

>Running Monte Carlo
>simulations on AE's navigation suggests that the more likely
>scenario is that she ended up SW of Howland, due to stronger
>headwinds at the beginning of her flight, and slightly more northerly
>winds at the end than forecast.

This might account for their actually just making the western edge of the
Phoenix group -- and sighting Nikumaroro.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:07:36 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Radial engine applications

Point well taken, however can we afford not to know for sure what it isvand
where it came from?  My own belief is that it is from some military application,
but I don't know.  Neither does Bruce!  I do know that there was an engine found
on one of three islands in the Phoenix Gp. Those islands are, Enderbury, Sydney
and Hull.  I am 90% sure, based on research, that is was one of those three
islands.  The fact that it was a radial engine is not in question, I have
documented eyewitness accounts.  Again I say. . . it could me military.  I just
don't know.

Don

> From Bill Zorn
>
> Re. Don Jordan's  discussion of logic and the canton engine.
>
> Three of his four of  points assume that the radial engine is from an
> aircraft application.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:08:04 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Shoes and charts

I have two questions.

1. Did anybody check to see if the shoe fragments would float in Pacific
Ocean water?

2. Is there evidence that Fred Noonan had a complete set of charts for
the areas in question? I am aware of strip charts that were prepared for
the flight. Did Fred know the locations of all their options?

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:08:41 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Sunrise LoP

>From Vern Klein:
>
>There is little doubt that Fred did make a sunrise observation.  The 157/337
>line fits a sunrise LoP on that date.  This observation, made somewhere
>considerably to the west of Howland, was the last time he knew with some
>accuracy where they were east and west.

Celestial navigation is practicable by day as well as night.  If the sun was
not obscured as it rose, sextant observations of its height would indicate
how closely the plane was to a LOP running through Howland.

Up in front, did the Electra have any overhead windows, or just the
windshields and side windows?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:09:55 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group

Don Jordan writes:

<<All I remember about the story is that a plane disappeared while
trying to fly from Hawaii to California, sometime before Earhart.  >>

Sounds like they may have been talking about one of the Dole racers back in
1927 or 1928.  After Lindbergh flew the Atlantic, Dole (as in pinapple) put
up a huge prize for the first flight to Hawaii.  There was a whole bunch of
entrants but, as I recall, only one made it.  There were several fatalities.
The whole thing was a disaster.

Don's premise that there might have been undocumented flights across the
Pacific that went missing anywhere near Howland or the Phoenix Group just
doesn't hold water.  It's about as likely that there were undocumented moon
shots.  Prior to WWII, flying across the Central Pacific was a big deal.  The
only commercial traffic was by Pan Am via Canton.  Their only loss was
Musick's S-42B at Samoa.  Anybody else who was out there (such as
Kingsford-Smith) was headline news.  As for the military, the Brits were
doing "sovereignty cruises" in the Phoenix Group in 1935-38 using cruisers
which usually carried a seaplane, but there is no indication that any were
lost.  In June of 1941 the U.S. Navy sent a flock of PBYs down from Hawaii to
fly around the islands and take pictures.  None were lost.
During the war there were a number of aircraft lost at Canton.  These
included a B-24 that went into the drink just after takeoff and a PV-1
Ventura that bellied in.  There were probably other wrecks on the island.  A
few aircraft went missing enroute from Canton to other places and were
presumed lost at sea.  It is not inconceivable that one or more of these may
have crashed on or near one of the uninhabited islands of the Phoenix Group.
The C-47 crash on Sydney in December 1943 is the only known instance of an
airplane crashing on any of the three inhabited atolls - Gardner, Hull and
Sydney - and our experience with the Sydney crash indicates that any crash,
however difficult to document, lives in the island folklore.  After the war,
the only loss we know of is an FAA Lockheed Constellation that bit it bigtime
on Canton.

Obviously, none of the aircraft that came to grief on Canton are candidates
for Bruce Yoho's engine.  The Sydney crash is out because we have photos of
both engines from the C-47 sitting on Sydney - and, of course, they were
double row engines on dry land, not a single row engine in the water.  That
leaves the remote possibility that one of the  aircraft missing and presumed
lost at sea out of Canton came down on or near an uninhabited island and
escaped notice.  But all of those aircraft were B-24s (double row engines)
except for one Martin PBM (also double row).

There is, of course, one airplane missing in the area which had engines that
fit the description of the one Bruce says he found.  I think that the most
reasonable speculation is that he found one of the engines from that plane.
However, since verifying his memory by finding the engine is a very expensive
proposition, it seems like the next reasonable step should be to attempt to
verify the accuracy of his memory by other means.  If need to document that
his memory is accurate and then, if possible, learn what island the engine
came from.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:10:30 EDT
From:         Cam Warren 
Subject:      The Bendix HF/DF

As I have frequently pointed out, solving a puzzle often requires
MORE than just collecting a fact or two. One tracks the quarry by
following the bent grass - until you come to a river. Then you
try to think like your prey - would it (he or she) go upstream
or downstream? So it comes down to an educated guess (or first
hand knowledge) of what the prey would most likely do. The casual
observer would call it a "hunch". "Unscientific" perhaps, but
Indian trackers were more often right than wrong.

Among the many puzzles surrounding the Earhart disappearance, I
personally have been most concerned with the role played by the
communications equipment (including the DF), since my experience
is primarily in the field of electronics. To fully explain the
long hunt for clues is more than I want to do at the moment, but
here's a summation.

So what DF equipment did AE have (if any)? Why did she toss her
(250') trailing wire antenna? Why did she ask for, and hear, a
signal from the ITASCA on 7500 kc, and nothing else?

Suffice to say, my hypothesis answers these and other questions
in a convincing manner (at least, to my satisfaction). No, I
don't have hard evidence to connect the dots, unfortunately. But
a dot here and a dot there is ample indication I'm on the right
trail. Let's just say it's a "walks like a duck, quacks like
a duck" situation.

Background: Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Navy was VERY
interested in HF/DF in 1937, following the Coast Guard's
success in tracking rum-runners during Prohibition. In '36 the
Navy started fitting out PBY patrol planes with radio direction
finders for military surveillance and ship location (NOT just to
find their way back to base), and because they knew the Japanese
and Germans were doing it. Prime contractor, Radio Research Labs,
of Washington, D.C. In early '37, Vince Bendix, flushed with his
success as an OEM for the auto industry (the Bendix starter
drive), wanted to get a piece of the military budget, and
bought Radio Research, and other companies, and formed Bendix
Radio [All documented].

Note that Bendix was a supporter of aviation (the Bendix Air
Races), and as such was a prime target for big time promoter
George Palmer Putnam. Note too, that the announced reason for
Earhart's "flying laboratory" was to test aircraft DF systems.
(Put two and two together and Putnam rubs his hands!)

There's a lot of fine points to the story, but suffice to say,
it's more than a good guess AE took off with a Bendix DF system,
corroborated by Vernon Moore, Bendix project engineer, AE
herself in LAST FLIGHT, aviation journalist C. B. Allen
(Earhart's close friend and unofficial historian), and others
who don't come to mind at the moment. And of course there's
the photo of Bendix engineer Karl Remmlein, showing the gear
to Amelia on the ramp at Oakland. (He flew out west with her to
test the equipment a day or so before she left for Miami, where,
apparently, some changes in the setup were made).

Hams were getting amazing results with 40 meters in those days,
and the Coast Guard/Navy selected 7500 kc (just above the amateur
band) [This supported by classified documents in my possession].
So a few people, apparently NOT Comdr. Thompson, were in on the
big secret - AE would home in on the ITASCA using 7500 kc. Just
in case, somebody said, we better have a HF/DF (covering 3105)
on Howland. (And IT was from the secret Navy intercept station
on Hawaii). [Documentation on THAT, too.] Unfortunately the
system didn't work, and L. A. Hyland of Bendix Radio, later
(1964 or so, when queried by Goerner) denied that there was any
Bendix gear aboard the Electra (naturally!).

So what was wrong with her WE communications receiver? Mistuned
to 6540 by Harry Balfour at Lae, so he could conduct "duplex"
conversation with AE (i.e., she talked on 6210, he used 6540).
And I'll bet HE felt guilty to the day of his death! Why she
wasn't able to properly retune her receiver to 3105 is anybody's
guess, but I suspect it was a goof aggravated by too many hours
in the cockpit.

So that's a highly condensed account, based on "following the
dots" (in this case, assorted documents of verifiable
authenticity and a hunch or two). Incidentally, I have willingly
shared my conclusions with Randy Jacobson and Mike Everette,
among others, and cited my sources. So, believe it or not -
and I'm well aware that "experts" will disagree - that's the
HF/DF story. And the principal reason AE/FN missed Howland!

Cam Warren

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

Just one quick question.

Documentation that the Navy had specifically selected 7500 kcs for
experiments in HF/DF in 1937 might be reason to explore the possibilty that
it had something to do with Earhart's puzzling selection of that frequency.
You claim to have such documentation.  Will you share it with us?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:11:25 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Navigation

>>From Vern Klein

So, how would they have ended up on Nikumaroro?  If Randy Jacobson has
correctly figured their probable location, taking what little is known about
winds into account...

>Running Monte Carlo
>simulations on AE's navigation suggests that the more likely
>scenario is that she ended up SW of Howland, due to stronger
>headwinds at the beginning of her flight, and slightly more northerly
>winds at the end than forecast.

This might account for their actually just making the western edge of the
Phoenix group -- and sighting Nikumaroro.

Since Fred was such an experienced navigator, and would have had stars to
shoot positions from all night long, don't you think that he would have had
an excellent handle on the winds they were facing?  I am sure that he would
have known within a mile or two what the winds were doing to them throughout
the majority of the flight.  Thus, they should have been able to be almost
right on Howland at the end of the flight.  Except, as has been mentioned,
Howland was not correctly positoned on the known charts at the time, being
about 4 miles (?) off.  Well, 4 miles in the middle of that ocean is a long,
long way given the ceiling and visibility factors.

--
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:12:01 EDT
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      Re: A Bendix DF?

I hope that what I have to say is not offensive as I disagree with you.

Re- Last Flight.  page 50  "My flying laboratory became equipped with
all that is modern ......THERE IS A BENDIX RADIO DIRECTION FINDER WHICH
POINTS THE WAY TO ANY SELECTED BROADCASTING  STATION WITHIN RANGE.
There is the finest two-way voice and code Western Electric comm-
unications equipment in whose  installation the Bell Laboratories, under
the aegis of Dr. Frank K. Jewett , co-operated .

It does appear that there were two receivers on board.  One was the
Western Electric and the other was a Bendix.  Also the loop was a
Bendix.

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

I honestly don't see how this is any different from the Karachi quote where
it does look like she is referring to the Bendix loop and instrument panel
display as the "Bendix Radio Direction Finder"?  The quote you cite is from
Earhart's description of the preparations made for the first world flight
attempt.  Between this quote and her Karachi description of the airplane's
equipment the aircraft gets wrecked in Hawaii, repaired in California, and
dickered with in Florida.

I'm happy to acknowledge that she may have had a separate DF receiver aboard,
but we need something better than the above to establish that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:12:33 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Sunrise LoP revisited

Vern write:

<<That was simply logic -- and they probably did not fly a 157 degree
heading.>>

As you'll recall, when last heard from our heroes said they were on the line
157/337 and that they were running on that line.  Sounds to me like, at least
at that time, they were heading either 337 or 157.  We all agree pretty much
agree that 337 doesn't make any sense other than a a quick look-see.  That
leaves 157.  As long as Fred stays on the LoP he has a virtually guaranteed
landfall.

<<As someone pointed out recently, he probably shot for the middle of the
island group -- a heading of about 145 degrees.>>

145 degrees from where?  He doesn't know where he is on the LoP.  Striking
off from an unknown point for the middle of the Phoenix Group may seem
reasonable if you're looking at that little cluster of islands on a world
map, but the truth is that those islands are widely scattered pinpoints in an
incredibly vast ocean.  The LoP is all he's got.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:13:46 EDT
From:         Fred
Subject:      Landing logic

I'm pretty new in the forum, so what I'm talking about might have been
already delt with. I don't know anything about archeology, but I'm a private
pilot.

Here is the point. You seem to be pretty sure that the wreck photo is AE's
10E. What surprised me is the prop. 9 feet tall is quite heavy, and it is
intact. It is also not full-feathering. In my pilot life, I've experienced
two engine shut downs in flight. The first was a wooden prop, about 4 feet
and 65hp behind. The bloody thing stopped immediatelty, and it took a 3000ft
dive to restart the engine. The other was a 7feet, variable pitch, non
feathering prop. This one never stopped until we touched the ground.
Even with the engine cut, such a prop rotates at about 800-1000rpm. EA's
plane was quite fast, and the prop was probably unlikely to stop in flight.
This shows that the plane on the photo did not landed wheels up, as the prop
would be bent.

Just go back on that day, inside AE's plane. She has been described as a
not-so-good pilot, but she never appeared as completely dumb. She is lost,
Howland is not there and the Itasca is not responding. Fuel is running low,
and, suddenly, they see or find an island. Every pilot knows that in such
situation, it is much safer to be on the ground then up there. So AE decides
to land on that island.

The big question is where to land. In the jungle ? That's a very special
technique : you must hit two trees at the same time to destroy both wings
and hope that the fuselage will continue smoothly on it's own. Few people
survived that. There are three places left : the beach, the reef and the
lagoon.

Ditching in the lagoon is an absolute emergency, and though it is quite safe
to ditch a retractable gear, the airplane an all the stuff inside will be
lost : radio, food, etc...

The beach seem a good idea, but there's a big big problem. Landing a
taildragger wheels down on soft sand is crazy. The airplane will nose over.
I was always told as a pilot to land wheels up on any kind of soft terrain,
such as wet earth, and dry sand. It seems possible to land wheels down on
wet sand, as it's quite hard. However, seen from up there (according to
recent photos), the beach is narrow and curved. Not very good for a safe
landing. A few areas on the inside of the lagoon seem to look quite good,
but the sand os probably very soft.

The third possibility is the reef. That's stone, and probably smooth enough.
She also knows that it is not an excellent idea to land wheels up on rocks,
as the sparks can set the whole thing in fire.

AE has to choose. She wants to land safely, but a pilot also wants to bring
that bird fairly intact on the ground. On the other hand, she needs her
right engine for the radio. People seem to believe that it's possible to run
an engine after a crash landing. But if the prop was revolving, it will not
only be bent, but the engine will probably suffer too.

So, what was AE's choice ? The wreck photo seems to point out that she
landed wheels down. So it can't be the lagoon, nor the beach. I heard she
had already experienced a nose over in her Vega, an she probably does not
want to try this with the heavy Electra.

The only solution left is the reef.

The question is where on the reef ? There are many places that look suitable
from the air. So how did che choose ? The main factor when choosing between
several emergency landings spot is the wind. It is extremly important,
especilally when the place is narrow, like the reef. So where did the wind
came from on that day ? The Itasca probably had a meteo station.
This could excude a few landing spots.

You may wonder how AE could have known the direction of the wind. Ther's a
simple trick she probably knew. Just fly a few circles and visualize the
center. It will move in the direction of the wind.

Greetings to everybody at TIGHAR
fred
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:14:10 EDT
From:         Cam Warreb
Subject:      Hawaii/California crash

Re the reported pre-Earhart crash.

Sounds like an incident on "The Pineapple Derby", which went
from San Francisco to Honolulu in 1927.

School teacher Mildred Doran, flying the MISS DORAN solo, was
one of several fliers lost at sea.  The Navy, who provided plane
watch, spent a good bit of time searching unsuccessfully for any
survivors (none found). Capt. Safford participated, and devoted
a chapter in FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY to the event.

Other references; The Honolulu Advertiser, circa August, 1927,
and the book ABOVE THE PACIFIC (author, publisher unknown).

Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:14:51 EDT
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      Re: A Bendix DF?

Also note page 288 in the Sound Of Wings.

Photographs of the bendix receiver, installed in the electra immediately
before AE and FN left Miami were shown to the author (Lovell ) by Elgin
and Marie Long.

Also, East To The Dawn .  Page 369. "On March 11, AE flew the electra
into Oakland accompanied by Geog McNeely and a representative of the
Bendix Aviation who were checking out both direction finder and the
radio.  Indeed a Bendix official had made a special flight from
Washington at the end of Februaryso that Lockheed could install it on the plane."

Now go to page 371 same book .The navigation instruments included two
magnetic compasses, direc