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 firs