Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:43:45 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Altimeter setting Jim Kelly asks: >How accurate were the altimeters in the plane? As with any pressure altimeter, only as accurate as the last setting which, we must presume, was at Lae. How far off was the Electra's altimeter 18 hours later? That would depend on how different the atmospheric pressure was in the Central Pacific as opposed to Lae. We don't have the pressure for either location so, as a line of inquiry, it seems like a dead end. All we can say is that Earhart's altimeter may or may not have been off at the time Noonan observed the sunrise. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:44:39 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: calculations Dennis McGee asks: >but being 65 NM off course after 20 hours is a >pretty major foul-up isn't it, especially for someone of FN's skill? How big a foul up it is depends entirely upon how much information was available to the navigator for mid-course corrections enroute. Even Fred Noonan wasn't psychic. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:45:16 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth Col. Reineck, I would very, very much appreciate it if you would refrain from referring to the people on the Earhart Forum, myself included, as Ric Gillespie's people. Despite your apparent desire to believe that we are all mere children following Mr. Gillespie's pied piper, each of us really is an individual, with brains of our own. Thank you Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:45:49 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Charts Mike Muenich asks: >Are there any markings on the charts other than those made by Clarence >Williams. I presume someone has examined the chart Hawaii--Howland--Lae or >its reciprocal route? Williams' charts are hand drawn and the copies on file at Purdue have no other marks on them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:47:06 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Niku shoes Chris Kennedy writes: >but my memory is that this was a find in addition to the >shoe we have all been discussing, and that they were found in some sort of a >container and not just lying about. Nope. Gallagher found shoe parts lying about and apparently thought they were all from the same shoe (woman's, etc.). He put them in the sextant box for shipment to Suva. Later, Dr. Steenson looked at the shoe parts and offered his opinion that they were from a woman's and a man's shoe. That's about all we know. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:47:57 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Testing a theory If you are willing to sacrifice a pig to establishing a theory and proving some of you analysis on decomposition and scatter, how about dropping some aircraft parts and pieces on the reef. Scrap engines, landing gear, wing spars and other "heavy" parts could show us how these parts drift and react to storms etc. Plot the points of deposit and when you check on the remains of the pig see if you can locate and plot the heavy stuff. ************************************************** From Ric What makes the decomposition experiment practical is the rapid rate at which organic stuff breaks down on Niku. How big heavy wreckage moves about on the reef depends entirely upon storm activity which varies greatly from year to year. Fortunately, we have an excellent model in the wreck of the Norwich City whose breakup is well documented in photos taken over the past 62 years. We're taking a close look at those photos now. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:48:59 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: LOP I thought Commander Thompson's report indicated that the early morning weather was clear in all directions, with good visibility tp the horizon, except to the Northwest. I believe he also watched the Northwest quadrent through the next several hours and that weather continued to deteriorate, leading him to believe that AE was in the weather front to the Northwest, since he believed his smoke or the island would have been visable from any other quadrant. This was the analysis that lead him to initially search Northwestly. The point being that if AE and FN were anyplace other than Northwest of Howland, they would have seen the sunrise. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:50:40 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: AE and FDR >From Ron Reuther > >Ric, I think there are some pictures of FDR, Eleanor, AE and Putnam together >in the whitehouse. Also some commentary in some books (AE's?) that AE and >Putnam were guests in the whitehouse several times. I also believe it has been >written that AE flew Eleanor at least once. AE was no stranger to the White House. She had been honored there in 1932 by President Hoover after her Atlantic flight. she was a guest at the Roosevelt Whitehouse on at least two occasions, in April 1933 and in March 1935. She never "flew" the First Lady but during the 1933 visit she arranged for Eastern Airlines to give her and Eleanor a ride over Washington at night to see the lights. She certainly met and talked with the President. I just haven't seen anything to indicate that Franklin was doing anything but humoring his wife. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:51:07 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Charts Do any of FN's markings on the used charts reveal any of his navigational procedures, timekeeping, LoP, alternates etc from which we could glean some of his navigational methodology and apply to the Lae--Howland leg? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:51:52 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Possibilities Mr. Dohenyguy said:" "I would also take what remaining fuel I had in the tanks and set fire to the entire island." Good idea, but who gets to write the Environmental Impact Study? LTM Dennis McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:52:37 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Electra structural members Frank Kuhre says: >The assumption of steel is common among people who have not worked with >aluminum. The aluminum pieces can be very thick and heavy. Rust, well >aluminum does get corrosion and can take on the color of any materials >surrounding it. and Ric says, "Hmmmmm." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:53:05 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: LOP and offset Robert Klaus provided a quote from "Hollywood Pilot" in which the author, Don Dwiggins, quotes Paul Mantz quoting a remembered conversation with Fred Noonan in which Noonan describes using offset navigation. Fair enough. Whether or not Noonan used the offset technique on the approach to Howland is one of those imponderables we can debate endlessly and never resolve. So let's recognize it as a possibility for which there is no direct evidence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:53:33 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Tarawa Ron Dawson asks: >Any word on the health situation on Tarawa and what is the status of >the visit to the National Archives there? The health situation in Tarawa is much improved and we have tenative plans for a research trip there in January. We'll be banging the funding drum soon. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:54:14 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Possibilities Don Jordan writes: >For the life of me I don't see why it is so offending to think there might >be two islands involved. Maybe you have to have spent way too much time in and over the vast reaches of the Pacific to grasp how infinitesimally small would be the chances that Earhart and Noonan could end up on one island and the airplane on another. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:57:17 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: LOP, drift sights, etc. Alan Caldwell wrote: > The shadow of > all those pretty puffy little clouds look just like islands > even at 1,000 feet. I have long believed it to be likely that AE and FN successfully arrived in the vicinity of tiny Howland island and were unable to distinguish it from all the dappled cloud shadows and whatever mist there was in the area. Looking forward to Ric's next installment of his report... LTM (who probably came to appreciate the duality of beauty) william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:59:41 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Gallagher Has anybody noticed that Amelia, on her trans-Atlantic flight in 1932, landed in Ireland on the farm owned by William Gallagher? Cam Warren **************************** Yes, we noticed. Synchronicity... the psychic folks love stuff like that. Anyway, we have looked into it in a desultory fashion. Not the easiest thing to trace, but there is a faint possibility that there is actually a connection, somewhat tenuous. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:00:58 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Bendix HF/DF The trailing wire antenna was used for 500kHz transmission. I don't think it was used for reception, but I could be wrong. I don't think anyone has implied that it was part of the D/F unit. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:03:10 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: Canton movies To Tom Robinson The question of whether the engine was propped up out side the maintenance hangar or inside it, as our other source stated, and who is correct is what I will try to answer. For lack of a photograph for proof all I can say is I never ever put it into the line maintenance hangar. At the time I was not aware of its importance. It was just a piece of junk I had found to play with. It was badly decomposed it was full of sand. Being a Flight Mechanic flying on these Aircraft I was not going to put my life in danger by putting this contamination in with 1/2 million dollar jet engines my life may depend on let alone the attitude of my fellow mechanics. We had some very expensive stuff in that hangar. Someone suggested I may have put it inside to keep the rain off of it from a rain storm. 1. We did not get much rain when I was there. In fact the largest rain storm I witnessed on Canton was when we returned in 98. 2. If rain had threatened I would have loved it to be in the rain as I had no water to wash the engine. Water was a premium on the island and rain is fresh water. We actually had more jet fuel stored at that time on the island than we had fresh water. To summarize; The engine was outside propped up by itself next to the corner of the maintenance hangar. Where the other source stated the engine was does not matter. What matters is he saw it and he saw it on Canton Island. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:04:06 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: Some concerns about the Forum I would like to thank the leadership for their interest in the attitude of this forum and where it has gone. Tom King's response exemplifies his Education, Leadership and knowledge of the forum and subject. There is a way we can speak and respond without cranking someone's nose just by how we state it. Ric's knowledge of AE is staggering he comes up with answers that even already posted here would take some of us years to find. His ability to connect possible sources of information and come up with a result is unbelievable. So if I may quote a sentence from Califonia's history. "Can't we all just get along" Thanks Tom, Ric and Pat LTM and EB (Who wants to keep moving forward) Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:37:11 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Lack of more aircraft wreckage One of the photos included in the recent expedition report on the website got me thinking. (uh-oh, trouble) The Norwich City wreck has now been reduced to several unrecognizable hunks of rusty metal. It was fairly large and heavy in comparison to a Lockheed Electra. If that can happen to a large heavy ship over 70 years time, it seems quite possible that a relatively small, light airplane could be similarly reduced, or even more completely obliterated, in a much shorter time span. Say, for instance, the 54 years between the 1937 landing and the 1991 (first?) TIGHAR Niku expedition. The only part about that that troubles me, aside from the thought that I'd like very much for us to find large, easily identifiable chunks of NR16020 debris, is the 1988 New Zealand aerial photo(s) which reportedly appear to show large metal objects in the bush. Was that the "cruciform shaped object" the recent expedition looked for? Are the aerial photos/radar returns, etc. something that would be suitable for posting on the website? Ric, do you think that the "cruciform shaped object" is still there just beyond where you guys recently chopped the Legendary Scaevola (TIGHAR's fund raising magician) back to, or are you satisfied that you searched the area where it was, and it isn't there anymore? Sorry for all the questions--I suppose they'll all be answered in the report that explains why we no longer think the wreck photo is NR16020, a report eagerly awaited by us all. Re: the Wreck Photo--If it's turned out to be a red herring/dead end for us, it still shows a Lockheed 10 somewhere right? Are there areas in the vicinity of Hong Kong, where Adamant was docked at the time one of her crew allegedly took the photo, that would A. be accessible to crew on shore leave, B. have the kind of vegetation shown in the photo, and C. be home to a wrecked Lockheed 10. (are any known to have gone missing in that vicinity?) Certainly Niku is our first priority, but if the wreck photo is indeed not NR16020, it would certainly be interesting to know what it was/is. I certainly agree with Tom King (and, incidentally, Rodney King) in that we should all try to get along. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:38:08 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Possibilities In response to William Dohenyguy's thought of turning the entire island into a firey beacon: The whole island wouldn't burn, and you just might want to think twice before burning up what you may well have to live on. LTM (who advises discretion about destroying your living quarters) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:42:06 EDT From: Natko Katicic Subject: Re: some concerns about the Forum Uh Oh! And I kept wondering if Rick and Pat are some kind of saints for enduring the load of the Forum and all the uneducated questions for so long. But then I had to remind myself that they are Americans and that in America the word *freedom* has a much stronger meaning than elsewhere in the world. Granted, most Forum subscribers are Americans and thus used to this kind of freedom, but Ric spoiled them no end at the beginnings of the Forum. He wanted to respect peoples freedom I presume. But where I come from (Europe), it is quite normal that 'students' keep still and listen while the 'professors' speak. It is a matter of course to gather all available information (or ask where to find it) before joining in. If you want to write a thesis, the professor tells you to read a dozen books on the subject first and then come back. And if you disagree with his views than go and find a professor that agrees with you. That's the way science and leading edge research works. One cannot start from the beginning on every session. As stated often enough on this Forum, this is *NOT* a chatting room about AE trivia. It is a research tool where interested grown-ups can (after they have brought themseves up to speed on the web site and under strict adherence to 'web discipline' as in 'radio discipline') participate in scientific research. Great, huh? Quite a novelty! The Web is an awsome medium that enables us to participate in things we could only watch on TV until now. But don't go and spoil it by disregarding the simplest of rules you wouldn't dream of breaking in a 'real' as opposed to 'virtual' situation. A tool is only as good as the person using it is skilled. Be aware that you are 'only' a guest in a private discussion. LTM (who wanted to speak up about this for a long time now) ****************************** Perhaps we can strike a happy medium somewhere in here.... one does not wish to stifle free expression of useful, well-reasoned, properly researched criticism---this is not, and is not intended to be, a "Let's all agree with TIGHAR" Forum. It is intended to be a research forum, and good research necessarily involves backtracking, reiterating, reconsidering, and sometimes changing one's thesis to match the data----it being incorrect to change the data to match the thesis. OTOH, I will be a lot more up front about telling people to do their homework. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:43:29 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: AE and FDR Ron Reuther writes: >Ric, Re FDR and AE see "The Sound of Wings" by Mary Lovell, 1989, pgs. >198-199 and "East to the Dawn" by Susan Butler, 1997, pgs. 282-283. >Both of these authors confirm a personal relationship with FD, Eleanor, >AE, and George Putnam. Lovell's opinion, in the passage you suggest, is that "it would be incorrect to say that they were close friends with the Roosevelts, they undoubtedly enjoyed a relationship that was mutually rewarding." In the notes to the passage from Butler's book, a telegram dated April 5, 1933 is cited in which AE asks for a 3 minute "interview" with the President "tomorrow, Thursday, or Friday." The interview was granted but not until April 12, the following Wednesday. All of AE's dealings with FDR seem to be in an offical context whereas her contacts with Eleanor are frequently casual and social. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:45:18 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: shoes and more shoes Dave Bush asks: >As to matching the leather shoes -- what techniques were used to preserve >leather at that time? Is the process then and now essentially identical, or >have we improved the technique to make the leather more durable? We have not pursued this with the manufacturer, but I know from other pursuits that leather tanning processes have not changed appreciably since the 1930s. >As to the missing bones -- if they were disarticulated as Ric says, could >they not have been washed out to sea? It's quite clear from Gallagher's description of the discovery site that it is near the lagoon shore and, thus, not exposed to ocean wave activity. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:46:27 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: LOP demystified Alan Caldwell writes: >No navigator would have tried to stay right on >course. That would be a huge blunder. He wouldn't know how far, necessarily, >he was off course but you can bet he knew which side. Remember that Noonan was counting on RDF to provide the close-in navigation, just as was done on the Pan Am flights. No offset was used on those flights. This is another imponderable and not worth a lot of debate, but the fact remains that there is no evidence to suggest that Noonan used offset navigation on July 2nd. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:47:09 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Bendix HF/DF Warren Lambing asks: > Would the trailing antenna be the antenna for the Bendix radio? Would > that have been the reason for pulling the Bendex radio? The trailing wire had nothing to do with the only Bendix radio known to have ever been in the aircraft. Looks like we need a FAQ on the trailing wire if we don't already have one. I'll check. We should probably also have a FAQ on the Bendix Radio Compass that was installed in October or Novemvber 1936 and removed prior to the first world flight attempt. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:48:26 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Possibilities William Dohenguy writes: >I would also take what remaining fuel I had in the tanks and set fire to >the entire island. The glow, at night, would be seen for a hundred miles. >And dear Franklin would not have spent four million dollars of the Tax >payers money looking for my bones. Just when would you do this? On the night of July 2nd? If you're on any island other than Howland (and you ain't on Howland) there is nobody within a hundred miles to see your conflagration. July 3rd? Nope, nobody around. July 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th? No luck. If you're psychic and you pick the night of the 8th and you're on Gardner, the Colorado pilots who fly over the next day will certainly see the smoke and investigate. They might even make a note in their report "Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but after repeated circling and zooming we were unable to elicit an answering wave from possible inhabitants." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:49:16 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Lost Pan Am Clipper A short confirmation that evidence of the lost Clipper was found. While Ric was travelling, the lost Clipper came up, along with the possibility of Japanese complicity and stolen wealth. I said I would check the Oakland Trib for the story. I did. Haven't had time to summarize for the Forum. However, an oil slick was found near the last reported position. Some compelling human interest stories are part of the tragedy. No conspiracies or Japanese involvement mentioned in contemporaneous accounts. Once again, it sounds like a myth purpetuated by lazy minds unwilling to do any serious investigation into subjects on which they claim expertise. Blue skies, (from mother who says wear hip boots when wading with experts) -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:50:02 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth Tom King wrote: > Col. Reineck, I would very, very much appreciate it if you would > refrain from referring to the people on the Earhart Forum, myself > included, as Ric Gillespie's people.... I would like to amplify Tom's comments. Not only am I NOT one of Ric Gillespie's people, but I am very much an individual. Furthermore, I don't think that Ric would even want a following of "people". Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:50:45 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: finding islands While Dave Bush's post makes a lot of sense & I happen to agree with most of what he says, I'm still concerned that even if in fact AE/FN were only missing Howland..."by a few miles"..., would not the same scenario create a similar problem when they reached the Phoenix Island Chain? Unless FN was able to plot an accurate, pinpoint course directly to one of the islands in the Chain, would they not encounter simiar difficulty in locating any of these islands (some even as small & insignificant as Howland) which were fairly widely scattered throughout the Chain? While they had the advantage of several hours of fuel remaining when they reached the..."vicinity of Howland"..., it would seem to me those engines had to be on the verge of sucking fumes by the time they hit the Phoenix Island Chain, leaving virtually no reserve of fuel for any extended search of the area. Simply stated, I guess my main question in all this has been...if they had no truly reliable (landfall) point of reference (having been unable to sight Howland) to confirm the overnight accuracy of all FN's calculations how could FN then plot a more accurate course to the Phoenix Islands than he did to Howland? Sorry to be taking up so much Forum time on this topic, but I really believe it is very important to establish the fact that FN was at least able to accurately plot the course that landed the flight on Gardner Island, given all the unknown & perhaps unknowable (sixty-two years later) factors that have been discussed on the Forum. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:53:29 EDT From: George Myers Subject: A note about submerged reefs I would like to take the opportunity to thank someone connected to this forum for probably paying part of my salary while employed at Grossman and Associates, Inc., a few years ago, and relate what I remember the question was at that time considered there, I believe. The considered question at the time was whether an atoll's somewhat submerged reef, or resubmerged since, was a possible landing place or a considered landing place when inspected from a lower altitude, and whether visualization may have convinced AE she was landing on solid ground, when she might not have. At least that is what I think was the question, since I was really not part of the research working in then in Joel W. Grossman's "Computer Room" with Victor Ortiz, a Mexican urban archaeologist. Thanks Again. George J. Myers, Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:54:08 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Testing a theory Mike Meunich wrote: > ... how about dropping some aircraft parts and pieces on the reef. > Scrap engines, landing gear, wing spars and other "heavy" parts could > show us how these parts drift and react to storms etc. The results of this would also vary greatly depending on where exactly the pieces were dropped on the reef as well as the exact weather experiences. Since we don't know if the plane landed on the beach, landing on the flat, or ditched and floated ashore, etc., much less on which side of the island (though we all have educated guesses) and since we would have to reproduce very specific storm events at certain tide levels AND since we don't know the size, weight, and shape of the exact pieces (whether the wing is attached to the fuselage or whether it is a piece of the wingtip, etc.), the results of this sort of experiment would be beyond useless -- almost to the point of random. Of course, then we have the other aspect of this -- that 100 years from now, some intrepid group searching for the lost Amelia Earhart will come across a strange collection of aircraft debris on Nikumaroro and hold a press conference announcing that the mystery is solved.... "We know of no other plane crash on the island... on the other hand, the rivet holes don't line up with the plans we have for the Electra...." Ok, just joking. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:01:14 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: More Morgenthau Perhaps it would be immodest of me to point out that it was I who recently discovered the reference to the Thompson/Morgenthau meeting in (where else?) the ITASCA deck log and so advised Col. Reineck. Diligent - and factual - research wins again! Incidentally, I largely agree with your analysis of the Morgenthau business. (Note "largely", i.e., "not entirely") Cam Warren ***************************************** From Ric Could you perhaps share with us exactly what the log says? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:01:58 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Charts Mike Muenich wrote: > Do any of FN's markings on the used charts reveal any of his > navigational procedures, timekeeping, LoP, alternates etc from > which we could glean some of his navigational methodology and > apply to the Lae--Howland leg? Mike -- I would think that a better source for FN's navigational techniques would come from Miami and the Pan Am experience. He taught a course there to other Pan Am navigators, along with Mr. Gatty. I think that before you start a wide search on general navigational techniques, it would be worthwhile to find out what is known in the group first. Thomas. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:02:50 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: LOP and offset Ric wrote: > Robert Klaus provided a quote from "Hollywood Pilot" in which the > author, Don Dwiggins, quotes Paul Mantz quoting a remembered > conversation with Fred Noonan in which Noonan describes using offset > navigation. Fair enough. Ric, We also had provided you with a reference from another book, Clipper Ship, that indicated that he had used offset navigation on the initial Clipper flight across the Pacific for finding the island of Wake, I think it was. Furthermore, in our discussions with one of the Pan Am captains, he stated that FN was well-known for this technique and that the common knowledge was that he was in fact the one who first applied it in the aviation field. Thus, the person noted, he ALWAYS used off-set technique. Please keep in mind that this is hearsay and recollection from almost 70 years earlier. In any case, whether or not he used it that morning is really beside the point. If he did, it just means that potentially he would have been even more likely to find Gardner Island. If he didn't, well, he still had to make a choice as to which way to fly down the LoP and the obvoius choice is to fly southeast. So, either way.... Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:03:51 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Ric's followers Tom Van Hare wrote: "Furthermore, I don't think that Ric would even want a following of "people". Yeah, he would, but only if they ate haggis, tossed cabers, and played their stolen bagpipes. What says our laddie, now? LTM, who is still ticked off over this bagpipe thing Dennis McGee #0149 ************************* You'd also have to paint your faces blue----not the same thing as being blue in the face, btw. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:06:59 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: AE and FDR Lovell (page 198) says Putnam and FDR were boyhood acquaintances, (page 199) Putnams were personal guests of the President at his inauguration and attended a private reception party afterward. Butler says (page 283) "Franklin too, enjoyed Amelia's company, appreciated her good looks, her sense of humor, her flying ability, and her intelligence, and didn't hold her project of teaching Eleanor how to fly against her. He thought highly enough of Amelia's input to to grant her that most-highly prized commodity in Washington, time with him whenever she requested it. He held her in such high esteem that she had but to ask Louis Howe, Franklin's liaison in the early years, for an appointment for the request to be immediately granted. For example..." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:08:24 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: charts Absolutely! These markings and notes by FJN are extremely instructive in helping to figure out his procedures, and communications with AE. Wait until the 8th edition comes out and you will see a lot of details of map notes.! I promise. >From Mike Muenich > >Do any of FN's markings on the used charts reveal any of his navigational >procedures, timekeeping, LoP, alternates etc from which we could glean >some of his navigational methodology and apply to the Lae--Howland leg? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:11:25 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: lack of more aircraft wreckage Dave Porter asks: >the 1988 New Zealand aerial photo(s) which reportedly appear to show large >metal objects in the bush. Was that the "cruciform shaped object" the recent >expedition looked for? No, that's a different site. I'm sure that there is nothing in the spot where "cruciform shaped object" appears in the old photos. I'm less certain that we thoroughly covered the spot where metal objects are indicated in the 1988 photo. It's really tricky to pin down just where along the beach that spot is and we didn't have time to cover the entire beachfront. >Are the aerial photos/radar returns, etc. something that would be suitable >for posting on the website? We don't have any radar returns but we'll be posting some very interesting photos on the website when the report is finished. >Ric, do you think that the "cruciform shaped object" is still >there just beyond where you guys recently chopped the Legendary Scaevola >(TIGHAR's fund raising magician) back to, or are you satisfied that you >searched the area where it was, and it isn't there anymore? I think that it was always just vegetation and only gave the appearance of being something else. >Are there areas in the vicinity of Hong Kong, where Adamant was docked at >the time one of her crew allegedly took the photo, that would A. be >accessible to crew on shore leave, B. have the kind of vegetation shown >in the photo, and C. be home to a wrecked Lockheed 10. I have no idea. >(are any known to have gone missing in that vicinity?) No. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:12:01 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth Tom Van Hare writes: >Furthermore, I don't think that Ric would even want a following of >"people". I much prefer TIGHARs. If I was looking for obsequious agreement I'd buy a dog and save myself a lot of keystrokes. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:13:12 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: finding islands Don Neumann writes: >I really believe it is very important to establish the fact that FN was >at least able to accurately plot the course that landed the flight on >Gardner Island The beauty of running down the line to the southeast is that your course to at least one of the Phoenix Group - Gardner - is already plotted for you. You don't know for sure when you'll arrive but as long as you're on the line you're bound to hit either Howland, Baker or Gardner. Seeing any small island in the middle of an ocean is tough, but Gardner is much larger than the other possibilites on the line and is also the only one with a large turquoise-colored lagoon (much different from the surrounding dark blue ocean) surrounded by high, green trees. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:14:45 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Gallagher Cam Warren wrote > Has anybody noticed that Amelia, on her trans-Atlantic flight in > 1932, landed in Ireland on the farm owned by William Gallagher? Gallagher is a rather frequently occurring Irish name. Also, many genealogists believe that going back as recently as the era of Charlemagne, most western europeans are related to each other, meaning that Gallagher, Earhart, Noonan, Eleanor Roosevelt (who was a cousin of her husband FDR, by the way) and most people of western european ancestry who are reading this post certainly have ancestors in common, and one might only have to go back 30 generations to find them (usually not possible to do with documentation). The bottom line is that life is deeply interweaved, cyclic and complex, and is filled with fascinating coincidences that are frequently little more than that: Coincidences. Which helps illustrate why, as in so many historical mysteries, the evidence of a Gardner landing by AE is at once so tantalizing but at the same time perilous to the truth. We have no proof that Amelia was ever on Gardner, but there are worthwhile indications that the proof may be there. In my experience, Ric is pretty good at separating meaningful, scholarly leads from all the noise in the background. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:19:39 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Bendix HF/DF yet again Attention Warren Lambing - Earhart let it be known the "Flying Laboratory" was to be used as a test bed for direction finders. More than one system was installed prior to her final flight, including one designed by Fred Hooven, whose company was acquired by Bendix Radio early in 1937. The Hooven set, a LF unit WAS removed for sure, and replaced by a Radio Research (also acquired by Bendix) unit, which included the superhet RA-1 receiver, and utilized the large loop visible in all the late photos of the Electra. There is some indication that installation, done in Burbank, was upgraded in Miami, at which time the loop, according to one Pan Am source, was apparently replaced. The 250' trailing wire antenna (probably the SECOND TW installed on the Electra, replacing the original 40' installation, when the WE radio was converted for 500 kc) was removed, presumably at Earhart's request. Her "public" reason was that it would be a considerable weight saving (true). Privately, she probably had been told her HF/DF would be all she needed. Note that wire antennas are "generic", i.e., not usually specific to any particular receiver and/or transmitter, whereas loops ARE specific to DF gear. (Ordinarily requiring a "coupler" since a loop is a "balanced" input device, a straight wire is not). The WE receiver could have been fitted with a WE loop; it was so designed. But that would have eliminated the opportunity for Putnam to "sell" Vince Bendix on a chance to demonstrate his RDF system. So the latest (possibly a prototype) Bendix gear was installed. Conversely, the RA-1 was a perfectly good (nay, excellent) general purpose receiver, and could have been used as such. As for "this subject goes nowhere", I don't agree. The DF (and AE's radio reception problem) were the principal reason for the loss of the Electra. And yes, the presence of the Bendix receiver certainly DOES explain "some of the radio messages". Those dealing with 7500 kc. Most researchers haven't figured this out yet, hence their puzzlement. Cam Warren *************************************** From Ric If I may: >The Hooven set, a LF unit WAS removed for sure, Agreed. Hooven's Radio Compass used a globe-shaped antenna enclosed in a translucent dome which was mounted on the top of the fuselage. Numerous photos document that this feature goes away in late February/early March 1937 and is replaced by the Bendix open loop over the cockpit. Fred Hooven had this to say about the removal of that system in a manuscript entitled "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" which he wrote in June 1982: "Before Miss Earhart took off on her Round-the-World flight she removed from her plane a modern radio compass that had been installed and replaced it with an older, lighter-weight model of much less capability. I am the engineer who had invented and developed the radio compass that was removed and I discussed its features with Miss Earhart before the installation was made. I have reasn to beleive that it was the failure of her radio direction finder to do what the more modern model could have done that caused her to be lost. I met Miss Earhart for lunch at Wright field in the summer of 1936. .... Too much time has elapsed for me to remember when it was that I learned that my device was not on the Earhart plane when it was lost, or even whether it was before or after the takeoff that I learned." Later in the manuscript Hooven says: "Miss Earhart had announced prior to her flight that she would transit on a regular schedule, but would use her receiver only for direction finding. Loop antennas, however, do not function for direction finding much above 1500 kc so her loop was not designed to operate above 1500 kc.... A much improved type of direction finder had recently been developed and Miss Earhart had had one installed on her plane, but had removed it to save its extra weight of about 30 lb., the weight of five gallons of fuel. It incorporated a super-heterodyne receiver of the highest sensitivity.... The improved sensitivity made it possible to use a much smaller loop than the older device, and in Fig 2 may be seen the smaller, streamlined housing of the newer loop as it appeared when installed on the Earhart plane. Miss Earhart did not realize that this streamlined loop reduced air resistance to an extent that would have saved several times the five gallons of fuel that she had added by removing the radio compass and replacing it with the older device." A detailed description of Hooven's career prepared by the Thayer School of Engineeering ar Dartmouth College where he was a Professor of Engineering at the time of his death in 1985 shows him as Vice President and Chief Engineer for the Radio Products Division of Bendix Aviation Corp. from 1935 to 1938. ("Who's Who in America" shows him holding that position from 1935 to 1937.) The Dartmouth account of his career says that between 1934 and 1935, as a self-employed individual, he designed, built, and patented an experimental direction finder which he sold to the U.S. Army. Bendix bought him out and made him V.P. and Chief Engineeer of their Radio Products Division as a "base for experimental development and production of the Hooven Radio Direction Finder, licensed to Bendix. Built 5 prototype devices one of which was used for first automatic blind landings ever made (Wright Field 1936) one of which was installed on aircraft used by Merrill and Richman in transatlantic flight 1936, one of which was installed on Amelia Earhart's airplane and then removed owing to bad advice from competitor. One of these prototypes was installed on the first DC-3 to go into commerical passenger service (American Airlines. April 1936)" I have a photo of the Merrill/Richman Vultee "Lady Peace" equipped with the same "Hooven dome" that appears on NR16020. The photo was taken September 2, 1936. A 1995 letter to me from a close friend of Hooven's, - Robert C. Dean, Chairman of Synergy Research Corporation in Hanover, N.H. - presents a somewhat different picture. He says: "During the Depression, not being able to find a job in mechanical engineering, he took a job in electrical engineeering with a French company, American Loth Corporation. This company had an office in Dayton, OH and manufactured aircraft radios and direction finders. For them, Fred invented an asymmetrical radio direction finder which had different gain on each side of the loop. In other words, the signal from a station would be received stronger on one side than the other side (after the natenna was rotated 180 degrees). so the operator could tell immediately whether his/her direction finder was pointing at the station or away from it. After Fred's direction finder was installed on Earhart's plane, the Bendix salesperson convinced her (or perhaps her engineer) that the French antenna was unreliable. consequently, the Earhart party decided to remove the Hooven-Loth antenna and reinstall a standard Bendix symmetrical antenna. Fred always wondered whether this decision may not have sealed her fate. I have this information from Fred Hooven. However, it may contain errors." Another clue that may be part of the puzzle is a photo of the Electra sporting the "Hooven dome" that appeared in the January 1937 issue of National Aeronautic (the magazine of the National Aeronautic Association). AE is posing in front of the airplane with a guy in an overcoat. The caption reads: "Herbert Sharlock, vice president in charge of public relations of the Bendix Aviation Corporation, is shown with Amelia Earhart as she makes a stop at South Bend to visit with Vincent Bendix..." This had to have been taken in the fall of 1936 around the same time the Hooven radio compass was installed at Wright Field in Dayton. So what can we deduce from the above, sometimes conflicting, reports? There is certainly no support for Cam Warren's claim that the Hooven radio compass was: >replaced by a Radio Research (also acquired by Bendix) unit, >which included the superhet RA-1 receiver, and utilized the >large loop visible in all the late photos of the Electra. Perhaps Mr. Warren could describe the documentation that supports his allegation. It does seem a bit odd that all this stuff about a high frequency DF could be going on at Bendix and Hooven be totally unaware of it. An article in the March 1937 issue of Aero Digest magazine reviews a new "Bendix direction finder for use with conventional receivers." The black box and loop pictured in the article looks just like the ones in the photos taken when Earhart installed the open loop in early March 1937. It's not clear to me whether Bendix had yet acquired Hooven's invention at the time it was installed and then removed from NR16020, but it might not matter. My suspicion is that some Bendix salesman convinced AE that the new loop and adapter would allow her to eliminate the weight of a separate DF receiver (saving 30 lbs sounds about right) and so she chucked Hooven's fancy rig. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:20:10 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Sun lines If you want to see the sun line in action, check out this website. (And wave to the cameras!) http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth/action?opt=-p And while you're looking, take a moment to appreciate how far Amelia and Fred got successfully. LTM & HTH Amanda Dunham ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:21:27 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Two islands >From Ric > >Don Jordan writes: > >>For the life of me I don't see why it is so offending to think there might >>be two islands involved. > >Maybe you have to have spent way too much time in and over the vast reaches >of the Pacific to grasp how infinitesimally small would be the chances that >Earhart and Noonan could end up on one island and the airplane on another. Ric, how can you say that after the baggage fiasco on the latest trip. It is so simple - the pilot and navigator were simply mislaid and ended up on the wrong island from the flight. WHY DIDN'T WE THINK OF THAT POSSIBILITY BEFORE? It happens every single day on the airlines. People head for Rome and their baggage roams to New Zealand. That has to be it, no doubt about it! -- Blue Skies, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:22:45 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: HF/DF >>From Randy Jacobson > >The trailing wire antenna ws used for 500kHz transmission. I >don't think it was used for reception, but I could be wrong. >I don't think anyone has implied that it was part of the D/F >unit. That wasn't a trailing wire antenna. The pilot was female, it was a clothesline. (NO,NO Pat, please don't hit me?) -- Blue Skies, Dave Bush ******************* WHACKWHACKWHACK!!! Take THAT, you miscreant! :-P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:28:26 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Lack of more aircraft wreckage >Was that the "cruciform shaped object" the recent expedition looked for? >Are the aerial photos/radar returns, etc. something that would be suitable >for posting on the website? Cruciform Shaped - Devil's Triangle. We are looking on the wrong side of the planet. Let's get together in Bermuda this fall and search! Should be plenty of loose shoes lying around there, among other items of clothing! Cheaper flights, too, plus plenty of drinking water and margaritas. -- Blue Skies, Dave Bush ************************************* Gettin' a little punchy, there, Dave? P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:30:13 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Possibilities >From Tom King, in response to William Dohenyguy's thought of turning the >entire island into a firey beacon: > >The whole island wouldn't burn, and you just might want to think twice before >burning up what you may well have to live on. > >LTM (who advises discretion about destroying your living quarters) While FN was into stars, they weren't rock stars, so he definitely would not have trashed the motel. And AE surely would not have driven the 10E into the swimming pool without floats. -- Blue Skies, Dave Bush ****************************** I have to agree with the sentiment, if not with the way it's couched. It strikes me as quite unlikely that Earhart would have done *anything* that might endanger the aircraft if she could possibly avoid it, as it was mortgaged to the hilt. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:34:07 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: The Morgenthau Myth >From Tom Van Hare > >Tom King wrote: >> Col. Reineck, I would very, very much appreciate it if you would >> refrain from referring to the people on the Earhart Forum, myself >> included, as Ric Gillespie's people.... > >I would like to amplify Tom's comments. Not only am I NOT one of Ric >Gillespie's people, but I am very much an individual. Furthermore, I >don't think that Ric would even want a following of "people". > >Thomas Van Hare I'll add my views on that, too. It is okay if I do that, isn't it, Ric? I mean, I wouldn't want to step on your toes or anything. We aren't sheep (is it ok to say that, Ric). We are individuals, each and every one (did I say that the way you wanted me to, Ric). I mean, we are a collection of non-conformists, whenever Ric lets us be. We are NOT mindless followers of the big eye, are we Ric. I, for one, am not a sycophant of Ric, unless that's what he wants me to be. And nobody can accuse me of being a comedian. After all, this is the Tighar Forum, not the Ric Forum. ****************************************** Gee, Dave, you're a lot of help. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:34:41 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: shoes and more shoes Kar Burns has a lot of data on shoe decomposition, I think; it might be worth bouncing this question to her. My strong impression from things she's said is that the rate of decomposition varies wildly depending on moisture, exposure to sun, etc. etc. -- to say nothing of chewing by critters. LTM TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:41:30 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Some concerns about the Forum Ric wrote, >It's not our purpose here to try to convert everyone to our view of what >probably happened to Amelia Earhart. The website offers a pretty good >overview of what we think and why we think it. This forum is for those >who want to help us pursue that line of reasoning to see whether or not it >is true. I wanted to just sit back for a while as watch the posts to see which way the wind was blowing, so to speak. But, the above statement just struck me wrong. Though I agree with the tone and theme of the post in general, I have trouble with this statement. This statement says to me, if you don't agree with the TIGHAR theory, you don't belong on this Forum. I also agree that the answers to all our questions are on the Web site, but sometimes you just don't know where to look or don't have the time to research it. Ric is able to answer those questions in great detail. It seems no matter what you ask, Ric has the answer at his finger tips. I have a life outside the Earhart mystery and don't have time to read the entire web site looking for some small detail. It's much easier to just ask Ric! Don J. ************************************ Guess I'll field this one.... First, in a very real sense, it *is* true that if you don't have a serious interest in pursuing our line of research, the Forum probably is not for you. We are open to constructive criticism, and to constructive research that does not necessarily go in directions we would go, but we are not really interested in running a bull session about Amelia, or a general-interest Amelia Earhart discussion group, or a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" program for the various theories. Research or lines of investigation which can be *documented* and shown to be useful are always welcome, but pure opinion---no. It wastes our time, it wastes bandwidth, and it clutters the Forum for those who have great demands on their time but still have an interest. >Ric is able to answer those questions in great >detail. It seems no matter what you ask, Ric has the answer at his >finger tips. I have a life outside the Earhart mystery and don't have >time to read the entire web site looking for some small detail. It's >much easier to just ask Ric! Yes, thereby taking up *his* time with questions that have been answered a dozen or more times before, keeping him from pursuing real research, writing up the results of previous research, writing a TIGHAR Tracks, and in general staying up to the mark with all of the work that TIGHAR generates that is *not* necessarily Amelia..... Sorry. There is going to be a lot more referral to the FAQs and the Highlights and TIGHAR Tracks from now on. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:45:32 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Morgenthau Mike Meunich writes: >I presume from Mr. Gillespie's response that he may have seen these >documents. Has he or anyone seen the letter from Mantz to Mrs. Roosevelt and >her memo to Morgenthau--they may provide more details as to the requester and >possible identify the report or other informantion. Mantz's letter is reproduced on page 274 of Carol Osborne's book "Amelia My Courageous Sister." Mantz says that he is trying to determine "whether or not a search would be practical, even at this late date." and wants a copy of the "official report of the ITASCA" which he says he saw in San Francisco "but made no notes." Eleanor's memo to Morgenthau of May 10, 1938 is reproduced in Reineck's article "FATE KNOWN!" in the April 1998 issue of Air Classics. She says that Jackie Cochran and her husband had just been to the White House where Cochran was awarded the Harmon Trophy. "She told me they all felt that not enough search had been made amongst certain islands where Amelia Earhart might be. I told her to send me a memo on the islands and the reasons why they felt this and I would transmit it to you and the Navy Department at once. Now comes this letter which is evidently inspired by Miss Cochran. I do not know whether you can send the man these records, but, in any case, I am sending you the letter and let me know whatever your decision may be." I really don't want to spend a lot of time trying to guess what Morgenthau meant by every phrase he used in the phone call but Osborne's book lists the people who were present at the meeting as (in addition to Morgenthau): Mr. Magill Mr. Bell Mr. Gaston Mr. Gibbons Mr. Haas Mr. White Mr. McReynolds Mr. Upham Mr. Lochhead Miss Chauncey Miss Lonigan Mr. Foley It's probably a pretty safe bet that, in 1938, Chauncey and Lonigan are secretaries. If it turns out that the ITASCA's deck log does indicate that Morgenthau met with Thompson in Hawaii on July 29, 1937 we'll need to do some digging to determine why the Treasury Secretary was in Hawaii at that time. If he was there on other business or on vacation it doesn't seem remarkable that he would want to talk with Thompson. After all, the Earhart disappearance and the failed search were a major concern for the Coast Guard and, as its boss, for Morgenthau. A special trip to Hawaii, however, would be hard to explain. If Morgenthau felt that strongly that he needed to speak to the captain of the ITASCA, why not have him come to Washington? First step - let's see what the ITASCA log actually says. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:46:38 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Kanton engine Walt Holm asked, >Did Bruce really identify the engine as an R-1340, >or did he say that it was about that size? (For instance, in his original >interviews by Ric or followups by Don, did he specifically rule out a >R-985, which is nearly identical in size to a R-975?) I don remember now what Bruce said, and I don't think it would do any good now to put too much faith in what he would say today. The waters are too muddy. However, the next time we talk, I will as anyway. As I recall, he was asked that question some time ago on the forum and he said something like, " When you have been working on engines as long as I have, you get a feel for a particular one. and I feel it was a1340". I believe that sentence is accurate. Bruce will let me know tonight, won't you Bruce? (ICQ). Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:50:59 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Setting the chronometer at Lae >At one time (1700's), thought was given to taking time from the >position of Jupiter's moons, but the tables to do so were way too big and >cumbersome to take on ocean voyages. The 1937 American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac devoted 26 pages--14 of which are tables--to "Satellites of Jupiter." For July 1, for example, it gave 10 predictions (to the second) of the times of specific moons' ingress, disappearance, reappearance, and egress. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:08:52 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: HF/DF Ric wrote: > We should probably also have a FAQ on the Bendix Radio Compass > that was installed in October or Novemvber 1936 and removed prior to the > first world flight attempt. How sure are we that it was not re-installed? A manufacturer of any gizmo is loath to allow a competitor's piece of equipment to replace a portion of his, even if it works better, especially in a high profile application such as AE. i.e.are we to believe that the Bendix loop antenna and Bendix display were connected to a non-Bendix receiver? LTM, HAG 2201. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:09:38 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Sun lines What a COOL site. For those interested, you can also punch in the Niku coordinates of 04 degrees 40 min South and 174 degrees 32 minutes West and Niku will pop up on your screen (well, kind of) and then zoom in or out etc. - - - yeah, now we get an appreciation for the immensity of the ocean they were trying to navigate over. LTM, who's a sucker for hi tech visuals Dennis McGee #0149 > From Amanda Dunham > > If you want to see the sun line in action, check out this website. > (And wave to the cameras!) > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth/action?opt=-p > > And while you're looking, take a moment to appreciate how far Amelia > and Fred got successfully. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:10:14 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: More Morgenthau Morgenthal and his family were scheduled to visit Hawaii in late July of 1937, and there was indeed an opportunity for him to discuss the AE search with Thompson. My Itasca deck logs do not go that far in that month. Good catch, Cam! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:11:38 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Ric's followers Dennis McGee writes: >Yeah, he would, but only if they ate haggis, tossed cabers, and >played their stolen bagpipes. What says our laddie, now? And Pat writes: >You'd also have to paint your faces blue-.... There's an old story about a cattle raiding party making its way over the mountains of Scotland in the dead of winter. When night fell, as the men wrapped themselves in their plaids and laid down in the snow to sleep, one of the Highlanders noticed that the leader laid his head on a big snowball. "Here! This will never do! I willna follow a man who canna sleep withoot a pilow!" Alba gobragh, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:14:11 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth So, Does this mean I have to quit the cult? *************************** I dunno, I'm not really up on this cult stuff, but I *think* you can stay so long as you send money . P >From Ric > >Tom Van Hare writes: > >>Furthermore, I don't think that Ric would even want a following of >>"people". > >I much prefer TIGHARs. If I was looking for obsequious agreement I'd buy a >dog and save myself a lot of keystrokes. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:16:28 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: AE and FDR Having read just about every book on Earhart, spent time at NASM, the National Archives, Library of Congress, Nimitz Museum, et al, I'm pretty well convinced the Roosevelt/Earhart bond was a strong one indeed. So FDR was humoring his wife, but he also was apparently willing to move heaven and earth for AE. A fact well exploited by genial George Putnam, a hustler if there ever was one. I haven't got the time to dig up all the references for you, but one item sticks in my mind. When AE was to make her flight from Honolulu to Oakland, the US Navy (read "FDR") was going to make the dirgible Akron (or Macon, I forget which) available as plane guard! I think THAT indicates SOMEBODY had their teeth in FDR's leg! And don't tell me just ANY flier would get that kind of service! And don't forget AE was going to hit the campaign trail for FDR, until some wiser head talked her out of it. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric I'm convinced that you're convinced but that's not enough to convince me. I see plenty of evidence that Eleanor and AE got along well and that the First Lady was willing to use her influence to help promote AE's career. But as for FDR being willing to "move heaven and earth" for AE, I don't see the evidence. I don't remember reading anything about a dirigible being offered as "plane guard" but I haven't read as many Earhart books as you have. I have seen a November 16, 1936 Navy Department memo that refers to the President "hopng the Navy would do what they could to cooperate with Miss Amelia Earhart in her proposed flight..". I've also seen a November 29, 1936 USN feasibility study of Earhart's plan to fly nonstop from Hawaii to Tokyo with aerial refueling over Midway from a Navy PBY (they didn't think much of it). The construction of a runway at Howland and Earhart's use of the island for a civilian flight benefitted the Department of the Interior as much as it did Earhart. I've seen no evidence that either FDR or Eleanor had a direct hand in deciding how much help the Navy would extend when the flight went missing. My point is that the traditional, but apparently undocumented, view that FDR would "move heaven and earth" for Amelia naturally leads to other unfounded suppositions and gets in the way of figuring out what really happened. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:19:42 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Concerns about the Forum Getting the Forum is the equivalent of taking your brain out for a bout of stiff exercise and dead right it's addictive. May I join the legions calling for a ban on exhibitionist messages where people claim to have stunning theories/evidence which they can't divulge just yet? Regards Phil ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:21:24 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: AE and FDR Ric, Refer to my later note citing at least 2 books where the authors refer to FDR and AE as more than a humorous relationship. Ron ************************************* From Ric I don't recall anyone suggesting that the relationship was humorous. I'm just looking for solid evidence that the relationship between FDR and AE amounted to more than FDR humoring his wife. ************************************* From Ron Reuther (additional posting) Lovell (page 198) says Putnam and FDR were boyhood acquaintances, (page 199) Putnams were personal guests of the President at his inauguration and attended a private reception party afterward. Butler says (page 283) "Franklin too, enjoyed Amelia's company, appreciated her good looks, her sense of humor, her flying ability, and her intelligence, and didn't hold her project of teaching Eleanor how to fly against her. He thought highly enough of Amelia's input to to grant her that most-highly prized commodity in Washington, time with him whenever she requested it. He held her in such high esteem that she had but to ask Louis Howe, Franklin's liaison in the early years, for an appointment for the request to be immediately granted. For example..." **************************************** From Ric Lovell (on page 80) explains that Franklin Roosevelt was a guest at "large house parties of literati and other celebrities at Rye" in the early 1920s. The passage you quote from Butler's book immediately precedes the example I quoted in my posting where AE requested and received a three minute interview. She wanted to see Roosevelt "today, or Wednesday or Thursday." He gave her the interview the following Tuesday. I didn't include Butler's description of her perception of the relationship because that's all it is - Butler's perception. Butler has lots of opinions about Amelia. She's entitled to them. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:24:15 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth Re your E mail 31 Aug 99 "I'm curious to know what evidence that such a trip and meeting occurred' Are you saying that I would delibertly mislead you and members of the Forum? Of course I have the documented evidence that they met. It's in the ship's (Itasca) log. What I find strange is that you have no documented evidence that i'm aware of. So far, all that I've heard about is a piece of aluminum that is consistent with alumnum of the 30s. You, yourself , said it did not come from the Earhart Electra, yet you keep toutng it as evidence. Then there is the partial sole equating to size 9 that was found suspiciously close to one of the Bushnell towers. (Earhart, as an adult wore size 6 --6 1/2 shoe) The radial engine is another piece of your evidence that so far nobody has seen or knows for sure what kind of engine it is, or where it was found. But it came from the Earhart airplane. Now for the bones. The two P.hD.s Dr. Burns and Dr. Jantz said after studying all the fact that "It is impossible to know whether the bones were those of a white female. It is even less possible (less than Impossible) to be sure that they were those of Amelia Earhart". Yet, you describe this as "The most dramatic archival and scientific evidence in 61 years as to what happened to AE". There were two Army lieutenants on Howland . They were Lt. Daniel Cooper, Air Corps, and Signal Corps Lt Henry Lau. Col. Richards is merely restating ( 1 Nov 1938) what is already known to the Assistant Chief of Staff for Inteligence,War Department (3 or 4 star rank) that the information received onthe radio said they were turning north. This brings up a good question. What documentation do you have that they turned south. If there is any, I'd like to see it. While I am on that subject let me add , I graduated from the Army aerial navigation school at Kelly Field, Texas less then 5 years after Earhart disappeared. My instuctors were Pan Am trained. I, in turn instructed celestial navigation. The off-set technique an essential ,inherent and basic part of the single line of position landfall procedure.. It is as baic as putting the gear down before landing an airplane or taking off into the wind.. No qualified navigator in his right mind would fly a sunline mission without the off-set... I would like to know what evidence you have that says noonan did not use the off-set. ******************************************* From Ric I apologize to the Forum for posting this message from Mr. Reineck. I did so only because, if I had not, he would have probably claimed that we suppress criticism. I have posted his message in its entirety, not because I intend to respond to his questions (which I do not), but to allow the forum subscribers to judge for themselves how well Mr. Reineck has been able to grasp what we've been talking about on this forum for the past year and a half. As for whether or not Henry Lau was a U.S. Army Signal Corps Lieutenant, Commander Thompson's cruise report dated July 24, 1937 lists him as one of nine Hawaiian employees of the Department of the Interior. Army Air Corps Lt. Dan Cooper, in his report dated July 27, 1937, does not list Lau among the Army personnel present. I think Mr. Reineck has made his opinions and his expertise quite clear and, unless the Forum specifically asks otherwise, we won't bother you with his offerings again. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:25:05 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP and offset You're right. The offset question is not that important. As Ric pointed out FN was expecting a steer at destination so an offest would not be needed. AND if he didn't get the steer he would still have time to turn 20 or 30 degrees off course to the North and know he was left of track at his ETA. I didn't offset either and for the same reason. I knew we would pick destination up on radar or a from a radio beacon but still have time to offset if necessary. Again I agree there is little significance. I think we can agree they got pretty close and knew roughly where Howland was but just couldn't find it. Noonan would have picked his best guess for a position and struck off on a course he believed would get them to enough islands that they had the best chance of spotting one. I think all this chat about course, sextants and how to get from Howland's vicinity to another island tilting at windmills. One, we'll never know and two, it makes little difference. This is like my law cases. The biggest job is eliminating the chaff so as to concentrate on the real issues that have a chance of moving the ball forward. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:27:38 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Charts Question for Tom Van Hare: Did Noonan and Gatty teach navigation together? It would be interesting to know, since Gatty apparently examined the Nikumaroro sextant box. TKing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:29:11 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Some concerns about the Forum Pat says: >Sorry. There is going to be a lot more referral to the FAQs and the >Highlights and TIGHAR Tracks from now on. I think that's an excellent idea, and can I also suggest a nice, neutral way to refer people, that doesn't seem to say "You dummy, why didn't you look at FAQ #16B?" Maybe a standard format that says something like: "Your question is addressed in FAQ #16B, and due to the volume of traffic on the forum we'd appreciate it if you'd look at that FAQ first, then re-contact us if you have further questions or comments." LTM (who's getting more protective of thin-skinned correspondents in her old age) TK *************************** This is pretty much what I had in mind. Since links won't post to the Forum, I will just give the URL for the FAQ index, and people can look for themselves for the title that best fits their question---although I'll give the title, too. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:55:26 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: LOP By advancing FN's LOP on the map to intersect Howland, you are right, an extention of the lower leg of the LOP would be in line with an area in very close proximity to Gardner. However, if you continue to advance that same LOP forward, through Howland, to some point to the east of Howland, or if you extend that lower leg of the LOP at some point west of where the LOP should intersect with Howland, it seems to me the possibility exists that you could miss Gardner (or any of the other islands of the Phoenix Chain) completely. So my point is simply that without knowing exactly where the LOP had advanced, (not encountering Howland at the time he believed the LOP should have intersected with Howland) is it not true that FN could not be certain that by heading southeast on his LOP he would be able to predict an accurate landfall with any individual island of the Phoenix Group, rather the best he could expect would be that by following the LOP to the southeast he would probably be flying into the midst of that group of islands & then have to search for a particular island upon which to effect a landing? Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:55:51 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: HF/DF << How sure are we that it (the Hooven/Bendix receiver) was not re-installed?>> Pretty darn sure. It required the dome antenna that did not reappear on the airplane. <> Well, according to the March 1937 article in Aero Digest, that's what that particular new Bendix rig was specifically designed for. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:56:32 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Morgenthau's visit Randy Jacobson writes: >Morgenthau and his family were scheduled to visit Hawaii in late >July of 1937, and there was indeed an opportunity for him to >discuss the AE search with Thompson. My Itasca deck logs do >not go that far in that month. Good catch, Cam! Yes indeed. Let's give credit where credit is due. Good catch, Cam. This is probably the "verbal report" Morgenthau mentions in the infamous transcript. But if Henry and his family were there on a scheduled vacation (as opposed to the Secretary making a special trip) I see nothing suspicious in his visits with Thompson. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:57:36 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Morgenthau/Itasca Well, I'm surprised you don't have have a copy of the ITASCA log. There are three significant entries on Sunday, July 29, 1937. "0840 Commanding Officer [Thompson] left vessel to meet Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau on arrival of the Lurline." "1630 Commanding Officer left to confer with Secretary of the Treasury." "1805 Commanding Officer aboard. 1827 Made preparation[s] for getting underway . . . . 1830 Unmoored from Pier 12 . . . ." Incidentally, at 2000 they were on course 184 deg., obviously leaving Pearl Harbor and heading south. Cam Warren ********************************************* From Ric That's a legitimate gotcha. We only copied the Itasca deck log up until the end of its direct involvement in the search. We should have carried it through the ship's arrival back in port. Maybe we should both check the log for even later dates and find out where she went after she left Pearl? Still, if Randy Jacobson's information that Morgenthau and his family were in Hawaii on a scheduled vacation (source Randy?) is correct, the whole thing is sort of a non-issue. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:59:41 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: 1937 search I need a referral to the FAQs please. I want to know where in them I can find out if the Phoenix Group and the surrounding waters were searched again after the Colorado left. It appears to me, so far that the Colorado search was just of the islands themselve. It did not search the water around them and in fact even steamed south all night on more than one occason. How could they see the possibly floating Earhart plane in the search area if they were steaming at night. For that matter they could have rammed the plane and sunk it themselves! If it were in water, of cource! I would like to read more about the search. Don J. *********************** The 1937 search is covered pretty thoroughly in the various TIGHAR Tracks articles on line. What may not be on line is maps of the search, as most of the articles are text only. In short, when the Colorado left the Phoenix Islands, that was the last searching that was done there until 1989. The Lexington searched north of Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:00:23 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Postings Col. "Rollickin' Rollie" Reineck states that TIGHAR claims that the Canton engine is from AE's plane. Sorry, Rollie, but I've been following the forum for at least six months and no one -- not even the unlamented Sactodave -- has made such a rash statement. LTM, who snickers at egregious errors Dennis McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:05:10 EDT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: concerns about the Forum I could not agree more with Mr. Tanner. Several weeks ago Mr. Reineck claimed to have evidence that would discredit TIGHARS' shoe evidence. I can not take this guy seriously if he doesn't produce the evidence. As they say, ---- or get off the pot! Richard Johnson > >From Phil Tanner > > Getting the Forum is the equivalent of taking your brain out > for a bout of stiff exercise and dead right it's addictive. May I join the > legions calling for a ban on exhibitionist messages where people claim to > have stunning theories/evidence which they can't divulge just yet? Regards ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:11:15 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: Morgenthau Mr. Gillespie: I picked up from your response that the was a meeting between Morgenthau and Thompson on Itasca 27 July, 1937. That piece of information is not in the Mantz letter or the Roosevelt memo, nor did I find it in your response of August 30. If so that would certainly account for the "verbal report". What leads you to believe that Morgenthau met Thompson on Itasca on 27 July? **************************************** From Ric Cam Warren has quoted entries from the ITASCA log dated 29 July 1937 which indicate that such a meeting took place. I haven't seen the entries because we didn't copy the ITASCA deck log for dates after the ship ended its participation in the Earhart search. Randy Jacobson says he has information to indicate that Morgenthau was in Hawaii at that time with his family on a scheduled vaction. Assuming that everybody's sources are good, this does look like it might be the "verbal report" alluded to in the transcript. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:09:43 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth I am typing this even though my mouth is wide open ! >From Ric >I apologize to the Forum for posting this message from Mr. >Reineck........ ???? I'm looking in the message for profanity and abusive language. Is there something wrong with the e-mail that I received? I don't see any ! >I did so only because, if I had not, he would have probably claimed >that we suppress criticism.... It would seem that is just what you are doing by no longer posting Mr. Reineck's messages. >I have posted his message in its entirety, not because I intend to >respond to his questions (which I do not),... Webster's Dictionary - FORUM ; 3. an assembly for the discussion of questions of public interest. >but to allow the forum subscribers to judge for themselves how well >Mr. Reineck has been able to grasp what we've been talking about on this >forum for the past year and a half...... I've made a judgement, the questions, were honest and not abusive. >I think Mr. Reineck has made his opinions and his expertise quite >clear and, unless the Forum specifically asks otherwise, we won't bother >you with his offerings again. Love to mother, >Ric If your asking for a FORUM VOTE, Then I vote FOR, Mr. Reineck's postings. When I went into the Army part of my oath was to up-hold the Constitution of the United States of America. Freedom of Speech is one of the first things that are lost in the down fall of a democracy that has that in it's constitution . Will you unplug every voice that asks questions you don't WANT to answer ? Daryll ************************** OK. Once more, for those who are having trouble with the concept. The Earhart Forum is not a government-sponsored public debate on the various theories pertaining to Amelia Earhart's disappearance. The Earhart Forum is a research tool *OWNED* by TIGHAR. Free speech rules do not apply. Members of the Forum are given ample opportunity to pursue research and contribute to TIGHAR's research. This is not the same as being given opportunity to say whatever they like so long as they leave the four letter words out. Let's put it this way. The Earhart Forum is as much a business tool for TIGHAR as a high-level management meeting is for MegaCorp. If the agenda for the meeting is to discuss the marketing strategy for Product A proposed last week, you'd better not come into the meeting and start discussing the decision to pull Product X from the market. You will, at the least, be labelled Not Serious, and at worst a dingbat. And you could lose your job if you do it often enough. Fair warning: no more! We are too busy to fiddle with formatting these posts into acceptable shape so that other busy people get them in readable form, only to have the content do absolutely nothing to move the research forward. I don't mind the occasional joke, even the occasional totally off-topic post, if it's interesting and informative.... but No more conspiracies No more spies No more Japanese involvement No more endless discourses into irrelevant minutiae Please don't waste bandwidth sending it. It won't be posted. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:12:35 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: HF/DF yet again Good move, sharing with the troops the information about Fred Hooven, an amazing talent. I did an article about him a couple of years ago for the AES Newsletter, so I am quite familiar with his accomplishments and thinking. As you probably know, at one time he was quite enthusiastic about the possibility of Earhart reaching Nikumaroro (nee' Gardner Island) but abandoned that theory after further diligent research. Why his gear was removed from the Electra even Hooven was unsure, but it's reasonable to assume she was offered something ostensibly better. ("bad advice by a competitor?") Suffice to say Hooven later parted company with Bendix with the comment that he didn't approve of his (Bendix's) business practices. As for your remark "there is certainly no support for Cam Warren's claim" that Hooven's DF "was replaced by a Radio Research" unit. Mr. Warren has a respectable reputation as a journalist, as testified to by the appearance of his work in such publications as Newsweek International, and many other magazines, published here and abroad. Presumably, when he makes a statement in writing, it carries a high degree of authenticity, and is not a careless off-hand remark. I have been intensely researching the Earhart DF question in particular for over two years now, and have ample reason to believe my conclusions to date (as stated here and elsewhere) are valid. You, who are always championing the "scientific method", should be the first to admit that because an observation apparently contradicts "conventional wisdom" does not automatically eliminate it. To the contrary, it should deserve further attention. Much as I respect Hooven, I'm quite sure he wasn't aware of what was going on between Vince Bendix and George Putnam, nor did anyone else - Navy, Coast Guard, the press, et al - save for perhaps a precious few other individuals. Hence, no broad paper trail. I think you've probably come to realize there WAS a second receiver aboard the Electra, most likely the Bendix RA-1, and it was a component of the DF system. If you accept that, and think about all the apparent AE/FN "puzzles" surrounding the DF equipment, you'll begin to see a believable pattern. And that is, the clandestine substitution of a known, reliable system (LF/DF) by a prototype HF/DF one, to "demonstrate" its (hoped for) superior performance to the ultimate benefit of Bendix. (That it proved a dismal failure is good enough reason for the suppression of the information). The choice is yours - I have pointed out an "unconventional" hypothesis. Pursue it or ignore it as you see fit. Cam Warren ******************************************** From Ric Allow me to correct an apparent misconception. This is not a game and when I discuss a point of evidence it is not a "move." It is a sincere attempt to share information and explore possibilities. Allow me to correct you on another point. I have NOT come to realize that there was a second receiver aboard the Electra. I don't know whether or not there was a second recever and at times I've leaned one way and at times I've leaned the other. I am perfectly willing to be shown that there was a second receiver but, especially after your posting prompted me to look into the whole Hooven/Bendix business more deeply, it looks to me like the available evidence is coming down hard on the side of one receiver, the Western Electric 20B, connected to a Bendix loop and cockpit display. As evidence I offer: * The absence of the mention of a second receiver in any contemporaneous accounts. * The absence of any evidence of a second receiver in photos of the airplane. * Earhart's statement that she would transmit on a set schedule but would use her receiver only for direction finding. (The statement makes no sense if she has a second receiver.) * The ignorance of any such receiver, even many years later, by the then-Chief Engineer of Bendix Aviation Radio Products division , even though he had a keen interest in the Earhart disappearance. To counter this, you say that you have discerned believable patterns in the puzzles surrounding the DF equipment which indicate, to you, the clandestine substitution of a known, reliable system (LF/DF) by a prototype HF/DF one, to "demonstrate" its (hoped for) superior performance to the ultimate benefit of Bendix. The absence of a paper trail merely reinforces your conclusion which you expect others to regard as highly authentic because you are a journalist with a respectable reputation. Unless someone can come up with real evidence that there was a second receiver, we'll have no further posts on this subject. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:13:40 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Advancing the LOP >By advancing FN's LOP on the map to intersect Howland.......an >extension of the lower leg of the LOP would be in line with an area in >very close proximity to Gardner. As long as the sun was visible, it wouldn't be necessary to advance a past LOP. The same sun that determined the plane's LOP at sunrise would be useful later, if visible, to get on and maintain the LOP through Howland and beyond. >However, if you continue to >advance that same LOP forward.......to some point to the >east ......or ......some >point west of where the LOP should intersect with Howland, ......you could >miss Gardner (or any of the >other islands of the Phoenix Chain) completely. Right--if the sun isn't visible, dead reckoning to and along an advanced LOP might have to be resorted to. But if the sun is up, you can sight it and get an idea of how far you are off the sun LOP that runs across Howland. "Following the LOP" requires having some guidance, in this case either by radio bearing, sun sights, or visual sighting of landmarks associated with the LOP; otherwise it is an extended dead reckoning flight from some past ascertained position. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:15:39 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: AE and FDR Cam Warren wrote: >I haven't got the time to dig up all the references for you, but >one item sticks in my mind. When AE was to make her flight from >Honolulu to Oakland, the US Navy (read "FDR") was going to make >the dirgible Akron (or Macon, I forget which) available as plane >guard! I think THAT indicates SOMEBODY had their teeth in FDR's >leg! And don't tell me just ANY flier would get that kind of >service! In the future Mr. Warren should try to make the time. It took me all of five minutes to confirm that USS Akron was lost at sea on April 4, 1933 and that USS Macon went down off the coast of California on February 12, 1935 - almost a year and a half before Earhart took delivery of the Electra. I think THAT indicates SOMEBODY should double-check his sources before posting to this Forum. LTM (who thinks maybe FDR was just trying to be "humorous.") Russ ****************************************** Pat thinks that Russ is right. This thread will also die a swift death unless someone can come up with something that is actually useful on the topic. P ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:19:47 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: 1937 Search Some unsigned author wrote >In short, when the Colorado left the Phoenix Islands, that was the last >searching that was done there until 1989. The Lexington searched north >of Howland". Holly Molley, It is no wonder they didn't find AE. They never went back to the original search area again. All they searched was the water in between the islands and the islands themselves. That don't seem like a good command decision. Steaming all night through the most probable area. And then when they dry docked the Colorado, nobody could figure out what the orange paint streak was down the side. (anecdotal of course). I can't believe it! Don J. *************************** Don, I'm not sure what your point is. That SAR techniques were not fully developed? That SAR techniques were ignored? Or is this merely intended as a joke? When Colorado left the search area, the captain of the Colorado was under the impression that the Lexington would pick up where Colorado left off. Didn't happen. The concept that the Electra was somehow bobbing about in the water has been dealt with, on this Forum and elsewhere. We won't deal with it again. P ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:22:07 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Morgenthau/Itasca Documentation for Morgenthal's visit is in the TIGHAR Research Volume 1, with telegrams on or about July 14th stating that he is scheduled to visit. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:27:43 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: LOP Don Neumann writes: >if you extend that lower leg of the LOP at some point west of where the >LOP should intersect with Howland, it seems to me the possibility exists that >you could miss Gardner (or any of the other islands of the Phoenix Chain) >completely. I guess I'm not doing a very good of explaining this. Yes, if Noonan has erred in advancing the LOP then it is not a good navigational line for finding either Howland or Gardner. Fred can, however, be reasonably sure that he HAS advanced the line accurately. It's a simple dead reckoning exercise that depends upon information which should be readily available to him (distance to the line and speed over the ground). My point is, when Howland fails to appear on schedule Noonan must decide what is most likely to be wrong. There is little chance that somebody has towed the island away and he should be quite certain of his dead reckoning from the observed LOP at sunrise so he shoulod be pretty sure that he's on an LOP that passes through Howland. What he has no way of knowing without a DF bearing is whether he is north or south of where he should be. The sensible thing to do is assume that the thing that is wrong is the thing that is most likley to be wrong. Of course, as you point out, if something else is wrong and he's too far west or east, he ain't gonna find diddley. I hope I haven't made matters worse. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:29:04 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth (referring to Rollin Reineck) I, for one would like to read anything the man has to say. I have a delete key also if I get offended and I don't get offended so easily. ****************************************************** From Ric I'll send you, and anyone else who requests it, Mr. Reineck's email address by private email. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:29:47 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Sun lines And you can punch in the date: July 2, 1999 and something like 1700 hours GMT to see where the day/night line was on that date and at that time. I don't know whether it will accept 1937 or not, but the year doesn't matter. It's the same every year -- very nearly. Certainly as nearly so as you can see on that map. Watch it when you zoom in or out, it will switch back to the "now" date each time you do that. Punch in the date and time again and reload. >From Dennis McGee > >What a COOL site. For those interested, you can also punch in the >Niku coordinates of 04 degrees 40 min South and 174 degrees 32 minutes West >and Niku will pop up on your screen (well, kind of) and then zoom in or out >etc. - - - yeah, now we get an appreciation for the immensity of the ocean >they were trying to navigate over. > >LTM, who's a sucker for hi tech visuals >Dennis McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:19:15 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Sun lines I forgot to mention... I think there are some bugs in this program. If you try to zoom in on the sunrise line, I think it gets confused and swaps the light and dark sides. As mentioned earlier, watch the date and time when you zoom... I think it will try to go back to the "now" date/time and you have to set them back to what you want, then "reload" the zoomed image. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:20:52 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth > From Pat: > No more conspiracies > No more spies > No more Japanese involvement > No more endless discourses into irrelevant minutiae > > Please don't waste bandwidth sending it. It won't be posted. In general, I have to agree with this. I spent two hours and forty five minutes in a meeting last Wednesday, which could have been handled in an hour, if the moderator had kept the discussion on topic. Note that the flights into side topics WERE related to the main thrust of the meeting, but were not actually productive in moving the actual topic forward. With one exception. One person had a side theory, with good evidence to back himself up, that perhaps we were approaching the issue from the wrong direction. THIS person we needed to listen to, we did, and it turned out that his evidence was flawed. But it was the first time we'd heard it, and it needed to be addressed and dismissed. But if he'd been right it would have scratched the entire project. I see a like situation here. If one of the first three above subjects were to come up WITH NEW SUBSTANTIAL* EVIDENCE, then I think we'd have to examine it here. If its just the "I think yada-yada" or just a re-hash of something that we've already cleared away, then it needs to be passed by. As to the fourth item, it's difficult to tell when minutiae will end up being important, so I'm not able to be as adamant about that. Perhaps if we ask ourselves before we go down that trail "what difference will this make?" we can figure when to cut these off. - Bill #2229 LTM (who I can envision saying "Now, children. This isn't helping us.") ----- * By "SUBSTANTIAL" I don't mean "large" I mean substantiated, as in, first hand eye-witnesses, contemporary documentation, relevant artifacts and so on. The same criteria being applied to evidence now. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:26:54 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Enough is enough Back in the winter of 1997/98 the National Georgraphic Society website, in league with an article about Earhart that appeared in National Geographic magazine, had an unmoderated Amelia Earhart forum. Although an interesting idea, it was quickly taken over by conspiracy theorists and soon became an embarrassing carnival of idiocy. Eventually Nat'l Geo took it down. As has become painfully obvious on this forum recently, there is a small but vocal group of researchers whose conviction that TIGHAR is wrong to investigate the Nikumaroro hypothesis is only surpassed by their ignorance of sound investigative methodology. In an attempt to keep the dialogue as open as possible, we have posted their postulations and patiently pointed out their errors. We've even edited out their insults and irrelevancies and posted what was left of their messages in an attempt to salvage anything that might be useful. Our efforts seem to have only made matters worse. There is plenty of room on this forum for dissent and debate. Indeed, peer review is the essence of scientific inquiry. There is also lots of room for dumb questions. That's why we have FAQs. There is, however, no longer any room for stupidity and those few who have diligently demonstrated their dedication to that trait will have to find another outlet. They will howl. They will cry foul. They wiil claim victory. But they won't do it here. Let's get back to work. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:13:12 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Carnival of idiocy Maybe a renewal of the thrashings over whether GMT = GCT is in order. *********************************************************** From Ric Or maybe we could spend a few more weeks on "circling" issue. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:16:22 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Enough is enough Briefly, there is no reason to post what you feel is inappropriate. First amendment rules do not legally apply in a private venue. Rather, the First Amendment gives this forum the specific and legally enforceable right to edit and publish as it pleases. Personally, I prefer to read only posts that are based on scholarly and generally competent methodology. In that context, a snide remark or satire now and then about conspiracies is amusing, partly because it can highlight the weaknesses of uninformed and sloppy thinking. But I have no time for, and little patience with, some of the screed we have endured here. My humble opinion is that the forum would benefit from a tighter focus along these lines. LTM william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:19:18 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: the Morgenthau Myth Pat says: No more conspiracies No more spies No more Japanese involvement Let me suggest one small amendment to that rule: None of those things UNLESS you can put forward credible evidence (i.e. not just opinion, not just unsubstantiated third-party statements, etc.) to support your proposition. This is not to say that TIGHAR's going to spend its time investigating the matter, but since a SUBSTANTIATED conspiracy/spy/Japanese capture hypothesis would have a direct bearing on TIGHAR's efforts, it seems to me that the introduction of such an hypothesis ought not to be against the rules. Saying, in effect, that you're only going to accept posts about the Nikumaroro hypothesis runs the very real risk of looking like TIGHAR isn't willing to consider alternatives, and hence is just as closed-minded as every other proponent of pet theory about what happened to AE. The Morgenthau matter is a good example of something that SHOULD be brought forward for examination. If there were some sort of high level coverup of what "really happened" to Earhart, this would certainly at the very least point us toward some new research subjects. Cam Warren has come up with something that could be interpreted as suggesting such a coverup. It's worth investigating, which is precisely what's being done, despite the fact that it's neither supportive or nor arguably even directly pertinent to the Nikumaroro hypothesis. LTM (who suggests keeping the reins a bit loose) Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric As any horseman can tell you, a loose rein is only advisable on a well-schooled horse. Otherwise, you're probably in for a wild ride that goes nowhere. I would hope that it goes without saying that, if somebody comes up with genuine evidence to support a theory that disagrees with the hypothesis TIGHAR is testing, we'll be eager to share it with the forum and look into it. However, experience has shown that people who claim to have such evidence often cannot produce it. All we're saying is that we're not going to burden the forum with such claims. Cam's information about the meeting between Morgenthau and Thompson is a case in point. He said he had documentation and, when asked to produce it, he could. On other occasions he has made claims and we have wasted way too much of everyone's time finding out that he couldn't back them up. We'll continue to consider and investigate any new information he or anyone else may wish to present, but from now on they'll have to substantiate their claim before it is presented to the forum. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:21:06 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: HF/DF yet again > From Cam Warren > > As for your remark "there is certainly no support for Cam > Warren's claim" that Hooven's DF "was replaced by a Radio > Research" unit. Mr. Warren has a respectable reputation as a > journalist, as testified to by the appearance of his work in > such publications as Newsweek International, and many other > magazines, published here and abroad. Presumably, when he makes > a statement in writing, it carries a high degree of authenticity, > and is not a careless off-hand remark. Nobody can be their own support for their own credibility. That's circular logic at it's worst. Credibility comes from having verifiable, dependable sources. I'm not prepared to presume the accuracy of anything anybody says just based on their own alleged reliabiltiy. I'm reminded of a highy reputable news agency who used model rocket engines to "simulate" the effects of gas tank ruptures. And another report about Vietnam deserters being "hit." Just because someones reputation is good doesn't mean their reporting on any one given incident is any good. No, I want to see the evidence before I'll believe, or even credit, anyone's theories. One of the most obvious reasons is that I want to see if the other guy perhaps interpreted that evidence through the eyes of his own point of view. I don't track names really closely when I read things here, so I can't recall who it was, but someone recently said that TIGHAR claims the Kanton engine was from the Electra. I've seen noplace where this was ever claimed. Rather it was stated that perhaps it was. PERHAPS. This leads me to wonder about this authors ability to read correctly what he or she sees and to research correctly his or her statements. Were this same author to then make claims about other evidence I haven't seen, I'd wonder about that too. But I take a more general approach. I assume that anyone is capable of misinterpreting what they see, so I always want to see the evidence myself. - Bill #2229 LTM (who says "Who told you that, dear?") ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:22:04 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Advancing the LOP Mark Prange says: <> True, but a calculation of when you expect to reach the LOP that passes through Howland certainly seems like a prudent move. In fact, P.V. H. Weems' classic text "Air Navigation" (first published in 1931) offers this advice: ************************ Finding a Destination During the daylight hours it is often impossible to get more than on LOP, viz, that given by the sun. If pilotage cannot be used (as when flying over water) or radio bearings are not available, this single position line may be uutilized for finding a destination. The air navigator, having found a position line as he approaches his destination, continues flying on his course until the position line carried forward by DR passes through the destination. he then turns left or right and follows the LP. If, after a reasonable time, the destination is not sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his track. ************************* << "Following the LOP" requires having some guidance, in this case either by radio bearing, sun sights, or visual sighting of landmarks associated with the LOP; otherwise it is an extended dead reckoning flight from some past ascertained position.>> Following the LOP only requires following a compass heading that has been corrected for wind drift. (See Weems above.) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:33:18 EDT From: Jim Van Hare Subject: drift meters Tet Walston gave an excellent description of the "double drift" method of obtaining wind direction and speed, and of the manner in which the aircraft's drift angle from its true heading can be observed. But what is theoretically possible is not always realistically achievable. As a USAF navigator in the 6166th Air Weather Recon Flight at Kimpo Airfield in Korea I flew many 8-9 hour missions at 1500 feet over the Yellow Sea. I found the installed driftmeter on the Douglas WB-26C to be totally worthless, despite careful alignment of the instrument with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Unless a driftmeter is gyrostabilized it is almost impossible to track a foaming wavecrest (the only visible candidate for tracking if one is over the ocean) because of the pitch, roll and yaw of the aircraft. Instead of tracking in a nice straight line the observed wavecrest is wiggling left and right and forward and backward, and one ends up with only a rough estimate probably accurate to plus or minus 5-10 degrees of the actual drift angle. I don't recall reading anywhere whether there was a driftmeter on their aircraft, but I'm sure that if Fred Noonan did not have a carefully installed and properly aligned driftmeter he would be unable to achieve even that inadequate level of accuracy. And of course, the driftmeter can only be used if the water surface is visible and there are foaming wavecrests to be seen. Someone had mentioned recently that an error of 65 miles off course after a 20 hour flight seemed excessive. This is not at all an excessive level of error. I recall that one of our crews flew into a 5000 foot mountain at 1500 feet in the soup, and all were killed. They were 5-6 hours into an 8-9 hour flight, and the mountain was on the island of Cheju-Do, 80 nautical miles off course. There was no radar on the WB-26C and no provision for celestial navigation. They had only a primitive Loran set and the aforementioned useless driftmeter. If the Loran wasn't working (a common occurrence) they would have had to rely on dead reckoning, which is not necessarily better than nothing. So they flew into a mountain and died instantly, and probably never realized anything was wrong. Fred and Amelia did not have Loran or radar and if they did have a driftmeter I suspect it was not gyrostabilized. They basically had celestial navigation, and that's only available if there are visible celestial bodies and if their chronometers had retained a reasonable degree of accuracy. Jim Van Hare ************************************************************************** From Ric The drift sight rig in the Electra was pure Rube Goldberg. To use it, Noonan had to open the cabin door in flight (there were folding stops at the top and bottom that held the door open just enough so that he could poke his head out). He then had to mount the drift sight in two brackets on the outside of the fuselage just aft of the door. I imagine that using the drift sight was an entertaining experience if not a terribly useful one. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:40:01 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: 1937 Search My point was, that maybe the aircraft didn't see an Electra on Niku or any other island because it wasn't there YET. That goes for the crew also. The last part was a joke or at least my attempt to make a funny! Sorry it didn't work! Don J. ************************************************************************* From Ric And my point is that the notion that the Electra and crew were floating around in the ocean a week after the disappearance but would wash up on separtate islands sometime after the Colorado's search is an example of the kind of possibility for which there is no supporting evidence and, until somebody can come up with some, we won't spend time discussing. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:43:24 EDT From: Skip Subject: Re: Enough is enough Way to go Ric, you have my full support, as always. If they could do a better job, then why aren't they doing something about it rather than making stupid waves that don't mount to a hill of beans. Skip ************************************************************************* From Ric No need to beat around the bush Skip. Just say what you mean. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:53:14 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: LOP From Randy Jacobson No one has mentioned this yet, so I thought I would. Consider that FJN took a LOP and advanced it to Howland, or somehow determined he was on the LOP that went through Howland prior to the last message. He needs one other piece of information to ensure he stays on it: the winds! Tracking back and forth on 157/337 with a generally easterly wind means that the plane is also moving to the west. It is hard to determine wind speeds without drift sights (FJN appears not to have used the smoke bombs useful for drift sights) and/or with short durations between LOP sightings (precision typically 5-10 miles or so). It would only be on the order of an hour that another LOP reading could give him an indication of the true wind speed perpendicular to the LOP he's trying to find. Meanwhile, the plane is drifting further westward. It is possible to guestimate the wind speed, and adjust for it in the heading of the plane. Of course no one knows or ever will know the truth. (Where's Peabody and his Wayback Machine when we need it most??) LTM, who shivers in the wind. Randy *********************************************************************** From Ric No doubt about it. A reasonably accurate assessment of the wind is essential. Getting that from the drift sight sounds like a tall order. How accurately Noonan was able to judge the wind is probably the biggest unanswered question in the whole equation. One answer is pretty obvious - not accurately enough to hit Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:06:09 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Buttonwood news??? Any progress reports from the guy who was tasked with finding Dan Skellie's Buttonwood crewmates and/or verifying whether or not she paid a call to Gardner in (?)'46? Any news from the USCG as to where the ship's logs from that time are since they aren't in the archives where they're supposed to be? Re: all these allusions to things Scottish. Ric, I always suspected you were really the Highlander. (there can be only one) LTM, who says, "watch your head." Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************************************************** From Ric I was thinking there had been some postings on this. Buttonwood seems to have been there all right. One of Dan Skellie's shipmates was able to send me copies of island descriptions (from Sailing Directions) which the crew was given for islands to be visited during that voyage. Gardner is among them. So far, however, the logs have not turned up nor have we been able to verify Skellie's accounts of the unusual activities he described. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:21:26 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: dirigible To conclude an off-topic thread - Cam Warren wishes to point out that his allegation about a dirigible being used as a "plane guard' for Earhart referred to her 1935 Honolulu to Oakland flight. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:22:45 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Myths, legends, and fact I've asked before, but I must ask again: Why do the naysayers of this list remain here? If they don't like the conclusions TIGHAR arrives at, why don't they go off and start their own mailing list and discuss their pet theories amongst themselves? Please, folks, go away and leave us Tigers to our obvious delusions. Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:33:10 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: the final dirigible posting The following is a true copy of the original (carbon copy) in the National Archives: ---------------------------------------- FROM: CINCUS ACTION: COMBATFOR RESTRICTED INFO: COMA[?]RBATFOR NITE (OPNAV) 0010 IF MISS EARHART DOES NOT ARRIVE WEST COAST ON SCHEDULE MACON WILL BE EMPLOYED FOR SEARCH PERIOD DIRECT MACON BE PREPARED UNDOCK ON SHORT NOTICE AFTER MISS EARHARTS FLIGHT STARTS 1045 TOR IN CODE ROOM 2240 JANUARY 10 1935 38......ACTION 05 10A 11 13(2) 19 20 PX BUAER FILE ----------------------------------------- Satisfied? (Hopefully, you'll accept my word in future). Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Nope. You've merely proven my point that your claims should not be posted until you have produced your source. Your original claim was: <> A "plane guard" is a vessel (air or sea) which is deployed to stand guard during a flight. The Macon was merely alerted to stand by in case it was needed in a search. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:01:04 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: 1937 Search Well, I thought Don's joke did work, and it was a pretty good one. LTM (who likes to laugh) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:07:26 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Buttonwood news??? Are Skellie's account of unusual activities on the web site? Thanks Bob Lee ********************************************************************* From Ric Look in the Forum Highlights http://www.tighar.org/forum/ArchivedHighlights.html You'll find the Buttonwood discussions back in the May highlights. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:12:44 EDT From: unknown Subject: Re: LOP >Finding a Destination >During the daylight hours it is often impossible to get more than on LOP, >viz, that given by the sun. If pilotage cannot be used (as when flying over >water) or radio bearings are not available, this single position line may be >utilized for finding a destination. > >The air navigator, having found a position line as he approaches his >destination, continues flying on his course until the position line carried >forward by DR passes through the destination. He then turns left or right >and follows the LP. I see that Weems is using dead reckoning to estimate when reaching the LOP, and then uses the expression, "turns.... and follows the LP." Certainly, predicting when you'll reach the LOP is good practice, and a turn at that time even without getting a confirming sun sight can be plenty accurate, but actually tracking along that LOP is verifiable by resuming sun shots, if it is still visible. Making the corrections for wind, and flying what is deduced to be the right compass heading will do for a while, but with the passage of time it is hard to know whether you're track is really along the LOP or not. That is all I mean by wondering whether "following" the LOP is really what is assuredly being done when no new information is coming in that tells you whether you're on it or deviating from it. Dead reckoning can have excellent results--I've heard that Lindbergh's transatlantic flight done without celestial observations. His track must have been very nearly along a plotted great circle. >Following the LOP only requires following a compass heading that has been >corrected for wind drift. (See Weems above.) > >Ric Using dead reckoning to decide the turn onto the LOP is done when the navigator has either lost sight of the sun, doesn't have precomputations of its height already worked up yet, or feels that advancing an LOP a short distance is quite accurate enough, as it usually is. I am away from my copy of Weems' "Air Navigation," so don't know whether he intended to follow the LOP without sun shots. But a similar example--of a flight to Canton Island--shows up in Mattingly's, "American Air Navigator," under the heading, "Running Down a Sun Line": ".....Advancing this line through Canton island, he determines the aircraft will be somewhere on the advanced line at 04:00." "Therefore, at 04:00 he......alters compass heading to fly 168 degrees true which would run down the sun line, and thus fly over Canton Island." "Until Canton Island is sighted, however, he continues to plot sun lines at ten-minute intervals to make certain his course will pass over the island." Interpreting those "sun shots at ten-minute intervals" gives the necessary "on LOP" or "how far off LOP" information needed to reliably follow the LOP. Also, doesn't Weems suggest a technique for knowing which side of the destination you are, when you are on the LOP? I don't mean the offset method. I think it involved just dead reckoning from a position on the LOP, that is, flying the course that matched the LOP's alignment (at that one time), and noting whether the sun height obsrvations were tending to get higher than predicted for the LOP, or lower. In the case of the July 2 flight, since the sun's subpoint was passing north of Howland, the LOP would be very slowly moving in a counterclockwise way about Howland. If Noonan were once flying along it, flew a good dead reckoned heading but didn't alter it any, then the LOP would necessarily be very slowly diverging from his course; if the trend of observed sun heights was higher and higher than the heights precomputed for the LOP, then the plane's location on the LOP was NW of Howland; if the trend was getting lower and lower then the plane was SE. ************************************************************************* From Ric That's right. The trouble is, if he has turned SE along the line, by the time the sun is high enough to provide a noticiable "cut", he is already too far down the line to turn back for Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:16:23 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Wind estimates Since Noonan was an experienced mariner, he should have known how to estimate the wind within about 3 knots by "seaman's eye". It's easy to do from the bridge of a ship. Been there, done that. There are obvious discrete changes in the sea surface characteristics as the wind increases from zero up to about 15 knots. Above 15 knots, the changes are less discrete and the estimation error increases. The question is whether Noonan could read the sea surface well enough from an altitude of 1,000 feet to guesstimate the wind and use that information to refine what he was getting from his LOPs. Any thoughts on this? LTM (who always wants to know what ole debbil wind is up to) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:20:51 EDT From: Jon Pieti Subject: Lines of Reason As much as I think TIGHAR is probably on the right track, and wish you all great success, it disappoints me that you have let true objectivity and openness slip away. It's easy to understand why you shut off the postings from people that get obnoxious and/or rant, that's not productive at all. But it seems that you are also shutting down some of the earnest attempts to consider any possibilities of what happened beyond what you have already determined to be "right". I know, it's your forum and right to follow your chosen lines of reason, and I realize that you have limited time & resources, and so must persue the ones that match the scenario that you think is most likely (without much deviation). But to see the Niku scenario presented as the "only real possibility", and any other scenario (like lost at sea) dismissed as "bunk", does tend toward tunnel vision. It is entertaining though! - Jon Pieti ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll say it again. We're more than happy to consider any genuine evidence that suggests a different hypothesis. I just haven't seen any yet. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:23:29 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Myths, legends, and fact Tom Robinson wrote: >Why do the naysayers of this list remain here? They're looking for attention from a ready-made audience. In my experience, this sort of person is usually more interested in their own self-promotion than an intellectually rigorous discussion of whatever subject matter is involved. Besides, starting one's own forum or list server requires real work and a little expertise , which are not usually found among the charcteristics of a sloppy and lazy mind. People with these kinds of motivations tend to post off-topic or unscholarly remarks, focusing in on personal attacks when they feel threatened. Making matters worse, the volume of their posting tends to be way above average. The result is that the majority of the messages can soon become inappropriately distracting (not to mention boring) and even run counter to the original purpose of the forum. Further, the severity of the problem is probably directly proportional to the perceived glamour or romance of the subject (like Earhart). This is why most successful list servers, forums and newsgroups are moderated. LTM (who knows a slacker when she sees one) william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:33:09 EDT From: Mary Jane Subject: Re: Enough is enough Finally! Thank you. For someone who is new to the Forum I have been waiting to see how long it would be before a stand was taken. I have learned much from everyone but it was beginning to read like a "street stick ball game" or some other child like game rather than quality discussion. Mary Jane ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks. Taking a stand against stupidity is tough these days when nobody seems to want to take a stand against anything for fear that somebody might get upset. Well, the stand has been taken and a bunch of people are upset. I'm glad that you're not one of them. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:54:25 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: 1937 Search > Tom King wrote, > > Well, I thought Don's joke did work, and it was a pretty good one. Thanks Tom, People need to lighten up a bit on this forum. This is not a life and death situation like it was for Amelia. It is pretty bad when an obvious little joke goes right over the head of some people. Tension is running high and I don't understand why. I understand the forum is getting a lot of posts, but maybe that is because there are a lot more people becoming aware and getting interested. When a post is made to the forum, all you have is the name of the sender. It could be a school kid just starting his fascination with Earhart, as it was with the 17 years of Spanish boy who I felt was insulted on his first post. I have always tried very hard not to attack anyone personally. I always pick my words carefully, and I don't mind an occasional "poke" in my direction Also, if futures post can only relate to the TIGHAR theory, I fear there won't be many posts. There just isn't that much going on to help that theory right now. We have about talked it to death! There are no more questions to ask, no more new things to think of, no new evidence. Whether you believe in the theory or not. We are kinda stalled right now. Now I am going up and spend the rest of the day on my boat. I have been trying to get over my tendency to get sea sick This time I may untie it and leave the dock! :-) Don J. ****************************** Don--- meclazine hydrochloride, otherwise known as Antivert. Ask your doctor about it. It's the best anti-sea-sick medicine there is. Pat ====================================================