Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:13:32 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Re: Calculating the fuel

> From Andrew McKenna
>
> Can we turn this fuel consumption problem inside out by getting away from the
> predicted performance and go with some actual consumption / endurance figures
> of any of the long legs of her flight?  Are there any records of how much
> fuel was consumed for any of these legs vs the distance, time, wind, and
> estimated weight?

I completely agree with Andrew that this would be the most applicable way
to calculate fuel consumption for the aircraft in question, if such data
can be found.

> My guess is there was a max weight AE was trying to stay under, or at least
> near.  Why else would she send stuff home in favor of more gas.

Just like bush pilots, AE probably knew what she could get away with safely
in the weight department, even if it wasn't legal.  I've heard of bush
pilots flying the Twin Otter (max legal gross weight of 12,500 lbs.) who
sometimes fly with as much as 18,000 lbs on take-off.  It's disgustingly
illegal, but they know it can be done safely under certain conditions.  I
don't think it would be unreasonable to think that AE would push the
limits if it meant she could get away with carrying extra fuel.

> Assuming that, and I know assumptions can lead us astray, it might be
> construed that she was at or near her max weight for most of the flight.

I don't quite agree with the "most of the flight" part above, since the
aircraft weight would of course change as she burned the fuel up.  Just as
an estimate: if she took off with nearly 1,000 gallons of fuel, and each
gallon weighed 6 lbs (which would vary depending on temperature of the
fuel when she left Lae), she - well okay, the Electra - would lose about
6,000 lbs (or three tons) by the time she and Fred landed on Gardner.  :-)
I can't recall what the max gross weight of the Electra is, but I'm
guessing that 6,000 lbs would be a substantial percentage of that, and
this would certainly have a great impact on fuel consumption and handling
characteristics.  Essentially, she'd be taking the aircraft from the
highest weight that she felt she could get away with given the take-off
conditions in Lae, to the lightest configuration it could possibly be in,
meaning nearly down to its zero-fuel weight.  (I say nearly, because we
ought to allow for some fuel left in the tanks for those radio
transmissions.)

Then again, like the tides on Niku, we'll probably never know these
numbers for real, although we can argue over them endlessly.

LTM, (who always takes off below her maximum legal gross weight)

David  :-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:17:04 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Island Debris

Actually, the highest elevation on Niku is at least 7 METERS, not 7 feet, and
it's probably a tad higher than that.  So it's only the low-lying areas that
get overwashed in a major storm event.  The higher areas -- e.g. the core of
the village area, Nutiran, Aukaraime -- show no signs of overwashing.

LTM (who's in favor of washing)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:27:36 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Long Review

  The review looks good.  It covers the main points well.  You may want to
punch up the discussion of flaws in the logical argument.
  I have not seen the book yet, so these comments may be invalidated by
passages I have not read.  However, based on what I have seen there seem to
be definite problems with the arguments.  As the whole proposition appears to
be based on flight performance data you should concentrate on those problems.
  They seem to fall into four areas:
  1.  Apples and Oranges.  Mixing factors which affect range (winds) into the
calculation of endurance.  Even assuming that he meant to say that "an 8.5
percent increase in airspeed..." rather than "...groundspeed..." it is still
invalid because:
  2.  Unsupported statements.  The 8.5 percent statement is not supported by
any flight data on the aircraft in question.  While it is possible that in
this particular case an 8.5 percent increase in airspeed would result in an
8.5 percent decrease in range, it is wildly unlikely that any such match up
should occur.  There is no direct one-to-one relationship here.
  3.  Tailoring data.  The 26.5 knot wind evaluation.  It took me a while to
pick up on this one.  The 26.5 knot head wind calculation is based "on an
average of predicted and reported winds".  Why average in the predicted winds
if reported winds are available?  Assuming the reports are accurate, these
are the actual winds.  Predicted winds are only a guess, frequently wrong.
Why would he incorporate less accurate data into a calculation when more
accurate data was available?
  4.  Show your work.  Again, I have not read it yet, but from what people
have said Long does not present all the raw data he used, and does not show
how the calculations were done.  That is so essential to scientific method.
  In sum, it sounds like he started with the answer, and then looked for the
evidence to support it.

Robert Klaus

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

Did Elgen Long start with the answer and back into the numbers?  Here's a
sentence from page 232:
"Until recently it wasn't possible to say conslusively why she ran out of
gas."


************************************************************************
From Dave Porter

Ric,

I found your review to be very well thought out and reasonable.  You give
the Longs credit for their effort, where applicable, and point out problems
in their theory without any hint of ill will. (which, of course, is because
you bear none towards them)  My only thought was that you might want to
clarify to readers unfamiliar with the basic story who some of the
characters are.  When you mention Noonan, you might want to say "top notch
astronavigator Fred Noonan, who was Amelia's navigator on the flight,"
instead of just "Noonan", and a similarly short accurate description of who
Chater was.  My only thought in this is to make it seem less like an
"insider" review, and more suitable for mass consumption.  Here at home, the
Detroit News publishes book reviews every week, and oftentimes the reviewers
are people familiar with the subject of the book, but critical of the
author's conclusions.  I would gladly contact them with your review if you'd
like.

Re. the video, rest assured I do NOT want a refund.  I will be quite content
to wait for those of you who were there to produce something that does the
place justice.  Just wanted an estimate of when that might happen, which you
graciously provided, and you even included a perfectly understandable
explanation for the delay.  Thanks.

Is there, in your expert opinion, any possibility of harmonizing the
Carrington wreck photo and the reef wreckage photos?  Could there be enough
of the sort of debris in the reef photos stuck somehow on the reef that
would allow for the remainder of the airframe to get tossed into the bush in
a manner consistent with the Carrington photo?

LTM,

Dave Porter, 2288

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

I suppose anything is possible but I think that it's really stretching it to
say that both photos show wreckage from the same airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:46:49 EST
From:         Walt Holm
Subject:      Review of Long's book

    I looked over the draft review that you posted to the Earhart forum on
Friday.  First a minor nit:

"Some will also question his remarkable decision that Earhart's statement
"speed 140 knots" is an airspeed read from an indicator calbrated in miles
per hour rather than a ground speed calculated by Noonan"

    Long claims that the 140 knots is a true airspeed (TAS), not indicated
(IAS) airspeed.  So it couldn't be read directly from the indicator, it had
to be converted from IAS to TAS.  One might change from mph to knots there.
Or might not.  Who knows.

    Mainly I wanted to write about the statement:

"If the maximum range remains constant, it is a mathematical certainty that
an 8.5 percent increase in groundspeed will result in an 8.5 percent increase
in hourly fuel consumption."

  This statement is *TRUE*!  If one assumes that maximum range is a constant
(with varying groundspeed), then groundspeed is perfectly proportional to
fuel consumption rate.  Some simple algebra should convince one of that.
   The following statement is also true:

   -If Amelia Earhart is on Mars, then she was captured by space aliens.-

   Just like the quote from Elgin Long, the statement is true, but no
conclusions can be drawn from it.  Unless you believe Amelia is on Mars.

   The problem comes in the assumption that the maximum range is a constant.
Figuring out the maximum range is an extremely complicated problem, and it
varies greatly with winds (no surprise there).  Since the first part of the
statement (maximum range is constant) is wrong, then the second part is
entirely irrelevant.

   Elgin implies that he has a detailed operators manual for the electra
("According to data in the Lockheed 10 Flight Manual, with a headwind of 26.5
mph the correct true airspeed for maximum range is 160.5mph").  Why couldn't
he obtain the revised fuel flow information (for 160 mph vs. 150 mph) from
this?  Something is very suspicious here.
   Interestingly enough, an increase in the true airspeed of the Electra from
150 mph to 160 mph ( +6.7%) would probably cause about an 8.5% increase in
fuel flow rate. One would have to study the drag polars real carefully, but I
bet these numbers are close.  Why then the ridiculous explanation? Frankly,
judging from the limited excerpts posted so far, it seems like Elgin picked
the result first, then worked the numbers to justify the result.


     Studying the issue of the maximum range of the Electra brings up a
problem that I have with the Kelly Johnson telegraphs, perhaps caused by the
fact that we don't have access to the entire text.  There seems to be the
assumption that the power schedule set by Kelly gives a relatively fixed IAS
for best range.  However, for maximum range, a constant speed profile should
not be flown!
    Given zero wind and fixed aircraft CG location, and if we ignore the
effects of changing propeller efficiency and engine BSFC with power, then to
achieve maximum range, the aircraft should be flown at a specific coefficient
of lift (CL) that gives the best lift-to-drag ratio.  If one holds CL
constant, then as the weight of the aircraft changes, the airspeed to fly (to
achieve that CL) is proportional to the square root of the weight.
    For an airplane that has a large fuel fraction, this airspeed change can
be considerable.  As an example, lets assume that Earhart's Electra had a
weight of fuel on board that was half the gross weight (Fuel fraction = 0.5
-- this is probably pretty close).  The weight of the plane would be twice as
much at liftoff  as it would be at the point of fuel exhaustion.  Thus the
speed to fly (for maximum range) at takeoff should be 1.4 times that to fly
at the point of fuel exhaustion.  If she was to fly at, say, 140 mph CAS
initially, she should be at about 100  mph CAS near the end of the flight.

    It is hard to imagine that Kelly Johnson didn't know this, yet there has
been nothing mentioned (so far) about the airspeeds associated with the power
settings recommended by Kelly.  If the airspeeds vary using his power
schedule (as they should for a proper max range schedule), then everybody's
analysis of Electra max range is wrong.

    This situation should be familiar to anyone on the forum who is a glider
pilot.  Competition sailplanes carry water ballast at the start of an event,
to raise the best L/D speed and thus allow them to get from thermal to
thermal quicker.  It also raises the minimum sink speed, but if the thermals
are strong this is not so bad.  If the thermals are weak, the ballast is
dumped, allowing a climb in a weak thermal, but slowing the speed between
thermals.


A couple of other comments:

   - Maximum aircraft range is achieved with an aft-most CG loading, since
that minimizes the downforce on the tail, and consequently the induced drag
of the horizontal stabilizer and of the wing.  Nothing was mentioned in the
telegraphs about the proper way to pull fuel from the fuselage tanks to
maintain a aftwards CG.  This leads to two thoughts.  First, if Fred was
sitting up front for convenience, then ironically he was shortening the
maximum range of the aircraft.  Second, perhaps Fred was sitting up front
because the aircraft, when heavily loaded, was out the aft end of the CG
range and became difficult to fly.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had some
weight and balance data on Earhart's Electra!

  - Along a similar line, both Elgin Long and Birch Matthews suggest that a
drag polar for the Lockheed 10E is available. (Elgin-"According to data in
the Lockheed 10 Flight Manual, with a headwind of 26.5 mph the correct true
airspeed for maximum range is 160.5mph"; Birch-" The amount of data still
available is not insignificant. It includes ..... Lockheed polar curve data
for the Electra Model 10 airplane. ")
   This kind of information would only come in a very detailed operators
manual for the aircraft, but it is absolutely necessary for analyzing the
maximum range of the aircraft.  Birch, do you know for a fact that this data
is available? Ric, perhaps you should (in your review) challenge Elgin to
make his source of this info public, so that it can be assessed
independently.


    Disclaimer:  I am not a aerodynamicist by training, but am a pilot and do
instrumentation work for a living.  If there is an aerodynamicist on the
forum, I'd love to hear what they have to say about this matter.

    I hope to get to the Western Aerospace Museum (Oakland, CA) Saturday to
hear Elgin's talk.  Any other takers?

-Walt Holm #0980C

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

I think I see what's going on with Elgen's (it's spelled E-L-G-E-N, not like
Lord Elgin of the Elgin Marbles) reasoning.

He starts with his conviction that fuel exhaustion occurred at a specific
moment, i.e. immediately following the 0843 "We are on the line..." message.
He's quite sure that this is when the engines quit because no further
transmissions were heard.  He describes an elaborate scenario where Amelia,
in the midst of changing frequencies (as she said she would), drops the mic
and is preoccupied with ditching the airplane, hence the lack of any Mayday
call.

Because he knows the precise moment when the engines stopped he knows the
aircraft's maximum range and thus feels confident figuring backward from
there.

Personally, I think a better case can be made for the aliens.

Good point about the aft CG.  I had forgotten that trick, but I now remember
that I used to routinely carry some extra weight in the baggage compartment
aft when I was flying alone specifically to "unload the tail."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:52:11 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Takeoff weight

Ric asked:

> Anybody remember who it was that was making the argument that it was
> physically impossible to get the airplane off the ground in that distance
> with more than X gallons aboard?

Dick Stripple was the author of that research.

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

Hmmmm.  Dick's expertise is in public relations, not aerodynamics.  Did he do
the numbers himself or did he have help?  Do you recall?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:55:42 EST
From:         Oldjunk99
Subject:      New Earhart website

Just browsed around this new Amelia Site. They talk an aweful lot, but say
relatively nothing. IMHO if they knocked on my door and told me this story
asking for contributions, I'd feel as if there was a scam at play.

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

I don't think it's a scam.  Just a young company trying to make a name for
itself by finding the most famous lost thing since the Ark of the Covenant
and the Holy Grail.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:12:25 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Why calculate the fuel?

  I've been following the forum for quite a while and I find it interesting
and informative.

Sometimes however, I kind of lose my way on a thread. To wit --- I don't
understand all this focus on fuel consumption, weight, etc. Isn't the point
of all the
expeditions not if Amelia could have reached Niku but if she, in fact, did?

  I mean, it's one thing to try to ascertain if she didn't have enough fuel
to make landfall because from that one can safely conclude that she went into
the ocean. But but it's an entirely different thing to conclude that if she
did have enough fuel to reach land, she did.

So why the focus on fuel, weight, winds, etc.? "Inquiring minds, etc. etc."

Regards to all,
Jim Razzi

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

You raise an interesting point.  If it weren't for Elgen Long's book we
wouldn't be revisiting the fuel issue.  The calculations presented in his
book, while by no means justifying the conclusion he reaches, have raised
some valid points about fuel consumption which we had not previously
considered.  We need to take a close look at this issue for two reasons;
1.  If a scientifically sound analysis of the flight concludes that it should
not have been able to reach Nikumaroro, we need to know that.
2.  Elgen Long has great credibility among many Earhart fans and his
allegations demand an answer.  Many will simply accept his calculations and
conclusions.  Someone needs to make a reasoned fashion review of the
Emperor's new clothes.  In not us, who?  If not now, when?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:05:12 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Chater credit

Suggest it does matter as to the timing & source of the Chater Report
publication, as Mr. Long's  version seems to imply that it was
"authenticated" as a direct result of his own research & thus seems to
be adding credibility to the rest of his findings regarding the critical
issue of fuel consumption, which seems to be the keystone point of his
entire theory of how, when & where the flight terminated.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:08:14 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Just for fun

Ric, how about flight planning the last leg with what is known
including Howland then on to Niku. Just to see if the numbers
come close. Maybe try it a few times on a week of current
weather.

\_ Greg _/

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

Or we could send Linda Finch out to fly the route several times using various
fuel loads.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:10:15 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Book review


One nit, one boulder.  The nit: identify fully Noonan in the second
paragraph, or better yet, in the first and introduce him with AE.

    The boulder:  Drop the last paragraph, "Earhart and Noonan may have
. . . all but the most gullible readers."  I assume you will identify
yourself when you present the review.  As such, AE/FN followers will know
that you also have a stake in this case and will be looking for you to
denigrate the Longs' contributions and push your own theories.

    The last paragraph does just that.
	
    You do an excellent job of presenting the Longs' mistakes, don't
blow your credibility by pushing -- or even HINTING at -- TIGHAR's unproven
theory of "landed at Niku."  If you do, readers will assume the review was
written only to air TIGHAR's view rather than an objective look at a
difficult subject.  Stick with the facts and leave the competing theories
for a later seminar.


LTM, whose leathery credibility is intact
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:17:48 EST
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Takeoff weight

r.e. the weight calculations on the 10E that indicated that she couldn't
leave the ground were made by Bill Polhemus, the navigator of the first
round-the-world repeat of the AE flight. PMB.

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

That makes more sense.  Where, I wonder,  can we find a description of those
caluclations?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:31:49 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      "Kele Fassau Molei"

On 10 July 1937, according to a document found by Randy Jacobson in the
National Archives, an Associated Press reporter aboard U.S.S. Colorado filed
the following report:

"Fliers confessed hope lost Earhart as Friedell ended Colorado plane search
sevening (sic) unless possible final flight Monday Stop  Phoenix astern
steaming Howlandward where refuel destroyers Monday Stop  Letters scooped in
Sidney beach spelling dozens Polynesian words including kele fassau molei
seen from air but pilots said life unsighted discounting possibility were
messages relating lost plane."

Since the letters scooped in the sand at least indicate that someone had been
on Sidney Island (Orona) around the time of Earhart's disappearance, it's of
some interest to find out what they mean, but until now, no one we know of
has been able to offer a reasonable translation.  I recently asked Mr. Foua
Tofinga, our Tuvaluan colleague in Fiji who helped us so much this summer,
and here is what he says:

"In the Tuvaluan & Tokelauan languages these words, collectively, do NOT make
sense.  By themselves, "kele" means sand, soil, also it is a common nameamong
the Tokelauan male folks, especially among Catholics.  "fassau" -- could it
be "faasau?"  In this part of Polynesia no consonant follows another, but
vowels do at times.  Taking the word to be "faasau," it means, in the Samoan
language, to let something lie outside overnight to be dewed.  At best,
therefore, in my opinion, fassau (or faasau) has to be a name -- a female's
name.  The final word, "molei," is like the previous two, could be a name, a
possibly Polynesianized form of Murray.  But I have yet to meet up with a
Molei in person.  Indicentally, if you take the excess "s" in "fassau" and
insert it between 'e' & 'i,' you could get "molesi," Morris in English and a
fairly common name in Polynesia.  But do not allow me to muddle you too much.
 I conclude that three people were there, 2 males and 1 female.

May I ask whether the words were written in capital letters or in the lower
case?  Were they above or below the high water mark?  What was the phase
ofthe moon the day they sighted the words?  And what of the tides?"

So, the words scooped in the sand suggest to a knowledgeable speaker of local
languages that at least three people of both sexes were on Orona around the
time of Earhart's disappearance.  Obviously they were not Earhart and Noonan,
but their presumed presence is interesting vis-a-vis alternative explanations
of the "signs of recent habitation" noted on Nikumaroro, or even of the bones
and sextant box.

We can't answer most of Mr. Tofinga's questions from the data available to
us, but I wonder if anybody on the Forum (Randy?) can tell us the phase of
the moon?  I suspect that Mr. Tofinga wants to know in order to consider
whether the visitors to Orona might have been hunting sea turtles when they
came ashore.  As for the tides, I presume we have the same problem with Orona
tides that we do with tides on Nikumaroro, but if anyone has a thought, I'd
be happy to have something to pass on to Mr. Tofinga.

LTM (who believes in leaving no turtle unturned)
Tom KIng
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You've got your islands a bit mixed up.  Hull is Orona (named for Harry
Maude's wife Honor) and Sydney is Manra (named for I-don't-remember-what)
and, of course, Gardner is Nikumaroro (named for the legendary home of Nei
Manganibuka).

Around the time of Earhart's disappearance, Hull and Sydney were being worked
by Tokelau laborers under contract to Burns Philp Company and under the
supervision of their employed manager John William Jones who was in residence
on Hull (and was interviewed by Lambrecht when he landed in the lagoon).
Jones had recently pulled his workers off Sydney, leaving behind the huts
that Lambrecht saw and, apparently, the letters in the sand.  I like the
explanation that they were not some cryptic message but just another example
of the islanders' well-known fondness for carving their names in anything in
sight.

I don't see how it tells us anything about events on Gardner.  Randy has said
that Jones visited Gardner on the way to Hull but I haven't the paper on that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:32:52 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      What Emily meant

Following up on an old thread about what Emily Sikuli meant when she said the
wreckage on the reef was "red," I asked Foua Tofinga, who translated for us,
and he says:

"Mrs. Sikuli used the terms 'kula' (red), 'toto" (rust, literally blood), &
'fiti',steel or iron."

LTM (who believes in going to the source)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:24:53 EST
From:         Bill Hillier
Subject:      The 26.5 mph headwind

Some have criticized the Longs' approach from the very beginning by pointing
out their use of 26.5 mph for the strength of the headwinds encountered along
the route from Howland to Lae. Wasn't the 26.5 obtained from a Navy
forecaster, Lt. Long, located in Hawaii and he supposedly stated that the 26.
5 was an average, not a constant. How much would this distort all the
figuring of range and gph if the headwinds were, say 23. 5 part of the way
and 29.5 part of the way but averaging 26.5 overall?
Bill Hillier 2264
LTM

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

The 26.5 mph wind is something of a mystery.

Page 194:
"The winds forecast by Lieutenant True, and the upper-air soundings of the
actual winds aloft from from both Nauru and Howland Island, showed stronger
headwinds over the route than reported earlier.  Instead of the slightly less
than 15 mph headwind previously forecast, the average headwind was about 26.5
mph."  This information is credited in the notes to the Chater Report and no
other source.

Here are the winds in the Chater Report:
1. Fleet Base, Pearl Harbor
"Accurate report difficult account lack of reports your vicinity...
Winds East Southeast about 25 knots to Ontario then East to East Northeast
about 20 knots to Howland."
These are presumably surface winds.  Ontario is the USS Ontario stationed
roughly midway between Lae and Howland.  Earhart's initial compass headings
(uncorrected for wind) for the first half of the trip should have been East
Northeast, specifically between 67 and 64 degrees True. Note that the
forecast surface wind for the first half of the flight is from the East
Southeast.
For the second half of the flight, the uncorrected True headings should have
been 62 to 59 degrees (according to the charts prepared for the first world
flight attempt).

2.  The Nauru winds aloft observation was taken at 8 a.m. local time and gave
these readings:
"2000 feet, ninety degrees 14 mph
4000 feet, ninety degrees 12 mph
7500 feet, ninety degrees 24 mph"
By the time Earhart should have been in the vicinity of Nauru that night
these observations were more than 12 hours old.

3.  Chater mentions no wind report from Howland.  The book says that the
Howland report was sent "later."
There is a wind report for Howland which seems to have been sent by the
Itasca at noon local time on July 1 (which was July 2 in Lae).  it gives the
following observations:
Surface  ENE 14
1,000     ENE 18
2,000     ENE 19
3,000     ENE  24
4,000     ENE  26
5,000     ENE  25
6,000     ENE  30
7,000     ENE  30
9,000     93N331 (That's what it says.  Must be a transcription  error.)

Again, these observations are more than half a day old by the time Earhart is
anywhere in the neighborhood.

How the Longs come up with "the average headwind was about 26.5 mph" from
this is a mystery to me.  According to Johnson's figures, the airplane was
supposed to be at 8,000 feet for the first ten hours of the flight and 10,000
feet for the rest of the trip.  The Fleet Air Base's admittedly shaky
forecast of surface wind is pretty meaningless and I don't see any
observations from anyone for winds at Earhart's supposed altitudes.
I see an observation of:
24 mph out of the East at 7,500 feet over Nauru
and an observation of:
30 (mph or knots?) out of the East Northeast at 7,000 feet over Howland

Both observations are over 12 hours old by the time Earhart is in the area.
An average of 24 and 30 is 27.  Can this be where the Longs come up with the
statement "the average headwind was about 26.5 mph"?  Inquiring minds......

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:27:16 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Phase of the moon

> What was the phase
> of the moon the day they sighted the words?

From the 1937 Nautical Almanac:

PHASES OF THE MOON

Last Quarter:  July 1 at 13h 2.6m GCT
New Moon:  July 8 at 4h 12.5m GCT
First Quarter:  July 15 at 9h 36.4m
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:44:20 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Blowin' in the wind

Ric, I don't know if I'm interpreting you correctly, but it appears that manyof
the reports of the wind direction indicate that these were not headwinds 
vis-a-vis the Electra's course.

Regardless of  whether the Long's are correct about velocity, it does appear to
be beyond debate that, whatever was the velocity encountered and for how long,
these were NOT headwinds.  This fact seems to be a fairly glaring error in a
theory which clearly relies upon these being headwinds.

--Chris

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

It's not quite that simple.  When you're flying an east northeasterly course
and you have a wind from the east southeast blowing at 24 mph you don't have
a headwind of 24 mph but there is a "headwind component" to that wind that
may be quivalent to a direct headwind of, say, 18 mph (just to pick a
number). Every private pilot learns to compute these wind components as part
of basic navigation.

In any case, it looks like Elgen's 26.5 mph headwind was arrived at by
"reverse engineering" rather than from actual data.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:54:18 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Dotting the i and crossing the t in Kilts

Just been re-reading some old material. This doesn't really matter as
subsequent finds have corroborated his story almost completely, but I wonder
if maybe Floyd Kilts was technically correct when he said Gallagher and
companions set off for Fiji in a four-oared, 22-foot boat, in the sense that
that's how the journey started?. Was there a jetty on Gardner big enough to
accommodate government supply ships, or did freight and passengers have to
be ferried out to a ship lying offshore on, er, a four-oared, 22-foot boat?

LTM (who wouldn't fancy a trans-Pacific voyage on a boat with a shallow
enough draught to pull right up to the shore)

Phil Tanner, 2276

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

No jetty.  Before the channel was blasted through the reef to the shore
circa1963 you had to shoot the surf over reef.  There was, indeed, such a
boat as Kilts described which was used for that purpose.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:40:59 EST
From:         Bill Hillier
Subject:      Re: The 26.5 mph headwind

Ric, thanks for your thorough explanation regarding the headwinds possibly
facing AE&FN. You cleared up the situation for me.
Bill Hillier 2264
LTM

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

Yeah, the situation is that nobody knows what the winds were exept that they
were probably sort of out of the ENE or maybe E or maybe ESE at some velocity
between calm and, say, 30 knots.  Maybe further analysis will tell us more.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:42:47 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: "Kele Fassau Molei"

Whoops; sorry for the island mixup.  That'll teach me to fail to check my
sources before writing.

I know that Jonesy had had workers on Sydney, but it's hard for me to believe
that letters in the sand would have survived long after their departure.  We
don't know when he took them off, do we?

LTM
TK

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

I'm not sure.  Have to try to look it up, but my impression is that it was a
matter of just a week or so.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:53:26 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Reineck's Review

Rollin Reineck has published the following review of the Longs' book at
http://community-1.webtv.net/DB325840/AmeliaEarhartThe/page2.html
and has privately expressed to me his willingness to have it posted on the
forum.  Ergo.....

AMELIA EARHART,

The Mystery Solved.

Written by Elgen and Marie Long.
Simon and Schuster Publishers, 1999.

Critique by Rollin C Reineck

Elgin Long concludes that Amelia Earhart ran out of fuel 20 hours and 34
minutes after she departed Lae, New Guinea, and ditched her airplane within
52 miles of Howland Island.

In his book, Long distorts some facts and introduces false assumptions to
support his conclusions.

Long contends that Earhart used more fuel than she had on board and ditched
before she found Howland Island because she flew faster than planned to
compensate for strong head winds. Long says, "The stronger the head wind the
faster the plane must fly for maximum range." The basis for this, Long says,
is that for every head wind component there is a recommended speed for
maximum range. However, increased speed means increased fuel consumption.

Fortunately, Earhart was not taught this modern day concept of cruise control
for maximum range. Earhart was taught (as were all pilots during WW II and
years afterwards) that for maximum range the wing of the airplane must be in
an attitude that will give maximum lift and minimum drag. This meant that
there was an optimum speed to fly the airplane that would put the wing in
that attitude. For Earhart, Lockheed told her to fly the airplane at 150 MPH
TRUE AIR SPEED. (indicated air speed --what you read on the dial-- corrected
for air density) for maximum range, regardless of winds. If the forecast
winds were too strong, postpone the flight.

Long states in the PREFACE that the recent discovery of lost documents --THE
CHATER REPORT-- has enabled him to solve the mystery of Amelia Earhart's
disappearance. Then he goes on to say that the radio transmissions, as found
in the CHATER REPORT, "were not altered or shaded to change their original
meaning." Further, he took care not to inject "poetic license".
Let's see if Long adheres to his principles.

The following are radio communications between Earhart and the Lae radio
operator after Earhart took-off from Lae, New Guinea, at 10:00 hours, local
Lae time which was 00:00 GCT. These radio communications are cited from the

CHATER REPORT.

1. At 2:18 PM, (04:18 GCT. - 4 hrs, 18 min. after take-off) Earhart reported:
HEIGHT 7000 FEET. SPEED 140 KNOTS. UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK, EVERYTHING OKAY.

It should be noted that Earhart's (pilot's compartment) air-speed indicator
was not calibrated in knots, but in miles per hour. Accordingly, it seems
logical that Noonan provided her with the figure "140 knots" and obviously
meant it as GROUND SPEED. The bottom line for a navigator is COURSE and
GROUND SPEED. They work in nautical mile, not statute miles. The conversion
factor is 1.15. Long states that the 140 KNOTS (161 MPH) reported by Earhart
was not her ground speed, but her true air speed (true air speed is indicated
air speed corrected for air density).

However, Long knows, as well as all pilots know, that when you give a
position, you report the speed you are making over the ground, or GROUND
SPEED, not TRUE AIR SPEED. Long (page 17) follows by saying "At four hours
and eighteen minutes into the flight they were already experiencing stronger
head winds than anticipated. The stronger winds had made them recalculate
their optimum speed" (for maximum range).

Long's interpretation of the 0418 GCT message is totally wrong. Unfortunately
it is this mistake is this mistake that is the foundation of the Long theory.

What Earhart says is she is at 7000 feet and her speed is 140 KNOTS. It is
more than obvious that Earhart is talking about GROUND SPEED when she says
140 KNOTS, not TRUE AIR SPEED as Long would like you to believe. This means
that instead of a head-wind, Earhart had a tail wind component for that
period of the flight, which would be quite normal and expected flying in the
intertropical convergence zone where winds tend to vary.

Long confirms his view on page 17 (bottom of page) "Noonan had navigated
perfectly so far, they were exactly on course. A TRUE AIR SPEED of 161 MPH
reduced by a 23 KNOT wind (26.5 MPH) would give them a GROUND SPEED of 134.5
MPH." (See page 4 re the 23 knot wind). Page 18, last paragraph Long says
that if she maintains that TRUE AIR SPEED, fuel consumption will be excessive
and she will have little if any fuel remaining when she arrives at Howland.

To prove his point about fuel consumption, Long, on page 251, prints a fuel
analysis and says that Lockheed is the source citing a telegram March 11 and
13, 1937 regarding Earhart's California to Hawaii flight.

However, Long is misquoting the facts. The information that Lockheed
(Johnson) sent to Earhart on those dates is as follows:

   Alt       Time       RPM         Man/Pres          Fuel/Hour

  8,000      1 hr      2050          28 1/2 in        100 US gal.
  8,000      3 hr      1900          28 in             60 US gal
  8,000      3 hr      1800          26 1/2 in         51 US gal
  8,000      3 hr      1700          25 in             43 US gal
 10,000   thereafter   1600          24 in             38 US gal

The power settings provided to Earhart would have given her a TRUE AIR SPEED
of approximately 150 MPH. Using these power settings she could fly for
approximately 24 hours and 10 minutes regardless of the wind. As the reader
has noted, the power settings above are not the same as the power setting
that appear in the Long book on page 251. Long has changed the power settings
to strengthen his argument that Earhart used more fuel.

Long also contends that the airplane was much heavier at Lae than it was at
Oakland, therefore, the power settings had to be increased. But, that's not true.

When Earhart left Oakland on 17 March 1937, there were four people on board,
each with personal luggage and parachutes. Also there was equipment and spare
parts. In addition there was a trailing wire antenna with its motorized
retrieval mechanism, 250 feet of wire and a lead weight in the rear of the
plane. She had 947 gallons of fuel on board for take-off.

At Lae, there were only two people on board, no parachutes, and only enough
personal things "to be decent". Earhart and Noonan both discarded all
unnecessary parts/equipment and personal belongings including books, charts,
and even a hand gun. The trailing wire antenna and the motorized retrieval
unit had been left in Miami.

There was 1100 (1092) gallons of fuel on board at take-off at Lae. This
equates to 145 gallons more fuel at Lae than at Oakland. At six pounds per
gallon this would equal 870 more pounds of fuel. However, because of the
passenger load, parts and equipment, trailing wire antenna etc., the plane
weighed only about 250/300 pounds more at Lae than at Oakland. Not enough
difference to increase the power settings that were given to Earhart by
Lockheed in March 1937.

2. At 3:19 PM, (05:19 GCT, - 5 hrs, 19 min. after take-off) Earhart reported:
HEIGHT 10000
FEET, POSITION 150.7 EAST, 7.3 SOUTH. CUMULUS CLOUDS, EVERYTHING OKAY

Long states that this is "definitely NOT their position at 05:19 GCT". He
believes it was their position at 02:00 GCT as it was customary for mariners
to give a noon position.

3. At 5:18 PM, (0718 GCT, - 7 hrs, 18 min. after take-off) Earhart reported:
POSITION 4.33
SOUTH, 159.7 EAST. HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS, WIND 23 KNOTS.
(23 knots is ?26.5 mph).

Again it is the navigator (Noonan) talking when Earhart gives the wind in
knots. Doubtlessly a tail wind component that gave them the ground speed of
140 knots (161 mph).  Long says the geographical position is NOT where Earhart
was at the time of the report, but he doesn't know why. Although, Earhart gave
NO DIRECTION for the wind, Long says it was a HEAD WIND of 26.5 MPH.

How does Long know that? He doesn't say.
The big question here is, DID LONG ADHERE TO HIS PRINCIPLES OF NOT ALTERING
OR SHADING the radio transmissions as found in the CHATER REPORT?

He changed GROUND SPEED to TRUE AIR SPEED. He said a wind reported was from a
CERTAIN DIRECTION when in fact, the radio communication DID NOT GIVE ANY
DIRECTION.
Long says that Earhart was NOT where she reported to be in two position
reports that were given in the CHATER REPORT. Is this shading or is this
deliberately changing the radio transmissions of the CHATER REPORT to support
the author's position?

Now, let's turn to another assumption that is presented in the Long book.
This assumption by Long says that Howland Island was mis-plotted. Long claims
that Howland Island was actually six miles east of the plotted position on
the charts that Noonan used and Noonan was unaware of the true position of
Howland Island.
Long is totally wrong.

In August of 1936, the Coast Guard vessel, the Itasca accurately plotted the
Line Islands including Howland. It found that Howland was plotted 51/2 miles
west of its real position. Long would like one to believe that this
information was CLASSIFIED and therefore not available to Earhart for her
Pacific flight.

Ask yourself this question. If this island had been mis-plotted it would have
been a hazard to navigation. The United States was not at war at that time
and had no declared enemies, therefore why would it be classified?

There is no doubt that this information was made available to all mariners
(Notice to Mariners) world-wide. It is inconceivable that Noonan would not
have received the information that was discovered almost a year before the
Earhart flight. The Coast Guard was fully aware of Earhart's plans to fly
around the world and to use Howland Island as a refueling stop. They were
charged with providing whatever help they could to make the Earhart flight a
success. Withholding such vital information is incomprehensible.

In a recent book about Amelia Earhart titled EAST TO THE DAWN, Page 408 the
author discusses this very point. Ms Butler says "The chart of the area then
in use #1198, Published by the hydrographic office within the Navy, contrary
to the assertion that it showed Howland Island wrongly placed, in fact was
reasonably accurate. According to the last chart correction made by
the U.S. Government dating from 1995, the coordinates to the beacon on the
west side of Howland are: latitude 00 degrees 48 minutes north. longitude,
176 degrees 37 minutes west. The chart Fred was using showed Howland within
half a mile of those coordinates. When years later, emulating Amelia's world
flight, Ann Pellegreno used the latitude and longitude that Fred Noonan had
used for Howland. She found they were correct."

Another erroneous assumption Long makes is that Noonan could "readily take
additional celestial fixes if he needed or wanted them" even though Earhart
was reporting partly cloudy weather conditions.

There are only certain stars that can be used by a navigator to determine his
position. The trick is to find those select stars. First, the star must be in
the sky where you are flying. For instance, one can't see the north star if
he is at the equator, nor can he see the southern cross if he is in the
northern latitudes. Secondly, the navigator must identify the star by
associating it with its
constellation. As an example, the Big Dipper points to Arcturus. Without the
Big Dipper, finding and properly identifying Arcturus is almost impossible.
This same rationale would apply to any other star.

It must be remembered that when Earhart left Miami, one of the windows that
was to be used for celestial observations, had been covered over with
aluminum. This meant that only the left window in the rear of the airplane
was distortion free for celestial observations. When that limitation is
coupled with partially cloudy conditions as reported by Earhart, taking any
star shots would have been problematical at best. Noonan would have been very
fortunate indeed, if he had been able to obtain any celestial observations
before dawn.

Long says that at early dawn, "Noonan could have easily fixed their position
by taking celestial observations of the sun?and the moon." Most people are
aware that the sun and the moon both rise in the east and set in the west.
Even though both celestial bodies might have been observed by Noonan, he
would have ended up with two parallel lines, not a fix.

Because of the partly cloudy conditions at night and the lack of adequate
working conditions within the airplane for celestial navigation, it is very
unlikely that Noonan was aware of his position at dawn within 75 miles.
Accordingly, if he followed the standard navigational procedures, he would
have made at least a 15 degree off-set correction to the left when they were
about 100 miles out. This correction was made to insure that he knew which
side of Howland Island he was on when he started on his final sunline course
of 157 degrees.
Long is correct when he says that the sun shots taken by Noonan in the early
morning hours would have provided a line of position with a 10 mile accuracy.
However, Noonan had no idea where he was on that sunline.  He could easily
have been 200 miles northwest of Howland.

When they made the right turn to a course of 157 degrees, Noonan and Earhart
were both unaware how far they were from Howland Island. When the island
didn't appear in a reasonable time and no radio communications were received,
they did the only thing that reasonable flyers would have done, they headed
toward the Marshall Islands where there were some 1100 atolls and small
islands to provide a safe haven. (There is evidence that they turned north
when they couldn't find Howland Island).

But what about the fuel?

Long, by changing certain facts, using poor information and bad assumptions
would have the reader believe that Earhart ran out of gas some 20 hours and
32 minutes after she left Lae, New Guinea.

The truth is that Earhart, maintaining a true airspeed of 150 MPH and using
the power settings provided her by Lockheed, had over 24 hours of flying time
ahead of her. When she called in at 1912 GCT, she had flown approximately
2556 miles at an average ground speed of 133 MPH. Maintaining a true airspeed
of 150 MPH would mean that she had encountered an average head wind of 17
MPH.

At 2014, Earhart, in her last message said we are "running north and south".
At that time it can be reasonably assumed that she departed the Howland
Island area and headed for the Marshall Islands. She would have had
approximately 4 hours of fuel remaining. Using maximum range true airspeed of
150 MPH and a tail wind of 17 MPH she would have been able to travel some 680
miles.

Would it be enough to get her to the Marshall Islands? 

Yes, it is this writer's belief that she did make it to Mili Atoll, the
closest atoll in the Marshalls to Howland.

To believe the Long theory, then the researcher must disregard all other
credible evidence such as, what Bilaman Amaron saw and did at Jaluit and what
the Heine boys saw. What Oliver Knaggs found at Mili Atoll and what the
Weihsien message tells us. Also the researcher must disregard all evidence
that Earhart was on Saipan.


END
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:55:45 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      CG weather observations?

Do you think the USCG station at Niku would have accumulated historic
wind data during their tenure?
ltm,
jon 2266 (of the Colorado 2266's)

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

A good question that we've never asked.  How about it Coasties?  Did you guys
take regular weather observations?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:00:46 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: New Earhart/Long website

Below is the response I received from the head of OceanWorkers when I
mentioned that he might want to check out the TIGHAR Site before accepting
the Long's word as gospel.  It is a shame to see the almighty dollar rise
above common sense and the scientific method of research.

LTM,

Ross

Dear Ross,

Thanks for the reference.  However, I had already visited Rick Gillespie's
site and seen several of his television appearances.  It is incredible to me
how he can ignore so many obvious facts and continue to pursue such
illogical theories.  Mr. Gillespie is a mixed blessing for our cause (that
of educating the world about the truth about Amelia and restoring the
world's memories of her to those of a great lady, who paid dearly for
pushing the frontiers of aviation.)  He has done such an excellent selling
job on how close he might be to discovering her plane that most people do
not to want hear our sad truth.  On the other hand, he has helped keep alive
the public interest in Amelia's fate - and that great public demand for
Amelia facts will eventually lead to us the investors to make our ultimate
victory possible (finding the plane near Howland Island).

Mr. Long's book is finally out in print (a week ago) from Simon and Shuster:
"Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved" by Elgen & Marie Long.  Their years of
serious research on the subject of Amelia's last flight is very impressive.
You should read that book and then decide if you can still imagine that
there is anyway the plane could be anywhere other than in the deep ocean
near Howland Island.  Mr. Long launches a book promotion tour this Wednesday
on NBC's Today show.

Please write or call back when you are ready to help us look in the right
area for Amelia's plane.

Regards,

Ken Collins
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I think I've heard my mother refer to me that way, "A mixed blessing."
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:46:29 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Book Review- Second Draft

Okay,  here's a new stab at the review of "Amelia Earhart- The Mystery
Solved."  We'd like to get this up on the website tonight so fire away.

**************************
In the ongoing debate over the fate of famous woman pilot Amelia Earhart and
pioneering aerial navigator Fred Noonan, no researcher is accorded wider
respect and affection than are Elgen and Marie Long, the authors of this
latest attempt to answer the 62 year old riddle.  Elgen Long's experience as
an airline captain and record-setting, world-circling aviator give him the
credentials to speak with authority about the art and science of long
distance flying.  Aided at every step by his wife Marie, Long has assembled
an impressive collection of original documents and, because he began his
quest over 25 years ago, has interviewed players in the 1937 drama who are
now long dead.  From the beginning, the Longs have maintained that the
official government verdict was correct - the aircraft ran out fuel and
ditched at sea.  Now, their long-awaited book presents a step by step
explanation of what happened.

"Amelia Earhart-The Mystery Solved" presents detailed computations of how and
why the flight from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island went wrong and reveals
precisely when the end came. According to the authors, a few seconds after
08:43 local time, the engines of the Earhart aircraft surged and died from
fuel exhaustion.  Amelia was at that moment in the process of changing the
radio frequencies, having just told the Coast Guard that she would do so.
When the engines suddenly quit she dropped the microphone and used both hands
to hold the control wheel and disengage the automatic pilot. Preoccupied with
preparing the airplane for a water landing, she never made a distress call or
alerted the Coast Guard to her plight.  The airplane hit the water two
minutes later.  It sustained little damage but sank relatively quickly and
now awaits recovery almost perfectly preserved in the cold dark depths.  The
Longs say there is a 90 percent probability that the aircraft lies within a
2,000 square mile area which, they say, can be searched for two million
dollars.

How, one might ask, is it possible to know with such precision the details of
an event for which there is so little historical information?  The Longs
explain that a recently discovered document provides the answer.  An eight
page letter written shortly after the fatal flight by Eric Chater, manager of
Guinea Airways in Lae, New Guinea provides previously unknown details about
the events immediately preceding the disappearance.  Lost in a corporate file
drawer until 1991, the document's possible importance was recognized and made
public as a result of publicity surrounding continued interest in Earhart's
fate.  The Longs interpretation of some of the information in the letter was,
to them, a revelation.  As they put it, "In theory Earhart should have had
more fuel remaining.  Until recently it wasn't possible to say conclusively
why she ran out of gas."

Lest their be any doubt about their methodology in investigating the mystery,
the authors state,  "We have known for twenty-five years that the solution to
the Earhart mystery lies on the ocean floor under 17,000 feet of water."  For
the Longs there can be no other explanation for why no one heard radio
transmissions from the airplane after 08:43 local time.  (In that message
Earhart said, "We are on the line 157 337.  Will repeat message.  We will
repeat this on 6210 Kilocycles. Wait." and then she said something that may
be interpreted from the original radio log entry as "We are running on line
north and south" or "We are running on north and south line.")  The author's
certainty that they knew the answer before they began their investigation
gives them something of an advantage over other researchers who are
encumbered by the scientific method.

Knowing exactly when the aircraft ran out of gas permits the authors to make
categorical statements such as "If the maximum range remains constant, it is
a mathematical certainty that an 8.5 percent increase in ground speed will
result in an 8.5 percent increase in hourly fuel consumption."  Of course, if
the maximum range is not a known constant the equation doesn't work.
Similarly, their statement that the flight experienced a headwind over the
entire route that averaged "26.5 mph" (despite the lack of any current winds
aloft observations for the route) is simply a matter of calculating the time
aloft versus the presumed distance flown and figuring out how much headwind
is needed to achieve the predetermined result.  Otherwise ambiguous
statements of position, speed and wind are easily interpreted to fit the
known answer and undocumented aspects of the aircraft's performance and
characteristics can be readily adjusted with confidence.

Even so, the Longs' solution of the mystery has some internal contradictions.
 For example, early in the book a map is presented showing the direct route
from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island and Earhart's "actual route" based
upon position reports contained in the Chater letter. The map of the "actual
route" shows deviations from the direct route which add at least 50 miles to
the distance flown and yet later in the book the authors base their precise
calculations for the moment of engine failure upon an "actual distance" flown
of 2, 573 miles - only 17 miles longer than the 2, 556 miles of the direct route.
Which actual route is the actual route?

Foregoing the scientific method of inquiry relieves the authors from the need
to provide footnotes, show their full calculations, or reproduce cited
sources.  Instead the Longs chose to write the book in what they describe as
"an easy-to-read narrative style" which takes care "not to inject poetic
license into any matter of consequence."  Without knowing what details are
considered to be matters of consequence it is difficult and often impossible
to know how much of the scenes described are of the authors' invention. To
know what is cited and what is not the discerning reader must check the notes
at the back of the book for each page of text.  However, in the Longs'
defense, they make no claim that the book is aimed at the discerning reader.

Until someone finds conclusive evidence that the airplane ended up somewhere
else, the possibility that Earhart and Noonan perished at sea remains a
viable and certainly highly intuitive hypothesis.  Whether or not it can be
tested economically would seem to depend entirely upon how narrowly the
search area can be reasonably constrained.  Regrettably, the Longs' book has
merely demonstrated the need for greater scientific rigor in that endeavor.

*************************************
LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:57:06 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      New Earhart/Long website

>From Ric
>
>Well, actually the site has nothing to do with the Longs except that it
>promotes their conclusion tha she went down at sea.  It's an effort by a
>company called OceanWorkers, Inc. to raise the capital to go recover the
>Electra from the ocean floor.

http://www.discoveramelia.com/html/index.html

Ric, even though the above web site repeatedly disavows connection with the
Longs, I think a review of their book begets a review of this web site as
well. They seem to be in lock-step, despite protestations to the contrary.

Tom #2179

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

The website is so transparent that it hardly merits mention.

OceanWorkers' approach can be summed up by paraphrasing a bumper sticker,
"Elgen said it, We believe it, And that settles it."
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:02:05 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Reineck's Review

For Rollin Reineck

>Long says....that for every head wind component there is a recommended speed for
>maximum range. However, increased speed means increased fuel consumption.
>Fortunately, Earhart was not taught this modern day concept of cruise
>control for maximum range.

Are you saying that it is a fallacy that the best-range speed is faster in a
headwind, or are you saying that it is just not prudent to rely on that
technique when range is critical?  (In both gliders and powerplanes the
nominal best-range speed applies to the no-wind situation, and does indeed
increase with a headwind).

>In August of 1936, the Coast Guard vessel, the Itasca accurately plotted the
>Line Islands including Howland. It found that Howland was plotted 51/2 miles
>west of its real position.
>
>There is no doubt that this information was made available to all mariners
>(Notice to Mariners) world-wide.

I suspect that Noonan was aware this particular, but who knows?

>The chart Fred was using showed Howland within
>half a mile of those coordinates.

Maybe it is known what chart Noonan was using; I thought this was not
certain.

>one can't see the north star if
>he is at the equator, nor can he see the southern cross if he is in the
>northern latitudes.

Actually, since the Southern Cross is between 27 and 33 degrees north of the
South Celestial Pole, it can be seen in some northern latitudes.

>Long says that at early dawn, "Noonan could have easily fixed their position
>by taking celestial observations of the sun?and the moon." Most people are
>aware that the sun and the moon both rise in the east and set in the west.
>Even though both celestial bodies might have been observed by Noonan, he
>would have ended up with two parallel lines, not a fix.

Although they both rise in the east, they do so at very different times; a
good deal of azimuthatl separation developed that morning.  At 1900 GMT the
azimuths of sun and moon were 067 and 340--allowing nearly perpendicular
LOPs for a fix.  (A problem might well have been sighting the moon, which
was about 79 degrees high).  By 2000 GMT the azimuths were 064 and
307--still a good enough cut for a fix--and the moon had come down to about
66 degrees.  By 2100 the azimuths were 059 and 294; moon height about 53
degrees.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It is not our purpose here to critique Mr. Reineck's review on the Earhart
Forum.  If forum subscribers have comments for Mr. Reineck I'll be happy to
forward them to him for private response but we won't be discussing them here.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:03:35 EST
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re Polhemus takeoff computations

I had a copy of Bill's article somewhere long ago, and I'll try to locate
it. He and I talked about this issue years ago at an ION (Institute of
Navigation) symposium. Bill used to run a business called Polhemus
Associates in Vermont or New Hampshire - perhaps he is still around. PMB.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:08:33 EST
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Dyslexics Untie!

Ric writes: "It seems more likely that the operator simply misunderstood the
coordinates given in the 0519 report."

My course of action to satisfy my inquisitive mind (if I had the wording of
the position reports) would be to intrapolate where the Electra could/should
have been at the time of the first position report and check if there is an
obvious case of dyslexia involved similar to Ric's transposing the 5 and the
7 in Elgen L's number 2,573.

LTM (who had a bad case of dyslexia)

Natko.

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

An interesting exercise similar to the old "circling" argument but it
wouldn't result in anything but speculation.

I'll also point out that dyslexia is a much misused term.  I am not dyslexic.
 I am merely careless.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:10:38 EST
From:         J. Michaud
Subject:      Re: Book Review- Second Draft

Paragraph 4, word 2 change "their" to "there".
******************************************************
From Ric

Thank you
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:19:10 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Reviews positive and negative

I'm a Doubting Thomas from way back who has been trying to keep the faith for
a landing at Niku. I must add however --- and I hope you take this as an
honest remark and not as a criticism --- I'm not fully convinced about some
portions of your argument so far because they have a number of initial
assumptions in them which, somewhere down the line, are extrapolated (it
seems to me anyway) as if they had been facts.  Still, that doesn't convince
me yet that the landing on Niku didn't take place. I'm just waiting for more
evidence that I can fully accept, and with it, the Niku scenario.

All that said, and in the interest of being evenhanded, may I ask if there
have been any positive reviews of Long's book by a reputable critic and if
so, will that be posted on the forum?

In any case, being an ex-private pilot,  I really appreciate this forum and
it's the first thing I read when I turn on my computer at night.   I wish you
all the best of luck in your endeavor to unravel this greatest of  airplane
mysteries.

Best Regards,
Jim Razzi

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

The only positive review I've seen so far is the one on the Amazon.com
website by a review-mill called Kirkus Reviews which makes it clear that the
reviewer doesn't understand what the Longs are talking about.  If we become
aware of a positive review by a reputable critic we'll be happy to post it on
the forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:24:27 EST
From:         Jerry Ross
Subject:      Re: Book Review- Second Draft

Much more professional.  I like it all except the last two lines in paragraph
two.

Jerry Ross

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

You don't like:

> The Longs say there is a 90 percent probability that the aircraft lies within a
> 2,000 square mile area which, they say, can be searched for two million
> dollars.   ?

Why not?  That's what they say.

***************************************************************************
From Terry Ann Linley (#0628)

Overall, your review is good.  But there are a couple of changes I would make
if I were writing this.  First of all, I would eliminate the last sentence in
paragraph 4; there's really no need to get a jab in here.  Instead, in
paragraph 7 (after your introductory sentence concerning the scientific
method of inquiry), why not explain HOW this method operates?

Thanks for the opportunity to provide input!

LTM (who's an old hand at the scientific method),
Terry
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The sentence Terry is referring to is:

>The author's certainty that they knew the answer before they began their
>investigation gives them something of an advantage over other researchers who
>are encumbered by the scientific method.

Based on these and a couple of private critiques...stand by for Draft Three.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:34:41 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Book Review- Third Draft

Draft Three
**************************
In the ongoing debate over the fate of famous woman pilot Amelia Earhart and
pioneering aerial navigator Fred Noonan, no researcher is accorded wider
respect and affection than are Elgen and Marie Long, the authors of this
latest attempt to answer the 62 year old riddle.  Elgen Long's experience as
an airline captain and record-setting, world-circling aviator give him the
credentials to speak with authority about the art and science of long
distance flying.  Aided at every step by his wife Marie, Long has assembled
an impressive collection of original documents and, because he began his
quest over 25 years ago, has interviewed players in the 1937 drama who are
now long dead.  From the beginning, the Longs have maintained that the
official government verdict was correct - the aircraft ran out fuel and
ditched at sea.  Now, their long-awaited book presents a step by step
explanation of what happened.

"Amelia Earhart-The Mystery Solved" presents detailed computations of how and
why the flight from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island went wrong and reveals
precisely when the end came. According to the authors, a few seconds after
08:43 local time, the engines of the Earhart aircraft surged and died from
fuel exhaustion.  Amelia was at that moment in the process of changing the
radio frequencies, having just told the Coast Guard that she would do so.
When the engines suddenly quit she dropped the microphone and used both hands
to hold the control wheel and disengage the automatic pilot. Preoccupied with
preparing the airplane for a water landing, she never made a distress call or
alerted the Coast Guard to her plight.  The airplane hit the water two
minutes later.  It sustained little damage but sank relatively quickly and
now awaits recovery almost perfectly preserved in the cold dark depths.  The
Longs say there is a 90 percent probability that the aircraft lies within a
2,000 square mile area which, they say, can be searched for two million
dollars.

How, one might ask, is it possible to know with such precision the details of
an event for which there is so little historical information?  The Longs
explain that a recently discovered document provides the answer.  An eight
page letter written shortly after the fatal flight by Eric Chater, manager of
Guinea Airways in Lae, New Guinea provides previously unknown details about
the events immediately preceding the disappearance.  Lost in a corporate file
drawer until 1991, the document's possible importance was recognized and made
public as a result of publicity surrounding continued interest in Earhart's
fate.  In fact, the new information about the flight's progress contained in
the Chater letter is highly ambiguous and raises as many questions as it
answers.  For the Longs, their own interpretation of some of the information
in the letter was a revelation.  As they put it, "In theory Earhart should
have had more fuel remaining.  Until recently it wasn't possible to say
conclusively why she ran out of gas."

Rather than reach a conclusion which flows logically from the evidence, the
Longs began where most researchers hope to end. As they openly state, "We
have known for twenty-five years that the solution to the Earhart mystery
lies on the ocean floor under 17,000 feet of water."  For the Longs there can
be no other explanation for why no one heard radio transmissions from the
airplane after 08:43 local time.  (In that message Earhart said, "We are on
the line 157 337.  Will repeat message.  We will repeat this on 6210
Kilocycles. Wait." and then she said something that may be interpreted from
the original radio log entry as "We are running on line north and south" or
"We are running on north and south line.")  The authors' certainty that they
knew the answer before they began their investigation allows them to
construct a perfect circle of argument.  The available data is interpreted or
altered to support the correct answer, contradictory evidence is ignored, and
the manipulated data is then stated as fact to prove the original conclusion.

Knowing exactly when the aircraft ran out of gas permits the authors to make
categorical statements such as "If the maximum range remains constant, it is
a mathematical certainty that an 8.5 percent increase in ground speed will
result in an 8.5 percent increase in hourly fuel consumption."  Of course, if
the maximum range is not a known constant the equation doesn't work.
Similarly, their statement that the flight experienced a headwind over the
entire route that averaged "26.5 mph" (despite the lack of any current winds
aloft observations for the route) is established by calculating the time
aloft versus the presumed distance flown and figuring out how much headwind
is needed to achieve the predetermined result.  Working backward from a
predetermined conclusion, ambiguous statements of position, speed and wind
are easily interpreted to fit the formula and undocumented aspects of the
aircraft's performance and characteristics can be readily adjusted with
confidence.

Even so, the Longs' solution of the mystery has some internal contradictions.
 For example, early in the book a map is presented showing the direct route
from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island and Earhart's "actual route" based
upon position reports contained in the Chater letter. The map of the "actual
route" shows deviations from the direct route which add at least 50 miles to
the distance flown and yet later in the book the authors base their precise
calculations for the moment of engine failure upon an "actual distance" flown
of 2, 573 miles - only 17 miles longer than the 2, 556 miles of the direct route.
Which actual route is the actual route?

Foregoing scholarly conventions of historical inquiry relieves the authors
from the need to provide footnotes, show their full calculations, or
reproduce cited sources.  Instead the Longs chose to write the book in what
they describe as "an easy-to-read narrative style" which takes care "not to
inject poetic license into any matter of consequence."  Without knowing what
details are considered to be matters of consequence it is difficult and often
impossible to know how much of the scenes described are of the authors'
invention. To know what is cited and what is not the discerning reader must
check the notes at the back of the book for each page of text.  However, in
the Longs' defense, they make no claim that the book is intended as an
historical treatise.

Until someone finds conclusive evidence that the airplane ended up somewhere
else, the possibility that Earhart and Noonan perished at sea remains a
viable and certainly highly intuitive hypothesis.  Whether or not it can be
tested economically would seem to depend entirely upon how narrowly the
search area can be reasonably constrained.  Regrettably, the Longs' book has
merely demonstrated the need for greater scientific rigor in that endeavor.

*************************************
LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:42:07 EST
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Review critiques - Draft Two

Latest Book Review was great.

LTM

Harry  #2300

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

Thanks, and that was only Draft Two.

************************************************************************
From Jim Tierney

Ric---Much more better...

I will keep quiet and wait for the comments/fallout...
Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:01:01 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Book Review- Third Draft

Has the Chater letter ever been put up on here to read?
Id love to read it!
Joe

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

You'll find the full Chater Report on the TIGHAR website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Documents/Chater_Report.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:25:48 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: New Earhart/Long website

> From Ric
>
> The website is so transparent that it hardly merits mention.
>
> OceanWorkers' approach can be summed up by paraphrasing a bumper sticker,
> "Elgen said it, We believe it, And that settles it."

I especially (dis)liked:

"All open-minded studies of Earhart's last flight agree that her plane had
to have sunk in the deep ocean not very far from the island."

( from http://www.discoveramelia.com/html/Mystery_End/mystery_end.html to
the right of the picture of the sinking Electra.)


    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:28:55 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Book Review- Second Draft

>Okay,  here's a new stab at the review of "Amelia Earhart- ...

Para. 1.  Elgen's mother would love it, but I'll bet E.L. will be supicious.

Para. 2 should have had the following in bkts. inserted ...

> "...Lost in a corporate file drawer until 1991, the document's possible
importance was recognized and made public [by Ric Gillespie immediately
after he received it from .....??]

Para. 3 & 4 are hilarious, in the best, smile at them while inserting the
needle, Gillespie style, when circumstances constrain using a black jack.

Para. 5, being factual is utterly humorless, made up to some extent by the
zinger in the last para.   I say, go with it!   RC  941
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:47:16 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Third Draft- finishing touches

This looks good, and has improved with revision.  The one thing that
still ripples a little is at the beginning of paragraph five.  I would
suggest that you start it out with words such as "The assertion that
they know..." - I realize in it's current form it's a little tongue in
cheek, but for those who may not pick up on that (certainly no one who
is a forum regular), identifying the statement as an assertion rather
than as a fact could be important.

ltm,
jon  2266

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

I agree.

"So it is written.  So it shall be done."
(Free round trip to Funafuti for the first one to place that quote.)

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

From Mark Prange

>Foregoing scholarly conventions.....

The correct spelling is, "forgoing."

"Foregoing" has to do with going before.
"Forgoing" has to do with abstaining.

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

Indeed.  We'v also made a small stylistic change in para 5 where we had two
"predetermined"s back to back.  It now reads:

"Similarly, their statement that the flight experienced a headwind over the
entire route that averaged "26.5 mph" (despite the lack of any current winds
aloft observations for the route) is established by calculating the time
aloft versus the presumed distance flown and figuring out how much headwind
is needed to achieve the ordained result.  Working backward from a
predetermined conclusion, ambiguous statements of position, speed and wind
are easily interpreted to fit the formula and undocumented aspects of the
aircraft's performance and characteristics can be readily adjusted with
confidence."

The entire review is entitled "The Great Circle Route".

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this effort.  The review is far
better than anything I could have written without the forum's help.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:59:19 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Review is up

The review is up on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/longreview.html

Tomorrow we'll add a map showing the "actual route" discrepancy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:49:26 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      The 8.5% debate

<<Of course, if the maximum range is not a known constant the equation
doesn't work.>>

It's much worse than that. Even if the maximum range is known, the statement
is incorrect. Varying headwinds, speeds and altitudes over a known range
will definitely cause fuel consumption to vary in ways absolutely unrelated
to groundspeed. In aviation there is simply no direct relationship between
groundspeed and fuel consumption. Here's a basic example: Airplane is flying
at 140 knots (GS) in a dead calm (one could use a headwind or crosswind but
let's keep it easy). After half the flight, airplane enters 35 MPH
tailwinds, which continue until the plane lands at its destination. Pilot
does not change throttle setting. Airplane's GS increases by around 25 knots
with no additional fuel consumption at all. Average ground speed increases
8.5%, fuel consumption increases 0%.

Also, if an increase in groundspeed is achieved, for example, by turning up
the throttle (and increasing RPM), fuel consumption will tend to increase at
a higher percentage than any increase in groundspeed, for reasons I (and
others) mentioned in earlier posts.

LTM (who understood the benefits of a good tailwind)
william 2243 (Yes, that's the Los Angeles 2243s. <grin>)

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

Walt?  Whadya say?

For the purpose of the review I kept it simple and used the statement to
reinforce the point about the circular reasoning.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:53:06 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: New Earhart/Long website

>From Ric
>
>The website is so transparent that it hardly merits mention.

Perhaps to you and me, but what about the newbie out there?

Here I am, a babe in the woods, interested in knowing more about Amelia
Earhart, but don't know where to start. I don't want to read ALL the books
out there, just the most accurate one.

So, I go to the 'net and start searching, and I come up with two detailed
web sites with vastly different opinions. Who do I believe? I might even
consider donating money to one of these groups, but which one?

Were I to read a review of one web site on the other one, it might sway my
opinion.

LTM,

Tom #2179

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

I see your point.  I wonder if we need a Review section on the TIGHAR website?

Opinions?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:58:17 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Reviews positive and negative

Ric wrote:

>The only positive review I've seen so far is the one on the Amazon.com
>website by a review-mill called Kirkus Reviews which makes it clear that the
>reviewer doesn't understand what the Longs are talking about.  If we become
>aware of a positive review by a reputable critic we'll be happy to post it on
>the forum.

Ric, we will be very interested to see what Tom Crouch has to say about the
Long's book. Is he still a member of the forum?

LTM, (who always appreciates the opinions of learned men)

Tom #2179

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

Tom Crouch does not subscribe to the forum but has assured me that he reads
the Highlights religiously (but, I assume, not necessarily reverently).  I
have sent him a copy of my (make that "our") review of the book and will
forward to him your request for his views for posting on the forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:01:08 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Reviews positive and negative

I wrote

>LTM, (who always appreciates the opinions of learned men)

And of course, it should have said
"...the opinions of learned persons."

Tom #2179

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

As a wise man once said, "It is a wise man that never makes reference to a
wise man anymore."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:04:43 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Amazon.com review

This morning I submitted our review to amazon.com.  They restrict you to
1,000 words so I had to delete the first paragraph (the one Elgen's mother
would like).  They say it typically takes about a week for them to post a
review.  We'll see.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:45:08 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Exculpation

Bill wrote:

>I especially (dis)liked:
>
>"All open-minded studies of Earhart's last flight agree that her plane had
>to have sunk in the deep ocean not very far from the island."

I liked the way the Hawaii takeoff incident was explained.  I never heard of
any such extenuation by Earhart.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

All I could find on the OceanWorker's website was:
"Elgen Long researched that accident also and found evidence to the
contrary." (That AE was to blame for the Luke Field wreck.)

If Elgen has found evidence that exonerates AE I can't find it in his book.
He repeats her story about a tire blowing but he doesn't openly contradict
the US Army accident report that says she just plain lost control of the
airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:48:36 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Roadshow chronometer video

Thanks to Bill Moffet I've had a look at the chronometer.  Although it seems
to have no bearing on our sextant box numbering mystery, it is an
interesting device.  If any who are interested in ingenious mechanisms would
like to have a look at it I'll pass the cassette along.

This "clock" has several features that are different from the spring-driven
clocks we're more familiar with.  The "hair-spring," the spring that flips
the balance=wheel back and forth, is a helical spring rather than the usual
spirial configuration seen in most clocks.  Presumably the balance-wheel is
temperature compensated but it's not evident how this is accomplished.

The appraiser mentions that it is "chain driven" and one can see that the
chain drive arrangement is used to compensate for the decreasing torque of
the main-spring as it runs down.  The chain appears to be wound around a
"spiral ramp" such that the diameter is decreasing as the spring force
decreases thus maintaining a relative constant pull on the chain which
drives the rest of the mechanism.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:16:43 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Chatering classes

>From Ric
>
>You'll find the full Chater Report on the TIGHAR website at
>http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Documents/Chater_Report.html

Another account of its finding, with a couple of photos and small facsimiles
by way of illustration, can be found at
http://www.placerdome.com/shared/dialogue/historical/earhart.html

Am I the only one to have found the use of language and general tone of
Oceanworkers' response to Ross (sorry, don't know surname) a bit cultish and
creepy?  Phil, 2276.

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

Glad you found the Placer Dome account.  It's a reprint of the article that
appeared in their company magazine "Prospect" in June 1992 and provides third
party confirmation of how the report came to light.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:19:38 EST
From:         Bob
Subject:      review on amazon.com

May I suggest that a synopsis of your review of the Long's book be
posted on Amazon.com?  I only suggest it because Amazon is a book source
for so many people.  They have a mechanism on their web site for readers
to post reviews of books.  Not having read the book I could not post
there.  They also have a rule against including URLs so I could not post
a reference to the web site containing your review.  I can also see the
negative side of posting there since a review by Tighar posted on their
web site could be interpreted as inflammatory.

Ok, so I have talked myself out of my own suggestion.  It is not often
that I have a public debate with myself.  The bottom line is that the
book is available at Amazon and the opportunity is there for those who
have read it to post their review.

LTM,

Bob

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

Well, I did it anyway.  Inflammatory - R - Us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:04:34 EST
From:         Bob
Subject:      Longs book on amazon.com

I forgot to include the URL to the Longs book page on Amazon.  Should
you decide to post my message on the topic to the list you might want to
include this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684860058/o/qid=941629184/sr=2-2/102-8888909-1
536066

Or suggest that readers go to http://www.amazon.com/ and search for
earhart.

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:06:42 EST
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Dyslexics Untie!

Ric writes:

"I'll also point out that dyslexia is a much misused term"

Very much so! I couldn't agree more. Sorry for perpetuating the misuse here.

"I am not dyslexic"

Of course not! I didn't mean to imply anything of the sort.

"I am merely careless."

Here I am inclined to disagree! Mind you, I am not implying that you are not
careless. Who should know better than yourself.

Still, there is a very special sort of 'carelessnes' which happens more
often in cetain scenatios [sic]. It is a "kanonic" kind of carelessnes to
type an adjoining key in a typo. (The above example is a genuine one. I
really typed a 't' instead of an 'r'  and didn't correct it on pourpose)
Same thing in mixing up (flip-floping) two numbers or 'left' and 'right'.
That is what I wanted to express by incorrectly using the term "dyslexia".
Nice thing about it is that this kind of error can easily be identified
(using the scientific method - of course ;-)

Item 2:

Because of receiving a DIGEST I was not able to participate in the final
writing of the review. Still, my fellow forumites have not missed one single
remark I might have thought of. The end result can - in all modesty of which
the review itself set a sky high standard - only be described as perfect ;-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:39:46 EST
From:         Ross Schlichting
Subject:      Review section on website?

Tom Robison wrote:

<<So, I go to the 'net and start searching, and I come up with two detailed
web sites with vastly different opinions. Who do I believe? I might even
consider donating money to one of these groups, but which one?

Were I to read a review of one web site on the other one, it might sway my
opinion.>>


I vote FOR the review section.  Tom makes a good point.

LTM,
Ross Schlichting
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:46:14 EST
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Longs on TV

Thought you might like to know that the Longs were on the NBC "Today" show
this morning discussing their new book.  No surprises there, but they did
announce that Nova, the public TV entity, would be funding the deep-water
search.

LTM (who doesn't think they'll find anything),

Tim Smith 1142C

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

I saw Elgen and Marie on the TODAY show this morning.  I thought they came
off well as the kindly elderly couple with a fascinating obsession.   Elgen
announced that WGBH/NOVA and Nauticos will fund a search that will take place
early next year.  What I can tell you about that is:

1.  Nauticos ain't gonna fund nothin'.  They're gonna get paid to do the work.

2.  NOVA can not possibly fund a two million dollar search without doing
outside fund raising specifically for that purpose.

Back when NOVA was going to do a show about TIGHAR's search they told us that
while they couldn't do anything more than pay the passage of their film crew
they would help us raise the money we needed to do the expedition.  Such a
promise from a fund raising powerhouse like WGBH had us smiling just like the
Longs were this morning, but despite repeated requests no such help was ever
forthcoming.  I hope the Longs' experience with NOVA turns out to be better
than ours.

**************************************************************************
From Don Neumann

Just finished watching the (very brief) interview of the Longs on the
Today Show & found it to be a very shallow attempt to hype their new
book, with no effort by the interviewer to question them in any detail
on any of the material aspects of their investigation, which inspired
them to write the book.

As suspected, Mr. Long makes the Chater Report the keystone support of
his previously developed theory (splashed & sank due to fuel
exhaustion), emphasizing that their book is the ONLY one containng a
copy of said report & he provides no explanation as to how or when the
report was discovered, giving the impression that it simply turned-up in
the course of their own investigation of the case.

It was also revealed that sponsorship has been obtained for a deep sea
exploration of the area of the Pacific around Howland Island, where they
claim the Electra ditched, scheduled for some time next year.

In draft # 3 of Ric's review, there are several quotes from the book
which (at least in my mind) seem to raise some additional questions
about some of the Long's presumptions upon which their theory rests.
They conclude that their theory mirror's that of the official government
pronouncements as to the termination of the flight, yet, apparently make
no reference to the fact that the first response of the US Navy was to
send the USS Colorado to the Phoenix Chain to overfly the various
islands of the Chain, while at the same time the USCG Itaska was
steaming off in the opposite direction.

Additionally, they seem to take the position that..."running out of fuel
& ditching the aircraft"... is a sudden & unexpected event, so immediate
& stressful that AE had no time to send any SOS or estimated position
report or even keep her mic open until impact .

With all due respect given to the Long's extensive investigation &
dedicated devotion to the search for AE/FN, it seems to me that their
publication of this book merely documents an effort to explain their
version of what happened & why, while disregarding any & all other,
equally viable versions, along with much credible evidence that has been
developed over the past 62 years, which seems to raise serious questions
about many of the long held assumptions they have made in forming their
own conclusions.

Again, the bottom-line still remains: Until the 62 year old remains of
the plane &/or the remains of it's crew are found, all the opinions &
theories as to what actually happened & why, remain just
that....opinions & theories.     Even then, we may still never really
know the exact reasons why AE/FN failed to reach Howland Island.

Don Neumann
*************************************************************************
From Harry Poole

I just saw a discussion with the Long's regarding their new Amelia book on
the Fox Network News (Wed, about 9:45Am EST).  A couple of points.

They give credit to their obtaining the Chater letter from a Canadian
source.  In addition, while not mentioning TIGHAR by name, they were clearly
talking about the "erroneous" claim that the plane came down on a reef.
They believe that the plane was out of fuel shortly after the last known
message (which we knew this claim); but seemed to be saying that even if it
stayed aloft a bit longer, there was no way the plane could have traveled to
Gardner Island with the remaining fuel.

Other than that, and a comment on a missing radio expert that should have
been in the plane there was little else.  Mr. Long was introduced as the
first solo pilot over the poles.

My question - Can we semi-prove the fact that there was enough fuel left to
reach Gardner?

Harry  #2300

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

We are interested in knowing how closely the range and endurance of the
airplane can be constrained given the available data and are presently
designing a research project that will seek a credible answer to that
question, whatever it may be.  More on that soon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:54:16 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Longs on TODAY

I just finished watching the Longs on the today show. The conclusion they
came to didn't bother me although I disagree with it. What struck me was how
sad, after 30 years of investigating, they would attempt to arrive at ANY
conclusion with clearly faulty data and insupportable assumptions.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:59:37 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      10Es

Ric, I believe I remember someone saying there are only two 10Es around but
neither owner seemed interested in providing flight manuals or performance
assistance. Finch lives about 30 minutes away so perhaps I can make contact
with her.

Secondly, there may be more 10Es than folks think. The US Army bought some
and designated them C-36s and UC-36s. There was an A,B and C model. The "C"
model used the 550/600 HP engine. I believe it was a P&W 1340-49. Also New
Zealand bought a number of them and there is a book available in N.Z. solely
about the Electra written by Richard Waugh, a noted N.Z. aviation historian
and co-authored by David Phillips, an Electra specialist. The book is called
Electra Flying and if there is interest I'll post the address for the book
company. (I have no connection so I'm not touting the book<G>)

Alan

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

We're pretty comfortable with our documentation Electra production and
airframes extant.  No 1340 equipped airplanes went to New Zealand.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:01:53 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Oceanworkers

You're not the only one, Phil, who found the tone "cultish and creepy"--so did
I.  I have a hunch that we will hear and learn more about these people in the
weeks ahead.

--Chris Kennedy

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

Elgen's announcement this morning that he'll be working with Nauticos would
seem to cut the legs out from under Oceanworkers.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:06:07 EST
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Third Draft critiques

Great job on the second draft -- one grammatical correction, first sentence
should read "no researchers are accorded." I suggest eliminating the
"discerning readers" jab in the second to last paragraph, it sounds snide.

LTM,
Suzanne #2084

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

You're right.  We'll fix it.  And we dropped the second (snide) reference to
discerning readers.

**************************************************************************
From Alan

Ric, now that the review is up, so that it can't be changed, I'll agree it is
a great review but I kind of liked your first effort. It was more you and I
don't mean that unkindly. I thought the Longs needed harsher treatment for
having knowingly (the lawyer in me) "created" facts, misinterpreting others
and for having based most of their theory on a totally unprovable assumption
that Amelia's world ended exactly two minutes after the 8:43 transmission.

Alan

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

I'll admit that it's hard to be soft on such nonsense, but I really don't
think that the Longs are being disingenuous.  They really don't understand
what they've done.  This once more emphasizes the point we've been trying to
make all along.  The Earhart Project's most important objective is
educational rather than historical.  Our investigation is a vehicle for
learning how to think - how to figure things out.  I took references to the
scientific method out of the review because it became apparent that many
forum members didn't see what it had to do with the Longs' reasoning.
There's nothing unusual about that.  Last spring we asked the National
Science Foundation (NSF) for a grant to implement our Voyage of Discovery
educational program (on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/nsfproposal.html).  NSF turned down our
proposal because even they do not seem to understand that the scientific
method is not about test tubes or telemetry.  It is a way to think and
reason.  The Longs book is a classic example of what happens when intelligent
people equipped with abundant data try to find the truth without a roadmap.
(Sorry.  I get kind of worked up about this.)
***************************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

Ric:
    I seem to be about 24 hours behind you and the rest of the forum on
this issue, but nonetheless, here goes.

    Starting with the sentences,  "The authors' certainty that they knew
the answer before they began their investigation allows them to construct a
perfect circle of argument.  The available data is interpreted or altered to
support the correct answer, contradictory evidence is ignored, and the
manipulated data is then stated as fact to prove the original conclusion."
you are moving from fact into opinion.

    That's okay, except that the reader needs a little hint that you are
doing it.  Therefore I'd suggest starting the next paragraph with the above
sentences, preceded by a segue that bumps up the rhetoric a notch to make it
obvious that you are now moving onto new ground and will be pointing out
their errors.

    A qualifying phrase/sentence such as, "In spite of the authors'
reputations and lengthy investigation, they have violated one of the
principles of scientific investigation: they announced the verdict before
the trial.  The author's certainty that  . . . "

    Or, "The most glaring error in the Longs' investigation is that they
arrived at a solution before they completely understood the problem.  The
authors' certainty that  . . . ."

    My two cents worth . . .

LTM, who is often on trial
Dennis O. McGee #1049CE
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You're probably right (sigh), but at some point we have to go with what we've
got.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:33:31 EST
From:         Bob Cullinan
Subject:      Re: Longs on TODAY


If anyone wants to read more, here's an excerpt from the Long's writings, on
the Today Show website:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/330074.asp

One more thing...the video of the Today Show interview is up on the web. Go
to this page:

http://www.msnbc.com/m/v/video_news.asp

and click on this link:

Author Marie Long solves the Earhart mystery

It will spawn a viewer on your desktop.

Personally I think the Longs did themselves a disservice with this
appearance. Judge for yourself.

Bob Cullinan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:08:26 EST
From:         CRM
Subject:      Quote from: Third Draft- finishing touches

You ask someone to identify your: "So it is written, so shall it be done."
Well, that is similar to: "So let it be written, so let it be done-" which
was so often said by Rameses (a la Yul Brynner) in C.B. DeMille's  1956
version of "The Ten Commandments." Is that what you were going for?

LTM ,  CRM

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

That's right.  I was - uh - paraphrasing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:02:49 EST
From:         E. G.
Subject:      So let it be written...

Or was that pharaohphrasing.

Best, E.G.

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

I wish I had thought of that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:15:45 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Longs on TODAY

"What struck me was how sad, after 30 years of investigating, they would
attempt to arrive at ANY conclusion with clearly faulty data and
insupportable assumptions."

 Well stated.  I've been involved for nearly nine years, and concluded that
with all existing data, the evidence does not support any conclusion, despite
the physical artifacts from Niku.  The latter is intriguing, and needs
further investigation, but no definitive conclusion can be reached with all
available evidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:24:04 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Elgen quote

Just received a photocopied page from the Seattle Museum of Flight magazine
announcing that Elgen will be giving a presentation there on December 4th.
The short article contains this sentence:

In challenging TIGHAR's views he (Elgen Long) claims to "debunk the myths
that Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan were captured by Japanese soldiers
or cannibalistic island tribespeople."

Amazing.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:29:09 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      LAMBRECHT'S SCOUTING MANOUEVRES AND MARKERS

When studying Lambrecht's report, I have been unable to identify any
direct reference to the altitude flown by the three aircraft and six crew
members over Gardner Island either  during their approach to the island,
over the island during the scouting manoeuvre, or during the buzzing
manoeuvres: Lambrecht reported flying at 50 feet on his one circling
manoeuvre around McKean , before being forced to 400 feet by the profundity
of birds, and mentioned that this was the case with the rest of the Phoenix
islands , but I wonder if he he did in fact fly at this height at all times
;-

It is logical that they proceeded to Gardner at that safety level to
preclude a similar encounter there. However, on spotting the signs of
recent habitation, while his wingmen presumably circled the island and
lagoon areas , Lambrecht would have considered descending to buzz the area
containing markers (his 1972 explanation of his 1937 observation) and I
interpret  repeated 'zooming ' as just that .  To buzz or zoom  something
requires low level flying to achieve the appropriate result intended, and
maybe the birds were scared off sufficiently to enable a closer look. I
disagree with the supposition or interpretation of his report that he only
flew at 400 feet or above , and that the flight over this island was a
single cursory flight as expressed on the the Forum and elsewhere .
Lambrecht noted that the island constituted an ideal emergency landing
area, and it is irrational to presuppose that during the scouting of this
island , these three aircraft did not methodically check the island
vegetation, the beaches, the shipwreck and the lagoon for any sign of a
crashed aeroplane , and his accurate observations of the shipwreck and
character of the island bear this out.

Randy Jacobson has emphasised the fact that the weather was mild for at
least that one week period during the search, and therefore it is doubtful
whether the  interpretation of the wave actions shown on the one famous
photograph can have accounted for the aircraft being systematically
fragmented .On their subsequent approach to Carondelet reef Lambrecht
reported seeing only occasional breakers there and does not mention heavy
surf action at Gardner. There were too many large , angular pieces of
aeroplane such as the undercarriage with large inflated(?) tyres ,
'reinforced' fuselage sections containing the fuel tanks, the painted red
wing sections and the engines which would have been visible in 4 feet of
water in the surf or out of it , and it is just too much to expect that
every piece of wreckage would have been demolished and hidden in the surf
line - in the very unlikely event of complete disintegration to have
occurred , then  all the pieces are even more unlikely to have been
deposited only along the surfline - they would have been scattered all over
the reef flats and beaches , and would have been visible in and out of the
cyclical surf action during the abatement period, many pieces (orange
kites!) , aluminium powdered paper bombs , paper and  oil slicks clearly
visible to the six pairs of eyes of the searching  crew.

 To consider what probable damage the major aircraft components could have
realistically  suffered by the tide action , I have compared the similar
disappearance of the Kingsford Smith Lockheed Altair which disappeared into
the Andaman sea in 1935: the right retractable undercarriage assenmbly
complete with attached wheel and inflated tyre was subsequently found and
identified 18 months after the accident ; it had drifted 250 miles North of
the last observed sighting of the aircraft and arrived completely unscathed
on an island beach after a 'voyage' through thousands of islands in the
Mergui Archipelago. It now resides in the Powerhouse museum in Sydney , for
those of you interested and who may be visiting for the Olympics.( It has
been only recently analysed by the Defence Aeronautical Research Laboratory
in Melbourne which has established that the damage to this undercarriage
assembly  supports the theory that the aircraft crashed into the sea at an
angle greater than 12 degrees.)

Any  amount of fragmented remains would still be lying about on the reef
flats  even today , and be constantly washed up on the beaches; during
their fishing and wading/swimming escapades, surely the villagers , always
entranced with western artifacts, would have collected and used things such
as shiny instruments to adorn their huts. (a ship's chronometer and the
fire extinguishers were found in the huts ) , so they should have had  a
hoard of the many  interesting  and enticing  items that would have been
salvagable , including women's shoes (did she only have one pair on the
flight?) and especially, radio equipment, all of which Gallagher would have
seen and enquired about during his stay.

The New Zealand surveys of 1938/1939 , and the Bushnell survey would have
undoubtedly identified and collected numerous components strewn about
during their meticulous surveys of the island if they had existed . This
type of survey  involved walking every millimetre of shoreline, vegetation
line and the lagoon shoreline as well as the taking of numerous
hydrographic reef readings and lagoon readings. Surveying is an exact
science, which requires the methodical and systematic recording of
information , such as all relevant geographical or man-made features, and
includes the  necessary recording of such objects as the type of trees
growing(their height, shape , spread and trunk circumference), the
predominance of bird and animal life , the type and texture of the sand or
soil , the recording of weather , tides, etc,etc. The description of the
shipwreck would have been recorded in detail. It is not unreasonable to
assume that some of these surveyors, if not all, were fully aware of the
recent disappearance of A.E. in the area , and would have taken an interest
in anything significant resembling aeroplane wreckage. It is the very
nature of surveyors to be observant, and to record anything of significance.


I  was hoping by now that we would have received postings from experienced
naval flyers who  would have flown search and rescue/surveillance missions
or flown coastguard operations to render  their view of what could have
been observed from the air in this scenario with a surf running , but I
have not even seen a posting on this from Tom Van Hare . From my experience
flying coastal surveillance missions for the Australian Coastwatch  unit on
the Northern coastline of Australia, for 5 hours a day , flat on the deck
at 50 feet , hugging the coastline, I experienced no difficulties in
locating  completely submerged shipwrecks, discolouration of the sea,
submerged sharks and crocodiles and 44 gallon drums scattered on lonely
pinpricks of islands , or in shallow reef areas and lagoons, as well as
flotsam of all descriptions scatterd on beaches in bays .We were trained to
search and identify  illegal sea and air landings (immigrants from
South-East Asia) and illegal activities (Drug running) , as well as noting
any significant change in the sea or sea vegetaion,(oil and other toxic
waste discharges at sea , which also affected the vegetation and shoreline)
and of course,  note suspicious activities or signs of habitation on these
isolated sections of the rugged coastline. Any whisp of smoke seen even
inland was considered  worthy of a search-and-identify flypast. I don't see
any reason why Lambrecht and his crews would not have  been capable of
identifying wreckage from 400 feet or from his zooming and buzzing manoeuvres.

I have located  additional documents from the island hunting in the Phoenix
Island Group which could explain the "markers" observed by Lambrecht and
the reason for "signs of recent habitation";-

            Surveyors always leave markers behind after they have surveyed
an area in order to identify their survey stations for subsequent
resurveys, and it was my initial belief that that is what Lambrecht saw -
the remains of the New Zealand Survey of 1935. However , according to the
following quotation , it  now seems more than equally likely to have been
as a result of the activities of these island hunting expeditions , not
only by the British and the U.S.A., but by the French and the Japanese. In
considering the evidence, it is important not to forget that the scientific
expeditions to these island for observing the eclipse (8 June) took place
at the same time, the month of June 1937,  shortly before the A.E.
disappearance.

( What a pity that these blokes were not around to witness the A.E. flight
a few weeks later)


My previous posting explained that on 13 June 1937 , two US cutters , one
of them the Itasca, left Honolulu in a successful attempt to prevent the
British from annexing Howland Island and Jarvis Island in response to the
following information received:

     "The State Department was jolted on 21 May when it received a despatch
from the American Consul in Sydney , Albert M. Doyle. He reported that
H.M.S. Leith had left Suva in February under secret orders to claim certain
islands in the Phoenix Group which might be considered useful as bases in
the establishment of a trans-Pacific service.This was a bombshell to the
State Department for an American naval vessel was already at Canton Island
and England had not been informed of the intended visit."

further, and more importantly , with regard to the subject of the 'markers'.

     " H.M.S. Leith had visited the eight islands of the Phoenix Group and
had put up a proclamation on each island which read: 'This island belongs
to King Edward VIII '
This island activity supposedly had been caused by the Americans and the
Japanese in the South Pacific. The Phoenix Group was described as having
been in the 'unattached' category of Pacific territories, although their
position flanking one of the main Pacific  trade routes , invests them with
some strategic importance"

    Please note that the logs of the HMS WELLINGTON, HMS LEITH , HMS
DUNEDIN and HMS LEANDER are being sent to me for authentication of the
above events having occured on those particular dates.

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

Below is additional  relevant information  pertaining to the possibility of
unrecorded visits to Gardner Island, and of the substantial amount of
vessels and people wandering about these islands during 1937 :(which has
been a subject of constant speculation on the Forum )


    The publicity over the recolonization of the islands stimulated foreign
interest in the islands. The Japanese fisheries vessel, Hakuyo Maru, made
frequent enquiries regarding Palmyra Island, Kimgman Reef and the
Equatorial Islands. In August 1937, this ship appeard off Howland Island
and then proceeded to Baker Island, where it hove to for two hours , making
no attempt to communicate with the colonists there. In the early hours of
September 1937, an unidentified ship passed close to Baker Island and
disappeared in the direction of Howland Island . A few hours later, the
French gunboat Savorgnan De Brazza, hove to off Howland Island and sent a
boat in near shore to ask the colonists if any assistance was needed .
Afterwards, it made off to the South . On 19 October 1937, a British
freighter which could not be identified, approached within one mile of
Howland before it turned to the North-West.


 ref:  Francis X.Holbrook .Aeronautical Reciprocity and the Anglo-American
Island Race , 1936-1937. Journal of the Royal Australian Historical
Society. Dec. 1971

       Francis X.Holbrook. The Canton Island Controversy: Compromise or
American Victory?
Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society. June 1973.


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

Whew!   Maybe we should all just sign on with Elgen and Marie.
I'll respond when I get some time (dream on Gillespie) but I wanted to get it
out there for everyone to see, consider and comment upon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:32:05 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Response to Ross re Oceanworkers

Phil 2276 wrote

>Am I the only one to have found the use of language and general tone of
>Oceanworkers' response to Ross (sorry, don't know surname) a bit cultish
>and creepy?

They're trying to raise money to develop their submersible. To do that, they
have decided to use a cause to add "excitement" and "motivation" for
potential investors: The glamorous Earhart mystery. Since they probably need
to present their risky project in a way that diminishes perceived risk to
the investors as much as possible, they have decided to take the position
that the "mystery is solved", that the Electra is most probably in
relatively pristine condition waiting to be plucked from the ocean floor at
a location that is approximately known, and they very enthusiastically cite
the Longs as their authority (although if the Longs do work with Nauticos
this could shift over time-- but who cares? <grin>), since they need an
authority whom they can present as clear and unambiguous. There is an added
pitch or "spin" that their project can somehow "restore" the reputation of
Amelia Earhart, which adds the spice of altruism and "morality" to their
promotion. The language seems creepy because they are, in my humble opinion,
rather inept at public relations and copywriting. Like many amateurs and
fuzzy thinkers, they are probably compensating for their lack of
understanding and verifiable substance by invoking an excessive number of
qualitative remarks and adjectives. As Ric said, the site pretty much speaks
for itself.

LTM (who didn't gush, it's so tacky)

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:41:34 EST
From:         R. Johnson
Subject:      Show Biz

Ric, write a book, get on TV, and set the world straight. You, my
friend, are the only person capable of solving this whole thing. The
longer people like Mr. Long are afforded the opportunity to expose their
views to the public, then the less likely you are to fund your
expiditions. People tend to accept what they see on TV as the truth. The
appearance by Mr. Long on TV this morning can only hinder the acceptance
of TIGHARS hypothesis. You must make yourself more public to attract the
funds that may eventually allow you to solve this whole thing. Millions
of viewers are now aware of Mr. Long and accept his book as the truth.
These viewers are all potential contributors to TIGHAR. Make TIGHAR more
visible by openly disagreeing with Mr. Long. Challenge him so that it
will create interest. Personally, I believe you gave him to much respect
in your review. Bottom line, attract attention to your cause and you
will attract money.

R. Johnson
LTM  ( who loves Dennis Rodman
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Humility makes it difficult for me to break the news that I have been on the
TODAY show 4 times.  Katie and I are on a first name basis (she really is as
nice as she seems).  We've had three documentaries produced about our work
(that's three more than Elgen).  If I get on TV much more I'll have to join
the Screen Actors Guild.

TV time does promote credibility but the truth is that it is the
controversial nature of the Earhart mystery that keeps it alive.  God bless
Elgen and Marie for stirring the pot, and for doing it with a spoon that is
full of holes.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:01:19 EST
From:         Skip
Subject:      Re: Book Review

Good review, well written. I haven't read the Long's book, so I can only go
on what other members of the forum have said. One question that I need
answered. Did the Electra have an automatic pilot? I didn't think they were
installed on aircraft until much later. Could be wrong.

Skip

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

NR16020 was equipped with a Sperry "Gyropilot", a hydraulically actuated
three-axis automatic pilot.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:17:34 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Elgen quote

With all due respect, if you've adopted the position that AE and FN were
eaten by cannibalistic Japanese Tribesoldiers, then count me out!  I'm
surprised it doesn't say they were "eaten by Tighars".  Sorry.  Couldn't
hold myself back.

You know, (and I have to say I have not yet read the book) I wonder if
the Longs haven't come under some pressure that we don't know about,
that has compelled them to put closure to their research, for whatever
reason, and caused them to write this book now.
ltm
jon 2266

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

We all know about the pressure they're under.  We're under it too.  It's
called "old age."

*************************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

Duh!  I knew it all along: Pat Thrasher was really Tokyo Rose!

************************************************************************
From Russ Matthews

<< The short article contains this sentence:

 In challenging TIGHAR's views he (Elgen Long) claims to "debunk the myths
 that Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan were captured by Japanese soldiers
 or cannibalistic island tribespeople." >>

  In all fairness, Elgen may never have said that, or said it quite that way.
 Any one here ever been misquoted by the press?

  LTM,
  Russ

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

No, never.  I particularly like the term "cannibalistic tribespeople."
Political correctness pervades even the absurd.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:20:31 EST
From:         Lars Larsson
Subject:      10E list

Just a thought:

Wouldn't a production list of the Lockheed 10 be a good thing on the TIGHAR
website?
Maybe just with c/n,last known owner,fate  to save space.This would stimulate
the search for those not accounted for, or maybe someone out there can find a
new candidate for the wreck photo.

Best wishes
/Lars Larsson

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

We could do that.  We have the technology.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:48:23 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      free round trip

I'll take a stab at the quote "so it is written, so it shall be done."  I'm
guessing is was uttered by Pharaoh, opposed by Chuck Heston's Moses in "The
Ten Commandments," or by Yul Brenner in "The King and I."

In the interest of historic quotes, perhaps when this whole thing is over
and done you can end your book with a quote from the Earhart/Noonan memorial
marker on Niku:  "Go and tell the Spartans passersby that here, obedient to
the laws of science we lie."

LTM, who never told me to come home with my shield or on it.

Dave Porter, 2288

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

That was a free trip to Funafuti.  Nobody said anything about a round trip.

Yes, the quote is a "pharaohphrasing" (I love it) of Rameses'
"So let it be written.  So let it be done."

CRM got it first.

As for suitable inscriptions, I'm sure there are many.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:12:04 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Endgame

Don Neuman said:

>Additionally, they seem to take the position that..."running out of fuel
>& ditching the aircraft"... is a sudden & unexpected event, so immediate
>& stressful that AE had no time to send any SOS or estimated position
>report or even keep her mic open until impact .

Yes, I must take issue with that myself. The Longs give the reader the
impression that the aircraft immediately fell into a nosedive the instant
the engines quit. Elgen Long, of all people, should know better.

Now I'm no pilot, nor do I play one on TV, but I know that even the worst
examples of aeronautical engineering will glide a little ways. And in the
event of fuel starvation is it likely that both engines will quit at
exactly the same moment? Surely one of them kept running a little longer
than the other?

Mr. Long IS being a little disingenuous here, and knows it, methinks.

Ergo, the question: What is, roughly, the glide range of the Electra 10E?
Surely it is long enough that Amelia had plenty of time to fire off a few
S.O.S. signals on all frequencies (assuming she knew how to manage the
glide properly).

Yes, when the engines quit, the generator quits, but the battery has more
than enough oomph at this point to send off a few S.O.S. messages. This
begs another question... when the generator goes offline, does a switch
have to be thrown to apply direct battery power to the radio?

LTM (who hates it when all the engines quit at once)

Tom #2179
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, actually, the schematic of the Electra's fuel system does seem to
indicate that it was set up, as Elgen claims, so that both engines always fed
off one tank.  That would tend to make both engines quit at more or less the
same time.

Yes, airplanes do glide even with no power but having had the experience of
an engine failure at 1,000 feet I can tell you that it does tend to keep you
rather busy trying to figure out if there's any way to restore power and
figure out where and how you're going to put this thing down if you can't.
Where Elgen's scenario does seem to fall apart is in the assumption that
Noonan couldn't or wouldn't make the all important call to alert the Coast
Guard that they're headed for the drink.  Also, any pilot knows that your
chances of survival in a ditching are far better if you land while you still
have power.

In short, to be kind, Elgen's endgame scenario (like much of the book) is
highly speculative and not terribly logical.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:13:29 EST
From:         Jim Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Dylexics Untie!

> I'll also point out that dyslexia is a much misused term.  I am not dyslexic.
>  I am merely careless.

I have to side with Ric on this.  I too am merely careless, and not lesdyxic.

Jim Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:30:33 EST
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      COLONISTS ON BAKER AND HOWLAND -JULY 1937

Itasca planted naval personnel on these two island in June to thwart
British anexation,and they were there during the flight of A.E. It was part
of their duties to record all suspicious or other activities in the area;
there must exist  somewhere ,in the Itasca log perhaps, a record of the
results of the interrogation of these men by the responsible officers in
charge of the search. Obviously the results would have been negative, but
still interesting , nonetheless, just  'for the record '.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:28:43 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LAMBRECHT'S SCOUTING MANOUEVRES AND MARKERS

Numerous errors.  But first, let me comment on Search and Rescue in 1937.
 The US Navy did not train for such activities, and Lambrecht and Co. were
flying and SAR'ing by the seat of their pants.  Today, we know that SAR is
not 100% capable of detection with the Mark 1 Mod 1 eyeball' in fact, it is
worse directly below the plane than off to the side.  With today's
training, equipment, and knowledge, SAR is much much better than before
WWII.  The nominal flight elevation for Lambrecht and Co. while searching
for Winslow Reef and the Reef and Sand Bank was 1000 feet, documented in
several places.  It is reasonable to assume that that was the flight
altitude for passage between islands, and possibly the first f