Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:41:01 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Kilts The Basswood log re Kilts' stay at Niku from Feb April 46 is quite interesting. Sounds like the Coast Guardsmen also fraternized with the natives at the village. Would any of the artifacts collected by Tighar (that may be related to AE) been visible in 1946 and simply not regarded as anything worthwhile. When Kilts gave his story to the reporter did he by any chance identify or give any clues to the identity of the native,(male, female, title etc), who passed on the Earhart/skeletal connection? (That is probably a stupid question) Has Kilt's? full story been published on the Forum. In March of 1946, how many natives were on NIKU? Anyone we know? LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric My understanding is that the information Tom related is from the Unit 92 station log, not the Basswood log. We, of course, have no way of knowing what various Coasties may have seen in the village but, perhaps significantly, the souvenirs collected by Coast Guardsman Dick Evans consisted of fans made of bird feathers, a sharktooth sword, and a woven hat. U.S. Navy PBY pilot John Mims, on the other hand, has kanawa wood boxes and a model canoe with inlaid pieces of aircraft aluminum. Evans and Mims had contact with the locals during the same time period (1944) but the Coasties' visits were, reportedly, fairly structured affairs while Mims seems to have had more opportunity for individual, casual interaction. It may be that the difference in souvenirs is pure chance, but it may also be that kanawa wood and aluminum were both in limited supply while feathers and shark teeth were plentiful. It may be that Mims was a "special" visitor who may have had better stuff with which to trade and, therefore, got better stuff. The significant thing here is, if kanawa wood boxes with aluminum inlays were valuable this late in the war it would seem to imply that the supply of kanawa wood and aluminum - and maybe the skill to fashion the boxes - was in shorter, rather than greater, supply. That would argue for a pre-war, finite source of thin-gauge aluminum rather than inceasingly abundant sources of wartime aluminum. Kilts did not identify his sources by name but his primary informant apparently had a very limited command of English and he had to find an interpreter (maybe the island's radio operator?) to help. In 1946 there were roughly 100 settlers on the island. (Notice that we're avoiding the inaccurate and politically incorrect term "native." The colonists who lived on Niku were no more native to the island than were the Americans or the British.) We'll put the text of Kilts' 1960 newspaper article up on the website as a Document of the Week. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:49:52 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Cam Warren's HYPOTHESIS > From Cameron Warren: > Follow-up work performed by Cam Warren, who verified > Goerner's contributions and uncovered certain other > rare government documents, never before introduced. I can purchase documentation at the local news stand that will convince many people that aliens exist and have been seen on Earth. If I tell you this, that aliens exist and have been seen on Earth, I would hope that you would read my documentation before you decide if it should be believed. If you do read my documentation you will probably not come to the same conclusion that many other's have. You state that you have documentation supporting your claims but you have not yet, as far as I know, shown it to us. Do you expect us to believe you on faith? Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:27:29 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Warren's hypothesis A strange thing happened when I printed out Cam Warren's hypothesis from my PC -- the paper had conspiracy written all over it. Hm-m-m-m. Regretfully Cam's hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis; it is more a collection of random "facts" with no documentation, selected bits of alleged "related information," and a list of conclusions that are anything but "reasonable." Cam's paper reeks of the Amelia-as-government-spy genre. He advertises this hypothesis as prime rib but it looks, smells, and tastes more like goulash. The gaps in his reasoning are appalling. For example he states that a photo of the "RDF-1 show[s] a five-band frequency selector switch, the RDF-2 Coupler had a six-position switch. This establishes that both systems provided coverage above 4000 kilocycles, certainly to 7500 kc . . . " How he arrived at that conclusion is a mystery. Another example; his "reasonable conclusion" that Bendix "(probably)" paid Putnam to use the Bendix equipment is unsubstantiated by any documentation. A final example: "And another factor was her apparent refusal to allow Fred to operate the equipment." The only people who could vouch for that statement died in 1937, and Cam offers no proof that AE did not let FN operate the equipment. All in all Mr. Warren's attempt to further his AE-as-government-spy hypothesis is long on speculation and short on documentation, a common condition for most conspiracy theories. When he can offer solid documentation of his "government documented facts," "related information," and "reasonable conclusions" maybe he will gain the creditability and wider audience he so desperately seeks. LTM, who also didn't believe the Warren Commission Dennis O. McGee #0149 *************************************************************************** From Ric <> Different guy. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:33:46 EDT From: Ric Subject: More from Mims We've just received the following additional (and unsolicited) recollections from Dr. John Mims who, as Lt. (jg) John Mims in WWII, saw aircraft aluminum and an aircraft control cable being used as fishing tackle by the colonists on Gardner Island. The "Colonel Laxton" he refers to is Paul B. Laxton who was the Western Pacific High Commission's District Officer for the Phoenix Group during and after the war. I was not aware that Laxton ever held any military rank, but in 1949, as Assistant Lands Commissioner for the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony, he spent three months on Gardner reorganizing the colony. We have a long report he subsequently wrote to his superiors and an article entitled "Nikumaroro" which he wrote for the Journal of the Polynesian Society in 1950. At any rate, here are Dr. Mims' recollections: ******************************* Personal Recollections of Colonel Laxton in WWII, by John P. Mims of Tuscumbia, Alabama, in March of 2000. Transcribed by Mims's daughter Rosemary Fisk. The Colonel and I became good friends in 1944-45 while on the Island of Canton. He was the officer in charge of the Islands under the British Flag, and I flew the circuit around the Islands carrying supplies, mail, and men (mostly Coast Guard). He was rather short of stature (5'7" to 5'8"), and was almost always alone even though he was very outgoing and clever and loved parties. He was always dressed very neatly in a jungle hat, khaki shirt and shorts with matching socks and sandals. He was waited upon by two Micronese men from the islands. He depended on me to help protect the natives from exploitation by the sailors. He often invited Lt. Wahlgren (my navigator) and me to an afternoon tea or to a fish dinner prepared by the native men. After seeing the large fish on Gardener with the large aluminum hook (hand made) and the approximately 25 foot leader that was an obvious airplane control cable and the native boy saying it came from a plant that was there when they came, I asked him if the British had lost a plane there. He replied that no British planes had been there, and neither had the Americans lost any planes there (PBys were the only ones flown in the area). I asked him if this could be a part of Amelia Earhart's plane, and he said it could well be, but he had little interest in a story of a lost pilot, since the war was in progress. Also, he joked that the woman was American and that the 4th of July and Thanksgiving with the Americans was about all the American history he could take. He did at one time mention that bones were found and that the natives were more interested in the shoes they found on the two dead European people. He did not say, or I can't remember what he said happened to the bones. Also, he planned to spend as much of his life as possible among the natives and on these islands. He seemed to have no interest in marriage or family, but got very excited when any British or American woman came through the island. He gave me an award in a fruitless search for an island chief lost at sea during a storm. On parting he saw me off, wished me well, and invited me to visit him on the islands or in Britain. I can only remember receiving one letter from him after the war. I was in London and the letter was post-marked in the Fijis. ******************************************* It must be said that when I first interviewed Dr. Mims about his wartime experiences in 1995 he did tell me about making inquiries with the British official on Canton Island about the possibility of a British aircraft being lost on Gardner, although I don't think he mentioned Laxton by name. At that time he said nothing about suggesting to the official that the parts he saw on Gardner were from Earhart's airplane or that he later was told that bones were found, etc. Dr. Mims has been a TIGHAR member since 1995 and remains very interested in our investigation. It is not possible to know whether his current familarity with the facts we have uncovered has stirred new and genuine memories, or has caused him to remember more than actually happened. That John Mims flew several resupply trips to Gardner Island in late 1944 and early 1945 is documented in official U.S. Navy flight manifests that detail every person and every sack of mail, case of beer, and jar of mayonnaise he carried there - and yet, he has no recollection of the wreck of the Norwich City and when asked to annotate a map, he placed the Loran station on northwest rather than the southeast tip of the island. Such are the vagaries of human memory. Still, his quote of Laxton's facetious reason not being interested in Earhart, the American lady, has the ring of truth. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:01:16 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Cam Warren's HYPOTHESIS To Cameron Warren, I too, would appreciate it if you would promptly state your source of information. I would think it a grand adventure if I might go directly to your source, confirm that it is authentic and repute your critics on your behalf. LTM, Roger Kelley, #2112 ************************************************************************** From Amanda Dunham >According to contemporary news stories, ... Why? Because the press was so much more accurate then than they are now??? Amanda Dunham ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:04:55 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: A ride in a Lockheed 10A I went for a ride in the Electra 10A on Sat May 27/00 out of Muskoka Airport, 100 miles north of Toronto. Cost me $100 Canadian($66 US), which will go towards some sick kid's Disney World trip. Using a 7000 ft. asphalt runway with very little wind, it took the Electra about 3,500 feet to get off. There didn't appear to be any flaps and we had 11 people aboard, some over 200 lbs. The aircraft is like new, and the Wasp Juniors sounded healthy. Very noisy on take-off, you couldn't talk to the person beside you, even if screaming. Once seated, the Electra is very comfortable There are five rows of 2 seats each, each with a window, each with a fresh air vent, but no reclining seat-backs(which I didn't miss). Air Canada deleted the 10th passenger seat at the door and in 1937 had a stewardess in the 9th seat also, who served meals! The luggage compartments are in the wing roots. I hand-measured the floor to ceiling at the 2nd row of seats and came up with 58 inches, but it reduces towards the rear door. Being 74 inches tall, this made it difficult for me to get to my seat, but once seated there was plenty of leg room. I had the main wing spar intrusion of the mid-wing Electra in front of me but it was a useful table. There are 2 emergency exits; the hatch over the pilot's head and a starboard window opposite the port door. There is a seat-belt light and P.A. system, but these may have been added to satisfy current regulations, I don't know. We flew at 2000 ft. for 40 minutes sightseeing and the engines were much quieter after throttling back to cruise at only 150MPH at 1900RPM. Hey, it was a ball. Linda told me that the Muskoka L10A flights will occurr in 2001 as well, and they are not booked up yet. In fact, one of the flights was not booked up this year. Apparently, only 5 Air Canada pilots are allowed to fly CF-TCC, and our co-pilot was a 747 Captain! BTW, an international air show was being held at the Muskoka Airport at which the Yankee Air Force (YAF) B-17G "Yankee Lady" was on show. I can tell you subjectively that The B-17 was not as loud on take-off as the L10A! Also, both iterations of the Lockheed Electra were side by side on the apron(An RCAF "Aurora" and the L10A). The "Aurora" is the same as the USAAF "Orion", which most of us know is a modified civilian Lockheed "Electra", turboprop iteration. LTM, HAG 2201. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Hugh. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:08:56 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: AE, FN and Morse Hue Miller wrote: > I wonder how did EA or FN learn morse that quickly? Ric, What do we know of Almon A. Gray, U.S. Naval Reserve (Ret.), author of the article, "Amelia Didn't Know Radio?" And of "Noonan biographer, Michael A. Lang" who is cited as saying that, as of about 1931, Noonan held a Second Class Commercial Radio operator license? This license required the ability to send and receive Continental Morse code at a speed of not less than 16 words/minute. From what we know of Fred Noonan, I can easily believe he might have obtained such a license. He may have barely passed the code test, as most first-time applicants do, and then didn't touch a key or copy a word of code thereafter. In any case, I suspect that Fred, perhaps Amelia too, played down whatever code ability they had because they did not want to do CW. We should also keep in mind that, assuming you do know the code but lack expertise, it's a lot easier to send than to receive. I think there's little doubt that Fred could have pounded out any of the reported messages even though he might not have been able to read the same messages at 5 WPM -- or at any speed. If Amelia had made any effort to learn the code in the expectation that she might have to pass the radio test, she might have been able to do it too. She got out of the test, but would some CW proficiency have been required? Vern Klein 2124 *************************************************************************** From Ric You make some interesting points. I haven't seen confirmation that Fred held a commercial radio license but I don't have any reason to doubt those who say that he did. Should be easy enough to check. Volunteers? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:15:15 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: No Subject My curiosity is getting the best of me. Where in the lagoon was the PBY landing zone or did they land at sea? Where did they beach the aircraft to off load their cargo? Or did they off load in open water into a long boat or barge? It's a bit off topic, but maybe Dr. Mims would care to respond. Thanks, Roger Kelley #2112 *************************************************************************** From Ric Landings were made out in the middle of the lagoon up toward the village end, taking great care to avoid coral heads. (You never land an airplane in the open ocean if you can help it.) The airplane was not beached but was met by a longboat which lightered passengers and cargo ashore. It was a good mile from where the airplane could be landed to the Coast Guard dock down at the southeast end. There really aren't many places along the lagoon shoreline where you can get anything but a shallow-draft launch up to the beach. The bottom shallows so gradually that in most places you have to wade tha last few yards to shore. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:40:30 EDT From: Ric Subject: Kilts article up The text of the original 1960 Floyd Kilts article is now up on the TIGHAR website as the latest Document of the Week. You'll find it at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/KiltsStory.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:03:38 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Warren's hypothesis >From Dennis McGee > > The gaps in his reasoning are appalling. For example he states that a >photo of the "RDF-1 show[s] a five-band frequency selector switch, the RDF-2 >Coupler had a six-position switch. This establishes that both systems >provided coverage above 4000 kilocycles, certainly to 7500 kc . . . " How he >arrived at that conclusion is a mystery. [quoted from NRL Radio Materiel School manual, 1936 ] The type RDF-2 direction finding equipment was designed for use on large flying boats and if found sufficiently successful in meeting service requirements, will replace the present ...... It differs from the Type RDF-1-A direction finder in that a special hydraulic mechanical arrangement and autosyn indicator system permits its installation on the hull of the aircraft near the tail....... .....While this pamphlet was in the process of being written, [1936] the first actual service installation tests with the Type RDF-2 direction finder were being conducted and for this reason it was impossible to give more detailed information on the installation of this equipment in aircraft. ......as the electrical circuits of the direction finder proper are identical to the Type RDF-1-A, the only other interesting feature is the autosyn motor indicator system permitting the operator to..... The desired frequency range is selected by sections S1, S2 of the frequency band switch. This switch assembly has seven positions, the frequency range for each position being given on a frequency bands chart concealed inside the inner.... These ranges, and the circuit combinations employed to cover them, are as follows: [circuit components list omitted] STEP FREQUENCY RANGE 1 500 - 590 Kcs 2 590 - 700 Kcs 3 700 - 1050 Kcs 4 1050 - 1570 Kcs 5 1570 - 3000 Kcs 6 3000 - 5400 Kcs 7 5400 - 8000 Kcs [end quote] It's pretty hard to count switch positions from a photo unless the photo is clear enuff that you can read ALL the control markings. The original text and drawings have been scanned in by Mike Hanz: "No manual, but the DF chapter from the NRL manual may help. See http://users.erols.com/aafradio/NRLDFChapter.doc for the Word document. The figures [technical drawings ] are more difficult to include..... http://users.erols.com/aafradio/Rdf-1-1.gif, http://users.erols.com/aafradio/Rdf-1-2.gif, and http://users.erols.com/aafradio/RDF-2-1.GIF) If you don't have point and click capabilities, be advised that the URLs are case sensitive. Also keep in mind that although they are relatively small (<~100KB), they blow up to a decent [big!] size because of the .gif compression, so you'd best file them off to your hard disk for viewing/printing." --via Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Hue. There is actually some very good and useful information here but the conclusions Cam Warren has drawn from it are absurd. As Cam says, publicity photos taken in late February 1937 show a device which looks just like the RDF-1 Coupler apparently about to be installed in the Electra. (Cam says that the guy in the photos showing the box to Amelia is Bendix engineer Cyril Remmlein but he doesn't say how he knows that.) An article in the March 1937 issue of Aero Digest shows a picture of the same device and describes it as a new "local control Bendix direction finder for use with conventional receivers." Looks to me like Earhart simply decided to replace the Hooven Radio Compass (which used a separate receiver) with a Bendix loop and RDF-1 Coupler that would hook right up to her Western Electric 20B receiver. She was sacrificing greatly simplified operation for the sake of saving, according to Hooven, about thirty pounds of weight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:58:48 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Fire Extinguisher I'm new in this forum and is drawn by my own curiousity to join. I have been visiting the TIGHAR web page for nearly a year and a half and has seen quite a few documentaries about it. I have really no opinion on the subject, but as a student of science (actually engineering) I have been surprised by the discovery of any physical evidence at all. The article that interests me is the the fire extinguisher that was recovered (Article 2-4-V-100). It is battered. The shell has corroded by what is seems to be rust, from the picture that I have seen. My guess is that the containers material is ferrous. There are some markings on it that are however not consistant to rusting, in this I mean the 'whitish' discolouration on the surface. This may be the result of the contents (Carbon Tetracholoride?) spilling out as the pressurised container rusted through. This appears to be along a seam near the top of the container and describes a spiral pattern along the length of the cylinder. About six and a half centimeters down from the top of the container, there appears to be an indentation that looks uniformly circular along the leftside (or right depending on which angle it is viewed from). The surface of the container has raised impressions (grooves?) along the circumfrence of the object, this feature repeats itself along the length of the cylinder. There is a white marking at the bottom of the container which looks like some sort of paint. Finally, there appears to be a pressed indentation or remains of a label on the container (there was definately something there but from the picture shown I cannot guess what it is). The interesting thing about this (I'm speculating here) is that the last feature I mentioned above is not visible in the photo 'may20dep.jpg'. Since I am a student, not an archieologist, I could be wrong in assuming that it is not there. However from the angle of which the photograph was taken (may20dep.jpg) and the angle of the artifact photo, it seems that the label, or whatever was in that space should be visible in the May20dep pic, which it is not. Im sure this isn't conclusive but would like to know if this is due to the overexposed photograpgh or if the artifact itself would not be able to display this feature on film given that it is so strongly reflective (when it was new I mean). Thanks a bunch Charles Lim ************************************************************************** From Ric The artifact is corroded rather than rusted and does not appear to be ferrous. The indentations you mention do give the impression that they were meant to have a label pasted there but, if there was ever a label, there was no trace of it when we found the artifact. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:02:10 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Sending code It's my understanding that they did not have a code key with which to send anything, irrespective of whether they knew code. Am I mistaken about that? David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric That is my understanding also. The only way they would have to send code would be by depressing and releasing the push-to-talk button on the microphone. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:13:29 EDT From: Ric Subject: Warren's Hypothesis Cam Warren sent this to me but, because he also refers to you folks, I'm sure he won't mind if I pass along his opinion of your comments. ******************************* The response of you and the TIGHAR cubs is rather what the rest of us have come to expect. To quote from Steven Sondheim: "Send in the clowns . . . don't bother, they're here!" As for the "proof"; the article was presented as a quick summary of our knowledge to date. All the material referenced is in the public domain. You COULD look it up. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:37:19 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Warren's hypothesis I'm not sure what the fuss is that AE had Bendix equipment aboard the Electra.Is it controversial or in dispute? Many researchers list the Bendix direction finder as part of her equipment.CDR H.M.Anthony,USCG, said he saw the direction finder in AE's cockpit in Hawaii in 1937.The New York Hearld Tribune of March 7,1937,for instance, reports that a "last minute addition to the navigation equipment is a Bendix direction finder,installed during the last week.Its loop, carried on the outside of the ship just above the cockpit,is adjustable..." The paper also adds that a Western Electric two-way radio communication system was aboard. The inference is this information came from CDR Clarence Kelly at Burbank,Ca. As you know other sources report that Mr.Richard Black furnished a Navy high frequency direction finder that was set up on Howland. Another newsclipping relates that Vincent Bendix was one of the sponsors of AE's project and said the plane was equipped with Bendix parts and instruements. No source listed as this was a newspaper account. Goldstein and Dillion in "Amelia" also report that AE carried a "Bendix (miniaturized) direction-finder receiver,covering frequency ranges of 200 to 1500 kilocycles and 2400 to about 10,000 kc..." So if George Putnam made a deal with Bendix,so what. Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't follow that the Bendix directional finder supports the spy mission theory. Other than the unproven,undocumented conspirarcy versions I thought most of the solid evidence negated the secret mission diversion theory. Question to Mr. Warren: why did this Bendix df equipment installation support a secret Naval Intelligence spy mission? Because the equipment was "classified"?Was it "Confidential" or "Secret"? Maybe I'm confusing radio equipment and directional finders and maybe in fact noone can provide more credible evidence of the Bendix installation. Clarification please of what AE really had,if possible,in the Electra? Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric You're correct Ron. All of the available primary sources appear to confirm what we can see in the photos. As configured for the first World Flight attempt, the Electra carried one transmitter ( a Western Electric 13C mounted to the floor in the aft cabin), one receiver ( a Western Electric 20B mounted under the copilot's seat), and a coupling device ( a Bendix RDF-1 mounted on the instrument panel) that permitted the Bendix loop antenna to be used with the Western Electric receiver for direction finding. Although the antenna arrangement was somewhat different for the second attempt, the number and type of radios seems to have remained the same. Clearly, the RDF-1 was not "classified" or it wouldn't have been featured in an Aero Digest article about new products on the market. Cam's allegation that the device supplied to Earhart was an experimental, secret RDF-2 with different frequency capabilites ignores the description of the RDF-2 as identical to the RDF-1 except that it had a special drive that allowed the loop antenna to be mounted in the tail of the airplane and be remotely rotated. Earhart's loop was, obviously, not like that. Most of the confusion about Bendix radio equipent aboard the Electra seems to arise from a semantics problem about what is meant by the term "direction finder." Yes, the airplane had a "Bendix direction finder" (loop and coupler) but Elgen Long, for example, is quite sure that the aircraft carried a separate Bendix receiver exclusively for direction finding and goes into great detail about it, but I've never seen any evidence that any such radio was aboard the airplane. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:44:25 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Warren's hypothesis Is the Bendix loop and RDF-1 Coupler Tuned? *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure what you mean. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:58:53 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Kilts article up (From Ric: I'll reply to the Wombat's questions as we go.) >"They were about through and the native was walking along one end of the >island. There in the brush about five feet from the shoreline he saw a >skeleton. > >"The island doctor said the skeleton was that of a woman. And there were no >native women on the island then. Island Doctor ?????? Was there such a person? From Ric: No. There may have been a Native Medical Practioner or, more likely, a Native Dresser. The former had rather extensive medical training while the latter just knew some first aid. >Farther down the beach he found a man's skull, but nothing else. This is something I don't recall seeing discussed. The skeleton identified as a woman's and the skull identified as a man's... ! From Ric: Other versions of the story told by the settlers talk about two skeletons - a man and a woman. >"The magistrate was a young Irishman who got excited when he saw the bone. I imagine "bone" singular is a typo.. From Ric: Yes. Should be "bones." >This same account was related by the doctor to New Zealand officials. Another one I hadn't seen discussed... From Ric: Kilts was under the impression that the island was under New Zealand adminstration so he may be referring to Gallagher's notification of the authorities in Fiji. >At low tide the smoothest coral in the world is exposed for 200 yards. From >the air it looks as if you could dry your nets there, fly your kite, or, >alas, land your plane. > >Actually, this smoothest coral is slashed with canyons six to 10 feet wide >and 40 to 100 feet deep. At the ends of the 200 yards, the hard beach drops >deceptively, 100 feet or more at one spot. > >A plane attempting a landing there would be dashed to pieces. I recall bringing up the danger of trying to land on "apparently smooth" coral in my earliest posts, but Ric assured me that I (and Kilts apparently) not having seen the incredibly smooth coral on Gardner, was wrong. I wonder what Kilts was drinking when he imagined all those canyons etc... From Ric: The canyons are there. They're fingers that reach shoreward from the reef face in many, but not all parts of the island. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:36:31 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Warren's Hypothesis Please advise those interested that I have NEVER supported any "spy mission" theory, and point out that idea came from a Forum correspondent. And, to set another matter straight, you are correct about the RDF-2 being a "heavy duty" version of the RDF-1. At the time I wrote the article - over a year and a half ago - detailed info was lacking. Since then, thanks to Hue Miller, some very valuable documentation has been unearthed, which helps explain the situation. As of the moment, it appears AE had some variation of the RDF-1 system (which included the loop - often referred to as the "direction finder" - and coupler). The coupler was most definitely tunable, and simultaneously tuned the loop itself. In the production RDF-1, the frequency coverage extended to 8,000 kc. (So there). And it was classified "Confidential" in 1936-7. Coupling it with the RA-1 receiver was apparently NOT standard procedure, but was done for Amelia on an experimental basis. An indication of how well "covered up" the Earhart/Bendix setup was, is the apparent ignorance of the real experts, who should have known all about it. And I'm not referring to the latter day "Monday-Morning Quarterbacks", but such people as Fred Hooven, Al Gray, Paul Rafford, Capt. Safford and Comdr. Anthony. And I think I can add Randy Jacobson to that distin- guished group. (MORAL: Don't dismiss an idea out-of-hand just because it doesn't agree with conventional wisdom!!!) You should know Naval Intelligence (as often happens in intel operations) had two or more competing groups, who were intensely jealous of one another. So the left hand didn't always know what the right hand was doing, and vice versa. SOMEBODY in the Navy knew what was going on concerning Earhart. Quite likely a single individual. And if that sounds conspiratorial, I apologize. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric <> I'm assuming that you know this from a stamp or notation on the "NRL Radio Materiel School manual, 1936" Hue was quoting from. As I'm sure you know, "confidential" is the lowest category of classification and is used pretty casually. If "NRL" stands for something like Naval Research Laboratory (possibly the forerunner of the current Office of Naval Research?) then it would probably be standard procedure for the manual to be "confidential." That does not at all mean that the equipment it describes was classified. The fact that Bendix was hawking the RDF-1 to the commercial aviation industry in March 1937 is a pretty clear indication that it was not classified at that time. If you have documentation that proves otherwise please say so. <> Cam, that is 99 and 44/100ths percent pure speculation. Please cite ANY document or photograph that established the presence of a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard NR16020. <> And you wonder why people call you a conspiracy theorist. Absence of evidence is not proof of a cover up. Cover ups do exist, but you can't say that one happened (and expect to be believed) unless you can prove it. For example: A comparison of Leo Bellart's original Itasca radio log with the transcript submitted by Warner Thompson clearly documents his (quite successful) attempt to cover his own butt at Amelia's expense. Whether you call it a whitewash or a cover up, it's a documented case of someone not telling the truth. Similarly, there is extensive documentation of Sir Harry Luke's refusal to tell the Americans about the bones found on Gardner. Cover up? Conspiracy of silence? Whatever. There is documented proof that it happened. If there is ANY evidence that Earhart had access to any classified government equipment please enlighten us. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:41:22 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Warren's Hypothesis Cam Warren wrote: > As for the "proof"; the article was presented as a quick summary > of our knowledge to date. All the material referenced is in > the public domain. You COULD look it up. Thanks for the tip. It would help if you could site your references for me. Frank Westlake Clown #9237 ************************************************************************** From Bill Leary > As for the "proof"; the article was presented as a quick summary > of our knowledge to date. Fair enough. And now come the opinions and queries for you to provide sources for the information in the quick summary. > All the material referenced is in the public domain. You COULD look it up. If I go into the car dealership looking for a two door sports coupe, and they try to sell me a four door sedan, they have to do better than just say "you'll love it, the reasons why are in the trade press, go look it up." Rather, she better be prepared to walk out, kick the tires with me, and tell me why this is a better choice for me than what I already believe is. So, many of us believe the evidence points to one set of conclusions. You've decided the evidence points somewhere else. Give us something to go on. You COULD provide references. Otherwise we have little but to believe that you feel your sources won't stand up to independent examination. - Bill *************************************************************************** From Michael Holt > As for the "proof"; the article was presented as a quick summary > of our knowledge to date. All the material referenced is in > the public domain. You COULD look it up. Was Mr Warren's essay footnoted? I didn't keep a copy of it. Thanks. ************************************************************************** From Ric No it was not, but Cam has since explained that the paper he sent me was only a summary and some of it was wrong anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:03:27 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Secret? Navy? >From Ron Bright > >I'm not sure what the fuss is that AE had Bendix equipment aboard the >Electra. Is it controversial or in dispute? The only point is, the equipment was new, unproven technology, and it appears that her trying to use it, and her unfamiliarity with it, seems to have been one of the factors in the accident. At the very least, it was a waste of time and effort, when time and effort were not to be wasted. >Goldstein and Dillion in "Amelia" also report that AE carried a "Bendix >(miniaturized) direction-finder receiver,covering frequency ranges of 200 >to 1500 kilocycles and 2400 to about 10,000 kc..." Not a big deal here, but a typical layman-type error, it was a receiver accessory unit, not a "d-f receiver". >Question to Mr. Warren: why did this Bendix df equipment installation >support a secret Naval Intelligence spy mission? Because the equipment was >"classified"? Was it "Confidential" or "Secret"? Right. Thru the fog of time, these adjectives seem to have been attached because of this equipment's connection to the military. Even if the news of this product appeared in some magazine, it's extremely unlikely it ever appeared on the open market, that is, it most likely was never seen outside of for-Navy production, and in Navy nomenclature. >From Ric > >Elgen Long, for example, is quite sure that the aircraft carried a separate >Bendix receiver exclusively for direction finding and goes into great detail >about it, but I've never seen any evidence that any such radio was aboard the >airplane. I am sure you are correct here. The Bendix receiver would have had to be a type RA-1, which Bendix was trying to sell with the RDF unit as part of a total package. However, the RA-1 is not channelized, requires cranking from frequency to frequency, was only carried on planes with a radio operator crewmember, and would have added a great deal of learning and trouble to AE's communications and homing efforts, for no obvious advantage. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric The only part of Hue's a comments with which I disagree is his feeling that the RDF-1 was never really commercially available. The article in Aero Digest does not refer to the device as an "RDF-1" and it may be that that was merely the military nomenclature, but it does show a picture of what is quite obviously the same device shown in RDF-1 diagram and in the publicity photos taken with Earhart. Amelia and the press refer to the device as a "Bendix direction finder." Nobody says anything about it being military or naval equipment. I see no reason not to think that this thing is nothing more than a new piece of avionics that came on the market and was also adopted for military use. As for Goldstein and Dillon, remember that they are not researchers but, rather, specialize in rehashing and publishing the unpublished work of people who have died. "At Dawn We Slept", for example, was Gordon Prange's work. Their book "Amelia" is basically a treatment of Laurence Safford's work from the 1960s. Safford did some excellent research to counter the conspiracy crowd but it's now old hat and many of his conclusions have been invalidated by new primary sources that have since come to light. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:08:27 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Tuning the loop >From Warren Lambing >Is the Bendix loop and RDF-1 Coupler Tuned? >************************** >From Ric > >I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not sure either, but i'll have a stab at it and keep it short. The Bendix unit, the RDF unit (or coupler, or adaptor) was basically just a tuned preamp for the loop. Going to the loop really cuts down on the signal level, compared to using the wire antenna, and especially so on shortwaves, where AE was trying to do homing. So the act of tuning up the RDF, plus the amplifier stage inside, boosted the signal up. (The "Select-A-Tenna", a commercial product now sold to boost AM radio reception, works the same way, tuning the loop to the frequency gives a big signal rise). Using the RDF did add some complexity to AE's task. With the Itasca heard in her headphones, she would then: switch in the RDF unit set RDF bandswitch to frequency range for channel look up on the tuning chart, or remember, where 7500 kc/s was on the 0-100 tuning scale of the RDF tune the RDF up or down til she heard the Itasca again tune for null, note bearing switch to direction and tune for max, to point to correct direction and eliminate 180 degree ambiguity --Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Warren Lambing I guess I answer my own question, I was wondering if you could tune the Bendex Loop via switch before it reach the reciever, (which would explain why AE could not appear to recieve) but it appears from the diagrams and word doc. that the tuning of the loop was done by the Bendix direction finder. Just in case I get jump on for the idea of the loop being tunable, I have an 1940 RCA reciever which uses a loop for the domestic AM Band (Wire for Shortwave), this loop has two Dual conectors connected to the loop, the conectors are identical, if I switch the order they connect to the loop, I lose one half of the band (I think it is the bottom half) as I tune down the dial the frequncies repeat themeselves, when I hook them back in the right order, I recieve the full band again. Anyhow the reason I mention it, is that in this 1940 reciever the loop plays a factor in the tuning of the radio, I doubt that is the case with the Westinghouse radio AE had, but I wonder other then weight, what differences the Bendix Loop had? Regards. Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:13:55 EDT From: unknown Subject: Fire extinguisher (again) I've looked on te web for fire extiguisher manufacturers that may have been around in the 30's. I have found 2 so far. Pyrene Corporation 130, Esna Park Drive, Markham, Ontario, Canada, L3R 1E3 Walter Kidde Portable Equipment Co. 1394, South Third Street, Mebane, North Carolina, USA 29302 I'm not sure how this info is useful. I've realised that the material used may have been brass not a ferrous kind, mainly through discovering this on the internet as well as your comments. Also rusting, would be a more reddish discoloration which would probably lead to the cylinder having various holes where the metal would have rusted through, and fragmentation of the metal around such holes. Since there is no sign of this in the photograph, this is definately not rusting as I thought. This some other kind of metal corrosion that I haven't quite come across yet. Most descriptions I have read about Carbontet extingushers give the length of the cylinder to be 12 inches, yet in the photo, this is clearly not so. Since there may have been a plethora of designs for such items, I can see why it is so difficult in trying to track this artifact down. I don't know why a manufacturer of such an article would stamp out the indentations for a label on the sheet metal itself when it would have been more convienient and cheaper to stick a paper label on the surface. I do find this artifact promising in that it could well be AE's. But we do need to know for sure, which is what TIGHAR'S work is all about. *************************************************************************** From Ric What we've been able to establish with some certainty (Tom and others correct me if I'm wrong) is that the artifact found on the island is not like the Pyrene extinguishers listed as being aboard the plane after the Luke Field wreck and is probably of British manufacture (at least it's not like any we've found of American manufacture). Our current thinking is that the artifact is most likely part of the colony, not the airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:18:27 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Kilts document The Kilts Document of the Week is fascinating. I have a hard time believing that there was no follow-up or investigation at the time. For any reader with more than a casual interest in Earhart, it reads like the sort of thing that makes your neck hairs stand up. I imagine you having that sort of reaction when you first saw it. That the Kilts story mentioned a "man's skull further down the beach" was new to me also. My big question is this: Did Floyd Kilts ever make the trip to the Phillipines and Gardner that the story mentions? To Hugh Graham: I live only a few miles from Willow Run Airport, the YAF's home field, and have seen their B-17 several times this year--it is a lovely sight (and sound). One of our regular customers at my job owns a pressure washing business, and he washes the YAF's planes for them. I'm hoping to use that as a contact if we ever go museum trolling for TIGHAR supporters. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************************** From Ric Tom King has been in touch with Kilts' daughter and, if I'm not mistaken, she was able to confirm tha Floyd never got to make his trip to the Phillipines and Gardner. I always thought it was a wierd comment anyway. Like the Phillipines and Gardner are in the same neighborhood? Like you can catch a commercial flight to Manila with a quick stop-over at Niku? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:21:25 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Classified Materials I've been reading with great interest all the materials from Cam Warren & others about what AE carried aboard the Electra for communications & navigation. Conspiracy or not it is interesting stuff. I do have hard time believing that someone in the military who entrust anything of a remotely "classified" nature to AE and her egotistical publicity-seeking husband George Putnam. AE made a lot of speeches & PR appearances about her exploits and George P was right on her coatails every time trying to get a piece of the limelight and a book deal wherever the opportunity arose. I personally speculate he was jeolous of the press Fred Noonan was getting as navigator. If I were the Navy, the AE & GP team with an insatiable desire for publicity & publishing deals would be a poor risk to trust anything classified. Doug B. #2335(Who doesn't own AE luggage-guarenteed to get lost) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:25:44 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Classifications Ric said: As I'm sure you know, "confidential" is the lowest category of classification . . . " That is absolutely correct, the other two being secret and top secret. The two latter classification can also be used with "codeword" material. The codeword usually identifies the manner in which the intelligence was collected. As an example, the CIA might classify as material collected from foreign agents as SECRET Bluenose, and perhaps SECRET Hardrock for stuff from wire taps on overseas embassies. Codeword material is vastly more restricted in its dissemination than non-codeword stuff because of its sensitivity, either in who collected it or how it was collected. Another thing to remember, a classified document carries the classification of its highest classified entry. As an example, an otherwise unclassified 300-page report on frequency propagation may be classified SECRET even if only a page or two contains SECRET material. This policy leads to vast amounts of otherwise benign materials carrying high classifications, which makes it all the more difficult for historians to obtain original documentation on important events. Even decades later when the material no longer warrants classification, researchers have difficulties because the government doesn't want to be embarrassed when people learn that the material was collected in the first place. Thankfully, that mentality is disappearing and we are now gaining access to stuff that fills in the gaps of history. LTM, who pines for the Cold War Dennis O. McGee, #0149 ************************************************************************** From Ric In my experience, both with materials my Dad has from WWII and from my own time in the Army, even the most innocuous training manuals were classified "Confidential." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:48:29 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fire extinguisher (again) We've been in touch with Pyrene and gotten the spec's for what they think were most likely the extinguishers listed in the Luke Field inventory as being aboard the Electra. They're similar in some respects to the extinguisher we have, but not very. Beyond this we haven't really pursued identification. The body of "our" extinguisher (2-4-V-100), by the way, is definitely brass. It was one of two found; the other, seemingly identical, was left on the island. Both were in the "new" part of the village -- i.e. the part occupied mostly post-1949, and my personal feeling is that they're most likely from the Loran station, though we have no firm data on what kinds of extinguishers the station had. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:49:34 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Kilts document Kilts' daughter was quite sure he'd never made it back to Niku. He WAS in the process of writing a book, the ms for which we have unfortunately not been able to locate. I asked her specifically about a map, thinking he might have gotten his informant to do a sketch or something, and she said she recalled no such thing. As for follow-up at the time, Fred Goerner DID follow up, got as far as the Isaacs diagnosis of the bones as those of a Polynesian male, and (presumably with relief) left it at that. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:55:01 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Collective pronouns Cam Warren said: "As for the "proof"; the article was presented as a quick summary of our knowledge to date." "Our" knowledge? Do you have mouse in your pocket, Cam? Surely you are not referring to Tighar, are you? Even a "quick summary" of TIGHAR's knowledge would take a lot more than a couple of pages, and I'm not sure if Ric, "The Sagacious Scot," would approve of you speaking on TIGHAR's behalf. Who is this "our" you talk about? LTM, who is distressed over this issue Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************************** From Ric I should have mentioned that Cam's paper was originally intended for the newsletter of the Amelia Earhart Society which counts among its membership such legendary figures as Joe Gervais and Rollin Reineck and whose president, Bill Prymak, some forum members may recall for his colorful linguistic skills. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:53:05 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Kilts document Regarding Kilts' daughter mentioning that he was working on a book, I was always curious about what the rest of it would contain since his Gardner native bone story it seems would barely make one chapter. Smooth Sailing Ron Dawson 2126 ************************************************************************* From Ric Good point, although others who had only one brief incident to relate have written books; for example, Thomas Devine ("Eyewitness - The Amelia Earhart Incident"). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:55:09 EDT From: Ron bright Subject: Re: Classifications Technically, the lowest classification (at least Navy) was "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY". That and 'CONFIDENTIAL" would be stamped on a box of cereal if intended for the military!!!!!! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:18:38 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Kilts document Tom King wrote: >As for follow-up at the time, Fred Goerner DID follow up, got as far as the >Isaacs diagnosis of the bones as those of a Polynesian male, and (presumably >with relief) left it at that. WHOA! Goerner knew about the bones and Isaac? This is the first I've heard of this. Obviously, Fred Goerner did not relate this info very far afield... *************************************************************************** From Ric No, no, no - Goerner knew about Kilts' story from the same press accounts we have. One of his associates, Bill Dorais, interviewed Kilts. Goerner did not specifically know about Isaac. Fred explained to me in a March 1990 letter that, while in Tarawa in 1968, doing a documentary on the 25th anniversary of the WWII invasion, he made some inquiries of "older Gilbertese who had been a part of the colonizing activities on Gardner shortly after the Earhart disappearance. After much conversation and deep-thinking, it was decided that there was a legend about the remains of a Polynesian man being found on Gardner, what year or specific circumstances unknown. They were firm, however, that the skeleton of a woman had NEVER (empahasis in the original) been found. There was, too, a srtrange story of a woman's "high-heel shoes" turning up at some point on Gardner. This was a matter of some hilarity." What Tom meant, I'm sure, is that Goerner made an attempt to follow up on the Kilts story and turned up some anecdotal detritus that almost certainly originated from Isaac's unauthorized examination of the bones in Tarawa. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:21:03 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Warren's Hypothesis revisited Two points you should all know. a) I don't make insupportable statements and claim they're supported. b) I don't suffer fools gladly, to recoin a phrase. The opening paragraph clearly stated "Government documented facts". That's TRUE, like it or not, believe it or not. I didn't have the time or space to list all the backup material for the "Hypothesis" and merely presented it for your edification. ("You can lead a horse to water . . . .") In the title, "Secret Mission" was intentionally in quotes, for obvious reasons, as was "covered up", incidentally. When I went to school (the desks had inkwells) a quoted phrase meant somebody else used the phrase, not necessarily the writer. As for document classification, the Bendix RDF system was certainly under wraps. Ric says "'confidential' is the lowest category of classification and is used pretty casually. Not so, at least pre- and during WW2. (In at least one case, I wasn't allowed to SEE my own notebook, because it was stamped "confidential".) I happen to have a note on my cluttered desktop right now, that says "Navy BuAer Contract #C652717 (re RDF-2) was CONFIDENTIAL (Changed to RESTRICTED Nov. 1, 1937)" for example. (And that file consists of some 300 pages, if you don't trust my quotes and want to take you're own look). The Archives people told me they had nothing on RDF-1, and thought it might still be classified. I DO have piles of information - you should thank me for saving you the trouble of paying for copies, and wading through it all. Example, the SECRET document re the KAMOI using HF/DF is about 50 pages long, and contains two brief mentions of the intercept incident. I could give you the file number, but I doubt you can get easily get the document. Mine "was slid under the door". And here's a sample, from C652717: "Navy Requisition #770, dated Oct. 1, 1936 ordered the following: 150 RDF-1A @ $148.50 ea." "Some of it was wrong, anyway" is the way Ric dismisses my document. I had told him I was inaccurate re the RDF-2, which I originally suspected might be an advanced model of the RDF-1. Later info clarified that it was an ADAPTATION designed for remote rotation of a larger model loop. That I admitted to that minor point, does NOT negate any other portion of my document. The use of an RA-1 aboard the Electra is called "99 44/100ths percent speculation" by Ric, who apparently hasn't read anything by Capt. Al Gray, Carol Osborne, Jim Donahue or Bendix engineer Vernon Moore, to name a few other speculators. (But he's right, I don't have a photostat of a purchase order with Earhart's name on it - sorry, sure wish I did!). Don't forget that up until recently all the experts denied the Navy couldn't possibly be using HF/DF in the '30s, an idea I have personally disproved. I'd say I was on much firmer ground than Nikumaroro. Finally, the Hypothesis was NOT presented as a legal argument, as I've already pointed out, so I intentionally did not include endless citations but indicated I deemed my information reliable. . My time being as short as it is, I doubt I'll be getting around to answer all the potshots directed my way. So, if you don't want to believe any of it, that's your prerogative. Some folks still think the moon is made of green cheese, and know positively those NASA photos were all shot in a secret studio in Arizona. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric >> I don't make insupportable statements and claim they're supported.<< >> Coupling it with the RA-1 receiver was apparently NOT standard procedure, but was done for Amelia on an experimental basis. << >>But he's right, I don't have a photostat of a purchase order with Earhart's name on it - sorry, sure wish I did! << ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:52:02 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Coral is a beach... Just curious... How wide is the beach (from water's edge to vegetation) on Niku around the ocean shore, and also around the lagoon shore at HIGH TIDE? The aerial views show it as a huge expanse of coral rubble/sand or whatever. It certainly looks well in excess of the 70 feet or so you'd need to land an Electra with a 55ft wingspan without risking it on coral rock. (Bearing in mind that many world flights of that era landed on beaches). Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Average beachfront from water's edge to vegetation line on Niku is about 150 feet. At high tide it might be 10 or 12 feet less. Along the northern shore the beach is steeply sloped and, because it doesn't get hit directly by storms, is deep soft sand. Along the southern shore (Aukeraime) the beach tends to be broader and less steeply sloped, but still quite soft and sandy. The western end of the island (Nutiran and the village area) varies a lot depending on whether there have been any big storm events in the past few years. Fewer storms mean deeper sand. Recent storms mean a surface of coral rubble. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:53:49 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: AE, FN and Morse > Hue Miller wrote: > > I wonder how did EA or FN learn morse that quickly? Amelia and Fred didn't have to learn morse. They both knew it already. Th' WOMBAT. ************************************************************************** From Ric That's not what they told Eric Chater. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:56:50 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Tuning the loop Thanks Hue This brings up a couple of questions if you don't mind? > From Hue Miller > > The Bendix unit, the RDF unit (or coupler, or adaptor) was > basically just a tuned preamp for the loop. Would the preamp be tuned to a particular frequency, say 7500? > Using the RDF did add some complexity to AE's task. > With the Itasca heard in her headphones, she would then: > > switch in the RDF unit > set RDF bandswitch to frequency range for channel > look up on the tuning chart, or remember, where 7500 kc/s > was on the 0-100 tuning scale of the RDF > tune the RDF up or down til she heard the Itasca again > tune for null, note bearing > switch to direction and tune for max, to point to correct direction and eliminate 180 degree ambiguity To simplify this, could they already have had the RDF tune to a frequency, say 7500 kc/s and wait until they wanted to DF, and then turn on the RDF then have the Itasca set a signal on 7500 and proceed to take the bearings? In another words could either the Preamp be tune to 7500 or the RDF already be pretuned to 7500 to simplified the RDF operations and perhaps explain why AE went to 7500? I know this is only speculation since we have no evidence she had tried to DF the Itasca. Regards Warren Lambing *************************************************************************** From Ric On the contrary. It's very clear from the radio log that Earhart tried to DF on the Itasca on 7500 but was unable to "get a minimum." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:10:26 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Sending code >From Ric (with refference to "no telegraph key on board) > >That is my understanding also. The only way they would have to send code >would be by depressing and releasing the push-to-talk button on the >microphone. I just don't believe transmitting more than a very few characters, such as an SOS or some such, with the push-to-talk button. If any of the longer messages were transmitted from the Electra using CW, I think there was a key on board -- and a transmitter that could be keyed. There was certainly a key installed on the first attempt. There's at least one photo, What transmitter was there then? It is said that the key was left in Florida. I believe someone said it was sent to him in a package sometime after they had left. That's anecdote, is it not? In view of our uncertainty about exactly what radio equipment may have been in, and out, of the plane while in Florida, can we be sure there was not more than one key floating around? Was there a Bendix transmitter involved, whether or not it was ever installed? If there was a key at all, this suggests a transmitter that could be keyed. We believe the transmitter was a Western Electric 13C, or some variation thereof. We've had a problem with seeing appropriate circuitry to allow keying this transmitter. The schematic diagram we have shows a small sketch of a key, a double-pole, double-throw (DPDT) switch and a plug for J12, drawn on the left margine. The switch is marked "CW" and "M" (modulated cw?). This switch probably has a "center off" position. Ir's shown "off" in the sketch. This would be the position for voice (phone) operation. We have not been able to see how the dynamotor would be kept on during CW transmission rather than being started and stopped as would be the case using the push-to-talk button on the microphone. I think the problem is that we are looking at a sketch of very preliminary thinking about providing a keying capability in this transmitter. All of the circuit modifications necessary are not yet shown on this diagram. It does indicate an intent to provide keying capability. I'm very skeptical of all the post-landing messages reported and claimed to be from the Electra. However, the above theorizing does help me to believe in the possibility that one or more of the CW transmisions could be the real thing. LTM (Who never leaves home without her key) *************************************************************************** From Ric As it turns out, none of the alleged post-loss messages that are credible (from a propagation perspective) involve code being sent. The transmission heard by Nauru on the evening of July 2nd was unintelligible voice and the "dashes" heard in Samoa in response to KGMB's request apparently sounded like somebody turning the transmitter off and on. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:14:42 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Map of Flight area? This is kind of a beginner question. I would like to find a source for a map of the flight area, perhaps, what, 18-24 inches across or so. Big enuff to do some looking at, and drawing on. Yes, i can do the legwork myself, finding such a map, but i thought i would inject this question here and get the recommendation of someone who's already done this. Thanks, Hue Miller ************************************************************************* From Ric Good commercial maps of the region are surprisingly hard to find. I found one years ago in a little map store on Nantucket (of all places) but it's now beat to death. There are aeronautical charts that cover area but the problem is finding one that extends all the way to New Guinea and still has sufficient detail of the Phoenix Group. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:16:13 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: 2-4-V-100 It is apparent to me that your comments on the fire extinguisher (2-4-V-100) seems to indicate that TIGHAR suspects that it isn't AE's. I thought that maybe it was easier to come up with such a reverse arguement, on the grounds that we are trying to search for a particular make and model and not trying to fit an artifact into the search. The idea is to build up evidence to disqualify the artifact. That way we have a much better chance of eliminating it from the investigation. However, given from the location where the artifacts were discoverd and the fact that they not fit any description of any American made extinguisher lends itself to the fact that this is probably a dead end. It could be that the photographs (ext.jpg and may20dep.jpg) show two distinct types of extinguisher which means that the article isn't AE's, and could also explain why I did not see those 'impressions' on the body of the artifact in the other photo. It still lingers overhead because there isn't enough data to prove that is or it isn't. Charles Lim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:30:21 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited Cam Warren wrote, >Some >folks still think the moon is made of green >cheese, and know positively those NASA >photos were all shot in a secret studio in >Arizona. I have never run into anyone who believes that the moon is made of green cheese (although the first episode of the wonderful Wallace and Gromit trilogy from the UK depicts the surface of the moon as being comprised of yellow cheese with a mediocre taste). However, I have met a handful of people over the years who adamantly (and always angrily) believed that the Apollo mission photos were shot in movie studios. Poor, hapless creatures. I've also read lots of immature and sloppily composed screed, lately, about "Amelia Earhart, Federal Spy". Personally, I think this entire thread easily violates the Forum guidelines for reasonable documentation of topics admitted for discussion. How about ending this one, Ric? When legitimate documentation (or at least annotation) appears, the thread can always be reintroduced. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric While I agree that we've only managed to show (for the umpteenth time) that allegations of a covert relationship between Earhart and the Gummint are unsupported, I will say that the new (to me anyway) information about the Bendix RDF-1 loop coupler is very useful. I guess the lesson is that we should never turn down a chance to look at a primary source. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:31:56 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited > From Cam Warren > I didn't have the time or space to list all the backup > material for the "Hypothesis" and merely presented it > for your edification. So then, I take it, you did not present your hypothesis to us to be evaluated. You expect us to behave as school children and accept what the teacher is telling us. > From Cam Warren > I DO have piles of information - you should thank me for > saving you the trouble of paying for copies, and wading > through it all. Thank you, but I think that all we want to do is to look at the documents that you have evaluated and see if we reach the same conclusion. You are treating this as a rite of passage -- let's see if you think what I think, but you have to find it first! Has anyone other than you evaluated these documents? It can be rather nerve racking having someone else check your work, but it is often essential. > From Cam Warren > And here's a sample, from C652717: "Navy Requisition > #770, dated Oct. 1, 1936 ordered the following: > 150 RDF-1A @ $148.50 ea." It doesn't suffice to show us only parts of the evidence that support your claims. > From Cam Warren > Finally, the Hypothesis was NOT presented as a > legal argument, as I've already pointed out, so I > intentionally did not include endless citations but > indicated I deemed my information reliable. You alone deem it reliable? Surely you must see the folly in that. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:53:13 EDT From: Cam WArren Subject: Re: AE, FN & Morse The Morse question again!!! In response to the statement about AE/FN having Morse ability, Ric says "That's not what they told Eric Chater." Perhaps true, but also different from what AE told NY Herald Tribune correspondent Carl B. Allen. Mary Lovell, ("The Sound of Wings", Chapter 19), says "[Earhart] explained to Allen that neither she nor Noonan could operate a Morse code key fast enough to justify carrying the extra weight" [of the requisite 500 kc equipment, including the trailing-wire antenna]. In my files (somewhere) I have a copy of the original article and can confirm the gist of the statement. In it she said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) she and Fred could do Morse up to about 10 wpm - much slower than the commercial operators, and she would be embarrassed to attempt it under the circumstances. Later, in answer to questions, she simplified her answer by saying they couldn't use Morse. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric There's really no need to flog this horse. While there is some discrepancy between the newspaper account Cam references (10 wpm) and Chater's description ( "...neither of them could read morse at any speed but could regognize an individual letter sent several times.") the net effect is the same. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:08:15 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Map of Flight Area The best representation available you can get at current would be a couple of GNC(Global Navigation Charts) from the DMA(Defense Mapping Agency). If you want I'll look at my chart collection and see the numbers to order. Also, Jeppesen offers plotting charts of the Pacific in various regions but they don't show all the island groups. You can pencil in the islands yourself if you have the Latitude/Longitude. I may also have a large map I put together splicing 2 GNC's to cover the entire route. I'll make it available for the price of an imported brew-IOU's accepted. I'll look for it right now. You want a copy too Ric while I'm at it? Doug B. #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric By all means. Thank you. Watch out. You could find yourself with more imported beer IOUs than you can handle. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:14:25 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... Ok, there is a reason behind this... > From Ric > > Average beachfront from water's edge to vegetation line on Niku is about 150 > feet. At high tide it might be 10 or 12 feet less. Gallagher wrote that the bones were found about 100ft above ordinary high tide mark. The "story" of the finding of the bones suggests a native was walking on the beach and saw them about 5 feet into the vegetation line. I know that is only a tale, but it seems reasonable from the trouble TIGHAR has finding stuff on the island that the tale of a native seeing the bones whilst walking on the beach could be more likely than a native struggling through the scrub. I know when we walk around the islands here we use the beach as a highway rather than fight through the undergrowth, spiders and other bugs. That would mean the bones were somewhere close enough to the edge of the vegetation for the castaway? to have a view while he/she rested under the shade (and died), with about a 90ft beach to the high tide line. Close enough to be seen by someone walking along the beach. Which, if you have spent a lot of time alone on uninhabited islands (as I have) is not at all strange. For some reason the view and sound of the sea is soothing, relaxing. I have tried to put myself in the place of this castaway, and compared his/her situation to what was one of my favourite passtimes. The more I think about it, the less time I spent "inland". So has the TIGHAR crew had a look at high tide for a place where you could drive say a dozen motor cars side by side along the beach at high tide? (distance wise of course, I realise they'd get bogged....) That might narrow some of the search area around Aukurame, Kanawa Point and the 7 site. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Nice try Wombat but Gallagher makes it pretty clear that the castaway's campsite was close to the lagoon shore, rather than the ocean shore. Also, Kilts says that the skeleton was found "in the brush about five feet from the shoreline." Nowhere on the ocean beach is the brush five feet from the shoreline. That has to be the lagoon shore he's talking about. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:16:06 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: AE, FN and Morse > From Ric > > That's not what they told Eric Chater. It would appear. Some snooping reveals that James Collopy suggested "the weak link in the combination was the crew's lack of 'expert' knowledge of radio. Their morse was very slow and they preferred to use telephony as much as possible." - This after discussion with the Lae radio operator (and Chater). I am suggesting that Balfour would have provided the insight into the radio expertise (or lack of it) as this was an official enquiry. Also Amelia herself says "REPORT IN ENGLISH NOT CODE 'ESPECIALLY WHILE FLYING' " - which does not say because I can't read morse. It the word especially suggests the possibility that she expected to receive morse at some time. And Chater reports "neither of them were able to read morse 'at any speed' but could recognise an individual letter sent several times." - which suggests at least a basic knowledge of morse. Enough to put together a call for assistence. Obviously Fred (because of his sea duties), and probably Amelia would have been familiar with SOS. So none of the reports say they didn't know morse, they all (including Amelia's own despatch) suggest their morse was pretty pathetic. However, I'd bet it was better than mine is! Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:39:26 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Charts The charts that cover the AE route are: Global Navigation Charts-GNC-7 & GNC-20. You need the top part of GNC-20 spliced to the bottom part of GNC-7. You can order the charts from the Defense Mapping Agency(DMA) or Sporty's Pilot shop. Jeppesen offers plotting charts of the north/south & east/west pacific but they do not show some of the island groups. Either is suitable to navigate from if you wanted but the better chart is the GNC if you're looking for items of relief images such as the various island groups. They are both on the internet as well. I'll make 2 copies-one for Hue & one for you Ric. I don't mind the beer IOU's. That Finch woman stiffed me for alot more than that. (Take note that I didn't use the word "lady"). Doug B. #2335 (who obviously will barter for barley pops) ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Doug. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:50:33 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... We've also got to remember that where the edge of the bush is now, vis-a-vis the high tide mark, may be considerably different from where it was then, at least locally. Then the island was substantially covered with buka forest; now it's mostly scaevola and tournefortia. And wave action, shoreline slumping, etc. etc. have all certainly altered the shoreline. However, Ric, I'm trying to think why you're so sure Gallagher means the lagoon shore. Because of the Kanawa tree he says was growing on the lagoon shore not far from the discovery site? LTM Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. That, and his comment that the bones were found about 100 feet above high spring tides make it pretty hard (for me at least) to place the site on the ocean side. I can't think of anyplace on the island where you can be only 100 feet above the highest high tide line on the ocean side and still be close to the lagoon shore. Besides, anything that close to the ocean-side waterline would be very susceptible to storm activity. Gallagher has gotta be talking about the lagoon side. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:10:06 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... > Nice try Wombat but Gallagher makes it pretty clear that the castaway's > campsite was close to the lagoon shore, rather than the ocean shore Gallagher doesn't make anything pretty clear, or TIGHAR would not have spent so much time trying to search out the location! Ok, please look at this one a little closer, rather than dismissing it out of hand... Gallgher says 100ft above the high tide mark. (Ordinary high water springs). That's "pretty clear" ORDINARY high water springs as I understand it is the high tide mark in the absence of seasonal variations like king tides etc. Kilts (handed down) story suggests "in the brush about 5 ft from the shoreline". Gallagher was writing a report. Kilts was repeating a tale, itself repeated, that had been around (though not "spread around" for years. The same tale told of more than one skeleton, and of another skull being found further down the beach. It also definitely identifies the skeletons and the "beach" skull as to sex! We choose to dismiss some of these inferences as unlikely, and have documented evidence that some were wrong, whilst taking as gospel that the bones were "in the brush 5 ft from the shoreline". Gallagher did not write "about 5 feet from the shoreline", he wrote 100ft above HWS. To me, the Kilts' "shoreline" suggests where the waves lap against the sand (or coral). That would suggest a spot where the vegetation comes very close to the water's edge, and at first sight is logical enough. However it could just as easily mean the place where the vegetation meets the beach! On the other hand, Gallagher's 100ft above ordinary high water springs is what I am looking at. It is possible that Gallagher judged the measurement from the ocean side, across the island to the edge of the lagoon shore - in which case we are looking for a piece of land not more than 100ft wide from the water's edge of the lagoon to the water's edge of the ocean. Now THAT should narrow the search area down a LOT..! However I can't find a 30yard wide piece of land in any of the pictures nor does the map suggest that. If we are to take Gallagher's written report as definitive, and IF we can believe the Kilts story, and IF the bones were found on the lagoon shore, we need a 30 yard beach at high tide! I can see places along the edge of the lagoon that look possible. Then look along the edge of the vegetation. On the other hand, if, at high tide there is no 30 yard beach on the lagoon side it might just be possible that the bones were found on the ocean side. And that 30yard beach should still narrow down the search. Of course there is always a "flip side". I believe Kilts story could be completely erroneous as to the location. "They were about through and the native was struggling through the "brush" on one end of the island. There in the brush about 100 feet from the shoreline he saw a skeleton......." Were I conducting a search for the site, I'd be torn between looking up to 25-35yds inland from high tide mark, and looking for a spot a few yards from inland from the "beach", and with a large beach left at high tide, however I still think that the logic leads to the second option. Especially when one considers the sort of place to lie down and relax. (As I suggested in the other posting). Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Believe me Ross, this is NOT a question that I treat casually or dismissively. I 've looked at it from every angle I can imagine and I once wrote an entire article for TIGHAR Tracks advocating just the point you make about where a castaway would most likely want to hang out (see "A View To The Sea", Vol. 11 No. 4, December 31, 1995 and on the website at http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/11_4/ViewSea.html). You're focusing on one clue ("100 feet above ordinary high springs") and missing another ("not very far" from a kanawa tree on the lagoon shore). All things considered, I keep coming back to the "Seven" site as, by far, the most likley candidate for the place where the bones were found. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:14:30 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Tuning the loop >To simplify this, could they already have had the RDF tuned to a frequency, >say 7500 kc/s and wait until they wanted to DF, and then turn on the RDF then >have the Itasca set a signal on 7500 and proceed to take the bearings? --Right. Like with an old car radio, the dial resolution of the RDF is not good enuff to set it to a channel, without there being something to listen to. I suppose she could have had it tuned in, back at Lae, and then just screwed down the "Dial Lock" knob to keep it there. If the signal was strong enuff as soon as you turned on the RDF, there would be no need for any tweaking of the dial. As for why on 7500, i do not know. Cam seems to have some literature that suggests that the Navy was interested in d.f. experiments around that frequency. I cannot understand why, except maybe just that this time was early enuff that someone guessed there might be something more solid or stable about this frequency range, and there wasn't yet enuff experience to teach them otherwise. From what i've read, and what i've tried, her trying this at 6210 wouldn't have helped, either. Trying to df on 3105 MIGHT have worked, assuming she could hear the Itasca on that channel. ( I don't have chapter and verse ready, but i think i read something recently that would stand to support that last statement.) Apparently, no one heard her going in, right? That's interesting too. Just FWIW, in military, at least for certain 4 years later, if you were going in, you sent a distress message, and then turned the transmitter on continuous, so maybe someone would be able to d-f as the plane went down. I'm sure in most cases the going-down struggle to survive didn't allow enuff time for such well thought out, deliberate actions. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:25:02 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Map of Flight Area A couple of charts might be worth your consideration - however I must confess that they were the product of a quick trip to ye olde nautical chart shoppe where I found them languishing in the dust under some parchments by Capt. Cook. I never did a systematic search, so there could very well be something better out there. Both of these should be carried by or easily ordered from any marine navigation supplier. I think the most useful one is DMA #526, Pacific Ocean, Central Part. Scale = 1:8,433,180 at the Equator. This chart covers the area from 29N to 28S and 135E to 130W. That is a lot of area, with New Guinea at the central left, the Hawaiian Islands on the upper right, French Polynesia on the lower right, and Howland and the Phoenix group roughly center. Still, it is your typical table top sized nautical chart, and Howland and the Phoenix group appear with some form and shape - considerably larger than the dots on your typical atlas map. Reefs and soundings are also noted, of course. I like it. The other chart is of the Phoenix group from approximately Canton at the NE to Niku and the Corondelet Reef at the SW. It is DMA #83037, South Pacific Ocean, Phoenix Islands. Scale = 1:485,800 at Lat 4S. The annotation states that it is from a survey by the USS Bushnell in 1939. This chart has an overlay for the now defunct OMEGA nav system, which makes it a bit cluttered considering all the open space out there. Again, it is your typical sized nautical chart, and the atolls like Canton and Niku are roughly on the order of an inch in length at this scale. Interesting, but really no help with the big picture. With both of these, real landforms and very deep water are probably well plotted. However, when it comes to shoal areas, reefs, sandbanks, etc, consider them to be of dubious validity. Tom MM *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Tom. Sounds like DMA #526 might be just the ticket. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:26:46 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: 2-4-V-100 For Charles Lim Yes, one approach would be to build up evidence to disqualify the artifact, but the other approach is to assume that the artifact is disqualified (as an AE/FN association) until and unless we find evidence that clearly qualifies it. In the case of stuff from the village, if not in every case, this is the safer approach. There's an awful lot of stuff from the village that in theory COULD qualify as AE/FN associations -- besides the ubiquitous airplane parts, there are the cigarette lighters, an eyeglass frame, radio parts, etc. etc. We could spend a tremendous amount of time trying to disqualify each one, and probably never succeed, but given the many non-AE/FN sources for all such things (including 2-4-V-1), it's a lot more efficient to assume non-association until we find something that really strongly indicates otherwise. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:28:57 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Classifications >From Ron Bright > >Technically, the lowest classification (at least Navy) was "FOR OFFICIAL >USE ONLY". That and 'CONFIDENTIAL" would be stamped on a box of cereal if >intended for the military!!!!!! --Actually, the lowest classification for the Navy was RESTRICTED. I think the "For Official Use...." was just the byline or second line of text used in the frontpages explanation and a few other places. I am thinking of technical manuals now. The next grade up, CONFIDENTIAL, didn't that apply to some genuinely guarded equipment, such as some radars, and specialized radio equipment? I seem to remember it that way from some Navy equipment catalogs i owned. (The highest i have seen is SECRET, i have an Army manual dealing with how to penetrate the Westwall of Fortress Europe, with this stamp on it.) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:39:32 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Secret? Navy? >From Ric > >The only part of Hue's a comments with which I disagree is his feeling that >the RDF-1 was never really commercially available. The article in Aero >Digest does not refer to the device as an "RDF-1" and it may be that that was >merely the military nomenclature, but it does show a picture of what is quite >obviously the same device shown in RDF-1 diagram and in the publicit photos >taken with Earhart. Amelia and the press refer to the device as a "Bendix >direction finder." Nobody says anything about it being military or naval >equipment. > >I see no reason not to think that this thing is nothing more than a new piece >of avionics that came on the market and was also adopted for military use. --I feel this unit would have had very limited appeal to commercial flyers and likely bombed in the commercial market. It was flakey enuff on its higher (extended coverage) ranges that the Navy abandoned it in a in the next 2 or 3 years, maybe sooner, and i doubt there were many civilian aviators interested in experimenting on their flights. But what really persuades me it did not make it on the civilian market, is note, the high frequency range was added at the expense of the very important LF range, 200 - 400 kilocycles, probably at least important if not more important than the AM broadcast band. I'm sure you all have seen some kind of aviation radio with the LF and BC ranges, or even aftermarket carry on things to carry on small boats, with rotatable antenna and LF + BC coverage. The NDB's (Non Directional Beacon ) stations are still in business on the LF band around airports and airfields of all sizes, from private grass fields on up. ( BTW, around 1985 a friend of mine in Montana told me the FAA had just scrapped out an old NDB LF beacon transmitter - in operation since 1938.) Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. The thing turned out to be a bad idea and probably did bomb on the commercial market, but at the time we're talking about - the spring of 1937 - it was newly available to civil aviation (as documented in the Aero Digest article) and, for Earhart, may havbe looked like a good alternative to the heavier Hooven Radio Compass. The important point in all this is the absence of any indication of a covert deal with the military. And that makes sense. Think about it for a second. You're the U.S. Navy and you have some new radio technology you want to test and so you enlist the aid of - who? - Amelia Earhart? Gimme a break. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:40:42 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Fred Noonan & Morse code Speculation time: Fred Noonan learned his navigation trade while sailing square-riggers across the atlantic before he learned to fly & apply his knowledge to aviation navigation. I seems to recall from somewhere the ship navigators worked directly with the marconi(radio) operators as a primary duty was keeping the company informed of the their progress enroute. Is there any reference to morse or wireless training for ship navigators during this time period? Even if not, I think it safe to assume that FN learned a few things working with these people as well. I won't speculate how much. Doug B. #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:47:48 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: AE, FN, and morse Knowing morse code & being able to receive Morse code at speeds that were normally transmitted at much faster rates of speed than the average novice could copy, are two different aspects of the problem encountered by AE/FN. Being able to translate English into it's Morse code characters is relatively easy, if one has previously memorized the code or has a Morse code chart to start with. Sending a message, previously translated into Morse code, by simply using the 'press-to-talk' switch or button on a voice mic (while it might be slow & tedious) would certainly be possible, though time consuming & would probably drive the recipient of such a message to distraction trying to copy such an unfamiliar & probably, highly erratic, rhythm! Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric I propose that we all acknowledge that we have a consensus that goes something like this: Although both AE and FN had some familiarity with morse code, which they obtained during their respective careers from any of a variety of possible sources, it is clear from the available primary sources that, at the time of the Lae/Howland flight, their proficiency in morse was sufficiently poor that they preferred not to rely on code for any essential communication. Can we all live with that? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:16:06 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: AE, FN, and morse >>Can we all live with that?<< Me for that - we have flogged more horses into the grave than I care to recall - let's let this one lie in peace! ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:30:29 EDT From: Brian Subject: tides at niku Does Tighar have tidal information for Niku the couple of days around the time AE allegedly landed? If the tide was low and the low tide landing strip was available wouldn't this support you theories more??? On your next trip to Niku...can I carry your bags??? Brian ************************************************************************** From Ric This is another one of those dead horses. Bottom line: There is insufficient tidal information available to enable us to hindcast tides at Niku with enough confidence to say anything about the tidal state at the time of Earhart's putative arrival. We all carry our own bags. Team selection for Earhart expeditions is, as you can imagine, something that we pay close attention to. As we finalize plans for the next trip we'll be talking about that subject on the Forum. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:25:01 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Extinguisher For Tom King Thank you very much Tom for the methodology you described. Up to this point I thought that TIGHAR treated each artifact on the basis that it has the possibilty of being part of the cache of equipment brought to the island by AE. I actually have no idea whatsoever how archeological investigations are carried out by the way and can only guess at what is to be done with artifacts that are deemed to be worth a closer look. The method that you proposed to me is consistent with your opinions on the artifact 2-4-V-100. Until it shows evidence that it is part of AE's list, it is disqualified. The business about the indentations on the cylinder is actually just guesswork, and since the suspect artifact is overexposed in the photo, my guess is most probably incorrect. I don't have a fixed opinion about those features I've described. I do apologise if it appeared that I was taking a swing at anyone. Charles Lim P.S. Is the surgeon generals warning on the forum webpage real? *************************************************************************** From Ric Naww. We made it up. And no need to apologize. That wasn't a swing. Stick around. We'll show you what a swing looks like. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:32:07 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... > Ric: > All things considered, I keep coming back to the "Seven" > site as, by far, the most likley candidate for the place > where the bones were found. I'm still toying with the possibility that Earhart may have made more than one landing after she abandoned Howland. I realize that the evidence we have thus far doesn't warrant such speculation but I do have a question for you related to it. Among all the possible emergency landing sites on Gardner, how would you rate the lagoon beach adjacent to the seven site, imagining that you were viewing it from above and considering the prevailing winds? Also, what is the direction of the prevailing winds? Frank ************************************************************************** From Ric There really is no beach to speak of on the lagoon shore near the "Seven" site. No way anyone would think of landing there. Prevailing wind at Niku is out of the northeast, about 15 to 20 knots on most days. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:36:01 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Classifications This text isn't definitive but maybe it will serve as a suitable reference for people who need to interpret the intent behind a classification. The definitive text will be the applicable War Department or DOD instruction of the time. ----------------------------------------- NAVEDTRA 10135-E1 dated 1982 (Unclassified) pg 10-1, 10-2: CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES Official information that requires protection in the interests of national security is placed into one of three categories: Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential. Following are examples and definitions of each category. TOP SECRET Classified Top Secret is information or material which requires the highest degree of protection. It is of such a nature that its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. Examples of "exceptionally grave damage" are an armed attack against the United States or its Allies, and the compromise of military or defense plans, intelligence operations, or scientific or technological developments vital to the national defense. SECRET Secret is the classification of information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security, such as: 1. Jeopardizing the international relations of the United States. 2. Endangering the effectiveness of a program or policy of vital importance to the national defense. 3. Compromising important military or defense plans, or scientific or technological developments important to national security. 4. Revealing important intelligence operations. CONFIDENTIAL The use of the Confidential classification is limited to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable damage to the national security, such as: 1. Operational and battle reports that contain information of value to the enemy. 2. Intelligence reports. 3. Military radio frequency and call sign allocations that are especially important, or are changed frequently for security reasons. 4. Devices and material relating to communication security. 5. Information that reveals strength of our land, air, or naval forces in the United States and overseas. 6. Documents and manuals containing technical information used for training, maintenance, and inspection of classified munitions of war. 7. Operational and tactical doctrine. 8. Research, development, production, and procurement of munitions of war. SPECIAL MARKINGS In addition to the security labels mentioned already, other markings also appear on classified material. Among these markings are such designations as "Restricted Data" or "Formerly Restricted Data." All data concerned with (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; (2) production of special nuclear material; or (3) use of special nuclear material in production of energy bear conspicuous "Restricted Data" markings. Restricted data, when declassified under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, must be marked "Formerly Restricted Data, Handle as Restricted Data in foreign dissemination, section 144.b, Atomic Energy Act, 1954." For Official Use Only The term "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) is assigned to official information which requires protection in accordance with statutory requirements or in the public interest but which is not within the purview of the rules for safeguarding information in the interests of national defense. An example of FOUO information is an unclassified advancement examination. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Frank. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:14:45 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Wind at Niku >>Prevailing wind at Niku is out of the northeast, about 15 to 20 knots on most days.<< climatologically speaking, the prevailing wind on Niku should come from the SouthEast, not the Northeast. While I don't doubt for a Chicago second that winds have come from the NE, they would generally be from the SE. ************************************************************************** From Ric Wellllll..... my information comes from the 1938/39 New Zealand survey which produced a map with a nifty little "Wind Diagram" that shows the proportion of days from Dec. 1, 1938 through January 31, 1939. Although the New Zealand survey specifically says that strong "westerly" weather was experienced for the first week of January, the diagram shows that, by far, the wind blew mostly from the northeast and the east, with just a liitle bit from the north and a tiny bit form the northwest. None at all from the southeast, south, southwest or west. That matches very well with our own experince on the island. When we've been there in July, September and October the wind blows almost exclusively onto the "windward" side of the island (that long unbroken stretch of beach on the northeast side). When we've (stupidly) been there in February and March it still blows mostly from the northeast unless some "westerly" weather (like a tropical cyclone) hits and then all hell breaks loose out of the north and northwest. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:16:05 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Classifications While what was listed is the current DoD classification schemes, it was entirely different in 1937: Restricted, Confidential, and Secret were the norm back then. Oh yeah, I have run across another one back then: Top Secret: Earhart Eyes Only...something to do about alien space ship refuelings <*G*> ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:29:00 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... >I can't think of anyplace on the island where you can be > only 100 feet above the highest high tide line on the ocean side Correct me if I'm wrong (you always do... lol) but isn't the lagoon tidal. I mean, there are two whacking great openings for water to flow in and out. If Gallagher referred to 100ft above OHWS, he'd most likely measure it from the edge of the closest water to him. That means it could be either the ocean OR the lagoon. You shouldn't always automatically assume we are trying to ridicule your ideas. I, for one, beleive the site could just as well have been on the lagoon shore. But I still think you should be looking for what would have been 35yds of beach at high tide! Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't worry about ridicule. I just state my reasons for thinking what I think and if someone disagrees I expect him or her to do the same. Yes, the lagoon is tidal but not very much. Most days it only changes by a foot or so and lags a couple of hours behind whatever is happening out on the ocean side. In deciding where to search, I think it makes a lot more sense to consider areas where we know there was human activity and which best fit all aspects of Gallagher's description of the site. To focus on one clue (100 feet above OHWS), make assumptions about what he probably meant by it, and then base a search on that just doesn't make any sense to me. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:31:42 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... >Not only has the clearing grown, but we can now see individual features >which differ in appearance from the bushes and seem to be more >characteristic of structures, as if coverings of some kind have been erected >on poles to provide ..... The above is from your article. Is the clearing described in the article anywhere near the "7" site? Are any of the photos referred to posted onthe web site? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric The clearing described IS the "Seven" site. No, the photos are not posted on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:39:58 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Classifications Way to go Frank. I'm glad we got that cleared up. I wonder if he could help me translate the latest inspection codes we just got at Maytag. LTM, (who'll be worrying about her GRITS on the upcoming expedition) MStill #2332 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:39:06 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... > Prevailing wind at Niku is out of the northeast, about 15 to 20 knots on > most days. So the only place to land into the wind with only a marginal crosswind is the reef flat near the Norwich City? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric It would be nice if it was that simple but we've found, from being there, that the wind does some pretty weird things when it comes around that northwest corner of the island and burbles over the high trees on Nutiran. But, micrometeorology aside, yes - someone coming up over the island and assessing the general wind condition versus the available landing areas might well be attracted to the reef flat north of Norwich City. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:41:03 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: independent verification of "facts" For what it's worth, I suppose that Bill Prymak, Joe Gervais, and Rollin Reineck could "independently verify" Cam's "documented facts" by claiming that the documents in question were slid under their doors as well. ...and if FOUR people do it, why friends they'll think it's a movement--and that's what it is, The Amelia's Airplane Anti-Nikumaroro Movement. And all ya gotta do to join is sing along (with feelin') the next time it comes around on the guitar... (c'mon now, if y'all want to end logic and reason and stuff, you gotta sing loud) LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:54:38 EDT From: Rom King Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... Well, maybe, but the island's pretty narrow down toward the Seven Site, and while "100 feet" is pretty specific, "not far" isn't; we don't really know what he meant about the Kanawa tree being not far from the site. tk ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay you guys, I'm willing to be convinced. Yes, one of the most interesting things about the Seven Site is that (at least in 1937) it was the narrowest place on the island that was partially forested rather than open scrub. According to the aerial photos, the depth of oceanfront beach along there doesn't seem to have changed significantly since that time. It's hard to be exact, but it looks like the vegetation line might be just about 100 feet above the highest high tide line, and I know that there are "ren" trees (tournafortia) along that vegetation line. So let's consider this hypothesis: The bones were found under a ren tree at the Seven Site on the ocean beach. That would mean: - That when Gallagher said the kanawa tree on the lagoon shore was "not very far" from where the bones were found, he meant about 100 yards. - That the castaway(s) camp was in a position to watch the ocean horizon for ships ("a view to the sea" as Robinson Crusoe called it) - That the turtle found at the site did not have to be dragged very far from where it was most probably caught (on the beach at night). - That the clearing along the oceanfront vegetation line that is evident in the 1941 aerial photo may be specifically the result of the "organized" search ordered by Vaskess. - That the water tank near the lagoon shore was some distance (maybe 75 yards) from where the bones were found and where work was going on and the bird bones we found near the tank are not the same bird bones described by Gallagher. - That the hole near the tank, if it is where the skull was dug up, means that the guys who found the skull didn't bury it right where they found it but carried it back toward the lagoon a ways. I don't see a problem with any of those "therefores." However, it's probably not going to be practical to do a thorough search of both the area around the tank AND the beachfront vegetaion line within the time constraints we're likely to have on the next expedition, so we better decide which one we like best. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:10:15 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Classifications I just got back from TAD to Korea and missed the Forum for a while. I could have cleared this navy classification thread up before it became another one of our equine carcass'. To clarify the official definitions supplied by Frank, some Forum members were confused by "caveats" like "For Official Use Only", "NATO Restricted" and REL JA [Releasable to Japan] etc. Caveats can appear up to the secret level and are added after the classification [SECRET NOFORN]. If the document is unclassified, a caveat may stand alone (RESTRICTED or FOUO for example) which makes it appear to be a classification, thus causing the confusion. At the TOP SECRET level we can further restrict access or dissemination with code words as someone on the Forum mentioned, but I can't talk about those. LTM (who doesn't have a need to know) Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric And as Randy has pointed out, whatever the Dod does these days doesn't mean squat when we're trying to assess the significance of a classification in 1936. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:20:25 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited From Hue Miller >From Cam Warren > >As for document classification, the Bendix RDF system was >certainly under wraps. Ric says "'confidential' is the lowest >category of classification and is used pretty casually. Not >so, at least pre- and during WW2 I happen to have a note >on my cluttered desktop right now, that says "Navy BuAer >Contract #C652717 (re RDF-2) was CONFIDENTIAL >(Changed to RESTRICTED Nov. 1, 1937)" for example. --I have to support Cam here. Owning hundreds of WW2 and prewar manuals, I have to say this is what i have seen. RESTRICTED, for average military gear, and that which had something spooky going on with it, CONFIDENTIAL or higher. I may difffer a little bit in that i am thinking the CONFIDENTIAL part was mostly about the idea and process of operation and results, rather than the equipment, which could be duplicated by any skilled home builder. For an example of this idea, consider a Navy WW2 direction finder in a suitcase type box. Unfortunately, no one seems to absolutely know the intended purpose, one rumor sez for use in recovering commando teams. The technology is in no way new and radical, but the item photo and description does not appear in the standard Navy catalog, just the type name & a notation that this equipment has a higher classification. (I don't have the catalog handy, but will recover it with a mind to at least having the citation down exactly. >And here's a sample, from C652717: "Navy Requisition >#770, dated Oct. 1, 1936 ordered the following: >150 RDF-1A @ $148.50 ea." --Think i'll try to find some other contemporaneous equipment pricing to see how relatively expensive this set was. >The use of an RA-1 aboard the Electra is called >"99 44/100ths percent speculation" by Ric, >who apparently hasn't read anything by Capt. Al >Gray, Carol Osborne, Jim Donahue or Bendix >engineer Vernon Moore, to name a few other >speculators. I do NOT know, but i'll tell you, the RA-1 does not have a channelized feature. This means cranking from frequency to frequency. 3105 is on one band range and 6210, 7500 are on another so you may have to change bands too when going to a new channel. Any RA-1 hypothesis, I assume, reckons it as only a part of the df system with the RDF, not as a communication receiver. Otherwise you have to explain how the RA-1 was netted or whistled-through to set on the exact transmitter channel. The RA-1 was a labor-intensive radio and as far as i know, only carried on cargo and patrol craft that could afford to carry a fulltime radio operator. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric As Randy Jacobson has corrected my earlier impression, the levels of classification in 1937 went RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET. So far, my understanding is that a Navy training manual describing the RDF-1 was classified CONFIDENTIAL in 1936. I've yet to see anything that indicates that the device installed in Earhart's airplane in late February/early March 1937 which looks like an RDF-1 and also appears in a March 1937 magazine article as commercially availalble, was classified in any way. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:47:10 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited > From Ric > >As Randy Jacobson has corrected my earlier impression, the levels of >classification in 1937 went RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET. So far, my >understanding is that a Navy training manual describing the RDF-1 was >classified CONFIDENTIAL in 1936. I've yet to see anything that indicates >that the device installed in Earhart's airplane in late February/early March >1937 which looks like an RDF-1 and also appears in a March 1937 magazine >article as commercially availalble, was classified in any way. Eleven and a half years with the "Gummint" (NASA) makes me suspect that the *MANUAL* might have been classified even if the *EQUIPMENT* wasn't. Just a thought. LTM, who'll creep back among the filing cabinets now Amanda Dunham ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:47:48 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... I'm on the road without my copy of Gallagher's quarterly reports (No, I don't carry them wherever I go), but it's my recollection that in talking about the heavy weather around the end of 1940 he mentioned high spring tides flooding out some plantings. This suggests to me that when he referred to such tides in the bones messages, he may have been referring to something higher, i.e. farther up on shore, than the normal highest high tide line. I'm uncomfortable with equating the beachfront vegetation line of today with what was present in 1940, too. What do Dick Evans and Bill Moffitt remember about the vegetation in the vicinity of the Seven Site when they visited it? If it wasn't as dense as it is now, maybe the beachfront veg line was a lot closer to the tank, hole, etc. then than it is now. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric Gallagher's 4th Quarter 1940 Report says, in part: "The second half of the quarter was marked by severe and almost continuous North-westerly gales, which did considerable damage to houses, coconut trees and newly planted lands. Portions of the low-lying areas of Hull and Gardner Islands were also flooded by high spring tides, backed by the gales, and, it is feared that many young trees have been killed." At that time the only planted areas were near the village and I suspect that the plantings he's talking about getting flooded are the ones that bordered the depression that we call "Crab City." As we saw all too well in 1997, unusually high spring tides backed by gales caused some big-time flooding there. As for the vegetation line in 1940 compared to today, we don't have to rely on recollections. We have aerial photography from 1937 (Lambrecht), 1938 (HMS Leander), 1939 (USS Pelican), and 1941 (Patrol Wing Two) that shows that the Seven Site was a bit more open then than now, but the general distance from waterline to vegetation was pretty much the same as it is today. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:52:55 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coral is a beach... > within the time constraints we're > likely to have on the next expedition, so we better decide which one we like > best. And I'm almost sorry for bringing it up! I gather from one of Ric's replies that he had similar thoughts early on. My main point was that Gallagher's report was official at the exact time this was going on. The Kilts story was reminiscences after about 30? years. > - That when Gallagher said the kanawa tree on the lagoon shore was "not > very far" from where the bones were found, he meant about 100 yards. I was not trying to "influence" the location of the search so much as compare the two possible locations, hoping to find a large beach area close to the seven site to "prove" the site. "Not very far" is different from "Close to". However, I'd like to know if the "7" site just happens to be around 35yds from high tide on the lagoon side. Back again. I just went out and looked at a tape measure. 100 feet is from one corner of my front yard to half way across my neighbour's. 100 yards is a little less than the length of my neighbour's (110 yards) block. > That would mean: > - That when Gallagher said the kanawa tree on the lagoon shore was "not very > far" from where the bones were found, he meant about 100 yards. I don't what you consider a long way, I would not consider the length of my yard (220 yards) to be a long distance. In fact I regularly stroll down half of it, then up the hill at the back to relax and enjoy the view (and cuss the original owner who built at the lowest point on the block). A double car garage in Australia is 6 metres x 6 metres. So 100 yards is about the same distance as walking past 9 double garages. I would still call that "Not very far away". If there was a Kanawa tree half way down my block, I'd consider it "not very far from the road". If it was right behind my front fence I'd probably think it was "Close to the road". The biggest problem for people like me is that we have not been to the island and we have only written clues to go on. Some of TIGHAR have been and can see the flaws in our reasoning. Of course there is still the fact that Gallagher supposedly conducted a "thorough" search and apparently found little in the way of extra bones, and "nothing" in the way of personal artifacts/clothing - other than shoe parts. That means there ARE still bones there somewhere. A whole rib cage, lots of leg and arm bones - mst of the fingers and feet... Somewhere on that island is an answer. It either was or was not Amelia or Fred that was found, and the clues must turn up. Some of those bones are too big to be hidden for good. Gallagher may have missed something obvious. In the mean time, to me the whole thing comes back to the shoes. If there was no chance that a naked Polynesian crew "man" from the Norwich City floated ashore on a sextant box, wearing a pair of size 9 women's stoutish walking shoes (obviously a cross dresser) and swigging from a benedictine bottle; then decided to make camp on the island and enjoy the scenery whilst his mates were rescued some days later, then there should be every likelihood that the bones related to Fred and Amelia. Then there are the shoe parts, both men's and women's? That's got to mean something. Somewhere on the island there has to be a shallow grave.... And another (perhaps full) skeleton. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric >>I'm almost sorry for bringing it up!<< Don't be. This is a valuable discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:59:01 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Gardner's coordinates I just looked at a 1936, "American Practical Navigator," and noticed that the coordinates given for not only Howland and Baker, but also several of the Phoenix islands, were different in the 1938 book. (I think there was no 1937 "American Practical Navigator"). The revised longitudes for Canton, Enderbury, Hull, and Gardner were about 5, 7, 3, and 5 minutes farther east. Canton and Gardner were given new latitudes that were about 6 and 2 minutes farther north. Gardner had been listed in 1936 as: S 4deg 37min (42)sec W 174deg 40min (18)sec In the 1938 book it was listed as: S 4deg 40min W 174deg 35min Mark Prange ************************************************************************* From Ric Yes. One side benefit of the Earhart search was more accurate hydrographic information about the Phoneix Group. The question, however, is: Would the erroneous location of Gardner on 1937 maps alter Noonan's perception about the wisdom of flying the 157 line? From the above, it would appaear that Noonan might have expected Gardner to be a bit further west and a bit further south than it really is. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:05:08 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited > From Ric > > As Randy Jacobson has corrected my earlier impression, the levels of > classification in 1937 went RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET. So far, my > understanding is that a Navy training manual describing the RDF-1 was > classified CONFIDENTIAL in 1936. I've yet to see anything that indicates > that the device installed in Earhart's airplane in late February/early March > 1937 which looks like an RDF-1 and also appears in a March 1937 magazine > article as commercially availalble, was classified in any way. Other then for accuracy, it seems to be a mute point. As I recall, Cam Warren was implying in previous posts ( a few months ago) to the list that the reason AE could Transmitted after ditching in the Ocean is because she had a second radio a Bendix Radio, recalling that it would have been consider impossible for the Westinghouse radio to transmit if floating on the ocean (at least according to the experts at that time). Anyhow even if there is a Bendex RDF on the Electra, it appears that the Westinghouse radio was still the only communications radio, the only thing the Bendix RDF may explain is why she didn't get a bearing when she DF and why other people felt responsible for it (if those reports are accurate). But if she had a Bendex RDF or if she didn't have it, doesn't change anything. Regards. Warren Lambing ************************************************************************** From Ric I think you mean Western Electric, not Westinghouse. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:30:12 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Gardner's coordinates Looking at the discrepency in the coordinates, if I did my numbers and figgerin right, it looks like Fred would have been aiming at a point about 3 (statute) miles north, and almost 5 1/2 (statute) miles west of where Howland really is. That's a whisker over 6 (statute) miles actual distance as the crow (gooney bird?) flies... Certainly enough, given cloud cover, size of Howland, etc, that if he hit his target bang on (which, with Noonan's skill I am inclined to think he probably did), they could have easily missed seeing the island - especially from 1,000 feet. Also, at that distance they might very well have been close enough that they were unable to get a null signal. ltm, jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Frank Westlake > From Mark Prange > Gardner had been listed in 1936 as: > > S 4deg 37min (42)sec > W 174deg 40min (18)sec > > In the 1938 book it was listed as: > S 4deg 40min > W 174deg 35min The distance between those two points is about 5.8 NM (). Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:32:45 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: 2-3-W-3a I'm very curious about the artifact (2-3-W-3a) listed as a ceramic shard. I don't know what type of application would used a ceramic material shaped to such proportions, but my guess would be that it could be part of the insulating layer on a spark plug. Have any ideas?? Charles Lim *************************************************************************** From Ric A spark plug at that location would be pretty wierd. I figured it was probably part of the socket the light bulb went into. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:03:29 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Gardner's coordinates Maybe the reason for the "we are circling" message is to try to solve the last of the estimated position error at the terminus. How loud is the 10E compared to the ocean at 5.8 nm? Greg *************************************************************************** From Ric As I've said many times, I think that it's pretty clear that the "we are circling but cannot hear y