========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:38:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Electra's Receive Antenna Lost on Take-Off? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, Isn't there documentation about wire being found on the runway? ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric No, only anecdote. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:39:54 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King I don't know how we'd test the hypothesis, other than perhaps through analysis of the sequence of aerials. I would expect an overwash to knock down a house, but the tank looks pretty solid. If it did knock down the house, it might still have left enough to be visible to Evans and Moffitt several years later, and it might have been rebuilt thereafter. I know, lots of possibles, but then, there are quite a few of those in your scenario, too. I'm imagining the colonists building a house for Gallagher, probably to use during the intensive search; then for whatever reason it's fallen down sufficiently by '46 that Evans and Moffitt see only the water catcher. Once the Coast Guard's gone, people return and rebuild it for use, say, in turtle hunting (We're sure it's not the site of the caretaker's house, right?). Then in '49, when Aram Tamia walks Laxton around the island and Laxton asks him about the house, Aram nostalgically refers to it as a house built for Gallagher, even though in all probability there's little left of the original house. Hey, it's a scenario. TK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:44:16 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Gallagher MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From William Webster-Garman Any chance we'll see Tom King's paper on Gallagher soon? william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Pat has been coding it up for the website and creating the graphics. Should be done soon. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:48:53 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evidence at the Seven site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Oh, OK, so we don't really know it was there; we simply know that something was there that looks a lot like the thing we know the Kiwis had. Of course, we also know that distilleries were offloaded by Maude et al in 1938 at the beginning of the Great Search for Water. And as I recall, one of them failed. Is there any reason not to surmise that its tank (or the tank of another failed unit) was re-used at the Seven Site? My point is just that we don't really know there was a distillery there, so it may not be necessary to account for its absence. TK ************************************************************************* From Ric OK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:58:03 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Electra's Receive Antenna Lost on Take-Off? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski Previous Forum messages tell of an anecdote from an airfield worker to the effect that he and his friends were not suprised when the plane went missing because they found "her antenna on the runway." Sorry, I don't have an exact reference to where the anecdote is on the web site. It does seem that the photographic evidence strengthens the value of the anecdote. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric The anecdote is probably not on the website. In (or about) 1994 - long before we did any forensic imaging of the takeoff film - Mr. R. E. Fullenwider approached me after a speaking presentation I did for a group in Columbus, Indiana. He told me that while he was in Lae, New Guinea during WWII "courtesy of Uncle Sam" one of the old timers around the airfield made the comment you refer to above. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:08:42 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy If the house were built atop poles sunk into the ground, and the tank was elevated on some sort of structure, any overwash might have moved the sand without wrecking the house/tank. Along the Texas Gulf Coast, lots of houses and other structures are built this way to survive flooding from storms and hurricanes. Of course, nature can destroy anything, but lots of these structures make it through the storms, and you would be amazed to see how much sand and junk gets moved about.....the scenario is very plausible, but difficult to test unless you know the land, the design of the structure and the severity of the storm. So, I vote " entirely possible but cannot be tested based on current information" and that we move on. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'd be curious to know if anybody who has actualy been to the site thinks that there is any indication whatsoever that an overwash occurred. (The only people who have been on the ground there are me, Pat, John Clauss, Russ Matthews, Don Widdoes, and Joe Hudson.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:16:06 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Seven site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Charles Lim To Ric, From reading the contents of several e-mails concerning the evidence found at the '7' site, there still remains the possibilty that, one or more other events, that have not been recorded anecdotally or otherwise, may have destroyed the evidence that we are looking for. The presence of the dwelling on the site, for whatever period of time that it was there, could be concerned with the castaway, the removal of the remains of the above, and the subsequent disposal of the remains. This is not proven, but it could be the only reason in my mind why someone would go to great lengths to settle in one of the less hospitable areas of Niku; to conduct a search based around the dwelling for more evidence of the castaway, their origin, and the reason why they were stranded. Since the search was then later abandoned, the dwelling would then be later dismantled, the relevant collected evidence would then be dealt with the proper official channels. Have we collected evidence of the above? If so what is the possibilty that there are still remains where there are supposed to be? I do think that if the dwelling was deconstructed, the material would be recycled by the villagers and re-used. This is perhaps why we have not come across any significant debris associated with the structure. I hope this helps. LTM Charles Lim (WHO SHALL NOW DISSAPPEAR IN A PUFF OF SMOKE) *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not really sure what your'e getting at. The apparent sequence of events goes something like: Bones found Organized search ordered House (and possibly other infrastructure) built Organized search carried out Found objects sent to Fiji House (and possibly other infrastructure) dismantled and removed ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:21:47 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: 7500 KC RDF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney As understand it, an aircraft flying at 1,000 feet has a "radio horizon" of about 40 miles. That is, whatever the HF frequency, at a distance up to about 40 miles between Earhart and the Itasca, radio communication between Earhart and the Itasca would have occurred via "line of sight, " not NVIS, skip, or "groundwave." Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:53:50 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The Landing: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Richard Johnson On what evidence, other than anecdotal, do you base your assumption that AE landed near the NW City? Placing to much emphasis on the memory of an old woman, who I believe knew you were interested in an airplane on Niku before the interview with her, (please correct me if I am wrong about her prior knowlege of your interest), might mislead your search efforts. Given a choice of finding AE's bones or her airplane, which would you choose Ric? I am still a firm believer in the airplane in the water around the island theory. I believe finding the plane will prove easier to do than finding bone fragments somewhere on the island. Suppose the 7 site comes up blank next summer, then what? I would love to see the surrounding waters throughly searched and the mystery solved. Richard Johnson *************************************************************************** From Ric We're not entirely sure whether or not Emily had been told that we were interested in an airplane before Tom King first spoke with her, but he asked her about a box her father built, not aboat an airplane. She was the one who connected the bones in the box to an airplane. We had developed a hypothesis about a landing on the reef off the western end of the island long before Emily said she had seen airplane wreckage there. Our hypothesis was based upon anecdotal accounts of wreckage seen in the water and along the shoreline, corroborated by aerial photography that shows what appears to be a debris field of light colored metal on the reef flat in 1953. All Emily did was give us our earliest (to-date) anecdotal sighting of airplane debris. It's corroborated by the photo taken by Eric Bevington in October 1937 which shows anomalous material on the reef flat in the area where Emily says there was airplane wreckage. In other words, the case for a landing on the reef north of the Norwich City and the subesquent destruction of the airplane by surf action with attendant distribution of wreckage is not based upon the memories of one old woman. If you believe strongly that the airplane is in the deep water surrounding the island I'd be interested to know what evidence you have to support that theory - or is it just an opinion? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:53:03 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Electra's Receive Antenna Lost on Take-Off? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson This raises an interesting point. If the antenna did break off on take-off on Lae, it would seem to me that either Callopy or Chater would have known about it (after all, Chater was the airdrome supervisor), and would have reported it in one of their formal reports. I realize lack of reporting doesn't mean it didn't happen, but if something that significant did happen, it should have been included. I know, I know, lots of ifs and would haves. Still, it is puzzling. *************************************************************************** From Ric About all we can say with any certainty is that neither Chater nor Collopy apparently knew about the loss of the antenna. Without having been there we really can't say how hard it would have been for something like that to happen and neither of them know about it. Deciding that something did not happen because, surely, someone would have known about it can be a real trap. Harry Maude was quite sure that Gallagher never found any bones on Nikumaroro because he would have heard about it. Certainly, a high ranking British official like Sir Harry Luke would have notified the American authorities if he became privy to information that might relate to the fate of Amelia Earhart -wouldn't he? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:01:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Canoe fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dave Bush How about this: tank wasn't a water device, but rather a "still" (canoe fuel?). Since people sometimes pick up things, like carbine shells, could the empty shell have been dropped there after having been picked up somewhere else? What rate does canoe fuel evaporate at? LTM - who hates canoes with no fuel, but can't stand the taste of the fuel - but M is not fool herself! Dave Bush #2200 ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, any artifact could have been picked up from its original place of deposition and and carried, for God knows what reason, to where you find it. By "canoe fuel" I'm assuming you mean distilled spirits (i.e. booze, white lightning, hooch). The Gilbertese don't have that technology. Their hooch-of-choice is fermented coconut sap, called "toddy." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:03:40 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: small screen... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > From Ric > > I agree. We're probably talking about more of a hut than a house. Houses in > the village weren't very big either (Tom?) and yes, there are at least two > holes in the ground that are suggestive of support posts near where the plate > shard was found. If the shard was found near the tank, then those holes may be nothing to do with the house. The coasties came across the tank but didn't see the house in 1944, but Laxton saw the house in 1949. Perhaps the house was "near" the 7 site rather than "at" the site. Or maybe the tank was moved.... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The shard was not near the tank. It was near the holes. And yes, I think the tank was moved. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:10:26 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evidence at the Seven site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ellie Hi Ric, isn't there any way with todays knowledge, to examine the bird bones at the 7 site to date them? Stupid question I guess or the tests would have been made by now. Ellie ************************************************************************** From Ric Carbon dating is not nearly precise enough to be of help in this instance. Expert opinion, however, is that the bird bones seen at the site in 1996 were actually quite recent and probably represent nothing more than a bird who happened to die there and was pulled apart and eaten by crabs. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:11:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Useful(?) New Zealand resource MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King In connection with the quest for John Eric Pery-Johnston I've been pointed toward the Hocken Library at the University of Otago -- URL http://www.library.otago.ac.nz/hocken/hhome.html. To judge from the first few pages of the site, it's a good source of material on Pacific and New Zealand history, including extensive manuscript holdings. I plan to work with it in search of information on the 1938 New Zealand survey on Nikumaroro, but if someone with more free time wants to take it on first, have fun. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:15:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Seven site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Charles Lim >From Ric > >I'm not really sure what your'e getting at. The apparent sequence of >events >goes something like: >Bones found >Organized search ordered >House (and possibly other infrastructure) built >Organized search carried out >Found objects sent to Fiji >House (and possibly other infrastructure) dismantled and removed That is exactly what I'm saying Ric. I know it sounds a bit outta whack. The purpose of the house may have been a rest hut for someone who was taking a break from the search as the village is quite a distance away on foot and you also have to cross the lagoon. I'm quite sure this could be one purpose of building the hut or as many have said it was a resting place (not a grave) for Gallagher. In any case, I do hope that you're certain that a structure of some sort of structure stood there as it could be the only explaination for some of the strange items that have been disscussed lately. The chronology of events thats being discussed does not seem too unusual or does it?? LTM Charles Lim *************************************************************************** From Ric Sems perfectly logical to me. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:46:54 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Earhart's Take-Off From Lae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney Ann Pellegreno interviewed Bertie Heath in Lae during her 1967 flight (pages 144-145 of "World Flight"). No mention of an antenna or parts of an antenna found or seen falling off the Electra by anyone in Lae. The Longs also interviewed Bertie Heath. I've viewed the TIGHAR film clip at high resolution on this 19" Multisync CRT. Sorry, I don't see an "antenna." coming off the Electra. Others who viewed the film clip don't either. According to the WE schematics we have, the WE transmitter and receiver typically shared the same antenna, using a relay for transmit / receive keyed from the microphone's push-to-talk switch. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric Something I used to do in our Aviation Archaeology course was to take about a half dozen accounts of Earhart's Lae takeoff as described in various primary and secondary sources (the Collopy letter, the Chater Report, Bertie Heaths' account as later related to various people, etc.) and ask the students to try to resolve the many discrepancies and come up with a mental picture of what the takeoff really looked like. Once they'd done that I showed them the film of the actual takeoff. Everyone was always amazed at how different the reality was from the descriptions of the eyewitnesses. If you don't beleive that the antenna was lost, try this: A. Look at the film again. Do you see the aft mast of the belly wire antenna almost brushing the grass as the airplane taxis past the camera from left to right on its way up to the far end of the runway? No? You may have to do what we did - engage the services of a forensic imaging laboratory to examine each frame. The mast is there, just as it should be. B. As the film picks up the airplane coming back past from right to left on its takeoff run you'll see that the tail is already up. About two seconds into that sequence you'll see a puff of dust erupt from the ground beneath the airplane and then dissipate in the propwash. If you look as closely as we did you'll see that the puff does not erupt under either tire or prop tip but under the centerline of the aircraft. C. As the airplane takes off and comes past the camera you'll be able to see the loop antenna, and the dorsal mast, and even the pitot tubes under the chin (again, this may take some rather sophisticated forensic imaging, but they're there). What you won't see, no matter how hard you look, frame by frame, as the airplane passes in front of light backgrounds and dark, are the central and aft masts for the belly antenna. We don't know whether the puff of dust is related to the antenna loss or not, but the the fact of the loss is a simple matter of now you see it, now you don't. It's there when the airplane taxis out and it's gone when it flies back by. What we suspect is that the aft mast that is so close to the ground was knocked off as AE swung the tail around to line up with the runway at the far end of the field (and far away from the spectators). That would leave the broken mast being dragged along the ground by the antenna wire. The puff may be the dragged mast snagging on the ground and ripping the wire loose. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:58:36 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King I don't mean to be argumentative (who, me?), but what would you take as contemporary visual evidence of a 60 year-ago overwash? TK ************************************************************************* From Ric I take it that this is directed at Kenton. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:00:21 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Seven site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Charles, if you're suggesting that the removal of whatever was at the Seven Site (if it happened) might have destroyed the evidence there (if there was any), then sure, that's possible, but it would hardly be inevitable. Evidence in the ground, like bones and teeth, aren't easily completely destroyed by things like removing structures on the surface. I've excavated intact graves under areas that had seen the construction and systematic destruction (through bombing) of major surface facilities (airfields, gun emplacements, etc.). The problem we face with the Seven Site, though -- or with any putative bones discovery site -- is that the evidence was ephemeral in the first place, and then was the subject of a more or less systematic collecting effort by Gallagher & Co. But the best things we could possibly find would be teeth, which don't erode easily, aren't easily found, and hence have the best chance of survival over the decades. The chances of building removal at the Seven Site resulting in the removal or destruction of scattered teeth strike me as close to nil. Of course, we also have to acknowledge that our chances of finding them aren't real good, either, but the nice thing about the Seven Site, with its suspicious hole in the ground, is that it gives us something to focus our efforts on. We know that not all the teeth originally in the head left the island in Gallagher's shipment; the most likely place they got left is in the hole where the head was buried and then dug up. IF that's true, and IF the hole on the Seven Site is where the head was buried, then with modern archeological techniques we should be able to find them. LTM (who notes that Gallagher was ahead of his time) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:04:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Landing: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Peter I'm a bit confused. All the emails I receive from this forum elude to the notion that Amelia Earhart's plane is still missing. I recently heard that her plane was found...in fact, I heard that Camron Diaz is playing Amelia in an up-and-coming movie about this discovery. Please help clarify my confusion. Has anyone heard the same thing? Peter *************************************************************************** From Ric Really? Who found it? Where was it? Who (and what gender) is Camron Diaz? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:11:25 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Coast Guard Reunion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski Ric, If you can't get a "primary researcher" to join Chuck, I could get there for the 16th, FWIW. Maybe two devotees are better than one. ;o) Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric As it turns out, all of us primary researcher types seem to be unable to make the festivities so we'll gratefully accept your gracious offer. What questions, I wonder, would we particularly want to ask the veterans of Unit 92? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:16:55 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Camron Diaz rules! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Ric said; Who (and what gender) is Camron Diaz? No more trips to Niku for you, you've already been out in the sun too long! Sheeze! LTM, who respects Ms. Diaz's work Dennis O. McGee #0149CE ************************************************************************** From Ric I guess that answers my question. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:18:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Speculation on the antenna MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Randy Jacobson said: "If the antenna did break off on take-off on Lae, it would seem to me that either Callopy or Chater would have known about it (after all, Chater was the airdrome supervisor), and would have reported it in one of their formal reports. I realize lack of reporting doesn't mean it didn't happen, but if something that significant did happen, it should have been included." We do not know for sure that Chater and Callopy did or did not know of the missing antennae. All we know is that we have no evidence either way, i.e. written reports, interviews etc. 1. TIGHAR has photographic evidence supporting its theory that the antenna was lost on take off. 2. Anecdotal evidence is clear that a) the antennae was lost on take-off; b) it was found; c) it was identified as being from the 10E, all of which raise questions regarding when it was found and if it was reported. First, IF it was found, I believe it would have had to have been within a few days of the flight because the more time that passed between AE's departure and the discovery of the missed antennae, the less chance the antennae would be correctly associated with AE's flight. After several weeks or months the wire antennae would have rusted, personnel would have moved, and memories faded and the antennae could have been mistaken for just another piece of debris. Therefore I would speculate that the missing antennae, if found, was discovered within a "reasonable" time after the take-off. Second, if the antennae was lost and then found shortly after AE's departure, it is difficult to imagine that its loss and discovery would not rapidly become common knowledge among those witnessing the take-off, especially in light of the flight's tragic ending. Therefore, one could assume Chater reported this to someone. But of course we do not have records of ALL of Chater's stuff. He very well could have reported it and the information was lost over the years. But didn't Chater die shortly after AE's flight? Maybe he learned about the antennae and never got a chance to formally report it. And as for everyone else who possessed the "common knowledge" of this important event? It is not hard to envision an attitude of: "Well, "the authorities" (Chater) know of it, and he "obviously" has reported it, so that's that." The paths of speculation are endless; my kingdom for some hard evidence. LTM, who is happy to be back Dennis O. McGee #0149CE *************************************************************************** From Ric You raise some good points. There were two "authorities" who made written reports at the time. Jim Collopy was District Superintendent of Civil Aviation for the Territory of New Guinea. His usual base of operations was Salamau, not Lae, so he may not have been around when the wire was found. Eric Chater was General Manager of Guinea Airways and was based right there in Lae. Chater was killed on October 13, 1941 when he walked into a prop, so his death does not seem to be a factor in this business about the wire. Another person who "should" have known about it, but apparently didn't, is Harry Balfour, the wirleless operator at Lae. This is the same old problem we see in many contexts ( the discovery of the bones on the Gardner, the stories of other bones and airplane wreckage on Gardner, the Canton engine, etc., etc.). Does the apparent ignorance of an event by people who "should" know about it mean that the event did not occur? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:18:41 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Earhart's Takeoff From Lae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney We looked at the TIGHAR film clip again. Same conclusion. The Electra seems to have plenty of ground clearance. The shadows make it hard to discern anything on the underside of the Electra except for the wheels. By the way, Earhart took the Electra on a test flight on July 1st What we saw in the TIGHAR film clip was Bertie Heath's description of Earhart's take-off related to Pellegreno in 1967. It is hard for us to believe that if an antenna had broken off the Electra while the plane took off that it wouldn't be noted and reported. Janet Whitney DataQuality@aol.com ************************************************************************** From Ric So - the resolution of the film via the website is not good enough for you to be able to see what we can see from a frame by frame analysis of a high-quality Beta SP copy of the film. That's not surprising. The web has it's limitations. All you can legitimately conclude from that is that you can't see the evidence that we claim is there. If you want to pay for one we'll be happy to send you a Beta SP dub of the film. Then you'll be able to prove TIGHAR wrong by showing us all at least three frames in the film in which the aft antenna mast is visible during the right-to-left takeoff run. Or, you could show us other examples of filmed takeoffs of the same airplane (there are several) in which the mast in question is NOT visible even though we know it was there. (I'll save you the trouble. We've looked at the films. You can see the mast.) In other words, if you expect to credibly debunk TIGHAR's conclusions you'll have to do what we did to reach them - spend some time, spend some money, and produce genuine data. <> Pellegrino, page 144 - He sat quietly a moment. " I wanted to see them off, but couldn't just stop working. The rest of that day I flew back and forth to the mines. The following day when returning from my first trip, I saw her silver plane moving slowly down the unpaved runway. It must have been 3000 feet long at that time. When her plane reached the road that had a high crest and ran across the runway near the seaward end, it bounced into the air, went over the drop off and then flew so low over the water that the propellers were throwing spray." He paused and took a sip of beer. "Always have a couple of beers every day." "She continued straight out to sea for several miles before climbing on course slowly. That was the last I saw of her." He thought for a moment. "The wind was calm and the dust from where she hit the crown of that dirt road didn't disperse quickly, just sort of hung there." Neither the takeoff film nor aerial photos of the airfield taken during that period show a dirt road crossing the runway. The film clearly shows that the rather abrupt rotation of the aircraft was the result of the pilot's actions, not an impact with a perturbation in the runway surface. Smoke from a brush fire on the far side of the runway also shows that the wind was not calm, and the only dust raised during the takeoff run was the puff described in my earlier posting. It occurs not at the moment of rotation as Heath alleges, but several seconds earlier in the takeoff run. The accurate parts of Bertie's recollections 30 years after the fact can be summarized as: - the plane was silver - the runway was unpaved - the runway was 3000 fet long at that time - always have a couple of beers every day I welcome DataQuality's (and anyone else's) critique of TIGHAR's conclusions, but it will take more than plural pronouns and dismissive tones to convince this forum that your data are of acceptable quality. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:58:53 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King My question about contemporary visual evidence was a follow-up on your comment: *************************************************************************** From Ric I'd be curious to know if anybody who has actualy been to the site thinks that there is any indication whatsoever that an overwash occurred. (The only people who have been on the ground there are me, Pat, John Clauss, Russ Matthews, Don Widdoes, and Joe Hudson.) ************************************* I haven't been on the Seven Site, other than on its fringes in '89, but I have trouble imagining what I'd take to be clear evidence of a long-ago overwash anywhere on Niku. Thinking back on the "landing strip" area along the southeast side of Baureke Passage, which we looked at in some detail in '97 and are pretty sure gets overwashed regularly, I can't think of any really clear evidence of such events even there. It may be worthy of some note that we did find scattered artifacts and structural remains there (a bottle or two, a house post). Anyhow, I'm just wondering what sort of evidence you're asking the '96 veterans to think about? It would be interesting to get Kenton's take on this, however. TK ************************************************************************** From Russ Matthews Ric wrote: << I'd be curious to know if anybody who has actually been to the site thinks that there is any indication whatsoever that an overwash occurred. >> From Russ Matthews (#0509CE) Well, I am by no means an expert and it was over four years ago. However, I have the impression that the area around the tank was very "open." By that I mean that there were bare patches in the scaevola nearer to the ocean side (like the "seven" itself) and a dearth of shade trees. I remember that there were a few dead trunks, both standing and fallen (one which we debated might explain a light colored looking object in the photos). I wonder if the trees might have been killed by salt water as the result of an overwash? The scaevola nearer to the lagoon was more substantial and heavily tangled -- just the kind of stuff that seems to quickly fill in areas that were previously shaded from sunlight. Once again, these are guesses from memory. I'd suggest you check the videotape and consult a botanist. LTM (who always takes things with a grain of salt), Russ ************************************************************************ From: Kenton Spading, 1382CE RE: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? Ric Wrote in Response to my Posting on this subject: A couple of observations: I agree that it is likely that portions of the shoreline southeast of the 7 site have been overwashed from the lagoon side during "westerly" gales. Evidence of that includes: - the absence of large trees in that area - the presence of two small "lakes" - the observation by the divers on the 1989 expedition that the coral on the reef slope (not the flat) just offshore that area is dead. I do not think that overwash occurs in the 7 site area. Evidence includes: - the apparent presence of a "safety-valve" area just southeast of there (see above). - the relativley high elevation of the ridge that runs through the site. - the pattern of the artifacts found at the site. - the fact that a place that was known to be prone to overwash would be about the last place you'd want to build a house. ***************** Spading responds: What do you mean by the 7 site area? I agree that the proposed overwash does not occur directly over the middle of the 7 site. The safety valve or overwash area I am referring to is toward the East/Southest end of the 7 site but definitely in the 7 site "Area". Lets see if we can zero in on this. Your placement of the red seven on the 1941 photo on the Web would have the overwash occurring directly over the horizontal portion of the number 7 (if the number were written on paper, i.e. the mostly vertical red lines in the photo). The discolored area on the reef lines up with a portion of the seven. In regards to a ridge line....Variations in ground elevations can be very deceiving in areas covered by thick brush, trees etc.. In any case, wave runup can overflow an area that at first might appear to be too high. The eyes can be very deceiving in this regard. I agree that artifacts at the site may not be directly in the overwash area. My proposed overwash does not "wreck the house" or float the tank away. The artifacts do not necessarily have to be in the overwash area although high water can certainly be a transport mechanism. It takes a skilled eye to identify high water marks especially many years or months after the event. I disagree that an area near the overwash area would be a bad place to build a house. You would definitely not build it in the overwash area itself. But off to the side (say on higher ground) would be ideal as the overwash area would provide a highway from the lagoon to the ocean. The overwash area with its sparse vegetation is what draws you to the site whether you are a castaway of someone wanting to build a house for Gallagher. LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, let's define what we mean by "the 7 site." Let's call it the entire width of the atoll from lagoon to ocean bordered on the "top" end by horizontal component of the 7 and on the bottom by the bottom of the vertical component of the 7. Russ's point about dead trees possibly being killed by salt water is an interesting one. It could also be that the opening up off the area during clearing operations associated with the search, or kanawa wood harvesting, exposed the trees to too much sun. Here's another thought. Inside the tank and on the ground nearby were several ( a total of six as I recall) coconut shell halves that had, in all liklihood, been used as drinking cups. While the tank itself may have remained undisturbed by a gentle flooding from the lagoon side, the cups on the ground would not. Of course, the tank may have been moved and the cups may date from a later time. The strips of screening, however, we assume date from the construction of the house. The three examples we found were distributed longitudinally several meters apart across the atoll, not laterally. I would expect that an advancing or retreating flood would tend to leave debris distributed laterally along a line (as we saw along the ocean beach at the landing in 1991). In fact, all of the artifacts seen at the 7 site are distributed longitudinally rather than laterally. Ultimatley we have to ask what difference it makes whether there was ever an overwash at the 7 site? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:08:57 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Coast Guard Reunion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Frank Westlake From Ric: > What questions, I wonder, would we particularly want > to ask the veterans of Unit 92? - Did they do any weapons training? If so, where at and what type of weapons? I don't think it's essential knowledge but it might help keep the M1 cartridges in the filing cabinet. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. We've already heard from some of the veterans that they had M1 carbines, Thompsons, and .45 side arms. Weapons training, however, was reportedly pretty much of the McHale's Navy variety. There's a hilarious story about a .30 cal machine gun arriving disassembled and being carefully assembled by-the-book, then nobody wanting to fire the thing for fear they had put it together wrong. Apparently bird hunting (for sport, certainly not food) along the beach was not uncommon. More elaboration on that activity and stories about anything seen back in the bush would be welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:10:32 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evidence at the Seven site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > Expert opinion, however, is that the bird bones seen at the site in 1996 > were actually quite recent and probably represent nothing more than a bird who > happened to die there and was pulled apart and eaten by crabs. Which, if true, would tend to throw a bucket of water over the "bones scattered" or carried off by crabs theory... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Uh huh. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:19:07 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Landing: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin I think Mr. Johnson has a point. If the Bevington photo is indeed the wreckage of the Electra and your assumption than the Electra made a landing on the reef flat, north of the Norwich, why not search the deep water at the reefs edge. Surly, radial engines would still be there 63 years after the fact. ************************************************************************** From Ric We're fortunate in that there is a ledge just off that portion of the reef which seems to be several hundred feet wide and only about 40 or 50 feet down - which makes it searchable by divers. That's one of the tasks slated for Niku IIII. Searching the truly deep water off the reef edge is a very different kettle of fish and requires a commitment of time, money and technology that is beyond the scope of this expedition and, in my opinion, is not warranted by the available evidence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:25:38 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Ms. Diaz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski Dear Ric, Cameron Diaz is an actress. Peter is definitely confused. CD could never be mistaken for (or cast as) AE. ;o) Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Then again, if the film he's referring to is the oft-rumored production of Jane Mendlesohn's " I Was Amelia Earhart" any resemblance to anything genuinely Earhartian is purely coincidental anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:27:16 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The Seven Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Denise For millenium, the Banabans of Ocean Island have built stone terraces. Since Ocean Island isn't THAT far away from Nikumaroro and the same people populate the entire region, isn't it possible that this coral seven was from a much earlier attempt to colonise the island? And to build one of their traditional stone terraces out of what was available to hand - coral? Just a thought. Denise ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:33:32 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Camron Diaz rules! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janice Brown Actually, its not Cameron Diaz, its Julianne Moore. Wednesday March 22, 2000 Julianne Moore isn't taking any time off to bask in the glory of her Oscar nomination. In addition to starring in the sequel to "Silence Of The Lambs," Moore is in talks to make "I Was Amelia Earhart," Variety reports. The film is based on the fictional biography of the doomed pilot by Jane Mendelsohn. Fred Schepisi ("Roxanne" "Six Degrees Of Separation") is rewriting the script and plans to direct the film. If Moore accepts the role in "Earhart", the film will have to start shooting immediately after the "Lambs" sequel, "Hannibal". Janice Brown :) *************************************************************************** From Ric Now THAT makes more sense. Thank you. The solution is obvious. Combine the two projects and call it "Hannibal's Beach Party." Dr. Lecter's presence on the island could explain everything. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:42:42 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Coast Guard Reunion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King I'll start a list of questions: 1. Did you know a guy named Floyd Kilts? If so, what can you tell us about him? Then go on to discuss the story, see if it rings any bells with anyone. Take clean copies of the Kilts account. 2. On whatever island you were on, did you get around much? If you were on Gardner, can you recall anything specific about the island? 3. If you were on Gardner, can you recall who you mostly interacted with among the colonists? Did he have much English? Did you hear any stories from the colonists? 4. Did anyone ever build anything like a structure or a temporary camp anyplace away from the station itself? If so, what and where? 5. If you were on Gardner, the station logs indicate that you visited the colonial village about every other weekend for a few hours. Do you remember what you did there? 6. Would you be willing to stay in touch with us so we can ask more questions? Another thing to consider might be making some kind of presentation on our research to the group, with an emphasis on the Kilts konnection, to see if it triggers any memories. They might be false memories, of course, but we really can't count on getting anything untainted anyhow, given the amount of publicity we've had, and just laying out the story and seeing if it results in any ideas might be the best way to go. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:44:23 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: 7500 KC RDF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney >>From Janet Whitney As understand it, an aircraft flying at 1,000 feet has a "radio horizon" of about 40 miles. That is, whatever the HF frequency, at a distance up to about 40 miles between Earhart and the Itasca, radio communication between Earhart and the Itasca would have occurred via "line of sight, " not NVIS, skip, or "groundwave."<< -At this distance you cannot rule out any of the above except skip. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:47:30 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Lambrecht's view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Andrew McKenna From Andrew McKenna I was re-reading the research bulletin on the "7" site and was struck by something Ric mentions regarding the photo taken by Lambrecht on July 9, 1937. From the "7" Site Bulletin: "On July 9, 1937 three floatplanes from the U.S.S. Colorado flew over Nikumaroro (then known as Gardner Island) during the search for Amelia Earhart. The only photo known to have been taken at that time happens to include the "7" site. Although resolution is very poor, the photo does provide the earliest known aerial view of the site. (For a complete version of the photo see The Lambrecht Photo.) " This got me thinking, so I went to look at the Lambrecht report on the web site. Quoting from his report: "From M'Kean the planes proceeded to Gardner Island (sighting the ship to starboard enroute) and made an aerial search of this island which proved to be one of the biggest of the group. Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll... a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coronado's silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms. Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there. At the western end of the island a tramp steamer (of about 4000 tons) bore mute evidence of unlighted and poorly charted "Rocks and Shoals". She lay high and almost dry head onto the coral beach with her back broken in two places. The lagoon at Gardner looked sufficiently deep and certainly large enough so that a seaplane or even an airboat could have landed or taken off in any direction with little if any difficulty. Given a chance, it is believed that Miss Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon and swam or waded ashore. In fact, on any of these islands it is not hard to believe that a forced landing could have been accomplished with no more damage than a good barrier crash or a good wetting." He doesn't find either Amelia or her airplane, but notes some things were important enought for him to note in his report: 1. The tropical vegetation including coconut palms. 2. Signs of recent habitation clearly visible. 3. The Wreck of the Norwich City on the Western end. 4. The suitability of the lagoon for landing a seaplane or airboat. We know that two out of the four items, #'s 1 and 3, are on the Western end of the island, and I think the tendency has been to assume that the "signs of recent habitation" were also on the West end. You would think that he would have chosen to take the photo with the Norwich City, the old 1892 cocos, and the presumed signs of habitation such as the Marker erected by the Brits in the foreground. However, the photo is from the East with all the stuff that we have presumed to be of interest as far away as possible. Why? One reason I can think of was that his flight took place during the mid to late morning, launched at 0700, searched McKean first, then to Gardner (do we know what time?), so perhaps the light was better from the East. However, I know that the late morning sun in the tropics should be pretty high and bright in the sky, so I don't think there would have been much of an advantage from the E or the W. You could also argue that he wanted a picture to display #4 above, but the view of the landing area of the lagoon should have been equally good from the opposite side. Given the fact that he could position his aircraft anywhere over the island for the desired photo angle, why take the one and only photo from the angle that he did? Was there something about this end of the island that he felt was interesting enough to shoot his only picture? Makes you wonder if the "signs of recent habitation" were down at this end of the island and not up near the Norwich City. Just speculation, I know, but it just seems odd to me that the only photo taken by Lambrecht just happens to have the E side of the island with the "7" Site in the relative forground rather than the other more prominent landmarks such as the NC and the 1892 cocos. LTM (who prefers the interesting stuff in the foreground of her photos) Andrew McKenna 1045 CE ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:48:36 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Camron Diaz rules! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Russ Matthews From Russ Matthews (#0509CE) Cameron Diaz will be seen next year in "The Gangs of New York" and "Untitled Nancy Pimental Project." She will not be playing AE in either one. Several months ago Julianne Moore was cast in the title role of Fine Line Cinema's production of "I Was Amelia Earhart," the screen adaptation of Jane Mendelsohn's 1996 novel by the same name. Trust me, Peter, when I say that you don't want to rely on Hollywood when it come to history or truth. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:51:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Belly antenna MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann What if the central & aft masts, securing the belly antenna of the Electra, to the aft section of the plane, were somehow broken-off (torn-off), but the antenna wire (or even a segment thereof) itself, somehow remained fastened & dangling from whatever it was fastened to on the nose of the plane, thus carrying the (remainder thereof) antenna along, airborne, for the remainder of the flight? What affect would that scenario have on the ship's radio reception? Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric I dunno, but I suspect not much. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:52:30 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Speculation on the antenna MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Terry Ann Linley: << Does the apparent ignorance of an event by people who "should" know about it mean that the event did not occur? >> Of course not! Because TIGHAR has taken the time (and funds) to hire forensic specialists to analyze the film of AE's final takeoff, you have very strong evidence to indicate the belly antenna was lost at Lae. Other investigators have what they consider strong evidence to support THEIR theories. The bottom line is this: someone (hopefully TIGHAR) will eventually find physical and undeniable evidence of AE's demise. You HAVE to keep the search for hard evidence central to your investigation, even though it's tempting to combine all the anecdotal evidence into a scenario that solves the mystery. LTM (who needs her missing teeth!), Terry Ann Linley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:02:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: What We See is What TIGHAR Put on the Web MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney What we see is what TIGHAR put on the Web. If TIGHAR wants to put some frames from the film of Earhart's take-off on-line at high resolution, we'll be sure to take a close look. I have 256 mbytes of RAM on this PC and can obtain use of a MAC with commercial graphics software. Janet Whitney DataQuality@aol.com *************************************************************************** From Ric What we put on the web was a report of our findings. I could easily put up an enhanced frame from the film that shows the antenna in place and very close to the ground during the taxi phase. We already published such a photo in TIGHAR Tracks years ago. That, in itself, would only prove that the antenna was there when the airplane taxied out and I don't think there's much debate about that. To show that the antenna is NOT present when the plane comes back by I'd have to put up enhanced copies of every one of the several hundred frames in the film plus the higher-quality still photo we obtained from Australia. Simply put, it's not worth that much trouble to satisfy your skepticism. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:55:45 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Electra's Fuel Consumption MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney At 1912 GMT, the Itasca copied a message from Earhart: "KHAQQ calling Itasca we must be on you but cannot see you but gas is running low been unable to reach you by radio we are flying at altitude 1000 feet." If the Electra had 50 gallons of fuel remaining at 1912 GMT, the average fuel consumption over the 2500+ mile flight would have been 1050 gallons / 19.2 hrs = 54.69 GPH. If the Electra had 100 gallons of fuel remaining at 1912 GMT, the average fuel consumption would have been 1000 gallons / 19.2 hours = 52.08 GPH. If the Electra had 150 gallons of fuel remaining at 1912 GMT, the average fuel consumption would have been 950 gallons / 19.2 hours = 49.47 GPH. What is TIGHAR's estimate of the amount of fuel remaining at 1912 GMT? Janet Whitney DataQuality@aol.com *************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR's estimate, based upon the power management guidelines provided to Earhart by Kelly Johnson, is 188 U.S. gallons remaining at 1912 GMT. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:05:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Landing: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Richard Johnson Ric, do you mean what evidence besides the obvious ( no plane on the island )? Of course my theory is an opinion, just as many discussions on this forum. My evidence of a water landing is based upon a lack of evidence to the contrary. Had Earhart indeed been able to send post lost messages then the plane is obviously above water and in no immediate risk of sinking or destruction by wave damage. Why then would the castaways not remove every possible item from the plane that might aid in their survival? Why did Gallagher not find such items? You ask what items? Any item from the inventory that could aid them. It would stand to reason that any items from the plane ( wire, clothing, flashlights, etc..) might be found along with the bones. I suggest they crashed outside the reef area and had to swim ashore. Maybe FN did not make it ashore, I believe he was a smoker and drinker. In my mind it's plausible and it explains the lack of aircraft artifacts in addition to Lambrechts' failure to see a plane. Richard Johnson ************************************************************************** From Ric So - in discounting the positive evidence for a landing on the reef you're left with only negative evidence for a landing elsewhere (by definition, in the water) and you feel that having crossed roughly 3,000 miles of ocean and finally finding land, Earhart would have chosen to ditch in the open ocean surrounding the island. The logic escapes me. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:30:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King A couple of comments on this exchange: 1. Whether the trees could have been killed by salt water. It's hard for me to imagine a single overwash event doing this, considering that we have pretty lively trees bordering areas of intense saltwater intrusion elsewhere on the island. True, we have dead ones, too, but they're mostly standing out in areas where the ground is pretty saturated with salt water. Which in itself raises an interesting question: how did they grow there in the first place? 2. An overwash area as a place to build a house. I think Kenton's right, and note that we found evidence of a house (albeit a single displaced post) on the fringes of the overwash area east of Baureke Passage. 3. The coconut husks. But they were IN the tank, weren't they? Ergo not likely to float away except in a REALLY extreme event. 4. Does it matter? Maybe. The more we know about how the site has evolved, the better we'll be able to interpret what's there. And this thread got started in an attempt to account for the funny patterns on the adjacent reef, which seemingly have to reflect SOMETHING that took place there, and we ought to find out what it was. 5. If there was an overwash at some point after the area was cleared, it could either hurt us or help us in terms of finding something that Gallagher missed (or it could do both). It could have obscured stuff that was on the surface at the time, or washed it away; on the other hand it may have exposed stuff that wasn't visible during the intensive search. However, whatever it did, it did it a long time ago, and the site has undergone a good deal of uncontrolled transformation since then. LTM (who disfavors uncontrolled transformation) TKing *************************************************************************** From Ric Not husks. Neatly cut nut halves. Either somebody was using them to drink out of or King Arthur and his knights had used the site as a stable. What I said was: << Inside the tank and on the ground nearby were several ( a total of six as I recall) coconut shell halves that had, in all liklihood, been used as drinking cups.>> That indicates (to me anyway) that the cups, both inside and out, are associated with the tank and have not been disturbed by a flood since the tank was last in use. When we go back, if we see indications that an overwash occurred at the site (and I'm aware of no such indications at this time) and those indications suggest that we alter our search plan, we will of course proceed accordingly. For now, at least, I'm comfortable with the discoloration on the reef in the 1941 photo being sand that backwashed out onto the reef because the vegetation had been opened up. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:32:26 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ms. Diaz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Peter Oversteet Hey Rick, Have you ever didn't know you were a casting director on the side. actually, i don't keep up with people magazine, so either actress would have worked for me. ************************************************************************** From Ric I make it a point not to keep up with People magazine. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:29:42 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Gallagher article up MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric Tom King's paper "Gallagher of Nikumaroro" is now up on the TIGHAR website as a Research Bulletin at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/8_02_00bull.html#b4 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:31:13 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Seven site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Charles Lim To Tom King, I do not disagree with you here, but is only speculating about the possibility that one event or the other may have destroyed the bones. Now teeth are a diffrent matter entirely. Once the gums have rotted away, they fall off. As you say, the teeth are wonderful sources of evidence IF you could get your hands on it. The '7' site seems to me have been the site where some kind of event occured which was not properly documented as we have no idea what happened there in any great detail. The presence of a scant amount of evidence that seems to indicate that something was indeed there is the reason behind the speculation. The link between the two events (The castaway and the 'hut') was an attempt to make sense of things. But as someone with no field experience, I do agree that postulating such a scenario doesn't neccesarily guarantee the proposed outcome, which is in this case the destruction of the bones. LTM Charles Lim (who is 'missing a link') ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:34:59 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Coast Guard Reunion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, The picture of a bunch of bored coasties out bird-hunting on the "beach" with Thompson Submachineguns for something to do boggles the mind... ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************ From Ric Heck, it gets better than that. You should hear the story about the time there was a scare that there was a Japanese sub in the area and there might be some kind of commando raid on the station. Armed patrols were sent out looking for the enemy in the bush - until somebody figured out that there was a real good chance that the patrols would actually find each other. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:37:59 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Coast Guard Reunion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > What questions, I wonder, would we particularly want > to ask the veterans of Unit 92? I'll keep track of these questions as they come up and try to give a summary of them by September 1 for the Forum to review. I also hope to re-read the Forum Archives. It seems to me that there were a number of questions people have had over the years. Whether the CG used any rolled roofing material is one of the current questions, I believe. Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric Absolutely. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:39:37 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ms. Diaz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Charles Lim To Ric, I thought that this was a SERIOUS forum filled with serious people, doing BIG IMPORTANT SERIOUS things. LTM Charles Lim (who can hardly be taken SERIOUSLY) *************************************************************************** From Ric Where'd you get THAT idea? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:47:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: 7500 KC RDF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney Given the signal strength of Earhart's transmissions on 3105 KC between 1912 GMT and 1935 GMT, the daytime propagation on 3105 KC, as well as Earhart's attempt to DF the Itasca's CW transmission on 7500 KC at 1929 GMT, why should we NOT believe that Earhart was within line-of-sight radio communication with the Itasca between 1912 GMT and 1935 GMT? Janet Whitney DataQuality@aol.com ************************************************************************** From Ric Actually, the final tramsmission at 2013 also came in at strength 5 (maximum). Are we then to think that NR16020 spent an hour wandering around within 40 miles of Howland? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:48:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lambrecht's view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Russ Matthews (#0509CE) Andrew McKenna wrote: << Given the fact that he [Lambrecht] could position his aircraft anywhere over the island for the desired photo angle, why take the one and only photo from the angle that he did? >> Keep in mind that we are not absolutely certain that the photo was taken by Lambrecht himself. There were three airplanes in that flight and all of them carried observers in the rear seat -- any one of six men could have snapped the picture. We call it "the Lambrecht photo" because it is an aerial shot dated "July 9, 1937" and John O. Lambrecht was leading the only flight of planes over Gardner that day. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:53:53 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Seven Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Denise asks: isn't it possible that this coral seven was from a much earlier attempt to colonise the island? And to build one of their traditional stone terraces out of what was available to hand - coral? Not likely. There are prehistoric stone-walled and terraced ruins elsewhere in the Phoenix Islands (and of course all over the rest of the Pacific), and they're made of coral, but to judge from photographs of them (and observations of similar structures on other islands) they're pretty readily recognizable as walls and terraces. They're made of coral blocks and chunks, so they don't erode down into long clear patches of coral rubble, as at the Seven Site. I suppose that if someone in prehistory had scraped up a bunch of coral rubble into berms of some sort, and they then eroded down flat, you might wind up with something that looks like the Seven Site, but I don't know of any cases in the area where anybody's documented as having done something like that, and even if they did I don't know why it wouldn't have gotten grown over like everything else as soon as it eroded down -- or even before it did. Anything's possible, but I think on balance I'd prefer to explain the Seven-shaped clearing as a landing strip for drunken UFO pilots. Oh, my, what have I said....? LTM (who never flies her UFO under the influence) Tom KIng *************************************************************************** From Ric In fact, the "Aldebaran" class interstellar cruiser has a landing footprint that rather closely resembles the 7 in shape and dimensions. Alien abduction begins to look like a viable hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:54:36 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Coast Guard Reunion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, You might add to the list, - Did you keep any souveniers of your time on the island? (Gee, that's a really nifty skull you have there in your liquor cabinet) - Did you take any photographs during that time? - Do you know of anybody else who might have information/photos/etc? LTM, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:05:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Earhart's Takeoff From Lae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I agree that the video clip on the website is not the best quality, but I've been able to clearly see that there is an anomaly of some kind, that appears to be a puff of dust from something striking the ground below and behind as the plane is taking off. Having flow from unpaved strips (many) years ago, I can attest that as smooth as they look, they aren't, and I'd be willing to be that (there and then) anything not runway proper was pretty rough. It is all to easy for me to visualize the tailwheel dropping into a rut, snapping the mast, and then the antenna wire snagging and pulling off during the takeoff roll. Also, how often do you suppose anyone actually walked or drove that runway? Weekly to mow it? Probably not even that. I wonder what kind of traffic they had there. From the 1935 Lae airport pix that were recently (earlier this year? - last year?) posted by one of the subscribers, there might have been a fair amount of traffic. I can picture some crusty Aussie (apologies to Th' Wombat) rolliing in and being really upset to find there was this bunch of wire wound around his axle. How about this - do you have prints or scans of the frames in question? How about a post (like the recent "7-site" pictures) to illustrate the point. Not that I have any question about your credibility, but it would still be interesting to see. While I don't "have a couple of beers every day", the next time I do, I will endeavor to contemplate this further. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************* From Ric Frankly I'd rather spend the time putting up new stuff. Tom King's Gallagher article is now up and we have the complete Itasca radio logs, in original and translated form, almost ready to go up. We also have most of the 8th Edition ready to be coded and loaded but it all takes time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:07:20 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lambrecht's view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King As I recall, the notion that Lambrecht was trying to photograph the signs of recent habitation was one of the things that led to the 1991 and 1996 TIGHAR inspections of that part of the island, which in turn led to the discovery of the Seven Site. It made sense then, and it makes sense now, particularly in Andrew's clear articulation of the argument. It's one more reason to think that the Seven Site is a good place to look. Of course, we have no way of knowing what other pictures Lambrecht may have taken of the island, that haven't turned up. LTM (who thinks it's worth a thousand words) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:17:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: fuel consumption MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Ric replied to Janet Whitney: "TIGHAR's estimate, based upon the power management guidelines provided to Earhart by Kelly Johnson, is 188 U.S. gallons remaining at 1912 GMT." Call me a skeptic, but I think you should have added more data to that answer to pre-empt Ms. Whitney's next question, which more than likely would have been to the effect that AE didn't have enough fuel remaining to make it from Howland to Niku. Using TIGHAR/Kelly's data, AE was burning about 44.9gph up until Howland. At that rate, her remaining 188 gallons would last about 4.2 hours at her average speed of about 130 mph. Is that enough to get to Niku? LTM, who is never out of gas Dennis O. McGee #0149 *************************************************************************** From Ric Do I look I just fell off the turnip truck? Ms. Whitney's reference to average fuel consumption made it clear that what she needed was rope with which to hang herself. I was happy to oblige. Niku is about 350 nautical from Howland. If Earhart was dead overhead Howland (the one place we know she wasn't) and flew to Niku at 130 knots (not mph) it would take her 2.7 hours. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:22:38 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Earhart Take-off Film MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney I would like to see high-resolution enlargements of 5-10 frames from the take-off film. That seems to be a sufficient number to determine the fate of the antenna. If doing the enlargement and high-resolution scan is too expensive or too much trouble, we'll accept that. Regarding the Coast Guard reunion, it seems to be an excellent opportunity for TIGHAR to nail down topics that have been speculated upon at length. Janet Whitney DataQuality@aol.com ************************************************************************** From Ric It's too much trouble and it's too expensive. I don't expect to nail anything down with anecdotes but further interviews of Coast Guard veterans might be helpful. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:30:46 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lambrecht's view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson I've tried to address the question of the Lambrecht photo on the forum several times, and will try again. I examined all available evidence to deduce the flight patterns of the pilots, and conclude based upon this and the relatively high altitude of the plane during the photo that the photo was taken after the visit to Carondelet Reef and the planes were returning to the Colorado. This was a photo of opportunity, and was taken, in my humble opinion, because the available charts of Gardner were so fallacious that some sort of document of the true shape/size of Gardner was needed to convince non-first hand observers of this fact. That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking by it. *************************************************************************** From Ric Randy and I have gone round and round about this for years now and occasionally at rather high decibel levels. Bottom line: he makes a pretty good case. The route back from Carondelet does take the flight near the spot where the photo was taken and the high altitude does suggest that the point of the photo was to show the whole island rather than some suspicios feature on the ground. (Good Lord. Did I just agree with Jacobson?) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:33:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: lagoon search MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Muenich I had a fresh thought the other night concerning a future search of the lagoon area for aircraft debris which might have washed into the lagoon. It is my understanding that the water in the lagoon is relatively clear. A long time ago I took a ride on a glass bottomed boat and found the view exceptional in waters that I recall (opps--memory issues) to be about 15 to 20 feet deep. I would think a small boat, glass bottomed could be fairly easily transported and with a small outboard could cover a lot of lagoon bottom in fairly short order. Given the sea state on the reef this probably would not work out there, except under very favorable conditions. ************************************************************************** From Ric The water in the lagoon is not clear but far otherwise. Visibility to a diver swimming along the bottom is about two feet at best. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:34:25 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lambrecht's view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Frank Westlake > >From Andrew McKenna > > Just speculation, I know, but it just seems odd to me that > the only photo taken by Lambrecht just happens to have the > E side of the island with the "7" Site in the relative forground > rather than the other more prominent landmarks such as > the NC and the 1892 cocos. I don't know that it is the case in this instance, or that it was practice in 1937, but aerial photos were frequently taken just to have something on file for future military use and to possibly include in the "Sailing Directions" pamphlets that list navigational information on most places. I think it is more likely that the perspective was chosen with those uses in mind and it had nothing to do with the search. They probably took a photo of each island. Frank ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:39:31 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Sorry about the husks vs. halves; my error. However, they could be styrofoam cups and still not wash away if they were inside the tank. I suspect we've got differing views of what an overwash would be; I don't think of it as a catastrophic event that would upend the tank and send everything flying, but more as a sort of sheet wash out of the lagoon and on across the reef flat. It's a way of getting enough water over the site to accomplish the kind of siltation that you've pretty much convinced me accounts for the funny markings on the reef. TK ***************************************************************************Fro m Ric Let's try one more time. What I said was: << Inside the tank AND on the ground nearby were several ( a total of six as I recall) coconut shell halves that had, in all liklihood, been used as drinking cups.>> The cups inside the tank would not wash away, no. The cups on the ground OUTSIDE the tank would wash away. They didn't. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:43:33 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Coast Guard Reunion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > From Tom King > ... [6 questions logged] > Another thing to consider might be making some kind of presentation on our > research to the group, with an emphasis on the Kilts konnection, to see > if it triggers any memories. They might be false memories, of course, > but we really can't count on getting anything untainted anyhow, given the > amount of publicity we've had, and just laying out the story and seeing > if it results in any ideas might be the best way to go. This depends upon Chuck and the schedule of events planned for the reunion. Is there room in their schedule for a presentation? I would like to take TIGHAR recruitment materials. I know I got some handouts with my membership and my first copy of TIGHAR Tracks. It seems to me that it might be hard not to seed "false memories," no matter how we approach the veterans. In order to gain entree to the meeting and in order to get attention from the individuals, there has to be at least some explanation of the TIGHAR hypothesis. Even apart from people who know Niku personally, there are probably others who would know something about the Itasca and similar ships. I don't think information like that will help decide where to search on Niku, but information about making smoke, radio direction-finding in 1937, aerials on the Itasca, post-crash ruminations, etc., may be of some interest in fleshing out the picture of what may have happened. It seems to me that people were also interested in the mothballing of the radar station and sightings of "Gallagher's house" and the water tank. I don't know quite how to phrase it, but a general question in conclusion might be: "Do you know anyone who might have more information about these things?" There may be lots of Coasties who can't make the reunion. Marty ************************************************************************* From Ric We'll send you a supply of religious literature and I'll send you Chuck's email address privately so you can coordinate directly about access to the group. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:47:45 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Ms. Diaz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Patrick Gaston Cameron Diaz is the ultraskinny model-turned-actress with the winsome smile who starred in "There's Something About Mary," among other films. (Ric, you GOTTA get a life.) Rumor has it that she has been tapped to play the female lead in the film version of "I Was Amelia Earhart," an utterly factual account of the downed aviatrix's affair with studmuffin navigator Fred Noonan on a crab-infested Pacific island paradise. Working titles: "Trystin' the Flight Away", or maybe "Sweatin' in the Scaevola". Best line: "Is that a sextant in your khakis or are you just glad to see me?" I like Mel Gibson for the FN role, except that he might be shorter than Diaz. How about Rupert Everett for Gallagher? LTM (who likes her fermented coconut sap with a splash of tonic, thanks) Pat Gaston P.S. "Niku Nookie" is just too easy. ************************************************************************** From Ric Oh no ya don't. We're not getting into another round of casting the Earhart movie. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:48:30 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Seven site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Thanks, Charles. Of course, the outcome may in fact have been the destruction of the bones, and teeth, whatever went on at the Seven Site. We can just hope it didn't, and the only way we're going to find out is to go there and take a good hard look. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:50:59 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: 7500 KC RDF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Please explain what "line-of- sight radio communication" means? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************* From Ric It means you can draw a straight line (a line of sight) between the sender and the receiver without running into the curvature of the earth. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:52:56 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Camron Diaz rules! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Michael Holt > Now THAT makes more sense. Thank you. The solution is obvious. Combine the > two projects and call it "Hannibal's Beach Party." Dr. Lecter's presence on > the island could explain everything. I certainly hope and pray that no budding screewriter stumbles onto that idea. (They just wrapped up the location filming of "Hannibal." It was just about four blocks from me. No, I didn't see anyone from the cast, but I wouldn't recognize them if I did.) Michael ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:56:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ms. Diaz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Herman De Wulf Hi all, Please remember that Hollywood makes films to make money. They are NOT, repeat NOT, in the business of writing history. They will sell fiction at any price to make dollars. May I therefore suggest that since this forum IS A Serious attempt to study the history of AE's unfortunate 1937 attempt to fly around the world, it drops any reference to Hollywood films on the subject as this industry is known to be unreliable in al things historical. They made a film on the Battle of the Bulge which was a complete farce which had NOTHING to do with this historical battle of WWII. And didn't the Hollywood professionals als recently rewrite history, making another a film on the recovery of the secret German Enigma deciphering machine by the Royal Navy in 1940, shamelessly claiming this feat to have been achieved by the US Navy (even before the US even entered WW II) ? Besides upsetting British public opinion and indeed the British nation to the point that this Hollywood farce was eventually decried in British parliament, this blatant example of Hollywood's unreliability disqualifies the Hollywood film industry as a reference in matters historical. Herman *************************************************************************** From Ric Fear not Herman. I don't think anyone on the forum looks to the movies or television for anything but entertainment. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:59:39 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lambrecht's view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I am inclined to agree with the recent post by Andrew McKenna and this one of Tom's - there was a reason for this picture being taken of Gardner/Niku at this location. The more I ponder it, the more it seems to be reasonable. Lambrecht's guys have to have known that one among them had a camera, and I presume they had radio communications from plane to plane - I can visualize them discussing the signs of recent habitation, and making a conscious decision to get a photo of what they thought they saw. The wreckage of the Norwich City would have made a much more interesting souvenier shot. As an aside, do you suppose there would be a record or transcript of any of their radio traffic in the ship's radio logs? Might that be worth a query? ltm, jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure about this but it's my impression that, at that time, there was no plane-to-plane radio communication and only one of the planes (Lambrecht's) had a radio and radio-operator with which to communicate, solely by morse, back to the ship. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:03:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Gallagher Article MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From William Webster-Garman Thanks for posting Tom King's paper on Gerald Gallagher. It's a concise synopsis of his career and I enjoyed reading it. I also appreciated the pictures of the Rest House and Gallagher's grave marker: I hadn't seen any before now. william 2243 ************************************************************************* From Ric As Tom says at the top of the paper, it's a work in progress and I'm sure he'd aprreciate any factual corrections anyone might want to suggest. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:06:59 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: fuel consumption MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, The unspoken end result of which, is an hour and a half of fuel for post-landing battery charging... ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric I think it's important to remember that any estimates we make are just that, estimates. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:08:07 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Data Quality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From JHam 2128 Who or what is Data Quality and/or Janet Whitney? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:12:15 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lambrecht's view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi, One final thought. The altitude could be nothing more than the result of a close encounter of the avian kind. We know there were lots of birds close to the island. These guys were looking for AE/FN, and I think they had to have done more than merely fly past the island - they have to have tried for a closer look, and one that took them all the way around, regardless of altitude. Do we have a clue as to what kind of camera was used? Maybe this has been asked and answered, but I don't recall. Thanks. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric Randy is not saying that they didn't fly lower or take a closer look. We don't know what kind of camera was used except that the quality of the photo is pretty crumby. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:16:45 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Coast Guard Reunion/ Questions for vets MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright Ric and attendees, Some other questions come from your interview of Richard Evans,who reports seeing the water collection device on the Island's "northern shore" in 1944 and his recollection and sketch of a strip of "heavy cloth mounted on poles...to funnel rainwater into the tank below." If he is still alive and present at the reunion: 1. Can he better locate the northern shore in relationship to the Loran station 2. What became of the heavy cloth that you speculated could match the custom made engine covers for the Electra. 3. Is he refering to the "7" site in your opinion ? 4. What other observations,photographs, stories, artifacts, if any, did Evans recall or keep. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************* From Ric I have about two hours of Dick Evans on videotape. he marked a map where he thought he had seen the water collection device. The place he marked is very close to the 7 site. Dick doesn't know what became of the heavy cloth any more than I do, but in general, cloth doesn't hold up very long at all out there. I have seen in person and have photos and videotape of the souvenirs Dick acquired on the island. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:35:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Earhart's Takeoff From Lae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Cam Warren Jon Watson - Lae airport was established primarily to service the gold mines up north. Without digging into the files, I recall that there was a fair amount of daily traffic involving the Guinea Airways Junkers and the Lockheed 10 "executive transport". You'd expect that the pilots would be quick to notice a bundle of antenna wire (which wouldn't rust) on the grass runway. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric And, according to the anecdotal account, that's exactly what happened. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:55:13 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Landing: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Richard Johnson Your positive evidence, ( Emilys' anecdotal account, 1953 photo which shows light colored metal on the reef flat, and Bevingtons' 37 photo which shows an anomalous material ) I would classify as possible evidence, by no means conclusive. I do not discount this possible evidence, I simply don't place the faith in it that you do. As far as AE choosing to ditch in the ocean after a 3000 mile journey, I never said that she chose to to do that. I simply don't assume she had a choice. You assume she did. Neither of us have anyway of knowing if she had enough fuel by the time she reached the island to pick and choose where to land. Whether you cross 3000 miles of ocean or 30 miles of ocean has no bearing, if your out of fuel, your out of fuel. You land where have to, be it on the reef or 100 yards from the reef. After more than 20 hours in the air and 3000 miles behind you and AEs' history of bad landings, I chose not to assume she made a stellar landing under the most difficult of conditions. Maybe she did, but I will not assume it based on your positive evidence. Richard Johnson *************************************************************************** From Ric For your scenario to work, the airplane must experience fuel exhaustion within an extremely narrow time frame (she can't quite glide to the island). For my scenario to work she can run out of gas, or not run out of gas, over a period of as much as a couple of hours. I'd rather bet on my scenario. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:02:16 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: 3105 KC, 6210 KC and 7500 KCs in 1937 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Janet Whitney There was a sunspot maximum late in 1937, just as there will be a sunspot maximum later this year. What does this mean for RF communication at 3105 KC and 7500 KC....especially 3105 KC? It seems to us to mean that 3105 was like UHF during the daytime. What does that imply? It implies to us that Earhart was NOT "flying around" in the vicinity of Howland Island between 1930 GMT and 2014 GMT. As for 7500 KC and NVIS, NVIS is a propagation path typically used with antennas located on or close to the ground (something like 18 inches) and sometimes buried beneath the ground (e.g., by U.S. troops during Desert Storm). If you see U.S. military Hummers with a big vertical antenna tied down to the front of the vehicle, that's NVIS...the antenna is supposed to be always tied down so RF is not radiated horizontally. But for a plane at 1000 feet altitude, RF would also be radiated horizontally from the plane's antenna(s). As for 6210 KC, like 7500 KC propagation beyond line-of-sight would have depended on ionospheric conditions on July 2nd. Janet Whitney DataQuality@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:06:39 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King <> OK, OK. Duh. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:10:04 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lambrecht's view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson Yes you did agree with me! That has to be a first! I'll send you a free pink flamingo to decorate your digs. (You see, capturing flies with honey is more effective than vinegar...) *LOL* ************************************************************************** From Ric It depends on whether you want to capture the fly ... or kill it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:33:33 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Button MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin Awhile ago, the forum was discussing the origin of a certain button. I asked if it were possible to clarify the images on "Amelia"s Last Flight" to determined if the button came from AE or FN (forensic imaging). The film clearly shows Noonan's buttons on his medium blue, cotton work shirt. I was advised that this film was a copy and such a task was impossible. Now, certain members of the forum are very interested in whether a belly antennae was present on the Electra prior to take off from Lae. I understand that forensic imaging was completed on certain frames of the film to show the existence of a belly antennae. Could not the same technology be done of Fred's shirt to determined if the buttons are a match? I realize the process is very expensive, but if the buttons do match, it's another positive notch. *************************************************************************** From Ric Forensic imaging is not magic. It's limited by the grain and resolution of the original film. In the case of the video dub of the original 16 mm movie film (which has been lost) the image is not nearly good enough to make any judgements about buttons. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:35:50 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Landing: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Matt Gobeille Although I realize that the ocean can be Very Poweful, I would think that from Ric's description of the underwater geography of the site vicinty in the photograph, that if this engine is here, it would be in this depression or trench. The force of a current or wave action strong enough to carry a radial engine up and over such a depression would be almost unthinkable. In fact, under the assumption that aircraft wreckage was likely not carried off in it's entirety, is not on the island, and is not buried under the sand, I would imagine it would be the most likely place to search for wreckage. This said, I did personally witness the aftermath of a hurricane on an already sunken oil tanker under 125 feet of water off the coast of Florida. The currents, even at this depth, had completely uprighted the ship, which had settled onto it's side after sinking. You never know... Matt Gobeille ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:41:38 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: 7500 KC RDF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From John Buontempo >Are we then to think that NR16020 spent an hour wandering >around within 40 miles of Howland? But, wasn't there "mention" or "interpretation" in one of AE's tranmissions about "circling" ? Just a thought! John B. *************************************************************************** From Ric At 1928 GMT the Itasca radio log records Earhart as saying "We are circling but cannot hear you...", however, the word "circling" is clearly a later addition over the erased word "drifting." I think that what Earhart said was "We are listening but cannot hear you.." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:45:35 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Have you heard the news? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Matt Gobeille Cameron Diaz was in transit between "There's something Else About Mary" and her Malibu home last night when her plane vanished over the Pacific. Matt- whose goal in life is to ease Herman's fears and love the Janet Whitneys of the world P.S. as a complete neophyte at this AEmail group, what the heck does LTM mean? Love The Mother, Lots of The Mushrooms, Little Tired of Monotony? ************************************************************************* From Ric Your ambition is admirable. You'll find LTM (Love to Mother) explained at http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:46:40 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Belly antenna MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Hue Miller | >From Don Neumann | | What if the central & aft masts, securing the belly antenna of the | Electra, to the aft section of the plane, were somehow broken-off | (torn-off), but the antenna wire (or even a segment thereof) itself, | somehow remained fastened & dangling from whatever it was fastened to on | the nose of the plane, thus carrying the (remainder thereof) antenna | along, airborne, for the remainder of the flight? What affect would | that scenario have on the ship's radio reception? --I am thinking that wind turbulence and a bending moment near the wire entrance would over the course of several hours, even with multistrand flexible wire, cause the wire to break. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:59:48 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Earhart Take-off Film MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ric and all troops out there, My goodness, so many people wanting high resolution enlargements of the Lae take-off film. Possible fund raising opportunity? LTM (who loves a good photo op), Roger Kelley, #2112CE ************************************************************************** From Ric Possibly, but not a cost effective one. That work was done by Photek and the examination of the frames was done on their equipment and was not saved. We'd have to repeat the entire process. The essence of science is replicability and anybody who wanted to could duplicate our work and should come up with the same results. We do, however, have one still photo of the airplane taken during the takeoff run. It's the one shown in the Reserach Bulletin. We could make a high-res copy of that image available on the website if somebody wanted to sponsor the $100 of time and trouble it woud take to put it up. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:07:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Did a Flood at the 7-Site Kill the Reef? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt I've been watching the development of this thread and it has taken a turn sideways. We could of course go back to look at my original observation, i.e. that "FRESH" water runoff may have killed some coral and caused the discolouration (sorry about the English style spelling) of the reef. Salt water runoff is not likely to cause any harm to coral. The silt that can wash off the land with the salt water however, can choke the tiny organisms that make up a coral reef, but I can't see any way a large quantity of silt (as in fine dirt) is going to wash off the 7 site. Fresh water in the quantity that may run down from an area where the vegetation has been removed might however do nasty things to coral, and that was what I was asking in the earlier posting about the discolouration in the photos. Tropical downpours can cause incredible amounts of fresh water runoff in cyclone season in just hours. It could only take one or two to do serious damage to a reef, and may be worth considering. And yes, it will run off the coral rubble if there's enough of it. I have found conclusive evidence since then that mud (silt whatever) running off the land can do serious damage, but nothing on the long term effect of fresh water. In the mean time, might I suggest that since NIKU IIII plans to be in the vicinity of the discolouration, that you might have a look and see just what it really is? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Two comments - If the coral on the reef flat is already dead, how can it be killed? We already know that the discoloration is no longer there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:12:58 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: 7500 KC RDF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt >Are we then to think that NR16020 spent an hour wandering >around within 40 miles of Howland? Considering how quickly an hour disappears when I am up flying, it would not surprise me.. Th' WOMBAT (time flies when you're having fun - or when you only have a little fuel left and nowhere to land! ) *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think they spent an hour wandering around, but if they followed the standard recommended procedure of the day they ran one way (logically NW) on the LOP as far as they dared and then reversed course and started running SE when they still had enogh fuel left to guarantee that they's reach land of some kind. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:17:14 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Earhart's Takeoff From Lae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt This missing antenna thing has become rather central to the whole "Amelia goes missing" thingy. Perhaps later when things cool off a little one or two lo-res shots with a zoom in to the area in question could go up. Sort of like the "thermos" shot when it was thought that may place the fire extinguisher. Say, one pair showing the antenna and one pair showing it missing. Obviously that takes a lot of time away from the other work at TIGHAR, but it has become a hot topic here... Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric For us it's old news but apparently people are finally ready to listen to it. My offer stands. If somebody wants to cover the cost (about $100) we'll put up the imagery. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:19:03 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Gallagher Article MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > From Ric > > As Tom says at the top of the paper, it's a work in progress and I'm sure > he'd aprreciate any factual corrections anyone might want to suggest. I wouldn't mind knowing Tom's understanding of the "thunderbox" (since we still use them). Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Frankly, the term has always baffled me. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:20:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: 7500 KC RDF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Hue Miller | >From Janet Whitney | | Given the signal strength of Earhart's transmissions on 3105 KC between 1912 | GMT and 1935 GMT, the daytime propagation on 3105 KC, as well as Earhart's | attempt to DF the Itasca's CW transmission on 7500 KC at 1929 GMT, why should | we NOT believe that Earhart was within line-of-sight radio communication with | the Itasca between 1912 GMT and 1935 GMT? Seems to me that a horizontal, fixed aircraft antenna would make a very good NVIS (near vertical incidence) radiator, shooting upward and reflecting downward in a shower having quite a radius around the source. It's been a while since i listened to ham radio on the band near 4 MHz, but i recall hearing Sunday morning net operations easily out to 100 miles a