========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:31:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: LOP logic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Evans Katz In re Ric's analysis of LOP limits: <> If you don't know where you are on the line, you could be farther than three and a half inches (350 nm) to the left of the center dot. If this is possible, I wouldn't waste any fuel heading left (northwest); I would head right (southeast), since I have a better chance of seeing something along the line in that direction, and, possibly, no chance of seeing something in the other direction. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric The significance of the 350 nm is that it is the distance between Howland (the desired destination) and Gardner (the farthest practical alternate on the line). If you only explore southeastward on the line you abandon the possibility that Howland is just over the horizon to the northwest, and you'd much rather reach Howland than anywhere else. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:40:56 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Wreckage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin Hello Ric/Forum: IF the Electra landed on the flat reef at Niku, then one of the following had to happen. 1.It broke up in the surf and washed into the lagoon. 2. It broke up in the surf and washed over the reefs edge. 3. It broke up in the surf and parts washed into the lagoon and parts washed over the reefs edge. Since you are going to explore the lagoon for wreckage on your upcoming trip, do you have any plans to also search the edge of the reef? I understand the latter is in deeper water and may be more hazardous to dive, and more time consuming. **************************************************************************** From Ric We had divers in the water off the reef edge in 1989 and in 1991 we contracted for a sonar survey of the deeper water surrounding the island. Neither search can be considered thorough but neither search found anything either. There's a relatively shallow ledge (about 40 feet deep) just off the western edge of the reef. The ship we use, Nai'a, was in the Phoenix Group last year a dive expedition looking at the various reefs in the region. They took a quick look at the ledge mentioned above and saw no wreckage but we'll take another look at it this summer. You'll find a map of the areas we paln to cover on the website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/fuelexped.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:45:10 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King >Taroa was subjected to a pretty thorough archaeological survey several years >ago by the Marshall Islands Historic Preservation Office, then under the >direction of the Dr. Dirk Spenneman mentioned in an earlier post. >Unaccountably, the Electra on the runway seems not to have been noted. >From Ric >That's because it's buried in the beach (according to Woody). Hey, Spennemann is an archaeologist! TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:50:32 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Holt > That's because it's buried in the beach (according to Woody). I thought it was in the bunker, in the middle of the island, protected from discovery by unexploded shells. LTM (who can't resist!) Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh, we're cruel crowd. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:07:55 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: maritime losses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Simon Ellwood From Simon #2120 Ric wrote (in reply to Dave Bush) :- >It's a fishing trawler and it was there in 1970 when Bruce Yoho visited the >island. I've seen his home movies of it. So Bruce found his Canton movies then ? But not the one featuring the engine he found, - or I guess you'd have mentioned it LTM Simon #2120 **************************************************************************** From Ric We've always had Bruce's home movies from Canton. It's just the one reel showing the engine recovery that is missing. I should also mention that there were a number (at least three as I recall) fishing trawler wrecks on McKean when we were there in '89 and, in fact, the very ship we were on - "Pacific Nomad" was a dive excursion boat converted from a Japanese long-liner that had been found abandoned on Kingman Reef. We were told that it is not uncommon for fishing vessels to go aground by "accident" to collect on the insurance. This kind of activity skews the maritime loss statistics. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:20:43 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: LOP's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bob Sherman Ric: Next time the subject comes up, it might be helpful for some to know that although an lop for any purpose incl. part of a fix, while drawn on the map as a fine line, should be thought of as a 'swath' having a dimension of width equal to the approx. potential errors. When the sight was steady and well done it should be only a mile or two in width. A 'shaky' sight [turbulence, drifting clouds, etc] might be 10 or more miles wide. Regardless of initial accuracy it has the potential to 'grow wider' when advanced, depending on how accurately the ground speed was forecast, [as you mentioned] and miles of the advance. One can expect greater error using a hand held insrtrument thru a slanted windshield; compared to having it hanging from a hook in an astrodome, in which the optical errors of the dome medium have been accurately determined. Clearly, FN was operating in less than ideal conditions. You probably know of the many errors in getting the line properly drawn on a map. Beginning with the rounded values in the tables, the required math, the exact time, instrument & optical error incl. 'thru a windshield or any medium', and sometimes, parallax. Averaging the sight may be the largest; the body can never be held in the cross hairs for more than a couple seconds, even in still air. And there are a few more. Fortunately, the errors are seldom all in the same direction. Usually, but not always, some average out others. RC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:23:27 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Pacific Preservation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ken Feder All: The latest issue (Volume 24, No. 1) of CRM (Cultural Resource Management; a publication of the U.S. Department of the Interior) focuses on preserving historical sites in the Pacific. There are some interesting articles about the archaeology of native sites, but also some of the articles concern the archaeology of World War II era remains. A short article by Wendy Coble looks at shipwrecks and aircraft; there is a neat photo of the remains of a Navy Corsair wreck on a reef in Palau. Thought you might be interested.. Ken Feder *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. Is the Corsair above or below water, and if below, how deep? If above, is it subjected to surf action? How much is left? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:25:48 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Aluminium MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > It could well be that NOTHING will appear on the surface, > but that magnetometers will go crazy when passed over the surface. It could also be that the heaviest stuff will be closest to the passage entrance and the lighter stuff (aluminium small steel parts) will be further into the lagoon. Likewise the heavier stuff may be deeper and the lighter stuff less covered. A bit like finding pebbles in a bucket full of gold really.. Or from personal experience, finding Sapphires in a sieve full of pebbles.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:29:32 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody Ric, The survey was actually done by a team headed by a gentleman from Denmark named Henrik Christiansen while Dirk was the State Archaeologist. I ordered the book from the Alele Museum on said survey because they told me all of the sites are identified. Great site names too, A109, F778, etc, etc. No bibliography on what the sites were used for. Not much practical use for my purposes. Interesting to note that in the picture that I have of the planes being buried, that the bunker used doesnt appear as a site in the 1946 survey although all of the other bunkers that existed in 1944 are present in the 1946 survey. I would also like to point out to everyone involved with TIGHAR, that although Ric and I got off to a rocky start and I am not a TIGHAR member, he has posted most all of the information that I have pecked out on my keyboard without exception. His site is open to all with internet access and has afforded me information, especially about Fred Noonan, that has never before been available anywhere and made my work that much easier. Although we diverge on Amelia and Fred's fate and the eventual parking spot of that elusive airframe, he has been a most gracious host. The meaning of true research is the sharing of accumulated information with all interested parties to an eventual answer that reflects the truth. He is certainly doing that. Sooner or later , I believe that one of us will be sitting in the cockpit of NR16020, whoever that dogged person may be. I will be traveling to the Marshalls this year to do an intiial site survey on where I believe the plane is buried. Since Ric is the only one with a forum site, he will be the first to know what I found, if anything. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Speaking of sharing information, it would be interesting and informative to see a picture of airplanes being buried at Taroa. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:47:20 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Lagoon deposit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Vern Ric said... >Fortunately, there's little reason to think that anything is buried in that >sandbar, according to a PhD reef biologist at the University of Hawaii who >has considered the situation. Material washed through the passage should be >on the lagoon bottom at the base of the "talus slope". So, it's the talus slope that is probably of most interest. I take it the pump is not adequate to be of any use examining the talus slope either. And you wouldn't want to move enough material to do any good anyway. Whatever a diver can see is about all that is left. It would be interesting to know whether or not that sandbar has been growing and continually covering whatever might have been at the base of that talus slope at one time in the past. If that has been happening, there's little hope of finding anything that washed into the passage, be it pieces of the Norwich City or Earhart's Electra. *************************************************************************** From Ric Correction: He's not with U. of H. Here's exactly what Jim Maragos, coral reef biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion said: <> It is not the talus slope itself that is of the most interest, but rather the lagoon floor at the base of the talus slope. As seen in aerial photos and in real life looking over the gunwale of a launch in 1999, that talus slope is not a gentle incline but is a very sharp drop-off. We need to take a close look at the available aerial photography and the new satellite imagery we hope to have later this spring to see how much the boundary of that sandbar has changed over time, if at all. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:56:06 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Harmonics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mark Green I asked my brother (broadcast engineer) about harmonics. This is his reply: "It is highly unlikely that she (Amelia) could have been heard on any frequency other than the one the transmitter was set for." "The second and third harmonic energy of the signal would be minimal regardless of the frequency if the transmitter was operating properly. If you want the math, the harmonic of 3105 kHz is 6210 and the third harmonic would be 9315. Remember that the resonant circuits of the the transmitter would be set for 3105 and that in itself would serve to limit whatever harmonic energy, if any, could be generated." "I am not familiar with the transmitter aboard the Earhart aircraft, but I have had extensive experience with vacuum tube transmitters." I hope this helps, Mark Green **************************************************************************** From Ric I'd suggest that someone who IS familiar with Earhart's transmitter and antenna array, and has done a detailed study of the specific propagation situation that existed at the time, might be able to offer a more meaningful opinion. Bob Brandenburg has done just that. TIGHAR members received a summary of his report "Could Betty Have heard Amelia On A Harmonic" in their February issue of TIGHAR Tracks. Bob's full report will soon be up on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:00:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Probability of success MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell For Tom MM Tom, I guess I wasn't very clear but I DID recognize the 20% figure was not something you were suggesting. What I was trying to say was the actual figure could only be 0% or 100%. In 1976 my son was diagnosed with cancer that had a 12% survival rate. That was a totally useless figure. My son would survive or he wouldn't. It also represented a statistical average which again is of no value to me. To someone but not to me. My son was lucky and he DID survive but at no time were decisions based on the 12% probability. I agree with you that some analysis might be in order but only if we know the input data and the analysis provides any useful information. Your example of a target 2,000 miles away DOES illustrate your point but that was not the case at hand. FN's target was but a fraction of that away. I think we need to use actual facts if any analysis is to be meaningful. Therein lies the rub. We don't have enough information to analyze. I think in a previous post I explained how a fairly accurate positioning of the LOP would be obtained. Now since we don't know the weather we don't know what fixes FN got if any. That means he either did and got an accurate LOP or he didn't and DRd to someplace he hoped Howland was. We will never know the answer to that unless we find the electra and FN's maps. If Noonan was able to get a couple of sun shots then he would also have been able to shoot the moon and Venus barring cloud cover in their directions. If that was the case he most likely had a good LOP but possibly 5 miles from where Howland actually was situated. And again we don't know if he had the corrected coordinates or not. The moon and/or Venus would have given him a fairly accurate position so it is doubtful he ran north and south on the LOP very far. More likely he ran it in a modified search pattern, varying the "LOP" a few miles in either direction so as not to lose his position. There was time between the "We must be on you" call and the "running north and south" call to do a minimum search before striking out. As to their options I think there was no choice other than to find Howland or head for the Phoenix group. Ditching in the ocean was not likely a choice not were the unreachable Marshalls. The Gilberts made little sense even considering the moon and Venus being available to help with the navigation as they were only available in the early hours. By the time they could get to the Gilberts FN would have only had the sun and a very unreliable position. Choosing the Phoenix group made sense in that the sun provided a course and there were several islands in a loose group. I don't think it would take any kind of deep analysis to make that choice and I could bet FN never thought about odds or percentages. But let's suppose he did or we wanted to assess those odds how would one do that and to what end? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:40:53 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Castaway Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From alan caldwell > From Phil Tanner > > I honestly think this is not a productive avenue. There's a certain > > intellectual stimulation in pondering definitions of the word "rare", but > > that's not the issue, surely? In as sparsely populated an area as the > > Phoenix Islands in 1937, by any sensible definition there weren't that many > > Phil, that the best response to this thread I've read. Let's suppose we find there are less castaways now than in 1937 what does that info do for anyone? And to Kenton S. on what I do to move the ball forward, I would say about the same as most on the forum but seem to get bogged down trying to clarify certain celestial vagaries and critiquing what some see as useless exercises. I am not suggesting your attempt to quantify the word "rare" is useless but I haven't been able to understand the point or what relevant information it would provide. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric In Kenton's defense (not that he needs me to defend him) I'll say that it was his research that turned up the WPHC files in England that have virtually revolutionized this entire investigation. If Kenton wants to chase shoes, castaways or frigate birds - baffling as it may be to me or others - I say "Go for it!" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:42:20 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The closest thing to Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Forumites who'd like to get a glimpse of what Nikumaroro's like might want to check out the latest National Geographic (U.S.), which has an article on Palmyra Island that includes photos of buka trees (Pisonia grandis, just called Pisonia in the article) and a coconut crab (Birgus latro). Palmyra, where we refueled en route to Kanton in '98, has recently been purchased by the Nature Conservancy, and may in whole or part become a U.S. Wildlife Refuge. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:46:07 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Mike Holt says: I thought it was in the bunker, in the middle of the island, protected from discovery by unexploded shells. I dunno about the airplane in the bunker, but when he was working on Taroa, Spennemann told me that one of his biggest problems WAS unexploded shells. Hard to do active preservation on a WWII structure full of live but deteriorating bombs and mortar rounds. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:57:23 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dave Porter Ric (baby) First off, I'd like to say that your posting of a few days back regarding the casting of a wide net (wherein you noted crashed/sank, jap capture, and all the Phoenix islands) was an excellent summation of TIGHAR's Earhart Project to date. In essence, you did cast a wide net, and Niku is all you caught in it. Perhaps you could arrange things so that that post appears on the screen of anyone submitting a posting to the forum, before the listserver will accept the post, just as a friendly reminder of why we're here and what we're trying to do. My question is for the Noonan Project team and the Celestial Choir. If I'm following the threads correctly, the flights where FN's nav practices are being examined are the Oakland/Honolulu success, and the Lae/Howland failure. For Oakland/Honolulu, Fred used 2 body fixes, and had radio bearing assistance for final approach, correct? Is it then assumed that expecting radio bearing assistance on the final approach to Howland, that he used 2 body fixes for Lae/Howland? If so, given the greater degree of difficulty of the flight (Howland after 2500 miles being a more difficult target than the Hawaiian Islands after 1500miles) is that assumption a reasonable one. I'm not nitpicking--just curious as to your reasoning. You guys have done the research, and I'll accept your conclusions. Finally, for the presumed Howland vicinity/Gardner flight, Fred would (obviously) not be expecting radio bearing assistance for the final approach. Since this flight was during daylight, what sort of celestial nav./DR/etc. did FN have available? Is there any record of FN using more precise techniques, i.e. 3 body fixes, on flights where radio bearing assistance was not anticipated for final approach? I'm guessing that one cannot get a 3 body celestial fix during daylight, correct? Was there any technique available to FN to back up the LOP run to Gardner that might give him a greater certainty of success? Granted of course that if something was available, whether or not he used it would be pure speculation. Sorry for all the questions, and for any gross oversimplification errors I may have committed above. Just trying to get a better handle on all the nav. stuff on the forum. Dave Porter, 2288 (whose nav. skills are limited to compass, map, protractor, terrain association, and "stoutish walking shoes") ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric A couple of points: Oakland to Hawaii is more like 2100 miles. Noonan most definitely WAS expecting radio bearing assistance for the final approach to Howland. That was the whole point in Itasca being there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:02:03 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee I probably missed it, but is Taroa the new spelling for what we used to call Tarawa? LTM, who occasionally suffers CRS Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric No. Different place. Taroa is an island inthe Marshalls. Tarawa is an atoll in the Gilberts. The only things they have in common are that they're both in the Pacific Ocean and Amelia was never there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:15:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lagoon deposit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bill Carter Bill Carter wrote: Ric - For the benefit of the forum, maybe you could describe the types of debris and the condition you expect to find it in if it has been sitting in the lagoon since 1937. If memory serves, there have been past discussions on the chemical effects of a 64 year warm oxygenated salt water bath on both iron and aluminum. So, in addition to wave action breaking up objects on the beach, there is a chemical process at work in the water. It seems most likely that if divers can find anything left of the Electra, the debris will be iron (simply because it is hardier than aluminum) the pieces will be fairly small and severely corroded/rusted. Of course, the degradation of metal over time under these conditions is also part of the reason why TIGHAR broadened its search to include human remains and other artifacts. LTM Bill Carter #2313CE (Who thinks covering all the bases is the right way to go) **************************************************************************** From Ric Au contraire. Aluminum submerged in salt water seems to hold up pretty well - the deeper the better - because the real culprits are salt and oxygen together. Aluminum on the land on Niku is remarkably well preserved because the climate is so dry. By contrast, ferrous metal (iron and steel) practically rusts while you look at it. I would expect that aluminum several feet under water would also be in decent shape because of the lack of oxygen. The problem would occur when you bring it to the surface and all those chlorides that have become imbedded in the alloy begin to react with the air. The worst environment is when aluminum is alternately submerged and exposed in a tidal environment. Corrosion city. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:46:33 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Probability of success MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom MM Alan: Just was shutting down the computer on my way out for a few days vacation on the coast, sans phone, email, and other distractions. I'll try to pick this up when I get back - if I can remember what it was I was concerned about . I just did not want to seem rude when I drop off the face of the earth. Most importantly, what I would like to encourage people to do is sketch out some of the alternatives themselves - my own misgivings are meaningless unless they make some sense to others. (1) Try sketching out a search pattern for Howland, recognizing that there is more uncertainty N-S than E-W, and see how much territory you could cover before splashdown (give yourself enough fuel to reach Niku). (2) Try estimating the error in the LOP, add more slop for flying back and forth, then expand your area of uncertainty as you move toward Niku with estimates of how well a DR could be followed, and add whatever you feel would be a good value for error in estimating wind drift. The uncertainty can grow pretty wide at that range, and Niku is out on the end by itself. (3) Then look at the idea that they could have simply headed for the center of mass of the Phoenix group, with the recognition that with a 10-12 mi "spotting range" (color the islands and a 10-12 mile radius circle and it really jumps out) the Phoenix group looks more like a catcher's mitt with few gaps. Sketch some parallel lines from the upper side of that arc of islands and from maybe Hull or Sydney or Mckean on the south. Factor in some divergence like in the Niku example, and look how far north or south of Howland they could be (without knowing where they are) and still virtually blunder into one of the group. Add another in flight sun LOP on the way, and see how that improves things. Well, gotta go. I don't mean to be a rabble rouser. Again, nothing in this says that they did not end up at Niku - I just can't figure out how the 157-337 LOP supports the idea. Maybe we all simply would have done different things if faced with this situation. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:47:46 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: How Common Are Castaways? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Refresh my memory. What part of this investigation are you researching to > "move the ball forward"? Kenton, as a lawyer I am quite familiar with productive arguments and the first sign of my opponent's weak or insupportable argument is when he shifts his attack to a personal nature. I shall assume I misinterpreted your comment. I am quite analytical but I'm afraid I'm still missing the significance of your castaway argument. I'm open to enlightenment. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:40:44 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bob Brandenburg Dave Porter raises excellent questions. Let me try to answer them briefly. As Ric has already pointed out, the Oakland-to-Honolulu and Lae-Howland distances were comparable. And Noonan definitely was assuming that there would be a radio bearing to guide him to Howland at the end of the trip. The Oakland - Honolulu flight is the only documented example we have of Noonan's navigation practices. What we see there is that he never used more than two celestial bodies in a fix (a two-body celestial fix taken with a hand-held bubble octant can be in error by 20 miles or more), he allowed intervals of 2 to 3 hours between fixes, and that he assumed that he would get a radio bearing to steer at the end of the flight. Absent evidence to the contrary, we assume that this was typical of Noonan's navigation. If Noonan didn't know where he was at the time he expected to get the radio bearing from the Itasca, it would not be surprising that the best he could do was to get a sun line and say that he was somewhere on the 357/157 LOP. We are not aware of any instances in which Noonan used 3-body fixes, whether or not radio bearing assistance. Dave is correct that a three-body fix in daylight is not feasible. Noonan did have the sun and moon available on the fateful morning. As for what Noonan could have done to back up the LOP, he could have prepared for the worst case , i.e. that the expected radio bearing from the Itasca would not be available, and take very frequent fixes to reduce the cumulative position error to a manageable level. Hope this helps, Dave. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric We also have the South Atlantic crossing, as documented on the chart he actually used (now at Purdeue). Another long, over-water flight but with no expectation of a radio bearing at the end. It also has the advantage of there being no question as to who is doing the navigating. I don't have a copy of the entire chart. Randy, do you? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:53:08 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody, Mike, You must be misinterpeting statements attributed to John Heine in Brink's book. The persons that did the interviews on Majuro in 1982 have told me that the Heine brothers never made those statements to them. In the absence of any return calls from Brink as to supportive evidence to these statements, my assumption is the same as Ric's comments to me the first time I spoke to him years ago." Randall Brink put lies in his books so they would sell". In the absence of any reply by Randall to my requests for clarification on these points, I concur with Ric. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric Welllll... lying involves intent to deceive and I certainly can not speak to Mr. Brinks intent. Let's just say that this book is strewn with statements that are not true. Whether he is careless, a liar, or just stupid is not for me to say. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:55:12 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: LOP's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Fortunately, the errors are seldom all in the same direction. Usually, but > not always, some average out others. > > Bob, that was an excellent posting on the problems of celestial as it pertains to our subject. I hope everyone can see that even with everything going for Noonan his navigation to Howland might at best put him in the general vicinity of where Howland actually was or where it was erroneously plotted. It then depended on a visual sighting either by the crew or those on the ground or a DF steer. Clearly none of that was forthcoming. The more this subject is looked at I think it becomes clearer that hitting Howland was a far more difficult task in 1937 than they realized. It also is obvious that losing the belly antenna, not assuring DF was working and not establishing two way communication combined into a fatal scenario. From take off there were many opportunities to resolve those difficulties but no attempt was made to do so. It is possible that the lower antenna snapping off made no audible sound and that no one on the ground watching the take off saw it. I have my doubts. AE wasn't much for radio communications and there probably wasn't all that much in the way of position reporting in 1937. I am only guessing at that. Also, in spite of never being able to talk to anyone she was still stubbornly broadcasting as though she couldn't quite get it through her head that she had no two way capability. The DF never worked on their trip so I can only assume FN was counting on a steer from the Itasca. It's hard to imagine planning a more unsuccessful flight. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:52:40 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Castaway Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > If Kenton wants to chase shoes, > castaways or frigate birds - baffling as it may be to me or others - I say > "Go for it!" I do not mean to deter anyone (even the wombat) from any rabbit trail. I just find it harder to contribute to a thread I don't understand and hope for clarifying posts. In most of our ramblings a few gems oftimes emerge. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:59:18 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody Ric wrote: > Speaking of sharing information, it would be interesting and informative to > see a picture of airplanes being buried at Taroa. Ric , Until the dig is completed, or I get a more generous funding offer than the one on the table, it will remain my intellectual property. The money proffered at the moment is only enough to walk the area to ascertain wether the area has been disturbed since the war ended. As you know Ric, the cost of renting Mag Scan and GPR requires a full value deposit. We dont have that kind of money. I very much envy your funding skills, something I have no experience at. I will state that if someone is willing to underwrite the trip with more funds, that I will share all of my information with them when the ink is dry on the check. Ric is welcome to put my email address up for anyone interested if he likes, at the same time I dont want to take money away from his own efforts. I'm just not that kind of person. I will also state that if I am successful, I will give TIGHAR the bulk of my research to post. I certainly owe him that. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Woody's email address is planeguy@etahoe.com I have no fear that Woody will take money away from TIGHAR's efforts. He has made the differences between his approach and ours crystal clear. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:02:08 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Dave Bush wrote: > Finally, for the presumed Howland vicinity/Gardner flight, Fred would > (obviously) not be expecting radio bearing assistance for the final > approach. > Since this flight was during daylight, what sort of celestial nav./DR/etc. > did FN have available? Is there any record of FN using more precise > techniques, i.e. 3 body fixes, on flights where radio bearing assistance was > not anticipated for final approach? I'm guessing that one cannot get a 3 > body celestial fix during daylight, correct? Was there any technique > available to FN to back up the LOP run to Gardner that might give him a > greater certainty of success? Granted of course that if something was > available, whether or not he used it would be pure speculation. > > Dave, Ric answered your questions about FN expecting a DF at Howland. I think it is pretty clear he did. More than that it appears he NEEDED it. As to what Noonan had available upon reaching the vicinity of Howland he had the sun, moon and Venus clouds permitting. They would not have given him more than a two body fix due to their positions but he could have used all three to refine his position. If he had visibility to shoot sun shots he would have also had an east/west wind component and a ground speed. It is possible to get a three body fix in the daylight depending on the location of the bodies. Ideally we looked for a fairly equal triangulation if possible. I don't know what FN's navigation was like but some here on the forum are better qualified to answer that than I am. On the flight down to Niku FN had the same capability but no more. He would have repeatedly shot the sun and whatever else was up to navigate to the Phoenix group. He should have had a course line from the sun and still an east/west wind component. If the planet Venus was visible he could have obtained a speed line and a two body fix. I would have to go into the charts to see if he had more than the sun on the way to Niku. Something I have always fretted about was the visibility out of the airplane to shoot celestial. I don't know what the limitations were. Maybe someone here can answer that. I would suggest everyone keep in mind that wherever the celestial body was directionally the airplane could be turned to that was not a limitation - only an aggravation. The real question is how high an angle could Fred shoot. I have recently been advised by a long time military navigator that a shot could be taken in a slight but constant climb and certainly a slight roll with no heading change could expand the available angle. Only the sextant needs to be level. I'm not sure AE would have had sufficient skill to do either but it remains a possibility. If anyone wants to refute or support that concept I would be glad to hear from them. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:09:19 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The closest thing to Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody Ric, I was there (Palmyra) about 20 years ago with a group that dug up a trunk full of bones , it became a double murder case! We sailed dowm there to spend a week looking at the WW2 sites that remained. Most of the stuff was slipping into the ocean, even back then. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric That murder case was later written up as a very fine book entitled (as I recall) "...And the Sea Shall Tell". The island also has it's own wrecked Lockheed - a Lodestar that was wrecked bringing in a load of Hams (radio-type, not porcine). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:31:34 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody To Dennis, If you want to find it on a map Dennis, it's part of Maloelap Atoll in the Marshall's. Dirk Spenneman has an excellent site about the Marshalls but I cant find the URL at the moment. Maybe Ric or Tom has it - they may even have put it on thge Forum recently. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:32:41 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Woody -- I'm sure you're right about the name of the actual leader of the survey pack at Taroa; I don't have the report myself, but reviewed it some time ago at the National Park Service (which funded the work). As for the site names -- hey, you've got to call 'em something, and a numbering system like that is common archeological practice -- in part to avoid the bias and misinterpretation inherent in ascribing a use or specific place name to something you're not sure about. Sorry it's not useful to you, but I recall it as quite a thorough survey, to judge from the report, and Dirk Spenneman is nothing if not compulsive about detail. Good luck with your search. I trust that you're coordinating it with the Historic Preservation Office, and are getting all the necessary permits. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:33:21 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Lagoon deposit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Incidentally, Jim Maragos is quoted extensively in the National Geographic article on Palmyra. Not about Niku, however. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:35:20 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Castaways, By Design MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kenton Spading, 1382CE The overall idea is not to do an exhaustive analysis of the statistics surrounding castaways. That was my poor attempt at pointing out that you should not throw around words like "rare" if you cannot back it up with data or apply the concept to a benchmark. Because Ric claimed castaways were rare you have the danger of it suddenly becoming gospel. A qualifier like "in my opinion" [they are rare] or "my gut feeling is" [they are rare] should be used. Apparent statements of fact on this Forum are subject to data calls. I will try to do a better job of articulating comments with that intent in the future in the continuing, but thankless job, of battling closed minds. We currently have two known instances of the British stumbling across human bones on islands. Both finds include evidence of women. You mignt ask: Was it unusual for the British to find skeletons on islands in the Pacific that included evidence of the female gender? I am hoping that my investigation into the how and why of what the British did in regards to the Henderson Island castaway will shed some light on the Gardner issue. that is all Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:36:30 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Castaways, Some Sources MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kenton Spading, 1382CE Chris K (and many others) wrote: ........"how many people have been lost overboard/shipwrecked over the years based on ships logs, etc)......" The reported sources of castaways in the historical literature is interesting. Some sources of Castaways include: 1. Shipwrecks (the popular "romantized" notion) 2. Intentionally put ashore by a Ship's Captain as punishment 3. Put ashore by the Captain at the request of the sailor...Sometimes due to the romantic notion of the castaway life, other times after becoming sick or delusional, etc.. 4. Unintenionally left behind, while a shore party was scouting for food/water an enemy or pirate ship would appear (after laying in wait) causing the mother ship to flee. K. Spading ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:48:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The LOP again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From don Neumann Maybe I'm just dense, but _assuming_ I'm somewhere on that line, but not knowing exactly where, how would I determine whether I'm not _already_ at the _extreme_ left (or NW) end of the line, when my chronometers inform me we should be intersecting with Howland (the dot in the middle of the line)? According to your explanation, it would seem I would have to have some reasonable knowledge of just how close to Howland I am on the LOP, in order to determine which way I should turn & for just how long I could maintain such a course, because if in fact I'm already _at_ the NW extremity of the 7" LOP line you've drawn, I'm already 350nm NW of Howland & turning NW (which we must presume they did, given AE's ...'running north & south'... message) for any extended period could seriously affect my ability to ultimately reach Gardner at the opposite end of the LOP, if after turning SE, I happen to miss Howland/Baker a second time. Is it possible that as the Electra approached Howland & assuming that FN had _not_ calculated a deliberate off-set, either NW or SE of Howland, could he have determined that they were on either the NW or SE side of Howland simply by the position of the aircraft, with reference to the rising sun, which if I recall correctly, should have been directly in front of them, if AE had accurately maintained their originally charted course during the night time hours of the flight... of course not considering any significant wind drift during the night... or am I again oversimplifying ? Frankly, I just find it hard to _believe_ that FN could have been off course 350nm to the NW , if the much later reports from residents of Tabiteuea, in the Gilberts, about hearing an aircraft over their island during the night, is true. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric No, Noonan could not tell which side of Howland he was on based upon the position of the sun because its progress across the sky was not enough different from where it had been at sunrise to give him a meanigful "cut." I too doubt that Noonan was 350 miles off when he hit the LOP but the point is that he couldn't know that for sure. (Even if the Tabituaea report is accurate, it was pitch dark when they crossed that area and they had no way of knowing that somebody heard them.) Not knowing where he was on the line, he did know that heading southeastward on the line while he still had enough fuel to go 350 miles was the best way to guarantee that he would reach some kind of land. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:52:46 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Pacific Preservation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ken Feder Ric asked: > Interesting. Is the Corsair above or below water, and if below, how deep? > If above, is it subjected to surf action? How much is left? Hi Ric: The Corsair is below water; not sure how deep. The photo appears to my highly untrained eye to show a propeller and engine cowling (???I'm at home and the article is now in my office at the university and I wouldn't know what I was looking at anyway). There is another photo in the piece of the remains of a WWII airplane on land. The article in question presents a very brief discussion of WWII archeological sites in the Pacific so there is not a lot of detail. I would be happy to send you a photocopy of the article if it is of interest. **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ken. No need. There are lots and lots of examples of airplanes on the bottoms of lagoons and in the bush. I have yet to see an example of an airplane surviving for any length of time on an exposed fringing reef. Ken Feder ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:54:13 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Probability of success MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Tom MM wrote: > Then > look at the idea that they could have simply headed for the center of mass > of the Phoenix group, with the recognition that with a 10-12 mi "spotting > range" (color the islands and a 10-12 mile radius circle and it really > jumps out) the Phoenix group looks more like a catcher's mitt with few Catcher's mitt! Doesn't give you all the analysis we need? Sounds good to me Tom. That's how I would have thought of the Phoenix group had I been in Fred's shoes. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:03:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Greg Rudzinski A tamaya NC 88 navigational computor shows that between 1600GMT and 2000GMT 7/2/1937 Fred Noonan had the moon visable with meridianal passage occuring around 1830GMT. Any hole in the sky would have given him an oppotunity to obtain an accurate latitude by observing the moon at about 77 degrees of elevation with an azimuth of 000. He also had venus and the sun visible giving him a three LOP fix during day light. I believe FN scheduled the flight from Lae to Howland to take advantage of the available celestial bodies on that final morning. Venus could have been observed with a 157/337 LOP at around 1800GMT. This may have been his last observation rather than a low altitude observation of the sun which would have been obscured by clouds if any were present. Two hours of dead reckoning at 110kts has the potential for large errors. Has anyone considered the posibility of FN transposing Howland island and Baker island inadvertently when preparing his plotting sheet from a chart? **************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! Is that correct? Would the Moon yield a 157/337 LOP at 1800 GMT? At 17:45 GMT Earhart says she's approximately 200 miles out but that's too early for Noonan to have gotten a sunrise shot. Might the Moon have been the primary source for that estimate and for the 157/337 LOP? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:04:56 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody Tom, I certainly have my concerns about unexploded ordinance. The History of Marine Corps Aviation in WW2 lists 12,918 tons of bombs and rockets fired at the four Ratak chain bases ( Wotje, Mille, Jaluit and Maloelap)with a 30 % dud rate. This doesn't include ship shelling! The math comes out to 1,937,700 pounds of unexploded bombs and rockets per atoll. Thats a lot of nitro! There used to be a bunker full of torpedoes of the type used at Pearl Harbor on Taroa, but I was told that they were removed and destroyed in 1998. Apparently the US military removes the ordinance as part of irregular training. I am going to ask about this when I'm out there. Tourists regularly walk through the area where the planes are. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:07:58 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mark Prange ......given the greater degree of difficulty >of the flight (Howland after 2500 miles being a more difficult target than >the Hawaiian Islands after 1500 miles) The smallness of Howland and the fatigue from so many hours in flight might well make for a greater degree of difficulty. ......for the presumed Howland vicinity/Gardner flight, Fred would >(obviously) not be expecting radio bearing assistance for the final >approach. (--To Gardner). > Since this flight was during daylight, what sort of celestial >nav./DR/etc. >did FN have available? Sun and Moon, unless obscured by weather. At daybreak the Moon would have been high, and would not have set until around noon. The 1937 Nautical Almanac predicted the coordinates of those bodies. --The Sun at 2-hour GCT intervals, and the Moon at 1-hour GCT intervals. Various books of tables were available for computing the height at which a body should be seen from some assumed position. Noonan might well have used the Dreisonstok "Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators" which he had been known to favor. Is there any record of FN using more precise >techniques, i.e. 3 body fixes....... Accuracy and precision can be improved with the averaging of sights. Given the same number of sights, a 2-body fix should be as good as a 3-body fix, so long as the LOPs cross with a fairly good cut. The usefulness of the 3-body fix is that if the triangle that is produced is too large it alerts the navigator that something is wrong. I'm guessing that one cannot get a 3 >body celestial fix during daylight, correct? Crossing Sun, Moon, and Venus LOPs: To spot Venus when the Sun is up is plenty difficult, but in ideal conditions it is a possibility. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:15:14 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Noonan nav. part 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dave Porter Ric, If my post suggested that I thought FN wasn't expecting radio bearing help from Itasca to make landfall at Howland, I must have misstated something in my unique, convoluted way.& I did say that (obviously) no radio bearing assistance was expected for the presumed flight down the LOP to Gardner. Sorry if I was confusing on that point. The question was regarding the validity of comparing Oakland/Hawaii to Lae/Howland. Yes, radio bearing assistance was expected in both cases, but it seems to one admittedly inexperienced in such matters that the more difficult target of the latter might call for more precise technique prior to the anticipated radio assistance. Then again, for one deeply experienced in such matters, like FN, the "familiarity breeds contempt syndrome" could come into play. Something along the lines of "So Howland's a flyspeck--who cares, Itasca's going to bring us in by radio anyway, no need to bother with super-precise fixes." Now I've wandered off course into speculation, which I didn't want to do, which is why I said originally that I will accept the opinions of those who have done the research. Feel free to answer while I remove my foot from my mouth... LTM, Dave (2288) **************************************************************************** From Ric You wording wasn't confusing. I just didn't read it carefully enough. Sorry. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:30:28 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Captain Friedell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Edgard Engelman This is a probably out of topic, and certainly not part of the current discussion topics, but I thought it could be interesting for people interested in the history of the late thirties and WWII. I was looking on the net for available data on Cpt Friedell (the Colorado skipper). Here is what I found on www.csp.navy.mil/admirals/friedell.htm " Rear Admiral Friedell, born in Texarkana, Arkansas, August 22, 1883, was appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy from the Third District of his native state in 1901. Graduated in February 1905, he served the two years afloat then required by law before he was commissioned Ensign, January 31, 1907. He subsequently progressed in grade until his promotion to Rear Admiral, June 23, 1938. His tours included stops on USS Kentucky, USS Helena, the gunboat Villalobos, USS New Orleans, USS C-3, USS Bushnell, USS Connecticut, USS Rainbow, and USS Colorado. Shore assignments had him serving as an instructor in the Department of Marine Engineering and Naval Construction at the Naval Academy, in command of the First Division Submarine Flotilla, Atlantic Fleet, in command of the Submarine Repair Division, Navy Yard, Philadelphia, as instructor in the Department of Modern Languages at the Naval Academy, in command of Submarine Division 11, as department head of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Physics at the Naval Academy, commander of Submarine Divsion 12, commander of the Naval Gun Factory, Chief of Staff and Aide to the Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District, Pearl Harbor, as Commander Submarine Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet, as Commandant of the Naval Yard at Mare Island, California, and finally as Commandant of the Eleventh Naval District and Commander Naval Base, San Diego. It was during Admiral Friedell's tour as commanding officer of the USS Colorado that he supervised the search effort for the Amelia Earhart-Fred Noonan plane, lost in the Pacific in 1937. He retired on May 1, 1946 and passed away January 27, 1958." Commander Submarine Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet: in 1940-41 Commandant of the Naval Yard at Mare Island, California : in 1942-43 Commandant of the Eleventh Naval District and Commander Naval Base, San Diego 1944-45 Looking on what was available on these various assignments I found the following link : James V. Forrestal papers, correspondence - 1943, Box 58 Albert J. Bullitt, William. Re Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy. ... Franklin, Walter. Fraser, Bert. Frech, Richard J. Freeman, CS. Friedell, WL. Froelick, Howard. ... http://libweb.princeton.edu:2003/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/forrest al/forrestal_4.html [More Results From: libweb.princeton.edu] I could not connect to this link so I have no idea what it is exactly. It seems to be a collection of correspondence by J. Forrestal, secretary for the Navy, with various peoples. This collection being somewhere in a library at Princeton. The interesting things being the presence of W. Friedell's name, and the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy being somewhere connected also. In 1943, Friedell was Commandant of the Naval Yard at Mare Island, California , one, if not the largest ship yard for the Navy on the West Coast. So as there could be ample reasons for correspondence between these 2 peoples. But what has the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy to do whit this ? Do you think it is worth that somebody takes a look at the library at Princeton ? Best Regards, Edgard Engelman **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, as captain of the Colorado, Friedell had three airplanes aboard which were part of BuAer. When Friedell submitted Lambrecht's article for the BuAer weekly news letter there was a stink about Lambrecht's "informal style" which generated correspondence from the Chief of BuAer all the way up the CNO and CINCUS. That may be what they're referring to. If somebody has time to run it down it would at least answer the question and possibly head off some assertion that it was correspondence about the burning of the Electra on saipan. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:31:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: How Common Are Castaways? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kenton S., 1382CE Alan C., Thank you for your recent comments. Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:35:10 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: doubts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Alan Caldwell said: "It is possible that the lower antenna snapping off made no audible sound and that no one on the ground watching the take off saw it. I have my doubts." I'm unclear as to what your doubts are. Are you doubting that the belly antenna snapped off, or are you doubting that if it did the noise would've been audible in the cockpit? If the antennae did snap off (and there is strong evidence for that argument) I believe that there is no way AE would've heard that noise over the sound of the engines, the banging of the airframe and landing gear as it trundled over rough ground with its 1,100 gallons of fuel and made its take-off run. Also, are you suggesting that witnesses to the take off "should" have been able to see the antenna come off? Remember, this is a "grass" strip (AKA dirt) and there was a lot of debris and dust being raised as the plane come up to full power and accelerated. That, added to the excitement of the event, would be more than enough of an excuse to not see the antenna break off and fall away. Ric, baby! what the URL again for the take-off video? LTM, who no longer trundles Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Dennis, sweetie, the takeoff video is at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ameliavideo.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:58:16 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dave Bush Absent evidence to the contrary, we assume that this was >typical of Noonan's navigation. Ric: I think everyone is still comparing apples to oranges on this. The Hawaiian chain and the African coast were huge targets and only a blind man would miss them. Howland was much smaller and I think that Noonan would have been more on the ball on trying to steer directly to it. Also, considering the distance that one can receive DF, the fact that AE/FN went below the cloud cover indicates to me that they felt they were very close to the Island, because below 1000 feet, your DF range is greatly reduced. Thus you wouldn't drop down that low unless you felt certain that you were within range. So, anyone out there know how far they could out they could expect to get a DF steer at 1000 feet? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric Once more, with feeling.....Noonan had no way of knowing how close he was to the island. He could only calculate what time he should reach the advanced LOP. He hoped that he would strike the advanced LOP at or within visual range of Howland - so he would naturally want to be down below the clouds as he approached that time. If you think that missing your destination on the West African coast is no big deal, take a look at the map - especially as it was in 1937. Talk about Darkest Africa.... As for the ease of hitting the Hawaiin chain, apparently Charles Ulm was blind because he missed them in 1934 and was never found. I am unconvinced by arguments that Noonan "would have tried harder" on the Lae/Howland flight than he did on other long over-water flights. Did Earhart make a successful takeoff at Lae because she tried harder than she did in Hawaii? Or had she become more proficient through practice? Are Noonan's navigational techniques and performance on recent successful transoceanic flights reliable indicators of his probable techniques and performance on the flight in question? I suspect so. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:23:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin Hello Ric/Forum: I just downloaded the photo of Niku from your web and I'm using it as a screen saver. It's really an impressive photo, you should seriously consider producing a calendar. I do have a question about several areas of the atoll. If you start at the Norwich and walk up the channel, there is a bare spot to the right. There is a larger bare spot on the left (other side of the channnel) and near the point there appears to be a smaller bare spot. What are these? *************************************************************************** From Ric Here's something else from the TIGHAR website that you might use as a screensaver: <> We have produced and marketed a Niku calendar for the past two years. The bare spots you describe are low-lying areas that flood during high tidal or storm events. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:24:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: LOP's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > From Alan Caldwell > ... Also, in spite of never being able to talk to anyone > she was still stubbornly broadcasting as though she couldn't quite get it > through her head that she had no two way capability. ... She did have limited two-way capability. She knew that she was heard on 3105 because the Itasca transmitted the letter A on 7500 at her request. Maybe she and FN could have taken advantage of this link, if they had realized that it was their ONLY link with the Itasca. But, if I understand the record, her last message was something like, "I'm going to switch to 6210 now." Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:26:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson I have copies of both the S. Atlantic crossing and the Oakland-Honolulu crossings, but they are too large to conveniently copy or scan electronically. Parenthetically, I should mention that I've not done a rigorous analysis of the Oakland-Honolulu map writings to determine whether it was FJN or Manning who made the markings. They do look very similar to later writings that we know came from FJN. FJN did attempt a couple of 3-body fixes, but they were not satisfactory. The S. Atlantic crossing has but one fix or observation in the middle of the ocean that I cannot explain how FJN came to that particular point, as the "planets" don't line up. **************************************************************************** From Ric They were also reportedly in solid cloud for almost the whole trip. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:27:56 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Mooning? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From dennis McGee Ric asked: Might the Moon have been the primary source for that estimate and for the 157/337 LOP? If so, they would have been about 260 miles WEST of Howland, right? Oops! LTM, who may pine but doesn't moon Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric ???????? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:08:55 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Greg Rudzinski wrote: << A tamaya NC 88 navigational computor shows that > between 1600GMT and 2000GMT 7/2/1937 Fred Noonan had > the moon visable with meridianal passage occuring > around 1830GMT. Any hole in the sky would have given > him an oppotunity to obtain an accurate latitude by > observing the moon at about 77 degrees of elevation > with an azimuth of 000.>> As everyone will agree, I know almost nothing about navigation, but it appears to me that the writer of the above posting is stating that it should have been possible for Noonan to have gotten a fix on his latitude the morning of the approach to Howland. Assuming I don't have longitude and latitude confused, haven't we been saying up until now that Noonan would NOT have been able to determine whether he was north or south of Howland when turning onto the LOP? However, if he were able to determine his latitude, then shouldn't he have known which way to turn on the LOP to intersect Howland?? Hmmmmm.....this all raises interesting questions, one of which would seem to be lessening the necessity of receiving a radio fix from the Itasca. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm eagerly awaiting a response from the Celestial Choir. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:11:04 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Holt > >From Woody, > > Mike, You must be misinterpeting statements attributed to John Heine > in Brink's book. The persons that did the interviews on Majuro in > 1982 have told me that the Heine brothers never made those statements > to them. I think I'm interpreting it right; look at page 155. However, you uncover the detail that the statements were never made ... The story has all the detail and the lack of detail that I have come to expect from memories separated by a war and time from the telling. Parts of the book, therefore, seem reasonable by one measure. It took me a while to reach page 155, however. > >From Ric > > Welllll... lying involves intent to deceive and I certainly can not speak to > Mr. Brinks intent. Let's just say that this book is strewn with statements > that are not true. Whether he is careless, a liar, or just stupid is not for > me to say. I'm not going to attempt to determine his motives, but whatever he is, he's sloppy. On page 150 Brink records that a Japanese pilot stated that he made two passes at the intruder, firing once. There's a footnote for this: "ITASCA radio reports, in the U.S. Navy Reports of Search for Earhart." I think I put the book down when I read the citation: if it were accurate, the conspiracy had been documented for a long time, and it was available to anyone who asked. Funny that no one else seems to have uncovered that bit of information, using the same sources. From all I've read, looking around Niku is going to be a lot more profitable than any alternatives I've seen. In the meantime, I have a paper about Soviet computers to write for a class. On the other hand, there's a hell of a novel in all this .... Thanks, Ric. LTM (who checks her footnotes) Mike ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:12:43 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Captain Friedell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kerry Tiller > From Edgard Engelman > > Commander Submarine Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet: in 1940-41 > > Commandant of the Naval Yard at Mare Island, California : in 1942-43 > > Commandant of the Eleventh Naval District and Commander Naval Base, San Diego > 1944-45 > I find this list of Adm. Friedell's assignments very telling. Apparently Adm. Kimmel (CINCPAC Fleet on Dec. 7th '41) wasn't the only scapegoat for the lack of defense preparedness at Pearl. Friedell was an operational combat commander (COMSUBPAC) at Pearl Harbor until the attack. He was then sent back to the States to oversee a ship refit/repair facility. His next wartime assignment, although an important one with a lot of responsibility, was another "desk" job Stateside, keeping him away from combat decision making. Those jobs going to the now famous names of Nimitz, Hulsey, Spruence, etc. Friedell also retired as a Rear Admiral, the rank he achieved in 1938. He never got his third star. A ruined career. (Sorry for the off-topic wandering Ric) LTM Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:18:30 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: More mooning MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee From Ric responding to Greg Rudzinski "Whoa! Is that correct? Would the Moon yield a 157/337 LOP at 1800 GMT? At 17:45 GMT Earhart says she's approximately 200 miles out but that's too early for Noonan to have gotten a sunrise shot. Might the Moon have been the primary source for that estimate and for the 157/337 LOP?" My point was that if the moon was the source of the 157/337 LOP at 1800GMT she was about 260 miles west of Howland and SURELY wouldn't have expected to see Howland. Would she? And surely wouldn't have started a run up and down the LOP, right? LTM, who is easily confused Dennis McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Whether derived from the sun, the moon, or a Ouija board - the LOP Fred got early in the morning was then advanced theoretically until it fell through his intended destination. He then measured the distance between the LOP he was on and the advanced LOP, plugged in his groundspeed, and came up with a time when the plane would reach the advanced line. That time was apparently a few minutes before 19:12 GMT when AE said, "We must be on you but..." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:28:00 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From Herman De Wulf Having flown in the Lockheed 10A (which has the same cockpit windows as AE's Lockheed 10E) I can say that the view from the cockpit is good and far better than from a DC-3. The windscreen is high and wide and so are the both side windows (which can be opened in flight). Sitting in the right hand cockpit seat FN had excellent view forward and to the right and using his sextant should not have been difficult. As the sun climbed AE could have lifted the nose of the aircraft to facilitate FN's work (which would have resulted in an increase of altitude). When looking at pictures of AE's Lockheed10E one can see that it also had two large observation windows in the rear fuselage, one on each side. If Fred was not sitting up front he would have been able to make fixes from his navigator's position in the rear. I'm not sure what angle the fuselage windows allow but I agree that it would have a simple matter for AE to tilt the aircraft a bit and allow FN to have a better view of any celestial body available from one of the windows. Remember that the cockpit windows could be opened for a greater obvservation angle. I believe the starboard fuselage window was in fact an emergency exit and the Electra not being pressurised, could be opened in flight if this was really necessary. **************************************************************************** From Ric On the standard Lockheed 10 the emergency hatch was as you describe but that was not the case in Earhart's machine. The large nonstandard window installed in the lavatory area of NR16020 prior to the first world flight attempt and subsequently skinned-over before the departure from Miami on the second attempt appears to be the same dimensions as the standard emergency exit. I wonder if the skinned-over window was, in fact, a hatch that could be removed in flight for taking unobstructed celestial sightings. Hmmm. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:37:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody Tom , I am learning more and more on the ins and outs of the laymans view of professional archaeology. I foolishly thought that the sites would have names like "the command post" or "the Admiral's quarters" instead of letters and numbers. The HPO office told me that in the book I purchased,"sites were identified". And Tom, I never commit to anything without having all my ducks in a row. I have the HPO's permit and regulations book complements of their office. The State Archaeologist at the time was most helpful and courteous.I understand the positision is again open.Thanks for your comments. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:39:39 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Pacific Preservation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King There are actually three planes portrayed; one entirely on dry ground, two entirely underwater. I've never seen an aluminum anything survive repeated exposures to both air and salt water. The whole Pacific Preservation issue is pretty interesting; I thought I'd try to get a copy or two for you to take to the museum and library folks on Tarawa, to show them what their neighbors to the north are up to. TK **************************************************************************** From Ric That would be good. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:50:30 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson I'm going entirely on memory, as my planetary information in buried in moving boxes. The moon was about 35% lit, and was oriented behind the plane towards the west. Since it follows (very approximately) the path of the sun, it would not give the 157/337 LOP, but a fairly oblique angle to it. I'll have to doublecheck and rerun the computer program to give you a better answer at this time. **************************************************************************** From Ric I misread Greg Rudzinski's post. It's Venus that he says would yield a 157/337 LOP at 1800 GMT. He says the Moon, at 000 azimuth at 1830 GMT, would yield a 90/270 LOP, thus providing latitude information. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:56:32 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Screensaver MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin Hello Ric/Forum: Gee Ric, I didn't mean to infringe on any of TIGHAR's photographs, and certainly I'm not going to try and peddle them to my neighbors. Does this mean I'm going to receive a mid-night call from the screensaver police? *************************************************************************** From Ric The reasons for the restrictions are many and, no, you will receive no visits from Cousin Vinnie. The photo has an imbedded virus that will erase your hard drive after a preset number of uses. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:59:20 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From Herman De Wulf Wait a minute. Do I get this right ? If the moon yielded an LOP at 17.45 that made AE say they were 200 miles out, then flying at 1.8 miles a minute (at 110 knots) they should have reached the 157/337 LOP for Howland 111 minutes later, meaning their ETA for the Howland 157/337 LOP would have been 19.36 GMT, right ? Yet if we believe AE/FN were calculating from their moon LOP at 17.45 this could explain why at 19.30 AE said "Must be on you but cannot see you..." This was six minutes after they reached their LOP ETA, right ? In that case the six minutes difference put them within 10.8 miles from the island, probably prompting AE to say "we are circling...". If they were not within the 10.8 mile range, something was wrong with their navigation. Surely the sunrise would have been FN's second fix and should have provided him with a position update ? So either the sunrise confirmed his calculations and they expected to hit upon the LOP as scheduled or the sun didn't rise in the right place, in which case FN would have recalculated their position. In that case AE would not have expected to be on the LOP and say "We are upon you..." when she did. I feel we are finding more questions than answers. **************************************************************************** From Ric Herman, you have it almost as screwed up as I did. Let's see what the Celestial Choir has to say. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:02:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Moon LOP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson I re-ran the planetary computer program supplied by the Oceanographer of the Navy. Input time was July 2, 1937, 1800 GMT at position 27'N, 178*15'W, which is about in the area that one could expect to be to sight the sunrise along the Electra track. It's only a ballpark position, but you'll see that the results aren't that sensitive. The sun is at at angle of 67* E of N, and has a GHA (Greenwich Hour Angle) of 167*. The GHA is the standard measure of position relative to the Greenwich meridian, and states that the sun is 167* west of Greenwich overhead position. To get the LOP, add 90* and 270* to the angle of 67*, yielding 157/337*. Previous runs indicate a fair amount of real estate E/W that yields the same 67* direction. It takes quite some time before the sun rises sufficiently to change the angle. The moon is at an angle of 37.9* E of N, and has a GHA of 89*. Taking the difference of GHA (78*) says that the moon is 78* further W than the sun. This coincides with the moon being "gibbous" or crescent shape with 37% illumination. The LOP would be 90 and 270* added to 38*, or 128/308*. What's good about the moon is that it does give a reasonable "high noon" shot somewhat later, good for determining latitude. Crossing the two LOP's at 1800 GMT is not terribly good, being only 30*. For a two-body fix, one seeks a 90* crossing, not 30*. BTW, Venus rose about 3 hours prior to the sun. ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric Thanks Randy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:04:50 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Bob Brandenburg wrote: > Dave is correct that a three-body fix in daylight is not feasible. Noonan > did have the sun and moon available on the fateful morning. Bob, I think for all practical purposes you are correct and we don't really know for certain what the weather was but it appears from U.S. Naval Observatory data that the planet Venus was available that morning. I have no clue as to whether FN had Almanac data to make use of it but the following was data for 19:50Z at Howland: Object GHA Dec Hc Zn Sun 116 32.2 N23 02.0 +27 39.6 64.2 Moon 194 07.8 N14 06.0 +68 10.4 308.3 Venus 164 34.7 N15 58.1 +70 43.7 37.5 Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:19:51 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Castaways, By Design MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Apparent statements of fact on this Forum are subject to data calls. I will > try to do a better job of articulating comments with that intent in the > future in the continuing, but thankless job, of battling closed minds. Kenton, thanks for the post. I'm perfectly clear now and you are correct that trying to open closed minds and shoot down misconceptions is a constant chore and often not well received. There are many theories as to what happened to our famous duo and HOW it happened. To muddy the waters just a little it only takes one small misstatement and we are off on a foolish excursion. The phenomenal lack of information certainly contributes to that. Just as an example I have suggested a third body, the planet Venus was possibly available to Noonan but of course I don't know that for a fact. Weather conditions, lack of almanac data, or other reasons might have made that impractical or impossible. Maybe FN just thought he didn't need it. I've made that statement for a long time and no one has told me I'm wrong. I may be but no one has shot Venus down yet. In spite of that it seems generally accepted that FN only had the sun to shoot. Maybe so but I'm not sure why that view is held. On the other hand we may see in the coming months statements of "fact" that Venus was available. I've seen postings that FN got 2 star fixes on the way to Howland. The postings sound like facts in concrete but without knowing the weather enroute we have no clue whether he got ANY fixes. And you are also right we DO have a tendency to make seemingly vague comments but many of those are to avoid going back over lots of detail we erroneously think everyone already knows. Keeping us all honest IS a thankless job but keep at it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:20:47 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Probability of success MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Catcher's mitt! Doesn't give you all the analysis we need? Sounds good to me > Replying to my own post which was in error. I left out a meaningful word, "that." It should have read "Catcher's mitt! Doesn't THAT give you all the analysis we need?" Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:22:06 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Ric wrote: > Are Noonan's > navigational techniques and performance on recent successful transoceanic > flights reliable indicators of his probable techniques and performance on > the flight in question? I suspect so. Noonan WAS a good professional. As such he probably navigated the same no matter what or where. My navigator did. Even though we had radars and great nav aids his celestial and DRs were done quite precisely when in fact he could have noozed most of the way. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:23:17 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: doubts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > I'm unclear as to what your doubts are. Dennis, I'm not doubting the antenna snapped off. I have a slight doubt that no one was aware of it. In the T.O. film there is a small puff visible which might have been the antenna coming off. If I can see it in the poor quality film it seems to me someone at Lae ought to have also noticed. You are probably correct that the sound was over ridden in the cockpit. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:35:14 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Would the Moon yield a 157/337 LOP at 1800 GMT? No, Ric, it would not but it was a great idea -- greater than you think. Venus WOULD have given Noonan the 157/337 LOP at 1800Z. Here is the data, once again, from the Naval Observatory. Object GHA Dec Hc Zn SUN 89 02.4 N23 02.3 + 2 31.7 67.0 MOON 167 36.9 N13 46.0 +74 15.5 34.1 VENUS 137 04.8 N15 57.0 +48 10.1 66.6 Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, so this is kind of intriguing. Randy says that Venus had been up for about 3 hours. That would seem to raise the possibility that Earhart's statement at 17:45 GMT "about 200 miles out, approximately" was not just a DR ballpark guess. Maybe Fred initially got his 157/337 LOP from Venus. Question: Sounds like Venus is sitting right where the sun is going to come up. How much of a problem is that as dawn approaches? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:46:44 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: LOP's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > She knew that she was heard on 3105 because the > Itasca transmitted the letter A on 7500 at her > Gosh, here I am wrong again. I knew that but it had faded off into oblivion. Doesn't that make it even more aggravating? If she had ANY clue someone heard her transmission on 3105 it seems she would have returned to 3105 and tried again when her "day" frequency produced no results. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, she DID return to 3105 at 19:30 GMT to say that she couldn't get a minimum. She may have tried again on 3105 at the next scheduled transmission time (19:45) but Itasca was blocking the frequency so they could not have heard her. She tried again at 20:13 to say that she was running on the 157/337 line and that she'd repeat the message on 6210. Here's a thought. What if she had transmitted her earlier messages on 3105 and repeared them on 6210 (without mentioning that she was doing that)? It wasn't hard to change frequencies - just flip a switch. If she did that then she would not have been sure which frequency Itasca had heard her on. With no subsequent luck on 3105 it would be reasonable to assume that 6210 was a better choice. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:48:15 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Mooning? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Dennis wrote: > If so, they would have been about 260 miles WEST of Howland, right? > Oops! Dennis, at 1744Z AE guessed she was "about two hundred miles out" so at 1800z she might have been about 150 miles out give or take and depending on how accurate her 200 mile estimate was. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:57:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Ric wrote: > I'm eagerly awaiting a response from the Celestial Choir. Is there a difference between deferring to the "experts" and copping out? Chris, you're correct --It has been said all along FN only knew his longitude but not his latitude. But that is not necessarily correct. The worst situation is that he didn't get celestial shots because of cloud cover and therefor didn't even know his longitude. IF he could shoot celestial there is little reason to doubt that he knew BOTH his longitude and latitude. Even after daylight, weather permitting, he could have determined both. As to Greg's post, I don't have a tamaya NC 88 navigational computer but I see no reason to doubt Greg's statement. Even if he is inaccurate I agree with his statement that FN should have been able to get a latitude. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric <> I'm just trying to keep my head out of places that smell really bad. To get a latitude, Fred has to get a good "cut" on his 157/337 LOP (obtained from Venus or the sun or both) from another celestial body. The only candidate I know of is the moon which, according to Expert Randy and your own previously posted data, will give him only a 30 degree cut. Is that good enough to tell him which way he should turn once he hits the advanced LOP? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:58:33 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Moon LOP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Randy, using your coordinates (I used Howland for the previous posting) the U.S. Naval Observatory computer gave these figures which are almost identical to the ones I got using Howland as a position. Object GHA Dec Hc Zn SUN 89 02.4 N23 02.3 + 0 54.2 67.0 MOON 167 36.9 N13 46.0 +73 01.5 37.9 VENUS 137 04.8 N15 57.0 +46 32.7 67.0 Only the sun and Venus would give a 157/337 LOP. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:01:49 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Herman, We don't know what reasoning AE used to estimate she was about two hundred miles out. It could have been a combination of fixes and DR or a guess based on passage of time. There is no information to support FN got a moon shot at 17:45Z or 1800Z or at any time. Also I have no clue as to how fast they were flying. AE "thought" she was about 200 miles out at 17:44Z but who knows where she was. Even if that's so there is no other reference time and point to estimate a ground speed. Don't be confused by the 18:15Z call and the 100 miles out notation. The bottom line is that we don't know where they were at any given time nor how fast they were traveling so the rest of your excellent math goes for naught. What I think we were trying to get across was that FN may have also had the moon to shoot but contrary to a previous posting it would not have given a 157/337 LOP at 1800Z. The planet Venus would have given such an LOP but if he did get an LOP from Venus we don't know when he did it. Previously the thought was that the LOP came from a sun shot or merely preflight planning. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:02:57 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Thanks, Woody; glad to know things are in order in Majuro. Yes, the archeologist job at the HPO there IS open. Tempting. I imagine that what they meant when they said the sites were "identified" is that they were located and marked on a map, not that they were given descriptive labels. Archeologists are real leary of labeling things they're not sure about, because the labels stick, sometimes long after it's been proven that the thing labeled wasn't actually what it was labeled as. Some, of course, carry this to an extreme and won't even label something whose function is perfectly obvious. TK ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:14:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: LOP's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski Ric wrote: > ... What if she had transmitted her earlier messages on > 3105 and repeared them on 6210 (without mentioning that she was doing > that)? It wasn't hard to change frequencies - just flip a switch. If > she did that then she would not have been sure which frequency Itasca had > heard her on. ... Well, if that's what she did, then she shouldn't have stuck with one frequency. The best thing would be to keep broadcasting on both, just in case. Itasca needed to get through to AE to deliver two messages: 1) You haven't given us a signal long enough for us to get a bearing on you. 2) Here is the direction you need to fly to find us. Since neither she nor Fred was up to speed with CW, and since Itasca's voice transmissions seem never to have reached her, and since Itasca had no voice capability on 7500, I don't see how these two messages could have gotten through to her. The failure to master CW is one link in the chain of poor decisions that led to the fatalities. Both DF and radio telephony were "modern" techniques. Having less sophisticated (but more demanding) older skills available might have saved them. Or, as other people have put it, they failed to have in place a reliable Plan B. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:50:50 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Venus at sunrise MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey Ric, From personal experience on many eastbound Pacific flights you can see Venus clearly up to about 15 minutes prior to sunrise. The background light becomes to strong for the last 15 minutes. I haven't actually timed this but I think that is a fairly accurate figure. Dick Pingrey 908 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:51:54 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Venus at sunrise MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Sounds like Venus is sitting right where the sun is going to come > up. How much of a problem is that as dawn approaches? > Not much of a problem, Ric. They're miles apart so no chance of a collision. Oh, you mean would the sun's glare blot out Venus? No, they will both be usable as celestial targets. As you can see from their respective altitudes they are well separated. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:53:55 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: LOP's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Here's a thought. What if she had transmitted her earlier messages on 3105 > and repeated them on 6210 (without mentioning that she was doing that)? It > wasn't hard to change frequencies - just flip a switch. If she did that then > she would not have been sure which frequency Itasca had heard her on. With > no subsequent luck on 3105 it would be reasonable to assume that 6210 was a > better choice. Makes a lot of sense. It sounds quite logical to broadcast on all the frequencies available since she was having no luck with any one frequency. We'll get this all reconstructed yet. (She WAS a logical person wasn't she? ) Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric All we can reconstruct is our own speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:57:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > will give him only a 30 degree cut. Is that good > enough to tell him which way he should turn once he hits the advanced LOP? I would much rather have a better cut but barring any really bad shot it should give him a position close enough to either know which way to turn or to know not to go too far to the NW before heading SE. It's not likely his two LOPs are going to be even 50 miles off at the outside. More likely he could count on being within 10 or 20 miles. If his platform is stable enough he ought to be only a few miles off, maybe 5 or 10. His real problem is his east/west position. Let's say he was dead on an LOP going right through the erroneous position of Howland. He'll not see it from 1,000' five miles away. While I'm at it let's muse about what he did upon reaching his LOP. I know the "circling" comment is most likely incorrect. Listening makes more sense plus he can't circle. Noonan has to know his position at all times as he has no ground reference. He can't let AE wander about aimlessly or in circles. He has to plot what they are doing or they are really lost. I don't know what they did but here's what I would have done and I would guess FN did the same. Upon hitting the LOP I would have turned right or left based on what I thought my position was. But let's say I think I'm close on so I turn to the left as I want my last search course toward the SE where I will head if I don't hit Howland. I will fly NW maybe 20 or 30 miles and teardrop or procedure turn back to the SE so as to still be on or close on the same LOP. Now I can go maybe 60 or so miles to the SE. I still haven't seen Howland so I know the island lies a few miles off to the East or West. Now I will turn left at standard rate to head back to the NW and fly 60 miles paralleling my original LOP but to the East. Not finding Howland I'll turn left again at half standard rate to put myself on the West side of my LOP and drive SE another 60 miles. Well, that didn't work so I really don't know where Howland is so I'll just continue my SE heading to the Phoenix group. Now before everyone shoots at my procedures the only point is that Noonan had to plot all that and my suggestions would allow him to do that. Perhaps he did something else but whatever he did he had to keep an accurate plot of his position. He may have searched shorter distances and more tracks or longer distances for that matter. They arrived at a point where they thought Howland was at about 1912Z and it was at 20:13 AE mentioned 157/337. They would have been running some sort of search pattern for an hour by then and it would take little effort to determine how much of my suggested search pattern they could accomplish in that time. In addition we don't know when they gave up and headed SE for the final time but it was no doubt soon after the 20:13 call. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:49:50 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Must be on you... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy This line of postings concerning latitude is getting pretty interesting. Indeed, why would we, today, know anything more about sun, moon, star and planet positions on the morning of July 2nd than Noonan did in 1937? IF Noonan thought he could determine latitude that morning before setting out, this would make the radio direction finding much less important, and perhaps explains some of the cavalier attitude to making sure it was working o.k. In the larger scale of things, if he were able to get a latitude reading, it makes one wonder what went wrong. The really horrifying thought is that they flew right over Howland, or in theoretical visual range from both plane and ship, but neither saw the other nor did Earhart see Howland. Big sky, big sea, small plane, small island and loud surf. I have been at sea, and can well imagine this happening. That Earhart transmission "we must be on you but can't see you", has long been the one I have found most important and troubling. The "must" conveys almost a sense of disbelief that they weren't seeing island and ship. We've discussed before the mapping error of Howland's position, yet for reasons Ric explained I believe we feel confident that AE and FN had been told, even though the charts hadn't been fixed. I wonder if we're wrong? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm less troubled than you are by Earhart's choice of words. How many times have you searched a counter top for your car keys and said, "They MUST be right here." forgetting that you left them in your jacket pocket. Earhart's phraseology indicates only her own expectation. We don't know that Noonan shared her level of conviction. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:01:09 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: FN's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bob Brandenburg Chris Kennedy makes a good point. If Noonan got a moon shot near meridian passage, he could have worked out his latitude. If he did, he would have known which direction to turn on the LOP. And, by the way, he would have known how far he was from Howland. That he didn't get there and went to Gardner instead suggests that he didn't get that moon shot. Bob Brandenburg 2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:06:32 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: 200 or 100? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bob Brandenburg Alan: When I omitted Venus as a candidate for a three-body fix, I neglected to mention that Venus would be close to the Sun's azimuth and probably would have been hard to see in the morning sun. But it is interesting to speculate that Noonan could have used Venus for an LOP before sunrise, and then shot another LOP when the sun came up. At 1744 GMT, when Noonan was about 200 miles out, Venus was at Hc 41 degrees and Zn 69 degrees, and the Sun was at Hc -4 degrees, or just below the horizon, and Noonan was in nautical twilight. But if he had shot Venus a little earlier, the Zn would have been closer to dead-ahead and FN's LOP would have been somewhere around 340/160. But the timing and apparent speed discrepancy between the "200 miles out" message and the "100 miles out" message suggest that the "200 miles out" estimate was based on a DR and the "100 miles" estimate was based on an LOP after sunrise. Bob 2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric Everyone agrees that the "200 miles out" report at 17:45 GMT and the "100 miles out" a half hour later at 18:15 GMT can not both be correct. Earhart's "We must be on you.." at 19:12 would seem to indicate that, by that time, they believed that they had reached the advanced LOP, had had time to look around enough to be convinced that there was a problem, and make a radio transmission pretty much on the quarter-past-the-hour schedule. For the sake of argument, let's say they hit (or thought they hit) the advanced LOP at 19:00. Let's also say, just for the heck of it, that they really were on the LOP that passed through Howland. We should apply a similar standard to the earlier transmissions and say that they represent a position estimate that was valid about 15 minutes before the message was actually sent. So - if they were "200 miles out" at 17:30 and were on the LOP at 19:00, they covered 200 miles in 90 minutes (we're talking ballpark here) for a groundspeed of 133 kts (assuming that the distances are provided to Ae by Noonan who speaks in nautical miles). That seems like a fairly reasonable speed given that the airplane cruises at 130 kts. They probably have a bit of a headwind but they're also probably coming downhill for much of that time, descending to 1,000 feet. If they're "100 miles out" at 18:00 and on the LOP at 19:00, they have covered those 100 miles in 60 minutes, for a groundspeed of 100 kts. For that to make sense you have to assume that the descent was already accomplished and that the cruising speed down low was more like 115 kts (into, say, a 15 kt headwind). Neither of those assumptions seems outlandish. In other words, in very general terms, either the 200 or 100 estimate could be correct, but not both. Bob's speculation that the earlier estimate was the rougher one makes sense, but it argues against recent speculation that Noonan got a predawn whack at Venus. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:22:49 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Taroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody Mike , As I told you before, the statements attributed to John Heine are correct but were misinterpeted.. They related the story to a researcher many years ago. It was told to them by their father, Carl Heine a missionary that was beheaded during the war.The Brink version is incorrect as to context, not content As for the two seat Zero, it was a one off prototype that never went into production. It has no relation to the fighter plane of WW2 fame, either. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric William Green's "Famous Fighters of the Second World War" ( Hanover House, NY. 1958) has a photo of a two-seat Zero with the following caption: "The A6M2-K Zero-Rensen Model 11 tandem two-seat conversion trainer which was produced in 1942. A similar conversion of the later A6M5 was also made in 1944 by the 21st Naval Arsenal at Omura." You're apparently talking about some other airplane. The name "Zero" applies specifically and uniquely to the Type O Carrier Fighter. Production models of IJN aircraft were assigned type numbers based upon the last number of the current Japanese year. 1940 was the Japanese year 2600 so Mitsubishi's A6M series was known as the "Zero-Sen". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:27:00 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Simon #2120 Ric wrote:- <> Well surely this makes your Browser's caching of images also illegal. Excuse me while I flush my cache.... **************************************************************************** From Ric I suppose so. The nature of the internet has created some really thorny copyright issues. Just ask Napster. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:28:29 EST R