========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:36:43 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The facts, ma'am...! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bob Sarnia Ric replied to my posting titled "The facts, ma'am, just the facts!" saying, "Perhaps when you have some we can discuss the matter further." Ric, Jet lag or no jet lag, why is it that you feel you have to denigrate postings that are at odds with your hypothesis? Surely, even you can learn something! I pointed out that many if not most of TIGHAR's recent postings on fuel left over, airspeed and wind were mere items of speculation, and their authors admit this. Thankfully, you've brought the subject to an end, because it was going nowhere. But the main thrust of my posting -- AE's 0742 message -- is FACT that no one can deny, not even you, even though you have the last and sometimes final word on your forum. If that message is not fact, would you please explain why you feel it is fiction? Even if you choose to disregard the "only half hour left" part of the message, which has been the subject of much discussion, you are the only person I know who disregards the whole message. I'm darn sure if I was piloting a plane and my fuel gauges showed -- for whatever reason --"near empty," I would want any message I sent to be very clear, unequivocal and unambiguous, rather than convey a message that might be wrongly construed. "Oh, by the way, AE says she's running out of gas. I'm sure she's OK, boys; she's no doubt got another 4 hours left." Ric, that message is FACT -- end of argument. Still willing to discuss the matter further? Regards, Bob Sarnia. **************************************************************************** From Ric Bob, you've been subscribed to the forum long enough to know that I do not denigrate postings that are at odds with TIGHAR's hypothesis. I have repeatedly said that, until conclusive proof is established one way or the other, no hypothesis can be categorically dismissed. I'm always happy to consider real evidence that supports some other hypothesis. What I do denigrate are categorical statements of "fact" by people who are not familiar with the original sources and are merely repeating folklore. You were subscribed to the forum when I addressed the "half hour gas" issue on February 20 of this year. I didn't want to get into it again but you persist in calling me out into the street. To quote another fictional police sergeant, you've "brought a knife to a gunfight." At 1910 GMT (07:40 Itasca time) Radioman 3rd Class Thomas O'Hare recorded in his radio log: "Earhart on now; says she is running out of gas, only 1/2 hour left, can't hear us at all." But O'Hare's is not the operator who is supposed to be keeping track of Earhart's transmissions. His job is to handle all of the ship's non-Earhart radio traffic. Communicating with Earhart is the job of Chief Radioman Leo G. Bellarts and his assistant, Radioman 3rd Class William L. Galten. O'Hare overhears the transmissions from Earhart and enters them in his log anyway, sandwiched in between the various administrative messages he is sending and receiving. His loggings of Earhart transmissions are sporadic, fragmentary, and often at odds with the entries in the Bellarts/Galten log. It was standard practice to replace the original work copy of a radio log, with its inevitable strike-overs and erasures, with a freshly typed (the term was "smoothed") version. The only existing copy of O'Hare's log is the "smoothed" version produced some time after the event. At 1912 GMT (07:42 Itasca time) Galten records Earhart as saying: "KHAQQ calling Itasca. We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low. We have been unable to reach you by radio . We are flying at 1000 feet." This is the same message reported by O'Hare as having been received two minutes earlier. The time discrepancy seems odd but is more understandable when you see the blueprint of how the Itasca's tiny radio room was laid out. The two operators sat back to back, one facing aft and one facing forward. They therefore had to have separate clocks and apparently, in this case, the clocks were not synchronized because the two minute discrepancy runs consistently through several messages. Galten's entry comes not from a smoothed log but from the original work sheet preserved by Chief Radioman Bellarts, complete with numerous strike-overs and erasures which speak volumes about the confusion aboard Itasca that morning. Radioman 2nd Class Frank Cipriani, on Howland Island, does not hear the transmission. There is, however, another real-time, or near real-time, account of what Earhart said. The ship's deck log, being kept by Lt. W. J. Swanston, reads: "0742 Plane position reported as near the island and gas running low." Note that he uses Galten's time and Galten's phrasing. Regardless of whose version (if either) was correct, it seems apparent that O'Hare's version was accepted by Commander Thompson because a little over a half hour later, at 1956 GMT (08:26 Itasca time) - by which time the plane should be down if O'Hare was correct - Cipriani on Howland recorded in his log: "Received information that Itasca believe Earhart down. Landing party recalled to vessel." It was 2042 GMT (another 46 minutes) before the deck log recorded the landing party back aboard Itasca but by then, at 2013 GMT (08:43 Itasca time), another message had been heard from Earhart. Clearly she was not out of gas and still aloft. Plans to go looking for her were put on hold hoping that she might yet show up. Thompson waited until 2145 GMT (10:15 Itasca time) and sent the following message to Coast Guard HQ in San Francisco: "EARHART CONTACT 0742 REPORTED ONE HALF HOUR FUEL AND NO LAND FALL POSITION DOUBTFUL. CONTACT 0646 REPORTED APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED MILES FROM ITASCA BUT NO RELATIVE BEARING. 0843 REPORTED LINE OF POSITION 157 DASH 337 BUT NO REFERENCE POINT, PRESUME HOWLAND. ESTIMATE 1200 FOR MAXIMUM TIME ALOFT AND IF NONARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTH WEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLE AREA. SEA SMOOTH VISIBILITY NINE CEILING UNLIMITED. UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED TIME" This message is interesting because it not only ascribes O'Hare's 07:40 "half hour gas left" message to Galten's 07:42 "gas is running low" time, but it also acknowledges that Itasca had expected the airplane to be able to remain aloft a full 24 hours. Fifteen minutes later at 22:00 GMT (10:30 Itasca time), despite his declared intention to stay at Howland until noon (23:30 GMT), Thompson gave the order to get underway and ten minutes later the ship was steaming on a course of 337 degrees to begin searching along the line of position. O'Hare's "half hour gas left" message was clearly crucial to Thompson's perception of the situation and instrumental in his decision to order the ship to leave Howland Island an hour and a half before Earhart was otherwise expected to run out of fuel. According to Army Air Corps Lt. Daniel Cooper's report of July 27, 1937, "Gasoline supply was estimated to last 24 hours with a possibility of lasting 30 hours." Cooper's report quotes Galten's "but gas is running low" version of the message but attributes the time to 1911 GMT (07:41 Itasca time), halfway between Galten's 19:12 and O'Hare's 19:10. Cooper also states that a 20% fuel reserve is standard for long overwater flights. In other words, Earhart's comment that "gas is running low" comes just as she should be starting to burn her reserve. So which version of the 19:12 (or 19:10) transmission is more accurate? It's interesting to read what Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts had to say on the subject when he was interviewed by Elgen Long on April 11, 1973. Long: (T)here seems to be some confusion about whether she said she had thirty minutes of fuel left or running low --was there any solution to that? Bellarts: Well, the only solution is what's in the log. Long: Well, one log says one thing and O'Hare's log said the other. Bellarts: Well, don't go on O'Hare's log, because I say --I wasn't even aware that O'Hare was putting that stuff down. ... No, I mean that. I mean that. O'Hare shouldn't have been putting that down because it was not his responsibility. It was actually mine and Galten, you know. Later in the interview - Long: What--this thirty minutes routine--then that just came up out of left field somewhere? I have thirty minutes fuel remaining, one half hour... Bellarts: Ah, well, I'll tell you how that happened, I believe. When -- after the flight, I actually think it took place -- I can't recall if it was going into Honolulu on the way north ... or if it was from Honolulu back to 'Frisco. I don't recall. But I recall the old man was down there, Thompson, Baker, and myself ...and they was concocting up a long letter to, you know, sort of a search report, and I think that was put in that report. They should never have put that in. They quoted---they misquoted it. Long: Well, it got into O'Hare's log somehow too. He says 30 minutes of fuel. Bellarts: Well, if O'Hare did, then maybe that's where the stuff came from. Long: Let me read what....(he then reads O'Hare's log entry). Bellarts: (Laughs) That stinkin' O'Hare. ... Possibly O'Hare might have had something in his little punkin' head that he might have, you know, thought he was going to make a bundle of jack on that or something. Of course, anything Leo Bellarts said in 1973 is anecdotal, but taken in context with the contemporaneous material, and in the absence of any supporting real-time corroboration, O'Hare's report that Earhart said anything about a half hour of fuel left seems to be lacking any credibilty. In other transmissions around that time Earhart made several references to "in half hour" or "on half hour" in telling Itasca when she would be listening for messages. Perhaps that is what confused O'Hare. As for the "half-hour left" message being "corroborated by two trained observers listening in -- professional journalists -- one of whom reported that 'she called in slow measured words'.", a look at what really happened tells a rather different story. About four hours after the ship began it's search (02:15 GMT / 13:45 Itasca time), United Press correspondent H.N. Hanzlick aboard Itasca sent his story which included the following description: MEN AT STATIONS TENSELY ALERT LONG WAIT CAPPED BY ANXIETY SEARCH FELT DEEPLY MEN WORKING WITH GRIM EFFICIENCY GREAT CONCERN OVER WHY AMELIA SHORT OF FUEL IN AIR ONLY APPROXIMATELY TWENTY AND HALF HOURS SHOULD HAVE HAD SEVERAL HOURS MORE FUEL WHY AMELIA NEVER GAVE POSITION HER RADIO EVIDENTLY NOT WORKING PROPERLY ITASCA REQUESTED EACH BROADCAST GIVE POSITION NEVER GIVEN STOP AT EIGHT FORTYTWO AMELIA RADIOED QUOTE HALF HOUR FUEL LEFT NO LANDFALL POSITION DOUBTFUL UNQUOTE LAST MESSAGE NINE FORTYTHREE QUOTE LINE OF POSITION ONE FIVE SEVEN DASH THREE THREE SEVEN AM CIRCLING PLEASE GIVE RADIO BEARING UNQUOTE HER VOICE SOUNDED VERY TIRED ANXOUS ALMOST BREAKING Hanzlick's representation of what Earhart said is obviously based upon Thompson's 21:45 message to San Francisco and his own somewhat scrambled recollection of what was said and when. The other reporter aboard Itasca, James Carey of the Associated Press, was no more accurate when he filed his story 45 minutes later at 03:00 GMT: RADIO REPORTED SEVEN FORTY TWO AM EARHART RUNNING OUT GAS STOP LATER MESSAGE PICKED UP QUOTE CIRCLING IN AIR UNQUOTE The next day Hanzlick filed another story which included: NOW LIKE SEARCHING FOR CLOSE FRIEND THOUGH MOST HAVE NEVER SEEN HER SOME HEARD HER VOICE THOSE WHO DID HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR COURAGE WHEN SHE CALLED IN SLOW MEASURED WORDS HALF HOUR FUEL LEFT NO LANDFALL STOP NOT UNTIL LAST MESSAGE DID VOICE SHOW EMOTION STOP If either reporter actually heard what was received from Earhart they did a very poor job of reporting it. Virtually none of the quotes reported by either correspondent agrees with either of the logs. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:07:35 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: How about this speculation. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Doug Brutlag > >From Dick Pingrey > > To all those that like to speculate, > > Why don't we assume that it would be good naviagtion practice for Fred > to off set his course so as to reach the Line of Position 25 miles (or even > 50 miles) to the north of Howland once he realized they were unable to > establish radio contact to get DF assistance. By doing this they would > insure that all they had to do was turn right when they reached the LOP and > follow it through Howland and on toward Gardner. If he did this there would > be no reason to turn north for a while upon reaching the LOP and they would > save all the gas needed to back track. Obviously there is no basis for this > speculation except it would be good practice that could save valuable fuel. > Seems to me it is just as valid an assumption as any of the others. Like all > the other speculation several things could be considered good practice but we > have no firm way of knowing what they did and when they did it > > Dick Pingrey 980C There is a basis for the technique you just described Dick. You just outlined the "landfall approach" of navigating to one side or theother of a target and intercepting a celestial LOP and then flying it to the target. Generally, one navigates to the target direct until they DR within 100 miles(give or take). They then plot and fly an offset course to one side or the other of the target and then intercept the LOP for a landfall. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:13:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - General MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Hue Miller Subject: Tarawa Report - General Thanks indeed for posting this. I found it extremely interesting! It also had me wondering, if without the interventions of the outside world, if the populations of these islands were stable or very slow-growing. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Prior to what is still referred to as "the coming of the flag" in 1892, the population of the Gilbert Islands had been relatively stable for hundreds of years due to inter-island wars and the widespread practice of abortion. Within a few generations after the British brought civilization and Christianity to the region, overpopulation was at crisis levels - thus prompting the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:14:44 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: AE Humor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Greg R. What did the Red Herring say to the Wild Goose over lunch at the Holy Grail Cafe? ans. I saw Amelia's Electra in the Cuckoo's nest. Honest. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:17:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Tarawa trip MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Jordan Ric wrote, " The archives have John T. Arundel's diaries on microfilm. They are voluminous and span many years. They're also written in a scrawly, informal hand that is very difficult to read and the copy function on the archive's microfilm reader is broken." ******************************* Well I finally found something I could do on the next expedition. Microfilm equipment is my line of work. I fix them all day! How about taking me on the next trip. I'll have that sucker up and running in no time. Hell I'll even waive my hourly fee, and bring my own tools. What a deal! I'm ready to go. Don J. Oh I forgot. The service call travel fee of $6,000.00 will still apply. *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll keep that in mind. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:22:06 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Tarawa Report chopped off? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric The Tarawa archival report is so long that apparently some email systems cut it off before the end. For those of you who may have had that problem, here are the last few paragraphs: ******************* Nearly as valuable as the individually significant documents is the overall impression of the island's development, administration, and flavor as reflected in the routine communiques throughout the 1940s,'50s and early '60s. One gets the impression that Koata was a competent and very independent administrator. During his tenure as Native Magistrate there is very little communication between himself and anyone with regard to administrative matters or anything else. One of the few exchanges between Koata on Gardner and Gallagher on Sydney involves Irish squashing Koata's proposal to have only fellow Catholics settle on Gardner. By contrast, communications between various later British administrators and a progression of later Native Magistrates are characterized by innumerable whining queries about increasingly petty matters and annoyed paternalistic responses from the Brits. The impression I get is that Koata ran Nikumaroro as his own little kingdom and had little use for the new British kid who was in charge of the whole Phoenix settlement scheme. I think he was perfectly capable of doing all kinds of things that Gallagher never knew about. Once Irish arrived to live on the island Koata I suspect that Koata had no desire and saw little need to stay on. We copied many documents and reviewed many more that describe the postwar progress and eventual decline of the Phoenix settlement. In brief, the settlement on Sydney was abandoned as early as 1956 because of internal turmoil and mismanagement. By the late '50s Hull was becoming overcrowded and there was increasing pressure to settle more people on Gardner than the island was ready to accept. A new village on Nutiran was contemplated and begun but apparently never finished. Beginning in about 1960, drought conditions began to impact the settlements on Hull and Gardner and by early 1963 conditions were truly desperate. Water was being shipped in and people were rationed to one pint per day (!). There was no alternative to evacuation of both islands and the residents were removed to the Solomons on November 17, 1963. The above is, of course, just an overview of the mass of new information we retrieved from the archives. In the next installment I'll review what we learned from interviews with various local authorities and the few people who are still alive and remember the prewar years. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:59:56 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Evans Katz With all the fuss on the forum about where Long got his evidence for headwinds, has anyone thought to look at the Chater report again? There are citaions of headwinds in that report. Given Earhart's own report (yes, I know she just mentions winds, not the direction of them), the Itasca's report plus the evidence in the Chater report, I don't think that it's much of a stretch to assume that she faced AVERAGE (as opposed to constant) headwinds of 20+ mph. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course we've looked at the evidence of headwinds in the Chater report. Although Elgen doesn't like to mention it, TIGHAR is responsible for the re-discovery of the report and we had examined every word of it about two years before Elgen realized that we had made it publicly available. As any pilot can tell you, meaningful evidence of headwinds has to come from contemporaneous observations - not forecasts or prognostications - of actual winds at the surface and, more significantly, winds at altitude (known as "winds aloft"). The only way to get accurate winds aloft information in 1937 was either by pilot reports from aircraft or from weather balloons that were released from the ground and tracked visually. There are no winds aloft reports of any kind in the Chater report except Earhart's own cryptic "wind 23 knots" transmitted a little over seven hours after her departure from Lae. It could have just as easily been a tailwind as a headwind. Earhart doesn't say. We have surface winds at Howland for the morning of July 2nd reported both in the Itasca deck log and by Dick Black on Howland. Black also tried to get winds aloft information but lost sight of the balloon when it passed the scattered cloud base at 2,650 feet above the surface. In short, there is no, nada, zippo reliable winds aloft information for any portion of the Lae/Howland route during the period of the Earhart flight. Any attempt to establish average winds encountered by the flight is speculative but the most valid method would seem to be to take the aircraft's known intended cruise speed - 130 knots - and the known intended distance - 2,223 nautical miles - and compare the time it should have taken in zero wind - 17.1 hours - to the time it apparently took for the flight to reach the advanced LOP - roughly 19 hours. That suggests an average groundspeed of 117 knots which (ignoring the reduced speed during the long climb to altitude) gives an average headwind of 13 knots. Elgen Long invented the higher headwinds and higher power settings to combat them in order to get the airplane to run out of fuel when he needed it to. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:01:05 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: To Oscar on Assumptions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey Okay Oscar I will clarify my #3 fact. If flown, by what would be considerd standard operating procedures and under what was thought to be the weather consitions during the actual flight, the range the the 10E was such that it could be flown over a distance equal to the flight to Howland and then on to Gardner and still have some fuel remaining upon reaching Gardner. I did not mean to imply that on that particular flight I knew the conditions nor how the airplane was flown to make it posible to cover that distance. All I am saying is that under average conditions the performance of the airplane was such as to make the flight to Gardner possible. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:05:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Terry Lee Simpson Dear Ric Baby, Glad you made it back ok.Your report on Tarawa is excellant,enjoying it very much. When I first joined TIGHAR I did'nt like you very much,but since then Ive had a change heart. I have learn to have great respect for you. The knowlage you have is truely amazing. You have forgot more than I wil ever know. A couple of times today on forum you apolagize for being rude, I don't think you are rude, I think you tell it like it is, you don't BS. You take a lot of flack man, you deserve to have a bad day, this forum wasn't the same without you. You are to TIGHAR What Dale Earnhardt was to Nascar. Thanks a lot Ric for all your hard work. Terry Lee Simpson LTM #2396 (Still waiten for #2397) **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Terry. I'll try not to hit the wall. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:08:48 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Rongorongo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Phil Tanner Rongorongo is on the island of Beru. For maps of Kiribati online, see http://www.multimap.com/index/KR3.htm If the querying of "rendering" is down to it not being American usage, yes it does mean sealing in English English, specifically finishing off a wall with a thin coating of plaster or cement. LTM, Phil 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes! Beautiful. Makes perfect sense. Gallagher wants the wood sent to where he is (Beru) so that he can have it sawed into usable lumber which he'll take with him when he goes to set up his new headquarters on Gardner. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:15:57 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Title to Niku land parcels... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Christian D Hi Ric! Welcome back. Always fascinating to rumage through archives. A question came to my mind: did you find anything concerning the final status of the titles to the land parcels on Niku, when the place was abandonned? Were the settlers leasing? Or were they buying? It would be interesting to know if the titles had all reverted to the "Crown" -or, for example, could Emily's family still have a claim to a plot somewhere??? I suppose Irish died before he would have been able to get title to anything which could still be in his estate!?!?!? Interesting question! Christian D **************************************************************************** From Ric When the island was evacuated everyone had to relinquish any land holdings on Gardner as a condition of resettlement. Everything reverted to the Crown. Today, all land on Nikuaroro is owned by the Republic of Kiribati. There is nothing in the file to indicate that Gallagher ever requested a personal land holding on Nikumaroro nor is there any indication that any British officials ever owned land in the colonies (with the possible exception of personal homes in Fiji). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:07 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy I contacted Nauticos after their claim to have found the KAGA, and was told that a detailed report on all this is going to appear soon in "The U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings". So, be on the watch for it. As to the "find", itself, I was pretty disappointed---Nauticos can connect you to a Japanese warship website with a picture of what they found, and it appears to be a small piece of a "tub" with an anti-aircraft gun. Surely they must have more to show, yet that's all for now, I guess. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:26:57 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jim Pearson From Jim Pearson I have two questions: 1. According to Amelia (Goldstein and Dillion) "GP chartered two small ships to cruise south to Gardner and Phoenix Islands...." Are there any reports as to what was found by this expedition? 2. Has Tighar attempted to locate Coast Guardsmen who were stationed on Niku? I realize that due to age few are probably still alive. **************************************************************************** From Ric No such expedition took place. Remember that Goldstein and Dillon did little or no research themselves but were merely trying to put Safford's antiquated and often flawed work into a marketable form. TIGHAR has interviewed about a half dozen veterans of Unit 92 and has gotten much useful information. Indeed, it was Dick Evans' and Herb Moffit's recollections about seeing a "water collection device" along the island's north shore that first led us to the Seven Site. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:34:47 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Bush >>From Ric > Anything that was on Tarawa or Ocean Island when the Japanese >invaded in December 1941 was apparently destroyed. Aside from some documents which apparently, like the bone file, came from Gallagher's office on Gardner, the earliest files in the KNA begin after the reconquest of Tarawa in 1943. Ric: Speculative, but that's what hypotheses are: A kanawa wood box is a nice souvenir, so it is possible (to my thinking) that a member of the Japanese occupation forces might well have taken items such as a kanawa wood box, a sextant box and other items, possibly discarding those portions (bones, corks, etc.) that they had no use for. Should we, perhaps, be following up on the occupation forces there and seeing if someone made off with these items? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric That would be fairly easy. Of the 4,500 Japanese occupying Tarawa only 17 survived the reconquest of the atoll by the 2nd Marine Division. Trust me, none of those POWs left the place with souvenirs. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:45:18 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Dale Earnhardt? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Wes Smith Wow! You're like Dale Earnhardt??? Does that mean you smoke Winstons, drink Miller Lite and win by intimidation to the wild, cheering throngs of fans who also smoke Winstons, drink Miller Lite and love being intimidated? *************************************************************************** From Ric Yup. Just ask any of thems as know me personal. The main differnce is that Dale he had a lot more money than me. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:55:20 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dave Bush >>From Ric > >That would be fairly easy. Of the 4,500 Japanese occupying Tarawa only 17>survived the reconquest of the atoll by the 2nd Marine Division. Trust me,>none of those POWs left the place with souvenirs. > Ric: I understand that in the final conflict, few were left, but what about being rotated home? Also, if someone (especially a high ranking officer) found these items, couldn't he have sent them home to his family? In otherwords, is AE actually being held by the Japanese, thus making both hypotheses valid? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric All things are possible but I think that the space aliens hypothesis would be easier to investigate. I have no idea how you'd go about getting the names and tracking down the families of rikusentai that were rotated out of Tarawa before the battle. If you do then, by all means, go for it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:58:44 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dave Bush Ric: Just to add to all the speculation about AE's fuel usage: knowing that she had to get the most out of the fuel usage, she could have decided to go with the most economical setting, slower speed and leaned out in order to arrive with even more fuel. However, as you pointed out when she said she was "low" on fuel corresponded to the time she would have been reaching her four hour (20%) fuel reserves. I sure hope she "sticked" the tanks! (For non-pilots, pilots consider gauges to be of minimal value and to determine the true amount of fuel we have wooden "sticks" marked in graduations. These are not generic, but specific to the aircraft and the tank.) LTM, who thinks we are getting the stick at the tank! Dave Bush, #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric The whole point of the power management profile worked out by Kelly Johnson was that it represented the most economical use of fuel. She couldn't improve on that without having way more expertise than she did. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:05:59 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: No forum Tuesday MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric Tomorrow (Tuesday, April 3rd), we'll have an NBC film crew here all day shooting a segment for the Sunday edition of the TODAY Show that will air next month during "sweeps week." I'll be able to tell you more about it after we do it, but there's just not going to be time to do the forum tomorrow. That's show biz. See ya Wednesday. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:11:47 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: An interesting day MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric I spent an interesting day yesterday with an NBC News crew shooting a piece for the Sunday edition of the TODAY Show. It will air sometime late this month or early in May. I'll let everyone know as soon as I know an exact date. It will probably end up being a 5 or 6 minute piece. They're doing a four-part series about people who have "left the traditional corporate world to live their dream" ( I know, I know - gag me with a spoon - but it's only television). The producer, who happens to be an old friend of mine, came up with an artist, an author, and a guy who runs a restaurant someplace in the Caribbean - but then he ran out of ideas. Just before I left for Tarawa he called me up and said, "Hey, you're living your dream aren't you?" I said, "Uh, sure, I guess, except when it's a nightmare." "Good. When can we schedule a shoot?" So I spent a very strange day doing show and tell about what it's like to be Ric Gillespie. Of course, television is always looking for "good visuals" and my everyday life is not terribly dramatic (thank goodness). We have some tape from earlier expeditions and some pretty interesting video we shot in Tarawa, but he was looking for something "fresh and different" - so we ended up shooting most of the piece out at the farm where Pat and I board our horses. It was a gorgeous, early spring day and we had a great time. NBC got some nice pictures and, I hope, an interesting interview. They also shot some footage back here in the office - artifacts, documents, me and Pat sitting in front of computers - the usual. The piece will, naturally, include quite a bit about the Earhart Project. Should be good press. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:02:59 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Evans Katz With all due respect to your analysis of the headwinds, and your decision to disregard the evidence, please note: Page 7 of the Chater Report, in the radio message just below the one reporting the weather forecast from Pearl Harbor says in part: "Naru 8 a.m. upper air observation ... 7500 feet ninety degrees 24 mph." In other words, winds from the EAST at 24 mph at 7,500 feet. While this was not exactly contemporaneous (it was taken at 8 a.m. Nauru time, before Earhart took off), to disregard it altogether is somewhat disingenuous. There is also an entry in the Itasca radio log reporting winds at 7,000 feet at 31 mph ENE. The measurement was taken by weather balloon at noon on July 1 at Howland, which was July 2 in Lae. Since all three of the wind data points that DO include a direction indicate a wind from the EAST, and they come from different points along Earhart's route, it is only reasonable to assume that the wind Earhart herself reports (23 knots) was also from the EAST. It would be odd indeed if the wind were blowing from the east at Nauru, Howland and Pearl and from the west wherever Earhart was five hours into the flight. The evidence is pretty convincing, unless one refuses to see it. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't have any problem with speculation that the winds aloft encountered by the flight were probably more or less out of the East. Most of the winds in that part of the world, at that time of year, are easterly. What little we know about the progress of the flight also suggests headwinds rather than tailwinds. However, to say that wind SPEEDS aloft observed over Nauru at 20:00 GMT (08:00 local) on July 2nd are indicative of conditions a couple hundred miles south of there at roughly 10:30 GMT on July 3rd (22:30 July 2nd local) is more than a bit of a stretch. Any pilot will tell you that a winds aloft report that is 14 and half hours old is ancient history. The same is even more true of the observation taken over Howland at 22:30 GMT (12:00 on Howland - which was using Hawaii time). The flight was not in the Howland neighborhood until fully 21 hours later. As a rule, winds aloft often change from hour to hour. It is not disingenuous to disregard these outdated reports as evidence of the wind speeds encountered by Earhart and Noonan. On the contrary, it is ridiculous to do otherwise. If there are any fellow "ancient pelicans" (to borrow Ernie Gann's wonderful phrase) out there who disagree with me on this, please set me straight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:10:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt Ric wrote: >That suggests an average groundspeed of 117 > knots which (ignoring the reduced speed during the long climb to altitude) > gives an average headwind of 13 knots. Which is valid if we accept that the signal strength reported by Bellarts suggested that they were really close, and not being received by "skip". Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric I have yet to hear a person who is knowledgable about radio propagation suggest that the gradual and progressive increase in signal strength over a period of many hours was an illusion created by "skip." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:28:21 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Charles Lim To Ric, The area 25 and its association with Gallagher is something that did not hit me at first, but if later references hint the association with him, what kind of connection do you think existed? Galagher already had an official settlement in the form of his residence, so why is it that there is some link with the possible allocation of another plot of land nowhere near the site of his residence? If the area near the 7 site was originally alocated for the cultivation of coconut trees, I do find the fact there are associations with Gallagher a bit odd. Charles Lim (who is worried about odds and ends) **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it makes no sense for Area 25 to allocated to Gallagher for any personal purpose, and its demarcation on the maps do not necessarily mean that coconuts are to planted there. All we can conclude from the maps is that that plot of ground was specifically set aside as neither "bush reserve" nor land that could be granted to a resident family. And although it was not designated on the only island map we have that drawn by Gallagher, maps drawn after his death associate it with "official" use - Komitina (Commissioner) in one case, and Karaka (Gallagher) in another. My personal opinion is that this is not a loose end at all, but rather a strong indication that the Seven Site (aka Area 25) is where the bones of the castaway were found and that Gallagher, prior to his departure from the island in June 1941, made it clear to the locals that the area was not to be disturbed. He returned in late September gravely ill and died with a few days. The reservation of that land parcel survived in local knowledge and was subsequently recorded on later maps although the original reason was either forgotten or intentionally misrepresented due to the "secret" nature of the whole bones issue. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:34:03 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Really? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt Hi Ric, You really have to see this: http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/vanished/EmeliaEarhart.htm It has such gems as.. The Flight Thirty-nine year-old Emelia and her expert navigator, forty-four year-old Fredrick Noonan must have been exhausted after already flying 22,000 miles of their fateful (?) journey. The 2,556 mile leg from Lail to Hewlard Island was considered extremely hap hazardous - the 1 1/2 mile long island being difficult to find even with today's modern equipment. Add to that the fact that the distance they would be required to cover would conserve almost all of the fuel in their custom designed Lockheed Electra fuel tanks. And much more like: Hundreds of eyewitness reports abound of two Americans pilots, on a woman, coming down in the Marshalls Guess she was a big woman... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Wombat, I'm afraid we're going to have to install some Parental Control software on your computer. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:52:53 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The facts (cont'd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bob Sarnia Ric; I appreciate the time out you took to explain AE's 0742 message, though apparently you and I will never see eye to eye. Nevertheless, I am glad that we can discuss this important issue like gentlemen. I leave it to your discretion whether you post this reply on the forum or not. Whenever I see what I consider to be an important posting on your forum, I print it out for later perusal and keep it in my file, which has now grown to about 7 or 8 inches thick. I have a copy of your Feb. 20th posting and am familiar with it, though I interpret it in a different manner. I also have copies of the Itasca's radio logs, as well as a copy of Cdr. Thompson's July 19, 1937 report to his superiors (108 pages long), which obviously is in your possession. As I implied in my 2nd recent posting, let's forget the "only half hour left" part of AE's 0742 message, which RM O'Hare entered in his log, and concentrate on her "gas is running low" statement, which was recorded in the radio log kept by CRM Bellarts. Despite the barbs and arrows flung towards AE regarding her capability as a pilot, she was still an experienced flier, and surely must have known what she was saying when she reported "gas is running low." Who would know better than she? I do not believe that she would cavalierly report that "gas is running low" if her fuel gauges indicated otherwise. Looking at the many Purdue University photos taken of AE as she supervised, or at least oversaw, the repairs being done to the Electra, I would say that she was a very dedicated person who was concerned about her plane and made sure that even small details did not escape her. (Cynics, of course, will say that those photos were taken for publicity purposes.) When she arrived in what she thought was the vicinity of Howland at 0742, she had already flown 8/10ths around the world, making up to 20 or more take offs and landings, not to mention the in-between flying, so she was no novice. Many theorize that she should have had plenty of gas remaining at 0742. I agree, but the fact remains that she reported that "gas is running low." We don't know the reason why her fuel was running out, but running out it was, otherwise she wouldn't have said so in that message. Surely she had the experience to know how to read her fuel gauges!!? A study of winds in the Eastern Pacific reveals that it blows constantly (in July) from the SE below the equator and from the NE above the equator, and headwinds were predicted for most of the way from Lae to Howland. Those NE tailwinds were responsible for the record time she made during her Oakland-Honolulu leg of what was to be the start of her round-the-world journey, which ended during takeoff at Luke Field. This time, from Lae to Howland, she would face those same winds in the opposite direction, whether from the NE or SE. She would not have known to the last gallon how much fuel was left, but we do know that her last message was sent at 0844-46 that morning (received at S-5), indicating that she was still aloft and fairly close to the Itasca, but for how long afterwards becomes speculation. May I theorize for a brief moment? 1. Headwinds (or whatever) caused her to use up more of her fuel than anticipated. 2. "Gas is running low" at 0742. 3. Last message at 0844-46 indicates she was still in the area, probably flying on fumes. Why didn't she send any more messages? Because she had her hands full trying to squeeze as much fuel as she could from her "empty" tanks while handling a plane whose engines were coughing and spluttering. She would have ditched between 0846 and 0900. Ric, many facets of her journey may be subject to various interpretations, but that 0742 message about "gas is running low" is unmistakably clear. If you can't see that, then, as gentlemen, let's agree to disagree. Regards, Bob Sarnia. ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric Bob, I completely agree with you that Earhart was an inexperienced long-distance flier who had successfully completed many very long flights without ever once running out of gas. As any experienced pilot will tell you, when you're in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, unable to locate the only airstrip within thousands of miles, unable to establish radio cmmunication with anyone, and down to your last four hours of fuel after a 19 hour flight - you better believe "gas is running low." It amazes me that those who theorize that she ran out of gas also say that they're trying to "salvage her reputation." For her to have done what you, and Elgen Long, and others suggest would have been monumentally stupid and virtually suicidal. As I've made clear on many occasions, I think that both AE and Fred had flaws that ultimately cost them their lives but I see no evidence that they were as incompetent as you suggest, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:56:31 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > As any pilot can tell you, meaningful evidence of headwinds has to come from > contemporaneous observations - not forecasts or prognostications - of actual > Ric, I just returned from Sydney, australia. Out of Sydney the morning preflight winds indicated a 13 hour flight. Just before T.O. a couple hours later new estimates showed we would arrive an hour early in Los Angeles. Because customs would be unavailable at that time the pilot elected to delay t.O. 45 minutes. A third of the way there he announced we would STILL arrive too early and we did arrive 30 minutes early. This, with all the modern weather predicting capability. You are correct. Only actual winds are meaningful not predictions. Sometimes preflight winds are reliable but not enough to use such information to reconstruct AE's flight. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome home Alan. We used to have a saying, "The only weather you can count on is what's outside the windshield." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:02:40 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Most Economical Use of Fuel? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Oscar Boswell > The whole point of the power management profile worked out by Kelly Johnson > was that it represented the most economical use of fuel. She couldn't > improve on that without having way more expertise than she did. May I offer a mild disssent? At normal gross weight and below, Johnson specified 38 gph (about 237 hp per engine). The 10E performance data in Lockheed Report 465 (1935 Johnson tests on 10E) shows that cruise at 200 hp per engine (c. 32 gph) is about 93 % as fast as cruise at 250 hp per engine (c. 40 gph) on 80% as much fuel. Interpolating for 38 gph/237 hp, we might estimate that 200 hp would give 94% of the speed of 237 hp, with 84% of the fuel consumption, an increase in range in still air of about 12 % (94 divided by 84 = 1.11904). So Johnson's profile is not absolute best range at normal gross or below, and could have been bettered by anyone with access to the data in Report 465. Since we don't have the 10E POH (Report 466?) we don't know whether or not 200 hp figures were shown as within the normal operating range of the airplane in the POH. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Absolutely. No argument. But Kelly Johnson knew that he was preparing recommendations for Amelia Earhart - not Jimmy Doolittle, "Smithy" Kingston-Smith, Slim Lindbergh, or even Jackie Cochrane. It had to be simple and conservative. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:04:18 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: One Man's Assumption is another man's poison MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Oscar Boswell > >From Dick Pingrey > > > All I am > saying is that under average conditions the performance of the airplane was > such as to make the flight to Gardner possible. Yes, I understand that. The point I was trying to make was that you had previously said that we didn't know, and couldn't know, how AE operated the plane, or the wind conditions under which she flew, and that everything anybody said about the subject was speculation, and that you were only interested in "facts" - but your fact #3 is of no relevance to the discussion unless you (tacitly or explicitly) make assumptions about these very things. You partially conceal this from yourself by referring to "standard operating procedures" and "average conditions", but the speculation is there nonetheless - you merely feel that your speculation is better informed and more convincing because it is closer to "standard" and "average" than someone else's. But this is a bit unfair (not on purpose of course) to those whose speculation differs from yours. Perhaps it is a bit unfair of me to mention this, since you are certainly not a major offender in this regard. We all make the mistake from time to time of classifying our assumptions as "facts" and those of other people as "speculation". Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:07:19 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Half hour left? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann What is most significant (to me anyway) about the _last_ message Itasca received from AE (about an hour _after_ the reporters _alleged_ she claimed to have only a half-hour of fuel remaining) is the fact that in addition to providing information she was...'on the LOP 157-337'...'We are running North & South'..., she also informed Itasca...'Will repeat message on 6210kcs...Wait, listening on 6210kcs'... If, as our intrepid newsmen reported, AE's fuel situation (certainly by then) was as desperate as _their_ account's would suggest, why on earth would she suddenly change frequencies, from the only frequency upon which she'd heard any response from Itasca, in order to _continue_ her efforts to achieve two-way radio communication with Itasca, if as the newshounds contend, she was in imminent danger of 'splashing' due to an exhausted fuel supply ? We also must consider the _fact_ that she did _not_ repeat (either of) the warnings about being low or running out of gas, in her last recorded transmission, a seemingly grossly negligent oversight, if in _fact_ her remaining fuel supply was that critically low, so as to make keeping the Electra in the air, dubious at best! Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric One small correction: The only signals she apparently heard were the "A"s sent on 7500, not 3105. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:12:32 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Wash Post story MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric Several forum subsribers advise that there is an article about Nauticos and their Earhart search in today's Washington Post. You can see it at http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34624-2001Apr3.html I particuarly like the quote by Nauticos boss David Jourdan: "Our intention is to be out in the open about this," said Jourdan, whose company has had a string of successes in the past six years. "We're confident enough in our abilities that we could do our search under scrutiny." Uh huh. So why not release the CalTech study? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:15:30 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Being Ric Gillespie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Ric wrote: So I spent a very strange day doing show and tell about what it's like to be Ric Gillespie. Z-z-z-z-z-z-z. I think I'd rather watch paint dry. :-) LTM, who feels a nap coming on Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric That's why we went to the barn. I'm a very dull guy. My horse, on the other hand.... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:02:19 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (cont'd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jerry Ellis For Bob Sarnia and others, I'm not a pilot but my take on the "gas is running low" phrase is that is all relative and can't be quantified in any real way. Had she said something like "just switched to reserve tank of 100 gallons" then we would have something difinite. I would think that from her perspective, only a few hrs of fuel remaining out of the 24 or so she had to start with is "running low." Jerry W. Ellis #2113 **************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Bob Sarnia wrote: > Ric, many facets of her journey may be subject to various interpretations, > but that 0742 message about "gas is running low" is unmistakably clear. Bob, I've been a pilot and instructor pilot since the 50s. Almost all of my flying was long distance and over the Pacific or Atlantic. "gas is running low" is absolutely NOT "unmistakenly clear." Gas running low over San Antonio could mean I have about 10 or 15 minutes left. Gas running low over Wake Island might mean I'm down to my last 6 or 7 hours. You as well as others have frequently pointed out that the winds in the South Pacific that time of year were typically out of the East and some have suggested they were usually as high as 25 whatevers. People keep bouncing back and forth between knots and MPHs. AE just might have known that too don't you think? So why should she have been caught off guard that she wasn't going to have no wind or a tail wind from Lae to Howland? How do you explain everyone "knowing" there would be a head wind of significant magnitude except AE and FN? It amazes me that people would even suggest these folks would plan a flight dry tanks over Howland. They knew before T.O. what the winds might be and went anyway. Doesn't that hint to you and other ditch advocates that they expected to have adequate fuel. Does anyone think AE and FN were so stupid and incompetent that at the half way point they would have pressed on instead of turning back in the face of a suicidal mission? If anyone believes that then logically AE could have called "low fuel" as she taxied out at Lae. To follow your reasoning we have to believe AE and FN took off knowing they had only an hour to find Howland if that and that their only alternative was to kill themselves in a ditching. Then at the half way point they now have even more conclusive evidence they can't make it but stubbornly press on. Sorry, that has to be the most preposterous scenario I've ever heard. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. Disagree all you want but at least use some rationality. If you want something "unmistakenly clear" then it would be that AE and FN most likely did not plan on a suicide trip to the vicinity of Howland. Now you might want to say they did not expect such a head wind but that flies in the face of your own evidence. They KNEW what the winds were supposed to be AND they were actually flying the route and were experiencing the winds first hand. Also we could speculate they were low on fuel because of a significant fuel leak. So now we have our daring duo saying, "Hey, all our fuel is leaking out. What say we continue at least until the fumes do us in." I don't think so. If you want to come up with an alternate theory suggest one that makes some kind of sense. I'll buy anything that has some degree of sanity to it. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric As TIGHAR member and Earhart Team alternate Bill Carter recently pointed out in a private email to me, Earhart's comment about fuel - whatever its intended meaning - is rather pointless. Here she is, unable to establish communication, transmitting blind, and she says, "We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low. We have been unable to reach you by radio. We are flying at 1000 feet." She is apparently transmitting information on the assumption, or in the hope, that they can hear her - and that's fine. But the information she is giving them is totally useless. "We have been unable to reach you by radio" - well, duh. Does she think they don't know that? She tells them that her gas is running low, so - what? - stop kidding around, pretending that you don't hear me, and answer my calls? "We are flying at 1,000 feet". How will that information help Itasca help her? Her problem is a radio problem and the only information that is going to help Itasca get in touch with her is radio information. It doesn't make any sense to say anything unless she is operating on the assumption that it's a receiving problem on her end. She should be suggesting different frequencies and trying different receivers (if she has them) and different receiving antennas. That's exactly what she does when she asks for signals on 7500 and apparently hears them over her loop antenna, but she doesn't follow up on that success. When she fails to "get a minimum" she switches back to the configuration (listening on 3105 on an antenna other than the loop) that doesn't work. This is simply bad problem solving. She is not thinking logically and not acting rationally. Unfortunately, that is not unusual in the annals of aviation accidents. Pilots often fail to do the things that they could do to deal with inflight emergencies because they don't think things through calmly and logically. Granted, it's real hard to be calm and logical when everything is going to hell and your own mortality is becoming more apparent by the minute - but that's the difference between old pilots and dead pilots. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:06:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Wash Post story MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Ric wrote: > I particuarly like the quote by Nauticos boss David Jourdan: > "Our intention is to be out in the open about this," said Jourdan, whose > company has had a string of successes in the past six years. "We're confident > enough in our abilities that we could do our search under scrutiny." > > Uh huh. So why not release the CalTech study? Why don't you contact him about this quote and ask for the study? --Chris ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric That's exactly what I did. Dave Jourdan and I had a very nice chat this morning. He can not release the CalTech study because Nauticos does not own it. NOVA commissioned that study before Nauticos was involved in the project. Dave is sympathetic to the desirability of having the report available for peer review, but it's not his to release. He said that mine was the first request he has had for the release of the study and he'll pass that request on to those who have the authority to release it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:10:07 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Wash Post story MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson What these supposed experts don't know is that the area west of Howland Island is composed of abyssal hills: ridges that rise about 200 meters every 3 or 4 km or so apart...the area is not flat, and is possibly the worst area to do bottom surveys. Elgen Long knows this, as he collected high resolution bathymetric data in the area (which I have a copy of). I've "been there, done that" when I was an oceanographer/geophysicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Oregon State University, and at the Office of Naval Research. What a complete waste of time, effort, and money. *************************************************************************** From Ric That's pretty interesting. I mentioned it to Dave Jourdan at Nauticos this morning and he thought it was pretty interesting too. I'm putting Randy and Dave in touch with each other. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:26:48 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Charles Lim To Ric, The archival evidence did give me your impression. I certainly think that the 7 site is hiding something. What this may be may not even be relevant to Earhart, but we can hope that it is, and now its off to get the shovels to find out what it is that is hidden there. Charles Lim ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:30:18 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Assumption Limits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey To Oscar and the Forum, Frankly, I don't buy your argument in the least. If it is an assumption to forecast that an airplane is capable to operate over a given distance then every airline flight across the ocean, Atlantic or Pacific, is operated by assumption rather than facts. Having flown for international airlines and been directly involved in flight planning for 27 years I can tell you and the Forum members that flights are operated on known performance data and not assumptions. We know, not assume, that the Boeing 747 is capable of flying from San Francisco to Tokyo and on to an alternate airport and then to have endurance beyond that alternate airport including the capability of making an approach and go around, etc. It isn't based on assumptions about how we will fly the airplane or the range and endurance of the airplane but rather it is based on known facts. The conditions may vary which alter the flight time and other factors but they don't alter the performance capability of the airplane. Just like the Boeing 747 flying from San Francisco to Tokyo the Lockheed 10E was capable of making the flight to Howland and on to Gardner. How it was actually operated, the actual winds, the visibility, etc. lead to speculation and assumptions. The airplanes performance does not. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:51:39 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Personal Land Holdings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Denise Ric says: "nor is there any indication that any British officials ever owned land in the colonies (with the possible exception of personal homes in Fiji)." Ric, you can't even make that exception. During the Days of Empire, the British Colonial Service provided our homes and at a stupidly low rental too. This was deliberate. All the savings we made there were meant to be earmarked to buy a nice little house "back home" after retirement. And it would have been considered the height of "non-pukka" to have used our tenure in any colony as an opportunity to acquire land. "Home" was England (even when you were, like us, Irish!) and you weren't allowed to see it any other way. In fact, you didn't even want to. OK! When the Empire disbanded, many of us realised we didn't want to "go home" so decided to stay on where we were, and it was only THEN we started to buy houses and land. Remember, our lives were riddled with shibboleths, questions of Honour and Duty, and a rigid code of conduct called "Pukka" and we wouldn't EVER have questioned how things were done. We didn't want to. Rudyard Kipling provided our voice for us and did it so beautifully (until towards the end, when he started "snarling".) we liked the way we were. Thus, NO!, we didn't have personal homes anywhere in the colonies. LTM (who is still, after all these years, as "pukka" as they come. Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:57:37 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Nauticos/NOVA study MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Chris Kennedy said: Why don't you contact him about this quote and ask for the study Ric replied: That's exactly what I did. He can not release the CalTech study because Nauticos does not own it. NOVA commissioned that study before Nauticos was involved in the project." Too bad Nauticos is not a government agency, we could pummel, harass, and abuse them with the Freedom of Information Act until they begged for mercy. On second thought, if NOVA gets Federal funds (via the Public Broadcasting System - PBS) they may be subject to FOIA. Maybe our crack legal department could check that out . . . Mr. Katz the ball's in your court. :-) LTM, who's been a FOIA victim Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Heck, Mr. Kennedy is a lawyer too, as are about half of all forum subscribers (or so it seems). I think that PBS being subject to FOIA is a bit of a stretch. Personally, I think that the greatest condemnation of the CalTech study is the very fact that they don't want anyone to see it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:59:22 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey To All, Alan Caldwell has it right on target in his reply to Bob Sarnia's theory. Read it again folks as therein is the fundamental reason that Elgen Long's theory is unbelievable. I think Bill Carter's comments, as outlined by Ric and Ric's additional comments attached to Alan's message, are very significant in understanding the situation. Add all this to the discovery that AE's antenna was lost on take off and a fairly understandable picture of why she did not find Howland and why she had to look for an alternate place to land starts to take shape. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:59:01 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (cont'd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > *** From Ric > ... When she fails to "get a minimum" [on 7500] she switches back > to the configuration (listening on 3105 on an antenna other than the > loop) that doesn't work. And then, with evidence that they've been hearing her on 3105, she switches to 6210 and is never heard from again. > This is simply bad problem solving. She is not thinking logically and not > acting rationally. Agreed. It's so sad ... With her equipment, was it possible to transmit on 3105 and continue listening on 7500? Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, absolutely. She could not listen on two frequencies at once, but she could transmit on one and listen on a different one. Separate systems. Think about Earhart's illogical inflight transmissions. Now think about Betty's notebook. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:00:52 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Nauticos/NOVA study MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Dennis said: "Maybe our crack legal department could check that out . . . Mr. Katz the ball's in your court. :-)" Ric replied "Heck, Mr. Kennedy is a lawyer too, as are about half of all forum subscribers (or so it seems)." Yeah, but Mr. Katz is the only I remember who has admitted it in public. LTM, a legit lady Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric We got lots. You might be surprised by the list. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:02:00 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Assumption Limits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Dick Pingrey wrote: > Frankly, I don't buy your argument in the least. If it is an > assumption to forecast that an airplane is capable to operate over a given > distance then every airline flight across the ocean, Atlantic or Pacific, is Dick, you've lost me. What argument is it that you don't buy? As to assumptions vs facts it sounds like you're just arguing semantics. I assume my car will get 24 miles to the gallon and the fact is that it does. Call that a fact or an assumption makes no difference. Am I missing your point? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:06:55 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Dick, doesn't it seem we go over this ground a lot? You have a lot of flight experience as I do and some members of the forum so the simple logic makes sense to us. To some it isn't so obvious. Remember all the LOP threads we had some time ago wherein few people had a clue what an LOP even was. I get frustrated when I read statements that with a little more thought would not be made. Yet, look at Elgin Long with all his experience and investigations coming up with the same "run out of gas" story. Baffling. Then I read about the "only 30 minutes left" report again and again and am amazed that the commenters don't seem to notice that the plane was still in the air an hour later and no further radio report about the desperation of having only seconds of fuel left. I think there is really a lot less in the way of speculation involved in our mystery than some would suggest. For, example, as I pointed out before, the forecast winds were to be a strong headwind. It matters not how often preflight winds and actual winds coincide. It tells us that our heroes did not run into unexpected strong headwinds. But we don't even have to guess at that. We know what time they took off and what time they were at a number of positions so a groundspeed and thus a headwind computation is simple math. No speculation. We know AE was provided with a detailed power and fuel management script. I don't know whether she followed it but I can't think of a reason she would make up her own fuel plan. And as you pointed out the aircraft performance is a known fact. We can reconstruct her flight and fuel profile from t.o. to Howland and a little beyond with fairly good accuracy. We don't know what altitudes she flew but it makes no significant difference. She flew from point A to point B and we know roughly her flight path and her times so fuel is pretty easy. We don't know what celestial capability was presented to FN yet we know he navigated the plane to the vicinity of Howland so there is little significance whether there was a lot of cloud cover or none. We know what the radio problems were though not the cause save the lost antenna and the faulty DF. That puts the Electra in the Howland vicinity at a known time with a good handle on remaining fuel. What they did then IS speculation but we want to think we're making educated guesses. Considering there were no airfields then to use as an alternate we're left with ditching or landing on some land somewhere. Of those choices ditching just doesn't sound like a reasonable choice. (Anyone with a good reason to pick ditching?) If they decide to find land why would they not opt for the closest land? (Anyone?) The Phoenix group was the closest AND FN would have an easier and more precise navigation problem as the sun would give him course lines. Going back to the Gilberts was a much longer flight and the sun would only give FN speed lines. I don't think going in the direction of the Marshalls was an option. Too far and Japanese controlled. Even without any evidence, however weak or strong found on Niku, the Phoenix Islands still make the best sense. To run the Electra out of gas prematurely ignores the known performance of the plane. To put them far off course ignores the fact that their radio reports were strength 5 and gradually reaching strength 5 thus eliminating a monentary skip effect or at least reducing that possibility. One would also have to believe FN didn't know where he was when no one can suggest a reason he wouldn't know. Also it must be ignored that AE and FN thought they knew where they were and had the capability of knowing where they were. How does anyone get them far off course? Can anyone RATIONALLY propose an alternate theory than they got to the vicinity of Howland, couldn't pick up the island visually and went on to the nearest land? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:39:56 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Personal Land Holdings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > From Denise > > Thus, NO!, we didn't have personal homes anywhere in the colonies. Except in Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, Africa and some other colonies where they started on palatial mansions almost the moment they arrived.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:42:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Retiring MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kerry Tiller Ric & forum, My last year on the forum has been great. Lot of fun and more than a little educational. I am often humbled by the august company I am allowed to keep. Thanks for letting me hobnob with all of you. This is not a permanent farewell, I am retiring from the navy and moving back to the States after many years in Asia. The movers should be here in a couple hours and it is time to pull the plug on my trusty "MAC". I'm going back to Tucson, Arizona where I can pursue my first love; historic research, without the language barrier problem. I expect to be settled into a new place there sometime in June and will look you all up again at that time. (And, Ric, I'll get around to renewing my TIGHAR membership as well.) Also, Ric, I'll send the appropriate command to the list server to remove me from the forum. Thanks everybody, see you in a couple months. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:44:32 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Evans Katz In re Alan Caldwell's comment: <> There is nothing IRRATIONAL about the alternate theory that they ran out of gas and went into the sea while looking for land (whether Howland,Baker, Gardner or Timbuktu). Irrespective of what is known about the Electra's prospective performance under the conditions AE faced, no one can know with any certainty precisely how much fuel remained at the time of her last transmission. We can certainly make informed estimates based upon fuel analysis and what impact external factors (such as headwinds, etc.) may have had, but it is all speculation. That she stated that she was "low on gas" an hour before her last transmission is a fact. Whether she meant that she was just into her reserves or running on fumes is anyone's guess. My point is that it is unfair to paint the alternate theory that AE splashed into the sea as "irrational." David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:46:40 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: lawyers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Evans Katz Dennis said: "Maybe our crack legal department could check that out . . . Mr. Katz the ball's in your court. :-)" Ric replied "Heck, Mr. Kennedy is a lawyer too, as are about half of all forum subscribers (or so it seems)." Yeah, but Mr. Katz is the only I remember who has admitted it in public.>> Since I have an enormous amount of respect for the legal profession, I will take Mr. McGee's remarks as a compliment. Please note, however, that not only have I never admitted to being a lawyer in public, I have never admitted any such thing in private. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer. I do, however, often employ attorneys in my profession. I am an investment banker who deals in corporate finance, structured finance and mergers & acquisitions, among other things. Although I once briefly toyed with the idea of becoming an attorney, that was in my younger days when I thought that it was a glamorous profession (probably from having watched Perry Mason on television). Many years of working closely with lawyers is an experience that has taught me otherwise. I have also discovered that investment banking is not all that glamorous either. If I have ever given anyone the impression that I am an attorney, please forgive me. On the other hand, if anyone on the forum has incorrectly inferred that I am a lawyer through no fault of mine, well that is an illustration of assuming things that are not in evidence. David Evans Katz (NOT Esq.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:59:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: In Reply to Alan Caldwell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey Alan, My message that started with, "Frankly, I don't buy your argument in the least." was in reply to Oscar Boswell's statement that the performance of the 10E is a matter of speculation or assumption rather than of fact. How the airplane was operated is a matter of speculation but the performance capability of the airplane is fact, at least in my opinion. Thus the airplane was capable of being flown to Howland and then along the LOP to Gardner. We don't know if it was flown in such a way and at such a time, weather wise, in order to complete that flight but that has nothing to do the the factual performance capability of the airplane. You need to go back and read Oscar's message in order for mine to have meaning. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:10:35 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Cam Warren Att'n A. Caldwell - It strikes me that a perfectly RATIONAL alternative theory would have AE/FN heading toward the nearest land, visually missing it, running out of gas and ditching. It's entirely possible they missed Baker, McKean AND Gardner while traveling down the 157=B0 heading, if that was their choice.. Or, alternately (as I've often said) looking for much larger, and more hospitable, Canton Island (Fred's choice), or backtracking to a KNOWN checkpoint (the Gilberts), which, I suspect, would be Amelia's choice. (And SHE was driving!). Further, she had a good airplane and good engines, but why rule out some catastrophic failure shortly after the 8:42 message? She would have had her hands full trying to get the ELECTRA onto the water in a straight and level line, with no time to explain her predicament via a faulty radio.. Ric would be happy to know this still leaves room for the crash survivors (1 or both) to paddle gaily to beautiful, exotic Nikumaroro while singing the Purdue fight song! Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric It is possible to speculate that all sorts of things might have happened, bu= t=20 a hypothesis is meaningless if it is not testable. The Gardner/Niku=20 hypothesis is testable, and that's what we're doing. The general=20 crashed-at-sea hypothesis is not testable in any practical sense, but Elgen'= s=20 specific crashed-at-sea-right-here hypothesis is. Whether that hypothesis i= s=20 rational or not is another question.=20 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:36:01 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > My point is that it is unfair to paint the alternate > theory that AE splashed into the sea as "irrational." You are certainly correct, David. I was not clear in my note. I was only referring to those who would have her run out of gas before arriving at Howland or only an hour later. I haven't read a rational explanation for either occurring. That she may have eventually run out of gas is indisputable. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:37:14 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: In Reply to Alan Caldwell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell to Dick Pingrey > You need to go back and > read Oscar's message in order for mine to have meaning. Dick, I realized that right after sending my email when I ran across your second note. Sorry about that. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:30:14 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Prior to the Lae-Howland leg of the world flight, do we know what was the longest time the plane was in the air? This all goes back to a question I had long ago on information we have which confirms, in the real world/Earhart at the controls, the Kelly performance curve computations of the performance of the Electra. I believe "Wombat" computed that fuel usage per hour was working out fairly close to the Kelly calculations, at least on the trip legs where this could be reliably calculated from surviving data. I think part of the concern, here, is that, even assuming the Kelly calculations are accurate, you are still getting fairly close to the 24 hour in the air estimate even if you assume no problems, and a flight from Lae to Howland and then southeast to Gardner----What do you have remaining even assuming everything went according to the calculations, about an hour or two of fuel after an arrival at Gardner? I understand that the calculations are silent beyond that point. So, this makes the accuracy of the Kelly calculations up to 24 hours aloft, and whether Earhart was able to follow them (either through her own ability or because of external factors beyond her control) all the more critical. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric The world flight had had two roughly 13 hour legs - across the South Atlantic and from Assab up to Karachi. Neither Wombat nor anyone else has sufficient fuel data about those legs to determine anything about performance. Of course, we have extensive information about the Oakland/Hawaii leg of the first attempt and it has been beaten to death. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:53:36 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: How many TIGHARS does it take to calculate the winds aloft? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Oscar Boswell There have been at least three recent postings stating that once groundspeed is known "a headwind computation is simple math." Since I must have missed that day in flight school, I propose a contest, with a $100 prize (which I shall pay) to the forum member who correctly calculates the wind component in the following case: The airplane is the HYPO-2, which is painted red and white, and has the following performance at cruising altitude: 175 mph at 15 gph 170 mph at 12.5 gph 160 mph at 10 gph 150 mph at 8 gph 140 mph at 7 gph The HYPO-2 is at cruising altitude at 0000 hours over Point A, with 70 gallons of usable fuel on board. At 0500 hours (5 hours later) it is at cruising altitude over Point B. There has been no climb, descent or deviation en route. Point A is 750 miles from Point B. What are the winds aloft? Oscar Boswell **************************************************************************** From Ric I think your hundred bucks is pretty safe but I don't see the relevance to the question at hand. In Earhart's case we know that she had power/fuel recommendations that called for a constant airspeed. Given a known airspeed, a known distance, and a known elapsed time - the average wind is, indeed, simple arithmetic. Of course, any such calculation relies upon several assumptions: - that she followed the recommendations - that she stayed pretty much on course - that her apparent close approach to her intended diestination is not an illusion. If any of those assumptions is not valid, all bets are off. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:19:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From David Evans Katz For Alan Caldwell: Actually, Alan, I don't think it's irrational to pose=20 the prospect that AE may have run out of gas within a=20 short time of her last broadcast. the reason is that we=20 do not know how she managed her fuel or what external=20 factors may have impacted her fuel consumption,=20 irrespective of the plane's capabilities. Ric does point out, however, the inherent difficulty of=20 testing such a hypothesis. While certainly difficult,=20 apparently Elgen Long and Nauticos is, in fact,=20 endeavoring to test the hypothesis. Whther they are=20 succesful remains to be seen. The same is, of course,=20 true for testing TIGHAR's hypothesis. **************************************************************************** From Ric Which was her "last broadcast"? The one heard by Itasca at 20:13 GMT (08:43= =20 Itasca time) on July 2nd -"We are on the line 157 337...." Or the one at 05:30 GMT on July 3rd (17:00 Itasca time on July 2nd) - =E2= =80=9CWe=20 hear her on 3105 Kcs now, very weak and unreadable/fone.=E2=80=9D Or the one heard by the guys on Baker at 06:50 GMT on July 3rd (21:20 Itasca= =20 time on July 2nd) - =E2=80=9CBaker heard Earhart plane strength 4 R7 ('good=20= strong=20 signals')..." All of the above are from the Itasca radio log. Which do you want to throw=20 out, and why? Let's be clear that the hypotheisis that Nauticos is testing is NOT that she= =20 ran out of gas shortly after her 20:13 transmission. They are testing the=20 hypothesis that she ran out of gas at that moment AND that it is possible to= =20 know almost precisely where she was at that moment. I'd rather look on Niku. =20 LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:27:57 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: To ditch or not to ditch MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann Alan said: ...'What they did then IS speculation but we want to think we're making educated guesses. Considering there were no airfields then to use as an alternate we're left with ditching or landing on some land somewhere. Of those choices ditching just doesn't sound like a reasonable choice. (Anyone with a good reason to pick ditching?) If they decide to find land why would they not opt for the closest land? (Anyone?) The Phoenix group was the closest AND FN would have an easier and more precise navigation problem as the sun would give him course lines. Going back to the Gilberts was a much longer flight and the sun would only give FN speed lines. I don't think going in the direction of the Marshalls was an option. Too far and Japanese controlled. Even without any evidence, however weak or strong found on Niku, the Phoenix Islands still make the best sense.'... ********************************************** While I can't fault Alan's logic in the choice of the Phoenix Islands as AE/FN's alternate landfall, after they finally decided that they aren't going to find Howland or Baker, I would point out that there also had to be several large question marks in their minds about such an alternate choice: 1- While they (FN more than likely) no doubt knew that the Phoenix Chain was at best, sparsely populated, with no readily available fresh water sources, far removed from any shipping lanes, with no way of knowing for sure whether the reefs or beaches surrounding any of these islands would support a wheels-down landing of the Electra, they would also have to face the fact they were very ill prepared for any extended stay (beyond a week or ten days at most) on any island that was _not_ populated & had no fresh water supply. 2- Without having established any reliable two-way radio communication with Itasca, (while still in the vicinity of Howland) their only (known to them at that time) source of rescue would now be over 300 miles to the NW, with no knowledge (since none of the transmissions received from AE/FN by Itasca contained any clue as to their intentions, if they were unable to find their Howland landfall) of the fact that AE/FN had decided to opt for their alternate landfall in the Phoenix Chain, would certainly make their chances for being rescued rather bleak. (Unless of course, they could count upon Capt. Thompson to be as perceptive as we are, in anticipating that the Phoenix Chain was the _only_ logical choice AE/FN would make in establishing alternate landfall.) Ditching would obviously seem to be the least desirable method of terminating the flight, unless (like Rickenbacker's flight) they exhausted all their fuel supply in what was proving to be a futile effort to locate Howland Island. First of all, I don't believe _any_ ocean ditching is without significant risk (we only have records of the ones that succeeded, not the ones that failed) & even if successful & they survived in their rubber raft, Itasca still would have had no idea exactly where they splashed (no SOS transmission ever received) & the possibility of finding them (without some type of radio signal or beacon to locate them) was minimal to nil, given the vastness of the Central Pacific Ocean. (Even in Rickenbacker's case, with that part of the Pacific much more traveled in the 1940's than 1937, it took the Navy almost a month to finally locate & rescue Eddie & his crew, with a great deal of luck.) As has been suggested before, it is almost impossble for us to fully investigate &/or anticipate the mental processes of two people in the positions of AE & FN, given _all_ the circumstances & dire conseqences they were momentarily confronted with. Desperate people, in desperate circumstances, no matter how well trained or informed, do not _always_ have/take the time to mentally evaluate or even consider _all_ the options that may seem to so readily obvious to ourselves (after many years of research, study & contemplation) some 60+ years after the fact. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll say one more time that I don't think there was ever a conscious decision to abandon the search for Howland and proceed to an alternate, and I know of no evidence to suggest that AE and FN had the foggiest notion of whether anyone lived on any of those islands to the southeast. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:43:18 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Message sequence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey To Alan Caldwell, It appears that our computers have the same problem. The top of the e-mail message list is the most recent and the bottom of the list contains the older (earlier) messages. I often read the reply before I get to the original question. I guess we need to start reading our e-mail from the bottom of the list first. I suspect many members of the Forum have the same problem. Regardless of all this, I still find your April 5th message to be the best response to the wild speculations by some and run out of gas believers. I really hope they will all think about the logic of what you stated. And, yes, we have been over all this time and time again. It is probably time to move on. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:44:56 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Airplane don't make flights, people make flights MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Oscar Boswell > >From Dick Pingrey > > > My message that started with, "Frankly, I don't buy your argument in > the least." was in reply to Oscar Boswell's statement that the performance of > the 10E is a matter of speculation or assumption rather than of fact. How > the airplane was operated is a matter of speculation but the performance > capability of the airplane is fact, at least in my opinion. > I suppose (though doubts are creeping in) that Dick's inability to understand the point is my fault. The point is: there is no "performance capability" of the airplane to make a flight IN THE ABSTRACT divorced from winds, cruising speeds and techniques, fuel on board, course, etc. Dick is the one who started this whole discussion (which I have tried to end numerous times) by insisting that we COULD NOT KNOW how the plane was flown (ie, at what speeds, etc.) or what the winds were. Dick called assumptions(with which he didn't agree) about such things "speculation". Dick's assumptions (which I take to be that the KJ settings were used and that headwinds were 15 mph or less) are certainly reasonable, and I share them (most days) - but if we cannot know (as DICK INSISTED) they are nothing other than speculation (albeit informed speculation), and not "facts." Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:52:35 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: LOGICAL FLIGHT PLANNING MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bob Sherman >Does anyone think AE and FN were so stupid and incompetent that at the half >way point they would have pressed on instead of turning back in the face of a >suicidal mission? *** I submit that the record, well before AE and well after, is full of high risk flights made by those wanting to what no one had done before. Amazingly, some were successful, but many more were not. I doubt very much that there is any amongst us that would even dream of duplicating AE's flight with the same equipment, knowledge of it, and conditions. They were not stupid but there is certainly an argument on compentency with equipment and coordination with those intending to be of help along the way. Most record setters are risk takers and their 'logic' differs a bit from ours. RC 942 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:55:19 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: What is the Relevance of the Headwind Contest? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Oscar Boswell > >From Ric > > I think your hundred bucks is pretty safe but I don't see the relevance to > the question at hand. In Earhart's case we know that she had power/fuel > recommendations that called for a constant airspeed. Given a known airspeed, > a known distance, and a known elapsed time - the average wind is, indeed, > simple arithmetic. > > Of course, any such calculation relies upon several assumptions: > - that she followed the recommendations > - that she stayed pretty much on course > - that her apparent close approach to her intended diestination is not an > illusion. > > If any of those assumptions is not valid, all bets are off. > > LTM, > Ric Ric: Yes of course - but you rather spoiled the fun! And of course, I think (hope) this has a serious side too - there is no harm in encouraging a little more thinking prior to talking. And that is the relevance of the contest to the discussion, because you can't have one rule of logic for "relevant" discussions, and another rule of (il)logic (or partial logic) for those deemed "irrelevant" - not if you expect to think clearly. And perhaps the Socratic method makes the non sequitur a little easier to see. There are a lot of people on the forum who don't realize that all our information has many limitations, that we all speculate (and more power to us!) and that tiresomely repeating that someone else's assumptions are irrational is not the way either to make friends or learn anything from others. Given your assumptions about wind and TAS, you are correct. But other assumptions are possible. If the winds averaged 10 mph more than you estimate and if the 10E POH gave the (bad) headwind advice that E.Long says it did, and if AE (or FN) read the POH and tried the technique of increasing TAS from 150 to 160.5 they would have been in even more trouble than Mr. Long thinks. The 10E cruise chart shows that at 1000 feet and normal gross, the 200 hp cruise of the 10E is 151 and it takes 250 hp to hold 162. That is a 25% increase in fuel consumption (not 8 1/2%) - and a 25% increase in fuel consumption means, of course, that endurance would be reduced by 20% - from an anticipated 24 hours + to perhaps 19+15. Take our estimate with the usual grain of salt, and assume that the increased power/speed technique was not applied in the first few hours, and you might very well get fuel exhaustion around 20+15, without any other factors.(And the groundspeed would be the same as your estimate, since both speed and headwinds were 10-11 mph higher.) That's why I would like to see the POH. Presumably AE had access to it (though it's speculative to think she read it) - what did it say about the subject of headwinds, and could that have affected the outcome? According to some recent postings, a blowup of the relevant page of the POH was exhibited at Long et al's recent conference. I certainly wish we had a copy. This is not (to me) an argument about where they ended up. It doesn't matter to me where they ended up. What does matter to me that we think as clearly as possible and get as close as we can to the truth of the matter with regard to anything involved in the discussion. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:05:54 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: To Ditch or not to Ditch MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Rick Seapin Hello Ric/Forum: Ric said, "I don't think there was ever a conscious decision to abandon the search for Howland" Since there is no evidence a plan "B" was ever in effect are we to assume they BLUNDERED onto Niku? Forget that Putnam and several other people in the know mentioned Gardner as a likely place for the duo to land. *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess this is just a really, really difficult concept for many people to grasp. Let me try one more time. - they reach the advanced LOP and can not see Howland. Damn! - they believe that Howland is somewhere on the advanced LOP but, without help from DF, they have no way of knowing for sure which way to turn - left to 337 or right to 157. - they DO know, however, that by running southeastward (157) on the line they stand the best chance of reaching land. They hope it will be Howland but, if it turns out that they're already southeast of Howland, at least it will be land of some kind. - at no point, until very late in the game, do they know that the land that they hope will appear ahead will not be Howland and at no point do they stop looking for Howland to look for some other island. - they don't "blunder" into Gardner. They're merely following a course of action that stands the best chance of getting them to an island. They know it could be Gardner but theyr'e hoping for Howland. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:49:21 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Shoe Fetish Part 2 now up MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric Part 2 of the "Shoe Fetish" Research Bulletin is now up at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/04_05_01%20Bulletin/04_05_01b ull.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:52:45 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Bones on the beach MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric You never know what you're going to find among the stuff we already have. As Pat was slogging through Randy Jacobson's voluminous contributions to the 8th Edition, editing and adding photos and maps, etc. she came across the description of a visit Itasca paid to Hull Island in November of 1937. The following passage is from the Cruise Report written by the Dept. of Interior representative aboard Itasca: "Mr. Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City on Gardner Island. She struck in 1919, and the Makoa saw her recently and stated there was much good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men lost in the wreck, drowned or killed by sharks (he said) were buried ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach. The survivors were taken off the island. "Mr. Jones" is John William Jones, the Burns Philp overseer on Hull. "Makoa" is Jonesy's boat which was wrecked upon his arrival on Hull in May of 1937, so anything she "saw" (note that Jones does not say that he personally saw all this) must have been prior to that date. He has the name of the Norwich City correct, adding further credence to the notion that her name was still visible, but he has the wreck date and the number of casualties wrong. NC went aground in 1929 with the loss of eleven men. Only three washed up and were buried, leaving eight unaccounted for. Whoever saw the bones scattered on the beach apparently did not bury or re-bury them because Jones says that "their skeletons now lie on the beach." Any bones "Makoa" saw at Gardner prior to May 1937 can not have been Noonan's or Earhart's, and are certainly most logically those of Norwich City victims. If there were more than the remains of the three who were buried they must be the bodies of men who drowned and later floated up and were washed ashore - not hard to believe. It is, however, hard to believe that there were wild pigs on the island that somehow escaped the notice of everybody who came later. We now have, from the archive in Tarawa, a list of supplies Arundel brought to the island to support his workers in 1892 and there ain't no pigs. This account in the Itasca Cruise Report provides important corroboration of Emily's recollections about numerous bones being found near the shipwreck. It does not, of course, establish the accuracy of her account of other bones being found that were associated with the airplane wreckage she says was there, but it's nice to see that this part of her story is true. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:01:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Cam Warren Ric, referring to "the last message" you stated: " . . . . the one at 05:30 GMT on July 3rd (17:00 Itasca time on July 2nd) - 'We hear her on 3105 Kcs now, very weak and unreadable/fone.'? Or the one heard by the guys on Baker at 06:50 GMT on July 3rd (21:20 Itasca time on July 2nd) - 'Baker heard Earhart plane strength 4 R7 ('good strong signals')...' All of the above are from the Itasca radio log." Fair enough, if accurate, and rather startling news to surface at this late date! However, I don't find the references in the ITASCA logs (1 or 2) nor in the Howland log, nor in Thompson's report. . Please advise . . . . Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric The discovery of these messages (although they've always been there) was a direct result of my analysis of all alleged post-loss messages which was, in turn, prompted by the discovery of Betty's notebook. Both messages are in the "smoothed" Itasca logs in the National Archives and are from later in the day than Bellart's raw copy, which ends at 10:39 Itasca time, and O'Hare's smoothed copy ends at 10:53. Thompson's report doesn't mention it at all. There is, of course, more to the story and it's not as simple or conclusive as it might at first seem. Here's a plain Engish version of the entire sequence of messages that began at 17:00 Itasca time the evening of July 2nd. "We hear her on 3105 now. Very weak and unreadable phone." "Calling her on 3105 phone. VTY (?) bad. 'If you hear us please give us series of long dashes. Go ahead please.' Sent her long call on 7500 Kcs and said, 'Give us your position. Go ahead please.' " "Gave her long call on key 3105 and asked for same." "Signals on and off. Think it is plane ?? Unreadable." "Word 'Earhart' mentioned." "Calling her on phone and key." "He answers us now." "Still distorted and unreadable. Back at him on key now." "Guess it isn't her now." They go back and forth for a while and the operator eventually decides "Phone signals definitely not Earhart." Was he right or did he end up exchanging signals with someone else who heard the same initial call he did? HMS Achilles, steaming northward several hundred miles east of the Phoenix Group. later reports hearing the following during this same time period: "At 0600 on July 3 GMT a phone transmitter with harsh note was heard to say, ' Please give us a few dashes if you get us. A second transmitter was then heard to make dashes with note musical strength good. First transmitter was then heard to make KHAQQ twice before fading out. The evidence exists that either (one or the other)transmitter was the airplane itself. Wave frequecy was 3105 Kcs. Commanding Officer HMS Achilles." It seems quite apparent that Achilles overheard the exchange between Itasca and the "mystery station" that the Itasca operator at first was sure was Earhart. Did the Achilles operator send the signals that later caused him to change his mind? Who was the third station? The report that the Dept. of Interior hams on Baker "heard Earhart plane strength 4 R7 ('good strong signals')" later that night is much more straightforward. It's in the smoothed Itasca radio log, entry for 22:16 Itasca time on July 4th. Here's the entire exchange: "K6GNW (ham operator on Howland) this is Itasca. ...Do you hear anyone on 3105 now?" "Itasca this is K6GNW. Yes, at 22:46 (which would be 21:46 aboard Itasca. In other words, a half hour ago) heard Earhart call Itasca and Baker heard Earhart plane Strength 4 Readability 7 last night at 8:20 p.m." Yes, these messages are "rather startling." Almost as startling as the fact that it has taken this long for somebody to pay attention them. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:31:08 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Navy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bill Carter Ric - This topic may have been covered before so let me know if I'm beating a dead horse. How comfortable are you with the accuracy/completeness of the Itasca logs? I wouldn't think that the Navy would be particularly cooperative with anyone who is attempting to show AE made landfall - especially on an island that the Navy conducted a so called "searched" of. I think it would be more accurate to say the Navy flew over, didn't see anything and left. TIGHAR'S well reasoned hypothesis, if true, would suggest that the Navy dropped the ball. LTM Bill Carter #2313 ************************************************************************** From Ric Remember that the logs are Coast Guard, not Navy. I'm very comfortable with Bellart's original log - less so with O'Hare's smoothed log - and I'm not at all comfortable with Thompson's "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight." After the search failed there was an understandable, but most regretable, effort to build a case that the flight went down at sea and the searchers, therefore, never had a chance of finding it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:39:14 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: estimating shoe size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dan Brown Ric, How does AE's shoe size estimated from her handprint http://www.americaslibrary.gov/pages/aa_earhart_last_2_e.html compare to the estimate based on her height? Dan Brown *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a really interesting handprint, but with no scale it's not very useful. If the original is available, (which I assume it is, somewhere) it might be interesting to see if there are some standard correlation's between hand and foot size and height. I see that it was taken by a "palmist". AE was into a lot of that garbage. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:43:11 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Message sequence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > I really hope they will all think about the logic of what you stated. And, > yes, we have been over all this time and time again. It is probably time to > move on. Dick, I think part of the problem is lack of flying experience for some. It's easy to understand what we might think of as logical choices when those kind of situations have either been faced or at least planned for a hundred times. Maybe AE was not as logical as we would like her to be and she elected to do something we might think of as illogical. That's certainly a possibility but there is no evidence that occurred. There IS some evidence for Niku however supportable it might be. Of all the possibilities I think I would go with searching Niku rather than some totally unknown place. The latter would not be feasible. Should there be a determination that AE could not have gone to Niku where would one search next and based on what evidence? It seems to me there is an effort by a few to oppose the Niku theory with no basis to do so. It may prove wrong but what evidence leads somewhere else? I don't know where they went but if someone can present a reason to look elsewhere that would be fine but I know of no such reason. I think most folks believe gas over Howland was not a luxury. AE said it was low. Most of our attempts at refiguring the fuel indicate they weren't fat on gas. I don't know how much gas they had at the time of the last message but I think they had enough to get to Niku but not anywhere else. Most seem to think they didn't even have that much. Yet there are periodic suggestions they might have gone to some island where there were inhabitants, nearby shipping lanes and food and water. I don't know where that would be. Good idea though. An