========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:37:38 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: bloodhounds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Margot Still > "...bloodhounds are used to chase after escaped criminals) is that > they are somewhat dull-witted creatures, often, easily over-excited... > misled by false leads & generally overly engrossed in that patch of real > estate directly under their own nose." Tell that to all the children and people they have helped to rescue. I hope you will remember that when you are out there lost in the wilderness or kidnapped. I have just returned from Ground Zero with my SAR Labrador after sixteen days and can tell you I saw Bloodhounds who were anything BUT misled. Sorry to be off topic but you hit a NERVE pal. LTM, (who loves and respects SAR dogs) Margot Still, #2332 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:41:29 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ric's expedition summary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Joe W3HNK Dear Rick Welcome back to the Tri-State area safe & sound! I have been bothered by two questions that Im quite sure you and no one else can possibly tell me.....but here goes 1. If AE landed on Gardner, what could have become of those giant engines?? Even if one went to Canton where is the 2nd one. 2. This bothers me the most.....if she was transmitting on her radio the things Ive read in Bettys book, why did she not once mention that she was on Gardner Island? Or on a reef etc........doesnt make any sense....... Joe W3HNK **************************************************************************** From Ric 1. Those "giant engines" are tiny compared to the tons of Norwich City debris that have disappeared over the years. 2. How do you know that Earhart never mentioned that she was on Gardner? We have no idea what fraction of the post-loss messages were ever heard or reported. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:51:43 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Broken clamshells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Hue Miller Assuming some castaway did live for some while on clams, along with possibly other foods- how would such person find water? Of course, water would be the first necessity. Also- i suggest that that residues of sea salt in the clam meat would possibly increase thirst. I am just trying to understand how a castaway could have any viable survival system, even for a short term, without solving the water problem. Hue Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric Without question, no castaway could survive on that island without solving the water problem. Barring supplies from the Norwich City provisions cache, the only source of drinking water available to a castaway, as far as I know, would be rain. Normally, rain showers are not infrequent on Nikumaroro. Rainwater (often termed "catchment" water) is still the primary source of drinking water on many Pacific atolls. The main problem for a castaway, seems to me, would be finding things to catch the rainwater in. A bunch of clam shell halves laid out on the ground would help. Good reason to figure out a way to get them open without smashing them. A turtle shell would also make a good mini-cistern. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:53:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: "P" on .22 casing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Troy How about shooting crabs??? ************************************************************************** From Ric You better have a lot of ammo. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:01:20 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Bones MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Muenich I am interested in what hasn't been reported about the excursion to the islands, at least that I have seen. Did Ms. Burns find anything with the UV scan that I thought was to be performed the last several nights of the expedition? *************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. Should have mentioned that. Yes, Dr. Burns UV scanned all of the screened material from the suspected skull hole. She found no human bones or teeth. A disappointment to be sure, but it was always a long shot that teeth may have remained in the hole when Gallagher dug up the skull. The hole itself did exhibit the characteristics one might expect from a re-excavated burial and it's still not certain that we ever actually reached the bottom of the original hole. The excavation was secured prior to our departure and could be resumed at a future time. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:07:23 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Andrew McKenna I am still catching up on my email, but thought I'd comment on the alternate plans discussion << From Ron Bright Pingrey asserts that it would be logical for AE to have an alternate landfall if she missed Howland. I don't think anyone disagrees, but the only alternate landfall that has surfaced attributed to AE is in the Vidal interview .Vidal recalled she once mentioned reversing course to the Gilberts. [Not really much further than Niku.] No other alternate plan discovered by those at Lae, and those planning the flight or friends or relatives, that may have been aware of her plan "B". >> Capt Carrington in his book says that Paul Mantz told him that AE and FN considered the Phoenix Islands as a potential alternate destination should they not find Howland durning their planning for the first East to West attempt from Hawaii. Considering the source (I've had a most bizzare conversation with Carrington), I'd put this in the anectdote category, but as we have seen in the past, anectdotes can be the smoke that leads us to the fire. It would be nice if we could verify this through Mantz directly. For the Fuel experts, how much endurance would AE have had arriving in the vicinity of Howland from Hawaii, and would the Phoenix islands have been a reasonable Alternate? How about the Gilberts? Have we been over this before? LTM (who is still jet lagged and hoping the smell of Naia Diesel will soon fade from her clothes - funny, I didn't notice it on the boat.....) Andrew McKenna **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we've been over it ad nauseum. Bottom line: Depending upon what theory you want to support, you can easily give the airplane plenty of fuel reach Gardner or, by postulating a variety of speculative but possible scenarios, make it run out of gas pretty much anywhere you need it to. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:40:47 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Alternate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Claude Stokes I believe the key to an alternate for AE is known as compass heading. You dont just point the airplane at the empty ocean. AE was very much a compass heading person and spent her life following that needle. That leaves only 3 alternates as far as I can see. Baker island, The Gilberts group, The Phenoix group, take your pick and judge the fuel. One thing Im sure she didnt do is wander around aimlessly in mid pacific and burn up all the fuel and ditch in the water. That makes no sense at all. We know for a fact that AE was very much fixed on a compass heading after reaching Howland. 157/337 happy landings,,the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:45:50 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: bloodhounds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, Based on personal observation, bloodhounds do one thing, and they do it EXCEEDINGLY well. They track. They will track until it kills them, if they are on the scent. It takes about ten minutes (if that) to teach a bloodhound to track. Anybody who doubts the ability of a bloodhound should revisit the Allie Boralis (sp) case from here in Colorado. The hound (Yogi) tracked the victim, who was being carried in a car, for miles. When the handler finally called off the track it was because the dog was exhausted, not because he was off the scent. The only reason Yogi didn't find Allie is because having given the search the correct venue, human searchers found her before the dog could be redeployed the next morning. Yogi was within about a mile and a half of the body dump site when he was pulled. Our department's hound (Columbo) tracked a burglar just last week, resulting in the clearance of several burglaries, and the recovery of two stolen firearms. Bloodhounds work. ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric ...and I stand by my original analogy. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:50:02 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From John Rayfield << It would be nice if we could verify this through Mantz directly. >> I can't remember.....immediately after the 'disappearance', did Mantz indicate in any way, any particular area in which HE thought the search parties should concentrate the search? John Rayfield, Jr. **************************************************************************** From Ric Mantz and Putnam were both of the opinion that Earhart and Noonan very likley made it to an island, probably in the Phoenix Group. Mantz tried his darndest to get his hands on the Coast Guard radio transcripts report (see the Morgenthau transcript) and Putnam endorsed fund-raising efforts to mount a private expedition to search the islands. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:54:26 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: radial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Angus Murray Ric, Seeing as Bruce is less than forthcoming in answering my questions on the nature of the island where he found the nine cylinder radial, perhaps you can answer at least a couple? 1) Was the island in question luxuriant with vegetation like Niku? 2) What was the approximate flight time home? 3 How far was the engine from the shore? 4 Why was (Don?) fairly sure the island wasn't Niku apart from the limited helicopter range? Regards Angus Murray *************************************************************************** From Ric 1. I don't recall that he had a specific recollection about the vegetation. He did seem to remember that the island had a lagoon. 2. He only remembered that it was far enough out to require that two helicopters be on the mission. 3. As I recall, he said it was about 50 feet from shore in thigh-deep water. 4. You'll have to ask Don. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:47:55 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Broken clamshells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Another interesting water-related thing about the Seven Site is that today it's on the edge of buka (Pisonia grandis) forest, and in 1937 it may have been IN the forest, at least in part. Buka trees have convoluted trun-root systems that create a lot of cavities that hold water after a rain. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:54:18 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: bloodhounds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I should have said before, "Welcome home, to you and to all the team. Congratulations to all on a great trip." Most of us would have given our eye teeth to be able to go. Pat did a great job keeping us up to speed, and in line. Now we wait with baited breath for the eye candy to be posted. Does this mean you don't own a fedora? ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure about the fedora reference (Indiana Jones?) but in my continuing effort to provide entertainment and amusement for the forum and the TIGHAR membership I did sport a British 19th century style cork helmet for much of the expedition. Funny hats are the uniform of the day on Niku but this one also actually proved to be very practical. Film at 11. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:59:07 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Radial Engine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bruce Yoho <> Mr. Murray, I did not appreciate your remark as "being less forthcoming." I will tell you as with many Tighars I am just a few funds short since joining Tighar, expanding those funds to help prove this issue. I do not ever remember being asked any questions by you, nor have I ever failed to answer any questions asked to the best of my ability. Now if you really need some questions answered, get off of a couple hundered dollars, and I bet Ric would send you a tape of the interview they did of me and all those questions are answered in it, along with pictures I took when on those islands. I still have never had my original movie returned to me. Bruce *************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! Bruce! You never got your original 8mm home movies back? As far as I know we never had them. All we ever had was the VHS tape made of them showing on a movie screen which, I thought, was done right at your house. Am I wrong? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:00:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Haddock Hi Ric, Is the Mantz I hear talked about so much Paul Mantz formerly partners with Frank Tallman of Tallmantz Aviation? They were a FBO here at John Wayne Airport. I thought they were both deceased. I thought Paul Mantz was killed while filming "Flight of the Phoenix". Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric Same guy. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:04:34 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Broken clamshells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt Don't forget the "little corks on chains" found with the castaway and the suggestion at the time that they could have been from casks. That suggests there may have been water casks in the survivor's camp cache. Did the expedition happen to have a close look at the site of the Norwich City survivor's camp? The inner part of the lagoon entrance being examined seems to be only a couple of hundred yards from the camp location (through the lagoon entrance and just along the lagoon shore to the left). Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Do you know where the NC survivor camp was located? I don't, except that it was somewhere along the Nutiran shore a little bit back in the bush. That covers an awful lot of real estate. We've certainly done a lot of exploration in that area and have never seen anything that suggested such a cache, but that's hardly surprising given the extensive later activity throughout that area. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:06:14 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: radial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Jordan To: Angus Murray I don't think it fair of you to say that Bruce has been less than forthcoming about the engine. If you've been on the forum for a few years, as many of us have, you'll soon figure out that the subjects discussed run in cycles. The story of Bruce's engine has been discussed in detail on many occasions! There is a private (more or less) research project going on for the engine as we speak (type, that is). Not everybody is going to be told everything about a subject every time the cycle gets around to discussing it again. People get tired of rehashing the same old material, over and over again. Readers are expected to research the archives on the TIGHAR web site, and then ask questions without inferring that someone is being "less than forthcoming." All to often, this forum can turn nasty in a heart beat! I'd be happy to discuss the matter with you in private, if you want to contact me by private e-mail. Kenton Spading and I, as well as a few others, are currently working on the engine project, and I think Kenton has prepared a great summary to be placed on the forum at some point in the future. I told the forum in the past why I was fairly sure the engine didn't come from Niku. But remember, it is only my opinion. I'll go over it again for the forum if there is enough interest, otherwise we can communicate by private e-mail. I can be contacted on my private web page at : http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan Don Jordan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:08:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Lawrence Talbot From old 1937 newspapers I have read, Putnam, Mantz, and Admiral Byrd, named Gardner Island as the probable place of landing. Lawrence Talbot *************************************************************************** From Ric That's very interesting. I don't think that I have ever seen anything that specific. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:48:54 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: bloodhounds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bill Carter Ric - You should also let your Forum readers know that while the cork hat proved quite practical, your humble expedition team members affectionately nick-named you Colonel Boobie. Many a laugh was had at your expense over the hat most of which occurred when you weren't looking. I don't know who started the nick name but I can give you one guess. Bill Carter #2313CE *************************************************************************** From Ric Sure beats the nicknames I usually get on expeditions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:49:48 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Baited breath? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike E. #2194: At the risk of being petty and trivial I would like to point out something of grammatical import: >Now we wait with baited breath for the eye candy to be posted. PEE-YEW! BAITED breath? Been eating sushi? Or worse yet, worms? The correct phrase is "BATED breath." Big difference. Look it up. LTM (who always uses mouthwash) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:53:37 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: More fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Craig, Congratulations on another great expedition. I've got a question, and please forgive me if it's been asked 1000's of times - I haven't been able to find any reference of it. Do we have any indication as to how accurate the fuel guage(s) on EA's plane were? After running out of gas in my car recently, it got me wondering about the level of knowledge that AE would have about her own fuel guage. You know, when you're running near empty, you always ask youself, "I wonder how much fuel I REALLY have left." Does "E" mean completely empty, or do I still have some left. Since most of us never actually run out of fuel, we have no concept of how accurate the guages actually are. Could AE have experieced the same thing? Certainly running out of gas in an airplane is not something one would like to have a lot of experience with, but can anyone envision AE was staring at the guages, watching the needle drop to "E", and not knowing EXACTLY how much was left? Saying nothing about the repercussions of this, does anyone have any thoughts, or know how the fuel was measured? With the additional fuel tanks aboard? Thanks, Craig *************************************************************************** From Ric It has been said before but it's worth saying again. Pilots don't rely on fuel guages. Guages are merely approximate indications of the fuel consumption that is meticulously calculated based upon the machine's known performance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:54:35 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dean A. # 2056 > From old 1937 newspapers I have read, Putnam, Mantz, and Admiral Byrd, named > Gardner Island as the probable place of landing. Lawrence Talbot > I would be interested in knowing the exact reference you speak of . ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:02:52 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Radial Engine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Angus Murrray Dear Bruce, My remark about you being "less than forthcoming" was not intended to convey anything other than that my questions on the topic had not been answered. I seem to remember that the archaeologist commented that he hoped you would give a detailed account. Had you responded that you had already done so or explained the reason you were reluctant to do so, then I would not have referred to the lack of an answer. As it is I can understand your reticence if you feel somewhat short changed but it was not a situation I was aware of. My interest arises because I think the engine is possibly the most significant discovery to date. A number of the Phoenix islands are so different from Niku that getting a good description of the island would immediately eliminate some islands and lead us closer to our goal. Although the circumstantial evidence for Niku is extremely good, it by no means precludes a different crash site, something we should keep well in mind and not miss the wood for one particular tree. Whilst I appreciate you may have answered those questions before, I hope that in future if I or anyone else ask a question which has already been answered, we can be pointed in the right direction rather than leaving the question hanging. Presumably you missed my post but it certainly occurred as I remember several comments on it from other people. My intention was certainly not to cause any offence and if I did, I apologise. I merely wanted to get some answers. Regards Angus Murray ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:12:02 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Baited breath? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Troy re: Mike's email It is amazing the little things I learn on this forum. Bated vs. baited. I always thought it was baited..... Hmmmm. And I thought this forum was only about AE/FN..... LTM (and 73's to Mike from N4MJO) --troy-- Tighar#something *************************************************************************** From Big Stretch bated adj 1: held back; "we watched the daring feats of the acrobats with bated breath" 2: diminished or moderated; "our bated enthusiasm"; "his bated hopes" *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt Of course a number of us have been guilty on this forum of "pouring" over a map too... There are some fun typos when TIGHARS are tired.. Oops.. forgot the fuel "guages" too... Maybe we could start an english class.... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Most of the stuff we deal with is so fuzzy that when an oportunity to give a definite answer to ANYTHING arises, we all jump on it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:13:40 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From don Neumann In her book ...'Last Flight'... AE observed, at their last stop (Fortaleza) before making the South Atlantic 'hop' to the African coast... ...'With the plane the only specific job to be done, so far appeared, was curing one small leak where a fuel gauge let flow a few drops of gasoline, though from a harmless source'... She also mentioned at Karachi, while describing the instrumentation in the Electra's cockpit... ...'On long flights there is always a tidy bit of bookkeeping to do, for one should know exactly how much fuel has been used & how much remains'... ...Which would at least seem to _suggest_ that AE also kept some type of a cummulative, written record of fuel consumption during the flight... _probably_ consisting of periodic observations of speed/altitude changes or variations, wind & weather variations, number of hours aloft & distance traveled... any shortcomings in engine performance... & last but not least... notations as to the sequence of fuel usage from _each_ fuel tank, in order to keep the aircraft in trim & anticipating the need to 'switch' from one tank to another during the flight. She also observed, while flying along the South American coast... ...'Strong headwinds again cut the speed to an average of 148 miles, which included dodging squalls & flying low...'I cannot make fast time at low altitude, other conditions being the same, for it is too hard on the engines to open throttles wide when near the ground'... ...providing _some_ indication of the type of problems to be considered in maintaining proper fuel management for the duration of a long distance flight. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:14:42 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: radial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Andy <<>> Don, Was this mostly based on the pilot's statement/belief that there was no shipwreck present on Gardner? LTM, Andy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:15:25 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Baited breath? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Gene Dangelo Hi, all! In fact, the ACTUAL term is "abated breath," but it was, over generations, contrracted to" 'bated breath." Right now, I guess it's more of a DEbated breath, huh? Best wishes, Dr. Gene Dangelo, #2211 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:16:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: More fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Craig, Ric is on the money about fuel guages. In B-47s I drew up a fuel chart during preflight for the mission to be flown. I used the performance charts for the plane. Then during flight I plotted fuel as portrayed by the guages. They were always quite close but the preplan was the one to be relied on. I had guages for the forward and aft main fuel tank fail half way between Bermuda and Tampa. When they finally started working again the fuel plot matched prefilght but for a while the preplanned fuel curve was what we had to rely on. Whatever AE's fuel guages said they would not have been as accurate as the charts taking into consideration climb, descent and power settings. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:18:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Dean and Lawrence, I have zeroxes of the Sydney Morning Herald for July 8, 1937 in which "Admiral Murfin, interviewed in Honolulu, said: 'The plane is probably down in the Phoenix group............" A report on July 7, 1937 says: "The belief has grown in United States naval circles that Mrs. Putnam probably landed on an atoll. Therefore a carefully co-ordinated search, to last at least a fortnight, is being prepared." And that the search "... is moving southward of Howland Island toward the Phoenix Islands." Paul Manz expressed the same opinion that AE landed in the Poenix Group. In the same paper Mr. Putnam is quoted as saying, ".....[he believes]the plane is ashore somewhere in the Phoenix Islands." In the same paper dated July 10, 1937 Admiral Byrd is quoted , "...that there was every good reason to believe that Mrs. Putnam would be found, whether on land or floating." In none of the items of 1937 did I read anyone specifically suggesting Gardner Island. Maybe they did but not in the papers I read. All of the above came from the Sydney Morning Herald but were repeats of New York reports of the day prior. Someone posted that TIGHAR's Phoenix theory was a departure from all the early beliefs. Obviously not. I would suggest TIGHAR's web site be read thoroughly for far more complete information. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:22:04 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Radial Engine Comments: To: ACALDWELL@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OFF FORUM Alan, I'm not posting this becuase I suspect that you don;t realize that this is about the Kanton Engine that has been the subject of so much discussion. See the website. << Am I to understand you took a picture of a nine cylinder engine on some Island?>> Bruce thnks he took home movies of the recovery but can't find them. <> Might have been Gardner. 1970. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:25:57 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Broken clamshells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt >* From Ric > > Do you know where the NC survivor camp was located? Sorry Ric, I thought I'd posted something privately to you on this before the expedition. I thought TIGHAR believed it was on the ocean shore somewhere not far from the wreck, and back in the bush a bit. I did a whole lot of studying up on the possible site of the survivor's camp a year or so ago and came to some conclusions about its location being on the lagoon shore, not the ocean side, and what I thought was a fair estimate of the approximate position, not far around the corner inside the lagoon entrance. I have a list of reasons for the idea, and i'll see if they are still on the computer. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:47:23 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Baited breath? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Merton Backlund Regarding starting an English class....English, of course, should be capitalized. (picky picky) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:53:52 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dean A #2056 Alan, thanks for the reply. I knew of the particular articles you speak of , but what I was curious about was an actual reference to Gardner Island. So, it seems no one actually mentioned Gardner by name which is what I had thought. *************************************************************************** From Ric That has also been my impression. I will mention, however, that the actual search coordination map used by the 14th Naval District (now at the National Archives office in San Bruno, CA) shows the Pan Am DF bearings on alleged post-loss signals converging near Gardner Island. Given that the atoll is much larger and definitely more inhabitable than McKean (the other Phoenix island near the LOP), it's not exctly rocket science to see it as the most likely place. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:22:40 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: radial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Jordan, "Was this mostly based on the pilot's statement/belief that there was no shipwreck present on Gardner?" ************************************* No! The shipwreck had nothing to do with it. My "opinion" is based on many things, that when put together, seem to rule out Niku. It is mostly based on helicopter fuel range without refueling, Bruce's description of the mission that particular day and the fact that Niku/Gardner Island was not part of the missile test facility. It was simply too far away and in the wrong direction. Also, if there is an aircraft engine, then there is most likely aircraft wreckage very close by. The pilots from the Colorado flew over all islands in the Phoenix group on July 9th, and none of them saw any wreckage on any of the islands at that time. You can't use the argument that is was there and they just didn't see it. Remember Bruce saw the engine decades after it had been deposited on the reef. Because of the fact that the Colorado pilots didn't see any wreckage on any of the islands, I am also of the opinion that there most likely was none to be seen. That would also mean that the Canton engine was not yet on the reef. This would tend to rule out the engine as coming from the Electra. People had been living on Niku for decades after July of 1937, and nobody reported seeing an old engine on the reef. There were also many survey groups, some living on the island for about three months immediately after the Earhart disappearance. Nobody reported an engine on the reef. I am of the opinion that the engine, where ever it came from, was not from the Electra. It most likely was deposited on the reef after July 1937. None the less, I think it needs to be found and identified, or at least the island it came from needs to be investigated. Otherwise, it will just be another Earhart rumor that will persist over the years. "Earhart engine found, and then lost!" Don J. **************************************************************************** From Ric <> And yet SAMTEC helicopters DID visit Gardner. I can show you pictures of them doing it. <> Not that we know of, but people have reported seeing an airplane wreck on the reef edge (Emily Sikuli), "part of a wing" on the reef and "airplane parts" in the shoreline vegetation (Tapania Taeke), and wreckage from an airplane on the lagoon shore (Pulekai Songivalu). Why not an engine on the reef? Hey, anecdotes are anecdotes. Unless they saw parts from a wrecked glider there had to be an engine or engines there someplace. I don't know if Bruce's engine came from Gardner or not, but I have yet to see convincing evidence that it couldn't have. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:23:53 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Broken clamshells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Wombat -- the problem is not only knowing where the survivors' camp was; the problem is that there's been a whole lot of other stuff that's happened in the same area since then, that's thoroughly scrambled the surface. Houses have been built, holes have been dug, walls have been built, people have been buried, and certainly anything that was piled up or scattered around from Norwich City days has been picked over and reused. I can imagine finding stuff from the survivors' camp that we could identify as probably being from 1929 rather than from the 1940s-50s, but even if we did, I can't imagine figuring out whether it was in its original place or had been picked up and reused by a colonist. So, while for purposes of general interest I'd like to find and see the survivors' camp, I can't think that it's a real high priority (which is a good thing, since we're not going to find it in the near future). LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:24:33 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: radial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Don, I have an interest in this subject. You can email me at acaldwell@aol.com. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:26:08 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell << So, it seems no one actually mentioned Gardner by name which is what I had >> Just to be very clear I don't want to say no one actually mentioned Gardner. I want to emphasize that someone may have but none of the reports I have seen used the name of a specific island. Also there was an item in the SMH dated 6 July 1937 of a report from New York with a byline date of July 5th Saying "It is estimated that the origin of calls picked up by Pan-American Airways' direction-finder at Mokapu point (Hawaii) was south of Howland Island.......The instrument places the plane .......... roughly upon a line from Mokapu Point southward, and slightly to the east, of Howland Island. For those who have had the impression the Niku theory is new and there has never before been any indication our heroes might have headed to the Phoenix group they need to refresh their minds of all that happened during July of 1937. Also for those who may stumble across a mention of the Itasca and Swan searching toward the Gilberts please note that search was NOT in response to a theory the Electra had FLOWN westward but rather it may have ditched and had been swept westward by the current. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:27:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Fuel Calculations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey To Alan and Craig, I would agree that Amelia's fuel guages would not be all that accurate. Consider the fact that there were extra tanks that had to be drained or pumped into primary tanks and, from person experience, fuel guage systems, at best provide gross indications. When I was with Pan Am we had a three way check to determine the fuel loaded. The guages, the fuel remaining from the previous flight plus fuel added and the drip sticks (much like sticking the tanks). All three had to agree quite closely. Fuel density was a major part of the calculations. During the flight we made a three way check at each check point. We added up the guage reading for each tank to get a total, we recorded the totalizer which gave the total fuel for all the tanks but our primary method was to subtract the fuel the total fuel burned from the fout engines from the starting fuel. Each engine had an independent, accurate fuel used guage. The primary way of determining the remaining fuel was the fuel burned subtracted from the starting fuel. We then compared our fuel remaining against the flight plan fuel to see if we were ahead or behing on the fuel score. Even though I now fly a single engine Cessna with a simple fuel system the primary way I determine my fuel is by fuel burned subtracted from the starting fuel. I then determine endurance based on the fuel burn rate and only use the guages as a back up. With about 500 hours on this engine in this airplane I know the fuel burn very well. I would bet that Amelia used the same method and by the time she left on her last leg she knew the fuel consumption for those engines extreemly well. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:28:05 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: More fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Peter Boor For Alan Caldwell: Ah - the B-47 fuel plotting. I don't suggest that you guys weren't very careful, but wasn't the plotting of fuel expenditure more related to moving up or back the rendezvous time for aerial refueling? Sadly, AE didn't have that option. Nor did the B-36, and the flight engineers that flew long over-water trips in that monster were v-e-r-y careful with their fuel. They pre-planned, sometimes even weighing each crewmember and his baggage, telling the crew where to put it in the ship, and in flight used every instrument they had - quantity, fuel flow, etc...and yes, they always planned an alternate, too. Peter Boor #0856C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:33:06 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Accuracy of fuel gauges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kurt Thompson As a former military aviator, now retired, and a former aircraft owner for many years, I can tell you from personal knowledge, that the FAA (during AE's time, the CAA) set standards for fuel gauges on aircraft. The fuel gauges were required to indicate empty when empty. There is no requirement for them to indicate full when the tanks are full or to be accurate at any other point. With my own personal aircraft we even went back inside the wings and added resistors into the leads coming from the tanks to the gauges so that they did in fact accurately read empty when the tanks were empty and did this with tanks that were drained of useable fuel and then added fuel one gallon at a time to record gauge readings at different fuel levels. The point is, if they read empty believe them. The rest of the time, how much fuel you have left is determined by starting with absolutely full tanks, or a known amount, and then keeping accurate records of fuel burn at various power settings and the amount of time the engines have been running. Kurt Thompson # 2441 **************************************************************************** From Ric I can think of another good way to tell when your tanks are empty. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:46:15 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Baited breath? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric and Mike, Baited? Bated? How about a tuna sandwich? I'll retract the statement and say, "Now we weight with grate antissipashun for the aye kandy to be posted"..... Hmmm.....Does that look a little funny??? ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:53:05 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: fuel gauges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Claude There is a way to calibrate fuel gauges. Ive done this on the Piper Seneca and the Aztec. First you must start with empty tanks. then add one quater full (measuring the actual fuel on the pump meter),, read the gauge,, add one half full,, read the gauge,, add three quarters full ,, read the gauge,, and then top them off and read the gauge. This gives a better idea than doing nothing, however it is not a regular proceedure and is something mostly done for a specific pilot who flies a specific aircraft and also has the keen knowledge of actual fuel burn. If you have done this proceedure and you always fly that same aircraft then you will know at what point on the fuel gauge is correct. I used a tiny tick of fingernail polish to mark any offset on the face of the gauge. Its better than blind trust but it takes a little time to do it. happy landings,, the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:02:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: radial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From andy <<>> Don, I am not a pilot and have no SAR experience, but wouldn't spotting wreckage be significantly easier to do from a low flying, stationary helicoptor in calm conditions than in an aircraft at ~500ft (out of bird strike range, as we have previously discussed on the forum) doing 90 knots in with heavy seas hitting the reef? Obviously Bruce spotted the engine, whereas the Colorado search spotted no wreckage. Do we know at what altitude the helicopter would be at to recover the engine? The velocity as it approached the reef flat? What were the tide and surf conditions like on the reef? (knee deep water, 50/100 yards off the shore. I do not know what tide conditions this would relate to) In addition to these items, has the ability of the helicopter to land on the beach been considered as exculpatory evidence for the engine coming from Niku? (Isn't the Nutrian beach rather sloped and very close to the treeline? Would such a beach be a very safe place to land a helicopter?) I agree with other people who have said that the Canton engine is possibly one of the most significant discoveries. I think the forum is hungry for as much evidence regarding its recovery as is available, in order to make our own analysis regarding the possibility of its having originated on Gardner/Niku. (Does much evidence beyond what is present on the website exist?) LTM, Andy ************************************************************************** From Ric You bring up a good point about the beach. These days, at least, the available clear area and surface conditions on the Nutiran beach would not invite a helicopter landing - especially not a machine as big as the H-3s used by SAMTEC. The problem with evaluating Bruce's account is that it is entirely anecdotal. There is no "evidence" beyond the anecdote. We have verified from independent sources that Bruce was there and had the job he says he had. Everything checkable about Bruce checks out just fine and all of us who know him personally are absolutley convinced that he is absolutely convinced that he is doing his absolute best to help us verify his story. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:07:08 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Radial Engine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Andy <<>> This brings up a good question. As I recall... obviously no landing at Howland. Baker is out (funny that the colonists there wouldn't notice a landing). McKean was ruled out in 1989. Would it even be possible to land the Electra anywhere on that rock and keep it intact? Carondelet Reef was, as is today, 6 fathoms under water. Was the elusive Winslow reef ever pinned down on the map? Niku is the only landfall left that is anywhere even close to the LOP. The nearest after that is Hull/Orona which bears 140 degrees from Howland. LTM, Andy **************************************************************************** From Ric Winslow Reef has been pinned down and it is not a place that you could land an airplane. The other point to remember is that, in the process of researching Gardner we have, by necessity, researched the exploration and settlement of the other islands of the Phoenix Group. Gardenr is unique in its body of folklore about an aircraft wreck that predated the first settlement and the discovery of the remains of a castaway. There is nothing that points to any other island. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:11:21 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Baited breath? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Angus Bated is, of course, a contraction of abated. I will take the opportunity to take you to task re oportunity and "fueling up" as well Ric. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll admit to careless proof reading in missing the missing p in opportunity, but what's wrong with "fueling up"? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:19:23 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Accuracy of fuel gauges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Allen > I can think of another good way to tell when your tanks are empty. Is it similar to the worst noise an engine can make? Mike Allen *************************************************** From Ric Good guess. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:22:43 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Distance from Howland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Does TIGHAR have an estimate as to how close the flight got to Howland? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************* From Ric It's certainly not something that can be pinned down but not closer than about 80 miles and not more than 200 miles is probably a reasonable guess. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:24:06 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Lawrence Talbot Hi Dean: The one 1937 newspaper I have is the New York Times, dated July 6th. Vol. LXXXVL, No. 29,018. It mentions Putnam and officials at Pan Am saying AE and FN are presumed in the Phoenix Island area. Mantz is stated only as saying she must have landed on a reef in order to operate her radio. Byrd States they have a rubber raft and can stay afloat for two week. The one article I read about Putnam, Mantz, and Byrd believing she is on Gardner also mentioned a Walter McMenamy, a los Angeles amateur radio operator who claims to have heard several messages from Earhart from his home in L.A. I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that, but what struck me as strange is that if these people believed Earhart was on Gardner, why was only a cursory search done of Gardner? Lawrence Talbot ************************************************************************ From Ric There are lots of reasons that the Navy did not put people ashore at Gardner, most having to do with safety and the pressing need to search other islands. The Navy did not feel that their search was cursory. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:25:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Baited breath? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Holt I used to work with a chap who'd tell me he was waiting for the next step in the process "with worms on my teeth." Baited breath. (insert pained groan here) Humans are so weird. ( -- Beth Holt, age 9) Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:51 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: More fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From alan Caldwell "From Peter Boor For Alan Caldwell: Ah - the B-47 fuel plotting. I don't suggest that you guys weren't very careful, but wasn't the plotting of fuel expenditure more related to moving up or back the rendezvous time for aerial refueling?" No, Peter. Plotting the fuel had nothing to do with air refueling. Air refueling was not part of most of our missions. Many it is true but fuel logs were accomplished on all missions. The rendezvous time was a preplanned time and was not moved up or back in regard to fuel. The time was established to get several airplanes together at a time known by each. If the time was ever moved it was due to the inability of one or more airplanes to get off the ground on time. You have been misinformed. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:48:41 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Focus on Gardner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Andrew McKenna << In none of the items of 1937 did I read anyone specifically suggesting Gardner Island. Maybe they did but not in the papers I read. >> Something to remember about the Search and Rescue business is that you try not to give out too much information about your objective in order to avoid leading potential witnesses and leads. "How many engines did the plane have?" is different than "The one we are looking for had two engines, Did the one you see have two engines?" Invairably what you put out in the press gets regurgitated by some witness who can't really remember what they saw, but remembers the newspaper report describing it. I can imagine the Navy not wanting to mention Gardner for fear of giving fuel to a hoaxer or tainting the search. They wanted to hear it independently from whoever was sending those post loss signals. LTM Andrew McKenna **************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting point, but the reason I don't think that the Navy ever specifically targeted Gardner more than the other islands of the Phoenix Group is that no such speculation is present in any of the internal Navy communications. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:55:46 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Eighth Ed/ Radio transmissions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright Ric, On p. 13, Chapter IV,Section B.5 last paragraph may be in error. "By now , it is clear that the Itasca personnel firmly believed Earhart was down ...after not hearing from her in the last hour and 15 minutes. In fact, they must have been startled to hear her at 2045 GCT, since at that time, they had begun callin the back the landing party..." I thought the last transmission was at 2013 or 2014. Am I reading this wrong? Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric Ooops. Clearly a typo. Randy meant to say 2013. We'll fix it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:48:03 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Distance from Howland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Thanks. Could you explain the reasoning that lies behind both the minimum (not closer than about 80 miles) and maximum (not more than 200)? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Bob Sherman I respectfully disagree with your '80' guess. Why could she not have been just beyond the farthest visual range from anyone on HOW or the Itasca? 'Skip' could point to the possibility of being a great distance away, but the strong signal recvd. by the Itasca could also be because she was as close as one-half mile beyond the farthest sight of those looking for her. She could have been a lot closer than 80 miles. RC 943 ************************************************************************** From Ric Chris asked for an opinion. I gave him my opinion. Nobody knows. Anybody could be right. My opinion is based upon two beliefs: 1. I think that the most accurate piece of information Earhart transmitted was "We are on the line 157/337". I know of no reason why Noonan would not have been able to establish that position within an accuracy of about 10 miles. Therefore I do not think the airplane undershot or overshot the LOP running through Howland to any significant degree. 2. I think that the strength of the radio signals indicates that the airplane came within a reasonable distance of Howland. A maximum of two hundred miles is a liberal estimate based upon Bob Brandenburg's analysis in the Eighth Edition. Why a minimum of about 80 miles? The logic goes like this. Assumption: They were on the LOP that ran through Howland and Baker. Assumption: Failing to see Howland at 19:12 GCT they followed a logical course of action - i.e. they ran northwestward along the LOP as far as they dared then turned around and proceeded southeastward while they still had enough fuel to be sure of reaching land. Assumption: In carrying out this procedure they did not see Howland or Baker. Conclusion: They had to have started from a position on the LOP that was significantly southeast of Baker. Eighty miles from Howland puts them about 40 miles southeast of Baker. Like I said, it's just an opinion. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:49:14 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: radial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Haddock Hi Ric, Any idea how long before the video of your helicopter ride around Niku will be available? Please sign me up when it's available. Thanks Ric. Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************* From Ric We'll try to get something put together as soon as possible. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:54:18 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Radial Engine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Angus Murray > From Ric > > Winslow Reef has been pinned down and it is not a place that you could land > an airplane. Why do you say that its not a place you could land an airplane? You believe an aircraft could land on the reef at Niku. Areas of Winslow dry at low tide and the only question seems whether a smooth and long enough area is available and the state of the tide. Has anyone researched this? Even if you couldn't land a plane without damage, it might still be possible to crash land it and yet still be able to run an engine. What time of day is low tide at Niku at the appropriate time of year and does this fit with the likely time of arrival of the Electra? Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric Who said that areas of Winslow Reef dry at low tide? My understanding is that, at best, Winslow Reef is revealed by the presence of breakers and at other times is virtually undetectable. The Colorado pilots couldn't find it at all. There's a huge difference between a submerged oceanic reef like Winslow and Carondelet and the fringing reef of an established atoll like Gardner. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:55:52 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: fuel gauges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt A number of the aircraft I have flown (and flown in) have calibration cards next to the gauges which supposedly tell the real amount shown in the tanks vs the indicated amount. We are still told to treat the gauges as a rough guide and work from calculations for known power settings though for accuracy. Regarding fuel, since it comes up from time to time, this explanation is for the non flying members of the forum. Various members have explained this, but we get new forum members regularly who don't understand how flying works. Pilots usually work out how much fuel they need to get from place A to place B then add enough to get to another place if they can't land at B. This is what you see the pilots on the forum referring to as a plan for an "Alternate" when they talk about Earhart. In addition in some countries (Australia is one) the pilot, by law, must add an extra 45 minutes on top of this in case he/she can't land at the alternate either. There are other situations when even more fuel MUST be carried, but the above explanation is basically correct. The reason they don't just add full tanks every time is that an airplane has a maximum weight that can't be exceeded. If you can do without 20 lbs of fuel, you can carry an extra 20 lbs of luggage. In a car, if your fuel gauge is innacurate, as they sometimes are, and you run out of fuel you simply pull over and call roadside assistance or whatever. In an airplane if the gauge is inaccurate and you run out of fuel, there's not always a place to land safely under you........... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:06:44 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: LOP again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Angus > From Andy Niku is the only landfall left that is anywhere even close > to the LOP. I can't understand the importance you put on the LOP in relation to Niku. If AE had had a mechanical failure or run out of fuel whilst still searching for Howland, the LOP would be most relevant. However, once you have decided to look for an alternative landfall there is no critical need to stick with the original LOP. You can either take a new sight for a new LOP altogether and advance it (if flying further east) or alternatively even further advance the LOP you derived from your last sight for a new LOP. Alternatively you can fly a compass course and only fly an LOP at your intended destination by way of search. Whilst this is risky when starting from an approximate position, it would not be out of the question when flying say to the Gilberts because you have a line of islands at right angles to your course and if you are too far north or south of your intended course it is not quite so important. This, after all, is how they navigated from Lae. It would seem far more sensible to fly to an advanced LOP and then fly down it to the more easterly Phoenix islands where there are closer alternate landfalls. Niku is totally isolated, and if you miss it, (travelling on an LOP you know is at least a good few miles incorrect - because you've missed Howland), there is nothing but ocean ahead . Regards Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric As we've said once or twice before, TIGHAR's hypothesis is NOT that Earhart and Noonan gave up looking for Howland and went looking for Gardner instead. Having arrived at where they thought Howland should be, and finding no island in sight, they could only conclude that they were too far north or south. They could afford to explore northwestward along the LOP for a short way, but they had to proceed southeastward while they still had plenty of fuel left because that's where all the alternate islands were. They always hoped that Howland would appear but by the time they were far enough along to get a significant "cut" on the sun and realize where they were it was too late to double back or strike off for other islands. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:11:45 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: More Kanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Phil Tanner Radio Australia reported yesterday (7 Oct) that Australia and Kiribati are continuing investigations into whether a former US military base on Kanton could be converted into a refugee processing camp. Plans were being made to charter a flight to Kanton Island, but the uncertain condition of the airstrip was a worry as it has been more than 20 years since the strip had regular maintenance. A statement from the Kiribati Foreign Ministry said an assessment team of three Australian officials and two from Kiribati intends to examine the base's suitability, but the radio's reporter said he understod the Australian government had been unable to find a charter company willing to do the flight. New Zealand radio said a flight had left for Kanton (I think from Tarawa), but this was several hours before the Australian report that it hadn't. The Kiribati statement said the planned trip does not mean Kiribati has made any firm commitment to accept any asylum-seekers. LTM (who thinks these people must be pretty desperate) Phil Tanner 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric Refugee processing camp? Well, at least it will remind the refugees of home. Kanton looks like a movie set for "Armageddon." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:32:02 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Thanks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ted Ostrowski Hi Ric, My fifth graders and I would like to thank you and the other expedition members for making an exciting first month of school. We followed your expedition daily and learned map skills, the scientific method, and proper archaeological techniques. It felt as if we were on a whirlwind because we also followed Dr. Carlene Mendieta's recreation of Earhart's 1927 Flight Across America in an Avro Avian. Thanks again. Flying enthusiasts, 5-O & Ted Ostrowski ************************************************************************** From Ric You're most welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:44:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: maps and mileage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Claude Stokes I just hooked up on expedia dot com and found they have espanded thier map coverage to include just the area we are all talking about in the pacific islands. Try this web page http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=over&rfrr=-1072 Then click on ,, find a map,, when you get the find a map page click the button for "search for a place" then in the next box select "world (topographic maps) and then for place name insert this -- Gilbert Islands [Kiribati], Pacific Ocean. then click the find a map button,, this should get you into the specific area and you can then zoom in,, and navigate all around the area from howland to lae to niku et all. (its rather strange if you look at a zoom of lae, that AE would have climbed out to the NE over a place named "blutcher island" ) Here are the mileages I calculated using an equation from the Soaring Society of America which is used to calc the official distance for soraing contests. (I dont have a GPS) This is great circle mileage which is an arc,, not a straight line Lae to Howland 2564 statute miles Howland to Baker 39 SM Howland to Niku 404 SM Howland to Gilberts 650 SM Honolulu to Howland 1905 SM This makes it much more fun while chatting about AE, happy landings,, the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:47:01 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Focus on Gardner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Lawrence Talbot Just a quick note regarding the 1937 paper I have: On page two, column two, under the heading of, Ship reaches goal in Earhart search. "Pan American radio men estimated the Earhart ship might be in the vicinity of Gardner and McKean Islands..." Thanks, Lawrence ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. That's the first specific mention of Gardner we've heard about. Is it a wire service story? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:48:34 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Baited breath? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody Ric, It's kind of hard to "fuel down". You are just " fueling" . It's like raising up or lowering down. You raise or lower - the direction is indicated by the first word- the second word is redundant.No more comments from the " peanut gallery " please! Woody ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:49:32 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: LOP again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell "it would not be out of the question when flying say to the Gilberts because you have a line of islands at right angles to your course" Angus, I'm not sure I understand this comment. I kind of thought ALL islands were ahead and not at right angles until you were passing them. THEN each island would be at right angles to course as you pass them. I must be misunderstanding you. As to flying to the Gilberts keep in mind the sun would be behind the airplane. How would Noonan shoot a sun shot? IF he had the luxury of lots of gas he could race track for the shot but such does not seem to be the case. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:50:41 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: 80 miles distance from Howland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey Ric, While I agree with all the assumptions you list I disagree on the 80 mile distance for one reason. If Amelia and Fred had descended to 1,000 feet to get under scattered clouds and there were cloud shadows on the water, I think it would be very difficult to make out Howland or Baker from a distance greater then 20 miles. Twenty miles is 105,600 feet (5280' x 20) or more then 100 times their vertical position above the water. Eighty miles would be 400 times their altitude. I suspect this very fact could be the reason they missed both Howland and Baker. If there is little or no surf action (white water) Islands can be very difficult to spot or distinguish from cloud shadows. The lower you must fly to get under the clouds the greater the problem. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:52:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Questions for loran station veterans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King I have some questions for Forum participants who are veterans of the Coast Guard Loran Station on Nikumaroro. These relate to the Seven Site, which is about a half-hour's walk up the beach on the windward side of the island from the station, in an area that was relatively clear of dense vegetation; you could probably walk between the shore and the lagoon fairly easily. 1. We found lots and lots of .30 caliber shells and a few .22 shells. We're assuming that both result from recreational shooting by you guys, but is this true? Did you go back in the bush in this area and shoot? If so, what did you shoot at? Birds? Targets? If targets, what kinds? If birds, what did you do with one when you hit it? 2. If you recall being in the area of the Seven Site, whether you remember shooting there or not, can you recall what you did there? Did you ever catch and cook anything? Build anything? Take anything there from the station that you might have discarded or left behind? 3. There are some sheets of corrugated (and maybe non-corrugated) iron on the ground at the Seven Site (now reduced almost entirely to rust). Did anybody from the station put them there, as far as you know? If so, why? Or do you remember seeing such things there? 4. Any other recollections about this site? Thanks for anything you can recall, and please pass this request on to others who may not be on the Forum. LTM Tom King **************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:59:17 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: One Week Forum Vacation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric We could sort of use a break so Pat and I are taking next week off. There will be no forum until Monday, October 15. See you then. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:30:04 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Back to work MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric Thanks for your patience while Pat and I depressurized a bit last week. Now - back to work - and there's a lot of work to do. Niku IIII produced a great deal of new information that needs to be examined, evaluated and interpreted; and we'll need everyone's help to do that. One of the first steps will be to get good photos of the more interesting artifacts up on the website for everyone to chew on. If we can figure out what these things are it should go a long way toward telling us who left them there. We'll also be finishing up the long-awaitied Post-Loss Radio Matrix and correlating the signals with the tidal information gathered during Niku IIII. Etc., etc., etc. With so much to do that could actually move the project forward, I'm going to be keeping a tight rein on the endless revisiting of old subjects like fuel, headwinds, the LOP, and what Amelia's "Plan B" might have been. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:04:40 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Rain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From John Pratt The picture of a castaway surviving at the seven site leads to curiosity about the environment at that time. Historically Nikumaroro has had a variation in rainfal, up to recorded droubts that effected the colonists. Within Southwestern archeology there is a study of prehistoric climate, probably now called paleoclimatology, using tree-ring widths and pollen ratios as well as other measurements. http://www.csu.edu.au/landscape_ecology/pollen.html http://www.time.com/time/daily/newsfiles/weather/oldweather.html I have no idea about coconut trees, but perhaps the Buka could give a reasonable sequence. Does Nikumaroro have a climate of seasonal rainfall, sort of like California= ? In addition, coral cores might also give a sequence of ocean surface temperatures in case the local island conditions correlate. http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/misc/coral/coral_paleo/coralintro.html (Probably TIGHAR=E2=80=99s partners in the satellite photo.) Why is it relevant? =20 1. The lushness or lack of the environment might determine the castaway=E2= =80=99s activities, giving new clues to interpretation of artifacts or clues to finding of new evidence. 2. Fresh water would be a major preoccupation, and potential determinant of life span. Presumably in a drought, one has to dig. In a rainy period, one sets out water catchment. Can we get a correlation between July 1937 rainfall and castaway behavior? (Scary thought: the clam shells are piled because they were not water catchers but diggers. The hole? Abortive well becomes convenient grave.) One other possible source of a castaway, motivated by the speculation that the bones were years old, was the Norwich Castle wreck. Now that a bone-experiment is in hand, does that help dispell the Norwich Castle Castaway hypothesis or do we need to do the climate comparison back into the 1920s? **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that an understanding of the available climatological data for the=20 region is vital if we're going to make informed guesses about castaway=20 behavior. Unfortunately, the absence of clear seasons in that part of the=20 world makes tree ring analysis problematical. We do, however, have some=20 solid rainfall data for the region and a number of contemporaneous written=20 observations that provide a good, if incomplete, picture of the conditions=20 faced by a castaway. We have annual rainfall data for Gardner for: 1944 58.19 inches 1945 32.89 inches 1946 56.44 inches 1947 19.13 inches 1948 53.27 inches 1949 43.98 inches 1950 no data 1951 30.60 inches 1952 40.11 inches 1953 91.46 inches 1954 22.07 inches 1955 29.11 inches 1956 26.87 inches 1957 89.62 inches 1958 107.18 inches 1959 60.01 inches 1960 61.17 inches 1961 57.01 inches 1962 10.81 inches 1963 48.92 inches As you can see, the annual rainfall is highly variable and the environment s= o=20 fragile that just one really bad year - 1962 - forced the abandonment of the= =20 colony. All of the water, whether caught in cisterns or drawn from wells,=20 comes from rainwater. The well water is merely rain that has seeped into th= e=20 ground and rests as a "lens" above the hard underground base. When it doesn'= t=20 rain it doesn't do any good to dig a well. To go back earlier than 1944 we have to go to records for Canton Island, 200= =20 miles away. Canton is normally gets about half as much rain annually as=20 Gardner. In 1943 the annual rainfall at Canton was 15.53 inches. Data are=20 not available for 1942, 1941, 1940. In 1939 the annual rainfall at Canton=20 was 18.57. 1938 was a drought year. Canton got 8.68 inches. Hull (just a little over=20= a=20 hundred miles east of Gardner) got only 9.43 inches. When Maude arrived at=20 Gardner with the first settlers on December 20, 1938 he was alarmed to see=20 how desiccated the island looked compared to when he had had last seen it in= =20 October 1937. When Maude and Bevington visited the island in October 1937 they found the=20 vegetation lush and came away with a very favorable impression of the=20 prospects for colonization. During their three-day stay they (or, more=20 accurately, their Gilbertese associates) dug eight wells - four on Nutiran=20 and two on the south side of the main passage in what would later be the=20 village. Five of the wells, including the two on the south side, produced=20 water which Maude's official report described as being of "indifferent=20 quality" (Bevington's diary says he "drew a blank"). Two of the wells=20 produced water of "fair quality" according to Maude and one produced water=20 that was "fresher than many in the Gilberts." In 1938 no drinkable well=20 water could be found. Almost no climatological data are available for the Phoenix Group prior to=20 1937. We know that the Norwich City survivors were hard pressed to find=20 drinking water to the point of drinking rainwater that had collected in crab= =20 holes. The several accounts written by survivors make no mention of trying=20 to dig a well. So what can we say about a castaway? Up until 1938 there should have been=20 adequate rainfall for a resourceful castaway to survive on "catchment" water= .=20 1938, however, started out bad and only got worse. How long a castaway=20 could survive is anybody's guess. For what it's worth, Floyd Kilts' story=20 held that the "cognac" bottle found with the body had "fresh water in it for= =20 drinking." If that is true, it's more difficult to attribute the castaway's= =20 death purely to dehydration. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:07:53 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: World Flight: First Attempt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Was the Honolulu to Howland leg of the first attempt at the world flight intended to be flown along a route which was the same as that proposed for the second attempt (i.e., direct, with no intermediate stops at, say, Kanton or anywhere else)? If so, at about 1900 miles was this the second longest leg of the flight (and, of course, if not the second longest leg what was)? Thanks, --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the first attempt was scheduled to fly direct from Honolulu to Howland (there was no runway at Canton). It was the second longest leg of the proposed World Flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:09:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Focus on Gardner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Lawrence Talbot >From Lawrence Talbot > >Just a quick note regarding the 1937 paper I have: On page two, column two, >under the heading of, Ship reaches goal in Earhart search. "Pan American >radio men estimated the Earhart ship might be in the vicinity of Gardner >and >McKean Islands..." Thanks, Lawrence > >************************************************************************** >From Ric > >Okay. That's the first specific mention of Gardner we've heard about. Is >it >a wire service story? Yes, its from the Associated Press. I'm still searching for the other article I mentioned. Lawrence ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:10:17 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: LOP again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Patrick Gaston Angus wrote: "Once you have decided to look for an alternative landfall there is no critical need to stick with the original LOP." Angus, you make some excellent points. I have always questioned the assumption that Our Heroes' only "logical" course of action, after failing to find Howland, was to continue southeastward for something like three hours in hopes of finding an island down there somewhere. However, this is another topic that has been debated to death on the Forum, and as TIGHAR is dedicated to the proposition that AE reached Niku, it seems pointless to rehash those arguments yet again. However, if you're interested in discussing the LOP question off-forum, my email address is Patrick@Gaston.as (no, I didn't leave off the final "s"). LTM Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:10:57 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Focus on Gardner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell What paper is that, Lawrence? I'll add it to my file. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:14:37 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Distance from Howland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell "It's certainly not something that can be pinned down but not closer than about 80 miles and not more than 200 miles is probably a reasonable guess." Boy, have I gotten lost. I thought the 80 miles was the probable max distance away for a strength 5 radio call. I can't recall where the 200 mile estimate is from. Am I totally wrong? AT 1,000 feet they could have been just out of hearing range of Howland and still not seen it. I don't know how far away that would be. The noises of the ship would have made it hard er to hear I suppose. At sea level I think the horizon is about three miles away. A little further at 1,000' so I think they could have been pretty close and not seen Howland nor heard by Howland. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Setting hard distances for a "Strength 5" (or Strength 4 or 3 or 2 or 1) radio call is one of the big fallacies of the Elgen Long argument. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:17:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Spotting islands MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann Mr. Pingrey makes some interesting observations about the difficulty in spotting Pacific islands from different altitudes... makes one wonder why Lt. Lambrecht & his compatriots seemed to have so little trouble in locating & spotting each of the scattered landfalls of the Phoenix Chain, even without the help of a worldclass navigator ? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric It's a little bit easier to find an island if you start from 50 miles away instead of 2,500. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:18:46 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: LOP again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Don Neumann LOP revisited... again. Seems to me I recall a newspaper interview or perhaps one of the Earhart biographies quoting AE as commenting... that since the Gilbert Island Chain straddled the equitorial, 0=B0 latitude line, it would not be difficult to fly back to the Gilberts if she was unable to make their projected landfall at Howland. (Making of course the big assumption that she would have sufficient fuel reserve for such a flight.)=20 Not having any expertise in the area of aerial or marine navigation, might I ask just how difficult would it be to locate 0=B0 latitude from an unknown position, on an LOP running NW/SE, either North or South of 0=B0 latitude? From my trusty National Geographic , map of the Central Pacific, Baker Island appears to rest almost directly upon 0=B0 latitude, while Howland is located just slightly to the NW of Baker. If such _quote_ was accurately recorded, would this have been only an oversimplified, off-the-cuff, 'air-headed' comment or boast, or would there be any validity in such a statement? Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:19:29 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: "P" on .22 casing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Evans Ric, You are right on with your comments about the weapons carrier. it came ashore with the other equipment when the station was built and the only road was to the village, where someone usually made a visit once a week. As to the suggestion that we would have been able to explore the entire island on it - we would have had time to do that by walking. We didn't. Mostly we watched the radar scope, answered our once a month mail and imbibed in a bit of medical alcohol consumption. Dick Evans ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:20:05 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Amelia's shoes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Herman Hi ! Just to let the forum know I got my copy of "Amelia Earhart's shoes" today. I ordered it from Barnes and Noble at $ 19.96 on 9/23. It took only 18 days to get to my place and was sent to me by what is strangely described as "International Surface Airlift", whatever surface airmail can be. I did cross the Atlantic flying I suppose... It eventually cost $ 32.91 for there was $ 12.95 P & H to be paid. But I think the book is worth it. I skimmed through it when I received it and decided to start reading it tonight. It has a lot of interesting pictures too. I do hope the royalties TIGHAR receives will help achieve the work. Herman (#2406) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:04:50 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Distance from Howland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Ric, even if Elgen Long was wrong to ascribe a "hard" distance to a Strength 5 transmission, rather than dismissing the issue entirely I am wondering whether TIGHAR's radio experts could provide some sort of rough estimate. If they cannot, it would be helpful to know the reasons why. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:07:00 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Finding the Equator MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey To Ric and Don, Finding the equator should have been real easy if Amelia and Fred had a toilet or sink on board. All they needed to do was watch which way the water swirled when the plug was pulled. Dick Pingrey 908C ************************************************************************** From Ric Right. At the equator it just goes straight down without swirling. Incredible to see. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:07:55 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Distance from Howland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Concerning why the flight did not see Howland, something also to keep in mind is that we do not know for certain that Earhart/Noonan knew about the mapping error in Howland's position. We are assuming that they did, and while it seems difficult to believe that they didn't, this entire flight was a grab bag of "can't believes". --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:12:55 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: World Flight: First Attempt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Thanks. I wasn't so much thinking about alternative landing strips, but whether flying a different route, other than direct, between Honolulu and Howland on the first flight would've provided an opportunity for additional fixes on position en route (say, by flying over Kanton). The thought is that this would've made it easier to locate Howland. As it is, it appears that all the problems in locating Howland after a long ocean flight would also have existed had the first world attempt gone forward. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric But, of course, Kanton is not "enroute" from Hawaii to Howland. Going to Howland by way of Kanton would mean going several hundred miles farther south than Howland then doubling back. Flying a dogleg route in order to get enroute position checks was an option on either attempt but it would have added many hundreds of miles to the flight. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:14:09 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Focus on Gardner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Lawrence Talbot >From Alan Caldwell > >What paper is that, Lawrence? I'll add it to my file. The New York Times, July 6th issue. Lawrence Talbot ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:17:14 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Rain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Woody Okay Ric, Here's my dumb question for the week. Were there coconut trees with coconut on them in 1937 on Niku? Woody ************************************************************************** From Ric When Maude was there in October he counted 111 trees "in bearing." There were five groves dating from the Arundel plantings in the 1890s - all at the western end of the island. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:23:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The Dado MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From JHam 2128: I attended one of Tom King's book signings last week in San Francisco. He made a very nice presentation and I bought a book, which I have finished reading. It was extremely informative about the entire history of the Earhart Project and was very entertaining reading. I highly recommend it to everyone on the Forum as a thorough background on past efforts and the search evolution. The book referred to an artifact, which I was previously unaware of, that sounded provocative - the Dado, Artifact 2-18. Ric, what's your take on this as possible evidence from Earhart's Lockheed? blue skies, jerry *************************************************************************** From Ric The Dado may be our best aircraft artifact ("best" being defined as most likely to be from the Electra). It's described on the website at http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/obj5.html We haven't gotten around to putting up a photo of it though. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:37:45 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Circulating Topics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom MM Ric: Your email regarding what are considered semi off topic posts set me to thinking a bit. Topics like TIGHAR's position on the value of "the LOP", backup options, the moon puzzle, the sudden radio silence after 2013, fuel limits, etc, keep surfacing on the Forum because except for a dedicated TIGHAR, there can be reasonable (and sometimes substantial) differences of opinion on these subjects. We all start out recognizing and accepting that this is a moderated forum whose primary goal is furthering the Niku hypothesis, but eventually feel the urge to jump into one or more of the above when we feel that some statement is incorrect or an issue miss-represented. Those of us fence sitters who have a broader acceptance of "other theories" may have a harder time than the relatively few true oppositionists! I think that it is perfectly fair to exclude discussion on whatever you want - it is your forum. I know that the FAQ's are supposed to take care of much of this, but it can be hard not to jump in when the subject surfaces. I can argue till blue in the face, and clearly you can too. How about a list of subjects like the above (on the website) that TIGHAR feels that it has investigated and will not accept further comment? Anyone with startling new info could just email you directly, and if it warrants further discussion in TIGHAR's opinion it could move to the forum. Anyone seeking off forum discussion could still post the subject (but no discussion) and an email address like Patrick did earlier. Maybe this would be an avenue that would allow us to feel heard while not bogging down the forum. Of course, if anyone out there has lots of free time and access to a server, we could add a non-denominational forum, so to speak! Almost laughable to ask, but you never know until you do. BTW, congratulations on a safe and successful expedition. My hat is off to you, and others, who manage to undertake the formidable (no exageration there) task of getting out there to test their hypotheses. TOM MM ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Tom. Not a bad suggestion but I'm hesitiant to publish a list of "banned topics." My intention is not to thwart meaningful discussion but to avoid wasting time on subjects for which there can be no answer unless - as you say - startling new evidence turns up. Clearly such topics as "Did they have enough fuel to reach Gardner?", "Did they have a Plan B?", and "How close to Howland did they get?" fall into that category. I'm aware of at least one other online discussion group (www.frednoonan.com). From what I've seen they have, as you put it, "a broader acceptance of 'other theories' ". Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:39:11 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Distance from Howland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From alex HI,this is my first post so here goes...back in my sideband cb days i used to DX all over the world and i found it easy to tx,rx to north america and asian coutries from the UK on only 6-8 watts...this is just a view but i thought i wouldnt tx,rx that far but the weather conditions allowed me to...so wouldnt this be taken into consideration,sometimes i could hear L.A at sig 5 but they couldnt hear me...n e way thanks for letting me take part...ALEX[UK] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:39:57 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: LOP again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Don, finding 0 degrees latitude is no more difficult OR easier than finding 1 degree or most any other degree. There is nothing out there that makes 0 degrees any different than any other place in the Pacific. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:44:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: LOP again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Alan Caldwell Angus is correct that staying with the original LOP would not have been=20 critical. AND FN would have normally shot more LOPs on the way to Niku if=20 that's where they went. The original LOP was simply a line on his chart at a= =20 particular moment. He would have DR'd around in relation to it as they=20 conducted their search for Howland. If they then gave up and decided to head= =20 SE FN would have needed to shoot another sun shot to confirm his DR position= .=20 As they progressed SE he would have shot sun shots periodically to confirm h= e=20 was on the track he wanted. Thus it would be constant adjustments to remain=20 on track which would also have given him an east/west wind component. That=20 component would have been used to adjust his heading to allow the plane to=20 stay closer on course. He probably had a planet or another celestial body to= =20 shoot which would have given him a fairly accurate position and a north/sout= h=20 wind component. Even without the second celestial body it would have been easy to navigate S= E=20 to any of the Phoenix Island group. Some how I would think that as many time= s=20 as FN flew the Pacific and because he was going to be near the Phoenix group= =20 he would have known quite a lot about the individual islands at least to the= =20 extent information was available. We have talked the LOP to death to the point folks think it was how FN got t= o=20 Niku if that's where they went. Not true. It was how FN knew when he was=20 abeam Howland or thought he was abeam Howland. =A0That's all. That particula= r=20 LOP had no further use =A0other than giving him a general position to DR fro= m=20 for a short time.....until the wind moved him a bit from where his no wind=20 DRing put him. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric This is a classic example of why we're not going to rehash the LOP anymore o= n=20 this forum. =20 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:48:46 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Rain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt >* From Ric The several accounts written by survivors make no mention of > trying to dig a well. Are any of those accounts available on the web anywhere? IS there any other source that may be accessed her in Aus? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I know of. The personal accounts we've found of the Norwich City disaster come the PRO in London (where we dug them out in person) and from the captain's family. Like about three metric tons of other documentation, we haven't gotten around to putting them up on the website yet. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:16:47 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Bones, bones and bones MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Craig Welcome back to the world of the working. I hope you enjoyed your well deserved vacation. Three things have been running through my mind in the past week. They are more "cultural" in nature than based on hard evidence, so I'll apologize in advance if anyone thinks they are not the subject of the forum. (1) Any thoughts as to whether we seriously expect one castaway to bury the other. I mean, in my western society, it's the natural inclination. In Tom Hanks' world of castaways, it was his inclination as well. I picture myself on an island, expecting to be rescued. Burying a companion on the would be physically diffcult and mentally exhausting from a number of perspectives - despair being a prominent one. I would think it would depend on the condition of the living castaway as well. Do we lean in any direction on this? (2) Have we any knowledge as to why the adults of the island wanted to keep their children away from possible bone areas on the island? We know they're spiritual beliefs played a part. My hard look wonders if that's all. Many civilations create rules by which children are to abide, mainly created for children's protection - to keep them out of trouble. It seems to me that if the inhabitants followed through on their spiritual beliefs as we know them, they would have burried any exposed bones, instead of creating possible ghost stories to scare the children from playing near them. Is this an incongruity, or am I off base. (3) Gruesome as this may sound, would any of these inhabitants have picked up any of said bones? Might this be a reason for creating ghost stories - to keep explorative children from dragging home something unexpected? Any ornaments in the village made form bone? Courage, Craig, a new TIGHAR addict, from New Brunswick. **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Craig. Good questions. 1. I agree that whether or not one castaway might bury another is probably a function of physical obstacles. For example, just for argument's sake let's assume that Fred and AE are hanging out at the Seven Site, trying to stay alive until somebody shows up. Now, lets say that Fred gets hurt or gets sick and, for whatever reason, dies right there at the campsite. AE's choices are: A. She can bury him. To do that she probably has to drag the body down to the beach where there's enough sand to dig a hole deep enough to at least cover the corpse. The digging at the Seven Site itself is way too difficult. B. She can let the crabs eat him and then bury the bones. Not at all an attractive option to have that going on where she could see it and smell it but (based on what we saw of crab behavior during Niku IIII) it would only take a couple of weeks or so. C. She can just leave the body where it is and move her camp to someplace else. But because the unburied bones of a castaway were found later, it appears that that didn't happen. 2. We have two anecdotal accounts that describe the Nutrian shoreline near the shipwreck as being put "off limits." Emily says that the Native Magistrate didnt want anyone going there circa 1940 -41. Tapania says that the grownups told the children not to play there in the late 1950s. She also describes airplane parts in the bushes and on the reef. Aluminum airplane wreckage can be extremely sharp. It's possible that the ghost stories were just a way to scare the kids away from what was seen as a dangerous area. 3. As far as I know, the Gilbertese do not and never did make ornaments out of human bone. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:18:44 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Rain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Craig Fuller >>For what it's worth, Floyd Kilts' story held that the "cognac" bottle found with the body had "fresh water in it for drinking." If that is true, it's more difficult to attribute the castaway's death purely to dehydration.<< Being here in AZ I frequently see and read articles about dehydration and exposure. One thing I found interesting is that it is not uncommon to find that the victims still have water in there canteen. They realize that they need to ration the supply of water and end up rationing it so strictly they die of exposure before they use up all of their water. Craig Fuller AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research ************************************************************************ From Ric Verrrry interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:20:44 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Finding the Equator MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Holt > Right. At the equator it just goes straight down without swirling. > Incredible to see. Uh, is this a joke? How far off the line does the head have to be to start swirling? I once got frantic e-mail from a friend who'd gone to Oz, and to his amazement the toilets do swirl in the other direction. But no swirl on the euqator? Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, it's a joke. The whole different direction of swirl thing is an old wive's tale. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:21:37 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Finding the Equator MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Christopher [bzzzzzzzzz] WRONG. The coriolis force, which "dictates" which way LARGE SCALE weather systems and ocean currents will spin has no effect on something as small as a toilet. See: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html for the facts. LTM, Christopher (who loves to pull the plug on scientific misconceptions) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:48:22 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Actually, this is something the radio experts really need to weigh in on, as I was going through the website last night and it appears that TIGHAR has already confirmed that Elgen Long's calculations are well-founded, even if he was wrong to specify an exact number. The following quote is from "Log Jam", under TIGHAR Tracks: "It is clear that Earhart has not heard Itasca's transmissions