========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:53:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Thanks, Russ; I'd dismissed the Liberty Ships as being too much the products of WWII technology, but they'd certainly be worth looking at when the time comes. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:59:41 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The "g" seen on Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Thank you for your insightful answer and analysis. Several points come to mind: 1. Actually, shortly before we left, I have a distinct memory of you or Tom concluding that the feature was probably natural, and that this was based on the fact that it had been found that these types of features (essentially caused by lighter coral among darker) appeared at other sites that had been visited on the expedition. We all need to check our notes, but the type of area in which the "6" was found appears all over the island (these areas are roughly described as " islands" of coral surrounded by scaevola). Indeed, Bill and I found in our own expolits that you could ease your way across the island by utilizing these open breaks in the otherwise solid bands of scaevola. As I said, we need to check our notes, but it was one of the visits either to Nutiran, the Triangle Site, the Loran Site or some other area where this recurring feature was noted and prompted the conclusion that it was probably natural. It was only at the "island" in the proximity of the cleared portion of the 7 site where you noticed that the different colored coral created the appearance of a '6' or "g'. Other patterns may appear at other sites upon close scrutiny. Indeed, TIGHAR's own website concludes that the "7" of the Seven Site itself "....seems to be a coincidence of nature and does not seem man-made". So, corals, appearing in a formation which indicate numbers or letters, did not until now automatically mean they were the product of human activity. 2. I am not a "coral-ologist", but I suspect that differences in the color of coral could be caused, in part, by differences in exposure to sun, weather, different ages or types of corals within deposits of corals, etc. Something we need to remember is that it has been suggested that large parts of the island, including the 7 Site, have likely been disturbed and washed over at times over the years. That, or as you suggest, human activity, may account for the particular distribution at the 7 Site. In any event, simply concluding that, because you can't yet explain it, there is "little doubt" that it is must have been done by a human, with the next step being (I suspect) that the human was the castaway and the castaway was Earhart, sort of reminds me of Erik Van Daniken's reasoning about the pyramids in reverse. You know, he couldn't figure out how humans constructed them so they must have been built by space aliens. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Excuse me. I thought that you were familiar with the feature and the investigations we conducted on the island to determine its possible origins. Let me bring you up to speed. As you note, there are numerous "islands" of bare coral rubble all over the island. We have seen probably hundreds of them in our explorations. We have never seen anything remorely ressembling the "g" feature. For the most part, the coral rubble in these "islands" is gray in color but every once in a while you come across a piece or two of brilliantly white coral. The only place you find an abundance of this really white coral in one place is out on the ocean beach. The "g" feature is comprised of a layer of brilliantly white coral pieces, side by side and only one piece deep, on top of the gray coral background. We considered the possibility that the white coral had been "bleached" by pouring or spilling a liquid on the ground, but each piece of white coral is white on the top and on the bottom and none of the underlying gray coral has splotches of white. Tom said he had seen small concentrations of white coral in the mounds beside crab holes elsewhere on the island and he wondered if there was a layer of white coral down below the gray coral that could be thrown up in a random pattern by a digging crab. (This may be the conversation you're remembering.) I tested that hypothesis by digging a number of holes near the "g" feature and found no white coral in the lower layers. We also wondered if this could be a clump of white beach coral that was somehow tossed far inland during a storm and landed to form this odd pattern, but upon closer examination we found that the beach coral is relatively smooth due to erosion and abrasion, while the white coral pieces that make up the "g" are far more pristine in appearance. The only white coral pieces we could find that look like the pieces that form the feature are the ones scattered widely thoughout the area surrounding the feature. I couldn't find two pieces of white coral on the ground closer to each other than a few meters, and yet the feature is comprised of several hundred such pieces side-by-side so that removing a single piece exposes the gray coral below. I am at a loss to imagine a natural process that could result in such a feature. It looks to me like somebody at some time went around and collected up a whole bunch of white coral pieces and then laid them out on the ground in a specific pattern. If I set out to duplicate that activity today I estimate that it would take at least half a day, most of the time being spent in scouting around collecting white coral. What is really baffling is why the creator of this feature did not just go out to the ocean beach a couple hundred meters away and gather up a pile of white coral from there? But they didn't because the coral of the "g" is not beach coral. It may be that there was once a lot more white coral in the "islands" near the "g" than there is now and the reason it's now hard to find is because the "g" maker gathered it up. Who made the feature, when, and to what purpose is a mystery to me. We'll be soliciting the opinions of experts in atoll morphology and perhaps someone will be able to explain it as a natural phenomenon, but that would surprise me and, at least at this time, I have little doubt that it is man-made. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:00:19 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Holt Someone, somewhere, has the plans to the ship. The rats probably ate the copy left on board. Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:02:00 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Andy <<>> Ron, A quick check of that website indicates that it is not among the many sound clips they have available. I have e-mailed the webmaster and archivist inquiring about its status. Whatever info the forum can provide about the broadcast would be helpful (ie: What network it was on, running time etc). On an off topic note, that website has many, many historical radio and TV broadcasts as downloadable clips. Its main address is http://earthstation1.simplenet.com/ LTM, Andy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure we've been down this road before. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:03:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > From David Katz > > The following web site has some historical March of Time broadcasts, but, > alas, not the Earhart one. > > http://www.otr.com/news_frame.html I've placed an order with Ed Carr for his one-hour tape of "The Search for Amelia Earhart." My guess is that it is the CBS radio documentary from 1960. If we're lucky, it might have some snippets from the "March of Time." I called some radio archives in New York City last year. None of them had the tapes for this show. CBS might have the tapes, but they wouldn't talk to an outsider. If anyone has any pull with CBS, you might try twisting their arm. I found one man advertising the desired tapes on the internet. I spoke with him last year. He and his wife are blind, I believe, and run a Braille transcription service. I mailed him some TIGHAR notes and a request for the tape, but to no avail. I called him again today and left a message on his tape machine. Maybe some sunny Californian can talk him into sharing his tape with us. :o( His name is Ronald Staley. QUIK-SCRYBE 17734-6 Devonshire Street Northridge, CA 91325-1202 Phone: (818) 832-6358 Tollfree: (888) 820-7845 FAX: (310) 301-0344 E-Mail: quikscrybe@earthlink.net The tape is: 020. The March of Time; 7 8 37; "Features Story on Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." 7 15 37; "Second Story on Earhart Disappearance." Web site: http://www.quikscrybe.com/catalog.html LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:06:22 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Post-lost messages MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Troy <> I'll answer as long as we both agree that this is speculation on my part .... With two people fully able to move around on the Niku I would have expected more obvious signs to have been around by the time of the July 9th fly over. My sense of FN (due to his life experiences) is that he would have devoted some energy during the first days of being stranded to creating obvious signs for any ship that might be in the area to spot them (signal fires prepared to be lit, etc.) if both he and AE were fully functioning. Mind you, we believe they would not be expecting an aerial search but such preparations could have been obvious from the air. The fact that they were not and assuming they had landed on Gardner gives me a clue that only one was ambulatory. The way I would divvy up work loads on a stranded island if there were two people would be much different than if there were only one fully mobile. Foraging for food and water is first, followed by shelter. But I would also be equally concerned at that time to make sure that, given the human resources to do so, I had created some means to be noticed by ships in the area to rescue. If there is only one person, you feed and forage first and then, if you have the strength, work on developing obvious signs for passing ships to know you are there. This task would be much easier with two people who would be able to team up their skills. Subsequent to this reasoning, we appear to have several clues (in the form of Betty's notebook, anecdotal, and the arrangement of the primitive eating area at the seven site) that point more to an individual rather than individualS functioning on the site. Plus only one castaway skeleton. In the toughest survival situation, I imagine there would be 3 choices with a dead body, neither of which would leave obvious skeletal evidence: (1) cannibalism, (2) leave the body where it is (3) bury it on land or sea. Again, these are just thoughts and I do not believe this theory is provable on existing evidence. I also hope that I have expressed my thoughts clear enough because I only have a minute here to jot my thoughts down (gotta get out of the house for Halloween). LTM (who hated tricks or treats) Troy #2something ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:25:14 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann ...From Ric A newspaper account written by a reporter who was in Darwin when AE and FN arrived specifically says that they picked up - not dropped off - parachutes that had been shipped there for them'... *********************************** And of course, we all know just how accurate & reliable are all contemporaneous newspaper accounts... naturally, the reporter actually watched those parachutes being loaded onto the plane... or ... did he just see them sitting on the ground next to the plane (as depicted in one of the Purdue photo gallery pictures) with other material that obviously was not going to be loaded on an aircraft that already had been stripped of all uneccessary items to eliminate any excess weight...? And why on earth would the editor of 'Last Flight' insert a deliberate lie about something as inconsequential as to whether they carried parachutes on the 2000+ mile, over water leg from Lae to Howland... & furthermore, why would they fly without parachutes, almost three-quarters of the way around the world (mostly over land ) where parachutes might very well have made a difference as to their survival in the event of a midair crisis & only rugged, non-cleared terrain below ? Lets face it, everyone knows that 'Last Flight' was published to insure that AE's reputation & accomplishments were not to be tarnished by what happened at the termination of the round-the-world flight (and to make a few bucks for GPP's publishing firm) but to insist that _everything_ recorded in this account must be suspect & therefore not to be in any way considered as factual... even when the account is quoted directly from AE's notes... where there was no apparent motivation to tell a deliberate falsehood... is a real stretch ! Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Here's what the reporter, who was in Darwin when Earhart arrived, wrote on June 28, 1937. You tell me whether he or Last Flight is more credible. "The first thing she did after being officially welcomed was to enquire if parachutes, part of the emergency equipment for the Pacific crossing in front of her, had arrived from America. They reached here more than a week ago." And later in the article..." One of her first actions was to ask the Civil Aviation Officer (Mr. Alan Collins) whether two 'Irvin caterpillar 'chutes' had been delivered from America. fully tested and ready for immediate use, the parachutes were waiting in Mr. Collins office." As far as I know, it is not the case that the leaving of parachutes in Darwin as related in Last Flight appears in any of Earhart's own notes. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:33:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Hi, Ric. I wonder if you and Randy Jacobsen can help me out on two questions: First: I received the 8th Edition you sent and was going through Randy's work "Reconstructing Earhart's Flight", last night. It appeared to me that Randy concluded (with appropriate cautions), using his Monte Carlo analysis, that "FINALLY, WHEN EARHART BELIEVED SHE WAS AT HOWLAND, THE PLANE WAS ACTUALLY SOMEWHERE ABOUT 100 TO 135 nm TO THE SW OF HOWLAND." (I didn't spot any precise bearing southwest from Howland) Since TIGHAR's maps on the website show that Gardner is to the southeast of Howland, if TIGHAR's and Randy's Monte Carlo analysis is correct and Earhart actually turned onto the LOP 157/337 at a point 100 to 135 nautical miles to the southwest of Howland (erroneously thinking she was at Howland), then don't we, in effect, have a second 157/337 LOP that runs significantly to the west of, and parallel to, the 157/337 LOP that TIGHAR's maps show running through Howland and then by Gardner? Have you or Randy plotted how far this "second" LOP is from Gardner? Second: Randy concludes that the offset to the southwest in Earhart's planned route was caused by adverse weather: "THUS IT IS THE WEATHER DURING THE MIDDLE SEGMENT OF HER FLIGHT THAT CONTRIBUTES MOST TO THE UNANTICIPATED HEADWINDS AND SOUTHERLY CROSSWINDS EARHART EXPERIENCED." In response to some postings by Alan Caldwell, I thought that TIGHAR had concluded that any suggestions that unanticipated headwinds adversely affected the flight (e.g., as suggested by Elgen Long) were unfounded. That conclusion seems to be contradicted by this statement. Is there an explanation? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let Randy respond to your LOP question. I don't recall that we ever said that there were no headwinds or that crosswinds could not have had an adverse effect on the flight. In fact, it seems clear that some headwinds and crosswinds were encountered during the flight. We did say that Elgen Long's allegations about strong headwinds being responsible for the airplane running out of fuel long before it should have were unfounded. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:04:31 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The "g" seen on Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy O.K. You've convinced me that getting to the bottom of the mystery of the 6 at the 7 Site does appear to be something that we should be spending time and money consulting experts on "atoll morphology" about. It will be especially valuable to get these expert opinions, as none of the experts will have actually been there and seen it, but instead will be relying upon your own disinterested description of this major find. Once we determine that it is human, of course, we will still have the problem of who did it. Or will we? --Chris Kennedy *********************************************************************** From Ric I would say that, if we're lucky, further study may make it possible for us to formulate a reasonable hypothesis that may even be testable. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:06:41 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Merton Backlund It seems to me Time-Life publications put out a series of March of Time broadcasts some time back. Also, the University of Memphis Radio Archives has some March of Time radio broacasts including a 1937 year end summary. http://www.people.memphis.edu/~mbensman/ I think a little searching on the net would probably find the show in question. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:14:17 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Parachutes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Patrick Gaston The parachute question remains an intriguing one. "Last Flight" was based upon notes and letters mailed home by Amelia from various points enroute. Mary Lovell got a look at some of these original dispatches for "The Sound of Wings," so perhaps the original message from Darwin still exists as well. That would certainly settle the controversy. Purdue, maybe? As for the "g," maybe it stands for "Gallagher" since Gerald had a summer retreat or convalescent home (opinions vary) at or near the Seven Site. Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric AE's notes are at Purdue but I didn't see a reference to parachutes in Darwin. Opinions do, indeed, vary about what Gallagher was doing at the Seven Site but if he constructed the "g" as some kind of lable he picked an odd place to put it (way back in the bush, away from the lagoon) and he picked a letter that is not in the Gilbertese alphabet. To the people on the island he was " Karaka" or "Kela" or "Komitina" (pronounced "koMISna" - commissioner). A "K" would have been a better choice. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:15:42 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy jacobson The Monte Carlo analysis ends at the point when AE says "I must be on you and cannot see you", and assumes complete dead reckoning from Lae to Howland, adjusting for forecast winds. Given that, Earhart would have believed to be at/near Howland, when in fact, the wind velocity and direction was different than forecast, putting her to the SW of Howland. These wind changes were modest at best, but cumulatively, have a big effect over time. This analysis assumes that there were no celestial fixes, or other adjustments made during the flight. What was learned about this was that it was possible that AE ended up short of Howland, perhaps set to the south (southwest). We also learned that what was forecast was different than what was actually observed in terms of winds. We know information that AE did not, and she knew information that we (still) don't know. The analysis cannot be used as proof for anything, due to the large number of assumptions, but does indicate internal consistencies with AE's radio messages, navigation, and flight parameters, and possibly an indication of offset from planned tracks: nothing more. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:16:46 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Pete > From Mike Holt > > Someone, somewhere, has the plans to the ship. Agreed, ship's builder, ship's agent, insurer (hopefully Lloyd's of London), maybe even the family of a former captain or engineer. Any mention of NC having a sister-ship? Last resort may be a copy of Janes Merchant Ships from say 1928? I'll see what I can come up with in Florida. LTM Pete #2419 ************************************************************************* From Ric I've never seen mention of a sister-ship. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:44:14 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: "g" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dean A 2056 I haven't followed this "g" thread much but Ric, have you or others though that this may be a marker where something was buried under it? ****************************************************************** From Ric Well, that's certainly one testable hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:46:45 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Post-lost messages MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Haddock Hi Ric, In all the conversations I've seen on the frum about injuries to AE or FN I've not seen any mention that AE had nurses training and even was a pre-med student. She could have assisted FN if the head wounds were for real or she could have instructed FN on how to assist her if she were injured. Just a thought. One other question, were there their seatbelts in the Electra? Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. I assume so but I don't recall specifically seeing seat belts in the cockpit photos. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:49:31 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: pyramids(a quick reply) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alexander may i just say that the pyramids at giza probably werent built by aliens,but maybe the technology was...just my thoughts as i do study THAT subject myself,right back to the topic at hand--- ********************************************************* From Rix Ohhhkay.....moving right along..... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:55:58 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Thanks. I'll look for Randy's answer to the first question. As to the winds, the Jacobsen report says "THUS, WE ACTUALLY CALCULATE MUCH OF THE TIME DURING THE MC SIMULATIONS THAT EARHART WAS EXPERIENCING 26 KNOT WINDS FROM ROUGHLY 58 DEGREES, RATHER THAN THE 18 KNOT WINDS FROM 68 DEGREES AS FORECAST." I'm not a pilot, but is this considered "strong"? How would we characterize it? In any event, I wonder how this would effect the total time aloft calculation? Long's calculation is 1.5 less than TIGHAR's "about 24 hours". I was just surprised to find any of this after our discussion concerning Long. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric The Monte Carlo simulation was not a TIGHAR project so I can't answer for the calculations Randy spoke of. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:58:33 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Randy, thank you, but you didn't answer my question. Perhaps it's my fault. I think it's a good question. I'll ask it again. You reached a conclusion (duly qualified, I understand and so stated). I quoted that conclusion. That conclusion was fairly specific, yet your reply says the conclusion cannot be used as "proof" for anything. I did not, and am not, asking you to "prove" where Earhart was when she turned south onto the LOP. I was and am asking that if, as your analysis states, she "was" ("may have been" is fine with me) at some point between 100 to 135 nm to the southwest of Howland when she thought she was at Howland, if she used that position as her turning point onto a 157/337 LOP, wouldn't this LOP be much different than a 157/337 LOP actually running through Howland? Furthermore, wouldn't this LOP would take her significantly to the west of and parallel to a 157/337 LOP through Howland and Gardner. Correct? If so, how far? If not correct, why not? I'm sorry, but the reason I am asking is that the 8th Edition and your Monte Carlo analysis have been touted to me by others in previous answers as work of great value to the inquiry. I have been told to read both. O.K., I have now read the Monte Carlo analysis. Yet, from your reply, it's almost as if you are saying that it's an interesting little diversion, and really cannot be taken with any degree of seriousness and are distancing yourself from its conclusions (again, duly qualified). Now if that's what TIGHAR is saying, I don't think we need to be hearing anything more about it's tremendous value to the inquiry. You take the bad with the good when you do these analyses, no cherry-picking allowed. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:16:02 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The "g" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King > A "K" > would have been a better choice. > I wonder, though, whether the lack of a "G" in I Kiribati was something that was recognized and acknowledged in the language training that cadet officers got in those days. Most of the old orthographies of oceanic languages, developed by missionaries in the 19th and early 20th centuries, were pretty crude, but weren't replaced by more sophisticated spelling systems until the 1970s or so -- this is why Truk became Chuuk, Ponape became Pohnpei, Kusae became Kosrae, and so on. I'm afraid I don't have ready access to the material that you and Van copied in Tarawa, but the I Kiribati language telegrams there would doubtless tell us whether "G" was used by Kovernment officials in the '40s and '50s. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric Beg pardon. I went back and checked the correspondence. I was wrong. The letter g does occur in written Gilbertese ( such as in the place name Rongorongo and the term "kanga" for owned land) but apparently not as an initial letter. The best example is, perhaps, the word Kiribati (pronounced KIRibas) which is a transliteration of the English word Gilberts. We have at least one piece of correspondence in which Gallagher refers to himself as Komitina. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:33:58 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: parachutes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > From Don Neumann > > And why on earth would the editor of 'Last Flight' insert a deliberate > lie about something as inconsequential as to whether they carried > parachutes on the 2000+ mile, over water leg from Lae to Howland... & > furthermore, why would they fly without parachutes, almost > three-quarters of the way around the world (mostly over land ) where > parachutes might very well have made a difference as to their survival > in the event of a midair crisis & only rugged, non-cleared terrain below > ? If the journalist was on the scene he might have checked the story. If he saw the parachutes actually loaded into the aircraft he could realistically say they collected them. If he had been hanging around the airport he may have even seen them arrive. He may not have had to rely on the photographs for his information. > And why on earth would the editor of 'Last Flight' insert a deliberate > lie ? Instead of being the journo , imagine you are the editor of Last Flight. You were not on the scene, but you see a couple of parachutes and a few aircraft parts on the ground in a photo. Hmm, looks like they may be dropping off some stuff to lighten the load.... Not a lie, but an assumption. As to the question "why would they fly over all that land without parachutes then carry them for a water crossing?" I can only imagine that, like most other aircrew, they intended landing the Electra if anything went wrong over land. Their route was planned (except for a couple of deviations that could have got them in trouble if they went down) and searchers would know where to look. Much of the overland part of the flight was completed in daylight. In day light one can crash fairly safely if necessary. One thing to consider here. It was not, and is still not common practice to carry parachutes on civil flights. In those days even military pilots and aircrew tended to stick with the plane rather than step outside unless the aircraft was breaking apart or on fire. Parachute escapes only became popular a couple of years later when holes were being shot in airplanes and if one didn't jump there was a good chance of a resultant fire turning one to steak. On the other hand, as long as the aircraft could still fly and there was no serious fire risk, many crews preferred a crash landing to jumping. Why parachutes over water then? Well almost the whole of this particular flight was to be at night. If the Electra malfunctioned badly enough to be at risk of having to set down there was very little chance of ditching inthe ocean at night and still having enough airplane to climb out of. Engine failure to the extent that the aircraft was losing altitude in the dark would be an example. In that case jumping would be the only way out. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric The newspaper article definitley gives the impression that the reporter was there and personally witnessed the events he describes, including hearing AE ask if the 'chutes had arrived from America. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:36:10 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright Since we have never been able to find the script or the broadcast of the March of Time broadcast we are unable to compare it with the time, date, and content with the alleged post loss msgs. Some radio operator in Honolulu, station sign not recalled, mistook it for the real thing. I would think it is a valuable tool in accessing post lost stuff since the phrases, situation, etc., may coincide. I know we have been down the road before, but we never got to the end . I spent a great deal of time trying to find it, but struck out. Maybe someone out there can find it. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. We should find it if we can, if only a copy of the script, to see if it resembles any of the alleged post-loss messages. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:59:41 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: pyramids(a quick reply) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From a marsupial in the Southern Hemisphere What is the possibility of the "g" feature being something like a portal? "g" for gateway.. "g" for Giza.. "g" for go.... Maybe Amelia stumbled across it and in the process of turning around to face the sun - zap!! she was instantly transported to the great pyramids in a parallel universe.... It should be relatively easy to test this theory.... (Name omitted due to cowardice....) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:58:59 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Marsupial Comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey Ric and the Marsupial, I think the marsupial has been heavy into the Fosters again. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:00 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: artifact 26S43 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dave Porter Ric, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that artifact 26S43 is NOT a part of the metal band which joins the upper and lower portions of the stock of an M1 30 cal. carbine together. That part is referred to in the schematic I viewed as the "bayonet band" and is all one piece consisting of a barrel sleeve which holds the bayonet mounting lug, and a roughly strawberry (in cross section) shaped piece which connects the upper and lower stocks around the barrel by means of a tensioning screw at the very bottom. So, there is no separate "top piece" of the barrel band to clamp to a bottom piece using the spring tension and pin indentations suggested by the artifact photo. I also closely inspected a vintage carbine from the collection of one of the owners of the gun shop where I work part time, thinking that there were several manufacturers of that particular weapon, and some of them might have slight differences. That cemented, for me anyway, that my guess was wrong. The portion of the band resembling the artifact in shape is in fact, of the wrong proportions. Artifact 26S43 has a much deeper "U channel" and is also much wider from front to back than the upper portion of the (one piece) .30 Carbine barrel band. So, swing and a miss, although it sure was fun doing some real research for you instead of my usual harangues about spelling and poor attempts at humor. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 (who think that the Detroit Lions are a poor attempt at humor, and certainly need to be harangued about something--Go Red Wings!) *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dave. That's an important possible source eliminated. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:20 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Fuel and airspeed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell I've read several accounts of fuel and airspeed scedules for AE's flight. someone help me here. Supposedly AE was to keep certain power schedules and make reductions at certain times and that using this method allowed the aiespeed to slowly increase until the next power reduction. My problem with that is that I don't know how Noonan could navigate under those conditions. He had to have a constant true airspeed. It is certainlt possible to take a reading at the beginning and the end of each power schedule and rough in an average but that is not the usual way to navigate nor is it the least bit accurate. Also fuel flow doesn't go in three hour chunks. Fuel flow is a curve. I would have thought AE would need to keep a constant TAS for Noonan to have any success at navigating. That would mean a slow but continual reduction in power to maintain the required airspeed. That would also follow Johnson's schedules but in a continual manner rather than a periodical one. That should be even more efficient. Alan #2329 Anyone with thoughts on this? ************************************************************************* From Ric I said I wasn't going to get sucked back into these speculations but it seems to be a lost cause. Okay, I know when I'm beat. You're right, of course, about the need for a constant TAS for navigational purposes. Earhart said several times that she flew the airplane at 150 mph. You're also right about the inappropriateness of dividing the flight into three hour chunks, but Johnson's figures should not be taken as an optimum formula for maximum performance such as one might give to a test pilot. Johnson was trying to come up with a program that Amelia Earhart could follow. From all we've been able to learn about the predicted performance, it was very conservative. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:31 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > We also > learned that what was forecast was different than what was actually > observed in terms of winds. We know information that AE did not, and > she knew information that we (still) don't know You're correct, Randy. Here is what Earhart received BEFORE take off: "....rain squalls 250 miles E of Lae, wind ESE 12 -15. Ontario to 175 degrees, partly cloudy cumulus clouds about 10K feet, mostly unlimited, winds ENE 18. Thence to Howland partly cloudy, scattered heavy showers, winds ENE 15." This was on June 30th. On July 1st she received the following: Describing the conditions at Howland and the Itasca, winds at 3000' East at 23 Knots and at 5650' East at 22 knots. As the plane took off the following report was received but unknown whether AE received it. " .........rain squalls about 300 miles east of Lae....." "winds east south east about 25 knots to Ontario then east north east about 20 knots to Howland. At her 5:18 report supposedly at 4.33 S and 159.7 E at 8,000' she reported her winds at 23 knots. Winds at altitude for her arrival were estimated at about 10 knots out of the east. What this tells us is they had fairly accurate winds and if anything they were less than forecast for the final part of her flight. That means if Noonan did not have ANY celestial for the whole flight and DRd all the way he would have OVER FLOWN not under flown. There is evidence for what it is worth they knew roughly, at least, when and where they passed the Ontario and/or Nauru. They reported a 23 knot wind at 5:18 and without knowing where they were at two distinct points they could not have known that. Then if the report of an airplane flying over Tabiteuea during the night was AE's plane then she was pretty much on course although there is no way we can know if they could see the islands or identify them at night. From there on there can only be speculation. Noonan got an LOP which means he HAD to have been able to shoot the sun or moon a minimum of twice. That information would have given him a longitude and a ground speed. It would have been accurate to the degree his shots were accurate. That should have been no more off than 10 miles or so as to his east/west position. Where he was north/south is anyone's guess because we don't know whether he got a star fix before dawn or how much the wind DIRECTION varied from what he thought it was. If they had flares or there was significant debris on the water he could have obtained drift and a fairly accurate wind. We also don't know whether he was navigating to where Howland actually was or where it erroneously was plotted. Given the weather at Howland they had little or no chance of seeing the island from above the low scattered CU deck and not much better chance below it at 1,000 feet. They needed the DF steer. How close could they have been? Just out of earshot or closer if there was a lot of ship and equipment noise. How close could they have been at 1,000' and not seen the island or been seen under perfect conditions? The horizon, I think, is 3 miles away at sea level. I know someone has figured this before. What is the point of this? The point is I know of no evidence to put them a long way off from Howland. Could they have been? Sure, but there is nothing to support them being a long way off or within a few miles for that matter. I don't know where they were and neither does anyone else. We can speculate them being a few miles off or a hundred miles off. No evidence supports or eliminates either one. If I were to guess I would put my money on FN's expertise. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:42 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson IF, and that was one of my assumptions, was that if Earhart was expecting 18 knot winds, she would expect to arrive earlier than if the winds were actually 26 knots. That's the easy part, again assuming pure dead reckoning and no navigational fixes. Now, if she expected winds from 68*, and accounted for that in her flight direction, then a wind slightly to her left would force her to her right, again unknowingly. That is why the MC simulations predict her flight to have ended short and to the SW of Howland. Again, let me re-iterate: the basic assumption was that all AE had at her disposal was the forecast winds and no navigational help, this is what would result. Strong is relative. An 8 kt increase in wind speed over an expected 18 knots is a large (i.e. strong) increase, nearly 50%. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:03:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jeez... Is Chris more impressed with himself that he is a skeptic, an attorney, or that he was able to pony up enough to secure a spot on the expedition? Yes, an extremely cynical and sarcastic question, but I think as the postings since the expedition have shown, perhaps a valid one... ************************************************************************* From Ric Just to clarify a point.....Chris was a Sponsor/Team Member on the 1999 expedition but all of the Niku IIII team was selected purely on merit. Chris distinguished himself in the field on both expeditions. Nobody worked harder. It may seem odd that TIGHARs who have been so close and so committed to the work can be such skeptics and argue so vehemently with me and with each other - but that is our strength, not our weakness. Chris, or Tom, or Kenton, or Randy, or any of the other expedition veterans and senior researchers may publicly question my assertions or my sanity - and I will give as good as I get - but it's never personal. "For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition;" (Henry V, act IV, scene III) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:03:25 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson OK, Chris, I understand your concern. Yes, if they turned on the LOP at the time she said "I must be on you and cannot see you", they would be approx. 100 miles short of the LOP passing through Howland. But didn't Noonan actually take a measurement for the LOP? We all assume so, but in fact, it wasn't required. It could have been pre-calculated, and that was the conservative assumption I used (no navigational fixes). If Noonan had indeed done any sort of fix, he would have been able to reduce that offset substantially, putting the LOP closer to Howland. Did he? I don't know and nobody else knows. If AE did go up and down the LOP for another 1.5 hours without adjusting for the wind, they would have been set to the west by at least 10 miles, further adding to the navigational errors. If she decided to fly in circles or boxes without letting Noonan know, then he would have lost all track of navigation, and had to rely solely upon a solar fix to get a new LOP offset, not at dawn. That's a very tricky calculation, one that could be done, but it is hard and is fraught with larger errors than that taken right at dawn. Personally, what I think happened is that they were short, and decided to fly to the middle of the Phoenix Islands. Not knowing they were short, they veered off the LOP for the middle of the islands, and starting to the west from where they thought they were, they ended up at Gardner. I've no proof of this, just speculation and a gut feeling. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:03:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kerry Tiller Would it be possible that both parachute stories are half right? Try this scenario: The "Irvin Caterpillar" chutes were replacements for the ones that AE and FN had been carrying up to until Darwin. The "old" chutes were put with the stuff to leave behind, a witness to this (whose recollection was later used to flesh out "Last Flight") recalled AE saying, when asked about them "We're going to leave those behind, they don't work well over water anyway." [Or something to that effect]. What the witness missed, was what the reporter picked up on: new "Irvin Caterpillar" chutes had arrived from the States for the last two legs of the flight. What the reporter missed, of course, is that they were replacements for another type of parachute. I don't know much about parachutes, but it seems to me the old WWII military types required you to "tuck and roll" when you hit the ground to avoid breaking something critical. (Small canopy, fast decent?}. You can't "tuck and Roll" on the ocean, maybe these "Irvin Caterpillars" had a bigger, and/or more controllable canopy for a slower decent more suitable for over water. Just a thought. LTM Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:03:52 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Re. plans and specs for Norwich City -- I don't think they'd be much help. What I'm thinking of is being able to look around at the small stuff -- the fittings and such -- to see whether anything helps us make sense out of some of the esoteric artifacts from the Seven Site. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:08:50 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: hoaxes and the "g" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From John Watson Hi Ric, Regarding Wells' radio play, actually there was a very popular music program being broadcast on another frequency and it didn't end until after the radio play had already begun. Unfortunately, when folks changed stations and tuned in expecting to hear that old favorite, the Murcury Theater, what they got instead was live coverage of the invasion from Mars. Refresh my memory - how large is the "6" / "g"? Any chance that there are other letters/numbers nearby? Maybe some of each, off to the left? How about "N R 1" ? Seems possible that AE could have tried to write her N number - that would be a sure fire way of getting attention from an aerial search - providing it's large enough... and providing some more airplanes came back ... ltm jon ************************************************************************ From Ric It's about a meter tall and almost a meter wide - not huge, but very visible against the gray background. We didn't search the dense scaevola surrounding the clearing where the figure appears but old photos show that it was once much more open than it is today. The possibility that this is just one of a series of figures is another testable hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:12:28 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Coral Gs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Denise Ric says: "I am at a loss to imagine a natural process that could result in such a feature. It looks to me like somebody at some time went around and collected up a whole bunch of white coral pieces and then laid them out on the ground in a specific pattern." Ric, is it possible you are reading too much into this? As a kid, bored, with nothing else to hand, while in the shade on little deserted coral islands - while the adults were out scuba diving, or reef fishing, or trying to fix engines on the beach - I used to spend whole days doing exactly things like this - making pictures out of whatever bits were different on the island. I would think it hilarious if I found people had discovered my odd little patterns someplace and actually were spending serious time trying to analyse their meaning. (If one of mine looked like a g - it probably was meant to be a cat!) So put me down as choosing that interpretation of the coral formation: just a little bored kid who "went around and collected up a whole bunch of white coral pieces and then laid them out on the ground in a specific pattern" that was actually a pitiful attempt to outline the shape of her pet parrot! LTM (who encouraged her offspring to stay in the shade) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting hypothesis. How do we test it? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:16:16 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Different Alphabets MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From denise Ric says: "g does occur in written Gilbertese (such as in the place name Rongorongo and the term "kanga" for owned land") Ah ha! No! Not so, Ric. You were right the first time. There is no "g" in I Kiribati. What they have instead is an "ng" as in the word "finger" - the g does not exist as a seperate entity. In most parts of the Pacific where this occurs, the "ng" is replaced by the letter "q" - to avoid confusion - so I find it odd that this hasn't also been done in the Gilberts. Think of it being like the spelling of Nadi in Fiji, which is pronounced, as we all know, Nandi. Since the letter d in Fijian is never pronounced without the preceding n, there is no need to print the preceding n since it is implied. Great system which saved the missionaries heaps of time and effort when printing up their local translations of the Bible, and had the wonderful side-effect of becoming a shibboleth - something to exclude outsiders - and that's something never to be sneered at! LTM (who never sneered at shibboleths) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:17:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Bridegeman I was able to get some old recordings from the National Archives. There's a pretty decent library of that stuff there. Worth a try. Alan Bridgeman [#2486] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 18:55:00 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Troy parachutes and their cords would be very useful in a survival mode. You could make rudimentary shelter, tools, signaling devices, etc. Again, I am surprised that, if both AE/FN were on Gardner and were both ambulatory, no obvious signs such as signaling devices were there. Things such as parachutes and other equipment could be used--unless, of course, one or both of them were unable to move about. *************************************************************** From Ric Well...we don't know whether they took the 'chutes with them or, if they did, whether they got them out of the plane under whatever circumstances they were dealing with, and we don't know that the "markers of some kind" that Lambrecht supposedly saw weren't parachutes. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:28:11 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The "6" seen on Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From Amanda Dunham Ric, About the "6" at the "7" site, I really wouldn't worry unless you find some sort of 5 or 8 around. Or any palm tree "W"s. This pyramid-free waste of time was brought to you today by the letters N and R and the numbers 1, 6, 0, and 2. (Obscure Sesame Street reference) I'd like to point out two things: 1) that NR16020 is a nicely specific message to spell out in coral; 2) and that "6" is smack in the middle of the sequence so start there for ease of spacing and maximum legibility (after all, AE was of the typewriter generation) But you've probably already thought of these things... Amanda, #2418 who will go back to sitting in the corner now ************************************************************************** From Ric Good thoughts. I even get the palm tree W reference. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 08:29:08 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann Th' WOMBAT's parachute response, as to the contention that there was _no_ need for parachutes until their overnight 'hop' from Lae to Howland, just doesn't comport with the many descriptions of the hostile mountainous & jungle areas submitted by AE in numerous reports to the newspaper (especially throughout the subcontinent & the Dutch Indies)... unless of course AE made it all up... just to increase the interest in her articles. Frankly, I can't think of any valid reason (short of an aircraft on fire in midair) that would lead anyone to attempt to parachute into the middle of the Pacific Ocean, at night, without a raft (still in the plane?)... if there were _any_ possiblility of ditching the aircraft, in spite of the inherent danger involved in any mid-ocean ditching... especially for two people with no previous experience at parachuting from plane. I really don't know (apparently no one else does either) what the reporter in Darwin actually saw or heard (or from whom he heard) himself, personally... which very well might have been 2nd hand information from another source... but (to me anyway) travelling that far _without_ parachutes & then being overly concerned about _not_ having said parachutes, for the leg of the flight over the vastness of the open Pacific Ocean, where parachuting would be far more dangerous for inexperienced parachutists & would only serve to separate the parachutists from their plane & whatever survival gear they did or did not have on board... makes no sense at all. Don Neumann ********************************************************************** From Ric This situation presents, I think, an interesting example of the kind of quandry that often confronts an historical investigator. Two sources disagree about what happened. If we give weight to one over the other do we choose the one that fits best with our perception of what should have happened or do we choose the source that is more contemporaneous with the event in question? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:00:07 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Coral "g" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Steve From Steve Someone suggested several days ago the possibility of the "g" having something buried underneath. Although not specifically stated in that posting, but perhaps implied, I would add one further comment along that line...that being the possibility that the "g" was left to mark a "grave." I assume this theory (grave site marked with a letter "g") has been considered and/or discussed previously? As you (Ric) mentioned, this is a testable hypothesis. ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, "g" could stand for "grave." If I wanted to argue against that I would ask what the purpose of such a marking might be? Why not a cross or the person's name or initials? Here's one possible explanation. Let's say I'm a castaway and that I have just buried my companion. I'm still hoping that I'll be rescued and, if that happens, I'll want to be able to relocate the grave so that the remains can be recovered or at least properly marked with a headstone. In that context, the "g" is basically a note to myself rather than a message to someone else. Just to throw a little avgas on this particular bonfire - one of the artifacts we recovered from the Seven Site appears to the wire handle of a small metal cup. The nature of the break where the handle has broken away from the (supposed) cup indicates that the top edge failed in tension while the bottom edge failed in compression - as if someone had been using the cup to dig with. I know that it's frustrating to not be able see these things yet. Yesterday we finished assigning numbers and databasing precise recovery locations for the 60 artifacts and the several hundred animal bones collected during Niku IIII. Today we'll start photographing the most interesting and puzzling artifacts under studio conditions. We'll get 'em up on the website as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:01:25 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ed Croft To Ron Bright, There is a Ronald Staley with a web site www.quikscrybe.com, who has a copy of the broadcast. He has plans (no timeframe) to copy it to a CD for sale. I spoke with him tonight. He remembers talking to a Tighar member a while back who was a Professor from the midwest. He seems nice and sincere. Good luck, Ed Croft ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:06:28 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The "6" seen on Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Phil Tanner > 1) that NR16020 is a nicely specific message to spell out in coral; > 2) and that "6" is smack in the middle of the sequence so start there > for ease of spacing and maximum legibility (after all, AE was of the > typewriter generation) > Apologies if I'm missing an intended irony here, but wouldn't E-A-R-H-A-R-T take less effort in demanding conditions and be recognized by millions more? LTM (who irony meter sometimes malfunctions) Phil 2276 ************************************************************************* From Ric Or how about H-E-L-P? No, although this thing can be seen from the air (because the white coral stands out so starkly against the gray coral) it seems too small and too far back in the bush to be intended as a signal to airplanes. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:08:19 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric > From Ric > ... do we > choose the one that fits best with our perception of what should have > happened or do we choose the source that is more contemporaneous with the > event in question? In this case, the problem is that we don't have the raw materials to look at that went into the book. The assertion in the book was published later than the newspaper account, but there is at least the theoretical possibility that the author of the book may have had his hands on a source that was "more contemporaneous with the event in question." In any event, I think the whole parachute question is a red herring until parachute pieces turn up on Niku. THEN one would have to choose the account that matches the evidence. I don't see how ASSUMING that chutes were on board would change the method of searching Niku. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:21:25 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The 'g' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alexander someone mentioned it maybe being a marker of some kind,what if the G means GRAVE,just a thought...did you explore around the area where this letter appeared ************************************************************************* From Ric Yes and no. The feature is in a fairly small "island" of bare coral rubble - an area perhaps equal to a typical suburban front yard (garden). The "island" is surrounded by dense scaevola. Not far away is another larger "island" of coral rubble. The open areas of coral rubble are easy to inspect and we saw no similar features in them. We (particularly Jim Morrissey) did some exploring around in the dense scaevola but came across nothing similar to the feature. Investigating the feature was not a high priority or even a medium priority. It was a curiosity. The excavations at the Seven Site were our primary focus and, I beleive, rightly so. Nonetheless, the feature is fascinating. It may be of no consequence at all or it could be a major key to the puzzle. That's what makes it so much fun to puzzle over. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:23:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: pyramids(a quick reply) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alexander oh no...what have i started here...hmmm? *************************************************************** From Ric Fear not. The hounds have been hearded back into the kennel. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:25:53 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > From Ed Croft > Ronald Staley ... remembers talking to a Tighar member a while back who was a > Professor from the midwest. That's me, I think. I spoke with him last year. I am a Religious Studies Professor in Buffalo, New York. In the nineteenth century, when the Erie Canal was completed, we were on the edge of the Western frontier. ;o) Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:32:09 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bill Moffett Hi, Ric, Kerry Tiller's posting in yesterday's forum, jogged my memory. In "for what it's worth", my USAAF "Pilots Information File", revised March 1, 1944, has the following in the section on parachutes: "...Check the date of the last inspection. The packing interval should not exceed 60 days in the United States or 30 days in the tropics." While I conclude we have no specifics on what AE actually did on the subject of 'chutes, the Darwin reporter's reference to Irvin chutes arriving there looks to me like the result of pre-planning. If so, the chutes they had carried from the US had "expired" and Irvin, a 'chute manufacturer, sent replacements. The new ones could have been loaded and the old ones appear in the photo which purports to show gear left in Darwin. Makes sense to me! LTM Bill Moffet #2156CE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:32:58 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright Ric, The great parachute controversy is like the philosophical question of "how many angels can dance on the top of a pin?" Whether she had them or not seems to me irrelevant and impossible to resolve as you suggest. One guys says this, the other guy says that. (But I do find it hard to beleive that AE would depend on the international mail delivery system to get the parachutes and survival equipment to Darwin in time for her takeoff with her tight time shedule.) Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:33:34 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright For Ed Croft, Re: March of Time AE broadcast Do you have a telephone number for Staley? Sounds like he will hold on to the broadcast and sell the CD. Is it a money thing. Does he have a transcript, which is what Tighar needs. I'd be happy to call him. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:34:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The "6" seen on Niku MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bob Krebs Ric, We're all dating ourselves here....what a mad, mad, mad, mad world - huh? :-) They were looking for buried treasure as well and look what happened to them. Synchronicity or what? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:41:42 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jim Raz <> I would say what would have logically happened given the fact that they eschewed parachutes up until then. Parachuting into the ocean is a pretty sure way of drowning what with getting out of the harness and the chute itself dragging you down into the depths, et al. as I'm sure AE and all other pilots knew and know. <> I would go with a "yes" to the first "choice" question as, in this case, it seems as if the second choice has been considerably weakened by the initial quote. ___Jim Raz **************************************************************************** From Ric I have to disagree with you. As a matter of principle, I think that the historical investigator has to give the most weight to the most contemporaneous primary source, no matter what our perceptopns may be about what "makes the most sense." None of us were there and there is no way we can claim to fully understand the context in which these events happened. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:43:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Three point vs wheel landings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Harvey Schor > From Dick Pingrey > > Incidental to your most informative letter,I was reminded of a bit of L-10 history related in the Time Life volume "The Epic of Flight-Designers and Test Pilots",P.51. During the L-10 development program, a young Lockheed aeronautical engineer named "Kelly" Johnson realized that model tunnel tests had revealed a serious flaw in the design:the single (!) rudder control would not provide sufficient control for the one engine out flight condition.He proposed,redesigned, and successfully tunnel tested the familiar twin vertical fin configuration which was immediately adopted by Lockheed. I particularly enjoyed learning more about the author of the oft quoted and much used fuel management telegrams that he sent to AE in 1937. Someday I'll get to read his bio. harvey schor #2387 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:23:18 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > From Ron Bright > Re: March of Time AE broadcast > > Do you have a telephone number for Staley? Sounds like he will hold on to the > broadcast and sell the CD. Is it a money thing. Does he have a transcript, > which is what Tighar needs. I'd be happy to call him. Ronald Staley http://www.quikscrybe.com/catalog.html Quikscrybe 5632 Van Nuys Blvd. Suite #10 Van Nuys, CA 91401 (888) 820-7845 E-Mail: quikscrybe@earthlink.net Tape 020. The March of Time; 7 8 37; "Features Story on Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." 7 15 37; "Second Story on Earhart Disappearance." Reprint of my report on our phone call last year. Note the connection to Goerner. Staley may be disinterested in TIGHAR because he buys Goerner's view. ============= REPRINT ======================== I had a long and fascinating conversation with Ron Staley this evening. He was a founding father of the UCLA Radio Archives and worked to preserve Jack Benny's programs. His copy of the March of Time shows was not adequate for reproduction, so he has removed it from his catalogue. He has a friend who has discs from which he may be able to make a fresh copy, but he can't guarantee when he might be able to do so. Tune in Tomorrow by Mary Jane Higley tells how the March of Time was produced. Orson Welles got his start on the show, sometimes imitating babies. The newsreel version of March of Time was based on authentic footage and voices, but the radio program was a docudrama with musical cues to indicate who was speaking. Ron seems to have had a lifelong interest in aviation--he showed quite a command of details of famous events in aviation history, including the flight of Charles Nungesser and Francois Coli in the White Bird. Ron knew Fred Goerner and is still in touch with his widow; he also knew "Wrong-Way" Corrigan. Goerner's taped radio interviews have been sold by Mrs. Goerner to a collector. Ron's wife, Sue, just did a piece on Northwest Orient's loss of a troop plane in Alaska during World War II. Parts of the plane have been found and the area has been set aside as a permanent memorial to the servicemen. When he was producing a magazine about classic radio, Ron did an excerpt from the March of Time on the Earhardt search. The dramatization of the search on the show caused many people to think that they were hearing the actual broadcasts from KHAQQ and the search vessels. He may be able to send me a copy of those excerpts, which should help to test whether Betty was just listening to the March of Time broadcast or whether she heard something quite different from the dramatization. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:25:12 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Three point vs wheel landings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, The latest Air Comics has rather an extensive article (part one of two) on the L-10. I haven't read it yet, but I picked up a copy today. (I think part two will revolve around the L-12). ltm jon ************************************************************************ From Ric Probably a rework of the piece O'Leary did recently for Aeroplane Monthly. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:29:45 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To Marty M. Sounds like you have the investigation under control with Mr. March of Time, Ronald Staley. No sense both of us calling him. Anxiously awaiting that transcript. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:32:09 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The "g" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ted Ostrowski Hi Ric, Upon reading all possibilities about the letter g in the forum, I thought at least it's time to put in my own two cents worth. Could the British or Coast Guard have set it up for aircraft to visually know which particular Phoenix island they are flying over? (G for Gardener). Or is the letter too small for that purpose? Ted ************************************************************************ From Ric In my opinion, way too small and in a totally obscure spot. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:06:23 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Randy, I can see why Ric is tired of LOP posts and I have to agree. We need to never post about the LOP again. Too few have the slightest idea what it is and consequently post really curious theories. Some think the LOP can move or could be in several or many different places. Not so, of course. Once and for all. Anyone can make that LOP for themselves exactly as Noonan did. No knowledge of celestial, sun shots, moon shots, tides, airplanes, oceans, etc is needed. Just lay a map of the area down on the table. Take a straight edge and ease it up to the little dot that says Howland. Aim the straight edge at an angle of 157 degrees. Draw a line. THAT'S THE LOP!!!!! It doesn't make any difference whether Noonan drew it before flight or at anytime during flight. It doesn't make any difference whether he shot the moon or the sun or the starboard wing tip to get his information. The drawing of the LOP has nothing to do with anything other than the mechanical exercise I just outlined. He could have done it in broad daylight or at midnight. It made no difference where he was at the time. He could have been in a bar in Lae, in a right turn over Truk, 200 miles north or south or east or west of Howland or Altoona, PA. It's just a bloody line on paper. It doesn't move. It is ONLY in the position I described. Not short of Howland or any place else. Noonan's sun shots or moon shots or DR or what ever he did was only to get a position and a ground speed. NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with the LOP. The angle of the LOP DOES tell us how he arrived at 157 degrees. As you pointed out, Randy, he might have preplanned it. He planned on taking off at 0000Z with a flight time of 18 hours. At 1800Z the sun at Howland would have been close to 67 degrees.(90 degrees to 157) The sun shot should have had an accuracy of plus or minus 2 degrees. OR he could have taken a moon shot at 4:50. The moon was at 67 degrees at that time. He could also have taken a sun shot approaching Howland as there were several times the sun was near 67 degrees. Keep in mind now all that was for was to determine the ANGLE of the LOP line NOT WHERE TO PUT IT. No matter what the angle was going to be it was still going to be drawn right through Howland. NO WHERE ELSE. What was it for? Well, what it was for was to turn on to find Howland. Run up and down it and he should have found Howland. He needed to find his position east/west on the way into Howland. Once he determined that he measured the distance to his LOP and using the ground speed he had computed he timed into his LOP. It didn't make any difference where he was north or south. The position he found was also on a line running in the same direction so the distance and thus the time between any two points on parallel lines is the same. Now what's the hooker on this? Three problems. 1. If he had Howland plotted erroneously he would never find it. 2. If he was unable to establish a position east/west on the inbound leg he could not get an accurate time/distance to his LOP at Howland. 3. Maybe all worked perfectly and they just couldn't spot the island. If anyone has any questions about this email me privately at acaldwell@aol.com otherwise we'll be responsible for making a grown man (Ric) cry. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:07:40 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: hoaxes & March of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski From Ron Bright > Sounds like you have the investigation under control with Mr. March of > Time, Ronald Staley. This is not the case. After our long, fascinating conversation last year, I mailed Mr. Staley a TIGHAR description of Niku IIII and asked him to let me know the cost of the CD. I never heard back from him. I've sent him e-mail. I called and left a message last week. No response. > No sense both of us calling him. Someone else from the group has contacted him and reported back here that he remembered talking with me. They may be making more progress than I did. If you think you can persuade him to part with the material, go for it! > Anxiously awaiting that transcript. Yes. But from his description of the show, it does not match the kind of material in Betty's notebook. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:09:03 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Parachutes in Darwin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alexander would it be at all possible to FIND OUT if IRVINS kept records and if they archived them,that way it may be possible to find out...just a thought(i have loads of em,thoughts)--- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:11:31 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: AE's house in CA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Haddock Hi Ric, Would you happen to have AE's address when she lived in Calif? I think it was Santa Monica. I saw it in a book at Barnes & Nobles and can't remember what book. (senior moment) I would like to look the place up, take some pictures & introduce myself to the current occupants. Thought it might be fun to do. Who knows, maybe there's something in the attic! Thanks, Ric. Mike Haddock #2438 ********************************************************************** From Ric I think some of your fellow forum subscribers can help you with that. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:09:22 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: AE's house in CA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Bill Carter #2313CE AE's house is in Toluca Lake which is a suburb of Burbank. If memory serves, the house sits on a golf course and is dated but nice. I seriously doubt there is anything of value/use there. It's unclear from the outside whether the house even has an attic. If it does, given AE's popularity, its certainly been searched. My guess is, the current owners don't want to be bothered. ************************************************************************ From Ric Yeah, all that's left is a suitcase in a closet. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:25:53 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > From Alan Caldwell > Randy, I can see why Ric is tired of LOP posts and I have to agree. We need > to never post about the LOP again. Do you plan to ban newbies from the forum? Do you want to close TIGHAR membership to those who understand celestial navigation? Do you want to limit funding of future expedition to those who accept whatever Ric says without question? If this is an educational venture, then the educators have to be willing to teach. If there is already a definitive presentation of what a LOP is and how it is on the web site, then the proper response to future newbies is "please read the page at [insert URL]." Simply telling new people with fresh enthusiasm and untapped funds that their questions are stupid and that such nonsense will not be tolerated on the Forum seems to me to be inconsistent with TIGHAR's goals. I teach for a living. I know how hard it is to go over the same material. In today's class, I plan to teach the book of Job. It's something I've done more than 40 times in my career here. It's part of my job to repeat myself, during each semester and from one semester to the next. Same goes for the Forum, I think. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric You make a good point. The forum is primarily a research tool. The website is an educational tool. If we fail to provide adequate educational resources on the website we're condemned to endlessly replough old ground on the Forum or risk alienating the very people we want to welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:38:32 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom MM Well, since again this pertains to the Howland approach phase, and we know how tough Ric is, so let me add one thing to Alan's previous post by way of clarification. Ric has the delete key right in front of him, and won't get any argument from me for using it. When we speak of an LOP thu Howland, we are actually talking about an "advanced" LOP, not a true LOP derived directly from a sight. There is a very important difference. The true LOP (the line upon which the aircraft was located at the time of the associated sight) would have been located somewhere "about 100 miles out" in the case of a sun shot, or considerably further out in the case of a moon shot. FN then had to bridge the gap between it and a parallel line thru Howland (the "advanced LOP" that we refer to as "the LOP") with a DR estimate of when to make the turn. That DR estimate would have been subject to all the unknown or incorrectly estimated forces on the aircraft, and the further out, the more error is likely to have crept in. It really appears to me that no confirming sight was taken and new LOP was drawn after they believed they arrived at the Howland area, since the azimuth of the sun after their estimated arrival time (about 1912), would not have been associated with a 157-337 LOP. For example, had FN taken a sun shot near Howland at say, 1940 GMT, AE would have been more correctly searching along a 155-335 line, and as time goes on the computed azimuth would have continued to move counter clockwise. The 2013 report of searching the 157-337 line indicates to me that no confirmation (sight) was made that they had actually reached the location of the advanced LOP, and they we relying on a sight at least an hour old - maybe much more - for positioning. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric It's my understanding that once the initial LOP has been established and advanced by dead reckoning (DR) to fall through the desired destination, repeated sightings known as "speed lines" can be taken to confirm the ground speed used in the DR calculation. If that is correct, Noonan should have been able to confirm his ground speed (but not his wind drift) until they descended below the cloud tops. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:40:12 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson I agree wholeheartedly, but the LOP info does give us a small clue as to what could or could not be possible. (1) The LOP of 157/337 was valid only for a couple of hours that morning, IF Noonan actually made a measurement. (2) Shooting the LOP offers the advantage of being able to determine the offset from where you think you are, relative to a east/west longitude line (this is approximate only...really only pertains to the orthogonal line to 157/337). This offset is done by comparing the time you observe the sunrise to that calculated for your estimated latitude/longitude. (3) One only has to observe the time the sun upper, middle, or lower limb breaks the horizon. No need to observe angles. This is a very easy measurement to make. You can also infer to a limited degree where Noonan was to have observed the sunshot, based upon the information gleaned from the radio transmissions. I've done that, and it still is consistent with all available evidence. The irony of the LOP and sunshots is that it will consistently give you an east/west offset to your estimated position, regardless of when it is taken. If after sunrise, the navigator has to carefully observe the angle above the horizon of the sun and compare to tables. If Noonan was really navigating, and AE was paying attention, they should have been on the line through Howland, no ifs, ands or buts (with the exclusion of complete overcast skies. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:09:04 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Haddock Hi Ric, I am a newbie & I think you do a great job of being the "foreperson" of this forum. In addition, I happen to think you're a pretty nice guy! Keep up the good work! Mike Haddock #2438 *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Mike. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:12:28 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Tom MM >From Ric >It's my understanding that once the initial LOP has been established and >advanced by dead reckoning (DR) to fall through the desired destination, >repeated sightings known as "speed lines" can be taken to confirm the ground >speed used in the DR calculation. If that is correct, Noonan should have >been able to confirm his ground speed (but not his wind drift) until they >descended below the cloud tops. Ric: Speed lines are simply a succession of LOP's from sights of a celestial body or bodies close to dead ahead (thus producing LOP's perpendicular or nearly so to the course). Normally, the azimuth of the LOP would be slightly different each time. In FN's case, he would have needed sufficient spacing to resolve his airspeed accurately, and his instrument (octant) accuracy was on the order of 10 to 15 miles. To get a good idea of speed in between his speed lines, they would have had to have been separated by more distance than he had to work with. =20 For example, if he flew 30 minutes from his "100 miles out" point, and from a new sight and LOP speed line got what he thought was a distance run of 50 NM, his possible 15 mile error would have rendered the estimated speed nearly useless. The possible range of his airspeed would be between 70 and 130 KT, (50+15)/.5 =3D 130KT or (50-15)/.5 =3D 70KT. I don't think he had=20= the time to let his distance run get large enough so that his error in estimating airspeed would have been small enough to be useful. TOM MM=20 *************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell (after quoting my same statement about speed lines) That's correct, Ric. As to drift Noonan would have had difficulty in=20 determining his drift unless he had flares to drop or found something adrift= =20 to sight on. As to Tom's comments he is correct about the difference in the LOPs except=20 where he says, "When we speak of an LOP thu Howland, we are actually talking= =20 about an "advanced" LOP, not a true LOP derived directly from a sight." This certainl= y=20 could be true that the infamous LOP was an advanced LOP but as Randy pointed= =20 out it also could have been a precomp LOP. This would have been an LOP=20 computed prior to flight or possibly early in flight on the presumption they= =20 would arrive Howland at a certain time.=20 And to Marty, I reread my posting and found no such suggestions as you=20 suggest. And I thought my clarification WAS "a definitive presentation" on=20 the LOP question. Sadly I failed in making it clear. If I can do so the offe= r=20 to email me privately is still open. I think it is an important point to=20 understand. Not that it will move the ball forward but that it will clear up= =20 a lot of misconceptions that lead to confusing theories. Alan #2329=A0=20 **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, we seem to have a disagreement about whether Noonan could have gotten=20 useful information by shotting speed lines. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:21:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell Randy Jacobson wrote: > . If Noonan > was really navigating, and AE was paying attention, they should have > been on the line through Howland, no ifs, ands or buts (with the > exclusion of complete overcast skies. Randy, I think that sums it up in a nutshell. You have a good understanding of how to compute celestial it is obvious. We also need to keep in mind their LOP might have been drawn through the erroneous position of Howland not that it is all that significant. They didn't see Howland but I think they were fairly close. It would not matter then if they didn't see it because they were 5 miles off or that they didn't see it because of bothersome cumulus shadows. I think the real significance of all this discussion is to see that it was not only possible they were far off their destination but that it was also possible they were almost dead on target. Here is another thought I have not seen discussed (as Ric cringes). Put yourself in their place for a few minutes. Some have suggested the weather might have prevented FN from getting any celestial at all and that he had to rely solely on DR. Well, that's certainly possible. So if that was the case what would you have done? (not that they did this) Wouldn't you have made sure you were close enough to Nauru to take a fix? Then as you approached the Gilberts wouldn't you have descended to where you could see an island and take another fix? Or would you have just flown blindly along not knowing where you were? Don't you think they HAD TO HAVE A FIX of some kind. Tabiteau in the Gilberts was about 610 miles from Howland. There was supposedly a report of a plane flying over during the night. That's the only reason I arbitrarily picked Tabiteau. Any island would do. I just can't think of a rationale of flying blind through out the last half of the flight and still expecting to spot a tiny island. Ric, I know you believe FN was counting on DF but they had reason to doubt it would work. With just a little doubt FN has to use everything at his command as back up, don't you think? Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric I know of no reason to presume that Noonan was not able to get celestial observations during the night. It seems to me that descending enroute to get visual checkpoints would involve an unconscionable expenditure of fuel in climbing back up to an efficient altitude. Diverting to get within visual range of Nauru doesn't make any sense to me, nor does it make sense to me to try to identify a specific atoll in the Gilberts in the middle of the night. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:28:30 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: LOP discussions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Marty Moleski said: "I teach for a living. I know how hard it is to go over the same material. In today's class, I plan to teach the book of Job. It's something I've done more than 40 times in my career here. It's part of my job to repeat myself, during each semester and from one semester to the next. Same goes for the Forum, I think." Marty makes and excellent point. Teaching is about repetition and investigation. I don't want to think how much time I spent in my lean years learning the multiplication tables; in fact, the times-eights and times-nines still confuse me. For eight years I was privileged to have been a docent at the National Air and Space Museum's restoration and preservation facility in Silver Hill, Maryland. Every second Saturday at 1 p.m. I began a 3-hour walking tour of the treasures at Silver Hill, and like Marty, part of the job was to repeat myself, but at no time in those eight years was the tour exactly the same from week to week. There were always new questions to keep me on my toes, sometimes there were new exhibits, or new aircraft, or detours etc. I always believed that my job was to teach the people I took around the facility a little bit about the history of aviation. Their comments and questions prompted me to hit the books and learn more, which made me a better teacher. Subscribers to the Earhart Forum really do get their money's worth. Where else can one learn about celestial navigation, Micronesian cultural practices, aircraft construction techniques, metallurgical and photographic analysis, the life cycle of REALLY big crabs, tides, atoll erosion, and a host of other topics all for free? As we say in Minnesota, "Hey what a heck of a deal!" LTM, an unrepentant aviator Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric If we had a big educational grant to run the forum that would be great, but we don't. The forum exists to: 1. Move the Earhart investigation forward through volunteer research and knowledgable peer review. 2. Promote membership and financial contributions to TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:36:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Blasted channel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marjorie Smith > From Ric > > The channel seems to have been blasted around the time of the evacuation of > the colony in 1963, but - oddly - we've never come across any record of who > did it or exactly when it was done. Me, again, still trying to fit this into my understanding of the situation. Is this the same channel through which one hypothesis has the remains of the airplane as well as parts of the Norwich City being swept into the lagoon? So would this movement have happened before or after the blasting of the channel? And wouldn't the blasters have noticed bits of planes and ships if they were already stuck in the channel (of course, if we don't know who they are, we can hardly ask them). Could this blasted channel have been the result (perhaps accidental) of someone trying to dynamite the lagoon to kill fish -- an unfortunate fishing technique we used to hear about occasionally in Micronesia in the '60s. Marjorie (who promises to join so she can put one of those cool numbers after her name as soon as she redevelops an income stream, as my banker calls it) *************************************************************************** From Ric Different channel. There are two natural inlets from the ocean to the lagoon - Tatiman Passage at the west end of the atoll, and the much smaller Bauareke Passage along the south shore. The hypothesis about airplane wreckage being swept into the lagoon involves Tatiman Passage. The "blasted channel" is something completely different and is clearly an intentional opening blasted through the reef to permit small boat access to the beach at any stage of the tide. It is located on the southwestern shore of the island at TIGHAR Grid Map reference WG21. (Once your income stream is restored you may want to avail yourself of a map. They're as pretty as they are useful.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:38:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: AE's house in CA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Russ Matthews Bill's recollections of AE's Toluca Lake home are correct. I can also tell you that the house has been extensively remodeled and looks very different from when AE and GPP built it. In addition, the owners (if they are the same folks who lived there in 1992) are well aware of the Earhart connection -- having had at least two Amelia documentaries shoot on their front lawn. LTM, Russ Matthews (0509CE) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:37:33 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Pete Hi Ric/Forum! I have some folks in the library in Hartlepool checking for me now about the name of NC's builder. I ran across a listing for a book that claims to have a detailed listing of ALL Hartlepool shipyards AND the vessels built there after 1837. For Forumites with access to larger libraries: "Shipbuilders of the Hartlepools" author Bert Spaldin. Published 1986 by Hartlepool Borough Council. ISBN 0 9501306 218 LTM Pete #2419 *************************************************************************** From Ric Way cool. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:29:03 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: AE's house in CA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright Ric, Last summer, Dustymiss went by the house and took photos and talked with neighbors etc. Maybe she will share those with the Forum or those interested. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:40:56 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Where is Amelia? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Claude Stokes Its fun and informative to read all the posts about the theory of AE and FN on thier lop. However, lets not forget the spiritual thingy that prevades all of existance. Use the latest probability and standard deviation equations to formulate what happened in the last 4 hours of flight, but dosent the spiritual thing happen too?? Its like the spirits said to AE "ohh were so sorry,, but your dream isnt going to come true. No matter what you do, we the spirits of aviation will not let you compllete your trip. We will hide you and erase all traces of your existance so that even the greatest minds of humanity will not find your final resting place." Draw some lines on a map thru howland island running 157/337, then move east 10 miles, draw a paralell line, move 20 milse draw another. Move west 10 miles and do the same etc. then draw prependiculars to these lines north and south of howland.... Amelia moved thru this grid in real life but it all boils down to pixels. Exactly which set of pixels did she touch?? We dont know. Draw a 75 mile circle around howland island. It makes me cry that I believe she was somewhere in this circle so close to howland, but somehow the spirits did not want her to complete this task. If you read much about Charles Lindberg you will find that he came into contact with the spirits on his flight to Europe. Thru grit and determination Lindbergh battled the demons of aviation and pushed on past them. Thats what it takes. Was AE compass heading 080 and her ground track 090?? was her compass heading 095 and her ground track 080?? We will never know but she did in fact lay down a ground track that passed somewhere near howland island. so close but not close enough. The movie Flight of the Phenoix was on this week and I watched it again, but I was looking at the spiritual ideas that came thru in the movie,, and that Paul Mantz ended his great life making this movie,, and that AE ended hers somewhere near the Pheonix islands. In the Flight of the Phenoix movie,, it is visible to the astute observer that the movie itself actually predictied Paul Mantz death and that his death was intricate to the movie... There is much sadness in this... HHmmmmmmm... the stoker,,happy landings ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:45:33 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: The Radio Riddle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy The article "The Radio Riddle", authored by Bob Brandenburg and appearing in the TIGHAR's 8th Edition, contains the following statement: "Earhart's estimated CPA [closest point of approach] to Howland Island is derived as follows: 1.) Note that the Itasca's radio log described Earhart's 1912 GMT strength signal as 'S-5', which indicates a very strong signal. Since a 16 dB SNR provides a 90% intelligibility for a voice signal, an 'S-5' signal implies a median SNR greater than 16 dB". The article then continues in step 2 to describe how this median SNR greater than 16 dB, implied from an "S-5" signal, is used to find the estimated CPA to Howland. I remember a very strong comment being made on the Forum by Mike Everette (The Radio Historian--an author also appearing in the 8th Edition) to the effect that any conclusions placed upon a signal strength described as "S-5" would be meaningless, since there is no generally accepted standard, or technical level of strength described by radio operators in shorthand as "S-5" to begin with. In other words, "S-5" is not an agreed unit of measurement (such as 5280 feet in a mile, 12 incles in a foot, etc.) TIGHAR agreed, and I remember Ric saying he would frame Mike's comment. O.K. If conclusions based upon a radio strength described as "S-5" are meaningless (per Mike Everette and TIGHAR), then how can Brandenburg/TIGHAR conclude in The Radio Riddle that "an 'S-5' signal implies a median SNR greater than 16dB"? This is important, since this conclusion is then used to determine Earhart's closest approach to Howland. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric You may also recall that Mike said that Bob's calculations based upon computer modeling were very different from the subjective judgements of signal strength made by the Itasca radio operators. --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:54:15 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Tabiteuea MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell For those who care the correct spelling of the Gilbert island is Tabiteuea not as I sometimes spell it. I can navigate I just can't spell. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Last march, aboard an Air Nauru 737 enroute from Fiji to Tarawa, Van Hunn and I had the rare experience of seeing Tabiteuea from the air. It was late morning on a typical Central Pacific day with a scattered deck of cumulus below. At 27,000 feet (as I recall) we were nearly three times higher than Earhart would/should have been, so we had a better view down between the buildups than she probably had. We spotted the atoll way off to the east (50 miles?) mostly by the dramatically different aquamarine color of the lagoon as compared to the dark blue of the surrounding ocean. Tabiteuea is huge - long and skinny. I can't imagine being able to identify it conclusively by flying over one end of it at night. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:56:06 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Monte Carlo/LOP/Headwinds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Haddock Hi Alan, Have you ever heard of the incident in WWII involving a B-24 called the "Lady Be Good"? They were returning to north Africa's Bengazi tower. They overflew the tower but thought they were still flying toward it. I believe the phenomenon is called "over the shoulder" signals. Ever consider that this could have happened to AE & FN as they flew over Itasca? Just curious. Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:59:51 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: AE's house in CA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike Haddock Hi Russ, Thanks for the input. Sounded like something fun to look into. Sounds like it's a well beaten horse. Hi Ron, I'd be very interested in a photo. Do you happen to know which golf course the house is located on? Thanks Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:01:24 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Your explanation doesn't work. Take a look at the quote from the TIGHAR/Brandenburg paper. The passage I quoted clearly shows that Bob relied upon the Itasca's "subjective judgments" of signal strength to do his "computer modeling" work (i.e., "an 'S-5' signal implies a median SNR greater than 16dB"). So, if the Itasca's subjective statements of signal strength are bogus, don't we have a clear case of "garbage in and garbage out" in the computer modeling work? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Bob? Mike? Perhaps you can help Mr. Kennedy. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:31:35 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Oscar Boswell > >From Ric > > You may also recall that Mike said that Bob's calculations based upon > computer modeling were very different from the subjective judgements of > signal strength made by the Itasca radio operators. > > --- Ric: With all respect, your reply simply evades the issue, as I am certain Chris will point out to you. A chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and no matter how much computer punching you do to estimate db, the subjective judgments about signal strength of the operators are still part of the statement, and the conclusion is based upon those same subjective judgments that you discount elsewhere. Oscar Boswell **************************************************************************** From Ric My intention was not to be evasive but to remind Chris that what he sees as a discrepancy had already been addressed. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:34:40 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Chris Kennedy Thanks, and I'll look forward to the explanation. But, I will give fair warning: I remember clearly that Mike's e-mail about using an "S-5" signal report for anything contained, literally, a big "NOOOOOOOOOO..." in the body of the e-mail. That's what you found so appealing about it, and which is why the quoted language from the TIGHAR report stuck out so prominently when I actually read what it said. --Chris Kennedy ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the warning. My confidence in Bob and Mike's ability to explain it is exceeded only by expectation that you won't agree with it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:29:46 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: The Radio Riddle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Katz With respect to the Radio Riddle, it is important to remember that, although the input data is subjective, one can assume reasonable outside parameters, such as an S-5 (however subjective) is PROBABLY no more than X miles away. By assigning such outside parameters with reasonable probabilities, one can use a computer model quite effectively to create a reasonable radius. Such a radius would obviously be uncertain, but one could at least reasonably narrow the field and, hopefully, exclude some areas. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg > >From Ric > > Bob? Mike? Perhaps you can help Mr. Kennedy. I shall be happy to try. Detailed response to follow. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:32:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart