========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:50:02 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Transmissions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > The Coast Guard Captain may not have > understood the running on the 157 - 337 line.............. Good analysis, Dick. I don't see how it could be faulted. As to the good Captain understanding the 157-337 line comment we, of course, don't know but I would suggest he did since the 157-337 line not only runs SE in the air but also on the water and the ship used the same or similar navigation as did the airplane. As the ship's Captain he had to be knowledgeable of the ship but also how to navigate it. Speaking of navigation I have another question of our Marshall theorists. Since I won't allow them enough fuel to fly from Howland to Mili (which doesn't bother them) they conveniently move the airplane north of Howland. It also doesn't bother them that they have make Noonan such a stupid navigator that he was 400 miles off course. But for the sake of argument let's say he flew into a hurricane with horrendous winds out of the South or flew through a worm hole and ended up 400 miles north of Howland -- all so he could have enough fuel to make Mili and crash or be shot down or midair with a Japanese Admiral's son or whatever the stories were. Being so far north of Howland it would make sense then to turn north to Mili -- right? Hello Marshallites. Explain to me how he would have been soooo lost that he was 400 miles north of Howland, thought he was over Howland yet mysteriously knew he was so close to Mili that he turned north and flew there. Not one single Marshallite has ever or will offer a rational explanation of their theory. ALL they will do is fall back on a totally insupportable claim that someone thought they saw an airplane crash sometime and somewhere therefore magic occurred. Alan #2329 In a message dated 1/31/2002 2:44:36 PM Central Standard Time, TIGHAR1@aol.com writes:
The Coast Guard Captain may not have understood the running on the 157 - 337 line..............
From Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:54:12 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Bones, Sextants, Dumps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Veryl Fenlason From Veryl The dump I was referring to in the conversation with Kenton was the collection of stuff { distillers, barrels etc } that we found in 1989, in the area of WI-23 and WI-22 on your grid map. Tom King might remember the piece of stainless steel with the nail holes in it that he found in that area. It looked like most of the stuff was loran site leftovers. LTM Veryl Fenlason ************************************************************************* From Ric Yeah, that's the place I figured you meant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:50 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Devegetate? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt > From Alan > > Dennis, where have you been all this time? I wish I had thought of this. > We've been wasting our time digging in the sand when all we needed to do > was burn down all the Marshall, Phoenix and Gilbert Islands. > (I know you were jesting but it was too funny to pass up) Sorry Woody. > > Alan > #2329 Does Scaevola Burn? *************************************************************************** From Ric We've never tried to set it afire - nor will we. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:56:17 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Transmissions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From R.L."Doc" Holloway I also agree with wholeheartedly with Dick Pingrey. Doc, near Bland, MO ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:58:06 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: SE on the LOP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell << Perhaps, but the only LOP we know about for sure is the one AE specifically mentioned, and the only time Noonan could have gotten that LOP was at dawn. There is also the point that, once they have descended below the scattered cloud deck to look for Howland, getting further sun shots might have been very difficult if not impossible. >> Ric, Noonan could have also got that exact same LOP from a moon shot not all that much earlier. I posted the exact time and data of that possibility long ago -- lost into oblivion. As to taking another sun shot it could have been done easily by climbing only a little to get on top of the scattered cu depending on their tops. Too high and fuel might have been too big of a problem. The only reason for taking subsequent shots would have been to assure he was on his desired track and not having drifted off too far. With a drift meter that could have been unnecessary of course and he may not have felt he needed to do that. As far as navigating to Kanton instead that would have not been that difficult. The LOP he was on would have been little more accurate than one projected from that one to a point that would have gone through Kanton. I see no real rationale for going to Kanton, however. Just that it was bigger wouldn't necessarily offset the fact that it was a little further away. Plus, not exactly knowing where he was on the North/South axis would have made it foolish to alter course. Alan, calming down and not so testy after dealing with Ron, Daryll, and Don's posts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:15:08 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Nauticos plans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > but if you > draw a 450 nautical mile circle around Howland that is lopsided a bit to > the > west and northwest (to allow for the east southeasterly winds) you'll have > a > pretty good idea of all the places where the flight could have ended up. > Ric, does Nautico know this? That's 1,413.72 square miles. Two decimal places for RC, Ron, etc. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a 450 nm RADIUS from Howland. It's just under 160,000 square miles. I had a nice chat yesterday with Lynn Jourdan at Nauticos. (Lynn is the webmaster for their website. Her husband David is the CEO.) They are, as she said in the email to Chris, planning a three-month expedition for later this spring but they have not yet found enough investors to pay for the search nor have they selected or scheduled a ship. I don't know anything about finding people who want to invest in a treasure hunt but I do know a little bit about chartering and scheduling ships. If they don't have a boat laid on by now I don't understand how they can possibly hope to go out this spring even if the money materializes. Mike Kammerer tells me that he has moved his expedition departure up to sometime in March. To answer Alan's question: No. Lynn asked me why we thought that there was any possibility the airplane could have reached Nikumaroro. I explained it as gently as I could but it was apparent that Elgen Long's computations (and various expert verifications that his arithmetic is correct) have been accepted as gospel without questioning the myriad assumptions upon which they are based. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:25:57 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright Ric, I agree that the points you made make Josephine's story strongly suspect. Agent Joe Patton,ONI, went to Saipan in 1960 and interviewed Mrs Antonia Blanco, Josephine's mother. She recalled that Josephine came in one day in the summer of 37 all excited and told the story about seeing the white fliers,etc. If you can believe that Mrs Blanco was recalling Josephine's story correctly, it would add substance to the account. Matsumoto, the brother -in -law confirmed Josephine's story in 1960, also suspect. There are five others at the base that also "claimed" the saw an airplane come in with the white fliers, etc. Josephine did tell the story in 1946 to Sheft. The single photo lineup used by Briand is worthless. I accept that it a very suspect story and "anecdotal" in nature. In fact, a close exam of her various stories does casts great doubt, but yet there does seem to be a sighting. Personally I attribute it to a lookalike twin eng.(civ1lian) seaplane that arrived on a new Tokyo-Saipan airline being developed in 1937. Those aboard were mistakenly identified as Amelia and Fred. ( In one version (to her mother) the white woman was sittting on a bench "combing her hair") hardly something the Japanese capture scenario would fit.) Somebody landed there and I would like to find out who, as it started the whole new episode in the Earhart disappearance. My bet, it was not Amelia. For some, it is wholly acceptable and credible evidence; Goerner didn't regard it as such in 1960. LTM, R. Bright, Bremerton, WA **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it would be interesting to try to trace the origins that story (similar to the debunking you did of the Love to Mother telegram), but the Japanese capture myth did not start in 1960, nor was Josephine's story the beginning of its revival. What year did Briand, Gervais and Ringer come up with their "list of witnesses"? Briand's book was published in 1960 so it seems like their shenanigans had to predate Goerner's entry into the fray. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:28:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Cam Warren Alan - At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if something is lost, and you want to find it badly enough, you start looking. Logical, easily determined places first. Like Winslow Reef. I'm not convinced that's where they are, but hey, it's a) a possibility, b) it's a FINITE location and easily checked and (if you draw a blank) easily dismissed. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if Winslow Reef is so damn easy to search why didn't you do it when you were there? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:36:03 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Transmissions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Cam Warren Capt. Pingrey maybe "bang on" when he mentions AE flew SW (straight to Niku, of course), but he adds she may have revealed her intentions via . . . . > Later messages that were not picked > up by the Coast Guard > True enough, but there WAS at least one ship in that quadrant listening on 3105, and that was the ACHILLES, at (approximately) 160=B0W and 10=B0 S. They THOUGHT they heard a signal from the Electra, but NO course or coordinates were mentioned. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Make that SE, and I'm aware of no documented account that Achilles was=20 listening on 3105 at that time or that they heard anything until 0700Z (1830= =20 local), long after the plane had to be down.. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:46:45 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Noonan's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Gary LaPook Does anyone know what kind of sextant Noonan was using? what kind of calculation method he used for calculating his line of position? *************************************************************************** From Ric We know that just prior to the first Wolrd Flight attempt, Harry Manning borrowed Pioneer Bubble Octant Ser No. 12-36 from the Navy and that Noonan signed a receipt for it when Harry baled after the Luke Field wreck. We do not know whether Noonan used that instrument on the second attempt or whether he returned it and used something else. Noonan's navigational practices are well known, in part because he wrote about them in Pan Am memos and a letter to the director of a navigiation school. We've also studied existing maps he actually used and annotated on transoceanic flights. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:48:02 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: OFF TOPIC: Fate of the PN9-1? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Russ Matthews (#0509CE) Hey there everybody, Do any of you happen to know what ultimately became of the PN9-1? For those who don't know the story, the PN9-1 was a Boeing-built flying boat (a PB-1) that the U.S. Navy attempted to fly from California to Hawaii in 1925. The flight was forced down at sea and search efforts proved fruitless. Fortunately, the resourceful crew formed a make-shift sail with canvas from the plane's lower wing and completed their journey by sea. Some friends and I were discussing the story yesterday and wondered whether the aircraft (or one like it) had been preserved anywhere. Anyone who might shed some light on this question, or just wants to kick around a non-AE related aviation history thread, are invited to respond to me off-Forum at MatthewsRE@aol.com Thanks and Love to Mother (who thinks boats weren't meant to fly), Russ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:51:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Bones lecture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Don Neumann: Thought you might be interested in the attached website which provides a brief syllabus for a lecture by Dr. Albert, last spring, at the University of North Carolina, covering the Nikumaroro 'bones' discovery, uncovered by TIGHAR. Wonder how the professor responded to 'Question for review' numbers 4 & 5 ? =20 ANT 211:=A0Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology with Dr. Albert, Spring 2001=20 *******************************=20 ANT 211 Forensic Anthropology=20 Address:http://www.uncwil.edu/people/albertm/ant211spring01/historic/ae02.ht= m Changed:9:12 AM on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:54:47 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: DRing from the unknown MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann: *********************** ...'You can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point'... From Ric ******************* Yet, isn't that what Alan said FN _was_ able to do (in Alan's 16 Oct 2001 posting) & that: 'Even without the second celestial body it would have been easy to navigate to any of the Phoenix Island Group'. ? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric At last we find something you and I can agree on. I don't understand how he thinks that is possible either. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:56:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Gilberts vs LOP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann: ***************** ...'Perhaps flying at max range would get them back to the Gilberts but that was not their goal. There goal was Howland. Landing any other place was a disaster for the purpose of the around the world record. Even Gardner was a disaster and to be avoided unless it was down to a choice of ditching or landing in the Phoenix group'... Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C ******************************* Again, I must admire your very logical reasoning & conclusions, however using that same logical train of thought, _if_ Gardner/Nikumaroro was also a 'disaster' (as far as terminating the R-T-W flight) & 'to be _avoided_ unless it was down to a choice of ditching or landing in the Phoenix Group', & if _perhaps_, 'flying at maximum range would get them back to the Gilberts', wouldn't returning to an island group that _was_ known to be inhabited & administered by a friendly government, be more preferrable than a very sparsely (if at all) populated island group, without any assurance that any of AE's radio transmissions had been received by Itasca, or anyone else, for that matter? Naturally, all of my observations are purely speculative, but of course so is everyone else's opinions & observations, since they are _all_ based upon looking at AE/FN's situation & circumstances from _our_ own perspectives, & while our views, observations & opinions, however statistically or factually they _seem_ to be based, from _our_ vantage point, they may have looked quite differently from the unique perspecives of AE/FN in 1937. Don Neumann sandon@webtv.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:02:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Evolution of the search MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann: *********************** ...'She still expects or at least hopes to find Howland on that heading but if she doesn't she will have at least told anyone who might be able to hear her what they are doing'... Dick Pingrey ************** Dick, Her LOP message, which just _might_ have been intuitively translated by an experienced pilot, to mean that they were going to fly SE on that LOP , simply did _not_ register with Cmdr Thompson at all & according to Capt Friedell's report, even the _initial_ Navy decision to search SE of Howland was triggered by weather reports that showed stronger winds than normally expected in the region, might have carried the Electra further to the SE & out of sight of Howland, rather than any significance being given to AE's LOP message. In fact, in reading the report, it also claims that, prior to leaving Pearl Harbor, the Colorado was informed of radio signals (allegedly) from the Electra had been intercepted by amatuer radio operators in California, suggesting a location SE of Howland. ( by the 3rd & 4th of July they also received reports from Wyoming, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Australia & other points, of radio signals, including some voice reports had been received (allegedly) from the plane.) The very first search plan is reported to have been determined to have the Colorado sail East on the Equator, with her float planes flying a basically rectangularly configured course, of 60 miles, both to the North & South of the Equator. There is _no_ mention in that report of searching the Phoenix Islands _until_ a report was received from GPP 'stressing' the Phoenix Island Group, stating that headwinds aloft had been much stroner than expected for the flight, & further suggesting that a plane from Colorado investigate the Phoenix Island Area. The Commanding Officer, still convinced the SE quadrant from Howland was the _most_ likely location to search, irrespective of the various radio reports pointing in that direction, therefore he decided to hold to his _original_ decision, searching to the SE of Howland, with one _modification_, planes from the Colorado would _also_ search land areas of the Phoenix Islands, prior to the larger water areas, which would also be covered on the flights to & from the Phoenix Islands. At the end of the report, it is also confirmed that the Nav was aware that Commander of Coast Guard had checked with persons familiar with FN's navigational methods & was told that, 'If short of gas, he'd probably follow the LOP to the nearest land', which the Navy finally concluded, as an Air Navigator, FN would have followed the line towards the most probable land. Tragically, (_assuming_ AE/FN did reach Gardner/Nikumaroro Island) the Navy's apparent lack of confidence in GPP's & the Commander of Coast Guard's instructions, provided _only_ a brief flyby of all but _one_ of the Phoenix Islands. We can only speculate what the difference _might_ have been, had Lt. Lambrecht decided (intuitively) to land in the lagoon at Gardner/Nikumaroro, instead of Hull Island, or if AE's last transmission had ended: ' We are _now_ going to fly SE on the LOP seeking an alternate landfall' . Don Neumann sandon@webtv.net *************************************************************************** From Ric You were doing prety good until the last sentence. Would someone please remove the restraining bolt on Mr. Neumann so that he can get it through his head that running SE on the LOP does not constitute "seeking an alternate landfall"? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:04:33 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Take your pick ! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Daryll Bolinger=20 For Hal : <>=20 http://www.abacuspub.com/ Got to their retail store (bottom of page) then "Round the World". ****************************************************** << Subject: Re: Autograph please...?=20 From Randy Jacobson=20 Let poor Daryll masticate in peace, will ya? Sheesh! >> Randy,...I don't have a computer...ergo....I don't have a video computer camera....ergo.....YOU CAN'T see me do that......WHATEVER you said.......!!!! ****************************************************** << From Ric=20 It was an experiment. He took "Bolinger Class Conspiracy" as a compliment. I just wondered how far we could go. It's not as if I accused him of being a sexagenarian. >> WELLLL......slam me to the floor and step on my nose ! Did you mean that as a degenerative comment about me ??=20 =20 ****************************************************** << Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence=20 From Ron Bright For Alan Caldwell=20 From Ric=20 Excuse me for jumping in here but 34 year old Josephine Akiyama (maiden name Blanco)...>> LTM, Ric=20 AHHhh OOOooo !.......clear out your mailboxes.... ****************************************************** Hey,...All you guys with fancy dancy Nav Computers. Let's try a little experiment that I don't know the answer to. Enter : Mili Atoll is 5.58 N and172.07 E (Woody)=20 Do a heading from Mili 101=B0 (recip of 281=B0) WHERE does that course line cross the LOP 157/337 from Howland? (Howland Island is at 0.80 degrees North and 176.63 degrees West, Alan #2329) Does your computer give a mileage to that "point at sea" from Howland? Now be honest with your answer because I can't cross check ya.=20 Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:06:39 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Search for an Earhart Flight Simulator MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > but a really good > simulation would be very labor intensive to construct and a less than very > good simulation would be worse than none at all. > From Alan Ric and Hank, I know a little bit about this subject so let me briefly (I've never been brief) give you the current situation. Several years ago Abacus software marketed a computer program called "Around the World" which was only compatible with Flight Simulator 98. It included the scenery, adventure and aircraft files for an Electra. The scenery was not all that good and the Electra was not an acceptable model for AE's plane. Abacus decided not to update the program for Flight Simulator 2000. Lae airfield on the coast no longer exists in Flight Simulator and the new airport is about 20 miles inland. I have checked every Flight Sim Electra that has been created and none to date are acceptable. I am in contact with a couple of guys and probably the same ones who contacted Ric. They are slowly but without great interest trying to fashion a 10E for me. I am also having a scenery update fashioned to put the old Lae airport in my FS2002 program. Fuel usage is the critical factor of course as little else matters. I am also working on getting a few of the pertinent island scenery files built. Once all this is done I can have a lot of fun reflying AE's flight but as to what that will tell us the answer is little or nothing usable. Anything the simulation can tell us can already be computed with paper, pencil and a small calculator. That too tells us little or nothing we don't already know. I assure you we could do all this and put a few of our forumites who shall go nameless at the controls and it will not deter them in the slightest from their magical theories. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:16:25 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: SE on the LOP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Angus Murray > From Ric > > They didn't DR from Lae to the LOP. They DRed from Lae to the general > vicinity of Howland with occasional checks during the night using celestial > observations. They got the LOP at dawn and advanced it (by DR) through > Howland but they had no way of knowing where they were on the LOP and when > they reached the advanced LOP and did not see Howland they had no way of > knowing whether they were north or south of where they wanted to be. You > can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point. Ric, I agree with you on the penultimate sentence. Which is exactly why I corrected myself to make it clear that I was talking about accurate navigation to the line 157 337 rather than to Howland.OK if you want to be precise they didn't rely on DR positions for the whole trip from Lae but I don't agree with you that they didn't DR to the LOP. If they got the LOP at dawn this was not a fix, only an LOP and so they couldnt correct their longitude and had to rely on the DRd longitude from the last fix. While its quite true that you can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point, that wasn't what I was saying. You can DR from one known LOP to a parallel LOP. You know the bearing of LOP1 (through Howland) so you fly at right angles to it for the appropriate flying time to LOP2, through Canton. You won't know where you are on LOP2 but you can search along it. Advancing the dawn sight to Howland is no different from advancing it to Canton except that the error in DR will be more significant for a long than a short distance. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you can do that - but why on earth would you? You're already on an LOP that runs through three islands, and one of them is the one you really, really want. You can throw out another LOP through Canton but you have to fly about 400 miles to get to it only to have the same problem you have now - which way do I search on the line? Except by that time you have very little fuel left to do anything. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:17:24 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evidence II MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > the earth is about 40 nm. longer around the equator than the 'model' used > I believe you RC. Now how much off does that make the figures? Does that mean it's in error by 1.851851852 (-0.3) ? ------ x 10 Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:18:36 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > I > would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses and point > out > why they are either mistaken or lying. > From Alan Ron, "as an attorney" I would first ask (as I have many times) for an explanation as to how the plane could possibly get there in the first place. This makes as much sense as if the supposed crash occured in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The plane couldn't have crashed in Altoona no matter if 12 bishops told the story. Tell me how to get the plane to Mil. Don't just keep repeating that old hogwash. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:21:44 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: New Mileage to Mili Atoll MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > I cannot come up with any realistic scenario of how the fuel burn > could have been manipulated anywhere near what it would take to do an > about-face and reach the Gilberts Doug, lately I've been reading (not from you) that the fuel schedule from Johnson could have been altered at the expense of the engines and could have produced a larger reserve at Howland. Wouldn't that presuppose they somehow knew immediately after take off they couldn't make it and therefore had to change to a high powered fuel conservation schedule? Second question. (The questions are really directed at those who seem to know about this other fuel schedule}Tell me what that other fuel schedule, power setting is and how much difference would it make. I also want to know where this information comes from. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric Patience Alan. Oscar Boswell is working up some numbers. He told us where they come from in his recent posting. If you're gonna gadfly ya gotta read the postings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:22:35 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Transmissions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Kelly >From David Kelly To put my two cents in (or a little more than 1 cent with the Aussie dollar), I agree Dick totally and would only add that the direction on the LOP they took first would be the opposite one to the direction they felt that they drifted. This is similar to the idea of off-set navigation where you fly, for instance, to the right of your track and after a known period of time, hang a left and your target should be right in front of you. Regards David Kelly (Sydney) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:30:12 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ross Devitt >* From Ric > > "We are on the line 157 337" is merely a statement of position. What makes > you think that the order in which she said the numbers revealed her > direction of travel? Nothing, except convention. Dick suggests "I think Amelia's "Flying on the line 337 - 153" statement was a clear message of her plan to follow that line to the southwest." I'm trying to suggest that nothing in the message tells us which direction they flew, but could have confused searchers. As a rule, if you say you are travelling on a line from L.A. to N.Y., someone in L.A. would usually assume you are NOT travelling towards them. I's a convention thing. Most people say the departure point first. The post had to do with Dick's numbers being the wrong way round, which just happened to make the direction sound S.E. Yes, on the line 157/337 is a statemement of position. Saying they were running on line though could have suggested to Cdr Black that they were running in the direction 1st number to last number. The convention thing again. Do you say you are "going up the road and coming back", or you are "going coming back and up the road"? Please don't get the idea I think they headed N.W. This is all about how the message could have confused searchers. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric I think you're on to something important but it's not what you think it is. I'll confess that "157-337" has bothered me from day one. It sounds backward. Most practioners of the English language read from left to right and top to bottom. (The words make more sense that way.) If I draw a slanted line on a map and lable the top left end 337 and the bottom right end 157 and ask a hundred people to describe the line using the numbers, I would wager that about ninetyfive of them would say 337-157. (The other five turned out to be Hebrew scholars.) However, if I round up another hundred people and show them the same line but I tell them "You're travelling southeastward along this line and you want to describe the line to someone on the radio." I'd wager that they would still say the line is 337 - 157. But apparently that is not what AE said and it's worth asking ourselves why. Now let's try another experiment. Let's get a hundred pilots and, one by one, we'll sit them down in a simulator with an old-fashioned drum type DG (Directional Gyro) in front of them. We tell them: "You're the pilot, I'm the navigator. We're going to fly a 337 - 157 degrees True line, first in one direction and then in the other direction. The DG is set to the magnetic compass and there's some wind to contend with, so the actual heading I'll ask you to fly will be different from the track we're after but I've worked it out so all you have to do is hold the heading I give you. Let's go to the northwest first. Fly heading 346 degrees. Okay, that's good. Now let's go the other way. Come around to 166 degrees and hold that heading. Good. Now, pick up the mic and tell the controller what we're doing." Under those circumstances, flying the line to the southeast rather than reading a line drawn on a chart, I'll betcha that a significant number of people would decribe the line as 157 - 337 because they are focused on the 157 direction. Pilots on the forum know that runways are numbered according to there compass orientation. Thus, Runway 33 -15 runs 330 degrees one way and 150 degrees the other. It's Runway 33 - 15 (usualy shortened to 33) if you're going to use it in the 330 degree direction and it's Runway 15 - 33 if you're going to use it in the 150 degree direction. It was no different in 1937. In summary, I think a good argument can be made that Earhart's description of the line as "157 337" indicates that she was probably flying southeastward at 20:13. Fire away. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:35:00 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Ocean currents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From David Evans Katz I have always contended that the only possible way for AE & FN to have arrived at Mili Atoll (or anywhere else in the Marshall Islands) is for them to have landed in the ocean (ditched or crashed) somewhere northwest of Howland (close enough for their last radio message to have been received at S5 strength) and then drifted there in a life raft. I believe that the prevailing ocean currents could have carried them in a northwesterly direction at a rate of 80 to 100 miles per day. I am not suggesting that that was what happened, merely pointing out that I do not believe that the Electra could have made it there under any conceivable fuel calculation. Therefore, if they made it to Mili, it was by other means. I have yet to determine how such a hypothesis could be tested. One cannot rely on unsubstantiated and vague testimony, irrespective of who provides it (so no accusations of prejudice against the Marshallese, please --- I would not rely on the type of testimony offered thus far on the Marshall Islands theory even if it had been offered by the Pope, the President and the Queen). The stories are just too vague and, more often than not, contradictory of each other. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think the drift theory works very well either. I think you'll find0 that the Navy calculated the probable drift and that's what prompted the decision to send Itasca and Swan to the Gilberts. Randy? Northwesterly drift in the Howland area? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:35:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Bones, Sextants, Dumps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King It sounds like the place Veryl's referring to, as Ric thought, is the southern part of the village, which is loaded with piles of Loran Station leftovers. I don't see any of this as a "dump," per se, and since it's all post-Loran it's full of confusing aluminum and other stuff. What would be really good to find is a dump representing the early days of the village -- ca. 1938-1948. I haven't seen anything that looks like that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:36:07 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Devegetate? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King "Devegetation" as Woody proposes, with bush knives and muscle, and full approval of environmental, historic preservation, and local government authorities is one thing; torching the island is quite another. Nobody had better contemplate the latter in the Marshalls, the Phoenices, or anyplace else. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:40:19 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: This wouldn't be the good Father himself, would it? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jim Tierney To Denise---Re Father Jim of the Columban Fathers.... NO- My dear- I am not the 'Father Jim' of the Columban Order... For those of you who dont know me-I am a 68 year old unreconstructed New Yorker -who has lived in SoCal for 35 years....Brooklyn Irish-married 36 years to the same patient long suffering woman..... I do have a connection with the Columban Fathers in that I did some volunteer work in my Brooklyn years-along with my mother and her group of 11 Irish Widows who did charity functions for the Good fathers....I did the driving and heavy lifting..... Sorry to disappoint you -Denise.... LTM from the LOL Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA *************************************************************************** From Ric The above must be read in Jim's wonderful unreconstructed Brooklyn accent. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:41:30 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Bones lecture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom KIng, for Don Neumann Thanks, Don. That's an interesting use of our data. A bit out of date, since of course we've been to Fiji and regretably found no bones, but still, a nice use of our info. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:43:08 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dennis McGee Alan Caldwell said: "Once all this is done I can have a lot of fun reflying AE's flight but as to what that will tell us the answer is little or nothing usable. Anything the simulation can tell us can already be computed with paper, pencil and a small calculator." Alan, you're on to something here but you need a couple of add-ons and more ambience. First, set up your computer in your garage between your car and your wife' s car. Remove the exhaust pipes from the exhaust manifolds on both cars. Set a five-gallon can of gas and a two gallon can of used motor oil underneath the computer desk with a small fan in front of them pointing at your legs. Lower your chair as far as it will go and place it on top of your power lawn mower. Here's the fun part: start the car engines, start the fan, start the lawn mower and sit in the chair, and fire up your Flt Sim 2002 Ver 1.1 and sit there for 20 hours without getting up. Are we having fun yet? Not only will your innovative and challenging FltSim 1.1 allow you the pleasure and excitement of recreating AE's flight, but including these simple add-ons will allow you to experience the noise, vibrations, heat, fumes, and discomfort our sterling heroine endured for those 20 long hours -- 23.5 if she made it to Niku. It doesn't get any better than that! Let me know how it works out; maybe we could do a joint venture. :-) LTM, who loves the smell of avgas in the morning Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:43:53 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Search for an Earhart Flight Simulator MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Hal To Alan Thanks for the update. You've confirmed my suspicions that a computer sim would add nothing to the total body of knowledge we now have...but it sure would be fun! I'd be very interested in any further developments in an Earhart sim. Hal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:45:17 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Daryll's Experiment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Doug Brutlag For Daryll I'd be happy to run your experiment as per your request. I will use not only the fancy-dancy computer but also a south pacific navigation chart as this will take both to accomplish. I'll try to have something for you by tomorrow(Saturday) as I need to take the chart to a big copier and run off some extras to scribble on. Your question is: Where does a course line measured via 101 degrees true from Mili Atoll intersect a 157/337 deg. LOP from Howland Island? Latitude/longitude of intersecting point desired- Is this correct? If so, I'll be back with an answer hopefully by tomorrow. Just one problem....I have no means to scan in the chart to display to the forum. No scanner & representation probably too big to do anyway. Daryll, if you would like a copy to see for yourself, send me your address & I'll be happy to oblige with your own copy. Off to navigate fellow forumites. Later, Doug Brutlag #2335 brutavia@msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:46:15 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Stuart, in Santiago, Chile On the subject of witnesses: > >From Alan Caldwell > > > I would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses > > and point out why they are either mistaken or lying. > > They don't need to be either wrong or lying. They just need to be normal, average, everyday, unreliable witnesses, who sincerely believe they saw something which in reality they did not see in quite the way they remember it. Although I'm no expert on the subject of aviation accidents, I have a deep interest in the subject, and I've learned a lot about it over the years. One of the things that I have learned, is that eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. Investigators usually end up with about as many totally different accounts of a crash, as there are witnesses. And all reports take distant second place in the investigation. The reports are believed ONLY if the evidence corroborates, never the other way around. I don't recall how many aircraft crashes I've heard about, where witnesses swear blind that the plane "blew up" in the air, or was "streaming flame and smoke", or "falling apart in the sky". But when the investigators get there and do their objective job, they find that such was not the case. The aircraft did not blow up, burn, or fall apart until AFTER it hit the ground. Yet witnesses swear that it did. Not only do witness accounts not fit the facts, more often than not, they conflict directly with each other. Even witnesses who were standing together, watching the same event from the same point of view, can differ in their accounts of te facts. Especially non-expert witnesses. Those who don't really understand what they are seeing, who don't know the basics of how airplanes fly, or the physics behind Newton's laws, tend to interpret what they see in unusual ways (which is one of the reasons why we know have the wonderful appearance of "chemtrails" in the sky). Case in point: In the crash of Swissair SR-111 in 1998, one witness swears that he saw the aircraft come directly over his house at an altitude of about 60 feet(!), flying east to west, yet making very little sound. Yet, the radar track shows the aircraft flying about 5 miles away, north to south. Even though there was no mode C altitude reading for the closest point to the witnesses house, just forty seconds earlier the mode C return showed them at about 18,000 feet. So who do you believe? The witness or the data? Another witness saw flames coming from the wing, as it flew over her house. It really did fly over her house, but the wreckage showed no signs of flame in the location she indicated, even though there was an onboard fire. So once again, who to believe? But the point is that these witnesses are neither dishonest, nor lying, nor mistaken. They really did see something. They didn't understand it fully, so they interpreted it in a way that made sense to their own personal point of view. Distant events are perceived as being much closer. Details that weren't really there are clearly "remembered". Real details that should have been obvious, are not mentioned (an MD-11 flying just 60 feet above you is going to make more than just a little sound!). Etc. The witness ends up truly believing that their interpretation is the way it REALLY happened, not just their INTERPRETATION of the way it happened. I know that we are not talking about witnesses to a crash here, but the principle remains the same: witness reports are unreliable, and take second place. Unless there is hard evidence to support the story told by the witness, no matter how unimpeachably righteous and truthful the witness is, it is far more likely than not that he didn't REALLY see what he THINKS he saw. FWIW. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:49:01 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright Ric, I think it was the Josephine story to Briand that rekindled the Earhart fever in early 1960, but I can't find out how Josephine's story initially got to Briand. Maybe someone knows. After the Briand interview, Josephine's lawyer went to the San Mateo Times mid May 1960 and Linn Day, a reporter, published a copyrighted story on 27 May 60 of Josephine's version . I have tried to locate Linn Day who wrote it, but no luck yet. Goerner said that he then contacted and interviewed Josephine in first week of June 60 and learned that Briand had talked with her a few months earlier. Briand, said Goerner, told Josephine to keep her mouth shut, but her lawyer Penaluma told her to tell the story and she talked with "several news people" about it. About this time on June 5,1960, Goerner said he learned that Gervais and Dinger, Air force officers, were heading to Saipan from Okinawa to write the "final answer". I do not know for sure what prompted their research, but Klaas writes that Gervais had read Briand's "Daughter of the Sky" in April 1960 that included Josephine Blanco Aikyama's story. Probably based on his book and their own interest, they initiated their investigation at Guam and later Saipan beginning in late June 1960. Thus it seems that Josephine's story rejuvenated interest in Earhart. Little surfaced about AE from about 1946 to 1960. On 16 June Goerner left for his first trip to Saipan with Josephine's husband. Gervais was heading for Guam about this time. It is interesting to note that in the Linn Day interview on 27 May 60 Josephine reported that "... after about 15 minutes a beautiful black sedan came and they[the American pilots] got in with the soldiers. I never saw them again." She told Day she later learned through a Japanese soldier that she had been executed. Briand's interview reported that Josephine told him that the American woman and the man were taken away by Japanese soldiers to a clearing and "shots rang out" and the soldiers returned alone. In Briands version the "beautiful black sedan" disappears. Seems like some of those details should be consistant if told within a month or so. As I said Josephine's mother recollected that Josephine said the "American woman was sitting on a bench combing her hair". ( AE must have been concerned about her appearance after such a long flight!) I have written an extensive analysis of Josephine's story, motives, etc that I could furnish if anyone cares. It also serves up an alternative explanation of mistaken identity. But these analyses are of little interest to your Forum's primary focus. Ron Bright Bremerton WA brightaway@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:46:43 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Status MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Mike in Lakewood CA Ric, All these speculations on fuel, LOP, transmissions, Japanese, and Aliens are fine but as a change I would like to inquire about the research you have been able (or unable) to do since returning from Niku IIII. Is there any news on artifacts? Are they being looked at or simply in storage? I ask because for a few weeks after you came back, the forum was asking questions and making suggestions about alot of "new" things. You were answering questions and alot of "new" info was coming out. Now it seems every thread is a rehash of threads from when I started getting the forum a year ago. BTW, I am a lurker also but do participate when I can and I am looking for clues about the artifacts. I do not have an aviation background so I do have to struggle to understand some of the intense explanations given. But some of the endless debates on fuel and distance are insane. Unless FN had a distiller and was making fuel out of cloud vapor, they did not have the range to get close to howland and then to end up in these far off places. I brought out maps and rulers and followed along on the TIGHAR hypothesis and it makes sense. So my vote goes for Niku if she made land and the post loss messages are real. Or the splash and sink. I have read some of the other stuff out there and I just think the ideas they are following have no evidence only 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand stories to go on. TIGHAR has the best approach I have seen and I like the way things are done in this group. Ric, You are doing a great job and I wish I had your patience. That's it for now. thanks for your time. Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric A great deal of research is going on behind the scenes, as it were. We have a few answers and some interesting possibilites developing. We'll be putting out a summary of the progress so far in the next TIGHAR Tracks which I am writing now in my copious free time and which we hope to mail out to the TIGHAR membership in a week or so. Once it is in the hands of the members we'll mount much of the information on the website, but fair is fair. The people who make the work possible get to hear the results first. If you'd like to be in that category you'll find a printable membership form on the website at http://www.tighar.org/member.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:55:26 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Noonan's navigation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gary LaPook That stuff sounds very interesting, is it on you web site somewhere or is there another place to get it? Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric It's not on the website yet but we'll get to it. If you can get your hands on a copy of the May 1938 issue of Popular Aviation you'll see the letter that Fred wrote to P.V.H Weems of the Weems navigation school. ************************************************************************* From Bob Brandenburg Noonan used H.O. 208 for sight reductions. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 20:00:18 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evolution of the search MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Ric, Has there been any more analysis of Betty's journal. I was wondering whether two types of analysis would be worthwhile? Each done by a separate work team. One would look at/study the notes that she transcribed relative to one another (e.g., do they reflect a scenario that fits the situation), the second would examine the notes relative to what AE & FN expected/hoped the people back in the world were doing (actions taken on their behalf). I feel that the secret of Niku still kurks in that journal. Also, (don't laugh too hard) but what about having one or two of the better-known psychics take a look at the journal and provide some insights. LTM Ed of PSL, FL *************************************************************************** From Ric We already know that the situation described in Betty's notebook fits the scenario suggested by the clues we've found about what may have happened at Niku. Psychics? If somebody can show me any valid scientific study that establishes that psychic ability exists I'll be happy to read it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:36:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Fuel Burn MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Doug Brutlag For Alan In a big recip engine, one can get the fuel burn down somewhat lower by reducing props down to the absolute gear-grinding cylinder pressure increasing, minimum RPM's, and then lean the mixtures past peak EGT to just above detonation-as you say at the expense of the engines, true enough. Would that presuppose that our duo knew they couldn't make landfall with safe reserves immediately after takeoff? On the immediately after takeoff, I kinda doubt it. I can't see being able to make that judgement call so soon. I would think they would need at least a few if not several hours into the flight to examine their progress before changing the fuel burn, and even then I'd personally be thinking real hard (several times) before doing that in such a critical flight scenario,but then that's just me. You and I both know they were pushing the envelope into the extremely critical risk territory with this leg. But apparently they accepted the risk as such. Sure would have been nice to be fly on the wall of Fred's flight planning room and see how he did the pre-flight planning for this leg. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric Been there, done that. My Dad taught me how to pull the props back to conserve fuel. Works great unless you overdo it and the pistons come through the cowling. It can also cause a bit of tension in the cockpit. It's why John Wayne slapped Bob Stack in The High and The Mighty (sure wish that classic was available on tape). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:37:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evidence III MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply from RC > From Ric > > <> > Remind me never to live next door to a target. *** Poor choice of words. The 'perfect sphere' used for course and distance computations is more than accurate for all navigational purposes because the error it is small, and each new position 'erases' past inacuracies. The point is that precision beyond the accuracy of the original measurements is gilding the lily. As for targeting data, I suspect small adjustments are made, and the 'map' in the nose is like 'in range df'. RC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:41:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FRom Ron Bright, Alan, I think you are 100% correct: the Electra didn't make it to Saipan. Crashed/ditched, broken wing, out of gas, etc., and I don't believe ala Devine that she made an inadvertent navigation error. But suppose AE/FN did go into the water and were captured say several hundred miles from Howland. We know by many accounts that the Koshu was searching in the area and according to the New York Times, Japanse officials reported that many of their fishing boats were in the area. The Japs who are well aware of the flight and with their DFs at Jaluit,etc, track her to final spashdown. Pick her up and take her to say Kwajalein, Jaluit, etc., then fly her back in a Japanese seaplane landing at Saipan late July 37. Who did those 5 witnesses see who saw the plane summer of 37 at the Harbor? [ Japanese Capture Theory 101] Now it is driving me crazy why we can't find out who those mystery people were at the Kobayashi Hotel, Garapan or wherever. Josephine saw somebody, but who? It is a collateral issue to the Niku, but I brought it up since many people regard that "eyewitness" evidence as good as the stuff found on Niku. Sometimes one has to prove the "other guy did it" to exonerate your client. The Marshallites vs. Tigharites in the Earhart Superbowl. I won't tell you the Las Vegas odds.... Ron Bright Bremerton WA ************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! Koshu and Japanese fishing boats near Howland? Who says? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:41:50 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From David Katz Dennis McGee1s description of how to simulate AE1s experience during the World Flight is downright startling. It makes me wonder =E2=80=B9 Just what= the hell was Amelia Earhart thinking?! David Evans Katz=20 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:52:14 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron B. For Stuart in Santiago Your analysis of eyewitnesses is right on. They saw something but what was it. Unfortunately in the US, juries love, respect and honor eyewitnesses testimony despite all of the problems you cite. Ask the guys that got convicted about eyewitnesses and later exonerated by DNA. We even allow experts in the Eyewitness Identification difficulties to testify in court, but seldom do they prevail. The Saipan witnesses saw someone, but who. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric It is not the case that there are a whole bunch of Saipan "witnesses" who describe the same event. Quite the contrary. The question is how many European couples (husband/wife, brother/sister, tourists, missionaries, whatever) were taken into custody by the Japanese in the prewar years? Years later, with enough leading questions by "Earhart researchers", they all become Amelia and Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:53:27 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Earhart Mystery Solved by Flight Sim MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Hal > Here's the fun part: start the car engines, start the fan, start > > the lawn mower and sit in the chair, and fire up your Flt Sim 2002 Ver 1.1 > > and sit there for 20 hours without getting up. > > Dennis O. McGee #0149EC > > Well there you go....mystery solved....Earhart died of carbon monoxide poisoning and carpal tunnel syndrome :-) Hal *************************************************************************** From Ric We could prove it if we found the bones. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:58:13 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Gallagher's sextant? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Stephen Miller New to the forum, though life long interest in the Earhart mystery. Been reading through the achives and noticed a interesting item in galegher's effects after his death, under the section titled : 32. Effects left at Gardner Island In custody of Aram Tamea: a sextant was listed. A sextant was a very valuble item in 1937-38 and why would he have one? I also seemed strange that a precision instrument such as sextant was listed as a loose item in the inventory. If this subject has been addressed already please accept my apology. Stephen Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric Having a sextant is not nearly as wierd as having a flying helmet, but Irish had one of them on Niku too. (And before anybody gets excited, he was a licensed pilot and AE almost certainly did not have a helmet with her.) Gallagher was a well-educated man of many interests from a well-to-do family. I don't see anything remarkable about him owning a sextant. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:15:30 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson Navigational convention at sea usually describes the lower number of a line passing through two compass directions, regardless of the direction one is traveling. Check American Practical Navigator, for example. It is not required, but it is the usual convention. I've never thought of the 157/337 description as anything other than a line through those two compass points, let alone a particular direction of travel. Suppose someone was on an island and made a similar dawn observation. Since they are not moving, what description of the LOP would they make? 157/337 in my mind. **************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh, but yours is not the mind of Amelia Earhart (aren't you glad?). However, if AE was referencing a note handed to her by master mariner Noonan, and the nautical conventions are as you describe, then 157/337 makes all the sense in the world. ************************************************************************** From RC OR: AE had a slip of paper in front of her [on her leg?] from Fred with an eta for his advanced lop; or something from Fred relative to the lop. When she made the radio call with the lop she referred to the paper & read off the numbers. The question may be: In what order did Fred note the numbers for her info. RC **************************************************************************** From Ric See Jacobson above. **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt So if we take out the pilots and leave in the Coast Guard, would they interpret the numbers the same way? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Apparently (see Jacobson above), being sailors, they would have seen nothing to interpret. Just the normal way of describing a line. ************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell From Alan Sounds good to me. There are specific rules in celestial navigation as to how to plot LOPs which I will spare you. That 's how to PLOT them. How you call the LOP is something else. Trying to think back I suppose I would have read the directions left to right but if I was ON the LOP I would have named the direction I was flying first. Exactly your summary point. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric It's an intersting question of context. If aviator/nonsailor AE came up with that way of describing the line, it may be an indication that she was flying SE at the time. If she was just parroting something Noonan gave her (which, frankly, seems more likely) no suppositions can be drawn about the direction of travel. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:16:27 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ocean currents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson Drift speeds were on the order of 1 to 2 knots Westerly to west-northwest (270* to about 285*), not enough to carry them to the Marshalls. The further west they were from Howland, the more difficult it would be to reach the Marshalls. If they were far north of Howland, they would be quite dead by the time they did reach them, due to the longer distance of drift. By the time of the end of the carrier search, I calculated the carrier did cover all expected drifts of a ditching within reasonable distance of Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:21:25 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Key to Earhart Plane Position MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ron Bright Ric, In an article to the LA Times, 6 July 37, Clarence Williams, AE's navigator, explained where he thought the Electra should be. In sum after assuming his course from Lae to Howland was followed, he believes her base course could have been 8 degrees to the right or 8 degrees to the left of Howland. He called that the "zone of probability" where she might have flown, which meant roughly a 16 degree "maximum divergence" from her base course. He attributed these estimates from expected winds in the area. AE and FN could have flown anywhere in this area and come down somewhere in this cone of "possibilites". But because of currents, the plane would be drifting westward from ten to forty miles per day. He thought up to 100 miles two and one half days after her splashdown. He then identifies the following islands where the plane could be: Hurd Island Byron Island Drummond Is Sydenham Is. I have a National Geo. map of the Phoenix, Gilberts, and Marshalls, but I can not find those islands. Tighar mapers can you so locate them? A photo accompies the article showing Williams charting out her possible position. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric 8 degrees from where? Lae? Lord a'mighty, that's about half of the Pacific. I've never heard of those islands either. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:22:03 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From alan caldwell > you start looking. Logical, easily > determined places first. From Alan I agree, Cam. I think that is a good theory. I don't profess to know where the plane came down. Wish I knew. I do believe there are some places it couldn't get to -- besides Altoona, PA. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:33:02 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: DRing from the unknown MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From alan Caldwell > Yet, isn't that what Alan said FN _was_ able to do (in Alan's 16 Oct > 2001 posting) & that: 'Even without the second celestial body it would > have been easy to navigate to any of the Phoenix Island Group'. ? > From Alan Don, send me a copy of my 16 Oct posting. I have trouble remembering what I said right after hitting "Send Now." Obviously whatever I wrote was not clear at best. To set the record straignt, I can't DR to anyplace from an unknown point. No one can. There has to be a known starting point. Notice I said "DR." Can I NAVIGATE from an unknown point to some other place? Yes, of course, with a caveat. In the case of the Phoenix Island question IF I know I'm north of the Phoenix Islands I can do it. If I don't know that there is no way. I'm only talking about using ONE celestial body and one that gives me a generally north/south line as the sun did for Noonan at 157--337. How? Simply shooting sun lines and moving them east or west as necessary so their LOPs run through whatever island that is chosen. Just like he tried to find Howland in the first place. Let's say he decided to go to Kanton. He would shoot a sun shot and plot the LOP. He now knows his east/west position. He then continues east and shoots another one which gives him ground speed. He then projects his LOP so that it runs through Kanton, computes when he will reach that point and turns down the line. He will not know how far he is from Kanton but if he knew he was north he knows he will soon reach the island. This proceedure works whether he has yet to get to the place where the projected LOP will be plotted or if he has already pssed it. As you can see there are two "IFs. He has to know generally he is north of his desired targets and he has to use a celestial body that will give him generally north/south cuts as the sun did that morning. If they had chosen instead to fly west to the Gilberts a similar proceedure using the planet Saturn or Venus could have worked depending on their visibility and whether Noonan had the astromomical data. Again that would have been a single celestial body process and far more iffy given the probable fuel reserve and the geography of the islands as opposed to the layout of the Phoenix group and their nearness. I've navigated that way numerous times between the States and Europe or Africa. The sun would give me nice speed lines and our radar would tell me where we were north or south and how good the sun lines were. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric But since he DIDN'T know whether or not he was north of Howland it's academic, and if he DID know he was north of Howland he would have to be an idiot not to simply run down the line to Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:35:09 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Gilberts vs LOP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > if_ Gardner/Nikumaroro was > also a 'disaster' (as far as terminating the R-T-W flight) & 'to be > _avoided_ unless it was down to a choice of ditching or landing in the > Phoenix Group', & if _perhaps_, 'flying at maximum range would get them > back to the Gilberts', From Alan Here's the problem with that logic, Don. They were NOT trying to get to Howland OR Gardner. They were trying to get to OAKLAND. Howland was merely a refueling stop. To max out the engines just to have extra fuel would have run the risk of them ending up stuck on Howland waiting for engine changes. If they thought they needed to treat their engines that way because they weren't going to have enough fuel do you think they would have continued? A short strip was built on Howland for them so a short strip could have been built somewhere else so they didn't have such a long stretch to fly IF it was that critical and they knew it. You're right. I don't know but it seems doubtful to me they would purposefully run the risk of ruining their engines if it wasn't necessary. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:36:02 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From alan caldwell > Let me know how it works out; maybe we could do a joint venture. > From Alan Thanks, Dennis but I've had 7 decades of realism. I pick and choose now. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:37:23 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > From Stuart, in Santiago, Chile > > On the subject of witnesses: > > > >From Alan Caldwell > > > > > I would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses > > > and point out why they are either mistaken or lying. > > > > > They don't need to be either wrong or lying. From Alan Stuart, that's misleading. I didn't post that. That's a copy of someone else's post I was replying to. You are correct about the reliability of witnesses, however. There are many law cases in which not only witnesses but even rape victims identified the wrong person. The latter shown by subsequent DNA evidence. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:38:49 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Which Direction First? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From dick Pingrey For David Kelly, David, there is a compelling reason they went to the northwest first. They knew the only alternate places to land were in the Phoenix Islands. They had to turn to the northwest first so the condinuation of their southeast leg would take them to the Phoenix Islands if they did miss Howland. It won't work to do it the other way. Additionally, I think they were doing the best they could to use every correction to bring them smack on to Howland. That was the best way to get the directional finding radios to work at optimum. If that is true they would not consider themselves to be either north or south when they reached the advanced LOP. I suspect they passed very close to Howland on either the run to the north or as they flew south but being at 1000 feet above the water so limited their visability that they simply missed seeing the island. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:40:41 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Navigation at sea or flying MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kurt From Kurt in Emerald Isle It is interesting that we keep coming back to the crux of the problem, which was, when they approached Howland, they took a sun shot and knew that they were on a line that passed approximately through Howland and thru the Gilberts. They had planned for and counted on getting a DF steer once within range of the Itasca. We all know how that went. It is also interesting that some of us were taught, both in navigating aircraft using DR, and in navigating boats using DR, that we could plan a slightly offset course and use time enroute, that would get us to the proper distance out but would insure that we were off to a particular side of the intended landing site, either left or right, depending on winds or currents. We were to do this to intentionally get in the vicinity and then, knowing ahead of time which side to turn to, we would turn the correct way and find our destination within a reasonable time. I wonder why they did not incorporate something like this in their planning? It seems quite obvious that they bet their lives on the DF steer and lost. Kurt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:47:57 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Return to the Gilberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey To Don Neumann, Don, you miss the point that returning to the Gilberts prevents them from searching for Howland. If they don't see Howland when they first reach the line of position they have to abandon looking for Howland and immediately do a 180 to have enough gas to get back the Gilberts (Assuming they flew at max range power settings). We agree that it was a disaster to land any where other then Howland. Thus the plan must be to do all that is possible to find Howland with only the need to eventually find an alternate if Howland can't be found as an over riding requirement. Returning to the Gilberts takes them away from the LOP almost immediately but searching on the Line of position will allow the maximum time to search for Howland and still insure an alternate can be reached if Howland can't be found. The choice is obvious to most of us. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric l also take issue with the assumption that landing anywhere other than Howland would be a disaster. AE had a long history of getting lost and landing off-airport only to refuel and continue on her way. I can see her rolling to a stop on the dry reef at Gardener and thinking, "Now if we can just figure out where we are and what's wrong with the damn radio we can get Itasca to bring us enough fuel to let us takeoff and fly to Howland where we can top off and continue the trip." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:37:41 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: You can get there from here - fuel for the Gilberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, Out of curiosity, following a recent posting regarding Kelly Johnson's telegrams, I went back to the website and re-read them. The third was a tad confusing to me - REVISED FLIGHT DATA FOR EIGHT THOUSAND FEET AT BEGINNING OF FLIGHT AS FOLLOWS STOP CLIMB AT TWO THOUSAND FIFTY RPM TWENTY EIGHT AND ONE HALF INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN EIGHT TO EIGHT THOUSAND FEET STOP Is he now recommending that AE make the entire climb to 8k ft at 2050 rpm regardless of how long it takes? Or does the next paragraph mean the first three hours of the flight? FIRST THREE HOURS AT NINETEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY EIGHT INCHES AND ZERO SEVEN THREE AT SIXTY GALLONS HOUR STOP If so, what does the first paragraph mean? NEXT THREE HOURS AT EIGHTEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN TWO AT FIFTY ONE GALLONS HOUR STOP AFTER SIX HOURS USE DATA GIVEN IN PREVIOUS LETTER OR WIRE STOP I must be missing something in this. By the way, do you perchance have a picture of a Cambridge Anaylyzer? I've looked everywhere, and have so far been unable to locate one. Also, my membership renewal is on the way. ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jon. Here's how it looks to me. In the first telegram he doesn't address the initial climb and starts off recommending 3 hours at 4,000 feet carrying 1800 RPM and 28 inches of manifold pressure with a Cambridge setting of 073 which is supposed to yield 58 gph. Then, for the next three hours, he wants her to climb to 6,000 and back the props off to 1700 RPM and pull the power back to 26.5 inches with a Cambridge setting of 072 which will yield 49 gph. It's only after six hours into the flight that he has her at 8,000 feet leaving the props at 1700 RPM and pulling the power back further to 25 inches with the same 072 Cambridge setting for an estimated 43 gph. In the third telegram he appears to abandon this recommendation for a "stepped" six hour climb to 8,000 and instead recommend a continuous climb at a honkin' 2,050 RPM and 28.5 inches with a Cambridge setting of 078. He doesn't mention what the fuel consumption will be at these settings but it's probably on the order of 100 gph. The idea, apparently, is to get up to an efficient altitude as quickly as possible. Once there, he then recommends three hours at 1900 RPM and 28 inches with the Cambridge set at 073 for an expected 60 gph. The next three hours are 1800 RPM and 26.5 inches with the Cambridge at 072 for an expected 51 gph. Without a good idea of how long it would take to climb to 4,000 in the first instance and all the way up to 8,000 in the final recommendation, it's hard to say just what the total anticipated fuel burn would be in each case, but it does look like the final recommendations are easier on the engines (less time at high manifold pressures and relatively low RPM). The Lae takeoff was almost certainly followed by a relatively short (10 mnutes?) period of time flying in ground effect with everything to the wall before the airplane was able to climb at all and the power could be reduced. We have a photo of a Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer head that is in the cockpit of the Grumman F-3-F that was rebuilt at the San Diego Aerospace Museum. I think the airplane is now at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola. Information about just how the thing worked has been hard to find. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:40:47 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evolution of the search MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Psychics? If somebody can show me any valid scientific study that > establishes that psychic ability exists I'll be happy to read it. > Ric, I'll have you know I am a psychic. I can tell ahead of time whether you will post my notes or save me from myself. Is that proof enough? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you are a psychic. The technique is called "cold reading." Old carnival trick. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:44:15 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Don's Reasoning MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dick Pingrey Ric, I think there is a point when we simply have to pull the plug on trying to explain the basis for our reasoning. The logic of our arguments isn't getting through the door of a closed mind. No matter how many times and how many different ways we state the reasons for flying along the Line of Position it isn't going to change Don's mind. Dick Pingrey ************************************************************************** From Ric While there is some value to new subscribers in our attempts to explain it (again) to Don, it is also true that no one else - even others in the Chorus of Carpers - has chimed in with "Say, Don has a good point there." I agree that its time to move on. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:52:55 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: No Time For Psychics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jim Pearson, Mobile, Al Sorry Ed, but I think using psychics to do research is a bad idea. No, I'm not a sceptic. I am absolutely convinced that some people have extraordinary abilities. I have known probably a dozen people who were psychic and even lived with one for a while. Using a psychic for information is not a good idea because: 1. First of all psychics are human beings and are subject to all the failings and foilibles that the rest of us are. They have good days and bad days, How would you tell that you got your information on a "good" day ? 2. Confirmation, information gained from psychic sources is almost impossible to confirm. If a psychic told you that AE died at 11:45 am on July 14 from heat and exposure, they could be 100% right. How could you confirm it ? 3.Cost, Tighar expeditions operate under constraints of time and budget. How much of those precious resources would you be willing to spend on something that may yeild absolutely nothing in return ? No, let's confine our search to more conventional methods ! *************************************************************************** From Ric We have a procedure for accepting help from psychics. Step 1: The psychic comes Wilmington. Step 2: We all go over to Delaware Park racetrack (10 minutes away). Step 3: We put a $2 bet on the psychic's pick to win each of the first 8 races. Step 4: If we win in all eight races we put all the winnings on the psychic's pick for the 9th race. Step 5: Repeat as needed until we have the next expedition funded. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:54:13 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Evidence II MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Gary LaPook <> It would add about 3 miles to the Lae- Howland leg and, at most, .6 miles Howland to Niku. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:57:53 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Itasca's clock MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Gary LaPook Does anybody know why Itasca kept time 11 1/2 hours behind GMT? I thought everyone set their clocks to a whole number of hours. Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric Half-hour time zones were standard Navy procedure for ships at sea. In for civilians at that time Hawaii was 10 1/2 hours. There are still several half-hour time zones (Newfoundland for example). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:00:54 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: SE on the LOP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Don Neumann: *********************** ...'You were doing pretty good until the last sentence. Would someone please remove the restraining bolt on Mr. Neumann so that he can get it through his head that running SE on the LOP does not constitute "seeking an alternate landfall"?'... From Ric *********** I know I'm awfully 'slow' on the pick-up, (certainly by your own exalted standards) however can you explain more sloooooowly, just how _you_ would describe the _reason_ for flying 300+ miles away from your _original_ landfall target & your only _known_ source of rescue, if _not_ to 'seek an alternate landfall', or are we simply playing a fun game of semantics ? In all good humor, <:-) Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric No Don, in all good humor, I no longer believe I can explan that to you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:04:22 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Kanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Phil Tanner in Reading, UK New Zealand radio mentioned a possible new role for Kanton a few days ago. The US military has been using Johnston Atoll as a site for chemical arms disposal and the work is now complete or nearly so. The atoll will be turned into a national park and the airfield will no longer be maintained, at least to its current level. This means it will no longer be able to serve as an emergency runway for trans-Pacific twin-engined flights, which are apparently obliged to stay at all times within a certain mileage or flying time of a runway. Kanton was mentioned as a possible alternative, but it would presumably need work done itself by now. LTM, Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric Not much though. The runway was in great shape when we were there in '98 but room service at the hotel was a bit slow. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:06:10 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Daryll's Navigation Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Doug Brutlag Ok forumites here's what I came up with on the retreat to Mili Atoll question. Daryll asked, "where does a line 101 deg. true from Mili Atoll intersect the 337/157 deg LOP from Howland. Lat/ long of intersecting point and all mileages. Point of intersection occurs at N3' 27" W177' 44" (101 deg. line & 337/157 deg LOP) Mileage from intersection to Mili Atoll: 625 nautical miles/ 544 statute miles, initial true course 284 deg. (great circle) Mileage from Howland to intersection northwest: 172 nautical miles/ 150 statute miles I will break the course line from the intersection to Mili via waypoints you can follow or copy on a chart if you have one available. All waypoints will intersect lines of longitude to make it easy to plot. Waypoint 1: N3' 27" W177' 44" Waypoint 2: N3' 46" W 179' 00" Waypoint 3: N4' 02" W180' 00" (international date line) Waypoint 4: N4' 17" E179' 00" Waypoint 5: N4' 32" E178' 00" Waypoint 6: N4' 47" E177' 00" Waypoint 7: N5' 01" E176' 00" Waypoint 8: N5' 16" E175' 00" Waypoint 9: N5' 31" E174' 00" Waypoint 10: N5' 45" E173' 00" Waypoint 11: N5' 58" E 172' 07" SE corner of Mili Atoll Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric Was there a point to Daryll's question? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:23:05 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: OFF TOPIC research needed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Ric We have a request for information about the TBF Avenger from which Lt.(j.g.) George H. W. Bush parachuted on Sept. 2, 1944 near the island of Chichijima-retto (27.06 degrees North/142.12 degrees East) from someone who might be interested in attempting to find and recover the aircraft. We'll probably need to get into the Navy archives for primary source particulars (after action report, etc.) but I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has information on the subject. Thanks, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 07:53:32 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Daryll At one time....Ric has said that of all the post loss messages the "281 message" seemed to be the most credible. No one could figure out what 281 meant, north of Howland 281 miles? What Doug has just done was run the recip of 281=B0 from Mili. I will label this point "AE". This could possibly be the point AE&FN executed plan "B". This point also coincides with Rollin's oft presented "LOP off-set" to the left for a LOP land fall for Howland.=20 It also shows why the Itasca sailed NW for the initial search. The mileage numbers seem to be in fuel range re "Mr. Boswell". Ric,.......I claim the "281 message" for our side ! Daryll **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me get this straight. You're saying that the phrase "281 north Howland=20 call KHAQQ" was transmitted from Mili and somehow means "We flew 281 degrees= =20 from a point north of Howland." Brilliant deduction. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:03:42 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Was there a point to Daryll's question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Doug Brutlag Ric asks "was there a point to Daryll's question?" Daryll, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think with this exercise you wanted to find out if it was feasible to divert to Mili from the point of the intersection of 101 deg. true line & 337/157 deg. LOP? It's 625 miles from the point to the SE corner of Mili. Unless she had some hidden fuel aboard or hellacious mystery tailwind I can't buy into it. I also cannot fathom being able to get the fuel burn down to such a value running R-1340's without driving yourself behind the efficiency curve or simply trashing the motors. It's just too far to go, not to mention not having an exact position fix to navigate from to even find Mili. Either way you slice it, it spells doom. Daryll, It was interesting running the scenario. I hope this answers your questions in full. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric See previous posting. You have confirmed Daryll's darkest suspicions. The "281 Message" obviously proves that they implemented a Plan B from "Point AE" on the LOP and flew 281 degrees to Mili. He doesn't mention why in God's name they would do such a thing or how they could have gotten all the way to Mili, but I'm sure he'll think of something. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:07:16 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Ocean currents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From David Evans Katz If Randy Jacobson is correct about the drift, then I can conceive of no possible scenario that the dynamic duo could have reached the Marshalls. With respect to the reading of the LOP numbers, has anyone considered the possibility that Noonan or Earhart may have secretly been a Talmudic scholar, and therefore were accustomed to reading right to left? :-) David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, me. <> ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:10:14 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: You can get there from here - fuel for the Gilberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson Hi Ric, Thanks for the explanation - it makes sense now. I was looking at the altitude references in the telegram as the "target" altitude for each "leg" of his recommendations, not the "starting" altitude. There was some discussion of the Cambridge Analyzer on the forum (last year?) which I recently went back and read in the highlights. The explanation (as I recollect now may have been from Birch Matthews) described the sensing unit as a "wheatstone bridge". The discussion at the time had to do with AE's communication about having to replace the "cartridge" and it was decided that she was referring to the sensing unit. There was some discussion that at the mixtures being cited by Kelly Johnson, the unit would have been (I think the description was) "operating at the ragged edge of efficiency" (or some such). At any rate, in my ongoing quest to try to put together as accurate a picture as possible of what the front office looked like, could you email me a scan of the photo? If that's not possible, maybe you could mail me a photocopy. Thanks! ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll dig it out as soon as I get minute. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:20:29 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Return to the Gilberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Jon Watson < rolling to a stop on the dry reef at Gardener and thinking, "Now if we can > just figure out where we are and what's wrong with the damn radio we can get > Itasca to bring us enough fuel to let us takeoff and fly to Howland where we > can top off and continue the trip.">> Hi Ric, I agree. Does give one pause,though, to speculate about what available equipment resources might have been on the airplane that could have been pressed into service to replace the missing belly antenna...once they got out and saw what the problem was... ltm, jon **************************************************************************** From Ric If they have some spare antenna wire, I suppose they could run it from the treminal under the copliot's seat out to the left wing. (They only need to run the starboard engine to recharge the batteries.) Otherwise, the best plan is to just use the loop as the receiver. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:24:15 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson Drummond Island is the old name for Tabitueua. ************************************************************************ From Ric Interesting. So Clarence Williams was using a map or maps that, at least in this case, favored the old European names for islands - such as Duke of York rather than Atafu. I wonder if AE and FN were using the same maps. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:28:37 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Randy Jacobson <> The Koshu was near Truk Island doing oceanographic surveys on the day Earhart went down. She was instructed to go to the Marshalls on the 4th, arriving (estimated) on the 9th. ************************************************************************** From Ric So - no Koshu anywhere near Howland. Can anyone establish that there were Japanese fishing boats way down there? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:30:10 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Return to the Gilberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From alan Caldwell > l also take issue with the assumption that landing anywhere other than > Howland would be a disaster. AE had a long history of getting lost and > landing off-airport only to refuel and continue on her way. Thanks for posting that comment, Ric. Most everyone has viewed this flight as simply Lae to Howland even though they know that was only one part of the overall mission. Viewing the flight as going to Howland has clearly affected some folk's reasoning. They were only stopping for fuel and they certainly weren't going to ruin their chances of continuing on to Oakland by wrecking their engines or dumping the Electra into the drink if there was any other way out. The thought that even putting the plane down on a reef was not the end of the mission is a great comment for all to keep in mind. Had the plane landed at Niku AND been found it would have merely been a delay until fuel and necessary repairs got them on their way again. For those who want to nick at the idea and say they couldn't have got back off the ground with a new fuel load are missing the point. A little fuel would get them back up to Howland where a full load could be put on as originally planned. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:34:22 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > . We know by many accounts that the Koshu was > searching in the area and according to the New York Times, Japanse > officials > reported that many of their fishing boats were in the area. > I know of no such evidence, Ron but I appreciate your good try at offering an explanation for AE in the Marshalls. This is one of the first rationales I've seen and that is all I've been asking for. Even if someone might poke holes in it the exercise makes you and all of us think and keeps old ideas from stagnating. As you can see each theory requires accepting some evidence and ignoring other evidence. Our job is to try and evaluate each piece of evidence and rank it so to speak. For example hearsay evidence is ranked according to several factors not excluding the character of the speaker. That is and will be a continuing evaluation as new information comes to light. What you see with your own eyes has a fairly high quality to it. What someone tells you they saw has less and what someone told someone who told someone is pretty low on the totem pole. Ric took exception as I did on your statement of ships in the vicinity of Howland but if you can show newspaper accounts or other documentation to that effect then your "evidence" gets a higher ranking. There may even be a way to get the Electra to the Marshalls but no one has come up with it. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric As you have by now seen from Randy's posting, the Koshu was never anywhere near Howland and we've seen no documentation on the "fishing boats" allegation. What evidence (other than anecdotal) do we have to ignore to accept the Niku hypothesis? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:35:56 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho > From Doug Brutlag > > Mileage from intersection to Mili Atoll: 625 nautical miles/ 544 statute > miles, initial true course 284 deg. (great circle) > Mileage from Howland to intersection northwest: 172 nautical miles/ 150 > statute miles. It seems as if the conversion from nautical miles to statute miles has been reversed. Which are the correct numbers? Dale ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:37:06 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Cambridge analyzer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Marty Moleski > *** From Ric > ... We have a photo of a Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer head that is in the > cockpit of the Grumman F-3-F that was rebuilt at the San Diego Aerospace > Museum. ... Information about just how the thing worked has > been hard to find. Birch Matthews found some interesting literature: http://www.tighar.org/forum/Highlights101_120/highlights105.html#17 Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:38:11 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ric, They (Saipan witnesses) saw AE or Irene Bolam, "lookalikes" !!!! This may help but my friend Joe Patton, the ONI guy who went to Saipan in Dec 60, after Goerner et al, found noone that could confirm a crash or AEs presence. In fact he found Jesus Salas ( I think) former inmate at Garapan who said no "white woman" was at the Garapan Jail in 1937on. But maybe Jesus was "covering up", the Capture Theorists would argue. I just talked to Joe, but he doesn't have any of his old notes re his investigation and doesn'nt recall much else other than what is in his ONI report. He was aware of Goerner's interviews and he did interview Mrs. Antonia Blanco, Josephines mama, but the story was much different. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:40:41 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Herman De Wulf Speaking as a pilot I would say that the most obvious reason why AE said she was flying the 157-337 line is because she was heading SE, the gyroscopic compass set at 157 and probably or almost certainly compensating for drift. Since this was their LOP, she was flying SE along the 157? radial and to 337? was the reciprocal course. It stands to reason that she would therefore first say 157 rather than 337. I'm pretty sure that if she had been flying NW instead she would have set the gyroscopic compass at 337 and would have transmitted to be flying the 337-157 line. In short the situation at that time was SNAFU. To the non flying crowd this aviation English and is short for "Situation Normal And Fouled Up". Of course we'll be sure about the heading she flew when Tighar finds the Electra... Ric, if and when you do, look at the gyroscopic compass if it is still in one piece. However, these old mechanical things tend to survive crashes. I bet a bottle of champagne it is still showing 157. LTM Herman 2406 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll take that bet. The 157 337 LOP is True, not Magnetic. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:44:28 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King Re. Jim Pierson's point: <<2. Confirmation, information gained from psychic sources is almost impossible to confirm. If a psychic told you that AE died at 11:45 am on July 14 from heat and exposure, they could be 100% right. How could you confirm it ?>> Actually, I've long wanted to find a way to subject a psychic's conclusions to archeological verification. It seems like a natural: psychic says "Amelia buried Fred right THERE," we dig, and he's either there or he's not. So if anyone wants to take the Niku grid map to a psychic..... *************************************************************************** From Ric Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away I did that with a "renowned" psychic while searching for l'Oiseau Blanc in the hills of coastal Maine. Probably the second stupidest thing I ever did (right behind my first marriage). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:47:03 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Tom King << In an article to the LA Times, 6 July 37, Clarence Williams, AE's navigator, explained where he thought the Electra should be....> For Ron Bright Maybe I'm being painfully naive, but that LA Times article sounds very intriguing. Can you post a copy of it, or give directions (no LOP, please) as to how to find it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:48:10 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: DRing from the unknown MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From alan Caldwell > But since he DIDN'T know whether or not he was north of Howland it's > academic, and if he DID know he was north of Howland he would have to be an > idiot not to simply run down the line to Howland. > From Alan Once again I was unclear. Knowing whether he was north or south meant north or south of Kanton or whatever other island he was wanting to go to NOT north or south of Howland. Of course this is academic as I don't think he had intentions of doing anything other than heading down the LOP hoping to find Howland or Baker and as a last resort Gardner. The purpose of my nav posting was simply to show how one could get to Kanton or any place else IF the knew their relative north south position in regard to those islands. I can see now that in my attempt to clear this up I have befuddled all. Anyone versed in celestial navigation has a chance but the rest of should move on. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:26:01 EST Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Island names MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Alan Caldwell > Sydenham Sydenham Is is at 0 degrees S 174 degrees E. I didn't look up the others. Nor did I plot out the distance from anywhere. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Bruce Yoho has tracked down Clarence Williams' islands: Hurd Island----is ARORAE Island Byron Island -----is NIKUNAU Drummond Island---- is TABITEUEA Sydenham Island --- is NONOUTI Reference is this URL--- http://www.wysiwyg.co.nz/kiribati/islands.html #GILBERT ISLANDS These are all in the Southern Gilberts and it's odd that he didn't also mention "Francis Island (BERU), "Clerk Island" (ONOTOA), or "Rotcher island" (TAMANA) which are all right there with the others. Williams' consistent Eurocentricity in the use of island names really has me thinking (again) about this Duke of York business and Betty's Notebook. How many time have we questioned the authenticity of the alleged post-loss radio signals by asking why Earhart was not saying, over and over again, the name of the island she was on? "We're on Gardner Island, Gardner, Gardner, Gardner!" and here we have Betty's Notebook with repeated references to "NY, NY, NY, (or something that sounded like New York" and sitting right there we have Duke of York (Atafu) which just happens to be on that same 157 337 LOP. We have also wondered if Betty had written "NY, NY" as shorthand for "New York City" when AE had actually been saying "Norwich City" in an attempt to convey the only unique thing she knew about the island she was on. Not bad as a theory, but the Duke of York theory is a lot cleaner. No need to interpret Betty's notation. Why AE thought they were on Duke of York is a bit of a mystery. Apparently she assumed that they had erred to the SE farther than they did and, just as apparently, Noonan had not been able to fix their position with celestial observations, but then, the Noonan described in Betty's Notebook was in no shape to observe anything. Of course, it could also be that a hoaxer was saying Duke