Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:22:58 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: radio receiving and transmission "...over a hundred other signals..." other than the PAA and amateur receptions have been included in the Tighar Matrix. How about a little teaser here, before you publish. Are those professional operators with sophisticated equipment??? Coast Guard? Navy? Ron Bright ******************************************************************* From Ric I'll be happy to give you an accurate count in the next day or so. This weekend I finished putting the Master List of event reports into tab-separated text so that it can be data-based. Once that is done I'll be able to pull out all kinds of statistics. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:24:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Nauticos on TV Tonight- Israeli Submarine Dakar > And, except for the "Dakar" coincidence, I'm still not sure what this has to > do with AE. Jon, I don't know that it has ANYTHING to do with the Electra and its crew but if I was cynical I might suppose it was their way of saying "Look how great we are at finding vehiicles deep in the ocean. Fund our Electra search and we can locate it just as easily." Alan =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:32:01 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna > From this I conclude she didn't attempt to broadcast on 6210 immediately > after her last transmission heard by Itasca. I understand what you said, Bob, that 6210 SHOULD have been heard in the area from Howland for many hundreds of miles on south but that wasn't the case at Lae. Her first transmission that Lae reported as hearing was 4 hours and 18 minutes after take off. Of course it may be that was the first radio call she made but my understanding was that she was to report hourly at about 18 minutes past the hour. She was then heard one hour later and then two hours later but not after that. I don't know what happened to the 16:18Z radio call or if it was even made. The 17:18Z call was still on 6210 is my understanding. Is that correct, Ric? She may have soon switched to 3105, her night time freq and that seemed to have a short range as gaged by her calls to Itasca. Then when she switched back to 6210 she was in the same range from Howland to Niku as she was out of Lae. It seems to me to be consistant she wasn't heard in either case. Bob, do I have this right or am I confused? Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric Bob has not run the SNRs for the transmissions heard in Lae. Chater says: "Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information, but local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible until 2.18 p.m." The plane took off at 10:00 a.m. Sounds to me like unintelligible voice may have been heard at one or more of the scheduled hourly times (10:18, 11:18, 12:18, 13:18). =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:34:58 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Nauticos on TV Tonight- Israeli Submarine Dakar Jon, Nauticos is following the Elgen Long story. Carol =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:45:43 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Cam Warren's Manifesto I respectfully request that the Forum close the door on this one, and move ahead. PMB #0856C, Doylestown, PA. ************************************************************ From Ric The door is closed. ************************************************************************ From Chris in Petaluma, Ca. I'll bet you and Cam are the best of friends and you appointed him to the forum just to spice things up a bit? Chris#2511 ************************************************************** From Ric I've never met or spoken with Cam and I certainly bear him no personal animosity. I'm all in favor of spice on the forum as long as it adds something to the stew but all Cam seemed to have to contribute was vinegar. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:18:47 EST From: Melanie Subject: Post-Loss messages Do you know of any other examples of post loss messages associated with a plane disappearance? Especially, one where it was later found transmissions were clearly not made. I'm wondering if it is a common phenomenon, perhaps caused by people trying so hard to listen for anything (and in the case of high-profile flights perhaps caused by hoaxes). If not, it lends even more validity to AE's post loss messages. Melanie ************************************************************************ From Ric That is a VERY interesting question - and I don't know the answer. I can think of a couple of disappearances we could check. - In December 1934, Charles Ulm and two companions took off from Oakland for Hawaii in a twin-engine Airspeed Envoy named "Stella Australus" on the first leg of a planned trans-pacific flight to Australia. They disappeared and were never found. The aircraft had a radio. It would be interesting to check the newspaper coverage of that disappearance to see if messages were reported. - In November 1935, Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith and copilot/mechanic Tommy Pethybridge disappeared in the Lockheed Altair "Lady Southern Cross" in the Bay of Bengal somewhere south of Rangoon. In May 1937, the starboard undercarriage leg with wheel and tire attached were picked up by a Burmese fisherman on the shore of an island off the south coast of Burma. Smithy had a radio. I don't know if post-loss signals were reported but the discovery of wreckage argues against any being sent. There is a recent biography entitled "Smithy" by Ian Mackersey that deals extensively with the last flight. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:21:23 EST From: Daryll Subject: PTT vs Key Mike Everette wrote: >Bill Shea wrote: >>I always thought that an 'unmodulated carrier' was a fancy term for a tone. > >An unmodulated carrier is a signal without modulation. Pure and simple. >The same result is produced by either holding down a telegraph key, or >keeping the microphone PTT switch pressed but not speaking into the mic. > >Gary LaPook wrote: > >>Keyed tones is a signal type called MCW or "modulated continuous wave." To get >>this to work AE's radio would have to have incorporated a circuit for this. >>Anybody know if her radio did? > >The Western Electric 13 series transmitters did not have MCW (A2 emission) >capability. As designed the 13 series was AM-modulated voice (A3 emission) >only. AE's radio was factory modified to also incorporate CW transmission >capability (A1 emission), but not MCW. QUESTION : Mike, how could the Itasca record long dashes at 08:00-03 if they didn't have a key in the airplane? You said that a keyed PTT switch would produce a carrier and I assume the ambient background noise (if any) heard on the phone. The Itasca log indicates whistling when the was whistling or other noise heard. If the PTT was depressed you should hear the cockpit engine noise correct? Was the Itasca hearing a keyed dash from a key or the depressed PTT switch? Daryll From Log Jam: Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 08:00-03 a.m. July 2, 1937 KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE RECD WE UR SIGS BUT UNABLE TO GET A MINIMUM PSE TAKE BEARING ON US AND ANS 3105 WID VOICE / NRUI DE KHAQQ LNG DASHES ON 3105 -/ NRUI2 DE NRUI P AR 0800-3 Aboard Itasca: The ship can not give Earhart a "long count" on 7500 Kilocycles because its transmitter is incapable of sending voice on that frequency, but it does repeat the letter A in morse code (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah), the prearranged signal for homing transmissions from Itasca. Earhart reports hearing the signal but is "unable to get minimum" and again asks Itasca to take a bearing on her. She sends long dashes on 3105...... =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:26:42 EST From: Michael Subject: Re: radio receiving and transmission I'm sorry I haven't been following the forum very diligently recently, but I'd love to know how the 'Radio Matrix' is getting on? I'm sure there must some radio hams on the forum - without wishing to start a whole new debate, one aspect of radio hamming that used to be very popular was QRP - low power transmission. The range achievable using QRP [1 watt?] is quite surprising - I know of instances where communication has been established between UK and Australia under good conditions. Obviously AE's aerial would have been less than perfect, especially if the aircraft was on the ground, however someone with QRP experience might like to comment? Keep up the good work! Michael ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes, we'd love to hear from HAMs with QRP experiences. The Post-Loss Radio report will be part of a Special Report edition of TIGHAR Tracks that we hope to mail to TIGHAR members January 15. My deadline for completeing the writing is December 15. From there it goes to Pat for layout and then to the printer. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:39:02 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Antenna A big problem for me with the reported reception of post 2013 Z messages has to do with the difficulty of tuning the radios of that era to a particular frequency either 3105 kc or 6210 kc. The young people on the list who have been raised with digital tuning on every radio do not appreciate the difficulty of using tuning knobs and trying to tune in a station when the markings on the "tuning dial" are inexact. I would like to know how the people who claimed to hear AE on one of these two frequencies could be sure that they were actually tuned to her transmitting frequencies. A simple example. Using an old AM radio with a tuning dial try to tune a particular broadcast station. If, say you wanted to listen to Rush at 10:00am on KFI in Los Angeles you tune to approximately "6" or "600" on the am dial and listen for a broadcast. It may or may not be KFI and you can't be sure until you hear a station identification. Even if you know that Rush is on KFI at 640 kc and you hear his voice you still can't be sure that you have tuned to 640 because Rush is also broadcast on KOGO from San Diego on 600 kc. and "6" or "600" on the dial could represent either station because of the inexact nature of tuning dials. That was an easy example because both of these stations broadcast continuously so you can tune around and wait for the station identification. It is not so easy to find a station that transmits sporadically and for only short periods. In this case you can't just tune around in hopes of finding such a transmission since it is highly unlikely that you would happen to be tuned to the exact right spot on the dial at the exact time that AE made a short transmission. Even if the dial said "31" it is just as likely to be set to 3035 or 3096 or 3156 (even 3309) etc. as to be set to 3105 kc. It is very likely that many of the transmissions received and reported to be coming in on 3105 were actually received on some other nearby frequency. And what are the chances that "Betty" just happened to be tuning to the 5th harmonic of AE's transmitter's frequency at exactly the same instant that AE makes a short sporadic transmission. It would be like hitting a bullet with another bullet. ( I know, that can happen. I have seen a photo of a Jap and an American artillery projectile fused together but I have only seen one such photo.) So, what if you got lucky and could be sure that you were tuned to 3105 because you heard, for instance, a Coast Guard station identify and state that it was transmitting on 3105. Can you then just leave your radio set where it is so that is will remain on that same frequency? Unfortunately, no. Radios are tuned by adjusting the output of a "variable frequency oscillator" (VFO) which is then fed to other stages of the radio. The tuning knob and tuning dial are both connected to the VFO. Turning the tuning knob changes the output frequency of the VFO and also turns the tuning dial. Any change in the frequency of the output from the VFO changes the frequency that the radio receives. VFOs lacked "stability" in that they would drift over time mainly due to changes in the temperatures of the various components of the VFO and sometimes they would change just from the presence of your hand on the tuning knob. So even if you started out accurately tuned to 3105, wait awhile and you will be receiving a different frequency without any change on the tuning dial. This is the reason for crystal control of communications radios. Certain kinds of crystals can be ground to a particular thickness and the crystal will oscillate in a set, fixed frequency. The crystal is manufactured for a particular frequency, say 3105 kc, and it will always oscillate at that frequency and can be used to control the tuning of the transmitter and receiver. Only with crystals cut for the right frequency could you be sure that you were transmitting and receiving on a fixed frequency. It is highly unlikely that any casual listener or ham would have had crystals for 3105 or 6210 kc and so can not be sure that they were receiving on those frequencies. Modern radios have computer controlled "phase locked loops" (which also uses a crystal for a reference frequency) with digital readout so you can set them to a fixed frequency and they will be accurate and stay on that frequency which is, obviously, a great improvement. (Speaking of KFI, it must have also been a communication station in 1937 because GP Putnam stayed at the station so as to communicate during the flight and search. Anybody with information about this?) gl ************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, everything you say is true. All of the reported amateur receptions, if legitimate at all, were apparently on harmonics of 3105 and 6210 and all were accidental. None of the amateurs claimed to have been intentionally listening for Earhart. On the other hand, if transmissions from the airplane could be heard on harmonics and thousands and thousands, if not millions, of people in the U.S. regularly surfed their shortwave dial for something interesting, it would be surprising if a few did not stumble upon a transmission from the plane. However, as I've said before, the vast majority of suspected post-loss transmissions were reported by professional radio operators in or near the search area. Their reports include discussions of the problems you describe about verifying frequencies. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:59:45 EST From: Jeff Lange Subject: Re: Cam Warren's Manifesto AMEN to cutting off Cam Warren. He offers info that he wouldn't even attempt to help anyone verify, saying that, " you could do the research yourself ", but would not simply supply copies of his documents to prove his point or clear up a misconception. You have had the patience of Job to keep it up so long when being on the receiving end of all of those barbs! Again I say AMEN! Jeff Lange # 0748C =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:01:29 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Membership Sorry I let my membership lapse; the check is in the mail. To the remaining TIGHAR members; check your files and don't let your memberships expire!! Jerry Ellis #2113 ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jerry. We knew you'd get around to it. :-) =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:05:05 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Antenna Hope you are having a nice day because I'm having one. Happy Thanksgiving. Talked with Bruce Smith, the avionics man, in fact I just got off the phone with him. Bruce says the following after reading all the emails: 1. Marker beacon antennas were not approved for general aviation until 1938. So Earhart's Electra did not have a marker beacon antenna on the belly. 2. The belly antenna that was installed on the Electra had to be a range antenna and 18ft. is the right length. It is also the right length for a sense antenna and Earhart could have unplugged the range antenna in flight and switched it over to a sense antenna. All of this would be dependent on the capabilities of the avionics. However, it should be noted the two types of antennas are interchangeable and they are of the same length (sense and range). 3. The sense antenna and the range antenna have nothing to do with voice or Morse code communications. 4. Before the wreck in Hawaii there was evidently two antennas on the belly of the airplane. One of them must have been a sense antenna and the other one a range antenna. 5. The loss of the sense antenna off the belly of the airplane would have lost the 180 degree ambiguity feature of a fixed loop radio compass DF. Smith is saying there was probably an indicator on Earhart's panel that indicated left and right plus or minus 5 degrees on the null. The sense antenna operated in the range of 200 kilohertz to 500 kilohertz and was probably a dial operated radio system. So, the above is confirmed. End of story except nothing really new except the marker beacon antenna is deleted. The DF didn't work (which we already knew), but it would be especially true if the sense antenna was missing. Smith also says the sense antenna would also have provided a continuous signal if it was there. LTM Carol Dow ************************************************************************ From Ric Thank you for forwarding Mr. Smith's opinons. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:12:21 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Antenna Re Chater report mentioning "local interference." Does this comment indicate the possibility that Lae was receiving other, more local, radio transmissions that blocked out expected AE transmissions? I'll see what I can find on the 1934 Ulm flight. blue skies, jerry ************************************************************************ From Ric I guess that would depend on whether 6210 was being used locally. There was lots of aviation activity around New Guinea in support of gold mining at that time. If 6210 was a standard frequency for aviation use in the area there might have been a lot of traffic. The other possibility is local atmospheric interference. I know from personal experience flying in New Guinea that by noontime on a typical day there are big nasty buildups over the Owen Stanley mountains just in back of Lae. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:30:24 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna Alan Caldwell wrote: > > Table A-1 shows that Earhart's signal on 6210 would have been readablefrom > > anywhere between Howland Island and Gardner Island until 2130Z, up to 250 > > miles from Howland until 2230Z, and up to 200 miles after 2330Z. > > Bob, is that true of the flight out of Lae also? No, because the path loss changed differently over time in the two cases. The path loss in skywave propagation is the sum of two components: free-space loss and absorption loss. Free space loss is due to geometric spreading of the wave front and varies with distance. Absorption loss occurs in the D layer, which is the lowest ionosphere layer and lies between the approximate limits of 75 and 90 kilometers above the earth's surface. The absorption in this layer is due to ionization resulting from solar radiation, which varies with the sun's angular elevation above the horizon. The D layer exists only during daytime and disappears rapidly after sunset. The layer does not reflect signals at frequencies above 1 MHz, but it does absorb energy at all frequencies. Skywave signals pass through the D layer enroute to their reflection points higher in the ionosphere, and again on the way down, incurring absorption loss both ways. In the LOP case, free space loss increased with elapsed time as the Electra flew away from Howland. And, since the signals of interest occurred during the first few hours after sunrise, the D layer absorption was increasing with time as the sun's elevation angle increased. The combined result result was a steadily increasing composite path loss, which accounts for the time-varying communication distance limits. On the flight out of Lae, free space loss increased with elapsed time as the Electra's distance increased. But the signals of interest occurred in the late afternoon when D layer absorption was decreasing, the opposite of what happened in the LOP case. At 0418Z, the time of AE's first report, the sun's elevation angle was decreasing everywhere along the path to Lae, where sunset would occur at 0808Z. The decreasing D layer absorption loss outweighed the increasing spreading loss component, resulting in a net decrease of path loss with time, as shown by the Lae operator's observation that Earhart's signal strength was increasing over time. LTM, Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:08:10 EST From: Brent Subject: Re: Stranded If we go with the theory that they crashed on Niku and either 1 or both survived how long do you estimate they survived for or could survive ? Brent ************************************************************************ From Ric Survival on Niku depends on two factors: A. The availability of sufficient drinking water. B. Not getting hurt or sick. A. We don't know how much water they carried with them but even a liberal guess leaves them needing more water within a day or so. The only way they ad to get drinkable water was to catch rainwater. To catch rainwater it has to rain and you have to have some way to catch it. We have no way of knowing how often it rained during the days, weeks, and months immediately following the disappearance except to note that when Maude and Bevington visited the island in October the vegetation was lush. Soon thereafter, however, the region suffered one of the worst droughts on record and by the time the New Zealand survey party arrived in Dec. 1938 the island vegetation was shriveled and dry. The drought broke that next spring and by April of 1939 the vegetation was pretty much back to normal. How long could AE and/or FN have been able to collect enough water to survive? A reasonable guess would be until well inot the autumn of 1937. After that it seems like it would be pretty iffy. B. It's not easy to not get hurt or sick on Niku, especially if you have to be out on the reef (where it's easiest to catch fish). The reef is very slippery in places and a fall can mean a cut or scrape on the coral that, unless immediately treated, is guaranteed to become infected. In fact, and nick or scrape can quickly become a problem. We carry alcohol swabs with us and get fresh water showers every evening, and we still run into problems. I don't think we've ever run an expedition out there where we didn't have somebody lose at least a day to infection or illness. In addition to the danger of infection, some of the fish in the area are toxic if eaten at a particular time of the year. The Blacktip sharks on the reef and in the lagoon are really not much of a concern unless you're already bleeding (ask me how I know) but if the occasional Tiger or Pelagic Whitetip stops by, all bets are off and it's a good idea to stay the hell out of the water. It seems like a pretty good bet that the castaway died of either dehydration (thirst) or illness. The skull seems to have been found in April 1940 but remains deteriorate so rapidly in that environment that we really can't put a not-later-than date of death on the castaway earlier than about May of that year. I'm afraid I can't give you a very precise answer. If the castaway found in 1940 was Earhart then she survived for somewhere between several weeks to almost three years. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:09:44 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna Ric wrote: > I guess that would depend on whether 6210 was being used locally. There was > lots of aviation activity around New Guinea in support of gold mining at that > time. If 6210 was a standard frequency for aviation use in the area there > might have been a lot of traffic. The other possibility is local atmospheric > interference. Chater says, of June 30th, "During this period the Lockheed receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone, and this was, on the next day, tested in flight". This suggests that Lae wasn't using 6210 for local ops. I think the interference referred to was local atmospheric noise. Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:12:22 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna > I understand what you said, Bob, that 6210 SHOULD have been heard in the area > from Howland for many hundreds of miles on south but that wasn't the case at > Lae. That's correct, Alan. > Her first transmission that Lae reported as hearing was 4 hours and 18 > minutes after take off. Of course it may be that was the first radio call she > made but my understanding was that she was to report hourly at about 18 > minutes past the hour. Correct > She was then heard one hour later and then two hours later but not after > that. I don't know what happened to the 16:18Z radio call or if it was even > made. The 17:18Z call was still on 6210 is my understanding. Is that correct, > Ric? It was on 6210. > She may have soon switched to 3105, her night time freq and that seemed > to have a short range as gaged by her calls to Itasca. It appears that she switched to 3105 at sunset, as she had said she would before leaving Lae. Sunset was at 0721Z at the position given in her 0718Z report. We don't know where she as at 0718Z since we don't know whether the position report was contemporaneous. But I suspect her report was sent close to sunset at her then current position. If she followed her plan, she switched to 3105 right after her 0718Z transmission. > Then when she switched back to 6210 she was in the same range from Howland to > Niku as she was out of Lae. It seems to me to be consistant she wasn't heard > in either case. > > Bob, do I have this right or am I confused? Earlier today I posted a response to your previous question about whether the LOP distance limit for 6210 also applied to the Lae case. As you will see - - or have seen by now - - that wasn't the case. LTM, Bob =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:13:41 EST From: Van Hunn Subject: Glacier Girl Mark your calendar for a History Channel documentary about Glacier Girl on 3 March 2003. The following notice appeared in latest issue of Air & Space magazine: "After 10 years of work and infusion of $2.5 million, the Lockheed P-38 extracted from the ice in Greenland in 1992 flew for the first time in 60 years last October in Middlesboro, KY. Reno air race pilot Steve Hinton made a 30-minute flight that included low passes for the audience of 25.000. A History Channel crew filmed the event for its 3 March 2003 documentary on the saga of Glacier Girl, the name it was given after it was de-iced. The airplane was one of six P-38s on a ferry flight that, along with two B-17s, encountered bad weather, ran low on fuel, and found their intended Greenland landing site closed, forcing emergency landings on the ice cap. Over the years, glacial shifting had moved all eight aircraft two miles from their touchdown site and buried them under 268 feet of ice. Glacier Girl will appear at air shows, then serve as centerpiece of the Lost Squadron P-38 Museum in Middlesboro." =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:30:59 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Stop Press - Its all over! Carol - You were right! And we were wrong after all! PSI -TECH, the e.s.p. people, have used "remote viewing" to track down the electra! And guess where its not? You guessed it - NOT Nikumaroro. Instead, they are quite sure it crashed on the island of Kuria in the Gilberts. Looks as though they did decide to turn back for the Gilberts just as Mrs Noonan said they would! At least Ric can console himself that Cam Warren was wrong too. Goodbye Niku V and hello Kuria I. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.remoteviewing.com/images/micronesia.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.remoteviewing.com/projects/map2.asp%3Fpage%3D1&h=450&w=669&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlockheed%2Belectra%26start%3D60%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN Click on the ringed target area of the lower map to see where Kuria is. Click the link at the base of the page for the "report page" and follow the progressive links under "maps of the wreckage search area". Each red outlined target area opens a new, more detailed map. You'll see Kuria's at 0.233 N 173.3833E. Compare with the Peruvian intercept- "23 degrees..... east of Howland" - (obviously 0.23 degrees). 23 also appears twice in a Mcmenamy CW intercept. Again Betty's notebook - 338 and 38-3. There are indeed two islands, just as Nina Paxton says, with a passage between them. One is called Oneaka ( cf. New York) and is 133 acres in area. It is 601.4 miles from Howland (cf 61 4 in McMenamy intercept) .Apparently large chunks of tentatively identified electra wreckage have already been photographed - see gallery. More important ones are: 1) a pair of P & W nine cylinder radials, 7) remains of a DF loop 9) a 36 inch Goodyear tyre 14) a badly eroded map case marked "F J N" 22) what is believed to be a Sperry gyro-compass casing 23) a remarkably preseved diary for 1937. Apparently this was preserved by the mud, has been freeze dried and is presently being analysed under infra-red light. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric These guys are a hoot. But I couldn't find the gallery. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:34:34 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Almon Gray ""Where Did Amelia Land" Dave in Fremont wrote: > Facilities? Whoa... How do ya... Where would ya... nevermind, I don't > even want to ponder it.... > > LTM (who never used a relief tube in her life) > > Dave > ********************** > From Ric > > The Electra was an airliner. There was a lavatory in the tail. Going back over some old postings a couple days ago, looking at aircraft data, I ran across a posting from Birch Matthews dated September 11, 2000. I just reread it, and according to what Birch said [in part] "...Lockheed removed 566 pounds in the form of seats, lavatory, radio..." He further said he was using Lockheed's numbers, not his own. Should we assume this to mean, then, that Lockheed took out the airliner "niceties" in the lavatory, but not the toilet ( can I say that word on the forum?)? ltm jon ************************************************************************ From Ric In aviation parlance - "the can". Yes, I think we can assume that the airline niceties were removed but there was still a closable door that separated the aft compartment from the rest of the cabin. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:29:41 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Antenna Carol Dow wrote: >5. The loss of the sense antenna off the belly of the airplane would have >lost the 180 degree ambiguity feature of a fixed loop radio compass DF. Actually I think she meant to say, "would have lost the ABILITY TO RESOLVE the 180 degree ambiguity...." >Smith is saying there was probably an indicator on Earhart's panel that indicated >left and right plus or minus 5 degrees on the null. Later Bendix DF receivers used exactly such a system. The manual loop was coupled through a tach shaft to the big "Radio Compass" indicator dial. There was a "Left-Right" indicator, consisting of a zero-center meter, on the instrument panel. The "left-right" meter was driven by circuitry in the receiver. This is clearly shown and explained in the instruction manual for the Bendix MN-26 series radio compass system (vintage 1929-1940 and very common in WW2 aircraft) which is a direct descendant of the RA-1. I don't know if the RA-1 used such a meter... anyone have a manual on that receiver? (I do have an MN-26 book). LTM (who is NEVER ambiguous) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************ From Ric There was apparently some sort of indicator on the panel. Earhart refers to it specifically in describing the panel in the Karachi interview. An August 1937 article in Aero Digest shows a "remote control head" used with the Bendix MN-1, MN-3, MN-5, and MN-7 Direction Finders. It's a box with a compass rose and a two-sided needle. Above the top of the compass rose is an index line and what appears to be a rotatable setting marked in degrees. At the top left of the box there is what appears to be a toggle switch labeled "Switch" and at top right there is another one labeled "Light". At bottom left is a crank labled "Azimuth" and at bottom right is another crank labeled "Tuning". All four systems are "almost identical except for the method of controlling loop rotation". "Bendix D-Fs are designed to operate in conjunction with the Bendix Type RA1 receiver but will also give accurate and dependable bearings when used with any standard radio receiver covering the desired frequency range." Earhart's seems to have been an MN-5 in which the loop was manually controlled and could be "mounted at a point not directly over the coupling unit with the rotation controls on the loop shaft at the cabin roof." "Each D-F consists of a loop unit for reception of signals, a coupling unit for comparing characteristics of the signal received by the loop to those received by a fixed antenna, and the necessary cables and connections. The electrical coupling unit automatically resolves the 180 degree ambiguity of the loop, permitting unilateral bearings." We have photos of the loop and coupling unit being installed in March just prior to the first World Flight attempt. At that time the airplane still had two belly antennas - the original starboard antenna that came with the airplane and the port antenna that appeared at the same time the Hooven Radio Compass was installed. It seems reasonable to assume that the port antenna was a sense antenna for the Hooven unit and probably retained that function when the Hooven automatic system was replaced with the "old fashioned" manual loop. The ability to use the Western Electric receiver via the MN-5 system allowed the removal of the separte receiver required by the Hooven system and thus save the 30 pounds Hooven refers to in his paper. The mystery comes when the airplane comes out of the repair shop following the Luke Field wreck with only one (the orginal starboard) belly antenna. Hypothesis: Maybe the starboard belly antenna delivered with the airplane was a "range" antenna intended for use with the low frequency radio range navigation facilities then in use around the United States. For the second WF attempt maybe it was decided that little or no "range" flying was contemplated and the starboard belly antenna became the sense antenna for the MN-5 system. LTM Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:40:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: "Extraterrestrial Archaeology?" Members of the Forum may be interested in listening to this interview, which describes a project that's trying to cope with many of the same problems we are. *************************************** Friends and colleagues: Archaeologists today sometimes apply their craft to exploring very recent historical events. An unusual example of this is the archaeological testing at the claimed 1947 crash site of an extraterrestrial spacecraft near Roswell, New Mexico. In the latest Audio Interview featured by our public education website, The Archaeology Channel (www.archaeologychannel.org), we asked University of New Mexico archaeologist Dr. Bill Doleman, who directed the Roswell fieldwork, to share with us his experience in "extraterrestrial archaeology." On November 22, 2002, the SCI FI Channel aired a two-hour documentary that depicted archaeologists investigating the purported crash site. Archaeological excavations under Dr. Doleman were carried out under contract with the SCI FI Channel. Although in this case the client (the SCI FI Channel) and the subject (extraterrestrial visitors) are both unusual, archaeology under contract is by far the most common form of archaeological work in the United States and in many parts of the world today. The shift in emphasis over the past three decades from purely research-oriented to contract archaeology has greatly expanded financial support for archaeological work, but has also highlighted issues about information-sharing and ethical standards. In this interview, we explore with Bill Doleman how this project came about, what his team found and how it has been portrayed, and how it illustrates the practice of contract archaeology today. This and other programs are available on TAC for your use and enjoyment. If you feel that this project is a worthy endeavor, please participate in our Membership (http://www.archaeologychannel.org/member.html) and Underwriting (http://www.archaeologychannel.org/sponsor.html) programs. Only with your help can we continue and enhance this nonprofit public-education and visitor-supported service. We also welcome new content partners as we reach out to the world community. Please forward this message to others who may be interested. Richard M. Pettigrew, Ph.D., RPA President and Executive Director Archaeological Legacy Institute http://www.archaeologychannel.org ============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:43:10 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! From Mike H. Angus Murray wrote: >And we were wrong after all! PSI -TECH, the e.s.p. people, have used >"remote viewing" to track down the electra! And guess where its not? You >guessed it - NOT Nikumaroro. Instead, they are quite sure it crashed on > the island of Kuria in the Gilberts. My daughter says it best: "Humans are so weird." I can't get to the web with this computer. I'll have to see the website later. >1) a pair of P & W nine cylinder radials, >7) remains of a DF loop >9) a 36 inch Goodyear tyre >14) a badly eroded map case marked "F J N" >22) what is believed to be a Sperry gyro-compass casing Lots of parts. Where's the fuselage? >23) a remarkably preseved diary for 1937. Apparently this was >preserved by the mud, has been freeze dried and is presently >being analysed under infra-red light. Did Amelia or Fred keep any kind of diary as a matter of course? Not logbooks, but a personal thing. (This is a real question.) And does anyone do AE/FN humor? I was looking through my Christmas collection and this idea came to me: "'Twas the night before Howland, and all through Lae Not a creature was stirring, not even Fred Noonan ..." Mike H. *********************************************************************** From Ric AE made notes while flying that she then expanded and sent back as press releases. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:50:45 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: Betty's Manifesto I am 80 years now, and wanted to make a "a public declaraton".....I heard Ameila and Fred...It was not some play over heard.. It was heart breaking to hear..She was trying so hard not to panic, then sometimes sounding so hopeless....He was suffering, out of his head most of the time, with a head injury...I really heard all this, when it was over, it was something I wll never forget...I felt so bad all these years that the "big wigs " did not want the truth I tried to give them... I stopped trying to give my book to any one...Finally in my old age and with a friend John to help me, I decided to try one more time ..He got in touch with Ric and Ric took it from there...He had great caring people who worked to read my book and could see that I would have had to hear her, to write down things I did....The Tighar people really worked to see if it was possible for me to have heard her....I know I am not a hokes, so I am at peace now finally, and people like the so called Cam do not bother me, I heard her I know it, and I am at peace Thanks to Ric and Tighars Project ...Betty (Bettys Book) ************************************************************************ From Ric Thank you Betty, but it is for US to thank YOU for sharing your book and your memories with us. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:31:22 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Post Loss Preview Ron Bright had asked for a pre-view of the Post-Loss Signals report. Our database of reported signals is now up and running and i can answer his question. I had said: "...over a hundred other signals..." other than PAA bearing and amateur stations. Ron asked: >Are those professional operators with sophisticated equipment??? Coast >Guard? Navy? Here's a quick breakdown: Total reports - 120 Total reports from shortwave listeners - 10 Total reports from HAMs - 32 Total reports from professional operators (commercial, government and PAA) - 78 Reports from professionals break down this way: Total reports from Coast Guard - 47 (25 from ITASCA) Total reports from PAA - 20 (5 bearings were taken) Total reports from US Navy - 5 Total reports from commercial stations (Nauru) - 3 Total reports from US Army - 1 Total reports from Royal Navy - 1 Total reports from commercial ships (SS NEW ZEALAND) - 1 LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:32:32 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! From Alan > Apparently large chunks of tentatively identified > electra wreckage have already been photographed - see gallery. More > important > ones are: This is an old web site and I saw nothing new and I don't see pictures of engines, DF Loops or anything else. Please direct me to those pictures. Alan =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:34:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna Bob writes > The decreasing D layer absorption loss outweighed the increasing > spreading loss component, resulting in a net decrease of path loss with > time, as shown by the Lae operator's observation that Earhart's signal > strength was increasing over time. Bob, several days ago I wrote I would not take anyone's word for anything. I'll make an exception for you. I accept whatever it was you just wrote without question but that still leaves us with an unanswered question regarding not hearing AE on 6210 between Howland and wherever she went. Alan. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:54:53 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! For Angus: Holy smokes, if this is true. Yeowsuh. Let us check this out. Right on where she would have headed. She did what anyone in their right mind would have done. The Gilberts were under British control at that time unless the Japanese were busy infiltrating the islands (which they probably were). The only thing missing is a Samurai sword, but I have the perfect solution... there's one in my clothes closet (no joke) hidden away. It's WW II genuine a friend gave me. Am afraid of the damn thing. Am praying Cam and Ric will patch up their quarrels and stay focused on the problem. Really good forum, everyone. It's amazing. That sword is awesome. It could chop off heads in a flash. Carol *********************************************************************** From Ric What would we do without Carol? =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:58:32 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Uh, I don't believe any photographs exist... Considering it's the PSI Tech website, this has to be one of those "That's where our people saw it, so it must be there. If you want real "proof", send your own people to check it out." stories. I think it would raise their credibility considerably if they sent some people there to verify, but that's not going to happen. LTM (who always thought the difference between a depressed psychic and an ecstatic clairvoyant was a happy medium) Dave =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:02:39 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto Betty, Its interesting to know that you follow the forum. I have been studying your notebook for some time and feel very sure now that it really was Amelia Earhart you heard and not some hoax or misunderstanding. You are no doubt aware that no less than three other radio listeners also gathered that Fred Noonan was injured from the transmissions they picked up. It is obviously a long time ago now but I wonder if you can recall something. Can you be SURE that Fred was behaving erratically because he was delirious rather than because he was in pain or even perhaps because he was angry about his injuries? Did you really get the impression that he was behaving in a manner that could ONLY have been because he was delirious? The reason I ask is that his condition is very relevant to explaining exactly what took place. From the many other radio messages, one can determine that FN was transmitting quite a large amount of the time in the early days after their landing. It does seem unlikely that AE would have allowed him to transmit over a period of many hours if he was deranged then (although it is quite possible she was unable to stop him). Latterly the transmissions all seem to have been from AE and this would then place the transmission you received as possibly the last of the lot, at a time when he had succumbed perhaps to a fever as a result of infection or even a haemorrhage. If FN was deranged from the time of their landing, on the other hand, it would perhaps explain why they were unable to give an accurate idea of their position. I think you can be sure that your notes now get the attention they always deserved and it is indeed fortunate that you had the presence of mind to record in writing, what many might have merely listened to. Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric Betty does not directly subscribe to the forum but I'll pass along your query and post her reply. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:09:04 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Antenna > She was then heard one hour later and then two hours later but not after > that. I don't know what happened to the 16:18Z radio call or if it was even > made. The 17:18Z call was still on 6210 is my understanding. Is that correct, > Ric? It was on 6210. I believe the originl poster meant 06:18Z and 07:17Z. Ten hours later puts her very close to Itasca, when AE was using 3105. ********************************************************************* From Ric The intelligible transmissions heard by Lae were on 6210 and were heard at 04:18Z, 05:19Z, and 07:18Z. ============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:13:03 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Antenna Ric: remember when AE got away from performing the radio tests for her license in Oakland? One of the tests was radio navigation. I wonder if the Bureau of Air Commerce was testing the range or lateral test (right or left) and not the RDF system... ************************************************************************ From Ric Pure speculation on my part but I would expect that "radio navigation" test in 1937 would require that the pilot demonstrate proficiency both in flying the "range" and homing on stations using RDF. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:15:01 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Slightly off topic -- map info This is not an advertisement. I use a product called OziExplorer with my GPS to produce maps, routes, etc... . While on the website for Ozi I noticed maps for Oceania and the Pacific and decided to download them. They're in Ozi format and free to download. Although the area in question runs over the two maps, it's pretty darn interesting to "see" the route that AE and FN took. I won't post the webiste link here, but you can easily find it or email me (bob@sunstarip.com) and I'll be glad to forward it. Bob "lurking TIGHAR for over two years" Lee =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:17:42 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! > This is an old web site and I saw nothing new and I don't see pictures of > engines, DF Loops or anything else. Please direct me to those pictures. Alan - Sorry to disappoint but the pictures of FJ Noonan's map case and AE's diary are only about as real as "remote viewing". I thought you'd guess it was a bit of embellishment to wind-up a few of our more trusting forum members. Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric When Carol gets hold of you it ain't gonna be pretty. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:40:07 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Post Loss Preview Thanks Ric, that preliminary breakdown is very interesting. A quick question. Does anyone know of any reported post loss msgs from Japanese sources , say a ship , Jaluit, or any official government response? We know that the Japanese government began a search and I am sure all of their radio stations were alerted. Maybe none reported though. Ltm, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric I'm aware of no reports from Japanese sources but it was July 5th before the Japanese Foreign Minister instructed the Japanes ambassador in Washington to inform the American government that Japan would gladly join in the search. The last signal reported by anyone in the Central Pacific was heard by PAA Mokapu, Oahu at 13:50Z (03:20 local) on July 5th. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:41:22 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna Alan Caldwell wrote: > Bob, several days ago I wrote I would not take anyone's word for anything. > I'll make an exception for you. > > I except whatever it was you just wrote without question but that still > leaves us with an unanswered question regarding not hearing AE on 6210 > between Howland and wherever she went. Alan, Hmmm. I answered A question which I thought was THE question . Apparently the question I answered wasn't THE unanswered question. Rephrase and I'll give it another shot. Bob =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:43:08 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: L-F INDICATOR On TWA's DC-2's of the era, the left & right halves were colored green & red as an aid for solving the 180 ... The ADF on the '3's were the ultimate !! RC =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:44:25 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Antenna For Bob Brandenburg What I understand that your saying is that one of the main things involved in the radio antenna is that it has a specific foot print. It sounds like that if the aircraft is going away then the strength of the carrier wave would decrease not so much because you are getting further away, but because of the foot print of the radiated wave. So if AE was flying away from the Itasca and sending she may not have been heard. Also if the Itasca is sitting in the proper orientation she could send and not be heard, is that correct? =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:51:22 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! For Angus Murray I copy-pasted the website addresses as above and am not getting a response. The first address has moved, etc. Another E-mail to follow. Carol Dow ************************************************************************ From Ric Carol, just do a Google search on Psi-Tech. Once you get to their website click on "Projects" and then just scroll down until you find the Earhart stuff. You won't find any pictures because they're not there. You will find a series of maps that purport to show the location of wreckage. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:03:44 EST From: Marjorie Subject: Re: Stranded Ric wrote: > In addition to the > danger of infection, some of the fish in the area are toxic if eaten at a > particular time of the year. Back in May of 1968 I was the designated Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Information Office employee sent to Palau to cover a South Pacific Commission conference on fisheries issues. In the end, the conference was cancelled because the French government, which had volunteered to bring in the bulk of the participants on a French military airplane, was suddenly distracted by more urgent events at home. As I recall, a major topic of the conference was to be the phenomenon of toxic fish -- a condition that was perceived (at that time, at least) to be worsening, so that fish that had once been safe to eat at any time of the year were becoming toxic, and the toxic periods for other fish were expanding. Supposedly, the condition was spreading westward, so that folks in the Marshalls were beginning to find some fish poisonous which they had traditionally eaten but which the Hawaiians, to the east, couldn't remember ever being able to eat. The point of having this conference in Palau was that as the westernmost island group (just about) everything was still edible there. In fact, the conference organizers went ahead with an abbreviated version of the big seafood feast that had been planned to boggle the minds of the fisheries people from all the eastern island groups where they would be invited to taste fish that would be deadly poison in their home islands. Does anyone know if this phenomenon of toxicity spreading westward actually continued? Was the concept ever proven or disproven? The only relevance to the Forum would be that if this was truly happening, some fish species that no one would dare eat today in the Phoneix Islands could have been safe to eat in 1937. -- Marjorie Smith *********************************************************************** From Ric We do have good information that toxicity was a problem even back then. A Smithsonian icthyologist who accompanied the 1939 USS Bushnell survey of the Phoenix Group wrote a paper entitled "Poisonous Fishes of the Phoenix Islands". =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:57:47 EST From: Marty Joy Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto That's a pretty profound statement that what she heard was authentic. Don't you agree? ************************************************************************ From Ric We always have to be careful to make a distinction between what we believe to be true and what we can prove to be true. I don't know how anyone would ever be able to absolutely prove that what Betty heard was Amelia Earhart, but I would defy anyone to spend a day with Betty, as Pat and I did two years ago, grilling her on her notebook and her recollections associated with it, and not come away believing that she heard Amelia Earhart. Since then we have continued to work with Betty, attempting to verify as much as we can about what she heard and how she heard it. She has been unfailinging cooperative and consistent in her recollections. The more our hypothesis about what happened has developed based on other evidence, the better her notebook fits the evolving scenario. Working with Betty's notebook is dangerous. If you get beyond the analysis of words and phrases and allow yourself to accept that you're eavesdropping on terrified people who are doomed to die there is an intimacy there that is almost obscene. I can't imagine what it must have been like for Betty to go all those years, knowing what she knew, but having to carry it all by herself. She has my sincerest respect and affection and she deserves the gratitude of everyone who cares about what really happened to Earhart and Noonan. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:37:38 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: antenna Does Tighar know about where the Itasca was in relation to Howland when AE was expected? They probably were drifting westward with the current but surely they would have stayed in sight of Howland. > between Howland and wherever she went Ric, I keep reading you guys saying the above. How come you don't jump on that? Cheers from Bill ************************************************************************ From Ric ITASCA was drifting just offshore Howland close enough for launches to go back and forth to the island - probably a few hundred yards. I don't jump on statements like "between Howland and wherever she went" because they accurately represent the situation. At this point, nobody knows where the airplane went. We have a hypothesis that we are testing, and we are very pleased with the results so far, but we can't (yet) claim that we know where she went. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:39:54 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! > What would we do without Carol? I like her a lot better than Janet. Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************ From Ric Me too. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:55:46 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! I, too, copied and pasted the address, but it wrapped around and I had to copy and paste each of the 5 parts. Depending on where yours wrapped, you may have had a larger or smaller number of lines in the address - it was a long one. I was lucky in that where mine first wrapped was a good address, but it didn't take me to the page that was described, that's when I went back and discovered that I hadn't copied the entire link. After I pasted the full link into my browser it worked fine (unless you figure that Psi-Tech itself is a "non-working" "dead-end" address). LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************************ From Ric Of course you could always skip the computer entirely and visit the site by remote viewing. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:16:33 EST From: Craig Subject: The Carol Theory Ric wrote: > When Carol gets hold of you it ain't gonna be pretty. I'm going to catch a TIGHAR by the tail. I've been pondering this theory for some time now, and I believe it's time to put it to the test, and call your bluff. I have the sneaky suspicion that "Carol" is a fictitious character you've conjured up to make the forum interesting in the current post-Niku IIII environment. Think about it people - "Carol's" mind-bending posts allow Ric the medium and the method to discredit AE theories such as the Crash and Sinkers, the Marshallites, the Japan Capturers, etc. These propaganda-like posts, generally designed to confuse and disorient, at the same time leave all the TIGHARs out there eager to hearing what "Carol" will post next. Side effects may include increasing overall morale, relief of the stresses of research and increased membership enrollments. Gottcha, Craig *********************************************************************** From Ric I love it when this happens. Old forum buddies - how many times have I been accused of inventing our best characters? Remember - what was it? - SactoDave (or something like that), and of course Janet Powell (whom we ultimately decided might be a computer construct). If I had the imagination to create characters like that I'd be writing novels. My own theory is that Carol is the reincarnation of Amelia Eahart. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:44:20 EST From: Mike Haddock/Ric Gillespie Subject: The Beginning (From Ric - This is a very long posting but I think you'll find that it's worth the effort to read it carefully.) I've been letting the post-loss message question perk through my mind. If it had never happened before, why was it thought to be plausible? Where did the idea start? Was there a movie at about the same time in which an airplane crashed intact with all the occupants alive? Mike H. *********************************************************************** From Ric Good question. I can think of movies that came much later ("Island In the Sky" for example) but I can't think of a 1930s film where a plane goes down and sends calls for help. What is really interesting is to track how and when the idea that Earhart was somewhere calling for help got started. Let's follow the chronology as revealed in the official messages and the ITASCA's radio log. July 2nd 20:13Z (08:43 a.m. aboard ITASCA) Last inflight message heard. "WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337.... etc." 21:45Z (10:15 a.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends out first message to Coast Guard San Francisco Division and others indicating that Earhart is overdue. "...ESTIMATE 1200 FOR MAXIMUM TIME ALOFT AND IF NON ARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTHWEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLE AREA. SEA SMOOTH, VISIBILITY NINE, CEILING UNLIMITED. UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED TIME." In San Francisco it is 1:45 p.m. and we must presume that the news immediately went out that Earhart was overdue at Howland. Hoaxes are theoretically possible from this time on. 21:48Z (10:18 a. m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends message to Coast Guard Hawaiian Section. "SUGGEST NAVY CONTACT FOR SEA PLANE SEARCH. SIXTEEN HUNDRED GALLONS AVIATIONS GASOLINE NOW ON HOWLAND AND NINETY FIVE GALLONS LUBRICATING OIL." 22:10Z (10:40 a.m. aboard ITASCA) Deciding not to wait until 12:00, ITASCA departs Howland to begin searching. 00:31Z (1:01 p.m. aboard ITASCA) Hawaiian Section tells ITASCA, "ADVISE BY DISPATCH FULL DETAILS CONCERNING EARHART PLANE SUCH AS POSITION REPORTS BEARINGS AND ALL INFORMATION EARHART FLIGHT THAT WILL BE OF VALUE TO NAVAL SEARCH IF PLANE DESPATCHED FROM HERE. RECOMMEND YOU BROADCAST DATA TO ALL SHIPS TO BE ON LOOKOUT. 00:45Z (1:15 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA advises Hawaiian Section, "EARHART UNREPORTED HOWLAND AT 1200. BELIEVE DOWN SHORTLY AFTER 0915. AM SEARCHING PROBABLE AREA AND WILL CONTINUE. Why 9:15? The logic is hard to fathom. Earhart was supposed to transmit at quarter to and quarter past each hour. At about 7:45 some thought she said "half hour fuel left". At 8:00 she said she couldn't get a radio bearing. At her next scheduled time at 8:15 they didn't hear anything so they assumed that she had gone down so they called the guys on Howland back to the ship and started getting ready to begin a search. Then at 8:43 she surprised everybody and said she was "on the line 157 337..." and that she was switching frequencies to 6210. At her next scheduled time of 9:15 they heard nothing (they were, themselves, transmitting at that time and blocking any incoming signals). Somehow out of all this they decided that she was "down shortly after 0915". 01:03Z (1:33 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends message to "ALL SHIPS:" "AMELIA EARHART PLANE ENROUTE HOWLAND ISLAND FROM LAE NEW GUINEA UNREPORTED SINCE 2045 GCT JULY 2 AND APPARENTLY DOWN AT SEA POSITION UNKNOWN. ITASCA SEARCHING PROBABLE NORTHWEST SECTOR OFF HOWLAND ISLAND. REQUEST SHIPS AND STATIONS LISTENON 500 KCS FOR ANY SIGNALS FROM PLANE COMMANDING OFFICER, U. S. COAST GUARD CUTTER ITASCA" This is the first suggestion that post-loss signals might be possible but the only frequency mentioned is 500 Kcs. It is 5:03 p.m. on the West Coast of the United States. Evening editions of major California papers carry headlines that Earhart is missing but make no mention of post-loss signals because none have yet been heard. 02:00Z (2:30 p.m. aboard ITSACA) It is 3:30 p.m. in Hawaii. The Pan American Airways DF station at Mokapu receives word that Earhart is down and begins a constant radio watch on 3105 and 6210. 02:45Z (3:15 p.m. aboard ITASCA) The U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office radio station in San Francsico sends to "ALL SHIPS, ALL STATIONS": US COASTGUARD SHIP ITASCA BELIEVES MISS AMELIA EARHART DOWN BETWEEN THREE THREE SEVEN AND NINE ZERO DEGREES FROM HOWLAND ISLAND AND WITHIN ONE HUNDRED MILES OF ISLAND. POSSIBILITY PLANE MAY USE RADIO ON EITHER 3105 6210 OR 500 KCS VOICE. REQUEST ANY VESSEL THAT VICINITY LISTEN FOR CALLS AND CONTACT ITASCA. CALL NRUI ON 500 KCS. (NRUI is ITASCA's call sign.) This is the first request for stations to listen on 3105 and 6210. Ever since the last message heard from the plane ITSACA has been frequently calling and listening but has heard nothing. 03:10Z (3:40 p.m. aboard ITASCA) San Francisco Division advises ITASCA: "POSSIBILITY PLANE MAY ATTEMPT USE OF RADIO ON WATER AS RADIO SUPPLY WAS BATTERY AND ANTENNA COULD BE USED ON TOP OF WING. PUTNAM AND LOCKHEED STATE POSSIBILITY OF FLOATING CONSIDERABLE TIME EXCELLENT AND THAT EMERGENCY RUBBER BOAT AND PLENTY OF EMERGENCY RATIONS CARRIED ON PLANE." Nobody in San Francisco, including Putnam, could possibly have any idea what was aboard the plane on the Lae/Howland flight 04:03Z (4:33 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA asks San Francicsco: REQUEST FREQUENCIES EARHART EMERGENCY TRANSMITTER Nobody said anything about an emergency transmitter. The phrase "ANTENNA COULD BE USED ON TOP OF WING" may be a badly worded reference to the airplane's dorsal vee antenna which is "on top of wing", that is, it would be above water if the airplane was floating. 04:10Z (4:40 p.m. aboard ITASCA) San Francisco replies: SAME AS MAIN TRANSMITTER. POSSIBILITY PLANE MAY BE ABLE RECEIVE ITASCA 3105 VOICE. As far as we know, there was no emergency transmitter aboard the plane. 05:17Z (5:47 p.m. aboard ITASCA) PAA Mokapu notifies ITASCA that it heard "SOME TESTING ON 3105. STEADY CARRIER, NO MODULATION DECERNIBLE." No time is specified. 05:38 (6:08 p.m. aboard ITASCA) Sunset in the search area. At Gardner Island the tide is out and the reef is dry. 05:55Z (6:25 p.m. aboard ITASCA) The radio operator aboard ITASCA logs: WE HEAR HER ON 3105 KCS NW VERY WEAK AND UNREADABLE/ FONE This is when it begins. This is the first post-loss message specifically attributed to Earhart. The operator is Radioman 3rd class Thomas O'Hare. He has just relieved Radioman 3rd class William Galten ten minutes ago. O'Hare had been on duty and had heard Earhart as she approached Howland that morning and, in fact, it was Tommy O'Hare who had logged the apparently erroneous "half hour gas left - sez she" entry. As can be seen from the previous traffic, ITASCA's perception of the situation at this time is that the airplane is down at sea and the occupants are either on the plane or in an inflatable boat and able to use an emergency transmitter. Hearing weak voice from Earhart on 3105 does not, therefore, conflict with their "situational awareness". O'Hare cannot make out the words but he identifies the voice as Earhart ("HER"). In HF transmissions it is not at all unusual for the words to be unintelligible but the tone and quality of the voice to be recognizable. It also seems safe to assume that hearing a woman's voice on the radio was an unusual occurrence in 1937. 05:55Z (6:25 p.m. aboard ITASCA) At exactly the same moment that O'Hare hears what he says is Earhart, PAA Mokapu hears, "STEADY CARRIER ON 3105 - NO MODULATION, VERY WEAK". ITASCA and Mokapu are apparenlty hearing the same transmission but ITASCA hears it better, and is apparently closer to the source, than Mokapu. ITASCA is northwest of Howland and there are no known possible sources of a 3105 transmission in the ocean between the ship and Hawaii. There are no other reports of signals heard anywhere at this time. 06:00Z (6:30 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends a voice transmission on 3105: "IF YOU HEAR US PLEASE GIVE US SERIES OF LONG DASHES. GO AHEAD PLEASE." 06:00 (6:30 p.m. aboard ITASCA) At that moment, aboard the British cruiser HMS ACHILLES, the radio operator logs: TELEPHONE TRANSMITTER WITH HARSH NOTE WAS HEARD TO MAKE "PLEASE GIVE US A FEW DASHES IF YOU GET US". This transmission ends at 06:03Z ACHILLES is approximately 1,000 nm southeast of Howland enroute from Samoa to Hawaii. 06:04Z (6:34 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: HEARD SOMETHING LIKE GENERATOR START AND THEN STOP ON 3105. Two minutes later they hear the same thing. At the same time, ACHILLES logs: A SECOND TRANSMITTER WAS THEN HEARD TO MAKE DASHES WITH NOTE MUSICAL STRENGTH GOOD. Both stations describe a signal that is on and then off. 06:06 (6:36 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA then sends code on 3105: GAVE HER LONG CALL ON KEY This, of course, would involve sending the airplane's callsign, KHAQQ. At this time ACHILLES hears: FIRST TRANSMITTER WAS THEN HEARD TO MAKE KHAQQ TWICE BEFORE FADING OUT. 06:07Z (6:37 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: SIGNALS ON AND OFF. THINK IT IS PLANE ?? SIGNALS ARE UNREADABLE (but) HEARD THE WORD EARHART. ACHILLES is apparently no longer hearing anything. PAA Mokapu, likewise, hears nothing at this time. Nobody else in Hawaii or on the mainland U.S. hears anything during this whole episode. 06:08Z (6:38 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: CALLING HER ON FONE AND KEY O'Hare is sending both voice and code. 06:09Z (6:39 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: HE IS ANSWERING US NOW 06:10Z (6:40 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: STILL DISTORTED AND UNREADABLE/ BACK AT HIM ON KEY NOW O'Hare is now hearing a male voice but he still can't make out the words so he tries sending code. 06:11Z (6:41 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: GUESS IT ISN'T HER NOW This is a very puzzling entry. Has O'Hare forgotten, or is he unaware, that there is a man aboard the airplane? 06:13-14Z (6:43-4 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: QZ5 INTERFERING ON 3105 NOW - QZ5 CALLING KACA... We have, so far, not been able to figure out who QZ5 and KACA are. The callsigns don't match any ships or stations we can find listed. It may be that they are commercial aviation stations, aircraft or ground, in Hawaii (which would explain why QZ5 is sending code on 3105 trying to raise KACA). 06:15Z (6:45 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: CALLING PLANE NOW ON FONE ON 3105 KCS The interference has apparenty stopped and O'Hare tries again. 06:16Z (6:46 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: HE COMES RIGHT BACK, WHOEVER IT IS O'Hare gets an immediate male voice reply but he still can't make out what is being said. But then QZ5 is back sending code again, this time calling KCWR (whom we can't find either) and blocking the unidentified voice transmission. 06:21Z (6:51 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: CALLING QZ5 NOW AND ASKING WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR STATION? This was sent in code. 06:24Z (6:54 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASACA logs: SOMEONE COMES BACK ON FONE. CALLED EARHART AND ASKED HER TO COME IN. TOLD OTHER STATIONS TO REMAIN QUIET / 3105 FONE 06:25Z (6:55 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: ITASCA CALLING QZ5, WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR STATION, OVER O'Hare is sending code, trying to find out who QZ5 is. He sends this twice but never gets a repy. 06:26Z (6:56 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: FONE SIGNALS DEFINITELY NOT EARHART Another puzzling entry. Has O'Hare heard more from the unintelligible male voice? He is sure that it's not Earhart but he doesn't seem to know who it is. It appears that he is dismissing the possibility that these are signals from the plane solely because the voice is male. 07:10Z (7:40 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends to San Francsico Division the first lengthy description of the day's events ending with: CONSIDER SEARCH RESULTS DEPEND UPON CONTINUED GOOD WEATHER AND ABILITY PLANE OR EMERGENCY BOAT REMAIN AFLOAT. HAVE HEARD NO SIGNALS FROM EARHART SINCE 0855 THIS MORNING WHEN SHE GAVE ITASCA A LINE OF POSITION BELIEVED TO MEAN RADIO BEARING AND STATED SHE WAS RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH. ITASCA USING EVERY RESOURCE TO LOCATE PLANE. Note that the time of the last inflight transmission is wrong. There is no mention of the half-hour episode from 6:25 to 6:56 p.m. At this time ITASCA has no idea that PAA Mokapu and HMS ACHILLES heard corroborating signals. During that period ITASCA heard several direct responses to it's calls to the plane. Initially, Earhart's voice may have been reognized and later the word "Earhart" was heard. In one case ITASCA made a specific request and heard the specific response (dashes) it had asked for - all corroborated by ACHILLES. Both Mokapu to the north and ACHILLES to the south heard weaker signals than ITASCA heard at the same moment. Whoever ITASCA was hearing was apparently closer to ITASCA than to either of the other stations. If ITASCA was hearing a hoax, who was sending the hoax transmissions? If ITASCA was hearing someone else calling or talking about "Earhart" who was it? A simple reading of the original sources suggests that a woman and a man located somewhere between ACHILLES and ITASCA were sending voice messages on an aviation frequency - 3105 - and repsonding directly to ITASCA's transmission to Earhart. This was the beginning of the post-loss message phenomenon. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:46:01 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: Betty's reply to Angus Angus, I have enjoyed your emails on the Forum, I will tell you what He was like, as near as I can....First it was terribly hot, and he complained of his head hurting bad...he wanted to get out of the plane...some times he sounded away from her and other times,he seamed to be close to her ( and wanted the mike) He would get loud and was, what I would call, out of his head at times... other times, when he would talk, it didn't sound as disorganized. If you have any questions I will be glad to hear from you....Betty =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:48:06 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: The Carol Theory >My own theory is that Carol is the reincarnation of Amelia Eahart. Hmmm... That's odd... I was imagining a melding of Judy Holliday, Suzanne Somers, and Shirley Booth... LTM, Dave ************************************************************************ From Ric Yeah, that's pretty close, except I'm not sure that AE could sing. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:49:56 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Off-Topic, But HELP! I know this is off-topic, but I've been watching the Discovery Wings Channel a bit these days and I've seen some horrid woman giving piloting tips. Was she horribly burned in a crash or is that just waaaayyy too many facelifts? If she ever goes down at sea, all that collagen in those lips will save her, for sure. She's always flying some aerobatic plane, so I'm assuming she's some woman aerobatic champion, but can someone give me her story, please? LTM (who never minded laugh lines) Dave =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:50:45 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Ric, I took your advice and visioned up the website. Following that, I visioned my way to the island in question and examined the debris for myself. It was clearly not the 10E.... B-25H, maybe, but never a 10E... For one thing, the turret gave it away. LTM, Dave =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:55:56 EST From: Lee Subject: Re: The Carol Theory " . . . My own theory is that Carol is the reincarnation of Amelia Eahart." But didn't Amelia have GOOD karma? Lee ************************************************************************ From Ric Hey c'mon, Carol has great karma. Besides, we don't make ad hominem attacks, remember? ************************************************************************ Dear Folks, There's absolutely no question that Carol is a real babe! Take it from someone who remote-viewed her. LTM Ed from PSL #2415 ************************************************************************ From Ric I hope Carol understands that this is all in good fun. We wouldn't tease ya if we didn't love ya. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:58:55 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna Ron Berry wrote: > Bob what I understand that your saying is that one of the main things > involved in the radio antenna is that it has a specific foot print. It > sounds like that if the aircraft is going away then the strength of the > carrier wave would decrease not so much because you are getting further > away, but because of the foot print of the radiated wave. So if AE was > flying away from the Itasca and sending she may not have been heard. Also if > the Itasca is sitting in the proper orientation she could send and not be > heard, is that correct? I assume by "foot print" you mean the radiation pattern of the antenna. It is true that the signal strength at a given receiver is a function of distance, propagation conditions along the path, and the radiation pattern of the antenna. The radiation pattern is important because the amount of energy radiated along the propagation path is a function of the takeoff angle, which is the angle above the horizontal at which the energy is radiated. A simple way to visualize the radiation pattern of AE's antenna is to imagine a loaf of shepherd's bread, with the bottom sloping downward from the outer edge toward the center, instead of being flat. The distance from the center of the loaf's base to any point on its surface represents antenna gain, which is a measure of relative radiated signal strength in that direction, i.e. the antenna was radiating energy essentially in all directions, albeit at different intensities. The vertical angle between the center of the loaf's base and a given point on its surface is the takeoff angle. The gain of AE's antenna didn't vary greatly for takeoff angles between the zenith and about 15 degrees above the horizontal, but dropped off sharply as the takeoff angle decreased below about 15 degrees. The takeoff angle is important for signal strength analysis because it is determined by the height of the point in the ionosphere at which the signal is reflected back to the receiver at the surface of the earth. The height of the reflection point is a complex function of distance, frequency, time of day, and other factors. But in general, long distance paths involve very low takeoff angles, hence very low relative radiated signal strength. So as AE flew away from a receiver, the antenna gain in the direction of the receiver would decrease. Conversely, as she flew toward a receiver, the signal strength increased not only because the path was becoming shorter, but also because the takeoff angle was increasing and energy was leaving the antenna in more efficient areas of its radiation pattern. As for the Itasca, orientation was not a significant factor in reception. I have studied the design blueprints for that ship class and all the antennas installed at construction were sloping wires supported by the ship's single mast. So, the azimuth patterns of the antennas were essentially omnidirectional. Of course, it's possible that some antenna modifications were made during the period between construction and 1937, but it's unlikely that such changes would have departed dramatically from the original configuration, simply because there wasn't room or structure on the ship to do much else. LTM, Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:00:10 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Oh no, you didn't? You did. You guys. Carol =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:01:37 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Angus wrote: > >23) a remarkably preseved diary for 1937. Apparently this was > >preserved by the mud, has been freeze dried and is presently > >being analysed under infra-red light. Maybe Jeff Glickmann can explain - why would you examine such a document under a heat lamp? ltm jon =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:02:09 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto Betty, I second what Ric has said. ltm jon =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:11:12 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: antenna > We have a hypothesis that we are testing, and we > are very pleased with the results so far, but we can't (yet) claim that we > know where she went. I am all for following out that hypothesis or any other. But if one can use common sense, then you have to realize that the shore party on Howland didn't see the plane come over, if the Itasca has lookouts also posted and they didn't see the Electra either, and with reasonable weather then I for one can't see how they would have come over Howland Island and flown away. That would have been the last thing they would do. They would crash land on Howland before going back out over the ocean. With a lack of evidence of where she did fly, then we are only left with postulating (that the same as fantasizing?) where we think she did fly. But I can see that Tighar has their own agenda and only wants to follow hypotheses that lead to their own conclusions. Cheers from Bill (Thanks Ric for moderating this Forum and having to keep going over old stuff from people like me - I am enjoying this Forum immensely) *********************************************************************** From Ric Bill, I agree with you completely. She had to fly somewhere. We try to follow the scientific method of inquiry: We gather information We formulate a hypothesis We test our hypothesis You too have gathered information You too have formulated a hypothesis How do you propose to test it? Because, unless you can test it, a hypothesis can never go anywhere - it's just an opinion. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:12:18 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna Randy wrote: > I believe the original poster meant 06:18Z and 07:17Z. Ten > hours later puts > her very close to Itasca, when AE was using 3105. I not only meant that but that's exactly what I posted as you can see by your own email. You're confusing me, Randy. Also "Ten hours later puts her very close to Itasca...." Ten hours later than when? Alan =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:13:46 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Carol Dow wrote: >Right on where she would have headed. She did what anyone in their >right mind would have done. The Gilberts were under British control >at that time unless the Japanese were busy infiltrating the islands >(which they probably were). Carol, please explain why so many people insist on believing that Earhart would turn back to the Gilberts when Earhart herself said she was running north and south on the line running through Howland, Niku, etc.? Please don't say it's because she once said that's what she'd do. I once said I'd never like boys because they're so icky. Your viewpoint changes... -- Amanda Dunham #2418CE =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:33:58 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Survival on Niku Ric, you state that "I'm afraid I can't give you a very precise answer. If the castaway found in 1940 was Earhart then she survived for somewhere between several weeks to almost three years." I guess I don't see in your post the logic from which you derive the lower bound of several weeks. So let me speculate, and you can let me know if I'm close to your thinking ... AE and FN stay with the airplane for a few days until water is so high that it is no longer feasible, they spend a few more days at the northwest end of the island rifling through the cache of supplies left by the Norwich City, and then a few more days working their way around to the southeast end of the island where the skull is eventually found (and avoiding space alien abductions and Japanese who want to capture them along the way, which might add another day or two). Finally, because of the evidence of the clamshells, the castaway survives at least a few more days eating meals of clams. All this would add up to a few weeks. Regarding your upper bound of a few years ... how likely could a castaway avoid the cuts you describe (which lead to infection) for that period of time? Wouldn't normal daily activities and opening clam shells by bashing them on the top lead to periodic cuts? Naturally, I assume that if the castaway was AE, her supply of medicine and bandaids was minimal, as was her supply of replacement shoes and clothing. How did the Nikumaroro natives deal with cuts and infections? How long might we expect AE's shoes and clothing to last on Nikumaroro? LTM (Who never did figure out how to pronounce KHAQQ) Paige Miller #2565 *********************************************************************** From Ric My speculative lower boundary (a few weeks) is based primarily on the distance of the bone discovery location (whether or not it's the Seven Site) from suppose landing location, and the lack of clothing and other artifacts found with the bones. I reason that the longer a castaway survives on an island, the fewer relics of their arrival will remain. Naturally, not every cut or scrape you get on Niku is life-threatening. Remember, before the days of antibiotics people got infections all the time - bad ones - but they didn't always or even usually die from them. A bad cut and a bad infection would be more life-threatening on Niku than in other environments. Yes, you'd need to be pretty careful. The colonists on Niku dealt with cuts and infections the same way we do. The British had an excellent program at the Central Medical School in Suva, Fiji that trained "Native Dressers" in basic hygene and first aid. "Native Medical Practioners" (NMPs) were highly skilled and the next best thing to a licensed physcian. Each colonial settlement had a well-stocked dispensary. How long would clothes and shoes hold out? Hard to judge except to say, "Not very long." Clothes are largely superfluous unless you have modern sensibilites about avoiding the sun. Leather shoes, especially if they get repeatedly soaked walking on the reef or in the lagoon, rot very quickly. My guess - within a few weeks a castaway would have shed or worn-out most items of clothing and footwear. Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:11:52 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto Ric wrote: > We always have to be careful to make a distinction between what we believe to > be true and what we can prove to be true. I don't know how anyone would ever > be able to absolutely prove that what Betty heard was Amelia Earhart. I don't doubt what Betty heard. I just wish it could be proved. Every time something makes sense, there always appears a curve. The only curve I have, is the time of day it was heard, for the frequencies AE had to transmit on. But I am not questioning Betty's honesty. Every time something fits, you get a new curve. For example the finding of the castaway's bones, only to have them disappear with out a trace and the person who found them to died shortly afterward. Or to have the search planes fly over, report recent sign of habitation, but to see no down pilots or the plane. It makes sense that plane was washed over the reef, but still consider how hard it is to tie everything together (of course you know that better then anyone). Yes it is believable they landed there. As you said in an earlier post, just consider how the story goes on. But it would be nice to see a smoking gun, or at least something follow to a conclusive end. But what can you expect after 74 years! Regards. Warren Lambing ************************************************************************ From Ric Another curve! Here I've been thinking it was only 65 years. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:13:42 EST From: Tom Strange Subject: Radio Modification? Reference - AE's radio was factory modified to also incorporate CW transmission capability - Would this modification create a Western Electric 13CB unit? Respectfully: Tom Strang *********************************************************************** From Ric Suddenly the "10-4 good buddy" in Betty's notebook starts to make sense. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:15:04 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Dear Everyone, Am afraid to say anything. Love to all you guys, Carol *********************************************************************** From Ric Awwwwwww............. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:48:19 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: 'Betty's notebook, ...etal'... Since your audience has never had the opportunity to experience what you & Pat have, ...of spending, what appears to be considerable time 'debriefing' & talking first-hand with our star witness, 'Betty', it might help if you would share with us the extent of the 'work-product' that has been developed through this on-going dialogue you & Pat have maintained with 'Betty'. Might also be of help if we could consider this 'other evidence' that has so convinced you of Betty's notebook, ...'fitting the evolving scenario'... Don Neumann ************************************************************************ From Ric I guess you must have been out during the extensive forum discussions that verified the other entries in the notebook (mostly song lyrics) as being contemporaneous with the historical period in question. That was one of the most amazing examples of cooperative research I've ever seen. Sorry you missed it. There was also a great deal of forum work done on identifying the particular radio her family had. Lots of web searchs, and downloaded images of various radios, and discussions of their capabilities, and quizzing Betty about what the radio looked like and how her father came to own it, etc. Your contributions to the forum have largely been in the form of postings like this one so you may not recall the research done by others. The primary field of inquiry that may never have gotten much discussion on the forum was the extensive research into the physical layout of the antenna at Betty's childhood home in St. Peterburg. Harry Poole did yeoman service, searching out and photographing the property and digging out old city records that established what it was like in 1937. Bob Brandenburg and Mike Everette spent many, many hours matching Betty's description of the antenna system to the plans of the house and property, then Bob modeled the theoretical performance of the antenna. The results of all that are written up in Bob's research paper "Harmony and Power: Could Betty Have Heaerd Earhart On A Harmonic?". You'll find it at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/03_15_01Bulletin/03_15_01bulletin.html It has been there since March of 2001. Oh yes, and there there was all the research that was done into the HAM callsign appearing in Betty's book and the discovery that it belonged to a HAM in Florida on the same great circle line from Gardner as Betty. Terry Linley interviewed the guy's daughter and discovered that he had once remarked that he had "talked" to Earhart. There's probably more but those are the lines of research that come immediately to mind. Throughout it all Betty has been there, patiently trying to answer whatever questions have come up. As for the other evidence that has been developed over the past two years-plus that fits the scene described by the notebook, I'm really rather surprised that you don't remember the Niku IIII expedition and the work we did out on the reef to confirm that a landing could have been made, and the tidal handcasting work only recently discussed on the forum, all of which supports the picture painted by Betty's book. If you take another look at the website you may find more information you've missed. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:51:57 EST From: Pat Reed Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But HELP! Dave wrote: >If she ever goes down at sea, all that collagen in those lips >will save her, for sure. Yeah, like the beer bellies a lot of guys have wouldn't keep them afloat.... Slamming people - or sexes - for things that aren't even on the forum (such as the illustrative example above) seems like a real waste of space. ************************************************************************ From Ric That's what I love about this forum. It pretty much moderates itself. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:01:03 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: The Beginning Ric, I think you cannot reject the possibility that George Putnam did know what AE had in the way of emergency gear aboard the airplane from Lae to Howland. She may have told him exactly what she had or was going to have for takeoff at Lae. We don't know. Ron Reuther ************************************************************************ From Ric Even if Earhart had told Putnam exactly what she intended to carry on the Lae/Howland leg, the last time she had an opportunity to do that was in the phone call she made from Java about ten days earlier. The wire messages she sent from Lae make no mention of what she will carry. There was no international telephone service from Lae. There quite literally is no way that Putnam could have known what was actually aboard the airplane. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:02:27 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Betty's reply to Angus Are there any recordings of Fred's voice? Would Betty be able to recognize Fred's voice if there were recordings? How well do we recall voices? Mike H. *********************************************************************** From Ric I'm aware of no recording of Fred's voice. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:03:46 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto I would have had a problem with believing the Electra was torn up and washed over the reef edge had I not seen a good sized sail boat (approx. 35 ft.) pounded to pieces in moderate surf 2 years ago in Estero Beach, Mexico. The boat had run aground on a sand bar and I watched it's condition every day with binoculars for four days and I was astonished at the power of the surf as it dismantled the boat quite easily. Seeing really is believing. LTM Mike Haddock =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:03:12 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Carol, my dear, being involved in this Forum just requires that you grow a little thicker epidermal layer of skin and not taking one's self too seriously. Happy Holidays! LTM Mike Haddock #2438 =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:04:34 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Carol wrote: > For: Angus > > Oh no, you didn't? You did. You guys. > Carol Carol, You wouldn't REALLY use that Samurai sword ................would you?? Regards Angus. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:37:41 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Clues: Signs of Recent Habitation On Nov. 29, In response to an email from Bill Shea, who was suggesting that there is no evidence for the Niku theory, Ric wrote: "Let me give you some clues to the clues [related to the Niku theory]........The Navy searchers [i.e. Mr. Lambrecht] saw "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner that shouldn't have been there." Spading responds: Before I discuss the infamous "signs of recent habitation" statement, and whether or not those signs should have been there, I would like to point out that I agree with Ric that there is evidence, albeit not conclusive, for Earhart having ended up on Niku. As Ric suggested, that evidence is [what I call] the "Big Four" as in the Dado, Plexi, Skin and the bones. I also agree with Ric that the "recent habitation" observation and the aircraft wreckage folklore provide additional clues. However, there is much more to Lambrecht's "recent habitation" statement than the short quote which is so often taken out of context. I have posted some of the following Lambrecht....."signs of recent habitation"....related information in the past. However, with the constantly changing Forum membership, I believe it would be good to review it again. In order to explore the Lambrecht quote we first need to ask ourselves: could there have been anything on the island that may have looked like "recent signs of habitation"? One answer is.....yes...Earhart and Noonan could have been there. But there are also many other logical possibilities. Lets take a closer look. Reports of various people leaving and/or seeing signs of previous habitation on Gardner/Nikumaroro Island are discussed below. Lets examine what other visitors saw/left and what they reported both contemporaneously and during later interviews or correspondence. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of visitors to the island nor is it meant to exclude what Lambrecht saw as being Earhart related. It is meant to provide the interested reader with a full menu of items from which to draw conclusions about what Lambrecht may have observed on Gardner/Niku and, in addition, to speculate as to why a land search was not conducted. Reference No. 1. NIKU Source Book, TIGHAR Archives 2. TIGHAR TRACKS, March 12, 1992, Volume 8, Number 1/2 3. Tom Kings personal files and Email messages to Kenton Spading (and others) 4. Kenton Spading's field notes and pictures from NIKU III and various Email messages to TIGHAR members and the Forum. 5. TIGHAR TRACKS, June 15, 1993, Volume 9, Number 2 1. 1891, John T. Arundel's Project Mr. Arundel obtained a coconut (copra) license for Gardner/NIku Island from the British government on Feb. 1, 1891. A group of natives were left on the island that year (some were reported to have arrived prior to 1891....). Apparently the project was abandoned sometime in 1892. This project resulted in the construction of buildings with galvanized steel roofs and a large water tank all of which were later observed and described by the Norwich City wreck survivors (see below). Later, in October 1937 Harry Maude reported 111 coconut bearing trees on Gardner/Niku gone to riot from the Arundel period. See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15. 2. 1892, Her Majesties Ship (HMS) Curacoa When the HMS Curacoa visited the Gardner/Niku island on May 28, 1892, 20 Niue natives (under the command of an Englishman) were working on the Arundel coconut project. The British made a point of placing a Union Jack flag on the island as they were very concerned about documenting their claim to the island. See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15. We can speculate that, given the Englishman in command, native manpower and materials on the island, and with the possible knowledge that Arundel was preparing to leave later in 1892, that they may have constructed some sort of a permanent concrete marker or monument to hold the flag. They probably did not just stick it in a tree. 3. November 1929, Norwich City Wreck Mr. J. Thomas was a survivor of the S.S. Norwich City which ran aground on Gardner/Niku Island in November 1929. Mr. Thomas states in a hand written note, (original spelling and grammar left intact): "[On Gardner/Niku] Near the palms we found two desused galvanised roofed huts and a large water tank which were in a state [of] collapse, but which indicated to us that the island had at one time been inhabited most probably with a view of growing coconuts......." See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 14. The huts and water tank Mr. Thomas refers to were undoubtedly left behind by the aforementioned John T. Arundel group. In addition, the Norwich City crew left behind two life boats and a substantial stack of provisions covered with a tarp. All of the above was in the vicinity of the wreck, a landmark which Lambrecht would have undoubtedly been drawn to. As an aside, in 1989, TIGHAR team members John Clauss and Veryl Fenlason photographed some very dilapidated wooden framing along the northwest shore of the island just north of the shipwreck. Upon reflection, these buildings probably dated from the Arundel period as opposed to the British 1938-1963 habitation of the island. TIGHAR also found the 1940 era British-built wood-framed COOP store in 1989 in a relatively intact state (although in a "desused" state). This suggests that Arundel's buildings and water tank may have survived fairly intact until Lambrecht's overflight in 1937 (only 8 years after Mr. Thomas observed them). Arundel's structures would have certainly looked "Recent" from the air (i.e. galvanized roofing) as opposed to the very "Old" adobe type walls Lambrecht saw on McKean (see Lambrecht's comments below). 4. Her Majesties Ship (HMS) Leith, February 15, 1937 The HMS Leith visited Gardner/Niku on February 15, 1937 just long enough to erect a flagpole and placard proclaiming the island to be the property of His Majesty the King. (Reference 1, Section 2, Item 2). Earhart disappeared and Lambrecht flew over the island, of course, roughly five (5) months later. As Lambrecht observed, someone indeed had visited the island "recently" in 1937. 5. Colorado Search Planes, July 9, 1937 The following are some quotes from Lambrecht's report. Most of Lambrecht's comments are quoted out of context on the Forum. In light of that, I hesitate to list them here as it is difficult to absorb Lambrecht's writing style, and therefore the overall theme of the report, without reading the entire document. At this point I am going to assume that the serious readers will carefully read the entire report on the TIGHAR web site in order to place the selected quotes in their proper context. Lt. John O. Lambrecht (and crew) reported the following (these are excerpts) after the flight over Gardner Island on July 9, 1937. See Reference No. 5, Page 6. [the quotes below are listed in the order that they appear in the report] ".........Enderbury, although a bit larger, was much the same as Phoenix. Here and there were what appeared to be oases with a few surrounding palm trees... no signs of habitation were evident and an inspection did not disclose the object of our search......" "........M'Kean did not require more than a perfunctory examination to ascertain that the missing plane had not landed here, and one circle of the island proved that it was uninhabited except for myriads of birds. Signs of previous habitation remained and the walls of several old buildings apparently of some sort of adobe construction, were still standing.........." ".......Here [Gardner] signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there........." [note the reference to "recent" on the heels of his reference to "old" at McKean, buildings with galvanized roofs would indeed look recent in comparison to McKean] "........There [Sydney] were signs of recent habitation and small shacks could be seen among the groves of coconut palms, but repeated zooms failed to arouse any answering wave and the planes headed northeast for Phoenix Island........" During an interview with Mr. Lambrecht in 1972 regarding what he observed on Gardner he stated that he saw "markers" (See Reference No. 5, Page 6). The "marker" Lambrecht remembers could have been a concrete monument/marker claiming British ownership from either the 1892 or the very recent 1937 British visit or something from Arundel or the Norwich City camp. 6. Eric Bevington and Harry Maude, October 1937 British subjects Harry Maude and Eric Bevington visited the island in October of 1937 to conduct a survey as part of a colonial resettlement project. Mr. Bevington stated in his diary that he saw "signs of previous habitation" on the island. During an interview in 1992 he stated that (as best he could recall) "it wasn't much.....like someone had bivouacked for the night" He indicated (without knowing where TIGHAR had been) that the place was near the area where TIGHAR found the shoe artifact in 1991 (SE part of the island). See Reference No. 2, Pages 6 and 7. Eric, however, could have easily seen something from the Arundel period or any of the later visitors. Dr. Tom King corresponded with Mr. Maude. He asked him about the "signs of previous habitation" that Eric mentions in his diary. Maude remembered it as being [a] "pile of sand" (see Reference No. 3). During the 1997 Niku III expedition, TIGHAR found relatively large piles of sand/coral on the SE end of the island near the shoe artifact site in the area indicated by Bevington. It looked like a Babai pit or an abortive well from either the British or Arundel periods. (see Reference No. 4). We don't have evidence that the Arundel group was in this area (the British colony was) but we have no evidence that they weren't and a search for well water could take you anywhere. Wrap Up Thoughts: Anecdotes aside....a lot of the information was recorded contemporaneously. I will say up front that Lambrecht could have seen Earhart related habitation. I will also add that I am offering some speculative thoughts here. My goal is to get people thinking about the issue in a broader sense than a simple partial quote from Lambrecht. We do not know what Lambrecht told his fellow shipmates and commander if asked....."What do you mean by "recent signs of habitation" However, it is not too hard to imagine that he told them he saw: 1. the flag and/or marker left behind by the British only 5 months earlier or 2. the life boats and stack of provisions left behind by the Norwich City crew...or 3. the corrugated steel roofs of the huts or the water tank or other debris left behind by the Arundel group earlier and noted by the Norwich crew in 1929...or 4. some or all of the above O-k, so there were "signs of recent habitation" available for Lambrecht to see (recent being a relative term). That begs the next question. Why was no land search conducted if obvious "signs of recent habitation" on Niku were reported? We can speculate that Lambrecht told his commander: "We checked out the island as best as we could. Repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave. We tried hard, commander, to get the attention of anyone who might have been there. We saw no signs of an airplane and, in my opinion, the signs of habitation that we saw were not related to the lost fliers." The key words here for the commander were probably.....no signs of an airplane. The Colorado was sent to the Phoenix group on the strength of the post-lost signals/bearings. And the commander was told....the plane must be on land to broadcast. No airplane....no problem....lets move on. I am not prepared to fault the commander for this decision (there were also other good reasons to move on). It is much too easy in hindsight and from the comfort of our homes to do that. Getting a landing party on to and off of the island is a very dangerous affair as is positioning the Colorado anywhere near the island. As note above, Lambrecht's description of what he saw on Gardner and Sydney as "signs of RECENT habitation" may be an attempt to contrast them to the obviously much older "stone" ruins he had just seen at McKean Island. Indeed, in my speculative opinion, when you read the entire Lambrecht report within the context of which it is written, it can easily be interpreted that way. Thus he uses the word "recent" to describe Gardner after viewing the much older stone ruins on McKean. There is an additional piece of very speculative evidence that suggests Lambrecht saw but did not mention Arundel's huts. A Colorado crew member took notes as the ship visited the various islands. He had some artistic talent and as such drew pictures to accompanied his notes. For Hull he drew a canoe and people...and of course Lambrecht landed there and was visited by the locals in a canoe. For Gardner he drew a picture of native huts/houses. Summary: "RECENT" visitors to the island prior to Lambrecht's flyover include: 1) the Norwich City crew (8 yrs. before) and 2) the HMS Leith (5 months before). It is not surprising that he observed signs of recent habitation. Love To Mother Kenton Spading 1382CE ******************************************************************** From Ric As Kenton says, it all depends on how you interpret the words Lambrecht used. Are buildings that were "in a state of collapse" eight years earlier "signs of recent habitation"? Might Lambrecht have later decribed sheets of corrugated iron from collapsed buildings as "markers of some kind"? Is a flagpole or momument on the beach a "sign of recent habitation"? All of these interpretations, and the others that Kenton lists, are possible. I do however, think that it's obvious that Lambrecht intended to convey that he saw something on the ground that prompted him to "try to elicit an answering wave". I think that makes it pretty clear that when he says "recent" he means "current", not recent compared to the old ruins on McKean. Forget the phrase "signs of recent of recent habitation". Nobody knows what he saw. The fact is, he saw something that made him think there was someone down there who might come out and wave to him. No one should have been there, so either Lambrecht misinterpreted what he saw from the air or he saw something that should not have been there. It's as simple as that. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:38:44 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But HELP! Geez, Pat... I don't think I was slamming a sex, at all... Since there are many general aviation enthusiasts on the forum, I was just wondering who the old lady trying to look 30-something is, and what her claim to fame is... Since you don't know to whom I'm referring, you can hardly judge if her appearance is the result of reconstructive surgery after "augering one in" or if it's just a series of botched facelifts. My apologies for having offended you, that was not my intent. LTM (who still believes Waylon Flowers' Madam learned to fly) Dave =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:46:14 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Betty's reply to Angus First - my thanks to Betty for her reply. Reading between the lines, it does seem at least possible that FN was not actually "off his head" but was ill tempered, maybe through pain, maybe as a result of stress or disagreement on strategy, their position etc. He was possibly also frightened for his life, both in the short term as a result of his injuries and/or the submerging aircraft and in the longer term in that help might not arrive to save them from the rigours of a waterless tropical island. The architecture of the brain means that fear will often provoke anger as both emotions are controlled by the same part of the limbic system. The fact that at times he seemed more rational would support this. AE's reaction - pleading, tears, competition for the microphone could be equally ascribable to an angry and suffering Noonan as a deranged one. However, what little record we have of his supposed transmission is fairly perplexing. Bob, Uncle, Marie hey, take it away, etc - none of it seems the sort of thing that anyone, especially a navigator, would waste time on, especially when he was injured and it was so vitally important to give details of their position. This argues he really was deranged. On a separate issue, I was giving more consideration to "N.Y.". Can Betty rule out the idea that this was exactly what she heard (ie just those two letters) and it was not in fact an abbreviation for New York? Is it possible that she later gave it her own interpretation, being perhaps familiar with N.Y. as an abbreviation for New York? I can imagine if I was transcribing such a radio message, I would record the first time I heard " New York" as NEW YORK, but then in subsequent receptions abbreviate it to NY. To abbreviate it immediately would only seem rational if Betty was somewhat behind with recording what was said and had time to realise that "NEW" was not merely an adjective but part of a proper noun and so write N.Y.. If the possibility that NY might not mean New York is allowed, I would think that N.Y. is more likely a misinterpretation of NRUI. I know Ric claims that AE always referred to ITASCA rather than NRUI but I think that as ITASCA used this call sign when transmitting, there is every chance AE could have replied using it. Another thought occurs to me. Is it possible that AE had received a transmission from USS New York and was trying to contact it? I know this ship was in the Pacific in the early thirties but can't yet discover if it was so in mid 1937. Of course it may even have been in the Atlantic (perhaps even on a similar great circle path) since Betty's intercept was as far off as Florida. Perhaps someone could throw some light on this? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric Betty has told me many times that what she wrote in her book were only fragments of what she heard. She couldn't write fast enough to get down anything but a fraction of what was said. She wrote down only the words and phrases that came through most clearly and seemed like they might be important. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:59:49 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto If I remember correctly, Betty approached Fred Goerner back in the 60's about her notebook. According to Betty, he was not interested in it. Did he actually see what she jotted down or did he refuse sight unseen? ************************************************************************ From Ric Betty did not contact Goerner. Her friend, and now TIGHAR member, John Hathaway wrote to Goerner on her behalf in the summer of 1970. Goerner never saw the original notebook but John sent him a transcription. Utimately Goerner replied on Sept. 4, 1970: "Well, to tell the truth Mr. Hathaway, I can't make anything out of the messages (Betty) received. The figures do not seem at all relevant, especially the supposed position reports. ... I do appreciate your having taken the time to communicate with me about the matter. I'm just afraid though that without a great deal more clarification of the messages it would be impossible to make a determination from them." =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:05:10 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: USS New York This is what I know so far: Summer 1919-The New York joins the Pacific Fleet based in San Diego, California. The New York would remain based there until around 1935. Its training grounds normally included the West Coast and the Hawaiian Islands, but returned to the Caribbean and Atlantic for some training operations, and repairs when it is needed. May 20, 1937-The New York is the only United States representative in the Grand Naval Review. (UK) 1937 through 1940-The New York spends most of the time on midshipmen cruises to Europe, Canada, and the Caribbean. Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric At the beginning of the Earhart search an effort was made to identify any ships, naval or civilian, that might be in a position to help. There weren't many, and USS New York is not mentioned in any of the radio traffic. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:10:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Carol Theory For Carol -- I'm looking forward to meeting you Sunday at the KC 99s dinner, and hope to be able to report to all that you are NOT Ric's invention. As to being the reincarnation of AE, let's see, how would we test THAT hypothesis..... LTM Tom *********************************************************************** From Ric (I wish I could afford to show up at the dinner in drag just to see the look on Tom's face.) =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:10:57 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Thanks Mike, Happy Holidays, Carol =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:12:12 EST From: Carol Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! End of the Samurai Sword Oh Lord no with the sword. The thing had an edge on it like a razor blade (past tense) so I borrowed a friend, and we filed it down. It has a long grip. Someone could hold on with two hands and hack away. It still scares me to death. Carol *************************************************** From Ric Moving right along...... =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:18:36 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Carol Theory For Tom King, You know what, I'm going to let you guess. Carol ****************************************************************** From Ric Good Lord. This could start a whole thread on How Tom Can Recognize Carol. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:20:05 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Antenna To Alan: Your original message read, regarding the Lae receptions: > She was then heard one hour later and then two hours later but not after > that. I don't know what happened to the 16:18Z radio call or if it was even > made. The 17:18Z call was still on 6210 is my understanding. Is that correct, > Ric? Those messages occured prior to 07:30Z. After that, it seems that all transmissions heard by Earhart were on 3105 kHz. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:21:00 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But HELP! Dave in Fremont wrote: > ... I was just wondering who > the ... lady ... is, and what her claim to fame > is... Nancy Lynn. Aerobatics instructor and (I guess) owner of Lynn Aviation: http://www.lynnaviation.com/aerobatics/instructors.html LTM. Marty #2359 =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:28:23 EST From: Craig Subject: The Notebook Writing A question and a concern related to Betty's notebook. My question is this: What do you make of all the strange stuff that doesn't seem like it could be related to someone calling for help on a reef - i.e Marie Hey!, get the suitcase in my closet, etc. Could this be another signal on top of the one she was hearing? My concern is this: From the examples of the notebook you have on the website, it's strikes me as odd that in most cases, the song lyrics and other things she was writing are more often than not "messier" handwriting than that of the AE things. The AE stuff is neatly written, hardly ever runs into the margin, letter are mostly properly formed, etc. For instance, compare page 55 (one of the "messiest" AE pages) to page 38 (a song): - Page 38 runs into the border, words are inserted, crammed in, written in haste, the ink is fluctuating, etc. - Page 55 is clear, she never runs into the border, the ink is mostly uniform, and she even has time to write a line a second time for clarity. My thought on this is, if she is having trouble keeping up with the transmissions, wouldn't one expect to see her notes to be somewhat frantically written? Updated with things she missed when the transmission faded? There is the case that maybe she wanted to write neat in case this was important information, but did she know the importance at the time? Wouldn't the lyrics of a song be just as important to someone at that age? Craig ************************************************************************ From Ric Absolutely not. Betty's casual notation of song lyrics and doodling artwork are in marked contrast to her transcription of the words and phrases from Earhart. The emotional impact of what she was hearing was extreme and has stayed with her the rest of her life. She was very much aware, at the time, that she was hearing something important. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:31:43 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Let me guess, Carols a blonde right? Ric? Chris#2511 *********************************************************************** From Ric I've never seen Carol so I don't know what color her hair is, but mine is blond (or was until I started moderating this forum). =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:42:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: USS New York > At the beginning of the Earhart search an effort was made to identify any > ships, naval or civilian, that might be in a position to help. There weren't > many, and USS New York is not mentioned in any of the radio traffic. What about the Koshu? Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric Gesundheit. The only ships mentioned were the "Dickerson" (a "cable ship" near Christmas Island) and the Moorby. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:43:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto > The figures do not seem at all relevant, > especially the supposed position reports. ... Of course not. They were not in the Marshalls. Alan =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:45:32 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Clues: Signs of Recent Habitation > As Kenton says, it all depends on how you interpret the words Lambrecht > used. More important. How close did Lambrecht get? Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric Lambrecht said that after getting scared half to death by the birds at McKean they never went below 400 feet. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:47:30 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Betty's reply to Angus Just a thought, could Fred have used the word "Uncle" in terms of frustration as in "uncle, I give up". I believe that in that era, saying uncle was was a common expression to voice acceptance of defeat. Any thoughts? LTM Ed of PSL ************************************************************************ From Ric It's one possibility. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:48:30 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Recognition won't be a problem, all Tom needs to do is look for the lady with a samurai in her pantyhose. LTM Ed of PSL =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:53:07 EST From: Pat Reed Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But HELP! Dave wrote: >My apologies for having offended you, that was not my intent. No problem! I had nothing else to contribute, so thought I'd put my two cents in. I still think it's not how they look, but rather the unique skills required of an aerobatic pilot. Is she an expert? Well, like maybe a little like all of us - in her own mind or maybe in her neighborhood, etc.! ************************************************************************ From Ric Let's try to stay on-topic. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:22:20 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto Thanks for your very gracious & lengthy response to what I considered to be a very simple request. As a very capable & conscientious investigator, certainly in conducting your many interviews with 'Betty' you utilized a tape recorder &/or video to preserve her testimony for the purposes of further investigation, & since no one on the Forum has ever met or seen 'Betty', nor had the opportunity to listen, first-hand to her story, I thought it might be helpful if such information were made available to the rest of the Forum, in much the same way as the several interviews you & Dr. King so ably conducted with the former residents of Nikumaroro Island. I seem to sense from your response to my request that I have somehow offended you & if I have, I certainly offer my apology for any such perceived (on your part) offense. I _do_ follow the Forum postings every single day & have ever since 1998. I also spend considerable time reviewing & examining the TIGHAR website archives & have especially examined very closely the 'Betty' related posts, research/reports & unfortunately, I'm sorry to say, I'm yet to be convinced that 'Betty' actually heard Amelia Earhart & Fred Noonan transmitting from the downed Electra. Since it appears I am among a very small minority of dissenters who still follow your Forum, I'll not waste anymore of your valuable time with any further posts to the Forum, as what I post seems to be upsetting to you & fellow Forum participants. Don Neumann ********************************************************************** From Ric If your postings have not been particularly constructive that does not mean that they are offensive. Cam, for example, was unable or unwilling to contribute anything of substance but we listened to what he had to say and tried to respond to his criticisms until he got so nasty that I had to cut him off. We welcome dissenters and skeptics. If there aren't many left on the forum it may be because they can't find sympathy among what I believe has become a very astute and perceptive group of subscribers. We do have several hours of video of Betty and the recent discussions have made me wonder if their might be sufficient interest in a videotape to justify the time it would take me to put together a tape that covers the most interesting parts of the interview. I'll ask the forum about it in a separate posting. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:44:15 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The Betty Interview On