================================================================ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:42:36 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's nature > From what we've learned about his > practices he does seem to have been a rather "loose" navigator. I think that's true, at least in regard to contemporary times. Keep in mind the year was 1937 not 2003 and there were no "set" airways or flight plans or all the formality we know of now. If folks wanted to fly east they just flew east. They didn't have to stay on J47 or hit specific intersections or fly certain altitudes or make required radio reports. So what difference did it make in 1937 if Noonan was "off" course? It was his own course. All that really mattered was hitting destination and from whatever direction that would get him there. It didn't matter where he was. It only mattered that HE knew where he was. So "loose" compared to what? Alan *************************************************************** From Ric Loose compared to his contemporaries. Loose compared to Harold Gatty, Charles and Ann Lindbergh, and a host other long-distance aerial navigators of that era. I'm not saying that he WAS loose compared to them, but that's what you'd need to look at to make a judgment. ================================================================ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:06:29 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Productivity I will be SO glad when you are able to get back on Niku and do something productive! ************************************************************************* From Ric Don't make the mistake of thinking that forum activity is a measure of TIGHAR activity. We have a team in Fiji right now doing top-notch work on tracking the bones and artifacts that were last known to be there in 1941. It's complicated, tedious investigative work but Marty and Roger are doing a great job. We're getting a much better handle on the situation that prevailed at the Western Pacific High Commission in the later years when something (we don't yet know what) was done with the bones. We're increasingly convinced that, whatever happened, there is a documented record somewhere. It's just a matter of figuring out where. This kind of work isn't as sexy as whacking scaevola, and dealing with giant crabs and sharks and killer storms, but it's every bit as important. There is also some pretty intense research going on into the post-loss radio claims of Walter McMenamy and his associates. I had hoped that we could get that all resolved as part of the larger Post Loss Radio Study but it's becoming apparent that McMenamy's involvement is a far more complicated subject than we had realized and it's going to take more time to sort out. Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and finish the Study with what we know now and we'll follow it up with more information as it becomes available. Preparations for Niku Vp are proceeding on schedule and we're, of course, hoping that the trip will come back with new information, but it's just one aspect of the on-going effort to find the answers. LTM, Ric ================================================================ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:09:29 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Flying South (Again!) Ben, the longtime Niku Skeptic says: >Why go to all that trouble flying south into God knows what, when She could >have used the extra fuel to search a 'square pattern' and find the Island. She >was looking for Howland Island. We all know she never got there. Four hours >would have been plenty of time to find Howland. Why veer so far off course into >the unknown? It's okay to be a skeptic, Ben, but you also have to make sense and use the evidence we do have. Earhart had decided to run north-south on the 157-337 line, these from her own words. Thus, she must have had confidence in her east-west position, and not in her north-south position. There's no other way to interpret such a statement. A square pattern involves a lot of flying that doesn't help if you're pretty sure of your east-west position. And ... she did not veer off course into the unknown ... she was already in the unknown, lost over the vast Pacific ocean. She didn't say to herself, "Hmmm, Howland must be over there to the north, let's fly south off into the unknown", again that makes no sense. She had to pick a direction to travel to find Howland. TIGHAR assumes that was south. So by flying south, TIGHAR assumes she was looking for Howland; perhaps AE was under the assumption that she was way far north of Howland by mistake. A decision to fly south, if that's what AE did, was not veering off course, it was a deliberate attempt to find Howland. How would the evidence of AE's own words fit into your skeptical view that she used the 4 hours of gas in a square pattern? LTM Paige Miller #2565 ================================================================ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:57:24 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Flying South (Again!) > Four hours > would have been plenty of time to find Howland. Why veer so far off course > into the unknown?" Not nicking at Ben again but I don't think some appreciate what amount of time it takes to do a reasonable search. This is just an example using a couple made up assumptions. Don't take this as a suggestion of what might or could have happened. I'm just trying to show how little time there might have been to search. First, there have been many estimates as to how close or far from Howland AE might have been when she thought she was over Howland. I'll use 50 miles for this example. That means to ensure Howland is inside the search pattern the legs must be 100 miles long at least. She will be at 1,000' and throttled back a little so each leg is going to take close to an hour. In four hours she can fly just four legs. That won't come close to covering a search pattern 100 miles on a side. Even flying concentric squares of ever increasing leg length won't cut it. Draw it out and you will see how little area they could cover. Obviously they could stumble on the island early on but given the difficulty Pelligrini had it was not a good bet. And suppose they were 100 miles off. They could search forever and not find Howland. In an email to an off forum friend who likewise thought the rescuers search in the Howland area rather than one of the Phoenix Islands made more sense I pointed out that the Phoenix Islands were specific geographical points with a total of 11 square miles to examine as opposed to somewhere up to 125,000 square miles of open ocean. I don't know what our heroes did or if they did the smartest thing but given what we know I would have looked around for a short time and headed to the Phoenix group. If I ditched at the very least the plane is lost maybe I wouldn't survive the crash. If I could find a reef to put the plane on even if I damaged it I would survive and the plane could be recovered. It seems like a no brainer to me. What am I missing, discounting sheer luck? Alan ================================================================ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:58:27 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's nature > Loose compared to his contemporaries. Loose compared to Harold Gatty, > Charles and Ann Lindbergh, and a host other long-distance aerial navigators > of that era. Picky, Picky, Picky. Alan ================================================================ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:53:08 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Productivity Ric, Could you give us a very short overview of what Walter McMenany is doing and who he is? A reference to the forum month and subject heading would do. Thanks, Ted Campbell ****************************************************************** From Ric Walter McMenamy was a ham radio operator in Los Angeles in 1937 who claimed to have heard a number of post-loss transmissions from Earhart. He is potentially one of the most credible of the amateurs who said they heard Amelia because he had talked to her during the 1935 Honolulu/Oakland flight and claimed to have recognized her voice. McMenamy and his friend Karl Pierson (a professional radio engineer and also a ham) received tremendous press coverage in the days following the disappearance, but upon closer examination there are some serious problems with what they said they heard. It also turns out that they were associated with several of the other hams in the L.A. area who claimed to hear post-loss transmissions. We're trying to figure out whether, or to what degree, they may have been hoaxers. A Google search on McMenamy (sometimes spelled McMenemy) will bring up some old forum discussions. ================================================================ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:21:07 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Flying South (Again!) I still believe AE and FN flew south for only one reason and that was to pick out an identifiable landmark that could get them back to Howland. To fly south otherwise would only mean they had given up in finding Howland (there is absolutely nothing north or east of Howland without backtracking way west) and they were in desperate straits and were looking for any piece of land to put the bird down and walk away. Put yourself in their shoes: Having missed Howland, but knowing you're so close i.e. radio messages, confidence in their enroute navigation, request for bearings, best guess, etc., and still no landfall what would the typical pilot do? I suggest that they headed toward "something" that would give them a clue as to where they were in relationship to where they wanted to be. Look at the map, there is a whole lot of nothing out there! At some point in looking for that "something" it became apparent that the first landfall opportunity to put the plane safely down was their only alternative. Ted Campbell ********************************************************************* From Ric >Having missed Howland, but knowing you're so close ..... The only independent confirmation they had that they were "close" was the transmission of "A"s on 7500 that AE heard. She could reasonably assume that she was hearing the Itasca but from how far away? Running southeastward on the advanced LOP was the only reasonable course of action. It might bring them to Howland. It might bring them to a "landmark" (another island) in time for them to turn around and still reach Howland, but as you say, at some point it became apparent that they would have to land at the first opportunity. ************************************************************************* From Ben the Skeptic Basically it's like this : I don't know and neither do you. But.... I must admit, my thoughts regarding the square search pattern are not my own. I thought it made the most sense. I read Elgen Long's book. Based on actual documentation, he shows how much fuel AE had when she left. The amount she had, that was listed on the Flight register at Lae, said 1092 gallons. Not 1150 as is generally assumed. 1150 was the maximum capacity of the tanks, but they were not filled to the brim. He charts out the fuel consumption, based on radio messages. I was not suggesting that AE actually used the gas to search a square pattern. I was merely stating that if in fact she had the four hours left, that they would have been more effectively used in this manner. I do not believe the extra fuel was used to search. I do not think there WAS any extra fuel. If the tanks were filled to 1150, okay, it's possible. But they weren't. AE herself said "gas is running low...." I shudder to think how that might be interpreted based on some of the interpretations I've seen of Betty's logbook, but it's right there in plain English. "We must be on you, but cannot see you. Gas is running low...." Just because WE don't know where Fred Noonan was, doesn't mean HE didn't. Elgen Long got his pilot's license in 1938. As far as fuel consumption is concerned, I would rather trust the judgment of someone who was flying around the same time. Furthermore, Mr. long has spent nearly 30 years researching to find and protect the few remaining authentic documents regarding the loss of the aircraft. Ben (again) ************************************************************************** From Ric Your comments remind me of something an FAA inspector once told a friend of mine after a checkride: "I can tell you with confidence that you'll never be injured in a crash ... because you're so far behind this airplane you won't even be on the scene of the accident." If you'll review the archives of this forum you'll see that Elgen Long's speculations and assumptions about fuel consumption have been demolished many times, many ways, by many different authorities. He himself admits that he started with the assumption that the plane ran out of fuel within moments of the 08:43 transmission heard by the Itasca. From there he backed into the numbers he needed to make his case. I don't know what documents you think he is protecting but if you're referring to the Chater Report that he uses as the basis for so many erroneous and unfounded extrapolations, he neglects to mention that the report came to light via TIGHAR and as a direct result of TIGHAR's work. It's fine to be skeptic but you need to get up to speed on the facts. LTM, Ric ================================================================ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:43:29 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Survival time Ric, Given the evidence to date (regardless of how obtained, where found, who gave it, how reliable, etc.) regarding what TIGHAR believes happened to AE and FN is there anything that might indicate how long they may have survived on Gardner? I've read that TIGHAR's best guess is anywhere from a few weeks to a couple of years - over time has that estimation been trimmed down? Ted Campbell ***************************************************************** From Ric Not really. We feel quite sure that Seven Site is where the castaway (whom we hypothesize was Earhart) lived and died. We know that somebody ate a number of meals at that location because we've found the bones of the fish and animals, and the shells of the clams they ate. If we knew that all of that material was attributable to the castaway, and if we were sure that we had recovered all of it, we could make some estimate of how long the castaway was in residence there. (Archaeologists make those sorts of estimates all the time.) We'd then have some idea of how long the castaway lived at that last campsite, but were there previous campsites that we don't know about? Earhart and Noonan disappeared in July 1937. The bones of the castaway were first found in April of 1940. Our own research and experiments on the island have shown that animal remains are reduced to skeletons and the bones scattered in a few weeks. We also know that there was a severe drought in the region in 1938, but it's also possible that a story about the wife of the island's Native Magistrate seeing a female "ghost" sometime in 1939 or 1940 was actually a sighting of the castaway. We hope that further research will lead to more certainty about what happened. LTM, Ric ================================================================ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:13:30 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Castaway survival Ric said: >We know that somebody ate a number of meals at that >location because we've found the bones of the fish and animals, and the >shells of the clams they ate. If we knew that all of that material was >attributable to the castaway, and if we were sure that we had recovered all >of it, we could make some estimate of how long the castaway was in residence >there. What evidence is there that more may be found? Are we hoping for more shells and bones within a close (undefined) proximity of the original find or is TIGHAR going to expand the search to include an area covering several hundred (or more) square-feet? Using the very elusive "average," how many ounces of "consumables" could one expect from a local bird or crab? Knowing that figure could generate an estimate of the number of calories the castaway may be consuming. From that figure, a rough approximation of survival time might be computed. If TIGHAR has collected all of the shells and bones at the Seven Site, then I suspect our castaway's life span (combined with lack of water) may be measured in days and hours, not weeks and months. LTM, a lover of Chesapeake Bay crab cakes Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************************************************* From Ric And just how many bones and shells did TIGHAR collect at the Seven Site? I don't recall publishing that information. We recovered a whole bunch of bones. We don't even have an exact count of how many and what types and sizes of fish and birds are represented. We're still tryng to figure out what we have. Tom King has done some interesting research into how much nutrition there is in a Niku-size clam and how many a person could carry at one time. Are there more bones/meal sites there? Almost certainly. How many more? Hell, I dunno. The problem is that before you can even begin to excavate for more meal sites you have to clear away the dense underbrush. We really can't say that we've defined, let alone thoroughly examined, the entire site. Part of the plan for Niku V is to expand the search at the Seven Site. How much we'll be able to do will depend upon the time and the resources available. LTM, Ric ================================================================ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:52:28 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Survival time If AE and FN landed without mishap on Niku, they probably had limited food and drink with them. I would imagine they would have coffee, juice, soup, water, fruit, crackers, and sandwiches. How much was left after over 20 hours of flying time is anyone's guess, but enough to last a day or two? If they found the cache left by the Norwich rescuers, then perhaps enough to last weeks or months. I also assume that the two probably thought they would be rescued in a day or two. So, no serious attempt to signal someone via a large fire was made. However, at some point in time (four or five days) it must have become quite evident to them that perhaps a signal fire would be appropriate. I would also imagine that they would want to build some type of shelter for themselves. Where would you build such a fire and where would you get the materials to build such a shelter? I think the beach would be the most desirable location for the fire, but would any remains of that fire have been observed in 1940? Probably not, due to storms, tidal, and wave action. As for building materials, I'm sure the Electra had a few things they could have used, and, don't forget about the Norwich City. If they could get aboard, would they have found blankets, tarps, axes, pots, pans, dishes, utensils (such as a sharp knife) and other usable materials they would take back to their campsite? If AE and FN were on Niku for any length of time, a more permanent campsite should have been discovered by Irish. Yet, several old fire pits, clam shells, bird, and fish bones were only found (I'm not forgetting the bones, shoe parts, sextant box). It just disturbs me that more was not found. My only conclusions are that AE and FN perished a short time after landing on Niku or that they were never there. ************************************************************************** From Ric A castaway was there. We know that much. The person had shoes and a sextant box and the bones were judged to be European or at least "half-caste" European (according to the doctor who examined them). Our own assessment of the bone measurements agrees that the person was a European. The presence of parts of man's AND a woman's shoe may be an indication that there were originally at least two castaways, one male, one female. So whoever died there was probably a Westerner and he/she didn't have much stuff with him/her by the time he/she gave out. Why not? Well, for one thing, your assumptions about Norwich City as a source of survival gear are wrong. The ship burned when it went aground. It was a barren, gutted, rusted hulk in 1937. Did the castaway find and use the cache of supplies left by the NC rescuers? No way to say for sure, but in any event the supplies consisted of food, not durable goods. How much survival gear was aboard the Electra and how much opportunity was there to bring stuff ashore? Maybe you know, but I don't. I do know that carrying anything over that reef even at low tide is no picnic. The bones were found a long way (about 2 miles) from the Norwich City and where the available evidence suggests the plane was landed. If the Seven Site is where the bones were found the castaway had been there long enough to select that spot - the only place on the island at that time where you had an open shady area with a breeze and easy access to both the ocean and the lagoon. I'd say that the available evidence suggests a castaway with minimal belongings who had learned how to survive on the island. Let's approach this from a different perspective. If the castaway(s) were not Earhart and/or Noonan, who were they and how did they get there? We have no reports of a lifeboat or a raft or lifejackets or life rings ever having been found. Who is this person with the shoes and the sextant box and the Benedictine bottle? Where did he/she come from and why was he/she not reported missing? LTM, Ric ================================================================ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:56:11 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Castaway survival Dennis, you ask some very interesting questions -- which as Ric points out, we can't really answer. We excavated three fire features, and observed two more. It's almost dead certain there are more back in the bush. We removed one cluster of giant clam shells, and left another in place; there may be more. We observed and sampled but mostly left a large feature made up of small butterclam shells. Our volunteer fishbone analyst didn't give me estimated counts of minimum number of individual fishies in the material we brought back, nor estimated minimum meat weight; this would be interesting data to get, and we can get it, but we'll probably have to pay someone to do so. I'm still waiting for a final report on the birdbone from the Smithsonian -- getting the report has been like pulling red-tailed tropicbird teeth, but again it's being done for free, so..... My estimate of clam meat weight, based on experimentation with fresh specimens, suggested that the one feature we disassembled and brought back would have provided at least one very good meal for a person or two, but probably not much more. So the bottom line is, there are lots of variables we don't yet control. The biggest being how many more features of one kind or another are still out there in the scaevola. We really have no way of knowing how many there are or how far they extend along the Seven Site ridge -- until we get back there and whack a bunch more brush. LTM Tom ================================================================ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:00:28 EDT From: Ric Subject: Harbor Lights discount In the latest TIGHAR Tracks we mentioned that Andrew McKenna is offering a 10% discount to TIGHAR members who want to avail themselves of Harbor Lights Villa in the U.S. Virgin Islands (the prize in our recent raffle), but we inadvertently got his email address wrong. It's andrew@harborlights.vi You can see the villa at his website at www.harborlights.vi ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:08:11 EDT From: Ric Subject: Anybody remember? Some time ago, someone on the forum (of the Australian persuasion as I recall) investigated the possibility the Prof. A.P. Elkin at Sydney University had examined the bones found by Gallagher on Gardner. Sending the bones to Prof. Elkin is mentioned as a possibility in the file but the High Commissioner quashed the idea. We wondered if it may have been done anyway sometime later. Elkin's papers are archived at the university and are actually listed online at http://www.usyd.edu.au/arms/archives/elkin/ser41item.pdf Our recollection is that this base has already been covered and the boxes have been looked at but, for the life of me, I can't remember who it was that did it. I'm hoping that whoever it was is still a forum subscriber or at least someone on the forum remembers who it was. Our team in Fiji is steadily eliminating possibilities for what became of the bones and we need to be sure this one was really covered. LTM, Ric ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:10:04 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: CAN AIRPLANES FLOAT? There have often been questions on this forum on whether Earhart's Lockheed Electra could float after having been ditched and for how long. I ran into an interesting article about this on the website of 381st Bomb Group. One 8th Air Force pilot who was stationed at Ridgewell (England) during WW II ditched his B-17 in the Channel and did this so successfully that it won him a DFC. If anything it shows that aircraft of that technology (the Lockheed 10 Electra and the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, although one was much bigger than the other, were of the same technology and of comparable design. Anyone interested should go to http:/www.381st.org/stories lloyd-munich.html. LTM I'm joining the original posting so you can double click to it without further much ado. A guest book posting was made about Mr. MacGregor's obituary be published in the Toledo Blade. I've pasted it here for you to read. Members might recall that the late Lloyd Sunderland wrote about the ditching incident in his piece, "Mission to Munich". Found here on the 381st.org site: http://www.381st.org/stories_lloyd-munich.html - - - - - - - - - - - toledoblade.com JACK M. MACGREGOR, 1922-2003 Air Force colonel ditched his B-17 FINDLAY - Jack M. MacGregor, a retired Air Force colonel and a bomber pilot whose postwar specialty was management analysis and finance, died Thursday in Blanchard Valley Regional Health Center. He was 80. He had congestive heart failure, his son-in-law Tom Watson said. Mr. MacGregor's last assignment was with the Air Force Eastern Test Range at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. He retired in 1973, and he and his wife, Rosemary, remained in the Cocoa, Fla., area for seven years before returning to their native Findlay. He was a 1941 graduate of Findlay High School. He went to Ohio State University, where he attended for a year before he joined the aviation cadets and became a B-17 pilot in what was then the Army Air Corps. He was based in England during World War II and flew 30 combat missions over Europe with the 381st Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross. "He went and felt that he did his job and came home and didn't talk about it," Mr. Watson said. He broke his silence in the years after 50th anniversary commemorations of D-Day and the war's end and began to reveal some of his experiences - including the mission that led to his being awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross: His plane, shot up badly during a mission, was running on only a couple engines and losing altitude despite his best efforts, his son-in-law said. Approaching the English Channel, Mr. MacGregor radioed air-sea rescue operations, which determined where the plane would be. He landed the plane safely in the water. "They stepped off the plane into the boat and never got their feet wet," Mr. Watson said. Mr. MacGregor remained in what became the Air Force and was selected to complete his education. He received a bachelor of science degree in accounting and a master of science degree in commerce and business administration. He became a career Air Force officer and was a command pilot and instructor pilot for a number of years. He also was "a finance guy, an efficiency expert," his son-in-law said. He was director of management analysis at Air Force Pacific command in Hawaii, a job that took him to bases across Asia during the Vietnam War. He was controller of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, and was commander of the Air Force Data Systems Design Center in Washington. Mr. MacGregor liked the organization of the Air Force, said Mr. Watson. "First and foremost, he was a patriot. He was my mentor. "He was that small town essence that we all admire today: apple pie, the flag, duty, country, God," Mr. Watson said. "His family was the very first thing he thought about and took care of." Mr. MacGregor was a member of McComb Presbyterian Church. He was a member of the Findlay Rotary Club, the Fort Findlay Finance Club, and the Findlay Country Club and took part in Associated Charities. Surviving are his wife, Rosemary, whom he married Aug. 28, 1943; daughters, Karen Watson and Pamela MacGregor; sister, Anne LaBudde; six grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. There will be no visitation. At Mr. MacGregor's request, his body was donated to the Ohio State University medical school. Memorial services will be at 2 p.m. tomorrow in Kirkpatrick-Behnke Mortuary, Findlay. The family suggests tributes be to Bridge Home Health and Hospice, Findlay. ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:36:25 EDT From: Thomas Hamberg Subject: Castaway evidence After following the forum for several years but only having made few inputs, there is one thing I have never seen considered. It comes to my mind again when Ric is saying: "Who is this person with the shoes and the sextant box and the Benedictine bottle? Where did he/she come from and why was he/she not reported missing?" Is it not possible that these items could have reached the island by sea? As far as I can see it is all items that would be floating. Some severe storms and consequently waves could have brought them far up on the beach and even into the bush. LTM Thomas Hamberg #2380 ******************************************************************** From Ric The distribution of the bones and artifacts found by Gallagher made it apparent to him that what he had found was a castaway's campsite, not a jumble of washed-up flotsam. He specifically addressed this issue in his communications with his superiors, noting that the material was 100 feet above the highest tide line. The were also the remains of a fire at the site. Campfires don't float worth a darn. If the Seven Site is that location (and we feel pretty sure that it is) we see no indication that the ocean, even during major storms, ever gets that far inland. It is true that all of the artifacts mentioned would, at least theoretically, float and may have washed up on the island to be beachcombed and hoarded by the castaway. The bones, however, do appear to have been those of a European. If the bones were those of a Pacific Islander we could speculate that some poor devil somehow fetched up there and, for some reason, was unable to leave but collected a bunch of European stuff he found on the beach. We could make the same speculations about a European but it's harder to get a European onto the island without any evidence of how he got there or any record of him being missing. We've had speculation about the possibility that one of the men presumed drowned in the Norwich City disaster somehow survived and was inadvertently left behind when the others were rescued, but that requires more gyrations than the possibility that the evidence of a castaway man and a women found by Gallagher was attributable to the man and woman known to have vanished in that region three years earlier. ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:46:39 EDT From: Ric Subject: Speaking of the raffle... The "Paradise Now" raffle we held earlier this year was well-received and raised nearly $8,000 for the Earhart Project. That money was instrumental in helping us launch this year's fieldwork in Fiji and on Nikumaroro. This was the first time we had ever tried a raffle and we'd appreciate some feed-back about whether you'd like to see us do it again, how we could make it better, what kind of prizes you'd like to see, etc. ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:53:31 EDT From: Niki Subject: Takeoff Ric, do you have the original "Takeoff" photo; or just the scan? If so, may I purchase/beg/borrow/steal a copy? Thanks, Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric The only still photo we have of the takeoff was provided in the form of a 1200 dpi .tiff The original photo is the property of Mr. Alan Board who is in a nursing home in Australia. ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:57:50 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Anybody remember ? From a forum posting on 12 June 2002:- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Kelly wrote: >Although it now appears that those illusive bones may never have left >Fiji, I have located Dr Elkins papers which now reside at the Fisher >Library. >*************************************************************** >From Ric >Certainly no harm in checking. It would also be interesting to know if he >was ever consulted on other discoveries of unidentified bones. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- What you were looking for ? Regards Simon Ellwood ********************************************************************* From Ric Indeed. Thank you. David is still subscribed to the forum. ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:46:40 EDT From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: CAN AIRPLANES FLOAT? As a retired Air Force Pilot who flew Big Planes, I know of another plane that landed in the water after running out of fuel. It was a C-97 in the early 50's off Lages (sp) AB, Azores. It floated so long the navy sent a destroyer out to sink it with gunfire as it had become a hazard to navigation. They told stores like this when you went through ground school so that plots were aware that most planes would float. Not the Planes of today. But the Electra with empty tanks and put in the water good most surely would float for time. I would think without lower structural damage it would float a long time. Jim Preston-Capt USAF (ret) 2000 plus hours in the Boeing 377 or C-97 ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:54:10 EDT From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Castaway evidence Have you completely thrown out the possibility of capture by the Japanese and interred somewhere else? I haven't seen anything mentioned about this possibility. Jim Preston ****************************************************** From Ric Until we have conclusive proof of what happened to her we can't throw out any possibility, but I have yet to see any persuasive evidence to suggest that the Japanese were in any way involved in the disappearance, and I've seen plenty of persuasive evidence to suggest that they weren't. ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:57:09 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Anybody remember? I have asked the Honorable Consul General of Fiji in San Francisco, Narayan Raju. PhD in Veterinary Pathology (Michigan State University), Bachelor of Science in Veterinary Medicine (India), to look into the possibilities of helping your team in Fiji find the bones. He is a native born Fijian and received some of his training there and returned there for awhile after completing his training in India. He is now living here in the San Francisco Bay Area. his email address is Rajufiji@aol.com Ron Reuther *************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. I'll pass that information along to Marty and Roger. ================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:02:25 EDT From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Speaking of the raffle... I'd like to see it again, even if it's another chance at VI - PMB. *********************************************** From Dennis McGee I would've enjoyed it more had I won. :-) LTM, who know a long shot when she sees it Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************** From Jim Preston I think the raffle was a great idea. As past President of various organizations I was always open to suggestions for making money. I was skeptical about a rifle or shotgun where only a limited amount of chances were available. The first was 100 chances at $25 for a great hunting rifle that was picked up for $350. We sold 98, great return. 2nd was a 12 ga shotgun for $300 the next year, same 100 @ $25 we sold all and could have sold more but didn't. It does work well. Jim Preston ================================================================ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:43:04 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Takeoff Ric wrote: > The only still photo we have of the takeoff was provided in the form of a > 1200 dpi .tif > > The original photo is the property of Mr. Alan Board who is in a nursing home > in Australia. Whether or not I should be put in a home is, I guess, debatable... ...but is there any chance of my getting a copy of the .tif ? Thanks, Niki ********************************************************** From Ric I'll send it to you. ================================================================ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:51:57 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Takeoff Jeff Glickman had a downloadable copy of this huge .TIF file on the Photek web site some time ago - but it was 50mb big and took all night to download ! I'm not sure what the current Photek URL is, or whether it's still there, though. ================================================================ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:54:49 EDT From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Castaway evidence Ok, just wondering. We used to discuss it in the 60's flying to SE Asia as our flites were 8-12 hrs so we used to speculate. It's a vast Ocean. jim *************************************************** From Dave in Fremont Isn't this getting eerily near the point where we suggest that the website is consulted to get TIGHARs position on the "Japanese Capture" theory? I thought there were discussions in the Forum Highlights about the "official" position. Sorry if I seem a little crabby. Dave (#2585) ================================================================ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:57:44 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Flying South (Again!) Ted Campbell writes: >I still believe AE and FN flew south for only one reason and that was to pick >out an identifiable landmark that could get them back to Howland. I could see them flying south (well 157 actually) hoping to find Baker. If they find Baker Island, then it should be a piece of cake to turn around and find Howland. However, after about 40 miles of flying south, if Baker does not appear, then they know they are not between Baker and Howland, and there's really no landmark that they can identify that will lead them back to Howland. Flying south will either lead them to Howland (if they are north of Howland), or lead them to something else (like Gardner or McKean, if they are south of Baker) that is too far away for them to turn back to Howland. Ted also writes: "Having missed Howland, but knowing you're so close i.e. radio messages, confidence in their enroute navigation, request for bearings, best guess, etc., and still no landfall what would the typical pilot do? I suggest that they headed toward 'something' that would give them a clue as to where they were in relationship to where they wanted to." I am mystified by "confidence in their enroute navigation" in light of the fact that Howland did not appear when they expected it to. They may have been confident prior to that time, but certainly not after. In fact, AE then tried to get the radio to give her more useful information, specifically a direction find ... so they will know what direction to go in. So they may know they are close to Howland (if close means within 200 miles or so) but they don't know what direction to go in. They don't know if they are north or south or east or west of Howland, how do you pick the direction to fly in so, as you said, they could head towards "something" that might help? If you can't find Howland, you also can't find something else. Then, Ben the Skeptic writes: >I don't know and neither do you. Yes, but we can debate which ideas are consistent with the evidence, and which ideas are not. As I understand the word "skeptic", it is someone who refuses to believe in something without credible evidence. It plays an important role in science, and is very often a good thing. However, some people want to be a skeptic just so they can say "I don't believe" and never bother giving reasons, and that would be a bad thing. Ben, you give a few reasons, and as I said, that's a good thing, so hopefully we can discuss further the evidence supporting those reasons. Ben says: "I was not suggesting that AE actually used the gas to search a square pattern. I was merely stating that if in fact she had the four hours left, that they would have been more effectively used in this manner." And yet, the only evidence of a search pattern that we have, this coming from AE's own words, is that she was running north-south on the 157-337 line ... so we have no evidence to believe that at any time did AE think about a square pattern, or execute a square pattern. She was using other methods. I am skeptical of your claim, Ben, I don't see the evidence. I see evidence of AE doing other things. Ben says "Just because WE don't know where Fred Noonan was, doesn't mean HE didn't." Please explain how this fits with the evidence that AE and FN did not find Howland. How can FN know where he was, and not find Howland? -- Paige Miller ================================================================ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:05:55 EDT From: Niels Subject: Castaway evidence ? G'day all, New to this forum, this is my first post, not necessarily addressed to anyone in particular. I have spent quite some time reading (most of) the forum archives. I enjoyed that very much. I did not (yet?) come across an answer to the following question: If AE/FN (or whoever these castaways were) survived long enough to catch some fish shells and birds, light a fire, build a shelter, etc., why on earth wouldn't they have tried to leave an explicit message behind? If you know you're not going to be rescued, wouldn't you want at least to express your anger/despair or leave a 'note' behind you for your loved ones in the form of a message you'd hope someone will end up finding? A message written on a piece of paper that you would stick in the bottle for preservation, or carved on the wood of the sextant box, or written with stones on the sand, or carved on a tree trunk, or whatever you may think of given your imagination and the tools available to you? Wouldn't you try to store in a safe place any identifiable piece of equipment / clothing / jewelry so that whomever and whenever finds it would know for sure YOU have been there? This question has been bogging my mind for quite some time, so I hope you'd share your thoughts on this with me. Cheers-Niels (Oops, I almost forgot: LTM) ******************************************************************* From Ric I've never been a castaway so I don't know what castaways do. Have you ever been a castaway and thought you would not be rescued? Do you know of any instances where the remains of castaways have been found along with the sort of communications you describe? ================================================================ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:12:18 EDT From: Eric Subject: Verification Ric wrote: > Until we have conclusive proof of what happened to her we can't throw out any > possibility, but I have yet to see any persuasive evidence to suggest that > the Japanese were in any way involved in the disappearance, > and I've seen plenty > of persuasive evidence to suggest that they weren't. TIGHAR was able to verify the gist of Floyd Kilts' story because of the PISS files which were carefully archived away in England. IF the Japanese were somehow involved in AE's disappearance, there might be some official record of it in the Japanese military files which were removed from Saipan after the war. To his credit, Fred Goerner did make an attempt to locate these files. Without them, none of what he learned on Saipan can be verified. But then again, where would WE be if the PISS files had been lost or destroyed? LTM (who really did believed her daughter had been captured by the Japanese) Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ***************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, sometimes anecdotes can be verified by searching out official records. Sometimes they can't, either because the verifying files have been lost or because verifying files never existed. Without documented verification an anecdote remains an anecdote. Aspects of the Floyd Kilts story have been shown to be true. No aspect of the Japanese Capture stories has been shown to be true. ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:43:13 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: copyright issue >I'm not one to point fingers, but it seems like Nick Zanzonico is > getting a little free with his use of TIGHAR photos for his experiments: It is not my intention to get "...a little free..." with the use of TIGHAR's photos; nor anyone else's for that matter... The use of this photo is strictly for an analysis pertaining to this case. The photos on my website are all for the same purpose. The site is not advertised anywhere but on the TIGHAR forum - and solely for the purpose of reviewing my findings. I was under the impression that the photos on the site were in the public domain; if they are the sole property of TIGHAR and I've used them without permission, I will either take them down; or ask now for that permission with the understanding that their use will be for the above reasons only... ...and with Ric's permission, I will provide links and credit TIGHAR as the source of the scans. > True, but I'm in a difficult situation regarding our friend Niki. I can't > appear to be trying to stifle opposing analyses. No Ric, please don't feel that way... as I've already stated - this particular pic is for illustrative purposes only... In fact, I will ask permission to use this pic for that purpose now; as you've already explained the copyright issue pertaining to this pic... If not, I understand... I wouldn't go down to the level of crying "foul". BTW, thank you for sending the pic that you did; however, I do need the entire, uncompressed .tif (as Simon described) in order to make the proper judgment call... The pic that you've sent would further support something I've found; but I believe it is due to the compression algo that you've used to reduce the size. > Right now I'm giving him lots of rope to hang himself with. So tell me, Ric... why do I get the feeling that you're just waiting to "pounce" on my every move? LTM, Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric It's right there on the home page: "Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 by The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, a Non-Profit Foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved." I hereby give you permission to use the material you've copied but your original failure to respect the copyright is yet another example of the lack of professionalism that has given me a low opinion of you and your work. I'll send the uncompressed .tif of the takeoff photo as you ask. And yes, I'm laying for you. ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:51:26 EDT From: Niki Subject: Niki's methods By the by, Ric... has Mr. Glickman gotten back to you about my analysis methods?... ;) Niki ************************************************************ From Ric Not yet. ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:16:54 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Takeoff Ric, just one more question; and one more issue: There's a photo of the "Lae taxi" on Photek's website that I've never seen before......are there anymore pic's pertaining to the takeoff out there somewhere? I would also like to clarify something else... When you use the term "opposing analysis" in the work I'm doing, I would just like to state that any opposition I may present would be for photographic analysis only; I do not oppose the Niku hypothesis - nor do I oppose that the final answer will be found there... What I may have discovered with the antenna issue goes directly against what I believed to have actually occurred on takeoff; but personal feelings aside, I intend to let the photos speak for themselves. LTM, Niki ********************************************************************** From Ric The "Lae taxi" photo you refer to is a still taken from the film. There are other still shots that purport to show the aircraft taxiing out for the July 2nd takeoff but are more likely to have been taken at the time of Earhart's arrival. ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:07:54 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Odds and Ends Niels: I believe your thought on castaway evidence is a good one. I have never been a castaway myself, but I think a castaway would have the type of thoughts you suggest. I have heard of notes and journals left behind by polar explorers who were facing their own demise and wanted to record what had befallen them. It could be that AE left such a record, that it still exists on Niku, and we haven't found it yet. All: I was impressed with Niki's work on the wreck photo. I look for him not to hang himself, but to shed light on the other photos. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:09:15 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Castaway evidence ? We need to remember several things. First, we've just scratched the surface (pun intended) of the location where we believe the castaway probably died, the "7" site. It is certainly possible that we could find something such as what you describe, as we expand our search of that area. We have to remember that it is densely overgrown, and probably a lot different in appearance than it was when AE was there. Some artifact left in an accessible yet protected location in 1937 could easily be hidden and buried today. Remember, clothing and wood rots away pretty quickly, and I'm not aware of any jewelry or other identifiable articles that went along for the ride - nearly everything that wasn't essential was shipped home prior to that leg. It is possible that there are the corroded remains of a sextant or a watch or something like that somewhere about, but until more of the area is cleared away and examined in detail, we won't know. It's worse than a needle in a haystack - it's a moldering whatzit in a jungle. ltm jon 2266 ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:10:40 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Flying South (Again!) Paige Miller wrote: > I am mystified by "confidence in their enroute navigation" in light of > the fact that Howland did not appear when they expected it to. They may > have been confident prior to that time, but certainly not after. I'm not so sure. The way I see it, when they got to where Howland should have been (and wasn't) they had two choices. They could throw up their hands, admit they were totally lost and wander around (circling, flying a square pattern, etc) until they ran out of gas, not knowing where they were, and maybe more importantly where they were in relation to anything else. Or they could maintain confidence in the accuracy of the sun line (which they apparently did, ref: AE's transmission about running on the line). Knowing how long they had to fly from when they got the sun line to get to where Howland was on their chart, I believe they knew they were close to Howland. I have no doubt that they ran up the line (337) some distance to try to intercept Howland or Baker to the North, then when they didn't the only logical choice would be to follow 157. Believing that Howland was not North, this was the only logical way to potentially intercept Howland, or Baker, or Gardner, or any other island within range. But the motivation was not to search for Gardner, it was always to search for Howland - with insurance. ltm jon 2266 ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:11:50 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Takeoff Simon Ellwood #2120 wrote: > Jeff Glickman had a downloadable copy of this huge .TIF file on the Photek > web site some time ago - but it was 50mb big and took all night to download > ! I'm not sure what the current Photek URL is, or whether it's still > there, though. Thanks for that info, Simon... ...but I've visited the site and it doesn't appear to be there any longer... LTM, Niki ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:21:26 EDT From: Nick Uribe Subject: Raffle idea for TIGHAR As a faithful lurker and TIGHAR sympathizer, I'd like to propose the following idea as a surefire attention-grabber and fundraiser: Go to Newfoundland, rent a boat and fish up the remnants of the first transatlantic cable laid by Cyrus Field (the part near shore, of course.) You could easily sell souvenirs on e-bay for $100 a foot. The rest, you could use for a TIGHAR raffle. (A great conversation piece for the living room or den.) You've got the wherewithal, knowledge and expertise to do this, so think about it. Kind regards, Nick Uribe Cali, Colombia ****************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the suggestion. ********************************************************* From Alan What about a spaghetti supper this time? ******************************************************* From Ric How about we cover the Atlantic Cable with marinara? ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:06:43 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Castaway evidence ? Not a great analogy -- but didn't crew members on the Russian Submarine Kursk that sank a few years back pen last letters which were later recovered? Bob ***************************************************************** From Ross Devitt There have been several documented cases of crash victims and lost people who, being lost or believing their fate was sealed, left this kind of record. The last one here is almost relevant to the discussion.... reading it one could almost imagine the sort of things that may have gone through Amelia's mind. An Australian aviator was forced down in the sands of the Sahara if I remember correctly, left a daily diary in his log and tied it to a strut as he slowly perished from thirst. A number of downed aviators I've read about who scratched a diary of sorts into the aluminium of their aircraft, including one fairly recently. At least one party of explorers who left a message in a bottle buried at the foot of a tree and carved the instruction "dig" in the tree. Another explorer who got lost in the desert and was found with a notebook turned diary detailing the events of his gradual decline. Last and more relevant, a castaway! Mary Watson was living on a tropical Barrier Reef island when she and her 2 servants were attacked by natives in September 1881. Over a couple of days one servant was killed and the other speared in 7 places. On October 2nd, after their ammunition had run out and there was no sign of her husband returning, she, her new born baby and the seriously wounded Chinese servant crammed themselves into a small riveted iron tank not unlike the one found on Niku. I've seen the thing and I still can't see how two adults and a baby fitted into it and went to sea! The bodies were discovered accidentally in May 1882. She left a diary on Lizard Island, and another set of entries was found in the tank along with the bodies. Lizard Island is around the same latitude as Niku and like most of the islands in the area, used to be pretty rugged. Most of these islands are waterless and the sun is relentless. It also gives a little insight into surviving and caring for a seriously injured person for a while, as we have often speculated Earhart may have had to do if Noonan was injured in the crash. They managed to pack provisions and water into the tank, but the water soon gave out. (After 3 days - they left Sunday afternoon and by Thursday morning there was no water left). Although there was plenty off food and even some condensed (thick) milk left, with no water they were unable to eat. They survived 5 days without water in tropical conditions more harsh that Niku. The "trees" referred to in the diary are sparse and offer a little shade. Makes one think of the Ren tree in the Gardner report. There are references to things like "anchored the boat" which actually refer to this tiny iron tank. Ferrier was the name of Mary's newborn son, whose wrap she used to try to signal a passing ship. Diary 1 - Lizard Island September 27,1881 Diary 1 .. A Sam saw smoke in S. direction, supposed to be from native camp. Steamer bound north very close about 6pm; Corea I think. September 28 Blowing strong S.E. breeze. September 29 ... A Leong killed by the blacks over at the farm (a quarter of a mile from her cottage). Ah Sam found his hat, which is the only proof. September 30 Natives down on the beach at 7pm. Fired off rifle and revolver and they went away. October 1 Natives (4) speared Ah Sam; four places in the right side, and three on the shoulder. Got three spears from the natives. Saw ten men altogether. Diary 2 Found in the tank October 4 Left Lizard Island October 2nd 1881, (Sunday afternoon) in tank (or pot in which beche de mer is boiled). Got about three or four miles from the Lizards. Made for the sand bank off the Lizards, but could not reach it. Got on a reef. October 5 Remained on the reef all day on the look out for a boat, but saw none. October 6 Very calm morning. Able to pull the tank up to an island with three small mountains on it. Ah Sam went ashore to try to get water as ours was done. There were natives camped there, so we were afraid to go far away. We had to wait return of tide. Anchored under the mangroves; got on the reef. Very calm. October 7 Made for another island four or five miles from the one spoken of yesterday. Ashore, but could not find any water. Cooked some rice and clamfish. Moderate S.E. breeze. Stayed here all night. Saw a steamer bound north. Hoisted Ferrier's pink and white wrap but did not answer us. October 8 Changed anchorage of boat as the wind was freshening. Went down to a kind of little lake on the same island (this done last night). Remained here all day looking out for a boat; did not see any; very cold night; blowing very hard. No water. October 9 Brought the tank ashore as far as possible with this morning's tide. Made camp all day under the trees. Blowing very hard. No water. Give Ferrier a dip in the sea; he is showing symptoms of thirst, and I took a dip myself. A Sam and self very parched with thirst. Ferrier is showing symptoms. October 10 Ferrier very bad with inflammation; verry much alarmed. No fresh water, and no more milk, but condensed. Self very weak; really thought I would have died last night (Sunday). October 11 Still all alive. Ferrier very much better this morning. Self feeling very weak. I think it will rain to-day; clouds very heavy; wind not quite so hard. No rain. Morning fine weather. A Sam preparing to die, have not seen him since 9th. Ferrier more cheerful. Self not feeling at all well. Have not seen any boat of any description. No water. Nearly dead with thirst. I know this is almost off topic, but in view of my own "castaway experiments" on wearing one set of clothing that are only exposed to salt water, and only using salt water to wash/bathe over the last 6 months, and the few similarities to what we imagine Amelia may have gone through I thought it might interest someone. Th' WOMBAT. ************************************************ From Angus Murray In February 1962 a French army patrol discovered the wreck of Bill Lancaster's |Avro Avian in the Tanezrouft area of the Sahara desert (which is avoided even by the Bedouin). They call it Le Pays du Soif - The Land of Thirst. He survived for a week and left a detailed diary. He had crashed after engine trouble on the way to South Africa in 1933. His final message was: "So the beginning of the eighth day has dawned. It is still cool. I have no water....I am waiting patiently. Come soon please. Fever wracked me last night. Hope you get my full log. Bill." His diary was found perfectly preserved, wrapped in fabric and attached to the plane. The aircraft is now in Brisbane Australia. Of course the humid tropical conditions on Gardner are not conducive to the survival of organic material and any paper record left may well have been consumed by insects, UV radiation, moulds and bacteria before it could be found. Regards Angus. **************************************************************** From Ric Earhart may have left a journal. I sure hope she did and I sure hope we find it, but the fact that no journal has turned up so far is hardly a reason to doubt the other evidence that suggests that she was the castaway whose bones were found on Gardner. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:33:59 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Castaway evidence Jim, Ric was being less than truthful. He WAS captured by the Japanese and interred somewhere in Delaware. Several of us are mounting an effort to free him along with his faithful Indian companion, Pat Thrasher. Seriously the Japanese stuff has been beat to death by a few guys selling books. As Ric said there is just no credible evidence of any Japanese involvement. Most of the Japanese theorists fly our heroes into the Marshalls either directly from Lae or after missing Howland. Neither scenario is possible or logical. Some would have the Japanese steam a thousand miles through our ships and planes in order to pick up our duo AND their airplane from a reef or the open sea for whatever reason no one could imagine. Most will simply not deal with the logistics but magically put AE and FN in custody someplace they could not have got to. All have lots of evidence. It is either second or third or worse hand anecdotal evidence or it is physical evidence which has mysteriously disappeared. I truthfully would not waste a second thinking about a Japanese connection. Alan ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:42:22 EDT From: Thomas Van Hare Subject: Evaluating the Last Message At 8:43 am, local time, the USCGC Itasca heard Earhart transmit on 3105 kilocycles, "We are on the line of position 157 337. We will repeat this message. We will repeat this on 6210 kilocycles. Wait." Then, shortly thereafter, the Itasca logs as 'questionable' the following radio transmission from Earhart, "We are running on line North and South." These were the last two messages heard from Earhart. To my knowledge, that the last message was logged as 'questionable' has never been fully discussed in this forum. We have done something similar before with the word, "circling". (Ric, If the annotation, 'questionable', has been discussed in depth before and I somehow missed it, please let me know. I don't want to waste anyone's time.) The more I think about it, the more absolutely extraordinary it seems to me that so few people recognize that Earhart's last transmission was, in fact, possibly garbled -- or worse, it may not even be certainly Earhart -- after all, she says she'll be on 6210 and then inexplicably comes right back on 3105.... Among my questions: 1. What is the context of the term, 'questionable' -- who logged it, what do we know about what they meant? Are there any other circumstances where another transmission is similarly annotated? Are there any other locations/receivers that logged the final message? 2. Could 'questionable' mean that they weren't sure it was Earhart? Or does it mean that the message was not received clearly and they were uncertain if what they logged was what was actually transmitted? 3. What other possible message might have been transmitted? For instance, could she have possibly said, "We are running on (the) line North (to) South"? Or, "We are running (out of gas and are somewhere) on (the) line (157 337 either) North (or) South (of Howland)"? 4. Does Earhart ever use the term "running" to describe flying from one point to another? Was the term, "running" in common usage at the time? Thomas Van Hare ********************************************************************* From Ric No one ever wrote "questionable" in the log. I think you'll have a much better handle on the puzzling last message if you read the analysis at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/06_05_02Bulletin/analysis.html ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:44:03 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Beyond a reasonable doubt . . . For all of the lawyers out there (and those who play them on TV) does TIGHAR's data meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement? I'm not proposing a moot court, but I'm just curious that if this case were handled using present day rules of evidence, what would be the verdict. Any takers? LTM, whose record was expunged in 1978 Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ****************************************************** From Ric You sure know how to open a can of worms. ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:47:52 EDT From: Daryll Subject: From Fantasy (conspiracy) Island Since TIGHAR prides itself as a depository of Earhart facts, I have a request. #1 Do you have any photos of the Electra with static wicks ? #2 From Eric, >.....IF the Japanese were somehow involved in AE's disappearance, >there might be some official record of it in the Japanese military files >which were removed from Saipan after the war..... Japan has never been an open society, certainly not in the aspects of how an American would regard their own government documents. PBS had a special on MacArthur. A Japanese historian (name?) stated on camera, in his own language which was subtitled, that in the two weeks between Japan's surrender and the occupation by US forces, all documents that could be used against Emperor Hirohito in war crimes trials were destroyed. The Japanese still do not acknowledge crimes committed against the Chinese which there is ample outside evidence. Hirohito was the Emperor in the time period of the Earhart flight. Would the Emperor have known that they had rescued Earhart? The "buck" would theoretically stop there. MacArthur and the US had their own agenda with regards to post war defeated Japan. They hoped to achieve stability and cooperation of the people, by keeping the Emperor in place. Jackie Cochran (AE's dearest friend), who arrived in Tokyo almost as soon as MacArthur did, said she found Earhart documents. She never fully explained what she found in her mad dash to Tokyo to "explore the woman's role in Japanese aviation". She evaded direct questions regarding AE. Ask yourself how Earhart evidence found in Japan, could have affected the politics of the time. Daryll ************************************************************** From Ric Good question about the static wicks. I've never thought to look. I will when I get a chance. ================================================================ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:25:18 EDT From: Wesley Smith Subject: Wake Island Silly question perhaps - but I can't help but wonder why Fred Noonan didn't choose to head for Wake Island from Lae, instead of Howland? Wasn't Wake a familiar destination to him and didn't it also have a Pan Am Clipper station? With such facilities at Wake, why would they choose Howland? Further, isn't it shorter to Wake? Just curious if anyone has ever explored this angle (no pun intended). S. Wesley Smith ********************************************************** From Ric No runway at Wake. The Clippers were flying boats. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:18:27 EDT From: Alexander Subject: Re: copyright issue I read with interest this posting and wondered if TIGHAR license their photographs for publication and/or TV at all and if not do you receive requests for photographs? These days i am busy with work so i don't get that much time to reply but I still read most posts if and when i can. I have also bought a new computer which means that when i do post my text is all formatted unlike this time last year ! Thnx. Alexander (United Kingdom) *********************************************************************** From Ric We can, of course, only license the use of what we own (our name, logo, writings, and photographs or artwork that we have created), but we do that failry frequently. We occasionally get requests for the use of photographs and our response depends upon whether we have the right to release the photo in question and what the anticipated use of the photo will be. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:21:03 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Raffle idea for TIGHAR I vaguely remember someone selling parts of this cable , on plaques, in the past. It may have been the Franklin Mint or some such "collectable" organization. I wonder if there is any accessible cable left. Dan Postellon ********************************************************************** From Ric I think we'd spend more money just getting to Newfoundland (been there) than we'd ever recoup selling or raffling pieces of cable. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:24:07 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Beyond a reasonable doubt . . . Your standard is incorrect. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard in criminal law. This is not a criminal case. Actually it's not any kind of case but if it was it would be a civil case. That standard is the "preponderance of the evidence." Simply put that means there is more evidence one way than another. To apply that standard to the Niku theory I would argue there is more evidence to support Niku than to refute it or support an alternate theory. Alan ************************************************************************* From Bill Leary Dennis McGee wrote: > For all of the lawyers out there (and those who play them on TV) > does TIGHAR's data meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement? I'm > not proposing a moot court, but I'm just curious that if this case were > handled using present day rules of evidence, what would be the verdict. I've been forced to deal with courts a few times (as a witness, thank goodness, not the suspect). I'd actually thought about this question while waiting to testify. My own very personal view it that TIGHAR's current state is similar to that of a homicide where the cops are just a bit past the "you know, this guy's story is a bit fishy" stage. That is, there's an idea who might have done it (some likely bones, rumors of a plane wreck), there's the means (there was enough fuel, the island is on the last spoken heading), and there's the motive (we'd like to live), but they still have to gather the proof to before they can make the arrest. As to your question of verdict, the DA wouldn't take the case to court at this point, but the judge would probably issue a search warrant. - Bill #2229 ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:28:37 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Castaway evidence Sorry, I don't mean to be ragging on you. It's just that there is a lot of information about the "Japanese Capture" theory out on the website, and it pretty much establishes (at least in my mind) that the theory is based on not-so-good anecdotal evidence. But speculation is good and like I said, I wasn't swatting at you personally, Jim. LTM, Dave (#2585) ************************************************************************** From Phil Tanner Alan wrote: > I truthfully would not waste a second thinking about a Japanese >connection. And has anyone ever, in the entire annals of "spying on the Japanese", even attempted to explain what they were supposed to observe while overflying the Marshalls in the dark? Phil Tanner, 2271 ********************************************************************* From Ric Parachute flares. The Electra was actually designed to carry them for use in night landings on unlighted runways. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:31:31 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Castaway evidence ? Besides Ric's answer to your question, let me just add that of course, they may HAVE left an explicit message and we just haven't found it. There's still lots of scaevola to hack and rocks to turn over. I have this fantasy about a bottle with a scroll stuffed into it..... LTM (who likes to fantasize) Tom ************************************************************************ From John Having been in law enforcement for 14 years, I have yet to come across a case where a person who dies a natural death leaves a message before dying, other than the obvious with a suicide. This, of course, does not include wills, DNR's and such. Unless the person knew, without doubt that there time was at hand. It would seem to me that if, AE/FN were the castaway(s) that they may have held out hope of rescue until the end, or at least until they were beyond the point of carving/writing whatever. It would make it a lot easier of course, if they (whoever the castaway was) left a note with their name and address so that it would be relatively simple to verify the information. Knowing the who's and the how's and the why's makes for a simple case. This isn't one of them. My hat's off to the TIGHAR folks for their efforts. From my point of view the steps taken to resolve this are logical and, although it would be nice to say that the end result will be knowing AE/FN's fates, no one is claiming that will happen. If Niku is eliminated the search can then focus on somewhere else. If you eliminate all the falsehoods, the truth will remain. Personally, I think they are onto the truth and am looking forward to the conclusive proof that is coming. LTM- John ********************************************************************* From Ric Thanks John. So are we. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:35:58 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Static wicks What are static wicks, and what, if anything, is significant about them? ************************************************************************ From Ric Static wicks are short lengths of frayed metal cable that trail back usually from each wingtip. They are intended to dissipate any static electrical charge that builds up in the airframe while the airplane is in flight. I'm not sure when they first appeared on airplanes but I can't remember ever seeing any in photos of AE's Electra. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:39:31 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Flying South (Again!) > The way I see it, when they got to where Howland should have > been (and wasn't) Jon, we don't know Howland wasn't there. We only know they didn't see it. There is a big difference. There were a number of adverse factors in play at the time that might have made it difficult for them to see Howland. If you will review the archives and the Pelligrini flight you'll see what I'm referring to. Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric We also know that nobody aboard the Itasca or on Howland saw or heard the plane despite intense watching. The visibility was excellent and we know that the plane was below the cloud bases. I think we can safely say that the plane did not pass over or very close to the island. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:53:02 EDT From: Thomas Van Hare Subject: Evaluating the Last Message (reprise) Now I am confused. Please refer to the following page on the TIGHAR website: http://www.tighar.org/forum/navigation.html The following is an out take from that webpage, quoted here for reference and discussion purposes: In that context, Earhart final inflight radio message heard by the Itasca at 08:43 makes sense: "We are on the line 157 337. We will repeat this message. We will repeat this on 6210 kilocycles. Wait." This, like her previous transmissions, was heard on 3105 kilocycles. Having had no luck hearing replies to those transmissions she was going to try her other frequency. But after a moment, suddenly, unexpectedly, and contrary to what she just said, she was back on 3105 saying something that was logged as a "questionable" transmission: "We are running on line north and south." ... And yesterday, Ric, you wrote: >No one ever wrote "questionable" in the log. I think you'll have a much >better handle on the puzzling last message if you read the analysis at: >http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/06_05_02Bulletin/analysis.html ... so, if you have a moment, could you please clarify your source for your statement that the transmission was logged as "questionable", as quoted above from the navigation.html page? Would it be worthwhile discussing the last two questions (numbers 3 and 4), as follows: 3. What other possible message might have been transmitted? For instance, could she have possibly said, "We are running on (the) line North (to) South"? Or, "We are running (out of gas and are somewhere) on (the) line (157 337 either) North (or) South (of Howland)"? 4. Does Earhart ever use the term "running" to describe flying from one point to another? Was the term, "running" in common usage at the time? Thomas Van Hare Historic Wings http://www.historicwings.com/ ************************************************************************** From Ric >could you please clarify your source for your statement that the >transmission was logged as "questionable" If you looked at the analysis you saw that the actual log entry in question begins: (?/KHAQQ transmission.... I don't know how else to interpret that question mark. The question is, what was it that was "questionable"? >3. What other possible message might have been transmitted? What was written in the log can be read as: "We are running on north and south line." or "We are running on line north and south." As a rule, if we want to speculate that something else was said, the fewer words we insert or change the better. >4. Does Earhart ever use the term "running" to describe flying from one >point to another? Was the term, "running" in common usage at the time? As far as I know, "running" meant the same in 1937 as it does today. I know of no specialized usage of the term in aviation then or now. I can't recall any instance when AE ever used the term before, but we have very few examples of anything she said. LTM, Ric ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:10:24 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: copyright issue Ric wrote: > I hereby give you permission to use the material you've copied but your > original failure to respect the copyright is yet another example of the lack of > professionalism that has given me a low opinion of you............. ............................. DING! I do thank you for the permission... but c'mon, Ric... you can do better than that... I see that trying to be diplomatic about it gets nowhere fast around here; so let's try something else: In the first place, you knew right from the beginning that my intentions of placing pix on the website was to aid in the determination of the wreck photo as being AE's plane or not... You also knew right from the beginning that any and all work on that site was to be used for TIGHAR's purposes only: as a way of transmitting my work to the forum. Since the wreck photo (...and others that I've used to illustrate my points...) appear on other websites as well, I thought that it was a public domain photo; and since it was to the benefit of TIGHAR only - I also thought there wouldn't be any harm in using it. If this bothered you so much as to give you "a low opinion" of me, why didn't you say something at the very beginning? In the second place - before you go and get your panties all in a bunch - I do not consider it a "failure to respect the copyright ", when at least 2 of TIGHAR's members expressed their curiosity to me in knowing what I would be able to see in the other pix as well... So, if you really want to get technical about it, that indicated to me as being permission enough to continue with analyzing other photos; and then to transmit the work to the forum in the same manner... Ric then added: > (a low opinion of you) ...and your work. I must say that I'm a little disappointed, Ric; I really didn't expect the classic pattern from you... ...but I guess human nature is human nature no matter who you are... When I debunked Charles Berlitz's "Vanished Without A Trace" - pertaining to the boogieman running off with "Flight 19" (...which, BTW, I've located and positively ID'd one of those planes last August...) - the "classic pattern" started with bad-mouthing; and then progressed to the "nail 'em with a legality" level. But that's how it goes when you've struck a nerve... (Copyright law allowed me to quote from his book in a "rebuttal"; so the "legality" aspect didn't work...) The same pattern emerged from a photo analysis case with Mr. von Daniken. It happened again when I showed that the 1946 "Magic 12" papers were typed on a 1964 Smith-Corona typewriter... And now Ric, it appears to me that it's going down again: ...or does it go deeper than that? I guess I must have really struck a nerve... ...because I just can't fathom how you arrive at "a low opinion" of my work - based on my copying some pictures from your website for the purpose of conveying that work back to you... You know Ric, from one treasure hunter to another; I guess it would strike a nerve with me also; if someone came along and started pointed out things I wasn't aware of on my own treasure map... > I'll send the uncompressed .tif of the takeoff photo as you ask. Thank you - I received it; but I'm still trying to find the entire photograph - full background and all, uncompressed... > And yes, I'm laying for you. Ah... a game of "tit-for-tat", eh? Well then... let the games begin! LTM, (...who said Phil Class was proud...) Niki *********************************************************************** From Ric I've explained why I didn't raise the copyright issue and I've now given you permission, so your legalistic concerns would appear to be unfounded. I am not a treasure hunter. The nerve that you have struck with me is that I suspect that you are a fraud. If I am proved wrong I will apologize and feel very embarrassed. In the interest of proving me wrong I'm sure you'll be glad to elaborate for the forum just how you found and positively IDed one of the most famous lost planes in history. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:24:58 EDT From: Eric Subject: Verification Ric wrote: >Without documented verification an anecdote remains an anecdote. Aspects of the >Floyd Kilts story have been shown to be true. No aspect of the Japanese >Capture stories has been shown to be true. I've been under the impression that the Floyd Kilts story (a rather far-fetched anecdode) led TIGHAR to search out the PISS files which in turn verified that aspects of the Kilts bones story were based in fact. This in turn led us to believe in the strong possibility of AE and FN having landed at NIKU, which has driven much of our search efforts, which in turn has served to verify aspects of the PISS bones files. Fred Goerner collected a number of rather far-fetched anecdodes and sea stories but was never able to verify that any of them were the least bit based in fact. Had he been able to locate the Japanese military records from Saipan and had there been some reference to two American aviators being brought in, the anecdodes would have taken on greater credibility. IF those Japanese records still exist someplace, like the PISS files do, they would certainly be worth looking into. LTM, Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ******************************************************************* From Ric >I've been under the impression that the Floyd Kilts story (a rather >far-fetched anecdode) led TIGHAR to search out the PISS files... I wish we could claim that we are that sharp, but all we did was make the Kilts story known to the TIGHAR membership. It was Peter McQuarrie, a TIGHAR member doing research in his own field of study (WWII and it's impact on Micronesia) who stumbled upon Gallagher's "bones file" while doing research in Tarawa. We took it from there and eventually tracked down the rest of the documentation. Allegations of Japanese involvement in Earhart's disappearance have been far more widely known for far longer than the Floyd Kilts story, and archival research into Japan's prewar and wartime records has been undertaken by countless scholars. Nothing supporting the allegations has ever turned up. I'll leave it to those who support the Japanese Capture hypothesis to do their own research. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:31:27 EDT From: Niels Subject: Little castaway evidence -> japanese kidnapping ;-) Thanks Jon for your welcome message. Ric wrote: >I've never been a castaway so I don't know what castaways do. Have you ever >been a castaway and thought you would not be rescued? Do you know of any >instances where the remains of castaways have been found along with the sort of >communications you describe? Why do I feel agressivity in your reply? Or is it a special style I need to get used to? No I have never been a castaway. And I have no "evidence" nor witnesses your honor. Just sharing thoughts with the rest of the forum. What's wrong with that? At least some readers gave me some interesting replies. Thanks. Ric also wrote >Earhart may have left a journal. I sure hope she did and I sure hope we find it, but the fact that >no journal has turned up so far is hardly a reason to doubt the other evidence that suggests that >she was the castaway whose bones were found on Gardner. No one was suggesting any doubt here, except maybe you in your reply. I am not surprised that it is hard to find anything after all these years, but I would have expected those who were on the island in 1937/38 (Gallagher?) etc. to have found something more concrete then. It all looks like if someone has tried to hide all the evidence away, and the little that was found (including by TIGHAR) is what may have been overseen and left behind. How to explain that? I have no idea. But if I dare let my imagination go, I may come up with something like this: Fasten your seatbelts and read on: AE did indeed miss Howland and followed the line until she found Gardner. She ditched the plane, managed to send a few radio messages before she run totally out of fuel or the generator got drowned and the plane washed away (totally or partially). On 9-July Lambrecht overflies the atoll and does not see the plane (maybe covered by tide) nor the castaways. AE and FN have gone exploring the island for a better place (more shade, fresh water?), and miss to signal their presence to Lambrecht. They may have been exploring the heart of the jungle for water at this very moment and had no time to run to the beach or lagoon when they heard the plane. They may even have not heard them due to wind and sound of waves covering the engine noise. Those who have been on the island, do you know how long it takes for someone in the middle of the bush to run either side to the open?). How strong is the sound of the waves when the sea is rough? So far so good. Some days later, a japanese "fishing boat" or submarine that was on a spying mission in the area stops at Gardner. The japanes were potentially looking for or exploring strategic reefs or abandoned islands in US territory to use as bases in the event Japan were to invade Hawaii from the south. They were far away during the search for Earhart. They could hear it all on the radio and ducked until they knew the search was over, then went on with their mission that brought them to Gardner. Guess what? They find the castaways. The know theyy cannot leave witnesses behind, but they also know who the castaways are (they heard all radio exchanges for the search) and therefore decide not to kill them but to take them away. They take them onboard, comb the beach for all evidence, and sink the wreck or take it on board as well. And off they go to Saipan. As some witnesses saw them the Japanese pretended they found the castaways in the Marshalls as they did not want to reveal they were spying in the Phoenix isles. This is pure imagination of course, but this theory has the advantage to reconcile the Nilumaruru (my favorite) and the Marshall ditching theories. Both theories have troubling evidence, but the link is missing as having the plane crash in the Marshalls is pure nonsense. Oh yes. The bones? Well, based on evidence we have only Gallagher BELIEVES they may have been Earhart's, while that Fidjian doctor ruled this out, right? Now we do not necessarily have to believe that doctor, but for the time being we do not have better (that I am aware of). Niels (dreaming from my hot tub). NTM PS. And Ric, in case you wonder, no I have never been kidnapped by Japanese in the south Pacific and have no idea nor hard evidence that this is what they would have done, nor I am suggesting this is what has happened, nor am I implying or have the intention to in any way whatsoever that this is even a close hint to what has really happened. Nontheless, on the surface of the unmeasurable well of ignorance that I am, there are some bubbles of thoughts floating, and these make this theory appealing to me. ********************************************************* From Ric Well, at least you've given us some idea of how the Japanese Capture crowd might deal with proof that the Electra landed at Gardner. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:34:52 EDT From: Joe Subject: Re: copyright issue Just wondering out loud.....any chance you could go on the Larry King show with all the knowledge you have on AE's disappearance? Im sure it would create renewed interest from people around the world who have no idea of Tighar's existence! It may also create for you new membership funds! Joe *********************************************************** From Ric I wish that getting that kind of publicity was that easy. Look for me on the Larry King Show when we have conclusive proof. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:36:04 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Castaway Evidence Alfred Hendrickson writes: >but I think a castaway would have the type >of thoughts you suggest. I have heard of notes and journals left behind >by polar explorers who were facing their own demise and wanted to record >what had befallen them. It could be that AE left such a record, that it >still exists on Niku, and we haven't found it yet. Polar explorers regularly kept diaries as part of the scientific work that they regularly carried out ... it was not done to provide evidence of what happened if they died. Now, it is true that Robert Falcon Scott kept a diary of his last few days before he passed away, probably knowing that he would never survive. I think the situation is somewhat different between AE and polar explorers ... the polar explorers kept their food and supplies and shelter with them for many many weeks and kept daily diaries. Amelia of course brought no supplies with her other than perhaps a day or two, and upon arriving at Gardner, I suspect that the primary activity was finding food, water and shelter and not leaving behind written records. That's not to say written records don't exist, I just think its unlikely. One other point is that paper records in polar climates do survive long periods of time. Documents have been found in cairns decades after a polar explorer wrote them. It's less likely that a paper or even bark document would survive on Niku for very long; perhaps if AE wrote her diary on a clamshell and turned it upside down, we might have a chance to find it. Paige Miller #2565 LTM ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:37:42 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: heading south Jon Watson writes: >I'm not so sure. The way I see it, when they got to where Howland should have >been (and wasn't) they had two choices. They could throw up their hands, >admit they were totally lost and wander around ... Actually, Jon, I agree with everything you wrote (and I didn't quote it all). My only point was that their confidence had to be shaken, it's human nature. At some point, they did have to start thinking they are totally lost, although that's no reason to give up. I agree with you regarding the decisions they made, as you described in the part of the your letter that I didn't quote. Paige Miller #2565 LTM ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:42:40 EDT From: Ben Subject: Can Electras Float? The sound of wings, by Mary Lovell describes a water landing of a Lockheed Electra. I have paraphrased for copyright purposes. After experiencing failure in both engines, the pilot was able to land on a smooth sea just off the coast of Massachusetts, with a 10 mph headwind. The plane landed tail down, to lessen impact. The pilot and passengers survived the landing, and were rescued immediately. It took the Lockheed eight minutes to sink. Even on a calm ocean, it is complicated to judge a planes height above the surface. If AE stalled too high, the impact would likely have killed them both. In rough waters it is even harder to judge the effect of said stall, or the effect of high waves in a rough patch. When Itasca rushed to the area NNW of Howland on July 2, it reported "turbulent" waters and waves that were "four to six feet high" Sound of Wings pgs 288-89 It was largely assumed that the Electra could float "indefinitely" based on the empty fuel tanks. Everyone stuck to that theory and continued to ignore Joe Gurr. Amelia's former radio mechanic stated simply, that the fuel tanks "had vent openings, through which the water could fill them in a certain length of time." Sound of Wings Pg.296 If, in fact Amelia ditched into the water, based on this information, it seems unlikely to me, that the craft would have remained afloat long. Ric, if she's out there, I know you'll find her. ********************************************************************* From Ric Not if she crashed and sank at sea I won't. Nobody will. Besides, as Pat says, I can't find the mustard in the refrigerator. It's the TIGHAR teams and researchers who find stuff. I just point and shout. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:46:49 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Static wicks Ric wrote: >Static wicks are short lengths of frayed metal cable that trail back usually >from each wingtip. They are intended to dissipate any static electrical charge >that builds up in the airframe while the airplane is in flight. I'm not sure >when they first appeared on airplanes but I can't remember ever seeing any in >photos of AE's Electra. Actually, static charges will dissipate with or without static wicks. The purpose of the wick is to prevent (or minimize) damage to the airplane when this happens. I've experienced several static discharges (lightening strikes) in flight and after landing discovered a couple of wicks missing. In extreme cases, the static discharge may simply take a piece of the airplane with it. I've seen one of the rudders on a C-119 removed that way. No, it wasn't my airplane. ********************************************************************* From Ric I was treated to a spectacular show of St. Elmo's Fire one night in a heavy snow storm in a DC-3 equipped with static wicks. Go figure. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:49:38 EDT From: Emmett Subject: Final Approach Received my copy of 'final approach'. OUTSTANDING! Emmett **************************************************** From Ric Thanks Emmett. I have to say that reviews so far have been universally enthusiastic. ================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:54:29 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Copyright As I no longer subscribe to the FORUM, several of the postings on the current debacle on copyright were forwarded to me by some folks who knew I would find them particularly interesting. It seems Ric has some odd ideas on exactly to whom the copyright laws are applicable. I put together a research packet for the 2001 C/E which included multiple photographs for which I paid a whopping sum of $356.00 and signed a copyright agreement with Boeing. My agreement stated very specifically that the photographs for which I had purchased the rights were to only be used in my research paper. Before I signed the agreement, I contacted Ric, asked if he wanted to include TIGHAR, and he DECLINED. Imagine my surprise when they appeared shortly after our return from California on the TIGHAR website! I was not contacted at any time by Ric, Pat or any other yahoo associated with TIGHAR. Not only did this flagrant violation of my copyright agreement open me to lawsuit, it also endangered an excellent source for primary documents for me as a researcher. The photographs were removed from the website only after I explained to Ric I was left no option but to report TIGHAR to Boeing for reproducing the photographs on the website without my permission or my knowledge. The photographs were removed, but not before some heated email was exchanged. So I guess you could say copyright applies to where you sit for Ric. Margot Still Former TIGHAR #2332CE ********************************************************************* From Ric As I explained to Margot at the time, the apparent copyright violation was a misunderstanding on my part and was corrected as soon as she pointed it out. ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:47:10 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: copyright issue > "Flight 19" (...which, BTW, I've located and > positively ID'd one of those planes last August...) Niki, I have to tell you I don't believe one word of that. Please tell us exactly which TBM you found and how you found it and how you identified it. I am beginning to think you are 100% BS. Alan ********************************************************************* From Carl Gee, I, for one, as a long time interested Flt 19 searcher and as such lead the pack in wanting to know more about that allegation in finding one of those General Motors Avengers. By the way if you find one then the rest have to be close by. That brings up the question why don't the rest of us know the location and disposition of those wrecks? I am sure the US Navy wants to know as they keep all equipment as their property as well as the disposition of the crews Carl from SW Florida ********************************************************************* From Alexander Niki wrote: >It happened again when I showed that the 1946 "Magic 12" papers were typed >on a 1964 Smith-Corona typewriter... ...Correct me if i am wrong here but didn't Stanton T Friedman prove the theory behind the majestic papers a few years back... i could be wrong maybe someone else can confirm this... sorry to wander off topic. ********************************************************************* From Ric I had never heard of this but from what I've been able to pull up very quickly with Google there is apparently an old controversy about some documents known as the "Majestic 12" or "MJ-12" papers which supposedly prove that the U.S. Government is hiding information about UFOs. Seems odd that Niki would get the name wrong. Maybe it's like his Beechcraft Electras. **************************************************************************** From Robert Klaus Ric, Am I missing something in the current debate? As I understand it Niki is trying to prove that by using his own methods of photo analysis he can show the aircraft in "The Wreck Photo" is not NR16020, and is probably a Ki-54. I thought that this had already been established to the general satisfaction of the forum by the recent discussion of cowl opening diameter. In fact I was convinced of both these propositions by the work Simon Ellwood did two or more years ago. Is the idea just to find out how many indications can be found on the photo that it's not the airplane we're looking for? LTM Robert G. Klaus ************************************************************************** From Ric The point may have originally been to put a few more nails in the Wreck Photo coffin, but Niki now wants to offer his opinion on other imagery. Some forum subscribers been impressed by his work. I am not. We're always happy to have the benefit of expert help, but when serious questions arise about the expertise of a self-proclaimed expert we have an obligation to make inquiries or we run the danger of having the investigation misled by a charlatan. ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:48:13 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: Copyright Margot Still wrote: > ...So I guess you could say copyright applies to where you sit for Ric. I don't know who the good people are that forwarded the previous messages to Margot; but I would appreciate it very much if you would also forward her a kiss and a hug - and tell her if she's ever in Ft. Lauderdale to look me up... ...I at least owe her a dinner for that one... > ...I was not contacted at any time by Ric, Pat or any other yahoo > associated with TIGHAR. Margot, you're too much... Niki ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:48:50 EDT From: Jim Subject: Re: Castaway evidence Alan, Thanks as a new person to the forum I do not know what has transpired in the past. My knowledge started in 1970 in Siapan when I was there on Vacation, Flying for CAL. I was introduced to the Earhart story by local Siapanese in their 60's. They had no other motive that I was aware of but later while flying for Air Mic for 3 years I heard a lot of stories some of which tied in with other stories from Veterans who were there then. Jim ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:55:35 EDT From: Jim Subject: Re: Static wicks Hey Guy's Seems some pilots are talking now. Try waking up at night flying thru heavy T-Storms and seeing a ball of light,( fire) go bouncing down the center of the plane and exit the rear clamshell doors. It does get your attention. Same as hearing small explosions out on the wings as static discharges happen. Upon getting on the ground and inspecting the wing finding small holes, (like machine gun holes only smaller) there. Also makes a believer out of this pilot. Jim ****************************************************************** From Angus > Actually, static charges will dissipate with or without static wicks. Unless the electric field strength is sufficiently high, static will not easily discharge. Static wicks rely on the principle that charge density is high on highly curved surfaces (ie points). This is because the repulsive component (between electrons) of the electric field is less where the surface is highly curved. Consequently the electrons are able to crowd closer together as they attempt to space themselves out over the surface in accordance with trying to reduce their net energy to a minimum, as required by the laws of physics. The localised high electric field resulting then becomes sufficiently great to overcome the ionisation potential of the air (ie the air breaks down and conducts). The result is that the accumulated charge leaks continuously and harmlessly away to the air. Van der Graaf generators are designed for this reason with smooth curved domes of large surface area which minimise the leakage of charge to the atmosphere. So static wicks do more than serve as a sacrificial part of the aeroplane. They prevent the static accumulating to the point where a sudden discharge from very high voltage is a danger. Look at the 5 or 10 million volt discharges that you can get from a Van der Graaf generator charge storage dome and you will appreciate the advantage of avoiding this type of discharge. Another prime advantage is the reduction in receiver noise associated with the corona discharge that can occur through the antenna or arcing across the antenna insulators. St Elmo's fire is this discharge heating the air and causing it to glow. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Daryll #1. Randy Jacobson wrote: >What are static wicks, and what, if anything, is significant about >them? I'm sure you have have seen them Randy. They are limp (half rigid) little ropes (in groups of 3 or 4) hanging off the tips of wings, elevators and rudders on airplanes. Their location and position are areas that have been found to concentrate and collect static charges. Their purpose is to dissipate static charges that build up on airframes as the airplane passes through rain, dust, and any other atmospheric particles. You've probably seen something similar under cars dragging on the pavement. You have experienced it too walking across your carpet in your stocking feet. If you sit down on the couch and don't touch a door handle the charge will slowly dissipate. It is of concern because of the effect it has on radio communications. If a pilot squawked static on the radio, maintenance inspects the wicks and surface bonding and the electrical bonding of the control surfaces. Skeet Gifford and two of our own researches have reported experiencing violent static discharges. Paul Rafford who flew on the Clippers had personally lost a VHF antenna at it's base. He also knew two instances where he knew that the trailing antenna was lost by other Clippers. These violent discharges are small lighting strikes in the air. The same as a lighting bolt to earth or should I say up from the earth. In both cases it is a matter of proximity and potential difference of the charges. Airline passengers wouldn't like to know that they could be flying in a lighting rod. The wicks can handle a certain rate of static build up on the airframe. When the rate of build exceeds the dissipating rate you have "St. Elmo's Fire" or loose parts of the airplane. One of our researchers has said that he recalls putting wicks on old Pan Am DC-3 & 4's in 1943. The planes didn't show any signs of having them before that time. The question is when did static wicks arrive on the scene and start to be used on airplanes? The problem was recognized. Paul Rafford pointed out that the last radio message heard from the Hawaiian Clipper in '38' between Guam and Manilla was to delay the transmission of the weather report from Manilla because the Clipper was experiencing Precipitation Static. Since no wreckage was found floating (although an oil slick was reported) one theory was that the radio was lost at that point. In Musick's case near Pago Pago they did find burned wreckage from an explosive detonation. I can think of three pieces of evidence that indicate the Electra was experiencing static build-up: Part of the Earhart mystery is why were they experiencing radio problems? If the Electra shows no evidence of dealing with static by using wicks, then that could be a clue. The crash & sankers will surely seize upon this, explosive detonation, to argue their theory. #2. It is amusing to read why the Japanese have been discounted in the TIGHAR's forum research. If preponderance of evidence is used as the standard, the scales are tipped to the Japanese side of the issue. I can understand why Alan is so concerned about confusing the membership on this subject. If you can't keep up,...you just can't keep up. The discussions of a search pattern take for granted that there wasn't a plan "B" . This implies that all the people involved in the world flight were idiots and no one ever suggested to the pair,.."hey would if you don't find Howland???" Noonan controlled the flight using Pan Am's cruise control methods. His job was not only to find Howland but not let the airplane get out of fuel range of land, which he did. This implies that you have to have a land mass or several land masses in mind for a Plan "B". You cannot go looking for the land masses and still call it a plan. It's only 120 miles of open water that separates the Gilberts chain from the Marshall chain. What's Cruise Control ?? Let's say the family wants to go to Grand Ma's house (BCP before cell phones). There are no gas stations between your house and until you're right next door to Grand Ma's house. Dad's small car has a small gas tank. There is only enough gas to get to Grand Ma's house if there are no Traffic delays or back-ups or detours. Dad will have to know when he has to turn around and go back home or face the prospect of walking along the road with mom, the baby and three little kids. Daryll ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:00:21 EDT From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Leaving a journal I have been fascinated by the postings about whether or not Amelia may have left a journal someplace on NIKU that we just haven't found yet. During the entire final flight, Amelia was writing the events as they occurred to be included in the book she planned to publish. She had written the same type of book about her Atlantic crossing, and also wrote books about her love of flying and why she did it. So, its my opinion that were she stranded on an island, waiting to be rescued, she would definitely write about her experiences, be it on paper, or clam shells, or whatever she could find. I don't think it matters whether or not she believed they would be rescued, or felt that they were doomed. She was the type of person who would want someone to know what happened to her, and also to describe what it was like. Wasn't some kind of journal found that was thought to be Noonan's? If that survived, its likely that another journal did. Thanx to all for the interesting and thoughtful reasoning shown on the forum Jackie Tharp ************************************************************************ From Ric No. We have found no journal of any kind. ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:01:57 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Verification > Nothing supporting the allegations has ever turned up. I'll leave > it to those who support the Japanese Capture hypothesis to do their own > research. Well, there you are - the fact that nothing was found proves that there was a massive conspiracy... ltm jon ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:10:49 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Betty reply Please pass on to Betty my appreciation for her responses to my questions - Betty's response about her fathers newspaper reading habits begets two follow on questions - Was Betty's mother (Olive) an avid reader? - Did Betty's father as a studious reader find interest in the search for Earhart after Betty's alleged AE broadcast reception? Ric, you and Betty are probably wondering where I'm going with this line of questions - In researching documents some understanding comes from how a document was used, in the case of Betty's notebook I'm at odds to understand why it was not used for 30+ years - Understanding the participants might help me validate Betty's notebook - Something is odd about this notebook and its journey. Respectfully, Tom Strang ******************************************************************* From Ric I'll pass your questions along to Betty but I can tell you that Betty made at least one attempt during the war to get somebody to pay attention to her notebook. She was working as a switchboard operator and had occasion to talk to officials in Washington while she was facilitating calls to military installations in the Tampa/St.Pete area. She tried but nobody wanted to listen. Then again in the 1970s, her friend John Hathaway tried to get Fred Goerner interested in the notebook (we've discussed that on the forum) but he too was dismissive. I see nothing odd about any of that. ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:12:52 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: Castaway Evidence Ric wrote: >Do you know of any instances where the remains of castaways have been found >along with the sort of communications you describe? There numerous excellent examples such as the well-known crash of the B-24 Liberator "Lady Be Good" in the Libyan desert in 1943 and discovered in 1959 by oil exploration crews. Here is an extract from http://www.qmfound.com/lady_be_good_b-24_bomber_recovery.htm discussing various forms of communication left by the crewmen castaways before they perished in the desert: During the search, items of equipment and several improvised arrowhead markers were found on an old trail leading northwest. The first items found were a pair of rubber flight boots with fleece lining which had the toes pointed in an arrow facing north. These were found 19 miles north of the crash site near the the vehicle tracks left by a WWII convoy. The arrowhead markers were made from parachutes weighed down with stones, presumably to mark the crew's trail in an attempt to lead Air-Sea Rescue to their location. Not far north of the last parachute found were the shifting sands of the vast sand sea of Calanscio. Despite months of searching no remains were found. In the words of the search team leaders, "The search was abandoned when equipment began to deteriorate and fail and the probability of the airmen being completely covered by shifting sand made the dangers of further search impractical." On 11 February 1960 the remains of five crew members were found on a plateau inside the sand sea by British Petroleum employees searching for oil. The five remains were closely grouped in an area littered with canteens, flashlights, pieces of parachutes, flight jackets, and other readily identifiable bits of equipment and personal effect. A diary belonging to Lieutenant Robert Toner was found among the effects. His short poignant diary entries for the eight days from 5 to 12 April 1943, told a remarkable story of the airmen's courage and superhuman efforts to survive. It established the fact that the crew bailed out at 2:00 A.M. on 5 April 1943; that Lieutenant John S. Woravka, the bombardier, failed to join the main team after bailout; that eight of the crew members trekked 85 miles north to the point at which the remains were found; and that Sergeants Shelley, Moore and Ripslinger continued on in search of help while Lieutenants Hatton, Toner, Hays and Sergeants Adams and LaMotte waited, too exhausted to continue. The eight men had only half a canteen of water among them during their crossing of a desert which reached 130 degrees Fahrenheit at midday. Desert survival experts had predicted before the remains were found that the airmen could only have moved 25 or 30 miles on foot. Tom Riggs #2427 ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:24:36 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: copyright issue Niki's post regarding these events was pretty interesting. It was also interesting that he ended his letter "LTM, (...who said Phil Class was proud...)" Phillip J. Klass is a retired Senior Aviation Editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology. His raison d'etre seems to be the debunking of UFO reports. He is currently affiliated with, and I believe one of the founders of CSICOP - Committee for the Scientific Investigation of claims of the Paranormal. All the events Niki lists in his post seem to be events that Phillip J. KLASS has written opinions about. Except that Niki has misspelled his name, just as he did "Magic-12". Usually referred to as "Majestic 12", sometimes as "Majic 12". The reference to the typewriter is interesting. It appears that Phillip Klass was the first person to report that the documents were typed on a Smith-Corona. Different web sources indicate different dates, for the manufacture of the machine. The date most referred to is 1963, but they could be typos. Niki wrote: It happened again when I showed that the 1946 "Magic 12" papers were typed on a 1964 Smith-Corona typewriter... According to an article originally published in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Monday, October 30, 1989 which is excerpted below: >Klass said a ''highly respected document examiner,'' whom he calls ''P.T.,'' >claims that Friedman and his collaborators were told that the Truman >document was a counterfeit. >''It was typed on a Smith Corona machine not introduced until '62; the >letter was dated Sept. 24, 1947,'' he said. In addition, Niki refers to a photo analysis case with Mr. von Daniken (_Chariots of the Gods_ etc von Daniken?) and debunking the Berlitz Flight 19 writings. UFO stuff? Certainly all stuff that it is documented that Phillip J. Klass was involved with. Could our Niki really be Phillip J. Klass? Or has Niki deluded himself into believing he actually did what Klass is documented to have done (regarding the identification of the typewriter). Or maybe Niki is the mysterious document examiner "P.T." Hmmmmm..... ltm, jon ================================================================ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:15:01 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: OH Niki! OK Niki, now you've finally gone over the edge. Unless your name is Peter Tytell who is widely referenced as the person who claims that the MJ-12 docs were done on a 60's era Smith Corona Typewriter, you are full of sh*t. I keep up with this forum and have felt a little uneasy with Ric's treatment of you. But unless you can really backup up your most recent claims -- none of this 'can't you guys tell when I'm kidding around bs' -- I vote to block his access to our forum. If I'm wrong about Niki, I'll be up front in the line to apologize. Bob ***************************************************************** From Jim ACTUALLY THE NAME MAJISTIC-12 IS CORRECT AS WELL AS MAJIC-12. THEY ARE A GROUP OF 12 MEN WHO WERE VERY WELL KNOWN AT THE TIME RUNNING THE UFO OPERATION. FEED IN EITHER OF THE ABOVE NAMES IN THE INTERNET AND SEE WHAT YOU GET. JIM I HAVE A SIZABLE COLLECTION AT HOME ON MY MAC. SOME DAY WHEN I CAN RETIRE I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON ONE OF YOUR EXPEDITIONS BUT ALAS I NEED TO EAT AND HAVE SHELTER NOW. *************************************************** From Lawrence: Having no expertise in photo imaging, I thought Niki's work on the wreck photo was fantastic. However, due to his latest claims, the discovery of one of the Avengers of flt. 19 fame, and now the Majestic 12 papers, I believe I have just entered the "Twilight Zone". ================================================================ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:34:36 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: priorities > I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON ONE OF YOUR EXPEDITIONS BUT ALAS I NEED TO > EAT AND HAVE SHELTER NOW. Jim, you need to get your priorities straight. Alan ================================================================ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:49:01 EDT From: Niki Subject: Re: OH Niki! ...OH Whati? Bob Lee wrote: > OK Niki, now you've finally gone over the edge. Oh yea?... well I'll bet you that there are those who'll attest that it happened long ago... > Unless your name is > Peter Tytell who is widely referenced as the person who claims that the > MJ-12 docs were done on a 60's era Smith Corona Typewriter, you are full > of sh*t. ...woo ...such language... I may have to cover my eyes so I can't hear any of this... Well, no Bob; my name isn't Peter Tytell ... ...but let's hang-on just a second here, dude: Now what was that you said? "...the person who claims that the MJ-12 docs were done on a 60's era Smith Corona Typewriter..."? No, it's not the "claims" part I'm after; it's the "...60's era Smith Corona Typewriter..." that I'm after... Hmm... doesn't sound too specific if you ask me... kinda like he wasn't quite sure, Bob? Les'see now... if we span the entire decade, he could've meant anything from the classic "Hunt-n-Pec" model - all the way up to one of them Electric Fancy-Shmancy jobs with all them bells and whistles... no? Now let's just put that along side my original statement: "It happened again when I showed that the 1946 "Magic 12" papers were typed on a 1964 Smith-Corona typewriter..." I'm sorry, on a what?... "...a 1964 Smith-Corona typewriter..." Oh... well, did you read that part right there, Bob? It sure looks like a whole different claim to me... ...sorta like narrowing it down to one of them there "Hunt-n-Pec" models; wouldn't you say? (BTW, the missssspelings were put there for a purpose; but to keep it short, let's just consider them all as typos for now and leave it at that...) Anyways, lets move right along... > I keep up with this forum and have felt a little uneasy with Ric's > treatment of you. Thank you, Bob... I really do appreciate that... but it's just a little something between me and Ric. (I can't put my finger on it exactly; but it's sorta like petting a cat from its butt back towards its head...) > But unless you can really backup up your most recent > claims -- none of this 'can't you guys tell when I'm kidding around bs' -- ...that's it ...I ain't lookin' no more... > I vote to block his access to our forum. From this I may NEVER recover... Okay, Bob... let's start out with a good ol' Bronx cheer... But first I must ask Ric if it's okay to post an off-topic reply... (...just so I don't get pounced-upon for doing so...) Yo, Ric... ...I can? ...what? ...you can't wait to hear this, either? Well, Okay... but just remember: you guys asked for it... Back in '89 (...or there abouts...) I wrote a book entitled, "The Shocking Truth About UFO's". (I say "there abouts" 'cause it took over three years to write; and with all the editing and RE-editing and further additions that always seem to come to mind when you THINK you've completed it; you're NEVER really finished...) Within its pages were many a debunked case: The Apollo Moon Mission, The Merc and Gem Missions (footage analysis), The 1981 Billy Meiyer "Pleiadian Beam Ship" (footage analysis), Gold of the Goofs (von Daniken), Majic (BTW, although you will see this as "Majic 12", "MJ-12", "MJ 12", "Majic 12 Papers", "MJ-12 Papers" and lately, "Magic-12 Papers" (for reasons I'll get to later); the correct terminology for this fiasco is simply, "Majic"), there's also How UFO's (and the people that drive them) Relate to the Bible (uh... oh...) and among a few more, "The 1964 Smith-Corona Typewriter". I would have had the "Roswell Incident" in there also; but the "Roswell Morning Star" wouldn't sell me the rights to any of the "crashed saucer" pix they owned... (I guess sales were booming in that town; and they didn't need another "dad'gummit 'bunker" spoilin' their tourist trade...) ..where were we?... ...oh yea, the typewriter.. I finally got a publisher to handle the manuscript; but after a month-or-so went by, I was informed that there was some feedback from some "proofreaders" pertaining not only to ALL the case data; but the typewriter claim itself. (I just had a STRONG suspicion that, at least, one of these "proofreaders" was a UFOnut...) It seems that since Mr. Tytell used a term that spanned the entire decade of the sixties in his descriptive, I wouldn't be able to claim the year of 1964 as the discovery in mine due to copyright infringement! When you guys see dates posted on websites, which pertain to the typewriter year of manufacture; it is purely speculative: this is why nobody appears to agree on a set date. (I'm sure some of you have read patents where the same game is played: "Well the device will do this and this and this... and it'll also do anything that can or can't be remotely related to this; including anything we can't think of at the moment; and it'll do it for the next 75 years to come...) Well I wasn't changing anything... after getting just about the same pitch from other publishers, "It's well-written; but it seems to be just a bit too controversial for our publishers"; I decided to just go and put it out myself. Mistake #1 After contacting Phillip J. Klass about writing a forward to the edition (...which he politely declined due to his "500 year" work load...) I presented him with more fuel to burn the Majic documents with: Among the MANY inconsistencies in the papers themselves, as to type format, military date format (written in modern computer format) and a host of other gems that have been discovered not only by myself, but by other investigators as well; probably the best one of all was where I detected the header on one of the pages as being a "cut and paste" method of print. (It's interesting to note that Bill Moore, one of the three presenting these documents to the world, was previously employed as a "paste-up" artist... the other 2 involved were Jamie Shandera [a low budget "flick" producer] and Stanton Friedman [a self-proclaimed "Nuclear Physicist"]) The clincher was that he wasn't very good at "pasting up" much: the header on this particular page was cockeyed by a quarter of an inch! Another peach I worked on was with the signature of Harry Truman. Even though I've determined (through a very simple spaced-overlay technique) that the signature was real enough; I couldn't accept that ol' Harry had anything to do with this mess... It then became obvious that this may also be a "cut-and-paste" case. To prove this to myself first, I contacted the Truman Library and got copies of anything and everything that man signed... but nothing seemed to perfectly match the Majic signature. Now, I really can't take credit for this; but it was the Librarian - the "Keeper of the Docs" that came up with the solution to this puzzle... His name escapes me at the moment (I'll post it if need be), but he noticed that there was ONE page missing in the sequence from a particular file that I requested. He thought it odd; and then a