Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:15:12 EDT From: John Subject: Re: Bones and Mason Freemason & Knights Templar is a fraternal group with secrets. Most of libraries in the US have books that reveal all of the secrets. Regards, John ***************************************************** From Ric Ahh but how would one know that all of the secrets have been revealed? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:16:59 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: How Forums Work Don't forget the 15 who tell us how AE "would have" or "should have" changed her light bulb and why FN didn't care because he was drunk. Tim ********************************************************************** From Alan Unfortunately Suzanne is correct. Possibly we ALL have too much free time on our hands including Suzanne which puts me in which category, Suzanne? Alan ************************************************************** From Malcolm Please thank Suzanne for her joke. It had nothing to do we AE but it set me in a perfect mood for my days' work. Malcolm Andrews ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:21:52 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Carol > Poor old Elgen he just lost his wife, and he's really hurting. He needs a > wife for hire? Yuk, yuk, yuk. This is too much, too many, too far, way outta line, way outta hand, way beyond poor taste, and well into shameful. > Goodbye Carol. Thank you, thank you, thank you. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ********************************************************************* From Russ Matthews (#0509EC) Ric wrote... >No, I don't want to comment on any of the above except to say that you >have graduated from harmlessly stupid to overtly offensive. Goodbye Carol. Amen to that. LTM, Russ *********************************************************************** From Chris in Petaluma, >Poor old Elgen he just lost his wife, >and he's really hurting. He needs a wife for hire? Yuk, yuk, yuk. It ain't >me. I certainly hope that's the last of her outragous ramblings on this forum. Chris ******************************************************************* From Ric Trust me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:35:40 EDT From: Bill Shea Subject: Nauru Radio We know that Nauru Radio heard Amelia mention seeing a ship (possibly the Murtlebank) around 1030ish PM. What else do we know about what Nauru Radio said? Wouldn't Nauru Radio also have been in touch with the Murtlebank by radio since it arrived into Nauru that next morning? Did Nauru Radio or anyone else check the Murtlebank's logbook to see just where it was at the time Emelia might possibly have seen it. One would expect these questions to have been asked to Nauru Radio after AE and FN were missing. This would have helped locate where the 10E was at 1030ish PM that night. Cheers from Bill Shea ************************************************************************* From Ric Remember that Nauru Radio was not officially part of the flight and had no responsibility to investigate anything. All we know about what they heard is what they reported via radio the night of July 3rd. FAIRLY STRONG SIGNALS, SPEECH NOT INTELLIGIBLE, NO HUM OF PLANE IN BACKGROUND BUT VOICE SIMILAR THAT EMITTED FROM PLANE IN FLIGHT LAST NIGHT BETWEEN 4.30 AND 9.30 P.M. MESSAGE FROM PLANE WHEN AT LEAST 60 MILES SOUTH OF NAURU RECEIVED 8.30 P.M., SYDNEY TIME, JULY SECOND SAYING "A SHIP IN SIGHT AHEAD". SINCE IDENTIFIED AS STEAMER MYRTLE BANK WHICH ARRIVED NAURU DAYBREAK TODAY. REPORTED NO CONTACT BETWEEN ITASCA AND NAURU RADIO. CONTINUOUS WATCH BEING MAINTAINED BY NAURU RADIO AND SUVA RADIO. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:37:23 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: how do you jack up the plane As to jacking up the plane, how do you think the Shark tree and Dr. Stone's tree got bent at those 90 and 45 degree angles ;-) On a more serious note, your hypothesis on how the WoF got there could be tested if there is anyone remaining from the Gardner PISS days whom we could ask about an offshore tie off point near the boathouse. LTM, and a salute to the Niku Vp team for all their fine work this far. Dave Porter, 2288 ********************************************************* From Ric Good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:40:58 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Bones and Mason Marty wrote: >I've been inducted into two fraternities. Both used bones in the induction >rites. In both I was sworn to secrecy about the rituals. I would not >expect the Masons, as a general rule, to publish the details of their inner >workings for non-members to inspect. As I said, I am a Mason, have been inducted thru the standard rituals, and NO bones (real or artificial) were used in any way, shape or form. I have been in several lodges for similar inductions and rituals and again, have seen NO bones of any sort used in the rituals. And, yes, I was and am sworn to secrecy. By telling you what we did NOT do, I am not violating any "secrets". LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************** From Ric We had a club when I was about 14 and everything was secret and there were NO GIRLS ALLOWED. But eventually I grew up - sort of. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:42:26 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Myrtlebank I like the Myrtlebank theory, particularly since no one on the Ontario has come forward to say it was their ship to the best of my knowledge. There is always a problem when someone comes forward considerably after the fact, however. Although the exact position of the Myrtlebank is not set in concrete I think that would put our heroes a bit north of course but not unusually so. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:48:07 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Lae Position A query on coordinates. I note Randy had the position S06 44 E146 59 for Lae. Is this the position for the town or the airstrip? I seem to remember in Colorado or Lexington's report the position was given as S06 45 E146 55 but once again I don't know if that was the town or the airstrip or if indeed there is any significant difference. Would you agree that is unlikely that Fred ever bothered to check the positions given to him for departure points by taking a sight since the accuracy of his navigation didn't really warrant it? Regards Angus. ********************************************************************* From Ric I don't know but the discrepancy in the two positions quoted above seems inconsequential anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:50:38 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Staying near the Norwich City I honestly can't see the castaways hanging out near the Norwich City just for the sake of a landmark. But maybe they lingered nearby until the supply cache ran out or dwindled down to amounts that were easy to move to the 7 site? (Am I remembering correctly that supplies were left by the Norwich City crew's rescuers?) If so, do we have any guesses as to how much was there and how long it would take two people, with one possibly injured, to go through it? I apologize if this has been hashed over before. By the way, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" was on cable last weekend. LTM Amanda Dunham #2418CE ******************************************************************* From Ric What you say seems logical but we really don't have a handle on how many or exactly what kind of provisions were left in the cache. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:52:43 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Jacking it up Alan Caldwell wrote: >If Harrison Ford and Anne Hesche could do it so could Fred and Amelia. > >Alan >******************************************************* >From Ric > >Anyone who has ever been out on that reef is rolling on the floor holding >their sides. That's odd - I was doing that during the movie. And it takes a lot of cinematic stupidity to distract me when Harrison Ford has his shirt off... Sheesh. Bamboo landing gear. That film would've been saved as a comedy if they'd only had a cameo appearance from Bob Denver. Here's a real question: supposing just for a moment that the WoF is indeed from the Electra and the tire did go flat. What would have been the damage to the wheel rim; what would it look like? LTM, Amanda Dunham #2418CE *********************************************************** From Ric I don't know. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:30:43 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots I don't recall ever reading that the Myrtlebank reported an aircraft passing overhead nor one of it's personnel reporting that. I have read such reports about the USS Ontario and some of its personnel. Ron Reuther ************************************************ From Ric Randy, do I have this screwed up? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:41:13 EDT From: Daryll Subject: For Marty Marty wrote: >Possibly--if the original eyewitnesses are correct, then testimony >about the character of the eyewitnesses may be helpful. This is how I >understand the "apostolic character" of the Christian tradition, so I >can't dispute the general principle...If there was only one >eyewitness of sound character who claimed to have seen AE (or AE & FN) >and if there were some other strand of evidence to back up the sighting, >it might make an impressive argument. Marty, I understand that you are a Jesuit, am I correct? Are you the religious voice of the TIGHAR branch of Earhart research? An avid Earhart researcher would recognize the name of Monsignor Kelly and how the Catholic church was implicated in part of the Earhart story. But this subject is tooo explosive for this forum. I have thought and maybe even expressed before that Earhart research is akin to a religious experience. A person believes what they want to believe because of their perspective of the evidence. The different research groups, AES, TIGHAR, and the Crash & Sankers have their own belief systems. It all starts with Amelia Earhart being a real person who walked among us and was loved and respected by a great many people. 08:46 ITASCA time July 2, 1937 is the point where the real Earhart documented world meets the Earhart research world. Finding out what happened to Earhart has been referred to on this forum as the "Holy Grail" of aviation. AES & TIGHAR research involves a resurrection of sorts after 08:46 July 2nd 1937. We argue back and forth that the lack of evidence for Earhart's fate is the result of "Natural" or "Human" forces. When Earhart researchers are confronted with contemporaneous evidence like Hull's telegram presumably to recruit British assistance for a boat search in the Gilberts: Secretary of State Cordial Hull sent on July 30, 1937, to the American Embassy in London which contained these words: "Evidence which to many sources seems positive indicates that Amelia Earhart (Mrs. Putnam) was on land the two nights following her disappearance." [JK / BP] We, as researchers, have to logically resolve why two people who more than likely made it to dry land in this vast ocean, got themselves disappeared AGAIN. Daryll ******************************************************************* From Ric TIGHAR has no religious voice. The "Evidence which to many sources seems positive" was clearly the various post-loss radio signals being received and officially judged to be credible at that time. I agree that you and your fellow AESers subscribe to a different belief system than the rest of us. I suggest you find some professional help. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:43:14 EDT From: Kent Johnson Subject: Re: Jacking it up To many variables there to know for sure. But, considering the much higher degree of flexibility of low pressure balloon tires, compared to modern aircraft tires. I'd say it's entirely conceivable that the tire would have been shredded by the coral surface, if it went flat or blew on landing. All that might have been left of the tire on the wheel may have been loose pieces and the beads. The soft metal of the wheel would undoubtedly be beat up some, but to what degree would depend greatly on how hard she was braking, how fast it was still going, how rough was the surface, how much water was there, etc. etc. Speaking of landing gear.... just a thought, but from the description of the coral flat surface, sounds pretty rough and bumpy, even if the mains did keep rolling I'd bet the tail wheel was trashed, if not departed from the airframe! Oh, and by the way, who says the aircraft would have had to been jacked for the wheel to be removed? Suppose the surf had already broken it up and a wing, or part of wing, with landing gear attached became accessible on the coral or beach due to surf action. Just some thoughts. K. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:44:57 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Lae Position Angus asked: > I note Randy had the position S06 44 E146 59 for Lae. Is this the position > for the town or the airstrip? It was the end of the runway. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:46:53 EDT From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Myrtlebank > Although the exact position of the Myrtlebank is not set in concrete I > think > that would put our heroes a bit north of course but not unusually so. Yes, and if you continue flying that bearing it takes you over Ocean Island also lit up at night by the mining lights as Nauru was (my own theory) giving them an exact fix at night. If they were flying that bearing, passing over the Myrtlebank, wouldn't they continue on that same bearing until getting a new fix ,such as Ocean Island, before going on a new bearing towards Howland? After all, they would have known what the weather was for Ocean Island (wasn't the weather report for OI requested?) and be able to get a great fix( and possibly the only one around that they could see) by seeing the bright lights. I would think that FN would have certainly considered flying on a Bearing to Ocean island and getting a radio fix on the Ontario on the way. any other Ocean Island Theorists Tighar members out there besides me? Cheers from Bill Shea. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:27:39 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Lae Position Thanks Randy, Its nice to know with such precision. Checking in the meantime I found 06 44, 146 59 given on the net for Lae port and 06 44 19, 146 59 49 for Lae navigational aid, so it would appear that the position of the town and airfield are pretty much one and the same. Is there any evidence in the literature etc of what was currently believed to be the position of Lae in 1937? I would be interested to know if Lexington's position of 6 45 146 55 was more likely estimated from the chart, or if it was in fact the position (erroneously) generally accepted for Lae at the time. It seems difficult to believe that a highly accurate position (of better than four miles error) was not known for Lae with the large amount of air traffic using the airfield for shipping gold mining equipment up to Bulolo. Regards Angus. ***************************************************************** From Ric A pilot has no interest in the lat/long of an airport unless he is using celestial navigation (or GPS). You can bet that the pilots flying in and out of Lae to the gold fields thought of Lae's position as "on the edge of town down by the water". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:29:40 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Myrtlebank No you do not have it screwed up. The Myrtlebank's 3rd mate (not 1st) reported his hearing a plane that evening to TIGHAR circa 1993. I corresponded with him, asking him questions about the purpose of the ship, where it had come from, the time of his watch, etc., trying to see if there was anything about his testimony that didn't ring true. Although he could not provide a precise location or time, the approximate time was valid, as was a rough position (based upon arrival time at Nauru the following morning). The only inconsistent testimony he provided was that the plane was heard from right to left. Since the Myrtlebank was heading north, it should have been heard left-to-right. The Navy got information regarding the Myrtlebank via the Sydney radio message describing Nauru's hearing AE's transmissions, as Ric previously provided. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:38:44 EDT From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Nauru Radio Using the information of the time Murtlebank was sighted and the time of daybreak in Nauro, wouldn't it be possible to approximate (using the maximum and minimum speeds that the Murtlebank could possibly travel to reach Nauro at daybreak) a banded zone around Nauro that AE had to travel through to sight the ship. Would it be possible then to approximate maximum and minimum course plots (headings) and thereby estimate their zone of location? The range of speed that the Murtlebank could go (and its distance from Nauro at the time of its sighting) could not posssibly be that great that would disallow an analysis that could yield some useful data. I'm not a pilot or have any navigation skills so my thinking may be way out of kilter. Just some thoughts. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 ********************************************************************* From Ric The island is called Nauru (pronounced nawROO) and the ship was the Myrtlebank as in the plant myrtle. It was ballpark 60 miles south of Nauru according to Nauru Radio the next day. Earhart was only about halfway to Howland at that point. I can't for the life me understand why it's so important to pin down exactly where she was at that moment or, for that matter, to worry about whether she saw the Myrtlebank or the Ontario. She was pretty much on course and on schedule. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:40:13 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Bill Shea wrote: > Yes, and if you continue flying that bearing it takes you over Ocean Island > also lit up at night by the mining lights as Nauru was (my own theory) giving > them an exact fix at night. Just why would they need an exact fix at that position? Ocean island was about 870 nm from Howland. As a means of assisting them in finding Howland it was not much use. As for confirming their current position, track and ground speed, Fred had celestial to give him a position to within ten or fifteen miles, plenty accurate enough for his purposes at that stage in the flight, and the sights were ones which he would be taking in any event. Ocean Island was simply an unnecessary diversion. Fred Noonan was a highly experienced and confident aerial navigator. He had no worries about finding Howland and there is no evidence to suggest that he needed to reassure himself by visiting every potential waypoint some distance off his route. Moreover there is no record of the aircraft having been heard in the area of Ocean. Of course if you can think of one iota of evidence to suggest they did travel via Ocean Island, I would be interested to know it but in its absence it is much safer to conclude they did not. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:24:58 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Did he hear it from left to right as he was standing on the deck facing aft or facing forward? Makes a big difference. Also, I have many times thought that I heard a plane approaching from one direction, but due to reflection/refraction of the sound off other objects it turned out to be an illusion. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:25:57 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Regardless of which way the ship was heading which way was the third mate facing, north or south? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:27:26 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Bill Shea wrote: > Yes, and if you continue flying that bearing it takes you over Ocean Island In an off forum exchange I pointed out to Bill that we don't know what "that bearing" was. Where Noonan was in relation to course prior to reaching the Myrtlebank would determine what course he might have been on. We don't know what that is. At best we can say IF the Electra approached the Myrtlebank (if indeed it did) on a course that would take it over Ocean Island and they remained on that course they would probably overfly Ocean Island. No significance to this. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:35:44 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Carol Dow > Poor old Elgen he just lost his wife, and he's really hurting. He needs a > wife for hire? Yuk, yuk, yuk. I suspect Yuk, yuk, yuk, was not meant to be yuk as in yucky, I wouldn't want to be his wife, but yuk as in an attempt to make "He needs a wife for hire" sound a little light hearted. This, if you look at it, is brought out in the "and he's really hurting". Obviously it failed miserably and the timing was in extremely bad taste. I don't think Carol realized just how it would look once posted. Plain stupid, some of her posts may seem. Irreverent, perhaps. Irrelevant - well. Malicious? I don't think I've seen anything from her that wasn't intended either to amuse or raise discussion. When she realizes exactly how her post sounded I imagine she'll apologize to both the forum and to Elgen Long. Ross Devitt. ************************************************************** From Ric Your attempts to make excuses for her are laudable but misguided. Her response was to castigate me for ridiculing someone to whom we had just sent a TIGHAR membership renewal notice. I told her to disregard the notice. I have removed her from the forum. I have something of a reputation for not suffering fools gladly - and I plead guilty as charged - but, gladly or not, I think we suffer quite a few fools here on this forum. But there are limits. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:48:20 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Engine location Can you remind us of the exact circumstances of the discovery by Bruce of the Canton engine particularly in regard to any clues to its exact position on the reef. The wider circumstances of its discovery are of course on the website but it is with regard to such things as apparent distance from the shore, water depth, proximity or otherwise of the NC, proximity or otherwise of a lagoon passage, reef width from beach at that point etc - small but perhaps significant clues. Am I right in thinking that Bruce discovered the engine some fairly short distance from the beach and if so, would you agree this rules out the area of reef opposite Tatiman passage? Regards Angus. ******************************************************************** From Ric Bruce's recollection was that the engine was off the west end of an island about 50 feet from shore in thigh-deep water. He has no recollection of a lagoon passage or of ever seeing a shipwreck nearby. Exhaustive investigation, including interviews with all but one of the pilots and co-pilots of the helicopters, has been unable to find anyone who was present on Canton at that time who can corroborate Bruce's recollection of an engine ever being slung under a helicopter, nor can we find a record of a trip to Gardner by any helicopter during the time Bruce was there. Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340. One possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at Canton in 1943 and was not recovered. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:50:23 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Lae Position Don't forget there are/have been two Lae airport locations. The original one, as I understand, was on the coast. The current one I believe is away from the coast at Nadzab. This might account for some discrepancy as the airport is miles from the town these days. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************* From Ric I'm sure that Randy was using the correct airport and, of course, the new airport did not exist in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:51:52 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Myrtlebank > Although the exact position of the Myrtlebank is not set in concrete I think > that would put our heroes a bit north of course but not unusually so. > > Alan And from anywhere in the 60-100 miles range if she was anywhere from a few thousand up to ten thousand feet she should have easily seen Nauru (without overflying it) unless she was in constant cloud. It would have stood out against the ocean as a huge bright star in a very black night. For that matter, I've picked out towns with less light than Nauru had at night from well in excess of that distance. I think we worked out that at 10000ft, Nauru would be on the horizon at 110 - 120 miles. The glow from the mine and the new light would be visible below the horizon. the light, being higher would add to the distance available. Add to this that she apparently saw the ship, and it still seems she and Fred could have had a definite navigational fix without ever having to deviate from course. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:53:17 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Myrtlebank > ...wouldn't it be possible to approximate (using the maximum and > minimum speeds that the Myrtlebank could possibly travel to reach Nauro at > daybreak) The problem here is that the minimum possible speed was close to zero knots. The ship had been deliberately slowed , as I understand it, to arrive in daylight because of poor pier facilities in Nauru. This means that - at least in theory - Myrtlebank could have been 100 yds off the pier at 10 30 GMT and yet still arrived at dawn. As to her maximum distance, dawn was at 18 53 GMT and so she had 8hr 23 min to arrive. She is unlikely to have had a top speed much over 15 knots. At this speed she would travel 126nm. However since the ship was running slow 60 nm is quite reasonable as this would equate to just over 7 knots. Perhaps Randy could give us some more detailed account of the figures used in the calculations he made. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:55:24 EDT From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Angus writes: > Just why would they need an exact fix at that position? Ocean island was > about870 nm from Howland. As a means of assisting them in finding > Howland it was not much use. HUH? and just how would FN plot his next leg towards Howland if he didn't know where he was. You are assuming that he was successful in his celestial fixes. But flying over OI would certainly tell him where they were. And everyone assumes that FN would have got Celestial fixes all along his route. But do you know this was successful? Give me one instance where he radioed that he got a celestial fix along his fix during the night. If FN was really that good wouldn't he try to rely on more than celestial fixes? Why not both Celestial fixes AND flying over some identifiable island lit up such as OI was. What do we know then that might have persuaded him to take a northern route to Howland? 1) he might have had a good Weather Report for Nauru and Ocean Island. 2) he knew beforehand that Ocean Island (sd well as Nauru) would be lit up at night by the phosphorous mining. 3) it might have been them that flew over the Murtlebank when it was aprox 60 miles south of Nauru. This bearing would take them over OI. 4) He would have tried in vain to get a fix from the Ontario. and he could have done this south or even north of the Ontario as it was a radio signal. I am suggesting that he might have even planned to fly to Ocean Island (instead of flying a direct line) then turn toward Howland. Now, try drawing a line from OI to Howland and see if the Electra 10e could have been heard flying over Tabiteuea during the night. I believe they could have been heard. Cheers from Bill (who is at least trying to get back on track.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:00:30 EDT From: Craig Fuller Subject: Aviation Archaeology Show On the History Channel: http://www.historychannel.com/ Next Airing: Sunday, Aug 3 @ 8pm ET/PT Historian and adventurer Pat Macha introduces us to the world of aviation archaeology, bringing to life once-majestic planes and the men and women who flew them. "Airplane wrecks that remain undisturbed for years provide us with a sobering opportunity to consider the power of nature and the mistaken judgments of man," Macha explains. Teaming up with forensic experts and aviation authorities, Macha transports us to the past at crash sites and pieces together the puzzle behind the twisted metal. TV PG Craig Fuller ***************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Pat Macha is a TIGHAR member. Sounds like an interesting show. (I sure hope nobody ever describes me as an "adventurer".) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:04:06 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Marty and Daryll Once again, Daryll, you did not address any of Marty's points. You did however, ramble on about a large amount of unrelated information. I do note, however, that when you Daryll asked Marty a few days ago for clarification about what Marty was talking about, he wrote a very clear explanation that addressed your specific question. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ****************************************************************** From Ric As Daryll explained, he operates under a different belief system. He's right. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:05:45 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Myrtlebank > Add to this that she apparently saw the ship, and it still seems she and > Fred could have had a definite navigational fix without ever having to > deviate from course. I agree, Ross. And like Ric said there may be little significance to that part of the navigation leg as it was so far out from Howland and by all appearances they were reasonably on course and on time. I can tell you the significance of at least some of the interest in that part of the flight and that's the age old attempt to get the plane far north of track and much closer to Mili Atoll. It will never work. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:08:19 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Aviation Archaeology Show Ric wrote: > Yes, Pat Macha is a TIGHAR member. Sounds like an interesting show. > (I sure hope nobody ever describes me as an "adventurer".) Ric, to the best of my recollection "adventurer" was not one of the many descriptive words I've heard. Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric Well .... it was something that started with A. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:09:23 EDT From: Daryll Subject: Professional help? Ric wrote: >I agree that you and your fellow AESers subscribe to a different >belief system than the rest of us. I suggest you find some professional As a means of assisting them in finding Howland Ocean Island was not much use. Bill Shea wrote: > HUH? and just how would FN plot his next leg towards Howland if he didn't > know where he was. You are assuming that he was successful in his celestial > fixes. But flying over OI would certainly tell him where they were. If Fred was unsuccessful with his fixes, he would have no way of finding Ocean Island especially as the reason for unsuccessful fixes would probably be cloud. > And everyone assumes that FN would have got Celestial fixes all along his > route. But do you know this was successful? Give me one instance where he > radioed that he got a celestial fix along his fix during the night. If FN was > really that good wouldn't he try to rely on more than celestial fixes? Why not > both Celestial fixes AND flying over some identifiable island lit up such as OI > was. We DO know that only a few hours before AE was due to pass on course to the south of Ocean Island, the sky there was completely clear. > What do we know then that might have persuaded him to take a northern route > to Howland? > 1) he might have had a good Weather Report for Nauru and Ocean Island. But no evidence of such > 2) he knew beforehand that Ocean Island (as well as Nauru) would be lit up at > night by the phosphorous mining. So he could see it from a great distance and so would not have to actually go there. > 3) it might have been them that flew over the Murtlebank when it was aprox 60 > miles south of Nauru. This bearing would take them over OI. Since their previous reported position was over three hours earlier and all the indications are that it was not a fix - as it was not yet dark at that time (and so was probably DR along course or a sunline crossed with course) we have no way of knowing the exact bearing of their track at Myrtlebank. A few degrees here makes a lot of difference in destination. > 4) He would have tried in vain to get a fix from the Ontario. and he could > have done this south or even north of the Ontario as it was a radio signal. Perhaps he saw Ontario and didn't need a radio bearing. Even if he didn't, a failure to get a bearing from Ontario wouldn't have meant he needed to head for Ocean Is. if he was confident of his star fixes. > I am suggesting that he might have even planned to fly to Ocean Island > (instead of flying a direct line) then turn toward Howland. But there is no evidence that he did. > Now, try drawing a line from OI to Howland and see if the Electra 10e could > have been heard flying over Tabiteuea during the night. I believe they could > have been heard. Ocean Island and northern Tabiteuea are both very roughly one degree south. Howland is very roughly one degree north. It is clear therefore that the track from Ocean to Howland does not pass even close to Tabiteuea and probably over 50 miles away. If you could hear an Electra from 50 miles you would need good hearing. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:29:03 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Dave Bush wrote: >Did he hear it from left to right as he was standing on the deck facing aft >or facing forward? My understanding is port to starboard. On board ship, that's the usual points of reference. I never thought of clarifying whether he was facing backwards; assumed he was describing relative to the ship. Here are the points I used for possible Myrtlebank positions at 1030Z: -2*, 31'S, 167*12'E for the southernmost point and -2* 7'S, 167* 8'E for the northernmost point. I based these points on likely cruise speeds, time of arrival at noon at Nauru, and the direction of most likely passage from New Zealand (if I remember that departure point correctly). When I ran Monte Carlo simulations of the flight path, the best position for the plane at 1030Z was east of Ontario but west of Myrtlebank. Neither ship appeared to be reasonable one to be sighted when I threw in that constraint. Here's one possible, speculative scenario: Earhart is using the RDF, using signals from the Ontario, but the source are really behind her. When she finally sights the Myrtlebank, she thinks it is the Ontario, gives out the radio message, and possibly dips the plane down low to the ship. That's the best I could come up with. ***************************************************************** From Ric Earhart's instructions to Ontario (sent on 6/26/37) were: SUGGEST ONTARIO STANDBY ON FOUR HUNDRED KCS TO TRANSMIT LETTER N FIVE MINUTES [SIC] ONE [SIC - ON] REQUEST WITH STATION CALL LETTER REPEATED TWELVE [SIC - TWICE] END VERY [EVERY?] MINUTE In other words, Ontario was not supposed to send anything until requested by Earhart. There is no indication that Earhart ever requested anything from Ontario and I'm aware of no indication that Ontario ever transmitted anything to her. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:29:55 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: W.D. Adams Innerspace Engineering currently owns the brand name "W. D. Adams". Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:41:27 EDT From: Doug Subject: Norwich City Betty's notes state NY (New York). Some have speculated that this may mean Norwich City. Would FN or EA have known the name of this wrecked vessel? About the tire/rim, I agree with Ric. They would have no reason to take the tires off the plane nor fix these tires. They landed because they couldn't stay aloft. If they had any gas at all left when they landed they would have fired up the engines to recharge the Radio Batteries. It may have been the case that they were asleep, or entrenched in the brush and couldn't make it to the open when the plane flew over. I find it curious that the pilot said there was recent signs of habitation. From the air, you would think he must have seen something(s) significant to give him this impression. Doug ******************************************************************** From Ric There is some indication that the name of the ship was still legible in 1937. What Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation" has been a matter of great debate. Manmade features that we know, or may have been, there at the time were: - the wreck of the Norwich City. - the cache of provisions left by the NC rescuers 8 years earlier. - the collapsed remains of some corrugated iron buildings from the Arundel coconut planting operation 45 years earlier. - a flagpole with a placard on it left there by HMS Leith the previous February. None of these seem to me to be adequate indication of "recent habitation" to prompt "circling and zooming" to try to get someone to respond with an answering wave". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:48:07 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Engine Location >Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the >shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340. One >possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at >Canton in 1943 and was not recovered. I guess the problem with this plane being the source for Bruce's engine is that he remembers the engine coming from an island other than Canton, right? Is this B-24 still sitting there on the reef at Canton? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ******************************************************************** From Ric There are a couple problems with this being the engine Bruce remembers. He says the engine came from an island other than Canton and he says the engine was a single row radial - either an R-985 or an R-1340. The B-24's R-1830s were twin row (two rows of 7 cylinders each). We don't know if the B-24 is still there. It would be interesting (but expensive) to find out. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:49:34 EDT From: unknown Subject: Re: Aviation Archaeology Show >Do you know when & where Tighar's next crash site investigation will be? Not yet. We'll need to decide pretty soon though. Been sorta busy. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:53:54 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Randy said: >I based these points on > likely cruise speeds, time of arrival at noon at Nauru, ........... Was it noon or dawn that Myrtlebank arrived at Nauru? Does her log exist? Regards Angus. ************************************************** From Ric .....STEAMER MYRTLEBANK WHICH ARRIVED NAURU DAYBREAK TODAY . ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:57:22 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Randy, Angus, and Ric said: >> I based these points on >> likely cruise speeds, time of arrival at noon at Nauru, ........... > > Was it noon or dawn that Myrtlebank arrived at Nauru? Does her log exist? > > Regards Angus. > ************************************************** > From Ric > > .....STEAMER MYRTLEBANK WHICH ARRIVED NAURU DAYBREAK TODAY . Some points to consider from an old salt: If you are trying to figure out a position for the Myrtlebank at a given time based upon her arrival at Nauru, remember that anchoring or mooring in the dark (especially warping alongside a pier) is a real b..... Now, it might seem logical to adjust speed for the entire cruise to show up at dawn (making position/time calculations fairly accurate), but there are other things to consider. Every ship (steam, motor or gas turbine) has "economical cruising speeds"; go faster OR SLOWER, and you waste fuel. One may want to go a little faster than navigationally necessary to give yourself some room for storm evasion. My point being, the Myrtlebank may well have arrived off Nauru hours before dawn and either sat DIW or cruised in circles, just maintaining steerageway until dawn. It is even possible the ship intended to enter port the previous afternoon but got held up by weather or minor mechanical problems and wound up spending most of the night just off the island. Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:16:24 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: For Marty Daryll wrote: > Marty, I understand that you are a Jesuit, am I correct? Yes, I am. I teach at a small Jesuit college in Buffalo. > Are you the > religious voice of the TIGHAR branch of Earhart research? Heck, no! I am religious by temperament and training, and my field is the intersection of philosophy and theology. Once in a while I'll stick my oar in the water for religious or theological reasons, but only because TIGHAR intends its work to stand as a model for doing sound research. TIGHAR is a purely secular organization and they have let me be associated with them in spite of, not because of my religious identity. > An avid Earhart researcher would recognize the name of Monsignor Kelly > and how the Catholic church was implicated in part of the Earhart story. Doesn't ring a bell with me. I think I joined TIGHAR in 2000 or thereabouts. That really was the beginning of my Amelianism. > I have thought and maybe even expressed before that Earhart research is > akin to a religious experience. True. Religious experiences employ the ordinary human faculties of perception, conception, inference, feeling and judgment. > A person believes what they want to > believe because of their perspective of the evidence. True, assuming that there is no interference from the unconscious, which may have other motives. > The different > research groups, AES, TIGHAR, and the Crash & Sankers have their own > belief systems. True. In my Ph.D. work I studied two complementary theories of belief systems. The ten-cent word for such theories is "epistemology," the branch of philosophy that deals with how we know what we know. > We, as researchers, have to logically resolve why two people who more > than likely made it to dry land in this vast ocean, got themselves > disappeared AGAIN. True. And the Niku hypothesis has to account for many people not finding any trace of AE & FN until the bones were found in 1940 (on the assumption that the bones might have belonged to AE--they were too short for FN, I think). >> From Ric > TIGHAR has no religious voice. Agreed. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************ From Ric Amelianism?? Does that make us Amelianists? Is a controversial and hotly debated historical topic therefore Amelianistic? I think you may have made a siginificant contribution to the language. Tom King is credited with the adjective Earhartian and I lay claim to the noun Ameliana to describe the body of folklore and literature pertaining to the historical character and her disappearance. This is fertile ground. Any day I expect to see the search for WMD described as Saipanistic. :-) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:24:04 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Engine Location Alfred Hendrickson wrote: >Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the >shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340. One >possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at >Canton in 1943 and was not recovered". However, Bruce said it was a single row radial engine and that clearly indicates it did not belong to a B-24. Lots of WW II airplanes had double radial engines. Therefore the single row engine Bruce was talking about has to be taken into account as possibly having belonged to a Lockheed 10E. The problem is that we shall never know since the engine cannot be found. Organizing a search for it would cost more than TIGHAR can afford. LTM (who loves the sound of radials) ********************************************************************* From Ric If TIGHAR had an unlimited budget and if we found an engine in the buried dump on Canton we would still not know if it was the engine Bruce found. If we found an engine from Earhart's plane in the Canton dump we would not know that it is the engine Bruce says he put there. Bruce Yoho's story is an anecdotal recollection. He would be a remarkable individual indeed if some of his recollections are not less than accurate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:51:55 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Kerry: I did indeed take into account that the Myrtlebank was likely loitering south of Nauru so that it could dock at sunrise. I believe I did give them a half hour or so to get to the pier. The 3rd mate indicated they were still south of Nauru and underway towards Nauru when he heard the plane. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:57:34 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Engine Location Ric wrote: > If TIGHAR had an unlimited budget and if we found an engine in the buried > dump on Canton we would still not know if it was the engine Bruce found. If > we found an engine from Earhart's plane in the Canton dump we would > not know that it is the engine Bruce says he put there. Yeah, but it would put an end to the Crashed and Sankers (Sankestrians? Sunkenists?). Of course the Saipanists, Milians, Marshallites et. al. would just add a branch to the conspiracy tree and claim the find proof of a cover-up. On a somewhat less frivolous note: Alfred Hendrickson wrote: > Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the > shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340. One > possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at > Canton in 1943 and was not recovered. These guys that make up the consensus; were they aware of the B-24 wreckage? Would these fellas know an R-1830 from a 1340? Would they know B-24s had double bank radials? What I'm really asking is did these guys just make the connection of the old decrepit radial with the B-24 wreck, referring to it in anecdote as a "B-24 engine". A more knowledgeable listener to the anecdote might then morph the recollection into an R-1830, thus misidentifying the decrepit shed door stop cum trash dump filler for eternity. LTM (who is a Congregationalist) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************ From Ric The only way the Canton Engine could put an end to Crashed & Sank would be if it was positively identifiable as one of Earhart's engines - an unlikely proposition even it could be found and was indeed one of Earhart's engines. The guys who remember the engine in the shop are aviation people who remember it as an R-1830. None of them know anything about the B-24. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:43:24 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: For Marty Marty says: >Doesn't ring a bell with me. I think I joined TIGHAR in >2000 or thereabouts. That really was the beginning of >my Amelianism. Darn! And I was going to ask you. Who is Msgr. Kelly? I suspect that there are a few Monsignors named Kelly, come to think of it. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:42:50 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: The Engine FYI, for Kerry Tiller, Alfred Hendrickson DID NOT WRITE "Several people remember an old decrepit radial engine being in or near the shop but the consensus is that it was an R-1830, not an R-1340. One possible source for such an engine is a B-24 that crashed on the reef at Canton in 1943 and was not recovered." Ric wrote that, and I was keying off of it. I have to come clean; I wouldn't know an R1830 from a can of shoe polish. Or an R1340 from a '57 Chevy. Or either of them from a 1040EZ. I do know now, however, that the former has more cylinders, arranged in two banks. Thanks, all, for educating me. I really need to make more donations to TIGHAR in return for all of this tuition I'm receiving. Which leads to this: Ric, how are we coming with closing the Niku Vp funding gap? LTM, who always had plenty of cash, and was willing to spread it around, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ********************************************************************* From Ric Nothing to write home about yet but we really haven't had time to see a return from the TIGHAR Tracks that was mailed out last week. Thanks for asking. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:45:35 EDT From: Dr. Know Subject: CONNECTING THE DOTS FOR ANGUS AND YOU OTHER MYRMIDONS. GO BACK AND READ MY PREVIOUS EMAILS CONCERNING THE 67 DEGREE COURSE AE TOOK FROM NAURU, YOU WILL NOTE SHE PASSES RIGHT OVER TABITEUEA. DUH! AS ALWAYS, FELLOW TRUTH-SEEKERS..... LTM DR. KNOW ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:34:38 EDT From: Dr. Know Subject: Connecting The Dots I have always had a question concerning the time that Nauru says they heard Earhart. At first I heard it was 10:30am Naura time on July 3rd. Then later I heard it was 10:30pm on July 2nd. Which one do you think is correct? I also heard that her message read "Land in sight ahead". In addition I have heard the message read, "Ship in sight ahead". Now maybe you will see the significance of these questions: One the morning of July 3rd a ship called the "Golden Bear" left Tarawa heading for Honolulu. Somewhere in my past records I have a file on this and I believe Golden Bear was carrying lumber from New Guinea to Honolulu with final destination of San Francisco. Before Golden Bear left New Guinea she got caught up in the volcano eruption and was severely disabled by the falling ash from the volcano. If my theory is correct, AE passed over Golden Bear, maybe around two or three am Howland Island time. After AE crashed into the ocean, Golden Bear came within thirty miles of the floating plane. You can see where I am going with this because if AE said, "Ship in sight ahead" there is a possibility that she saw Golden Bear instead of Myrtlebank. Now, she could have seen both. The story of the Golden Bear is very interesting for many reasons. Please remember that Dr Know has not done any hard research since 1987 so I am having to go by memory. If neccessary, I will have to go back to my three filing cabinets full of research papers... Remember I said in the beginning that AE hit the water at approximately 6 degrees N latitude and 178 degrees 30 minutes W longitude. I am not a "Crash and Sinker". Later on I will give my opinion on how long the plane floated. Paige, this is for you: The plane had at least seven thousand pounds of positive buoyancy and I don't care what anyone says, until that buoyancy is dissipated by seawater the plane is going to continue to float. It is a law of Physics. She had twelve hundred gallon capacity fuel tanks. Most likely they were dead empty when she crashed.. I guess Dr. Know will consider this "clue" number 3..... ********************************************************************** From Ric For somebody who has all the answers you sure have a lot of questions about real basic stuff. >the time that Nauru says they heard Earhart. At first I heard it was 10:30am >Naura time on July 3rd. Then later I heard it was 10:30pm on July 2nd. >Which one do you think is correct? What I think is that the best information available is the original source document which says that Nauru heard Earhart say "Ship in sight ahead." at 8:30 p.m. Sydney Time on July 2nd which would be 10:30 p.m. on July 2nd local time in Nauru. The Golden Bear radioed the Itasca and asked for the weather sometime on July 3rd local Itasca time. At that time Golden Bear was at 5.38N 179.19 W which puts her roughly 500 nautical miles northwest of Tarawa. You say the she left Tarawa on July 3rd. Fast ship. Tell you what "Dr. Know" - you're the second phoney we've had to expose on this forum in the past few months but at least the last one had enough nerve to use his real name. Everyone here is open and above board. I won't post anything more from you unless and until you tell us who you are. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:38:31 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Norwich City > What Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation" has been a matter of > great debate. Manmade features that we know, or may have been, there at the > time were: > - the wreck of the Norwich City. > - the cache of provisions left by the NC rescuers 8 years earlier. > - the collapsed remains of some corrugated iron buildings from the Arundel > coconut planting operation 45 years earlier. > - a flagpole with a placard on it left there by HMS Leith the previous > February. > > None of these seem to me to be adequate indication of "recent habitation" to > prompt "circling and zooming" to try to get someone to respond with an > "answering wave". The NZ survey party found a relatively intact lifeboat. Th' WOMBAT. ********************************************************************* From Ric Good point. We have a photo of it. With a wrecked ship on the reef I don't buy it as "sign of recent habitation". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:41:26 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Aviation Archaeology Show > From Ric > > Well .... it was something that started with A. Why is it that your lines are always better than mine? Does Pat write them? ************************************************************ From Ric No, but she inspires them. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:43:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Myrtlebank From Alan, In the 8th Edition it says, "...we have roughly determined the limits of the Myrtlebank position at 1030GMT: a 20nm by 10nm region oriented at 350 degrees centered at 2 degrees 20'S, 167 degrees 10'E" Given all else about this flight I'm not sure some other figure would have more significance. Nothing about the Lae to Howland leg smacks of great precision. Is it significant how this was arrived at? A simple "no" will satisfy me. Alan **************************************************** From Ric Randy? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:51:41 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: paint or zinc chromate on aluminum I know this was discussed in the forum a year or three ago, but I don't remember the answer. Why is it significant that no paint or zinc chromate was found on the aluminum parts recently found on Nikumaroro? -- Paige Miller ******************************************************************* From Ric The aluminum skin of all of the WWII aircraft that served in the Central Pacific region was either anodized or coated with zinc chromate wash (often both) to inhibit corrosion. Many of the aircraft were also painted. The 24ST alclad skin of Earhart's Lockheed 10 was neither anodized nor coated with zinc chromate and the only parts of the aircraft that were painted were the orange markings edged in black on the wings and horizontal tail, the registration numbers and the Lockheed logo on the tail. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:57:30 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Engine Location Ric wrote: > The only way the Canton Engine could put an end to Crashed & Sank would be if > it was positively identifiable as one of Earhart's engines - an unlikely > proposition even it could be found and was indeed one of Earhart's engines. > > The guys who remember the engine in the shop are aviation people who remember > it as an R-1830. None of them know anything about the B-24. To once again quote our favorite Gilda Radner character: Never mind. Kerry Tiller *********************************************************************** From Don Jordan In regards to the "Guys who remember the engine as an old R-1830". I, as you know, interviewed one of those guys, and he never said anything to me about it being an 1830. He remembers an old single row radial airplane engine. Who did we find that said it was an 1830? I think Bruce felt it was the proper size to be a 1340 as well. Don Jordan ************************************************************************ From Ric There has been a tremendous amount of work done on this whole question and we'll have a full update on the Canton Engine investigation soon. I'll have to ask you to be patient. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:01:19 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Corks and Chains Where were the corks & chains discovered relative to the water tank found on a previous expedition? Doubtful, but could the corks/chains somehow be associated with the water tank? Tom Riggs #2427 ************************************************************* From Ric We have no idea exactly where the corks and chains were found, but they were found either before the tank was put there or by the same people who put the tank there, so it does not seem likely that they are associated with the tank. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:04:59 EDT From: Denise Subject: "Myrtlebank" Am I wrong recalling A.E. said something about "blue light to the north" around the same time she mentioned the ship? Since the lights going up to and surrounding the mine on Nauru were blue-ish, I always took that to mean she was south of Nauru when she passed over the ship she presumed to be the one marking her halfway point. Is there a problem with this? And if I didn't get this from your website, where else could I have got it? LTM (who knew her mining lights) Denise *************************************************************** From Ric You're asking ME where you get this stuff? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:11:08 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Amelians Fr. Marty: We are all Amelians. Nikumanites are a recent offshoot, considered heretical by the old-line "Sanker" movement. (In general the Niku sect espouses private interpretation, whereas we Sankers believe that tradition, in the form of testimony from the Guys Who Were There, also has a role to play in Amelianist exegesis. Not that they're infallible ...) FYI, Msgr. James Kelly was president of New Jersey's Seton Hall University in 1937 and allegedly a close associate of Francis Cardinal Spellman. According to the Saipanic and Milian belief systems, it was Spellman who arranged to smuggle Earhart out of Japan in a planeload of nuns. Once back in the US, Earhart was handed over to Msgr. Kelly, who arranged her transmogrification into Irene Bolam. In the movie I imagine this scene will feature hooded monks, Gregorian chant and lots of incense -- you know, the usual Sinister Papist stuff. By the way, Carol Dow is an avowed Charismatic -- the ones who speak in tongues. LTM Patrick "Torquemada" Gaston ******************************************************************* From Ric Now THAT's a funny posting. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:14:52 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Fuel consumption Last night I watched an old Travel channel show on the search for Amelia Earhart. The narrator called the Phoenix island landing a myth. He even mentioned that six trips have been made to the Phoenix group with negative results. Elgin Long was then spotlighted and his claim that Earhart ran out of fuel after 20 hours and 13 minutes of flight time. His proof was the Chatter (sp) report. From this report his was able to calculate her fuel consumption for the entire trip to Howland. I remember sometime back many knowledgeable members on this forum debated his findings. What I can't remember was what was the final decision on his calculations. ************************************************************** From Ric Not to dig up that dead horse but basically Elgen screwed up the math. There is a ton of stuff on fuel consumption in the forum archives. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:41:17 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Niku Altitude If the estimates of the storm surge + wave height at 4 meters stand up, I was wondering just what the highest point on Niku is. I checked a Kiribati website, but they listed the height at 0 meters. I know you've mentioned a ridge near the seven site, so perhaps that's the highest point of land. Bob ********************************************************************* From Ric I think that technically the highest elevation on the atoll is something like 12 feet and the highest point is probably up toward the northwest tip of Nutiran. The ridge at the Seven Site is more like 8 feet if I recall correctly. Niku Altitude is something of an oxymoron. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:51:44 EDT From: Ben the Skeptic Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots Dr. Know, you said : **Paige, this is for you: The plane had **at least seven thousand pounds of **positive buoyancy and I don't care **what anyone says, until that buoyancy **is dissipated by seawater the plane is **going to continue to float. It is a law of **Physics. She had twelve hundred gallon **capacity fuel tanks. Here is a message I posted previously this year regarding floating capabilities: 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. --------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 Figure those vents into the laws of physics Dr. Know. *********************************************************************** From Ric The airplane that floated for eight minutes had the standard airline seating and fuel configuration. I don't know whether the vents would allow the tanks to fill with water or not but neither did Joe Gurr. At the time, the guys at Lockheed seemed the think the airplane would float just fine and they knew the airplane a whole lot better than anyone else - but even they had never done a flotation test on a Lockheed 10E Special. The bottom line is that nobody can really say if or for how long that airplane would float. *************************************************** From Angus > GO BACK AND READ MY PREVIOUS EMAILS CONCERNING THE 67 DEGREE COURSE AE > TOOK FROM NAURU, YOU WILL NOTE SHE PASSES RIGHT OVER TABITEUEA. DUH! A course from Nauru to the centre of Tabiteuea is 95.8 deg true. A course to the northernmost tip of Tabiteuea is still more than 94 deg true. That it must be more than 90 deg is obvious from the fact that Tabiteuea is further south than Nauru. A course from Tabiteuea to 05 54N 178 16W is 43.7 deg true. Just where does the 67 degrees fit in? A direction for cloud-cuckoo land perhaps? Regards Angus. ************************************************* From Alan > THE 67 DEGREE COURSE AE TOOK FROM NAURU, YOU WILL NOTE SHE PASSES RIGHT > OVER TABITEUEA. 1. You don't have any idea where AE's Electra was while abeam Nauru. There are only two people who know that and they are both dead. 2. You could not possibly know what course she was on once her wheels left the runway at Lae. NO ONE does. 3. You don't know whether she passed over Tabiteuea at all. No one does. You are pure nonsense. Ric, why don't you end his suffering. First time I've ever made such a request. Alan *********************************************** From Angus > What I think is that the best information available is the original source > document which says that Nauru heard Earhart say "Ship in sight ahead." At 8:30 > p.m. Sydney Time on July 2nd which would be 10:30 p.m. on July 2nd local time > in Nauru. Don't you mean: "...which would be 10:30 GMT on July 2nd in Nauru"? I think Nauru was +11.5 so this would be 22.00 hrs Nauru time. Regards Angus. ************************************************************** From Ric Today Nauru is two hours later than Sydney. Was it different in 1937? It may have been. Hawaii was. *********************************************************** From Chris in Petaluma, Ca Ric said: >I won't post anything more from you unless and until you tell us who you >are. Atta boy Ric!! Let's weed these phonies out! Chris ************************************************************* From Ric I'm afraid that Dr. Know is rather upset with me for cutting him off unless he comes clean about who he is. He says I'm "A DAMN NICE GUY ONE ON ONE BUT YOUR HITLER COMPLEX COMES OUT ON YOUR FORUM." (I guess I'm going to have let this mustache grow out some more.) I could blow his cover (It really wasn't hard to track him down. He lives in Baton Rouge, LA and he's not a proctologist.) but there would be no point. None of you have ever heard of him. In the world of internet email groups he is what is known as a "troll". These guys sign on to email groups anonymously and get their jollies by saying things just to get everybody riled up. It's just an attention-getting ploy. Pretty sad really. We're going to do him a big favor and not be enablers. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:54:48 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Dr. Know Dr. Know writes, in rebuttal to my theory that AE drifted with her airplane to the Pacific coast of Paraguay: >Paige, this is for you: The plane had >at least seven thousand pounds of >positive buoyancy and I don't care >what anyone says, until that buoyancy >is dissipated by seawater the plane is >going to continue to float. It is a law of >Physics. She had twelve hundred gallon >capacity fuel tanks. Most likely they >were dead empty when she crashed.. Aha, excellent, Dr. Know! You do know how the game is played! I state a theory, you offer up comments, I offer counter-remarks, and we debate things. I also point out that TIGHAR has provided the details of the Niku theory and exploration in excruciating detail on its website, and Ric has answered thousands of questions about this theory from many many different people, in this forum and elsewhere. And that's what we'd like you to do. Specifically, we want you to clearly and completely state your theory, and make sure you mention the supporting evidence. It doesn't have to be an elaborate website like TIGHAR has, a few well-written paragraphs will suffice. And then, we can have an intelligent debate about your theory, and the Niku theory, and others. We DO NOT WANT to see you present your theory as a set of hints or clues and we have to guess what they mean. Furthermore, I am formally asking the moderator of this forum to ban further posts from you (or anyone else) that take on the form "here's another hint, guess what it means". I personally would welcome a clear and complete statement of your theory and the evidence supporting it. Now, my rebuttal to your comments above about AE floating: I believe that if you were to check the map of Paraguay, you will find that my theory is, shall we say, groundless. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM (Who always needed dozens of hints...) ************************************************************ From Ric I think you'll agree that we have much better things to do than play games with Dr. Know. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:55:58 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Fuel consumption I too stumbled across the History Channel presentation - having missed it the last time around. It was so riveting that I dropped off to sleep before the end of the program - drat, now I'll never know if they found her or not... By the way, for those new folks out there who don't know, the Chater Report is on the website as Research Document #1. The accompanying information gives a quick overview of what it is and how it was "re-discovered". ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:56:53 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Amelians Gaston for Grand Sorcerer! Ron Reuther ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:58:00 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Those numbers are consistent with previously posted latitude/longitude numbers I provided a couple of days ago. Precise? Hell no! Reasonable? I think so, or I wouldn't have written them. At any rate, neither location of the Ontario nor Myrtlebank agreed with any of the Monte Carlo simulations, except those on the tail of the bell curves. I don't think any of it is significant, other than AE broke radio protocol to make a report not at a regularly scheduled time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:09:38 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals? I'm reading a rather interesting book: Ancient Mysteries by Peter James and Nick Thorpe. They concentrate on pre-historic and early historic mysteries, offering synopses of the most credible (and incredible) hypotheses developed over the years on a variety of mysteries, such as the Sphynx, Stonehenge, and various Biblical stories. They provide a good balance of pro's and con's for each hypothesis, and then use common sense to suggest what is the most likely hypothesis. So what does this have to do with Niku and Earhart? Well, for nearly 12 years, my goal was to find something that would fundamentally rule out Earhart landing on Gardner/Niku, essentially taking the TIGHAR hypothesis and turning it into a negative. I have been unsuccessful so far. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in the TIGHAR hypothesis nor does it mean it is right (or wrong). What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the major tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers, the Japanese Abductionists, or anyone else. Yes, certain parts of the hypothesis have been proven wrong (e.g. the shoes), but the general gist of the hypothesis is still there, unshaken. Now usually, someone or some group comes along with a strong rebuttal, demonstrating a fallacy in logic in the hypothesis, and sometimes suggesting an alternative hypothesis. We have plenty of alternatives, but not a single credible, strong rebuttal of the Niku Hypothesis from any source. Why is that? Possibly, no one has taken the time to examine the immense amount of information accrued to date and understood it well enough to determine a fallacious chain of logic. Maybe the story hasn't gotten out into the public purview long enough or wide enough for someone to really tear it apart. Or, maybe, there isn't a faulty chain of logic: maybe the Niku Hypothesis is generally correct, so far as we know. That doesn't mean it is exactly right, or is the answer; nevertheless, it is surprising that no one has posited a strong argument against the Niku Hypothesis. Sure, people have sniped at the edges: that's expected and even welcomed. Does the lack of a strong rebuttal mean Niku is right? Certainly not; but the lack of it suggests TIGHAR is on the right track. Anyway, I was struck reading the book about the various theories accorded to any particular mystery, and how each theory could be struck down by simple, logical arguments. I've yet to see that done against Niku. **************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps the most encouraging thing to me about our investigation is that, over the years, every rigorously-trained scientist, archaeologist and historian who has become familiar with our work (Randy is a prime example but there are many others) has agreed with us - with a single remarkable exception who has his own axe to grind. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:11:19 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Myrtlebank" > From Ric > > You're asking ME where you get this stuff? sorry again. The actual radio call from AE was "Myrtlebank in sight ahead, blue lights off my port wing about 137.5 miles on a course of 67 degrees looking for the Golden Bear." Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:13:07 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel consumption > Not to dig up that dead horse but basically Elgen screwed up the math. No, Ric, I'll not dig that up either but I would suggest Elgen COOKED the math rather than screwed it up. I labored through his TV piece again last night also and those were not mistakes. They were intentional alterations, deletions and additions in order for the preconceived result to occur. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:20:11 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Lae Position The position given for Lae airport in 1937 was 6- 48 S, 147-02 E. about 5 nautical miles from the positions you give. ( Notice to Airmen No .20/1935, Civil Aviation Branch, Department of Defense, Australia.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:35:11 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Quibble . . Ric said: "The aluminum skin of all of the WWII aircraft that served in the Central Pacific region was either anodized or coated with zinc chromate wash" Hmmm. My recollection (faulty, I'm' sure) is just the opposite. Protection was applied to the pre-war aircraft because it was a peace-time situation and the airplanes were expected to last for years. The later production airplanes (post-1942?) were considered expendable with life expectancies of 90-180 days, therefore there was no need to provide long-term protection. Plus the protection added weight and time (i.e. costs) to the aircraft and Uncle Sam was interested in cranking out as many aircraft as possible as fast as possible at the least cost. Of course I have no firm documentation for this, just recollections from lots of reading. LTM, who was zinc chromated years ago Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************************************************* From Ric You are correct. Your recollection is faulty. Zinc chromate was first came into common use in 1939. Anodizing, a more expensive process, was used on some naval aircraft in the mid-1930s. For example, the Grumman F-3-F series (the stubby biplane fighters) featured anodized skins but the early versions of the Consolidated Model 28 (PBY- 1, 2, & 3) had interiors that were painted with silver-colored aluminum paint. I think that what you may be thinking of was the tendency later in the war to leave the exterior of aircraft unpainted because with the reduction in the threat of aircraft being bombed while parked on the ground, camouflage became less important and paint is really heavy. However, even those unpainted aircraft had corrosion inhibiting treatments on the interior surface of the skins. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:05:27 EDT From: Danny Brown Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots RE Ric's comment about Dr. Know: >I could blow his cover (It really wasn't hard to track him down. He lives in >Baton Rouge, LA and he's not a proctologist.) but there would be no point. >None of you have ever heard of him. In the world of internet email groups >he is what is known as a "troll". These guys sign on to email groups anonymously >and get their jollies by saying things just to get everybody riled up. It's >just an attention-getting ploy. Pretty sad really. Ric: As you know I have been a member and supporter of Tighar for several years. I'm really sorry to find out that Dr. Know is from Baton Rouge, LA. On behalf of all the good people of my hometown, I want to apologize for this idiot and let everyone "know" that although "Dr. Know" may not be a proctologist, he probably lives down a "crawfish hole" in one of our bayou mudbanks. If caught, I assure you he will be cooked during our next crawfish boil. Boiled alive -- that's the tastiest and only way to cook crawfish right. By the way, you're invited! LTM (who loves her boiled crawfish spicy) Danny Brown #2426 Baton Rouge, LA *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Danny but we really don't hold you, beautiful Baton Rouge, or the great state of Louisiana responsible for Dr. Know. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:15:33 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals? Randy Jacobson wrote: > ... Possibly, no one has taken the time to examine the immense amount of > information accrued to date and understood it well enough to determine a > falacious chain of logic. ... Or, > maybe, there isn't a faulty chain of logic: maybe the Niku Hypothesis is > generally correct, so far as we know. ... It seems to me that there isn't just one "chain of logic" involved, but multiple strands of thought, some of which are more complete than others, but which cohere and add strength to the judgment "The Niku hypothesis is reasonable." I think I posted this paragraph before. Forgive me for repeating myself. The quotations are from John Henry Newman, collated by Ian Ker: "The best illustration . . . is that of a cable which is made up of a number of separate threads, each feeble, yet together as sufficient as an iron rod," which represents "mathematical or strict demonstration" [LD xxi, 146] The cable will certainly break if enough threads give way, but if the threads hold, then the cable is as strong as any metal bar. For, to use yet another image, a cumulation of probabilities is like a "bundle of sticks, each of which . . . you could snap in two, if taken separately from the rest" [LD xxiv, 146] In the philosophy of science, there is new interest in William Whewell's theory of a "consilience of inductions." I haven't read the new book on this topic, but I'm pretty sure it makes the same point. No isolated part of the Brooklyn Bridge will carry the weight of the whole. It's only when all of the parts work together that the bridge can carry not only itself but all the traffic that goes across it, too. A partial list of the strands woven into the Niku hypothesis: navigational considerations fuel calculations AE & FN's track record and probable responses to the crisis pre-loss message post-loss messages anecdotes from the islanders material collected from Niku bones, sextant box, shoe parts, corks, Benedictine bottle aluminum detritus, Plexiglas fragment, wires judgments about why nothing was found until 1940 Navy overflight landing parties colonists guesses about where the plane may have disappeared to I'm sure there are other strands I can't think of right now. No one is sufficient to carry the weight of the Niku hypothesis. Taken together, in my judgment, they seem pretty persuasive. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:18:28 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Fuel consumption Alan wrote: >No, Ric, I'll not dig that up either but I would suggest Elgen COOKED the >math rather than screwed it up. I labored through his TV piece again last >night also and those were not mistakes. They were intentional alterations, >deletions and additions in order for the preconceived result to occur. Alan, I'm not at all quibbling with your interpretation, but do you mean that it was done with an intent to deceive? Or just poor reasoning on Elgen's part? Meanwhile, on a completely different thread, regarding Amelianism & such. Instead of "Japanese Abductionists," I'd like to suggest "Saipanistas." Just a thought. LTM, -- Amanda Dunham #2418CE ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:19:19 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Lae Position Gary, Thanks very much for that piece of information. I note that the date of the notice is just two years before and I wonder how quickly such information was updated in the US from foreign sources . Do you have any information of the previous estimate of position by the Australian DOD? Do we have any indication of how Fred sourced the positions of points along the route - whether direct from the chart or from published data. Can anyone give me any idea of whether there was any publication listing world geographical positions of towns and cities available in the US that Fred might have made use of? How did flyers usually source such information in the thirties? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:22:31 EDT From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: sinking I was the pilot of a Piper Cherokee that I put down on water many years ago: Even with 100 gallons of floatation plus the gas still inside, it sank within about 10 minutes and any metal airplane will sink in short order no matter what happens even with that much closed space on the Lockheed. Old but not bold from the South ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:27:03 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots > I could blow his cover (It really wasn't hard to track him > down. That's fine, Adolph. I don't care or want to know who he is. I can't believe we wasted so much time on such nonsense. We have much better nonsense to waste our time on. You certainly gave him adequate rope. Alan ******************************************************************* From Ric I really need to work on my image. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:29:19 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Myrtlebank > At any rate, neither location of > the Ontario nor Myrtlebank agreed with > any of the Monte Carlo simulations Randy, I came up with the same result. I had them slightly long for the Ontario and slightly short for the Myrtlebank. A previous post questioning the time has placed a smidgeon of doubt in my mind. My understanding was AE's alleged call was at 8:30 Australian time which was 1030 GMT. Can we clear that up? I like the 1030GMT but I would guess that could be off plus or minus maybe 10 or 15 minutes. Would that be reasonable? Is there a radio log for confirmation? Alan ********************************************************** From Ric I'm not aware of any Nauru radio log that has surfaced. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:21:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals? Randy wrote: > What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the major > tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers, the > Japanese Abductionists, That shouldn't surprise you Randy. Those folks have yet to provide anything credible for their OWN theories. Providing anything credible pro or con for anything is not their forte. They exist only to offer baseless disagreements. Off forum I wrote to a couple people who seem to have difficulty with the Niku idea that we sort of use a possible/impossible approach. At least I do. If something can be shown conclusively to be impossible it goes. I don't like to deal with probabilities as something most unlikely could be the correct answer. I try to look at everything to see if it could be possible. Consequently I eliminate very little. I've worked and reworked the fuel usage issue and the results tell me it is very possible they could have gone to Niku, that it is even possible they could have turned back and reached an easterly most Gilbert, that it was not possible to fly to Mili Atoll. One gentleman believes they flew all the way back to New Britain. He has evidence of a plane crash there so I don't tell him it's impossible but I DO tell him I cannot figure out how to get the plane all that way. I don't take that approach with the Marshall folks as they have not shown any evidence of a plane crash there. As we refine the fuel usage better we may be able to eliminate the Gilberts but I doubt it as the Daily Express averaged 48gph which indicates to me AE could have had about 125 gallons at 8:43 L in the vicinity of Howland. That would have given her sufficient fuel to get to Niku and possibly to a Gilbert island given a small tail wind. I then pointed out to my friends that regardless what quality the "evidence" from Niku has there is no evidence at all of ANY quality for any other place or for any other theory. Seems like a no brainer to me. I was then asked how long were we going to beat the Niku horse? First of all it's not my call but I suggested that one answer that comes to MY mind is until the money dries up or we find something definitely linking the Electra or our heroes to Niku or we run out of rabbit trails. Personally I think Niku will pay off. Alan *********************************************************************** From Ric You're right Alan. Like everything else, ultimately it's all about money. Most of the money to test the Niku hypothesis has come, and still comes, in relatively small chunks from many hundreds of people who expect nothing in return but identification with what they see to be an intelligent and laudable endeavor that is making progress toward a conclusive solution to the Earhart mystery. I can't think of a more reliable system for making sure that we don't flog a dead horse. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:22:15 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Lae Position The position of the Lae airport I obtained was from a Lae city map at extraordinary detail (I could get the end of the runway down to the meter!) when the airport was at its 1937 location. The map was circa mid-70's, if I remember correctly. Navigational accuracy has much improved over the years, and I would trust a more recent location than a NOTAM dated in 1935. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:33:44 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots > 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 > > Figure those vents into the laws of physics Dr. Know. Here's a thought. Obviously just my opinion, but something I've thought about for a couple of years when this vent thing has come up - but never posted. The vent openings in fuel tanks are there to allow pressure to equalize and overflow if fuel expands. They are not very big, and usually involve the filler caps. Other than fuel drains (which by their very nature should not allow water in), all the vent openings had to be at the tops of the tanks - else fuel would leak out. An empty bucket, provided there is something to stabilize it (like a brick) will float indefinitely or until it is filled (in the sea, by rain or waves). Actually, even if the aircraft was inverted, water shouldn't flow in, because if we turn our bucket over (and stabilize it), the air inside stops water coming in through the big round hole anyway. Think back to the Mary Watson castaway story that I posted. A woman, a baby and a Chinese servant floated for days in a small riveted, rusty, open steel tank, not unlike (in construction) the one TIGHAR found on Niku. Think of all the bottles (without caps) you've seen floating in waterways or the sea. Think of the story about the real reason for the shape of Coke (Coca-Cola) bottles. I'd imagine the Electra used something much lighter than steel for its fuel tanks. The Electra didn't have the tops cut out of the tanks, so if all the tanks were ruptured and/or perforated in a crash, perhaps water could get in. In any other case, as long as the buoyancy exceeded the weight of the aircraft, the thing should have floated. Even if the Electra's tanks were submerged so deeply that the vents were under water, surely it would take a long, long time to fill the things through the type of venting common to fuel tanks. Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************************** From Ric I see a different problem. The tanks in the fuselage were made of extremely thin aluminum so as to be as light as possible. They were anchored to the wooden floor with aluminum straps. They were designed as fuel containers, not flotation devices. They were designed for pressure outward, not inward. They anchoring straps were designed to keep the full tanks in place. They were not designed for the airplane's weight to be suspended from the tanks. The airplane itself is not at all watertight. In a flooded nose-down cabin the tanks would be trying to move toward the tail. If they ripped loose the filler necks would separate allowing the tanks to fill with water as easily as they filled with gas. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:35:26 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel consumption > Alan, I'm not at all quibbling with your interpretation, but do you > mean that it was done with an intent to deceive? Or just poor > reasoning on Elgen's part? No, Amanda, I would never malign Elgen's character. I believe him to be an honorable man. He and his wife Marie worked too long and too hard on the Earhart mystery to purposefully phony up their book in the end. They, like many of us believe very strongly in our various theories and put different weights on different aspects of the evidence. All of the investigators interpret differently and sometimes make assumptions based on those interpretations that perhaps others would not have made. In Elgen's case he believed strongly the Electra ran out of gas immediately after the 8:43 radio call and then saw evidence to support his theory along with a few assumptions he apparently felt the evidence warranted. Many of us see all that in a different light. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:37:00 EDT From: Denise Subject: Fiji Masons - off topic Dave Bush says "Glad I'm not a mason in Suva, then. Guess its a local tradition." Dave, I've asked around and apparently it's not just something that happens in Fiji. It's actually world-wide. When asked why a Mason in Texas wouldn't know about it, I was told it's an older tradition that isn't used by a lot of the newer lodges. So, there you go! Old lodge: bones; New lodge: no bones! Hey, here's a newer tradition you also may not know about: some of the newer lodges in this country are allowing in Muslims and Jews. The reason given is that it's becoming difficult to find people who believe in any sort of Book, so they've expanded the definition. LTM (who wasn't a Mason) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:39:09 EDT From: David Jeane Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots >Thanks Danny but we really don't hold you, beautiful Baton Rouge, or the >great state of Louisiana responsible for Dr. Know. That's a relief! But we do have our "fair share" David Jeane #2498 Springhill, Louisiana ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:59:33 EDT From: Doug Subject: What was not Said Ric, There is something that troubles me about the post lost radio messages and in particular Betty's Notebook. Why is there no reference as to Amelia saying the word "ISLAND". If I was sending distress messages the one word that I would say the most, and would say over and over again is ISLAND. If it were me, I would have sent the following message, and only this message, as many times as I could till the Radio went dead: THIS IS AMELIA EARHART, WE WERE FLYING ON LINE 157/357. WE HAVE LANDED ON AN ISLAND. Doug ************************************************************************ From Ric First of all, Betty's notebook does not purport to be a complete transcription of everything that was said - far otherwise. Second, most of the notebook records "open mic" exchanges between the two occupants, not information intended for transmission. Nowhere in the transcript does either speaker make any attempt to describe their situation other than comments to each other about water height. Earhart, at one point, appears to be rattling off numbers that may be an attempt to describe miles, or headings, or lat/long but there is no recorded sentence that begins "We are .....". Other alleged post-loss receptions do include such descriptions but they also do not convey the level of distress and anxiety recorded by Betty. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:02:43 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: CowParade Atlanta Cows - Gallery At this internet gallery, you can view a cow named "Amoo'lia Earhart" (among others...) http://atlanta.cowparade.net/cow/gallery -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM *************************************************** From Ric How can we ever thank you? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:04:36 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals? Actually, when I gave a talk on the Niku Hypothesis and our research several months ago in Honolulu, Rollin Reineck got up at the end and rebutted me by simply ignoring all the evidence I'd just presented, and the content of our book, and assuring the crowd that: (a) There were too many people on Nikumaroro not to have found Earhart if she'd been there; and (b) "Gillespie has no evidence." So you see, there HAS been a rebuttal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:09:24 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Weather Link I found this link doing some research on the ITZ. Way outta my league and perhaps well known to our weather experts, but I'd thought I'd post the site anyway. http://airsea-www.jpl.nasa.gov/seaflux/html/getdata.html Bob ********************************************** From Ric Looks like there may be some good information there but it's outside of my pay grade. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:28:14 EDT From: Bill Shea Subject: Questions about 10E's tanks From Bill Shea > They were designed for pressure outward, not inward Ric, has there been any discussion of an explosion caused by possible fumes from the fuel tanks of the 10E? Was anything mentioned of fumes on any of their route previously? Is it possible that these emptying tanks vented into the fuselage which might have exploded the plane? (That certainly might explain why there was no SOS saying they were going to ditch, why some think they still had some fuel available when they were last heard, and why they never showed up at Howland.) How much effort would have been needed by Noonan working all them fuel valves to use the last drops and if fumes might have been become too strong in the fuselage. One question about the H-Test tank. Wouldn't they have saved any of the hi-test fuel to the last thinking they would prefer to use it to take off from Howland? they needed the hi-test to take off from Lae, wouldn't they want to use the remaining hi-test to take off from Howland? Someone suggested a while ago that they would not have done this since the plane would be a lot lighter because there was less miles to fly on the next leg. I still don't agree with this since they were to be refueled with "regular" at Howland and I would assume that a pilot would want more fuel rather than less (clue me in pilots) Cheers from Bill Shea ************************************************************************* From Ric You don't vent fuel tanks into the cabin (geeesh). The only time there was a mention of fuel vapors in the airplane was on the South Atlantic flight and that was because of sloppy fueling before takeoff. It's possible that Earhart may have intended to save some 100 octane for the Howland takeoff but she's certainly not going to let the airplane run out of gas rather than use it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:31:34 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Weather Link The links to the TRIMM data look like they might contain some good stuff. There's a nice animation of super cyclone Zoe. They listed the winds at sustained 178 MPH with higher gusts. Thunderclouds reaching 9 miles in altitude! Follow other research and look for the TRIMM data page(s) which have a link to 'other extreme events' and they look to have 2002 and 2003 online. Bob ******************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bob. >They listed the winds at sustained 178 MPH with higher gusts. Thunderclouds >reaching 9 miles in altitude! Makes me shudder to think of it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:32:17 EDT From: David Katz Subject: Re: Fiji Masons - off topic The Masons have had Jewish members for more than a couple of hundred years. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:36:19 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Myrtlebank Ric, In your reply to Randy Jacobson's post of Mon 4 Aug 2003 11:29:03 EDT, you stated that there is no indication that Earhart contacted USS Ontario (AT13) for a RDF signal source - How could Earhart while airborne have contacted USS Ontario (AT13) if she could only transmit by phone/voice? - I have never seen any information that stated USS Ontario (AT13) could communicate voice message traffic, only code. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ************************************************************** From Ric Excellent point. Earhart herself set up an unworkable system and nobody on the Coast Guard/Navy side caught it or said anything about if they did. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:25:48 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: What was not Said > Other alleged post-loss receptions do include such descriptions but they > also do not convey the level of distress and anxiety recorded by Betty. Not a direct comment on the above statement but it DID bring something to mind. There have been some comments on Earhart's voice sounding a bit high pitched or excited or words to that effect in her 8:43 transmission. Maybe so. At Lae she was told she ought to modulate her voice to a higher pitch because of a rough carrier wave. Possibly she did. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:26:47 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals? > So you see, there HAS been a rebuttal. Tom, There have been a lot of rebuttals but none credible and none with the slightest support. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:27:58 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Questions about 10E's tanks > It's possible that Earhart may have intended to save some 100 octane for the > Howland takeoff but she's certainly not going to let the airplane run out of > gas rather than use it. She only had about 40 gallons of 100 octane to begin with and if she thought she needed it for takeoff at Howland she had plenty of time to ask that it be put in place. Take off at Lae would not have used up much of the 40 gallons even at full bore and longer than the one minute restriction. I'm sure she used it at least until she had close to five hundred feet, a positive rate of climb and climb airspeed. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:30:53 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots > The airplane itself is not at all watertight. In a flooded nose-down cabin > the tanks would be trying to move toward the tail. If they ripped loose the > filler necks would separate allowing the tanks to fill with water as easily as > they filled with gas. I agree with most of this with a couple of exceptions. A tank built to hold fuel "in" withstanding the pressure of the weight of the fuel against the void outside should (this isn't a statement of fact - just a suggestion) stand up fairly well to the "sea level" pressure of water on it. Looking at the internal diagram of the Electra and the layout of the tanks, I don't see a whole lot of room for them to move enough to break free, or head towards the tail if they did. If the vents were in the fillers, there's a good chance that they would be under water first, and once covered, the water ingress could be slowed considerably by the pressure of air inside. I've never been a fan of the crashed and sank thing, but as you know, I've always wondered about the possibility of crashed and floated ashore at Niku's reef. This might explain why they didn't bring a heap of traceable stuff ashore as survival tools, and why aircraft parts were supposedly seen on the reef a few years later. Unfortunately, it leaves one of my favourite bits out in the cold.. The post loss messages. Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************************** From Ric There was plenty of room both above and aft of the tanks for them to break free. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:34:27 EDT From: Bob Heine Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots I see another problem. The tanks don't need to fill with water at all for the airplane to sink. If the tanks were made of thin aluminum, all the water has to do is squeeze the tanks until they collapse from the water pressure. Since the tanks were vented, there was no air pressure inside the tanks to stop it (like a balloon). The only way they could not have collapsed is if they had lots of reinforcing inside to resist the water pressure, which is very unlikely. The water pressure is greater the deeper you go, so if the plane floated nose first, the forward most tanks would be the first to go. -Bob Heine ************************************************************************ From Ric The tanks did have internal baffling to keep the fuel from sloshing. I don't know how much reinforcement they would provide to crushing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:36:40 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Fiji Masons - off topic Muslims and Jews! My gosh, next thing you know they'll be allowing Native Americans (Indians to many) in the lodges - oops, they let me in - too late! But truthfully, when I joined the Masons over 20 years ago there were already Jews and Muslims in the organization and persons from India, Mexico, and many, many other ethnic backgrounds. Only blacks were not allowed in due to some obscure phrasing dealing with freemen. However, I was "blackballed" from holding future officers because I espoused a strong dislike for the KKK and its credos. The person who blackballed me happened to also be the mentor who trained me in all my work! But he was quite prejudiced and I took exception to that. LTM, Dave Bush ****************************************************************** From Ric Could we maybe get back on topic? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:17:17 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals? Well a hypothesis is a hypothesis. And the Niku hypothesis remains the same as it was from 1937, with no credible proof in my opinion to date that AE landed there. It seems to me that there has been enough time, energy and expeditions to prove it one way or the other. But I would encourage continued research as is being done. I don't think those that do not agree need to rebut the Niku hypothesis as there are many hypotheses of what happened. We have examined in detail the fact that absent some extraordinary failure in the radio equipment, she could have been heard transmitting on either frequency if she was heading southeast on the LOP for several hours prior to arriving at NIKU. Nothing for the two to three hours was heard by Itasca. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric >Well a hypothesis is a hypothesis. Unless it is your own. Remember your Love to Mother project? You started with the hypothesis that the communication came from Earhart. You did research and gathered information and found that hypothesis to be unsupported. You then formulated a new hypothesis that the communication came from one Ahmad Kamal and presented your case to show why you believe that the Kamal Hypothesis is better supported than alternative explanations for the Love to Mother communication. You did not claim to have conclusive proof but you clearly believe that your hypothesis is much more likely to be true. I would submit that the evidence supporting (but not yet proving) the hypothesis that the Earhart flight ended at Gardner Island is far stronger and more varied than the evidence you found to support you hypothesis that Ahmad Kamal was the author of Love to Mother. >there are many hypotheses of what happened. They only need to rebut the theory if they expect to be taken seriously. Anybody can say, as you have: >[T]he Niku hypothesis remains the same >as it was from 1937, with no credible proof in my opinion to date that AE >landed there. It seems to me that there has been enough time, energy and >expeditions to prove it one way or the other. That doesn't refute or offer an alternative explanation to anything. It's just a statement of opinion. >We have examined in detail the fact that absent some extraordinary failure in >the radio equipment, she could have been heard transmitting on either >frequency if she was heading southeast on the LOP for several hours prior to >arriving at NIKU. Nothing for the two to three hours was heard by Itasca. Is that the best you can come up with? There is no "fact" that absent some extraordinary failure in the radio equipment, she could have been heard transmitting on either frequency. Quite the contrary. There has been some well-informed speculation that indicates that such communication would not have been possible. But even if that were not the case, Earhart's apparent silence after 08:43 proves nothing except that nobody heard her. If you really want to offer a credible rebuttal to the Niku hypothesis: - Show that it is unreasonable to think that the airplane could have reached Gardner. - Show that it is unreasonable to think that the Navy's search could have missed her if she was there. - Tell us whose bones Gallagher found. (That's how you debunked Love to Mother. You found a more credible source for something that had been attributed to Earhart.) - Tell us what airplane these artifacts came from that seem to match the Electra better than any other aircraft. Or you can just say a hypothesis is a hypothesis. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:29:20 EDT From: Kent Johnson Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots >if they ripped loose, the filler necks would separate. I'm sorry I may not be as familiar with the layout as I should, so maybe this should be obvious. Were the additional fuel tanks plumbed to the filler was on the outside of the skin? More often than not, back in those days, they were not. For long range flight attempts and such the tanks were considered temporary and filled directly with a hose via a filler on the top of the tank. It likely would not even have toggle type caps, just twist ons. They no doubt had an overflow/expansion vent that vented to the outside. More than likely just a nipple on the forward high point of each tank with a hose or line to the exterior bottom of the fuselage. Wouldn't need to be anything fancy. The only aircraft fuel caps with a vent that I've ever seen were on Cubs and other vintage light planes with a cork on a wire that ran through the cap and served as the fuel gauge. I've never seen a toggle type cap, which I presume something like a 10E would have, at least on the wing tanks, that has a built in vent. Just some thoughts, and if I'm obviously wrong please consider that I'm a novice in this adventure. Thanks, K. ************************************************************************ From Ric >Were the additional fuel tanks plumbed to the filler was on the outside of >the skin? Yes, they were. Remember, this airplane was built from scratch as a long-distance version of the Model 10E. As delivered in 1936 the fuselage tanks were served by a manifold that went to two filler necks mounted behind little doors in the port side of the cabin. The manifold proved unworkable and each tank was given its own filler neck and door. To fuel a fuselage tank you climbed up on the wing, opened one of the little doors, and inserted a special right-angle funnel with a big filtering can on top into the filler neck and then pumped gas into the can. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:34:05 EDT From: Kent Johnson Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots The tanks were not made of aluminum foil! Likely they were at least .060" sheet duralumin, welded, with some internal baffling. They wouldn't crush THAT easily. No doubt they could at least stand pressures at the depth of the full length of the Electra. Also, remember that just because they are vented doesn't mean they will fill with water. The water has to have a means of entry and the air a path of exit. If both paths are through the vent line, it's going to be a trickle at most. If the end of the vent line is under water, supposing the aircraft is floating upright and the vent line is on the bottom of the fuselage, the pressure inside the tank would likely prevent the water from entering. If the aircraft were upside down the vents would possibly be out of the water and unless the caps on the tanks were leaking and allowing water in through the filler, the tanks would remain dry. All of this of course is presuming the tanks aren't otherwise breached due to crash damage, etc. K. ************************************************************************* From Ric I don't think you mean .060. The heaviest skins on the airplane were .040 belly skins in the center section. The nose was .025. In the photos, the fuselage tanks appear to be extremely thin aluminum. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:34:41 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals? For Ron Bright Ron, I don't think anybody said there was "credible PROOF" for the Niku hypothesis, only that there's "credible EVIDENCE." There's obviously a big difference. LTM (who thought very few things truly "proved") ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:41:45 EDT From: Kent Johnson Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots Thanks for the clarification. I learn something new everyday around here! Kent ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:44:25 EDT From: Kent Johnson Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots Yep, that's what I mean. I've been told by old, experienced aircraft welders that .060 was about as thin as they could consistently weld at that time. MIG/TIG welding has come along way since then. The aircraft skins are riveted and not intended to be under the same fluid dynamics as a fuel tank. Skins are also supported by considerably more structure. ************************************************************ From Ric I'll email you a photo of the tanks and you can tell us what you think. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:52:16 EDT From: Daryll Subject: Rebuttals Randy and Alan wrote: >>What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the >>major tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers, >>the Japanese Abductionists,.................... > >That shouldn't surprise you Randy. Those folks have yet to provide >anything credible for their OWN theories. Providing anything credible >pro or con for anything is not their forte. They exist only to offer >baseless disagreements. You're poking the stick into the cage again! Any evidence that has been found on Niku relies on interpretation to make it fit into the Earhart story. The AES does the same thing of course with the Marshall island scenario. The biggest problem for the Niku theory is how "Natural" (uncontrolled) forces acted to remove the smoking gun evidence from searchers and researchers. In the Niku theory, within days of July 2nd the weather and waves removed the wreckage from sight of the Navy over-flights. Years later Lambrecht (sp?) said what he meant by his statement. "Natural" forces is TIGHAR's excuse for not having or finding a smoking gun. I and most AES members recognize that "Human" forces could have been involved in removing the smoking gun evidence by the eye-witnesses reported seeing an airplane in a sling off the back of a ship at Jaluit. >Those folks have yet to provide anything credible for their OWN >theories. Providing anything credible pro or con for anything is not >their forte. They exist only to offer baseless disagreements. I have put my "281 Scenario" on my MSN photos page. That page is for MSN members to store and share their photos with family and friends. What I did was use an Air Force C45 (Beech 18) to fly the scenario using Microsoft's Flight Simulator. I then took screen shots of the flight and present them in a 15 min. slide show of 83 different screen shots which is based on available archived evidence. You will no doubt argue with my wind selection which is based on an average wind calculated from the time enroute and Itasca's logs. I made no attempt to compare fuel consumption in the simulation because of the different engines and airplanes. I would have used a 10E if a quality airplane was available for the simulation. The way the MSN photo page works is that I have to put in an email address, by typing it, I tried pasting, to share the photos on my page. MSN then sends out the photo page to that address. Because some people have iMacs and spam filters I'm not sure a general invitation would work for a group (listserve). What I will do (within reason) is put anyone's email address in and have MSN send out the invitation to them. All you have to do is put "281 scenario" in the subject line an your email address in the body of the email. I don't really want to engage in any off forum email conversations with TIGHAR's 6000 + members. If any requests get bounced back it would be because the mailbox got filled up. Daryll ******************************************************** From Ric That's 600 + members. I wish it were 6000. In any event, I don't think you need to worry about TIGHAR members flooding your mailbox. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:13:30 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Niku Hypothesis: No Credible Rebuttals? > If you really want to offer a credible rebuttal to the Niku hypothesis: > > - Show that it is unreasonable to think that the airplane could have reached > Gardner. > - Show that it is unreasonable to think that the Navy's search could have > missed her if she was there. > - Tell us whose bones Gallagher found. (That's how you debunked Love to > Mother. You found a more credible source for something that had been > attributed to Earhart.) > - Tell us what airplane these artifacts came from that seem to match the > Electra better than any other aircraft. Ah, Rick, you are too soft. I don't accept reasonable or unreasonable as a test. Someone will have to show me it was IMPOSSIBLE to reach Niku not just unreasonable. I think it was unreasonable to try for the Gilbert's but it might have been reasonable to our heroes. As long as it remains possible I can't rule it out. I won't search there as there is nothing leading us there. My fuel estimates lead me to believe it was possible for the Electra to go to any of the Phoenix Islands but nothing leads us to any of them but Niku at this time. I also think that was the reasonable thing to do. Someone may say they think heading to Canton was the reasonable thing to do. Well, maybe that's what they were doing but stumbled across Niku instead. Then it became "any port in a storm." Stay tough. Alan *************************************************** From Ric What it comes down to is this - documented information and artifacts have been found which prove - that's right, prove - that some very unusual things happened on Nikumaroro. So far, the only event we have been able to find which appears to explain the evidence found in the documented information and artifacts is the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. As Daryll says, that is how we have interpreted the hard evidence that we have found. It appears to be very consistent and it happens to also match the "soft" (anecdotal) evidence we have found. So far, nobody has offered a credible alternative explanation for the proven unusual events. By contrast, the Saipanistas (love it) have only soft evidence that must be selectively harvested to construct any kind of coherent hypothesis. The Crashed and Sankers have no evidence at all, hard or soft. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:15:09 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Connecting The Dots Just how soft of a landing are you guys expecting? First of all those tanks were put in with straps to hold them in place, I believe that a landing at sea would be rough enough to break just one of those straps and that would be enough to start the whole inside being torn apart from just the jarring around. Then lets say they made a successful ditching and water entered the cabin. The tanks would have to be thick, and built with a frame work so that they could stand the outside pressure. From the pictures that I have seen the tanks were made like aircraft construction where each part is its own support and also contributes to the support of other components in a way not to need a frame to save weight. The tanks were freestanding and could only contribute to the tank next to it for support on one side , they were not very strong for pressure from the outside. What difference does all of this make ? If they would have floated around for years they were lost and we are trying to find them. The last clue was the sun line, you have to follow that to its end and we have not done that yet. If they continued with their plan they had to fly over Niku and I think they had enough brains to take advantage of the situation and attempt a landing somewhere on the island. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:20:44 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Document up The article about all the psychics that pestered Putnam is now up on the TIGHAR website as a downloadable PDF file in the Documents section at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Jennings_Article/Psychicsarticle.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:08:25 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: AE's radio protocol Ric wrote: >Earhart herself set up an unworkable system and nobody on the >Coast Guard/Navy side caught it or said anything about if they did. My read is that the system was "workable" if its designer, Harry Manning, had been there to work it. But in the final analysis you're right -- in the rush to get the second attempt off the ground, AE and GP apparently figured they could "adapt" Manning's protocols without the equipment, personnel or skills needed to implement them. A fatal blunder. PDG ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:26:09 EDT From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Rebuttals To Ric and Alan, > What is surprising is that there has been no credible rebuttal to the > major tenets of the Niku Hypothesis from any source: the Crash and Sinkers, > the Japanese Abductionists,.................... When I joined this forum I thought I gave Tighar a credible hypothesis - and all i got from Ric was an "arggghhh". All I can say to the above is that if we Crashed and Sankites don't respond to the Niku Hypothesis its because we don't think its worth responding to. For all the theories the Niku-ites have given the forum about trying to prove that the 10E went there, there are credible reasons why I think they didn't get that far. When I posted them to the forum I got shot down. Of course we don't have tangible evidence of anywhere they went as they approached Howland; and to us C&Sers, nor have you given any evidence either. Don't get me wrong, I follow the forum on everything that is happening on Niku and wish the latest expedition every success. But what I have heard up to know is not enough to convince me that Niku is where they went. Cheers from Bill Shea (Who still wonders how many C&S'ers there are and how many Niku-ites there are?) *********************************************************** From Ric Bill, we listened to your theory and we tried to explain to you that it is pure speculation entirely based upon unwarranted assumptions. Elgen Long's theory is more elaborate and better informed but it is still pure speculation based upon unwarranted assumption. Daryll goes on and on about his 281 Theory but it is just more of the same - pure speculation based upon unwarranted assumptions. All of you guys substitute imagination for evidence. Let me give you a challenge. I'll give you a documented example of physical evidence (not proof mind you, but a genuine clue) that Earhart died on Gardner Island and you give me a documented example of a physical clue that she drowned at sea. Okay? Here goes. The bones of a castaway were found on Gardner Island three years after Earhart disappeared. Your turn. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 08:49:30 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Theories of Disappearance For Alan, Randy, and other Niku theorists, When we ask for refutation or rebuttals or other viable theories on this Tighar forum we are not likely to get any. Alan should ask such researchers such as Klaas, Reineck, Reuther, Prymak, Bollinger, Gervais, Wilson, and many others in the AES who claim there evidence is just as good as the Niku evidence. I can't articulate those theories as well as the above g