Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:24:56 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Petty squabbling Pat Gaston wrote: >I didn't miss the point, and the fact is that what you said in reply to my >post (mistakenly addressed to another Forum member) is not what you are saying >now. You're losing it Pat. Nice try but I said virtually nothing in my mistaken post and most certainly nothing you want to think. Here is exactly what I said. Bob Lee wrote: >We know that AE and FN were on the 157/337 LOP at 8:43 am, and planned to >continue running "north and south" on that line. From Alan That's exciting news Bob. Specifically just how do "we" know any of that? I don't know it nor do I know anyone else who knows that. Enlighten me. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:31:03 EDT From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance I am somewhat concerned about the last message being heard that early by the Itasca and then no more: figuring that there was another 4 hours of fuel available after 8;43 am, unless there was one other later heard but not written in the log as rumored I am sure you have written about that in the forum before, however, is there evidence of her kind of breaking the rules as set down by the engineers and Paul Mantz in regard to fuel and engine economy? You know headstrong do it my way kind of stuff. Things would mess up all our calculations. The evidence is to my mind more than circumstantial that they ended up where it all leads [Nika whatever] and she could no longer transmit on that frequency for some reason that morning. Are there areas on the island that have not been explored and is there a way to do so with present technology; radar sonar, etc.? ******************************************************************** From Ric I'm not aware of any documented instance when AE deviated from recommended fuel management procedures. Yes, there are many places we haven't looked and we use the best available technology. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:34:52 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: New forum rule No more unsigned postings. In the past I've often gone back to the subscriber's list to find the name for an unsigned posting but it takes too much time. If you're not comfortable taking responsibility for what you say - don't say it. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:36:20 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: E-Bay offering re AE Aug. 31, 2003 Would any of this be of interest to TIGHAR? An early 1930s VIBROPLEX BUG used by Joe Gurr, Amelia Earhart's radio consultant on her 1937 Round-the-World flight and extensive Amelia Earhart Radio research file. Serial number is 90919, a very early vintage bug, manufactured in 1923. Gurr used this bug to communicate around the world. In 1937, Gurr consulted for Amelia Earhart. This large file details numerous changes and modifications made to Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra in Burbank, CA. The 8x10 autographed photo is of Gurr with Amelia. She signed, "To Joe Gurr with 500 KCS of appreciation. Amelia Earhart 1937." The print is a duplicate of the 1937 signed photo. Extensive Amelia Earhart Radio file: Some answers to communication equipment mysteries that surround Amelia Earhart's disappearance may be in Joe Gurr's personal file of correspondence and documentation. It details how little experience Amelia Earhart had operating the radio equipment and perhaps why Amelia Earhart could not receive messages from the U.S. Coast Guard cutter, Itasca" the last 12 hours on her July 2, 1937 flight to Howland Island. "Gurr's file includes rare instructions and communications between Paul Mantz (Amelia's technical advisor), Lockheed," Fred Hooven, Fred Goerner, and others. There is also a 10-page account of Gurr's recollections, "...about my connection with Amelia Earhart's Preparation for her around the world flight...mainly based on a technical point of view, with an ending of my opinion..." The preceding information was provided by the seller, an Aviation Historian, Publisher and coauthor of the book "Amelia, My Courageous Sister, Biography of Amelia Earhart: True Facts About Her Disappearance". Radio shows signs of wear due to age, otherwise it appears to be in good condition for its age. Radio has not been tested for functionality. Paper work is clean with minimal signs of crinkling present. Last 2 photos are pictured for reference and authentication, but are not included. ********************************************************************** From Ric No. We already have copies of the Gurr material. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:43:24 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance I know you must have postulated this in the past, but what is your "gut feeling" of their latitudinal position at local sunrise on 2 July 1937? Were they (in your estimation) too far south? Too far north? I'm sorry to be bringing this up again, I'd just like a "best guess" from you as to where you believed their position to be. LTM, Dave #2585 *************************************************************************** From Ric I think they were probably well south of where they thought they were. Just how far is impossible to say but I think it was far enough so that when they reached the advanced LOP sometime shortly before 07:42 local and didn't see Howland, they could explore to the NW for as long as they dared and still not see Baker. I think they turned back to the SE before 08:43 - hence we are running north and south on line. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:45:12 EDT From: Daryll Subject: "Splashed down" ??? Ric wrote: >I'm not going to take the time to correct the many errors and >unwarranted assumptions in the above but I will ask you to explain how >the 281 message could have been sent from an aircraft that "splashed >down" "ERRORS" ?? Please point out the errors for me, because that implies you know the correct answers. "UNWARRANTED assumptions",...this is the TIGHAR Earhart research forum isn't it...!!?? Everything I say has circumstantial or direct evidence to back it up. I used a computer flight simulation to convert what I said into visual aids for those who can't picture it by reading the words. I used "splashed down" to avoid a knee jerk reaction from the forum members who have been conditioned to disregard anything having to do with Mili Atoll and the Marshall islands simply because of the J-A-P-A-N-E-S-E capture connection. "Splashed down" along side of an island, on a reef flat, seems far more preferable than hitting a tree on an island at ~65 kts. In such a landing there must be some kind of splashing going on. That's how you picture the Niku landing correct? The airplane had to end up in a dry/wet situation where it could be retrieved for the Marshall island eye-witnesses to report seeing it in a sling off the back of a ship some 10 days later. Some Earhart researchers say that those Marshallese eye-witnesses were just making up that story. Well....those clever native eye-witnesses added that the left wing was broken off. This is the kind of damage that you would expect to see when one wing tip stalls at slow airspeeds and it drops contacting the ground/water/reef. This would be consistent with AE slowing down and holding the Electra off until it quit flying. This seems to confirm that what the Marshall islanders saw was just a truthful observation, nothing more, nothing less. Daryll ************************************************************************ From Ric You've already demonstrated what I mean by unwarranted assumptions far better than I could. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:47:48 EDT From: Tom Byers Subject: Re: Clipper ditching I think this story points to the conclusion that if Earhart did ditch at sea it is very likely that the airplane could well have sunk without leaving any floating wreckage. For what it is worth, there is an interesting black and white photo of Earhart in the current issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Tom Byers. ************************************************************************ From Ric I don't follow your logic. Because the clipper had to be sunk by gunfire it provides no information about how much floating wreckage it may have left if allowed to eventually sink naturally. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:44:31 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance Carl Peltzer said: >the Itasca and then no more. Carl, A lot has been said about the "last" message at 8:43 L But keep in mind what we are talking about is one message we have confirmed but not necessarily the last message. We are all of the opinion there were many more messages - some actually heard that we have reports of and no doubt many more we have not discovered yet. Many messages could have been heard and never reported. As to fuel there is really very little a pilot can do about fuel efficiency. A given amount of fuel will produce a given amount of brake horsepower. That in turn produces a given thrust or airspeed. Reduce power and you reduce airspeed. Increase power and you increase airspeed. That is not an absolute but it would take an unusual fuel management to make significant changes and to no good reason. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:07:25 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance Ric wrote: > I think they were probably well south of where they thought they were. Just > how far is impossible to say but I think it was far enough so that when they > reached the advanced LOP sometime shortly before 07:42 local and didn't see > Howland, they could explore to the NW for as long as they dared and still not > see Baker. I think they turned back to the SE before 08:43 - hence we are > running north and south on line. This is great stuff Ric. If I might ask the navigational experts on just how long it would take Fred to get a fairly useful fix on his position IF he started taking shots in that hour between 7:42 and 8:43? I am gonna assume (for purposes of this question) that he had to start out with no previous fix and only a general idea of where he was. How long would a 1937 navigator take to get a reasonably accurate fix on his position under these circumstances? Bob ******************************************************************** From Ric Remember that he's at 1,000 feet, probably to get below the bases of the scattered deck of clouds. By now the sun is high enough to behind those clouds. To get any kind of celestial observation they have to make the decision to burn the gas and take the time to climb up to where they can see the sun. During that time they will not be able to look for land. I wouldn't do it. Others feel differently. If Noonan did take subsequent sun shots this is what he'd be faced with. At 08:43 (20:13Z) the sun's angle has not moved enough since sunrise to give Noonan a reliable "cut" across the original LOP to know whether he is north or south of Howland. By 09:30 (21:00Z) the sun has still only moved 11 degrees. If he took a sighting at this time he'd need to be very sure that it was a good reliable reading before committing to turning back to the northwest. By 10:00 (21:30Z) the cut is 17 degrees, enough to be sure that he really is south of Howland, but now he's beyond his point of no return. Turning back is not an option. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:07:24 EDT From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance Ric, with scattered clouds you don't have to climb to take a shot. Broken maybe. Jim ************************************************************ From Ric Have you ever taken a celestial observation from an airplane from below a scattered cloud deck? I haven't, but I've talked to a lot of people who have done celestial navigation from airplanes and I have yet to find anyone who has done it. Maybe you're the first. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:08:22 EDT From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance For Alan: As a pilot/owner for 40 years, I realize all this, but others do not and am just attempting to address things feel need to be brought up. After all, I am a fairly new member here. Carl Peltzer ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 10:03:07 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Betty's Notebook? Not to distract from the Tighar Forum's refined art form of LOP speculation, but I do have two quick questions that have nothing to do with LOP's - Has Betty's composition notebook been tested under laboratory conditions for fibre makeup and content? - Is there any way to validate that this composition notebook could be of 1937 vintage? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************** From Ric No, the notebook has not been laboratory tested for fiber makeup. It is either a genuine mid-1930s notebook or an amazing forgery. We have no reason to suspect the latter. If you do, and if you're willing to fund its examination by the Winterthur Conservation Laboratory (a nationally recognized lab right here in Delaware) we'll be happy to submit it for their opinion. My guess is that it would cost somewhere between $500 and $1,000 depending on how fancy you want them to get. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 10:04:04 EDT From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance No I didn't but that's why I always carried a Navigator. As I flew the Pacific most of the time, they did it quite often. We flew at 8-12 thousand a lot and I never heard one say he couldn't take one. But then, they were Air Force Trained, so were quite good. In Pilot training I asked to be trained to use a sextant and was told ,"if you want to use a sextant go to navigator school". You will have one in your crew don't worry. Jim ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 10:08:13 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance Ric, I guess you've forgotten all my posts on this. gl ******************************************************************** From Ric I remember many many posts sprinkled with "would haves" but if you ever claimed to have taken celestial observations from an aircraft soon after dawn from 1,000 feet while under a low scattered cumulous deck it has slipped my mind. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:55:58 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance >celestial observations from an aircraft soon after dawn from 1,000 >feet I'm sure it is technically possible to put the sun in place in a sextant at low altitude but you're talking about an airplane traveling over a hundred miles per hour in air that is at least a little bumpy. Each few seconds a cloud will cause you to lose aim on the sun. That doesn't sound like a situation that will give any reasonable result. I flew low level missions for many years in SAC and TAC and NO celestial was ever attempted or planned. The ride was so rough holding breakfast down was the major consideration. Next, at 1,000' under scattered to broken clouds you will never see the sun at 10 degrees or more for an accurate shot. Finally, on the inbound leg at 10,000' They are not likely to get a sun shot at all. I don't know what the tops were that day but CU usually runs up around ten thousand feet give or take. When the sun rose to a visible height they would have been in pretty close. Two hours out they still had stars to shoot weather permitting. Noonan would have picked up his ground speed over the water not from sun lines. Let me suggest you game this out from the Gilberts inbound checking position against sun rise and you will see this was not a good celestial situation. Give up on the idea that someone could see the sun pop up over the horizon and get usable information from that event. Distortion error and visibility negates that. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:58:05 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance Ric wrote: > Remember that he's at 1,000 feet, probably to get below the bases of the > scattered deck of clouds. By now the sun is high enough to behind those clouds. > To get any kind of celestial observation they have to make the decision to > burn the gas and take the time to climb up to where they can see the sun. During > that time they will not be able to look for land. I wouldn't do it. Others > feel differently. If Noonan did take subsequent sun shots this is what he'd > be faced with. > > At 08:43 (20:13Z) the sun's angle has not moved enough since sunrise to give > Noonan a reliable "cut" across the original LOP to know whether he is north or > south of Howland. > > By 09:30 (21:00Z) the sun has still only moved 11 degrees. If he took a > sighting at this time he'd need to be very sure that it was a good reliable > reading before committing to turning back to the northwest. > > By 10:00 (21:30Z) the cut is 17 degrees, enough to be sure that he really is > south of Howland, but now he's beyond his point of no return. Turning back is > not an option. **epiphany** Thanks. I've already seen some comments on beating the LOP to death, but let me say that Ric's explanation above as well as some other recent postings have really helped *me* understand better the significance of the LOP and my own prejudices in judging what someone would do under the circumstances of our duo. As only a somewhat reluctant airline passenger, I assumed that the first thing that I would do when I didn't find Howland initially is to do a short search and then find out where the &^(&*& I am. I don't have any problem with the short flight northwest to see if Howland appears and then a turn to the Southeast. Once on that leg I assumed that Fred would take some shots to establish their position -- maybe he did. But Ric's explanation clearly points out that *if* Fred and AE were confident in their east-west position they could have found their way by either good fortune (their actual bearing on the LOP taking them close enough to see Gardner) or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner where a landing would at least be *possible*. So thanks to all the forum members for putting up with what must seem like a rehash -- but this is a concise explanation that I've not found in the archives and further strengthens the Niku/Gardner theory. In short this simplifies many confusing aspects of the final leg of the journey. Stay fairly low to be able to see any landfall (plus the added benefit of potentially being seen), Don't risk missing Howland and/or Baker on the SE leg of the LOP as this means they were actually north of the islands and would cast doubt on their ability to get the Gardner with their fuel load. And finally spend some time double-checking the calculations for hitting the advanced LOP to make certain they're as accurate as possible. Bob ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:00:42 EDT From: Tom Byers Subject: Rain Squall Did the Itasca report a rain-squall to the northwest of Howland around the time of Earhart's expected arrival? Tom Byers / Springfield, MO ************************************************************** From Ric No. The scattered cloud deck was apparently thicker to the northwest but there was never any report of a rain squall or storm. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:25:56 EDT From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance Gee folks, my training shows that the Sun takes up about 2 percent of the sky finding the center is difficult enough especially with the problems of distortion early and late in the day: yes you can find some planets in the daytime: stars are more difficult, however possible, if you know where to look, but it is much easier to do a celestial just before sunrise, get your best position and then use that map position to find your target, or any island. It sounds, to me, with the radio report, that they were quite sure of their position at sunrise from the words written down, but I could be wrong, however am willing to bet that is the fact, of course there is no way to prove that thesis. Perhaps that will help a little. Carl Peltzer ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:51:33 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Theories of Disappearance Carl Peltzer writes: >..........the Sun takes up about 2 percent of >the sky It might take up much less of the sky than that. --Something less than 1/100,000 of the sky. The fraction I get when I compute it roughly is: (pi times pi) / (32 times 180 times 180) finding the center is difficult enough It needn't be found with the precision that a surveyor needs. With a handheld instrument, plus or minus 5 or 10 arcminutes is ok; averaging of sights can improve accuracy. >especially with the problems of >distortion early and late in the day: Yes, this uncertainty applies directly to lines of position computed from such sights. >yes you can find some planets in the daytime: I have found Venus only by knowing exactly where to look. Jupiter might be found--it would be interesting to see it in daylight. >stars are more difficult, however possible, if you know where to >look, I've never succeeded at this; but at high enough altitude it seems possible. Aren't some stars visible from very high flying aircraft during daylight? >but it is much easier to do a celestial just before sunrise, get your best >position and then use that map position to find your target, or any >island. Maybe they tried that (and more). Maybe the combinations of visibility, cloud height, sun angle, and fatigue combined to make the task much more difficult when Noonan and Earhart had to do it that morning. Mark Prange ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:56:36 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance Carl Peltzer writes: >Gee folks, my training shows that the Sun takes up about 2 percent of the >sky finding the center is difficult enough especially with the problems of >distortion early and late in the day: yes you can find some planets in the >daytime: stars are more difficult, however possible, if you know where to >look, but it is much easier to do a celestial just before sunrise, get your best >position and then use that map position to find your target, or any island. It >sounds, to me, with the radio report, that they were quite sure of their >position at sunrise Exactly right, Carl. And I have no doubt Noonan had great confidence in their position but we can be sure they were not within 20 nm of Howland. I pick that distance as about how far they could see at 1,000 feet. Although I just wrote a negative note on Noonan's ability to shoot the sun that was pure speculation coupled with a lot of experience. In fact the sky condition and visibility could have been far better than I suggested but that would mean his navigation was worse than appears reasonable. One factor appears to me to be somewhat certain. Their NW/SE search was NOT taking them on a path close enough to Howland to see it. That could be for one of two reasons. Either they were more than 20 nm east or west of Howland or they were grossly south or north of Howland. Both could be true of course. Reported cloud and wind conditions do NOT indicate it was impossible for Noonan to navigate celestially. With the winds averaging out of the East I can see no reason they would have deviated very far north or south of course. Keep in mind if they were only a little more than 20 nm short or long of Howland they could fly north and south all day and never find it. Also keep in mind that from 7:42 am local to 8:43 am local there was precious little time to do any kind of reasonable searching. It would have been a short trek up and back and then off to look for land. The weather guys tell me we need local Howland temperatures and pressures to determine probable cloud tops which might give us an idea of whether climbing was an option. I'm with Ric on that. I think it was a doubtful choice. We have a real mystery on our hands but maybe we are missing some pieces that can still be filled in. Fuel usage and reserve has been beat to death yet AE's comment they were low on fuel remains troublesome to many. The "half hour" of fuel is clearly incorrect as they were still in the air an hour later. Also there was no more fuel comment, like "We're running on fumes" or something similar. That doesn't mean their fuel was not almost exhausted but all fuel computations show they should have had 139 to 150 gallons at 8:43 am local. In addition the fuel usage of the "Daily Express" shows comparable figures. I wonder if it is possible that we can do a better job reconstructing the weather? And for what reason? Better weather information could help answer questions such as whether Noonan could get celestial navigation at points late in the flight which in turn could give us a better idea how accurately the inbound leg might have been from the Gilberts to Howland. The importance of this would be to give us a better idea whether they came in north or south of Howland. That, plus better local weather, could help us have a better idea of what they could or could not have done in that last hour. Now, what good would this exercise do? Ric will probably say nothing. What do we care what they did? How would that help move the ball down the field when we already know they just continued SE to Niku? Ah, but that's the rub. We don't. We think so and we have reasons to think so but we actually don't know that yet. Maybe Ric is right the exercise will produce nothing of value but suppose it does? Nothing ventured nothing gained. We have a small army of TIGHAR members basically doing nothing other than reading these foolish posts. We can all do some research and try to piece things together better than we have. My local TV weatherman has volunteered to help if we can come up with sufficient data. If nothing else we might be able to show that our Niku theory is even more probable than we now think. As a start, I think it would be helpful to compute where the Electra was, longitudinally, when the sun rose at Howland and where it was when the crew could first see the sunrise. I've given it a shot already but I could use some help. Gary?? Alan *********************************************************** From Ric No need for me to comment. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:58:45 EDT From: Tom King Subject: A corking good project I'm hoping to get some help from a Forumite in the Southwestern US or another desert area. Among the objects found with the partial skeleton on Nikumaroro in 1940 were a couple of small corks on chains. We've long puzzled about what these might be. A couple of months ago I woke up in the middle of the night with one of those "aha" feelings, thinking "water bags." Recalling the self-cooling canvas water bag I'd hung on my bicycle as a kid when on long trips in the hot, dry California summers. My bag had had a screw top, but it seemed sensible that earlier ones, like in the '30s, might have had corks. So I did a Google search, and sure enough, there was an EBay ad for a "desert water bag, antique," and it had a cork on a chain. Nice, but of course it didn't prove anything. Then I was recently perusing "Amelia, My Courageous Sister" by Muriel Morrissey and Carol Osborne, and there found a reproduction of a1937 new article in which Earhart was interviewed about what she was taking with her on the World Flight. Water, the article said, would be kept in two "desert water bags." This of course still doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting, and I'd like to lay my hands on a period water bag to get some idea of what parts could be easily consumable by crabs and what parts would not. Now, however, I can't find the EBay ad I found before, and have been unable to find a 1930s bag anyplace else. The large military antique store I went to last week (where I was told that the British military used such bags in North Africa during WWII but that they were uncommon in the US military) suggested that I check mining antique places, particularly in the desert. So I'd like to bounce this one to the Forum. If anybody can find a desert water bag from the '30s or thereabouts, with a cork top, that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, I'd be happy to purchase it. Any information would be much appreciated. LTM Tom *************************************** From Ric Now this is real research. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:36:09 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: Dados and what else? So based on what we've heard so far, Niku V P found some aluminum bits that might be dados, which {usually} are only on civilian aircraft. We didn't find the Mother of All Wheels, but I'd like an indication of whether any of the bits brought back from this trip are adding anything to the current working hypothesis. LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ************************************************************* From Ric No doubt about it. With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team recovered the remains of two dados - in much worse shape than the one we found in 1989, but dados nonetheless. What's more, it turns out that another previously unidentified aluminum structure we recovered in 1989 from the same general area is very likely part of yet another dado. That's four dados, all from the same part of the old village, in various stages of disassembly. Somebody has removed (not ripped) these assemblies from the flooring and interior wall of an aircraft and is taking them apart and cutting the flat sheet aluminum into smaller rectangles. My guess is that they're making fishing lures - just something shiny to attach to the line. The x-rays have also confirmed our original observation that all of these structures are devoid of stamped-in part numbers - a strong indication that they are from a civilian aircraft. All of the dados seem to be of the same width - 6.5 inches overall - but are of varying lengths. Of special interest is the placement of the mounting holes which should indicate the spacing of the underlying fuselage frames to which they were attached. How well that spacing matches the structure of a Lockheed 10 remains to be seen but we now have a number of pieces to fit into our puzzle. One of the artifacts recovered by the Niku Vp team, 2-7-V-5, is not part of a dado. It's a rectangular piece of aluminum sheet 2.5 inches wide by something over 8 inches long (the end is corroded off) with two rivet or screw holes in the middle, not along the edges, which is kind of strange. My guess is that it was some kind of cover plate. We're very excited about these finds and we're doing all we can to learn as much as we can from them. Tomorrow (Tuesday) and Wednesday I'll be working with two other TIGHAR researchers at the NASM Garber Facility archives in Suitland, MD going through the Lockheed 10 engineering drawings to see what we can learn. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:50:49 EDT From: Pete #2419 Subject: Re: A corking good project I did a quick ebay search and found 2 candidates for the desert water bags with cork stoppers. The first is item 2190563480, currently in Gosport, Hants UK, and is said to be recently returned from Afghanistan. The second one I found looks MUCH older in the image of Item 3625137338, and when I looked was going for less than $10 USD. For the Files: All the old bags (1960's and older) where "Desert Brand" and showed a registered Trade Mark. Two manufacturers appear, Canvas Specialties of Los Angeles and Ames Harris Neville of San Francisco. Construction appears to be overall canvas with rope handles. The top closure and spout appear to be aluminum. Love To Mother Pete #2419, Florida ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:52:15 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: No forum Tues. & Wed. I'll be out of the office doing research on Tuesday and Wednesday. The forum will resume on Thursday. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:05:37 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: A corking good project I am outside of Phoenix and work just a few miles from an Antique mall that's got a few military antique shops that are always a kick to visit. I'll see what I can do. Also -- I checked with www.janes.com (Janes Defence) and did a search for canvas water bags in their database of military suppliers. I got these hits: Australian Field Equipment Pty Ltd, Australia Avon Technical Products, United Kingdom FELLFAB Limited, Canada Jarvis Manufacturing, United Kingdom In the little time I had today, I wasn't able to do much more than gather these names, but it would be interesting to find out if they were in the business in the 30's. Bob ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:09:01 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Taking Celestial Shots south of Howland/Baker Bob Lee writes: >... or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner >where a landing would at least be *possible* I must have missed something, what is it about McKean that would have led AE to decide landing there was impossible and landing at Gardner was possible? >Stay fairly low to be able to see any landfall (plus the added benefit >of potentially being seen), Don't risk missing Howland and/or Baker on >the SE leg of the LOP as this means they were actually north of the >islands and would cast doubt on their ability to get the Gardner with >their fuel load. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this sentence, Bob. I don't think AE was ever looking for Gardner. I also don't see why you said they were actually north of the islands (Howland and Baker), as I don't think Ric implied that. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ******************************************* From Ric No, I didn't. McKean is a very uninviting place. Devoid of vegetation, jumbles of coral rubble, a million seabirds, and a very jagged reef. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:09:59 EDT From: Craig Knowles Subject: Re: A corking good project I can't help with an actual bag, but I did find several on eBay using the "Completed Items" search, which goes back as far as Aug 24. Several seem to be from the 30s, according to the sellers. These ones have corks, and maybe chains (its hard to tell in some of the photos). (cut and paste entire links for each of these into your address bar) Completed Auctions http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2189420591&category=418 http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=34204&item=2430406548 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3623608710&category=16035 Current (looks like cork, but no chain) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3626013227&category=16035 Hope you can find one, Craig ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:11:17 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: FW: A corking good project I did some research about canvas water bags used in desert conditions and I asked a guy who is familiar with military equipment having served in South Africa and Namibia. This is what I learned 1) Canvas water bags are very practical insofar that they keep the water fresh, especially when hung at the front outer side of a vehicle, they are indeed "self cooling". 2) The British Forces used canvas bags with cork-sealings. Several pictures of WW2 show men of the 8th Army using them in their campaign against Rommel and the Afrika Korps: many of these men knew why : many of them came from South Africa, where the Boers used these canvas bags for donkeys years. 3) The South African Army and the Rhodesian Army used these canvas water bags still in the 1980s ! 4) In WW II the German Afrika Korps used Jerrycans (20 liters/5gallons) with a special inside coating for water. These watercans were marked on both sides with a rather large white cross. The British soon copied these German watercans. 5) Canvas water bags were not used as standard issue by the French Forces in Africa and the Middle East in the 1920s or later. French Army issue water containers (man's canteens and larger containers) were at that stage made of aluminum, painted steel or enamel steel. But: Local Arab tribesmen used canvas water bags and water bags made of animals skin (often the bladder of the animal was also used to this purpose). It is not excluded and even very likely that French soldiers "switched" to this form of water container as it was more convenient in the North African climate than their issue water containers. It is however not sure that such canvas or animal skin bags became an official French Army issue item. 6) Spanish Forces in North Africa used leather water bags with a cork sealing. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:18:31 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Expertise" Recently I received an off forum email from someone who had nothing to offer for the Forum's work but merely wanted to make a personal attack on me. In the process he said I had not provided HIM with my credentials. Although that was quite pompous it is certainly true and few of us have ever done that. Mainly, I think, because we each offer our best common sense to this mystery and there is little significance to our "credentials" whatever that is. We know Ric's background and the great value his experience brings to the Forum. Such is also true of many of our hardworking forumites. Other than when someone is being a jerk we rarely indicate an interest in someone's "credentials." This is not a game of oneupsmanship in which we see how many degrees one has versus another. Someone with little or no education has as much chance of offering a good idea or clue as anyone else. Personally I see little in my background that qualifies me as an expert or semi-expert in anything but since things are slow I'll list a couple things in my past. This is NOT an invitation for anyone to follow suit. I couldn't care less what anyone has done or what their strong points are and I'm sure you all feel the same about me. I'm only interested in what each person writes and although I am quite critical at times as are others it is all done in the spirit of moving the mystery ball forward and most certainly not in the vein of a personal attack. I studied engineering and physics at a technical institute in Maryland, archeology under the chief archeologist for the Kansas State Historical Society, all forms of communication at a Missouri University, education at Florida Southern, Asian Government and Politics at Nebraska, Economics at Maryland Far East division, languages at several Universities, military tactics and history at a Military University and received a Doctorate of Jurisprudence from The University of Texas School of Law. I have been flying airplanes for almost fifty years and last flew last week. I was qualified in fighters, bombers, airlift and utility aircraft. In SAC I was the top crew in the wing and among the top 5 % in SAC garnering spot promotions in the process. Our celestial navigation was surpassed by no one nor was our bombing accuracy. I flew eleven different aircraft and was an instructor pilot. Out of the cockpit I was NATO liaison to the Greek Air Force, Operations officer for an Air Division Detachment in Vietnam, Mission Commander for specialized operations in Vietnam and countries unnamed, and Airlift Command and Control Division Commander. I hold the Distinguished Flying Cross, eight Air Medals and the usual assortment of other stuff. I was clever enough not to get shot so I missed the Purple Heart. I flew 1193 combat missions in Asia and other places I can't mention. I first worked with the CIA in 1966 and continued working in USAFE and NATO throughout Europe, North Africa and special missions in Asia and the Dominican Republic. None of this qualifies me to solve the Earhart mystery any more than anyone else nor does it give me the right to make a personal attack on anyone else unless... I make mistakes like everyone does and I care less if anyone buys my ideas or theories. They're free for the taking and if ignored or not believed I'm not devastated. Most of my fellow forumites try very hard to make sense of this complicated mystery and most offer positive comments to help sort everything out. A very few contribute nothing of value but I'm glad they're part of this in some way. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:22:10 EDT From: Rebecca Subject: Re: Theories of Disappearance Pat wrote: >>Actually, if the skull turns up then DNA analysis will >>probably trump all > > the above arguments provided Muriel's descendants will cooperate. There are several maternal-line descendants of Amelia's maternal-maternal great-grandmother, who are therefore mtDNA matches to Amelia. Bring on the skull. Rebecca ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:05:37 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Dado clarification This past Monday, as part of my response to a question about what was found during the Niku Vp expedition I wrote: >No doubt about it. With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland >Archaeological Conservation lab we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team >recovered the remains of two dados - in much worse shape than the one we found in >1989, but dados nonetheless. Apparently I did not make it clear enough that it was "we" (i.e. TIGHAR) who confirmed that the artifacts are dados and that we (i.e. TIGHAR) were aided in that identification by x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab. What I wrote seems very clear to me but it apparently confused Chris Kennedy who took it upon himself to write to the MAC lab and ask them whether they had independently confirmed that the artifacts are, in fact, aircraft structures known as "dados". The good people at the MAC lab are not, and do not pretend to be, aviation experts. We would never ask them to identify an aviation artifact. They are, however, expert at analytical techniques such as the x-raying of artifacts and they know how to keep fragile artifacts from getting any worse than they are. They have very generously donated their services and expertise to TIGHAR in helping us research and preserve these artifacts. As you might imagine, I was less than amused to get an email from the lab asking if I knew Mr. Kennedy and wondering if and how they should respond to his email. I said I'd handle it and I apologized for the inconvenience, explaining that Mr. Kennedy had apparently misread a posting on this forum. I don't know how we could be more transparent in our research and it is, to say the least, disappointing when a supposedly educated person misreads something and then, behind our back, misrepresents it to a respected and valuable in-kind sponsor. This sort of thing goes beyond healthy skepticism and can actually damage our ability to conduct the investigation. I think Mr. Kennedy owes TIGHAR and this forum an apology. How does the forum feel? LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:08:31 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Water bags You might want to get in touch with the following web site re water bags: http://www.tooltalk.org/members/collect/WaterBag.htm There are pictures and this person seems to know bags! Ted Campbell ************************************ From Bob Lee Here's a website that appears to be a WWII diary of some type. About half way down a paragraph starting with the words 'With the extremely high temperatures....' the author goes on to describe a canvas water bag that they could purchase at the base PX -- in the Mojave desert! http://www.gallagher.com/ww2/chapter8.html Bob ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:12:17 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: FW: A corking good project Along the lines of "water bags," in the Luke Field inventory list there is a reference to two "canteens type 4N and type 6N." Does anyone out there know what the "type" describes? Could these be collapsible water bags? Did you pass on my link to the water bag lady? Ted Campbell ************************************************ From Ric At least to me, a canteen is something quite distinct from a water bag and there are photos that show canteens with the equipment piled beside the door of the Electra. By the way, Tom King asked me to pass along his thanks to everybody who is helping with water bag information. He has had some computer problems lately but should be back in action soon. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:13:58 EDT From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: "Expertise" Alan, glad to see another AF Pilot in the group. Are you going to Reno this weekend for the Races. Jim Preston ********************************************** From Malcolm Andrews Phew. Alan's CV certainly makes me feel I've still got a lot to achieve in life. I'm just a humble author and journalist with no letters after my name. But I have to say with blokes as well-credentialed as Alan on board, it can only be a matter of time before AE's fate is revealed without any chance of contradiction. I hesitate to say it but...the truth is out there. Malcolm Andrews #2409 Port Macquarie Australia ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:19:56 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Alan's expertise So, Alan ... ah ... like, ah ... you know, done anything exciting lately? :-) LTM, a picture of serenity Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:45:42 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Taking Celestial Shots south of Howland/Baker Paige Miller writes: > Bob Lee writes: > >> ... or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner >> where a landing would at least be *possible*" > > I must have missed something, what is it about McKean that would have > led AE to decide landing there was impossible and landing at Gardner was > possible? Ric's various descriptions tell me landing on McKean is not possible. I believe the next closest landfall is Gardner. >> Stay fairly low to be able to see any landfall (plus the added benefit >> of potentially being seen), Don't risk missing Howland and/or Baker on >> the SE leg of the LOP as this means they were actually north of the >> islands and would cast doubt on their ability to get the Gardner with >> their fuel load. > > I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this sentence, Bob. I don't > think AE was ever looking for Gardner. I also don't see why you said > they were actually north of the islands (Howland and Baker), as I don't > think Ric implied that. 1) I don't think that Gardner was a 'preplanned' destination. However, if the TIGHAR hypothesis is good, at some point it either became their destination -- they figured out where they were too late to go anywhere else -- or they just happened upon it via the advanced LOP. 2) Rick DID NOT imply that they were north -- you are correct. I was simply musing about Ric's comments about NOT going to a higher altitude to get a sun shot. One reason for not increasing altitude was the risk of missing Howland and/or Baker. I was simply pointing out that IF AE and FN were actually north of Gardner -- this even becomes more important as that means (if we believe the logs) that they might have gone even further northwest looking and then finally turned southeast -- under these circumstances had they done anything that would have risked missed sighting dry land, they would be in even worse shape fuel-wise and that *could* mean not having enough fuel to continue to a landable place on that SE LOP. I am not always clear and I apologize for the ramblings. Bob ***************************************************************** From Paige Miller Ric says: >McKean is a very uninviting place. Devoid of vegetation, jumbles of coral >rubble, a million seabirds, and a very jagged reef." Would that be obvious approaching from the air at about 1000 feet? Specifically, would you decide not to land there based upon aerial views of McKean, knowing that you must be getting close to using up all of your fuel? My original question to Bob Lee, was in response to Bob's statement "... or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner where a landing would at least be *possible*" I don't believe you need to answer this one Ric, unless of course you want to ... but suppose AE views McKean from the air, and decides not to land there, how does she know she can then proceed to Gardner where a landing is possible? Even if she has a map showing Gardner nearby McKean, the map isn't going to show whether or not Gardner has a good landing area, now is it, Bob? Further, AE may not even be sure what island she is really viewing in the short time she has available to make such a decision to land at McKean. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM (who wants to know: what's wrong with a million seabirds anyway?) ******************************************************************* From Ric The problem with a million seabirds is that they tend to get in the way. Many of them are frigate birds with a six-foot wingspan. When the boys from the Colorado made a pass over McKean at 50 feet it scared them so bad that from then on they stayed above 400 feet at all the other islands. But, for what it's worth, my personal opinion is that they never saw McKean. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:47:49 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Theories of disappearance Rebecca wrote: "Bring on the skull." My sentiments exactly! I have always felt that, of all TIGHAR's investigative efforts, the Bones Search had the biggest potential payoff for the least bucks. Sadly, it now appears that we will have to trust to serendipity -- or sheer luck. Of course you are right about using DNA from Earhart's maternal line - just blame it on my careless phraseology. But wouldn't it be preferable (if possible) to obtain a sample from someone who shares >both< Earhart and Otis DNA? That's what got me to thinking of Muriel's kids. LTM Pat Gaston ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:49:04 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: "Expertise" Alan: In third grade I won a spelling bee. I have personally attended several county fairs and run with the bulls on the Estafeta. I have never been at the controls of anything more exotic than an MGB. Not that it actually ran. In college I once took a whiz next to Martin Agronsky (1915-1999), semi-famous TV newsman. I also "experimented" with marijuana. Funny, I don't remember anything else about college. I still say she splashed and sank. Back to you! LTK, Pat Gaston Noted Underachiever ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:50:01 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Expertise" To Jim, no, I'll miss the races as I have a heavy schedule here in Austin for the rest of the month. It would have been fun though. To Malcolm. Thanks for the nice words but I have no more credentials than you or anyone else. We each bring our own brand of common sense and perspective to the forum. Letters after anyone's name certainly designates some sort of accomplishment but most of our accomplishments don't result in such letters. One nice thing about this forum is that we are all equal. We take each other at face value (with a few sad exceptions) and what we post is the measure to go by. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:50:21 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Dado clarification This is a very long and, I think, interesting posting that deals with some issues that are very basic to our investigation. ***************************************************************** From Ted Campbell I am not sure an apology to the Forum serves any purpose other than an acknowledgment of getting one's hand slapped. However, maybe in future post of plans of having something analyzed by an outside laboratory you should include something to the effect that you have instructed the institution to not reply to any e-mails regarding the subject unless it come directly from you and/or your designee. Ted Campbell ********************************************************************* From Ric I have never, nor would I ever, attempt to give such an instruction to an outside laboratory. Who they choose to communicate with is their business. I have found, however, that virtually all independent laboratories and agencies that do work for us - whether for pay or as a donation - will forward any outside inquiry to me as a matter of courtesy. The same thing happens with individuals who have offered information. It is not uncommon for TIGHAR's critics to contact them in an attempt to verify that they really told us what we say they told us or to try to get additional information for their own research. I usually know about it but I don't say anything about it as long as nobody is misrepresenting anything. Most "Earhart researchers" have no grounding in the ethics of academic research and - hey, it's still a free country - sort of. Several years ago the FBI lab did some work for us on the paint remnants that are on the Navigator's Bookcase. They gave us a report and we published their findings. One of our critics (not any of the current crop) contacted the FBI and demanded a copy of the report. They suggested that the person ask us for a copy, which we would have gladly provided. But no, the person wanted a copy directly from the FBI. The FBI said, sorry, but we did that report for TIGHAR. The person then filed a Freedom of Information Act request which was a hassle for the FBI to process. The person eventually got a copy of the report which, of course, said exactly what we had said it said - and the FBI learned that no good deed goes unpunished. It was years before we could get them to agree to do anything else for us. ********************************************************** From: Mike Haddock Hi Ric, I think you said it very well. As I have said many times a lot of people just don't seem to appreciate the difficulty of the investigative process and how equally difficult it is to proceed with limited funding. I find it impossible to imagine how seemingly educated people just don't get it. While Mr. Kennedy's intentions may have been innocent, it seems very naive to me to contact a research firm without first discussing it with you. As much as I enjoy participating in this forum, it irks me when some people trample on the tireless efforts you and Pat have made for all these years. If for no other reason, I would think just out of common courtesy that any of us would consult with you before acting in such a manner. I'll say it once again that I have thoroughly enjoyed this forum and I appreciate all the work that you and Pat have done. LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ************************************************************* From Ric Following his participation in the 2001 expedition Chris Kennedy became intensely critical of TIGHAR's statements and conclusions, especially with regard to the bone measurement analysis done by Drs. Burns and Jantz. He became so disruptive that I eventually had to eject him from the research team. ************************************************** From Cam Warren Ric - As I recall, the dadoes were basically wood (with aluminum sheathing?), and - if so - would probably float, thereby quite likely arriving at Niku by sea, and thereby confirming a water landing somewhere (close to the beach, or 500 miles away?) Cam Warren ***************************************************************** From Ric I don't blame you for being worried and reaching for the wash-up explanation. At this point the dados appear to have some real potential as significant evidence, but there's a great deal of research yet to be done. The dados are made entirely of aluminum. We're quite sure that they once had some type of1/4 inch thick insulation glued to one side (there was a fragment still on the one we found in 1989). We don't know whether that would be enough to make the assembly float. If it did, it doesn't seem outrageous to think that one panel could float for some distance and wash up on an island, but now we have at least three and probably four separate units. For reasons that I won't take the time to get into here, it appears that they were removed from one or more pieces of wreckage that included fuselage structure and flooring - but that they did not come from an intact aircraft. ******************************************************* From Angus Ric, I can't see that Chris's enquiry harmed TIGHAR in any way. And why should a sponsor be at all upset about such an enquiry? Perhaps it was not very diplomatic in that it might appear to question TIGHAR's version of what the MAC lab had told them. However, in any scientific investigation one has to be able to justify one's conclusions and the critic should be entitled to revisit the original sources without complaint from the investigator. Chris's direct approach to the lab seems no different from the way in which TIGHAR questions the truthfulness of witnesses to events or facts. It's not pleasant for those witnesses to be scrutinised with the implication that they might be somehow in error but it is necessary to come to an objective conclusion. Recent postings on the Canton engine are a good case in point. Bruce Yoho is represented as probably being mistaken in some way. (Personally I don't think from what was posted that there is enough evidence to make that suggestion. Those witnesses that had other memories of the engine than it being an R1340 engine were only casual observers. Bruce on the other hand spent time examining it). We didn't hear any complaints from Bruce about the posting however. One has to accept that people will be skeptical and will query the very basis for one's interpretation. TIGHAR can't just rely on avowed "transparency". As for Chris misreading the post - you can't really take him to task for that. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm sure you'll admit Ric that from time to time everyone, including yourself, has misunderstood things that were really quite clear when read carefully. The fact that "we" refers only to TIGHAR and not both TIGHAR and MAC may be the correct grammatical construction but it is not difficult to imply that the identification was a joint effort without more careful reading. Regards Angus. ************************************************************ From Ric First of all, the lab was not upset - merely puzzled. Chris was telling them that I had said that they did something that they knew they did not do and they know me well enough to know that I wouldn't do something like that. No damage has been done to TIGHAR primarily because my credibility with the lab is greater than Kennedy's. I do take Chris to task for misreading the post. He's an attorney. He knows how to read and he knows better than to take action without having his facts straight. *************************************************************** From Richard Metzger Apologize? Too good, he should be dropped off on McKean Island for a week Richard Metzger Lyon Investigations, Inc. ***************************************************************** From Christian D: Ric sez: > Kennedy who took it upon himself to write to the MAC lab and ask them whether > they had independently confirmed that the artifacts are, in fact, aircraft Sounds like a simple query to me? and Ric adds: > something and then, behind our back, misrepresents it to a respected and > valuable in-kind sponsor. This sort of thing goes beyond healthy skepticism "misrepresents"? Ric: could you be the one who is thin-skinned this time? Regards Christian D ************************************************************* From Ric Yes, "misrepresents". He told them I had said something that I did not say. Am I being thin-skinned? There's nothing here to be thin-skinned about. We've made no claim that we can't back up. Am I thin-skinned about people spreading falsehoods about TIGHAR? I plead guilty. ************************************************************** From Alan I think you're familiar with the saying "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Those are the only choices. If a person wants to go off on their own they need to start their own group and then they can be king of their own hill. Given the history in this case I'm not sure whether a sincere apology could be expected nor would I ask for one. I would certainly accept one, however, if Chris offers one on his own. I think it needs to be made clear this is not acceptable and if someone has a problem they can go to the forum with it but they can NOT go on such a toot without permission. Otherwise we'll have chaos and things are already complicated enough. There is no requirement that we believe everything we read here on the forum nor does anyone have to blindly trust here on the forum. Everyone is free to THINK what they want but as long as there is some structure here and an executive director at the top of the heap EVERYTHING needs to go through the existing structure. NO ONE has the authority to go off on his own, in particular for self serving reasons. I didn't think it was necessary to tell educated adults this or have to explain to them, like children, the confusion and damage they could do by such unwarranted foolishness. Alan, who had about another page of ire to vent. *************************************************************** From Ron Berry Ric you did use MAC's name, and then said we so that it sounded like you were working in conjunction with MAC to come to a conclusion. Mr. Kennedy was just trying to cross all of the T's and dot the I's. We all use sources that one time or other you have used. If we don't do this how can we keep the research pure? Ric don't be so incensed when someone checks your work, your doing a good job keep it up. ***************************************************************** From Ric Read it again. It is not the least bit ambiguous: >With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab >we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team recovered the remains of two >dados... People check our work all the time. We encourage it. That's why we put all those reports and documents on the website and why we have this forum to debate the evidence. Kennedy wasn't debating the evidence. He was checking to see if I had lied about what the MAC Lab did without even understanding what I had said. He's a lawyer with a grudge. I'm not surprised when he's nasty but he should at least have the courtesy to be competent. ******************************************************* From Emmett Ric I couldn't agree with YOU more. Awaiting the apology and not holding my breath. Emmett, MCFI (as of August!) *************************************************** From Jim Tierney Ric--This forum lurker thinks Mr Kennedy should apologize....There are courtesies and professional protocols and common sense good manners....Based on the information -I have at this time---I dont see why Mr Kennedy--who I understand is a lawyer--- would not follow the basic procedures--and go back to you first-get clearance--and then contact MAC people....... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ***************************************************** From Pat Gaston "I think Mr. Kennedy owes TIGHAR and this forum an apology. How does the forum feel?" This member thinks it is you who owes an apology to Kennedy and the Forum. Your statement clearly implied that MAC was instrumental in "confirming" that the artifacts recovered by Niku Vp were in fact aircraft dados. I don't know how any other fair-minded person could read it: "With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab we've been able to confirm ..." That statement led Kennedy and me, independently, to start wondering what methodologies "we" had employed to reach "our" conclusion. If he had not written MAC, I would have. Kennedy did not go behind anybody's back. He has no obligation to run every Earhart-related question past you for approval. MAC is an independent laboratory with its own website and publicly-available email address. When you enlisted their good name (and therefore their reputation) in support of your cause, you opened up the door to fair inquiry. I saw Kennedy's msg to MAC. It was non-confrontational and misrepresented nothing. However, if MAC's role in the identification process was being misrepresented by TIGHAR, whether expressly or impliedly, they had a right to know it. Any damage to your "ability to conduct the investigation" was self-inflicted by your own careless phraseology. Why does it seem that the value of peer review depends entirely upon whose ox is being gored? LT Kamal Pat Gaston ************************************************************************* From Ric The plot thickens. So you were in on this little stunt. How about the other members of the Electra Group? (For those who may not know, the self-styled "Electra Group" is a quasi-secret informal association of TIGHAR critics.) So much for innocent intentions and "a simple query". Why didn't you guys just ask me for clarification instead of jumping at what you saw as a chance to "catch" me? Let me walk you through it. In 1989 we recovered an object from Niku. We didn't know what it was. In 1991 I showed it to some long-time employees of the "completions shop" at Atlantic Aviation here in Wilmington (the shop that outfitted custom interiors for corporate aircraft). They immediately and unanimously recognized it. "Whatcha got there is a dado. See - this part right here is called the veltrim. The insulation tucks up under there - there's even a little piece still there - and this flange is where it attaches to the floor. You mostly find these used on cabin class twins." Unfortunately, Atlantic has since closed their completions shop so you won't be able ask then if I'm lying. When Van described to me over the satellite phone the artifacts that the Niku Vp team were finding I suspected at the time that they might be more dados ( I'm quite sure I voiced that suspicion to Pat but you'll want to check with her), and when I got a chance to see them in person there was no doubt in my mind. The type of aluminum, the thickness, the width of the pieces, the rivet spacing, the position and type of mounting fastener - everything matched. There was even a surviving section of the "veltrim" there. Roughly thirty members of our Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) have now seen the artifacts and, as far as I know, they all agree that the objects the Niku Vp team found match the artifact we found in 1989. I'll save you the trouble and hereby ask any EPAC members who have seen the artifacts and do not think they are dados to please say so. Although the identification seemed conclusive, the MAC lab offered to x-ray the pieces for us. X-rays have the advantage of revealing features such as stamped numbers or holes that might otherwise be invisible to the naked eye. One of the most interesting features of these objects is the absence of part numbers - a strong indication that they came from a pre-war civilian airplane - so we welcomed the MAC lab's x-ray offer in addition to the conservation/stabilization work they were doing on the artifacts. When I later looked at the x-rays in the presence of the Mac lab staff it was apparent to everyone thatno numbers were present and that the various holes and features matched the artifact that had previously been identified (as described above) as a dado. Now let's look again at what I said: >With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation lab >we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team recovered the remains of two >dados. You are correct when you say: >Your statement clearly implied that MAC was instrumental in "confirming" >that the artifacts recovered by Niku Vp were in fact aircraft dados. The MAC x-rays were indeed "instrumental" in confirming the identification, and that is exactly what I said. That is NOT, however, what Kennedy told the lab TIGHAR said. > it appears from a message I have read from TIGHAR that > the Laboratory independently determined that these parts were, in fact, > a feature of an aircraft that is generally referred to as a "dado". Is > there someone who might be able to provide further details on this > aircraft part identification? Surely you can see the difference, and it's an important one. The lab did not "independently determine" anything and even if you misread my use of the plural pronoun "we" you can't get that from what I wrote. Adhering to the axiom "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" I'm not accusing Kennedy of sabotage, just inept meddling. LTM, Ric ************************************************************************ From Monty Fowler Well, as the poster of the original question, I certainly took the "we" to mean TIGHAR - and I've only got a lowly BA degree! I'm not sure where Mr. Kennedy was going with his logic, but I'm thankful he didn't ask me along for the ride. LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ******************************************************************** From Alfred Hendrickson: Ric, in your communication with the MAC folks, was it apparent that Mr. Kennedy had harmed TIGHAR in some way? In what way can this sort of thing damage our ability to conduct the investigation? It seems to me that, as a courtesy to you, Mr. Kennedy could have penned a note to you beforehand, stating that he wanted to communicate directly with the MAC, for the purpose of getting the confirmation he sought, and asked was this okay with you. He did not do that, obviously, but what exactly is the harm that he has done? He clearly has caused offense to you; it is up to him now to step up and set the matter right with you, by apologizing. And, in the future, consider you and your wishes if he were faced with a similar situation. Similarly, if he has caused TIGHAR harm, it is best if he apologizes and repairs the damage and refrains from such behavior in the future. But, in my opinion, he does not owe this Forum an apology. I can't see how he harmed the Forum. However, the cat is out of the bag now, so some assurance from Mr. Kennedy that he won't do this again seems in order. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ********************************************************************** From Ric As I have already said, Kennedy's inept meddling has not harmed TIGHAR - yet. Yes, his behavior is offensive to me, but there's nothing new in that. I brought his shenanigans to the attention of the forum because it is my impression that most Forum subscribers are interested in TIGHAR's pursuit of truth in the matter of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. Behavior like Kennedy's, if left unchecked, could significantly damage our ability to do that. Honest and open skepticism and debate are the bread and butter of this forum, but what Kennedy did is not "peer review". Essential to any historical or scientific inquiry is an assumption of good will. We may be out to prove each other wrong but we're not out defeat and discredit each other. Mr. Kennedy doesn't seem to be able to make a distinction between the courtroom and the Forum. Without his assurance that he will not again misuse the information that appears on this forum I'm having a hard time thinking of a reason why we should continue to allow such a person in our midst. ************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Yes, Chris Kennedy does appear at times to be a profoundly skeptical person. I always appreciate his input on complicated subjects but have often been bothered by his -- in my opinion -- needless nit picking on subjects that are irrelevant or unsolvable. Healthy skepticism is a valuable tool for a researcher, but that skepticism needs to be coupled with trust of one's colleagues. Attempting to independently verify a colleague's research without first discussing it with your colleague, seems at the least to be poor judgment, if not out right unethical. I'm sure Tom King can educate us on professional ethics for researchers. My interpretation is that Chris essentially called you a liar and then surreptitiously set out to prove it -- using TIGHAR's own "sponsor." I think Chris owes you a personal apology as well as one to the TIGHAR membership and the forum. If he wants to prove TIGHAR wrong then let him cultivate and secure his own sponsors, don't harass ours using the shield of "research." LTM, a formerly serene person Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************************************************* From Pete... Ric, I fail to understand why Mr. Kennedy thought it necessary to contact the lab at all. Pat and yourself have been, and will be, the voice of TIGHAR. If Mr. Kennedy believes he is more capable of acquiring funding, in-kind assistance, and expertise in launching expeditions then may he found his own group. Please express to the fabulous staff at the lab my personal apologies for the interruption of their efforts and the expenditure of their valuable time by another forumite's attempt to gather information. Love to Mother Pete Gray, TIGHAR #2419 *********************************************************************** From Jon Watson Some kids, when they don't like what they heard from Dad, try the old end run to get a better answer from Mom. While spanking is probably not appropriate, an apology certainly would be. ltm ****************************************************************** From Jim Kellen, Ric, You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if every member of our group sent a message to every agency etc. that you contact in your official capacity as our leader that there would soon be no TIGHAR. Come on folks, being a researcher also requires a little common sense. Chris Kennedy please apologize. Did you ever notice that most guys with a resume like Alan's ("resume" does not really seem to be the best word to cover such stunning accomplishments), also seem to have a larger than normal dose of good old common sense? Jim Kellen #2331 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:58:21 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Qualifications Alan, it was very interesting to read your list of qualifications. I am impressed. Thank you for the posting. I have, in the past, asked individuals posting to this forum what their qualifications are. It is my sincere hope that my requests have not been a source of irritation. I frankly think that the widely varied backgrounds that are represented here are an asset to this forum. When I have asked for qualifications, it has not been with an intent to discredit anyone. When I discuss an issue with someone, I think it is interesting to consider their view alongside of their background, their education (both formal and informal), their occupational experiences, and their interests. I learn from everyone, not just those with letters after their name. I agree with this statement of yours: "Someone with little or no education has as much chance of offering a good idea or clue as anyone else." Personally, it would interest me a great deal to know more about those who post here. For instance, I wonder how many pilots are forum subscribers? How many archeologists? How many electrical engineers? How many armchair adventurers? How many Phd's? How many who never attended college? How many work in an aviation-related field? How many work in a totally non-aviation-related field? I once asked Ric to have everyone post a note telling who they are, but, if I remember right, he pointed out to me that it would turn into a blizzard of postings. Just what he needs, right? More work! :-) I'm a structural engineer myself; the letters PE after my name. I work with buildings, mostly. I've had an armchair interest in aviation since I was a boy. The AE disappearance has held me captive for about the last ten years. (My wife says AE is my mistress!) I stumbled onto the TIGHAR site a couple of years ago. I find following this mystery fun, so you all are pretty much stuck with me. :-| LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 Billings, MT ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:01:56 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Expertise" Malcolm Andrews wrote: >Phew. Alan's CV certainly makes me feel I've still got a lot to achieve in >life. Malcolm, you remind me of an age old question - "What is my purpose here on earth?" At some time or another most of us wonder if we have some special reason for being here and if so what are we supposed to do. There's no real answer of course and each of us must decide whether we have already served our purpose or it is yet to come. All I can suggest is that one shouldn't wait too long to do whatever it is as we may not be around as long as we think. John Ritter is a good example, snatched away at 54. My favorite example I posted here long, long ago but if all will bear with me I'll post it again. Not long after the turn of the century an English girl of affluent parents disappointed her mother and father and left England to be a missionary in China. Her name was Faith Emmeline Backhouse. At the same time a young man in Pennsylvania, son of a minister, made the same decision. Of course they met, fell in love and married in Shanghai. They had four sons and, John, their first born was a bright student going to both the missionary school and a Chinese school. His parents sent him to England for better schooling at St. Clare's near Walmer, Kent (1931-35) then Rugby School (1935-39). John excelled at Rugby playing many sports and courting the head master's daughter. He loved to write and won the Rugby Poetry Prize in 1939 for his "Brave New World." Against his wishes his parents sent him to America where he attended Avon Old Farms School, near Hartford, Connecticut (1939-40). Although he had been accepted at Yale University in July 1940, he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force that year. He received training in flying in Ontario at Toronto, Trenton, St. Catherine's, and Uplands. He passed his Wings Test in June 1941 and was sent overseas to Llandow in South Wales, Royal Air Force Digby (Lincolnshire), and Wellingore, during which period he had the rank of Pilot Officer. John flew the Spitfire as part of No. 412 Fighter Squadron. John loved flying and often spoke of the marvels of his machine and the glory of flying. He wrote a poem of his thoughts and sent it home to his parents as he did with all of his little poems. His father, Assistant Rector of St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C., printed it in the church magazine. John's squadron duties were to guard the English Channel against intruding German aircraft and one day while returning from a mission collided with a plane from a nearby training base letting down through the clouds. Both pilots tried to bail out but were unsuccessful. John's chute caught in the tail structure and he was killed. The date was my Dad's birthday, December 11, 1941. John was 19 year's old. The poem he sent home was "High Flight" the most famous aviation poem of all. President Ronald Reagan quoted from this sonnet in a tribute to the American astronauts killed in the Challenger 7 space shuttle disaster in January 1986. Not many achieve such greatness at nineteen. We're fortunate he didn't wait until he was our age. "High Flight" Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there, I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air. Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace Where never lark, or even eagle flew - And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand and touched the face of God. John Gillespie Magee, Jr. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:02:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's expertise Dennis McGee wrote: >So, Alan . . ah . . . like, ah . . . you know, done anything exciting >lately? :-) Nothing to speak of, Dennis. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:47:42 EDT From: Christian Duretete Subject: Re: Dado clarification Is this: > it appears from a message I have read from TIGHAR that > the Laboratory independently determined that these parts were, in fact, > a feature of an aircraft that is generally referred to as a "dado". Is > there someone who might be able to provide further details on this a "pointed question about", OR a "misrepresentation of": >With the help of x-rays taken by the Maryland Archaeological Conservation >lab we've been able to confirm that the Niku Vp team recovered the remains of >two dados.. I think one could call it a pointed question, or at most a leading question -but then again, English is not my mother tongue... But if I wanted to get info from someone, I'd begin by implying they know a lot... Cool it Ric! No big deal. Ric adds: >debate the evidence. Kennedy wasn't debating the evidence. He was >checking to see if I had lied about what the MAC Lab did without even >understanding what I had said. He's a lawyer with a grudge. I'm not >surprised when he's nasty but Ric: are you saying that Kennedy believes that you are lying about the MAC data? Where do you get that from -if it's not private info, I mean? For what I've seen here so far, he was looking for "further details"... Ric also says: >When I later looked at the >x-rays in the presence of the Mac lab staff it was apparent to everyone >that no numbers were present and that the various holes and features matched >the artifact that had previously been identified (as described above) as a dado So some MAC people indeed have an opinion on the id of what they were looking at? So Tighar staff n MAC staff have similar opinions; so there is indeed a "we" grouping, anyways? Now, to get more on topic: >corporate aircraft). They immediately and unanimously recognized it. "Whatcha >got there is a dado. See - this part right here is called the veltrim. The >insulation tucks up under there - there's even a little piece still there - What's a "veltrim"? What are the chances of finding any of a zillion of pieces of kapok which have either drifted in the bush, or been collected and put away in the old village? Any chance that it could be id'ed when doing excavations? (Tom?) Could that insulation have been salvaged? Or was it glued too solidly? Regards. Christian D ****************************************************************** From Ric You still don't get it, but at least you have an excuse. As far as I know, English is Chris Kennedy's first language. A new issue of TIGHAR Tracks is being mailed next week which will explain and illustrate the many complexities of the artifact much better than I can here - but, briefly, the "veltrim" is a small 180 degree flange that runs the length of the dado. The insulation tucks up under it. The thin (1/4 inch) strip of aluminum that is the outward facing surface of the flange is the only part of the dado visible when installed in an aircraft. ***************************************************** From Alan For the few who can't see the potential for damage to TIGHAR and thus to each of us I suggest you reread the comments about the FBI lab. The statement made was quite clear and not subject to being misread unless one wanted to intentionally misread it. The motivation here is also quite clear and despicable in my view. Pat G., you don't want to be a part of that. Whatever your theory I take you as someone better than that. Am I mistaken? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:08:40 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Dado clarification Cam Warren wrote: >As I recall, the dadoes were basically wood (with aluminum sheathing?), >and - if so - would probably float, thereby quite likely arriving at >Niku by sea, and thereby confirming a water landing somewhere (close to >the beach, or 500 miles away?)". While doing some research into other aircraft crashes earlier this week I came upon an interesting piece of information which may be worth mentioning when talking about aircraft debris found on Nikumaroro. During a WW II raid on the German city of Kassel in the night of 22/23 October 1943 a RAF Halifax V bomber of 76 squadron LK664) crashed at Welda, 5 kilometers SW of Warburg, Germany, killing all eight crew members. It is worth noting that in 1996 the farmland on which the Halifax fell continued to yield small pieces of debris each time the land was ploughed, the farmer reporting that on several occasions his tractor tires were being punctured as a result. In other words, it could be that the dadoes found on Niku could had washed up from the sea. But it could just as well be that they remained where they had been all the time, only to be discovered 66 years later. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:23:01 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Taking Celestial Shots south of Howland/Baker Gardner, McKean, etc. Of course we are all speculating about what happened but some common sense can creep in also. The first point to consider is we don't know where they were when and if they headed toward the Phoenix Islands. Nor do we really know what course they took. We have suggested many times that Gardner was pretty close to an extension of the "LOP" that went through Howland but if it went through Howland they weren't on it unless they were considerably south of Howland and Baker in the first place. Given the distance between Howland and the Phoenix Islands I think it is logical to assume that there came a time when our heroes believed they were far enough SE they could not reasonably get back to Howland. I don't think it is reasonable to believe that they had no clue where they were for four or five hours and merely stumbled upon a Phoenix Island. At some point they had to have a fair idea where they were. At that time I suggest they made a conscious effort to get to one of the Phoenix Group. This is assuming they went SE in the first place or found themselves SE. If Noonan had some knowledge of those islands I would believe he would have had strong reasons to pick one over another unless fuel dictated they put down at or on the first one they could reach or the first one they came to. I think we are all familiar enough with each island to make some general assumptions at this point. It might be of some help, Ric, if you would summarize briefly the plus and minus of each island or just point to a reference on the web site. McKean appears to be a poor candidate. Gardner is good as we know and Enderbury might also be a possibility. I'm not sure I would have picked one of the others unless I was out of gas. Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric McKean Plus: Closest of the Phoenix Group to Howland. Minus: No place to land. No vegetation. Very obviously a desolate hell-hole of a place. Enderbury Plus: None that I can think of. To get there from Howland you have to fly right past Canton which is much, much bigger. Minus: Nowhere near the LOP. No vegetation. Gardner Plus: Near the LOP. Easily seen from a distance due to size and lagoon. "Landable" areas on the dry reef flat. Lush vegetation. Minus: No public restrooms. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:25:05 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Expertise" Pat Gaston wrote: >In third grade I won a spelling bee. You're one up on me, Pat. Without spell check I'm hopeless. However, I DID have a 68 MGB and drove it for many years. Alan ************************************************************* From Ric No. No, no, no, no, no. No old car threads. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:26:54 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Qualifications Alfred Hendrickson writes: >qualifications are. It is my sincere hope that my requests have not been a >source of irritation. Alfred, I'm sure no one would find your requests irritating but I see no practical benefit from folks posting their background. I don't care what anyone's background is. I'm sure everyone has done things they are proud of and the Forum members would be equally proud for them but I don't see the relevancy to our endeavors. I responded to a tacky request but I would ask Ric to end the "expertise" thread. It has no where to go and no value. I appreciate the kind comments from my fellow forumites but I'm no more an expert than any of you. The experts are the various outside organizations the Forum uses when the occasion arises. When someone writes a particular posting we need to take it at face value, irrespective of the person's background. Otherwise we will read into his posting something that isn't there. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:28:14 EDT From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Safe landing For the crashed and sankers; ideas for you folks to ponder: Take the weather [Itaska] reported as quite good in the area on the day in question, a Lockheed 10e with empty tanks and its wing design [high lift] is a light, slow lander probably [unless I look it up] less than 60 mph, now, Add the many hours and landings she had done during the entire last few months, she most importantly had a great many years of experience with airplanes that were nowhere as easy to fly as stuff we use today, add that her life is at stake [again from personal experience] now factor all and more, then I feel they had a pretty good chance of a safe water landing if they never made one of the islands. I personally feel that the Tighar expeditions have uncovered good evidence of a safe island landing and then their demise later! ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:33:43 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Landing at McKean or Gardner Bob Lee writes: >Ric's various descriptions tell me landing on McKean is not possible. I >believe the next closest landfall is Gardner. Yes, I believe Ric has convinced me that if AE approached McKean from the air, you would choose not to land there. But your original statement still baffles me. You said "... or stumbling upon McKean and then proceeding to navigate to Gardner where a landing would at least be *possible*" How does AE know that upon leaving the area around McKean, she will find any better conditions for landing at Gardner? I'm quite sure she didn't have a map that pointed to the reef flat and said "possible landing area here". If she had a map of the Phoenix Islands, it was most likely that McKean and Gardner were just dots with no information about them whatsoever. And how does AE even know it's McKean over there with all the sea birds? If you're so totally lost, is your navigation by celestial shots going to be that accurate that you know that McKean is there to the left and Gardner is a little further ahead? As Ric said, she probably never made it to McKean, but McKean seems to part of your explanation of the hypothesis, Bob, and I just don't get it. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM *********************************************************************** From Ric While reviewing some ancient TIGHAR writings from the earliest days of the Earhart Project (translating them from Olde English), I was bemused to see that we originally set out to test "The McKean Hypothesis". ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:37:29 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Qualifications Alfred Hendrickson writes: >Personally, it would interest me a great deal to know more about those who >post here. For instance, I wonder how many pilots are forum subscribers? How >many archeologists? How many electrical engineers? How many armchair >adventurers? How many Phd's? How many who never attended college? How many >work in an aviation-related field? How many work in a totally >non-aviation-related field? Here's my two cents on the qualifications issue: many of the posting to this forum rely upon existing evidence and deductive logic. Thus, "qualifications" in the form of experience in the subject matter area, or advanced degrees, are not necessary. For example, it has been my experience that a science like archaeology is easily explained to laymen and although I value Tom King's words, I can understand the evidence and evaluate the quality of the logical deductions being made even though I have no formal training in archaeology. The same holds true for evaluating post-loss messages, Betty's notebook, the navigational logic that leads to Gardner, and a host of other issues. On the other hand, there are topics that have appeared in the forum that are much more technical, and not easily understood by laymen such as myself. These topics include fuel usage, celestial navigation, the radio frequency propagation analysis done in conjunction with Betty's notebook, re-analysis of the bones measurement, and several other similarly technical issues. When I read those issues, I cannot completely follow the technical details and at that point, I need to rely on the background and training -- the qualifications -- of the person posting the information. I wouldn't want to see a blizzard of postings of everyone stating their qualifications. On occasion, when someone posts something quite technical, a statement of qualifications would be helpful (although even then, the qualifications of certain individuals are already established in this forum, so repeating the qualifications isn't necessary). -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM *********************************************************************** From Ric I think Paige has a good handle on the qualifications issue. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:38:29 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: More on the Dado After reading everyone's post on Dado Clarification, it is pretty well unanimous; we should coordinate our efforts, and not go around behind each others' backs. If we do otherwise, we look less than professional (see FBI story). Best way to coordinate our efforts is thru Ric. Mr. Kennedy, what say you? LTM, who believed in the value of teamwork, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:41:09 EDT From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: "Expertise" Alan said: > At some time or another most of us wonder if we have some special reason for > being here and if so what are we supposed to do. There's no real answer of > course Actually, there is a 'real answer' to those questions. John Rayfield, Jr. ******************************************************************** From Ric Yes, I'd say it's time to end the "expertise" and "qulaifications" threads. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:58:55 EDT From: Bill Shea Subject: Gardner Reef Ric, could you tell me what the actual reef at Gardner is like? When I was stationed on Guam, their coral reefs were very hard to walk on - consisting of pitted holes and sharp coral. I can imagine that if a plane tried to land on Guam's Reef that the tires and wheels would be torn off and the plane flipping over. Cheers from Bill ****************************************************************** From Ric For some views of the reef take a look at now out-of-date (July 2000) research bulletin "Landing On the Reef" at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/7_7_00bull.html During the Niku IIII expedition in 2001 we did an extensive survey of the reef surface in the area immediately north of the shipwreck where Emily said she had seen wreckage in 1940/41. There is an area at least a hundred feet wide and 2,500 feet long near the ocean side of the reef that is dry at periods of low tide and is smooth enough to land a Lockheed 10 safely. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:01:07 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Taking Celestial Shots south of Howland/Baker >Gardner >Minus: No public restrooms. And you actually think a woman would select Gardner? Alan ***************************************************************** From Ric Hmmm. Good point. So much for that theory. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:04:54 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Landing at McKean or Gardner >How does AE know that upon leaving the area around McKean, she will find >any better conditions for landing at Gardner? If I remember correctly Noonan's maps from the first attempt indicate awareness of the Phoenix Islands. I think one of them was underlined. Pan Am did a survey of that area so I see no reason to assume Noonan knew nothing about those islands among many more in the Pacific. How much he knew we will never know but I think from Ric's brief summary Gardner looks like a much better choice other than the lack of restrooms of course. Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric There's a map of the Pacific in the Purdue collection that has some undated penciled notations suggesting that it may have been used for planning purposes. The islands of the Phoenix Group are shown and Enderbury is underlined. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:11:17 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Landing at McKean or Gardner > If you're so totally lost, is your navigation by > celestial shots going to be that accurate that you know that McKean is > there to the left and Gardner is a little further ahead? I don't know what Fred or Amelia may have known about the various islands in the Phoenix group. I started this ugliness by simply wondering out loud how our duo could have reached Gardner. I'll be more careful in the future. Bob ********************************************************** From Ric If our thinking is at all correct they were not totally lost. They were quite sure that they were on the advanced 157/337 LOP that passed through or near Howland, Baker, McKean and Gardner. Any island that appeared pretty much had to be one of those four. McKean is the only one that is well off to the left of the 157 course. Even without a map that shows island size and shape it shouldn't be hard to figure out that this must be McKean. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:19:26 EDT From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: winds aloft Wonder, as the group puts these ideas forward, the total factor winds had on the flight, of course assuming that they were on that line of position as reported. I will do some more research as time permits, but there are a few things to remember: winds taken at the surface are lighter and from a different direction [as little as 100 ft in altitude] than the reporting stations. How good were the weather reports at that time? Can I get info to put up a concise weather map showing as much data as available? Did he have and was Fred Noonan using a drift meter to help with navigation? 4 hours depending on fuel left at 8:45 am at 15-20 knots is a big area to move a target around. Likely you have, but Has anyone used USAF search techniques on this one yet? If so what were the findings? This is a good one for me to put to an actual team who do this all the time on an exercise ************************************************************************* From Ric Forget it Carl. The data aren't there. The only winds aloft observation we have was taken at noon on Howland. Surface - ESE 16 1,000 ft. - ESE 17 2,000 ft. - E 17 Noonan had a drift meter. You tell me at what altitude he flew and what the winds were several hours earlier and whether he corrected accurately for them. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:21:22 EDT From: Ed Croft Subject: Re: Landing at McKean or Gardner I never responded to the Chris Kennedy thread as I knew others would, but I too believed that he owed you an apology. Your English was correct; this was preliminary research; there was no outrageous claim being made (e.g., Earhart's plane), etc. But might as well complain about the weather I suppose. Blue skies, Ed ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:36:09 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Tempest in a Teapot Ric wrote: >The plot thickens. So you were in on this little stunt. How about the >other members of the Electra Group? (For those who may not know, the self- >styled 'Electra Group' is a quasi-secret informal association of TIGHAR critics.) >So much for innocent intentions and "a simple query". Ric, Ric, calm down. You're making far too much of this. There was no "plot." Chris Kennedy and I are both lawyers and we chat about a lot of stuff -- law, politics, history, Iraq, T.E. Lawrence and cars. Both of us interpreted your post the same way, as did several others, apparently. Furthermore, there was no indication in your initial post that a detailed report was forthcoming. You stated a conclusion and left it at that. Attorneys are trained not to accept absolute statements ("we have CONFIRMED ....") at face value, just as you don't accept the Marshall Islander anecdotes at face value. If Col. Reineck wrote, "Thanks to evidence provided by Juan Cabrera of San Mateo, CA, we have CONFIRMED that Earhart landed on Mili Atoll," would you just take Rollin's word for it or would you make a phone call to San Mateo? If the latter, would that be calling Rollin a liar? As for the self-styled, quasi-secret Electra Group, we are mostly splashed-and-sankers so if that makes us inherently "TIGHAR critics," I guess the shoe fits. By that definition we also are "Mili critics," "Saipan critics," "Spy Theory critics" and "Bolam critics." We decided to call ourselves something for purposes of joint research efforts -- like the Howard Hanzlick interviews, the Ahmad Kamal stuff and the Caldwell-Luc inquiry -- so I guess that makes us "self-styled." For that matter, TIGHAR and General Motors also are "self-styled." So? But I do like "quasi-secret." It makes us sound so mysterious and sinister. Much more appealing than "five or six guys who occasionally trade emails back and forth." Anyhow, thanks for the report on the original dado identification. As you say, it helped fill in some gaps. LTM Pat Gaston ************************************************************************ From Ric >If Col. Reineck wrote, "Thanks to evidence provided by Juan Cabrera of San >Mateo, CA, we have CONFIRMED that Earhart landed on Mili Atoll," would you >just take Rollin's word for it or would you make a phone call to San Mateo? I would ask the good colonel to explain just how that confirmation was made. Once he had provided more details I might disagree with his conclusion and tell him so, but I would not attempt to contact Cabrera directly unless Reineck refused to provide information to support his claim. Even then I probably wouldn't contact Cabrera because a refusal to support a claim is an admission that it is unfounded. What Mr. Kennedy did was a serious breach of ethics. He has chosen not to apologize and instead has left it to you to attempt to explain his actions. I'm sure you lawyers chat about lots of things. I'm going to give him one less thing to chat about and remove him from the forum. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:38:54 EDT From: Reed Riddle Subject: McKean vs Gardner It seems that if you have flown around lost for a couple of hours and find some land, you would want to land immediately. McKean, however, is a complete "hellhole" for aviation operations, so landing there seems to be an act of desperation. Perhaps they did find McKean, but then circled it until they figured out where they were, and then proceeded to the nearest island (Gardner)...if it turned out to be just as bad as McKean, nothing was lost. However, if it was better, then they could take their chances there. Actually, how close are other, better places to land? If they are circling McKean, they have options (Howland, Canton, Gardner). How long they could have circled McKean and then been forced to go to Gardner depends on how long they would have had to take to find out where they were, and then have enough gas to go only to Gardner. That might say something about how long Fred had to take to figure out their location, what time of day was enough for him to get good shots, etc. It's all speculation, of course, but it's another possibility to consider. Of course, unless we find Fred's map case in pristine condition, or a diary, then we'll never know. Reed ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:41:04 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Response to Hue Miller For Hue Miller In March, you posted comments concerning my analysis of whether Betty could have heard Amelia on a harmonic. My response has been delayed until now because more important matters required my attention. You appear to have decided that Betty did not hear Amelia on a harmonic because no such signal detectable at her receiver originated from NR16020. You have scoffed at the use of assumptions in scientific "methadology"(sic), but you have not presented any analytical results to support your position. It appears that essential information has escaped your notice. This might be due, at least in part, to (1) your not having read Mike Everette's analysis of the NR16020 radio equipment, in the 8th Edition of the Earhart Project Book, and (2) your self-described cursory reading of my analysis. Whatever the cause, I think it will be instructive to present a brief summary of the analysis before addressing your comments. Emphasis is added to enhance clarity. The analysis addresses the question of whether Betty COULD have heard Amelia a harmonic of Amelia's transmitter frequency. The analysis uses a HYPOTHETICAL set of harmonic power levels, "... assumed to represent a reasonable range of harmonic power levels that could be expected at the output of Amelia's transmitter", FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ANALYSIS. The objective was to test whether a harmonic signal COULD have been received at Betty's radio IF the transmitter output power equaled or exceeded the lower bound of the set of harmonic power levels postulated for the purposes of the analysis. The principal conclusion of the analysis states: "Betty COULD have heard signals from Amelia at Gardner Island on one or more harmonics PROVIDED that the POWER LEVEL at the OUTPUT of Amelia's transmitter was 0.1 watt or higher". This conclusion is CONSERVATIVE since the probability trends in the reported data show that Betty could have heard signals even if the harmonic power level was significantly less than 0.1 watt. And now to your comments. 1. You questioned the credibility of Betty's notebook, implying that the TIGHAR decision to change the most likely reception date from 2 July to 5 July makes her recollections less believable because of "increasing logic problems". 1.1 There is no logic problem. My report shows that the reception probabilities on the two dates were virtually identical on all four feasible frequencies, so changing the most likely reception date made no difference in the outcome or in the credibility of Betty's notebook. 2. You ridiculed Betty's recollection of the characteristics of the signals she heard, alleging that she said they were "like static on the police scanner", and questioning whether she knows the difference between shortwave and VHF-FM scanner reception. 2.1 My report does NOT state that Betty said the signals were "like static on a police scanner". 2.2 The report states: "She recalls that the signals were 'scratchy' and that she couldn't always make out complete phrases. She compares the quality of the signals to marginal signals heard on a police scanner, breaking in THROUGH the static and then fading out". (Emphasis added). 2.3 It is obvious from Ric Gillespie's video taped interview of Betty shows that: (1) she has a clear and credible recollection of the signal quality; (2) she was describing the behavior of a shortwave signal that she heard, and was using the scanner analogy only to illustrate the fading effect she noted; and (3) she does know the difference between shortwave and VHF-FM scanner reception. 2.4 It does not matter whether Betty's scanner analogy is technically accurate. What matters is that her description of the signal ("breaking in through the static and then fading out") is consistent with the statistics of an ionospheric signal when the signal-to-noise ratio has mean and standard deviation such that the signal is below the noise threshold most of the time, with occasional excursions above the noise threshold. 2.5 Betty's description of the signal behavior is consistent with the computed signal statistics in my report. It is important to note that she had no knowledge of my analysis at the time of the interview. 3. You stated that Betty's receiver was subject to drift on the high band, and implied that she was lying when she said she didn't move the tuning dial while listening to the signals she logged. You may be interested to know that: 3.1. The average July daily high temperature in St. Petersburg during the period 1971-2000 was 90.2 degrees F. The average daily high in July 1937 probably wasn't much different. 3.2 Betty's house was not air conditioned, and she was listening to the radio during the afternoon. Despite the use of fans for cooling, the temperature inside the house could have been close to the outside ambient temperature. 3.3 Betty had been listening to the radio for about an hour before she switched to the shortwave band. The radio could have been at optimum operating temperature, and thus not drifting, while she was listening to shortwave. Hence no need to move the tuning dial. 4. You argued that it was impossible for harmonics of the crystal oscillator frequency to appear in the transmitter output because the bandwidth of the interstage transformers absolutely prohibited passage of harmonics. 4.1 You selectively quoted fragments of text from "Aeronautic Radio" (Eddy, 1939) to suggest that only the transmitter output frequency could pass through the interstage transformers. The text you cited was excerpted from the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 303 and continuing on page 306. You quoted as follows: "The oscillator is coupled to the first amplifier by means of a . . . transformer that in conjunction with . . . capacities forms a bandpass filter. . . .The first amplifier . . is coupled through another radio frequency transformer. . . this transformer. . . also forms a bandpass filter which freely passes the OUTPUT FREQUENCY. . ." (Emphasis yours). 4.2 You neglected to mention that the final sentence in the paragraph at the top of page 306 states: "As this transformer freely passes the second harmonic of the quartz plate frequency, it drives the first amplifier at the output frequency, or twice the quartz plate frequency". Clearly, the output frequency is a harmonic of the crystal frequency. 4.3 You apparently interpret the phrase "freely passes the output frequency" to mean that higher frequencies were totally blocked from passing . That interpretation is incorrect. 4.4 You cited the Western Electric 13C interstage transformers mentioned in "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment" (Morgan, 1941) and suggested that their bandpass of "no more than 800 KHz" made it impossible for harmonics of the crystal frequency to get through. Morgan does not use the term "no more than 800 KHz". His table on page 145 merely lists the 7 interstage transformers available, and the transmitter frequency range for which each was to be used. For example, the 271D transformer set was specified for use with transmitter frequencies in the range 5700 to 6500 KHz, an operating frequency range of 800 KHz. Arguing that the frequency ranges given by Morgan were absolute limits implies that the interstage bandpass response curves were rectangular, with zero response at all frequencies outside the notional bandpass boundaries. This interpretation is incorrect. You need only consult the universal bandpass response curves for a double-tuned amplifier to see why. Instead of being rectangular, the response curve skirts flare out somewhat at frequencies beyond the notional pass band limits. Hence, in the W.E. 13C, harmonics of the crystal frequency could have passed through the interstage transformers, although at significant attenuation. But that attenuation could have been compensated, at least partially, by the tube amplification factor in the two power amplifier stages. So, harmonics of the crystal frequency could have appeared in the transmitter output, although possibly at very low power levels. 4.5 However, my report clearly shows that harmonic suppression in the interstage transformers was not a consideration in the outcome of the analysis, because crystal harmonics were disregarded in selecting the four feasible frequencies on which Betty could have heard signals from NR16020. Only harmonics of transmitter output frequencies were considered. 5. You said that you plan to calculate the radiation resistance and impedance of the antenna on NR16020, and you cited a "chart of antenna impedances and efficiency formula" in "Principles of Aeronautical Radio Engineering" (Sandretto, 1942) as the apparent basis for your analysis. You should not expect this approach to yield results applicable to the antenna on NR16020. 5.1 Sandretto's antenna efficiency formula, on page 286, requires certain antenna parameters. You can't get the needed information from the curves in his antenna impedance curves (figures 171 and 172) because they are derived from empirical measurements on DC-3 and DC-4 aircraft, respectively, and apply only to end-fed single-wire dorsal antennas on those aircraft. The data in those curves cannot be used to characterize the off-center fed vee-configured antenna on NR16020. 5.2 Sandretto's antenna impedance formula is an approximation and is applicable only to an end-fed single wire dorsal antenna. If you are serious about calculating the resistance and impedance of the antenna on NR16020, you will need to use the method-of-moments technique. 5.3 Sandretto's plots of radiation patterns apply only to the horizontal plane of the fields radiated by dorsal antennas on the aircraft mentioned above. The radiation pattern of the NR16020 antenna was more complex, and was 3-dimensional. Sandretto can't help you there. 6. You professed "shock" at learning from Sandretto that a horizontal wire antenna close to the fuselage of a metal aircraft has a low radiation resistance. I am amazed that you did not know this basic and widely known fact. 7. You argued that "The WE transmitter was not Terman's "equal opportunity sprayer". I assume that "sprayer" is your term for a harmonic generator. 7.1 I neither said nor implied that the WE 13C generated harmonics at the levels expected from a well-designed harmonic generator. 7.2 My analysis states: "Terman ("Radio Engineers' Handbook", 1943) gives the output power level of a well-designed harmonic generator, as a percentage of output at the fundamental frequency, as: 2nd harmonic, 65%; 3rd harmonic, 40%; 4th harmonic, 30%; and 5th harmonic, 25%." 7.3 The next sentence in the analysis states: "The 4 reduced harmonic power levels used in this analysis, and their respective percentages of 50 watts are: 5 watts (10%), 1 watt (2%), 0.5 watt (1%) and 0.1 watt (0.2%)." Each of these power levels was used in testing for signal reception at each of the final 4 harmonic frequencies, and all of them are well below the Terman levels. For example, at 24840 KHz the 4th harmonic of Amelia's daytime frequency, Terman gives 30% as the relative output level of a well-designed harmonic generator. This corresponds to a harmonic power level of 15 watts in nominal 50-watt transmitter, such as the WE 13C. Table 1 in my analysis shows that Betty could have heard Amelia on 24840 KHz if the transmitter output power at that frequency was 0.1 watt, or 0.67% of the Terman level for a well-designed harmonic generator. 7.4 Furthermore, the probability trends in my data tables show that it was possible for Betty to have heard Amelia on 24840 KHz, albeit at a lower probability, even if the transmitter output power was less than one-tenth of 0.1 watt, or 0.01 watt, which would be 0.067% of the Terman level for a well-designed harmonic generator. 8. You said that the harmonic power levels I used in the analysis were "scaled from" the levels for Terman's ideal harmonic generator. That is not true. As shown in section 7 above, the power levels I used values were not scaled from Terman's values in any way. 9. You said "But if the transmitter was as prolific a harmonic source as you suppose, this would not have been allowed on the air at all". 9.1 You have not provided documentary evidence of any harmonic output tests of the transmitter as installed on NR16020, so I conclude that you are making an assumption here. 9.2 A harmonic power level of 0.1 watt hardly qualifies as "prolific". 10. You objected to my statement that there was no harmonic suppression in the WE 13C output circuit. You stated that the transmitter output is a tuned circuit, selecting against unwanted frequencies, and that the antenna can also be considered a tuned circuit, thus providing "2 poles of selectivity". 10.1 My analysis states that "Mike Everette showed that the design of Amelia's transmitter output and antenna coupling circuits did not have any means of harmonic suppression and that any harmonics present in the transmitter's output were passed directly to the antenna and could potentially be radiated". The phrase "harmonic suppression" in this context clearly refers to a set of components organized into a circuit specifically designed to suppress harmonic radiation, and intended to be used in addition to any tuning circuits. 10.2 It is obvious to even the most casual observer that a tuned output circuit and a tuned antenna will provide some selectivity, and thus some harmonic rejection. But it is equally obvious that those circuits cannot generally be relied upon to provide adequate harmonic suppression. 10.3 As for your "2 poles of selectivity", you may be interested to know that there was only a single tuned circuit, shared by the final power amplifier and the antenna. Hence there was only a single pole of selectivity. You would find it instructive to study the transmitter schematic and derive this fact for yourself. 10.4 With only a single tuned circuit in the output, there was obvious potential for harmonic radiation. 11. You outlined a plan for obtaining empirical data regarding harmonic radiation from Amelia's transmitter. You said: "I have an acquaintance who just ran an old aircraft transmitter with similar output circuit to AE's WE model into a typical aircraft antenna simulator and looked at the result with a spectrum analyzer. I am trying to convince him to run a couple more tests, for example with a high-impedance load, to simulate the *very best scenario* for your harmonic theory. I hope to have some real-life numbers for you in the near future. Will this be the silver bullet?" 11.1 I don't know what you mean by "silver bullet", but any results you obtain from a transmitter "similar" to the WE-13C, or from a "typical" aircraft antenna simulator, would be valid only with respect to the particular test environment in which they were generated. Attempting to extrapolate those results to the equipment on board NR16020 would be sheer guesswork. To substantiate your position that no harmonic signals detectable by Betty's receiver emanated from NR16020, you would need to test the ACTUAL transmitter and antenna on NR16020, configured and operating exactly as they were in July 1937. 12. You objected to the statement "It is interesting to note that Amelia's antenna was broadly resonant between 15.5 MHz to 24 MHz, which would be conducive to radiation of harmonics in that range". You asked "what do you mean?" and "how do you know". And you concluded, erroneously, that I was declaring a broadband antenna. 12.1 The statement to which you objected applies to the resonant behavior of the antenna near the harmonic frequencies above 15.5 MHz. The term "broadly resonant" is easily understood if you realize that: (1) in addition to being resonant at the transmitter fundamental output frequency, the antenna also was resonant at higher frequencies; (2) those additional resonant frequencies were near, but not necessarily equal to, harmonics of the fundamental; and (3) the antenna performance at each harmonic was close to that at the neighboring antenna resonant frequency. 12.2 The answer to your question "how do you know" is that I did the calculations. Using the antenna model mentioned in the analysis report, the antenna was tuned to each transmitter fundamental output frequency and then was tested for resonance at frequencies from 15.5 MHz to 25 Mhz (and yes, the 24 MHz in the report is a typo). The frequency spread between each harmonic and the nearest antenna resonant frequency was noted. For example, the frequency spread was less than 1 percent at the 3rd harmonic of 6210 KHz, and less than 4 percent at the 4th harmonic of 6210 KHz. The universal resonance curve showed that the response at each harmonic was close enough to the response at the antenna's nearest natural resonant frequency that the frequency spread could be disregarded for practical purposes. Hence, the antenna was "broadly resonant" at its resonant frequencies near the harmonics of the transmitter output frequency. Therefore the "broadly resonant" property of the antenna was "conducive to radiation of harmonics". LTM, who had no tolerance for those who prefer to indulge in ranting criticism instead of making constructive contributions. Bob #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:18:28 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: End of old car thread No, Alan, if you actually drove (as opposed to sat in, tinkered with, spent a fortune on, cursed) a '68 MGB for many years then you are one up on me. What's worse is that I actually have owned TWO of them. Obviously I am a glutton for punishment but since joining the Forum I have been able satisfy my addiction that way. Favorite MG joke: Q: Why don't the British make color TV's? A: They can't figure out a way to get 'em to leak oil. Runner-up: Q: Why do the British drink warm beer? A: Lucas refrigerators. End of thread. LTM Pat Gaston ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:21:12 EDT From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Response to Hue Miller Thank you Bob for saying what I didn't have the patience or ability to say. I believe that the post lost signals are the key to the actual location of AE's landing. I'd really like to see an accurate list of all the post lost signals including all the DF bearings from all the stations.(If there is such a thing.) LTM Mike J.#2591 ********************************************************************** From Ric When the Post-Loss Study is published it will have the most complete listing of signals and DF bearings we're able to compile. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:52:01 EDT From: Hue MIller Subject: Hue Miller's reply I truly wish i had more time to devote to this interesting controversy. I am sure a conclusion (either way )that would convince all without a doubt could be arrived at, even if it required a full size mockup, with a replicated transmitter, and a calibrated field strength meter. Unfortunately, this all has to go on the back burner. Meanwhile, i address only a couple points. Let's look at an article from the Eitel-McCullough company, producer of radio transmitter components, undated but most likely late 1940s. Article by John Reinartz. "It is not generally realized that most amateur transmitters, using but one tuned circuit in the final output stage [ i.e. similar to transmitter on the aircraft ] cannot meet the FCC rule stated in....Act of 1947, in regard to the reduction of the radiation of harmonic frequencies to not less than 40 db below the fundamental frequency..." [ General discussion deletions ] "...Harmonics are suppressed to a considerable extent even by a simple tuned circuit. "Labus and Roder ( Proceedings of the IRE, Vol. 19, pp 949-962, 1931 ) derived expressions for the suppression of harmonics. For example, if the tuned circuit is shown as in Fig. 1....." [ Follows the standard schematic equivalent for the LC tuned circuit loaded by an antenna represented by antenna capacitance and radiation resistance in series. ] "...then the db reduction of harmonics due to the...circuit is.. ....[ formula , Terman's harmonic power list, etc. deleted, but text is available ].... Table II Q N=2 N=3 N=4 5 -26.7 db -42.3 db -63.3 db [ End of quoted material. ] In the table above, Q= "quality factor" of transmitter output tuned circuit. In the text, 4 "Q factor" examples are worked. I chose the "worst" of these Q factors to quote here. This gives maximum benefit to th