Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:47:05 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: compliance Ric wrote; >I do think that Warren Thompson, the captain of the Itasca, Ric, don't you mean Warner Thompson? *************************************************************** From Ric Yup. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:48:30 EST From: Neil Barnett Subject: Do harmonics go down? Pete wrote: > No Sir, the Laws of Nature are the same, but circuitry is very different > since the 30's. Yes, I know. I've built a few transmitters since 1965. But you have not described how a transmitter (of any era) produces harmonics that "go down". Pete, please explain how a transmitter on 3105 KHz produces "harmonics" on 1552.5 and 1035 KHz. Are you suggesting that listeners such as Betty could have heard AE on those frequencies? You imply that transmitter designs of the 30's allowed that kind of anomaly. Are you familiar with circuit designs of the 30's, or do you subscribe to the notion, "Well, its ancient technology, so anything could have happened in those designs"? Neil ZL1ANM Auckland. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:00:13 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: compliance Just a thought way outside the box but for the record and keeping this brief: The Discovery Channel did a program this fall regarding a lost fishing boat near Newfoundland and the US Navy showed a chart of all lost and new articles on the sea floor in the North Atlantic- kind of makes me wonder if the job has already been done for us. The Navy keeps good records of anything on the ocean bottom. Is it a stretch to think even though the SW Pacific is WAY OUT THERE, they might have done the same down there considering that I was surprised that the Navy was so thorough about their anti submarine warfare capabilities. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:02:05 EST From: Eric Subject: Eric's hypothesis Ric wrote: > You further > hypothesize that this naval aviator, fearful of impugning the reputation of > naval aviation, decided not to express his opinion. > I would be interested to know how you plan to test the hypothesis that > somebody thought something but decided not to say anything > about it. First we need to find out more about the "newsletter" that posted Lambrecht's account of his fly-over of Gardner. Who received it? Would it have been read by the same people who read the report of the COLORADO's CO and AE's radio intercepts? Was this information shared with other agencies within the Government (such as the State Department?) Was it shared with the British officials who administered the Phoenix Islands? Was there any follow-up discussion within the newsletter's readership and/or the Naval aviation community? Were any opinions formed and discussed "off the record?" These are just a few questions that come to mind. Who knows, a little research might turn up some long-forgotten material, official or otherwise, that has not been examined and which is readily at hand. LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:03:41 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Response to Tom Strang For Eric I appreciate your response to my question. > What was the reason behind this speculative post" LT. LAMBRECHT'S REPORT"? I asked the question looking for clarification as to whether your post was relevant to resolving the disappearance of NR16020 and its crew - Repeating your first post with less word count answered my question - Thank you! Always like to know which way a person is facing when riding a horse. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:14:59 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Burning eyeballs Ric said: "The copy I have is the September 1937 edition. I also have the May 1941 edition. If I'm going to burn my eyeballs out maybe it would be smarter to do it on the later edition." Would it be practical to Xerox the book and send portions of it to different TIGHAR members for review, so you don't have to go blind? Nothing more dangerous than a blind TIGHAR! LTM, we sees much, but understands little Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the offer but the books are quite fragile (they used very thin paper and it's now yellowed and brittle) so I'd rather not subject them to photocopying. So far I'm up to the "T"s in the May 1941 book. No joy on either KACA or KCWR but there are plenty more ships to go. American commercial ships start with "W" and "K". Philippine ships start with "KZ". American government vessels start with "N". It's actually kind of neat. Everyone is there. USS Arizona's call letters were NACV. The German battle cruiser Gneisenau was DOQY. The Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi was JLCA. ...and so forth. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:16:44 EST From: Rich Young Subject: KACA - some thoughts on identity A quick google search revealed a "Radio Sangkakala", broadcasting on "1062 AM", among others. It isn't clear whether these are actual call letters or part of a phrase associated with the station - it appears to be located in Indonesia, (formerly the Dutch East Indies), and I think "Kaca" in Dutch means pretty much the same as "ca-ca" in English - it could be some sort of "inside joke" based on a language gap. The really interesting thing is the frequency, "1062" of course being shorthand for 1,062 killocycles. ASSUMING that the station was on the air in 1937, and further assuming the inadvertent transmission of a harmonic on double that frequency, 3124 killocycles, and you have the ingredients for someone sweeping the band in the vicinity of 3105 on listening watch for AE picking up a weak and garbled transmission, At least, Indonesia is in the same part of the world as the flight took place, and if bradcasting in Dutch, could explain the "unitelligble" nature of the receptions, especially on a harmonic. LTM, (who almost never sprakens ze dutch) Rich Young ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:17:52 EST From: Bill Zorn Subject: Re: Dialectic or dyslexic? and sum tomes that pesky spell cheque has know idea what hue wanted. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:20:08 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: KACA - some thoughts on identity > The really interesting thing is the > frequency, "1062" of course being shorthand for 1,062 kilocycles. > ASSUMING that the station was on the air in 1937, and further assuming the > inadvertent transmission of a harmonic on double that frequency, 3124 > kilocycles, Funny - I always thought 2 x 1062 was 2124 - but maybe I'm a bit rusty. 3 x 1062 is reputed to be 3186 but I very much doubt Radio Sangkakala has much to do with AE. > At least, Indonesia is in the same part of the world as the > flight took place, and if bradcasting in Dutch, could explain the > "unitelligble" nature of the receptions, especially on a harmonic. Yes - and "Unitelligible bradcasting" (sic) in Dutch on the second harmonic would be doubled Dutch - even more difficult to understand. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:45:46 EST From: Eric Subject: Bureau of Aeronautics Weekly Newsletter Eric's report to the Forum (For those of you who just tuned in, Ric asked for more background information on the Bureau of Aeronautics' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER to which LT Lambrecht submitted his famous account of the USS COLORADO's aircraft search of the Phoenix Islands. Apparently, there is some confusion as to what this publication's relationship was/is to Naval Aviation. Here's what I've found out.) Subject newsletter was first published in letter format by the Chief of Naval Operations (Aviation) on 15 December 1917. It was initially called the WEEKLY BULLETIN. Later, under the Bureau of Aeronautics (BUAER) it was known by several different names: U.S. NAVAL AVIATION OPERATIONS REPORT, WEEKLY NEWS LETTER, NEWS LETTER, and the BUAER NEWS LETTER. On 15 February, 1943, it debuted in a magazine format. On September 15, 1943, it was renamed NAVAL AVIATION NEWS, and is still published under that name. It is the third oldest military periodical and the oldest Navy periodical. From the beginning, it has been an unclassified publication that covers all aspects of naval air operations. Its mission has been to disseminate information of an OFFICIAL NATURE to meet the ongoing professional needs of Naval Aviation in a way more meaningful than through routine channels. I am using my contacts here at NAS North Island to see if back issues are available from 1937 that would have any follow up discussion to Lambrecht's submission (which I feel can and should be considered as an official report to the Naval Aviation community.) More to follow. LTM, Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:53:14 EST From: John Luttrell Subject: Re: Burning eyeballs WHAT IS THIS BOOK YOU ARE LOOKING THRU? IS IT A LIST OF SHIP'S CALL SIGNS? YOU STATED AMERICAN COMMERCIAL SHIP'S CALL SIGNS STARTED WITH 'W' OR 'K'. THIS MADE ME THINK OF 'BETTY'.....COULD HER 'W4OK' BE A SHIP'S CALL SIGN....MAYBE 'GOLDEN BEAR'??? ********************************************************************* From Ric The publication is officially titled "List of Coast Stations and Ship Stations". It was published by The Bureau of the International Telecommunications Union in Berne, Switzerland and is usually referred to as the "Berne List". Ship call signs are always four letters. W40K is an amateur operator callsign, not a ship. There is a Matson Line ship in the September 1937 list called "Golden Bear". Its call letters were KEXX. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:00:57 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: KACA - some thoughts on identity Small points: Commercial Broadcast stations use the number 770 or 1520 as an assigned frequency not any in between up to and including today and a K preceding the callsign would mean it is usually based west of the Mississippi river except for KDKA in Pennsylvania which kept that one because of being first. K and W being assigned to U S radio stations. from Carl Peltzer Who really enjoyed the old time radio programs in the 50's. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:50:06 EST From: Eric Subject: Eric responds to Tom Strang Tom wrote: > I asked the question looking for clarification as to whether your post > was relevant to resolving the disappearance of NR16020 and it's crew - > Repeating your first post with less word count answered my question - Thank > you! > > Always like to know which way a person is facing when riding a horse. For those of you who just tuned in, Tom is referring to a "speculative post" I submitted and which postulated that Naval aviators who had access to the 157 337 message, LT Lambrecht's account of the aircraft search of the Phoenix Islands and the COLORADO's CO's official report of this same search, might very well have, prior to World War II, reached a conclusion similar to TIGHAR's regarding AE landing on Gardner Island. (Such a pre-war conclusion would be free of any theories regarding spy missions, Japanese involvement, etc.) I also speculated that those within the Naval Air community who felt strongly that AE ended up on Gardner made no serious attempt to challenge Lambrecht's account or request a second search of Gardner out of concern over the possible consequences for Naval Aviation should their theory prove correct. To test this hypothesis, I have, to date, made good on my promise to find out more about the Bureau of Aeronautics' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER to which Lambrecht submitted his account. We now know that it was not some obscure shipboard newsletter, but a highly respected Navy publication which was disseminated to the entire Naval Aviation community and which was intended to keep them appraised of information of an official nature regarding Naval Air operations. Armed with this information, we can now make some realistic assumptions: 1. Lambrecht's account of the Phoenix Islands search would have been readily available to the vast majority of active duty Naval aviators and was probably also made available to Marine Corps and U.S. Army aviators as well. 2. Since the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER was unclassified, courtesy copies were undoubtedly sent to foreign aviation organizations such as the British Royal Air Force. 3. Since it was primarily used for passing along internal information of a military nature, the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER (and Lambrecht's account) was probably not made available to nor reprinted in the national news media. 4. Given the wide spread interest in AE's disappearance and the subsequent air search, Lambrecht's account probably received more than an average amount of scrutiny and peer review. (With this much attention being paid to what he wrote, Lambrecht undoubtedly came to regret the occasional lapses into flippancy that mar an otherwise straight-forward report on the Phoenix Islands air search.) 5. Lambrecht's account was undoubtedly the subject of ready-room discussions, conducted by experienced aviators, and which included some in-depth analysis of how the search was conducted and its effectiveness. 6. Those readers who were "put off" by Lambrecht's flippant comments regarding what was supposed to be a deadly serious search effort might have come to question his judgment and conclusions. 7. Those who also had access to the COLORADO's CO's report of the operation, could have compare his version to Lambrechts' and noted the discrepancy regarding signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island. Naval aviators are usually quite perceptive when it comes to taking available information and then working up likely scenarios which later prove to be valid. (As early as 1932, they had even demonstrated how carrier-based aircraft could successfully stage a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.) Any subsequent discussion/analysis of the Phoenix Islands search that took place prior to World War II might well be contained in back issues of the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER, which is today known as NAVAL AVIATION NEWS. As the next stage of testing my hypothesis, I am using my Navy contacts to locate a set of these back issues for review. When I do, I'll report anything useful that I find to the forum. And the reason for all of this? As someone who generally believes in the TIGHAR hypothesis, I want to do what I can to help validate it. In addition to being a dues-paying member of TIGHAR and occasional providing modest financial support to the expeditions, I like to contribute to the arena of ideas via this forum. Sometimes my contributions go nowhere. Sometimes they generate discussion which leads to my further enlightenment. And there is always the possibility that some chance comment or question might bring to light another piece of the puzzle that will bring us that much closer to finding out what ready did happen to AE and FN. Incidentally, Tom, my wife and I actually do own horses which we keep on our property in East San Diego county. While I don't get the chance to ride as often as I did a few years ago, I do know how to sit on a horse so that I'm facing the right direction. LTM, Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:51:32 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Burning eyeballs >There is a Matson Line ship in the September 1937 list called "Golden Bear". >Its call letters were KEXX. Matson Line? My recollection (possibly faulty) is that the Golden Bear was a U.S. Maritime Academy training vessel, based in San Francisco in the late thirties. It was a fully rigged sailing ship, with (undoubtedly) an auxiliary engine. It might have been the same vessel, under new management. Anybody remember her? Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:26:55 EST From: Eric Subject: WEEKLY NEWS LETTER Back Issues The following is in regards to where back issues of the Naval Aviation WEEKLY NEWS LETTER from 1937 are possibly archived. It is being provided for the convenience of TIGHAR researchers: We assume that the National Archives in College Park, MD http://www.archives.gov/facilities/md/archives_2.html would have this publication within the records of Record Group 72, Bureau of Aeronautics. A brief finding aid for RG-72 is located online at http://www.archives.gov/research_room/federal_records_guide/bureau_of_aeronautics_rg072.html. You may also wish to check with the Naval Post Graduate School http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/ in Monterrey to see if they might have this publication within their collection. Best wishes, Navy Department Library ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:29:45 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Eric's assumptions Eric said : ". . . . [I] can now make some realistic assumptions . . . " None of Eric's "realistic" assumptions provide a single iota of evidence to support his belief that no one challenged Lambrecht's report because to do so would embarrass the Navy and Naval aviators in particular. The 157/337 message was well known and was -- if my imperfect memory serves me here -- used as a basis for the original search. So it was no secret that AE could be somewhere southeast of Howland. Wait a minute, I get it . . . the fact there is no evidence anyone challenged Lambrecht's report means higher-ups in the Navy put a lid on it, suppressing any dissension and intimidating everyone into silence. Wow, it's so clear now . . . . LTM, who sees clearly now, Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ****************************************************************** From Ric To Eric's credit, he is actively looking for documentation to support his hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:44:27 EST From: Rusty Metty Subject: Financing the search for AE As a new member I'm curious to know how you go about financing the search and if you have ever considered opening up the search to private investment. If you could pull a magic number out of the sky to finance an expedition that could thoroughly comb Gardner island, haul equipment to canton to dig for the engine etc. and even fund archival searches perhaps...how much might that cost? Rusty Metty ************************************************************ From Ric Welcome to the forum and thanks for asking. TIGHAR is a nonprofit foundation recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c) (3) Public Charity. That means that financial contributions toward the search for Earhart and other projects are tax deductible to U.S. citizens "to the full extent permitted by law" (as the saying goes). Being a "public charity" means that most of our support comes from a broad base of small contributors rather than a few wealthy donors. The organization does not pay taxes on money it takes in that is related to our "exempt purpose" (historical research and education). TIGHAR does, of course, pay the other taxes (payroll, etc.) that businesses normally pay. "Nonprofit" and "Not for Profit" (the two terms are used interchangeably) are really misnomers. "Tax exempt" 501 (c) (3) organizations like TIGHAR , your church, the medical charities, etc., etc. are free to make all the profit they can. They are, however, restricted in what they can do with it. They can put it back into the business, hire people and build buildings, they can put some of it aside for a rainy day, they can invest it, or they can give it away. What they can NOT do is distribute it to investors or members or board members or anybody. That's the real difference between a "nonprofit" and a "for profit" business. The "for profit" can share the wealth but has to pay taxes. The "nonprofit" gets a tax break but can't distribute profits. This is a long-winded way of saying that we cannot "open up the Earhart search to private investors" any more than the American Cancer Society can sell stock in their research. TIGHAR operates solely in the interest of history and historical education. In that respect we're unique among the handful of organizations and consortia that are searching for Earhart. The deep-sea searchers are basically treasure hunters. They invest in the search hoping that they'll get a return on their investment from the eventual display of the aircraft. The Japanese-Capture advocates form loose associations to pursue their hobby but none, to my knowledge, has ever either incorporated as a for-profit company or filed for tax exempt status as a nonprofit organization. Funding for TIGHAR's work has always relied primarily upon charitable contributions from our members. That's why it's so important that forum subscribers who believe that we're doing something valuable here should become members of TIGHAR. Many times those donations come in the form of outright financial contributions either as checks in the mail or via our secure website. A few of our members are able to help with contributions via family foundations. In other cases, members donate stock or a share in real property and thus avoid some capital gains penalties for themselves while also helping TIGHAR. The sale of publications and wearables is another important source of revenue. On occasion we have also been able to sell exclusive media rights to coverage of our work. But the real secret to TIGHAR's success is the creativity and dedication of our members in supporting our work. Tom King, Randy Jacobson and Kar Burns donated their share of the royalties from their jointly-authored book "Amelia Earhart's Shoes". Andrew McKenna donated a week at his Virgin Islands villa as the prize in this year's Paradise Now raffle. Skeet Gifford funded the production of the Final Approach artwork. Walt Holm, Tom Roberts, and Art Carty funded most of the Niku Vp expedition. Van Hunn and John Clauss covered their own expenses on that trip. Roger Kelley paid his own way as a member of the Fiji Bone Search II team and Father Marty Moleski, vows of poverty notwithstanding, was active in raising the money to cover the cost of his participation. I could go on and on but when I start talking about the people who make this organization the powerhouse of reason and research that it is I tend to get a little over-the-top so I'll shut up. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:55:59 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Golden Bear Here's my info on Golden Bear: KEXX, #217906, Steam screw, burns oil, radio with radio compass; 5342 gross tons, 3339 net; 410' x 54.4' and 27.2'; built 1919 in Los Angeles, freighter, 3500 hp; owned by Matson Navigation Co., California, San Francisco, CA. Crew of 5. ******************************************************************* From Ric Crew of 5??? Norwich City was smaller and had a crew of 35. ****************************************************************** From Ron Reuther The "Golden Bear" was a California Maritime Academy Training Vessel, based at Vallejo on San Francisco Bay near Mare Island Naval Base. It was not a Matson ship. It was ship powered by an engine(s), not a sailing ship. It was in the area of 281 miles north of Howland Island when Earhart disappeared. It had departed Australia and was delayed enroute in the southwest Pacific area because of volcanic eruption. It then continued its progress northeastward across the Pacific toward Vallejo, CA. It was contacted by the Itasca, but indicated it was low on fuel and other supplies and not able to participate in the search and continued on its way. Ron Reuther ********************************************************** From Ric Have we uncovered another piece of Earhart mythology? No such vessel is listed in either the September 1937 or May 1941 Berne List so, if such a vessel existed it did not have a licensed radio. On July 3rd a ship called "Golden Bear" did contact Itasca and gave its position as LAT 5.38N 179.19W 1533 MILES FROM KNK / PLS GIVE WHEX The position is roughly 300 miles NW of Howland. I don't know what "KNK" refers to but that location is roughly that distance from Honolulu. I speculate that "PLS GIVE WHEX" is a garbled request for the weather. At 13:43 Itasca time on July 3rd the radio operator logged: CQ DE NRUI GE QRU ? 600 / NRUI DE KEXX GA ANITING YET / NO TRACE Translation: ITASCA TO ALL SHIPS: GO AHEAD, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR ME? ANSWER ON 600 KHZ; GOLDEN BEAR TO ITASCA: GO AHEAD; ITASCA: ANYTHING YET?; GOLDEN BEAR: NO TRACE Note that the original log entry (NRUI DE KEXX) leaves no doubt that the Golden Bear referred to is the Matson ship described by Randy. There are no further references to Golden Bear in the log. The "281 message" was not received until late on the night of the 4th/5th. What's the basis for your information? ******************************************************** From Dave in Fremont: Cam Warren wrote:: >My recollection (possibly faulty) is that the Golden Bear was a U.S. >Maritime Academy training vessel, based in San Francisco in the late >thirties. It >was a fully rigged sailing ship, with (undoubtedly) an auxiliary engine. It >might have been the same vessel, under new management. Anybody remember her All I've been able to find is that the current "Golden Bear" is the former World War II assault ship USS Crescent City. It currently serves as a research vessel belonging to the State of California, but is on loan to the USCG as a training/research vessel. I haven't been able to locate any information about the Golden Bear prior to World War II. Considering this particular vessel's name/designation/mission, your recollection is very much in-line. LTM, Dave (#2585) ************************************************************* From Ric But it's pretty clear that this is the wrong Golden Bear. ****************************************************** From Angus Murray Cam, Ric wrote: >There is a Matson Line ship in the September 1937 list called "Golden Bear". >Its call letters were KEXX. The 1919, ex-West Cajoot was in 1928 renamed Golden Bear. 1936 purchased by Matson renamed Kailua. This may be the one above. The Golden Bear in question was a USA freighter which was at Rabaul end May '37 and helped with rescue from the eruption. She sailed for Hawaii with a cargo of timber I believe. > Matson Line? My recollection (possibly faulty) is that the Golden Bear > was a U.S. Maritime Academy training vessel, based in San Francisco in > the late thirties. It was a fully rigged sailing ship, with > (undoubtedly) an auxiliary engine. It might have been the same vessel, > under new management. Anybody remember her? The Calfornia Maritime Academy's training ship, TS Golden Bear [II], was built in 1939/1940 in Sparrows Point, MD as the Del Orleans, an art-deco passenger/cargo vessel. It served in WWII as the USS Crescent City and then as the Golden Bear, a training ship for the California Maritime Academy. Renamed the ARTSHIP in 1999, it now is a floating community arts and cultural center. The TS Golden Bear is now docked at the 10th Avenue Pier in Oakland, Calif., near Coast Guard Island. As for TS GB [1] I have no information but it seems you could be right. Regards Angus. **************************************** From Ric Myth debunked. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:57:25 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Eric responds to Tom Strang That's an outstanding job of research, Eric but your conclusions are pure speculation. The services have always had publications widely distributed and widely read such as the Airforce, Navy and Army Times and the Stars and Stripes. I would not draw ANY official conclusions from anything in any of those publications. I currently receive similar publications from military organizations. They contain all kinds of information regarding military affairs but they hardly rise to the status of official reports, directives or otherwise. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:00:14 EST From: Anne Subject: Re: Eric's assumptions Hi! I'm one of the silent forum members, but I just couldn't pass up this: > Wait a minute, I get it . . . the fact there is > no evidence anyone > challenged Lambrecht's report means higher-ups in > the Navy put a lid on it, > suppressing any dissention and intimidating everyone > into silence. Wow, it's so clear > now . . . . Has anyone out there seen the movie A Few Good Men? I have been reading and doing my own research on AE and I just keep coming back to this thought- there is a coverup somewhere! There is no way they could have missed AE and FN, because one person talks of seeing the "recent inhabitation", but also those islands should have been thoroughly searched and you'd think you wouldn't miss a big plane either... I would be more interested in finding out exactly who was in charge and their relationship (if any) to either the flight around the world and/or AE. Why would the Navy be helping these people? If anyone would further like to talk to me or hear my thoughts on this, let me know or email me at teblhasa@hotmail.com. Anne *********************************************************** From Ric Oh dear.... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:03:05 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Eric responds to Tom Strang Eric, Caveat: These comments are not meant to be for any other reason than to give you some things to "shoot for" in your research. Let's review the bidding from your last post: "...we can now make some realistic assumptions:" Eric, "realistic" is a relative term. "...probably also made available to Marine Corps and U.S. Army aviators as well." True, but do we "know" they were? "...courtesy copies were undoubtedly sent to foreign aviation organizations such as the British Royal Air Force." What makes you say "undoubtedly"? Do you have direct evidence that this actually happened? "...the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER (and Lambrecht's account) was probably not made available to nor reprinted in the national news media." I don't know if "For Official Use Only" (IIRC, the lowest level of restrictive classification for Navy documents) was around in 1937, but I would think that anything not stamped with an explicit classification would be fair game for public dissemination. "...probably received more than an average amount of scrutiny and peer review." Please cite any evidence that conforms. Parentheses yours "(With this much attention being paid to what he wrote, Lambrecht undoubtedly came to regret the occasional lapses into flippancy that mar an otherwise straight-forward report on the Phoenix Islands air search.)" How do you "know" he felt any regret? Is there any memoir by Lambrecht to that effect? "Lambrecht's account was undoubtedly the subject of ready-room discussions..." As the son of a Naval aviator, the subject of about 99% of ready room discussions were "undoubtedly" about cribbage games or women's legs and/or posteriors... "Those readers who were "put off" by Lambrecht's flippant comments regarding what was supposed to be a deadly serious search effort might have come to question his judgment and conclusions." I don't really know how much credence Lambrecht would have garnered, in any event. According to my father and his wartime associates, pilots of patrol/observation planes off cruisers and battleships were not even close to the "top rung" of the naval aviation ladder, to use my father's terms. "Those who also had access to the COLORADO's CO's report of the operation, could have compare his version to Lambrechts' and noted the discrepancy regarding signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island." Yes, that's possible, if your unbiased point of view is that there were some who believed there to be a conspiracy/cover-up at the time (ca. 1937). "Naval aviators are usually quite perceptive when it comes to taking available information and then working up likely scenarios which later prove to be valid. (As early as 1932, they had even demonstrated how carrier-based aircraft could successfully stage a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.)" Yes, that's true. More can be found at this site http://members.cox.net/yarnell17/pearl_harbor.htm However, it must also be considered that these war games were envisioned and developed at the Naval War College and the Navy Department in Washington, certainly not with any substantial input from ready room "scuttlebutt"... Further, Eric, you must remember that prior to World War II, the U.S. Navy was defined by a highly inflexible, stratified "chain-of-command" and really had a "yacht club" mentality, especially as it relates to the relationships between senior officers, junior officers, and enlisted men. In short, today's Navy is one willing to accept and act upon considered inputs from below; the U.S. Navy of 1937 was more akin to the structure shown in the film "The Sand Pebbles." "Any subsequent discussion/analysis of the Phoenix Islands search that took place prior to World War II might well be contained in back issues of the WEEKLY NEWSLETTER, which is today known as NAVAL AVIATION NEWS. As the next stage of testing my hypothesis, I am using my Navy contacts to locate a set of these back issues for review. When I do, I'll report anything useful that I find to the forum." I wish you luck with that and eagerly await your findings. So at least plan on getting that crow out of the freezer for subsequent cooking and presentation. :) "And the reason for all of this? As someone who generally believes in the TIGHAR hypothesis, I want to do what I can to help validate it. In addition to being a dues-paying member of TIGHAR and occasional providing modest financial support to the expeditions, I like to contribute to the arena of ideas via this forum. Sometimes my contributions go nowhere. Sometimes they generate discussion which leads to my further enlightenment. And there is always the possibility that some chance comment or question might bring to light another piece of the puzzle that will bring us that much closer to finding out what ready did happen to AE and FN." Eric, if this investigation truly succeeds with more than additional conjecture, I and many other "dues-paying" members will be pleasantly surprised, and I do wish you all the luck in the world. LTM, Dave (#2585) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:04:45 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Financing There are two points that I will add/reinforce on Ric's posting. I'll be shameless here. These things have been said before, but hey, it don't hurt to say them again: 1) If you are on this forum, and you are not a TIGHAR member, please become one. Then you won't be riding the wagon without paying the fare. An Associate membership costs a paltry $55. That's 15 cents a day. 2) This is work that is advanced by the people who care about it. If you care, contribute in any way you can. Buy a shirt or a cap, or send a check. LTM, who thinks anyone looks good in a TIGHAR baseball cap, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Financing the search for AE Just two comments on your response to Rusty, Ric. 1. If "opening up to private investment" means recruiting people to invest in TIGHAR in the expectation of turning a buck, obviously we can't do it. But just as in the past we've sold media rights to specific expeditions, it seems to me that we COULD partner with somebody who thought he or she could make money off something related to the search, provided it wasn't inconsistent with=20 TIGHAR's mission and principles. Right? 2. You didn't answer Rusty's question about what it might cost to do more or less everything we've talked about doing, but in fact we HAVE kicked this question around at various times just in case somebody came along with the necessary money and asked it. Of course, the figure keeps changing because new opportunities and needs keep arising, but my personal, unofficial guestimate is about US$15 million to: A. Do a really thorough study of the village, with its many, many airplane parts; B. Do a really through study of the Seven Site; C. Do other bits and pieces of archeology in various places on the island; D. Do some comparative surveys on other islands in the Phoenix group; E. Conduct a modest program of remote sensing along the Nutiran reef face (a more-than-modest program could eat up a LOT more money); F. Excavate the Kanton dump site (just to be sure); G. Conduct further archival and oral historical research in England, the U.S., Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, Funafuti, and maybe Tarawa. H. Complete analysis and reports on everything, and organize all the existing data into a georeferenced database; and I. Lodge all the artifacts and records in a suitably equipped repository. Lots of money, but I think that's a fair estimate of what it would cost to really do the job right. ***************************************************************** From Ric It doesn't cost anything to dream and there are people out there who could write a check for 15 million without batting an eye. (If this describes you please drop me an email.) As far as TIGHAR getting in bed with somebody whose primary motivation is to profit financially from our work, I'm open to suggestions but I've been burned before and, as a famous man once said, "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:30:52 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Golden Bear Ric wrote: >Myth debunked. Excuse me for asking; but what myth, and how debunked? Postings by Randy et al, indicate I was right, in that there was a sailing ship named Golden Bear, and that it was in existence "in the late thirties" in the San Francisco area. ************************************************************* From Ric Dec. 1 - John Luttrell asked if the W40K in Betty's notebook might be the callsign of the ship "Golden Bear". On Dec. 2 - I replied, explaining that "Golden Bear" was a Matson Line ship with the call letters KEXX. On Dec. 2 - You responded with, "Matson Line? My recollection (possibly faulty) is that the Golden Bear was a U.S. Maritime Academy training vessel, based in San Francisco in the late thirties." On Dec. 3 - Ron Reuther wrote: >The "Golden Bear" was a California Maritime Academy Training Vessel, based at >Vallejo on San Francisco Bay near Mare Island Naval Base. It was not a Matson >ship. It was ship powered by an engine(s), not a sailing ship. It was in the >area of 281 miles north of Howland Island when Earhart disappeared. It had >departed Australia and was delayed enroute in the southwest Pacific area because >of volcanic eruption. It then continued its progress northeastward across the >Pacific toward Vallejo, CA. It was contacted by the Itasca, but indicated it was >low on fuel and other supplies and not able to participate in the search and >continued on its way. That is the myth that has been debunked. The Golden Bear mentioned in the Itasca log was not the California Maritime Academy training vessel and it was not asked to participate in the search. Granted, as Earhart myths go it's not in the same league with the Bendix RA-1 but it's still important that we keep the facts straight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:33:06 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: Do harmonics go down? For Neil... No, to my knowledge harmonics are only multiples of the input frequency. I humbly beg leave for a figure of speech (as in the "up and down") being misinterpreted. As for the circuitry, since you have built some transmitters since 1965, remember how nic it was to use differential amplifiers of Bipolar Junction Transistors and the wonderful Common Mode Rejection Ratio involved with those components? I have seen a 741 OpAmp chip get a little weird when subjected to too much stray capacitance caused by nearby wires. Things a vacuum tube would not even notice. Then there's the heat issue, as in the modern components changing resistance value from heat that the oscillator does not function as designed. The old tubes love heat! Today we also have the wonderful vari-cap, rather than the 1930's bulletproof (figure of speech warning) ganged capacitor arrangements. Then there's the might Frequency Modulation as opposed to noisy 1930's Amplitude Modulation...... No, I don't think AE was heard below 3105 kHz, so would not suggest such as thing. Love to Mother Pete #2419 *************************************************** From Ric The only part of that I understood was "bipolar". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:37:32 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Lt Lambrecht For Eric, Concerning Lt Lambrecht's observations of Gardner Island the morning of 9 July 37 and integrity of naval aviation, perhaps you are unaware that Fred Goerner also wanted to learn more like you about the flight that Lt Lambrecht, Short and Fox made over the Phoenix Islands. In an eight page letter he wrote to J. Gordon Vaeth in 1993, which I have a copy, he described how he became quite friendly with all of them, corresponded with them and recorded their conversations in the late 60's and early 70's. Goerner questioned Lt Lambrecht at length,.and learned from Lt Lambrecht what he meant by "signs of recent habitation". Ric has cautioned that this is a 33 year old anecdotal recollection. It may or may not be accurate. Lt Lambrecht concluded that " If we had seen anything on any of the islands that possibly was connected to Earhart, we would have recommended landing and making a ground search." Goerner or Lt Lambrecht make no mention of any additional official or "unoffical" reports on that search. [ Except the CO ] In an attempt to further document what was seen on the islands, I attempted to contact Lt Lambrecht's observer J. Ashley Wilson about two years ago. Carol Osborne, however, advised me she had interviewed Wilson, a retired Pan Am pilot, a number of times and that Wilson had accompanied LT Lambrecht only on the afternoon flight over Hull Island, and couldn't confirm any sightings. He had high praise for Lt Lambrecht and those searching the Phoenix. LTM, Ron Bright ****************************************************************** From Ric Goerner said that Lambrecht recalled that he had seen "markers of some kind" on the ground at Gardner. I talked to Ash Wilson on the phone many years ago. As Ron says, he was not on the flight that searched Gardner. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:33:53 EST From: Rusty Metty Subject: Re: Eric's assumptions I guess some people see conspiracies everywhere and some don't. I used to. In this case the evidence leads me to believe the most likely scenario by far puts AE and FN on Gardner island being completely missed by the search pilots. Although I would like to know how much time elapsed after the last AE radio call (that TIGHAR believes was actually from AE) and the first search plane. I'm still trying to understand how AE and FN could miss a low flying plane looking for them making low passes on an island as small as Gardner. I suppose injury might explain it. Or am I missing something? It just seems like at any given time they could not be more than 150 yards from open beach and surely one could hear the planes coming? Rusty Metty ********************************************************** From Ric Only a handful of alleged post-loss calls occurred after the 5th. The aerial search was on the 9th. There are many places on the northwest end of the island (where all the evidence points to the landing taking place) that are well over 300 yards from the nearest open area. If you're in an area where the route to a beach is blocked by dense underbrush it can take 15 minutes or more to go 50 yards no matter badly you want to get there. If you're in the jungle and a plane comes over fairly low you don't hear them until they're right overhead (been there, done that). But even if you get out to the beach and wave your little arms you there's a good chance you won't be seen. Anyone who has bought the Niku Aerial Tour video can readily understand how Lambrecht and company could have missed people on the ground who were desperately trying to get their attention. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:36:41 EST From: Jerry Subject: Re: Golden Bear Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! I can see it now! "Recently uncovered reports reveal that SS Golden Bear reportedly sat idly by, 10-12 miles away as Earhart and Noonan, clinging to the wing of their floating aircraft, frantically fired distress rockets into the night skies. Golden Bear continued to do nothing as the lights from the downed Electra slowly disappeared below the frigid North Atlantic. Shortly thereafter, Golden Bear disappeared between the many icebergs as she made her escape into oblivion..." How'm I doing so far? Granted it needs a little massaging, but.... LTM (who has too much time on her hands) Jerry ************************************************** From Ric Did I mention that the ship's full name was the "Golden Bear Maru"? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:40:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Eric's assumptions Welcome to the Forum, Anne. You are going to fit in well. Let me make one quick comment and then suggest you go to the web site and brush up before you say something more you might regret. An Electra 10E is NOT a big airplane. Oceans are. Islands are. Airplanes are not. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:42:24 EST From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: KACA - some thoughts on identity > and if bradcasting in Dutch, could explain the > "unitelligble" nature of the receptions, especially on a harmonic. Yes - and "Unitelligible bradcasting" (sic) in Dutch on the second harmonic would be doubled Dutch - even more difficult to understand. FYI - Perdue Earhart collection has an information sheet titled "Wireless Station Data" showing some of the cities encountered on the world flight with station names, call signs, wavelengths, and remarks. You can see them at this link: http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/Earhart/EarhartDisplay/list.cfm?type=identifier&library=&criteria=IX.C.6 Tom Riggs #2427 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:44:49 EST From: Ric Subject: KACA and KCWR No joy finding either KACA or KCWR in the May 1941 Berne List. Could these be commercial stations onshore ala KGMB? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:00:01 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: KACA and KCWR Those stations (KACA and KCWR) were reported to be on or about 3105 kHz, which is far outside the range of AM broadcast bands, where KGMB resided. ********************************************** From Ric Wouldn't the same be true of ship stations? Who are these guys??? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:08:56 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: ISLAND TOPO Would I be wrong and completely out of the box, having not been to the islands in question, in feeling that the Electra very possibly might have made an acceptable landing on the beach, rolled into the heavy brush that was described in the book Amelia's Shoes, leaving just a hole which might only be seen at a certain angle and cover the aircraft completely. Is that brush tall enough to cover it completely in Tighar's estimation? AE and FN were not well enough to do more than clear an area to run one engine in the time they had before the Navy searchers arrived? ************************************************************ From Ric That scenario is certainly possible but then you have to explain where the airplane went by the time Maude and Bevington visited the island in October and the New Zealand Survey mapped that whole area in great detail in December 1938 and the USS Bushnell survey did the same again in November 1939, etc., etc. That's why we think the plane must have gone over the edge of the reef and hung up in relatively shallow water obscured by the surf except at times of very low tide where Emily's father pointed it out to her in 1940 or '41. In later years, circa 1953, it apparently began to break up and pieces appeared on the reef flat and beaches. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:10:42 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Lt Lambrecht I am starting to wonder if the reason that Lambrecht's comments about signs of recent habitation were not acted upon was because this finding wasn't unexpected or thought to be unusual in the absence of visible plane wreckage or some other attempt to signal potential rescuers. I would venture that although Gardner wasn't inhabited, it can't be assumed that it wasn't visited (legally or not) by various parties over the years. With the Norwich City wreck clearly visible and not knowing what (if anything) was really known about Gardner by the searchers the comments about the 'signs' could've been just that -- signs of recent habitation -- no plane -- no signal -- no sign of anything else. No conspiracy necessary. Bob ********************************************************** From Ric I think that's probably right. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:18:30 EST From: Richard Metzger Subject: Re: Golden Bear A little research produced this info on the "Golden Bear" per The ShipsList (say that three times ) Kailua 1919, ex-West Cajoot, 1928 renamed Golden Bear. 1936 purchased by Matson renamed Kailua, 1942 sold to U.S. Maritime Commission, 1943 transferred to USSR, renamed Viborg. weight 5,342 P.S. to Alan What does TIGHAR stand for? are you looking for the plane or AE/FN I thought I was confused......or maybe you? LTL Richard Metzger Lyon Investigations ******************************************************* From Ric >1928 renamed Golden Bear. >1936 purchased by Matson renamed Kailua Interesting. The September 1937 Berne List had not kept up with the name change although it does list her as a Matson Line ship. In the May 1941 list she's shown as the Kailua but with the same call letters as before. I can also answer your question to Alan. We're trying to solve the Earhart mystery - something of a prerequisite to recovering anything that may be left of the plane. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:21:51 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: KACA and KCWR Ric wrote: > No joy finding either KACA or KCWR in the May 1941 Berne List. Could these > be commercial stations onshore ala KGMB? A quick Google search turned up KCWR-FM on 107.1 MHz in Bakersfield. It may well have started out life as an AM station there in the Thirties. A search for KACA was less fruitful from a radio standpoint, but I got lots of pages of search stuff: turns out "kaca" is the Indonesian word for glass or mirror (according to my 1984 edition of "Kamus Mini Lengkap" pocket Indonesian translation dictionary). I had no idea there were so many Indonesian web pages out there! Where's our radio historian? There should be an American broadcast station directory from the period in existence somewhere. At that time, only "K" and "W" prefixes were used by the U.S. (and exclusively by the U.S.) "W" east of the Mississippi plus Atlantic possessions, "K" west of the Mississippi plus Pacific possessions. In the Amateur Radio world it is common practice to re-assign call letters from expired station licenses because of the sheer number of station license requests; but not so in the commercial arena. I would be very surprised if KCWR was not always in Bakersfield. In the 50s and 60s when a broadcaster added an FM or TV outlet; they usually just added -FM or -TV to the old AM call letter. That's why I suspect KCWR-FM started out as an AM station. I don't remember a KGMB radio station when I lived in Hawaii in the late 80s, but there was (and still is) KGMB-TV, channel 9 in Honolulu. Most (some? many?) current radio stations seem to maintain some sort of internet web page. My inability to find one for KACA (I expected Google to find it before all those Indonesian pages since I was searching from the English language Google page) suggests to me that it is a defunct call sign. I'll keep looking. This is fun. Did you know that in Indonesia, the average.......oh never mind. LTM (who remembers her father picking up KFI, Los Angeles from St. Louis on a home made radio in the 20s) Kerry Tiller ****************************************************************** From Ric Sounds logical.....but what's a commercial station doing on 3105? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:27:33 EST From: Eric Subject: AE records in the Naval Historical Center Although this will probably be old news to some of you, the Naval Historical Center has 4 cubic feet worth of documents related to the loss of Amelia Earhart. (Does anyone know off hand how many filing cabinet drawers are required to hold 4 cubic feet?) According to the Naval Historical Center, all aspects of the Earhart case are covered in these documents including official investigations conducted since 1937 and which have sought to evaluate the various theories of her disappearance. Microfilm copies of these documents are available for purchase. Incidentally, the Naval Historical Center's write-up on AE (which can be found at http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq3-1.htm) contains the following statement: "Modern analysis indicated that after passing the Nukumanu Islands, Earhart began to vector off course, unwittingly heading for a point about 100 miles NNW of Howland. A few hours before their estimated arrival time, Noonan calculated a "sun line," but without a successful, radio-frequency range calculation, a precise "fix" on the plane's location could not be established. Researchers generally believe that the plane ran out of fuel and that Earhart and Noonan perished at sea." (The write-up does not elaborate on the "modern analysis" which led to the theory that AE vectored off course to a point NNW of Howland, nor does it identify the "researchers" who generally believe that AE and FN perished at sea. The possibility of her vectoring off course SSE and ending up in the Phoenix Islands is not raised.) There is also a link to the full texts of declassified FBI documents concerning AE. (Are there any FBI documents on her that ARE still classified? If so, WHY would they still be classified after all these years?) Using the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet, I was able to access these documents on line. (Most of them are quite amusing and would make for good reading on a rainy day.) Happy researching. LTM, Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. ************************************************************** From Ric I've been through the Earhart file at the Naval Historical Center. We have much more than they do. The "write-up" was done by somebody who bought into Paul Rafford's analysis of the flight (he's the guy who was sure they went via Nauru because Earhart received a message in Lae telling her about a new light on Nauru). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:00:27 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: ISLAND TOPO good points and raises a query: Is there knowledge of bad enough storms before those who walked on the island in October with high surf which might have moved the plane out over the reef? Did Maude and Bevington see the whole island and or possibly did the vegetation grow over and totally cover it as it grows so fast in the tropics. ************************************************************************* From Ric There is no record of a storm in the Phoenix Group between July 2 and October 13, 1937 and it would be highly unusual for there to be one at that time of year. Maude and Bevington did not come anywhere near seeing the whole island but they did make theri camp and spend most of their time on the western end of the island where the evidence points to the plane landing. None of the evidence points to a landing on the beach. All of the evidence points to a landing out on the reef flat. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:33:55 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: KACA and KCWR Ric said re: KCWR and KACA: "Sounds logical.....but what's a commercial station doing on 3105?" A harmonic of 1550 KCs, 1035 KCs, 775 KCs, or 620 KCs? LTM, who is often 5X5 Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Michael Holt >Sounds logical.....but what's a commercial station doing on 3105? Weren't there some "commercial stations" that existed to re-transmit telegrams? That kind of thing would not be in the usual broadcast band. Michael Holt ********************************************************************* From Ed Croft > > No joy finding either KACA or KCWR in the May 1941 Berne List. Could these > > be commercial stations onshore ala KGMB? There is a KACA-TV in Modesto California. http://www.thefirsteaster.com/tfe_telecast_us_ca.html ltm, Ed *********************************************************************** From Ric Now we're getting somewhere. We have presently existing stations with those same call letters - KCWR and KACA - in California. Now the big question is whether those stations were in business in 1937. ************************************************************************** From David There is a KGMB in Hawaii TV and KGMD - KGMV radio am stations and here is link to history of call letters etc http://earlyradiohistory.us/statlist.htm David #2505 ********************************************************************** From Ric What a great resource! Thanks. But a search of 1934 and 1942 turns up no KACA or KCWR. Damn! ******************************************************************* From David Prior to 1929 all call signs that started with KA were assigned to German stations. David #2505 ******************************************************************** From Mike E. Carl Peltzer wrote: >Small points: >Commercial Broadcast stations use the number 770 or 1520 as an assigned >frequency not any in between up to and including today Pardon my skepticism, but Since When? US commercial broadcasting stations are assigned to frequencies from 540 Khz to 1700 Khz (though most above 1600 are Traveler's Aid stations, with a few exceptions). In the 30s the AM band was 550-1500 KHz. Stations are assigned to all "channels" in this range in 10 KHz increments, i.e. 540, 550, 560, 570 etc etc. and are held to a frequency tolerance of plus or minus 15 Hz. This has been the band plan since the early 30s at least, as has the frequency tolerance rule. Many foreign governments, however, do not adhere to the 10 -KHz step plan. Canada does, and Mexico as well, but many nations in Central and South America, and even in Europe, stick 'em wherever there is a relatively clear spot. >and a K preceding the >callsign would mean it is usually based west of the Missippi river except >for KDKA >in Pennsylvania which kept that one because of being first. > K and W being assigned to U S radio stations. There were a few instances (other than KDKA) wherein K call letters were assigned to stations east of the Mississippi because the FCC official who did it could not recall which side of the river a particular location was. Ditto for W calls west of the Big Muddy. For more info do a web search for an article titled "Building the AM Broadcast Band." I can't recall the URL but a simple search should turn it up. Thus endeth this off topic thread. However, it is a fact that ship stations and broadcast stations are/were assigned call letters from the same block WAAA-WZZZ and KAAA-KZZZ. Broadcast call letters have been recycled for many, many years. And as ship call signs go dark, they are returned to the pool after a certain length of time, probably 3 years but I am not certain of this. 73 Mike E. ****************************************************************** Ric, for Kelly KCWR, 107.1 FM (currently) started out as an AM 550 station in 1/17/97 being owned by Buck Owens Productions Inc. KACA currently is used by an educational station, channel 36 in Macon, (GA) LTL (I like the big yellow bird) Richard Metzger Lyon Investigations, Inc. ************************************************************************* From Cam Warren This is going to shock the trousers off of Ric, but the call letters KRCW-FM were assigned to Channel Broadcasting Co. of Santa Barbara in the 60's, the president/chief engineer of same being yours truly. Often heard at sea, thanks to our 4,000' transmitter site, atop Mount Santa Ynez. (There was also a KRCW in Santa Monica, but unrelated). For KACA and KCWR, look for a copy of the Broadcasting Year Book, circa 37-40. KFI (Los Angeles) could be heard almost everywhere in the US since it was a 50,000 watt, clear channel AM station. "Clear channel" meaning no other station shared their frequency. There were only about 20 or 30 in the country, as I recall, including WGN (Chicago Tribune; "Worlds Greatest Newspaper"), and WLS (Sears Roebuck, "World's Largest Store"). Cam Warren ******************************************************************** From Ric My trousers are more secure than you suppose. Anybody got a copy of the Broadcasting Yearbook for the appropriate years? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:35:31 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: KACA and KCWR Ric wrote: > Sounds logical.....but what's a commercial station doing on 3105? I don't know....testing a new short-wave outlet? I thought if we could find out the WHO, it could give us leads to the WHAT and WHY. Kerry Tiller ******************************************************** From Ric I agree, but the WHO is proving to be rather elusive. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:41:26 EST From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: AE records in the Naval Historical Center Eric wrote: >Although this will probably be old news to some of you, the Naval >Historical Center has 4 cubic feet worth of documents related to >the loss of Amelia Earhart. (Does anyone know off hand how >many filing cabinet drawers are required to hold 4 cubic feet?) Forgive me ... My filing cabinet's drawers each measure 12.5x10.5x25.5 inches of usable space. This gives me a total useable volume of 3346.875 cubic inches. Four cubic feet is four times 1728 cubic inches; that's 6912 cubic inches. It would appear that all the relevant files at the Naval Historical Center would fill only two drawers in my filing cabinet. That's not a lot of paper. Or did I miss a decimal point or something? (You DID ask.) Michael Holt **************************************************************** From Ric That pretty much matches my memory of what they have. We have two four-drawer filing cabinets crammed to overflowing plus a box and several stacks of overflow plus at least 20 Gigs of hard-drive space filled with Earhart-related stuff. Hopeless. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:50:07 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: AE records in the Naval Historical Center >([Paul Rafford is] the guy who was sure they went via >Nauru because Earhart received a message in Lae telling her about a new light >on Nauru). Not such a dumb idea as you imply. Nauru would have made an excellent way point to confirm Noonan's navigation, besides serving as an emergency landing opportunity about midway to Howland. Cam Warren ********************************************************************* From Ric What is dumb is to conclude that it happened based upon nothing more than speculative interpretation. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:53:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE records in the Naval Historical Center Eric asks: >Does anyone know off hand how many filing cabinet drawers are >required to hold 4 cubic feet? Think about that a little, Eric. It's not very much. There are 4 cubic feet in a bin that is 8 inches deep x 2 feet wide x 3 feet long. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:09:15 EST From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: ISLAND TOPO > None of of the >evidence points to a landing on the beach. All of the evidence points >to a landing out on the reef flat. Just out of curiosituy, had they landed on the beach, how long would the plane have lasted? Even better, how long would the tracks of the landing have lasted? **************************************************************** From Ric If they had landed on the beach I don't know why the plane wouldn't have lasted for a long, long time. Storms may have busted it up and pushed it inland but not remove every trace. Landing tracks on the beach, like footprints, last only until the next storm pushes water up onto the beach. For what it's worth, I suspect that Lambrecht's "signs of recent habitation" were marks in the sand. He uses the same expression in describing what was seen at Sydney Island where we another account ( a prees report sent from the Colorado) says they saw letters in the sand. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:12:33 EST From: George Werth Subject: Re: AE Disappearance G'Day Y'All The Atlantic Ocean has it's Bermuda Triangle; Could it be that the Pacific Ocean has an: Amelia Earhardt Triangle? Cheers GeorgeRatWerth ********************************************************************** From Ric Good hypothesis. The Bermuda Triangle was invented on a slow newsday in 1954. The Earhart Triangle was invented by three USAF officers - Joe Gervais, Bob Ringer and Paul Briand - in 1960. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:07:25 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: KACA and KCWR Let me ask what seems a logical question. Let's assume in 1937 there were two stations with the call letters KACA and KCWR BRIEFLY. Too brief to make the registry you're looking at. Then they went out of business. What happens to those call letters? Could I, twenty years later, start up two stations and use those call letters? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:13:26 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: ISLAND TOPO > None of of the >evidence points to a landing on the beach. All of the evidence points >to a landing out on the reef flat. I assume we have concluded it was not possible for AE to move the plane once it came to a stop? I would also assume we have concluded that once on the ground AE would not have had a reason to take off to move the plane to the beach? I ask this having not ever been there and therefore can't make a guess that the beach or any other place would have been a safer place for the plane than the reef which appears to be the logical landing choice. This ought to be easy to put to rest. Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric Only about the first 150 feet of reef (the part out near the ocean) is smooth enough to land or taxi the airplane. Otherwise the reef surface is deeply pitted and jagged. You can't even walk on it without being super careful. The beach is quite narrow, steeply sloped, and either rough coral or deep, soft sand - not someplace you'd want to land an airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:35:59 EST From: David Subject: Re: KACA and KCWR Yes they can be reassigned or requested David #2505 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:37:20 EST From: Greg Robinson Subject: Re: KACA and KCWR I'm relatively new here but this question caught my eye. Weren't remote broadcasts transmitted via shortwave and then re-transmitted via the broadcasting station (i.e. via AM, Shortwave, etc)? And, if so, it seems to me that a person might want to see what those remote broadcast freq's were usually. For instance, perhaps a station was using one freq for gathering their remote broadcast (and using the same station call letters) and then re-transmitting on their broadcast frequency. However, I'd imagine that there might not be a whole lot of standardization on freq's for remote broadcasts in the 30's. Greg Robinson Plano, TX ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:38:22 EST From: Richard Metzger Subject: Re: KACA and KCWR For Alan, That is a possible scenario given that all of the search engines do not list the call signs, HOWEVER, They do not list the current users of the call signs as well. KACA is an independent educational TV station 36 in Macon KCWR is used by 105.1 FM in Bakersfield, CA (1997) LTL Richard Metzger ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:44:02 EST From: Emmett Houlihan Subject: a new "take" on earhart mystery I'm sure you're aware of the new publication by Rollin Reineck--but just in case--here goes: An article appeared in the November 23 edition of the Los Angeles Times advancing the Marshall Island theory--with a couple of twists. AE & FN go down in the Marshalls but the Japanese find them first. FN is immediately dispatched to that big Hangar in the sky while Amelia is kept (in Japan ?) until hostilities cease in 1945. Twist #1) She is released by the Japanese under the guise of Irene Craigmile(she no longer wants to be recognized as Amelia Earhart) into the hands of Reverend James Kelly who brings her back to the U.S.. She subsequently marries Guy Bolam and is hence known as Irene Craigmile Bolam. Twist #2) Through computerized age progression enhancement, a local detective was able to "see" what Amelia looked like at age 75 and when compared with Mrs. Bolam at age 80, one can see a striking resemblance--not to mention the unique wings pin and honorary Major's insignia on the left shoulder of her dress. I guess I missed the lawsuit filed by Mrs. Bolam in the 70's. I did NOT miss the "Amelia Lives!" publication and read it over & over. I also missed the lawsuit part where the authors agree to a 2 million settlement IF Mrs. Bolam would submit to fingerprinting. She not only declined to do this but immediately dropped the lawsuit. In her will was a strong demand that her organs be donated and her identity not be changed in any way. I've checked with the forum as I religiously do and would confess to being on a short vacation when the article first appeared yet I've seen no forum discussion regarding the article. Certainly I'm not the only one who is aware of this--am I? LTM, Emmett 2405S ******************************************************************** From Ric The forum has let the announcement of Mr. Reineck's book pass without comment. I have ordered a copy and will post a review on the TIGHAR website in due course. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:22:01 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Amelia morphs into Irene ? The solution to the mystery of Amelia Earhart's disappearance will have to consist of ironclad proof, a "smoking gun", as it were. Skeptics of the TIGHAR hypothesis want a very high standard of proof before they are convinced. I'm okay with that. But the converse also applies. I, for one, will require extremely convincing evidence if I am going to be brought to a place where I believe that Irene Bolam began her life as Amelia Earhart. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 **************************************************************** From Ric That's not the contention. Irene O'Crowley, later Craigmile, later Heller, and ultimately Bolam was born in New Jersey on October 1, 1904. It is claimed that Amelia Earhart returned from Japan in 1945 and assumed the identity of this existing person. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:24:34 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Discovery of Canton Is (Kanton) In 1852, Capt Andrew Wing of Acushnet,Mass, commanded a whaling barque "Canton" from New Bedford Mass to the South Pacific in search of whales. By March of 1853, the barque was somewhere near the Phoenix Island chain around 03* 173 West. His charts showed no low lying atolls etc, yet the ship hit a submerged reef and wrecked . It couldn't be refloated on this atoll-since renamed Kanton. The crew of 33 souls left in four whaleboats and after 45 days made it to Saipan, then to Guam. Wings sextant had been heavily damaged and with some spare parts he fabricated an instrument that guided the crew. I wonder if anyone ever found evidence of this rather large three masted barque? Maybe this has been posted before on the origin of the name. [ Source: Ocean Navigator, Sep/Oct 2003, article by David Berson] Ron Bright ************************************************************ From Ric Perhaps...but the connection with Saipan is ominous. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:41 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Amelia assumes identity >Irene O'Crowley, later Craigmile, later Heller, and ultimately Bolam >was born in New Jersey on October 1, 1904. It is claimed that Amelia >Earhart returned from Japan in 1945 and assumed the identity of this >existing person. My apologies, all. I thought I understood this theory. Now I'm completely confused. If these theorists have it that AE assumed the identity of Ms. Irene-of-many-names, what do they suppose happened to the REAL Irene? Did she go swimming with the fishes, or something? Please tell me, so I don't have to read the book. LTM, who had one name, and stuck with it, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ***************************************************************** From Ric I'm the one who is stuck with reading the book. It hasn't arrived yet. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:15:33 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Discovery of Canton Is (Kanton) Very interesting; Thanks, Ron. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:25:51 EST From: Greg Moore Subject: Re: compliance, and other speculative rants Just was going back over the messages which I have recieved since subscribing to the list (Thanks DR), and noticed this one about "thinking outside the box". Yes, I saw the same program on the Discovery Channel, but there is a caveat here concerning the Pacific. Now, it is an open secret now, thanks again to the selfsame Discovery Channel and Natl Geo Channel, that the Navy did indeed commission Dr. Robert Ballard, of the Titanic fame, to seek out certain sunken subs and do some up close and personal inspection. That being said, and without revealing tooo much of my background, as much is still classified, let's just say that I was "somewhat" involved in the cat and mouse games of the cold war regarding the fun sport of subhunting... I also happened to be a Radioman, so both search procedures, and also the logs of the Itasca are just as familiar to me as when they were written. OK, given that the sunline which was the last line of position shot by Fred Noonan was correct, one has to remember that a sunline is only one linear "line of probability" and must be crossed by at least one, and preferably two additional lines, either radio bearings, celestial obs, or at worst, the last known position by DR set off by the determined ground speed and wind drift, either known or estimated. This provides one with a "triangle" the smaller the better, as the assumed "true" position is the center of said triangle. The correctness of the fix, of course, is directly related to the accuracy of the obs, and one can't get a true posit with only a sunline. If this is correct, then the Itasca, nor any other ship, managed to get a reasonable DF on the Earhart aircraft. Now, this could be a problem with the times involved, as it was getting pretty near and after dawn, and as any RM knows, condx change rapidly following sunup. I, along with David Ring are going over all the radio logs we can get our hands on, both having been professional radio officers at sea, and familiar with procedure, and we are helping each other out with what is hazy to the other (I was trained the Navy Way, worked with the USCG, and the logs used in the mid '60's were identical to those in the '30s. There is no confusion regarding 600 or 500, in that period of time, many frequencies were described by wavelength, and 600Meters, happens to be 500Khz. I am not sure if the Itasca, or any other ship on station (We are trying to establish if there were any USN vessels in the vicinity, who would also be guarding 500, as a matter of course) but I seriously doubt that they had MF/DF capability on 500KHz. As far as the "disappearance" of the signals is concerned, I somehow feel that it is a combination of the loss of the trailing wire antenna, leaving a "V" as the only xmit antenna the Electra had, and that is absolutely not a very high gain antenna, and is also very directional. If the plane were in the wrong attitude, the signal lobe could be so attenuated that it would be virtually unreadable. From the first reading of the Itasca logs, it appears that the RM's on watch did all the right things at the right times, including attempting comms on 3105 on all modes (CW and AM) as well as CW on 500Khz. Having no knowlege of what was transpiring on the aircraft at that time, it is concievably possible that there was a radio failure, since transmitters in those days involved coil changes in both the Master Oscillator (MO) and Power Amplifier (PA), which, incidentally is why they were called MOPA transmitters. If a coil came adrift in the aircraft when the frequency was being changed, it could have virtually knocked the transmission capability out for once and for all. Incidentally, concerning the different shore stations and "broadcast" stations, and the question of them being on 3105, well, that's not too much of a mystery. It was a very common practice in those days for any radio station which could conceivably contact a record-seeking aircraft to provide whatever navigational aids they could, and evidently the FCC wasn't too picky about "authorised frequencies". The regulations were not as structured or enforced at that period, especially when safety of life at sea or in the air was considered. My best guess here is that both Noonan and Earhart did their level best to establish a position, a pretty good accomplishment considering the "pucker factor" which must have been present (Yup, I'm a pilot myself, and know all about the queasy sensation one develops when one's calculations run out and the landmark (if flying VFR) isn't where you think it is..one can get a fixation on where one thinks the destination is, and happily ignore same passing under one's wingtip (happened to me when I was but a student pilot, and it was embarrassing, but fortunately not any worse.... IF they found an island, with what looked like a doable landing area (wet beach, etc, or were running out of gas, and made the best of it by landing in the surf, or on a coral outcrop) they would have been pretty much out of the transmission biz, because the engines would have been unusable, the dynamotors possibly flooded, and as some people have surmised, there usually weren't separate batteries for the A+ (Filament Voltage) B+ Plate Voltage, and C+ Grid Bias. Most of the A+ and C+ were established from the aircraft power, either generator or battery, and B+, of course, was generated by a dynamotor. This would have been equally true on both the transmitter and receiver carried, so a common failure mode could have existed. Anyhow, to get back to the point, I am not too sure that the USN, even to this day, would have much interest in the area around Howland Island, as it has not been, to my knowlege, a hot zone for suspicious subs, even during the cold war. Even if the area was well surveyed and mapped with side scan sonar, there is so much junk left over from WW2 that combing over all of it would be an extremely involved process, and considering that some of the methods used to gain topo and undersea info are still classified, they would not be easily available to the casual researcher. Your comments, flames, discussion, queries, etc are welcomed and invited. 73 de Greg Moore WA3IVX/ NNN0BVN Former USN Sparks 1, with a lot of merchant ship operating experience... ***************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Greg. Not a whole lot to comment on. We've provided David Ring with all the Itasca radio log information we have, including the Howland Island log. As you probably know, we've already worked out some previously puzzling aspects of the logs and David is still working on putting together the whole picture. I'm sure your help is invaluable. No trailing wire was installed on the airplane during the second World Flight attempt. There is disagreement about whether it was removed in Miami or simply never reinstalled when the airplane was repaired after the Luke Field accident, but the point is moot - there was no trailing wire at the time of the final flight. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:28:58 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Discovery of Canton Is (Kanton) The Barque is a three masted cargo ship with the sail square rigged on the first two masts the last is a gaff rig affair, that could be rigged in different ways. I cant imagine it with those pots for rendering whale blubber. Then what do you do with the whale oil when your done? Kanton is an island not a reef. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:31:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Amelia morphs into Irene ? >I, for one, will require extremely convincing evidence Alfred, have you not noticed? Only TIGHAR attempts to offer proof. The proposers of other theories offer no proof whatsoever but only theories and anecdote. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:01:56 EST From: Bonnie Jacobson Subject: Reading the Reineck Book Ric: If you are so thoroughly disgusted over your "job" to read the Reineck book, send it to me as I would be happy to review it for the forum. Personally, I think you need a vacation. You are quite snippy with ANYONE who has the nerve to think beyond YOUR or TIGHAR's envelope. Given that the "evidence" you have gathered is circumstantial, I think you are negligent to disregard other theories -- especially when they have been offered for wide assessment in the form of a published book. Maybe there are some of us scholarly folks who don't agree totally with YOUR assessments. I read, digest, and make up my own mind based on the facts as I see them. And, facts can take many forms. Now I am sure I will feel the wrath of Lord Ric. Bonnie Jacobson ******************************************************************* From His Lordship We are most appreciative of your kind offer but our keen sense of duty and commitment to fairness compels us to perform even those offices which may be repugnant to our sensibilities. We do, however, welcome and applaud your desire to provide the forum with your review of Mr. Reineck's book and you have our sincere assurance that such review will be posted on this forum, without editing or alteration, so that subscribers may have the benefit of your scholarly assessments. We are sure you will want to reward Mr. Reineck's efforts, as we have, by ordering your own copy of his book. http://www.SpecialBooks.com/amiliasurvived.htm We eagerly await your review. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:26:08 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: compliance, and other speculative rants More rants from Florida; 1:Glad someone got to reading some of the stuff I typed in here and not an insult by any means; just another viewpoint. 2:With the end of the cold war sure wish it were possible to go over US Navy underwater fixes in that area. Just suppose that the Electra got to the bottom in one piece [and realize that it would ruin our collective wish that they did land on the island Tighar has searched with such great results] and in that case would make a target findable by side scan sonar. 3: Tighar and all concerned has done a great job so far, but, are there any more places in the S W Pacific which we might do research on those lost bones and artifacts. ie; more forms of personnel in that area which we, collectively, might develop and foster and finally solve this? ************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR has, from time to time, been fortunate to have the assistance and cooperation of many government agencies in the pursuit of our Earhart investigation - the Office of Naval Research and the CIA among them. If the ocean floor in the Central Pacific had been mapped to the degree needed to find something as small as a Lockheed Electra I think we'd know about it. Our researchers who have pursued the bone and artifacts that were taken to Fiji by conducting research on the ground in Fiji (Dr. Tom King, Dr. Kar Burns, Kristin Tague and Barb Norris in 1999; Marty Moleski and Roger Kelley in 2003) have immersed themselves to a truly impressive degree in the paperwork, politics, and personalities that may have influenced the disposition of the bones and artifacts. We are following the trail as best we can. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:26:55 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: compliance, and other speculative rants Greg, your input is quite welcome. You bring up some interesting points in regard to AE's radios and who might have been listening or transmitting on 3105. Probably the most important point is that things were not all that well regulated and folks didn't always follow the rules in the 30s. That's important for the Forumites to grasp so that concepts are not ruled out simply because it isn't done that way in 2003. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:06:48 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Reading the Reineck Book Ric: - your reply truly amazes me. In fact, it scares me, sounds like you may be running for public office soon. Truthfully, it is a wonderful reply and you are to be applauded for your totally diplomatic and kind dispatch to Ms. Jacobson. Keep up the good work. LTM, David Bush ************************************************************** From Ric Fear not. There are already WAY too many people running for public office. ****************************************************** From Alfred Hendrickson: If Ric wasn't snippy, I'd think he was mad at me, or something . . . LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ***************************************************** From Marty Moleski > Personally, I think you need a vacation. You are quite snippy with ANYONE > who has the nerve to think beyond YOUR or TIGHAR's envelope. The quality of Ric's character is really not an appropriate topic for this forum. But I agree that Ric needs and deserves a vacation. He's worked very hard this year on behalf of TIGHAR and its audience on the Forum. "No good deed goes unpunished." Ric and Pat (who works in the background to make TIGHAR's website and publications first-rate) have to use their own personal judgment about how to conduct the Forum and organize the projects that fulfill the organization's mission. By the laws of nature, they are not allowed to use ESP or Vulcan-mind-melding to borrow someone else's judgment. TIGHAR exists and continues to grow because of their gifts, vision and commitment. Without them, we wouldn't be here debating the various theories of what happened to AE & FN. Ric has a remarkable sense of humor--or, perhaps I should say, I find his sense of humor most entertaining. I can't count how many times his remarks make me laugh out loud. I understand that other people may not share his taste or mine, and I know that some folks have left the Forum because they feel that they have been ill-treated. That's life. Ric's job is to call 'em as he sees 'em. If we got a different referee for the forum, that person would have to do exactly the same thing, and, human nature being what it is, that person would seem "snippy" to some and funny to others. For all practical purposes, there is nobody here but us humans. If there is a God, that divinity has not volunteered to take over the TIGHAR operations. As long as human beings are making the judgment calls, other humans are going to take potshots at them. Someone said, "We like to put our leaders up on pedestals so that we can strike at their knees." No one is forced to participate in the Forum. You may even ask Ric to return some portion of your dues, I suppose, if you're dissatisfied with his decisions. I've paid dues since ... uh ... 2000 or 2001 ... because I want to be part of this organization and play a small part in funding Ric and Pat's work. I'm betting that they're right about the Niku hypothesis. That's my personal judgment, and I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Sorry for going on so long. All best wishes to everyone in the dark days of winter. For those who are religious, I hope you find great consolation in your winter festivals; for those who are not, I hope that nature grants you all your heart's desires. LTM. Marty #2359 *********************************************************** From Ric How do you reply to something like that? Thanks Marty. For Pat and me the real rewards in this work are the people who come together under the TIGHAR banner. Let me echo Marty's wishes to everyone who does us the honor of letting us clog up your in-box with forum e-mails. May the season bring you joy and may the New Year bring us all peace. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:25:26 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: AE a Smoker? Was Earhart a smoker? I saw a film clip of her on television with what looked like a carton of Camels tucked under her arm. LTM, Dave (#2585) ****************************************************************** From Ric AE was not a smoker. Early on, 1928 I think, Putnam got her to do a cigarette endorsement ad for a magazine but she reportedly felt so bad about it that she donated the money to charity. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:33:59 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Reading the Reineck Book Marty wrote: > If there is a God, that divinity has not > volunteered to take over the TIGHAR operations. All I know is, SOMEBODY left Ric in charge. The Lord works in mysterious ways...and some days Ric is a mystery to us all, but we have become closer through adversity and stronger because of our diversity. Fire makes steel stronger... I echo the sentiments of the season, and wish all, happy holidays. ltm jon ************************************************************** From Ross Devitt >The quality of Ric's character is really not an appropriate >topic for this forum. > The quality of Ric's character has been a topic for this forum for years.. Let's not drop all the humorous posts at once! Th' WOMBAT ******************************************************** From Alan >Given that the "evidence" you have gathered is circumstantial, I think you >are negligent to disregard other theories -- especially when they have been >offered for wide assessment in the form of a published book. Bonnie, we all get snippy from time to time and not in the way of apology but we've been at this for many decades. You may well be correct in terming TIGHAR's evidence as circumstantial. TIGHAR either does not have a smoking gun or hasn't recognized it yet. No other theory is disregarded or ignored and this may come as a surprise but just because something is in a "published book" doesn't make it so or bestow upon it any degree of authority. I might add the material in the Earhart books have NOT been offered for assessment or peer review. They have been offered as FACT. No manuscript has been circulated for peer review prior to publication. In house, yes but not otherwise. If you would be so kind as to tell me what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, supports any other theory I would be happy to discuss that with you. To the best I can recall the theories are: 1. Crashed somewhere in the ocean 2. Crashed in the Marshalls 3. Captured by a Japanese fishing boat and crew and plane taken to the Marshalls 4. Crashed in the Gilberts 5. Crashed in the jungles of New Britain (David, I know you have good evidence for this. My question is to Bonnie) 6. Buried on some island in the Solomons 7. Repatriated from Japan as Irene Bolam Now, Bonnie if you will take each one and give the evidence that supports that theory we can go from there. No anecdotes. No quotes out of someone else's book. And to be fair I will disregard TIGHAR's anecdotal evidence of a wrecked airplane on Nikumaroro. If you want help I can offer mine. Theory #1: NONE. Theory #2: NONE. Theory #3: NONE. Theory #4: NONE. Theory #5: David Billings has excellent evidence to support his theory. Theory #6: NONE. Theory #7: NONE Bonnie, you're up to bat. Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric Well THAT tosses a torch into the powder magazine. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:39:11 EST From: Brian Rourke Subject: Marshall Islands contact. I am a long time lurker that has not chimed in because I felt that I have not had anything to offer. But after watching and reading about your work I have decided that I can perhaps offer something. I have a friend that lives on Majuro in the Marshall islands. She is a professor at the teaching college there. If you ever have any need of a well contacted and educated person to do some poking around for you, please let me know. I know that the Marshall Island theory is not one of your favourites, but surely all knowledge can be usefull for proving or discounting theories. She is holidaying in the UK at the moment, but is due back late January. All the best, Brian Rourke. Australia. ********************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Brian. The son of one of the key players in the saga of the bones found on Nikumaroro supposedly now lives in the Majuro and we've been trying to track him down. Maybe your friend can help. We'd appreciate the contact. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:41:25 EST From: John in Atlanta Subject: Golden Bear If I were you I would not make light of the ship Golden Bear. There's more here than meets the eye. Maybe I should say "meets the Tighar's eye." Something's rotten in Denmark John in Atlanta ******************************************************************* From Ric By all means...enlighten us. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:44:39 EST From: Clayton Davis Subject: Ric's Non-Snippiness I know Snippy. And Ric ain't no Snippy. I've been snipped at by experts. Yes, I have. Y'all keep up the good work, y'heah! CLAYTON DAVIS ************************************************************ From Ric I know what you mean. I was married to her once myself. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:50:48 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: AE a Smoker? While at Purdue University, I ran across an article stating that AE went to a local drugstore/soda fountain and was smoking a cigarette...I'm not sure as to the veracity of this... ***************************************************************** From Ric Uh oh....could it be that another part of the Earhart legend was pure PR? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:15 EST From: Bonnie Jacobson Subject: For Alan, et. al. I have NEVER stated that a published book is PROOF of anything. I DID say that you are negligent if you do not read and assess the value of a published document. Ric dismissed the value of Reineck's publication BEFORE it was even obtained for review. The fact that any information is published MEANS that it is available for peer review. Just because Mr. Reineck did not send you an autographed copy of his book does not mean that it should not be taken seriously. I believe in keeping ALL possibilities active especially when there is ONLY circumstantial evidence being used as support for the "leading" theory. Given you believe that only 1 of your ideas is viable and given the attitudes shown on this forum, I believe that you will not review fairly any other information provided to you that does not support your position. Innocent men have sat on Death Row due to similar inappropriate thought processes. I am now beginning to think that this forum is not one offered for scholarly thought. It is a little boy's clubhouse to be used to raise funds for camping trips and to denegrade anyone who thinks beyond YOUR envelope. And, I was kind when I said Ric was snippy. As a forum host, he is plain RUDE when people disagree with him. Bonnie Jacobson ********************************************************** From et al Bonnie, I have offered you the opportunity to provide the forum with your own review of Reineck's book. What more can I do? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:48:56 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: AE a Smoker? If it helps, the particular show was shown on the Discovery Wings channel and was about Earhart's trans-Atlantic flight in the Vega. The clip I'm noting is of Earhart prior to departure with what looks like a clipboard, a journal-type bound notebook, and a carton of Camels. The silent clip shows her talking while putting these three items (stacked) under her left arm, as if getting ready to board the aircraft. Maybe she was just smuggling the Camels to a friend in Ireland ;) LTM, Dave (#2585) ******************************************************************** From Ric I haven't seen that show. There may be still photos taken at the same time. I presume the scene you describe is in Harbor Grace, Newfoundland. (She did not fly the airplane to Newfoundland. Bernt Balchen did. She rode as a passenger.). You mention Camels specifically. Was there a logo visible? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:56:43 EST From: Alexander Subject: Mr G on tv I was up late the other night when 'unsolved mysteries' came on the channel... about half way thru the programme who should pop up but Mr G who proceeded to show to media some artifacts from the island, this was followed by a Mr elgin long who had other ideas(!). It was a few years old the programme in question but i did enjoy it none the less and it was good to put a face to the person. I just thought that i would share this with one and all, the only let down was that they didnt give an address or anything for people who were interested in the subject to contact. Alexander ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:00:16 EST From: PK Subject: Re: Ric's Non-Snippiness Funny, I think I was married to her as well. PK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:53:37 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Any dado news? Ric, is there anything new you can report yet on the dados? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 *************************************************** From Ric Nothing definitive yet but lots of research underway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:57:03 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Ric's Non-Snippiness >Funny, I think I was married to her as well. Hey, WAIT! I was, too!!! I know she's safely in Fredericksburg, VA... No wonder I'm so happy here in CA :) LTM, Dave (#2585) ******************************************** From Ric Look...guys...I didn't mean to start a thread and if she finds out we've all been taking about her...well...none of us need that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:02:45 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: AE a Smoker? Yes, a logo was visible. There was the outline of a camel (hump and all) on the end of the carton, in silhouette. You can see it briefly as she tucks the items under her arm. The subject of the show (other than her stunt flights, generally) was the red Vega at the Air & Space Museum, so it will probably be repeated often on the Discovery Wings Channel. And yes, you are correct; the film shown was supposedly taken at Harbor Grace. LTM, Dave (#2585) ************************************************************** From Ric Let's keep an eye out for that show and get some more opinions. Maybe the show is available on tape. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:10:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: For Alan, et. al. Bonnie, everyone read my post to you and it is obvious to all you read what you wanted and not what was written. We ALL notice you have not taken up the challenge I made to you. The reasons are obvious. Since you seem to have trouble with the English language I thought it might be helpful if I was more specific. I did not write you had, "....stated that a published book is PROOF of anything." I said it, "....doesn't make it so or bestow upon it any degree of authority." I also didn't say I should have had, "....an autographed copy of his book." What I wrote was, "I might add the material in the Earhart books have NOT been offered for assessment or peer review. They have been offered as FACT. No manuscript has been circulated for peer review prior to publication. In house, yes but not otherwise." If you are going to enter into a rational discussion on the Forum You need to be able to read what is written and respond to that and not what you make up. And I'm still waiting for your responses. Are you not capable of that? Alan ******************************************************* From Don Jordan It might help Bonnie to understand why nobody is that enthused about the material in Rollin's book. That material is not new. It is a rehash of material that was first published over thirty years ago. It was dismissed as foolish then, and is hard to believe that people are still trying to sell it. There are those out there who will believe it to their dying day. Don Jordan Cal City, CA **************************************************** From Ron Berry Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie, Its plain that you have not been around the forum for very long. If Mr. Reineck's research proves to be valid then that mean Mr. Gillespie will be told about it by a lot of our more educated cohorts. You know those good old boys that can read. Now I qualify myself to be here because I drove by a collage once, I hope that barber colleges count in your world. You should read all of the published material that is available on the forum. Most of it backed by experts in their individual fields. That mean Mr. Gillespie will not hesitate to argue with any of the good ole boys that say anything that is not supported by fact. So put away that thin skin that you are sporting and roll up your silk shirt sleeves and prove something, we will listen. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:13:59 EST From: John in Atlanta Subject: Re: Golden Bear PLEASE BE PATIENT I JUST MARRIED OFF MY ONLY DAUGHTER AND ALL OF MY WIFE'S RELATIVES ARE HERE. I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW WITHIN A FEW DAYS....... DENMARK'S A PRISON...... JOHN ATLANTA ******************************************** From Ric Sounds like a bear of a situation. We can wait. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:18:28 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: For Bonnie Lighten up, Bonnie. If you think AE came back as Irene, just tell us why we should believe that. If someone wrote a book positing AE was nabbed by Elvis clones, would you suggest we give serious consideration to that, too? BTW, the Forum Usage Guidelines state: "Our purpose here is to promote an intelligent and productive discussion of the Earhart disappearance. Specifically, we want to further our investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island (now known as Nikumaroro) in the Phoenix Group. We will not discuss conspiracy theories on this forum, nor will we debate whether the airplane crashed at sea near Howland. We feel that we have already established a strong probability that the flight arrived in the vicinity of Howland Island pretty much on schedule and, as of the last officially received radio transmission, had adequate remaining fuel to reach Gardner Island. The question is, did it?" "We recognize that this forum is not for every Earhart enthusiast. Some may find us unsuitably irreverent or excessively scientific in our approach. But if you're interested in hard answers instead of idle speculation, we think you'll enjoy what happens here." Ric has already allowed a good deal of straying off-topic on this issue. This is not evidence of rudeness, if you ask me. Your own "little boys clubhouse" comment is a bit rude, though, don't you think? Still, I would very much like to hear your review of the Reinick book. Ric has offered to let you air your review right here on this Forum. So, tell us what you think. But quit insulting us. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:20:39 EST From: Dan Brown Subject: re wreck of the whaler Canton Woody posted on this topic on the forum over 2 years ago. Contemporary accounts appeared in the "Whaleman's Shipping List and Merchants' Transcript" (November 7, 1854), and Alexander Starbuck's "History of the American Whale Fishery" (1878). An article by Irvine C. Gardner, describing Canton island and an account of the wreck, appeared in the June, 1938, "National Geographic Magazine". Sylvanus S. Longley, one of the survivors, wrote in "The Wreck of the Whaler Canton"(The New England Quarterly 13:324-335, [June] 1940), "Soon after the ship struck, the larboard quarter below deck broke away... [after 2 or 3 days] the ship had been pushed farther on the coral and soon parties went aboard and got some things that we needed." More to the point of the recent question about whether or not remains of the whaler Canton have been found, S.A. Mitchell, one of the astronomers on the 1938 eclipse expedition, described landing at Canton (The Scientific Monthly 47:5-21, [July] 1938): "Ashore were found some old timbers from a wreck, which were dragged to the edge of the lagoon and a wharf constructed. With the efficient help of the Navy it was a comparatively simple matter to load the 150 cases of instruments, the 10,000 board feet of lumber and 60 bags of cement into the Navy launches in the quiet waters at the anchorage and put everything ashore on the wharf..." It looks to have been a fairly substantial wharf, a photo of it is shown on page 8 of the article. Eighty-four years (1854-1938) is a long time, but the eclipse expedition may have unknowingly walked onshore on the remains of the whaler Canton itself. Dan Brown, #2408 **************************************************** From Ric I think that's entirely possible. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:12:10 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: For Pete's Sake "Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie" sound the alarm a GIRL IN OUR CLUBHOUSE! - Sounds reminiscent of the little rascals Women Hater's Club - Hey Spankie where is our dog Pete, I thought you had him guard'in the door? It is always amazing what happens when a little perfume meets the smell of musty old socks. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ************************************************************************* From Ric Is there any truth to the charge that this forum has become the He-man Woman Haters Club of Little Rascals (Our Gang) fame? It is true that the overwhelming majority of postings are by males. It is also true that we have had our share of memorable female posters. Unfortunately, some of them have been memorable in the same way that Bonnie has achieved notoriety. There are many, many women subscribed to this forum. It has frankly always puzzled me that more women do not participate in the discussions. Perhaps we could hear from some of them and let us know what we're doing wrong. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:13:44 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: Camels and Bonnie While unlikely, it's not impossible that Earhart would have laid in a supply of Camels for the transatlantic flight as an emergency stay-awake measure. (According to one website, Earhart did not drink coffee or tea and said that she would use "smelling salts" to keep her eyes open during the trip. Perhaps this was just a bit of a fib.) However, one would think that for a planned 18-hour flight, a pack or two would have been enough. Even in those days, it was not unusual for celebrities to decry smoking in public while puffing away in private. Alf Landon, the 1936 GOP presidential candidate, was a chain-smoker but would never be photographed holding a cigarette because, as he told a reporter late in life, he didn't want to set a bad example for the kiddies. I happen to know this because I was the reporter. For Bonnie: As you have discovered, the TIGHAR forum is not the place for a discussion of other theories, scholarly or otherwise. However, I'm always happy to talk Earhart with you at pd_gaston@yahoo.com iffen ya wish. Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:10:47 EST From: Jackie Subject: Re: For Pete's Sake I think the reason most of the ladies don't participate in the discussions is that we are not usually as technically educated, and as for myself, I'm not really interested in learning about boring technical specs... That doesn't mean we don't thoroughly enjoy the back and forth debates on these issues. As far as I can see, you guys are doing NOTHING wrong. I enjoy the forum, and especially the Tighar website immensely. I might add that I get just as frustrated with dingbats like Bonnie and feel that she's no representative of women in general. Jackie :) **************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jackie. ************************************************************** From Paula The reason why more women don't contribute, in my opinion, is that us novices get intimidated by those who know more when we ask questions or try to offer info. My lack of contributions to the forum has nothing to do with me being female, its more that at this point I am not as educated on the subject as others. However, I do enjoy reading everybody's opinion and I have learned a lot by subscribing which is the whole point I suppose. I like to "hear" the boys go at it. Sometimes, it is very entertaining. I think Bonnie was a wee bit out of line for what she wrote about Ric. No matter what the forum, those who are more read up on a subject than others usually can be a bit short with those who aren't as well read. That's just the way it is and there is no point in being thin skinned about it. LTM Paula ****************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Paula. ***************************************************************** From Alan Ric, I don't think we are doing anything wrong to cause our distaff side not to post. We have a lot of guys who don't post too. I think most of the women are very interested but don't feel they have all that much to add. What they haven't noticed is that many of us guys have little or nothing to add but that doesn't seem to stop us from posting. I think the ladies are in a learning mode. Only one or two ladies seem overwhelmed by the feminist movement and thus feel a need to spout off in inappropriate ways. I'm sure some women feel a little intimidated and are a bit shy to leap into the fray. That's unfortunate, unintentional on our part and affects both genders to some extent. I think we add to that when we torch someone, of course, but what they miss is reason the torchee finds themselves in our sights. Lack of knowledge gets a suggestion to read the web site. Erroneous postings gets corrected AND a suggestion to read the web site. Questions get answered. Belligerence, arrogance and pettiness gets piled on. Unsupported postings gets requests for documentation and lectures on the meanings of evidence, proof, theories, speculation and the like. All women on this forum and for that matter anyone not posting ought to post their thoughts and questions. If they do it will help us make the forum better as we will be able to recognize what we are not getting across and what we need to focus on in a better way. In addition they might add something none of us has thought about which may turn out to be quite important. The new thoughts on the 8:43 message is a good example. No one should be afraid they will say something stupid. We all have and frequently do. Alan ******************************************************************* From Ric Why is it that a man responds to a request for information from women and then includes a disparaging remark about the feminist movement? ****************************************************************** From Kerry Tiller Maybe it's more like the GROSS club of Calvin and Hobbs fame (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS). I may have had one too many glasses of wine with dinner, but I'm going to extend a theory on this phenomenon that will, hopefully, bring some female forumites out of the closet. With the exception of a couple of blondes (Carol Dow and Janet Whitney), most of the female forumites listen intently to the real discussions we have on the forum that are enlightening and informative and move the proverbial ball forward; but just when they think it might be appropriate to chime in, we start cracking jokes or insulting each other. That's a guy thing. The girls then get all mature on us and decide we aren't worthy of their comments. Women are feline; men are canine. LTM (the lone cat in a house full of of dogs) Kerry Tiller ****************************************************************** From Ric You guys are providing support for the hypothesis that we men are, in fact, porcine. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:24:58 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Little Rascals! Ric said (re: lack of female contributors to the forum): "Perhaps we could hear from some of them and let us know what we're doing wrong." UH! I was shocked -- shocked! -- that Ric would buy into the current PC environment with this statement. Why do you assume "we" -- spelled M-A-L-E? -- are doing something wrong? Maybe women just don't like the idea of mucking around tropical islands, fighting off "man"-eating crabs, sweating all day like a linebacker in August, living with few amenities, and other general discomforts of life. I would suggest that it is not how we're doing it but rather it's what we are doing that fails to attract women contributors. And for your transgression, I sentence you the task of reading and critiquing Rollickin' Rollie Reineck's book. :-) LTM, who takes pride in her sex Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************* From Ric Allow me to point out that there have been female participants in seven of the eight TIGHAR expeditions to the Phoenix Group. The one exception was this past summer's four-man team who traveled to Niku on a boat whose crew was two-thirds female. Dennis, you and I go all the way back to the Round Lake Hills of Maine. By now you should know that political correctness is not in my vocabulary. In forum postings, research work, and expedition team selection I try my best to be gender blind. All I care about is a person's ability to do the work that needs to be done. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:29:20 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Camels and Bonnie Wouldn't smoking in the Electra be dangerous, with all the high octane gasoline around? Maybe that is why she didn't make Howland! Daniel Postellon #2263 LTM (Love those Marlboros) ***************************************************** From Ric A new theory! Blown-to-Oblivion. Actually, as long as there wasn't spillage during refueling (as there was prior to the South Atlantic crossing) there's no reason that smoking in the cockpit would be any more dangerous in NR16020 than in other aircraft. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:56:49 EST From: John Luttrell Subject: GOLDEN BEAR After reading Alfred Hendrickson's memo to Bonnie in which he stated the FORUM USAGE GUIDELINES included the following: "...specifically, we want to further our investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island...." And "...nor will we debate whether the airplane crashed at sea near Howland." I don't feel like my theory concerning AE and Golden Bear will be printed and/or transmitted to the Forum. I have no "evidence", "proof", or the airplane, and I don't know anything about "scientific investigative principles", 'scientific archaeology principles", or "scholarly research"....... All I know is no one has any true "evidence" or "proof"...I have spent over thirty years researching this mystery. At one time I truly believed AE crashed on Winslow Reef, but I now know that theory to be wrong. I believe the answer to the sixty-six year old mystery will be found in the post-loss messages. That is all we have.. We have got to go with logic. We have to ask ourselves one simple question: What went wrong with AE and FN's navigation??? With FN having the reputation as one of the world's finest navigators, where and how did they go wrong and get so lost? Their navigational error had to be so enormous that no one in the search efforts could believe it possible. This is where the entire search efforts became so confused. Amelia was transmitting messages telling where she was, but everyone in the search felt they were hoaxes. When the post-loss messages become available to the Forum, I believe the mystery will be quickly solved. Now, the Forumites that believe AE could not transmit with the plane in the water, might as well throw out the post-loss messages and continue on with their never ending search. The Rosetta Stone of this whole disappearance is the "....281 North Howland"...message. If you know what to look for, even the Messier message makes sense. Now Ric, this is your Forum, and you can filter any ideas that do not agree with the Garner Island hypothesis, but I hope you will allow other theories to be discussed. Have you ever considered dividing the Forum into two sections? One section for those who believe in the Gardner Island theory, and the second section for those who have other theories. If you promise to submit my research on Golden Bear, I will send it to the Forum. "Fish are where you find them".. ~Socrates LTM John-Atlanta ********************************************************************** From Ric Although the primary purpose of this forum is to investigate the Nikumaroro Hypothesis, anyone who has been subscribed to the forum for any length of time knows that we happily debate, evaluate, and investigate any other theory that rears its head. If other theories do not fare well in the crucible of forum review that is a measure of their merit, not any bias that I might exert as moderator. Of course, the proponents of those theories don't see it that way. When this forum rips an alternative theory to pieces by pointing out errors of fact, logic, or methodology the proponent usually dismisses the criticism by accusing me of prejudice. That's just the way it is. I'm not going to split the forum into Niku-ites and nonbelievers. Despite appearances, TIGHAR is not a religious cult. There are no sacred truths, no items of faith. We go wherever the evidence leads us. So..by all means..let us hear your Golden Bear theory. I promise to post it unedited (unless you use bad words). Given your admission that you have no evidence to support it, I have to wonder what you do have. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:59:53 EST From: Bonnie Subject: Re: For Pete's Sake This DINGBAT is sick of your idiotic slamming. You are no more professional then the funny papers. And, Ric is ONLY in this for his 15 minutes of fame and for a full salary to do nothing but go on adventure trips for which he produces nothing. Have there been any recovered aircraft AT ALL for all his money spending? NO. REMOVE me from this forum. If I receive further email from you, I will assume it is SPAM and will report you to the proper authorities. Bonnie Jacobson **************************************************************** From Ric Anybody surprised? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:16:39 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: For Pete's Sake For what it is worth, Bonnie Jacobson is no known relative of mine. If she was, I'd quickly dis-inherit her. Randy Jacobson ************************************************************ From Ric We all have these embarrassing coincidences. You have Bonnie. I have Ed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:26:37 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: For Pete's Sake I think the lady needs some hormone shots or whiskey shots or whatever. LTM, David Bush ********************************************************* From PK Now that reminds me of an ex! PK ****************************************************** From Alfred Hendrickson: Bonnie should do her own TV show. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:29:56 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: 15 minutes >And, Ric is ONLY in this for his 15 minutes of fame and for a full >salary to do nothing but go on adventure trips for which he produces >nothing. Ric, is this true? You get 15 minutes AND a full salary? D*mn! I want a job like yours! LTB, (Love to Bonnie) Alfred Hendrickson #2583 **************************************************************** From Ric Actually it's more like 15 years and a partial salary. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:31:24 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: navigation John Luttrell said: "I believe the answer to the sixty-six year old mystery will be found in the post-loss messages. That is all we have.. We have got to go with logic. We have to ask ourselves one simple question: What went wrong with AE and FN's navigation???" Well, John I think that's your first error. You say the answer is in the post-lost messages but then you ask, "What went wrong with AE and FN's navigation?" If the answer is in the post-lost message then concentrate your energies there, not on the navigation. The two issues aren't really related other than they had to "navigate" to wherever the post-lost message emanated from, assuming they are valid. The navigation issue has been beaten like a stubborn mule and we are really no farther along that line (no pun intended -- LOP, you know) than we were earlier. So I don't see a direct connection between the post-lost messages and Fred's navigation. LTM, who is often lost Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:35:06 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: For Pete's Sake Well, I guess she told us! Sheesh, even Carol Dow had a sense of humor... LTM Dave (#2585) ***************************************************** From Ted Campbell Ric, DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ***************************************************** From Jon Watson Oh great. Now you're going to be under investigation by the Spam Police... Wait - that's probably them at the door now, with a search warrant. ltm jon ************************************************************* From Alan Ric, you asked "Why is it that a man responds to a request for information from women and then includes a disparaging remark about the feminist movement?" Has Bonnie not answered your question? I should have made clear it was this kind of feminist not the legitimate and welcomed advancement of women's rights and recognition. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:00:17 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: For Pete's Sake >Ric is ONLY in this for his 15 minutes of fame > and for a full salary Och its the Scottish blood