Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:30:38 EST From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: FDR's press conferences I must have missed something along the way: 1) What did you try to do in 1942 and why then - what prompted your interest again at that time? 2) Who did you call - "that man"? 3) Where were you working - "on the switchboard" - at the time? Thanks, Ted Campbell ******************************************************************** From Ric I'll try to answer this and trust Betty to correct me if I get it wrong. During the war Betty worked as an operator for the telephone company. In those days long distance calls were placed through an operator and, because there were many government installations in the Tampa/St. Pete area, Betty had frequent occasion to connect calls to Washington. In at least one instance, Betty took advantage of an opportunity to speak with a Washington official to tell him about her Earhart experience. He said he would call back but never did. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:31:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re Greg's analysis Greg writes >since the proximate cause of the downing of the aircraft was fuel >exhaustion It is certainly true that all aircraft would be well advised to get their planes down before they exhaust their fuel we don't know that AE's plane was forced down due to lack of fuel. Fuel reserve analysis consistently comes up with adequate fuel to reach Nikumaroro. I've seen no evidence to suggest the plane ran out of fuel. Indeed, post loss radio messages are strong evidence it did not. I agree with what I think you were implying and that is that there was nothing conspiratorial, complicated or mysterious about the loss of the flight. Rather it was a matter of simple error and misjudgment. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:48:02 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: FDR Interest In AE's Fate I would guess that FDR got "dailys" from Morganthau who was most likely getting minute by minute updates as it was his Coast Guard out there looking for AE. REB ******************************************************************** From Ric Fortunately, we don't have to guess. The messages to Morgenthau and others from the Central Pacific are a matter of record. They're all on the TIGHAR research CD available through the TIGHAR website. Morgenthau asked for and received two reports from Itasca during the first few days of the search. After July 6 (after the 281 disappointment and after reports of post-loss messages had ceased) he disappears from the message list. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:50:00 EST From: Harvey Subject: Re Greg's analyis Greg says: > if, as suspected, she was > far north of course, but believed she was on course, any "crossing" of > the Morning sunline with a DF line, extended and moved for presumed > speed and course would have been totally misleading. Is there any evidence that the plane was "far north of course" at this time? LTM, harvey,2387 ************************************************************** From Ric No. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:04:28 EST From: Jules Markel Subject: Screenplay I was searching the internet last night and came across this article. Do you have any information regarding this screenplay? http://www.sundayherald.com/26989 Thank you Jules Markel ******************************************************** From Ric Earhart screenplays are a dime a dozen and rarely make it beyond the big-talk stage. The article you reference is a year and a half old. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:40:40 EST From: Rich Young Subject: Re Greg's analysis Greg writes: >Vacuum Tube equipment is inherently robust I must strenuously disagree with that assertion. The "robustness" of the vacuum tubes exceeds that of light bulbs only slightly. Installed in a flexing, vibrating vehicle subject to static electricity and severe mechanical shock from turbulence and landings, I can see why Fred and Amelia didn't count on it's availability - in fact, didn't the radio frequently blow fuses, rendering it inoperative? You have to remember that not just flight was new in the Thirties - the use of electricity in general, and radio in particular, were recent developments. In a world of flip-phones, it's hard to remember that aircraft radios back then ranged in size from "suitcase" size to "wall locker" size, depending on power, capability, and intent to be serviced in flight. The transistor shrank the "suitcase" models to "book" size, and the "wall locker" units to briefcase size. High density integrated circuits further shrank the "suitcase" size to "book of matches" size, and the "wall locker" to "playing card deck" size. Paradoxically, reliability greatly increased, and power requirements fell, while tolerance for physical abuse increased. But back in Fred and Amelia's day, with the main transciever blowing fuses on a regular basis, I'm sure they felt that Fred would get them within 10 miles of Howland, and that they could find it from there, with the DF capability a "nice to have if it works" redundant luxury, IF the radios were up. This assumption, alas, had fatal ramifications. LTM, Rich Young ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:44:54 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Col. Reineck responds Ric, >While you're considering IF and HOW you wish to respond" You have such a condescending way with words. Contrary to our expressed agreement, you are making statements in the form of questions reflecting pre-conceived answers, for the sole purpose of challenging me to debate, and demonstrating to your members how scholarly you are. Earlier I said, that if you had a pre-determined or pre-judged answer to a question, don't waste my time. It is quite obvious that you have deliberately disregarded my expressed wishes, consequently, you have invalidated our agreement. Those who are helping Mr. Swindell have doctorates in forensic anthropology and are nationally recognized in the field of human identiication. I will forward your message to Mr. Swindell so that he can advise them of the century-old study you note. I am sure that they will find it - and you - remarkable. Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI *********************************************************************** From Ric I have done exactly what we both agreed to. I have raised questions about assertions that you make in your book because I believe them to be demonstrably incorrect. I have presented facts to support my challenges and I have given you the opportunity to show me that I'm wrong. Like you, I have no desire to engage in a debate - that's why I have limited my questions to matters of discernible fact: - I pointed out numerous problems with the supposed navigator advertisement (page 68) that reveal it as a clumsy hoax. You offered nothing but your avowal that you believe it to be genuine. - I challenged your claim to have solved the long-disputed question of whether Earhart had the correct coordinates for Howland Island by pointing out that 2,556 miles is not the distance from Lae to the correct Howland position, as you said it is on page 97 of your book. This is not a question requiring great scholarship. This is a simple question of how far it is from hither to yon. You have offered no response. - I asked how Michael A. Lange, whoever he is, knows that Fred Noonan had a Second Class Commercial Radio Operator's license (page 95). You haven't answered. - I asked why you say (page 90) that Richard Black advised George Putnam about the high-frequency direction finder on Howland. You haven't answered. You appear to be particularly upset that I have now raised questions about the central premise of your book - that Irene Bolam was really Amelia Earhart. It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and I applaud Mr. Swindell for seeking the help of degreed professionals. I think he needs it. I agree with you that anyone with a doctorate in forensic anthropology should know that the Bertillion system was discredited a hundred years ago, but I have yet to see any public statement by a forensic anthropologist that supports the notion that Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam were the same person. I'll continue to examine the statements you make in your book. My offer to post your unedited replies stands. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:53:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Re Greg's analysis Harvey asked: >Is there any evidence that the plane was "far north of course" at this >time? Harvey, I know of no evidence the Electra was very far from Howland in any direction. I've seen speculation that weather factors caused Noonan to DR from a long distance out which could result, obviously, in considerable error. But to the contrary no such weather factors have been shown. If Noonan really had to DR for a long distance he would have known that on the expiration of his computed time to Howland he would have been, at best, somewhere in the general area. That was not the case, however. Earhart reported they must "be on you" implying to me, at least, Noonan thought he was dead on over Howland. If that rationale holds up then it is most likely the plane was very close. Not close enough to be heard but possibly within sight yet unsighted due to maybe sun glare, haze, clouds or what have you. The strength of AE's radio calls also would indicate they were close rather than way off in any direction. Certainly there is the possibility our heroes were quite far off course but there is clearly no evidence to support that idea. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:53:26 EST From: Greg Moore Subject: Re: Re Greg's analysis Was working on an anectdotal piece of info which seemed to infer she had some problems handling drift....was proceeding with the info she had a tendency to "fly left" of course, which would, had this been the situation have placed her north of Howland. I am also working on the Itasca radio logs and the presumed max reception distance of the A/C at or before last contact. If one takes the stance of the aircraft being beyond reception radius, this might have some standing. If, however, the comm problem was one of usable frequency, then one can't proceeed with that hypothethis. Now, having some experience with comms in that part of the pond, I can tell yout that HF can tank in about 3 minutes..One second you have a good signal, and the next, it's faded into the background. There is nothing quite so frustrating than to have worked with a shore COMMSTA, gotten some good freqs worked out, and having them tank on you right after you have everything working perfectly again. It's what makes RM's tear their hair out sometimes ;-) If that WAS the case (left, or "north" of course), then any assumed position by crossing a sun line with a DR line would have been confusing. Sinced DR, is, by definition, rather inexact, then if one "buys" a "true position" based on such a conjunction, then one can find themselves in deep trouble quickly. 73 de Greg WA3IVX/ NNN0BVN Former RM1, USN ********************************************************************** From Ric What evidence is there that Earhart had a tendency to fly left of course? ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:54:57 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Radio reliability You're making a common mistake about "early life" in the U.S. We had automatic transmissions in automobiles, television (electronic). FM radio, stereo sound, talking and color motion pictures (with some incredible special effects), "candid" (35 mm) cameras, etc. etc., although not all at the mass-market level. Very sturdy vacuum tubes which could handle a lot of abuse too, which performed quite commendably in WW2. I wouldn't call aircraft radio "sutcase size" either, but admit the transistor and higher operating frequencies certainly resulted in a wave of minuturization. You should have been there! Cam Warren ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:56:15 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Radio reliability Greg writes: >Vacuum Tube equipment is inherently robust Rich writes: >I must strenuously disagree with that assertion. Isn't "robust" a comparative term, Rich? I'm missing how one could disagree without knowing what it is being compared with. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:35:00 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Col. Reineck responds As you all know, I refrained from posting any forum subscriber comments about the exchanges between me and Col. Reineck as long as the discussion was on-going. Now that Rollin has withdrawn from the exchange I'll open the subject up for general forum discussion. ********************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell As most thought, Reineck is not going to respond to any question nor is he going to support any of his contentions. I, personally don't believe he can. Since he will not defend his book is it not time to do a thorough review discrediting his material and post it for all to see? Am I being too hard on Rolly? Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric I'm going to continue to raise questions and present facts here and on the TIGHAR website. ********************************************************************** From Lawrence I realize that I'm a subscriber nobody and have little knowledge of the Earhart incident, but I would love to see you two professors debate your different views. ********************************************************************* From Ric I am not a professor and neither is Rollin Reineck but he has written a book that makes numerous allegations which appear to be factually incorrect. On average about 1,200 people access the TIGHAR website each day for reliable information about the Earhart mystery. We'll continue to provide that service. ******************************************************************* From Dennis McGee Rollickin' Rollin Reineck said: "You have such a condescending way with words. . . . It is quite obvious that you have deliberately disregarded my expressed wishes, consequently, you have invalidated our agreement." Golly, why am I so unsurprised that Rollie would take this tack. TIGHAR simply asks for sources for Rollie's "facts" and all he offers is a bunch of huffin' and puffin', and crocodile tears about how insulted he is that anyone would challenge him. Rollie has been playing this tune for years, and any time I see his by-line on ANY aviation article I always ask myself, "I wonder if he got his facts straight this time?" What I am surprised about is that Rollie even accepted the challenge. But then I assumed that living in Kailua, Hawaii, maybe he is used to taking the heat. I guess I'm wrong. LTM, who avoids hot places Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:38:10 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Directional finder capabilities I was reading "Seizing The Enigma" by David Kahn and ran across this description on page 4 of circa 1940 directional finder accuracy. Thought it might be interesting to post: "The directional finders of the time were not precise, however. Although the margin of error averaged 25 miles, it could range up to 60 miles 500 to 1,000 miles offshore." Bob ************************************************************************ From Ric Well...there were direction finders and direction finders. Naturally the radios mounted on ships and airplanes had different capabilities than the big Adcock arrays that Pan American used. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:40:26 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Re Greg's analysis Yeah, I guess they really "screwed the pooch" on this one... (Appropriate references and accreditation on this one to "The Right Stuff) LTM, Dave (#2585) *********************************************************** From Ric There appears to have been plenty of canine intimacy by all parties involved in the Earhart debacle. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:12:48 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio reliability >You should have been there! Cam is dead on, Rich. We older folks were hardly living in the dark ages in the 30s and 40s. My Grandpa had HF bands on his Zenith, there was a round screen TV in the window of the little store down the way and we had phones, electricity and cars. Not everyone to be sure. Things have gotten smaller and better but stuff worked quite well. Alan ***************************************************** From Ric I have resisted the temptation to title this thread Revenge of the Geezers. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:14:41 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re Greg's analyis Greg wrote: >Was working on an anectdotal piece of info which seemed to infer she >had some problems handling drift....was proceeding with the info she >had a tendency to "fly left" of course Greg, I don't recall reading anything about AE having a tendency to fly left of course. Where did I miss that? On the inbound leg to Howland the winds were slightly from their starboard side if they were flying ENE as was expected. If that was the case and we don't know that it was Noonan's correct procedure would have been to shade to the port side if any side. He would hit his LOP sooner. I think Ric is of the opinion as I am that there was no intentional offset but rather Noonan aimed directly at his target. He apparently did not make a lot of course corrections and like most navigators I flew with allowed an off course condition to exist and then made one correction to destination. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:19:59 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Col. Reineck responds Anyway, what I wanted was to comment on this: > Since he will not defend his book is it not time to do a thorough > review discrediting his material and post it for all to see? Rather that "discredit" perhaps "examine" or "analyze" ? It'll probably amount to the same thing, but I'd like TIGHAR to take a somewhat higher road. - Bill #2229 ***************************************************************** From Ric ..and I'll be in Scotland afore ye. Setting out to discredit is as great an offense as setting out to prove. We set out to find the facts and we follow wherever they lead. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:31:42 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: 6210 Greg Moore wrote: > ... I am also working on the > Itasca radio logs and the presumed max reception distance of the A/C at > or before last contact. If one takes the stance of the aircraft being > beyond reception radius, this might have some standing. If, however, the > comm problem was one of usable frequency, then one can't proceeed with > that hypothethis. > > Now, having some experience with comms in that part of the pond, I can > tell you that HF can tank in about 3 minutes... 6210 seems not to have worked well for AE. The Chater Report says that no transmission was heard from her on 6210 until 4 hours and 18 minutes into the flight: "Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information, but local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible until 2.18 p.m. The Lae Operator heard the following on 6210 KC -"HEIGHT 7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS" and some remark concerning "LAE" then "EVERYTHING OKAY". The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it. The next report was received at 3.19 pm on 6210 KC- "HEIGHT 10000 FEET POSITION 150.7 east 7.3 south CUMULUS CLOUDS EVERYTHING OKAY". The next report received at 5.18 p.m. "POSITION 4.33 SOUTH 159.7 EAST HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS WIND 23 KNOTS". "Miss Earhart had arranged to change to 3104 KC wave length at dusk, but signals were very strong and the plane was then called and asked not to change to 3104 KC yet as her signals were getting stronger and we should have no trouble holding signals for a long time to come. We received no reply to this call although the Operator listened for three hours after that on an 8-valve super-heterodyne Short Wave Receiver and both wave lengths were searched. "It was presumed the plane had changed the wave to 3104, the reason for that being that Miss Earhart claimed it to be a better night wave than 6210 and had used it on her flight from United States to Hawaii previously." http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html LTM. Marty #2359 ******************************************************************** From Ric It's interesting that Lae was unable to hear Earhart on 6210 until she was some distance (probably about 500 miles) away. Chater thinks she changed frequencies at dusk but Nauru heard the plane the plane later that night on 6210 when it must have been within about 100 miles. Itasca heard nothing on 6210 the next morning when the plane was almost certainly within a similar distance of the ship. Nauru heard what it believed was the plane again that evening on 6210 when it had to be close to 1,000 miles away. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:07:10 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Spades Ric wrote: >Setting out to discredit is as great an offense as setting out to >prove. We set out to find the facts and we follow wherever they lead. Sorry but a spade is a spade. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:10:38 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio reliability >I have resisted the temptation to title this thread Revenge of the >Geezers. Thanks, Ric. I'm glad you didn't even mention the word Geezers. Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric Heaven forbid. What do you take me for, some kind of age-ist? ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:11:41 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Reineck Q&A Mr. Reineck, am I to understand that you are not going to respond to Ric's questions because you perceive that he is condescending? Condescending or not, don't you think the questions are legitimate? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:26:19 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 6210 From the radio calls on 6210 it appears to me there was a "hole" between around 100 and 500 miles wherein that frequency was not heard. If such is the case it would well explain why Earhart was not heard on 6210 after leaving the Howland area -- if, in fact, none of the post loss messages refute that theory. I suggested this long ago but then as now it is pure speculation on my part and based solely on the radio calls I'm aware of. I would leave this to the radio guys to comment on the thought and to Ric in re the post loss radio messages. I have to assume the call Nauru heard when they were fairly close WAS indeed on 6210..................don't I? Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric By implication but not by direct statement. Nauru was quite specific about hearing the post-loss transmissions on 6210 and said the voice was similar to that heard the night before when the plane was in flight, but the frequency was not mentioned. Both occasions were after dark. As for there being a "hole" in 6210: way back in 1988 when we launched this project, Tom Gannon, one of the aerial navigators who first brought the Phoenix Islands theory to our attention, explained the silence after 0843 by citing his own extensive experience in that part of the world with that frequency. He said it was frequently the case that 6210 was no good for relatively short-range communications. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:36:12 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Radio reliability One question, do we get Geezer T-Shirts? 73s 2640 ********************************************************* From Ric I sense the beginnings of a movement. We'd need a minumum order of 12 shirts at $20 each. Someone (sure as hell not me) would need to define who is and is not a geezer and we'd need to know what you geezers want the shirt to say and/or show. Geezers unite! You have nothing to lose but your cash! ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:54:09 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Radio reliability (sic) I recommend all you geezers somehow incorporate the Irene Bolam picture into the geezer tee shirt design. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ********************************************************* From Ric Hilarious but tasteless. ****************************************************** From Bill Leary It should say something about old hardware being more robust, perhaps with a picture of a vacuum tube on it and the TIGHAR web site URL. I'll buy one. - Bill #2229 ******************************************************** From George Geezer = The Old Fart GeorgeRatWerth ***************************************************** From Ric I don't think we can put that on a shirt either. *************************************************** From Art Carty I'm in as a proud member of the geezer brigade. Art ********************************************** From Ric That's two and we don't even have a design yet. As for defining who is and isn't a geezer, that has to be up to the individual. If you say you're a geezer, you're a geezer. ******************************************* From Marty Moleski > Someone (sure as hell not me) would need to define who is and > is not a geezer ... Um, that's anybody with $20 in hand and a desire to buy a TIGHAR T-Shirt. > ... and we'd need to know what you geezers want the shirt to say > and/or show. "Old age and treachery beats youth and skill every time." I can't think of the right Amelia picture to go with this. Part of her charm is that she died while she was still so photogenic. LTM. Marty #2359 ****************************************************** From Alan I don't think I'm going to like this whole thread. Alan *************************************************** From Jon Watson I just sent in my membership renewal at the hundred dollar level, and the form says I get a tee shirt. Can I have a Geezer Tee, since I didn't specify??? Otherwise, send me the regular Tighar Tee, and I'll pony up for the GT... ltm jon *************************************************** From Ric Happy to oblige if we get at least 12 orders and do the geezer shirt. We'll count this as the third order. **************************************************** From Dennis McGee Ric said: I sense the beginnings of a movement. Someone (sure as hell not me) would need to define who is and is not a geezer . . ." Geezer: a person who remembers watching The Mickey Mouse Club, live; one who drove (drives) only Ford, Chevy or Chrysler products; one who had a family member or friend or friend of a friend etc. who was a milk delivery man; one who achieved adulthood without eating at McDonald's; one who has rooted for "Yukon" Eric, "Chest" Bernard, or "Gorgeous" George. I'm sure the forum will add a few more, but those all work for me. As for a logo: a disheveled, toothless tiger wearing a safari jacket with sectionals, maps, "exploration" paraphernalia hanging out of the pockets etc climbing into a battered, patched, sagging Electra 10E . . . but I can't think of a decent caption that isn't sexist, age-ist or appropriate for a Super Bowl half time show. LTM, GEEZERS RULE! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ****************************************************************** From Ric I think we'll stick with the self-definition standard. Maybe a winking toothless tiger and Marty's "Old age and treachery beats youth and skill every time." ???? ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:55:09 EST From: Hilary Subject: Re: Col. Reineck responds Mr. Reineck, Providing the evidence for your "factual "claims made in your book surely must delight you. Here are a group of people so interested into how you came to these conclusions and you wont defend them.....If someone told me to defend my claims I would go to the Nth degree to prove my statements. It really doesn't look very validating on your part.. Hilary ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:59:15 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re Greg's analysis AE having a tendency of drifting to the left. Or port if you like. Is this the latest thread ? Most aircraft engines (unless British-built up to WW II types) have propellers turning to the right. Because the blades going down provide more thrust than the ones going up, propellers will provide asymmetric some thrust. This causes aircraft to have a tendency to begin turning to the opposite direction, which is to the left. Left to their own devices aircraft without a pilot will bank to the left and continue to do so in ever decreasing circles losing altitude until they crash. Very few aircraft fly without pilots. Therefore there is normally someone in the aircraft who flies and know all about this. One has to be a very, very poor pilot not to be familiar with the phenomenon and forget keeping on course ! It's the sort of thing that sometimes happens to student pilots flying VFR cross country for the very first time and keep studying their map too long. When they look up again without checking their compass and they're flying over a featureless landscape they will be a few degrees off course (to the left) without noticing it. It's the kind of thing we have all experienced on our first cross country fight, I guess. It's one of the first things young pilots learn. It shows the difference between the pilot and the student pilot. Surely by 1937 AE was beyond that stage. I've been told that the difference between a pilot and a non-pilot is that "a pilot has a compass in his head". By the way, do I remember right that by 1939 Lockheed began building P-38s with contra-rotating propellers ? LTM (who always said that flying is about remaining on course) ******************************************************************* From Ric First flight of the XP-38 was on January 27, 1939 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:00:55 EST From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: FDR's press conferences Thanks Ric. What prompted Betty to think of AE at the time, if she recalls? Ted Campbell ******************************************* From Betty Ric you answered Mr. Campbell like I would have ....The answer to why I did it at that time, tell him I was getting the last of my private license hours and ready to get my commercial then head for the ferry comand service...that is why I was working to pay for lessons at Rex McDonalds Flying school at the Albert W. Field in St. Pete ...I felt like I should try one more time, to tell that I had heard her ,,,BB ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:16:12 EST From: Kent Johnson Subject: Re: Re Greg's analysis Herman said >Because the blades going down >provide more thrust than the ones going up, propellers will provide >asymmetric some thrust. This causes aircraft to have a tendency to begin >turning to the opposite direction Why would a rising propellor blade produce anymore or less thrust/lift than a downward traveling one, or vertical for that matter? ****************************************************************** From Ric It doesn't, of course. The tendency of a propeller-driven aircraft to veer to one side is due to a combination of gyroscopic forces generating by the whirling mass of the prop and the effect of the rotating prop-wash on the vertical stabilizer. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:30:27 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Radio reliability (sic) Can't resist this. By stealing a line from a computer list of jokes about "you know you're old when.......", I will suggest this; "You're an old geezer if a photo of AE causes your pacemaker to open the garage door." Or maybe "A photo of AE causes my pacemaker to open the garage door! Anyway......I've signed up for another year, the check is in the mail. I'll decide about the tee shirt later. Jerry Ellis #2113 ************************************************************ From Alan You guys are starting to worry me. Alan *********************************************************** From Jim Preston Hey Ric, I qualify under Dennis' criteria. I'll buy one. I feel bad since I was in Viet Nam not WW II or Korea. Jimbo ********************************************************** From Ric That's four. I've always had a crushing sense of guilt about missing the War of 1812. ******************************************************** From Ron Berry Old geezers never die they are just lost on islands. I will buy one. ********************************************************** From Ric I think that's five, unless I counted you before. Can't remember. Must be getting old. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:32:41 EST From: Bill Prymak Subject: Re: Re Greg's analysis Rollin..could agree with you (and Herman) more.......bill *************************************************** From Ric ??????????? ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:35:13 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Col. Reineck responds Hilary wrote: >Mr. Reineck, Providing the evidence for your ,"factual" claims made >in your book surely must delight you. Here are a group of people so interested >into how you came to these conclusions and you wont defend them. We need to give Col. Reineck a little more slack. He had an honorable career in the U.S. military and lived the entire time under the honor code. An officer's word was his bond. No lies, no quibbling, no lies by omission. That was our charter. Col Reineck worked very hard on his book I am certain and must be very proud of his work. He most clearly would not sully his hard earned reputation by misrepresenting facts. I think we should rest assured that Col Reineck would want his book to be as factual as possible since it bears his name. We all get our feathers ruffled when we are challenged but when the smoke clears Col Reineck will defend his allegations, his book and his good name. He is no different than all of us and if there are problems with his facts he would be the first to want to know so that they can be corrected in the next edition. That may require a healthy debate and if an allegation can be clearly refuted it will no doubt be changed and if any of his allegations cannot be clearly refuted they must stand as written. Some allegations may require a caveat that there is no certainty or that it is the author's measured opinion I would assume. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:35:59 EST From: Jim Preston Subject: P-38s Some of the first P-38's didn't but the production models had conter-rotating props. Jimbo ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:45:12 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Re Greg's analysis Regarding the drift to the left, it seems logical to me that one of the things AE could have done was to compensate for such drift movement by adjusting rudder trim, and / or adjusting the Sperry Gyropilot. ltm jon ******************************************************************* From Ric In my experience there are precise pilots and sloppy pilots and every shade of gray in between, but I've never known any pilot who had a consistent tendency to drift one way or the other. Earhart often missed her intended destination but sometimes she ended up left of course (when she landed in Ireland in '32) and other times she ended up to the right of course ( enroute to Mexico City in '35, enroute to Hawaii in March '37, enroute to Africa in June '37). ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:46:26 EST From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: FDR's press conferences Thanks Betty/Ric. I hope I haven't opened up a can of worms here. I didn't realize that Betty had some aviation background. Ted ************************************************************** From Ric I see no worms in that can. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:56:55 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re Greg's analysis Herman wrote: > AE having a tendency of drifting to the left. Or port if you like. Is > this the latest thread ? I suspect Greg's idea that Earhart had a tendency to the left might be based on the behavior on reaching the African coast early in the flight. Bob ************************************************************** From Ric The chart used for that flight, with Noonan's course lines and notations, is on file at Purdue. It shows very clearly that Earhart's description of the events as represented to the press and later in Last Flight are not true. The flight was right of course and turned left, as it should have, upon reaching the coast. Dakar was intentionally bypassed, probably due to low visibility. Earhart's silly me tale about turning the wrong way against Noonan's advice may have been intended to deflect problems from French officialdom associated with landing at an airport that was not an "airport of entry". ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:06:07 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Shoes sequel? Any news on when the sequel to "Amelia Earhart's Shoe" is due out? LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 **************************************************** From Ric Tom King may be able to answer that. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:40:52 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Re Greg's analysis Kent Johnson wrote: > Why would a rising propellor blade produce anymore or less thrust/lift > than a downward traveling one, or vertical for that matter? > > From Ric > It doesn't, of course. ... Ric is right when the airplane is flying at zero angle of attack. When the aircraft is nose-high, the surfaces of the propeller present themselves to the oncoming airstream at a different angle of attack, causing different effective pitch on one side and the other. This is called "p-factor" or "asymmetric disk loading." LTM. Marty #2359 *************************************************************** From Ric I didn't know that. Thanks Marty. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:18:30 EST From: Al Hillis Subject: Re: Col. Reineck responds I must concur and agree with Dave's feelings. In fact, I would feel much better if were you aplogized to Col. Reineck for your attack on his books and beliefs. I'll call a spade a spade and I don't give a damn about your sourpuss attitude to anyone that disagrees with you. If you wish to block me from the forum, fine. I enjoy all that I read but some times find you less credable when you 'mouth off' and attack those with the same interests. Fact is you don't know where Amelia is any more than Col Reineck, me or anyone else. You are not an old Geezer but you do sometimes appear as a angry old man. Respectfully, but honestly, A Hillis ******************************************************************** From Ric Forgive me but I'm a bit confused about whose feelings you agree with. Nobody named Dave has posted recently and your posting included as "original message" Alan's discourse about Rollin Reineck having been a military officer, etc. etc. Let me say again that I am not attacking anyone's beliefs. Everyone is free to believe anything they want, but writing and publishing a nonfiction book carries an obligation to present information that is - well - not fiction. When Col. Reineck's book was published and was uncritically reviewed by the Los Angles Times I received several inquiries from people asking if I agreed with Col. Reineck's conclusions. I ordered a copy of his book and read it. Many of the factual assertions he made were contrary to the information available to me. I wrote to him, told him I was skeptical, and asked if he would publicly answer questions I have about statements of fact he makes in his book. He agreed. The rest is history. I assure you that I am neither an old man nor an angry one. I am delighted with our progress in TIGHAR's Earhart investigation. I am constantly impressed and humbled by the intellect and competence of the scholars and scientists who are working with us on this puzzle. But I will admit that I am greatly reassured when those who espouse competing theories produce work of the quality of Col. Reineck's book. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:32:32 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Did I forget? Yes, sign me up for the new TIGHAR Geezer Garb Collection. First a T-shirt, then the Geezer Garb orthopedic shoes, then the Geezer Garb walkers, and later still, Geezer Garb diapers. Ain't it great, pushing 58. LTM, who Depends on your donations Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************ From Ric (pssst Dennis.... you're middle-aged. Just a kid really.) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:39:59 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: off topic P-38 If my memory serves correctly, The first P 38's props turned outward, some British ordered models had them turning the same way, but the majority turned inward. *************************************** From Ric Awright, to end this thread: The props on the XP-38 turned inwards. The props on the YP-38 (first production model) and subsequent variants turned outwards. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:40:58 EST From: Kent Johnson Subject: P-factor I should've known that! Thanks, Marty!! ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:46:18 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bob Ballard and Amelia? I see in the March 2004 edition of Air Classics that Bob Ballard is alleged to be preparing to look for Amelia et. al. Here are the first two paragraphs of the story, the rest of which was about the airplane's history. There is no mention of any supporting ships or aircraft, which would make working and living out there a tad dicey. I know those Catalinas had long legs, but even they couldn't make an unrefueled round trip between Howland and what ever civilized place he is staging from. Good luck, Bobby. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Catalina to Search for Amelia PBY5A being rebuilt for unique mission Famed oceanographic researcher Robert Ballard (of Titanic fame) has been undertaking an extensive exploration regarding the ever-intriguing disappearance of aviators Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, and their Lockheed 10 during an around-the-world flight. While details are still secret, Ballard and his team have apparently found a very positive reading on what could be the remains of the Lockheed on the ocean floor "somewhere off Howland Island." Could one of the last great aviation mysteries be solved? Well, we will probably know some time this year. At Greybull, Wyoming, work is nearing completion on the rebuild of Consolidated PBY-5A (N314CF), which is owned by one of Ballard's partners and will be the principal aircraft in the final hunt for Amelia (a USN PBY did participate in the initial search for the missing Lockheed). LTM, a long-legged beauty herself Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ******************************************************************** From Ric This is truly bizarre and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but then Air Comics is not what you'd call an authoritative source. We'll have to find out what, if anything, is really going on. I have a hunch. Film at 11. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:49:12 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: p-factor Kent asked: > Why would a rising propellor blade produce anymore or less thrust/lift > than a downward traveling one, or vertical for that matter? Ric said: > It doesn't, of course. Actually it does. The situation being described occurs to a very limited extent in level flight dependent on the aircraft attitude as dictated by c of g, speed etc. However, it only noticeably occurs at take-off in taildragger where the propeller disc is inclined to the airflow. The downward moving blade sweeps forward with respect to the airflow and the rising blade, backwards. The result is a differential thrust on each side of the propeller axis which will tend to turn the aircraft. This is a problem which tends to show itself when taking off on a slippery surface and will make the aircraft tend to turn until the tail comes up. However, in level flight the effect will be trivial unless the plane is very heavily loaded or the c of g too far back and flying at low speed. Regards Angus ************************************************* From Ric I stand corrected (again). ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:50:04 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Attacks? What attacks? Mr. Hills, or Hillis (it is spelled both ways in your note): Please tell me EXACTLY what Ric should apologize for. Do this by cutting and pasting the EXACT quote in Ric's words that merits an apology. I ask this in all sincerity, with no sarcasm. From where I sit, I noted that Ric asked tough but legitimate questions, that have gone unanswered. He attacked nothing, he attacked no one. I am eager to learn of Mr. Reineck's evidence, and he, so far, won't provide it. For example, why will Reineck not tell us who Michael Lang is? Or what proof Mr. Lang has that Noonan had a Second Class Commercial Radio Operator license? We are interested in these things, and I, for one, am disappointed by Reinecks's withdrawal from the discussion and refusal to answer. I submit that the solution to the AE mystery will be brought about by studying facts, not by subscribing to beliefs. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:56:43 EST From: Al Hillis Subject: Re: Col. Reineck responds Thank you for a quick and response reply. My mistake, it was Alan and not Dave I was referring too. I want to apologize for not identifying that my remark was to you and you only. I have since upped you integrity and will ensure anything of nature related to you will be to you and you only. I meant not for my feelings to go openly and discredit you in front of the forum. Keep up the good work and forgive some of us old geezers. BTW, FYI, I worked as a consultant at Lockheed headquarters in Burbank during the early 80s. At that time and no reason to think it will have changed. There were parts of Amelia's old plane on the hanger wall. It was a replacement or damaged part and I want to think it was of a wing spar or part thereof. Also alongside of it was a wing spar from Wiley Post's old plane and other age old parts. Lockheed has an extraordinary library on site and they will bend over backwards to assist any and all questions addressed to them. At one time they went back and reduced some original drawings ('D' size) to 'B' and 'C' just for me when I was building a 1/4 scale P-38. I can't help to believe they may have some drawing that might help you in identifying parts of Amelia's plane. As I know you to be very detailed please let me know if I can give you more detail. I am also in possession of a never published photo taken of Amelia in Kansas at an acquaintances home that I would be glad to share when I can find it. Again, my apologies in front of the forum. Respectfully Al HIllis ************************************************************* From Ric No apology necessary. I take my hits in public. It goes with the job. This is the first I've heard of any parts of AE's plane on the wall at Burbank as late as the 1980s. When we began the project in 1988 I met with the then-head of Corporate Communications at the then-headquarters in Calabasas, CA. The company was very forthcoming with what photos and information they had. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:05:25 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio reliability (sic) Oh, well, it's a worthy cause. Count me in. Alan ************************************** From Ric Thanks but, even so, we're only up to 7 Geezer shirts (I think). We need at least twelve orders to make it worth doing the artwork, having the screen cut, producing the shirts, mailing them, etc. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:06:12 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: FDR's press conferences Betty you wrote the following: >Ric, that was interesting about what the President said at the >press cons. all I remember is it was the talk around town Betty could you elaborate more on your comment " it was the talk around town" Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:50:46 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: KHABQ In "Soaring Wings" by GP , he closes , p 285, with the last words of AE heard by the Coast Guard: "KHABQ came through somewhere near Howland Island: 'circling....cannot see island... Gas is running low.'" Everyone else knew her call letters were KHAQQ except GP. I hope ITASCA got the call letters straight! But GP refers twice in the book to KHABQ (sic). My book is a first edition (1949), but GP should have got that one right. Recall also that Nina Paxton, who claimed she heard post loss msgs, also said quite emphatically that the call letter she heard was "KHABQ". Odd unless, Paxton read Putnam's book. I think it was also odd that GP used the above call letters some two years after the event. LTM, Ron B. ****************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. You may have just solved part of the Paxton mystery. I think you'll find that KHABQ was the call sign of AE's Vega on the 1935 Honolulu/Oakland flight. Apparently GP just got mixed up. As you suggest, his error may explain Paxton's insistence in correspondence with Goerner that she heard those letters. In the July 9,1937 article in the Ashland Daily Independent she is quoted as saying that Earhart prefaced her transmission with "KHAQQ calling, KHAQQ calling. She does not mention hearing any call sign in her 1943 letter Walter Winchell and in her 1943 correspondence with the U.S. Navy she says she heard call letters but doesn't say what they were. Given that Nina had the call letters right in 1937 and that her claim of hearing KHABQ does not emerge until well after Putnam's book was published, it seems reasonable to suppose that she read the book and "corrected" her memory. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:56:14 EST From: Doc Holloway Subject: Re: Radio reliability (sic) As a certified old geezer please count me in on the shirt. That should be number eight. LTM, Who never wore a t-shirt Doc ************************************* From Greg Moore Hey, count me in on this.....I do believe that at 57 qualify as an official geezer, since I operate CW (heaven forbid), and have spent many happy hours using vacuum tube equipment both in the military and as a civilian....I even have used vacuum tube aircraft radio while flying, so that makes me a geezer, I do believe..... Greg Former RM1, USN, and soon to be TIGHAR member, just gotta send the funds in LOL ****************************************************** From Mike Holt Put me down for one. I'm only 54, but I try to plan ahead. Mike Holt ************************************************** From Bert My wife claims I am a Geezer. Count me in. ***************************************************** From Ric That's 11. Close enough. We'll work up some artwork and put it on the website. I'll all you geezers know when it's up (the artwork that is). ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:59:54 EST From: Hilary Subject: Re: p-factor When you are flying a prop driven aircraft at a high angle attack the descending blade takes a greater bite of air than the ascending blade on the other side...It is caused by a higher angle of attack for the descending blade than the ascending one. This creates an asymmetrical thrust (P-Factor) The descending blade is usually on the right so the P-factor makes the aircraft yaw to the left about its vertical axis. P-factor is most prominent at Full power at high angles of attack ..In straight and level flight it is hardly noticeable as both the ascending and descending blades are almost at the same angle of attack and are producing the same amount of thrust. HH ******************************************************* From Ric Thanks Hil. And all these years I've thought that the p-factor was what determined the maximum duration of any given flight in a light aircraft. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:27:06 EST From: Bill Hillier Subject: Re: off topic P-38 At Williams Air Force Base in Arizona during WWII, we had a number of early P-38's, which were at that time designated YP 322's. They were supposedly from a batch of 50 ordered by the British who refused to accept them because the props were not counter-rotating, causing the planes to pull out only to the right when diving. THese planes were available for pilot training. A second person could ride behind the pilot if all the radio equipment was removed. Bill Hillier 2264 ***************************************** From Ric You're absolutely right. I did some more digging. According to Francillon ("Lockheed Aircraft since 1913") in April 1940 the Anglo-French Purchasing Committee ordered a batch of 667 Lightnings. They wanted to standardize the engines so they stipulated that all of the engines be the same non-turbocharged version of the Allison V-1710 used on the Curtiss P-40s they had also ordered. This, of course meant no counter-rotating engines. The airplane was designated the Model 322. Then France fell, and the Brits took over the entire contract. When the British tested the first three airplanes built under the contract they found them unacceptable and got into a huge dispute with Lockheed resulting in cancellation of the contract. Only 20 airplanes were ultimately built with same-way turning engines and these went to Williams Air Force Base as P-322s just as Bill says. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:33:08 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Over the top Ric said: "That's 11. Close enough. We'll work up some artwork and put it on the website." Ric, you know "close" counts only in horse shoes and grenades. So to make us "officially" over the top, make my order for TWO TIGHAR Geezer Garb t-shirts. That ups us to 12, right? I'm sure I can find another geezer to share it with. Or maybe I'll get two different sizes -- XL and XXL -- to plan for the future. LTM, a wet T-shirt winner in '36 Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************** From Ric What a guy. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:41:13 EST From: Kent Johnson Subject: p-factor I would agree with Ric on this one, but thanks to Hilary for the info. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:18:41 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Did I forget? > (pssst Dennis.... you're middle-aged. Just a kid really.) Well then, I'm out. I'll be 48 this year. Maybe it's just that *feel* so old? - Bill ***************************************** From Ric We won't deny a shirt to anyone who wants one. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:23:31 EST From: Jim Preston Subject: Geezers and HF Since I flew C-97's which had an RCA HF which was all tubes that makes me a geezer I guess. Order me one. We had very little trouble with our HF's probably due to the long antenna. On the groun during a radio check you couldn't get one locally but always from somewhere away. ie TRAVIS AFB, we would get Hickam Radio clear. I have been interested in watching the talk on freqs. I was taught , by Navigators, that the higher the Sun the higher the freq. It worked very well in the Pacific, we always had to search freq's in the Triangle. JImbo PS Good info on the P-38's ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:27:07 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio reliability (sic) Ric, > Thanks but, even so, we're only up to 7 Geezer shirts (I think). We need at > least twelve orders to make it worth doing the artwork, having the screen > cut, producing the shirts, mailing them, etc. I'll take two. LTM. Marty #2359 ********************************************** From Ric Thanks. Rather then try to keep track of everyone who has said they'd order one or more shirts we'll put the design and the order form up on the website and do it that way. I'll let everyone know when it's ready to go. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:29:08 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: KHABQ There is also a possibility AE mistakenly used her old Vega call sign under the stress of those final hours. Radio announcers changing jobs and stations often came out with the wrong call ID. Alan ***************************************************** From Ric The possibility is there but the evidence isn't. No contemporaneous account of post-loss messages mentions the KHABQ call sign. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:32:41 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes sequel? The epilogue to "Shoes" has been written, subject to updates between now and press time, and thanks to several dedicated volunteers all the index items have been checked and corrected. I'm waiting on an electronic copy of the original final from the publisher to finalize the corrected index, make a few minor corrections in the original text, replace some awful photos, and add in the epilogue. The publisher has been delayed in part because they have several hundred copies of the first edition still on hand, and their marketing people aren't wild about a second edition when they haven't sold out the first. Hopefully this will be worked out soon. Tom ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:34:02 EST From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: McGuire's 10E In talking with the A&E that does my aircraft inspections, I found out he did some work on Grace McGuire's Electra 10E back in the early 1980's. He replaced the rotted plywood floorboard in the cockpit. He said at the time it was in pretty bad shape and the entire instrument panel was missing. He said he had to remove and re-install a lot of stuff in the cockpit to do the floorboard replacement work. I described what a "dado" looked like and asked him if he recalled seeing anything that may have looked similar. He commented that after 50+ years a lot of things get removed and added to an airplane, and therefore many original factory installed components may have disappeared years ago. He did not remember seeing anything that looked like the "dado" as I described it. Since he had never heard of TIGHAR, I explained to him what TIGHAR is all about and why I was asking my questions about the dados. Tonight I sent him links to Tighar webpages with the pictures and detailed analysis of the dados found on Nikumaroro. I asked him to take a look and see if he can notice anything that looks familiar and can give any feedback about what he remembers from working on McGuire's 10E. I'll let you know if he tells me anything significant. Tom Riggs #2427 *********************************** From Ric Thanks Tom. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:35:44 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: p-factor Ric wrote > Thanks Hil. And all these years I've thought that the p-factor was what > determined the maximum duration of any given flight in a light aircraft. Yeah, I also experienced that same p.....factor in a heavy aircraft: a domestic Philippine Airline flight in a first generation 727 (I think the serial number was 3 or 4) between Manila and Cebu in the mid 80s. Kerry Tiller ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:36:25 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Bob Ballard and Amelia? If there is any truth to the Air Classics article, I REALLY think it is time Dr. Ballard retired. After winning the world championship, exhibition games (like his PT 109 gig) are anticlimactic at best. LTM (who retired decades ago) Kerry Tiller ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:13:22 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Did I forget? Ric wrote: > We won't deny a shirt to anyone who wants one. I hope not, since I'm one of your twelve qualifiers. - Bill #2229 ***************************************************** From Jim My wife says people like me are more more of a "middlescent" than geezer. Jim Young (a young, more adolescent-like than cantankerous, 57 year-old) ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:23:58 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: KHABQ Ric wrote: >The possibility is there but the evidence isn't. No contemporaneous >account of post-loss messages mentions the KHABQ call sign. Correct. I didn't make my point clear. The point is that even if someone thought they heard the KHABQ call sign there is little or no significance to that. We have enough mysteries without inventing new ones. Psychics, Gervais', Reinecks and mistakes do little to move the ball forward. We have a lot of good evidence, in my opinion, that DOES move the ball forward. Each piece of evidence can be easily attacked by our heretic friends as well as ourselves. Those who oppose don't seem to comprehend that we have shot at our own evidence with far more expertise than they have exhibited so far. They have not pointed out anything we don't already know. What they don't want to deal with is the totality of evidence. There is an incredible amount of indicators and to be able to discredit ALL of it defies rationality. It is true we have made assumptions which set our opposition into orbit and those assumptions certainly could be incorrect but logic and/or other support lends weight to their validity whereas only opinion and illogical reasoning supports their falsity. Validity wins. An example might be the 0800 GMT radio report from AE claiming to be at 12,000 feet. Probably did not happen. On the one side we have many books and web pages citing that radio call. Each are in identical context leading one to believe they are all repetitions of the same source. On the other side we have the fact that on the hour AE was supposed to be listening not transmitting. Her transmission schedule was 18 past the hour. Secondly such a radio call WAS made on another flight which was probably the original mistaken source. Elgin and others have repeatedly written about the great circle route from Lae outbound but we know that is not what they did. They flew slightly ESE to a reported set of coordinates and then to another reported set of coordinates before continuing on their route. There is a lot of significance to that and should be reported correctly. Our fuel reserve assumptions also drive our crashed and sank folks crazy and they offer all kinds of reasons it is incorrect without any evidence whatsoever. Only opinions. Well, we may be incorrect but the weight of the known evidence is on our side and there is none in opposition. We may well need a book of our own, Ric, to set the record straight. Showing what is in concrete and what is at least supported and that there is NO evidence, only opinion, to the contrary. Alan ********************************************************** From Ric >An example might be the 0800 GMT radio report from AE claiming to be at >12,000 feet. Probably did not happen. Huh? Never heard of such a thing. Who claims that? Of course, "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" by Tom King et al describes the project up until about four years ago and there will be a new edition out soon with updated information, but it is precisely because we keep learning more and more about what is true and what is not that I have put off writing my own book (or books) on the subject - but that day will come and it's not far off. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:32:52 EST From: Marion Grimes Subject: Re: Shoes sequel? What about us who raced out to get the book? Are you going to have an addendum available for us? Cheapskate Scotsman ********************************************************** From Ric Aye. Ye'll hae the pleesure of pairchusing the oopdated vairsion and the great satisfaction and pride of owning a copy of the original edition. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:35:10 EST From: Charlie Subject: Bones Search How remote is the probablility that the bones and other artifacts were in the four trunks containing Gallagher's belongings that were shipped to his mother in England in 1945? Where are the trunks and contents now? Thanks, Charlie ********************************************************** From Ric I'll let our dynamic duo Marty and Roger answer that one. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:35:58 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: Re: FDR's press conferences Tom , All I remember is.. there was a time a year or so after I heard Amelia, that I never tried to give any more info about it, because I had heard the Pres. said to stop ....Not just to me, but to the people.....I can't remember just how I heard about it ...radio or news paper, but it was talked about when people got together..Betty ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:51:31 EST From: RE Bennett Subject: Brink's book As a new correspondent with your organization, I am wondering if you could ask the discussion group or answer it yourself the following question: Has the contents of the Randall Brink book: "Lost Star", 1994, WW Norton, Co, New York ever been verified as to the factual allegations of the Earhart plane being upgraded by Lockheed after the Hawaii crash and the aerial photo of the plane on Taroa Island taken by the US Forces in 1944? RE Bennett *********************************************************************** From Ric Brink's allegations have been thoroughly discredited. Official records and numerous photos show that the only "upgrading" of the Electra following the Hawaii crash was some beefing up of the landing gear attach points, later model Hamilton Standard propeller hubs and a few other minor changes. The engines remained the same. The airplane in the aerial photo of Taroa is probably a Kawasaki Type LO (Allied codename "Thelma") transport - a license-built copy of the Lockheed Model 14 "Super Electra" that was common in Japanese service. Brink's book is arguably the most factually inaccurate of all Earhart books (quite a distinction) - but that record may not stand. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:37:30 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Bones Search Charlie asked: > How remote is the probablility that the bones and > other artifacts were in the four trunks containing > Gallagher's belongings that were shipped to his mother > in England in 1945? I'd say there is no chance that the bones and other things were IN Gallagher's trunks. The Western Pacific High Commission (WPHC) kept an inventory of what they were intending to ship to GBG's mother. In my imagination--and solely as an act of speculation--it seems not entirely improbable that the bone coffin and the sextant box with shoe parts and corks inside might have gotten bundled together into one box or trunk at some point in time. It's also not inconceivable to me that they would have been in the same trunk room where GBG's things were kept for the duration of the war. > Where are the trunks and contents > now? I wish we knew. Gallagher's great nephew thinks that the trunks might have gotten lost in transit. The only record we have is a letter from the WPHC asking a shipping company to pick up the four tin trunks from the office and transport them to England. We don't have--or, I should say, we haven't seen any evidence yet--of either the pickup or the delivery of the trunks. I assume that the pickup and delivery went OK; GBG's nephew thinks it did not. When Roger and I were in Suva, I went to the shipping company. There I was met by Foua Tofiga's daughter, who is the Company secretary (not a clerical worker, but a person of some standing with the board of directors). She and I both laughed at the oddity of me arriving on her doorstep by pursuing this particular line of inquiry--she said she'd been avoiding TIGHAR since 1999. The shipping company's records do not go back to 1945, when the original request was sent from the WPHC to them. The company has been sold and/or has merged several times since then, and it seems unlikely that we could ever get the records of the original transaction. They apparently do not have a warehouse with undelivered materials, just waiting for a balding, overweight Jesuit or an ex-Sergeant from LA to explore. Cleaning out Gallagher's trunks is one of the dozen or so "turning points" in the history of the WPHC that I speculate could have been the moment when the two boxes from Gardner were discarded. The war was nearly over and someone was clearly taking care of business at headquarters, working through some kind of list of things to do when peace came. The strongest argument against the idea that the bones were discarded in 1945 is that the filing system was intact and a note should have been made in the 1940 bones file. But people mkae mstikaes. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:40:25 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: questions Ric said: "Brink's book is arguably the most factually inaccurate of all Earhart books (quite a distinction) - but that record may not stand." Which begs the question . . . ah . . .well, you know what it is. LTM, who has no need to beg Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:40:56 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: FDR's press conferences Betty, I appreciate your quick response and clarification regarding my question - Thank You! Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:00:49 EST From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: McGuire's 10E After looking at the "dado" pictures and information on the Tighar website, my A&E friend that worked on McGuire's Electra 10E back in the 1980s sent me the following e-mail : "Thank you for the info. The airplane I worked on had no interior and it was many years ago that I had any contact. The photos do look like airplane parts, but I do not recognize any of them." Downside: After spending considerable time in the Electra replacing the rotten plywood floor board, he had plenty of time to notice if there were any dados. He states that he does not recognize any of the dados as depicted in photos on the Tighar website. He also indicates the airplane had no interior in the early 1980s. Therefore, it is highly doubtful a current inspection of McGuire's 10E will find any remaining dados still attached to the airframe. Upside: At least we've now got a professional opinion that the Tighar dados "do look like airplane parts" Tom Riggs #2427 ********************************************************************** From Ric Heck, we had professional opinions way back in 1989 that the artifact we found on the first trip to Niku was not only an airplane part but specifically a dado. The 2003 team merely found more of them near the same spot where we found the first one. We also have photos that show that at least some Electras back in the 1930s had dados installed in the cabin, but we can't see enough detail to tell if they were just like our dados. So: - We know we have dados. - We know that at least some Electras had dados. What we don't yet know is whether original Electra dados were just like our dados. That's why we're tracking down old Electra wrecks. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:19:00 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Brink's book Ric wrote: >Brink's book is arguably the most factually inaccurate of all Earhart >books (quite a distinction) - but that record may not stand. I would argue that Donahue's "The Earhart Disappearance: The British Connection" would give Brink's book a run for the money! LTM, Dave (#2585) P.S. Last week, there was some discussion of something Bob Ballard was up to with a PBY... Willing to put forth any speculation about what's he might be planning? ****************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, I have to agree. It's a toss up between Brink and Donahue. As to Ballard - first of all let's remember that we don't know that Ballard is planning anything. What we have is an allegation in a notoriously inaccurate magazine that claims that Ballard is involved in an Earhart search with a "partner" who has a PBY under rebuild in Greybull, Wyoming. I'm aware of no statement from Ballard but I do know that the airplane under rebuild in Wyoming is owned by New Mexico millionaire Mike Kammerer and that work has recently resumed on the rebuild after nearly three years of inactivity. You may recall that Kammerer purchased the commercial exploitation rights to TIGHAR's Earhart project for the period Jan. 2000 through Dec. 2003 but never exercised those rights. I can also tell you that whatever is going on does not involve Nauticos. They were hoping to resume their search later this spring but funding could not be completed. That's all I know at this point. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:22:00 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: McGuire's 10E Any 10's in fresh water begs the question and not fully cleaned up and/or removed? Carl Peltzer **************************************** From Ric I don't understand what you're asking. Could you perhaps rephrase the question? ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:40:14 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: No forum yesterday Sorry there was no forum yesterday. I was in New York City doing some archival research into the Irene Bolam case. I have a few more questions for Col. Reineck. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:43:56 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: McGuire's 10E Ric--Just for your information ... > Any 10's in fresh water begs the question and not fully cleaned up > and/or removed? He's asking whether any Lockheed 10s crashed in fresh water and, if so, whether there is any hope that the wreckage is still in good enough condition to help with the dado research. Marty ******************************************************* From Carl Peltzer sober [honest] when I wrote that! try again. subject: dadoes Wood in fresh water will last longer than salt. See Navy WW11 a/c [Douglas sbd's and such] brought out of the Great Lakes off Chicago in excellent condition after 40 plus years and most wooden vessels in fresh water in fabulous shape after hundreds of years. ******************************************************************** From Ric There was an Electra that is believed to have gone down in Lake Michigan on approach to Milwaukee but nobody seems to have come across it. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:45:29 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Ballard v. Earhart From the Wichita Eagle, November 12, 2003, last three paragraphs of an interview with Ballard: Since he has located some of the most famous finds in the world, any chance he might one day lead an expedition to find fellow Kansan Amelia Earhart's plane, missing since 1937? Not likely, Ballard said. "That's like finding a needle in a haystack," he said. Full article at http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/7239014.htm Of course, that was almost three months ago. I suppose he could have changed his mind in that time. - Bill #2229 ********************************************* From Ric I suppose. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:53:08 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: McGuire's 10E The Electra southwest of Palmdale that was an airliner was burned out but the rest of it was covered up with dirt. this airliner would have the best chance to have dados in it because it was a new aircraft. I realize that the chances are remote that our dado will be on the site but would it be worth a little digging to find out. Not all parts burn in a fire. Even if they were discovered and were in poor condition it would prove that they were used in the building of the airplane. Ron 2640 ****************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR researcher Roger Kelley has determined that the "Electra" southwest of Palmdale was, in fact a Model 14 "Super Electra". We see this problem often. There was the original Model 10 Electra, then the Model 12 Electra Junior, and later the Model 14 Super Electra. It wasn't until the Model 18 Lodestar that Lockheed stopped using the Electra name, which they resurrected much later for the Model 188 four-engined turboprop. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:57:33 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Amelia at Meeteetse, Wyoming Amelia history buffs, For those on the forum that would like to learn more of George Putnam in the early days and his Greenland expedition, a book by his friend and co-expedition partner ,Carl Dunrud, "Lets Go" , pub in 1998, tells of those adventures; additonally he describes the Putnam's purchase of a mining claim and land at Kerwin, Wy, not far from Meeteetse, during the summer of 1934 for a cabin for himself and Amelia. It was lovely country and GP and AE wanted a place for privacy. This was the perfect place. Dunrud started the log cabin in 1936 but stopped in July 1937 when the world learned that AE had disappeared. Meeteetse Museum sells the book and on the first Sat of every year drives up to Kerwin to visit the cabin remains. Meeteetse is quite proud of their "most famous visitor" aside from Buffalo Bill. The book contains many photos of Amelia, Dunrud, GP, Rye , N.Y., David Putnam, et al. Lovell mentions this respite in her book but no details. Interestingly, AE drove across country in 1934 from Rye, N.Y. to meet with GP in her air-cooled Franklin. Just before she left on her World Flight she sent Dunrud her leather jacket she wore on her Atlantic flight and a buffalo coat that movie actor William S. Hart gave her. They are on display at Cody, Wyoming. A dedicaton plaque was erected in 1972 in her Memory. The Cheyenne Zontas were contributors as well as her "Wyoming friends". For those that wish the book, pls contact me off the forum for the address. The Museum sells them for $19.95. Or see you in Aug, 2004 for a trip back to AEs favorite spot! LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:59:35 EST From: Tom Riggs Subject: Ric's Books Ric wrote: >because we keep learning more and more about what is true >and what is not that I have put off writing my own book (or books) on >the subject - but that day will come and it's not far off. Er uh, hopefully not until you send us that long-awaited post-loss radio analysis. Sincerely, Tom Riggs #2427 ************************************************** From Ric Absolutely. The Post-Loss Radio Study is top priority. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:14:49 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Earhart Crazies Since things are a little slow on the Forum, I thought I would pass along a story that perfectly illustrates the amount of craziness that surrounds the Earhart disappearance. As most of you know, I have been researching Noonan's life. Over the last year or so I had heard about someone who said he knew Fred's father. The first time I heard about the possibility I pegged it as a long shot and didn't pursue it. After hearing about it from the third person recently I decided it was time to check it out. So I contacted the gentleman in Sacramento who said he knew Noonan's father. This person said he had rented a room from Joseph Noonan sometime around 1959/60. His story was that one day his landlord pointed to a picture on the wall and said it was Fred Noonan. He also had some old radios, supposedly from the plane, and other items that had belonged to his famous son. The man I talked with said Joseph was angry because he was not allowed by the government to see Fred, who was living in the United States under an assumed name. He further related to me that Joseph burned a trunk full of government, or other, records right after his wife's death about the same time period. He only rented from Joseph for a year and a half, but also provided me with some other details about the Noonan family, including the house address. I thanked him for sharing his information with me. After hearing his story, I recollected that the conspiracy reference was one of the reasons I did not initially pursue the lead. That, plus the fact Joseph would have been nearly 100 years old in 1959. But it was still possible that an elderly, and somewhat deranged, Joseph could have been telling stories to his renters. Want to guess how this turns out? Many things relayed to me turned out to be true. The address was correct. Noonan rented rooms. The person I interviewed lived there in 1959. The names of other Noonan family members were correct. Noonan's wife died in 1961. The landlord Noonan was elderly. He was also, apparently, as crazy as a loon. Or the gentleman I interviewed embellished his story rather substantially. "Joseph" Noonan's actual name was Walter T. Noonan. He was born twelve years after the real Joseph. He died in 1971 at the age of 96. His actual name of Walter is on all the city directories with his address and phone number. It is on census records and his death record as well. Everything matches. The question driving me nuts is where the hell does this delusional stuff all come from. I have talked to other people with equally fascinating Noonan connections and stories. Nearly all of them, like this one, turn out to be complete fantasy. After getting the facts I called the gentleman in Sacramento to let him know what I found. He had no explanation to offer. Neither do I. It's just another wild and wacky story attached to the Earhart mystery. blue skies, jerry *************************************************************** From Ric We've seen it often enough that you could even call it a syndrome - the Earhart Connection Syndrome (ECS). I'm certainly no psychologist but there seems to be such a desire on the part of some people to connect themselves with the Earhart mystery that they invent recollections, or in this case even entire identities, that they then become convinced are true. I'll betcha that the same phenomenon has been observed in other contexts. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:23:29 EST From: Dick G. Subject: NOONAN'S RADIO QUALIFICATIONS IN READING ABOUT PAN AM FLYING BOATS - THEY MENTION THAT ALL CREW MEMBERS WE'RE CROSS TRAINED AND INTERCHANGEABLE TO SOME DEGREE. COULDN'T THIS REQUIREMENT LEAD TO ESTABLISHING HIS LEVEL OF RADIO SKILLS ?? ANY OLD OLD PAN AMMER'S OUT THERE?? DICK G. ************************************************************** From Ric We've looked into that and it's my recollection that we found that Pan Am initiated that policy just about the time Noonan left the company. Before that there were dedicated pilots, navigators, and radio operators who just had the one job. Later the company adopted a policy that brought pilots "up through the ranks" very much as is done today. Noonan was hired in 1930. At that time he was a highly experienced sea captain and nautical navigator. Although he had a pilot's license I've seen no evidence that he ever did anything at Pan Am other than administration (he was station manager in Haiti for a while) and navigation. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:43:31 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: McGuire's 10E >There was an Electra that is believed to have gone down in Lake >Michigan... just maybe we could get Bob Ballard on that search??? Ron 2640 ******************************************************** From Ric Why would he want to do that? ********************************************************* From Carl Peltzer there is one to research I will do some may I suggest others assist scube shops and fisherman have lots of information and will give to those who inquire. Carl Peltzer **************************************************************** From Ric I think you're suggesting some kind of massive effort to find out if anyone knows where the Electra in Lake Michigan is. ***************************************************************** From Rick Metzger Ric, Of the remaining 10E's only the #1042 of McGuires and the made up #1015 in Texas are still intact. Where is the twin to AE's plane? The Vanderbilt # 1065? No other ones are currently registered. Where are the pieces and parts? What was the date or year of the one that allegedly crashed in Lake MI.? P.S. I have some questions on your White Bird investigation, where can I contact you? STL Rick **************************************************************** From Ric 1065 was purchased by the Soviet Union and used in the search for lost polar flier Sigismund Levanevsky. After that - no one knows. The airpalne that was lost over Lake Michigan was a 10A #1044 originally delivered in 1935. I served for a while with Cubana (the Cuban subsidiary of PAA) and was privately owned as N14981 when it disappeared over Lake Michigan while on instrument approach to Milwaukee on Christmas Eve 1952. Given its fairly long and diverse service history the airplane's usefullness to us as a source of original dados is, in my opinion, very doubtful. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:37:13 EST From: Terry Subject: Re: No forum yesterday Ric,wy don't you leave Col Reineck alone,getting sick of you bashing people....... Terry *********************************************************** From Ric Believe me, I am much more interested in pursuing positive possibilities that in debunking nonsense and my intent is not to bash anyone. This forum is about solving the Earhart mystery. The only way to do that is with accurate information. Col. Reineck wrote a book that claims to solve aspects of the mystery and offers what he says are facts to support his claims. A book is not a forum posting or even a magazine article. Books stay around for years and years. They end up on library shelves. People have a reasonable expectation that information presented as fact in non-fiction books has been thoroughly researched. Most people, perhaps naively, tend to believe what they read in non-fiction books, so the writing and publishing of a non-fiction book carries some responsibility. From his responses to my questions it appears that Col. Reineck does not recognize or accept that responsibility. He has presented information as fact that is not fact and in some cases, by his own admission, has not even been researched. I have nothing personal against Col. Reineck. His greatest error seems to have been his failure to check the veracity of stories he has been told by his fellow "researchers". But as the executive director of TIGHAR I have a responsibility to make accurate information about the Earhart disappearance available to the TIGHAR membership and to the public at large - and that includes exposing bad information when it is irresponsibly marketed to the public. LTM, Ric ************************************************************************ From Alan >I have a few more questions for Col. Reineck. It doesn't appear likely he will answer you. I'm disappointed in a fellow military officer. I suppose it is possible that when he retired he retired his honor and integrity at the same time. Hopefully he is just busy and slow in responding. Alan *************************************************************** From Ric Let's not get too teary-eyed about military officers. All of us who have received the salutes of others know that some are deserving and some are not - and the folks doing the saluting know that too. "A prince can make a belted knight A marquis, duke, and all that. But an honest man's above his might. Good faith, he must not claim that. For all that and all that Their dignities and all that The pith of sense and pride of worth Are higher rank than all that." From: A Man's A Man for All That Robert Burns, 1795 (translated from Broad Scots) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:23:09 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Soviet L10? There's one for researchers to go on! the Soviet Union is loaded with old airplanes so there is a great place to look. I know the place is huge, but why not, it could still exist and the Russians never seem to throw anything away for which many are very thankful. they have been finding them all over the place since 1990 and bringing old warbirds aircraft back to restore, some of which had been thought to exist no more. Carl Peltzer ******************************************************************** From Ric I'll be interested to see your research plan on how to track down the 10E Special. It would be quite a find. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:51:43 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: USS SWAN In talking with a researcher yesterday, he says he interviewed a few years ago a Angus Rose, former radioman aboard the USS Swan on watch for AE. Rose told him that he heard AE's last few radio msgs to ITASCA, including the last. He couldn't contact her. Reportedly he wrote an article in "Our Navy", a publication unknown to me, in Nov 1937 about his duty aboard the SWAN, but didn't include the radio traffic! It apparently described the Swans search for AE. Have you or anyone on the forum heard this story or heard of Angus Rose. To my knowledge, and I have a Swan Log, the Swan didn't heard AE at anytime. LTM, Ron Bright ********************************************************************* From Ric I've never heard of Angus Rose. (Did he have a sister named Tokyo?) USS Swan described her radio transmitting capabilities in a June 22, 1937 message to Itasca as follows: SWAN CAN TRANSMIT ONE HALF KW BETWEEN 195 AND 600 KCS AND BETWEEN 200 AND 3000 KCS PERIOD CAN TRANSMIT 100 WATTS 600 TO 1500 KCS AND FROM 3000 TO 9050 KCS PERIOD 35 WATTS VOICE AVAILABLE 350 TO 1500 KCS AND 3000 TO 9050 KCS I can't find a message describing her receiving capabilities but it seems reasonable that the ship could receive voice on 3105 and 6210. If Rose heard Earhart it does seem very odd that there is no mention of it anywhere in the logs or reports. His later claims don't mean much unless the 1937 article in "Our Navy" turns up. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:53:52 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: McGuire's 10E >> Why would he want to do that?<< Bob Ballard was a joke. ************************************************** From Ric Sorry. You never know with this bunch. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:02:42 EST From: Laurie McLaughlin Subject: writing non-fiction Well spoken about Col Reinicks book - I have not read it - and will, eventually - but you are right - it is the responsibility of the writer of non fiction to be as accurate as possible - I am very aware of that as I work on the biography for George Palmer Putnam Question - if I put something in my George book that I can not substantiate with facts - how would you suggest I denote that so I do not end up in the Colonel's situation? And I love the Robert Burns quote - As one Scot to another - I suppose now would be a good time to tell you that in my last job, I ran into a woman who sells children's books - she knew (knows?) you and said she went to some affair where you were wearing your kilt and you looked very handsome, she said -- I am sorry, I do not recall her name - Cheerio and adios - Laurie McLaughlin ********************************************************* From Ric I'm flattered, thank you, but I have no idea who she might be. Must have been at a Scottish games or a Burns Night. I don't inflict the kilt on folks out of context. To answer your question - it's perfectly acceptable to speculate in a non-fiction book as long as you make it clear that you're speculating and present the facts and reasoning behind your speculation. Readers can then make an informed decision about whether they agree with your opinions. Use lots of solid facts to support a little bit of speculation. For example, we speculate that the word "circling" in Earhart's 0758 message "We are circling but cannot hear you..." was misheard and was, in fact. "listening". To support that opinion we note that the word as typed in the original log is clearly a type-over of an erasure. By digitizing the entry and removing "circling" you can clearly see that the erased word was "drifting" (kids, you can try this at home). In other words, here appears to be little doubt that the operator first typed in "We are drifting but cannot hear you..." but later went back and changed it to "We are circling but cannot hear you..". Neither makes any sense. "List'ning" contains the same number of syllables and the same short "i" and "t" sounds in the same positions as "drifting", and it makes the phrase make sense - so we speculate that Earhart said "We are listening but canot hear you..". Lots of facts and little bit of speculation. Reineck takes the opposite tack. He will occasionally preface a paragraph with "This researcher believes..." and then state his opinion about what happened. But what few facts he presents are extremely shaky at best and he uses them as the foundation for virtual palaces of speculation. For example, Reineck claims that in April of 1937, while the Electra was being repaired following the Luke Field accident, Earhart had two secret meetings at March Army Airfield in Riverside, CA with FDR's special advisor Bernard Baruch and Chief of the Army Air Corps Major General Oscar Westover. His sole basis for stating that these meetings took place is a 1966 interview with Earhart's former personal secretary Margot DeCarie that appeared in the San Fernando Valley Times and other statements Ms. DeCarie made to Joe Gervais. Reineck does not claim to have ever met DeCarie hmself but in Gervais' 1970 book "Amelia Earhart Lives!" (page 42) Ms. DeCarey is described as Earhart's former maid, not personal secretary, and she alleged three meetings, not two. Ms. DeCarie did not claim to have been present at the meetings but Col. Reineck accepts as fact that they took place and then, prefaced by the caveat, "This researcher believes..." he launches into six pages of detailed exposition of what transpired during the meetings, the Plan A and Plan B that Westover outlined, the concerns Earhart expressed, and the assurances Baruch gave her - complete fantasy and fabrication excused by a simple, "This researcher believes...". LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:33:36 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Forum on Sunday? Tomorrow, Monday, I'll be visiting the new NASM Udvar-Hazy Center with my Dad so, as penance, I'm posting the pending forum traffic today (Sunday). ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:37:01 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Soviet L10? Simply a getting older and hopefully wiser pilot attempting to add something worthwhile. I know- the fellow who comes up with the idea gets to carry it out! This keeps some people quiet and others like myself simply cannot but continue on. I'm a fairly poor grandfather trying to keep flying and do not have resources to go over there and search as much as might like to. Just maybe the archives in the USSR have some record past that time I will look into that. Best regards Carl Peltzer ************************************************************** From Ric Archives would be a good place to start but I have no idea if there are any such things in Russia that survived the devastation of WWII and the disolution of the Soviet Union. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:40:00 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: "Bashing people" Terry writes: >Ric,wy don't you leave Col Reineck alone,getting sick of you bashing >people Asking questions, disputing the veracity of "facts" and discussing the evidence presented is in NO WAY "bashing people". Debunking a theory is not the same as an attack on a person's character. If you read what Ric wrote to Col. Reineck, you will see he has attempted to restrict his points to discussing the evidence put forward by Col. Reineck. That is wholly appropriate, and if you read this forum, you will note that people do the same to Ric's positions. LTM (who liked a good bashing every now and then) Paige Miller, #2565 ********************************************************* From Roger Kelley On February 13th Terry said, Ric, why don't you leave Col Reineck alone, getting sick of you bashing people....... Terry" Ric responded, " I have nothing personal against Col. Reineck. His greatest error seems to have been his failure to check the veracity of stories he has been told by his fellow "researchers". But as the executive director of TIGHAR I have a responsibility to make accurate information about the Earhart disappearance available to the TIGHAR membership and to the public at large - and that includes exposing bad information when it is irresponsibly marketed to the public." Col. Reineck wants to sell books. Money changes hands. Could it be that here lies the foundation for Reineck's stretching the truth to the point of breaking? Through Ric's leadership and integrity we do our best to keep the TIGHAR house clean. Sounds to me like Reinneck could use some help in cleaning his own house. In the mean time, Reinneck's reputation as a serious Earhart Researcher had been tarnarished if not thoughly bashed. He brought it upon himself. Roger Kelley ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:18:47 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: writing non-fiction Re: The Baruch Affair In May 2001, I looked into the claims by Gervais (made prior to 1970) and Rollin Reineck that Bernard Baruch, an FDR advisor, and Gen Westover met at March Field, Riverside, Cal in during the month of April 1937". Actually Gervais, p 41- 42, AE LIVES, said Baruch and Westover visited Amelia three separate times at her Toluca Lake Home, Hollywood, Ca., NOT at March Field. Also Gervais does not describe the nature of these visits or conversations at Toluca Lake. In order to confirm that Westover and Baruch met with AE in March or April 1937, I contacted the Princeton University, Seeley Mudd Manuscript Library, where the Baruch papers are located. Project Archivists Ms Christie Lutz researched the entire Baruck collections regarding his alleged visit to California in 1937. In a letter to me on Oct 9, 2000, she wrote that she found only one reference referring to a trip to "the West". Baruch wrote a letter to FDR, a copy of which I have, on 30 April 1937, about certain economic factors in Europe facing the US congress, and concluded with "I am leaving tonight for the West and will be returning about the same time you do, in case you desire to speak further with me on this subject." In addition to his correspondence during this time frame, Lutz consulted press clippings in the collection, but found no documentation of a trip to specifically California. I would however presume his reference to "west" was California, and we know he was an investor in repairing the Electra then located at Burbank. At best, even as Rollin estimates , it would take about 5 days by train from Washington DC to California, thus if Baruch left 30 April 37 that would put Baruch there the 5 May 1937. Thus Baruch could not have visited AE three times in April 1937 without three trans-continental trips. Baruch "wired" AE a check for $2500 , see page 208, My Courageous Sister, sometime in May 1937. As Ric pointed out deCarrie wasn't present at March Field .The 1966 San Fernando interview contains no references to a April 37 meeting or Gen Westover or Bernard Baruch, only a vague reference to "many meetings with government men" at Toluca Lake. And, contrary to her assertion that she was present and overheard Baruch's offer, [see infra] DeCarrie said she and GP had "to leave the room". I can't imagine GP doing that! Brink complicates the deCarrie interviews further stating he interviewed DeCarrie in Aug 1980. According to Brink's report of his interview , DeCarrie said that Baruch, no mention of Gen Westover, visited the Toluca Lake residence in late March or early April 1937. DeCarrie was present, she said, during "portions of the conversations with the Putnams", with Baruch asking AE to volunteer for an "intelligence" mission. [ Hard to imagine that secretary deCarrie would be allowed to hear a Top Secret espionage proposal] On p 99, according to DeCarrie, AE met with General Hap Arnold (not Baruch)and Gen Westover at March Army Air Force Base, date not reported, but prior to the second world flight. So we have no solid evidence that Baruch or Westover met with Amelia at March Airforce base in March or April 1937. The preponderance of evidence from the collection of the Baruch papers does not support a meeting with AE and certainly not in March or April 1937. Another researcher, close to DeCarrie and able to interview DeCarrie wrote me that DeCarrie said that "Bernard Baruch met came to the Burbank Airport a number of times (sometimes accompanied by Gen Oscar Westover). (sic) The researcher said she had no specific discussions of Gen Westover, meetings at March Field, so forth, so she could not be conclusive about any meetings. It seems to me when writing a non-fiction book, the whole story should be revealed so that the reader can make an educated opinion of the events described. LTM, Ron B. ******************************************************** From Ric >According to DeCarrie, AE met with General Hap Arnold (not Baruch) >and Gen Westover at March Army Air Force Base, date not reported, but >prior to the second world flight. It's entirely possible that, at some point, AE did meet Hap Arnold. According to his autobiography "Global Mission", Arnold was a Brigadier General in 1937 and the commanding officer at March Army Airfield. His main concern at that time was the development of high altitude bombing tactics using Martin B-10s and helping to lobby for the new B-17. Earhart is mentioned nowhere in his book but, as a celebrity, if she happened to visit March Field for any reason she may well have been introduced to the CO. Arnold makes no specific mention of Westover visiting his command but he does say that: "Westover worked harder than anybody. Too hard. He flew all over the country, always flying his own plane, landing here and there, talking to some group or other about air power while his sergeant got the ship ready for the next hop, then flying on to give another enthusiastic talk to people in another town." So it would not be terribly surprising if Earhart did meet Arnold and Westover. What would be surprising is either of them being involved in recruiting spies. They were both totally absorbed in building up the Air Corps. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:42:10 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Questions for Col.Reineck I understand that these questions make you uncomfortable but I feel that they must be asked because it now appears that one of the cornerstones of the case you make for Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam being the same person is crumbling. On page 180 of your book you describe the lawsuit filed by Irene Bolam against McGraw Hill, the publisher of "Amelia Earhart Lives!", and the book's authors Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas. You say that Bolam sued for invasion of privacy and libel but that "There has always been some question about what was libelous" about the book. You also say that the exact amount of damages being asked is also in question but that it was "in the neighborhood of two million dollars". From these comments it would seem apparent that you have not reviewed the court documents and yet you go on to describe specific aspects of the case. - You say that Bolam, rather than the defendants, was responsible for delays in the case. - You say that the defendants, in offering to settle the case for the requested amount, persuaded the judge to ask Mrs. Bolam to appear in person before the judge and provide her fingerprints. - You say that, rather than accept this offer, Mrs. Bolam dropped the lawsuit. Upon what sources are you relying for this description of events? It would seem that you are on good terms with Mr. Gervais and Mr. Klass, whose "scholarly work" you quote at length with their permission. Do they not have copies of the court documents? Do they not remember why and for how much they were sued? Are you aware that the case of "Irene Bolam v. McGraw Hill, Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas" is available to anyone? Simply go to the New York County Courthouse at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, Basement Room 141, and ask for Index No. 18983/1971. There is no charge and you don't have to be a lawyer. It's all free pubic information. You'll be handed a packet of microfiche cards and directed to any of several microfiche reader/printers. You can copy as many pages as you wish for .25 each but there are many, many hundreds of pages to this case, so bring lots of quarters. Hawaii is a long way from Manhattan but Nikumaroro, Tarawa, and England are all a long way from Delaware. If you want the answers you have to go where the answers are. On February 11, 2004 I went to the New York County Courthouse and reviewed the file. Many, but not all, of the answers to the Bolam case are there. - Bolam sued McGraw Hill, Gervais and Klaas for defamation on May 26, 1971 - The damages asked were $500,000 in actual damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. - The defense raised the question of what was libelous or defamatory about being accused of being a popular, some would even say heroic, American celebrity. The plaintiff responded with a reminder that the book accuses Bolam of being a liar, a traitor, and a bigamist. - I saw no evidence of any delaying tactic by the plaintiff. She did ask the court to throw out as irrelevant 33 of some 600 questions posed as interrogatories for her to answer. She willingly gave a lengthy affidavit replying to the charges in the book. - In 1975 the defendants moved for summary judgment. In other words, they filed a motion with the court enumerating all the reasons that Bolam's lawsuit was without merit and asking the judge to dismiss the case. (This is a very standard move in civil cases.) On August 26, 1975 the court denied the motion and ruled that there were "triable issues" in the case. - The defendants (McGraw, Gervais and Klaas) appealed the decision. On May 4, 1976 the appellate court affirmed the lower court ruling. At that point Bolam held all the cards. The defendants had two choices, they could go to trial (an extremely risky proposition having twice failed to get a summary judgment) or they could settle. Unfortunately, the final resolution of the case was not included in the file I saw. It may be that one of the microfiche cards was missing. We'll continue our research and expect to have an answer before too long. So far, there is nothing to support the story about the judge asking Bolam to produce fingerprints and, given the established facts of the case, it doesn't make any sense. The burden of proof was on the defendants, not Bolam, and they had clearly failed twice to make their case. Bolam was in a position to say, "Pay up or we go to trial." It will be interesting to see what did happen. Our suspicion is that McGraw Hill paid some amount in settlement in return for Bolam dropping the case, thereby letting Gervais and Klaas off the hook. We'll see. My question to you, Col. Reineck, is why you didn't do the research before writing your book? It's fine to repeat your friends' stories but don't present them as fact without checking them for accuracy first. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:50:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: writing non-fiction Ric wrote: >So it would not be terribly surprising if Earhart did meet Arnold and >Westover. What would be surprising is either of them being involved in >recruiting spies. I think that whole scenario is utter nonsense and clearly has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Moreover the time and distance of AE's Lae to Howland area flight plus the obvious fuel requirements and night time flight makes any kind of spy mission totally impossible. The best she could have done was spy on the Myrtlebank and one of the Gilbert Islands. The spy conspirators will never give up nor will they ever present a rational theory of how a spy mission could have been accomplished. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:56:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Questions for Col.Reineck Ric, you just gave Col. Reineck (if that is an appropriate title) a lesson in researching. Perhaps his first introduction to the grand art. And yes, Terry, that's a bash. Not of Rollin personally but of his methods or lack thereof and his unwillingness to stand behind his words. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:58:02 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Soviet L10? Try trade-a-plane.Contact a Yak importer or an an owner. Anybody try some salvage yards for 10E parts? Hey ya never know. LTM Mike J. *************************************************************** From Ric I have an even better idea. You do it. Let us know how you make out. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:17:28 EST From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: Irene Bolam I haven't read Rollin's book so I don't pretend to answer for him concerning your questions. I ask myself why do I even bother with this forum. I bother because the questions are being put forward by you on your forum. I know there is no guarantee you won't edit out whatever you please anyway. I always send a copy to our forum so I am also speaking to them in a sense. Ric writes: >Unfortunately, the final resolution of the case was not included >in the file I saw. It may be that one of the microfiche cards was >missing. We'll continue our research and expect to have an answer before >too long. I hope you find the final resolution to the case. Not all of us have the money or can travel to the source of all truth, the US Judicial System. A Judicial system that permits the sealing of court documents in settlement cases and imposes penalties for a breech of the sealing. .25 cents a page you say. That's about 2.5 times Kinko's rate. Do I hear a new fund raising scheme coming up? >- The defense raised the question of what was libelous or defamatory >about being accused of being a popular, some would even say heroic, >American celebrity. The plaintiff responded with a reminder that the >book accuses Bolam of being a liar, a traitor, and a bigamist. I know it's painful but try and let your imagination stretch just a little bit. The "281 message" on July 5th suggests survival. The same message combined with other circumstantial evidence can produce an area in the Marshalls for that survival to have taken place. Everyone knows you don't agree with that scenario. Fast forward...... At the conclusion of WWII in 1945, what if the circumstantial survival evidence proved correct and Earhart sailed into San Francisco Bay or landed in Hawaii on an Army Air Force plane? The Charge of Traitor that Irene Bolam protested against could very well have been levied on Amelia Earhart by some people who didn't like her before the war. She would then have had to document her past 7 years of captivity and what if she couldn't prove her innocence in the eyes of the public? In light of the horror of the war and lost loved ones, someone would ask the question of Amelia; "How did you survive when so many died. What did you have to do for the Japanese?". We know that Lindbergh had his own stigma concerning some of his prewar speeches. Earhart at one time was called the "Lady Lindy". This is only one obvious contemporary example that Earhart would have faced after secretly being with the Japanese for 7 years. Metaphorically it parallels John Ford's "The Searchers" in a different time period. I can make the argument that Amelia couldn't have really survived in the eyes of the public, returned as herself and lived a normal life. By 1960, if she had assumed a different name, then the Charge of Liar would be validated. The Charge of being a Bigamist wouldn't hold to much water because the Court declared her legally dead in '39'. Is that a free pass then to remarry or even become a different person? All she, Irene Bolam, had to do was give her fingerprints to put an end to all of this. I think that would have substantially improved her legal position above and beyond your own evaluation. If truth was on her side, why settle when you know you could win at trial with a conclusive identification? Daryll **************************************************************** From Ric Daryll, I don't think I've ever edited your stuff. Why would I? The length of your ramblings is inversely proportional to their credibility. None of the Bolam case documents are sealed. .25 per copy is what the courthouse charges, not TIGHAR. The microfiche machines take quarters - what can I tell ya? It would be easy for me to be highly offended by your implication that I would misstate the cost as a fundraising scheme - but life's too short to waste emotion on something that ignorant. The rest of your posting isn't worth a reply. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:26:20 EST From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: Irene's Posthumous fingerprints?? The question of constitutional rights regarding the taking of a person's fingerprints while they are still alive and who is not charged with a crime, is a no brainier. This article below appeared in the The N.J. Woodbridge News Tribune Oct 26, 1982. pg1. This begs the question, why wouldn't Irene let her fingerprints be taken after her death, if she was who she claimed to be? There would have been no consequences at all in a negative outcome. If a positive outcome, how would the court "settlement" be affected if it was proven she was Amelia Earhart after all ? ############# "BOLAM'S PRINTS A SECRET" Irene Bolam's fingerprints are one of the state's best kept secrets. The prints have been unavailable to police agencies, a county prosecutor, Mrs. Bolam's doctor, medical examiners, hospital authorities, and Mrs. Bolam's immediate family. Each person, in turn, has either found no standing to enter the case or has come up against the same stone wall-- The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Mrs. Bolam, a resident of Rossmoor which is in Monroe Township and has a Jamesburg mailing address, died July 7, at Roosevelt Hospital in Edison. She donated her body to science. After her death, rumors resurfaced that she was in fact Amelia Earhart, the famous aviatrix who disappeared on a flight between Lae, New Guinea and Howland Island in the South Pacific on July 2, 1937. Mrs. Bolam's son , Clarence Heller, then requested Mrs. Bolam's fingerprints from the medical school to settle the Amelia Earhart question. The request was denied. Heller's wife, Joan, said her husband, Mrs. Bolam's only child sent a registered letter to the medical school requesting the fingerprints, but that the request was denied. She said she spoke to Norma Davenport, attorney for the school, and was told that an agreement that Mrs. Bolam signed with school precluded the release of her fingerprints. "We're not entitled to them ," Mrs. Heller said she was told. "They won't tell me anything except that her identity has been switched." She said Ms. Davenport refused to give her a copy of the agreement between the school and Mrs. Bolam or tell her what the agreement specified. An agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation also requested Mrs. Bolam's fingerprints from personnel at the school. See Irene, page 4. He said the school wouldn't acknowledge that the body was there, let alone give him fingerprints. "I was stonewalled right there," he said. The identity question was also raised by James Hardiman, president of the Roosevelt Hospital Board of Managers. He said he was unsure of Mrs. Bolam's true identity and wanted fingerprints to establish who it was that died at the hospital. His request was denied. Dr. Man Wah Chung, medical director of Roosevelt Hospital, also attempted to check Mrs. Bolam's fingerprints. He too was refused by the medical school. Middlesex County Medical Examiner Dr. Marvin Shuster said that since the death was not suspicious or sudden, his office had no standing to enter the case. In reference to the identity question, he said as long as Mrs. Bolam's family was satisfied, he could not question her identity. But he said he was surprised that the medical school had refused all requests for the prints. "It's the simplest thing in the world," he said. Middlesex County Prosecutor Richard Rebeck said that because the question of Mrs. Bolam's identity was a civil matter, his office could not get involved. The Essex County Medical Examiner and the N.J. State Medical Examiner each said they had no jurisdiction over bodies at the medical school. The state attorney general's office said it might enter the case if the family were to request help. FBI officials in Washington said that agency could become involved only if asked to do so by a police authority. Fingerprints are a conclusive means of establishing a person's identity. Det. Casimer Smerecki of the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, who has been qualified many times as an expert in fingerprint identification, said "Never have two people been found to have the same fingerprints. "Based on years of study, it is estimated at four billion to one that any two individuals would have the same fingerprints," he said. [end] ########### Daryll ****************************************************************** From Ric It was never up to Irene Bolam to prove that she was not Amelia Earhart. The allegations made in the Klaas/Gervais book clearly infuriated her and she was just as clearly determined not to play their game. I'd say that she succeeded admirably. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:32:58 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Amelia's fingerpints It occurs to me to wonder if anyone has Amelia Earhart's fingerprints? I don't think I've ever seen them. There's a palm print at Purdue but that's not the same as official fingerprints. Does anyone have AE's fingerprints? ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:56:06 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Dulles Museum--off topic Ric---OK-OK-OK---for all of us out here who are lurking in the bushes----- HOW GOOD WAS THE MUSEUM AT DULLES??????????????? i ASSUME YOU WILL TAKE PITY ON US WHO CANT GET THERE YET and give us a brief overview--------PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LTM--who always loved a good museum... Jim Tierney ***************************************************************** From Ric OK, OK...... NASM's new Udvar-Hazy Center is a work in progress. At least at this time, the museum is clearly an overflow facility for the airplanes that are either too big or not quite cool enough to be displayed at the museum on the Mall. The exhibits in the wing of the building which houses the Shuttle "Enterprise" are not finished and all you can do at present is stand in the doorway and marvel at the sheer size of the spacecraft. The main museum building is a long, quonset-stlye hangar very much like the buildings at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB and presents the same virtues and vices as exhibit space. Like the USAFM, the airport location and the big doors on the end of the hangar make it relatively easy to move airplanes in and out, but unlike NASM's museum on the Mall, the building does not lend itself to the presentation of "galleries" where artifacts can be used to tell a story. Instead you have clutches of airplanes of more or less the same era or type parked on the floor and suspended overhead together. Aerial walkways provide closer views of the hung aircraft and a good overhead view of those on the floor. The exhibition technique is what we call "P to the fourth" (Park Plane Post Placard). The placards themselves, though quite brief, do usually make some mention of where this specific airplane came from and whether or not this one ever really looked like this or is just a representation. You'll find very little discussion of the aircraft's historical significance aside from noting that "This was the first aircraft to..." thus and so. This minimalist approach to interpretation is, no doubt, a lesson learned from the debacle surrounding the 1995 exhibition of the Enola Gay's forward fuselage section at the museum downtown. Enola Gay is now, of course, fully assembled and on exhibition at Dulles with its land gear supported on tall jack stands that lift the entire airplane well up off the floor. A surrounding assortment of fighters and other WWII types behind velvet ropes insure that nobody can really get anywhere near the B-29. The result is that the huge airplane is curiously inconspicuous. The airplanes that are exhibited in such a way as to catch the eye are the SR-71 standing pretty much alone to provide good views of its exotic lines; the Boeing 307 Stratoliner polished to within an inch of its life and gleaming like a jewel; and the Boeing "Dash 80" prototype for the 707 series, which stands out not only for its size but for its mustard and chocolate paint job. The degree to which the various aircraft on display have been restored, reconstructed or rehabilitated varies greatly. Oddly, as a rule, the newer aircraft (the Concorde, the Shuttle, the Gossamer Albatross, the modified racing Bearcat "Conquest One") are permitted to look old while the older aircraft (the WWI , Golden Age, and WWII types) look like they just rolled off the showroom floor. There are exceptions. The P-38 is very scruffy and there is a Kawasaki Ki-54 "Nick" fuselage that looks sort of half-reconstructed. These apparent contradictions are products of the changing historic preservation standards at NASM over the years. Still lurking in the dust and the dark back at the Garber Facility in Suitand, Maryland are the Lockheed XC-35, the B-17C/D "The Swoose" and lots of other historic aircraft. All in all, I'd have to call the Udvar-Hazy Center a good start. It will be interesting to see how the museum develops and progresses. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:00:58 EST From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Soviet L10? Garber Museum possibly in Springhill, Md? They have all kinds of stuff but I was there in 1989 long before I found the forum. I will do some research and perhaps get my Civil Air Patrol unit into this as have several in college locally to look around; also wonder if the Air Force museum in Montg