Date:         Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:04:08 -0400
From:         Ric
Subject:      Slow Forum

Before anyone else emails me to ask if I'm on vacation (what's a vacation?) - - - the lack of forum postings for the past few days is due to the fact that no one has submitted a posting for the past few days.  That's fine.  If there are issues to discuss we should discuss them but there's no need for chatter for chatter's sake.

There is lots of research underway on various aspects of the Earhart Project which may produce results worthy of discussion in the near future.  Meanwhile, the forum is still here.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:27:03 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Slow Forum

One way to keep the forum going is by someone throwing a silly theory on the table which is then shot down in flames for days... Or maybe someone should take a map, plot AE's course again and allow for all sorts of possible human errors which could have crept in to be usefully explored.

By the way and totally off topic: I flew the Airbus A340 (the four engine one) simulator the day before yesterday. What a dream to fly ! But beware of the F-16-like side stick. Handle with care... All one has to do is give the computers an indication by means of the side stick of what you want the 126 tonnes of aluminum and the 120,000 lbs of CFM56 thrust to do and they perform admirably. Never having flown an A340 before (I once flew an A320) I had no problem at all to land the 126 ton monster. The beauty is the automatic speed control. One does not even have to check speed during the approach. The computers keeps it at 140 kts for you until you touch down. All you have to next is apply brakes after landing.

Makes me think that perhaps an exchange of ideas of how aircraft have developed since 1937 might be an interesting subject. There are quite a few forumites who don't fly themselves but are interested in airplanes like the L10.

LTM
************************************************************************
From Ric

I understand that the next generation of commercial aircraft will have a crew comprised of one pilot and a Rottweiler.  The dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:24:57 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: slow forum

When I started doing this flying thing back in the 60s the plane was a steel tube and fabric Piper  J-3 Cub which was designed long before the L-10 and the particular one was built in August, 1941. It was very primitive compared to today; 75 mph on a good day, so light that every gust of wind was something to work you, a hand start, no radio, poor heat, no carb leaning and nothing but needle, ball and airspeed.

The stuff us small drivers play with today are a great many generations away from that time and that should be appreciated by those with limited knowledge of those times.

I have to give credit where it is due to those who truly were quite brave but perhaps foolhardy and overconfident along with very tired by that time in the flight in not using every thing possible to find their destination.

Kinds of makes me wonder if perhaps there was a sort of deathwish involved here in the back of her mind.

************************************************************************
From Ric

It might surprise you to know that the airplane we know as the Piper Cub was designed a year AFTER the Lockheed Model 10 first flew.

The airplane was based upon the woefully under-powered Taylor "Chummy" of 1929.   Bill Piper bought the Taylor company's assets the following year, retaining Gilbert Taylor as president, and upgraded the Chummy's engine from a 20 hp (!)  Brownbach "Tiger Kitten" to  the Continental A-40 and renamed the airplane the Taylor E-2 "Cub".

In 1935 Piper hired Walter Jamouneau to re-design the basic airplane and the result was the shape we know today as the Piper J3 (J for Jamouneau) Cub.  The Lockheed Model 10 Electra made its first flight on February 23, 1934.

Although the larger engines of the E reportedly made that variant somewhat nose heavy, the Model 10 was not a dangerous airplane and was, in fact, basically the same technology that dominated cabin-class twins until well into the 1960s.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 5 Jun 2004 09:42:25 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Slow Forum

Herman DeWulf says:

"One way to keep the forum going is by someone throwing a silly theory on the table which is then shot down in flames for days... Or maybe someone should take a map, plot AE's course again and allow for all sorts of possible human errors which could have crept in to be usefully explored."

Herman, I have tried. Believe me, I have tried to stir things up with my Paraguay theory but no one wants to debate my theory on its merits. What is wrong with you people, can't you understand this evidence when it is right in front of your eyes?

Oh well, I have discovered a Howland Island in upstate New York. Well, I didn't "discover" it ... I just recently learned of its existence. I shall continue my search for Amelia there.

--
Paige Miller #2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:27:11 -0400
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Gardner Islands
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606)

Paige Miller wrote:

> Oh well, I have discovered a Howland Island in upstate New York. Well,
> I didn't "discover" it ... I just recently learned of its existence. I
> shall continue my search for Amelia there.

You're looking in the wrong place.  Obviously, you've not been reading the TIGHAR website.  You need to look at Gardner Island. There's a Gardner Island in Long Island Sound.  I quote from the log of a recent sailing trip to the far corners of the Sound:

August 22nd - Three Mile Harbor, NY

We sail across the Long Island Sound at the Race and head into the Fishtail at the end of Long Island. We go around Gardner Island and pass inside of Plum Island. We head for the south fork of the Fishtail. We pass a huge windmill set right on the beach of Gardner Island. We enter a narrow passage that leads to the wide and deep Three Mile Harbor, which not surprisingly is located 3 miles from the exclusive South Hampton. It is windy but we head for a high point on the west shore to protect us from the wind. It is quiet there and we spend a quiet night.
(http://svfinn2.home.att.net/Aug2.htm)

This one would be the easiest to research, given that it's nearest to Howland Island. Apparently, this one has the added attraction that it's a part of the legend of Captain Kidd.  No aviation connection, unless Captain Kidd's parrot counts.

However, there is a "Gardner's Island" not too far away, in Washington County, Maine:  it's near Roque Bluffs.
(http://www.mainerec.com/wcounty1.asp?Category=145&PageNum=145)

That one is also within reach by car.

However, there's a Gardner Island in Lake Pontchartrain.   That may be a bit far away.   There's a great website:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-206/biology/bio-gardner.html

Another website gives the location:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp043b/gcpoint.asc
Location is:
-89.38   29.68   99.99    1.50    0.803699   GARDNER ISLAND BRETON SOUND

Gardner's Island in Alabama is 221.7 miles from somewhere. 
(http://www.frontiernet.net/~asb/mileage.html)

You gotta look in the right place.

LTM (who always leaves her keys on the hanger in the kitchen)
Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 5 Jun 2004 13:03:11 -0400
From:         Tom Hickcox
Subject:      Re: Gardner Islands

The Louisiana Gardner Islands are one and the same and it is located in Breton Sound, not Lake Pontchartrain.

Check the pubs.usgs.gov url more closely.

Tom Hickcox in Baton Rouge
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:04:38 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: slow Forum

Paige, after the aircraft carrier at Howland story and a few others I will not mention you have to be hard pressed to stir this group up. Actually I liked the Paraguay story. <G>

Alan, running low on flaming fuel

************************************************************************
From Paige Miller

Mike Holt had the following to say: "You're looking in the wrong place. Obviously, you've not been reading the TIGHAR website. You need to look at Gardner Island. There's a Gardner Island in Long Island Sound."

Mike, that's Gardiners Island in Long Island Sound, named after Lion Gardiner, the first owner. Note the letter I in the name, and letter S at the end. See:
http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/3/hs310a.htm
http://docs.unh.edu/NY/grdi04ne.jpg

Everyone knows Amelia never made it to Gardiners Island. Duh!

I don't see how we are ever going to find Amelia if we can't spell properly. Spelling is crucial to our search, or we wind up at the wrong island. We'll wind up at Nikumanu or Nukumanu instead of Nikumawhatever (I can't spell it either), that place where Ric thinks Amelia competed in her final spelling bee.

--
Paige Miller #2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:05:41 -0400
From:         Dan Brown

I can strongly recommend the book "Smithy, the Life of Sir Charles Kingsford Smith" by Ian MacKersey (first published in Great Britain in 1998 by Little, Brown and Company; my paperback copy purchased through Amazon.com was published by Warner Books, London, in 1999; 454 pp.) as a starting point for anyone interested in developing historical perspective on the technology and motivations for long-distance flying in the 1920s and 1930s. There are _many_ parallels (navigation, weather, radio, fuel) to the issues involved in the AE/FN World Flight, especially in the 1928 Hawaii to Fiji flight of the "Southern Cross" and the 1934 Fiji to Hawaii flight of the "Lady Southern Cross", which both flew over the Phoenix Islands. Interestingly, Smith's navigator Harry Lyon studied photographs of Canton and Enderbury atolls as potential sites for emergency diversion in 1928. However, the book lacks the level of minute technical detail we might wish for comparisons to the World Flight.

Unfortunately there is no reason for anyone to waste their time reading "Wide Margins, A Publisher's Autobiography" by George Palmer Putnam (I bought a first edition copy published by Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1942, through Amazon.com). It seems to have been written by someone else, there are virtually no specific details or even personal observations about anything.

Dan Brown, #2408
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:07:30 -0400
From:         Tom Strange
Subject:      A Question of Weather

For Randy Jacobson,

Re: Forum post Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:27:26 EDT

Mr Jacobson in a past forum post ( 18 July 03 ) you discussed the location of the Intertropical Convergent Zone in reference to Howland Island's latitude when answering another forum member's perceived statement of fact- With regards to the subject Intertropical Convergent Zone, let me ask the following two questions.

Could someone cognizant of the weather conditions associated with an Intertropical Convergent Zone recognize visually those conditions at a distance while approaching in an aircraft?

Would the Intertropical Convergent Zone of 1937 north of Howland Island have been well defined visually?

As a person still on a learning curve in this one room school house, Mr Jacoboson I always appreciate your input on this forum - Hopefully you can help me with my questions.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559=
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 7 Jun 2004 19:07:12 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Weather question

The ITCZ would not normally be recognized as a "wall of bad weather" from the air, but merely as a place of increased cloudiness extending further up into the atmosphere than normal.  It's gradational, I suspect, from normal conditions to those conditions found in the interior.  However, the ITCZ was a good 3-4* of latitude north of Howland at the time, as determined by the PBY plane and the ships that passed through it within a couple of days.  It normally does not extend down to 1-2*N that time of year.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:41:25 -0400
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Alternet search locations

Gardner Avenue and Earhart Road can both be found in Ann Arbor, MI, but they don't intersect.  Oddly enough, I drove on both of them in my then employer's commercial vehicle marked with the company name Phoenix Refrigeration.  Wouldn't that have been a great picture?

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:01:09 -0400
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: weather question

For Randy Jacobson

Thank you for your response to my questions pertaining to possible ITCZ impact on AE's world flight attempt - Your response triggered another question.

I've assumed that Intertropical Convergent Zones ( ITCZ ) greatest strength peaks about mid-afternoon, while the least amount of strength occurs during the early morning hours approximately 12 hours apart - Is this assumption of mine correct?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang # 2559=
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:43:23 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: weather question

Regarding ITCZ strength during the day: I do not know, but I would suspect there is little variation, but that is only my speculation.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:10:46 -0400
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Looting

I was watching the National Geographic channel a few nights back and found a live broadcast of 'return to titanic'.... In the programme they were showing how the ship had fared over the years since being found and they showed the 'then and now' footage. But one thing stuck out and that was how various people had plundered the wreck...[The FRENCH being named as one of them] This may seem a bit off topic but i wondered if over the years tighar had had the same problem with any recovery projects ? Maybe where you have discopvered a new aircraft etc announced it to the world and then you have returned and its been plundered...

the damage that has been done to the ship hastens its demise to the bottom of the ocean....

Alexander
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, we can cite countless examples of objects being looted from historic aircraft crash sites, but your query raises larger questions.

What's the difference between "recovering" and "plundering"? Is it better to remove items to a museum for preservation or allow them to decay in situ?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:16:04 -0400
From:         Al Hillis
Subject:      Re: weather question

I went to the website www.askjeeves.com and entered "When does "ITCZ strength weaken". Several topics appeared in the form of PDF files including recent evaluations. It was very interesting info, at least to me. They spoke of what and when weakening occurs by having radar observations.

Hope this helps some in your question. My question is, "are the exact conditions known at the time of her expected arrival to her destination".

Thank you for a new avenue of exploration.

Respectfully
Al Hillis
************************************************************************
From Ric

The weather at Howland when she  was known to be close by (based on the strength of her radio transmissions) is well documented in the Itasca's hourly deck log observations and by weather observations taken on Howland.  It was  very typical Central Pacific morning with light winds and a scattered deck of cumulus clouds.  There is no indication that the ITCZ was a factor.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:41:32 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Douglas plant

Since we are all interested in Amelia Earhart and her Lockheed 10 Electra, I have question which is not really as off-topic as it looks. Is there any truth in what I hear, namely that Boeing is going to tear down the Douglas plant at Long Beach airfield and turn it into a multi-billion dollar housing project and a "Douglas Park" ?

I visited that Douglas plant years ago (as I also visited Boeing's at both Renton and Everett) and Lockheed's at Burbank. Boeing built the model 247 in Renton (1931 I guess). It was the first modern airliner at the time and a trend setter with twin engines, retracting landing gear and Fowler flaps. Since Boeing was too busy building them for United Airlines, TWA went to see Douglas about a competing design. this sent Douglas working on his DC-1/DC-2 and eventually the legendary DC-3. This prompted Lockheed to launch its own 10 seat airliner : the Lockheed 10 Electra. It was faster than both the Boeing 247 and the DC-2 and later developed into the bigger Lockheed 14 and Lockheed 18, all with the characteristic twin stabilizer which became typical for Lockheed designs. This aerodynamic idea later  developed into the three stabilizer Lockheed 049  Constellation, a four engine airliner which in my view is one of the aerodynamically most successful aircraft ever designed.

Lockheed is still around but is no longer in the airliner business. Douglas had to merge with McDonnell to survive and the merged company was eventually bought by Boeing. Next the Douglas brand disappeared and the last Douglas model ever designed is now called the Boeing 717. It is a fact a re-engined and updated DC-9-30.

LTM
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know whether Boeing plans to tear down the building or not.  Do you think it should be preserved?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:17:10 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Recovery versus Plunder

>What's the difference between "recovering" and "plundering"?

In my opinion, carefully removing an artifact from a wreck, without causing any unnecessary damage, following accepted archaeological practices, and then placing the object in a setting (museum) where the general public can enjoy it, is recovering.

Dynamiting wrecks and grabbing the goods for private sale is plundering, or near to it.

That said, I also feel that the vessels status before wrecking is also a factor. Government vessels (and planes), wrecked or not, belong to the folks who pay for them: the taxpayers.

>Is it better to remove items to a museum for preservation or allow 
>them to decay in situ?

In my opinion, in the case of the Titanic, better in the museum. On the deep ocean bottom, they'd be inaccessible to all but a few. I feel differently about shallow wrecks, which are more accessible, and are good for sport divers. That Jaluit wreck is fascinating.

I don't understand maritime law, though, and who owns the wrecks. Do insurers that have paid off an owner then assume ownership of the wreck?

It is probably full of inconsistencies, but that is generally how I feel.

LTM,
************************************************************************
From Ric

Your "accessibility  factor" is an interesting way of looking at the problem.  By that standard, removal of items from RMS Titanic was justified because the wreck can only be visited by a privileged few whereas the removed artifacts are touring the world as part of an exhibition.

The same standard might apply if the wreckage of Earhart's Electra were discovered in deep water (whether off the reef at Niku, northwest of Howland, or in Tokyo Bay).

The situation Jaluit is unique in that two virtually identical rare aircraft are present - one so accessible that it can be easily viewed by snorkelers on the surface, and the other nearby in water too deep for safe sport diving.  This would seem to present a best-of-both-worlds situation in which one aircraft could be recovered and preserved while the other remained to be enjoyed in situ.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:50:41 -0400
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Re: Douglas plant

Yes, it is a fact that everything west of Lakewood Blvd. is being torn down. As I write the work is in progress. The only Boeing aircraft buildings left will be those east of Lakewood Blvd. There will be very little left of what used to known as Douglas Aircraft plant.

Politics at work as to housing so close to Runway 25 right.  The concept is for small soft business such as computers, electronics, crafts ECT. With the workers living in the homes built in the park.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:12:49 -0400
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: Looting

Ric wrote:

> Yes, we can cite countless examples of objects being looted from
> historic aircraft crash sites, but your query raises larger questions.

I read once that the Sierra Club was hiking the hills and cutting up wrecked airplanes as a part of their "environmental work."

> What's the difference between "recovering" and "plundering"?
> Is it better to remove items to a museum for preservation or allow
> them to decay in situ?

Partly, this question is a matter of context.  My world is early colonial America, and any artifacts are either vestigial due to decay in situ  or they have been carefully preserved.  I fall on the "put it in a museum" side as a result of this.

I've recently fallen into an internship at a museum of the American Civil War.  They have a similar situation, but not precisely the same: some artifacts are being uncovered in attics and at estate sales.   Those who possess the artifacts (also, diaries and the like) tend either do not understand what they have or they want to destroy it.  So, here, I argue for museum preservation.

Speaking of this, I wonder what ever happened to the balloons used by both sides in the Civil War?  Hmmm...

LTM (who keeps her old check stubs, too)
Mike Holt
************************************************************************
From Ric

Scrapping of wrecks as part of environmental cleanup efforts is a problem, but it's a different problem than looting.  The cleaner-uppers don't recognize the historic value of some of the wrecks.

The problem of the trashing of artifacts in private collections once the collector has died is one of the principal arguments against private collecting, aka looting.

The problem with recovering objects to a museum is, of course, that you lose the context.  No one would suggest that the stone wall at Little Round Top be removed to a museum.  Sometimes, however, the context is worth losing for the sake of preserving the artifact.  For example, a Battle of Midway veteran SBD Dauntless was later lost in a training accident and ended up on the bottom of Lake Michigan.  Museum preservation of the airplane was clearly more important than preserving its in situ context. The machine was recovered and is now in the National Museum of Naval Aviation collection .

But what about situations in which the in situ context is part of what makes the aircraft historic?  Leaving it there means that it will probably go away faster than if it was recovered but maybe it's worth it to have a more complete historic site for a shorter time.  Which is the more powerful experience - to view an object in a museum or be with it "on the scene" of the event that made it historic?  Who would not rather tour the Titanic in a submersible than stroll through an exhibit of artifacts retrieved from the wreck?  But we're back to accessibility question again.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:34:42 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: balloons

I don't know about the balloons. But I do know that during the Civil War a young German cavalry officer was sent to the US as an observer to report on the technical and military aspects of the war and he learned a lot. By the way, Germany did not exist at the time. It was still a patchwork of little kingdoms. That young officer was one count Zeppelin. I believe he was sent to America by the general staff of the army of the kingdom of Wurtenberg, but this is of little importance. Zeppelin observed the use of balloons in the American Civil War, reported on their use and began thinking of a better way of using them. After having fought against the French in the 1870-71 war (the one the French lost) he returned to balloons and began building airships. Zeppelin did not invent the dirigible. That was done by a Frenchman around 1852 but he had not been too successful. It was Zeppelin who thought of capturing several gas-filled balloons in a metal frame, thus inventing the rigid airship. By the turn of the 20th century Zeppelin airships were a household word. In 1909 Zeppelin's Deutsche Luftschiffahrtreedrei began domestic air services in Germany carrying passengers. Not a single passenger was lost until the operation was stopped by the war in 1914. In WW I both the German imperial army and the navy used Zeppelin airships as bombers until 1916. By that time they had become too vulnerable to fighter aircraft attacking with incendiary bombs.

After the war the Germans had to hand over some of their Zeppelins to the victors, including the USA, then began building a new series of long range airships of which the "Graf Zeppelin" and the "Hindenburg" were known worldwide because of the long voyages they made.

It all ended, as mentioned in this forum a short time ago, in 1937. By the way, whether there had been a blue light or not on the upper side of the Hindenburg remains a mystery. I asked an American friend of mine who attended a meeting of graduates at Princeton University earlier this month. He asked several professors who should or could have known but he was unable to find anyone who remembered any Princeton professor having watched the Hindenburg disaster and having commented on it or having mentioned that light blue light that is being mentioned today.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:12:13 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Douglas plant

Should it (the former Douglas plant at Long Beach) be preserved ? I don't know. I remember visiting the Santa Monica museum in 1998, where the Douglas story began. I talked to a guide who said : "It eats my heart out to hear them calling them Boeings today"... As far as I know even the Santa Monica museum had to move out of Santa Monica. With the Douglas plant at Long Beach being torn down there is nothing left of that once proud Douglas brand. If you look up at the sky any aircraft flying over America is called a Boeing these days. With Douglas gone and Lockheed n longer building airlines, it's no wonder the only competition comes from Airbus.

LTM (who believes the consumer is always right)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:07:26 -0400
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Re: Looting

From Lawrence:

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment. Say you find Amelia's 10E on another island other than Niko. The craft is fully intact will all gear still stowed aboard. What do you do? Remove it to a museum so generations will be able to view it or leave it alone and let it rot? I think the object in question dictates what is to be done (based on its historical value). After all, you would not move all the ships that are on the bottom of Truck lagoon to a museum.
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

The devil has many advocates.  A counter- argument might be that Earhart's 10E has no historical significance aside from the fact that Earhart disappeared in it.  It's the mystery of Earhart's disappearance and the efforts to solve it, rather than the fact that she disappeared, that have become historic.  In that sense, the most important thing about the Electra is its location (wherever that might be) and to remove it from that context would be to disrupt and dismantle an historic site.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:09:02 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: Looting

In regards to the subject of looting, are there any TIGHAR members who were part of the Geomarex 10 year geological survey of the Phoenix Islands during the late 1970's and early 1980's?

How extensively has TIGHAR looked into their finding?

************************************************************************
From Ric

There was no 10 year geological survey.  Geomarex did some prospecting for minerals in the Phoenix Group in October of 1978 during which they visited Gardner and Sydney.  They were at Gardner for four days (Oct 24-27).  They returned to the Phoenix Group in 1979 and visited Canton and Hull.  No exploitable minerals were found.

I talked to two members of the Geomarex expedition in 1989 and we have copies of their daily log and final report as well as  aerial photos taken by Geomarex as part of the survey.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:49:14 -0400
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Re: Looting

I would define plundering anything that further destroys what is left of a vessel plundering it. If on the other hand the taken objects were just lying around nearby like in the many thousands of cups and saucers then i would count that more as preserving as it does not cause damage to the main vessel.

This is of course just my thoughts on the ship but there are ways of preserving without damage. I know that in the near future the ship will tip over the edge of an abyss now in that situation then yes maybe ripping out what you can would be better.

Alexander
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:36:36 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Merrill/Lambie

Ric wrote:

>They returned with film of the coronation of
>King George VI and flew nonstop westbound more
>than 24 hours from London to Boston and still
>had 170 gallons remaining.

Do we know the exact duration of this flight to Boston or the weight of the aircraft on departure? What is the source of this information? I seem to have some inconsistent information. I note that Long says that the aircraft had nearly 97 gal fuel left at New York. There seems to be some considerable discrepancy in average gph calculated from these two points. The time quoted for England - New York is 24 hr 22 min 25 sec. Since Boston is a couple of hundred miles from New York, how did they do it in less than 22 mins?

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

The most reliable information on the Merril/Lambie flights comes from New York Times coverage and articles in Aero Digest, Newsweek and Time.

The return flight from England departed Ainsdale Beach on the shore of the Irish Sea at 2115Z on May 13, 1937.The Atlantic crossing was made without difficulty despite some low weather which they had cleared by the time they reached Newfoundland.   However, once they were south of Maine, despite the forecast of clear conditions, a weak low pressure area had formed off the Atlantic coast and low clouds and visibility were blanketing the eastern seaboard.  As they approached the Boston area with solid cloud below Merrill and Lambie tried to pick up the low-frequency radio range.( The Daily Express was not equipped with DF.) Their plan was to fly the southern leg of the Boston range until they could pick up the range for Newark but they soon discovered that their hearing had become so deadened after 20 hours of sitting between the Electra's engines that they couldn't pick out the A and N audio signals. Forced to descend to figure out where they were, they stumbled upon Squantum Naval Air Station, landed, and discovered they were just south of Boston. How long all this took is difficult to reconstruct.

We don't know the time of landing at Squantum or when they departed but we do know that they were only on the ground for 20 minutes - just long enough to ask where they were and check the tanks.  They found that they had 170 gallons remaining and elected not to refuel.  When they took off Lambie estimated that they'd arrive in New York at 2130Z(16:30 EST). Their actual arrival at Floyd Bennet was at 2137Z(16:37 EST).

2015Z(15:15 EST):
Eastern Airlines sent a message to Merrill, "Rickenbacker wants you to land at Floyd Bennett. Under no circumstances go to Newark."

Newark had been briefly zero/zero in fog and drizzle but had lifted to 500 and a mile. Floyd Bennett was lower and flights were diverting to Newark, but the big welcoming ceremony was waiting at Floyd Bennett. Merrill apparently did not reply directly to this message, which may be an indication that they were on the ground at Squantum at that time.

2035Z(015:35 EST):
Another message from Rickenbacker, "Don't land at Newark." This time Merrill replied, "Leave me alone. Will get down all right."

2040Z(15:40 EST):
Voice message from Merrill (perhaps realizing that he had just snapped at his famously cantankerous boss) , "Thirty minutes south of Boston. Will land Floyd Bennett if I have to walk."

This would suggest that they left Squantum/Boston at about 2010Z.If so, then they covered the 200 miles from Boston to New York in 1 hour and 27 minutes for a ground speed of 138 mph. If they didn't get off in time to hear Rickenbacker's 2015 message then they made a groundspeed of at least 147 mph.

Either way, it looks like they landed at Squantum around 1950Z (14:50 EST) or maybe a bit later. A straight shot from Onawa, Maine to Squantum is 225 miles. They were over Onawa at 1705Z expecting to make 210 mph which should have gotten them to the Boston area at 1809Z.It appears, therefore, that there was a period of roughly an hour and three quarters when they were trying to pick up the range, looking for (in Merrill's words) a "sucker hole", and eventually descending blind until they found the bottom of the overcast at 800 feet and then "scud-running" until they happened upon Squantum.

If we put them on the ground at Squantum at 1950Z they had been in the air for about 21 and a half hours. The airplane was found to have, at that time, 170 gallons remaining aboard having burned 1100 gallons. In other words, carrying more weight than Earhart and flying against headwinds at low altitude for most of the flight, Merrill still went 21.5 hours on 1,100 gallons of gas.

Long's contention that they had 97 gallons remaining when they reached New York would mean that they burned 73 gallons in the roughly hour and a half flight from Boston - an entirely credible 48.6 gph.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:48:00 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Merrill/Lambie

Ric,

That is a wonderfully comprehensive reply. Thanks.

Was the 20 mins on the ground at Squantum actually timed or was this someone's estimate? Is there any record of the aircraft's weight when it left Ainsdale? It would seem then that the most accurate way of estimating fuel consumption must be to deduct the 20 mins from the total flight time (if the 20 mins is indeed accurate). ie 24:12 less 20 is 23:52. In this time they used 1173 gal for 49.15 gph. KJ's figures under schedule II (straight to 8,000ft) produce 45.55 gph over 24 hr 09min, indicating an average 3.6 gph penalty for flying lower than his recommendations, (always assuming M/L used similar economical settings to those KJ proposed). KJ's schedule I was more economical than Schedule II and so the discrepancy here was slightly larger.

Comments anyone??

There does seem too small a difference between the 49.15 and the 48.6 you calculate, as the plane should have been running much more economically at low weight, perhaps around 40 gph on the way to FBF.

73/40 would give a flight time of 1.8 hr to FBF which seems quite reasonable if they had a headwind.

Regards Angus
************************************************************************
From Ric

I would imagine that the 20 minutes on the ground at Squantum is a ballpark figure and, as far as I know, the aircraft was not weighed at Ainsdale.  Ainsdale was just a long stretch of beach.  No facilities for weighing and Merrill's approach seems to have been, "Just give me all the fuel we can get aboard and I'll see if I can it off the ground."

The Merrill/Lambie flights are the great untapped source of information about what the Lockheed 10E Special airplane was capable of.  Those who insist that Earhart ran out of gas soon after the last message heard by the Itasca must explain why NR16020 performed so abysmally compared to its sister ship NR16059.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:32:43 -0400
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: Looting

What are some of the examples of historic artifacts successfully preserved in their context?  The stone wall at Little Round Top was mentioned a few days ago, but like most civil was sites the surrounding area has changed to the point where the context is different today than it was when the area become historic.  There are several P-38s in the ice in Greenland, but they are difficult to visit and nature will eventually grind them to dust. In a visit to the Titanic the biggest impression may be how badly it has been plundered.  Even the USS Arizona is at risk to corrosion.

In the 1970s the USS Monitor was discovered off the Outer Banks.  There was some public interest in recovering it intact, but it was made an historic site and "preserved", probably because technology as insufficient to successfully recover it.  After realizing that the wreck was rapidly deteriorating recent expeditions have recovered the turret, steam engine, and sundry artifacts for public display.

Each artifact is its own case.  Education will only go so far.  My cousin once dated a girl who was arrested for taking a fossil from a national park. I know friends of friends who collect civil war artifacts, often without the benefit of permission and eBay provides a ready market for their disposal. Other than buildings or objects too large to move and house indoors, what are some examples of artifacts left in situ but not vandalized, plundered, or lost to nature?  How was this arranged so the artifact will be protected for the ages?

Here is a link to what I feel is the a best-case example of an aircraft recovery.  The 89 year old pilot was present to see his Hurricane's engine recovered.  Eventually the remains will be displayed in the Imperial War Musuem.  The artifact and its history are safely interred within the culture that gives it meaning.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040601/ap_on_sc/britain_unearthed_plane_3

LTM who knows nothing last forever
-JMH
0634C
************************************************************************
From Ric

You raise some interesting questions and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I believe that these things are worth thinking about - especially when we find ourselves having to make decisions about what actions to take, or not take, with respect to historic properties.

>What are some of the examples of historic artifacts successfully
>preserved in their context?

How about some historic aircraft?

Douglas B-23, Army Air Corps serial number 39-052, at Loon Lake, Idaho.  Very rare aircraft.  Largely intact.  Beautiful setting.  Accessible to hikers.  Placards erected at the site told the story of what happened.  It was a textbook example of in situ preservation - until the United States Air Force Museum came in and ravaged the site to obtain components they could use as patterns in the rebuilding of another B-23.  They destroyed the structural integrity of the aircraft at Loon Lake and it has since been flattened by snowpack.  Tragic.

Boeing B-29, USAAF serial number 45-21768 (aka Kee Bird), Greenland. Rare aircraft.  Entirely intact.  Amazing setting.  Accessible by aircraft.  Destroyed during recovery attempt.

Boeing B-17E, Army Air Corps serial number 41-2446, Agaiambo Swamp, Papua New Guinea.  Extremely rare aircraft.  Largely intact.  Amazing setting.  Accessible by helicopter.  Protected from recovery attempts (including one in 1986 by a young and misguided organization called TIGHAR) by the government of Papua New Guinea and by the astronomical expense of operating in such a remote and hostile environment.  The aircraft is still there, right where it belongs.

>There are several P-38s in the ice in Greenland, but they are
>difficult to visit and nature will eventually grind them to dust.

Yes...but nature will eventually grind everything to dust. "As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more." (Psalms 103: 15-16)

There is no such thing as "permanent preservation" and even the finest museums can, and do, fall victim to natural and man-made disasters. But often the greatest threat to historic properties is not "the teeth of time" but rather "the hands of mistaken zeal".  One of those frozen P-38s you mention was recovered at great expense and hazard only to be destroyed by turning it into a flyable replica of itself with the phony name "Glacier Girl".  The remaining P-38s under the ice are better off right where they are until historic aircraft are recognized and treated as true historic properties.

Your example of  "a best-case example of an aircraft recovery" is revealing in that what was recovered was not an aircraft but rather a badly battered engine.  There are, of course, much better Merlin engines around.  What gives this one its perceived value is its connection to the 89-year old pilot.  And that's the point.  It's about the people, not the artifacts.  That stone wall on Little Round Top is a catalyst that helps us imagine and appreciate the experience of our fellow human beings who fought, bled and died on both sides of that wall.  The Hurricane engine was serving no purpose buried in the ground and will be treated as an historic property  - so recovery, while the pilot is still around, makes sense.

>I know friends of friends who collect civil war artifacts, often
>without the benefit of permission and eBay provides a ready market for their
>disposal.

That is looting in its purest form and it's despicable.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:57:07 -0400
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Looting

I don't want to get off topic but the stone wall on Little Round Top was added long after the battle. Our private tour guide last summer told us that Chamberlain was very offended by it when he attended the dedication of the monument to the 20th Maine Infantry. Just a little tidbit of history.

LTM,
Mike Haddock, #2438

************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mike.  That's fascinating.  I knew that the current forest setting, faithfully recreated by Holly wood in "Gettysburg", was wrong (The hill had been logged off sometime prior to the battle.) but I didn't know about the stone wall.

The revelation that it wasn't there makes another interesting point about historic artifacts.  It's our PERCEPTION of historical authenticity, not ACTUAL authenticity, that acts as a catalyst for connecting with people and events of the past. Issues of religious faith aside, there is nothing magical about relics.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:06:31 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Merrill/Lambie flight

Ric writes:

>Merrill still went 21.5 hours on 1,100 gallons of gas.>>

That's an average of a little over 51 GPH. That should mean Earhart would have had a bit better gas mileage as the Daily Express was heavier. If we arbitrarily suggest a gph of 48 then at 8:43 L she would have been down to 130 gallons. I had originally suggested 139. If she could then maintain 38GPH she had almost three and a half hours to dry tanks. How fast could the Electra fly and still hold 38 GPH? How far could she go on 130 gallons?

I am not pretending she averaged 48 GPH. I have no precise idea what that figure should be but 48 is going to be close as I look at the performance charts.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:47:45 -0400
From:         Ric
Subject:      Forum glitch

The forum was down for a couple of days due to a glitch but we're back up and running.  Sorry for the inconvenience.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:49:32 -0400
From:         Daryll
Subject:      Daryll's hypothesis

Today was the first time I read TIGHAR's research bulletin dated Nov. 2003 :

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/47_Katagateman.html

"....For this reason, and simply to complete the historical record, it would be very helpful if anyone with knowledge of search efforts in the Gilberts to contact the authors....[TIGHAR]"

OK, why doesn't your research staff investigate the voyage of Astor's (FDR's friend) Nourmahal. Most historians accept that this was just an espionage mission to find out what was going on in the pre-war Marshalls. Doesn't anyone wonder WHY historians freely admit to this being a pre-war spy mission into the Marshalls by prominent private US citizens? This spying aspect of the voyage was meant to mask the true purpose of the voyage was to look for AE & FN in the Marshalls.

GPP's frustrations with the progress of the Gilberts search seems quite evident from your research bulletin. GPP was supposed to be in the Galapagos during the Nourmahal's voyage.

Why the Marshalls ?

"....Reflections on the Earhart Mystery

According to Earhart biographer Doris Rich, Earhart's plan on the Lae-Howland leg of the world flight was to "hunt for Howland until she had four hours of fuel left, and then, if she had not located it, to turn back to the Gilberts Island and land on a beach."[21] This reported plan, which Rich says was conveyed by Earhart to her friend and backer Eugene Vidal, has led some Earhart researchers to suggest with some confidence that it was in the Gilberts that Earhart and Noonan crashed.....[TIGHAR]"

"....until she had four hours of fuel left,..."

This is what we saw happen from the radio messages and the lack of messages after a certain time by the ITASCA. By 10:30 am ITASCA time they were approaching the 180 meridian heading back for what they thought was the Gilberts.

Vidal very likely conveyed this to FDR at their July meeting where no one took notes. The pressure for searching the Gilberts was reinforced by the "281 message" that was received on July 5th. This is reflected in the telegram from the Sec. of State.

".....On August 7 (the same day, but next date due to the International Dateline) the WPHC received this telegram from the Secretary of State: "United States Ambassador states that evidence, which to many sources seems positive, indicates that Miss Earhart was on land two nights following disappearance. Note proceeds to ask if further search of Gilbert Islands could be made at expense, if necessary, of husband, Putnam,.....[TIGHAR]"

"...two nights..." corresponds to the reception of the "281 message".

Like I have been saying all along. If 281 were regarded as a compass direction from the LOP, landfall could have been in the Gilberts OR the Marshalls. The Marshalls (MILI ATOLL) and the Northern Gilberts are only separated by about 120 miles. That is not much when you are LOST either north or south of Howland and have to travel several hundred miles to find land.

Daryll
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Okay, you've stated your hypothesis.  We're not going to test it because we think it's based upon nothing but fanciful speculation, so I guess it's up to you to prove us wrong.  How you gonna test it?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:50:04 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Fuel

Alan asks;

>If she could then maintain 38GPH she had almost three and a half
>hours to dry tanks. How fast could the Electra
>fly and still hold 38 GPH? How far could she go on 130 gallons?

So what's the answer ?

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:50:29 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Hollywood

Talking about Hollywood should not be off-topic when talking about Amelia Earhart... Anyone who has ever visited the Hollywood studios knows that. I admire Hollywood for its film making but will never take any Hollywood film serious any more. Some ten years ago Hollywood made a film about "The Battle of the Bulge" (December 1944). I happen to live near the area where that battle was fought. Somehow Hollywood decided to have the battle fought among mountains. The place looked like Switzerland. And then there was a desert where the Germans drove their Patton tanks through ! There are no deserts in Europe. Too much rain for that. I had bought the film on video believing it had some historic value. Having seen it I threw it  in the trash can, all 12 dollars worth of it.

LTM (who remembers Snow White and the Flintstones are Hollywood products too)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:51:11 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Restoration?

Ric said:

>Thanks Mike.  That's fascinating.  I knew that the current
>forest setting, faithfully recreated by Holly wood in "Gettysburg", was
>wrong (The hill had been logged off sometime prior to the battle.) but I
>didn't know about the stone wall.

Move your focus a little bit south of Gettysburg and look at the battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg to the Confederates).  The U.S. Department of the Interior now has plans to restore (can it do that?) the entire battle field to its original contours and vegetation by removing the many roads and buildings that have been erected since the battle on Sept. 17, 1862.

Over the past 20-30 years there has been serious encroachment over the mountains 3-5 miles east of the battle field that the view from the site doesn't resemble the original view in 1862.  So the park service is also working on preserving the "viewscape" to give the area the same look it had during the battle.  I don't know how they plan to evict the dozen of families that have settle on the mountain side, but they have something in mind for the entire Antietam battlefield and its "viewscape".

LTM, who is well restored and preserved

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

How does cleaning the landscape at a historic site differ from cleaning accumulated dirt and rust from an artifact?

A similar program (or rather "programme") was carried out about 20 years ago at the site of the 1746 Battle of Culloden near Inverness, Scotland.   What had once been barren moorland had grown up to pine forest so that it was very difficult for a visitor to envision how the ranks of the rebellious clans had been decimated by the King's artillery before they charged across the open ground onto the bayonets of the infantry.  I saw it before and after the "restoration" and I have to say that, from a historian's perspective, it was a big improvement.

Of course, the issue of private property rights raises a different question.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:32:09 -0700
From:         Ric
Subject:      Forum on Friday

I'm on the road with limited email access until Friday.  I should be able to catch up on the postings then.  Thanks for your patience.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:16:45 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Restoration

Ric wrote :

>How does cleaning the landscape at a historic site differ from
>cleaning accumulated dirt and rust from an artifact? A similar program
>(or rather "programme") was carried out about 20 years ago at the site
>of the 1746 Battle of Culloden near Inverness, Scotland.   What had once been
>barren moorland had grown up to pine forest so that it was very difficult for a
>visitor to envision how the ranks of the rebellious clans had been decimated by
>the King's artillery before they charged across the open ground onto the bayonets
>of the infantry.  I saw it before and after the "restoration" and I have to say
>that, from a historian's perspective, it was a big improvement. Of course, the
>issue of private property rights raises a different question.

The battlefield where the armies of the French emperor Napoleon were at last defeated on 18 June 1815, marking the end of an era of French control over Europe in the 19th century, is only 40 minutes away from where I live. The site is preserved and will forever remain what it was: open farmland. That was decided by the Belgian government in 1914. That is what had been decided also by the owner of most of the land : the heirs of the Duke of Wellington. Why his heirs? Because in those days generals were not paid in money but in real estate. It was given to him by  the king of the Netherlands. After Napoleon's previous defeat in 1814 the country which is now called Belgium had become part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the King Willem decided to build a monument on the site in  commemoration of this historic battle : a 60 meter pyramid of topsoil with a huge lion on top, made of the molten bronze of the captured French guns. The artificial hill is not a pretty sight but it marks the place that was the center of the battle was and also where Dutch infantry fought shoulder to shoulder with the British.

A problem arose some 20 years ago when a new freeway had to built... across the battlefield. Plans were adapted to save the landscape and the freeway became a sunken road, so the view of the historic battlefield has not changed. Which was a good idea. However, private property mentioned by Ric is a different question. Ten years or so ago MacDonald's built one of its famous hamburger restaurants next to the battlefield on a peace of real estate that was not protected. Which was not a good idea... I wonder when McDonalds is going to erect a restaurant next to Omaha Beach.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:20:54 -0400
From:         Jack Thomas
Subject:      Re: Looting

Mike Haddock wrote:

> I don't want to get off topic but the stone wall on Little Round Top
> was added long after the battle. Our private tour guide last summer
> told us that Chamberlain was very offended by it when he attended the
> dedication of the monument to the 20th Maine Infantry. Just a little
> tidbit of history.

Actually, they were built immediately after the Battle for Little Round Top, but DURING the Battle of Gettysburg.

Breastworks on Little Round Top were built the night of July 2 and on July 3 in preparation for an attack that never came.  The walls appear in photos taken only days after the battle.  Chamberlain would have been offended because they were not there during the 20th Maine's defense in the late afternoon/early evening hours of July 2.

So, while the walls have certainly been restacked a number of times over the years and may no longer be in the exact locations as the originals, they are certainly representative of the walls as they existed on the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg.

-J. Thomas
************************************************************************
From Kerry Tiller

Mike, that's a little tidbit of erroneous history. I was not aware that Chamberlain was offended by the existence of stone wall, but it does not surprise me. The stone wall was not there when Chamberlain and the 20th Maine made their heroic bayonet charge. It was a reconstruction of the stone breast works that the 44th and 140th New York Regiments spent the night of July 2nd/3rd building after Chamberlain's exhausted (and out of ammunition) troops were wisely sent to "re-enforce" the Union Center. The attempts to again collapse the Union left at Little Round Top on July 3rd were effectively thwarted by the stone walls erected during the night. The existence of these stone breast-works is well documented in the post battle photographs taken on July 6th by Gibson, Gardner and O'Sullivan, and show up in the Brady and Tyson brother photos taken up to two weeks after the battle. It is from these photos that the present wall was reconstructed using the stones on site. We, as historians, must temper our use of sources, no matter how good, with a look at every thing available. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain lived to be a ripe old age, and was an extremely literate man. He had the privilege of writing and telling his version of the battle in the end, with no one left to dispute him. This affected Michael Shaara's research for "Killer Angels" and the subsequent movie "Gettysburg", but it should not affect our perspective on the battle. Those stone breast works on Little Round top were every bit as affective in stopping the Rebels on July 3rd as Chamberlain was on July 2nd. Chamberlain stopped the attack with blood. The New York regiments stopped it with stone.

LTM (who still thinks I have too much useless knowledge)
Kerry Tiller
************************************************************************
From Ric

So it seems that we now have walls that were rebuilt using the same stones and that may or may not be where they originally were.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:38:17 -0400
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: Restoration?

How is restoring the battlefield near Inverness different from returning the Greenland P-38 to its original condition?

John Harsh
0634C
************************************************************************
From Ric

First - neither the battlefield nor the airplane were returned to their original condition.  It is as impossible to return a location or an object to its condition at some previous point in time as it is to raise the dead.  We can make a place or a thing look like we think it did at some previous moment in time but whatever we achieve will be an illusion.

In the case of Drumossie Moor (the site of the Battle of Culloden), trees that had grown up since 1746 were removed so as to make the place look more like it did back then, thus creating the illusion that time has stood still.

In the case of the P-38, the end result was similar  - the illusion that time has stood still - but it was achieved by removing and discarding most of the object's original physical material and replacing it with new material.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:47:35 -0400
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Astor's voyage

Ric wrote:

>Okay, you've stated your hypothesis. We're not going to test it because
>we think it's based upon nothing but fanciful speculation, so I guess
>it's up to you to prove us wrong. How you gonna test it?

I was only responding to your request in your last paragraph of your research paper.

"For this reason, and simply to complete the historical record, it would be very helpful if anyone with knowledge of search efforts in the Gilberts to contact the authors."

Then I suggested an area for some original research.

"OK, why doesn't your research staff investigate the voyage of Astor's (FDR's friend) Nourmahal. "

The Nourmahal was bigger than the Koshu. It could also carry an airplane if it had to.

FDR sent Astor on this voyage sometime over the winter of '37' - '38'. FDR made special arrangements for this voyage, presumably with the Navy and the British. We know the Navy gave Astor a special radio to communicate with and had prearranged code words. Astor was supposed to get to Jaluit. Carl Heine, an Australian missionary in Jaluit, acted as a translator for the Japanese Governor there. Carl Heine could have been Astor's intended contact person. Astor asked for permission from the Japanese and was denied so he spent his time cruising around the Gilberts and Elice islands.

It was only a suggestion, please excuse me for interrupting your more important discussions.

Daryll
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm curious to know where you came across the name Carl Heine and the information that he was an Australian missionary in Jaluit who acted as a translator for the Japanese Governor there.

Dr. Carl Heine is a very distinguished Marshallese gentleman who now lives in Majuro but was born and spent his childhood on Jaluit.  The Carl Heine you mention could be his father or grandfather.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:50:27 -0400
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Batalla de Protruberancia

For Herman:

If you're talking about the 1965 movie "Battle of the Bulge," it was filmed in Spain due to lower production costs (i.e., cheap labor) and the availability of scads of WW2-era tanks, courtesy of Franco's army.  Of course this would be like filming the Battle of the Wilderness in the Mojave Desert, but hey, it's Hollywood.

I was bothered more by the film's cop-out ending than its historical inaccuracies.  The Nazis were on the march -- then they ran out of gas and left.  Eisenhower denounced the film shortly after its release.

LTM (who watched "Gunsmoke" as a kid and still gets a chuckle from those high mountains just outside Dodge City, Kansas)

Pat Gaston
********************************************************************
From Ric

This was almost too far off-topic to post but the subject line is priceless.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:40:06 -0400
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Looting

Egads! Sorry I brought it up. Thanks for the lecture, Kerry!

Mike Haddock, #2438

************************************************************
From Ric

No, this is fascinating.  The stone wall on Little Round Top is a poster child for the problems of historic preservation.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:45:58 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Restoration

Hermann wrote:

>The battlefield where the armies of the French emperor Napoleon were
>at last defeated on 18 June 1815, marking the end of an era of French control
>over Europe in the 19th century, is only 40 minutes away from where I live.
>The site is preserved and will forever remain what it was : open farmland.
>....After Napoleon's previous defeat in 1814 the country which is now called
>Belgium had become part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the King Willem
>decided to build a monument on the site in commemoration of this
>historic battle : a 60 meter pyramid of topsoil with a huge lion on
>top, made of the molten bronze of the captured French guns.
>
>The artificial hill is not a pretty sight but it marks the place that
>was the center of the battle 
>was and also where Dutch infantry fought shoulder to shoulder with the British.

The building of the Battle of Waterloo pyramid took soil from the main ridge where the British made their stand.  The topography of the site has changed from the day of the battle due to this construction, rather drastically in terms of the details of the ridge and how the British used it. Nowadays, the ridge is rather flat and wide, whereas before, there was little flatness along its extent.  The pyramid is not at the center of the British line, but rather at the far western extent.  The current road that crosses the main valley and ridges goes to the central area where Wellington and the famous single elm tree were the command center.
********************************************************************
From Ric

Shades of Little Round Top.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:52:52 -0400
From:         Alexander
Subject:      The mountains of Dodge

Pat ended by saying :

>LTM (who watched "Gunsmoke" as a kid and still gets a chuckle from those
>high mountains just outside Dodge City, Kansas)

Out of interest pat doesn't Dodge have high mountains ? As i have only seen it on hollywood inaccurate movies and not in person I'm interested to know.

alexander
************************************************************************
From Ric

Dodge City is in Kansas.  Look at a map and find the Rocky Mountains.

Or if you would rather confine your research to Hollywood movies, watch The Wizard of OZ which includes a fairly accurate representation of the Kansas landscape.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:04:31 -0400
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Looting

> What's the difference between "recovering" and "plundering"?
> Is it better to remove items to a museum for preservation or allow them
> to decay in situ?

OK, here's one that seems pretty clear to me as "recovery," though it also pretty clearly destroys part of the historical context of the objects.

Rumors had it that after WWII a quantity of German, Japanese, Italian, English and other aircraft parts formerly stored at Freeman Field, near Seymour, Indiana, were disposed of by being buried at the site.  In 1997, after years of chasing down rumors, the stories were confirmed when quite a lot of these items were found and unearthed.  Much of the material was "recovered" and some "restored."
***********************************************************************
From Ric

To plunder is to "rob or despoil", to take for personal gain without regard for permissions or legalities of ownership.  Many of the aircraft "recovered" from the southwest Pacific by "warbird" salvagers in the 1970s were, in effect, plundered.  The Freeman Field excavations were done through proper channels.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:45:39 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Carl Heine

Ric wrote:

> I'm curious to know where you came across the name Carl Heine and the
> information that he was an Australian missionary in Jaluit who acted as
> a translator for the Japanese Governor there.
>
> Dr. Carl Heine is a very distinguished Marshallese gentleman who now
> lives in Majuro but was born and spent his childhood on Jaluit.  The
> Carl Heine you mention could be his father or grandfather.

He rates a mention here Ric,

The war brought its share of personal tragedy to all Marshallese, irrespective of their church affiliation. Carl Heine, the foreign-born trader who sank roots in the islands and became its foremost Protestant missionary, was executed by the Japanese in the early 1940s. Also executed were two Sacred heart priests, Frs. Durand and Marquis, who set out from the Gilberts and were lost at sea for three weeks before washing up on Mili in September 1943. The priests, who were arrested and interrogated by the Japanese military police, suddenly vanished from sight until their bullet-ridden bodies were found offshore and secretly buried by some Gilbertese Catholics. Some Marshallese survived only by virtue of extraordinary fortitude and resourcefulness, like the young church leader on Likiep who, upon learning that he was marked for execution, swam across the lagoon towing his mother on a wooden plank and completed his escape to another atoll on a small boat.

Th' WOMBAT
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

This is very interesting.  Tom King found the following reference:

>Interesting note about Carl Heine, who I'd always assumed was simply 
>a descendant of one of the many German traders who married into 
>Marshallese society in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But a quick
>google brought me to http://www.artworkoriginals.com/EB5SCUFV.HTM, a 
>pitch for the artwork of one Dean Ellis, which includes as background
>for a piece of art set in the Marshalls:
>
>As the early merchant ships sliced through the azure Pacific bringing
>traders to the Marshall Islands, life among the native people began to
>change. These new men brought new ways to the islands, which gradually
>blended with the old, combining the unique aspects of both. To enhance
>the Christmas Day celebrations, an Australian named Carl Heine helped
>to mix the old, native ways with Christian traditions. He and another
>man, James Milne, were or ordained as ministers on the Ebon and Jaluit
>atolls. Unlike their predecessors, the two helped to develop friendly
>competition between island churches and with their encouragement, the
>early practice of play-acting began to show up in the churches with
>re-enactments of Christmas bible stories.
>
>Milne is another important family name in the Marshalls today.

No mention of that Carl Heine being executed.  Maybe it was his son. The Carl Heine whom we recently interviewed in Majuro was born on Jaluit and witnessed, as a 6 year-old boy, the capture of the Americans who ditched their TBD Devastators in the lagoon in 1942.  His father or grandfather reportedly knew some English which they learned from a missionary (Rev. Carl Heine?) and they helped the Americans hide for several days before the Japanese took them prisoner, but Carl mentioned nothing about his father or grandfather later being executed by the Japanese ( and I'm quite sure he would have).  We interviewed another man who, as a boy, witnessed the TBD incident and he told us that Carl Heine's grandfather had helped the Americans, but again, no mention of any executions.

There was a strange incident in 1938 (I think) where someone found a letter addressed to Amelia Earhart in a post office in the Marshalls (on Jaluit?) and supposedly sent a letter about it to an Australian newspaper.  I've recently been told that the person who saw the letter to AE was named Carl Heine.  Does anybody have the full story on that incident?

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:00:01 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astor

Daryll wrote

>FDR sent  Astor on this voyage sometime over the winter of '37' -'38'.
>FDR made  special arrangements for this voyage, presumably with the Navy
>and the  British. We know the Navy gave Astor a special radio to
>communicate with  and had prearranged code words. Astor was supposed to
>get to  Jaluit.

Daryll, I have some unexpected time on my hands for a few weeks. I would be happy to look into Astor's voyage if you can provide support for the statements  in the above paragraph. I'm not going to deal with pure speculation, however.

I agree with you that at some point all credible theories need to be looked into if they have sufficient support to them and they are testable. If they have  no legitimate support and/or they are not testable their pursuit is an exercise  in futility.

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

As I understand it, it is well-established that access was denied by the Japanese authorities and Astor did not succeed in visiting any of the Marshall Islands.

Here's another interesting aside.

U.S. intelligence about Japanese facilities on Jaluit was apparently very poor.  Although the atoll was the Japanese headquarters for the Marshalls, there really wasn't much there in the way of fortifications or facilities. When we interviewed James Dalzell, the radioman/rear gunner in one of the TBDs that ditched in the lagoon on Feb. 1, 1942, he told us that when he was interrogated following his capture one of the main points he was grilled on was why they had attacked Jaluit.  The Japanese couldn't understand why the Americans would go to all that trouble.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:10:02 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Plunder or recovery?

OK, here's one to throw into the mix.  Recovery is currently underway on SS Republic, a sidewheeler sunk off the coast of Georgia at the end of the Civil War.  Lots of gold coinage aboard.  Recovery is, as far as I can tell, being carried out with a high level of archeological precision, under archeological supervision, but the coinage and probably some other artifacts will be sold after they're catalogued and analyzed.  Is this plundering, or recovery, or what?
************************************************************************
From Ric

If the operation is being carried out within the law and with agreement by all parties about how the recovered material is to be managed I don't see how it can be called plunder.

You can agree or disagree with the decisions and approvals concerning methodology and disposition of artifacts, but that's a different issue. The Air Force Museum, for example, did not "plunder" the Loon Lake B-23.  They went through proper channels and got permission from the U.S. Forest Service to salvage parts from the wreck.  I happen to think that bad decisions were made and great damage was done, but it was all done legally.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:35:41 -0400
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: restoration

Ric wrote:

> No, this is fascinating.  The stone wall on Little Round Top is a
> poster child for the problems of historic preservation.>>

Little Round Top has a much bigger problem than the stone wall. The modern paved road to the summit would probably upset Col. Chamberlain.  Any attempt to "preserve" a battlefield for the purpose of viewing it as it was at the time of the battle will be thwarted by nature. Landscape changes over time. The reason for preserving a battlefield is to honor those who fought there.

LTM
Kerry Tiller
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't think anyone would argue with that principle, but the question remains, "How do we do that?"

Here's another Scottish battlefield example.   The Battle of Bannockburn (1314) was arguably the most important in Scottish history.

The outnumbered forces of King Robert the Bruce won Scottish independence from England by defeating Edward II's army (as everyone who has seen the Mel Gibson cartoon knows).  Today the field is a housing development.  There's a very nice visitor's center nearby that shows a film and has a nice diorama of what it looked like back then and there's a really magnificent statue of  "the Bruce" on his warhorse - but there is no attempt to create any on-the-ground illusion that time has stood still for the last 700 years.

I think that, at any historic site, the purpose is to get the visitor to think about what happened here.  We all buy into the mystical fiction that somehow there is an enduring connection between the place and the event, as if dirt has a memory.  It's the way we're put together.  That chill goes up our spine if we can look around us and say, "Yes, this is where it happened."  The more the site looks like we imagine it did when the historical event took place, the easier it is to get that feeling of connection to the past that we're after.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:37:16 -0400
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: the mountains of Dodge

Ric wrote:

> Dodge City is in Kansas.  Look at a map and find the Rocky Mountains.
>
> Or if you would rather confine your research to Hollywood movies, watch
> The Wizard of OZ which includes a fairly accurate representation of the
> Kansas landscape.

If anybody is really interested, the first "Gunsmoke" shows were filmed at Old Tucson, a movie set built in the 1930s for a movie called "Arizona". The set was on the backside of the Tucson Mountains, about ten miles outside of the real Tucson. Even after "Gunsmoke" built their own Dodge City on a back lot in California, when ever Matt Dillon needed to go to another town, the crew would come to Tucson to use the Old Tucson set. It burned down a few years ago and has been rebuilt.

LTM (who loved to watch Gunsmoke)
Kerry Tiller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:39:56 -0400
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Carl Heine

Ric wrote:

>I'm curious to know where you came across the name Carl Heine and the
>information that he was an Australian missionary in Jaluit who acted as
>a translator for the Japanese Governor there.
>
>Dr. Carl Heine is a very distinguished Marshallese gentleman who now lives in
>Majuro but was born and spent his childhood on Jaluit. The Carl Heine you mention 
>could be his father or grandfather.

Our research has shown that Carl Heine, a missionary in Jaluit circa 1937, was Australian. He had two sons I believe. He was the same Carl Heine who published a story in the Pacific Monthly in May (?) 1938 about finding a letter addressed to Amelia Earhart in the Jaluit post office. Carl Heine and his wife were executed by the Japanese before the Americans arrived.

Below are excepts from a book by a French author published in 1939. There is no English version. I struggled with the translation because I don't understand the French language. It is a first person account about their experiences in Jaluit circa 1935 from what I have deduced. 

French speaking forum subscribers (Herman?) can have a go at it. I would be interested in reading their translation.

Daryll

pg 238


Le Capitaine a devinŽ bien vite de quoi il est soup�onnŽ : Çde faire de l'hydrographie pour le compte d'une puissance Žtrang�re.È De quelle puissance Žtrang�re ? C'est toute la question dŽsormais pour le gouverneur, tant il est sžr d'avoir vu juste et d'avoir ar�te un espion. Quant ˆ imaginer un instant que le Fou-Po soit entrŽ dans Jaluit pour un simple motif de convenance personnelle, cela ne lui viendra m�me plus ˆ l'esprit.

En vain le Capitaine lui montrera-t-il la coque salie de son navire, ses voiles dŽchirŽes. et son gouvernail incomplet et suspendu par des bretelles. Ces visions matŽrielles n'entameront, en rien la conviction du gouverneur : toutes ces avaries ne sont qu'un prŽtexte adroit don't se camoufle le Fou-Po, dangereux ennemi de l'Empire nippon, dont lui, gouverneur des Marshall, commande une marche des plus importantes, tant par sa situation gŽographique que par son incognito, fort mal dŽvoilŽ aux amirautŽs Žtrang�res par les anciennes cartes allemandes de ces atolls.

Le gouverneur est un homme d'une cinquantaine d'annŽes, toujours en tenue civile de toile blanche, et les cheveux rasŽs au millim�tre ; il porte une petite moustache en accent circonflexe autour de ses l�vres serrŽes. Il est grand pour un Japonais, ˆ peu pr�s de la taille du capitaine, lequel est plut™t petit pour un Fran�ais. Il est incroyablement maigre, d'une maigreur infatigable de fanatique ou d'asc�te. Dans la rue il marche une sorte de pas de l'oie, ou de pas romain comme on dit aujourd'hui, et il se prŽcipite, d�s qu'il la recontre, dans la longue vedette qui lui sert d'automobile et qui va toujours ˆ plein moteur ; m�me quand elle bat en arri�re pour accoster le Fou-Po en tossant horriblement sur sa pauvre coque.

pg 239

L'instruction du proc�s a lieu dans la RŽsidence, qui est voisine du poste de police : les interrogations du gouverneur se font en japonais et les rŽponses du Capitaine en anglais ; ils communiquent ensemble par l'intermŽdiaire d'un interpr�te que surveillent les yeux bridŽs et per�ants de l'inquisiteur. Cet interpr�te sera tant™t le commissaire d'un second paquebot qui a succŽdŽ au premier, tant™t un missionnaire australien , tant™t le commandant d'un transport de guerre. Le gouverneur aime ˆ varier ses procŽdŽs d'instruction, et il ne s'en fie, au demeurant, qu'ˆ lui-m�me. Certaines de ses malices sont cousues de fil blanc, comme celle-ci, par exemple, d'envoyer ˆ Tati, pendant l'heure d'un des interrogatoires du Capitaine ˆ la rŽsidence, un gros Japonais fort disert qui lui explique dans un anglais parfait, tout en lui servant de la bi�re, comment jadis il aurait travaillŽ glorieusement pour sa patrie en faisant du service de renseignements en AmŽrique du Sud, au pŽril, non seulement de sa libertŽ mais, parfois aussi, de sa vie. Tati approuve poliment, mais il ne peut tout de m�me pas rendre confidence pour confidence, ni se muer, pour faire plaisir ˆ ce personnage, en une sorte de colonel Lawrence ou m�me en un simple agent du Deuxi�me Bureau fran�ais. La bi�re heureusement n'est pas truquŽe, mais de bon aloi, et, pour Tati, c'est autant de gagnŽ. Le gouverneur, en son for intŽrieur, a vite conclu sinon ˆ l'innocuitŽ compl�te de Tati, du moins ˆ son ignorance des buts secrets de la croisi�re du Fou-Po : il le laissera donc ˆ peu pr�s en paix ˆ condition toutefois qu'il reste clo”trŽ ˆ bord et ne s'avise jamais de descendre ˆ terre.

Le Fou-Po est veillŽ pendant le jour par deux policiers de faction, l'un sur le quai et l'autre sur la jetŽe : la nuit, le projecteur du poste reste continuellement braquŽ sur la jonque et aveugle nos marins quand il leur arrive de prendre l'air sur le pont. Indig�nes et Japonais fuient pareillement le

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:06:21 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Carl Heine

>Frs.  Durand and Marquis, who set out from the Gilberts and were lost
>at sea for three weeks before washing up on Mili in September  1943.

Ross, I wish you hadn't wrote that. The crashed and sankers now have new food for thought. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:07:33 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astor

>As I  understand it, it is well-established that access was denied by
>the  Japanese authorities and Astor did not succeed in visiting any of
>the  Marshall Islands.

Ric, given the relationships and climate of the time, I would not doubt that. But if I hold Daryll's toes to the fire I need to point to some support for your comment. That would get Daryll off the hook because if Astor never made it to the Marshall's nothing else in the story has any significance. It wouldn't  matter if any part of the story is true or mere fancy.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:08:43 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Carl Heine

Using the Internet to translate the French into rough English I saw nothing in the excerpts of interest regarding Heine or Earhart.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:47:29 -0400
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Looting

> To plunder is to "rob or despoil", to take for personal gain without
> regard for permissions or legalities of ownership.  Many of the
> aircraft "recovered" from the southwest Pacific by "warbird" salvagers
> in the 1970s were, in effect, plundered.  The Freeman Field excavations
> were done through proper channels.

Yes, I wasn't trying to make a point about legalities, and I didn't mention "plunder" myself.  It was just part of the item I quoted to hook my item into the thread.  Perhaps should have hung this into the one of the other threads?

Anyway...

What I was getting into (or trying to) was that the recovery had removed the items from at least AN aspect of their historical context.  Or maybe not. Was the fact that all these parts were dumped and buried sixty years ago actually in any way relevant to their historical context?  If not, then I guess digging them up searching for them didn't much matter.  Part of what I thought was interesting about the whole thing was that it was all rumors and stories to begin with.  Then research was done and it became more solid. Then some ideas were developed about places to use ground radar, then some digging, then some more research and so on until success.  So I'd assumed (incorrectly?) that the fact they were where they were was a part of their relevance.  No?

      - Bill #2229
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't think that digging it up removed it from an important context. It had been disposed of - pushed into a hole with a bulldozer and covered over.  Had some German radar set, for example, been found in an abandoned building still hooked up to test equipment you could make the argument that the context was important, but that wasn't the situation.

Originally, the stories associated with Freeman Field alleged that captured German and Japanese aircraft were buried at the site.  We did some archival research and found that by the time stuff was buried, all of the aircraft and most of the interesting technology had been moved to Wright-Patterson AFB.  According to the records, most of what was buried was old mess hall equipment and so forth.  We decided that whatever might be there was not worth the trouble and expense of getting all the necessary permissions and digging it up, so we passed on the project.  As I understand it, a local group went ahead.  As I recall they had navigate their way through a tremendous amount of red tape but I don't think I ever heard what they actually found.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:49:24 -0400
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Looting

Ric wrote:

> Originally, the stories associated with Freeman Field alleged that
> captured German and Japanese aircraft were buried at the site.  We did
> some archival research and found that by the time stuff was buried, all
> of the aircraft and most of the interesting technology had been moved
> to Wright-Patterson AFB.

That's mentioned, though TIGHAR involvement isn't.

> According to the records, most of what was
> buried was old mess hall equipment and so forth.  We decided that
> whatever might be there was not worth the trouble and expense of
> getting all the necessary permissions and digging it up, so we passed
> on the project.  As I understand it, a local group went ahead.

Correct.  Two of them, actually.  The first gave up when its efforts played
out.  The second stuck with it and succeded.

> As I
> recall they had navigate their way through a tremendous amount of red
> tape but I don't think I ever heard what they actually found.

Radios, tails, compressors, some Me-262 engine parts, air bottles, bomb selectors, rocket parts.  Things like that.

Details at http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/FF_museum.html with  some pictures of some of the stuff recovered.

      - Bill #2229

************************************************************************
From Ric

Looking at what they found I think we made the right call.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:51:49 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Astor & Nourmahal cruise

Astor sent a cable to FDR I believe in  Dec 38, sort of a emergency cable , then sent a rather full report/letter to FDR concerning his observations of potential Japanese buildup on various atolls in the Gilberts. He did not get to land. His letter which is available is rather interesting.

Ron Bright
************************************************************************
From Ric

The Gilberts were British until December 1941.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:53:10 -0400
From:         Rick Metzger
Subject:      Re: the mountains of Dodge

I guess nobody from Dodge City KS. reads this forum. Dodge City is set in the side of a hill. I did some photography for their Museum around 1985 and wanted to shoot some actual wagon train wheel marks (ruts). I was told that there was an area set aside about 5 miles west of town where there was a marker and sets of wagon wheel depressions. Great. I get there and find these deep depressions that were washed out leading to a cement marker that had a bronze plaque. I shoot some pics and turned them into the museum. I got a call shortly afterwards stating that I had shot the wrong tracks. A few weeks later I met the manager of the museum at the site. He pointed out that the wagon tracks were running east and west while the tracks I shot ran north and south. He stated that the deep tracks I shot were from the truck that had poured the cement for the marker. I pointed out to him that they crossed over and had damaged the original wagon ruts. And I also told while I was shooting the truck tracks there must have been at least 10 families that were shooting the same tracks as I had ...

There are hills around Dodge City, but no mountains.

Let's modernize an original site by destroying original wagon tracks. Later there was an article in the paper (with my photo)that made reference to the damaged tracks and that a group had gone out to the site and restored the area. How? I went out to the site about three years later and found that they had filled in the truck tracks and part of the original ones in order to make a walkway with arrows pointing out the original tracks.

Rick Metzger
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:08:35 -0400
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: Carl Heine

Ric -

Do you still need the French doc extract translated? If so let me know, but I can get on it only in a day or so due to a tight schedule. 

This is my first communication with your site since I discovered it as soon as I got my first PC and onto the Net a couple months back. I skimmed thru just about all of your data with exception of the Forum in one marathon session. Some very interesting speculations, but I've caught a few points that seem way out in left field, and that have surely been brought to your attention long before this, e.g. why the interest and wasted effort in studying floatsam bearing a bar code since bar codes did not exist until more than 30 years after E.A.'s last flight. 

More speculation to come in the future as time permits. Some fair time back I knew a couple of our aviation pioneers, one who had met A.E. a few times, and one whose path crossed hers on occasion without actually meeting her, but did have considerable contact with people about her. Wish I had had the chance to pick their brains. Neither of them had anything complimentary to say about her skills as a pilot, but as a person they certainly had to admit their admiration.

Mark Guimond
************************************************************************
From Ric

It would be nice to have the text translated if only to end speculation about what it says.

The flotsam bearing a barcode was not flotsam.  It was a partly-burned piece of a paper can label that was excavated from the remains of a small fire very near where we found the remains of a shoe in 1991. We had reason to suspect that the shoe might have been Earhart's so we naturally wonder if the fire and the label were also associated with her.  It did not have a barcode on it.  It had a just a couple of tiny marks that one of our researchers, upon close examination, thought might be a fragment of a barcode.  Some excellent research confirmed that it was indeed part of a barcode, thus eliminating that artifact from consideration as part of the puzzle.   Some of our best work has been in proving that objects we've found are NOT part of the Earhart puzzle.  The navigator's bookcase, the "knob", the can label, and many other artifacts have been successfully identified and eliminated.  That makes the handful of artifacts that have survived our rigorous efforts to eliminate them all the more credible.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:13:11 -0400
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Jeez

Alan wrote:

>Ric, given the relationships and climate of the time, I would not
>doubt that. But if I hold Daryll's toes to the fire I need pointed to
>some support for your comment. That would get Daryll off the hook
>because if Astor never made it to the Marshall's nothing else in the
>story has any significance. It wouldn't matter if any part of the story
>is true or mere fancy.

Alan, you're going to hold who's toes to what fire???

Because this is a forum I guess I just have to put up with your comments. I personally don't care for your research abilities. An example of that is your half-hearted attempt at a translation.

>Using the Internet to translate the French into rough English I saw
>nothing in the excerpts of interest regarding Heine or Earhart.

If you recall, Ric's question was how I knew that Carl Heine acted as a translator for the Japanese governor on Jaluit.

Let me narrow it down for you.

Cet interpr�te sera tant™t le commissaire d'un second paquebot qui a succŽdŽ au premier, tant™t un missionnaire australien , tant™t le commandant d'un transport de guerre.

How many Australian Missionaries do you think were on Jaluit during this time period?

Do me a favor and stay away from the Nourmahal story. You couldn't put 2 and 2 together without the plus "+" sign. The Nourmahal voyage was the one and only attempt by FDR to put a civilian boat into the Marshalls on Earhart's behalf.


Daryll
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Let's accept for the moment that the Nourmahal voyage was an attempt by FDR to put a civilian boat into the Marshall's.  Is there any mention anywhere in the available documentation that suggests that it somehow "on Earhart's behalf"?

In any event, the attempt failed.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:44:09 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Looting

Bill Leary said:

>Rumors had it that after WWII a quantity of German,
>Japanese, Italian, English and other aircraft parts formerly stored at
>Freeman Field, near Seymour, Indiana, were disposed of by being buried
>at the site.  In 1997, after years of chasing down rumors, the stories
>were confirmed when quite a lot of these items were found and unearthed.
>Much of the material was "recovered" and some "restored."

Equally bad was the U.S. Navy treatment of the two (?) AR-234 jet bombers it acquired after the war.  When they were finished test flying (such as it was) them at Patuxent Naval Air Station in Lexington Park, Maryland, they used them as filler for the extension of the new runways. If you venture to the end of the runway and climb down a ravine you can still see pieces of the aircraft sticking out of the dirt.

So, if I took a rivet from one of those pieces that would be looting or plundering, but if the Navy uncovered the wreckage and used what little was left to rebuild a AR234  that would be  . . . ahh . . . .ahh . . . I'm at a loss for words here.

LTM, who has not plundered or looted but has ransacked
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

If you took a rivet you would be taking something that doesn't belong to you.  What the Navy does or does not choose to do with it is up to them.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:47:57 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: restoration

Ric said:

>Here's another Scottish battlefield example.   The Battle of
>Bannockburn (1314) was arguably the most important in Scottish history .
>. .  but there is no attempt to create any on-the-ground illusion that
>time has stood still for the last 700 years.

I see the point.  And a bit closer to home a parallel could be drawn of The Sunken Road site at Antietam.  Comparing photos of the site shortly after the battle and looking at it today one can see the road is deeper, with steeper sides, than it was in September, 1862.  I assumed the changes were caused by people continuing to use the road for several years after the battle (before the park service turned the battlefield into a monument) and natural erosion.  Nonetheless, standing in the sunken road, and knowing the history of that "dirt," still evokes some strong emotions.

LTM, who avoided marching
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

A Park Service guide at Gettysburg once told me about a woman who scolded him that it was obvious that the battle had not really been fought there or all those monuments would have bullet holes in them.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:50:43 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Looting

Ric says, with regard to a project that's carefully recovering historical material that will then be sold:

>If the operation is being carried out within the law and with agreement
>by all parties about how the recovered material is to be managed I
>don't see how it can be called plunder.

I agree completely, but it's worth being aware that many if not most professional archaeologists would argue that, in essence, the end invalidates the means -- that however carefully the site is excavated and the material recovered, and however much it may be endangered if left alone, selling the stuff after analysis renders the operation immoral, offensive, and a long step down the road to hell.  You can't join the Society for Historical Archaeology, for instance, without foreswearing participation in commercial ventures, and the Society won't accept papers at its annual meeting from people involved in such projects -- or at least it wouldn't the last time I cared enough to check.  I suspect that this attitude -- that commercial operations are simply BAD -- tends to color some archeologists' attitudes toward ANY project that isn't carried out either by government or academia; even the work of a non-profit like TIGHAR is suspect because we don't fall into either of the "legitimate" categories.

TK
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:01:02 -0400
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Glacier Girl

The "Glacier Girl" owners claim that "80% of the parts" on the bird are original, including both engines.  I suppose such claims should be taken with a grain of salt - what percentage do you suppose is actually the original P-38, reconditioned or otherwise?  What percentage would you recommend as a minimum for such a project to be worth doing?  I know you aren't a fan of the project, but I can't see how the plane is any worse off than if it had been left in the glacier, to be spit out as a pile of shredded aluminum scrap millennia from now.

Rich Young
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't buy the 80% figure for a second.   Look at the photos of the aircraft in situ or immediately after recovery.  I don't see many skins that aren't wrinkled and you don't hammer out wrinkles or fill with Bondo on airplanes.  And you can't tell me that every inch of the miles of electrical wiring and hydraulic tubing, every rubber gasket, and every hose on the machine was not replaced.  I suspect that 5% is a better number.

The choice is not between destroying the airplane by rebuilding it and letting it eventually be destroyed by the glacier.  The choice is between destroying the airplane by rebuilding it or preserving it as a historic property.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:02:43 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astor

Ric wrote:

>Is there  any mention anywhere in the available documentation that
>suggests that it  somehow "on Earhart's behalf"?

No, there was no mention in any known communique suggesting a connection with Earhart and all Astor was able to do was forward old reports indicating no Japanese buildups or fortifications in the Marshall's. If there was an Earhart issue there is nothing in writing that has surfaced.

I received my own answers to my questions to Daryll who as usual was unable to respond with substance. He is correct, however, my French/English translation was a half hearted attempt. I was not looking for references to Australian missionaries or Carl but rather to any reference to Earhart which would have given some relevance to his posting.

Daryll is also correct that I don't know how many Australian missionaries were there. I doubt that anyone does but I don't see the significance to the Earhart mystery.

I will also stay away from the Astor subject as it clearly has no relevance to this forum.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:02:17 -0400
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: restoration

I visited Antietam last summer & I agree about just being there evoking some  strong feelings--mainly the waste of good infantry. I was particularly saddened standing in Miller's cornfield, still a cornfield, and trying to imagine all those men who died in that cornfield. Very sad place. Ric, please forgive the distance from AE but I was truly moved by Antietam. Lincoln also visited the battlefield and was so apalled at the death and carnage that he returned to Washington & signed the Emancipation Proclamation which had been on his desk for some time. I'm done.

LTM,

Mike Haddock #2438
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:30:16 -0400
From:         Joe Weber
Subject:      Re: Glacier Girl

I prefer a flying airplane to a piece of aluminum sculpture - essentially useless.

Joe weber
Bedford IN
*************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Joe.  You've pointed out the basic misunderstanding that plagues historic preservation.

All artifacts are basically tools designed to perform a needed task. Once they become old enough and rare enough they become more useful as sources of information about the past and catalysts to help us feel a connection with the people who once used them.

P-38s were built as fighter planes.  They're now useless for that purpose but a flyable P-38 is valuable as a way to show us what a fighter plane used to look like, sound like and fly like.  The trouble is, a flyable P-38 - by definition - is not a source of information about the materials of the past because, in order to make it safe to fly, most of the those materials have to be replaced with new material.

We need both flyable and genuinely preserved P-38s.  The shame about the P-38 that was sacrificed to create the flyable airplane called Glacier Girl is that there was a rare opportunity to preserve the real thing but, as you have demonstrated, the aviation community would rather have a flying phony than a real "piece of aluminum sculpture".

Oddly, if you heard that a chariot had been found in a pharoah's tomb you would expect that it would be carefully cleaned, studied, and preserved in a sealed glass case.  You'd probably be horrified if someone said, "Hell, we can replace the wood that's rotted, put some decent wheels on it, make some new harness using the old leather as a pattern and drive that sucker."  Why is an old airplane any different?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:31:55 -0400
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: restoration

Ric wrote:

> A Park Service guide at Gettysburg once told me about a woman who
> scolded him that it was obvious that the battle had not really been
> fought there or all those monuments would have bullet holes in them.

LOL
Makes you wonder why we even try.

The Gettysburg monuments themselves, of course, have an interesting history and they give us an insight into the 19th century concept of what to do with a battlefield.

LTM (who took me to Gettysburg)
Kerry Tiller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:34:16 -0400
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re; Looting

Tom King wrote:

> I suspect that this attitude -- that commercial operations are simply BAD --
> tends to color some archeologists' attitudes toward ANY project that isn't
> carried out either by government or academia; even the work of a non-profit like
> TIGHAR is suspect because we don't fall into either of the "legitimate"
> categories.

That's really "old school", but still true. I did my time writing grant proposals, taking temporary gigs, doing seasonal work and bending tacos in fast food restaurants between highway salvage projects. I realized eventually that the academic system wasn't big enough to absorb all of the budding young archaeologists and some of us would be squeezed out. I was among the chaff. When I returned to Tucson three years ago after 20 years in the navy I discovered several organizations of professional archaeologists that had turned archaeology into a business. From what I can see, by employing full time people they have increased the archaeology labor force in the state, resulting in more sites being dug. Highway salvage (excuse me, "cultural resource management") funds are being better spent and more grant money has become available. They use the same methodology and techniques as the academics and have the same education (often from the same place). The results of their work is always written up (though not always published). I don't understand the ivory tower attitude. If those organizations had been around 25 years ago; I'd probably still be an archaeologist.

LTM
Kerry Tiller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:40:16 -0400
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: Carl Heine

Here is my translation of the French text, paragraph by paragraph, in Italic + New Courier. It tends to lean towards the literal and without any of the much-needed editing I was so tempted to give it.

The relevant words re. the Australian missionary are underlined.

If you have occasion to require more translation from French, let me know.  Unfortunately my Spanish and Italian are in sad state as result of many years without practice.

Mark

Le Capitaine a devinŽ bien vite de quoi il est soup�onnŽ : Çde faire de l'hydrographie pour le compte d'une puissance Žtrang�re.È De quelle puissance Žtrang�re ? C'est toute la question dŽsormais pour le gouverneur, tant il est sžr d'avoir vu juste et d'avoir arr�tŽ un espion. Quant ˆ imaginer un instant que le Fou-Po soit entrŽ dans Jaluit pour un simple motif de convenance personnelle, cela ne lui viendra m�me plus ˆ l'esprit.

The captain quickly guessed of what he is suspected: "of undertaking hydrographical studies on behalf  of a foreign power". But which foreign power? That is the real question for the governor, sure as he is of having seen things right and of having caught a spy. To imagine for an instant that the Fou-Po came to Jaluit as a matter of necessity does not even enter his mind.

En vain le Capitaine lui montrera-t-il la coque salie de son navire, ses voiles dŽchirŽes. et son gouvernail incomplet et suspendu par des bretelles. Ces visions matŽrielles n'entameront, en rien la conviction du gouverneur : toutes ces avaries ne sont qu'un prŽtexte adroit don't se camoufle le Fou-Po, dangereux ennemi de l'Empire nippon, dont lui, gouverneur des Marshall, commande une marche des plus importantes, tant par sa situation gŽographique que par son incognito, fort mal dŽvoilŽ aux amirautŽs Žtrang�res par les anciennes cartes allemandes de ces atolls.

In vain the captain shows him the damaged hull of his ship, the torn sails, and what is left of his rudder hanging from straps. This visible evidence will not alter in the least the conviction of the governor: all these damages are but a clever pretext, a camouflage used by the Fou-Po, dangerous enemy of the Nipponese empire, and he, governor of the Marshalls, commands one of the most important outposts, as much for its geographical location as for the uncertainty of its location, so poorly revealed as it is to foreign admiralties on the old German maps of these atolls.

Le gouverneur est un homme d'une cinquantaine d'annŽes, toujours en tenue civile de toile blanche, et les cheveux rasŽs au millim�tre ; il porte une petite moustache en accent circonflexe autour de ses l�vres serrŽes. Il est grand pour un Japonais, ˆ peu pr�s de la taille du capitaine, lequel est plut™t petit pour un Fran�ais. Il est incroyablement maigre, d'une maigreur infatigable de fanatique ou d'asc�te. Dans la rue il marche une sorte de pas de l'oie, ou de pas romain comme on dit aujourd'hui, et il se prŽcipite, d�s qu'il la recontre, dans la longue vedette qui lui sert d'automobile et qui va toujours ˆ plein moteur ; m�me quand elle bat en arri�re pour accoster le Fou-Po en tossant horriblement sur sa pauvre coque.

The governor is a man of some fifty years of age, always in white civil attire, his hair shaven to down to a millimeter; he has a small moustache like an inverted V above his pursed lips. He is tall for a Japanese, about the same height as the captain, who is rather short for a Frenchman.  He is incredibly skinny, with the typical thinness of a fanatic or an ascetic. In the street he walks with a goose-step, or the Roman step as we call it these days, and leaps, as soon as he gets to it, into the long launch that serves as an automobile for him, always operating at full throttle; even when reversing as it comes alongside the Fou-Po, slamming horribly into its poor hull.

pg 239

L'instruction du proc�s a lieu dans la RŽsidence, qui est voisine du poste de police : les interrogations du gouverneur se font en japonais et les rŽponses du Capitaine en anglais ; ils communiquent ensemble par l'intermŽdiaire d'un interpr�te que surveillent les yeux bridŽs et per�ants de l'inquisiteur. Cet interpr�te sera tant™t le commissaire d'un second paquebot qui a succŽdŽ au premier, tant™t un missionnaire australien , tant™t le commandant d'un transport de guerre. Le gouverneur aime ˆ varier ses procŽdŽs d'instruction, et il ne s'en fie, au demeurant, qu'ˆ lui-m�me. Certaines de ses malices sont cousues de fil blanc, comme celle-ci, par exemple, d'envoyer ˆ Tati, pendant l'heure d'un des interrogatoires du Capitaine ˆ la rŽsidence, un gros Japonais fort disert qui lui explique dans un anglais parfait, tout en lui servant de la bi�re, comment jadis il aurait travaillŽ glorieusement pour sa patrie en faisant du service de renseignements en AmŽrique du Sud, au pŽril, non seulement de sa libertŽ mais, parfois aussi, de sa vie. Tati approuve poliment, mais il ne peut tout de m�me pas rendre confidence pour confidence, ni se muer, pour faire plaisir ˆ ce personnage, en une sorte de colonel Lawrence ou m�me en un simple agent du Deuxi�me Bureau fran�ais. La bi�re heureusement n'est pas truquŽe, mais de bon aloi, et, pour Tati, c'est autant de gagnŽ. Le gouverneur, en son for intŽrieur, a vite conclu sinon ˆ l'innocuitŽ compl�te de Tati, du moins ˆ son ignorance des buts secrets de la croisi�re du Fou-Po : il le laissera donc ˆ peu pr�s en paix ˆ condition toutefois qu'il reste clo”trŽ ˆ bord et ne s'avise jamais de descendre ˆ terre.

The inquiry process takes place in the Residence, next door to the police station: the governor's questions are in Japanese and the captain's responses are in English; they communicate using an interpreter as intermediary, who is closely watched by the piercing slit eyes of the inquisitor. This interpreter is sometimes the officer from a second steamer that followed the first one in, sometimes an Australian missionary, sometimes the commander of a warship. The governor likes to vary his inquiry process, and nonetheless trusts in no one but himself. Some of his threats are quite evident, such as the following example, of sending to Tati [the captain under arrest] as the interrogation of the captain was going on at the residence, a large, very eloquent Japanese [man] who explained in perfect English while serving him some beer how he had once worked gloriously for his homeland as a spy in South America at the risk not only of his liberty, but at times, of his life. Tati politely approves, but cannot nonetheless exchange secret for secret, nor can he change into, even to please this gentleman, some sort of Colonel Lawrence, nor even a simple agent of the France's Deuxieme Bureau. The beer is fortunately not drugged, but of good quality, and for Tati, at least that much to be gained. The governor, in his heart of hearts, quickly came to the conclusion, if not of Tati's complete harmlessness, at least of his ignorance of the secret goals of the Fou-Po's cruise; and so he leaves him more or less in peace on the condition that he remain cloistered on board and never tries to step on land.

Le Fou-Po est veillŽ pendant le jour par deux policiers de faction, l'un sur le quai et l'autre sur la jetŽe : la nuit, le projecteur du poste reste continuellement braquŽ sur la jonque et aveugle nos marins quand il leur arrive de prendre l'air sur le pont. Indig�nes et Japonais fuient pareillement le

The Fou-Po is watched by day by two police officers on sentry duty, one on the dock and one on the jetty; by night the station's floodlight stays bracketed on the junk and blinds our sailors when they are up on the bridge to get some air. Natives and Japanese alike flee the...
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Mark that's great.  Thank you.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:48:45 -0400
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: Looting

I found this interesting insight into the Navy's approach to historic aircraft.  It kinda helps explain how they approach certain "recoveries".

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7f.htm

JMH
0632C
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:34:32 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Carl Heine

Excellent job, Mark.

I saw nothing of relevance to our quest in the French text and I noticed  the text referred to ".... an Australian missionary........" not THE Australian missionary. No mention of Carl Heine. Should we consider that various missionaries came and went? Does it make any difference for any reason?

Apparently I have entirely missed the point of Daryll's post. Sorry Daryll.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:36:33 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Astor

Here is some additional information regarding the Astor voyage supplied by our friend Don.

The so-called 'mission' of Vincent Astor & his vessel, the  'Nourmahal', to spy-out the alleged Japanese fortification of the Marshall  Islands, was a total 'bust'!

The Japanese refused to grant Astor any  permission to sail into Japanese mandated waters, so any information that he  reported was via Australian/British or other foreign travelers who  (supposedly) had visited the Japanese mandates during the 1930s.

In a  subsequent letter that he wrote to FDR, (supposedly a 'preliminary' report on  the voyage) on file at the FDR LIbrary, he admits having _no_ first-hand  information about the mandated islands & merely passes-on the stories  he'd been told by other visitors to these islands, none of whom reported any  'fortifications' on any of the mandated islands, nor any evidence of any  overt build-up of any strictly military facilities.

This 'preliminary'  letter/report about the voyage makes _no_ mention of AE/FN or the missing  Electra, nor any suggestion that any search for same was ever contemplated or  conducted during the course of the voyage.

Daryll & the  other conspiracy 'buffs' simply utilize Astor's letter to FDR as yet another  vehicle to perpetuate their scenario of the AE/FN landing at Mili, since  Astor makes _no_ mention of AE/FN or the Electra in his 'preliminary' report,  ....therefore that must prove it was a 'secret' mission (part of the  governmental cover-up) authorized by FDR to locate AE/FN & there _must_  be another (more comprehensive) 'report' from Astor, buried somewhere in that  warehouse full of still highly classified documents pertaining to AE/FN's  mysterious disappearance!

Unfortunately,  FDR did have a penchant for the unorthodox in his personal pursuit of gathering intelligence/information. Here is a brief  excerpt from the book: 'Roosevelt And Churchill', mentioning Astor & the other 'gadflies' that constituted FDR's ad-hoc, totally  unofficial, intelligence gathering 'agency', prior to the start of  WWII.  Some embarrassing 'screw-ups' by this group of amatuer 'slueths', eventually resulted in FDR tapping a highly successful NY (republican)  lawyer (Bill Donovan) to head-up his new intelligence/counterintelligence  agency, the OSS .
************

...'Roosevelt's most  prominent informant, however, was Vincent Astor, his wealthy Hudson Valley  neighbour and distant cousin in whose heated indoor pool at Rhinebeck, just  north of the Roosevelt estate at Hyde Park in upstate New York, Roosevelt had  exercised his polio-damaged legs in the 1920s.

In 1927 Astor formed a  secret society he called "The Room", a group of about twenty close and  influential friends from the world of business that met regularly in New York  to discuss financial and international topics.

Founded with Astor and  Theodore and Kermit Roosevelt, sons of the former President, it included the  banker Winthrop Aldrich, the journalist and world traveller Marshall Field  III, the publisher Nelson Doubleday, Judge Frank Kernochan, and David Bruce,  a foreign service officer and future wartime head of the OSS in London and  ambassador to London and Peking.

Nearly all had some background in  intelligence and one, Sir William Wiseman, a partner in the Wall Street  investment bankers Kuhn-Loeb, had headed Britain's intelligence service in  New York during the First World War.

Roosevelt highly valued the  intelligence they provided, and in 1938 he secretly approved a Pacific cruise  by Astor in his luxury yacht, the Nourmahal, to spy on Japanese military,  naval, air force and radio installations in the Marshall Islands.

"The information-gathering side of our cruise has proved  interesting, instructive, and I hope, will be helpful," cabled  Astor enthusiastically to Roosevelt from Honolulu'...

Barnes & Noble.com - Roosevelt and Churchill: Men of  Secrets
Address:http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?sourceid=3D00395996645644787198&btob=3DY&ean=3D9781572702271&displayonly=3DCHP
**************************************

Another book with some very  interesting insights about FDR's propensities for 'out-side the loop'  intelligence gathering ventures:

HoustonChronicle.com - 'Roosevelt's  Secret War' by Joseph E.  Persico
Address:http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/ae/books/ch1/1087245
**************************************
The  Dorwart book on Naval Intelligence also had reference to Astor's 'Nourmahal'  voyage to 'spy-out' Japanese military fortifications & facilities in the  Marshall Islands .
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:38:40 -0400
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Astor

I know, I know, the History Channel is entertainment, not fact, however, some grains of truth sometimes fall out of even the least trustworthy. I was watching a program last week that described FDRs approach to intelligence gathering. Apparently he had been a devotee of spying for some time. He even communicated with his "female" dates during college - assigning each of them separate codes for correspondence. After taking office, he set up his own personal information gathering group comprised of friends (non-professionals). That cost us during the war since his spies didn't work well with the established intelligence gathering organizations and information was not shared (sound familiar).

My point is that he used non-professional "friends" and thus the Nourmahal and other sources might not be so far fetched. Just a thought, but not one that we can easily dismiss out of hand just because there is no "official" documentation.

Yours,
Dave Bush
*************************************************************
From Ric

See Alan's non-History Channel posting on the subject.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:45:42 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Restoration

After the Battle near Waterloo (June 18th, 1815) it was the Duke of Wellington (who had just defeated Napoleon's army) who coined the historical phrase :

"The worst sight after a battle lost is the sight of a battle won".

I forget the correct number but I believe some 35,000 men had been killed that day which lasted from noon till around 8 p.m. Wellington spoke those words while looking at all those dead men after the battle. I believe it was after he met with his Prussian ally, general Blucher at the "Belle Alliance" farm. It was Blucher who had saved the day by attacking the French in their right flank in the late afternoon at the moment the British were about to give in. By the way, the dead are still there. They were buried in mass graves on the battlefield as was customary in those days. Military cemeteries came only after WW I and very much also at the place where battles were fought. Flanders Fields of WWI fame, are full of them.

LTM
************************************************************************
From Ric

It would be easy and it's very tempting to digress into a discussion about lessons that never seem to be learned, but we won't.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:48:24 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Glacier Girl

Why is an old airplane any different from an old chariot?  That question, not quite so starkly formulated, is a perennial hot topic in all kinds of historic preservation and cultural resource management.  Should a defunct Nike battery be treated the same as a Civil War mortar emplacement?  Should 1950s tract houses get the same treatment as 1850s row houses?  Should an early 20th century trash dump be treated like a prehistoric midden?  When I dug up an old steel axe head in my backyard, was it OK for me to put a new handle on it and use it to chop wood?

One crude measure of difference, of course, is age; another is rarity. Another is educational/interpretive value.  Another is whether scholars can learn anything from studying the thing in question.  Another is whether anybody really gives a damn about the thing.  And then there's the question of what it is about the thing that's worth preserving.  If the sound and smell of a P-38 engine is what you want, you're pretty much going to have to be able to fire the thing up.  If it's the physical fabric of the P-38 you're interested in, you probably don't want to operate it.  And what one person or group wants to preserve is not what another wants to preserve.

There aren't any easy answers to these kinds of questions.  That's why the U.S. government's historic preservation procedures emphasize sitting all the concerned parties down to reason together and arrive at consensus (if possible) about what to do each time there's a decision to be made about treatment of a historic property.  The best we can hope for is a decision that most people more or less agree is the appropriate one under the circumstances.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:00:47 -0400
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: Glacier Girl

It must be pointed out that rarity usually means expensive on an open market.  I don't think anyone would have carried out such an amazingly complicated recovery on a P38 buried under tons of ice, had not the restored for sale value been potentially so high.

Here's a line or two from an Indiana Jones movie.

"look at this.  It's worthless.  Ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I put it in the ground, bury it for a thousand years, and it becomes priceless, and men will pay highly for it"

So on the whole, should any old recovered object be restored to the point where it loses originality?  NO.  If chunks of AE s and FN s  Electra are ever recovered, it is unthinkable that some 99% replacement project should restore an Electra to flight.  The historical value is just too great.  The same would apply to Glen Millers Norseman, The Wright Flyer, and all the others. (NO, I don't know where the Norseman is, so don't start fishing)

But if I can obtain parts for a P38, and make it fly, pattern it along the way, and potentially make more, why not?  It's the best of both worlds to have flying examples, and originals gathering dust in museums, isn't it? And yes, a purist might one day say, "Hey the thermos flasks in the wrong position for a wartime B17", but SO WHAT!  The museum B17 will have its flask just right, for reference.
************************************************************************
From Ric

No argument.  Now....where can I go to see an original P-38 gathering dust in a museum, or a P-51, or a B-17 (just in case I want to see where the thermos flask really went)?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:02:24 -0400
From:         Gary Fajack
Subject:      Re: restoration

> Oddly, if you heard that a chariot had been found in a pharoah's tomb
> you would expect that it would be carefully cleaned, studied, and
> preserved in a sealed glass case...

Nicely stated Ric, this puts the issue in a much more understandable light.

gary
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:19:44 -0400
From:         Jerry Geiger
Subject:      Re: Astor

Although it has been many many years since I read it, Eddie Rickenbacker, in his autobiography, speaks of going on a secret mission in the Southwest Pacific for FDR in late 42.  (It was during this mission that his plane crashed and he, along with the crew, survived a few weeks on a raft before being picked up.)  Prior to leaving, he describes being summoned to the White House where FDR briefs him on what he is supposed to do - all very classified and confidential according to Rickenbacker, and just between them.  I remember it because he made such a point of thumbing his nose at the readers, letting us know that he had never told anyone what his secret orders were, and since FDR was dead, there was no one who could release him from his vow of secrecy, and he would take those secrets to his grave - which I believe he did.

LTM (who believes ER had a sadistic streak)
Jerry
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:11:53 -0400
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: Astor

Ron Bright wrote:

>Astor sent a cable to FDR I believe in Dec 38, sort of a emergency
>cable

Come on Ron let's be more accurate than that! Is that Dec. the 38th day of 1937 OR Dec. 1938? in either case your wrong.

Ric wrote:

>Let's accept for the moment that the Nourmahal voyage was an attempt by
>FDR to put a civilian boat into the Marshalls. Is there any
>mention anywhere in the available documentation that suggests that
>it was somehow  "on Earhart's behalf"?  In any event, the attempt
>failed.

NO, if Earhart's name was mentioned in the Nourmahal context it would already be part of the historical record. You have to question FDR's motives during this time period for the Jaluit voyage by sending a personal friend to do something that could have been done by a Yeoman. He used Astor because he had to trust that the true purpose of the voyage wouldn't get out AND trust in the information that he would possibly get via radio from that voyage. That information could have resulted in him sending the Navy into the Marshalls to heat up Earhart's trail.

Thanks  Mar