Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:25:08 From: Tom King Subject: Re: TIGHARs on Tinian For Tom Strang -- No doubt Ric will answer, but I can't resist. There's no 180 degree turn involved here. The archaeologist who's organized the Tinian search, Jennings Bunn, is an old friend and colleague of mine, and while I think it's very unlikely that he's right in his assessment, I offered to help him look into it because I think a hypothesis that can be tested ought to be. I mentioned it to Kar and she offered to help out for (I think) much the same reason. I very, very much doubt if Earhart is buried on Tinian, but I think it'll be interesting to see who (if anyone) IS buried at the spot associated in anecdote with her burial place. I think it's nice to have an anecdotal account that can actually be tested, and I intend to try to help make sure it's thoroughly and objectively tested. LTM (who says it's really OK to test alternative hypotheses) Tom ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:28:08 From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: TIGHARs on Tinian Boy I wish you'd quit beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel on stuff like this - > I don't think there's snowball's chance in hell that Earhart was > buried on Tinian. The other factor in this, as I see it, is that by having known (and renown) professionals such as Kar and Tom directly involved, the veracity of whatever is or is not discovered as a result will be beyond question. > TIGHAR's participation in this exercise is purely in the interest of > seeing that even a ridiculous hypothesis is tested according to high > professional standards. It in no way represents a 180 degree, or even > a 1 degree, turn in TIGHAR's position with regard to a > Earhart/Japanese connection and has nothing whatsoever to do with the > Post-Loss Radio Study. ltm, jon 2266 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:28:50 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Update from Ric Ric, > Section Five draws upon the results of the quantitative analysis and > the investigation of specific groups to divide the reported signals > into three categories: Credible, Ambiguous, and Not Credible. (Note: > these are relative terms and not intended to indicate a final judgment > as to authenticity.) The "Credible" receptions are then examined for > patterns. Ah, but are the "incredible" receptions examined as well? ;) Actually, aside from the bad pun, I mean that seriously. If the "not credible" messages follow a certain pattern, and the credible ones follow the same pattern, then that will cast a different light than if each follows different patterns. Think of the other two groups as the control groups. Hoax messages should not have the same characteristics as the alleged Earhart messages, so a different pattern between the two sets can support your analysis. Of course, it may also refute it, but that's scientific analysis for you. It's different than analyzing the different messages separately and then throwing out the bad ones (which is what you're doing already). It may take some time, but it's not like we've been waiting months already. :) This will also save you the agony of dealing with people who criticize you for ignoring post loss message 1872, which obviously came from the Electra because . Oh wait, no it won't..... Reed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reed L. Riddle Thirty Meter Telescope Site Survey Team California Institute of Technology, Astronomy Department Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ "This life has been a test. If it had been an actual life, you would have received actual instructions on where to go and what to do." -- Angela Chase, "My so-called life" ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:33:30 From: Matt Victor Subject: Re: Update from Ric Well, let's put the report up on DVD's/CD-ROM for us all to purchase-use. Please! matt > From Ric (emerging from hole, brushing off dirt, blinking) > > The Post-Loss Radio Study is coming along well. It's taking longer to > finish because I've expanded it. *********************************************************** We will. We're not sure yet what format; most if not all will run in TIGHAR Tracks, probably serialized (way too long for one issue unless you want a TT like the Sears catalog); and after that we'll just have to see what seems like the best way to get it into members' hands. Oh. You're not a member yet? Well..... https://www.tighar.org/membernew.html Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:57:53 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: TIGHARs on Tinian Jon Watson wrote: > ... by having known (and > renowned) professionals such as Kar and Tom directly involved, the > veracity of whatever is or is not discovered as a result will be beyond > question. ... You are assuming a reasonable audience who recognizes Kar and Tom's credentials. Unreasonable people will "doubt everything." If folks see TIGHAR as part of the Great Earhart Coverup Conspiracy, Kar and Tom's participation will only "raise more questions than it answers." Please note that I'm all in favor of their going. I'm just not optimistic about the reception of their work by folks committed to the Tinian hypothesis. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:58:34 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Update from Ric Reed Riddle asks: > Ah, but are the "incredible" receptions examined as well? ;) > > Actually, aside from the bad pun, I mean that seriously. If the "not > credible" messages follow a certain pattern, and the credible ones > follow the same pattern, then that will cast a different light than if > each follows different patterns. Think of the other two groups as the > control groups. Actually, we had a big discussion about what to call the third category. Being something of a word-freak I wanted to use "incredible" (reverting to the word's original meaning) but we ultimately decided to sacrifice erudition for clarity and go with "not credible". We are, however, sticking with "occult" to describe information that could not be known to the listener unless the message was a legitimate communication from Earhart. But to answer your question, a major part of what makes a message or a group of messages "not credible" is that they follow patterns that appear to disqualify them as legitimate. Those signals and patterns are discussed in Section Four. Here's a quick example: Two ham operators in Los Angeles - Walter McMenamy and Karl Pierson - were responsible for a great many of the first reports of post-loss signals but the pattern of what they said they heard is completely at odds with what was being heard in the search area and all the information they claimed to have gotten from Earhart could have been had by simply monitoring Coast Guard radio traffic. McMenamy and Pierson were almost certainly perpetrating a hoax - perhaps with the best of intentions (i.e. to encourage a large Navy search) or perhaps just to puff their own reputations as hot-shot radio experts, or some of both - who knows? The point is that the patterns of what they reported hearing - the times, the frequencies, the content - sticks out like a sore thumb when viewed in the context of the other reports. > Hoax messages should not have the same characteristics > as the alleged Earhart messages, so a different pattern between the two > sets can support your analysis. Of course, it may also refute it, but > that's scientific analysis for you. Exactly. > It's different than analyzing the > different messages separately and then throwing out the bad ones (which > is what you're doing already). It may take some time, but it's not > like we've been waiting months already. :) I appreciate your patience and your thoughts. We'd rather have it right than have it Tuesday. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:00:34 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Update from Ric In your post loss analysis,are you including the Charles Hill research on the Pan Am bearings? I certainly am not qualified to evaluate his recalculaton of the bearings that in his opinion converged in the Marshalls, but they may or may not be correct. I know that Hills other research has been iffy, but the bearings may be different. If he is mistaken, other researchers should be aware. LTM, Ron Bright Bremerton,Wa ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:01:12 From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: TIGHARs on Tinian For Marty: Well, except for their loose affiliation with that whacko Tighar group, their credentials are pretty impeccable... ltm jon > > You are assuming a reasonable audience who recognizes Kar and Tom's > credentials. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:53:09 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Update from Ric Ron Bright asks: > In your post loss analysis,are you including the Charles Hill research > on the Pan Am bearings? We're not including anyones else's research. This is a report on TIGHAR's research. Everyone is free to compare it to whatever other research they choose. Ric ======================================================================== = Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:05:07 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Update from Ric >We're not including anyones else's research. This is a report on >TIGHAR's research. Umm -- not meaning to be difficult, but I think one of the great problems with the great corpus of Earhart literature is that for the most part nobody ever systematically addresses anyone else's research, other than to say "it stinks." So the Japanese capture people lay out a line of reasoning and then the crashed-and-sankers lay out another without saying anything about why they think the JCP are wrong, and ..... You know, in real scientific research it's pretty common to take a look at other people's research and critique it, as a prelude to laying out your own hypothesis. I don't know anything about the research cited here, but if it's at all reputable it seems like it would be a good idea to at least reference it and provide some sort of comment on it. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:06:36 From: Scott White Subject: Re: TIGHARs on Tinian To me, it makes a lot of sense for Tom and Kar to be on hand for the dig in a role as observers / assistants to others who are in charge of the project. If Tighar undertook this investigation by itself, then there would forever be criticism that Tighar found whatever it set out to find (i.e., the grave is not Earhart's). If True Believers take on the project unsupervised, then we can expect them to come up with "definitive" (but unverifiable) evidence that the grave really *is* Earhart's. Sending along a group of legitimate investigators with various and contradictory affiliations says a lot about the legitimacy of the project. And . . . speaking of other efforts . . . I just got email today from a guy named Tod Swindell. I think he probably got my email address from "The annotated skeptic bibliography," (link below) where I have a 1-parag. review of Amelia Earhart Survived (Reineck). But does anyone know if Swindell is likely to inhabit this list, and maybe found me here? His message has some wild claims. The original Irene Bolam disappeared altogether in the 1930s; following that, there were two different "Irene Bolams," one of whom was AE (though she had cosmetic surgery). It's a little disjointed, so I'm not sure I understand the whole gist of his argument. But he says he's writing a book. Best, -SW http://www.csicop.org/bibliography/home.cgi (click on "what's new" and scroll down a little) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:38:19 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Update from Ric Tom, I would agree although I haven't seen any other research on the post loss radio messages. If I have missed any SERIOUS and/or SCIENTIFIC analysis I apologize to the authors of such. Alan, #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:39:21 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: How many Irenes? Scott White wrote: > there were two different "Irene Bolams" I see nothing remarkable about there being two Irene Bolams. According to my search of the Internet there are 481,000 notations. Frightening. Alan, #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:05:57 From: Al Hillis Subject: Re: How many Irenes? Let's see, 481,000 notations. Does this smoke contain fire? Don't think so as Tighar has already discounted all 481,000 notations. > From Alan Caldwell > > Scott White wrote: > >> there were two different "Irene Bolams" > > I see nothing remarkable about there being two Irene > Bolams. According > to my search of the Interent there are 481,000 > notations. Frightening. > > Alan, #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:55:36 From: Jeff Webb Subject: Re: How many Irenes? > According to my search of the Interent there are 481,000 notations. 481,000? Ummm, according to MY search of the internet using GOOGLE there are about 1620 instances of the words "Irene" and "Bolam" both occurring in and article, and only 51 of the character string "Irene Bolam". Whats up? Jeff Webb, formerly known as "Jdubb" ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:57:13 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Update from Ric Tom King says: > ...one of the great problems with the great corpus of Earhart literature > is that for the most part nobody ever systematically addresses anyone > else's research, other than to say "it stinks." Point taken. Next question. Whose research do we need to systematically address in our discussion of the post-loss radio signals? The Crashed and Sankers routinely invoke the Coast Guard statements that claim that all of the signals were investigated and found to be bogus. I deal with that early in the paper and show that those claims are demonstrably untrue. Who else has ventured into the post-loss radio question? Ron Bright has mentioned Charles Hill's supposed re-analysis of the PAA bearings. Is that included in his book "Fix on the Rising Sun"? I guess I'll have to get a copy. Back in 1986 John Luttrell wrote a paper entitled "Winslow Reef - Amelia Earhart's Crash site?" He said that while in the Air Force he had been taught "the fine art of deciphering radio transmissions". He used that art to fill in the blanks in some of Earhart's reported post-loss messages and concluded that she crashed on Winslow Reef. John no longer thinks he was right but his paper is still on file at the NASM library. And then there's Fred Hooven, the inventor who developed the advanced radio compass that Earhart removed from her aircraft prior to the first World Flight attempt. In 1982 Hooven wrote a paper (also now at the NASM library) entitled "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" in which he tried to analyze some of the post-loss signals and especially the PAA bearings. He reached the conclusion that: "The evidence strongly supports the hypothesis....that the flyers landed in the Phoenix area, probably or McKean or Gardner, that they transmitted signals from there for the next three days, that they were removed by the Japanese, who either removed or destroyed their plane, that they were taken to Saipan, where they died sometime before the end of 1937, and that the U.S. Government knew about their fate, but for reasons of foreign relations and military secrecy were not able to make that knowledge public." Hooven's paper presents no evidence to support his conclusions about the Japanese. For that he was relying entirely upon the work of his friend Fred Goerner. By that time (the early 1980s) Goerner had been disabused of the notion that Earhart had somehow made it to the Marshalls but he couldn't turn loose of his conviction that she had ended up on Saipan. Hooven's analysis of the post-loss signals put her firmly in the Phoenix Group, probably on either McKean or Gardner. Obviously, the Japanese must have come down to the Phoenix and taken her to Saipan. Okay, so we'll review the work of Hill, Lutrell, and Hooven. Anyone else? LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:54:36 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Update from Ric Wasn't there an article in Naval History on some of the post-loss message traffic, specifically the PAN-AM memos? I think I wrote a response on that. Wasn't there an earlier article in Naval History as well on the Earhart loss that might have referred to post-loss messages? The point that Ric should make is that no one has compiled a complete message database and examined it from a meta-database point of view to determine if there is anything worthy of pursuit there. The other point is that various Naval reports in Aug, 1937, discuss the radio messages to a certain degree, but none of those reports had available to them the entire database of reports to critically examine them. The Naval Reports did, to a certain extent, "report" on the messages. If I was Ric, I wouldn't spend too much effort reporting these earlier efforts, but at least acknowledge that they were limited in scope and were not critically examined for validity except in real time to help guide the search effort. > From Ric > > Tom King says: > >> ...one of the great problems with the great corpus of Earhart >> literature >> is that for the most part nobody ever systematically addresses anyone >> else's research, other than to say "it stinks." ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:02:11 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Update from Ric Alan, et al, One of the more serious researchers in post loss msgs is Paul Rafford Jr.,who I believe will publish a book soon. His research of the Pan Am DF networking on July 4 and 5th, indicates the Adcock system received signals on 3105, and after "considerable effort" they obtained four bearings from Wake, Midway, Hawaii and Howland. [ See Donahues book for the bearings of 213 from Hawaii, 144 from Wake and 175 from Midway] He traced the bearings to within 200 miles of Hull Is. in the Phoenix. Paul Rafford is a professional radio Engineer/operator and worked with Pan Am. He contribures frequently to another forum. Charles Hill, whose credentials I don't have a clue, claimed the bearing from Hawaii was 250.2, not 213, and the Midway bearing was off, hence the signals orginated in the Marshalls. This radio business is much too difficult for me to make any sense, so I leave it to Ric, and the Tighar experts to examine. If Hill is right, and who knows, then the signals didn't orginate in the Phoenix. I am sure Tighar's research is dependent on other expert analyses. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:43:40 From: Ron Bright Subject: Source of Hill's Pan Am research This may help in tracking down Hill's research. Bill Prymak's March 1998 article in the Amelia Earhart Society Newsletter reported the "corrected" post loss intercepts and bearings based on Hill's research. Hill sent Prymak a 10 page report about his work on the bearings from PAA. [ Not included] According to the review, Hill analyzed a specific test of bearings from the ITASCA to Mokapu and found serious errors in those transmissions. Hill said that Cdr Thompson also had doubts and sent a msg on July 5th at 9:45PM to San Francisco requesting that Mokapu take bearings on the Itasca on 3105. He found that it was 35. 2 degrees inerror. A corrected chart appears in the AES newsletter. In brief, Hill "adjusted" bearings are based on his claim that the signals had to pass from the South Pacific "not only through the Koolalu Mountain Range but also through whatever iron (vessels) might be found in or around Pearl Harbor or the Honolulu waterfront". The convergence of Hill's "corrected" bearings of Makapu at 250, Midway at 201 and Wake at 144 is about 250 miles northeast of Mili. Another source is Almond Gray's artricle in the Naval History magazine in the U.S Naval Institute Nov/Dec 1993 issue. A former PAA flight and land radio operator in the 30's, he illustrated his bearings with a chart showing the Wake Is and Midway bearings converging in the southeastern Marshall Islands. He considered the signals to Mokapu the weakest or inferior to the others. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:45:46 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: update from Ric Ron Bright writes: > One of the more serious researchers in post loss msgs is Paul Rafford > Jr.,who I believe will publish a book soon. His research of the Pan Am > DF networking on July 4 and 5th, indicates the Adcock system received > signals on 3105, and after "considerable effort" they obtained four > bearings from Wake, Midway, Hawaii and Howland. [ See Donahues book for > the bearings of 213 from Hawaii, 144 from Wake and 175 from Midway] He > traced the bearings to within 200 miles of Hull Is. in the Phoenix. > > Paul Rafford is a professional radio Engineer/operator and worked > with Pan Am. He contribures frequently to another forum. > > Charles Hill, whose credentials I don't have a clue, claimed the > bearing from Hawaii was 250.2, not 213, and the Midway bearing was off, > hence the signals orginated in the Marshalls. As far as I know, all of the primary source information about the Pan Am bearings is contained in the original government message traffic and in several PAA internal memoranda which are now in the Seaver Center collection in Los Angeles. I'm familiar with Rafford's theories as published in the Loomis/Ethel book "Amelia Earhart - The Final Story" but that book includes no mention of the PAA bearings. As you know, Donahue's book is not a source for anything except perhaps humor. I'll look at Hill's book but it sounds like he's changing the historical record to fit his own theory. LTM Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:46:21 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Update from Ric For Ron Bright Ron, I think you are referring to the recalculation of bearings based upon terrain induced error of 35 degrees to the west at Mokapu Point, Hawaii, but I don't have Hill's report / research. Can you direct me to where I can find it? One thing that is interesting is that Mokapu also reported a bearing of 175 degrees, which when "corrected" by 35 degrees to the west, converges with bearing from Wake and Midway at - guess where? So, whether or not you use the original Mokapu bearings, or corrected ones, there is convergence at Nikumaroro either way. Food for thought. LTM (who likes convergence) Andrew ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:47:07 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Update from Ric > Okay, so we'll review the work of Hill, Lutrell, and Hooven. Anyone > else? Do they meet the test of serious or scientific or are they just opinions? An opinion and $3.95 will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Alan, #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:47:34 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Update from Ric Thanks, Ron. I have been aware of the PanAm bearing controversy but have not seen anything definitive on that issue. I remember reading Hill's reasoning but it doesn't come to mind at the moment. Alan, #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:03:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Update from Ric Alan asks: >Do they meet the test of serious or scientific or are they just >opinions? An opinion and $3.95 will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks. All three - Hill, Luttrell, and Hooven - were, I'm sure, serious. Fred Hooven had genuine credentials and was scientific in his approach. As Tom King says, we can't just dismiss someone's research by saying it stinks, even if it does. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:03:46 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Update from Ric Ron Bright says: >Hill analyzed a specific test of bearings >from the ITASCA to Mokapu and found serious errors in those >transmissions. Hill said that Cdr Thompson also had doubts and sent a >msg on July 5th at 9:45PM to San Francisco requesting that Mokapu take >bearings on the Itasca on 3105. He found that it was 35. 2 degrees in >error. A corrected chart appears in the AES newsletter. Okay. I know the bearings he's talking about. It's an interesting incident. We'll talk about it. I've now written to Charlie Hill asking him to send me a copy of his paper. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:04:39 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Update from Ric Ric, and Radio experts, I don't have any expertise in this area but I think it may be worthwhile to see if I can get the original 10 page report of Hill's research so that it can be evaluated. Bill Prymak only reported what Hill wrote. I will see if Paul Rafford wishes to comment on the PAA bearings and their convergence. As I recall none were voice msgs and many were quite weak. I don't know how much weight Tighar is giving to the PAA bearings in relationship to AE's possible post loss signals. I think one major problem with Hill is that he calculated the bearings accounting for the equatorial drift for a few days, and as far as I know, AE couldnt transmit if the plane was drifting. LTM, Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:57:01 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Post-Loss messages Although we haven't seen your analysis as of yet, I was wondering if you took into account AE's aircraft antenna's orientation while sitting on Gardner? From looking at the map of Gardner it seems likely that the aircraft may have landed either to the North or South near the Norwich City-East or West may have been very wet! You've been there what are your thoughts as to which direction is most likely? I lean towards the North basis the anecdotal recollection of aircraft sightings, etc., and I doubt that there was any taxiing around once on the ground. Now a question for the radio folks: Would the orientation of the dorsal vee antenna play a part in how/what direction the strongest signals would have been received by land stations? This assumes that the ventral antenna was lost on takeoff from Lae and the vee was the only one available to transmit on. If the ventral antenna wasn't lost at Lae and/or was repaired while on Gardner would this antenna's orientation play a role in how the signals would have been received? Further questions for the radio folks: When you folks talk about harmonics would the antenna orientation play a role in who may have/could have picked up signals e.g. Betty's Notebook and others along the West Coast of the US? In summary, from what I've read it seems that the antenna orientation played a role in who heard what. For example when AE was heading for Howland Itasca could hear her and while heading in the same general direction Lae had heard her (an East/West orientation) but those stations to the North of her route only heard her faintly. There may be more radio signal records, correlated with direction of flight, that may help in validating the post loss messages. Ted Campbell ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:56:23 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages A couple of notes from an old operator over here: 1. Todays Aircraft antennas are situated to transmit and receive on a forward and rearward bias in vhf am. that is simply a fact of engineering and necessity as we receive and send forward to our destination and back to our starting point. 2. but in the past, a longwire transmitting the best reception and transmit 90 degrees from the wire means that the best reception and transmission is on an angle to the fuselage centerline dependent upon the angle of the wire as designed and installed. 3. A longwave antenna on the bottom of the airplane if either repaired [doubtful, if she carried parts due to her trying to keep weight down] or not broken is subject to using ground wave, which is a good thing especially If the electra did in fact land with the gear down and it would travel a long distance and the best at night. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:07:03 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re Update from Ric Although not the same, I used RMI bearings for many years both over land and out at sea and never encountered any significant deviations of some unknown nature. I would be surprised if the PanAm bearings were not fairly accurate. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:38:36 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Post-Loss messages Ted Campbell asks: > Although we haven't seen your analysis as of yet, I was wondering if > you took into account AE's aircraft antenna's orientation while sitting > on Gardner? We know that the dorsal vee antenna was the transmitting antenna. We know that the plane could not transmit if afloat. We know that if the plane made a reasonably safe landing the antenna should be intact. We've modeled the antenna and have a good handle on its probable capabilities but its precise orientation is not a significant factor. The most important question is whether any of the reported receptions were legitimate calls from the lost plane. If some of the signals were legitimate then Crashed And Sank is crashed and sunk. The next question is whether it is possible to say, in a general sense, where the signals were coming from. Pinning the origin point down to a specific island, let alone a specific place on a specific island, is much less certain. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:08:25 From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Post loss messages > If some of the signals were legitimate then Crashed And Sank is crashed > and sunk. If ONE of the signals was legit.... ltm ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:10:15 From: David Billings Subject: Electra in New Britain Dear Tighar Organisation, For the enlightenment of your members I offer the following website address: http://www.electranewbritain.com I see no reason why the address should be witheld from your members in the interests of all round knowledge concerning the search for the Electra. Best Regards, David Billings Nambour Queensland Australia. ***************************************** Old news. P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:24:45 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Post loss messages From Carl Peltzer, who might have enuf money soon to become a full fledged member and do some flying also. Yep, just one is all it takes! So redouble the efforts, chums! There must be some more radio techs with this type of experence out there that we haven't brought into the fray as yet, so keep extending the forum outward. Wish there were tape recordings or sound movies setup during these post loss receptions as with todays technology we could be sure whose voice was speaking. Science has cleaned up many mysteries so the question come up for the panel: can technology solve it? ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:25:21 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Electra in New Britain For David Billings Certainly a fascinating story, and I'm sure I speak for many of us when I wish you good luck in pursuit of your hypothesis. LTM (who says: "Let a thousand hypotheses bloom") Tom King ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:30:00 From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: Post loss messages "If one signal is legitament then the crashed and sank is crashed and sunk". May be not. Although it is not known what equipment AE carried on her last flight, her husband did mention several items. He said they had a small life rift with a portable radio. The antenne could be raised with a kite which would act as a colorful beacon. I sure don't know much about radios, but could a small portable radio be heard in Hawaii, Los Angeles or Florida? **************************************************** Her husband did not know what they carried. Everything points to a landing on more-or-less dry land and use of the aircraft's radio. So far as we can determine, there was no "portable" or emergency radio. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:01:52 From: John Harsh Subject: New law impacting aircraft recovery from water From the EAA's weekly e-letter, news of legislation that may impact recovery of military airplanes from rivers and lakes. First the link and then the text. http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/news/2004%20-%2010_29%20-%20EAA%20Reacts%20to%20Aircraft%20Salvage%20Language.html 2004 - 10/29 - EAA Reacts to Aircraft Salvage Language in Defense Authorization Bill EAA and its Warbirds of America division are responding to a measure that could end underwater salvage operations of abandoned military aircraft, removing the possibility that some vintage warbirds could be saved and restored instead of lost forever. The provision, included in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, would ban any U.S. citizen from engaging in any activity "that disturbs, removes or injures any sunken military craft," including airplanes. This would halt attempts, for instance, to pull World War II-era warbirds from waters and restore them to airworthy condition. Although there is language in the provision that allows the Department of Defense to issue permits for salvage operations on a historical or educational basis, EAA and Warbirds of America officials are concerned that such permits may be nearly impossible to obtain or issued in an arbitrary manner. The provision is listed under Title XIV-Sunken Military Craft, Sections 1401-1408, located on pages 721-728 of the document. "There are numerous cases of individuals or groups using their own time and money to save aircraft that the U.S. military had abandoned and had no intention of recovering," said Doug Macnair, EAA's vice president of government affairs and Washington Office Director. "These airplanes pose no military threat and had basically been left to rot by the Pentagon. People who want to invest the time and money to resurrect these aircraft and perhaps return them to the air should be encouraged, not banned." There are examples of individuals restoring such aircraft, then being ordered by the U.S. Navy to return them after having invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in restoration, with no recompense by the military. Although Congress has officially adjourned until the new House and Senate are seated in January, there is always the possibility of a lame-duck session after the Nov. 2 election to finish some legislative business. EAA and Warbirds of America representatives will continue to work on the issue and use the groups' many strong relationships in Washington to ensure no last-minute legislation closes this resource for historical warbird restorations. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:01:00 From: David Billings Subject: Re: Electra in New Britain Pat Thrasher, Your disparaging remark about "old news" in reference to my website: www.electranewbritain.com does you no credit at all. I doubt that you or your partner in business have read the website as it is in conflict with the Nikumaroro Hypothesis to which you stick like glue to a blanket. You do that despite there being no evidence in that regard and you spend OPM like it is going out of fashion, which for you, it is. Anything which detracts from your own pet hypothesis is blatantly disregarded. However, in 1995, your partner Richard, wanted to know the details of our project and I have the Fax to prove it. We were not prepared to give out information at that time. You say our project is "old news", well, I'll bet now that you wish you had it yourself. You are locked in to Nikumaroro and have painted yourselves into a corner. The New Britain Project has evidence Madam, both Visual (the bare aluminium wreck) and Documented (the wartime map). You have none. You have a hypothesis only, we have evidence. Some of your members have already contacted me wishing me well. You see, it might be "old news" to you, but it is "new news" to a lot of them. Some of them may even have the intestinal fortitude to ask you Madam, the reason as to no discussion on the New Britain Project if you knew all about it before my post on your Forum. Your Forum provides information, discussion and very rarely, humour. As moderators you take a delight in trashing everyone else's thoughts and are downright insulting to newcomers on the scene. Your use of symbols representing a foul word was in itself demeaning to your members. How you have lasted so long is a complete mystery in itself. Arrogance is displayed often on your site, humility never. Carry on with Nikumaroro, please do. You will find nothing of the Electra there. I did expect some sarcastic comment and I was right. You can't get off that treadmill can you ? David Billings Nambour Queensland Australia. ********************************************************************** From Ric David, Pat posted your website address as you requested. There's no need for you to attack or insult her or me. No information has been withheld. She characterized it as "old news", which it is. If anyone wishes to discuss it we'll be happy to do so. LTM, Ric ******************************************************************** > Your use of symbols representing a foul word was in itself demeaning > to your members. Could you be referring to the line of asterisks with which we have for many years now separated postings from moderator comment? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:02:19 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Post loss messages Lawrence Talbot says: > "If one signal is legitament then the crashed and sank is crashed and > sunk". > > May be not. Although it is not known what equipment AE carried on her > last flight, her husband did mention several items. He said they had a > small life rift with a portable radio. The antenne could be raised with a > kite which would act as a colorful beacon. I sure don't know much about > radios, but could a small portable radio be heard in Hawaii, Los Angeles or > Florida? Expanding on Pat's reply: Putnam never said that Earhart had a portable life raft or an emergency radio. The Itasca got that mistaken impression early in the search from a badly-worded and misinterpreted exchange of messages with Coast guard headquarters in San Francisco. Several days later the confusion was cleared up. "Plane carried no emergency radio equipment except one spare battery in cabin. Dynamotors all mounted under fuselage and would positively be submerged if plane was in water." (Message from COMFRANDIV to Itasca 09:15Z, July 6, 1937) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:54:11 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Electra in New Britain Dear David, > I did expect a sarcastic comment and I got one. > Situation normal, I suppose. Yes. In order to live normal human lives, we have to make decisions about what we will spend our resources on: this spouse, not that one; this job, not that one; this country, not that one; this hypothesis, not that one; etc. TIGHAR attracts all kinds of Ameliaholics. Pat and Ric have been slogging along, figuring out how to piece together enough funds to support research on the Niku hypothesis for something like 16 or 17 years. They have amassed and assimilated an enormous amount of information on the decades before and after 1937. They have been forced to make hundreds of thousands of decisions about what they will value and what they won't value as a clue to where they should invest their limited and irreplaceable personal energies. "Writing to a friend on September 18, 1861, Charles Darwin reflected on how far the science of geology had come since he first took it up seriously during his five-year voyage on the HMS Beagle: 'About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!'" Scientists do not treat all theories with equal respect. They mentally sort them out on a gradient that runs from highly persuasive to utterly absurd. Then they pick the theory that they judge (intuitively and without perfect proof) that they can test with the resources they have at their disposal. If they make wise choices, the experiments they conduct will teach them something, whether or not they confirm the original hypothesis. I think you have excellent evidence that there is a wrecked aircraft out in the bush that can be located and identified, given enough time and money to do a thorough search. You will also need luck, of course. It is amazing how big the earth is and how small aircraft are. At a wild guess, there must be many thousands of aircraft missing, even though people know roughly where they crashed and have searched for years to find them. I hope you find the wreckage you are searching for. If it is AE's plane, then TIGHAR will have to concede that the Niku hypothesis has been falsified. This would be a crushing emotional disappointment for those of us who have invested in the Niku hypothesis, but it will be a lesson about how historical investigation works. And TIGHAR has tried very assiduously to position its work as an example of good historical investigation. At this point, you find the pencilled notations on the map persuasive and TIGHAR does not. TIGHAR finds the anecdotes about a pre-1939 wreck on Niku persuasive and you do not. If we're lucky to live long enough, time may tell which theory is true and which false. I was happy to share the photos I took of the NZ Electra with you. Those pictures were taken on a trip fully funded by TIGHAR. As far as I'm concerned, they are simply data (facts) that may be shared freely among Ameliaholics. If the photos help you raise money and complete your research, I hope you will recognize that you owe a small debt of gratitude to TIGHAR for the part they play in your success. I find Ric and Pat quite amazing people. I have spent many happy hours in the company and have been a guest in their home. We are worlds apart politically, religiously, and, at times, philosophically, but they have been kind, gracious, and generous to me with their own and TIGHAR's resources. To paraphrase a text from Alcoholics Anonymous, they are not saints, but I do find them willing to grow up mentally. They have put together a most amazing team of experts with world-class credentials along with amateurs who are willing to work like draft animals under their direction. I feel honored to be counted among their friends, associates, and followers. I look forward to the day when Ric can tell the whole story of TIGHAR as he sees it. It's been a great adventure. If you prove TIGHAR wrong--or if TIGHAR proves the Niku hypothesis right--the time will come for telling about the ups and downs of organizing the motley crew. I'm happy to make your acquaintance and, with TIGHAR's funding, to have made some small contribution to your research. I wish you all success with your efforts and hope that you, too, can soon tell the full story of how you located and identified the wreck in New Britain. Marty ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:26:34 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: New Britain For David Billings: Sir, I perused your website; thanks for providing us with the link. Yours is a theory that is new to me. It is quite fascinating. I read your note taking umbrage with Pat and Ric. I'm puzzled, frankly. Please tell us what sort of reception to your first posting would have been acceptable to you. This group (TIGHAR) is, at the moment, deeply involved in testing the hypothesis that Miss Earhart put NR16020 down on Nikumaroro. You can certainly subscribe to your hypothesis, but, in my opinion, you can't legitimately gripe at Pat or Ric or any of us for our interest in a different one. You seem to be interested in why Ric never told us about your hypothesis. If you'd like the answer to that question, feel free to ask. I'll bet Ric will provide an answer. (By the by, if you think that there were posted symbols that represent swear words directed at you, you are mistaken. In my opinion, on that score, you owe Pat & Ric an apology.) As to evidence to support your hypothesis, you have a map with some markings on it, and the stories from the soldiers, do I have that right? Are the soldiers' stories in the form of a report written down at the time of the discovery of the plane? Or are you relying on their memory? (My apologies if that is stated in your website - I missed it). Your website states, "There will be those who will postulate that it was not possible that Earhart, Noonan and the Electra could have made it back to the vicinity of Rabaul. In the main those people will be those who have their own agendas." Oh. I see. If I doubt you, I have an agenda. Hmmm. You doubt us, too. Does that mean that you also have an agenda? I think so. We're agreed, then? You and I each have an agenda? You continue, "The fact remains that there is evidence of aircraft wreckage in that area from persons who saw this wreckage and there is documentary evidence which identifies that wreckage. This is the only evidence in the World of where the Electra rests. I have tried to show here, within this story, that there is merit in continuing to search for this aircraft wreckage in New Britain, which I firmly believe is the elusive Electra." I'm not sure I buy your assertion that yours is the only evidence, but I'll agree, you certainly have evidence supporting your hypothesis. And now, I'm not sure what you are after. Can you please tell us what you want? Do you want us to assist you in some way? Do you want donations? I'll consider making a donation to you, okay? I'm asking Pat to post this to the Forum, and I'm copying you separately so you can respond to me on-Forum or off. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 PS: LTM is not a swear word. It means (I'm not just making this up) "Love to Mother". Ahh, heck with it, perhaps I should have just left the LTM off, but here at TIGHAR, we have our standards along with our odd customs. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:23:22 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: New Britain > From Alfred Hendrickson, for David Billings: > ... You seem to be interested in why Ric > never told us about your hypothesis. If you'd like the answer to that > question, feel free to ask. I'll bet Ric will provide an answer. Two points to note: 1. I'm not unfamiliar with Ric's view of the New Britain hypothesis. I presume that I found it out by reading the website, though I may be mistaken (I often am). I'm sure I've heard Ric comment on the pencil marks from under the tape. 2. I would recommend that folks stand out of swords' reach when asking Ric to "provide answers." I think it's a Scottish-guy thing. > PS: LTM is not a swear word. It means (I'm not just making this up) > "Love to Mother". Ahh, heck with it, perhaps I should have just left > the LTM off, but here at TIGHAR, we have our standards along with our > odd customs. LOL! You wanna watch out for the bagpipers at a TIGHAR party, too. The healing war pipes are best appreciated at a certain distance. LTM & all Ameliaholics. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:24:03 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: The New Britain Hypothesis Ric wrote: "If anyone wishes to discuss [the New Britain Project] we'll be happy to do so." Can anyone tell me how NR16020 could have made it all the way back to New Britain? If I have the place correctly located, it's darned near back to where she started from. Ric, what's your opinion of the New Britain Hypothesis? Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:26:24 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Electra in New Britain To: David Billings Your unwarranted attack on Pat Thrasher does you no credit, sir. The fact is, your hypothesis IS old news(1995?), and here on the Tighar Forum we all have the freedom to express our opinions whether we be moderators, lurkers, dues paying members, or folks with their own personal agenda. The other side of the coin is that once you post your opinions, you have to step up and accept the opinions of all the other forum members. When I read you forum posting, and visited and read your website, I was fascinated with your hypothesis, how well organized your reasoning is, and how enjoyable it is just to read and think about your story. But after reading you're latest posting, I find myself wondering what it is you hope to gain from posting on the Tighar forum. You accuse Ric and Pat of spending OPM like its going out of fashion, and yet your website comes across as a desperate plea for OPM to spend the same way on your theory. Implying some possible with-holding of information not akin to Tighar's isn't exactly the way to gain cooperation or help from Tighar or any other organisation. It seems you posted on our forum: 1. In hopes of winning some of our members' help with OPM and research for your project. 2. In hopes of undermining the relationship between Tighar and its members, which I would find underhanded and foolish. 3. Finding some excuse to go off on that little tirade in your last posting, to try to accomplish #2 above. Both of your posts come accross as aggressive, mean spirited, and written by someone very jealous and spiteful. Pat posted your message in the spirit of cooperation and friendship which is common on this forum. She just doesn't deserve to be personally attacked like that. When you attack one Tighar, you attack 'em all, bud. Jackie Tharp #2440 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:27:16 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Electra in New Britain For David Billings Surprise, Surprise -I've waited a long time for you to surface on this forum - But I am disappointed that you choose to stick your head in Tighar's mouth with you caustic critique of Ric and Miss Pat - Unfortunately that caustic critique puts you and your theory of flight at a great disadvantage on this forum for the foreseeable future. Your theory of flight I feel has some merit but is limited by the underlying support of human memory of an war time incident long past. You also find yourself at a disadvantage without that "metal tag". I do wish you the best of luck with your quest - But do keep in mind there are several posses chasing Amelia and her sidekick Fred and the law of averages suggests that one of those posses maybe on the right solution trail. Last but not least, don't give up on this forum, even if at times we look like we eat our young. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:27:59 From: Jack Thomas Subject: Re: New Britain > From Alfred Hendrickson, for David Billings: > > question, feel free to ask. I'll bet Ric will provide an answer. (By > the by, if you think that there were posted symbols that represent > swear words directed at you, you are mistaken. In my opinion, on that > score, you owe Pat & Ric an apology.) I believe he was referring to the use of "RTFM" directed at newcomers recently. -Jack Thomas ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:30:00 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: New Britain David Billings wrote: > Pat Thrasher, > Your disparaging remark about "old news" in reference to my website: > www.electranewbritain.com > does you no credit at all. I read your web site, and it is in fact, "old news". I have been aware of that story for quite some time, so obviously you had some publicity quite some time ago. I was quite interested in the limited amount of information that was released at the time. Ric and Pat did post the link to your site. That has to tell you something. They could have simply ignored it as "off topic", which it is, as it does not specifically relate to TIGHAR's NIKU hypothesis. They did post it, and there were no disparaging remarks. Ross Devitt. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:31:18 From: Tom King Subject: Tinian Dig: Preliminaries 11/7/04, 5 PM Tamuning, Guam Hafa Adai from Guam, Forumites. I arrived here yesterday for a three-day teaching stint before meeting Kar Burns and flying up to Tinian to help with the excavation of the putative Earhart/Noonan burial site. The sky is as blue as ever in the western Pacific, the clouds as white, the sun as hot, the breezes as scented, though on Guam's lee side the scent is as much of carbon monoxide and particulates as it is of flowers and sea salt. This morning's Pacific Daily News, the major newspaper in the area, had a couple of related articles about the Tinian dig; should be on the web at www.guampdn.com. The coverage seems quite accurate and fair, and took up a bit of the front page and all of pages 2 and 3. "Pretty slow news day," I thought, but then I was interviewed over lunch by the articles' author, Katie Worth, who said that her article last year on the Earhart-Tinian connection had been THE most popular thing the paper had done in terms of website hits from around the world -- over a million. The enduring appeal of Earhart. For those who aren't up on the story -- St. John Naftel, now 82 and a resident of Montgomery, AL, was a Marine gunner on Tinian after it was taken from the Japanese in 1944. He says he was shown a set of graves where Earhart and Noonan had been buried after being executed. Last year he returned to the island accompanied by then-U.S. Navy archaeologist Jennings Bunn and pointed out the site. Bunn, now retired, has put together an excavation project, funded out of his own pocket and staffed by volunteers, obtained a permit from the Northern Marianas Historic Preservation Office, and the work will begin on Thursday the 11th. Naftel and Bunn will arrive Wednesday night, and join Saipan archaeologist Mike Fleming and various colleagues, including Kar and me. The first step, I believe, will be a certain amount of backhoe stripping, followed by shovel-scraping to look for grave shafts, and then controlled hand excavation untill either bones are found or we give up. Ms. Worth asked me for my own opinion of the likelihood of finding Earhart, and I explained why I feel that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is far more likely to be correct, giving her a copy of AE's Shoes (2001 edition, the new one still being hung up at the printer). But I also explained that in our view it's always worth testing alternative hypotheses, and praised Jennings Bunn for putting together an objective, scientifically sound project to test this one. Northern Marianas Historic Preservation Officer Epiphano Cabrera and his senior staff, who are attending my class and sat in on the interview, stressed that they'll have a representative on site to make sure the work is properly done. I'm told I should be able to get internet access on Tinian; if so, I'll report in when I can. If that doesn't work out, I'll at least try to file a report when I return to Guam the evening of the 16th. LTM Tom ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:32:16 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Radios Lawrence Talbot said: "Although it is not known what equipment AE carried on her last flight, her husband did mention several items. He said they had a small life rift with a portable radio. The antenne could be raised with a kite which would act as a colorful beacon. I sure don't know much about radios, but could a small portable radio be heard in Hawaii, Los Angeles or Florida? " Pat replied: "Her husband did not know what they carried. Everything points to a landing on more-or-less dry land and use of the aircraft's radio. So far as we can determine, there was no "portable" or emergency radio." Not to mention that the emergency radio and the unidentified radio that sent the "intercepts" operated on different frequencies. If memory serves me, didn't all emergency radios operate on 500 kcs? Theintercepts were on 3105 and (?) 6210, weren't they? LTM, who no longer chases dittys. Dennis O. McGee #1049EC ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:06:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Alfred asks: > Ric, what's your opinion of the New Britain Hypothesis? There are so many problems with the hypothesis that it's hard to know where to start. The big one, as you've noted, is that there is simply no way to get the airplane back to New Britain. The one piece of alleged documentation specific to the Electra - information from the supposed tag (found under the tape) - is wrong and requires convoluted and unsupported speculative explanations. >The interior sheet metal surfaces (of the nacelle) were painted in a >yellow paint. I'd be interested to hear the explanation of how zinc chromate wash (which did not come into use until 1939) got on Earhart's nacelles. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:07:08 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Less than 1000 total Gallons of fuel available make it absolutely impossible for that to happen unless, for example, they had on board a very strong transmitter to make the folks on the Howland feel they were close [in daylight!] and if they had approximately 4 hours of fuel available in the morning they could have gotten perhaps 600 statute miles in the wrong direction. What? Personally I find it very hard to go with this idea at all. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:01:33 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radios Dennis asks: > If memory > serves me, didn't all emergency radios operate on 500 kcs? The > intercepts were on 3105 and (?) 6210, weren't they? That's correct. In fact, when Itasca put out the first "all ships, all stations" bulletin that afternoon asking everyone to listen for possible distress calls form Earhart they mentioned only 500 kcs (not knowing that, due to antenna changes, the airplane actually had no meaningful ability to transmit on that frequency). Unwittingly, the Itasca set a trap for would-be hoaxers. Had alleged distress calls been reported on 500 kcs they would, by definition, be bogus. But there were none. Throughout the post-loss signal phenomenon not one reception on 500 kcs was reported. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:02:12 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: New Britain I remember many years ago on passing a newpaper stand, seeing the headline in a British tabloid: "World War II Bomber Found on Moon". Jog my memory Ric. Was David Billings in any way associated with the recovery?? Regards Angus. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:02:58 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis The only thing one can say for sure is that an unidentified aircraft wreck has been discovered in New Britain. It cannot possibly be Amelia Earhart's. There have been too many position reports indicating her progress and it's impossible she would have had fuel to fly all the way back to New Britain. LTM (who always loves a good story) ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:03:54 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis I thought Mr. Billings had inferred something from the way Pat posted his note. But he referred to RTFM when he said "Your use of symbols representing a foul word was in itself demeaning to your members." I thought RTFM was funny; a humorous way to remind folks to read before posting, in the same vein as the KISS principle. Mr. Billings feels otherwise. But, on to the meat and potatoes of his hypothesis . . . I communicated a bit with Mr. Billings over the weekend. He seems to me to be a sincere individual and he is quite convinced that he has the answer to the AE/FN disappearance. With a magnetometer survey (a hundred large), he says he can wrap this up. I'm still trying to assimilate all of his information. The patrol soldiers remember this event, but their contemporaneous report (and the tag) has not been located. The map markings are quite interesting indeed. I asked Mr. Billings if there was any chance they were not genuine. He says no chance at all; the map and the marks are the real McCoy. Further, he has the original map in his possession. On the question of whether AE could have made it to New Britain, it sounds like Mr. Billings has NR16020 being blown off course by the wind as they head towards Howland, and then, going back to New Britain, that same wind lowers their fuel consumption and stretches their range. Putting her on New Britain would require some pretty phenomenal gas mileage. Hmmmm. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:04:46 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis I have spent a lot of time exchanging emails with David Billings off forum. I have found David to be quite genuine and enthusiastic about his project. I am convinced he believes in the New Britain project wholeheartedly. He and I have had heated discussions over our disagreements but I still count him as a friend. I probably hope he resolves his quest almost as much as he does. All of you are quite correct in that David gets a bit upset when he meets with some of our opposition but he cools off and recognizes TIGHAR members and AES folks have pretty strong beliefs also. All of us have little holes in our theories that don't quite close the door on all others. Not to put a weight on relative evidence but we have anecdotal evidence of aircraft wreckage on Gardner and no smoking gun as of yet. I think our rationale is pretty good and certainly post loss radio traffic and our fuel analysis give us some measure of support. The Marshallites also have anecdotal evidence and no smoking guns. They have a problem getting the plane to the Marshall's just as David has a problem getting it to New Britain. The Marshall supporters want to put the plane on a seaplane tender or somehow fly it to the Marshall Islands. I have not seen just how they support those ideas with any kind of reasonableness. They would disagree. David would also disagree but is so convinced his evidence is so good he doesn't worry all that much about the fuel issue. That is not to say he doesn't have a good explanation. The crashed and sankers MUST dispute ALL of the post loss radio traffic and without finding the plane on the bottom somewhere have to simply continue to speculate. They can fuss with TIGHAR's work but they cannot provide anything of substance of their own. But then no one has much in the way of substance. Certainly David is trying to raise money and so are we. I suppose everyone connected with various AE groups have that same goal. Things grind to a halt without money. What most folks even within TIGHAR have difficulty comprehending is that TIGHAR is dedicated to resolving whether AE and FN landed and perished on Gardner. We are not looking in the Marshall's, the Gilbert's, New Britain or on the bottom of the ocean. Other folks do that. So when some of us don't jump at alternate theories please understand that's not our job. If anyone thinks the plane is on New Britain go help David. If you think it crashed at sea or went to the Marshall's there are groups who would love to have your help. That doesn't mean you have to buy into Gardner. It just means that's what we do and that's where we want your help. We aren't in the business of putting David down or his theories or his evidence. We aren't in the business of disproving the crashed and sank theory or the Marshall or Gilbert theory. This group won't even let me land the plane on Winslow Reef. We aren't saying Gardner is 100% right and everyone else is wrong. Gardner just happens to be our project and we think we have good reasons for that belief. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:06:47 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Herman says: > The only thing one can say for sure is that an unidentified aircraft > wreck has been discovered in New Britain. You can't even say that. No wreck has been discovered. There is an account that an engine and possibly a wreck was found 60 some odd years ago. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:07:12 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Alfred says: > With a magnetometer survey (a hundred large), > he says he can wrap this up. A magnetometer survey? A magnetometer will only respond to ferrous metal and there is precious little ferrous metal in a Lockheed 10 (the gear legs and retraction torque tubes would probably be the best magnetic targets. The engines are mostly aluminum.) You'd probably see an Electra wreck with the Mark One Eyeball before you'd "see" it with a magnetometer. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:19:55 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Alan says: > Gardner just happens to be our project and we think we have good > reasons for that belief. With all due respect, we didn't pick Gardner out of a hat. We've devoted 15 years to that hypothesis because it's the only one that makes sense to us and the closer we've looked the more sense it has made. More to the point, discerning individuals have examined the evidence we have uncovered and have provided financial support - whether it's a $20 T-shirt or a $200,000 grant. If others have difficulty raising money to test their hypotheses it may be because not enough people share their opinion about the validity of their evidence. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:32:17 From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Hello Alfred, I remember reading a bit about this New Britian thing some time ago somewhere. If I remember correctly, one idea was that Amelia suffered some type of aircraft trouble and wanted to return to Lae, but obviously never made it -- something like the "old take a left and turn back to Lae" situation, thus potentially flying over (or into New Britian). Unfortunately, it appears that we'd have to discount the radio reports both during and post loss to make the puzzle pieces fit this hypothesis. Very interesting though - thanks to all for your work and to TIGHAR for posting the link! Bob Lee > Can anyone tell me how NR16020 could have made it all the way back to > New Britain? If I have the place correctly located, it's darned near > back to where she started from. > > Ric, what's your opinion of the New Britain Hypothesis? > > Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:42:05 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis > From Herman De Wulf > The only thing one can say for sure is that an unidentified aircraft > wreck has been discovered in New Britain. It cannot possibly be Amelia > Earhart's. I would restate the two propositions differently for the sake of precision: 1. An unidentified wreck WAS discovered in N.B. in WWII. David would like to find it again to determine its identity. 2. If the N.B. wreck turns out to be NR16020, we will have to dramatically revise our understanding of what happened on the fatal flight. > There have been too many position reports indicating her progress and > it's impossible she would have had fuel to fly all the way back to New > Britain. Instead of "impossible," I would say "extremely unlikely" or "highly improbable." Strange things do happen. Bottom line: Billings seems to have good evidence that a wreck was found in WWII. It seems likely to me that he may be able to relocate that wreck. I doubt very much that it is AE's plane, but, if it is, I'll have to change my mind about the Niku hypothesis. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:44:03 From: Pete Backlund Subject: Re: New Britain This kind of sarcastic comment is unworthy of TIGHAR. Pete From Angus Murray > I remember many years ago on passing a newpaper stand, seeing the > headline in a British tabloid: > "World War II Bomber Found on Moon". > Jog my memory Ric. Was David Billings in any way associated with the > recovery?? > > Regards Angus. ********************************* I don't write 'em, Pete -- I jest posts 'em. We actually ran a small story in TIGHAR Tracks about the bomber on the moon; I believe it was supposed to be a B-29 but we decided the picture was of something else. A long time ago, now. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:45:27 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis > From Alfred Hendrickson: > I thought Mr. Billings had inferred something from the way Pat posted his > note. But he referred to RTFM when he said "Your use of symbols representing > a foul word was in itself demeaning to your members." I thought RTFM was > funny; a humorous way to remind folks to read before posting, in the same > vein as the KISS principle. RTFM Read The Friendly Manual. Of course in some circles, the manual isn't really friendly.... "Th' WOMBAT" ********************************************** Well, of course. What did you *think* it meant? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:46:17 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: the New Britain Hypothesis > From Ric > > You can't even say that. No wreck has been discovered. There is an > account that an engine and possibly a wreck was found 60 some odd years > ago. > LTM, > Ric I seem to recall a tale of a skeleton lying near a beach, women's shoes and an Irish magistrate sparking off a search.... Th' WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:15:01 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis I'll agree with extremely unlikely. I suspect that it will be quite difficult to locate a pre-WW II wreck in the jungle of New Britain. The fact that they could locate it at all in that era suggests to me that it was not AE's, but a fresher wreck of some other aircraft. Dan Postellon ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:38:35 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: New Britain Pete Backlund writes (in reference to Angus Murray's facetious question about David Billings being involved in the "World War II Bomber Found on Moon": <> I agree, but Angus is not a TIGHAR member and does not speak for TIGHAR. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:00:26 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Angus and the plane wreck on the moon In defense of Angus (whose postings I enjoy immensely), if the Forum's sarcasm threshold is going to be adjusted down so low that the man ain't free to talk about plane wrecks on the moon, I'll be hatin' life. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ********************************************************** Fear not. Do not adjust your set. Sarcasm levels will soon return to normal. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:00:56 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis The Wombat says: > I seem to recall a tale of a skeleton lying near a beach, women's shoes > and an Irish magistrate sparking off a search.... Not exactly. We recognized the Floyd Kilts story about bones being found as an interesting anecdote that might contain elements of truth. We did not, however, use it as the basis of a search because the story itself did not suggest that there was anything to search for. A better example would be Coast Guard veteran Dick Evans' story about seeing a "water collection device" somewhere on the island's northeast shore. We searched very hard for that site in 1991 without success. We finally found it 1996 with the help of some very hi-tech forensic imaging of old aerial photos, but we didn't understand the significance of what we had found until the British files describing the whole bones incident came to light in 1997/98. It wasn't until 2001 that we were able to make a reasonably conclusive identification of the site (now known as the Seven Site) as the place where the castaway's bones had been found. The lesson? All searches usually start with a story. Nothing wrong with that. But successful searches start with stories that make sense and are backed up by solid documentation. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:01:54 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Ric wrote: > With all due respect, we didn't pick Gardner out of a hat. OK, so much for playing straight man. Alan ****************************** ba-da-bing ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:23:23 From: Al Hillis Subject: Re: Angus and the plane wreck on the moon I didn't see them change. lol Just teasing Pat. BUT, Does Ric live in a glass house when speaking for someone like the Surgeon General of the United States? From Tighars Home Page - Warning: The Surgeon General has determined the Amelia Earhart Search Forum to be a potentially addictive activity. It is a dynamic and active research tool which typically generates a dozen or more postings each day. Many forum subscribers soon become hopelessly hooked. Others whose interest is more casual or who do not normally check their email every day find that the volume of traffic is more than they can handle. See Ric, we do read the forum notes. :) Enjoying it all. > From Alfred Hendrickson: > > In defense of Angus (whose postings I enjoy immensely), if the Forum's > sarcasm threshold is going to be adjusted down so low that a man > ain't free to talk about plane wrecks on the moon, I'll be hatin' life. > > LTM, > > Alfred Hendrickson #2583 > ********************************************************** > > Fear not. Do not adjust your set. Sarcasm levels > will soon return to > normal. > > Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:44:07 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Angus and the plane wreck on the moon gee, and I thought the sarcasm was already at record levels: sure hope it doesn't increase ************************************** Perhaps our disclaimer ought to mention the fact that a small but deadly number of our members are incurable smart-asses..... And why am I suddenly thinking of Dennis McGee? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:09:55 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: bombers on moon I saw that at the newsstand and recall that it was supposed to be a B24 liberator. One of the National Enquirer type rags or somesuch. ********************************* The Weekly World News, our favorite. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:10:25 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Angus and the plane wreck on the moon > Does Ric live in a glass house when speaking for someone like the > Surgeon General of the United States? The website doesn't say anything about the Surgeon General of the United States. It mentions "the Surgeon General". We're an international organization. We have our own Surgeon General. And of course I live in a glass house. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:12:30 From: Pete Gray Subject: Re: planes on moon Let us not forget the HANNEBAU ship the Nazis put on Mars in 1947, since we all know Bermuda Triangle losses are on the dark side of the moon. Mother thought herding cats would be so easy.... Ad Astra! pete former #2419 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:17:25 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: New Britain > From Pete Backlund > > This kind of sarcastic comment is unworthy of TIGHAR. > > Pete As Ric says, I don't speak for Tighar. Anyone with a theory of the Earhart disappearance who expects to be taken seriously had better get their facts straight. If they don't, they shouldn't feel too upset if they make themselves a laughing stock. You should also be aware (as I understand it) that no public mention was ever made of C/N1055 by the proponents of this idea before that information was provided by Ric. My guess is that David Billings has had the wool pulled over his eyes. As Ric correctly pointed out, the theory is so replete with problems, it is difficult even to know where to begin in pointing them out. --The Lockheed Electra 10E would in no circumstances operate at 25gph on both engines in level flight. --The land in sight ahead message was not at 00:30 GMT. --00:30 GMT was not 11:00 am at Nauru. --Higher Octane fuel will not increase BMEP. (It allows you to use operate at a higher manifold --pressure for the same rpm without detonation). --Salt on the cowlings would be rapidly removed by the frequent downpours that happen in New Britain. --The 1936 Lockheed 10E did not use a yellow chromate finish. --Ontario was an ocean going tug not a USCG cutter. --Lockheed never said in 1937 the aircraft would be held at 8000ft for ten hours (and if they did recently they were wrong). --An immediate climb to 10,000ft would without doubt use more fuel per mile than a staged climb to lower altitude especially when headwinds are higher at altitude. --Lockheed's claim of a 4000 mile range was a pre-delivery nominal figure estimated from a rule-of-thumb formula. The range they actually claimed in 1937 as practical was not in excess of 3,600 s/miles. --Since we can be fairly sure FN reached the sun line through Howland, it is impossible that they were short of Howland by 140 or 150 miles. I could point out some more but I think you get the point. I could well have believed that that the aircraft was eg a Ki 54 or similar but that story of seeing the Pratt & Whitney name plate and the business about the cowl joint rivets, the heavy corrosion and the error over the 600hp make me think that someone wanted the world to believe that this was a Lockheed Electra. If that is indeed the case then this story can only be a hoax. As it happens I do know what happened (as will eventually be revealed) to AE's Electra and I can categorically say that it did not wind up on New Britain. The probable reason that no aircraft of the sort described has been found after nine searches on New Britain is that such an aircraft simply does not exist. So don't give me too hard a time about sending up what is almost certainly a hoax. Another hoax was of course the wreck photo. Do you notice any curious parallels? In a clearing One engine attached The cockpit section smashed back to the mainspar Unpainted Tall trees In a tropical island setting Food for thought. Regards Angus. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:18:21 From: Alan Hall Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis A Night at the Opera ... the Marx Brothers http://www.nightattheopera.net/qtclips.html "QuickTime Movie clip of Fiorello (Chico Marx) disguised as one of the greatest aviators in the world, describing how they came to America" "So now I tell you how we fly to America. The first time-a we start-a, we get-a half way across when we run out of gasoline and we gotta go back. Then I take-a twice as much-a gasoline. This time we were just about to land, maybe three feet, when what do you think? We run out of gasoline again. And back we go again and get-a more gas. This time I take-a plenty gas. Wella we getta half way over ... when what do you thinka happen? We forgota the airplane. So we gotta sit down and we talk it over. Then I getta the great idea. We no taka gasoline. We no taka the airplane. We taka steamship. And that, friends... is how we fly across the ocean." ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:20:04 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Marty Moleski objects to my writing that that Amelia Earhart would have had insufficient fuel reserves to turn back to New Britain, writing : > "Instead of "impossible," I would say "extremely unlikely" or "highly > improbable." Strange things do happen." At one time Earhart radioed "We are upon you but can't see you". This was the last of several position reports indicating she was on her way to Howland. At no point in the flight was there ever a broadcast indicating she had made a 180 degree turn and was heading back West or to New Britain. And so far into the flight as to announce to be over or near Howland there just couldn't have been sufficient fuel left to return. I think we all agree with the fuel burn calculations which left her with something like four hours of gas left. That could perhaps have brought her to Gardner Island, which is what TIGHAR believes and is investigating, but there is no way she could have flown all the way back to New Britain after having said "We must be on you but can't see you". Her "possibly" having done so after all and "possibly" have reached it is -to put it mildly- unrealistic. I do agree with Marty's statement that strange things sometimes do happen. The good Lord is known to have put the Azores near a Canadian Airbus A330 running out of Jet A over the Atlantic as was the case recently. An previous to that He put a deserted airbase near a Canadian Boeing 767 who had also run out of gas over Canada. Mind you, this kind of interventions seem to be limited to Canadian airplanes. Earhart's was registered in the US. Let's stick to Marty's bottom line: "Billings seems to have good evidence that a wreck was found in WWII. It seems likely to me that he may be able to relocate that wreck. I doubt very much that it is AE's plane, but, if it is, we'll all have to change our minds about the Niku hypothesis. LTM. Herman (#2406) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:22:09 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Angus and the plane wreck on the moon Sarcasm is unworthy of TIGHAR? Have I stumbled into some alternative reality? ********************************** No, Tom, relax and keep digging. TIGHAR has not suddenly reformed . Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:23:21 From: Tom King Subject: TIGHARs on Tinian 2 Not a great deal to report on the Tinian project, since we're not there yet, but it may be worth noting that I found myself on a radio talk show this afternoon with Jim Sullivan, one of the project organizers and host of a science/exploration/nature call-in show here on Guam with some very interesting links to other parts of the broadcasting universe; a nice fellow with whom I think it will be both useful and enjoyable for TIGHAR to remain in touch. The work that he and his colleagues have done to pin down the "burial site" is actually pretty impressive, and Jim maintains a healthy skepticism about who's likely to really be buried there. A press release that's been put out about the project, that outlines what they've done to date, is at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/11/prweb176381.php Kar and I should be on Saipan, where it now appears we won't even have telephone service in our rooms (though I'm told there's a phone in the lobby). Then to Tinian on Thursday. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:31:42 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Bombers on moon Carl Peltzer says: > I saw that at the newsstand and recall that it > was supposed to be a B24 liberator. Actually the plane in the supposed photo was a B-32 "Dominator". (I wish I could forget this stuff.) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:42:56 From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: New Britain Angus Murray wrote "Since we can be fairly sure FN reached the sun line through Howland, it is impossible that they were short of Howland by 140 or 150 miles." ... unless, of course they were 140-150 miles north or south on that line. And do we know fairly sure they reached that sun line? - or that they THOUGHT they reached the sun line? A big difference. Cheers from Bill Shea ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:16:24 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: New Britain Bill Shea says: > ... unless, of course they were 140-150 miles north or south on that > line. True. > And do we know fairly sure they reached that sun line? - or that they > THOUGHT they reached the sun line? A big difference. I think it's fair to say that we're very sure that they THOUGHT they reached the sun line (after all, AE said "we must be on you" and later "we are on the line 157 337"). Given the information that SHOULD have been available to Noonan I think that we can be "fairly sure" that they did reach the sun line within a tolerance of 10 miles or so. LTM Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:17:01 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: TIGHARs on Tinian 2 Well, it sure sounds like someone was buried there. I wish I were there to help. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:17:39 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Well, with the 600 hp engines, AE was able to climb to a MUCH higher altitude and pick up the jet stream with 300 mph plus tail winds - of course she had to hold her breath since the Electra was not pressurized and she didn't have oxygen on board, but that is a small detail, I'm sure - maybe that's why they crashed at New Britain. They ran out of oxygen, passed out, and the plane ran out of gas and crashed with them asleep at the controls. Their skeletons will be found still strapped in their seats. LTM - who loves wild rumors (or was that wild roomers?) Dave Bush ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:40:34 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Dave Bush wrote: "With the 600 hp engines, AE was able to climb to a MUCH higher altitude and pick up the jet stream with 300 mph plus tail winds - of course she had to hold her breath since the Electra was not pressurized and she didn't have oxygen on board, but that is a small detail, I'm sure - maybe that's why they crashed at New Britain. They ran out of oxygen, passed out, and the plane ran out of gas and crashed with them asleep at the controls. Their skeletons will be found still strapped in their seats". Good thinking Dave ! This will allow some to speculate on secret compressors that must have equipped AE's twin 600 hp Wasps to allow her to operate at these altitudes. And she must have been in on secrets, including the existence of the high altitude jet streams which were discovered with the advent of jet travel in the Fifties. LTM (who always loves jokes) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:47:34 From: Tom King Subject: Re: TIGHARs on Tinian 2 For Dan Postellan: >Well, it sure sounds like someone was buried there>> Yeah, but this being Tinian, there are people buried all over. I was cheered yesterday to learn that according to people who've dug there, most WWII Japanese graves are shallow. Wish you were here, as does Mother. Tom ***************************************** Note to Forum: Tom's reports (all two of 'em so far) are now up on the TIGHAR website, with maps and so on. Note to Tom: Can you give me any sort of general indication as to where on Tinian you folks will be working? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:56:44 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: New Britain I think it is much more likely that someone missed a broadcast from Amelia and Fred saying they were turning back, early in the flight. The "We must be on you" broadcast would have been made as they thought they were getting closer to Lae, and might just put them near New Britain. "We are on the line 157 337" was probably referring to a celebratory drink, and misinterpreted by the listeners. What was really said was "We've been drinking wine since 1:57. It's now 3:37". Problem solved. It's amazing what a little scientific research (4 years of TIGHAR forum) and a spot of lateral thinking can do! Th' WOMBAT > From Ric > Bill Shea says: >> ... unless, of course they were 140-150 miles north or south on that >> line. > > True. > >> And do we know fairly sure they reached that sun line? - or that they >> THOUGHT they reached the sun line? A big difference. > > I think it's fair to say that we're very sure that they THOUGHT they > reached the sun line (after all, AE said "we must be on you" and later > "we are on the line 157 337"). Given the information that SHOULD have > been available to Noonan I think that we can be "fairly sure" that they > did reach the sun line within a tolerance of 10 miles or so. > LTM > Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:57:20 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: TIGHARs on Tinian Coverage of the Tinian dig is now up on the TIGHAR website. Just go to the homepage at TIGHAR.org and click on "TIGHARs on Tinian". (Note: Before somebody jumps all over us, we know that the map of the Pacific has Niku way the heck down by Samoa. It's just a freaky projection.) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:10:58 From: Ed Rollman Subject: Re: Tinian dig preliminaries Can the peanut gallery ask a legitimate question? Not being familiar with the sun line AE said she was right on-which point is closest to that line Tinian or Nurak? (Meaning thew former Gardner Island? Ed Rollman,Bremerton,Wa. ***************************************** http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/LOPMap.html http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/noonannav.htm http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/navigation.html http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/worldflight.html It's Nikumaroro. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:58:32 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Earhart presents For those who have been looking for that AE related Xmas present, the Historic Aviation catalog has a wooden model Electra in Earhart colors that can be purchased with or without the print Lost! by Jack Fellows. I happen to have and enjoy both. The print goes well hanging right next to my copy of Final Approach by Scott Allbee depicting the Electra on approach to Niku. Makes for a nice visualization of the sequence of events. For the model aircraft and print of Lost! go to http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/product_info.po?ID=4947 The print of FInal Approach can be purchased through TIGHAR Central http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_store/electrapainting.html LTM Andrew McKenna Harbor Lights Villa A Special Place In the Caribbean www.harborlights.vi 720-635-1166 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:59:19 From: Bill Shea Subject: Impurities in fuel tanks? One of two things happened. the Electra either crashed or set down. Tighar believes they could have set down (even a controlled crash) on Gardner). OK, but also consider what might have been going on a few minutes before they might have crashed into the sea due to running out of fuel. They were running out of fuel, and with AE trying to get a hold of the Itasca, Noonan would probably have been going around the tanks and trying to use any remaining fuel in each tank. If that was the case, wouldn't these tanks have a certain amount of "impurities" in the bottom of each one? One could imagine that if they were down to that contaminated fuel that the engines might have shut down or coughed enough for them to crash into the sea as they were apparently at 1000ft - a few minutes before they thought they would have to go down. A while ago Ric mentioned that the tanks were vented properly and probably would not have caused an explosion or a crash, well how about the dregs at the bottom of the tanks? Maybe this might have caused the Electra to crash just a minute or two before they thought they would be going down. Ric, as they went around the world I wonder if this possible dregs would have been allowed to build up or had been flushed out. Any info on this? This does provide a reason that if they did crash from being out of fuel that they might have crashed a minute or two before they thought they were going to do a controlled crash. Maybe they were a lot closer to Howland, Baker, or Gardner than us 'crashed and sankers' would put them - just out of sight of land. Cheers from Bill Shea ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:05:38 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Interesting that the jet stream, which operates at mid-latitudes, would be found near the equator...NOT! > From Herman De Wulf > > Dave Bush wrote: > > "With the 600 hp engines, AE was able to climb to a MUCH higher > altitude and pick up the jet stream with 300 mph plus tail winds - of > course she had to hold her breath since the Electra was not pressurized > and she didn't have oxygen on board, but that is a small detail, I'm > sure - maybe that's why they crashed at New Britain. They ran out of > oxygen, passed out, and the plane ran out of gas and crashed with them > asleep at the controls. Their skeletons will be found still strapped in > their seats". > > Good thinking Dave ! This will allow some to speculate on secret > compressors that must have equipped AE's twin 600 hp Wasps to allow her > to operate at these altitudes. And she must have been in on secrets, > including the existence of the high altitude jet streams which were > discovered with the advent of jet travel in the Fifties. > > LTM (who always loves jokes) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:07:15 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Actually, the Japanese knew of the jet stream before then, which was the reason they launched the Fu Gos balloon attacks. A few balloons reached as far as my state of Michigan. They were unknown to the US throughout WW II, however. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (loved the Michado) > From Herman De Wulf > > Dave Bush wrote: > > "With the 600 hp engines, AE was able to climb to a MUCH higher > altitude and pick up the jet stream with 300 mph plus tail winds - of > course she had to hold her breath since the Electra was not pressurized > and she didn't have oxygen on board, but that is a small detail, I'm > sure - maybe that's why they crashed at New Britain. They ran out of > oxygen, passed out, and the plane ran out of gas and crashed with them > asleep at the controls. Their skeletons will be found still strapped in > their seats". > > Good thinking Dave ! This will allow some to speculate on secret > compressors that must have equipped AE's twin 600 hp Wasps to allow her > to operate at these altitudes. And she must have been in on secrets, > including the existence of the high altitude jet streams which were > discovered with the advent of jet travel in the Fifties. > > LTM (who always loves jokes) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:18:31 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: New Britain > From Bill Shea > > Angus Murray wrote "Since we can be fairly sure FN reached the sun line > through Howland, > it is impossible that they were short of Howland by 140 or 150 miles." > > ... unless, of course they were 140-150 miles north or south on that > line. Bill, I don't think you understand the point I was making. David Billings attempted to salvage his theory from fuel exhaustion by suggesting that AE & Co never travelled the whole west-east distance to Howland and were short of it by 140 or 150 miles hence allowing enough fuel (as he claims) to return to New Britain. If AE joined the 157 line south of Howland, she would inevitably be east of Howland and therefore could not be short of Howland in a west to east sense. In fact she would have travelled further than the direct distance to Howland. If she joined it north of Howland, this would reduce the easting but she would have to reach the line some hundreds of miles north of Howland to be 140/150 miles west of it and the actual distance travelled to that point would be very little less. Reaching the line 140-150 miles north or south of Howland still of course leaves them in a sense "short of Howland" by 140-150 miles but this is not in a direction that helps minimise the distance travelled. When I say that it was impossible that they were short of Howland by 140-150 miles, I mean short in the west-east sense that would save the fuel that David Billings needs for his theory to work. > And do we know fairly surely that they reached that sun line? - or > that they > THOUGHT they reached the sun line? A big difference. I think Ric has answered this point. Regards Angus. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:07:47 From: Scott White Subject: Howard Hughes article In case anyone is interested, the Los Angeles Times ran a short feature article on Howard Hughes on Sunday (7 Nov 04). It focuses on the 30s and 40s, and his interest / involvement in aviation. You should be able to find it on their web site, latimes.com via a simple search. They used to require registration, but it seems they don't any more. Best, -SW ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:09:29 From: Tom Hickcox Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis > From Dan Postellon > > Actually, the Japanese knew of the jet stream before then, which was > the reason they launched the Fu Gos balloon attacks. A few balloons > reached as far as my state of Michigan They were unknown to the US > throughout WW II, however. Didn't the USAAF become aware of the jet streams during the B-29 bombing campaigns against Japan? That claim is made in Time/Life's Bombers over Japan volume of their WW2 series, pp. 101-103. I am wondering if Mr. Postellon was referring to knowledge of the Fu Gos balloons or the jet streams? Tom Hickcox ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:10:51 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Another illusion lost > From Randy Jacobson > > Interesting that the jet stream, which operates at mid-latitudes, > would be found near the equator...NOT! ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:11:28 From: Dave Bush Subject: Wartime balloons From what I have gleaned from History Channel, the US Gubmint knew, but elected to keep quiet regarding the balloons in order to prevent a panic among the citizens. We did have some forest fires created by the balloons, but it was all minor. LTM, Dave Bush ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:27:29 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis >> From Randy Jacobson >> >> Interesting that the jet stream, which operates at mid-latitudes, >> would be found near the equator...NOT! The jet stream operating at mid-latitudes is of course the subtropical jet stream but have you forgotten the Easterly Equatorial Jet Stream of the Indian Ocean whose origins lie in the Western Pacific? Of course once one recognises that she was travelling at the 50,000ft necessary to reach the Equatorial Jet Stream, it is easy to see why she needed those three pairs of socks and the size ten shoes. Regards Angus. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:38:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Impurities in fuel tanks? Bill Shea asks: > how about the dregs at the bottom of the tanks? Maybe this might have > caused the Electra to crash just a minute or two before they thought > they would be going down. I can't speak for state-of-the-art aircraft today but, in my experience, no pilot knows within "a minute or two" when an engine is going to quit from fuel exhaustion. I've often seen engines run for 10 or 15 minutes after the gauge was on dead empty. Also, Earhart's fuel system included a hand-operated "stripper" pump that allowed her to use the last dregs from each of the tanks. Speculating about the exact moment the engines quit, when there isn't even any evidence that they did quit in flight, is in my opinion pointless and silly. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:39:49 From: Peter Polen Subject: Earhart books I am building up my library on Earhart and would like to know your views on which books to get that are most accurate and factual. I only want 2 or 3 books and the TIGHAR library lists several. Your help is greatly appreciated. PS: Is there a way that I can get on the list or prepay an amount to receive the first copy of the post loss radio book you will be bringing out shortly? Peter Polen Director Piper Aviation Museum ************************************************************************ From Ric Of course, you'll want the new 2nd edition of "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" by Tom King et al. For a general biography of AE I'd recommend "The Sound of Wings" by Mary Lovell (St. Martins Press. 1989) You might also want to have a copy of "Last Flight", the book that Putnam assembled from Earhart's notes and press releases. As soon as we know for sure just how the Post Loss Radio Study will be published will give you and everyone else a chance to get your order in. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:23:49 From: Mike Holt Subject: The New Britain Hypothesis, explained with the help of a previous discussion Let's assume the Electra found was AE's airplane. How it got there is not at all difficult to understand. First of all, one must assume none of the existing hypotheses are correct. Second, one must hark back to (I always wanted to write that) a discussion of some time ago, concerning the whereabouts of the carrier Akagi. Third, one must assume AE and FN were on a spying mission. Consider: AE and FN were recruited by FDR to spy, but on the Germans, who were suspected to have been building submarine supply bases on Mandate Islands. After all, the Germans had owned those islands until that embarrassment at Versailles. The Japanese Navy was a part of this. AE and FN were launched from the Akagi, after landing at a temporary beach airstrip near Lae. The airplane was then loaded onto the Akagi. The carrier took the plane near the German bases, where it launched the airplane. Col. Doolittle was there as a military technical advisor. Intercepted by Bf109s, AE and FN were chased back toward New Britain, where they crashed. They died trying to walk out of the jungle. Eaten by cannibals, perhaps? The messages from NR16020 were recorded prior to the flight, so no one realized the flight was not going on as advertised. Those transmissions could have been staged from a Japanese seaplane, of course. What did I miss? I'll quit now. LTM, who made 'em for her kids, too. Mike Holt ****************************************************** You obviously lead a rich fantasy life. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:30:59 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Angus Says > As it happens I do know what happened (as > will eventually be revealed) to AE's Electra and I can categorically > say that it did not wind up on New Britain. Angus, you sound about as sure of yourself as David Billings does. Perhaps it is time to start revealing. Playing cat and mouse games isn't very productive. LTM (who likes to see the cards on the table) Andrew McKenna ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:54:46 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Impurities in the fuel tanks? We seem to need more aviation enthusiasts around here to help explain these terms for them so here goes: Aiircraft piston Engines are very susceptible to water and dirt so they all have at least two places in the system to take out impurities. The new production Cessnas have approximately 10 today. In the case of older planes, For example, one on each tank has a low drain to let bad stuff sit there and be removed during preflight, one upstream to clean out any that get that far which is why we walk around with a cup- to take out water and dirt before we go flying. Believe me She, after all her time in the air, knew enough to do these very carefully. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:12:11 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Me??? Pat said: > Perhaps our disclaimer ought to mention the fact that a > small but deadly number of our members are incurable smart-asses..... > > And why am I suddenly thinking of Dennis McGee? Ah, my lovely, 'tis not that I'm a smart ass by nature :-) , it's just part of my training for my second career as a curmudgeon, which I hope to start in 2006. Got any Oreos? LTM, who is occasionally a bit cranky, too Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:27:31 From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Impurities in the fuel tanks Carl Peltzer writes: > In the case of older planes, For example, one on each tank has a > low drain to let bad stuff sit there and be removed during preflight, > one upstream to clean out any that get that far which is why we walk > around with a cup- to take out water and dirt before we go flying. > > Believe me She, after all her time in the air, knew enough to do > these very carefully. All very well and good but the bottom line is they were running out of fuel so she would have had Noonan try and "squeeze" any extra fuel he could out of the tanks. I dont know enough about how the early engines would cope with sediments in the fuel tank but I can imagine that the engines would have coughed and shut down and crashed (being only at 1000ft altitude - probably a minute or two before they thought they were going down. All this pointless and silly, Ric? Well, I would think that trying to figure out their options before crashing is no more pointless and silly any more as the New Britain or Tinian theory. I think it all should be addressed. Cheers from Bill Shea ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:52:58 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: The New Britain Hypothesis Andrew McKenna wrote: >> As it happens I do know what happened (as >> will eventually be revealed) to AE's Electra and I can categorically >> say that it did not wind up on New Britain. > > Angus, you sound about as sure of yourself as David Billings does. > Perhaps it is time to start revealing. Playing cat and mouse games > isn't very productive. I can see you find my remark frustrating and I can sympathise because its just as frustrating for me because I can't reveal the whole story at present for a number of reasons. It is very understandable that I should attract some flak because of my reticence but I will just have to weather that for the time being. What I can tell you is that I discovered the solution to the Earhart mystery some years ago. This is not some crackpot, speculation-based theory either. It derives from contemporary documented evidence and the evidence is surprisingly detailed. The key to the solution lies in 3621 7000 6356 4910 4429 0002 7949 5295 4220 9491 4857 6001 9718 8961 8410 453 When I am able to reveal the answer, I will return to these numbers and show you their significance. In the meantime make a permanent note of them somewhere so that you can be sure they are indeed the same numbers. Its not my intention to play games and the above is the best I can do at present. It is not a wind up or a joke. I will not refer again to what I have discovered except in the event of some new development. Regards Angus Murray ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:09:03 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Impurities in the fuel tanks Bill Shea says > All this pointless and silly, Ric? Well, I would think that trying to figure > out their options before crashing is no more pointless and silly any more as > the New Britain or Tinian theory. I agree. It's just as silly and pointless as the New Britain and Tinian theories. We're helping to investigate the Tinian theory because it's a testable hypothesis (dig here) and it wasn't going to get tested without expertise that only we could provide. We would not participate in any attempt to test the New Britain hypothesis because it is not testable in any practical sense. Wandering around the jungles of New Britain based on some notes on an old map case looking for an airplane that can't be there is almost as pointless as searching hundreds of square miles of ocean bottom. For the life of me I can't figure out what difference it could possibly make whether the Electra's engines ran out of fuel at, for example, 11:23 or 11:24. If you're flying at 1,ooo feet and the engines quit you have ballpark two or three minutes to figure out where you're going to put the airplane. If you're within gliding distance of land you head for the land. If you're not you have to decide whether to bail out or ditch (assuming you have a 'chute). If you elect to ditch you look at the waves and the wind and set up your approach so as to minimize the impact. But again, there is no evidence that she ran out of gas and, even if she did, there is no way to know when the engines quit, so it's just piling speculation on top of speculation. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:10:10 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Did somebody skip his meds? Angus Murray said: > What I can tell you is that I discovered the > solution to the Earhart mystery some years ago . . . The key to the > solution lies in //numbers stream// . . . Ahhh, sheesh! Not another one. Here's my reply (hint: it's a simple one-for-one reversed substitution system using a codeword.): ZKSBD AJBFV UBMMJ UPCVF AZAPK LTM, in plain text Dennis O. McGee #1049EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:11:09 From: Ed Rollman Subject: Re: Wartime balloons Dave Bush: if you are talking abour Japanses ballons,several reached the Oregon coast in the early part of World War Two,exploded and caused forest fires along the Oregon coast and i read a few years back where our government did,indeed, know about them but cloaked it all in secrecy to keep the public from going into panic and hysteria. Ed Rollman,Bremerton,Wa. ****************************** I believe that's just what Dave said. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:11:38 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Me?? AH, but a forum where everyone agree's and doesn't have a bit of wise-acres would be boring and people would be turned off. Jim Preston I think she is on Siapan ! ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:12:46 From: Ray Brown Subject: Re: Wartime balloons Sad to say the damage was more than minor. It is some time now since I read about this, but if I recall correctly ,a family out picnicking in Oregon, I think, came across one of these incendiary devices and began to examine it out of curiosity. It exploded,killing one of them and injuring others. LTM, Ray # 2634. > From Dave Bush > > From what I have gleaned from History Channel, the US Gubmint knew, > but > elected to keep quiet regarding the balloons in order to prevent a > panic among the citizens. We did have some forest fires created by the > balloons, but it was all minor. > > LTM, > Dave Bush ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:13:40 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: A numbers game Angus wrote: "The key to the solution lies in 3621 7000 6356 4910 4429 0002 7949 5295 4220 9491 4857 6001 9718 8961 8410 453" Pat, how'd Angus get hold of all my credit card numbers? LTM, who paid in cash, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ******************************************* Hey, I'll never tell. But how do you think we've stayed afloat all these years? ;-) Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:14:03 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Impurities in the fuel tanks To: Bill Where do you get the fact that they were running out of fuel. I remember one radio transmission that was questionable about whether or not she said "running low on fuel". If she ran out of fuel, how did she send all those post-loss messages? She could send without running her engine, but she would have had to run it to recharge her batteries. LTM, Jackie Tharp #2440 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:14:51 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Wartime balloons The Government knew about the balloons, but they didn't know about the jet stream. Dan Postellon > From Dave Bush > > From what I have gleaned from History Channel, the US Gubmint knew, > but > elected to keep quiet regarding the balloons in order to prevent a > panic among the citizens. We did have some forest fires created by the > balloons, but it was all minor. > > LTM, > Dave Bush ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:47:39 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Wartime balloons From "Ballooning: The complete guide to riding the wind. Dick Wirth and Jerry Young 1980 ISBN 0-394-51338-X p 47: "..small hydrogen balloons, carrying loads of between 5-15 kg of incendiaries and explosives, designed to cause random havoc.... In all some 9,000 of the Fu-Gos were launched in the five month period commencing November 1944...only 285 balloons made recorded landfall on America...from Alaska to Mexico. Only six deaths and minimal damage occurred." I can't find the reference to the jet stream that they flew in. Can anyone document that it was known in the US before the Earhart flight? I'm sure that somewhere there is a reference that says that Japanese meteorologists planned the flights, and that the US didn't know about the jet stream then. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:48:13 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: A Numbers Game > Angus wrote: "The key to the solution lies in 3621 7000 6356 4910 4429 > 0002 7949 5295 4220 9491 4857 6001 9718 8961 8410 453" Oh no!!! Do you mean that she really was captured by space aliens? Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:18:04 From: Tom Hickcox Subject: Re: Wartime balloons > From Ray Brown > > Sad to say the damage was more than minor. > > It is some time now since I read about this, but if I recall correctly > ,a family out picnicking in Oregon, I think, came across one of these > incendiary devices and began to examine it out of curiosity. It > exploded,killing one of them and injuring others. This happened near Lakeview, Oregon on May 5, 1945 according to a couple of the sites found by Googling "Japanese-incendiary-balloon-Oregon." One site said a woman and five children were killed; another one adult and four children. Tom Hickcox ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:37:43 From: Tom Hickcox Subject: Re: Wartime Balloons > From Dan Postellon > > From "Ballooning: The complete guide to riding the wind. Dick Wirth > and Jerry Young 1980 ISBN 0-394-51338-X p 47: "..small hydrogen > balloons, carrying loads of between 5-15 kg of incendiaries and > explosives, designed to cause random havoc.... In all some 9,000 of > the Fu-Gos were launched in the five month period commencing November > 1944...only 285 balloons made recorded landfall on America...from > Alaska to Mexico. Only six deaths and minimal damage occurred." > > I can't find the reference to the jet stream that they flew in. Can > anyone document that it was known in the US before the Earhart flight? > I'm sure that somewhere there is a reference that says that Japanese > meteorologists planned the flights, and that the US didn't know about > the jet stream then. > > Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 The reference I saw said the USAAF became aware of the jet stream during the first B-29 mission bombing Tokyo on Nov. 24, 1944. It gave them considerable problems with navigation and being able to bomb with precision. Tom Hickcox ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:26:40 From: James Burnett Subject: Re: Angus' hypothesis Angus wrote: > The key to the solution lies in > 3621 7000 6356 4910 4429 0002 7949 5295 4220 9491 4857 6001 9718 8961 > 8410 > 453 When I am able to reveal the answer, I will return to these > numbers and > show you their significance. In the meantime make a permanent note of > them > somewhere so that you can be sure they are indeed the same numbers. The Imperial Japanese Navy's code was known by Joe Rochefort and his crew as JN-25. It was a combination of code and cipher. The code book contained five-digit numbers for nearly every word or phrase the navy anticipated needing to send meaningful messages: ATTACK(ED, ING) = 73428 BATTLESHIP(S) = 29781 CRUISER(S) = 58797 DESTROYER(S) = 36549 ENEMY = 38754 "Destroyers attacking enemy cruisers" would thus begin encoding as 36549 73428 38754 58797. Before sending the message, however, the commo officer would encipher it by choosing a number from a cipher table, itself a random listing of fibe-digit numbers. Suppose the number he chose was 20036. He would subtract it from the first number in the message and the result would be the new first number (16513 for "destroyers"). He would subtract the cipher immediately belot 20036 from 73428, and so on. In the message itself, he would indicate the page, column, and line of the cipher table for the first cipher. The receiver would reverse the process. I think you can see the problem if this is that kind of cipher. In fact, there are several problems: 1. We don't know if this is the entire message. 2. If it is not, we don't know if it's the beginning, the end, or something in the middle. 3. We don't know what the initial cipher is. 4. We don't have the cipher table, anyway. 5. We don't have the code book where we would find the unencoded words. I really need more to go on. James ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:27:23 From: Pete Backlund Subject: Re: Wartime balloons An irrelevant aside, but I do remember my grade school teachers here in Minnesota cautioning us to be on the lookout for the balloons, and I assume the Ground Observer Corps was on the alert for them as well. I guess it was assumed they could travel well inland. Pete ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:28:37 From: George Werth Subject: Re: Wartime balloons Being a nosey old fart (79 in January) I ran a search on 'Fu Go balloons' and came up with a couple of matches right off the bat. The one more interesting is from the 39th Bomb Group Historian's Corner. It may be found at: http://39th.org/39th/hc/fugowarhazard.htm It seems to meet the criteria of TIGHAR researchers, i.e., a documented source with an Email address. Have a BEER, Mate George Ray Werth Member # 2630S PS. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:33:30 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: the numbers game No, not captured by aliens, thats numerology (the science of how to take random numbers and make them mean something to someone even when they have absolutely no correlation to anything except how much money one can make from taking the suckers for a ride)! LTM, Dave Bush > From Dan Postellon > >> Angus wrote: "The key to the solution lies in 3621 7000 6356 4910 4429 >> 0002 7949 5295 4220 9491 4857 6001 9718 8961 8410 453" > > Oh no!!! Do you mean that she really was captured by space aliens? > Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:34:17 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Wartime balloons Well, I meant minor in relation to the potential and other things happening at the time. By Pearl Harbor standards 5 deaths is minimal - unless you are one of the dead or one of their relatives or close friends. LTM, Dave Bush > From Ray Brown > > Sad to say the damage was more than minor. > > It is some time now since I read about this, but if I recall correctly > ,a family out picnicking in Oregon, I think, came across one of these > incendiary devices and began to examine it out of curiosity. It > exploded,killing one of them and injuring others. > > LTM, ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:13:59 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Wartime balloons Very interesting. Perhaps the Japanese figured out the jet stream just before the US did, and both classified the information. Dan > The reference I saw said the USAAF became aware of the jet stream > during the first B-29 mission bombing Tokyo on Nov. 24, 1944. It gave > them considerable problems with navigation and being able to bomb with > precision. > > Tom Hickcox ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:14:34 From: Anne Springer Subject: Re: A numbers game I think the answer to this puzzle is in the song by Evanescence called "My Immortal". Its got morse code in the background... And the answer was right under us all this time! It was aliens! LTM, who wishes she knew how to read morse code Anne >> Angus wrote: "The key to the solution lies in 3621 7000 6356 4910 4429 >> 0002 7949 5295 4220 9491 4857 6001 9718 8961 8410 453" > > Oh no!!! Do you mean that she really was captured by space aliens? > Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:15:11 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Angus' hypothesis I'm afraid I'll have to step in here with a couple of comments. 1. The whole Japanese balloon/jet stream thread is totally off topic and my recommendation to the moderator would be to cut it off. 2. Angus approached us some time ago with his claim to have solved the Earhart mystery. He wanted money. We said no. His supposed solution has nothing to do with Japanese codes nor has he uncovered any new primary source evidence. His solution to the mystery is the product of his own brilliant deductions for which he believes he should be compensated before disclosing them. If anyone has a checkbook handy and a burning desire to know the answer to the Earhart mystery I'll be happy to put them in touch with Angus. We won't even take a commission. We also have a limited time offer on the Brooklyn Bridge. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:16:03 From: Jeff Webb Subject: Re: Wartime balloons Another interesting site