Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:18:16 From: David Jeane Subject: Re: inner tubes Come on people.....this is 1937. Maybe the "mythical Japanese ship had a "mythical" Zeppelin on board. I don't think there were 20 inner tubes in the whole Pacific Ocean in 1937. LTM (who is still laughing about bamboo..) #2498 > From Dan Postellon > >> From Dave Bush >> >> Where are you going to get the inflatable pontoons? You have to use >> the >> materials that are available to the ship, or that can be taken from >> the >> island (ie - raft made from bamboo or trees, etc.). > > You can make them from inner tubes, or even use inner tubes. > Dan Postellon > > ******************************** > > I wonder how many inner tubes it would take to float a 7000 pound > aircraft...? > > Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:19:02 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Lambrecht photo > From Alan Caldwell > Dennis, didn't they use 120 and 620 film back then? I did. > Alan Alan, 120 was one of the common formats. Kodak introduced 620 for their own cameras, particularly the various Brownies when they became extremely popular, so as to force their customers to use their own brand of film. The ONLY difference is the spool that holds the film. These days it is very difficult to get 620 film, so those of us who still use box brownies occasionally buy 120 and wind it onto the Kodak 620 spools. We have to remember to take it OFF the spool if we are not developing it ourselves as they almost never return the spools, and 620 spools are like teeth on chooks. Th' WOMBAT -- We don't use Windows - so You get fewer Viruses. Mepis Linux, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:20:14 From: Mark Guimond Subject: Irrelevant babble Hello, people.......... Could we have a bit of order in the court, please? The occasional whimsical remarks and off-topic meanderings can be all quite amusing, but when the majority of the postings are irrelevant babble and my Inbox collects 30-40 of them daily, it does become annoying, and this forum starts to lose it's credibility. It reminds me of dark-ages theologians who spent their time discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Before anybody gets their wind up, I myself confess to being guilty a couple of times. So let me try to put a few of these latest subjects to bed for once and for all: 1) Dennis, Allan - Lambrecht had at his disposition any number of camera types and film formats. 120 and 620 roll film (2-1/4 in. wide) was available from Kodak as of 1932. So where 2-1/2, 2-7/8, 3-1/4, 4-1/4 in. and several other formats. What difference does any of this make? 2) The oil industry standard fuel drum (barrel if you prefer) is 45 imperial gallons, 55 U.S. gallons, and who cares how many liters. But the drums are never filled to the limit as expansion space must be allowed for temperature fluctuations. The only thing that is of interest here is the fact that A.E. & F.N. took off with their tanks filled to the brim, and all calculations and speculations are based on that. 3) Dave, Dan - So you want to (re)float an airplane with inflatable pontoons - in 1937? Not likely! Airbag technology was not in use then, was it? Inner tubes? Gimme a break - you are kidding, right? A palmtree raft? Considering their density, it would take at least five hundred trees to provide enough buoyancy to barely keep an L10 above water. But there is one old and proven method I am personally familiar with and you might want to consider if you ever rip open a float on a LIGHT plane, or have to get the whole plane off a lake bottom. Get a few empty fuel drums, sink and lash them into place, then crank up your compressor and pump air into them. Voila! 4) The much debated Wreck Photo - It is completely bogus of course, and it takes absolutely no fund-wasting forensic photo analysis to clearly and definitively come to that conclusion. Why? Simple! No aircraft that I know of that was powered by a single-row P&W engine (i.e. R-985 or R-1340) was ever equipped with a ring-cowl. I have worked on, flown in, photographed, or just 'beenaround' Beavers, Otters, Norsemans, Twin-Beeches (D-18/AT-11/C-45), Electras, Mallards, Gooses, and maybe a couple more. All have the same type of three-section cowlings as you can clearly see on the ground in front of NR-16020 following the takeoff ground-loop that ended the first flight attempt. You can see for yourselves if you Google up photos of the aircraft just mentioned. The separate ring-cowl was used on many British, European and Japanese aircraft of the period because it served double-duty as the exhaust collector ring, since the exhaust ports on the engines faced forward for better cooling. These rings were made of steel and were mounted directly to the engine, not to the airframe. P&W had the cooling problem under control and the exhaust ports faced aft. Your witness... And a good day to all ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:20:38 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Lifting ring Also, that ring would break off and with it perhaps part of the airplane. Remember what happened to that German WW II Focke Wulf FW-200 that was raised from that Norwegian fjord ? It broke in two. If the Electra is ever raised (which I doubt) it will have to be done by people who know something about airplanes and let the water slowly escape when it surfaces. LTM (who always warns not to break anything) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:21:14 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: inner tubes > I wonder how many inner tubes it would take to float a 7000 pound > aircraft...? > > Pat I wonder how many inner tubes a boat normally carries since very few of them have wheels. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:21:57 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Aircraft salvage OK guys, if anyone ever finds the Electra, here is how to raise it. How to do it is supposedly known to anyone who learned flying floatplanes for it's part of the ground school part of the training. First it takes a crane on a ship or a pontoon. Next, if it is a single engine airplane a cable has to be fastened BEHIND the propeller (if it was strong enough to pull the plane through the air at full power, it will be strong enough to pull the airplane out of the water). Never fix any cables around tails or wings or the fuselage for this will surely break the plane. When the airplane surfaces, take a lot of time letting the water drip out of it. Don't hurry. When all water is drained, lift the plane carefully with the crane and depose it carefully on the deck of the pontoon (with the help of many dedicated men who know how valuable the airplane is...). That is what they teach floatplane pilots. It's in the manuals. I can find no manual covering how to salvage a twin engine airplane. I think it would be safe to use to cables : one attached behind each propeller. LTM (who loves flying floatplanes) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:22:19 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Inner tubes how many inner tubes - depends on the size of the inner tube. But why would a ship have inner tubes sitting around for such a use? LTM, Dave Bush Houston, Texas ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:22:53 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Taroa Of course, the real question is why the Japanese would do this at all. They had an Electra. If they were interested in a particular technology, as the engines or direction finder, it would be a lot easier to remove it, than to risk losing it by shifting an entire airplane. If they just wanted to hide the plane, the easiest thing to do would be to put a cable around it and drag it out to sea with a tug, then let it sink. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:24:36 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Lambrecht photo Alan Caldwell said: "Dennis, didn't they use 120 and 620 film back then? I did." You're probably right. I used 110 (incorrectly?) kind as a generic for the hand-held personal cameras of that era. Where/when did 110 come in, I wonder? Ross Devitt said: "[I] . . . did some experiments and found that it is not at all difficult to exclude items the size of the main wing and the tail assembly over quite a reasonable angle. If we really need to know, I can take the thing down to the airport and try from the cockpit of a Tiger Moth or something I suppose, but I'm pretty certain from the things I tried here." Ross that's a great suggestion. If nothing else it would preempt future questions/queries along these same lines. My point was that the proportions of the print didn't seem to match any existing (in my limited knowledge) format of that era. Therefore, it appears the photo is cropped, which could explain the poor quality of the print if the processor screwed up. It is probably irrelevant whether the print came from a hand-held etc., the existence of a contemporaneous photo of Niku trumps all of that. LTM, who occasionally has too much time on her hands Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:25:38 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Reed's offer > From Reed Riddle > > Hi Angus, > > I can understand why you're reluctant...I'm sure we have all dreamed, > just a little, what would happen if we figured out the key to the > mystery. If you really have, everyone will be excited, and maybe a > little jealous. :) Read between the lines (a freudian slip - I nearly accidentally wrote lies!) of Alan's posts and you'll see that he's probably consumed with jealousy. He's also upset because high and mighty principle (we'll never pay for anything come hell or high water - even if it is well worth it or it costs us a lot more in the end) has meant that he can't now get his hands on the information. He's painted himself into a corner and is probably thinking that he could well be dead before its in the public domain. He may well be right. The idea that I should not benefit as some matter of principle is frankly ludicrous. Archaeologists and scientists are both paid for their work as I think you'll agree. Free dissemination of information is fine if you're getting paid for producing it. To pretend that companies who spend huge amounts of time and effort developing drugs should do it for nothing is simply absurd. Sure they do it speculatively but that is their prerogative. It does not mean they should not get paid because of some crazy idea that "profiting from people's misery" is evil. And those people who benefit from the drugs are usually only too happy (if they have any sense) to pay if the drug delivers the cure. Tighar's sanctimonious attitude is that it has a role somewhat akin to a charity and works, presumably, for the advancement of knowledge. Well frankly its not a charity and the disappearance of Amelia Earhart is, in practice - for the majority of people - a matter for entertainment rather than serious scholarship. We are not talking about classical archaeology here - understanding the roots of civilisation. We are talking about a pretty recent air accident of an aircraft of which at least one still survives in far better condition than Earhart's could ever do. It is an inescapable fact, like it or not, that the whole business is more akin to a treasure hunt than a serious contribution to the humanities. Is research on TWA 800 archaeology because it happened a few years ago? There is a lot of self righteous twaddle talked about ethics regarding Earhart. The truth is that the Earhart mystery is a cottage industry that employs many people, including Ric. He doesn't do it for nothing. I'd have rather more time for his professed point of view if he did. When we first spoke, the idea of Tighar raising some cash from the information was not in principle anathema to Ric at all. The problem he had was that such an arrangement was speculative and therefore might infringe Tighar's non-profit status. He even suggested that a way round it might be to pay for research. But the decision was, as I understand it, EPAC's - not Ric's alone. Alan has recently admitted, he doesn't believe I'm dishonest but misguided or deluded. How can he possibly know that without knowing the evidence? It is simply idle speculation of the sort that usually gets such short shrift from both him and Ric. He knows absolutely nothing about my honesty or what evidence I have. However, if I am misguided or deluded, what possible point is there in continuing to post on the subject? Its merely a waste of everyone's time. ( I knew that Alan's recent claim that this was his last post was simply untrue. Now you know why I never trust lawyers, particularly this one.) Of course the truth is that both Alan and Ric, even without seeing anything, are pretty convinced that I do have something. Everyone will discover the truth in the end (even Alan if he lasts long enough) so I don't feel any obligation to say any more about it at the moment. People can believe what they like - it makes no difference to me because I know I'll eventually be proved right. Needless to say I have other irons in the fire. Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric We're only posting Angus' bitter diatribe as an opportunity to briefly explain the system and rationale under which TIGHAR and other nonprofit organizations are organized in the United States. The system is based upon the assumption that there are fields of endeavor which benefit society but are not necessarily viable commercial businesses. Churches, universities, disaster relief organizations, art museums, theater groups, dance groups, orchestras, and all sorts of research organizations - medical, environmental, historical, etc. - are given tax-exempt status on the condition that they do not distribute "profits". A "nonprofit" organization is free to make all the profit it can but it must plow that money back into the organization. A "nonprofit" organization does not have "investors" or "shareholders" and it cannot sell "stock" or pay "dividends". In the U.S., individuals and corporations who contribute money to a recognized nonprofit get to deduct that amount, or a portion of that amount, from the taxes they pay. If a nonprofit organization can show that it derives its support from a broad base of contributors it is designated a Public Charity. Contrary to Angus' impression, TIGHAR is recognized by U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a Public Charity. What he perceives as sanctimoniousness is nothing more than our adherence to the spirit and letter of the law. I don't know if the United Kingdom has a system of support for arts and sciences that in any way resembles the American system but it's quite apparent that Angus does not accept the investigation of a 67 year-old aviation mystery as anything but a commercial treasure hunt. In that respect he is totally in tune with the Crashed and Sank deep sea searchers. They're in it for the money. Maybe he should talk to them. LTM Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:27:33 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Inner tubes 1. good point they'll probably have some timbers and stuff to fix any holes that might occur but not tubes especially back then 2. If you were to find that target after this long in the South Pacific you had better think very carefully about making a mat to lift the whole machine at one time after all the time salt water has had to work on it. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:58:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The reef idea Carl Peltzer says: > I can't go with a reef landing, that is get to land in > shallow water with the gear down and not have it flip upsidedown, > Which is the usual situation. Can you go with the idea of a landing on a hard, almost completely dry surface roughly 100 feet wide and about 2,500 feet long and smooth enough to ride a bicycle on with no difficulty? That's what the reef is like at Nikumaroro just north of the Norwich City at low tide. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:00:04 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Lambrecht photo Concerning the Lambrecht photo TIGHER reported that it was found in a New Zealand archive. What kind of archive - titled? Do you have any idea how it got to New Zealand from a US Navy aviator? Have you had the photo analyzed by Photo Tec? What is the shore line like adjacent to the 7 site i.e. is it a beach suitable for a landing? Seems odd that a lot of the AE disappearance era photos show this 7 site so predominantly in the photo. If what I am looking at in the Lambrecht photo is the 7 site it almost looks like its dead center (aimed at by the taker of the photo) in the picture. When I enlarge the photo in the area where I think the 7 site is I see a rectangular shape on the beach just off the tree line, any idea of what it is? I can email the area I am looking at if you like. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:30:00 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Lambrecht photo Ross Devitt asks: > I'm curious about the photo as it appears on the website. Are the > width and height proportions identical to those of the original photo? > or has it been squeezed a little on the page? It's just the way we got it. > It looks quite natural resized to the same proportions, and even the N > marker looks right. The N (presumably north) marker is another indication that the photo was not taken in any official way. The N marker points due west. LTM Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:30:39 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: AE's fuel, weather Dan Postellon says: > There are inflatable airbags that you can stuff under an object, then > inflate to lift it, that can also be used as rollers to move the > object. I supect that the difference between high and low tide isn't > much (someone should know this), so you would need one hell of a big > airbag to float an Electra. Anyone have the weight of the Electra and > the height of the tides? Heck, if we're going to ignore historical context let's just bring in a heavy-lift helicopter and sling that sucker onto the ship. That's no more outrageous than equipping a 1937 Japanese survey ship with lift bags. The Electra's empty weight was about 7,000 pounds. The tidal variation at Niku is ball park one meter (i.e. assuming absolutely calm conditions - which never happens - the reef is basically dry at low tide and has about a meter of standing water at high tide. That, of course, varies somewhat throughout the year. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:30:55 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Gallagher and his clues Alan says: > There is also a rumor that there was quicksand on Niku. I don't wanna talk about it. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:31:35 From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Koshu > From Ric > > Ron Bright says: >> I think it was either Donahue or Carrington that had the fact sheet >> on the Koshu, a large, over a 120 ft converted German freighter. It >> had booms forward and on the stern. > > Koshu was, supposedly, a "survey ship". Loomis/Ethel say that it was > "capable of retrieving small floatplanes" but they don't say how they > know that. U.S. "survey ships" such as USS Bushnell did not have that > capability. > > The Japanese seaplane tender Kamui (usually misspelled Kamoi) that is > sometimes alleged to have participated in the Japanese search was never > anywhere near the area.".................. Were those sincere questions as to how the Japanese would have retrieved the Electra from where it came to rest? The job at hand was to get 2000 lbs alongside the ship. 7000 lb empty weight - 5000lb fuel tank buoyancy = 2000lbs in needed floatation to winch alongside. Since the 281 message said "ABOVE WATER" (this implies "above water line") the airplane was positioned between the land and water environment. With a winch cable long enough I don't see a problem with getting it to the back of the ship where the eye-witnesses saw it in Jaluit. There is no doubt in my mind that it was the survey ship Koshu. It was placed in Jaluit and surrounding area between July 13th to the 19th. The photo of it being strafed and sunk by Steven's PB4Y-1 has it listed as 3000 ton AGS-2 Koshu, a Japanese freighter. Center smoke stack location , booms fore and aft. In 1938 EdeB was interviewed in Paris by the Navy and he guessed it to be 2000 tons if I recall my research notes correctly. EdeB also claims the crew was IJN in civilian attire. It supplied the Japanese that were there preparing for the future development of Mili. That implies the ship had off and on loading capabilities. Daryll ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:07:27 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: the Lambrecht photo Ted Campbell asks: > Concerning the Lambrecht photo TIGHER reported that it was found in a > New Zealand archive. > > What kind of archive - titled? Do you have any idea how it got to New > Zealand from a US Navy aviator? It was in the New Zealand National Archives in a collection of all kinds of photos of Gardner from all kinds of sources. No idea how it got there. > Have you had the photo analyzed by Photo Tec? That's Photek (and it's TIGHAR not TIGHER) and yes, Photek has looked at it. There's just not enough resolution to see much of anything. > What is the shore line like adjacent to the 7 site i.e. is it a beach > suitable for a landing? No. Too steeply sloped and soft. > Seems odd that a lot of the AE disappearance era photos show this 7 > site so predominantly in the photo. The only AE disappearance era photo of Gardner is the one we're talking about. There were at least two photos taken in 1938, one similar in orientation to the Lambrecht photo and the other of the western end of the island. There was a complete mosaic of the island taken by a Grumman Duck from USS Pelican taken in April 1939. > If what I am looking at in the Lambrecht photo > is the 7 site it almost looks like its dead center (aimed at by the taker of > the photo) in the picture. When I enlarge the photo in the area where I think > the 7 site is I see a rectangular shape on the beach just off the tree line, > any idea of what it is? I can email the area I am looking at if you like. Whatever you're looking at is not real. No such object is visible in high-resolution imagery of the photo. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:08:06 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The End of Angus Angus has responded to my latest reply to him and, not surprisingly, has once again demonstrated that he has no idea what I'm talking about. I'm going to ask Pat not to post it and not to post any further postings on the subject of Angus's research or claims or his offer to Reed or any of it. We've been trying to end this thread for weeks. Finito. LTM. RIP. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:36:49 From: Jerry Kiffer Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage I live in an area where the use of float planes both single and twin are a way of life and means of daily transportation, and as a result our rescue squad has performed many salvage operations. You should never lift behind the propeller, the lifting strap must be placed behind the crankshaft flange to prevent major damage to the hub, it is also a good idea to remove the spinner ($600 - $800) and drop the top and bottom cowl to prevent damage as the strap is pulled tight. Twins are done the same way with the use of a spreader bar. Most times water will drain from the aircraft through the stringer hole however most pilots will pack their survival gear in soft cases that may prevented water from quickly draining, additionally the weather often does not allow for a prolonged salvage operations. In those cases a hole must be punched through the skin near the tail, select a panel that is straight and easy to replace later. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:37:45 From: Jerry Kiffer Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage There is no need for lifting bags or inner tubes, if you have the ability to dive to the wreck that you have the ability to place lifting straps on the aircraft, if the ship didn't have a crane available for whatever reason?? the ship could use the tides to move the wreck into shallow water. We often use this technique when the wreck is below 300 feet, the aircraft is grappled (causes lots of damage) at low tide and moved at high tide for a raise of ?? feet, this works well in Alaska with 20 foot tides but is a very slow process. The oldest aircraft we have salvaged was one in saltwater for 8 years and had to bring it up in small baskets, this was an aircraft that was built as a seaplane and had the primer inside and out, however the salt water just dissolved the aluminum. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:59:33 From: Jerry Kiffer Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage Jerry Kiffer says: > There is no need for lifting bags or inner tubes, if you have the > ability to dive to the wreck that you have the ability to place > lifting straps on the aircraft, if the ship didn't have a crane > available for whatever reason?? the ship could use the tides to move > the wreck into shallow water. How many aircraft have you salvaged from the fringing reefs of coral atolls in the tropical Pacific? ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:59:49 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage But what type of crane and lifting equipment did you have? I am sure it was more than a small boom that was designed for a single purpose - lifting floatplanes out of the drink onto the deck. LTM, Dave Bush ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:00:23 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Lambrecht photo Wombat, you must be very old. I had a Kodak 620 bellows camera that my parents had for years. I think it was purchased in the 30's. It is still in a box in my garage somewhere but it did work up until the 70's which was the last time I remember using it. They were good Cameras. I am 65 and still have a small 110 camera I carry in the car for emergencies and the film for it is hard to find. I suppose down under you can still get the old stuff. Jimbo ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:01:20 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Dissolved? Jerry Kiffer wrote: "The oldest aircraft we have salvaged was one in saltwater for 8 years and had to bring it up in small baskets, this was an aircraft that was built as a seaplane and had the primer inside and out, however the salt water just dissolved the aluminum." I don't understand. Help me out here. Aluminum sheet immersed in saltwater will, in a fairly short period of time, dissolve? Ric, I'm sure we've discussed this before. Aren't there other aluminum planes immersed in salt water that have survived a lot longer than 8 years? Why do some dissolve and others don't? (BTW, my earlier post about DF antenna as lift ring was a joke. Sorry. Won't happen again.) LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:02:30 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Irrelevant babble Mark Guimond stated: ... Could we have a bit of order in the court, please? > > The occasional whimsical remarks and off-topic meanderings can be all > quite amusing, but when the majority of the postings are irrelevant > babble and my Inbox collects 30-40 of them daily, it does become > annoying, ... One thing that is taught in business and many other courses these days is the subject of "brainstorming". There is a whole industry out there concerning this. What they suggest is that you write down ANY ideas that come to mind - no matter how wierd! The idea is that this opens the creative thinking side of the mind, which then can lead you into productive areas of research. Many businesses and other enterprises have lost ground or even ended up bankrupt because they failed to consider radical ideas - the books are full of them, so I won't go into a dissertation here - but just think of the personal computer for one. So, the ramblings and musing are sometimes a bit of a distraction, but they can also get the creative juices flowing and may just move the ball forward a few inches or even lead to a "Hail Mary" revelation. LTM - who loves creativity Dave Bush, Houston, Texas ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:02:55 From: Jerry Kiffer Subject: Re: aircraft salvage We have always used what was immediately available. We have used large live working booms on small coastal tugboats, backhoe's designed to load logs on log trucks lifting from barges, medium lift helicopters, and smaller 10,000# capacity working booms on fishing boats. Aircraft are much easier to lift that boats, the only trick is to lift in such a way that your don't do further damage. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:03:34 From: Jerry Kiffer Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage None . . However I am not sure what your question is getting at. I have salvaged more than a dozen aircraft from waters up to 300 feet. But most of them were in far shallow water or floating upside down. I can only assume the "fringing reefs of coral atolls" have some other dangers the 40 degree water and Alaskan weather does not. The times we had to salvage in heavy ocean surge we were forced to rig the aircraft and pull it into deeper water before lifting it to the surface. > From Ric > > Jerry Kiffer says: > >> There is no need for lifting bags or inner tubes, if you have the >> ability to dive to the wreck that you have the ability to place >> lifting straps on the aircraft, if the ship didn't have a crane >> available for whatever reason?? the ship could use the tides to move >> the wreck into shallow water. > > How many aircraft have you salvaged from the fringing reefs of coral > atolls in the tropical Pacific? ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:03:54 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: film Dennis, off the top of my head which is frequently in error, I think 110 came in with the little cheapies you found in grocery stores. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:04:13 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage Salvaging a floatplane always requires special equipment. That means the place where the plane sank must be accessible by salvage ship or pontoon. That will be no problem in harbors or waterways. It will be a problem when the airplane sank in a remote lakes without river access. That is why insurance for seaplanes is higher than for landplanes: the possibility that the seaplane will be a total loss in the water is considered 100 % by insurers, I'm told. LTM (who loves seaplanes) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:49:01 From: Jerry Kiffer Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage I have found that also, several of our salvages were in very remote lakes in Alaska and each time the insurance company had written off the aircraft, three of those salvaged wrecks are flying today. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:50:49 From: Jerry Kiffer Subject: Re: Dissolved? Not only was the skin weakened to the point of being able to push your hand through it the larger structural members were showing heavy corrosion damage, interestingly enough the engine block, was in fair shape considering, maybe more magnesium?? ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:51:34 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Dissolved? > I don't understand. Help me out here. Aluminum sheet immersed in > saltwater will, in a fairly short period of time, dissolve? > > Ric, I'm sure we've discussed this before. Aren't there other aluminum planes > immersed in salt water that have survived a lot longer than 8 years? > > Why do some dissolve and others don't? Temperature (faster corrosion in warm water), salinity (less in the Baltic and who knows where else), presence of other metals connected to the aluminum to cause electrolytic corrosion, these plus metal treatment (painting, anodizing) and possibly the use of alloys or relatively impure metals. There may be other factors as well, but these will do for a start. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:52:00 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Dissolved? Alfred Hendrickson asks: > I don't understand. Help me out here. Aluminum sheet immersed in > saltwater will, in a fairly short period of time, dissolve? > > Ric, I'm sure we've discussed this before. Aren't there other aluminum > planes immersed in salt water that have survived a lot longer than 8 > years? > > Why do some dissolve and others don't? Aluminum sheet does not dissolve in salt water. The chlorides in the seawater bond with the alloy. As long as the sheet remains submerged and in a low-oxygen environment the metal remains fairly stable. Once it dries in the air the chlorides react with the oxygen and you get a very rapid rate of corrosion. This is probably what Jerry refers to as "dissolving". Pure aluminum resists corrosion much better than alloys of aluminum, such as those used in aircraft construction. One way to increase the corrosion resistance of sheet aluminum is to make a sandwich of alloy with a thin layer of pure aluminum bonded to each external surface. The process is known as "cladding". Other treatments include "anodizing" or you can apply a painted-on barrier such as zinc-chromate wash. How well a particular piece of aluminum resists corrosion depends on many factors including: - Whether it has been kept dry - If not, whether it has been subjected to fresh or salt water - Impurities in the water - Depth of the water (amount of oxygen present) - Length of time it has been submerged - Corrosion inhibiting treatments applied during manufacture or assembly - Treatment of the metal after removal from the water To date, the only proven technique for removing the chlorides from aluminum that has been long-submerged in seawater is through a long and expensive electrolytic process. Some aircraft recovered from underwater environments seem to hold up surprisingly well. Others do not. In the past, the historic aviation community has paid little attention to the conservation/stabilization of aluminum on recovered aircraft, choosing instead to simply replace corroded aluminum with new aluminum under the guise of "restoration". As a result, a great deal of research is still needed. TIGHAR is in the forefront of that effort with our Devastator Project - but that's a different topic. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:52:27 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Irrelevant babble Dave Bush says: > So, the ramblings and musing are sometimes a bit of a distraction, but > they can also get the creative juices flowing and may just move the > ball forward a few inches or even lead to a "Hail Mary" revelation. > A Hail Mary revelation? That's a new one on me. Ramblings and musings can, on occasion, result in something useful but usually they only amount to ramblings and musings that just fill up inboxes and waste everyone's time. Let's try to tighten things up. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:52:46 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage Jerry Kiffer says > I can only assume the "fringing reefs of coral atolls" have some other > dangers the 40 degree water and Alaskan weather does not. It's just a totally different environment. The airplane you're trying to salvage is not sunk. It is sitting on a reef-flat - a broad, relatively flat expanse of coral that extends seaward from the beach for about 300 meters and ends in a jumble of large coral slabs and then a precipitous drop to depths of several thousand feet . At low tide it is on a dry, hard surface. At high tide it's awash in about a meter of water. It's probably at least 50 feet from the reef edge where there is usually pounding surf. You can't get anywhere near the reef edge with your ship for fear of going aground on the coral. If you push or drag the plane over the reef edge it will get pounded to pieces against the reef edge in the surf and/or sink in several thousand feet of water. Where and how you grab onto the airplane is not even an issue unless you can somehow get it close to the ship. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:49:28 From: Mark Guimond Subject: Re: Irrelevant babble Dave, Been there, done that. Have taken the courses, have read the books. But there comes a time when we have to realize that no matter how much we keep on beating on that poor horse's rotten carcass, old Nellybelle just ain't gonna revive, get up and win the derby. It's long past time to let go and bury the beast. Granted, new members may not be aware that something has been thoroughly reviewed and discarded... I am certainly guilty of that too. One other thing we should all try to keep in mind is that we are dealing with a 1937 event. Discussing technology, materials, procedures, etc. that did not exist back then may have some relevance on occasion, but we should try to keep it all in a proper context and not get carried away. I have more than had my say now, so I will shut up and wish you all a good evening. Mark (LTM, who always said the only really dumb questions are the ones we are afraid to ask.) > One thing that is taught in business and many other courses these days > is the subject of "brainstorming". ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:50:52 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Lambrecht photo > From Jim Preston > Wombat, you must be very old. I'm still waiting for someone to bite over the "elderly members (50+)" joke.... I really thought that would get some comments. Forum must have got used to me over the years.... I'm 50 years old this year, but feel more like 70 after all that has happened over the last 5 years.. > I had a Kodak 620 > bellows camera that my parents had for years. I think > it was purchased in the 30's. It is still in a box in > my garage somewhere but it did work up until the 70's > which was the last time I remember using it. They were > good Cameras. I am 65 and still have a small 110 > camera I carry in the car for emergencies and the film > for it is hard to find. > > I suppose down under you can > still get the old stuff. It is difficult. I acquired a couple of colour rolls of 620 format a few years ago when I saw them actually sitting in the sales rack at a pharmacy (probably a drugstore in US English). The I discovered that nobody other than Kodak had the facilities to develop them. I then started searching for 620 black and white film, just out of curiosity, because you can develop and print from that with no tools other than two 4" wide glass jars and two pieces of glass. That was when I found out about 620 being 120 with different spools. A month or so I was cleaning up and found a roll or two of unused 620 film in a drawer, so I know it is around here somewhere. The thread yesterday made me immediately dig out the SIX-20 camera. I can quite easily take it down to the airport and satisfy myself that the thing can be used from inside and miss all the feathers and string. With the reflector viewfinder on the Box Brownie, what you sees is pretty much what you gets, except that what you sees is upside down, which takes a bit of getting used to these days. What I did to test it before writing my post yesterday was to position the camera where I could do some measurements. I used something large and easy to see (open door in darkish room), the old brownie SIX-20, a tape measure and a protractor. Pointing the camera straight ahead in portrait orientation, the door was fully open 13 feet to the left of the camera and 8 feet to the front. Tail assembly: The observer's position is roughly the middle of the plane and the o3u is around 27ft long, so that is close. I can find nothing on the width of the tailplane, but with a 33ft wingspan, I think a 16ft tailplane is generous, so half that gives me the first edge of the door. The tailplane on the aircraft was swept back, so one way or another the distances for the field of view angle should be approximately correct. To get the first edge of the door in the viewfinder I have to turn the camera through 25 degrees. Mainplanes: To simulate a biplane with a 33ft wingspan I used a wall and positioned myself 15ft from the end, and 1ft away from it. Turning the camera through 10 degrees puts the wall completely out of frame. Focal length of the camera lens is 8ft to infinity. Experience has shown that at these distances, what you see in the viewfinder is pretty well what is on the film. Anyway based on those measurements, and without actually finding the film roll and doing the Tiger Moth thing yet, I am convinced that the photo could easily have been taken with this camera and not show the main or tailplane or any other parts of the airplane by simply swinging the camera through 10 degrees or so to take them out of frame. I do have a photo showing that it is possible for the observer to stand up in the cockpit of the o3u. Whether this was commonly done in flight at that time is questionable, although at the slower speeds of WW1, it was common. There must have been other cameras of the era with similar angle of view lenses, and the photo could have been any of them. I only used the Brownie Box as an example because it was cheap and by then, popular, and the 2 controls could be manipulated in the air with gauntlets on (no fiddly bits). Also I happened to have one from the 1930's40/s sitting here. Th' WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:51:48 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Inner tubes One can float a 200 lb person, so about 35. Fewer if they are big. They may not have any aboard, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were old inner tubes lying around the Marshalls. You might have to steal them from the kids, or from people cutting them up to make diving goggles. Dan >> I wonder how many inner tubes it would take to float a 7000 pound >> aircraft...? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:52:14 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Aircraft salvage That reminds me. People have salvaged large cedar trunks that wash up in the Pacific Northwest. Are they lifted first, or just dragged out? Dan Postellon > From Jerry Kiffer We have always used what was immediately available. > We have used large live working booms on small coastal tugboats, > backhoe's designed to load logs on log trucks lifting from barges, > medium lift helicopters, and smaller 10,000# capacity working booms on > fishing boats. Aircraft are much easier to lift that boats, the only > trick is to lift in such a way that your don't do further damage. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:52:58 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Irrelevant babble As to a "Hail Mary" revelation, I refer you to Archimedes, who, upon solving a great problem while sitting in his bathtub, immediately jumped up and ran out into the streets naked yelling "Eureka", thus inventing the important passtime of "streaking" and giving the English language the word "Eureka", which very few alive even understand or know the importance behind (giggle) it. Try a google search on the word sometime - almost 4 million responses, and only one of the four million will tell you what "Eureka" means or how it originated. Sad state of affairs, IMHO. LTM - who prefers to sit on the sideline when it comes to streaking David Bush Houston, Texas ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:53:49 From: Scott White Subject: Re: Conjecture, hypothesis, theory Dave Bush wrote: "And what is "recent"? Last week, last month, last year. Its all relative without a context." and Ric wrote: You seem to be saying that "recent" means something different than "recent". --- To a paleontologist, I think it means anything that happened since the end of the Pleistocene, ca. 10 K years ago. :-) -SW ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:54:26 From: Scott White Subject: Re: AE's fuel and weather > Dave Bush wrote: > Where are you going to get the inflatable pontoons? You have to use the > materials that are available to the ship, or that can be taken from the > island (ie - raft made from bamboo or trees, etc.). I greatly doubt > that the ship would have inflatable pontoons - why would they have > them? And as Ric pointed out in an earlier note - once you get the > electra out to the ship, how are you going to lift it? Unlike float > planes it doesn't come with a lifting ring. Well, I'd sew them together out of walrus skins! I agree that there's probably no reason a ship would be carrying equipment to salvage a wrecked plane from an island. I don't know what scenario the Japanese Recovery proponents envision (or whether there may be several scenarios). I do not believe that the Japanese found the plane or recovered it. But I do believe that a few creative engineers, given enough time and money, could come up with a way to do it. Best, -SW And thanks, Alfred, for the post about the lifting ring. I might have fallen for that one a few months ago. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:55:03 From: Scott White Subject: Re: GP and Flight for Freedom Eric Beheim wrote (mostly clipped): >According to AMELIA EARHART'S SHOES, RKO paid him a fee, reportedly > to forestall a lawsuit. But perhaps it was actually for his > cooperation in helping to develop the script for FLIGHT FOR FREEDOM (or > at least give it his blessing.) --- I don't think these two ideas are mutually exclusive. Not in Hollywood, anyway. The fee could easily have been for both purposes. A response to a threat worded sort of like "If you don't make this movie my way, I'll sue your pants off!" Best, -SW ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:09:43 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Revelations Dave Bush and others said: " . . . a "Hail Mary" revelation . . ." I'm surprised to learn that the entire forum is Roman Catholic . . . :-) LTM, who awaits Fr. Moleski's guidance on this Dennis O.McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:10:25 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Irrelevant babbe Dave Bush says: >As to a "Hail Mary" revelation, I refer you to Archimedes, .. Who, as you point out, said "Eureka", not "Hail Mary", and since he is alleged to have said it in roughly 230 BC, was probably not even Catholic. I have been with some good Catholics during what they considered to be "Hail Mary" experiences and, believe me, they were not moments of discovery unless you mean the discovery of one's own mortality. This is, indeed, irrelevant babble just like endless discussions of drum volume and obsolete film types. Come on guys. Let's have fewer postings and more content. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:16:06 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: AE's fuel and weather Cranes, pontoons, rafts of bamboo trees... And to think that the Coast Guard sank historic Boeing 314 flying boats with gunfire because, having alighted at sea following engine problems, they were considered a danger to shipping... LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:42:04 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Theoretical problem Rather than speculate about how the Japanese might have stolen an airplane they didn't need, let's think about a theoretical problem that might actually have something to do with the Earhart mystery. Here's the situation: We have, at the Seven Site, hundreds (probably thousands) of little rusted fragments of what was once corrugated iron (not steel, iron). It does not appear to be a collapsed building or roof. The impression we have is that several sheets of this stuff were laid out on the ground. The question, of course, is by whom and for what purpose. We've had samples of the fragments examined using the Scanning Electron Microscope at the U.S. Naval Academy lab and also samples of metal corrugation collected from elsewhere at the Seven Site (a small collapsed structure near the water tank that was almost certainly used to collect and direct rainwater into the tank), from the Loran station, and from the village. The corrugated iron that seems to have been laid out on the ground is different from all of the other corrugated metal we've found on the island. It appears to be consistent with iron corrugation used in the 1890s. We know that John T. Arundel brought 26 sheets of corrugated iron to the island to use in the construction of buildings for his laborers in the 1890s. Tom King's rough guess is that there were about 20 sheets of corrugation laid out on the ground at the Seven Site. We know that Arundel's planting operations were carried out at the west end of the atoll near what would later be called Nutiran and near where the Norwich City would go aground in 1929. When we first visited the island in 1989 there were wooden frames of buildings still standing on Nutiran that may have been the remains of Arundel's barracks, but there were no remains of iron corrugation present. The corrugation at the Seven Site may have been part of an Arundel planting operation on that part of the island but that seems highly unlikely. The known planting operation was, quite naturally, at the end of the island where it was easiest to get people and supplies ashore. The Seven Site area is remote and virtually impossible to access from the ocean because it borders the island's turbulent windward shore. It appears more likely that somebody at some time removed the iron corrugation from the abandoned Arundel buildings at the west end, moved it two miles down to the Seven Site, and laid it out on the ground. We've been able to think of three possible explanations: - The colonists salvaged it from the known Arundel operation on Nutiran and brought it to the Seven Site. But why? We know that they had other water collection capabilities on-site (the tank). - Gallagher had the Arundel corrugation salvaged and brought to the Seven Site to cover and protect ground cleared by the laborers that he hoped to later search for more castaway evidence. - The castaway(s) salvaged it from the known Arundel operation on Nutiran and brought it to the Seven Site as a means of collecting rainwater. The last is my favorite. Collection of rainwater had to be the castaways' highest priority. How do you collect rainwater? You have to catch the rain on a waterproof surface before it hits the porous ground and then direct it into some kind of container. What kind of waterproof surface is available to a castaway on Gardner Island in the 1930s? The old Arundel corrugation is the only thing I can come up with. The trouble is, the stuff is wickedly heavy. Given the thickness of the fragments we found and purely guessing that a sheet might be 4 feet by 8 feet (like a modern sheet of plywood), such a sheet might easily weigh a hundred pounds. So here's the question: Can AE and FN move roughly a ton of corrugated iron two miles? LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:31:44 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Probably, but wouldn't it be a lot easier to collect the water at Nutiran, and move the water? I would bet that the other scenarios are more likely. I would drag, carry, or move the sheets somehow to the lagoon shore, and raft them to the 7 site. Sounds like a lot of work and multiple trips. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 > Can AE and FN move roughly a ton of corrugated iron two miles? ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:32:01 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Theoretical problem As to the corrugated metal. I don't know about the 30's, but today's corrugated sheet metal usually comes in 4' wide x 8' sections. The length of the sections varies, however, and may come in 10, 12 or 14' sections up to 20'. I have never seen it in 8' widths. Could it have been moved there to build the house at the site which Gallagher mentioned? But was laid out and never built or was only partially built? LTM, Dave Bush ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:38:08 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Theoretical problem As to the weight, the modern stuff is relatively light, but again, there are different "weights" or thicknesses depending on the use. It would be relatively easy to drag, however by lifting one end. There is a lot of research that can be done in this regard. You might want to check out the following websites: http://www.traditional-building.com/brochure/members/bostwick.shtml http://www.corrugated-iron-club.info/ http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Business_to_Business/Construction/Thermal_and_Moisture_Protection/Roofing/Metal_Roof_and_Wall_Panels/ LTM, Dave Bush Houston, Texas ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:42:59 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Theoretical problem > It appears to be consistent with iron corrugation used in the 1890s. > We know that John T. Arundel brought 26 sheets of corrugated iron to > the island to use in the construction of buildings for his laborers in > the 1890s. Tom King's rough guess is that there were about 20 sheets > of corrugation laid out on the ground at the Seven Site. But would corrugated iron have lasted this long in the environment of Gardner? I do not believe it would. Iron rusts so quickly in a salt environment that it has to be replaced quite often if not properly treated. I can't see how it was placed there by AE or by Gallagher. It had to have been placed there by Arundel. LTM, Dave Bush Houston, Texas ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:43:21 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Moving iron Q: "Can AE and FN move roughly a ton of corrugated iron two miles?" A: I can only make a guess. Assuming they were in good shape, and had sufficient food and water to keep themselves up to the task, I'd say they could have done it. But, would they have done it? In my opinion, it seems unlikely. It would have been a strenuous undertaking. I rather think they'd have just laid the sheets out where they found them and catch the water there. Why lug the stuff to 7? LTM (Lug That Metal?), Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:20:46 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Corrugated sheets Ric said: "Can AE and FN move roughly a ton of corrugated iron two miles?" Yes. Given enough time and determination they certainly could. But why would they need 20 sheets of it? Granted having 20 sheets would ensure an increased capacity to collect rain water, but if they didn't have the capacity (which we don't know) to save all that was collected, why bother. Using the sheets to collect water at the Arundel site instead would've meant they'd have to travel four miles each time it rained to tote a relatively small amounts of water back to their camp. They be spending most of their time lugging water from Arundel to Seven and expending a lot water (sweat) in the process. My guess is that they'd sweat off in four miles as much water as they could carry, assuming they had the capacity to carry any significant amounts. I could certainly see them taking one or two sheet but not 20. Now, if you had a couple of dozen men and assigned four to each sheet you could move the whole pile in three trips. But why? Why circumstances would demand that you have 20 (?) sheets of corrugated iron in one spot? My guess would be roofing for Gallagher's house. Does dew form on plants etc. on Niku? Having 20 sheets of iron laid on the ground might make a primitive but nifty condenser (?) if the temperatures and humidity were right. Still . . . that's a lot of work, but if you have the time and determination . . . who knows. LTM, who uses Home Depot because they deliver Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:22:12 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Has TIGHAR ever had a look at any of the journals or diaries in this collection? I notice Gardner is not specifically mentioned, but there are journals and diaries for the years he was there. There's also a chart of the islands, but I have no idea which islands.. Th' WOMBAT National Library of Australia: MS 5410 Papers of J.T. Arundel Box List Box 1 Folders 1. J.T.A. from L.W. (notebook) 2. Sundry data of my life (1865-1892) (notebook) 3. Miscellaneous papers - mainly printed 4. Correspondence : Sir Albert Ellis/S.D. [Arundel] Aris, including article on Phoenix Group 5. Correspondence 1897-1899 - Stanmore: letters from/to Arundel 6. Stanmore: Correspondence 1901-1908 7. Ocean Island and Nauru - Filmed as PMB 498 Miscellaneous papers on phosphate industry in the collection of John T. Arundel) 8. Stanmore correspondence 1909-1912 and resignation 9. Arundel correspondence with Prof. Agassiz, 1902-1909 Box 2 Folders 1. Correspondence re Capt. Johannessen, (Ocean Queen) 2. Miscellaneous papers 1885 3. Press comments on Ocean Islanders' exploitation 4. Flashlights and Reflections by E.B. 5. Documents on phosphate, mainly printed 6. Sydney Island -- charts, agreement, etc., 1881-1890 7. Correspondence: sundry Pacific Islands to 31/12/12 8. Correspondence with P.P. Co. 1912/1914 Box 3 Folders 1-3. Journals 1870-1871 4-6. Journals 1872-1874 7-8. Charts of Pacific Islands Box 4 Folders 1-2. Papers 1881-1888: Capt. Mann: native agreements 3-7. J.T. Arundel : Journal 1875-1880 8-9. J.T. Arundel : Journal 1881- 1885 Box 5 Folders 1-2. J.T. Arundel : Journal 1881-1885 3-6. J.T. Arundel : Journal 1886-1889 7-9. J.T. Arundel : Journal 1890-1892 Box 6 Folders 1-2. J.T. Arundel : Journal 1893-1894 3-4. J.T. Arundel : Journal 1894 - 5. Arundel: Notebooks (MS) 6-7. Purdy Islands Box 7 Folders 1-2. Papers on Kooria Mooria Islands and Burnt Island (Gulf of Aden) 1880s 3. Wireless (Charter Parties - agreement forms) 4-5. Notes on Islands: Purdy, Makatea and sundry others 6-8. Agreement between H.M. Government & Arundel (Licenses etc.) Box 8 Folders 1-2. Agreement between H.M. Government and J.T. Arundel 3. Printed papers: prospectuses & general 4. National Academy of Sciences: Memoir: Report of the Eclipse Expedition to Caroline Islands, May 1883 5. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Vol. XXIX (1903) 6. Memoirs of the Museum Of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Vol. XXIX (1903), Plates 7. Twelve volumes of diaries, 1895-1900 Box 9 Folders Diaries, 1895-1900 Box 10 Folders 1 - 2. Diaries 1895 - 1900 3-10. Thirty four diaries, 1900 - 1919 Box 11 Folders 1-10. Diaries, 1900-1919 Box 12 Folders 1-8. Diaries, 1900-1919 Box 13 Folders Diaries, 1900-1919 8. Note: the diary for the period 15 June - 16 November 1909 is in Box 16 ARUNDEL PHOTOGRAPHS : MS 5410 - Added 28 November 1984 Box 14 J.T. Arundel Nauru I 1-67 Nauru II 107-155 Nauru III 170-188 plus 30 loose unnumbered photos Nauru photos attached to report by Mr A.H. Gaze section 2 (15 Oct 1907) 1-50 (alternative numbering 96-misc. numbering) J.T. Arundel - Photographs by H.A. Gaze continued 47-misc. numbering Folio - Unmarked album beginning with photos of Mr Arundel's cottage at Sydney Island 1-87 Folio - Unmarked album with unnumbered photos Box 15 Recruiting trip in Gilbert & Ellice Islands 1908 1-24 Ocean Island 1-78 Ocean Island 80-165 Ocean Island 111 166-243 J.T. Arundel - Ocean Island IV 244-312 J.T. Arundel - Ocean Island V 313-390 J.T. Arundel - Ocean Island VI 391-467 Box 16 J.T. Arundel - Ocean Island VII 468-493 Folio SS Ocean Queen Photos Portrait Teniamakin - Queen of Ocean Island from 1900? Envelope of loose photographs 4 loose maps - Flint, Jarvis, Baker, Caroline Islands Diary 15 June - 16 November 1909 -- We don't use Windows - so You get fewer Viruses. Mepis Linux, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org. ======================================================================== = Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:22:46 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Theoretical problem For more info on metal, check these out: http://www.corrugated-metals.com/gaugeref_uncoated.html http://www.corrugated-metals.com/steelthicknesschart.html LTM, Dave Bush ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:23:07 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Theoretical problem OK, assume your scenario. Numerous sheets of corrugated iron would be found in close proximity to the bones (again, assuming the Seven Site is the location of the original bone discovery). Wouldn't that have raised an eyebrow as to why sheets of iron were laid down on the ground (by Gallagher) and brought to attention for higher authorities? Also, wouldn't the islanders use the iron sheeting found there as the roofing for the water cistern located at the Seven Site? You imply that the water cistern iron roofing is different from that located on the ground nearby. The latter argument suggests that your favorite scenario of iron sheeting brought over by AE and FN is seemingly inconsistent with the facts of iron composition of the various sheets. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:24:13 From: Al Hillis Subject: Re: Theoretical problem You bring to life a fact that the island has a turbulent side. That means that the island's ends are into the wind. Does either end have enough length to land an Electra being that sand would create a highly effect brake for slowing a plane down at touch down. I mean, any pilot would attempt a landing into the wind if at all possible. I believe no one knew the winds during the time she was supposed to be at her destination and the time and place she finalized her flight. As a tail dragger she would try for a 3 point landing which should help prevent a flip over. It would be a very short landing in sand. We practiced short take off and landings as part of getting a FAA ticket I also believe she came to rest in such a manner that the starboard (no 2) engine, which operates the generator, was able to be started explaining the later transmissions. If one is engine is good then most likely the other survived the landing. Please don't think of me as being dumb if the left engine operated the generator. Just a couple of questions - 1. How far is Howland from this island? 2. Are there enough beaches to land the Electra either at the north or south end of the island, into the wind? 3. Is there enough beach to land going north or south on the east or west side? 4. Where do you believe is the place the plane landed on the island? 5. Where do you believe is the final resting place of the plane? This leads me to a couple of scenarios: 1. The plane was left in a position to start the right engine, or left, therefore making the radio usable. They would need only to clear the propeller for rotation. If they did, as your thinking indicates, reach the island? I bet there was some fuel remaining. Proof would be that if out of fuel they would glide like a rock and most likely crash. That plane had to be flown (under power) to the point of touch down How much fuel do you calculate she had if she did reach the island? After a reasonable search of course. 2. They, after determination of exactly where they were and with a considerable effort managed to try a take off, into the wind and crashed into the turbulent surf or just off shore. This could explain the wood from the sextant box and shoe sole as they were washed ashore. The portion of the sextant boxes condition could have been the result of being kept by later inhabitants in whole or partial then discarding it several years later. 3. The plane could have been so close to the sea as to be finally washed away and sinking into deeper waters. 4. The plane lies close and amid the scattered wreckage of the freighter as natives claim. I believe this was a result of an attempted take off. In finalization you can call this as nothing but guessing but I tried to apply analysis to what I have read on TIGHAR. Thankfully you will construe this document as an attempt to substantiate your claims of Amelia's events as you believe. Respectfully, Al Hillis ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:24:44 From: Don Iwanski Subject: Re: Moving iron Was any of the metal checked and identified as either closely resembling american technology or perhaps it closely resembled Japanese technology as far as the makeup and composition of the metal? I know the Navy widely used similar metal such as that to lay down temporary landing strips in World War 2, and I was wondering if perhaps any of the metal resembled that. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:17:12 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Ross Devitt asks > Has TIGHAR ever had a look at any of the journals or diaries in this > collection? Yes. The Kiribati National archive has the collection on microfilm. We looked at it when Van Hunn and I were in Tarawa in 2001. That's how we know about the corrugated iron. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:17:39 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Al Hillis says: > In finalization you can call this as nothing but guessing but I tried to > apply analysis to what I have read on TIGHAR. Thankfully you will construe > this document as an attempt to substantiate your claims of Amelia's events > as you believe. It's the thought that counts, and I do appreciate it, but you're operating at a tremendous disadvantage because you're not familiar with the information available on the TIGHAR website. I'd suggest you start with the TIGHAR Hypothesis at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEhypothesis.html It's a bit dated (November of 2001) but still valid. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:18:02 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Moving iron The metal runways used during WWII was much thicker and had various holes in it (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/korea/psp.htm). It does not resemble what was found at the Seven Site. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:18:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Moving iron Don Iwanski asked: > Was any of the metal checked and identified as either closely > resembling american technology or perhaps it closely resembled > japanese technology as far as the makeup and composition of the metal? > I know the Navy widely used similar metal > such as that to lay down temporary landing strips in World War 2, and > I was wondering if perhaps any of the metal resembled that. As I said, the corrugation most closely resembles iron sheeting used in the 1890s. It is nothing like the pierced steel matting used for landing strips during WW2. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:19:15 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem I asked: > Can AE and FN move roughly a ton of corrugated iron two miles? and, predictably, I get opinions about why they wouldn't move it, opinions that it wouldn't have lasted, opinions that they wouldn't need 20 sheets, opinions that Gallagher would have mentioned it, and descriptions of modern corrugated metal. I love you guys. Look.... The stuff is there at the Seven Site whether we think it should be there or not. Somebody brought it there whether we think they should have or not. If the Seven Site is the castaways' campsite - whoever the castaways were - he/she/they chose to live there for a reason whether we understand the reason or not. If the corrugation was brought to the Seven Site by the castaways then it must have been important to them to do that whether we understand the reason or not. If they brought 20 sheets they needed 20 sheets whether we understand why or not. Maybe the stuff was brought there for the construction of a house for Gallagher that never got built. If so, it's odd that the colonists didn't use the lighter corrugation they used for the roof over the tank. A house with a roof made of that much metal sheet would be huge. Still, it's a possibility. It's also a possibility that Gallagher used the metal sheeting to cover and protect cleared areas he planned to search later for more castaway evidence but it seems to me that he could have found something lighter and easier to use. We covered our excavations with plastic tarps. Canvas tarps would have also worked. Still, it's a possibility. What I'm trying to get a handle on is whether two castaways - a man and a woman - could figure out a way to move that much iron sheeting two miles. It seems obvious that the only way to do it would be by constructing a raft and walking the loaded raft (might take several trips) along the shallows of the lagoon shore. The question becomes whether they can construct an adequate raft with the materials at hand. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:20:45 From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Theoretical problem I don't think AE and FN would have or could have moved the sheets. But how about someone else moving them. Has there been any evidence of a "still" found? You can make a rum from coconuts--quite tasty I hear. What I'm getting at is that may be some enterprising individuals transported the sheets to the lee side of the island, and used them to keep the foliage down and provide shelter for their operation. Although a commercial venture I don't think they'd want to advertise their presence. LTM ( who might have tried coconut rum --once or twice.) Mike Juliano #2590 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:22:22 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Theoretical problem I don't buy the castaways humping sheets of corrugated iron two miles to the 7 site. Especially if they had to destroy structures (ready-made shelter) to do it. Why would the castaways prefer to stay at the 7 site vs. the remnants of the Arundel village? Abundance of food? If they were healthy enough to move the iron sheets, they were healthy enough to travel between the sites; gathering food at the 7 site and using the shelter (and rain catchment) at the Arundel settlement. Before we get too far into this we need to examine the Arundel thing closely. Ric stated that Arundel imported 26 corrugated iron sheets for construction at the village on Niuteron (sp?). OK, fine. Did he intend to use all 26 sheets in the initial construction? Or, did he intend to have some in reserve for future construction? Several forumites are already working on what a sheet of iron was in 1890. That's important. Exactly what were the dimensions? How were the buildings constructed? was the iron used just for roofs, or for walls as well? How were the iron sheets altered in this construction? (If at all.) What I want to know is how many of the 26 iron sheets were used in the construction of the settlement and how those sheets that were used may have been cut, sized, bent, etc. during construction. I'll take a breath here. How much do we really know about the Arundel operation? Since we have strong evidence of a connection between the Arundel settlement and the 7 site (the corrugated iron sheets) it might behoove us to spend some archaeological resources on the Arundel site. If your theory that that the castaways removed the iron sheets from the settlement to the 7 site is true; that means that the castaways spent time at the Arundel settlement; enough time to dismantle structures and haul off several hundred pounds of material. They may have left something important (to us) of themselves there. If the castaways weren't there, we might find out how, who, when or why the iron sheets wound up at the 7 site. I'll shut up now. LTM Kerry Tiller ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:23:34 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Theoretical problem try this one on for size. Suppose they got down safely, did the post loss msgs figured where they were and took off expecting to get to howland even if late; were sucessful in taking off [or not and ended just ofshore explaining how wreckage was not found and they got back to the island with minimal supplies including the sexrant etc and were too injured to signal the search planes] and started to howland but the fuel wasn't enough and they landed in the water. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:25:21 From: Jack Clark Subject: Re: Mystery message Re my forum posting for 27/Nov re Mystery Message. I have today 3/Dec been to the State Library of Victoria in Melbourne and started going through the Melbourne newspapers for July 1937 on microfilm. So far I have covered two papers The Melbourne Age and The Melbourne Argus (now defunct). I can find no mention of a cable such as the one Ric posted and no mention of a cable sent by anyone named Kirkby. The closest I could find was a report from Honolulu dated 9/July a message heard by a Mr Conrad Mentant, an amateur operator (no location given)who heard a man's voice saying "All's well" and later "Position 173 west longitude and 5 south latitude" which I think is about 90 nm SE of Gardiner. I cannot recall hearing of this message before but undoubtedly you have it filed away somewhere. I will check the two remaining Melbourne papers as soon as I can just in case but it will probably some days before I can get back to it. I think it's a forlorn hope of finding Kirkby. Jack Clark #2564 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:25:40 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Theoretical problem If you read up on how COPRA is made it seems that the metal you're referring to could have been used during the drying process. Arundel was in the business of making copra. However, if Arundel's plantings were at the other end of the island why would he have hauled that heavy load all the way to the other end of the island. On the other hand if Gallagher and his gang planted coconut trees near the 7 site (I believe that was Gallagher's plan) and later the copra was harvested the sheets of metal would have provided the surface for drying and thus the incentive to move the sheets from one end of the island to the other. If the above makes sense then it seems you have indeed found the general area where Gallagher found the bones, etc. He did note in his communications at the time the area where he found the bones was to be cleared for planting and a further search would be made during the clearing operation. Furthermore, I would think the original plan to clear and plant would go ahead even though Gallagher had died. Having said all the above it seems to me that if the 7 site area was in fact later turned into some sort of a copra production area the surrounding ground would have experience a great deal of foot/machinery traffic. Therefore, any AE artifacts in the area could have been trampled on (into dust) or moved along with other debris to the circumference of the planting/manufacturing area. Rather than searching in the immediate 7 site area maybe a look along its periphery would be more productive. Ted Campbell ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:40:12 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: More on iron Ric wrote: "What I'm trying to get a handle on is whether two castaways - a man and a woman - could figure out a way to move that much iron sheeting two miles." My bottom-line answer: I think they could have. Ric also wrote: "I love you guys." Great. We all love you, too, Ric! LTM, Lots of love on this Forum, ain't there? Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:53:26 From: Don Iwanski Subject: Re: Theoretical problem There was a Loran station put on the island during after WW2 and I remember seeing a picture of a truck and soldier on TIGHAR's website somewhere which was taken on Gardner. This type of metal is commonly used in the construction of temporary shelter. Perhaps it was used as temporary housing for the people installing the LORAN station. Im not sure if it was a LORAN - and also unsure of the time frame, correct me if I am wrong. Much appreciated Don I. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:01:05 From: Jack Thomas Subject: Re: Theoretical problem How visible would these sheets have been from the air? Perhaps they were arranged in an SOS pattern? I'm only half joking... -Jack Thomas ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:01:27 From: Dave Hertog Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Was the area were sheets were located open to the sky and if so could it just of been sections of sheet iron broken apart by corrosion, and easily moved, displaying an SOS instead of a mass of sheets covering all of an area Dave #2505 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:02:07 From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Theoretical problem > What I'm trying to get a handle on is whether two castaways - a man and > a woman - could figure out a way to move that much iron sheeting two > miles. It seems obvious that the only way to do it would be by > constructing a raft and walking the loaded raft (might take several > trips) along the shallows of the lagoon shore. The question becomes > whether they can construct an adequate raft with the materials at hand. So, the real question is, could they have moved ONE sheet of it? Then (perhaps) make movable groups and repeat as necessary. Is that "a ton" number for one sheet? I've worked with some bits of corrugated iron (yes, iron, not steel) in very old buildings, but never in sheets the size you mention. I recall it being awfully heavy even for just 1' X 2' sections. As a practical item, my kids (three of them) and two friends moved the hulk of a car from our back yard to our spare driveway a few weeks ago. The car weighed about 3000# in road trim, but this was minus the engine and drive train, so knock off 1200# to 1500# (I can't recall if it was a 6 or a V8). Originally my younger two (18 & 24) tried to drag it themselves and couldn't budge it. It took five boys 18 to 28 years old in good health to pick it up and move it 100' with a bit of strain. - Bill #2224 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:02:37 From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Theoretical problem How about the possibility of the military. To my understanding there was a Loran transmitter at that end of the island. For most types of transmitters to work they have to be properly grounded. Could those sheets be used as a "ground grid"? In order for DeForrest (early radio pioneer)to have his long range transmitters work in Florida he had to sink 40' lengths of iron pipe into the soft sand to establish a good "ground". LTM Mike Juliano ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:30:05 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Kerry Tiller asks: > Why would the castaways prefer to stay at the 7 site vs. the remnants > of the Arundel village? Abundance of food? If they were healthy enough > to move the iron sheets, they were healthy enough to travel between the > sites; gathering food at the 7 site and using the shelter (and rain > catchment) at the Arundel settlement. I can think of a number of reasons why a castaway would choose to live at the Seven Site rather than on Nutiran but what I can imagine is not important. What is important is that the castaway(s) of Gardner Island DID choose to live at the Seven Site despite the fact that the only coconut trees then on the island were two miles away at the west end where the remains of the Arundel building were and where the Norwich City cache was located. We can opine all day that, based upon what we know 60 some-odd years later, sitting in front of our computers, it seems crazy to move down to the Seven Site but, unless you want to argue that the castaway came ashore down there and was incapable of going anywhere else, the fact remains that somebody made a conscious decision to live there. > Before we get too far into this we need to examine the Arundel thing > closely. Ric stated that Arundel imported 26 corrugated iron sheets for > construction at the village on Niuteron (sp?). OK, fine. Did he intend to > use all 26 sheets in the initial construction? Or, did he intend to > have some in reserve for future construction? Our information comes from Arundel's handwritten notes in his journal which I saw on microfilm in Tarawa. There was no "village". This was not a settlement, it was a work camp. The notation says: 1 store house - 8 sheets iron 1 dwelling - 12 sheets iron 1 cook house - 6 sheets iron > Several forumites are already > working on what a sheet of iron was in 1890. That's important. Exactly what > were the dimensions? How were the buildings constructed? was the iron used > just for roofs, or for walls as well? How were the iron sheets altered in > this construction? (If at all.) What I want to know is how many of the 26 > iron sheets were used in the construction of the settlement and how those > sheets that were used may have been cut, sized, bent, etc. during > construction. I'd like to know all that too, but I don't think we're going to. > How much do we really know about the Arundel > operation? Since we have strong evidence of a connection between the Arundel > settlement and the 7 site (the corrugated iron sheets) it might behoove us > to spend some archaeological resources on the Arundel site. We're not even sure that the old frames on Nutiran are the remains of the Arundel buildings. At least one of the buildings was clearly re-used by the later PISS settlers when Nutiran was cleared and planted. We've looked at that structure in some detail but we've found nothing there that can be conclusively linked to either the Arundel operation or the castaways. LTM, ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:30:34 From: Ric Campbell Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Ted Campbell says: > On the other hand if Gallagher and his gang planted coconut trees near the 7 > site (I believe that was Gallagher's plan) and later the copra was harvested > the sheets of metal would have provided the surface for drying and thus the > incentive to move the sheets from one end of the island to the other. There is clear evidence near (but not at) the Seven Site that there was an attempt to plant cocos but the trees died before reaching maturity. There are only a few scattered coconut palms there now and there are no remains of the trunks of mature trees. Instead, there are some small, regularly-spaced depressions such as are used in coconut planting and, occasionally, the remains of a seed nut. I think it's safe to say that the coconut-growing experiment on that part of the island was a failure and that no copra was ever harvested there. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:30:51 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Don Iwanski says: > Im not sure if it was a LORAN - and also unsure of the time frame, > correct me if I am wrong. Yes, there was a Coast Guard Loran station on the island from 1944 to 1946. Corrugated metal was used for some of the buildings. That metal is different from the corrugated metal under discussion. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:31:16 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Iron sheet problem good thought: Very low frequency hf radio, which loran is, needs a very large ground to work properly so might be the answer to our problem of the corrogated iron. example: Cb radio is up at 27 mhz and the portable version uses the car roof and body as the mirror image to work well when transmitting to get the swr down to best number and efficiency. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:31:36 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Jack Thomas asks, > How visible would these sheets have been from the air? Perhaps they > were arranged in an SOS pattern? I'm only half joking... Depends on whether or not they were back under the trees, but Lambrecht flew over the island only a week after the disappearance so it's highly unlikely that the sheets had been moved by then. ======================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:31:59 From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Mystery message After doing some research on the web I found there was an S.S.Milbourne owner by The Milbourne Steam Ship company but they had been out of business at the time of AE. There was /is? a long distance radio telegraph station in Milbourne, Australia. There was also a radio telegraph facility in Milbourne, Florida. Could the message have been sent from Florida after being heard by "Kirkby" in the same way that Betty and the others heard their post loss messages? LTM, Mike J.#2590 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:32:16 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Dave Hertog asks: > Was the area were sheets were located open to the sky and if so could it > just of been sections of sheet iron broken apart by corrosion, and easily > moved, displaying an SOS instead of a mass of sheets covering all of an area Aerial photography taken in 1937, 1938, and 1941, shows the area at that time as being sheltered by trees and we can't really see the ground. Whether it was open enough for rainwater collection is hard to tell but it wouldn't make any sense to put an SOS signal there rather than out on the beach. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:32:37 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Mike Juliano asks: > How about the possibility of the military. To my understanding there > was a Loran transmitter at that end of the island. For most types of > transmitters to work they have to be properly grounded. Could those > sheets be used as a "ground grid"? The Seven Site is about a half hour walk from the Loran station. It is in no way part of that facility. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:33:03 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Theoretical problem > From Ric > > Can AE and FN move roughly a ton of corrugated iron two miles? Might AE and FN have settled down next to 20 sheets of iron that they found already in place? Perhaps that was one of the features that made the site attractive. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:33:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Mystery message Jack Clark says: > The closest I could find was a report from Honolulu dated 9/July a > message heard by a Mr Conrad Mentant, an amateur operator (no location > given)who heard a man's voice saying "All's well" and later > "Position 173 west longitude and 5 south latitude" which I think is > about 90 nm SE of Gardiner. I cannot recall hearing of this > message before but undoubtedly you have it filed away somewhere. That's pretty interesting. I've never heard of Conrad Mentant but the July 9 New York Herald Tribune carried an article that mentioned a ham operator in Ohio by the name of Ray Havens hearing a message that said "All's well. Position 5 degrees S. Lat.173 W. Long." If what we have here are two amateurs hearing messages with identical content on the same day that could be significant. Was the report from Honolulu credited to any particular newspaper or wire service? LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:15:14 From: Don Iwanski Subject: Re: Theoretical problem There is a picture somewhere on the TIGHAR website which shows a strange looking box structure sitting on the beach near the 7 site. I always thought it was the water cistern but perhaps it was something constructed out of this material. I can not locate the picture right off hand, I know it was talked about at some point. Much Appreciated Don I. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:29:57 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Mystery message Mike Juliano says: > There was /is? a long distance radio telegraph station in > Milbourne,Australia. > There was also a radio telegraph facility in Milbourne, Florida.Could > the message have been sent from Florida after being heard by "Kirkby" > in the same way that Betty and the others heard their post loss > messages? The name is Melbourne. The message was signed Kirkby. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:29:44 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Marty Moleski asks: > Might AE and FN have settled down next to 20 sheets of iron that they found > already in place? > > Perhaps that was one of the features that made the site attractive. Certainly a possibility but we're still left with the question of who brought them there and why. Arundel is still the only known possible "who" (prior to 1937). If Arundel was the "who" then the "why" was almost certainly the same as at Nutiran - the construction of a work camp. We don't know how extensive Arundel's plantings were at Gardner. We do know that by October 1937 when Maude and Bevington visited the island there were only five groves of trees surviving - all at the west end. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:30:04 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Don Iwanski says: > There is a picture somewhere on the TIGHAR website which shows a strange > looking box structure sitting on the beach near the 7 site. I always thought > it was the water cistern but perhaps it was something constructed out of this > material. I can not locate the picture right off hand, I know it was > talked about at some point. It's at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/23_SevenSite/23_SevenSite.html That research bulletin might be useful for people to review. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:30:43 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Carl, someone may have suggested this before but I don't recall it (Taking off again). I don't think we have ever seriously considered this for a couple of reasons. One, they certainly did not have sufficient fuel to do more than run an engine for their radio. Two, the only runway was at Howland and I can't see they had fuel to make it back there. you might suggest they took off to get altitude for better radio range but the first landing was risky enough. I don't think they would have tried it again. Possible but doubtful. My fuel analysis indicated to me a maximum of 139 gallons of fuel at 8:43 L and maybe a significant amount less. I believe they could make it to Niku, survey the island for a landing place and put it on the ground. That should have left them with very little fuel but enough to run one engine periodically. From the radio calls I see an indication one of their first calls was made on battery but subsequent calls were made with an engine running. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:43:04 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Theoretical problem > Might AE and FN have settled down next to 20 sheets of iron that they found > already in place? Perhaps that was one of the features that made the site > attractive. Marty, you may have the right idea. There was something about the seven site that drew folks to it. With nothing very obvious that could be it. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:08:58 From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: theoretical problem Ric said > Arundel was the "who" then the "why" was almost certainly > the same as at Nutiran - the construction of a work camp. We don't > know how extensive Arundel's plantings were at Gardner. I already deleted the other e-mail, so I can't reread it ;-0 but you mentioned non-mature palm fronds at the site. You talked as if they were from Gallagher's time. What makes you so sure they were from Gallagher not Arundel's plantings? Craig Fuller AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research www.AviationArchaeology.com aair@juno.com Falcon Field Station Box 22049 Mesa, AZ 85277-2049 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:51:13 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Mystery message Ric said, > That's pretty interesting. I've never heard of Conrad Mentant but the > July 9 New York Herald Tribune carried an article that mentioned a ham > operator in Ohio by the name of Ray Havens hearing a message that said > "All's well. Position 5 degrees S. Lat.173 W. Long." > > If what we have here are two amateurs hearing messages with identical > content on the same day that could be significant. Was the report from > Honolulu credited to any particular newspaper or wire service? This is simply the same report. Ray Havens was from Conrad Montana. Somebody along the line probably needed some new specs unless Jack looked at an archive built using an optical character reader which often produce these sort of errors. Angus ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:51:39 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Alan Caldwell says: > There was something about the seven site > that drew folks to it. With nothing very obvious that could be it. Nothing obvious by just looking at a map, but after you've spent quite a bit of time on various parts of the island you begin to realize that, if you're a castaway trying to survive on Gardner Island in the 1930s, the Seven Site has a lot going for it, even without previously installed metal carpeting. As Rob Crusoe could tell you, there are three key considerations when picking a spot to set up housekeeping on a desert island - location, location, location. With no source of freshwater other than rain you need to be someplace where you can spread out whatever means you can find to collect rainwater. You can't be deep in the jungle or forest, but you can't be out on the bare coral rubble either. It's an oven out there and collected water evaporates quickly. An ideal spot would be open woodland without a dense overstory but still some shade. You need to be up high enough to not worry about being washed away by storms and where you can sit in the shade and be cooled by the prevailing breezes. On Niku, that means being in open woodland near the windward side shore. Nutiran, where the Arundel plantings and the Norwich City cache were, is a hell-hole. You need ready access to both the ocean and the lagoon for food. The Seven Site is on the narrowest part of the island that has enough shade to be inhabitable. It also borders the buka forest where birds are plentiful. And finally, you need what Crusoe (actually Defoe of course) called "a view to the sea" where you can watch for ships. At the Seven Site you can climb a tree and have a clear view of both the northern and - looking across the lagoon - southern horizons. From a castaway's perspective the Seven Site is the best spot on the island and I'm convinced that the castaway who picked it chose it carefully after much exploration, consideration, and painful experience. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:51:53 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Craig Fuller asks: > you mentioned non-mature palm fronds at the site. You talked as if they > were from Gallagher's time. What makes you so sure they were from > Gallagher not Arundel's plantings? Fair question. We have no indication that Arundel ever did any planting there. We have abundant evidence in both Gallagher's own writings and in property allocation maps of the island, that Gallagher planned experimental plantings there. There is, in fact, much discussion in the PISS files about the suitability of various environments on different parts of the atoll for the cultivation of coconuts. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:12:59 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Theoretical problem > Kerry Tiller stated: ...we might find out how, who, when or why the > iron sheets wound up at the 7 site. Is there any possibility that what you found there were pieces blown to the site by a storm, not carried there by any human endeavor? Do you know for sure how many sheets of iron were at the 7 site, or are you just guessing? LTM, Dave Bush Houston, Texas ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:13:21 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Theoretical problem You stated: > ... It's also a possibility that Gallagher used the metal sheeting to cover > and protect cleared areas he planned to search later for more castaway > evidence but it seems to me that he could have found something lighter > and easier to use. We covered our excavations with plastic tarps. > Canvass tarps would have also worked. Still, it's a possibility. I don't know how many canvas tarps would have been available to Gallagher, but unless he planned to bring a lot of them with him, he couldn't just run down to the Home Depot and purchase them. He may have been using the only materials available to him. I doubt that they brought any great store of such things, nor had them readily available. LTM, Dave Bush Houston, Texas ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:14:10 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Ric's theory Ric said: "With no source of freshwater other than rain you need to be someplace where you can spread out whatever means you can find to collect rainwater. You can't be deep in the jungle or forest, but you can't be out on the bare coral rubble either. It's an oven out there and collected water evaporates quickly. An ideal spot would be open woodland without a dense overstory but still some shade." I agree with most of the stuff you listed on how to survive on a deserted island, but I still have a hard time seeing the steel sheets in the same light as you see them. The water collection process does not demand that the castaway be there to monitor things, so having it in the open sun light would not be a detriment to the collection or harvesting. After the rains stop you go out harvest what you can and go back to the forest. And yes, any water not collected would evaporate but the same holds true for water collected in the forest, just that it would evaporate more slowly, even though we have no data to support this assumption or the rate of evaporation. We also have no data on what their storage capacity was. The Benedictine bottle? Okay, that's about enough for one person for a half day or so? Were they using stuff hastily scavenged from the airplane? Yes, that's possible, but what did they take? And we see no hard evidence of that. Also, how would they know to take things from the plane that they could use as storage containers? Our present theory has them abandoning the aircraft within a couple of days after landing, so I wonder if they had much time to figure out what was needed and still have the strength (physical, emotional, and psychological) to risk their lives going through the surf to get it. IF they had the capacity to storage sufficient qualities of water for survival would they have carried it from the old Arundel camp or the airplane, or did they luck out and find something at the 7 site. I apologize for the disjointed presentation, but using the steel sheets for a water collection devise raise more questions than it answers. LTM, who needs a Coke about now Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:14:54 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Theoretical problem The iron sheets were definitely not a ground for the Loran station. Besides being too far away, Loran antenna have very impressive grounding systems. If you see aerial photos of the antenna, you will see a tall guyed-mast tower in the middle of a large circular area. Under that circle are buried copper ground wires in a radial pattern, extending from the base of the tower. I wonder if they are still on Nikumaroro? The antenna may have put out a half megawatt of power, so you didn't want to be within the circle when the antenna was transmitting. You would be fried by the current you picked up. Apparently you didn't want to drop any nails or other metal objects in this area, either. The metal quonset huts that held the generators, transmitters, and barracks were also grounded to avoid stray currents. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 (former IBEW) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:15:21 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Not meaning to be Spammy, but I can't resist mentioning that there's a concise but (I think) fairly thorough discussion of the "corrugated problem" in the new edition of AE's Shoes, including my own preferred hypothesis, which is that Gallagher put the stuff down to cover the area he'd searched and discourage the growth of veggies. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:15:36 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Theoretical problem A couple more observations about the Seven Site and corrugated: 1. Another reason for thinking that the evenly spaced depressions near the Seven Site are of colonial rather than Arundel vintage is that they're similar in depth to depressions on Aukaraime South that pretty closely match colonial-era plantings shown in airphotos. 2. Additional reasons to camp at the Seven Site include the fact that sea turtles come ashore to lay their eggs on the nearby shore, and that if you circle the island before landing you're likely to see the two ponds nearby (though closer to what later became the Loran site) and might imagine them to contain fresh water -- or at least want to check them out. 3. One problem with the idea that the castaways dragged the corrugated to the site (besides what I think is its inherent implausibility), or for that matter with the idea that ANYBODY dragged them in before 1940 is that Gallagher didn't report seeing them. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:17:55 From: Scott White Subject: Re: Conjecture, hypothesis, theory Replying again to Ric (still a few loose ends . . .) > . . . any explanation for the Seven Site has to involve > somebody dying there. Or bones being transported there after the fact? Likewise the sole. If it had washed up on shore, it could have been carried to the site. > I'll be interested to hear about these careless prior visitors. It's not unreasonable that the Norwich City navigator might have taken his sextant onto the island to fix their position. There were others on the island prior to 1940 who would have had reason to fix their positions also. And lots of people are careless. I left my lens cap on the ground yesterday after putting it there on purpose for scale in a photo. > You're not thinking Scott. [B-24 / sextant box] Dang -- you've caught on to my secret. I'll have to disguise it better from now on. > Maybe not so easy. Yachts and lifeboats tend to float better than > airplanes. The Norwich City lifeboat washed ashore and was found (and > photographed) in the bushes by the New Zealand survey team. OK. But that doesn't mean that every floating object to ever come ashore is still there. A hypothetical castaway's craft, whatever it was, could easily have just floated away again. Or gone unnoticed by future westerners on the island (as Tighar hypothesizes the Electra did). > My comments to Ted apply here. They do, but it's still tough for me to get past this one. It seems more likely to me that if the Electra was there, that it was washed off the reef before the colonization. The reason it wasn't found, and colonial artifacts made from it do not turn up, is because it wasn't there. >> It's downright weird that all the clearly identifiable plane parts >> trace back to >> a plane that never was on the island. > > Why so weird? Maybe I should have said "ironic." It's ironic that, in the search for plane parts, they keep turning up. Yet they keep being parts of the wrong plane -- one that never was there. Its perfectly reasonable that its parts got there via interisland trading. In a separate post, reg. the Lambrecht search, Ric wrote: >Because we have far more information that he had. >- We know that there should have been no signs of recent habitation on >Gardner. Lambrecht didn't know that. >- We know that he was not going to find the plane on any of the other >islands he still had to search. Lambrecht didn't know that. >- We know that the Lexington Group was not going to find the plane or a >life raft floating in the ocean. Lambrecht didn't know that. >- We know that there was a castaway on Gardner island whose partial >skeleton would be found three years later. Lambrecht didn't know that. >- We know that later inhabitants of the island would tell stories about >an airplane being there. Lambrecht didn't know that. I would quibble with the first and last points. Lambrecht is the one who said "signs of recent habitation." He was in a better position at the time than we are today to judge how recent that may have been, and judge the best course of action. "Recent" doesn't mean "present." But how "recent" he meant is up in the air (and I credit your efforts to figure that out based on his writing about what he saw on other islands). I'm getting suspicious of the stories. There are tons of AE stories all over the Pacific, and none of them pan out. It seems reasonable to suspect that the stories could have originated with the fact that there was in fact plane wreckage on the island -- the colonists brought it there. Over time, stories have a way of shape-shifting. And, finally - >The briefest visit ashore would reveal the presence of rats and crabs that >look like something out of King Kong." Eeew! Nobody told me about the rats! Actually, just out of curiosity and not really related to AE . . . Anybody got any idea when the rats arrived? They wouldn't be indigenous there, and I would guess that they stowed away in the luggage and stores the colonists brought. Just a guess, though. Best, -SW ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:18:12 From: Ron Bright Subject: Achilles and Nauru receptions I know that the time comparisons of the receptions from the above will be in your post loss analysis, but I was looking for an advanced opinion. Both receptions were received "post loss". The Achilles reception of the " dashes" , apparently in response to Itasca's request, was at 0604Z or 6:34pm Itasca time, 2 July. The Nauru reception of the unintelligible voice that "sounded similar" to the voice heard the night before (paraphrasing) was received by a VKT operator at about 6:30 pm, 3 July, Nauru date/time. [ 2 July Itasca date] Mrs Garcia also reported hearing a voice on 3 July, but reported no time. Or do I have the Nauru time reception wrong? I think that the VKT operator heard the signal on 6210, but Achilles heard it on 3105 Of course if they were hearing the same signal, assuming the times were correctly reported, it would be significant. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:03:55 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Ric's theory Another thought for the two kinds of corrugated iron at the 7 site. Suppose the colonists need to build a water collection device, and they have at their disposal some "recent" or new sheets and some old ones from Arundel's timeframe. They bring it all over to the site, and then determine that the older sheets aren't useful for whatever reason, and then discard them in place, using the newer ones. Similarly, they use the old sheets (available from Arundel's time) until new sheets arrive with the water tank (via ship), and they construct a better collection device, and discard the old system with older sheeting, letting it lie in place. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:04:14 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Dave Bush asks: > Is there any possibility that what you found there were pieces blown > to the site by a storm, not carried there by any human endeavor? No possibility at all. > Do you know for sure how many sheets of iron were at the 7 site, or > are you just guessing? As I said, Tom King made a very rough estimate. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:04:30 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Dave Bush said: > I doubt that they brought any great store of such things, nor had them > readily available. Do you have any information at all upon which to base your opinion? ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:05:03 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Tom King writes: > One problem with the idea that the castaways dragged the corrugated to > the site (besides what I think is its inherent implausibility), or for that > matter with the idea that ANYBODY dragged them in before 1940 is that > Gallagher didn't report seeing them. I'll concede that Gallagher's failure to mention them is a problem but I find Tom's theory just as implausible as he finds mine. It happens not infrequently. That's one reason we work so well together. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:05:59 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Mystery message Angus says: > This is simply the same report. Ray Havens was from Conrad Montana. You may be right but rechecking the New York Herald Tribune of July 9 it says that Ray Havens is a "radio amateur" and describes him as a "creamery worker" in "Great Falls, Montana"(not Ohio - I remembered that wrong). There is a small town called Conrad about 60 miles north of Great Falls. Seems like a long commute in 1937. What is your source for Ray Havens being from Conrad, Montana? ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:07:35 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Ric's theory > From Dennis McGee > > I apologize for the disjointed presentation, but using the steel > sheets for a water collection devise raise more questions than it > answers. Actually, using corrugated steel sheets or even corrugated iron roofing sheets to collect rainwater would not sound too far fetched. 20 sheets of corrugated iron roofing would be quite simple to shift, except for getting it across the channel into the lagoon. The corrugated iron Ric has described would most likely be used for external cladding because well before 1890 Lysaght had already produced much lighter stuff for roofing, and it was a whole lot easier to transport by ship, as well as being a lot cheaper. Arundel had access to masses of the stuff from his Australian office, and freight via Burns Philp, who also appear to have shipped heaps of the light gauge corrugated roofing around the Pacific. 20 sheets of heavy gauge corrugated iron really has me baffled even to the point of wondering why it was on the island at all. The only logical reason I can see for it to exist is as a liner to form up an underground water cistern. The thin stuff would probably rust out too quickly. Obviously, though there is no way of knowing. It just seems an odd material to have on the island at all. Th' WOMBAT -- We don't use Windows - so You get fewer Viruses. Mepis Linux, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:08:01 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Theoretical problem Of course they just might have landed the Electra on the reef flat near the 7 site, and people who say they think they saw aircraft wreckage may have got the location mixed up (bearing in mind they were children at the time). Just a thought.. (A silly one, but a thought nevertheless). Th' WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:08:48 From: Jack Clark Subject: Re: Mystery message he report I mentioned is attributed to no newspaper or wire service. It is date lined Honolulu, July 9. I will quote the passage verbatim. > Officials at the headquarters of the coastguard division are > unconvinced of the authenticity of any of the messages supposed to > have been transmitted by the fliers after the one sent on Friday > afternoon while the plane was still in the air, stating that they only > had enough petrol to last half an hour and there was no land in sight. > But they consider that the most interesting report received by an > amateur, although they doubt whether it was sent by the fliers , is > one received by Mr Conrad Mentant, who heard a man's voice saying:- > "All's well," then later :-"Position 173 west longitude and 5 south > latitude." > > A journalist listened on another set and heard ostensibly the same > voice but it was indistinguishable. The position given intersects > the spot where, it is now believed, the fliers descended. That appeared in The Melbourne Argus newspaper on Saturday 10th July 1937 page 13. Jack Clark #2564 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:10:53 From: Jack Clark Subject: Re: Mystery message Angus I don't know if the archives at The State Library are built using optical character reading. I used a roll of micro film fed into a reader and coupled to a printer. Judging by the condition of the boxes holding the film rolls I would say they were done some years ago. If optical character printing is a fairly new thing I would say the archives were not done that way. I hope this does not start an off topic thread. Jack Clark #2564 ******************************** Sounds like a standard microfilm setup, where the actual newspaper was photographed. I can't imagine archiving newspapers using OCR. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:13:08 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Theoretical problem > From Ric > Our information comes from Arundel's handwritten notes in his journal > which I saw on microfilm in Tarawa. There was no "village". This was > not a settlement, it was a work camp. The notation says, > > 1 store house - 8 sheets iron > 1 dwelling - 12 sheets iron > 1 cook house - 6 sheets iron > > Several forumites are already > working on what a sheet of iron was in 1890. That's important. Exactly what > were the dimensions? How were the buildings constructed? was the iron used > just for roofs, or for walls as well? How were the iron sheets altered in > this construction? (If at all.) What I want to know is how many of the 26 > iron sheets were used in the construction of the settlement and how those > sheets that were used may have been cut, sized, bent, etc. during > construction. Here's a corrugated iron house with around 12 sheets used for one side of the main pitch of the roof. http://www.goodearl.com.au/central_australia/town2.jpg That would be nothing at all like the building Arundel would construct. Give you a bit of an idea of how versatile the stuff is. We still use it these days, and whole houses are again being built from it, but they look a little nicer, and these days it is probably steel, although it is still called corrugated "iron". My own roof here in town is corrugated iron, and until recently I had a stack corrugated iron sheets dating back to about 1900 lying in my yard. I bought them when the sugar mill (which was constructed from corrugated iron, and commenced operations in 1906) closed. They were from the original part of the building. I got rid of them shortly before I sold my country house. Heavier than the current sheets (about twice as thick, but I could easily drag four twelve foot by three foot sheets at once on my own. I put this page together to show some examples of what you get out of "standard size" corrugated iron sheets, to help answer the ____________ >> What I want to know is how many of the 26 >> iron sheets were used in the construction of the settlement and how those >> sheets that were used may have been cut, sized, bent, etc. during >> construction. _____________ question. Bear in mind that in 1890, there were several standards, and some of the corrugations on the very heavy iron were six inch pitch. The standard for the last 100 years has been and still is, three inch pitch. http://www.rossdevitt.com/corrugated/corrugated.html Anyway, we still use heaps of the stuff every day - it's just getting a little more high tech over the last 10 years. Th' WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:21:51 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Conjecture, hypothesis, theory There are people that study rat colonization of Pacific islands. They could have come as stowaways with the Arundel planters. Some people think that the ancient Polynesians intentionally brought them along as a food supply. Fresh meat in a convenient size! Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 > Eeew! Nobody told me about the rats! > Actually, just out of curiosity and not really related to AE . . . > Anybody got any idea when the rats arrived? They wouldn't be indigenous > there, and I would guess that they stowed away in the luggage and stores the > colonists brought. Just a guess, though. > > Best, > -SW ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:22:35 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Achilles and Nauru receptions July 2nd Nauru time, before she was due to land, and July 3, time unstated. Dan Postellon ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:38:35 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Achilles and Nauru receptions Ron Bright asks: > The Nauru reception of the unintelligible voice that "sounded similar" to > the voice heard the night before (paraphrasing) was received by a VKT operator > at about 6:30 pm, 3 July, Nauru date/time. [ 2 July Itasca date] Mrs Garcia > also reported hearing a voice on 3 July, but reported no time. > Or do I have the Nauru time reception wrong? You have the Nauru time wrong. Nauru heard signals at 08:31Z, 08:43Z, and 08:54Z on July 3rd. Aboard Itasca the times were 21:01, 21:13 and 21:24 respectively on July 2nd. In other words, the Nauru receptions were heard roughly two and a half hours after Achilles heard the exchange between Itasca and some other station. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:43:01 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Theoretical problem >As I said, Tom King made a very rough estimate. VERY rough. The main concentration corrugated-on-the-ground (as distinguished from a smaller concentration near the tank, which clearly represented a structure that drained water into the tank -- long collapsed, of course) began near the SE edge of the area we cleared, and extended back into the Scaevola. We bushwhacked in and thought we'd identified a SE edge to the deposit, but I wouldn't stake much on it; it could extend much farther than we thought, and it could be discontinuous. Some of the sheets also appeared to overlap one another, and some may have been piled several deep -- understand that they're all virtually entirely reduced to rust, and very difficult to tease apart. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:43:52 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Seven site Ric/Tom, I think we need a little more detail on what you folks have seen; * size of the area in question? * orientation to compass rose coordinates? * is the area relatively flat or sloped? If sloped in which direction? * is there any indication of liquid drainage along the periphery of the area e.g. coconut oil, clam juices, fish stuff, etc., from a drying process? * is the vegetation in the area e.g. under the sheets stunted compared to the surrounding vegetation? * what are the distances to other site features e.g. the campfire pit, pools were fish are abundant, clam (or other shell fish) beds, sea shore and the lagoon shore? The shoe parts found by TIGHAR? * are there pathways leading to/from the area? * do the sheets of metal (?) seem to have been laid side by side and/or end to end i.e. can you make out seams of the sheeting material? * does some of the residual material (rust) appear to be thicker in some areas e.g. like stacked sheets? * is there evidence to suggest that the material was corrugated vs flat sheet? * do we have any photos of the area that could be posted on the website? Could you post an overhead sketch of the area showing surrounding (if any) features? Finally, do you have any other specific questions or puzzles you have that we can work on? This one surely got the forum to focus on the AE puzzle rather that rambling on about the size of a 55 gallon drum, etc. Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric Much of the information you seek is readily available on the website. For starters try: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/23_SevenSite/23_SevenSite.html and http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/33_SevenMysteries/33_SevenMysteries.html Once you have acquainted yourself with the information that's there you'll be in a position to ask informed questions. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:14:42 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Mystery message Jack Clark quotes the Melbourne newspaper article: >> Officials at the headquarters of the coastguard division are >> unconvinced of the authenticity of any of the messages supposed to >> have been transmitted by the fliers after the one sent on Friday >> afternoon while the plane was still in the air, stating that they >> only had enough petrol to last half an hour and there was no land in >> sight. But they consider that the most interesting report >> received by an amateur, although they doubt whether it was sent by >> the fliers , is one received by Mr Conrad Mentant, who heard a man's >> voice saying:- "All's well," then later :-"Position 173 west >> longitude and 5 south latitude." >> >> A journalist listened on another set and heard ostensibly the same >> voice but it was indistinguishable. The position given >> intersects the spot where, it is now believed, the fliers descended. Thanks Jack. Curiouser and curiouser. The article is correct in that, by July 9, the Coast Guard - having been thoroughly embarrassed by the "281 north" debacle - was pooh-poohing all of the alleged post-loss receptions. Their feeling that the "All's well....." message was, nonetheless, "the most interesting" was apparently due to the described position being near "the spot where, it is now believed, the fliers descended" (the Colorado's planes, in fact, searched Gardner that day). Ironically, the decision to search the land areas in the Phoenix Group was based upon the presumed validity of the post-loss messages. The Navy's intention to search the Phoenix Group was well publicized so there's a good possibility that the message was a hoax. If you want to be believed, tell somebody something they already think might be true. What makes no sense at all is the bit about a journalist listening on another set. What jour