Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:43:29 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Signal strength Mike, Thanks.for your comments. Now I have been wondering about the Brandenburg radio riddle analysis in Tighar's 8th edition. Although this radio signal stuff is beyond , he does use a Signal to Noise ratio in computing estimated distances the two major frequencies could be heard that 2 July. The way I read it, at 1900 , AE"s closest point of approach is a "maximum of 80 miles", and about 68 miles from Howland,see his table. But in view of your comments about the problems of using signal strength numbers, these estimates may be unreliable, or untrustworty figures. I believe he uses the signal strength SNRs in analysing the signals heard by Achilles, PAA, and Tutilia as related to AE on Gardner Island. Maybe you and Bob Brandenbury have discussed this issue. At least AE wasn't heard to say "can you hear me now?" LTM, Ron Bright ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:43:51 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Signal strength Alan, How do you know that Long and Nauticos are using just relative adio signal strength data in their estimate of where the Electra is? I believe Nauticos is using probabilites, DR, and other variables. But then again Angus knows where the darn thing is, but wont tell!!! My guess is that signal strength estimates will be used in assigning validity and probability to some of the post loss signals. LTM, Ron B ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:44:46 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Signal strength Angus Murray wrote: > (Not known by Alan that is). Happy New Year, Angus. I hope you are having a great holiday. The time of take off from Lae is not known by anyone, Angus, not just unknown by me. It is accepted that it was at 10:00 AM local but it was also reported to be 10:20 AM local. One possible factor is that the military uses brake release as take off time whereas passenger and cargo operations use block out time, meaning when the plane left the parking or loading area. I have no clue which Lae used nor does anyone else. Of course it is my assumption that no one knows where the plane was precisely at any other time. That will be fact until someone proves me wrong. It is my contention that no one can. No one has in the last 67 years so I feel safe. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:45:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Signal strength Mike, sorry to pull your leg a bit but sometimes this stuff gets too serious. I greatly appreciate your good comments putting a lot of the radio "facts" into better perspective. It's all been said time and time again but after a while some of us forget and try to reinvent the wheel again. The Forum needs reminded periodically else it is easy to slip off onto false rabbit trails. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:47:33 From: Mark Guimond Subject: One last kick at the can? What with the current 'Signal Strength' thread, I know it is only a matter of time before the old "puff of dust" and "missing antenna" come up again (groannnnn). So pardon my heresy in going against what now seems to be considered near to gospel truth. (The last time I even tried having an intelligent discussion with a priest, most of a lifetime ago, I was informed I was beyond help if I could not blindly accept what I was told without trying to apply reason and logic, let alone insisting on any form of proof. Go figure!) In fact, as it is Jan. 01, I've been clearing out some of the backlogged posts and dredged up an old item from my own 'Drafts' archive that I had prepared last Spring when I first joined the Forum. I never posted it as I figured you old vets out there had analyzed the subjects in question nineteen different ways to hell and back again. It follows below, between the dashed lines and in quotes, as I wrote it originally: -------------------------------------------------------------------- I am pretty new to the Forum and have read, I think, most of Ric's published (online) material. I admit I have not gone through the archived postings yet. At the risk of reiterating arguments already made by persons much more knowledgeable than myself, I must point out what I feel are gross errors that I cannot let go by unchallenged. This all concerns the takeoff from Lae, and what I consider to be the extreme unlikeliness of the antenna coming off the aircraft. Although I have been working with aerospace design engineering and publication computer systems for a good many years, I am as new to PCs and Windows as I am to the Forum. Somebody forgot to include the owner's manuaI to this thing and I still have not figured out how to get at the takeoff film footage. So if you have gone through all of these points previously, then please just hit Delete so I don't bore everybody. a) The Puff Of Dust The moment I read of this it struck me as impossible. A few hours before takeoff, the field had been subjected to a good drenching. A grass, packed soil, gravel, sand, or crushed coral runway can in no way go from soaked to dusty dry in a matter of hours. Lae is subjected to two monsoon seasons a year, covering more than 8 months of the year on average. This includes June and July. The relative humidity there is at least 90% on a hot and sunny day, and July 2, 1937 was not a sunny day. In fact, I recall reading that someone (I forget who) speculated that AE made a dog-leg to the South shortly after takeoff to go around some heavy wet weather. The only explanation I can think of for what might be misinterpreted as a puff of dust in the film would in fact be from propwash turning into mist some water kicked up from a puddle. This I have seen innumerable times, and I doubt that anybody who has actually seen it first-hand could make such a mistake. b) Losing The Antenna How on earth could this happen? FAA aircraft certification requires proving that no structural part of the aircraft, as well as any accessories attached thereto, can possibly come into contact with the ground at any time. This applies equally to any post-production changes or additions covered by a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) or other documentation. This must be shown for both static and dynamic conditions. These include: 1) the a/c stationary at max over-gross weight; 2) the a/c taxiing in a straight line and making the sharpest turns at the max weights and ground manoeuvring speeds recommended by the manufacturer; 3) the a/c impacting the runway at a speed sufficient to compress all undercarriage components to their limits, plus an allowance for structure flex. My only question is, does anybody know if these requirements existed in 1935-1937? So if the antenna could not conceivably touch the ground under the most extreme conditions, what could convincingly explain the hypothesis? I rather doubt that there were bushes, anthills, kunai grass or other clutter on the Lae field that could snag the antenna. After all, most of the other a/c using that field at the time would have been light fabric-covered biplanes and monoplanes (Moths, Avians, Rapides, Proctors, Gulls and the like), all with much less ground clearance than the L10E. The trailing edges of their elevators almost drag on the ground if the stick is not held full back. It would certainly have been noticed and recorded had AE wandered off the strip into the bushes while taxiing. Could the end of the antenna been left off the aft anchor fitting as a result of somebody mucking around with it following the previous day's radio test flight? Most certainly that would have been noticed by AE and FN during the preflight walkaround check (please don't tell me they did not do one...). If they did not catch it, then somebody in the small crowd of people present for the takeoff surely would have. After all, many of them were pretty aircraft savy... other pilots, mechanics, etc, and would have out of habit been eyeballing the plane. I know I used to, especially before I got on board, and have caught two aircraft (a C-46 and a C-47) taxiing out, one with the u/c locking pins still in place, the other with the board gust lock still on the rudder, so anything can happen. c) The Pitot-Static Head This item, one of two located side-by-side under the nose of the a/c, served as the forward anchor point of the antenna, as well as providing the pressure to the airspeed indicator. The forensic photo analysis suggests that it appears cocked at a sharp angle to what it should be. How could this happen? Did the prop catch a flailing antenna and give a hard enough yank to twist the P/S head before snapping off? I REALLY doubt it. No antenna was found on the ground. Having done B&W photography for nearly 40 years, including restoring and printing old negatives, and worked extensively with '50s and '60s vintage aerial photos, I know how light and shadows can play tricks. The slightest misalignment of the P/S head would have resulted in a very noticeable change in the indicated airspeed. A tweak to the degree suggested in the analysis would have caused a massive error, if indeed the ASI worked at all. This AE would have noticed within minutes of takeoff and aborted the flight without a moment's hesitation. Not even the biggest fool in the world could ignore that the slightest discrepancy between the two ASIs would be a certain death sentence. After all, is one reading too high, or is one reading too low? In spite of some serious questions as to her competency re. comunication and navigation, neither she nor Noonan were foolish enough to ignore this. -------------------------------------------------------------------- And that, folks, is as far as I went. Some time later I discovered, thanks very much to Alfred Hendrickson, Nikki Zanzonico's excellent review and analysis of the above subject. (See http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html) The very instant I saw the Lae takeoff for the first time, I knew I was right. Before getting into the aerospace industry, I spent a good number of years out in the bush, muskeg and mountains this country where the old piston pounders to this day are still earning their keep. I have watched inumerable T/Os and landings from rudimentary runways of every type by Electras, Venturas, Lodestars, C-45s, C-46s, C-47s, even Bristol Freighters, just to name the twin-engine taildraggers. And for some reason, it seems to me, the weather was cold and wet more often than not. That IS water spray in the film, NOT dust! I do not understand how anybody who has ever actually witnessed a T/O by one of these old birds from a wet field could think otherwise. In my opinion Nikki has hit the nail square on the head; it is a bit late in coming, but thanks Nikki, for confirming my own assumption. And yet the lost antenna hypothesis seems to have lost no strength. A great year 2005 to all, and especially to all who contributed to the Forum Fund. I am sure there is no shortage of deserving candidates. Ric, Pat, my check will be in the mail in a day or two. Had to shoot someone for it, but I am sure her boyfriend will love the pictures. Mark Guimond ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:17:42 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Signal strength Ron, Long and company are NOT just using relative signal strength. What they did was build up a radio that they THINK is the same type AE had in the Electra. Then they found a woman whose voice they THOUGHT was similar to AE's. As you can see they have two assumptions that are worthless. First, even if they accidentally picked the exact radio model (and you know we don't know what that is) every radio, even of the same model, is significantly different. Radio Hams will tell you they can often tell one radio transmission from another. Mike gave you a summary of some of the variables. Next, voice patterns alone do not provide an exact match. There are more variables here. Do you want to believe a SIMILAR radio and a SIMILAR voice equals an exact and precise result? Not hardly. There is NO DR information. There is no weather, atmospheric or propagation data. That information did not exist in 1937 and cannot be reconstructed. I've already tried that through the weather services. No such data ever existed in order to do that. To determine an aircraft's track/position there has to be some definitive time and starting point and the only one is Lae airport. We can roughly guess where the plane was at the only two positions AE gave but not accurately enough to reconstruct her exact track and no times were given. The positions were given on her scheduled reporting time but the location could have been then, prior or subsequent. We know that a report was recorded at 10:30 GMT of either ship or lights ahead. We don't know which. If it was a ship we don't know what one it was. It could have been the Ontario, the Myrtlebank or some other ship in the vicinity. In the case of the Ontario and Myrtlebank we don't know their exact position at 10:30 GMT. Further more, given the limited sighting capability out of the Electra's cockpit there is no clue as to where the ship was when sighted nor do we know what altitude the plane was flying. We do NOT know the weather throughout the route. We don't know cloud cover at altitude, above or below. We don't know the wind speed or direction at ANY place the airplane could have been. We only have little snippets of weather information that may or may not have had bearing on the Electra's location. If that information was ever known the plane would have been found in 1937. It was not known. None of it. It is not known today. There are only guesses and assumptions based on more guesses and assumptions. Probability is garbage. I'll give you the only probability that is realistic. The airplane came down somewhere in a circle extending about 4 hours in any direction starting at 8:43 AM local Itasca time and the center of the circle could be any where within several hundred miles of Howland also in any direction. There is no information in existence to pin it down any better. No, not even Angus can. He said he could not be 100% certain. We're back to probability which is of no value in actually and physically locating the Electra. If you could tell me where the plane was exactly at any point AND time in the flight it would still not tell us where it is now. They are all tilting at windmills. Maybe we are also but at least we have a smaller windmill to tilt at. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:18:22 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Signal strength Alan, Leaving aside the issue of "chocks away" time, would you contend that the time of departure would always have been quoted as brake release time, rather than - as some time ago suggested by Ric - the time that the wheels left the ground? Might not Australian sources of the era have used a different system from that used by Americans? > Of course it is my assumption that no one knows where the plane as > precisely at any other time. That will be fact until someone > proves me wrong. Alan, you don't understand what a fact is. A fact is an established truth. If nothing is established (as you claim) it is not a fact. > It is > my contention that no one can. No one has in the last 67 years so > I feel safe. Despair thy charm - is all I can say! Regards Angus. ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:19:13 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Mark, that was a very comprehensive and well done posting. I can't argue much with what you suggest although I might point out a "wire" WAS found on the field some time later. Whether it was antenna wire or from the Electra or exactly where and when it was found remains to be seen. I would, however, start with asking you to support the statement that Lae field was subjected to a good drenching before the flight. Exactly when, to what extent and what is the source for that information? I have trouble, as well, with the ripped off antenna theory even though it might answer why the receivers did not work. In California at a University library I perused an Amelia collection and found a comment saying that Lae set a small charge at the 500 foot remaining point on the runway to indicate that point to the pilot taking off. I didn't copy that down and recall there was not a definitive source. If so it was set off too late to be seen so I don't hold too strongly to that idea. I agree with you that if the pitot tube was THAT badly bent it would have been essentially useless but there were dual tubes. Wouldn't the one remaining show accurate airspeed? Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:21:01 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Mark said, > (The last time I even tried having an > intelligent discussion with a priest, most of a lifetime ago, I > was informed I was beyond help if I could not blindly accept > what I was told without trying to apply reason and logic, let > alone insisting on any form of proof. Go figure!) The priest was certainly right that intelligent discussions and faith are mutually exclusive > b) Losing The Antenna > > How on earth could this happen? FAA aircraft certification > requires proving that no structural part of the aircraft, > as well as any accessories attached thereto, can possibly come > into contact with the ground at any time. This applies equally to > any post-production changes or additions covered by a > Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) or other documentation. This > must be shown for both static and dynamic conditions. > These include: 1) the a/c stationary at max over-gross weight; > 2) the a/c taxiing in a straight line and making the sharpest > turns at the max weights and ground manoeuvring speeds > recommended by the manufacturer; 3) the a/c impacting the runway > at a speed sufficient to compress all undercarriage components to > their limits, plus an allowance for structure flex. My only > question is, does anybody know if these requirements existed in > 1935-1937? > > So if the antenna could not conceivably touch the ground under > the most extreme conditions, what could convincingly > explain the hypothesis? Of course the FAA specification cannot forestall a situation where the tailwheel drops into a depression in an uneven runway, nor can it have any bearing on an antenna mast removed by scrub in the run-off area at the end of a runway. It is quite likely that AE went off runway to get the maximum possible run (since we know that she obsessively removed as much superfluous weight from the aircraft as possible and was obviously concerned about the runway length). > I rather doubt that there were bushes, anthills, kunai grass or > other clutter on the Lae field that could snag the antenna. After > all, most of the other a/c using that field at the time would have > been light fabric-covered biplanes and monoplanes (Moths, Avians, > Rapides,Proctors, Gulls and the like), all with much less ground > clearance than the L10E. The trailing edges of their elevators > almost drag on the ground if the stick is not held full back. The Electra, being all metal, was much more durable than a fabric covered plane and knowing this, AE may have merely forgotten about the vulnerability of the antenna to low scrub. > It would certainly have been > noticed and recorded had AE wandered off the strip into the bushes > while taxiing. Bear in mind that the departure point was at the opposite end of the runway (about 2500ft away) from the hangars (where all observers are likely to have been) so it is quite likely that an off-runway excursion might not have been seen by anyone. > No antenna was found on the ground. There is anecdotal evidence of exactly this. (More details Ric???) > That IS water spray in the film, NOT dust! I certainly agree with this.. Regards Angus. ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:50:51 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Signal strength In reply to Ron Bright: He said Nauticos is using probabilities. It is a strong probability that AE's Electra is somewhere on planet earth. The probability of it being found on other planets or even the moon are considerably less, so much so as to reach zero. LTM, Dave Bush Houston, Texas ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:51:27 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Putting all the things I've heard in the past together, I propose the following: Earhart could not find the island, so I believe that she dropped down to sea level, flying only feet above the waves so that Howland would appear above the horizon line. Thus she found Howland. After all, she said "We must be on you". I take this to mean that she actually landed at Howland, but on the "far side" where she could not be seen by the shore parties. When they did not see her, they steamed away to the northwest in search, leaving her alone to fight her way thru the scaveola. You will find her bleached bones still sitting on the beach at Howland looking for rescue from the southeast. Also, she carved a message into the trunk of a buka tree. It says: Dear Nauticos, you're late. LTM, Dave Bush ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:53:02 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Okay, I can't resist. 1. We're not going to badmouth priests or religion or any belief system that is based upon faith. If you don't understand the difference between faith and what we're doing here you need to do some more research. 2. The antenna loss on takeoff has been established as conclusively as it is possible to establish anything through photographic evidence. It's a simple matter of now you see it, now you don't. The belly antenna is there and visible when the airplane taxis out and it is not visible when the airplane comes back by the camera on the takeoff run (and we can see other details that confirm that the antenna SHOULD be visible if it was there). 3. Discussions of FAA certification requirements are irrelevant. Not only did the FAA not yet exist, but the airplane was licensed by the Bureau of Air Commerce in the Restricted category. Under normal circumstances the aft antenna mast would have had more than adequate clearance, but the airplane was not being operated under normal circumstances and had a gross weight far in excess of it's certificated maximum. The film shows that when the airplane taxied out the bottom of the mast was literally brushing the top of the grass. 4. >A few hours before takeoff, the field had been subjected to >a good drenching. That's news to me. What's the source? I know of one anecdotal account (Bertie Heath) who claimed to have seen swirling dust as the plane crossed a road near the end of the runway. But it makes no difference whatsoever whether the anomaly seen in the takeoff film is a puff of dust or a splash of water. The point is that something under the centerline of the aircraft (not in line with either the props or the wheels) causes a sudden and anomalous disturbance. The only explanation I can think is that it's the broken antenna mast snagging and ripping loose the wire, but the conclusion that the mast was lost does not depend on the "puff". 5. Yes, there is an anecdotal account of a length of antenna wire being found on the runway after Earhart's departure. The story was told to an American serviceman who was in Lae toward the end of WWII. 6. Jeff Glickman at Photek was able to determine that the bent pitot tube is an illusion. Both pitot tubes are present and intact at the time of departure. The central and aft antenna masts are gone. LTM, Ric ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:04:51 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? To Ric Spoilsport. Alan PS: I had forgotten that Jeff found the "bent" pitot tube to be an illusion although I think one would have worked. Yes? ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:05:40 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Signal strength Angus writes: > Leaving aside the issue of "chocks away" time, would you contend > that the time of departure would always have been quoted as brake > release time,... Not at all, Angus. Both wheels up and brake release have been used for as long as I know. I used both in SAC without question. There is no significance to that issue, however, as take off run is quite brief. The difference in Block out and brake release or wheels up IS important. The significance could be about 15 to 20 minutes. If you will look at the Electra check list you will see what needed to be done and you can estimate the amount of time that would have taken. You can also look at the airfield photos and diagrams and estimate the time it would take to taxi from the hangar to the end of the runway for run up. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:08:42 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Ric wrote: > Okay, I can't resist. > > 1. We're not going to badmouth priests or religion or any belief > system that is based upon faith. If you don't understand the > difference between faith and what we're doing here you need to do > some more research. I think this is unnecessary political correctness. Nobody is badmouthing priests or religion. The very point being made is that "what we're doing here" should not be faith based - and yet many of the players do indeed base their beliefs on faith rather than a critical and logical assessment. There is no other explanation for some of the beliefs that people hold. They make up their minds on scant evidence and are then unprepared to change them in the light of further evidence. This is also true of adherents to all the different theories. Whatever one thinks about faith, there is no way one can claim that it is critical or logical. It doesn't pretend to be. > 2. The antenna loss on takeoff has been established as > conclusively as it is possible to establish anything through > photographic evidence. I do not accept this. The wreck photo cowling was also established by photo graphic evidence to be consistent with the Electra but latterly proved to be unrelated. I think this is a good example of faith in a particular scenario exceeding the quality of evidence available. > It's a simple matter of now you see it, now you don't. Its not that simple by a long chalk. > The belly antenna is there > and visible when the airplane taxis out and it is not visible > when the airplane comes back by the camera on the takeoff run > (and we can see other details that confirm that the antenna SHOULD > be visible if it was there). > > 3. Discussions of FAA certification requirements are irrelevant. > Not only did the FAA not yet exist, but the airplane was licensed > by the Bureau of Air Commerce in the Restricted category. Under > normal circumstances the aft antenna mast would have had more than > adequate clearance, but the airplane was not being operated under > normal circumstances and had a gross weight far in excess of it's > certificated maximum. The extra weight only had any considerable effect on the maingear oleo struts. The tailwheel would have maintained much the same ground clearance. As a result the rear antenna mast was only a little closer to the ground than under normal gross load. > The film shows that when the airplane taxied out the bottom > of the mast was literally brushing the top of the grass. Well that rather depends on the length of the grass. > 5. Yes, there is an anecdotal account of a length of antenna wire > being found on the runway after Earhart's departure. The story > was told to an American serviceman who was in Lae toward the end > of WWII. Can you tell us who, when and exactly where in Lae? Regards Angus. ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:02:54 From: George Werth Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Alan's mention of a "bent pitot tube" jogged my memory about an incident that happened a long time ago when I was flying a single-engine land aircraft (Piper Cub) out of an alfalfa field. When parking the aircraft overnight I would install a "Bull Durham" sack over the pitot-tube to prevent bugs from clogging the tube. One day I was in a hurry to get in the air and left the Bull Durham sack on over the pitot-tube and didn't notice it until noticing that the airspeed indicator wasn't reading right. Am I the only one that was ever that stupid? George TIGHAR Member # 2630 ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:03:42 From: Jack Clark Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Re Lost Antenna Discussion. Rainfall at Lae during the time under discussion was from 0900 1st July to 0900 2nd July 20.1mm (0.79 in) from 0900 2nd July to 0900 3rd July 43.9mm (1.72 in). as I have posted on the forum a couple of times. We do not know at what times the rain fell only the 24hr totals. The figures were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. I also find it difficult to envisage the antenna mast becoming lost by striking the ground. There was a defined taxiway which I feel AE would not stray from on a strange airfield. Such a facility would not have large pot-holes or bumps in it to catch the unwary pilot. "A Lae Gallery" on the TIGHAR web site tells us that there is" an area of low boggy ground just off the approach end" (take off end for AE) she would avoid this like the plague with a grossly overloaded A/c. so I cannot imagine her going off the end of the runway. If the antenna was struck off during positioning the A/c dust would have been raised during the entire takeoff run by the trailing mast, if the runway was indeed dusty, not just when the mast snagged on something. We have two lots of forensic imaging one says the antenna is there the other says it is not. Forensic imaging has been in error on a previous occasion. Of course that doesn't prove it is in error now. It seems impossible to me that such an event could take place and not be seen and brought to the attention of someone in authority. When I was searching the Melbourne newspapers recently looking for "Kirkby" I saw a report saying a thousand people were present when AE left Lae. Even allowing for gross exaggeration there must have been a lot of people around. I believe the A/c would have been watched all the way. Jack Clark #2564 ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:04:20 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: signal strength Ron Bright writes: >How do you know that Long and Nauticos are using just relative >radio signal strength data in their estimate of where the Electra >is? I beleive Nauticos is using probabilites, DR, and other >variables. Let's for a minute assume that Nauticos/Long/others can determine with high degree of precision the location of the plane given those transmissions logged by Itasca, and those "other variables" mentioned by Ron Bright. That only pins down the location of the plane at the time of Earhart's 0843 message to Itasca. Now, from knowing this position, we then need to know how long the plane stayed in the air after that, and its heading(s) and speed(s) to find the plane. Note: this is information we don't have. The only way this position information is helpful is if Long's highly questionable calculations about fuel usage are correct and that Earhart stayed airborne only a few more minutes after the 0843 message. Then there's this nonsense about somehow discovering from the Nauticos/Long/others analysis that Earhart followed a "ladder search pattern". It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to deduce a ladder search pattern from the transmissions logged by Itasca, even if I allow the above assumption that you can pin down the location of the plane with a high degree of certainty. Why? To determine a "ladder search pattern", you would need to connect at least six positions to see something close to a "ladder". But from the time when AE said "we must be on you" until the 0843 message, there are three transmissions. Transmissions sent before that cannot be part of the search pattern, because she was not in a search pattern before that! Now, connect the dots between the positions of the three transmissions, what do you see? A right angle turn, perhaps, or a dogleg. Nothing close to a ladder can be discerned from three positions, except by wishful thinking and abuse of the data. Now, throw in the fact that we cannot determine with a high degree of precision the location of the plane at any given time, and you can see that there is really a very, very big area where the plane might be. There is absolutely no way that the analyses mentioned in the above two paragraphs can be done, other than to come up with a very, very big huge humongous giganticly large area, as Alan said somewhere, an area that maybe a 4-hours-of-flight-time radius from Itasca. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:27:04 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Alan said: > PS: I had forgotten that Jeff found the "bent" pitot tube to be an > illusion although I think one would have worked. Yes? The problem is that you don't know which ASI is correct. This is particularly important to know when there is a very small window of adequate flying speed between stall and maximum available speed - as indeed was the case at take-off and soon after. Recovering from a stall at high weight and low altitude would probably be impossible. AE would also know that she would be uncertain of her IAS for landing at Howland. There is some chance that AE could make a correct guess as to which ASI was faulty by checking the IAS at take-off (bearing in mind that she might have some very rough idea of minimum flying speed at their current gross weight) but it would be very risky to guess if there was anything less than a substantial difference in the readings. Nor would she know if both ASIs were faulty since an event damaging one pitot could damage both. She would be foolish not to turn back but if she dumped fuel to do so, there would be more expense and delay or the consiserable danger of a landing fully fuelled. There's no doubt she was a risk-taker and it is certainly conceivable that she might have pressed on in such circumstances, banking on the reasoning that she probably had a 50 % chance of being right! Regards Angus. ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:35:00 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Signal strength Re: Paige Miller's post: All that is true. But what if Nauticos searches around Niku, finds the Electra, but claims that their data was correct and they found the Electra elsewhere? LTM, Dave Bush Houston, Texas ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 20:44:49 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Signal strength For Paige Miller, It looks like your, as well as Alan C., analyses are correct, but the guys that should be defending their position that they have a reasonable, scientific belief where the 10E is on the ocean floor, are Dave Jourdan, and Elgen Long, and the Nauticos investors willing to spend big bucks on their theory. Obviously there are a million variables. I wish them well. LTM, Ron Bright ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 20:45:17 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Pitot tubes For George Rat Werth George wrote : > One day I was in a hurry to get in the air and left the > Bull Durham sack on over the pitot-tube and didn't > notice it until noticing that the airspeed indicator wasn't > reading right. Am I the only one that was ever that stupid? You are almost surely not the only one but you may be the only one to have survived. The fact you did was because you flew a Piper Cub. It's an simple, easy to fly airplane and once you get the hang of it you hardly need any instruments to fly straight and level and it's easy to land by listening to the sound of the wind and keeping an eye on the rpm. In almost any other airplane you'll kill yourself. LTM ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 20:46:50 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Jack Clark wrote: > so I cannot imagine her going off the end of the runway. I can't either, Jack. I also can't imagine her ground looping, leaving both CW keys at home, discarding the trailing antenna, not getting a definite OK on her DF at Lae, not having a raft aboard, Not turning back without a receiver, not giving positions in the Howland/Niku areas, and so on. The rainfall data was for Lae. Does that mean the airport or the general area? In any case that is far from a drenching for whatever significance. In my more than twenty years of flying, including many grass and dirt strips, I've seen my share of pot holes and bumpy fields. I've seen a C-130 back up onto the over run to get maximum take off distance and catch an outboard prop because of rough ground. (Not my airplane). Contrary to Angus' weight and balance expertise, the additional load on AE's Electra DID add some downward force to the entire airplane not just the main landing gear. But that wasn't the scenario Ric presented. What he suggested was the possibility the tail wheel hit a depression of some sort which could have put the belly antenna at risk. Had the plane been virtually empty at the time the same situation could have occurred. Weight had no necessary significance. There is no real significance to this issue in the first place. The idea is that it might be an explanation for her radio problems but who cares. A number of factors could have been responsible for her radio difficulties but even knowing that doesn't advance the ball. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 20:47:30 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Signal strength Paige Miller wrote: > ... wishful thinking and abuse of the data. Paige, there seems to be no shortage of the use of these two techniques. Here would be my questions to these analysts. 1. Please give me the actual enroute weather for the flight to include OAT, flight altitude, wind direction and speed, cloud cover at flight altitude, below and above. 2. Please give me that same information for the area 4 hours in all directions OR any direction from the Itasca for the relevant times on the morning of July 2, 1937. 3. Please give me the atmospheric and propagation data for the same period. IF someone could give me all that information I could NOT tell you what the aircraft's flight path was, where it went or where it is now. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 20:48:28 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Angus Murray wrote: > The problem is that you don't know which ASI is correct. That is correct, Angus but most likely there was no difference even if the one tube was bent. Pitot Static systems are not all that sensitive to direction. Typically a 33 degree attack angle still provides an accurate airspeed indication while a 29 to 33 degree side slip angle is still accurate. They are set in line with the fuselage but actual flight operations put them at varying angles. Pilots are quite sensitive to wind noise and aircraft "feel." Folks had been flying for a long time without an ASI. I see no significance to this issue. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 22:10:45 From: Scott White Subject: Re: Signal strength Just for what it's worth, If we believe that "signal strength" is the radio operator's subjective interpretation, rather than a meter reading, then we also should keep in mind that the radio operator was expecting the signal to get stronger as the plane approached. We all have a tendency to see and hear what we expect. So it's worth considering the possibility that indiscernible differences in signal strength may have been interpreted by the operator as increasing strength. Best, -SW ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:45:53 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Pitot tubes Well, that is not so! I did the same thing with a Beechcraft many years ago so can tell you that it is more than possible and has been successfully done and I'll corroborate my colleague only because he was honest enough to speak up. Good day MLG Carl Peltzer ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:46:42 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Corrugated at the Seven Site Andrew McKenna said: "TIGHAR found 6 half coconut shells in the tank, so we can conclude that the tank was put there to service up to 6 persons." Andrew's analysis of the corrugated sheeting at the Seven Site sounds to me a more reasonable explanation for the stuff being there than having some cast away drag/float/levitate it down to the Seven Site from the Arundel Site. My only nit-picking would be Andrew limiting the crew size at the Seven Site to 6 people based on the number of coconut shells. In fact, I would offer that the six shells could service any number of workers, up to 3-4 dozen if needed. I have labored in a few work parties (farm, military, TIGHAR expeditions etc.) in hot and humid weather and the last thing most of us cared about was who else is using the drinking cups. It was quit common to simply dip the ladle into the water, drink your fill, and pass the empty ladle to the next guy. Yes, it was unsanitary, but who cared? So six cups could easily service several dozen men who slaked their thirst at different times. LTM, who no longer likes to sweat Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:24:37 From: Peter Polen Subject: Re: Pitot tubes George When I was in charge of obtaining Coast Guard Aircraft for the Dayton Ohio Air Show several years ago, The young man responsible for pre-flight forgot to take the Pitot-tube cover off. While siting on the ramp performing the flight check in this CG Falcon Jet, they checked the Pitot heat. The cover put out a lot of smoke and started to burn. One of the crew had to egress the Jet and take off the cover with much embarrassment. This happened in front of many other military aircraft that were at the show. Peter Pittsburgh Pete ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:01:01 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Pitot tubes Alan Caldwell wrote: > Angus Murray wrote: > >> The problem is that you don't know which ASI is correct. > > That is correct, Angus but most likely there was no difference > even if the one tube was bent. And yet you earlier stated: > I agree with you that if the pitot tube was THAT badly bent it > would have been essentially useless You seem to have changed your tune. > Pitot Static systems are not all that sensitive to > direction. Typically a 33 degree attack angle still provides an > accurate airspeed indication while a 29 to 33 degree side slip > angle is still accurate. They are set in line with the fuselage > but actual flight operations put them at varying angles. We are considering a tube that appeared to be badly bent and such a bend could do more than just alter the incident airflow direction. It could kink or even crack allowing ram pressure to escape. > Pilots are quite sensitive to wind noise and aircraft "feel." > Folks had been flying for a long time without an ASI. But AE was not accustomed to flying only a little above stalling speed in an overloaded aircraft without a reliable ASI. AE had turned back because her fuel instrumentation was faulty earlier in the world flight. Additionally her ASI was vitally important for navigation purposes. Angus. ***************************************** You guys seem to be missing the point that, in fact, the pitot tube was NOT bent; that the appearance of bending in the photo is an optical illusion. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:26:50 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Alan said: > Contrary to Angus' weight and balance expertise, the additional > load on AE's Electra DID add some downward force to the entire > airplane not just the main landing gear. It is perfectly obvious that there was a greater downward force and I never stated that the additional load did not create a greater downward force. I stated that the effect of that greater force was minimal at the tailwheel in terms of reducing ground clearance because most of the extra weight was carried by the maingear. Most of the overload and therefore potentially reduced ground clearance was counteracted by increased oleo gas pressure. Had this not been adjusted, the oleo travel would have been reduced with potential bottoming out of the struts and associated damage. Whether the pressure was increased again at Lae for the Howland leg I don't know but it was certainly adjusted during the world flight for high fuel loads. Only under dynamic forces might the struts compress much further than usual and these types of loads would be small at low speed whilst taxiing. Once on the airstrip one might well expect the dynamic loads to cause much greater compressions especially if there were any resonance effect from subtle runway undulations. However, the relatively flat nature of the airstrip over the lengths comparable to the aircraft wheelbase would be unlikely to allow the antenna mast to contact the ground even when the struts were fully compressed. Additionally the aircraft tailwheel would tend to skip over depressions at any speed because of inertial considerations. As soon as the tail was up ground clearance would not be an issue. > But that wasn't the scenario Ric presented. What he suggested > was the possibility the tail wheel hit a depression of some sort > which could have put the belly antenna at risk. Had the plane been > virtually empty at the time the same situation could have > occurred. Weight had no necessary significance. This is not true considering the dynamic aspect as explained above. > There is no real significance to this issue in the first place. > The idea is that it might be an explanation for her radio problems > but who cares. A number of factors could have been responsible for > her radio difficulties but even knowing that doesn't > advance the ball. You are putting the cart before the horse. You have already decided that the issue is not significant and then come to the conclusion that as a result it cannot "advance the ball". A more logical approach is to try to understand every aspect of the flight - as is done in air accident investigation - and not to decide a priori that you will not investigate something because it could not possibly be relevant. Accidents not infrequently happen because no-one realised that some obscure event or circumstance was relevant to the safety of the aircraft. Angus ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:44:10 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Nauticos Dave Bush writes: > Re: Paige Miller's post: All that is true. But what > if Nauticos searches around Niku, finds the Electra, but claims > that their data was correct and they found the Electra elsewhere? Your question boils down to: what if Nauticos knowingly lies? And I don't understand the reason you would ask that question. What does it have to do with what I wrote and what does it have to do with understanding the Long/Nauticos analysis and/or understanding the Niku hypothesis? But let me ask you: what if Pat Thrasher is really Irene Bolam? Then what? -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM (who could never find anything where it was supposed to be) *********************************** We have occasionally thought that should we in fact find conclusive evidence of the aircraft on Niku, that the Japanese-capture theorists would try to convince folks that we found the plane on Saipan, stole it, and transplanted it to Niku to support our theory.... Pat ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:44:54 From: From Jack Clark Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? To Alan Caldwell. Alan, you ask if the rainfall figures I gave are for Lae or the airfield. The info I was given by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology gives the Met Station name as Lae/AF which I have always taken to be Lae airfield. The coordinates given for the station are: 6¡ 44' 00" S 147¡ 00' 00" E I dont know of any precise coordinates for the 1937 airfield to compare with these. As for the field being saturated we do not know at what time the rain fell, as I pointed out, there may have been a downpour shortly prior to the take off, we don't know. I don't get the relevance of your comments re having flown from many grass and dirt strips. We are discussing the 1937 airstrip at Lae a commercially operated airfield in regular use. I just cannot see it as having holes in its taxiway or runway large enough to drop the rear fuselage sufficient for the mast to strike the ground. The same argument applies to bumps large enough to strike the mast. I believe this subject is significant enough to warrent discussion. I agree with Angus we need to understand every aspect of the flight. Who knows what might prove to be relevant. Jack Clark #2564 ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:37:13 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Nauticos Pat Thrasher wrote: > We have occasionally thought that should we in fact > find conclusive evidence of the aircraft on Niku, > that the Japanese-capture theorists > would try to convince folks that we found the > plane on Saipan, stole it, and transplanted it > to Niku to support our theory.... That's too complicated (though complication as never stopped a dedicated conspiracy theorist). A simpler paranoid interpretation would be that the Japanese themselves took the plane to Niku in order to throw the U.S. off the scent. LTM. Marty #2359 ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:02:47 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: water supplies Dennis McGee wrote: > Andrew McKenna said: > >> TIGHAR found 6 half coconut shells in the tank, >> so we can conclude that the tank was put there to service up to 6 >> persons. > > Andrew's analysis of the corrugated sheeting at the Seven Site > sounds to me a more reasonable explanation for the stuff being > there than having some cast away drag/float/levitate it down > to the Seven Site from the Arundel Site. My only nit-picking > would be Andrew limiting the crew size at the Seven Site to 6 > people based on the number of coconut shells. In fact, I would > offer that the six shells could service any number of workers, > up to 3-4 dozen if needed. Dennis I wholly agree. I was trying to take the most conservative approach to maximize the time of use for the water stored. I think it is reasonable to say that 6 coco cups were there to service at least 6 persons. If there were more, and there may well have been, it only shortens the time before the tank gets empty again. Three dozen workers out there would empty the tank in five and a half days assuming it was full and there was no rain, but I'm not sure there were that many people on Niku in 1941. Either way it is the same man/gallon/days, the difference is how sustainable you want the project to be over time. Adding workers only enhances Gallagher's need to oversize the collection area. I don't see a castaway creating a collection device for which they have neither the capacity to store nor consume what they collect, never mind haul the stuff 2 miles in the heat. LTM (who likes her tanks full) Andrew McKenna ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:22:12 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Nauticos Why would Nauticos knowingly lie? Why would they knowingly use data and a hypothesis that is ludicrusly wrong, empty-headed and so easily debunked? As a cover to go to the real location and "find" the plane, claiming they found it using their scientific analysis. Otherwise, they might as well put their money into a trip to the moon to look for the Electra. If Pat Thrasher is really Irene Bolam means nothing. If you said that she is AE, then you might have something. And I would suggest you seek professional help. LTM, who loves a good discussion with tongue in cheek, Dave Bush ************************************************ "I am NOT Amelia Earhart! I am NOT a mystery woman!" For the record -- we think that Nauticos, in the person of Dave Jourdan, is entirely sincere and convinced of the correctness of his theory. We happen to disagree with him, but that's a different issue. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:59:22 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: One last kick at the can? Jack, the coordinates for the old Lae airport were listed as S 6 degrees 40.2' E 146 degrees 54' but the location of the WX station may not necessarily have been where the rainfall was measured. I don't think it is important, in any case. Today, commercial fields are very well maintained. They were not that well maintained when I started flying and I have no reason to believe Lae was 100% devoid of depressions or what have you in 1937. You are correct there is some significance to this discussion but not in finding the airplane. Not by any stretch of the imagination. If TIGHAR was an accident investigation board it would be delving into every single aspect in great detail. TIGHAR is not. TIGHAR is simply trying to find the Electra. Whatever information is discovered on the way is nice but the pitot tube and Belly antenna issues cannot help find the airplane. I would defy you or anyone else to explain how they could. There are far more important issues than these. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:00:06 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Nauticos Dave, I probably pound Jourdon and Nauticos as much if not more than anyone but I agree wholeheartedly with Pat. There is no doubt in my mind they are completely sincere and making an honest effort. I'm all for them. If they are wrong that eliminates a big chunk of ocean. Crashed and sankers should feel the same way. I berate those folks too as well as the Marshall folks but they are dead serious about their theories. I don't think anyone is playing games or loose with the truth. EVERYONE who is espousing a theory has, in my opinion put a great deal of time, effort and thought into it. They, as well as TIGHAR, are too close to their respective theory to think anyone else could be right. I'm the same way. Although I may have a little too much fun giving out a hard time. I have listened to Nauticos theory in detail and they clearly believe in what they are doing. I don't know of ANYONE who doesn't believe decidedly in their own theory. I just hope someone of us is right and we can look for another mystery. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:11:53 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Activities in 2005 Pat, What's in store for TIGHAR in the new year? Will we get an update on the top 10 projects list? We know that Ric is working on the "Post Loss Message" analysis and I guess this will be coming out as a book (revenue generator) as opposed to a "freebie" across the forum which I can live with. However, a tidbit of information might spur on those sitting on the fence regarding membership and the forum changes right around the corner. Also, an update on the top 10 list and a 2005 agenda might bring more members into the fold. Just trying to keep things interesting! ************************************** First, the post-loss message thingumbob -- it will indeed be a book. BUT -- it will also be serialized in TIGHAR Tracks so members can read it without necessarily having to fork over the $$ extra for a book. Top ten list -- I will get with Ric and post something later today, it's a good idea. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:06:07 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Top Ten List? Ted Campbell said: >. . . an update on the top 10 list . . . What a wonderful idea! A Top Ten List, a 'la David letterman! I wish I'd thought of that. How about it, gang!!?? Ric? Pat? Are you willing to play along? First, the rules. 1. It must be original 2. The list can be shorter than 10 items (we're not gifted comics, here) 3. Ric and Pat make the final choices. Suggested topics: 1. Ten things TIGHAR never expected to find at Niku. 2. The ten most valuable objects on a South Seas island. 3. Why Ric wears that pointy little cardboard hat. 4. Favorite island dining treat. 5. Ten excuses for not leaving the supply boat. Ric, you got anything to add?? LTM, who was a 10 Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************ Trouble maker. P ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:54:46 From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Top ten list Here we go: THE TOP TEN THINGS THAT TIGHAR NEVER EXPECTED TO FIND ON NIKU: Number 10: A Case Of Benedictine Number 9: The Ark Of The Covenant Number 8: Ed Dames Number 7: The Lost Dutchman Mine Number 6: The Holy Grail Number 5: The Lost Squadron Number 4: Adolph Hitler Number 3: Osama Bin Laden Number 2: Jimmy Hoffa and Number 1: Weapons Of Mass Destruction Sorry, I couldn't resist! --Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:55:43 From: George Werth Subject: An image of Howland Island 'Twas reviewing the latest newsletter from the Earth Observatory Newsroom. Imagine my surprise to find a photograph taken from the International Space Station of Howland Island. Forwarded to the Earhart Forum with my regards. Cheers TIGHAR Member # 2630 ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:49:33 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Top ten list THE TOP TEN THINGS THAT TIGHAR NEVER EXPECTED TO FIND ON NIKU: Number 10. An amateur-built corrugated iron distillation plant in perfect working order. Number 9 A 1930s pirate radio station with a 3105kc transmitter. Number 8 A plaque left by the crew of the Glomar Challenger signed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Number 7 A prison where AE had held Japanese servicemen captive and then ruthlessly executed them. Number 6 A map left by Amelia showing she had called briefly and was then heading for an area 35 miles NW of the position marked for Howland on the chart Number 5: An old Lockheed dado manufacturing plant. Number 4: Glen Miller Number 3: Irene Bolam Number 2: Elvis and Number 1: Nei Manganibuka ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:08:30 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Top ten list Top Ten Things Tighar doesn't expect to find on Niku: Number 10: A motel 6 with the lights left on Number 9: 6 packs of Camels in a hollowed out tree Number 8: A pile of empty booze bottles with Freds fingerprints all over them Number 7: A treasure map showing the location of Fred and most of the Electra parts, signed by A/E Number 6: A magic potion that instantly dissolves Scaveola. Number 5: A letter that says " Love to Mother, but the check might be a little late". Number 4: Blackbeards treasure Number 3: An old banjo made from a Buka slab and airplane electrical wire. Number 2: A handwritten cookbook with recipes for Crab, Turtle, Clams and tomato soup. Number 1: A brown leather jacket, size small, with some scarves and personal effects in the pockets. This is fun... Jackie #2440 ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:09:37 From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: Top ten list This is juvenile dribble. Is this the future of TIGAR which we are going to pay $5.00 per month? ****************************************** Well, start some other hare then. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:12:00 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Top ten list Ten Things That Will Not Be Found On Nikumaroro 10. The "Titanic" 9. Charles Nungesser, Francois Coli, and L'oiseau Blanc 8. Wild tigers (as opposed to wild TIGHARS) 7. An ice cream stand 6. A "Danger: Quicksand" sign 5. An intact 10E Electra 4. A bookstore 3. A forest of kanawa trees 2. The castaway's note in a bottle 1. 13 bones and their kanawa box ************************************ Re: #2 --- boy, don't you wish we could? Not a bottle, but some sort of journal. Oh well, not too likely! Pat ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:32:04 From: Subject: Re: Satellite image of Howland From Barry Robinson Happy New Year Pat, Hope things are going well. I am unable to follow the link below to the photo's. Can you help me? Thanks, Barry Robinson #2114 ************************************ Try this: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=3D16779 no returns or spaces ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:01:33 From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Top ten list > From Lawrence Talbot > > This is juvenile dribble. Is this the future of TIGAR which we are > going to pay $5.00 per month? Consider it an added extra. Besides... There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes. - The Doctor, Dr. Who (BBC, 1963) The key here is "sometimes." On the whole, I think we do pretty well. - Bill #2229 ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:02:56 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Top 10 list Why Ric wears that pointy little cardboard hat. 10. Because pointy little cloth hats cost too much. 9. It provides an easy and convenient target for his enemies. 8. He has to; he's a Conehead in disguise. 7. It's a radome to hide his GPS antenna. 6. To store his haggis jerky sticks. 5. It has numerous louvers to catch the wind and continuously play "Garry Owen" 4. To serve as a tombstone by floating on top of the next quicksand pool he stumbles into. 3. He has a deep, burning desire to be The Bishop of Niku 2. It's used as an airbag for when he falls off his horse. 1. Because it is part of the dress code for BIKES -- Bad_ss Internationally Known Explorers' Society. LTM, who loves a good, clean "roast" Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:58:46 From: Lee Boyle Subject: Re: Top Ten List Ric, Suggestion of the main topic for year 2005. What will the trip to Gardner include and when will it happen? Lee Boyle ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:20:56 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: 2005 priorities Lee Boyle wrote: > Suggestion of the main topic for year 2005. > > What will the trip to Gardner include and when will it happen? Trips to Gardner require funding and right now there are no good prospects for funding a trip this year. We have discussed sending a small team aboard the same sailboat we used for the 2003 expedition to continue the search for more airplane parts in the village (a small team cannot deal with the Seven Site effectively) but even sending a small team for a few days costs in the neighborhood of $30,000 in direct costs and at least that much again in administrative costs. There are better and more productive ways to spend our time and resources. My Earhart Project priorities for this year are: 1. Finish, produce and market the post-loss radio book. 2. Build on last year's tremendously productive "dado expeditions" to research the artifacts we already have. There is a new magazine-sized issue of TIGHAR Tracks headed for the printer tomorrow which will detail the progress made in 2004 and lay out the research challenges for 2005. It should be in TIGHAR member's hands in about two weeks. ==================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:18:17 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Howland Island The following text is from Elgin Long's book on page 194. I have no clue where he got this but I read a similar statement claiming the smoke would indicate 500' to go. That was in the documents I read at a University collection in Orange County, CA. "Amelia advanced the engine throttles full forward and released the brakes. The roaring, straining airplane slowly accelerated as it began its ponderous takeoff roll. Her feet were busy on the rudder pedals, moving them left, right, back, and forward to keep the plane going straight down the runway. They passed the smoke bomb that marked the halfway point to the shoreline." Could anyone remind me what the runway length and direction was at Howland? Finally, most of the reef and island pictures we are familiar with including Niku show a bright and light colored area around them. We know what that is, of course, but not all islands seem to show that. If you will notice, Christmas Island does not nor does Howland. At least the picture we have just seen of Howland and the photo of Christmas Island on that same web site do not show the light colored water. I don't know whether it was just those particular pictures or not but if the Howland we are seeing now is not so outlined I can see one additional reason it was hard to spot. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:19:56 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Sat pics of islands There is also a picture of Gardner available at the same web site: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl? mission=STS41B&roll=31&frame=1191&QueryResultsFile=11050796322180.tsv&server=2 Gary LaPook ******************************************* Yes, this is a photo taken with a hand-held camera by an astronaut in the Shuttle. Cool. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:39:13 From: Guus Dekker Subject: Re: Lae runway Alan Caldwell look over here to see the runway at Lae. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html Guus # 2527 ==================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:57:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Lae Runway Re: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html Thanks, Guus. Why did you want me to look at those pictures? I have copies of all of them in my files. The question I asked was about the runway at Howland. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 19:34:01 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Lae runway On the link shown below, you ask the question: > The question becomes, which arrival? Earhart's Electra arrived at > Lae twice: once on June 29, 1937 at about 2 p.m. after a seven > hour, forty minute flight from Darwin, Australia; and once on July > 1, 1937 at about 7 a.m. after a thirty minute local test flight. I can tell you that, looking at the photo, it appears to be a shadow on the ground all the way around the airplane, consistent with a light source (sun) from above - 2 pm. The shadow does not appear to be highly slanted as would be the case if the light source was from an oblique angle - 7 am. LTM, Dave Bush http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html ==================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 19:34:36 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland runways I have found reference to three runways on Howland. An east/west runway 2400 feet long, a NE/SW runway 4100 feet long and a north/south runway 4100 feet long. Can anyone confirm this? Alan ==================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:41:59 From: Guus Dekker Subject: Re: Howland runways Alan Caldwell, sorry, I look on the I-net, nothing found for Howland Island. There are certainly not 3 strips at Howland, many fact books are talking about 1 unserviceable airstrip . Guus # 2527= ====================================================================Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:35:23 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Howland runways Guus Dekker wrote: > Alan Caldwell, sorry, > > I look on the I-net, nothing found for Howland Island. There are > certainly not 3 strips at Howland, many fact books are talking > about 1 unserviceable airstrip . Just shows they aren't fact books. There were indeed three runways arranged as Alan says, all now unserviceable. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:35:49 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland runways Thanks, Guus Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:36:26 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Howland runways I found the following "timeline" of Howland and Baker: http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/hbHistory.htm Can anyone spot the minor error in the history? Hint: It is something to do with the airstrip.... # March 1936 - President Franklin Roosevelt, by Executive Order, puts the islands under the administration of the United States Interior Department. # 1937 - An airstrip is constructed for a refueling stop on the round-the-world flight of Amelia Earhart, who lands on and takes off from Howland Island 2 July, 1937. # 8 December 1941 - Howland Island becomes the second U.S. territory to be attacked by the Japanese, who destroy the Howland airstrip, along with every building and vehicle on the island. They kill two settlers in the process. # 15 January 1942 - Hawaiian settlers are evacuted from the islands by the U.S. Navy. Thereafter, the Japanese take Baker Island and occupy it briefly. Th' WOMBAT ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:13:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland runways Thanks, Angus. I should have asked you in the first place. There are only a scattered few who have been at this as long as you. I don't even remember when I first became interested. I know I was pretty young. In 1976 I was staying in Boston with my 14 year old son who had been diagnosed with terminal bone cancer. Senator Kennedy had arranged for his own son's doctors to have a try at saving his life. My Son was 43 last August and now works for CBS. So you can see they were successful. While in Boston TV showed one of the Amelia Earhart movies. Susan Clark played Amelia and her sister Muriel was played by Catherine Burns. It was full of errors that I even recognized then. The next day the local TV interviewed Muriel who lived just north across the river. Later that day I called her and she arranged for my Son and I to have lunch with her and her husband Albert at her small home in Medford. We had a delightful visit and the house was full of Amelia memorabilia. She talked at length about Gervais and Goerner with great disdain. In particular she expressed disgust in regard to the Irene Bolam mess. She was aware I was a former Air Force pilot and asked me if I thought the aluminum plane could have survived in the ocean all this time. It was her belief Amelia crashed into the ocean she said. She ridiculed the Japanese capture and spy theories but never asked what I thought happened. I'm not sure I had a theory at that time. We corresponded up until her stroke and she wrote back and forth with my oldest daughter also. She was a very impressive and delightful person. I always felt I should do everything I could to help her put her sister finally to rest. Alan, #2329 ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:48:51 From: Garry Geivet Subject: Re: Howland runways Yep: Don't think she got to Howland--as far as I know!! think it may be Lae that is being referred to-- Gary > From Ross Devitt > > # 1937 - An airstrip is constructed for a refueling stop on the > round-the-world flight of Amelia Earhart, who lands on and takes > off from Howland Island 2 July, 1937. ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:48:56 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Howland runways This must be some type of spoof, the information contained in this article has to be in error in more ways than the Earhart connection. LTM, Dave Bush > From Ross Devitt > > I found the following "timeline" of Howland and Baker: ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:58:21 From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Howland runways From Dave Bush If you want the real skinny on these islands go to: Baker - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fq.html Howland - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/hq.html Jarvis - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/dq.html However, if you check the information from the "timeline" shown below, they show the three islands as a part of group that is inhabited and runs its own nation, with a government, towns, etc. However, all three islands are uninhabited and have been for quite some time. Be sure to check your facts before accepting things on the internet as gospel. LTM, Dave Bush > From Ross Devitt > > I found the following "timeline" of Howland and Baker: > > http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/hbHistory.htm ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 13:59:34 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Howland runways Alan Caldwell wrote: > Thanks, Angus. I should have asked you in the first place. There > are only a scattered few who have been at this as long as you. I don't know where you got that idea - unless of course you're being sarcastic. Its in fact only been a few years. I never read any of the books or saw any of the films about Earhart until recently. Sticking to source material helps to avoid the preconceptions that some of those who have been "at it" for a lifetime have often developed. ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:34:18 From: George Werth Subject: Howland Island photograph The significance of the photograph to me was that it was taken on 3 DEC 04 with a Kodak 760C digital camera by the crew of the International Space Station. I didn't realize that it would cause an international incident concerning runways. George TIGHAR member # 2630 ************************************************** No international incident, just some confusion over dates and so on, the usual. When Earhart was doing her thing, there was only the one runway (and it not much). Later, during WWII, much more was constructed, but none of it is really serviceable now as we understand things. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 16:03:28 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland Island I was NOT being sarcastic, Angus. We have a ton of new people. You've been at this longer than most. A very few have been at it for what seems eons. Not reading all of these ridiculous books is a plus. They are poorly if at all supported adequately. You are correct in your admonition to stick to source materials. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 16:13:41 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Howland island runways Pat, you have it wrong. Three runways were constructed (graded coral): N/W, NE/SW, and a short E/W runway, all constructed in 1937. No plane ever landed on Howland: ever! However, Baker Island did have a WWII runway made out of Matsen gratings. *************************************************** So that's what I get for shooting off my mouth. Oh well. No plane ever landed.... to this day? !?!? Pat ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:36:27 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Howland runways Alan Caldwell wrote: > I have found reference to three runways on Howland. An east/west > runway 2400 feet long, a NE/SW runway 4100 feet long and a > north/south runway 4100 feet long. Can anyone confirm this? Navy Chart #1198 from 10th. Ed. of June 1937 [from 1936 Survey by Coast Guard Ship Itasca] shows 3- proposed runways on Howland. The longer one , 353* / 173* True, was 6500' The NE /SW was 3300' & the E-W 2700' [lengths are max potential] The dotted lines outling the proposed runways were 250' wide. The flagstaff, near mid island, 425' East of the western shore at the Landing Site, was surveyed to b: Lat. 0* 48' 06" N ... Long. 176* 38' 12" W I haven't the foggiest notion of what was actually built, or where . On the same Chart was Baker and Jarvis, both with a proposed runway. The proposed E-W runway for Baker [an almost perfectly round isle] was 5150' in length and 180' wide [between dotted lines] The Beacon light on the West shore, a bit N. of the boat landing, and just S. of some "ruins", was surveyed to be: Lat. 0* 11' 42.7" N. Long. 176* 29' 08.3"W Jarvis showed only a large area as a 'proposed landing area. Just in from the Boat Landing, mid Western side, are some 'Radio Towers', and just S of those is a 'Tower 25' high', surveyed to be: Lat. 0* 22' 37" S. Long. 160* 01' 37" W. Hope that helps ... Bob ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:37:01 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Howland runways Dave Bush wrote: > Be sure to check your facts > before accepting things on the internet as gospel. Yes, that was why I posted the link. There is so much rubbish on the net that people just don't cross check before citing it as fact. I was quite interested to see that Earhart had landed on Howland and taken off again. Perhaps that was why Itasca heard her so loudly in the radio room? They were all inside listening and nobody thought to look outside.... Th' WOMBAT ==================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:37:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland runways Randy Jacobson wrote: > Pat, you have it wrong. Three runways were constructed (graded > coral): N/W, NE/SW, and a short E/W runway, all constructed in > 1937. This is enough to make a grown man cry. I apologize for asking the question. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:47:20 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Howland runways Correct. No plane has ever landed at Howland. One ditched offshore during WWII, and tried to run onto the beach, but never made it. > No plane ever landed.... to this day? !?!? > > Pat ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:48:37 From: Scott White Subject: Re: Howland runways Ross Devitt wrote: > I found the following "timeline" of Howland and Baker: > > http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/hbHistory.htm > > Can anyone spot the minor error in the history? Hint: It is > something to do with the airstrip.... > > # March 1936 - President Franklin Roosevelt, by Executive Order, > puts the islands under the administration of the United States > Interior Department. > > # 1937 - An airstrip is constructed for a refueling stop on the > round-the-world flight of Amelia Earhart, who lands on and takes > off from Howland Island 2 July, 1937. > > # 8 December 1941 - Howland Island becomes the second U.S. > territory to be attacked by the Japanese, who destroy the Howland, > airstrip along with every building and vehicle on the island. They > kill two settlers in the process. > > # 15 January 1942 - Hawaiian settlers are evacuated from the > islands by the U.S. Navy. Thereafter, the Japanese take Baker > Island and occupy it briefly. This seems odd to me. I looked over the home page from that web site http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/RHBJ.htm It is an amateurish tourist info site. Probably what one would expect from a tourism bureau in a teeny nation like "The Republic of Howland, Baker, and Jarvis." I have no idea if it's for real or not, or even whether there is such a Republic at all. But it isn't an obvious hoax, and the material there isn't particularly funny (except for the part about AE). If it's a hoax or a spoof, it's hard to see why anyone would bother. I'ts not likely to win any acclaim for web site design or high comedy. The page on "getting here" indicates several scheduled flights per week, so I would guess that the Howland airstrip has been refurbished and is in use, or else the whole thing is a fabrication. Best, -SW *********************************************** It's a joke site. There is no such nation, nor are there any such flights. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:50:21 From: Scott White Subject: Re: Howland runways http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/RHBIexplained.html Yep, in case anyone is wondering, that explains it. Best, -SW ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:06:32 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Re: Howland runways > # 1937 - An airstrip is constructed for a refueling stop on the > round-the-world flight of Amelia Earhart. . . Why would the U.S. Government go to all this expense for a stunt flight being carried out by a private citizen? Hmmm. LTM Eric (newly retired from Government service) ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:51:23 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Howland runways Eric Beheim wrote: > Why would the U.S. Government go to all this expense for a stunt > flight being carried out by a private citizen? Political reasons. There was a "race" between Britain and the US to develop air routes from Hawaii to Australia and New Zealand, and any island or lagoon was rapidly being identified, claimed, and "developed" for stop-overs for the planes. Having AE use Howland was extremely convenient to develop Howland as a possible staging island for the US to gain a foothold in this rapidly emerging enterprise of mail and passenger routes. ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:58:34 From: Gary Geivet Subject: Re: Howland runways Yes, I agree with Randy Jacobson, also I think that the US govt. was eager to build runway on Howland, because of the eventual conflict with Japan. Roosevelt knew this was coming, and was doing everything he could to get the US on a war footing. The other Pacific Islands of Wake, Midway, etc were also beefed up and occupied by the services. Gary H. Geivet ********************************** The documentation available does not support this. It was a commercial land-grab, pure and simple -- same reason as the Brits colonized the Phoenix Islands. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:55:59 From: Bob Lee Subject: Weathering the weather During the last trip to Niku, we were attempting to find what appeared to be a wheel assembly -- not exactly a lightweight item. We learned of a relatively recent (late 90's?) super-cyclone that went through the area and if I remember correctly, the storm surge plus the wave height exceeded the elevation of Niku. Our wheel was never located and there was mention of some sizable chunks of coral that had been tossed up on the beach. With this information and certainly other weather episodes since AE and Fred may have spent some time on the island, I can't help but be amazed that we can find anything at all -- yet we do. Is this surprising? Bob Lee ************************************************* We have a pretty good handle on storm events that have influenced the island since the forties. Things have been getting much worse in the last 10 years or so. (Can you say Global Warming?) For instance -- the Co-op store stood intact for over 40 years; when we visited in 1989, it was in good shape, you could have swept out the palm fronds and other small trash and set up shop. Late that year it was flattened. But -- there is no indication anywhere on the island (at least when last visited) of a true overwash. And it's in the nature of these events to be somewhat random in what they destroy and what is left. So it's not too surprising that we find things, so long as we're not dictating exactly what we "should" find. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:53:42 From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Howland island >...'The documentation available does not support this. It was a >commercial land-grab, pure and simple -- same reason as the Brits >colonized the Phoenix Islands',,. Pat, Your assessment is not entirely accurate, ...while on the surface the transaction to colonize Howland, Baker & Jarvis Islands had every appearance of an attempt by the USA to 'settle' long standing differences of opinion as to which nation (Britain or the USA) could claim ligitimate 'ownership' & occupy such isands; ...careful examination of diplomatic correspondence (especially between the US Ambassador to Japan (Grew) & US Secretary of State (Hull), establishes quite clearly that relations with Japan during the late 1930s, (while apparently very formal & proper publicly) were really quite 'strained' & deteriorating with growing suspicions by both nations concerning their respective 'ambitions' regarding the WWI mandated islands in the Central Pacific. ...Hence, there developed an inordinate interest by the USA in 'formalizing' US claims to & occupation of those islands (Howland, Baker & Jarvis) that constituted a (somewhat) 'protective' southern 'flank' for the US Naval facilities in Hawaii, ...by serving as meterological observation points & potential military (early-warning) observation outposts in the event of hostilities with Japan, ...which were considered by 1935-36 to be on a 'when' not an 'if' basis . (Additionally, FDR was not convinced the Brits would be able to defend & hold such islands from Japanese invasion, should hostilities occur in the Pacific, due to (potential) British Naval commitments to Hitler's ever increasing aggressive actions in Europe.) Likewise, ...the correspondence within the Roosevelt administration concerning the 'occupation' of these three islands, (which preceded by several years, plans for the Earhart flight) provided for the actual establishment of the respective 'colonies' on Howland, Baker & Jarvis, being accomplished (intially) by US Army personnel, (transportation via the USCG, _not_ the US Navy) together with a very select group of native Hawaians; which 'occupation' was subsequently transferred to the Department of the Interior, when questions were being raised by the Press as to just 'why' such remote & desolute outposts in the Pacific were being 'annexed' & occupied by US Army personnel. PAA had _nothing_ to do with any of the activities concerning these three islands, as PAA had begun it's own surveys in 1934, searching for possible 'stopovers' for an Hawaii to New Zealand route & had ultimately decided upon using Kingman Reef as an 'anchorage' for a vessel that could serve as a re-fueling base on the flight from Hawaii to American Samoa, hence to New Zealand. In fact the very first actual 'survey' flight for the new route occurred at the same time as AE's 'aborted' R/T/W attempt that ended in her 'ground-loop' at Hawaii. Actually, the Japanese never intended to fortify (for defensive purposes) their mandated islands, but rather to use such islands to 'springboard' aerial & submarine attacks against the American Pacific Fleet, which the Japanese (originally) hoped to lure out of it's (original) California home port, across the Central Pacific, into waters closer to the Japanese home waters, ...after the Japanese launched an invasion of British & Dutch territories in Indo-China. This was part of the Japanese pre-war strategy to engage the US Fleet in a 'final', massive battle at sea, ...close to the Japanese home waters, ...which plan was necessarily 'scrapped' when FDR ordered the Pacific Fleet from it's relatively 'safe' California anchorage to Pearl harbor & withdrew the US Asiatic Fleet from the waters of the Southwest Pacific, ...thus setting the stage for the stunning success of Admiral Yamamoto's 'Go-for Broke' raid upon the Combined US Pacific Fleet now anchored (just within range of Japanese carrier based aircraft) at PH. Even though the Japanese attempted to utilize seaplane & submarine facilities in the Marshalls at the time of the PH raid, such efforts were totally ineffective & their failure to properly provide for the more adequate defense of the Marshalls & their other mandated islands, (during their pre-war occupation of such Islands) proved a 'fatal' flaw in Japan's pre-war planning, which defenses (properly installed & furnished with ample supplies & ammunition) would have made the US campaign to invade & capture such islands (on the road to Tokyo) even tougher than it ultimately proved to be ! So... while _none_ of this has _any_ direct bearing upon the Earhart mystery, (the runway at Howland was constructed _solely_ for Earhart's use) ... one must concede that it also (obviously) served FDR's purpose of establishing a more permanent US presence on at least one of the (three) islands his administration planned to serve as a (though really quite porous) barrier to any Japanese efforts to 'outflank' any US Pacific Fleet activities in the Central Pacific, ....too bad they weren't (later on) equally protective of the Northwestern Pacific approach to the Fleet anchored at PH ! Have a great day & keep up the good work, Don N. ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:27:20 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland Island Don Neumann wrote: > careful > examination of diplomatic correspondence (especially between the > US Ambassador to Japan (Grew) & US Secretary of State (Hull), > establishes quite clearly that relations with Japan during the > late 1930s, (while apparently very formal & proper publicly) were > really quite 'strained' & deteriorating with growing suspicions > by both nations concerning their respective 'ambitions' regarding > the WWI mandated islands in the Central Pacific. Interesting, Don. Where does all this come from? Some book I would assume. This represents old questions bandied about on the Forum for years. Since you have laid all this out I would like the source for your information so I can read the correspondence you refer to. I don't doubt you have copied it accurately nor do I dispute the information but as a life long cynic I would like to see for myself whether the author of your information made correct assessments and adequately supported his contentions. All of this has been disputed so many times I feel I need to track it down. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:29:13 From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Howland Island If FDR was trying so hard to get the US on a war footing why were there virtually no large guns in the forts along the west coast. This would have been a good tool to repel any invasion, if it would come. I agree with Ric it was a land grab. Even some of the islands that we occupied were lost to Japan at the beginning of the war. Ron Gary Geivet wrote: > Yes, I agree with Randy Jacobson, also I think that the US govt. > was eager to build runway on Holland, because of the eventual > conflict with Japan. Roosevelt knew this was coming, and was > doing everything he could to get the US on a war footing. The > other Pacific Islands of Wake, Midway, etc were > also beefed up and occupied by the services. > ********************************** > > The documentation available does not support this. It was a > commercial land-grab, pure and simple -- same reason as the Brits > colonized the Phoenix Islands. > > Pat ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:02:21 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Howland Island For Alan C. For some interesting reading about the deterioriating relations between Japan and the US, the fortifications in the Mandates, the Office of Naval Intelligence's activities,and FDR sending Vincent Astor and Kermit Astor aboard the Astor yacht "Nourmahal" on an intelligence gathering mission to the Marshalls in 1938, see "CONFLICT OF DUTY", by Prof Jeffrey Dorwarts, U.S Naval Institute Press, 1983. I suspect, but can't provide any evidence, that part of that mission was to look for Amelia. By the way, in private conversations with Prof Dorwarts I asked him if in all his extensive research at the various archives if he ever saw anything relating to a secret mission by AE or capture by the Japanese. No he said. LTM, Ron Bright ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:28:34 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Research Needed -- From Ric As we all know, the commanding officer of USCG Itasca in July 1937 was Commander Warner K. Thompson. Thompson was new to the Itasca, having assumed command in December 1936. He was also new to the Central Pacific having never before commanded a cutter based in Hawaii. Also aboard for the June/July cruise was Lieutenant Commander Frank T. Kenner who is listed as "advisor from COMHAWSEC office". Kenner was, in fact, the Itasca's previous commanding officer. COMHAWSEC stands for Commander, Hawaiian Section. Elgen Long (page 87 of Amelia Earhart - The Mystery Solved) says that Kenner was the commander of the Hawaiian Section at the time of Earhart's Luke Field wreck in March 1937. If Long is correct, and if Kenner was still the HAWSEC boss a few months later, it means that the description of him as "advisor from COMHAWSEC office" is something of an understatement. It also means that he was not on hand in Honolulu when post-loss messages and reports of post-loss messages were being received there. Long says that the communications officer for the Hawaiian Section was Warrant Officer Henry M. Anthony. I believe that is correct. Was Anthony, therefore, left in charge of the Hawaiian Section while Kenner was away aboard Itasca or was there an XO who ran the shop? Can anybody verify any of this? ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:34:58 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Research needed I cannot tell from this what Kenner's job in Hawaii actually was but as a Lt. Commander he would have had three officer ranks available to him as second in command of whatever he commanded before having to dip into the 4 available WO ranks, W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4. My initial thought is that it is highly unlikely a warrant officer would be left in command. I ran the names on the Internet and only came up with a couple of comments from the TIGHAR web site. One from Cam Warren and the other from you. Those comments leave me somewhat confused. According to those notes Kenner was the operations officer aboard the Itasca not merely an advisor. That he was from the COMHAWSEC office does not necessarily mean he was the Commander of Hawaiian Section, only that he was assigned to duty in that section. Anthony was not listed as a warrant officer but as a Chief Radio Electrician with a parenthetical comment "later commander." I cannot imagine how a radio electrician would ever make the rank of Commander. Anthony is noted as being a friend of Stafford. The two notes are below. Alan ******************** Cam Warren writes: In the hard bound edition of "Earhart's Flight Into Yesterday" (chapter 13, "The Radio Direction Finder", page 158) you'll find the following: "There was another HF/DF involved in the flight. This one, described as a 'back-up system,' and operating on Earhart's main frequency of 3105 kc, was set up on Howland Island. Capt. Safford thought this equipment was 'borrowed' from a PBY undergoing an overhaul at the Fleet Air Base, Pearl Harbor. (A good guess, but apparently incorrect.) Much later however, his friend, Chief Radio Electrician Henry M. Anthony, USCG (later Commander) revealed that it was an experimental portable model borrowed from the Navy Radio Intercept Station at He'eia, Hawaii. Although nominally in charge of all radio intercept activities at the time, Safford might not have been fully informed of what was essentially an "off the record" operation, involving - to some extent - Richard Black, Army Lt. Cooper, and Paul Mantz." Sorry to be so "rambly", but you asked for it, and we like to be helpful to our dedicated readers. Cam Warren Ric writes: Here's a new/old piece of information. On August 10, 1937, Lt. Commander Frank T. Kenner, the Operations Officer aboard USCG ITASCA, wrote a letter home to his wife describing briefly his experiences and impressions regarding the Earhart disappearance. About 25 years ago memorabilia collector Jon Krupnick acquired the letter from Kenner's widow. The letter is reproduced in Krupnick's lavishly illustrated coffee-table book about Pan American's Pacific Division "Pacific Pioneers - the Rest of the Story". (see _www.pacificpioneers.com_(http://www.pacificpioneers.com) ) The letter is interesting as an insight into the attitudes aboard Itasca after the search that were institutionalized in Commander Thompson's official report "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight". ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:15:02 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Research needed Alan says: >My initial thought is that it is highly unlikely a warrant officer >would be left in command. I agree, but speculation doesn't help us. > According to those notes Kenner was the operations officer aboard > the Itasca not merely an advisor. The "Operations Officer" title came from the guy who had a letter that Kenner sent to his wife describing his experiences aboard Itasca during the Earhart cruise. In Commander Thompson's official cruise report Kenner is described simply as "for temporary duty". In Richard Black's cruise report he is described as "advisor from COMHAWSEC office". > That he was from the COMHAWSEC office does not > necessarily mean he was the Commander of Hawaiian Section, only > that he was assigned to duty in that section. Of course. > Anthony was not listed as a warrant officer but as a Chief Radio > Electrician That "Chief Radio Electrician" title comes from either Safford or Warren. The "Warrant Officer" title comes Elgen Long who attributes it to an interview he did with "Lt. Commander" (not "Commander") Henry Anthony in 1975. If I had to choose, I'd have to say that Mr. Anthony's recollections of his own rank are probably more reliable than Safford's or Warren's allegations. What I'm hoping for is genuine documentation of Anthony's 1975 statement to Long that Kenner was the commander of the Hawaiian Section. LTM, Ric ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:15:38 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Research needed LCDR Frank Kenner was second in command at COMHAWSEC. CDR William F. Towle was assigned to command on December 6, 1936, when Hawaii was changed to be a Section of the CG San Francisco Office. Anthony was the chief radioman at COMHAWSEC. Towle rarely appears in correspondence...he seemed to be a fairly non-active commander. ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:54:02 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Research needed > LCDR Frank Kenner was second in command at COMHAWSEC. CDR William > F.Towle was assigned to command on December 6, 1936, when Hawaii > was changed to be a Section of the CG San Francisco Office. > Anthony was the chief radioman at COMHAWSEC. Thanks Randy. Is there a source I can quote? Also, am I correct that the chain of command went: Commandant - Rear Admiral Russell R. Waesche San Francisco Division - Commander Stanley V. Parker Hawaiian Section - Commander William F. Towle USCGC ITASCA - Commander Warner K. Thompson LTM, Ric ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:58:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Research needed > Anthony was the chief radioman > at COMHAWSEC. Again, I have trouble believing a radioman could rise to the rank of Commander. Alan ****************************************** Alan, some years ago I lived across the street from a man who had enlisted in the U.S. Navy right off the farm and been trained as a steward.... and retired as a Commander. He retired because they wanted him to transition into (gasp) nuclear subs and he couldn't live without his ol' diesels..... I knew him in the 70s-80s. It does happen. It DID happen. In my childhood I lived across the street from a chap who had enlisted in the Marine Corps and retired as a Lt. Colonel. He was in his late 40s in the early 60s so I suppose he joined up for WWII, maybe earlier. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:59:33 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Research needed > LCDR Frank Kenner was second in command at COMHAWSEC. CDR > William F.Towle was assigned to command on December 6, 1936, when > Hawaii was changed to be a Section of the CG San Francisco Office. > Anthony was the chief radioman at COMHAWSEC. That would indicate Anthony was clearly not left in charge as Towle was. It would then make no significant difference what Anthony's rank was other than it being even more unlikely he would be in charge as Chief radioman. Of course he could also have had a WO rank I suppose. The military services had three tiers of ranks, enlisted, which includes noncoms, warrant officers, and commissioned officers. It is extremely rare that someone in one tier gets promoted to the next higher tier. It has occurred in war time but rarely. Now, I am curious as to the significance of the question. I suppose no one has tried to check on Towle to see if he left any notes or writings, correct? Alan ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:59:55 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Research needed For whatever significance....... Captain William F. Towle was commander of the USCG 2nd district 1940-1941. Rear Admiral William F. Towle, a 40-year Coast Guard veteran, passed away in Berkley, Calif. in July 1996. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:48:20 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Research needed Info comes from a radiotelegram or message from CGSFDivision announcing the new Section. I also confirmed information from a July, 1938 roster of the Coast Guard assignments. If you really want the reference, it is: NARA, RG 181 General Correspondence, 14th Naval District (Entry 49), Box ET14 Register of US Coast Guard, 01 JUL 38 Actually, Thompson was under the direct control of CGSFDiv, and not COMHAWSEC. Your listing of chain of command is otherwise correct, except that Parker was a Captain at the time. ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:48:43 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Research needed Alan, Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts of the Itasca was finally commissioned and ended up as LCDR, what we called a "mustang". Not unusual in the Navy. Ron Bright ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:49:32 From: Jerry Geiger Subject: Re: enlisted to officer In the Navy, a Chief Radio Electrician would be a Chief or 1st Class Radioman who had been promoted to the Warrant Officer ranks. Enlisted men promoted to Warrant Officer retain their technical specialty and even wear a device indicating that specialty. A Bos'n Mate promoted to Warrant could be referred to as Bos'n and would wear a crossed anchors device, a Gunner's Mate as Gunner and wear an exploding bomb device, a Radioman as Radio Electrician and wear sparks, a Carpenter's Mate as Carpenter with a carpenter's square device, etc. I should also note Electrician's Mates had their own category (Electrician) separate from the Radio Electrician category. I know you're talking about the Coast Guard, but I don't think they had many differences from the Navy in rank and uniform policies back then. I also suspect that then, as now, the small size of the Coast Guard necessitates placing greater responsibilities on the lower ranks than the other, larger services did. The Navy had a very active program in place in the 30s (which continues to the present day) to promote worthy (usually) applicants to the Warrant Officer ranks. I don't know about the 30s, but it is not uncommon to find officers as high as Commander or Captain who began their days as enlisted men. Some, like the late Admiral Boorda, have even made it to Flag rank. I'm not sure why some of you would find it so hard to believe that an enlisted man could not possibly be promoted to officer rank. You obviously haven't been exposed to that many officers! LTM (who thankfully saw more good ones than bad) Jerry ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:57:16 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: enlisted to officer Thanks, Ron. Apparently the Navy or CG commissioned enlisted with greater frequency than the Air Force. I suppose it is also a function of the times. Today it would be quite rare. Sad, as many of the enlisted I served with would have made fine officers. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:19:18 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: enlisted to officer Good run down on ranks and insignias, Jerry. I think you are correct that the small size of the CG had a bearing. I was in the Air Force for a career starting in 1954. There was an airman's commissioning program but few took advantage or made the grade. More should have. The Air Force phased out the warrant officer rank but of course the Army and Navy still have them as well as the CG. WO-5 was phased out in 2000 as I recall. The Air Force did not promote across the rank structure as frequently as clearly did the other services. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:15:35 From: Rich Young Subject: Howland, Baker and Jarvis Ron Berry asked: > If FDR was trying so hard to get the US on a war footing why were > there virtually no large guns in the forts along the west coast. > This would have been a good tool to repel any invasion, if it > would come. Originally, battleships weren't capable of high-angle fire. Thus, shore batteries had "disapperaing guns" that would latch themselves into a defilade position behind parapets for reloading, only being exposed above the fortifications in the final few moments before firing. The development of the airplane as a means of delivering munitions, and the design of new battleships, as well as the modification of older ones, to increase the maximum angle of fire, rendered the shore batteries vulnerable to top attack. With the exception of the turrets off of the Arizona, (which didn't become servicible until VJ day), I am unaware of any installation of major-calibur shore batteries after 1939. The 'Atltic Wall" and Japanese island defenses devoted the bulk of their effort to medium and small calibur weapons with high rates of fire to engage landing craft. Existing major-calibur shore batteries such as those as Singapore were simply bypassed, rendering them ineffective. Rich Young ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:11:09 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland, Baker and Jarvis > Originally, battleships weren't capable of high-angle fire. I'm sure that was true depending on when "originally" was. Not that it is all that significant to your point, Rich, but I just checked with a long time friend who was on the USS Maryland at Pearl Harbor. He said they were equipped with 5" broadside guns that could not raise up very far PLUS 5" guns used for antiaircraft that COULD fire at very high angles up to an estimated two miles. John said when the war started they were rearmed with guns that were a combination of the two which were placed all around the ship. Of course this is just anecdotal. I don't have any personal knowledge of boats and their capability. Yes, I know they are ships. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:11:33 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Howland, Baker, and Jarvis > Thus, shore > batteries had "disapperaing guns" that would latch themselves into > a defilade position behind parapets for reloading, only being > exposed above the fortifications in the final few moments > before firing. There is the remains of one of these in Hawaii, maybe Waikiki, now used as a war museum...unfortunately, they removed the gun and mechanism. Dan Postellon ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:24:14 From: Sue Doherty Subject: FBI files on AE? Do you guys know why every AE website has a link such as "FBI files on Amelia Earhart" which doesn't work? I didn't want to bother your forum with this question since it seems that most questions are quite technical and this didn't seem appropriate to ask. Do you folks have a copy of what used to be posted for this FBI file? I'm doing research for a creative project and I want to get my facts straight. Thanks. Sue Doherty ************************************** Actually, Sue, the Forum is the perfect place for such a query. I know that the FBI did have a small selection of AE stuff up for a while, but didn't know it was no longer available. Anyone got a clue on this? Pat ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:27:40 From: Dave Porter at Fort Benning, GA Subject: Re: enlisted to officer For Alan Caldwell: Alan, I don't know about the Air Force, but enlisted members being promoted to Warrant Officer and Officer ranks is not uncommon at all in the Army. My Company Commander (a Captain/ 0-3) and the XO (a 1st Lt/0-2)of the next company in my Battalion are both former enlisted. My cousin, a Warrant Officer in the Michigan Nat'l Guard (now enroute to the sandbox) is former enlisted. I even know a Brigade Chaplain (a Major/0-4) who is not only former enlisted, but was an Infantry Drill Sergeant. The Army regularly recruits from the enlisted ranks for both Warrant and commissioned Officers. They tried to get me to volunteer for OCS back in 1990, but I turned it down. Most senior NCO's, if asked, would tell you that the best officers they've served under (no offense to Lt Ric) are former enlisted. LTM, who knows that the three most dangerous things in the Army are: A Lieutenant with a map, a Captain with a plan, and a senior NCO who says, "Hey, c'mere and look at this." Dave Porter, 2288 *********************************************** 1LT Ric (USA, Ret.) started off as the lowest of the low, a PR in boot camp. OCS came *after* basic and advanced infantry training. He says the really dangerous ones are the trade school and ROTC guys. P ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:47:26 From: Lisanne Anderson Subject: Re: FBI files on AE? I have two pdf files that contain the FBI files made available on the web. I'm not sure of whether there is anything there which is of much value however. If you wish I can send them to you by e-mail. You can contact me privately at lisanne001@verizon.net Lisanne Anderson ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:29:38 From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: FBI files on AE? Go to Ebay and type in Amelia Earhart in the search box. Everybody and their brother is selling the FBI files on Earhart for a few dollars. ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:30:03 From: Pete Backlund Subject: Re: FBI Files on AE? This web site offers a CD ROM with 277 pages of Amelia Earhart documents on CD-ROM. 56 pages of files copied from FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. I have no idea of the quality, but one document is displayed on the web site. http://www.accesshistory.com/earhart.html Pete Backlund ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:45:18 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: FBI Files on AE? > From Pete Backlund > > This web site offers a CD ROM with 277 pages of Amelia Earhart > documents on CD-ROM. 56 pages of files copied from FBI > Headquarters in Washington, D.C. > > I have no idea of the quality, but one document is displayed on > the web site. > > http://www.accesshistory.com/earhart.html The web site unfortunately has not kept up with TIGHAR's research. It says that there is no evidence that the map box found by TIGHAR is not from AE's plane. TIGHAR itself did the research that conclusively proved the map box came from a different aircraft. This finding is one of TIGHAR's great accomplishments, in my view; that TIGHAR made the case against the map box and published it shows how well the organization hews to the highest standards of historical research. LTM. Marty #2359 ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:20:45 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Disappearing guns You are referring to Fort DeRussy. When I was stationed at Pearl Harbor in the late 80s, Fort DeRussy was an active Army base, but used mostly for a parking lot for us military folks to have some place to park our cars when we went to Waikiki. The disappearing gun battery was part of the museum. The guns were gone (one emplacement had a smaller gun put there for display). They also had a couple of neat half tracks out front. Anyway, disappearing gun batteries for coastal defense were all the rage around the turn of the Twentieth Century. None (in the continental U.S.) were ever fired in anger, and by the middle of the century, most of the guns themselves had been removed. Many of the batteries (mostly sans guns like DeRussy) are preserved as local history museums. I have visited several, like the one at Fort Monroe, Virginia and Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. Yes, the Civil War Fort Sumter. Battery Huger, a disappearing gun battery was built in the middle of the parade ground and remains the most prominent feature of the fort today. OOps, I shouldn't say "today", I haven't been to Fort Sumter in, Oh My God, 35 years? Anyway, the only one of these batteries that I personally visited to still have the original guns in place was on Grande Island in Subic Bay, The Philippines. This was also in the 80s. I can remember a Filipina "girl friend" and myself spending a wonderful afternoon playing army in and around the old disappearing gun batteries and the two observation towers from the same era (circa 1903), despite warning signs to keep off the towers (which we, of course climbed). The towers stuck up above the encroaching jungle vegetation, and I remember we used to use them for navigation aides when entering Subic Bay. I think Mt. Pinatubo brought them both down, finally. If anybody is really interested in the disappearing gun batteries and their place in the overall coast defense scheme, I recommend "Seacoast Fortifications of the United States" by Emanuel Raymond Lewis: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co. Missoula, Montana 1970/1979 ISBN 0-929621-11-0 Lots of neat pictures. LTM Kerry Tiller > From Dan Postellon > >> Thus, shore >> batteries had "disapperaing guns" that would latch themselves >> into a defilade position behind parapets for reloading, only >> being exposed above the fortifications in the final few moments >> before firing. > > There is the remains of one of these in Hawaii, maybe Waikiki, now > used as a war museum...unfortuneately, they removed the gun and > mechanism. > Dan Postellon ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:25:07 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Enlisted to officer As always I appreciate being set straight when I say something based on only my experience. I hate it but I do appreciate it. I had a roomy in college who was a senior master Sarg weather guy. He went through OCS against my advice. I saw him later in Greece where I was running a NATO exercise. He was now a 2nd/LT. He told me he should have listened. As a MSGT he had the rapt attention of all the crews when giving his weather briefing. Now as a 2nd/Lt, the lowest of the low, they didn't think he knew his you know what from a hole in the ground. I have since found the other services give far more responsibility to enlisted and WO than the Air Force ever thought of. I can easily see Anthony in charge of stuff of significant importance. Alan ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:25:55 From: Christopher Freeze Subject: Re: FBI files on AE Try this link for the FBI files... http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/earhart.htm ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:26:51 From: Don Iwanski Subject: Re: FBI files on AE? I had a thought on the FBI Files I wanted share. I did a FOIA request once with the CIA and the response that they sent to me said if the files I requested did exist that they could not release them if they were generated by another government agency. Unless Earhart was being investigated by the FBI here in the U.S., I'd see no reason why the FBI would contain massive amounts of information pertaining to her disappearance since the event happened outside the continental United States. Another thought on this was since she did disappear overseas and without explanation, who would be the responsible agency? Unless Earhart was on some sort of secret mission for the government I see no reason why the CIA or OSS would get involved. I would think an agency somewhere along the lines of the United States Department of Agriculture perhaps collected some data regarding her disappearance and has TIGHAR ever persued any request from this agency? ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:58:16 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: enlisted to officer They are also called LDO's ( Limited Duty Officer) and my son says they can only rise to a Commander but that is very rare now. Most retire as Lt's or LCDR's Jimbo ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:59:02 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: FBI files on AE > From Christopher Freeze > > Try this link for the FBI files... > > http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/earhart.htm ACK! It is the FBI itself that is not up to speed with TIGHAR's work on the map case: "The records generally consist of correspondence from individuals speculating about her fate. In 1990, the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery submitted a navigator's bookcase to the FBI Laboratory for examination. This item was suspected of having been part of Ms. Earhart's lost aircraft. Various technical analyses were conducted and nothing was found which would disqualify the artifact as having come from the Earhart aircraft." Somebody oughta lettem know what TIGHAR now knows. :o( LTM. Marty #2359 ==================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:02:00 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: FBI files on AE > From Don Iwanski > > ... I'd see no reason why the FBI would contain massive amounts > of information pertaining to her disappearance since the event > happened outside the continental United States. ... The intro to the web site explains the existence of the file to my satisfaction: "The records generally consist of correspondence from individuals speculating about her fate." LTM. Marty #2359 ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:17:30 From: Ron Bright Subject: CDR Henry M Anthony I have acess to a videotaped interview made by Carol Osborne in April 1984 of CDR Henry Anthony, former Communication Officer, of the Hawaian Section, US Coast Guard, in 1937. CDR Anthony recalled meeting Amelia at the Holmes estate at Honolulu just prior to the takeoff at Luke Field, March 1937. At this meeting was ADM Black, Admiral Kenner, Paul Mantz and Fred Noonan. The day before the flight he inspected the communication equipment in the Electra and reported his findings. I would like to get the tape transcribed for all to review if anyone thinks this is important enough. Ron B. ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:18:09 From: Sue Doherty Subject: Re: FBI files on AE Thanks to all who have replied about the FBI files. I have lots to read. I just downloaded the bookcase files and can't wait to get at them. Sue Doherty ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:23:37 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: CDR Henry M Anthony Sounds important to me. Dan Postellon ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:19:57 From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: Enlisted to officer it was my impression that if you didn't advance you were out. This would preclude one retiring at Lt., maybe LtCdr.. gary From Jim Preston > They are also called LDO's ( Limited Duty Officer) and > my son says they can only rise to a Commander but that > is very rare now. Most retire as Lt's or LCDR's > Jimbo ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:21:16 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Enlisted to officer During my brief Air Force career (62-66) I met several guys that worked their ways up from enlisted to WO or commissioned officer. I also met one guy who went the other way - from a major (O-5) down to staff Sergeant (E-5). He had failed in three attempts to get promoted to Lt. Col. (O-6) and was reduced in rank and reassigned to the intelligence branch, which says something about the United States Air Force thinking process - if a guy can't make Lt. Col. in three tries why would they think he'd be any good in the intel business. Anyways, I met him when we were both going through tech school at Goodfellow AFB and he had failed the previous "block" (a 2-week training segment) which meant he had to repeat it with the next class in line, which was mine. Two weeks later he failed again and as we moved to the next block he stayed for a THIRD attempt at passing the segment. I saw him around the base several times over the next few weeks but shipped out before I ever found out what happened to him. Not all stories have happy endings. LTM, who graciously retired as an E-3. Dennis O. McGee ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:15:23 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Navigator's bookcase Forum: I disagree with the consensus that the Navigator's bookcase should be considered to not be related to A/E's plane. The book "Epic of Flight - Women Aloft" by TimeLife Books has a very nice Cutaway of the 10E's interior. It clearly shows a box under the Navigator's table that is very similar to the bookcase found on Niku. The conclusion thus far on our bookcase was that it has a PBY part number, but was never installled into a PBY, but had the hole spacing, etc of one adapted for use in a B-24. Was it mounted to the wall or the floor? Has it been proven that the hole spacing, size, etc would NOT fit the 10E? If so, I've missed something here... I don't think it should be dismissed just because it was known to be installed in many B-24's. It's a really handy looking item for any plane. Jackie Tharp #2440 ********************************************************* Unfortunately, Jackie, it's pretty certain. The 1600 or so B-24Ds were equipped with Part No. 28F2043, and it's drilled for that installation. One to one match. Pat ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:16:14 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: CRD Henry M. Anthony Ron Bright says: > I have acess to a videotaped interview made by Carol Osborne in > April 1984 of CDR Henry Anthony, former Communication Officer, of > the Hawaian Section, US Coast Guard, in 1937. Did Anthony represent himself as "Commander"? My understanding is that the highest rank he later attained was Lieutenant Commander. It may be that naval LCDRs refer to themselves as "Commander" the same way that Army Lieutenant Colonels like to style themselves "Colonel". > CDR Anthony recalled meeting Amelia at the Holmes > estate at Honolulu just prior to the takeoff at Luke Field, March > 1937.At this meeting was ADM Black, Admiral Kenner, Paul Mantz and > Fred Noonan. At that time Dick Black was a civilian employee of the Interior Department and Frank Kenner was a Lieutenant Commander > The day before the flight he inspected the communication equipment > in the Electra and reported his findings. > > I would like to get the tape transcribed for all to review if > anyone thinks this is important enough. It's anecdotal recollection but it would be interesting to have. If Anthony had a written copy of his report about the Electra's radio gear it would settle a lot of questions about what the set-up was like at that time. LTM, Ric ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:22:29 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: CDR Henry M. Anthony Dick Black was on the Taney, located just off of Howland when AE had her crash in March, 1937. Ron Bright says: > CDR Anthony recalled meeting Amelia at the Holmes > estate at Honol