Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:23:01 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel aboard Randy, my fuel graphs were just separate charts. At planning I would graph out the mission using the performance charts and then in the air I would take fuel readings at level off and hourly thereafter. If we had special mission profiles I would take readings at all the change points. That data would be annotated on a parallel line on my graph and hopefully they would track. I wouldn't have any idea what Noonan and Earhart did and I think it serves no purpose to speculate. We know AE said her fuel was low and we don't know what that means in gallons. We also know that whether she also said she only had 30 minutes of fuel remaining it is certain that was not so. I believe the best information we have to go on is the Electra performance charts and the knowledge of the Daily Express flight. I don't think we have anything else. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:23:36 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: fuel aboard Also, at this point, she had flown the plane 3/4 of the way around the world. Assuming she kept track of the flight times on each leg and the fuel put aboard at each stop she would have a very good estimate of her fuel burn and fuel remaining. Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:24:01 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: fuel aboard You can navigate to a known spot from an unknown spot using radio, as you suggest, but also using celestial. Of course this would take making a deliberate decision to go to that spot and doing the necessary work to do the navigation. Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:24:48 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: fuel aboard Herman says: "Since no such equipment was present at Gardner or anywhere else in the Phoenix Island, one can safely assume that AE and FN headed for the islands hoping to stumble upon one of them" and then later Herman says: "One of the questions that keep haunting me is why AE, after having failed to find Howland and to establish contact with Itsca, never made a blind transmission on the frequencies available to her announcing to whoever was listening that she would divert to the Phoenix Islands." And then Herman follows this up with: "The very fact that she was able to still transmit long after her ETA had run out, indicates she had enough fuel to get to someplace. And that someplace can only have been the nearest land. Which, according to the theory TIGHAR is trying to prove, was Gardner Island." One does not have to "safely assume that AE and FN headed for the islands" ... It is entirely possible that they ran the 157-337 line to the southeast hoping they would find EITHER Howland, Baker or the Phoenix Islands. It may be that AE and FN thought they were far north of Howland and ran this line, as their only hope to find SOME land. That being the case, there was no reason to announce that they were heading toward the Phoenix Islands, as that was not their specific goal. Maybe the reason AE announced she was running North and South on the line (or whatever her exact words were) was because that matched her thought process at the time, that she wasn't specifcally looking for the Phoenix Islands, and she just happened to wind up there later. Finally, as I have pointed out many times, the nearest land to Howland is Baker. After that, the nearest land is McKean. So Herman, it is extremely unlikely that AE would DECIDE to head for Gardner. -- Paige Miller LTM ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:17:32 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Diverting Herman De Wulf pondered: > One of the questions that keep haunting me is > why AE, after having failed to find Howland and to establish contact > with Itsca, never made a blind transmission on the frequencies available > to her announcing to whoever was listening that she would divert to the > Phoenix Islands. I'd speculate it was her ego and ignorance. Pilots, as we all know, some times display an abundance of both - tragically, often at the wrong time. In her mind, I suspect she believed she'd already confessed" that she was lost when she radioed at 0742, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Knowing AE's proclivity toward sugar-coating her experiences, (i.e., the Dakar incident) it is easy for me to see her thinking that missing Howard was a temporary problem that Fred would solve and there was no need to make repeated broadcasts. Like others here, I also suspect she then began flying the 337/157 line on Fred's advice. Then she changed frequencies . . . . She didn't yet know that she was lost, and by the time she admitted to herself she was lost it was way too late. And she may have made blind transmissions on all of her frequencies, is it just that we know of no one who heard them. The reason she didn't "divert" to another location is because that concept hadn't yet been invented. My understanding of today's use of diverting is that after you arrive where you think you're suppose to be and for whatever reason are unable to land, you go to your alternate (i.e., divert) landing site. This is a planned maneuver, an alternate plan to execute in case of an emergency. This was not the way they flew in the 30s; airlines may have, but not individuals. It would be several more years before the "professional" approach of flying filtered down to the individual. LTM, whose life is a series of "alternates" Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:50:07 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Find us! We're lost! A fascinating thread. Nice to read some Forum activity! I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her transmissions, make it clear and unambiguous that she was not sure where she was and that she was proceeding SSE on a heading that could put eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands. I've not ever really came to any "conclusions" about it. I've just kind of guessed that she DID make such transmissions, and they went unheard for any of a number of reasons. Thanks for the posting, Dennis, wherein you refer to her "proclivity toward sugar-coating her experiences". Ruminating about the possibility that she did not broadcast any clear & serious message indicating her situation and intentions makes me wonder when it really hit them, when it really became clear to them that they were not going to find Howland. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:23:14 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel aboard Good summary Paige. I would also like to point out that our heroes most likely were NOT on a line that ran through Howland, Baker and Gardner. If they were anywhere close that line would have run them across Howland or Baker. Line of sight at 1,000' is a little over 42 S. M. You can see that means their navigation had to be pretty far off. If they were not long or short they had to be SE but look how far SE they had to be. If they were only SE they were further SE than could be reasonably supported. They would have had to be so far SE that a turn to the NW and a short search leg would have still put them so far SE of Baker they could not see it. They would have had to be around 100 miles SE of Baker or 140 miles south of track assuming a NW search leg of 60 miles. I think that is irrational. I suggest they WERE SE but clearly not on an LOP that ran through Howland or Baker. How could that be? Easy. Noonan drew the LOP ON HIS MAP to go through Howland but unless his position and timing were accurate the airplane would not have been on his map line. The known data shows the winds changing from ESE to E and dropping off in velocity. Noonan would have had to have had a starboard course correction to account for the wind from his right. If he didn't pick up on the changes the plane would have drifted right of course and since the wind was less his ground speed would be higher putting him SE of Howland, east of his LOP. Now when he runs "north and south" he misses Howland and Baker. Where he went from that point on we don't know. He may have continued SE trying to get a fix and once he got it he was too far from Howland and Baker to return. That can be worked out on a map to see if it holds water. By that I mean run out his course from some reasonable point SE of Howland and Baker to a location you could say would make returning to Howland inappropriate. I've done that and the plane would have to be roughly 120 miles SE of Howland for it to be unreasonable to go back. I think that is not out of the realm of possibility or even probability. My concern is that IF he finally got a position WHY would he pick Gardner? Why not Canton? Why did he have Enderbury underlined on the map of their first attempt? How much did he know about the Phoenix Islands? If my speculation of them being south and long is correct wouldn't Canton be the logical target? No, not at all. He would be almost on a direct SE line to Gardner and sufficiently west of McKean to miss seeing it. That is if they were only around 20 miles beyond the Howland/Baker line. If they were 40 miles long they would have hit McKean and not Gardner. If so they had to make a decision to overfly McKean and hope to hit Gardner. Tough decision on very low fuel. Now if, instead they were SHORT and south they would miss Gardner altogether to the West. To have been close enough to pick Canton they would have had to overshoot Howland far more than is possible OR make a conscious decision to head to that Island. At this point let me comment on the Saunder's story. If there was an actual transmission saying they were 80 miles SW of Howland they HAD to know where they were and I see no reason they couldn't find Howland from that known position. To me that is a big indicator there was no such message. As to which Island to pick, Ric has commented several times before on that subject. I can tell you Enderbury was a flat area I would not have trouble bellying a plane in and of course Gardner has a good landing area. But, again, as several have pointed out "picking" probably didn't enter into the equation. Also if you will look at a map they could not get to Enderbury without passing over or near Canton. Comments? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:33:06 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Alfred says: "I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her transmissions, make it clear and unambiguous that she was not sure where she was" What does AE's message at 0742 indicate to you? It certainly sounds to me like she was not sure where she was. Alfred then says: "... and that she was proceeding SSE on a heading that could put eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands." What does her message at 0843 about running north and south on the 157-337 line indicate to you? To me, that's a path that could eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands. Alan says lots of things which I cannot disagree with regarding how AE might have not actually been on the LOP through Howland. But I do quibble with his statement "As to which Island to pick, Ric has commented several times before on that subject. I can tell you Enderbury was a flat area I would not have trouble bellying a plane in and of course Gardner has a good landing area." I highly doubt that AE and FN had Ric's knowledge of the topography and possible landing places in the Phoenix Islands. In fact, I contend that in 1937, surveys of these islands were scarce, AE most likely did not have this information. If I remember properly, Ric himself did not know whether or not McKean or Gardner had areas suitable for landing until he went to those islands and looked. We certainly do not know what information AE had on this subject, but to me it is much more likely that she had NO information about these islands, and it is much less likely that she (or someone) had done the research to obtain the surveys that did exist and which probably didn't mention landing areas. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:33:57 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Alan's ideas Alan Caldwell said: "Line of sight at 1,000' is a little over 42 S. M." Yes, in ideal conditions. But AE/FN weren't in ideal conditions. As has been discussed before, low hanging clouds casting shadows on the ocean can appear as land from even a short distance away. So "seeing" this island or that atoll would really be a misnomer because they could never be assured that what they were seeing was real, unless of course they flew directly over it or within close proximity to positively identify it. Thus, if their sighting was true then they could a) land, or b) determine where they were and plot a course to Howland or some other island. Once AE knew she missed Howland she also knew that she had limited time to find it or some other place to set down (duh!). Therefore it is my belief that she did run the 337/157 line as she said and the first island she actually saw (and identified) was Gardner. LTM, who runs straight and true Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:13:03 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Alan's ideas > From Dennis McGee > > Alan Caldwell said: "Line of sight at 1,000' is a little over 42 S. M." > > Yes, in ideal conditions. But AE/FN weren't in ideal conditions. As > has been discussed before, low hanging clouds casting shadows on the > ocean can appear as land from even a short distance away. ... I have often repeated an assertion picked up from this forum for which I have no documentary evidence but which I think is credible: someone said that Finch said that they did not identify Howland until they were about seven miles away from it. Anybody got a primary (credible) source for this assertion? I don't know anything about time of day for the flight or what the weather was like. At any rate, I find the claim believable and, if it is true, it backs up what you are saying about the difference between "ideal conditions" and actual conditions out in the Pacific. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:17:53 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Dennis is correct that absolute ideal conditions didn't appear to exist on that fateful day. I selected 42 miles as the outside limit they could see because I had no way of determining how much that distance was degraded. They may have only been able to see 20 miles or anything in between. As Dennis reminded the clouds cast shadows and it might have been quite difficult even at close range to spot Howland. As to running on the 337/157 LOP to Gardner the problem is we don't know where Noonan thought that line was. We know it was not running through Howland. If it was east of Howland it was usable if it was west of Howland he would have never seen Gardner. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:21:52 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Marty, I don't remember Finch's statement but having flown in those conditions I can assure you they could have gotten quite close and still not spotted the island. As I wrote Dennis, I selected 42 miles as the maximum. If I had said anything less I would not have heard the end of it. From my personal experience I would have suggested 10 to 20 miles as reasonable given the conditions. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:27:11 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Paige Miller wrote: > I highly doubt that AE > and FN had Ric's knowledge of the topography and possible landing > places in the Phoenix Islands. Paige, you may well be right. I base my thoughts that Noonan DID know something about the islands solely because of his PANAM connection and the fact that he underlined Enderbury on his first attempt map. What that means is pure speculation but I think it is a clue that can't be disregarded. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:49:58 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Find us! We're Lost! I agree with Alan. Fred Noonan must have been aware of the possibilities of Enderbury in case of a problem. Therefore I still believe that a diversion to the Phoenix Islands is and was an alternate in the back of Noonan's head, and probably Amelia Earhart's as well. However, as there is no proof the two planned an alternate, I believe that the decision to head southeast to the general area of the Phoenix Islands when they realised Howland was not where it should have been, was a last minute decision. It was a logical decision, not an educated guess, and based on the fact that they did not know where they were. They had reason to believe that heading SE along the 157 line should bring them to the general area and hopefully to one of the islands. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:01:15 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Find us! We're Lost! Ditto here Herman. If AE had gone NW on the LOP, Howland was her ONLY landfall. Beyond Howland there was nothing but open ocean. At least SE gave them a good shot at reaching SOME place to put down. Hence, the TIGHAR hypothesis. Good posts guys! LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:20:45 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: We're over here! Down and to the right! Paige, my posting reflects my puzzling about a few of these things, that's all. I said: > I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her transmissions, make it clear and > unambiguous that she was not sure where she was. Paige said: > What does AE's message at 0742 indicate to you? It certainly sounds to > me like she was not sure where she was. I responded: > Fair enough, Paige. But it hardly matters what it indicates > to me. What mattered was what the folks waiting at Howland understood. I > think there was room for her to be clearer about it. I just wonder why she > did not say, "We're lost and we are going to plan B, which is such and > such." Then, the search effort for her would have been better focused. I then said: > ... and that she was proceeding SSE on a heading > that could put eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands." Paige said: > What does her message at 0843 about running north and south on > the 157-337 line indicate to you? To me, that's a path that could > eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands. I responded: > Oh, okay, Paige. I think differently. I think she could > have been clearer. It was many days before the Phoenix Islands were > searched, and even then, the search was not very thorough. And there was > much searching that went on in other directions, too. All of this indicates > to me that she did not make it clear at all to those who were in the area > that she was headed towards the Phoenix group. The 157/337 message was not, > in my opinion, a clear indication of her intentions. I just sometimes wonder > why she didn't say "I am gonna head towards the Phoenix Islands"? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:32:09 From: Mike Haddock Subject: We're over here! Down and to the right! For: Alfred Hendrickson Good post Alfred. I think the answer to your puzzlement about AE's unclear intentions lies in the fact that technically she was not a good pilot. She was a stunt flyer at best and her radio communication skills were also poor. Unfortunately, the lack of those skills probably cost her and Fred their lives. LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:32:51 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Clear and unambiguous Alfred said: > I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her > transmissions, make it clear and unambiguous that she was not sure where > she was. Alfred, I think you're expecting present-day protocol and procedures to have been used in 1937. You've got to take yourself back there and get a feel for what aviators did and did not do. There were no regulations or institutional culture in the aviation community in 1937 demanding that they broadcast that type of information. Generally, speaking a guy or gal got in her plane, told a few friends that he/she was going to fly to Butte, Montana and then headed for Butte, Montana. Nobody thought of an alternate landing site; an alternate landing site was wherever you decided to put down if you ran into a problem, and due to the nature of early aircraft and their pilots, that could be anywhere. Also, if you look at AE's other flights you'll see that she didn't talk all that much on those either, so we really can't expect her to become a songbird overnight. The culture at the time was for pilots to be rough, tough, hard to bluff, and not afraid to die. And AE and most pilots of the era bought into that attitude. All of the professional pilots on this forum would, if you asked them I'm sure, be shocked and appalled at the lack of communications and the poor procedures these early aviators used. Heck, even private pilots are amazed at the loosey-goosey and sloppy planning and preparation AE did for this life-threatening flight. LTM, who is also amazed Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:33:18 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! I don't think Amelia Earhart ever intended to say she was lost. I think that at the time of her radio message "We must be on you but can't see you" she said just that, as if someone had mislaid Howland rather than that she and Fred Noonan had failed finding it. As it must have dawned upon them that Howland was not where they thought it was, they began flying a search pattern. That is all we know for sure. With hindsight we think, based on the next message in which she said they were flying along the 377/157 line, that they must eventually have decided to fly southeast along the 157 degree radial and try and get to the Phoenix Islands with dry feet. However, there is no proof of that because at no time Amelia Earhart ever announced such an intention. This is what remains unexplainable. Anyone who finds himself lost over the Pacific (or anywhere else) would like assistance from anyone that can offer help. Failing this one would at least say what his or her intentions are so that anyone who will start looking would at least know what they were doing. It therefore remains a mystery why she did not send a blind transmission announcing her/their decision to divert to the nearest dry land on the Phoenix Islands. I also agree that at that stage Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan could not have known they would hit upon Gardner Island. Being lost near Howland, the best they could hope for was to find one of the islands in the Phoenix Group. LTM (who says never to leave home without telling anyone where you are going) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:49:21 From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! paige miller, the usn had described recommended emergency alternate landing sites as two islands in the phoenix group - i believe they might have been biernie and enderburry - but i'm not sure and can't get to the source material at the moment. those recommendations were contained in one of the h.o. (usn hydrographic office) pamphlets published prior to earhart/noonan's departure on their r-t-w flight. with the significant and high priority assistance given by the usn, the department of commerce, and department of interior, it would seem almost certain that the alternate sites info (i.e., in the h.o. pamphlet) would have been given to them prior to departure. ron reuther ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:25:53 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Ron, is the USN pamphlet still in existence? I would like to see what it says. I'm not in my usual doubting mode rather I am interested in whether the navy gave reasons for picking those two islands and if they gave geographic information. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:26:14 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! What specific information or logic leads to the conclusion that Noonan was familiar in any substantive way with the Phoenix Islands? blue skies, JHam 2128 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:27:33 From: Greg Moore Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! This is always am interesting topic for someone who is a former Navy RM, with plenty of CW experience in that huge Pacific Pond, a former Commercial Pilot (lost medical due closed head injuries/spinal disk herniations etc). and both an aeronautical and electrical engineer. Anyhow, been communicating for almost 40 years now, so I figure I can expound a little here So Here's my .02 for what it's worth... First, when the decisions were being made for that last flight, in fact, even before that last flight, the fateful radio decisions were already being made. The biggest and most fatal error was the total removal of the MF (500KHz or 600Mtr) capability, the removal of the trailing wire antenna, and the installation of that huge, ungainly homebrew loading coil (the Gurr mod)... this attempt to try to cram 600 down that Vee was stupid in the first place, since the Vee was never really tuned for any specific frequency used whatsoever. Getting rid of the trailing wire is somewhat like throwing one's life raft away before takeoff to save weight, because the transmitter would be unable to be loaded with any realistic output power on that Vee, all the power would be wasted in the inductance of that huge, apparently ungainly load coil (I, for one would love to see a photo of that thing). Second, It seems as if neither AE or Noonan were even marginally competent radio ops, I don't believe either of them knew CW (Morse) at more than very slow speeds, one single letter at a time, and, if I recall correctly, the key had been removed anyway, making the whole 500Khx/600Mtr point moot, for there was, and still is ( up to the official "end" of CW in maritime service in 1999, a stupid, suicidal idea, but not one for discussion in this forum) no "voice" AM/SSB or otherwise on 500 KHz. (There are. now, NAVTEX broadcasts in the vicinity, but they are digital in nature)... If one didn't pound the brass, one didn't get heard. period.. That one omission signed AE's death warrant. By restricting her to AM voice, she was, basically, cutting her transmit power by 75 percent, and also was not able to take advantage of some of MF's great propagation over water, as well as the ability of just about every ship and shore station to take DF bearings on MF signals, which they were NOT able to do with HF. If one reads the transcript, AE never once uses correct radio procedure, just babbles on and on, makes extremely short transmissions by "whistling" into the microphone trying for a fix, whereas, in actual practice, it requires a MINIMUM of 2 minutes of transmission to even ATTEMPT to try and get a fix on a distant station. OK, yes, there are exceptions to that rule, they happen every day, I've cut a few lines in about 5-10 sec (maybe less, I don't know, seemed like an hour) but I darn well knew that a guy was in real serious trouble and I had better get it right NOW.... Fortunately. the guy got a good fix, and everything turned out ok. Basically Fred Noonan was a good navigator, but AR was not a good pilot, a worse radio op, didn't know the equipment, procedure, or the basics of communications that might have saved their butts had they believed in the equipment and in themselves. IF they had bothered to keep the 500KHz capability and USE IT. IF she had used standard radio procedure in her callups and actually acknowledged messages to/from the Itasca. IF she had declared a "LOW FUEL" emergency, and started looking for a fix at that time, really looking not just whistling a few secs...they would have had a chance.... I also don't believe the had the slightest idea of how to use the DF loop, even if the sense antennas were torn away during the takeoff at Lae, the loop might have given at least that 180degree ambiguous null, and would have been another line to cross with the sun line, and further narrowed their position, considering that Fred Noonan would have had a DR posit as well, regardless of how inaccurate, which then could have been moved with the sunline and the radio DF.....IF she had kept her head, well, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today.... Thus ends the .02 cents..... Greg "GW" Moore ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:28:02 From: Paige Miller Subject: Saunders' alleged reception Alan writes: " At this point let me comment on the Saunder's story. If there was an actual transmission saying they were 80 miles SW of Howland they HAD to know where they were and I see no reason they couldn't find Howland from that known position. To me that is a big indicator there was no such message." Well thank you, Alan! I tried to point out this inconsistency in the Saunders story a few days ago. I'm glad someone else also picked up on this inconsistency. Here's another one: if Saunders did indeed receive such a message, why did this message not make it to Itasca to direct its search -- especially when we know other messages, some of the spurious, did get reported to Itasca to direct its search. There are too many inconsistencies in the Saunders alleged reception to make this a plausible story. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:29:23 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Ron, I'd like to see those USN Hydrographic Office documents that describe the two Phoenix Island emergency landing site possibilities, as I am not aware of them. Having poured over nearly everything in the National Archives in the US HO section, I would love to be able to say I missed something. But you know, I have also researched what was known about those islands at the time, and it wasn't much, and certainly not enough to recommend possible landing sites. The most reliable information came from a Hawaiian researcher, Bryant, but it was mostly on plants, animals, and climatology, and a little geology. Most of this info is in the ONI files, and not in the HO files. Even the maps available at the time of the islands of the Phoenix Island group were extremely poor, especially Gardner --- to the point of the island being unrecognizable on the map. Their general locations were adequate, but not the shape, size, or orientation. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:38:39 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Who can prove that Amelia and her sidekick Fred were lost? - They Just could not locate Howland Island on the morning of 2 July 1937 - Which has happened at least once since NR16020's last recorded flight. We forum gum shoes must resist forcing potential crime scenes scenarios to fit the crime - If we follow the facts, logic suggests that Amelia and her sidekick Fred had a plan and that they understood fuel loading and scheduling for each flight leg. One more question to kick the dog with - Would the outcome to the world flight of NR16020 have been different if the Itasca had remained on station at Howland Island past noon on 2 July,1937? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:21:04 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Jerry Hamilton writes : > What specific information or logic leads to the conclusion that Noonan was > familiar in any substantive way with the Phoenix Islands? Being a navigator with Pacific experienced since his Pan American days and having prepared Amelia Earhart's round-the-world flight one simply has to accept the fact that he was familiar with Pacific. It stands to reason that the maps he used showed all known islands in the Pacific, including those near the route he had planned for the flight. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:21:21 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Re: Howland sighting I think we have discussed this ad nauseum, which also included the fact that Itasca was "smoking", supposedly some hundreds of feet in the air. Photos don't seem to coroborate that as the smoke tended to lay down on the ocean. Obviously she didn't see Howland, even if she was three miles away. And didn't we discuss how far away the crew could hear the twin engine plane in calm weather?? Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:55:48 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Jerry has a good question regarding Noonan's possible educated knowledge of the Phoenix, or say the Gilberts. Did any strip maps presented by Williams, etc., have an other island groups. Did they include Baker, or Canton, the closest? Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:56:59 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas You're correct, Ron. I think it was Thompson that was blowing smoke rather than the Itasca. I checked with a number of CAF flights about the distance those engines could be heard and all indicated they were loud enough to be heard for a long way off but no specific distance was suggested. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:51:01 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Alan's ideas I think we have discussed this already some time ago. Aircraft engines (and especially the aerodynamic noise produced by their propellers) can be heard a long distance and that was certainly the case with the Pratt & Whitneys of the Lockheed 10. One T-6 could be heard miles away. Two such engines even farther. However, the situation is different at sea. The waves make noise and so does a ship. Ships can be very noisy when they are under way. But even a stationary ship like the Itasca was still producing noise. Therefore I'm pretty sure they would have seen the Electra before they could hear it. If it passed at say 5 miles distance, I believe they would never have heard it. If the sky was clear they could have seen it. Since no one saw the airplane and no one heard it, it is my guess they missed it by perhaps 10 miles. At such a distance one cannot hear an airplane at sea. Even less so if the wind is blowing towards it. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:38:39 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Two comments. My friend served on the USS Maryland and was on board December 7, 1941. I asked him about noise on deck and he said it was very quiet. I wouldn't know. I was playing tennis one day and three T-6s flew over. They were flying about 1,500' and down wind. In less than three miles the sound was gone. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:45:23 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! > Alfred says: "I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her > transmissions, make it clear and unambiguous that she was not sure > where she was" > > Paige says: "What does AE's message at 0742 indicate to you? It > certainly sounds to me like she was not sure where she was." > > Alfred responds: Fair enough, Paige. But it hardly matters what it > indicates to me. What mattered was what the folks waiting at Howland understood. > I think there was room for her to be clearer about it. I just wonder why > she did not say, "We're lost and we are going to plan B, which is such and > such." Then, the search effort for her would have been better focused. At 0742, there was no need for Amelia to mention plan B, whatever it was, because they were still looking for Howland, also known as Plan A. And to claim that Itasca didn't understand is just plain wrong. I don't see how anyone can think Amelia's message at 0742 could be misunderstood. The crew of Itasca knew the dire consequences of Amelia being unable to locate Howland, and the message at 0742 clearly indicated she could not find Howland. > Alfred then says: "... and that she was proceeding SSE on a heading > that could put eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands." > > Paige says: "What does her message at 0843 about running north and south on > the 157-337 line indicate to you? To me, that's a path that could eventually > put her in the Phoenix Islands." > > Alfred responds: Oh, okay, Paige. I think differently. I think she could > have been clearer. It was many days before the Phoenix Islands were > searched, and even then, the search was not very thorough. And there was > much searching that went on in other directions, too. All of this indicates > to me that she did not make it clear at all to those who were in the area > that she was headed towards the Phoenix group. The 157/337 message was not, > in my opinion, a clear indication of her intentions. I just sometimes wonder > why she didn't say "I am gonna head towards the Phoenix Islands"? Because at 0843 she didn't know she was headed to the Phoenix Islands? Because at 0843, she was still executing Plan A, which according to my official scorecard was the attempt to find Howland. As I read the transcripts of her words at 0843, she is still looking for Howland. Because, as Ric has explained on an occasion or two, she switched frequencies and her next broadcast, if there was one, announcing Plan B, if there was one, was never heard due to the fact that she simply was never heard clearly on 6210. Or maybe because by the time a conscious decision to head for the Phoenix Islands was made, she was so far away from Howland as to be out of radio contact with Itasca. Or perhaps because while AE continued to search for Howland, getting more and more lost, eventually led her to other land, without her realizing she was had been heading to the Phoenix Islands. Its really easy for us to look back 67 years and say "If Amelia had just said this one other sentence ... " Its really easy for us to say she should have told the searchers where to look. But I think it is quite likely that she didn't know where she would wind up in the hours after her 0843 message. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:51:09 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Ron Bright wrote: > Jerry has a good question regarding Noonan's possible educated > knowledge of the Phoenix, or say the Gilbert's. Did any strip maps presented by > Williams, etc., have an other island groups. Did they include Baker, or Canton, > the closest? Ron, we know of no evidence of specific knowledge but we DO know Noonan underlined Enderbury on his map. That would at least imply he had SOME knowledge of the Phoenix Islands or specifically Enderbury. His route over flew the Gilbert's so his strip map may well have had those islands on it but we don't know since we do not have his map. Baker had a runway and he should have known that and Canton was NOT the closest island to Howland. McKean was AND also Gardner was closer than Canton. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:51:43 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Alan says: > Marty, I don't remember Finch's statement but having flown in those > conditions I can assure you they could have gotten quite close and > still not spotted the island. As I wrote Dennis, I selected 42 miles as the maximum. If > I had said anything less I would not have heard the end of it. From my > personal experience I would have suggested 10 to 20 miles as reasonable given > the conditions. Allow me to repeat something that someone named Ric posted in this forum on 25 Sep 2002. I have no idea if this Ric character is reputable or not, especially since he seems to have left this forum; nevertheless, here is what he said. "You may be thinking of Ann Pellegreno in 1967. I don't think we've heard anything about Finch's experience. (Odd that she didn't write a book, or did she?) "Pellegreno and the three men with her made an effort to arrive in the Howland area at the same time of day as Earhart. They actually hit the advanced LOP (with an intentional 45 mile offset to the NW) at 1855Z or 0725 Itasca Time and spotted the island about an hour later (after much difficulty and almost giving up) at an estimated 10 to 12 miles." Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:56:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! Good posting, Paige. All of this is a lot simpler than some folks want to make it. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:06:38 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives You are making an assumption that it was Fred Noonan that underlined Enderbury on the National Geographic map, now in the Purdue Libary. I believe someone has a picture of AE and GPP pointing to that map, dated before the first attempt. If correct, then FN was not even part of the team at that point in time. BTW, PAA's maps and information was no better than what was publicly available. That organization's knowledge of the Phoenix Islands was just as bad as the US Navy, as they had not surveyed that part of the world as yet. Juan Trippe did fund a yachting trip to Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands in 1936, but that voyage did not include the Phoenix Islands. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:16:52 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Alan explains his theory futher: > As to running on the 337/157 LOP to Gardner the problem is we don't know > where Noonan thought that line was. We know it was not running through Howland. > If it was east of Howland it was usable if it was west of Howland he > would have never seen Gardner. Here again I plead ignorance of the capabilities of any navigational technique that Fred Noonan might have employed. Thus, my question: assume AE and FN are short of the LOP through Howland (in other words, they are to the west of the LOP through Howland). Alan says they would have never seen Gardner. But ... as AE is travelling SE along this westerly LOP, FN takes another celestial reading and decides that they must be somewhere to the west of the Phoenix Islands, and too far away to return to Howland, thus instructing AE to head east and towards Gardner and of course towards the rest of the Phoenix Island as well? Is this possible? Is this plausible? Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:22:52 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Remember that Enderbury was one of the few Phoenix Islands where the U.S. had any sort of presence. Here, for instance, is a note from the log of RCS Viti: > 1941 December 4 In the morning the ship paid a brief call at uninhabited Phoenix > Island. In the afternoon it stopped at Enderbury where Sir Harry entertained the four > U.S. Department of the Interior colonists aboard Viti with much appreciated tea and cake. > The ship sailed for Canton Island the same evening. In his book about his time in the Pacific, Sir Harry writes amusingly about these four guys, stuck all by themselves on a rock a million miles from nowhere. Point is that since Enderbury was an island to which the U.S. was trying to stake a claim (in much the same way it did with Howland and Baker), there might have been lots of reasons for someone to underline it, AND it would perhaps be the only island that anyone in the Navy would have suggested to Earhart and Noonan as a possible alternative landing site -- whether it was a particularly good one or not. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:46:59 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives > From Paige Miller > > Allow me to repeat something that someone named Ric posted in this forum on 25 Sep 2002. > I have no idea if this Ric character is reputable or not, especially since he seems > to have left this forum ... He's on assignment. Wait 'til you see the TIGHAR Tracks! ;o) > "Pellegreno and the three men with her made an effort to arrive in the Howland area > at the same time of day as Earhart. They actually hit the advanced LOP (with an > intentional 45 mile offset to the NW) at 1855Z or 0725 Itasca Time and spotted the > island about an hour later (after much difficulty and almost giving up) at an > estimated 10 to 12 miles." Much appreciated! I think that's the information that I was misremembering. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:48:20 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Unfortunately, Tom, by the time of the 1941 visit of the RCS Viti, the US became interested in the Phoenix Group (after the disappearance of AE and the Eclipse visit to Canton), and decided to "colonize" Enderbury and Canton, much like Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands. Prior to AE's disappearance (and the Eclipse expedition), there was almost no interest and almost no information about any of the Phoenix Islands in the US Navy or government. Both the Eclipse Expedition and AE's disappearance and subsequent brief fly-through by the Colorado (and the heated island grab in the area) accelerated the US' interest in these islands. To state plainly, the interest began after AE's disappearance, not before. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:49:08 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Whither AE? I don't know what your point is, Paige, but you like an argument so much, you'll create one where there is none. I did say, in my first posting, that I "guessed that she DID make such transmissions, and they went unheard for any of a number of reasons." You come now and, with different words, say pretty much the same thing: "was never heard due to the fact that she simply was never heard clearly on 6210. Or maybe because by the time a conscious decision to head for the Phoenix Islands was made, she was so far away from Howland as to be out of radio contact with Itasca." You believe AE had clearly gotten her points across: Point one, that she was lost and Point two, that she was headed towards the Phoenix Islands. You haven't convinced me, though. I don't think the group waiting at Howland immediately understood these things. After some hours passed, Point one became painfully evident, but how do we know that they understood Point two? If AE clearly conveyed in her 157/337 message that she was headed SSE, so that if she overshot Howland, she could find other landfall, why was the search effort not concentrated that way immediately? I'll tell you why, Paige: it's because they did not understand her intentions. (For that matter, we don't know now what her intentions were.) According to the TIGHAR hypothesis, AE at some point made a decision to change course. Along the new course, she could look for Howland and, simultaneously, be pointed generally towards some landfall, which would be her fallback position. I have wondered why, if she was going to do this, did she broadcast her intentions. I have read all of your enlightening arguments that seem to castigate me for wondering about this, and I still wonder about it. I am puzzled about why you wrote this: "Its really easy for us to look back 67 years and say "If Amelia had just said this one other sentence ... " It's really easy for us to say she should have told the searchers where to look." It certainly is easy for us to say all of that, Paige, but for the record, I did not say she should have done one thing or another. I simply said that it is something I have wondered about. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:23:18 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Paige Miller wrote: > Is this possible? Is this plausible? Absolutely, Paige. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:24:28 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Randy Jacobson wrote: > To state plainly, the interest began after AE's disappearance, not before. Well, that's plain, Randy, but I think it's wrong. Have you read Harry Maude's analysis of British and US claims to the Phoenixes, published by the WPHC in 1940? It certainly suggested (to me at least) that the two countries had been dancing around each other for some time over the question of who controlled the Phoenix and Line Islands, and that both were quite "interested" in them. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:25:39 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Alfred, I'm not trying to argue just to argue. You stated something that you wondered about, and I tried to explain that there were many reasons why I didn't wonder about the same thing. Specifically, I see numerous plausible scenarios in which AE arrives at Gardner or elsewhere in the Phoenix Islands and does not radio broadcast her intentions, or why if she does make such a broadcast it might not be heard. I have tried to describe some of those scenarios. I see no reason to wonder at all. Makes perfect sense to me. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:55:44 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives As to AE making a radio call, what would she say? "I don't know where I am and I don't know where I am going to end up but I'm heading SE from some unknown position. Meet us there with a rescue boat." How would Itasca respond? Consider it a hoax? Take off SE just in case? Maybe AE is heading SE from some place NW of Howland. I don't know how anyone would react and I don't think AE would make such a stupid transmission. I think she would wait until she had something specific to say. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:42:57 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Alan adds: > As to AE making a radio call, what would she say? "I don't know where > I am and I don't know where I am going to end up but I'm heading SE > from some unknown position. Meet us there with a rescue boat." > > How would Itasca respond? Consider it a hoax? Take off SE just in case? > Maybe AE is heading SE from some place NW of Howland. I don't know how > anyone would react and I don't think AE would make such a stupid > transmission. I think she would wait until she had something specific > to say. Even if AE told Itasca that she plans to follow her present course SE for the next hour, which way does Itasca go to search? Depends, doesn't it? If AE was way far north of Howland then Itasca should search to the north. If AE was was far south of Howland then Itasca should search to the south. What if she was east or west of Howland? But ... neither AE nor Itasca knows this key piece of information. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:43:17 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Alan answers my question about a possible turn to the east by AE after she had turned onto the LOP west of Howland: >> Is this possible? Is this plausible? > > Absolutely, Paige. Excellent! So it is plausible to for AE to head east into the Phoenix group. You see where all this is leading, don't you? Heading east nicely supports my Paraguay hypothesis. :-) Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:43:58 From: Emmett Hoolihan Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives For Alan Caldwell I'd like to agree with your last post re Amelia's radio transmissions especially the part where she must admit to being lost. Obviously, neither she nor FN were sure of their position and rather than transmit a dubious message, they chose to say nothing. I think their thought processes were greatly influenced by the amount of flying time accumulated up to their last day. Think of it--flying two thirds of the way around the world in a confined space, the constant drone of the engines and nothing but pilotage and deduced reckoning with which to navigate. Talk about stress! I think the forum at large has skirted the fatal problem, mentioned it at times, but always in a "passing" manner. I'm referring to their lack of radio knowledge and accompanying procedures. Three items stand out in my mind: 1. In 1937, there were few if any radio procedures in place at the time. 2. FN & AE weren't knowledgeable of them. Radios in aircraft were in their infancy in 1937 and far removed from what we're accustomed to today. 3. By 1937, Amelia had garnered many records, publicity(thanks to GPP), and a belief by many to be one of the world's greatest pilots. She may have believed some of this to an unrealistic extent. If you include the above in the mix of what we already know today, it demystifies many of the radio questions being discussed by forumites. Add to that AE's lack of dependency on radio in her past record flights and I'd be surprised if the "last flight" turned out differently. On the average, how many communications did she make (air to ground) on her record flights? Anyone? Comments please. LTM, Emmett #2405S ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:29:19 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Alan's ideas I think the forumites have now uncovered a key to the Earhart puzzle, in that whatever Earhart would have tried to state as to what her intentions were, the Itasca folks would not know what to do. The reason being that not knowing where one is, one cannot definitively state where one is going to. This introduces ambiguities to the searchers as well. I wonder if Earhart realized all this at the time. Very intriguing spin and take on the situation. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:31:09 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives To: Emmett I'm relying on my memory here, so I might get into trouble... :) I agree with alot of what you believe about AE and FN's experience (or lack of) with the radio's, but there's just more to it than that... Neither Amelia nor Fred could use morse code, which I think is the most tragic problem they had with the radio. Amelia used her radio during her flight from Oakland to Hawaii, and found it to be more reliable than expected. She even enjoyed listening to reports of her progress and some soft music during this flight. But, I can't help but be left with the impression that she found the radio to be an annoyance, also. I say that due to the fact that she had fuel charts, notes to Fred on her fishing pole, notes for her book, etc plus all of her pilot duties to contend with. She only used the radio on the quarter and three quarter hour. I find that to be unusual, but what do I know about 1937 radio procedures? I would be wanting to talk on the radio to see if anyone was hearing me or in the area's I was flying over, just to keep some contact with the earth, but that's just me. Who knows what Amelia's thoughts were? The radio was also a detriment to the flight in some ways. The trained and experienced radio operator's aboard the Itasca didn't realise that Amelia wasn't recieving their messages. They seem to have copped an attitude that she wasn't answering nor following any instructions they gave her, when they should have been looking further into why she didn't respond. Also, because she mentioned "cloudy" in one of her messages, the Captain wasted alot of time searching in the wrong direction when they disappeared, among other problems. So Amelia and Fred weren't the only ones making fatal errors with the radio. I DO think that Amelia was really stupid not to learn morse code. She was sooo knowledgeable about every other part of that plane and its engines that I can't forgive her for this. Paul Mantz was very upset at her lack of time and lackadaisical attitude about learning how the radio, direction finder, etc. worked, and I agree with you that the fatal malfunction that ended this flight was due to radio problems. Such a shame... Jackie ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:12:18 From: Greg Moore Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives GM, Jackie, With close on to 40 years of radio experience behind me, both amateur and professional (I was RM2, USN) as well as both an aeronautical/electronics engineer and former commercial pilot (lost medical and am retired disabled, but that doesn't deter from my CV ;-) I believe I can support your views 100 percent. Since I happen to be a high speed CW operator, was one in the Navy, and have more than considerable experience in the big Pacific Pond, as well as a lot of experience from shore stations, working MF (500KHZ/600Meters) working Merchant traffic (I was extremely fortunate to have been stationed in Argentia Nfld, where the USCG Ice Patrol station used to be located, and the space was shared with the NAVCOMMSTA, we routinely sat each other's circuits, and thus I learned some very valuable skills.... OK, enough babbling about my past, I just wanted to establish my credentials... anyhow, I believe I posted not so long ago that I thought that the death warrant for that flight was signed in Burbank, when the MF capability was torn out with the removal of the key and trailing wire antenna, along with that eldritch Gurr mod with that huge load coil. and a lengthening of the vee slightly to attempt to force feed 500 into it..... A few well known facts: (A.) Nobody, even today, uses voice on 500Khz (600Meters), even though the "official" end of the CW era came to an end in 1999, and any of my rants about that are well known and I will not bring that up here, NOBODY would be listening for AM voice on 500. (B.) At that time, while all ships and most shore stations were equipped to take DF bearings . on MF, and did so routinely, they did not have the capability to do so on any HF freq.. (C.) The total ignorance of both AE and Noonan about radio, and the fact they held it in disdain, whereas, in that type of long over water flight, it would have been the only reliable way to cut a position before things really got pear shaped. ( D.) AE's complete lack of the use of correct radio procedure, including her apparent lack of acknowledging msgs from the Itasca, the stupid whistling into the mic for a couple of seconds (even in a well equipped, trained, and staffed facility, standard procedure when calling for a DF is at LEAST a 2 minute key down transmission. ) OK, that's the official line, and we won't discuss "extreme occurrences here".... Ok, let me sum up...Those two were done before they took off. They had no MF CW capability, They didn't know the darn code even if they did, they didn't know or use radio procedure properly, which IMHO confused the RM's on the Itasca. and the final indignity, is THEY WAITED TOO LONG. Just as one is taught in egress training about "delayed ejection decisions", they (AE/Noonan) committed the same fatal error by "delayed emergency declarations"... AE spent too much time babbling into the mic, then fooled around changing freqs, a real no no (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Propagation conditions in that part of the Pond are quirky, and as long as one has comms, one stays with what works.... I don't think she knew her equipment all that well, and who knows where she actually tuned the receiver., BOTTOM LINE: IF AE/Noonan had kept their collective heads, stayed on the freq that worked, acknowledged transmissions, and actually transmitted a carrier long enough for the Itasca to get a cut on the bearing (I believe they did have HFDF capability) they would have been close to being home free. They already had a sun line.....cross that with a DF bearing,, and one gets an estimated position, which then is adjusted by progressing the sun line for time, comparing with the DR position that Noonan, being a good navigator should have been keeping up, and at least they would have wound up with a rather small triangle of position on the chart.. From that point, they could have made good a course for Howland, or at least toward the Itasca, kept in comms, and if they had fuel exhaustion, stood a fair to middling chance of surviving a ditch and being picked up none the worse for wear, with one heck of an adventure to tell, and we wouldn't be having this forum today.. Just IMHO and my .02 from years of training and experience..... tnx much for listening to by long screed.. Greg Moore #2645 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:13:25 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Specific, not stupid > I don't think AE would make such a stupid transmission. I think she > would wait until she had something specific to say. I agree, Alan. I think she would most likely have said something specific, certainly not something stupid. Something more helpful, like say, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Sheesh! It ain't no wonder she got herself lost where no one could find her! LTM, who at least knew how to call for help. Alfred Hendrickson, #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:12:14 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives > From Greg Moore > > ... BOTTOM LINE: IF AE/Noonan had ... acknowledged transmissions ... The only little "fact" missing from your otherwise masterful analysis is that AE and FN seem not to have heard any transmissions from the Itasca other than the As on 7500. I believe the "fact" is supported by the Itasca's logged messages from AE in which she says that they can't hear anything from the Itasca on 3105. I'm packing for a week's retreat, so I don't have time to verify this assertion, but I think (if true) that it is an important part of the picture you are drawing of what went wrong. LTM & the boys. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:05:39 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Current thread The current thread on the forum has concentrated on Saunder's story saying the AE/FN were last heard from when they were 80 miles SW of Howland. That's a pretty big error, especially for a man of Noonan's experience. Which raises the question: Do any of Pan Am's logs reflect the navigational errors made by their navigators, particularly Noonan? My obvious reasoning is that if he was usually dead-on target all of the time, then the 80 mile error enroute to Howland, (if it is correct) is certainly a huge anomaly. We all make mistakes, but could Noonan really have been that far off? LTM, who seeks progress, not perfection Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:26:19 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Current thread Dennis, the claim was that AE was 80 miles SOUTHEAST. I was the one who questioned that and asked if it maybe was SW. I don't think there was a claim this was the last message heard. We didn't even get a time for the message. Most importantly, there is no confirmation there ever WAS such a message. There is some effort ongoing to make that determination. Until we have a copy of the actual message speculation doesn't seem to be productive. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:27:20 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Current thread Re: Dennis' question re Saunders Recent research by Matt Rodina at Univ of Maimi revealed a taped interview of a John Boyle who was a PAA airport manager 1936-39 at Midway Island. Boyle does rmention a Steward Saunders, but has him at Wake Island, not Midway. Saunders recollection as I have posted, should be taken with a grain of salt. It was some 30 years later, and was prompted by an article about radio in the SF Chronicle, unidentified. I think it was an amalgam of PAA receptions, that is Saunder's memory included the "sunline" reference, the 80 miles s.w., and the low on gas comment. All these were in different msgs, and I think Saunders just combined them into one "Noonan recollection". ( I don't recall AE making a specific reference to "sunline". No doubt he was at either Midway or Wake in 1937 or as we have seen Kingman Reef. But without the msg in hand or quoted, it is impossible to put much faith in the "80 mile" reference. I am looking for relatives in the SF area. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:57:41 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Can't get there from here Randy Jacobson wrote: > not knowing where one is, one cannot definitively > state where one is going to. Alan Caldwell wrote: > As to AE making a radio call, what would she say? 'I > don't know where I am and I don't know where I am going > to end up but I'm heading SE from some unknown position. > Meet us there with a rescue boat.' The general concept that one cannot navigate to a known position from an unknown position has been stated many times on this Forum. On one hand, it makes logical sense. But, it also oversimplifies things a bit, don't you think? Indeed, rigid adherence to this concept actually flies in the face of the TIGHAR Hypothesis. Ya see, if she did not know where she was, how could she get from there to Gardner Island at all? I know, I know, you're thinking I've lost it, but try this on, you'll see what I mean: FN: "Hey Amelia, I am fairly certain that we're lost!" AE: "If you will believe me, Fred, those very words were on my lips this instant. I can't see land anywhere down there, and we are supposed to be right on top of Howland. We are hopelessly lost. No doubt about it." FN: "What shall we do now?" AE: "I know; let's head for the Phoenix Islands." FN: "No can do, Amelia." AE [looking alarmed]: "Why not, Fred?" FN: Well, Amelia, that'd be a known position, and we are here at an unknown position. And [wagging finger], I have it on good authority (from the folks over there at the Earhart Search Forum) that we can't get to a known position from an unknown position." AE: [reaching for flotation device]: "Why, dad-blame it, Fred. I guess we'll have to splash and sink then." FN: "Mind if I smoke?" *** Hunh? Alright alright, I'll stop. LTM - she knew when to give it a rest, even if Alfred doesn't, Alfred Hendrickson, #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:58:55 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Current thread Looking at The TIGHAR map and the LOP again it stands to reason FN said they were 80 miles SE of Howland. The LOP did not run vertically through Howland North-South. It was a line heading 337 towards the NW and 157 towards the SE. Therefore it is possible Fred Noonan calculated their position to be 80 miles SE of Howland hitting the LOP. Which means they would find Howland it if they turned left and flew a heading of 337 degrees. Later, when they were flying up and down the 337/157 line they could again have been at 80 miles SE. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:59:16 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Current thread Dennis, Anything is possible. During WW II bombers are known to have bombed the wrong city because of a navigation error. And bombers were guided to their targets by well trained navigators 8. The simple truth is that we shall never know. Most flying accidents are caused by human error. In those days a frequent error was a navigation error. That was why airplanes used to crash into hills. At one time there was talk of on this forum of another message, saying the were "80 miles north of the line", whatever that meant. Could FN have been so confused after 20+ sleepless hours in the air that he thought the Sun was standing in the South although they actually crossed the Equator ? When people get tired they sometimes make surprising mistakes. It is therefore my "educated guess" that we shall never now until the wreck of Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra will be found. Only then will all parts of the puzzle fall into place. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:01:12 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Current thread Alan Caldwell said: > there is no confirmation there ever WAS > such a message, regarding the alleged Saunders message. Yes, I am aware of that, but my curiosity regarding Noonan's navigational accuracy was the point of my post. I guess I picked a pretty bad example to illustrate the question. Nonetheless, there has recently been a lot of speculation on the forum about how far off Noonan was when AE radioed, "We must be on you . . ." I was trying to establish whether or not there were any recorded instances of Noonan making any gross errors in navigation during his time with Pan Am. I know a thread regarding Noonan's abilities was beat flatter than road kill several months ago, but was wondering if we had reached any definitive conclusion to the issue. LTM, who is responsible for some road kill Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:40:43 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Alfred Hendrickson, It would appear that the forum has reached the fork in the road and we have taken it, to paraphrase Yogi. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:41:33 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Navigation Alfred said: > AE: "I know; let's head for the Phoenix Islands." > > FN: "No can do, Amelia." In your fictional AE-FN dialog I think you misrepresented the comments by Randy et. al. regarding the navigation issue. When they said you can't navigate from an unknown position to a known position the context of the argument was in finding a SPECIFIC landfall, not a gross landfall. If get lost in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean I absolutely know I can find North or South America (assuming I have the fuel reserves) by heading 270 degrees, but what I can't find is Ocean City, Maryland, or any other specific place in North or South America. LTM, who navigates by road Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:30:41 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alfred Hendrickson wrote: > The general concept that one cannot navigate to a known position from an > unknown position has been stated many times on this Forum. On one hand, it > makes logical sense. But, it also oversimplifies things a bit, don't you > think? So, why didn't Noonan navigate to Howland Island? LTM, Bob Brandenburg #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:31:06 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Of course we over simplify, Alfred. It makes for a shorter and more readable posting. And I guess I just over simplified. As others have pointed out generalities are not specifics and one CAN get some place specific from an unknown position by either luck or GAINING some location knowledge. I think the basic point of this is in offering another point of view as to why AE may NOT have transmitted. That is that she didn't have anything specific or helpful to say. Here are some possibilities. 1. She DID transmit and wasn't received. 2. She DID transmit and we haven't discovered the receptions yet. 3. She was too busy with the job at hand to transmit. 4. The radios weren't working at all. 5. The radios worked but 6210 could not be received in the short range from her to Itasca. 6. The radios worked but by the time she finally transmitted again on 3105 she was out of range of Itasca. 7. She didn't KNOW what helpful information to transmit. 8. She didn't HAVE any helpful information to transmit. Someone may think of other possibilities but these come to mind at the moment. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:34:21 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Current thread That is certainly one possibility, Herman. If, on arrival, he got a fix 80 SE of Howland he would then turn NW and see Baker then Howland. He didn't see them so the possibilities are: 1. There was NO such message. 2. There WAS a message but he didn't say that. 3. There WAS a message and he DID say that but his fix was sufficiently off that flying NW missed the islands. Any others? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:55:51 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Current thread I've seen all these sleepless hour comments for years. Why would anyone believe they didn't take turns napping? Our crew did across the Atlantic. Also is there some evidence they didn't reduce the noise with cotton in their ears? We've been painting possibly an unnecessary horrible picture of their flight. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:56:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigation Dennis McGee wrote: > If get lost in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean I absolutely > know I can find North or South America You're my kind of navigator, Dennis. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:57:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Bob Brandenburg wrote: > So, why didn't Noonan navigate to Howland Island? There was a cooler and a six-pack at Enderbury. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:39:05 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Bob Brandenburg wrote: > So, why didn't Noonan navigate to Howland Island? I don't know, Bob. I've always thought that, on the way to Howland, NR16020 simply drifted off course. Noonan did his best, I'm sure, but it was a long flight, and errors compounded. This is what I have thought, but, of course, I do not exactly know. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:40:06 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Alfred's screenplay My fictional AE/FN dialog was way outta line. It was Monday when I wrote it. Apologies to Alan, Randy, Paige, Dennis . . . heck, apologies all around. I'm done with that one (unless you guys want me to write a sequel). I did, however, get my latest TIGHAR Tracks. Plenty of interesting stuff in there. Pat, that picture of Ric, is that a silk aviators scarf around his neck, flapping in the breeze? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ************************************* Ummmmmm, no. P ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:44:08 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alan, You forgot the most likely reason she couldnt transmit. She ditched into the ocean and couldn't transmit. So far no post loss msgs have been authenticated to a high standard of proof. REB ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:16:34 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alfred Hendrickson wrote: > Bob Brandenburg wrote: "So, why didn't Noonan navigate to Howland > Island?" > > I don't know, Bob. I've always thought that, on the way to Howland, > NR16020 > simply drifted off course. Noonan did his best, I'm sure, > but it was a long flight, and errors compounded. This is what I have > thought, but, of course, I do not exactly know. My question was intended as a test of what I understood to be your implicit claim that one can navigate from an unknown position to a specific desired position. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:17:28 From: Ron Bright Subject: Canton or Bust! Re: Noonan's possible alternatives (if enough gas and time) We have overlooked the Navy's "Pacific Air Pilot" , H.O. 184, that described the islands in the vicinity of Howland Island, such as Enderbury, Phoenix, Sydney, and Hull. Gardner was not mentioned, and Canton seemed the most promising. Goerner first mentioned the PAP, and Cam Warren pursued the lead with vigor. Ric Gillespie, he says, has ignored its significance. The publication is or was in the National Archives Record Group 37, Originally classified "Confidential" it was declassified in 1958. Randy Jacobsen may be aware of it. The Japanese , according to Capt Layton, captured a copy of the US Naval Air Pilot, Pacific Islands, 1936" on Wake Island in 1941. The book was Pubished by the Government Printing Office, 1935. Donahues book 'The British Connection" reproduces a copy of the first page of HO 184, page 146. He describes its value as describing various Islands in the Pacific. He found it at the Dean B Ellis Library at Arkansas State University. Warren says that this sole surviving copy has mysteriously disappeared. Warren can not be positive that FN or AE read this document, but says there is some anectodal evidence that she and presumably Noonan were allowed to view the contents unoffically in view of their flight to Howland. Warren cites the following as circumstantial evidence they read it. Here is an excerpt of a letter dated 15 Oct 336 from Capt A.C. Read, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics to George Putnam: "...I believe the Navy Dept stands ready to assist you with arrangements for Mrs. Putnams flight in every way practicable...The reports that you refer to , viz' Climate Features of the Pacific Island Regions and "Detailed Information on Seaplane Anchorages and LANDING FIELDS [ Warrens emphais] are under the cognizance of the Hydrographic Office..." These were the two sections of HO 184. Whats does it mean? Just a guess on my part, but it suggests that Noonan may well have been aware of the Phoenix Islands as an alternative, and in particular the more desireable Canton Island, rather than Gardner. This knowledge and his PAA navigaton experience may have influenced his decision to fly southeast toward the Phoenix and perhaps seek out Canton. I leave the expert navigators to review this as a possibility and option. For instance even without radio contact, Noonan may have had other opportunities for a better estimate of his position enroute. Cam Warren can better articulate this possibility than I. But this is something to chew on. LTM Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:37:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Ron Bright wrote: > authenticated to a high standard of proof. We can't rule out that possibility at the moment, Ron and you were doing fine until the "high standard" comment. Tell me what, in your mind, would constitute a "high standard of proof?" Given any one of the 148 or so post loss messages tell me how we can prove it was authentic. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:54:15 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Another mystery? Ron Bright said: > Goerner first mentioned the PAP, and Cam Warren > pursued the lead with vigor. What ever happened to Cam, we haven't heard from him for over a year, I'd guess. LTM, who like to keep up on the latest news Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ****************************** What happened to Cam is that he is not a TIGHAR member, and if you will recall, only members are permitted to post to the Forum now. And boy, does it save me a ton of aggro! Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:41:47 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Another mystery Is he still lurking?? :-) Dennis ********************* Yes ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:16:45 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Maybe we can get there from here Bob Brandenburg wrote: > My question was intended as a test of what I > understood to be your implicit claim that one can navigate from an > unknown position to a specific desired position. I'm not sure I follow you. It is not my claim. But, pretend it is a claim. How are we gonna test it? I see that FN began at a known place (Lae) and ended up at a somewhat-unknown place (near Howland). He was lost, to be sure. He could not pinpoint his position on a map. But was he really at an unknown place? I say no. He knew something about where he was. For example, I think he could say that he knew that he was over the Pacific Ocean. I also think he could say he was not at Howland. He maybe even could have selected two radii, used them to draw two circles around Howland, and say he was inside the big circle, and outside the little circle. If we all believe that our duo changed course with the thought in their heads that they had a better chance of hitting landfall by heading SSE, then we cannot simultaneously say that they were at an unknown position. They had to know enough about their position to know that they had a chance of hitting the Phoenix Islands, didn't they? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:21:43 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Canton or bust Ron Bright wrote: > Warren says that this sole surviving copy has mysteriously > disappeared. What does that mean, Ron? Why "mysteriously" as opposed to lost, misplaced, packed up, or thrown away? Our heroes would have no interest in seaplane anchorages and there weren't any airfields so my first question would be what possible relevant information could the publication contain? I see nothing to indicate Noonan or Earhart were aware of or read the publication but the first order of business would be to look at the book and see if there is anything of value in it pertaining to the issue at hand. Where is there a copy? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:35:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alan, I personally don't think any of the post loss msgs were authentic, and haven't seen any that would be considered authentic. Please tell me which one you think was authentic, beyound a reasonable doubt, or maybe just preponderance of evidence. I guess we must set up a definition of 'standard of proof", Alan. Yours and mine may differ, just like in a court of law. None of the principal players in July 1937 thought any were really signals from AE! REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:36:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Another mystery Dennis and Pat, I forgot he withdrew from his Tighar membership. He was always a thorn in Ric's side over a variety of issues. He lives happily in Reno with still one of the best archival collections of AE stuff that I have seen! I think he is most famous for believing there was more stuff going on at Miami than most of us think!! REB ***************************************** Cam Warren was never a TIGHAR member. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:36:28 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Canton or bust Alan, all good questions. "Mysteriously " disappears, who know why but we like conspiracy's don't we? The publication was at first "Confidential" which suggest that there could be some interesting information for cross Pacific air travel. I think the value of the HO 184 was that, as Donahue suggests, it described the various Phoenix islands re landing possibilities. Even some think that a lagoon landing would be better than a sandbar landing. I don't know. What I see in this is that just maybe FN was better acquainted with the Phoenix, Canton or Gardner or Hull, etc to take a shot at it. I bring this to the attention of you experts who may find something in that document to stimulate your thinking outside of Gardner. The doc exists, but I dont know where now, but I shall ask Cam Warren. Maybe someone in the forum knows how to go about finding a copy, if anyone thinks it is worth while. REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:38:04 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Let's try and find an answer to this eternal question. It is generally accepted that no one can navigate from an unknown position to a known destination. Or is it? When I was a young guy, I served in the air force. No, I wasn't a pilot yet. I was a conscript and conscripts were not allowed to fly airplanes. As a conscript one could become either a lieutenant or a sergeant, according to the needs and your abilities. Having turned down a commission because I wanted to stay near my hometown, I became an NCO. And guess what. One of my responsibilities was teaching soldiers how to find their way using maps and yes, that included getting from an unknown position to a known place. And you better found it or you would be in trouble. We were dropped in the woods at night without knowing where we were. We were given the coordinates of where a truck would be waiting until 1 a.m. to bring us back to barracks. The first thing to do was finding where the North was. Then march on in the general direction of where the target of the day (or of the night) was. Of course, it helped when you recognized the relief of the terrain on your map. So did the fact that you hit upon a road with a road sign... Then at least you had some idea of where you were. After some time we all found our way through woods. And we never missed the truck for no one wanted to walk back to barracks (which was about three hours away). What I want to say that given circumstances I believe it should be possible to find one's way from an unknown position to an unknown one, provided Fred Noonan could get a really good reliable fix on the stars, the Sun or the moon. That would have reduced his area of uncertainty. And from an area of uncertainty, one can try to find his target. After all, wasn't this what RAF bombers did at night over Germany in WW II? Navigation techniques being what they were at the time, no RAF bomber could find a target inside Germany by dead reckoning until around 1943. The best they could do was getting to an area some 50 miles from the target. It was only after introduction of radio equipment like Gee and radar that they began finding their way. I agree that they sometimes missed their targets by many miles and occasionally even bombed the wrong city. But as technology improved, so did crew experience. The famous Dam Busters of 617 squadron flew deep into Germany relying on dead reckoning and their eyeballs. They had no other means other than a target run over the Zuiderzee in Holland (which they had to find first). However, Fred Noonan's possibilities were more limited, I'm afraid. His maps showed water. His mathematics had failed. With his stopwatch and the Sun he should have been able to more or less determine the area of uncertainty they were in. Hence the message: "We must be on you but can't see you". I think we all agreed that at that time they must have been within some 50 miles from Howland, perhaps closer. With time on his watch, the compass showing the North and the Sun shining to check their latitude, their area of uncertainty could be reduced. Hence the other message: " We are flying along the 337/157 line". They must have known roughly where they were. From there on their luck was no better than that of RAF bomber crews over Germany at night from 1939 till 1943. The one unforgivable mistake was that neither of the two could work with radio. Earhart shouldn't have been frequency hopping. She would have been able to pick up a signal from Itasca and determine the direction from where the ship was signalling. She should have been transmitting long enough for the Itasca radio crew to get a bearing on the Electra and give them a course to fly. Neither of this happened. Which left the only way out: heading roughly SE and hope to hit upon some island in the Phoenix group. It was impossible at that time to "choose" an island. It certainly wasn't Gardner Island. If the got there, as TIGHAR is trying to prove, they must have been lucky. All indications are they found it. But it remains a mystery why the recce planes from the Colorado failed to find them or their airplane. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:40:45 From: Dennis McGee Subject: "Mysterious?" Ron Bright said: > Warren says that this sole surviving copy has > mysteriously disappeared. Alan Caldwell said > What does that mean, Ron? Why "mysteriously" as > opposed to lost, misplaced, packed up, or thrown away? Alan, if you knew Cam Warren then you'd know the answer; he tends to see conspiracies everywhere in connection with AE's last flight. I've lost track of the number of times he and his friends have insinuated conspiratorial shenanigans in connection with government reports, missing letters, etc. etc. etc. In the world of the conspiracy theorists, there are no coincidences, mismanagement, simple errors, human nature, stupidity, incompetence, or natural phenomena. Everything is connected by a vast watertight conspiracy to - usually - "hide the truth from the American people." Yadda-yadda. LTM, who believes in Murphy's Law Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:19:36 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here For Herman de Wulf Herman, when you say: "it remains a mystery why the recce planes from the Colorado failed to find them or their airplane," it seems to me you're forgetting a good deal of the thinking on that subject that we've kicked around on the Forum, and presented in "AE's Shoes" and elsewhere. Notably: 1. If, as we suspect, the plane had been washed off the reef flat over the edge of the reef by the time the Colorado pilots flew over, it wasn't there to be seen. 2. TIGHAR's 2001 helicopter survey, available to all in the DVD "An Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro," showed that at the probable altitude maintained by the Colorado planes, you can't see even the footprints of a large working party on the Nutiran beach, and can only barely make out a largish man (Bill Carter) in a bright white tee-shirt standing next to a big hole in the ground at the beach/scaefola interface. 3. There's no reason to assume that if AE and FN were on the island, they were in a location where they could have been seen at all. In the videotape of the helicopter tour, I can't be seen even though I was on a well-cleared trail through the Scaevola, jumping up and down and waving my hat. Back in the bush, people are simply invisible. Of all the red herrings that critics of the Nikumaroro hypothesis throw up to flop on the deck, the argument that AE and FN couldn't have been there because the Colorado pilots didn't see them is among the most crimson. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:20:55 From: Dennis McGee Subject: More navigation Herman de Wulf said: > What I want to say that given circumstances I > believe it should be possible to find one's way from an unknown position > to an unknown one, provided Fred Noonan could get a really good reliable > fix on the stars, the Sun or the moon. Herman, you just talked your way out of your own argument. Fred was lost "somewhere" near Howland. If, as you say, he "could get a really good reliable fix on the stars, the Sun or the moon" then he would be un-lost, wouldn't he? He now knows where he is and can now plot a course to Howland. In your example, you weren't exactly lost, you were simply in unfamiliar territory. The difference being you had numerous geographical and man-made features to guide you to your destination; Fred didn't. Just because Fred could have EVENTUALLY found Howland (assuming he had unlimited fuel, water, and food) does not mean he wasn't lost. Even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn. I can not for the life of me understand the argument that a person can navigate from an unknown position to a known position. It defies logic. Where's Marty? Maybe he can straight this out. :-) LTM, who mostly knows where she is at Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ******************************************* Marty is on retreat this week... or is that IN retreat from the Forum? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:22:50 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Noonan's knowledge of the Phoenix Group In reading the recent thread about Noonan's possible knowledge of the Phoenix islands, it might be helpful to recall that before his career as one of aviation's pioneering navigators who personally mapped several routes for Pan Am across the Pacific, he was a fully licensed sea captain who had served on and later commanded merchant ships on trips all over the world. So in my moments of idle speculation I imagine he knew at least something about Gardner's existence and if they did make it there, maybe he'd already heard about the Norwich City being beached on the reef. When and if he saw the huge wreck, Noonan may have known for sure they'd reached Gardner/the Phoenix group. For a real stretch, he may even have had memories of seeing the ship in various ports around the world. Regards, William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:23:48 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Canton or bust Are you sure of the title? There are quite a few libraries that are repositories for US government publications, and I can't find this in any of my ususal sources. Dan Postellon > From Alan Caldwell > > Ron Bright wrote: > >> Warren says that this sole surviving copy has mysteriously >> disappeared. > > Where is there a copy? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:24:20 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here So, Noonan doesn't find Howland. He keeps flying. Finds Gardner, which doesn't look like any island on his map. He doesn't have enough gas to go on, so he lands. Does this scenario make sense? Dan Postellon ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:25:36 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Ron Bright, Who do you consider as "principle players" in the 1937 search for NR16020? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:49:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here You are probably right, Ron that folks will differ on what constitutes authentication but since you mentioned it I am curious as to how a message could be authenticated to satisfy you. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:49:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Mysterious?" Dennis McGee wrote: > Alan, if you knew Cam Warren then you'd know the answer; he tends to see > conspiracies everywhere in connection with AE's last flight. Dennis, I was just hassling Ron as he well knew. Just like when I asked him what would be acceptable authentication of a post loss message to him. I am well aware there is no answer to that. Without AE to say that was her message and she transmitted it there is no possible way to prove the authentication of any one message and Ron knew that when he brought up the issue. For the crashed and sankers no post loss message could have possibly been authentic and there is no evidence that would ever convince them. I wouldn't even bother trying. The mystery will be solved only when the plane or a piece thereof is found. Of course we will be accused of planting it. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:59:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Can't get there from here As you all know, I can't afford to indulge in these daily debates and have any hope of getting this book finished BUT - Ron Bright says: > I personally don't think any of the post loss msgs were authentic, > and haven't seen any that would be considered authentic. Considered to be authentic by whom? Obviously, if you knew of a post loss message that you considered to be authentic you wouldn't believe that none of them was authentic. I think that what you're really saying is that you are not aware of a message that you consider to be authentic. Alan wrote: > Please tell me which one you > think was authentic, beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe just > preponderance of evidence. I guess we must set up a definition of > 'standard of proof", How could we verify that any message actually came from Amelia unless someone could ask her if she sent it? To illustrate this point, imagine what might be considered a best-case "smoking gun" reception. Suppose a government radio operator who was in the search area and was familiar with Earhart's voice, logged an unambiguous identification of a transmission from the airplane long after it could no longer possibly be in flight. Compelling as such an incident might appear to be (there are at least two on record) there is still the possibility of fraud either by the sender or by the receiver. It is, however, possible to quantify the alleged receptions and identify patterns of distribution by time, geography, frequency, message type, etc. The patterns of some groups of signals suggest hoaxes. The patterns of other groups suggest authentic distress calls. The more closely those patterns fit what would be expected of legitimate messages, the more elaborate the hoax would have to be if they are not legitimate. Once you have pinned down where the hypothetical hoaxer would have to be, what he or she had to able to do, and what he or she would have to know, you can then make an informed assessment of how likely or unlikely it would be for such a hoaxer to exist. If you find the hoaxer too difficult to accept,you're left with the only other explanation for the signals - legitimate transmissions from NR16020. > Yours and mine may differ, just like in a court of law. None of the > principal players in July 1937 thought any were really signals from AE! Nothing could be further from the truth. From the evening of July 2nd until the Colorado handed off to the Lexington on July 12th the search for Earhart was driven by the post-loss signals. Itasca was directed to search where it did based on the reported post-loss signals before it was known that the plane could not transmit if afloat in the ocean. Colorado's search of the Phoenix Islands was based on the reported post-loss signals. The reason that the Lexington's search focused on the open ocean is because the captain of the Colorado reported that he had confirmed that Earhart was not on land anywhere within 450 miles of Howland. By that time, everyone knew that the plane had to be on land in order to send signals. If the Colorado had established that the plane was not on land, then the signals had to be bogus. That was the logic for shifting the search to the open ocean. After the search was called off without finding anything, everyone scrambled to distance themselves from the post-loss signals, but there is no doubt that for the first 10 days of the 16-day search they were believed to be genuine, or at least very possibly genuine, by the people directing the search. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:59:42 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Alfred Hendrickson wrote > I'm not sure I follow you. OK. Try this thought experiment. Assume that you are the navigator when AE tells the Itasca "We must be on you but cannot see you". Plot the course from your present position to Howland Island. What is the course? LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:56:35 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Canton or bust I have found some similar books in the Library of Congress www.loc.gov. Naval Air Pilot, US Hydrographic Office 1931 LC control# 44043092, call # 726.2.A4 Also, Pacific Island Pilot (1921) LC control# unk82079377 I think the Hydrographic Office was the predecessor to the Coast and Geodetic Survey. I doubt that any of this stuff was classified, but I guess you never know what the government might classify. If anyone is in DC, they might want to try the Adams and Jefferson reading room and see what they can find. This group of publications may be incompletely cataloged. Daniel Postellon ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:57:06 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Navigation The axiom, "You cannot navigate from an unknown position to a known position" remains true. But, in the examples we have cited, it seems that we can begin from an unknown position, look around, gather some information, realize that we do know a few things, and very quickly find ourselves in a somewhat-known position. (Dennis uses the word un-lost here. I'll buy that!) In these cases, the axiom no longer applies to our situation. It remains true; it just does not apply. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:08:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Bob Brandenburg wrote: > OK. Try this thought experiment. Assume that you are the navigator > when AE tells the Itasca "We must be on you but cannot see you". > Plot the course from your present position to Howland Island. > > What is the course? Come on, Bob. You're getting worse than me. Alan, who thought that was funny ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:09:57 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Un-Lost Alfred said: > The axiom, "You cannot navigate from an unknown position > to a known position" remains true. But, in the examples we have cited, > it seems that we can begin from an unknown position, look around, gather > some information, realize that we do know a few things, and very quickly > find ourselves in a somewhat-known position. (Dennis uses the word > un-lost here. I'll buy that!) In these cases, the axiom no longer > applies to our situation. It remains true; it just does not apply. It doesn't apply only if you're not lost. If the axiom is true, then you must concede that you are lost. If you are not lost, you have no need to invoke the axiom. A difference without a distinction, I guess? LTM, who's not distinct Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:11:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Canton or bust Dan Postellon wrote: > Are you sure of the title? There are quite a few libraries that are > repositories for US government publications, and I can't find this in > any of my ususal sources. Dan, if I recall correctly the minor disagreement had with Cam was a differing view of what constituted support or documentation. I think Cam always HAD some degree of support for almost everything he wrote. He was and is a good researcher. Sometimes it was just a little trying getting it out of him. As to the particular document in issue the title may not be entirely accurate but I'm sure Cam could supply that information to one of us if there IS such a document. In my early days in the service documents were often classified confidential for no apparent good reason so that doesn't surprise me. It WOULD surprise me if there was anything in the document relevant to our case. If you think rationally about it there were no landing fields and a seaplane harbor was of no interest. If AE had to ditch near an island she would just go ahead and ditch, seaplane harbor or not. The best we could hope for would be comments that one or another of the islands had a stretch of reef someone might make a semi crashed landing on. We already know that. There might possibly be information as to potable water or edible vegetation but that is quite doubtful. Even the current CIA data doesn't indicate such. If anyone can think of some relevant information such a document might contain let me know. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:13:26 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Bob writes: "Plot the course from your present position to Howland Island." Good exercise! I don't know how it could be done, Bob. For that matter, I also don't know how they could plot a course to the Phoenix Islands, but they may have done that. How'd they do that? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:47:37 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Alan, Authentication or proof of any msg may well be impossible in terms of "indisputable" evidence. The next best thing, is to publish those several msgs suspected to be authentic, and Ric has collected many, so that we can examine the evidence and give an opinion. For instance the alleged authentic post loss signals received by McMenamy at LA were pretty well disproved by Ric's research. As our President says, " bring 'em on". LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:47:52 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Canton or bust Alan, I tend to agree with you that there probably is nothing specifically relevant to our case contained in the document under discussion. The best relevancy I could come up with would be some general information about the Phoenix Island group e.g. how many islands, long/lat positions, height above high water, etc. It seems that if AE/FN had any more information from the document other than what I note above AND if the post loss messages have any value then I would have expected one of them to identify where they were or at least given some indication as to which island they believed they were on. Lastly, with the fix (no pun intended) that AE/FN found themselves in I doubt that based on possible data in the document they would start hunting for the "best of the breed" island to settle down on. If they landed in the islands I believe it was first come, first served! ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:10:17 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Tom Strang, I really think you know who I am referring to about the principal players during the search in 1937. As far as I know, that after the search was concluded, the Itasca radio personnel, the Coast Guard and the US Navy and Commanders, to my knowledge, didn't consider that any of the many msgs reported came from the Electra. As Ric pointed out, many signals intercepted during the search had to be considered authentic and the Itasca acted upon them. A good question would be did George Putnam, Manning, or any of the Earhart camp, believe that any were authentic after the Navy gave up? In my opinion, The US Navy would not have abandoned the search had they believed that a msg(s) was from AE. CDR Thompson concluded in his report he didn't think any were real. On the other hand some researchers today ( Klaas, Brink,et al) believe AE sent SOSs, positions, etc. as they evaluated the post loss msg records. Ric Gillespie believes that several were authentic. LTM, REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:40:19 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Navigation Bob, Alan, Dennis, Herman, Tom, Paige; help me out here, just a bit further: When AE broadcast "We must be on you but cannot see you", Noonan was lost. I understand that. He was at an unknown position. If we assume that Noonan ended up on Gardner, do you suppose he navigated himself there? If so, when he did navigate himself there, was he navigating himself from: A) an unknown position to a known position? Or B) an unknown position to another unknown position? LTM, who navigated about as well as I do, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:41:13 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Navy cooperation Ron Bright said: > In my opinion, The US Navy would not have abandoned > the search had they believed that a msg(s) was from AE. Interesting theory. How did you arrive at that conclusion? It is my understanding that the Navy wanted no part of this thing from the get-go, and after the Colorado's quickie search effort she was more than happy to hand off this assignment to the Enterprise. At no point did the Navy ever impress me with its willingness to go beyond the basics in their search efforts. By today's standards they did a haphazard and sloppy search, declared AE and FN missing, and returned to the all-important social life in Honolulu. My feeling is that the only way the Navy would've stuck it out would've been if they'd gotten a message from AE saying, in effect, "This is Amelia Earhart and Fred and I are on a island at ((coordinates))." I think Tom King's book and Ric's many footnoted comments on the forum have fairly well documented the lackadaisical attitude the Navy had during this affair. LTM, who really does like sailors Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:42:12 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Ron Bright wrote: > so that we can examine the evidence and give an opinion. That's what I'm trying to find out, Ron. What factors would you apply in order to give an opinion? You see, Ric is presenting not one message but 148 messages showing patterns as he wrote. The detractors will attack not the pattern or the 148 but each one individually. In anticipation of that I am asking what factors would provide satisfactory authentication. If there ARE no acceptable reasons for accepting ANY ONE message then it would be a total waste of time to engage in any discussion with anyone disputing the validity of a message. If you are going to have an opinion you MUST have a reason for giving it. Otherwise it has no value. Personally, I can't think how you could do that. It will break down like this. Those who think Earhart was captured by the Japanese or crashed and sank into the ocean will not accept ANY message as authentic. They can't. They will NOT give any credence to a "pattern." They will ONLY judge individual messages and dispute their authenticity because they cannot be proven beyond any doubt. Those who think she made it to land somewhere will look at the patterns Ric presents and make their judgment based on how rational that concept is presented. They will NOT deal with an individual message. No individual message can be proven beyond a doubt and therefore anyone giving an opinion on an individual message is wasting their time. Opinions don't move the ball. If there is to be a discussion of the post loss messages it HAS to be in terms of the entire body of transmissions, the patterns they present and the rationale for the implications the patterns represent. To that end, there will arise a number of factors to consider. Factors NOT opinions. Good and reasonable rationale. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:25:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alan, We have waited some time for the analysis of a "pattern" of the post loss msg. How do we know if any pattern, whatever that means, will support a post loss msg? Maybe they will, but the point is that the forum wants to see that analysis. (Maybe that chapter is ready to be posted) But I disagree with your assumption that some kind of "pattern'' will be sufficient, compelling evidence to support the post loss msg. More relevant to good evidence Ric has given us the bare details of the at least one such reception, that I could be comfortable in accepting as a legit, although I don't know when it was received (time). Yes if a competent radio operator, who we know really was familiar with AE's voice, heard her yelling out some kind of SOS, position, etc., within say three hours of her last, I could accept that. The Nauru msg of many seems to support the post loss phenomena. But the big question remains. Without a point of origin or position, it may be of little benefit. Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:26:36 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigation We don't know, Alfred. No one does. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:33:45 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Navy cooperation Dennis McGee I am not sure that the right word of the Navy's effort was "lackadaiscal". Perhaps flawed , as mistakes were made in the search pattern, radio efforts, etc., but I believe that the Coast Guard and the Navy made a good faith effort to find them. Read the reports of the efforts, and the time and money. And from talking to the sons of Leo Bellart, the chief radioman, none were more saddened and frustrated than the crew of the Itasca. Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:34:14 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Alan Caldwell wrote: > Come on, Bob. You're getting worse than me. I'll take that as a compliment, Alan. Bob ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:15:20 From: Ron Reuther Subject: Alternates in the Phoenix Islands May 31, 1928 Kingsford Smith, Ulm, Lyons, and Warner fly Oakland to Honolulu in 27+1/2 hrs, Kaui to Fiji in 34+ hrs and 3,300 statute miles, then to Brisbane, Australia in a 3-engine Fokker 7b, Southern Cross. They landed at Brisbane on June 9 completing the first trans-Pacific flight. Cruise about 90 mph. Enderbury Island in the Phoenix Islands was planned alternate if they could not make Fiji from Hawaii. Their route took them slightly to the west of Howland Island. They had consulted with E.H. Bryan of the Bishop Museum in Honolulu who advised them about the Phoenix and other islands which he had visited previously. Sometime in 1934 a Fanning Island tidal flat airstrip about 1000 miles south and slightly west of Hawaii was prepared for trans-Pacific flights starting with Kingsford Smith in November and Charles Ulm in December of that year. According to Donohue, PAA set up a radio and weather station there in 1937. Earhart consulted with both Kingsford Smith and Ulm prior to their separate loss. Ron Reuther ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:20:10 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Ron Bright wrote: > How do we know if any pattern, whatever that means, will support a > post loss msg? You won't. The pattern doesn't support an individual message. As I have said several times if you insist on dealing with an individual message you are wasting your time. No message can be authenticated beyond doubt without Earhart personally telling you it was her and she transmitted it. The patterns indicate AE transmitted messages after she could no longer be airborne and thus had to be on land. You cannot make the pattern into proof of an individual message. I don't know how to say that any clearer. You cannot deal with an individual message. > (Maybe that chapter is ready to be posted) I understand some people are wanting the information posted but I know of no plans to post that chapter to the forum. The book is to be published for general consumption. It is not for the purpose of changing the minds of AES or anyone else who opposes the TIGHAR theory. If it does. Fine. I wouldn't expect it. I don't know when Ric is going to finish the book that will contain those messages. My guess is 2006. It is not going to change your mind or that of any of the crashed and sank or capture folks. I doubt anything will, save finding the plane. I have said this a number of times that no one should anticipate some big smoking gun or proof positive of anything. The bottom line is it will be published when it is published and anyone is free to buy the book and come to their own conclusions. > But I disagree with your assumption that some kind of "pattern'' will > be sufficient, compelling evidence to support the post loss msg. I've made no such assumption OR contention. Nor has Ric. Nothing can support an individual message. Nothing will be "sufficient" to convince some folks. There is no intention to do so. Alan ************************************** As things stand now, we are probably looking at manuscript deadline of October, publication date of April or so. The book is being serialized in TIGHAR Tracks in draft ms. form, about two chapters at a time. This is for the purpose of peer review. It will NOT be posted on the Forum or on the website. The first two chapters are in the current issue of Tracks which was mailed last week. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:22:40 From: Paige Miller Subject: Random Comments Some random comments about today's (received Wed 6/8/05) forum: Alfred, I do not consider anything you have said to be out of line. Certainly I don't consider anything you have said to be offensive, insulting or degrading. In fact, I viewed your screenplay as somewhat humorous while trying to make a point. I would have, however, changed Fred's last comment of the screenplay from "Mind if I smoke?" to "Pass that bottle of benedictine". In fact, I do agree with your later comments that Fred did have incomplete knowledge of his location (or he thought he did). He thought he was somewhere along the LOP running 157-337 through Howland. Given that information and enough gasoline, you certainly should find McKean or Gardner if you so desired, and assuming the information was correct. Pat, are we allowed to discuss the latest Tighar Tracks here in the forum? Alan, excellent comments as always. Ever notice how sometimes books mysteriously disappear? Other times there are messages reported that cannot be documented? Why doesn't that happen with TIGHAR's evidence? Just askin'... -- Paige Miller #2565 ***************************************** Absolutely you are allowed to discuss Tracks here. Perhaps it will generate some interest in joining . We did make the assumption that the Forum would be the focal point for a lot of discussion of the chapters as they appear. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:25:03 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Navigation Alfred Hendrickson wrote: > Bob, Alan, Dennis, Herman, Tom, Paige; help me out here, just a bit further: > When AE broadcast "We must be on you but cannot see you", Noonan was lost. I > understand that. He was at an unknown position. If we assume that Noonan > ended up on Gardner, do you suppose he navigated himself there? If so, when > he did navigate himself there, was he navigating himself from: > > A) an unknown position to a known position? > > Or > > B) an unknown position to another unknown position? Now we're getting somewhere -- no pun intended The answer is "none of the above". Noonan didn't navigate to Gardner, or anywhere else, from wherever he was at the time of AE's broadcast because he didn't know where he was starting from. Navigating is the process of proceeding from a known position to another known position. If he got to Gardner, he did so by executing a successful search -- a process that essentially requires traveling and looking out the window. LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:27:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Ron Bright writes: > Please tell me which one [post loss message] you think was authentic, beyond > a reasonable doubt, or maybe just preponderance of evidence. I keep repeating this but it doesn't seem be clear enough. NO ONE MESSAGE CAN BE PROVEN AUTHENTIC BEYOND A DOUBT WITHOUT EARHART TO COME FORWARD AND SAY SHE WAS THE ONE WHO TRANSMITTED THE MESSAGE. Anyone who wants to argue the authenticity of any single message is wasting their time and that of everyone on the Forum. It can't be done. Earhart is dead. There seems to be a great misconception about the post loss messages. Some seem to have the wrong idea about the post loss messages. The whole point of the post loss messages and the ONLY point is that if just one of them is authentic Earhart made it to land. The crashed and sank and capture folks have to have ALL 148 messages to be hoaxes or they are out of business. The post loss messages don't tell where they were transmitted from. There are not 148 intercepts to follow. They don't tell where the Electra was at any time ever. They don't tell where the Electra was going. They don't tell where the Electra ended up. Ron wrote, "The Nauru msg of many seems to support the post loss phenomena. But the big question remains. Without a point of origin or position, it may be of little benefit." This is an example of what I mean. If Ron is correct that the Nauru message supports post loss the case for survival on land is made and we don't have to pursue the issue any longer. The point of origin or position is not the big question. It is not relevant. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever what the point of origin or position was. NONE. Is there anyone who can't get this through their head? If I sound frustrated I am. I have said this over and over and over and I still get postings questioning the authenticity of a message, where they originated from and how they can tell us where the plane was or is. Once more and I won't discuss this further. No single message can be authenticated beyond a doubt. If any one message is authentic Earhart made it to land and the crashed and sank and capture people can find another puzzle to while away their time. The messages do not tell where the airplane was at any time during or after its flight. They don't tell anyone anything other than did she or did she not make it to land. Nothing else. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:27:48 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Navigation For: Alfred Hendrickson Hopefully you understand and appreciate the emptiness of that area of blue water which surrounds Howland and Baker Islands. This is the neighborhood Amelia and her sidekick Fred were trying to reach on 2 July 1937. Aerial navigation in 1937 was only precise enough to get them to the neighborhood, which is suggested they believed they had accomplished by your reference to "We must be on you but cannot see you" quote. Fred Noonan up to his last recorded flight had his hand in writing the art of aerial navigation as it was being practiced in the mid to late 30's. This suggests to me he had the ability to get to the Howland Island neighborhood and would have considered the possibilities of other land areas to navigate to if Howland was not located within a reasonable time, fuel load permitting. The Phoenix Island Group appears to be a logical choice to divert to under the circumstances present on the morning of 2 July 1937. As Mr. Brandenburg pointed out, being in the neighborhood AE and Fred would be unable to find Howland with their navigation skills alone. They required communication with Itasca to locate Howland. To help you understand the difficulty facing AE and Fred research Ms. Ann Pellegreno's re-enactment flight of 1967 in regards to locating Howland Island. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:28:27 From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Navigation > He was at an unknown position. If we assume that Noonan > ended up on Gardner, do you suppose he navigated himself there? If so, > when he did navigate himself there, was he navigating himself from: > > A) an unknown position to a known position? > > Or > > B) an unknown position to another unknown position? Apologies if I've had an irony bypass here and I may not have taken the thread in fully, but can I suggest that in terms of latitude and longitude we can discuss such a thing as C) starting from a semi-known position? ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:29:02 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Well it is time to put this one to rest. The problem is that the statement was too general. The proper statement is that you can't navigate