Amelia Earhart

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:48:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

Thanks for the link to interesting Earhart information.

You're welcome.

There is considerable speculation that the US government secretly
asked her to do reconnaissance over Japanese held Pacific islands on
her last flight. This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.
http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac...1661_2:113:280

Yes. Fred Goerner and Fred Hooven were great friends.

Those of you who are full-scale pilots can do this exercise
better than I can. We know what time AE took off from Lae,
New Guinea (10 AM local; 00:00 Zulu).

1.At what time would she arrive over islands in the Pacific
held by the Japanese in 1937?

2. How much could she
see at that time?

3. How much help would she receive
from the Japanese in homing in on their allegedly
secret military installations?

4. How many passes would she need to get
herself oriented?

5. What kind of equipment could she have
carried with her to aid her spy mission?

6. How much
fuel would she need to make such a flight and still
reach Howland Island?

These are my answers:

1. She would arrive in the middle of the night.

2. She couldn't make any observations at that time that
would be worth the danger involved.

3. The Japanese would give her much less help than
she got from the Coast Guard at Howland (which,
in the event, turned out to be not much different
from zero).

4. Flying in the dark would require extraordinary
efforts to get oriented and to find the right places
to make observations.

5. Infrared cameras, x-ray equipment, microwave
equipment, high-altitude aerial cameras, magnetometers,
gravitometers and the like were not available in
1937. What could she have seen with the old Mark I
eyeball that would be of any use? If the government
knew where to have her look, that would mean that
they already knew what the enemy-to-be had there,
and they wouldn't need a nighttime spy flight. If they
just wanted her to visually survey the islands, what could
she see at that time of night?

6. My totally amateur guess (TAG) is that she would need
much more than the 1100 gallons her plane was designed
to carry for such a mission. See the Chater Report
for details on the fuel she received in Lae:
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html

The theory that AE was flying a secret spy mission dates from
the 1943 war propaganda movie, Flight for Freedom, starring Rosalind
Russell and Fred MacMurray. It's so much more romantic to
think that AE and FN died serving their country than because
they willfully neglected to prepare for a very dangerous flight
undertaken to make them rich and famous.

Marty

It all adds up, of course. Many serious backpackers cut the handles
off their toothbrushes.

Yeah, I've read that, Dan. I've done a little backpacking myself, and
always tried to keep the weight down. I've also lived out of a
carry-on bag for three weeks on half a dozen trips, but never went to
the extreme of cutting handles off toothbrushes or even scraping that
heavy paint off the toothpaste tubes! (:-))

vince norris

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:48:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.

Book authors will advance any theory, however loony, in order to sell
books, or perhaps to advance a cause they believe in. This is not to
say that Earhart was not doing a bit of spying, but that nobody has
come close to proving it. The truth seems much more mundane: Earhart,
like many another pilot, screwed up. The Pacific Ocean is a large
place, and it is hardly surprising that no one has found the aircraft
or the bodies, especially given the war that soon followed.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:05:14 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

even scraping that
heavy paint off the toothpaste tubes!

I never thought of that!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:32:25 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote in
::

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:48:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.

Book authors will advance any theory, however loony, in order to sell
books, or perhaps to advance a cause they believe in. This is not to
say that Earhart was not doing a bit of spying, but that nobody has
come close to proving it.

Of course, I have no idea of where the truth lies in the case of AE
and FN. However, Mr Goerner made at least three trips to the Martial
Islands as a result of accounts from natives, that American male and
female flyers were captured and held there. Over the course of his
rather professionally conducted investigations, he received firsthand
accounts from solders who claim to have exhumed remains purported to
be those of AE and FN, was encouraged by Chester Nimitz to continue
pursuing his investigation, and unearthed considerable information
previously unknown, such as AE's Electra being equipped with larger
engines than had previously been believed resulting in its ability to
make 200 MPH cruise speed. Several times throughout his
investigations, the government withheld files only to provide them
later due to his diligence. In all, the conclusion he reached seems
plausible, and much of it is corroborated by several disparate sources
who lacked knowledge of each other.

The truth seems much more mundane: Earhart,
like many another pilot, screwed up. The Pacific Ocean is a large
place, and it is hardly surprising that no one has found the aircraft
or the bodies, especially given the war that soon followed.

Of course that is true also. But if so, how would you explain all the
firsthand accounts, the Navy's building an airfield for AE and
stationing ships for her, and all the other assistance the government
provided? Goerner says this occurred during a time when the official
government policy was not to materially support record flight
attempts.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:32:25 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:48:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.

Book authors will advance any theory, however loony, in order to sell
books, or perhaps to advance a cause they believe in.

I'm quite sure Goerner was a pilot who totally believed
the theory he advanced in his book. He wasn't in it
for the money.

This is not to
say that Earhart was not doing a bit of spying, but that nobody has
come close to proving it.

Right. For the die-hard conspiracy theorists, the absence of
evidence is evidence of a coverup.

The truth seems much more mundane: Earhart,
like many another pilot, screwed up.

That seems to me to be an accurate and concise statement
of the truth.

The Pacific Ocean is a large
place, and it is hardly surprising that no one has found the aircraft
or the bodies, especially given the war that soon followed.

The Navy mounted the largest search-and-rescue mission in
its history to that date--but everyone who has read about
searches for wrecks or participated in such searches
knows how easy it is for lost aircraft to stay lost.

Marty

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:49:01 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

... how would you explain all the
firsthand accounts ...

Perception and memory are heavily influenced by non-rational
factors. There is a sad story in Carl Sagan's book, The
Demon Haunted World, of a man who was persuaded to
confess to crimes that he never committed.

If sincerity and conviction on the part of witnesses is the sole
standard of truth, then AE and FN were imprisoned, executed,
and buried on a dozen different islands in the Pacific.

And then AE also survived the war and took the identity of
Irene Bolam in NJ for the rest of her life.

And (to go back to the post that started this thread), the
wreck of AE's aircraft is in New Britain.

And (to take an example not widely known) a seaman saw
the wreck being retrieved from Gardner/Nikumaroro in
the 1970s while he was on the fantail of an aircraft
carrier. [This witness posted his testimony on TIGHAR's
forum. He is unshakeable in his sincere conviction about
what he saw, despite the evidence of the ship's logbooks
that show he never could have seen what he thinks he
saw.]

A simple hypothesis for the multiple sincere testimonies
about AE and FN:

1. The witnesses saw an emaciated woman prisoner.

2. The nearest emaciated male prisoner was assumed
to be her partner, FN.

3. Real atrocities were committed by the Japanese
against their male and female prisoners.

4. After the war--and after the 1943 movie with
Rosalind Russel and Fred MacMurray, people
convinced themselves that the poor woman they
saw in captivity was AE.

In TIGHAR, we call this the "helpful witness syndrome."
It's amazing how much people can decorate and improve
their memories when they think that they hold the key
to solving the mystery.

... the Navy's building an airfield for AE and
stationing ships for her ...

The U.S. and Britain were engaged in a continuous
battle for control of the unclaimed Pacific islands
long before the Japanese were a factor. Placing
an airstrip on Howland strengthened the U.S. claim
that it was part of its territory. I don't know which
came first--AE's flight plan or the government's
desire to strengthen its claim.

... and all the other assistance the government
provided?

AE was famous and moved in the same social
circles as high-level government officials. I doubt
that an unattractive man (Wiley Post comes to mind)
would have gotten as much cooperation.

Goerner says this occurred during a time when the official
government policy was not to materially support record flight
attempts.

The official Navy and Roman Catholic policies against
burying civilians at sea were waived in JFK Jr's case
(may he and his passengers rest in peace). There
are exceptions to every rule (including this rule).

Marty

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:49:01 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

But if so, how would you explain all the
firsthand accounts, the Navy's building an airfield for AE and
stationing ships for her, and all the other assistance the government
provided?

You can dig up a firsthand account about just about anything,
especially if you are willing to be a bit creative. (Think Dan Rather
and the bogus National Guard files.) As for the govt assistance, that
was standard for the time. Think of the support Byrd got for his
Antarctic expeditions--the whole U.S. Navy, basically.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:51:43 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote in
::

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:59:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

I'd nominate Jean Batten of NZ for top honors in courage,
skill, and luck:

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/jean_batten_bio.html

I'm reading Alone In The Sky now.

She wasn't all there psychologically, but neither am I. ;o)

I haven't found anything to support that allegation yet in her book.

I think I read Jean Batten: The Garbo of the Skies when I was
in Auckland (where her most famous plane hangs in the airport).
I didn't bring the book home with me. It traces her peculiar
relationship with her mother from childhood to old age.

I'll have to get a copy. Thanks for the information.

She died unknown and was buried in a pauper's grave. No one
knew of her death and burial until years after the fact.

That sounds something like Florence Lowe (Pancho) Barnes fate, only
not so grizzly. In the end, Beryl Markham was also pathetically alone
at the end. It must be the price of independence.

She seem to have had a lot of pluck from an early age, and the skills
and courage to succeed.

Agreed.

My hat's off to her. I wouldn't have
attempted an around the world flight at her tender young age in the
aircraft available in the '30s. In fact, I wouldn't do it now.

She did some amazing solo flights and survived many hardships.
Her single engine quit while she was on a long leg over water to
New Zealand. She kept at it and got the engine restarted in time
to tell the tale. Her navigation was excellent.

That is the feeling I'm getting also. She seems to have been not only
courageous, but competent aeronautically too.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:55:08 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

She seems to have been not only
courageous, but competent aeronautically too.

Probably a better pilot than I am, but not in the league she was
playing in. I don't know whether it was her own ambition or her
husband's, but she shouldn't have been on that trip.

As I recall, she was basically just a passenger on her first big
flight, to Europe from North America. And, like Howard Hughes, she
crashed a suspiciously large number of airplanes in circumstances that
either weren't challenging or were of her own choosing.

Pushing the envelope is admirable, but in Earhart's case it seemed to
be mostly for publicity for herself and her husband.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net