Amelia Earhart, TIGHAR, Hillary Clinton, Pres Obama.....

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 491

"I do post on "pprune" under my own name on the subject of Amelia Earhart when the occasion arises. Yes, it is spelt with an "A", not an "E"..."

Bu66er I've been thinking that all along, how on earth has this thread got to 3 pages long with the title misspelled?

On the subject of using real names, I would advise caution here because the internet is a big bad place, it may be ok if you are a writer, as a bit of extra publicity is a good thing, but if you have expensive or rare items, that become public knowledge, (remember this website can be viewed by anyone, and cache pages can be googled up) your whereabouts are only a click away!

KET (not my real name)

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Please gentlemen - our moderator asked for some politeness and I agree. The topic is interesting and there is plenty of room for competing hypotheses until, or if ever, the fate of Earhart and Noonan is revealed with solid material evidence. Until then we are simply speculating and if I might be so bold as to say one man's speculation in this case is as good as another's...

But where’s the fun in that? :D

Surely, one of the reasons that the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan attracts so much attention is that it is, still, a mystery; and the enjoyment, at least for me, is trying to solve that mystery, or at least offer a possible solution. What makes it all the more interesting and enjoyable, for me, is that there are those out there who have differing opinions, and enough knowledge, to challenge my theory; this in turn forces me to find out more about the mystery and, usually, to modify or change my theory.

Thanks to internet forums like this I can have these sort of discussions with knowledgeable, if not ‘like-minded’, individuals from all over the world when my immediate acquaintances response would probably be ‘Amelia who?’

I hope I have been polite in my exchanges with other posters however it somewhat spoils the fun if another poster simply states that their preferred theory is correct just because they are ‘older, smarter or better qualified’; maybe they are all of those things but that’s not how the game is played. It has also been known for the official, accepted or popular theory to be wrong and for the amateur to get it right (and the ‘professional’ to get it wrong).

All theories are not equal; if that were true then the ‘abducted by aliens’ theory is as good as any! ;)

Member for

19 years 7 months

Posts: 1,566


All theories are not equal; if that were true then the ‘abducted by aliens’ theory is as good as any! ;)

If they landed on Gardner Island, abducted by coconut crabs would be more like it :D

I notice that the "Spying on the Japanese" hypothesis still attracts much support also. It is amusing how all the various theories attract a burst of fevered support as each is published then quickly fades as another one is posted - we searchers after sensation are a fickle lot :D

I can remember when that was first proposed in fact I still have the book but in the end like all the others it just fails at the final hurdle because the material evidence of the bones is not there. Like the missing skeleton from Gardner - I cannot help thinking that it is very convenient for all the promoters of these theories, whatever they are, that the final piece of evidence that would clinch it is always conveniently missing. Means more book and other media sales. Just like a cliff-hanger serial isn't it. :)

The archaeological aspect of the search by TIGHAR does interest me. Reminds me of a contract job I did once where I was looking for material evidence of an event that took place in the early 1930s that had occurred on a site where there was activity before and after the event - over a time span of about a century. In the end the only conclusion I could come to was that the eye-witness accounts had to be considered plausible however implausible they were from the material evidence. I did get into a spot of bother over that - in fact it all nearly turned nasty. People get very attached to their "memories" regardless of accuracy.

Single events in otherwise temporally crowded areas are not as easy to find as the TV shows would have us believe - especially on a crowded little place like Gardner Island.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 629

Tighar has never, -never- shirked from saying that the one thing they need, and without which they are simply theorists (and I think they've been quite forthright about this) is a piece of metal with a serial number. DNA would also do, but even that wouldn't be as inarguable as that unmistakable number stamped into aluminum a digit at a time.

I continue to be amazed by the unconditional loathing of Tighar--no, please don't tell my why you feel that way, I've heard it all and I really don't care--displayed by many contributors to this forum. It seems to me to be the product of jealousy and resentment over the fact that Ric Gillespie and Pat Thrasher have been able to make a career out of this and other historic-airplane hunts, which is a little like hating somebody because they've made a handsome living out of developing idiotic smartphone apps about birds.

Yes, Tighar is definitely an adventure-travel company. But I have yet to hear a single "client" who paid considerable money to participate in a Nikumaroro expedition complain that they were screwed, they didn't get their money's worth, Tighar lied to them. They have all loved the challenge, the hunt, the companionship.

Ric and Pat have made a business out of it. They did and you didn't. Get over it.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

Stepwilk..
That's a qustion I've always had (and at the risk of sounding naive)
TIGHAR is Gillespie's full time "job" and main income source?

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 145

An Alternative...and Credibility...

To all the followers of this thread...

...and for Mr. Creaking Door, "Yes', there is an alternative.

...and for Mr. McKay....you should know what I am about to relate as you were a reader of a thread I started a couple of years ago.

Search Groups

As I see it, there are four Groups who are or who have been searching for the Electra, containing Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan:

1. The well known Group which in July will return again to Nikumaroro and carry out an underwater search for a Main Landing Gear leg buried under an amorphous layer of coral.

2. Mr Ted Wait's Group which in 2009 has searched the ocean floor near HOW.

3. Nauticos Group who have already carried out one undersea search until equipment failure happened and who are now looking for funds and who will then search the ocean floor in (I take it) roughly the same area as the Waitt Group.

4. The East New Britain Project who search for an aircraft wreck on that island, a wreck which has been previously seen, back in 1945.

I head up Group No. 4.

The evidence we have is very good evidence as the documentary evidence that exists matches the Electra and the visual description of the wreck by the persons who actually did see it all those years ago also matches with the Electra.

Papua New Guinea is littered with aircraft wrecks from WWII and I acknowledge that fact. There are still hundreds of lost aircraft both in the sea around Papua New Guinea and on land, which have never been discovered. Occasionally, as forestry workers encroach on the timbered areas, a WWII wreck will be found leading to closure for the families of the lost airmen. Occasionally a diver or a fisherman will find a submerged wreck.

Our Project seeks a twin-engined all metal, unpainted aircraft without any nationality markings and which could not be readily identified as a combatant aircraft by the Australian Army Patrol which discovered it.

The aircraft had been at the location for some years, to the Patrol it was obviously not a WWII aircraft but they did note that the engines were Pratt & Whitney engines and they did consider it to be "American".

So, I am a sceptic when I look at Groups 1, 2 and 3, doing their attempts at finding the 10E, AE and FN; when I am sitting on the best evidence out of all the lot and yet hardly anyone is listening. I do have some support from the United States but it not been enough to sustain a full-on search using the latest technology as do the others.

Therefore, I will be identified if and when followers of this thread take the time to read the Project website given below.

That should make Mr. Simons happy.

This website was written in 2004 and I have no intention of amending it with the latest research information.

Yes, Mr. Wilkinson, TIGHAR is an adventure travel business and advertising is part of that business. Maybe it is unfortunate that the advertising given out by that Group is regarded by many as "spin".

RPM, FF, TGT...
www.electranewbritain.com

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 145

Full-time job...

Yes, Mr. Boyle, it is.

RPM

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 629

TIGHAR is Gillespie's full time "job" and main income source?

Yes, it is. He and his wife don't live grandly by any means, but they have a lot of fun. Some of us should as well...

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 629

Yes, Mr. Wilkinson, TIGHAR is an adventure travel business and advertising is part of that business. Maybe it is unfortunate that the advertising given out by that Group is regarded by many as "spin".

We're adults. We should be able to decide what we think is spin--isn't all advertising that, as well as all political discourse?--and make our own decisions based on that. What bothers me is the apparent hatred of the spinners, if that's what you think Tighar is. I enjoy the well-informed theorizing on threads such as this, and I'm sure Ric Gillespie does as well, but there's just too much hate. Ric I know is a nice person, I'm a nice person (even though I'm apparently perceived to be a braggart), and all of you are nice people. Can't we all get along?

Member for

19 years 7 months

Posts: 1,566


...and for Mr. McKay....you should know what I am about to relate as you were a reader of a thread I started a couple of years ago.

RPM, FF, TGT...
www.electranewbritain.com

Thank you for reiterating that as it allows me to add my opinion without re-quoting everything.

I honestly admit that to me the New Britain hypothesis suffers from the same faults as the Saipan theory. There are simply too many ifs and possibles and not enough pieces of testable material evidence that is in plain view. Which is to say it is all very well to quote the recollections of someone but without physical evidence to back those claims if we are dealing with location of material remains then we are no closer to a resolution. This is especially true in archaeology because archaeology is concerned with material remains and what light those can throw on historic events.

In my previous post I mentioned one contract job I did where I was asked to find material evidence of an event that had occurred in the 1930s on a site where there had been intermittent activities for around a century, all of which had left traces. This was part of a much wider survey and of a nature that would have created some very expensive problems if true. Now while the witness testimony was compelling there was no identifiable physical evidence of the event and what's more I had equally compelling physical evidence that parts of the testimony offered were, to be kind, imaginary and there was physical evidence that a structure had existed at the spot which would have precluded the activity claimed happening at that spot. My opinion after examining the material and oral testimony was to suggest that I didn't doubt the truth of the event, just the recollection as to where it took place. And that was when it got very nasty. This was a product of emotional responses caused by a fond memory being called into doubt rather than from any other motive. People are like that and for an archaeologist when working with events that happen in the living memory it is a problem - give me prehistory over current history anytime it is a lot safer. :)

In archaeological work the team will actively discuss all sorts of hypotheses as a dig progresses or is being planned. But in the end all these hypotheses are generally reduced as the evidence and data accumulates to a final understanding of what a site represents. That is not to say that future discoveries cannot create a new understanding but simply to say that we can only say what the evidence available at the time tells us.

Now you are a proponent of the New Britain hypothesis using as your prime evidence the recollections of the members of a wartime patrol in that area, and their albeit hasty reconnaissance of a crash site. With Japanese troops in the area they had more pressing issues. Your interesting site tells us that you have made numerous visits to the area. Have you interviewed any of the local population concerning their recollections or general information? Having dealt with indigenous populations I can attest that generally they have a very sound knowledge of their territory's physical features, even if sometimes their memories like with all of us can play tricks. It would seem to me that if any people would know it would be the locals.

However that aside all your efforts have not so far produced one single identifiable fragment of material evidence - I don't need to say that that is the key, not suppositions about changes in flight plans or hypothetical emergency plans or even what is at best an eye witness account of uncertain reliability. Especially as the radio transmission evidence of the last hours of the flight indicates the very strong possibility that Earhart and Noonan were in the area of Howland Island. The US Navy and Coast Guard took that very seriously at the time - they did not at any stage even consider that the pair had returned along a reciprocal course.

Now I am not discounting your theory - if physical evidence like the wreck of the Lockheed came to light to support it I would accept them without demur. But like Goerner's Saipan theory it fails at the last hurdle - lots of memories but no physical evidence and further while not as extreme as the Saipan theory your's still needs a lot of unsupported reconstructions of Earhart and Noonan's actions while on the last flight to make it work. To be brutal and to put it simply we do not know what they were thinking and planning as the hours passed and Howland remained unsighted.

Which is not to say that I am supporting the Gardner Island theory, all I am supporting is that if one last trip can turn up some conclusive physical evidence then we have an answer, just like your theory. One thing in favor of the Gardner Island idea is that it requires a less hypothetical reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's plans in response to the fact that they had clearly missed Howland Island. Far more logical to search using the remaining fuel in the area they were supposed to be in, than turning around and flying back on a reciprocal heading from a position that clearly was not the position they thought they had navigated to. Flying back on an erroneous course simply makes a successful landfall even more difficult.

I said before that some of the archaeological material recovered by TIGHAR is interesting. I might add I am not convinced that the faeces recovered is of much meaning, but the shoe remains are interesting as is that ointment bottle and one piece of aluminium. It would be excellent if more skeletal material was found but again that will only be of use if it can be proven to be the remains of Earhart because Noonan appears to have no known living relatives so DNA or Mitochondrial DNA sampling would be of no use. Of course if the submersible finds evidence of the wreck that would be conclusive. Frankly, given the disturbance of the island by natural and human activity in the last 80 years I suspect that, like your own theory about the wreck on New Britain has to be the default position. As I keep saying replacing one hypothesis with another does not clarify anything, it just creates another one for which supporting material evidence must be found.

So despite all the theories we all still wait for conclusive evidence. I suspect it may still be a long wait. To conclude, until something more material than supposition turns up I'll stay with the most likely result, given all the current proven data, and that is that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan simply missed Howland Island and eventually just ran out of fuel and came down in the sea. Following that they succumbed to the inevitable and drowned.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 145

Testable evidence...

Malcom McKay says:

There are simply too many ifs and possibles and not enough pieces of testable material evidence that is in plain view. Which is to say it is all very well to quote the recollections of someone but without physical evidence to back those claims if we are dealing with location of material remains then we are no closer to a resolution.

Now you are a proponent of the New Britain hypothesis using as your prime evidence the recollections of the members of a wartime patrol in that area, and their albeit hasty reconnaissance of a crash site. With Japanese troops in the area they had more pressing issues.

Our prime evidence is the map with the indelible pencilled writing. That is a clear reference to the Electra. The descriptive verbal evidence from the Vets also fits. I will say that this is MORE than anyone else has.

Your interesting site tells us that you have made numerous visits to the area. Have you interviewed any of the local population concerning their recollections or general information?

Of course I have spoken to the local population, they work closely with me.... they have not seen it, which leads me to the conclusion that it is buried. There are land slips in the area and it is said to be (was) on the side of a hill. A landslip in there could have buried it.

However that aside all your efforts have not so far produced one single identifiable fragment of material evidence

That's obvious, if I had, I wouldn't be writing this now would I ? So, your advice would be to stop looking despite the written evidence and despite the description of the wreckage by people who saw it ? Then all Groups involved should now pack up their kit and sit in armchairs because nobody has found anything tangible - Yes ?

Especially as the radio transmission evidence of the last hours of the flight indicates the very strong possibility that Earhart and Noonan were in the area of Howland Island.

Aah... The S5 (Strength 5). "...They must have been on top of us, the radio was so loud..." Malcolm, with HF Radio that means nothing. Even the Radio Guru on the famous No.1 Group keeps telling the members that S5 on HF does not mean that AE & FN were close to HOW...with HF they could have been S5 from a thousand miles away. He is completely ignored, you still see those members talking about how close they were because of the HF Radio S5.

The US Navy and Coast Guard took that very seriously at the time - they did not at any stage even consider that the pair had returned along a reciprocal course.

That's correct because nobody at the time knew then that is what she had told Gore Vidal. His tapes and that information only became known about in the last ten years.

To be brutal and to put it simply we do not know what they were thinking and planning as the the hours passed and Howland remained unsighted.

Well, we do now know that she did have a Contingency Plan and it certainly was not said by her that she would head for Gardner Island. I doubt she knew it even existed.

Flying back on an erroneous course simply makes a successful landfall even more difficult.

You are definitely wrong there Malcolm, the spread of the Gilbert Islands over 500 miles wide across a reciprocal track would be far easier to hit than any of the Phoenix Group. Flying on her reciprocal, she is bound to hit them.

I said before that some of the archaeological material recovered by TIGHAR is interesting. I might add I am not convinced that the faeces recovered is of much meaning, but the shoe remains are interesting as is that ointment bottle and one piece of aluminium.

The shoe is too big for Earhart. The ointment could have belonged to a Coastguardsman with acne and the ragged piece of aluminium does not fit an Electra.

It would be excellent if more skeletal material was found but again that will only be of use if it can be proven to be the remains of Earhart because Noonan appears to have no known living relatives so DNA or Mitochondrial DNA sampling would be of no use.

Ahah, I know someone who does have Noonan's DNA, so it would be possible.

As I keep saying replacing one hypothesis with another does not clarify anything, it just creates another one for which supporting material evidence must be found.

You are stating the obvious Malcolm, of course to prove it, the wreck or part of it must be found. How long that will be is anybody's guess, I'm doing my best by not aralditing myself into an armchair....

What we lack most is funding and the time to do it. With funding we could most probably locate the wreck with GPR or a good Metal Detector in the likely areas. All of us work, even me at my age so I have to co-ordinate the team to get us all together at the one time.

RPM
www.electranewbritain.com

Member for

19 years 7 months

Posts: 1,566

[I]Malcom McKay says: ....
RPM
www.electranewbritain.com

Thanks for the reply - but again I can only say that there is currently no disclosed proven material evidence of the crash or landing site wherever it may be. Hypothetical reconstructions of Earhart and Noonan's decisions during the last hours of the flight are just that. The Australian patrol's map with its handwritten note from the patrol on New Britain is interesting but that is all - without finding a wreck and identifying it as the Lockheed it remains as valid or otherwise as the claims by the Saipanese witness of Earhart being a prisoner.

As is that claim by a US Marine that he saw the Lockheed burnt. That in itself becomes one of those conspiracy stories so beloved by people that the US Government was desperate to hush up the fact that Earhart and Noonan were on a secret spy mission when they were lost. Why on earth the leading power in the world who had comprehensively defeated Japan needed to hush that up I could never fathom. All they had to say was that they had discovered that Earhart and Noonan had been captured by the Japanese, held in secret, then executed and no one would have disbelieved it - after the carnage of the Pacific War the fate of the aviators was small potatoes.

You say you have spoken to the locals and they have not seen this wreck - given my own experience of indigenous people and their knowledge of what happens in their territory then I would suggest that is probably good evidence that it isn't there, not that it is buried. I am not suggesting that you stop looking for it, in fact as I said if you found it I would accept that and be very pleased for you and from a purely interested bystander's perspective I would say good on you and also be interested to see what condition the material evidence is in.

As for the contingency plan, yes I am aware of that. But that plan all depends upon when they realised that they had not found Howland, and more importantly precisely where they were when they realised that. If they had overflown Howland then that is more fuel wasted and so do they turn 180 degrees and fly a reciprocal course, or do they fly off to the Gilberts and disappear somewhere there or do they fly along the 157/337 line as they claimed searching for Howland or the Coast Guard ship? All we have is that enigmatic 157/337 line message. And two of those lead to the strong possibility of coming down in the sea and the tragic inevitability of that.

If you have knowledge of someone with Noonan's DNA perhaps it might be worthwhile to make that known to TIGHAR if they do find further skeletal remains which cannot be matched to Earhart. Certainly that would help clear up any red herrings that might be raised by unidentifiable skeletal material. I must admit that I find the uncooperative competitiveness of the the various theory proponents as disturbing - no wonder research funding is so hard to come by. If the various groups pooled their resources and canned their egos perhaps then the matter might be resolved.

If you do get the chance and funds to mount another search on New Britain then I wish you good luck.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 145

Stating the obvious....

For Mr McKay,

Who says:

Thanks for the reply - but again I can only say that there is currently no disclosed proven material evidence of the crash or landing site wherever it may be.

Malcolm, that is obvious, we nor anybody except for the Patrol in 1945 have seen it.

Hypothetical reconstructions of Earhart and Noonan's decisions during the last hours of the flight are just that. The Australian patrol's map with its handwritten note from the patrol on New Britain is interesting but that is all - without finding a wreck and identifying it as the Lockheed it remains as valid or otherwise as the claims by the Saipanese witness of Earhart being a prisoner.

Malcolm you do go on.... All this is obvious. Without any tangible evidence "All is Lost"... I couldn't agree more. Until anything is found all is nothing but for goodness sake, just allow me to say that without any evidence such as we have there would not be any attempt "at all" to find anything. Nobody "would" be looking for goodness sake. The evidence we have is very strong.

In a similar vein, where did the evidence come from regarding the tombs in the pyramids ? Should Carter have turned away because a person like you said, "There's nothing there...."

......after the carnage of the Pacific War the fate of the aviators was small potatoes.

Except that they were not in the Pacific War, they "went" before it started and the resultant of their demise and where they are became the Biggest Aviation Mystery in the World.... That's the point, solving the Mystery. You are not in the aviation world but many are and they all, except a few, know about this Mystery. As an archaeologist you surely would like to solve a mystery one day, would you not ?

You say you have spoken to the locals and they have not seen this wreck - .........I would suggest that is probably good evidence that it isn't there, not that it is buried.

So, off the top of your head, you are saying then that 20 handpicked Australian Diggers who grew up together in Perth, Western Australia, went to the same schools, knew each other through their youth and volunteered for the Army and stayed together in one Unit for the remainder of the War are telling FIBS about aircraft wreckage that they saw ? If that is what you are saying it is getting to be beyond the pale. I knew four of them, one is still breathing and they were and are, all Gentlemen, not a dag amongst them. You are entitled to your opinion Malcolm but do not denigrate these men who were and are honourable men. You do not understand Australian mateship.

If you have knowledge of someone with Noonan's DNA perhaps it might be worthwhile to make that known to TIGHAR if they do find further skeletal remains which cannot be matched to Earhart.

Gillespie knows already but he can't access it for a very good reason which I am not about to discuss on this forum.

Certainly that would help clear up any red herrings that might be raised by unidentifiable skeletal material. I must admit that I find the uncooperative competitiveness of the the various theory proponents as disturbing - no wonder research funding is so hard to come by. If the various groups pooled their resources and canned their egos perhaps then the matter might be resolved.

Try defining the word "arrogance" and point it where it fits.

If you do get the chance and funds to mount another search on New Britain then I wish you good luck.

Thankyou for your very kind thought.

RPM

Member for

19 years 7 months

Posts: 1,566

For Mr McKay,

Who says: .....

RPM

The way I see it there are four reasonably possible answers. Note I said reasonably so that discounts being captured by the Japanese and executed (as I said I doubt very much in the final days of WW2 if the fate of Earhart and Noonan was publicly sheeted home to the Japanese anyone would have questioned it or cared, not after the behaviour of the Japanese military in the war became popular knowledge); captured by aliens; repatriated after the war and living under an assumed identity; flying through a hole in the space time continuum and landing in an alternate universe etc. - I could go on but you get the message.

These four are not listed in any order of preference by me.

1. They overflew Howland Island and ran out of fuel and ditched in the ocean. After an unknown time they succumbed to sharks or just drowned. The remaining physical evidence of that would be aircraft wreckage somewhere in a vast area of ocean.

2. They overflew or couldn't find Howland Island and knowing they were lost and, as per the radio message, commenced flying on a line 157/337 which, because we do not know at what position on their original course they started that, could have found Gardner Island and landed on the reef. They survived there for a short time probably only a few days given the local conditions, possible injury and died. Their remains were dispersed and destroyed by crabs and the weather. The aircraft was washed off the reef and lies somewhere in the water around the island at great depth. This is the TIGHAR hypothesis and they have detailed why they propose it.

3. Having discovered that they had not found Howland Island Earhart and Noonan adopted the contingency plan and flew towards the Gilberts. Somewhere in that area they either ditched in the ocean or came down on or near an island where the wreckage might still be.

4. They instead opted to fly a reciprocal course which eventually led them to crash on New Britain which is your hypothesis based on the testimony of the Australian patrol.

In summary then I see four possible fates for Earhart and Noonan of which only one can be right. Which is to say the remains of the Electra can only be in one place.

Your comments about solving mysteries are just emotional responses and not germane to the issue. What is germane is that Earhart and Noonan disappeared and if evidence of their fate is to be found it can only be done in a dispassionate scientific manner. If something is worth finding an answer to then pooling of tight resources is the best way. It is solving the puzzle or finding new data that is important not personal glory. Science works by publication and pooling of data - so far in this issue I have seen some rather amateurish competitiveness, not by all though.

One of the reasons that funds are tight is that this matter is that it not rated very highly in the list of things for which research funding is to be found. There are considerably more important scientific issues than finding the site where two aviators crashed in 1937. The reason being that this does not really advance any new knowledge - it just, to be blunt, tidies up a loose end - it's a footnote not the text.

Regarding the Australian army patrol. Questioning the veracity of what they found is what people with appropriate training, like myself do. As a person who has both a Masters and a Ph.D and has worked as an archaeologist I can assure you personal recollections are sometimes the worst evidence because as the time between the event and the present grows greater all people inexorably tailor their memories. In courts of law both sides in any case will forensically dissect any witness statement because of this human behaviour trait and just because we are dealing with military veterans in this case doesn't alter that, so please do not introduce that peculiarly American reverence for military veterans into your argument, it is just hyperbole and it does not in any way make their accounts any more or less believable. A court of law would not accept that it did, nor would any scientist and that is the audience you are playing to - not the general public with all its misconceptions.

Nowhere have I claimed all is lost - all I have said consistently from the beginning is that the proof of the whichever hypothesis is correct will be demonstrated when the aircraft wreckage is found. I can understand that you have some emotional attachment to your hypothesis given the amount of time you have spent on it but in the end until you find physical evidence to confirm it then the emotional attachment is just that and offers no more clarification than claims that Earhart and Noonan were abducted by aliens.

If Gillespie knows about the Noonan DNA survival that is interesting. You say he cannot access it and that you cannot say why. Sorry but once again we are drifting off into the hocus pocus world of rival theorists and as a person with appropriate training in archaeology I find such claims to be not worth accepting. If there are personal problems involved then my advice is get over it because your task is a lot easier if you do. If he was to find skeletal remains on the next trip and they could not be matched to Earhart then access to the Noonan DNA is absolutely vital to rule the skeletal material in or out. No scientist would accept such a loose end based as it seems to be in some personal issue.

As I have said I hope you get a chance to go back to the site you hold high hopes for and as an interested but not involved person I wish you every success. But then to be fair I would offer the same positive wishes to all the parties involved.

Member for

18 years 4 months

Posts: 2,810

Thanks Malcolm for the rational postings.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

The evidence we have is very good evidence as the documentary evidence that exists matches the Electra and the visual description of the wreck by the persons who actually did see it all those years ago also matches with the Electra.

Our Project seeks a twin-engined all metal, unpainted aircraft without any nationality markings and which could not be readily identified as a combatant aircraft by the Australian Army Patrol which discovered it.

The aircraft had been at the location for some years, to the Patrol it was obviously not a WWII aircraft but they did note that the engines were Pratt & Whitney engines...

...I am sitting on the best evidence out of all the lot and yet hardly anyone is listening.

www.electranewbritain.com

I had a very interesting read of your website last night and I hope you will not mind me quoting some of it here:

The combination of a headwind of greater strength on the way out, no Astro Navigation, failure to reach anywhere close to Howland after searching for one hour, says that Amelia would have invoked her contingency plan. The contingency plan, found in Gene Vidal's papers, was to turn back for the large spread of the Gilbert Islands and to put the Electra down on a cleared area, a beach or ditch close to shore. No wreckage was found or has been found on the Gilbert Islands. As to the position that Amelia and Fred thought that they were at, when the 1912GMT radio call, “We must be on you but cannot see you…” was made, it tells us that AE & FN thought they were at or lateral to, Howland Island. Due to the headwinds and no Astro Navigation, I believe they were short of Howland by as much as 120-150 SM.

In invoking their contingency plan to return to the Gilberts they would not start looking for the Gilbert Islands for two and a half hours, by which time they would have over-flown these islands. Trans-Pacific pilots tell me that the Gilberts are difficult to pick out anyway, due to cloud shadow.

In a turnback and with a lower than published fuel consumption, and the now tailwind at altitude of 20MPH or more the aircraft would have had a groundspeed of at least 200MPH. A return to New Britain is feasible. Rabaul on New Britain had the only two airstrips between Lae, the take-off point and Howland Island, the destination.


Whilst I will be the first to admit that I fall squarely into the ‘armchair aviator’ category I am bound to say that the most glaring flaw is that of the fuel range of the Electra...

...your theory would require an unrefueled range of something like 4,500 miles on 1100 US gallons of fuel.

I hesitate to appear critical because clearly you are passionate about your theory and have obviously invested much time and probably much money into its investigation but surely answering such criticism is one of the things that ‘goes with the territory’ so to speak.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 145

Range

For Creaking Door

I have since modified the text since I wrote the website in 2004 but I am not going to amend the website with the latest research.

Clarence Williams who made up the strip maps for Earhart produced one for the ADEN-DAKAR flight which has a distance of 4302 Statute Miles. These strip maps are "still air" Flight Plans with an average groundspeed of 150 Smph. Divide 4302 by 150 and you get 28.66 Hours or 28:40.

The published Lockheed figures for fuel consumption which most reseachers use would mean that Earhart had to have 1267 US Gallons on board to make that flight when the capacity of the Electra was 1151 USG. There does not appear to be (from what I have read) any means of topping up the tanks from cans on CN1055 as against what was possible on the Merrill and Lambie 10E, "The Daily Express".

By my calculations to make this 4302 SM flight using the Lockheed figures and 1267 USG, the Electra would require a constant tailwind of 10mph but with no fuel reserves. Therefore the tailwind required would be greater if there is to be enough fuel for a missed approach on arrival Dakar.

In the event, Earhert flew Eastabout and faced headwinds across Africa and did not make the DAKAR-ADEN flight non-stop, which "westabout" Williams FP indicates was possible without a tailwind, without a wind at all according to the Williams FP it was possible both ways.

In order to get back to the Rabaul area Earhart would have to employ the fuel economy "mode" that she employed on the flight from the US West Coat to Hawaii in March 1937. It can be shown that there would have been more fuel left over from that flight than the Lockheed figures say "should have" been aboard the aircraft when it landed at Wheeler Field.

On that flight, Earhart pulled back the power to slow the Electra down for the last two hours as she did not want to arrive at Wheeler Field in the dark. In the book "Last Flight" on Page 37 can be found the clue as to how Earhart and Noonan were able to achieve a long distance flight of around 4350 miles in order to get the Electra to where it rests on a hillside in East New Britain.

On Page 37 of the book, Earhart writes in her own hand on a slip of paper: "10,000 feet, 120mph indicated speed, using less that 20 gallons per hour". This is also written into the text of the book.

Note: The speed would be in Corrected Indicated Airspeed (CIAS), term previously used.

There are those that say, "Oh, that would be 20USGPH per engine", but that is nonsense. Earhart was "slowing the ship down" not using Cruise Power which at that stage would be 38 USGPH (Lockheed figures). So, 2 x 20 = 40 USGPH, which is above Cruise Power and she would have still been going fast when she wanted to slow the Electra down.

From what we have in our evidence the wreck on the side of a hill is the Electra from the documentary evidence and from the description of the wreckage mainly by the patrol Lieutenant, who is "still breathing".

The veracity of the Veterans has been questioned, both here and by others. I met all of the four survivors of the patrol and I do not doubt the words of any of them, neither would anyone else who met them. I believe it is despicable to question the honesty of men never met and who had no public personna, no fame in the press, none were celebrities and none have any seedy convictions in law.

Captain Safford USN, came to the same conclusion as I when he worked his figures and I did not know this until I read his book about three years ago. he also has AE & FN "short" of HOW but Safford believes they ditched. I believe they turned around at a point where they still had 300 USG left, enough for the 550 mile turnback to the Gilberts and a search for a place to put it down, a ditance that they thought they had to run to reach the Gilberts.

If they arrived overhead the Gilberts after 1:45 hours which was when at 2200GMT, from Goerner's book, NAURU heard "Land in sight ahead on 6210Kcs, and ITASCA did not hear it then the Tx was too far away for ITASCA to hear, but close enough for NAURU to hear.

At 20 USGPH, the Electra can endure for 11 Hours using 220 USG.

I have said that I do not intend to amend the website. The 200mph G/S is incorrect, I now work at 145 Smph G/S and the Gilbert's atoll of Nonouti is 1590 Sm from Rabaul with its' two airstrips....

That is what I think happened. I'll leave you to work out the out and back distance if the Electra was 200 miles short of HOW.

All I know is that there is an all-metal wreck on a hillside in East New Britain that was seen in 1945 and it has P & W engines and no-one claims it. We have a string of letters and numbers on a WWII map used by the patrol and this evidence points to it being the elusive Electra.

RPM

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Thank you for taking the trouble of writing such an expansive answer; it will take me some time to digest all that. I will have a go at the distances and fuel consumption figures myself, for my own interest (and with my very limited knowledge), and see what I get.

I wish you every success in finding ‘your’ aircraft; even if it doesn’t solve this mystery it may well start another.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

Any idea why the troops didn't say anything at the time?
I understand that AE's disappearance was a bigger story in the US than Australia, but did they say anything at the time? If not, why?

Rather like the Lancaster bomb-aimer who supposedly blew Glenn Miller's UC-64 out of the sky....

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 491

I think it unlikely that the bomb aimer would have survived the war, if he had casually mentioned that he might just have ditched his bombs on Glen Miller, who was I believe quite popular at that time!