Amelia Earhart PNG Theory
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg47.....
Yours in inverted commas and Italics...
"The bones wether they are neanderthal man or whoever has no connection to any analysis."
I am not saying they have. It is yourself who first mentioned 'bones'. You seem to follow the TIGHAR line of thought in that regard.... You are welcome to it.
"The pure facts are that Erhart arrived in the area of Howland with a maximun of an hour of fuel."
Your opinion. No doubt you have run the fuel figures.
"David seems to sugest that she never reached there and somehow turned around and made ENB."
I do indeed believe she was "short of" Howland, yes. So do other people. You seem to have no comprehension of what the word 'hypothesis' means. Basically, when I get down to it, I really do not care about the hypothesis side of this project. What "I" care about is the fact that, on the evidence and circumstances of the happenings in 1945 we have an aircraft wreck which was powered by Pratt & Whitney R-1340 S3H1 Wasp engines which should not be where it is. The American Army at the time had said the engine was a Wasp but had no interest although it was said to them that the patrol thought it to be American. There cannot be a mistake that it might have been a P&W Twin-Wasp either because if they had said it was a Twin-Wasp they would have been interested.
If we knew that there was a recognised missing aircraft in that area gone missing years ago we could point the finger and say, "Well, it must be that one we know is missing." In this case we cannot say that, but we do know that there is an Electra 10E missing which was in the area of New Guinea in 1937 and on the evidence from the Australian Patrol and what is written in the map border we can say it could very well be Earhart's. That is the position we are in. I personally believe it is hers, you obviously do not. Fine, that is your view.
There is no difference between a P&W S3H1 "Civil" engine and the P&W AN-1 "Military" designated engine - It is the same engine and in the U.S. Army use it carried the AN-1 designation. The American arms of the services all had their very own designation for the same engine, none of which were "S3H1".
Therefore, when you talk about an S3H1 and an Airframe with no military insignia being found 40 miles from Rabaul in time of war, it does raise the question of "What is a low-powered aircraft doing in the vicinity of Rabaul which was a Japanese stronghold, the area around it being patrolled by Japanese aircraft.... so 'would it be' a Military aircraft so close to Rabaul or is it a Civilian aircraft that went missing before WWII ? That is the question. Certainly, to the Patrol Leader, Lt. Backhouse, the Airframe looked to have been there for several years. April 1945 was a little more than three years after the conflict started in New Britain. Earhart had been missing for nearly eight years.
"Sorry Mate to rain on your parade but i understand you were a flight engineer. I flew as captain on two types with flight engineers the junior member of the flight deck. Im glad i never relied on him regarding fuel state when a decision had to be made."
You are not raining on my parade "at all"... You are entitled to your opinion. If the rest of your statement above is intended to be an insult to Flight Engineers, I hope you never need the assistance of one again and in your case you seem to be completely sure of needing no assistance whatsoever in whatever result you attain.
Yours in inverted commas and Italics...
"The bones wether they are neanderthal man or whoever has no connection to any analysis."
I am not saying they have. It is yourself who first mentioned 'bones'. You seem to follow the TIGHAR line of thought in that regard.... You are welcome to it.
"The pure facts are that Erhart arrived in the area of Howland with a maximun of an hour of fuel."
Your opinion. No doubt you have run the fuel figures.
"David seems to sugest that she never reached there and somehow turned around and made ENB."
I do indeed believe she was "short of" Howland, yes. So do other people. You seem to have no comprehension of what the word 'hypothesis' means. Basically, when I get down to it, I really do not care about the hypothesis side of this project. What "I" care about is the fact that, on the evidence and circumstances of the happenings in 1945 we have an aircraft wreck which was powered by Pratt & Whitney R-1340 S3H1 Wasp engines which should not be where it is. The American Army at the time had said the engine was a Wasp but had no interest although it was said to them that the patrol thought it to be American. There cannot be a mistake that it might have been a P&W Twin-Wasp either because if they had said it was a Twin-Wasp they would have been interested.
If we knew that there was a recognised missing aircraft in that area gone missing years ago we could point the finger and say, "Well, it must be that one we know is missing." In this case we cannot say that, but we do know that there is an Electra 10E missing which was in the area of New Guinea in 1937 and on the evidence from the Australian Patrol and what is written in the map border we can say it could very well be Earhart's. That is the position we are in. I personally believe it is hers, you obviously do not. Fine, that is your view.
There is no difference between a P&W S3H1 "Civil" engine and the P&W AN-1 "Military" designated engine - It is the same engine and in the U.S. Army use it carried the AN-1 designation. The American arms of the services all had their very own designation for the same engine, none of which were "S3H1".
Therefore, when you talk about an S3H1 and an Airframe with no military insignia being found 40 miles from Rabaul in time of war, it does raise the question of "What is a low-powered aircraft doing in the vicinity of Rabaul which was a Japanese stronghold, the area around it being patrolled by Japanese aircraft.... so 'would it be' a Military aircraft so close to Rabaul or is it a Civilian aircraft that went missing before WWII ? That is the question. Certainly, to the Patrol Leader, Lt. Backhouse, the Airframe looked to have been there for several years. April 1945 was a little more than three years after the conflict started in New Britain. Earhart had been missing for nearly eight years.
"Sorry Mate to rain on your parade but i understand you were a flight engineer. I flew as captain on two types with flight engineers the junior member of the flight deck. Im glad i never relied on him regarding fuel state when a decision had to be made."
You are not raining on my parade "at all"... You are entitled to your opinion. If the rest of your statement above is intended to be an insult to Flight Engineers, I hope you never need the assistance of one again and in your case you seem to be completely sure of needing no assistance whatsoever in whatever result you attain.
Last edited by David Billings; 30th Mar 2018 at 12:44.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David i dont understand how she would be transmitting that they were running a north south line or words to that effect and was short of Howland. Noonan,had been Panams Pioneer navigator. He could acurately plot his westing and the actual wind with sextant shots.He would have run an air plot. It was common to lay off north or south so there would be some certainty about the direction to take when in the area. You are obviously dedicated and its a wondefull interest. In life ive seen many examples of a mistake in analysis and then facts down the track shaped to fit . Ive had glaring examples as a pilot until you go back and start again . Good luck keep it up
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg47
“David i dont understand how she would be transmitting that they were running a north south line or words to that effect and was short of Howland. Noonan,had been Panams Pioneer navigator. He could acurately plot his westing and the actual wind with sextant shots.He would have run an air plot. It was common to lay off north or south so there would be some certainty about the direction to take when in the area. You are obviously dedicated and its a wondefull interest. In life ive seen many examples of a mistake in analysis and then facts down the track shaped to fit . Ive had glaring examples as a pilot until you go back and start again . Good luck keep it up”
[DB: My bolding in the above paragraph.]
With all due respect, Captain…. I think there are a few things you do not understand.
You seem to have completely glossed over the main intent of my last post concerning the identity of “what was seen” in 1945 and gone back to the major part of what we do not know about the flight.
I have lots of patience so I’ll try again and I will stick to the navigational side and radio receptions side of the drama which is what, seemingly, you are stuck on.
We can both agree that the Electra did not land at Howland for that is a given. From that certainty then, because the flight depended on Navigation by Astro, we can say that 'something' went wrong and that 'something' had to do with the navigational aspect of the flight. That is not to say that Noonan was incompetent, that is to say that there was some obstacle to the Navigation which prevented Noonan from directing the course which would reach Howland.
That means there was a problem.... and the first intimation that there was a problem came during the night-flying period at 1415 GMT when only USCG Chief Radio Operator Leo Bellarts heard “Cloudy and overcast”.
That time was a scheduled time of transmission by Earhart but we have no idea from what time the ‘Cloudy and overcast’ conditions had started because previous to that transmission there had been no reception from Earhart since 1030 GMT and that reception was by NAURU, not the USCG ITASCA. At that 1030 GMT call heard by Nauru, there was no mention of Weather.
At 1515 GMT, Itasca again heard “Overcast”
At 1624 GMT Itasca heard “Partly Cloudy”
Note: 1624 GMT is 4:54 Local time at Howland, possibility of Astro Navigation is diminishing as daylight spreads across the sky.
At 1744 GMT Itasca heard “Want bearing on 3105 on hour will whistle in mic”
At 1745 GMT Itasca heard “About 200 miles out. Approximately. Whistling now.
Note: At 1745 GMT it it 6:15 AM Local on Howland (their time of sunrise).
At 1815 GMT Itasca heard “Please take bearing on us and report in half hour- about 100 miles out..."
Note: In half an hour their G/S from the two Tx's (above) is 200 mph into what we consider is a headwind.
At 1912 GMT “Must be on you but cannot see you” etc..
Does anywhere in the transmission sequence above indicate that they were positive about their actual position on their track line ?
The request for a bearing could indicate that Noonan was NOT directing an obvious course off to the "north or south" of his trackline in order to do a pre-computed "Sunline" approach to Howland from the North or from the South. Rather, to me, it indicates that Noonan was indeed unsure of his position on the trackline due to not being able to gain Astro through the night because of the "Cloudy and Overcast" conditions previously reported in the Tx's.
It is correct to assume or is true, that the 157-337 would indicate the use of a Pre-computed Sunline through Howland in TRUE degrees but that sunline existed at 0615 Local. They, are late. Their Magnetic steer on approaching Howland is 068 degrees Magnetic. The wind forecast was from the NE. If Noonan had the Electra steering 067 degrees Magnetic to lay-off for wind, then a 90 degree turn to follow a searching "Line of Position" would be 157-337 Magnetic.
David
“David i dont understand how she would be transmitting that they were running a north south line or words to that effect and was short of Howland. Noonan,had been Panams Pioneer navigator. He could acurately plot his westing and the actual wind with sextant shots.He would have run an air plot. It was common to lay off north or south so there would be some certainty about the direction to take when in the area. You are obviously dedicated and its a wondefull interest. In life ive seen many examples of a mistake in analysis and then facts down the track shaped to fit . Ive had glaring examples as a pilot until you go back and start again . Good luck keep it up”
[DB: My bolding in the above paragraph.]
With all due respect, Captain…. I think there are a few things you do not understand.
You seem to have completely glossed over the main intent of my last post concerning the identity of “what was seen” in 1945 and gone back to the major part of what we do not know about the flight.
I have lots of patience so I’ll try again and I will stick to the navigational side and radio receptions side of the drama which is what, seemingly, you are stuck on.
We can both agree that the Electra did not land at Howland for that is a given. From that certainty then, because the flight depended on Navigation by Astro, we can say that 'something' went wrong and that 'something' had to do with the navigational aspect of the flight. That is not to say that Noonan was incompetent, that is to say that there was some obstacle to the Navigation which prevented Noonan from directing the course which would reach Howland.
That means there was a problem.... and the first intimation that there was a problem came during the night-flying period at 1415 GMT when only USCG Chief Radio Operator Leo Bellarts heard “Cloudy and overcast”.
That time was a scheduled time of transmission by Earhart but we have no idea from what time the ‘Cloudy and overcast’ conditions had started because previous to that transmission there had been no reception from Earhart since 1030 GMT and that reception was by NAURU, not the USCG ITASCA. At that 1030 GMT call heard by Nauru, there was no mention of Weather.
At 1515 GMT, Itasca again heard “Overcast”
At 1624 GMT Itasca heard “Partly Cloudy”
Note: 1624 GMT is 4:54 Local time at Howland, possibility of Astro Navigation is diminishing as daylight spreads across the sky.
At 1744 GMT Itasca heard “Want bearing on 3105 on hour will whistle in mic”
At 1745 GMT Itasca heard “About 200 miles out. Approximately. Whistling now.
Note: At 1745 GMT it it 6:15 AM Local on Howland (their time of sunrise).
At 1815 GMT Itasca heard “Please take bearing on us and report in half hour- about 100 miles out..."
Note: In half an hour their G/S from the two Tx's (above) is 200 mph into what we consider is a headwind.
At 1912 GMT “Must be on you but cannot see you” etc..
Does anywhere in the transmission sequence above indicate that they were positive about their actual position on their track line ?
The request for a bearing could indicate that Noonan was NOT directing an obvious course off to the "north or south" of his trackline in order to do a pre-computed "Sunline" approach to Howland from the North or from the South. Rather, to me, it indicates that Noonan was indeed unsure of his position on the trackline due to not being able to gain Astro through the night because of the "Cloudy and Overcast" conditions previously reported in the Tx's.
It is correct to assume or is true, that the 157-337 would indicate the use of a Pre-computed Sunline through Howland in TRUE degrees but that sunline existed at 0615 Local. They, are late. Their Magnetic steer on approaching Howland is 068 degrees Magnetic. The wind forecast was from the NE. If Noonan had the Electra steering 067 degrees Magnetic to lay-off for wind, then a 90 degree turn to follow a searching "Line of Position" would be 157-337 Magnetic.
David
Last edited by David Billings; 31st Mar 2018 at 03:29.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit more re Howland Island and radio issues
As I was scanning this thread I noted claims of mismatched antenna loading coils, various frequencies used- not used but virtually no mention of who set up the HF cobbled together direction finder on Howland. First my interest in this stems from the FACT that my parents in the 1930's knew Richard B Black who was more than a bit player. No conspiracy theory - but a few facts.
1) Black was a ham radio operator and a naval officer who went on the Byrd expedition to antartica in the early 30's. My folks had a card from him sent from the base re merry xmas.
2) After he left san francisco on his way- his wife got a serious infection in her face, and died. At the time they had a ~ 5 year old baby boy , and my parents were able to take care of him until his family could get to Livermore where he lived at the time - They were apparently in a nearby apartment in the same building..and also work related to my father . . . nuff of the related background..
3) Black was very much involved in using- preparing howland island for a landing place for earhart.
4) Around 1940- they saw him for a short time- and his comments re Earhart were that there were a lot of related issues that had never been made public at that time.
5) I've posted a few links- but the bottom line is that
a) the frequency used was NOT a common use for civilian traffic at that time- and was limited in range
b) Blacks beacon was battery powered and strictly HF
c) Earhart low freq ( 500kc) was unavailable to her re lack of ANTENNA-- or dropped -- or torn off during her last takeoff- pick one
d) Mr Black eventually retired as a rear admiral- and is buried in arlington
e) He also was in Naval intelligence along with being in dept of Interior
6) All of which goes to
a)she was headed for howland -
b) military was involved to a greater extent than known at the time.
Just my two cents
links
Richard Black
From 1933 to 1935, he was a civilian member of the Byrd II Expedition
. . . It was on Howland Island that Black supervised construction of the air strip for Amelia Earhart’s scheduled refueling stop. Black was in the radioroom of the USCG Itasca as he listened to Earhart’s last known radio transmission indicating that she was low on fuel and was searching for Howland island . . .
...In 1938, Black became a lieutenant in the US Naval Reserves, attending the Operative Training School of the Office of Naval Intelligence. A year later, Black was assigned to duty as the USAS base commander, East Base, U.S. Antarctic Expedition...
. . . Richard Black died at the age of 90 on August 11, 1992 and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery . Black’s first wife, Ruth Slayberg, died in 1932. Black’s second wife of 55 years, Aviza Johnson Black, survived her husband. . . .
... Survivors include his wife of 55 years, Aviza Johnson Black of Washington and Woodbridge; their two daughters, Debra Jane Black of Washington and Carrie Elizabeth Black of San Francisco; a son from his first marriage, Douglas F.B. Black of Beattyville, Ky.; and five grandchildren.
and for a related read -
https://earharttruth.wordpress.com/tag/howland-island/
Enjoy - I report- you decide
1) Black was a ham radio operator and a naval officer who went on the Byrd expedition to antartica in the early 30's. My folks had a card from him sent from the base re merry xmas.
2) After he left san francisco on his way- his wife got a serious infection in her face, and died. At the time they had a ~ 5 year old baby boy , and my parents were able to take care of him until his family could get to Livermore where he lived at the time - They were apparently in a nearby apartment in the same building..and also work related to my father . . . nuff of the related background..
3) Black was very much involved in using- preparing howland island for a landing place for earhart.
4) Around 1940- they saw him for a short time- and his comments re Earhart were that there were a lot of related issues that had never been made public at that time.
5) I've posted a few links- but the bottom line is that
a) the frequency used was NOT a common use for civilian traffic at that time- and was limited in range
b) Blacks beacon was battery powered and strictly HF
c) Earhart low freq ( 500kc) was unavailable to her re lack of ANTENNA-- or dropped -- or torn off during her last takeoff- pick one
d) Mr Black eventually retired as a rear admiral- and is buried in arlington
e) He also was in Naval intelligence along with being in dept of Interior
6) All of which goes to
a)she was headed for howland -
b) military was involved to a greater extent than known at the time.
Just my two cents
links
Richard Black
From 1933 to 1935, he was a civilian member of the Byrd II Expedition
. . . It was on Howland Island that Black supervised construction of the air strip for Amelia Earhart’s scheduled refueling stop. Black was in the radioroom of the USCG Itasca as he listened to Earhart’s last known radio transmission indicating that she was low on fuel and was searching for Howland island . . .
...In 1938, Black became a lieutenant in the US Naval Reserves, attending the Operative Training School of the Office of Naval Intelligence. A year later, Black was assigned to duty as the USAS base commander, East Base, U.S. Antarctic Expedition...
. . . Richard Black died at the age of 90 on August 11, 1992 and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery . Black’s first wife, Ruth Slayberg, died in 1932. Black’s second wife of 55 years, Aviza Johnson Black, survived her husband. . . .
... Survivors include his wife of 55 years, Aviza Johnson Black of Washington and Woodbridge; their two daughters, Debra Jane Black of Washington and Carrie Elizabeth Black of San Francisco; a son from his first marriage, Douglas F.B. Black of Beattyville, Ky.; and five grandchildren.
and for a related read -
https://earharttruth.wordpress.com/tag/howland-island/
Enjoy - I report- you decide
Last edited by CONSO; 2nd Apr 2018 at 02:34. Reason: ADDED ANTENNA re item c for clarity AGE OF BLACK BABY ~ 5
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1938, Black became a lieutenant in the US Naval Reserves, attending the Operative Training School of the Office of Naval Intelligence. A year later, Black was assigned to duty as the USAS base commander, East Base, U.S. Antarctic Expedition.
In 1938, Black received orders from Washington to take possession of the British islands of Canton and Enderbury in the South Pacific Phoenix group. Accompanied by Marines and civilian workers, Black landed on the beach on Canton, informed the British official responsible for the island that he was taking possession of the island for the United States , and ordered the Marines to hoist the American flag.
And take the time to look up his background as explained about his burial in Arlington . ..
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rlblack.htm
My point is/was only that he was more involved for whatever reason than is normally mentioned and unfortunately that does give rise to several conspiracy issues re government ' help '
Add to that the PNG issue and unique versions of Wasp engines- and the mystrey gets deeper. IF- big IF plane is found in PNG area- then maybe- just maybe bodies might be found .
Regardless of one's personal view of where Earhart and Noonan ended up, David's research clearly shows there is reason to look thoroughly in the area of the Oz army patrol. I wish I had contacts that might be interested in putting up some money for a well-run search. I have no idea how to start up a "GoFundMe" page on his behalf -- maybe someone else does...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONSO's points re-Radio...
The points below:
5) I've posted a few links- but the bottom line is that
a) the frequency used was NOT a common use for civilian traffic at that time- and was limited in range
b) Blacks beacon was battery powered and strictly HF
c) Earhart low freq ( 500kc) was unavailable to her re lack of ANTENNA-- or dropped -- or torn off during her last takeoff- pick one
a) I take it you mean the 7500 Kcs that Earhart asked for, to be transmitted by ITASCA ? If it was so short ranging and the Electra was also short of Howland (as I theorise in the hypothesis), then it is not going to work. Even if up closer with the noise from the engines and being deafened for 18-19 hours it adds difficulty to be able to get the 'null' she required out of the reception she was able to hear.
b) The battery powered set on Howland. If Black went to the trouble to "purloin" or arrange for a portable HF set to be placed on Howland itself, why didn't he also arrange for a reliable power source (Genset) to also be set up...? Were there any remarks made to explain why that failure occurred ?
c) The removal of the trailing antenna was something Earhart is said to have ordered. It is said she thought she didn't need it.
As an aside, it is interesting that Black was later involved in "occupying" Canton (or Kanton) Island and claiming it for the U.S., thus eventually leading the the bi-partite agreement to both use it ! That agreement eventually leading to the pioneering commercial Trans-Pacific flights into the Southern hemisphere.
Thanks for that CONSO and I see you got the point about the "uniqueness"of the S3H1 being found where it should not be, ideally it should be "they" being where they should not be !
Grizzled...
I wish everyone felt the same way !
The points below:
5) I've posted a few links- but the bottom line is that
a) the frequency used was NOT a common use for civilian traffic at that time- and was limited in range
b) Blacks beacon was battery powered and strictly HF
c) Earhart low freq ( 500kc) was unavailable to her re lack of ANTENNA-- or dropped -- or torn off during her last takeoff- pick one
a) I take it you mean the 7500 Kcs that Earhart asked for, to be transmitted by ITASCA ? If it was so short ranging and the Electra was also short of Howland (as I theorise in the hypothesis), then it is not going to work. Even if up closer with the noise from the engines and being deafened for 18-19 hours it adds difficulty to be able to get the 'null' she required out of the reception she was able to hear.
b) The battery powered set on Howland. If Black went to the trouble to "purloin" or arrange for a portable HF set to be placed on Howland itself, why didn't he also arrange for a reliable power source (Genset) to also be set up...? Were there any remarks made to explain why that failure occurred ?
c) The removal of the trailing antenna was something Earhart is said to have ordered. It is said she thought she didn't need it.
As an aside, it is interesting that Black was later involved in "occupying" Canton (or Kanton) Island and claiming it for the U.S., thus eventually leading the the bi-partite agreement to both use it ! That agreement eventually leading to the pioneering commercial Trans-Pacific flights into the Southern hemisphere.
Thanks for that CONSO and I see you got the point about the "uniqueness"of the S3H1 being found where it should not be, ideally it should be "they" being where they should not be !
Grizzled...
I wish everyone felt the same way !
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the SH1- wasp - I recall but cannot find that many years ago [early internet ?] or somewhere there was a ' story ' that the higher power WASP engine at that time was NOT known outside of Military- and not available to ' civilians' - thus contributing to at least one conspiracy theory re her real mission was to find out what the japanese were really doing- by allowing her to deviate from planned route ( at a higher speed ? ) and then come close to landing at ' planned' time, etc.
And you might be interested in checking with a relatively new ' exhibit ' re Earhart at the
Home | The Museum of Flight
in Seattle. I have not been there since they opened a display of her story
Lockheed Model 10-E Electra | The Museum of Flight
In 1994, aviatrix Linda Finch happened upon this aircraft and, after a phenomenal restoration project, aided greatly by Pratt & Whitney, builder of the original engines, set out on an around-the-world flight in March 1997, the 60th anniversary of Amelia Earhart's attempt, replicating, insofar as possible, Earhart's original flight plan. Although she did not stop at Howland Island, due to the deterioration of the landing strip there, she did drop a wreath near the island to remember the ill-fated crew and her sister aviator. Now configured and marked precisely like Amelia Earhart's classic aircraft, this Electra will serve as a tangible and exceptionally appropriate reminder of a vibrant and memorable pioneer, and inspiration to generations of young women who will follow in her footsteps.
Located on top- it would seem that a null or poor reception would be guaranteed IF the station were at right angles to the plane due to shielding by the wing(s) and motors and resulting static of generators at the time, etc and BELOW the plane. Seems to me that ' poor reception ' angles could NOW be dedtermined with much more accuracy than known/available at the time ??
Just some general points FYI:
LF (500KHz) will travel further as a ground wave, and be less affected by 'things in the way', than MF (7.5MHz). VLF goes even further (and is what is used for sub traffic).
7.5 MHz is not that high, ionospheric conditions (as previously discussed) can make a significant impact to propagation on this frequency. Signals could arrive at the receiver direct (ground wave), long path ('bounced' around the world the long way), or short path ('bounced' the shortest distance).
The position of a DF loop on an aircraft at these frequencies may not have a major affect on its operation. I stress 'may' because I've not operated such a system in exactly this scenario, however other (extensive) experience suggests it's unlikely to make much difference. Perhaps there's someone reading this who could comment further?
I expect what could impact accuracy is any propagation or reflection occurring at the time - and any differences in this between fixes. Unfamiliarity with the equipment and its use (which I understand could be an issue here) would also be an important factor in efficacy of operation. Certainly later gear is better, what Amelia had was very simple.
FP.
LF (500KHz) will travel further as a ground wave, and be less affected by 'things in the way', than MF (7.5MHz). VLF goes even further (and is what is used for sub traffic).
7.5 MHz is not that high, ionospheric conditions (as previously discussed) can make a significant impact to propagation on this frequency. Signals could arrive at the receiver direct (ground wave), long path ('bounced' around the world the long way), or short path ('bounced' the shortest distance).
The position of a DF loop on an aircraft at these frequencies may not have a major affect on its operation. I stress 'may' because I've not operated such a system in exactly this scenario, however other (extensive) experience suggests it's unlikely to make much difference. Perhaps there's someone reading this who could comment further?
I expect what could impact accuracy is any propagation or reflection occurring at the time - and any differences in this between fixes. Unfamiliarity with the equipment and its use (which I understand could be an issue here) would also be an important factor in efficacy of operation. Certainly later gear is better, what Amelia had was very simple.
FP.
Last edited by First_Principal; 4th Apr 2018 at 20:23. Reason: Oops, got a 'K' where an 'M' should go..
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The max. power in the Wasp R-1340 range of engines was 600 H.P. up from the normal rating of 550 H.P., except that is, for the Australian Wirraway the licence built Wasp was rated at 650 H.P. driving a three-blade propeller though a reduction gearbox (-G suffix).
For Earhart this 600 H.P. was achieved by the use of 100 Octane for take-off the fuel higher octane number orevention "pre-detonation"or "Knock". According to a contributor to the TiGHAR Forum years ago, the 550 rating was changed to 600 in 1941, probably when 100 Octane became more freely available.
Th next higher rating was with the P & W Hornet R-1690 of 700 H.P. used in the Martin bomber of the mid-30's (B10/B13) this engine eventually achieved 825 H.P.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are most probably right- but I'll try a deeper search- which may well have been a mixed memory recall of just ONE of the 3 digit conspiracy theories- meanwhile
https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/am...ecial-nr16020/
seems to confirm the SH1- wasp
https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/am...ecial-nr16020/
seems to confirm the SH1- wasp
Last edited by CONSO; 3rd Apr 2018 at 23:08. Reason: correct miswording
For those not familiar with LiDAR, there is an article about locating mallee fowl mounds with some excellent examples of the results...latest e-mag
Bush Heritage Australia site www.bushheritage.org.au
Regarding HF radio as with AE...wasnt there some mix-up/ Murphys Law built in with the aerial switch box number and the HF number not matching,
ie Switch 2 was for frequency 5 ?? or some such. From Long's book ??
And then there were the transmit and receive times... and differing time zones, clock settings for that.
And probably a gremlin or two sitting on the wing...watching and waiting !
After the long day and thru the night and then on to ...wherever, AE must have been 'bombed out' of her brain with fatigue, discomfort, lack of sleep and noise.
Bush Heritage Australia site www.bushheritage.org.au
Regarding HF radio as with AE...wasnt there some mix-up/ Murphys Law built in with the aerial switch box number and the HF number not matching,
ie Switch 2 was for frequency 5 ?? or some such. From Long's book ??
And then there were the transmit and receive times... and differing time zones, clock settings for that.
And probably a gremlin or two sitting on the wing...watching and waiting !
After the long day and thru the night and then on to ...wherever, AE must have been 'bombed out' of her brain with fatigue, discomfort, lack of sleep and noise.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience with loop antennas is with early DF. You rotated the loop until a guestimation of the abeam and with the BFO on, you found the null, then ant to ident. You then selected ADF and hay presto the needle should point at the station subject to interference from cloud and rain.Previously it was head or tail of the needle. Erhart lost her trailing antenna either by design or accident . It was normally only lost landing when you forgot to wind it in . Apparently the fixed loading coil for the HF was not compatable.
David cant believe they were not able to get a star shot over 20hrs plus. The departure was delayed a day apparently, to get an accurate time check. This then gives an accurate westing .
You talk about a hypothesis which you confuse with facts . You start with the fact that the AC never arrived at Howland and yes as you say we agree. The hypothesis is she ended up in ENB which you regard as fact . Between the fact and the hypothicals is a list of assumptions you treat as facts,this is refered to as "begging the question ".
The PX D7s had no GPS.It had Omega only.
If they arrived in the vicinity of Howland and then turned around for ENB and crashed a total of not less than 35hrs why head for the Binings when there was Rabaul airport as it would be late afternoon. They reported low on fuel looking for Howland
David cant believe they were not able to get a star shot over 20hrs plus. The departure was delayed a day apparently, to get an accurate time check. This then gives an accurate westing .
You talk about a hypothesis which you confuse with facts . You start with the fact that the AC never arrived at Howland and yes as you say we agree. The hypothesis is she ended up in ENB which you regard as fact . Between the fact and the hypothicals is a list of assumptions you treat as facts,this is refered to as "begging the question ".
The PX D7s had no GPS.It had Omega only.
If they arrived in the vicinity of Howland and then turned around for ENB and crashed a total of not less than 35hrs why head for the Binings when there was Rabaul airport as it would be late afternoon. They reported low on fuel looking for Howland
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It appears that you have some sort of agenda here Greg. Either that or your reading and comprehension skills are lacking.
I believe that David has addressed each question that you have shrilly thrust forth.
Everything here is a hypothesis. The known recorded facts have been publicly available for decades. Your repeated prickly posts ruin a very interesting thread.
I admire David for his insightful thoughts, beliefs and agreeable writing style, as well as putting his own money and time into something historically significant.
Your inability to remain civil in offering a counter opinion, reveal more about yourself than about David.
I believe that David has addressed each question that you have shrilly thrust forth.
Everything here is a hypothesis. The known recorded facts have been publicly available for decades. Your repeated prickly posts ruin a very interesting thread.
I admire David for his insightful thoughts, beliefs and agreeable writing style, as well as putting his own money and time into something historically significant.
Your inability to remain civil in offering a counter opinion, reveal more about yourself than about David.
Someone above said wouldn’t they have headed to Rabaul?
Someone else pointed out tired, fatigued, and on it goes....
Turned around for the contingency plan and at that point would probably have been desperate for any land let alone an airstrip.
Find land... no more fuel... into the trees...
There’s one way to put this to bed... HELP DAVID RAISE 10 grand. I’ve donated enough for one shovel however if there is a commitment I’ll up that to 5 shovels (BTW I gave $100, yes an expensive shovel).
So there have been a lot of views of this post, a lot of replies, what’s $100 to you... Go on you know you want to!!!
Someone else pointed out tired, fatigued, and on it goes....
Turned around for the contingency plan and at that point would probably have been desperate for any land let alone an airstrip.
Find land... no more fuel... into the trees...
There’s one way to put this to bed... HELP DAVID RAISE 10 grand. I’ve donated enough for one shovel however if there is a commitment I’ll up that to 5 shovels (BTW I gave $100, yes an expensive shovel).
So there have been a lot of views of this post, a lot of replies, what’s $100 to you... Go on you know you want to!!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Greg47
“David cant believe they were not able to get a star shot over 20hrs plus.”
You have a ‘double negative’ there which makes your statement a positive one that I do believe that they were able to obtain a star shot and that is correct, I do not think that is what you wanted to convey. In any case, what you intended it to say is not correct.
Yes, of course I do indeed believe that they obtained star shots. It is said that in the Atlantic flight Noonan only took star shots every 2 to 3 hours, if that is to be believed about his modus operandi. Fact is because of nightfall in that part of the world we are now concerned with, the earliest he could start taking star shots would be just after Nukumanu which was passed around 0715 GMT, 5:45 pm Local time. Top of Climb was around 0800 GMT as per Harry Balfour receiving her “On course for Howland at 12,000 feet”. It makes sense to me if Noonan took a shot then, because he would get a time and distance from Nukumanu after the climb phase and establish himself on a position within a 10 mile “Circle of Position” giving him an average groundspeed over the climb to further pinpoint himself in the TOC CoP.. To check his drift at the new altitude (10,000 or 12,000) he would need another Astro shot after a half-hour or an hour at the most which would be 0900 GMT at the latest and again establish himself also within his 10 mile CoP, obtain a Groundspeed and a wind and an ETA for the USS ONTARIO. From that one shot he corrects any drift and he directs his course to the stated position of the ONTARIO for which he has been given a position in Lat/Long.
On arrival at the ship (Ref: Tx “Ship in sight ahead”), did he check that position at the ONTARIO by Astro ? I hope he did because the ONTARIO was 27 Statute miles out of the USN required position and was making revolutions to counter a 20 Knot surface wind from 082 degrees.
After that, we know very little for 3 hours and 45 minutes until 1415 GMT when Earhart said, “Cloudy and Overcast”…. So, you tell me: Did they get Astro then or after then ? They certainly did not land at Howland, my conclusion is “NO”. What is your conclusion ?
“You talk about a hypothesis which you confuse with facts . You start with the fact that the AC never arrived at Howland and yes as you say we agree.”
You seem not to understand that there will be facts in a Hypothesis. A Hypothesis is not a bare guess, it has to have some facts which support it. I cannot just say, “She flew out from LAE, didn’t get to HOWLAND and crashed near RABAUL”. That plain and simply does not constitute a Hypothesis, it is a Statement. I can’t help your confusion. I have thousands more electrode snaps going off in by brain from all the information I store about this project than you could possible have and I do get confused myself at times as ‘senior moments’ arise. Please read the information supplied to you, a suggestion which has been made to you a few times by readers of this thread.
“The hypothesis is she ended up in ENB which you regard as fact.”
No, again, not quite correct. From the evidence as displayed, the Factual side says Earhart and Noonan ended up on ENB and I believe the Factual side, so I believe it is her Electra. The Hypothesis side is only a possible explanation of the “how” in “how” their arrival into ENB could have happened.
“Between the fact and the hypothicals is a list of assumptions you treat as facts,this is refered to as "begging the question ".”
Please point them out for discussion.
“The PX D7s had no GPS.It had Omega only.”
I am enlightened. Omega supplied the information to Captain M.R.. On the Ferry of the Dash 7 he flew, he was in receipt of a very nice quartering Tailwind, about which he informed me… in a conversation I had with him
“If they arrived in the vicinity of Howland and then turned around for ENB and crashed a total of not less than 35hrs why head for the Binings when there was Rabaul airport as it would be late afternoon.”
What is your interpretation of the word vicinity ?
Well, in regard to time…. In the Hypothesis, I made it 7:00pm so it would be dark. I don’t have them going for the Bainings Mountains. Would the street lights in Rabaul be on in July 1937 ? What happened after Matupit and Vulcan erupted in 1937, did they have power to spare at night ? Would Lakunai runway be lit up with kerosene gooseneck lamps ? Did they have any goosenecks at all if there was no night flying in New Guinea and the Islands in 1937 ? Bitapaka Radio did not have 6210 Kcs as a frequency anyway and Mr. Twycross had most probably gone home for dinner by 5 o/clock or when it started to get dark.
“They reported low on fuel looking for Howland.”
What was actually said and what is actually meant are two different things. Do you accept that as a pilot you are given an aircraft loaded with fuel and someone hands you a task that means you are to fly 2500 miles out over water to a dust speck with the early part of the flight in daylight followed by at least ten hurs of night flying to arrive overhead that speck with one hour of fuel remaining....
What is the first thing you say ?
Did you perhaps consider what she meant was “I have a half-hour of fuel left before I get down to my reserve fuel” ? In any case she was back on the radio one hour after the “Only half an hour’ call…..
Since that flight we now know that there was a Contingency Plan to head for The Gilberts Islands which lay at least 4 hours back on their reciprocal. That alone says they would have had more than an hour remaining.
David
“David cant believe they were not able to get a star shot over 20hrs plus.”
You have a ‘double negative’ there which makes your statement a positive one that I do believe that they were able to obtain a star shot and that is correct, I do not think that is what you wanted to convey. In any case, what you intended it to say is not correct.
Yes, of course I do indeed believe that they obtained star shots. It is said that in the Atlantic flight Noonan only took star shots every 2 to 3 hours, if that is to be believed about his modus operandi. Fact is because of nightfall in that part of the world we are now concerned with, the earliest he could start taking star shots would be just after Nukumanu which was passed around 0715 GMT, 5:45 pm Local time. Top of Climb was around 0800 GMT as per Harry Balfour receiving her “On course for Howland at 12,000 feet”. It makes sense to me if Noonan took a shot then, because he would get a time and distance from Nukumanu after the climb phase and establish himself on a position within a 10 mile “Circle of Position” giving him an average groundspeed over the climb to further pinpoint himself in the TOC CoP.. To check his drift at the new altitude (10,000 or 12,000) he would need another Astro shot after a half-hour or an hour at the most which would be 0900 GMT at the latest and again establish himself also within his 10 mile CoP, obtain a Groundspeed and a wind and an ETA for the USS ONTARIO. From that one shot he corrects any drift and he directs his course to the stated position of the ONTARIO for which he has been given a position in Lat/Long.
On arrival at the ship (Ref: Tx “Ship in sight ahead”), did he check that position at the ONTARIO by Astro ? I hope he did because the ONTARIO was 27 Statute miles out of the USN required position and was making revolutions to counter a 20 Knot surface wind from 082 degrees.
After that, we know very little for 3 hours and 45 minutes until 1415 GMT when Earhart said, “Cloudy and Overcast”…. So, you tell me: Did they get Astro then or after then ? They certainly did not land at Howland, my conclusion is “NO”. What is your conclusion ?
“You talk about a hypothesis which you confuse with facts . You start with the fact that the AC never arrived at Howland and yes as you say we agree.”
You seem not to understand that there will be facts in a Hypothesis. A Hypothesis is not a bare guess, it has to have some facts which support it. I cannot just say, “She flew out from LAE, didn’t get to HOWLAND and crashed near RABAUL”. That plain and simply does not constitute a Hypothesis, it is a Statement. I can’t help your confusion. I have thousands more electrode snaps going off in by brain from all the information I store about this project than you could possible have and I do get confused myself at times as ‘senior moments’ arise. Please read the information supplied to you, a suggestion which has been made to you a few times by readers of this thread.
“The hypothesis is she ended up in ENB which you regard as fact.”
No, again, not quite correct. From the evidence as displayed, the Factual side says Earhart and Noonan ended up on ENB and I believe the Factual side, so I believe it is her Electra. The Hypothesis side is only a possible explanation of the “how” in “how” their arrival into ENB could have happened.
“Between the fact and the hypothicals is a list of assumptions you treat as facts,this is refered to as "begging the question ".”
Please point them out for discussion.
“The PX D7s had no GPS.It had Omega only.”
I am enlightened. Omega supplied the information to Captain M.R.. On the Ferry of the Dash 7 he flew, he was in receipt of a very nice quartering Tailwind, about which he informed me… in a conversation I had with him
“If they arrived in the vicinity of Howland and then turned around for ENB and crashed a total of not less than 35hrs why head for the Binings when there was Rabaul airport as it would be late afternoon.”
What is your interpretation of the word vicinity ?
Well, in regard to time…. In the Hypothesis, I made it 7:00pm so it would be dark. I don’t have them going for the Bainings Mountains. Would the street lights in Rabaul be on in July 1937 ? What happened after Matupit and Vulcan erupted in 1937, did they have power to spare at night ? Would Lakunai runway be lit up with kerosene gooseneck lamps ? Did they have any goosenecks at all if there was no night flying in New Guinea and the Islands in 1937 ? Bitapaka Radio did not have 6210 Kcs as a frequency anyway and Mr. Twycross had most probably gone home for dinner by 5 o/clock or when it started to get dark.
“They reported low on fuel looking for Howland.”
What was actually said and what is actually meant are two different things. Do you accept that as a pilot you are given an aircraft loaded with fuel and someone hands you a task that means you are to fly 2500 miles out over water to a dust speck with the early part of the flight in daylight followed by at least ten hurs of night flying to arrive overhead that speck with one hour of fuel remaining....
What is the first thing you say ?
Did you perhaps consider what she meant was “I have a half-hour of fuel left before I get down to my reserve fuel” ? In any case she was back on the radio one hour after the “Only half an hour’ call…..
Since that flight we now know that there was a Contingency Plan to head for The Gilberts Islands which lay at least 4 hours back on their reciprocal. That alone says they would have had more than an hour remaining.
David
Last edited by David Billings; 6th Apr 2018 at 19:32.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Whole Thing…
It is a long story and there are some things that we know and an awful lot that we do not know. What I have to do as the person leading this project is to try and put the events into some sort of order to relate what we know and to try to provide an answer as to how the questionable points of what we do not know are explained and give a reasonable answer which satisfies the curiosity of persons interested in the project.
This then resulted in the story as related in the website which at first discusses what we know and then develops into an explanation of what could have happened in relation to what we do not know.
The website story is very long and takes time to digest…. I know that, but it is the only way to get all the myriad of points laid out that people can see. Obviously, I know that some people cannot accept my explanations but if they accept the facts of the “find in the jungle” then they must accept that “somehow” the aircraft managed to get back over land and at fuel exhaustion, crashed into the trees.
I have continually stated that there are two sides to this project:
The Factual side is the first side
This Factual side contains what we do know about the find in the jungle and the events and circumstance that happened from the 1937 groundloop accident at Ford Island in March of that year, through the 1945 events and the discovery of the reference to Earhart’s aircraft on a WWII Map in 1994 and a few other points.
From this Factual side, I and others, do honestly believe on the evidence we have, that the wreckage seen by the Diggers was the elusive Electra belonging to Earhart. This factual side required “detective work” and through that work, it checks out against what we know.
For me the question remains that there is an aircraft there with a big question mark over it and wherever there is “that” question people will want to know if it is Earhart’s, therefore the Factual side of the project must be continued.
The Hypothesis side is the second side
This side of the story is like watching a “who did it” TV documentary which leaves an answer for some people but no answers for others. It is a Hypothesis, but it has to provide a “reasonable and plausible” explanation. That explanation has to be a feasible answer as to how an aircraft built as a gasoline tanker to break records could achieve a long out and return flight and be where it is on a ridgeline in East New Britain.
As a Hypothesis it is up for debate as all Hypotheses are and if it is not agreed to then the debate ranges from one side to the other until both sides are satisfies that the hypothesis “is a proven” and satisfies all. If a “satisfies all” agreement cannot be achieved then those that disagree fall out and those that agree remain, that is how hypotheses work.
Do I believe my own Hypothesis, “Yes and No”, I will say that it is feasible because I used standard aeronautical equations and standard power equations to drive it. However, I am not satisfied that the basis for the hypothesis is correct because I cannot prove it and never will.
What is the basis for the Hypothesis ? I do sincerely believe that at Nukumanu, when they discovered the wind was double the forecast, the combination of the Fuel Plan and the Navigation Plot had to be changed “if” they were to continue. Their original ETA at Howland could not stand as it had been made on a forecast that had now been shown to be wrong.
No “Local” weather man had given the forecast, the forecast for her, of weather in the Southern Hemishere had come from a USN source in Hawaii in the Northern Hemisphere. We are talking here of 1937 and transmission of weather data from scattered outposts over a vast area collated at a single point over many days culminating in a best guess. No SAT information then. I say they should have turned back because that is what I would want to do but I am not they and they were about getting to the U.S. by the “Fourth of July” for a Joyous Welcome.
The single most important commodity on the aircraft was “The FUEL” and with the new wind, fuel had to be conserved. That is the basis of the Hypothesis.
How do you conserve Fuel ? Working against the conservation of fuel is the Headwind and the low Altitude and any possible Mistakes in the handing of the engines. I worked the Hypothesis at 10,000 feet. I started with 1100 USG. Did they go to 12,000 feet and stay there ? Did Earhart use Lean of Peak ? Did they start with 1100 USG or did they have 1151 USG ? So it goes on…….
Alternative Hypotheses
I have no problem with anyone questioning the Hypothesis that I have put out but if they retain their interest in the Factual side and continue to chip away at the Hypothesis side, then I do have a question for people who do that and that is that “they provide an Alternative Hypothesis” as a response.
A Hypothesis is for debate, “Hit and Run” is NOT the answer, that gets us nowhere.
If people have no interest in the Factual side and completely dismiss it, then they have no business even in contemplating the Hypothesis side.
David.
It is a long story and there are some things that we know and an awful lot that we do not know. What I have to do as the person leading this project is to try and put the events into some sort of order to relate what we know and to try to provide an answer as to how the questionable points of what we do not know are explained and give a reasonable answer which satisfies the curiosity of persons interested in the project.
This then resulted in the story as related in the website which at first discusses what we know and then develops into an explanation of what could have happened in relation to what we do not know.
The website story is very long and takes time to digest…. I know that, but it is the only way to get all the myriad of points laid out that people can see. Obviously, I know that some people cannot accept my explanations but if they accept the facts of the “find in the jungle” then they must accept that “somehow” the aircraft managed to get back over land and at fuel exhaustion, crashed into the trees.
I have continually stated that there are two sides to this project:
The Factual side is the first side
This Factual side contains what we do know about the find in the jungle and the events and circumstance that happened from the 1937 groundloop accident at Ford Island in March of that year, through the 1945 events and the discovery of the reference to Earhart’s aircraft on a WWII Map in 1994 and a few other points.
From this Factual side, I and others, do honestly believe on the evidence we have, that the wreckage seen by the Diggers was the elusive Electra belonging to Earhart. This factual side required “detective work” and through that work, it checks out against what we know.
For me the question remains that there is an aircraft there with a big question mark over it and wherever there is “that” question people will want to know if it is Earhart’s, therefore the Factual side of the project must be continued.
The Hypothesis side is the second side
This side of the story is like watching a “who did it” TV documentary which leaves an answer for some people but no answers for others. It is a Hypothesis, but it has to provide a “reasonable and plausible” explanation. That explanation has to be a feasible answer as to how an aircraft built as a gasoline tanker to break records could achieve a long out and return flight and be where it is on a ridgeline in East New Britain.
As a Hypothesis it is up for debate as all Hypotheses are and if it is not agreed to then the debate ranges from one side to the other until both sides are satisfies that the hypothesis “is a proven” and satisfies all. If a “satisfies all” agreement cannot be achieved then those that disagree fall out and those that agree remain, that is how hypotheses work.
Do I believe my own Hypothesis, “Yes and No”, I will say that it is feasible because I used standard aeronautical equations and standard power equations to drive it. However, I am not satisfied that the basis for the hypothesis is correct because I cannot prove it and never will.
What is the basis for the Hypothesis ? I do sincerely believe that at Nukumanu, when they discovered the wind was double the forecast, the combination of the Fuel Plan and the Navigation Plot had to be changed “if” they were to continue. Their original ETA at Howland could not stand as it had been made on a forecast that had now been shown to be wrong.
No “Local” weather man had given the forecast, the forecast for her, of weather in the Southern Hemishere had come from a USN source in Hawaii in the Northern Hemisphere. We are talking here of 1937 and transmission of weather data from scattered outposts over a vast area collated at a single point over many days culminating in a best guess. No SAT information then. I say they should have turned back because that is what I would want to do but I am not they and they were about getting to the U.S. by the “Fourth of July” for a Joyous Welcome.
The single most important commodity on the aircraft was “The FUEL” and with the new wind, fuel had to be conserved. That is the basis of the Hypothesis.
How do you conserve Fuel ? Working against the conservation of fuel is the Headwind and the low Altitude and any possible Mistakes in the handing of the engines. I worked the Hypothesis at 10,000 feet. I started with 1100 USG. Did they go to 12,000 feet and stay there ? Did Earhart use Lean of Peak ? Did they start with 1100 USG or did they have 1151 USG ? So it goes on…….
Alternative Hypotheses
I have no problem with anyone questioning the Hypothesis that I have put out but if they retain their interest in the Factual side and continue to chip away at the Hypothesis side, then I do have a question for people who do that and that is that “they provide an Alternative Hypothesis” as a response.
A Hypothesis is for debate, “Hit and Run” is NOT the answer, that gets us nowhere.
If people have no interest in the Factual side and completely dismiss it, then they have no business even in contemplating the Hypothesis side.
David.
Last edited by David Billings; 5th Apr 2018 at 02:50.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg 47.
You do not seem to respect the efforts Mr Billings had made over a long period of time to examine this based on a critical piece of evidence - a "fact".
As I posted earlier in this thread and on another, based on personal experience many years ago -
David,
We've pointed another potential media contact at your website and suggested he make contact.
MJG
No success last Saturday night but I've booked the same numbers for this week.
You do not seem to respect the efforts Mr Billings had made over a long period of time to examine this based on a critical piece of evidence - a "fact".
As I posted earlier in this thread and on another, based on personal experience many years ago -
IT ALL HINGES ON THAT ONE BIT OF DATA
As the guys looking for MH370 would tell you, "If only we had something to actually pin the detail of the search on we would probably find it." Well folks I think David has a critical piece of evidence that may well lead to solving part of the mystery or, if not, at least remove one theory that has very strong chance of being the correct one.
Why do I make that assertion? Well, several years ago I had the chance to sit for many hours with David and a couple of others and forensically analyse his theory based on that one piece of evidence. Whyteboard, maps, blank paper ... the lot. I challenged him on every step and documented his responses.
I then passed the theory past a couple of well experienced aviators and guess what? When you take the critical data and put it into all the equations along with other well documented proven facts it has as much, if not more, strength than many of the other theories of where that aircraft and occupants came to grief.
We were so convinced we started planning the expedition.
Why haven't we been there? Several reasons but the main one is $$$. David Livingstone may have been funded by the publishing industry but these days the glossy mags and TV shows are just not willing to finance the expedition; they will go along and pay their own way and possibly a bit more but the brunt of the expedition cost has to be found elsewhere. And that "elsewhere" has not come up despite several approaches to likely sources.
Assuming my numbers come up one Saturday night I'll be calling Mr Billings and one of several documentary makers who are very interested but until then the mystery remains and that critical piece of evidence waits to be put to the test.
MJG
Out in the mid Pacific not too far from where she wanted to end up that day.
As the guys looking for MH370 would tell you, "If only we had something to actually pin the detail of the search on we would probably find it." Well folks I think David has a critical piece of evidence that may well lead to solving part of the mystery or, if not, at least remove one theory that has very strong chance of being the correct one.
Why do I make that assertion? Well, several years ago I had the chance to sit for many hours with David and a couple of others and forensically analyse his theory based on that one piece of evidence. Whyteboard, maps, blank paper ... the lot. I challenged him on every step and documented his responses.
I then passed the theory past a couple of well experienced aviators and guess what? When you take the critical data and put it into all the equations along with other well documented proven facts it has as much, if not more, strength than many of the other theories of where that aircraft and occupants came to grief.
We were so convinced we started planning the expedition.
Why haven't we been there? Several reasons but the main one is $$$. David Livingstone may have been funded by the publishing industry but these days the glossy mags and TV shows are just not willing to finance the expedition; they will go along and pay their own way and possibly a bit more but the brunt of the expedition cost has to be found elsewhere. And that "elsewhere" has not come up despite several approaches to likely sources.
Assuming my numbers come up one Saturday night I'll be calling Mr Billings and one of several documentary makers who are very interested but until then the mystery remains and that critical piece of evidence waits to be put to the test.
MJG
Out in the mid Pacific not too far from where she wanted to end up that day.
We've pointed another potential media contact at your website and suggested he make contact.
MJG
No success last Saturday night but I've booked the same numbers for this week.