Amelia Earhart: New evidence tells of her last days on a Pacific atoll

[WiccanLiberal]

Interesting article. "Now, new information gives a clearer picture of what happened 75 years ago to Ms. Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan, where they came down and how they likely survived – for a while, at least – as castaways on a remote island, catching rainwater and eating fish, shellfish, and turtles to survive.

The tale hints at lost opportunities to locate and rescue the pair in the first crucial days after they went down, vital information dismissed as inconsequential or a hoax, the failure to connect important dots regarding physical evidence."
I hope the planned July expedition does turn up the evidence they are hoping for.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0602/Amelia-Earhart-New-evidence-tells-of-her-last-days-on-a-Pacific-atoll

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Interesting article. "Now, new information gives a clearer picture of what happened 75 years ago to Ms. Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan, where they came down and how they likely survived – for a while, at least – as castaways on a remote island, catching rainwater and eating fish, shellfish, and turtles to survive.

The tale hints at lost opportunities to locate and rescue the pair in the first crucial days after they went down, vital information dismissed as inconsequential or a hoax, the failure to connect important dots regarding physical evidence."
I hope the planned July expedition does turn up the evidence they are hoping for.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0602/Amelia-Earhart-New-evidence-tells-of-her-last-days-on-a-Pacific-atoll

If that was truly her there will likely be enough of that plane to identify it as hers. The problem will be finding it underwater and likely covered by coral etc..-Tyr

[Shadow]

Has aviator Amelia Earhart's beauty case been found?

As the search for Amelia Earhart's plane probes the deep waters off Nikumaroro, a tiny desert island between Australia and Hawaii where the legendary aviator may have landed 75 years ago, new clues have surfaced in the artifacts unearthed on the coral atoll.
A variety of fragmented objects collected by archaeologists at a site on the uninhabited island may have originally been American beauty and skin care products, all dating to the 1930s, says a new summary of research by the International Group for Historic Aircraft (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) Recovery (or TIGHAR (http://tighar.org/)), which will be published in October by the academic journal Pacific Studies.

TIGHAR researchers had already suggested that a small jar, found broken in five pieces, could have contained Dr.* C.H. Berry's F‬reckle Ointment. Marketed in the early 20th century, the concoction promised to make freckles fade.


"It's well-documented Amelia had freckles and disliked having them," Joe Cerniglia, the TIGHAR researcher who spotted the freckle ointment as a possible match, told Discovery News.

Cerniglia also identified two other bottles as containers of skin products. One green bottle was possibly St. Joseph's Liniment, which had applications in first aid and as a mosquito repellent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48178295/ns/technology_and_science-science/

[WiccanLiberal]

Amelia Earhart Plane Search Turns Up New Clue
A sonar anomaly that researchers suspect might possibly be the wreckage of Amelia Earhart's aircraft is a straight, unbroken feature uncannily consistent with the fuselage of a Lockheed Electra, new analysis of the sonar imagery captured off a remote Pacific island has revealed.

[Robert A Whit]

Amelia Earhart Plane Search Turns Up New Clue


A sonar anomaly that researchers suspect might possibly be the wreckage of Amelia Earhart's aircraft is a straight, unbroken feature uncannily consistent with the fuselage of a Lockheed Electra, new analysis of the sonar imagery captured off a remote Pacific island has revealed.

That guts the story she landed on some island.

[WiccanLiberal]

Actually the original article in this thread is not contradicted. It supposes the plane was put down on a reef and the plane eventually was washed off by a storm, leaving Amelia and her navigator stranded on the island.

[Robert A Whit]

Actually the original article in this thread is not contradicted. It supposes the plane was put down on a reef and the plane eventually was washed off by a storm, leaving Amelia and her navigator stranded on the island.

Could be but as a pilot, you put it down on sand or in the water. Reefs make lousy places to land.

[Gaffer]

Could be but as a pilot, you put it down on sand or in the water. Reefs make lousy places to land.

Unless you don't have a choice.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=647075#post647075)Could be but as a pilot, you put it down on sand or in the water. Reefs make lousy places to land.


Unless you don't have a choice.

I am not clear how a pilot has no choice? Explain please.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I am not clear how a pilot has no choice? Explain please.

there is quite a bit about flight that you're not clear on.

[Gaffer]

I am not clear how a pilot has no choice? Explain please.

Gravity is unmerciful. Airplanes are machines. Things go wrong with machines, including the controls. No flaps, no rutter, no choice.

If you looking for someone else to pick on you? don't bother. I'm finished with this thread and I don't read most of what you post any way.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Gravity is unmerciful. Airplanes are machines. Things go wrong with machines, including the controls. No flaps, no rutter, no choice.

If you looking for someone else to pick on you? don't bother. I'm finished with this thread and I don't read most of what you post any way.

Gravity, thou art a heartless bitch.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here's the island at low tide...

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/660/371/Earhart%20Island%20nikumaroro.jpg?ve=1
Note the wide, flat, smooth reef surrounding the island?

Note the extremely thin sandy areas, not suitable for a plane to attempt a landing?

If you're in the middle of the ocean, out of fuel, etc., the reef here is the most logical place to attempt a landing.



A number of artifacts recovered by TIGHAR during 10 expeditions have suggested that Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, made a forced landing on the island's smooth, flat coral reef.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/17/sonar-image-appears-to-be-amelia-earhart-plane-expert-says/?intcmp=features#ixzz2WVAOFMy7

[Robert A Whit]

Gravity is unmerciful. Airplanes are machines. Things go wrong with machines, including the controls. No flaps, no rutter, no choice.

If you looking for someone else to pick on you? don't bother. I'm finished with this thread and I don't read most of what you post any way.

Glad to hear you don't plan to pick on me then proceeded on as if that is what you planned to do.

When pilots are trained, and I happen to be one, Just as Capt "Sully" of Hudson River fame, used his choice to land in the river.

If by reef, she meant smooth water, could be.

Unlike you, I do try to read some of what you say believing that we are all equals here and I would never make that sort of catty comment to you.

But feel free to do so.

I don't know the prevailing water conditions at those islands. My hunch is she tried to land on a beach. She may also have ran out of fuel over the ocean with no island in sight.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Glad to hear you don't plan to pick on me then proceeded on as if that is what you planned to do.

When pilots are trained, and I happen to be one, Just as Capt "Sully" of Hudson River fame, used his choice to land in the river.

If by reef, she meant smooth water, could be.

Unlike you, I do try to read some of what you say believing that we are all equals here and I would never make that sort of catty comment to you.

But feel free to do so.

I don't know the prevailing water conditions at those islands. My hunch is she tried to land on a beach. She may also have ran out of fuel over the ocean with no island in sight.

My God, you are dense. Read post #13 and look at the pic, dumb ass. No where is there a wide enough sandy area to land.

[Robert A Whit]

Here's the island at low tide...

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/660/371/Earhart%20Island%20nikumaroro.jpg?ve=1
Note the wide, flat, smooth reef surrounding the island?

Note the extremely thin sandy areas, not suitable for a plane to attempt a landing?

If you're in the middle of the ocean, out of fuel, etc., the reef here is the most logical place to attempt a landing.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/17/sonar-image-appears-to-be-amelia-earhart-plane-expert-says/?intcmp=features#ixzz2WVAOFMy7



Reefs are coral and it is very unlikely a pilot would pick that place to land. Sand by water can be very firm. Out of fuel, her airplane would be it's lightest and she knew how to do a soft / short field landing I presume.

As to your crack that I don't know a lot about flight, utter nonsense.

I plan to wait for proof that she made any island.

You might want to try that too.

I did read the article which claims the suspicious sonar image is at a depth of 600 feet. I still plan to wait for proof.

The coral per the article is flat. That makes it possible as I told the first poster.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Reefs are coral and it is very unlikely a pilot would pick that place to land. Sand by water can be very firm. Out of fuel, her airplane would be it's lightest and she knew how to do a soft / short field landing I presume.

As to your crack that I don't know a lot about flight, utter nonsense.

I plan to wait for proof that she made any island.

You might want to try that too.

Interesting how you purposely left this part of my post out...


A number of artifacts recovered by TIGHAR during 10 expeditions have suggested that Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, made a forced landing on the island's smooth, flat coral reef.

And it's not a matter of length, dumb ass, but width. Nowhere is the sand wide enough for her Elecrta's 55ft wingspan. The widest part of the beach varies from 20-40 meters (depending on tide). She'd have needed to set an exact straight path down a varying beach width, with turns in it, and be off center by less than 3 feet the whole landing.

The reef offered an easier, safer landing.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Location_and_Geology_of_Nikumaroro

[Robert A Whit]

And it's not a matter of length, but width. Nowhere is the sand wide enough for her Elecrta's 55ft wingspan. The widest part of the beach varies from 20-40 meters (depending on tide). She'd have needed to set an exact straight path down a varying beach width, with turns in it, and be off center by less than 3 feet the whole landing.

The reef offered an easier, safer landing.

Yeah, her landing wheels were at the tips of the wings eh?

Look, you the board expert proclaim she landed at that specific island on the reef.

I have to give you credit for being a dumb ass. They only said suggested.

One of these days, you ought to do what I did and take pilot lessons and the ground school and do mountain flying and take plenty of tests.

Come back when you really know something about flying airplanes.

By the way, her landing wheels the way I recall it were beneath her two engines. A few feet wider than the fuselage.

If you read up on that island, you should also recall the article says some British came there in 1937 so they would have found her or evidence don't you suppose?

[Robert A Whit]

Theories on Earhart's disappearanceMany theories emerged after the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan. Two possibilities concerning the flyers' fate have prevailed among researchers and historians.
Crash and sink theoryMany researchers believe the Electra ran out of fuel and that Earhart and Noonan ditched at sea. Navigator and aeronautical engineer Elgen Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgen_Long) and his wife Marie K. Long devoted 35 years of exhaustive research to the "crash and sink" theory, which is the most widely accepted explanation for the disappearance.[132] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-158) Capt.Laurance F. Safford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurance_F._Safford), USN, who was responsible for the interwar Mid Pacific Strategic Direction Finding Net, and the decoding of the Japanese PURPLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_(cipher_machine)) cipher messages for the attack on Pearl Harbor, began a lengthy analysis of the Earhart flight during the 1970s. His research included the intricate radio transmission documentation. Safford came to the conclusion, "poor planning, worse execution."[133] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-Strippel-159) Rear Admiral Richard R. Black, USN, who was in administrative charge of the Howland Island airstrip and was present in the radio room on the Itasca, asserted in 1982 that "the Electra went into the sea about 10 am, July 2, 1937 not far from Howland".[133] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-Strippel-159) British aviation historian Roy Nesbit interpreted evidence in contemporary accounts and Putnam's correspondence and concluded Earhart's Electra was not fully fueled at Lae.[134] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-160) William L. Polhemous, the navigator on Ann Pellegreno's 1967 flight which followed Earhart and Noonan's original flight path, studied navigational tables for July 2, 1937 and thought Noonan may have miscalculated the "single line approach" intended to "hit" Howland.[135] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-161)

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yeah, her landing wheels were at the tips of the wings eh?
It amazes me that you don't understand how stupid that comment is. Read the entire post, and even a monumental mental midget like you will see that a beach landing would have been impossible. Unless, of course, your narcissistic disorder prevents you from seeing any reality other than your own.

Look, you the board expert proclaim she landed at that specific island on the reef.
I said the reef was the most logical place on that island to land, dumb ass. Learn to read.

I have to give you credit for being a dumb ass. They only said suggested.

One of these days, you ought to do what I did and take pilot lessons and the ground school and do mountain flying and take plenty of tests.
Like the ones you never took?

Come back when you really know something about flying airplanes.
I don't need to know how to fly, to be able to read about this case, dumb ass. You're actually going to sit there and claim that unless someone is a pilot, they cannot discuss or give opinions on her case? That is staggeringly stupid, even for you.

By the way, her landing wheels the way I recall it were a bit wider than her fuselage. Do you know what a fuselage is or shall I explain that to you.
All planes have a width between the wheels (under the wings) that is WIDER than the fuselage of the plane, dumb ass.

If you read up on that island, you should also recall the article says some British came there in 1937 so they would have found her or evidence don't you suppose?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124032/Amelia-Earhart-mystery-Picture-shows-landing-gear-doomed-plane.html
http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/amelia-earhart-plane-located-120817.htm

Shot by British Colonial Service officer Eric R. Bevington in October 1937, just three months after Amelia's disappearance on July 2, 1937, the photo revealed an apparent man-made protruding object on the left side of the frame.

Forensic imaging analyses of the picture found the mysterious object consistent with the shape and dimension of the upside-down landing gear of Earhart's plane.




My comments in RED above.

[Robert A Whit]

You are a toy Marcus. Nothing but my toy. Now that I replied to you using the view post function, it took you off ignore. But I can fix that right now.

What you know about flying and the Earhart case will fit in the interior of a sewers thimble.

And you think you can discuss flying airplanes and all you need do is read?

Dumb ass.

[jimnyc]

Theories on Earhart's disappearance

Many theories emerged after the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan. Two possibilities concerning the flyers' fate have prevailed among researchers and historians.
Crash and sink theory

Many researchers believe the Electra ran out of fuel and that Earhart and Noonan ditched at sea. Navigator and aeronautical engineer Elgen Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgen_Long) and his wife Marie K. Long devoted 35 years of exhaustive research to the "crash and sink" theory, which is the most widely accepted explanation for the disappearance.[132] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-158) Capt.Laurance F. Safford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurance_F._Safford), USN, who was responsible for the interwar Mid Pacific Strategic Direction Finding Net, and the decoding of the Japanese PURPLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_(cipher_machine)) cipher messages for the attack on Pearl Harbor, began a lengthy analysis of the Earhart flight during the 1970s. His research included the intricate radio transmission documentation. Safford came to the conclusion, "poor planning, worse execution."[133] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-Strippel-159) Rear Admiral Richard R. Black, USN, who was in administrative charge of the Howland Island airstrip and was present in the radio room on the Itasca, asserted in 1982 that "the Electra went into the sea about 10 am, July 2, 1937 not far from Howland".[133] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-Strippel-159) British aviation historian Roy Nesbit interpreted evidence in contemporary accounts and Putnam's correspondence and concluded Earhart's Electra was not fully fueled at Lae.[134] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-160) William L. Polhemous, the navigator on Ann Pellegreno's 1967 flight which followed Earhart and Noonan's original flight path, studied navigational tables for July 2, 1937 and thought Noonan may have miscalculated the "single line approach" intended to "hit" Howland.[135] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#cite_note-161)

Robert, can you please supply a link for this? It looks to be a Wiki article, so we'll need a link to the page.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, can you please supply a link for this? It looks to be a Wiki article, so we'll need a link to the page.

Is Wikipedia now copyrighted Jim?

But since you need the link, here you go...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart

[jimnyc]

Is Wikipedia now copyrighted Jim?

But since you need the link, here you go...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart

Yes. And it's also a rule on this board that we provide links to where we get articles from.

[jimnyc]

If you look at the bottom of the article you submitted, you will find a link to this license for Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

In which it states:

You are free:



to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_adaptation) the work

Under the following conditions:


Attribution—You must attribute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_%28copyright%29) the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/licensor) (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

[Robert A Whit]

If you look at the bottom of the article you submitted, you will find a link to this license for Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

In which it states:

You are free:



to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_adaptation) the work

Under the following conditions:


Attribution—You must attribute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_%28copyright%29) the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/licensor) (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.



I gave you the link as you requested.

Now, I am not clear on one thing on this article.

What attribution did that particular author say had to be made?

I ask you given you seem to be the expert on this matter.

[jimnyc]

I gave you the link as you requested.

Now, I am not clear on one thing on this article.

What attribution did that particular author say had to be made?

I ask you given you seem to be the expert on this matter.

Unless specified by the author, it falls under creative commons and fair use. It's easiest to just remember - if you didn't write it, leave a link to where you found it.

[Robert A Whit]

The topic being Earheart's last flight, let's proceed with what is known.

I am not going to speculate on what is not known.

She reported in saying she was at 1000 feet ASL

Having many hours of flight time, I know we use FM radios. I also know FM is line of sight.

I have spoken to one other pilot in flight who was a pal, but at altitudes over 7000 feet AGL.

It is fortunate if one is able to do that due to conditions.

But as low as she was flying, her range was from horizon to horizon at 1000 feet. This means her range was short. She gave them confusing directions or they could have located her. She was heard by a ship but apparently she did not hear them.

The island alleged to be her final site also had a broken ship at the south end at the time and also some Brits had been there. The island was circled many times by airplanes. Nobody saw her or any airplane. Had she landed on the reef, she would have been found.

For these reasons, I rule out her landing on some reef at this particular island. Plus they claim the sonar picked something up 600 feet deep. Submersibles can easily go that deep.

Till some authority can prove the sonar was the particular airplane, i am not having any of it.

[Robert A Whit]

Unless specified by the author, it falls under creative commons and fair use. It's easiest to just remember - if you didn't write it, leave a link to where you found it.

Alright, so my question remains not answered.

What did the author say? You said you know I believe.

However now that i understand that totally free Wikipedia is expected to be linked, i shall also link Wikipedia.

[jimnyc]

Alright, so my question remains not answered.

What did the author say? You said you know I believe.

However now that i understand that totally free Wikipedia is expected to be linked, i shall also link Wikipedia.

I said there was a link on the bottom of your page to the "Creative Commons" licensing, I never said anything about a single author. But minus a write-up from an author:


Unless specified by the author, it falls under creative commons and fair use. It's easiest to just remember - if you didn't write it, leave a link to where you found it.

[logroller]

The topic being Earheart's last flight, let's proceed with what is known.

I am not going to speculate on what is not known.

She reported in saying she was at 1000 feet ASL

Having many hours of flight time, I know we use FM radios. I also know FM is line of sight.

I have spoken to one other pilot in flight who was a pal, but at altitudes over 7000 feet AGL.

It is fortunate if one is able to do that due to conditions.

But as low as she was flying, her range was from horizon to horizon at 1000 feet. This means her range was short. She gave them confusing directions or they could have located her. She was heard by a ship but apparently she did not hear them.

The island alleged to be her final site also had a broken ship at the south end at the time and also some Brits had been there. The island was circled many times by airplanes. Nobody saw her or any airplane. Had she landed on the reef, she would have been found.

For these reasons, I rule out her landing on some reef at this particular island. Plus they claim the sonar picked something up 600 feet deep. Submersibles can easily go that deep.

Till some authority can prove the sonar was the particular airplane, i am not having any of it.
Even at 1000 feet, the range to horizon is probably 40+ miles; Longer if the destination antenna is higher than sea level; so thats an over 80-mile circle. Where did you hear a group of sailors were at this particular atoll around the same time as earhart's disappearance? That would cast more doubt on the recent claims than the fact subs hasn't been there yet. Subs are expensive. Sonar's cheap. They'll probably get more funding now, but absent peculiar evidence, like those jars and woman's makeup garb, asking for tens if not hundreds of thousands to find Amelia Earhart is likely to get you little more than laughed at.

[Robert A Whit]

Even at 1000 feet, the range to horizon is probably 40+ miles; Longer if the destination antenna is higher than sea level; so thats an over 80-mile circle. Where did you hear a group of sailors were at this particular atoll around the same time as earhart's disappearance? That would cast more doubt on the recent claims than the fact subs hasn't been there yet. Subs are expensive. Sonar's cheap. They'll probably get more funding now, but absent peculiar evidence, like those jars and woman's makeup garb, asking for tens if not hundreds of thousands to find Amelia Earhart is likely to get you little more than laughed at.

I may have it in my pilots books what the range is. I will see what I can find out. I know that if i am going to land at Hayward Airport, but am at San Jose, I can't hear the tower at Hayward as I best recall. We have to fly at least 1000 feet above ground to stay legal. I think her radio was good for 50 watts. Not a lot but I simply am not sure what watts I had on the planes I flew.

I don't recall them being sailors, but the Wikipedia article on her said Brits were on the island and also a broken ship on it too. Seems she would have reported back the sighting of that ship to help them find her.

Yeah, I want her final site to be found. I would be pleased if that sonar image is her plane. But alas, It may make a decent documentary but till they dive to the site and come back with proof, it is still a tall tale in my book.

[logroller]

I may have it in my pilots books what the range is. I will see what I can find out. I know that if i am going to land at Hayward Airport, but am at San Jose, I can't hear the tower at Hayward as I best recall. We have to fly at least 1000 feet above ground to stay legal. I think her radio was good for 50 watts. Not a lot but I simply am not sure what watts I had on the planes I flew.

I don't recall them being sailors, but the Wikipedia article on her said Brits were on the island and also a broken ship on it too. Seems she would have reported back the sighting of that ship to help them find her.

Yeah, I want her final site to be found. I would be pleased if that sonar image is her plane. But alas, It may make a decent documentary but till they dive to the site and come back with proof, it is still a tall tale in my book.
I ball-parked it before; but here's the formula.
s= sqrt(2*r*h+ h^2), where s= line of sight distance, r= radius of sphere (earth= 3959 miles) and h= height measuring from (miles = 1000ft /5280). 38.7 miles.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=647208#post647208)
I may have it in my pilots books what the range is. I will see what I can find out. I know that if i am going to land at Hayward Airport, but am at San Jose, I can't hear the tower at Hayward as I best recall. We have to fly at least 1000 feet above ground to stay legal. I think her radio was good for 50 watts. Not a lot but I simply am not sure what watts I had on the planes I flew.

I don't recall them being sailors, but the Wikipedia article on her said Brits were on the island and also a broken ship on it too. Seems she would have reported back the sighting of that ship to help them find her.

Yeah, I want her final site to be found. I would be pleased if that sonar image is her plane. But alas, It may make a decent documentary but till they dive to the site and come back with proof, it is still a tall tale in my book.



I ball-parked it before; but here's the formula.
s= sqrt(2*r*h+ h^2), where s= line of sight distance, r= radius of sphere (earth= 3959 miles) and h= height measuring from (miles = 1000ft /5280). 38.7 miles.

Great. I sent off a request to Sporty's Aviation shop but this is nice of you to do this.

What we now know is she was within 38 to 40 miles since other factors may apply.

I am wondering how distant Howland is to that other island?

I have serious doubts that sonar image located the airplane.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You are a toy Marcus. Nothing but my toy. Now that I replied to you using the view post function, it took you off ignore. But I can fix that right now.

What you know about flying and the Earhart case will fit in the interior of a sewers thimble.

And you think you can discuss flying airplanes and all you need do is read?

Dumb ass.

I'm the one YOU couldn't stop replying to, even when you supposedly had me on ignore, and you think I am your toy? The feebleness of that comment astounds.

I'll put my knowledge and ability to locate factual information via the Internet, over your 'pilots gut', any day of the week.

Yes. Unlike you, I've never claimed to be an expert pilot who knows all about flaps during takeoff and such :laugh:

Also, I noticed you completely ignored my post regarding the Brits in 1937. Pictures not good enough for you, dumb ass???

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/amelia-earhart-resting-place.htm


A number of artifacts recovered by TIGHAR would suggest that Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, made a forced landing on the island's smooth, flat coral reef.


"We know that in 1940 British Colonial Service officer Gerald Gallagher recovered a partial skeleton of a castaway on Nikumaroro. Unfortunately, those bones have now been lost," Gillespie said.


The archival record by Gallagher suggests that the bones were found in a remote area of the island, in a place that was unlikely to have been seen during an aerial search (http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/search-and-rescue.htm).

A woman's shoe, an empty bottle and a sextant box whose serial numbers are consistent with a type known to have been carried by Noonan were all found near the site where the bones were discovered.
"The reason why they found a partial skeleton is that many of the bones had been carried off by giant coconut crabs. There is a remote chance that some of the bones might still survive deep in crab burrows," Gillespie said.



"Propagation analysis of nearly 200 radio signals heard for several days after the disappearance make it virtually indisputable that the airplane was on land," Gillespie said.

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/17095
possible relics of Earhart


There is considerable evidence that this island could have been where they ended up, and died. Much more evidence than 'they missed Howland Island by x miles'.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47653021/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/credible-amelia-earhart-radio-signals-were-ignored-bogus/#.Ub-4htguedw

New study says aviator's plane was on land, upright for several days after disappearance

Dozens of previously dismissed radio signals were actually credible transmissions from Amelia Earhart, according to a new study of the alleged post-loss signals from Earhart's plane. The transmissions started riding the air waves just hours after Earhart sent her last in-flight message.

Using digitized information management systems, antenna modeling software, and radio wave propagation analysis programs, TIGHAR re-examined all the 120 known reports of radio signals suspected or alleged to have been sent from the Earhart aircraft after local noon on July 2, 1937 through July 18, 1937, when the official search ended.

They concluded that 57 out of the 120 reported signals are credible.
Advertise (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31066137/media-kit/) | AdChoices (http://g.msn.com/AIPRIV/en-us)





"The results of the study suggest that the aircraft was on land and on its wheels for several days following the disappearance," Gillespie said.


Earhart's final in-flight radio message occurred a hour later, at 08:43.

“We are on the line 157 337. We will repeat this message. We will repeat this on 6210 kilocycles. Wait,” she said.
According to TIGHAR, the numbers 157 and 337 refer to compass headings — 157 degrees and 337 degrees — and describe a navigation line that passed not only Howland Island, the target destination, but also Gardner Island, now called Nikumaroro.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPko65DtPtM

[darin]

Sorry WiccanLiberal - your poor thread got shit-upon. Great thread, really - when I filter out the BS, I find the topic very interesting!

[Robert A Whit]

Great. I sent off a request to Sporty's Aviation shop but this is nice of you to do this.

What we now know is she was within 38 to 40 miles since other factors may apply.

I am wondering how distant Howland is to that other island?

I have serious doubts that sonar image located the airplane.

Sporty's notified me they don't have this information; however Logroller I believe posted the formula and worked it out.

Let's recap.

Line of sight at her altitude is 40 miles from her cockpit. While the diameter is 80 miles, the figure that matters is the radius. Her airplane was the center of the circle so in all directions 40 miles is the proper distance.

Proper distance means within range of the ship.

Bear in mind that they heard her.

Now, how far is Howland Island from the then Gardener Island?

I checked that out and it is about 400 miles or more.

How fast was she flying? Specs for that airplane appear to claim just over 200 miles per hour.

She had about 550 or 600 hp so I can't rule out she could fly faster than just over 200 mph.

She burned fuel at about 6.5 gal per hour per engine, so if she was low on fuel, clearly she was drawing fast on her fuel tanks 1150 gallons.

I have no clue where she landed. She did come down. Why fly so many hours way up to Gardner Island? It is like aiming at San Francisco but getting by accident to Los Angeles.

These Tighar guys are being sued and they are asking for legal fund donations.

They may be 100 percent correct but they don't claim that. They use terms like suggest.

Nobody can say she landed on a reef.

We have no proof of that.

Why rule out Gardener Island (new name is sort of long and I would misspell it)?

Well, the Brits had people there on that island so Wikipedia claims. A broken ship was there as well. The island has lots of trees. I maintain the beach is very wide and only has to be wide enough for one of the wings due to the center of the airplane being what had to be over beach. A beach with wet sand is pretty firm. Not saying it is a great place to land but she would be trying to find a great place to crash. And the safest assumption is the airplane ended up in the ocean.

Where it hit water is hard to say. I do understand sonar but experts more than likely tell you that you need to dive to the site to see what the sonar showed. At first the Sonar experts just saw jumbled stuff.

I really want her final site to be found. I in no way wanted this thread to be some argument.

A difference in opinion is always welcome but when one takes it personal, it is not a difference of opinion, it is one more of those fights anonymous people engage in. No folks, there is no need to talk as if this is the cage.

[Marcus Aurelius]

These Tighar guys are being sued and they are asking for legal fund donations.



link?

[Robert A Whit]

link?


Sure.

http://tighar.org/

[Marcus Aurelius]

Now, how far is Howland Island from the then Gardener Island?

I checked that out and it is about 400 miles or more.

Taking off from Lae, New Guinea... towards Howland Island... being off no more than 7-8 degrees would put them straight at Gardener Island instead.

http://www.irrefutablesuccess.com/2010/04/one-degree-off-course/

...for every sin*gle degree you fly off course, you will miss your tar*get land*ing spot by 92 feet for every mile you fly. That amounts to about one mile off tar*get for every sixty miles flown.

[Robert A Whit]

Post #1 was in June of last year. The CS article said that last July they were going to dive the site with a submersible. Post 4 did not tell me anything new.

**I see nothing on Tighar's site that speaks of a dive done in 2012, but found mention of a coming dive in July of 2014. They want you to send them money. **

I plan to check one more time. (did so and updated as just above **)

So, if they dived in 2012, we ought to know what the Sonar snowed them. But thus far on Tighar, I find mention of the SONAR but not a dive.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Sure.

http://tighar.org/

You might want to read up on the suit. Melon claims they've already found the plane, the bodies, etc...

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/group_seeking_amelia_earharts_plane_withheld_its_d iscovery_million-dollar_donor_claims_in_lawsuit.html

His suit claims that images TIGHAR made during a expedition two years before the 2012 trip show Earhart's Lockheed Electra airplane, dismembered remains of the aviator and her navigator, Fred Noonan, and some of Earhart's personal effects, including a banjo and a guitar, UPI said.

You maybe wanna let the courts decide it, instead of assuming because someone sued them, they did something wrong?

[Robert A Whit]

You might want to read up on the suit. Melon claims they've already found the plane, the bodies, etc...

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/group_seeking_amelia_earharts_plane_withheld_its_d iscovery_million-dollar_donor_claims_in_lawsuit.html


You maybe wanna let the courts decide it, instead of assuming because someone sued them, they did something wrong?

You will examine my posts to prove I assumed anything of course and then show the forum why you made that statement.

I plan to read the actual suit if I can find it fully shown.

But feel free to send them cash or a check.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You will examine my posts to prove I assumed anything of course and then show the forum why you made that statement.

I plan to read the actual suit if I can find it fully shown.

But feel free to send them cash or a check.

your implication was perfectly clear, and you know it.

I thought I was on 'ignore', dumb ass. You get bored now that your bed-buddy is gone???

[Robert A Whit]

your implication was perfectly clear, and you know it.

I thought I was on 'ignore', dumb ass. You get bored now that your bed-buddy is gone???

You ASSume way too much. And you always try to twist posts to make it about me. My buddy is gone and told me he will not return. He eliminated the link to this forum and sent me the link to where he now posts. I for one hope he returns. By the way, I have plenty of board friends. Matter of fact, there are only 3 or 4 who are royal pains in the ass. Guess what list you are on.

[aboutime]

You ASSume way too much. And you always try to twist posts to make it about me. My buddy is gone and told me he will not return. He eliminated the link to this forum and sent me the link to where he now posts. I for one hope he returns. By the way, I have plenty of board friends. Matter of fact, there are only 3 or 4 who are royal pains in the ass. Guess what list you are on.


Your "BUDDY" is not gone! Nice try. Guess your split-personalities got to you, and YOU lost.

[Robert A Whit]

Your "BUDDY" is not gone! Nice try. Guess your split-personalities got to you, and YOU lost.

I wish I understood why you screw up so much. But the poster Marcus and I discussed told me he is gone. I asked him to reconsider.

[aboutime]

I wish I understood why you screw up so much. But the poster Marcus and I discussed told me he is gone. I asked him to reconsider.


Yeah. Imagine how I screw up so much...while being on IGNORE????

WHICH ONE ARE YOU PLAYING RIGHT NOW?

[Marcus Aurelius]

The end result is that there is WAY more credible evidence to suggest the Gardener Island landing for Amelia than splash down in the ocean someplace off Howland. Period.

[gabosaurus]

Remnants of Earhart's plane, personal effects, bone fragments and even fecal matter have been the subjects of claims for over 50 years. One person has been searching the jungles of various islands off Papua New Guinea for more than 15 years looking for such.
With this in mind, I find it difficult to believe that Earhart went down on an island and no one has found any conclusive proof. It's like digging for Jimmy Hoffa.

[Robert A Whit]

We have established that Amelia Earhart's radios at 1000 ft ASL had a one way range of 40 miles from the airplane.

Nikumaroro Island is 400 miles from Howland Island.

Tell me cranky one, how an airplane on the ground with a range of now less than 40 miles radio can be heard 400 miles away?

No, I do not buy this theory she landed on the former Gardner Island.

[Marcus Aurelius]

We have established that Amelia Earhart's radios at 1000 ft ASL had a one way range of 40 miles from the airplane.

Nikumaroro Island is 400 miles from Howland Island.

Tell me cranky one, how an airplane on the ground with a range of now less than 40 miles radio can be heard 400 miles away?

No, I do not buy this theory she landed on the former Gardner Island.

watch the video I posted, dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPko65DtPtM

http://www.reference.com/browse/amelia+earhart


The last voice transmission received on Howland Island from Earhart indicated she and Noonan were flying along a line of position (taken from a "sun line" running on 157-337 degrees) which Noonan would have calculated and drawn on a chart as passing through Howland. After all contact was lost with Howland Island, attempts were made to reach the flyers with both voice and Morse code (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Morse_code) transmissions. Operators across the Pacific and the United States may have heard signals from the downed Electra but these were unintelligible or weak.


Some of these transmissions were hoaxes (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Hoax) but others were deemed authentic. Bearings taken by Pan American Airways (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pan_American_Airways) stations suggested signals originating from several locations, including Gardner Island (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Gardner_Island). It was noted at the time that if these signals were from Earhart and Noonan, they must have been on land with the aircraft since water would have otherwise shorted out the Electra's electrical system. Sporadic signals were reported for four or five days after the disappearance but none yielded any understandable information. The captain of the USS Colorado later said "There was no doubt many stations were calling the Earhart plane on the plane's frequency, some by voice and others by signals. All of these added to the confusion and doubtfulness of the authenticity of the reports.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The topic being Earheart's last flight, let's proceed with what is known.

I am not going to speculate on what is not known.

She reported in saying she was at 1000 feet ASL

Having many hours of flight time, I know we use FM radios. I also know FM is line of sight.

I have spoken to one other pilot in flight who was a pal, but at altitudes over 7000 feet AGL.

It is fortunate if one is able to do that due to conditions.

But as low as she was flying, her range was from horizon to horizon at 1000 feet. This means her range was short. She gave them confusing directions or they could have located her. She was heard by a ship but apparently she did not hear them.

The island alleged to be her final site also had a broken ship at the south end at the time and also some Brits had been there. The island was circled many times by airplanes. Nobody saw her or any airplane. Had she landed on the reef, she would have been found.

For these reasons, I rule out her landing on some reef at this particular island. Plus they claim the sonar picked something up 600 feet deep. Submersibles can easily go that deep.

Till some authority can prove the sonar was the particular airplane, i am not having any of it.



You... credibility....toast.


http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_equipment_on_NR16020

"The Western Electric Model 13C radio transmitter was a fifty-watt output, crystal-controlled unit. The original design of this transmitter produced amplitude-modulated (A-M) voice (A3 emission) signals only. The transmitter aboard NR16020 was factory-modified to incorporate Morse code (C-W) transmission capability (A1 emission) as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation

Line-of-sight propagation refers to electro-magnetic radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-magnetic_radiation) or acoustic wave propagation. Electromagnetic transmission includes light emissions traveling in a straight line. The rays or waves may be diffracted, refracted, reflected, or absorbed by atmosphere and obstructions with material and generally cannot travel over the horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon) or behind obstacles.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Propagation_VHF.JPG/220px-Propagation_VHF.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Propagation_VHF.JPG) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf4/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Propagation_VHF.JPG)
Line of sight propagation to an antenna


At low frequencies (below approximately 2 MHz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertz) or so) radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio) signals travel as ground waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_wave), which follow the Earth's curvature due to diffraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction) with the layers of atmosphere. This enables AM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation) radio signals in low-noise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise) environments to be received well after the transmitting antenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29) has dropped below the horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon). Additionally, frequencies between approximately 1 and 30 MHz can be reflected by the F1/F2 Layer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere), thus giving radio transmissions in this range a potentially global reach (see shortwave radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave_radio)), again along multiple deflected straight lines. The effects of multiple diffraction or reflection lead to macroscopically "quasi-curved paths".

However, at higher frequencies and in lower levels of the atmosphere, neither of these effects are significant. Thus any obstruction between the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna will block the signal, just like the light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light) that the eye may sense. Therefore, since the ability to visually see a transmitting antenna (disregarding the limitations of the eye's resolution) roughly corresponds to the ability to receive a radio signal from it, the propagation characteristic of high-frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency) radio is called "line-of-sight". The farthest possible point of propagation is referred to as the "radio horizon".
In practice, the propagation characteristics of these radio waves vary substantially depending on the exact frequency and the strength of the transmitted signal (a function of both the transmitter and the antenna characteristics). Broadcast FM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation) radio, at comparatively low frequencies of around 100 MHz, are less affected by the presence of buildings and forests.

[Robert A Whit]

watch the video I posted, dumb ass.

You have the temperament of a constantly barking dog.

[Robert A Whit]

No I am correct. Today aircraft transmit and receive on FM bands.

I made an error by believing that Earheart also used FM.

AM does follow curves and so I stand corrected on her radios.

[Marcus Aurelius]

No I am correct. Today aircraft transmit and receive on FM bands.

I made an error by believing that Earheart also used FM.

AM does follow curves and so I stand corrected on her radios.

I believe that is personal growth for you, Whitless. Perhaps you're not the total fuckup we all thought you were.

[Robert A Whit]

I believe that is personal growth for you, Whitless. Perhaps you're not the total fuckup we all thought you were.

We?????????????

You carry a mouse in your pocket?

Which of your posts contains the video you mentioned?

I have always admitted errors when made and I find out about them. It is my normal MO when not being attacked.

An attack attempts to move off topic and to try to run down posters.

Too many of your posts are in that category.

[Marcus Aurelius]

We?????????????

You carry a mouse in your pocket?

Which of your posts contains the video you mentioned?

I have always admitted errors when made and I find out about them. It is my normal MO when not being attacked.

An attack attempts to move off topic and to try to run down posters.

Too many of your posts are in that category.

Check the thread out dumb ass. It's not my job to make sure you can keep up with posts.

[Robert A Whit]

Check the thread out dumb ass. It's not my job to make sure you can keep up with posts.

You are on ignore. To read any of your posts means I have to follow a process.

You mentioned a video.

If it is not important to you, you should never have mentioned it. I won't unignore you just to find one post. If it is important to you, tell me the post number.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You are on ignore. To read any of your posts means I have to follow a process.

You mentioned a video.

If it is not important to you, you should never have mentioned it. I won't unignore you just to find one post. If it is important to you, tell me the post number.

Then please, by all means, continue to ignore me by replying to every post I make, dumb ass. :laugh:

Again, I can't be responsible if you refuse to read all the posts in a thread and then whine that you didn't see one. Go back and look like everyone else, dumb ass.

[aboutime]

Then please, by all means, continue to ignore me by replying to every post I make, dumb ass. :laugh:

Again, I can't be responsible if you refuse to read all the posts in a thread and then whine that you didn't see one. Go back and look like everyone else, dumb ass.


Marcus. We should not forget. Robert is monitoring all posts for BB. That's what he didn't feel like mentioning, but blew his cover anyhow.

[Robert A Whit]

Marcus. We should not forget. Robert is monitoring all posts for BB. That's what he didn't feel like mentioning, but blew his cover anyhow.

Actually you just lied again.

It's been close to a week since I contacted him.

He is in TN and I am close to SF. Pray tell me how we are the same again?

[aboutime]

Actually you just lied again.

It's been close to a week since I contacted him.

He is in TN and I am close to SF. Pray tell me how we are the same again?



Don't care what anybody says. That thar ^ is sum funny stuff.....5155!!!

[Robert A Whit]

He admits investing 25 years hunting her airplane. With not one bit of evidence, he comes up with a story.

Maybe he is right. Send him plenty of cash so he can take another trip to Nikumaroro Island to see if the Sonar is correct.

bear in mind the last guy that funded him filed a suit against him. I make on pretense at knowing the outcome of that suit.

By all means make sure to send him your cash.

This by the way is my video.


http://youtu.be/2urLdE-Macw

[Marcus Aurelius]

He admits investing 25 years hunting her airplane. With not one bit of evidence, he comes up with a story.

Maybe he is right. Send him plenty of cash so he can take another trip to Nikumaroro Island to see if the Sonar is correct.

bear in mind the last guy that funded him filed a suit against him. I make on pretense at knowing the outcome of that suit.

By all means make sure to send him your cash.

This by the way is my video.


http://youtu.be/2urLdE-Macw
you use a video of the guy saying exactly what I said he said, as proof he's wrong? Are you on crack? The 1:00 mark he even says it could be, or it could be a disappointment. Did you even bother to watch your own video?

And where did he say he has no evidence, dumb ass? He had a fair amount of evidence, but no DNA, no serial numbers, etc. No 'CONCLUSIVE' evidence, but evidence none the less, regardless of your asinine interpretation of events.

The suit is because the guy funding claims they already found the plane and the bodies, and is hiding them. Wanna wait until the courts decide, before you imply the suit is valid, dumb ass?

[Robert A Whit]

you use a video of the guy saying exactly what I said he said, as proof he's wrong? Are you on crack? The 1:00 mark he even says it could be, or it could be a disappointment. Did you even bother to watch your own video?

And where did he say he has no evidence, dumb ass? He had a fair amount of evidence, but no DNA, no serial numbers, etc. No 'CONCLUSIVE' evidence, but evidence none the less, regardless of your asinine interpretation of events.

The suit is because the guy funding claims they already found the plane and the bodies, and is hiding them. Wanna wait until the courts decide, before you imply the suit is valid, dumb ass?

You are really really slow.

You said the above.

However, this is my exact quote.

You are not safe around children.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=647851#post647851)
He admits investing 25 years hunting her airplane. With not one bit of evidence, he comes up with a story.

Maybe he is right. Send him plenty of cash so he can take another trip to Nikumaroro Island to see if the Sonar is correct.

bear in mind the last guy that funded him filed a suit against him. I make on pretense at knowing the outcome of that suit.

By all means make sure to send him your cash.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=647866#post647866) you use a video of the guy saying exactly what I said he said, as proof he's wrong? Are you on crack? The 1:00 mark he even says it could be, or it could be a disappointment. Did you even bother to watch your own video?

And where did he say he has no evidence, dumb ass? He had a fair amount of evidence, but no DNA, no serial numbers, etc. No 'CONCLUSIVE' evidence, but evidence none the less, regardless of your asinine interpretation of events.

The suit is because the guy funding claims they already found the plane and the bodies, and is hiding them. Wanna wait until the courts decide, before you imply the suit is valid, dumb ass?



You are really really slow.

You said the above.

However, this is my exact quote.

You are not safe around children.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=647851#post647851)
He admits investing 25 years hunting her airplane. With not one bit of evidence, he comes up with a story.

Maybe he is right. Send him plenty of cash so he can take another trip to Nikumaroro Island to see if the Sonar is correct.

bear in mind the last guy that funded him filed a suit against him. I make on pretense at knowing the outcome of that suit.

By all means make sure to send him your cash.





you really are stupid, aren't you.

YOU claimed he came up with a story without one bit of evidence, and your own posted video says he has evidence. Dozens of posts in this thread detail the evidence to support his contention about Gardener Island.

You're simply too stupid to admit he might be right.

[logroller]

We have established that Amelia Earhart's radios at 1000 ft ASL had a one way range of 40 miles from the airplane.

Nikumaroro Island is 400 miles from Howland Island.

Tell me cranky one, how an airplane on the ground with a range of now less than 40 miles radio can be heard 400 miles away?

No, I do not buy this theory she landed on the former Gardner Island.
It has been established that line of sight to the horizon is 40 miles at 1000ft elevation, not that her radio signal only went that far. She was able transmit on three frequencies: 3105 kHz, 6210 kHz and 500 kHz; having voice capability only on the lower two bands 3105 khz and 500 kHz. Post loss reception was only heard on the higher two frequencies, 3105/6210 kHz, from a 1552.5 khz crystal radio. This is understandable because 500 kHz is a medium wave and the upper two frequencies are shortwave, aka skywave or skip-wave, known for their ability to bounce (or skip) off the ionosphere (the sky) greatly increasing their range. It's not unheard of for shortwave radios signals to be picked up hundreds and even thousands of miles away with favorable atmospheric conditions. Such favorable conditions include nighttime conditions where the the sun's interaction with the ionosphere interferes with the wave propagation. This is also why Earhart only used certain frequncres at night and the others during the day. You have to understand that radio communications were not what they are today, but some things remain the same. The frequencies detected post loss back then were able, then as now, to carry much longer distances than line of sight.

[Robert A Whit]

It has been established that line of sight to the horizon is 40 miles at 1000ft elevation, not that her radio signal only went that far. She was able transmit on three frequencies: 3105 kHz, 6210 kHz and 500 kHz; having voice capability only on the lower two bands 3105 khz and 500 kHz. Post loss reception was only heard on the higher two frequencies, 3105/6210 kHz, from a 1552.5 khz crystal radio. This is understandable because 500 kHz is a medium wave and the upper two frequencies are shortwave, aka skywave or skip-wave, known for their ability to bounce (or skip) off the ionosphere (the sky) greatly increasing their range. It's not unheard of for shortwave radios signals to be picked up hundreds and even thousands of miles away with favorable atmospheric conditions. Such favorable conditions include nighttime conditions where the the sun's interaction with the ionosphere interferes with the wave propagation. This is also why Earhart only used certain frequncres at night and the others during the day. You have to understand that radio communications were not what they are today, but some things remain the same. The frequencies detected post loss back then were able, then as now, to carry much longer distances than line of sight.

I made some errors that had I put more thought into, would not have been made by me. I studied Radio in Radio shop during High school, during the early 1950s. I made a crystal radio in that course. I was not pleased with it's performance. I have used radio direction to navigate but usually plus hold a radio license to operate aircraft radios I relied on DME. Many times I have used the VOR system that gives you very accurate direction to go to various places.

I find out now she was using AM and when I fly our radios are FM.

Thanks for your corrections done professionally and with no calling me names or acting angry.

I really appreciate such posts.

[aboutime]

I made some errors that had I put more thought into, would not have been made by me. I studied Radio in Radio shop during High school plus hold a radio license to operate aircraft radios, during the early 1950s. I made a crystal radio in that course. I was not pleased with it's performance. I have used radio direction to navigate but usually I relied on DME. Many times I have used the VOR system that gives you very accurate direction to go to various places.

I find out now she was using AM and when I fly our radios are FM.

Thanks for your corrections done professionally and with no calling me names or acting angry.

I really appreciate such posts.


Enough already. I spent 30 years in the U.S.Navy as a RADIOMAN. Kinda know a little more about HF Signal propagation, and signal strength after many, many years of operating HF, UHF, VHF, AM, and FM before EHF, and Satellite became useful, and a standard.
In fact. As late as the 1980's, through the Desert Storm era of naval comms. I had the pleasure of operating what we called "MARS" radio systems with civilian Operators located in the United States, and Around the world.
This was all before Email, and the Internet became the tool of choice, when MAIL was nothing but an envelope with a stamp we now call SNAIL MAIL.
Radio frequencies are assigned for usage by the United Nations, and the U.S. just as the Internet is assigned web addresses today.
Several times. While deployed aboard Navy ships in the MED, and PERSIAN GULF...until the war began. I was assigned as an operator to use HIGH FREQUENCY circuits in calling Shore stations here in the states, and the operators called family members for our crew allowing them to speak for limited periods...DUE TO FREQUENCY limitations sometimes as long as half an hour, but more often...less.
If Earhart was using any frequencies...unless they were monitored consistently, and someone knew WHICH DIRECTION to aim their antenna AT THAT TIME. She could have declared an SOS, or MAYDAY...until the frequencies died.
And all of that depended upon weather, and even SUNSPOT conditions...nobody knew anything about back then.

[Robert A Whit]

Enough already. I spent 30 years in the U.S.Navy as a RADIOMAN. Kinda know a little more about HF Signal propagation, and signal strength after many, many years of operating HF, UHF, VHF, AM, and FM before EHF, and Satellite became useful, and a standard.
In fact. As late as the 1980's, through the Desert Storm era of naval comms. I had the pleasure of operating what we called "MARS" radio systems with civilian Operators located in the United States, and Around the world.
This was all before Email, and the Internet became the tool of choice, when MAIL was nothing but an envelope with a stamp we now call SNAIL MAIL.
Radio frequencies are assigned for usage by the United Nations, and the U.S. just as the Internet is assigned web addresses today.
Several times. While deployed aboard Navy ships in the MED, and PERSIAN GULF...until the war began. I was assigned as an operator to use HIGH FREQUENCY circuits in calling Shore stations here in the states, and the operators called family members for our crew allowing them to speak for limited periods...DUE TO FREQUENCY limitations sometimes as long as half an hour, but more often...less.
If Earhart was using any frequencies...unless they were monitored consistently, and someone knew WHICH DIRECTION to aim their antenna AT THAT TIME. She could have declared an SOS, or MAYDAY...until the frequencies died.
And all of that depended upon weather, and even SUNSPOT conditions...nobody knew anything about back then.

Enough what already?

I did not tell you that.

Right now i will thank you for adding to the topic.

I told Logroller i had made some errors and should have known better.

So, what is this enough already when I admitted errors?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I made some errors that had I put more thought into, would not have been made by me. I studied Radio in Radio shop during High school, during the early 1950s. I made a crystal radio in that course. I was not pleased with it's performance. I have used radio direction to navigate but usually plus hold a radio license to operate aircraft radios I relied on DME. Many times I have used the VOR system that gives you very accurate direction to go to various places.

I find out now she was using AM and when I fly our radios are FM.

Thanks for your corrections done professionally and with no calling me names or acting angry.

I really appreciate such posts.

THAT is what you based you opinion on? A high school radio shop course? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Pilots use AM, dumb ass, not FM. More proof you're a fraud and a liar.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Airplane-Radio-eavesdrop-on-your-pilot/

Airplanes broadcast using AM. AM means Amplitude Modulation, for the uninitiated. They transmit from around 115 MHz to about 140 MHz; for comparison, the AM broadcasts that are normally picked up by a radio are from 530 KHz to 1705 KHz.

http://www.danelec.com/pdfs/AN800.pdf

Airplane radios are assigned specific frequencies (118-138 MHz) in the VHF band and use AM modulation (a historical legacy) due to its good propagation characteristics for traveling over long distances from ground stations.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airband

Aircraft communications radio operations worldwide use amplitude modulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation), predominantly A3E (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A3E) double sideband with full carrier on VHF and UHF, and J3E (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J3E) single sideband with suppressed carrier on HF. Besides being simple, power-efficient and compatible with legacy equipment, AM and SSB permit stronger stations to override weaker or interfering stations, and don't suffer from the capture effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_effect) found in FM.

Let me guess, Robert... you were a special case, and they allowed you to use FM, right?
Please... do you really think no one will call you out on your outright lies?

You know, if you just stop lying in every post you make, your life here would be much easier.

[aboutime]

Enough what already?

I did not tell you that.

Right now i will thank you for adding to the topic.

I told Logroller i had made some errors and should have known better.

So, what is this enough already when I admitted errors?


ENOUGH....5169. Get the picture?

[Marcus Aurelius]

ENOUGH....5169. Get the picture?

I'm still wondering how he'll explain he was the only person ever transmit on FM in a plane. The spin should be interesting.

[aboutime]

I'm still wondering how he'll explain he was the only person ever transmit on FM in a plane. The spin should be interesting.


Maybe he invented it? FM stands for frequency modulation, and most radio units...after the Korean war began to use FM as an alternative to pure HF. FM was somewhat of a Filter for frequencies, making them clearer, with less interference from the atmosphere. Based on when Earhart went down. I somehow suspect...FM wasn't quite DISCOVERED at the time.

Maybe Robert is a fan of the movie "FREQUENCY". A good place to let your Imagination run, and run, and run.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Maybe he invented it? FM stands for frequency modulation, and most radio units...after the Korean war began to use FM as an alternative to pure HF. FM was somewhat of a Filter for frequencies, making them clearer, with less interference from the atmosphere. Based on when Earhart went down. I somehow suspect...FM wasn't quite DISCOVERED at the time.

Maybe Robert is a fan of the movie "FREQUENCY". A good place to let your Imagination run, and run, and run.

Well, in all fairness, the dumb ass did admit he was wrong about the radio for Earhart. However, he went back to his bag-o-crap in claiming he used FM when he flew. Never happened. Incidentally, that lie is 'more' proof he never flew.

[Marcus Aurelius]

In any case, now that he's been completed outed as a fraud, I doubt he'll be back in this thread. If he does come back, he'll ignore his proven fraud and try to concentrate elsewhere.

Okay, back to Amelia folks.

[Robert A Whit]

I passed all my radio tests to get the radio license FAA requires to talk on Aircraft radios in 1980.

My last flight as PIC was in 1998. Imagine my being the only human on Earth that has the requirement to have a perfect memory about all things concerning piloting an airplane.

Imagine you had to be held to that same standard.

I honestly believed our radios are FM.

So, though Al is in his early 90s, he is also a pilot and an expert on radios. Al as his story may have recounted is a HAM radio station operator. That and he started as a pilot during WW2 and once owned his own airplane.

So, I went to my pilots books on radio and found that the mention of AM or FM either not there or at this point I just did not find a thing about it being either.

So

I shot Al an e mail asking him what he knows.

I got this reply.

All aircraft communication uses AM. FM doesn't fade with distance like AM, it's either there or not there. AM gets weaker with distance but is still audible but FM is not, it gets distorted and unintelligible. It might be that ground control uses FM but I've never heard of it. It would be possible because of the distance between the tower and the aircraft would make it practical. But then the radio would have to have the capability to also work on AM for communication with the tower and ATC. It could be that some aircraft radios have that feature but it would be a recent change that I'm not aware of.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I passed all my radio tests to get the radio license FAA requires to talk on Aircraft radios in 1980.

My last flight as PIC was in 1998. Imagine my being the only human on Earth that has the requirement to have a perfect memory about all things concerning piloting an airplane.

Imagine you had to be held to that same standard.

I honestly believed our radios are FM.

So, though Al is in his early 90s, he is also a pilot and an expert on radios. Al as his story may have recounted is a HAM radio station operator. That and he started as a pilot during WW2 and once owned his own airplane.

So, I went to my pilots books on radio and found that the mention of AM or FM either not there or at this point I just did not find a thing about it being either.

So

I shot Al an e mail asking him what he knows.

I got this reply.

All aircraft communication uses AM. FM doesn't fade with distance like AM, it's either there or not there. AM gets weaker with distance but is still audible but FM is not, it gets distorted and unintelligible. It might be that ground control uses FM but I've never heard of it. It would be possible because of the distance between the tower and the aircraft would make it practical. But then the radio would have to have the capability to also work on AM for communication with the tower and ATC. It could be that some aircraft radios have that feature but it would be a recent change that I'm not aware of.

Translation: You lied.

BTW... It's odd how you keep replying to me when I am on ignore.:laugh:

[Robert A Whit]

Only the worst sort of human would claim I lied just in case a dirtbag claims I lied.

I assure you that you need not know if the radio is using FM or AM in order to use aircraft radios.

Non pilots would call me a liar. True pilots don't act that way.

I trust Al on radio issues. And I posted his comments.

That is all that has to be done.

It in no way means the FAA did not give me the pilots license. I might take a photo of my license and show it. But we have a couple of very bad acting posters and they have an agenda.

Ii believe because i speak against Obama and am for freedom some of this happens.

What is most interesting is I am in possession of my log. I know the days, years, purpose of flights, if an instructor was with me, where I went and in some cases I noted weather, so I know I am a pilot. I don't have to prove it to one or two posters.

They can bend over and give their rump a smooch.

I post not for attention, as one claimed today, but trying to mostly communicate things of interest, read things of interest and stay involved with forum chat. It is one way to spend time is all.

I would suggest one major rule change if Jim honestly wants a decent forum.

This being to end the discussion of posters by name.

It could be done.

When one debates formally, they don't get into this nasty habit of discussing the debater. They stick to topics. They would fail you in a course for attacking other debaters by name.

There is only ill will created in personal attacks. For some posters they flee and won't read this stuff. The Cage is where attacks are sanctioned yet we all find that on the main forum, a couple of bad apples constantly berate particular posters by name.

Make rules to stop that stuff.

/rant

[jimnyc]

Translation: You lied.

BTW... It's odd how you keep replying to me when I am on ignore.:laugh:


Only the worst sort of human would claim I lied just in case a dirtbag claims I lied.

Didn't you just tell me like 2 days ago that you placed him on ignore? And then thanked my post when I told both of you guys how you should use the ignore feature?

[Marcus Aurelius]

...
Ii believe because i speak against Obama and am for freedom some of this happens...

Really? You think the reason people rag on you is because you speak out against Obama? On a board that is dominated by Conservatives who speak out against Obama?

You are really a complete moron, aren't you. (rhetorical comment)

[Robert A Whit]

Didn't you just tell me like 2 days ago that you placed him on ignore? And then thanked my post when I told both of you guys how you should use the ignore feature?

Did he put me on ignore as you told him to do?

Point the guns his way for a change.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Did he put me on ignore as you told him to do?

Point the guns his way for a change.

you're a whiney little bitch, aren't you?

[jimnyc]

Did he put me on ignore as you told him to do?

Point the guns his way for a change.

Apparently not, as he hasn't stated it in various places of the board as you did. You say you placed him on ignore, many times now, and then you are always back fighting. My point is - you are BOTH guilty of this crap. If you want to get muddy with the little piggies, then don't complain about anything and don't proclaim innocence.

I did ask BOTH to use the ignore feature. I pointed you out this time as it was you who claimed you had him on ignore, so it surprised me. At any rate, I'll just move threads here like I did. Or thread bans if we come across it before a thread is already ruined. And that applies to both.

[Robert A Whit]

Apparently not, as he hasn't stated it in various places of the board as you did. You say you placed him on ignore, many times now, and then you are always back fighting. My point is - you are BOTH guilty of this crap. If you want to get muddy with the little piggies, then don't complain about anything and don't proclaim innocence.

I did ask BOTH to use the ignore feature. I pointed you out this time as it was you who claimed you had him on ignore, so it surprised me. At any rate, I'll just move threads here like I did. Or thread bans if we come across it before a thread is already ruined. And that applies to both.

Question for you.

If he was doing to you, what he does to me, and my comment to you would be just ignore him, is that how you handle such posters?

You don't ignore me, but based on me being on the receiving end of your barbs rather than him,. the feeling is you sanction his stuff. When I ignore the man, others don't and even you have quoted him knowing I see your posts and others posts.

I feel like I am in a no win situation.

A good solution is a win win. Why must I be the only one being barked at?

I remind you, when others post his crap, I see it.

[Robert A Whit]

I passed all my radio tests to get the radio license FAA requires to talk on Aircraft radios in 1980.

My last flight as PIC was in 1998. Imagine my being the only human on Earth that has the requirement to have a perfect memory about all things concerning piloting an airplane.

Imagine you had to be held to that same standard.

I honestly believed our radios are FM.

So, though Al is in his early 90s, he is also a pilot and an expert on radios. Al as his story may have recounted is a HAM radio station operator. That and he started as a pilot during WW2 and once owned his own airplane.

So, I went to my pilots books on radio and found that the mention of AM or FM either not there or at this point I just did not find a thing about it being either.

So

I shot Al an e mail asking him what he knows.

I got this reply.

All aircraft communication uses AM. FM doesn't fade with distance like AM, it's either there or not there. AM gets weaker with distance but is still audible but FM is not, it gets distorted and unintelligible. It might be that ground control uses FM but I've never heard of it. It would be possible because of the distance between the tower and the aircraft would make it practical. But then the radio would have to have the capability to also work on AM for communication with the tower and ATC. It could be that some aircraft radios have that feature but it would be a recent change that I'm not aware of.

What makes this post CAGE Material?

[Robert A Whit]

Only the worst sort of human would claim I lied just in case a dirtbag claims I lied.

I assure you that you need not know if the radio is using FM or AM in order to use aircraft radios.

Non pilots would call me a liar. True pilots don't act that way.

I trust Al on radio issues. And I posted his comments.

That is all that has to be done.

It in no way means the FAA did not give me the pilots license. I might take a photo of my license and show it. But we have a couple of very bad acting posters and they have an agenda.

Ii believe because i speak against Obama and am for freedom some of this happens.

What is most interesting is I am in possession of my log. I know the days, years, purpose of flights, if an instructor was with me, where I went and in some cases I noted weather, so I know I am a pilot. I don't have to prove it to one or two posters.

They can bend over and give their rump a smooch.

I post not for attention, as one claimed today, but trying to mostly communicate things of interest, read things of interest and stay involved with forum chat. It is one way to spend time is all.

I would suggest one major rule change if Jim honestly wants a decent forum.

This being to end the discussion of posters by name.

It could be done.

When one debates formally, they don't get into this nasty habit of discussing the debater. They stick to topics. They would fail you in a course for attacking other debaters by name.

There is only ill will created in personal attacks. For some posters they flee and won't read this stuff. The Cage is where attacks are sanctioned yet we all find that on the main forum, a couple of bad apples constantly berate particular posters by name.

Make rules to stop that stuff.

/rant

​What makes this post cage material?

[Marcus Aurelius]

​What makes this post cage material?

The entire thread was apparently deemed Cage worthy, dumb ass.... not just that post... thus the entire thread was moved to the Cage.

Stop whining about your treatment. If you don't like it here, (points) there's the door. Don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

[aboutime]

Marcus. It now appears. No matter what any topic, of any thread, or post happens to be. It only takes one member. Who shall remain nameless to avoid further BS being created, to cause the thread, or post to be re-directed by Jim...to the Cage.

It has almost become a kind of game where I wonder...how long before someone dislikes what I happen to say...when someone else..."who shall remain nameless to avoid further BS being created" steps in and causes even the most innocent of topics to be instantly a THREAT, INSULT, or OFFENSIVE to someone els..."who shall remain nameless to avoid further BS being created".

In other words. You and I, must now use EXTREME caution, and carefully craft our words here on DP in order to avoid finding ANYTHING we type, say, think, remember, imagine....being re-directed to the CAGE.

Know what I mean, Marcus????

[Robert A Whit]

Marcus. It now appears. No matter what any topic, of any thread, or post happens to be. It only takes one member. Who shall remain nameless to avoid further BS being created, to cause the thread, or post to be re-directed by Jim...to the Cage.

It has almost become a kind of game where I wonder...how long before someone dislikes what I happen to say...when someone else..."who shall remain nameless to avoid further BS being created" steps in and causes even the most innocent of topics to be instantly a THREAT, INSULT, or OFFENSIVE to someone els..."who shall remain nameless to avoid further BS being created".

In other words. You and I, must now use EXTREME caution, and carefully craft our words here on DP in order to avoid finding ANYTHING we type, say, think, remember, imagine....being re-directed to the CAGE.

Know what I mean, Marcus????

You are supposed to be laughing at such posts and taking heed who the first poster, listed at the very top, that caused this mess. But giggle or laugh.

Have fun.

I must carefully walk a tightrope to keep two posters happy, not counting Jim of course.

[aboutime]

You are supposed to be laughing at such posts and taking heed who the first poster, listed at the very top, that caused this mess. But giggle or laugh.

Have fun.

I must carefully walk a tightrope to keep two posters happy, not counting Jim of course.


I am, I am. It's a never ending laugh-a-thon with you.

[jimnyc]

Question for you.

If he was doing to you, what he does to me, and my comment to you would be just ignore him, is that how you handle such posters?

You don't ignore me, but based on me being on the receiving end of your barbs rather than him,. the feeling is you sanction his stuff. When I ignore the man, others don't and even you have quoted him knowing I see your posts and others posts.

I feel like I am in a no win situation.

A good solution is a win win. Why must I be the only one being barked at?

I remind you, when others post his crap, I see it.

Funny, Marcus has heard from be about the fighting. As has aboutime, as did BillyBob. You're not alone in thinking you are the only one being told to reel in the fighting. Everyone is treated the same in that respect.

If it were me, and I were a regular member, I would have 5-6 members from here on ignore for sure, and would say good riddance. I use the feature a lot at the other boards I belong to!!

You have claimed to put him on ignore endless times now, but I don't think you really ever do. Point is, and this applies to BOTH, you can place him on ignore and the majority is gone instantly. And after that, are you seriously telling me that you can't control yourself, as a grown man, to control yourself from replying to someone if you see a post of theirs quoted?

Again - to BOTH - I encourage the ignore feature. To BOTH - if you don't, you will find more of your threads moved, and more likely to just be removed from threads altogether.

[Robert A Whit]

Funny, Marcus has heard from be about the fighting. As has aboutime, as did BillyBob. You're not alone in thinking you are the only one being told to reel in the fighting. Everyone is treated the same in that respect.

If it were me, and I were a regular member, I would have 5-6 members from here on ignore for sure, and would say good riddance. I use the feature a lot at the other boards I belong to!!

You have claimed to put him on ignore endless times now, but I don't think you really ever do. Point is, and this applies to BOTH, you can place him on ignore and the majority is gone instantly. And after that, are you seriously telling me that you can't control yourself, as a grown man, to control yourself from replying to someone if you see a post of theirs quoted?

Again - to BOTH - I encourage the ignore feature. To BOTH - if you don't, you will find more of your threads moved, and more likely to just be removed from threads altogether.

Other than your threatening manner against me, I sincerely thank you for making this to all of us.

[jimnyc]

Other than your threatening manner against me, I sincerely thank you for making this to all of us.

A threat? Hilarious. You are 100%, no doubt, somehow "Wind Song" in an old mans body. Always the victim of something. You're a drama queen. Do you know exactly how ridiculous you sound in claiming I acted in a threatening manner towards you?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Other than your threatening manner against me, I sincerely thank you for making this to all of us.

You need a vacation.

And a nap,

And a cookie.

And for your shrink to up your dosage.

[jimnyc]

You need a vacation.

And a nap,

And a cookie.

And for your shrink to up your dosage.

Is that it, Robert? You just got an empty tummy and need a nappy? :laugh2:

http://www.delveintohealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/milk-and-cookies.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=648511#post648511)
You need a vacation.

And a nap,

And a cookie.

And for your shrink to up your dosage.



Is that it, Robert? You just got an empty tummy and need a nappy? :laugh2:

http://www.delveintohealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/milk-and-cookies.jpg

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/jon-stewart-oh-snap.gif

[Robert A Whit]

A threat? Hilarious. You are 100%, no doubt, somehow "Wind Song" in an old mans body. Always the victim of something. You're a drama queen. Do you know exactly how ridiculous you sound in claiming I acted in a threatening manner towards you?

"Jim: if you don't, you will find more of your threads moved, and more likely to just be removed from threads altogether."

Hey Jim, thanks a lot for your insult. I don't know Windsong but know an insult when I see one.

[aboutime]

"Jim: if you don't, you will find more of your threads moved, and more likely to just be removed from threads altogether."

Hey Jim, thanks a lot for your insult. I don't know Windsong but know an insult when I see one.


Robert. Here's where you stand, and here's where you are headed.

IF Pete, and Repeat were sitting on a fence, and Pete fell off. Who was left??????

[Marcus Aurelius]

duplicate

[Marcus Aurelius]

"Jim: if you don't, you will find more of your threads moved, and more likely to just be removed from threads altogether."

Hey Jim, thanks a lot for your insult. I don't know Windsong but know an insult when I see one.

Context is everything, asshat... here's the WHOLE comment Jim made... I put the part you INTENTIONALLY left out in RED


Again - to BOTH - I encourage the ignore feature. To BOTH - if you don't, you will find more of your threads moved, and more likely to just be removed from threads altogether.

It was to both of us, dumb ass, not just your whiney little piss-ant self. I for one do not feel threatened. You INTENTIONALLY left that part out to make yourself look like the victim.

Please, do us all a favor... go pollute some other board. Hang with your friend, BillyButtFuck or something, but leave us in peace.

[Voted4Reagan]

Seriously.... Since BillyBob was banished for 3 days and got so butthurt over it that he left for good, I thought that all of this crap would end... It hasnt...

Marcus... I am asking you as a reasonable person to simply put WITLESS posters on ignore... you are a far greater asset here. You getting banned for falling into a troll trap wouldnt be good... we all like you.

Jut put the Witless wonder on ignore and forget he ever existed...You can read his threads....but dont give him the negative attention he seeks by falling for his trolling.

I recommend that EVERYONE that is able put Robert on Ignore... The Cage will get no new threads if we all just ignore his rantings.. He'll be Marginalized and eventually find a new board to troll...

Just ignore him like I do.... The peace and quiet is wonderful.

So Tyr, Aboutime, Marcus, RSR, Jeff, Sassy, and all other Thoughtful posters... I ask you to do one thing...

PUT ROBERT A. WHIT ON IGNORE.

You'll thank me later.... Trust me...

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/27/photos-could-prove-amelia-earhart-lived-as-castaway/?intcmp=features


An array of detailed aerial photos of the remote island where Amelia Earhart may have survived for a time as a castaway, has resurfaced in a New Zealand museum archive, raising hopes for new photographic evidence about the fate of the legendary aviator.

Found by Matthew O'Sullivan, keeper of photographs at the New Zealand Air Force Museum in Christchurch, the images lay forgotten in an unlabeled tin box in the museum's archives.
The box contained five sheets of contact prints -- for a total of 45 photos, complete with negatives -- and a slip of paper with the words "Gardner Island."

[Marcus Aurelius]

He admits investing 25 years hunting her airplane. With not one bit of evidence, he comes up with a story.

Maybe he is right. Send him plenty of cash so he can take another trip to Nikumaroro Island to see if the Sonar is correct.

bear in mind the last guy that funded him filed a suit against him. I make on pretense at knowing the outcome of that suit.

By all means make sure to send him your cash.

This by the way is my video.


http://youtu.be/2urLdE-Macw

and now we know why, Whitless wonder...

http://trib.com/news/local/casper/wyoming-man-denies-plot-against-amelia-earhart-plane-recovery-group/article_c31f3ffe-5a21-516c-b9ea-8a38a8318f6e.html


A Wyoming man may have an ulterior motive in suing a Delaware-based company that searches for Amelia Earhart’s missing plane, according to his post on a private online forum.

If the post is to be believed, Timothy Mellon is aiming to bankrupt The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) and mop up the remains. Mellon denies the sincerity of his post.



The Star-Tribune obtained correspondence from a private, Earhart-centered online forum, of which Mellon confirmed he is a member.
In a post written on June 1, two days before the lawsuit was filed, Mellon appealed to the other forum members:
“If and when TIGHAR goes bankrupt, I am considering the formation of a for-profit company with the purpose of purchasing whatever rights and assets that estate might hold. I see a real opportunity to parlay Ric’s (presumably, Richard Gillespie) incompetence into a profitable travel tour play.”
Mellon goes on to shop for investors among forum members and asks for a “clever idea” for the name of his tourism company.
When speaking with the Star-Tribune, Mellon ceded that he did author the post, but only as a joke.

suck on that, you Whitless wonder. When you're back from your 2nd forced vacation that is:laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Let's try not to post about people who are banned and cannot defend themselves.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Let's try not to post about people who are banned and cannot defend themselves.

Perhaps you missed the cage thread that went on a Whitless bashing bender for 4-5 pages 'after' the ban-hammer dropped?

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps you missed the cage thread that went on a Whitless bashing bender for 4-5 pages 'after' the ban-hammer dropped?

Exactly my point.

[namvet]

nice to see everyone's still having fun...........

[aboutime]

nice to see everyone's still having fun...........


Ain't it Great???? If it wasn't for the fun. There'd be nothing here.

[namvet]

Ain't it Great???? If it wasn't for the fun. There'd be nothing here.
always nice to see a good post go ta hell :laugh:

[aboutime]

always nice to see a good post go ta hell :laugh:



Give it time. There's plenty to go around for everybody.

[Robert A Whit]

Let's try not to post about people who are banned and cannot defend themselves.

Abbey, perhaps you can read the post that got me banned and explain why i got banned?

I studied the rules and broke none.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey, perhaps you can read the post that got me banned and explain why i got banned?

I studied the rules and broke none.

Robert, I'm sure you know there is a board rule about against discussing moderation publicly.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, I'm sure you know there is a board rule about against discussing moderation publicly.

And I did not discuss moderation. Can you PM me?

REview my OP please.

[jimnyc]

Abbey, perhaps you can read the post that got me banned and explain why i got banned?

I studied the rules and broke none.


Robert, I'm sure you know there is a board rule about against discussing moderation publicly.


And I did not discuss moderation. Can you PM me?

REview my OP please.

I think she is implying that you are discussing moderation right now by publicly questioning the decision, dumbass. And you'll note that there are board rules against spamming and advertising. Asking people to message you for links IS advertising. End of discussion.