Friday, October 12, 2018

Connections of a Wayward Microphone Connector

By Joe Cerniglia

Preface: With the permission of the government of Kiribati, we brought back a number of artifacts from the 2017 visit to Nikumaroro, to analyze and in time return either to the island or to the government's custody elsewhere. Joe Cerniglia has taken the lead in their analysis. This report is the first of several that Joe has in preparation. They'll illustrate the range of historically interesting subjects -- including but by no means limited to the fates of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan -- that can be investigated on Nikumaroro. TFK

On June 30, 2017, during the second day of the Betchart “In Search of Amelia Earhart” expedition to Nikumaroro (a.k.a. Gardner Island), Dr. Kimberly Zimmerman found a small cylindrical coaxial connector, just underneath a small mound of deadfall in the colonial village, about 100 feet northwest of the fallen ruins of the village co-operative store.

The connector was found in what we colloquially call the “new village,” that portion of the settlement that was developed after the death of its beloved first British administrator, Gerald Gallagher. This section of the village appears to have been developed primarily in the 1950s.[1]
                    
                 
 Photo #1: The connector as discovered

Photo #2: Close-up of the connector.

The connector was resting among a cluster of other interesting artifacts. About sixteen meters to its northeast, a small amber vial, colloquially known as the “Toluca vial” was re-located, after having first been discovered in 2015. (For more on the vial, see https://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-lady-and-lake-joe-cerniglias_8.html.) Roughly an equal distance due north of the connector was found, also in 2015, fragments from two small flat oval jars, with matching caps. Only one intact jar survived. This intact jar’s base was labeled “Bourjois,” a Parisian cosmetics company. Roughly an equal distance south southeast of the connector was found a circular metal object with triangular attachment points, with an inscribed part number (9-S-4378-L). According to modern aviation parts websites, such as wbparts.com, this part number represents a navigation light.[2]


















Photo #3: Map of objects found. With the exception of the Bourjois jars, locations were plotted with a Polar V800 GPS watch.


Artifact Description
This connector measures 1.5 inches in length. The mounting hole is 7/16 inches in diameter, and the microphone cable hole at its opposite end is also 7/16 inches in diameter. These connectors were built with a spring cord protector protruding from the cable hole.



Photo #4: Artifact connector alongside a pristine sibling 
with a spring cord protector

The spring cord protector on this connector has either broken off or rusted away. The spring, if present, would have reduced the clearance of the cable by 1/8 inches.[3]  When held vertically with its mounting end facing up, a three-line inscription on the artifact is visible. Above and below this inscription, two oxidized circular spots where small screws were once placed may be seen. The piece is pitted with tiny scratches and reddish oxidation marks. A knurled coupling ring is present near the mounting hole, but it has been shifted off its track so that it is stuck in place. A nub of wire, 3/16 inches in width, which has been bent in upon itself since it was collected, trails from the cable end. The artifact weighs 22.17 grams.

The Artifact Inscription
Inscribed in the center of the artifact are 3 printed lines. The first line is in sans serif block lettering, each letter of equal height. The line reads:

AMPHENOL
The second line is also in sans serif block lettering, slightly smaller in font size than the top line. The line reads:
CHICAGO
The third and last line is also in sans serif, equal in font size to the second line. It reads:
80-SERIES

The Amphenol Corporation: A Brief History
The company whose name is inscribed on the connector, Amphenol, was formed as the American Phenolic Corporation in 1932 by Arthur John Schmitt, an aviator, inventor and businessman who had predicted the then-emerging radio industry’s need for innovative radio parts. Amphenol survives today and is best known for its lightweight, durable, and high-performance circular connectors. During World War II, according to one biography, Schmitt’s company “made about 62 percent of all the electrical connectors used in U.S. planes.”[4] The company also made connectors for civilian uses as a wholesale supplier to radio manufacturers and retail supplier to hobbyists. Today the company provides connectors around the globe in many industrial applications such as aerospace, auto manufacturing, military needs, and mobile devices.

Catalogs and Advertisements: Artifact Identification
The 80-Series connector was listed in Amphenol catalogs, parts distributor catalogs, and advertisements as a microphone connector. Microphone connectors are useful in bringing cable from a microphone to an amplifier chassis, mounting a microphone on a stand, or providing a means of extending the cord of the microphone itself. Amphenol offered three series of microphone connectors, the 75-Series, the 80-Series and the 91-Series. They were made of a molded central dielectric element of black bakelite surrounded by a brass shell with a polished chrome finish.

The 91-Series was a deluxe model. It came with 3-or 4-prongs. The 80-Series was an intermediate model, with 1- or 2-prongs. The artifact is an example of the 1-prong variant of the 80-Series. The 75-Series was the entry level model, with 1-prong only. For most of its production run from 1935 into the 1970s, these three microphone connector series remained consistent in terms of general design, materials and construction, although the dimensions varied slightly over the years.

Amphenol introduced its first microphone connectors in December 1935.[5] The earliest advertisement offering them for sale appeared in early 1936.[6] The exact year in which the 80-Series model was introduced is not known, but it would seem logical that it would follow on not much later than the year in which Amphenol microphone connectors were first introduced.


Photo #5: Spring 1936 catalog offering of Amphenol microphone connectors


How Did It Get There?
There are three main hypotheses for how this connector reached the particular spot where it was found:
1.     Outwash from the Co-op Store and multiple house sites: This hypothesis presumes that the artifact resided semi-permanently within the village itself but was originally brought there, most likely by colonists.
2.     Material picked up elsewhere on the island and dropped by people en route to boats. This hypothesis presumes an accidental reason for its presence and does not necessarily presume colonial agency but may include Coast Guardsmen, British and American surveyors and explorers.
3.     Inwash south of the channel or eastward from the beach, washed in by force of wind or water, or both, from a storm surge. There are many examples of flotsam resting on the beach of the windward side of the island. If this hypothesis is correct, it would beg the question of just what was the original source. Was it a passing ship or some stationary object offshore?

Wear Patterns as Possible Deposition Clue
The extremities of the connector appear to be very much impacted, worn and beveled, with tiny uniform abrasions and one-millimeter linear scratches. These wear patterns are exactly what one would expect to see if the artifact had been thrown by the force of water and dragged, as in a storm, upon the abrasive, coral-strewn shore of the island. Under magnification, the wear seems slightly more noticeable on the projecting edges, but the connector is still relatively evenly worn. There are no areas completely free of wear. Dr. Richard Pettigrew, an archaeologist who was on the 2017 trip, contributed his expertise with wear patterns on artifacts, stating: “Tumbling in rocks produces even wear on all projecting surfaces, which is what I see on the artifact from photographs. It's a light object, so impacts would not be heavy, but many of them accumulate to generate wear that is visible at the right magnification and illumination. It won't be faceted (relatively flat) and focused wear, as you often get from tool use by people, but rather rounded and everywhere, as you get on pebbles in a stream bed.”[7]  




Photo #s 6 and 7:
Well-distributed wear patterns on the connector show light, uniform and small abrasions, as would be produced by tumbling from ocean deposition.

If Brought to the Village, By Whom?
The connector’s wear patterns, however, may not explain all of its provenance. Even if the connector spent time in the ocean, that would not preclude it from first having spent time on the island, for what may have been very mundane and expectable reasons. On the other hand, before assuming who or what brought the connector, a detailed assessment of each island population’s use of microphones and microphone connectors seems warranted, to the extent this is possible.

Loran Unit 92: The Coast Guard (1944-1946)
A radio microphone from a radio installation would seem to be a most likely source for a microphone connector, and it so happens Nikumaroro had a radio installation. Construction of the U.S. Coast Guard radio navigation station on the southern tip of the island (about 2 miles distant from the site where the artifact was found in the village) began about 1 September, 1944, with surveying, clearing and preparation work having been completed in the five weeks prior to that date. Loran Unit 92 first went on the air on 16 December, 1944.[8] The last servicemen departed the station in May 1946 and the station was dismantled shortly thereafter.[9]

On 24 July 1944 and on 18 August, 1944, an LCM (landing craft, mechanized) from the USS Spicewood was landed on Nikumaroro with equipment for clearing and building the station. On the first date, the landing was said to have occurred “three and one half miles from the site on the south side of the island at a point where the surf seemed the least hazardous.”[10] On the second date, the landing was said to have occurred “at the extreme northwestern tip of the island, about two miles from the landing.”[11] Both of these locations could have taken the LCMs within a short distance of the village site.

The LCMs could have communicated with the USS Spicewood by radio, and those radios could be a source of microphone connectors, so it would seem worthwhile to know whether the U.S. military purchased Amphenol products for use on boats. Also, the Loran station was restocked with supplies from PBYs that periodically landed in the lagoon, and these PBYs, too, could have been a source of microphone connectors.

If the microphone connector found in the new village was used by the military, it would be expected that it would meet military specifications. World War II witnessed a proliferation of military specifications for all types of equipment, including for the circular coaxial microphone connector found on the island. Some of these specifications predated the war itself. As of 1 November, 1939, all circular connectors on “aircraft, marine and other motorized units” were required to meet Army-Navy Aeronautical Standard AN-9534, which was superseded in 1941 by AN-WC-591.[12] [13]

Amphenol catalogs sampled from the 1930s through the 1970s all clearly distinguish between Amphenol products that were designated for use by the military, and therefore met the required military specifications, and those not designed for military use. Those meeting military specifications have an A-N number or, in the case of catalogs later than the 1950s, a MIL-specification number. The Amphenol 80-Series microphone connector was neither given an A-N number nor a MIL-spec. number in all the years it was offered. The Amphenol catalogs do not even class the 80-Series as unofficially approved for use by the military, as some of their other connectors were.[14]

Therefore, because 1) the Amphenol catalogs clearly distinguish the 80-Series microphone connectors from connectors designed for the military, and because 2) military specifications during World War II stipulated that in certain situations (i.e. transport), connectors with military part numbers had to be used, it is reasonable to suppose that military transport vehicles to and from the island, such as PBYs landing in the lagoon to replenish station supplies, LCM transports hauling equipment ashore to build or dismantle the station, or even bulldozers used in construction, are very unlikely sources for an Amphenol Series 80 microphone connector.

Wartime Amphenol Production of Microphone Connectors
Still, the possibility that the artifact was used by the U.S. military cannot be ruled out entirely. During World War II, Amphenol stated in an advertisement in a radio industry periodical that there was an ever-increasing “war production” of microphone connectors.[15]



Photo #8: Radio News wartime Amphenol advertisement 
announcing increased production.

Whether these wartime microphone connectors had A-N part numbers assigned to them is unknown. It is known that the artifact has no such number. What types of military situations (battlefield, administration, traveling shows for troops) in which these military microphone connectors were used is also unknown.

Inside the Loran Station
The regulations against use of non A-N parts, such as the artifact connector, appear to have been more strict while using them in moving vehicles than while using them in stationary buildings. Consequently, use of an Amphenol microphone connector inside the Loran station itself seems more plausible. A period photograph of the communications hut inside a Loran station shows a number of radio transmitters and receivers with cords and headphones, connected with specialized hardware of some sort.




Photo #9: Communications equipment at a Loran station[16]


Radio Equipment Commonly Used by the Military
It would be useful to know what kinds of microphone connectors were common in standard military applications during World War II. Although no survey could encompass every possible use, a survey of radio hardware does show certain trends.

One of the ways in which the military use of microphone connectors may be revealed is in the types of surplus military radio connectors dropped into civilian markets near the close of the war. Amalgamated Radio and Television Corporation advertised “Plugs and Jacks for every known application” in a 1945 publication.[17] It is interesting that the radio industry term “connector” is never even used in the advertisement; rather, a more pedestrian terminology (plugs and jacks) is used.



Photo #10: Advertisement for civilians to buy military plugs and jacks 
after the war ended.

These plugs and jacks are still sought after by collectors of old radio equipment and thus can be viewed in online sales and auctions. They appear to lack the sophisticated chrome exterior seen on the artifact. Instead, they have an encasing shell of black phenolic material, and are decidedly more primitive in appearance.






 Photo #s 11, 12 and 13: Typical World War II radio plugs and jacks.


While it is unknown exactly what the Loran stations in World War II were using for microphone connectors, or even if their use of such connectors was uniformly consistent, it would appear that the prevailing military trend for many situations was to use a reasonably durable but less expensive connector than the 80-Series Amphenol.

The Bushnell Survey Expedition (1939)
The U.S. Coast Guard was the largest of the U.S. military operations that ever visited and worked on the island, but there were other military personnel who visited more briefly. The submarine tender USS Bushnell left for survey work on Nikumaroro from American Samoa on 16 November, 1939.[18] By this time, military specification AN-9534, which required A-N part numbers for all circular connectors used by motorized military units, had been in effect for only two weeks (since Nov. 1, 1939). It is possible that the specifications were not yet observed by the Bushnell, and consequently, the ship may have carried circular connectors designed for civilian, not military, use. 

The Norwich City
The founding date of Amphenol in 1932 would definitely rule out the Norwich City, which went aground on Nikumaroro in 1929.

The Colonial Village Radio Hut (1939-1963)
The colonial village had a small wireless hut next to the rest house. This site is about .4 miles from where the microphone connector was found. So far as is known, this radio hut lacked ability to transmit voice, so presumably it did not require a microphone.[19] Still, an American microphone connector in the British radio hut cannot be ruled out.

Gerald Gallagher’s Personal Wireless Sets (1939-1941)
When Gerald Gallagher died on the island in 1941, his personal belongings were inventoried before and after packing them for shipment. These inventories show two wireless radio sets, a Radiola and an Ultimate.[20] Radiola was made by RCA. This line of radios was marked by frilly wooden cabinetry design. Since it was a receiver only, it had no need to have been accessorized with a microphone, or a microphone connector.[21] The Ultimate radio was a small mantelpiece receiver with Art Deco cabinetry, also without microphone inputs.[22]

Other Possible Sources
Other sources, consistent with the hypothesis that the artifact is flotsam tossed from a passing ship, include:
1.      The Nimanoa, Viti, other colonial vessels;
2.      Civilian ships, etc. used during the evaculation of Nikumaroro in 1963, or before;
3.      Passing yachtsmen, if any.[23]

What About Amelia Earhart (1937)?
There are some very logical associations that can be made between the microphone connector and known island populations. However, since Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan have been hypothesized to have reached Nikumaroro while attempting to fly from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island, it would also seem worthwhile to try to track down all of the possible associations between this Amphenol microphone connector and the 1937 world flight.

It turns out that there are several quite intriguing such associations.

Lockheed Model 10 (Electra) Associations (1960)
Well into the 1960s, the Lockheed Corporation maintained parts catalogs to assist owners in maintaining their vintage Lockheeds. The 1960 edition of the Lockheed Spare Parts Price Catalog for the Model 10 (Electra) lists a part number for a connector, 10606.[24] Both a modern electronics distributor, Mouser Electronics, Inc. and a parts supplier for commercial and military aircraft, WB Parts, Inc., have variants in their databases of this part number, an Amphenol crimp bucket connector.[25] In addition, Amphenol’s 2004 catalog made especially for aircraft manufacturer Bombardier Inc., lists 25 variants of this same connector.


Photo #14: The listing for an Amphenol connector from Mouser, Inc., a modern electronics supplier, is on the left; the listing of the same part in the Electra Spare Parts Price Catalog is on the right.




Photo #15: The modern Amphenol crimp connector is on the left; 
the artifact is on the right.




Photo #16: Cover of 2004 Amphenol catalog made especially for 
aircraft manufacturer Bombardier Inc.





Photo #17: From the Amphenol Bombardier catalog. 
This is a list of most of the variants of part number 10606, which may 
be found in the Lockheed Electra Spare Parts Price Catalog for 1960.[26]


What is lacking from this potential association between Amphenol and Lockheed is an Amphenol catalog that is contemporaneous (1960 or prior) to the Lockheed Parts Catalog, and which also shows this connector. None of the Amphenol catalogs thus far examined that predate 2004 contain this part number. Such a catalog may exist but has not yet been located.

There is also the possibility the Lockheed Parts Catalog refers to a connector from a manufacturer other than Amphenol. Glenair, Inc. today also manufactures the same connector with a variant part number. Glenair was also active prior to 1960.

Oddly, the 1960 Lockheed Spare Parts Price Catalog contains only prices, quantities, part numbers and descriptions. It contains no manufacturer names, so it is not known for sure whether Lockheed was buying connectors from Amphenol as stock parts for Electras, but it seems possible. This is interesting for a number of reasons, but it may also be no more than confirmation of the fact that for many decades Amphenol has been involved in the aerospace industry.

Western Electric Company Associations (1941, 1958)
Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra carried a receiver and transmitter that were both made by the Western Electric Company. The receiver was the Western Electric Model 20B. The transmitter was the Western Electric Model 13C.[27]

When Earhart ground looped her Electra at Luke Field on Ford Island, Hawaii during the first world flight attempt in March 1937, the U.S. Army Air Corp inventoried the airplane’s contents prior to shipping it back to the mainland for repairs. This inventory stated that additional Western Electric Company radio components were aboard as well, including[28]:

Three (3) Western Electric Radio Head Phones, type No. 588A (2 equipped with ear cushions)

Two (2) Microphones with Cord, Western Electric type No. 631B

Both headphones and microphones are items that use microphone connectors to bring the cord to the chassis of the transmitter or receiver. All of this Western Electric Company equipment may be presumed to have been carried forward to the second world flight attempt.

No microphone connectors are listed in the Luke Field inventory, but these may have been left connected to the transmitter, or perhaps their presence is implied in the Luke Field inventory with the words “with Cord.”

It is not known what type of microphone connectors Western Electric specified in its manufacturer’s bulletins for the 588A earphones, the 631B microphones, the 13C transmitter, or the 20B receiver. Existing product information that survives does not reach this level of detail.[29]

However, five product bulletins from pre-World War II Western Electric amplifiers specifically call for two Amphenol microphone connectors “to use on cords.” Two additional Amphenol connectors are specified “to mount on chassis.” The amplifiers that call for these Amphenol microphone connectors and chassis connectors are Western Electric models 124-A, 124-B, 124-C, 124-D and 124-E. All of the models’ respective bulletins are dated “4-15-41.”[30]



Photo #18: Western Electric 124-C amplifier specifications for two 
Amphenol microphone connectors and two Amphenol chassis connectors.

The connectors specified in these product bulletins are all well-documented in an Amphenol catalog from circa 1948. In fact, these connectors appear on the same page on which the artifact microphone connector model is listed.[31] The microphone connectors called for in the Western Electric Company product bulletins are from the 91-Series, a close relative to the 80-Series, of which the artifact is an example.




Photo #19: These are the Amphenol connectors called for in the Western Electric 124-A, 124-B, 124-C, 124-D, and 124-E product bulletins. Those specified by Western Electric are highlighted in yellow. The artifact microphone connector is highlighted in pink.

It is not known whether the Western Electric Company began calling for Amphenol connectors in its products prior to 1941; however, after 1941, Western Electric’s customer relationship with Amphenol flourished. Western Electric would ultimately sign with Amphenol one of the largest connector purchase deals in electronics industry history.[32] By 1967, Amphenol was making the Type 57 micro-ribbon miniature connector[33] in large volume for the Western Electric Company, in partnership with another connector manufacturer, Cinch Manufacturing.[34]



Photo #20: 1958 catalog entry for micro-ribbon miniature connectors.[35] 
Western Electric purchased these connectors from Amphenol in one of the largest connector deals in the history of the electronics industry.

Because the radio equipment chosen by Amelia Earhart for the Lockheed 10E was designed and built by the Western Electric Company, it would be reasonable that the microphone connectors aboard the Electra might have been similar to the ones chosen in 1941 by the Western Electric Company for use in its amplifiers. They chose Amphenol.

Summary
Overall, the potential associations between the Amphenol 80-Series microphone connector found on Nikumaroro in 2017 and the world flight of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan in 1937 are much more intriguing than the associations usually encountered with a Nikumaroro village artifact, even as compared with those artifacts in the village that also have part numbers.

Partly this is due to the fact that the artifact’s inscription includes both a manufacturer name and a model number. As a result, the artifact’s basic identity is not in question. Additionally, the manufacturing history and purpose of the Amphenol 80-Series microphone connector has been much more extensively documented than is common for other objects collected and brought back from the island.

Still, the microphone connector is admittedly not an Earhart mystery ‘smoking gun,’ and the fact that it is not demonstrates how very difficult it is to find that 'definitive artifact,' the one that solves the Amelia Earhart mystery once and for all. Nikumaroro would be settled by Americans (1944-1946) and British-supplied colonists (1939-1963) only a few short years after Earhart disappeared en route to Howland Island in July of 1937. These settlers undoubtedly brought and even perhaps left behind radio parts of various shapes and sizes.

Whether or not these Nikumaroro settlers left behind this particular Amphenol 80-Series microphone connector is unresolved, but the probability of this having happened seems to diminish, not to increase, the more closely one studies the details.

Research continues on the following:

Amphenol manufactured microphone connectors between 1935 and the 1970s. Are there any attributes of the artifact microphone connector that would date it to perhaps a single year or decade? Can additional Amphenol catalogs be located that would assist in answering this question?

Do any product bulletins for the Western Electric radio equipment used aboard the Earhart Electra describe which, if any, microphone connectors were specified to use with these Western Electric products?
_____________________



[1] Paul B. Laxton, "Nikumaroro," Journal Of the Polynesian Society 602, no. 2 and 3 (1951): p. 142.
[2] “Part listing for navigation light.” WB Parts. 10 Oct 2018.
https://www.wbparts.com/rfq/6220-00-151-9607.html


[3] The amount of reduction in clearance from the spring cord connector is based on comparisons with the contemporaneous sibling connector of nearly identical dimensions.

[4] Thaddeus J. Burch, “Arthur J. Schmitt.” American National Biography. July 2002. Web. 1 Oct 2018. http://www.marquette.edu/electrical-computer-engineering/documents/SchmittbiofromAmerNatlBio.pdf

[5] “Amphenol Microphone Connector.” Communication and Broadcast Engineering. 2.12, December 1935, p. 28, Column 1.  https://www.americanradiohistory.com. 1 Oct 2018.

[6] Advertisement for Amphenol. Hall Radio Catalog, Spring/Summer 1936, p. 40, Column 2. https://www.americanradiohistory.com. 1 Oct 2018.

[7] Richard Pettigrew. “Re: Preliminary Observations on Coaxial Connector.” Message to Joe Cerniglia, Thomas King, Kenton Spading, and Kimberly Zimmerman. 27 Sept  2018. E-mail.

[8] Historical Section, Public Information Division, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters. The Coast Guard at War IV, Volume 2. Washington, DC: 1946, pp. 91-95.

[9] See http://www.loran-history.info/station_search.aspx for a list of Coast Guardsmen on Gardner and the duration of each enlisted man’s service. The operational duration of Unit 92 itself was derived from these dates.

[10] The Coast Guard at War IV, Volume 2., p. 91.

[11] The Coast Guard at War IV, Volume 2., p. 93.

[12] Amphenol Catalog: Radio Parts and Accessories, Synthetics for Electronics, High Frequency Cables and Connectors, ‘A-N’ Connectors and ‘A-N’ Fittings, c.1948, p. M-26, Column 1.  http://www.tubebooks.org/vintage_data.htm. 23 Sept 2018.

[13] Connector Microtooling Systems, Inc. “Electrical Connectors and Tooling,” Arlington, TX: 2004, p. 8. http://cms-tools.com/opencart/pdf/Electrical.pdf 8 Oct 2018.

[14] Amphenol Catalog: Radio Parts and Accessories, Synthetics for Electronics, High Frequency Cables and Connectors, ‘A-N’ Connectors and ‘A-N’ Fittings, c.1948, p. M-12, Column 1. http://www.tubebooks.org/vintage_data.htm. 23 Sept 2018.

[15] Advertisement for Amphenol. Radio News, June 1943, p. 40, full-page. https://www.americanradiohistory.com. 1 Oct 2018.

[16] The Coast Guard at War IV, Volume 2., p. 110.

[17] Advertisement for Amalgamated Radio and Television Corporation. Electronics, June 1945, p. 172, first column. https://www.americanradiohistory.com. 1 Oct 2018.

[18] Progress Report (of USS Bushnell) – 16 November to 17 December, 1939, inclusive. National Archives, 19 December, 1939, https://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/f/f1/Bushnell_Part_3.pdf. 9 Oct 2018.

[19] Thomas F. King. “Re: Preliminary Observations on Coaxial Connector.” Message to Joe Cerniglia, Richard Pettigrew, Kenton Spading, and Kimberly Zimmerman. 23 Sept 2018. E-mail.

[20] Gallagher Packing Inventory, date unknown, https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Gallagereffects2.html 9 Oct 2018.

[21] Advertisement for Radiola. Allied Radio Catalog, 1933, p. 6, full-page. https://www.americanradiohistory.com. 1 Oct 2018.

25 Sept 2018.

[23] Thomas F. King. “Re: Preliminary Observations on Coaxial Connector.” Message to Joe Cerniglia, Richard Pettigrew, Kenton Spading, and Kimberly Zimmerman. 23 Sept 2018. E-mail.

[24] Lockheed Spare Parts Price Catalog: Model 10 (Electra), Model 12, Model 18 (Lodestar), 1960, p. 3, Line 3.

[25] Part listing for Amphenol Bendix Connector.” WB Parts. 11 Oct 2018.
https://www.wbparts.com/search.cfm?q=10606015
“Part listing for Amphenol Circular Crimp Connector.” Mouser, Inc. 11 Oct 2018.
[26] Bombardier Transportation Design Guide for Amphenol GT Series Reverse Bayonet Coupling Connectors, 2004, p. 20. http://www.amphenol.co.jp/military/catalog/L-2123.pdf 11 Oct 2018.

[27] Michael Everette. “A Technical Analysis of the Western Electric Radio Communications Equipment Installed on Board Lockheed Electra NR16020” , https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/ElectraRadios/ElectraRadios.htm#4 11 Oct 2018.

10 Oct 2018.

[29] Earhart Western Electric 13C Transmitter Technical Information. https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1502.0;attach=7914
10 Oct 2018.

[30] Western Electric Product Bulletins for 124-A, 124-B, 124-C, 124-D, 124-E. http://www.westernelectric.com/static/library/specifications/amplifiers/124.pdf
22 Sept 2018.

[31] Amphenol Catalog: Radio Parts and Accessories, Synthetics for Electronics, High Frequency Cables and Connectors, ‘A-N’ Connectors and ‘A-N’ Fittings, c.1948, p. M-6. http://www.tubebooks.org/vintage_data.htm. 23 Sept 2018.

[32] Arthur J. Schaefer. Quest for Leadership: The Arthur J. Schmitt Story. Chicago: Cathedral Publishing Company, 1985, p. 75.

[33] I am using the completion date of the Hollywood, Florida Amphenol factory, discussed in Schaefer’s book as having been built to fulfill the deal with Western Electric, as the period in which production of the micro-ribbon miniature connectors rose to a high level.
Jessica Cattelino. High Stakes: Florida Seminole Gaming and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008, p. 49.

[34] Schaefer, p. 75.

[35] Allied Radio Catalog, 1958, p. 171. https://www.americanradiohistory.com
10 Oct 2018.

__________________

Bibliography

Advertisement for Amalgamated Radio and Television Corporation. Electronics, June 1945, p. 172,
first column. https://www.americanradiohistory.com. 1 Oct 2018.

Advertisement for Amphenol. Hall Radio Catalog, Spring/Summer 1936, p. 40, Column 2.
               https://www.americanradiohistory.com. 1 Oct 2018.

Advertisement for Amphenol. Radio News, June 1943, p. 40, full-page.

Advertisement for Radiola. Allied Radio Catalog, 1933, p. 6, full-page.

Advertisement for Ultimate Radios.
25 Sept 2018.

Amphenol Catalog: Radio Parts and Accessories, Synthetics for Electronics, High Frequency Cables
and Connectors, ‘A-N’ Connectors and ‘A-N’ Fittings, c.1948. http://www.tubebooks.org/vintage_data.htm. 23 Sept 2018.

Amphenol General Line Catalog of Amphenol Components, Catalog GL-1, c.1967.

Amphenol Microphone Connectors. Allied Radio Catalog,  1955a, p. 177.

Amphenol Microphone Connectors. Allied Radio Catalog,  1958, p. 171.

Amphenol Microphone Connectors. Allied Radio Catalog,  1960, p. 189.

Amphenol Microphone Connectors. Allied Radio Catalog,  1963, p.232 and  369.

“Amphenol Microphone Connectors.” Communication and Broadcast Engineering. 2.12, December
1935, p. 28, Column 1.  https://www.americanradiohistory.com. 1 Oct 2018.

Amphenol Microphone Connectors. Lafayette Catalog #710,  1971, p. 268.

Bombardier Transportation Design Guide for Amphenol GT Series Reverse Bayonet Coupling
Connectors, 2004, p. 20. http://www.amphenol.co.jp/military/catalog/L-2123.pdf 11 Oct 2018.

Burch, Thaddeus J. "Arthur J. Schmitt." American National Biography. July 2002. Web. 1 Oct 2018. 
              http://www.marquette.edu/electrical-computer-engineering/documents/SchmittbiofromAmerNatlBio.pdf

Cattelino, Jessica. High Stakes: Florida Seminole Gaming and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2008.

Connector Microtooling Systems, Inc. “Electrical Connectors and Tooling,” Arlington, TX: 2004.

Earhart Western Electric 13C Transmitter Technical Information.
10 Oct 2018.

Everette, Michael. “A Technical Analysis of the Western Electric Radio Communications
 11 Oct 2018.

Gallagher Packing Inventory, date unknown,

General Catalog of Amphenol Components, Catalog B2, c.1956.

General Catalog of Amphenol Components, Catalog B3, c.1956.

Historical Section, Public Information Division, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters. (1946).  The Coast
Guard at War IV, Volume 2. Washington, DC.

Laxton, Paul B. "Nikumaroro." Journal Of the Polynesian Society 602, no. 2 and 3 (1951): p. 142

Lockheed Spare Parts Price Catalog: Model 10 (Electra), Model 12, Model 18 (Lodestar). Lockheed
Aircraft Corporation. California Division, Burbank, California, USA. 1960.

Loran personnel roster. (n.d.). In Loran Historical Information.

10 Oct 2018.

“Part listing for Amphenol Bendix Connector.” WB Parts. 11 Oct 2018.
              https://www.wbparts.com/search.cfm?q=10606015

“Part listing for Amphenol Circular Crimp Connector.” Mouser, Inc. 11 Oct 2018.

 “Part listing for navigation light.” WB Parts. 10 Oct 2018.
              https://www.wbparts.com/rfq/6220-00-151-9607.html

Progress Report (of USS Bushnell) – 16 November to 17 December, 1939, inclusive. National
Archives, 19 December, 1939, https://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/f/f1/Bushnell_Part_3.pdf.  9 Oct 2018.

Schaefer, Arthur J. Quest for Leadership: The Arthur J. Schmitt Story. Chicago: Cathedral
Publishing Company, 1985.

Western Electric Product Bulletins for 124-A, 124-B, 124-C, 124-D, 124-E.




Sunday, September 2, 2018

Parting ways with TIGHAR

On August 31st, in a special telephonic session, the Board of Directors of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) voted to expel me from its ranks. The vote was not unanimous, but the fix was obviously in, and I did not complicate matters by participating in the kangaroo court. I have accordingly resigned my membership in TIGHAR altogether. 
My sin, it is said, is "conflict of interest." No one has explained to me precisely what this conflict is, but from what I can make out, it goes like this:

1. After the 2010 expedition, Ric Gillespie decided that since we'd not found a smoking gun on land, we should henceforth focus on underwater work. I vigorously disagreed, and was ignored. At this point it's implied that I should have shut up, but I didn't. 
2. I added insult to injury -- or maybe injury to insult -- by conspiring with Betchart Expeditions, National Geographic, and others to carry out the 2015 and 2017 trips to the island, continuing on-land (as well as underwater) research.

They may not have been discussed in the Board's proceedings, but as evidence of my evil ways, at various times in the last few months, I've been accused of:

A. Maintaining the AmeliaEarhartArchaeology blog;
B. Publishing the novel Amelia Earhart UNRESCUED; and
C. Failing to support Ric's insistence on a substantial upfront payment from Betchart Expeditions and/or National Geographic as the price of TIGHAR support for the 2017 trip. 
What can I say to these charges but mea culpa?
Some months ago, in view of my multiple sins, I was asked to resign from the Board. After some equivocation I agreed to do so IF two things could be guaranteed:

1. That TIGHAR would establish ways to ensure that its data and collections (including those held in trust for Kiribati) were kept secure and cared for properly (As things stand, Ric can throw out whatever he decides isn't interesting); and
2. That TIGHAR would not use its Antiquities Management Agreement with the government of Kiribati to block legitimate research in Kiribati by non-TIGHAR researchers.

In the immediate run-up to the August 31 meeting I was advised that neither condition was acceptable. Thus the die was cast.

Although I am no longer a part of TIGHAR, I want to assure my readers that I remain deeply interested in solving the Earhart/Noonan disappearance mystery, and intend to continue to work with Betchart Expeditions, National Geographic, the Archaeological Legacy Institute, and others to pursue its solution, to the extent any of them wish for me to do so. I will continue to maintain this blog to keep everyone informed of progress. I've contemplated organizing a new group to carry out such work -- perhaps Lugubrious Luddites Investigating Old Nonsense (LLION) or Bewildered Enthusiasts for Ancient Relics 'n Ruins (BEARR), but oh my, I think I'll skip it.

I want to thank all those who've worked on the project over the years for your efforts and collegial friendship. I'm happy to correspond -- tomking106@gmail.com.

Sunday, August 26, 2018

WHAT HAPPENED TO AMELIA EARHART (AND FRED NOONAN)? SOME HYPOTHESES



Thomas F. King
August, 2017

Introduction

Its 80th anniversary in 2017 witnessed an explosion of media interest in the 1937 disappearance of aviation pioneers Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan – perhaps most vividly reflected in a short-lived History Channel documentary (c.f. https://www.newsweek.com/amelia-earhart-mystery-documentary-history-channel-639938) and the popularity of podcasts in the “Chasing Earhart” series (https://www.chasingearhart.com/).

In 2018 I published a novel about the disappearance and its aftermath – Amelia Earhart UNRESCUED (King 2018; https://tinyurl.com/y95rarys) – that is, about how I envision them.. UNRESCUED and its 2009 sequel, Thirteen Bones (King 2009; https://tinyurl.com/ydgzum44), are fiction. Well-grounded fiction, I think, and entertaining fiction, I hope, but fiction nonetheless, not fact.

Facts are rather scarce about the Earhart/Noonan disappearance. It’s well documented, though, that on the morning of July 2nd, 1937, nearing the end of their record-setting flight around the world near the equator, they took off in their Lockheed Electra 10E aircraft from Lae, New Guinea. They were set to land over 2,000 nautical miles to the northeast at Howland Island, a tiny raised coral island in mid-Pacific, half a degree north of the equator and four degrees east of the prime meridian. There they were to refuel and fly to Honolulu, then on to California.

It’s also well documented that they never arrived at Howland, and a vigorous search turned up no trace of them (See Gillespie 2006). What happened to Earhart, Noonan, and their Electra has been described as one of the 20th century’s greatest mysteries. Many hypotheses – that is, semi-educated guesses[1] – have been advanced to solve the mystery.
In this paper I’d like to summarize and compare some of the most widely believed-in hypotheses.

How I Came to the Earhart Mystery

My father, the late U.S. Navy Cdr. T.T. (Ted) King was in military government in the Pacific during World War II. He’d go ashore once the Marines had more or less secured an island and oversee setting up arrangements for the local people and captured Japanese military personnel. He was on Kosrae, Pohnpei, Chuuk, Guam, and Saipan, among other islands. So he brought home stories about Amelia Earhart, who he said he regarded as a “dizzy dame” who’d gotten lost and no doubt gone into the drink. He discounted stories he’d heard about her being captured by the Japanese.

I didn’t pay much attention; I was a kid, with other things on my mind.

In 1977, I went to Saipan as “Consultant in Archaeology and Historic Preservation” to the High Commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. I was based on Saipan, but my beat was the rest of Micronesia, helping set up what would become the historic preservation programs of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Like my by then deceased father, I heard Earhart stories, but didn’t attend to them much – my business was helping build programs that Micronesians could support, to preserve Micronesian history and culture, not stories about lost American flyers. And the Marianas, where Earhart stories were thick on the ground, weren’t my responsibility.

When my time in the islands was done, I went back to the mainland and spent ten years with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which advises the U.S. president and congress about historic preservation matters. Toward the end of my tenure there (I survived the Reagan administration, but not that of GHW Bush), I met Ric Gillespie and Pat Thrasher.

Ric and Pat are the creators and leaders of TIGHAR – The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving historic aircraft and researching aviation history. About the time I was leaving the Advisory Council, Ric contacted me about a project TIGHAR was taking on – investigating the hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan had wound up on Nikumaroro, an uninhabited atoll in the Phoenix Islands of Kiribati. To make a long story short, I joined TIGHAR’s first expedition to the island in 1989, and got hooked on the Earhart mystery. Pursuing an answer to it has been my hobby for the last 30 years. I’ve been to the Phoenix Islands eight times and done research in Fiji as well as in various U.S. locations. I’ve co-authored a book and a summary article about our work (King et al 2004; King 2012), as well as two novels based on it (King 2008, 2018). I’ve contributed quite a few postings to TIGHAR’s website (tighar.org) and maintain my own “Amelia Earhart Archaeology” blog (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/).

All this has led me to learn a lot about Earhart, Noonan, their disappearance, and the various hypotheses that purport to account for their disappearance; that’s the basis for what I’ll share here.

The Hypotheses

Setting aside propositions like alien abduction and passage into another dimension[2] (which might be correct, but how would we find out?), there are five or six semi-testable hypotheses about what happened to Earhart and Noonan.

The “Crashed and Sank” Hypothesis

The “Crashed and Sank” hypothesis is a popular one, presumably because it seems conservative – and perhaps because it offers the possibility of recovering Earhart’s Electra from the ocean bottom, maybe with its crew’s remains still inside. Several investors over the years have put a lot of money into searching the sea bottom for the plane (cf. http://nauticos.com/ocean-discovery/amelia/).

“Crashed and Sank” assumes that Earhart and Noonan simply ran out of fuel and went into the drink. This is certainly possible, but the hypothesis doesn’t account for some important evidence – notably the fact that over 100 radio messages were received after Earhart’s disappearance, many on Earhart’s frequencies, by stations in and around the Pacific. Some were in what was identified as Earhart’s voice, and several of them were plotted by radio direction finding as emanating from the Phoenix Islands – where at the time there were no known operative radios. To broadcast at all, Earhart’s plane would have had to be on land, not sinking in the ocean (See Gillespie 2006:189-90). As we’ll see, there’s also evidence supporting alternative hypotheses.

The “Turned Around” Hypotheses

Two hypothesis currently in play have Earhart and Noonan winding up pretty close to where they started on July 2nd, crashing on New Britain (See https://earharttruth.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/new-britain-theory-presents-incredible-possibilities/) or on Papua New Guinea’s Buka Island (http://www.astonishinglegends.com/al-podcasts/2018/5/4/ep-106-earharts-plane-found). 

Both hypotheses are based on the observation of aircraft wreckage resembling Earhart’s Electra observed during World War II and/or more recently, and oral historical data.  Both assume that Earhart and Noonan realized during their flight that they could not make it to Howland Island, so turned around and tried unsuccessfully to return to Lae – or that they didn’t get too far from Lae at all.

Both hypotheses have a high hurdle to clear. The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Itasca, lying off Howland Island on the morning of July 2nd, recorded receiving radio signals from Earhart at signal strengths indicating that she was getting steadily closer to them. One of her last such signals reported that she was “on” the island (i.e. over its mapped location) but couldn’t see it. These radio data are deeply inconsistent with the notion that she was, at the time, not near Howland Island but near New Britain or Buka Island almost 2,000 nautical miles to the southwest. Still, there might be some way for the New Britain or Buka Island hypothesis to be correct, and people are pursuing them – in effect testing them by looking for identifiable wreckage.

The “Japanese Capture” Hypothesis

“Japanese Capture” is one of the most popular of the Earhart/Noonan disappearance hypotheses. It is of particular interest to residents of the Mariana and Marshall Islands, and it’s the one my father and I caught wind of during our times in the islands.  There are several variants on this hypothesis, most of them outlined and advocated with varying levels of enthusiasm by Mike Campbell in his “Amelia Earhart: the Truth at Last” book and website (See https://earharttruth.wordpress.com/ and Campbell 2016).

“Japanese Capture” proposes that one way or another – in some versions flying there directly, in others crashing in the Marshall Islands and being picked up by a Japanese ship (and there are other variants) – Earhart and Noonan wound up in Japanese captivity on Saipan (or perhaps Tinian), and there were either executed or died of natural causes. Since neither the Japanese nor the American government has ever acknowledged that this occurred, Campbell and other Japanese Capture proponents tend to say that both governments have been engaged in a cover-up for the last eighty years.

Japanese Capture is supported by a rather large body of anecdotal evidence – that is, stories that people have told that are interpreted as evidence of Earhart’s and/or Noonan’s and/or their airplane’s presence in the Marianas and/or Marshalls. Stories have come from residents of the Northern Marianas, Marshalls, and Chuuk (among other island groups) as well as from World War II U.S. servicemen and women (including high ranking officers with access to naval intelligence[3]) and a few Japanese nationals.  Many of the accounts are second and third hand.  No generally accepted documentary or physical evidence has yet been produced in support of Japanese Capture.  Documents that have turned up have been statements of opinion, and items interpreted as physical evidence – for example a door from Saipan’s Japanese jail with “A. Earhart” and “July 19 1937” deeply incised on one side – are of questionable origin.

Several years ago, two TIGHAR colleagues and published an analysis and critique of the Japanese Capture hypothesis (See King, Roberts and Cerniglia 2012). In a nutshell, there is abundant evidence from the psychological literature that even first-hand eyewitness accounts given to trained interviewers by honest people must be taken with many grains of salt; the mind can play remarkable tricks (c.f. Doyle et al. 2013, Loftus & Ketcham 1992, Schacter 2002). In this case, where accounts were mostly gathered by untrained interviewers who very much wanted to find evidence of Earhart in the Marianas or the Marshalls, often from people who had every reason to tell their interlocutors what they seemed to want to hear, the results are not very convincing to the skeptical reviewer. 

A good example of the problem with eyewitness accounts gathered by people intent on a particular outcome is the November 1977 transcript of an interview by Fr. Arnold Bendowske with Saipan resident Matilde Fausto Arriolo (Bendowske 1977). Ms. Arriolo was one of three women interviewed by Fr. Arnold – probably an authority figure in the eyes of all three Catholic women – who were said to have seen an American woman in Japanese captivity.
Fr. Arnold begins by asking flatly for Ms. Arriolo’s “story on Amelia Earhart.” There is no evidence that Ms. Arriolo had used or known Earhart’s name, and she later denies knowing the name of the woman with whom she interacted.

Ignoring this, Fr. Arnold says he has already told the Navy that Ms. Arriolo had seen Earhart. He asks her in what year she did so, and before she can answer, says that it was in 1938. The interview goes on in this vein, and his interviews with Ana Villagomez Benavente and Maria Roberto Dela Cruz are similar. None of the women identifies the woman (or women) with whom they interacted as Amelia Earhart, and Ms. Arriolo describes the woman as “a little bit of a mestiza” (that is, a woman of mixed ethnicity). Fr. Arnold ignores this description, which does not easily fit Earhart.

The kind of witness-leading in which Fr. Arnold engaged is not unusual when untrained people try to elicit oral historical information, but it taints the oral historical record. Unfortunately, the stories of Earhart on Saipan are pretty largely the results of such interview tactics, so it is difficult to make much of them. The stories of Earhart in the Marshalls may be a little less impure, but most of them are second- or third-hand, which allows for a lot of ambiguity to creep in.

My guess is that an American woman was held on Saipan by the Japanese, and perhaps was executed or died there of disease, but she was not Amelia Earhart. Jesus DeLeon Guerrero, who served as a policeman on Saipan during the Japanese administration, reportedly said that a woman of mixed Japanese-Caucasian ethnicity, born in Los Angeles, was hanged by the Japanese as a spy. Through Nisei groups in California, I have made some effort to seek information about this woman, but thus far with no luck. It may be, too, that a plane resembling Earhart’s crashed in the Marshalls, but this does not mean that the plane was Earhart’s. And while Naval Intelligence may at some point have concluded that the Japanese had captured Earhart, and passed this conclusion up the chain of command, not all intelligence is accurate[4].

So I’m left thinking about the same of the Japanese Capture hypothesis as my father did, and as I did during my late-70s sojourn on Saipan. I think it most likely reflects the honest observations and conclusions of people who lived in the Marianas and Marshalls during the Japanese period, elicited and interpreted by Americans with strong interests in showing that Amelia Earhart had been executed by the Japanese. The Japanese Capture hypothesis may be the “truth” that its proponents claim, but they haven’t yet made a case that I find convincing.

I should acknowledge, though, that proponents of Japanese Capture routinely dismiss people like me as biased, and even as co-conspirators with the U.S. and Japanese governments in concealing “the truth.”

The Nikumaroro Hypothesis

Then there’s TIGHAR’s “Nikumaroro hypothesis.” Naturally, I think it’s most likely correct, though I shy away from proclaiming it – or anything – to be “the truth.”

I summarized the Nikumaroro hypothesis and the evidence supporting it in a 2012 paper (King 2012), and extensive background data are available at TIGHAR.org. In essence, we think that Earhart and Noonan, unable to find Howland Island, flew south on the course Earhart reported in her last universally accepted radio transmission  -- 157-337 degrees – and found Nikumaroro (then called Gardner Island). We think they landed safely on the island’s northwest reef flat, transmitted distress calls for several days and nights (thus accounting for the signals received) but finally lost the plane with its radio to rising tides, and it broke up on the reef face. We think that Earhart and/or Noonan – probably Earhart – subsequently died at what we call the “Seven Site” near the southeast end of the island. A partial human skeleton was reportedly found in this vicinity in 1940, associated with a sextant box, a woman’s shoe, and other artifacts.

We’ve done archaeological work at the Seven Site in 2001, 2007, 2010, and 2017. We’ve turned up a number of campfire features in which someone cooked and disposed of fish, bird, and turtle remains. The kinds of remains we’ve found suggest procurement and consumption by someone not native to the islands. In and around the fire features we have found a variety of suggestive artifacts – the probable remains of a woman’s compact similar to one shown in photos of Earhart, a jar that probably contained freckle crème, two bottles shattered in what was probably someone’s attempt to purify water, a jackknife similar (but not identical) to one reported to have been aboard the Electra. Elsewhere on the island we’ve found aircraft parts that may (or may not) have come from the Electra, as well as some interesting shoe parts, and we have photographic evidence of aircraft wreckage on the northern reef flat in late 1937 and thereafter. We also have our share of anecdotal accounts, from I Kiribati, and Tuvaluan people who lived on the island between 1939 and 1963, as well as from British colonial officers and from U.S. Coast Guardsmen who staffed a long-range navigation (LORAN) station there between 1944 and 1946 (See King 2012).

Those colonists and Coast Guardsmen introduced a lot of confusion into the archaeological record, of course. We know that the Seven Site was planted in coconuts in the 1940s, and that people used to camp there while procuring turtles and birds. The site is littered with cartridges from the Coast Guardsmen’s carbines. Colonists or Coast Guardsmen could have brought in some of the odd artifacts we’ve found, though it’s something of a stretch to pin them with things like the compact and the freckle crème jar.

The Nikumaroro Hypothesis, and the evidence we’ve found on the island, form the basis for UNRESCUED and Thirteen Bones.

The Orona Hypothesis

The Orona hypothesis is, in a sense, a variant on the Nikumaroro Hypothesis. It has Earhart and Noonan flying southeast from the vicinity of Howland Island and winding up not at Nikumaroro but at Orona, an atoll about 200 nautical miles east of Nikumaroro (see http://www.aquariusradar.com/AmeliaEarhartsplane.html). The main piece of evidence supporting the Orona Hypothesis is a pattern of pixels in satellite imagery suggesting the presence of something shaped like a Lockheed Electra in the Orona lagoon. Arguments against it include the fact that Orona was occupied and being planted to coconuts in 1937, with a British overseer on station who might be expected to have seen an airplane ditch in the lagoon. But who knows? Someone needs to dive on the putative Orona Electra and see what – if anything but coral heads – is there.

Where Things Stand

All the above hypotheses continue to be the subjects of more or less active research; it is possible that one of them will be proved correct in the foreseeable future.  In 2017, the Eustace Earhart Discovery Expedition scanned the ocean bottom near Howland Island in pursuit of evidence for the Crashed and Sank hypothesis – without reported success. People are reportedly examining aircraft wreckage on New Britain and Buka Island. Mike Campbell and his colleagues continue to find anecdotal support for Japanese Capture. In 2017 we took forensic dogs to the Seven Site on Nikumaroro, recorded evidence that a human body had decomposed there, and brought back samples from which we are trying to extract DNA (See https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/forensic-dogs-amelia-earhart-spot-where-died/).

At 75 years of age, I don’t think I’ll be going back to Nikumaroro, or to Orona – though I’d like to. So I’ve put my thoughts about what happened to Earhart and Noonan on the table in novel form. I’d be astounded if Amelia Earhart UNRESCUED turned out to be very close to what “really” happened, but it’s my best guess, embellished by my imagination. I hope you enjoy it, whatever its relationship to “the truth.”

And why does any of this make any difference? What significance is there in this quest, to which so many people have given big chunks of their lives and thinking? I confess to being, as it were, rather at sea. With all the world’s problems to whose solutions we could be contributing, why do we invest our time, money, and brainpower in looking for Earhart? I honestly don’t know, except that it’s a mystery, and mysteries cry out to be solved. I’m reminded of what the spouse of one of our TIGHAR team members said when he got on a satellite phone and called home after the 9/11/01 attacks, which came while we were on Nikumaroro. He fretted about the fact that we were where we were, while everything was blowing up at home. She told him that after all the excitement died down, people were going to need something to take their minds off their troubles, and we provided that something.

Upon reflection, I concluded that what she said made sense, and have comforted myself with the reminder that for entertainment, we’re a good deal less costly than professional football. I’ve also realized that that entertainment is pretty much what Earhart did, too. In the depths of the Depression, she took people’s minds off their troubles. And she showed people – notably women – that there were things to which they could aspire, and that the world really is a pretty wonderful place. So maybe that’s what makes it worthwhile to seek an answer to the mystery with which she left us – whether we ever find it or not.

References

Bendowske, Fr. Arnold
1977    Transcripts of interviews with Ana Villagomez Benevente, Matilde Fausto Arriola, and Maria Roberto De La Cruz.  Catholic Mission, Chalan Kanoa, Saipan, November 8 1977.  Copy in TIGHAR files.

Campbell, Mike
            2016 (2nd ed.)  Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last. Mechanicsburg, PA, Sunbury Press


Doyle, James M., Jennifer E. Dysart, & Elizabeth F. Loftus

            2013    Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal (Fifth Edition), New York, LEXISNEXIS

Gillespie, Ric
2006    Finding Amelia: the True Story of the Earhart Disappearance.  Annapolis, MD, Naval Institute Press.

King, Thomas F.
2008: Thirteen Bones. Indianapolis, IN, Dog Ear Publishing.
2012: Amelia Earhart on Nikumaroro: a Summary of the Evidence. Pacific Studies 35:3:305-24, Honolulu, HI.
2018: Amelia Earhart UNRESCUED. Mystic, CT, Flat Hammock press.

__________, Randall Jacobson, Karen R. Burns, and Kenton Spading
2004    Amelia Earhart’s Shoes: Is the Mystery Solved? (updated edition) Walnut Creek, CA, Altamira Press.

__________, Thomas A. Roberts, and Joseph Cerniglia
2012:   Amelia Earhart in the Marianas: a Consideration of the Evidence. https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/AEinMarianas.html

Loftus, Elizabeth F. and Katherine Ketcham
1992    Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial. New York, St. Martin's Griffin

Schacter, Daniel L.
2002    The Seven Sins of Memory (How the Mind Forgets and Remembers). Boston, Houghton Mifflin.




[1] The relevant formal definition of “hypothesis,” according to Merriam-Webster Online, is: “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences”

Saturday, July 14, 2018

The Sun Rises at Six on Nikumaroro, Every Day


By Joe Cerniglia

[TFK's Preface: Another contribution by Joe, whose careful analyses of artifacts from the Nikumaroro village and Seven Site contribute importantly to our work, Thanks, Joe!]

On July 5, 2017, during the second “In Search of Amelia Earhart” trip to Nikumaroro, organized by Betchart Expeditions, archaeologist Dr. Richard Pettigrew spotted the square movement of a small alarm clock on the surface of the ground among other artifacts near the old village dispensary.[1] 

 Image 1: The clock movement in situ, close-up

 Image 2: The clock movement in situ, from observer's eye-level

 Image 3: Clock movement, rear

Image 4: Clock movement, front



The clock movement, measuring 2 15/32” X 2 5/32” X 15/16”, appears to have been resting within the perimeter of one of the village households. The outer casing is entirely missing. The movement itself is warped, bent and corroded as well as oxidized in spots with a rust-like coating.

Image 5: Measured sketch map of artifact cluster location relative to village features


Image 6: 2017 sketch-map of artifact cluster
superimposed on 1989 village sketch-map

Based on the distinctive design of the plates, as well as the dimensions and layout of the movement, clock expert Bill Stoddard, owner of Bill's Clockworks in Flora, Indiana ( https://billsclockworks.com/about/index.html), has identified the artifact as an example of a Westclox movement #66.[2]  This movement, according to Mr. Stoddard, "was used in many of the less expensive windup alarm clocks such as Bingo, Spur and Bantam (to name a few) from the early 1930s through the 1960s."

The clock movement is inscribed "3 54" on the northwest quadrant of the exterior of the rear-facing plate, indicating it was manufactured in March of 1954, 17 years after the 1937 world flight of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. No other letters or numbers are visible on the movement.

Image 7: Manufacture date of March, 1954. 

Mr. Stoddard, working with Gary Biolchini, author of Westclox: An Identification and Price Guide (https://www.amazon.com/Westclox-Identification-Price-Gary-Biolchini/dp/0764318357), determined that Westclox clocks manufactured in Scotland have the most features in common with the Nikumaroro clock. This determination was made primarily on the basis of the location and orientation of the date stamp. The artifact has the date stamp on the exterior of the rear plate. Only clock movements from two of the Westclox factories' clocks were found to have this configuration. One of these movements was from Canada, but all Canadian Westclox clocks located so far have the inscription upside-down, relative to the clock face, and say “MADE IN CANADA” on their movements. Some, but not all Scottish Westclox clocks, say “MADE IN SCOTLAND” on their movements. The only one thus far identified that does not display this inscription has “UK” inscribed to the right of the date stamp. The Nikumaroro clock movement has no inscription other than the date, yet it still shares more attributes with the movements from Scotland than with those from other countries.[3]

Image 8: Inscription of the Scottish Westclox clock movement is on left; inscription of the Nikumaroro clock is on the right.

The material composition of the clock movement is unknown but may be a combination of aluminum and steel. Westclox movements from the 1950s, as the artifact is, sometimes were made of steel gears and aluminum plates.[4]

It would seem incredible that the island of Nikumaroro was at one time in the market for American clocks made in Scotland, but research of the circumstances and needs of the island coconut plantation, active from 1939 to 1963, and of the supply routes of Westclox, amply support the existence of this market.

In September 1953, the only clock factory in all Australia, Westclox Pty. Ltd. of Melbourne, closed its doors due to rising labor costs. A news story about the closure reported optimistically that imported clocks would be cheaper than those that had been made in the shuttered factory.[5]

Even before Westclox of Melbourne ceased operations, imported Westclox clocks from Scotland appear to have been common and desirable in the Pacific region. In June 1949, Pacific Islands Monthly, the premier and perhaps only news outlet for islands such as Nikumaroro, announced exchange rates were favorable when buying imported Westclox clocks from the newly opened clock factory in Strathleven, Dumbarton, Scotland. Details could be obtained by writing to the Pacific Islands Trading Co. address in San Francisco.

Image 9: 6/49 Pacific Islands Monthly article about new Westclox clock factory in Scotland

In March 1950, the same Pacific Islands Trading Co. that was a wholesaler of Scottish Westclox clocks purchased a half-page Westclox advertisement in Pacific Islands Monthly.

Image 10: 3/50 Pacific Islands Monthly advertisement for Westclox.

Clocks were selling in the Pacific, and there is evidence that timekeeping was important to the Nikumaroro colony as well. Lands Commissioner Paul Laxton visited Nikumaroro in 1951 and wrote a detailed report of the island and its inhabitants for the Journal of the Polynesian Society.[6] In his article, he tells of the role that clocks played in the life of the colony, and how these clocks were adapted to the island's purposes:

"The sun rises at precisely six every morning at Nikumaroro, year in and year out. We could not understand this at first for the island is appreciably south of the equator, until we found that at sunrise the island clocks are set at six. Our own watches, at zone time, did not correlate very well with this, while the radio shack meanly observed Greenwich time. After a few weeks Nikumaroro won and we lived by the sun."

We lack the detailed records to substantiate that the island colony specifically purchased a 1954 Westclox clock made in Scotland, but based on Laxton's account and on what has been documented in advertisements and news articles, it seems entirely possible and even likely.

A clock on the island in 1954 makes perfect sense from the standpoint of Nikumaroro's history. The clock was made only three years after Paul Laxton had resolved that a steely discipline instilled in the villagers would be needed for the colony to survive after years of British distraction with World War II and the village’s extended mourning over the death of Gerald Gallagher, the island's first commissioner. The clock, if not Amelia Earhart’s, is still an artifact with its own fascinating history, symbolizing Nikumaroro's last attempt at righting itself and becoming a going concern. Time really was of the essence, but it was running out. Nine years after this clock was made, the colony would falter, this time for all time. Nikumaroro's residents would repair to the Solomon Islands for what they hoped would be a new and better life, leaving behind a remnant of their efforts to be industrious, and on time every morning at “six o’clock.”


Image 11: Team of Nikumaroro expeditionaries after mapping and collecting the clock and other artifacts in the old village on Nikumaroro. Standing, left to right, Julie Oakley-Jagger, Leonie Todhunter, Joe Cerniglia, Capt. Rick Saber. Seated, left to right, Karla Borde, Dr. Rick Pettigrew. Photo by team member Mike Silvert.



[1] Here is a list of artifacts found near the dispensary in 2017, in addition to the clock:
3 folded circular foils (thick but pliable aluminum)
1 heliarc-welded aluminum tray with i-beam support slats
1 bullet flashlight with “PAT. DEC. 20, 1921” inscribed on the switch
Squarish bottle fragments, clear and green
1 small tea plate with dividers and fleur-de-lis design
1 aluminum belt buckle
1 boot with 16 brass eyelets (some missing)
1 cosmetic cap for a Bourjois (Paris) jar
Assorted corrugated iron debris and wooden posts
1 Tri-Sure fuel drum plug

[2] For photos of what the clock may have looked like when new and in use, see Bill Stoddard's clock history website at

[3] For a database of the taxonomy of Westclox clocks from various countries, see https://www.dropbox.com/s/et73b123hdabs1c/Westclox%20Clock%20Taxonomy.xlsx?dl=0
[4] See https://clockhistory.com/0/westclox/vm-1/example-87-1.html. Note the similarity in the coloration of the artifact to these 1950s examples.


[6]“Laxton, P.B., 1951. “Nikumaroro.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 60(2+3):149

Bringing “Amelia Earhart UNRESCUED” to the Silver Screen


Now that my novel, Amelia Earhart UNRESCUED, is in bookstores everywhere, it’s obviously time to think seriously about a screen adaptation.  Here’s why:

1.       It’s widely known that Hollywood (maybe not Bollywood) is hard up for new stories – hence the constant reworks, reboots, retreads of old movies and TV series. UNRESCUED is a new story – albeit derived from an old and famous one.

2.       UNRESCUED is highly cinematic – beautiful island, beautiful star (auditions, anyone?), an elegant, doomed airplane, a shipwreck, a massive storm, the vast Pacific, challenging animal characters.

3.       Speaking of the last, imagine the potential for computer-generated imagery (CGI) as applied to the wisecracking crab, the psychotherapist booby, and the ghost.  And what stars can provide their voices?

4.       And ultimately UNRESCUED is a story about accepting and transcending one’s fate, which may provide the inspiration we all need in these strange, strange times.

Studios, producers and agents – I’m happy to discuss possibilities. Tomking106@gmail.com, 01-240-475-0595



Sunday, April 22, 2018

Amelia Earhart UNRESCUED

My second novel, Amelia Earhart UNRESCUED, will soon be in bookstores. A prequel to my 2009 Thirteen Bones, it imagines Amelia Earhart's (AE's) fate from the time of her hypothesized landing on Nikumaroro with Fred Noonan to the time of her passing. It incorporates and is consistent with all our historical, archaeological, osteological, radio, and other data, though I've not interpreted all those data quite as some of my colleagues have, and I've imagined quite a lot. Talking (multilingual) crabs, a psychotherapist booby, the island's resident spirit-being, and of course AE's state of mind as she loses her airplane, loses Fred, struggles with the environment and gradually succumbs. Not an entirely pretty picture, but a respectful one, I hope, and one that's as close to what probably really happened as I could make it.

AE UNRESCUED is published by Flat Hammock Press of Mystic, CT (http://www.flathammockpress.com/). Royalties, if any, will be divided evenly among the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, the Amelia Earhart Birthplace Museum, TIGHAR, and me. Although publication is a couple of months off, I can make galley pages available to interested reviewers; contact me at tomking106@gmail.com.

I'm grateful to everyone who helped bring AE UNRESCUED to publication, but let me particularly thank Janis Carty for the cover art, and for putting up with my suggestions. And of course I'm grateful to TIGHAR for making it all possible.