Readers will recall our friend Calvin Pitts, whose brilliant, five-part analysis of Earhart’s last flight, “CLUES: Amelia Earhart’s Disappearing Footprints in the Sky,” published on Aug. 10, 2018, is among the finest pieces of work to grace this blog since its inception in 2012.
Calvin is best known for his 1981 world flight, when he and two co-pilots commemorated the 50th Anniversary of the Wiley Post-Harold Gatty World Flight in 1931. The flight was sponsored in part by the Oklahoma Air & Space Museum to honor the Oklahoma aviator Post.
During Calvin’s exceptional aviation career as an instructor, corporate pilot, airline pilot, flight manager, training manager and engineering test pilot, he flew antique planes to airshows, trained pilots and flew a multitude of single and multi-engine aircraft, including Twin Otters, DHC-7s, Aero Commanders, Metro IIIs, Lear Jets and Boeing 727s. He also worked for 10 years in public affairs for NASA at the Ames Research Center, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Calif.; and NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Calvin, 88, lives with his wife Wanda in the small Kentucky town of Sadieville.
On April 16 Calvin sent me a poignant, remarkable email, and I suggested that we should consider turning it into a post, to share with all who come here. The following story, “Mitsuo Fushida, From War Hero to Evangelist” appeared on the April 14 edition of the Christian History Institute’s It Happened Today and comprised the first part of Calvin’s message:
In December 1941 Mitsuo Fuchida led the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. When he sent up a green flare, the bombers accompanying him knew it was the moment to attack. When his plane radioed “Tora, Tora, Tora,” the Japanese knew the air attack had achieved complete surprise. For the duration of the war and for years afterward, he considered the Pearl Harbor attack the most thrilling exploit of his life. He tried to top his military success throughout the rest of World War II in attacking Ceylon and Australia. He also fought in the Solomon Islands and at the Battle of Midway. When it became apparent Japan would lose the war, he advocated fighting to the last man.
Nine years after Pearl Harbor, however, newspaper headlines trumpeted, “Pearl Harbor Hero Converts to Christianity.”
What had happened?
When Japanese troops were disbanded, Fuchida was among them. He was dumbfounded when he learned that a war buddy had been kindly treated in American captivity. How could that be? Enemies were not supposed to be kind to each other! During the war trials following the allied victory, an American offered Fuchida a religious pamphlet in a Tokyo train station.
Despite his Buddhist background, he took it because its title intrigued him: I Was a Prisoner of Japan. It was the story of Jake DeShazer whom the Japanese had cruelly mistreated as a prisoner of war. DeShazer had been filled with hatred for his captors; but by reading the Bible he had learned to love the Japanese and after the war had become an evangelist to them. His story moved Fuchida, who purchased a Bible so he could find out for himself why DeShazer was so changed.
Reading Luke’s account of the Crucifixion, Fuchida was impressed when Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” He would write later, “That date, April 14, 1950, became the second ‘day to remember’ of my life. On that day, I became a new person. My complete view on life was changed by the intervention of the Christ I had always hated and ignored before.”
Shortly afterward, he stood on a platform with Jake DeShazer, both men giving their testimonies. Fuchida went on to evangelize throughout the Orient. He wrote the story of his conversion in From Pearl Harbor to Calvary. “I now work at striking the death-blow to the basic hatred which infests the human . . . . And that hatred cannot be uprooted without assistance from Jesus Christ. He is the only One Who was powerful enough to change my life and inspire it with His thoughts.”
Mitsuo Fuchida died in 1976 of complications from diabetes.
Next comes the second part of Calvin’s email, a “Personal Note” that becomes an amazing vignette bordering on the uncanny:
I heard Mitsuo Fuchida speak at a church in Port Arthur, Texas in 1956. I met him then. Eleven years after World War II ended, Fuchida’s story was a very big event, almost unheard of. In 1959, I took a graduate-school class in Wilmore, Ky., my boyhood home. Jake DeShazer was also enrolled in that class. My house was located at 203 College Street behind which, on the adjacent street, was the temporary home of Jake DeShazer and his family while he was in school. I met him then.
Later, I learned from his daughter, while reading her book about this event, that Jake and his family returned to Japan as missionaries in 1948 on a World War II Troop Transport named the USS General M. C. Meigs. That was in December. Ironically, in February of that same year, 1948, my parents with three children (I was 14), went to the Philippines as missionaries ON THE VERY SAME GEN. MEIGS. In 1951, I returned to the States to attend college, with a stopover in Tokyo, Japan for a brief stay with a Japanese family, friends of my father from WWII days when he was a Captain during the South Pacific invasion.
These not-so-unrelated events of the stories of Mitsuo Fuchida, Jake DeShazer, USS Gen. Meigs, visiting Pearl Harbor two-and-a-half years after WWII and standing where this story began, attending class with Jake DeShazer, and living so close to him, brought this story up close and personal. It is not something you easily forget. While reading the above historical tidbit on the Christian History Institute website, I noticed a phrase which is a key fact in Amelia’s decision that took her to the Marshall Islands. Japanese soldiers, unlike the Japanese civilian population, were trained and taught to hate the enemy while fighting, and to torture them when captured.
This was the reason why Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were cruelly treated when captured, at the same time while being adored by many Japanese civilians, as testified to by the newspaper accounts covering the world-exploits of Amelia. There are pictures in the news of Amelia having dinner with Japanese fans in Los Angeles prior to her world flight.
This Japanese dichotomy seems strange until one realizes the great “divide”
within their pre-World War II culture. I also observed the very same issue while reading the diary of Joseph Grew, ambassador to Japan prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
For what it’s worth, I’m always looking for little bits and pieces of things which
have a connection to Amelia.
The above cultural comment, which I have found in other sources, helps answer the question as to why Amelia was NOT treated as a celebrity when she was captured, and why she failed to understand the danger of landing in Japanese-held territory. This helps explain the critical decision which Amelia herself made as she crossed her Rubicon, a later relevant subject.
For reasons that are both legitimate and historically accurate, I believe Amelia, with Fred’s navigational guidance, actually intended to fly to the Marshall Islands due to unexpected events which “painted them into a corner” where a critical but quick decision had to be made.
To validate this, triggers in my thinking include:
(1) the reminder of the hair-raising takeoff from Lae;
(2) the massive thunderstorms along the original route;
(3) en route decisions to alter the planned routing;
(4) intentional radio silence and very brief transmissions;
(5) that intent being tied to the “experimental” HFDF (high frequency direction finder) sitting on Howland, a critical issue;
(6) the extremely dangerous use of the short coral strip at Howland for takeoff at max gross weight, especially when viewed in the light of the previous close-call takeoff from Lae;
(7) the feint in using Gene Vidal’s pre-planned Contingency Plan for Amelia to Tarawa if Howland could not be found;
(8) the unplanned serious weather, as viewed both from Howland, and as reported by the Hawaii PBY en route to Howland;
(9) the role of the military in using Amelia’s planned route in a subtle and non-obtrusive way, making her a quasi-participant . . . but also a public “non-participant” for the purpose of “plausible deniability.” In this way, she did not work for the military, but they were allowed to ‘piggy-back’ an experiment with her flight.
(10) the weather-related trap into which she inadvertently flew;
(11) the strong radio signal from Jaluit in the Marshall Islands, which Fred had often used in his Pan Am flying days as their No. 1 Navigator Instructor. He had had extensive experience in this part of the Pacific, and could have been the one to suggest Jaluit as an alternate plan of action after being trapped by the weather between them and Howland. Amelia was probably greatly relieved that a certain decision had been made for her.
(12) Amelia’s Rubicon, and the warning attached to it beforehand, followed by strong statements from the White House afterwards;
(13) the last-minute decision to fly to the Marshalls based upon:
severe weather which had moved in behind her, creating a weather “trap,” AND . . . the new consideration about Howland’s possible inadequacy due to the experience of the close call of the Lae takeoff AND . . . the strong radio signal from the Marshalls which was familiar to Fred, AND . . . Amelia’s serious misunderstanding about the major difference in the double standard of Japanese “friend & foe” culture, etc.
I’ve rambled much more than I intended, perhaps. At any rate, I thought the information might be of interest to you. (End Calvin Pitts’ April 16 email.)
Calvin’s meetings with Mitsuo Fuchida, the living face of the Pearl Harbor attack; Jake DeShazer, a war hero and member of Doolittle’s Raiders who became a Christian missionary; his three-and-a-half years (1948 to ’51) in the Philippines as a teenager with his missionary parents; his attending Brent Episcopal Boarding School in the Philippines with teachers from New England, offering excellent academic training and his 1981 world flight whose flight path crossed Amelia’s twice, between Tarawa and Howland, and between Howland and the Marshalls (visually highlighted on his copy of Google Earth map) have formed a remarkable confluence within him and contributed to his special knowledge, understanding and character.
We look forward to our next encounter with Calvin Pitts, whether it be his “My Earhart Scenario” or some other glimpse into his long and accomplished life. Those who aren’t familiar with his work should read “CLUES: Amelia Earhart’s Disappearing Footprints in the Sky” as soon as possible.
Today we begin where we left off — with the confusing concept (to most non-aviation types anyway, including your editor) of the “azimuth” and its application to the last flight of Amelia Earhart. Let’s take another look at the azimuth, as explained by our resident aviation expert, Calvin Pitts.
Calvin Pitts: It is easy to see why the non-navigator would find this Wikipedia drawing confusing. TRY THIS: Replace the N with E (for East). Go to the back of the picture 90 degrees on the horizontal plane beneath the word “Zenith,” and place the N.orth on the same plane as E.ast.
The Electra is flying East toward the rising sun. The direction from the “Observer” toward the E.ast, is 90 degrees from the N.orth on the horizontal plane.
On July 2, 1937, the crest of the sun broke above the eastern horizon at 6:15 Howland time. The Observer would be looking 23 degrees to his left when he first spots the sun at 67 degrees (90 – 23 = 67). That difference of 67 degrees from North (000 or 360) is called the “azimuth” on the horizon.
That azimuth, 67 degrees on the horizontal plane, is used to calculate a “sun line” overhead for navigational purposes. In this case, that imaginary “line” is perpendicular, or 90 degrees to the horizontal azimuth (90 + 67 = 157 or 157 + 180 = 337) (157/337 degrees) to an altitude overhead, and is called a “Line of Position (LOP).” That position defines the line on which the plane is flying, but it provides no “point” on that line. What it does is to define “directional” information, i.e. the plane is either flying NW or SE.
As the sun rises, it is moving toward the North on the horizontal plane. After 1+02 hours on that morning, it’s “azimuth” was now 66 degrees to the horizontal plane. There at that point, since there is no longer an azimuth of 67 degrees, correspondingly, there was no longer a 157/337 line of position. Since the azimuth changes, so does the LOP. It is now only an imaginary line. If the pilot chooses to fly a “heading” of 337 or 157 degrees, that’s fine. But to call it a “line of position” is a misnomer.
Hence, Earhart’s call at 8:43 a.m., 1.5 hrs after the 67 azimuth disappeared, referencing a “line of 157/337” confuses the ears which hear it. Did she mean a “line of position,” which no longer existed, or did she mean a “heading on an imaginary line running NW and SE”? No one can answer that question.
Unfortunately, the position she gave had no meaning for those on the cutter or elsewhere, because it failed to give the all-important reference point for computing her bearing. What the figures meant, and why they were incomplete, can only be guessed.”
(And there are some reasonable guesses available.)
An important point that should be noted is that the plane (sic) direction finder evidently was not working as well as it should for she could not cut in on the agreed frequencies.
“Agreed frequencies” was precisely the problem. There was no agreement, nor understanding of what those frequencies were meant to be. Earhart believed that she had made it clear through Richard Black and husband George Putnam, but somehow, somebody dropped the ball. Frequency incompatibility was the major problem on this leg of the flight.
Another fact that is perhaps of significance is that when Miss Earhart reported half-hour fuel — the Itasca estimated that she should have about four hours’ fuel supply.
Itasca had it right in that she had four to five hours of “contingency fuel” remaining.
It is probable that she barely had gas enough to reach Howland, although she thought she was there at 11:20 a.m. (wrong time) when she circled (wrong assumption) trying to pick up land.
Calvin: After studying, not just reading this book, Earhart’s Flight Into Yesterday: The Facts Without the Fiction, I am of the opinion it should be renamed with a subtitle: “The Facts are exceeded only by the Fiction.” It is literally filled with non-facts, a statement which can be substantiated by evidence. Other than its fiction, its facts are interesting and well-written. But by the time you wade through its fiction, you begin to wonder about its facts.
Conclusive proof then exists that the Earhart plane landed safely, or at least that its occupants and its radio apparatus were unharmed, somewhere on land in the South Pacific. If on an island, where and why were they not found?
There is proof that the Electra contacted the coral-covered ground without death to the crew. There is reasonable cause to believe that they made one or more radio calls while the battery still lasted. But more importantly, there is “conclusive proof” that we have known the why and the where for longer than the public has been led to believe.
There are two schools of thought about the disappearance of the Earhart plane. Each cannot be right.
Indeed, they are not. No greater misrepresentation could be made. There may be only two “elementary-schools” of thought, but there are “university-schools” where thought is generated by factual evidence which is substantial for anyone who has been awakened to the biased agenda of the Establishment, which, more often than not, is the Government’s answer to undesirable truth.
One is that the plane was lost at sea. The other is represented by this memorandum.
As to the first, is it not perfectly natural that even those closest and among the most dear to the missing flyers, with the evidence of the Navy search of the sea close to Howland Island, would prefer to think that the flight had come to an end — to avoid the lifelong torture of a question in their minds? (Creating facts to avoid a painful reality? Is that the way history is recorded?) The facts (sic) as related have been to intrude such a question. No comfort, then, could come from, and the mind would seek to shut them out, in favor of the peace that comes from resignation (also known as self-deception).
In an effort to reconstruct what might have happened, let us review the possibilities. We know that the Earhart plane was lost. (To whom? A non-fact.) The navigation had gone wrong. It is likely, even, that it was hundreds of miles (Not likely. A non-fact.) from the sea area near Howland which the Navy searched, and from the Gilbert group.
With little gas left (Proof? A non-fact.) and after circling (a non-fact) the area beneath them, what would experienced fliers do? No doubt they had passed many islands on the course behind them. Any pilot, under the circumstances, probably would have gone back to one of them and landed, relying on their radio and on searching parties for rescue.
Not if she had a minor mission-agenda which precluded that. This “buried” fact is the subject of a possible later posting, “My Earhart Scenario.”
THAT RESCUE NEVER CAME BECAUSE NO ADEQUATE SEARCH HAS EVER BEEN MADE.
Compiled from notes and copied in August 1939. Recopied from original February 2, 1948. (End of E.H. Dimity’s “Grounds for Earhart Search.”)
Editor’s close to Part II: The study of the alleged Earhart post-loss messages is one fraught with endless speculation and individual interpretation, even by the real radio experts who have written and pronounced publicly on the topic. I have no expertise in this area, and so have no problem presenting others’ work as clearly and objectively as I can. The statements and opinions are those of E.H. Dimity, presented for your consideration, education and entertainment, and are not necessarily shared by the editor.
Calvin Pitts: The “post-loss messages” are an unnecessary cloud over an already-difficult story, which is challenging and exciting on its own merit without a venture into hoax-land. It is possible that one or two of those messages were valid, but to give them credibility-without-proof is to weaken the greater truth which can, and should be allowed to stand on its own legs. Distraction is precisely the thing that feeds the Government’s Establishment gorilla. Other than this, it was a privilege to read what someone had to say in 1939.
P.S. There is a CAVEAT here: This critique addresses the misstatements relating to the official Itasca crew logs of AE’s Lea-Howland flight. The log used here is presented as “official.” However, suppose a scenario like this: A crewman made a personal copy in the interest of preserving history. Reading it, he notices an omission which should have been included. Knowing that the weather was “Overcast” for an extended period, he adds this missing word for the sake of clarity. His motive is good, but he has just corrupted the official record. He should have noted this on his copy, but he did not. His well-intended corrupt copy now gets copied and passed on.
We can’t say such a thing did not happen. But to our knowledge, there is no evidence that it did. Thus, our comments are based upon this copy of the log that was used. Additionally, there were other intercepts of Earhart’s transmissions that were heard by stations like Nauru which were not heard by the Itasca. Any additional sources such as this must be added to the story, properly identified. There were weather reports, correspondence, personal conversations, and after-the-fact interviews of various “players.” While they cannot be part of the Itasca records, they are additional and sometimes useful material. (End of “Calvin Pitts weighs in.”)
“There had to have been a copy [of the logs available] before this because Dimity makes too many references to its times,” Calvin wrote in an email. “What did he use in 1939?”
“Was he writing from Hawaii using that time zone?” Calvin continued. “Some of his information is 3.5 hours off, some four hours, some 1.5 hours out of sync with other known events, and at least one time was accurate. The 3.5 hour discrepancy could be answered, perhaps by looking at the time differences between Howland and Hawaii. And then, at 7:42 a.m., he strangely gets the time accurate. The inconsistencies in the errors are bizarre. Even Paul Briand in 1960 made many references to the logs, with times and recorded events.
“These question aside, Dimity’s ‘all-over-the-map’ times need to be red-flagged. Where was he living in 1939 when he wrote this? And what were his sources? What was his professional career? Another interesting page in the Earhart Saga.”
Editor’s final close: First, I want express my deep thanks and appreciation to Calvin Pitts for his passion and selfless efforts, and for another significant contribution to the Earhart record. We are truly blessed to have him as a friend.
At the end of the day, it does appear that Dimity did not have the official logs of the Itasca to reference in his treatise, nor did Paul Briand Jr. in 1960. But when were they released? I can’t find any record of the Itasca flight logs’ public release except references to Leo Bellarts’ sons, Leo Jr. and Dave, turning over the three pages of his father’s original Earhart flight log in 1975. In a Sept. 1, 2008 article titled, “KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA . . . “ in Wings over Kansas, we find:
Chief Bellarts kept the first three pages of the Earhart Flight Log plus other messages and pertinent information under lock and key. Upon arriving at his homeport (San Diego, Calif.) Chief Bellarts removed these documents thinking that there would be some type of investigation by higher authority and he would be called to testify. But this never happened. Thus, these papers, including the three pages of the original Earhart Flight Log, remained in his possession until his death in 1974. His two sons, Leo Jr. and David Bellarts donated these papers and other items concerning Amelia Earhart in 1975 to the National Archives in Washington D.C.
To read the entire story, please click here.
Since Dimity never mentioned his sources for his numerous citations of the log entrees, and it seems he could not have had the official logs, he probably relied on many news reports and other sources from the original search in July 1937, which naturally would have been inaccurate and “all over the map,” as Calvin says. If anyone out there can shed some light on this little mystery — i.e. when were the official logs released, if not 1975? — please let us know.
With the recent publication of E.H. “Elmer” Dimity’s 1939 analysis of Amelia Earhart’s last flight, I’ve been gently reminded that, as an editor, I could have done a far better job of reviewing Dimity’s article. I’ve never been particularly drawn to the Itasca flight logs and have never claimed any expertise about them, as for me, they provide more confusion than clarity. But I can still proofread and compare times and statements attributed to them.
This I failed to do, in large part because I assumed that Bill Prymak, the editor of the Amelia Earhart Society Newsletters, had done this already, before presenting Dimity’s work, or that Prymak would have made some kind of a disclaimer to accompany it. He did neither, and my own disclaimer following Part II, in light of Calvin Pitts’ stunning findings, should have been far more emphatic. I broke a journalism rule — never assume anything — that I’ve always done my best to obey, until now.
Regular readers of this blog are familiar with Calvin, best known for his 1981 world flight, when he and two co-pilots commemorated the 50th Anniversary of the Wiley Post-Harold Gatty World Flight in 1931. The 1981 flight was sponsored in part by the Oklahoma Air & Space Museum to honor the Oklahoma aviator Post. Calvin has already graced us with his impressive five-part analysis of Amelia Earhart’s last flight. To review this extremely erudite work, please click here for Part I, from Aug. 18, 2018.
Our focus today is a striking example of a difficult exercise in attention to detail, and an object lesson in the old axiom, “Never assume anything.” We appreciate Calvin taking the time to set the record straight. With his learned disputation below, in addition to his previous contributions, Calvin has established himself as the reigning expert on the Itasca-Earhart flight logs, if not her entire final flight, at least in my opinion. Without further ado, I’ll turn it over to Calvin, who has many important things to tell us:
First, I want to thank Mike Campbell for his passion and dedication to The Amelia Story. SHE — and history — have had no better friend.
I also appreciate Mike’s ability to dig up “forgotten” history. As a lover of history’s great moments, I am always fascinated by the experiences of others. Also, as one who has made a 1981 RTW flight in a single-engine plane, passing over some of AE’s ’37 flight paths from — India – Singapore – Indonesia – Australia – New Guinea – Solomon Islands, Tarawa and within a few miles of Howland — I was drawn to this story, and to this blog’s record of it.
Recently, I was fascinated by the publishing of Dimity’s 1937-1939 insights into the details of AE’s flight. However, upon reading it, I spotted some errors. Ironically, I was at that very time re-studying the Itasca Logs as I re-lived some of the details and emotions of the most famous leg of any flight. I had the Itasca details in front of me as I read.
Because it is easy to unconsciously rewrite and revise the historical record, I felt an unwelcomed desire to share some errors which were in Dimity’s interesting account. I shared my thoughts privately with Mike, and he, in turn, asked me to make them public. I’ve had a long aviation career, and have no desire to add to it. At 85, I’m retired in a log house on a small river with more nature-sights than anyone could deserve. I’ve no yearning for controversy. But Mike asked, so here are some observations. If you spot errors in my response, please make them known. Only one set of words are sacred, but these at hand do not qualify.
Calvin Pitts’ analysis of:
“Grounds for a Possible Search for Amelia Earhart” (First of two parts)
by E.H. “Elmer” Dimity, August 1939
(Editor’s note: To make it easier to understand and track the narrative, Dimity’s words will be in red, Calvin Pitts’ in black, with boldface emphasis mine throughout.)
At 3:15 [a.m.] in the morning after her takeoff Miss Earhart broadcast “cloudy weather,” and again, an hour later, she told the Itasca that it was “overcast,” and asked the cutter to signal her on the hour and half hour.
I am sitting here reading Dimity’s Part II of the “Grounds for Earhart’s Search” with a copy of the Itasca LOGS on the screen in front of me. My challenges to Dimity’s reproduction of the Itasca Earhart flight logs are based, not upon prejudice, but upon the actual records compiled and copied from those 1937 Logs.
At 3:15 a.m. Howland time, times recorded by the crew of the Itasca, there is no such record of “cloudy weather.”
From position 2/Page 2: At 3:15 am, Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts records: “3:15-3:18, Nothing heard from Earhart.”
Position 1/Page 1: At 3:14 am, Thomas J. O’Hare, Radioman 3rd class records: “Tuned to 3105 for Earhart,” with no additional comment. Seven minutes later at 3:21 am, he records: “Earhart not heard.”
Position 2/Page 2: However, at 3:45 a.m., not 4:15 a.m., Bellarts records: “Earhart heard on the phone: WILL LISTEN ON THE HOUR AND HALF ON 3105.”
Position 1/Page 1: At the same time, 3:45 a.m., O’Hare records: “Heard Earhart plane on 3105.” That was it. No reference to “overcast,” and no request for a signal.
However, in his book, Earhart’s Flight Into Yesterday (2003), Laurance Safford copies Bellarts’ statement, except that he adds the word “Overcast.” The word “overcast” is not in the Itasca log at that time.
Position 2/page 2: According to the log’s record, it was not until 4:53 a.m., more than 1.5 hours later, that the phrase “PARTLY CLOUDY” appears.
Earlier, at 2:45 a.m., Safford quotes a statement by author Don Dwiggins about 30 years later: “Heard Earhart plane on 3105, but unreadable through static . . . however, Bellarts caught “Cloudy and Overcast.”
Yet, Bellarts, who was guarding Position 2/Page 2 made no such statement on his report. The statement, “unreadable through static” was recorded by Bellarts at 2:45, but that was it.
Bellarts was also the one who recorded, an hour later at 3:45: “Will listen on the hour and the half on 3105.” These issues are very minor to most readers. But to those at the time, where minutes count for survival, the devil was in the details.
Also, there is the historical and professional matter of credibility. If one is not accurate, within reasonable expectations, of quoting their sources correctly, then the loss of credibility results in the loss of confidence by their readers.
More than an hour later, at 4:42 a.m., the Earhart plane indicated for the first time that it might be off course, and made its first futile plea for aid in learning its position. The plane asked, “Want beatings (sic) on 3105 KC on the hour. Will whistle into the microphone.”
At 4:42 a.m., which is a very precise time, there is nothing recorded at any station. But we can bracket an answer. Bellarts records the following at 4:30 a.m.: “Broadcast weather by Morse code.” His next entry, at 4:42 a.m., is an empty line.
At 4:53 a.m., Bellarts states, “Heard Earhart [say] ‘Partly Cloudy.‘ ”
Also, Position 1/Page 2 of this record states: “4:40 a.m. – Do you hear Earhart on 3105? . . . Yes, but can’t make her out.” Five minutes later at 4:45 a.m. (with no 4:42 notation at this position): “Tuned to Earhart, Hearing nothing.” There is no recorded statement here from her about being off-course or whistling.
Half an hour passed (5:12 a.m.), and Miss Earhart again said, “Please take a beating on us and report in half hour will make noise into the microphone. About 100 miles out.” Miss Earhart apparently thought she was 100 miles from Howland Island.
5:12 a.m.? At neither position is there a posting at 5:12. At 5:15, one says, “Earhart not heard.” And the other, at 5:13 says, “Tuned to 3105 for Earhart signals. Nothing yet.”
The above “about 100 miles out” message was sent at 6:45 am, about 1.5 hours later.
The Itasca could not give her any bearing, because its direction finder could not work on her wavelength. An hour later, at 7:42 a.m., Miss Earhart said, “We must be on you but cannot see you. Gas is running low. Have been unable to reach you by radio. We are flying at 1,000 feet.”
Strangely, even amazingly, sandwiched between numerous bogus times, 7:42 am IS correct.
This was a little more than 15 hours after the takeoff.
Would you believe that, more than 19 hours after takeoff, this call was made? Here, there are four unaccounted-for hours in Dimity’s record-keeping.
The ship carried 1,150 gallons (sic) of gas, enough for about 17 hours in the air under normal conditions.*
Would you believe “more than 24 hours” of flight time, a seven-plus hour discrepancy?
* AES calculates 24-25 hours. — (Whoever AES is, this is more realistic and accurate.) Editor’s note: AES is The Amelia Earhart Society, almost certainly Bill Prymak’s estimate.
Perhaps the plane had encountered heavier weather earlier, or in just bucking the headbands had used more gas than anticipated. At any rate, Miss Earhart must have flown about 1,300 miles from the point of her first known position, when she first said her gas was running low.
An interesting question: When was her first known position? And measured by what evidence? 1,300 statute miles from the transmission at 7:42 a.m./1912 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT and z, for Zulu, are the same) would put her about halfway between Nukumanu Atoll and Nauru. If Nukumanu was her first or last known position at 5:18 p.m. Lae/0718 GMT/ 7:48 p.m. (Howland, the previous day), then that is roughly 1,600 statute miles, not 1,300.
This distance, with perfect navigation, should have taken her to Howland Island, and that without doubt is the reason she said, “We must be on you.” If the plane had hit its mark, why could she not see the island or the Itasca (Having such a flight under my belt, I could offer several reasons) with a clear sky and unlimited visibility? Even a smoke screen laid down by the cutter to help guide her evidently escaped her view. It is impossible that she was where she thought she was — near Howland.
Although Miss Earhart reported at 11:13 a.m. that she had fuel left for another half hour in the air, the contact was poor and no landfall position was heard.
At 11:13 a.m., the Navy ships and Itasca had been searching the ocean for some two hours or more. The “last known” message from Earhart was at 8:43 a.m./2013z when she said, “We are on the line 157/337.” The message “fuel for another half hour” was made at 7:40 a.m./1910z, some 3.5 hours before Dimity’s “11:13 a.m.” time.
This particular time discrepancy possibly could be corrected by adjusting it to a new time zone in Hawaii, but that would destroy the other record-keeping. At no place in this Itasca log saga were they talking in terms of U.S.A. times. The Itasca crews were recording Howland local time. If someone has proof otherwise, it should be provided, and it will alter the story.
Fifteen minutes later (11:28 a.m.) she said, “We are circling, but cannot see island. Cannot hear you,” and asked for aid in getting her bearings. This plea she repeated five minutes later (11:33 a.m.).
This “circling” reference was made at 7:58 a.m., some 3.5 hours earlier. However, something which is often missed is the fact that the word “CIRCLING” is in doubt even within the footnotes of this log itself. It is listed as “an unknown item.” It was a word they did not hear clearly. It could have been, “We are listening.” No one knows.
It will be recalled that at 11:12 a.m., Miss Earhart said she had only a half-hour’s fuel left, but an hour later, at 12:13 p.m., she called the Itasca to report, “We are in line of position 157 dash 337. Will repeat this message on 6210 KC. We are running north and south.”
This “line 157/337” radio call, NOT a “line of position” call, was made, as already stated, at “8:43 a.m./2013z” and NOT at “12:13.” Somehow Dimity has a discrepancy here of some 3.5 hours from the Itasca logs.
The “157/337 line of position” is not only NOT what she said, but it is inaccurate for any researcher who understands basic navigation. The LOP of 157/337 existed only as long as the sun’s azimuth remained 67 degrees.
As the sun rose above the horizon, its azimuth changed 1+02 hours after sunrise (6:15 a.m. Howland time on July 2, 1937.) That meant that at 7:17 am, there was no longer a 67 degree azimuth by which to determine a “157/337” line of position (LOP). It simply no longer existed. It lasted only an hour-plus. After that, she could only fly a heading of 157 or 337 degrees.
(Editor’s Note: As a non-aviation type, I’m lost when Calvin starts using terms such as azimuth. For others like myself and for what it’s worth, Wikipedia (image above) defines azimuth as an angular measurement in a spherical coordinate system. The vector from an observer (origin) to a point of interest is projected perpendicularly onto a reference plane; the angle between the projected vector and a reference vector on the reference plane is called the azimuth. Calvin will provide clarity in Part II.
(End Part I)
Today we present the Conclusion of 1981 World Flight pilot Capt. Calvin Pitts’ “Amelia Earhart: DISAPPEARING FOOTPRINTS IN THE SKY.”
When we left Part IV, Calvin speculated that Amelia, finding the Electra in the anomalous Area 13, had decided to head toward the Marshall Islands rather than risk a landing at Howland. At 8:43 a.m. Howland time, Amelia told the Itasca, “We’re on the line 157-337 . . . Will repeat this message.” Turning to Fred Noonan, she might have said, “Give me a heading, and there’s no time to discuss it. If we land here, I probably won’t be able to get airborne again. Heading, please.”
Conclusion of “Amelia Earhart: DISAPPEARING FOOTPRINTS IN THE SKY”
By Calvin Pitts
In analyzing Amelia Earhart’s final flight, we can definitively say we don’t know the answers to several key questions. But by comparison with the conclusions of others, I believe we can say we that WE DO KNOW:
(1) The Electra did not go down at sea.
(2) They did not go to the uninhabited Phoenix Islands such as Baker, Gardner (Nikumaroro), Canton, McKean, etc., where they would have been completely cut off from other human beings who could have helped them.
(3) The Gilberts had thousands of friendly people who could have helped, although the Electra probably would have been sacrificed in that case, since there were no runways, with this option supporting the logic of No. 2 above.
(4) They did not turn back to the Gilberts, deciding not to follow the contingency plan so carefully laid out with Gene Vidal, a matter written about often.
(5) They did not land at Howland.
(6) The Electra was never seen by personnel on the Itasca or on Howland.
(7) The Electra never made an approach to Howland’s runway.
(8) There must have been a reason the all-important trailing antenna was removed.
(9) Fred Noonan had a 2nd class radio license, which required knowledge of Morse code, a knowledge he demonstrated with Alan Vagg between Australia and Lae.
(10) There must have been a reason Amelia was so casual with her radio calls.
(11) Noonan was not drunk the night before the final takeoff from Lae.
(12) Amelia was radio-savvy at first, maintaining two-way conversations with Harry Balfour at Lae until her position report at 0718z / 5:18 p.m. local time over Nukumanu Atoll.
(13) Amelia had no two-way conversations with the Ontario nor the Itasca at Howland.
(14) Although Amelia requested only voice-talk, Itasca’s radioman William Galten keyed 50 Morse code transmissions by himself, plus those sent by other Itasca radioman, indicating that they had not been so informed.
(15) Neither Nauru nor Tarawa Radio, important mid-range stations, had been informed.
(16) The mid-range ocean station, the Ontario, had not been properly informed.
(17) With government involvement in everything else, the key radio players, both Navy and ground, were ill-informed on the very last half of the Howland leg.
(18) The Howland runway log, which was hidden for years, now reveals that the men who constructed the runways did not consider the longest 4,000-foot, north-south runway to be safe due to soft-spots, massive numbers of birds and daily crosswinds of 20 mph.
(19) By the same token, the east-west runway for wind was only 2,400-feet long, too short. The width of the entire island was only one-half mile, with sloping beaches.
(20) With 30 days of pressure, problems and decisions, the Electra crew was exhausted with extreme fatigue by the time they took on their most dangerous assignment.
(21) The Electra came back to earth near Barre Island on Mili Atoll.
(22) The Electra pair were taken by the Japanese to their Marshalls headquarters at Jaluit.
(23) Amelia and Fred were flown to Saipan, where they were imprisoned.
(24) While under Japanese imprisonment, the Electra crew lost their lives.
(25) Via Tokyo, the Japanese lied to the U.S. government throughout the early days of the search about the movements of the Kamoi and the results of their search.
(26) In 1937, the Unites States, having broken the naval and diplomatic codes of Japan, could listen to radio conversations between Japanese naval vessels in the Pacific, and Saipan, the Marshalls and Tokyo.
(27) Three of the most senior U.S. military leaders of World War II in the South Pacific, Gen. Alexander A. Vandegrift, Gen. Graves Erskine and Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, independently knew about the presence of the Electra and the fliers on Saipan, and each informed Fred Goerner or his close professional associates of their knowledge.
(28) By extension and by all available evidence and common-sense deduction, the top U.S. political leader — President Franklin D. Roosevelt — also knew that the Japanese had custody of the fliers at a very early date.
(29) Some evidence suggests that documents revealing the facts in the disappearance of Amelia and Fred are filed in a “World War II” file, even though the disappearance occurred four years BEFORE the war.
(30) To this day, the Earhart documents are labeled “Top Secret” (although the U.S. government denies any such files remain classified, or that they even exist) for a civilian who just wanted to finish off her career with a world flight “just for the fun of it.” What is this overkill attempting to hide, and if there’s “nothing to hide,” then why do the establishment and its media toadies continue their blanket denials of a truth that’s hiding in plain sight?
If these 30 factual bits of evidence, and much more, are not sobering enough, there are more, under the heading of “Human Factors,” keeping in mind that this list, while exhausting, is not exhaustive.
WE ALSO KNOW:
Other things that we likely know include:
(1) Amelia’s primary and foundational motivation was her own self-interest in adding to the aviation record she had worked so hard to establish. She loved daring and adventure, and other things about a world flight that fit her dreams and desires included:
(a) her intense personal interests.
(b) her desire for an adventure not yet experienced. She had done what Lindbergh did, in her 1932 Atlantic solo flight, showing that a woman can do what a man can do, something extremely important to her. But she had never done what her close friend, Wiley Post, had done twice. One of Amelia’s passions was to demonstrate to the next generation of girls that the world is open to them, but they must reach for it. Don’t downplay the power of this motivation. She wanted to be a role model while adding to her records. She wanted both fame and immortality, to be an example as a leader of women for generations of girls to follow.
(c) by labeling her plane “A Flying Lab,” she added a scientific motif, like Wiley Post, for her activities. If, in the course of her flying, she could test things like a new direction finder etc., that would add credibility and justification for all the money she and others were investing in the world flight.
(d) Amelia’s big heart, especially toward girls just starting out, that always reached out to see how she could help, first as a social worker, a nurse, as a teacher and finally as a role-model. She never stopped promoting her own interests, but not at the expense of failing to help girls who wanted to follow her example. For the 1930s, she was a great role model, not as a fake, pretend movie star, but as a truly outstanding performer in her own real adventures.
(2) Amelia had had many setbacks in her aviation career. She crashed a plane while in the process of taking flying lessons. She had more than one engine fire. Although she did well, she did not win the Powder Puff Derby. Third place is never good enough for a first-class person. She had more than one crack-up. But with determination, she not only survived, she prevailed, proving that determined women are equal to men.
In spite of setbacks, she had great confidence. As a professional pilot and former instructor, I often spotted a potentially dangerous quality in student-pilots, not confidence, but overconfidence, confidence that exceeded their ability at the time. With wrong circumstances, it is a dangerous quality. Respecting one’s own self-acknowledged limitations is the heart of safety.
(3) Amelia’s radio behavior on the world flight was uncharacteristically strange. Who can understand or explain it? It bordered on unprofessional, unless there was a bigger player and a bigger reason that influenced the entire operation. In preparation for Flight No. 2 in Oakland and Miami, several of the Pan Am workers revealed some not-so-pretty things about Amelia’s rudeness and temper. Pan Am’s offer for radio support and flight following was uncharacteristically refused, at no cost to her — why? That borders on irrational, unless something else was afoot.
In my opinion, a woman, fighting a man’s world, finds it more difficult than does a man. I can spot several things in Amelia’s world flight that illustrate over-confidence and negligence in accepting one’s own limitations. That was a demon flying with her that she did not need. Her interactions with Paul Mantz are a great illustration of this. He saw several things that he didn’t think were good, and tried to change them, but she found it hard to listen.
Next, we must ask, WHAT DO WE NOT KNOW?
From what we do know, we evaluate the things we do not know. Because of the unselfish work of others, we are satisfied that we know the essence of what did happen. From the words of the three flag officers, they tell us that the Electra and its crew were on Saipan.
For us, the end of the story is solid. For reasonable people, this answers the central essence of the WHAT of the story. But the WHY remains unanswered.
Were the Marshalls the ORIGINAL destination of the fliers?
That strictly depends on the meaning of the word ORIGINAL. If you identify the origin as that point just following 2013z / 8:43 a.m., where we came to see “Intent,” then YES. From that point, Amelia intended to fly to the Marshalls.
If, however, you mean something else, then several scenarios arise.
(1). Original destination No. 1? Did Amelia intend to go to the Marshalls when she began Flight No. 1 going west toward Hawaii? No. That’s too much of a stretch.
(2). Original destination No. 2? Was that her intent when she left on Flight No. 2, flying the opposite direction? Here it gets complicated. Did those military men who had a private meeting with her while the Electra was being repaired, suggest a plan that included the Marshalls? I don’t think we will ever know how much the government spoiled Amelia’s innocent preparations with secret plans. Whatever they injected was poison from the beginning, no matter if it was as benign, as is one of my scenarios.
What “military men,” one asks?
“They would now fly from west to east instead of east to west. The reason given was because the prevailing winds would be more favorable, but Margot DeCarie, Earhart’s secretary would later declare that her boss had long secret meetings with military authorities [Bernard Baruch, a close adviser to FDR, and Maj. Gen. Oscar Westover, chief of the Army Air Corps] during the rebuilding period [at March Field, in Riverside County, Calif.].” (Paul Rafford Jr., Amelia Earhart’s Radio. p. 27.)
In 1966, DeCarie told the San Fernando Valley Times that she believed these meetings concerned plans for a secret mission “to get lost on the theory that the Japanese would allow a peace mission to search for her. Then the United States could see if the Japanese were fortifying the (Marshall) Islands in violation of mutual agreements.” (Col. Rollin C. Reineck, Amelia Earhart Survived, p. 26.)
(3). Original destination No. 3? Did the U.S. government suggest something in Miami while the Electra was being fitted with new radios and having their lifeline, the trailing antenna, removed? Some very suspicious things happened there, giving rise to some strange actions and reactions on Amelia’s part.
Currently, with the limited knowledge we have, my “original destination” begins in what I call Area 13 during the time shortly after 2013z / 8:43 a.m. Howland time.
But I can also suggest several scenarios which could easily push that “origin” back much further than Area 13, 2013z / 8:43 am. (Five are listed at the end of this posting.)
And if that were case, you need to explain precisely why they would want to head for Jaluit as an original destination, and not Howland. For me, Jaluit as an “original destination” began at about 2013z / 8:43 am on July 2, 1937, unless the government involvement started in Oakland or Miami. That is possible, but if that happened, then the Marshalls may have been a “faint,” or a ruse.
The military involvement versus the lesser government insertion, is a stretch, but believable with the information we have. At this point, Amelia appears to still be a “peace-loving,” war-hating citizen like Lindbergh and his Isolationists. Whatever sinister part she was contemplating still seems, at this point, to be somewhat innocent, as “My Earhart Scenario” lays out. It is still difficult to see her as a “heavy hitter” connected with a military plot, although the later condemning words of Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. seem very convincing.
“The obvious answer would be to see what the Japs were doing,” Mike Campbell wrote in a recent email, “but why would anyone think that the Japs would stand by for this and allow the U.S. Navy to search for them and pick them up once found? This would have been an idiot’s game plan, and I just don’t buy it.”
Neither do I. Not only would the Japs not stand for it, neither would U.S. military leaders at that point in the pending conflict. Amelia had no training in aerial reconnaissance. The military could not have been that short-sighted. Nor had Amelia received any training whatsoever in “spying.” That is the hardest designation for me to accept. I think it was much more benign and innocent than that, which is the theme of “My Earhart Scenario.”
“Other possible scenarios involve approaching Mili from the west and north on the way to Howland,” Campbell added, “after overflying Truk to get snapshots of the Japs’ work there. They could have run out of fuel on the way to Howland and been forced down at Mili.”
This seems much too sinister for the Amelia of 1936, as well as 1937. A “little favor,” perhaps, but not Truk or Jaluit reconnaissance. Yet, we keep hearing the theme of Morgenthau and FDR saying, in effect, If the public knew, it would be so bad that it would totally ruin Amelia’s reputation.
Morgenthau’s actual words in the transcribed phone conversation were: “It’s just going to smear the whole reputation of Amelia Earhart . . . If we ever release the report of the Itasca on Amelia Earhart, any reputation she’s got is gone . . . I know what the Navy did, I know what the Itasca did, and I know how Amelia Earhart absolutely disregarded all orders, and if we ever release this thing, goodbye Amelia Earhart’s reputation.”
I also tend to the belief that it’s most probable that the decision was made to head for Jaluit at some point, but am not at all certain about this. Other possibilities do exist, that’s why the how and the why of their Mili landing is the true mystery in the Amelia story.
Japanese headquarters, Jaluit, Marshall Islands, was probably their intended destination because of its strong radio signals. Capt. Almon Gray of Pan Am, who flew with Noonan, said: “Fred often listened to Jaluit on his Pan Am flights, taking bearings on them.” This general territory was not new to Pan Am navigators.
However, Mili probably came into the picture unexpectedly. After more than 24 hours of flying, when Amelia saw Mili Atoll en route to Jaluit 150 miles away, she had to know she was down to mere drops in the fuel tanks. One engine may have started sputtering, signaling imminent fuel exhaustion. Both engines would seldom run out of fuel at the exact same time. Hence, it’s “make a controlled landing now, or a gliding landing into the water later with only minimum control.” This would account for landing at Mili, short of Jaluit.
Regarding the matter of “decision,” after studying on Google Earth the difference in an “intended” heading for the mid-Gilberts, bringing them accidentally to the Marshalls, is pure fantasy to me. You cannot move me from my belief that, for whatever reason, there was absolute INTENT in picking up a heading for the Marshalls. The strong Japanese radio signal fits into that scenario, whether that decision was the government’s or not. Those were signals Noonan knew well from his Pan Am days. There was the intention of going there. They did not accidentally wake up and say, “Oh, how did we get to the Marshall Islands?”
Once I was convinced that Amelia intended to go to the Marshalls, the next question was: To what destination? Jaluit was the most logical, since it was the source of the radio signals, plural, because there were 11 reported radio stations there. Jaluit, in my opinion, was where Amelia thought she could get fuel and help.
As for Mili being the spot where they actually landed/crashed, that was probably a glitch in the plan. The Mili landing was forced on them, as I view it, due to fuel starvation. Ironically, during the period of the world flights, few of Amelia’s expectations seemed to play out precisely as she intended, including Honolulu, Oakland, Miami, Africa, Australia, Lae, Nukumanu, Howland and now Jaluit.
In fact, the original change in direction from Flight No. 1 was probably not her idea in the beginning, but was the result of the “military men” who met with her at March Field.
In Amelia Earhart’s Radio (p. 25), Paul Rafford Jr. wrote that Mark Walker, a Naval Reserve Officer, “heard something different from Earhart. I heard about Mark from his cousin, Bob Greenwood, a Naval Intelligence Officer. Bob wrote to me about Mark and what he had heard. Mark Walker was a Pan Am copilot flying out of Oakland. He pointed out to Earhart the dangers of the world flight, when the Electra was so minimally equipped to take on the task. Mark claimed Earhart stated: ‘This flight isn’t my idea, someone high up in the government asked me to do it.’”
For what it’s worth, from one who has lived this story for countless hours, we take it as being worth a lot. Where we part company with the “spy theorists” is the degree of cooperation. It seems much more innocent and benign than a spy novel. She was asked, in one researcher’s opinion, to do a small favor “since you’re going to be there anyway.”
Probably, it was not that she wanted the government involved in her plan, other than helping with details such as clearances, landing sites, fuel, radio help, etc. It seems the government might have hijacked her personal adventure by offering help-with-a-price tag.
As I’ve said many times, the more I learn, the less I know. But what did Adm. Chester W. Nimitz mean when he told Fred Goerner through Cmdr. John Pillsbury, “You are on to something that will stagger your imagination”? I confess, this is strange language, and its meaning remains obscure. We simply do not know!
As for Goerner’s original theory of an Earhart overflight of Truk Island on July 2, as much as we deeply respect all the time and work he put into to this, and the doors he opened for everyone after him, it cheapens his otherwise stellar work by taking this seriously. Overfly Truk Island? This leaves me outside on the fringes, saying, “I just can’t believe it.”
Not for a moment should we sell Amelia short. She did what most men could never do, or at least have never done, nor even tried. It took determination, stamina, passion, foresight, commitment, confidence and character. She was the best — flawed, yes, (join the human race), but the best.
And she gave it her best. For that, she is to be applauded and respected for bringing to the surface of reality the achievements of a woman who will always be remembered as a record-holder, a role model and a regal angel who was at home in the air, leaving footprints in the sky.
Amelia, even with those things we don’t know nor understand, we salute you!
Afterword: As mentioned in these postings, there were several unsolicited government intrusions into the innocuous personal plans for a final adventure by a civilian, resulting in the following threads and snippets:
(a) “This was not my idea; someone high up in the government asked me to do it.”
(b) Military men met with her privately, removing George Putnam, Amelia’s husband, and Margot DeCarie, her personal secretary, from the room.
(c) Amelia’s strange flight behavior suggested pre-determined decisions.
(d) Her close friendship with Eleanor Roosevelt, with personal interest and involvement by FDR in helping with funding and providing permission for the State Department to help with planning fuel stops. “Do what we can, and contact . . .” was written by his hand on Amelia’s Nov. 10, 1936 personal letter to him.
This raises the prospect of some differing but believable scenarios including:
(1). an original intent to land, unable to find Howland, rejecting the Gilberts contingency plan, followed by the personal decision to proceed to the Marshalls for fuel;
(2). an original intent to land, but then a last-minute decision to change, based upon comparisons with the takeoff from which raised the specter of the limitations for a safe takeoff from Howland, with a pre-planned decision to proceed to the Marshalls;
(3). original instructions not to land at Howland with a “faint” attempt to create a ruse, followed by instructions to proceed to the Marshalls;
(4). original instructions to actually land at Howland, then a “pretend” emergency after takeoff, followed by instructions to proceed to the Marshalls;
(5). or “disappear over the Gilberts” by landing on a beach, a “small favor” of staying hidden for two weeks to allow the Navy to search the waters without suspicion while actually obtaining maritime information and updated coordinates for islands, including sightings and soundings and military reconnaissance, to be useful for planes and ships if war breaks out, then “find and rescue” the Electra crew, saving their lives for future purposes.
(6) OR . . . That’s the subject of “MY EARHART SCENARIO.”
THIS IS AN ADVENTURE WHICH WILL NOT DIE UNTIL WE KNOW THE TRUTH. And sometimes, the truth surprises us by its mere simplicity. But then again, who knows?
(End of Capt. Calvin Pitt’s “Amelia Earhart’s Disappearing Footsteps in the Sky.”)
I extend my heartfelt thanks to Capt. Calvin Pitts for his superb analysis of Amelia Earhart’s final flight. In what is clearly a labor of love, Calvin has devoted countless hours to produce this exceptional commentary, and it will take its place among other leading Earhart researchers’ work, to be read often by those who sincerely seek the truth. I’m also confident we will be hearing more from him, as his multiple references to his yet-to-be-published “My Earhart Scenario” suggest.
Today we rejoin Calvin Pitts for Part IV of his fascinating and instructive analysis of the final flight of Amelia Earhart.
As Part III ended, Amelia had made her decision to turn northwest, not to the Gilberts but to the Marshall Islands, “and Japanese soldiers who may or may not be impressed with the most famous female aviator in the world,” Calvin wrote. “When she crossed into enemy territory, she apparently lost her charm with the war lords, and eventually her life.” We continue with Part IV of Calvin’s analysis.
“Amelia Earhart: DISAPPEARING FOOTPRINTS IN THE SKY, Part IV”
By Capt. Calvin Pitts
When we arrived at Area 13, unbeknownst to the casual observer, the entire narrative changed. Something different, something major happened.
The Itasca crew didn’t know. In their confusion, according to their log, they kept calling and trying to make contact for two hours. The radioman calling from Nauru didn’t know. Balfour from Lae didn’t know. Tarawa radio didn’t know. Husband George didn’t know. Hawaii radio didn’t know. But somebody from somewhere must have known. Who was it?
First, before we ask questions, we need to look at THE END in order to establish the ending of the so-called “disappearance.” It has been a mystery to those on the outside, but not to those who studied and embraced the evidence. Nor was it a mystery to Franklin D. Roosevelt– especially the president..
This, knowing THE END, and only this will enable us to make sense of what was happening during those early moments in Area 13: 2030z, 2100z, 2200z, 2300z, 2400z, or the local morning hours of 9 a.m., 9:30, 10:30, 11:30, noon and thereafter.
THE END produces, first, three stone pillars: Gen. Alexander A. Vandegrift, Gen. Graves Erskine and Adm. Chester W. Nimitz. What do such preeminent World War II men of honor have to do with this story, and what do they know that is so critical for what we will learn in the process? Three quotes will answer for us:
Gen. Vandergrift: “Miss Earhart met her death on Saipan.” (TAL p.257) Gen. Erskine: “It was established that Earhart was on Saipan. You’ll have to dig the rest out for yourselves.” (TAL p.260)
Admiral Nimitz to Fred Goerner: “Earhart and her navigator did go down in the Marshalls and were picked up by the Japanese [and taken to Saipan].” (TAL p. 132). “You’re onto something that will stagger your imagination.” (Nimitz to Fred Goerner through Navy Cmdr. John Pillsbury) (TAL p. 178).
Those were Men who had honor, who would not lie;
Men who could stand before a demagogue and damn his treacherous flatteries
They were tall men, sun-crowned, who lived above the fog in public duty, and
in private thinking;
For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds, their large professions
and their little deeds, mingled in selfish strife,
LO! Freedom wept, Wrong ruled the land, and waiting Justice slept.
GOD, give us more Men like these where the times demand
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and willing hands;
Men whom the lust for office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor … who will not lie.
— Josiah Gilbert Holland (modified)
They did not lie. These were three men, three impeccable sources, three individual answers, none of which were given in the presence of the other, at different times, with the same conclusion: Amelia had been on Saipan.
Earhart and Noonan were not in the Phoenix Islands; they did not die at sea. Noonan, the best navigator in the world, who had flown the Pacific often with Pan Am, was not lost. Earhart, prepared to execute the contingency plan so carefully worked out with Gene Vidal, did not turn back to the Gilbert Islands. Earhart and Noonan were taken to Saipan.
“You’ll have to dig the rest out for yourselves,” Gen. Graves Earskin said. And professional, competent people have been doing just that for 80 years.
What’s the staggering news here? One part is this: We know THE END of the story. Following the silence after Area 13, we have about a five-hour window or less of flying and survival time. Something unusual happened back in the states while the Electra was being repaired, the truth of which was being played out during those final hours after Amelia’s last official transmission at 2013z.
We know essentially the area in which they were last known to be alive in the Electra. Later, after the war, and the incredible leadership of three of our top warriors, we know where the doomed pair ended up. Therefore, if we want to unlock this so-called mystery, we need know not only where they were, but why and how they got there.
Here’s the point of establishing THE END. We have three pillar posts of evidence that cannot be doubted. They are anchors to which the end of this story is tied. But there are those who say this was only a temporary end, that a China scenario followed. Since there are so few researchers who accept this, we will leave that “conclusion” for another time. For now, we tie the end of the chain of this story to the Saipan anchor.
From Saipan, we can backtrack 1,700 miles to the Marshall Islands, thanks to several incredible and determined writers and investigators, among them Fred Goerner, Vincent Loomis, Oliver Knaggs, Bill Prymak and others.
The eyewitnesses they found and interviewed are convincing. The Electra was seen on Mili Atoll, Marshall Islands. The crew and the plane were taken to the Japanese military headquarters on Jaluit Atoll. From there, all the evidence we have tells us they were taken by plane to Kwajalein, and then to Saipan by the Japanese. They were on Saipan, as the three flag officers told Goerner.
To that, we can add that Bill Prymak was one who could see the obvious when others missed it. Later, we want to visit the content of OVERLOOKING the OBVIOUS. Prymak observed the following: An eyewitness in the Marshalls described a man-like woman with short hair in pants, and a tall man with blue eyes who had a bandage on his head, who were together.
Yet, over 1,700 miles away on Saipan, in 1937 when travel between the two cultures was limited to small boats, Saipan natives described, during the same time-period, a man-like woman with short hair in pants, and a tall man with blue eyes who had a bandage on his head, who were together.
Does something not strike us as unusual? From two different cultures, with 1,700 miles of water between them, in only a very short time, native eyewitnesses in the Marshalls and in Saipan are telling the same story. How was that possible, unless they were both telling the truth?
Did they make up an identical tale without knowing what the other was saying? Two cultures, many miles apart, in a short time, were describing the same people to interviewers. Was this a coincidence? Obviously, not likely.
Where does this evidence leave us? With the Generals, we have three cornerstones, three reliable pillars, impeccable witnesses, impressive leaders, unassailable warriors separately telling the same truth. They spoke what they knew, although they did not want to embarrass the government they served, hence were restrained with their words.
What little they said was enough to establish the truth — Earhart had been on Saipan.
That buries the “sink and drown” [crashed and sank] theory. It also buries the Nikumaroro castaways “hypothesis,” the fake media’s favorite mother load of deception, embraced by the establishment’s Smithsonian, National Geographic and media outlets everywhere. Without them, the truth would have gained traction much earlier, but it’s the establishment world in which we are forced to live, which makes finding truth in the swamp infinitely more difficult.
Added to those three stellar voices who had no skin in the game were two separate cultures miles apart but saying the same thing — the American lady with short hair and the white man with a white head-bandage had been in the Marshalls and on Saipan at about the same time.
A cornerstone and a foundation, eyewitnesses giving interviewers the same story, which is the evidence upon which this truth is built. Even scripture says: “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” We didn’t see it, but those who saw the evidence — Vandergrift, Erskine, Nimitz, Marshallese eyewitnesses, Saipanese eyewitnesses — gave us the truth to believe, accept and investigate even further.
I. With a tedious analysis of the records, times, speeds, radio calls and Itasca logs, we tracked the lady and the man to “Area 13” at 2013z. This is Data Point No. 1.
II. Data Point No. 2. Switch to the other side, 1,000 and 2,000 miles away. Three cultures converge, the Marshalls, Saipan and the Americans, where the eyewitnesses and the greatest military leaders provide the END for the same story.
III. The Gap. We are then left with a four- to five-hour gap that we must bring together if we wish to change supposition into knowledge, or mystery into history.
The factual and documented information on both sides of the Gap tells us WHAT. But we still wrestle with the WHY behind the WHAT. How do we answer the obvious things which have so often been overlooked?
How? By refusing to overlook them any longer.
During the four- to five-hour gap while we search, an amazing thing happens: an awakening. Consider two data points of that evidence:
(1) The Electra is flying an imaginary “157-337 degree (sun) line,” now merely a heading, at 2013z / 8:43 a.m. “looking” (?) for the Itasca. At about four hours remaining, they hit “Bingo” fuel. It’s time to go into action with the contingency plan: “If and when you come to your contingency fuel, turn back to the Gilbert Islands toward friendly people. Land on a good beach, and they’ll find you. Tarawa has a radio. We’ll find a way to get to you.”
Were those their words? No, but it was their plan that Vidal had designed. Even Noonan’s sister had said: “Remember to turn back if you can’t find Howland.”
A 160 mph true air speed, plus a 15 or more mph tailwind for four hours would get them to the Gilberts. But with what heading? “Heading, Fred. What heading?”
From a 2013z position of about 150 to 200 miles northwest of Howland, they needed a heading of about 260 degrees or less to hit the midpoint of the 500-mile north-south string of the Gilbert Islands.
However, based upon the END of the story, where they actually ended up, they needed a heading of some 290 degrees or more. That would get them to where the evidence said they were, the Marshall Islands, with a free trip to Saipan, courtesy of the Japanese.
Focus on the evidence. Heading 260 degrees or less to Gilbert’s midpoint. Heading 290 degrees or more to get to Mili Atoll where they actually landed on a coral beach — 290 degrees versus 260 degrees?
From a position at 2013z, to the Marshalls with a 260 degree heading? That didn’t happen. To the Marshalls with a 290 degree heading? THAT DID HAPPEN, and was no accident. Once this truth clearly dawned — the heading was not accidental — a missing, critical ingredient was added.
What’s the significance of this ingredient? Epiphany. That heading and that destination were intentional. INTENT. In that moment after consideration, we knew then what we didn’t know at 2013z, namely, they intended to go somewhere on purpose. A heading to the Gilberts would not — repeat, NOT — have taken them to the Marshalls.
With intent aforethought: For eyeball proof, open Google Earth and try it. They would need a hurricane-force crosswind to blow them from the Gilberts to the Marshalls with a Gilbert heading. Fortunately for them, but unfortunately for the skeptic, they had a tailwind from the east.
We now have intent, the first moment of realization. They not only went to the Marshalls, they intended to. Something was driving them.
(2) Ironically, shortly after that epiphany, we read a comment by researcher Bill Prymak. It went something like this: “Why was AE so casual and so scarce with her radio calls? If it had been me in such an emergency, desperately trying to make contact and find Howland, I would not have waited :30, :45, 1 hour, 2:30 hours between calls. I would have been all over that radio:
Itasca, this is AE. Please answer. How do I home in on your frequency? I’ll hold the switch down for a full minute. No more occasional calls. Help me out . . . now. Are you there? I’ll stay on 3105 while you broadcast now on 3105, then 6210, then 7500, then 500. I’ll also listen to Morse code. Fred will understand your message, or key A.A.A. repeatedly, then key N.N.N. That will let me know you’re hearing me. Forget protocol. Talk to me. This is getting desperate.”
Not even one MAY-DAY CALL. Why so casual? No declaration of an emergency. Why so incredibly stingy with words? At 2:45 am? OK. But at 8:00 a.m.? May-Day, MAY-DAY!
2:45 a.m. – “??” unreadable (1 hour difference)
3:45 a.m. – “will listen” (2:30 hour difference)
6:15 am. – wants bearing – “about 200 miles out” (:30 difference)
6:45 a.m. – “take bearing – about 100 miles out” (almost 1 hour difference)
7:42 a.m. – “on you, can’t see you” (:16 difference)
7:58 a.m. – “circling (?), can’t hear you” (:02 difference)
8:00 a.m. – “received signals, take bearing” (:43 difference)
8:43 a.m. – “on line 157-337, will repeat” — S.I.L.E.N.C.E.
Not one call, not one, indicated an emergency. Perhaps the tone of her voice was tense, or even indicated “panic,” as Bellarts later stated, but not one hint of an emergency. Much too casual. Words cost nothing. What does the silence tell us?
If she doesn’t find Howland, it’s back to the Gilberts and the abandoning of the Electra on a beach. Amelia knows that. Consistently, she made very brief calls which lasted mere seconds, then she was silent for long periods. What is that telling us? That it is not normal behavior in an emergency. It is much too casual for a person facing fuel exhaustion and death. It is not rational.
Strangely, it may be telling us that she has no intention of landing here. If not, why? Don’t know yet, but how did Bill see that? Because if she wanted to land, there would have been desperation. She was cool and casual because she had another place in mind.
Amelia’s sister, Muriel Earhart Morrissey, said afterward: “Amelia had no intention of landing at Howland. It was a distraction.” (Amelia, My Courageous Sister (1987); “Amelia Earhart: What Really Happened to Her?” (D.A. Chadwick’s Blog).
Paul Rafford Jr., in his book, Amelia Earhart’s Radio, tells us: “Bill Galten also told me that although Earhart might have been able to land on Howland, he didn’t see how she could take off. His reason was the same as that offered by Itasca’s Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts, who told Fred Goerner that he felt that if she could land, she could not have been able to take off again.” So here are two of the original radio crew on Itasca agreeing about the serious dangers Howland posed to the Earhart Electra and its crew. We then did some investigation of our own.
These are only two of the many items which come under the category of OVERLOOKING THE OBVIOUS. The latest is THE HOWLAND RUNWAY scenario. When exploring the details and a comparison with the Lae takeoff, was the Howland runway even safe from which to take off in an Electra with a heavy load of fuel? Based upon details which we have been able to uncover, the answer may be obvious. She’ll know once she begins the takeoff, but then it will too late.
Let’s do some reasoning here. When Amelia took off at Lae, she had 3,000 feet of dirt runway. At the end, there was a 25-foot cliff dropping off to the Huon Gulf. The Electra’s takeoff run for about 2,900 feet broke ground, sank slightly, then more or less leveled, then at the end where the cliff dropped off, it descended about 20 feet toward the water where the props were creating an observed spray from the ocean.
That reality is in Amelia’s mind. She sees a picture. It is now behind her, but an even bigger challenge awaits her at Howland. How long is that coral-gravel runway? The flat part of the Island is 1.5 miles long by one-half-mile wide. If the longer N/S runway is just half that, since it is on the east side, rather than in the elongated middle, then we have about 4,000 feet, as later measured, but which the workers already knew.
There is also a gravel E/W runway about 2,400 feet at the south end of the N/S runway for the prevailing daily east winds. We now have a match waiting for some gasoline. Lae’s runway was hard dirt. Howland’s is crushed coral recently plowed and graded, and looser than hard dirt. Lea’s temperature was less than 85 degrees. Howland’s is often 100 degrees or more.
Lae’s had a safety net of a 25-foot drop to the Gulf beyond the cliff at the end of the runway. Howland at sea level has mere inches for descent after takeoff from sand’s edge to the water. Unlike Lae, at Howland, there is no safety net.
Going through the mind of any pilot facing this would be: Under these conditions, with these differences, can a takeoff with a load of fuel be made successfully at Howland? It was successful at Lae apparently because of the “safety net” of clear space underneath beyond the cliff. Amelia, like any pilot, might wonder.
Nor has she forgotten the ground loop at Honolulu under much better conditions. If a wheel of the Electra were to hit a soft spot, and veer slightly as it did in Honolulu, will she follow her habit of trying to maintain directional control with the throttles rather than the rudders? Honolulu all over again, just waiting.
If, when the plane breaks ground at Howland, but settles 20 feet as at Lae, there will be a ditching in the water with gear down, not a pretty thought. If density altitude were to work against her due to hotter temperature, what then? If even one of those 10,000 gooney birds were to get in the way of a prop on takeoff, hello water. The “WHAT IF’S” are endless.
Nearing Howland, Amelia may be thinking that the chances of taking off are not so good. Turn back to the Gilberts? There are many smooth sandy beaches there for a safe landing, but once on the soft sand, how will the Electra get airborne again?
Then there’s the option of the Marshalls. The inner debate continues, and a major decision is looming. What to do? How long is the runway? How safe is it?
With an East wind of 15 to 20 mph, this is obviously a crosswind which is not acceptable for a heavy plane on such a runway. Even the men on the ground who prepared it had recorded, in essence, in their log — impossible to take off on N/S runway with that crosswind. And the E/W runway is too short; at 2,250 feet between markers, plus the narrow 300-foot addition, plus the flagged off 200 feet, a total of 2,750 feet is available for takeoff.
Before we awaken Amelia from her intense concentration, let’s slip in another bit of “obvious” factual history which has often been overlooked. It concerns FDR himself and the government, especially Naval records generated by the former secretary of the Navy.
First, we have the official Navy-Coast Guard reports of their searches for the Earhart Electra that lasted from July 2 to July 19, and were filed beginning July 20. (see TAL pages 53-57). We also have information on file as “Report of Amelia Earhart as Prisoner in Marshall Islands,” dated Jan. 7, 1939. (Reference: Records of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Record Group 38, Entry 81, General Correspondence, 1929-1942, File A4-3/Earhart, Box No. 70). (See above image of the top of page 1 of this report.) This unclassified document has long been available to Earhart researchers through a simple request.
This, and additional information shows that as early as 1.5 years after the disappearance, Jan. 7, 1939, it was reported under then-classified documents that “Earhart was a prisoner in the Marshall Islands.” Since the U.S. had already broken the Japanese Code, it is more than mere speculation that FDR and Co. knew that Amelia and Fred were in Japanese hands.
(Editor’s note: Here Calvin is referring to the strange, little-known “Bottle Message” found near Bordeaux, France on Oct. 30, 1938 by a 37-year-old French woman. The message’s unidentified writer stated, in part: “I have been a prisoner at Jaluit (Marshalls) by the Japanese; in the prison there, I have seen Amelia Earhart (aviatrix) and in another cell her mechanic [sic], a man, as well as several other European prisoners; held on charges of alleged spying on large fortifications erected on the atoll.” I have not yet written about this message on the Truth at Last Blog for several reasons, but others have attempted to verify its provenance, without success. See * below for more on this.)
The classified proof in Navy files was declassified in 1967 and has been available to the public since then. Anyone can read it. Possessing a personal copy, one can show that the government knew the whereabouts of Amelia and Fred at least as early as 1939 or before. (Later, we’ll raise the issue of knowledge through having broken the Japanese code.)
That being the case, something so totally “obvious” to government authorities in 1939, and then obvious to the public through researchers in 1967, has lain hidden under a pile of dust while speculators and get-rich charlatans have invented stories about dying at sea or crashing on an uninhabited island leaving a size 9 piece of shoe as proof that a size 6 lady named Earhart had worn it. Such is a crime against the history of humanity.
While the obvious lies at our feet, we applaud phony pictures of a ship at Jaluit in 1937 under a Smithsonian caption of “Earhart and Noonan,” but which was proven to be false. And we support establishment money being spent to divert the public’s attention to a fake story on a Phoenix Island while we allow the government to keep promoting those distractions. This is the typical disinformation-distraction ploy. Although the establishment can distract from the truth, it cannot change it.
Something is obviously wrong with this picture. The public is more tolerant than they are observant. We cry “mystery” while holding the file of facts in our hands.
Time: 2013z / 8:43 a.m.:
Amelia awakens from her decision-dilemma. To the Itasca: “We’re on a line 157-337 degrees . . . Will repeat this message.” To Fred Noonan she may have said: “I’ve thought about the Howland runway compared to what we faced at Lae. It’s too dangerous. The Gilberts are out. Not going to sacrifice this plane. We’re going to the Marshalls. Give me a heading, and there’s no time to discuss it. If we land here, I probably won’t be able to get airborne again. Heading, please.” (End of “Amelia Earhart: DISAPPEARING FOOTPRINTS IN THE SKY,” Part IV.)
Next up will be the Conclusion of Calvin Pitts’ “Amelia Earhart: DISAPPEARING FOOTPRINTS IN THE SKY.” Your comments are welcome.
* (Editor’s note continued: Far more revealing among the Navy documents declassified in 1967 is the notorious 1960 Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) Report (below), ostensibly undertaken to investigate Thomas E. Devine’s 1960 statements to ONI Special Agent Thomas M. Blake in October 1960. Devine, at home in West Haven, Conn., having seen the reports of Fred Goerner’s first Saipan visit, decided to tell the ONI about his 1945 experience on Saipan with the unidentified Okinawan woman who showed him the gravesite of a “white man and woman who had come from the sky,“ before the war. Devine believed this site was the common grave of Earhart and Noonan.
The ONI found nothing to support Devine’s gravesite claims, which wasn’t surprising, but its unstated goal was to discredit all information that placed Earhart and Noonan on Saipan. In this it actually failed miserably, though no one in the media has ever even alluded to the document’s existence, and it remains completely unknown to the general public despite its declassification. The story of the ONI Report in itself is another amazing travesty in the saga of the Earhart disappearance, in that it virtually establishes the Marshalls landing and Saipan presence of the fliers while attempting to debunk both ideas. For an extended discussion of this obscure but vastly important document, see pages 95-100 in Truth at Last.