For Bill Greenwood:
Bill,
The patrol was a 20 man patrol plus one New Guinea Police "Boy" (as they were called then), so 21 in all on the patrol. Three were on rearguard when the patrol stopped to examine the wreck so in all, 18 saw the wreckage. When I heard of the story at Xmas 1993 and contacted the Vets, there were only four Vets from the patrol still breathing and one of the three was the Sergeant on the rearguard and he did not see the wreck. When he caught up with them after waiting on rearguard for 30 long minutes, he asked, "Why did we stop ?", because he didn't see the wreckage at all. So the descriptive evidence came from three Vets.
At no time during the patrol did they think it was a Lockheed nor did they recognise "what" the aircraft was as they would not have known an Electra from a barn door. The Lieutenant viewed the actual aircraft wreck and reported that he could not see any national markings or insignia. He stood on the Port wing and looked down into the smashed cockpit but could not see anything except vegetation growing in there. He cannot recall seeing the tail section and from what I have seen of Liberator wrecks in PNG, the tail gets ripped off when it goes through trees. All they had seen were the words "Pratt & Whitney" and they had removed the tag which was tied to the engine mount tubing with wire. They "assumed" the aircraft to be "American" due to the Pratt & Whitney seen on the detached engine.
What did the Vets do ? Well, they reported the find in their Patrol Report and sent the tag they had removed to HQ with the report. That is what "any" army patrol would do. There were questions asked of them by a certain Captain Mott who was a staff Captain from Brigade HQ and who was a Topographer. He wanted to know where they had been and where the aircraft was. They couldn't pin down where they had been and an argument erupted between Mott and their Company Commander. The Lieutenant was sent out on another patrol straight away as a kind of punishment. Personally, I believe Captain Mott (who was in the Intelligence Section) did indeed have some intelligence and could have realised "whose" aircraft it was. After all, as you say, AE & FN had been missing for eight years and still could have been in the minds of many people.
From the report sent in, five and a half weeks later, the whole Company was on the move to a place around the coast where a large party of Japanese had been reported and they were waiting for a landing barge to take them there when an Officer from Brigade HQ approached them. He asked if they were the men who had found "an aircraft" in the jungle a few weeks ago. He then proceeded to read from a piece of paper that "the Americans" had said that the aircraft was "not one of theirs" but it could possibly be a Lockheed. They were told not to worry about it, they had other things to do. Of the three Vets I interviewed, one said he could not remember the "Lockheed" bit, but other men at their Company reunions over the years since WWII had said that was what the Officer had indeed said.
So, yes, Bill, logically, they did the right thing, they reported the find, the Americans said, it was "not one of theirs" and presumably, were not interested. However, two U.S. Army Officers did visit the fighting zone and did want to speak to the patrol Lieutenant but he was out on another patrol and they could not wait and left. So, someone in the U.S. Army did have some interest and sent two Officers up there to "find out" more. It must have been a field ranking Officer to do that as seats on aircraft going into the area would be at a premium as fighting was still going on and stores and ammunition would be the priority up and wounded the priority down.
I have continually said that we do not know "who" wrote the cryptic string of letters and numbers on the map edge but it is written there as a "reference" together with the Patrol Code No. and SITREP details from the Patrol Information and subsequent sent signals. We do know that the map was in one man's possession for 48 years. The one Signal we do not have is SITREP 63A, the "A" indicating an Annex report, ie; something not directly to do with the patrol. My opinion on that is that the Annex report described what they saw but due to it not being directly involved with the patrol per se, it has not been included in the records. I have no idea where it might be except that I know that there are "misfiles" in the records and it could be anywhere in other files.
Bill, the time factor dictates that the event occurred at around 7:00pm and it would be dark. Typically at around 5:00pm, fingers of cloud start rolling down into the valley from the hills and mid-year, it is common for the whole area to be socked in with low cloud. The event of fuel exhaustion in the circumstances doesn't bear thinking about.
You ask: "....if Amelia and Fred remains are not in the plane, then what ?"
That is entirely possible but I doubt that any insect or feral animal would obliterate all trace. There will be remains as has been evidenced many times in New Guinea in military situation wrecks. If there is only the shell of the Electra there, what you might be trying to say is that the "Mystery" will still be alive, I guess.
Next, if Amelia did turn back from Howland, is there not closer land,like Mlli atol or Gardner that would have been more logical?
The point is that, AE & FN "thought" they were at Howland or lateral to Howland and searched for an hour. On not seeing anything at all they have to assume that they are "unsure of their position", ie; lost. You cannot navigate to a known position from an unknown position, it is not possible.
Using logic, which is the wiser choice ?
1. Head for The Phoenix Group, a scattered group, which was not marked on their strip map, but they did have the 1936 NatGeo map of the Pacific. I have that map, the locations are so small as to be of no use in a situation which desires "accuracy". Other islands are shown in "insets" but not the Phoenix Group. 2. Head for the Marshall Islands, a scattered group, not marked on their strip map, but they had the NatGeo map. 3. Head for the Gilbert Islands, not marked on their strip map, marked on the NatGeo map and which would appear as a string of islands in a long spread 500 miles long across their reciprocal course. 4. The Phoenix Group is the closest, but we are unsure where we are on our track line. 5. The Marshalls are the furthest away but again, we are unsure where we are on our track line. 6. The Gilberts are mid-distance away compared to the Phoenix Group and the Marshalls and as we are unsure of where we are on our track line, they could be the closest. 7. If we turn onto our reciprocal and head back, surely we must see The Gilberts, we cannot miss them.
I leave it to you to make the decision, you have the fuel to reach any of them.
Then, when you get there you have to crashland with the possibility of serious injuries and no medical help.
If you then reach some land and still have fuel left and that fuel will (if you use strict economy measures) get you closer to civilisation or to an airstrip, what will you do ?
Have you read the Loomis and Ethel book?
Yes, I have.
Yes, the Japanese did have unpainted aircraft particularly at the commencement of the Pacific War when they had air superioprity but later they applied paint. In any case there would have been a BIG RED Blob on the fuselage that the Lieutenant inspected, surely he would have seen that ? WWII Japanese aircraft tended to have better primers than American aircraft and even a few years ago, some wrecks pulled together in the Solomons near Honiara on Guadalcanal still had the primer on and the red blob. Another in PNG, a Nakajima "Helen" at Madang (Alexishaven Field) still had the blob when I saw it in 1989.
Thanks for the "Good Luck"....
David Billings
|