Born in 1879, Andrew W. Comrie, mother, stepfather, and siblings emigrated from England to America in 1894. The family settled in Chicago where, in 1900, Andrew was living at home and working as an iron machinist. (His father kept a saloon.) In 1910, he was still in Chicago, but now married with four kids and working as a machinist at a car factory. The on-set of the Great War found him in Tennessee, a farmer. (World War I draft cards.) He was said to be tall.
The family moved to Miami sometime in the 1920s, where Andrew assumed a job as engineer. He and his wife Bertha had another child: in 1930, there were four at home, the eldest daughter gone. He is missing from the 140 census; Bertha was in Michigan, living with her daughter, son-in-law and grandchild. Andrew was in the Caribbean, testing out his theories of time and space.
Comrie said that he “spent his entire lifetime in the study of navigation.” [Frances A Squires, 2nd, “Unique Theory of Navigation Advanced,” MoToR BoatinG April 1941: 48-49, 120-124.] In 1936, this avocation culminated with his petition for a patent on a navigational instrument—a chart arranged according to his idiosyncratic re-writing of the earth’s movements through space. [Official Gazette of the United States Patent Office, vol. 487 (Feb. 1938): 475.] (Part of this invention can be seen as another response to the movement of the poles that inspired Isaac Newton Vail, Alfred Drayson, and Alfred Barnes.) Comrie asserted that the declination of the sun (its angular distance from the equator) is constant. The year, he said, was exactly 360 days long—and each degree of the earth’s circular motion was equal to one of these days. He advised reforming the calendars so that there were no more Thursdays, and so that each month began on a Monday. In February 1938, Comrie received his patent.
At some point, he read Thayer’s opening screed in the first issue of The Fortean Society Magazine blaming the death of Amelia Earhart on mainstream science—because it promised an understanding of navigation it could not fulfill. The article was widely reported on in the press, which is likely where Comrie came across it. He then tried to track down Thayer, finally making contact through J. David Stern—this was before Thayer’s sedition would cause such an affront. On 11 November 1939, Comrie wrote (in part):
“Your opinion of the present system of Navigation has been a great inspiration to me, as I am quite sure you are the only many in the world who has the courage to say what he thinks, and I am in a position to prove, and have proved before the best professional licensed deep sea and air transport captains, Astronomers etc. Miami (Florida) can produce, that you were more than right, and I have gently told them from now on they are deliberate murders from choice.”
........
“No one has been able to deny that the new method would be practical for the Aviator, who could read his position at any instant in flight without the use of any mechanical aid whatever, and what is perhaps more important, could change his course at any time and proceed to any desired destination, the new course being automatically shown.
“The present (Orthodox) system is based on a theory that in practice denies its own existence, it is obvious that if the 365 days in our present Calendar were actually used the Sun would arrive back not he equator five days ahead of time. It is also true that our Magic City, Miami, Florida is, according (to) Sextant observations and the Office of Nautical Almanac two or more degrees oath of the North Pole at certain seasons of the year. This I have demonstrated without denial that Captain Noon and Amelia (Earhart) with my method aboard could have given their position at any instant. This demonstration was made by request and then the papers refused to publish it on the grounds that it would be criticising [sic] the Navy. Names, dates, witnesses are available.” [Earhart Eco, The Fortean Society Magazine, 6 (January 1942): 12-13.]
In February and early March 1940, the press picked up on Comrie’s new patented invention, which may have reminded Thayer of the letter he had received. [Invents Navigation Aid, Newcastle News (PA), 2 March 1940: 6.] He responded on 3 March 1940—but Comrie wasn’t there to answer the letter. Two days before, he went sailing with Captain James Huggins, former Lieutenant Commander of the U.S. Navy, visiting eight or nine ports in British and Spanish Honduras, the Caribbean, and Key West. They returned 27 April, with the former Lieutenant Colonel fully convinced that Comrie’s navigational system worked perfectly. Comrie passed on to Thayer Huggins’ endorsement in a letter dated 15 May 1940 that said, in part:
“I was more than delighted to hear from you and to know that you are interested in my invention and experience trying to put it over, which have been many and varied, and still continue. I have met the customary official stupidity, or according to my belief traitorism, also every kind of opposition from petty prejudice to real criminal attempts to beat me out of my invention, for which three men are now serving an apprenticeship in the art of breaking big rocks into little ones in a federal prison, and many more have earned that privilege. I have no scruples personally in sending you all the data in my possession which is considerable. However it must be in some sort of order and notarized which will be done as soon as I possibly can do it, and I sincerely hope you will tear em all apart as you know so well how to do. They like to dish it out but can’t take it.
“Will send you in a few days proof that Amelia Earhart and Captain Noonan were murdered was fully justified, as well as the basis of my invention, which will be followed by the full theory.”
I don’t know if Thayer responded to Comrie but according to Thayer Comrie sent a letter dated 11 September 1940, repeating some of his earlier arguments, including his newly invented chart, as well as a chart of the Earhart-Noonan flight based on best available data—which showed that Earhart and Noonan would have certainly seen some obvious landmarks that they failed to report. He hopes that Thayer could convince someone to study the chart and make a guess as to what happened to the pilots “as to date I have found no one who could explain anything.”
Comrie seems to have formed some kind of partnership with a man named Frances A. Squires—a one-time ad man and newspaper editor, according to the Miami City Directory and 1930 US Census—who was listed as the head of the Miami-based Navigational Research Association. In April 1941, Squires got an article on Comrie’s system published in the magazine “MoToR BoatinG.” Again, much of the language was the same, as were the theoretical claims. The magazine’s editor, though, were clearly worried about the piece. When Squires wrote, “The Comrie system embraces the use of the new calendar, a navigational instrument and the Declinator, and is based on the unvarying declination of the sun, and claims that there never has been, is not now and never could be, one second variation in the declination of the sun in a year or a million years,” the editors interjected “According to all familiar navigational principles, declination is changing constantly.” And the second page of the article contained a lengthy editor’s note:
“Many systems of navigation have made their appearance, but usually these are short cuts based on accepted and established principles. In this article, however, the author discusses a system which, for its application, would uproot many time-honored and traditional ideas. Consequently some of the claims would almost appear to be mis-statements, unless understood from the point of view of the newly proposed principles. Among other things, the Comrie system would involve revision of the calendar, almanac and nautical charts.
“In reading this article, therefore, one must bear in mind that the statements and claims made are those of the author, not necessarily endorsed or advocated by this magazine. No doubt students of conventional methods of navigation will take issue with many of the statements made. However, no complete explanation of the system could be contained in a single brief article, and the author has volunteered to answer any questions that may be addressed to him directly. For the address, see the concluding paragraph of this article.
“MoToR BoatinG publishes Mr. Squires’ description of the Comrie system in the belief that it will arouse a great deal of interest among those who have nay knowledge of navigation in its traditional form.”
The concluding paragraph reads more like proprietary line-marking than ann invitation for questions:
“This article has been released by special permission to the publishers of MoTor BoatinG and is not to be reprinted except by permission of the author, who will be pleased to answer questions pertaining to the matter. Address all mail to F. A. Squires, c/o Navigation Research Association, Suite 417, Security Building, Miami, Florida.”
If there was any commentary from other readers, MoTor BoatinG didn’t print it.
Thayer, however, did publish the correspondence from Comrie. It appeared in the magazine’s notorious sixth issue, which may account for it being overshadowed. Thayer prefaced it:
“Now that the United States Navy is so well represented in the South Pacific Ocean, Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan may turn up any day. Your Secretary has never lost hope for the lives of those two people nor lost his confidence that the U.S. Navy navigators would find the Island of Doubt if they kept looking long enough. They might find their way more swiftly if they employed Andrew W. Comrie—I don’t know.”
Thayer didn’t know, again, the next time Comrie was mentioned in The Fortean Society Magazine. In the 20th issue, published March 1948, he included Comrie among the “Lost Sheep.” But by that point Comrie was beyond the reach of any navigational system. He died in 1943. As far as I can tell, his ideas died with him.
The family moved to Miami sometime in the 1920s, where Andrew assumed a job as engineer. He and his wife Bertha had another child: in 1930, there were four at home, the eldest daughter gone. He is missing from the 140 census; Bertha was in Michigan, living with her daughter, son-in-law and grandchild. Andrew was in the Caribbean, testing out his theories of time and space.
Comrie said that he “spent his entire lifetime in the study of navigation.” [Frances A Squires, 2nd, “Unique Theory of Navigation Advanced,” MoToR BoatinG April 1941: 48-49, 120-124.] In 1936, this avocation culminated with his petition for a patent on a navigational instrument—a chart arranged according to his idiosyncratic re-writing of the earth’s movements through space. [Official Gazette of the United States Patent Office, vol. 487 (Feb. 1938): 475.] (Part of this invention can be seen as another response to the movement of the poles that inspired Isaac Newton Vail, Alfred Drayson, and Alfred Barnes.) Comrie asserted that the declination of the sun (its angular distance from the equator) is constant. The year, he said, was exactly 360 days long—and each degree of the earth’s circular motion was equal to one of these days. He advised reforming the calendars so that there were no more Thursdays, and so that each month began on a Monday. In February 1938, Comrie received his patent.
At some point, he read Thayer’s opening screed in the first issue of The Fortean Society Magazine blaming the death of Amelia Earhart on mainstream science—because it promised an understanding of navigation it could not fulfill. The article was widely reported on in the press, which is likely where Comrie came across it. He then tried to track down Thayer, finally making contact through J. David Stern—this was before Thayer’s sedition would cause such an affront. On 11 November 1939, Comrie wrote (in part):
“Your opinion of the present system of Navigation has been a great inspiration to me, as I am quite sure you are the only many in the world who has the courage to say what he thinks, and I am in a position to prove, and have proved before the best professional licensed deep sea and air transport captains, Astronomers etc. Miami (Florida) can produce, that you were more than right, and I have gently told them from now on they are deliberate murders from choice.”
........
“No one has been able to deny that the new method would be practical for the Aviator, who could read his position at any instant in flight without the use of any mechanical aid whatever, and what is perhaps more important, could change his course at any time and proceed to any desired destination, the new course being automatically shown.
“The present (Orthodox) system is based on a theory that in practice denies its own existence, it is obvious that if the 365 days in our present Calendar were actually used the Sun would arrive back not he equator five days ahead of time. It is also true that our Magic City, Miami, Florida is, according (to) Sextant observations and the Office of Nautical Almanac two or more degrees oath of the North Pole at certain seasons of the year. This I have demonstrated without denial that Captain Noon and Amelia (Earhart) with my method aboard could have given their position at any instant. This demonstration was made by request and then the papers refused to publish it on the grounds that it would be criticising [sic] the Navy. Names, dates, witnesses are available.” [Earhart Eco, The Fortean Society Magazine, 6 (January 1942): 12-13.]
In February and early March 1940, the press picked up on Comrie’s new patented invention, which may have reminded Thayer of the letter he had received. [Invents Navigation Aid, Newcastle News (PA), 2 March 1940: 6.] He responded on 3 March 1940—but Comrie wasn’t there to answer the letter. Two days before, he went sailing with Captain James Huggins, former Lieutenant Commander of the U.S. Navy, visiting eight or nine ports in British and Spanish Honduras, the Caribbean, and Key West. They returned 27 April, with the former Lieutenant Colonel fully convinced that Comrie’s navigational system worked perfectly. Comrie passed on to Thayer Huggins’ endorsement in a letter dated 15 May 1940 that said, in part:
“I was more than delighted to hear from you and to know that you are interested in my invention and experience trying to put it over, which have been many and varied, and still continue. I have met the customary official stupidity, or according to my belief traitorism, also every kind of opposition from petty prejudice to real criminal attempts to beat me out of my invention, for which three men are now serving an apprenticeship in the art of breaking big rocks into little ones in a federal prison, and many more have earned that privilege. I have no scruples personally in sending you all the data in my possession which is considerable. However it must be in some sort of order and notarized which will be done as soon as I possibly can do it, and I sincerely hope you will tear em all apart as you know so well how to do. They like to dish it out but can’t take it.
“Will send you in a few days proof that Amelia Earhart and Captain Noonan were murdered was fully justified, as well as the basis of my invention, which will be followed by the full theory.”
I don’t know if Thayer responded to Comrie but according to Thayer Comrie sent a letter dated 11 September 1940, repeating some of his earlier arguments, including his newly invented chart, as well as a chart of the Earhart-Noonan flight based on best available data—which showed that Earhart and Noonan would have certainly seen some obvious landmarks that they failed to report. He hopes that Thayer could convince someone to study the chart and make a guess as to what happened to the pilots “as to date I have found no one who could explain anything.”
Comrie seems to have formed some kind of partnership with a man named Frances A. Squires—a one-time ad man and newspaper editor, according to the Miami City Directory and 1930 US Census—who was listed as the head of the Miami-based Navigational Research Association. In April 1941, Squires got an article on Comrie’s system published in the magazine “MoToR BoatinG.” Again, much of the language was the same, as were the theoretical claims. The magazine’s editor, though, were clearly worried about the piece. When Squires wrote, “The Comrie system embraces the use of the new calendar, a navigational instrument and the Declinator, and is based on the unvarying declination of the sun, and claims that there never has been, is not now and never could be, one second variation in the declination of the sun in a year or a million years,” the editors interjected “According to all familiar navigational principles, declination is changing constantly.” And the second page of the article contained a lengthy editor’s note:
“Many systems of navigation have made their appearance, but usually these are short cuts based on accepted and established principles. In this article, however, the author discusses a system which, for its application, would uproot many time-honored and traditional ideas. Consequently some of the claims would almost appear to be mis-statements, unless understood from the point of view of the newly proposed principles. Among other things, the Comrie system would involve revision of the calendar, almanac and nautical charts.
“In reading this article, therefore, one must bear in mind that the statements and claims made are those of the author, not necessarily endorsed or advocated by this magazine. No doubt students of conventional methods of navigation will take issue with many of the statements made. However, no complete explanation of the system could be contained in a single brief article, and the author has volunteered to answer any questions that may be addressed to him directly. For the address, see the concluding paragraph of this article.
“MoToR BoatinG publishes Mr. Squires’ description of the Comrie system in the belief that it will arouse a great deal of interest among those who have nay knowledge of navigation in its traditional form.”
The concluding paragraph reads more like proprietary line-marking than ann invitation for questions:
“This article has been released by special permission to the publishers of MoTor BoatinG and is not to be reprinted except by permission of the author, who will be pleased to answer questions pertaining to the matter. Address all mail to F. A. Squires, c/o Navigation Research Association, Suite 417, Security Building, Miami, Florida.”
If there was any commentary from other readers, MoTor BoatinG didn’t print it.
Thayer, however, did publish the correspondence from Comrie. It appeared in the magazine’s notorious sixth issue, which may account for it being overshadowed. Thayer prefaced it:
“Now that the United States Navy is so well represented in the South Pacific Ocean, Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan may turn up any day. Your Secretary has never lost hope for the lives of those two people nor lost his confidence that the U.S. Navy navigators would find the Island of Doubt if they kept looking long enough. They might find their way more swiftly if they employed Andrew W. Comrie—I don’t know.”
Thayer didn’t know, again, the next time Comrie was mentioned in The Fortean Society Magazine. In the 20th issue, published March 1948, he included Comrie among the “Lost Sheep.” But by that point Comrie was beyond the reach of any navigational system. He died in 1943. As far as I can tell, his ideas died with him.
