Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:22:58 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: radio receiving and transmission "...over a hundred other signals..." other than the PAA and amateur receptions have been included in the Tighar Matrix. How about a little teaser here, before you publish. Are those professional operators with sophisticated equipment??? Coast Guard? Navy? Ron Bright ******************************************************************* From Ric I'll be happy to give you an accurate count in the next day or so. This weekend I finished putting the Master List of event reports into tab-separated text so that it can be data-based. Once that is done I'll be able to pull out all kinds of statistics. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:24:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Nauticos on TV Tonight- Israeli Submarine Dakar > And, except for the "Dakar" coincidence, I'm still not sure what this has to > do with AE. Jon, I don't know that it has ANYTHING to do with the Electra and its crew but if I was cynical I might suppose it was their way of saying "Look how great we are at finding vehiicles deep in the ocean. Fund our Electra search and we can locate it just as easily." Alan =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:32:01 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna > From this I conclude she didn't attempt to broadcast on 6210 immediately > after her last transmission heard by Itasca. I understand what you said, Bob, that 6210 SHOULD have been heard in the area from Howland for many hundreds of miles on south but that wasn't the case at Lae. Her first transmission that Lae reported as hearing was 4 hours and 18 minutes after take off. Of course it may be that was the first radio call she made but my understanding was that she was to report hourly at about 18 minutes past the hour. She was then heard one hour later and then two hours later but not after that. I don't know what happened to the 16:18Z radio call or if it was even made. The 17:18Z call was still on 6210 is my understanding. Is that correct, Ric? She may have soon switched to 3105, her night time freq and that seemed to have a short range as gaged by her calls to Itasca. Then when she switched back to 6210 she was in the same range from Howland to Niku as she was out of Lae. It seems to me to be consistant she wasn't heard in either case. Bob, do I have this right or am I confused? Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric Bob has not run the SNRs for the transmissions heard in Lae. Chater says: "Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information, but local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible until 2.18 p.m." The plane took off at 10:00 a.m. Sounds to me like unintelligible voice may have been heard at one or more of the scheduled hourly times (10:18, 11:18, 12:18, 13:18). =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:34:58 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Nauticos on TV Tonight- Israeli Submarine Dakar Jon, Nauticos is following the Elgen Long story. Carol =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:45:43 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Cam Warren's Manifesto I respectfully request that the Forum close the door on this one, and move ahead. PMB #0856C, Doylestown, PA. ************************************************************ From Ric The door is closed. ************************************************************************ From Chris in Petaluma, Ca. I'll bet you and Cam are the best of friends and you appointed him to the forum just to spice things up a bit? Chris#2511 ************************************************************** From Ric I've never met or spoken with Cam and I certainly bear him no personal animosity. I'm all in favor of spice on the forum as long as it adds something to the stew but all Cam seemed to have to contribute was vinegar. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:18:47 EST From: Melanie Subject: Post-Loss messages Do you know of any other examples of post loss messages associated with a plane disappearance? Especially, one where it was later found transmissions were clearly not made. I'm wondering if it is a common phenomenon, perhaps caused by people trying so hard to listen for anything (and in the case of high-profile flights perhaps caused by hoaxes). If not, it lends even more validity to AE's post loss messages. Melanie ************************************************************************ From Ric That is a VERY interesting question - and I don't know the answer. I can think of a couple of disappearances we could check. - In December 1934, Charles Ulm and two companions took off from Oakland for Hawaii in a twin-engine Airspeed Envoy named "Stella Australus" on the first leg of a planned trans-pacific flight to Australia. They disappeared and were never found. The aircraft had a radio. It would be interesting to check the newspaper coverage of that disappearance to see if messages were reported. - In November 1935, Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith and copilot/mechanic Tommy Pethybridge disappeared in the Lockheed Altair "Lady Southern Cross" in the Bay of Bengal somewhere south of Rangoon. In May 1937, the starboard undercarriage leg with wheel and tire attached were picked up by a Burmese fisherman on the shore of an island off the south coast of Burma. Smithy had a radio. I don't know if post-loss signals were reported but the discovery of wreckage argues against any being sent. There is a recent biography entitled "Smithy" by Ian Mackersey that deals extensively with the last flight. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:21:23 EST From: Daryll Subject: PTT vs Key Mike Everette wrote: >Bill Shea wrote: >>I always thought that an 'unmodulated carrier' was a fancy term for a tone. > >An unmodulated carrier is a signal without modulation. Pure and simple. >The same result is produced by either holding down a telegraph key, or >keeping the microphone PTT switch pressed but not speaking into the mic. > >Gary LaPook wrote: > >>Keyed tones is a signal type called MCW or "modulated continuous wave." To get >>this to work AE's radio would have to have incorporated a circuit for this. >>Anybody know if her radio did? > >The Western Electric 13 series transmitters did not have MCW (A2 emission) >capability. As designed the 13 series was AM-modulated voice (A3 emission) >only. AE's radio was factory modified to also incorporate CW transmission >capability (A1 emission), but not MCW. QUESTION : Mike, how could the Itasca record long dashes at 08:00-03 if they didn't have a key in the airplane? You said that a keyed PTT switch would produce a carrier and I assume the ambient background noise (if any) heard on the phone. The Itasca log indicates whistling when the was whistling or other noise heard. If the PTT was depressed you should hear the cockpit engine noise correct? Was the Itasca hearing a keyed dash from a key or the depressed PTT switch? Daryll From Log Jam: Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 08:00-03 a.m. July 2, 1937 KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE RECD WE UR SIGS BUT UNABLE TO GET A MINIMUM PSE TAKE BEARING ON US AND ANS 3105 WID VOICE / NRUI DE KHAQQ LNG DASHES ON 3105 -/ NRUI2 DE NRUI P AR 0800-3 Aboard Itasca: The ship can not give Earhart a "long count" on 7500 Kilocycles because its transmitter is incapable of sending voice on that frequency, but it does repeat the letter A in morse code (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah), the prearranged signal for homing transmissions from Itasca. Earhart reports hearing the signal but is "unable to get minimum" and again asks Itasca to take a bearing on her. She sends long dashes on 3105...... =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:26:42 EST From: Michael Subject: Re: radio receiving and transmission I'm sorry I haven't been following the forum very diligently recently, but I'd love to know how the 'Radio Matrix' is getting on? I'm sure there must some radio hams on the forum - without wishing to start a whole new debate, one aspect of radio hamming that used to be very popular was QRP - low power transmission. The range achievable using QRP [1 watt?] is quite surprising - I know of instances where communication has been established between UK and Australia under good conditions. Obviously AE's aerial would have been less than perfect, especially if the aircraft was on the ground, however someone with QRP experience might like to comment? Keep up the good work! Michael ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes, we'd love to hear from HAMs with QRP experiences. The Post-Loss Radio report will be part of a Special Report edition of TIGHAR Tracks that we hope to mail to TIGHAR members January 15. My deadline for completeing the writing is December 15. From there it goes to Pat for layout and then to the printer. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:39:02 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Antenna A big problem for me with the reported reception of post 2013 Z messages has to do with the difficulty of tuning the radios of that era to a particular frequency either 3105 kc or 6210 kc. The young people on the list who have been raised with digital tuning on every radio do not appreciate the difficulty of using tuning knobs and trying to tune in a station when the markings on the "tuning dial" are inexact. I would like to know how the people who claimed to hear AE on one of these two frequencies could be sure that they were actually tuned to her transmitting frequencies. A simple example. Using an old AM radio with a tuning dial try to tune a particular broadcast station. If, say you wanted to listen to Rush at 10:00am on KFI in Los Angeles you tune to approximately "6" or "600" on the am dial and listen for a broadcast. It may or may not be KFI and you can't be sure until you hear a station identification. Even if you know that Rush is on KFI at 640 kc and you hear his voice you still can't be sure that you have tuned to 640 because Rush is also broadcast on KOGO from San Diego on 600 kc. and "6" or "600" on the dial could represent either station because of the inexact nature of tuning dials. That was an easy example because both of these stations broadcast continuously so you can tune around and wait for the station identification. It is not so easy to find a station that transmits sporadically and for only short periods. In this case you can't just tune around in hopes of finding such a transmission since it is highly unlikely that you would happen to be tuned to the exact right spot on the dial at the exact time that AE made a short transmission. Even if the dial said "31" it is just as likely to be set to 3035 or 3096 or 3156 (even 3309) etc. as to be set to 3105 kc. It is very likely that many of the transmissions received and reported to be coming in on 3105 were actually received on some other nearby frequency. And what are the chances that "Betty" just happened to be tuning to the 5th harmonic of AE's transmitter's frequency at exactly the same instant that AE makes a short sporadic transmission. It would be like hitting a bullet with another bullet. ( I know, that can happen. I have seen a photo of a Jap and an American artillery projectile fused together but I have only seen one such photo.) So, what if you got lucky and could be sure that you were tuned to 3105 because you heard, for instance, a Coast Guard station identify and state that it was transmitting on 3105. Can you then just leave your radio set where it is so that is will remain on that same frequency? Unfortunately, no. Radios are tuned by adjusting the output of a "variable frequency oscillator" (VFO) which is then fed to other stages of the radio. The tuning knob and tuning dial are both connected to the VFO. Turning the tuning knob changes the output frequency of the VFO and also turns the tuning dial. Any change in the frequency of the output from the VFO changes the frequency that the radio receives. VFOs lacked "stability" in that they would drift over time mainly due to changes in the temperatures of the various components of the VFO and sometimes they would change just from the presence of your hand on the tuning knob. So even if you started out accurately tuned to 3105, wait awhile and you will be receiving a different frequency without any change on the tuning dial. This is the reason for crystal control of communications radios. Certain kinds of crystals can be ground to a particular thickness and the crystal will oscillate in a set, fixed frequency. The crystal is manufactured for a particular frequency, say 3105 kc, and it will always oscillate at that frequency and can be used to control the tuning of the transmitter and receiver. Only with crystals cut for the right frequency could you be sure that you were transmitting and receiving on a fixed frequency. It is highly unlikely that any casual listener or ham would have had crystals for 3105 or 6210 kc and so can not be sure that they were receiving on those frequencies. Modern radios have computer controlled "phase locked loops" (which also uses a crystal for a reference frequency) with digital readout so you can set them to a fixed frequency and they will be accurate and stay on that frequency which is, obviously, a great improvement. (Speaking of KFI, it must have also been a communication station in 1937 because GP Putnam stayed at the station so as to communicate during the flight and search. Anybody with information about this?) gl ************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, everything you say is true. All of the reported amateur receptions, if legitimate at all, were apparently on harmonics of 3105 and 6210 and all were accidental. None of the amateurs claimed to have been intentionally listening for Earhart. On the other hand, if transmissions from the airplane could be heard on harmonics and thousands and thousands, if not millions, of people in the U.S. regularly surfed their shortwave dial for something interesting, it would be surprising if a few did not stumble upon a transmission from the plane. However, as I've said before, the vast majority of suspected post-loss transmissions were reported by professional radio operators in or near the search area. Their reports include discussions of the problems you describe about verifying frequencies. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:59:45 EST From: Jeff Lange Subject: Re: Cam Warren's Manifesto AMEN to cutting off Cam Warren. He offers info that he wouldn't even attempt to help anyone verify, saying that, " you could do the research yourself ", but would not simply supply copies of his documents to prove his point or clear up a misconception. You have had the patience of Job to keep it up so long when being on the receiving end of all of those barbs! Again I say AMEN! Jeff Lange # 0748C =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:01:29 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Membership Sorry I let my membership lapse; the check is in the mail. To the remaining TIGHAR members; check your files and don't let your memberships expire!! Jerry Ellis #2113 ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jerry. We knew you'd get around to it. :-) =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:05:05 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Antenna Hope you are having a nice day because I'm having one. Happy Thanksgiving. Talked with Bruce Smith, the avionics man, in fact I just got off the phone with him. Bruce says the following after reading all the emails: 1. Marker beacon antennas were not approved for general aviation until 1938. So Earhart's Electra did not have a marker beacon antenna on the belly. 2. The belly antenna that was installed on the Electra had to be a range antenna and 18ft. is the right length. It is also the right length for a sense antenna and Earhart could have unplugged the range antenna in flight and switched it over to a sense antenna. All of this would be dependent on the capabilities of the avionics. However, it should be noted the two types of antennas are interchangeable and they are of the same length (sense and range). 3. The sense antenna and the range antenna have nothing to do with voice or Morse code communications. 4. Before the wreck in Hawaii there was evidently two antennas on the belly of the airplane. One of them must have been a sense antenna and the other one a range antenna. 5. The loss of the sense antenna off the belly of the airplane would have lost the 180 degree ambiguity feature of a fixed loop radio compass DF. Smith is saying there was probably an indicator on Earhart's panel that indicated left and right plus or minus 5 degrees on the null. The sense antenna operated in the range of 200 kilohertz to 500 kilohertz and was probably a dial operated radio system. So, the above is confirmed. End of story except nothing really new except the marker beacon antenna is deleted. The DF didn't work (which we already knew), but it would be especially true if the sense antenna was missing. Smith also says the sense antenna would also have provided a continuous signal if it was there. LTM Carol Dow ************************************************************************ From Ric Thank you for forwarding Mr. Smith's opinons. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:12:21 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Antenna Re Chater report mentioning "local interference." Does this comment indicate the possibility that Lae was receiving other, more local, radio transmissions that blocked out expected AE transmissions? I'll see what I can find on the 1934 Ulm flight. blue skies, jerry ************************************************************************ From Ric I guess that would depend on whether 6210 was being used locally. There was lots of aviation activity around New Guinea in support of gold mining at that time. If 6210 was a standard frequency for aviation use in the area there might have been a lot of traffic. The other possibility is local atmospheric interference. I know from personal experience flying in New Guinea that by noontime on a typical day there are big nasty buildups over the Owen Stanley mountains just in back of Lae. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:30:24 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna Alan Caldwell wrote: > > Table A-1 shows that Earhart's signal on 6210 would have been readablefrom > > anywhere between Howland Island and Gardner Island until 2130Z, up to 250 > > miles from Howland until 2230Z, and up to 200 miles after 2330Z. > > Bob, is that true of the flight out of Lae also? No, because the path loss changed differently over time in the two cases. The path loss in skywave propagation is the sum of two components: free-space loss and absorption loss. Free space loss is due to geometric spreading of the wave front and varies with distance. Absorption loss occurs in the D layer, which is the lowest ionosphere layer and lies between the approximate limits of 75 and 90 kilometers above the earth's surface. The absorption in this layer is due to ionization resulting from solar radiation, which varies with the sun's angular elevation above the horizon. The D layer exists only during daytime and disappears rapidly after sunset. The layer does not reflect signals at frequencies above 1 MHz, but it does absorb energy at all frequencies. Skywave signals pass through the D layer enroute to their reflection points higher in the ionosphere, and again on the way down, incurring absorption loss both ways. In the LOP case, free space loss increased with elapsed time as the Electra flew away from Howland. And, since the signals of interest occurred during the first few hours after sunrise, the D layer absorption was increasing with time as the sun's elevation angle increased. The combined result result was a steadily increasing composite path loss, which accounts for the time-varying communication distance limits. On the flight out of Lae, free space loss increased with elapsed time as the Electra's distance increased. But the signals of interest occurred in the late afternoon when D layer absorption was decreasing, the opposite of what happened in the LOP case. At 0418Z, the time of AE's first report, the sun's elevation angle was decreasing everywhere along the path to Lae, where sunset would occur at 0808Z. The decreasing D layer absorption loss outweighed the increasing spreading loss component, resulting in a net decrease of path loss with time, as shown by the Lae operator's observation that Earhart's signal strength was increasing over time. LTM, Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:08:10 EST From: Brent Subject: Re: Stranded If we go with the theory that they crashed on Niku and either 1 or both survived how long do you estimate they survived for or could survive ? Brent ************************************************************************ From Ric Survival on Niku depends on two factors: A. The availability of sufficient drinking water. B. Not getting hurt or sick. A. We don't know how much water they carried with them but even a liberal guess leaves them needing more water within a day or so. The only way they ad to get drinkable water was to catch rainwater. To catch rainwater it has to rain and you have to have some way to catch it. We have no way of knowing how often it rained during the days, weeks, and months immediately following the disappearance except to note that when Maude and Bevington visited the island in October the vegetation was lush. Soon thereafter, however, the region suffered one of the worst droughts on record and by the time the New Zealand survey party arrived in Dec. 1938 the island vegetation was shriveled and dry. The drought broke that next spring and by April of 1939 the vegetation was pretty much back to normal. How long could AE and/or FN have been able to collect enough water to survive? A reasonable guess would be until well inot the autumn of 1937. After that it seems like it would be pretty iffy. B. It's not easy to not get hurt or sick on Niku, especially if you have to be out on the reef (where it's easiest to catch fish). The reef is very slippery in places and a fall can mean a cut or scrape on the coral that, unless immediately treated, is guaranteed to become infected. In fact, and nick or scrape can quickly become a problem. We carry alcohol swabs with us and get fresh water showers every evening, and we still run into problems. I don't think we've ever run an expedition out there where we didn't have somebody lose at least a day to infection or illness. In addition to the danger of infection, some of the fish in the area are toxic if eaten at a particular time of the year. The Blacktip sharks on the reef and in the lagoon are really not much of a concern unless you're already bleeding (ask me how I know) but if the occasional Tiger or Pelagic Whitetip stops by, all bets are off and it's a good idea to stay the hell out of the water. It seems like a pretty good bet that the castaway died of either dehydration (thirst) or illness. The skull seems to have been found in April 1940 but remains deteriorate so rapidly in that environment that we really can't put a not-later-than date of death on the castaway earlier than about May of that year. I'm afraid I can't give you a very precise answer. If the castaway found in 1940 was Earhart then she survived for somewhere between several weeks to almost three years. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:09:44 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna Ric wrote: > I guess that would depend on whether 6210 was being used locally. There was > lots of aviation activity around New Guinea in support of gold mining at that > time. If 6210 was a standard frequency for aviation use in the area there > might have been a lot of traffic. The other possibility is local atmospheric > interference. Chater says, of June 30th, "During this period the Lockheed receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone, and this was, on the next day, tested in flight". This suggests that Lae wasn't using 6210 for local ops. I think the interference referred to was local atmospheric noise. Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:12:22 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna > I understand what you said, Bob, that 6210 SHOULD have been heard in the area > from Howland for many hundreds of miles on south but that wasn't the case at > Lae. That's correct, Alan. > Her first transmission that Lae reported as hearing was 4 hours and 18 > minutes after take off. Of course it may be that was the first radio call she > made but my understanding was that she was to report hourly at about 18 > minutes past the hour. Correct > She was then heard one hour later and then two hours later but not after > that. I don't know what happened to the 16:18Z radio call or if it was even > made. The 17:18Z call was still on 6210 is my understanding. Is that correct, > Ric? It was on 6210. > She may have soon switched to 3105, her night time freq and that seemed > to have a short range as gaged by her calls to Itasca. It appears that she switched to 3105 at sunset, as she had said she would before leaving Lae. Sunset was at 0721Z at the position given in her 0718Z report. We don't know where she as at 0718Z since we don't know whether the position report was contemporaneous. But I suspect her report was sent close to sunset at her then current position. If she followed her plan, she switched to 3105 right after her 0718Z transmission. > Then when she switched back to 6210 she was in the same range from Howland to > Niku as she was out of Lae. It seems to me to be consistant she wasn't heard > in either case. > Bob, do I have this right or am I confused? Earlier today I posted a response to your previous question about whether the LOP distance limit for 6210 also applied to the Lae case. As you will see - - or have seen by now - - that wasn't the case. LTM, Bob =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:13:41 EST From: Van Hunn Subject: Glacier Girl Mark your calendar for a History Channel documentary about Glacier Girl on 3 March 2003. The following notice appeared in latest issue of Air & Space magazine: "After 10 years of work and infusion of $2.5 million, the Lockheed P-38 extracted from the ice in Greenland in 1992 flew for the first time in 60 years last October in Middlesboro, KY. Reno air race pilot Steve Hinton made a 30-minute flight that included low passes for the audience of 25.000. A History Channel crew filmed the event for its 3 March 2003 documentary on the saga of Glacier Girl, the name it was given after it was de-iced. The airplane was one of six P-38s on a ferry flight that, along with two B-17s, encountered bad weather, ran low on fuel, and found their intended Greenland landing site closed, forcing emergency landings on the ice cap. Over the years, glacial shifting had moved all eight aircraft two miles from their touchdown site and buried them under 268 feet of ice. Glacier Girl will appear at air shows, then serve as centerpiece of the Lost Squadron P-38 Museum in Middlesboro." =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:30:59 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Stop Press - Its all over! Carol - You were right! And we were wrong after all! PSI -TECH, the e.s.p. people, have used "remote viewing" to track down the electra! And guess where its not? You guessed it - NOT Nikumaroro. Instead, they are quite sure it crashed on the island of Kuria in the Gilberts. Looks as though they did decide to turn back for the Gilberts just as Mrs Noonan said they would! At least Ric can console himself that Cam Warren was wrong too. Goodbye Niku V and hello Kuria I. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.remoteviewing.com/images/micronesia.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.remoteviewing.com/projects/map2.asp%3Fpage%3D1&h=450&w=669&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlockheed%2Belectra%26start%3D60%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN Click on the ringed target area of the lower map to see where Kuria is. Click the link at the base of the page for the "report page" and follow the progressive links under "maps of the wreckage search area". Each red outlined target area opens a new, more detailed map. You'll see Kuria's at 0.233 N 173.3833E. Compare with the Peruvian intercept- "23 degrees..... east of Howland" - (obviously 0.23 degrees). 23 also appears twice in a Mcmenamy CW intercept. Again Betty's notebook - 338 and 38-3. There are indeed two islands, just as Nina Paxton says, with a passage between them. One is called Oneaka ( cf. New York) and is 133 acres in area. It is 601.4 miles from Howland (cf 61 4 in McMenamy intercept) .Apparently large chunks of tentatively identified electra wreckage have already been photographed - see gallery. More important ones are: 1) a pair of P & W nine cylinder radials, 7) remains of a DF loop 9) a 36 inch Goodyear tyre 14) a badly eroded map case marked "F J N" 22) what is believed to be a Sperry gyro-compass casing 23) a remarkably preseved diary for 1937. Apparently this was preserved by the mud, has been freeze dried and is presently being analysed under infra-red light. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric These guys are a hoot. But I couldn't find the gallery. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:34:34 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Almon Gray ""Where Did Amelia Land" Dave in Fremont wrote: > Facilities? Whoa... How do ya... Where would ya... nevermind, I don't > even want to ponder it.... > > LTM (who never used a relief tube in her life) > > Dave > ********************** > From Ric > > The Electra was an airliner. There was a lavatory in the tail. Going back over some old postings a couple days ago, looking at aircraft data, I ran across a posting from Birch Matthews dated September 11, 2000. I just reread it, and according to what Birch said [in part] "...Lockheed removed 566 pounds in the form of seats, lavatory, radio..." He further said he was using Lockheed's numbers, not his own. Should we assume this to mean, then, that Lockheed took out the airliner "niceties" in the lavatory, but not the toilet ( can I say that word on the forum?)? ltm jon ************************************************************************ From Ric In aviation parlance - "the can". Yes, I think we can assume that the airline niceties were removed but there was still a closable door that separated the aft compartment from the rest of the cabin. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:29:41 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Antenna Carol Dow wrote: >5. The loss of the sense antenna off the belly of the airplane would have >lost the 180 degree ambiguity feature of a fixed loop radio compass DF. Actually I think she meant to say, "would have lost the ABILITY TO RESOLVE the 180 degree ambiguity...." >Smith is saying there was probably an indicator on Earhart's panel that indicated >left and right plus or minus 5 degrees on the null. Later Bendix DF receivers used exactly such a system. The manual loop was coupled through a tach shaft to the big "Radio Compass" indicator dial. There was a "Left-Right" indicator, consisting of a zero-center meter, on the instrument panel. The "left-right" meter was driven by circuitry in the receiver. This is clearly shown and explained in the instruction manual for the Bendix MN-26 series radio compass system (vintage 1929-1940 and very common in WW2 aircraft) which is a direct descendant of the RA-1. I don't know if the RA-1 used such a meter... anyone have a manual on that receiver? (I do have an MN-26 book). LTM (who is NEVER ambiguous) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************ From Ric There was apparently some sort of indicator on the panel. Earhart refers to it specifically in describing the panel in the Karachi interview. An August 1937 article in Aero Digest shows a "remote control head" used with the Bendix MN-1, MN-3, MN-5, and MN-7 Direction Finders. It's a box with a compass rose and a two-sided needle. Above the top of the compass rose is an index line and what appears to be a rotatable setting marked in degrees. At the top left of the box there is what appears to be a toggle switch labeled "Switch" and at top right there is another one labeled "Light". At bottom left is a crank labled "Azimuth" and at bottom right is another crank labeled "Tuning". All four systems are "almost identical except for the method of controlling loop rotation". "Bendix D-Fs are designed to operate in conjunction with the Bendix Type RA1 receiver but will also give accurate and dependable bearings when used with any standard radio receiver covering the desired frequency range." Earhart's seems to have been an MN-5 in which the loop was manually controlled and could be "mounted at a point not directly over the coupling unit with the rotation controls on the loop shaft at the cabin roof." "Each D-F consists of a loop unit for reception of signals, a coupling unit for comparing characteristics of the signal received by the loop to those received by a fixed antenna, and the necessary cables and connections. The electrical coupling unit automatically resolves the 180 degree ambiguity of the loop, permitting unilateral bearings." We have photos of the loop and coupling unit being installed in March just prior to the first World Flight attempt. At that time the airplane still had two belly antennas - the original starboard antenna that came with the airplane and the port antenna that appeared at the same time the Hooven Radio Compass was installed. It seems reasonable to assume that the port antenna was a sense antenna for the Hooven unit and probably retained that function when the Hooven automatic system was replaced with the "old fashioned" manual loop. The ability to use the Western Electric receiver via the MN-5 system allowed the removal of the separte receiver required by the Hooven system and thus save the 30 pounds Hooven refers to in his paper. The mystery comes when the airplane comes out of the repair shop following the Luke Field wreck with only one (the orginal starboard) belly antenna. Hypothesis: Maybe the starboard belly antenna delivered with the airplane was a "range" antenna intended for use with the low frequency radio range navigation facilities then in use around the United States. For the second WF attempt maybe it was decided that little or no "range" flying was contemplated and the starboard belly antenna became the sense antenna for the MN-5 system. LTM Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:40:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: "Extraterrestrial Archaeology?" Members of the Forum may be interested in listening to this interview, which describes a project that's trying to cope with many of the same problems we are. *************************************** Friends and colleagues: Archaeologists today sometimes apply their craft to exploring very recent historical events. An unusual example of this is the archaeological testing at the claimed 1947 crash site of an extraterrestrial spacecraft near Roswell, New Mexico. In the latest Audio Interview featured by our public education website, The Archaeology Channel (www.archaeologychannel.org), we asked University of New Mexico archaeologist Dr. Bill Doleman, who directed the Roswell fieldwork, to share with us his experience in "extraterrestrial archaeology." On November 22, 2002, the SCI FI Channel aired a two-hour documentary that depicted archaeologists investigating the purported crash site. Archaeological excavations under Dr. Doleman were carried out under contract with the SCI FI Channel. Although in this case the client (the SCI FI Channel) and the subject (extraterrestrial visitors) are both unusual, archaeology under contract is by far the most common form of archaeological work in the United States and in many parts of the world today. The shift in emphasis over the past three decades from purely research-oriented to contract archaeology has greatly expanded financial support for archaeological work, but has also highlighted issues about information-sharing and ethical standards. In this interview, we explore with Bill Doleman how this project came about, what his team found and how it has been portrayed, and how it illustrates the practice of contract archaeology today. This and other programs are available on TAC for your use and enjoyment. If you feel that this project is a worthy endeavor, please participate in our Membership (http://www.archaeologychannel.org/member.html) and Underwriting (http://www.archaeologychannel.org/sponsor.html) programs. Only with your help can we continue and enhance this nonprofit public-education and visitor-supported service. We also welcome new content partners as we reach out to the world community. Please forward this message to others who may be interested. Richard M. Pettigrew, Ph.D., RPA President and Executive Director Archaeological Legacy Institute http://www.archaeologychannel.org ============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:43:10 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! From Mike H. Angus Murray wrote: >And we were wrong after all! PSI -TECH, the e.s.p. people, have used >"remote viewing" to track down the electra! And guess where its not? You >guessed it - NOT Nikumaroro. Instead, they are quite sure it crashed on > the island of Kuria in the Gilberts. My daughter says it best: "Humans are so weird." I can't get to the web with this computer. I'll have to see the website later. >1) a pair of P & W nine cylinder radials, >7) remains of a DF loop >9) a 36 inch Goodyear tyre >14) a badly eroded map case marked "F J N" >22) what is believed to be a Sperry gyro-compass casing Lots of parts. Where's the fuselage? >23) a remarkably preseved diary for 1937. Apparently this was >preserved by the mud, has been freeze dried and is presently >being analysed under infra-red light. Did Amelia or Fred keep any kind of diary as a matter of course? Not logbooks, but a personal thing. (This is a real question.) And does anyone do AE/FN humor? I was looking through my Christmas collection and this idea came to me: "'Twas the night before Howland, and all through Lae Not a creature was stirring, not even Fred Noonan ..." Mike H. *********************************************************************** From Ric AE made notes while flying that she then expanded and sent back as press releases. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:50:45 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: Betty's Manifesto I am 80 years now, and wanted to make a "a public declaraton".....I heard Ameila and Fred...It was not some play over heard.. It was heart breaking to hear..She was trying so hard not to panic, then sometimes sounding so hopeless....He was suffering, out of his head most of the time, with a head injury...I really heard all this, when it was over, it was something I wll never forget...I felt so bad all these years that the "big wigs " did not want the truth I tried to give them... I stopped trying to give my book to any one...Finally in my old age and with a friend John to help me, I decided to try one more time ..He got in touch with Ric and Ric took it from there...He had great caring people who worked to read my book and could see that I would have had to hear her, to write down things I did....The Tighar people really worked to see if it was possible for me to have heard her....I know I am not a hokes, so I am at peace now finally, and people like the so called Cam do not bother me, I heard her I know it, and I am at peace Thanks to Ric and Tighars Project ...Betty (Bettys Book) ************************************************************************ From Ric Thank you Betty, but it is for US to thank YOU for sharing your book and your memories with us. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:31:22 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Post Loss Preview Ron Bright had asked for a pre-view of the Post-Loss Signals report. Our database of reported signals is now up and running and i can answer his question. I had said: "...over a hundred other signals..." other than PAA bearing and amateur stations. Ron asked: >Are those professional operators with sophisticated equipment??? Coast >Guard? Navy? Here's a quick breakdown: Total reports - 120 Total reports from shortwave listeners - 10 Total reports from HAMs - 32 Total reports from professional operators (commercial, government and PAA) - 78 Reports from professionals break down this way: Total reports from Coast Guard - 47 (25 from ITASCA) Total reports from PAA - 20 (5 bearings were taken) Total reports from US Navy - 5 Total reports from commercial stations (Nauru) - 3 Total reports from US Army - 1 Total reports from Royal Navy - 1 Total reports from commercial ships (SS NEW ZEALAND) - 1 LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:32:32 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! From Alan > Apparently large chunks of tentatively identified > electra wreckage have already been photographed - see gallery. More > important ones are: This is an old web site and I saw nothing new and I don't see pictures of engines, DF Loops or anything else. Please direct me to those pictures. Alan =============================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:34:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna Bob writes > The decreasing D layer absorption loss outweighed the increasing > spreading loss component, resulting in a net decrease of path loss with > time, as shown by the Lae operator's observation that Earhart's signal > strength was increasing over time. Bob, several days ago I wrote I would not take anyone's word for anything. I'll make an exception for you. I accept whatever it was you just wrote without question but that still leaves us with an unanswered question regarding not hearing AE on 6210 between Howland and wherever she went. Alan. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:54:53 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! For Angus: Holy smokes, if this is true. Yeowsuh. Let us check this out. Right on where she would have headed. She did what anyone in their right mind would have done. The Gilberts were under British control at that time unless the Japanese were busy infiltrating the islands (which they probably were). The only thing missing is a Samurai sword, but I have the perfect solution... there's one in my clothes closet (no joke) hidden away. It's WW II genuine a friend gave me. Am afraid of the damn thing. Am praying Cam and Ric will patch up their quarrels and stay focused on the problem. Really good forum, everyone. It's amazing. That sword is awesome. It could chop off heads in a flash. Carol *********************************************************************** From Ric What would we do without Carol? =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:58:32 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Uh, I don't believe any photographs exist... Considering it's the PSI Tech website, this has to be one of those "That's where our people saw it, so it must be there. If you want real "proof", send your own people to check it out." stories. I think it would raise their credibility considerably if they sent some people there to verify, but that's not going to happen. LTM (who always thought the difference between a depressed psychic and an ecstatic clairvoyant was a happy medium) Dave =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:02:39 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto Betty, Its interesting to know that you follow the forum. I have been studying your notebook for some time and feel very sure now that it really was Amelia Earhart you heard and not some hoax or misunderstanding. You are no doubt aware that no less than three other radio listeners also gathered that Fred Noonan was injured from the transmissions they picked up. It is obviously a long time ago now but I wonder if you can recall something. Can you be SURE that Fred was behaving erratically because he was delirious rather than because he was in pain or even perhaps because he was angry about his injuries? Did you really get the impression that he was behaving in a manner that could ONLY have been because he was delirious? The reason I ask is that his condition is very relevant to explaining exactly what took place. From the many other radio messages, one can determine that FN was transmitting quite a large amount of the time in the early days after their landing. It does seem unlikely that AE would have allowed him to transmit over a period of many hours if he was deranged then (although it is quite possible she was unable to stop him). Latterly the transmissions all seem to have been from AE and this would then place the transmission you received as possibly the last of the lot, at a time when he had succumbed perhaps to a fever as a result of infection or even a haemorrhage. If FN was deranged from the time of their landing, on the other hand, it would perhaps explain why they were unable to give an accurate idea of their position. I think you can be sure that your notes now get the attention they always deserved and it is indeed fortunate that you had the presence of mind to record in writing, what many might have merely listened to. Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric Betty does not directly subscribe to the forum but I'll pass along your query and post her reply. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:09:04 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Antenna > She was then heard one hour later and then two hours later but not after > that. I don't know what happened to the 16:18Z radio call or if it was even > made. The 17:18Z call was still on 6210 is my understanding. Is that correct, > Ric? It was on 6210. I believe the originl poster meant 06:18Z and 07:17Z. Ten hours later puts her very close to Itasca, when AE was using 3105. ********************************************************************* From Ric The intelligible transmissions heard by Lae were on 6210 and were heard at 04:18Z, 05:19Z, and 07:18Z. ============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:13:03 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Antenna Ric: remember when AE got away from performing the radio tests for her license in Oakland? One of the tests was radio navigation. I wonder if the Bureau of Air Commerce was testing the range or lateral test (right or left) and not the RDF system... ************************************************************************ From Ric Pure speculation on my part but I would expect that "radio navigation" test in 1937 would require that the pilot demonstrate proficiency both in flying the "range" and homing on stations using RDF. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:15:01 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Slightly off topic -- map info This is not an advertisement. I use a product called OziExplorer with my GPS to produce maps, routes, etc... . While on the website for Ozi I noticed maps for Oceania and the Pacific and decided to download them. They're in Ozi format and free to download. Although the area in question runs over the two maps, it's pretty darn interesting to "see" the route that AE and FN took. I won't post the webiste link here, but you can easily find it or email me) and I'll be glad to forward it. Bob "lurking TIGHAR for over two years" Lee =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:17:42 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! > This is an old web site and I saw nothing new and I don't see pictures of > engines, DF Loops or anything else. Please direct me to those pictures. Alan - Sorry to disappoint but the pictures of FJ Noonan's map case and AE's diary are only about as real as "remote viewing". I thought you'd guess it was a bit of embellishment to wind-up a few of our more trusting forum members. Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric When Carol gets hold of you it ain't gonna be pretty. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:40:07 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Post Loss Preview Thanks Ric, that preliminary breakdown is very interesting. A quick question. Does anyone know of any reported post loss msgs from Japanese sources , say a ship , Jaluit, or any official government response? We know that the Japanese government began a search and I am sure all of their radio stations were alerted. Maybe none reported though. Ltm, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric I'm aware of no reports from Japanese sources but it was July 5th before the Japanese Foreign Minister instructed the Japanes ambassador in Washington to inform the American government that Japan would gladly join in the search. The last signal reported by anyone in the Central Pacific was heard by PAA Mokapu, Oahu at 13:50Z (03:20 local) on July 5th. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:41:22 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna Alan Caldwell wrote: > Bob, several days ago I wrote I would not take anyone's word for anything. > I'll make an exception for you. > > I except whatever it was you just wrote without question but that still > leaves us with an unanswered question regarding not hearing AE on 6210 > between Howland and wherever she went. Alan, Hmmm. I answered A question which I thought was THE question . Apparently the question I answered wasn't THE unanswered question. Rephrase and I'll give it another shot. Bob =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:43:08 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: L-F INDICATOR On TWA's DC-2's of the era, the left & right halves were colored green & red as an aid for solving the 180 ... The ADF on the '3's were the ultimate !! RC =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:44:25 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Antenna For Bob Brandenburg What I understand that your saying is that one of the main things involved in the radio antenna is that it has a specific foot print. It sounds like that if the aircraft is going away then the strength of the carrier wave would decrease not so much because you are getting further away, but because of the foot print of the radiated wave. So if AE was flying away from the Itasca and sending she may not have been heard. Also if the Itasca is sitting in the proper orientation she could send and not be heard, is that correct? =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:51:22 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! For Angus Murray I copy-pasted the website addresses as above and am not getting a response. The first address has moved, etc. Another E-mail to follow. Carol Dow ************************************************************************ From Ric Carol, just do a Google search on Psi-Tech. Once you get to their website click on "Projects" and then just scroll down until you find the Earhart stuff. You won't find any pictures because they're not there. You will find a series of maps that purport to show the location of wreckage. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:03:44 EST From: Marjorie Subject: Re: Stranded Ric wrote: > In addition to the > danger of infection, some of the fish in the area are toxic if eaten at a > particular time of the year. Back in May of 1968 I was the designated Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Information Office employee sent to Palau to cover a South Pacific Commission conference on fisheries issues. In the end, the conference was cancelled because the French government, which had volunteered to bring in the bulk of the participants on a French military airplane, was suddenly distracted by more urgent events at home. As I recall, a major topic of the conference was to be the phenomenon of toxic fish -- a condition that was perceived (at that time, at least) to be worsening, so that fish that had once been safe to eat at any time of the year were becoming toxic, and the toxic periods for other fish were expanding. Supposedly, the condition was spreading westward, so that folks in the Marshalls were beginning to find some fish poisonous which they had traditionally eaten but which the Hawaiians, to the east, couldn't remember ever being able to eat. The point of having this conference in Palau was that as the westernmost island group (just about) everything was still edible there. In fact, the conference organizers went ahead with an abbreviated version of the big seafood feast that had been planned to boggle the minds of the fisheries people from all the eastern island groups where they would be invited to taste fish that would be deadly poison in their home islands. Does anyone know if this phenomenon of toxicity spreading westward actually continued? Was the concept ever proven or disproven? The only relevance to the Forum would be that if this was truly happening, some fish species that no one would dare eat today in the Phoneix Islands could have been safe to eat in 1937. -- Marjorie Smith *********************************************************************** From Ric We do have good information that toxicity was a problem even back then. A Smithsonian icthyologist who accompanied the 1939 USS Bushnell survey of the Phoenix Group wrote a paper entitled "Poisonous Fishes of the Phoenix Islands". =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:57:47 EST From: Marty Joy Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto That's a pretty profound statement that what she heard was authentic. Don't you agree? ************************************************************************ From Ric We always have to be careful to make a distinction between what we believe to be true and what we can prove to be true. I don't know how anyone would ever be able to absolutely prove that what Betty heard was Amelia Earhart, but I would defy anyone to spend a day with Betty, as Pat and I did two years ago, grilling her on her notebook and her recollections associated with it, and not come away believing that she heard Amelia Earhart. Since then we have continued to work with Betty, attempting to verify as much as we can about what she heard and how she heard it. She has been unfailinging cooperative and consistent in her recollections. The more our hypothesis about what happened has developed based on other evidence, the better her notebook fits the evolving scenario. Working with Betty's notebook is dangerous. If you get beyond the analysis of words and phrases and allow yourself to accept that you're eavesdropping on terrified people who are doomed to die there is an intimacy there that is almost obscene. I can't imagine what it must have been like for Betty to go all those years, knowing what she knew, but having to carry it all by herself. She has my sincerest respect and affection and she deserves the gratitude of everyone who cares about what really happened to Earhart and Noonan. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:37:38 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: antenna Does Tighar know about where the Itasca was in relation to Howland when AE was expected? They probably were drifting westward with the current but surely they would have stayed in sight of Howland. > between Howland and wherever she went Ric, I keep reading you guys saying the above. How come you don't jump on that? Cheers from Bill ************************************************************************ From Ric ITASCA was drifting just offshore Howland close enough for launches to go back and forth to the island - probably a few hundred yards. I don't jump on statements like "between Howland and wherever she went" because they accurately represent the situation. At this point, nobody knows where the airplane went. We have a hypothesis that we are testing, and we are very pleased with the results so far, but we can't (yet) claim that we know where she went. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:39:54 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! > What would we do without Carol? I like her a lot better than Janet. Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************ From Ric Me too. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:55:46 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! I, too, copied and pasted the address, but it wrapped around and I had to copy and paste each of the 5 parts. Depending on where yours wrapped, you may have had a larger or smaller number of lines in the address - it was a long one. I was lucky in that where mine first wrapped was a good address, but it didn't take me to the page that was described, that's when I went back and discovered that I hadn't copied the entire link. After I pasted the full link into my browser it worked fine (unless you figure that Psi-Tech itself is a "non-working" "dead-end" address). LTM, Dave Bush *********************************************************************** From Ric Of course you could always skip the computer entirely and visit the site by remote viewing. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:16:33 EST From: Craig Subject: The Carol Theory Ric wrote: > When Carol gets hold of you it ain't gonna be pretty. I'm going to catch a TIGHAR by the tail. I've been pondering this theory for some time now, and I believe it's time to put it to the test, and call your bluff. I have the sneaky suspicion that "Carol" is a fictitious character you've conjured up to make the forum interesting in the current post-Niku IIII environment. Think about it people - "Carol's" mind-bending posts allow Ric the medium and the method to discredit AE theories such as the Crash and Sinkers, the Marshallites, the Japan Capturers, etc. These propaganda-like posts, generally designed to confuse and disorient, at the same time leave all the TIGHARs out there eager to hearing what "Carol" will post next. Side effects may include increasing overall morale, relief of the stresses of research and increased membership enrollments. Gottcha, Craig *********************************************************************** From Ric I love it when this happens. Old forum buddies - how many times have I been accused of inventing our best characters? Remember - what was it? - SactoDave (or something like that), and of course Janet Powell (whom we ultimately decided might be a computer construct). If I had the imagination to create characters like that I'd be writing novels. My own theory is that Carol is the reincarnation of Amelia Eahart. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:44:20 EST From: Mike Haddock/Ric Gillespie Subject: The Beginning (From Ric - This is a very long posting but I think you'll find that it's worth the effort to read it carefully.) I've been letting the post-loss message question perk through my mind. If it had never happened before, why was it thought to be plausible? Where did the idea start? Was there a movie at about the same time in which an airplane crashed intact with all the occupants alive? Mike H. *********************************************************************** From Ric Good question. I can think of movies that came much later ("Island In the Sky" for example) but I can't think of a 1930s film where a plane goes down and sends calls for help. What is really interesting is to track how and when the idea that Earhart was somewhere calling for help got started. Let's follow the chronology as revealed in the official messages and the ITASCA's radio log. July 2nd 20:13Z (08:43 a.m. aboard ITASCA) Last inflight message heard. "WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337.... etc." 21:45Z (10:15 a.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends out first message to Coast Guard San Francisco Division and others indicating that Earhart is overdue. "...ESTIMATE 1200 FOR MAXIMUM TIME ALOFT AND IF NON ARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTHWEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLE AREA. SEA SMOOTH, VISIBILITY NINE, CEILING UNLIMITED. UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED TIME." In San Francisco it is 1:45 p.m. and we must presume that the news immediately went out that Earhart was overdue at Howland. Hoaxes are theoretically possible from this time on. 21:48Z (10:18 a. m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends message to Coast Guard Hawaiian Section. "SUGGEST NAVY CONTACT FOR SEA PLANE SEARCH. SIXTEEN HUNDRED GALLONS AVIATIONS GASOLINE NOW ON HOWLAND AND NINETY FIVE GALLONS LUBRICATING OIL." 22:10Z (10:40 a.m. aboard ITASCA) Deciding not to wait until 12:00, ITASCA departs Howland to begin searching. 00:31Z (1:01 p.m. aboard ITASCA) Hawaiian Section tells ITASCA, "ADVISE BY DISPATCH FULL DETAILS CONCERNING EARHART PLANE SUCH AS POSITION REPORTS BEARINGS AND ALL INFORMATION EARHART FLIGHT THAT WILL BE OF VALUE TO NAVAL SEARCH IF PLANE DESPATCHED FROM HERE. RECOMMEND YOU BROADCAST DATA TO ALL SHIPS TO BE ON LOOKOUT. 00:45Z (1:15 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA advises Hawaiian Section, "EARHART UNREPORTED HOWLAND AT 1200. BELIEVE DOWN SHORTLY AFTER 0915. AM SEARCHING PROBABLE AREA AND WILL CONTINUE. Why 9:15? The logic is hard to fathom. Earhart was supposed to transmit at quarter to and quarter past each hour. At about 7:45 some thought she said "half hour fuel left". At 8:00 she said she couldn't get a radio bearing. At her next scheduled time at 8:15 they didn't hear anything so they assumed that she had gone down so they called the guys on Howland back to the ship and started getting ready to begin a search. Then at 8:43 she surprised everybody and said she was "on the line 157 337..." and that she was switching frequencies to 6210. At her next scheduled time of 9:15 they heard nothing (they were, themselves, transmitting at that time and blocking any incoming signals). Somehow out of all this they decided that she was "down shortly after 0915". 01:03Z (1:33 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends message to "ALL SHIPS:" "AMELIA EARHART PLANE ENROUTE HOWLAND ISLAND FROM LAE NEW GUINEA UNREPORTED SINCE 2045 GCT JULY 2 AND APPARENTLY DOWN AT SEA POSITION UNKNOWN. ITASCA SEARCHING PROBABLE NORTHWEST SECTOR OFF HOWLAND ISLAND. REQUEST SHIPS AND STATIONS LISTENON 500 KCS FOR ANY SIGNALS FROM PLANE COMMANDING OFFICER, U. S. COAST GUARD CUTTER ITASCA" This is the first suggestion that post-loss signals might be possible but the only frequency mentioned is 500 Kcs. It is 5:03 p.m. on the West Coast of the United States. Evening editions of major California papers carry headlines that Earhart is missing but make no mention of post-loss signals because none have yet been heard. 02:00Z (2:30 p.m. aboard ITSACA) It is 3:30 p.m. in Hawaii. The Pan American Airways DF station at Mokapu receives word that Earhart is down and begins a constant radio watch on 3105 and 6210. 02:45Z (3:15 p.m. aboard ITASCA) The U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office radio station in San Francsico sends to "ALL SHIPS, ALL STATIONS": US COASTGUARD SHIP ITASCA BELIEVES MISS AMELIA EARHART DOWN BETWEEN THREE THREE SEVEN AND NINE ZERO DEGREES FROM HOWLAND ISLAND AND WITHIN ONE HUNDRED MILES OF ISLAND. POSSIBILITY PLANE MAY USE RADIO ON EITHER 3105 6210 OR 500 KCS VOICE. REQUEST ANY VESSEL THAT VICINITY LISTEN FOR CALLS AND CONTACT ITASCA. CALL NRUI ON 500 KCS. (NRUI is ITASCA's call sign.) This is the first request for stations to listen on 3105 and 6210. Ever since the last message heard from the plane ITSACA has been frequently calling and listening but has heard nothing. 03:10Z (3:40 p.m. aboard ITASCA) San Francisco Division advises ITASCA: "POSSIBILITY PLANE MAY ATTEMPT USE OF RADIO ON WATER AS RADIO SUPPLY WAS BATTERY AND ANTENNA COULD BE USED ON TOP OF WING. PUTNAM AND LOCKHEED STATE POSSIBILITY OF FLOATING CONSIDERABLE TIME EXCELLENT AND THAT EMERGENCY RUBBER BOAT AND PLENTY OF EMERGENCY RATIONS CARRIED ON PLANE." Nobody in San Francisco, including Putnam, could possibly have any idea what was aboard the plane on the Lae/Howland flight 04:03Z (4:33 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA asks San Francicsco: REQUEST FREQUENCIES EARHART EMERGENCY TRANSMITTER Nobody said anything about an emergency transmitter. The phrase "ANTENNA COULD BE USED ON TOP OF WING" may be a badly worded reference to the airplane's dorsal vee antenna which is "on top of wing", that is, it would be above water if the airplane was floating. 04:10Z (4:40 p.m. aboard ITASCA) San Francisco replies: SAME AS MAIN TRANSMITTER. POSSIBILITY PLANE MAY BE ABLE RECEIVE ITASCA 3105 VOICE. As far as we know, there was no emergency transmitter aboard the plane. 05:17Z (5:47 p.m. aboard ITASCA) PAA Mokapu notifies ITASCA that it heard "SOME TESTING ON 3105. STEADY CARRIER, NO MODULATION DECERNIBLE." No time is specified. 05:38 (6:08 p.m. aboard ITASCA) Sunset in the search area. At Gardner Island the tide is out and the reef is dry. 05:55Z (6:25 p.m. aboard ITASCA) The radio operator aboard ITASCA logs: WE HEAR HER ON 3105 KCS NW VERY WEAK AND UNREADABLE/ FONE Earhart. The operator is Radioman 3rd class Thomas O'Hare. He has just relieved Radioman 3rd class William Galten ten minutes ago. O'Hare had been on duty and had heard Earhart as she approached Howland that morning and, in fact, it was Tommy O'Hare who had logged the apparently erroneous "half hour gas left - sez she" entry. As can be seen from the previous traffic, ITASCA's perception of the situation at this time is that the airplane is down at sea and the occupants are either on the plane or in an inflatable boat and able to use an emergency transmitter. Hearing weak voice from Earhart on 3105 does not, therefore, conflict with their "situational awareness". O'Hare cannot make out the words but he identifies the voice as Earhart ("HER"). In HF transmissions it is not at all unusual for the words to be unintelligible but the tone and quality of the voice to be recognizable. It also seems safe to assume that hearing a woman's voice on the radio was an unusual occurrence in 1937. 05:55Z (6:25 p.m. aboard ITASCA) At exactly the same moment that O'Hare hears what he says is Earhart, PAA Mokapu hears, "STEADY CARRIER ON 3105 - NO MODULATION, VERY WEAK". ITASCA and Mokapu are apparenlty hearing the same transmission but ITASCA hears it better, and is apparently closer to the source, than Mokapu. ITASCA is northwest of Howland and there are no known possible sources of a 3105 transmission in the ocean between the ship and Hawaii. There are no other reports of signals heard anywhere at this time. 06:00Z (6:30 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends a voice transmission on 3105: "IF YOU HEAR US PLEASE GIVE US SERIES OF LONG DASHES. GO AHEAD PLEASE." 06:00 (6:30 p.m. aboard ITASCA) At that moment, aboard the British cruiser HMS ACHILLES, the radio operator logs: TELEPHONE TRANSMITTER WITH HARSH NOTE WAS HEARD TO MAKE "PLEASE GIVE US A FEW DASHES IF YOU GET US". This transmission ends at 06:03Z ACHILLES is approximately 1,000 nm southeast of Howland enroute from Samoa to Hawaii. 06:04Z (6:34 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: HEARD SOMETHING LIKE GENERATOR START AND THEN STOP ON 3105. Two minutes later they hear the same thing. At the same time, ACHILLES logs: A SECOND TRANSMITTER WAS THEN HEARD TO MAKE DASHES WITH NOTE MUSICAL STRENGTH GOOD. Both stations describe a signal that is on and then off. 06:06 (6:36 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA then sends code on 3105: GAVE HER LONG CALL ON KEY This, of course, would involve sending the airplane's callsign, KHAQQ. At this time ACHILLES hears: FIRST TRANSMITTER WAS THEN HEARD TO MAKE KHAQQ TWICE BEFORE FADING OUT. 06:07Z (6:37 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: SIGNALS ON AND OFF. THINK IT IS PLANE ?? SIGNALS ARE UNREADABLE (but) HEARD THE WORD EARHART. ACHILLES is apparently no longer hearing anything. PAA Mokapu, likewise, hears nothing at this time. Nobody else in Hawaii or on the mainland U.S. hears anything during this whole episode. 06:08Z (6:38 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: CALLING HER ON FONE AND KEY O'Hare is sending both voice and code. 06:09Z (6:39 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: HE IS ANSWERING US NOW 06:10Z (6:40 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: STILL DISTORTED AND UNREADABLE/ BACK AT HIM ON KEY NOW O'Hare is now hearing a male voice but he still can't make out the words so he tries sending code. 06:11Z (6:41 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: GUESS IT ISN'T HER NOW This is a very puzzling entry. Has O'Hare forgotten, or is he unaware, that there is a man aboard the airplane? 06:13-14Z (6:43-4 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: QZ5 INTERFERING ON 3105 NOW - QZ5 CALLING KACA... We have, so far, not been able to figure out who QZ5 and KACA are. The callsigns don't match any ships or stations we can find listed. It may be that they are commercial aviation stations, aircraft or ground, in Hawaii (which would explain why QZ5 is sending code on 3105 trying to raise KACA). 06:15Z (6:45 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: CALLING PLANE NOW ON FONE ON 3105 KCS The interference has apparenty stopped and O'Hare tries again. 06:16Z (6:46 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: HE COMES RIGHT BACK, WHOEVER IT IS O'Hare gets an immediate male voice reply but he still can't make out what is being said. But then QZ5 is back sending code again, this time calling KCWR (whom we can't find either) and blocking the unidentified voice transmission. 06:21Z (6:51 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: CALLING QZ5 NOW AND ASKING WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR STATION? This was sent in code. 06:24Z (6:54 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASACA logs: SOMEONE COMES BACK ON FONE. CALLED EARHART AND ASKED HER TO COME IN. TOLD OTHER STATIONS TO REMAIN QUIET / 3105 FONE 06:25Z (6:55 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: ITASCA CALLING QZ5, WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR STATION, OVER O'Hare is sending code, trying to find out who QZ5 is. He sends this twice but never gets a reply. 06:26Z (6:56 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA logs: FONE SIGNALS DEFINITELY NOT EARHART Another puzzling entry. Has O'Hare heard more from the unintelligible male voice? He is sure that it's not Earhart but he doesn't seem to know who it is. It appears that he is dismissing the possibility that these are signals from the plane solely because the voice is male. 07:10Z (7:40 p.m. aboard ITASCA) ITASCA sends to San Francsico Division the first lengthy description of the day's events ending with: CONSIDER SEARCH RESULTS DEPEND UPON CONTINUED GOOD WEATHER AND ABILITY PLANE OR EMERGENCY BOAT REMAIN AFLOAT. HAVE HEARD NO SIGNALS FROM EARHART SINCE 0855 THIS MORNING WHEN SHE GAVE ITASCA A LINE OF POSITION BELIEVED TO MEAN RADIO BEARING AND STATED SHE WAS RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH. ITASCA USING EVERY RESOURCE TO LOCATE PLANE. Note that the time of the last inflight transmission is wrong. There is no mention of the half-hour episode from 6:25 to 6:56 p.m. At this time ITASCA has no idea that PAA Mokapu and HMS ACHILLES heard corroborating signals. During that period ITASCA heard several direct responses to it's calls to the plane. Initially, Earhart's voice may have been reognized and later the word "Earhart" was heard. In one case ITASCA made a specific request and heard the specific response (dashes) it had asked for - all corroborated by ACHILLES. Both Mokapu to the north and ACHILLES to the south heard weaker signals than ITASCA heard at the same moment. Whoever ITASCA was hearing was apparently closer to ITASCA than to either of the other stations. If ITASCA was hearing a hoax, who was sending the hoax transmissions? If ITASCA was hearing someone else calling or talking about "Earhart" who was it? A simple reading of the original sources suggests that a woman and a man located somewhere between ACHILLES and ITASCA were sending voice messages on an aviation frequency - 3105 - and repsonding directly to ITASCA's transmission to Earhart. This was the beginning of the post-loss message phenomenon. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:46:01 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: Betty's reply to Angus Angus, I have enjoyed your emails on the Forum, I will tell you what He was like, as near as I can....First it was terribly hot, and he complained of his head hurting bad...he wanted to get out of the plane...some times he sounded away from her and other times,he seamed to be close to her ( and wanted the mike) He would get loud and was, what I would call, out of his head at times... other times, when he would talk, it didn't sound as disorganized. If you have any questions I will be glad to hear from you....Betty =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:48:06 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: The Carol Theory >My own theory is that Carol is the reincarnation of Amelia Eahart. Hmmm... That's odd... I was imagining a melding of Judy Holliday, Suzanne Somers, and Shirley Booth... LTM, Dave ************************************************************************ From Ric Yeah, that's pretty close, except I'm not sure that AE could sing. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:49:56 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Off-Topic, But HELP! I know this is off-topic, but I've been watching the Discovery Wings Channel a bit these days and I've seen some horrid woman giving piloting tips. Was she horribly burned in a crash or is that just waaaayyy too many facelifts? If she ever goes down at sea, all that collagen in those lips will save her, for sure. She's always flying some aerobatic plane, so I'm assuming she's some woman aerobatic champion, but can someone give me her story, please? LTM (who never minded laugh lines) Dave =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:50:45 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Ric, I took your advice and visioned up the website. Following that, I visioned my way to the island in question and examined the debris for myself. It was clearly not the 10E.... B-25H, maybe, but never a 10E... For one thing, the turret gave it away. LTM, Dave =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:55:56 EST From: Lee Subject: Re: The Carol Theory " . . . My own theory is that Carol is the reincarnation of Amelia Eahart." But didn't Amelia have GOOD karma? Lee ************************************************************************ From Ric Hey c'mon, Carol has great karma. Besides, we don't make ad hominem attacks, remember? ************************************************************************ Dear Folks, There's absolutely no question that Carol is a real babe! Take it from someone who remote-viewed her. LTM Ed from PSL #2415 ************************************************************************ From Ric I hope Carol understands that this is all in good fun. We wouldn't tease ya if we didn't love ya. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:58:55 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Antenna Ron Berry wrote: > Bob what I understand that your saying is that one of the main things > involved in the radio antenna is that it has a specific foot print. It > sounds like that if the aircraft is going away then the strength of the > carrier wave would decrease not so much because you are getting further > away, but because of the foot print of the radiated wave. So if AE was > flying away from the Itasca and sending she may not have been heard. Also if > the Itasca is sitting in the proper orientation she could send and not be > heard, is that correct? I assume by "foot print" you mean the radiation pattern of the antenna. It is true that the signal strength at a given receiver is a function of distance, propagation conditions along the path, and the radiation pattern of the antenna. The radiation pattern is important because the amount of energy radiated along the propagation path is a function of the takeoff angle, which is the angle above the horizontal at which the energy is radiated. A simple way to visualize the radiation pattern of AE's antenna is to imagine a loaf of shepherd's bread, with the bottom sloping downward from the outer edge toward the center, instead of being flat. The distance from the center of the loaf's base to any point on its surface represents antenna gain, which is a measure of relative radiated signal strength in that direction, i.e. the antenna was radiating energy essentially in all directions, albeit at different intensities. The vertical angle between the center of the loaf's base and a given point on its surface is the takeoff angle. The gain of AE's antenna didn't vary greatly for takeoff angles between the zenith and about 15 degrees above the horizontal, but dropped off sharply as the takeoff angle decreased below about 15 degrees. The takeoff angle is important for signal strength analysis because it is determined by the height of the point in the ionosphere at which the signal is reflected back to the receiver at the surface of the earth. The height of the reflection point is a complex function of distance, frequency, time of day, and other factors. But in general, long distance paths involve very low takeoff angles, hence very low relative radiated signal strength. So as AE flew away from a receiver, the antenna gain in the direction of the receiver would decrease. Conversely, as she flew toward a receiver, the signal strength increased not only because the path was becoming shorter, but also because the takeoff angle was increasing and energy was leaving the antenna in more efficient areas of its radiation pattern. As for the Itasca, orientation was not a significant factor in reception. I have studied the design blueprints for that ship class and all the antennas installed at construction were sloping wires supported by the ship's single mast. So, the azimuth patterns of the antennas were essentially omnidirectional. Of course, it's possible that some antenna modifications were made during the period between construction and 1937, but it's unlikely that such changes would have departed dramatically from the original configuration, simply because there wasn't room or structure on the ship to do much else. LTM, Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:00:10 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Oh no, you didn't? You did. You guys. Carol =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:01:37 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Angus wrote: > >23) a remarkably preseved diary for 1937. Apparently this was > >preserved by the mud, has been freeze dried and is presently > >being analysed under infra-red light. Maybe Jeff Glickmann can explain - why would you examine such a document under a heat lamp? ltm jon =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:02:09 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto Betty, I second what Ric has said. ltm jon =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:11:12 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: antenna > We have a hypothesis that we are testing, and we > are very pleased with the results so far, but we can't (yet) claim that we > know where she went. I am all for following out that hypothesis or any other. But if one can use common sense, then you have to realize that the shore party on Howland didn't see the plane come over, if the Itasca has lookouts also posted and they didn't see the Electra either, and with reasonable weather then I for one can't see how they would have come over Howland Island and flown away. That would have been the last thing they would do. They would crash land on Howland before going back out over the ocean. With a lack of evidence of where she did fly, then we are only left with postulating (that the same as fantasizing?) where we think she did fly. But I can see that Tighar has their own agenda and only wants to follow hypotheses that lead to their own conclusions. Cheers from Bill (Thanks Ric for moderating this Forum and having to keep going over old stuff from people like me - I am enjoying this Forum immensely) *********************************************************************** From Ric Bill, I agree with you completely. She had to fly somewhere. We try to follow the scientific method of inquiry: We gather information We formulate a hypothesis We test our hypothesis You too have gathered information You too have formulated a hypothesis How do you propose to test it? Because, unless you can test it, a hypothesis can never go anywhere - it's just an opinion. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:12:18 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna Randy wrote: > I believe the original poster meant 06:18Z and 07:17Z. Ten > hours later puts > her very close to Itasca, when AE was using 3105. I not only meant that but that's exactly what I posted as you can see by your own email. You're confusing me, Randy. Also "Ten hours later puts her very close to Itasca...." Ten hours later than when? Alan =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:13:46 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Carol Dow wrote: >Right on where she would have headed. She did what anyone in their >right mind would have done. The Gilberts were under British control >at that time unless the Japanese were busy infiltrating the islands >(which they probably were). Carol, please explain why so many people insist on believing that Earhart would turn back to the Gilberts when Earhart herself said she was running north and south on the line running through Howland, Niku, etc.? Please don't say it's because she once said that's what she'd do. I once said I'd never like boys because they're so icky. Your viewpoint changes... -- Amanda Dunham #2418CE =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:33:58 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Survival on Niku Ric, you state that "I'm afraid I can't give you a very precise answer. If the castaway found in 1940 was Earhart then she survived for somewhere between several weeks to almost three years." I guess I don't see in your post the logic from which you derive the lower bound of several weeks. So let me speculate, and you can let me know if I'm close to your thinking ... AE and FN stay with the airplane for a few days until water is so high that it is no longer feasible, they spend a few more days at the northwest end of the island rifling through the cache of supplies left by the Norwich City, and then a few more days working their way around to the southeast end of the island where the skull is eventually found (and avoiding space alien abductions and Japanese who want to capture them along the way, which might add another day or two). Finally, because of the evidence of the clamshells, the castaway survives at least a few more days eating meals of clams. All this would add up to a few weeks. Regarding your upper bound of a few years ... how likely could a castaway avoid the cuts you describe (which lead to infection) for that period of time? Wouldn't normal daily activities and opening clam shells by bashing them on the top lead to periodic cuts? Naturally, I assume that if the castaway was AE, her supply of medicine and bandaids was minimal, as was her supply of replacement shoes and clothing. How did the Nikumaroro natives deal with cuts and infections? How long might we expect AE's shoes and clothing to last on Nikumaroro? LTM (Who never did figure out how to pronounce KHAQQ) Paige Miller #2565 *********************************************************************** From Ric My speculative lower boundary (a few weeks) is based primarily on the distance of the bone discovery location (whether or not it's the Seven Site) from suppose landing location, and the lack of clothing and other artifacts found with the bones. I reason that the longer a castaway survives on an island, the fewer relics of their arrival will remain. Naturally, not every cut or scrape you get on Niku is life-threatening. Remember, before the days of antibiotics people got infections all the time - bad ones - but they didn't always or even usually die from them. A bad cut and a bad infection would be more life-threatening on Niku than in other environments. Yes, you'd need to be pretty careful. The colonists on Niku dealt with cuts and infections the same way we do. The British had an excellent program at the Central Medical School in Suva, Fiji that trained "Native Dressers" in basic hygene and first aid. "Native Medical Practioners" (NMPs) were highly skilled and the next best thing to a licensed physcian. Each colonial settlement had a well-stocked dispensary. How long would clothes and shoes hold out? Hard to judge except to say, "Not very long." Clothes are largely superfluous unless you have modern sensibilites about avoiding the sun. Leather shoes, especially if they get repeatedly soaked walking on the reef or in the lagoon, rot very quickly. My guess - within a few weeks a castaway would have shed or worn-out most items of clothing and footwear. Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:11:52 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto Ric wrote: > We always have to be careful to make a distinction between what we believe to > be true and what we can prove to be true. I don't know how anyone would ever > be able to absolutely prove that what Betty heard was Amelia Earhart. I don't doubt what Betty heard. I just wish it could be proved. Every time something makes sense, there always appears a curve. The only curve I have, is the time of day it was heard, for the frequencies AE had to transmit on. But I am not questioning Betty's honesty. Every time something fits, you get a new curve. For example the finding of the castaway's bones, only to have them disappear with out a trace and the person who found them to died shortly afterward. Or to have the search planes fly over, report recent sign of habitation, but to see no down pilots or the plane. It makes sense that plane was washed over the reef, but still consider how hard it is to tie everything together (of course you know that better then anyone). Yes it is believable they landed there. As you said in an earlier post, just consider how the story goes on. But it would be nice to see a smoking gun, or at least something follow to a conclusive end. But what can you expect after 74 years! Regards. Warren Lambing ************************************************************************ From Ric Another curve! Here I've been thinking it was only 65 years. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:13:42 EST From: Tom Strange Subject: Radio Modification? Reference - AE's radio was factory modified to also incorporate CW transmission capability - Would this modification create a Western Electric 13CB unit? Respectfully: Tom Strang *********************************************************************** From Ric Suddenly the "10-4 good buddy" in Betty's notebook starts to make sense. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:15:04 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Dear Everyone, Am afraid to say anything. Love to all you guys, Carol *********************************************************************** From Ric Awwwwwww............. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:48:19 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: 'Betty's notebook, ...etal'... Since your audience has never had the opportunity to experience what you & Pat have, ...of spending, what appears to be considerable time 'debriefing' & talking first-hand with our star witness, 'Betty', it might help if you would share with us the extent of the 'work-product' that has been developed through this on-going dialogue you & Pat have maintained with 'Betty'. Might also be of help if we could consider this 'other evidence' that has so convinced you of Betty's notebook, ...'fitting the evolving scenario'... Don Neumann ************************************************************************ From Ric I guess you must have been out during the extensive forum discussions that verified the other entries in the notebook (mostly song lyrics) as being contemporaneous with the historical period in question. That was one of the most amazing examples of cooperative research I've ever seen. Sorry you missed it. There was also a great deal of forum work done on identifying the particular radio her family had. Lots of web searchs, and downloaded images of various radios, and discussions of their capabilities, and quizzing Betty about what the radio looked like and how her father came to own it, etc. Your contributions to the forum have largely been in the form of postings like this one so you may not recall the research done by others. The primary field of inquiry that may never have gotten much discussion on the forum was the extensive research into the physical layout of the antenna at Betty's childhood home in St. Peterburg. Harry Poole did yeoman service, searching out and photographing the property and digging out old city records that established what it was like in 1937. Bob Brandenburg and Mike Everette spent many, many hours matching Betty's description of the antenna system to the plans of the house and property, then Bob modeled the theoretical performance of the antenna. The results of all that are written up in Bob's research paper "Harmony and Power: Could Betty Have Heard Earhart On A Harmonic?". You'll find it at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/30_BettyHarmonic/30_Bettyharmonic.html It has been there since March of 2001. Oh yes, and there there was all the research that was done into the HAM callsign appearing in Betty's book and the discovery that it belonged to a HAM in Florida on the same great circle line from Gardner as Betty. Terry Linley interviewed the guy's daughter and discovered that he had once remarked that he had "talked" to Earhart. There's probably more but those are the lines of research that come immediately to mind. Throughout it all Betty has been there, patiently trying to answer whatever questions have come up. As for the other evidence that has been developed over the past two years-plus that fits the scene described by the notebook, I'm really rather surprised that you don't remember the Niku IIII expedition and the work we did out on the reef to confirm that a landing could have been made, and the tidal handcasting work only recently discussed on the forum, all of which supports the picture painted by Betty's book. If you take another look at the website you may find more information you've missed. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:51:57 EST From: Pat Reed Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But HELP! Dave wrote: >If she ever goes down at sea, all that collagen in those lips >will save her, for sure. Yeah, like the beer bellies a lot of guys have wouldn't keep them afloat.... Slamming people - or sexes - for things that aren't even on the forum (such as the illustrative example above) seems like a real waste of space. ************************************************************************ From Ric That's what I love about this forum. It pretty much moderates itself. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:01:03 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: The Beginning Ric, I think you cannot reject the possibility that George Putnam did know what AE had in the way of emergency gear aboard the airplane from Lae to Howland. She may have told him exactly what she had or was going to have for takeoff at Lae. We don't know. Ron Reuther ************************************************************************ From Ric Even if Earhart had told Putnam exactly what she intended to carry on the Lae/Howland leg, the last time she had an opportunity to do that was in the phone call she made from Java about ten days earlier. The wire messages she sent from Lae make no mention of what she will carry. There was no international telephone service from Lae. There quite literally is no way that Putnam could have known what was actually aboard the airplane. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:02:27 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Betty's reply to Angus Are there any recordings of Fred's voice? Would Betty be able to recognize Fred's voice if there were recordings? How well do we recall voices? Mike H. *********************************************************************** From Ric I'm aware of no recording of Fred's voice. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:03:46 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto I would have had a problem with believing the Electra was torn up and washed over the reef edge had I not seen a good sized sail boat (approx. 35 ft.) pounded to pieces in moderate surf 2 years ago in Estero Beach, Mexico. The boat had run aground on a sand bar and I watched it's condition every day with binoculars for four days and I was astonished at the power of the surf as it dismantled the boat quite easily. Seeing really is believing. LTM Mike Haddock =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:03:12 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Carol, my dear, being involved in this Forum just requires that you grow a little thicker epidermal layer of skin and not taking one's self too seriously. Happy Holidays! LTM Mike Haddock #2438 =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:04:34 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! Carol wrote: > For: Angus > > Oh no, you didn't? You did. You guys. > Carol Carol, You wouldn't REALLY use that Samurai sword ................would you?? Regards Angus. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:37:41 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Clues: Signs of Recent Habitation On Nov. 29, In response to an email from Bill Shea, who was suggesting that there is no evidence for the Niku theory, Ric wrote: >Let me give you some clues to the clues [related to the Niku theory]........The Navy >searchers [i.e. Mr. Lambrecht] saw "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner that shouldn't >have been there. Before I discuss the infamous "signs of recent habitation" statement, and whether or not those signs should have been there, I would like to point out that I agree with Ric that there is evidence, albeit not conclusive, for Earhart having ended up on Niku. As Ric suggested, that evidence is [what I call] the "Big Four" as in the Dado, Plexi, Skin and the bones. I also agree with Ric that the "recent habitation" observation and the aircraft wreckage folklore provide additional clues. However, there is much more to Lambrecht's "recent habitation" statement than the short quote which is so often taken out of context. I have posted some of the following Lambrecht....."signs of recent habitation"....related information in the past. However, with the constantly changing Forum membership, I believe it would be good to review it again. In order to explore the Lambrecht quote we first need to ask ourselves: could there have been anything on the island that may have looked like "recent signs of habitation"? One answer is.....yes...Earhart and Noonan could have been there. But there are also many other logical possibilities. Lets take a closer look. Reports of various people leaving and/or seeing signs of previous habitation on Gardner/Nikumaroro Island are discussed below. Lets examine what other visitors saw/left and what they reported both contemporaneously and during later interviews or correspondence. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of visitors to the island nor is it meant to exclude what Lambrecht saw as being Earhart related. It is meant to provide the interested reader with a full menu of items from which to draw conclusions about what Lambrecht may have observed on Gardner/Niku and, in addition, to speculate as to why a land search was not conducted. Reference No. 1. NIKU Source Book, TIGHAR Archives 2. TIGHAR TRACKS, March 12, 1992, Volume 8, Number 1/2 3. Tom Kings personal files and Email messages to Kenton Spading (and others) 4. Kenton Spading's field notes and pictures from NIKU III and various Email messages to TIGHAR members and the Forum. 5. TIGHAR TRACKS, June 15, 1993, Volume 9, Number 2 1. 1891, John T. Arundel's Project Mr. Arundel obtained a coconut (copra) license for Gardner/NIku Island from the British government on Feb. 1, 1891. A group of natives were left on the island that year (some were reported to have arrived prior to 1891....). Apparently the project was abandoned sometime in 1892. This project resulted in the construction of buildings with galvanized steel roofs and a large water tank all of which were later observed and described by the Norwich City wreck survivors (see below). Later, in October 1937 Harry Maude reported 111 coconut bearing trees on Gardner/Niku gone to riot from the Arundel period. See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15. 2. 1892, Her Majesties Ship (HMS) Curacoa When the HMS Curacoa visited the Gardner/Niku island on May 28, 1892, 20 Niue natives (under the command of an Englishman) were working on the Arundel coconut project. The British made a point of placing a Union Jack flag on the island as they were very concerned about documenting their claim to the island. See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15. We can speculate that, given the Englishman in command, native manpower and materials on the island, and with the possible knowledge that Arundel was preparing to leave later in 1892, that they may have constructed some sort of a permanent concrete marker or monument to hold the flag. They probably did not just stick it in a tree. 3. November 1929, Norwich City Wreck Mr. J. Thomas was a survivor of the S.S. Norwich City which ran aground on Gardner/Niku Island in November 1929. Mr. Thomas states in a hand written note, (original spelling and grammar left intact): "[On Gardner/Niku] Near the palms we found two desused galvanised roofed huts and a large water tank which were in a state [of] collapse, but which indicated to us that the island had at one time been inhabited most probably with a view of growing coconuts......." See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 14. The huts and water tank Mr. Thomas refers to were undoubtedly left behind by the aforementioned John T. Arundel group. In addition, the Norwich City crew left behind two life boats and a substantial stack of provisions covered with a tarp. All of the above was in the vicinity of the wreck, a landmark which Lambrecht would have undoubtedly been drawn to. As an aside, in 1989, TIGHAR team members John Clauss and Veryl Fenlason photographed some very dilapidated wooden framing along the northwest shore of the island just north of the shipwreck. Upon reflection, these buildings probably dated from the Arundel period as opposed to the British 1938-1963 habitation of the island. TIGHAR also found the 1940 era British-built wood-framed COOP store in 1989 in a relatively intact state (although in a "desused" state). This suggests that Arundel's buildings and water tank may have survived fairly intact until Lambrecht's overflight in 1937 (only 8 years after Mr. Thomas observed them). Arundel's structures would have certainly looked "Recent" from the air (i.e. galvanized roofing) as opposed to the very "Old" adobe type walls Lambrecht saw on McKean (see Lambrecht's comments below). 4. Her Majesties Ship (HMS) Leith, February 15, 1937 The HMS Leith visited Gardner/Niku on February 15, 1937 just long enough to erect a flagpole and placard proclaiming the island to be the property of His Majesty the King. (Reference 1, Section 2, Item 2). Earhart disappeared and Lambrecht flew over the island, of course, roughly five (5) months later. As Lambrecht observed, someone indeed had visited the island "recently" in 1937. 5. Colorado Search Planes, July 9, 1937 The following are some quotes from Lambrecht's report. Most of Lambrecht's comments are quoted out of context on the Forum. In light of that, I hesitate to list them here as it is difficult to absorb Lambrecht's writing style, and therefore the overall theme of the report, without reading the entire document. At this point I am going to assume that the serious readers will carefully read the entire report on the TIGHAR web site in order to place the selected quotes in their proper context. Lt. John O. Lambrecht (and crew) reported the following (these are excerpts) after the flight over Gardner Island on July 9, 1937. See Reference No. 5, Page 6. [the quotes below are listed in the order that they appear in the report] ".........Enderbury, although a bit larger, was much the same as Phoenix. Here and there were what appeared to be oases with a few surrounding palm trees... no signs of habitation were evident and an inspection did not disclose the object of our search......" "........M'Kean did not require more than a perfunctory examination to ascertain that the missing plane had not landed here, and one circle of the island proved that it was uninhabited except for myriads of birds. Signs of previous habitation remained and the walls of several old buildings apparently of some sort of adobe construction, were still standing.........." ".......Here [Gardner] signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there........." [note the reference to "recent" on the heels of his reference to "old" at McKean, buildings with galvanized roofs would indeed look recent in comparison to McKean] "........There [Sydney] were signs of recent habitation and small shacks could be seen among the groves of coconut palms, but repeated zooms failed to arouse any answering wave and the planes headed northeast for Phoenix Island........" During an interview with Mr. Lambrecht in 1972 regarding what he observed on Gardner he stated that he saw "markers" (See Reference No. 5, Page 6). The "marker" Lambrecht remembers could have been a concrete monument/marker claiming British ownership from either the 1892 or the very recent 1937 British visit or something from Arundel or the Norwich City camp. 6. Eric Bevington and Harry Maude, October 1937 British subjects Harry Maude and Eric Bevington visited the island in October of 1937 to conduct a survey as part of a colonial resettlement project. Mr. Bevington stated in his diary that he saw "signs of previous habitation" on the island. During an interview in 1992 he stated that (as best he could recall) "it wasn't much.....like someone had bivouacked for the night" He indicated (without knowing where TIGHAR had been) that the place was near the area where TIGHAR found the shoe artifact in 1991 (SE part of the island). See Reference No. 2, Pages 6 and 7. Eric, however, could have easily seen something from the Arundel period or any of the later visitors. Dr. Tom King corresponded with Mr. Maude. He asked him about the "signs of previous habitation" that Eric mentions in his diary. Maude remembered it as being [a] "pile of sand" (see Reference No. 3). During the 1997 Niku III expedition, TIGHAR found relatively large piles of sand/coral on the SE end of the island near the shoe artifact site in the area indicated by Bevington. It looked like a Babai pit or an abortive well from either the British or Arundel periods. (see Reference No. 4). We don't have evidence that the Arundel group was in this area (the British colony was) but we have no evidence that they weren't and a search for well water could take you anywhere. Wrap Up Thoughts: Anecdotes aside....a lot of the information was recorded contemporaneously. I will say up front that Lambrecht could have seen Earhart related habitation. I will also add that I am offering some speculative thoughts here. My goal is to get people thinking about the issue in a broader sense than a simple partial quote from Lambrecht. We do not know what Lambrecht told his fellow shipmates and commander if asked....."What do you mean by "recent signs of habitation" However, it is not too hard to imagine that he told them he saw: 1. the flag and/or marker left behind by the British only 5 months earlier or 2. the life boats and stack of provisions left behind by the Norwich City crew...or 3. the corrugated steel roofs of the huts or the water tank or other debris left behind by the Arundel group earlier and noted by the Norwich crew in 1929...or 4. some or all of the above O-k, so there were "signs of recent habitation" available for Lambrecht to see (recent being a relative term). That begs the next question. Why was no land search conducted if obvious "signs of recent habitation" on Niku were reported? We can speculate that Lambrecht told his commander: "We checked out the island as best as we could. Repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave. We tried hard, commander, to get the attention of anyone who might have been there. We saw no signs of an airplane and, in my opinion, the signs of habitation that we saw were not related to the lost fliers." The key words here for the commander were probably.....no signs of an airplane. The Colorado was sent to the Phoenix group on the strength of the post-lost signals/bearings. And the commander was told....the plane must be on land to broadcast. No airplane....no problem....lets move on. I am not prepared to fault the commander for this decision (there were also other good reasons to move on). It is much too easy in hindsight and from the comfort of our homes to do that. Getting a landing party on to and off of the island is a very dangerous affair as is positioning the Colorado anywhere near the island. As note above, Lambrecht's description of what he saw on Gardner and Sydney as "signs of RECENT habitation" may be an attempt to contrast them to the obviously much older "stone" ruins he had just seen at McKean Island. Indeed, in my speculative opinion, when you read the entire Lambrecht report within the context of which it is written, it can easily be interpreted that way. Thus he uses the word "recent" to describe Gardner after viewing the much older stone ruins on McKean. There is an additional piece of very speculative evidence that suggests Lambrecht saw but did not mention Arundel's huts. A Colorado crew member took notes as the ship visited the various islands. He had some artistic talent and as such drew pictures to accompanied his notes. For Hull he drew a canoe and people...and of course Lambrecht landed there and was visited by the locals in a canoe. For Gardner he drew a picture of native huts/houses. Summary: "RECENT" visitors to the island prior to Lambrecht's flyover include: 1) the Norwich City crew (8 yrs. before) and 2) the HMS Leith (5 months before). It is not surprising that he observed signs of recent habitation. Love To Mother Kenton Spading 1382CE ******************************************************************** From Ric As Kenton says, it all depends on how you interpret the words Lambrecht used. Are buildings that were "in a state of collapse" eight years earlier "signs of recent habitation"? Might Lambrecht have later decribed sheets of corrugated iron from collapsed buildings as "markers of some kind"? Is a flagpole or momument on the beach a "sign of recent habitation"? All of these interpretations, and the others that Kenton lists, are possible. I do however, think that it's obvious that Lambrecht intended to convey that he saw something on the ground that prompted him to "try to elicit an answering wave". I think that makes it pretty clear that when he says "recent" he means "current", not recent compared to the old ruins on McKean. Forget the phrase "signs of recent of recent habitation". Nobody knows what he saw. The fact is, he saw something that made him think there was someone down there who might come out and wave to him. No one should have been there, so either Lambrecht misinterpreted what he saw from the air or he saw something that should not have been there. It's as simple as that. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:38:44 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But HELP! Geez, Pat... I don't think I was slamming a sex, at all... Since there are many general aviation enthusiasts on the forum, I was just wondering who the old lady trying to look 30-something is, and what her claim to fame is... Since you don't know to whom I'm referring, you can hardly judge if her appearance is the result of reconstructive surgery after "augering one in" or if it's just a series of botched facelifts. My apologies for having offended you, that was not my intent. LTM (who still believes Waylon Flowers' Madam learned to fly) Dave =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:46:14 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Betty's reply to Angus First - my thanks to Betty for her reply. Reading between the lines, it does seem at least possible that FN was not actually "off his head" but was ill tempered, maybe through pain, maybe as a result of stress or disagreement on strategy, their position etc. He was possibly also frightened for his life, both in the short term as a result of his injuries and/or the submerging aircraft and in the longer term in that help might not arrive to save them from the rigours of a waterless tropical island. The architecture of the brain means that fear will often provoke anger as both emotions are controlled by the same part of the limbic system. The fact that at times he seemed more rational would support this. AE's reaction - pleading, tears, competition for the microphone could be equally ascribable to an angry and suffering Noonan as a deranged one. However, what little record we have of his supposed transmission is fairly perplexing. Bob, Uncle, Marie hey, take it away, etc - none of it seems the sort of thing that anyone, especially a navigator, would waste time on, especially when he was injured and it was so vitally important to give details of their position. This argues he really was deranged. On a separate issue, I was giving more consideration to "N.Y.". Can Betty rule out the idea that this was exactly what she heard (ie just those two letters) and it was not in fact an abbreviation for New York? Is it possible that she later gave it her own interpretation, being perhaps familiar with N.Y. as an abbreviation for New York? I can imagine if I was transcribing such a radio message, I would record the first time I heard " New York" as NEW YORK, but then in subsequent receptions abbreviate it to NY. To abbreviate it immediately would only seem rational if Betty was somewhat behind with recording what was said and had time to realise that "NEW" was not merely an adjective but part of a proper noun and so write N.Y.. If the possibility that NY might not mean New York is allowed, I would think that N.Y. is more likely a misinterpretation of NRUI. I know Ric claims that AE always referred to ITASCA rather than NRUI but I think that as ITASCA used this call sign when transmitting, there is every chance AE could have replied using it. Another thought occurs to me. Is it possible that AE had received a transmission from USS New York and was trying to contact it? I know this ship was in the Pacific in the early thirties but can't yet discover if it was so in mid 1937. Of course it may even have been in the Atlantic (perhaps even on a similar great circle path) since Betty's intercept was as far off as Florida. Perhaps someone could throw some light on this? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric Betty has told me many times that what she wrote in her book were only fragments of what she heard. She couldn't write fast enough to get down anything but a fraction of what was said. She wrote down only the words and phrases that came through most clearly and seemed like they might be important. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:59:49 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto If I remember correctly, Betty approached Fred Goerner back in the 60's about her notebook. According to Betty, he was not interested in it. Did he actually see what she jotted down or did he refuse sight unseen? ************************************************************************ From Ric Betty did not contact Goerner. Her friend, and now TIGHAR member, John Hathaway wrote to Goerner on her behalf in the summer of 1970. Goerner never saw the original notebook but John sent him a transcription. Utimately Goerner replied on Sept. 4, 1970: "Well, to tell the truth Mr. Hathaway, I can't make anything out of the messages (Betty) received. The figures do not seem at all relevant, especially the supposed position reports. ... I do appreciate your having taken the time to communicate with me about the matter. I'm just afraid though that without a great deal more clarification of the messages it would be impossible to make a determination from them." =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:05:10 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: USS New York This is what I know so far: Summer 1919-The New York joins the Pacific Fleet based in San Diego, California. The New York would remain based there until around 1935. Its training grounds normally included the West Coast and the Hawaiian Islands, but returned to the Caribbean and Atlantic for some training operations, and repairs when it is needed. May 20, 1937-The New York is the only United States representative in the Grand Naval Review. (UK) 1937 through 1940-The New York spends most of the time on midshipmen cruises to Europe, Canada, and the Caribbean. Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric At the beginning of the Earhart search an effort was made to identify any ships, naval or civilian, that might be in a position to help. There weren't many, and USS New York is not mentioned in any of the radio traffic. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:10:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Carol Theory For Carol -- I'm looking forward to meeting you Sunday at the KC 99s dinner, and hope to be able to report to all that you are NOT Ric's invention. As to being the reincarnation of AE, let's see, how would we test THAT hypothesis..... LTM Tom *********************************************************************** From Ric (I wish I could afford to show up at the dinner in drag just to see the look on Tom's face.) =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:10:57 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Thanks Mike, Happy Holidays, Carol =============================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:12:12 EST From: Carol Subject: Re: Stop Press - Its all over! End of the Samurai Sword Oh Lord no with the sword. The thing had an edge on it like a razor blade (past tense) so I borrowed a friend, and we filed it down. It has a long grip. Someone could hold on with two hands and hack away. It still scares me to death. Carol *************************************************** From Ric Moving right along...... =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:18:36 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Carol Theory For Tom King, You know what, I'm going to let you guess. Carol ****************************************************************** From Ric Good Lord. This could start a whole thread on How Tom Can Recognize Carol. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:20:05 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Antenna To Alan: Your original message read, regarding the Lae receptions: > She was then heard one hour later and then two hours later but not after > that. I don't know what happened to the 16:18Z radio call or if it was even > made. The 17:18Z call was still on 6210 is my understanding. Is that correct, > Ric? Those messages occured prior to 07:30Z. After that, it seems that all transmissions heard by Earhart were on 3105 kHz. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:21:00 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But HELP! Dave in Fremont wrote: > ... I was just wondering who > the ... lady ... is, and what her claim to fame > is... Nancy Lynn. Aerobatics instructor and (I guess) owner of Lynn Aviation: http://www.lynnaviation.com/aerobatics/instructors.html LTM. Marty #2359 =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:28:23 EST From: Craig Subject: The Notebook Writing A question and a concern related to Betty's notebook. My question is this: What do you make of all the strange stuff that doesn't seem like it could be related to someone calling for help on a reef - i.e Marie Hey!, get the suitcase in my closet, etc. Could this be another signal on top of the one she was hearing? My concern is this: From the examples of the notebook you have on the website, it's strikes me as odd that in most cases, the song lyrics and other things she was writing are more often than not "messier" handwriting than that of the AE things. The AE stuff is neatly written, hardly ever runs into the margin, letter are mostly properly formed, etc. For instance, compare page 55 (one of the "messiest" AE pages) to page 38 (a song): - Page 38 runs into the border, words are inserted, crammed in, written in haste, the ink is fluctuating, etc. - Page 55 is clear, she never runs into the border, the ink is mostly uniform, and she even has time to write a line a second time for clarity. My thought on this is, if she is having trouble keeping up with the transmissions, wouldn't one expect to see her notes to be somewhat frantically written? Updated with things she missed when the transmission faded? There is the case that maybe she wanted to write neat in case this was important information, but did she know the importance at the time? Wouldn't the lyrics of a song be just as important to someone at that age? Craig ************************************************************************ From Ric Absolutely not. Betty's casual notation of song lyrics and doodling artwork are in marked contrast to her transcription of the words and phrases from Earhart. The emotional impact of what she was hearing was extreme and has stayed with her the rest of her life. She was very much aware, at the time, that she was hearing something important. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:31:43 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Let me guess, Carols a blonde right? Ric? Chris#2511 *********************************************************************** From Ric I've never seen Carol so I don't know what color her hair is, but mine is blond (or was until I started moderating this forum). =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:42:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: USS New York > At the beginning of the Earhart search an effort was made to identify any > ships, naval or civilian, that might be in a position to help. There weren't > many, and USS New York is not mentioned in any of the radio traffic. What about the Koshu? Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric Gesundheit. The only ships mentioned were the "Dickerson" (a "cable ship" near Christmas Island) and the Moorby. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:43:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto > The figures do not seem at all relevant, > especially the supposed position reports. ... Of course not. They were not in the Marshalls. Alan =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:45:32 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Clues: Signs of Recent Habitation > As Kenton says, it all depends on how you interpret the words Lambrecht > used. More important. How close did Lambrecht get? Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric Lambrecht said that after getting scared half to death by the birds at McKean they never went below 400 feet. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:47:30 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Betty's reply to Angus Just a thought, could Fred have used the word "Uncle" in terms of frustration as in "uncle, I give up". I believe that in that era, saying uncle was was a common expression to voice acceptance of defeat. Any thoughts? LTM Ed of PSL ************************************************************************ From Ric It's one possibility. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:48:30 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Recognition won't be a problem, all Tom needs to do is look for the lady with a samurai in her pantyhose. LTM Ed of PSL =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:53:07 EST From: Pat Reed Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But HELP! Dave wrote: >My apologies for having offended you, that was not my intent. No problem! I had nothing else to contribute, so thought I'd put my two cents in. I still think it's not how they look, but rather the unique skills required of an aerobatic pilot. Is she an expert? Well, like maybe a little like all of us - in her own mind or maybe in her neighborhood, etc.! ************************************************************************ From Ric Let's try to stay on-topic. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:22:20 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Betty's Manifesto Thanks for your very gracious & lengthy response to what I considered to be a very simple request. As a very capable & conscientious investigator, certainly in conducting your many interviews with 'Betty' you utilized a tape recorder &/or video to preserve her testimony for the purposes of further investigation, & since no one on the Forum has ever met or seen 'Betty', nor had the opportunity to listen, first-hand to her story, I thought it might be helpful if such information were made available to the rest of the Forum, in much the same way as the several interviews you & Dr. King so ably conducted with the former residents of Nikumaroro Island. I seem to sense from your response to my request that I have somehow offended you & if I have, I certainly offer my apology for any such perceived (on your part) offense. I _do_ follow the Forum postings every single day & have ever since 1998. I also spend considerable time reviewing & examining the TIGHAR website archives & have especially examined very closely the 'Betty' related posts, research/reports & unfortunately, I'm sorry to say, I'm yet to be convinced that 'Betty' actually heard Amelia Earhart & Fred Noonan transmitting from the downed Electra. Since it appears I am among a very small minority of dissenters who still follow your Forum, I'll not waste anymore of your valuable time with any further posts to the Forum, as what I post seems to be upsetting to you & fellow Forum participants. Don Neumann ********************************************************************** From Ric If your postings have not been particularly constructive that does not mean that they are offensive. Cam, for example, was unable or unwilling to contribute anything of substance but we listened to what he had to say and tried to respond to his criticisms until he got so nasty that I had to cut him off. We welcome dissenters and skeptics. If there aren't many left on the forum it may be because they can't find sympathy among what I believe has become a very astute and perceptive group of subscribers. We do have several hours of video of Betty and the recent discussions have made me wonder if there might be sufficient interest in a videotape to justify the time it would take me to put together a tape that covers the most interesting parts of the interview. I'll ask the forum about it in a separate posting. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:44:15 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The Betty Interview On November 5, 2000 Pat and I interviewed Betty in the living room of her home in Illinois. We videotaped the entire four-hour interview during which we covered a great deal of ground concerning Betty's personal and family history and, of course, the circumstances surrounding the transcription she made in her notebook. As part of the interview, Betty went through her book page by page and described her recollections concerning each entry. Betty has given TIGHAR permission to make the tape of that interview available to the TIGHAR membership. We could offer the full interview and I'm happy to do that, but I frankly doubt that many people would want to wade through the hours of necessary, but not particularly compelling, background material to get to her notebook narrative. It would probably make more sense to offer a one-hour or so tape that presents the unedited notebook narrative. We could do that for $20 plus $5 for materials, shipping, and handling. We could do the full interview for $40 plus $10 for materials, shipping, and handling. The question is whether there is sufficient interest to justify the time it would take to put it together. What do you say forum? What's your pleasure? LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:54:25 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: USS New York Ric wrote: > At the beginning of the Earhart search an effort was made to identify any > ships, naval or civilian, that might be in a position to help. There weren't > many, and USS New York is not mentioned in any of the radio traffic. It would, I think, still be useful to discover where the USS New York was. If it was in the Carribean, as seems possible, there is a chance that AE could have heard it via the same opening as Betty received AE on. It would also be very interesting to discover the callsign of USS New York and see if it bears any relation to W40K or WOJ. Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric That part is easy. The 1937 Berne List shows four ships in service named NEW YORK: SS NEW YORK - a German commercial vessel, callsign DJNY USS NEW YORK - an American naval vessel, callsign NADT SS NEW YORK - an American commercial vessel owned by The Texas Company, Inc., callsign WBCG SS NEW YORK - an American commercial vessel owned by Eastern S.S. Lines, callsign WECF There was also: SS NEW YORK CITY - a British commercial vessel, callsign GKJS LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:59:40 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Uncle who? > Just a thought, could Fred have used the word "Uncle" in terms of frustration > as in "uncle, I give up". I believe that in that era, saying uncle was was a > common expression to voice acceptance of defeat. Any thoughts? Possibly a reference to Uncle Sam if trying to communicate with USS New York?? Possibly use of the phrase "Bob's your Uncle" - (also a separate ref to Bob) Possibly a reference to an injured ankle. Regards Angus =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:06:40 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 'Betty's notebook, ...etal'... >Terry Linley interviewed the guy's daughter and >discovered that he had once remarked that he had "talked" to Earhart. Now, we are taking that claim with a grain of salt, aren't we? His experience is not reported by him, we have a remark reported by a second person. There's no explanation of how ham frequencies intersect with aircraft frequencies or their harmonics, nor why a ham ( human being, nevertheless) did not report such a stupendous experience to ham buddies, any ham radio organization or magazine, or newspaper. I know in the past you have rationalized this, unless i misrepresent, by offering something like "people have many different motivations and reasons". Perhaps this man was in fact allergic to praise and fame, and indifferent to AE's fate, maybe he just wanted to swap cards. Seems less than likely, overall, to me, anyway. Now, where did he "talk to her"? At an airport? At some public event? Not related to above but on-topic maybe: I have been off here for quite a while, forgive me or ignore if this is redundant- does anyone have a concise comment about modelling this aircraft's antenna over ground, not an actual aircraft? I am looking for some typical resonance and impedance figures, thinking how to model that. I have a transmitter which will become a 3105/ 6210 test bed to measure actual harmonic output into a variety of impedances. Yes- with a similar output system to the WE set's "harmonic generator" system. Also- what are we thinking the aircraft used as a sense antenna for the loop? (This is a wire antenna used with the loop, to resolve the bare loop's 180 degree ambiguity. It could be a wire anywhere from just a few feet long, up to using the regular aircraft antenna.). I am thinking the belly wire was too far a run thru the cabin to be put to this use, and somehow the ship's main antenna was switched into this role. Or, are there 2 downleads visible anywhere on the top of the ship? I also acquired a US Navy loop quite similar, i think, to the expanded-spectrum commercial model carried by AE's plane, with an eye to seeing how it performs on HF with and without a sense antenna, as if for example, the main receiving antenna (belly antenna), is lost. My projects move at a glacial speed, however. Hue Miller ************************************************************************ From Ric We take everything with a grain of salt - and often a whole shaker. Anecdotes are anecdotes but the fact remains that the guy's HAM callsign appears in Betty's notebook. My best guess is that the belly antenna did dual duty as a voice receiving antenna and a sense antenna for the loop. Bob Brandenburg and Mike Everette can comment better than I on your proposed experiments. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:08:34 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Will be hiding under the dining room table. The Samurai sword is still in the closet. Carol =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:27:47 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Chris in Petaluma wrote: >Let me guess, Carols a blonde right? Ric? > >Chris#2511 Be careful, be very, very careful. There's a blonde right over here and I don't waste time with Samurai swords in the closet. I have bullwhips -- just ask Ric... -- Amanda Dunham #2418CE ************************************************************************ From Ric Swords, whips, blondes......how long can we keep our PG rating? =============================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 19:55:45 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: No forum 'til Monday From Ric All be out of the office all day tomorrow (Saturday) so the forum will resume on Monday. See you then. Ric =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:12:11 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Carol's sword Carol Dow said: "The thing had an edge on it like a razor blade (past tense) so I borrowed a friend, and we filed it down. . . . " Carol, if you treat a recent (?) historic artifact like that, I would have to question your appreciation and dedication to historic preservation. LTM, who is well preserved Dennis O. McGee #0149EC =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:14:02 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: The Carol Theory Ric wrote: >Swords, whips, blondes......how long can we keep our PG rating? Until the second movie. Spielberg convinced the authorities to invent PG-13 for Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom. And you're the one who brought up Indy, not me. I'm just trying to get some whip practice in before the neighbors complain (again). And, Carol, don't even think of drawing the sword because Ric will just shoot you. Amanda Dunham #2418CE Swoooooosh BANG! *********************************************************************** From Ric Nope. Don't own one. I'm a cold steel man myself. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:16:18 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Mystery aviatrix Marty Moleski said: "Nancy Lynn. Aerobatics instructor and (I guess) owner of Lynn Aviation" The last I heard Nancy was flying out of Bay Bridge Airport, just east of Annapolis on the Chesapeake Bay, about 10 miles from my home. She got that Extra 300L a few years ago after the Pitts she was flying had an in-flight structural (wing support) failure. Luckily, enough of it held together long enough to put it down in a corn field and she walked away. I've never flown with her but always wanted to take aerobatic lessons from but my wallet was too thin. I was also looking for seaplane/float training but -- this is hard to believe -- at the time there were no seaplane/float instructors or planes in the Chesapeake Bay area. Time and circumstances took care of that dream also. LTM, who pines for flight Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ******************************************************************* From Ric Ahem. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:34:44 EST From: Craig Subject: Re: The Notebook Writing Ric wrote: > ... Earhart. The emotional impact of what she was > hearing was extreme and has > stayed with her the rest of her life. She was very > much aware, at the time, > that she was hearing something important. How can you back this up? It's hardly better than anecdotal. I know you were there and you talked to her, but we haven't. Isn't the best evidence we have the fact that she believed it to be real the fact she tried to send it to Goerner some 30 years later? We've been shown time and time again on this forum how the mind operates over time. In a previous post you said: >She couldn't write fast enough to get down anything >but a fraction of what was said. To me, the notebook doesn't corroborate this statement. It doesn't look like she was writing fast at all, or trying to write down as much as she could. I will say I believe the notebook is legit, but I'm just trying to keep you honest like any good forumite. Craig ********************************************************************** From Ric I sure want to help you keep me honest. We have the fact that she held on to the notebook for all those years. She did not contact Goerner. Her friend John did on her behalf. How do you suggest that we could measure emotional impact? >It doesn't look like she was writing fast >at all, or trying to write down as much as she could. Maybe you should order the tape. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:06:01 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's Notebook Entries I believe that the key to the origin of the signals that Betty heard and copied lies in the notations of "KGMB" and "31.95" written on her doodle page. The linkage between the two may yield some answers. Obviously, Betty heard those words/symbols spoken and she wrote them down at the time the other signals were coming in. But what is their connection? We know that KGMB the Honolulu radio station first broadcast the contact request message to Earhart on 5 July 1937. This request to Earhart asked her to answer with four DASHES on 3105. Almost immediately, as you point out, several professional stations heard four DASHES, but no VOICE on 3105. No mention of KGMB,etc. KGMB broadcasted in 1937 on 1320 AM with 1000 watts. We also know that ITASCA received that request for dashes somewhere in the vicinity of Howland. It is conceivable that Earhart had the potential to receive that signal. Betty received VOICE for about 3/4 of an hour on her radio, and by inference it is on a shortwave band, either 3105 or some harmonic, but not on an AM band. This is not totally clear as she said she had her back to the receiver as she tuned, but ordinarily she came home and listened to shortwave. She reported no reception of a KGMB broadcast requesting dashes, nor any KGMB broadcasting suggesting the March of Time 8 July broadcast. Early on in Tighars investigation, Mike E., the radio historian, posted that AE's Western Electric 20B receiver would only tune to 1200 kz because the tuning band had been modifed from 350-1500 to 485-1200 to cover the distress signal frequencies. He affirmed that change in a second post and provided technical details. He concluded that "...if KGMB was transmitting on 1320 in1937, she [Earhart] could not hear that station on the WE receiver." Other radio historians confirmed that KGMB in 1937 was broadcasting on 1320. He opined she may have had a second receiver. Never documented. What does this mean. I am not sure, but if Earhart could not receive on 1320, Betty could not have heard Earhart mention KGMB. But IF Betty heard KGMB on her radio AM band, she could have also heard the call letters of KGMB AND the 3105 reference. Did Mike E or Tighar ever resolve this technical question of reception on AE's radio? How positive are we that Betty heard the Earhart signals on shortwave not the AM band? Betty's notation of KGMB AND 3105 seems to be giving us a clue as to the origin. Could Earhart have transmitted the KGMB call sign as well as her 3105 frequency without hearing the KGMB request? I can't recall but did Betty add any more details to her transcription of the KGMB and the 31.05 (most likely 3105). LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric Okay, first let's fix the typos or mistatements. Betty's notebook contains the notations "KGMB" and "31.05" (not 31.95) on a page of sketches four pages before the Earhart transcription starts. Betty has no recollection of making these notations but she does say that during periods when the signal from Earhart faded and she heard nothing, she would turn back to the sketches she was working on. She is, however, emphatic that she never adjusted the dial once she began hearing Amelia. Betty received sporadic voice for an hour and three quarters - from 16:30 to 18:15 local time - not three quarters of an hour. Betty does have a recollection of where the needle was on the dial when she heard Amelia and matching that position to the known dial of the Zenith Stratosphere indicates that she was most likely listening on a harmonic between 18 Mhz and 25 Mhz. There is virtually no chance that she was hearing Earhart on 3105 or 6210. See Bob Brandenburg's research bulletin "Could Betty Have Heard Amelia On A Harmonic" http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/30_BettyHarmonic/30_Bettyharmonic.html The first KGMB broadcast to Earhart was not on July 5. It was at 20:00 Hawaiian Standard Time on July 3 (06:30Z on July 4). You are correct that the transmissions were on 1320 Khz. >Early on in Tighars investigation, Mike E., the radio historian, posted that >AE's Western Electric 20B receiver would only tune to 1200 kz because the >tuning band had been modifed from 350-1500 to 485-1200 to cover the distress >signal frequencies. He affirmed that change in a second post and provided >technical details. I can't find that information in Mike's write up on the receiver in the 8th edition so I have to ask him to comment on whether he still stands by that statement and what source he has for the modification. ============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:08:16 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: USS New York Good work - there doesn't seem to be much correlation there. What was Colorado's callsign? Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric NECR =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:20:11 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Call sign coincidence Perhaps this has been pointed out before. But Arthur Monsee, who heard and reported what he beleived was Earhart's transmissions, has an amateur call sign of W4BK. One of the first entries of Betty's notebook is the "W40K" Howland Port, presumably a call sign. From a listening capacity on a shortwave, that is pretty darn close, namely one letter off, the B for an O. The W40K was traced to another Ham on the Florida east coast. In 1937Monsee while living in San Francisco reported hearing "SOS KHAQ EAST HOWLAND LIGHT TONIGHT MUST HURRY CAN'T HOLD'". As you pointed out the words SOS, East , Howland, and Hurry, also ocur in Betty's notes. The words can't hold" occur in the 281 msg. He thought the signals came in on 7500 Kcs, not on a ham band. All in code, not voice. But you interviewed Monsee in Nov 00 and he was living in St Petersburg, Florida, where Betty lived in 1937. Now that is coincidence! When did Monsee move to ST Pete? LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric Once again, first we have to correct the errors. Arthur Monsees callsign is now W4BK but in 1937 it was W6HJP. >The words "can't hold" occur in the 281 msg. No they don't. The words in the 281 message reported by USN Wailupe are "don't hold". Grammatically, it seems much more likely that the words were "won't hold". On July 6th HAM Charles McGill in Oakland claimed to hear "cannot hold out much longer". McGill was investigated by the Coast Guard and it was "DEFINITELY DETERMINED REPORT FALSE. VERIFY (sic) AND REPUTATION OF MAN MAKING REPORT EXTREMELY DUBIOUS AFTER INVESTIGATION. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:27:46 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Post-Loss Messages Ric, thanks for this preliminary compilation of the post-loss messages up until 0710Z. It is both fascinating and chilling. One can turn the question around and ask what would have to happen by 0710Z for this to be a hoax. Each and all of the following must happen. Some could have a reasonably high probability, some were very unlikely. Let me attempt to supply the events necessary for a hoax to occur and provide a subjective guess at the probabilities (even though I am by no means an expert in radio transmissions). Each one of these individually, and all of them in combination, have to happen for these messages to be a hoax. 1. The hoaxer must know that Earhart has not arrived at Howland. (Probability: high) 2. The hoaxer must know that Earhart transmits on 3105 (Probability: I dunno) 3. The hoaxer must have equipment available that very day that allows him or her to listen and broadcast voice on 3105 (Probability: from what I have read, ability to broadcast on 3105 was not a common among radios of that day...thus I assign low probability to this) 4. The hoaxer must be able to broadcast in such a manner such that Howland hears the signal the strongest, Achilles next strongest, PAA Mokapu weakest, and no one else hears it (Probability: very low) 5. The hoaxer must be able to simulate a voice similar to Earhart's (Probability: medium) 6. The hoaxer must have a motivation to do this (Probability: low -- there aren't a lot of people who would do such a thing) Thus, I would conclude that the probability of these post-loss signals being a hoax is very low. It is much more likely that these post-loss signals are in fact really what they appear to be ... signals from Earhart. It is within the realm of possibility that the hoaxer could be the mysterious QZ5. Ric, you also say "A simple reading of the original sources suggests that a woman and a man located somewhere between ACHILLES and ITASCA were sending voice messages on an aviation frequency - 3105 - and repsonding directly to ITASCA's transmission to Earhart." While I agree with your conclusion, your phrasing intrigues me ... "A simple reading..." Do you have in mind a non-simple reading (yeah, I know about Occam's razor) that also makes sense? LTM (who often heard things no one else heard) Paige Miller #2565 ************************************************************************ From Ric QZ5 can't be a hoaxer because his code signals are interfering with the signals suspected as being Earhart's. I emphasized "a simple reading" because no elaborate explanations or hypotheses are required. To explain the signals described as something other than distress calls from NR16020 requires byzantine conjecture for which there is no evidence. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:30:41 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: antenna > You too have gathered information > You too have formulated a hypothesis > How do you propose to test it? To RIc, Ah, you got me there. The only thing I can do is to throw it up to the Tighar Forum and hope that it will cause some debate and end up with some speck of credibility. But its a long hard road when your a " Crashed and Sank" guy trying to have equal time on the Tighar Forum. Cheers from Bill. ************************************************************************ From Ric I don't recall restricting your ability to explain your Crashed and Sank Theory on this forum. As for ending up with some speck of credibility - that's not up to me. ============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:40:47 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Forum Attitudes Don Neumann opted out of the Forum apparently feeling he was in the minority as a "dissenter". His characterization of himself with the implication that the Forum is only made up of two camps, dissenters and accepters, bothers me. I think progress is impeded when people start dividing everything into either-or camps - liberal/conservative, hawk/anti-war - whatever. I believe that dividing everything into for-or-against enemy camps is both simplistic and destructive. Regarding the Niku hypothesis I consider myself a healthy skeptic. I very much accept the approach TIGHAR is taking in trying to solve the mystery. However, I constantly question all the evidence turned up. I support TIGHAR because of their method of inquiry, not because I'm convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong. The only thing I'm convinced of is that TIGHAR's hypothesis will eventually be proven right or wrong with real evidence, and not with a bunch of strung together hypothetical theories. Personally, I hope this Forum doesn't ever turn into a them or us talk-show format. Intelligent debate among people willing to provide and accept reasonable evidence in the spirit of uncovering the truth is what I hope for. blue skies, jerry ************************************************************************ From Ric That is certainly my intention. The only way we're ever going to nail this thing is go wherever the evidence leads us. I agree with Jerry. We can't make it be where we want it to be by shouting down conflicting evidence, but at the same time we can't waste time entertaining badly conceived evidence out of some politically correct notion that all opinions are created equal. This is a tough, tough problem and we'll only solve it by being tough enough on ourselves to stay on course. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:41:51 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Women on the radio Thanks for the excellent post with the "who heard what, when" chronology. Really helped me get a handle on the post-loss message issue. The bit that leapt out at me was "it also seems safe to assume that hearing a woman's voice on the radio was an unusual occurrence in 1937". I have this stereotypical view of the sort of person who would perpetrate a deliberate hoax with other people's lives at stake. Of course, it's a young man with a slightly excessive interest in technology who probably does this sort of thing precisely because he's a bit isolated from female company, like your typical computer hacker today. In 2002 he's sending out viruses. In 1937 he'd be closeted with his radio transmitter. I'd bet female geeks were VERY thin on the ground in 1937. LTM Phil 2276 =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:47:17 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Stella Australis Re Charles Ulm and the Star of Australia flight: They departed Oakland airport on the way to Hawaii a little before 4pm (PST) on December 3, 1934. Interestingly, Earhart was on hand to see them off. The entire route was to be Honolulu to Fanning Island to Fiji to Auckland to Sydney. They had a three man crew, two pilots and a British merchant marine navigator. The airplane was an English A.S.6 Envoy from the Airspeed Company. Twin engine, retractable. The radio operated on 6675 and 500 kilohertz. They planned on sending radio messages 3 times an hour. They carried no life raft or life preservers, but did have "...12 pounds of rations, two gallons of drinking water, and a condenser with which fresh water may be distilled from salt." as emergency equipment. During the flight they made radio contact numerous times with various stations, including ships. However, the next morning at 10:45am (PST) they wired that they couldn't get their bearings ("We do not know whether we are north or south of the island."). After messages saying they had very little petrol left and were going into the water, they further sent, "We are turning into the wind." The last message (11:54am) sent just before ditching said, "Come and pick us up. The plane will float for two days." Most of the later messages appear to have been picked up by a Honolulu radio station, radio KYG, a Globe Wireless station. Army and Navy units (approximately 27 planes, 33 ships) undertook a massive search 300 miles in all directions around Hawaii. Even the Itasca was a participant. They were not heard from again, nor was any sign of wreckage ever found. No other messages purportedly from the aircraft were picked up by anyone. This information on the Ulm flight comes from the San Francisco and Oakland newspapers and the chapter on Ulm in Wings Across The Pacific. blue skies, jerry ************************************************************************ From Ric Very interesting. Thanks Jerry. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:48:24 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: Betty re NY, NY Angus, my thoughts on NY NY...If I heard New York City I would just put NY, because in those days, with all the tourist from NY York City in St. Pete.... we always just called it New York I wish I were able to explain it more, but through the years as I would re read my book, that is what I would remember about what was written there..Betty =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:56:02 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 'Betty's notebook, ...etal'... Ric wrote: > Anecdotes are anecdotes but the fact remains that the guy's HAM callsign > appears in Betty's notebook. Okay, WHY? This same fellow told his daughter, but apparently no one else, or else, very few people. Why is his ham call in Betty's notebook? She heard him, would be the likely answer. Forget her radio, antenna, signal path loss calculations to the South Pacific for a moment. Where did she hear him? On a multiple of 3105 or 6210? C'mon, radio experts. Ham HF radios produced in the last 10 years or so can be reprogrammed without too much difficulty to cover other bands. Ham transmitters of the 1930s were built to certain bands, such as 3.5-4, 7-7.3, 14-14.3, 28-30. This ham didn't just hear AE, he talked to her, he says. Betty says she heard him. Are we expected to believe Betty heard him transmitting outside of the ham bands? If so, did he have expectations beforehand of contacting AE ? Or, when he sat down that afternoon, did he decide to tune around the harmonic multiples of aircraft frequencies, instead of the ham bands. AE was also tuning around, and picked him up in the ham bands He picked her up outside the ham band, but transmitted in ham band? So they were "working in crossband mode" ? Readers, do you see any problem with this scene? Did this ham tell his daughter he "spoke with AE", or did he say he spoke with "AE" ? Is this the reason he didn't mention this event, which would have seemed to have been a major, major coup for this ham and for the whole hobby? Anyone else see a problem here? I didn't manufacture this problem for you. The interviewers report the ham callsign in Betty's notebook. And, we have mentioned the problem of a studio-like microphone in this live action scene, quite different from a microphone used for close-up work in a noisey aircraft cabin. So, again, why is this callsign in Betty's log? How does this fit with the ham's statement to his daughter? Not "it worked", somehow, "because Betty's account is true". Seems to me, there's glaring, obvious clues right here. Hue Miller *********************************************************************** From Ric I can't answer your questions but before we read too much into this let me post the actual quote as reported by Terry Linley in November 2000: "Actually, after our initial discussion, Nancy's housemate (another retired Marine), Smitty, remembered watching a television show on AE sometime between 1987 and 1992 (most likely Ric and TIGHAR) with Nancy's parents; when AE was mentioned, Nancy's Dad said "I talked to her; I wondered what happened". Nancy didn't hear the comment; Smitty dismissed it as an old man's ramblings...until now!" =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:57:07 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Carol's sword My goodness everyone, I don't think I'll ever live down the sword. It's a historic artifact (it's true), but the thing was too sharp to handle. It also has dents in the scabbard (however you spell it), and a friend of mine said, "oh no that makes it more authentic, it proves it's been used." The question is what was it used on? Met Tom King at the 99s dinner here. He is certainly a fine gentleman, and his lecture was very much up to date. Tighar is fortunate to have someone with his credentials. Tom mentioned to me what he is really looking for are the remains of any teeth. That would be the clincher. Carol Dow =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:03:33 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries In a post to you on 10-14-00, Mike E wrote that the modified 20B WE receiver could not receive KGMB'S signal on 1320 in 1937. The modification was done to allow AE to receive distress signals lower on the band. He gave a technical explanation. He does not cite the source of his information that the WE receiver was so modified. The orginal band had 550 to 1500, but modified to 485 to 1200, says Mike E. The signifance is obvious. If AE couldn't hear KGMB how did Betty hear that call sign on shortwave? Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric I agree. That would be a problem. More significantly, how could the very profound replies (dashes) to the KGMB broadcasts heard by so many stations be from Earhart if she could not have heard the requests? Moreover, why were the replies taken by Putnam and Mantz and others to be credible indications that Earhart was alive if they knew that she couldn't have heard the requests? =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:05:24 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Picking another nit . . . On the main research page (http://www.tighar.org//Projects/Earhart/AEdescr.html) all of the UNviewed links are in medium blue but once the links are viewed they become a very light yellow, which offers little or no contrast to the white background, thus making it difficult to identify the link for a subsequent viewing. Is this a peculiarity of my PC or do others also have the same problem? Is it possible to make the viewed links gray or some similar color that contrasts with the white background? Thanks. LTM, who is linked with the past Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Ric We can make 'em any color you want. Anybody else having a problem? =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:13:44 EST From: Jan Carver Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages I was in Hawaii in July of 99 & met AE's navigator (Noonan(sp))....relative. I think his name is Steve Noonan. He was at that time on the Johnson Atoll in the Pacific. We corresponsed by email for a while, but then he moved back East with his family. We didn't talk much about Amelia or his relative. But I thought it was very interesting to know someone that was actually related the the navigator on board...her lover??? Ms. Jan Carver ************************************************************************ From Ric We've come across many people who claim to be related to Fred (Noonan is a fairly common Irish name) but none of them has ever checked out as actually being a direct relative. From what we do know about Fred's family it seems fairly likely that there are no close relatives living, but everybody likes to have famous relations. (Did I ever tell you about my Uncle Dizzy?) As far as AE and Fred being romantically involved, I'd say the chances are about the same as them being captured by space aliens. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:35:19 EST From: Jan Carver Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages Just curious, why would you think it unlikely that Fred was AE's lover??? ********************************************************************* From Ric After 14 years of working on this puzzle I like to kid myself that I know a little bit about their respective personalities. I'll admit up front that I could be completely wrong but my impression from everything I've read - particularly the private letters that each of them wrote that have come to light - makes me think that each of them was genuinely committed to their respective spouses. AE's marriage to GP had worked out much better than she expected and they had formed a successful business partnership based upon real affection. Fred was a newlywed, having just divorced his first wife and married Mary Bea while the Electra was being repaired following the Luke Field wreck. I suspect he had been something of a rake during his last years at Pan Am but during the few months he was associated with AE he was head over heels in love. No, I don't think there is a snowball's chance that their relationship went beyond professional mutual respect - but I also think that respect was considerable. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:39:09 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries For a moment say AE was tuning or listening to KGMB and heard the request for dashes. As so many stations report, they heard four dashes as requested. You know radio, why wouldn't she have added additional info in code (carrier wave? )indicating she was in the Phoenix or wherever. Wouldn't it have taken just a few more seconds and a few more morse dashes to add that information?? I don't know. Ron B. ************************************************************************ From Ric Neither do I, but remember that neither AE nor FN knows morse code off the top of their head. If they're going to send a message in code they have to plan it out the same way you or I would have to. They've heard specific instructions and they're in no position to ad lib. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:42:49 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Women on the radio Phil Tanner wrote: >I'd bet female geeks were VERY thin on the ground in 1937. You could argue that Amelia was one. Dan TIGHAR#2263 ************************************************************************ From Ric I'd never argue that AE was a geek (somone absorbed in technology to the exclusion of social skills) - quite the contrary. Amelia's strengths were far more on the social side. It might be interesting to find out how many women held HAM licenses in 1937. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:46:17 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries > Early on in Tighars investigation, Mike E., the radio historian, posted that > AE's Western Electric 20B receiver would only tune to 1200 kz because the > tuning band had been modifed from 350-1500 to 485-1200 to cover the distress > signal frequencies. He affirmed that change in a second post and provided > technical details. Is this a typo? It appears that the original, unmodified radio covered a wider range than the modified version and included the emergency frequency of 500kc. (Which is still the emergency CW freq.) So why would any modification make sense since it was not necessary and actually limited the freq. range? gl ************************************************************************ From Randy Jacobson How was Earhart supposed to hear PanAm when approaching Honolulu on 2900 KCS or thereabouts? With only the RDF loop? If this info is correct, there was little in the way of capability of anyone using voice below 1200 KCS at the time, making that receiver useless for AE except for receiving morse code via the RDF system. I thought Earhart heard 7500 KCS from the Itasca via the loop antenna system. If so, what receiver was she using? Could Earhart hear KGMB via the loop system alone? Mike Everett or Bob Brandenburg: care to comment? ************************************************************************ From Ric Something is totally screwed up here. Mike, straighten us out. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:53:54 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Picking another nit . . . FWIW, the unviewed links on my PC are blue on a gray background, and change to red on a gray background when viewed. This sounds like a local preferences issue. LTM, Bob Brandenburg *********************************************************************** From Charles I agree about the contrast. FYI - try not to impose a particular color, or allow the user to choose their own theme. I won't go into my usual long rant about site authors imposing their will (artistic form) upon users. Good form with links is to allow the default color used by the browser, which is controllable by the user. If a color MUST be used, try to ensure contrast with the background. Take existing link color and ratchet down the brightness just a little to make it slightly different from the unvisited link color. -Charles Who contributed to the HTML recommendations on this subject as part of my job. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#style-color-contrast ************************************************************************ From Ric Pat tells me that it's a user preferences issue. She always designs with high contrast colors but it's always overridden by the user's browser. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:20:55 EST From: J. Chapel Subject: Re: Sending Morse As a youngster I had a friend, an old railroad telegrapher, long since dead, who could send code at a very high rate. I'd write out a message and send it to him on our practice keys and vice versa. Neither of us could ad lib, we always had to write out the message! I'm sure a few people could do it but it's very dificult. Think of it this way. You're on line in 'Instant Message Mode"- how fast do you get your thoughts out? Try it in Morse with a key! Put some fear, pain, etc with it and it's even worse. J. Chapel =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:37:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries > Neither do I, but remember that neither AE nor FN knows Morse code off the > top of their head. Ric, are we certain FN was poor in Morse? I think I've seen posts both ways. Next, I was looking at (heavens forbid) Flight Simulator last night and flew an Electra 10E from over Howland back toward the Gilbert's. It might be possible but because of fuel I wouldn't have tried it. The significant thing I noticed was to buy into the Kuria scenario they would have had to over fly two other islands, Abemama and Aranuka, which makes no sense to me unless there was a landing choice issue. Flight Sim would not answer that question. Finally, the thought struck me that with all the opposition the Niku theory has had from some folks and with all the alternative ideas that have been presented, no one has been able to show that the Niku theory is not possible nor has any one been able to show one single substantial reason why some other idea is best. Doesn't prove Niku but it would seem to me that if there are opposing views something more solid should be offered in support. It's easy to sit back and take pot shots at shoe parts, airplane parts, antennas, radios, anecdotal sightings of wreckage and the like but where are the little pieces of similar evidence for another theory? Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric Chater says: "On enquiry Miss Earhart and Captain Noonan advised that they entirely depended on radio telephone reception as neither of them were able to read morse at any speed but could recognise an individual letter sent several times. This point was again mentioned by both of them later when two different sets at Lae were used for listening in for time signals." This is in Lae. I don't know how you get more contemporaneous than that. People talk about what Noonan "must have" known but, as we've said many times, "must have" and "would have" simply mean "I don't know but my guess is....". LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:38:31 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries > I thought Earhart heard 7500 KCS Are we sure it was 7500 or could it be 750? Could there be a units question. Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric No. It's consistent in several messages. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:41:07 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Women on the radio Phil Tanner wrote: > The bit that > leapt out at me was "it also seems safe to assume that hearing a woman's > voice on the radio was an unusual occurrence in 1937". > > I have this stereotypical view of the sort of person who would perpetrate a > deliberate hoax with other people's lives at stake. Of course, it's a young > man with a slightly excessive interest in technology who probably does this > sort of thing precisely because he's a bit isolated from female company, like > your typical computer hacker today. In 2002 he's sending out viruses. In > 1937 he'd be closeted with his radio transmitter. I'd bet female geeks were > VERY thin on the ground in 1937. It is a good point about a woman's voice being rare on the radio. My problem with hoax theory, is what would there be to gain from the hoaxer standpoint? Bragging rights to his friends? Not to mention you had to have a girl to join the hoax. If you look at the hoaxes people tried on Putman, years later, they were always with some kind of monetary gain in view. With any kind of hoax, there is always a reason. (Even Hackers are looking for something, mostly kids looking for popularity among fellow hackers, or again some one looking for financial gain) What was the reason for the hoaxes? (If it was hoax?). I read a book on the Titanic, and there were radio messages the first day, that the Titanic was being tow to port, it was a theory that perhaps those messages were broadcast to get more time to reinsure the cargo onboard. Another question I have for Ric. If Betty did here AE on those Harmonic's, would they have been frequencies Ham operators could have had the crystals to broadcast on? Would Hams normally have been on those frequencies? Regards. Warren Lambing ************************************************************************ From Ric That's outside my pay grade. Mike? =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:10:56 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forum Attitudes Jerry Hamilton wrote: > Regarding > the Niku hypothesis I consider myself a healthy skeptic. I very much accept > the approach TIGHAR is taking in trying to solve the mystery. However, I > constantly question all the evidence turned up. Good post Jerry but I'm curious as to what specifically you are skeptical about and what specific question do you have of any individual piece of "evidence?" I can understand you have been given nothing to be absolute proof of anything and to hold your opinion in reserve but to be skeptical requires a specific reason to be so unless you are just generally skeptical of almost everything. As an example, let's take a specific artifact, the sheet of aircraft aluminum. What makes you skeptical that it came from AE's plane? Do you have reason to believe it came from a different plane or that it didn't come from a plane at all or it floated there? I understand the rivet holes have not been matched up with any known part of the Electra but I don't see that proves anything. I'm not trying to pick on you, Jerry. I'm trying to make a point that I started in another post. Just being skeptical isn't enough. There has to be an articulated reason or you won't get anyone's attention. I questioned the comment Noonan couldn't do Morse off the top of his head not because I know better or that I'm skeptical of that fact but because I thought I remembered reading that he used Morse code in his job with PANAM. I may have read more into that than I should have or missed something but Ric will quickly straighten me out. And so when you say you are skeptical I have ask of what and why. Alan *********************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. I can't help sticking my nose in here. I think that any reasonable person should have a skeptical attitude toward claims that could have important consequences. That approach is real basic (but, unfortunately, surprisingly rare). We all have a right and a duty to say, "Oh yeah? Show me the proof." When Jerry says he's skeptical I take him to mean that the evidence he has seen so far is not sufficient to convince him. That's fine. Everybody has their own threshold and no one can impose his or her own threshold on someone else. It's up to those who have already crossed their own threshold of credibility to come up with additional evidence that will convince others to follow their lead. Some will never follow (just ask Chuck Darwin) but you can't lose sleep over that. The important thing is to be open and honest about the evidence that is there. The danger is in people abrogating their right and duty to be skeptical and merely accepting the unsupported word of experts and authorities. We don't see much of that here on the forum, perhaps because the skeptical, show-me-the-proof approach is the essence of TIGHAR's Earhart Project. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:13:05 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: antenna Bill Shea writes > The only thing I can do is to throw it up to > the Tighar Forum and hope that it will cause some debate and end up with > some speck of credibility. No, Bill, that's not the only thing you can do. Anyone can toss ideas in the pot. But they are worthless without something specific behind them. We could suggest countless theories but that's a waste of time unless the theory has some kind of serious rationale and is pursuable. I don't know whether AE crashed and sank and if she did I don't know where. No one else knows either. The problem with that scenario is that there is not one shred of indication that happened. Nothing. Is it possible? Sure. But what do you do with the idea? There is no way to reasonably pursue it. Am I suggesting we ignore the whole possibility of crashed and sank. Absolutely. What else? You have nothing to offer on the idea and you want to toss the ball to the rest of us who also have nothing to offer on the theory. Why? Debate a totally untestable idea that has absolutely no rationale behind it? What could possibly come of that? Get your feet on the ground and go after the current theory or prove it wrong or that some other theory is correct. Debate won't get you there. There is plenty of factual stuff to deal with without throwing out insupportable possibilities. Alan =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:17:05 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages From Alan > Thus, I would conclude that the probability of these post-loss signals > being a hoax is very low. I hope everyone takes note of your well thought out posting, Paige. Whether some agree or disagree with your reasoning it is a heck of a good job explaining your position in an orderly and logical manner. This is exactly what I've been trying to get across to a few who have opposing views. The opposition is fine. We need to have ideas questioned but there needs to be good logical reasoning behind the criticism not just vague possibilities tossed out for debate. I'm having a problem arguing with your points and conclusion. Alan =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:30:21 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Call sign coincidence > McGill was investigated by the Coast Guard and it was > "DEFINITELY DETERMINED REPORT FALSE. VERIFY (sic) AND REPUTATION OF MAN > MAKING REPORT EXTREMELY DUBIOUS AFTER INVESTIGATION. It sure would be nice to know the complete report as to why the CG came to that conclusion. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric It sure would, but no formal reports of such investigations seem to have been filed, leaving the impression that the few investigations that were done were pretty casual. Today, in the aftermath of a tragedy - especially an aviation-related tragedy - there is always a comprehensive inquiry after the dust has settled, usually carried out by the National Transportation Safety Board. All the various reports of who did what are reviewed and compared and, eventually, there is an official report issued to support a finding of "probable cause". Nothing like that happened in the Earhart case, so we're left with a staggering array of disparate reports from the Coast Guard, the Navy, the Army, the Interior Department, the State Department, Pan American Airways, newspapers and wire services, and personal anecdotes. The story of what really happened is there but it has never been pulled together into a coherent narrative. That's what we're trying to do. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:33:43 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries AE said she received Miami radio station very nicely about a hundred miles out on WQAM. So what frequency was that AM station on. That might resolve the issue. RON ************************************************************************ From Ric Anybody know? =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:35:11 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Betty Interview > Although technically hearsay I understand what you mean Ron but the taped interview is not hearsay either technically or untechnically, if that's a word. It would easily come in as evidence in a hearing. Hearsay is the recitation of what another person said in order to prove a particular fact. For example, "John told me his brother was the thief." Can't be used to prove the brother was a thief. The notebook is not being used to prove anything other than that's what Betty wrote down. Her taped testimony is only to prove that's what she remembered and wrote down and how she felt. It is not to prove she heard AE. That's for us to decide. Did I misconstrue your statement? Alan =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:36:48 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Modified WE 20B receiver The WE receiver, as originally designed, tuned 550-1500 KHz on Band 2. It DID NOT cover 500 KHz as originally designed. The receiver was factory modified to cover the distress frequency of 500 KHz, by "fudging" the Band 2 tuning range downward. The new Band 2 range was 485-1200 KHz. The tuning range was obviously altered more at the high end than the low, losing 300 KHz at the top while the low end was changed by 65 KHz. There is a technical reason for this, as follows: This radio, like most others of the age, was capacitively tuned, that is, by using a multi-section (multi-gang) variable capacitor which varied the frequency of the 3 tuned elements: the radio-frequency amplifier stage, the "converter" or "mixer" stage, and the local oscillator. The shape of the plates in this variable capacitor resulted in the radio's tuning being varied in terms of "straight line wavelength." Wavelength decreases as frequency increases, but the rate of change is not the same; the frequency increases much faster than the wavelength decreases. Take a look at the AM radio dial on a manually-tuned car radio, or an older table radio. You'll see that the low end of the AM band is much more spread out than the upper. This is a holdover from the 1920s, when radio broadcasting stations were assigned their channels in terms of "wavelength" rather than exact frequencies in kilocycles (kilohertz). The WE 20B dial was set up in like fashion because the radio tuning circuit reflected a nonlinear calibration in terms of frequency... had it been calibrated in wavelenght instead (and it was NOT), the calibration would have been linear. That is, if the dial had been calibrated in METERS instead of KILOCYCLES or MEGACYCLES, the numbers would change in a straight line. However, the dial was laid out in such a way that the upper end of the tuning range on each band was "bunched" as the frequency increased, rather than having a constant spacing of calibration marks. So, if the low end of the band is lowered even further, you lose more of the top end. The bands on this radio, as designed, were (1) 150-420 KHz for aviation beacon, weather, control towers, which it would have been undesirable to change; (2) 550-1500 KHz, standard AM broadcast; (3) 1500-4000 KHz; (4) 4000-10000 KHz. Note, there was a gap, as designed, between 420-550 KHz. (By the way, the intermediate frequency of the receiver was 96 KHz, in case someone wondered....) The easiest and least intrusive way to modify the radio was to fudge Band 2 down; not to fudge Band 1 upward because too much of the beacon band would be lost. Note this well: If AE was listening to KGMB on 1320 KHz or thereabouts after she was down, as one post-loss scenario implies, I highly doubt she was doing it on the WE receiver... it would no longer tune that high, as modified. Looks to me, as if she must have had another set of ears....? Whether that means she had a second receiver, or that the WE radio had been replaced by another type, is still open to question. LTM (who hears EVERYTHING) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************ From Ric But how do we know that Earhart's receiver was modified at all? Where does it say that? Why would she need to receive on 500 Khz anyway? That was the international distress frequency and I can see why she'd want to be able to transmit on it, but why receive? The message traffic seems to indicate that if the receiver was modified as you say, nobody seems to have known it. On June 11, 1937, Coast guard San Francisco Division advised ITASCA: NO PLANE SCHEDULES HAVE BEEN ARRANGED WITH THIS DIVISION. ON PREVIOUS TRIP PLANE WAS EQUIPPED WITH 50 WATT TRANSMITTER FOR OPERATION ON 500, 3105 AND 6210 KILOCYCLES WITH RECEIVER COVERING ALL FREQUENCIES AND DIRECTION FINDER COVERING 200 TO 1500 KILOCYCLES. ALL TRANSMISSIONS WERE BY KEY ALTHOUGH THE TRANSMITTER MAY BE USED FOR VOICE. WILL ADVISE ALL DETAILS POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN WHEN RECEIVED FROM HEADQUARTERS. ALL PREVIOUS PLANE COMMUNICATIONS WERE HANDLED BY PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS WITH PLANE WORKING ON 3105 AND PAN AMERICAN ON 2986 KILOCYCLES. The next day, June 12, San Francisco had this word about Earhart's intended schedule and use of her radios: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM MIAMI AIR STATION, "WHEN AMELIA EARHART TOOK OFF FROM MIAMI SHE STATED SHE WOULD NOT TRY TO COMMUNICATE WITH ANY RADIO STATION BUT WOULD BROADCAST HER POSITION EVERY 15 AND 45 MINUTES PAST EACH HOUR ON 6210 KCS. SHE ALSO TRANSMITS ON 3105 KCS. SHE STATED THAT HER RECEIVER WILL BE USED MOST OF THE TIME TAKING RADIO BEARINGS". On June 25, San Francisco advised ITASCA: MR PUTNAM NOW AT OAKLAND AND ADVISE MISS EARHART AT BANDOENG JAVA FOR REPAIRS TO MOTORS AND DEPARTURE INDEFINITE. SHE WILL CABLE DETAILS COMMUNICATIONS FROM PORT DARWIN DIRECT SANFRANCISCO AND YOU WILL BE GIVEN ALL INFORMATION IMMEDIATELY. ALL COMMUNICATIONS FROM PLANE TO BE ON 500, 3105 OR 6210 KILOCYCLES BY VOICE POSITIONS BEING GIVEN AT 15 AND 45 MINUTES PAST THE HOUR. ITASCA ADJUST TRANSMITTER FOR POSSIBLE USE ON 3105 KILOCYCLES FOR VOICE. DIRECTION FINDER ON PLANE COVERS RANGE FROM ABOUT 200 TO 1400 KILOCYCLES. On June 26 Earhart was still in Bandoeng, Java and sent the following to Richard Black, the Interior Dept. represntative aboard the ITASCA: SUGGEST ONTARIO STANDBY ON 400 KCS TO TRANSMIT LETTER N FIVE MINUTES ON REQUEST, WITH STATION CALL LETTER REPEATED TWICE END EVERY MINUTE. SWAN TRANSMIT VOICE 9 MEGACYCLES OR IF I UNABLE RECEIVE BE READY ON 900 KCS. ITASCA TRANSMIT LETTER A, POSITION, OWN CALL LETTERS AS ABOVE ON HALF HOUR 7.5 MEGACYCLES. POSITION (of) SHIPS AND OUR LEAVING WILL DETERMINE BROADCAST TIMES SPECIFICALLY. IF FREQUENCIES MENTIONED UNSUITABLE (for) NIGHT WORK INFORM ME LAE. I WILL GIVE LONG CALL BY VOICE (on) 3105 KCS (at) QUARTER AFTER HOUR (and) POSSIBLY QUARTER TO: EARHART The same day San Francisco sent this information to ITASCA: FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM EARHART THIS DATE, "HOMING DEVICE COVERS FROM 200 TO 1500 AND 2400 TO 48 KILOCYCLES. ANY FREQUENCIES NOT REPEAT NOT NEAR ENDS OF BANDS SUITABLE" That's the last information that went out about the receiver's capabilities. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:43:26 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Documentation of Radio Receiver Mods I do stand by my earlier statements re the receiver mods. I do'nt have the sources/books in front of me (they are in a University library) but both are cited in my Project Book article's bibliography... One is a 1937 text which has articles on the equipment as designed. I think the one which documents the receiver modifications was published in 1939 and is authored by Morgan. It definitely states the tuning range alterations for Band 2 of the receiver. Seems that the mods to AE's radio equipment (receiver and transmitter) may have been the prototype for later versions of these units, offered by Western Electric either off the shelf or (more Likely) special order. 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************ From Ric 1939? I think that in light of the message traffic cited in my earlieir posting we'd have to have much better evidence that Earhart's receiver was modified. Something like a contemporaneous letter or work order. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:47:15 EST From: Jerry Jurenka Subject: Leaving Lae with Survival Gear It never ceases to amaze me how you manage to keep up with the Forum so ably. I don't get to follow it as faithfully as I would like but really appreciated the chronology of the official messages and Itasca's radio logs. Most of my faith in the TIGHAR theory is based on the radio calls and I know there has been a lot of discussion lately but I haven't been able to read it so this really helps. As for what AE had onboard at takeoff at Lae, my opinion is that she had absolutely nothing unessential and that includes survival gear since I don't think she had admitted to herself that she might need any. I cannot substantiate but somewhere along the line I heard or read that she wore a good luck bracelet made of elephant hair which was very light. As part of her purging at Lae, she mailed it home to lighten the load even that much. If that is true and since we know all us pilots are superstitious and like our good luck charms, she probably did other housecleaning as well. Do you have information that tells what Putnam received from her during the trip? Best wishes to you and all the Forum for a happy holiday season. LTM(who probably was not superstitious but would have kept the bracelet anyway), Jerry Anne Jurenka #772E *********************************************************************** From Ric Much of the paper that was sent to home to Putnam during the trip ended up at Purdue. I don't know if other stuff did too. I know there is a pair of broken sunglasses in the collection but I'm not sure why. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:00:12 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries So, let me make sure that I understand this. Earhart is desperately trying to stay alive so she needs to save battery power and fuel to be able to run her radio and signal for help. BUT, she takes time out to listen to the soft mood music of ukuleles from Hawaii (was Arthur Godfrey on back then?) on KGMB? (And she just happens to tune to that station instead of other stations that weren't requesting four dashes. And she has battery power and fuel to waste.) She then hears them request that she send four dashes and slaps herself on the head and says to herself, "now why didn't I think of that?" She then fires up her transmitter on 3105 or 6210 and sends just four dashes. Why not add "QTH Phoenix Islands" or what ever island group she thinks she is on? Even if she and Noonan were not proficient with code they had plenty of time to write it out long hand and then "follow the bouncing ball" to send it (i.e. --.- - .... --. .- .-. -.. -. . .-. ) and send it out by keying the transmitter (if that was even possible) the same way she sent the four dashes. And what is wrong with "SOS DE KHAQQ" in morse, again written out if necessary. I would expect Noonan to have had enough contact with cw radio procedures to be aware of the "Q" code for these types of messages and for asking for radio bearings when they were approaching Howland. QTE? (--.- - . ..--..) was all he had to know how to send in order to request a true bearing from Itasca, not a whole lot of morse to know. I guess I must just be confused. gl (p.s. For you pilot types out there, it is from the "Q" code (which consisted of three letter groups each starting with the letter "Q") where the abbreviations of QNE for normal atmospheric pressure and QNH for airport altimeter setting come from. A pilot would request an altimeter setting by sending QNH? in morse.) gl ************************************************************************ From Ric KGMB was a powerful commercial station in Honolulu. It may well be that she was planning to use it to help home in on Oahu on the next leg. In any event, it's not at all surprising that she would have the frequency written down and I don't find it hard to believe that she tuned in KGMB to see if she could find out any news about the search for her - which she had to know was going on. Incidentally, KGMB was not the only commercial station trying to contact her. KGU in Honolulu also tried. Here are the instructions KGMB sent: "To the Earhart plane. We are using every means to establish communication with you. If you hear this broadcast please come in on 3105 kilocycles. Use key of possible, otherwise voice. If you hear this broadcast turn your carrier signal on one minute so we can tune you in, then turn your carrier signal on and off four times. Then listen for our acknowledgement." It's a pity that she didn't do what you would have done, or if she did, that no one heard her. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:01:17 EST From: Tom King Subject: Carol is real I'm happy to certify to Forum members that I have met Carol Dow and found that she is in fact neither Ric Gillespie himself nor a figment of his imagination. LTM, who appreciates a good sport Tom =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:02:04 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Picking another nit - How To Set PC Colors Dennis, here are the instructions how to override the default web link colors: Open your Control Panel Open the Internet Options On the bottom of the General Tab, click on Accessibility Under "Formatting" check the box that directs your PC to "Ignore Colors Specified On Web Pages" Your links will then become the colors you specify in the "Colors" button on the General Tab Good choices are bright red for "visited" and bright blue for "unvisited" LTM, Suzanne =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:03:44 EST From: Jan Carver Subject: Re: post-loss messages >No, I don't think there is a snowball's chance that their relationship went >beyond professional mutual respect - but I also think that respect was >considerable. Hopefully you are correct. It would be a compliment to the both of them. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:14:22 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Women on the radio Warren Lambing wrote: > ... My > problem with hoax theory, is what would there be to gain from the hoaxer > standpoint? ... We really need two categories for sorting things out, I think. 1. Hoaxes: deliberate misinformation fed by a ham geek or by liars pretending to be geeks. People do horrible things with radios. I do not understand their motives. I speculate that vandals get pleasure out of the knowledge that they're causing people problems. Here's an example of a fake distress call that may have cost two people their lives: 2. Misinterpretations: accidental identification of something really heard on the air: A. From hoaxers. B. From unrelated, innocent transmissions. C. From AE & FN. If, in fact, AE & FN crashed and sank, then all the post-loss transmissions must be explained by 1, 2A, and 2B. If they landed somewhere, then 2C comes into play as a possibility. Marty #2359 =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:15:28 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Sending Morse J, The trick is, you have to "think" in code, just like conversing in a foreign language. I can assure you, the thousands of HAMS who prefer to use morse code do NOT write out their messages first. With the aid of electronic keyers, 60 wpm is not uncommon. That's just about as fast as you can talk. They routinely carry on ad lib conversations in code. 73s Kerry Tiller (ex-WN2IVM and WB7SIQ) =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:17:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forum Attitudes > I think that any reasonable person should have a skeptical attitude toward > claims that could have important consequences. That approach is real basic > (but, unfortunately, surprisingly rare). We all have a right and a duty to > say, "Oh yeah? Show me the proof." I agree. If the evidence is not solid everyone should be cautious and strive for more. I also agree that if someone offers facts, conclusions or even theories without support we sould all respond with "show me the proof." Not doing that is part of what got Cam in trouble. That said I don't back off my original point. It is simple to sit back and shoot at ideas. Anyone can do that. However I contend that right also carries the obligation to offer support for the skepticism or opposition. To simply say one is skeptical doesn't get any where. To "toss ideas out for debate" is equally lacking. Along with that tossed out idea needs to be some kind of rationale. Anyone can say "What do you guys think about AE going NE instead and ditching by an uncharted reef ?" That would be nonsensical without some rationale to believe that might have occured. We all need to be skeptical and look at all offered possibilities but not without similarly offered reasoning. I can sit back and offer more ideas, possibilities and theories that you think possible but I can't give you any reason to consider any of them other than the one theory we are currently pursuing =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:25:22 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: antenna Thanks for the reply, Alan. I hear what you say but I have not seen any evidence what so ever that Earhart landed at Gardner Island. Hopefully, Tighar will proove it, or maybe somone will search and find the Electra 10E down deep somewhere. The reason I mentioned about throwing it up to the Forum is because as a new member here, I can only drag up theories that you have gone over and over before. I was hoping that any debate on my theory would get someone to agree or disagree with me. Your reply means that it works - And I learn from it. No one seems to agree with my theory that they first flew southward to avoid bad weather, then turned on a northern offset track. We have Earhart herself giving two positons back to Lae showing this is what they did. This takes them to about half of the flight. My question is that Tighar does not seem to recognize this as proof. Why is this so? To me this is proof that they at least ended up flying half of the flight on a northern offset track. Then we have a plane sighted from the SS Murtlebank (aproximately at the right time). Even, Ric, agreed with me that IF the Murtleband, indeed, saw a plane fly over, then one can assume it would be Earhart. This is not my proof but it falls right on the same track. From this point I see NO evidence that they continued straight or turned back toward a southern route to Howland and have to postulate what route they flew. Maybe both Tighar and I am right. first flying on a northern track, then flying on a southern track to Gardner, but this does not make any sense. I guess I have been thinking of this Forum as the Amelia Earhart Forum, but maybe it is more of an Amelia Earhart on Gardner Island Forum? Cheers from Bill (who will stop boring you Gardner Island guys with my theory until I can find more proof as instructed.) ************************************************************************ From Ric Everyone is supposed to get a "welcome message' when they first sign on to the forum. It says, in part: "Our purpose here is to promote an intelligent and productive discussion of the Earhart disappearance. Specifically, we want to further our investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island (now known as Nikumaroro) in the Phoenix Group. We will not discuss conspiracy theories on this forum, nor will we debate whether the airplane crashed at sea near Howland. We feel that we have already established a strong probability that the flight arrived in the vicinity of Howland Island pretty much on schedule and, as of the last officially received radio transmission, had adequate remaining fuel to reach Gardner Island. The question is, did it? "Likewise, we will not discuss Earhart's personality, previous record-setting flights, love life, place in history, etc. unless it directly pertains to the discovery, verification, or disqualification of evidence relating to her disappearance. "Prior to posting messages to the forum, subscribers are urged to familiarize themselves with the evidence described on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org "We recognize that this forum is not for every Earhart enthusiast. Some may find us unsuitably irreverent or excessively scientific in our approach. But if you're interested in hard answers instead of idle speculation, we think you'll enjoy what happens here." =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:29:12 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Call sign coincidence I had a thought the other night while watching John Cameron's show on the Bismark. An animated version of how they think the Bismark came apart as it sunk to the bottom was very interesting. I think it would be very interesting if someone could create a similar version of the Niku hypothesis. For example, landing on the reef--surf action sweeping the plane over the reef and and sliding down to the ocean bottom. This would probably be very expensive but I thought it might be interesting if someone wanted to do it and had the time and resources. I think it would be very salable. I've seen other versions of this type of animation of James Dean's fatal car crash and of Ricky Nelson's plane crash. Again, it is probably wishful thinking, but I think it would be fascinating. Oh well. LTM (who can be a dreamer sometimes) Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric The trouble with animated recreations of historical events is that people tend to forget that they're purely hypothetical and might be completely wrong. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:02:47 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Forum Attitudes > ... The danger is in people abrogating their right and duty to be skeptical > and merely accepting the unsupported word of experts and authorities. We > don't see much of that here on the forum, perhaps because the skeptical, > show-me-the-proof approach is the essence of TIGHAR's Earhart Project. "Virtue is the mean between extremes" (Aristotle, Kung fu Tzu, aka Confucius, the Buddha). It's possible to exercise unreasonable doubt. Science makes progress because scientists do NOT duplicate each other's efforts unless there is good reason to do so. They tackle new questions for the most part. It's possible to exercise unreasonable trust. Even good people with lots of credentials can fall prey to "garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO). I do not intend to duplicate TIGHAR's trips to Niku so that I can see the place for myself. I do not intend to stand guard over Niku so that no one can salt it with counterfeit artifacts. I take TIGHAR's word about what it has found so far, and if any future expedition turns up better evidence, I plan to take the word of the team that they found the items where and as they tell me that they found them. Life is too short and resources too limited for me to "doubt everything" and everybody allthe time. There is a time to doubt and a time to trust. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric >There is a time to doubt and a time to trust. Agreed. The trick is knowing what time it is. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:43:15 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Call sign coincidence If one compares the two messages by Charles Miguel (says the NY Times) with the Wailupe msg heard by three operators in fragments, they are remarkably similiar and have the same phrases and words for the most part. Miguel was in Oakland. I would have thought the Coast Guard wouldn't have blown off his reception as it CONFIRMS the 281 message was received in two places. He may have been nuts, but nuts can hear messages too. Miguels 281 msg is in the New York Times and we all have the USN 281 mgs. LTM, Ron B. ************************************************************************ From Ric Don't believe everything you read in the papers - even the NY times. The original Coast Guard sources show that the man's name was McGill, not Miguel (bad phone line to New York). He was Charles McGill, HAM call letters W6CHI, and the Coast Guard didn't blow him off. They checked him out (which they did not do with most of the other reported receptions). Wailupe had heard a fragmented message in badly keyed code between 1 and 2 o'clock on the orning (local time in Honolulu) of July 5th. The word went out to ITASCA about 45 minutes later. By July 6th the New York Herald Tribune was carrying a banner headline: "Earhart Flares Believed Sighted By Cutter Racing To '281 North Howland'..." McGill claimed to have heard a complete message in intelligible voice at 6:35 p.m. on July 6th. Nobody in the search area heard anything at that time. Even without checking his reputation it's not hard to see why the Coast Guard didn't buy it. Of all the post-loss reports, this one is the only obvious hoax. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:44:18 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The Betty Interview I meant that Ric's written summary of the Betty's interview is hearsay. But in my opinion, good enough for our purposes. REB ********************************************************************** From Ric Good enough for your purposes. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:48:20 EST From: Rich Young Subject: Hoax not necessary for P/L msgs NOT to be AE To Paige Miller and all other concerned forumites - A deliberate hoaxer is not necessary in order for all, or almost all, so-called "Post-Loss", (more correctly, Electra Down), to NOT be Amelia Earhart. I work in a military simulations center, and we simulate radio traffic with interconnected telephones, (higher clarity than the real thing), and you would be AMAZED at hown many times messages are garbled, mis-attributed, grid co-ordinates switched, etc. Picture this scenario - someone, lets say call sign WXXX sends a signal in voice, "WXXX for KHAQ, please transmit 4 long dashes on 3105". Some other station, WZZZ for example, straining to hear anthything from or about the Electra, partially hears the message as "...KHAQ.....send 4 ....dashes......3105" and replies in code "WZZZ - * * - ** - ** - ** - WZZZ QSL, whoch in turn is partially received by WXXX as....rough signal, four long dashes. You now have two people lead-pipe CONVINCED they have "spoken" with Amelia, and who knows how many others have "heard" her answer a message, when she MAY very well aleady be "sleepin' wid da fishes". Unfortunately, an Electra Down mesage grid, while useful, is unconclusive without a simultaneous log of Earhart related transmissions by other parties on appropriate frequencies and harmonics, probably an impossible task at this date. LTM (who knows not to attribute to malice what blind happenstance canaccount for) Rich Young ************************************************************************ From Ric First of all I'd like to hear why "Electra Down" is more correct than "Post-Loss". I chose the term "Post-Loss" because it makes the fewest possible assumptions. It's a term from my former career in aviation accident investigation and merely means events occurring after the time of the loss. Secondly, your point about messages being easily misunderstood is well taken, but it is largely irrelevant to most of the reported post-loss receptions. Of the 40 receptions heard by professional stations within 1,000 miles of Howland Island, only 3 contained intelligible voice (two on Howland, one on Baker); 22 contained unintelligible voice; 5 contained dashes; and the other 10 were only carrier waves. In most cases, stations farther away heard nothing or, if anything, a weaker signal at the same moment. To attribute these transmissions to misunderstandings there has to be a transmission to misunderstand. Within that area only ITASCA was authorized (and, as far as we know, had the capability) to transmit to Earhart on the aviation frequencies and 25 of the 40 receptions were heard by ITASCA. If you want to postulate that there was somebody else within 1,000 miles of Howland sending voice on 3105 I'd be interested to know who that might be. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:55:19 EST From: Rich Young Subject: Re: Carol's sword Relax everyone - I can almost guarantee you Carol's sword is NOT a "Samurai" sword, more correctly known as a katana. The metal scabbard is the first clue - if Carol will inspect the artifact, she should find an engraved chrysanthemum, (symbol of the Emperor) on either the scabbard, the sword, or both. This would indicate that it is simply a Japanese Army issue sword - issued to officers, NCOs, and under some conditions, to regular troops. A real katana would be far too valuable and precious to a family to be sent to war with eldest son, although occasionally a less valuable "junk" sword was known to have been carried by sine young officers in lieu of the Army issue sword, as a "good luck" piece. As to what the swords were used for, the eyewitness accounts leave no doubt - the swords were used for banzai charges, torturing and beheading prisoners, torturing and beheading civilians, and "persuading" otherwise unwilling women to "maintain the moral" of the Emperor's troops. Some officers actually had contests among themselves as to how many civilians they could decapitate in a given time, as documented in the excellent book, "The Rape Of Nanking". For some reason, the atrocities committed by Japan have never received the publicity that the Nazi Holocaust has, although their war-time behavior could certainly lead one to NOT discredit any Japanese culpability in AE's disappearance out of hand. (Not saying I agree...but I UNDERSTAND.) LTM (who keeps her cutlery razor sharp and her powder, (all three kinds) dry) Rich Young ************************************************************************ From Ric You're correct that there seems to be little doubt that understandable outrage and less understandable racism underlies much of the wartime and post-war attempts to attribute the Earhart disappearance to the Japanese. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:02:33 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Ballard and fuel I was pleased to see Robert Ballard's accolades for the AE "Shoes" book. His endorsement, if you will, of this book is something that entitles TIGHAR to "bragging rights", and adds to TIGHAR's credibility. It seems to me that Ballard would be a good man to enlist to sweep Niku's reefs and lagoon, in search of the wreckage. Is this perhaps a possibility? Additionally, I understand that supporters of "crashed and sank" (particularly Long) want to believe that AE lacked fuel to get to Niku. Perhaps I missed something, but couldn't AE's "gas mileage" be further supported by reviewing data from all of her previous flights? Or has this been done, and I missed it? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE ************************************************************************ From Ric TIGHAR has no relationship with Dr. Ballard and, frankly, we have been very disappointed in his recent exploits with National Geographic. He has said that he has no interest in searching for Earhart and that's fine with us. An in-depth review of the fuel situation will be part of our upcoming special Report to the TIGHAR membership. ============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:05:00 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Skepticism The intent of my post was not to raise specific questions about any part of the Niku hypothesis. It was to discourage a practise (lumping people or points of view into either/or enemy camps and hurling insults) I believe gets in the way of intelligent discourse and truth discovery. And it was to encourage another practise summed up in the last sentence, "Intelligent debate among people willing to provide and accept reasonable evidence in the spirit of uncovering the truth is what I hope for." Ric's comment ("The danger is in people abrogating their right and duty to be skeptical and merely accepting the unsupported word of experts and authorities.") was spot on regarding my personal, overall, attitudinal approach regarding the Earhart mystery. blue skies, jerry =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:08:48 EST From: Lawrence Subject: 3-D animation 3-D animation certainly has it's place. With the James Dean crash there were many known factors to work with, plus physical evidence, point of impact, point of rest, vehicle debris (window glass, paint chips, dirt cakes, metal parts). You even had two surviving witnesses to validate the evidence. Don't forget the tell all skid marks. Same is true with the Titanic, witness accounts of the ship breaking in half before sinking, the debris field on the ocean bottom, photographs of the damage done to both sections of the ship. Many questions were answered after the fact. However, the Gardner landing is a lot different. Certainly an animation of the landing and later break up of the Electra would be interesting to view, but it would prove nothing. Unless you can find debris of the Electra on Gardner atoll, the animation would be a waist of time at this point (my opinion). ************************************************************************ From Ric And then you have the nonsense like the animation Nat'l Geo did on the PT-109 show. >Unless you can find debris of the Electra on Gardner atoll, the animation >would be a waist of time at this point. Let's put it this way. If we did an animation now we'd probably have to change it when we find the debris. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:09:39 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Overriding the defaults . . . To Suzanne Astorino: Thanks for the tip on re setting the defaults; it worked perfectly! That was NSFB! (Nothin' Short of Freaking Brilliant!) LTM, who excites easily Dennis O. McGee #0149EC =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:55:35 EST From: Charles Subject: Re: Overriding the defaults . . . FYI, I designed and implemented that feature of Internet Explorer in 1997. Glad to see it's useful to you. -Charles =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:57:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: WQAM frequency in 1937 > Also, a little off-topic, but isn't KGMB the station the Japanese used to > home in on Pearl Harbor? I don't know whether the Japanese used KGMB to home in on Pearl Harbor or not. I can tell you the Japanese pilot who led the formation in talked to us at the University in 1951 or 52 and told us he used a Hawaiian radio station to get the local weather so he could decide whether he could come in low over the harbor as he preferred or whether he had to come in high across from the opposite side. He said "mountains" but I hesitate to call them such. He did not mention the necessity of homing in. Alan =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:16:10 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Betty Interview The chauvinism comment was a joke of course. The guys greatly outnumber our gracious distaff side so there is no game but this IS a good way to show support for the team without committing to one theory or another. The opportunity of LISTENING to Betty seems to me to be a rare opportunity for a window to the past. Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric Those who choose to get the tape may get a little more than they expected. At the end of the interview something totally unexpected and very moving happened. After we had finished talking about the notebook we were just chatting and talking about what the airplane looked like. I was showing Betty a photo in Goerner's book when she focused on another photo of AE and Fred and got real quiet. Then she said, " You know...I can still hear them." and the tears came. Someone asked how I know that the experince had an emotional impact on Betty. It's right there on the tape. There's an interesting sequel to that incident. Months later, Betty called me about something else but mentioned, quite concerned, " I don't understand it, but now when I read the words that I wrote in my book I can't hear them anymore." I told her that, although I'm certainly no psychologist, I think that it's because she no longer has to carry that burden by herself. She finally found people who would listen. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:23:56 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Call sign coincidence Re: McGill, Amateur Ham The New York Times failed to report that McGill claims he heard voice not code, and the time. Since he had time to read the msg, no wonder his"reception" was almost the same wording as the USN. He did add a few of his own words, " very wet" ! Thanks, Ron B. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:43:45 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Hoax Hypothesis again... I would like to flog the "Hoax Hypothesis" from one more angle. Note, i am directing this at only a couple specific distress messages overhead by NA radio fans. In 1941 there was a fellow in Illinois, i believe it was, broadcasting on shortwave, crude Nazi propaganda and dire threats about what would happen to certain people once Germany took over the USA. This incident was a subject of an article a few years back in Popular Communications. But the story would likely not have survived, to be recounted in Pop Com, here, or anywhere else, except for one thing - the story made QST, the official magazine of the ham radio organization ARRL. And why did it make it into QST magazine, and (apparently) not any of the radio listening hobby magazines? Because QST published a column castigating the Illinois hams from that area, for not reporting the hoax broadcaster to the FCC or other enforcement organization. And why did the Illinois hams who heard this malarky on the air, and sometimes talked with or argued with the hoaxer, on the air, and not just a couple times, not report it to anyone? Apparently because it might give the ham radio hobby a black eye, if it hit any kind of news media. ( The FCC eventually became aware of the broadcasts, tracked down the perpetrator, and arrested him.) To summarize: i am suggesting that if this particular ham and other hams in his Florida locale heard some "distress broadcast" that sounded really fishy, their response would be to not pass it on or publicize it. I am suggesting that IF the communications heard in Florida was a hoax, its suspect nature would have discouraged other radio hams, and this includes the one who said he talked with AE, from going anywhere or any further with talk about this incident. Which is what seems to have happened. In the past, i asked why such a broadcast as heard by Betty wouldn't be more widely heard, why it wouldn't be reported in the radio hobby magazines, in QST magazine, and why the ham radio world wouldn't be in a uproar over such a rare and near-miraculous communication. I think the reaction displayed by radio hobbyists four years later in this other case, may be a clue why so. Hue Miller *********************************************************************** From Ric Of the 41 receptions reported by non-professionals, 31 were reported by HAMs and only 10 by shortwave listeners (like Betty). All of the shortwave receptions were heard at different times but there were a couple of incidents where several HAMs reported hearing signals at the same time. I don't know any way to determine how many people, HAM or otherwise, heard signals that they did not report for whatever reason (desire to protect fellow HAMs or fear of ridicule or just not wanting to get involved) but I do know that absence of evidence is not proof of a cover-up. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:56:31 EST From: Ed Croft Subject: Re: Forum Attitudes Alan, Though your response was to Jerry, I have to pipe up as well. You see, I am a healthy (at least I'd like to think I am) skeptic, as well. I support (am a member) and appreciate the approach TIGHAR is taking to solving the mystery. I would vote that the weight of the evidence tips the scales currently to a landing at Niku vs a crash and sank. But I am too not totally convinced that Earhart landed on Nikumaroro. All a skeptic means is that you have doubts. >I understand the rivet holes have not >been matched up with any known part of the Electra but I don't see that >proves anything. I have to assume that the remark was made in jest when it is offered as evidence that one can not be skeptical about. It very well may be a patch to the Electra, but you know what Johnny Cochran would say. :) I consider Artifact 2-3-V-2, the Plexiglas, to be more convincing. What makes me believe are: the bones, the box with stenciled numbers and containing what was probably inverting eyepiece, Artifact 2-3-V-2, and what I am eagerly awaiting, the post-loss messages summary. I would have included the sole to the shoe, but Ric has discounted it, so I will as well. Argument against: - Big ocean, small island(assuming they were headed down the 157 line). They already missed one island - No messages after switching frequencies. - overflight of Niku by Lambrecht and no plane or persons found - 4 trips by TIGHAR to Niku without finding the smoking gun. Understand, I'm think that Ric and company are doing a great job and believe that it is likely that they made it to Niku, but I need more evidence. Hell, if I had 2 million, I donate the 400K to get the next trip underway now. The post-loss message summary due Jan 15 may push me over the edge. The Hooven report blew me away with the map of the Pan-American bearings. But I understand from Ric that some of the data is incorrect. Example of specific skepticism of evidence: Anecdotal evidence from Niku settlers(including Emily Sikuli) about seeing airplane parts. Would native islanders who had limited exposure to airplanes when they arrived on the island be able to discern the difference between an airplane part and a part of the Norwich City ? Per the website, the piece of unknown material in the early photographs that lay where Emily pointed to was part of the Norwich City. Also, what shape would any piece of the plane be in after being pounded by the winter storms ? One question(for Ric): There is on the website, http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Highlights101_120/highlights105.html#2, a posting discounting the 281 message. Excerpt below: The bottom line is that the signal strength, and thus the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), at Wailupe for a signal from Gardner Island was so far below the detection threshold that there is no plausible hypothesis that would explain the "281" message having originated at Gardner Island. Has that analysis been discarded ? Plus, put me down for an edited version of the Betty interview (as long as it's a lot less than 400K) Ed Croft #2523 *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ed. Yes, 25 bucks is a lot less than 400K. That's 17 and still counting. I'm sure Bob will reply to you query about the 281 message. As for how a Gilbertese colonist would recognize airplane debris - that has bothered us too. We do know that they had seen aircraft. In April 1939, the seaplane tender USS Pelican visited Gardner and it's Grumman J2F "Duck" had taken an aerial photo mosaic of the island. Emily told us of seeing her first airplane in 1938 when a Supermarine "Walrus" from a British cruiser had landed at Funafuti. Aluminum airplane wreckage looks very different from the massive rust-covered wreckage from the Norwich City but it still seems like the colonists would need to see something like a propeller or a wing to identify it as an airplane. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:58:57 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Women on the radio Phil Tanner wrote: > I have this stereotypical view of the sort of person who would perpetrate a > deliberate hoax with other people's lives at stake. Of course, it's a young > man with a slightly excessive interest in technology who probably does this > sort of thing precisely because he's a bit isolated from female company, like > your typical computer hacker today. In 2002 he's sending out viruses. In > 1937 he'd be closeted with his radio transmitter. I'd bet female geeks were > VERY thin on the ground in 1937. Radio hobby magazines not infrequently report on cases of jamming of emergency or distress communications. That around the world flight a few years back, with an aircraft built out of synthetic materials (sorry, can't recall term for materials or name of craft right now), its communications to ground stations were jammed also, even though the working frequencies were not publicized. So the troublemakers are still out there, willing and eager, altho with HF radio technology and hobby both being somewhat passe, more people good and bad are working in other technology now. Hue Miller ************************************************************************ From Ric There were no reported incidents of intentional jamming of suspected post-loss transmissions. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:10:24 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Post-Loss Messages Ric says "To explain the signals described as something other than distress calls from NR16020 requires byzantine conjecture for which there is no evidence." I agree, although you express the conclusion more elegantly than I would. That makes me look forward even more to the full report on the post-loss messages (and also makes me wonder how the "Splashed-and-Sank" theorists will respond). Paige Miller #2565 LTM (who avoided byzantine conjecture as much as possible) =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:13:53 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Introduction Allow me to introduce myself. I have been lurking in this forum for a few months; recently I have made a few posts. But basically, I enjoyed the TIGHAR web site and forum SOOOO much and felt that it was definitely worth contributing to. I am trained as a statistician. For the last twenty years, I have practiced industrial and marketing statistics, so that hardly makes me an expert on anything that has to do with Amelia Earhart. (Although, for you longtime forum readers, being a statistician did give me the opportunity to meet Janet Whitney's boss at the 1988 American Statistical Association convention -- he probably wasn't her boss then but he was her boss when she was posting to the forum) I have also spent a lot of time reading up on other historical mysteries, so I guess Amelia fits right in there. And for those of you who are wondering, yes, Paige is normally a female name, but not in this case. Paige Miller #2565 LTM (who always appreciate the value of a good statistic) ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Paige. It will be especially interesting to have a statistician's reaction to the statistics we're compiling about the post-loss radio signals. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:15:48 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries Ric wrote: > Betty's ....is, however, emphatic that > she never adjusted the dial once she began hearing Amelia. > Betty received sporadic voice for an hour and three quarters - from 16:30 to > 18:15 local time - not three quarters of an hour. > > Betty does have a recollection of where the needle was on the dial when she > heard Amelia and matching that position to the known dial of the Zenith > Stratosphere indicates that she was most likely listening on a harmonic > between 18 Mhz and 25 Mhz Perhaps someone else will want to jump in here and comment on the following. In my experience, using a general coverage, single -conversion, tube-type radio receiver of this vintage, tuned to a signal in this frequency range, for a period that long, and not having to touch the tuning, seems sorta not plausible. For these frequencies, particularly with a weak signal, where even a little off-tuning drift would seriously impair reception ( and note, not necessarily drift back in, to correct the tuning - thus ruling out this as the cause of drift in/out), i have not found this to be the case with such type radios. And the high price, in those days, of her radio, did not really buy any better technology. In my experience, for minimum-retouch listening to SW on such radios, on the high band, you need 1) warm stable temperature for the radio 2) long warmup period for the radio to settle, drifting to minimize 3) strong signal The reason i bring this up is because this comment just immediately surprised me. I would appreciate if other readers would comment, based on their experience. Hue Miller =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:16:53 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Women on the radio Warren Lambing wrote: > Another question I have for Ric. If Betty did here AE on those > Harmonic's, would they have been frequencies Ham operators could have had > the crystals to broadcast on? No! > Would Hams normally have been on those > frequencies? No! -Hue Miller =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:29:26 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Documentation of Radio Receiver Mods Ric wrote: >1939? I think that in light of the message traffic cited in my earlieir >posting we'd have to have much better evidence that Earhart's receiver was >modified. Something like a contemporaneous letter or work order. This is really simple to explain... the work was allegedly done in 1937. The mods were in effect a prototype for a later version of the radio, offered for sale by WE. This was documented in the 1939 book. Remember, it probably took the best part of a year to 18 months to edit that book and bring it to publication. So this time line for the Earhart mods all sounds quite reasonable/plausible. 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************ From Ric It's important to be clear about this. As I understand it, all we know for sure is that some time prior to 1939 (and logically sometime around 1937) the first such modifcation was done to a WE 20B receiver. That such a modification was done to Earhart's receiver is conjecture. Informed, logical conjecture perhaps - but conjecture nonetheless. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:30:31 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Harmonics vs ham frequencies In response to Warren Lambing's question: > Another question I have for Ric. If Betty did here AE on those >Harmonic's, would they have been frequencies Ham operators could have had >the crystals to broadcast on? Would Hams normally have been on those >frequencies? In a word... No. I don't have the list of harmonic frequencies nearby, but Bob Brandenburg and I both computed all the possibilities. I do not recall that any of the possible harmonics fell within a ham radio frequency band, or even close to one. 73 Mike E. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:31:52 EST From: Denise Subject: LOVERS??? No chance! Jan Carver says "Just curious, why would you think it unlikely that Fred was AE's lover???" Jan, if you've ever seen the film footage of the flight from Lae - the bit where Noonan pulls A.E. up onto the wing on the plane - you'd have to say, from observing their body language, they've definitely never been lovers. They appear to be two people who've spent wayyy too much time in each other's company and who have unfortunately now become super conscious of the fact they have to ignore each other's different gender. See the footage and notice how for a fraction of a second their bodies align and how both of them instantly alter position so they aren't. So, not only have they never been lovers, but both of them appear uncomfortable about the issue and thus, by quickly realigning, are either consciously or unconsciously letting the other know that no, never, no way, not a snowball's chance in hell, is it a possibility they'll ever become lovers! LTM (who loved observing body language!) Denise =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:33:10 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Hoaxers Hoaxers are like hooligans. They get no gain from what they do, just pleassure from doing harm. LTM =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:34:27 EST From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: WQAM frequency in 1937 Do you think the Japanese needed KGMB or any station to find Pearl Harbor? I think any naval flyer who is trained to find an enemy ship at sea to sink it will hardly need a radio station. Also totally off topic but illustrating that homing in on radio stations workS and CAN change history: in 1989 (I think) one German Mathias Rust flew a Cessna 172 from Sweden to Moscow homing in on Radio Moscow and landed on Red Square. Actually he landed on the bridge across the River Moskwa and taxied up Red Square. I've been there and seen the bridge and ever since I'm convinced the guy must have been briefed (and probably paid) by Gorbatsjov to perform that stunt on KGB Day of all days to provide Gorbatsjov an excuse for firing the general in charge of the KGB and the general in charge of air defence who were standing in his way for the reforms he planned. (Ric, I'll send you a picture of that bridge. Looks like an aircraft carrier's deck) *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Herman. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:47:47 EST From: He Miller Subject: Re: The Beginning Ric wrote: > 06:11Z (6:41 p.m. aboard ITASCA) > ITASCA logs: GUESS IT ISN'T HER NOW > This is a very puzzling entry. Has O'Hare forgotten, or is he unaware, that > there is a man aboard the airplane? Your surmise seems likely, unless this may refer to start of picking up signals from the QZ5 exchanges. > 06:13-14Z (6:43-4 p.m. aboard ITASCA) > ITASCA logs: QZ5 INTERFERING ON 3105 NOW - QZ5 CALLING KACA... > We have, so far, not been able to figure out who QZ5 and KACA are. The > callsigns don't match any ships or stations we can find listed. It may be > that they are commercial aviation stations, aircraft or ground, in Hawaii > (which would explain why QZ5 is sending code on 3105 trying to raise KACA). Aircraft license would be 5-letter. The 4 letter could be ground station, or even ship. QZ5 ??? Weird. Almost sounds like a military tactical callsign, assigned for one mission. This was an extremely interesting and useful post, the sequential presentation of the loggings. Hue Miller ************************************************************************ From Ric >QZ5 ??? Weird. Almost sounds like a military tactical callsign, assigned for >one mission. Well....it's not the PBY flight from Pearl to Howland. Their callsign was F3Y, but they were probably not the only military aircraft in the air over Hawaii at that time. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:02:21 EST From: Rich Young Subject: Post Loss? The reason I don't like the term "Post Loss" is that it posits a "loss", (as in insurance "loss", a dmaged or wrecked item). While not yet convinced of the Landing On Gardner, (LOG) theory, it's not impossible that the Electra set down intact there or some other landfall, thereby not being a "loss" until wave action or other events destroy the plane. One can even posit taking off again on a short hop to gain altiitude for enhanced radio braodcasts, in such a situation. Recall please also that some of the Saipan stories claim an intact Electra was recovered by the military, and destroyed in 1944. However, we can safely assume that Pratt & Whitney's don't run without fuel, so any supposed radio traffic from the Electra after the time of maximum continuous flight fuel exhaustion would have to have occurred after the Electra was "down", at least temporarily. I guess you could say I try to be very rigorous about terms and what they may mean. As to who might have been talking voice, you can't have it both ways - if Betty can hear the AE in the Pacific, in Florida, on a harmonic, on a home set, as I believe you propose, then 3105 and 6120, assigned radio frequencies for aviation, could have "skipped" in from anywhere. LTM (who doesn't CQ DX much anymore) Rich Young ************************************************************************ From Ric The "loss" occurred when the airplane "went missing" (as our British friends would say). If I was filling out an accident report form on this "occurrence", under "date of loss" (D/O/L) I'd have to put "2 July 1937, sometime after 20:13Z". If the airplane later turns up in a hangar on Saipan that doesn't change the D/O/L any more than if a plane is reported stolen and later turns up in a hangar in ---well, Saipan. When you do your study you can call it anything you like but we'll continue to use "Post-Loss". I'll let the radio gurus respond to your comment about frequencies and "skip". =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:04:02 EST From: Jan Subject: Re: LOVERS??? No chance! Just to play the angel's advocate: Maybe they were overcompensating way to much...the ol "I think the doest protest to much." I've not seen any footage. Ms. Jan Carver ************************************************************************ From Ric The footage is on the website but I can't imagine a less productive avenue of inquiry. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:04:40 EST From: Lee Subject: Re: LOVERS??? No chance! That's reading a lot into body language! As Chrissie Hynde sang, "there's a thin line between love and hate..." :) Lee =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:07:04 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Betty Interview >> I meant that Ric's written summary of the Betty's interview is hearsay. >> But in my opinion, good enough for our purposes. >> >> REB >> ********************************************************************** >> From Ric >> >> Good enough for your purposes. This is a case where I trust Ric, Pat, and the usual suspects involved in TIGHAR investigations. I don't think it would be "scientific" to doubt the accuracy of Ric's transcripts. If I thought that TIGHAR did slovenly work, I wouldn't be renewing my membership. Uh, that is to say, I wouldn't be PLANNING to renew my membership. The credit voucher isn't in the mail yet, but I've made the decision to renew. Yes, I have. Proof available for doubters Any Day Now. ;o) LTM. Marty #2359 *********************************************************************** From Ric This is an example of situation where there is no alternative but to have faith. :-) =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:09:04 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: antenna From Alan > No one seems to agree with my theory that they first flew southward to avoid > bad weather, then turned on a northern offset track. We have Earhart herself > giving two positons back to Lae showing this is what they did. This takes > them to about half of the flight. My question is that Tighar does not seem > to recognize this as proof. Why is this so? Bill, I've never seen anyone refute that. If they did I missed it. It might be that inferring they were avoiding weather is what got you the opposition. Also your contention the then flew an offset wherein there is nothing to support an offset. There WERE some reported rain squalls about 300 miles east of Lae but that's not a navigation problem unless you are flying at a low altitude. AE's first report in which she gave a position that has been recorded was at S 7.3 150.7 E and 10,000' altitude. That was about a true course of 100 degrees, hardly south. Her next position was at 4.33 S 159.7 E which was a ENE heading back to course. If she flew that route it would have taken her almost directly over the highest mountain in the area, Balbi at nearly 9000' in Choiseul Province. That certainly is possible as they would have had 1000' clearance and if the weather was clear it would have been a great land mark. Another possibility is that the longitude of the first position report was written incorrectly and it should have been one fifty-seven degrees east rather than one fifty point seven degrees east. In that case the outbound course would have been 94 degrees and then a slightly sharper turn back to course but it would have taken them over NO mountainous terrain and still given them a good land mark heading out bound. You are correct in that those positions were reported and they most likely flew one of those two possibilities -- but to avoid mountainous terrain over New Britain or in the alternative both New Britain AND Bougainville (Choiseul). Alan =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:31:21 EST From: Jan Carver Subject: Re: LOVERS??? No chance! I would hate to know that as long as I was that close in quarters to a man...that I would at least like him...if not love him. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves & he was much more to her than her neighbor. Did she make the choice for him to become his navigator or did someone else make that decision. She must have trusted him explicitly. Ms. Jan Carver *********************************************************************** From Ric With all the dual-gender crews in airliners these days you must have an interesting impression of what goes on behind that closed cockpit door. It's not clear who recruited Noonan but AE would certainly have had to approve of the choice. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:32:37 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Women on the radio Hue Miller wrote: > ... That around the world flight a few years back, > with sn aircraft built out of synthetic materials > (sorry, can't recall term for materials ... "Composites." I think it means any kind of fibrous material (fiberglass, kevlar, carbon fiber, etc.) that is held together by glues. Composites can often be lighter than comparable metal parts. The aircraft weighed 939 pounds dry. > or name of craft right now) ... Voyager: > ... its communications to ground stations were > jammed also, even though the working frequencies > were not publicized. ... Yes, I remember hearing something about that, too. Some people do horrible things to other people. :o( At least in the abstract, the possibility of some HAMs perpetrating hoaxes in 1937 can't be ruled out. But Ric has made a powerful argument about the professional intercepts that is worth repeating: if a HAM was the source of the signals heard in the Pacific, where was the HAM located? LTM. Marty #2359 (renewal pending) =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:33:56 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Question for Brandenburg and Everette This is a question for Bob Brandenburg and Mike Everette: Each of you has done extensive technical work evaluating thecapabilities/limitations of the communications equipment aboard the Electra and evaluating, in some way, the "Betty's Notebook" transmissions. The results of this work appear on the TIGHAR website and elsewhere. Yet, what is your own professional opinion as to the likelihood that Betty was actually hearing Earhart? Do YOU think she actually heard her? What I am asking you to do is stand back for a moment and not only evaluate the question on the basis of the specific technical work done in connection with TIGHAR, but also taking into consideration your own experience and knowledge gained over the years in the area of communications, generally. --Chris Kennedy =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:38:14 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: antenna What bothers me the most about Earhart's first position report is the 7.3 S latitude. Lae was at 7.00 S (almost exactly!), and there was no credible reason for her to fly south of 7*S and be south of 7*S after four hours. I have to conclude that the position report was heard or recorded erroneously. *********************************************************************** From Ric I agree with Randy. Primary sources are the best we have, but they're not sacrosanct. If something in an official contemporaneous report doesn't make sense in the context of the other primary-source information about the same event I think it is completely reasonable to question its accuracy. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:41:44 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Harmonics vs ham frequencies To Ric, A question that has been in my mind whenever I read about harmonics here on the Forum. Someone suggested that while AE transmitted on 6210kcs, someone might have heard the harmonic frequency on 3105kcs. Can someone on the Forum correct me if I am wrong, but don't harmonics only go UP in multiples and not DOWN? Cheers from Bill ************************************************************************ From Ric I'll pass that to the radio gurus for verifcation but, yes, that is also my impression. However, I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that AE transmitted on 6210 and was heard on 3105. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:46:59 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Japanese radio station The message received by Thelma Lovelace was on a frequency on which she received, "every day", music on a Japanese commercial broadasting station. Can we determine which Japanese stations were powerful enough at that time to be regularly heard in New Brunswick and hence determine the frequency(ies)? This should not be too difficult as it will have to be a harmonic of 3105Kcs. We can probably exclude the fact that Thelma received a Japanese station harmonic on the basis that this was evidently a regular event. Although commercial stations do occasionally transmit harmonics with some power, it is usually inadvertent, temporary and soon corrected (as otherwise power is being sapped from the fundamental frequency). Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ >This should not be too difficult as it will have to be a >harmonic of 3105Kcs. Not necessarily. What Thelma said was: "I had the radio on "short wave" as there was a program of Japanese music that I got every morning. As I passed back and forth across the dial near the station (where) I usually got the program, I picked up this voice, loud and clear - the message was "Can you read me? Can you read me? This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart. Please come in." Sounds like the frequency was near but not necessarily on the Japanese frequency. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:50:22 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: The Betty Interview I agree with you that Betty is for real. If she was a hoaxer, she deserves an Acadamey Award! I also believe that as people reach the "autumn" of their life they get even more frank & honest about everything. I may have mentioned before that when I was a kid growing up in northwest Florida, I remember hearing transmissions from ships off the Yucatan Peninsula by way of a table-top Zenith radio with Cathedral top. What format will the tape be in, VHS or DVD? Just curious. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric VHS =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:34:39 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: The Quest for Truth To the Forum, anyone who believes that flight simulation is a fantasy world engaged only in by Walter Mitty's of the world please delete this message now. Before I get started, I want to first try and down play some of this Japanese World War II racism that is present on this Forum. Since the AE/FN disappearance was in 1937, I don't think you can automatically attach "capture" to the Marshall island scenario. Why don't we call it "Japanese Rescue" instead of "Japanese Capture". There is no evidence that the Japanese exerted their control outside of their own Mandate in 1937 (except China that is). The "Japanese Rescue" idea wasn't a product of Hollywood but had roots in Jan. 1939 when it can be proved the U.S. State Dept. had such finger pointing by a French citizen. Randy Jacobson has the file, don't take my word for it. Alan you wrote: "...Next, I was looking at (heavens forbid) Flight Simulator last night and flew an Electra 10E from over Howland back toward the Gilbert's. It might be possible but because of fuel I wouldn't have tried it...." Alan, it was plan "B" after all, an escape plan so they could save their necks. This wasn't a suicide mission with only an hour of reserve fuel. You seem to acknowledge that the Gilberts was a possible escape route. It seems that you might have flown the recip of their inbound course to Howland starting from Howland. I use Howland too as a reference point even though we know that AE & FN couldn't have started there because they didn't see Howland OR Baker either. Alan these are a few of your own quotes; >.....We could suggest countless theories but that's a waste of time >unless the theory has some kind of serious rationale and is >pursuable.... >.....Jerry. I'm trying to make a point that I started >in another post. Just being skeptical isn't enough. There has to be an >articulated reason or you won't get anyone's >attention.... >....Doesn't prove Niku but it would seem to me that >if there are opposing views something more solid should be offered in >support.... Alan do you really believe in what you are saying/writing, or is this just idle chatter? If you are truthful, I will invest the time in this post and hope it gets past Ric. This is for the flight simulator folks which is as close as we can get to >seeing< what could have been. Lets confine ourselves to known facts or post loss message content, specifically the "281 message". This message was believed enough for the Navy (CG) to move the Itasca and Swan to a point 281 miles NW on the LOP. FOR Ric, how long after the "281 message" was logged (0242 July 5th?) "...DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER..." (suggesting battery power?) was the end of post loss messages in the central Pacific? You gave us a time a couple of days ago on July 5th. We all recognize the 337/157* LOP and feel that Noonan could have accurately plotted this line through Howland. Alan, using the LOP through Howland as a base line, experiment flying 281* headings from the LOP. I have. You will probably have to invest a couple hours in this even accelerating the simulation to 8 X . The actually flight time would be closer to 5-6 hours starting from Howland. The first one I ran was the Mili recip scenario. I will save you time and just give you "point AE". "Point AE" is N 02* 30.10' W 177* 14.20' which is about 106 nm NW on the LOP. Set the wind at an easterly direction (85* - 95*) at 17 kts. Start at Howland and fly 337* DG at 130 kts TAS. Make sure you set TAS for the readout. Set the cloud bases at 2500 ft, tops to 5500 ft. Visibility at 20 miles. You can disagree of course. I set the GMT clock at 1912 GMT July 2, 1937 over Howland. I maintained 1000 to 2000 ft on this NW leg because for some reason AE reported 1000 ft without even seeing the Itasca. That altitude was a disadvantage. When you get to "Point AE", by reading the Lat & Long readouts at the top of the screen (shift-Z), turn the airplane to 281* and wait. Mili Atoll will appear in the windshield. The flight logged out in the book at 5.9 hours at Mili airport, .8 hrs should be deducted (106 nm / 130 kts) . That was starting at Howland mind you, where they WEREN'T. Don't bother looking for a gas pump at Mili. I then tried the "281" scenario south of Howland on the LOP. Again starting at Howland fly a heading of 157*. Keep the same 20 mile visibility setting. You will see Baker island (probably the source of the unidentified radio call signs) go by out of the left hand side window. You can't head 281 until it is out of sight behind you. AE and FN didn't see Baker either, so you have to wait. When you can't see Baker any more turn to 281* and again wait. Always keep in mind that the wind has a big effect in the simulation runs and it must be a constant factor in different scenarios. I ended up in the atolls around Butaritari airport (Gilberts) where I closed out the log book at 5.3 hours. North of Butaritari is Little Makin which is harder to see in the simulator because the aqua/shallow water area around it is very small. The simulation seems to be faithful in elevations above sea level and I think that would apply to depths below sea level for the aqua color. We are all familiar with "back to the Gilberts" as a possible "plan B". I simply suggest that 281* was Noonan's version of "plan B". There does seem to be a symmetry to the 281 experiments. 5.9 hours to Mili and 5.3 hours to Butaritari. "Point AE" was 106 nm NW of Howland. The distance that Baker is from Howland + 20 miles visibility would position the 157* turning point ~ 60 miles (?) SE. But again I must emphasize that we are using Howland as a starting point, where AE & FN definitely weren't AND we are not considering the "MISS" distance which caused this disappearance in the first place. If you like why don't you fly to Niku down the 157* LOP. You will have to adjust your own altitudes and visibility to make a visual on Niku. When you have the set-up let me know what it is. Daryll ********************************************************************** From Ric This posting "got past Ric" because I think it's instructive to see the reasoning behind these kinds of conclusions. If I get to pick the winds and speeds and starting points I can put the airplane any place you want it. >This message was believed enough for the >Navy (CG) to move the Itasca and Swan to a point 281 miles NW on the >LOP. No, ITASCA was sent 281 miles north of Howland and the freighter SS MOORBY which happened to be in the neighborhood was asked to help. >how long after the "281 message" was logged (0242 July 5th?) >"...DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER..." (suggesting battery power?) was >the end of post loss messages in the central Pacific? Navy Radio at Wailupe heard the 281 message between 01:00 and 02:00 Honolulu time (11:30 to 12:30Z) on July 5th. For part of that time and for 6 minutes afterward, PAA on Wake Island hears "very unsteady voice modulated carrier" and takes a bearing of 144 degrees. In his report of July 10, 1937, the operator at Wake, Mr. R.M. Hansen, wrote, "At the time I believed this bearing to be accurate and I am still of that opinion." The 144 degree bearing from Wake passes very close to Gardner Island. At 13:50Z (an hour and 14 minutes later), PAA Mokapu hears "Carrier on again on 3105 but by the time we could open DF, signal was off again." At that time the water level on the reef at Gardner north of the Norwich City was about 20 inches - the highest it had been at any time since before the disappearance. That was the last time anybody in the Central Pacific (within 2,000 miles of Howland) -professional or amateur - heard anything suspected as being from Earhart. ============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:36:05 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Harmonics vs ham frequencies Does that mean that Carroll's ham signals could not have been heard on Betty's shortwave set on one dial setting? LTM, reb =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:37:26 EST From: Jan Carver Subject: Re: LOVERS??? No chance! Probably more than you know...goes on behind those "cockpit" doors! We are the headquarters/museum for the Ninety Nines...here in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. We have quite a nice collection of AE's things...not like her hometown (I think) in Kansas. Amelia must know somewhat how Dorothy felt in the Wizard of Oz. Ms. Jan Carver ************************************************************************ From Ric Me too. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:38:21 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: WQAM frequency in 1937 Thank you for your indulgence in the KGMB digression. LTM, Dave ************************************************************** From Ric You're welcome. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:45:04 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Women on the radio Hams need not be in the Pacific to do a hoax. Note Ric's report on Charles Miguel, living in Oakland, who reported to officials that he heard the 281 North Howland msg. He didn't hear it. How many more were made up is unknown. REB ************************************************************************ From Ric We need to distinguish between: - people who report hearing something they did not hear - people who broadcast bogus messages - innocent people who hear bogus messages The first two are hoaxers. The others are victims of hoaxers. And the guy's name was McGill. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:46:05 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Women on the radio From Ron Bright I just made a post re Hams to Marty, but misread it. I see he is wanting to see if the professional stations heard a deliberate hoax from a Ham, not a Ham just reporting a "signal". Thanks, Ron =============================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:30:11 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: LOVERS??? No chance! >>The footage is on the website but I can't imagine a less productive >>avenue of inquiry. > >Ric, I think you grossly underestimate us all. > >From Ric > >I do? Could you clarify why you say that? If something -- anything -- that is vaguely relevant and interesting but not necessarily productive can be found, someone here will find it. Carol's sword is probably the best example this week. Mike H. ********************************************************** From Ric I see your point. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:40:21 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Harmonics vs ham frequencies > Does that mean that Carroll's ham signals could not have been heard on > Betty's shortwave set on one dial setting? YES if she was set to a harmonic of 3105 or 6210. gl ************************************************************************ From Ric I agree. So let's hear some reasonable hypotheses for how his call letters ended up in Betty's notebook. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:42:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: antenna Randy wrote: > What bothers me the most about Earhart's first position report is the 7.3S > latitude. Lae was at 7.00 S (almost exactly!), and there was no credible > reason for her to fly south of 7*S and be south of 7*S after four hours. I > have to conclude that the position report was heard or recorded > erroneously. Randy, I'll repeat here my email in response to Bill. I have just revisited that issue which has bounced casually around for a long time. In Bill's note he felt he was being ignored or opposed when he wrote about the initial flight path being southward. I don't believe he was. The flak he got was for suggesting AE flew an offset toward Howland and that they deviated for weather. Neither point has been substantiated. Also they hardly flew south but only slightly so. Here is the explanation for that first "odd" position AE gave at 5:19 Z. Clearly I don't know exactly what they did or why but this is my measured opinion. AE's first report in which she gave a position that has been recorded was at S 7.3 150.7 E and 10,000' altitude. That was about a true course of 100 degrees, hardly south. Her next position was at S 4.33 159.7 E which was a ENE heading back to course. If she flew that route it would have taken her almost directly over the highest mountain in the area, Balbi at nearly 9000' in Choiseul Province. That certainly is possible as they would have had 1000' clearance and if the weather was clear it would have been a great land mark. Another possibility is that the longitude of the first position report was written incorrectly and it should have been one fifty-seven degrees east rather than one fifty point seven degrees east. In that case the outbound course would have been 94 degrees and then a slightly sharper turn back to course but it would have taken them over NO mountainous terrain and still given them a good land mark heading out bound. You are correct in that those positions were reported and they most likely flew one of those two possibilities -- but to avoid mountainous terrain over New Britain or in the alternative both New Britain AND Bougainville (Choiseul). Randy, I don't know what the weather or visibility was between Lae and the Solomon's but we do know there were rain squalls around 300 miles east of Lae. If they were above all the weather I would have a problem as to why they flew the reported course. If the weather was not all that clear then it makes perfectly good sense to avoid both New Britain AND Bougainville. If you will remember AE's first known report gave her altitude as 7,000 feet. That was at 4:18Z I've not figured a position for that time but roughly AE would have been around 400 or 500 miles out from Lae and still short of Bougainville. So she would be flying south of New Britain with Umbi Mt. (5,078'), Bamus Mt. (7375'), and Ulawun Mt. (7655') on he port and facing four mountains on Bougainville ahead two of which were above her flight altitude. Bagana Mt. (5741') and Loloru Mt. (6191') were about 1,000' feet below but Takuan Group (7251') and Balbi Mt. (8907') were above her flight altitude. Now if her correct 5:19Z report was 157 degrees east instead of 150.7 east she was safely past Balbi Mt. and at 10,000 feet. If instead the transcribed report of 150.7 east was correct and she was at 10,000' she would be flying almost directly over Balbi Mt. with only 1,000' clearance. I wouldn't have done that unless I could see clearly ahead. I would not have put my faith (fanny) on the line with 1937 altimeters and the "accuracy" of terrain measurements. Now as to the "wide" berth 7.3 degrees south gave you might think about that given Loloru was at 6.52 degrees south and the Takuan Group was at 6.442 degrees south. Balbi was a comfy 5.83 degrees south. Alan , who put a lot of work into this. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:43:49 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Japanese radio station > Sounds like the frequency was near but not necessarily on the Japanese > frequency. I agree, but this may not present a problem as we are only trying to determine which harmonic it was. (2nd 3rd etc). If for instance we found a single suitable transmitter sending on 12480 (rather than 12420), we would know that she was receiving the 4th harmonic of 3105 from AE. If there were several transmitters whose frequencies fell close to harmonics, the picture would of course be less clear. However, we know the time, and we know that the station put out music and was sufficiently powerful to be worth listening to for relaxation in New Brunswick on a regular basis. There probably weren't many. Regards Angus. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:49:22 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Post Loss? Rich Young wrote: > As to who might have been talking voice, you can't have it both ways > - if Betty can hear the AE in the Pacific, in Florida, on a harmonic, on a > home set, as I believe you propose, then 3105 and 6120, assigned radio > frequencies for aviation, could have "skipped" in from anywhere. Perhaps I'm slower than usual today, but I don't see the logical connectivity here. If Betty heard AE on a harmonic, why does it necessarily follow that signals on 3105 and 6210 could have "skipped in from anywhere"? And even if such "skipping" occurred at the fundamental frequencies, what would that tell us about whether Betty heard AE on a harmonic. It would be helpful if you would provide a definition of "skipped in", and a discussion of the physics under which signals at 3105 and 6210 could have "skipped in" from "anywhere". LTM, Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:50:44 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Japanese radio station > Can we determine which Japanese stations were powerful enough at that time > to be regularly heard in New Brunswick and hence determine the > frequency(ies)? The operative question, IMHO, is which Japanese shortwave stations were broadcasting on which frequencies in those days. I have searched the web, without success, for contemporaneous references to such stations. Perhaps someone on the forum has access to shortwave magazines from 1937, which might shed some light on this question. If we can find a candidate Japanese station or stations and the associated broadcast schedules, it will be easy to find the transmitter power required at any given frequency for the signal to be hearable in eastern Canada at the reported date/time. Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:57:17 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Being a WOMBAT A couple of years ago, when we were discussing sextant boxes on Niku etc, I volunteered to plant a varnished/painted wooden box on a coral island similar to Niku in climate etc to see how long it would stand up to the weather. Somewhere in that thread the W.O.M.B.A.T. was born, but for the life of me I can't remember what the letters stood for. It sort of stuck anyway. Unfortunately, my health prevented me from pursuing the idea. My health is still shaky, but my yacht is going back in the water really soon. There is probably no reason to pursue the experiment at this late stage, but as I will be spending a lot of time on tropical coral rubble islands in temperatures between 88 F and 102 F in the shade, there may be a few experiments we can do if they are useful. We don't have any Bigass Latro running around though, just poisonous snakes, 4 foot long lizards, deadly almost invisible jellyfish and a few sharks. We're at 20 deg South by 149 East. Not Niku, but not too far off. One of my early plans is to see how long 750ml of water (a Benedictine bottle full) lasts under normal conditions on a hot day, walking and doing other things. This assumes that the castaway had access to water to refill the bottle, and carried it on daytime excursions around the island. All this is dependent on the yacht not sinking, as happened last time after years out of the water... If I can find a used pair of stoutish leather walk shoes at the op-shop I may try wearing them on the islands to see how they hold up to salt water, sand and coral rubble in reality, just out of curiosity. Another one I'm interested in is spending a few days on coconut juice to see what effect it really has as a water substitute, although I really do hate the stuff. Ideas? Suggestions? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric Let me get this straight.....your health is a bit shaky but you want TIGHAR to assign various survivor-type experiments for you to do. How many lawyers do we have on this forum? =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:00:47 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries Hue Miller wrote: > seriously impair reception ( and note, not necessarily drift back in, to correct the >tuning - thus such type radios. And the high price, in those days, of her radio, did > not really buy ... > ... you need 1) warm stable temperature for the radio 2) long warmup > period for the radio to settle, drifting to minimize 3) strong signal I can only answer as a shortwave listener on an older domestic made tube set (1940) and it has new capacitors, not the old wax type, so might not be a good comparison, however I have logged a lot of listening hours with it, primarily on shortwave. My receiver, has a drift problem on SW up until it runs an hour, (I only have to adjust the tuner slightly in one direction, which I do it seems automatically, until it runs an hour) after an hour warm-up, it stops the drift, even on weak signals. I will give you, on the domestic AM band there is no noticeable drift (although I am sure there is), but it is because it is a strong signal. As far as more money did not mean a better receiver, it goes without saying. Many radios were price by the amount of tubes it had, 10 tube set was cheaper then a 20 tube set, but most of the 20 tube sets were really only using 10 tubes, the other 10 tube were there for show and you could brag about your receiver the manufacture could charge you more money. However I can't help but wonder what the extra tubes did, (if anything) as far as the heating of the set, which as you mention on your post is the cause for drift, generally the drift stops when the set reaches a stable temperature it manages to stay at. Regards, (in no way an expert or authority on radios) Warren Lambing =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:02:26 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook Entries Hue, you're right, old tube radios often drifted. When I was an active HAM in the 1960s I had a late 50s vintage Hammarlund HQ 110 for a hearing aid. It wasn't Hammarlund's top of the line (the 110 was only dual conversion, top of the line was triple conversion), but it pretty much represented state of the art receiving in the 1950s. It had a clock on it that had an auto start feature. You could set it like an alarm clock for the time you wanted to use the receiver and it would fire up the rig 20 minutes BEFORE the time you set so that it would be stable (warmed up) by the time you needed it. Stable was a relative term. My general coverage receiver in those days was a WWII navy surplus Collins (with a converted power supply). It drifted too. Performance wise, I would match those radios against anything modern with one glaring exception: frequency drift. But I don't think that was what Betty meant. Not adjusting the dial was just an expression meaning she didn't purposely change freqs to find something else to amuse her. She was riveted by the drama and stayed with it as long as there was something to listen too. The occasional minor adjustment to stay on frequency is a given. It is a part of using vacuum tube technology for short wave reception. LTM Kerry Tiller =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:06:16 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Forum Attitudes The Pacific is a vast wide open place but the people who lived there in 1937 and later were not living in a vacum. They knew what an airplane looked like. ************************************************************************ From Ric This is the kind of statement that needs to be supported. When I replied to the question of whether colonists on Niku were familar with airplanes I cited specific examples in whihc residents of that island had documented contact with airplanes. What's the basis for your statement? =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:11:49 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Quest for Truth Daryll Bollinger wrote: > Before I get started, I want to first try and down play some of this > Japanese World War II racism that is present on this Forum. I'm sorry, Daryll but I haven't seen any racism on this forum. WWII had to do with an enemy aggression not any kind of racial issue. >There is no evidence that the Japanese exerted their control outside of >their own Mandate in 1937 (except China that is). Daryll you refute your own statement. Of course the Japanese exerted control outside of Japanese territories. They tried to take over the whole bloody Pacific. >Alan, it was plan "B" after all, an escape plan so they could save their >necks. There is no such evidence, Daryll. One anecdote won't cut it. >Why don't we call it 'Japanese Rescue' instead of "Japanese Capture. Because there is no evidence the Japanese rescued anyone. There is not even any evidence they captured anyone. The only folks talking about the Japanese beside you are the Marshall theorists. >It seems that you might have flown the recip of their inbound course to >Howland starting from Howland. I don't know what their inbound course to Howland was, Daryll. If you know it you are the only living human to have that knowledge. I Flew from directly over Howland on a course that would take me to Kuria but keep my comments in context rather than trying to use them for your own purposes. The point I made was in regard to the short lived Kuria thread. And that was that to get to Kuria one has to fly over two other islands. That is ALL my FS comment was about. Nothing more. It had nothing to do with someone's dreamed up "plan B" or fuel quantities or headings or locations or time or courses or anything else. My obviously ill advised comment about it might have been possible only meant that if the winds were favorable and their fuel reserve was adequate and their starting point was such that they could fly that far it might have been possible. That's a whole lot of unknown factors and totally unusable for any practical purpose. Sorry I said it and got you started. >Alan do you really believe in what you are saying/writing Yes, Daryll. I always believe in what I say or write. What else? >We all recognize the 337/157* LOP and feel that Noonan could have accurately >plotted this line through Howland. Daryll, I don't know where you come up with all this nonsense. There is no one who has suggested Noonan could have plotted an LOP accurately through Howland. If you'll take the time to reread those threads you'll find that the only belief is that Noonan probably advanced an LOP to the point where he thought Howland was. You will also see that the location of Howland was 5 or so miles in doubt and you will also see that there were various estimates of Noonan's celestial accuracy ranging from about ten to more than twenty miles. I won't go through all the rest because it is all based on your assumptions and I can make stuff up just as well with equally useless results. You make reference to what the scenery looks like in flight simulator. You are correct. That IS how FS looks. Real life doesn't. If you recall I've actually flown under those same conditions for half my flying career, flying into Wake, Guam, various Philippine Islands, All over the area from Japan down past the equator and in the Atlantic flying into the Azores and Bermuda. Trust me. Flight Simulator is a fun game but it doesn't look like real life. There are others on the forum who also have flown in such conditions. Finally, you suggest I fly to Niku. I have and posted my results. Nothing of use. Once again there is no way to duplicate all or any of the unknown factors and for the umpteenth time FS does not look the same as real life. It's a game. If you can discover something of use in FS please let me know but so far I haven't seen it. Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric Minor point. In 1937 Japan's international adventures were limited to the Chinese mainland. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:13:28 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forum Attitudes Ed Croft wrote: > Though your response was to Jerry, I have to pipe up as well. > You see, I am a healthy (at least I'd like to think I am) skeptic......... Ed, you are a perfect example of what I was talking about. You expressed skepticism AND LAID OUT A GOOD RATIONALE WHY. That was exactly the point I was making. Everyone jumped on the words skeptic and oppose and ignored that I said I had no problem with someone being a skeptic or opposing the Niku view. My complaint was in stopping there. You nicely articulated your reasons. And to set the record straight I don't KNOW that AE went to Niku. I think there are indications she did, I think it made the most sense to go to Niku but I don't know if that happened. I think most of us have opinions roughly in the same ballpark. If you or anyone else has a different view post it. All I said was that when you do give some kind of rationale for your idea. You did that. Few do. Alan =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:16:09 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Japanese radio station My own feeling on this is that it was more likely near the 3rd harmonic of the 6210. This works out to 18630 kHz ( marked "kcs." on the old dials. ) I seem to feel that this harmonic is more likely than the 5th of 3105 from the aspect of actual power radiated by the AE transmitter, but others judge otherwise. I don't see anyone has produced any convincing number for actual power radiated by AE transmitter on any harmonic. That is the reason i acquired a tube type transmitter to tune to both 3105, 6210 and measure the actual power output on these harmonics into typical antenna impedances. I do not have any figures for likely values for AE's antenna and i may have to mockup that and get ballpark figures. However, i admit, 5th harmonic of 3105 gives 15525 kHz, which fits *very* well with the 15000-15500 shortwave broadcast band ( "19 meter band), which is a daylight and afternoon band, so the propagation also is a fit. Shortwave magazines of the years do show regular A.M. hour reception of orient stations but i haven't found a good match, yet, myself. The harmonic i tend to favor for plausibility is 3x 6210 = 18630, which is a fair stretch above the 17500 - 17800 kcs. shortwave broadcast band. This is also a daylight band, moreso than the 15 mcs. band, and i think, for low power, is more amenable to long distance propagation. However, it is further "out of band" than the 15 mcs. candidate. I think we can rule out higher harmonics of both 3105 and 6210 on the grounds that 1) radiated power would be too low to make the trip 2) the harmonic frequency would be too far off the beaten track to have anyone tuning around there. Actually, thinking about this now, and recalling the console dial scales I have seen, even with a dial covering all the way from 7000-18000 or so in one band, the listener would still be looking quite closely only in the range 15000-15500, or 17500- 17900, even if the dial markings were only coarse, like 15... 16 ... 17...18...19, so the reception account and the math square pretty well for the 5th harmonic of 3105. > We can probably exclude the fact that Thelma received a > Japanese station harmonic on the basis that this was evidently a regular > event. Although commercial stations do occasionally transmit harmonics with > some power, it is usually inadvertent, temporary and soon corrected (as > otherwise power is being sapped from the fundamental frequency).us. I don't want to muddy things too much, but i saw from the old radio magazines that harmonics of some SW stations were not infrequently heard. They were NOT corrected, but the lower power developed at these harmonics made them rarer reception. This kind of transmitting was not exceptional, but reception was, so we can rule this out, i believe. Ric wrote: > Sounds like the frequency was near but not necessarily on the Japanese > frequency. That's my reading of the situation too. Hue Miller =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:38:24 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: The Betty Interview Mike Haddock wrote: > I agree with you that Betty is for real. If she was a hoaxer, she deserves an > Acadamey Award! Betty is for real.; no skeptic, i think, questions that. You need, please, to carefully consider the source of the broadcast she heard. Maybe the originators of that deserve an award, or a posthumous FCC fine. Hue Miller ************************************************************************ From Ric Indeed. If Betty heard a hoax the perpetrators (remember, there had to be a man and a woman) cleverly included numerous references which make no sense to the uninformed listener (which we all are). Noonan's name is never even mentioned (Betty refers to him, to this day, only as "he"). I wouldn't have thought to include those touches. They also contrived to have the signal be receivable by the expensive radio and via the fancy antenna rig set up by Betty's father, but not by the more average radio and common antenna of the next door neighbor (her father ran next door to see if the neighbor could hear the same transmissions). The hoaxers had apparently also done their homework and were intimately familiar with the interior of a Lockheed 10 cockpit. They knew that in order to get out through the cockpit hatch you have to step on the pilot's seat, so if somone is sitting in that seat talking on the radio, the way out is effectively blocked. The hoax couple also knows that the cockpit is so cramped that squabbling would easily be picked up by the mic. They also know that the airplanes main battery is in a box immediately to the rear of the cockpit doorway. Normally you step on its cover every time you enter or exit the cockpit. If the cover is off you'd really have to "Watch that battery!". Yes, the hoax couple certainly deserved an award. It's a pity that they went to all that work and only managed to fool one 15 year old girl. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:39:35 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages For Paige Miller >That makes me look forward even more to the full >report on the post-loss messages (and also makes me wonder how the >"Splashed-and-Sank" theorists will respond). If experience is any guide, they won't respond. They'll just tell each other that Gillespie, that snake oil salesman, is leading us poor gullible dupes down the garden path again, and resolutely avoid considering the evidence. ============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:42:57 EST From: Jack Clark Subject: Re Antenna Randy, I think there is a very credible reason for AE/FN to go in a southerly direction. As I have posted before there was a rainfall of 1.72 ins on 2/July/37 at Lae. Quite a build up of cloud in a mountainous area. I agree they would not have been at that position after 4 hrs. My opinion is they were there at local noon(0200Z) a time when FN could be expected to take a sun shot as was a navigators custom to get an accurate latitude. I make the distance 226nm G/s of 113 kts. which I think fits in with what could be expected on climb with the heavily loaded A/c. Of course I cannot prove any of this (except the rainfall). Jack Clark #2564 ************************************************************************ From Ric Lae gets rain because it's at the foot of the mountains. The airplane left Lae and flew out to sea. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:49:32 EST From: Rich Young Subject: tuning stability, could Amelia tune KGB I happen to have an example of a home short-wave radio from that area, and have examined several more. The "tuning" occurs by varying the value of an adjustable capacitor. It works like this - a knob on the front of the radio is connected to a shaft. A pulley on the shaft holds a cable that moves the frequency indicator bar across the dial face, and the shaft is connected to many metal plates, stacked, with space in between them, that rotate in and out of a stationary set of metal plates designed to fit around them. As more of the movable plates enter the gaps of the stationary plates, the capacitance increases. In this case, the insulator of the capacitor is air. Every time the temperature or relative humidity of the air changes, the value of the capacitance such a rig has changes, (this is part of the reason some radios had a "tuning eye" tube, to get back on freq.) Because the tubes, ("valves" for our Commonwealth brethren and sisters), need constant cooling, fresh outside air is constantly being drawn into the chassis. In my experience, (picking up BBC, time signals),, no more than 10 minutes elapse before it's necessary to "tweak" the tuning, (some radios had two knobs, one with a much lower gear ratio on the shaft for such "fine adjustment"). If Betty truly didn't have to adjust the tuning for almost two hours, she was picking up a very strong signal, which would tend to discount it being a subwatt harmonic skipping in from the Pacific. Speaking of skip, back during the "CB" craze, an acquaintance of mine shot skip with 1000 watts (voice, single sideband, equivalent to 3000 watts AM, around the 10 and 11 meter band) and a very good directional phased array antenna, (MoonRacker 4, if you must know). Although occasionally Australia and Europe were "DX'ed" from the Great Plains states of the U.S., even when both sides had comparable equipment and power, a ten to fifteen minute "window" was considered an exceptionally long conversation, or "QSO". Much more frequently, the station being worked would fade out before addresses could be exchanged. This makes me further skeptical that Betty could here a harmonic of a 50 watt transmitter, on a reef, (subject to salt spray, etc), into a non-directional, damaged, (by TIGHAR's own evidence), antenna array at an altitude of no more than 16 feet or so above sea level, for an hour and a half. In theory, anything's possible. The likelihood is another matter. Lastly, KGMB was on the air at that time, when it would normally be off the air, so that a flight of B-17's arriving in Hawaii from California could home in on it, not knowing, of course that the Japanese were planning to attack. Did Amelia, on any of her executed or planned flights to Hawaii, ever ask KGMB to stay on the air for this reason,(RDF)? Did she ever use any other broadcast band stations for navigating, and what were their frequencies? If she did, (or otherwise), it may indicate whether she had the capability to receive on that freq., via her main radio or otherwise. LTM, (who's just a phone call away) Rich "The No-Code Tech" Young, AKA KC5TTV ************************************************************************ From Ric Whatever Betty heard it was not a strong signal because her neighbor couldn't pick it up. TIGHAR has never said that the aircraft's tranmsitting antenna was damaged. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:53:13 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Harmonics vs ham frequencies RE: W4OK call sign Someone in Florida about a year ago was trying to track down Francis Carroll's daughter, who was searching for his ham log in 1937. That might be the only way to get some reasonable answer for the appearance of his call sign in the notebook. Do you recall who was on top of that?? His engimatic comment c. 80s that he once talked to Earhart is some clue. LTM, reb ************************************************************************ From Ric TIGHAR member Terry Linley (who happens to be my cousin) worked with Carroll's daughter and sent me photocopies of the various licenses and other radio-associated paperwork she could locate, but alas, no logs have ever turned up. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:56:47 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Japanese radio station Re: Japanese shortwave I have a New York Times article in July 1937 describing in detail the various world wide receptions of foreign shortwave. Here is a paragraph re Japan's shortwave capabilities. "Clear signals from Japan, on 10.6 and 11.8 megacycles, carry talks and music to New York listeners, between 5-6 O'clock, in the afternoon, Eastern daylight time. The sending stations are JVN and IZJ." The article also describes the format that Japanese would plan for listeners in Canada and the US. They would begin in English with news and comments The English speakers were also describing in June and July elaborate preparations for the 2,600th anniversary of the empire. Then after the current news, music and folksongs. The station would sign off with a national anthem. Signals were clear. Could it possibly be that Betty heard the current news in mid July of Earhart on a Japanese station. They may well have been broadcasting their efforts or something. It requires a carefull look at Betty's notebook. Could Carroll hear that station on his shortwave set? So radio guys, what's the deal. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric You look at Betty's notebook and then tell me that she heard an hour and three-quarters long Japanese news story. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:57:50 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Being a WOMBAT > Let me get this straight.....your health is a bit shaky but you want TIGHAR > to assign various survivor-type experiments for you to do. How many > lawyers do we have on this forum? It isn't lawyers we need. It's a shrink. No offense Ross. We've your best interests at heart. Alan =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:16:50 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Post Loss? I believe the point that Mr. Young intended to make was that if a broadcast made in the central Pacific could be heard in Florida, perhaps a broadcast made most anywhere could have been heard in the Pacific. Or was it a one-way street? ************************************************************************ From Ric As everyone knows by now, I'm no radio guru, but I do feel safe in saying that it was not a one-way street. There was, however, a profound difference between Central Florida and the Central Pacific in that there had to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of radio receivers within a thousand miles of St. Petersburg and the number of receivers within a thousand miles of the area where Earhart disappeared numbered, I would guess, perhaps a hundred at the most. Put a Lockheed 10 with a 50 watt transmitter on the ground in Betty's back yard and put Betty and her Zenith on Gardner Island and if it works one way it should work 'tother. But try to send those signals from St. Pete on 3105 and have only Betty on Gardner hear them. The point is that any message - hoaxed or misunderstood - emanating from the U.S. mainland or Hawaii, should be heard by lots of nearby stations. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:18:56 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Off Topic: History of the Ultimate Aircraft Corporation I hope Ric will excuse this interruption in the search for AE & FN. I've just recently started moving my hobby pages to a new web server. I've got the best history of the Ultimate Aircraft Corporation that exists in the internet, bar none. And links to all the others, besides. :o) The main page is: Photos of the historic aircraft that I'm hoping to help recover are at: The Ultimate biplanes are just a tiny bubble in the history of aviation, but I love the looks of them and have had fun putting the pages together. And all of the remains of the Ultimates are on dry land in mostly civilized countries. :o) LTM. Marty #2359 ============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:20:39 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: The Betty Interview One day, the pieces will all fit. I believe that Betty did hear them and the dialogue she captured will take on more meaning as this blanket of mystery is pulled away through the step-by-step methodological investigation by TIGHAR and others. Time has a way of shedding light. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 ============================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:24:35 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Post-Loss Message > If experience is any guide, they won't respond. They'll just tell each other > that Gillespie, that snake oil salesman, is leading us poor gullible dupes > down the garden path again, and resolutely avoid considering the evidence. What Evidence, Tom? I am a 'Splashed and Sank' member who is waiting for Ric's "clues" to develop. Actually, I would agree that I am a "Splashed Only" member. It doesn't matter much if they sank right off or sank a day or two later (except for drifting a bit). Cheers from Bill ************************************************************************ From Ric Let me save Tom the trouble and remind you that they're not Ric's clues. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:31:27 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Fat Forum EARHARTFORUM Digest - 10 Dec 2002 to 11 Dec 2002 (#2002-272) There are 40 messages totalling 1814 lines in this issue. UG! Ric - this has got to be taking more than an hour of your time to compile. Have some mercy on us and try to keep it down to 1000 lines if you can. Seems like there is a lot of stuff that could be filtered out. LTM (who reads it all anyway) Andrew McKenna ************************************************************************ From Ric More than an hour?? Try more like four or five. There have been some productive discussions on the forum lately that have helped me understand what some of the most common questions about the post-loss messages are but there has also been a lot of non-productive banter and trying to explain alegbra to apes. The fact is, trying to reply to all the questions and challenges raised on the forum is keeping me from meeting my deadlines on the Special Report and other vital TIGHAR business. I really do love moderating the forum but it is increasingly and painfully apparent that I simply can't afford the time, so we're going to try a new system. Starting today, Pat will review and post (or bounce) the submitted postings and pass along to me only those she thinks merit my attention. I'll respond to those as promptly as my schedule allows. In short, Pat will now moderate the forum. I'll still be active in forum discussions but only on an "as needed" basis. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:34:17 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Japanese radio station Bob, Perhaps you can check this out for me. What sort of a signal would we expect for Thelma on July 7th 12.30 GMT from Japanese radio station JVF @ Nazaki transmitting on 15620 Kcs @ 20KW, position 138:51E, 36:10:41N. Regards Angus =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:36:01 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: antenna Alan writes: > If she flew that route it would have taken her > almost directly over the highest mountain in the area, Balbi at nearly > 9000' in Choiseul Province. Yes, I agree with you, Alan, my chart has them flying right over Balbi but have Balbi at a lower altitude than 9000' (i read it was 1999m or 6558ft). I should have explained myself better when i mentioned they were originally flying southward.. I meant south of the line between Lae and Howland. Appreciate your response. Cheers from Bill =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:36:58 EST From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Japanese Radio Stations Ron Bright wrote: >Re: Japanese shortwave >I have a New York Times article in July 1937 describing in detail >the various world wide receptions of foreign shortwave. Here is a >paragraph re Japan's shortwave capabilities. > >"Clear signals from Japan, on 10.6 and 11.8 megacycles, carry >talks and music to New York listeners, between 5-6 O'clock, in >the afternoon, Eastern daylight time. The sending stations are >JVN and IZJ." My records indicate that in 1937, two other stations were also broadcasting, in addition to JVN, which was a 20 KW station at that time. One of these was JOAK, the other was JZx. I don't find IZJ, unless that is a typo from JZx. This later was a 50 KW transmitter broadcasting from Nazaki, Japan, in 1936. I am attempting to find the power of JOAK in 1937. In 1925 it had only 1KW, but I know it was increased in the early 1930's. Harry Poole =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:37:32 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: antenna Alan, I understand where you are coming from about the detours significantly south of the great circle route. However, the great circle route from Lae to Howland at 10,000' also clears all mountains along the route. Even with bad weather, a deviation so far to the right of 76*T (heading from Lae to Howland) just doesn't make that much sense. What makes better sense is that the position reported was transcribed incorrectly, which is what almost everyone concurs happened. The 0720GMT position report is smack on the great circle route, which seems probable that is was a Dead Reckon position postulated by FN, much as he did on the Atlantic crossing and Oakland to Honolulu. Also, we have evidence that the positions reported for the Oakland to Honolulu trip did NOT correspond to the times of transmissions, but were from 15 to 45 minutes old. While one can postulate a number of scenarios that fit all of the position reports from Lae to Howland, the one south of 7*S seems surreal to include. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:38:03 EST From: Tom Strange Subject: Western Electric Radio Mods? For Mike Everette Re: Radio Modifications Why do you suspect Western Electric prototype radio equipment after reading Morgan's book? - Why not off the shelf radio equipment of the day adapted to specific purpose or a clients desires? Wiring diagrams suggest addition and subtraction of wiring and components to allow for different uses - Book appears to have been written for someone learning the aviation radio trade - Please excuse, I'm far from a radio type, just someone following foot prints in the sands of time. Respectfully Tom Strang =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:38:44 EST From: Lee Boyle Subject: Re: Being a WOMBAT While stationed on Atafu Island with the U. S. Coast Guard Loran Unit during WW11 the natives would take a green coconut and cut a square section out of the top of the coconut and we would drink the juice from the coconut. We might have two or three while we were in the village. We would do this several times a week. It tasted good and was refreshing to drink. Keep in mind it was hot on the island. Atafu is approximately 100 or 200 miles from Gardner Island. Correct me on the distance if I am wrong. Being on an island like that for a year or a year and a half distance was not a factor. Lee (Chuck) Boyle. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:41:05 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Forum attitudes > The Pacific is a vast wide open place but the people who lived there in 1937 > and later were not living in a vacum. They knew what an airplane looked > like. >************************************************************** > From Ric > > This is the kind of statement that needs to be supported. When I replied to > the question of whether colonists on Niku were familar with airplanes I cited > specific examples in whihc residents of that island had documented contact > with airplanes. What's the basis for your statement? My statement is very broad on purpose, it is designed to cover all of the islands and all of the people of this area, and the rest of the world. The statement is to show that the world was shrinking at a incredible rate. Because of electronics, aircraft, and faster ships. In 1927 Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic, this added gasoline to the fire that was burning around the world. This fire was the exploration of the globe with aircraft. In the ten years that followed saw most areas of the globe visited by barn stormers, bush pilots,and pathfinders for airlines. To name names is to invite arguments over specific areas like Gardener Island. There was very few aircraft over this island but the people who inhabited the island were from other areas. That would bring a sort of education to the table. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:41:43 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations In the olden times of radio you would listen to a station no matter how bad it came in to your receiver. It was not like the world today, with satellites that make all the difference in the world. If you could understand most of what was going on you would listen and fill in the missing parts. So if you were able to hear a station no matter where it was it was like candy to the soul. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:42:12 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages >Let me save Tom the trouble and remind you that they're not Ric's clues. Thank you, Ric. Bill, let me just suggest that you read our book. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:44:26 EST From: Claude Stoeks Subject: Re: Post-Loss? Oscar Boswell wrote: >> I believe the point that Mr. Young intended to make was that if a >> broadcast made in the central Pacific could be heard in Florida, >> perhaps a broadcast made most anywhere could have been >> heard in the Pacific. Or was it a one-way street? Could it be more significant regarding hoaxes or missunderstood post lost messages to consider not the receiving party, but instead to consider the transmitting party? No doubt there were millions of receivers capable of hearing AE, but how many transmitters in 1937 were capable of transmitting on either 3105 or 6210? If the transmissions from AE were a perfect match for Bettys radio, then we have one transmitter and one receiver. There seem to be no records of any other matchups that compare. That fits the profile of requiring more than one parameter to get a match between transmitter and receiver ie: antenna, skip wave character, harmonics, time of day, maybe even radio circuitry. The fact that no one else but Betty heard the transmissions seems to make it more credible rather than less when you consider the question of how many transmitters were broadcasting on 3105 or 6210 at that specific time. If AE's radio only put out 50 watts at peak battery, perhaps less with low battery power, then maybe only a skip wave reception was possible as opposed to a direct reception. That makes it more siginificant that there had to be a perfect match in the parameters between transmitter and reciever, creating a self imposed limit on the possible number of receivers. If there were millions of transmitters using 3105 and 6210 at that particular time that presents an entirely different picture. LTM who always said a prayer for me when I went flying The Stoker, Claude Stokes =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:24:45 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: The Betty Interview Ric wrote: > Indeed. If Betty heard a hoax the perpetrators (remember, there had to be a > man and a woman) cleverly included numerous references which make no sense to > the uninformed listener (which we all are). So, the inclusion of nonsensical phrases and numbers, somehow becomes proof, for you? > They also contrived to have the signal be receivable by the expensive radio > and via the fancy antenna rig set up by Betty's father, but not by the more > average radio and common antenna of the next door neighbor (her father ran > next door to see if the neighbor could hear the same transmissions). Rick, would you say this same situation might hold, for some particular signal from say, New Mexico, or Illinois? > The hoaxers had apparently also done their homework and were intimately > familiar with the interior of a Lockheed 10 cockpit. They knew that in order > to get out through the cockpit hatch you have to step on the pilot's seat, so > if somone is sitting in that seat talking on the radio, the way out is > effectively blocked. I cannot comment on this, no aircraft knowledge. > The hoax couple also knows that the cockpit is so > cramped that squabbling would easily be picked up by the mic. How cramped, Ric? Cramped enuff that they sat on each other's lap? Why would the avionics producer and installer set up microphone gain this high? This microphone sensitivity, set up satisfactory for a blow by blow coverage of the supposed cockpit goings on, would not be a serious hinderence when under way, when the engine running. I already sent in a post about the 1941 "Nazi Station" hoax. That incident would have gone unrecorded, but for this: the FCC, and then the ARRL, were irate because NO hams turned in the hoaxer, or even bothered to let the FCC know. The incident survived in history only because these agencies castigated the hams, in print. Nor have i seen any SW magazine mention of the incident, altho we can safely assume that if hams heard it, some of the many more hobby- listeners did. Nor can you assume that because Betty's family radio cost 3x the cost of even the best ham communications radio receivers, it was somehow better: In fact it was not better, and in fact somewhat inferior, to the best Nationals and Hammarlunds used by many hams and SW hobby fanatics. > Yes, the hoax couple certainly deserved an award. It's a pity that they went > to all that work and only managed to fool one 15 year old girl. Remove the irony, and this could be my conclusion also. BTW, has Betty said anything about the ham callsign notation in her notebook, how it fit in the overall reception? Hue Miller ************************************************************************ From Ric >So, the inclusion of nonsensical phrases and numbers, somehow becomes proof, >for you? Not proof, no, but a strong indicator that whatever Betty heard was not a hoax. The fact that we can't immediately fathom the meaning of phrases and numbers does not make them nonsensical. If somebody inadvertently left a tape recorder on in our office here at TIGHAR and you later played it back, being able to catch only snatches of the conversations between me and Pat, much of it would probably sound nonsensical. What would you make of "Rock! Dammit!"? But if you were writing, or even ad libbing, a fantasy drama how likely is it that you would include elements whose meaning is not apparent to the listener? I said: > They also contrived to have the signal be receivable by the expensive radio > and via the fancy antenna rig set up by Betty's father, but not by the more > average radio and common antenna of the next door neighbor (her father ran > next door to see if the neighbor could hear the same transmissions). You said: >Rick, would you say this same situation might hold, for some particular >signal from say, New Mexico, or Illinois? Yes, but in that event I would also expect numerous reports of strong signals received in New Mexico or Illinois and weaker signals received in Louisiana or Ohio - very much like we see stronger signals received by the ITASCA and weaker signals head at the same time in Hawaii. >I cannot comment on this, no aircraft knowledge. Then I guess you're not the hoaxer. :-) I said: > The hoax couple also knows that the cockpit is so > cramped that squabbling would easily be picked up by the mic. You said: >How cramped, Ric? Cramped enuff that they sat on each other's lap? Here's where an experiment is theoretically possible, if we knew the gain of the mic she used. I recently sat in the cockpit of a Lockheed 10 and considered whether a discussion/argument between me and someone trying to get out through the cockpit hatch might be picked up by an open mic. I found the prospect entirely credible. >I already sent in a post about the 1941 "Nazi Station" hoax. As I recall your description, that was not a hoax. Rather, it was an illegal use of a frequency. We have no way of knowing how many people heard what they thought were distress calls from Earhart, but it seems almost certain that there were incidents we don't know about. I don't know what to do about that except acknowledge it. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:34:12 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Post-Loss? > ... The fact that no one else but Betty heard the > transmissions seems to make it more credible rather > than less when you consider the question of how many > transmitters were broadcasting on 3105 or 6210 at that > specific time. A question for Ric and those who interviewed Betty: I got the impression that her father heard some of the transmission, too, and went next door to try to tune in the neighbor's radio to the same signal. If this is true, it adds a second ear to the same anecdote--assuming that we trust that Betty is reporting the incident accurately. Marty #2359 (renewal intended Any Day Now) ************************************************************************* From Ric According to Betty, she was alone when she first began to hear the transmissions. Then her sister and her father came home and Betty excitedly called their attention to what she was hearing on the radio. Her father was skeptical at first but soon became very interested and went next door to see if the neighbor could also pick it up. Later that evening, convinced that the transmissions had been legitimate, her father went to the Coast Guard station in person to try to report what he had heard (and yes, we've tried to see if there are any surviving daily records from the St. Pete Coast Guard station. There aren't.). LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:55:45 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Fat forum I like your plan. I agree that there is an awful lot of "stuff" appearing on the Forum that doesn't merit your attention. I think most of us forumites would much rather benefit from your time spent on meaningful projects such as the post-loss messages. I'm sure Pat will do a great job! Just out of curiosity, how many members have joined since myself, #2438. At 62 years old, I'm not used to being the "kid" on the block. Keep up the good work and Happy Holidays to you & Pat. LTM Mike Haddock $2438 *********************************************** We are now up to member #2569. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:56:59 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Post-Loss? Ric wrote: > According to Betty, she was alone when she first began to hear the > transmissions. Then her sister and her father came home and Betty > excitedly called their attention to what she was hearing on the radio. > Her father was skeptical at first but soon became very interested and > went next door to see if the neighbor could also pick it up. Later that > evening, convinced that the transmissions had been legitimate, her father > went to the Coast Guard station in person to try to report what he had > heard (and yes, we've tried to see if there are any surviving daily > records from the St. Pete Coast Guard station. There aren't.). The extra people in the story make a big difference to me. Thanks for repeating these details, Ric. I don't think I could force anyone to accept the significance against their will. Apparently the Dad and the sister never got cross-examined and are not available now to confirm the story. But if Betty seems not to be mentally ill or a liar or a criminal trying to get rich off a hoax, then she probably is not lying or mistaken about two other people hearing the transmission and confirming at least some of its content. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:57:32 EST From: Dave in Houston Subject: Re: Harmonics vs ham frequencies IN REPLY: How did Betty get the Ham's call sign when she couldn't have been on a harmonic. The only thing I can think of is that AE had spoken with him by radio (on another frequency) prior to Betty hearing the call sign. AE is now trying to re-establish contact with him and is calling his call sign, but is now on the wrong frequency. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:58:10 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Fat forum I thought we were going to keep stuff like were FN and AE lovers, body language,etc on the cutting room floor, off topic stuff, etc. I for one would enjoy a leaner , meaner forum of looking at the evidence, the analysis of past evidence if it has some new merit, and any new research or interviews that may come up. The post loss matrix will probably produce an avalance of posts. I think your idea of addressing serious inquires/questions is excellent. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:59:25 EST From: Dave in Houston Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations SUBJECT: Distance that you can hear ham radio. When I was in college (Stephen F. Austin - Nacogdoches, Texas), I had a roommate that had a ham set. We lived on the ground floor of a single story dorm and put his antenna on the ceiling of our room. He often spoke to hams as far away as California at night. And we were on the east side of a hill at least a hundred feet below the crest. FWIW! LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:00:19 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Post-loss messages To Tom, I will read your book with pleasure. Can someone point me to where I can get it. Cheers from Bill *********************************** Tom? [Your ad here!] ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:06:00 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations Harry Poole wrote: >> Ron Bright wrote: >> >>Re: Japanese shortwave >>I have a New York Times article in July 1937 describing in detail >>the various world wide receptions of foreign shortwave. Here is a >>paragraph re Japan's shortwave capabilities. >> >>"Clear signals from Japan, on 10.6 and 11.8 megacycles, carry >>talks and music to New York listeners, between 5-6 O'clock, in >>the afternoon, Eastern daylight time. The sending stations are >>JVN and IZJ." > > My records indicate that in 1937, two other stations were also broadcasting, > in addition to JVN, which was a 20 KW station at that time. One of these > was JOAK, the other was JZx. Harry, In fact JZx is a generic term for JZA JZB etc, which were different transmitters at the same site, transmitting on different frequencies depending on the intended destination. There were three for the USA and three for Europe, the 10.06 MCs being a "European" frequency in 1935. There were others for other areas. All the transmissions followed the same schedule. USA destined frequencies were 6750, 10700, 15620 in 1935. I don't know the frequencies for '37. 18910 @ 20KW and 18190 @ 10 KW were used in 1935 for Europe and Java respectively and could have been received in the US. 15620 was the closest frequency to an AE harmonic. One of the post-loss messages was supposedly received on 16525. This may have been a typo error for 15625 ( fundamental 3125 if 5th harmonic) - very close to 15620. And we do have evidence that AE's transmitter output was a little higher than 3105. Of course it may also have been an error for 15525 - the exact 5th harmonic of 3105. Even so, 15620 is closer to this harmonic than any other Nazaki frequency is to any other harmonic. >I don't find IZJ, Nor do I. >unless that is a typo from > JZx. This latter was a 50 KW transmitter broadcasting from Nazaki, Japan, in 1936 > I am attempting to find the power of JOAK in 1937. In 1925 it had only 1KW, > but I know it was increased in the early 1930's. JOAK was the mediumwave Tokyo station which was relayed to the Nazaki transmitter and sent out via shortwave across the Pacific at 20 KW in 1935 under a series of call signs in a three letter sequence beginning with "JV." In 1936 an additional transmitter of 50KW was added under a similar series of three letter call signs beginning with JZ. By 1941 power had not increased from 50KW. Evidently the JV series transmitters were still running, in parallel with the JZ series, if the New York Times article for 1937 is accurate. This tends to be confirmed by the fact that the 50KW transmitter is described as additional. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:07:30 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Post-Loss? Do you think contact with any Coast Guard Veterans Associations may surface names of personnel who may pulled duty during that time. Queries to those that served there may surface recollections of Betty's father's contact and what happened there as a result. What do you think? LTM Ed of PSL #2415 ********************************* In the absence of station logs I don't think it would help us much. Just more anecdote. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:11:26 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: KGMB How did Betty hear anything relating to KGMB? There are a couple of possibilities. Apropos of Hue's remark that early commercial transmitters were less well controlled regarding harmonics than they are now, it is relevant to note that although the higher harmonics were at lower power, KGMB was a powerful transmitter of 1KW and if this is what Betty heard, even the higher harmonics would be relatively powerful too. Betty could have heard AE on 11th harmonic of 1552.5(17077.5) and KGMB on 13th harmonic of 1320 (17160) or17th harmonic of 1552.5 (26392.5) and KGMB on 20th harmonic of 1320 (26400) - especially if in the process of retuning due to drift. Another possibility is that AE actually mentioned KGMB. How was this possible if AE could not receive on 1320? Once again it is possible that she herself received KGMB on a harmonic whilst searching the frequencies for news of any search. It is also possible that AE mentined KGBM without having received it. It seems likely they would have had details of "local" radio stations with them for the next leg of the trip regarding radio bearings and weather. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:12:48 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Post-loss messages Bill Shea says: >What Evidence, Tom? > >I am a 'Splashed and Sank' member who is waiting for Ric's "clues" to >develop. Actually, I would agree that I am a "Splashed Only" member. It >doesn't matter much if they sank right off or sank a day or two later (except >for drifting a bit). Wow, Tom King makes a prediction that there would be an avoidance of evidence, and then Bill Shea writes in and does just that. He denies that evidence exists. Bill, let me offer you a challenge. You imply that evidence doesn't exist for the TIGHAR hypothesis. Yet Ric and others claim there is evidence. So my challenge to you is the following: take something that Ric CLAIMS is evidence in support of the TIGHAR hypothesis, and tell us why, using logical arguments and whatever evidence you happen to have, Ric's claim is wrong. While you are entitled to your opinion that there is no evidence in support of the TIGHAR hypothesis, inquiring minds like mine want to hear specific detailed reasoning behind that opinion. And it makes a much more interesting discussion as well. Paige Miller It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire If you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:13:43 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Western Electric Radio Mods For Tom Strang > Why do you suspect Western Electric prototype radio equipment after >reading Morgan's book? - Why not off the shelf radio equipment of the day >adapted to specific purpose or a clients desires? This is EXACTLY what happened, Tom. We know that at the time of the first attempt, the a/c was equipped with the WE 13 transmitter and 2B receiver. These radios hit the market some time in late 1934 or at least by mid 1935.They were originally designed for voice operation only, receive and transmit. The radios had been modified to include 500 KHz coverage in both receiver and transmitter, and CW operation. The mods were performed by the manufacturer. If you look in the Morgan book you'll see 3 diagrams for the 13-series transmitter... one, as designed; one, as modified by American Airlines to update some of the circuitry with newer tube types in the oscillator and audio stages; and another showing the CW and 500 KHz mods. There is no diagram for the "modified" receiver but the mods are well described in the text. They were nowhere near as extensive as those in the transmitter since very little actual circuit modification was needed... change a couple of capacitor values (or add extra "padding" capacitors to lower the Band 2 tuning range) and add one extra tube in an external "adapter box" to serve as a beat-frequency oscillator for receiving CW. Radio at that time was pretty simple and straightforward (unlike modern radio which is 90% computer). The pace of radio technology was accelerating but had not yet hit the quantum leaps spurred by WW2. Still, the "design philosophy" of large manufacturers was like it is today... stretch a basic design to the limit before going on to something different. The transmitter mods weren't quite as well thought out as they could have been, in my humble opinion; and made the system cumbersome and confusing to operate on CW. I can fully accept the idea that these mods were the prototype for a later variant of the WE radios which were available on special order from the manufacturer. I have seen plenty of this sort of thing in my career in radio. Hope this helps. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:15:16 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post-Loss? Ric wrote: > The fact that no one else but Betty heard the > transmissions We can only say we don't know of anyone else who heard the transmissions. The significance is in trying to figure out why a transmission was only heard in a particular place when in fact it could have been heard somewhere else and not been reported. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:17:50 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Betty Interview Ric wrote: > What would you make of "Rock! Dammit!"? I'm not even going to hazard a guess. Alan ******************************** So we have this over-sized black cat named Rocket J. Kat, frequently addressed as Rock, which he resembles, and his method of getting his own way is to sit on Ric's desk and rip up papers with his teeth..... Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:18:48 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forum attitudes Ron Bright wrote: > The Pacific is a vast wide open place but the people who lived there in 1937 > and later were not living in a vacum. They knew what an airplane looked > like. Ron, in the last couple of decades anthropologists have found tribes that had never seen ANYTHING of the modern world. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:19:59 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: antenna > Alan, I understand where you are coming from about the detours significantly > south of the great circle route. By what method did Noonan plot a great circle route on the charts he used? Secondly, they were not reporting to be at 10,000 feet but rather at 7,000 feet until they reported at 10,000 feet at five hours and 19 minutes after take off. When they climbed I don't know but if they did not climb until close to 5:19Z they were still at 7,000' through the mountainous part of their flight. By 5:19z they were not too far past all the mountains. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:20:25 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: antennas Bill, the CIA reports Balbi at 2715 meters or 8,907 feet but I'm sure you can find several different heights. I found one other but it was slightly higher. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:31:51 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Harmonics vs ham frequencies This is in response to several postings, including rhe following question from Gary LaPook. > > Re: Harmonics > > > Does that mean that Carroll's ham signals could not have been heard on > > Betty's shortwave set on one dial setting? > >YES if she was set to a harmonic of 3105 or 6210. > >gl >************************************************************************* >From Ric > >I agree. So let's hear some reasonable hypotheses for how his call letters >ended up in Betty's notebook. Here it is.... The answer lies with a phenomenon called IMAGE FREQUENCIES. In superheterodyne receivers, the circuit opates in the following manner: The incoming signal is amplified in a tunable radio-frequency amplifier stage and then "mixed" with a second signal from local oscillator stage, to produce a third "Intermediate" or IF frequency, which is a fixed nontunable frequency. The local oscillator or LO is always spaced from the incoming signal by the value of the IF. Ideally, the value of IF frequency chosen should be at least ten per cent of the signal frequency, if not greater. That is, in a receiver tuned to 10 MHz, the ideal IF would be 1 MHz. The reason for this is that it is possible for "image" signals, unwanted frequencies which are separated from the desired one by double the value of the IF frequency, to "ride through" if the radio does not have sufficient "image rejection." This image rejection is a function of the signal frequency, the IF frequency, and the number and quality (selectivity) of the tuned circuits in the tuned RF amplfier stages of the receiver. It's a complicated story, but that's the short version. Now, in the real world, the "perfect" IF frequency is seldom used. Because the IF is a fixed frequency, it stays the same whether the radio is tuned to 1000 JHz in the standard AM broadcast band, or 18 MHz short wave. The image rejection will therefore be much greater(much BETTER, that is) in the AM band, and in the low HF range from 1.6 to 6 MHz, than at 18 MHz. Most radios of the era used an IF in the neighborhood of 455 KHz. Many suffered from poor image rejection on the short wave bands, especially the higher ranges which typically were "Band Three" on most of them, usually tuning about 6 to 20 MHz... some radios had only AM and one short wave range, and in that case, "Band Two" was usually about 6 to 20 MHz. If the radio was tuned to a short wave broadcasting station at 15.1 MHz, the LO might be working at 14.655 MHz (signal minus the IF frequency), to produce the 455 IF ny mixing with the signal. But if a strong ham radio signal operating in the 20-meter ham band, at 14.2 MHz came on the air, it just might ride right through the radio even if the set were tuned to 15.1 because the 14.2 MHz IMAGE was not rejected by the radio. It is VERY common in 30s-era radios to be able to hear images of strong short wave broadcasting stations, so the same stations appear at more than one spot on the dial... and that second spot might not even be within the short wave broadcasting band. Poor image rejection in these radios led to many cases, like the ham radio example above, of Hams being blamed for interference when it was not their fault at all, but was caused by design flaws in the home-type short wave set. Many uninformed listeners may have regularly picked up foreign broadcast signals, or ham signals, on image frequencies and not realized it... they just knew they heard certain signals at certain spots on the dial. it is therefore possible that some of those who heard post-loss signals may have not heard the alleged AE signal on its actual harmonic, but as a IMAGE... or, more likely, if other signals were heard (such as the Japanese broadcast station) near the AE signal on its actual harmonic frequency, those other signals may themselves have been images. Perhaps the ham call letters referred to in Betty's notebook refer to a ham signal she heard as an image, and thought it was on or near the same frequency as AE... hmmmmm. Very plausible. This possibility does complicate the matter of how to resolve exactly what frequency the AE signal may have used. I hope the above will help understanding of the problem, though it may seem confusing to non tech types. Now for some real-world stuff to illustrate: I have two restored 1930s radios, a 1935 General Electric five-tube tabletop set with no RF stage and excellent sensitivity, and a 1937 RCA nine-tube with an RF stage and almost as good sensitivity as my restored Hallicrafters communications receiver of something like 1960 vintage. Both the 30s sets tune roughly from the standard AM band through about 19 or 20 MHz. Both have 455 KHz IF frequency amplifiers. Both suffer from poor image rejection, the GE being noticeably worse because it has no RF amplifier to aid in cutting the images. If I listen to 19-meter shortwave signals in the 15.1 to 15.6 MHz band I can hear many images along with them, of ham signals in the 14-MHz or 20-meter ham band. When tuning in the region of 17 MHz I can likewise pick up many images of the shortwave broadcasts in the 15 MHz region, so the same broadcasts appear to be coming in at two different spots on the dial.... see? For the information of the tech types, Betty's radio is thought to have been a Zenith Stratosphere. I have the schematic diagram for this set. It has TWO radio frequency amplifiers, and TWO stages of IF amplification; plus, it has a variable bandwidth feature in the IF amplifier to add more selectivity capability. This radio was as good as many of the communications receivers of the day. Two RF stages would give it excellent image rejection; two IF stages would give it superior gain and selectivity. Many 30s-era radios had only one stage of IF. A good many didn't even have an RF amplifier stage but instead applied the incoming signal direct to the "mixer" stage, which resulted in very VERY poor performance regarding image rejection. In my opinion, any radio of the time which had at least one stage of RF amplification and sufficient "gain" in the IF stage could very likely have heard the alleged AE transmissions; maybe not as well as a Zenith Strat, but that depends on a number of external factors like signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio. That's Bob Brandenburg's department. LTM (whose ability to hear only what she wants to is legendary) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:34:33 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Post-Loss? Claude Stokes wrote: > Could it be more significant regarding hoaxes or missunderstood post lost > messages to consider not the receiving party, but instead to consider the > transmitting party? No doubt there were millions of receivers capable of > hearing AE, but how many transmitters in 1937 were capable of transmitting on > either 3105 or 6210? If the transmissions from AE were a perfect match for > Bettys radio, then we have one transmitter and one receiver. There seem to > be no records of any other matchups that compare. That fits the profile of > requiring more than one parameter to get a match between transmitter and > receiver ie: antenna, skip wave character, harmonics, time of day, maybe even > radio circuitry. The fact that no one else but Betty heard the transmissions > seems to make it more credible rather than less when you consider the > question Well, we don't really know that "no one else heard". The path Niku - Florida was not a "one-hop" path, so (i think) you have the wave returning to earth elsewhere, before and past FL. Also, we are not talking vhf or CB-like skip here, and i doubt reception was limited to one backyard. Add in the length of time this broadcast went on, and it seems like someones else had a chance to hear this. No one else *reported* it, apparently. I cited an incident from 1941, i belieive Ric's objection that this was not a "hoaxer" but an "illegal spectrum user" is a meaningless differentiation, that for astute listeners listening in, it didn't matter if you called it a zebra instead, the fact was, in Illinois in 1941 was an egregious example of a radio, uh, illegal user, called by some a hoaxer, and *not one* listener apparently bothered to notify authorities, nor did the radio mags report it. So my point is, well, you know what my point is. > of how many transmitters were broadcasting on 3105 or 6210 at that specific > time. If AE's radio only put out 50 watts at peak battery, perhaps less with > low battery power, then maybe only a skip wave reception was possible as > opposed to a direct reception. The main course of thinking is now that the Florida reception was skip propagation (of course), but on a harmonic multiple of 3105 or 6210, and therefore with a modest fraction of the power output available on 3105 or 6210. I don't have any problem with the survival and post- loss signals heard thruout the Pacific area, these seem pretty unequivocally authentic. It's just ( i think) the 2 NA broadcast listener receptions that need more examining. Maybe we can figure it out, yet. BTW, this also occurred to me, on the OTHER hand: it was at Lae ( i think) where AE was advised to "pitch her voice higher" because of a rough transmiter signal. After communicating with radio ham users of similar transmitters (grid modulated), i sorta am very doubtful that merely mis adjusting the transmitter would result in that radical of a poor tone. I was thinking, if the microphone circuit in the AE transmitter had been set for high gain (instead of low senstivity, as normal), that would have put much more engine noise in the transmitter's audio. I don't recall if this switch was by solder connection or toggle switch inside the transmitter, but it could well have been reset one way or other by some ground technician along the way. My suggestion is, to think possibly that IF this was reset for high sensitivity (not normally used in cockpit environment) the background engine noise would have been much louder, which could have been countered to some extent by "pitching one's voice higher", above the lower frequency engine noise - AND - when engine not running, would have done a better job picking up cockpit sounds, with this more sensitive microphone setting. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:35:41 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Japanese Radio Stations Harry Poole wrote: > I am attempting to find the power of JOAK in 1937. In 1925 it had only 1KW, > but I know it was increased in the early 1930's. You might check JOAK (no joke), i am pretty sure i have seen it listed as domestic (medium wave) station. I think i pursued this down after i saw a "JOAK" labeled microphone at an auction. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:23:34 EST From: Rick Washburn Subject: Did Jones send the messages? (Note from Ric - This posting came in via Ron Reuther's email address. Whoever Mr. Washburn is, he is not a subscriber to this forum. If he wants to contribute to this forum he should subscribe. If Mr. Reuther wants to submit his friends' opinions he is welcome to do so, but it should come in the form of a submission from him and we will reply to him. Normally we would bounce this kind of misuse of the forum but we'll make an exception in this case on the assumption that Ron simply didn't understand.) Paige Miller, You wrote and agreed "The hoaxer must be able to broadcast in such a manner such that Howland hears the signal the strongest, Achilles next strongest, PAA Mokapu weakest and no one else hears it (probability: very low)" I don't know about "and no one else hears it" but certainly the remainder of this statement would hold a very high probability if one is to believe Donahues book "The British Connection" where Capt. John Jones is said to have the capability and coverup reason to broadcast on 3105 from Hull Island. I would be interested in your or other member comments. Regards Rick Washburn NH, USA *************************************************************************** From Ric Donohue, of course, offers no documentation to back up his speculation but there is abundant documentation to show that he is wrong. Jones, as an employee of Burns Philp South Seas Co., was overseeing a group of Tokelau laborers who were harvesting copra (dried coconut meat) on Hull Island. He had a radio receiver and transmitter (but there is no evidence that he had capability on 3105) until June of 1937 when his radio was destroyed in a famously hilarious incident. In brief - Jones was having labor problems. The Tokelaus (who were Christian) did not want to work on Sundays. Jones knew that a solar eclipse would occur on June 8 (a Monday) and warned the laborers that if they didn't work on Sunday he would cause the sun to be blotted out. They laughed off his threat and did not work on Sunday. On Monday, sure enough, the sun began to be blotted out and the terrified laborers ran to find Jones talking on his radio (possibly to the British scientific expedition party who were watching the eclipse from nearby Canton Island). Convinced that the radio was the means by which Jones had wrought this terrible evil, the laborers smashed the thing to smithereens. It was August before a replacement was delivered. Documention of this incident can be found in Eric Bevington's journal and in the logs of the ship that delivered the new radio. It will be recalled that when U.S. Navy pilot John Lambrecht landed in the lagoon at Hull during the Earhart search, he reported that the white overseer (Jones) was unaware of anything about the Earhart flight, much less its disappearance. Of course he didn't know about it. He hadn't had any contact with the outside world for the past month. It would be easier to prove that Jonesy was responsible for the eclipse than it would be to prove that he sent any of the Earhart post-loss messages. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:35:48 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Post-Loss Messages Ric, could you clarify an earlier statement? You said, "Within that area only ITASCA was authorized (and, as far as we know, had the capability) to transmit to Earhart on the aviation frequencies" ... did you perhaps mean that only ITASCA had the capability to transmit VOICE in that area? Because there was another station broadcasting in that area, the mysterious QZ5. Now, your description of the messages from QZ5, as recorded in ITASCA's logs, indicate that the second message from QZ5 (at 0616Z) was in code. I assume the first message from QZ5 at 0613Z was also in code, although you do not state that. Furthermore, to help me understand the status of radio messaging in 1937, let me ask if it is true that in 1937, most naval ships did not have the capability to broadcast voice? That the voice broadcast capabilities aboard ITASCA were put there specifically for the Earhart flight and would not have been present otherwise? All of this is important if we want to narrow down the set of possibilities for the voice transmissions heard by Itasca and Achilles that afternoon. -- Paige Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric All transmissions from QZ5 were in code and none made any reference to Earhart. Remember, 3105 was a standard aviation frequency and there was an active military and commercial aviation community in the Territory of Hawaii. Most ships and commercial aircraft communicated by code but ITASCA's voice capability was not installed specifically for Earhart. Early in the search it was recognized that the possibilty for misunderstandings was high, especially if numerous stations were trying to call Earhart rather than just listening for her, so the protocol was established that only ITASCA would call Earhart on 3105, 6210 and 7500 (the latter being the only frequency she had acknowledged receiving from ITASCA). The only other (authorized) calls to Earhart were by commercial broadcast stations KGU and KGMB but those calls were on their broadcast frequencies. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:20:12 EST From: Gary laPook Subject: Re: Harmonics Mike Everette wrote: > This is in response to several postings, including rhe following question > from Gary LaPook. > > > Re: Harmonics > > > > Does that mean that Carroll's ham signals could not have been heard on > > Betty's shortwave set on one dial setting? > > > >YES if she was set to a harmonic of 3105 or 6210. > > > >gl > >*************************************************************** > The answer lies with a phenomenon called IMAGE FREQUENCIES. > In superheterodyne receivers, the circuit operates in the following manner: > For the information of the tech types, Betty's radio is thought to have been > a Zenith Stratosphere. I have the schematic diagram for this set. It has > TWO radio frequency amplifiers, and TWO stages of IF amplification; plus, it > has a variable bandwidth feature in the IF amplifier to add more selectivity > capability. This radio was as good as many of the communications receivers > of the day. Two RF stages would give it excellent image rejection; two IF > stages would give it superior gain and selectivity. But, as you point out, Betty's radio was a double conversion superhet (superheterodyne) using two different IFs (intermediate frequencies) so would have excellent image rejection and so this would not explain how Betty could hear AE on a harmonic of 3105, etc., and a ham transmitting in the hams bands at the same time. Your prior example using 455 kc as the IF would mean that we should examine the use of frequencies exactly 910 kc (twice the IF frequency) below the harmonics of AE's transmitter. (This assumes that the LO (local oscillator) is set for 455 below the tuning scale. If the radio was designed for the LO to be 455 above the tuning dial we should look at freqs 910 kc above the harmonics.) But with the more complex double conversion superhet used by Betty the investigation would be much more complex and we need to know the two IF frequencies. Do you know what they are? However, this investigation may not make much sense in that the whole reason for using the more complex circuitry of the double conversion superhet using two different IFs is to eliminate the problem of images and her radio probably did succeed in eliminating such images. Therefor she would only be able to hear AE on exact harmonics of AE's freqs. and she would not hear hams at the same time on the same setting of her tuning dial. gl 73 de KA9UHH ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:21:48 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: KGMB Angus Murray wrote: > How did Betty hear anything relating to KGMB? There are a couple of > possibilities. > > Apropos of Hue's remark that early commercial transmitters were less well > controlled regarding harmonics than they are now, it is relevant to note > that although the higher harmonics were at lower power, KGMB was a powerful > transmitter of 1KW and if this is what Betty heard, even the higher > harmonics would be relatively powerful too. > > Betty could have heard AE on 11th harmonic of 1552.5(17077.5) and KGMB on > 13th harmonic of 1320 (17160) or17th harmonic of 1552.5 (26392.5) and KGMB > on 20th harmonic of 1320 (26400) - especially if in the process of retuning > due to drift. Ummm....i'm not the ultimate authority on this, but i am thinking, from reading listener hobby magazines, and the harmonics from broadcast stations i have heard, that the harmonics actually heard, never in real life are heard over any distance at higher than the 5th, and more likely the 2nd or 3rd. I see from the 1930s radio mags that 6-Mhz broadcast stations from the Orient were heard in the USA on the 3rd, which is around 18 MHz ( 18000 kHz or kcs.). Also i remember somewhere in the TIGHAR compiled literature there was a mention of West Coast USA hearing Pacific aircraft on their 3rd harmonic. ( If you're sitting right under the broadcast station's antenna, you can probably hear those higher harmonics, as they're there, but in very low power.) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:23:13 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations Angus Murray wrote: > 18910 @ 20KW and 18190 @ 10 KW > were used in 1935 for Europe and Java respectively and could have been > received in the US. Were these "out of band" freqs used for broadcasts, or for commercial use, i.e. telephone traffic and such? > 15620 was the closest frequency to an AE harmonic. One of the post-loss > messages was supposedly received on 16525. This may have been a typo error > for 15625 ( fundamental 3125 if 5th harmonic) - very close to 15620. And we > do have evidence that AE's transmitter output was a little higher than 3105. > > Of course it may also have been an error for 15525 - the exact 5th harmonic > of 3105. Even so, 15620 is closer to this harmonic than any other Nazaki > frequency is to any other harmonic. That is indeed a good fit. Of course, if Japan was on the air then, the Japan station might raise havoc with a weaker signal located only a few kcs. away. Nice work! Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:25:05 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Harmonics vs. ham frequencies Mike Everette wrote: > it is therefore possible that some of those who heard post-loss signals may > have not heard the alleged AE signal on its actual harmonic, but as a > IMAGE... Mike, is this even a possibility, for receptions of AE in the USA???? > or, more likely, if other signals were heard (such as the Japanese > broadcast station) near the AE signal on its actual harmonic frequency, > those other signals may themselves have been images. AE second harmonic, of what, 6210? Sorry, not clear. > Okay, but > Perhaps the ham call letters referred to in Betty's notebook refer to a ham > signal she heard as an image, and thought it was on or near the same > frequency as AE... hmmmmm. Very plausible. Okay, but look, 14.3 + 910 =~ 15.2, which is a fair distance from 15625. > For the information of the tech types, Betty's radio is thought to have been > a Zenith Stratosphere.... Mike, you've explained how technical shortcomings of a radio allow image reception. Then you go on to point out Betty was using one of the best radios available. Is there a problem here? Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:26:11 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations Angus Murray wrote: > Bob, > > Perhaps you can check this out for me. What sort of a signal would we expect > for Thelma on July 7th 12.30 GMT from Japanese radio station JVF @ Nazaki > transmitting on 15620 Kcs @ 20KW, position 138:51E, 36:10:41W. Angus, Assuming the 20 KW power is the effective radiated power - - including antenna gain - - the signal statistics are: Median SNR: 51 dB (in a 1 Hz band; 52 dB required for 90% intelligibility) 90th percentile SNR: 60 dB Standard deviation of the SNR: 7.03 dB Probability that the SNR will exceed 52 dB: 44.345 percent So, Thelma would hear a good signal on about 13 days of the month with that signal level. If the 20 KW power is not ERP, then antenna gain must be added. For example, an antenna with 10 dB gain in the direction of the receiver would deliver a median SNR of 61 dB, the standard deviation would be 0.78 dB, and the probability of good reception would be 100 percent. and Thelma would hear a good signal every day. LTM, Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:26:46 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Harmonics vs. ham frequencies For Dave in Houston Don't forget that AE could be hearing harmonics also. She did not have to talk to the Ham to hear his call sign. If you hear a call sign out there and you need help isn't it the logical thing to call that Ham that you can hear. Nobody else was talking to her, as far as we know. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:28:25 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations > You might check JOAK (no joke), i am pretty sure i have seen it listed as domestic > (medium wave) station. I think i pursued this down after i saw a "JOAK" labeled > microphone at an auction. > > Hue Miller JOAK-TV is the current call sign for NHK's "General" interest TV station (channel One, VHF in Tokyo). It is reasonable to assume JOAK medium wave radio would also be a call sign of NHK. NHK (Japan's national broadcaster, the equivalent of NPR, PBS and the VOA) has extensive archives and may have answers to historic frequency and power questions. LTM Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:29:48 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: antenna Alan, According to Lovell, page 278, and other authors, Commander Clarence Williams, USNR prepared great circle courses for Earhart/Noonan for the route prior to her first (Howland - Lae) and 2nd attempt, Lae -Howland. Alan Caldwell wrote: > By what method did Noonan plot a great circle route on the charts he used? > > Secondly, they were not reporting to be at 10,000 feet but rather at 7,000 > feet until they reported at 10,000 feet at five hours and 19 minutes after > take off. When they climbed I don't know but if they did not climb until > close to 5:19Z they were still at 7,000' through the mountainous part of > their flight. By 5:19z they were not too far past all the mountains. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:30:39 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: antenna Ron Maybe I can help, As you are aware the equator is a great circle and appears as a straight line on a Mercator chart. The general rule is that when flying within 10 or 15 degrees of lattude near the equator it is not worth while to use the great circle route as the distances are about the same. Now what did AE do.. I think the name was Comdr Williams that put the charts together for AE.. He did calculate the distance using trig tables, probably H.O. 211 Ageton. A set of tables for star sight reduction. But the question is how did he plot a great circle course on a Mercator chart. Here is how. He took a globe of the world and stretched a string from Lae to Howland. on a globe this was a great circle. Next step was to make a mark on the globe about every 6 to 8 degrees of longitude Next step write down the Latitude and longitude of the marks and plot them on the mercator chart. Now connect the marks with straight lines. Great circle course. If he didn't have a globe he couldhave used a Lambert Conformal projection and plot the courese etc. You are right that AE did fly the course as Williams had laid out. Probable saved a mile or two over the rhumb line course. But then, who can fly that accurately. When we crossed the atlantic from the US to England, we flew the great circle course. So did Lindbergh. Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:31:17 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Post-Loss? The Western Electric transmitter microphone gain settings were changed by solder connection. Resistors in the microphone circuit were provided for varying the gain, and were accessible only from the inside. This was not something for the operator to do. LTM (whose voice is rather shrill and loud, if one crosses her) and 73 Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:33:01 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Being a WOMBAT Ric wrote: > Let me get this straight.....your health is a bit shaky but you want TIGHAR > to assign various survivor-type experiments for you to do. How many lawyers > do we have on this forum? Ok, "a bit shaky" means less than perfect, but I'm not going to drop dead suddenly. Since I'm going to be spending about every second weekend or so out there alone anyway I may as well have a useful game to play. > Planting a varnished/painted wooden box on a coral > island similar to Niku in climate etc to see how long it would stand up > to the weather. Is a no - risk thing that was discussed ages ago. It may be pointless, but there was a lot of speculation on how quickly it would deteriorate in salt and sun. Wearing leather shoes.... > I may try wearing them on the islands to see how they hold up to salt > water, sand and coral rubble in reality, just out of curiosity. If I'm going to be walking in salt water and on coral rubble, why not see exactly how they stand up? None of these things are going to push the fatigue thing or the spinal thing if I'm already out there. I just discovered that I consumed 5 litres of water in 2 days afloat plus time ashore, drinking every time I was thirsty. I see no problem with seeing how long a Benedictine bottle of water (750 ml) lasts in a day ashore, provided I don't try to live off that much in a week! The coconut juice thing? It was suggested that switching to that would have given our poor castaway the runs, but I wonder.. If I didn't dislike the stuff so much I'd already have the answer to that. Still no life threatening situation there though. I was not planning to burn the yacht and do a "survivor" thing! Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:34:03 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Being a WOMBAT Alan Caldwell wrote: > > Let me get this straight.....your health is a bit shaky but you want TIGHAR > > to assign various survivor-type experiments for you to do. How many > > lawyers do we have on this forum? > > It isn't lawyers we need. It's a shrink. No offense Ross. We've your best > interests at heart. It's the shrink that said to get out and do stuff again before my back gives out completely. It took what? 2-3 years for me to get well enough to get out there and enjoy sailing again. I'm just trying to mix "fun", "pleasure" and probably pointless research. I want to know the answers to the dumb stuff. It's a bit like saying our castaway could not open coconuts without tools, then finding out that when I tried it - it took only minutes. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:35:05 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: 281 Message Ed Croft wrote: > Bob > > Has that analysis been discarded ? I haven't been ignoring your question about the 281 message. The short answer is that the analysis has not been discarded. I'm preparing a longer answer, which will include some additional context that should help clarify why the original analysis still stands. LTM, Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:36:57 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Hill's PAA corrections Perhaps Ric and others have discussed this earlier. If not it is worthwhile discussing now. I have just reread Amelia Didn't Know Radio, published in Naval History magazine by the U.S. Naval Institute in Nov/Dec 1993, by Captain Almon A.Gray, USNR (Ret) and a former PAA flight and land radio operator in the late 1930s in the Pacific and who flew with Noonan on some occasions. Gray certainly was familiar with the PAA stations at that time, using them both as a flight radio operator and as a land radio operator. In his article he shows an illustration (on page 48) entitled "Were They for Real?" depicting the PAA Wake Island and Midway Island rado bearings taken on the "peculiar signals" [the post-loss signals] converging in the southeastern Marshall Islands. He also says: "The peculiar signals probably were coming from the eastern or southeastern part of the Marshall Islands." He further says because of the very weak or doubtful signals heard by Honolulu (Mokapu Point) PAA station that "It is obvious that the bearings from Honolulu were much inferior to those taken from Wake and Midway; They are useful mainly as indications that the unknown station continued to function." Ron Reuther ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:39:36 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Altitude Will Hc always be zero at sunrise by definition - (presumably at some nominal height)? Regards Angus Murray ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:39:01 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Hooven report The story about the Navy confiscating copies of the official PAA post-loss radio messages (and her keeping a set in violation) as told by Miss Ellen Belotti, the communications secretary at PAA Headquarters in Alameda in 1937), is told in a 1970 UPI press release published in the Everett (Washington) Herald on November 19, 1970. Ron Reuther ********************************************** "Story" is the right word. Without some sort of contemporaneous documentation there really isn't anything there. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:40:47 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Post-loss messages -- For Bill. Thanks for your interest. The book is "Amelia Earhart's Shoes," by Randy Jacobson, Kar Burns, Kent Spading and me, Altamira Press 2001. Try www.altamirapress.com, or Amazon. There's also a link on the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:42:32 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Post-loss messages Paige Miller wrote: > Bill, let me offer you a challenge. You imply that evidence doesn't exist > for the TIGHAR hypothesis. Yet Ric and others claim there is evidence. So > my challenge to you is the following: take something that Ric CLAIMS is > evidence in support of the TIGHAR hypothesis, and tell us why, using > logical arguments and whatever evidence you happen to have, Ric's claim is > wrong. > > While you are entitled to your opinion that there is no evidence in support > of the TIGHAR hypothesis, inquiring minds like mine want to hear specific > detailed reasoning behind that opinion. And it makes a much more > interesting discussion as well. TO Paige, thanks for the reply. But the first thing I will to do is to take Tom's suggestion and read his book. I (and lots of people, besides, me who use the Forum) are skeptical that they made it to Gardner in the first place. In, fact Tighar didn't always believe they did either at first. I think that, using common sense, we know that AE and FN were coming in close to the Itasca by the quality of their radio signals. What happen we do not know but their signal quality was not reported as decreasing which probably would have happened if they were heading away. Apparently, I am not alone in my thinking because other Earhart researchers and the Itasca think they came down NW of Howland. I will try and get Tom's book and maybe I can see why you guys believe that they came down on Gardner. I am still skeptical of a bone that is shorter and stockier than EA or FN, I am still skeptical of a female shoe that may or may not be hers. and a piece of aluminum that doesn't have the rivot holes where you want them. I bet if searches were done on other Islands in Oceana , other clues would be found there as well, so I and others will remain skeptical, just like you are skeptical of my hypothysis as well. Ric is right, I have no evidence that they "splashed" down NW of Howland, and neither has he that they landed on Gardner. But what he has is clues (not evidence), and we all hope they pan out to help prove the whereabout of AE. Cheers from Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:43:57 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post-loss messages Paige Miller writes of Bill Shea: > While you are entitled to your opinion that there is no evidence in > support of the TIGHAR hypothesis, inquiring minds like mine want to hear > specific detailed reasoning behind that opinion. And it makes a much > more interesting discussion as well. Paige, if you will take the time to go back through the archives you will find I have been beating that drum for years. In fairness, Bill Shea usually comes through after I chomp at him a bit. He is a little new at this and doesn't have the background down yet but he's getting there and he asks good questions. Some others and in particular the Marshall fans and also the crashed and sank folks have never offered a supportable rationale for their theory. Nor will they. I have badgered the Marshallists till I'm blue in the face but they will not touch it. All are content to knock the Niku theory although they offer nothing to refute it. When I fuss at them instead of responding with substance they accuse me of trying to stifle opposing views or skepticism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just ask for a little substance to their argument. I hope you have better luck than I have had in this venture. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:44:24 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages RE: Signals from Niku For the radio gurus I pose this question. I hope you can understand what I'm trying to postulate here. Its my understanding that shortwave radio signals "bounce" off the ionosphere. They radiate in EVERY direction. Can you take the distance from Niku and figure the bounce in every direction and see what the crossing patterns would have been at different points - like the part of Florida where Betty lived. My point is this. Betty had a VERY good receiver and a VERY unusual antenna arrangement. But was that enough to count for the difference. What about the likelihood that she actually was receiving the signal from more than one direction. Is it possible that she was getting the bounce from the west and possible also over the one of the poles (or both?)? Or maybe from both east and west? Can this be accurately tracked? In other words, was she possible at an "epicenter" which would could have received the signals from multiple directions, thus increasing the signal strength and possibly contributing to the "stability" of the signal, meaning that she didn't experience the drift normally expected with the set. Also, just for conjecture, what would have been the likelihood that Hull would have received signals from AE IF their radio set had not been damaged? Were they within the cone of silence or would they have been situated to have received her signal? I'm just asking because there are so many things that went "wrong" with the communications on the flight - ie. loss of the belly antenna, her having to pitch her voice higher, etc. Seems like fate handed her more than the usual number of problems. Murphy's law to the Nth degree. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:45:58 EST From: Gary laPook Subject: Re: KGMB I think the problem with the idea that Betty might have also heard KGMB on a harmonic is that broadcast transmitters were bigger, more powerful, complex and expensive than aircraft radios and were able to suppress harmonic outputs. One could probably research FCC radio specifications and requirements for that time for broadcast transmitters to determine that this is the case. gl Angus Murray wrote: > How did Betty hear anything relating to KGMB? There are a couple of > possibilities. > > Apropos of Hue's remark that early commercial transmitters were less well > controlled regarding harmonics than they are now, it is relevant to note > that although the higher harmonics were at lower power, KGMB was a powerful > transmitter of 1KW and if this is what Betty heard, even the higher > harmonics would be relatively powerful too. > > Betty could have heard AE on 11th harmonic of 1552.5(17077.5) and KGMB on > 13th harmonic of 1320 (17160) or17th harmonic of 1552.5 (26392.5) and KGMB > on 20th harmonic of 1320 (26400) - especially if in the process of retuning > due to drift. > > Another possibility is that AE actually mentioned KGMB. How was this > possible if AE could not receive on 1320? Once again it is possible that she > herself received KGMB on a harmonic whilst searching the frequencies for > news of any search. > > It is also possible that AE mentined KGBM without having received it. It > seems likely they would have had details of "local" radio stations with them > for the next leg of the trip regarding radio bearings and weather. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:46:37 EST From: Gary laPook Subject: Re: Post-Loss? A possible explanation for Betty alone hearing this transmission is that it emanated from a low power transmitter located near her home and so would not be heard anywhere else. Any thoughts? gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:47:13 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Post-Loss Is Betty's sister, not named, deceased? I thought only her mother, Olive, and her father, were present at Betty's house. This was based on notes from her neighbor friend, John, who helped Betty contact Goerner in 1970 and who also interviewed Olive about the circumstances of the reception before she died in the 80s. Tighar interviewed John also. I know that Betty doesn't recall Olive being present, but Olive told John she heard some of the transmission and recognized the voice as Amelia Earhart "having heard her on a commercial radio broadcast fairly recently."[ Tighar Post, 11-07-00 ] Did John interview the sister? Does Betty recall what her sister remembers? LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:58:39 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: KGMB > Ummm....i'm not the ultimate authority on this, but i am thinking, > from reading listener hobby magazines, and the harmonics from > broadcast stations i have heard, that the harmonics actually heard, > never in real life are heard over any distance at higher than the > 5th, and more likely the 2nd or 3rd. I have certainly seen them listed to at least the 11th harmonic in DX lists. You're right that the vast majority are heard on the 2nd and 3rd. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:00:45 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations Bob, Most interesting - thanks. Since the 50KW transmitter was evidently operating in 1937 (JZx), there seems every reason to think the 50KW transmitter would also fit the bill. Perhaps you could look at those figures although we are guessing on the frequency. I would guess that reception should be excellent even without including additional antenna gain. Regards Angus Bob Brandenburg wrote: > Assuming the 20 KW power is the effective radiated power - - including antenna > gain - - the signal statistics are: > > Median SNR: 51 dB (in a 1 Hz band; 52 dB required for 90% intelligibility) > > 90th percentile SNR: 60 dB > > Standard deviation of the SNR: 7.03 dB > > Probability that the SNR will exceed 52 dB: 44.345 percent > > So, Thelma would hear a good signal on about 13 days of the month with that > signal level. > > If the 20 KW power is not ERP, then antenna gain must be added. For example, an > antenna with 10 dB gain in the direction of the receiver would deliver a median > SNR of 61 dB, the standard deviation would be 0.78 dB, and the probability of > good reception would be 100 percent. and Thelma would hear a good signal every > day. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:01:22 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: KGMB Hue PS I have just looked on the web and found some Cuban stations dxed on the 12th harmonic. One also has to take account of the fact that these dxs would necessarily be better signal quality than Betty's interception as the dxers need to be able to identify the station. No-one could identify the station from what Betty received. Once one starts to take into account signals that are only just readable for a couple of words at a time, higher harmonics must be included.. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:01:55 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations For Hue Miller, The powerful Boston shortwave station in 1937 was W1XAL (later WRUL) broadcast on 6040 kc, 11790 kc, 15250 kc and 21460 kc. It boomed to Europe and to the US East Coast. I see that the 15250 is close to one of the harmonics you and Angus list. W1XL also did many re-creations,and I am trying to find out what they broadcast in July 1937. But I thought those frequencies might help in locating a possible source. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:02:53 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Reef height You stated earlier that according to the tide curves and calculated water depth, the indication was that they landed earlier, rather than later. If we then assume that AE would have landed where water depth was least, (and possibly even where there was no water if she arrived early enough), what were the highest areas of reef which were suitable for landing, in the general area of interest at the northwest of the island? What suitable area floods last on the whole island? Regards Angus ********************************************************************* From Ric At the west end of the island the reef flat is highest opposite the mouth of the main lagoon passage (Tatiman Passage). This a quarter mile or so south of the shipwreck. The reef surface near the ocean is smooth enough there to permit a landing. The reef flat north of the Norwich City is slightly lower. I can't say how the reef height in these areas compares to other locations around the island. We don't have any way to measure reef surface height above a constant datum. What we know about the relative heights at the west end are based upon observations made as we daily traversed the area going to and from our ship (anchored off the NW tip) to the blasted landing channel. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:08:51 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's Sister ? For Pat As I understand , you were with Ric when Betty was interviewed at length in Nov 2000. Two questions regarding your post. One, is this when Betty mentioned having a sister? And two, how positive was Olive that their radio was a Sears-Roebuck Silvertone cabinet set? What happened to the set? LTM, Ron B **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Betty talked about her sister during the interview. How are we supposed to answer a question like "How positive was Olive"? We didn't talk to Olive. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:22:08 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Post-Loss? For Gary L. If Betty received a close by low power signal, how we would explain why the neighbor,"Russ", heard some signals, but not as well? An antenna difference? We really haven't explored the neighbor's reception well, and yet Betty's mother clearly recalled that Russ could hear the signals. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Refresh my memory. Where are you getting the information that the neighbor received the signals but not as well? I have some undated original notes taken, I think, by John Hathaway of a conversation he may have had with Betty's mother. The notes say: Russell Rodes Sears Roebuck cabinet set Silvertone Rhodes - neighbor bayside coast guard still there neighbors receiving not as well suitcase upstairs in cloak closet heard voice before on radio recognized Mrs. Clink" Betty's maiden name was Klenck. Betty's recollection is that her mother was not involved in the incident and that Russ, the neighbor, heard nothing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:40:32 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post-Loss? Gary LaPook writes: > A possible explanation for Betty alone hearing this transmission is that it > emanated from a low power transmitter located near her home and so would > not be heard anywhere else. Any thoughts? Gary, this is exactly why I made my post the other day on this subject. We do not know that Betty alone heard the transmission. All we know is that we know of no one else who has reported hearing it. We don't need to get carried away trying to figure out why when we don't even know if. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:41:52 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post-loss messages Bill Shea wrote: > I (and lots of people, besides, me who use the Forum) are skeptical that they > made it to Gardner in the first place............................ > > Ric is right, I have no evidence that they "splashed" down NW of Howland, and > neither has he that they landed on Gardner. But what he has is clues (not > evidence), and we all hope they pan out to help prove the whereabout of AE. Bill, am I to understand the reason you don't think they made it to Gardner was because the "157/337" radio call was still strength 5? I assume it was still strong because they were still close and they didn't transmitt that we know about after that so how would we know if their tranmission was getting weaker? Maybe I misunderstood. Do you have any other reasons to believe they didn't make it to Gardner? I don't want to get into our old argument on the definition of clues and evidence but if Ric only has clues what clues do you have to support crashed and sank and/or to refute Gardner? Just believing something doesn't get anyone anywhere. You need to have articulatable reasons. Not proof but some sort of reason. Just being skeptic doesn't advance the ball and that's what this if about. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:42:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: antenna Ron Reuther wrote: > According to Lovell, page 278, and other authors, Commander Clarence > Williams, USNR prepared great circle courses for Earhart/Noonan for the > route prior to her first (Howland - Lae) and 2nd attempt, Lae -Howland. Ron, it that documented or just in a book(s)? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:43:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: antenna Ron, since they were flying within a few degrees of the equator what was the mileage d difference between a straight line and a great circle? Actually they did neither as far as the first seven and a quarter hours were concerned. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:44:13 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations Angus Murray wrote: > Most interesting - thanks. > Since the 50KW transmitter was evidently operating in 1937 (JZx), there > seems every reason to think the 50KW transmitter would also fit the bill. > Perhaps you could look at those figures although we are guessing on the > frequency. I would guess that reception should be excellent even without > including additional antenna gain. Angus, Increasing the transmitter power to 50 KW would increase the median SNR by 4 dB, so in general the reception would be about twice as good. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:45:03 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Betty's sister? When you interviewed John, who told you about Betty's recollection, a logical question to John would be just how certain Olive was about the make and model of the set. Was Olive's recollectioin just a guess or was she more positive. John may have had some impression, or maybe not. Was Betty's sister interviewed by John about how much she heard of the intercepts. What is her status now? I may have missed some posts, but I didn't know that Betty recalled that her sister was with her father when thy came home while she was listening to the intercepts until you answered Mokeski in Dec 2002. The first posts of Betty's interview in Oct and Nov 2002 do not make mention of a sister's presence. LTM, Ron ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:45:45 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Post-Loss? For Ric, In a post dated 11-07-00, your wrote that you reviewed John's notes and interviewed him. >According to John's notes, Olive's recollection of the incident is slightly >different from Betty's. Betty did not remember her mother being present >while AE was being heard but Olive said she heard some of the transmissions >and that she recognized Amelia's voice... It was also Olive's recollection >that the neighbor, "Russ", WAS able to hear some of the transmissions but not >as well as Betty. " [ your emphasis] There is no mention of Betty's sister's presence during any of the transmissions. John also identifed W40J (similiar to the WOJ) as Weldon W. Shows of 1470 Bates Court, NE. Atlanta, Georgia, but didn't contact him. LTM, Ron B/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:46:46 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations Hue Miller wrote: > Angus Murray wrote: > > > 18910 @ 20KW and 18190 @ 10 KW > > were used in 1935 for Europe and Java respectively and could have been > > received in the US. > > Were these "out of band" freqs used for broadcasts, or > for commercial use, i.e. telephone traffic and such? I'm not altogether certain as the info is somewhat ambiguous! Having looked again, 15620, 18910, 18190 are listed with those for "international communication" so it could be that some under this heading were for commercial use. However, JVT (6750) is also listed under this heading and that was definitely a broadcast station and frequency. Frequencies which were separately listed which certainly were broadcast were JVT, JVP, JVN (confirmed by Harry), JVM, on 6750, 7510, 10660, 10740 in 1935 but these are out of band too. Could be that JVF (15620), JVA (18910) and JVB(18190) were commercial. Don't know the frequencies for 1937. I think the only way to be sure is to ask NHK (Radio Tokyo). Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:48:25 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everette Chris Kennedy wrote: > This is a question for Bob Brandenburg and Mike Everette: Each of you > has done extensive technical work evaluating the capabilities/limitations > of the communications equipment aboard the Electra and evaluating, in > some way, the "Betty's Notebook" transmissions. The results of this work > appear on the TIGHAR website > and elsewhere. Yet, what is your own professional opinion as to the > likelihood that Betty was actually hearing Earhart? Do YOU think she > actually heard her? What I am asking you to do is stand back for a > moment and not only evaluate the question on the basis of the specific > technical work done in connection with TIGHAR, but also taking into > consideration your own experience and knowledge gained over the years in > the area of communications, generally. You seem to think that I require your guidance on what to consider in answering your questions. Let me assure you that such is not the case. I have been doing operations research in complex multidisciplinary problem domains for a long time. I routinely take into account my relevant experience and knowledge from all applicable disciplines. In this case, that includes areas other than "communications, generally". You have asked two distinctly different questions. Your first question seeks my opinion as to the likelihood that Betty heard Earhart. This is not a matter of opinion. The likelihood (i.e., probability) is either 1.0 or 0.0. There were only two possible outcomes. Either Betty heard Earhart or she didn't. Your second question seeks my opinion as to which outcome occurred. Based on my analysis of the currently available facts, it is my opinion that Betty heard Earhart. LTM, Bob Brandenburg ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:50:02 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Japanese radio stations I think I have the only possible fits now for Thelma's interception if the transmitter was the 50KW one. JZJ and JZX (both 50KW) transmitted for the eastern districts of North America on 11600 and 15160 daily between 12.00 and 12.30 GMT in 1938. (IZJ was obviously a typo for JZJ.) News in Japanese and music. Seems likely this held good for 1937 as well, especially as the callsigns match. those listed for 1937. No other transmission times for other 50KW frequencies fit Thelma's reception time. However, neither of these frequencies is that close to AEs harmonics. 15160 is quite possible though because, as you pointed out, the frequencies only have to be similar rather than identical. Unless 15620 (20KW) turns out not to be a broadcast frequency, that seems to be the favourite frequency. Either way, I think we can be pretty damn sure that Thelma was picking up AE on the fifth harmonic of 3105. This fits well with other post-loss messages referring to "about 16 MCs", 19m (= 15789KCs) and 16525KCs. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:53:58 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages Dave Bush wrote: > My point is this. Betty had a VERY good receiver and a VERY unusual antenna > arrangement. But was that enough to count for the difference. I'd probably not use caps on those words. She had a good receiver and a good antenna - for a broadcast listener. Her equipment might, i use caps here, put her in the same class as many radio hams and "some" professional communication stations. But it's not like she had some extraordinary thing going there. IMO. > Also, just for conjecture, what would have been the likelihood that Hull > would have received signals from AE IF their radio set had not been damaged? >.......I'm just asking because there are so many things > that went "wrong" with the communications on the flight - ie. loss of the > belly antenna, her having to pitch her voice higher, etc. Dave, that reminds me of something i had quite forgotten: supposing AE could receive *anything* on Niku, with what? The receive antenna, i think many agree, was gone. So, that leaves the loop, for mediumwave regular AM stations (KGMB etc) and - for as yet not definitely determined top frequency limit. Even IF the loop tuned up to 7 or 8 MHz ( Mcs. in old terminology, or 8000 kcs. ) how sensitive, how effective was the loop, together with its "sense antenna", whatever that was - the transmitter main antenna used in this role also, besides transmit - compared to the destroyed regular receive wire antenna? This is untravelled ground, i think, this question. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:55:52 EST From: Ed Croft Subject: Re: 281 message Bob, Thanks for your reply. The 281 message is curious because as Ric stated (not being a trusting soul I checked) is that Gardner is 280.5 nautical miles from the equator. Now for me, it is difficult to reconcile the words (phrases) in the message, 'north' and 'beyond north', with the Niku theory. But what are the chances that 281 would appear in a bogus message or from a message FN and AE tapped away from the Marshalls ? Especially as this is the exact piece of information that Noonan would give. Also, numbers in morse are somewhat easier to recognize because of the consecutive dits and dahs. Words are tougher because of the choosing of which combinations of 'dits' and 'dahs' go to what letters. With a proficient transmitter, it would be easy to distinguish because of the timing, but over a very poor radio signal with static, with an operator with limited skill, it obviously becomes much more difficult. For example (and these are just examples of show how close words are), 'call' in morse is -.-..-.-. ..-.. 'gardner' is - -..-.-.-..-...-. 'shut' is ......... -- 'ship' is ..........--. So, instead of 'Howland call KHAQQ' you would have 'Howland Gardner KHAQQ' (would be nice, eh ?) 'shut off' becomes 'ship off ...' I wrote a program (that's what I do for a living) to try all possible combinations, tried various words (reef, lagoon, plane, etc) but found no real matches. Also, it would make a big difference if the operators recorded abbreviations instead of complete words. Probably, what each operator thought they heard is written down on some piece of paper in some drawer somewhere, waiting to do a 'rosebud'. I'm sure that Ric's approach of using the overall picture of all the post-loss messages is the better (and saner) way to go. curious, Ed Croft #2523 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:56:58 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: altitude > Alan, Gary, > Will Hc always be zero at sunrise by definition - (presumably at some > nominal height)? > Regards Angus Murray No, in fact, Hc will never be zero at sunrise. Sunrise, as tabulated in the Air Almanac and in the Nautical Almanac, occurs when the upper limb (the top of the sun's disk) is in line with the visible horizon. Since the sun's disk has a radius of about 16 minutes of arc (which is known as "semi-diameter", which is published in the Nautical Almanac, and varies slightly during the year due to the variation in the distance from the earth to the sun) when you see the upper limb of the sun on the horizon the center of the sun is actually 16 minutes below the horizon. "Hc" (computed altitude) is computed for the center of the sun so the Hc at sunrise would have to be at least negative 16 minutes. However the story doesn't end here. The light from the sun is bent as it travels through the earth's atmosphere. This is called "refraction" and a correction for its effect must be applied to the computation of Hc. Refraction varies with the height of the celestial body above the horizon, the higher the object the smaller the correction. An object directly over head (at an altitude of 90 degrees) has a zero correction while an object at zero degrees elevation, on the horizon, has a standard correction of 34 minutes of arc. (This also varies slightly dependent on temperature and atmospheric pressure and the actual refraction can be calculated from tables in the Nautical Almanac.) Since refraction always makes objects appear higher than they actually are, the upper limb of the sun is actually 34 minutes below the horizon when it appears to your eye to be on the horizon. Since the center of the sun is 16 minutes below the upper limb the Hc at sunrise is actually negative 50 minutes, since the center of the sun is actually 50 minutes below the horizon. This is still not he end of the story. The minus 50 minutes Hc is only correct for an observer with his eye located exactly at sea level. If he observes from any higher height then he is looking slightly downward to the horizon and a correction for this additional angle (known as "dip") must be made to Hc. From a 1,000 foot altitude the dip is 31 minutes of arc and from 10,000 feet the dip is 98 minutes (which is 1 degree and 38 minutes). From 1,000 feet looking down at an angle of minus 31 minutes to the horizon the refraction correction increases slightly to 40 minutes instead of 34. So the Hc at sunrise from 1,000 feet equals dip + refraction + semidimeter so Hc= (-31) + (-40) + (-16) so Hc = -87 minutes or negative 1 degree 27 minutes. The refraction correction increases for observations from 10,000 feet to 50 minutes. So from 10,000 feet the calculation is Hc = (-98) + (-50) + (-16) = -164 minutes or negative 2 degrees 44 minutes. So as you can see from these examples the Hc at sunrise is always a negative value and is never zero. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:58:50 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: antenna Clarence William's charts are in the Purdue University Library Special Collections. As a side remark, the maps are not quite great circle courses, but a series of rhumb lines to approximate the great circle route. The quality of the maps are very poor for navigational purposes, however, and I doubt AE and Noonan used them other than for rough guidance purposes. The Purude library contains many other maps that were more useful for navigational purposes from the various portions of the flight already completed. Alan Caldwell wrote: > Ron Reuther wrote: > > > According to Lovell, page 278, and other authors, Commander Clarence > > Williams, USNR prepared great circle courses for Earhart/Noonan for the > > route prior to her first (Howland - Lae) and 2nd attempt, Lae -Howland. > > From Alan > > Ron, it that documented or just in a book(s)? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:27:36 EST From: Warren Thompson Subject: Re: Post-Loss? Any thoughts about trying to recreate the AE/Betty radio connection phenomena-or are there two many variables. (Maybe on the next NIKU trip or from equivalent sender/recever relative positions.) Happy holidays to all, Warren *********************************** Mike? Bob? P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:28:42 EST From: Richard Young Subject: Paige Miller's Challenge Paige Miller, in the words of Doc Holiday, "I'll be your huckleberry". To my mind the only two items, or bits of evidence, that I find closest to supporting the LOG scenario are the repair aluminum skin and the so -called "dado". I will address their individual problems separately, and their common problem at the end. 1. the skin. Despite all efforts, this pattern of rivet holes has not been matched to any area on an Electra. The best that can be said for it is that since Amelia's Electra was extensively repaired, we can't rule it out until such time as a good picture of all the repaired areas surfaces. But to support the LOG scenario requires affirmative proof, not "might-have-beens" - there is no evidence that this particular piece of aluminum was ever even attached to an airplane! It could have been used to patch an aluminum boat hull, canoe, water tank, or any other riveted item, (target buoy float, maybe?) If an aircraft carrier need to repair an aluminum item, I doubt that the intended nature of the metal for aircraft repairs would slow them down one bit, especially if they had a scrap piece the correct size and shape. 2. the "dado" - a common fixture whenever ANY "cargo" vehicle gets converted into a nice passenger vehicle. You will find fixtures such as this in almost any vehicle that has a carpeted area, especially conversions. I've seen them in boats, custom vans and buses, airplanes, camper trailers, even elevators. But the big problem they both have? Let's stipulate they both came from an airplane. Let's go even further, and for the sake of argument pretend we can prove that they both came off of AE's model 10E special. That still doesn't prove Landed On Gardner. Why? Because we KNOW that aircraft wreckage was imported from off-island for use as raw materials - remember the "bookcase" that TIGHAR was so excited about, until it proved to have come from a B-24 or Privateer? No such aircraft were lost on Gardner, so we know that the bookcase came over in a boat. Without affirmative proof contra-wise, Occam's Razor compels us to believe that ALL aircraft wreckage on Gardner arrived the same way, (until proven otherwise). You find some engines, main spar, landing gear, then we'll talk. small easily transportable pieces prove nothing. LTM, (who believes any landiing you can walk away from is a good landing) Rich Young ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:29:18 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: altitude Gary, Thanks for that long exposition. Hc is calculated altitude - ie what the "real" altitude (from the centre of the earth to the centre of the sun with respect to a truly horizontal reference plane) ought to be if you are at your assumed position. But you can't correct a calculated altitude because it doesn't need it. Surely what you are talking about is Ho. Ho is the (corrected) observed altitude, and is given by Ho = Ha + Sum where Sum is the sum of the corrections (refraction, semi-diameter and parallax) and Ha is the apparent altitude, itself already corrected from Hs, the sextant altitude, by making instrumental and dip corrections. One then compares Ho and Hc and they both measure the same thing, ie the angle from the horizontal plane to the sun, Ho from the real position and Hc from the assumed position. Hs at sunrise (by the definition of sunrise) will be zero (assuming zero instrument error) and therefore Ho will be slightly negative. Hc will also be negative if one's assumed position is correct. So - Yes you're right that Hc will be negative but not because it incorporates any correction and only if your assumed position is correct. If your assumed position is wrong Hc could be anything. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:31:14 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Antenna The only record of data provided by Clarence Williams is the Howland to Lae, flying east, says Carol Osborne. It consists of time and course only. The Howland to Lae chart is on page 295 of Osborne's book. 2556 miles in 17.01 hours! That is a no wind calculation, and AE would use the reciprocals going from Lae to Howland. Williams did prepare a great circle course from Honolulu to Oakland, see p. 161 of Osborne's book, for the 1935 crossing. Maybe there are more cites out there. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:30:50 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg, for your reply and description of the general attitude with which you approached the question as one experienced in complex multidisciplinary problem domains. Following up on that for a moment, when you talk of a "1.0 vs. a 0.0" in your reply you appear to have approached the question on the basis that Betty either definately heard or definately didn't hear Earhart---not, for example, that there is a 70% possibility that she heard. Yet, the analytical computer work you did on this question ("Could Betty Have Heard Amelia Earhart on a Harmonic") under both "Results" and "Conclusions" discusses the ultimate issue using terms such as "probabilities" and "probabilities (in percent)". So, are you relying on additional "currently available facts" for your reply to me here? If so, could you identify what these are and from what disciplines they come? Thanks, --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:35:13 EST From: Bill Sheah Subject: Re: Post-Loss messages Alan Caldwell wrote: > Bill, am I to understand the reason you don't think they made it to Gardner > was because the "157/337" radio call was still strength 5? I don't think they made it to Gardner for the following reasons. I will try to give you my deductive reasoning for each one. We know they first flew southwards, whatever the reason for this, It probably was for several reasons, including to avoid inclement weather which was about 250NM out from Lae, to avoid any of the mountains on the east end of Papua New Guinea, maybe they thought that communicating back to Lae would be better if they didnt have any mountains in between, and they could use Balbi Mountain on Bougainville as a navigation aid. (they didn't have to go over it, they could just skirt around it). 1. My 1st reason then would be what they did from here after they radioed back to Lae their first position. They then flew on a northward track where they called in their second positon. Which begs the question, why did they pick this more northern track when they could have flow directly to the SS Ontario, or even more directly to Howland Island. To me, They must have had a reason; they certainly wouldn't have headed on this track if they were trying to fly a southern offset. 2. my second reason is that there was a plane heard flying over the SS Myrtlebank at about the same time that the Electra 10E would have flown over it if, indeed, they continued on that SAME northern offset track. My confidence in the Electra flying over the SS Myrtlebank grew after some Forum members piped up and said that was indeed possible if not probable. And then Ric agreeing that IF the Myrtlebank heard a plane that night then it must have been the Electra. And those three waypoints do form a straight line. I have no more reasons for them continuing on that line from there. However, If one plots that continuing northern offset line you will see that it flies right over Ocean Island. Wasn't the plan for Ocean Island to be lit up for Earhart? That will be my next research. 3. My third reason why I believe in the northern offset route is that oddity that occurred on the 157/357 line at sunrise. He would have known that if at the appointed time he saw the sunrise then he was at the correct flying distance for him to turn to 157 degrees down to Howland. He would not have this oddity happen if he flew a southern offset route. One can argue that if his charts had Howland in the wrong place then he would have had a different distance to fly before turning onto 157 degrees, but I don't think we know this as fact. 4. When the Itasca heard AE saying she was short of fuel and flying at 1000 feet on then there would not have been enough time or fuel to go past Howland, Baker, or even down to Gardner (since this was not very long after sunrise then that would still put them north of Howland). AE was calling in every 30 minutes and since that was the last time the Itasca heard her while she was still in the air, then its easy to assume that they went down during that 30 minutes or their radio equipment failed. >Bill, am I to understand the reason you don't think they made it to Gardner >was because the "157/337" radio call was still strength 5? Oops, I better backtrack if I said this. If their radio signals to the Itasca were increasingly stronger then its easy to assume that they were closing with the Itasca. But It is a difficult time of the day to make assumptions on signal strenths, when the night frequencies are fading, and the day frequencies are getting louder all due to the Ionization of the D layer when the sun comes up. In gov't communications we had to change frequencies at sunrise and again at sunset to try and keep quality signals coming in. I have a fuel question. Has there been any debate on them carrying that Higher Octane fuel in that small tank? The plan was to use half of it to take off from Lae and the other half to take off from Howland. If they were that short of fuel, would they be able to use that second half to get them to Howland? Or would the Electra not want to run correctly when flying lower revs when landing? Maybe this would have lead to them coming down. I can imagine how hectic it would have been during those last moments trying to turn on the correct fuel lines, trying to get every drop out of them to keep the engines going. Cheers from Bill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:36:50 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge Paige Miller wrote: >Bill, let me offer you a challenge. You imply that >evidence doesn't exist for the TIGHAR hypothesis. Yet Ric and others claim >there is evidence. So my challenge to you is the following: take something >that Ric CLAIMS is evidence in support of the TIGHAR hypothesis, and tell us >why, using logical arguments and whatever evidence you happen to have, Ric's >claim is wrong." I'll take a shot at it, Paige. First of all, let me emphasize that I don't know whether Ric is wrong or right. Having said that, here are some problems I see with the Niku Hypothesis: 1. The 1940 bones: Gallagher first identified them as a woman's. This identification was based, apparently, on part of a shoe sole (at least Gallagher gave no other basis for his conclusion). No personal effects, clothing, hair, etc., were found near the remains. Gallagher confidently identified the shoe as approximately a women's size 10. Assuming he was using British sizes, this would translate to a US woman's 11 or 12 -- far too big for Earhart, who wore a 7-8. The only medical men who actually saw and handled the bones (Isaac and Hoodless) agreed that they came from a male and had been exposed for a long time, perhaps 20 years. Burns' and Jantz' "re-analysis" calls this conclusion into question. However, what Burns and Jantz didn't tell you is that the pelvic bones are regarded as the most reliable indicator of gender. Hoodless' identification of the remains as male is based upon firsthand observation and measurement of a partial pelvis (the "innominate bone") and associated structures. Burns and Jantz' identification of the remains as >possibly< those of a female is based upon a computerized "re-interpretation" of Hoodless' cranial measurements -- a less reliable indicator. And even then it's a verrrrry close call. Further, Earhart's skull should have had a dime-sized hole in either or both maxillae, resulting from Caldwell-Luc operations performed at Massachusetts General Hospital in 1928 and at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, Los Angeles, in June 1935. (It is unclear whether Dr. Joseph Goldstein, the 1935 surgeon, performed a second Caldwell-Luc or simply re-opened the 1928 portal). A recent medical study at the University of Reykjavik found that, in about 70% of patients who underwent Caldwell-Luc surgery, the drainage holes remained open >four to seven years< after the procedure; in 1937 Earhart was only two years out from the Goldstein surgery. TIGHAR speculates that the telltale surgical holes couldn't be seen because the skull's maxillae were missing, but cannot explain why Hoodless failed to mention this when he clearly noted that the right zygomatic arch and malar bone were missing. When I brought this up on the Forum, Dr. Burns responded, "We really don't know what Dr. Hoodless was looking for." With all due respect, horsefeathers. Dr. Hoodless was looking for indicia of who this person was and where he/she came from. He was certainly aware of speculation that the remains were those of Earhart; that's undoubtedly why the job was entrusted to him and no one else. There are other serious problems with the Burns/Jantz reanalysis, but I don't want to turn this into a treatise on Dem Bones, so let's move on. 2. Sextant box: There is no particular reason to believe this came from the Electra. It could just as easily have come from the Norwich City, or floated in from hundreds of miles away. (Parenthetically this is a problem I have with most of TIGHAR's evidence; there is a tendency to ignore or ridicule alternative sources of an artifact in favor of TIGHAR's own hypothesis. A good example of this is the 1940 bones: The body of at least one Norwich City crewman was never recovered, yet TIGHAR all but sneers at the notion this crewman could have been the unfortunate "castaway.") 3. Benedictine bottle: See (2) 4. Emily Sikuli: I still can't figure out whether Emily actually saw the "airplane wreckage" sticking up from the reef flat, or whether her dad saw it and told her about it. In any event her recollections are considerably less than clear, and were given some 60 years after the fact. (Why do I suspect that, if Emily's story did not support the Niku Hypothesis, TIGHAR would dismiss her tale as "mere anecdote," just as it does with Blas, Galten and others?) In any event, neither Maude nor Bevington (1937) nor the NZ survey crew, which spent >two months < on Niku in 1938-39, nor anybody else from 1938 through 1964, ever reported seeing this wreckage. However, Emily's remark about numerous skeletons on the beach does correlate with the story of Hull Island's John Jones, who, in 1937, told members of the Itasca crew that his ship, the "Makoa," had recently visited Niku and saw "the bodies of nine men lost in the [Norwich City] wreck, drown or killed by sharks were buried ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach." If these skeletons were still exposed when the first colonists arrived, that would be a plausible alternative explanation for much of Emily's story. 5. The 1991 shoe: For a variety of reasons, TIGHAR no longer contends that this shoe was Earhart's, and I agree. 6. Dado, plexiglass, etc. Apparently the dado is a "dado" because Ric showed it to one guy who said that's what it was. Based upon photos of the artifact, it seems overbuilt for its humble task, but that's just my impression. However, various other types of conveyances, including ships and automobiles, also have dados. Unless this hunk of metal can be specifically linked to a Lockheed aircraft, it's just a hunk of metal. The same is true of the plexiglass. It is also worth noting that the presence of a B24/PBY bookcase on Niku shows there was an inter-island trade in aircraft scrap. Any aircraft materials found on Niku must be viewed against this background. 7. The "Castaway Campfire": A can label found in the ashes proved to have a UPC bar code, indicating that it was deposited no earlier than the 1970s. 8. Clamshells, turtle shells, coconuts, etc: Evidence of somebody's lunch. Found near the site of the "house built for Gallagher," and also near clear remnants of LORAN activity. Absolutely nothing linking this stuff to Earhart except somebody's opinion that the shells were opened by an unpracticed hand. This could describe anyone who did not grow up next to the ocean, presumably including many of the LORAN guys. (I'm from Kansas; I would probably use a sledgehammer) 9. Betty's Notebook: So Earhart has enough presence of mind left to fire up the engine and turn on the radio, then she lapses into incoherence and spends the next 1.5 hours transmitting gibberish. Okay. But there's absolutely no "occult" information in the notebook, unless you count a random string of numbers which (when tweaked by Ric) correlates (sort of) with the position of the Ontario (several days previously.) And exactly why would AE waste her time transmitting the Ontario's former position -- twice, no less -- instead of something like "KHAQQ on reef south Howland"? Finally, even if one assumes that Betty heard Amelia Earhart, the notebook only puts them on land, not necessarily on Niku. Gilberts, anyone? 10. The Earhart 5K: I admit this one is subjective. I have yet to see a plausible explanation of why Earhart would leave the vicinity of the Norwich City (the most noticeable landmark on the island) and hike 3 miles around Ameriki (wading two inlets, carrying a sextant box) to set up camp at the Seven Site, just about as far away from the Norwich as you can get. Maybe the turtles and clams congregate only on the windward side; I dunno. 11. Lambrecht: Three search planes overfly Gardner Island one week after the disappearance. They are specifically searching for Earhart and her Electra. Six pairs of eyes. "Repeated circling and zooming." Lambrecht gets close enough to the Norwich to be able to describe its condition and estimate its tonnage. Yet nobody sees anything resembling aircraft wreckage. Nada. Zip. Squat. Whatever "signs of recent habitation" Lambrecht saw were inconsistent with makeshift castaway structures (he later said these signs were the "crumbling walls of buildings," and we know that ruins of this sort were present on the island from the 1892 Arundel plantation). To argue otherwise is to accuse Lambrecht of intentional dereliction of duty, and there is absolutely no evidence to support such a contention. BTW if you believe in the post-loss messages, then the utter and complete disappearance of the Electra from the Niku reef flat took place over four days, not seven. Does any of this prove that Earhart >didn't< land on Niku? Not at all. But let's remember that the burden of proving a hypothesis rests with the party asserting it. TIGHAR is attempting to do so, and more power to them. But I don't think they're ever going to get the job done with "probablistic" evidence, except maybe in their own minds. As Fred Goerner -- who himself had been burned by overstating his case -- wrote to a young, enthusiastic Ric Gillespie back in 1990: "If you return to Gardner, don't bring back more 'maybes' for publicity. If you bring something back, be absolutely positive you have clear identification before making the search for Earhart and Noonan more of a joke than it already is." IMHO better advice was never given. Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:37:52 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: reef height Ric wrote: > At the west end of the island the reef flat is highest opposite the mouth of > the main lagoon passage (Tatiman Passage). This a quarter mile or so south > of the shipwreck. The reef surface near the ocean is smooth enough there to > permit a landing. The reef flat north of the Norwich City is slightly lower. Can you really see AE landing in a few inches of water if she could see an area that was still dry and tolerably good? It would be difficult to judge the quality of a submerged surface and such a landing would be prone to the dangers of hydroplaning. Does this not argue that either she landed opposite Tatiman Passage or at a time when both areas were already flooded? Since the balance of probability seems to lie with the area north of NC as a landing zone, then she probably landed after the water had covered the southerly area. Can you estimate from the tide curves and the difference in height between the two areas of reef when this might have first occurred? Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:38:35 EST From: Page Miller Subject: Reading Amelia books Bill Shea says: >TO Paige, thanks for the reply. But the first thing I will to do is to take >Tom's suggestion and read his book. Excellent! Let me tell you what I did...I also read Elgen Long's book. In case you are not familiar with it, this is a book which explains the "Crashed and Sank" Theory (or a version of crashed and sank). Compare the two books, compare the methods used, compare the evidence used. Decide for yourself which parts of each book seem to make sense to you. Then start debating and keep learning, as I am. I think you will enjoy the process as I did. -- Paige Miller It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:39:22 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Altitude Gary LaPook wrote: > No, in fact, Hc will never be zero at sunrise. Good explanation, Gary. If all our explanations were this well done there would be a lot less misinformation floating around. Everyone needs to save a copy of this posting and a few others as well. We all see the same questions arise even from the old hands., myself included. I DO save good posts but I now have too many. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:40:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everette Bob Brandenburg wrote: > Your first question seeks my opinion as to the likelihood that Betty heard > Earhart. This is not a matter of opinion. The likelihood (i.e., > probability) is either 1.0 or 0.0. There were only two possible outcomes. > Either Betty heard Earhart or she didn't. > > Your second question seeks my opinion as to which outcome occurred. Based > on my analysis of the currently available facts, it is my opinion that Betty > heard Earhart. Come on, Bob. quit beating around the bush. seriously I like those kind of answers. In 1976 they told me my son had a 12% chance to live. I told them, "No, he has a 0% or 100% chance. There are places for odds and guestimates and there are times when it is just plain either or. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:42:47 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies Hue Miller wrote: >Mike Everette wrote: > > it is therefore possible that some of those who heard post-loss signals may > > have not heard the alleged AE signal on its actual harmonic, but as a > > IMAGE... > >Mike, is this even a possibility, for receptions of AE in the USA???? I think it may be possible. I am not sure how probable... but the next scenario is definitely well with the realm of probability: > > or, more likely, if other signals were heard (such as the Japanese > > broadcast station) near the AE signal on its actual harmonic frequency, > > those other signals may themselves have been images. I refer to the short wave broadcast signals here. >AE second harmonic, of what, 6210? Sorry, not clear. I am thinking in terms of all possible harmonics which this transmitter might generate. Remember the crystals for the two HF frequencies were one-half the air frequency. The crystal for 3105 was actually 1552.5; that for 6210 was 3105. So, compute all the possible harmonics of 1552.5 and you get a complete list. > > Okay, but > > Perhaps the ham call letters referred to in Betty's notebook refer to a ham > > signal she heard as an image, and thought it was on or near the same > > frequency as AE... hmmmmm. Very plausible. > >Okay, but look, 14.3 + 910 =~ 15.2, which is a fair distance from 15625. It's actually 15210... and the 20 meter ham band's top end in 1937 was 14.4 MHz. So the image of a ham signal might appear at 15310.... The harmonic frequency is 15525, not 15625. And yes, that is still a ways from 15310. At this point I am not splitting hairs with frequencies, but just looking at all possibilities that might be eventually plugged into an equation which itself isn't fully defined at this moment. Also consider the possibility that the IF might have been 465 KHz, another standard value of the time... this puts the image 930 KHz from the signal frequency. Not much difference but it could be significant.... > > For the information of the tech types, Betty's radio is thought to have been > > a Zenith Stratosphere.... > >Mike, you've explained how technical shortcomings of a radio allow image >reception. Then you go on to point out Betty was using one of the best >radios available. Is there a problem here? No problem at all. Any radio with a 455 KHz IF will exhibit SOME image response, albeit perhaps weak, in the 12 to 25 MHz bands.... Even a quality communications receiver of the period such as a Hammarlund Super Pro SP-200 (hit the market in 1937) or a Hallicrafters SX-25 (1939) is not totally immune to images. You are quite correct to question how well Betty could have heard an image, given a superior radio like a Zenith Strat; the issue is certainly complicated if that's what she had. But I submit that it is not completely impossible, particularly with respect to images of powerful short wave broadcast signals. 73 Mike ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:44:01 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: RCS Viti Forumites might be interested to view the website on R.C.S. Viti http://www.nzmaritime.co.nz/viti.htm See Sept - Dec 1941 for Phoenix islands activity. I wonder of Viti is still afloat? Regards Angus. ******************************* Van, wasn't that the Viti you guys were diving on in Tarawa? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:00:02 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Post-loss messages Bill Shea wrote: > ... If one plots that continuing northern offset line you will see that it flies > right over Ocean Island. Wasn't the plan for Ocean Island to be lit up for > Earhart? That will be my next research. It was Nauru Island, who was mining phosphate, that was lit up at night, not Ocean Island. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:01:05 EST From: Van Hunn Subject: Re: RCS Viti No, Ric and I were diving on the famous R.C.S. Nimanoa. Van ******************************* Thanks for the life-line, Van . P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:02:25 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everette Chris Kennedy wrote: > when you > talk of a "1.0 vs. a 0.0" in your reply you appear to have approached the > question on the basis that Betty either definately heard or definitely didn't > hear Earhart---not, for example, that there is a 70% possibility that she > heard. That's correct. Either she did hear Earhart, or she didn't. There are no other possible outcomes. > Yet, the analytical computer work you did on this question ("Could > Betty Have Heard Amelia Earhart on a Harmonic") under both "Results" and > "Conclusions" discusses the ultimate issue using terms such as "probabilities" > and "probabilities (in percent)". So, are you relying on additional > "currently available facts" for your reply to me here? No. There's nothing mysterious here. Everything you need to know is clearly stated in the plain language of the report. It's a matter of elementary probability theory. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:03:43 EST From: Robert Klaus Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge Richard Young's response to the evidence is well reasoned and very complete. It expresses many of my doubts. My own answer to the question: "Why don't you believe that AE landed on Gardner?" is "Because she isn't there." Unless someone shows convincing evidence that she is now, or in the past was, there, then there is no reason to conclude that she was there. TIGHARs research and reasoning has shown that she quite probably could have gone there, and that there were good reasons she might have headed that way. But so far nothing has been shown which convinces me she arrived. Richard Young mentioned the shoe as no longer being positive evidence. He didn't mention that it has become negative evidence. Prior to their rejection the shoe parts were shown to probably be from a 1930s production woman's shoe of American manufacture. While this shoe, or the parts, could have been left by any number of persons any time between manufacture and discovery, the most probable person to lose a 1930s American woman's shoe would seem to be a 1930s American Woman. This implies the presence of an unknown woman on Gardner in the 1930s, other than AE. If we assume the reanalysis of the bones is correct, and they are those of a woman of European ancestry, then we are left with a question of which one. Are they AE's? Or did the woman who left her shoe on Gardner also leave her bones there. LTM Robert G. Klaus ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:05:08 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge Pat Gaston wrote: > Paige Miller wrote: "Bill, let me offer you a challenge. You imply that > evidence doesn't exist for the TIGHAR hypothesis. Yet Ric and others claim > there is evidence. So my challenge to you is the following: take something > that Ric CLAIMS is evidence in support of the TIGHAR hypothesis, and tell us > why, using logical arguments and whatever evidence you happen to have, > Ric's claim is wrong." > > **************** > > I'll take a shot at it, Paige. First of all, let me emphasize that I don't > know whether Ric is wrong or right. Pat, Paige's challenge was to prove Ric wrong. Your shot not only missed but you stated at the outset you didn't know whether Ric was right or wrong. I'm not clear why you simply rehashed all that instead of actually accepting the challenge. Nothing you said is new and we all know that nothing on Niku has been proven to be a smoking gun nor has anyone suggested that. No one has contended there are no alternative possibilities to the Niku clues. What was your point? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:07:06 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Altitude You are absolutely right Angus I answered the question in relationship to Ho. I misread the sense of the original question. Ho will never be equal to zero but will always be negative. If you choose an assumed position at your actual position then the Hc will equal this Ho. Since you can assume a position at any place (within reason) since it is only used for ease of computation the resulting Hc could be of any value from minus 90 to plus 90 degrees. You usually choose an assumed position within 60 NM of your DR so as to minimize the difference between Hc and Ho which results in a shorter "intercept" and a more accurate LOP. BTW in aviation celestial navigation practice it is normal to do the computations prior to shooting the sun. You also figure out the corrections for refraction, semi-diameter and parallax, as you mentioned, plus corrections for coriolis, motion of the body, motion of the observer, and sextant error and apply them with the sign of the corrections reversed to the Hc prior to shooting the sun. This sum is abbreviated Hp, altitude precomputed. By doing this the Hp should equal the Hs and so you can compare Hs directly with Hp immediately after shooting the sun and plot your LOP in a very short period of time, much faster than if you are figuring out the corrections after shooting the sun. This speed is important since the airplane is moving rapidly and any delay in plotting the LOP means that you are well past it. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:12:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages Bill Shea wrote: >Alan Caldwell wrote: > >> Bill, am I to understand the reason you don't think they made it to Gardner >>was because the "157/337" radio call was still strength 5? > >I don't think they made it to Gardner for the following reasons. I will try >to give you my deductive reasoning for each one. > >We know they first flew southwards...... They flew EAST, Bill but at about 94 degrees so that was slightly south. That's a true not a mag course. >1. My 1st reason then would be what they did from here after they radioed >back to Lae their first position. They then flew on a northward track where >they called in their second positon. Which begs the question, why did they >pick this more northern track when they could have flow directly to the SS >Ontario, or even more directly to Howland Island. To me, They must have had a >reason; they certainly wouldn't have headed on this track if they were trying >to fly a southern offset. That's a good point, Bill and of course no one really knows what their reason was. If I had to guess it was because Noonan had precomputed his celestial and was simply getting back on track. Otherwise he has to redo all his navigation. It was not much of a jog time or fuel wise. >2. my second reason is that there was a plane heard flying over the SS >Myrtlebank at about the same time that the Electra 10E would have flown over >it if, indeed, they continued on that SAME northern offset track. My >confidence in the Electra flying over the SS Myrtlebank grew after some Forum >members piped up and said that was indeed possible if not probable. And then >Ric agreeing that IF the Myrtlebank heard a plane that night then it must >have been the Electra. And those three waypoints do form a straight line. By three waypoints are you referring to the two position reports and the location of the Myrtlebank? In any case tell me what the coordinates of the Myrtlebank were at about 10:30pm that night or whatever time you think they over flew it. My understanding is we don't have the Myrtlebank's logs but I may be wrong. The 8th Edition suggests a rough estimate of 2 degrees 20' S and 167 degrees 10' E. Is that what you were using? Forum members certainly have said it was possible AE overflew the Myrtlebank but how anyone could estimate probability I don't know. I don't know what the air traffic was in July of 1937. I don't know how we could know if there were any other planes out in the area or not. I don't think anyone has ever tried to find out. I certainly can't say there was only one plane in the air on July 2, 1937 in the mid pacific. >I have no more reasons for them continuing on that line from there. However, >If one plots that continuing northern offset line you will see that it flies >right over Ocean Island. Wasn't the plan for Ocean Island to be lit up for >Earhart? That will be my next research. Are you thinking of the lights and phoshate mining glow from Nauru Island, Bill? Ocean (Banaba) Island was about 150 miles further east of Nauru and about 46 miles further south. >3. My third reason why I believe in the northern offset route is that oddity >that occurred on the 157/357 line at sunrise. He would have known that if at >the appointed time he saw the sunrise then he was at the correct flying >distance for him to turn to 157 degrees down to Howland. He would not have >this oddity happen if he flew a southern offset route. One can argue that if >his charts had Howland in the wrong place then he would have had a different >distance to fly before turning onto 157 degrees, but I don't think we know >this as fact. I think you're confused about this event, Bill or I'm misunderstanding what you wrote. Nothing we know of occurred on the 157/337 line at sunrise. Sometime after sunrise which occurred while the Electra was in bound from the Gilbert area Noonan obtained at least two sun shots which gave him lines across his map running somewhat perpendicular to his course. Let's say, for example he shot the two sun shots 15 minutes apart. By measuring the distance between the two lines he would determine his ground speed. For the purpose of this example let's say the distance between the two lines was 30 nautical miles. That would give him a ground speed of 120 Knots. He then drew a parallel line through Howland and measured the distance from the second sun shot line to the line running through Howland. Using the time of the second sun shot line, the distance to the Howland line and his computed ground speed he would then know what time he would reach the line he drew through Howland. Let's say that time was 19:12Z. At 19:12Z he looked down and didn't see Howland so he may then have turned and run up and down that line which we all know as the 157/337 LOP. We don't know which way he went first or second or last. In any case they looked around and never saw Howland. Maybe at 19:12Z they were a little north or a little south or a little east or a little west of Howland. No one will ever know. That scenario is good no matter whether they approached Howland from north of course or south of course. Makes no difference. No "oddity" occurred. He knew it was the correct time to turn on the LOP only because of the time on his watch. Not because of the position of the sun or the position of the Electra. >4. When the Itasca heard AE saying she was short of fuel and flying at 1000 >feet on then there would not have been enough time or fuel to go past >Howland, Baker, or even down to Gardner (since this was not very long after >sunrise then that would still put them north of Howland). AE was calling in >every 30 minutes and since that was the last time the Itasca heard her while >she was still in the air, then its easy to assume that they went down during >that 30 minutes or their radio equipment failed. Sorry, Bill but that doesn't wash. First of all sunrise was roughly 6:15 to 6:30 local time but we don't actually know where the Electra was when they saw the sun come up. Around a couple hundred miles out at least. AE's radio call of "gas is running low" and "we are flying at 1,000 feet" came at 7:42 local. Long after sunrise. Nothing tells us where they were at 7:42L but THEY thought they were directly over Howland, "We must be on you...." (Same radio call) It was an hour later (8:43L) they reported "We are on the line 157 337....." They were NOT calling every 30 minutes. The reports listed are 4:53L, 6:14L, 6:45L, 7:42L, 7:58L, 8:00L, and 8:43L. At this time (8:43L) fuel reserve estimates range from my 139 gallons to 150 gallons or much more by Oscar Boswell. Oscar has shown they could have leaned out more than it has been thought. Contrary to your scenario, Bill, no one knows where the plane was at 7:42L but we do know where AE thought they were - over Howland. That was about an hour and a half after sunrise and if you feel that is "not very long after sunrise" I'll not argue. I will suggest, however, you have no basis for saying "there would not have been enough time or fuel to go past Howland, Baker, or even down to Gardner...." as they were still wandering around in the area at 8:43L at which time they gave no dire warning they were running on fumes. At 7:42L and at 8:43L there is no information in existence to tell us where they were other than within strength 5 radio wise of the Itasca whatever that means. I see no basis for assuming anything. Maybe AE stalled into the sea at that point, the aircraft had a disastrous event, the radios failed or she just flew off in some direction. There is no clue as to what occurred. >I have a fuel question. Has there been any debate on them carrying that >Higher Octane fuel in that small tank? -- The plan was to use half of it to >take off from Lae and the other half to take off from Howland. If they were >that short of fuel, would they be able to use that second half to get them to >Howland? -- Or would the Electra not want to run correctly when flying lower >revs when landing? Maybe this would have lead to them coming down. I can >imagine how hectic it would have been during those last moments trying to >turn on the correct fuel lines, trying to get every drop out of them to keep >the engines going. Bill if I remember correctly the fuel tank contained 50 gallons of 100 octane fuel. I don't recall reading anything about a plan to use some of it at Howland but that would be reasonable to me. I don't see any problem with using up the remainder to keep from running out of gas and certainly they would have done that. I don't know what they had to do procedurally to use fuel from whatever tank but I think the 100 octane fuel was in one of the normal wing tanks not in the fuselage tanks as I understand it. If I'm wrong Ric will jump right in and correct me. Ric can also explain what it took to use fuel from the tanks but I don't see it as a problem. I don't recall a debate about it. Sorry to be so vague but I'm on my laptop in the living room and answering your post has me worn out and I don't want to get up and look through my files. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:13:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna Ron Bright wrote: > The only record of data provided by Clarence Williams is the Howland to Lae, > flying east, says Carol Osborne. Thanks very much, Ron Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:15:27 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Harmonics Sorry to take so long to get around to this reply to a posting from Gary LaPook. >But, as you point out, Betty's radio was a double conversion superhet >(superheterodyne) using two different IFs (intermediate frequencies) I DIDN'T say that, Gary... I said the radio had TWO STAGES OF IF AMPLIFICATION. The IF of the Zenith Strat was either 455 or 465 KHz. BIG difference between "two stages of amplification" and "double conversion." If you want a schematic of the Strat, go on line to www.nostalgiaair.com and I think you will find it. There are three variants of this receiver... two use 16 tubes each; the third uses 25 tubes, most of the "extras" being in a huge overblown audio amplifier. >Your prior example using 455 kc as the IF would mean that we should >examine the use of frequencies exactly 910 kc (twice the IF frequency) >below the harmonics of AE's transmitter. (This assumes that the LO >(local oscillator) is set for 455 below the tuning scale. If the radio was >designed for the LO to be 455 above the tuning dial we should look at >freqs 910 kc above the harmonics.) I don't know which side of the signal the LO was on, in that radio... the more-or-less norm for 30s radios was, LO on the high side, since on the standard AM band it MUST be on the high side, given a 455 or 465 KHz IF; and tracking is much easier to maintain in the ranges up to 6 MHz if the LO is on the high side. BUT, assume for a moment that the receiver was not a Zenith Strat at all (for several reasons, and some are admittedly hunches, I am tending to lean more toward a Crosley 1199, which looks an awful lot like a Strat but was a helluva lot less expensive), and had only one -- or perhaps none at all -- preselector (RF Amplifier) stage ratrher than the Strat's two stages of preselection... in that case you might even hear images of strong signals as far removed as 1820 KHz (much weaker of course, but it is possible) in the higher tuning ranges above 12 to 15 MHz. (I once restored an Atwater Kent tabletop set which did exactly that! I'd expected a lot better, from an A-K.... oh well.)) >But with the more complex double conversion superhet used by Betty the >investigation would be much more complex and we need to know the two IF >frequencies. Do you know what they are? I know it was NOT a double conversion receiver. Of that I am very certain. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:16:26 EST From: John Hathaway Subject: Re: Betty's sister For what it is worth, I did not remember talking to Olive until I found my thirty year old notes. Don't think she identified the right radio, because a Sears cabinet set from that era doesn't match the physical description that Betty related to me in 1970. Betty still gives the same description. Betty had told me about her dad coming home, listening to Earhart and "the man", and her dad's frustrating trip to the Coast Guard station. Betty's father had died several years prior to 1970. I don't recall any mention of Betty's sister, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any discussion of her presence because time passes and gin passes carrying away memories. Betty's sister departed in '99, I believe. LTM, who has total recall John Hathaway ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:42:22 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Question for Brandenburg and Everett Bob Brandenburg wrote: "Your first question seeks my opinion as to the likelihood that Betty heard Earhart. This is not a matter of opinion. The likelihood (i.e., probability) is either 1.0 or 0.0. There were only two possible outcomes. Either Betty heard Earhart or she didn't." Alan Caldwell wrote: "There are places for odds and guestimates and there are times when it is just plain either or." Flippancy has its points, gentlemen, but look where it got poor Cam! Seriously, I think you are confusing the "range of possible outcomes" with the "range of probabilities." They are two very different things. Certainly if you want to boil it down to an either/or proposition, there are only two possible outcomes: Either Betty heard Earhart or she didn't. But that doesn't rule out assigning a probability to each of those possible outcomes, which is really what Chris Kennedy was asking. The entire opinion-research industry is devoted to translating possible outcomes (Do you intend to vote for X or Y?) into probabilities (Our polls show X has a 60% chance of winning the election). However, since Bob declined to qualify his opinion in terms of probabilities, I assume that his level of certainty is near 100%. In that case I would like to know how he determined the voice "Betty" heard was that of Amelia Earhart. LTM (who is certain that not all possibilities are probable) Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:43:41 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Antenna Ron Bright, Alan Caldwell et al, From The Sound of Wings, 1989, in addition to my earlier message concerning Mary Lovell's comments about Lt.Cmdr. Clarence Williams USNR [whose father was a Navy Admiral who had been in Navy intelligence and who had been heavily involved in planning the US Navy's Pacific strategy for war against Japan in "War Plan Orange"] and his having plotted a great circle route for Earhart on her route from Oakland via Miami, the Caribbean, S. America etc. eastward around the globe to Howland and return to Oakland, I quote the following. Mary Lovell says on p.254: "After consultations with Clarence Williams, Amelia decided that since the second start was so much later in the year it would be safer to reverse the original flight plan and fly eastward because of the weather conditions in the Caribbean and Africa." On page 271 she says: "The charts laid out by Clarence Wiliams had been of immense help on the journey so far, though Amelia had not adhered strictly to the original flight plan. For the Lae-Howland flight, reciprocals of the original Howland-Lae attempt had been prepared, together with the local data regarding Howland Island that William had gleaned from the hydrographer's office in Washington." On page 293 she says: "At George's request, Clarence Willilams prepared a chart of the great circle 'base course' from Lae to Howland and on the assumption that Noonan would have obtained a drift angle soon after takeoff, he estimated drift at 11 degrees (which would have been laid off into the prevailing wind), or to the right of the original course. The prolongatons of this track, he said, passed 140 miles to the south of Howland Island. He also warned George that it was just as likely that the opposite might have happened, and drew another track line 11 degrees to the left of the course, which passed 140 miles to the north of Howland. From these two lines, he provided George with what he called a"cone of possibilities," which a staff artist of the Los Angeles Times laid out and wired to many of the daily papers around the world." Ron Reuther ************************************************* Ron, does Lovell provide citations for any of these statements? Pat ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:45:27 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies Mike Everette wrote: > >Mike, you've explained how technical shortcomings of a radio allow image > >reception. Then you go on to point out Betty was using one of the best > >radios available. Is there a problem here? > > No problem at all. Any radio with a 455 KHz IF will exhibit SOME image > response, albeit perhaps weak, in the 12 to 25 MHz bands.... Even a > quality communications receiver of the period such as a Hammarlund Super Pro > SP-200 (hit the market in 1937) or a Hallicrafters SX-25 (1939) is not > totally immune to images. > > You are quite correct to question how well Betty could have heard an image, > given a superior radio like a Zenith Strat; the issue is certainly > complicated if that's what she had. But I submit that it is not completely > impossible, particularly with respect to images of powerful short wave > broadcast signals. I thought the radio was a double conversion superhet with a second IF than 455kc. If this is the case the image would have to appear at twice that IF difference which should be much greater than 910 kc. Any info on the second IF frequency? gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:49:51 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Betty Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg, for confirming that you are not relying on any additional facts than those already in your paper "Could Betty have Heard Amelia Earhart on a Harmonic" for your conclusion/opinion expressed to me earlier that Betty actually heard Earhart, and for confirming, below, that everything one needs to know for your conclusion/opinion is spelled out in the paper. So that people can see for themselves, I encourage everyone to read the report on the website, and to take some time to go through and consider the "Results" and Tables 1 through 5 in view of what you have told me in our exchange of messages. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:25:47 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge It has been interesting to see the responses to Paige Miller's challenge "to take something that Ric CLAIMS is evidence in support of the TIGHAR hypothesis, and tell us why, using logical arguments and whatever evidence you happen to have, Ric's claim is wrong." So far I haven't seen anybody meet that challenge. We've been treated to a rehash of opinions from people who find the evidence unconvincing and laundry lists of speculative explanations for the various events and artifacts that TIGHAR sees as indications that the flight ended at Nikumaroro. That's fine, but it doesn't answer Bill's challenge. What is most surprising to me is Pat Gaston's suggestion that I follow Fred Goerner's advice from 1990, "If you return to Gardner, don't bring back more 'maybes' for publicity. If you bring something back, be absolutely positive you have clear identification before making the search for Earhart and Noonan more of a joke than it already is." From the beginning we have conducted the Earhart Project as an investigation that is open to the public, researched by the public, debated by the public, and funded by the public. This forum is the purest expression of that openness and I find it more than a little ironic that Pat Gaston should use the forum to express his opinion that we should not be discussing all these maybes. Perhaps in the past twelve years since Fred Goerner offered that advice, TIGHAR's expeditions, publications, website and forum have made the search for Earhart and Noonan more of a joke than it already was. If so, Pat Gaston himself seems to have provided the punch line. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:18:53 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Altitude Gary, Would you agree that once Noonan was on the 157/337 line through Howland, it should not have been too difficult to predict the direction of Howland from the sign of (Ho minus Hc) for discrete points (together with considering the direction of travel north or south), even if he had no pre-computed curve for comparing Hp and Hs (always assuming he could get the required shots)? If this is the case (and we assume they were indeed on the LOP - because they reached Gardner) then any error in choosing direction on the LOP ought to have been rectified fairly soon and the minimum amount of fuel wasted in running in the wrong direction. How long do you estimate it might have taken to establish they were going away from Howland (if this was in fact the case), with and without a pre-comp curve? This may put some bounds on the length of a "wasted" first search leg along the LOP. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:19:58 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages Alan and Bill: The Chater Letter reminds us that they "... filled all tanks in the machine with 87 octane fuel with the exception of one 81 gallon tank which already contained 100 octane for taking off purposes. This tank was approximately half full and it can be safely estimated that on leaving Lae the tank at least 40 gallons of 100 octane fuel..." That gave them (roughly) 1100 to 1115 gallons, of which about 40 was 100 octane. Alan you are correct that this was in one of the wing tanks. We don't know which side it was on, but that doesn't matter. I don't recall if there was 100 octane stockpiled at Howland. Ric may know, but if I had to guess, I'd bet there was. I don't recall what kind of management plan they had for moving fuel around to keep balanced, but I am willing to bet there had to be some kind of methodology, whether it was simply keeping track and switching tanks so as to use fuel evenly from the various tanks until they were (nearly) empty, or physically moving fuel around. As I recall Ric did mention recently that the Electra was equipped with a wobble pump for that purpose. However, I can't imagine trying to move hundreds of gallons of fuel with a wobble pump! I'm much more inclined to think that once they had taken any given tank down to a few gallons and switched over, then they probably moved the residual to another tank. ltm, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:20:56 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antenna Ron Reuther wrote: > The prolongations of this track, he > said, passed 140 miles to the south of Howland Island. Ron, I would suggest you plot that out on a map. As a long time pilot and navigator I can tell you that makes no sense. An 11 degree offset would bypass Howland by something in the neighborhood of 410 miles no wind. Clarence Williams had no way of knowing what the wind would be nor did Noonan. There were insufficient weather reporting stations to have ever predicted any drift accurately for actual use. With the little information we have now after the fact there is no way to compute what the winds were on July 2, 1937 or redraw the route. If we can't do it after the fact I am certain it could not have been done before the fact. The drift only affects the heading of the aircraft. It doesn't alter the course. You don't draw offsets for wind on maps. In the case of a short distance a "cone" of probable drift might be guessed at but I don't know for what purpose. In all the many years we navigated across both oceans our preflight planning consisted of no wind information. Known winds were applied at take off time and periodically throughout the flight. I have to believe Noonan did the same thing. If you will stop and think you will see that an 11 degree drift would require a pretty strong wind or a significant angle off course. There is no evidence either condition existed. In any case drawing a line 11 degrees both sides of track makes no sense whatsoever. There is no data available that would allow one to arrive at a point 140 miles either side of Howland. I'm not sure I would put all that stock in what Mary Lovell wrote in a book or what anyone wrote in any book. This was difficult to respond to as it is too nonsensical. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:22:33 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge Personally, I just let most of this kind of stuff slide by without paying it much attention. One of the things that these folks seem to have overlooked is, when TIGHAR/Ric - researches the evidence and finds that it _doesn't_ support the Earhart theory, it's put right out there for all the world to see. The (B-24) mapcase for example, or the "knob" that turns out to be an oil can spout. There is also the fact that none of the evidence identified and examined thus far has been touted as the proverbial "smoking gun". However, I do believe that as we examine the evidence and the artifacts, and they (as we say) "are taken in the light most favorable to the people" there is a very strong circumstantial case for the TIGHAR theory. And personally I think we are entitled to interpret the evidence that way. If someone else chooses not to, that's okay too. For me, these are examples of the kinds of things that give TIGHAR/ Ric - a huge measure of credibiility. ltm, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:23:26 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everett Pat [Gaston], you are entirely correct but I don't deal in probabilities although I know they have their application. I suppose my question would be if there was a 70% probability Betty DID hear AE what useful information would that provide? Suppose we assign only a 40% probability. What would we do differently with that change? Secondly, I think anyone would have a difficult time proving the mathematical probability of any number or the significance it provides. Does it make someone sure, surer or less sure and if so what does a person do with that information? In the case of Betty what different ways do we treat Betty and her information if the probability is 70% or 60%? Unless someone can show me how the different probabilities can be practically used I'll stick with either she did or she didn't. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:24:01 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages Bill, as a followup to my own posting let me make clear the sunrise time of 6:15 local was at Howland. The Electra wasn't AT Howland at 6:15 local. The Electra didn't arrive until 7:42 local at least by AE's belief. An hour and a half earlier the Electra would have been somewhere about 175 or more miles west of Howland. I estimate that based on an overall ground speed given the flight time of 19.2 hours and the distance traveled. It would have been shortly after that they saw the sunrise but we can't compute that exactly as we don't know their altitude or ground speed at that particular point in their flight. That should be fairly accurate however. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:24:51 EST From: David Carmack Subject: Paige's Challenge I never saw the word "prove" in Paiges challenge. only > tell us > why, using logical arguments and whatever evidence you happen to have, > Ric's claim is wrong. And if that did mean "prove" then that only sets the stage for a no -win response from anyone. just as Ric cant "prove " all his evidence is related to Amelia. Maybe Pat should have voiced his doubts in a totally unrelated post , but Ithink he tried to do that by saying he didnt know if Ric is right or wrong. I think Pat made his comments in a very friendly , non-inflammatory way. I cant say the same for your rebuttal. David ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:27:20 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge For: Robert Klaus Robert, may I respectfully point out that the Niku Hypothesis does not "conclude" that AE landed there. It is a possibility that is being tested--nothing more. So many people get on this forum and take exception to the hypothesis, which is fine, but rarely does anyone advance a theory or hypothesis that can be tested. I support the Niku Hypothesis but I am open to any discussion of other possiblities that are testable. I think Ric is of the same mindset. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:27:55 EST From: Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge All I can say is that when I first read Betty's notebook it gave me a shiver. It still does. How could her notes be any kind of a fraud? What motive could she have? What kind of mind would perpetuate an elaborate hoax over the airwaves and expect to gain anything? Betty's notebook is chilling evidence. I am convinced that somewhere in those garbled pleas for help is a key to the mystery. I suspect that her notebook is the most definitive evidence yet that TIGHAR has. Wesley Smith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:29:56 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Betty Let's try this one more time. You were trying to get me to assign a probability to whether Betty DID hear Earhart. I tried to explain to you that the question of whether she COULD have heard Earhart - - which is the topic of my report - - is different from the question of whether she DID hear Earhart. My reference to elementary probability theory was an attempt to help you see the difference. As to my OPINION as to whether Betty DID hear Earhart, given that it was possible for her to have done so, I said quite clearly "Your second question seeks my opinion as to which outcome occurred. Based on my analysis of the currently available facts, it is my opinion that Betty heard Earhart." This OPINION is NOT a matter of probability theory, nor did I say that it was. If you are interested in what facts I relied upon in arriving at my opinion, I can tell you that they are found in the video tape of Betty's interview with Ric, and in the information that has been posted on the forum. If you have been paying attention to the forum posts on this subject, and if you have viewed the video tape, then you have the same information I have, and you can draw your own conclusions. Bob Brandenburg ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:31:47 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everett Patrick Gaston wrote: > The entire opinion-research industry is devoted to translating possible > outcomes (Do you intend to vote for X or Y?) into probabilities (Our polls > show X has a 60% chance of winning the election). The operative analogy here is what happens after the votes are counted. What then is the probability that X won the election? > However, since Bob declined to qualify his opinion in terms of probabilities, > I assume that his level of certainty is near 100%. I am 100% certain that there were only two possible outcomes. Either Betty DID hear Earhart, or she DID NOT hear Earhart. > In that case I would like to know how he determined the voice Betty > heard was that of Amelia Earhart. My opinion is based on information in the video tape of Betty's interview, and information posted on the forum. Everyone is at liberty to review that same information and draw their own conclusions. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:32:40 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Betty's sister For John Hathaway Thanks for the clarification of Olives' interview regarding the type of radio. It doesn't match, you report, the description that Betty gives, even today. But your notes made in 1970 at the time of the interview did indicate that Olive identified it as a Sears model. How do we know that Betty's description is correct and Olives' isn't? Reportedly, Betty had two sisters, one of whom you point out died in 1999. Can you ask Betty if that was the sister who arrived home with the father and heard part of the transmissions? [ see Ric's post of 12-13-02] Or was that a mistake. If Betty's sister heard the transmissions, did she write anything down and did you interview her? LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:32:11 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Harmonics For Radio gurus Mike,et al Refresh my memory or refer me to the cite that it was a Zenith Stratosphere (?). According to John, interviewed by Ric and Pat, he recalled that Betty's mom, Olive ,said that to the best of her recollection it was a Sears and Roebuck Silvertone set. John interviewed Olive circa 1970s. REB ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:34:10 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Clarence Williams Pat, She doesn't list citations as far as I can tell, but it appears she most likely obtained the data from interviews with many persons involved with Earhart and her last flight includiing Harry Bruno, Elgen and Marie Long, Gore Vidal, and various newspaper articles articles including those by aviation correspondent C.B. Allen, and other sources. Ron Reuther *************************************************** So you are relying on a secondary/tertiary source which relies on anecdote? P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:34:59 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Antenna There are no cites by Lovell re Willams preparation of a the great circle route from Lae to Howland. However I have the LA Times article of 6 July37 with a nice photo of Clarence "charting AE's possible position" .[ After the loss ] Position, not course. He wrote an extensive article describing the "cone of possibilies" where AE could have alighted. The article starts with the fact that Clarence C. Williams "plottted the course for Amelia Earhart's 28000 mile round the world flight. And this (the article) is his own story of telling what probably happened on the last hours of the aviatrix passage from Lae, New Guinea to tiny Howland, Is." It does imply he plotted the course, but it certainly is not definitive if George P asked him to and that he indeed plotted a chart of the great circle "base course" from Lae to Howland. She still could have been using the reciprocals from the first plot he made. I don't know. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:36:11 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: harmonics Well, as Roseanna Roseannadan would say, "never mind." I mis read your previous post. gl 73 de KA9UHH Mike Everette wrote: > >But, as you point out, Betty's radio was a double conversion superhet > >(superheterodyne) using two different IFs (intermediate frequencies) > > I DIDN'T say that, Gary... I said the radio had TWO STAGES OF IF > AMPLIFICATION. The IF of the Zenith Strat was either 455 or 465 KHz. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:36:38 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: RCS Viti The Nimanoa's in Tarawa; Viti was last reported in SE Asia, and may still be afloat. T ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:37:22 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge Richard Young says: "Paige Miller, in the words of Doc Holiday, 'I'll be your huckleberry'." Well, I'm not looking for any huckleberries, nor do I think you are one, but maybe a "defense attorney" to my role as "prosecuting attorney" would be a better description. Anyway, what you provided is indeed a clear explanation of your view on the matter, that's what I was hoping to see, and so I have a few comments. Regarding the dado and aluminum skin, you are right that they cannot be traced to any specific aircraft right now. By themselves they are not proof of anything. They might be from AE's aircraft, they might not. You say that there is no indication that the aluminum was ever attached to an airplane. I thought (and maybe Ric could jump in and clarify) that there was some wording or code stamped on the aluminum skin that indicated it was indeed aircraft aluminum, that it was aluminum that could not be used for any other purpose. You say "No such aircraft were lost on Gardner, so we know that the bookcase came over in a boat. Without affirmative proof contra-wise, Occam's Razor compels us to believe that ALL aircraft wreckage on Gardner arrived the same way". Sorry, I can't agree with this at all. While it is possible that all aircraft wreckage on Gardner came over in a boat, I don't think it makes sense to rule out other possibilities, such as an aircraft landing or crashing on Gardner. Your argument is that bookcase came over by boat, therefore all artifacts came over by boat and I can't agree with that at all. I can think of other possible and likely mechanisms. Now as far as your other points, my view is that the aluminum skin and dado must be viewed in combination with all the other evidence. They do not stand by themselves as proof of anything, but the fit in a pattern of evidence that includes artifacts, Ric's recent posting on post-loss messages, a castaway on Gardner, a skeleton found with a sextant box and woman's shoe, etc. Perhaps that's where we differ. If we have to proove each and every artifact and other piece of evidence DEFINITELY comes from AE, then I suppose we will never get there unless you find the Electra. I look at it just the opposite, that the totality of the evidence is unlikely to have come from any other source, that AE landing at Gardner is the most likely solution, and that other solutions require many, many unlikely and random coincidences. Your witness, counselor! -- Paige Miller It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire If you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:37:55 EST From: Tom Riggs Subject: Re: Post-Loss? Warren Thomson wrote >Any thoughts about trying to recreate the AE/Betty >radio connection phenomena-or are there two many >variables. (Maybe on the next NIKU trip or from >equivalent sender/recever relative positions.)" Before the last Niku trip, I sent Ric an e-mail suggesting they carry a transmitter similar design and power as carried on AE's Electra. I suggested he could send transmissions at pre-determined scheduled intervals to see if radio-heads (hams) located on U.S. East Coast could receive his signals. I can't remember Ric's exact response to my suggestion other than he did not think it was feasible to do at that time. TR #2427 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:38:34 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Betty's radio For Gary LaPook Gary, I think you may still be missing my point. The receiver Betty used, whatever type it was, had ONE IF frequency... not two. It was single conversion. The IF was in the vicinity of 455 or 465 KHz. The IF amplifier had two stages, two tubes/three tuned circuits. The two-stage IF would provide a definite boost in overall "gain" through the receiver (ability to detect weaker signals), and additional selectivity against adjacent-channel interference from signals near the frequency of the desired signal... but the number of IF stages does not protect against images. of course. That is the job of the tuned circuits and amplifier stages at the signal frequency, the RF Amplifier stages... ahead of the IF. The Zenith Strat had 2 radio-frequency amplifier stages operating at the signal frequency, which would have provided a high degree of front end selectivity and image rejection, but would not eliminate ALL images especially those resulting from strong signals. The Crosley radio I mentioned had one RF amplifier stage. RF amplifier stages provide gain, to be sure, but not nearly so much as those in the IF amplifier. The function of an RF amplifier is more to isolate the antenna from the mixer/converter stage, and screen out images, than to provide gain. The amount of isolation, screening, image rejection or whatever you call it, is dependent less upon the number of RF amplifier stages (number of tubes) than upon the QUALITY of the tuned circuitry in the antenna input and RF amplifier stage. Some radios are much better than others in that department, obviously. Again, the radios under consideration and discussion are all SINGLE CONVERSION types. Only one IF frequency. This discussion might be better conducted off forum... I think Ric would agree, this really isn't supposed to be a radio theory course. Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:40:24 EST From: Eric Subject: Re: Betty's Radio Mike E. wrote: > BUT, assume for a moment that the receiver was not a Zenith Strat at all > (for several reasons, and some are admittedly hunches, I am tending to lean > more toward a Crosley 1199, which looks an awful lot like a > Strat but was a > helluva lot less expensive), Mike, you might also want to consider a 1937 Scott Philharmonic which also looks a lot like a Zenith Strat, was a high end, custom-built radio in its day (but not as expensive or rare as a Strat) and which was noted for its long distance reception, particularly small/weak stations. Don't get bogged down in Scott cabinet designs as these sets were sold as a chassis, amplifier and speakers and were installed into all kinds of cabinets by their owners, including cabinets that were originally made for other radios. I personally believe that Betty heard AE and FN. I don't believe that she was listening on a "stock" radio like a Crosley. Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:12:48 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge Wes Smith says: >All I can say is that when I first read Betty's notebook it gave me a >shiver. Wes and I have disagreed on a lot of topics, but I'm with him on this one. Shivers don't prove anything, but if you let yourself accept what Betty wrote as snatches of what was happening aboard the Electra it's almost too much to bear. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:13:15 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge Paige Miller says (in answer to Rich Young): >You say that there is no indication that the aluminum was ever attached to >an airplane. I thought (and maybe Ric could jump in and clarify) that >there was some wording or code stamped on the aluminum skin that >indicated it was indeed aircraft aluminum, that it was aluminum that >could not be used for any other purpose. 2-2-V-1 (the section of aluminum skin) has been identified by the National Transportation Safety Board laboratory by means of conventional and scanning elelctron microscoptic inspection as being 24ST ALCLAD - a type of aluminum most often, but not exclusively, used in aircraft construction. The aluminum sheet has remnants of the original manufacturer's (Alcoa) labeling which has been identified by Alcoa by the content and the particular font used as labeling the company employed in the the mid-1930s (but not during WWII) on sheet aluminum approved for aircraft repair, but not original construction, use. The surviving rivet is an AN455 AD 3/3 "brazier head" aircraft rivet that was in common use in the prewar years but was replaced in most applications by the AN470 "universal head" rivet in 1940. The pattern of rivet holes in the sheet exhibits pitch and spacing of a precision that is required in aircraft construction but is not common in other applications. Many people have questioned what airplane the artifact may have come from but no knowledgeable person who has ever looked at 2-2-V-1 has questioned that it was once part of an airplane. Maybe it's not, but "there is no indication that the aluminum was ever attached to an airplane" is the kind of comment that gets us in trouble for ridiculing our critics. Rich Young says: >Without affirmative proof contra-wise, Occam's Razor compels us to believe >that ALL aircraft wreckage on Gardner arrived the same way". And it's statements like this that prompted us to include an explanation of Occam's Razor in the FAQ section of the website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/razor.htm By the way, the dado was similarly inspected by the NTSB lab. It's made of aircraft material, with aircraft rivets, to aircraft standards. Maybe somebody made a part for a boat that looks just like an aircraft part and just forgot to put any kind of corrosion inhibitor on it - but it seems more likely that the thing is what it appears to be (but not because of anything Occam said). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:13:47 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Harmonics Ron Bright says: >Refresh my memory or refer me to the cite that it was a Zenith Stratosphere >(?). According to John, interviewed by Ric and Pat, he recalled that Betty's >mom, Olive ,said that to the best of her recollection it was a Sears and >Roebuck Silvertone set. John interviewed Olive circa 1970s. Knowing that this question had been raised on the forum, Betty phoned me yesterday to explain why her mother told John it was a Sears and Roebuck Silvertone set. Betty's parents were originally from Oergon. After Betty and her sister had left home, believing there was nothing more to keep them in Florida, they sold all their furniture, sold the house, and moved back to Oregon. A few years later. Betty's sister moved back to the St. Pete area and Betty's mother found herself homesick for Florida, so once more they sold up and moved back across the country, outfitting their new Florida home with new furnishings. Betty tells me that in her mother's mind it was as if they had never left and so when John talked to her in the 1970s she described the radio that had replaced the Zenith. >Reportedly, Betty had two sisters, one of whom you point out died in 1999. >Can you ask Betty if that was the sister who arrived home with the father and >heard part of the transmissions? I don't recall two sisters. Betty said that her younger sister, Jean, came home with her father but she was only 10 and was not interested in what was being heard on the radio. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:19:07 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everett Bob Brandenburg wrote: >My opinion is based on information in the video tape of Betty's interview, >and information posted on the forum. Everyone is at liberty to review that same >information and draw their own conclusions. Mr. Brandenburg, so that we may be clear, exactly WHAT is the the "information in the video tape of Betty's interview" and "information posted on the forum" that you are relying on in giving your opinion that Betty actually heard Earhart? I thought you told me earlier that ALL the information upon which you based your opinion was found in your paper "Could Betty Have Heard Amelia Earhart on a Harmonic", which is on the website and not the forum. So, even if I were to pay $50 to view Betty on tape, I would not know which information you were relying on on the tape, or on the forum. Also, since you have brought your technical expertise in the area of complex multidisciplinary problem solving to this effort I need your help on the technical and other issues you considered important so that I can draw a reasonable conclusion. Thanks, again --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric Good news Chris. It only costs $25. I'm sure that at your hourly rate it would be much cheaper for you to order a tape than to badger Bob. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:31:57 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Radio transmissions to forumites. > Before the last Niku trip, I sent Ric an e-mail suggesting they carry a > transmitter similar design and power as carried on AE's Electra. I suggested > he could send transmissions at pre-determined scheduled intervals to see if > radio-heads (hams) located on U.S. East Coast could receive his signals. I > can't remember Ric's exact response to my suggestion other than he did not > think it was feasible to do at that time. I also suggested something similar which met with a less than enthusiastic response. As I understand it, Ric thinks that because the ionospheric conditions would be different (as would the extraneous interfering radio traffic), it would be a pointless exercise. This most recent sunspot maximum has been pretty similar to cycle 17 of 1937. By the time of the next expedition however, conditions will not be so similar. However, I think there are excellent reasons for doing it. If we can copy the design of the WE transmitter - preferably using paper capacitors, original type transformers etc and anyone in the US can pick up a transmission from Niku (with probably less favourable conditions), that will at least tell us it was perfectly possible over that route in 1937. We might also learn something about the particular harmonics radiated and their power. I do in fact have a friend who has the very same transmitter, but I doubt he would let it free of his clutches for such an experiment. It would however make the transmitter much easier to copy. If Tighar were prepared to fund the components, I would be prepared to build it. Fortunately I also have a friend, Steve Harris, who was until recently the proprietor of the Chester radio museum, a large collection of sufficient importance for the BBC to buy the whole thing lock stock and barrel to create a national museum. Consequently he has excellent contacts for parts. Quite apart from any information we can derive from the exercise, I think it would be immense fun for forum members. As things are, when the expeditions depart, forumites are somewhat left on the sidelines until the expedition is over. This would be a great way of allowing everyone to participate in the expedition. Their main cost would be a suitable (ancient or modern) shortwave receiver. Modern receivers of better quality than Betty had are now very cheap. Cruising the dial at dead of night listening for Ric's(?) dulcet tones amid the howlers and static, might not be everyone's idea of fun, but you can't deny it would be novel. Funds could be raised direct from the forum. I suggest that those who want to participate could be asked to send (say) $20 for a copy of the transmission schedule. 50 subscribers would raise $1000, but whether this is a realistic figure for the cost of the parts, I have not the least idea. If there were enough subscribers we could even have some prizes for the furthest/most intelligible interceptions. I suggest that those who would be interested in principle send a single line e-mail to the forum for us to see what support there is for the idea. If Ric can be persuaded to go along with the idea, I could do some research to find out how much very roughly, it might cost. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Angus, with all due respect, before you start designing fundraising programs for TIGHAR you might consider joining the organization yourself. My opposition is philosphical rather than practical. I don't think that recreations accomplish anything useful in historical investigations. Thor Heyerdahl went to enormous lengths and considerable personal risk to "recreate" a theoretical Pacific immigration that subsequent archaeological research has pretty conclusively shown didn't happen. It might be fun to try to send messages just like AE might have but I can't imagine that it would prove or disprove anything. More importantly, success or failure would tend to influence the way people viewed historical evidence and that could be actively harmful to legitimate research. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:55:27 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Post-Loss Messages The Avgas stocked at Howland was standard aviation fuel. Although the runway was relatively short at Howland for takeoff, the plane would not need to be fully loaded to reach Honolulu. Surprisingly, it would have to have been for the Howland to Lae leg on the original flight plan, but with no navigator aboard (Noonan was to have left the plane on Howland) and with tail winds, perhaps less fuel would be necessary. The Avgas was delivered prior to the first flight. Some was used by the graders for construction of the runways, but I believe they only used one drum. After the loss, the Avgas was used extensively for lighting bonfires for the PBY, and for general lighting for ships approaching Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:57:50 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everett Chris Kennedy wrote: > Mr. Brandenburg, so that we may be clear, exactly WHAT is the the > "information in the video tape of Betty's interview" and "information posted > on the forum" that you are relying on in giving your opinion that Betty actually > heard Earhart? It does not matter exactly what information I relied upon within the sources I have already stated. My OPINION is just that - - my OPINION. I do not require you to agree with it. > I thought you told me earlier that ALL the information upon which > you based your opinion was found in your paper "Could Betty Have Heard Amelia > Earhart on a Harmonic", which is on the website and not the forum. You thought wrong. Pay attention. > So, even if I > were to pay $50 to view Betty on tape, I would not know which information you > were relying on in the tape, or on the forum. I have considered all the available information in arriving at my OPINION. I suggest that you consider all the available information and arrive at your own opinion. > Also, since you have brought your > technical expertise in the area of complex multidisciplinary problem solving > to this effort I need your help on the technical and other issues you considered > important so that I can draw a reasonable conclusion. Draw a reasonable conclusion about what? Bob ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:01:37 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Clarence Williams Pat, I am not relying on anything! I simply forwarded extracts from Mary Lovell's book. I do believe Mary Lovell is a good author and spent a great deal of effort and time talking with a great many people who were involved in one way or another with Earhart and/or Noonan and their last flight. She also researched much literature, documents, data, etc. As for any research on any subject, the researcher should consider all sources, and then evaluate them. Some may be dismissed, some may be accepted, but I think the researcher should not automatically dismiss comments or reports simply because they fit into a category not original from a prinicpal. Ron Reuther *************************************** It seemed in your original post on the subject that you were using Lovell's research to show that we "know" something that in fact we don't know. I also think Lovell's book is pretty good, but it is a biography which relies on personal memory and anecdote, not a research paper which relies on original sources and contemporaneous documentation. There is a world of difference. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:03:21 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: radio transmissions to forumites I'd have opine that i agree with Ric on this. It IS do-able altho it would be a real pain, and probably getting the expeditions together are enuff of a logisitic challenge without having to think about lugging 12v batteries or a gas engine generator, plus transmitter, plus power supply, to shore. Then, anyway, as i think of it, you would want to simulate the aerial on the coral flats, and do this for best and worst case orientation, considering radiation pattern favoring USA. That's 2 antennas. Then, a few nites try wouldn't do it either: i think maybe something like 100 days trying. Oh- and then there's the permit from the FCC to do this - you COULD get by without it, but without some legal sanction to transmit, the operation might be under a pall, and you maybe couldn't get volunteers to listen for it. Of course, if there was too much publicity, you can be sure the jammers and hoaxers would be in there too. Myself, i don't see that it has yet even been established that AE's transmitter could do this. I don't see that it has been established what power the transmitter output at each practically possible harmonic, and then how much that initial power was decreased by another hurdle, the degree of mismatch to the antenna. Now, this is something i think IS practical, and it can be done on this side of the ocean. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:04:27 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Probabilities Patrick Gaston writes: >Certainly if you want to boil it down to an either/or proposition, there are >only two possible outcomes: Either Betty heard Earhart or she didn't. But >that doesn't rule out assigning a probability to each of those possible >outcomes, which is really what Chris Kennedy was asking. The entire >opinion-research industry is devoted to translating possible outcomes (Do you >intend to vote for X or Y?) into probabilities (Our polls show X has a 60% >chance of winning the election). I think you are confusing a basic probability concept. In the case of Betty listening to a broadcast, Bob Brandenburg is 100% correct, the probability that it was Earhart is 0% or 100%. No other possibility exists. In the case of opinion polls which you cite, the probability comes from the fact that we have multiple voters being asked a question, and a fraction of them respond with one answer and another fraction responds with a different answer. This does not lead us to conclude, as you say, "X has a 60% chance of winning the election" ... it is that X has 60% of the resondents in the study voting in favor of X. The wording is an important difference. X will either win the election, or he will not. His probability of winning the election is either 0, or 1. Back to listening to radio waves on some afternoon in July 1937. Here's an experiment we could never perform, but think of it as a "thought experiment" to illustrate a point. At randomly selected locations throughout the United States, listen to the same frequency as Betty at the same time as Betty. We would find out that at z% of the those locations, we hear the same broadcast as Betty. How that helps? I don't know ... other than to illustrate the point that it gives us no information about whether it is Earhart or not. It either is Earhart or it is not. >However, since Bob declined to qualify his opinion in terms of probabilities, >I assume that his level of certainty is near 100%. In that case I would like >to know how he determined the voice "Betty" heard was that of Amelia Earhart. I think Bob did answer the question. I disagree with your assumption. I didn't read anything that he said to indicate his level of certainty was near 100%, but I also think that rather than you or I argue about what Bob's level of certainty is, we should let him speak for himself. Paige Miller #2565 LTM (Who still thinks Dewey beat Truman) -- Paige Miller It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire If you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:05:21 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: radio transmissions for forumites Angus, your proposal sounds exciting. If there was a way we could duplicate everything exactly I would be all for it. Unfortunately such is not possible that I can see. Just like the recreation of the flight I would give almost anything if we could do that. Daryll and Bill Shea particularly want to do that so badly they can taste it. So do I. And I would if I knew all the input data but I don't nor does anyone else, Nauticos and Long to the contrary. (Are you reading this Elgin? If so I mean nothing personal. We just have different views) You know, Angus if we knew exactly what all the radio equipment was on all ends it still wouldn't guarantee exact duplication. Every radio made is different to some degree. How significant I couldn't tell you but the same is true of airplanes. They all flew a little different. For example I loved B-47s built by the Douglas plant but the ones built by Boeing or Lockheed weren't nearly as good. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:06:51 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everett Chris Kennedy wrote: > Mr. Brandenburg, so that we may be clear, exactly WHAT is the the > "information in the video tape of Betty's interview" and "information > posted on the forum" that you are relying on Watch it Bob. Chris is another one of us ratty attorneys and he's trying to box you into a corner. Not too subtlely I might add. We play this same game with opposing witnesses to make them look foolish. Chris, this works only on the witness stand in front of the jury and under oath where the poor fool can't do any wiggling. It won't work with Bob or here on the Forum. Reminds me of the time I rode with one of our local cops. He stopped a guy who was doing nothing and I asked him why. As he got out of the squad car (do we still call them that and if so why?) He said he has an outstanding warrant. The guy did and he was arrested. (Yes, there was a legitimate probable cause but I won't bore everyone with the details) I asked how he knew and he said after 15 years of this you just know. True, that reason won't fly in court but it will here. Merry Christmas, Chris and all, Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:07:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Harmonics Guys, don't get too carried away with the Sears brand. Sears didn't make anything. I listened to a floor model Zenith my grandpa had in the early thirties - probably 1937 but I didn't hear AE. I DID listen to short wave bands. This one had 5 as I recall but don't hold me to that. I listened to countries all over the world. I was in the south of Ohio at the time. I don't know who made Sears radios back then but you can bet Sears didn't. Most likely it was a Zenith but someone ought to check. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:08:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: antenna Ron Bright wrote: > It does imply he plotted the course, but it certainly is not definitive if > George P asked him to and that he indeed plotted a chart of the great > circle "base course" from Lae to Howland. She still could have been > using the reciprocals from the first plot he made. I don't know. Good job, Ron. As you well know I certainly appreciate a good accounting of what is said here. I don't oppose book cites or newspaper cites at all. I just like to know where items come from. The newspaper piece was written, no doubt by some reporter and how accurate no one would know but it might be perfectly accurate and we need to be aware of everything like that. I think a good guess is that Clarence DID chart a great circle route for AE. Why not? That would make perfectly good sense. We know they didn't fly it for the first 7 1/4 hours but they may well have for the remaining 12 hours. I need to plot both out and see if there is any significance before we beat this to death. As you know I can get pretty critical when something loose gets posted but I certainly don't mean to stifle anything. Everything needs to be brought out. Who knows what tiny tidbit something may produce or if nothing else spark an idea in someone's head. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:11:41 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Clarence Williams Pat wrote: > So you are relying on a secondary/tertiary source which relies on anecdote? Come on Pat. Don't be so hard on Ron. (let me do it ) OK so the secondary/tertiary source might have relied on anecdote but don't forget that anecdote might have come from other anecdotes and more secondary/ tertiary sources which might have come from................ Alan. ****************************************************** Ummmmm, my point exactly. Lovell's biography *is* good --- but it ain't documented research using only primary sources. A good biography always relies a lot on anecdote and tall tales and flyin' lies, it's how you get to the essence of the person; otherwise you have a dry recitation of facts. But for our purposes, it's the dry recitation that we seek as if the Grail... P ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:13:10 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Altitude Angus, when AE reached the time FN gave her that indicated she was on a line that should have gone through Howland the Electra could have been directly over Howland or some unknown distance in any direction FROM Howland. Nothing other than eyeballs is going to refine that. Noonan's celestial got them as close as his abilities could possibly do. More celestial is not going to improve on that. Additional sun shots will only give Noonan more lines running generally in a NW/SE direction and certainly would tell him if he is going further east or further west but his north/south component will need to rely on something other than the sun shots. He had a lot more going for him beside the sun so don't be too quick to sell him short. There is no reason to think he didn't get close. Celestial probably did a good job. It was the eyeballs that failed. I understand what you're trying to do but trust me you're not going to get anywhere mathematically with this puzzle. There are too many variables and too much slop in the celestial exercise given the equipment, aircraft and conditions. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:12:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Fuel Management? Jon Watson wrote > I don't recall what kind of management plan they had for moving fuel around > to keep balanced, Jon, balance wasn't much of a problem. The wing tanks fed normally and the extra tanks were located on the center line of the fuselage and directly behind the cockpit bulkhead. You're correct about the 81 gallon tank. I was on my lap top in the living room and was too lazy to get up and check my files. Thanks for doing that. If I had to guess I would think they used up the 100 octane on take off at Lae and that if they needed it for a take off at Howland it would have been there ready for them or they could have sat there until someone brought it to them. I don't think that's an issue. I DO agree managing those extra tanks might have been a problem. Ric knows but he's just going to let us flounder around as it isn't a critical issue. Just wait. I'll toss him one he can't ignore. You guys think he's busy with TIGHAR stuff don't you. Not at all. You already know how controlling he is. He's making poor Pat take all the heat here while he sits around in the living room playing with his dog, Rocky and their new horse. Why she lets him bring that horse in the house is beyond me. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:14:40 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everett I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. One person says Betty had a 0 / 100 % chance of hearing AE and the other a 40/60 or whatever. If I understand it correctly one person is saying that Betty either heard AE or she didn't and the other one is saying that "whoever" Betty heard might or might not have been AE and thus what is the probability of the voice she (Betty) heard being that of AE. Or am I off the mark? What is the probability that anyone read this message? What is the probability that anyone gave a rat's eyeballs? LOLOLO LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:21:51 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Paige Miller's challenge So basically, if the items did not come from a plane, someone when to a lot of trouble making them look like they came from a plane. Regards David Kelly Ric wrote: >Paige Miller says (in answer to Rich Young): > >>You say that there is no indication that the aluminum was ever >>attached to an airplane. I thought (and maybe Ric could jump in >>and clarify) that there was some wording or code stamped on >>the aluminum skin that indicated it was indeed aircraft aluminum, >>that it was aluminum that could not be used for any other purpose. > >2-2-V-1 (the section of aluminum skin) has been identified by the >National Transportation Safety Board laboratory by means of >conventional and scanning elelctron microscoptic inspection as being >24ST ALCLAD - a type of aluminum most often, but not exclusively, >used in aircraft construction. The aluminum sheet has remnants >of the original manufacturer's (Alcoa) labeling which has been identified >by Alcoa by the content and the particular font used as labeling the company >employed in the the mid-1930s (but during WWII) on sheet >aluminum approved for aircraft repair, but not original construction, >use. The surviving rivet is an AN455 AD 3/3 "brazier head" aircraft rivet >that was in common use in the prewar years but was replaced in most >applications by the AN470 "universal head" rivet in 1940. The pattern of rivet >holes in the sheet exhibits pitch and spacing of a precision that is required in >aircraft construction but is not common in other applications. Many >people have questioned what airplane the artifact may have come from but no >knowledgeable person who has ever looked at 2-2-V-1 has questioned that >it was once part of an airplane. Maybe it's not, but "there is no indication >that the aluminum was ever attached to an airplane" is the kind of comment >that gets us in trouble for ridiculing our critics. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:22:30 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Probabilities Alan wrote: "In the case of Betty what different ways do we treat Betty and her information if the probability is 70% or 60%? Unless someone can show me how the different probabilities can be practically used I'll stick with either she did or she didn't." Alan, I guess it all depends on how you define "practical use." To me the probability that Betty heard Amelia Earhart is absolutely relevant to the authenticity of her notes. If that probability was, say, 10 percent, then by definition it is far more probable than not that Betty actually heard something else. In which event the search for what that "something else" may have been gains added impetus. In the final analysis it boils down to how the inquiry is structured. Your question is, "Did Betty hear AE or did she not?" Mine is, "What did Betty hear?" LTM Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:23:20 EST From: Jack Clark Subject: Re: Altitude For Gary and Angus Re Calculating Hc. Gary I think your explanation can be simplified somewhat. A bubble sextant does not need a correction for Dip or Semi-diameter. Ref: Nautical Almanac (mine is the 1988 edition) Under Explanation of Altitude Correction Tables it states, in part, "When using a bubble sextant no correction is required for Dip, Semi-Diameter.........." So I think only refraction would be required. I believe it is generaly accepted that F/N used a bubble sextant Jack Clark. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:25:38 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies Mike Everette wrote: > I am thinking in terms of all possible harmonics which this transmitter > might generate. Remember the crystals for the two HF frequencies were > one-half the air frequency. The crystal for 3105 was actually 1552.5; that > for 6210 was 3105. So, compute all the possible harmonics of 1552.5 and > you get a complete list. No- because of transmitter design, this is practically not possible for any useful power output. We need to concern ourselves only with multiples of 3105 and 6210 that are in the approximate 15 - 21 MHz range, well, maybe up to 25 MHz or so. Explanation in following paragraph for circuit heads. Hue Miller [The crystal oscillator was followed by a bandpass circuit, which was designed to pass only a certain range of frequencies. At least, this is the way the circuit is described in the technical literature. That range would include only the possible "working frequencies". The output stage was the harmonic generator - but the radiation of harmonics over any useful range depended on the working in concert of the output stage *and* the particular antenna characteristics at each possible harmonic frequency. ] ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:08:21 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Radio transmissions to forumites. Ric wrote: > Angus, with all due respect, before you start designing fundraising programs > for TIGHAR you might consider joining the organization yourself. This was a suggestion for you to take up or not as you please. And with all due respect, whether one contributes to Tighar via research and contributions to the forum or by financial means seems to me neither here nor there. I did also offer to build the thing without expecting anything for my time. I also spent considerable time helping you identify the lead spout and reassessing the wreck photo by a photogrammetric analysis which you agree shows it to be a hoax. I quote: >Angus, I've been meaning to tell you and it keeps slipping my mind: >Your comparison of the cowling opening diameters is devastating. I think >it's the stake through the heart of the Wreck Photo vampire. >As soon as i can get to it I want to put up a research bulletin on the >website - fully crediting you of course. > >Ric I did research on the Japanese radio station which contributed usefully to our understanding of harmonics. Again I spent considerable time assessing the brass screws for country of origin and the aluminium catches. However, you are obviously more nettled by the fact that you haven't actually got any money out of me than you appreciate my contributions. I also don't agree with you that historical re-creations achieve nothing. Museums are full of re-creations which let people better understand what they cannot easily imagine. That does not mean that archaeologists frown on re-creations because they might be inaccurate. Anyone with half a brain knows that re-creations can be wrong. If Heyerdahl had discovered that the current ran in the wrong direction, it could have sooner improved understanding of migration patterns. But in fact he showed was that it was technically possible and not to be discounted. So what - it did not prevent anyone arriving at "the right" conclusion. What is the Tighar Hypothesis if not a re-creation? According to your ideas, such a mental re-creation should not be allowed either because it can produce errors - such as connecting AE to the shoe heels found. >It might be fun to try to send messages just like AE might have but I can't >imagine that it would prove or disprove anything. It might prove a reception such a s Betty had was possible, given the right conditions. > More importantly, success > or failure would tend to influence the way people viewed historical > evidence > and that could be actively harmful to legitimate research. I think you are getting things out of proportion. If anyone "viewing historical research" had their perception of events positively or negatively influenced that would be their own problem if they were sufficiently dim to see that it is impossible to re-create the same propagation conditions as existed in 1937. If Tighar, on the other hand would prefer not to see such an experiment, that in itself shows a bias because if no-one detected any message it might be seen (erroneously) to weaken the Tighar case. However, who would know anything about it unless it is made public? Anyone reading this forum, on the other hand, would see that Tighar, at least, does not regard a positive result as meaning anything other than, given the right conditions, such a DX is possible. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric Angus, I did not intend, and I apologize if I seemed, to imply that TIGHAR does not appreciate and value the research contributions you have made. If I could convince the phone company to accept good historical research in lieu of dollars in payment for the phone bill I'd also agree with you that "whether one contributes to Tighar via research and contributions to the forum or by financial means seems to me neither here nor there." The fact is, the entire project is based upon the premise that interested people pool their resources - both mental AND financial - to work toward a common goal. It's important that researchers become TIGHAR members. Very important. All the individual research in the world is of little use if there is no central clearing house and focal point to pull it all together, and so far, in the case of the Earhart disappearance, TIGHAR has been the only publicly open and accessible game in town. We understand that not everyone can make large financial contributions, but to stand aloof from even basic membership is to deny the context in which the research is carried out. And if anyone thinks that becoming a TIGHAR member necessarily implies an endorsement of TIGHAR's hypotheses and conclusions I need only point out that many of the harshest critics who regularly voice their dissent on this forum are dues-paying TIGHAR members. On the subject of historical recreations - I think it's a real stretch to call a hypothesis a recreation. In deciding what activities on which to spend our very limited resources we always try to focus on those things that have the potential for producing conclusive results, or least results that help move us forward. I just don't see how a radio recreation would do that. If we couldn't replicate Betty's experience would we then conclude that she must not have heard AE? If we did replicate it would we then conclude that she must have heard AE? Of course not. Bob Brandenburg has already shown that the reception was theoretically possible. Beyond that there's not much we can say. Reconstructing old radios, old airplanes, old voyages, old battles, and so forth is great fun, is often good theater, and can be an effective way to illustrate what is already known, but it doesn't give us answers and we are after answers. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:11:58 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Probabilities Pat Gaston says: Your question is, "Did Betty hear AE or did she not?" Mine is, "What did Betty hear?" And how, I wonder, can we hope to answer that question? If Betty heard something other than a transmission from Earhart we could discover a diary or contemporaneous letter or even a deathbed confession from somebody who perpetrated the hoax (ala the recent Bigfoot revelations). In the absence of something like that we have to acknowledge that her reception of authentic transmissions from Earhart was possible (is there anyone so bold as to pronounce them impossible?) and that, so far, nobody has come up with an alternative explanation that is any less bizarre than the idea that she actually heard AE. So it stands as an enticing possibility that can be accepted or rejected as you wish. I would predict that with greater recognition that at least some of the post-loss signals had to be genuine, and with mounting evidence that the Electra landed at Gardner, there will be a greater acceptance of Betty's, and possibly other amateur listener's, accounts. But even so, unless we discover AE's diary buried in the sand in which she describes sending the calls that Betty transcribed, it's hard for me to imagine how we'll ever have proof of what Betty heard. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:40:25 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Clarence Williams Pat G wrote (in response to Ron Reuther): > I also think Lovell's book is pretty good, but it is a biography which relies on > personal memory and anecdote, not a research paper which relies on original > sources and contemporaneous documentation. There is a world of difference. I beg to differ, Pat, Lovell's book is a very well researched biography that depends on much more than mere personal memory and anecdote. Please refer to the 42 pages of endnotes at the end of her book in which she cites her sources, many of which are original documents. I, too, read Ron's comments as viewing The Sound of Wings as a well-written and well-researched book, nothing more. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think there's as much disgreement here as there might appear to be. I think we all agree that Lovell's book is a well-written biography. In fact, Pat and I think that it's the best of the Earhart biographies to date. I think we all also agree that it is not, and does not pretend to be, a research paper. One of the things that makes it a good biography is that it is extensively footnoted and, as you note, there are 42 pages of endnotes explaining the sources. Many of the sources are original documents, many are other secondary sources, and a great many are either written accounts of anecdotes and oral histories or personal interviews by the author with people like Elgen Long. The fact that Lovell was conscientious in laying out where much of her information came from allows us to make informed judgements about the relative credibility of statements made in the book, but it's not enough to just cite something from Lovell's book and expect it to be taken as true. By the way, my wife Pat is not Pat G. Like Amelia Earhart, she has the name she came with. She is Pat Thrasher. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:58:26 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antenna Mike Everette wrote: > This is clearly shown and explained in the instruction manual for > the Bendix MN-26 series radio compass system (vintage 1929-1940 > and very common in WW2 date error > aircraft) which is a direct descendant of the RA-1. I don't know if the > RA-1 used such a meter... anyone have a manual on that receiver? > (I do have an MN-26 book) I have the receiver and manual. I would not call the MN-26 a direct descendant, it is the start of a Bendix series of navigation-only receivers. The RA-1 was a combination of DF and ship's longrange communication receiver - a concept all the USA manufacturers seem to have abandoned at the end of the 1930s - maybe except for one more dual-use receiver, the Bendix RA-10. Ric wrote: > The mystery comes when the airplane comes out of the repair shop following > the Luke Field wreck with only one (the orginal starboard) belly antenna. > Hypothesis: > Maybe the starboard belly antenna delivered with the airplane was a "range" > antenna intended for use with the low frequency radio range navigation > facilities then in use around the United States. For the second WF attempt > maybe it was decided that little or no "range" flying was contemplated and > the starboard belly antenna became the sense antenna for the MN-5 system. I was going to pose a question on this, but i may have answered it myself just now. I referred to the ( Navy-Bendix) type DU loop (similar to Bendix's commercial product) and i see the receiver antenna wire now goes to the COUPLER, not the receiver. A wire from the coupler then runs to the receiver antenna post. This is a little messy, isn't it, having the belly ant. run up and up to the coupler, then a wire from the coupler running down past the antenna wire, back to the receiver near the floor. But i cannot think of another way to do it, unless, the main antenna was picked off the transmitter and run up front to the coupler. But.... i don't quite grasp how that would have worked, or necessitated the belly antenna..... ( To clarify somewhat: in the R position of the coupler's function switch, the "fixed antenna on the plane feeds through the coupler unit to provide nondirectional reception with the receiver" - quote from DU manual.) This would still allow AE to pick up stuff, IF switched over to Direction [Finding] position on the coupler, BUT the coupler had to be tuned also to at least close to the desired frequency, otherwise nix. You would think this would allow her to still "get a null" on the Itasca - but???? changing / erratic propagation conditions at this time of day???? With the sense antenna gone, there would have been the 180 problem, but she could have figured that out - if only the loop had delivered a null. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:59:41 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: radio transmissions for forumites Alan Caldwell writes: > > Angus, your proposal sounds exciting. If there was a way we could duplicate > everything exactly I would be all for it. Unfortunately such is not possible > that I can see. Just like the recreation of the flight I would give almost > anything if we could do that. Daryll and Bill Shea particularly want to do > that so badly they can taste it. So do I. From Bill Shea, there is Alan, but I dare not mention it so I will whisper it - flight simulation). (I bet you knew this was coming) I am not good at it but I fly it for the fun.I can guess that you already know this but I can tell you what I, as a novice FS pilot can do: 1. I can set the paramaters of the plane to match the Electra 10E. Including amount of fuel, and the gross weight. 2. I can use FS Navigator to fly to each waypoint that we know of, then try different senarios to see how she could have taken a northern/southern offset route, or even try several senarios to have them land at Gardner Island.;setting the weather to simulate what little data we have from the weather reports. So all the difficulty and opposition I am hearing I do not know why as I don't agree. So, my bottom line is that you wouldn't find out any more from recreating it for real or from flying it in fs. One last thing. I think that its really stretching it to say AE and FN could have flown over and missed Howland and it's huge reef surrounding it while flying on the 157/337 line with reasonable weather. IF they did miss Howland, what about Baker? (and its surrounding reef as well). There are only two possibilities, One - that somehow they were above some clouds (but they wern't were they - they were coming in at 1000ft. two - that they were not on the correct 157/337 line, and if that was the case how would they possibly find Gardner? Cheers from Bill (who enjoys this Forum immensely) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:02:57 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: Altitude Re Calculating Hc: >A bubble sextant does not need a correction for Dip or Semi-Diameter. Ordinarily that is the case. For predicting the time and height of sunrise, however, the dip of the horizon is relevant, as is the semidiameter of the sun since its upper limb--not its center--is not what is being sighted. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:03:44 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Probabilities Pat Gaston wrote: > "Did Betty hear AE or did she not?" Mine is, "What did Betty > hear?" That's a good bottom line, Pat. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:05:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everett Dave Bush wrote: > Or am I off the > mark? What is the probability that anyone read this message? What is the > probability that anyone gave a rat's eyeballs? LOLOLO Dave, I didn't read your message nor do I care. No, I don't think you are off the mark. I approach probability from what to me is a more pragmatic view. I don't know what to do differently if the probability is 60% or 40%. I get worried when I see 100% although that's what we all want and in fact it will always be 100% or 0. I'm comfortable when some tells he is ninety something percent certain. Any other figure is kind of meaningless to me. For example tell me how anyone can support mathematically that it was 60% certain Betty heard AE or didn't hear AE or heard anyone else? Why not 63% or 57%. Probability theory reminds me of anthropologist/author Margaret Mead's visit to Nebraska while I was at school. Addressing a combined faculty/student group she said, "For ninety percent of the drivel you people teach the only value of it is to come back and teach it to the next class." Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:06:38 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: radio transmissions for forumites As I recall but can't find the source, a group of amateur Hams went to Howland and using the smaller transmitters broadcast to the US. Sometime in 1938 or 39. If someone can find that from the Radio Relay Group, it may give some good clues to the range and type of equipment. REB ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:07:00 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Antenna The introduction of the article appearing in the LA Times was by a reporter but the article itself was written by Williams. He didn't mention the Great Circle, but he was writing mostly about his opinion of the navigation problems heading into Howland. That is where is "cone of possibilities" came from. The Times article is available thru the LA Times Archives or I can fax a copy if you think it would be of benefit. LTM, Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:07:56 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies For Mike E or Hue M Are there any harmonics related to about 16000 kcs, the frequency close to Dana Randolphs reception of a faint "voice of Earhart" on 4 July at Rock Springs, Wyoming. I hate to ask, but what are the probabilties of such a reception inland. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:08:47 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Probabilities "Is there anyone so bold..." Paul Rafford posted a lengthy technical discussion about the possibilities of Betty hearing AE on the 50 w. transmitter. He concluded that "turn all the noise sources, man-made and natural static, back on and Earhart's harmonic would be over 100 times weaker than the minimum required to hear her". (sic) (Rafford 12-31-01) Thus impossible for her to hear. So has anyone looked at that analysis. Is it valid, flawed. Miller and Everette can address that technically. Just don't shoot the messenger, but his post is out there! Or maybe this has been previously addressed. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:09:26 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Question for Brandenburg and Everett For Bob B. Re: Expert Opinion I must agree here with Chris Kennedy that it is a perfectly fair question to ask you, an expert in radio, what evidence you saw in the forum or the interview, that leads you to your "opinion" that the voice Betty heard was Earhart. It seems to me we are entitled to hear what you base that opinion on as expert "opinions" are considered highly reliable and have a special place and consideration in our courts. "It doesn't matter exactly what information I relied on..." to reach a conclusion is an artfull dodge. I respect your analysis. And I know this is not a court room, but I think you owe it to the Forum to further explain what evidence, cumulative if you will, that leads you to your opinion. It may convince us all. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:10:49 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: radio transmissions Alan Caldwell wrote: > You know, Angus if we knew exactly what all the radio equipment was on all > ends it still wouldn't guarantee exact duplication. Every radio made is > different to some degree. How significant I couldn't tell you but the same is > true of airplanes. They all flew a little different. For example I loved > B-47s built by the Douglas plant but the ones built by Boeing or Lockheed > weren't nearly as good. I am as well aware as anyone that it is literally impossible to re-create the radio environment of 1937. And who knows what idiosyncrasies AE's transmitter may have had which did not occur as a direct result of its design? However, Ric is apparently quite prepared to accept Bob's propagation analysis as a basis for putting more or less faith in certain messages. I myself was somewhat sceptical of this as I am only too well aware of the limitations of mathematical models. The whole of physics is built on models which become increasingly refined with time but NEVER exactly mathematically duplicate an original system until the model IS the system (and that means the Universe!). That does not mean they are not useful of course. But it does mean one has to have a very healthy degree of scepticism about the results of modelling in highly complex systems where there are many parameters involved and the model is relatively unsophisticated. As I am sure Bob well appreciates, there are modes of propagation which are simply not modelled at all by the programs he is using. But nonetheless, if a simple mode of propagation will get a signal through one does not have to make use of more complex modes. Only when the model fails to predict a useful SN ratio need one consider a more sophisticated model. However, just as Bob's work can tend to indicate a signal reception was possible, (although much less certainly tend to indicate it was impossible), an experiment using an identical (as far as possible) receiver would be useful in establishing that under the right conditions, such a transmission was possible. Suppose that - contrary theoretical expectations, the output stage of the transmitter simply did not generate an expected harmonic at sufficient signal strength. Only a practical test would establish this with some degree of certainty. Sure, you can hypothesise that some quirk of the assembly or components of the original set may have allowed this, but then one merely indulges in speculation. I get the impression that there may be reluctance to put the idea into practice because the chances are (and they undoubtedly are) that no-one would hear anything and this might lead some to believe that such transmisions had been established to be impossible and so weaken the case for believing in the post-loss messages. I don't think this is a good reason for rejecting the experiment as it is a form of bias itself. However, all this aside, the primary reason for the suggestion was NOT to try to perform a scientific experiment, precisely because there are too many unknowables and we have no control over the propagation environment. It was suggested as more peripheral activity that participants would find interesting, involve them more closely and promote their enthusiasm for the project. I have no quarrel with the argument that the time of expedition members might be more productively spent in getting some rest for work the next day rather than disrupting their sleep by transmitting. I don't imagine that expedition members exclusively work eat and sleep however and it should be possible for some workaholic volunteer during time off. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:12:42 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Altitude Jack Clark wrote: > Re Calculating Hc: Gary, I think your explanation can be simplified > somewhat. A bubble sextant does not need a correction for Dip or > Semi-diameter. Ref: Nautical Almanac (mine is the 1988 edition) Under > Explanation of Altitude Correction Tables it states, in part, "When using a > bubble sextant no correction is required for Dip, Semi-Diameter.........." > So I think only refraction would be required. I believe it is generally > accepted that F/N used a bubble sextant You are quite right that there would be no need for a dip correction using a bubble sextant because it measures the angle against an (in theory) truly horizontal plane unlike when using the horizon as a reference as does a marine sextant. This is a good point. But a sight at sunrise (which we were considering) necessarily measures the angle to the upper limb of the sun, so you would still need the semi-diameter correction. (When shooting the centre of a body, when it is at some elevation, one would not need the semi-diameter correction). Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:16:41 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Probabilities Ric wrote: > In the absence of something like that we have to acknowledge that her > reception of authentic transmissions from Earhart was possible (is there > anyone so bold as to pronounce them impossible?) Myself, doubting Thomas, i will not totally go with this until somone, and it may have to be me, as slow as i am about getting to it, and now i am again considering a move to a different town, gets around to really establishing the *actual* power delivered to the *radiation resistance* of the antenna. Okay, i may be all wrong, but as i see it, you have a happily supplied analysis of path losses, ergo, it WAS possible, case closed, when *no one* has cited any believable figure for actual transmitter output power, on the, let's say, 3 - 5th harmonic of 3105, 6210. Also, note, the antenna vs transmitter is NOT a plug and play situation - the antenna will favor or disfavor different some harmonics. So *if* the harmonic power is there to start with, this additional hurdle is there. So right off the bat you have 2 hurdles sequential: Is the harmonic power level of a useful level? With the particular transmitter setting of 3105 or 6210, do the output components allow power to be radiated? A severe mismatch at the harmonic number will severly further cut down the radiated power. The antenna characteristics can be totally different for different harmonic numbers. I think this is important. Maybe i'm wrong, but (of course) i don't think so. I think it's so important, in fact, the results of an inquiry into this 2-part issue will rule in or rule out the Betty reception, as to veracity. That's not saying she did not hear something! Seems to me reckoning this issue is quite difficult. Perhaps Mr. Brandenberg is up to it. However, i still think it very difficult, maybe impossible, by mathematical analysis alone, considering the variables of specific trransmitter components, and *actual* antenna characterisitics, to solve for a believable range of solutions. You have supposedly the gain characteristic for the antenna, however as i see it no one has attempted to define a necessary prior step, the electrical characteristic of the antenna that accompanies the same gain figure. For my money, too much: "Yep- figures show it's definitely possible". Sorry- i do not see that as established at all. Now- what if a simulation shows there's no useful match between harmonic power and a workable match to the antenna, for all realisitic possible harmonic numbers? What if such an empirical finding shows, no way technically possible? That would collapse that whole branch of the post-loss signal industry. BTW, it's only the USA reception by broadcast listeners that i am leery of. I should have (re) listed these first, but there are warning flags, in my book: The length of the 'Betty reception' The (maybe) strange content The question of how a carbon push-to-talk comm microphone could pick up cabin sounds like it was a microphone for a recording machine ( i mean regards sensitivity and continuous transmit-on) The odd appearance of the ham call letters in the notebook Regards, Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:19:21 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Radio transmissions to forumites. Ric wrote: > We understand that not everyone can make large financial contributions, but > to stand aloof from even basic membership is to deny the context in which the > research is carried out. And if anyone thinks that becoming a TIGHAR member > necessarily implies an endorsement of TIGHAR's hypotheses and conclusions I > need only point out that many of the harshest critics who regularly voice > their dissent on this forum are dues-paying TIGHAR members. All this is fine if you restrict the forum to a select band of members-only on the basis that only members should benefit from the work and contributions of other members. However, I would guess that the reason that the forum is not so restricted is that these relationships are by no means always parasitic - they are more often symbiotic. Even the most uninformed non-member can sometimes generate useful lines of enquiry and the more informed ones can make very positive contributions. In purely practical terms there is no doubt that following promising lines of enquiry is cheaper than wild goose chases (or snipe-hunts in American parlance). Not only that, but membership would suffer if people were unable to try out the forum without making a payment, a public forum is seen to be more transparent and more participation means more publicity for Tighar. Once having decided on the fact that you will not restrict the forum to members-only, it is hardly fair to criticise someone for putting forward what was merely a suggestion on the basis that they are not a member, especially if they have to some degree fulfilled the expectation that the advantages of allowing non-members to participate in the forum outweigh the disadvantages. You're trying to have your cake and eat it. > Bob Brandenburg has already shown > that the reception was theoretically possible. Beyond that there's not much > we can say. We can also establish that given the right conditions it was practically possible as well. > Reconstructing old radios, old airplanes, old voyages, old battles, and so > forth is great fun, Let's not pretend for a moment that anyone involves themselves in AE research for any philanthropic motives. They do it because they enjoy it. It simply isn't either necessary or indeed advisable to stick to a dry-as-dust modus operandi out of obsession with a "scientific" purity. In my opinion, as long as one recognises that reconstructions have their limitations and makes that clear, they can provide a good vehicle for promoting the enthusiasm, interaction and stimulation that pure theory rarely generates. Archaeologists create reconstructions because it can give them insights which they might otherwise never get. > is often good theater, and can be an effective way to > illustrate what is already known, but it doesn't give us answers and we are > after answers. "Answers" are not only those of precision. We don't know where AE met the 157/337 line through Howland with any degree of accuracy, but we do know it was not in Antarctica. Where you have limited information, putting bounds on things can be useful in narrowing down the possibilites. Showing that a transmission to the US under less favourable propagation conditions (which by the time of the next expedition will almost certainly be the case for night-path transmissions) is possible, would be giving an answer - not that it actually happened - but that it could have happened. It is merely establishes that it was likely practically, as well as theoretically possible, in terms of harmonics generated and power output. In this sense it would give more weight to a computer model predicting a positive outcome. If on the other hand the modern propagation conditions could be judged to be more favourable than those of 1937, it would not be very useful. But see my reply to Alan on my primary reason for the suggestion as I fully accept that the idea undoubtedly has considerable limitations as any sort of a scientific experiment. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:20:47 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Altitude Alan Caldwell wrote: > Noonan's celestial got them as > close as his abilities could possibly do. There is not much evidence of this; in fact all I can think of is the anecdotal report of an aircraft over Tabiteuea and even then it would be quite possible to deviate a considerable distance from course over the further distance to Howland. Noonan could have been well off course, "world-class" navigator or not. He certainly was far from faultlessly accurate on previous legs and for part of the Tabiteuea to Howland leg after dawn he was navigating only by DR. > More celestial is not going to > improve on that. Additional sun shots will only give Noonan more lines > running generally in a NW/SE direction and certainly would tell him if he is > going further east or further west but his north/south component will need to > rely on something other than the sun shots. I am well aware that at this time of day, without a cut at a useful angle either from another body, or from a change in the sun's position, he could not tell his latitude. However, from further sun shots he could tell, after a little time, if he was going in the right direction along the line. > He had a lot more going for him > beside the sun so don't be too quick to sell him short. There is no reason to > think he didn't get close. Celestial probably did a good job. It was the > eyeballs that failed. If by close you mean 80 miles or so, I wouldn't disagree. But I think even my eyeballs would fail at 80 miles (or even to see Baker from the south at 45). You seem to have a remarkable faith in someone whose reputation probably exceeded his performance (as evidenced by his navigation in other situations we know of). As for the other factors going for him perhaps you mean the Moon and Venus. The Moon was in the waning quarter and so not very visible and Venus high in the sky. Spotting Venus in a clear sky is not that easy, even when you know where to look and have the horizon as a reference point. With scattered clouds to contend with and an awkwardly angled field of view from the aircraft, I think it must have been difficult to see and more so to get a shot. > I understand what you're trying to do but trust me you're not going to get > anywhere mathematically with this puzzle. There are too many variables and > too much slop in the celestial exercise given the equipment, aircraft and > conditions. I think I will suprise you. In a deterministic universe one set of conditions produces a unique set of consequences. Hypothesise the conditions, predict the result and compare it to the information you have. If the result satisfies every last detail of the information you have, you have a good chance you have deduced the conditions. Of course to be sure the coincidence is valid and not merely a different set of conditions producing a similar result, you have to have all the information of the results, which we certainly don't have. However it is sometimes possible to make an extremely strong case if you're lucky with the information you do have. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:22:30 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Altitude You are correct, you normally do not apply a correction for semi-diameter when shooting the sun with a bubble sextant. What you are interested in finding is the altitude of the center of the sun and when using a bubble sextant you center the sun in the center of the bubble so it works out the the center of the sun is in the exact center and this is the altitude that is measured. Ergo, no need to allow for semi-diameter. When measuring the altitude of the sun with a marine sextant you measure the altitude of either the upper limb or the lower limb (edge) in relationship with the visible horizon so you must then make the correction for the radius of the sun (its semi-diameter) to determine the altitude of its center. You obviously do not allow for dip when using the bubble sextant because you are not using the visible horizon as your reference point, which is always below the actual horizontal. You do sometimes allow for semi-diameter when shooting the moon with the bubble sextant because, when the moon is not full, you cannot accurately determine its center so you measure to its upper or lower limb and then correct for its semi-diameter to determine the altitude of its center. However, that said, this thread started out in response to a question that asked if Hc would always be zero at sunrise. Sunrise is determined by the upper limb of the sun being in line with the visible horizon. You cannot use the bubble sextant to determine this since the disk of the sun is hidden behind the earth so you cannot center it in the bubble. In fact, you can make this measurement without any sextant at all. You just watch the horizon and note the time that the sun's upper limb appears above the horizon. Since this measurement is made with reference to the visible horizon, just the same as when using a marine sextant, you must allow for semi-diameter and dip. This calculation was done to actually determine Ho (observed altitude) at the time of sunrise which would be the same as Hc (computed altitude) at that time for an AP (assumed position) at the location of the observer. This exercise was done to show that Hc would not be zero but would always be negative if calculated from that spot on earth for a sunrise observation. It should also be noted that the math tables used by Noonan, "Navigation Tables For Mariners And Aviators" by Dreisonstok published by the United States Navy Department as Hydrographic Office Publication 208 (H.O. 208), to calculate Hc did not allow for the computation of altitudes below zero or negative altitudes. (Neither did H.O 214, published in 1936 or H.O. 218 published in 1938.) It wasn't until the publication of "Sight Reduction Tables For Air Navigation", H.O. 249 in 1947 that negative altitudes were provided. This means that if Noonan wanted to make a sunrise observation from 10,000 feet he would have to use an assumed position at least 164 nautical miles further east so as to allow the calculation of an Hc at least equal to zero. This is because the sun's altitude at sunrise from 10,000 feet is minus degrees and 44 minutes which is the same as minus 164 minutes and, for navigation purposes, one minute equals one nautical mile. In the past it has been asserted that Noonan used a sunrise sight to calculate his LOP and advanced it in an attempt to locate Howland. Since he had a sextant he did not have to rely on the chance that the horizon would be clear and stare at the horizon hoping to catch the exact instant that the sun's limb appeared. He would have observed the sun after it was well up in the sky with his sextant. This would allow a more accurate observation and would allow him to calculate an Hc from a close in AP allowing for a more accurate LOP. gl > For Gary and Angus > > Re Calculating Hc. Gary I think your explanation can be simplified > somewhat. A bubble sextant does not need a correction for Dip or > Semi-diameter. Ref: Nautical Almanac (mine is the 1988 edition) Under > Explanation of Altitude Correction Tables it states, in part, "When using a > bubble sextant no correction is required for Dip, Semi-Diameter.........." > So I think only refraction would be required. I believe it is generaly > accepted that F/N used a bubble sextant ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:28:44 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Fuel Management For Alan: > If I had to guess I would think they used up the 100 octane on take off at > Lae Good chance for that. If they warmed up on 87 octane, then switched over before starting the takeoff run, and were using 100 gph (as reported in the Lockheed Horizons article, and which Birch Matthews and Oscar Boswell seem to have agreed was likely), they would have had about 24 (call it 20 for good measure) minutes of 100 octane. I confess I don't know how long they would have been likely to stay on that tank before switching over, but (if I recall correctly) according to Chater they were still low, but climbing, when they went out of sight. No way to know how long or how far that was. > He's making poor Pat take all the heat here while he sits around in the > living room playing with his dog, Rocky and their new horse. Why she lets him > bring that horse in the house is beyond me. I think Pat _makes_ him let the horse in the house... ltm jon ***************************************************** That's what I get for not really reading these things.... First off, Rocket J. Kat would be VERY offended at being referred to as a dog. And since (like most cats) he is pointy on five of his six ends it is well to take notice when he is offended. Rocket has but one game, actually. It's called "First Blood." And it's always someone else's. As for the horse --- my horse would absolutely NOT be allowed in the house, especially not with a Christmas tree up. He can destroy more stuff in less time than an army of two year old kids with bazookas. Ric's horse would be welcome, but he probably wouldn't like it too much; he would prefer for us to come live in the barn with him. And now for something completely off-topic: did you know that horses can be housebroken? With that thought, I bid you good night. :-) Pat ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:08:12 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Radio transmissions to forumites. > and so far, in the case of the Earhart disappearance, TIGHAR has been the > only publicly open and accessible game in town. I thought you would find it amusing to know that Ed Dames was on Art Bell's radio program last night (okay, I had to do _something_ while riding around on patrol last night). Anyway, one of the callers asked about the remote viewing of the Earhart crash site, and what (if anything) he'd done with the information. He said that they hadn't done anything because of the expense ($200 k) to mount an expedition (I don't recall off the top of my head which island he claims it is adjacent to - it's on their website). What a hoot. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:09:30 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Probabilities Patrick Gaston says: >Alan, I guess it all depends on how you define "practical use." To me the >probability that Betty heard Amelia Earhart is absolutely relevant to the >authenticity of her notes. If that probability was, say, 10 percent, then by >definition it is far more probable than not that Betty actually heard >something else. In which event the search for what that "something else" may >have been gains added impetus. I still think you are confusing the meaning of probability. If you are talking about an expert's stement of probability ... rather than a statistical calculation of probability ... that there was an X% chance it was Earhart, then please understand this is an opinion and nothing more ... maybe an educated opinion, maybe not. And as we all know, opinions of this sort will differ, there is no one number that is THE probability. For it to be a statistical calculation of probability, there needs to be some component of randomness. If there is randomness, it may be possible to compute a probability using statistical methods (i.e. there is an 80% chance of rain today; if I roll two dice, I will get a one on both die with probability 1/36, etc.) However, in Betty's case I see no randomness. I see someone broadcasting at a certain location on a certain frequency at a certain power, someone receiving with a certain radio/antenna setup at a certain geographic location, certain atmospheric conditions that existed at that exact time, and laws of physics in between. Paige Miller #2565 LTM (who never did like doing things randomly) It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire If you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:10:24 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Probabilities Alan Caldwell wrote: > Watch it Bob. Chris is another one of us ratty attorneys and he's trying to > box you into a corner. Not too subtlely I might add. We play this same > game with opposing witnesses to make them look foolish. > > Chris, this works only on the witness stand in front of the jury and under > oath where the poor fool can't do any wiggling. It won't work with Bob or > here on the Forum. I appreciate your concern. But I knew that he is a lawyer, and it was obvious from the beginning what game he has been playing. I ignore most invitations to play this game, but I will play occasionally. It's great fun to reverse the game and hunt the hunter. But now that you have spooked my quarry , the fun of the hunt is gone. So I'll just add a name to my "ignore" list and let it go at that. Merry Christmas, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:11:27 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Probabilities Paige Miller wrote: > >However, since Bob declined to qualify his opinion in terms of probabilities, > >I assume that his level of certainty is near 100%. In that case I would like > >to know how he determined the voice "Betty" heard was that of Amelia Earhart. > > I think Bob did answer the question. I disagree with your assumption. I > didn't read anything that he said to indicate his level of certainty was > near 100%, but I also think that rather than you or I argue about what > Bob's level of certainty is, we should let him speak for himself. You summed it up nicely, Paige. I did not "determine" that Betty heard Amelia. I merely showed that it was possible for her to have done so. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:13:01 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Radio transmissions to forumites. Ric/Pat/Forum---- I was surprised to find out that Angus Murray--a good contributor to the forum was not a Tighar member....He stated his position/thoughts in his last posting to Ric/forum... I thought that Ric's response was well thought out and logical and asked the right questions....Hopefully AM will become a TIGHAR member and join the rest of us in trying to find out the answers on AE/FN and their final destination.... Putting it in terms of commercial item prices--$50 converts to about one and a half cartons of cigarettes at Calif. prices----Two bottles of Tanqueray Gin-1.75 liter size--at Calif. Costco prices or three 18 can cases of Budweiser at supermarket prices.... Doesn't seem like much to take part in and support TIGHAR's activities....... LTM--who gave up all those vices years ago... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, California An ardent supporter and dedicated lurker from the Left Coast ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:17:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: radio transmissions for forumites Bill Shea wrote: >1. I can set the paramaters of the plane to match the Electra 10E. Including >amount of fuel, and the gross weight. Bill, I'll grant that we know how much fuel AE had but we don't know the gross weight and we only know what the specs of an unmodified Electra 10E was supposed to be. We don't know the actual performance of AE's Electra. So once again you are forced to make up out of thin air what her actual gross weight was and what the actual performance of HER aircraft was. You still don't know the weather or altitudes and you only know her route up to the second position given. The variables are far to great to come up with anything usable. >2. I can use FS Navigator to fly to each waypoint that we know of, then try >different scenarios to see how she could have taken a northern/southern >offset route, or even try several scenarios to have them land at Gardner >Island.;setting the weather to simulate what little data we have from the >weather reports. You have insufficient data to determine if she flew straight in or if there was time to deviate north or south of course. You also don't have sufficient weather data to arrive at any conclusion. >So, my bottom line is that you wouldn't find out any more from recreating it >for real or from flying it in fs. This I will agree with whole heartedly. Either way you will learn nothing usable. There is no known information that could prove they couldn't have made it to Gardner. That leaves you with the knowledge they could have made it to Gardner but we don't know whether they did or not. This we already know. We already know they could have been north, south, east or west of Howland when they thought they were over the island. Nothing you do will eliminate any of those possibilities. >One last thing. I think that its really stretching it to say AE and FN could >have flown over and missed Howland and it's huge reef surrounding it while >flying on the 157/337 line with reasonable weather. IF they did miss Howland, >what about Baker? (and its surrounding reef as well). There are only two >possibilities, One - that somehow they were above some clouds (but they >weren't were they - they were coming in at 1000ft. two - that they were not >on the correct 157/337 line, and if that was the case how would they possibly >find Gardner? How many times have you flown into the Bermuda Islands or the Azores or Guam or Wake Island or one of the small islands in the Philippines? If the answer is zero then you have no basis for saying it is a stretch to say they shouldn't have missed Howland. I've done that more times than I can count and it is easy to miss an island. I don't know what altitude they were at when they actually were over Howland if they ever were. I don't know where they were. I don't know what the weather was wherever they were at any given time. I don't know how you can decide whether they could fly a 157/337 LOP and hit or not hit Gardner. That was a course on a map. Since neither we know nor did AE know what the winds were we don't know what heading(s) they flew to try and stay on that course nor did they. Maybe their attempt to fly a 157 degree track was exactly successful and maybe they ended up tracking several degrees either side. We don't know nor can we ever know. Having said all that I'm with you. I want to try it also. I need some help from you. I need the following data - exactly not made up. The Electra's actual gross weight at start of take off roll. Runway temperature at 10 am July 2, 1937 at Lae. Actual climb performance of AE's specific Electra meaning HP, MP and fuel flow. OAT at 7,000' Time of start climb to 10,000' level off time and same for all climbs and descents thereafter. Altitudes thereafter including start climb, L.O., OATs along the route, pressure, actual weather, fuel flows, and power settings for cruise, climbs and descents. Without all that data I can't put the airplane in any particular place at any time. Could I get close? No. Not close enough to have a usable result. But don't listen to me. Go ahead and try it then tell me what you learned and support your conclusion. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:21:35 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Coconuts on Gardner Before PISS For Gardner Island and early Pacific Island history Buffs, I ran into the Pacific Island Year Book of 1935, Published by the Pacific Publishing Company, Syndey, Aust. It is a hard bound copy of about 400 pages covering almost every Island group from the Phillipines to Hawaii. Covers everything . But of interest is that there is a short section on the Phoenix Islands. Under the various descriptions of Canton (Mary Is), Enderbury, et al is this for Gardner Island: "Gardner is about two miles long... is very fertile and carries several large coconut plantations." Nothing further re the source. But this is published in 1935 so the information appears to cover from 1934 to 1935. This indicates that someone reportedly was on the Island before Maude got his plantation going in 1938. Also in reference to the Phoenix Is. '"it was reported in mid 1935 that American expeditions had been ashore on some of these Islands , surveying for aerodromes". In Hawaii, the broadcasting station of KGU was maintained by Honolulu Advertiser, and the KGMB was maintained by the Hono. Star Bulletin. In the 1935 Map of the Pacific showing Howland and Baker and the Phoenix group, prominently shown is Winslow Reef. No information was reported on the reef itself. Oh yes, the Tutor and Secretary of the Central Medical School, Fiji, is D.W. Hoodless at a salary of 800 (pounds I think). Pretty big medical school there too. And finally a discussion of the Mandates included a reference to Japan not being cooperative, and that "Japan was beginning to execute air travel to Saipan and the Marshalls." If anyone wants it for their library it is $30 plus S and H. Ron Bright ******************************************** >This indicates that someone >reportedly was on the Island before Maude got his plantation going in 1938. Yes, in the 1890s John Arundel planted cocos on Gardner (and other islands). Some of those trees survived and naturalized and a few were in bearing when Maude and party visited the island prior to establishing the colony there. P ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:22:41 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio recreations Angus Murray wrote: > ... I am as well aware as anyone that it is literally impossible to re-create > the radio environment of 1937. And who knows what idiosyncrasies AE's > transmitter may have had which did not occur as a direct result of its > design? ... And the condition of the ionosphere between Niku and Florida early in July of 1937. If I understand the theory of how radio waves can circle the earth, they have to bounce off the charged layer of the atmosphere. There's no point in running an experiment if you can't duplicate the conditions on the days in question. Wanna test the waters? See the following page for some hints about how much the sun affects long-range reception: Here's a page full of links about propagation: Hams have been studying the possibilities of long-range transmission and reception of signals since Marconi sent his first message across the Atlantic. We don't have to schlep equipment out to the Pacific or down to Florida to figure out, in the abstract, what is theoretically possible or impossible. Just as with the questions about the flight simulator, the real simulation takes place in the minds of those who understand radios. I don't. I wouldn't give two cents for the results of a radio experiment from Niku. Whether the results are positive or negative, critics can charge that the test equipment cannot be shown to be identical to what AE and FN had at their disposal. A successful reception would say nothing about what happened in 1937; neither would a failure to hear anything. Oh, and of course, dozens of assumptions would have to be made about Betty's receiver and the antenna that her father had strung outside the house. Garbage in, garbage out. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:24:54 EST From: Gary laPook Subject: Re: radio transmissions Why not a much more limited experiment. Get an example of AE's transmitter, fire it up and measure the output to see how much power shows up in the various harmonics. All the speculation of reception of harmonics is just that, speculation, based on the unproven assertion that the radio produced a "dirty signal" with a lot of power in the harmonics. This may not be the case. This speculation may be put to rest by this simple experiment.( Of course this requires that such a radio is available.) gl > However, just as Bob's work can tend to indicate a signal reception was > possible, (although much less certainly tend to indicate it was impossible), > an experiment using an identical (as far as possible) receiver would be > useful in establishing that under the right conditions, such a transmission > was possible. > > Suppose that - contrary theoretical expectations, the output stage of the > transmitter simply did not generate an expected harmonic at sufficient > signal strength. Only a practical test would establish this with some degree > of certainty. Sure, you can hypothesise that some quirk of the assembly or > components of the original set may have allowed this, but then one merely > indulges in speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:26:03 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Altitude Angus Murray wrote: > In a deterministic universe one set of conditions produces a unique set of > consequences. Hypothesise the conditions, predict the result and compare > it to the information you have. If the result satisfies every last detail of > the information you have, you have a good chance you have deduced the > conditions. 1. Quantum theory is based on the idea that the universe at root is non-deterministic. If you have proof otherwise, I'm sure the particle physicists will be delighted to examine it with an open mind. 2. Chaos theory has shown how tiny differences in initial conditions can produce huge differences in outcomes--illustrated by the story of a computer model of the weather. When two sets of data were entered that differed by no more than the fluttering of an insect's wings, huge differences in output were observed. 3. There is a whole branch of science dedicated to the problem of precision and accuracy in measurement. All experimental science proceeds with an "error bar" involved in every measurement--a plus or minus that cannot ever be removed from the record of the observations. Even if the universe were, in fact, wholly deterministic, we are not in a position to make errorless observations of initial conditions. The bottom line for me is that informal reasoning is more powerful than formal reason in the kind of questions we face when chewing the fat in the Forum. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:30:32 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: radio transmissions for forumites Ron Bright wrote: > As I recall but can't find the source, a group of amateur Hams went to > Howland and using the smaller transmitters broadcast to the US. > Sometime in 1938 or 39. If someone can find that from the Radio > Relay Group, it may give some good clues to the range and type of > equipment. Ron, i have an issue of RADIO magazine, 1937 or 38, by the Chinese fellow who operated the Howland station - sorry, i just with your note recalled it - and it's been a while since i read it. Most of it deals with conditions on Howland, if I recall. However, i believe his operating power was in the 50 - 100 watt range, with a much simpler receiver than the USA reception reporters used. If there's anything at all instructive about the article (and maybe there is nothing...), it's that the mode used for his communications was totally telegraphy. I suppose this really proves nothing -however you see that for what the hams considered long distance communications, like to the states, the hams relied on telegraphy, at least those who could not have a full-legal-limit power ( 1000watt) station. I will try to find the article, at least maybe the reference belongs in some kind of TIGHAR bibliography. Maybe if i reckon the article interesting enuff, i can make photocopies available. RADIO was a west coast publication and highly respected for the level of technical articles, as compared to a lot of contest-results filler in other magazines. I think WW2 did them in. You know, if the Wyoming person heard the signal around 16000, this would be one more tiny factoid in favor of the harmonic-reception theory, because (seems to me) a hoaxer would operate on 3105, 6210, or a ham band frequency, in the 7000+ or 14000+ range- i'm positive it would not occur to a hoaxer to operate on a harmonic of the aircraft frequencies. Oh, btw, this month's "Electric Radio" magazine, a "classic radios" type thing, has an article on the RCA type AR-60, supposedly the type of receiver carried on the Itasca. I'll dig that out and list the date etc. (for maybe some kind of bibliography). No particular revelation here, in fact the circuit is hardly better than Betty's radio - except maybe for the resolution available on the tuning scale. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:31:42 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio re-creations Angus Murray wrote: > Suppose that - contrary theoretical expectations, the output stage of the > transmitter simply did not generate an expected harmonic at sufficient > signal strength. Only a practical test would establish this with some degree.... Angus, this would be great fun..... but.... Okay, you're going to build this transmitter, maybe 25 lbs. if you go with light construction. Then someone else is going to have to provide a husky 12v battery to lug to shore for each test, and back to the ship at night for recharging? Not my idea of fun. Or- someone will have to supply a light Honda generator, lug that to shore and use it for the transmitter - okay. But, you will have to give someone specs for an antenna to set up on the coral flats - 3 poles. Do you have the specs ready? Then you'll have to provide a little training to whoever is going to operate the transmitter - they will have to have access to the innards thru controls, to set up the transmitter with this particlular antenna, every time they change channel -Sound like enuff work yet? Maybe enuff for a whole dedicated expedition. Fun to think about, but an enormous pain to do. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:34:40 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: probabilities Hue Miller says: >I think it ("it" being matching antenna characteristics to harmonic >numbers) is so important, in fact, the results of an inquiry into this 2-part >issue will rule in or rule out the Betty reception, as to veracity. >[I} still think it (same "it") very difficult, maybe impossible, by >mathematical analysis alone, considering the variables of specific >transmitter components, and *actual* antenna characterisitics, to solve for >a believable range of solutions. So it's very important that we do something that is probably impossible. Somehow the idea seems to have gotten started that we think we can rule in or rule out messages based upon the calcuated probabilities of reception. We are very much aware that such calculations are a blunt instrument. We gather as much hard data as we can and we try to make conservative assumptions where hard data is absent (for example, in cases where we know nothing about the antenna at the point of reception we assume zero gain). Even so, these calculations are mathematical re-creations and, like all re-creations, can do no more than provide a general feel for the situation. As I said before, barring the discovery of unanticipated documentation, I suspect that the veracity of any of the receptions by stateside amateurs will always come down to individual opinion. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:01:40 EST From: Tom Byers Subject: Betty I have often wonder if Betty was tuned in to a popular radio program of the day called "The March of Time" (sponsored by Time magazine.) The format of the show was a "dramatization" of current events. Coincidence? Tom Byers *************************************************************************** From Ric Sponsored by Time magazine? That's news to me. There were two March of Time broadcasts that dramatized an imagined radio conversation between Earhart and the ITASCA. The first show was broadcast on July 8, long after most of the reported post-loss messages were received. We don't know what day Betty heard what she heard but we do know that March of Time was a half-hour show and Betty heard sporadic transmissions for an hour and three quarters. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:51:15 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: "We are running....." For Ric, I reread Tighar's analysis of the Itasca's Radio Room logs. At 0843L the Itasca's log book says "We are on the line 157/337. We will Repeat this on 6210kcs - Wait" followed by "we are running on line ... It was suggested that it was "we are running north and south" and that seems to be what everyone is quoting. I got a suggestion myself and its "we are running out of gas" The reasons I say this are: 1. Earhart said the same word an hour before - "...gas is running low". So when she repeats the word "running" an hour later, it might again be in reference to the gas and not "we are running north and south". 2. If they were still in the air then they must have been really low on fuel, starting to panic,then she would have surely mentioned running out of fuel at 0843L 2. Do we have any pilots that would answer this? If they were looking for Howland on the 157/337 line with very little fuel why would they fly in one direction for what ever distance, then turn around and fly over the same track they been on. It don't make sense. What makes the most sense is if they did fly an offset track would be to continue in the same direction. Not sure this is any value to our Forum but maybe its time we all stopped saying that they flew north and south. Excuse this if this has all been rehashed before. Cheers from Bill *************************************************************************** From Ric How does "We're running out of gas" sound like "We're running north and south." ? How about, "We're running off at the mouth"? Easily mistaken for "We're running north and south." But what was typed was "We're running on line north and south." Or it could be read "We're running on north and south line." What sounds like "line" and could be something to do with fuel? How about "time"? "We're running out of time so I'll shut my mouth." I'm being facetious of course, and we do have to remember that the ITASCA's log entries reflect not necessarily what Earhart actually said but what the operator thought he heard. However, if we're going to cast doubt upon a transcription we better have a good reason. For example "circling" is a glaring type-over with the partially erased word "drifting" clearly discernable underneath. "Half hour gas left sez she" is contradicted by the other log that says she said "but gas is running low" and by the fact that she was clearly still in the air an hour later. I think there is good reason to question the accuracy of the parenthetical supplement to the 0843 entry. It's crammed in and ambiguous and the operator himself added a question mark, but if you're going to suggest an alternative I think you have to come up with words that sound something like what was written. (For example, I think "drifting" was really "list'ning" and I think O'Hare - who was handling other traffic - confused Earhart's frequent references to "on half hour" - sometimes logged as "in half hour" - as referring to fuel.) It does seem logical that, as you say, "If they were still in the air then they must have been really low on fuel, starting to panic,then she would have surely mentioned running out of fuel at 0843L". With no reason to think that she did mention running out of fuel at 0843 and no reason to think that she was panicked, it follows by your own logic that they weren't perilously low on fuel at that time. >Do we have any pilots that would answer this? If they were looking for >Howland on the 157/337 line with very little fuel why would they fly in one >direction for what ever distance, then turn around and fly over the same >track they been on. It don't make sense. Yes it do. It is, in fact, literally the textbook recommendation later suggested by Weems in "Air Navigation". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:30:46 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Address for Website For: Jon Watson > He said that they hadn't done anything because of the expense > ($200 k) to mount an expedition (I don't recall off the top of my head which > island he claims it is adjacent to - it's on their website). What a hoot. You're right, Tighar is the best act in town. Jon, what is the address for the website with the crash site, etc.? Carol ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:34:29 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Coconuts on Gardner Before PISS >In the 1935 Map of the Pacific showing Howland and Baker and the Phoenix >group, prominently shown is Winslow Reef. No information was reported on >the reef itself. It appears that "Winslow Reef" is an underwater seamount. Although it has been on charts for more than 100 years, even Robt. Louis Stevenson couldn't find it. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ******************************************************** From Ric Neither could Lambrecht and the boys from the COLORADO. Apparently it only shows up as breakers at certain times when the tide is unusually low and I've never seen any indication that there is ever anything above water. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:38:10 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Re-creations > Garbage in, garbage out. > > Marty #2359 Marty, you need to use larger type for that, like 36 point. I've been saying that till I'm blue in the face but the quest for experiments goes on. ************************************************************************* From Angus Murray >Fun to think > about, but an enormous pain to do. Well I can see there's zero enthusiasm for this idea so lets not waste any more time on it. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:39:38 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Altitude Marty wrote > Even if the universe > was, in fact, wholly deterministic, we are not in a position > to make errorless observations of initial conditions. That's going to upset some of the guys on the forum, Marty. It's even worse than that. I can't even make errorless observations when I write these notes. Thank God for spell check. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:33:07 EST From: David Subject: Re: "We are running....." I'm not real sure how to word this, but in regards to the phrase"running low on fuel" , exactly what would this mean when said by a pilot? can they , and of course this means back in those times, tell from the gauge or whatever pretty much how much gas is left? at what point on the gauge or whatever would it prompt her to say--running low on gas?-----would it be like a car gauge and you might say im low on gas at a quarter of a tank or "running out" when it is right at empty? Im wondering if they had a more exact way to know how much fuel was left and what a pilot words back then might mean by say "running out of gas". Thanks, David ************************************************************************* From Ric "Gas is running low" (the actual logged phrase) is, of course, a relative term and there is no magical point at which all pilots consider gas to be running low. Running out of gas in an airplane is considerably more embarrassing than doing so in a car, so pilots tend to pay rather close attention to this issue and they do not trust fuel gauges. The old saying is, "The only fuel gauge I trust is the one on my wrist." A good pilot knows from experience how much fuel the engine(s) burn at given power settings and keeps a running tally of how much is being used and how much should be left. Fuel is time. So when is fuel "running low"? Depends on the flight. You always want to have enough time to go to your planned destination, find out that you can't land there (for whatever reason), and then go someplace else where you can land. If the weather is good and airports are a dime a dozen you're going to be comfortable with less reserve than if the weather is iffy and the only alternate destination is a long way off. In cases where the intended destination is so remote that you simply can't carry enough fuel to go there and then go someplace else, you have a "point of no return" past which you're committed to landing at your intended destination. Nobody likes those situations and you don't try it unless you can carry enough reserve to have a good long time to figure out what to do if things don't turn out the way you planned. In 1937 the rule of thumb was to have at least 20% reserve for long distance flights. The flight to Howland was expected to take about 19 hours. If Earhart was following accepted standards she should have expected to have at least 3.8 hours of reserve fuel aboard upon reaching Howland and, in fact, the ITASCA was given to understand that the airplane would have a total of at least 24 hours endurance. It's interesting that the "but gas is running low" comment is made at 07:42 local time which is 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight. It is the first message received after Earhart has begun using her reserve. When you've been flying all day and all night and you're in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and the only airport you can possibly reach isn't where it was supposed to be and you're not sure what went wrong and you ony have a few hours of fuel left, you better believe that "gas is running low". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:37:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "We are running....." Let me add to Ric's answer, Bill. I AM a long time pilot and have had my share of tense moments. I have to agree with Ric about the fuel. (It's in my contract) As much as I shoot at flight simulator redo the last leg and match the fuel consumption with KJs prediction OR just do it on paper. You will see there is no reason to believe they were out of gas at 8:43L. At that time my rough estimate is 139 gallons. Most put it at 150 gallons. No reason to panic or start yelling low fuel. The fuel IS getting low just as AE said but they weren't planning this flight dry tanks to Howland. If you want to chat about the fuel some more email me and we can pursue this a bit more. If, in fact they WERE out of gas everyone would have known about it from the first radio call inbound. As to the LOP FN must have thought this was a good line through Howland and you can bet he shot as many sun shots as he could yo back it up. Ric and others are somewhat of the opinion he couldn't get much accuracy down at 1,000' even if the scattered deck permitted the shots. That may be correct. I don't know what the exact conditions were but if I was in that spot I'd use a little gas and drift up above the clouds and take my bearings IF the climb wasn't too high. I wouldn't go to 10,000' if my gas was getting critical ...I don't think.........maybe. In any case if he thought his LOP was good then there was no reason not to fly it's reverse. As to your offset idea keep in mind as at 7:42L they thought they were directly over Howland not offset to the NW or SE on the 157/337 it appears to me. The 157/337 comment was not until an hour later. That makes me think they flew straight into where they thought Howland was. Also don't forget the sun was not the only nav aid FN had. At 7:00L on the way in the sun had been up only 45 minutes at Howland and less than that wherever the Electra was. There was not yet too much light to obscure the celestial sky. Noonan also had a drift meter and contrary to some it can be used over open ocean. I just don't see Noonan as lost as some would have him. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:37:49 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Coconuts on Gardner Before PISS For Ron Bright -- So how does one buy the Yearbook? Sounds fascinating. Interesting that Hoodless is identified as tutor and secretary at the med school. He went to Fiji in the late '20s as a teacher, and by the time he did the bones analysis had only recently spent a couple of years back in England getting his MD. Looks like he evolved into his post at the Central Med school via an administrative position with teaching on ths side. As for the "several large coconut plantations," it sounds like somebody got a bit carried away. Maude and Bevington found only small groves left over from Arundel's plantings. LTM TK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:39:43 EST From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: Betty As an echo to Marty's comments on how little is known, here's a little sample of how unpredictable radios are. As a signals "expert" in the military, about fifteen years ago, I was on a course in the UK, which involved playing with the communications problems in the field for about a week, with small shoulder mounted HF systems. Once we'd communicated from the West coast of Wales to the East coast of England on all the regulation antennas we could create, we did what any bored bunch of soldiers would do, and adjourned to the local pub. There, after several warm beers, we proceeded to entertain the locals by talking clearly to the other side of the country with the following antennas: A piece of fuse wire trailed onto the copper bar top. An old lager keg lying outside in the car park. The bodywork of the jukebox (reception came thru on the speakers of the stereo!) The barbed wire fence outside. All of which I think is trying to say that despite many weeks of theory, and several decades of British stiff-upper-lip-type written documents telling us all how our radio should and would work, a couple of Watts and a bit of luck will sometimes do just fine. Marty, I also know little about radios and what happens inside, but I have no doubt that one person all those years ago could have been listening to AE and FN, just by being in the right place, at the right time. To even begin to recreate those chance parameters again would not be as fruitfull as pursuing confirmation of the existing evidence which we have. This is a FASCINATING forum. Continued success Rick Boardman. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:40:54 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Howland's reef? >One last thing. I think that its really stretching it to say AE and FN could >have flown over and missed Howland and it's huge reef surrounding it while >flying on the 157/337 line with reasonable weather. Our friends at Spaceimageing http://www.spaceimaging.com have a satellite view of Howland on their website. The reef is not impressively large, as Howland is not an atoll. If it looks large on the simulation, the program should be fixed. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:43:00 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Missing Howland and Baker? Bill Shea writes: >One last thing. I think that its really stretching it to say AE and FN could >have flown over and missed Howland and it's huge reef surrounding it while >flying on the 157/337 line with reasonable weather. IF they did miss Howland, >what about Baker? (and its surrounding reef as well). There are only two >possibilities, One - that somehow they were above some clouds (but they >wern't were they - they were coming in at 1000ft. two - that they were not >on the correct 157/337 line, and if that was the case how would they possibly >find Gardner? Possibility three: they wound up on the 157/337 line way far south of Baker, unbeknownst to AE or FN, and flying a search pattern north 25-30 miles did not make Baker or Howland appear. It could happen if the winds were from the ENE. Paige Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:44:12 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: radio transmissions Gary LaPook wrote: > Why not a much more limited experiment. Get an example of AE's transmitter, > fire it up and measure the output to see how much power shows up in the various Gary gets it. This is exactly my argument. But - if we can't persuade some owner to have his transmitter prodded and poked, this can still be done even with a homebuilt apparatus- and not even at the power level of the original - this can be setup and tested with a similar apparatus and at much lower power- which is more practical- and the results scaled. But the second part of this task, is to see how the harmonics go when a the real antenna is connected, because in effect, the antenna acts as another filter for harmonics. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:45:03 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: radio transmissions for forumites Alan wrote: > How many times have you flown into the Bermuda Islands or the Azores or Guam > or Wake Island or one of the small islands in the Philippines? If the > answer is zero then you have no basis for saying it is a stretch to say they > shouldn't have missed Howland er, Bermuda(1), Midway(1), Guam(countless), you got me on the Azores and the Philippines. Cheers from Bill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:47:34 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: radio transmissions << Why not a much more limited experiment. Get an example of AE's transmitter, << fire it up and measure the output to see how much power shows up in the <I have an issue of RADIO magazine, 1937 or 38, by the Chinese fellow who > operated the Howland station This might make an interesting "document of the week". ltm jon ************************************************************************ From Ric That would be Yau Fai Lum. It woud be interesting to see what he had to say back then. His more recent memories don't agree very well with the information attributed to him in the ITASCA log. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:48:05 EST From: RC Subject: ON BEING LOST RC Asks of Alan, who opined, [in effect, that] ' ... he doesn't see Fred as lost as some would have him ...' We should be on you but do not see you .. says in effect that Fred expected to see HOW at that point, [19+ hrs. after leaving LAE] but does not. He is not where he expected to be and see's nothing but ocean ... what makes him less lost to you than some others believe? Doesn't the degree of being lost have a similarity to the degree of pregnant ...? RC ************************************************************************* From Ric We do get into some interesting philosophical arguments on this forum. No, I dont think that pregnancy is a particularly apt analogy for being lost. There's only one way to be pregnant and there are many ways and gradations of being lost. When you think about it, "lost" is a very imprecise term. If I become separated from my family at the State Fair, but I know how to get back to the car and I know that they'll eventually have to show up back at the car - am I lost? Yes - I'm unable to find my desired destination (my family), and no - I know where I am and I can navigate to a safe haven. When Howland did not appear when Noonan expected it to he had to know that either he was not where he thought he was or the island was not where he was told it was. At that point he has to review the information upon which he based his original expectation and decide what data are reliable and what data are speculative. If he can use the information he is most confident is correct and come up with a plan to either find his intended destination or at least find a safe haven - is he lost? Yes and no. It's an imprecise word. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:51:21 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Betty Rick Boardman wrote: > ... There, > after several warm beers, we proceeded to entertain the locals by talking > clearly to the other side of the country with the following antennas: > > A piece of fuse wire trailed onto the copper bar top. > An old lager keg lying outside in the car park. > The bodywork of the jukebox (reception came thru on the speakers of the stereo!) > The barbed wire fence outside. > > All of which I think is trying to say that despite many weeks of theory, > and several decades of British stiff-upper-lip-type written documents > telling us all how our radio should and would work, a couple of Watts and > a bit of luck will sometimes do just fine. ... LOL! I wonder whether AE * FN thought of any similar tricks. Two years ago, we speculated about them maybe using a kite to fly an emergency antenna. Some of the discussion is here: (Note to newcomers: if you haven't found the forum highlights, they are well worth reading end-to-end. I think I went through them twice in the first week after I stumbled onto TIGHAR's web site. ) "The plane had a two-man rubber lifeboat, life belts, flares, a signal kite and emergency food and water rations." TIGHAR has not been able to confirm the existence of the kite nor whether it was, in fact, loaded on the plane in Lae. But we really don't know what desperate amateurs might do in an emergency nor what effects their experiments would have on signal propagation. I wouldn't have thought of using a keg or a "dukebox" (jukebox?), but perhaps I just haven't been oiling the old mental machinery enough in recent years. :o) A note on ordinary language & the recent discussions of stats. We who are untrained talk like this: "The odds must have been a million-to-one against Betty hearing Amelia." This does not settle the question of whether Betty heard Amelia or not, but it does reflect a sense that if she did, it was an abnormal situation, a fluke, a lucky accident. In the upcoming Powerball lottery, the odds that any particular person will win the lottery are less than the odds of being struck by lightning on their way to buy a ticket; and yet, someone will eventually win the lottery despite the very great odds against that happening. The odds against Betty being in the right place at the right time with the right equipment to hear AE & FN transmit under the right atmospheric conditions are incalculable because, unlike the lottery game, we do not have a closed set of possibilities that can be counted accurately. But the lack of a precise calculation does not mean that we are wrong to feel that the chances were very, very small of the event occurring. When and if identifying remains of the Electra or its occupants are found, then we will know a lot more about the odds. If found at the bottom of the ocean, then almost certainly Betty never heard them. If found on Niku, then she may have heard them. To put it another way around, Betty's notebook is consistent with the Niku hypothesis (or other landing sites) but not with the crashed & sank hypothesis. My bottom line is that we've got to get Ric to go back to Niku and look for more clues. Go, Ric, go! Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:04:03 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The Betty Interview I have finished putting together the tape and I'm ready to start dubbing and sending out tapes. From the four hours or so of videotape we shot with Betty I've pulled out her unedited page-by-page, word-by-word recollections and interpretations of what she wrote in the notebook. I've added a brief explanatory introduction and a short sequel. The total video runs about 1 hour and 25 minutes. I don't think we'll enter it at Sundance but I do think that those who are interested in Betty's experience will find it fascinating. We'll include a photocopy of the pertinent notebook pages with each video so you can follow along with Betty. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:28:28 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Altitude Marty wrote: > > In a deterministic universe one set of conditions produces a unique set of > > consequences. Hypothesise the conditions, predict the result and compare > > it to the information you have. If the result satisfies every last detail of > > the information you have, you have a good chance you have deduced the > > conditions. We're talking at cross purposes. You think I'm advocating a re-creation of the flight by guessing values for all the infinite number of parameters involved and creating a virtual model of the flight. I'm not. I would have pointed out (but I had gone on too long already), that those initial conditions would be inferred from the evidence we have (which limits the number of possibilitites for initial conditions dramatically) and it would mainly be a qualitative rather than quantitative process. > 1. Quantum theory is based on the idea that the universe > at root is non-deterministic. If you have proof otherwise, > I'm sure the particle physicists will be delighted to > examine it with an open mind. Although Einstein was the nemesis of the Newtonian model, he still famously said "God does not play dice". He was really an early exponent of "Hidden Variable" theory which brings quantum theory into line with determinism. However, as you are probably aware, and whether you feel qualified to gainsay Einstein or not, Newtonian physics still makes a very good model for low speed, macroscopic situations - just what we are looking at. Although quantum theory has been around for a long time, so was Newtonian Physics until relativity and quantum theory came along, so don't jump to the conclusion that quantum theory is an ultimate model - it is still very much in debate in spite of its usefulness. However since I'm not trying to model the flight anyway, this is not really relevant. > 2. Chaos theory has shown how tiny differences in initial conditions > can produce huge differences in outcomes--illustrated by the story > of a computer model of the weather. When two sets of data were > entered that differed by no more than the fluttering of an > insect's wings, huge differences in output were observed. Well - that is indeed true. But it is not true that if you work backwards from an observed output, that it will have more than one set of input conditions. As you have pointed out only slightly different input conditions generate very different outputs. And that is the scenario in question - working backwards by looking at individual or combinations of evidence and using that to gainsome insight into an initial condition. Do this a number of times and put all those initial conditions together and see if the combined set of initial conditions produces all the collected evidence, including especially that which had not been involved in the hindcasting process . I did point out that having a very incomplete set of output data means that the problem then becomes impossible of certain solution. But the degree of certainty does depend a lot on what information you do have. Take an air-accident investigation for instance. Sometimes in the wreckage, you come across that vital part that gives you the clue to the disaster. It was pure luck it survived but although you have no other evidence, its enough to be very sure what happened. Let us suppose you find, say, a piece of evidence which indicates a sudden decompression. You now have your theoretical input condition. You then say - what would the result of a sudden decompression have been in terms of the behaviour of the aircraft. This prediction is compared to the output evidence of the flight recorder. If they agree you have a good indication that sudden decompression was indeed the initiating factor of the accident. That is the sort of thinking I'm talking about. > 3. There is a whole branch of science dedicated to the problem > of precision and accuracy in measurement. All experimental > science proceeds with an "error bar" involved in every > measurement--a plus or minus that cannot ever be removed > from the record of the observations. Even if the universe > was, in fact, wholly deterministic, we are not in a position > to make errorless observations of initial conditions. This is true but once again only relevant to an a priori pure guess of initial conditions for modelling a virtual flight in all its complex detail. Not what I was suggesting. > The bottom line for me is that informal reasoning is more > powerful than formal reason in the kind of questions we > face when chewing the fat in the Forum That's fine - but it is nevertheless often the case that introducing some structure to thinking forces one to be more objective and accurate and obviates the inconsistencies that might otherwise go unnoticed. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:29:39 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: radio transmissions Ric wrote: >If we had AE's transmitter, set up in her airplane, we could probably find >out. To check for harmonic output would not require the transmitter to be 'set up in her airplane', although I guess it could be measured 'off the air'. Lower-power (100 watts or less) transmitters are often (usually?) checked 'on the bench' for harmonic output. For those who have the thought that a 'similar' transmitter could be used to check for harmonic output, I would not expect this to work. I would expect any variation from the original design to possibly make a BIG difference in harmonic output. This question is for Mike E. - Mike, was the drive level, as well as the output circuit (plate tuning/loading) 'preset' in the AE transmitter, or was this adjustable by the operator? John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:30:27 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Drift Meters Alan, At first I thought FN left his drift meter behind, but now I think you're right. He did have a drift meter but the drift meter he had was nothing on the order of the one Pohlemus used on Ann Pelegreno's flight. The one FN had was a pretty ancient contraption I understand....that may have been part of the problem. You want to comment on drift meters, over to you. I have never see one or used one. All I know is they exist. Time to leave for Christmas. Have a merry. Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:37:52 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: UK communications anecdote Rick Boardman wrote: > As an echo to your comments on how little is known, here's a little sample of > how unpredictable radios are....after > several warm beers, we proceeded to entertain the locals by talking clearly > to the other side of the country with the following antennas..... I do not think this illustrates exactly unpredictability. It does illustrate skywave reflection, which of course works for low and high power transmitters. It works so well, that some people have communicated cross country on power levels of something like 0.001 watt, which is maybe 1/300 the power of a bulb flashlight. I'd guess and say your mil radio did not use AM mode, rather the more effective SSB, and also include some kind of manual or automatic antenna tuner, which would compensate for otherwise wild mismatches. AE's situation for a possible reach to the US started with AM mode. I forget the transmitter power, but usually the max voice power in an AM transmitter is 1/2 the rated power, and that includes 2 sidebands, so a fully modulated 100 watt AM transmitter would give the modulation power of a 25 watt SSB signal. Okay, then the harmonic power is a fraction of this, by the time you get to the 5th harmonic the power is a small fraction. Depending on what multiple of the harmonic's wavelength the ship's antenna was, even that power might not get to the antenna and be radiated. Doesn't matter how much "gain" the antenna would have, IF it was matched. Okay, i keep harping on this, but I think those things *have* to be looked at. We really could get an idea of how the ship's antenna worked for harmonics, by testing a re-creation of it. Best would be a re-creation by temporary (no drilling) setup on some craft like a Beech 18, but I think even setting up the wire over good earth ground would do it. I am thinking because of the antenna's offset V design, it might be hard to predict its characteristics mathematically. Best wishes to all AE sleuths - may we all have a healthy, prosperous, and interesting year. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:40:14 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: radio transmissions for forumites >Oh, btw, this month's "Electric Radio" magazine, a "classic radios" type thing, >has an article on the RCA type AR-60, supposedly the type of receiver carried >on the Itasca. Hue, if you have access to the January 1936 issue of "Radio," there is a very good and highly technical report on the "new" AR-60 receiver. From whence do you conclude that the Itasca carried the AR-60? (I don't get "Electric Radio" now, so have not seen this article.) This may indeed be true, and I recall suggesting this possibility myself quite some time ago; but since then have seen references in the record that may indicate they were using the National HRO, which came out in 1934. The USCG was a very poor stepchild in the 30s, and may not have re-equipped with every new receiver that came out... it'd be nice to find some reference to confirm what was aboard. The HRO was likewise a very fine radio, maybe even better than the AR-60. By the way, the January 1936 "Radio" also contains a long letter-type article from a ham on Wake Island who was a PAA employee at the DF station. Verrrrry interesting. As for what happened to "Radio" magazine, the focus changed from ham radio to broadcast engineering, during WW2. The magazine died out. Some of the people who had run it as a ham magazine went on to found "CQ" magazine (also a west coast enterprise, originally)in early to mid 1945. I think the first issue appeared in May or June of that year. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:43:48 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies Ron Bright asked: >Are there any harmonics related to about 16000 kcs, the frequency close to >Dana Randolphs reception of a faint "voice of Earhart" on 4 July at Rock >Springs, Wyoming. The closest possibility is 15525 KNz. This is the 5th harmonic of 3105 KHz. Since the transmitter used frequency-control crystals which were 1/2 the value of the on-air frequency, we must also consider at least the possibility that one of the following frequencies was being radiated: If she was transmitting on 6210, perhaps the the 10th harmonic of the frequency-control crystal for that channel, 3105 KHz, which also happens to land at 15525. We should also consider 17077.5 KHz, which is yet another harmonic (11th) of 1552.5 KHz. The probability for radiation of this spurious frequency is lower than that for others, but I submit that under the right conditions it might just be possible. Both of these frequencies are close enough to "16000 KHz" that, given the ball-park calibration of many receivers of the era, either could be the culprit. Also consider that while professional monitoring stations had means to accurately check the calibration of their receiver tuning, as in frequency standards which provided signals at least every 100 KHz, most hams did not, and broadcast listeners certainly didn't. >I hate to ask, but what are the probabilties of such a reception inland. My hypothesis is based upon the likelihood -- which I think is pretty reasonable -- that this transmitter, which by design had a very high probability for harmonic output, could have been mistuned into an antenna of altered dimensions. The altered antenna could have very likely caused the tuning conditions of the transmitter to fall outside the limits of the circuitry to suppress harmonics and/or suprious emissions. We know that Joe Gurr altered the antenna before the second attempt. Given the new antenna length; and the fact that aircraft antennas present some real challenges for proper tuning; and the fact that this transmitter had NO (repeat, NO!) harmonic suppression circuitry or filter networks or antenna-coupling unit between it and the antenna, I submit that harmonic radiation was extremely likely. Bob Brandenburg's analysis tells us that signals could have been heard Stateside at various times on various frequencies. I don't know what kind of power might have been radiated at the harmonics. I do know that under the right propagation conditions, some absolutely incredible things can happen even with very low-power signals. Any re-creation of the event would be interesting, to be sure, and would reveal interesting things... but given the rather substantial differences that supposedly identical radio equipments may demonstrate due to minute differences in component value tolerances, the quality of soldered connections, conditions of ground connections under the chassis, slight imperfections of welded joints inside vacuum tubes, the quality of the "cut" of the quartz in the frequency-control crystal, etc etc, it isn't really possible to exactly duplicate THIS radio's performance. Not to mention the simulation of an electrically complex aircraft antenna, and the way the transmitter may have been tuned (mistuned?) to it. Not to say "it can't be done" but it would not be easy; and under no conditions could you call the results truly definitive. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:45:18 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Antenna Hue Miller wrote: >Mike Everette wrote: > > > This is clearly shown and explained in the instruction manual for > > the Bendix MN-26 series radio compass system (vintage 1929-1940 > > and very common in WW2 > >date error Sorry about the typo. It's 19 THIRTY 9, obviously. > I would not call the MN-26 a direct descendant, it is the start > of a Bendix series of navigation-only receivers. The RA-1 was a > combination of DF and ship's longrange communication receiver - > a concept all the USA manufacturers seem to have abandoned > at the end of the 1930s -maybe except for one more dual-use > receiver, the Bendix RA-10. The RA-10 is indeed a "bridge" between the RA-1 and MN-26 series, but the lineage or "family resemblance" is unmistakeable. As for the MN-5/DU question, re antennas... it does indeed sound messy, especially if these antenna leads were not shielded, or unless at least one was. In Navy installations with the DU series, the loop was mounted pretty close to the associated receiver (RU, ARA, ARB etc) and unsheilded leads could be used without too much problem; but in AE's case the receiver (Western Electric) was mounted underneath the right seat in the cockpit. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:59:06 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Harmonics During the search, the Coast Guard was very much aware of the possibility that signals might be heard on harmonics. Here are some of the discussions that appear in official messages. July 4th From: COMFRANDIV (Coast Guard San Francisco Division) To: ITASCA MONITORING STATIONS REPORT NO SIGNALS ON PLANE FREQUENCIES EXCEPT CARRIERS. LOCAL PLANES WERE HEARD 3105 BETWEEN 1100 AND 0130. MONITORS ESTABLISHED WATCH AT MAIN RECEIVING UNIT. PRESS WIRELESS SANFRANCISCO ON DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS BEAMED ON HONOLULU. SOME SIGNALS ON 3105 AT NMC BUT BACKGROUND NOISE EXCEPTIONALLY HEAVY. COMMERCIAL STATIONS REPORT RECEPTION FROM MIDPACIFIC OFTEN BETTER ON THIRD HARMONIC WHICH MAY ACCOUNT FOR REPORTS OF PLANE BEING HEARD ON 10 MC AND 16 TO 18 MC FROM VARIOUS POINTS ON COAST. RECEPTION BETTER ON COAST ON 6 MC DURING EARLY MORNING HOURS FROM ABOUT 0500 TO 0900 PST. MONITORS AT PRESS WIRELESS REPORT UNIDENTIFIABLE SIGNALS 3105 KCS AT 0815. SIGNALS WERE HEARD ON TWO RECEIVERS AND TWO BEAMS. And also from COMFRANDIV to ITASCA later that same day (bear in mind that Putnam and Mantz were working with CG San Francisco to pass along technical information about the plane to the searchers): REFERENCE EARHART TRANSMITTER. DUE TO DESIGN OF TRANSMITTER FOLLOWING FREQUENCIES ARE HIGHLY PRACTICABLE - ODD HARMONICS OF THE 3105 CRYSTALS WHICH THE ANTENNAE WILL BE RESONANT ON WITHOUT CHANGE OF THE DIAL SETTINGS 9315, 15525 AND 21935. OTHER POSSIBLE HARMONIC POINTS 12420 AND 18630 LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 14:15:20 EST From: Rich Young Subject: huckleberry To Paige Miller: Yes, the aluminum IS marked by the manufacturer to indicate that it is intended for aircraft repair, not new aircraft construction, or non-aviation use. Now ask yourself, "What would need to be different about this material, to make it particularly suitable for aircraft REPAIR?" I can think of two things: 1. It must me a more flexible alloy than in general use, as it has to accept being hand-contoured without cracking or work-hardening. New construction of aircraft wouldn't necessarily need this, as dies, jigs, French wheels, and other tools and techniques shape the material, if needed, before drilling and attaching. 2. It is probably pre-treated to resist corrosion, probably with a phosphate wash, were new construction may be treated as sub-assemblies during the construction process. Now ask yourself, "Who is likely to have aluminum airplane repair skin in the Pacific in the era 1930 - 1950?" I submit: Army Air Corps bases, Navy and Marine airbases, seaplane tenders, aircraft carriers, medium and heavy cruisers and battleships that had observation planes, even Allied and Japanese air activity is a possibility. Lastly. the INTENT of the manufacturer notwithstanding, here is NOTHING about the particular type of aluminum that would preclude it's use on non-aviation artifacts, except it's (presumably) greater cost, and when Uncle Sugar is picking up the tab, and the Admiral or the C.O. wants it "right now!", are going to let the stamp on the material keep you from using it? I think not! If you've ever hung around an aviation outfit, you will find all sorts of things made out of airplane parts and supplies, especially Plexiglas and sheet metals. In fact, Fort Sill, Oklahoma's "wind sock" is a giant aluminum triangle, fitted with lights and pivoting on a turntable. If you looked inside it, I bet you would find that the metal is marked for aircraft repair, but it sure didn't get used that way. As to the rest of your message, I again refer you to Occam's Razor. I'll paraphrase it for you in this context: when presented with two or more alternate explanations for something, the simplest explanation is the most likely. In this case, we KNOW that there was inter-island trade in aircraft wreckage, the bookcase proves this. We have two other bits that MAY be aircraft wreckage. One explanation is that Amelia's Electra crashed on Gardner, wasn't seen by the Colorado flyby, wasn't discovered and reported in the 20+ year history of the PISS project, and just now we are finding bits of it, OR: the mystery items came over the same way the bookcase did. Which is simpler? You can't just take a bunch of things that have a low probability of being indicative of Landing On Gardner, and say that the numbers alone make LOG credible. That would be akin to saying, 'We have anecdotal evidence in the poem "The Night Before Christmas" of an eyewitness to Santa Claus, "Virginia" in Florida wrote to Santa and he sent a reply back, (her daddy worked at the post office, so they had a mailbox that was much better than anyone else's, that's why no one else got an answer), so we believe that all those explorers who claimed to have gone to the North Pole have missed their mark somehow, or they would have seen Santa's workshop. BTW, we've been to the North Pole 4 times already, and we need money to go again." LT Johnnie Cochran's M, who sez, "If the shoe don't fit, Gardner ain't it!" Rich Young ************************************************************************* From Ric The assumptions upon which you base your conclusions are in error. According to Alcoa, the only difference between the aluminum marked in the manner of 2-2-V-1 and aluminum used in new construction was whether or not it had undergone a particular kind of quality assurance inspection. Apparently some unknown quantity of sheet aluminum marked in this fashion was produced during the 1930s. In addition to 2-2-V-1, we've found it on modifications/repairs to two other Lockheed 10s and on a small patch on the nose of a WWII C-47. Your understanding of Occam's Razor is also in error. Occam never said that the simplest solution is most likely to be true. He said that in testing a hypothesis the possible solutions that are easiest to test should be tested first. That's exactly why we're testing the hypothesis that Earhart landed on Gardner. It is infinitely easier to test than Crashed and Sank or Japanese Capture. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 14:31:38 EST From: Warren Gammel Subject: Betty - a few question I'm new to your forum and have a few questions for you all. I've been reading all the posts about Betty's radio in Florida with interest. I'm in Florida and I have a short wave portable radio with approximately 200 ft of antenna wire strung 50ft above ground from several tree tops in my backyard. I pick up stations from all over the world on a regualr basis so I can understand how it may have been possible for Betty to pick up AE transmissions - in theory anyway. I should preface this by saying that I'm not a HAM operater and I have only rudimentary knowledge of how short wave radios work. My questions: Do Betty's recollections of what she supposedly heard on her radio fit in with everything else that is known about AE final flight or do her recollections of what she supposedly heard conflict with everything else that is known? I'm trying to figure out if proving or disproving what Betty says she heard would significantly change established opinion and knowledge (providing Betty is a credible source) or if proving or disproving what Betty says she heard supports established opinion and knowledge. Or is verifying that Betty could actually hear AE on her radio just an academic persuit? I'm new and a bit confused, so perhaps some one can straighten me out on these matters. Thank you, Warren Gammel Ocala, Florida *************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome to the forum Warren. I know of nothing in Betty's notebook that contradicts anything we know about the Earhart flight and there are many aspects of the scene portrayed by the notebook that uncannily fit the layout of an Electra cockpit and the hypothesis that the plane was on the reef at Gardner Island. That said, I don't think we're ever gong to prove or disprove whether Betty heard Amelia, but neither do I think that studying her notebook is a purely academic pursuit. For those who find it credible it is a chilling window to the past. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:54:59 EST From: Rich Young Subject: "aircraft" parts Just as anyone who watches home shopping channels knows that not all "440 surgical stainless steel" ends up in surgical instruments, I'm sure the forum doesn't need to be reminded that not all "aircraft grade construction", "materials", or even rivets ever end up as part of an airplane, (for exaple, please see "Airsteam Travel Trailers"). The rivets, and rivet spacing, of the aluminum sheet are consitant with aircraft construction, but by no means exclusive to aircraft construction. When one considers that some of the sircraft companies survived the Great Depression by turning their assembly lines to building canoes, boat hulls, water and fuel tanks, floats, buoys, buses, travel tailers, railroad cars, pontoons, and anything else they could sell, "aircraft" construction techniques and materials aren't conclusive of aviation origin. I stand by my original assertion - show me ANY evidence that the skin OR the dado was ever attached to an AIRPLANE. Give me a Lockheed part number, or a photo showing the alleged part on the Electra. Even a repair order with a blueprint or sketch. ANd bear in mind, even if the skin had the Electr'a "N" number painted on it, there is still the problem of how it got to the island - for all you know, it was IN the bookcase you found when it first arrived there - no need for AE to have been within 200 miles of the place! LTM who is hard to convince! Rich ************************************************************************* From Ric Rich, we understand that you are not convinced. We don't deny that there are other possible explanations for the clues that lead us to believe that Earhart landed on Gardner. Perhaps we'll find something that convinces you Perhaps we won't. Perhaps you could find something constructive to contribute to the discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:56:33 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies > Since the transmitter used frequency-control crystals which were 1/2 the > value of the on-air frequency, we must also consider at least the > possibility that one of the following frequencies was being radiated: > > If she was transmitting on 6210, perhaps the the 10th harmonic of the > frequency-control crystal for that channel, 3105 KHz, which also happens to > land at 15525. Mike, Its probably just an editing error but if she was transmitting on 6210, it must have been the fifth rather than the tenth harmonic of 3105, the crystal frequency, to give 15525. The 10th harmonic of 1552.5 (1/2 the 3105 transmitting frequency) is of course15525 but Hue has pointed out that a bandpass filter would probably have prevented 1552.5 or harmonics of 1552.5 from reaching the output stage where they might otherwise be transmitted or be modified to higher harmonics and then transmitted. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:58:30 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Betty Interview Tape > I've added a brief > explanatory introduction and a short sequel You don't sing on this one do you. Ric? Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. But I've cleverly disguised my voice to sound like Fred Astaire. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:00:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: ON BEING LOST > what makes him less lost to you than some others believe? RC, most folks who have FN lost have him lost by anything up to a hundred miles or more but he could have been within a couple of miles and still not have seen the island. Having flown in similar conditions for half my flying career it is easy for me to believe and at the same time virtually impossible to describe to those who have not flown in those conditions or who do not fly at all. Clouds, cloud shadows and haze make the problem very difficult. Visibility out of the Electra cockpit was not the greatest view out of an airplane. Personally I don't think they got quite that close but I DO believe they could have easily been within 5 miles. I see nothing to make me think Noonan was 50, 100 or more miles off course. Granted, Noonan showed less than great accuracy in prior situations but he didn't need to be that accurate to hit the coast of Africa, or any other large land mass. Even hitting the Hawaiian Islands doesn't require much skill. On the other hand finding Howland, even expecting a DF, had to have had his complete attention. Both he and AE certainly recognized this as their greatest challenge. I can't see Noonan casualing his way into Howland. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:01:34 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: radio transmissions For John Rayfield: All the tuning adjustments in the WE 13 series transmitter were preset on the ground. The technician had a test set with one (ONE) meter, and a cord with a two-circuit plug. There were (if memory serves me w/o digging out the schematic) NINE parameters to be monitored. The transmitter had no panel meter. Imagine having to tune something with one meter, while having to watch grid current, plate current (for the CORRECT DIP!! Not for the one on the second, third or umpteenth harmonic -- remember this!) and the antenna current... when tuning is done by varying the taps on the final tank coil. AND keep from getting fried in the process. AND possibly look for indications on an absorption wavemeter. There was no such thing as an SWR bridge in those days.... And realize this too: the antenna -- a non-resonant length of wire, quite close physically to a large mass of metal aircraft skin -- was tied directly to the final tank coil through a series capacitor... not even link coupled. Fun and games! Potential for error? Quite large. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:06:53 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Bob Brandenburg's Report Are you planning on releasing a report on Bob Brandenburg's findings through the mail? My membership is paid up through Feb. 28, 2003. Carol Dow #2524 ************************************************************************ From Ric As has been explained in the last two mailings to TIGHAR members, A "Special Report" issue of TIGHAR Tracks will be mailed to all TIGHAR members which will include reports on the pre-loss and post-loss radio transmissions plus the question of how much range/endurance the airplane should have had. We'll get the reports finished as soon as we can. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:11:11 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Harmonics Ric and Mike E. From what you guys are saying, it is entirely possible that Dana's shortwave radio, make and brand unknown, at Rock Springs, Wyoming, could have heard a harmonic, namely 15525, from AE's transmitter. It would seem that his calibration or reading of that frequency was an estimate. I beleive it was considered and "inexpensive set". Based on the research at Rock Springs, it is hard to believe he was making up that reception. (There are many, many posts regarding Dana's reception and the investigation) LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************* From Ric As you know, Dana Randolph was investigated by the local Bureau of Air Commerce radio facility and they found his report credible. Other factors aside, ask yourself if a 16 year old black kid in a small Wyoming town in 1937 would perpetrate a hoax about a famous white woman. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:13:51 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: radio transmissions Ric, we don't need her airplane, only an example of a radio with the same final transmitter stages. Her airplane would have no effect on the output spectrum of the radio, it is a fixed quantity based on the design of the radio and the quality and tolerance of the components (capacitors and inductors.) The design will determine how strong the harmonics are to begin with and on how much they are attenuated by the output tuned circuits. Testing an exemplar radio will give us this data. There is nothing unique to the airplane that can in any way INCREASE the power in the harmonics. The antenna on the airplane would not have any "gain" and so it can not INCREASE the transmitted power of the harmonics. All the antenna installation can do is reduce or attenuate the power that is already contained in the harmonics so a test of an exemplar radio would give us a "best case" power output for the harmonics. If this experiment shows too little power in the harmonics to allow Betty to hear them then it would not be necessary to consider the antenna effects as the antenna could only make her reception less likely. gl ********************************************************************** From Ric To the best of my knowledge nobody needs my permission to conduct such an experiment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:26:42 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Harmonics Ric wrote: > During the search, the Coast Guard was very much aware of the possibility > that signals might be heard on harmonics. Here are some of the discussions > that appear in official messages.... > > REFERENCE EARHART TRANSMITTER. DUE TO DESIGN OF TRANSMITTER FOLLOWING > FREQUENCIES ARE HIGHLY PRACTICABLE - ODD HARMONICS OF THE 3105 CRYSTALS > WHICH THE ANTENNAE WILL BE RESONANT ON WITHOUT CHANGE OF THE DIAL SETTINGS > 9315, 15525 AND 21935. > > OTHER POSSIBLE HARMONIC POINTS 12420 AND 18630 I would like to point out a technical error in the above official message: "HIGHLY PRACTICABLE" should properly have said, "MAY BE PRACTICABLE". Odd harmonics, in fact any harmonic, will only be practicable to the extent that for the harmonic frequency, the antenna and the transmitter settings for the main channel 3105 or 6210, are still roughly in sync. The CG's observation that odd harmonics ( 3x, 5x, etc.) of 3105 would be "HIGHLY PRACTICABLE" assumes the aerial is resonant at 3105, so it would be resonant low-impedance at odd harmonics (that's how it works out). However, a 1/4 wave, the shortest resonant antenna length, is about 75 foot at 3105, in a straight run. I do not think the 10E plane's aerial could deliver this. Here's an analogy: If you have a CB, maybe an older one, will the 3rd harmonic get out? It may be quite a bit less likely if the CB antenna is a shortened one, one with a loading coil lump in it. If a plane crossing the Pacific was using a "trailing antenna", a loose wire with a wind weight on the end, reeled out from a spool in the plane, the normal procedure would be to either reel it out as far as practicable, or to reel it out some odd multiple of 1/4 wave, because this is easiest to tune up. An airship trailing a 1/4 wave antenna could expect that antenna to work as well for odd harmonics of the main channel. I would suspect that's what happened in the mentioned 3rd harmonic receptions on the west coast. IMO, the USCG reports do nothing to support reports of harmonic reception on the west coast and inland; they only are alerts to the possibility. My opinion, anyway. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric You seem to be making the asumption that the judgement of "highly practicable" came from the Coast Guard when, as I pointed out, COMFRANDIV had been acting as a conduit for information from sources who were very familiar with the airplane. I'm just quoting what was said in 1937. I'm not sure who it was who decided that transmissions on harmonics were "highly practicable" but I think there's at least a chance that whoever it was knew more about the particular set up aboard Earhart's plane than any of us do. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:32:09 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: radio transmissions >If we had AE's transmitter, set up in her airplane, we could probably find >out. > > For those who have the thought that a 'similar' transmitter could be used to > check for harmonic output, I would not expect this to work. I would expect > any variation from the original design to possibly make a BIG difference in > harmonic output. A similar circuit transmitter, regardless of power level, i believe could be used to test this. How much accuracy do you need? We can probably assume the transmitter was set up right, even if something less than optimal, on 3105 6210 when it left Lae. I think we can forget defective tubes, flakey crystals, bad solder joints, and such. I do not think we should grasp for some other miraculous intercession that favors the harmonic convergence. When you have the test transmitter, you vary the tube bias voltages and drive power to establish a worst case to best case range of harmonic output power, and you test this into a range of antenna impedance simulations, from resonant to to nonresonant reactive antennas. It's a pretty good piece for work, and unremunerated, but do-able. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Good Lord. Just what kind of test would we have to do before we could confidently negate a statement by a primary contemporaneous source that the output of harmonics on that particular radio was "highly practicable"? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:35:27 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: The Betty Interview Tape Ric wrote: > For all those (see below) who have said they wanted a tape and for anyone who > may want to order one - > I have finished putting together the tape.... I don't want anyone to get a big head..... but, IMO, This sterling example of research result, even tho i may be one of the semi-skeptics, is a powerful argument for financially supporting TIGHAR's work, and... Future generations for more years than we can imagine, will feel gratitude that someone way back in 2002 went through all the effort to do this. -Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Hue. I'd like to think that the same is true of all the research and field work we're doing. I think every TIGHAR member is entitled to a bigger hat size. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:39:33 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: a little brevity I got way behind on my forum digests while off on military duty this year. Here it is December 27, and I'm just now reading up to the 19th. I'm a fairly fast reader, but some of those days on end of 50K+ digests were a real uphill climb. As a kind of silly way to illustrate how the fragmentary post loss messages have themselves generated reams of Earhart folklore, I wondered what someone stumbling across the forum on a harmonic of the internet might conclude about us... Ho Chi Minh had oreos at sunrise; Alan Caldwell Luc had an operation which consisted of cutting a great circle through part of his facial bones; Earhart was picked up by a Japanese "Betty" bomber which was inexplicably based in Florida; Pat and Ric sometimes play really intense games of Rock-Paper-Scissors; Somebody built an antenna which had it's zenith in the stratosphere; 99 year old Carol Dow writes plays dressed in nothing but a samuari sword and stoutish walking shoes; Once again, the above is merely a silly attempt to show how communications got easily garbled in the pre-digital age, and is NOT intended to slam any forum posts or posters. LTM, who tore down some of the posters on my bedroom wall when I was a kid. Dave Porter, 2288 (my children think that the proper way to open clams is to have a walrus do a song and dance routine for them) PS to Marty Moleski: I think we're kind of related since my civilian employer air conditioned the National Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, MI a couple of years ago. If you have the time, I'd like to discuss a few non-forum related items with you. *************************************************************************** From Ric A word of caution: videotapes of Carol's playwriting are going to a LOT more expensive than any 25 bucks. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:05:06 EST From: Rich Young Subject: Occam's Razor Occam's Razor one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies. In light of the above, my explanation for the presence of the "dado", repair skin, AND ALL MAN-PORTABLE AIRCRAFT RESIDUE on Gardner, ("Came over in the same boat as the B-24 bookcase") requires a total of ZERO entities over what we have already established occured. The LOG requires ONE entity more, and that one is a BIG one - Amelia landed on Garder, and nobody in the search, the New Zealand survey crew, the PISS project, the LORAN station crew, and TIGHAR's four trips explicitly to look for her and her plane have been able to find incontrovertible proof of her or her aircraft being there. Which scenario does Occam's Razor, as detailed above, support? LTM (who always shaves her legs) Rich *************************************************************************** From Ric Without getting into an off-topic debate about how the meaning of Occam's Razor has been taken out of context and misrepresented over the years (it's all explained in the FAQ section of the TIGHAR website), let's accept the principle that when seeking to solve a puzzle one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything (Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). Let's start with the premise that something happened to Amelia Earhart. Among the somethings that might have happened are that she ran out of gas and went down at sea and that she landed at Gardner. To run out of gas and go down at sea she must exhaust her fuel supply before she can find a place to land. I'm aware of no clues to suggest that that happened - but it could have. To land at Gardner she must find the island before she runs out of gas. I'm aware of a number of clues to suggest that that happened - none of them conclusive and all having possible alternative explanations - but clues nonetheless. They are entities to be considered. Simply stated - Crashed and Sank must explain away the necessary entities of Landed On Gardner. Landed On Gardner would, likewise, have to explain away the necessary entities of Crashed and Sank - but there don't seem to be any. In other words, the necessity of dealing with the entities that support the Landed On Gardner hypothesis makes Crashed and Sank (according to the conventional interpretation of Occam) the weaker of the two theories. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:44:46 EST From: Danny Brown Subject: Betty Interview I would like to suggest that Betty undergo hypnosis to see if additional information or details about her recollections might come to light. Under hypnosis, Betty may in fact be able to better decipher why she wrote certain things in her notebook. I know that hypnosis cannot be considered entirely reliable, but some law enforcement agencies have used hypnosis with great success to bring out memories or details in the subconscious that were not recalled by the conscious mind. Doing this research will serve at least two purposes. First, it could lead to new information or details that may aid in verifying some or all of her story, or discrediting some or all of her story. Second, it will become a permanent part of the record and be a first-hand anecdote that will be very important to researchers in the future who might ask, "I wonder what she would have recalled under hypnosis." Even if this effort eventually enables all or part of her story to be discredited, the Earhart research effort will still benefit. Since this could cost several thousand dollars that TIGHAR would rather dedicate to solving other parts of the puzzle, I propose to have this hypnosis funded by a special collection of interested forum members. Since I'm not one to ask others to do something I wouldn't do, I hereby pledge the first $100 to do this hypnosis research. If you agree this is a good way to do it, all we need now is to get together another 20 or 30 pledges in equal amounts. I know Betty's circumstances will not allow her to travel. If TIGHAR decides to pursue this research, I propose that you seek out a highly respected practitioner to travel to Betty to do the sessions. I am very aware that she will absolutely not do this without you being present. Therefore, I propose that this special collection also go to pay for your expenses to be there when the sessions are held. For the historical record, I propose that the sessions be taped (video and/or audio). If Betty agrees, these tapes could be offered to TIGHAR members for a set price, with the proceeds going to fund further Earhart research by TIGHAR. Perhaps there is even a respected hypnosis expert out there on the forum who will do this for expenses only. I truly believe that we need to get this information into the record before Betty is no longer available as a first-hand anecdotal witness. Well, at any rate, that's my two-cents worth, or should I say $100.02 worth. LTM Danny Brown #2426 ************************************************************************** From Ric I'd alike to hear some opinions from our legal, law enforcement, and medical professionals on the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:46:25 EST From: RC Subject: ON BEING LOST II "LOST" is lost. Being momentarily confused is not being lost. Lost clearly means that one comes to realizes that they are Not at the location they expected to be at. It could be a matter of just beyond visual range or much further .. the distance may vary but not the fact. Hence my comparison. Your explanation of what Noonan would do is strictly from your experience and what you have heard on the subject; ergo what You think he would have done. I asked two who did aerial nav in early WW-II. Both think he would have begun a search pattern based on the nw-se lop, because their xmsn. on the subject indicated that they expected to be Over HOW. Still conjecture. Alan believed Fred was 'not as lost' as some thought he was. My point is that until one regains proof of their position, they are lost .. seriously so when the dest. was HOW .. and a short series of A's .. the only response they had to the last several hours of radio calls. They were as lost as one can get! That does not prevent us from believing Fred used everything at his disposal to resolve the most pressing situation of his career. Cheers, RC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:47:49 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: "aircraft" parts Why didn't anyone think of that sooner? That piece of aluminum found on Gardner must have come from a railroad car. In the days of the great depression someone wa bound to have tried to sell the people on Gardner a railroad car. Or perhaps a trailer. Or more probably a pontoon. There must have been dozens of reasons for selling pontoons to people throughout the Pacific If allowed to choose I'll go for a piece of aircraft. There is a better chance the aluminum came from an airplane than from a railroad car. As for canoes... I'm sure the natives produced plenty of wooden ones and had no need for an expensive metal boat. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:51:59 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The Betty Interview Tape Would it be possible to either post as a Document of the Week or include in a Tighar Track the interview notes of Betty and Olive in 1970 by John Hathaway. I think it may be the closest, at least by 30 years, to the events that occurred that July day in 1937. Even though Betty and Olive didn't agree in some cases, the interview is a bit of history we can't get elsewhere. With John's permission of course. The circumstances of how the issue came up and the effort to contact Goerner is also interesting. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** There are no Betty interview notes from 1970 and the only Olive interview notes are the handful of words and phrases I posted on the forum last week. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:53:17 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies >Hue has pointed out that a bandpass filter would probably >have prevented 1552.5 or harmonics of 1552.5 from reaching the output stage >where they might otherwise be transmitted or be modified to higher >harmonics Please folks, READ THE SCHEMATIC OF THE TRANSMITTER. [now at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/ResearchPapers/ElectraRadios/ElectraRadios.htm] It's in the 8th Edition. There was no (NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!) bandpass filter in this output circuit!!! The antenna was directly coupled to the tuned circuit of the final power amplifier stage, that is, direct to the "tank coil", through a series capacitor. There was not even an antenna coupler/tuner in this system. Such a direct coupling method is a quick and dirty way of matching the transmitter to a variety of antenna load impedances, but it offers NO (positively, absolutely, UNDENIABLY AND RELIABLY NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!) attenuation to or suppression of harmonics. The radio-frequency stages of this radio all operated in Class C, a mode that by its very nature has an output waveform rich in harmonic content. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:56:53 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies A further note on "band pass filters:" Hue Miller was referring in his post, not to a "bandpass filter," but rather to the method of interstage coupling between the oscillator and doubler stage, and between the doubler and the final amplifier. This was really nothing more than a very broadly tuned -- indeed, "non-resonant" -- inductor network. Such a network is inherently less selective than one incorporating elements which are actually "tuned" or "resonated" to a given frequency. It will pass a fairly wide range of frequencies; their response curve is broad enough, however, that harmonic energy can make it through and be amplified. If these harmonic elements make it through the INTERSTAGE networks and get amplified in the FINAL AMPLIFIER stage, they may be RADIATED by the antenna. And if the final amplifier is mistuned (as this one may have been -- yeah, yeah, I know, "speculation" but I feel it is warranted, and it's part of my HYPOTHESIS) and due to this mistuning, and/or the configuration (possible incorrect length) of the antenna so that the antenna favors certain harmonics -- LOOK OUT. My earlier post, in response to Angus's, was concerned with the lack of bandpass filtering in the OUTPUT of the transmitter... something that is quite common, indeed required, today but was almost nonexistent in 1937. 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric Is it therefore possible that Earhart's transmitter/antenna was putting out stronger signals on a harmonic than were going out on the primary frequencies? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:03:41 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Harmonics Ron Bright wrote: > From what you guys are saying, it is entirely possible that Dana' shortwave > radio, make and brand unknown, at Rock Springs, Wyoming, could have heard a > harmonic, namely 15525, from AE's transmitter. It would seem that his > calibration or reading of that frequency was an estimate. I beleive it was > considered and "inexpensive set". Does the last sentence above make you hesitate at all? In the case of Betty's reception- it has been emphasized that her radio and antenna were superlative. Her neighbor with a lessor setup could not manage usable reception. Propagation may vary, of course. Here in the case of the WY reception, the quality of the radio doesn't seem to be a factor, doesn't raise any eyebrows. > Based on the research at Rock Springs, it is hard to believe he was making > up that reception. (There are many, many posts regarding Dana's reception and > the investigation) Ric wrote: > As you know, Dana Randolph was investigated by the local Bureau of Air > Commerce radio facility and they found his report credible. Other factors > aside, ask yourself if a 16 year old black kid in a small Wyoming town in > 1937 would perpetrate a hoax about a famous white woman? With a slight adjustment to the last part here. WY was not the deep south. Rock Springs, a mining town, while not free of the racial limitations in effect overall in the country, by the nature of the work there, may have been a little more of a meritocracy. I haven't researched Rock Springs' history, but i am suspecting if one could do the rough work, one would gain a level of acceptance. BTW, interesting area, on I-80 along the southern border of WY on the long drive from Cheyenne in the East to Utah in the west. Road Atlas sez about 20,000 people. In 1937, what, maybe 5000? Landscapes here mostly free of trees blocking your long views. I've heard the taverns can get rowdy, but i don't know if that's true. Oh- back to DR. I'm certain as you are, that he heard - "something". For Angus: you said that harmonics up to 11th had been heard. You don't mean that Peruvian station heard recently? MT for Jan. 2003 reports that the "harmonic" turns out to be a low power test transmission by the station on a very odd frequency. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:05:03 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Bill of Occam To Richard Young You seem to be saying that because we know the bookcase came over via human transport from somewhere else, that this then is the only allowable scenario under Occam's Razor. But because it is the only scenario we can currently PROVE, it does not make it the simplest, or most parsimonious, or the solution with the minimum assumptions, or the one approved by Bill of Occam. Having proof is not simplest, parsimonious or minimum assumption. It is entirely a different concept. Thus, I believe you are incorrect in your use of Occam's Razor. Having said that, I understand your source of skepticism. You have explained it well. I don't see any point in arguing what is the "simplest" or "most parsimonious" or "solution with the minimum assumptions" further, those are judgments calls, with no right or wrong answer. -- Paige Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:13:17 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: radio transmissions > When you have the test transmitter, you vary the tube bias voltages and drive > power to establish a worst case to best case range of harmonic output power, > and you test this into a range of antenna impedance simulations, from > resonant to to nonresonant reactive antennas. It's a pretty good piece for > work, and unremunerated, but do-able. > Hue Miller > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > Good Lord. Just what kind of test would we have to do before we could > confidently negate a statement by a primary contemporaneous source that the > output of harmonics on that particular radio was "highly practicable"? Does "primary contemporaneous source" somehow = "primary contemporaneous infallible source" ? Who was this source? What do you know about this author's authority? You tout a scientific approach to the whole subject, yet, if i get this right, you accept this statement in toto, as if it came down the mountain writ in stone. Would you accept this, if the statement read, "highly possible" instead? I think I would agree if the message writer had used those words. I do not believe the writer had at that time, already in mind, the particular harmonic or the particulars of the ship's antenna. I suggest that the writer used an innacurate word that he was comfortable with, and that he would have to yield if questioned by a technical court. Pardon my elementary question here, but i would appreciate pointers to where I can get these figures, or reckon them myself from drawings, for the plane's (topside) antenna: lengths, enclosed angle, length of feeder line, height above aircraft all along its length. Thanks- Hue Miller ************************************************************************ From Ric If Mike Everette or Bob Brandenburg doesn't have those numbers handy I'll dig them out for you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:14:00 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio Transmission Ric wrote: > To the best of my knowledge nobody needs my permission to conduct such an > experiment. Ric, maybe instead of subjecting all of the readers to all these fine points, this might go off list. Altho i cannot do much about it right now, facing maybe another job relocation, i would like to hear input from other test-enthusiasts with suggestions. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:14:50 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: radio transmissions Mike Everette wrote: > Imagine having to tune something with one meter, while having to watch grid > current, plate current (for the CORRECT DIP!! Not for the one on the second, > third or umpteenth harmonic -- Methinks you make too much of the difficulties of tuning up the transmitter. I found an interesting Motorola manual for a light aircraft HF radio last year, that promotes use of the RF Ammeter as the only instrument needed for effective tuneup of the transmitter output, with less chance of erroneous settings than by using other method. I recall also that the US Navy's type GF aircraft tranmitter, which like AE's transmitter uses bias modulation and a single tuned tapped output circuit, uses only an RF ammeter on its front panel, for tuning it up to the antenna. I think the RF ammeter method may be more suited to lower power transmitters, tho, because you maybe might not notice that the tubes are melting down, while you take your time trying out different settings. Hue =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:43:57 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Hypnosis Ric wrote: > I'd alike to hear some opinions from our legal, law enforcement, and medical > professionals on the forum. This is not a good idea. Under hypnosis, people have been shown to confabulate. They will supply details that are internally consistent, but entirely made up. There is no simple way to improve human memory or recall. Daniel Postellon MD TIGHAR#2263 ************************************************************************ From Joe Weber Hypnosis has been proven to be very unreliable. The famous "Search for Bridey (Bridy?) Murphy" shows how the subject will attempt to please the hypnotist and will say what he/she feels will please him/her. Joe Weber Bedford, IN ************************************************************************ From Paige Miller Regarding hypnotizing Betty to uncover further potentially useful information: There are many publications which indicate that memories obtained via hypnosis are unreliable. One such article is Dlhopolsky, Joseph, "Hypnosis Memories Found Error-Prone and Pliable", Skeptical Inquirer, 8(3)208-209. I would vote against using hypnosis as a research tool. I too would be interested to hear what legal experts have to say on this subject. -- Paige Miller ************************************************************************ From Jon Watson Danny Brown's suggestion that Betty's recollections be enhanced through hypnosis is an interesting possibility. Obviously there would be a number of things to take into consideration, not the least of which is whether or not Betty would be willing to undergo the procedure. If you elect to propose this to her, please make sure that she understands that this is in no way an attempt to ascertain the veracity of what she wrote and remembers, but rather, an effort to _augment_ her conscious memories of the event. As I personally believe her journal is the real deal, I would hate for us to do or say anything that might alienate Betty from us. After all, it took her long enough to find us! Presuming for a moment that she is in agreement with undergoing the procedure, and presuming that she is a viable candidate for undergoing hypnosis, a great deal of care should be taken in preparation. A competent professional forensic hypnotist should be selected - there is probably one located in her area, so travel expense for the hypnotist could be minimized. (Under the circumstances, you might even be able to get one to donate his/her time). I am sure that there is some kind of professional association of forensic hypnotists that could assist you in selecting the right technician. The hypnotist should be thoroughly briefed beforehand and the questions formulated carefully, as it is extremely easy to plant false memory without intending to. While, in this situation, there are no legal concerns per se, improper preparation, administration or documentation (which should include video taping)of the procedure could result in the nay-sayers turning the event around to discredit Betty and/or TIGHAR. A professional forensic hypnotist should be aware of these kinds of concerns. In view of Betty's emotional state as regards her experience, even after all these years, regressing through hypnosis could be very difficult for her. I agree that you should be there, along with an appropriate support group or perhaps her friend that originally contacted you (is his name John? I can't recall). Anyway, all that being said, I think we should propose it to her, and if Betty is willing and able I think it is a reasonable and worthwhile exercise to fund. It could result in a greatly enhanced body of knowledge. Be aware, though, that there is probably an equal chance that it could result in no new information at all. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************ From Alan You get a thumbs down from me on the hypnosis idea. The repressed memory gig that the bleeding hearts promoted has proven to be faulty and utterly a scam. A good therapist could have Betty remembering she actually was on the flight. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric However you want to characterize the folks who promoted the repressed memory idea, it has been shown to be bad science and a great deal of harm came out of its brief popularity. Hypnosis has been around a lot longer but it sounds like it correctly belongs in the realm of parlor tricks along with psychic readings and remote viewing. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:49:20 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies Mike Everette wrote: > >Hue has pointed out that a bandpass filter would probably > >have prevented 1552.5 or harmonics of 1552.5 from reaching the output stage > >where they might otherwise be transmitted or be modified to higher > >harmonics > > Please folks, READ THE SCHEMATIC OF THE TRANSMITTER. > > It's in the 8th Edition. > > There was no (NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!) bandpass filter in this output circuit!!! Which is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT !!!!! what I said. Please READ THE POST AGAIN. I was quoting Hue, who was quoting the technical literature (and you would suppose that that carried some weight) describing a bandpass circuit immediately after the crystal oscillator "DESIGNED to pass only a certain range of frequencies" and I made the point that it was being suggested that the crystal frequency or its harmonics would never REACH the output stage. >Such a network is inherently less selective than one incorporating elements >which are actually "tuned" or "resonated" to a given frequency. It will >pass a fairly wide range of frequencies; their response curve is broad >enough, however, that harmonic energy can make it through and be >amplified. However you dress it up, there was undoubtedly a degree of filtering going on here. Regards Angus =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:51:10 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: harmonics (technical trivia) (content- electronics nuts & bolts - many readers may prefer to just delete ) Mike Everette wrote: > >Hue has pointed out that a bandpass filter would probably > >have prevented 1552.5 or harmonics of 1552.5 from reaching the output stage > >where they might otherwise be transmitted or be modified to higher > >harmonics > > Please folks, READ THE SCHEMATIC OF THE TRANSMITTER. > > It's in the 8th Edition. Mike, i don't have the schematic before me, but one of the electronic texts that TIGHAR has derived the schematic from, describes it as "bandpass circuit". You know, in such components, especially if potted (sealed, canned), not every component shows up in the overall schematic. (Yes, i know that statement seems kinda lame, but it is true nevertheless. ) > There was no (NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!) bandpass filter in this output circuit!!! Even if it is just an RFC, Mike, a 2.5mH choke, you will have to admit that due to bypass self capacitance the impedance becomes less effective as frequency rises. You could say "so what" but this is exactly the design used in (probably) millions of tube type boat and aircraft transmitters. That is why if drive is required on a higher frequency (or harmonic) this circuit is not used. > The antenna was directly coupled to the tuned circuit of the final power > amplifier stage, that is, direct to the "tank coil", through a series > capacitor. There was not even an antenna coupler/tuner in this system. Well, if not Mike, why is the coil tapped? Why make adjustments at all? > Such a direct coupling method is a quick and dirty way of matching the > transmitter to a variety of antenna load impedances, but it offers NO > (positively, absolutely, UNDENIABLY AND RELIABLY NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!) > attenuation to or suppression of harmonics. Mike, when we're done, i offer to mail you the transmitter, and you can test it, and maybe reconsider your statement above. I have noted your "NO NO NO" declaration. Will you positively, undeniably agree to test this for yourself? Can you really suppose that the transmitter was supplied, as designed, from the factory, with the understanding it offered, quote, "NO NO NO" suppression of harmonics? Your statement amazes me. Is this or is this not a tuned circuit? Yet you seem to be describing it as a pure harmonic generator, like some piece of test equipment. I think you are leaving reality behind. Let's imagine this case: the antenna is around 43 ft. long. Obviously this is less than 1/4 wave on 3105, whose wavelength is roughly 100 meters. The antenna is high impedance, capacitively reactive; the coil setting is somewhere in the top 1/3 range. ( The Navy calls this "voltage fed" antenna in their terminology of those years.) However the 43 foot antenna works out to close to 1/4 wave on 48 meters, around the 6.2 neighborhood. Should we have a whopper of a harmonic here, as you would suggest? At this frequency, the 2nd harmonic, the antenna is a low impedance ( Navy terminology "current fed" antenna), with an impedance of maybe 20-30 ohms. Now you are telling me, the setting, matching a the main frequency where it has maybe an impedance of something like 10-500j, will just as well suit the 20-30 ohms at 6210. IF you were matching the antenna at the 6210 only, where would the coil tap for the antenna be? It would be near the bottom of the coil, obviously, to match a low Z. Would you say, that the coil antenna tap, at a high impdance point, this strongly favors output on the second harmonic- for this specific example of one possible aircraft antenna? That the combination of the coupler coil and the antenna does NOT NOT NOT discriminate against certain harmonics? That this particluar combination, does not favor the 12+ MHz 4th harmonic ( antenna ~= 1/2 wave) over the 2nd ( 1/4 wave)? (Note, the example figures are by doing the simple math in my head - there may be some inaccuracy, but you get the picture, and you all can lay out similar examples for yourself. The same kind of analysis applies up thru the whole sequence of harmonics.) To recap my test proposal, i say, determine the antenna physical attributes, recreate it if possible, to determine the electrical characteristics. Load a similar transmitter up into an antenna simulator ( R + L + C ) on 3105 and then 6210, and measure the voltage acroos the R component of the antenna simulator, using a fequency selective voltmeter, measuring at every practical harmonic i.e. up to 21 MHz or so. This will give you the actual power into the antenna at the harmonic. For the "something wrong with her transmitter" argument, vary the tube bias voltages and drive. You can also slightly mistune the transmitter, but remember, the transmitter DID work, on 3105 and 6210, so no fair tuning it up on a harmonic. ( Also practically impossible to do, if using an RF ammeter and tuning for maximum output. ) >-frequency stages of this radio all operated in Class C, a mode > that by its very nature has an output waveform rich in harmonic content. And as long as we are talking about this, why not instead of saying just "rich in harmonic", that the series of harmonics has a descending order of power? Hue Miller =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:52:54 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Harmonics Hue Miller wrote: > For Angus: you said that harmonics up to 11th > had been heard. You don't mean that Peruvian > station heard recently? MT for Jan. 2003 reports that the "harmonic" turns > out to be a low power test transmission by the station on a very odd > frequency. No I was referring to Cuba's high-powered stations on 590, 600, and 720. They have been heard on harmonics as high as the twelfth. Incidentally, I read one dxer of 20 yrs who only gets about 6 harmonic dxes a year and this will naturally generally be on the low harmonics. It rather puts in perspective what an unusual event a high harmonic dx is for any individual. However, multiply up the number of listeners and make no proviso on identifying the station and it becomes much more likely. Regards Angus. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:51:17 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: aircraft parts In light of the discussion of the bookcase and other B-24 parts, what do we know about the timing of the known B-24 wrecks in relation to the aluminum inlaid wood boxes the Coasties got from the villagers on Gardner? I think there was some discussion of this a while back, but I can't remember the upshot. Andrew McKenna ****************************************************************** From Ric The question of B-24 parts from Canton is an interesting one. It's not like Liberator's were getting rolled up in a ball daily. There was a C-87 that suffered a nosewheel collapse on landing, but the airplane was repaired. The only Consolidated Model 32 loss we know about that resulted in wreckage that could have been salvaged on Canton happened on: 19 July 1944 B-24J, 44-41029 Crashed after takeoff. Five fatals. The aircraft came down in the ocean near the reef edge. The Navy examined the wreckage in 30 feet of water and decided not to salvage. Bear in mind that there were no Gilbertese from Gardner or the other islands living or working on Canton during the war and there was very little inter-island ship traffic during the war years. On one occasion a few pieces of scrap aircraft aluminum were brought to Gardner from Canton by members of the Coast Guard unit for their own use. Other than that, we know of no way for aircraft material to get to the island prior to the post-war years when men from Gardner went to Canton to work for the airlines and some settlers from Sydney Island (where there had been a wartime C-47 crash) were brought to Gardner to live. The known B-24 parts we have found on Gardner all have calciferous deposits on them which indicates that they spent a considerable amount of time (at least a year) submerged in shallow water. This rather obviously suggests that the wreckage of 44-41029 eventually broke up and at least some of it washed ashore where it was scavenged by airline workers who took it home to Nikumaroro where it was used for local purposes and some of the scraps were later found by TIGHAR. This, of course, does not account for aircraft aluminum inlaid into wooden boxes and traded to Coast Guardsmen who were on Gardner in 1944 and '45 nor does it explain the aircraft components seen being used as fishing tackle during the same time period. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:55:21 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: harmonics (more technical trivia) (Electronics stuff. Less interested reader may wish to just delete.) Mike Everette wrote: > My hypothesis is based upon the likelihood -- which I think is pretty > reasonable -- that this transmitter, which by design had a very high > probability for harmonic output, could have been mistuned into an antenna of > altered dimensions. Now, how do you mean mistuned? Less than optimum setting, or tuned to a harmonic? If tuned to a harmonic, how did it function on 3105 or 6210? >The altered antenna could have very likely caused the > tuning conditions of the transmitter to fall outside the limits of the > circuitry to suppress harmonics and/or suprious emissions. How, i ask? The lengthened antenna was somehow so radically different that the coupling circuit no longer could cope? Did WE supply the transmitter for only one aircraft type? The description of the transmitter includes the fact that for longer than resonant antennas, series capacitors were available. The transmitter was as supplied, was envisioned to be able to work into any antenna, resonant, longer, or shorter than resonant. > We know that Joe Gurr altered the antenna before the second attempt. Given > the new antenna length; and the fact that aircraft antennas present some > real challenges for proper tuning; and the fact that this transmitter had NO > (repeat, NO!) harmonic suppression circuitry or filter networks or > antenna-coupling unit between it and the antenna, I submit that harmonic > radiation was extremely likely. Every oscillator operating in class C creates harmonics, as does any wave-distorting circuit. The point is, how strong? What you hear across the room or next door, is not a signal with strength in the far field, beyond the reach of local induction. > Bob Brandenburg's analysis tells us that signals could have been heard > Stateside at various times on various frequencies. I don't know what kind > of power might have been radiated at the harmonics. I do know that under > the right propagation conditions, some absolutely incredible things can > happen even with very low-power signals. Alright, we agree on this, that Betty's reception (the Immaculate Reception) was absolutely incredible. (not literal sense of "incredible", however). > Any re-creation of the event would be interesting, to be sure, and would > reveal interesting things... but given the rather substantial differences > that supposedly identical radio equipments may demonstrate due to minute > differences in component value tolerances, the quality of soldered > connections, conditions of ground connections under the chassis, slight > imperfections of welded joints inside vacuum tubes, the quality of the "cut" > of the quartz in the frequency-control crystal, etc etc, it isn't really > possible to exactly duplicate THIS radio's performance. Wait a minute. You are saying the junctions inside the tubes, or the solder connections, affected the harmonic content. Are you pretty sure you are on solid ground here? Are you insisting we need the *exact* figures for the AE transmitter? Suppose this: a facsimile transmitter is built, and operational parameters are manipulated toward conditions that favor the harmonic output, in fact tweaked for max. harmonic output, with the constraint that the transmitter still operates satisfactorily at 3105, 6210, and the resultant harmonic power, even with this tilt, still is insuffiicient to provide DSB-AM reception to a home radio in Florida, would this be convincing, or will you still argue execptionality? > Not to mention the simulation of an electrically complex aircraft antenna, > and the way the transmitter may have been tuned (mistuned?) to it. By complex, what do you mean here? The antenna has complex factors, if you mean L and C in addition to R. Also, because of its V construction, i (anyway) see it as difficult to predict the exact resonances. I believe a facsimile will provide ballpark figures for the Big Test. I do not think we need spot - on figures for the antenna, but within a reasonable range of error. TBD. > Not to say "it can't be done" but it would not be easy; and under no > conditions could you call the results truly definitive. I disagree with you on the latter. Proving harmonic power to meet Brandenburg's work for sufficiency to deliver a listenable, DSB AM signal to Florida will say it was possible, allowing it to occur, allowing us to go the next stage, and consider whether the content seems to correspond to reality. Establishing with a similar vacuum tube transmitter, that no way would the particular harmonic radiate into a similar antenna, with sufficient power to deliver a listenable signal level in Florida, rules out Betty, unless you continue to cling to miracles. But - the dispensation for miracles ended 2000 years ago, some say. Incredible things have been done with HF, you say. Alright - let's have some listings of incredible HF receptions of DSB-AM mode from thousands of miles from a low antenna, with low power, from a mistuned transmitter harmonic. We did have a report of West Coast (note, west coast) stations receiving Pacific aircraft on 3rd harmonic of the 6 MHz channel. However, the similarity to AE's situation ends, when you consider 1) these aircraft were in the air, the antenna was up 1000 - 5000 feet altitude, and 2) the antenna of preference for serious trans-Pacific flying would have been a trailing, resonant antenna. IMO- Hue Miller =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:57:23 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: RCA AR-60 on Itasca? Mike Everette wrote: > From whence do you conclude that the Itasca carried the AR-60? (I don't get > "Electric Radio" now, so have not seen this article.) This may indeed be > true, and I recall suggesting this possibility myself quite some time ago; > but since then have seen references in the record that may indicate they > were using the National HRO, which came out in 1934. The USCG was a very > poor stepchild in the 30s, and may not have re-equipped with every new > receiver that came out... it'd be nice to find some reference to confirm > what was aboard. The claim is not well supported in the article. "On July 1, 1937, the USCG cutter Itasca was on a routine patrol in the Pacific Ocean... the message was received on the ship's main receiver, a state of the art RCA AR-60." "A major customer was the USCG, which gave the rig the nomenclature CGR32-1". "The first customers were the USCG". "The sale price of $495 was almost completely prohibitive, and so it was not a commercial success.....In today's money, this receiver would cost over $53,000....." The features of the set seem to be frequency stability, selectivity, good image ratio, ability to handle both weak and strong signals, and above all, enduring, robust construction, with everything plated or lacquered to prevent corrosion. There are 3 references to earlier articles in the AWA bulletin. Maybe i will write the author (no email address provided) to ask about more substantiation on the Itasca. Hue Miller =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:59:03 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: ON BEING LOST II RC wrote: > Lost clearly > means that one comes to realizes that they are Not at the location they > expected to be at. Sorry, RC but "lost" simply means not knowing where one is. It does not necessarily mean they weren't where they expected to be but rather they didn't know it. There is no time limit imposed on lost. It could be momentarily or forever. No, I don't actually think they were on top of Howland when they thought so but didn't see it but they could have been other than not being heard from the ship. Don't be confused by my "not as lost" comment. I just mean I don't think they were as horrendously far away as some would like to place them. The Marshallites want them to be so far off course to the north that Mili Atoll would be just a hop and a skip. Alan =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:03:06 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: harmonics vs. ham frequencies Ric wrote: >Is it therefore possible that Earhart's transmitter/antenna was putting out >stronger signals on a harmonic than were going out on the primary >frequencies? That's not what I said, at all. Please re-read the original post. There is no way to determine what the actual power level from the transmitter may have been at any given harmonic, without doing some actual lab work. The power levels at the harmonics would very likely/probably be low... unless, and this is admitted speculation, for which I may get blasted, but I'm willing to say it nonetheless -- UNLESS, the transmitter was so severely mistuned that it was actually doubling or tripling the frequency in the final amplifier. Yes, it could happen... I say, COULD. I am NOT saying it DID... BUT BUT BUT: Just CONSIDER THIS: MAYBE (and yes, it's speculation, but again grounded in theory and experience) THE REASON WHY AE WAS NOT HEARD ON 6210: A significant amount of the power COULD have actually been going out on some harmonic instead. What does the Chater report say? That the radio had a "rough" signal on 6210? At close "test set" range, there would be enough 6210 energy to receive the signal... Even at a range of a few miles, especially at altitude, it might still have been readable on 6210... And, yes, I do know from experience that it is quite possible to tune up a transmitter wrong and get output on a harmonic, by doubling or tripling in the final. Especially if one is tuning into a non-resonant or mismatched antenna. (Hue, have you ever used a Heathkit DX-series transmitter...?) NOTA BENE: (how 'bout that "lawyer phrase," Chris?) We don't know exactly what tests Chater or his personnel performed on that radio; only what was observed. Given the sources at hand we CANNOT know. NOTA BENE: We don't know if these folks just checked things out (or how closely), or if they got their hands into the equipment and "diddled" it. NOTA BENE: It is NOT, repeat NOT my intention to add to the speculation, re Chater. NOTA BENE: I am not jumping to any conclusion here. All I am doing is laying out an idea, a scenario... something else which may (or ultimately may not) support my hypothesis. ("HI-PAH-THU-SIS? What be this here, 'hypothesis'? That's one o' them big words like mayonnaise!" (A hypothesis is a "WHAT IF?" That's all.) NOTA BENE: It is still my HYPOTHESIS that this transmitter was mistuned. SOMEWHERE down the line. And that this COULD result in significant harmonic output. And, IF the radio was doubling or tripling in the final on 6210 (or even 3105, but I tend to doubt the trouble was on 3105), there is no telling what other "garbage" might have been radiated. NOTA BENE: This hypothesis MIGHT NOT BE CORRECT. But for now, it is MINE. ("At the center of the Earth, I stand! At the wind's center, I stand!") It is POSSIBLE -- yeah, I know, "speculation" but it has a theoretical basis, at least -- that the ANTENNA (not the transmitter) could prove to be a more efficient radiator of energy at certain harmonics, than at the fundamental or "primary" frequency. Again, it'd take some actual lab work to confirm this hypothesis to everyone's satisfaction, and that means either finding a 10E and rigging it with the identical antenna configuration(s), or using a computer model. Bob Brandenburg and I discussed the possibility of modeling the antenna mathematically, a couple of years ago when the whole harmonic issue first came up. It was Bob's opinion, and I concur, that the task would be extremely complex. No doubt it could be done, but none of the computer sims Bob has access to will do the job, if I remember correctly. It's a bit beyond my skill level to design such a model. 73 Mike E. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:31:02 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: More Signals - worth another look HMS Achilles, Earhart Attached is a narrative by a then 20 ? year old British seaman telegrapher, Jack Harker, on HMS Achilles in the mid-Pacific in 1937. It is available on the net as part of a narrative of the history of the Achilles. There are some errors, but an interesting description about their picking up some radio signals from Earhart on July 9. [could he have wrong date?] I believe these are same signals that were reported to the US Navy by the Achilles, and which according to most of the reports I have read were determined to be false signals by the US at the time. Perhaps now we might consider them to have been valid along with other post lost signals reported by military personnel on Howland Island and PAA personnel in the Pacific. Ron Reuther ------------------------------- Chapter 3 [from The Original Manuscript written by Jack Harker (Ch/Tel), HNNZS Achilles, 1980, modified thereafter] A Peaceful Pacific (excerpt) In turn we staged from Pago to Nassau Island to offload stores for New Zealand's white resident and its two dozen islanders, then Danger Island, also in the Tokelaus, as were Manahiki and Pakahanga; and Tongareua, better known by its Welsh name Penrhyn, then the richest pearling lagoon in the world and probably the worst smelling by reason of stacks of rotting shellfish intermingled with the strong smell of copra. Three hundred and fifty islanders dwelt on Penrhyn and two white traders, one of whom invited Colin Malcolm and some of his messmates into his open-style bungalow to see a cashbox container of perfect pearls worth many thousands of pounds. He stood with drawn .45 as self-insurance while each in turn approached to view the lustrous beauty of these jewels of the deep, to feel their liquid texture and know for the first time why murder might well be committed to gain possession of such flawless specimens. While still at anchor there was a sudden excitement in our radio department. Some months previously Amelia Earhart, with her copilot Captain Harry Manning and navigator Fred Noonan, had crashed on takeoff from Honolulu for Howland Island on the second leg of their westward attempt to circumnavigate the equator from California. Their red-painted Lockheed Electra damaged its undercarriage and was transported to the States for repair, and Captain Manning returned to his ship SS Roosevelt. Because of seasonal winds Amelia Earhart and Lt Cmdr Noonan decided to fly around eastward; took off from Miami, Florida, and touched down in successive countries for two thirds of their journey without incident. Their next hop from Lae, New Guinea, to Howland Island of the Gilbert group would be some 1800 miles, but they'd done longer hops than that. And then the drama started. Navy Office Wellington ordered us to set a continuous listening watch on Amelia's radio frequency. On 2 July American monitoring stations received a message from the Lockheed in morse: '. . . circling ... cannot see island ... fuel running low. Atmospherics made further reception impossible. Our course through the Tokelaus and Line Islands was taking us around. the circumference of a sector whose two 900-mile radii met at Howland Island; watch after watch logged the receiver to be working correctly, and recorded heavy bursts of atmospheric static - but no signals from Amelia. Powerful US coast stations were logged, asking her to make a sequence of longs on her morse key if she was hearing them. No. replies; only intervals of silence shattered by electrical disturbances, rattling earphones indicating an approaching storm. Then came a week wherein Achilles steamed past Starbuck and Malden Islands, stopped at Christmas Island to entertain the local chief on board while seamen pinched more of his bosun-bird's tail feathers, and swung at anchor for three days. Our sparkers were tiring of the dreary listening watch still kept for an aviatrix who had probably ditched and drowned long since, but US planes were still assisting the American 3rd Fleet in its determined search. Strong transmissions still called her by morse, and spoken messages asking her to make longs. But listening periods were logged monotonously as 'silent'. We arrived off Fanning at 0900 on 9 July, anchored, and sent boats ashore to bring the cable-station staff off for a Commodore's at-home on the awning-shaded quarterdeck. We caused an international sensation when the afternoon watchkeeper logged the customary calls to Amelia Earhart and prepared to record another period of silence. His hair almost stood on end. Distinct from bursts of atmospherics, he heard a string of evenly-spaced longs. 'Dahhh Dahhh Dahhh Dahhh ... Dahhh XXXXXXhhh DahhXXXXXXXXhhh Dahhh ... and then more electrical storm interference and overpowering US coast stations blotting out the coarse notes of those faint signals. 'Incredible!' as the Signal Officer interrogated. 'Are you sure this couldn't have been imagination?' 'No way, sir! This is a specially allocated frequency ... etc. etc.' He could not be talked out of it. 'But how could she be transmitting from a ditched plane after all this time? Are you certain about this reception? This from Captain Glennie. The operator was adamant. There might be no answer to the mystery, but he'd certainly heard those longs under and between atmospheric bursts. 'Yes, sir'. So the Commodore's guests went ashore earlier than arranged, and Achilles sailed at 1830 to mount a hopeless search which became even more frustrating when the weather broke, whipping up strong seas and making our night-watch lookouts miserable. We contacted Pearl Harbour's Navy Station NPM after failing to raise KHK Honolulu on 500 kc/s, passed Captain Glennie's report of what had been heard, and stirred a hornet's nest among America's news media. Oh man! What those Yankee reporters made out of those weak longs! We received unrestricted financial offers for the exclusive rights to the story of our 'rescue' of Amelia Earhart. radiogram after radiogram. But by the time our search was cancelled through shortage of fuel, counter-signals had all but convinced the States we had no more than an entry in our radio-log to offer. The weak transmissions were never heard again. Planes and warships searched with renewed enthusiasm, but they found no wreckage, nothing on nearby islands, no sightings by island inhabitants. Those weak signals will live beyond the operator who logged them. The enigma of Amelia Earhart's disappearance lives on in myth and conjecture. There have been many theories. Only one of them can be true. ************************************************************************ From Ric We're very familiar with seaman Harker's 43 year-old recollections. He must have been working entirely from memory because he got just about everything wrong - dates, places, station identifiers, what was heard, what was done, etc., etc. Achilles never searched for Earhart. What Achilles heard and when it was heard is well documented and has been discussed at length on this forum. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:32:20 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: (tech trivia) Harmonic & WE, basic (some more electronic trivia, most readers may want to just delete) I regret sort of coming down too hard on Mike E. after his recent "NO NO NO" harmonic suppression post. What i should have said: This IS a tuned circuit, after all. The WE was not built just as an "any-harmonic is fine" device. The circuit really does discriminate against harmonics. How well it does that, depends very much on the antenna also. The circuit, however, is a simple one, and does not discriminate well enough, so if the antenna is favorable for some particular harmonic, it very likely will be radiated, "get out". Some long while back, when the harmonic theory was just heating up, i posted a quote or 2 from literature from the early 1940s saying how this circuit was obsolescent, because of the danger of harmonic radiation. Note: not the "assurance" of harmonic radiation. The "possibility". This means the possibility of harmonics being launched. Reaching anyone, that's a separate problem. BTW, just a curious fact: the latest i'd seen of this rudimentary output circuit, which appears to be recognized as obsolete by mid 1930s, is its use in a US Army trans-receiver, the SCR-583, from early WW2 - but this radio appears never to have been deployed, just purchased, and then sold as war surplus. Maybe the crude output circuitry was part of why it was shelved. Hue Miller =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:46:29 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Wreck Photo IMHO, the wreck photo is among the more fascinating things I have ever see related to AE's disappearance. Is any more information known about this photo other that that posted on the TIGHAR website? LTM (apologies to her as well if you have gone over this ground already), - Alfred Hendrickson, PE *********************************************************************** From Ric Yes, there is new information, courtesy of Angus Murray. I just haven't taken the time to put together a new research bulletin for the website. Bottom line: By a very straightforward comparison of the dimensions of the cowling opening (not the external diameter of the cowling but the diameter of the "hole" in the front) on the Wreck Photo airplane and NR16020, Angus has shown very conclusively (in my opinion) that they are different airplanes. The engine on the Wreck Photo plane is much more "tightly cowled" than the Lockheed 10. I'll get a research bulletin put together as soon as I can get to it but I think we can finally consign the Wreck Photo to the dustbin of history. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:47:37 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: radio transmissions Hue Miller wrote: > Pardon my elementary question here, but i would appreciate pointers to where i > can get these figures, or reckon them myself from drawings, for the plane's > (topside) antenna: lengths, enclosed angle, length of feeder line, height above > aircraft all along its length. The best way to get the dimensions you want is to make your own measurements on the Electra scale drawings publshed by TIGHAR. LTM, Bob #2286 =============================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:10:46 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: aircraft parts Kenneth Knudson, in "Titiana: A Gilbertese Community in the Solomon Islands" (the study of the displaced Manra PISS colonists), indicates that there was a good deal of employment of Manra (Sydney) islanders on Canton during the War, and maybe afterwards (I don't have the document at hand). Paul Laxton moved a good many Manra people to Niku in the late '40s/early '50s. Some of the more obvious B-24 parts have turned up in the general area where the Manra families were settled. So my guess would be that the parts arrived on Niku around 1950 either via Manra or as part of an overall post-war reorganization and population-shuffling. ******************************************************************* From Ric I've learned to be pretty suspicious of PISS history according to Knudson and I've seen nothing in the records of wartime activity at Canton and in the archives of the PISS to suggest that workers were recruited from the islands during the war years. There is certainly nothing to suggest that in the Army Air Force accident investigation report on the C-47 crash at Sydney. Even in the case of Gardner, where there was a U.S. military unit in residence on the same island with a PISS colony, there was no employment of colonists by the U.S. forces. The three identifiable B-24 parts we've found on Niku have actually been kind of scattered all over the place. The navigator's bookcase, as you know, was found near the Co-Op store. The piece with the "32B-" part number (later lost by NTSB) was found near "John Manybarrel's House" (in the area where we think the Manra immigrants were settled), and the forward wing spar cap strip was found at "Sam's Site". =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:13:25 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: More Signals - worth another look Ric wrote: > We're very familiar with seaman Harker's 43 year-old recollections. He must > have been working entirely from memory because he got just about everything > wrong - dates, places, station identifiers, what was heard, what was done, > etc., etc. Achilles never searched for Earhart. What Achilles heard and > when it was heard is well documented and has been discussed at length on this > forum. Was Achilles off Fanning on 9th July? Is it at all possible this could be a separate incident from that of 2nd July and so overshadowed by the earlier more substantial reception involving Itasca, to the extent it was otherwise unreported? Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric I don't know where Achilles was on July 9 but there was a great deal of official and media attention paid to what the ship heard on July 2. For the incident described by Harker to be a separate occurrence that somehow totally escaped official and media notice at the height of the search defies credibility. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:15:50 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Wreck Photo Ric said, > The engine on the Wreck Photo plane is much more "tightly cowled" than the > Lockheed 10. Actually its the other way round. The cowl opening on the Wreck is bigger than on NR16020. Regards Angus. ******************************************************************** From Ric Ooops! That's right. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:23:04 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: aircraft parts I don't mean to be difficult, but I've learned to be suspicious of government reports, and would be very surprised if people from Canton's surrounding islands were NOT employed at the base there. People from various islands were routinely hired at the phosphate mines on Ocean and Nauru, and in copra operations all over the place. Why shouldn't they be employed at Canton? Granted, you've seen nothing in the PISS archives about employment of locals on Canton, but (a) your inspection has focused on Niku, not Manra; (b) you've repeatedly said that your inspection was and still is incomplete; and (c) even if nothing's reported in the files you reviewed, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I also don't know what it is about Knudson's report that you find suspicious. If you're referring to the fact that he didn't know what kind of airplane crashed at Manra, I don't think that's terribly surprising, since he was getting his information well after the fact from people who had been relocated from the island and had no particular reason to be familiar with airplanes. As for where the B-24 pieces have been found, the Manybarrels Site is not just one of the places where we think the Manra people were settled, it's one of the places where Laxton says they were to be settled. Sam's Site is in the core of the Laxton-era village, where Tarabata Groves, who went back and forth between Niku and Manra, said there were various public facilities in her time (the 1950s). The navigator's bookcase was in a house site immediately adjacent to the co-op store, which was clearly functioning on site at the time the colony was abandoned -- hence after the Laxton-imposed shift in residential locations and arrival of the Manrans. I don't see much point in arguing about this. The B-24 parts had to come from someplace. Canton is the most likely source. Somebody had to bring them. I don't see why the Manrans aren't the most likely source, but it wouldn't much matter if they were brought by somebody else, unless maybe it were Japanese or aliens, or they really came from New Jersey. ************************************************************************ From Ric It should be easy enough to ask the several veterans we know who served on Canton during the war whether there were islanders employed there. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:34:31 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Wreck Photo > I'll get a research bulletin put together as soon as I can get to it but I > think we can finally consign the Wreck Photo to the dustbin of history. It might be a good idea (to do this properly) to take a photo of a real 10E electra from exactly the same angle as the wreck photo and with the prop in exactly the same position. Only in this way will the dimensional changes occasioned by perspective be the same and so allow a justifiable comparison. I think what I have done is to show that there is a real need for this but it might be a mistake to make the definitive judgement on a comparison where the photos have been taken from different angles. Now it is arguable that the angle is irrelevant if you measure the longest axis of the oval and the prop lengths are adjusted to be the same but the props in each photo are not at the same angle to the long axis of the oval. The ideal way to do this would be with a digital camera, transferring the images to a laptop and superimposing them in Photoshop until perfectly coincident. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric That would be great if there was a Lockheed 10E accessible with original cowlings. Finch's airplane, now owned by Kammerer in New Mexico, has T-6(Harvard) cowlings. Grace McGuire's airplane in New Jersey probably has original cowlings but she won't let anyone near it. There is another NR16020 replica in storage at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, FL but the engines and cowlings are not mounted on the airplane. As an alternative, I can look through the hundred or so photos I have of Bill Harney's meticulous scale model and see if one of them matches the Wreck Photo angle. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:41:18 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Weather Info Hey Everyone, in reading about the PBY's that were launched from Pearl and had to return due to weather, I was wondering if anyone has researched weather as a possible factor in any navigational errors? I searched the forum and didn't see much. I am fascinated by navigation/meteorology and wouldn't mind delving into this aspect at all. Bob Lee *********************************************************************** From Ric The weather that forced the PBY to turn back was about 300 miles north of the equator and almost 24 hours after the Earhart flight. The logs of the ships that were in the general area (ITASCA and SWAN) don't show any indication of a major disturbance, so whatever the PBY ran into must have been a local condition. If you really want to dig into the meteorological aspects of the search, the Research CD has the weather data from all of the ships logs for the entire search period. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:42:22 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Betty Interview Ric wrote: > I'd alike to hear some opinions from our legal, law enforcement, and > medical professionals on the forum. I'm sure that the experts will weigh in. As an interested bystander, I recommend AGAINST any hypnosis. See Carl Sagan's Candle in the Dark for how malleable memory is. People want to please the hypnotist and will dream up details as needed to answer questions. Once you've gone down that road, it tends to breed "new" memories. LTM. Marty #2359 =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:45:36 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Radio issues I have stated my hypothesis regarding the possibility of harmonic radiation by the AE transmitter, and I stand behind it. While not wishing to get into a shouting match on the Forum, I will say in reply to Hue's postings: I agree with many of the points of transmitter theory that Hue has made (and if he reads his words, and mine, closely, he will find we are saying much the same thing in different ways); BUT -- I believe Hue has a little too much faith in the "cleanliness" of this transmitter's output signal. In the 8th Edition, I described a scenario regarding the tuning of the transmitter. This will be recapped real briefly, and hopefully not oversimplified. This scenario says, that if the antenna's physical length was altered, the result may well have been (yeah, yeah, I know, speculation, but bear with me) that the antenna's new parameters fell outside the normal range of adjustment, for the "book values" of inductance and capacitance in the tuned circuitry. (And yes, I am aware that Cam Warren is of the opinion that the antenna was reworked by PAA in Miami and the length returned to something near normal... maybe so; but he doesn't have any definitive proof of this being done. I've asked. For now at least, I choose to assume the Gurr modification, which had lengthened it, stayed intact.) Of course it was "made it work," but the "fix" may have employed component values resulting in an incorrect L-C ratio (amount of inductance, vs. capacitance) in the circuit. While resonance could be attained, the incorrect L-C ratio could enhance the potential for harmonics to make it to the antenna and be radiated. This scenario didn't consider the possibility that the transmitter MIGHT have been so maladjusted that it could have been dumping more of its power out on a harmonic, than on 6210 (especially). Not saying this DID happen; I am suggesting it MIGHT have, though the probability of this being the case and going unnoticed does seem kind of low... maybe. But it is a possibility, and could offer an explanation for why she was not heard on 6210 at the critical moment. Wonder how much she had actually used 6210, prior to this; and with what results? The matter of the condition of welds within tubes, condition of solder joints and grounds, component tolerances etc inside the transmitter is most assuredly not "grabbing at straws." Rather, it was brought up in an effort to illustrate why apparently identical radio equipments, of the same design and off the same production line, can behave very differently in operation. Been there, done that, seen that many times over. CONCLUSION: The only definitive proof of this case, that all (?) will accept (?), is not mathematical or otherwise theoretical... even if the math etc. predict the possibility; and I believe they will. But look at how Bob Brandenburg's SNR analysis has been disdained. It appears that the only "acceptable proof" would be a spectrum-analysis of one of these Western Electric transmitters, loaded into an antenna identical to what AE used. Even that would not be 100 per cent conclusive, but it would come darn close. Any other test conditions (different transmitter, different antenna etc)will show some interesting things; but those results will necessarily reflect a different set of conditions from what we are really interested in. I am eager to see these results, whatever they may be, and what we might learn therefrom. Mike E. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:48:17 EST From: John Hathaway Subject: Hypnotism Reminds me of the time I hypnotized Dave Terrel and gave him the suggestion that he was a penguin. Told him that penguins communicated with a "bornk bornk" sound. So he wandered around bornk bornking with his thumbs tucked into his armpits waving his elbows till I told him we were going to meet some lady penguins. Then he asked, "Does my tuxedo look alright?" A better story is when Terrel hypnotized Jerry Cornell with the suggestion that Jerry would think his ass was on fire whenever he would see Dave scratching his nose. This happened during a High School assembly producing a great degree of befuddlement among the faculty and considerable amusement for the students. Any idiot can perform hypnotism, Dave and I have proven that. If hypnotizing Betty could possibly produce anything worthwhile, there is a lady here in Danville to whom I would trust the job. John Svengali Hathaway ************************************************************************ From Ric Given your description, I can think of a number of people it might be fun to hypnotize - but Betty isn't one of them. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:51:51 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Betty's entry/Miles In Betty's notebook the very first entry high up on the top margin is "158 mi." This was said by AE. It could be coincidence but the distance between St Petersburg and Lake Worth is 158 miles on my road atlas as the crow flies! Lake Worth/Palm Beach is where Carroll had his ham radio W40K. The W40K entry seems to me a key in resolving the mystery. Betty heard AE say it and it was recorded contemporaneously with the other notations . Since it included Howland Port, it seems that was certainly related to AE. Another puzzling entry is on her page 3 of "fig 8-3 30 500 Z ". Betty said that AE said those numbers, but I wonder if AE used the terms "figure eight dash three" and Betty just wrote down the abbreviated form "fig 8-3." I was looking for some significance here that it might relate to some map , but most likely Betty can't recall the context. Did Nancy Carroll ever identify her father's nickname as "Bud" (per Betty's notation.) He was Francis G. Carrol and you cousin interviewed Nancy about 2 years ago. You thought it would be extraordinary if the owner of W40K was nicknamed "Bud". LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric I still think it would be extraordinary but I don't recall that it turned out to be the case - did it Terry? =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:53:23 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: (Tech. trivia) more Harmonics Mike Everette wrote: > There is no way to determine what the actual power level from the > transmitter may have been at any given harmonic, without doing some actual > lab work. Mike, i'm glad we see eye to eye on this. > The power levels at the harmonics would very likely/probably be low... > unless, and this is admitted speculation, for which I may get blasted, but > I'm willing to say it nonetheless -- > > UNLESS, the transmitter was so severely mistuned that it was actually > doubling or tripling the frequency in the final amplifier. Here's where we may differ. I cannot see that the transmitter was so maladjusted that it put out major power on a harmonic, and yet functioned on the main channel still. For the idea that the set may even have been tuned up on a harmonic, i say: consider with essentially no plate load on 6210, maybe a few tens of ohms, for the nonresonant paralled L/ C, the output would be so minimal, as to not have any range except maybe the length of the airfield. Hey, we can model this too. That actually is a good idea, and i'm glad you brought it up. > What does the Chater report say? That the radio had a "rough" signal on > 6210? Yes- this still puzzles me. So when re-creating the transmitter, we can try misadjusting the transmitter for some kind of "roughness" effect. > It is POSSIBLE -- yeah, I know, "speculation" but it has a theoretical > basis, at least -- that the ANTENNA (not the transmitter) could prove to be > a more efficient radiator of energy at certain harmonics, than at the > fundamental or "primary" frequency. Again, it'd take some actual lab work > to confirm this hypothesis to everyone's satisfaction, and that means either > finding a 10E and rigging it with the identical antenna configuration(s), or > using a computer model. I agree with you here. > Bob Brandenburg and I discussed the possibility of modeling the antenna > mathematically, a couple of years ago when the whole harmonic issue first > came up. It was Bob's opinion, and I concur, that the task would be > extremely complex. No doubt it could be done, but none of the computer sims > Bob has access to will do the job, if I remember correctly. It's a bit > beyond my skill level to design such a model. Whew! I'm spared, i thought it was just me who thought it was too complex. Hue =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:23:09 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Weather info Actually, all the ships that passed through the area of bad weather that the PBY plane encountered also reported nasty weather. The area is known as the Intertropical Convergence Zone, and often has bad weather for days upon end. In June/July, it's typically located about 5* North. The Swan was well above that latitude while it waited for AE. Upon notification to assist in the search for Earhart, it too encountered rough seas and stormy conditions, as did the Colorado, and Lexington Search Group (both entering and exiting the search area). Today, airliners can fly above the bad weather at 35kfeet or higher, but in those days, height limitations was about 20kfeet, puting the PBY right in the middle of the convection clouds. ************************************************************************ From Ric My point was that the weather encountered by the PBY should have had no bearing on the Earhart flight. Would you agree? =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:23:53 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Wreck Photo For Angus Murray What method did you use to determined the size of the cowl on the "Wreck" if you wish to contact me direct. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:33:51 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Wreck Photo The idea is a good one but you do not need an E-model. All other measurements of the aircraft were the same just line up on any points that are present and in sight of any model of that time. Then it would be plain to see the difference. Take into account the model, so that if the cowl is larger or smaller the difference would be easy to spot. Model airplanes are not the real thing, and any measurements off of one would be suspect in my book. ************************************************************************ From Ric The problem with the Wreck Photo is that different people see different things so it's hard to compare structures. The port engine, prop, and cowling are relatively (not to say remarkably) undamaged and provide the least controversial features for comparison. In cases like this, what we're always looking for are disqualifiers. There may be lots of features that look identical to a Lockheed 10, but is there any feature that CAN'T be a Lockheed 10? That is what the cowl-opening diameter appears to provide. The beauty, in this case, is that there is nothing subtle about it. The difference is quite dramatic. We do need to go through the drill and find the best angles for comparison, etc., but I'll be very surprised if we don't end up with the same conclusion. Can't be a 10E. LTM, Ric