Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:10:16 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: St. Pete CG station Hats off to Betty! When I think of it all, she has really played a key part in a moment in one history's greatest mysteries and she keeps on tickin! Best regards to Betty and all she has contributed. One day, when we have that smokin gun from Niku, we'll also know that Betty's notes were a short and small glimpse into a tragedy. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:11:40 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: hypoxia Both Penn State and Cambridge anthropology programs had high altitude physiology programs in the 1960's and 1970's. They had research stations at about 5,000 meters (16,00 feet). Before going to the one in Peru, you spent a few weeks in Machu Pichu to acclimate, then went up. There are acute (hours), short term (weeks to months) and long term adaptations to altitude. Even trained athletes cam develop pulmonary edema at those altitudes, but people do live there without supplemental oxygen. There might be published data in the journal "Human Biology" Dan Postellon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:14:00 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Mike Juliano wrote: >By the way was 157/337 magnetic or true?) True. How do we know this? Because the magnetic variation in that area of the world is (and probably was very close to in 1937) 10* east. So a sun line would be 157* true or 147* magnetic at sun rise (you subtract easterly variation to convert from true to magnetic) and for an hour afterwards. Then it would change in a counterclockwise direction to, successively, 156* T / 147* M; 155* T/ 145* M; etc. ... It would never equal 157* magnetic since it was moving in the opposite direction. gl ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:23:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position I think it is commendable some are attempting to understand the LOP concept. Based on some recent postings on the subject, I think the time might be better spent on something simpler and of more significance. That would be anything else. It really makes no difference whether the LOP issue is totally and correctly understood or whether it remains a complete mystery forever. It will not tell anyone anything usable to help resolve the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. It's nice to know information at its best. Whatever understanding one has of LOPs it cannot be applied to the flight of the Electra because there is critical information missing - and missing forever - from the equation. There are other windmills to tilt at. Alan *************************************************************************** From Marty Moleski: Mike Juliano wrote: > Hi guys, Chapman's "Small Boating and Seamanship" has a very > understandable LOP section. A LOP can be entered at 22.5*,45*, or 90* > relative to your course line. The LOP can be advanced or regressed. If you are thinking of an "advanced LOP" --- as described in beautiful detail with exquisite graphics at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/navigation.html --- yes, of course you can plan to intersect the LOP at a convenient angle to your course line. We don't know the course line flown by AE and FN because 1) they got lost and took their charts with them and 2) they didn't radio that information before they got lost. > With > out accurate course, speed, wind correction where you are is where you > is- (where-ever that may be). True. The only thing I know about my position on a map is that I am where I am. I have taken no celestial sightings and have done nothing to reckon my course or speed. Presumably Fred was more energetic about these tasks than I have been. > By the way was 157/337 magnetic or true?) True. Look at the beautiful page and the magnificent graphics here: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/navigation.html LTM. Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Understanding the LOP issue is a pre-requisite to any informed discussion of the available information (scant as it is) about the end of the Lae/Howland flight. That's why we went to the trouble of explaining it so carefully on the website. But Alan is also correct in that nobody is going to solve the Earhart mystery with LOPs. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:29:59 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: AE and navigation Someone recently mentioned one of AE's previous off course excursions to Ireland on her solo Atlantic crossing. I also read recently about another incident in the US in 1928 where she landed to ask the way being miles off course. Can you give us a run down of all her unaccompanied wanderings from intended route and an idea of what happened? Regards Angus ****************************************************************** From Ric No. Not at this time. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:34:02 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Who's on 3105?" My posting earlier today referred to an even earlier one, which I "thought" I sent in reply to a message titled "3105 in 1937." My thoughts were relative to who might have had the capability to generate a signal on that frequency, particularly with respect to ham operators. To reprise my response: Most hams of the era operated "home brew" transmitters. While the tuned circuitry of such rigs usually had some overlap and the amplifier stages of a transmitter covering the 80-meter band (3500-4000 KHz) could probably tune down to 3105 without too much difficulty or modification, the most likely problem with actually doing this would lie with the frequency-control stage. 1930s hams were not typically equipped with frequency-measuring devices. Someone who had even a 100-KHz crystal frequency standard, which generates harmonics all the way through the tuning range of one's receiver and allows a check of dial accuracy, was lucky indeed. Most of the receivers used by hams of the time did not incorporate such a device, as did those of 15 or 20 years later. Receiver dial accuracy was generally not all that great either, especially if the receiver was home-brewed (many were). In short, you sorta knew where you were; but you'd be taking a real chance if you operated too near the band edge limits. Crystal controlled transmitters were the norm. Variable frequency oscillators were in use by some, but home-brewing a stable and accurately calibrated VFO was quite a challenge (still is if you don't have some test gear). The design practices of amateur radio in those days were framed by the harmonically- related bands allocated to hams: 160 meters (1.75-2 MHz), 80 meters (3.5-4 MHz), 40 meters (7.0-7.3 MHz), 20 meters (14.0-14.4 MHz), 10 meters (28.0-30.0 MHz, 5 meters (56-60 MHz) and 2-1/2 meters (112-116 MHz). Typically an oscillator would be designed to generate signals in the 160- or 80-meter band, and frequency-multiplier stages were employed to drive a power amplifier on higher bands. Most hams used crystal control, as I explained before. Those who had built a good stable VFO would be reluctant to "fubar" it by trying to pad it down to get output on 3105... but the possibility does exist, however. Consider that 3105 KHz is a respectable distance from the 160-meter band, and still "a ways" from the low end of 80 meters. Very few commercially-built transmitters were used by hams at this time. Those which were on the market were pretty expensive for hard-pressed Depression-era folks. In the 30s it was easy to obtain radio parts, and very feasible to build a rig that was equal to or better than store-bought (VERY unlike today). Most home-brew rigs were optimized for one, two or three bands. Not all were capable of all-band, all-mode operation like the gear of the past 40 or 50 years. Indeed, in the 30s, CW was by far the most popular mode of operation on the ham bands. In summation, it would not be a stretch to get a rig together that was capable of operating on 3105, IF one had access to an oscillator that would control the frequency. My post on crystal grinding addresses that in part. To paraphrase: possible of course to grind one for 3105, but not something done in a hurry, especially if any kind of accuracy was needed. The process was very time consuming. A person who worked around aircraft might conceivably have a 3105 crystal in the home junk box, in 1937... but, crystals for frequencies outside the ham bands were not at all commonly in the hands of amateur radio operators until thousands of such crystals were dumped on the surplus market following World War II (and many were re-ground by hams to get them into the desired frequency ranges, with varying degrees of success). Also consider, that the FCC had much more respect, and a stronger arm then than it now does. They kept a much closer watch on the airwaves then, through a wide network of monitoring stations (many of which, unfortunately, no longer exist). Most hams were in deathly fear of running afoul of the "G-men." If you got nailed for out-of-band operation, it could well cost you your hard-earned license; and if you had a commercial license as well, they'd yank it too. Might even get you time in the slammer. LTM (who has a thousand eyes) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:13:42 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? The patterns we're seeing in post-loss receptions and your explanation of the HAM situation vis a vis transmissions on 3105 make it next to impossible to explain the receptions that were being heard, especially in the search area, as being hoaxes or misunderstood transmissions from HAMs. If the signals were not coming from HAMs, and if they were not coming from Earhart, then the alternative sources are pretty limited. Itasca had transmitters that could be configured to send on 3105, but we have a real good handle on what Itasca was doing because we have the radio logs. What about other ships that were in the area? What kind of transmission capability did they have? Fortunately, we have a copy of the September 1937 edition of "List of Coast Stations and Ship Stations" published by The Bureau of International Telecommunication Union in Berne, Switzerland (usually known as the "Berne List"). The publication lists every vessel in the world equipped with a licensed radio and includes a description of the vessel's transmission capabilities. SS Moorby, for example, was actively involved in helping to check out the "281 north Howland" location interpreted from the 281 message. A brief article appearing in the Fiji Times after the ship docked in Australia later that month mentioned that the radio operator had tried "for 48 hours" to contact the Earhart plane. No frequency is mentioned. Are some of the reported post-loss voice receptions misunderstood interceptions of the Moorby's calls to Earhart? No. Even if the Moorby could reconfigure its transitter to send on 3105, the ship had no ability to send voice transmissions. The farther we dig into this matter of what was heard by whom and where it could have come from, the more interesting it gets. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:45:27 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? In addition to civilian ships, don't you also have to include other military vessels and various military stations throughout the Pacific and civilian stations in your list of non-Earhart candidates? Since the loss was big news, anybody who had any possibility of transmitting on 3105 (even hams, despite all the problems they'd have with frequency control as pointed out by Everette) might be expected to have cranked-up to contact Earhart with no particular overall discipline or coordination among all these sources. Earlier you mentioned a "spike" in activity from, I believe, July 2-5. What is the source of support for this "spike" and how does it compare to usual activity? Is there even a reliable record of usual activity? Otherwise, how do you know it really was a "spike" to which we should attach any particular relevance? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric >In addition to civilian ships, don't you also have to include other military >vessels and various military stations throughout the Pacific and civilian >stations in your list of non-Earhart candidates? Yes. Fortunately, those are easy. Virtually all of the available assets in the region, civilian and military, were mobilized to some degree for the search so we have a very good handle on their activity through the official message traffic. >What is the source of support for this "spike" and how does it compare to >usual activity? I thought I explained that. Anyway, to elaborate: Let's keep it simple and look just at signals that were reportedly heard by professional operators who were located within one thousand miles of Howland. That takes in USCG Itasca; Howland Island; Baker Island; HMS Achilles; U.S. Navy Radio in Tutuila, Samoa; and VKT Radio, Nauru. (It also takes in USS Swan, USS Colorado, USS Lexington, USS Drayton, & USS Lamson, but none of these reported post-loss receptions except Colorado, but the report is too vague to use.) Itasca began listening intently on Earhart's frequencies at 19:00 (7 p.m.) local time on July 1st right after they got the word that AE had departed Lae. They listen all that night and hear: "unreadable fone on or near 3105" at 20:35-40 "unreadable fone on or near 3105" at 21:41-43 "several carriers but unreadable" at 21:45-48 "several unreadable carriers on or about 3105" at 22:03-07 and then nothing until "Heard Earhart plane but unreadable through static" at 02:45-48 After that progressively stronger transmissions from Earhart were heard throughout the rest of the night and into the morning, but no carriers or unreadable voice messages were logged. So, other than the known Earhart signals, we have on the night of July 1/2 a pattern of four receptions between roughy 20:30 and 22:00 and then nothing for the rest of the night. Earhart fails to arrive at Howland and on the night of July 2/3 we have 17 receptions by stations in the search area, all between sunset and midnight. On the night of July 3/4 we have 10 receptions by stations in the search area, 6 between sunset and midnight and 4 more before dawn. On the night of July 4/5 we have 26 receptions by stations in the search area, 17 between sunset and midnight and 9 more before dawn. On the night of July 5/6 we have 9 receptions by stations in the search area (19:28, 20:42, 21:32, 22:42-46, 23:33, 23:39, 23:41-42, 23:44 & 00:25) On the night of July 6/7 we have just two receptions by stations in the search area in a space of one hour (23:43 & 01:10) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of July 7/8, we have 3 receptions of weak carriers (19:40, 19:48 & 22:10) by stations in the search area over a period of about an hour and a half and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of July 8/9 we have 3 receptions of weak carriers (19:42, 21:14 & 22:09) at almost exactly the same times as on the previous night and on the night of the 1st/2nd. We then have a single reception at 02:15 and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of the 9/10 we have 3 receptions (21:10, 21:22, 21:38) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of the 10/11 we have 3 receptions (21:27, 23:30, 01:15) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of the 11/12 we have one reception (22:49) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of 12/13 we have one reception (23:30) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. No station in the search area or anywhere else logged or reported further signals after that but by that time most stations had stopped listening. With 12 days of data we have eight nights of 4 or fewer ambiguous receptions and four consecutive nights with 17, 10, 26, & 9 receptions. That looks like spikes to me. What does it look like to you? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:48:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position My frustration showed through that our explanations of the LOP issue seem not to be working for some. When a subject is so well known and long used it becomes difficult to comprehend it is not equally simple to folks who have rarely if ever been involved with celestial. I really know that but I am still frustrated I can't think of an explanation clear enough to reach everyone. I guess it just takes far more dialog than I have estimated. Alan ************************************************************************ From Mike Juliano Thank you all again. That's what this is about--I'm learning. Maybe someone else will get more out of this too. (Never hurts to check your position or LOP) Mike J. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:49:55 EST From: Herman DeWulf Subject: Re: AE and navigation Angus, My reaction may not exactly be an answer to your question. I think you feel Amelia Earhart was not much of a pilot and had a habit of getting lost. I'd like to remind you that navigation in the Twenties was not what it is today. It was flying by compass, map and stopwatch and nothing else. In 1925 aviation pioneer Edmond Thieffry, while flying from Brussels to Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) in the Congo, got lost several times over the Sahara and on two occasions landed near some Bedouins and ask them where he was. Even today pilots occasionally get lost. Some infringe on TFRs. Others wander into TCA's. Let me tell you that any pilot who says he never lost his way is a liar. We all got lost a couple of times during training when we had to rely on a map, a compass and a stopwatch. If you are flying over known territory you may eventually find a river, a highway or a railroad that is also on your map and give a clue. But all too often there are either none or too many. Fortunately today we have radio and can ask for assistance. VORs, radar and transponders work wonders these days. Back in 1925-28 that was not the case. Also, aircraft were easier to land in a meadow than today's sophisticated airplanes. And as we all know, even today airliners flown be professional ATPL pilots are known to land at the wrong airports occasionally. But that is an other story. LTM (who also used to rely on a map, a compass and a stopwatch) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:56:22 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? I hope everyone is saving Mike's and Ric's notes on the post loss radio messages. Ric has already made it known a full posting will be placed on the web site in due time but in the meantime saving these notes and reading them with careful comprehension may reduce the misunderstandings and endless questions that will surely come. It is clear to me that this information may well be the most powerful and indisputable evidence yet to be presented that Amelia and Fred did not go into the drink at 8:43 L and instead survived on land for many days subsequent to July 2, 1937. For those who might not see one of the subtle benefits of this information it could immensely affect future funding by making it clear the money needs to be poured into more land expeditions rather than pouring it down a 17,000 foot hole full of ocean or for analyzing unearthed rags or scribbles on a grubby detention wall in the Marshall Islands. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric True Confessions: I've intentionally been throwing out some teasers because writing up this study is taking me way longer than I anticipated and I want to reassure everybody that it will be worth the wait. Yes, it will go up on the website eventually but initially it will be a special edition of TIGHAR Tracks that will go only to members of TIGHAR, so if you don't want to be left out, join now. Membership has its privileges. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:57:48 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position For Mike Juliano: Mike, check out the info available at : http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/ and at : http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/ There is more detailed info available there than can be easily conveyed on this forum. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:59:36 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Sorry about that Alan, I didn't mean to upset the apple cart by my ignorance , and I will go back to the FAQs and try to get a better understanding without the crude attempts at humor. Like Ric said it's a new culture with its own set of rules. Just learnin' the rules. Sincerely, Mike J. ************************************************************************* From Ric On second thought, I'm not sure there's a lot of culture going on here. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:02:10 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: AE and navigation Herman De Wulf wrote: > Angus, > > My reaction may not exactly be an answer to your question. I think you feel > Amelia Earhart was not much of a pilot and had a habit of getting lost. I'd > like to remind you that navigation in the Twenties was not what it is today. > It was flying by compass, map and stopwatch and nothing else. It is true that I don't have a great deal of admiration for her as a pilot. I believe that one company actually refused to sell her an aircraft on the basis that they did not think she was competent to fly it. That cost them and I don't believe that they would have taken that line unless they really believed she was a real danger to herself. She did not appear to be a "natural" whilst learning to fly. Most of the Earhart myth appears to be just that. The impression I get is that there were probably better women pilots. I also very much doubt she had any real skills as a navigator. Having few of the sophisticated tools we have today, she would have been well advised to learn as much about navigation and radio as possible but she seems to have had little interest in doing so. This was not a professional attitude, especially in view of the fact that her life and that of others might depend on such knowledge in emergency. Navigational theory was well advanced in her day. You may object that flying solo she was often in no position to make use of such skills but Francis Chichester on his trip to Australia certainly managed to put his knowledge into practice without the benefit of an autopilot. That being said, I have great admiration for her bravery in flying aircraft that today would be regarded as dangerously primitive in terms of their reliability and navigational aids. I believe seven women had been killed attempting to cross the Atlantic at the time she did it. I also admire her for doing all this in what was then very much a man's world with all the inevitable associated prejudice and discrimination. My interest in her navigational skills arose because I wanted to know the sort of mistakes she was prone to make in navigation. Of course often we only have her own account of what happened on previous flights and she would not be the first to add a little spin to cover up any glaring errors. The "blow-out" at Luke Field seems to be a case in point. Whilst Fred was in theory responsible for the navigation, one has to consider what effect, if any, Amelia could have had on navigational matters. For instance she claimed, probably falsely, to have been responsible for the diversion to St Louis in Senegal. On the other hand, had this really been the case, and having been proved wrong, she may well have been considerably inhibited in pointing out anything she perceived might be an error at a later date. This sort of background research may seem a little superfluous but only when one understands the skills and character of an individual can one make any useful prediction about what they might and might not have done in a particular situation. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:10:34 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? Mike Everette's explanations and description of what would have been required to modify crystals was very interesting. It sounds terribly involved, and nearly impossible for anyone less than highly skilled to have accomplished such a modification. Therefore, because of the technical aspects, it seems likely to me that any truly "hoax" Earhart reception reports were more probably a lie on the part of the person who reported hearing the reception, rather than an actual reception of a faked transmission. If that presumption is true, then it also seems logical to me that any time there were instances of transmissions where more than one person reported hearing something during the same time period, that would constitute a very strong argument in favor of those transmissions being legitimate. ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Good observation. Occasions when more than one station heard something at the same time are particularly interesting, but just because multiple stations are hearing a signal doesn't necessarily mean that they're hearing the same signal or that it must be a legitimate distress call. We call these Synchronous Reception Events (SREs) and we look at them very closely in the study. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:12:34 EST From: Peter Subject: Hypoxia Acclimatization to low oxygen levels at high altitudes is due to an increase in the no. of red blood cells circulating in the body. The body responds to a decrease in the oxygen saturation level of the plasma by producing more hormone, erythropoetin in the kidney and this stimulates increased red cell production in the bone marrow. That's why people living at high altitudes, such as Peruvian Indians, have very red complexions. Obviously, this process is not instantaneous and people living at sea level need the time to produce the extra red cells. LTM (who only had a red face after a glass or two) Peter. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:13:48 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Extraordinary claims... Alan says: >It is clear to me that this information may well be the most powerful and >indisputable evidence yet to be presented that Amelia and Fred did not go >into the drink at 8:43 L and instead survived on land for many days >subsequent to July 2, 1937. > There is a saying, which I happen to subscribe to, that goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In my opinion, the post-loss messages as already described by Ric, meet this standard. Well, not just the post-loss messages, but the lack of any other known station that can broadcast voice on 3105 ... except Amelia ...within 1000 miles from Howland, seems a very convincing argument to me. I especially like the fact that the different listening stations corroborate one another. There seems to be no logical explanation other than Amelia broadcasting on 3105. If the "splashed and sank" crowd want to be taken seriously, they have to give a viable alternative explanation for these radio messages. Without such viable alternative explanation, their theory now has a major piece of evidence that it cannot explain. Nice job, Ric (also Mike E.), and I look forward to reading the ENTIRE report. LTM (whose spell checker keeps suggesting Ameba for Amelia) Paige Miller #2565 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:27:53 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Ric - has anyone taken the 157, corrected for mag var, then applied it to Gardner/Niku to backcast / hindcast where AE/FN were approaching from? Lets say, that on a good day you could see Gardner/Niku from 20 miles at 1500 feet. Then picking a point 20 miles east and a point 20 miles west, draw a corrected set of lines back along the course and finding where they would have been likely to have been at the time AE said they were on a line of 157... I don't think you need to include wind as they would/should have corrected for that, meaning that only the actual course needs to be looked at. This might show us something relating to their position and how close they might actually have been to Howland in an east/west orientation if not a north-south one. However, since you think that Betty's diary indicates them being down at a certain time of the day, throw that in to the mix just to get an approximate idea of how far north/south they might have been. LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************************* From Ric As you may recall, we now see July 5th as a more likely date for Betty's transcription if she heard legitimate signals, in which the notebook has no bearing upon possible arrival time on the 2nd. No conversion to magnetic is necessary to see that a 157/337 True line through Howland passes within 15 miles of Gardner. All anyone can say is that IF Noonan's apparent belief that he was on a line through Howland was reasonably accurate, and IF he was actually well south of Howland, and IF he flew that line southeastward fairly accurately, then they should have been able to see Gardner well before they ran out of fuel. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:22:28 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Emotional content Ric wrote: > If Betty's notebook is an authentic transcription of phrases heard from the > Electra, it gives us almost too much information about the mental state of > Earhart and Noonan on whatever day the transmissions took place. None of the > other alleged post-loss receptions has anything like the emotional content > of Betty's notebook. Ric, I would like to know where you stand on this now. Do you feel the content of the other ( Pacific area? ) reports is compatible or not compatible with the content of this particular continental USA report? -Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric As I said, Betty's notebook has far more emotional content than any other post-loss radio event. Most have no emotional content at all but it's hard to hear emotional content if you can't understand what's being said. The only reports that describe any kind of emotional content other than Betty's are the three shortwave listeners - Nina Paxton, Mabel Duncklee and Thelma Lovelace - who came forward in later years. All were older women. All were in North America. None was an Amelia Earhart fan. None of the reported times overlap or coincide. All seem to have been somewhat traumatized by the experience and eager for someone to take them seriously. Their respective reports need to be closely examined for similarities and differences. I don't know where I stand on there credibility until I've had a chance to do that. I expect to get to that part of the study soon. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:25:16 EST From: Craig Knowles Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? Ric wrote: > On the night of the 9/10 we have 3 receptions (21:10, 21:22, 21:38) and then > nothing else for the rest of the night. > > On the night of the 10/11 we have 3 receptions (21:27, 23:30, 01:15) and then > nothing else for the rest of the night. > > On the night of the 11/12 we have one reception (22:49) and then nothing else > for the rest of the night. > > On the night of 12/13 we have one reception (23:30) and then nothing else for > the rest of the night. In light of the above, do you have any thoughts regarding the Colorado searchers not spotting the Electra during their fly-over on the morning of the 9th, but the plane still being intact enough to transmit for several more days? How intact would the plane have to be to still be able to transmit? If the plane got wet even once, would it ever transmit again? That is, if it was covered by tides even once, would it dry out during low tide such that that a transmission could be made, or is one time in the salt water the end of the battery/radio? Where I'm going with this is that if we are to accept the above transmissions, we then (of course) have to assume that the plane is still in condition to transmit on the night of the 12th/13th, this may require new consideration as to what the place was doing and where it was on the morning of June 12th. Craig **************************************************************************** From Ric The point of my posting was that these transmissions appear to fit a consistent pattern of baseline activity on that frequency and probably are not signals from the plane. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:29:20 EST From: Adam Lynch Subject: s.o.b. For Adam Marsland, I have been re-reading your message of Jan. 4/03.. I got this from TIGHAR member Pete Polen. I have read the "Betty" notebook a hundred times... I can't find the alleged " son of a bitch " quote... To whom did Betty later tell that ?... Where did you get it ? I think your analysis of "Betty" is remarkable. .I just have to believe that somehow this 15 year old girl did, in fact, hear what she says she heard. A "fake" Betty would never have written what she wrote. No ? To my mind, ( an old, retired broadcast. amateur-historian/newsman) the "Betty" notebook is one of the most incredible A.E. chapters ever seen. Adam Lynch *************************************************************************** From Ric The s.o.b. quote is an anecdotal recollection by Betty that is in the videotape of TIGHAR's interview with her. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:33:49 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) From Avweb's Newsletter this morning: SHORT FINAL... A pilot was sitting in his seat and pulled out a .38 revolver. He placed it on top of the instrument panel, then asked the navigator, "Do you know what I use this for?" The nav replied timidly, "No, what's it for?" The pilot responded, "I use this on navigators who get me lost!" The navigator proceeded to pull out a .45 and place it on his chart table. The pilot asked, "What's that for?" "To be honest sir," the nav replied, "I'll know we're lost before you will." LTM. Marty #2359 *********************************************************************** From Ric LOL! Sorta lends a whole new dimension to the question of arming flight crews. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:56:31 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: AE and navigation Angus wrote: > I believe that one company actually refused to sell her an aircraft on the > basis that they did not think she was competent to fly it. Lindbergh was refused an airplane before he finally settled on the Ryan for his Atlantic hop - so its not necessarily piloting skills, just the choice of the company. I've had other people picked over me for jobs and that doesn't mean I'm not good, just that someone in an HR position with no knowledge of the job or the requisite skills picked someone that was better at writing a resume' than I am. LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************************** From Ric The two incidents were very different although they both involved Bellanca airplanes. In December 1926 Lindbergh tried to by the Bellanca WB-2 "Columbia" from the Wright Aeronautical Corporation. The airplane's designer and builder, Giuseppe Bellanca, liked the idea but the owners declined to sell because "we do not desire at this time to have Wright Bellanca used for transatlantic flight". (No. It didn't happen like in the Jimmy Stewart movie.) In March 1929 Putnam tried to buy a Bellanca Airbus (single engine, 11 to 14 passengers) for Amelia. Giuseppe, protective of his own reputation, was choosy about who he sold his airplanes to and insisted upon verifying the pilot's ability. Amelia came to the factory at Bellanca Field in New Castle, Delaware (about 15 minutes from where I'm sitting) with a check in her pocket. Perhaps to avoid any allegation of gender prejudice, Bellanca had AE fly with his own female pilot Elinor Smith. Elinor was appalled. When Amelia took the yoke, "our big calm bird suddenly lurched out of control and wobbled all over the sky". She made two flights and flunked both. Bellanca refused to sell the airplane despite considerable pressure from Putnam. (The incident is included in the biographies by both Mary Lovell and Doris Rich.) In fairness, Elinor Smith had lots of reason to dislike George Putnam who saw her as a rival to AE's position as the nation's most famous woman aviator and she only told this story years later, but the fact remains that Bellanca refused to sell the airplane if Earhart was going to fly it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:57:14 EST From: Van Hunn Subject: Glacier Girl FFYI: Tonight at 8 PM (CST) on the History Channel is a program, "The Hunt for the Lost Squadron"--about the attempt and recovery of one of the eight WWII planes forced down on an ice cap in Greenland. This is the P38 named "Glacier Girl." Van ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:53:16 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Extraordinary claims... Paige quotes the statement of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Let me ask you , isn't that an extraordinary claim in itself... got proof? But to your claim. Can you specifically identify which of the 78 post loss receptions (heard by professional operators) until about 12 July are conclusively linked to Amelia Earhart's radio? Did she make all of them, or were some from other sources? And the proof ? Could the batteries sustain power? It is especially unlikely she made transmissions after 9 July from Gardner. For those who make a claim that contradicts the theory that there are no "proved" Earhart receptions, the burden-of -proof should be on you. The foundation of the survival theories, such as Tighar's, depend , but not entirely, on a post loss msg coming from Gardner Island. It seems that for 66 years we have been in search of proof that at least one single transmission could be linked with a "very high" probability to Earhart. One could except as "proof" those receptions heard by Pierson and McMenamy, but those have certain faults. Hence the Tighar Matrix may shed some light on some strong possibilities, perhaps, and that is what we are waiting for. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:45:30 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Extraordinary claims... The question about the post loss messages that I always come back to is once you admit that ALL of them did not come from AE then you are also admitting that there must be some other explanation for THOSE messages. How can you then be certain that the same "other explanation" doesn't explain the rest of the messages? gl ************************************************************************* From Ric Let me give you an example. Among the 184 reported receptions that we have cataloged, some describe characteristics that could not have been produced by Earhart's transmitter - such as a frequency that is neither one of the primaries nor a harmonic of them - or a code signal that was sent in "A2" (a capability she did not have). It is entirely reasonable to eliminate such events from consideration without disqualifying all of the others. Don't you agree? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:47:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary claims... The dialog regarding the post lost messages and that to come will always sound the same tune. Can TIGHAR prove one or more of the post loss messages actually came from Earhart. Those that trumpet that song know full well that is impossible without having Earhart here to confirm her broadcast. Don't waste your time or that of everyone else with that argument. We could just as easily require that it be proven that NO post radio call was from Earhart. At least there is a remote possibility there but the naysayers will not attempt that chore because it actually requires effort. It requires NO effort to dispute. The best I see that TIGHAR can do is show that it is virtually impossible and most certainly not probable that none of the post loss messages could have been from Earhart. That puts the crashed and sankers in the position their theory is one of the least viable of all. They are certainly welcome to stick to it but if they wish to participate in the discussion the ONLY worthwhile offering they could muster up is proof that each of the post loss messages are not from Earhart. Prove them one by one not to be from Earhart. If that sounds like a challenge it is. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:52:53 EST From: Denise Subject: Pacific-based airlines Just remembered where and when I came across the bit about A.E. writing to Pacific-based airline companies for advice ... at least I sorta remember! It was in a glossy magazine - something like Vanity Fair - and it was in the last ten years. It was in an article about Media Stunts that are Waaayyy Past their Used-by Date - and it cited, among others, A.E.'s last flight. From the deepest recesses of my memory, it said something like: pioneering flights at this time were sooo passe that commercial flights operated in each area she wanted to cover and that she was even able to write to those airline companies for support and advice on how to handle that part of her route, and that even the Pacific had airline companies who wrote to help her out ... or something. It may not have been Vanity Fair but it's definitely something very like it: a glossy magazine that publishes long opinion articles. Maybe someone with back copies would like to check that one out? Hey, it might even be Playboy. Does checking that one out have any takers? LTM (who liked passe media stunts) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric If your recollection is anywhere near correct, the article probably referred to Earhart querying Pan American's Pacific Division rather than any carrier in Fiji. Nothing remarkable about that. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:01:43 EST From: Dave Bowman Subject: Startling Earhart Stamps Just ran across these (a set of four postage stamps depicting Earhart's landing and capture in the the Marshall Islands) for sale on e-Bay. (I placed a bid on them.) I was amazed, as the implication of these stamps is tantamount to the Marshall Islands officially endorsing the explanation on the stamps (an explanation I have by no means discarded...) Also, the explanation on the stamps definitely is at odds with TIGHAR's efforts. (I have financially contributed to past expeditions, by the way.) Dave Bowman ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course the Republic of the Marshall Islands endorses the Japanese capture theory. Why wouldn't they? It promotes tourism. I have an Amelia-captured- in-the-Marshalls T-shirt that is sold there. In 2000 Kiribati produced Nikumaroro/Amelia Earhart set of stamps. We have a whole bunch of them. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:03:43 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: AE and navigation Dave is correct. And it was not only Bellanca. Fokker also refused to sell Lindbergh an aircraft to cross the Atlantic was Fokker. Anthony Fokker did not believe in Lindbergh's project and was afraid the company's image would be damaged if the airplane was lost in the ocean. Eventually Lindbergh turned to Ryan. *************************************************************************** From Ric The point is that Earhart was apparently turned down specifically because she lacked the skill to control the airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:24:05 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: more on continental USA reports Some additional facts and ideas on the Betty story: The call letters "....or WOJ" at the outset of her story - I did not find any listing in the 1930s radio magazines, looking over dozens, to show any receptions of this callsign station. Altho it was licensed to ATT, it appears ATT never exercised their permit for this frequency. I did find reports of ATT stations at Ocean Gate, New Jersey, WOA 6775, "transmits to England nights" and WOA 10550, "transmits to So. America nights", but it seems neither of these possible soundalikes fits the bill for the 16:30-18:00 Florida reception. If we then have to discount "WOJ", I wonder, does this raise the probability of the other callsign, the "W4OK"? We at least know that one actually existed. Radio News for 4/1935 shows the Zenith Stratosphere. Is this the radio Betty's family owned? If so- I clearly see the idea of the "concave", which is a recessed area flanked by 2 speaker banks. I also note that altho the radio has 25 tubes (active amplifying devices), many of them are "impress the owner and neighbors", such as multiple audio power amplifiers, indicator tubes and such. And I note that in fact the radio is essentially not a better radio than the 9 or 10 tube Hammarlunds, National HRO, and upper models of Hallicrafters, Patterson, RCA and other manufacturers. This I mention, just in case there is any thinking that somehow Betty's radio was super-competent. I furthermore note that it covers the total tuning range in 5 tuning band ranges. This means that each individual tuning band range covers somewhat more than a 2:1 ratio of frequencies, from the top of the dial to the bottom. The reason I belabor this, is that this factor tells a radio person that the radio is guaranteed to drift, this means gradually shift from the tuning setting, on the higher bands, due to circuit heating effects from the vacuum tubes and from room temperature change. Why do I pursue this? Betty says she "never touched the dial" once she tuned in the station. This over a listening period of 1.5 hours. Other radio fans besides me have commented on this; one charitable optimist wrote that "she really didn't mean that". But - she DID say it. The interview indicates she is familiar with listening to "police scannners". Police scanners, which use crystal-control or synthesizer control of frequency, however, are a long shot from 1930's shortwave listening. Police scanners don't have a fine tuning control. Perhaps some of the readers here, not having experience with shortwave, are old enough to remember pre-digital tuned TVs in weak signal areas. Say you were trying to watch the world series, and it was not coming in good, do you just settle for that, or do you fiddle with the fine tuning once in a while to try to improve the grainy picture? The more so with shortwave. What I am saying is NO shortwave listener gets a marginal signal, just sits back and listens to it like that, not EVEN a 15 year old girl. I understand Betty also had some confusion about what she called the "TV hole" in the front of the radio, until this notion was dispelled. ( Coaching? ) How well does Betty remember those days of shortwave listening, I wonder? How reliable is her memory? Now we have a date change to ?? July also - so now we have to recalibrate our discussion somewhat, too. Seeing as an understanding of the events of the AE story as heard by Betty depend on her current explanation, as well as the barebones original notes - the question of the reliability of her memory is not immaterial, I think. As for "Mabel": I scrutinized a bunch of period radio magazines, including 1937. From the reception reports in these, I conclude that at 03:00 Mabel local time, the possible 3x multiple of 6210 could NOT be heard in the early morning darkness USA. The 5x 3105 = 15525 I came to a mixed conclusion: Orient SW broadcast stations were reported all night, but I also read that ham radio communications considered the band becoming unusable after around 20:00 local. Perhaps this is can be accounted for by the difference in transmitter strengths: the SW broadcast operations used commonly 10000 - 50000 watts, and then sometimes directional antennas that magnified this power. The ham radios were limited to 1000 watts and most used a fraction of this. What I am suggesting is that Mabel could not have heard "AE" on Betty's 2 frequency options of 15525 or 18630, at 03:00 her time? So what frequency did she (supposedly) hear AE on? 3105 and 6210 of course, are out, unless one decides that Mabel alone in the USA was selected to hear this. Then- we have left 9315 ( 3x 3105 ) and 12420 ( 2x 6210 ). I believe that for 9315, the harmonic level was too low and the path loss too high for it to work. 12420 ? Maybe- however as the ham experience on 14,000 kcs. band shows, this frequency may have been too high for early-morning transmission for very weak signal. Anyway, more grist for the mill...maybe. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Let me say for umpteenth time that Betty's modern day recollections are ANECDOTAL and neither we nor you should regard them any differently than we do any anecdotal information. People remember stuff wrong and there is no way to be sure how much of a recollection is accurate and how much is not unless you can find a contemporaneous written source, photograph or artifact to corroborate it. Let me be more specific. Betty says she didn't touch the dial after she started hearing AE. If there was a notation in the notebook that said something like, " Have not adjusted dial." we could be pretty sure that her recollection is accurate, but for you to harp on this point in an attempt to show that proves anything is just as futile as it would be for me to claim that her recollection that Earhart used profanity proves that it could not have been a commercial broadcast. As for trying to figure out which harmonic Mabel may have been listening on, I don't know how you'd ever be able to reach a supportable conclusion that it was impossible that she heard a signal from the plane. Improbable yes. We already know that is true for any of the alleged receptions in the U.S., but improbable things happen every day. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:00:02 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Glacier Girl Thanks for the heads-up, Van. William Green wrote an excellent two-volume set of books, Famous Fighters of the Second World War (and two companion books of Bombers), Hanover House, 1958. His chapter on the P-38 contains the following: "...because of the premium on transatlantic shipping space it was decided to take advantage of the Lightning's exceptional range and try flying it across. No fighters had previously flown this hazardous route, but the pilots of the 1st and 14th Fighter Groups successfully pioneered the way, and before the route had closed for the winter 179 out of total of 186 Lightnings that had taken-off from the U.S.A. reached their destination, via Labrador, Greenland and Iceland, escorted by Boeing B-17 Fortresses for navigational direction." ********************************************************************* From Ric Now you're talkin' classic literature. I grew up with Green's books. I still have the copy of "Famous Fighters of the Second World War" that my Dad bought for me when I was 11 years old. It's pretty beat up but it's all original. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:04:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: J. David Goldin & March of Time I have received a very nice letter from Mr. Goldin. In part it reads: "As a former pilot, I would like nothing better than to help you unearth more details about Amelia Earhart. I do not have either 'March of Time' broadcasts you asked about. The closest I can come is July 29, 1937, and I note no mention of her. I have a 1931 and 1932 recording of Amelia Earhart and a 1947 recording of her mother, but they're probably not of much help. Details are on my website, radiogoldindex.com. Good luck!" Mr. Goldin then attached a description of the July 2, 1960, radio broadcast by KCBS which purported to solve the mystery "with documentation and eyewitnesses. Fascinating listening. 47 minutes." I would be happy to buy any or all of these tapes for TIGHAR headquarters if Ric or Pat thinks they'd be at all helpful. At the very least, we could listen to the July 29 broadcast (not about Amelia) to hear how the program was presented on the air. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes indeed. That's very generous of you Marty. Thank you. I wonder if the copyright situation would allow us to put any of it on the website as downloadable audio files? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:38:33 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: J. David Goldin & March of Time Marty, would Mr. Goldin have a broadcast in Dec 1937, reportedly a rerun or synopsis of the original MOT broadcasts on 8 and 19 July 37? I have a partial transcript of that broadcast. Can he search by subject or by program only? The 2 July 1960 broadcast by KCBS, Goerner's station in SF, sounds like his news conference and report of his trip with Akiyama to Saipan held on 1 July, studio E, Sheraton-Palace Hotel, SF. He displayed the Electra's "generator" and witness statements from 13 natives, etc. Mantz was there and "confirmed" that that was indeed Amelia's generator. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:56:03 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: J. David Goldin & March of Time Ric wrote: > ... I wonder if > the copyright situation would allow us to put any of it on the website as > downloadable audio files? First I'll order up the tapes. Then we can ask whether by permission or by "fair use" some short excerpts might be placed on the website. LTM. Marty #2359 ******************************************************************** From Ric I'd be surprised if Goldin holds the copyright. My guess is that either the recordings are now in the public domain or he is in violation of copyright by selling them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:57:29 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: J. David Goldin & March of Time Ron Bright wrote: > Marty, would Mr. Goldin have a broadcast in Dec 1937, reportedly a rerun > or synopsis of the original MOT broadcasts on 8 and 19 July 37? Yes, he does: 40751. The March Of Time. December 20, 1937. NBC net. Sponsored by: Time/Life. "The News Of 1937 In review." The second inauguration of President Roosevelt, labor unrest, a flooded prison in Kentucky, Roosevelt tries to "pack" the Supreme Court, Franco's revolution in Spain, Amelia Earhart disappears, the Hindenburg crashes, business declines, swing music becomes popular . 29:30. Audio condition: Very good. Complete. http://www.radiogoldindex.com/frame1.html > I have a > partial transcript of that broadcast. Can he search by subject or by > program only? Program or artist. > The 2 July 1960 broadcast by KCBS, Goerner's station in SF, sounds like > his news conference and report of his trip with Akiyama to Saipan held on > 1 July, studio E, Sherator-Palace Hotel, SF. He displayed the Electra's > "generator" and witness statements from 13 natives, etc. Mantz was there > and "confirmed" that that was indeed Amelia's generator. That sounds like the tape all right. People have said that it might include some snippets from the original Amelia broadcasts. It may be worth listening to. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:42 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Extraordinary Claims Ron Bright says: >Paige quotes the statement of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary >evidence". Let me ask you , isn't that an extraordinary claim in itself...got >proof? I don't understand this paragraph. The statement is a belief, or philosophy, that many people use to evaluate evidence, including me. It is not a claim. As such, the concept of proof doesn't apply. You can use whatever beliefs or philosophies you want to evaluate evidence, but I don't think we need to debate different philosophies right here, right now. > But to your claim. Can you specifically identify which of the 78 post loss >receptions (heard by professional operators) until about 12 July are >conclusively linked to Amelia Earhart's radio? Did she make all of them, or >were some from other sources? And the proof ? Could the batteries sustain >power? It is especially unlikely she made transmissions after 9 July from >Gardner. First, let me add that in addition to extraordinary evidence, one can include in the argument logical deductions. One can also never achieve 100% certainty in these historical observations, but one can indeed come to conclusions that are highly likely, and dwarf the likelihood of other conclusions. That's the best you can do. Further, I do not claim that the messages come from Gardner based upon radio evidence ... all I claim that you can deduce from the radio messages is that Earhart was on land. (I believe that other evidence points strongly in favor of Gardner) Although I haven't seen the entire set of post-loss messages, I think there is a lot of evidence to support my conclusion, not just one message. But, as one case in point, let's take the messages heard at 6:04Z and 6:06/6:07Z on July 2, by both Itasca and Achilles, as reported by Ric in this forum on 12/6/2002. There are two possibilities: 1) messages came from Earhart; or 2) message did not come from Earhart. If they came from Earhart, then the best experts in 1937, and now, inform us that to broadcast the plane must be on land. But, of course, could the messages be from someone else? The question is: who else? TIGHAR (Ric) has done considerable research into the logs of naval ships in the Pacific at that time, none indicate in their official message logs any such broadcast (see Ric's post to this forum on 3/2/03). Could anyone else out there in the general vicinity of Howland (say 1000 miles) also be broadcasting? We know of no one in that region with the capability (which was very rare) of broadcasting voice on 3105 ... well, with one exception, that is ... the one station capable of broadcasting voice on 3105 was Earhart. So that's my logic, if there is anyone else out there that night, we don't know about them, and even if they were there, it would be very unusual for them to be capable of broadcasting voice on 3105. Two events are required, both with low probability. Thus the overwhelming probability is that the broadcast was from Earhart. Does this prove it 100%? No, of course not. Does it make the most likely conclusion the broadcast from Earhart? Yes I believe so. Does it make it extremely unlikely that the broadcast was from someone else. Yes I believe so. (You are free to believe something different if you choose, and if so, a clear explanation would always be appreciated.) > For those who make a claim that contradicts the theory that there are no >"proved" Earhart receptions, the burden-of -proof should be on you. There are many camps here. Can TIGHAR do more research and provide more conclusive proof? Yes, if they think it is necessary. What about the splashed- and-sank theorists? Do they have to explain this evidence? Yes, definitely, they have a burden of proof too. This evidence directly supports Earhart on land. It directly contradicts splashed-and-sank. Unless further information is forthcoming. Splashed-and-sank can no longer simply say "someone else was out therein the vicinity of Howland making those broadcasts". Their burden of proof is that they have to say who was out there in the middle of the Pacific broadcasting voice on 3105. They have to provide evidence, they cannot simply say so. LTM (who doesn't believe in mystery ships) Paige Miller #2565 **************************************************************************** From Ric One quick clarification: We do not have message logs from any of the ships in the area except for the Itasca, however, Itasca was part of the official net and was copied on everything that was sent, so it's message logs give us a complete record of the official message traffic during the search. If there was unofficial message traffic - for example, one commercial vessel communicating with another commercial vessel on a frequency that was not monitored by the searchers - we wouldn't know about it, but I don't see how such communications could have any bearing on the post- loss radio receptions. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:34 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: more on continental USA reports Ric wrote: > Betty says she didn't touch the dial after she started hearing AE. If there > was a notation in the notebook that said something like, " Have not adjusted > dial." we could be pretty sure that her recollection is accurate, but for you > to harp on this point in an attempt to show that proves anything is just as > futile as it would be for me to claim that her recollection that Earhart used > profanity proves that it could not have been a commercial broadcast. Perhaps we have different views on the reliability of this contemporaneous document. The curator of this document since whenever it was created, is the the same person revealing and interpreting it, is this not correct? As for contemporaneous evidence, the ONLY date in the document is "July 1937". So the whole account, written and verbal, actually is one whole anecdote, is this not correct? We have already discussed the quality of the penmanship in the notebook - the official view is that Betty was "careful to write neatly the important parts of the messages" -while others have pointed out the comparison to the writing's appearance when she was "only" trying to get down the words of a song going by. Okay, maybe quality over quantity, when you're taking down parts of an emergency message. I note from the interview video, the notebook is also quite a flimsy paper deal, although when Betty leaned back against the radio, and wrote in the notebook, her cursive writing managed to turn out perfect, almost ornamental. > As for trying to figure out which harmonic Mabel may have been listening on, > I don't know how you'd ever be able to reach a supportable conclusion that > it was impossible that she heard a signal from the plane. Improbable yes. > We already know that is true for any of the alleged receptions in the U.S., > but improbable things happen every day. We maybe differ on this also. We can absolutely rule out 3105, 6210, 18630, and perhaps 15525 - because of the local time where heard. Okay, if you prefer probabilities, we could talk probabilities approaching zero. We can also start with a safe assumption, altho it needs further work, that AE's transmitter was not some magic harmonic generator, spewing a range of harmonics like some spectrum generator, with equal viability for each one. In the Mabel case, to summarize my contention, is that the early morning hours rule out the higher harmonics we were previously talking about, and looking at the power / loss situation for the other possibles will do the same. Okay, I need to work on this, and I am, at a glacial pace, but I do expect to have some authoritative input for you, not *my opinion*, eventually, just don't hold your breath. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric The authenticity of any allegedly historic document is worthy of close examination, especially if the document only appears in later years and the curator was a private individual rather than an institution. Other Earhart-related documents which fall into this category include the raw Itasca radio log provided by chief Radioman Leo Bellarts and the Chater letter found in the Placer Dome files. In each case the documents have to be authenticated based upon their appearance and content. When Betty's notebook first came to our attention a great deal of research and discussion was conducted by this forum to authenticate its appearance and content (non-Earhart related content). You'll find all of those discussions in the forum archive. After you have reviewed them, if you have specific challenges to the notebook's authenticity as a historical document based upon facts rather than your own opinions, we'll be happy to hear them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:36 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Thanks for your clarification. The first paragraph is the debater's counterpunch to the old adage that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence by the reply that that is an "extraordinary" claim , what's your proof? I don't understand it either, as no one can define the terms involved. All claims or statements of "fact" require good solid evidence to be proven, no more no less. And what is proof ? The standards? I suggest we hold off on the evaluation of the signal evidence that one or more of the signals on 3105 received by the professional stations during that first few days of AE's loss was from Earhart, or "more than likely" or whatever standard of proof we shall require. Hence the TIGHAR SIGNAL MATRIX comparing frequencies, times, point of origin, reception locations, operator evaluations, and content may be one of the best and significant research projects going in the past 10 years. It could certainly change a lot of minds about what may have happened after her last "known" signal. I don't know of any other source that has put together this matrix. LTM, Ronald Bright 2342S ************************************************************************** From Ric A little more clarification: After careful consideration I decided to drop the term "matrix". It's a nice trendy word but it really doesn't fit what we're doing. We have assembled a "catalog" of all of the known post-loss radio "events" and have used that catalog to conduct a quantitative "study" that charts the "distribution" of the events by time, geography, frequency, station type, and signal type. Where patterns become apparent we look for matching patterns that might explain them. For example, does the number of reported events rise with the number of radio-equipped ships participating in the search? Does the pattern of events over time match the pattern of media coverage of the search? Where corresponding patterns suggest a possible explanation we make a detailed qualitative examination of the events involved to see if the hypothesis holds up. It's a tedious process but it's the only way I know to approach the problem and end up with useful results. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:31:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Ron Bright wrote: > I suggest we hold off on the evaluation of the signal evidence that one or > more of the signals on 3105 received by the professional stations during that > first few days of AEs loss was from Earhart, or "more than likely" or > whatever standard of proof we shall require. Good idea, Ron. Let me go further. I have not seen all the material Ric is about to present but I know in general what the content will be and what the obvious analysis will be. Let me see if I can summarize and if I'm off base Ric will leap in here and straighten things out. I'm doing this as sort of a preemptive strike at the faction who will attempt to put all of this down as they have nothing constructive of their own to offer. I am NOT talking to those who legitimately attempt to show where a mistake has been made or where a radio call should be eliminated from consideration for a specific reason other than someone's mere opinion. The entire body of radio calls will consist of transmissions that TIGHAR has for some reason not been able to get Earhart to confirm emphatically that she was the one who made the radio call. Pity. SO, for those who are all ready to make the point the calls have not been 100% confirmed, don't bother. Please don't waste everyone's time with that response. We already know that. Don't bother trying to say the same thing in a "clever" way. No one is that clever. Along with the body of radio calls there will be information to indicate why the calls were not reasonably attributed to hoaxers or other search units or other broadcast stations. That information will state why it is unlikely the calls can be easily explained away. It will NOT say it is impossible. If you plan on arguing any particular call COULD be explained away with some unlikely reason don't bother. We already know that. Don't bother trying to claim that if one call can be explained away they all can. That's not logical. TIGHAR will no doubt be arguing the calls are MORE probably legitimate than not. Don't bother arguing the calls are LESS probably legitimate than not. Anyone can do that without even knowing what the subject is. The information will probably be presented for your information and consideration not as definite clear proof of anything. Believe it or not. No one cares. There will also be the little game of trying to get TIGHAR to make a specific statement that can then be fired upon. I think everyone is on to that. Don't bother. If, however, someone can clearly see where a specific radio call has been mistakenly included and you can PROVE it was not possibly an AE transmission please tell everyone. Anyone who simply wants to not believe whatever is certainly welcome to do so. All I'm suggesting is the usual opposition is wasteful nonsense. Oppose with good clear reasoning and that is very welcome. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:50:08 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: "Catalog" of Radio Signals Whatever you call it, it will be a nice new addition to the research that someone 60 years ago should have done. It may not yield anything to hang your hat, but who knows. The post loss mess remains a mystery simply because of the huge number and I guess every researcher picks and chooses what he wants. I would suggest that all the message you have be addressed. The claim that the 06-0607Z messages could have been from AE was, I thought , resolved with the comparison of the msg content and the precise time Itasca transmitted and Achilles received. Long, p.219, says that after much discussion between the ships, they realized it was the ITASCA requesting the dashes with the KHAQQ call sign. Or do you have a different interpretation? He adds a cite. ( It was Paige Miller making that conclusion/statement) Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric In a nut shell: Achilles heard somebody say, "Give us a few dashes if you hear us." They then heard a different station send some dashes. Then they heard the first station said "KHAQQ" twice. It was Achilles' opinion that either of the stations might have been the airplane. A look at Itasca's radio log makes it pretty clear that the "first station" was the Itasca. Itasca asked Earhart to send dashes but heard no reply. Achilles heard Itasca ask for the dashes but ONLY ACHILLES heard the dashes that came in reply. Itasca tried to call Earhart (KHAQQ) again and Achilles heard that also before the signal faded out. So the pertinent questions are: - Who sent dashes on 3105 in response to Itasca's call to Earhart? - Whoever it was, why could Achilles hear the dashes but not Itasca? This is an example of the kind of event that gets a detailed examination in the study. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:51:03 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Those damned clips The clips are a puzzle that continues to baffle me. I'm trying to come up with some way to learn more about them. I have seen no recent postings on them. Is there any new knowledge or new thoughts? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:52:38 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: For Hue from Betty Hue, you are at it again... putting things in your emails that use words supposed to belong to me, and shade the truth of what I said .....What do you mean about I called it a "TV hole "in front of the radio until this was dispelled (Coaching?) ....My Dad was told that it was to put a TV in later. Lots of people hadn't even heard of TV at that time....No one coached me to say anything different.. Can't you play fair???? Betty ******************************************** From Ric I think I'm in love. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:09:35 EST From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals Ric writes: > So the pertinent questions are: > - Who sent dashes on 3105 in response to Itasca's call to Earhart? > - Whoever it was, why could Achilles hear the dashes but not Itasca? So, do we know where the Achilles was stationed during these transmissions? ******************************************************************** From Ric Yup. She was enroute from Samoa up to Hawaii. At the time of this event she was at about 10 degrees South, 160.5 degrees West which puts her several hundred miles south and east of the Phoenix Group. This is a very complex and interesting event which we'll cover thoroughly in the study. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:11:50 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims For Alan Caldwell, Question - Why do you find it necessary at times to become the Earhart Forum behavior guardian? - No disrespect intended just curious. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:19:21 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals > Whoever it was, why could Achilles hear the dashes but not Itasca? Not that this is going to tell anyone anything specific but where was the Achilles at that time? I've forgotten. I hate to ask because someone is bound to try to plot the positions and arbitrarily decide the Electra has to be someplace specific due to the transmission being heard by one ship and not the other. Receptions skip all over the place it would appear from my experience. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric See my reply to Bruce Yoho for Achilles' position. It's true that receptions can "skip all over the place" and that's why you can't draw hard conclusions based on a single signal but, as a general rule, the closer you are the better you hear. If you have a whole bunch of receptions over time of similar distinctive signals at varying strengths and at various locations, it should be possible to draw valid conclusions about the general area where the signals must be originating. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:20:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty > Lots of people hadn't even heard of TV at that time.... Before folks jump on Betty for the TV comment let me tell you that the first TV broadcast was in 1908. It was a closed circuit transmission in Chicago by Ken Murray, star of "Blackout" a stage production and later a TV personality. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42:25 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals The Achilles sounds more complicated than I originally thought. On page 70, Donahue reports the Achilles msgs that are quoted in a msg from Tutuila to ITASCA, then adds that the Achilles sent the first signal while the Lockheed was"still airborne." Do we have a time of that first msg? RDO TUTILA was sending msgs to ITASCA about the Achilles' reception. Both Tutulia msgs were included in Thompson's report, but "neither of them evoked any comment by him. Incidental, "Please give us a few dashes of if you get us," was not recorded in the ITASCA communication logs". Just as you said. I imagine you have the ACHILLES radio log. This "dash" msg, coming some 11 hours after her last, seems intriguing and probably will require a lot of analysis. I can't follow it, particularly the time that Donahue claims that the first msg came when the Electra was still flying. I am sure we can all wait for the analysis that is forthcoming. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric I have no idea where Donohue got such nonsense - but then, the same can be said for the rest of his book. We do not have Achilles' logbook. Here's what happened. At 07:30Z on July 3, USN Radio Tutuila, Samoa advises Itasca: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM HMS ACHILLES AT 0730 GMT QUOTE UNKNOWN STATION HEARD TO MAKE QUOTE PLEASE GIVE US A FEW DASHES IF YOU GET US UNQUOTE HEARD GOOD STRENGTH BOTH ON 3105 KCS STOP FIRST STATION THEN MADE KHAQQ TWICE DISAPPEARED STOP NOTHING MORE HEARD OF EITHER AT 0620 GMT UNQUOTE ACHILLES POSITION AT 0700 GMT 10.00 SOUTH 16050 WEST That is the version that appears in Thompson's report. Tutuila also advised Coast Guard San Francisco. When George Putnam heard about this he asked the Navy to ask Achilles if they were sure that they heard the call letters KHAQQ clearly. At 21:05Z Tutuila sent the following to Achilles: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM COMMANDER HAWAIIN [SIC] STATION USCG HONOLULU TH QUOTE PUTNAM HAS REQUESTED THIS OFFICE MAKE EFFORT CONFIRM HMS ACHILLES GOT CALL LETTERS KHAQQ CLEARLY AND CERTAINLY UNQUOTE PLEASE ADVISE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF CALL WAS RECEIVED CLEARLY AND CERTAINLY IN ORDER THAT REPLY MAY BE MADE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE At 22:00Z HMS Achilles sent the following to USN Radio Tutuila, Samoa: AT 0600/3 GMT AN [SIC] TELEPHONE TRANSMITTER WITH HARSH NOTE WAS HEARD TO MAKE PLEASE GIVE US A FEW DASHES IF YOU GET US. A SECOND TRANSMITTER WAS THEN HEARD TO MAKE DASHES WITH NOTE MUSICAL STRENGTH GOOD. FIRST TRANSMITTER THEN MADE KHAQQ TWICE BEFORE FADING OUT. THE EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT EITHER TRANSMITTER WAS THE AIRPLANE ITSELF. WAVE FREQUENCY WAS 3105 KCS. COMMANDING OFFICER HMS ACHILLES At 23:05Z USN Radio Tutuila passed that message on to COMHAWSEC (Commander Coast Guard Hawaiian Section. At 01:03Z July 4th, COMHAWSEC passed the full message on to COMFRANDIV (Commander Coast Guard San Francisco Division) accurately. ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence), CGHQ (Coast Guard Headquarters), and COM12 (Commandant 12th Naval District) were copied in at the same time. But nobody sent the clarified version of the event to Itasca so Itasca never knew that dashes had been heard. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:43:11 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Guardianship Tom Strang asked of Alan: "Why do you find it necessary at times to become the Earhart Forum behavior guardian?" I was thinking of him more as a hallway monitor. You know, the guy who told the teacher every time you talked or misbehaved. :-) LTM, who mostly obeys Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:45:05 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty Actually, I think the "TV Hole" in the radio is something that Betty mentioned long ago. Perhaps Alan Caldwell just missed it. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************ From David Katz For Alan Caldwell, If you are going to act as the authority for many of the things on this forum, I suggest you endeavor to get your facts straight (something you regularly chastise others for failing to do). The first television broadcast was not in 1908; nor was it closed circuit. The broadcast to which you refer was on August 27, 1930 in Chicago, and it was broadcast, not by closed circuit, but over the airwaves to a few hundred radio dealer showrooms throughout the Chicago area that had been specially equipped with television receivers for the demonstration. The broadcaster was an experimental television broadcast station, W9XAP, that was owned by the Chicago Daily News. The broadcast was picture only (no sound); however, synchronized sound was broadcast through radio station WMAQ. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:21:12 EST From: Joe Weber Subject: Purdue Giving Access to more Papers According to today's Bedford (IN) Times-Mail (p.C1) Monday Purdue University for the first time will 'famed aviatrix Amelia Earhart's most private items, including love letters, fan mail and her last signature will be available for the public to view at an exhibit". The items are part of an almost 500 piece collection her family gave Purdue last spring. The Exhibit is entitled "Flight Trails." "The Flight Trails Exhibit in the new Stewart Center Gallery, closes April 27. Pieces from Palmer Putnam's first gift to Purdue, as well as the most recent gift will be on display at the Indiana Historical Society from April 16-Aug 3" The article give also the urls of : http://www.lib.purdue.edu/aearhart and Indiana Historical Society http://www.indianahistory.org/ There is a good picture of her walking in front of the Electra. Doesn't say where or when it was taken. (My scanner software doesn't do half-tones) Included are : the good-bye letter she wrote her parents in case she did not return from her 1928 trans-Atlantic Trip; A passport from her 1932 Solo trans-Atlantic Trip ; flight logs from the same flight; a draft of a "pre-nup" proposed by Earhart to Putnam expressing her "reluctance to marry" and adhere to the institutions "medaeval (sic) codes"; George Palmer Putnam's correspondence and documentation from the search for his wife. "Purdue is digitizing all of the pieces of the collection and making many available on the internet" per Katherine Markee, associate Prof. of Library Science. You want me to mail you the article, Ric? Joe Weber Bedford, IN ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks for the heads-up Joe. No need to send the article. It will be interesting to see there is anything new in the "Putnam's correspondence and documentation from the search for his wife." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:34:14 EST From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty The very first television picture was transmitted by John Logie Baird in 1926 from one room to another. In 1927 he successfully sent a moving image along telephone wires from London to Glasgow, and the following year he achieved the first trans-Atlantic television broadcast. Baird also applied his genius to many other revolutionary electronic signal fields such as fibre-optics and, during the war, radar. http://www.scotclans.com/clans/1926.htm Dale ************************************************************************* From Ric Alba go bragh. ************************************************************************ From Alan Chris Kennedy wrote: >Perhaps Alan Caldwell just missed it. I was not the one writing about a TV Hole. I think that was Hue. Alan *************************************************************************** From Alan > If you are going to act as the authority for many of the things on this > forum, I suggest you endeavor to get your facts straight (something you > regularly chastise others for failing to do). Katz, if you're incapable of a civil response don't make any at all. I have never claimed to be an authority of anything. Clearly the incident I referred to was not accurate as Murray was only five in 1908. The event however I mentioned was NOT on the airwaves but via wire from one room to another. It was not "aired anywhere. It WAS in 1908 and a simple early experiment. Should I find the source I will be happy to supply it to you. Alan *********************************************************************** From Ric The above posting has been edited for civility. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:36:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Tom Strang wrote: > For Alan Caldwell, > Question - Why do you find it necessary at times to become the > Earhart Forum behavior guardian? Not behavior, Tom. Although I guess you're right to the extent I nick at folks who like to put down ideas instead of offering their own. That always turns out to be a difference of opinion I imagine as the argument is that simply disagreeing is also a positive offering. I just see it as otherwise. We have outstanding people working very hard to research and analyze all the issues this business has to offer. Anyone can then sit back with no effort and simply disagree which they are entitled to do but it doesn't accomplish anything. what I keep fussing about is I would like to see less of that as it takes up a lot of response time. It would be a bigger help for the various critics to give a measured reason as to why something is wrong. Katz, nicked back at me for my 1908 TV comment but at least he offered what he thought the correct information should have been. That's the way it should be to move the search forward. I've been around long enough to anticipate a lot of posting in response to the post loss radio messages that only try to debunk them with the only basis being they haven't been 100% confirmed. We've already started getting those. If I could prove any one of those radio messages a hoax or definitely not from AE I would be the first to do it right behind Ric and a few others. But I can't do it just by claiming they aren't confirmed. We all know that. Maybe none of them are from AE. Who knows. Look at all the postings suggesting the Electra couldn't broadcast all the way to Betty. Did you ever notice any good support for that contention? But a lot of folks worked hard trying to explain why it WAS possible. My complaint is a lack of substance not about behavior. Everyone is welcome to behave any way they want. I appreciate the question, Tom. Although it obviously sounds like I'm chastising I don't mean it that way. I'm pleading. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:38:54 EST From: Bob lee Subject: Small world - pretty off topic I just got off the phone with my Mom and mentioned the Tighar raffle. She said that she met Amelia at Purdue University in '36 or '37 at a parents night. My mom's sister attended Purdue in those years and they traveled from Chicago for the event. I do remember having an Earhart book around our house when I was growing up. I did read it and it probably accounts for my long standing interest in the subject. I couldn't tell you which book -- it's probably been almost 40 years! Bob **************************************************************************** From Ric My guess would be Goerner's best-seller "The Search For Amelia Earhart" 1966 or the much rarer "Daughter Of The Sky" by Paul Briand 1960. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:40:44 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals >Receptions skip all over the place it would appear from >my experience. Alan, are you saying that the extensive ionospheric propagation studies made by/for Tighar are just unscientific -a complete waste of time? I've used simplified propagation software for a few years, and find it a great help. Regards. Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:43:35 EST From: Jim Kellar Subject: Tom King in Hawaii Tonight I attended Tom King's excellent presentation to the Hawaiian Historical Society. I was hoping to hear about the new "discovery" which Tom did in fact mentioned as much as he could. I was dumbfounded when, in response to any questions from the audience, one Gentleman got up and indicated that he was mentioned in Tom's book as "what's his name" and immediately began to attempt to dispel most of the content of Tom's presentation...his initials were R. R. Jim Kellar Honolulu ************************************************************************** From Ric Hoooo Boy. I'm sure Tom appreciated the input. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:47:09 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: refraction variability Ric wrote: > You may believe that Noonan had the capability to do that, and maybe he did. > And maybe he didn't. If he had the capability maybe that's what he did, or > maybe he made a different decision than Gary LaPook would make. If you said that you were going to swim to the bottom of the swimming pool and hold your breath and you didn't say anything more I wouldn't expect to find you still there an hour later. You have to make reasonable inferences from the statements made even when the statements are silent as to the subject of the inferences. My inferences are based on well established navigational techniques used by other navigators of the era and well known to Noonan (in fact he is credited with developing some of them.) Even though the last messages are silent about what they are going to do to locate Howland it is reasonable to infer that they will use the standard navigational techniques in that attempt. gl ************************************************************************** From Ric You can make all the inferences you want but don't confuse them with facts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:52:00 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: refraction variability Ric wrote: > Gary's observation that AE and FN were probably figuring on hitting sun-up > much closer to Howland than they did - and thus had a much longer daylight > run-in to the island than anticipated - was worth waiting for. It's just a > shame that we have to wade through all the manure to find the occasional pony > but that's the way it goes. Come on Ric, not that much "manure." Admittedly I get pretty long winded some times but I just want to give everybody enough information to evaluate the points I am trying to make. Also, I keep in mind that some people are tuning for the first time so I like to divine the terms so that they can follow the discussion too. gl ************************************************************************** From Ric If you're trying to reach first-timers I submit that it is especially important to keep it short and simple. Nothing makes most people's eyes glaze over more quickly than celestial navigation (unless it's radio propagation). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:54:14 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Stoker wrote: >What occurs to me is that > unless the heading approaching Howland is 67 degrees, there is an angular > difference from the lop that causes the timing to reach the exact 157/337 > line, (from the initial lop plot), which passes directly through Howland to be > different if north or south. I responded: >Since the LOP that they were on determined by shooting the sun within one hour >after sunrise at Howland runs 157* - 337* it is parallel to the same LOP that >runs through Howland. Since the two LOPs are parallel it is exactly the same >distance between them whether north or south of Howland so there would be no >difference in timing the run to the turn in point. Stoker asked: >Question: when was the last opportunity for FN to >make a 2 or 3 celestial body observation and get both latitude and longitude? Sunrise at Howland was 1746 Z and civil twilight occurred 22 minutes earlier at 1724 Z at which point the sky would have been too bright to see the stars and to obtain a fix. Sunrise and civil twilight would have occurred even later at their position west of Howland by an additional one minute for each 15 NM that they were west of Howland. We can assume that they had arrived close to Howland at 1912Z when they reported "must be on you." This is 1 hour and 48 minutes after civil twilight at Howland. and the Electra would have flown 235 nautical miles in this time at 130 knots. Civil twilight occurred 16 minutes later 235 west of Howland so they could have obtained a fix slightly later than 1724 Z at 1740 Z which would mean that the plane flew one hour and 32 minutes from a 1740 Z fix to the 1912 Z report covering approximately 195 NM. Using Weem's standard for DR accuracy of 5% of the distance flown, this would produce a possible DR inaccuracy of slightly less than 10 NM. Add to this inaccuracy of 10 NM the possible prior fix uncertainty if 10 NM gives a total uncertainty of their DR of only 20 NM. at the time of the 1912 Z report. Using a more conservative estimate of DR accuracy of 10% of the distance traveled then the uncertainty becomes 19.5 NM plus the original 10 NM fix uncertainty for a total uncertainty of 29.5 NM. gl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:54:46 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Alan Thank You for trying to focus our scope. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:41:41 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Alan wrote: > We have outstanding people working very hard to research and analyze all the > issues this business has to offer... It would be a bigger help for the various > critics to give a measured reason as to why something is wrong. What you have is a limited number of people still interested in this arcane topic. If you had the best people of the WHOLE scientific population working on these issues, you might have some additional varying input. For example, to one story I keep coming back to (and it has *not* gotten any stronger, has it, with time? ), the Betty account. If you submitted that story now, with its dates and content, to impartial judges from the science and history (and graphology) communities, what do you believe the overall conclusions would be? An *impartial* jury, not a selected jury of believers. > Look at all the postings suggesting the Electra couldn't broadcast all the > way to Betty. Did you ever notice any good support for that contention? But a > lot of folks worked hard trying to explain why it WAS possible. BS. You have ONE supposed expert analysis of path loss mathematics and then others' opinions yea or nay. And that analysis starts without any firm figure for the actual output of the plate circuit of the vacuum tube transmitter to the actual RF current in the antenna, disregarding power level and antenna matching issues. The nay-sayers have mostly opined from practical experience, which doesn't cut it in this court, and I have no major problem with that, against ONE analysis blinding us with science or mis-science. I travel slowly, but if I have to hire a radio propagation consulting firm, I will do this. I am moving slowly in this direction now. If you think nay-saying posts are actually crowding out good, substantial information from coming through, maybe the rules of the forum should be modified: No more contrary posts, only happy talk! But before that measure is instituted, Alan, what is YOUR opinion of the story line now, that days after the landing on Niku, we have AE and FN back in the plane, panic stricken, water still up to knees, listening to a radio receiver that's been flooded for days, AE fighting to keep FN from using his microphone, while she broadcasts that fight to the world? You don't need an electronics or physics background to have a conclusion on that, so please, make a contribution to our grasp of that issue Or, is having a doubt on that issue too anti-progress? Hue *********************************************************************** From Ric You need to make up your mind Hue. Is this forum just a chorus of believers or is there a nay-saying crowd that puts out good, substantial information? Your obsessive campaign to discredit Betty's notebook has been going on unfettered for months now and you're still a voice in the wilderness with perhaps one or two adherents. You've tried repeatedly to make your case but your argument keeps coming down to your own opinion that the event is not credible. I think I just heard you make the argument that this forum is not relevant unless it agrees with you. As always, we'll welcome any evidence you can come up with support your case but meanwhile we'll continue to examine this and all the other post-loss radio issues with the best resources available to us. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:46:47 EST From: Tim Henderson Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Has Robert Ballard ever been approached about a search for Amelia's plane? He recently located PT 109 which was a small needle in a haystack. Tim Henderson....still burning the landing lights *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess you're new to the forum Tim. Ballard has no interest in looking for Amelia Earhart and we have no interest in changing his mind. And the claim that he found Pt 109 is bogus. He did not find anything that established that the little bit of wreckage he found was from PT 109. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:48:45 EST From: Rom Corbitt Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty Re: Baird as inventor of television Not true. Baird was one of several early mechanical television inventors, but not the first. Charles Jenkins started working on his system in America in the late 1890's and was transmitting by late 1923 (Baird's first wireless tests were mid 1924.) By 1928 Jenkins had sold around 1000+ receiving sets and was transmitting television signals via W3XK. In time over 40 stations would transmit television signals using his standard. Farnsworth, the inventor of what we now consider television, designed his electronic television system around 1923 and was transmitting test patterns via radio waves by 1927. I have a 1930 Radio Physics book that has a section on television, with two electro mechanical plans and an overview of the "promising Farnsworth Image Dissector" television system, which they predict will one day replace mechanical systems. Tom Corbitt ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:35:58 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Great News We have just received word from Fiji that Nai'a (the ship we use for our expeditions to Niku) has enough paying customers to conduct their 2003 Phoenix Rising Expedition to the Phoenix Group of which TIGHAR's Niku V Preliminary Expedition (Niku Vp) is a part. This means that we'll be able to send a small TIGHAR team to Nikumaroro this June to do vital reconnaissance and data gathering in preparation for the major Niku V effort planned for 2004. Of course, this also means that we'll be able to check out the possible Electra component spotted by a marine biologist last year. With the present world situation there was real doubt that Nai'a would be able to find enough passengers who would and could pay the $9,300 charter fee to make the long and arduous trip. As recently as a month ago the chances of an expedition going out this year could best be described as slim to none, but thanks to a few TIGHAR members who recognize how important it is that we get this preliminary work done, the trip is officially on. The dates have been moved very slightly for logistical reasons. Nai'a will now depart Lautoka, Fiji on May 31 and return on June 23. The exact itinerary has not yet been finalized but we know we'll have enough time at Niku to do the work and gather the information we need. At this time, the TIGHAR team will be made up of TIGHAR board of directors member Skeet Gifford ( a veteran of both the 1999 and 2001 expeditions), Walt Holm (a member of the Dive Team on the 2001 trip), and Karin Sinniger (a diver who completed the TIGHAR aviation archeology course and field school at Edwards AFB, CA last October). We very much want to send our Dive Team Leader, Van Hunn, along on this trip. Van is a veteran of the past three TIGHAR expeditions to Nikumaroro and accompanied me on the 2001 archival research trip to Tarawa. Van has also been working very closely with me on researching the identification and, if appropriate, recovery of the suspected Electra component. Raising the $10,000 needed to send Van along is one of the primary goals of the Paradise Now raffle. We also very much want to raise the money needed to send TIGHAR Earhart Project Advisory Council member Marty Moleski to Fiji for six weeks to continue the search for the bones. Marty's special circumstances make it possible for us to send him on that mission for the bargain basement price of about $5,000. It's an opportunity we don't want to miss. So we need to raise $15,000 a soon as possible. The Paradise Now raffle has now covered its administrative costs and is making progress against that goal ($1,675 so far). Obviously we need to keep pushing. Now is the time for all good TIGHARs............ If you haven't bought chances in the Paradise Now raffle please do so. If you have, buy some more. It's easy via TIGHAR secure website at www.tighar.org LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:40:20 EST From: David Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty Holy Cow! Now we are in full-fledged rebuttals about who invented or started inventing or had the first inkling of it! my money is on Leonardo da Vinci . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims > Alan Thank You for trying to focus our scope. Thanks, Ron for the support but I am not really trying to focus our scope though I may come off that way. Communication by email is worse even than face to face. To focus almost implies narrowing the scope which I would certainly not want to do. Nor would I want to discourage dissent. We need all the positive offerings we can get and all the dissent anyone wants to offer IF, IF , IF the dissenters will also provide support for the dissent rather than mere opinion. I don't even have a problem with someone saying for example I don't think Betty's notebook is legitimate but I have no reason other than a gut feeling. The dissenters don't even go that far but rather pretend through what they may think is clever language that they actually are showing evidence to support their position. If that's what you mean by focus then right on. Opinions are fine. Just label them so so we don't have to waste time on them if we don't wish. Many mere opinions can be valuable in sprouting new ideas. I just object to opinions being couched in the cloak of fact or rationale and to the constant putdowns. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:42:34 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: refraction variability Gary wrote > I get pretty long winded some > times but I just want to give everybody enough information to evaluate the > points I am trying to make. Gary, without getting in between you and Ric on this I appreciate this particular "long winded" dissertation on possible error on that in bound leg. Admittedly there are some assumptions involved and errors can also cancel each other out as they are not necessarily all additive but it is still important to have some kind of handle on a possible error at Howland. Alan, who can also be long winded and a creator of long sentences. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:45:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals Christian wrote: > >Receptions skip all over the place it would appear from my experience. > > Alan, are you saying that the extensive ionospheric propagation studies > made by/for Tighar are just unscientific -a complete waste of time? No, Christian, I'm saying "Receptions skip all over the place it would appear from my experience." Alan ******************************************************************* From Ric From my experience it would appear that the sun sinks into the sea every night and is reborn each morning. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:50:51 EST From: David Carmack Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Sorry Ric-- I respectfully disagree here. I think Hue makes very good points as do others . Just because some don't have the expertise to back up their contrary opinions doesn't make them wrong, or mean that they shouldn't express them. I throw some out myself sometimes in the hope that some here that do have the expertise would use it to prove or disprove it. I don't have any concrete examples but I would bet there have been lots of times in history in many different arenas where some numbskull assistant said something like--hey , why don't you just connect these thingamabobs!! ..and the expert tried it and it worked! like the joke about the members of Mensa in a restaurant---they were trying to figure out how they could get the pepper into the salt shaker and the salt in the pepper shaker only touching them once or something like that-------the waitress came over, asked them what they were trying to do...after they told her, she took the lid off the salt shaker , put it on the pepper and the lid off the pepper onto the salt. I don't have it quite right but you get the idea. I think what Hue and many others would like to see is the same effort put towards proving or disproving anyone's idea...not just what side TIGHAR believes in. I see no more obsession on Hue's part ,and he does try to back up most of his ideas with knowledge, than the obsession you and Alan and others have regarding your own ideas. And it often sounds like no one else's ideas are relevant unless they agree with TIGHAR's unless they have absolute, irrefutable, video tape proof . It seems like there is just too much bias sometimes. Of course all the disagreements do keep things interesting. I know you cant examine every hair-brained idea people have...but at the same time a person can also get to narrow -minded and believe in only their own idea too much. I see no more malicious intent in Hue's postings than I do in some on the other side of the fence, including your own sometimes Ric. I think everyone here wants to see the same result-- finding what really happened. I hope no one is looking at it from the standpoint of wanting to be able to say--I told you so. Its so hard to keep personal feelings and egos out of things like this, on both sides, and that's exactly what detracts from the main focus and being able to keep an open mind in a civil manner. It's fascinating and wonderful to see all the people with knowledge and expertise in different fields putting them to use here, but the insinuations, and egos really do weaken the entire effort. Why not just declare sequester everyone with different ideas and suspend the whole forum till one side or the other can come back with either the plane or proof with Gods stamp of approval on it . David C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:47:18 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Winds or errors? Randy Jacobson wrote: >The reason for the northward track of the Oakland to Honolulu flight >relative to the great circle or rhumb line path was due to southerly winds >of a fairly major weather cell, documented in weather charts compiled after the flight from contemporary observations. Whilst you may in a sense be right, this presupposes that Noonan was making either no allowance for wind vector in his headings or far too little. Surely the reason for the northward track is actually navigational error(s) or incorrect forecasts or are we to assume that Noonan didn't bother with wind corrections? The fact that there seems to have been enough weather information to later compile a weather chart rather suggests that there should have been enough for a reasonably accurate forecast. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:56:08 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals During that "post signal loss time" there was some pretty severe weather encountered by the PBY out of Hawaii I was wondering if your radio people took into consideration that cold air mass and figured it into "skip" equations? Mike J. ************************************************************************** From Ric There are no "skip" equations and I know of no "cold air mass" in the region. As I recall, Randy found that the severe weather the PBY encountered appears to have been a local condition. Electrical storms can cause locally severe static but the PBY was a long way from the search area. Do any of our radio gurus have further thoughts on this? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:46:07 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims For Alan Caldwell, Thank you for your response to my question - I appreciate your candor, it clarifies your previous posts. Respectfully: Tom Strang *********************************************************************** From David Katz > Katz, nicked back at me for my 1908 TV comment but at least he offered what > he thought the correct information should have been. That's the way it should > be to move the search forward. Actually, it was more than the "1908" reference. The incident I cited from 1930 in Chicago was the first commercial "broadcast", that is, it was sent over the airways (as opposed to closed-circuit), it was sponsored by commercial enterprises, and it was aired to the general public. Of course none of this has anything to do with the search for Amelia Earhart (or Betty's notebook, for that matter) so we should drop it entirely. David Katz ******************************************************************** From Jackie Tharp To David Carmack: I'd like to give you one great big THANK YOU for your insights on the forum. I have often thought and felt the same sentiments, and really appreciate the way you've articulated them. I stopped participating in the forum for quite a while for just those reasons... Way to Go.... Jackie Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:48:38 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty I rather thought my reply to "Caldwell" was civil. Katz ************************************************************* From Ric I guess civil is in the eye of the subscriber. Everybody is a bit touchy these days. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:56:27 EST From: Jim Preston Subject: A Pilot's Question? Ric, I am new to your web site and find it very entertaining sometimes. Like a bunch of little kids squabbling over whose sandwich is better. As a veteran pilot. I was wondering how many pilots are in your forum as there are a lot, it seems to me, of unprofessional and unknowledgeable statements and questions being made. Jim Preston *********************************************************************** From Ric Yes, there are a lot of unprofessional and unknowledgeable statements and questions appearing on this forum, but pilots have always been like that. Fortunately we have a good balance of people from many disciplines and we all learn from each other. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:05:38 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Extraordinary Claims Ron Bright says: >I suggest we hold off on the evaluation of the signal evidence that one or >more of the signals on 3105 received by the professional stations during that >first few days of AEs loss was from Earhart, or "more than likely" or >whatever standard of proof we shall require. Why wait? I'm not evaluating the entire mass of data that Ric hasn't yet revealed. I've laid out the logical argument, with the few small facts that Ric has already divulged. For anyone out there, go ahead, take potshots at my logic. Tell me where the logic fails. I've laid out my criterion for coming to the conclusion. Argue with that if you want to. One can certainly take the small amount of data Ric has revealed already and fit it into your logic. I see nothing wrong with that. Now, add in the additional evidence in Ric's study, which has not yet been made public. How will that affect the logic? Not at all. How will it affect the standard for coming to a conclusion? Not at all. Will the as-yet-unrevealed evidence support and reinforce the conclusion I come to? I expect it will, although I also know that very often there are surprises in the evidence that force you to re-think the conclusion, or that not every piece of evidence fits into the puzzle. We shall see. And we shall argue some more. LTM Paige Miller #2565 ************************************************************************** From Ric Something that might actually be quite useful is for everyone to give some thought as to what patterns they would expect the messages to follow if they were mosty hoaxes; mostly misunderstandings; or mostly authentic. For example, if most of the supposed post-loss messages were actually misunderstood transmissions by the search vessels to, or about Earhart, should the number of reported events over time bear some relation to the number of radio-equipped vessels participating in the search? Or, if most of the supposed post-loss messages were actually hoaxes, should the number of reported events over time bear some relation to pattern of media coverage of the search? LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:06:58 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Winds or errors? We do not have the available forecast for this flight, as it was probably verbally given to them in Oakland. Hindcasts are performed based upon land stations and all ship reports, some of which are not radio'ed in. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that FN/Manning/AE/Mantz took the direct route assuming still air, and made adjustments based upon wind drift and set accordingly. Maybe they just didn't trust the weatherman's predictions or it wasn't worth the effort to account for the winds. My suspicion is that they wanted reasonable weather along the route, and that is what they used the forecasts for, not to adjust flight paths. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:23:16 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Other shortwave sources ? Radio guys: The July 5th , 1937 NY Times listed a number of shortwave stations that could reach the South Pacific during that summer. Unfamiliar with "meter bands", kilocycles and megacycles, herewith are what some stations were broadcasting on and their frequencies. Maybe you, Hue or Mike E., can translate them to shortwave kilocycles/ megacyles relating to AE 3105 and 6210 Kilocycles, or harmonics. Japan's station JZK sends on 15.16 megacycles. Japan's stations JVN and JZK send on 10.6 megacycles and 11.3 megacycles. In June and July 1937 Japan was broadcasting in the late afternoon to Eastern US, starting with English. Twin stations in Caracas, Venasuela, are YV-5RA on 960 kilocycles and YV-5R0 on 5600 kilocycles. Fiji Island station VPD-2 sends out on 8.719 megacycles. CQN, Macao, China, sends on 10.02 and 9.94 megacycles. BW-4, Hongkong, sends on 15.19 meg. ZBW-3 sends on 9.53 meg. EAST COAST STATIONS (summer 37) W2XAD Schenectady sends on 15.33 megacycles or 19.56 meters, 10Am to 8PM EDT. W2XAF, Schenectady, sends on 9.53 megacycles ors 31.43 meter band, 4pm to 12pm EST. Both stations send out news, music, etc. Maybe these frequencies have nothing to do with AE's aircraft frequencies. LTM, Ron Bright ********************************************************************** From Ric This is good information Ron. To my inexpert eye, stations JZK in Japan (15.16 Mcs); BW-4 Hong Kong (15.19 Mcs); and W2XAD Schenectady (15.33 Mcs) were all pretty close to 15.52 Mcs (the 4th harmonic of 3105). As far as we know, nobody was surfing the harmoics of 3105 looking for signals from Earhart, but people who regularly listened to these shortwave commercial broadcasts may have stumbled across calls from Earhart. In fact, one of the shortwave listeners, Thelma Lovelace, said: 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." ... LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:32:03 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Purdue Giving Access to more Papers >Was the Putnam/Earhart marriage based on the usual things marriages are >based upon, or was it seen as basically a good business deal? All good marriages are good business deals. I'm no expert on AE's marriage (and neither is anybody else) but I do know that she was very apprehensive about being married at all and even gave Putnam written notice on their wedding day that she would not be faithful to him nor would she expect him to be faithful to her, and that if they had not "found happiness" after one year she would split. Apparently, however, it turned out a lot better than she expected. It was primarily a business arrangement, to be sure, but they seem to have been genuinely happy together and very fond of each other. Frankly, neither one of them sounds like someone I would want to spend more than 20 minutes in the same room with, but I think they were "right" for each other. Mary Lovell's book "The Sound of Wings" has the best treatment of the relationship that I have seen. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:40:16 EST From: Rick Metzger Subject: Re: refraction variability As a mechanical failure and fire investigator along with a pinpoint metal detector builder, I just came on here to find more detailed info on AE and the 10, but it seems like everyone is quick to bad mouth someone for a statement of thought or idea. Sometimes you have to look at the whole picture as opposed to a small item as a piece of metal or fabric. As an investigator sometimes it takes numerous small pieces to make a conclusion. Ric, TIGHAR has done a great service in isolating small bits and pieces that as a whole point to a realistic plan that the plane did come down near Gardner Island. A land search first, shore, then out to the edges of the reef. Exhausted, then you look to the sea floor. With the close proximity of the islands to their route why would they just fly until they ran out of fuel? Would you not circle until you found an island? Then circle it to find the best landing spot, using the best available light. three cents worth.... ************************************************************************** From Ric From the moment that Commander Warner Thompson decided that the plane must have come down in the ocean northwest of Howland, the search for Earhart has been a war of egos, but an adversarial environment is not all bad and is, in fact, necessary if we're ever going to get to the truth. When people's feet get held to the fire there's bound to be some yelling. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:50:19 EST From: Monty Fowler Subject: So how's the raffle going? In the midst of all the minutiae of whether Fred did or did not offset, who heard who and when, whether or not they could have/would have/should have done *insert your favorite topic here*, I have a really important question - How's the raffle going? LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 *********************************************************************** From Ric Pretty good, but it needs to do better. With three weeks left to go we've sold 250 chances and brought in a total of $5,175, but some of that has to go to administrative costs. We need to raise $15,000 to send Van Hunn on Niku Vp and Marty Moleski to Fiji to look for the bones. In a real boost to the campaign, last night we had a pledge from a TIGHAR member for a special grant request to a large Philadelphia-based foundation for $7,500. If we pull together we can reach our goal. Help the expedition and help yourself by buying raffle chances via the TIGHAR website at www.tighar.org LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:56:09 EST From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: Winds or errors? Randy Jacobson wrote: >The reason for the northward track of the Oakland to Honolulu flight >relative to the great circle or rhumb line path was due to southerly winds >of a fairly major weather cell, documented in weather charts compiled long > but pilots have always been like that. A General friend of mine said his son told him he wanted to be a pilot when he grew up. My friend told his son he couldn't do both. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric True story: When I was working in aviation accident investigation the head of our Claims Department observed that most of our losses were caused by dumb pilots. The head of Underwriting replied, "Dumb pilot is a redundancy." Moving beyond this orgy of self-deprecation, let me say that a good working knowledge of how airplanes work and how pilots operate is a pre-requisite to any real understanding of the Earhart case, but it is often a two-edged sword. Most pilots are not historians and tend to think that the way they fly is the way everybody has always flown. We spend as much time correcting pilots about issues of context as we do correcting non-pilots about flying misconceptions. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:03:09 EST From: John Allard Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? The stations and frequencies you cite are in the megacycle range, not the kilocycle range. They would be at about the 4,000th harmonic of 3105 kc and not relevant. Respectfully, John Allard ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:06:34 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Winds or errors? At the risk of applying contemporary standards to a flight that took place in 1937, I have two observations about the Oakland-Honolulu flight. A) It is entirely possible for a navigator to ascertain the actual wind over a given segment. For this wind to be of value, the segment should be relatively short. Thirty minutes was the standard practiced when I was undergoing pilot training in the 1950s. If the actual wind is significantly different from the forecast wind over the same segment, then it is reasonable to modify the forecast wind immediately ahead of the aircraft to reflect the differences. Clearly, the further down-track these changes are extrapolated, the less accurate are the results. The optimum procedure would be to determine the wind over a 0:30 minute segment and apply differences to the next thirty minutes. The fact that well over two hours elapsed between most of Noonan's fixes argues against him determining the actual wind and applying it to the forecast wind. B) It is reasonable to assume that changes in heading to deviate around weather would be plotted on the navigation chart, and that once clear of the weather, the heading would be again altered to return to track. No such changes are plotted on Noonan's charts. It is true that the flight was significantly north of course, but there are several possible explanations: 1) Errors by navigator in determining position. 2) Infrequent determination of position. 3) Weather precluding use of celestial navigation. 4) Absence of, or inaccurate forecast winds (quite probable). 5) Failure of pilot to hold an accurate heading or constant speed. 6) Directional Gyro not aligned with magnetic compass. 7) Unknown equipment failure. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:11:16 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: A Pilot's Question? I thought redundancy was the cornerstone of aviation? Backup controls, two or more radios, landing gear system... a backup plan in case we can't make our initial destination? LTM Mike J.#2591 ******************************************************************** From Ric That's right. Take single-engine IFR night flight as an example: dual radios, one engine, dumb pilot. ********************************************************************** From Alan > Most pilots are not historians and tend to think that the way they > fly is the way everybody has always flown. True. A good example is the difficulty some folks had (I think "Had" is correct) understanding why there weren't a lot of position reports with the AE flight. It was hard to comprehend there wasn't anyone to report to and no one really cared. What would anyone have done with the report had it been transmitted? I'm not talking about from 8:43 L on folks. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:12:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Hue, the idea sounds fine - getting an independent analysis of the radio messages. But keep in mind consulting firms make money by making their clients satisfied. Why do you think Democratic pollsters and Republican pollsters seem to come up with much different stats? The other problem I see is suppose the independent firm analyzes all the messages and says there is only a 10% probability they are legitimate. What would you suggest be done with that information? Scrub out and go home? All the work being done is exactly that. Some percentage of probability. What would you suggest be done differently if the probability is 55% or 45%. I see a waste of time as the only result of hiring yet another "expert." Where am I wrong? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:41:19 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Hue Miller wrote: >Plus a graphologist to look at the Notebook ... Graphology has nothing to do with science whatever. It was once fashionable as a supposed tool to test job interviewees but it has been increasingly realised by business that graphologists are not good value for money. Graphology is basically a scam and the amount you can tell about an individual form their handwriting is minimal. Frankly, if Tighar started involving itself in graphology, it would do more to discredit the organisation than strengthen its position. You often raise some interesting points Hue but this is not a good idea. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:03:19 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Purdue Giving Access to more Papers Slightly OT, but not overly so, I hope: > even gave > Putnam written notice on their wedding day that she would not be faithful to > him nor would she expect him to be faithful to her Wow. That strikes me as pretty radical, for the 1930s. > Frankly, neither one of them sounds like someone I would want to spend more > than 20 minutes in the same room with.... Just briefly, why so? > Mary Lovell's book "The Sound of Wings" has the best treatment of the > relationship... Is this a book you would recommend, for understanding of the personalities? Thanks- Hue ************************************************************************ From Ric >Wow. That strikes me as pretty radical, for the 1930s. The exact quote is: "On our life together I want you to understand I shall not hold you to any medieval code of faithfulness to me, nor shall I consider myself bound to you similarly." You should really read the entire letter to get a feeling for how she approached the marriage. As far as I can tell, the Amelia Earhart that is held up as a role model for young women today bears little resemblance to the actual person. I don't think I'd want to spend much time with either GP or AE because, from what I've been able to learn about them, they were both incredibly self-centered, shallow, and not what they advertised themselves to be. But I could be wrong. Mary Lovell's book "The Sound of Wings" seems to be the most objective of the biographies and spends much more time talking about GP than any of the others. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:05:38 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? John Allard writes: > The stations and frequencies you cite are in the megacycle range, not the > kilocycle range. They would be at about the 4,000th harmonic of 3105 kc and > not relevant. Its never a good idea to make definitive statements on things one doesn't know much about. 3,000 Kc for example is 3,000 Kilocycles or 3,000 thousand cycles which is 3Mc. This is fairly obvious as 1,000 x 1,000 = 1 million. Mega means million. The 4,000th harmonic of 3105Kc would be 12,420,000,000 cycles or 12,420Mcs. The 4th harmonic of 3105Kcs would be 12.42Mcs however and its the 5th harmonic, 15.525Mcs rather than the 4th that would be close to the shortwave stations Ric listed. Incidentally for anyone to whom meters and cycles are a mystery, they are related by the formula V = fL where V= velocity (m/sec), f = frequency(cycles) and L (should be Lambda) is wavelength(meters). For radio waves V is actually C (the velocity of light) as radio waves propagate at the same speed as light as they are really the same type of wave (electromagnetic). Therefore f = V/L and L = V/f. Now C = 300,000 km/sec or 300,000,000 m/sec Putting in the velocity of light one derives the relationship: frequency in Mc = 300/L where L is the wavelength in meters. AND wavelength in meters = 300/f where f is the frequency in Mc. hence if AE was listening on 3105 Kc, this was 3.105Mc. 300/3.105 = 96.6 meters similarly the 11 m band is about 300/11 = 27Mcs Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:51:57 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims I have just looked over cursorily Bob B.'s radio analysis on the website. Some preliminary comment: The WE transmitter was NOT Terman's equal opportunity harmonic sprayer. What gives you the idea that there was NO harmonic suppression??? Are you starting off on the right foot? You do not seem to understand this basic starting point: You have one pole of selectivity in the plate circuit of the transmitter! The antenna impedance at harmonic compared to the actual setting on the particular channel is the second frequency selector. There is no "broadband" antenna effect here, why is a wire antenna, single wire, broadbanded? What nonsense. As for Betty's "like static on the police scanner", surely some of the readers can realize that police scanners - scanners in general- use FM mode, which is specifically designed to eliminate noise ( noise is in the AM mode), so the main thing about scanner signals is the signal is there or it is not. There is no fading, no static. If you hear static, it's a "squelch tail", as the transmission ends, or it's because of noise getting into the microphone circuit somehow. Communication microphones don't sound hi-fi, but that's not static! Geez, doesn't anyone out there read material like the "radio analysis" and think, "say, this doesn't seem quite right" Anyone out there ever used a scanner??? C'mon! I have an acquaintance who just ran an old aircraft transmitter with similar output circuit to AE's WE model into a typical aircraft antenna simulator and looked at the result with a spectrum analyzer. I am trying to convince him to run a couple more tests, for example with a high-impedance load, to simulate the *very best scenario* for your harmonic theory. I hope to have some real-life numbers for you in the near future. Will this be the silver bullet? Hue Miller ********************************************************************* From Ric Hue, if you want to dance you have to pay the piper. You're challenging the statements of others without bothering to inform yourself about the research the statements are based upon. You're making assumptions based on a 1939 manual. Both Bob Brandenburg and Mike Everette have conducted research into the characteristics of Earhart's specific transmitter/antenna system and the various changes that are known to have been made to it by Joe Gurr. Mike's work appears in his excellent research paper "The Radios - A Technical Analysis of the Western Electric Communications Equipment Installed on Board Lockheed Electra NR16020" which appears in Chapter II, The Earhart Electra: Configuration and Condition, of the 8th Edition of the Earhart Project Book. Bob's paper "The Post-Loss Radio Signals: Technical Analysis", includes an explanation of the computer modeling methodology he uses and his validation of the NR16020 antenna model, is also presented in the 8th Edition (Chapter V, The 1937 Search for Earhart). You have chosen not to avail yourself of this information. That's okay. There is no requirement that anyone purchase the 8th edition unless they expect their criticism of its conclusions to be taken seriously. You have also submitted a posting with a more extensive critique of Bob Brandenburg's "Could Betty Have Heard Amelia On A Harmonic". I'll give you the opportunity to bring yourself up to speed on the facts and assumptions that underlie that paper and find a more civil way of expressing any criticisms you may have before posting it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:00:51 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Alan wrote: > Hue, the idea sounds fine - getting an independent analysis of the radio > messages. But keep in mind consulting firms make money by making their > clients satisfied. Why do you think Democratic pollsters and Republican > pollsters seem to come up with much different stats? Alan, we talking about accounting firms and Enron, or a consulting engineer who tells an international broadcaster or military user, this frequency and power or that frequency will not or will work at this time of day (for example)? > The other problem I see is suppose the independent firm analyzes all the > messages and says there is only a 10% probability they are legitimate. What > would you suggest be done with that information? Scrub out and go home? I am talking right now about purely technical issues, not trying to stuff the content of the messages into an analyzer. However, to bring up again the discussion of probability, if I pass test A with 10% probability, then go on to test B and pass with 10% probability, then go on to test C with 10% probability, do you see what happens with the probability then? It does not remain at 10%. > a waste of time as the only result of hiring yet another "expert." And I say, on purely technical issue, in this narrow area of radio propagation and *real life* analysis of the situation, no expert has been hired! Must I do this? Okay, so be it. Hue ************************************************************************ From Ric This is a technical issue but it is also an historical issue. If you end up making a bunch of general statements about what is and is not possible without researching the history of the particular circumstances in question you'll satisfy no one but yourself. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:05:56 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? Ric wrote: > In fact, one of the shortwave listeners, Thelma Lovelace, said: > 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 - Ric, does this last line, give you a clue? Hue ************************************************************************ From Ric It gives me a clue that an old lady who had given up on anyone ever taking her seriously was eager to have me believe that she heard Amelia Earhart. Any judgment I may make about whether she really heard AE will be based upon the reported content of what she says she heard and how it matches (or doesn't match) the content of other reported messages. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:07:28 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: who invented TV? David wrote: > Holy Cow! > Now we are in full-fledged rebuttals about who invented or started inventing > or had the first inkling of it! my money is on Leonardo da Vinci . TV was invented by Steve Allen in 1955. Kerry Tiller *************************************************************** From Ric Isn't is a shame that the invention has since been lost. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:11:14 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Winds or errors? Skeet Gifford writes: >A) It is entirely possible for a navigator to ascertain the actual wind > over a given segment. For this wind to be of value, the segment should be > relatively short. Thirty minutes was the standard practiced when I was > undergoing pilot training in the 1950s. I have flown a 30 minute leg from West Houston Airport (IWS) to Conroe (CXO) in a Cessna 182. Upon arriving at Conroe, I found the winds to be from the opposite direction. Thus, I find your wind analysis to be fallacious. Winds along a route may change several times in direction and intensity. Therefore, you have to recheck the winds with some frequency. LTM, Dave Bush ******************************************************************** From Ric What was that we were saying about pilots? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:15:48 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Winds or errors? Skeet Gifford writes: > At the risk of applying contemporary standards to a flight that took place > in 1937, I have two observations about the Oakland-Honolulu flight. > > A) It is entirely possible for a navigator to ascertain the actual wind > over a given segment. For this wind to be of value, the segment should be > relatively short. Thirty minutes was the standard practiced when I was Skeet, I think we should split this in 2 separate categories: 1---If the "ascertaining" is done directly by a driftmeter/etc, then it is reasonable to average repeated observations over a matter of minutes. 2---If the ascertaining is done between 2 fixes (celestial...), then it must be done over many several hundred of miles, because of the uncertainties in the precision of said fixes. Off the top of my head, I can't remember if option "1" above was used on the hono flight. Also: > It is true that the flight was significantly north of course, but there are > several possible explanations: Randy, can you steer me to the weather charts you are referring to? is >there some indication of the wind speed magnitude(s) that you can pass >along? or perhaps more precise wind directions.>> All weather information was sent to the gov't (I forget offhand the agency), then compiled, and later disseminated (much later!) by a branch of NOAA. These charts take the surface readings and project them upwards into the atmosphere, and then make weather maps of major storms, highs, and lows, etc. Because of the upward projections (based upon assumptions), the winds at altitude are not exact, but conform well to the track offsets AE and FN encountered. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:32:35 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Extraordinary Claims David Carmack says: "I think what Hue and many others would like to see is the same effort put towards proving or disproving anyone's idea...not just what side TIGHAR believes in." I have to disagree strenuously. I did not donate my money to an organization that researches all the different ideas in the Earhart mystery. If, in some bizarre parallel universe, TIGHAR spent 50% of its time and money on finding Earhart's plane on the ocean floor northwest of Howland, and the other 50% of its time and money on the Niku Hypothesis, I would not be inclined to donate. And it is not the responsibility of one research organization to prove their opponents position. If the "splashed-and-sank" crowd come up with new evidence, or if the "captured by Japanese spies" come up with new evidence, great, but please remember that it's their responsibility to find such evidence, not TIGHAR's. The same goes for Betty's diary. Having said that, I would love to see any evidence that clears up this mystery, either in this forum, or elsewhere. And more civility would be good too. LTM Paige Miller #2565 ************************************************************************* From Ric I'll add an amen to Paige's comments and also point out that TIGHAR started from a "crashed and sank" position on the Earhart mystery and only began investigating the Niku Hypothesis when we became aware of evidence that made it seem more plausible than crashed and sank. Over the past 15 years, the closer we've looked the more we have become convinced that the Niku Hypothesis is correct, not because it's "ours" (it isn't) but because we've found abundant new evidence to support it and nothing to disprove it. Meanwhile, advocates of other theories have come up with nothing but more speculation. We don't investigate crashed and sank or Japanese capture because there's nothing to investigate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:34:23 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Tom King in Hawaii Thanks for your kind words, Jim. The gentleman with the initials R.R. was Col Rollin Reineck, who (as reported on pages 329-30 of "Amelia Earhart's Shoes") pointed out the error in our assumptions about the size of the photographed shoe with which we'd compared the one from Aukaraime South, and who has made many other contributions to Earhart research (notably the assistance he provided Ron Bright and Laurie McLaughlin in researching the "Love to Mother" telegram). His addition to my Honolulu talk was really the first time I've been directly challenged by a Classic Earhart Theorist (CET) -- that is, one who trots out his (not necessarily relevant, however impressive) credentials and then makes pronouncements of opinion, representing them as fact. He outlined his WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam flying record and everyone (including me) applauded. Then he assured everyone that Niku was so small and so easy to explore, and had been so often visited, that it was quite impossible that Earhart could have been there and not been found (never mind the finding of the skeleton), and that the surf on the reef flat never got high enough to wash the plane over the edge, and that we really have "no evidence." I declined to argue with him point by point, expressed my respect for his war record, and pointed out that I had, after all, been on the island and in the surf, and he hadn't. We left it at that, and he was kind enough after the talk to tell me that it had been a good one. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:35:04 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: St. Pete Times? For Ron Bright Re: St. Petersburg Times July 37 Which July 37 edition of the St. Petersburg Times first ran an article alluding that some of the post/loss AE radio traffic was possibly hoax messages? Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:38:08 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? Ron Bright wrote: >The July 5th , 1937 NY Times listed a number of shortwave stations that could >reach the South Pacific during that summer. Unfamiliar with "meter bands", >kilocycles and megacycles, herewith are what some stations were broadcasting >on and their frequencies. Maybe you, Hue or Mike E., can translate them to >shortwave kilocycles/ megacyles relating to AE 3105 and 6210 Kilocycles, or >harmonics. Easily done. 3105 Kilocycles (kilohertz in modern terms) equals 3.105 Megacycles (Megahertz in modern terms). 6210 Kilocycles (see above) equals 6.21 Megacycles. >Japan's station JZK sends on 15.16 megacycles. Or, 15,160 Kilocycles. >Japan's stations JVN and JZK send on 10.6 megacycles and 11.3 >megacycles. 10,600 Kilocycles, 11,310 Kilocycles. >In June and July 1937 Japan was broadcasting in the late afternoon to >Eastern US, starting with English. > >Twin stations in Caracas, Venasuela, are YV-5RA on 960 kilocycles and >YV-5R0 on 5600 kilocycles. same as 5.6 Megacycles. >Fiji Island station VPD-2 sends out on 8.719 megacycles. or, 8719 Kilocycles. >CQN, Macao, China, sends on 10.02 and 9.94 megacylces. 10,020 Kilocycles; 9940 Kilocycles. >BW-4, Hongkong, sends on 15.19 meg. 15,190 (15190) Kilocycles. >ZBW-3 sends on 9.53 meg. 9530 Kilocycles. >EAST COAST STATIONS (summer 37) > >W2XAD Schenectady sends on 15.33 megacycles or 19.56 meters, 10Am >to 8PM EDT. 15,330 (15330) Kilocycles. >W2XAF, Schenectady, sends on 9.53 megacycles ors 31.43 meter band, >4pm to 12pm EST. 9530 Kilocycles. I hope these conversions help somewhat. It appears to me that the most likely frequency (at least for some instances) is 15525, which is the 5th harmonic of 3105. For Hue Miller: (and anyone else interested) Those who would like a bit more input, re harmonic generation, should check the following sources. If you have access to April 1946 "QST" Magazine, read the article titled "Technical Topics: Those 14-Mc Signals," Page 67. I think this will open your eyes a bit. You might also be interested in the following article, "Harmonics in the V.H.F. range" on Page 68. For a better understanding of the problems of establishing received signal strength, check this out: "QST" Magazine, November 1961, page 44: "The S-Meter: False Idol" by Edward P. Tilton. there are other articles in the literature touching on this topic, but this one is rather good. LTM (who tries hard, but can't quantify everything) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:40:11 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Graphologists Amen, brother. I include graphologists with phrenologists, remote viewers, and operators of "lie detectors" Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:43:09 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Yes, I was probably over the top when I posted my more extended critique. I do consider the "research report" outrageous- yes, "outrageous". BTW, I would like to know why the modifications so-called, to the WECo transmitter invalidate the circuit description in the 1939 textbook. I simply do not believe that sufficient research went into examining the transmitter characteristics, else the propagation analysis would not contain the outrageous errors in the transmitter description. Nor have either of your parties done a spectrum analyzer view of the output of a transmitter using this output circuit. ( This is coming.) You are highly impressed with the prop analysis tool employed, while you (plural) ignore false assumptions as the starting point. That is "scientific methodology" ? Should I likewise respect the "research report" because of the quality of the computer used? If you think my critique unfit for print, you certainly have my permission to post my email address and I will forward it to any interested reader. -Hue Miller *********************************************************************** From Ric Hue's email address is [all email addresses are deleted in these logs]. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:59:39 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Ric wrote: > This is a technical issue but it is also an historical issue. If you end up > making a bunch of general statements about what is and is not possible > without researching the history of the particular circumstances in question > you'll satisfy no one but yourself. When I, for example, point out that the harmonic power levels used in B's research report are assumptions scaled from "Terman's "well-designed harmonic generator", merely assumptions, with little regard for the actual circuit operation, I do not think "historical issues" weigh in. Unless you wish to tailor technical conclusions to prevailing historical fiat. Hue ************************************************************************** From Ric Any discussion of harmonic output by AE's transmitter must begin with assumptions because we don't have the transmitter. Bob does not use Terman's "well-designed harmonic generator" numbers. His estimates are far more conservative. Any numbers you get from "real life" experiments with old radios will likewise be "merely assumptions" if you attempt to apply them to Earhart's radio. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:15:24 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? Ric wrote: > Any judgment I may make about whether she really heard AE will be based upon > the reported content of what she says she heard and how it matches (or > doesn't match) the content of other reported messages. Ric, does "loud and clear" in this case merit consideration? This comes under the heading of "what she heard", right? I understand you holding off judgment, okay. I just want to clarify that "loud and clear" will be a consideration in the probability. Thanks, Hue ************************************************************************ From Ric Evaluating anecdote is the toughest thing we do. You take everything into consideration and then you look for corroboration. If the corroboration is good enough you can sometimes identify parts of the story that are not accurate. It doesn't mean that the person is lying. It just means that it's an aspect of the story that got added in later. Floyd Kilts and the bones on Niku is a textbook case. Before Gallagher's files were found, his story to a San Diego newspaper was dismissed by people as knowledgeable as Fred Goerner, Harry Maude, and Eric Bevington as being impossible to be true. We now have a pretty good handle on what parts of it are true and what parts are not, but there are other parts that we still wonder about. In Thelma's case it seems unlikely that she heard Earhart "loud and clear" but if other aspects of her story can be independently corroborated that description is not a reason to discount her entire story. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:21:52 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Winds or errors? For Dave Bush and Christian D Dave, if you are suggesting that on the basis of a single anecdotal wind bust, the analysis is "fallacious," then we must agree to disagree. Paraphrasing the bumper sticker, Wind Busts Happen. My experience is that the magnitude of direction and velocity difference is in inverse proportion to the frequency of occurrence. Perhaps your experience is different. Christian, a drift meter provides the navigator with one of the four elements necessary to solve the wind triangle (true heading, ground speed, true airspeed and either drift angle or true course). The time interval of a wind check must be balanced with 1) the probability of error of the fixes and 2) a distance that minimizes changes in wind patterns. Ten minutes is too short because of the circular error inherent with celestial navigation. Two hours is too long because of changes that occur in normal weather patterns. With the tools at Noonan's disposal, he would be doing well to detect gross changes in wind direction and velocity. I've taken a pretty good wind check in 10 minutes using a VOR and DME. Of course, inertial systems and GPS make the whole discussion moot today. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:22:19 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? For Mike E Thanks for the conversion. If I interpret this correctly, Lovelace, who heard Japanese music perhaps on JZK 15160 kc, could have been tuning the dial near 15525, the 5th harmonic of AE's 3105 frequency. Hence AE could have been transmitting at that moment. Is that a possibility? LTM, Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:22:53 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: St. Pete Times? Re: St Petersburg Times/ Date of articles re first mention of "hoax" An excellent question. Although not specified in the articles as a "hoax" the Sunday, July 3 , 1937 edition read: "Recurring reports of S.O.S. calls being heard from the helpless Earhart plane buoyed hopes of relatives..., but some of the leaders in the search expressed increasing pessimism over the possibilities of success. "Confusion and overlapping reports of distress calls made it difficult to sift them to definite information, but authorities were openly skeptical. One of these turned out to be radio signals from the Itasca itself". Page 6 "Searchers put little faith in the numerous reports of amateur radio operators of SUPPOSED messages from the Earhart plane ... and asserted there is no convincing proof that she and Noonan remained alive." [my emphasis as it suggests hoax] On the other hand: "Paul Mantz...expressed the conviction that two LA amateur wireless operators had really picked up a msg from the plane that that Miss Earhart and her navigator had reached an atoll in the south Pacific." So clearly by Sunday 3 July the newspaper was reporting the possibility of hoaxes as well as mistaken interceptions. Of note, this paper reports Clarence Williams theory that AE could have been blown as far as 180 miles south of Howland, and Mantz' theory she could have landed on one of the islands in the Phoenix group; Mantz added that since Earhart and FN were experienced and "cool in the face of danger", he believed the plane came down under its own power on an atoll, where they could rig up a radio broadcast, and that Earhart would speak (voice capability) into "not Noonan". Doesn't that theory sound familiar? LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:24:19 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? > In Thelma's case it seems unlikely that she heard Earhart "loud and clear" How many decibels is "loud and clear" or "strength 4?" The latter is an easier case coming from radio operators who routinely listen to the radio but What does Thelma mean? I responded with "five by" any time I could understand the transmission. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:25:21 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Hue writes > When I, for example, point out that the harmonic power levels used in B's > research report are assumptions scaled from "Terman's "well-designed > harmonic generator", merely assumptions, with little regard for the actual > circuit operation, > I do not think "historical issues" weigh in. Unless you wish to tailor > technical conclusions to prevailing historical fiat. Hue, when I don't understand something I can't resist asking. I don't know what the above paragraph means but what is the significance if what you say is so? What can we do with whatever that tells us? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:26:54 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims I'd like to add another amen! I get a little weary with all the detractors and those who seem to want to attack the Niku Hypothesis. I'm not a pilot. I am the son of a highly decorated WW2 combat pilot. I'm not a navigator. I'm a history enthusiast who enjoys honest research into a mystery that I think deserves an honest solution. I have to admit that sometimes I feel compelled to leap to Ric and Pat's defense when I know they don't need it. I know in my heart that they bust their respective butts for a lot less than a lot of us earn. I wish people would cut them a little slack when they launch their attacks. I'm no expert, but I'm a man with reasonable discernment and I find TIGHAR's approach on balance and objective. I'm not a wealthy person with a lot of disposable income---but I am a PAID member of TIGHAR and I am damn proud of the work that Ric and Pat do for what I suspect is not a lot of personal income. I wish all of us would remember that and be a little kinder when posting! Michael Haddock ******************************************************************* From Ric Thank you Mike (blushing). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:28:59 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims To: Hue Miller Ric wrote: > You have chosen not to avail yourself of this information. That's okay. > There is no requirement that anyone purchase the 8th edition unless they > expect their criticism of its conclusions to be taken seriously. Ric's response is an excellent example of the objectivity and balance that Ric and TIGHAR has handled this entire project. I get the impression that your responses are just ego driven and a little "showing off" which frankly, bores us all. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:29:43 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? "Loud and Clear" is very subjective, and anyone that has ever used the older technology radio equipment can remember how much static, noise and variation in the quality of the signal affected the reception. Intelligible with moderate volume level and a "low incidence" of static was often acceptable as "Loud and Clear" to those not acquainted with the subtleties of variations in quality of reception. But was the "Loud and Clear" a 5x5 or more of a 3x3? And what is meant by 5x5 or 3x3? Was that terminology in use in the 30's or was it just a signal strength of 5 or 3 (or 4 or 2 or 1) that was used by "knowledgeable" radio personnel? LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:31:54 EST From: Dick Greenwood Subject: Re: EXERPTS FROM "FIX ON THE RISING SUN" I'm certain you've run across this but I found this quite surprising Reading the "FIX ON THE RISING SUN ", STORY OF HIJACKED 'Clipper' in 1938. Contained in the table of contributions is considerable Earhart docs. One in particular is a paper from a "retired Air Force Officer" submitted by a Dean Magley. The paper states a revelation by JDF General Minoru Genda, that Earhart And Noonan were held in Japanese custody until their execution as spies. The author Charles N Hill wrote the book in concert with another Earhart resarcher, Joe Gervais, who along with Minoru Genda received the dedication. Dick Greenwood **************************************************************** From Ric I was not aware that Hill's book made such an outrageous claim. Any alleged "revelation" by Genda is meaningless without real documentation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:34:14 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Add'l small radio factoids Maybe before I check out from the planet I will learn not to post anything late at nite, just put it in "drafts" and revise it in the clear light of day. On the Niku theory, I am an agnostic. My aim is not to favor any side (aim, as in "goal". ) Now: I am a little behind, if anyone wrote me, my email was down for over 24 hours, thanks to MS products again, and anything sent here in that time just totally disappeared. Also, just FYI all, I don't fly the flag but I did cough up the money for a TIGHAR membership -- because I do appreciate the much legwork already done and the information that crosses the forum, and it would feel like freeloading otherwise. Now on to bizness: These are not earth shaking developments, but just some radio factoids I garnered from reading: 1) There was NO possibility of the 1/2 output frequency getting to the antenna. Morgan's aviation radio book lists plug in tuning units for each specific channel. Each covers such a narrow range that it does not allow 2 multiples of the 'crystal frequency'. 2) Actual radiated power on 3105 was well less than 50w, I estimate maybe less than 20w. This is because the short, horizontal antenna has such a low resistance that the tuned circuit of the transmitter has a hard time dealing with it - is inefficient, plus the fact that the antenna, a less than ideal length at 3105, is less than 100% efficient. 3) The simple tuning circuit that the transmitter employed was designed so for sake of efficiency -- less watts wasted. This, even tho #2 above is true- it could have been worse. REFERENCES: #1, circuit description and list of components from Morgan, 1939. Each tuning plugin covers the osc. and driver amp. stage tuning, with a spec'd bandpass of no more than 800 kHz. This was to simplify tuneup- all you have to tune is the PA/ antenna circuit. #2 Sandretto, 1942, for chart of antenna impedances and efficiency formula. Actually, the case could be somewhat worse than this, because the tuning coil quality I used= 300, which is being generous. This gave an efficiency of roughly 60%. Then you have to derate this for diminished efficiency of the shortened antenna. I guessed 80% - I have yet to actually calculate that. #3 Sandretto says this in the same discussion of matching very low resistance antennas. The figures for antenna resistance given in his book are shockingly low (to me!), but this is for a horizontal antenna close to "ground" - the metal airframe. For example, at resonance such a typical antenna at a resonant point would have a resistance of about 3.5 ohms, whereas if it were a vertical mast, it would have a resistance of 35-50 ohms! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:35:15 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Winds or errors? Skeet Gifford wrote: > Ten minutes is > too short because of the circular error inherent with celestial navigation. > Two hours is too long because of changes that occur in normal weather > patterns. With the tools at Noonan's disposal, he would be doing well to > detect gross changes in wind direction and velocity. Skeet, (we seem to agree...) if I understand you correctly, then a gross undetected wind change could yield a gross drift angle error, which in turn implies potential for a gross off-track (so-called) "mistake"... Noonan's meandering-looking track on the hono flight could have been par for the times. Regards. Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:43:54 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Ric, sorry it took me so long to get back to the points you brought up. Noonan WOULD be certain that he had passed Howland when he reached his estimate of the maximum possible DR error. Remember he chose that number just for the very purpose of being able to be sure of his position in relationship to the island. Let's say that Noonan's experience showed him that 99 times out of a hundred his DR error did not exceed 10% of the distance covered since the last fix. This would be in keeping with standard navigational text books. An example that I had worked up assumed he got a celestial fix 2 hours before they reported "must be on you" at 1912 Z. In this 2 hours they would have traveled 260 NM at 130 knots so the 10 % estimate of uncertainty would then equal 26 NM. I used the 2 hour and 130 knot assumptions so that we would have some numbers to illustrate this point. To this DR uncertainty must be added the uncertainty of the original fix usually taken in navigational texts to be 10 NM for a total uncertainty of the DR at 1912 Z of 36 NM. Noonan would have known the exact time of the last fix and so could do a similar calculation of the 10 % uncertainty and would have his actual numbers to work with. So at 1912 Z (using my example) Noonan could draw a circle around his DR position with a radius of 36 NM and know that there was only one chance out of a hundred that he was not within that circle. But, all positions within the circle are NOT equally likely, they are much more likely to be near the center of the circle than near the edge. You actually have to shade the circle, making it much darker near the center and getting progressively lighter out towards the edge to accurately represent the probable positions of the airplane. There is an excellent statistical analysis of navigational errors covering bivariate errors and circular probable errors in Appendix "Q" of the 1977 edition of "The American Practical Navigator" published by the U. S. Navy Hydrographic Office as publication H. O. 9. (Hint, it is similar to "standard deviation" that you learned about in high school but covers deviations in two dimensions. Combining the fix error with the DR error simplifies the analysis with little loss in accuracy.) So, using the 36 NM circle as the 99 % probability, statistical analysis shows that 50 % of the time the position will be in a smaller circle within the 36 NM circle of only 14 NM radius centered on the DR position. (To illustrate this let's place dots within the circles to represent the error in the positions.) This inner circle covers only 15 % of the total area of the 36 NM circle but would contain 50 out of 99 dots representing DR positions so the dots would be very dense. The same analysis shows that 75 % of the positions will be within 20 NM of the center. This second ring covers an additional 16 % of the area but contains only 25 dots so they would be much less dense. The remaining ring from 20 to 36 NM covers 69 % of the area but would contain only 24 dots and so would be very light. Now going beyond the 99 % circle the analysis shows that in only one case out of a million should the error exceed 60 NM. I am not saying that Noonan was trained in such statistical analysis but he would be expected to have noticed similar errors in his experience and should know that most of the time that he was close to the DR position and only rarely would he be near the maximum error position. So how does this play out? First Noonan makes an estimate of the maximum error based on the distance since the last fix and upon his experience and then adds a safety factor to it to be sure that he can determine when he has passed Howland. In my example these numbers are 36 and 60 NM. Then he either uses this number to determine an "offset" position on the LOP to aim for or just uses it keep from following the LOP away from Howland. The results come out the same and we will look at the second case since that is the one Ric uses. He intercepts the LOP and according to his DR he should be over Howland. He doesn't see the island so turns to 337* and follows it while searching for the island. He knows that he is in the highest probability area just after he turns to follow the LOP. He expects that he should find the island in the first 14 NM (approx.) since this represents 50 % of the cases. Then passing by 20 NM he starts to worry since he had a 75 % chance (approx.) of finding Howland by that point so only a 25 % chance that the island is ahead. Going past 36 NM he is sure that he has missed the island since there is only one chance out of a hundred that the island is ahead but continues on to the 60 NM point to be absolutely certain but with almost no hope that he will find the island out this far from the DR position. He then turns around and follows the LOP back towards the south south-east. As he gets closer to the DR position of the island he starts looking harder since he is back in the high probability area. 14 NM past the DR of the island he is getting really worried since he is leaving the high probability area. The same in spades going past to 20 NM point. When he passed the 36 NM point south south-east he is sure that he has missed the island but continues to the 60 NM point to be absolutely certain that he has passed Howland and is traveling away from safety. At this point he is absolutely certain that Howland lies behind them to the north north-west, most like about 60 NM back and only about 20 NM back to Baker. He also knows that Baker and Howland are the closest pieces of dry land and that the next closest are about 300 NM ahead. At this point it is NOT apparent that his 60 mile estimate was wrong. He may suspect some error in the position of the LOP so that he may be slightly east or west of the true LOP through Howland. So they turn around and parallel the lop say 10 NM further to the east and fly back to the north north-west 60 NM where Howland has the highest probability of being found. This takes one half hour leaving 2 hours to fly a search pattern around the most probable position for Howland. They do not continue on 157* expecting to find Howland nor do they continue in that direction expecting to spend more that 2 hours of fuel to get to the vicinity of the Phoenix islands and so would arrive with little fuel remaining to search for those islands. GL *************************************************************************** From Ric Well that's all very interesting Gary. You seem to have just proved that Earhart and Noonan arrived safely at Howland Island. Is that your contention or do have a theory about why they didn't? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:47:43 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Oakland/Hono flight Ric wrote: > The northward deflection from the intended track was definitely not an > intentional offset. The flight had drifted northward much earlier in the > flight and at one point was 135 miles north of track Your post assumes that they wanted to stay on the great circle track to Hawaii which I pointed out in a previous post may not have been the case. However, even if that were true they were never 135 miles (statue or nautical) off the GC. (BTW, thanks for the chart, Ric) There are two course lines plotted on the chart from OAK to Hawaii, one straight and one curved. Since this is a Mercator chart the straight line is NOT the great circle but is the rhumb line. The great circle is the curved line to the north of the rhumb line. The airplane was 66 NM (76 SM) north of the GC at the 1007 Z fix. At the point that they changed course to head back to the south at 1045 Z they were only 90 NM (103SM) north of the GC and this was the point of maximum deviation. gl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:49:06 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Winds or errors? In reply to Skeet: Thanks for your reply. I've seen plenty of what you call "wind busts". If a pilot/navigator takes a single reading, then doesn't check further, and goes thru a "wind bust" and travels on for several hours with a wind from the opposite direction or even with a major change in wind strength, then they could be hundreds of miles off course. Just my thoughts on the subject. But I like to check frequently and often. Over the open ocean with no electronic nav (something I've never done w/ or w/o electronic nav), I would find it reasonable to perform celestial checks or at least drift site checks as often as possible. But I'm old fashioned that way, I like to know where I am. Don't get me wrong, I am the adventurous type and like to see and experience new places - but I like to PLAN to get there, not find myself there through "coincidence." LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:14:39 EST From: Eric Subject: independent corroboration > In Thelma's case it seems unlikely that she heard Earhart "loud and clear" > but if other aspects of her story can be independently > corroborated that > description is not a reason to discount her entire story. For the record, what aspects of Betty's notebook have been independently corroborated to date? LTM (who never took anything on blind faith) Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. *************************************************************************** From Ric Let's define what we mean by independent corroboration. Suppose you told me that you were out in the woods yesterday morning and you heard somebody far off shout, "Help! I fell and broke my leg!" Whether I believe that there is somebody out there depends entirely upon how credible I think you are. Now let's suppose that a second person who knows nothing about what you told me says, "I was out in the woods yesterday afternoon and I heard a faint voice shouting 'Can anybody hear me?! I can't get up!" Now what if a third person says to me, "It was the darnedest thing. I was o ut in the woods yesterday noontime and I heard this guy way off shouting something about how his horse had stumbled and he has fallen off and broke something and he couldn't move." Three stories, three different times, none of them exactly the same, but all describing the same situation. Independent corroboration. Each story by itself may or may not be credible but together they present a compelling case that somebody was out there yesterday shouting a particular story. It may or may not be somebody playing a joke but it's pretty certain that all three of you heard the same guy. To answer your question: I have not yet completed a comparison and contrast of the content of the other reported messages to see how much independent corroboration there may be of Betty's notebook. However, such an analysis will be included in the Post-Loss Radio Study. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:12:27 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Interesting Book I picked up Susan Butler's _East to Dawn_ at the library a few days ago and I enjoyed it. I found it quite revealing in describing Amelia's personality and to a lesser degree Fred's. There is very good coverage of the 'wedding letter' from Amelia to George as well as some very interesting perspectives on Amelia as a pilot. I wouldn't be put off by the description on the TIGHAR website as a "feminist biography'. It's a good read. Of course, she does get the ending wrong.... Bob ********************************************************************** From Ric We labeled it a "feminist biography" not to imply that there is anything wrong with feminism (as the father of two daughters I'm a feminist myself) but because Butler glosses over or just fails to mention many of Earhart's less admirable traits. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:15:24 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: independent corroboration Frequncies and harmonics are important but does anyone know the wattage of the Western Electric transmitter AE had on the Electra? Mike J. ************************************************************ From Ric 50 watts, but only a fraction of that ever got to the antenna. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:17:03 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Add'l small radio factoids Thanks to Hue for the information from text. It was very informative. However: When I graduated from George Mason University with a B.S. (yes, I know the most of the jokes) in Mathematics, I thought I knew a lot. I suddenly discovered how little I knew once I started working with compression algorithms for video and audio signals, and their subsequent decompression. I've learned a lot more from "applied" mathematics than I ever could have from texts. Unless you know the difference and have practical experience, I believe the term is "neophyte". LTM (who knew her Taylor Series polynomials by rote) Dave #2585 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:18:38 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Please let me try to simplify what Gary just said: Since Noonan presumably had the tables required, he knew that local sunrise anywhere on the Earth's surface would have yielded a 157/337 LOP. What remains to be determined is what TIME Noonan observed "local" sunrise. It seems to me that if given he knew the angle of local sunrise, he would have been able to SWAG a latitude totally dependent upon the time of the sighting (northern latitudes yielding an earlier "local sunrise" and more southerly latitudes yielding a later "local sunrise"), relative to GMT. Am I being too simplistic in my analysis? Winds and drift be damned, to be honest; if the sun rose over the Pacific at (say GMT +20 hours, just to be arbitrary), Noonan must have been within some "safety envelope" regarding latitude. I'm tired, so please be indulgent in your ridicule:) LTM, Dave #2585 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:19:36 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Other shortwave sources ? Taking a quick minute from a critical non-Earhart project: Ron Bright wrote: >Thanks for the conversion. If I interpret this correctly, Lovelace, who heard >Japanese music perhaps on JZK 15160 kc, could have been tuning the dial near >15525, the 5th harmonic of AE's 3105 frequency. Hence AE could have been >transmitting at that moment. Is that a possibility? That's correct. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:22:18 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: independent corroboration Eric wrote: > For the record, what aspects of Betty's notebook have been independently > corroborated to date? Don't forget to mention all the peripheral corroboration of Betty's notebook in the form of analysis of the non-Earhart aspects of the notebook, all of which checked out as being consistent and contemporary. ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric That's right. The notebook itself has been extensively corroborated as a historical document from the summer of 1937. I took Eric's question to be specifically about the content of the Earhart transcription. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:47:07 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: 157/337 Line of Position Concerning Dave-in-Fremont's posting. >Since Noonan presumably had the tables required, he knew that local sunrise >anywhere Not "anywhere." Just at the assumed positions he probably used in computing sunrise. Within a broad (about 10 degree) swath of latitude north and south of Howland the sunrise LOP would have been aligned 157/337 degrees; although this is apparent in tables such as "Tables of Computed Altitude and Azimuth," those tables were not available in 1937. >What remains to be determined is what TIME Noonan observed "local" sunrise. >It seems to me that if given he knew the angle The azimuth angle, right? >of local sunrise, he would >have been able to SWAG a latitude totally dependent upon the time of the >sighting (northern latitudes yielding an earlier "local sunrise" and more >southerly latitudes yielding a later "local sunrise"), relative to GMT. Wouldn't he have to know his longitude first in order to get that much (latitude) information out of a timed sunrise sight? Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:48:22 EST From: Bob lee Subject: Re: Interesting Book Ric wrote: > >We labeled it a "feminist biography" not to imply that there is anything >wrong with feminism (as the father of two daughters I'm a feminist myself) >but because Butler glosses over or just fails to mention many of Earhart's >less admirable traits. No problem Ric. I thought that comment might raise a reply. I didn't mean anything by it other than the term 'feminist biography' could be construed negatively and I thought that the book, despite its flaws, has some good info and shouldn't be passed over. I knew what you meant. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:42:49 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Drift Meter Would anyone be willing to explain how the drift meter that FN might have carried been used. From what I've been able to understand it contained some type of marker (aluminum) that was dropped from the plane and then drift was calculated somehow. I can't seem to get how this works from a moving aircraft with limited visibility -- it's not like you can just watch out the back window.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:43:53 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Thanks for the reply Mark. I guess this is what I'm trying to say: Noonan knew before he left Lae that his sunrise LOP would be 157/337. Plotting his anticipated course on a chart, he would have been able to estimate with some certainty at what time (GMT) he expected to see the sunrise. If he anticipated seeing "local sunrise" at the 18:30 hour mark in the flight, but actually saw it at 18:35, wouldn't he be able to come up with a pretty close estimate based on the time of the sighting (this poor example putting him south of his plotted course). I know this is all academic since we don't know what time he actually made sunrise and took his shot. Just a question. LTM, Dave ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:44:45 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Add'l small radio factoids Dave in Fremont wrote: > Thanks to Hue for the information from text. It was very informative. > > However... Dave, I assume you refer to the 3 points I last posted. Which of the 3 will be rendered inaccurate by experience? Since the fomulas and graphs provided in the texts are based on the industry's extensive experience with solving exactly such specific, real-world problems. Is there a special case the authors missed? Hue ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:45:21 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: St. Pete Times? For Ron Bright, Thank you for your response to my question - Ron you stated " Sunday, 3, 1937 edition read" - One follow up question - Should that statement have read Saturday, July 3, 1937 or Sunday July 4, 1937? Resectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:56:10 EST From: Don Subject: Re: Interesting Book I Have become interested in other books about Amelia that would reveal the real Amelia. I will start with EAST TO DAWN since it seems to reveal traits and skills[or lack there of} that I have not heard before. Can someone name other books I might read? Don ************************************************************************ From Ric The real Amelia? Good luck. Biographies are almost always written by admirers and that is certainly true of the various AE biographies. Mary Lovell's "The Sound of Wings" is probably the least worshipful but it still paints a rosier picture than, in my opinion, is merited. One of the biggest problems is that information about Earhart's life was, from 1928 on, stage-managed by George Putnam and, in later years, by her sister Muriel. To get beyond that you have to go to independent primary sources that the biographers have chosen not to mention. In short, you won't find the real Amelia in any of the published biographies. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:33:56 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Post Loss/ Lat/long Perhaps you have this already identified, but deep down in Capt Friedell's report on 13 July, he said he received word at Honolulu prior to his departure, on 2 July, that amateur operators at LA picked up a position report that the Electra was a Lat 1degree 36 min South, and Long 179 East. Was this something from McMenamy or Pierson or someone else? Ron Bright ******************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, that's McMenamy and Pierson, but their report was not nearly as definite as Friedell implies. From the July 9th New York Herald Tribune: This morning what appeared to be a radioed position of the plane was picked up. "It was 179 and what sounded like 1.6", said McMenamy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:36:28 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Ron Berry wrote: >> Alan Thank You for trying to focus our scope. Alan, please keep it going. Some of us may just enjoy reading what you have to say. Stokes ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:38:26 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Actually the sun would rise on an azimuth of 067* true on July 2nd of any year at any latitude between 13* north through 9* south and the LOP from such an observation would run 157* - 337* true. This covers a band of latitudes of 22* and 1320 NM. Let's see if by timing sunrise " Noonan must have been within some "safety envelope" regarding latitude." Instead of using your example of sunrise occurring at 20:00 Z (GMT) let's look at the actual time of sunrise at Howland which occurred at 1746 Z. We know that this was the time of sun rise at 48' North latitude, the latitude of Howland. However the sun also rose at exactly the same time, 1746 Z, at 10* North latitude and 179* -15' East longitude and also at 10* S and 172* - 00' West and at all points on the line between these points. This covers a band stretching 1200 NM north and south. In fact, the sun rose at exactly the same time at the following points and on the line connecting them, a line spanning one-third of the circumference of the globe: 60* N / 134* - 45' E 50* N / 152* - 45' E 40* N / 202* - 30' E 10* N / 179* - 15' E 0* / 176* - 15' W 10* S / 172* - 00' W 40* S / 156* - 00' W 50* S / 146* - 45' W 60* S / 131* - 00' W When I was growing up we used to play marbles. Usually, after the game, we would pick up our marbles and go home. But, sometimes we would, in effect, bet our marbles on the outcome of the game with the winner picking up the loser's marbles and taking them home also. This is when the games got serious. We called this "playing for keeps." When you are navigating over the ocean you are "playing for keeps." At the risk of sounding pretentious, navigating is much more than making SWAGs, lives depend on doing it carefully and competently. You are being a bit simplistic in your analysis. Try going to http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/ for more information on celestial navigation or check out a navigation book at your library. gl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:39:37 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Mark Prange wrote: > --Wouldn't he have to know his longitude first in order to get that much > (latitude) information out of a timed sunrise sight? In fact that is how captain Sumner discovered the line of position technique about 150 years ago. Before the "Sumner line" navigators measured the altitude of a body to the east or west for what was called a "time sight" and used it along with their best latitude for the computation of their longitude. Sumner was unsure of his latitude since he hadn't gotten a noon sight for latitude in several days so he used two different assumed latitudes, one north and one south of his dead reckoned position, and did the computation for longitude twice. These computations established two different fixes. Sumner had the realization that he would have measured the same altitude at any point on a straight line between these two fixes, knew he had to be on this line, and so the LOP was born. ( It works the same way if you input an altitude and an assumed longitude, you get out a computed latitude.) gl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:41:17 EST From: Eric Subject: Re: independent corroboration Ric wrote: > That's right. The notebook [Betty's]itself has been extensively corroborated as a > historical document from the summer of 1937. I took Eric's question to be > specifically about the content of the Earhart transcription. And that is what I was asking about. I've never had any doubts about Betty's notebook being authentic. However, because certain key information is missing from the Earhart portion (i.e. the date she heard the transmissions, the frequency she was tuned to, etc.) there remains some question in my mind as to if she actually heard AE or someone claiming to be AE in an attempt to hoodwink any DXers who might have been tuned in. (Particularly that one ham who claimed to have talked with AE over the radio.) I'm looking forward to the special issue that will be devoted to post-loss message traffic. LTM Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:50:08 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: Re: independent corroboration There isn't any way a 15 yr. old girl, in that day and age could know all the things I was able to write down--- think about it !!! I know it wasn't a hoax, so I am better off than anyone.... I know that what ever " radio " I was on, picked it up, because of Dads antenna was there in the right place to hear her. Also me deciding to go to shortwave, at that time with my notebook in my hand ready to write what I could hear ..I know it was her "no one " can take that away from me !!! I want to thank the ones on the Forum that have believed in me...also the ones that have been kind to me even if some of them couldn't believe it possible. The ones that haven't used their brain wisely, have been unkind, are stuck in a rut of slanted statements and unkind smart talk, I really don't care how, you think you know what happened. I sit here and grin, and thank my Lord for Ric, Pat,and the Forum. Love Betty ************************************************* From Ric It is we who are thankful that you persevered for all those years and have been so generous and patient with our proddings and puzzlings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:01:45 EST From: Daryll Subject: Give me that hammer... Puzzle pieces are supposed to fit, you shouldn't have to hammer them into place. Ric do you remember the other day when you gave a metaphor for the post loss messages and Betty's notebook? >....Three stories, three different times, none of them exactly the >same, but all describing the same situation. Independent corroboration. >Each story by itself may or may not be credible but together they >present a compelling case that somebody was out there yesterday shouting >a particular story. It may or may not be somebody playing a joke but >it's pretty certain that all three of you heard the same guy....." I'm not much of a fan concerning Betty's notebook, which you now place on the 5th of July, because of the dramatic content of it, similar to a script. I did take a look at it because of the metaphor that you used and Noonan's injuries that was contained in it. Bilimon Amaran (I can never remember the correct spelling) said he treated a man on a Japanese boat for head injuries who was accompanied by a woman at Jaluit. GPP also got a telegram from an unnamed psychic on July 5th '37: ?A100 67 DL--CD NEWYORK NY JUL 5 1937 4:58P OPERATIONS MANAGER--OAKLAND AIRPORT OAKLAND CALIF: PLEASE GET THIS INFORMATION TO GEORGE PUTNAM EMINENT PSYCHIC SAYS BOTH SAFE ON REEF LESS THAN 200 MILES NORTH WEST OF HOWLAND ISLAND PLANE PRETTY WELL CRACKED UP BUT BOTH ARE SAFE MISS EARHART IN BETTER SHAPE THAN NOONAN ITASCA WILL FIND THEM IN MORNING THEIR TIME HASTE IS NECESSARY BUT THEY WILL BE RESCUED PLEASE TAKE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH FROM WELL WISHER UNSIGNED. 225PM Admittedly a psychic isn't a reliable source IF that was truly the source of the telegram. I have always thought that psychics liked to take credit for their predictions. The telegram does seem to have similarities with the "281 message". The date seems to be consistent. The number 200 is close to number 281. NW of Howland is where the Itasca headed because of the "281 message". HASTE IS NECESSARY is consistent with DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER (281 message). I recalled that Betty's notebook records a head injury to the man (Betty's notes, "he complained of his head"), this psychic's telegram suggests the same as does Bilimon's story years later concerning his experience at Jaluit on the Japanese ship. I finally looked at Betty's notebook on your website. 1. 158 mi (Betty's notes), The recip of 281 from Mili ties into the LOP about 106 nm (120 statute miles) NW of Howland. 2. W O J (Betty's notes) there is an island called Wotje in the Marshalls. 3. Betty's notes makes several references to the water. The 281 message contains ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF. 4. Betty's notes "Hey -- watch that battery -- what did you tell me to do --SOS -- Will you help me -- Will you please -- all right". The 281 message contains the words DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER. Since the message was received and logged on July 5th, battery power would seem to be the likely reference instead of the airplane sinking into the ocean. 5. Betty's notes has several references to "Marie Marie". Marie DeCarrie (sp?) was AE's secretary who lived at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel at the time of her disappearance. Carl Heine, the missionary at Jaluit, in a story published in the Mar. '38' Pacific Monthly claimed to have seen a letter for Amelia from Hollywood Cal. postmarked Oct. '37' which there was speculation among researchers that this was a connection to Marie DeCarrie. 6. Betty has references to Bud and Bob, what was Bo McKneely's, her mechanic, full first name? I just remember R.D. "Bo" McKneely. Maybe it's just the size of the hammer? Daryll *************************************************************************** From Ric Believe it or not, I agree with you that there is some commonality between the situation described in Betty's notebook and in the 281 message. I just don't agree with your interpretation of the 281 message. If AE's personal secretary was "Marie", that's interesting. What's your source? Bo McKneely's first name was Ruckins. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:25:37 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: 157/337 Line of Position Dave in Fremont wrote: >To Mark Prange: > >Thanks for the reply Mark. I guess this is what I'm trying to say: > >Noonan knew before he left Lae that his sunrise LOP would be 157/337. --Right, that would be a reasonable expectation if at sunrise he were to be within about 9 degrees of Howland, I think. >Plotting his anticipated course on a chart, he would have been able to >estimate with some certainty at what time (GMT) he expected to see the >sunrise. --Right, maybe. It might well have been of great interest to know about what time sunrise would occur. That predicted time has to be associated with a position. (Or a line of possible positions). >If he anticipated seeing "local sunrise" at.....18:30, but actually saw it >at 18:35, wouldn't he be able to come up with a >pretty close estimate --A latitude estimate, right? >based on the time of the sighting (this poor example >putting him south of his plotted course). In five minutes the Earth rotates 75 arcminutes. (Near the Equator that would be 75 nautical miles, or very nearly so). Think of it as the terminator shifting 75 arcminutes in five minutes. So instead of being somewhere on the 18:30 157/337 terminator, at sunrise the observer is somewhere on the 18:35 157/337 terminator, which has shifted 75' west. The observer might be SSE OR NNW along the 157/337 line. Deducing latitude information from the sunrise time is difficult partly because the direction of flight from Lae was roughly perpendicular to the terminator/sunrise LOP. Drifting right or left from the planned course wouldn't have nearly the effect as would a groundspeed that was appreciably different from planned. This is easier to see in a diagram than in a textual discussion like this. [In the case instead, however, of a plane flying east or southeast--then such drifting off course to the right would well be the cause of sighting sunrise later than planned]. >I know this is all academic since we don't know what time he actually made >sunrise and took his shot. --But all still very interesting nonetheless. My apologies for any disrespect in my earlier reply (to you, I think--but I'm not sure) some time ago. I had meant it as a private comment to another "navigator," and sent it by mistake to the Forum. Communicated privately, it wasn't meant to have quite the tone which unfortunately came across. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:26:17 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Thanks for the info, Gary. I will accept your short answer that Noonan being 100 miles on either side (North/South) of Howland on that day would have yielded the same result as far as a sunrise LOP. Thanks and LTM, Dave ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:35:42 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Add'l small radio factoids Hue, my problem with your assertions is just that, you are stating "what the book says" as "what must have happened" because "the book" says so. "What the book says" must be what happened and no other outcomes are possible, not to mention not acceptable to you. I'm much more interested in moving the ball forward rather than occupying so much bandwidth with the minutiae of "the state of the art of radio during 1937." Cynicism isn't a bad thing, Hue, I just think throwing numbers and equations at the forum isn't going to gain you many converts to your way of thinking. LTM, Dave *************************************************************************** From Ric We'll have a detailed response to Hue's assertions shortly. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:36:26 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position For Mark: Thanks again for the additional explanation. It was just a "common sense" kind of idea and wasn't sure if it would have any real world applicability. As for the apology, I don't think I deserve one, and I don't really remember anything rude being said to me by you. Can I keep it as a "hip pocket" apology and use it when necessary? LTM, Dave ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:36:56 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: St. Pete Times? For Tom Strang, Nice catch. It was Sat, July 3, not Sunday, July 4. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:37:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Drift Meter Bob, if you will check through the archives you will find a number of good explanations of drift meters. It will save a lot of time for a lot of people if folks will at least give the archives a try before posting a question. Then if it is not found everyone will be quite happy to inundate you with answers. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:39:15 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Gary LaPook wrote: > Actually the sun would rise on an azimuth of 067* true on July 2nd of any year > at any latitude between 13* north through 9* south and the LOP from such an > observation would run 157* - 337* true. This covers a band of latitudes > of 22* and 1320 NM. Thanks, Gary. That still pins it down to a smaller area than did Nauticos. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:40:07 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims > Alan, please keep it going. Some of us may just enjoy reading what you have > to say.. > > Stokes Or do you just want to see me make a target out of myself, Claude? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:41:57 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: independent corroboration Betty wrote > I want to thank the ones on the Forum that have believed in me Betty, the folks that don't believe in you don't seem to believe in anything. At least I don't recall any of them posting what they DO believe in so just ignore them. We do. Alan ****************************************************************** From: Mike Haddock For Betty Betty, I for one have always believed your account of what you heard. I was especially convinced when I saw the tape. Being 63 years old myself, I believe as we get older we get more and more honest. For our time remaining on this planet, we don't want to waste our lives with deception and falsehoods. I believe the older we get the more honest we become. I applaud your courage! There are a lot of us who feel the same way! LTM (who believes that the truth will set us free) Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:42:46 EST From: Daryll Subject: Margo not Marie I should have checked my post before I pushed the send button. AE's secretary was Margo DeCarie and NOT Marie. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:34:42 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Drift Meter Alan wrote: > Bob, if you will check through the archives you will find a number of good > explanations of drift meters. I did. I searched for 'drift meter tighar' on Metacrawler and today I searched for drift meter on the TIGHAR site both as words and keywords -- nothing sprung up. Perhaps I've forgotten how to use a search engine. Bob ******************************************************************* From Gary LaPook Sure, its pretty simple. Usually you have some sort of drift meter or pelorus that allows you to tell how much you are drifting from traveling straight ahead across the surface of the earth. This drift is caused by the wind. A drift meter is simply a sighting device that you look through at objects on the ground. By reference to a series of lines in the field of view (in some types) or by reading a scale on the object in sight, you can tell the number of degrees you are actually drifting off to the left or to the right from where the nose is pointed. It is easy to measure to within one degree of accuracy. Some early aviators just painted lines on the wing marked in degrees to use as a reference. Some, including Chichester, just estimated the drift by eyeball. Over land you sight on fixed objects but over water it is a little trickier. If there are whitecaps you can sight on them if they persist for a while. Each whitecap stays in one place. Or you can drop a marker which can make a spot on the water or a smoke bomb or a flare at night which you sight on back behind you. If you have to look 10 degrees to the left to keep the marker in sight as you travel away from it, it is obvious that you are drifting 10 degrees to the right. If the marker stays directly behind you then there is no drift. Some more modern drift meters (not the kind used by Noonan) also allowed you to measure your ground speed by timing how long it took for an object on the surface to move between two lines on the reticule and then multiplying by a factor based on your altitude. Another type (that allowed you to also measure the vertical angle to the object on the ground) has you measuring how long it takes for the vertical angle to the object to change a certain number of degrees and then multiplying by a factor related to your altitude. For example, you look straight down (90 degrees) at an object and then keep it in sight as it moves behind you. You keep track of the time until it is at a 45 degree angle down behind you. Lets say it took one minute and you are at 12,000 feet. By trig we can tell that we have traveled across the earth the same distance as our altitude, 12,000 feet, approximately 2 NM. Since this took one minute our ground speed must be 120 Knots. Since the multiplication factor is dependent on our altitude, if there is an error in our altimeter then it will show up as an error in the ground speed. O.K. what can we do with this drift information? First, we can use it to stay on course. Lets say we want to maintain a course of 090 degrees. We point the nose on 090 and measure the drift as 10 degrees to the right. This means that instead of maintaining a course over the ground of 090 we are actually traveling on a course of 100 degrees. This much of a drift would take us 400 NM off course after traveling 2400 NM about the distance from Lae to Howland. Once we see what is happening we change our heading by the same 10 degree drift angle but in the opposite direction to 080 to correct for the angle of drift. Then we measure the drift again. It may still be about 10 degrees to the right which when added to our heading of 080 means we are now making good our course of 090. But lets say it changed to only 9 right so we are only making good 089 now just slightly off course. So we change to 081 and with such a small heading change the drift shouldn't change appreciably so it stays at 9 right plus our heading of 081 buts us right on course of 090. We are now staying on course and that is a good thing but we probably can't tell what our ground speed is. If there was no drift it could mean that there is no wind or that it is a straight headwind or tailwind which could be speeding us up or slowing us down. Our drift meter only measures the cross wind component but not the along course component of the wind. But what if we changed our heading by 90 degrees? Then the drift would represent the along course wind component and if we measure the drift on this other heading we could figure out the along course component of the wind. In practice we only have to change our heading by 30 degrees. Standard practice is to measure the on course heading drift, turn 30 degrees right and hold that heading for two minutes and measure the drift on that heading. Then we turn to the left 60 degrees, (30 puts us back onto the on course heading and another 30 takes us to 30 degrees to the left of course). We hold this for two minutes and measure the drift. We then turn back on course. All of this turning has only cost us 2 minutes travel along the course. With 3 drifts measured on three headings we can draw a vector diagram on a piece of paper or on a special plotting device called a computer, well known to all pilots as an E6B. Since all of these drifts were caused by the same wind this diagram tells us what the actual wind is, its direction and speed. The wind is easy to figure within a couple of knots and within a few degrees. Now that we know the wind we can compute the heading needed to stay on course, our ground speed, the ETA and if there is still enough fuel on board to make it to destination. It is a lot easier to actually do than it is to describe. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:35:51 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position My theory is that AE lost control of the airplane and crashed into the sea after Noonan crawled forward over the fuel tanks and starting choking her since she wouldn't follow the headings he was giving her to fly a search pattern to find Howland and he knew she was going to end up killing them both. It was self defense. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:52:17 EST From: Eric Subject: GPP'S Psychic Daryll wrote: >GPP also got a telegram from an unnamed psychic on July 5th '37 [which provided information on where the plane was supposed to have come down.] In AMELIA EARHART'S SHOES, Tom King identifies Jackie Cochran, a practicing clairvoyant and a friend of Putnam, as a possible source for the search area information which GPP tried to get the Navy to follow up on. Was Putnam in touch with two different psychics or did Cochran send the telegram? Hmmmmm. Eric, NAS North Island, San Diego, CA. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:53:11 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Losing control >Noonan crawled forward over the fuel tanks and starting choking her ..... >It was self defense. A rather suicidal form of self defense wouldn't you say? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:54:02 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Drift Meter For Gary LaPook Thanks a million!!! Great info. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:59:24 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Pre loss msgs Maybe this question has been asked and answered; But did any other stations such as the Swan, PANAM or Coast Guard/Navy Hawaii , other than ITASCA and Howland, hear any of AE's incoming traffic while she is airborne that morning as she approached Howland using 3105. It seems that all were monitoring her frequencies then. It seems they would be all guarding that frequency that morning. Ron B. ************************************************************************* From Ric I'm not aware of any indication that anyone but Itasca and Howland heard Earhart that morning (Nauru heard her the night before), but as far as I know, no one else was listening. Pan American certainly didn't get involved until after the disappearance and I'm aware of no indication that USS Swan, COMHAWSEC, USN Wailupe, or USN Tutuila were listening. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:00:56 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: Losing control I still say he used the "message stick" as a cue stick and her head as a cue ball. Either way they both end up behind the eight ball. Mike J. ************************************************* From Ric Are you guys through now? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:41:22 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Losing Control Ric wrote: "Are you guys through now?" Heck, no, Ric, some of us are just getting warmed up! Someone has to tie all this in to the story about AE standing around on the beach in men's underwear! Any takers? LTM, who never knew when to quit, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ************************************************************************* From Ric I think I understand why this thread is called "Losing Control". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:42:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: GPP'S Psychic >Was Putnam in > touch with two different psychics or did Cochran send the telegram? Hmmmmm. PLEASE GET THIS INFORMATION TO GEORGE PUTNAM EMINENT PSYCHIC SAYS BOTH..... The above quote shows there must have been two psychics - the anonymous psychic who sent the message, and the second one who was able to tell that the first one was "eminent". (Unless of course there was a conspiracy to keep the name of the eminent psychic from GPP). Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:45:28 EST From: Dick Greenwood Subject: Charles Hill's "Fix On The Rising Sun" If you haven't review'd this, I suggest it may be of interest. A couple of things: One - a meeting between PAN AM 1st officer "Tex Weber" and AE in a discussion of the trip. with revelations by AE as to the "intelligence" nature of it. Two - PAN AM Files (now with the UNIV OF MIAMI) and a 2nd set of radio logs from the relatives of a Mr. Balfour. It seems PAN AM Post Loss "DF" Locations are a lot further to the NW than supposed. In general the book sets the occurrence in the context of a number of Japanese sponsored terrorist activities in about a 2 year period. The occurrences involved "shooting down" of a PAN AM DC2, Sinking of a us naval vessel (PANAY) Bombing of the Samoan Clipper, possible AE, and the hijacking of the Hawaiian Clipper. All of which increases the likelihood of Japanese involvement. Also; a discussion of Noonan's navigational expertise and the Electra's Top Speed secrecy, which was measured in the Carribbean approaching 250 mph. If these things have already been discounted than - MY APOLOGIES ! ************************************************************************ From Ric We have attempted no point-by-point review of Mr. Hill's book because it hasn't seemed worth the effort. However, we're always willing to be convinced. For example, how is this supposed meeting between AE and a Pan Am 1st officer documented? The Panay was indeed sunk but what proof is offered of Japanese involvement in the DC-2, and Clipper losses? Who measured the Electra doing 250 mph? Anybody can write a book and make accusations, but if you expect to be taken seriously by educated people you have to provide credible sources. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Drift Meter Bob, I'm glad you waited for Gary's explanation rather than mine. Gary did an outstanding job and provided you with an excellent explanation of the use of a drift meter. I was going to say Noonan looked out of the left passenger door through his drift meter and noticed whether the plane was drifting left or right. He then applied a heading correction to correct for the drift. Clearly my attempt is seriously lacking in detail. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:15:13 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: GPP'S Psychic Angus Murray wrote: > Was Putnam in > touch with two different psychics or did Cochran send the telegram? I am certainly not one to put down someone's profession but I can't resist noting that Jeanne Dixon failed to notice her pending death and the great TV psychic from Florida did not notice the FBI closing in. Perhaps they were too busy with customers at the time. I have no idea whether there is such a person as a psychic or not but I know of no documented evidence of their "talent." Now before we start posting all the great psychic exploits let me suggest the test is for the psychic to tell us what WILL happen rather than finding a past event where a psychic supposedly predicted something. If anyone actually believes such is possible ask them where the bloody Electra is. Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric I don't think anyone is suggesting that we debate the merits of claims of paranormal ability. Those who haven't figured that one out already need more help than this forum can offer. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:20:49 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Charles Hill's "Fix On The Rising Sun" Ric asked: >Who measured the Electra doing 250 mph? Something very basic re this claim. It is well established that the power required for level flight in any airplane increases with the cube of the airspeed. So if other Electra 10s did 150 mph then to get NR 16020 to do 250 would take 4.6 times as much power.(250/150) ^3 So instead of a pair of R-1430s it would take either 9 R-1430s bolted onto the plane (this doesn't show up in any of the pictures, however) or a pair of R-6620s , (something that doesn't exist). This makes this claim seem very unlikely. gl *********************************************************************** From Dick Greenwood THE DISCUSSION Between AE and Ist Officer Weber is found in NOV 86 issue of "SHIPMATE" (USN Academy Alumni Magazine). Article presented by a Greenwood (class of 42) , no relation. Greenwood was a 15 year old cousin and admirer of "Tex Weber" at the time of the meeting. That was the only DOC. on the meeting I noticed. ********************************************************************** From Ric I trust you begin to see why we haven't wasted time critiquing Mr. Hill's book. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:25:26 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: GPP'S Psychic Eric, Jacqueline Cochran was raised by the Pittmans in my hometown of Marianna, Florida--people of modest income. Why in the world would a wealthy man like George Putnam need the help of Jackie to search for AE. GP had a lot of muscle with the media and the wallet to back it up. I must be missing something! LTM (who is often confused) Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric AE and Jackie were friends and they sometimes "experimented" with ESP. After AE disappeared Jackie had psychic impressions of her fate that GP apparently took seriously. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:44:16 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: transmitter dyno location I have a question raised by the current issue of Tracks. On page 5, the text talks about the dynamotor for the transmitter, being located under the pilot seat. I may have missed something, but I didn't know this location had been previously stated for the transmitter dyno. Receiver and receiver dyno, yes. That doesn't leave a lot of room for the big transmitter dyno. -Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric It's my understanding that the little receiver dyno was co-located with the receiver under the copilot's seat. Photos of the aft cabin which show the transmitter make it clear that the transmitter dyno is not back there. In "Last Flight" Earhart says "The main dynamotor is under my seat." If you can show that the dimensions of the transmitter dyno exceed the dimensions of the space under the pilot's seat then you will have raised a legitimate question. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:06 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Research needed In working on the "distribution by time" part of the Post-Loss Radio Study I find that, in order to do some accurate comparisons, I need the time of sunset and sunrise during the period July 2 - 13 for: Honolulu, HI Los Angeles, CA St. Petersburg, FL Nearly all of the post-loss radio events occurred during hours of darkness at the receiving end. It is most likely that the transmission point was also in darkness. We know when the hours of darkness were in the Howland Island vicinity but we need to get a handle on other areas. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Searching for a DC3 Ride in Connecticut I have been negotiating with J. David Golden, "The Man Who Saved Old-Time Radio." He has agreed to copy seven tape excerpts for us. Among them are the following: 12273. The March Of Time. July 29, 1937. CBS net. Sponsored by: Life Magazine. The Scottsboro Trial, The Chinese-Japanese War, other stories of the week. A few seconds are missing from the middle. Westbrook Van Voorhis (announcer). 28:42. Audio condition: Very good. Incomplete. 40751. The March Of Time. December 20, 1937. NBC net. Sponsored by: Time/Life. "The News Of 1937 In review." The second inauguration of President Roosevelt, labor unrest, a flooded prison in Kentucky, Roosevelt tries to "pack" the Supreme Court, Franco's revolution in Spain, Amelia Earhart disappears, the Hindenburg crashes, business declines, swing music becomes popular . 29:30. Audio condition: Very good. Complete. These are the two MoTs in his collection that come closest to the shows done in July, 1937, shortly after AE & FN went missing. They will at least show us the format of the program within weeks and months of the AE broadcasts. 72676. Amelia Earhart. February 1931. The famous pilot, speaks from Europe about the place of women in aviation. A second short recording, of a similar nature, sounds like an expanded version of the first recording, and was possibly recorded at the same time. Amelia Earhart. 7:09. Audio condition: Excellent. Apparently complete. 72678. Amelia Earhart. May 22, 1932. Speaking from London, she describes her transatlantic flight. Amelia Earhart. 1:26. Audio condition: Very good. Apparently complete. 33933. The Year It Began. 1962. American Cancer Society syndication. Sponsored by: American Cancer Society fund appeal. Excerpts from old radio programs. Bob Considine (host), Fred Allen, Portland Hoffa, Franklin Roosevelt, John L. Lewis, Amelia Earhart, Edgar Bergen, W. C. Fields, Edward Bowes, Don Ameche, Rudy Vallee, Hal Kemp, John Gielgud, Bob Hope. 15 minutes. Audio condition: Excellent. Complete. 14708. Interview With Mrs. Amy Otis Earhart. May 20, 1947. WOR, New York. Sustaining. The seventy nine year old mother of the famous aviatrix discusses her daughter's flying and disappearance. She's sure Amelia landed safely and was captured by the Japanese. Two takes of the interview are heard. Amy Otis Earhart, John Wingate (interviewer). 7:31. Audio condition: Excellent. Complete. I requested these as well as Fred Goerner's KCBS broadcast from 1960 just for the heck of it. Who knows what gems there might be in them? Golden is retired from the tape reproduction business, so I asked him what it would take to motivate him to copy the segments we're interested in. He said "a ride in the right seat of a DC-3." He is a pilot, but I don't know whether he is rated or current. He would have 0 hours in a DC3, of course. He says it's a "life-long ambition." I'm hoping that someone belongs to a group flying DC3s in the New England area. We can work out financing if and when we find a plane. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:23:01 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: Research needed Abundant thanks to the many replies received. Astonishingly, there seems to be little controversy about what time sun rises and sets. No point in posting all of the replies. This one will serve as an example. It's nice to see that there's something we can all agree on. LTM, Ric ********************************************************************* FROM: RICK METZGER ASTRONOMICAL APPLICATIONS DEPT. US NAVAL OBSERVATORY WASHINTON DC. ALL TIMES ARE LOCAL ST. PETERSBURG, FL JULY 2-13 1937 W082 N27 JULY DATE RISE SET 2 0538 1930 3 0539 1930 4 0539 1930 5 0540 1930 6 0540 1930 7 0541 1930 8 0541 1930 9 0541 1930 10 0541 1930 11 0542 1930 12 0543 1930 13 0543 1930 LOS ANGELES, CA W118 N34 JULY 2-13 1937 DATE RISE SET 2 0446 1909 3 0446 1909 4 0447 1909 5 0447 1908 6 0448 1908 7 0448 1908 8 0449 1908 9 0449 1908 10 0450 1907 11 0451 1907 12 0451 1907 13 0452 1906 HONOLULU, HI W158 N21 JULY 3-13 1937 DATE RISE SET 2 0554 1919 3 0554 1918 4 0554 1918 5 0555 1918 6 0555 1918 7 0555 1918 8 0556 1918 9 0556 1918 10 0556 1918 11 0557 1918 12 0557 1918 13 0558 1918 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:26:32 EST From: Van Hunn Subject: Video For the Forum's information, I have just watched a new (to me) video titled: "The Final Hours: Amelia Earhart's Last Flight." The film traces both the west and east attempts to fly around the world. The film is very well done, and I'd recommend it to everyone. It has several clips of AE and vintage Lockheed 10 clips that I have not seen before and a lot nice shots of Linda Finch's L-10 as well. The film is a presentation of South Carolina ETV and produced in association with Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. They use a WWII retired navigator, named Bowen P Weisheit, who presents his (questionable) theories as to why she didn't find Howland. The video is available from SC ETV, 1-800-553-7752. Catalog number 221-000. cost: $19.95 + 4.50 shipping. Van ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:30:05 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Fiji Bone reward A while back, there was a discussion on offering a reward or some other compensation for information leading to the discovery of the missing bones that were sent to Fiji. I believe at that time, TIGHAR was against it. Have things changed? ************************************************************ From Ric There is still, technically, a standing reward of $500 for information leading to the discovery of the bones. Generally speaking, TIGHAR does not pay for information or offer rewards, but an exception was made in this case. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:30:54 EST From: Daryll Subject: DC-3 ride http://www.maam.org/r4d.html Mid Atlantic Air Museum in Reading Pennsylvania has an R4D. Try them for a DC3 ride. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:33:56 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: transmitter dyno location According to my 1936 aircraft mechanics handbook the dynamotor wasn't any larger than an aircraft generator and weighed considerably less so it could fit under the Electra Pilots or co-pilots seat. The dynos were D/C electric motors attached to an A/C generator to give the voltage needed to run the radio transmitter(s). Dynamotors are 6-28VDC input to High DC output.( about 225vdc for receive and about 1000vdc for transmit) The voltage output was dependent on the voltage input. If the motor didn't turn the dyno up to speed then the transmitter didn't get all the voltage it needed to transmit properly. (This could be a cause for all types of strange sounds, electrical feedback and off-frequency transmission.) Mike J. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:07:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fiji Bone reward Let me add a bit to the reward story. At the end of the '99 search, when we hadn't found the bones, we realized that lots of people -- notably Fiji government public works people -- are routinely going through old government buildings and might stumble on something. We thought it important to give them some incentive for keeping their eyes open. Hence the reward. It hasn't borne any fruit yet, but I think it would be worth reminding folks in Fiji about it. We carefully stipulated that it was a reward for information leading to the recovery of the bones, so it wouldn't unleash a flood of phony discoveries. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:16:49 EST From: Daryll Subject: Psychics I posted this telegram below, that GPP had received on July 5th. It might NOT be from a psychic but only disguised that way for expedient open transmission via Western Union, to GPP on the west coast. It could have been from a government or Navy source on the east coast (Washington). If so, there is more in this telegram than was in the "281 message". What we see in the "281 message" could have been an edited version (not the complete message copied by the three operators) before being passed onto the Itasca and others. I could be proved wrong if the time line doesn't match with the reception time on the "281 message". I get a head ache trying to deal with time zones & GCT/GMT. I have argued that the "281 message" was picked up by the Navy OP-20-G intercept station in Hawaii (Station Hypo) because. 1. Their job was to listen, not be involved in regular navy house keeping radio traffic, which had specific frequencies to guard for official messages. An intercept station had the latitude to jump around frequencies to listen on. 2. Three operators would be consistent for a watch. Guam (Station Baker) had only two per watch. 3. We have never seen the raw log book entry of that reception. Raw intercepts were never released. 4. The three navy operators who copied it never came forward with their story for the newspapers. You could pass this off as just a psychic vision but it could also contain information that was in the "281 message" , "fragmentary phrases" that weren't in the "281 message" that was passed onto the Itasca. Daryll ?A100 67 DL=CD NEWYORK NY JUL 5 1937 4:58P OPERATIONS MANAGER=OAKLAND AIRPORT OAKLAND CALIF: PLEASE GET THIS INFORMATION TO GEORGE PUTNAM EMINENT PSYCHIC SAYS BOTH SAFE ON REEF LESS THAN 200 MILES NORTH WEST OF HOWLAND ISLAND PLANE PRETTY WELL CRACKED UP BUT BOTH ARE SAFE MISS EARHART IN BETTER SHAPE THAN NOONAN ITASCA WILL FIND THEM IN MORNING THEIR TIME HASTE IS NECESSARY BUT THEY WILL BE RESCUED PLEASE TAKE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH FROM WELL WISHER UNSIGNED. 225PM ************************************************************************* From Ric U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe heard the fragementary phrases that make up the "281 message, during a one-hour period from 11:30 to 12:30 GCT/GMT on July 5th. The telegram you cite was apparently sent from New York at 4:58 p.m. (16:58) Eastern Standard Time on July 5th. That would be 9:58 p.m. (21:58) GCT/GMT. In other words, the "281 message" was heard roughly ten hours before the telegram was sent. It's always fun to see the mind of a conspiracy theorist at work. Nothing is what it seems to be and everything action has a secret motive, but once the real meaning is discerned, all the pieces fall into place. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:28:39 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: transmitter dyno location Mike Juliano wrote: >According to my 1936 aircraft mechanics handbook the dynamotor wasn't any >larger than an aircraft generator and weighed considerably less so it could >fit under the Electra Pilots or co-pilots seat. Okay on all above. >(This could be a cause for all types of strange sounds, electrical >feedback and off-frequency transmission.) No way. I'm sorry, not "could" on any of above, in the crystal-controlled WE transmitter. The reason I was surprised to learn that contrary to my assumption, the transmitter dynamotor was under the seat, is that in one of the post-loss messages, the scene described has water up to knees. This means water over the head of the receiver and both dynamotors. This equipment is buttoned up but it's not hermetically sealed. I believe the most vulnerable point is in the connectors, where the plug meets the socket as well as where the cable enters the connector's hull or shell. I imagine these components would be spec'd as "splashproof" but not "immersion proof". It's hard for me to picture the HV dynamotor happily running the transmitter for a period of at least 1 1/2 hours of immersion, let alone a couple day's immersion - or at least periods of immersion alternating with non-drying out. (Drying out would require disconnecting components, removing covers, and drying in sun, I think.) Also, if I am right, what do you think about the leakage of a 1000 volt supply into a saline solution, and then a human being with legs immersed in this? Am I being counterproductively negative again, or is this a valid consideration? I do have an aircraft dynamotor in storage, maybe even some matching cables for it. This is something that could be tested, I imagine, altho I would not want to try it with power on. -Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric I think we established a long time ago that "knee-deep" water anywhere inside the airplane would make transmissions impossible, so we're left with two possibilities: 1. The post-loss message that referenced knee-deep water (Betty's Notebook) was not sent from the Earhart plane. or 2. The phrase "water's knee-deep" does not refer to the water level inside the plane. By logical extension, it might therefore refer to the water level outside the plane. Because the Pacific Ocean tends to be somewhat more than knee-deep in most places, we might imagine that the airplane is on some hard surface where there is standing water and that the water level is subject to change. If we wish to argue for explanation No. 1 we have to satisfy two requirements. 1a. The message came from somewhere. If it didn't come from the Earhart plane it should be possible to construct a credible hypothesis that explains where it did come from. 1.b We have to explain why explanation No. 2 is not possible. As far as I know, neither of those requirements have been met. If we wish to argue for explanation No. 2, we have to show that the reception of a message was possible. Bob Brandenburg has presented, in the 8th Edition and on the TIGHAR website, his case for the reception being possible. In a recent posting Hue outlined his reasons for believing that it was not. Bob and Mike Everette are preparing a rebuttal to Hue's critique which will be posted here as soon as it is finished. We also have to show that it was possible and reasonable for the airplane to be somewhere where the water outside might be described as "knee-deep". An aircraft near the reef edge at Gardner Island meets that requirement. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:30:16 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: A special Thank You Ric , this is a special thanks to John Hathaway for all the work he did to get the "Betty notebook" to the right people ..It would still be in my dresser drawer without him...Special Thanks John, Betty ********************************************************************* From Ric I will heartily second that motion. Thanks John. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:31:51 EST From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: navigation web site I found the star celestial nav. almanac available at http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/ useful in understanding the FN's star fixes shown on the charts for the oakland-hono flight provided by TIGHAR. The tabulated data extends back to 1937 and beyond and includes GHA, Dec, hc, and Zn. for a given date and UT. The almanac Fred used may have some differences as compared to this modern data, but I would guess that they are minor. I don't see a way to check on or verify FN's accuracy (don't have his ho's or their accuracy)but this is a great way to learn some of his techniques, a privilege for me, a neophyte navigator. When measuring distances from fix to fix, I needed a tool to convert units such as mm measured on the chart to nautical or statute miles. There well may be such a device in existence, but not having this, I devised a distance scaling equation that takes into account course and latitude. If this is of use to anyone, let me know. From the fix positions (assuming they are correct) and elapsed time it is easy to calculate average ground speeds over any selected time interval. I am trying to correlate these calculated ground speeds with the few available airspeed data and wind estimates to verify or reject the Lockheed R487 airspeeds. So far, as Oscar Boswell has determined for other flights, the 487 speeds appear to be excessive. harvey,2387 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:09:04 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Psychics Daryll wrote: > > I posted this telegram below, that GPP had received on July 5th. It > might NOT be from a psychic but only disguised that way for expedient > open transmission via Western Union, to GPP on the west coast. It could > have been from a government or Navy source on the east coast > (Washington). I have to admit the telegram was not sent by me. As proof, I submit I was not in the Navy or working for the government in 1937. I'm not sure I knew what a telegram was. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:17:51 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Research needed > Abundant thanks to the many replies received. Astonishingly, there seems to > be little controversy about what time sun rises and sets. No point in > posting all of the replies. This one will serve as an example. > It's nice to see that there's something we can all agree on. Ric: did all the sources really agree with these tables? I find it curious/interesting, that while the rise time changes by 5 min over 11 days, the set time remains steady! And this at St Pete only; not in HNL, which has roughly the same latitude... I'll bet Gary will have a good explanation for this? Christian D ********************************************************************** From Ric Other sources show a two minute change in the time of sunset between July 2nd (19:31) and July 13th (19:29) but for my purposes 'long about 7:30 in the evenin' is just fine. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:28:39 EST From: Eric Subject: A Question for Ric Ric wrote: > I think we established a long time ago that "knee-deep" > water anywhere inside > the airplane would make transmissions impossible . . . If the Electra was upside down, would the radio still work? LTM Eric, NAS North Island, San Diego, CA. ************************************************************************* From Ric Maybe, but the transmitting antenna (the dorsal vee) would either be crushed or submerged. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:08:23 EST From: Daryll Subject: Re: Psychic's telegram >In other words, the "281 message" was heard roughly ten hours before >the telegram was sent....RG Ric, thanks so much for helping my handicap conspiratorial mind with your wonderful mechanical deductive mind. So you have deduced that 10 hours had elapsed between the reception of the "281 message" and the psychic's telegram. To my conspiratorial mind, the contents of the "281 message" had time then, to be sent to the Munitions Building in Washington, to be evaluated and then covertly dispersed via Western Union to GPP. When did COMHAWSEC send the "281 message" to Itasca?. Help me out with this part with what looks to be a time as part of the messages. "281 message" -.....COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS 0242 "Psychic's telegram" - UNSIGNED. 225PM. Daryll ************************************************************************* From Ric >To my conspiratorial mind, >the contents of the "281 message" had time then, to be sent to the >Munitions Building in Washington, to be evaluated and then covertly >dispersed via Western Union to GPP. The 281 message was not treated as classified information. Putnam was hanging out at COMFRANDIV (Coast Guard San Francisco) which received notification of the 281 message at 19:55Z on July 5th - two hours before the psychic telegram was sent at 21:58Z. You're suggesting an elaborate conspiracy to covertly get information to Putnam that he probably already had and which was all over the newspapers the next morning. The Coast Guard Hawaiian Section (COMHAWSEC) notified the ITASCA at 02:42 Hawaiian Standard Time (13:12Z) on July 5. You'll recall that USN Wailupe heard the fragmentary phrases between 01:00 and 02:00 Hawaiian Standard time (13:30 to 12:30Z). We therefore have a 42 minute gap between the time the operators at Wailupe stopped hearing the transmissions and the time that the Coast Guard notified the ITASCA. During that time, the Wailupe operators have to be sure that the sporadic transmissions have stopped and then notify COMHAWSEC of what they heard. The absence of any official message from Wailupe to COMHAWSEC about this event makes me think that they probably just picked up the phone. They were both right there in the Honolulu area. I know that you know that 02:42 and 2:25 P.M. are 12 hours and 17 minutes apart even if they are in the same time zone (which these are not), so I don't understand why you think there is any possible significance in the superficial similarity in the numbers. There's nothing wonderful about my mind. I just look at the facts. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:56:31 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: A Question for Ric Not to mention the fact that the batteries would be upside down with all the acid drained out. Don J. ***************************************************************** From Ric Details, details..... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:34:41 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Research needed Christian D wrote: > I find it curious/interesting, that while the rise time changes by 5 min over 11 > days, the set time remains steady! The explanation is due to the change in the "equation of time" during the same period. So what does this mean? We all know that the day is 24 hours long based on our clocks that keep regular time. We would expect that the time from noon one day until noon on the next day should, therefore, be 24 hours. ( Noon is when the sun is on your meridian, bearing exactly south in the US and bearing exactly north in Australia, for example.) This in not the case because the speed of the earth in its orbit around the sun varies throughout the year due to its varying distance from the sun. This causes the period from noon to noon to vary by several seconds per day and the effect adds up so that the time of noon varies + & - 16 minutes during different parts of the year. Noon at Greenwich should be at 12:00 o'clock but in the middle of February it doesn't happen until 12:14 p.m. and in October it occurs at 11:44 a.m. The difference between the mean, or clock time, of noon and the actual time that the sun crosses the meridian is defined as the equation of time. Look at : http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/almanac-1937-22.JPG in the equation of time column for July 2-12, 1937. At noon at Greenwich on July 2nd it was -3 minutes and 47.4 seconds while at noon GMT on July 12th it had changed to -5 minutes and 25.1 seconds. Applying the equation of time to we find that noon GMT on July 2nd, 1937 happened at 12:03:47.3 p.m. while on July 12th it didn't occur until 12:05:25.1 p.m. 1 minute and 37.7 seconds later (about 2 minutes). So how does this explain the times of sunrise and sunset? During the same period the length of daylight was getting shorter. On July 2nd the sun was up 0538 -- 1930 a total of 13 hours and 52 minutes at St. Pete. Since this period is centered on local noon we can divide this period in half, 6 hours and 56 minutes, and add this to the time of sunrise to find the time of local noon, 12:34 p.m. On July 12th the sun was up 0543 -- 1930 a total of only 13 hours and 47 minutes about 5 minutes less. Doing the same computation you find that noon on July 12th happened at 12:36.5 p.m. about 2.5 minutes later. (Remember that the sunrise table is rounded off to the nearest whole minute.) This is what we would expect since we know the equation of time changed by 1 minute and 37.7 seconds, approximately 2 minutes. So daylight got shorter by five minutes and noon shifted 2.5 minutes later. If there had been no change in the equation of time then we would have expected the sun to rise about 2.5 minutes later and to set the same 2.5 minutes earlier. This shift of noon caused the whole change in the period of daylight to be accounted for by the change of sunrise with no change in sunset. So why don't we see the same thing at Honolulu and L.A? Well, to the accuracy of the table the same thing occurred in Honolulu. It doesn't work out the same way in L.A. however because the length of daylight got shorter by 7 minutes so it was not completely compensated for by the change in the time of noon. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:30:16 EST From: Daryll Subject: Re: Psychics >.....I just look at the facts. Part of our basic philosophical differences is that you believe all of the "facts" are known, and I don't. Something has been supplying the fuel for Earhart research for a good many years. The Crash & Sankers believe what they believe because nothing has ever been found of the Electra. Even Kingsford Smith's wheel and landing gear assembly was found floating, so he didn't disappear without a trace. >....The 281 message was not treated as classified >information..... The parts of the "281 message" that we see were obviously not classified because we know about it. There was even a reference to it in a 1945 comic book. Without seeing the original log book entry or even a statement by one of the three operators who heard it, how can we be sure we know the entire message content of the reception? It is a matter of record that the Navy had radio intercept stations in this time frame. What they heard was classified information and the raw receptions were never seen until it was "typed smooth" [Safford]. >....We therefore have a 42 minute gap between the time the operators >at Wailupe stopped hearing the transmissions and the time that the Coast >Guard notified the ITASCA.... Did you confirm that 42 min from the 0242 in the message or did you confirm that from the Itasca log book entry about receiving the message? >....The absence of any official message from Wailupe to COMHAWSEC >about this event makes me think that they probably just picked up the >phone..... Because of the urgency of the search a decision at the local level to release just relevant parts of the reception could have been made to get the Itasca under-way to what they interpreted was a point 281 miles NW of Howland. Aircraft damage or injuries to Noonan would not be relevant to the Itasca. You have your interpretation of the "281 message" and I have mine. I see certain items that the eye-witnesses in the Marshalls seem to confirm that show up very early (a couple of days) into the search. Items that could only have a connection via a post loss radio intercept. >....COMFRANDIV (Coast Guard San Francisco) which received notification >of the 281 message at 19:55Z on July 5th - two hours before the psychic >telegram was sent at 21:58Z.... COMFRANDIV got the "281 message" 8 hours after reception. Is that because the Navy didn't have a 24 hour watch on the communication channels or did it have to go through Washington first? >....get information to Putnam that he probably already had and which >was all over the newspapers the next morning..... I am trying to find out when GPP did get the "281 message". Putnam was all over the map in the initial search even looking at the Phoenix group. I recall seeing a letter that he wrote dated July 31st to FDR's secretary Marvin McIntrye (? I think). He expressed thanks for the assistance in the search and that he now believed the most likely place to look was the Marshalls. I wanted to know what focused him there despite the fact they had looked everywhere else. >.....I know that you know that 02:42 and 2:25 P.M. are 12 hours and 17 >minutes apart even if they are in the same time zone (which these are >not), so I don't understand why you think there is any possible >significance in the superficial similarity in the numbers.... Yes I made that 12 hr and 17min calculation, but I didn't want to discount something just because a PM or AM designator might have been added or dropped in a message. my conspiratorial mind don't you know. "Magic" was the code word for radio intelligence & code breaking in this and the WWII time frame. To me "Magic" and "ESP" aren't that far removed from each other as metaphors. Daryll ************************************************************************** From Ric >Part of our basic philosophical differences is that you believe all of >the "facts" are known, and I don't. Where on earth did you get the idea that I think all of the facts are known? if they were we wouldn't have a project. Where you and I differ is that I accept a "fact" as fact if it is well-documented in a primary source whereas you feel free to change documented facts to suit your needs. >Something has been supplying the fuel for Earhart research for a good many years. Yes, and it's the same thing that fueled centuries of searching for the Philosopher's Stone, and the Seven Cities of Cibola, and the Lost Dutchman Mine, etc., etc. >Without seeing the original log book entry or even a >statement by one of the three operators who heard it, how can we be sure >we know the entire message content of the reception? Even if we had the original log we would have the same question. We have to make the assumption that official sources are telling the truth unless we have equally well-documented contradictory information. >It is a matter of >record that the Navy had radio intercept stations in this time frame. >What they heard was classified information and the raw receptions were >never seen until it was "typed smooth" [Safford]. That may be true, but we have no reason to believe that the 281 message was heard by anyone other than the attributed source - U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe. >Did you confirm that 42 min from the 0242 in the message or did you >confirm that from the Itasca log book entry about receiving the message? It all comes from the same official message from COMHAWSEC to Itasca. At 0242 they tell Itasca what Wailupe said they heard between 0100 and 0200. It's very straightforward. >COMFRANDIV got the "281 message" 8 hours after reception. Is that >because the Navy didn't have a 24 hour watch on the communication >channels or did it have to go through Washington first? COMFRANDIV is Coast Guard, not Navy, and they may very well have copied COMHAWSEC's 0242 notification to Itasca, but they weren't officially copied-in so we don't know for sure. We have to use the later time because it's the first official mention of the 281 message to COMFRANDIV. Notifying San Francisco was not a high priority because there was nothing COMFRANDIV could do about it. The main concern was getting available assets - Itasca and the British freighter SS Moorby - to the presumed location 281 miles north of Howland. >"Magic" was the code word for radio intelligence & code breaking in this >and the WWII time frame. To me "Magic" and "ESP" aren't that far removed >from each other as metaphors. The earliest "Magic" intercept was on December 2, 1940. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:13:33 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: transmitter dyno location No offense to you or WE but: "Although crystals are quite stable in frequency, changes in plate potential will shift the oscillation frequency." Robert L. Shrader- Electronic Communication.. pp.318. Crystals are also temperature sensitive. You've got all different cuts of crystals (X,Y, AT,BT,CT,Z etc.) The most stable is the GT cut but it is only useful in frequencies up to a few hundred kilocycles only. To go back to the Dynamotor. It's my understanding that the dynamotor did not need the engine running . It could run off the storage batteries for quite a long time. However as the batteries lost their charge the dynamotor would not operate at peak efficiency and neither could all the stages of the transmitter. To re-charge the batteries you would need the starboard engine running at 800-1000rpm. Not an easy task in knee-deep water. I'm not an expert with the older equipment but I've worked with transmission for NY Tel for some years and I'm somewhat familiar RF. If I'm wrong I'm always happy to learn. Sincerely Mike J. ************************************************************************ From Ric How deep is knee-deep water? How accurately can you judge water depth on the reef from the cockpit? My knee is 22 inches off the ground. A Lockheed 10 on its gear in three-point attitude has 27 inches of prop clearance. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:14:32 EST From: Daryll Subject: Re: Psychics again Ric wrote; >....Where on earth did you get the idea that I think all of the facts >are known? if they were we wouldn't have a project. Where you and I >differ is that I accept a "fact" as fact if it is well-documented in a >primary source whereas you feel free to change documented facts to suit >your needs... I am not changing "documented facts" to suit my needs. I am simply saying that political and security motives could alter what we perceive as total fact derived from what was publicly known. The TIGHAR Earhart Project focuses on public fact to bolster the Niku theory. Unknown facts in the Earhart Project are a result of natural forces, anything else would fall into the realm of conspiracy. >...Yes, and it's the same thing that fuelled centuries of searching >for the Philosopher's Stone, and the Seven Cities of Cibola, and the >Lost Dutchman Mine, etc., etc... Are we talking about Earhart research or legends from the past? >..Even if we had the original log we would have the same question. We >have to make the assumption that official sources are telling the truth >unless we have equally well-documented contradictory information... The reason "original" sources have a level of credibility is because they don't allow the time element for motives to form. The operator filling in a log book page doesn't have time to consider what global ramifications that certain information would cause. Where did the Earhart post loss radio message "Hoax" concept come from?? Let's say a very credible post loss radio message (w/ Transmitter ID) was received by an equal technically credible listening station. The content of the message was fragmentary and that resulted in an interpretation. After actions were taken and units moved in response to the message, there was nothing found. The interpretation of the message was then challenged and the interpreter says..."it must have been a hoax.." >...That may be true, but we have no reason to believe that the 281 >message was heard by anyone other than the attributed source - U.S. Navy >Radio Wailupe.... "No reason"......??.... Radio Intelligence (interception, direction finding and code breaking) had a level of security that wasn't equaled until the Manhattan Project came along. >...It all comes from the same official message from COMHAWSEC to >Itasca. At 0242 they tell Itasca what Wailupe said they heard between >0100 and 0200. It's very straightforward.... I asked the question because human inertia sometimes slows things down. >...COMFRANDIV is Coast Guard, not Navy, and they may very well have >copied COMHAWSEC's 0242 notification to Itasca, but they weren't >officially copied-in so we don't know for sure. We have to use the later >time because it's the first official mention of the 281 message to >COMFRANDIV. Notifying San Francisco was not a high priority because >there was nothing COMFRANDIV could do about it. The main concern was >getting available assets - Itasca and the British freighter SS Moorby - >to the presumed location 281 miles north of Howland... You make the distinction between the Navy and Coast Guard but then go on to imply the Coast Guard (COMFRANDIV) was unofficially listening to the Navy talk to the Itasca. If so, why not just copy COMFRANDIV in on it in the first place if ease dropping was so easy? By your response it seems that you are uncomfortable with only a 2 hour time difference between notification of COMFRANDIV and the Psychic's telegram. >....The earliest "Magic" intercept was on December 2, 1940. That statement is pretty definitive. If I had made it you would want source, page and paragraph. I can only assume that you have filed that away in your memory because you had recognized the word "Magic" and it was attached to a historical document. To use a forum comeback, "you haven't done your homework." JPD (Just Plain Daryll) ************************************************************************* From Ric I didn't have anything memorized. I did my homework. Check it yourself at http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/Magic.html Your own explanations of how you view evidence provide a far more devastating indictment of your conclusions than any criticism I could offer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:06:46 EST From: Rich Young Subject: signals intercept -pacific From a Fort Eustis web site: " LESSON 1: INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRONIC WARFARE: (4) Code breaking was another major effort in this period.[The time between the two world wars - clarification inserted by Rich Young] A successful example was Operation Magic (1937-1940), conducted by the U.S. against the diplomatic codes of Japan." Signals intercept by the U.S. military against Japanese diplomatic and military codes had occurred sporadically since before the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921, had resumed continuously since 1927, as stated above, and at least since 1937, part of the operation was referred to as MAGIC, at least according to the U.S. rmy. Perhaps you need help with your homework, Ric? LTM - (who always minded her ps & qs) Rich Young ************************************************************************** From Ric I can always use help with my homework. If the Army website is correct then intercepted Japanese diplomatic intercepts were know as MAGIC as early as sometime in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:32:46 EST From: Daryll Subject: Psychics/Magic/OP-20-G Ric wrote: >I didn't have anything memorized. I did my homework. Check it yourself at >http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/Magic.html >Your own explanations of how you view evidence provide a far more >devastating indictment of your conclusions than any criticism I could >offer. OK, then.....Since I have only gotten one message from the TIGHAR forum in the last couple of days, I don't know if anyone else is tuned in or not. In case there is I will post this into the ether anyway for their benefit. Ron Reuther found this web address on the net. For those who care to read it, it will give a history of what I was implying. This website has footnotes, some of which I have confirmed with my own efforts in getting documents from NARA early in my own Earhart research. <> I have used some excepts from this website in this post. ....The decade of the 1930s also witnessed a resurgence of U.S. Army interest in cryptanalysis. In 1930, after the collapse of Yardley's New York "Black Chamber," [32] William F. Friedman was tasked to create an Army cryptologic capability in the office of the Chief Signal Officer. Starting with four civilian students whose names have become bywords in the U.S. cryptologic community -- Frank Rowlett, Solomon Kullback, Abraham Sinkov, and John Hurt -- Friedman began the slow and difficult training process which would ultimately lead to the compilation of War Department codes and ciphers and the solution of foreign military and diplomatic codes and ciphers. 32. Herbert O. Yardley, The American Black Chamber, originally published in book form 1 June 1931.... It was Yardley's book that wrecked the early cryptographic efforts. I believe it was money issues that caused him to write the book. If I recall it was a someone in the administration at the time that brought down the early cryptographic efforts with his statement "Gentlemen don't read other Gentlemen's mail." The cryptographic efforts reorganized. At one point the crypto-efforts in the Navy didn't even trust or share that intelligence with ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence). I suppose by your definition of conspiracy, this would be a starting point. Then in 1934 Congress enacted the "Communications Act of 1934". Finally, as if these problems were not enough, Congress, in 1934 passed the Communications Act, which declared communications intelligence an illegal activity. [63] 63. History of Signal Security Agency, Vol. III (classified), contains a copy of appropriate portions of the act, Series III.hh. See also W.J. Holmes, Double-Edged Secrets (New York; Berkley Books, 1981), 13-14, which states that this act prohibited a commercial radio company in Honolulu in early 1941 from sharing daily Japanese ship position data inherent in commercial weather messages with COM-14's intelligence collection effort. The Naval personnel involved in this cryptographic effort believed or told themselves that the act didn't apply to them because they were intercepting FOREIGN radio communications. Some of the more knowledgeable personnel suspected that it did. It was Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court, who headed the "Roberts Commission" in the first Pearl Harbor hearings in 1941, who wrote an opinion that FOREIGN radio transmissions DID apply in the "Communication Act of 1934". This was in part the basis for the secrecy in what OP-20-G was doing in pre WWII times. I guess you could place the word "Conspiracy" to that secrecy. What the Navy was doing was illegal but what they were doing was too important to let the Laws of the United States bring down that effort. Realize that this was PRE-war circumstances. Pan Am was also in on this effort by having OP-20-G personnel at their HFDF adcock stations which they used at their Clipper stop-overs. This was very secret, except to the Japanese which made the 1935 (?) statement that the Pan Am route was a threat to their security, I have found only anecdotal evidence of this. We do have this: It would be put aboard a commercial ship or a station-keeping vessel like the USS Chaumont, which traveled the Pacific from California to China. After 1935, a small amount of mail could be sent via the Pan American Airways "Clipper" using a small strongbox built into the hull specifically for that purpose. Keys to open the strongbox were held by authorized officers at appropriate points along the route. The code known as RIP 30 was developed specifically for air mail letters. [89] The introduction of air mail service in 1935 reduced travel time from weeks to days, but the need for major improvements in communications before COMINT would become a useful instrument during wartime was clear. [90] I think you might agree that the strong boxes built into the hulls of the Clipper couldn't be done without Pan Am's knowledge. The first mention of Wailupe in connection to OP-20-G is below: The years 1926 through 1928, however, saw little deliberate progress by the commands in implementing Eberle's desires, strongly suggesting that the message about COMINT's value was not widely accepted. Rear Admiral George R. Marvell, the Commandant 14th Naval District (COM-14), did mention radio intelligence in his 1928 war plan, but his attempts to establish an official intercept site at Wailupe, Hawaii, proved abortive. In the Asiatic Fleet are, neither Admiral Mark. L. Bristol, CINCAF, nor Rear Admiral Summer E.W. Kittelle, Commandant 16th Naval District (COM-16), made any moved to enlarge on Station A, although Guam and the U.S. legation at Peking began to appear in correspondence as possible candidates for new sites. Wailupe did get official status in 1931. In the 14th Naval District, Hawaii, an unofficial site established at Wailupe in 1925 wax [sic] given official status in 1931 and authorized one billet by Admiral Pratt, CNO.16 Ineffective because of poor signal hearability, the Wailupe site was moved to Heeia in 1934. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, to further improve reception and communications, the site was moved to Wahiawa. Recognizing a Conspiracy of Secrecy we can't discount Wailupe in the "281 message" simply because the intercept site was moved to Heeia in 1934. You can knock my deductive reasoning all you want. I see a very valid motive for GPP, Navy, Jackie Cochran etc. to resort to labeling OP-20-G intelligence as PSYCHIC visions. If they didn't agree to that secrecy pledge, the Navy wouldn't have told them anything they might have heard over the airwaves regarding AE. The US Navy like the JAPANESE in the Marshalls could NOT afford exposure to the world PRESS concerning Earhart or her rescue. Daryll ************************************************************************ From Ric I'm speechless. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:35:09 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: signals intercept -pacific Here's a very good timeline on US codebreaking. From memory there is also a good section in one of the books about the NSA --it's possible that it is "The Puzzle Palace", but I may be wrong. James Bamford also wrote another book called "Body of Secrets" that's worthwhile, but I think that only covers the "cold war" period to the present. http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/magic.html Bob *************************************************************************** From Ric Unless somebody can show that any of this has even the most remote connection to the Earhart disappearance, this code-breaking thread is dead. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:24:28 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: NR16020 Float / Transmit ? At what date and time did Itasca first receive reliable information that L10E NR16020 could not float and transmit radio messages while in the water? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************** From Ric You have hit upon a very important point. That notification came at 23:25Z on July 5th. By then, ITASCA and SS MOORBY were already racing toward a point 281 miles north of Howland expecting to rescue Earhart. For three nights ITASCA had been receiving signals, and reports from others who had received signals, believed to be from the Earhart plane. And for that whole time they had believed that the signals could be coming from a floating plane and that their orignal assessment that the plane had gone into the water NW of Howland was consistent with the signals. When word came that transmissions from a floating plane were not possible it meant that either ITASCA had wasted three critical days searching where the plane couldn't be, or that none of the signals had been genuine. Wanna guess what Commander Thompson decided? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:29:49 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Psychics/Magic/OP-20-G Ric: You're speechless, but let me give it a shot, ok? To Daryll: Your post is fine for storytelling, but a little weak on facts. Your posting is full of suppositions, implications, possibilities, and opinions. What you are lacking are pertinent facts related to the Earhart disappearance. Facts are, by definition, facts. All the rest are merely conjecture... Simply put, it's a nice academic exercise, but since it lacks relevant instances, it's still a "not-too-educated guess"... But keep going, you may be onto something, however irrelevant, in the scheme of things. LTM, Dave in Fremont (#2585) ************************************************************************ From Ric Daryll will undoubtedly keep going, but I won't waste this forum's time by posting any more of his fantasies. I let him go on as long as I did only as a reminder and an illustration of why the Earhart disappearance has remained mystery for 65 years. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:30:52 EST From: Tom King Subject: Upcoming Ameliaschpiels Forumites in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area may want to know that I'll be giving my ever-popular illustrated talk on TIGHAR's quest for Amelia and Fred in two local venues in the next couple of months: 1. At the monthly meeting of the Maritime Archaeological and Historical Society (MAHS), Cooper Middle School, 977 Balls Hill Road, McLean VA, at 8 pm on April 8; and 2. For the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park in southern Maryland on the evening of May 2. Information on how to get to the park (a bit remote, but very interesting and a beautiful area; worth the hike) is at http://www.jefpat.org/ LTM Tom ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:45:48 EST From: Jimbo Subject: Re: Psychics/Magic/OP-20-G Way to go Ric, for the new guy a lot of this is really comical. Some of the people who put stuff on seem to be dreaming and trying to put out their own suppositions. Jimbo ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:06:09 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Danger Now that the Iraqi war is in full swing, several news organizations have reported that terrorist groups in Indonesia plan to do anything they can to disrupt American interest (or kill Americans). How will this affect the June landing on Niku? ************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR does not knowingly send expeditions into areas where there is significant civil unrest but Nikumaroro is nowhere near Indonesia. We apply the same standards of evidence evaluation that we use in the Earhart Project to all of the information that comes our way, and I would respectfully suggest that all forum subscribers do the same. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:09:12 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: NR16020 Float / Transmit ? Thank you for your response - Follow up question - Was the time of this notification prior to or after the flare/starshell incident involving Itasca and SS Moorsby? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************* From Ric The notification was about 8 hours before the incident. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:44:55 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Three sheets to the wind. Could Noonan's navigation be described as perhaps often proceeding as follows (cf Oakland to Oahu, Natal to Dakar et al) : He makes a heading identical to the bearing of his destination. During periods (eg daylight) when no more than one body is available he flies by DR and a noon fix (if he is able) until he can get star shots or planets. After dark he gets a two body fix (if available) and determines his deviation from intended course and makes a correction equivalent to the angle of deviation. (This will not of course produce a track exactly parallel to the intended course as the wind triangle will change shape slightly). He avoids calculating wind vectors by drawing a wind triangle in advance or en-route but relies on the determined angular deviation from course to make correction. He proceeds for a couple of hours to his next fix and makes another correction in the same way if necessary. He does not correct back to intended course or new bearing of the destination as this will in the first case increase distance and in the second save negligible distance and in both cases complicate the correction. When he reaches the area of his destination, he plots an advanced LOP and turns in the appropriate direction to fly along it to his destination (assuming it is not in view). If this is not an accurate description perhaps you could suggest a better one. Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let Randy (and others who have reviewed Noonan's charts) comment on his en route habits but I will point out that you make no mention of radio direction finding. Recall that Noonan's entire air navigation career (starting in 1930) was with Pan American and the underlying assumption of the PAA system was that DF would take the uncertainty out of finding island destinations. Coastal destinations, like Dakar, had a built-in LOP (the coastline) where landmarks served the same purpose as DF, telling the navigator which way to turn to reach the destination. I'm not aware of any previous circumstance during FN's career (although there may be one) where he had to find an island without help from DF. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:47:47 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: navigation web site Harvey Schor wrote: > When measuring distances from fix to fix, I needed a tool to convert > units such as mm measured on the chart to nautical or statute miles. There > well may be such a device in existence, but not having this, I devised a > distance scaling equation that takes into account course and latitude. If > this is of use to anyone, let me know. The chart is a Mercator projection chart. On this type of chart the usual method for measuring distances is to use a pair of dividers which you spread to touch the two points. Then you move the divider points on to the latitude scale so that the center of the dividers is at the approximate mid latitude between the two points. The minutes of latitude scale on the chart is equivalent to a nautical miles scale and each degree equals 60 NM. It is important to use the mid latitude for this measurement since the scale is not uniform on the whole chart but varies with latitude. If you do not have dividers you can use a piece of paper that you lay the edge of along the two points and make tick marks on the edge of the paper to represent the two points, then proceed as above. The scale of the chart is approximately 3 million to one in the range of 25 to 28 N latitude. At the north edge of the chart at 35 N latitude the scale is about 3,100,000 to one and at the southern edge at 18 N it is about 2,900,000. This is only a 3 % difference so to that level of accuracy you can use a B-2A aircraft navigation plotter, which is like a ruler, with a 3,000,000 scale for measuring the distances between positions anywhere on the chart. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:54:53 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii It is very interesting reviewing the chart of the Oakland to Hawaii flight for insight into the navigation methods used by Noonan and Manning. A couple of points to keep in mind. 1) We do not know for sure that this is all Noonan's work since Manning was listed as the senior navigator. 2) Were all the marks that we see on the chart put on while in flight or were some added later? There are obviously two different handwritings on the chart. 3) We do not know if they had planned to follow the great circle, the rhumb line, or some other course to take advantage of winds or to avoid bad weather. 4) On a long leg even very large deviations to the side adds very little to the length of the flight and a small tailwind may make such a deviation advantageous resulting in less time en route and a lower fuel consumption. 5) We do not have the actual observations measured by the navigator so we can not check his math in deriving the celestial LOPs. But, we can measure the azimuths that he used for plotting them and can compare them with computed azimuths for these positions. Each of the plotted celestial LOPs had exactly correct azimuths. Since the navigator using the HO 208 navigational tables computes the azimuths at the end of and as part of the same calculations as Hc he would not get correct azimuths unless he was doing the computations correctly so we can expect that he also correctly computed Hc. Hc -- computed altitude DR -- dead reckoned position Z -- Zulu or GMT GC -- great circle course T-- true (measured from true north) K--knots (nautical miles per hour) RL -- rhumb line course LOP -- line of position Bowditch -- American Practical Navigator, U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office Publication Number 9, (HO9) (origianlly written by Nathaniel Bowditch) Table 1 -- radio bearing conversion table GS -- ground speed in knots TR -- track (course made good) NM -- nautical miles The beginning of the flight shows passing the Farallon island radio beacon at 0054 Z and then several DRs early on showing some maneuvering, possibly to avoid weather. A DR is plotted for 0200 Z at 36-55 N / 124-18 W which is right on the RL. A line is extended from this DR on a course of 248* T. Then are plotted two more DRs for 0230 Z, and 0300 Z spaced 57 NM apart along this line. This shows that they expected to maintain a course of 248* T and expected a ground speed of 114 Knots. This course would parallel the Great Circle Course 20 NM south of the GC. Just north of the 0200 DR is a radio bearing to Farallon Island radio beacon at 0204 Z showing the plane 5 NM north of the Rumb Line (and of the 0200 DR ) and 10 NM south of the GC. An observation of Venus was taken at 0313 Z and its LOP is advanced to 0317 Z to be crossed with an 0317 Z Sirius line to give a fix of 35-05 N / 127-56 W. At the same time a radio bearing of 056.5* T was taken on Farallon Island which is plotted 10 NM south of the fix. It is not indicated whether the navigator applied the 1.5* correction to this bearing (from Bowditch table 1) as required for plotting radio bearings on a mercator chart. He may have. If he didn't then applying that correction now the bearing would be plotted as 058* T which causes the bearing to pass through the fix. We can tell from the way the Venus line was advanced that the navigator assumed a track of 248* T and a Ground Speed of 135 K. A line was drawn from the 0054 Z Farallon Island radio beacon fix through the 0317 Z fix. The course made good as determined by measuring this line is 238* T. This line is extended further towards the south west which is normal navigation practice. This is the line that the airplane probably followed based on the winds encountered and the heading and airspeed of the plane. If you do not change the heading or airspeed you can expect to stay on the same course line extended from the recent fix and on the same course you have made good between the last two fixes. The distance covered in the 2h23m from Farallon to the 0317 Z fix is 294 NM giving a GS of 123K and a track of 238* T. Two DRs are plotted on this extended line for 0330 Z and 0400 Z spaced 70 NM apart showing an expected GS of 140 K. At 0400 Z the course was changed to 250* T and a 0430 Z DR was plotted along this new course line also spaced 70 NM. AT 0432 Z an observation was taken on a star bearing either 082* or 262*T and its LOP was advanced 34 NM along the 250* T track (which shows an expected GS of approximately 145 K during this 14 minutes period ) to cross a 0446 Z LOP derived from shooting Polaris to produce a 0446 Z fix at 33-40N/131-52W. The track from the 0317 Z fix to the 0446 Z fix is 247* T and the distance was 216 NM giving a GS of 145 K during the 1h29m period. At about the same time, 0442 Z, a radio bearing was taken on a San Francisco radio station and this is plotted on a bearing of 056* T. This LOP is plotted 60 NM south of the fix. Again it is not known if the navigator applied the correction factor which in this case is 2.8*. If we apply it now the bearing would be plotted as 059* T and would only be 15 NM south of the 0446 Z fix. In any case the navigator did not use this bearing and did not move his fix to accommodate it. He apparently believed that his celestial fix was more accurate than a radio bearing at that range. Also, interesting is if we plot a 0446 Z DR along the 250* T course line from the 0430 Z DR it is only 12 NM south of the 0446 Z fix giving a 5 % error in the DR after flying 216 NM from the prior fix. This fix is only 4 NM north of the RL and 65 NM south, to the left of, the GC. Now, interestingly, the 0432 Z line is labeled as a line derived from shooting the star named Alphecca but this cannot be correct since that star would not have been visible at that time and place. So the label must be incorrect and may well have been added at a later date. It would be impossible for the navigator to have missed this and used Alphecca since his calculations would have shown that the star was not visible. He could not have produced a fix if he thought, mistakenly, that he had shot Alphecca. But, what is certain is that the navigator shot some star and it provided an accurate fix with a GS and a TR well within the expected range. So which star did he actually shoot? It may surprise you to know but a navigator only uses 57 out of the billions of stars in the sky. The navigator needs to know the exact location of the star that he shoots for his computations and he finds their locations listed in the Nautical Almanac. But the Nautical Almanac only has information on 57 stars so the navigator is constrained to use only those stars. We know that the bearing to the star was either 082* T or 262* T by measuring the azimuth of the LOP on the chart. Checking the Nautical Almanac and doing the appropriate computations we find that none of the 57 stars were located on an azimuth of 082* T. This also makes sense since that would have placed the star directly behind the airplane so it would not have been possible to shoot it with the sextant without changing the heading of the airplane. But on an azimuth of 262* T there was the star Menkar which would have been directly in front of them and easily shot through the co pilot's windshield. I will continue my review of this chart in another posting but so far everything looks like normal navigational techniques with a normal level of accuracy. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:58:07 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Post-loss radio patterns Ric wrote: >You have hit upon a very important point. That notification came at 23:25Z >on July 5th. By then, ITASCA and SS MOORBY were already racing toward a >point 281 miles north of Howland expecting to rescue Earhart. For three >nights ITASCA had been receiving signals, and reports from others who had >received signals, believed to be from the Earhart plane. Since the Itasca was headed away from Niku during this time, do the signal strengths recorded by the radio operators show a corresponding reduction in strength? Any other patterns we should look for? Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent question and I don't know the answer yet. Looking for that kind of pattern is a bit tricky because Itasca did not log the signal strength of post-loss receptions other than in a very general way - "unintelligible voice", "weak carrier", "very weak carrier", etc. If we start from the hypothesis that the transmissions are coming from somewhere south of Howland, it seems like that it should generally be the case that the further north the ship moved in the course of the search, the weaker the reception should become. From strongest to weakest we might rank the types of receptions as: Intelligible voice unintelligible voice dashes carrier weak carrier If such a pattern exists it would, conversely, argue against the source of the signals being somewhere to the north (such as Earhart in the Marshalls or hoaxers in Hawaii). Here's another thought along those same lines. If we assume that the location of the origin point of the transmissions does not move (i.e. is not a hoaxer aboard a ship), then the strength of the receptions at other fixed points (Howland, Baker, Nauru, Hawaii, California) should remain relatively constant, being effected only by the changing propagation environment and possibly a degradation over time in the capability of the transmitter. Itasca is the only mobile station for which we have a record of receptions over time. So we have an array of fixed stations surrounding the search area and one mobile station moving around in the search area. In theory, at least, that should provide us with a tool for testing various hypotheses about where the transmissions originated. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:00:27 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Three sheets to the wind. My interpretation of Noonan's navigation in a nutshell: He sets out on the bearing to the target, assuming no wind. After a couple of hours, if possible, he determines a fix (either noon shot or multiple celestial body, or RDF bearing). If a large enough course deviation from actual to planned is found, he revises the course heading back to the target, again assuming no wind. As he gets close to the target, he may either use an offset approach (if he is found to be significantly off to one side), or home in on the target based upon RDF bearings provided. The advantage of his approach is that it requires a minimum of fixes and course changes. The disadvantage is that it relies heavily upon RDF bearings for the final part of the flight. This disadvantage is what got our heroes into trouble. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:01:37 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii Very interesting stuff. Looking forward to the rest! >The beginning of the flight shows passing the Farallon island radio >beacon at 0054 Z and then several DRs early on >showing some maneuvering, possibly to avoid weather. A DR is plotted for >0200 Z at 36-55 N / 124-18 W * which is right on the RL. *This DR position seems to anticipate a GS of just 70 K (80.5 mph) from Farallon beacon, substantially slower than the 114 K anticipated for the next two DRs. Must this not indicate a measured change in headwind and therefore drift measurement and wind vector calculation? Regards Angus.