Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 07:59:22 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? Scott White says: > Paige asks, who else but AE could have transmitted them? The short > answer is: I don't know. But just because I don't know, that doesn't > prove the messages came from AE. This is called an "argument from > ignorance." The creationists and flying saucer people use it all the > time. As in, "Nobody can explain how the Egyptians built the pyramids. > Therefore, they must have had help from space aliens." You are 100% wrong, Scott. In a typical "argument from ignorance", person A presents evidence in support of an hypothesis. Person B says your evidence does not explain fact Z, and therefore concludes that person B's hypothesis is correct -- despite the fact that person B has present no evidence in favor of his hypothesis and is guilty of logical errors as well. This is exactly what you have done. You have presented no evidence whatsoever in support of your position, and you have simply dismissed the evidence in favor because it does not explain everything. > Beyond that, Ric's post confirms that there were at least three known > radios in the South Pacific operating on 3105. QZ5 was broadcasting > code trying to reach two other stations (planes?) called KACA and > KWCR. Whether any of these three stations could also broadcast voice > on that freq. is unknown. QZ5 was not broadcasting in voice. This to me is a significant difference. Is it not a significant difference to you? Most of the so-called post-loss transmissions from Earhart were indeed voice. Earhart/voice vs QZ5/code are a pieces of evidence that are IN FAVOR of the TIGHAR post-loss hypothesis, and you dismiss it with a "perhaps" instead of dismissing it with evidence. There were almost no radios in the South Pacific at that time that could broadcast in voice. I have learned this fact from radio historians here in this forum. I'm sure Ric's research will quantify this for all of us to see. And why do you keep talking about "planes"? > Paige said this was 100% wrong, but I'm not sure she read it. Scott is 100% wrong in his use of the pronoun "she", and 100% wrong about the content of his statement. Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:36:04 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Oshkosh, Philosophy of Science, and Bagpipes I gave my bones talk at Oshkosh last Thursday. I also was interviewed for about a half-hour on WOSH the day before. Both seemed to have gone well. The staff told me that we had a good retention rate. They apparently track how many people leave a session. We had about 90 people in attendance. The time of day was arguably not optimum. The talk was scheduled at 4:00 PM, which is right in the middle of the daily airshow. I tried to crowd the microphone and keep my voice up, and people seemed to cope with the noise OK. Veryl Fenlason showed up and provided many answers to questions from the audience. Thanks, Veryl! The threads about verifying and falsifying hypotheses seem to have died a natural death. All I'd like to do right now is reserve the right to make up a web page some day on the topic for anyone who wants to debate the issues off the Forum. Theories about how scientists prove or disprove theories are matters of philosophy, not science. There is no way to settle the conflicting theories by using laboratory techniques: observation, measurement, repeatable, controlled experiments, and the like. I support TIGHAR's work with my time and energy. I pay dues and would go beyond that if my budget allowed me to. I like TIGHAR's approach to the research and am very proud of its use of science, where applicable, to evaluate the evidence in the case. I love the way the Forum operates--a mix of humor, serious debate, and (in my view) some extraordinary research. I have nothing to say about haggis. I did try and enjoy blood pudding in Scotland once upon a time. I also remember the butteries with great affection. About bagpipes, which often turn up at EPAC meetings: Q: Why do pipers walk around as they play? A: To get away from the sound. A man parked his car and walked away. He suddenly remembered he had left his pipes in the back seat and the window was open. He rushed back, but it was too late--someone had put two more in the back seat. LTM & the boys. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:57:57 From: Tom Strang Subject: Sunspot activity For: Mike Everette Which of the two Earhart radio frequencies ( 3105, 6210 ) would sunspot activity have the greatest impact on in July 1937? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:58:41 From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Haggis becoming scrapple When I was growing up downstate from Tighar Central (Dover, that is), we used to eat scrapple all the time. I'm sure that the last time Amelia was there, she had it too - see you knew there had to be a link! ltm jon 2260 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 22:38:41 From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Sunspot activity From Mike Everette > Which of the two Earhart radio frequencies ( 3105, 6210 ) would > sunspot activity have the greatest impact on in July 1937? > Respectfully: > > Tom Strang # 2559 I hate to seem like I am giving you a short answer... but, either one could be affected. The ways they are affected may differ somewhat, but sunspot activity could cause a problem with both frequencies. This gets to be a pretty complicated subject, and we can't know positively what sorts of strange propagation quirks may have been involved on that particular day; but Bob Brandenburg can probably come closer than most toward drawing this matter out of the realm of necromancy and into that of science. He has done much in the way of computer modeling of propagation conditions at both these frequencies, and the harmonics thereof. LTM (who insists upon facts) and 73 Mike E. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:04:15 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Congrats on the good news! I see we have a publisher for The Suitcase in My Closet, and an excellent one it is. The Naval Institute Press has published a long line of distinguished authors, one of their bigger hits being a guy named Clancy with some book about a submarine :D LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:40:14 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Sunspot activity If we're interested in the facts, here's something that's been puzzling me for some time: The research article, "Harmony and Power: Could Betty have heard Amelia on a Harmonic?" discusses antenna gain of both the aircraft antenna and Betty's home antenna. However: the aircraft antenna was not a "balanced" or dipole type - it was a short vertical, and then a mostly horizontal wire with a fairly small rise in elevation as it ran to the twin stabilizers. Because with a grounded antenna, opposite currents run parallel in the horizontal wire and the airframe, horizontal radiation is mostly cancelled, and the only appreciable radiation is from the actual vertical feeder and the rise in elevation of the horizontal wire. You can easily understand this is quite a short antenna. Also, i do not think with this short an antenna, it is valid to speak of "antenna gain" at any of the frequencies we are discussing here, in particular because we can practically dismiss discussion of horizontally polarized radiation from this antenna, owing to the cancellation effect. Also, the statement is made, "It is interesting to note that Amelia's antenna was broadly resonant between 15.5 MHz to 24 MHz, which would be conducive to radiation of harmonics in that range." I ask how this conclusion is arrived at. What is there in this antenna that makes it behave not according to usual antenna theory, and not exhibit usual sharp resonant points, resonant impedance peaks and valleys of resistance? If the aircraft antenna behaves according to antenna theory, it cannot be "broadly resonant" to harmonics or non-harmonics or any frequency, really. I suggest it was no more broadly resonant at the possible harmonic frequencies than at 3105 or 6210, and we know how carefully the transmitter had to be tuned to the antenna on those channels. I think the "Harmonic Theory" may be valid. But, i think there are assertions in the published analysis that are not supportable. Has this analysis been vetted by any other radio propagation experts? -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:45:48 From: Chuck Buzbee Subject: Re: Sunspots If you have a lot of time, check out httm//esjones.org/propag.html. This site has everything you ever wanted to know about radio wave propagation and several things you could care less about. Chuck Buzbee ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:38:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Antennas Hue, my first question is how much have we confirmed as fact about those two particular antennas? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:40:00 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Sunspots That link doesn't work. gl > From Chuck Buzbee > > If you have a lot of time, check out httm//esjones.org/propag.html. > This site has everything you ever wanted to know about radio wave > propagation and several things you could care less about. > > Chuck Buzbee ******************************************* I daresay it's supposed to be http://esjones.org/propag.html ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:58:13 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Sunspot activity In MATS during the 60's we had a saying, "the higher the sun the higher the frequency." Meaning the higher the sun the higher the frequency one would use to talk on HF of course. Jim Preston Pilot not Navigator ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:40:17 From: Chuck Buzbee Subject: Re: Sunspots To Gary LaPook: You are entirely correct. This was very late at night. My IQ goes from not much to less as the night turns into morning. Chuck ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:47:20 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Sunspot activity Jim, you're correct. Higher freqs in the day and lower at night. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:48:58 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antennas > From Alan Caldwell > > Hue, my first question is how much have we confirmed as fact about > those two particular antennas? We have the physicals pretty well down, i think. I mean the dimensions, as i understand it, to a useful accuracy. What no one, and i do mean no one, to my knowledge, has completed, is an analysis of the electronic characteristics. ( This is very difficult, i think. ) This means not only the "pattern" of radiation, which the TIGHAR research report does mention, but which i think proceeds from faulty understanding of this antenna type, but also the high-low impedance response. I have harped on this before, but if your antenna presents a mismatched impedance at whatever frequency you are trying to use it at ( 3105, 6210, or ANY harmonic, for example ) the radiated power will be SEVERELY attenuated. With a grounded wire antenna like this ( basically a simple antenna type, but hard to analyze, i think, because of enclosed angles, bends, etc., the impedance it presents to the transmitter can vary around about 35 to 4000 ohms. ) ( If you think about your home audio equipment, and consider the impedance matching of speaker to audio power amp, you have an understanding of how important this is, at least in the bigger numbers. And as well the frequency-sensitive nature of "impedance" - your midrange speaker is not going to have the same impedance at 18,000 Hz that it has at say, 400 Hz. Except that when you deal with radio frequency and antennas the range of impedance, high to low, is much greater than in home audio. Or consider CB radio - a 300 ohm antenna -if there is such - is just not going to effectively convert to radiated energy a transmitter looking for a 50 ohm matched antenna. ) Maybe it's just that i'm misunderstanding the thrust of the research report, and its meaning is that yes, Amelia could have been heard IF everything was just right out there at the airplane. Harmonics WERE being generated at sufficient strength AND the antenna HAPPENED to be well matched at any workable harmonic frequency. These are still "IFs", i believe. There IS a way to model the radiation pattern from this antenna as well as the actual impedances at various frequencies. I don't want to charge off onto that project myself. I think with that information, however, we'd have a lot more accurate input to the rest of the analysis which followed. In effect ( i think....) we'd have a GO/ NO GO basis. -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:40:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antennas Hue you addressed my question in re the Electra's antenna but not Betty's. Do we know enough about HER radio antenna to be useful information? Secondly, we certainly know the end locations of the Electra top and belly antennas but as to the top antenna there was alleged to be some alteration of the length of the top antenna. Would I be correct that meant the "V" from the vertical stabilizers joined at some point before the upright post above the cockpit area? If that is so do we know that point and if not how significant is that? Based on some of our assumed and/or known information I am inclined to suggest her daytime frequency of 3105 had a relative short range while her night time frequency may have had a void area in close. I say this for the following reasons. Leaving Lae she was not heard (we think) until slightly over four hours. Arriving in the Howland area she was heard fairly close in on 3105 but not at a significant distance. when she changed to 6210 she was not heard at all....that we know. I have always had a feeling Niku was too far away for 3105 but too close for 6210. In reference to Itasca, of course. I'm not sure this holds water as I don't know what freq she transmitted on leaving Lae but my understanding she was on 6210 as Lae didn't want her to change to her night time freq. My second problem is her 08:43 L Itasca time transmission. She was on 3105 and said she was going to 6210 and it is not clear to me whether the last thing she transmitted was not on 6210. By this I mean when she transmitted as follows was "KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON43 LINE 43" on 6210 or still 3105? Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 08:43 a.m. July 2, 1937: ÇKHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337 WE WL REPT MSG WE WLREPT N ES S Ç THIS ON 6210KCS WAIT, 3105/A3 S5 (?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON43 LINE 43È The message could be read she was on 3105 (clearly) and would repeat on 6210 and Itasca should also standby on 3105 then changed freq and made the last statement on 6210. It can also be read as the whole message was on 3105 and THEN changed to 6210 but no repeat was heard. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:34:57 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Antennas > From Alan Caldwell > Based on some of our assumed and/or known information I am inclined to > suggest her daytime frequency of 3105 had a relative short range while her night > time frequency may have had a void area in close. Typo correction: 3105 = night time frequency 6210 = day time frequency "The higher the sun, the higher the frequency." The reason for the difference is that the ionosphere interacts differently with radio transmissions during the night, the day, and in the transition periods. > ... Leaving Lae she was not heard (we think) until slightly over four > hours. Arriving in the Howland area she was heard fairly close in on 3105 but > not at a significant distance. when she changed to 6210 she was not heard at > all....that we know. I have always had a feeling Niku was too far away for > 3105 but too close for 6210. In reference to Itasca, of course. As an amateur, I find this a very persuasive argument. > I'm not sure this holds water as I don't know what freq she transmitted on > leaving Lae but my understanding she was on 6210 as Lae didn't want her to > change to her night time freq. No. 6210 was her daytime frequency and the takeoff was in daytime. > My second problem is her 08:43 L Itasca time transmission. She was on 3105 > and said she was going to 6210 and it is not clear to me whether the last thing > she transmitted was not on 6210. By this I mean when she transmitted as > follows was "KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON43 LINE 43" on 6210 or > still 3105? 3105. The logs show what frequency the reception took place on, I believe. > Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 08:43 a.m. July 2, 1937: > Ç KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337 WE WL REPT MSG WE WL REPT N ES S > Ç THIS ON 6210KCS WAIT, 3105/A3 S5 (?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON43 LINE There it is: 3105/A3 S5. The frequency and an assessment of the clarity and signal strength. > ... It can also be read as the whole message was on 3105 and > THEN changed to 6210 but no repeat was heard. I think the professional readers would not back that reading. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:19:05 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Sunspot activity Thanks Alan, I knew listening to Navigators after they brought me my coffee would pay off someday. Jim Preston ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:06:19 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Antennas For: Hue Miller With your expressed knowledge of NR16020's radio equipment and antenna configuration, I would like to ask you the following question. What impact would you expect a major solar flare event would have on Earhart's ability to communicate by voice? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:38:33 From: Scott White Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? Paige Miller wrote: > You are 100% wrong, Scott. In a typical "argument from ignorance", > person A presents evidence in support of an hypothesis. Person B says > your evidence does not explain fact Z, and therefore concludes that > person B's hypothesis is correct -- despite the fact that person B has > present no evidence in favor of his hypothesis and is guilty of > logical errors as well. This is exactly what you have done. You have > presented no evidence whatsoever in support of your position, and you > have simply dismissed the evidence in favor because it does not > explain everything. I don't think I was wrong in describing the "argument from ignorance" or its application, though I stated it in an informal, conversational, and (I hoped) mildy funny way. You've expressed it much more formally. *Again* I'm not saying that the messages were hoaxes or misinterpretations. But, based on what I know right now (including the information you've provided), at least some of them -could- have been. For the sake of semantics, I guess I'm stating a hypothesis. I'm not testing it or pretending to test it. I think it's a hypothesis worth testing, and I think Ric is now doing everything he can to test it. > QZ5 was not broadcasting in voice. This to me is a significant > difference. Is it not a significant difference to you? Most of the > so-called post-loss transmissions from Earhart were indeed voice. > Earhart/voice vs QZ5/code are a pieces of evidence that are IN FAVOR > of the TIGHAR post-loss hypothesis, and you dismiss it with a > "perhaps" instead of dismissing it with evidence. Yes, it is significant. Nevertheless, it was broadcasting on AE's freq. Since we don't know who or where QZ5 was, we also don't know whether or not it had the capacity to broadcast voice. Likewise, we don't know who or where the two stations QZ5 called were, or what voice capacity they may (or may not) have had. I don't see where QZ5 broadcasting in code on that freq. favors or disfavors the Tighar hypothesis. To me, it just presents another loose end to run down, if possible. > There were almost no radios in the South Pacific at that time that > could broadcast in voice. I have learned this fact from radio > historians here in this forum. I'm sure Ric's research will quantify > this for all of us to see. And why do you keep talking about "planes"? Reg., "planes," I'm not sure what you're referring to. Maybe two different things. First, QZ5 was trying to reach two different stations. Speculation in the post you referenced was that they were planes. Second, I presumed that there was more than one plane involved in the search. Was there only one? If so, my mistake. I'm curious about what is known of voice-capable radio transmitters in the region at that time. Can you (or anyone) point me to some further info? If not, I'll just wait for Ric's book. >> Paige said this was 100% wrong, but I'm not sure she read it. > > Scott is 100% wrong in his use of the pronoun "she", and 100% wrong > about the content of his statement. Paige, I'll take your word for it on the pronoun. Sorry about that. But I was not even 1% wrong in stating that I was unsure whether you'd read the quoted statement. I was 100% certain of my uncertainity. You throw around this phrase, "100% wrong" a lot. But you don't seem to read very carefully before reaching this conclusion. Also, quick comment to Marty, on philosophy of science -- yes, I agree. Though I don't know if it would be worthwhile starting a separate page within the Tighar site to discuss it. Philosophy of science comes up in many discusions (e.g., the current political flap about "intelligent design," among many other topics). It usually gets batted around a while, and then dropped. It seems to become overwhelmingly arcane pretty quickly. Best, -SW ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:31:55 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? > From Scott White > Also, quick comment to Marty, on philosophy of science -- yes, I agree. > Though I don't know if it would be worthwhile starting a separate page > within the Tighar site to discuss it. ... Sorry for not being clear. I meant that I would do a page on my own web site, not TIGHAR's. > Philosophy of science comes up in many discusions (e.g., the current > political flap about "intelligent design," among many other topics). > It usually gets batted around a while, and then dropped. > It seems to become overwhelmingly arcane pretty quickly. Not everyone has equal talent or drive to think about thinking. ;o) LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 08:40:06 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: what's an hypothesis? Scott White writes: > I don't think I was wrong in describing the "argument from ignorance" > or its application, though I stated it in an informal, conversational, > and (I hoped) mildy funny way. You've expressed it much more formally. > *Again* I'm not saying that the messages were hoaxes or > misinterpretations. But, based on what I know right now (including the > information you've provided), at least some of them -could- have been. Okay, specifically, which of the post-loss messages that have been possibly attributed to Earhart "-could- have been" hoaxes or misinterpretations? (Your list does not have to be all-inclusive, just name one or two so I know which ones you are talking about). Why could they be hoaxes or misinterpretations? > For the sake of semantics, I guess I'm stating a hypothesis. I'm not > testing it or pretending to test it. I think it's a hypothesis worth > testing, and I think Ric is now doing everything he can to test it. Your hypothesis that it could be a hoax is not falsifiable. It is not testable. It is not a scientific hypothesis. (If you disagree, please explain how your hypothesis could be tested. Please explain how your hypothesis is falsifiable. Please explain with reference to the one or two specific post-loss messages that could be a hoax that I asked you to provide above) > Yes, it is significant. Nevertheless, it was broadcasting on AE's > freq. Since we don't know who or where QZ5 was, we also don't know > whether or not it had the capacity to broadcast voice. Likewise, we > don't know who or where the two stations QZ5 called were, or what > voice capacity they may (or may not) have had. I don't see where QZ5 > broadcasting in code on that freq. favors or disfavors the Tighar > hypothesis. To me, it just presents another loose end to run down, if > possible. First, let me say in general, information can be evidence IN FAVOR of an hypothesis even if all other possibilities are not excluded by the evidence. (If a suspect in a murder has a gun of the same calibre as the bullet found in the victim, that is evidence IN FAVOR, even though it does not exclude other people who might have had access to similar guns) To discuss your point specifically, if QZ5 was the hoaxer or the source of a misidentified message, QZ5 has to be broadcasting in voice as Earhart did, and QZ5 was not broadcasting in voice. The fact that many (all?) of the post-loss messages attributed to Earhart are in voice, and the fact that in decades of research into Earhart's disappearance, no researcher that I know has yet come up with a station in that part of the world that had voice capability on airline frequencies (other than Earhart and Itasca) seems to me to be strong evidence in favor of the TIGHAR hypothesis. At some point, the people who disagree with TIGHAR or who doubt TIGHAR (not just you, Scott) have to produce a piece of evidence in favor of their hypothesis, or the credibiliity of their position drops to zero. It is not simply enough for someone to say "but QZ5 might have had voice capability..." > Reg., "planes," I'm not sure what you're referring to. Maybe two > different things. First, QZ5 was trying to reach two different > stations. Speculation in the post you referenced was that they were > planes. Second, I presumed that there was more than one plane involved > in the search. Was there only one? If so, my mistake. > I'm curious about what is known of voice-capable radio transmitters in > the region at that time. Can you (or anyone) point me to some further > info? If not, I'll just wait for Ric's book. The reason I asked about "planes" is because you Scott White have mentioned it at least twice. You have mentioned either planes (plural) or plane (singular) in at least two messages as possible sources of the communications that are misidentified/hoaxes. The only other mention of planes (plural) or plane (singular) is when I question you about it. So specifically Scott, we are discussing the time period of post-loss messages allegedly from Earhart in the time frame July 2, 1937 to July 7, 1937 -- specifically what plane or planes are you talking about? Who was piloting; and/or where/when did they take off? -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:12:14 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? - re radio capabilities Though not wanting to get into the discussion on the philosophy of science, I do have a comment that does bear on this present thread regarding post-loss radio messages. It has to do with the capability of radio equipment in 1937. Today we are all used to having digital tuning of radios and many have grown up without knowing that, in the past, this capability did not exist. Up though the 1980s (approx.) entertainment radios were tuned with variable capacitors with just an approximate readout of the received frequency on the analog dial. Some transmitters were also tuned this way so the transmitting frequency was also approximate. However, many transmitters' frequencies were controlled by crystals that had a set frequency and were more likely to transmit on the assigned frequency than those tuned with capacitors. However, even crystal controlled transmitters had a tolerance of plus or minus some percent and, in addition, in some cases, the crystal frequency could be "pulled" somewhat by a variable element in the transmitter. Few receivers were crystal controlled but, even if they were, they could still be receiving some other, nearby, frequency. Receivers also have what is called a "pass band" meaning that they receive transmissions on nearby frequencies in addition to the one actually tuned. Through the 1960s aircraft communication radios used crystal controlled transmitters and variable receivers. In the '70s aircraft radios were developed utilizing crystal controlled frequency synthesis of both transmit and receive frequency. Not until the '80 did true digital control of aircraft radios come about. So, regarding post-loss messages, it appears possible that even if a radio did not have the specific assigned frequency to transmit on 3105 or 6210 kc, a variable capacitor controlled transmitter could be tuned to these frequencies anyway. A crystal controlled transmitter with crystals set to nearby frequencies might also be heard on a receiver set to receive on these frequencies due to the tolerance in the transmitter crystals, the wide pass band, and the imprecision of the receiver frequency readout. A completely innocent transmission on a nearby frequency might be interpreted, incorrectly, as coming from Earhart. It appears that the investigation must be enlarged to include all radios with the capability to transmit voice on any nearby frequency. Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:19:51 From: Chuck Buzbee Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis To Gary LaPook Gary, you are entirely correct. As a side bit, if you wanted to lower the frequency of a crystal a small bit it could be done by removing the crystal from it's holder and coating it with India ink. Not precise but effective. Anyone that heard a broadcast by a woman that identified herself as AE could consider it to be authenic. Hoaxes of this nature would not have been tolerated in 1937. People were light years ahead of the present time in responsibility. Especially in matters like this. They knew that except for the grace of god that it could be them seeking help. Also like gold being where you find it, radio transmissions were heard where they were heard. Chuck Buzbee ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:20:30 From: Scott White Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? > From Paige Miller > Okay, specifically, which of the post-loss messages that have been > possibly attributed to Earhart "-could- have been" hoaxes or > misinterpretations? (Your list does not have to be all-inclusive, just > name one or two so I know which ones you are talking about). Why could > they be hoaxes or misinterpretations? Paige, I don't understand what you're getting at here. Any of the messages could have been hoaxes or misinterpretations. I think you've acknowledged earlier that none of them can be proven genuine. (Correct me if I'm wrong). If so, then there is some probability that each one is not genuine. I pointed out earlier that a message sent by Itasca at 0600 was similar to one received by Achilles at the same time. > Your hypothesis that it could be a hoax is not falsifiable. It is not > testable. It is not a scientific hypothesis. (If you disagree, please > explain how your hypothesis could be tested. Please explain how your > hypothesis is falsifiable. Please explain with reference to the one or > two specific post-loss messages that could be a hoax that I asked you > to provide above) I agree that it's not falsifiable in an absolute sense, as we've discussed. I do believe, however, that a careful historical analysis of all the messages and their contexts can and should be undertaken. This analysis should identify the strengths and weaknesses of both points of view (genuine vs. hoax/ misinterpretation). Surprisingly, someone who knows far more about all this than I do is already doing that analysis. :-) > To discuss your point specifically, if QZ5 was the hoaxer or the > source of a misidentified message, QZ5 has to be broadcasting in voice > as Earhart did, and QZ5 was not broadcasting in voice. The fact that > many (all?) of the post-loss messages attributed to Earhart are in > voice, and the fact that in decades of research into Earhart's > disappearance, no researcher that I know has yet come up with a > station in that part of the world that had voice capability on airline > frequencies (other than Earhart and Itasca) seems to me to be strong > evidence in favor of the TIGHAR hypothesis. At some point, the people > who disagree with TIGHAR or who doubt TIGHAR (not just you, Scott) > have to produce a piece of evidence in favor of their hypothesis, or > the credibility of their position drops to zero. It is not simply > enough for someone to say "but QZ5 might have had voice capability..." I guess I still haven't clarified . . . I don't disagree with Tighar. I "doubt" Tighar's hypothesis, in the sense that I don't think it has enough solid evidence in its favor. At least not yet. This "doubt" is normal scientific skepticism. I "doubt " the c/s hypothesis similarly. I have much more vigorous doubts about the various conspiracy explanations. I agree with Tighar's efforts and approach to solving the problem. QZ5 was broadcasting in code when it identified itself. Those messages were not hoaxes and (presumably) were not misinterpreted. We don't know where that radio was, what its capabilities were, or who had access to it. *If* the same radio could broadcast voice, then it *could* have been a source of hoax or misinterpreted messages. Likewise, we don't know the locations, capabilities, or staffing of the two stations QZ5 attempted to call. Likewise, if/then/could. I believe I've read that at least one, and maybe more, p-l mesages were in code. I agree that my claim, that "QZ5 might have voice capability" doesn't prove anything. It identifies a line of evidence that might help answer questions about post loss messages. Surely others have thought of this before me. To claim, as you have, that no one knows of radios (other than Itasca and AE) in the south Pacific that could broadcast voice on those freqs. also proves nothing. If we had complete knowledge of radios in the region, then we would know who/where QZ5 and both stations it called were. It appears to me that knowledge of radios in the region at that time is still incomplete. (Maybe someone does know, but it hasn't surfaced here on the list during this discussion.) >> SW: Reg., "planes," I'm not sure what you're referring to. Maybe two >> different things. First, QZ5 was trying to reach two different >> stations. Speculation in the post you referenced was that they were >> planes. Second, I presumed that there was more than one plane involved >> in the search. Was there only one? If so, my mistake. > > PM: The reason I asked about "planes" is because you Scott White have > mentioned it at least twice. You have mentioned either planes (plural) or > plane (singular) in at least two messages as possible sources of the > communications that are misidentified/hoaxes. The only other mention of > planes (plural) or plane (singular) is when I question you about it. So > specifically Scott, we are discussing the time period of post-loss messages > allegedly from Earhart in the time frame July 2, 1937 to July 7, 1937 -- > specifically what plane or planes are you talking about? Who was piloting; > and/or where/when did they take off? Paige, please reread the paragraph I wrote, which you quoted above. Those are the planes I was talking about. QZ5's two intended contacts and search plane(s). I don't see how I could be any clearer about it. I don't know who flew them, when or where they took off. Surely the searchers and flight details are available in published references (including Ric's soon to appear book). Perhaps nobody knows what two stations (planes or otherwise) QZ5 tried to reach. Best, -SW ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:21:08 From: Paige Miller Subject: Radio Capabilities Gary LaPook writes a detailed description of radio capabilities. Thank you for all this information! > It appears that the investigation must be enlarged to include all > radios with the capability to transmit voice on any nearby frequency. Do you have an estimate of how wide a frequency band could have been heard by a receiver listening to 3105? Would it be +-10 kilocycles? Or +- 100? Or does it depend on lots of things such as time of day, weather, receiver set-up, transmitter set-up, pass band, etc? I think the issue still boils down to -- were there zero radios capable of transmitting voice out over that area of the Pacific (other than AE and Itasca), or were there greater than zero? And if there were greater than zero, what do the logs of those transmitters say? I don't think the exact frequency is a key issue here. I haven't done the research on this issue of course, but I believe Ric has done the research, and we will have to wait for that. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:07:30 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Radio capabilities Gary LaPook caused his keyboard to produce the following very interesting wordage: > Today we are all used to having digital tuning of radios and many have > grown up without knowing that, in the past, this capability did not > exist. Up though the 1980s (approx.) entertainment radios were tuned > with variable capacitors with just an approximate readout of the > received frequency on the analog dial. > > Some transmitters were also tuned this way so the transmitting > frequency was also approximate. Could you clarify this, Gary? Do you mean that "some" shipboard transmitters in 1937 used the variable capacitors? > However, many transmitters' frequencies were controlled by crystals > that had a set frequency and were more likely to transmit on the > assigned frequency than those tuned with capacitors. However, even > crystal controlled transmitters had a tolerance of plus or minus some > percent and, in addition, in some cases, the crystal frequency could > be "pulled" somewhat by a variable element in the transmitter. So, once again, I would like to know what existed in 1937. Were crystals capable of broadcasting on or about 3105 standard parts of shipboard transmitters? If not, were these crystals available as sort of "shipboard spare parts" that could be installed if necessary into the transmitter? -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:00:25 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Lockheed 10-E models For you modelers on the forum - Lockheed Electra 10-E models have been very few and far between, and now another one as bitten the dust. Williams Bros. in California, which made an odd-scale (1/53) Electra that included decals to represent Earhart's machine, has apparently gone out of business. Which really sucks because I just bought that kit and it was missing some parts! However, rumor has it that an individual or outfit in Texas has picked up their molds and drawings and may restart production within the next year or so. LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:00:47 From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Radio capabilities The military shipboard radio transmitters with which I am familiar used variable frequency oscillators to generate the frequency, not crystals. A VFO allowed the transmitter to operate on any frequency within the transmitter's design range. In general, crystal control was not the norm for military radio equipment during the 20s, 30s and 40s. The problem was, there had to be a specific crystal for each frequency. If you needed to work a frequency for which you had no crystal, you were out of luck until one could be requisitioned, made to order (each transmitter circuit could be a bit different and require the crystal to be "cut" in a different manner), and then sent down the supply pipeline. Crystals were not something that could be made on shipboard; typically the supplies (crystal blanks and holders) were not stocked in repair parts. Besides, the grinding process was/is quite exacting. (I know this from experience, as I have ground numerous crystals for operation on ham radio frequencies.) Therefore, if one of the USCG's operating frequencies was 2670 KHz, and the transmitter needed to be used on 3105, it'd be a simple matter to reset the frequency using VFO control and re-tune the equipment. As for equipment that DID use crystals, I have not encountered many examples of the use of any kind of circuitry to "warp" crystals onto frequency, in transmitters of this vintage. Such circuitry was indeed common in later equipment that used low-frequency crystals with a high order of frequency multiplication, such as mobile FM transmitters for police and fire use. Here, you'd find a variable capacitor connected across the crystal to warp it to "exact" frequency; BUT: Bear in mind, these equipments might be multiplying the crystal frequency from 12 to 24 times, to get to the operating channel (this was necessary to achieve the proper amount of FM modulation "swing" or deviation). The ACTUAL CRYSTAL FREQUENCY was only being warped a few hundred Hertz at the most. To clarify: AE's transmitter used crystals that were cut for one half the operating frequency, and the oscillator output frequency was then doubled. The crystals were cut to a very high tolerance standard, and then operated in temperature-controlled ovens to achieve even higher accuracy. There was NO warping circuitry in this radio. Crystal-controlled receivers were definitely not common at all in 1937. AE's receiver was tunable, not crystal controlled. It is not easy to achieve reliable frequency-resettability with a receiver of this type, especially one tuned with a "coffee grinder" control head and flexible tuning shaft, as this one was. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:01:22 From: Mike Everette Subject: More on radio capabilities Sorry, but something happened and sent the last message before I was done. Blame it on stinkin' Hotmail.... Taking up where I left off, sort of. If there was a need to reset a VFO controlled shipboard transmitter's frequency, the operator would use a precision frequency standard to check the VFO. This instrument was commonly a "heterodyne frequency meter," a calibrated oscillator that could be compared at various "check points" against an internal standard-frequency crystal. The frequency meter would then be set to the desired operating frequency of the transmitter, and the VFO for "zero beat" with the frequency meter. Bingo! Your frequency. All this in the days before frequency counters. And a high degree of accuracy could be achieved. As for shipboard receivers: Typically, a communications-type receiver in the radio shack would have a maximum (widest) bandwidth of something like 12 to 15 KHz, which could be narrowed using a crystal filter to give a resulting narrow (tightest) bandwidth of a kilohertz or maybe even less. Operators searching for a signal would run the bandwidth as wide as possible consistent with whatever interference might be present, then tighten it up after the signal was acquired. (The frequency standard could also be used to calibrate the receiver dial). With a wide bandwidth it was indeed possible to hear signals near, but not on, the frequency of interest. It would be difficult but certainly not impossible to instantly know if a signal in the passband (within the bandwidth) was exactly on the frequency of interest or on a nearby frequency, but it would not take but a few moments for a skilled operator to determine this and deal with it. If one were operating Morse code (CW) instead of voice, the task would be easier. Voice is a much wider-bandwidth mode, And, a CW signal is far easier to determine whether it is "on frequency" or not, merely by listening to the "beat note" in the receiver. Those who are not radio operators will have to take my word on this but I assure you, it's true. It would be far easier to demonstrate it than to explain it. And you radio folks know the truth of this. Let's not "lawyer" it to death. I have no desire to mince words or otherwise argue with a lawyer who does not have a clue, or does not care, except to see how much he/she can bumfusticate, how this works. My qualifications: Amateur Extra class ham license (the Know-Code kind, not "extra-light"), Second Class FCC Radiotelegraph license, General Class (initially First Class) FCC Radiotelephone license... and probably a few thousand hours on CW and voice. And a professional career in public safety communications, and an MA in history with a technological specialty. And no, I don't know it all. But I do know a lot about this stuff. LTM (who is a no-BS kind of person) and 73 Mike E. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:02:15 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? Scott White and I have gone around the issue several times and I'd like to make a few comments. Several times I have asked Scott for specifics and evidence to support his position. He has provided no evidence. When I ask what plane(s) he is referring to, he points to "QZ5's two intended contacts and search plane(s)". QZ5 was trying to contact KACA and KCWR, both stations with 4-letter call-signs while airplanes were given 5 letter call-signs such as Earhart's KHAQQ. During the time of the so-called post-loss messages, June 2 through June 7, 1937, there were zero search planes. I have asked him specifically which messages could be hoaxes and WHY could they be hoaxes. He points to all messages and his explanation of WHY they could be hoaxes is: you can't prove their not. He says: "I think you've acknowledged earlier that none of them can be proven genuine... If so, then there is some probability that each one is not genuine." Again, a complete lack of evidence supporting his position. He does mention "I pointed out earlier that a message sent by Itasca at 0600 was similar to one received by Achilles at the same time." I don't understand this comment, as this message is obviously not from Earhart. Scott's argument could be used to throw out every single historical investigation -- it could be a hoax, there's a slight probability that every single piece of evidence is not genuine! There is no such thing as history! (For the record, my explanation of WHY one particular message could not be a hoax -- or more precisely, it is extremely unlikely to be a hoax -- is here in this Forum on Dec 9 2002, and Ric adds an important comment about QZ5). The hoax hypothesis is the same as the Space Alien hypothesis: "All these messages could be from Space Aliens and you can't prove they're not". A while ago in this forum, some misguided soul presented his "Paraguay Theory"; that AE and FN floated with her plane to the Pacific Coast of Paraguay where they were captured by the Paraguayan Navy and held as spies, after which they died in jail. The Paraguay Theory, as ridiculous as it sounds, at least is testable, it is falsifiable, and the claim was made that there are newspaper articles in Paraguay with supporting evidence. I like it better than the hoax/space alien hypothesis. Scott White has spoken a lot about science, and what it is. Yet I continue to get the feeling that what he really wants PROOF. He uses that word (or the word proven) many times. He wants a message which can be "PROVEN genuine". Historical sciences simply don't work on PROOF. Historical sciences test their hypothesis by looking for evidence in favor of their hypothesis. If evidence against the hypothesis is found, that should be included in the analysis as well. But if we reach a point where all (or the overwhelming majority) of the evidence is in favor and none of the evidence is against, then I believe that most people would conclude that the hypothesis is true. But that does not constitute PROOF. And I believe Ric's new book will not try to provide PROOF that any particular message is real, rather he will show that the entire accumulation of evidence argues strongly (very strongly -- very very very very strongly) in favor of his hypothesis. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:33:19 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? Paige, if I'm not mistaken the Paraguay thing was a spoof and not intended to be taken seriously. Your post is a good one. I can't offer proof the sun will come up tomorrow so therefore it might not. If that isn't ridiculous I don't know what is. Absence of proof is not proof or even implication of hoax or fraud. I know I'm preaching to the choir but I get a bit concerned when someone starts throwing "proof" and "evidence" around as loosely as Scott. I have truthfully lost Scott's point. Perhaps because I'm not seeing the support of his contentions. I think what you and I would like to see is a well reasoned argument rather than unsupported conclusions or allegations. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:34:44 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Lockheed 10E models For Monty Fowler: Thank you very much for info! Alas, you are completely right... the 1/53 scale looks certainly odd for today. I am also a modeler, and the continuous absense of AE's plane on the market always amazed and irritated me. Finnally, i just built it as a scratchbuilt model - in 1/72. I spent several months for it, and still believe it is not so bad. But very recently the new model of Amelia's Electra was issued by some "young" model company from Poland... (sorry - can't check right now which one exactly) - and it is in 1/72 scale! As we the scale modelers know too well, it is a pretty routine "magic".. if you want some model of some rare thing to be manufactured, just scratchbuild the thing... and the more passionate efforts you will apply, the higher is possibility that next year you will find the thing in Revell, Tamiya or Airfix catalogue!!! Best Regards - LTM, sincerely - Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:36:31 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: A Publisher I just got my new Tighar Tracks. I haven't gotten past the first page yet. (Actually titled p.3.) I am THRILLED that you got The Naval Institute Press to publish Rick's book. Half the books in my library (OK, maybe 10%) are from the N.I.P. Despite my being an enlisted man, I was a member of the Institute for years (just so I could get discounts on the books). I have a hundred bucks slated to go towards a fusil de chasse (18th century French flint lock musket) I have on lay-away at the gun shop I work for that I will gladly divert to the TIGHAR Literary Guild. My fusil can wait. LTM (who thinks books are more important than guns) Kerry Tiller ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:37:00 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Suitcase is looking GOOD! Just got my latest TIGHAR Tracks and I must say, Houston, we have a winner here. It looks like we are building a solid foundation for the post-loss radio analysis, if for no other reason than that EVERYTHING is being put out there, as opposed to the factual cherry picking of past What Happened to Amelia and Fred? efforts. But I was a little disappointed to see only 38 people have chipped in for the Literary Guild to date. This is "our" book, so I think the least we can do is offer minimal support, fiscally painful though it may be for some of us. The results are going to be more than worth it! LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:37:31 From: Scott White Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? Replying again to Paige Miller > Several times I have asked Scott for specifics and evidence to support > his position. Paige, here's your mistake: I don't have a position on this. There's nothing to support. My only point is that we don't know enough about these post-loss messages to dismiss the possibility that one, several, or all of them could have been hoaxes or misunderstandings. I'm not claiming any evidence in support this. My whole point is that I haven't seen enough evidence one way or the other. I don't have a position. I've suggested several times already that we just drop this and wait for Ric's book. How about it, Paige? I'm sure we'll have plenty to talk about then. Best, -SW ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:50:35 From: Charles Fleming Subject: Re: Lockheed Electra 10E models There's a 1/48th scale cast-resin model of AE's L-10E "Electra" available from Collector's Airmodel Company. Go to www.aircraftmodels.com and on the homepage click on the "Golden Age: Racer" button in the center of the page. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:16:51 From: George Werth Subject: Re: A publisher Question: Will copies of the new book be available in the Readers Digest style LARGE PRINT for "Old Geezers" like me? Or will I have to use a magnifying glass? LOL **************************************************** That's a marketing decision the publisher will make. We can certainly suggest it. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:19:40 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? I think all of you have been beating a dead horse. First: What would be the reason for a Hoax ? 2nd: It has been brought up many, many times that very few places in the Pacific had the equipment and/or capability to transmit voice. Last the Tighar hypothesis is the best to date by far citing the first two. Jimbo ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:04:24 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: What's an hypothesis? Scott White: "I've suggested several times already that we just drop this and wait for Ric's book. How about it, Paige?" Okay, Scott. Subject dropped. Alan Caldwell: "Paige, if I'm not mistaken the Paraguay thing was a spoof and not intended to be taken seriously." Alan, its not just a spoof, it's a spoof AND a didactic tool! To Ric: Congrats on the latest issue of TIGHAR Tracks. The chapters I have read so far is very interesting. Also that is great news about Naval Institute Press being the publisher. But I do have a very important question ... on page 3 of the latest TIGHAR Tracks, the book title has capital letters, while on page 4 the title has no capital letters (the subtitle has capital letters). And so I ask, which is it? I would love to see a book with no capital letters in its title, that alone would make it unique. Did Amelia have an aversion to capital letters? Can I start that rumor? I think there's a conspiracy theory in there somewhere, Amelia not liking capital letters... -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:13:02 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: More on radio capabilities For: Mike Everette With your expressed electronic/radio background and knowledge of NR16020's radio equipment, I would like to ask you the following question. What impact would you expect a major solar flare event would have on Earhart's ability to communicate by voice? I've asked this question of others and have received several rather ambiguous responses, one being quite lengthy and detailed. All have been off forum responses, one even being of an anonymous nature. I have been working the solar flare angle for some time and have been intriqued by the lack of discussion of solar flare impact on NR16020's communications. Your imputs to this forum have always been rational and expressed in layman terms, which is the reason I'm asking this question of you. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:04:17 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Literary Guild Well, Pat, this is another fine mess you've gotten me into! :-) I have to make a decision between donating to the TIGHAR Literary Guild or buying that left, rear quarter, NOS, "XL" badge for the 1967 Fairlane hardtop I'm restoring. So, rather than being selfish and arriving at a decision that would favor only me, I'm going to let the Forum decide. OK, guys and gals, what is it? Literary Guild? Car parts? LTM, who is often driven Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:04:57 From: Ron Bright Subject: The Book A few thoughts re the book. With the radio communications such an intergal part of the AE story, I thought you might have given a few more paragraphs on what went on at Miami by the Pan Am guys dealing with the antenna- shortening, lengthing, retuning etc., and of course if the Bendix Receiver was in the plane as shown in the Long book by a photo taken by a Silas(?). And you might address the story that she left her trailing antenna behind there rather than at Burbank. Or maybe you have addressed these issues later, and I know you must pick and choose what you feel is significant. I see that you report that based on the Noonan charts that AE made landfall "on the African coast well south of, not north, of Dakar. How does that reconcile with the famous hard copy note sent back to Noonan , who requested her to change to 36 degrees, 79 miles to Dakar, with "What put us North?" Are we sure Noonan actually followed his chart course? She reported she flew just 50 miles and landed at St Louis, meaning she had to be 113 miles north of Dakar when she turned left.[ Dakar to St Louis was 163 miles] But that doesn't make much sense either as she said if she turned south, she was only a few minutes from Dakar. Was the entire story and note fabricated? The reference to Noonans friend and relationship to Eugene Pallette is also interesting. Pallette lived at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel in June 1937. In Nov 1937, the Jaluit Post office received a letter addressed to "Miss Amelia Earhart (Putnam), Ratak Group, Maleolap Is.,(10) Marshall Islands, South Pacific, with a return address of "Hollywood-Roosevelt Hotel, Hollywood, California. The postal stamp was from Los Angeles, California, Oct 7 1937.on the envelope was written "Deliver Promptly" and on the back was written "Incognito". The letter was never opened. (The Pacific Island Monthly Magazine, Sydney, Australia, 25 May 1938 article) Anyway, Pallette was still living there. Others believed that Margo Carie, AE's secretary was living there, but that is unconfirmed. A strange coincidence, of little consequence to your book though. REBright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:42:31 From: Terry Simpson Subject: Re: The Guild To Dennis McGee, buy the car parts Den. Rics a softy, he'll wait. And not to get off topic I think Amelia would say "GET THE PARTS DEN".......Terry #2396(LTM) ************************************** Fat lot of help YOU are. P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:51:43 From: Phil Vitiello Subject: Re: Literary guild Dennis here's one vote for the literary guild. Phil Vitiello #2104 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:29:15 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The Book Ron Bright says, > With the radio communications such an intergal part of the AE story, I > thought you might have given a few more paragraphs on what went on at Miami > by the Pan Am guys dealing with the antenna- shortening, lengthing, retuning > etc., and of course if the Bendix Receiver was in the plane as shown in the > Long book by a photo taken by a Silas(?). I might say something about what Pan Am did to the antennas in Miami if I knew what the Pan Am guys did to the antennas in Miami but, as far as I know, there is no documentation and no photographic evidence to support later anecdotal allegations of what was done. Photos taken in Burbank on May 20, 1937 show that the dorsal antenna had already been lengthened before the plane left for Miami. There is a photo in Long's book that shows a box mounted in the cockpit of what does appear to be Earhart's Electra. Long says that it's a "Bendix radio control box" (not a Bendix receiver) but he provides no explanation of how he has identified it as such. If it is a "Bendix radio control box" that does not prove there was a Bendix receiver in the airplane. We do know that the loop antenna that appears in all the photos matches the Bendix MN-5 shown in published advertisements. We also know that Bendix had just come out with a new "loop coupler" that allowed the MN-5 to be used with other receivers, such as the Western Electric 20B which is documented to have been aboard the aircraft. The box in the photo might well be the loop coupler. I do mention, a little bit later on in the book, that some people think there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard the airplane but I also point out that the question is moot. As Elgen acknowledges in his book, the limiting factor was the antenna, not the receiver. No matter what receiver she had in the airplane, the loop could not take bearings on signals above 1500 kcs. > And you might address the story that she left > her trailing antenna behind there rather than at Burbank. If I mention it at all it will be only as an asterisked note as an example (and there are dozens) of how the Earhart mystery is riddled with folklore. > I see that you report that based on the Noonan charts that AE made landfall > "on the African coast well south of, not north, of Dakar. How does that > reconcile with the famous hard copy note sent back to Noonan , who requested > her to change to 36 degrees, 79 miles to Dakar, with "What put us North?" The famous hard copy note has nothing to do with the whole Dakar/St. Louis episode. "What put us North?" refers to the previous note (also on file at Purdue) in which Noonan had said, "By a second observation crossed with the first taken in the cockpit find we are north of course - have averaged 147 m.p.h. Now we have a tail wind - alter course to 76 degrees M." The new heading turned out to be an over-correction and they ended up south of course when they reached the coast, requiring the sharp left turn to 36 degrees. It's all there on the chart. > Are we sure > Noonan actually followed his chart course? There are two courses plotted on the chart - the planned course and the actual track. It's very clear where the airplane went. > She reported she flew just 50 miles and landed at St Louis, meaning she had > to be 113 miles north of Dakar when she turned left.[ Dakar to St Louis was > 163 miles] But that doesn't make much sense either as she said if she turned > south, she was only a few minutes from Dakar. Was the entire story and note > fabricated? The note was not fabricated and Earhart never said that "What put us North?" meant north of Dakar. The story about why and how they ended up at St. Louis was quite obviously fabricated. > The reference to Noonans friend and relationship to Eugene Pallette is also > interesting. Pallette lived at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel in June 1937. In > Nov 1937, the Jaluit Post office received a letter addressed to "Miss Amelia > Earhart (Putnam), Ratak Group, Maleolap Is.,(10) Marshall Islands, South > Pacific, with a return address of "Hollywood-Roosevelt Hotel, Hollywood, > California. The postal stamp was from Los Angeles, California, Oct 7 1937 > on the envelope was written "Deliver Promptly" and on the back was written > "Incognito". The letter was never opened. (The Pacific Island Monthly > Magazine, Sydney, Australia, 25 May 1938 article) Anyway, Pallette was still > living there. Others believed that Margo Carie, AE's secretary was living > there, but that is unconfirmed. A strange coincidence, of little consequence > to your book though. True, but fascinating nonetheless. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:39:25 From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Book >If I mention it at all it will be only as an asterisked note as an >example (and there are dozens) of how the Earhart mystery is riddled >with folklore. It strikes me that it would be a good idea to do that routinely wherever there's a widely shared piece of folklore that you can't verify, just to forestall questions like Ron's. LTM (who loves folklore) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:39:52 From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: The Guild Dennis--Dennis--Dennis--- There really is nothing to decide-------The Literary Guild Book of fascinating facts/truths/speculations/explanations wins --hands down.... After all --you can always steal another badge from some other unsuspecting restorer.... LTM--who cherished books Jim Tierney ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:25:54 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: The Guild Dennis: Literary Guild. We need you. Jackie #2440 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:26:18 From: Chuck Buzbee Subject: Re: The Guild Do what you gotta do Dennis. Personally, I droped my subscriptions to Light Plane Maintenance and Trade-A-Plane. The badge can be had anytime just like work on my 1950 Cessna 140A. Chuck Buzbee ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:26:46 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: The Guild Dennis, dearest, a 1967 Fairlane? If you were talking a '50 bullet nosed Studie or a '51 Packard Clipper there would be no question. Go for the car parts. But a 1967 Fairlane? Geez.... LTM (who only collects memories) Kerry Tiller #2350, no letters ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:27:05 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The book Thanks for the clarification. I would think it is important enough to address that AE note, etc, re the Dakar landfall, perhaps in a footnote or appendix. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:16:27 From: Don Jordan Subject: B-24D Crash site I know it's not Earhart related, but I thought some of you might be interested in a news article involving a lost B-24 in my area. Here is the link to the story: http://www.desertnews.com/ The Los Angeles Times will be carrying a story on this next week. Don R. Jordan Cal City, CA ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:08:20 From: Tom King Subject: Re: B-24D crash site Interesting article, Don, and congratulations on finding the site. One picky suggestion that I can't in good conscience not make, as someone who makes his living interpreting the federal historic preservation laws -- the article says you collected a souvenier from the wreck for one of the descendants. Unfortunately, if the crash site was on Federal land (like Bureau of Land Management land), that's against the law unless you had a permit to do so. Although technically the wreck isn't protected by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (which covers only stuff that's older than 100 years), it still would be government property, and theft of government property is just as illegal as is taking antiquities. I'm sure you know all that, so I imagine the site is NOT on Federal land, but as I said, I couldn't in good conscience fail to mention it. LTM (who insists that her children obey the law) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 22:11:17 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: B-24D crash site Thanks Tom. I am aware of certain legalities involved in such activities. But it's always a good idea to hear it from someone working in that field. In this case however, the "Dig" was supervised by the proper (I hope) authorities. Most notably in attendance was a representative from the Kern County Coroner's office in Bakersfield. You see, the newspaper wasn't allow to tell the whole story. As you well know, from TIGHAR's trip to the YB-49 site, there is wreckage all over the place out here on the desert. People are continually removing souvenirs from these sites to take back home with them.. In general the Air Force, Army, or other "controlling Legal authority" says nothing about it. I do not approve of such activity. I am not a Digger! Unless there is a good, authorized reason. In this particular case there is a good authorized reason. Not just the lady in Charleston who wants a pieces of her brother's plane, but to remove a quantity of human remains found at the site. That story will run next week. The Charleston lady asked for some soil from the crater, and a pieces from the radio equipment that he worked with in his job as Radio Operator on board. There's plenty of sand out here, and I knew from my visit to the site last year that there was a radio antenna insulator lying on top of the ground at the site. When I went out to retrieve it for her, I found a third individual knee deep in a whole sifting through the remains with a screen. Not only did he find personal effects from the crew, but he found two bags full of human bones. Now this site becomes a "War Grave" of sorts, and a whole new set of rules and ethics come into play. This question has come up many times among us "Wreck Chasers". What do you do if you find bones at a crash site? Particularly a very old crash site. I'm not talking about the Piper or Cessna that augers into some isolated mountain top somewhere. But the much older, perhaps historically significant ones. In the old days the Military was not always as efficient as they should have been when removing remains to send home for burial. That fact is blatantly evident in this case! There will be several more stories on this accident in the coming weeks. I'm told that it will go national. If the forum is interested I'll post all related articles for all to read. Tom . . .in your opinion, or legally, what is the proper thing to do when encountering human remains of any quantity at such sites? When is amateur hour over, and it becomes time to call in the pro'? What should you do if you encounter a single vertebra? How about two . . .or an entire spine? I've encountered the occasional bone or two at several crash sites while doing the research for my book. I've always just re buried it and said nothing. I don't write about such things in my stories. I feel that it will do nobody any good to open old wounds. What do you think? Don Jordan Cal City, CA ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:08:46 From: Tom King Subject: Re: B-24D crash site Please excuse the off-topic diversion, but Don Jordan asked... >Tom . . .in your opinion, or legally, what is the proper thing to do >when encountering human remains of any quantity at such sites? When is >amateur hour over, and it becomes time to call in the pro'? What >should you do if you encounter a single vertebra? How about two, >or an entire spine? First off, you said you were working with the proper authorities, but that may not necessarily be true, in terms of legalities. You mentioned the Army and Air Force, and the county coroner, but in your part of the world you quite likely ought to be dealing with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Dept. of the Interior, which as you know controls vast amounts of land in and around the California Desert (and throughout the west). Whatever ties the military may still have to a wreck (the Air Force generally ignores them, the Navy is very sticky about them), BLM has the responsibility to manage all the stuff on federal land under their jurisdiction. Whether that's a good idea or not, and whether they do it well or badly, that's nevertheless the law. Which is why, on the YB-49 project, it was BLM that contracted with TIGHAR to document the site, as a way of helping them manage it better. So you ought to be in touch with the relevant BLM field office, which has an archaeologist on staff who will probably be interested in what you're doing and quite willing to help. As for bones, I'd say that whether you find them or not, if you have any reason to think (like from the documentary record) that people died in the crash, you ought to be extremely careful about doing anything to the wreck, regardless of whose land it's on. On Federal and Indian tribal land you shouldn't be removing anything without a permit anyhow, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for State land in California, and probably County land as well. If it's private land it's another matter, but even there, human remains are entitled to a lot of protection. So I'd be very careful about any bone you run into that might be human. Which, of course, raises the question of how you recognize human remains, as opposed to those of other critters. It's pretty easy to distinguish bird bones (generally hollow, hard outer surfaces, light, small), but when it comes to the medial (i.e. in the middle of the bone) pieces of a long bone (arm, leg), it can be hard to tell the difference between human and sheep, goat, even smallish cow or biggish coyote, if you don't have a lot of experience. And the more amorphous bones of the skull, vertebrae, and pelvis can be harder yet. You obviously don't want to interrupt your inspection and documentation of a wreck, or call the coroner out from town, for what turns out to be a coyote bone, so I guess what I'd suggest is: 1. Try to acquaint yourself as best you can with the kinds of bones you may see -- both human and critter. The San Bernardino County Museum, for instance, like lots of other local museums, has skeletons of most local critters; I don't know if they're on exhibit, but I'd bet that if you wanted to spend a day just familiarizing yourself with what the bones look like, the staff would be happy to help. Human bones may be a bit more of a problem, but they are around to be inspected -- if not in real form, then in the form of anatomically correct plastic skeletons like the one I keep in my attic. 2. If you come onto a single bone that you're not sure about, I think your current practice is probably right -- just cover it up and go about your business, though if you're recording the wreck I'd certainly mark where you found the bone on whatever kind of map or sketch you're making. If you come on something that you're really pretty sure is human, then you definitely ought to leave it alone, except perhaps to cover it up to keep it from being picked up by somebody else, and contact the local coroner. In most jurisdictions that's probably your legal obligation, and in any case it's a good idea. 3. If you come onto a bunch of bones, then if you've acquainted yourself at all with the kinds of critters whose bones might litter the desert, it ought to be pretty clear whether its human or something else. Check the skull for horns, check the thickness of the long bones, and so on -- assuming they're there. If you just can't tell, though -- then you're back to paragraph 2 above. Which is a long and terribly complicated way of saying you're probably doing just the right thing as you are; I'd only suggest (a) getting familiar with the bones of your local ecosystem, and (b) getting in touch with your local professionals -- in your case, probably the BLM field office archaeologist -- and getting THEIR advice. LTM (who suggests boning up) ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:49:23 From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: More on radio capabilities For Tom Strang A major solar flare event is a possibility, but I believe an unlikely one. The effects of a solar flare are not "selective" as to frequency, nor are they limited to a certain area of the globe. A solar flare would greatly and adversely affect radio communications on a world-wide basis, across a major portion of the entire radio spectrum. In 1937, the most-used portion of the spectrum would have been from very-low frequencies (below 100 kilohertz) through high-frequency (up to 30 megahertz), with most commercial and military HF frequencies being below 18 megahertz. A flare would cause degradation of radio communications that would continue for a relatively long period, possibly up to several days. Such effects would have been widely reported in logbook records for all radio services. This includes, of course, the radio logs of the Itasca, US Navy ships involved in the search, the Navy shore stations in Hawaii and San Francisco, Pan Am, etc etc. In a previous post related to this subject I referred to Bob Brandenburg's expertise on the matter of radio propagation reverse-modeling. I don't recall anything in his research regarding any effects attributable to a solar flare. Records of solar observations and events, including flares, have been maintained by astronomers for decades. If someone has access to such information, it might be real interesting to go back and factor such an event into the research if anything shows up; but I've not seen evidence to indicate that this occurred. LTM (who always wears her SPF-50 sunscreen) and 73 Mike E. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:49:47 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: B-24D crash site If anyone is interested, here is another article on the B-24D crash site near Mojave, California. http://www.avpress.com/n/21/0821_s4.hts Don R. Jordan Cal City, CA ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:58:18 From: Ted Campbell Subject: AE and Post Loss Messages Harmonics To the radio gurus. I was reading a little about harmonics and came across a statement that indicated that if your transmitter is sending out a harmonic frequency it also decreases the output power of the fundamental (the intended) frequency. Not being a radio type I think I got this right? If my understanding of the above is correct a few questions come to mind regarding this subject: Does a transmitter that has a harmonic problem always have the problem or does it come and go? Assume no one tries to fix the problem -I don't recall hearing that AE/FN had a radio tech aboard! If a harmonic does indeed degrade the power of the fundamental frequency would this be evident to a nearby receiver? That is, as power is lost on the fundamental frequency I would assume that clarity of a message being received nearby would degrade and a more distant receiver picking up the harmonic would continue (not improve or degrade) hearing the same quality of the signal being heard. If any of the above makes any sense then the question becomes: Can a correlation be made between those locations near AE/Gardner Island and those further away e.g. Betty's receiver concerning the quality of post loss signals? For example; on those signals reported as a "weak carrier wave" (given the same date and time of transmission from AE) is there a coincident distinguishable voice message heard by another albeit further away receiver? Just trying to put on another layer of probability that the post loss messages where indeed coming from AE. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:59:11 From: Dennis McGee Subject: The Guild Well, the polls have closed, the results are in, and by an overwhelming margin of 4-1, TIGHAR's Literary Guild will get my $100 donation. I should add that two votes did not get counted because neither stated a clear preference. One "vote" offered dismissive and disparaging rhetoric regarding my choice of cars (I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - by this behavior.) :-), and the other offered only advice, not a solution. Nonetheless, I am happy there is a clear and unambiguous answer. Had this not been the case my next step was to rely on Divine Intervention, assuming Marty would do some advance work for me. I will abide by the Forum's decision. Thanks to those who exercised their democratic right to vote. LTM, who likes trains, planes, and automobiles Dennis McGee #0149EC *********************************************************** Thank you, Dennis. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:59:44 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Post Loss Messages Ric/Pat, Basis the "Hoovenmap.jpg," once that Wake, Midway and Hawaii Islands had beamed in on what could have been AE position did any of these locations report any subsequent receptions or were they only "one off" reports? Did any of the islands report the frequency they beamed in on? ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:00:32 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: B-24 wreck I'd like to thank Don Jordan for the links on the b-24 crash near Mojave, California. On particular statistic stood out: 35,000-plus men and women died in training and ferry flights during WWII. That works out to an average of 24-25 deaths each DAY for the 45-months the U.S. was at war with Germany and Japan. By any estimation, that is an appalling loss-rate -- and that is just for the stateside troops. It is easy to imagine at least an equal number of training/ferry deaths in the combat areas. I wonder how high those numbers would've been had today's hyper-media bee around to report them. Also, thanks to Tom King for brief, but thorough, review of how to deal with human remains found at crash sites. It is always important to remember that crash sites are often also graves, especially those crash sites of high performance aircraft. LTM, who is grateful for their sacrifices Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:27:08 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: B-24 And let's not forget the men and women to died testing these new aeronautical designs. On display at the gate here at NASA is the lifting body used to perfect the shuttle design. On display next to it is the X-15, and the SR-71. My we've come a long way since Earhart's day. I'm currently searching for another B-24 that crashed just to the east of Mojave. But it's too hot out here right now to spend much time in the open desert. I have a few pictures of the Mojave site. If anyone wants to see them, send me an email. Don R. Jordan Cal City, CA ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:35:25 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: B-24 Wreck Hey Pat, that 35,000 plus figure for training and ferrying deaths among US personnel during WW2 sounds WAY too high... as Dennis McGee points out, at 25 deaths a day, I think it's more likely a typically sloppy journalistic error. William Webster-Garman ************************************************ I didn't check the links myself. Someone want to verify these numbers? P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:48:36 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Guild > From Dennis McGee > Well, the polls have closed, the results are in, and by an overwhelming > margin of 4-1, TIGHAR's Literary Guild will get my $100 donation. ... I'm sure you anticipated that this is the way the voting would go. :o) > ... Had > this not been the case my next step was to rely on Divine Intervention, > assuming Marty would do some advance work for me. Theology is waaaaaaaaaay off-topic in the Forum. I'd be happy to talk about the principles of spiritual direction on my as-yet-not-existent TIGHAR Off-Topic Blog. I plan to put the page up Any Day Now. :o( I wholeheartedly endorse Ric's work on the book. What he has done already is magnificent and I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************** ADN probably ought to be a recognized time unit. We certainly rely on it heavily here . Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:29:09 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Post loss messages > did any of these locations report > any subsequent receptions or were they only "one off" reports? Did > any of > the islands report the frequency they beamed in on? There were multiple bearings taken by several of the stations and all were on 3105. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:47:48 From: Bill Hillier Subject: Re: More on radio capabilities On the morning of December 7, 1941, a very critical message warning of possible Japanese attacks was not sent to our commanders in the Pacific by Army and Navy communications because both were experiencing "atmospherics." The message was sent instead to western Union for transmission to Hawaii without any mention of urgency. The message arrived after the attack was over. A timely arrival of the message would not have prevented the attack but our forces would not have been caught by surprise. Bill Hillier LTM who doesn't like to be surprised by uninvited guests ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:42:18 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: the book For: Ron Bright The ghosts of the "Hollywood - Roosevelt Hotel" are notorious at whispering tantalizing tidbits about the famous and not so famous, but yet never tell a complete story, leaving stories untold. Will "The Suitcase in My Closet" become another ghost story left untold? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:42:52 From: Craig Fuller Subject: Accident statistics The correct number is 14,903 stateside fatalities from Dec 1941 through Aug 1945-- and this is for the USAAF alone, not counting USN accidents! This information is from "Table 213-- Aircraft Accidents in Continental US - Number and rate: Dec 1941 to AUG 1945" source: Office of Flying Safety. Not sure of the date, but from the font, it looks like shortly after WWII. I also have a 1994 newspaper article quoting the USAF Safety Agency as saying the figure was 15,130 fatalities. That is amazing considering 30,000 lost their lives in the skies over Europe and 20,000 lost their lives over the Pacific (USAAF only). Source is a pamphlet put out by the American Air Museum in Britain. Craig Fuller AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research www.AviationArchaeology.com ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:45:10 From: Ed Lyon Subject: Re: More on radio capabilities Mike Everette, if you know the date of interest, simply look in the relevant issue of QST magazine, since they report on all major flares, SIDs, and such. Remind me, again of the exact date, and I'll look it up. I know the approximate date of AE's last leg, but approximate won't do. Ed Lyon ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:30:35 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: the book For Tom Strang Yes the Hollywood-Roosevelt Hotel must have many stories, particularily in its heyday in the 30s. It is still there and I tried to confirm that Amelia's secretary Margot DeCarie lived there in Oct 1937, as some researchers claim. The obvious inference was that Margo knew that AE was on a Secret Mission and would end up in the Marshalls at Jaluit, hence the letter addressed to her with the return address of the Hotel. No records now, or at least they never responded to my request . What with Pallette living there, friend of Noonans, it is a amazing coincidence. If the ghost of Margot speaks, listen carefully... Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:54:48 From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: More on radio capabilities The time period of interest begins July 2, 1937. I don't have a file of QST in my personal collection, either hard copy or CD-Rom, but the nearby university library does... just have to find time to get over there. If you could look it up, that's a big help. However, I have indeed looked this material over (some time back); but it would not hurt to have another pair of eyes on it. Be aware, the lag time between reporting and publishing during the 30s could be pretty long. I suggest checking the DX columns in QST from August 1937 through the first quarter of 1938. 73 Mike E. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:21:12 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: July 2, 1937 I recently was at Lowell Observatory and they provided my son with a nice astronomy program. It shows the sky and all the celestial bodies for any date and time, from any point on earth, looking in any direction. For each celestial body that appears it shows the AZ, Hc, name and magnitude. I know there are several such programs and all that data is freely available on the net but it is nice to actually see what someone might observe, say on July 2, 1937 at 07:12 at Howland Island for example. Such an observer would see the sun around 067 degrees, the Moon and the planet Venus giving reasonable cuts of 30 and 60 degrees. The scattered Cu could not have totally prohibited celestial but Noonan's equipment may have been inoperative and I suppose Noonan himself incapacitated OR he got a nice fix within 10 to 20 miles and they STILL could not sort Howland out from cloud shadows. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:21:54 From: Ron Bright Subject: Search of Gardner by Putnam For Ric,Tom King, forum, According to Muriel Morrisey's book "Courageous is the Price", p 202, GP chartered two private ships to search the Gilberts, Ellice Is.and also Gardner Island. Nothing apparently was found of interest. My quetion is whether any of the ships actually visited Gardner, went ashore, etc., in 1939. Do you have the name of the ships and any information regarding the Gardner Island search, if any. Many of Muriels statements in her book were based on conversations with Putnam; for example, the alleged "trek" behind enemy lines in China to get close enough to a station to determine if Tokyo Rose was in fact Amelia Earhart. (Morrisey didn;t provide a cite for that statement, such as an interview by author). LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:53:35 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Search of Gardner by Putnam Ron, take a look at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/47_Katagateman.html I think Handley's search is probably one of the "charters" that Muriel refers to; the other, perhaps, is the Yankee; see Forum archives at http://www.tighar.org/forum/Highlights61_80/highlights77.html When I was writing Shoes, Muriel's daughter Amy was a great help, read the manuscript and made comments both as family member and as retired English teacher (LOTS of red marks), and one thing she said was that Putnam had been tremendously kind to her mother and the family after AE's disappearance; there was apparently a lot of interaction, so it's not surprising that Muriel would have gotten a good deal of information from him. LTM (who appreciates men who are kind to mothers) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:45:03 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Search of Gardner by Putnam The two ships were the Yankee, piloted by Irving Johnson, which did visit Gardner very briefly, and the sailing vessel Ralum, piloted by George Handley, in search of Katagateman, a reef supposedly near the Gilberts (which was not found). ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:07:02 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Re: the book Marty wrote: > wholeheartedly endorse Ric's work on the book. > What he has done already is magnificent and I'm > looking forward to seeing the finished product. My feelings exactly! LTM Eric #2531 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:51:50 From: Ed Lyon Subject: Re: More on radio capabilities For Mike Everette and others: Regarding the suggestion that a Solar Flare could have prevented AE's transmissions from being received, or prevented her from hearing others transmitting to her, I have checked the records maintained by the old National Bureau of standards, now ITS, then located in Washington DC, but now in Boulder, Colorado. NBS notes that there were SIDs (sudden ionospheric disturbances) that we now know are caused by some flares (the ones that are situated such as to precipitate ions into the earth's magnetosphere) that create high attenuation values in the D region, but only on the sunlit side of the earth. The D region needs both the precipitated particles AND sunlight to get this high attenuation. The result of an SID is that no signals that must travel ionospherically (say, more than a few hundred miles from a ground station to another station, either on the ground or airborne) can be heard on a shortwave radio, and the attenuation of signals is roughly inversely proportional to the square of the operating frequency. NBS reported such SIDs, but of a minor or short-term nature, on the 7th, 10th, 22nd, 24th, and 25th of July, 1937. These are Greenwich dates, almost off by a day for AE's location. NBS also reports on the likely best-propagating frequencies for that period, and it seems that 6 MHz should have been a good op freq for E-mode propagation over distances of up to 800 miles, in afternoons, and for F-mode propagation at night, and for Es propagation in the morning-to-midday period. F-modes would let her send to distances up to 1500 miles, and Es modes run well to 1200 miles. In July 1958, a very similar year as far as the solar (sunspot) periodicity is concerned, I personally operated a circuit from Johnston Island to Eniwetok, a range of maybe 1500 miles, and could, from dawn to dusk, local time, send perfectly clearly heard signals on power levels as low as 10 watts, on frequencies from 6 MHz to 30 MHz. Of course, that was closer to the equator, so the mode was purely Es, throughout all daylight periods. I believe AE was operating at essentially zero output power in her carrier, likely with no antenna connected, and she was severely overmodulating that carrier. She also apparently didn't know wavelength from frequency, and likely listened on the wrong frequencies, and used the loop antenna to boot. On HF, that loop would be very poor as a receiving antenna, and wouldn't tell her anything useful about direction of arrival of signals. Bottom line: No evidence of a solar flare until 7 July. Her primary aeronautical frequency assignment (near 6 MHz) should have worked like gangbusters, if only she had a transmitter/antenna combination. Ed Lyon ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:52:45 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Solar flares I found this on the web: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsolarflares.html The National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) holds archives for about 80 stations, covering the period 1937 to the present. Reed ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:04:42 From: Ed Lyon Subject: Re: Solar flares Sorry, Reed, missed it by one year. That database starts in 1938, even though it's advertised to start in 1937. I got the needed data from the Proceedings of the IRE for September 1937, where NBS scientists report on data gathered for July of that year. Ed Lyon ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:26:26 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Solar flares I have often thought that maybe the solar flares seen by Itasca were really AE's flares and due to sheer coincidence , bad luck, were ignored as SOS signals. How ironic if that were the case. Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:55:55 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: the book For: Ron Bright Sounds like a job for "Ghost Busters"! When dealing with ghosts of the "Hollywood - Roosevelt Hotel, keep in mind that the hotel provided many discretionary services to it's clientele during the hotel's heyday. One must not loose sight that Ms. DeCarie was a hired hand answering to three principal players in the Earhart melodrama, resulting in many curtain calls since 2 July 1937. "If only walls could talk"! Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:27:00 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Solar flares For: Ron Bright If talking about the flares sighted at night NW of Howland? - Sorry no cigar here Ron - Wrong type of animal - Need to be facing the sun - Can not nor should you try to view a solar flare event with the naked eye, hard on the eyes. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:27:18 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: the book To Tom Strang Also interesting about Margot DeCarie is that she was scheduled to be crewing on the "Amelia Earhart Foundaton's" two year search of the Pacific. This is one that according to Randy Jacobsen did visit Gardner Island in 1939. ( I still don't know if anyone got off the boat and looked around the island). I have never found any evidence that DeCarie was aboard during that search. The question also remains , who wrote to Amelia from the Hollywood-Roosevelt Hotel in Oct 1937? Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:17:44 From: Don Jordan Subject: B-24 crash in Mojave If anyone is interested, there is another article in the local paper about the B-24 crash west of Mojave. My thanks again to Dr. Tom King for his excellent advice on handling such matters. http://www.desertnews.com/ Don R. Jordan Cal City, CA ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:18:10 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Solar flares Unless I misread the postings there was no solar flaring on July 2, 3, 4, 1937. I thought our concern was the supposed radio silence starting July 2, 1937 between 08:43 L running for about 6 to 8 hours before the post loss messages started. If that is the case there is no significance to the solar flare. I am apparently missing why we are talking about solar flares. I have not read anything to indicate that later solar flares had any significant impact on communications in the South Pacific area. If such is the case it would be interesting to note but I don't see any connection to our Earhart mystery. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:14:50 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Solar flares For: Alan Caldwell Alan, you state "there was no solar flaring on July 2, 3, 4, 1937" in reference to forum postings that you have read, is that correct? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:15:21 From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: B-24 crash in Mojave Here is the link to Don's web site, featuring information about the newest book he has written, Aircraft Wrecks in the Mountains and Deserts of California http://users.fire2wire.com:8080/djordan/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:15:20 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Solar flares For Tom S. My apologies re the "solar flares" seen by the Itasca. I meant that the meteor shower that was seen by the Itasca and others, ironically, could have been at first the real flares sent up by AE. It is beyond any proof, but I have always thought it could have been a coincidence of horrible consequences as no doubt a meteor shower did occur. REB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:17:35 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Solar flares If I'm not mistaken, whoever researched solar flares said they started on the fifth. Is that not correct? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:05:36 From: Ed Lyon Subject: Re: Solar flares For Alan Caldwell: I said the flares started on the 7th, Greenwich time. That could be the sixth, local New Guinea time. Ed Lyon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:22:57 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Solar flares Thanks Ed. As you can see my focus is a little off. Two many things going on. The significance then if the solar flares did not begin until the 6/7 of July the issue is not controlling as to AE's radios from the 2nd through that/those dates. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:45:35 From: Monty Fowler Subject: GPR for an underwater search? I freely admit that I know next to nothing about ground penetrating radar, although I hope to learn at the aviation archaeology school in October. But do they may a waterproof version of this, and would that be something practical that could search the compacted sands of the Tatiman Passage, where some of the big chunks of our favorite Electra might have ended up? LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ************************************************ GPR is, alas, stopped cold by water -- which is why sonar is used instead in underwater environments. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:45:59 From: Ed Lyon Subject: Re: Radio capabilities Just going through old stuff prior to deleting, and couldn't help but remark on this one from Paige Miller: >1. Yes, transmitters of 1937 were tuned to frequency by means of crystals cut >to that frequency or by VFOs, which were tuned by variable capacitors. It is >only slightly likely that Itasca had a crystal cut for 3105 or 6210 kHz, >because those are aircraft calling frequencies. I didn't say unlikely, >because since Itasca was a USCG vessel, it may have had to carry these >crystals for the express purpose of answering aircraft in distress. So the transmitter was more likely tuned by variable capacitors. And yes, they can drift, or be poorly set-in to the desired frequency. BUT, these vessels ALWAYS carried a frequency meter, used to fine-tune both the transmitters and receivers. The frequency meters in use at that time were equivalent to our military BC-221 (Signal Corps) or LM (Navy), and they are both marvelous, able to get a transmitter or receiver to within a few hundred Hertz of the assignment.. So if Itasca was told to listen to 3105 or to transmit on 3105, that's the frequency (+/- 200 Hz) they were actually on. Unless, of course, they were manned by modern youngsters, who are generally untrainable. Ed Lyon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:47:09 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Solar flares For : Ed Lyon What is your reference source for your statement " flares started on the 7th. Greenwich time"? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:35:27 From: Ed Lyon Subject: Re: Solar flares Tom Strang asked to be given the source for the statement made by me that solar flares affected the ionosphere of the earth beginning on 7 July 1937, GMT. As I noted in the original message relating to this subject, the source is U.S Dept. Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, in a description of the July 1937 ionosphere published by the NBS authors, Gilliland, Kirby, Smith, and Reymer in Proceedings of the IRE, September 1937 issue. Newbern Smith's work on investigating the ionospheric condition was published each month by Proc. IRE from the mid-1930s to well after the war. Ed Lyon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:47:49 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The Phantom Phone Call In trying to piece together events surrounding attempts to coordinate support for Earhart's Lae/Howland flight I've turned up something of a mystery (imagine that!) involving a phone call Amelia allegedly made to her husband on June 24, 1937. I'm hoping that someone on the Forum can shed some light on what really happened. Here's the situation. Earhart arrived in Bandoeng, Java on June 21 and spent two days there having maintenance done. She was running behind schedule and hoped to make up lost time by flying all the way to Darwin, Australia on June 24th. She planned to get off the ground by about 4 a.m. and fly the 1,165 miles to Koepang, Timor where she would refuel and continue on another 1,207 miles to Darwin. However, when she and Noonan arrived at the airport they found that the mechanics had run into a snag and needed more time. It was 2 p.m. before they left and the best they could do was fly 355 miles to Sourabaya where they landed around 4:30 p.m. According to Elgen Long (page 164 of "Amelia Earhart - The Mystery Solved"): "Amelia placed a phone call to G.P. who was on a flight to Oakland at the time. His plane was on the ground refueling in Cheyenne, Wyoming. "She told G.P. of the delay and that she expected to fly to Howland on Sunday (the 27th) and Honolulu on Monday (the 28th), then arrive in Oakland Tuesday or Wednesday. that would put them in Oakland on June 29 or 30. The Herald Tribune reported their conversation: "G.P.P. - 'Is everything about the ship O.K. now? "A.E. - 'Yes. Good night, Hon.' "G.P.P. - 'Good night. ... I'll be waiting for you in Oakland.' "These were the last words spoken between G.P. and Amelia." The supposed phone call from Sourabaya seems extremely improbable. I don't know if international phone service was available from Sourabaya or not, but assuming that it was, how on earth could Earhart have caught Putnam during a refueling stop in Cheyenne, Wyoming? First, she would have to know what day he was planning to fly from New York to Oakland, what flight he was planning to take, and when the flight would be in Cheyenne (assuming it was on time). None of that information appears in any of her cabled messages to him now on file at Purdue. The only other way they could have set up the phone call was by phone. Earhart and Putnam had last talked by phone on June 22 when she was in Bandoeng. At that time she told Putnam that she planned to leave Bandoeng the next day, the 23rd. As it turned out, she didn't get away until the afternoon of the 24th. On the 23rd, Putnam wrote a letter to Ruth Hampton at the Department of the Interior saying, "We have no contact from her whatsoever this morning so I just don't know. All I can report is that when I talked to her yesterday she expected to be in Lae by the 24th, ready to take off for Howland." He made no mention of any plans for another phone call. Second, she would have to have a need to catch him enroute between New York and Oakland rather than simply wait a few hours until he was in Oakland. No such urgency is apparent. As for sources: Elgen Long says that the Herald Tribune reported their conversation. We have a complete set of the New York Herald Tribune's coverage and I can find no mention of it. Long also cites "Last Flight" but I find nothing about the phone call there either. Long further cites an L.A. Times article dated June 25 and headlined "Trip to end Tuesday, Miss Earhart says". I don't have copies of the L.A. Times coverage, but it's an interesting headline. I'm still looking for a primary source that says the phone call happened. If Putnam really did claim that he talked to AE on the 24th in Cheyenne I strongly suspect that he was making it up. Can somebody dig up the L.A. Times article? Thanks. BTW, I don't blame anyone for asking, "What possible difference could it make?" Trust me. It does. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:54:45 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The phantom phone call I have an order into the LA Times for the 24 June LA Times article. In my Last Flight edition,p.123, soft cover, she wrote that about an hour after their arrival at Bandoeng a telephone call from New York reached her. She speculated that it was like being in Cleveland in Mayor Jack Berry's office, and Jack would probably say "G.P wants you to check in". The actual content of the telephone call or the sender is not reported. But it could have been someone telling her that GP was enroute to Oakland, would refuel in Cheyenne on such and such date, etc. And AE placed a call to the airport. Will let you know the results of the LA Times. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:02:09 From: Dave Proter Subject: Re: Literary guild Dennis, you've inspired me by delaying your purchase of vintage auto parts. I have decided to put off by one month making final payment (and thus taking delivery) on a 1977 Smith and Wesson Model 25-5 blue steel revolver with 6" pinned bbl, square butt, and factory oversize target stocks, in .45 Colt caliber. Pat, a check will be in the mail by the end of next week. OFF TOPIC: WW2 Training Accidents: I was recently tasked as NCOIC of a detail rendering military honors at the burial service of a WW2 veteran in Macon, Georgia. After the service, I walked across the cemetery to a rather curious monument I had noticed earlier from a distance. It was a rather large monument, about 8' high, with the famous poem High Flight (authored, as I recall by one Mr. Gillespie-McGee; who also perished in a training accident) engraved on one side, and on the other side, the story of RAF Cadet flight training at the nearby local airfield during WW2. Nearby was a flagpole flying a flag that had the Union Jack and the RAF roundel on a white field. Between the monument and the flagpole were the graves of seven RAF cadets, all of whom died during flight training accidents at the local airfield, between 1940 and 1942. The Cadets were between 18 and 21 years of age at the times of their deaths. Anyway, that's seven training accident deaths at just one small training facility over a maximum 36 month period. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:02:32 From: Dave Porter Subject: Error in my last post Pat, No doubt by now you've received posts to the forum pointing out an error in my last post. The RAF memorial and graves are in a cemetery in Albany, Georgia, not Macon, Georgia as I mistakenly reported yesterday. LTM, who knows where all the bodies are buried, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:03:06 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Solar flares For: Ed Lyon Thank you for your quick response to my question - Appreciate the information which I find most interesting. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559