Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Post-Loss Radio Signals  (Read 73292 times)

Gus Rubio

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #60 on: October 28, 2011, 03:19:06 PM »

After reading the catalog of post-loss radio signals, it just baffles me how AE and FN could have been left for dead.  There seems to have been ample evidence that they were broadcasting from somewhere.  Could it have been a case of the civilians' experiences with what they thought were AE's messages not being communicated to the proper authorities in time to do something?

I try not to think about Amelia and Fred stranded on Niku after the Electra was taken by the sea, so very sad.
Logged

Chuck Varney

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #61 on: October 28, 2011, 08:30:44 PM »

1. and 2. The values are in my research paper "WE-13C Transmitter Harmonic Power Output" on the TIGHAR website.
3.  REQ = 44 dB;  SNR= -3 dB, SNRUP = 20.0 dB.
4.  REQ = 44 dB;  SNR = 7 dB,  SNRUP = 9.8 dB.
5.  SSN = 91.

Thanks, Bob.
 
Quote
1. and 2. The values are in my research paper "WE-13C Transmitter Harmonic Power Output" on the TIGHAR website.

I find that paper, and the powers given in it, to be way off the mark. I’ll begin to explain that by posting what I had in mind when I made my 11 July post regarding the paper. (The post is here.)

Quote
3.  REQ = 44 dB;  SNR= -3 dB, SNRUP = 20.0 dB.
4.  REQ = 44 dB;  SNR = 7 dB,  SNRUP = 9.8 dB.

I calculated 0.0013 for the data in (3.) and 0.00000065 for that in (4.), so I think I see how you’re doing the probabilities. I used Excel’s NORMSDIST( ) function for the standard normal cumulative distribution. What do you use?

I’ve examined the RELBIL and FNORML( ) functions that VOACAP uses for calculation of reliability, REL.  FNORML( ) is a bit crude above a couple standard deviations, so the REL and probability results diverge for larger deviations, but it seems clear that your probability and VOACAP’s reliability (and ICEPAC’s) are calculated in the same way and represent the same thing.

The smallest non-zero reliability (probability) reported by ICEPAC and VOACAP is 0.01. Do you think there is a reason why the program authors chose not to cut it closer than that?

Quote
5. SSN = 91.

 ICEPAC is intended for use with smoothed monthly (12-month running mean) sunspot numbers. The value you indicated, 91, was the daily sunspot number for 2 Jul 37 and 5 Jul 37. How do you justify using it?

Chuck
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 02:55:39 PM by Chuck Varney »
Logged

Cynthia M Kennedy

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #62 on: October 28, 2011, 09:09:26 PM »

Gus,

When I first read Betty's notebook, it had quite an impact on me.  I had similar feelings when studying the catalog of post-loss messages, as it demonstrates Amelia's and Fred's persistent attempts to communicate with the outside world.  I can only imagine the desperation behind each of those attempts.

LTM,
Cindy
TIGHAR #3167
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #63 on: October 29, 2011, 12:18:01 AM »

Folks,

Do we know who this gentleman was?

"A Kentucky man wrote to the London Daily Mirror in 1943 claiming he heard Earhart's distress signal on Aug. 10, 1937, by shortwave radio. According to the letter, which now is part of the 56-page FBI file, Earhart stated she was on an island northeast of the Marshalls."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_16/ai_60100203/pg_4/

I searched through the Post Loss catalog, finding only Nina Paxton from KY.

Thanks!

Best,

S

Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2949
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #64 on: October 29, 2011, 05:49:51 AM »

Do we know who this gentleman was?

"A Kentucky man wrote to the London Daily Mirror in 1943 claiming he heard Earhart's distress signal on Aug. 10, 1937, by shortwave radio. According to the letter, which now is part of the 56-page FBI file, Earhart stated she was on an island northeast of the Marshalls."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_16/ai_60100203/pg_4/


Here is the 56-page FBI file.  Perhaps you can find the letter there and identify the man yourself.

Then you can look for "an island northeast of the Marshalls" on which AE and FN could land, survive for 5+ weeks, and suddenly transmit one distress message on 10 August, without being noticed by other occupants of the island then or since.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #65 on: October 29, 2011, 06:09:55 AM »

Do we know who this gentleman was?

I strongly suspect that the "gentleman" was Nina Paxton.  In 1943 Nina was writing to anyone who would listen and claiming that she had heard Earhart describe a location in the Marshalls.  Nina is an interesting case. We've judged her initial report to the local newspaper as credible but her later embellished recollections were increasingly fanciful.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #66 on: October 29, 2011, 10:05:29 AM »

Here are the entries in "Messages July 3, 1 – 47" (http://goo.gl/Pqm2x) where Gardner is listed as something other than -11:

Entry 2: Zulu 0010 July 3; Gardner 1310 July 3 [+13] (should be Gardner 1310 July 2?)
Entry 16: Zulu 0600 July 3; Gardner 1900 July 3 [+13] (should be Gardner 1900 July 2?)
Entry 22: Zulu 0608 July 3; Gardner 1908 July 3 [+13] (should be Gardner 1908 July 2?)
Entry 26: Zulu 0727 July 3; Gardner 1927 July 2 [-12] (should be Gardner 2027 July 2?)
Entry 31: Zulu 0835 July 3; Gardner 1935 July 2 [-13] (should be Gardner 2135 July 2?)
Entry 33: Zulu 0840 July 3; Gardner 2130 July 2 [-11:10] (should be Gardner 2140 July 2?)
Entry 38: Zulu 0916 July 3; Gardner 2116 July 2 [-12] (should be Gardner 2216 July 2?)
Entry 40: Zulu 0958 July 3; Gardner 2158 July 2 [-12] (should be Gardner 2258 July 2?)

Sheila your corrections are all correct except for Entry 16.  July 3 is the correct date.  The source is the Itasca radio log.  They made the transmission at 1830 Itasca Time on July 3.  That would be 0600Z and 1930 on Gardner all the same day.

The corrections have been made.  Many thanks.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2011, 10:45:36 AM »

Here are the entries in "Messages July 3, 1 – 47" (http://goo.gl/Pqm2x) where Gardner is listed as something other than -11:

Entry 2: Zulu 0010 July 3; Gardner 1310 July 3 [+13] (should be Gardner 1310 July 2?)
Entry 16: Zulu 0600 July 3; Gardner 1900 July 3 [+13] (should be Gardner 1900 July 2?)
Entry 22: Zulu 0608 July 3; Gardner 1908 July 3 [+13] (should be Gardner 1908 July 2?)
Entry 26: Zulu 0727 July 3; Gardner 1927 July 2 [-12] (should be Gardner 2027 July 2?)
Entry 31: Zulu 0835 July 3; Gardner 1935 July 2 [-13] (should be Gardner 2135 July 2?)
Entry 33: Zulu 0840 July 3; Gardner 2130 July 2 [-11:10] (should be Gardner 2140 July 2?)
Entry 38: Zulu 0916 July 3; Gardner 2116 July 2 [-12] (should be Gardner 2216 July 2?)
Entry 40: Zulu 0958 July 3; Gardner 2158 July 2 [-12] (should be Gardner 2258 July 2?)

Sheila your corrections are all correct except for Entry 16.  July 3 is the correct date.  The source is the Itasca radio log.  They made the transmission at 1830 Itasca Time on July 3.  That would be 0600Z and 1930 on Gardner all the same day.

The corrections have been made.  Many thanks.

--------------------

1830 July 3rd, Itasca time plus 11.5 hours makes 0600 Z July 4th, minus 11 hours makes 1900 July 3rd Gardner time. (Using your conversion factors Gardner is always 1/2 hour ahead of Itasca time.)

gl
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #68 on: October 29, 2011, 11:12:31 AM »

1830 July 3rd, Itasca time plus 11.5 hours makes 0600 Z July 4th, minus 11 hours makes 1900 July 3rd Gardner time. (Using your conversion factors Gardner is always 1/2 hour ahead of Itasca time.)

My bad. The transmission was made at 1830 Itasca Time (Greenwich -11.5) on July 2, not July 3.  Gardner time should be 1900 on the the 2nd, and Zulu should be 0600 on the 3rd.  We'll fix it.
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #69 on: October 29, 2011, 10:36:43 PM »

I strongly suspect that the "gentleman" was Nina Paxton.  In 1943 Nina was writing to anyone who would listen and claiming that she had heard Earhart describe a location in the Marshalls.  Nina is an interesting case. We've judged her initial report to the local newspaper as credible but her later embellished recollections were increasingly fanciful.

Thanks, Ric - figured it was too much to hope that there was an uncoralled Post-Loss rambling around out there.
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #70 on: October 29, 2011, 10:45:37 PM »

Mainly for the exercise of it, but also because I like visuals, I put the Post-Loss reports into a spreadsheet showing left-right timeline for each day:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ano089QuiEhldEF4eUdGTDFRYmtubWZhOWRUQTRxQnc

Note that the entries are in order received; column one for July 2 isn't the same exact time as column one of July 3.  But it does show the progression through each day.  Just as in the Post-Loss catalog, all entries are included regardless of rating; the obvious next step would be to color code for that.  I did use Post-Loss catalog's convention of light blue for transmissions to AE.

To create an even better visual, it would probably be good to use a consistent number of columns for each day (so that each column did in fact represent the same time block regardless of day), but it was already getting very wide.

Sorry if this is redundant - I do realize the longtimers here probably have multiple versions of such visual timelines.  But since I worked it up, I might as well make it available for whoever finds it useful.  It's unproofed as of tonight, although I've been fairly careful (famous last words).

Best,

Sheila
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #71 on: October 30, 2011, 07:29:12 AM »

Mainly for the exercise of it, but also because I like visuals, I put the Post-Loss reports into a spreadsheet showing left-right timeline for each day:

Sheila, I love it.  You can already see the patterns emerging. Once you color-code the Credible, Not Credible, and Uncertain signals - hang on to your socks.
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #72 on: October 30, 2011, 01:05:54 PM »

Sheila, I love it.  You can already see the patterns emerging. Once you color-code the Credible, Not Credible, and Uncertain signals - hang on to your socks.

Glad to hear it!  There's something about seeing a visual cluster of reception reports that just drives it home for me. 

Even though "not credibles" are included, I find that the truth (or a hint at it it) has a way of coming out; I think that even if one didn't realize some of the ham club members' reports were considered "not credible," one might look at their cluster of reports, all showing the same convenient times and at least have a "Hmm..." moment.  One can never assume of course, but I remain very glad that the Post-Loss catalog includes all rx regardless of rating.  The truth can come out in unexpected ways.

I hope this won't offend any here, but I once saw a New Testament which took an unorthodox color-coding approach--black for what the author felt strongly was wording which had been inserted by Roman officials for political reasons, brown for "uncertain," and red for what the author felt was most likely to be Jesus' actual words.  Fascinating, and hard to ignore some of the patterns that emerged.

I host a folk music show so won't be able to color code tonight - trying to figure out a way, though, to sneak in the question on-air as to whether any of our listeners throughout Wisconsin have any stories in their family about a "relative who heard Amelia," lol.  I don't see any Wisconsin rx in the data so far so not hoping for much.

QRX tonight,

Sheila
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 06:41:29 PM by Sheila Shigley »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #73 on: October 30, 2011, 02:25:46 PM »

But, using your sign convention, Gardner should be -12.

What do you mean by "sign convention?"  Colorado, Swan, and Pelican all used -11 for the longitude of Gardner.  That's what we used.

----------------------------------------

The Navy regulation in force since 1920 ...That is what I meant by the different "sign conventions." Either method will work as long as you keep it straight and don't get confused.

The standard time zone that is 12 hours slow on Zulu time extends from longitude 172° 30' west longitude to the 180th meridian. Gardner is located at 174° 32' west longitude ...
We have seen that the Itasca, using the authority of the Navy regulation, set their clocks to a non-standard offset from Zulu, for their convenience, and did not maintain their clocks on the standard time zone in the vicinity of Howland which is 12 hours slow on Zulu, these other ships were doing the same thing.

gl
-----------------------------
BTW, in spite of everything you have read, there are actually 25 standard time zones not 24!

The zone descriptions run from +1 to + 12 (12  time zones); -1 to -12 (another 12 time zones); plus the zero time zone (GMT or Zulu time) for a total of 25 time zones. Using the military time zones designations, they run from "A" to "Z" (Alpha to Zulu) omitting only "J" (Juliette.) There are 26 letters in the alphabet, take away "J" and you are left with the same answer, 25 time zones.

gl
« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 11:00:32 AM by J. Nevill »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2949
Re: Post-Loss Radio Signals
« Reply #74 on: October 30, 2011, 07:00:54 PM »

I hope this won't offend any here, but I once saw a New Testament which took an unorthodox color-coding approach--black for what the author felt strongly was wording which had been inserted by Roman officials for political reasons, brown for "uncertain," and red for what the author felt was most likely to be Jesus' actual words.  Fascinating, and hard to ignore some of the patterns that emerged.

You may be thinking of the Jesus Seminar.  They produced a color-coded edition of the sayings attributed to Jesus in ancient texts (both canonical and non-canonical):
  • red: That's Jesus!
  • pink: Sure sounds like Jesus.
  • gray: Well, maybe.
  • black: There's been some mistake.
I recommend keeping words in your spreadsheet as well as using colors.  You can sort on words (or numbers), but you can't sort on colors.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP