TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ingo Prangenberg on September 19, 2014, 09:54:14 AM
-
I've always been interested in the former residents (Emilie) account of airplane wreckage off of the Northwestern edge of the island. Here is a quick link to a lost Franklin Expedition ship that was just found. The reason I'm sharing this is twofold:
First, the technology used is very interesting, the images captured are fantastic.
Secondly, the ship was found exactly where Inuit oral history says an Inuit hunter saw it in 1840. Maybe some neigh-sayers should trust the local inhabitant's oral history more.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lost-franklin-expedition-ship-found-in-the-arctic-1.2760311
-
Maybe some neigh-sayers should trust the local inhabitant's oral history more.
The trouble with oral histories is you never know whether they are accurate or not. Multiple oral histories from different people who didn't know each other but all tell the same story make it more likely that the story is true, but you still can't be sure.
-
Just remember the old classroom stunt where a circle is formed and a message vocally passed
from the first to the last person in the circle and see the result.
-
Im a skeptic when it comes to "eyewitness" accounts. As we have seen with any major event (Plane crash, murder, meteor, earthquake etc) everyone has a differing account of what it looked like, how it sounded, what happened and so on. Oral history is often molded by personal opinion, experience, culture, and elaboration as it is passed from one person to the next. Even firsthand accounts can be muddled by time, external influences, and personal bias. Maybe someone DID see something, but without a photo, a fiber, a tree scrawled with "AE + FN 1937" etc, we cant be sure. We are seeing a great example lately as I live near the Ferguson area of St. Louis. New "eyewitness testimony" is surfacing every single day, so many that it makes me wonder how anyone will be able differentiate between fact and fiction. I imagine that it must be alot like the immediate days after 7-2-37. Testimony coming from all sides with no way to prove whether its the truth or just hearsay
Im not quick to dismiss someones recollections, but Im also not quick to believe everything I hear. Being from Missouri, I kind of have to go back to our cheesy motto: "Thats a lovely story. But I wont believe it 'till you show me."
-
Generally I agree, but the information that gets modified over time are usually the subtle details to a story, not the overall foundation to the story itself.
-
Generally I agree, but the information that gets modified over time are usually the subtle details to a story, not the overall foundation to the story itself.
It ain't necessarily so. There has been a lot of good science done on this subject. It is entirely possible, and not uncommon, for the mind to invent a memory out of whole cloth. No foundation in truth whatsoever.
The thing to look for is when several people who have no connection to each other tell essentially the same story.
-
Generally I agree, but the information that gets modified over time are usually the subtle details to a story, not the overall foundation to the story itself.
It ain't necessarily so. There has been a lot of good science done on this subject. It is entirely possible, and not uncommon, for the mind to invent a memory out of whole cloth. No foundation in truth whatsoever.
The thing to look for is when several people who have no connection to each other tell essentially the same story.
This is spot on. For anyone interested in the battle of the little big horn and Custer, there are a couple of forums where hundreds of indians give testimony about the battle. The culture of the Native Americans has impressed on descendants the notion that indian oral history is highly accurate, even sacred.
Alas, the accuracy in general of oral histories is really quite poor. There are numerous indians giving accounts that were not even there, yet claim they fought. How could they forget killing someone, right? Yet they did it over and over. These "false memories" were often recorded by white historians within a couple of years after the battle.
The soldier's accounts are a bit more accurate, as reports had to be made to HQ, but controversy still exists about many of the white soldier narratives.
Indeed, the testimony that deserves the most attention are stories told soon after the event, and repeated independently by at a minimum of 2-3 other participants, preferably of no family relation and connection.
-
Reflecting on this very interesting discussion I am struck that the 'teller' (and perhaps where more ancient material is concerned, most especially the 're-teller') may have an innate human desire to 'please', or to meet a perceived 'goal' of understanding. I have little experience with this in the pursuit of history, but even a very honest individual can pick up on the most nuanced, unintended ques and answer with 'constructive' fiber.
The corroboration Ric speaks of is probably the best tool one has - what reasonably isolated people say in separate venues (of time or place of telling, individualy and not among each other) may be the closest one can get to reasonable concensus.
-
Just remember the old classroom stunt where a circle is formed and a message vocally passed
from the first to the last person in the circle and see the result.
"Send reinforcements we're going to advance!" = "Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance" ???
-
Just remember the old classroom stunt where a circle is formed and a message vocally passed
from the first to the last person in the circle and see the result.
"Send reinforcements we're going to advance!" = "Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance" ???
That's a good one Jeff! :D
-
Gotta love it, ain't the truth! ;D
-
There is a very simple truth that the alternative theories can't handle, and it's Betty's notebook. Oral history backed up with contemporaneous writing. Give 100 people the general information that the public knew at the time AE was reported overdue. Then ask them to pretend to be AE calling for help in order to intentionally fool people. and write down what happened. Most all would come up with AE giving her call sign with "navigator is hurt, stranded on deserted island/atoll, taking on water" but I sincerely do not believe that any of the 100 would come up with an "open mike" scenario that gives us a poignant look into the tragedy. And I don't think Betty could have come up with that angle on the transmissions on her own. It's possible they might say she was crying or sounded frantic but I'm talking about the entire set of transmissions as written down by Betty because of an open mike. It is unique, and it is indeed authentic.
I was a forgery detective for the Austin Police Dept, then later I traveled the world for 17 years investigating fraud in 45 countries for a Fortune 50 company. I believe Betty. She had witnesses too but it's the style of what she wrote down that authenticates her.
If you consider all of TIGHAR's body of evidence and not cherry pick one part or take things out of context then I can't see any other possibility of what happened to AE/FN. They died on Gardner island and TIGHAR is looking in the right place.
-
Fascinating, Robert - your background gives an awful lot of weight to your insight. Thanks for that.
Welcome to the forum, glad to have you here.
-
I was a forgery detective for the Austin Police Dept, then later I traveled the world for 17 years investigating fraud in 45 countries for a Fortune 50 company. I believe Betty. She had witnesses too but it's the style of what she wrote down that authenticates her.
Very interesting to have the point of view of someone with your background. I always felt the same about Betty's Notebook, that it sounded so immediate and authentic.
-
Robert, your posting is exquisite. I'd like to have your permission to reproduce it, quote it, have it displayed on the Goodyear blimp, etc.
-
Robert I've often thought the same thing when trying to determine if a 'big fish' story is real; you can tell by what people claim, if they're being honest or not. I worked with an older gentleman once who used to claim he saw the Beatles play in bars in Germany in the early 60's, and met John at the bar on several occasions after shows. I asked him how Paul acted and he said he didn't know, he always left after the show and was never at the bar! I've always believed the guy; if he was lying he'd just say he knew Paul too. A similar situation with Betty; she's not claiming what you'd expect from a forgery and strikes me as authentic.
TIGHAR has ran into the same thing over and over again, nothing flat out confirms what happened, but all of it in it's entirety is almost impossible to refute. Kudos to them for adding more and more to the huge pile of evidence that's accumulated over the past 20 years.
-
I solved so many crimes over the years by carefully considering the psychological, human nature aspect of the people involved. For the sake of this discussion I'm calling the series of radio transmissions the "event" and Betty's reporting of the event the "report." As an investigator for each data point I would ask myself - "does this make sense? does it feel right?"
1) did this event really happen or is Betty lying?
2) if it happened, was it from AE or an imposter?
So straight away I would try to disqualify Betty by asking "does it make sense that a young girl would be using a shortwave radio as she claims? Seems kind of "techie" and not what a girl would do...well not the girls of today. However I'm 57 so I remember the days of only 3 tv channels which signed off at midnight with the Star Spangled Banner. Radio back then was the main pastime - people got the news and listened to music & people like Betty were "star struck". Dads all over America strung antennas for their radios. It feels right. And Betty records her routine pastime activity in a contemporaneous notebook. Her drawings and musings feel right. Her alibi of being home in front of the radio passes the test.
And see how neatly her personal life weaves in and out of the "event" in her notebook? Here she is retelling the story of not only her life but this second story of AE's life and the two are remarkably woven together, preserved forever in her precious notebook. Who fakes that? Then there's the event with this "open mike" where Betty is able to record the emotions and poignant struggle for survival that transpired in the cockpit in addition to words that were transmitted as a formal call for help. AE fades away and Betty goes back to her personal star search until the material weaves its way back around and snippets of AE come through again. Betty is our human CVR. She couldn't be making this up, she really heard the event.
That's some of the psychological side of it. Then the actual words in the event, although circumstantial evidence, really help to solidify the validity of the report, that Betty heard it and AE said it, not some fraudster. "Get the suitcase in California" and the similar wording in a letter known to have been penned by AE, "New York City (sounds like) "and the eerily similar Norwhich City. What little girl or fraudster would think "hey, Norwhich City ran aground on this little atoll, let's pretend AE landed there and let's give 'em a hint but not too obvious now so say New York City"??
What about the shortwave radio? TIGHAR has tons of information explaining how it works. I have empirical evidence. When I was a young patrol officer I was assigned the southwest side of Austin, David Sector. On the midnight shift our Motorola radio David frequency was notorious for radio skip interference coming from gulf coast shrimp trawlers hundreds of miles away in Port Aransas and Port O'Connor. There would be routine police traffic on the radio then a blast of expletives followed by beer soaked invectives. Around 5am the atmosphere would change and the skips would cease. So it is possible for AE's transmissions to make it to Florida. It feels right. With the way harmonics act, and all the different brands of radios, different brands and lengths of antenna wires, the various skill levels of the installers and the magnitude of the local radio interference I would not expect any two radios in America or the world to hear exactly the same thing that AE said.
Now, top that off with "I'm traveling on the line" that's runs through Gardner & multiple direction finders pointing to Gardner...please. It's incomprehensible to me that either Betty or anyone else faked this.
And Ric I just want to say I am extremely impressed with your exhaustive depth of analysis on recovered artifacts, & the professional manner of your investigations. Extremely impressed.
-
Fantastic insight Robert, thank you!
-
Wow Robert that is a fantastic analysis!
Two thumbs up from a fellow Austinite!!
John Klier
-
By all means Ric you can quote me and if someone wants to try to drag you down a rabbit hole over what my opinion is then you may certainly simply refer them to me.
Robert
-
By all means Ric you can quote me and if someone wants to try to drag you down a rabbit hole over what my opinion is then you may certainly simply refer them to me.
Perfect. That technique is known as, "Let's you and him fight." ;)
-
Good stuff.
Betty's Notebook will always be an 'eye of the beholder' thing I'm afraid, but it is the kind of observations given here that add clarity to my own sense of it.
"Let's you and him fight" kinda reminds me of the "Blue Cyclone (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+blue+cyclone&qpvt=the+blue+cyclone&FORM=VDRE)"... 8)
-
I would agree, it's very nice to have an opinion from a disinterested third party - who actually has some qualifications to speak on the subject - dissect the event and come to the same conclusions that TIGHAR has.
The whole New York, New York/ Norwich, Norwich thing has, to be, been one of the clinchers. There is no way on God's green earth that the fate of the Norwich City was well known by more than a handful of people in 1937. As one of TIGHAR's expert witnesses said with regards to another matter, the chances are "vanishingly small." Is it a slam dunk? No. Does it conclusively solve the mystery once and for all? No.
But ... it is also very, very difficult to discount Betty's Notebook as anything other than what she, and TIGHAR, believe it to be - some of the last, desperate moments of two people in extraordinary peril, preserved by an amazing woman in an extraordinary bit of luck. The naysayers can whine all they want - explaining it away is just making them look more and more ridiculous.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
In the "Post Loss Radio Signal Catalog" there is one statement that contradicts my idea - A long duration carrier signal – in which the transmitter is keyed, i.e. “on the air,” but no voice modulation is present – for several minutes or more, is a strong negative factor. There was no plausible reason for such a transmission.
The "open mike" theory is the foundation to proving the veracity of the alleged transmissions. We know she held the mike open while directing her attention to Fred. Therefore there IS a plausible reason for a modulation without voice to occur - say if the mike was stuffed between the seat and frame while she worked on something, tended to a passed-out Fred, etc. I fall right down the middle of it, it's not a strong negative nor a strong positive - in and of itself its not useful for proving or disproving an event.
-
With AM modulation, when signals fade to the extreme, you may be left with nothing to detect but the carrier. Frequently the way to tune in is to turn on the BFO (beat Frequency Oscillator) in the receiver so you can still detect there is a carrier and to zero-in on the signal. The BFO is typically only used on CW signals.
Also, carbon microphones were used back then. Humidity makes the carbon particles clump. The result is under-modulation or even no modulation which again may result in just a carrier detected.
-
Although seldom discussed, Earhart had a really weird and apparently unique radio control panel in her cockpit. Below is our facsimile from the Harney Drawings. It's accurate. We can see the panel in photos of Earhart's cockpit. Deciphering what the various toggle switches did is not difficult.
Top Left: Switches between her two crystal-controlled transmitting frequencies - Day (6210 Kcs) and Night (3105 Kcs)
Top Right: Switches between code (C.W. - Constant Wave - using the sending key) and voice (Phone, using the microphone).
Lower Left: Switches the receiver on and off.
Lower Right: Switches the transmitter on and off.
But what about the Middle toggle? What does it do? "Mike" is obviously microphone (by someone who doesn't know that "Mic' is short for microphone) but the Upper Right toggle already switches between the key and the mic. That middle toggle may have been a way to lock the mic open. Why would you want to do that rather than use the push-to-talk button on the mic?
Those early mics had stiff push-to-talk buttons and Earhart did not use her radio for back and forth conversations. She made transmissions at quarter to and quarter past the hour and listened for message on the hour and half hour. She may have wanted a way to just lock her mic open for transmissions.
-
... She may have wanted a way to just lock her mic open for transmissions.
I see the mystery.
It seems to me that it would take a lot of rewiring to provide two distinct methods of turning the microphone on (the switch on the mic itself and the mystery switch on the panel). You'd have to run an extra wire into the microphone itself that would bypass the hand switch and power the microphone through the panel switch.
Maybe it means what it says. "Mike" for the microphone circuit and "Phone" for the headphones?
-
The CW-Phone switch is shown in the schematic diagram of the WE 13C modified for CW. I have not found the Mike on-off switch. It may have been wired in series with the PTT switch. Perhaps the 1937 vintage mikes had a problem with PTT switches sticking.
Bruce W Badgrow
-
Maybe it means what it says. "Mike" for the microphone circuit and "Phone" for the headphones?
In 1937 parlance "phone," sometimes "fone," means radiotelephone (voice) communication. Even if you're communicating in code, you're still listening on the headphones. There is no speaker. Ambient noise in the cockpit is far too great.
-
I believe the CW/PHONE switch function is answered in this link:
http://tighar.org/wiki/Morse_code_key_questions
-
I believe the CW/PHONE switch function is answered in this link:
http://tighar.org/wiki/Morse_code_key_questions
Yes, but I see nothing there to explain the "Mike/Off" toggle.
-
We may be left guessing for some time - my guess is what you said upstring: Earhart may have wanted a way to energize the mic for speaking without having to hold the button down manually.
This whole approach of a 'switch panel' appears to be a task-saving device to improve cockpit handling needs. She was solo, for practical purposes, in a fair-sized transport with duties that might get busy easily enough. It might also be seen as a way to reduce the chance of error in radio handling - which wouldn't have hurt her (and may not have been a strong enough measure...).
Anyway, "MIKE" ("MIC") / "OFF" gives two basic functions - the implied "on" probably relating to one of two things:
1 - Arming the mic (not 'keying' the mic) - which seems redundant to the "C.W. / PHONE" switch, not to mention hardly necessary, and
2 - Keying the mic.
My thought is guess number 2, that she whacked the mic "on" when ready to talk, and talked away until done, then flipped it "off" to let the battery recover, etc. That might well have also saved the chance of problems with a semi-reliable mic button / switch on the mic itself in the day - and avoid the ambiguity of whether the mic stayed keyed as intended or not, etc.
It also happens to jibe somewhat with the long transmission cycles Betty reported - as in, "Fred, now you sit down - we're gonna kill the batteries if I don't get back to the mic, make sense, and get off for a while...".
-
We may be left guessing for some time - my guess is what you said upstring: Earhart may have wanted a way to energize the mic for speaking without having to hold the button down manually.
I'll see that Jeff, and raise you... Gut feeling is the set-up smacks of a misguided attempt to simplify the process but in fact may have only added further uncertainties and opportunities to commit errors--especially for a timid user under pressure. It's especially interesting to see events and patterns in the pre- and post-loss transmissions that might reflect the combination of this interface being operated by a less than confident user in pressing circumstances.
-
Well, she did manage most of her normal transmissions well - "Finding Amelia" (Ric's very nice book) gives an excellent account of that record. She hit her times for transmissions and listening pretty well.
What happened next was pretty miserable though, agreed. Whether because ham fisted or not don't know, but she surely could not hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle when it camdpe to RDF nav.