TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Radio Reflections => Topic started by: Brad Beeching on August 19, 2011, 02:46:23 PM
-
Was anything ever found relating to Mr. Carrol's http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf) supposed post loss radio conversation with AE?
Brad
-
We’re presently investigating the possibility that Carroll
had somehow managed some kind of twoway
exchange with Earhart, however brief, and
that Betty heard Amelia’s attempt to re-establish
contact with him.
I thought AE was unable to receive messages? How could it be a 2-way conversation? Or was that just Itasca's messages she couldn't get?
-
We’re presently investigating the possibility that Carroll
had somehow managed some kind of twoway
exchange with Earhart, however brief, and
that Betty heard Amelia’s attempt to re-establish
contact with him.
I thought AE was unable to receive messages? How could it be a 2-way conversation? Or was that just Itasca's messages she couldn't get?
Not wanting to get the 'wrath of the linK police' but I also beleive that the loose of/or removal of antena ment that AE could not hold a 2-way conversation!
-
Yeah, that's what I thought too, Chris. But I'm not an expert on radio communication (or anything relevant to the Earhart search for that matter).
The article also reminds me of another question that does implicate the navigational people, though:
"Earhart's route was well publicized as was the fact that the USS Ontario was supposed to be positioned near the halfway point to provide navigational assistance."
If finding Howland was so incredibly easy that they couldn't have possibly ended up at Gardner, then why would they need the Ontario positioned to provide navigational assistance at the halfway point?
-
Had I just flown 19 plus hours, missed my landing point, diverted to a secondary point 400 miles (3 hours) away, all the while trying to establish radio contact, and had a rough off-field landing on coral reef, The first thing I would do would be to trouble-shoot the radio and get it working so that I could send out distress calls.
In so doing, they probably found a blown fuse in the dynomotor circuit (a common problem due to over use of the radio), and an antenna connection that had vibrated loose (also a common problem). Fixing these allowed them to send/receive messages.
-
Ship Ontario was ordered to be in position halfway the by C.Williams computed great circle , at the intersection of two chords . The action was not for specific navigational purposes , other than marking A/c´s progression line when it passed over . The place is by definition 1,278 mls from Howland , too far to have any influence on for the island approach operations . Most probably btw , the great circle path was not flown , since the 0720 radio communicated fix @ 847 mls off Lae is far off latitude of the concerning great circle chords . Neither by radio , nor by hearing it pass over in the vicinity was the plane identified by Ontario´s crew unless appointments and with watch kept .
-
Had I just flown 19 plus hours, missed my landing point, diverted to a secondary point 400 miles (3 hours) away, all the while trying to establish radio contact, and had a rough off-field landing on coral reef, The first thing I would do would be to trouble-shoot the radio and get it working so that I could send out distress calls.
In so doing, they probably found a blown fuse in the dynomotor circuit (a common problem due to over use of the radio), and an antenna connection that had vibrated loose (also a common problem). Fixing these allowed them to send/receive messages.
Wasn't the main problem the possible loss of the belly antena at Lea?
-
I truely appreciate the responses but I must ask, What does any of that have to do with the original question? Great circles and ships there or not belong to another thread somewhere else. So again I ask,
Was anything ever found relating to Mr. Carrol's http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf) supposed post loss radio conversation with AE?
Brad
-
I truely appreciate the responses but I must ask, What does any of that have to do with the original question? Great circles and ships there or not belong to another thread somewhere else. So again I ask,
Was anything ever found relating to Mr. Carrol's http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf) supposed post loss radio conversation with AE?
Brad
I've had a skim of the old site and also Rics assesment in Finding Amelia of the 4 days of transmissions after they failed to find Howland and I havn't found anything. Does this mean it was deemed a hoax? I don't know but it looks like somewhere along the line it has been deemed to be a red herring.
(BTW sme of the responses are just anther way of saying that possibly this has been discarded by TIGHAR) :)
-
Between the time that they (AE/FN) were unable to receive radio transmissions from the Itasca and the time of the post-loss transmissions and possible receotions, something happened! They landed on Gardner and, wondering why they had not heard from the Itascca, deduced the existence of a radio problem, found it, fixed it and were able to transmit and possibly to receive signals.
Elementary, Mr. Watson.
-
If the crew was able to finish radio repairs , why not transmit their position in latitude at noon and in longitude by one sun observation the same day , instead of a few at random tales for teenager girls ?
-
Had I just flown 19 plus hours, missed my landing point, diverted to a secondary point 400 miles (3 hours) away, all the while trying to establish radio contact, and had a rough off-field landing on coral reef, The first thing I would do would be to trouble-shoot the radio and get it working so that I could send out distress calls.
In so doing, they probably found a blown fuse in the dynomotor circuit (a common problem due to over use of the radio), and an antenna connection that had vibrated loose (also a common problem). Fixing these allowed them to send/receive messages.
Wasn't the main problem the possible loss of the belly antena at Lea?
The belly antenna , lost or not , had nothing to do with either reception , or transmission of radio communication signals .
-
Mr. H.A.C.VA says:
"The belly antenna , lost or not , had nothing to do with either reception , or transmission of radio communication signals ."
If the belly antenna had nothing to do with reception or transmission of radio communication signals, what was it there for, hanging laundry?
If you are going to make pronouncements like the above, then please elaborate on what you think the antenna's intended use so the rest of us can attempt to understand your rationale.
Perhaps you mean you mean the belly antenna was not used for voice, morse code, or DF signals, but that is not what you wrote. The result is confusion on what you are trying to say, and frustration trying to follow your logic, which only serves to undermine your arguments.
A. McKenna
-
The result is confusion on what you are trying to say, and frustration trying to follow your logic, which only serves to undermine your arguments.
Truer words were never spoken.
-
Had I just flown 19 plus hours, missed my landing point, diverted to a secondary point 400 miles (3 hours) away, all the while trying to establish radio contact, and had a rough off-field landing on coral reef, The first thing I would do would be to trouble-shoot the radio and get it working so that I could send out distress calls.
In so doing, they probably found a blown fuse in the dynomotor circuit (a common problem due to over use of the radio), and an antenna connection that had vibrated loose (also a common problem). Fixing these allowed them to send/receive messages.
Wasn't the main problem the possible loss of the belly antena at Lea?
The belly antenna , lost or not , had nothing to do with either reception , or transmission of radio communication signals .
Had to do some reading and re reading. My original statement was based on AE's Shoes which in places isn't necesserily upto date. A delve into the main site and Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/NR16020_antennas) and I can appreciate that my statement could be wrong.
"There is debate as to the exact nature of the receiving antennas aboard NR16020. One scenario deems it possible that the dorsal Vee antenna was not used for receiving at all, but transmitting only; and that the receiver was not connected through the antenna changeover relay, but directly to one or more antennas installed on the belly of the aircraft.
"This scenario also includes the hypothesis that the belly antennas were destroyed, unbeknownst to Earhart, when the masts or the wires made contact with the ground during the final takeoff from Lae, New Guinea. This scenario may explain why Earhart seems to have been unable to hear any transmissions from the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Itasca at Howland Island, as she approached the end of this leg of her flight.
"The existence of the belly antennas is an established fact. However, they may not have been employed for communications reception at all, but rather as sense antennas for radio direction finding purposes. Unfortunately, no available source can confirm their exact function."[2]
However I beleive the jury is out on this one and the question remains why did they apparently not receive radio, only transmit?
-
Was anything ever found relating to Mr. Carrol's http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf) supposed post loss radio conversation with AE?
Brad
Thank you for unearthing this link from the archives. It does raise some interesting subjects.
"Terry Linley, TIGHAR # 2297, is now working with the family to try to locate any surviving logbook or documentation that would shed further light on this fascinating development."
Repeating Brad's question, did anything ever become of Terry Linley's discussions with the Carroll family? Was this line of investigation closed or remain unresolved, like so many other elements of the Earhart story?
-
Well answering my own post, it occurred to me that if there was something to the W40K/Francis Carroll topic it would be discussed in the book Finding Amelia. There's no mention of Francis Carroll in the index. The relevant section of text says this:
"...Betty could not make it out. It sounded something like 'W40K Howlandport' or maybe 'W O J Howlandport.' The phrase may have been 'WPA Howland airport.' During preparations for Earhart's world flight, the construction of the landing field on Howland Island was known as the 'WPA airport project.'"
WPA was the Works Progress Administration, one of Roosevelt's controversial New Deal programs comparable to the current "stimulus."
Based on this section of the book, I'm guessing nothing came of investigating Francis Carroll possibly communicating with Earhart.
-
Based on this section of the book, I'm guessing nothing came of investigating Francis Carroll possibly communicating with Earhart.
I also looked for something in Rics book and like you found nothing. Looks like its dead in the water, why I don't know but would suspect its to do with AE not being able to receive radio transmissions.
-
Reception & transmitting was by the V-aerial stretched from cabin mast to rudders . A belly aerial (of which I am not sure that it was presenr , pictures are not ad fundum convincing , that is , I saw photographs showing the two wires running (front end) longer than the aircraft , suspecting it is manipulation) may have been formerly used for an RDF installation (Hooven) which was removed from A/c due to its weight : it may also have been for a Glide Path Receiver which was however , not installed in NR 16020 .
-
Reception & transmitting was by the V-aerial stretched from cabin mast to rudders . A belly aerial (of which I am not sure that it was presenr , pictures are not ad fundum convincing , that is , I saw photographs showing the two wires running (front end) longer than the aircraft , suspecting it is manipulation) may have been formerly used for an RDF installation (Hooven) which was removed from A/c due to its weight : it may also have been for a Glide Path Receiver which was however , not installed in NR 16020 .
Can you cite what evidence you are relying upon when you say "Reception & transmitting was by the V-aerial stretched from cabin mast to rudders" ?
I suspect you have not done your homework. Ric and others would be a better source than I, but at this point I believe it has been well established that the dorsal V antenna was used for transmitting, and the belly antenna was for receiving. RDF was through the loop over the cockpit.
This configuration, and the loss of the belly antenna, explains why the Itasca could hear her transmissions from the dorsal V, but she could not hear them as the receive antenna was missing, except when she was trying to DF on them using the loop.
Your assertion that the belly antenna didn't exist at all is countered by the fact that photos of the aircraft clearly prove that the starboard belly antenna was re-installed during the repair by Lockheed . Further, professional forensic image analysis of the L-10 taxing to the runway at Lae indicates that the belly antenna and masts were there, so your assertion that the belly antenna photos are manipulated is countered by the evidence as determined by qualified forensic imaging specialists. What are your qualifications as a forensic imaging specialist?
The Hooven DF "Sense" antenna mounted on the port side of the belly was not re-installed after the Hawaii crash, however the starboard side belly antenna was clearly re-installed after repair of the aircraft by Lockheed. In fact, the starboard belly antenna is the one antenna that existed throughout the life of the aircraft preceding the dorsal V, and remaining after the trailing LF and the Hooven sense antenna were removed.
Why would a belly antenna for a glide path receiver be installed if the glide path receiver was never installed? Doesn't make sense, why do you suggest it?
You are wildly speculating at this point as to the purpose of the belly antenna, which only indicates that you really have no real idea of the antenna configuration on the aircraft, and are only guessing instead of reviewing the research that has already been done, or presenting research of your own.
If you want to challenge the research that has already been done, thats fine, but be prepared to present evidence that is compelling, not just your opinion and guesswork.
Searching Google for "TIGHAR Belly antenna" yields lots of material. Of particular interest is discussion in the old Forum on the history of the radio gear over time. See Ric's post of 6/21/00 to get a better understanding of what antennas were installed and removed prior to the second attempt. It would serve us all to think about the answers to the questions Ric poses regarding the purpose of the antennas at different points in time.
<<<
From Ric
Okay, let's get into this. What was the function of the belly antenna? I don't pretend to know for sure, but I think that the history of the airplane might provide some clues. I'll be very interested to have your opinion on the following facts and questions.
1. When the airplane was delivered to AE in July 1936 it had a WE 13C transmitter and a WE 20B receiver, the same radios (or so it would seem) that it had when it disappeared. However, there was no dorsal antenna on the airplane at all. There was a belly antenna identical to the one that was apparently lost at Lae with a lead-in that entered the fuselage right under the copilot's seat where the 20B receiver was mounted. The only other antenna on the airplane was a trailing wire that deployed from the extreme tail of the airplane, just under the navigation light. At that time the airplane appears to have no DF capability at all.
What, in your opinion, was the function of the belly antenna at that time?
2. Sometime around October 1936 the Hooven Radio Compass was installed. This involved a separate receiver mounted on a fuel tank in the cabin, a dome-shaped antenna on the cabin roof, and another belly antenna that ran parallel to the original belly antenna but on the opposite (port) side of the airplane. The trailing wire in the tail remained unchanged.
What, in your opinion, was the function of the new belly antenna?
What, in your opinion, was the function of the original (starboard) belly antenna at this time?
3. In mid-February 1937 Earhart flies the airplane to New York to announce her planned World Flight. While she's on the east coast Western Electric installs a new dorsal vee antenna. All the other antennas remain unchanged.
What, in your opinion, was the purpose of this antenna?
4. Back in California in late February the trailing wire is moved from the extreme tail to deploy from a mast under the cabin. Right around March 1st comes the big change in DF equipment. Hooven's Radio Compass and it's domed-shaped antenna go away and are replaced by the Bendix loop over the cockpit. The belly antennas -- both port and starboard -- remain unchanged.
What, in your opinion, is the function of each of these antennas at this time?
5. The airplane goes to Hawaii, gets wrecked, and comes back to Burbank for repairs. When it come out of the shop several changes are apparent in the antenna set-up.
the dorsal vee has been lengthened by moving the mast forward.
the trailing wire is gone.
the port side belly antenna (that had been added when the Hooven DF was installed) is also gone.
Unchanged are the Bendix loop over the cockpit and the starboard side belly antenna.
What, in your opinion, is the function of the belly antenna at this time?
There is no change to the airplane's antenna configuration while it is in Miami or later (until the belly antenna gets knocked off in Lae.)
LTM,
Ric
>>>>
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights81_100/highlights93.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights81_100/highlights93.html)
A. McKenna
-
All true, but nowhere in reports (Gurr , etc) and literature is a remark about a belly antenna in operation . But the best proof that the (lost ..?) port belly aerial was not for receiving is , that between Lae and Nukumanu 2-way communications were excellent according to Balfour´s experience . Only after sunset o/b of A/c contact after channel shift was interrrupted . Also , during the Howland approach operations Itasca´s signals were confirmed from aboard A/c , be it that voice & RDF communications were erratic by timing (not : time) failures . That Itasca signals would have been heard via RDF only is an impossibility : only 1 radio receiver collecting all signal was installed . Thence , the loss of , or the operational status of a belly antenna meets inherent criticism by contradiction .
-
Your pt. 2 on the function of a belly antenna . To avoid ambiguity of direction , advanced RDF installations have 2 aerials , one loop , one long wire called sense antenna . It is possible that the port belly wire was used for the Hooven instrument ; I do not remember the exact outline of this but will go back to archived set up .
-
Searching Google for "TIGHAR Belly antenna" yields lots of material. Of particular interest is discussion in the old Forum on the history of the radio gear over time. See Ric's post of 6/21/00 to get a better understanding of what antennas were installed and removed prior to the second attempt. It would serve us all to think about the answers to the questions Ric poses regarding the purpose of the antennas at different points in time.
This Ameliapedia article on antennas (http://tighar.org/wiki/Antennas) is a later attempt to synthesize all the available information I could find.
-
But the best proof that the (lost ..?) port belly aerial was not for receiving is , that between Lae and Nukumanu 2-way communications were excellent according to Balfour´s experience . Only after sunset o/b of A/c contact after channel shift was interrrupted .
The flaw in your logic is that both the Chater (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Chater_Report.html) and Collopy (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Collopy_Letter.html) reports contradict Harry Balfour's recollections. Chater, in particular, refers to attempts at sending instructions to Earhart that were ignored:
"Miss Earhart had arranged to change to 3104 KC wave length at dusk, but signals were very strong and the plane was then called and asked not to change to 3104 KC yet as her signals were getting stronger and we should have no trouble holding signals for a long time to come. We received no reply to this call although the Operator listened for three hours after that on an 8-valve super-heterodyne Short Wave Receiver and both wave lengths were searched."
Neither report ever suggests two-way communication between Earhart and Lae was established. Both of these documents were written in the immediate aftermath of the events. Balfour's statements came 32 years after the fact. Does memory typically get better after three decades or are primary documents from the time more reliable?
-
The lower HF spectrum suffers adsorption by sunray . Amelia , by marginal knowledge and low specific experience rating , took the "night time channel" literally and shifted from 6,210 to 3,105 kcs about sunset on board of A/c , whereas the sun was still 10 deg above the horizon @ eastern New Guinea causing the wave front to qench before reaching the Lae Airport aerials , by which contact with Balfour c.s. was suddenly lost .
-
That doesn't answer my question. The primary sources give no indication that Earhart ever heard anyone at Lae as you contend. If 2-way communication was not established, the theory of antenna damage cannot be discounted.
-
After landing at Gardner, and realizing that the radios were their only connection with the outside world, they found the problem with the radio(s) and fixed them. Common Sense.
-
From Balfour we know that communications up to Nukumanu were excellent , if however , the contact was two-way is not recorded . At 1928 Earhart confirmed hearing Itasca´s signal ; without an aerial this seems impossible since connection of receiver was by coaxial shielded cable as usual to avoid engine spark pulse noise . Pilot never announced radio to be unservicable ; that the antenna connnection by some kind of banana plug was broken is for practice nearly impossible : connection is by coaxial (mostly Amphenol UG in the era) screw-cap .
-
Normal fuel expenditure was 52 galls/hr for a 21 hrs 09 min range . 21h09m - 20h15m = 54 min . Did they after setting course for Gardner from the Howland region fly the distance (409 mls) in 57 minutes ?
-
HAC
Your consumption number is incorrect!
On previous legs of the flight AE had the fuel consumption nearer to 42 gallons per hour in which case over 21 hours they had about 210 gallons more of fuel left than you give them credit for. 210 divided by 42 is 5 hours plus your 54 minutes is close to 6 hours to make a 3 hour flight to Gardner (133.333 mph times 3 hours equals 400 sm)
Give it up! They didn't run out of fuel and crash into the Ocean. They made an off-field landing on Gardner, fixed the radio, awaited rescue, and when it didn;t come began to send out distress calls.
-
See letter / radiogram Putnam to De Sibour , Feb 13 , 1937 . Usual consumption was (Earhart) 25 galls/hr per enigine @ 65% CDP , normal cruising speed/hr by weight 310 lbs (Putnam) = 52 galls/hr . Even @ 38 gph , BSPC 0.42 lbs/hr/hp , no other land point than Howland/Baker was within range after GMT 1912. @ actual flight BSPC was 321 1/4 lbs/hr , for same result : no range for evasive action . No confirmed post loss calls other than phantasy have been anywhere recorded .
-
No confirmed post loss calls other than phantasy have been anywhere recorded .
Fantasy! Lots of evidence that isn't TIGHER out there.
-
I guess the simple answer to my question is "No, there is nothing concrete in this line of investigation" thanks to all who answered a simple question with a simple answer. ...
Brad
Edited by MXM, SJ, to meet standards of etiquette (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,377.0.html) for the Forum.
-
When Earhart shifted to 3105 she could only receive signals of that same frequency , but these however , got quenched by sunray , the New Guinea sun still 10 deg above the natural horizon . Hence , both signals , 3105 & 6210 kcs were not heard o/b of A/c , the one by absorption , the other by receiver not tuned in .
-
btw the initially RDF equipment was , according to the Hooven report , one with 2 aerials : a loop for direction finding plus a long wire for "sence" aganst forwards-backwards ambiguity . The sense antenna was most probably one of the belly wires . Voice transmission & reception on single channel mode was as usual by one aerial (mast to rudder tips , V-shape) ans send-receive relay operated by microphone switch .
-
Hello all. I'm new to the forum. I've got no particular expertise to add anything to the AE research project, but I do have experience contacting stations in the pacific from the US as an active ham radio operator (including Baker/Howland FWIW). I recently read with interest the mention of a possible 2-way contact between W4OK and KHAQQ during the post-loss period. I don't believe such a contact happened. I'm not sure how useful it is, but here's my analysis anyway.
A couple of comments on the possibility of a 2-way contact between W4OK and KHAQQ...
1) It is pretty clear that if KHAQQ was heard in FL, it had to be on a harmonic of 3105 KHz or 6210 KHz. The short path was (nearly?) all daylight and RF at these two frequencies would not have propagated far enough. Also, Betty seems to recall she was tuning much higher than either of these frequencies.
2) W4OK would have called KHAQQ on or near the harmonic he heard QQ on. Any experienced ham would realize that 3105 KHz and 6210 KHz would not have worked - if he realized he was hearing QQ on a harmonic.
3) Since KHAQQ was presumably listening on her transmit frequency, she would not have heard any transmissions from W4OK on the harmonic.
4) While it is possible that KHAQQ could have tuned her receiver to listen on any of several harmonic frequencies and thus establish a 2-way contact, given her inexperience with HF radio communication I doubt that this actually happened.
5) It is certainly conceivable that Betty heard W4OK calling KHAQQ on groundwave if he called KHAQQ. So his callsign's appearance in her notebook would not be surprising.
Thus, my conclusion is that a 2-way contact between W4OK and KHAQQ did not happen.
Thanks for all your hard work on a very interesting problem!
Dave
-
Hello all. I'm new to the forum. I've got no particular expertise to add anything to the AE research project, but I do have experience contacting stations in the pacific from the US as an active ham radio operator (including Baker/Howland FWIW). I recently read with interest the mention of a possible 2-way contact between W4OK and KHAQQ during the post-loss period. I don't believe such a contact happened. I'm not sure how useful it is, but here's my analysis anyway.
A couple of comments on the possibility of a 2-way contact between W4OK and KHAQQ...
2) W4OK would have called KHAQQ on or near the harmonic he heard QQ on. Any experienced ham would realize that 3105 KHz and 6210 KHz would not have worked - if he realized he was hearing QQ on a harmonic.
3) Since KHAQQ was presumably listening on her transmit frequency, she would not have heard any transmissions from W4OK on the harmonic.
Dave
Why would a ham be tuning his receiver (assuming it could be tuned) to an harmonic of Earhart's frequencies since they are not in the ham bands. And what ham is going to have a crystal cut for an harmonic of Earhart's frequency for his transmitter? Assuming he had some type of transmitter that could be tuned out of the ham bands why would he even try since he would know that Earhart would not be listening on this frequency?
So I agree with you, no contact between KHAQQ AND W4OW.
Has anybody figured out if the call sign was Whiskey FOUR OSCAR WHISKEY OR Whiskey FOUR ZERO WHISKEY? The OSCAR WHISKEY could be a legitimate ham call sign while a ZERO WHISKEY couldn't be so would have to be from some different type of American station.
gl
-
Has anybody figured out if the call sign was Whiskey FOUR OSCAR WHISKEY OR Whiskey FOUR ZERO WHISKEY? The OSCAR WHISKEY could be a legitimate ham call sign while a ZERO WHISKEY couldn't be so would have to be from some different type of American station.
The folks who searched for a match used Whiskey Four Oscar Kilo (W4OK).
From the old Forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights113.html):
Subject: Occult references
Date: 11/9/00
From: Ric Gillespie replying to John Pratt
Ric: "How about W4OK? It turns out to be the call sign of a ham who was active in 1937 and who lived on the same great circle (radio propagation path) as Betty and Gardner Island – and there’s an anecdote that claims that the individual said that he had “talked to” Earhart. An occult reference? Certainly. Just a coincidence? Perhaps, but the coincidence of Betty jotting down a random, misunderstood sequence of letters and numbers that has those properties is no less remarkable than the possibility that Earhart said them."
-
Perhaps Amelia HAD talked to W40K... but Previously, maybe sometime BEFORE she got lost, maybe sometime during the outbound flight... is it possible that what was heard was Amelia referencing W40K because she had talked with them clearly earlier and was just trying to contact ANYBODY?
Brad
-
The flaw in your logic is that both the Chater (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Chater_Report.html) and Collopy (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Collopy_Letter.html) reports contradict Harry Balfour's recollections. Chater, in particular, refers to attempts at sending instructions to Earhart that were ignored:
"Miss Earhart had arranged to change to 3104 KC wave length at dusk, but signals were very strong and the plane was then called and asked not to change to 3104 KC yet as her signals were getting stronger and we should have no trouble holding signals for a long time to come. We received no reply to this call although the Operator listened for three hours after that on an 8-valve super-heterodyne Short Wave Receiver and both wave lengths were searched."
Neither report ever suggests two-way communication between Earhart and Lae was established. Both of these documents were written in the immediate aftermath of the events. Balfour's statements came 32 years after the fact. Does memory typically get better after three decades or are primary documents from the time more reliable?
To the contrary, the Chater report does provide evidence that there was two-way communications with the plane. The paragraph immediately proceeding the one you posted states:
Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information, but local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible until 2.18 p.m. The Lae Operator heard the following on 6210 KC –“HEIGHT 7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS” and some remark concerning “LAE” then “EVERYTHING OKAY”. The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it. The next report was received at 3.19 pm on 6210 KC – “HEIGHT 10000 FEET POSITION 150.7 east 7.3 south CUMULUS CLOUDS EVERYTHING OKAY”. The next report received at 5.18 p.m. “POSITION 4.33 SOUTH 159.7 EAST HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS WIND 23 KNOTS”.
The paragraph you cited:
Miss Earhart had arranged to change to 3104 KC wave length at dusk, but signals were very strong and the plane was then called and asked not to change to 3104 KC yet as her signals were getting stronger and we should have no trouble holding signals for a long time to come. We received no reply to this call although the Operator listened for three hours after that on an 8-valve super-heterodyne Short Wave Receiver and both wave lengths were searched.
Don't you see the difference? Chater used different words in the first paragraph,
The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it. Notice he did not write
We received no reply to this call
as he had in the second paragraph. Different words mean different things. In the second paragraph they "received no reply," that is pretty simple. Since the words Chater used in the first paragraph are different he must have meant something different than than they "received no reply." He said that they contacted the plane and asked her to repeat her message and they heard her reply to their message, they heard something but they "still could not get it."
This shows that she did hear them because she re-sent the requested information in response to their request but it was too weak or covered up by interference to be made out at Lae.
gl
-
Don't you see the difference? Chater used different words in the first paragraph,
The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it. Notice he did not write
We received no reply to this call
as he had in the second paragraph. Different words mean different things. In the second paragraph they "received no reply," that is pretty simple. Since the words Chater used in the first paragraph are different he must have meant something different than than they "received no reply." He said that they contacted the plane and asked her to repeat her message and they heard her reply to their message, they heard something but they "still could not get it."
This shows that she did hear them because she re-sent the requested information in response to their request but it was too weak or covered up by interference to be made out at Lae.
I realize this is an old posting and that GL has gone elsewhere,but I found GL's logic to be faulty and didn't want his claims to go unchallenged.
GL's "evidence" that there was two way radio transmissions with AE from Lae is the fact that Chater
used different wordings in two different instances. Specifically, that in one instance he said "we received no reply" and in the other instance said "we couldn't get it," which, using Gary's mindreading capabilities, means "we received a reply but couldn't understand it." Of course, it means no such thing. "Couldn't get
it" can mean most anything." GL spoils his own argument further when he claims that if they got no reply Chater would have said "we got no reply" in the second instance, being a good, consistent little
operator. But if Chater were as GL claims,why would he say "we couldn't get it" when his alleged consistency would require him to say "she replied, but we couldn't understand her." ? The transmissions
contain not even a hint that AE ever received any transmission - no acknowledgement of any request
transmitted her way. Period. Not one single "Got that. blah blah blah." Not one "Roger, Lae" Not anything.
I find GL's logic both tortured and unconvincing, especially in light of the certified failure of every
other transmission to evoke a response, save the one case of the DF signal she received on 7200 and immediately acknowledged. That, to me, combined with all that went before, is convincing evidence that AE never heard any voice transmissions directed her way during her flight to Howland, irregardless of Chater's exact choice of words.
-
Don't you see the difference? Chater used different words in the first paragraph,
The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it. Notice he did not write
We received no reply to this call
as he had in the second paragraph. Different words mean different things. In the second paragraph they "received no reply," that is pretty simple. Since the words Chater used in the first paragraph are different he must have meant something different than than they "received no reply." He said that they contacted the plane and asked her to repeat her message and they heard her reply to their message, they heard something but they "still could not get it."
This shows that she did hear them because she re-sent the requested information in response to their request but it was too weak or covered up by interference to be made out at Lae.
I realize this is an old posting and that GL has gone elsewhere,but I found GL's logic to be faulty and didn't want his claims to go unchallenged.
GL's "evidence" that there was two way radio transmissions with AE from Lae is the fact that Chater
used different wordings in two different instances. Specifically, that in one instance he said "we received no reply" and in the other instance said "we couldn't get it," which, using Gary's mindreading capabilities, means "we received a reply but couldn't understand it." Of course, it means no such thing. "Couldn't get
it" can mean most anything." GL spoils his own argument further when he claims that if they got no reply Chater would have said "we got no reply" in the second instance, being a good, consistent little
operator. But if Chater were as GL claims,why would he say "we couldn't get it" when his alleged consistency would require him to say "she replied, but we couldn't understand her." ? The transmissions
contain not even a hint that AE ever received any transmission - no acknowledgement of any request
transmitted her way. Period. Not one single "Got that. blah blah blah." Not one "Roger, Lae" Not anything.
I find GL's logic both tortured and unconvincing, especially in light of the certified failure of every
other transmission to evoke a response, save the one case of the DF signal she received on 7200 and immediately acknowledged. That, to me, combined with all that went before, is convincing evidence that AE never heard any voice transmissions directed her way during her flight to Howland, irregardless of Chater's exact choice of words.
I dunno - Gary of course has a point of view (and admittedly leaned toward advocacy of that), but I can't say he's 'wrong' with such certainty - Chater's statement is ambiguous at best IMO. I could easily take it that Earhart replied but was unintelligible - or did not reply.
But you are of course free to argue the point with GL's cyber ghost if you have the energy... :P