Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Betty and Bob  (Read 92963 times)

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #60 on: April 02, 2013, 09:19:07 PM »


 I don’t agree with you that the possibility of waves flooding the Electra’s radio at high tide is a ‘non-issue’.

(Ben, although I agree with 99% of your analysis, I believe you may be skating on thin ice.)

I would like to introduce the revolutionary concept that AE and/or FN may have actually taken the precaution of unbolting the HF radio from the floor underneath the Navigator's desk and moved it on top of the desk (which was no longer needed for navigation). Likewise the auxiliary battery, which sat adjacent. After all, according to the Luke Field Inventory, they had all the tools necessary to accomplish such a feat, and it probably would have consumed no more than half an hour of effort. People under tremendous duress tend to become resourceful.

This would allow for the possibility of waves approximately two feet higher than originally assumed.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #61 on: April 02, 2013, 11:24:11 PM »

There are two additional issues bearing on the question of Betty’s radio reception that I think are missing from this discussion.

One is the Bob’s Brandenburg’s analysis of the probability of Betty’s radio receiving a transmission from the Electra titled Harmony and Power. This analysis seems to indicate that on July 5, that probability of a reception was 0.00114, roughly 1 in 800 during the 2100 to 2130 GMT time interval; it was 0.0000029, or 1 in 330,000 during the 2130 to 2230 GMT interval; and it was 0.000020, or 1 in 50,000 during the 2230-2314 GMT interval. See attached table for details.

These are pretty low odds. Using Bob’s analysis to choose between two possibilities, the first being that what Betty’s heard radio transmissions from Amelia and Fred, and the second being that Betty heard radio transmissions about Amelia and Fred, Bob’s analysis for July 5 strongly suggests the latter possibility is the correct one, doesn’t it?

The second issue is that we don’t really know what day Betty heard what she heard, because she didn’t record that information. Let me repeat that: we don’t really know what day Betty heard what she heard, because she didn’t record that information. Here I cite Tighar’s Research Document #17, titled Betty’s Notebook, which forthrightly states

“One afternoon in July – the exact date is not known – at about 3 p.m. Betty was sitting on the floor in front of her family’s radio console…” etc.

Betty was definitely listening at some point after the Electra disappeared, but how long afterward we do not know. Ric rules out the weekend, but there is no way for us to know which weekday it was. It could have been July 6, 7, 8, or July 12 through 15 for that matter. Betty’s notes don’t tell us. The odds of Betty receiving a broadcast from the Electra are a lot worse on July 6 though 9 than they are for July 5. But we can’t rule these days out because we have no documentary justification for doing so. One can’t simply suggest that Betty must have heard her messages on July 5 because that was the optimal day for her to have heard the Electra transmit from Nikumaroro. The idea that the Electra was on Niku is not a proven fact, it is a hypothesis that Tighar is testing with evidence such as Betty’s notebook. If you say Betty must have been listening on July 5 because that was the day with the best reception probability then you are making a circular argument.

On July 6-8, the Brandenburg calculates much lower probabilities for Betty to have heard Amelia and Fred speaking, thus on those days it is even more probable, according to Bob Brandenburg's analysis, that Betty heard something other than a transmission from the Electra. If Betty was listening after July 9 (as she could have been because we don’t know what day she was listening) then she certainly didn’t hear a broadcast originating from the Electra on Niku, Lambrecht’s fly-over rules out that possibility entirely.
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #62 on: April 03, 2013, 01:15:41 AM »

Fair point Al...I am reasonably certain though that the July 5th assignment does not solely rest on it being the most likely propagation day.  If it was, then I'd agree with you...that alone isn't enough.  Maybe someone can chime in on this.  Because I remember this coming up some years ago and there were a bunch of reasons why July 5th was pegged as the day.  One reason I am harping on this theory about the plane being swept out to sea so much is that I originally thought Betty's Notebook, by virtue of the general confusion displayed and the length of it, had to have been very soon after they landed.  I like this theory better, and it happens to fit...but I remember plumping for July 2 years ago and it having been fairly well disproven it couldn't have happened then.  Anyway.  Someone will know.  I'm just a grunt here who pipes up when I get an idea I haven't heard anyone else say yet.

You also make a good point that it could simply be that on, for instance, on July 6th propagation conditions were such that nobody could hear anything they sent.  A good caution against reading too much into the data.

I do want to say that I think that there is no harm, and in fact possibly great benefit, in provisionally accepting certain unproven things as true to see if, by deduction, you can intuit more information from that.  Betty's Notebook is unproven and TIGHAR's case is a strong one, but it's all circumstantial.  However, if you keep that in the back of your mind at all times, it can be productive to take a non-skeptic position to see if it reading all the available evidence suggests anything further.  For instance, as I said, assuming that the credible radio reports and the tide charts are all what they purport to be, you could take a pretty decent stab at guessing when AE and FN slept, and from that you might be able to, for instance, gauge how far from the plane their camp may have been.

It's all speculation but speculation that hangs together with the available information can be used to form a hypothesis...and it can give one more to chew on and possibly, prove or disprove.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 01:17:13 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #63 on: April 03, 2013, 05:17:18 AM »

Adam,

My thinking on this stuff is influenced by earlier threads. I am pretty sure that there was no solid reason ever given for preferring July 5 over later days.



« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 05:19:12 AM by Al Leonard »
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #64 on: April 03, 2013, 07:07:29 AM »

It's been suggested that when Betty wrote "here, put your ear to it", it indicated that Amelia was talking to Fred, telling him to listen to the earphones.  Keep in mind that when transmitting, the receiver was off, so there was nothing to hear as long as the microphone switch was held down. If Amelia heard something on the earphones, and wanted Fred to hear it too, why would she transmit?
I have a hard time believing AE would transmit while talking to Fred.  That sounds more like a radio program to me, with actors playing the parts of Amelia and Fred talking to each other.  In a radio program, we would expect to hear both Amelia and Fred talking to each other.
As others have said, what Betty recorded may have been a mix of different broadcasts.  She also wasn't writing down everything she heard.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 735
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #65 on: April 03, 2013, 08:30:18 AM »


 I don’t agree with you that the possibility of waves flooding the Electra’s radio at high tide is a ‘non-issue’. We’re in agreement that we don’t know what the wave heights were. How then does it follow that we can discount the possibility that waves at high tide disabled the Electra’s radio? All that would have been required to do the job were ~ 10 inch waves during the high tide at ~1400 GMT on July 4; ~12 inch waves during the high tide at ~ 0300 on July 5; or ~ 6 inch waves during the high tide at 1500 GMT on July 5. Those are quite modest wave heights. Brandenburg’s tide reconstruction simplifies the ocean to a level surface, but after all, the ocean surface is not flat as depicted in the Brandenburg paper. Maybe the waves were sufficiently low to allow the Electra’s radio to keep broadcasting through these three ‘near misses’ but then again, maybe not. We can’t be sure. Rather mild wave action at times of high tide would have silenced the Electra’s radio before a number of the ‘credible’ radio signals, including Betty’s, were received.

I think that it is fair to say that, unless seas were fortuitously calm for our unfortuitous aviators, many of the post loss transmissions, including the one Betty received, would not have occurred.

Would 6” to 12” waves get through the skin of the plane into the cabin?
I think a small wave hitting the plane may move it, and the movement could cause sloshing of water already in the cabin, but not necessarily raise the water level in the cabin, other than what more water got in through gaps that flooded it.  And the more water in the cabin, the more force needed to move the plane to make it slosh.

Also, a 12" wave may only be 6" higher than what would be level? I'm not sure of that on a reef condition.
3971R
 
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #66 on: April 04, 2013, 12:51:38 AM »

Adam,

My thinking on this stuff is influenced by earlier threads. I am pretty sure that there was no solid reason ever given for preferring July 5 over later days.

LOL...no doubt we'll soon know!

As for BN more likely being a radio play or a series of broadcasts taken together, this has been suggested, and rebutted fairly convincingly, a number of times.  I'm not going to repeat the arguments (someone else might) but they're persuasive and also the same ones that leaped to my mind when I was considering whether to believe it or not.

This is the thing:  extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary proof.  HOWEVER, it is not necessarily less "likely" that some woman heard Amelia Earhart on her radio than plumping for another more mundane explanation that doesn't fit the known facts.  It's a trick of the human mind to automatically reach for a more comfortable, "known" explanation if something extraordinary happens.  And a certain degree of skepticism is very good to have -- but if it pushes you to reach an even more unlikely and improbable solution just because it's more mundane, then you're not really reaching a logical conclusion.  You're just being pushed around by a different kind of bias...in considering all evidence, you have to accept that sometimes, extraordinary things DO happen.

This was hashed out at length a while back when there were some agents provacateur on the board...but the thing is, if you don't believe Betty's Notebook, far and away the most likely explanation is she made the whole thing up.  I know that's something people don't want to attribute to this woman but look...take sentiment and bias out of it and look at it logically, that's where the probabilities lie.  If you believe she heard something, but not AE, then there's all kinds of things you have to account for (e.g. why a radio show that goes on for 2 hours, why no one else heard it) to get an alternate explanation.  It's just as I said above...just because it's more mundane, and thus a more comfortable answer, doesn't make it more likely or possible.  To be more likely, it has to fit the facts better.  Knocking a hole or two in a hypothesis doesn't get you there...unless there's fewer holes in the alternate hypothesis.  If you don't like the AE theory, and you want a probable explanation for the notebook that fits the facts squarely, there it is:  she made it up.  If you don't like either explanation, well, then that's a problem.  But that isn't enough in and of itself to raise other explanations to the level of probability, even though it may feel like it...because again...mundane answers are simply more comfortable ones and there's a tendency to not apply the same burden of proof to them.  Kind of the reverse:  "unextraordinary claims don't require much proof at all."  Except from a logical and not visceral standpoint, that is not true.  And sometimes, things are just exactly as they appear, even if they beggar belief.

If you think about it, a lot of peoples' problem with BN is that the notes don't make any sense, and AE or FN are not acting in a way they are expected to behave.  I see that as one of the biggest indicators of its authenticity.  Take a look at the messages of the known hoaxers to get a sense of what I mean.  They're crafted to be EXACTLY what people would expect such a message to sound like.  "We're floating in a plane and our position is bla bla."  Or whatever.  BN is nothing of the kind.  All those crazy numbers, the garbled transmission, the elements that don't seem to make any sense...who would make that up?  Or, for that matter, put it together in broadcast form?

If BN DID hear something, and it wasn't AE, then it probably was a very extraordinary confluence of events...possibly even less probable than the one we're weighing now.  But let us not forget, on either side of the question:  low probability events do happen, every day, all the time.  We don't think about them precisely because most of them ARE mundane.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 01:05:14 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #67 on: April 04, 2013, 10:57:37 PM »

Adam,

In one part of your post, you say “…a certain degree of skepticism is very good to have -- but if it pushes you to reach an even more unlikely and improbable solution just because it's more mundane, then you're not really reaching a logical conclusion…”

To me, you’ve just described your own analysis here. You’re ignoring the more likely conclusion in favor of the less likely one. And the far less likely one, at that.
 
Remember that Bob Brandenburg’s Harmony and Power study found the probability of a reception by Betty on July 5 to be quite low. The odds were roughly 1 in 800 during the first hour she was listening, 1 in ~330,000 during the second hour, and 1 in ~50,000 during the last hour or so she was listening. Isn’t the logical, most likely, conclusion that whatever it was Betty heard, it was not Amelia and Fred?

Perhaps if the same facts are presented outside the context of Betty’s Notebook you’ll think differently:

Thought Experiment # 1: Let’s assume on the next Niku expedition Dr. King finds a human finger bone at the Seven Site. It is carefully collected to avoid DNA contamination and brought back to the states and analyzed. The lab results indicate that there is a 1 in 800 chance that the finger bone belonged to Amelia. What is your conclusion about whose finger bone Dr. King found? What if the DNA analysis produced a 1 in 50,000 probability, or a 1 in 330,000 probability that the finger bone was Amelia’s?

Now, remember also that we don’t know what day Betty actually heard what she recorded in her notebook. In my reading on this web site, I’ve seen no update to what Tighar Research Document #17 tells us about Betty’s Notebook, which is: “One afternoon in July – the exact date is not known – at about 3 p.m. Betty was sitting on the floor in front of her family’s radio console…” etc. We have no evidence to choose July 5 as the date that Betty heard what she heard, rather than some other weekday that week, or even a weekday the following week for that matter. The probability of a reception was much lower for Betty on those other days, and we have no reason to rule any of those other days out.

So, now, onto Thought Experiment #2

Thought experiment #2 begins with Tighar history: Dr. Kar Burns reanalyzed Dr. Hoodless’s bones measurements using Fordisk. She concluded, with caveats, that there was a 65% chance the castaway was a female, 35% chance the castaway was male.

Now, for the purposes of the thought experiment, let’s suppose that we learn that Dr. Hoodless notebook contains measurements of 5 partial skeletons, and we have no way of knowing which set of measurements were taken from the Niku Castaway because Dr. Hoodless’s notes don’t tell us. One set of measurements yields the 65%/35% ratio, the other four sets all yield 50%/50% gender ratios* when analyzed using the identical Fordisk program used by Dr. Burns. What can be logically concluded about the gender of the castaway?

(note to readers: this is hypothetical example—no need to make a post telling me that we know Dr. Hoodless’s measurements were of the Niku skeleton!).

If you can see how my two thought experiments are essentially equivalent to the two points I raised about Betty’s notebook:

1) The probability of reception on July 5 was low, and
2) Betty might equally well have been listening on several other days with poorer probabilities for reception

then it would be interesting to know if they have changed your conclusions (Adam or others) about Betty’s Notebook.

If my little thought experiments don’t change your mind, so be it. You are free to believe what you wish to, of course. But if Bob Brandenburg’s probability analysis is correct, the chances that Betty heard Amelia, even on the ‘best’ day, were pretty slim.

It has been interesting to think about all the issues surrounding Betty’s notebook, radio transmissions, tides, etc. The collection of information Tighar has amassed here is a great resource for studying this and other issues. I have been more interested in the land search and the sea search—actual artifacts—than the radio transmissions, and I guess in the end, for me the Betty story is compelling, but most probably a false lead in the Earhart disappearance mystery. I do hope to get away from posting on this thread and back to reading and posting on some of the threads that pursue other leads in this fascinating mystery.

----
* statistical sticklers will note that I should have made the odds for a Female at least a little less than 50%, but I think the general point is clear.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 02:35:09 PM by Al Leonard »
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #68 on: April 04, 2013, 11:19:56 PM »

Al...

Nice post, but it doesn't really offer much new food for thought, I'm afraid.

1. "In one part of your post, you say “…a certain degree of skepticism is very good to have -- but if it pushes you to reach an even more unlikely and improbable solution just because it's more mundane, then you're not really reaching a logical conclusion…”

To me, you’ve just described your own analysis here. You’re ignoring the more likely conclusion in favor of the less likely one. And the far less likely one, at that."

Actually, quite the opposite.  As I said before, if you don't buy Betty's Notebook on propagation grounds (or any other), you have a perfectly plausible scenario in front of you:  she made it up.  I didn't ignore a more likely conclusion.  I was the one who pointed it out.  What I'm saying is the (to you more probable) conclusion that "she heard something but it wasn't AE or FN", while it sounds nice, breaks down as soon as you're asked to provide the WHAT.  Such a "what" may exist but if you can't produce it, then no.  It's not more likely.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  Such a "what" may exist, yes.  I already posited that, too. But I have yet to hear a third explanation that has fewer holes/inconsistencies to overlook than the AE scenario.  They're simply more mundane, everyday explanations that SOUND more plausible.  But they don't fit what is in the notebook and the known facts.

Basically you're saying "there must be some other explanation," and because the two most likely ones are unbelievable to you, that undefined third explanation is by definition more likely.  'Taint so.  It's just more intuitive to you because you don't like the likely explanation (Betty made it up) nor the unlikely but proven possible explanation which best fits the known facts otherwise (it's exactly what it purports to be).  If you can't come up with a specific third explanation that better fits the facts, then maybe there really ISN'T one.  Or there is one, but no one's thought of it yet (totally possible).  But until someone produces that, I'm certainly not going to assign it a high degree of likelihood, and you have no real basis for it either.  I get where you're coming from on a gut level, and you may even be correct...I'm just disputing your assessment of probabilities.

Unlikely things happen...every day.  AE sent soundwaves out into the ether for several days.  And one girl somewhere in the world gets lucky and catches part of it?  That's really not all THAT improbable.  Instead, it could have been Joe Blow in Eskimo, AK with a 1 in 1,000 shot.  It's just statistics...big enough sample space, enough random things making the world turn....people win the lottery all the time.  Weird coincidences happen all the time.  With much longer odds than 1 in 800.

2.  "Betty might equally well have been listening on several other days with poorer probabilities for reception".

Well not EQUALLY well, but I already took your point.  I already agreed that if that's the only basis for the July 5th ID, it's not enough to hang one's hat on.  I'm waiting for someone else to chime in on this, because my recollection is different from yours.  But I honestly don't know.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 11:43:01 PM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5518
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #69 on: April 06, 2013, 09:18:47 AM »

I don’t agree with you that the possibility of waves flooding the Electra’s radio at high tide is a ‘non-issue’. We’re in agreement that we don’t know what the wave heights were. How then does it follow that we can discount the possibility that waves at high tide disabled the Electra’s radio?

We can't and we don't discount the possibility. There are many events that COULD have happened that would invalidate Betty's Notebook as a legitimate record of a radio call from Earhart.  The plane could have crashed in New Britain. The plane could have crashed at sea.  The plane could have crashed upon landing at Gardner. Waves could have disabled the radio.  The list is endless.  The question we must ask is the same one we asked of all of the other reported post-loss receptions.  Are Betty's notes "credible," that is, is there anything about Betty's Notebook that disqualifies it as being a record of a communication from the Earhart Electra. 

Rather mild wave action at times of high tide would have silenced the Electra’s radio before a number of the ‘credible’ radio signals, including Betty’s, were received.

That's true, but as we both acknowledge, we have no evidence that such wave action occurred.  We do, however, have credible reported signals that suggest such wave action did not occur until after the last credible signal on the evening of July 7 (Niku time).

I think that it is fair to say that, unless seas were fortuitously calm for our unfortuitous aviators, many of the post loss transmissions, including the one Betty received, would not have occurred.

But how calm was calm, Ric?— so calm that 6 inch waves didn’t pass over the reef at high tide?...10 inches?...12 inches?  If it were me out there, I think I’d perceive 6 to 12 inch waves to be a calm sea. Can you really be sure that the waves weren’t 6, 10 or 12 inches during those calm conditions you described?

Of course not, any more than I can be sure that Betty didn't make the whole thing up.  We're not talking about certainty.  If we were, we'd be celebrating the conclusive solving of the Earhart mystery.  We're talking about assessing probabilities.  That's what investigation is all about.

I recall reading more than once on the forum or in other Tighar sources that walking on the reef during high tide is a difficult thing due to surf action.  Searching on the forum, I found this post by you, Ric in which you say:
You don't need to swim or body surf to get from the beach to the outer portion of the reef where we think the plane was - if you make the trip at low tide.  Even so, the reef surface is jagged and extremely slippery in many places.  You carry a stout walking stick and you go slowly. When the tide is in it's really not practical to venture out on to the reef.  The surf will knock you down and the sharks will take it from there.”

I stand by that.  The surf on the reef flat doesn't need to be anywhere radio transmitter height to knock you on your butt.


I also note in Bob’s paper that in the “Testing the Tighar Hypothesis” section, the action of surf on the plane is explicitly stated to be part of hypothesized conditions during the period:

 “ The TIGHAR hypothesis—that Earhart landed her Lockheed Electra 10E on the Western reef of Niku on 2 July 1937, and sent radio signals from there until 8 July 1927, when tide and surf forced abandonment of the aircraft…

So, your post, and Bobs remarks in his paper run counter to the notion that wave action on the reef can be ignored. So I would say, to borrow a colorful turn of phrase from you, ‘this dog does hunt’. I think it has caught something that has so far been missed. The possible effect of tides on whether the Electra could transmit should not be dismissed as a non-issue.

Let me try to clarify it for you.  The available evidence suggests that tides and surf action on the reef from July 2 until the evening of July 7 were not of sufficient height to disable the transmitter.  Some action, probably wave action at high tide around sunrise on July 8 (Niku time), washed the aircraft over the edge.  Exactly when the aircraft was abandoned and whether Fred got out is a matter of speculation.  Somebody seems to have been aboard and transmitting on the evening of July 7.  The last reasonable chance to get ashore may have been in the wee hours of July 8 as the tide was coming in and the surf was picking up - not a pleasant prospect in the dark.  All of this is what the available evidence suggest to me.  I do not pretend to assert that it is what happened.

Finally, a bit farther along in the same section of Bob’s paper I quoted above Bob writes: “The hypothesis was tested with respect to each constraint, in the context of a northbound landing approach over the Norwich City wreck, as was flown by helicopter simulating an Electra landing…”

A video of this is available on YouTube. As it turns out, the tide was high at the time of the simulated flyover. About 17:00 into the clip helicopter flies over the remains of the Norwich City and we see the Electra landing area. Swells can clearly be seen moving over the reef towards the shoreline. I have attached a still of this view to this post; this still, and video it was taken from, nicely illustrate the ‘waves at high tide concept’ I’ve discussed (please note: I am not saying that the conditions seen from the helicopter were the same as in early July, 1937).

I was in that helicopter. Yes, it's a good illustration of how waves move across the reef flat at high tide.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2013, 10:54:17 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Scott C. Mitchell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #70 on: April 06, 2013, 10:05:10 AM »

What would be the effect on the aircraft if the propeller was rotating and big solid swell raised the water level momentarily to substantially impede the propeller?  If AE and FN were trying to eke out a few last radio transmissions before the aircraft is dragged into the surf or over a drop-off (a scenario that has been described in this thread), it is easy to imagine them transmitting regardless of the rising water.  Would the impact of propeller blades on the water merely stop the rotation, or could it send propeller parts flying all over?

I must say, this most recent discussion triggered by Bob's excellent article in Tighar Tracks and the observation of Betty's transcript possibly occuring during a zone of rising water level has offered a new appreciation of the last few desperate days of the castaways.

Scott
#3292
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5518
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #71 on: April 06, 2013, 10:52:19 AM »

It's been suggested that when Betty wrote "here, put your ear to it", it indicated that Amelia was talking to Fred, telling him to listen to the earphones.  Keep in mind that when transmitting, the receiver was off, so there was nothing to hear as long as the microphone switch was held down. If Amelia heard something on the earphones, and wanted Fred to hear it too, why would she transmit?

Remember that Betty did not hear an uninterrupted dialogue and there is no indication in the notebook of how much of a pause or delay there was between the transcribed words and phrases.
Notations at the top of the pages indicate that Betty heard what she heard starting at 16:30 and ending at 18:15  EST - which would be 10:30 to 12:15 at Niku and 21:30 to 23:15 GMT.  Unfortunately Betty didn't jot down the date so we have to look for clues within the transcription as to which day it might have been. 

On the first page of notes, one of the first entries is an apparently garbled phrase (spoken by Amelia, according to Betty's later recollection) "W40K Howland port or W O J Howland port." Whatever Earhart actually said, she was apparently attempting to get a response from Howland.  Noonan, in the context implied by the rest of the notebook, is irrational and panicky.  He makes the comment "waters high." He's frightened and he wants to abandon ship. Apparently seeking to calm him down, AE says "Here , put your ear to it."  Put his ear to what?  The headphone ear piece is the only thing I can think of that makes sense.  She has been calling Howland and hears a response.  She wants Noonan to hear it so that he will calm down.  This would be occurring at or very shortly after 21:30 GMT.

At 21:30 GMT and again at 21:35 GMT on July 5, ITASCA sends a transmission to Earhart in Morse code.  If Earhart heard it she wouldn't be able to understand it but it would be an encouraging sign.

Monday, July 5 is the only day on which we see this kind of possible correlation between Betty's notebook and the Itasca log. 

Remember also that we don't know exactly how the Electra's radio system worked.  It appears that, unlike the usual arrangement, the transmitter and receiver did not share a common antenna where keying the transmitter automatically took the receiver off line.  Transmitter and receiver seem to have been completely separate systems each with its own antenna.  There was a curious panel of five toggle switches on the cockpit "shelf" in front of the co-pilot seat (illustration attached).  It looks like she could:
• Select between 6210 Kcs ("DAY") and 3105 Kcs ("NITE 3105") crystals.
• Select between code ("C.W.") and voice ("Phone").  This may have been basically an off/on switch for the 500 Kcs crystal.
• Select between receiver on ("REC") and receiver off ("OFF")
• Select between microphone on ("MIKE") and microphone off ("OFF").  This may have been in lieu of a push-to-talk button.  Some of the early push-to-talk buttons were stiff and AE may have wanted to be able to just flip the mic on and talk.  Pure speculation but I can't think what else that toggle could be for. 
• Select between transmitter on ("TRANS") and transmitter off ("OFF")

I have a hard time believing AE would transmit while talking to Fred.

I don't, especially if that toggle was a push-to-talk lock down.

  That sounds more like a radio program to me, with actors playing the parts of Amelia and Fred talking to each other.  In a radio program, we would expect to hear both Amelia and Fred talking to each other.

We would also expect to hear a narrator, music, and commercials.  TIGHAResearchers have received a CD with an audio recording of the July 8 March of Time broadcast - the only known show that attempted a re-enactment of events associated with the Earhart disappearance and search (then going on).  It's very apparent that what Betty and others who reported hearing post-loss transmissions heard was nothing like a radio show.

As others have said, what Betty recorded may have been a mix of different broadcasts. 

Betty does not remembering changing the dial so it's hard to see how she could be picking up a mix of broadcasts.

She also wasn't writing down everything she heard.

If she (or her father when he came home) had heard something that debunked the idea that they were hearing a genuine call from Earhart, do you think her father would have taken the notebook to the Coast Guard or that Betty would have remained as passionate as she did throughout her later life?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5518
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #72 on: April 06, 2013, 11:01:07 AM »

What would be the effect on the aircraft if the propeller was rotating and big solid swell raised the water level momentarily to substantially impede the propeller?

Nothing good.  Depending on how fast the prop was turning it could bend the prop tips causing a severe out-of-balance condition and extreme vibration.  If the water was enough to cause a sudden stoppage it could bend the crankshaft.  In any case, a water strike would probably mean game-over for running the engine.
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #73 on: April 06, 2013, 11:35:42 AM »

Do we have any reports of someone hearing Amelia's AND Fred's voices (or any other 2nd person on board) over the radio at the same time? If so, that would add a lot of credence to the hot-mike idea.
I see from http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_equipment_on_NR16020 that the switch configuration on the final flight is uncertain.  Prior to re-reading it, I hadn't noticed that the switchology had likely been changed in some unknown ways.  This may mean that the radio switch arrangement prior to the last flight might have prevented the situation in which both an open mike and reception on the earphones happened at the same time. If so, then there wouldn't be prior examples.
 
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Bill de Creeft

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #74 on: April 06, 2013, 11:47:15 AM »

I got my multi-engine sea rating in a Grumman Goose at Catalina Island in 1957 and I can tell you the airplane just about submerges on take-off and water drenches the engine and propellor and you are blind for a few moments...at take-off rpm.

I have also slid off a beach in the Otter on ice into chest deep water (minus 5 deg. F.) and tried to taxi out with about 5 inches up the blades and thought the engine mount would break and went swimming to get to the beach...so I don't think there is any rule but "at idle" isn't the answer.
But no; it won't break the propellor.

I was one of the ones who discussed the effects of idle rpm on even a calm day because of the prop picking up spray.
The plane stationary on the water will pick up spray even 8 or 10 inches above the surface...and the engine will be at a higher rpm than 900 rpm (as was tested) because the voltage regulator and the reverse current relay will need a positive charge to kick out...It's been many years since we used the old carbon pile reg. and went to the solid state type...so I'm talking about a long time ago and I'm 80 + so I'm discussing with "half my brain tied behind my back" and I had not intended to belabor the point...But I think it will be somewhere about 1200 to 1500 rpm before the reg. kicks in and you've got voltage to the battery and showing a good charge.
I melted all the wire under the panel in the Beaver trying to taxi at idle on floats without a working reg. system and propped it to get home and the mechanic worked all night so I could fly the next day
If you are sitting on the edge of a 1000 foot drop, and the plane is "slipping" and the copilot is suffering from a head injury and you have at best a very difficult airplane to exit....then you won't be going by a water surface that clears the prop by a few inches; you are worrying about blowing water all over the right engine.
I once pulled 30 tons of herring off a beach with the Beaver idling at less than 900 rpm so we're not talking about what the equipment  is acting like...we are talking about a fearsome operation that has to be at night (radio reception) and it is my claim that they ran it during the day and transmitted at night...still concerned with tide, but different factors.
You don't really  want me want me to go through this point by point...And I don't want to!
But I have HEARD transmissions from Darwin here in Alaska by obviously a very unusual situation, or I would not remember it ...we flew for years and talked to the office and to boats on those frequencies AE was using; I have pulled up to boats out in the opens sea...you will be going up and down on that big swell you cant even see and it takes a skiff to transfer the halibut a friend is giving you...have done the same thing for lobster off catalina is....50 years ago.
You are going to rise and fall even on a "calm" day.
that swell scrubs you in and out towards the water, and drags you sideways along the beach too...As I discussed earlier.
Amelia will be "proven" one way or another...nothing I say will help or hinder, because I'm no good at theories...I just intrude to offer actual experiences...will no longer attempt at navigation (in my world you lay out a ruler on a chart, say there[s where I want to go, and this is what I need to do to make it happen. I think they did.

I am convinced Betty heard what she says, I'm convinced that Ae and FN got themselves to Gardner, and I'm convinced the bones were hers...
Anything else that I've read goes against anything that I've learned over a long active life...
End of rant; don't know where to post where it will help...but we keep plowing old ground !
I believe in Tighar and their  theories and Ric, I believe your patience is endless !?!
Bill
Bill de Creeft

Tighar Member #4131
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   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