Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Mr. Carrols Radio  (Read 35737 times)

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2011, 02:31:07 PM »

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 .
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2011, 03:18:44 PM »

No confirmed post loss calls other than phantasy have been anywhere recorded .

Fantasy! Lots of evidence that isn't TIGHER out there.
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2011, 11:12:19 AM »

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 for the Forum.
Brad

#4327R
 
« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 07:39:11 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2011, 01:59:48 PM »

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 .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2011, 02:33:49 PM »

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 .
Logged

David Andersen

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2012, 04:07:29 PM »

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
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 04:12:01 PM by David Andersen »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2012, 12:37:21 AM »

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

Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2949
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2012, 06:44:25 AM »

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:

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."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2012, 08:34:30 PM »

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
Brad

#4327R
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2012, 02:49:59 AM »


The flaw in your logic is that both the Chater and Collopy 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
Logged

Kent Beuchert

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2014, 06:37:15 PM »

Quote
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.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Mr. Carrols Radio
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2014, 10:44:18 AM »

Quote
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
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: June 06, 2014, 05:05:21 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   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