Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?  (Read 117399 times)

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« on: September 14, 2012, 06:19:38 AM »

No doubt this may create controversy, however after much research, I find there are several key issues with the Brandenburg RDF analysis.

1. The reports starts with the vital(and wrong) assumption that Howland was unoccupied. In fact the Brandenburg report states categorically
" Howland is unoccupied except for the shore party involved in the search"
The report also states that "there were no sources of radio transmission south of Howland to account for the post loss transmissions"

These were two key, (and flawed) assumptions that throw into question the validity of the entire report results.
It is well known, or should have been known, that Baker, Howland, and Jarvis islands were almost continually occupied from 1935 to 1942 with high school students and their sponsor from the Kamhameha Boys school in Hawaii.
The boys went on a 3 month or longer rotation. Then the next group came in. For years this went on.

In fact, Lt Cooper in his journal suggests using the boys to clear the airfield at howland. A crude airfield had already been cleared at Jarvis. The Itasca was not just there for Amelia Earhart. The Itasca had been there, see pictures, for close to two years supplying these colonists and planning an airfield on Jarvis and Howland.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Cooper_Report/Cooper.html
Here are some of the the original colonists from 1936, though the first groups arrived in 1935.

Here are ladies lunching on Jarvis island in 1909.


Mr.Gillespie in the archives of the US minor outlying islands states there "were no radios for the initial groups of colonists" This is disputed by the day to day diaries kept by the Students and supervisors. They had transmitters almost continually from mid 1935 until finally removed in 1942. And a far cry from "chinese operators" arriving in 1936 for just meterological transmissions and health emergency transmissions, it is highly evident from reading these diaries that the nightly radio shack was the entertainment on the islands. The kids were listening to Hawaiian radio, transmitted to Ham operators, and got updates from the states on family and friends. (keep in mind a lot of "post loss transmissions were at night which just so happens to be after the kids were done fishing,swimming,and had little else to do but write in their diaries or listen to the radio sets).

Please read these diaries for life on an atoll as well, and while food and water was delivered from the atasca, note that 18 gallons of fresh water was collected by the islanders the first week, food was plentiful, and the boys biggest problem was boredom, sharks, and learning to surf.
http://www.jarvisisland.info/panalaau_memoirs.html

This 800 pound gorilla in the room, that there were transmitters, and high school boys on Howland and Baker islands had access to these radios, and in a minor sense Jarvis as well,  for Post loss transmissions is never mentioned. Brandenburg goes into fine detail on radio transmissions reaching the midwest and Florida, it dismisses some transmissions as hoaxes, and screens out other Ham radios in Hawaii, but seems to overlook an island only a few miles from Howland, i.e. BAKER ISLAND, and Howland itself. If he did know radios were on these islands, Why did the report state there were no land radios in the central pacific?  (and please show me one reference where he analyized these transmittors). How can he ignore these radio sets mere miles from his Triangulation theory? And how can his report be valid since he is stating there were no transmittors in the area around Howland?

In summary, isn't it just as likely as Earhart wading to her plane, that a group of high  school boys on Howland or on Baker listening to radio, hearing pleas from Hawaiian radio for Amelia to please just key 4 dashes, might have played at the time what they thought was a harmless joke?
A Bunch of young men saying " hey watch this", grabbing mic, keying it a few times in response to the Hawaiian radio, and setting off a search effort they must have known quickly was a bad mistake. There is no proof of this Hypothesis of course, but the radios were there.

At the very least these radio transmittors should in my opinion be included in the brandenburg report of Post loss transmissions. Those radios should be analyzed to show whether they could account for all "post loss" transmissions.

More information on the colonists for further reading-
http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/archives/historical/huipanalaau/first.php

http://www.oralhistory.hawaii.edu/pages/historical/panalaau.html

http://www.bishopmuseum.org/media/2011/pdf/Hui_Panalaau.pdf

http://www.jarvisisland.info/panalaau_memoirs.html
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 04:16:21 PM by dave burrell »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 647
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2012, 07:59:07 AM »

No doubt this may create controversy, however after much research, I find there are several key issues with the Brandenburg RDF analysis.

1. The reports starts with the vital(and wrong) assumption that Howell was unoccupied. In fact the Brad(shortened name) report states categorically
" Howell is unoccupied except for the shore party involved in the search"
The Brad report also states that "there were no sources of radio transmission south of Howell to account for the PLT"

These were two key, (and flawed) assumptions that throw into question the validity of the entire report results.

I've quoted the opening words of your post, where you set up your premise with two quotations that I presume come from what you call "the Brandenburg RDF analysis."  At this point, I will only address this portion of your post, because it is where you lay out the premise for the rest of your argument.  You have not provided a link to whatever document from which you purport to have extracted those quoted words.  As an interested reader of your post, I would first like to confirm that those quotes do appear in the document.  You have not provided a link to the document for the convenience of your readers, so I have searched for it myself, to no avail.  Please provide a link.

And what, pray tell, is "Howell"?  You use that word, and even have it imbedded in one of the quotations.  If it is a misspelling of something else ("Howland"?), then it calls into question your entire premise, since you imply that you are quoting verbatim some work of [Bob] Brandenburg, and I doubt seriously that he would have used the incorrect name of "Howell." 

I also wonder why you shortened the reference to this document ("the Brad(shortened name) report"), and then only use that shortened term one other time -- in the very next sentence.  Why was it necessary to shorten "Brandenburg" (which at least conjures up the name of a known contributor to the work of TIGHAR) to the obscure "Brad"?

I look forward to reading the rest of your post as soon as you have provided a link to the document upon which you lay your premise. 
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2012, 09:03:50 AM »

Bruce I am not sure how you missed them on your search but if you look in the archives under "catalog and analysis of radio signals during the search for Amelia Earhart in 1937, you will find several subsections. I will not quote them all due to space and typing one finger on a tablet, but the quotes transmit the gist of the report as far as it pertains to transmitters in the immediate area.
Quote" no central pacific ground station transmits on 278 kz or received on 3105 kz.
Therefore other the Itasca, Earharts electra was the only plausible source." end quote.
 pretty darn clear stance by Brandenburg. Except it is incorrect.


Now I am sure there are grammatical mistakes there as well. Sorry about spelling.
The point remains. That Bradenburg statement of "no other land based pacific transmitter" is clear. It is also incorrect.

Also in the archives of Tighar it has a category titled "Were their hoaxes?"
The response from Tighar partially paraphrased but intent unaltered,
"a hoaxer would need a suitable transmitter, adjust the modulation, and would need to position himself in that remote corner of the pacific and must have had advance knowledge that Earhart was not going to make Howland. Given the numerous restraints  the likelyhood of an event(hoax), is vanishingly small."


The position is clear, per Tighar there was no other reasonable known sources capable for these transmissions, other than its triangulation on Gardner. That much is also reaffirmed by Bradenburg never even mentioning Baker or Howland in his well drafted paper that lists possible hoax sites all over,  including Russia, and parts of the US mainland.
He both states there is no pacific source, then confirms his own statement by not listing any other central pacific source in his study. Why would an island like Baker, close by Howland, having teenagers on it, in the "action" so to speak, be left off the study of possible places a hoax signal could originate?

If he knew of the transmitters on baker and howland he never mentioned or studied their results against his treatise.

The records are there, he either did not know these were occupied islands with transmitters, or he willingly left the most obvious and closet transmittors out of his analysis on possible hoax sites.


« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 02:04:45 PM by dave burrell »
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2012, 10:19:24 AM »

Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2012, 03:19:54 PM »

Jeff, you probably won't see it unless you read the history carefully.
Ric was off a year in the issuance of radios. A small mistake. I sent you the link, radios were actually installed in 1935 for the first colonists...now follow the trail.. the highschoolers left....  they packed up and left and took their radio.
I guess that was better than leaving all their stuff on a deserted island unprotected.
BUT... they came back in a few months. It is indisputable Baker, Jarvis, Howland had students from 1935 to 1942.

Ric even states in his history of the minor islands that due to safety concerns radios were installed in 1936. So I guess you are saying the subsequent batches of students had no radios for 7 years? Maybe subsequent students weren't as worried about? :)

But to satisfy any further doubts,
Here is ANOTHER link, and BTW most of this is in the archives, where Hooven talks about Baker radios in 1937, a second hand source, but really, this whole issue is not even in dispute with any common sense applied. They didn't drop people off there for 7 years with no radio. Or give the colonists on Baker radios in 1936(per Ric), and then snatch them back, just in time for Amelia Earhart.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html

"Commander Thompson reasoned that if the plane were down it was most likely to the North of Howland. There had been clouds to the north, while the weather was clear to the south. Reasoning that the plane must have been in overcast weather, and that it would surely have seen Baker Island, 40 miles south of Howland, if it had been to the south, he set off at once to the NNW along the position line. He was assured that the plane’s large fuel tanks, when empty, had more than enough flotation to insure that it would remain afloat if it had landed in the water without crashing. There was Baker Island to the south of Howland, where there was a party with a radio receiver and a small transmitter, and then 340 miles to the SSE was McKean Island, even smaller than Baker or Howland, the nearest of the Phoenix group, a scattered group of islands, the largest of which was only about eight square miles in area.



The radios were there Jeff, all the time from almost the beginning months of 1935 until 1942, except a month or so in between expeditions. That is common sense for safety. That is the fact. That is the gorilla.
Why that Gorilla was not mentioned in the Brandenburg report, ask Him and Tighar. It would seem obvious when studying sources of Post loss transmissions to mention radios at the scene of the action, instead of putting out a report stating there were no land based radios capable of doing these transmissions in the entire central pacific.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 03:51:34 PM by dave burrell »
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2012, 06:51:50 PM »

At my last understanding it is difficult to transmit from a radio antenna without a radio transmitter and an operator.

On the other hand, it would seem at least equally difficult to accomplish one of the colonists' primary missions as described by US House Resolution 388, 112th Congress to provide radio communication if radios were not present for the majority of the time . . .

Quote
Whereas, on March 30, 1935, the United States Coast Guard Cutter Itasca departed from Honolulu Harbor in great secrecy with 6 young Hawaiians aboard, all recent graduates of Kamehameha Schools, and 12 furloughed army personnel, whose purpose was to occupy the barren islands of Howland, Baker, and Jarvis in teams of 5 for 3 months;

Whereas in June 1935, after a successful first tour, the furloughed army personnel were ordered off the islands and replaced with additional Kamehameha Schools alumni, thus leaving the islands under the exclusive occupation of the 4 Native Hawaiians on each island;

Whereas the duties of the colonists while on the island were to record weather conditions, cultivate plants, maintain a daily log, record the types of fish that were caught, observe bird life, and collect specimens for the Bishop Museum;

Whereas the successful year-long occupation by the colonists directly enabled President Franklin D. Roosevelt to issue Executive Order 7368 on May 13, 1936, which proclaimed that the islands of Howland, Baker, and Jarvis were under the jurisdiction of the United States;

Whereas multiple Federal agencies vied for the right to administer the colonization project, including the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and the Navy Department, but jurisdiction was ultimately granted to the Department of the Interior;

Whereas under the Department of the Interior, the colonization project emphasized weather data and radio communication, which brought about the recruitment of a number of Asian radiomen and aerologists;

Whereas under the Department of the Interior, the colonization project also expanded beyond the Kamehameha Schools to include Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians from other schools in Hawaii;

Whereas in 1937, in preparation for Amelia Earhart’s arrival on Howland Island, the colonists constructed a landing field, readied a shower and bedroom for her, and prepared a performance for her, but she never arrived, having disappeared en route to the island on July 2, 1937.

[Emphasis added]
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 735
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2012, 07:37:36 PM »

If he did know radios were on these islands, Why did the report state there were no land radios in the central pacific?  (and please show me one reference where he analyized these transmittors). How can he ignore these radio sets mere miles from his Triangulation theory? And how can his report be valid since he is stating there were no transmittors in the area around Howland?

At the very least these radio transmittors should in my opinion be included in the brandenburg report of Post loss transmissions. Those radios should be analyzed to show whether they could account for all "post loss" transmissions.


Brandenburg's Post-Loss Catalog does mention amateur radio operators on both Howland and Baker.
For example:
50910BR Ham Operator on Baker
50916HD Ham Operator K66NW on Howland
40650HD Amateur Radio Operator on Howland
40720BR Amateur Paul Yat Lum on Baker, See picture of Paul Yat Lum
Seems they were trying to help and reported what they heard
There are also several from the "Itasca detachment" on Howland
3971R
 
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 07:51:06 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2012, 08:29:15 PM »

Quote
On the other hand, it would seem at least equally difficult to accomplish one of the colonists' primary missions as described by US House Resolution 388, 112th Congress to provide radio communicationif radios were not present for the majority of the time

Alan, your comment is a distortion of the US House Resolution.  Nowhere in that document does it say "one of the colonists primary missions" nor does it say "to provide radio communication".   It does however say, "the colonization project "emphasized" weather data and radio communication" as you indicated.  The operative word is "emphasized", not "mandated", as you would lead the readers to believe.  You are paraphrasing the intent of the Resolution to suit your position.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2012, 08:43:42 PM »

Quote
On the other hand, it would seem at least equally difficult to accomplish one of the colonists' primary missions as described by US House Resolution 388, 112th Congress to provide radio communicationif radios were not present for the majority of the time

Alan, your comment is a distortion of the US House Resolution.  Nowhere in that document does it say "one of the colonists primary missions" nor does it say "to provide radio communication".   It does however say, "the colonization project "emphasized" weather data and radio communication" as you indicated.  The operative word is "emphasized", not "mandated", as you would lead the readers to believe.  You are paraphrasing the intent of the Resolution to suit your position.

Of course it is obvious that I have paraphrased.  I disagree that I have "distorted".  I don't think the point of the post is changed at all if it said "On the other hand, it would seem at least equally difficult to accomplish one of the emphasized colonist activities of radio communication as described by US House Resolution 388, 112th Congress if radios were not present for the majority of the time . . ."

As far as paraphrasing, I never said anything about "mandated", you have paraphrased me.   :D
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2012, 09:55:16 PM »

If he did know radios were on these islands, Why did the report state there were no land radios in the central pacific?  (and please show me one reference where he analyized these transmittors). How can he ignore these radio sets mere miles from his Triangulation theory? And how can his report be valid since he is stating there were no transmittors in the area around Howland?

At the very least these radio transmittors should in my opinion be included in the brandenburg report of Post loss transmissions. Those radios should be analyzed to show whether they could account for all "post loss" transmissions.


Brandenburg's Post-Loss Catalog does mention amateur radio operators on both Howland and Baker.
For example:
50910BR Ham Operator on Baker
50916HD Ham Operator K66NW on Howland
40650HD Amateur Radio Operator on Howland
40720BR Amateur Paul Yat Lum on Baker, See picture of Paul Yat Lum
Seems they were trying to help and reported what they heard
There are also several from the "Itasca detachment" on Howland

THANK YOU! So can we put this issue of Amateur radios on Baker and Howland to rest now? The radios were there. They were there for two years before Amelia Earhart. But it doesn't matter how long.

The point is that there were AMATEUR, Not navy, not coast guard, but AMATEUR operators of radio sets at 3 known locations in the central pacific. Jarvis, Howland, Baker islands.( either operated by Hawaiian boys or new Chinese operators)
Just as I orginally posted.


Now that Branderburg himself referenced these, (thanks Greg for a nice find), maybe everyone can agree there were radios and not dispute that issue anymore. I thought I was going to have to find a picture date stamped 1937 baker island showing a guy talking into a headset. ;)

So there were amateur(or chinese) radio HAM operators, we can all agree, on these islands for Weather and communications duties. Were these same operators the actual source of all post loss transmissions? Bradenburg uses their receiving information as possible important information, as they were "trying to help",per Greg, but totally eliminated them as a SOURCE of the transmissions. If you look at 40650HD we have a radio operator stating he got a strong hit, and Brandenburg stating that could be gardner island.

(So he is pretty accepting of information by amateur operators when it fits his theory. )

But in his summary report Brandenburg states there were no land radios in the entire central pacific capable of making these post lost transmissions.
See the conflict?  It does seem he has made a giant assumption- that radio operators that reported anything were trying to help.
Well anyone who has been a fireman or policeman can tell you that a lot of times people "trying to help", are the people actually setting the fires. How many times have we all read of a low paid security guard, or volunteer fireman been found to cause more issues attaching themselves to a situation?

There was great excitement no doubt of the colonization of these minor islands, high schools kids, 17-18 years old had made newspapers in major cities saying they were making history, congress was applauding their efforts, the president was now declaring that thanks to them we had expanded the actual territory of the United States.

Pretty Heady stuff for some teenagers and amateurs.
Now boredom was a problem, but then they get a report that the famous Amelia Earhart was coming in. Preparations were made. Richard Black from the Interior department came, newsmen came. Then Amelia never made it.
The search was on and listening to radio signals from Hawaii everyone could hear the pleas that Amelia just key her microphone, let us know you are alive.

So l expect that a hoaxer, a small prank, someone even well meaning wanting to keep the search going might have keyed that mike on Baker or Howland Island.
For Brandenburg to totally eliminate that possibility and make the sweeping the statement that there was no land based radios capable of producing this triangulation may mean one of a couple of things,

1 he was not aware there were Amateur operators on Baker and Howland, which seems unlikely now. Some will argue that these young Chinese operators were not "amateur" but that is weak. We have no idea who controlled these land based radio sets 24/7 and the Amateur Hawaiians had been doing it long before the newly arrived Chinese, if any were on duty.. whichever operator had the actual headset on, they took breaks, which allowed plenty of time to key a microphone a few times. This was not the Navy.

2 he was aware of these land based transmitters and never even considered the possibility that these  operators could be the source of all the post loss transmissions.
In either event, it is flawed. If the report is read in summary it seems there was no way a hoaxer could have made these signals.

How many times have I read "what are the chances a hoaxer could have been in the area of triangulation, the logistics argue against that" or words to that effect, leaving the impression that in this great big triangulation there were only Navy searchers, and it would be impossible for a hoaxer to transmit.

The reality is much simplier, but was left off the final summary of the Branderburg report.
 Baker/Howland Island Amateur Hawaiian student operators(or newbie chinese operators) could in fact account for all these so called "post loss" radio transmissions.


« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 10:50:17 PM by dave burrell »
Logged

pilotart

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2012, 11:17:44 PM »

Quote
Those radios should be analyzed to show whether they could account for all "post loss" transmissions.
Yes, what frequency's did those Island Radios transmit on?
Art Johnson
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 735
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2012, 11:55:30 PM »

The HAM operators were known to the professional operators based on their reporting to the Itasca and in the case of Howland, the Itasca detachment was on the same small island. They were also in an isolated area.  It does not make sense to me to try to pull off a radio hoax if your next door neighbor is a radio professional who works for the government and very few others nearby it could be blamed on.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: September 15, 2012, 12:03:40 AM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2012, 06:43:35 AM »

The HAM operators were known to the professional operators based on their reporting to the Itasca and in the case of Howland, the Itasca detachment was on the same small island. They were also in an isolated area.  It does not make sense to me to try to pull off a radio hoax if your next door neighbor is a radio professional who works for the government and very few others nearby it could be blamed on.

They were not professional operators. They were also kids, with little training, thrown in with high school student alumni. Brandenburg himself distinguished them by calling them "amateurs". There were serious questions on young Paul Yum at the time, when he claimed to hear AE's voice and nobody else did. I think this shows the level of competence. This was not Pan Am. These were low paid operators who look younger than the older students on Baker. Apparently they were also prone to flights of fantasy as well, that were not accepted by the Navy.

For instance, On reception 40650 you had one Amateur operator from Howland calling the Itasca claming that the Baker Amateur called him saying he heard Amelia talking. WOW. Nobody else heard it. But supposedly loud and clear signal 5 to this one operator Amelia talking and he heard it clearly. Nobody believed that.
So there are very serious issues with all these transmissions with amateur ham operators.

Paul Yum also claimed the JAPANESE SHOT DOWN AMELIA EARHART, AND REMEMBERS HER TRYING TO LAND AT NIGHT.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200608.txt

In reality you had a radio shack on these islands, Baker and Howland, with 4 older Hawaiian students, and a young unskilled chinese operator per island. All trying to "help" and be part of this exciting action. Some of them claiming to hear transmissions their counterparts 35 miles away never heard.
Again, people who want to be "part of the action", exaggerate, hear things that did not happen, and sometimes "start the fires themselves"

Now whether you or I or anybody believe that one or more were trying to pull a hoax or were simply incompetent, like leaving a mic keyed for a continuous carrier wave, the fact was that land based radios not operated by the Navy or Coast guard were in the area.
Not "next door", but 35 miles apart, and in the case of Jarvis 1000 miles East.

Were these radio shacks the cause of the post loss transmissions?
POSSIBLY THEY WERE.
We will never know for sure.
But my opinion is they should have been included in Brandenburgs study of possible sources, instead of the statement that "other than the Itasca, there were no other plausible sources for these transmissions"
He lists the Itasca as a plausible souce with real professional operators, but dismisses it. Ok. Fair enough.
But then Brandenburg fails to mention at all the other plausible sources on Baker and Howland Island.
So it's not as cut and dried as the final summary makes it appear. To the person reading his report, Bradenburg implies there is the Navy searchers, and nobody else in the entire central pacific.
He then submits the Midway, Wake, ect. receptions and then triangulates them to near Gardner without mentioning they also triangulate to Baker as  well.
What I am saying, and what I have brought up (with a question mark), is maybe there is another source Brandenburg never listed  for these transmissions.

I will leave it at that for each to decide. But my research is sound, the possibility for post loss transmissions was there. It is also my opinion those possibilites should have been included in the final report as well.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2012, 08:53:34 AM by dave burrell »
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2012, 02:51:19 PM »

Thats fine Jeff. It is being mentioned as a hypothesis for post transmissions other than what you already knew about.
That is all it was meant to do.
I make no claim any of the teenagers on Howland or Baker misused the radios to send out hoax transmissions.
But they might have, and that is my entire point.
Brandenburg totally ignored that possibility by saying if it wasnt the itasca sending these signals, then there was no other plausible source but Earhart.
Well now you know about two other land based places within his triangulation.
You now have more choices than just Earhart on an atoll.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   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