Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?  (Read 117601 times)

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2012, 03:18:27 AM »


If you want anyone to believe that the Island Radio Operators were a possible source of bogus Post-Loss Radio Signals, you will have to establish that they had the illegal crystal to transmit on Earhart's Aviation Transmitting Frequency's with their equipment.
It is obvious that if the hams could make the modification to operate on the 9,000 kcs band that they could make the much less significant change to tune to 3105 kcs.]

Interesting.  So again we have another situation where something is theoretically possible, assuming somebody wanted to go through the time and effort. but not necessarily likely nor even logically motivated given the actual prevailing circumstances at the time.  So assuming this is all correct, and I do find this information new to me and quite fascinating, I then have to ask: what would be their reason for making such a non-trivial modification to be able to transmit on an aircraft frequency?  How long would it take, would the materials for same be readily available on an island isolated from supplies, and would it inhibit their ability to use the radio as it normally would be used?  Also, would they be able to easily determine whether they were tuned correctly after such modifications were made, and whether they had tuned it properly back?

Not snark; honestly want to know.  I have no idea, these are just the questions that instantly pop into my mind when this kind of scenario is raised.  This does sound to me like another one of those things that could theoretically have happened but are a stretch in the real world but I don't have the HAM technical knowledge to know just how simple this would be (unlike the earlier suggestion that post-loss broadcasts could have been easily assembled with Amelia's voice from newsreels and such using technology at the time, which working in sound as I do, I know is not the case) so Gary, I do defer to you on that score...interested to hear more.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 03:23:20 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2012, 08:00:01 AM »


"...But, I think others have said it well enough already."
 

Captain Friedell of the Colorado probably said it best way back in 1937-

“…There was no doubt that many stations were calling the Earhart plane on the plane’s frequency, some by voice and others by signals.  All of these added to the confusion and doubtfulness of the authenticity of the reports.”
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2012, 10:02:22 AM »


"...But, I think others have said it well enough already."
 

Captain Friedell of the Colorado probably said it best way back in 1937-

“…There was no doubt that many stations were calling the Earhart plane on the plane’s frequency, some by voice and others by signals.  All of these added to the confusion and doubtfulness of the authenticity of the reports.”

Mark that does indeed seem to sum it up.  A lot of transmissions to AE. A lot of radio sets in action at the same time, and as Gary nicely pointed out, the land operators could indeed transmit on the 3105 frequency if they so desired. Which makes sense. If I were on Baker Island in 1937 I would want as many transmitting frequencies as I could get.  :)

It is fascinating that much of this was argued back in 2002 and 2008 as well.
Seems I have brought up what others saw as a big issue as well.
The archives are littered with "the strange case of Mr.Yum" and conspiracy theories of coast guard coverups, and log books being changed, and Mr.Yum's denials of receiving AE. Two Mr.Yums. All Very interesting.

So, we do know there were radios on those islands. That point is critical.
How many radio sets? Unknown.
Did Mr.Yum do any or all the post transmissions himself, and is he believable? His memory conflicts with dated records and his denial of knowing anything about post loss transmissions is not credible in my opinion.
Was it possible for the islanders to transmit on the frequencies later reported as coming from AE? It would seem highly probable.

Therefore, I don't think postulating the island operators themselves responsible for some or all of the post loss signals is farfetched.  Nor is revisiting this issue trivial or just a "nice" theory.
It's a hardcore theory in the big picture of AE surviving days or weeks.
For if there is this much confusion on who was transmitting what and where and by whom, and there are allegations of logbook coverups and denials of the written logs, it is but a small leap to a hoaxer in the middle of that confusion. By accident or design.

If there were a hoaxer, well that would rattle a whole lot of theories about where she landed, (or splashed). A hoaxer could be a simple as someone wanting to get in on the "action", or by accident or design.
A simple hoaxer may have started and fed many on a false trail.

We have record of an island radio operator saying he actually heard Amelia talking, then he radios his friend, who then radios the Itasca. A transmission nobody else heard. Then the operator denies ever doing it. All of which sounds like a classic hoaxer.

For each to decide. For me, the post loss transmissions are the most "weighty" evidence that remains that points to a Gardner landing. However, those transmissions carry some huge question marks attached.




« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 11:51:25 AM by dave burrell »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2012, 10:57:51 AM »

A very interesting thread indeed.
One which may be resolved by simply checking transmissions from these possible sources during the dates concerned.
As Gary pointed out, it was a fairly simple task to adjust for the required frequencies...
so every one of the hams on those islands had the knowledge to modify and tune their transmitters to operate on 3105 kcs. This would have been especially easy (trivial, actually) since it was so near to the standard ham frequency band of 3500 to 4000 kcs, so would require only a very slight tweaking of the coil or capacitor in the VFO.
If we are able to confirm that transmissions were heard on their normal frequency to their
base during the dates concerned then it would follow that they were regularly changing the frequency of their sets back and forth as required.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2012, 12:38:54 PM »

One which may be resolved by simply checking transmissions from these possible sources during the dates concerned.

Very well said, that would be the key.  But I for one am not sure how to go about that.  We would need the radio logs from the stations on Howland, Baker, and Jarvis (if they kept complete logs) and I don't know if they have survived?  Failing that, there would be the logs from the recipients of transmissions from those places.  The only readily available source I know of there is the Itasca logs heroically compiled by Mr. Jacobson long ago, which cover Howland interaction only (no Baker or Jarvis).  As I noted in a prior post, the Itasca logs show Howland transmitting on 24 meters and on 2670 KHz, and Itasca once asking Howland to transmit on 3105 KHz.  (No mention of 31 meters, but absence doesn't prove a negative.)

As others have said, transmitting is the issue, receiving is more of a continuous capability over wide frequency bands.  From the various logs and reports it seems clear that both Howland and Baker could receive 3105 and there is no reason to suspect Jarvis would be different.

Also, as a tenuous speculation not related to the above: the original 1935 island colonists were asked to lay out airstrips for possible later use in surveys and eventually as trans-Pacific fueling stops.  It is not clear how much progress was actually made in this direction, but, could that have been a reason there would have been some pre-planning for the radios to be able to work aircraft frequencies?
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 735
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2012, 01:12:39 PM »

Howland operators did keep logs for Howland transmissions. Mr Y.F. Lum on Howland was one of the operators who logged his entries.
The log shows that when the Howland operators transmitted, they did not transmit on 3105.
The Itasca also kept logs. Itasca logged when they transmitted on 3105.

Yes, some may have heard these Itasca 3105 transmissions and thought it was AE and it may have caused confusion as Friedel said. But they kept logs and Brandenburg prepared a catalog showing when Itasca transmitted on 3105 and when others heard something. I think this helped to clear up what Friedel called "confusion".

I think it may help address comments about hoaxes and modifying existing equipment by quoting the work in the Post loss catalog.
"The only known aircraft transmitters capable of transmitting on 3105 kHz were on U.S. and Canadian aircraft. Acquiring such a transmitter – or modifying existing equipment to transmit on 3105 kHz – in time to transmit hoax signals during the few days when post-loss signals were heard would be a daunting task for even the most technically talented would-be hoaxer.
The existence of the frequency band 3500 kHz to 4000 kHz, allocated for amateur (ham) radio operators, might suggest the possibility of ham hoax transmissions on 3105 kHz. However, in addition to the challenge of modifying equipment to operate on 3105 kHz on short notice, a ham would risk federal penalties for transmitting outside the assigned band limits.

But even if a hoaxer had a suitable transmitter, and was a woman or had a female accomplice, it would be impossible to control who would hear the signal, and thus impossible to direct the hoax to a specific target or group of targets. A hoax transmitter in the continental U.S. (CONUS) should have been heard by at least one of the 44 airport stations maintaining a continuous listening watch on 3105 kHz; a hoax transmitter on or near the west coast should have been heard by the special Coast Guard facility set up near San Francisco to listen for Earhart signals; and a hoax transmitter in Hawaii should have been heard loud and clear simultaneously at the Navy, Coast Guard, and Pan American Airways stations in Hawaii listening for Earhart signals. No such signals were reported"
3971R
 
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 01:23:37 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

Jeff Carter

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2012, 02:32:25 PM »

Post loss catalog:  "But even if a hoaxer had a suitable transmitter, and was a woman or had a female accomplice, it would be impossible to control who would hear the signal, and thus impossible to direct the hoax to a specific target or group of targets. A hoax transmitter in the continental U.S. (CONUS) should have been heard by at least one of the 44 airport stations maintaining a continuous listening watch on 3105 kHz; a hoax transmitter on or near the west coast should have been heard by the special Coast Guard facility set up near San Francisco to listen for Earhart signals; and a hoax transmitter in Hawaii should have been heard loud and clear simultaneously at the Navy, Coast Guard, and Pan American Airways stations in Hawaii listening for Earhart signals. No such signals were reported"

Its only fair that the same analysis apply to AE signals.  If AE was transmitting, it is difficult to understand how no receiver picked her up clearly, but all receivers heard only carrier waves, sporadic voices, faint dashes, etc.

Just a quick scan of the post loss catalog, shows stations listening included at least as a minimum: Itasca, Howland, Baker, Pan Am Wake, Pan Am Midway, Pan Am Hawaii, multiple Coast Guard Stations, HMS Achilles, New Zealand Star, Nauru Radio, Navy Wailupe & Navy Station Samoa. 

And from press reports, numerous ham radio operators in the United States and at least one ham operator in Melbourne, Australia.  One would assume also additional ham radio operators in Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Also, 44 CONUS airport stations maintaining continuous listening watch on 3105 kHz.

Presumably, USS Colorado & USS Swan would have also been listening due to communication to that effect from COMHAWSEC.

The Post Loss Catalog seems to wrestle with this issue:  "Itasca’s failure to hear the dashes as clearly as Achilles implies a problem with Itasca’s antennas or receivers, which would account for Itasca’s consistent failure to clearly hear signals heard at other central Pacific stations and which should have been heard by Itasca. COMFRANDIV had cautioned Itasca about the possibility of such a problem on June 25. (MSG7.PDF, p. 260)"

Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2012, 03:05:42 PM »

Jeff you seem to be arguing a point that was not a part of this thread. That being why Friedell searched to the south. He makes the point clear, repeating what tighar has stated 1000 times, to turn north on the lop would mean miles of open ocean.ect
Very little to do with radios.
Maybe after howland heard "distinct japanese music"on freq 3105khz on two seperate nights, and hawaiian radio was making pleas for AE to submit dashes he rightly thought this radio business had got out of hand with everyone with a radio set in on the act.
I can understand the Navy's skepticism of any radio transmission.

« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 03:08:56 PM by dave burrell »
Logged

pilotart

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2012, 06:19:41 PM »

Those Colonist Radio Operators would have been aware that there was a High Frequency Direction Finding Receiver installed on Howland Island along with the other Pacific HF/DF Stations.

This would mean that their possible bogus transmission pretending to be Amelia Earhart could very likely be pinpointed to their location.

I would expect that the Criminal Penalty for such a Transmission would go way beyond just an FCC penalty for an illegal frequency violation.

Why take such a chance?

(I can understand the skepticism of any radio transmission by anyone who puts their faith in a 'Crashed & Sank' hypothesis.)
Art Johnson
 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2012, 01:42:25 AM »

Art you bring up the point of why would these kids chance it. ( and btw Jeff take a look at the pictures, these were kids).
Well why does a volunteer fireman set a fire and then call it in, risking his family and everything he worked for including possible jail time?
Because some people want to do it, simple as that.
To be a hero, to keep the action going, for a lot of different personal reasons.
However, to get into the minds of possible hoaxer, is way beyond our scope 75 years later. Was it malicious, or a joke a student played keying the mic a few times on a bathroom break....Did an operator accidently tie down the mic with a rubber band for two hours somehow after knocking it to the floor.. the possibilities are endless.
Who knows. We cannot know.
Since we cannot know, I am not stating it is a 100% fact there was a hoaxer. I am stating it is possible.

In that mass confusion of reports,  I have read or heard nothing that makes me buy into Brandeburg's summary report statement- " 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."

Partially Paraphrased, but that is what he basically said, and it leaves a lot of people saying WOW!... If a signal was picked up on 3105khz, then Brandenburg says it probably might have been Amelia, and she had to have landed, and so on.
When few know that these same land operators were indeed receiving on 3105khz, and possibly transmitting as well, and also reporting Japanese music being played over these same frequencies. I doubt Amelia was spinning Japanese records on Gardner Island in her spare time.
So, if some transmissions on 3105khz are in doubt, all are in doubt, and If Brandenburg is unaware of the capabilities of the Land sets, and/or never considered the probability of hoax transmissions, then the report itself is inconclusive in my opinion. If he found no documented conflict, it was a credible source.That ignores the possibility of hoax entirely, whether by the islanders or by vessel. But the bottom line is undeniable- there was obvious radio traffic documented on 3105khz other than what could have come from the electra or the Itasca. Take that into consideration when considering the post loss report summation.

Now I still believe she may have landed at Gardner. It is logical. The navy thought it logical. I simply put no faith in these so called post loss transmissions the more intently they are examined. Alan Harris called it right, something is wrong, it's fishy. This supposedly qualified operator calls the Itasca and tells them he hears Earhart distinctly. It was her!  Yet nobody else hears it, or seemed to put credence behind it(maybe they knew more about his personality than we do now).
Then, after what should have been one of the most memorable events in his life, certainly his closet brush with fame and history, Mr.Yum is interviewed and disavows ever knowing one thing about any post loss transmissions.
Now you can think that sounds like a credible, responsible person.
To me it sounds unbelievable. And that is just one operator. There were what, 3 operators on each island? And 12 or so Hawaiian students who operated the radios before as well. So a lot of possibilities exist.
I'll stick with the Navy's determination on this issue, there were a lot of transmissions to AE, a lot of confusion and cross talk, and not one solid transmission received that can be 100% tied to her, and her alone exclusively.

Now some will claim Navy conspiracy. If all else fails, that always seems to be the answer. I do not think so. The Navy did their job.
Let the Gardner landing evidence stand or fall on the real evidence, not radio waves carrying Japanese music and static, and bogus transmissions heard or perhaps even produced by teenage boys or a Japanese Fishing trawler.
The more the post loss transmission evidence is examined, the stronger I believe the Navy got it right in 1937.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 02:53:08 AM by dave burrell »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2012, 10:22:03 AM »


Interesting.  So again we have another situation where something is theoretically possible, assuming somebody wanted to go through the time and effort. but not necessarily likely nor even logically motivated given the actual prevailing circumstances at the time.  So assuming this is all correct, and I do find this information new to me and quite fascinating, I then have to ask: what would be their reason for making such a non-trivial modification to be able to transmit on an aircraft frequency?  How long would it take, would the materials for same be readily available on an island isolated from supplies, and would it inhibit their ability to use the radio as it normally would be used?  Also, would they be able to easily determine whether they were tuned correctly after such modifications were made, and whether they had tuned it properly back?

Not snark; honestly want to know.  I have no idea, these are just the questions that instantly pop into my mind when this kind of scenario is raised.  This does sound to me like another one of those things that could theoretically have happened but are a stretch in the real world but I don't have the HAM technical knowledge to know just how simple this would be (unlike the earlier suggestion that post-loss broadcasts could have been easily assembled with Amelia's voice from newsreels and such using technology at the time, which working in sound as I do, I know is not the case) so Gary, I do defer to you on that score...interested to hear more.
It was not "a non-trivial modification" it would have been trivial and it may not have required any modification whatsoever. Hams are not restricted to transmitting on any particular frequency but have bands in which a ham can choose any frequency he wants. The nearest band was the "80 meter band" which runs from 3500 to 4000 kcs. It is quite likely that the hams on the islands had a transmitter that covered the 80 meter band. However, depending on just how the transmitter was designed, the tuning range might have been larger and, for example, might have been tunable from, say 3000 to 4500 kcs. If so then all they had to do was to turn the dial down to 3105, no modification necessary.

If the radio didn't tune that low then the modification necessary was to simply change the point on the "tuning coil" where the "tap" was attached. O.K. a little (very little) technical discussion. Every ham knows the formula that determines the radio frequency:


frequency = 1/ (2 pi (square root of LC)) see http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/tunedcct.htm

"C" is capacitance and is set by a variable capacitor. "L" is the inductance and is determined by the size of the tuning coil. In the photo I posted before, the variable capacitor is in the front connected to the dial and the coil is, well, the coil.

Without doing the actual math, it should be clear (to those who didn't fall asleep in their algebra class) that if you increase either "L" or "C" or both, that the radio will be tuned to a lower frequency. The tuning range is determined by the range of adjustment of the variable capacitor, turning the tuning knob changes the capacitance smoothly from some low value to some high value and this is exactly what was happening when you turned the dial on your old AM receiver. When the dial was set to 500 kcs the variable capacitor was at its maximum position and when you turned the dial up to 1500 kcs then the variable capacitor was at its minimum position. The tuning range was 1000 kcs, from 500 to 1500 kcs, the AM broadcast band. This, in conjunction with a fixed coil, determined the band being covered. So if the hams' radios had a variable capacitor with a large range of values then the transmitter might have been tunable down to 3105 without making any change to the coil.

The amount of inductance from the coil is determined by how many turns there is in the coil. When building a radio you make the coil bigger than you think will be necessary and then select the actual number of turns by trial and error by placing a "tap" on the coil which determines the effective number of turns. I have attached another photo of a simple radio and you can see the coil and the "tap" points where the yellow wire with the "alligator clips" (you can probably guess why they are called "alligator" clips) on the end can be connected. To lower the band covered by this radio you simply move the alligator clip to a point further along the coil which makes more of the coil active. The coil in this picture was made with insulated wire so specific tap points had to be provided but with coils made out of bare copper wire (as in the first picture) then you can connect the alligator clip anywhere you want on the coil. Since radio coils are made with an excess of coils to allow for adjusting the band, then the island hams only had to move the tap out towards the end of the coil to move the transmitter down to 3105, no materials necessary and would take about five minutes.

To determine that they were on 3105 they only had tune in the Itasca on their receiver and then put out a very weak signal with their transmitter and turn the variable capacitor tuning knob to slowly change the output frequency of the transmitter until this weak signal was heard on the receiver already set to 3105.

gl


« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 04:29:27 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Jeff Carter

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2012, 07:47:24 PM »

I won't speculate on the weight of the gorilla, or the action of any of the Howland/Baker colonists.

But to Gary's point, a number of the Post Loss Transmissions were deemed credible in large part because "Earhart was the only plausible source of voice signals on 3105 kHz in the central Pacific."   If ham radio operators on the islands,  Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii could easily modify their ham equipment to transmit on 3105, this assumption may need to be revisited.

A lot of the transmissions rated credible do not require a deliberate hoaxer, because the transmissions were too short, faint, or noisy.  Almost any transmission on the proper frequency would fit the reported transmission, i.e., an amateur operator could be testing their equipment, trying to help by calling KHAQQ, trying to respond to a message they thought they heard, inadvertently pressing the transmit key, or simply fooling around.     

For example http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html --  40834PU, "Immediately following the KGU broadcast at 0833Z, the Pan American station at Mokapu heard a faint carrier on approximately 3105 kHz, but the signal was too weak to distinguish any words." or 41215WD  -- "Wake heard an intermittent male voice, of “rather wobbly characteristics.” Atmospheric noise prevented understanding what was said. At 1210Z, Wake heard several unreadable voice signals near 3105 kHz, in noise."

Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2012, 09:49:29 PM »

A lot of the transmissions rated credible do not require a deliberate hoaxer, because the transmissions were too short, faint, or noisy.  Almost any transmission on the proper frequency would fit the reported transmission . . .

For some reason, possibly my ignorance, it bothers me that the Howland radiomen repeatedly reported hearing Japanese broadcasts and music on 3105 KHz.  How much weaker would those signals have to be before fitting into the short/faint/noisy category?  (Of course foreign entities were not concerned with the FCC rules, that's not the part that bothers me; it's just that stuff like that was in the air on that frequency.) 
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 12:21:32 AM by Alan Harris »
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2012, 10:54:46 PM »

Amelia stopped broadcasting after her “ we are running 158/337 line “. Many of us have been led to believe her radio broke and when she landed at gardner, she fixed her radio and started broadcasting again.  Is it not possible then, note I said possible, not probable, that Amelia never did fix  her radio, where ever she landed ( or splashed ) and all, yes all post loss transitions could have come from others transmitters in the Phoenix chain ?
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Post loss Transmissions. Solved?
« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2012, 12:25:53 AM »


For example http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html --  40834PU, "Immediately following the KGU broadcast at 0833Z, the Pan American station at Mokapu heard a faint carrier on approximately 3105 kHz, but the signal was too weak to distinguish any words." or 41215WD  -- "Wake heard an intermittent male voice, of “rather wobbly characteristics.” Atmospheric noise prevented understanding what was said. At 1210Z, Wake heard several unreadable voice signals near 3105 kHz, in noise."
There are quite few of the "credible messages" that were heard on frequencies near 3105, not exactly on it. These messages are more likely to have been from a source other than Earhart's radio since her's was crystal controlled and should be exactly on 3105, not just near it. The verified in flight messages from her in the Itasca log were on 3105 kcs so there is no reason that her transmitter's frequency would have changed to something just "near" 3105 kcs later on. But signals "near" 3105 are more likely to have come from a tunable transmitter, not a crystal controlled one, like a modified ham transmitter.

gl
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 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