Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:23:58
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      National Geo show

Forumites--OK--OK-- What are the comments/questions/criticisms on the
NG Channel show on Wednesday night  ???

Jim Tierney
Simi Valley, CA
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:49:33
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: National Ge show

They should have let Ric explain the Niku Hypothesis in more detail
and given a better overview of Betty's Notebook.

The rest of it was complete and expected nonsense. The usual for
Earhart documentaries.

One example: American soldiers supposedly found AE's briefcase in a
Saipanese safe. A "witness" recalled seeing Macy's store receipts.

Last time I checked, Macy's is on 34th Street in Manhattan, not one
of the stops on the World Flight. So why would AE carry something so
useless all the way around the world? Or is the story a complete
hoax? ;o)

The speculation on Irene Bolam was particularly entertaining in a
ridiculous way.

I've got it on video if anyone missed it.

LTM,
Karen #2610CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:02:28
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: National Geo show

>Forumites--OK--OK-- What are the comments/questions/criticisms on
>the NG Channel show on Wednesday night  ???

I thought the show did a pretty good job of quickly telling the
Earhart story & was relatively fair in its treatment of TIGHAR.

I wish they had pointed out that it was TIGHAR itself that
deflated TIGHAR's original claims that the mystery was
solved.  That, to me, is a feather in TIGHAR's cap.

It was clear that their structuring of theories was aimed
at dramatic effect:

1. Splashed and sank.

2. Landed and died on Niku.

3. Captured:

	A. Turned back and got caught.

	B. Were spying and got caught.

	C. Deliberately landed in Jap territory
		to spark a "search" that would
		really be reconnaissance.

Dying because of poor planning and bad communications isn't
stuff for a major motion picture.

Dying for love of one's country is, especially if one
can tap into the hatred of government and the reservoir
of paranoia that it's still a mystery because They
Are Keeping Secrets.

				Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:02:54
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: National Geo Show

>From Karen Hoy
>
>... The speculation on Irene Bolam was particularly entertaining in
>a ridiculous way.

I loved the way they demolished the "face evidence."

					Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:38:06
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: National geo show

To Marty Moleski,

Irene Bolam is my very favorite myth. Unfortunately Nat Geo
didn't heed my advice and interview Larry Heller, Irene Bolams
biological son, still alive and well, who tells us that from 1934 to
1982 ,when she died, was the very SAME woman was his mother, Irene
Heller , later Irene Bolam. She was not Amelia Earhart!! Beside the
face discrepancy, Irene Bolam was about 5' 5 1/2", not 5' 8".

REB
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:03:08
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: National Geo show

Irene Bolam has always been one of my favorite myths, too.

But I have to tell you, for my money, this business about the Macy's
receipts has edged Irene out for the top spot.

LTM, who kept her receipts in case she wanted to return something,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:54:04
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: National Geo show

>From Ron Bright
>   Irene Bolam is my very favorite myth. Unfortunately Nat Geo
>didn't heed my advice and interview Larry Heller, Irene Bolams
>biological son, still alive and well, who tells us that from 1934
>to 1982 ,when she died, was the very SAME woman was his mother,
>Irene Heller, later Irene Bolam. She was not Amelia Earhart!!
>Beside the face discrepancy, Irene Bolam was about 5' 5 1/2", not 5' 8".

Un-be-[insert expletive]-lievable!

It just goes to show that the program isn't really interested
in the truth--just drama.

It was better TV to demolish the face-morphing "evidence"
(because it's all done with pictures, and TV is all about
pictures) than to have the son come onscreen and testify
(that's "talking heads," and that's not good TV).

Having said that, you did a fine job as a "talking head."  :o)

				Marty
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:21:55
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: National geo show

For Karen Hoy

You say Macy's is on 34th Street in Manhattan--

There's also several Macy's in California --
there's even one in Sunnyvale, CA!

George Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:51:49
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: National Geo show

For George Werth

Thanks for the information, but the Sunnyvale location opened in 1979.

In 1937, there were no Macy's stores on the West Coast.

LTM (who prefers discount)
Karen
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:29:24
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: National Geo show

Women are notorious for being "Pack Rats" for clothing store
receipts. My wife and her friends have come up with receipts
that are over 10 years old for clothes. They keep them in every
nook and cranny of their purse or bag and they all have many
many of the bags. It is not a far fetched idea. I read where
more than one "witness" new about the briefcase.
Jimbo
***************************

<sigh>
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:29:43
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Re: National Geo show

I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I wish more time had been spent
with Ric.

I recorded it directly from the satellite dish to DVD, with the least
file compression to obtain the best picture.  I did edit out the
commercials, though, while watching and recording.  If TIGHAR needs
it, let me know.

LTM, Suzanne
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:30:11
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      War of the Geezers

National Geographic's "Uncovered History" show about the Amelia
Earhart mystery has predictably excellent production values and the
stand in for AE in the recreations looked more like Amelia than any
impersonator I've ever seen.   I thought the section dealing with
Betty and her notebook was well done. The show was not, however, an
honest description, let alone a fair assessment, of the on-going
effort to discover Earhart's fate. On the other hand, anyone who
thinks that such a goal was ever really Nat'l Geo's intention doesn't
understand television. The goal, forever and always, is to keep the
viewer away from the remote for the duration of the program.

With that cynical truth understood, it's interesting to see how the
show's producers structured the program for maximum entertainment
value.    What they apparently decided would be most engaging was to
characterize the competing theories about Earhart's fate as a battle
of opinions among impassioned gray-haired (or, in some cases, non-
haired) men.

To make the concept work, the spokesmen had to be presented as more
or less equals.  Elgen Long is "a veteran pilot and navigator."  I
"head up a group involved in the search and recovery of historic
aircraft." Alfred Capelle, their odd choice as advocate for the
Japanese Capture theory, is the UN ambassador for the Republic of the
Marshall Islands.  Rollin Reineck is "a veteran navigator from the
Pacific in WWII." Just a bunch of Don Quixotes, each tilting at his
own windmill.

The interview with me was carefully edited to remove any mention of
TIGHAR or the fact that the remains of a castaway were found on
Nikumaroro. Such a disclosure might, God forbid, tip the show's
"balance."

There were a few glaring factual errors.
At one point the narrator says Earhart took off from Lae with "1,100
pounds of fuel."  That's just sloppy.
They also describe Itasca as being "anchored" off Howland.  Picky, I
know, but I did correct them on that when they were here and they got
it wrong anyway.
More serious is the narrator's statement that the U.S. requested
permission to search the Marshall Islands for Earhart but the
Japanese refused.  Didn't happen.  No such request was made.

On the positive side, I thought Ron Bright came off quite well as The
Voice of Reason even when his reasons were unreasonable.
It was also nice to see the Irene Bolam stupidity get some pretty
rough treatment.  It was apparently the only target soft enough for
Nat'l Geo to really go after.

In the end, Elgen Long got the final word, exonerating Earhart and
blaming Noonan and the Coast Guard for the disappearance.  And so the
legend lives on.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 3 Dec 2006 10:44:13
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: War of the Geezers

I agree, Ron did a great job coming off at least as opinionated as
that Texas lawyer. <G>

Elgin was treated softly and only the Irene Bolam nonsense was fed to
the sharks.

On another note, what has happened to Angus? I'm disappointed we have
not heard more of his theories.

The forum has been strangely quiet since the book came out. I'm sure
(almost sure) the book has not deterred the Marshall or crashed and
sank folks.

One thing few ever caught on to is that this whole adventure has NOT
been to find Amelia Earhart although that clearly would have been a
great byproduct of our efforts. This has been more about creating a
scientific search/investigation model or protocol. A "how to" for
similar investigations in the future.

1. Defining the problem.
2. Gathering, sorting and classifying the facts
3. Determining and ranking the possibilities.
4. Eliminating false leads.
5. Constantly reevaluating the data and thus the possibilities.
6. Slowly zeroing in on the most likely answer.
7. Frequently starting over at square one at the discovery of new
evidence.

I could go on of course but that's the general idea. Gardner is our
rabbit trail and it must run it's course. Others are welcome to chase
other rabbits. May the best rabbit win.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 3 Dec 2006 10:46:20
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: National Geo Show

For Karen Hoy

You said: "Thanks for the information, but the Sunnyvale location
opened in 1979. In 1937 there were no Macy's stores on the West Coast."

You are quite right, Karen, 1937 was even before my time
in Sunnyvale, CA -- I first set foot in Sunnyvale in 1959 when
reporting for work at Lockheed Missiles & Space Company
(LMSC).
Life was much simpler back then -- before all those Mexicans
and immigrants from the East Coast (can't forget AHnold,
from Austria who 'Made our Day') arrived to camp in our back
yard.
My Mother once told me, "To a New Yorker, 'Out West' is
anywhere west of the Hudson River -- 'Way Out West' is
anywhere west of the Mississippi River!"

According to Macy's Milestones webpage, Rowland
Hussey Macy moved his store to the 34th Street and Herald
Square location in 1902. What took him so long to find Sunnyvale, CA?

Anyway, what does Amelia's maybe having some Macy's
sales receipts in her possession contribute to the mystery of
her disappearance?

Cheers
George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630

**************************************

>Anyway, what does Amelia's maybe having some Macy's
>sales receipts in her possession contribute to the mystery of
>her disappearance?
 
Absolutely nothing. No more postings about Macy's, please.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 3 Dec 2006 10:46:48
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: National Geo show

       Good Show!  I love a Mystery with many layers. You never can
spread it on too thick to keep a good mystery alive for TV
consumption. The show's value lies in the following quote.

      "The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie -
deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent,
persuasive and unrealistic".

Pres. John F. Kennedy  July 11, 1962

Respectfully,

Tom Strang   #  2559
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 3 Dec 2006 10:47:18
From:         Mike Zuschlag
Subject:      Re: War of the Geezers

>From Ric
>
>...In the end, Elgen Long got the final word, exonerating Earhart and
>blaming Noonan and the Coast Guard for the disappearance.  And so the
>legend lives on.

That sounds odd. I haven't read his book, but I thought Long's
version of crash-and-sank required that Earhart grossly mis-manage
power/fuel consumption, draining away hours of time she would've had
to look for Howland after Noonan quite successfully navigated them
relatively close to it. Or is that what *we* know must happen for
Long's version to be true? Or was some of what Long said neatly left
on the editing room floor for the sake of the legend?

--Mike
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:53:38
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Long's book

For Mike Zuschlag

Referring to Long, Mike writes: >> I haven't read his book <<

Mike, if you get a chance, I recommend you read Long's book. I found it to
be interesting, even though he didn't convince me that she splashed and
sank. In fact, I'm gonna go back and read a few parts of it again. There is
one point in his book that stands out in my mind; he states pretty
definitely that he has known for many years (I think the figure he used was
25 years or so) exactly what happened to Earhart. It left me with the
impression that he began with an outcome, and then wrote the book in such a
way to "prove" the outcome.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:53:35
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Radio Call signs

Has Tighar or anyone ever found the owners of the KACA, Q25, and
KCWR call signs heard by the Itasca radio operators on 2 or 3 July 37?

REB
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:32:13
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Radio call signs

Bob Brandenburg and I have checked several sources but nothing has
turned up yet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:43:52
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Searching the reef face - Going all the way?

I - along with a lot of other people - have my fingers crossed that Niku
V will produce the "any idiot artifact" and finally put to rest the
question of WHERE Amelia and Fred ended up. Unlike some, though, I am
pinning my hopes on finding part of the airplane on the reef face,
because I suspect we have a much better chance of finding an
identifiable bit there than we do on land.

That said, how deep and over what areas is the underwater search going
to be able to go? All the way to the ocean floor, all the way around the
island, checking each dark nook and cranny? I realize that TIGHAR is in
a cooperative venture with an outside agency for this part of the
search, but what terms is the whole effort operating under?

LTM, who knows about finding tiny bits in gumbo mud,
Monty Fowler, #2189CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:29:15
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Searching the reef face - Going all the way?

Monty Fowler writes;

>I am pinning my hopes on finding part of the airplane on the reef
>face, because I suspect we have a much better chance of finding an
>identifiable bit there than we do on land.

If we're talking about finding a conclusively identifiable piece of
the plane, I'd agree that it's more likely that such a piece is in
the water than on land. However, in my opinion, the odds of finding
conclusive evidence that Earhart was on Nikumaroro are better on land
than in the water. The deep water off the western edge of the reef is
our best guess as to where the airplane went, but whether there is
really anything there is, at this point, unknown.

By contrast, the Seven Site is a known archaeological site.  We have
already found hard evidence there that strongly suggests that it is
the castaway campsite where bones were found in 1940.  Based on what
we have recovered, we have every reason to expect that there is more
stuff there and there is at least a chance - maybe a good chance -
that some of it can be linked conclusively to Earhart or Noonan.

>how deep and over what areas is the underwater search going
>to be able to go? All the way to the ocean floor, all the way
>around the island, checking each dark nook and cranny? I realize
>that TIGHAR is in a cooperative venture with an outside agency for
>this part of the search, but what terms is the whole effort
>operating under?

We need to be very clear about this.  We are not in a cooperative
venture with the New England Aquarium. Their funding is for coral
research, not Earhart research. They will be out there looking at
coral, not looking for airplane wreckage.  As it happens, one of the
places they will be looking at coral is off the west end of Niku in
the very area where we suspect the Electra went over the edge.  The
marine biologist in charge of the research, Dr. Greg Stone, is very
familiar with our work and has passed along leads before.  It was
Greg who spotted the airplane (?) wheel on the reef during the
Aquarium's 2002 trip that prompted TIGHAR's 2003 expedition.

How deep the New England Aquarium's submersibles go in 2007 will
depend upon their capability and their research needs but, as I
understand it, 2,000 feet is about the limit.  Niku's reef is a steep
slope. The farther you go from the edge, the deeper the "bottom" is -
and it goes a whole lot deeper than 2,000 feet. Assuming that the
Electra did get washed over the reef edge and get busted up in the
surf, the pieces would logically tumble down the reef slope until
they either got hung up on something or the angle of the slope became
mild enough so that an equilibrium was reached.  How deep that might
be is unknown.

There is also the point that both TIGHAR's Niku V expedition and the
New England Aquarium research is dependent on funding coming through
that is, at this time, by no means certain.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:01:11
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

WERE OTHERS LISTENING?

    We are all familar with the PAA radio intercepts from their
stations at Honolulu, Wake and Midway on 4 and 5 July 37 and the
purported intersect in the Phoenix Island group.

     Here is the question for radio experts
.
     Because we had about 6 or 7 Navy "listening posts" and
DFcapability at Oahu (Hypo), Guam, Philippines, Brainbridge Island
(Seattle), all  with huge antenna arrays to pick up Japanese signals
(coded or uncoded Morse) in 1937, I am wondering if any of these
stations were directed,or were listening for any signals, during the
July 1937 Earhart search.

     As I understand it, these Navy listening posts were independent
of the PAA stations.

     If they were separate from the PAA intercept stations, is there
any record of them listening for AE and the results?? Or are these
classified?

     My hypothesis also is that IF Earhart were found by the Japanese
in the Marshalls, say at Mili or Jaluit, our Navy intercept stations
would have picked up a spike in Japanese signals from these areas, or
ships, for surely they would have had to signal Saipan or Tokyo of
their invovlement.

     Has anyone looked at the traffic analysis of these stations on 2
or 3 July 37?

     As I understand STATION SAIL may have some records at the
National Archives at Seattle, Wa , which may be a starting point.

Ron B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:06:15
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Naval Radio Station in Wailupe, Oahu was listening, as we have telegrams and
information from them.  They heard the famous 281 message.

A complete examination of all naval messages, correspondence, and notes
indicate none of the other Naval radio stations were involved, except
Tutuilla, in American Samoa, which was not a listening post per se. I have
tracked down the various Navy Radio Station logs, at one time located at
Crane, IN, but transferred circa 2000 to the National Archives. Because of
the classified nature of almost all of these records, NARA stated it would
be several years before they would be available for examination.
Personally, I do not think this would be a fruitful line of research,
considering the benefit of a significant time invested in examining the
records.  Others may disagree.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:07:23
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      TIGHAR in the magazine Naval History

The most recent Naval History, Feb. 2007, has two articles relating to
TIGHAR.  The first deals with TIGHAR's involvement with the Naval Historical
Center in the assessment of the Douglass TBD Devastators in Jaliut Atoll.
The second is a nice review of Finding Amelia by Jon R. Donnelly.  The
review is positive towards Ric Gillespie.  "Gillespie is the neutral
reporter who sets forth the details of heroic intent, human error,
technological limitations, and communications mix-ups that were key
components of the Earhart disappearance...Gillespie has reminded us that it
is the journey---not the destination---that fascinates us."
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:08:17
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Ron Bright wrote:

>My hypothesis also is that IF Earhart were found by the Japanese in
>the Marshalls, say at Mili or Jaluit, our Navy intercept stations
>would have picked up a spike in Japanese signals from these areas,
>or ships, for surely they would have had to signal Saipan or Tokyo
>of their involvement.

Ron, a spike in Japanese radio traffic MIGHT indicate as you suggest
but also there could be a spike simply because of the lost aviators
and the ongoing search. For example they might be asking Japan if
they should aid in the search or if Japan intended to do so or if
they should be monitoring US ship movements in case they approached
the Marshalls or for a number of unrelated military reasons. Indeed,
you might find a spike at that time most any place in the world in re
the lost aviators.

I don't think this would help but you have a very good point there
may be other radios logging calls.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:09:01
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

All sorts of stuff, more than 25 years old, was recently
declassified, unless it was reprocessed and re-classified.  The major
problem now would be finding where it was stored, and if it was stored.
Dan Postellon  TIGHAR 2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:09:57
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Ron Bright writes:

>My hypothesis also is that IF Earhart were found by the Japanese
>in the Marshalls, say at Mili or Jaluit, our Navy intercept
>stations  would have picked up a spike in Japanese signals from
>these areas, or  ships, for surely they would have had to signal
>Saipan or Tokyo of  their involvement.
>
>Has anyone looked at the traffic analysis of these stations on 2
>or 3 July 37?

Just so that I am clear on how you plan to test this hypothesis:

If we find a spike in radio traffic on these days, that indicates
POSSIBLY the Japanese picked up Earhart. Is this a correct
understanding of testing your hypothesis?

If we DO NOT find a spike in radio traffic on these days, that
indicates that the Japanese did NOT find Earhart on these days. Is
this a correct understanding of testing your hypothesis?

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5@rochester.rr.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:16:08
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

>From Ron Bright
>
>WERE OTHERS LISTENING?
>
>We are all familar with the PAA radio intercepts from their
>stations at Honolulu, Wake and Midway on 4 and 5 July 37 and the
>purported intersect in the Phoenix Island group.
>
>Here is the question for radio experts.
>
>Because we had about 6 or 7 Navy "listening posts" and
>DF capability at Oahu (Hypo), Guam, Philippines, Brainbridge Island
>(Seattle)...

And you know about this DF capability because . . . .???

>...all  with huge antenna arrays to pick up Japanese signals  (coded
>or uncoded Morse) in 1937,

What specific DF antenna configuration did the Navy use at those
installations in 1937?

Where exactly was the Oahu DF antenna?

>I am wondering if any of these  stations were directed,or were
>listening for any signals, during the  July 1937 Earhart search.

Where would the answer be found?

>As I understand it, these Navy listening posts were independent  of
>the PAA stations.

One would hope so, since the PAA stations were owned and operated by
a private commercial company.

>If they were separate from the PAA intercept stations, is there
>any record of them listening for AE and the results??

It would be reasonable to assume that Navy intercept stations kept
records of their activities pursuant to assigned tasks.   As to
whether those records still exist is anybody's guess.

>Or are these  classified?

That would be a good bet, if they exist.

>My hypothesis also is that IF Earhart were found by the Japanese
>in the Marshalls, say at Mili or Jaluit, our Navy intercept
>stations  would have picked up a spike in Japanese signals from
>these areas, or  ships, for surely they would have had to signal
>Saipan or Tokyo of  their invovlement.

How do you plan to test your hypothesis?

>Has anyone looked at the traffic analysis of these stations on 2
>or 3 July 37?

Dunno.   The premise of your question requires that the analysis
exists, that it has been declassified, and that it is available in
the archives.

Assuming all those conditions were satisfied and it turns out there
is no mention of AE in any of the intercepted and decrypted Japanese
traffic, what conclusion would you draw?

What percentage of Japanese coded traffic was decrypted?   How would
you know whether AE was mentioned in undecrypted traffic?

>As I understand STATION SAIL may have some records at the  National
>Archives at Seattle, Wa , which may be a starting point.

Have you checked?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:08:03
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Randy,
   My question is were our super sensitive listening posts, such as
HYPO on Oahu, INDEPENDENT of the standard Navy and Coast guard
receivers. For instance SAIL at Seattle was listening to Japanese
codes, but I don't know if they were listening for AE?

Ron B
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:08:31
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Paige,
    You bring up the difficulty of testing my hypothesis that there
would be a "spike" in radio traffic from the Koshu, Jaluit, Mili ,
etc. I agree.  But analysis of radio traffic, sudden increases,
unique call signs, change in code,  stengths, and patterns have been
part of the intelligence operation since the thirties.

As an example, lets say that Mili rarely sends out traffic and it is
mostly weather stuff, then about 1:00 pm, 2 July, Mili begains
sending fifty coded msgs to Koshu. This information may suggest
further investigation, unless those signals are immediately decoded.

     Alan C brings up the point that the increase in traffic in
itself could  merely be a failed search, and other questions and
clarifications requested by the searchers.

    Another example.  Suppose Station Hypo (Honolulu) and SAIL
(Seattle) found a big spike in radio traffic from a small Japanese
merchant ship, identified by a known call sign, just 50 miles
northwest of Howland, about 1200 2 July, located with their DF,
sending hundreds of signals to Tokyo, when in the past they rarely
sent out anyting but general data.

     This hypothetical would indicate signals that may well be worth
decoding, if not in Japanese Morse.

      These are the kinds of patterns the intelligence guys make
their living on. Not infallible but indicative of somekind of unusual
event. Believe me this type of analysis, as Ric would put it, is
above my pay grade.


REB
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:09:07
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/ PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Alan,

As you say, any "spike" in radio traffic could of course be
attributed to the Koshu or other ship or station merely reporting a
negative search, asking for directions and the like. It would take a
radio analysis expert to determine if there was a signficance to
those signals, such as were all the signals going to Tokyo, or
Saipan,  the call signs, and was Tokyo sending an in ordinate amount
to say Mili. I don't pretend to understand how these analyst
determine some signficance.
Of course the answer would be in decoding the traffic by the cryto
people, not just analysing patterns. You can bet that if Amelia or
the Electra were found by the Japanese, that they were asking for
instructions. And if they didn't find AE, they would have reported
back to Tokyo. The Koshu left the search area, Jaluit, on 19 July 37.

Adm Layton, later Adm Nimitiz fleet intelligence officer,  was in
Tokyo having tea with Yamamoto when Earhart went down, and exchanged
views; Layton thought that the Japanese were pretty luke warm about
the search. If Layton ever learned of AEs fate, he didn't mention it
in his book.
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:21:10
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/  PAA and Navy Listening Posts

For Bob Brandenburg

Bob asks some good questions regarding my post, same title, on 26
Dec. I used Layton's "I WAS THERE " and Stinnetts "DAY OF DECEIT"
for  historical background material regarding radio traffic
intelligence. The rest was my best guess !

  I intended the post to encourage some ideas on how to check out
Navy Pacific radio intelligence in 1937, if it exists. It could be
"hard" evidence of a Japanese decoded signal such as  "We have found
Earhart near Gardner Island floating, what shall we do?". Mayge
researchers have tried. I don't know.

According to Stinnett, Hypo (H) station on Oahu controlled the mid-
Pacific network of listening posts with some numerous radio
intelligence specialist. In addition, 32 specialist manned 5 RDF
stations-Dutch Harbor, Midway, Samoa, and 2 on Oahu. I read this to
mean that these Navy posts were entirely different from the various
PAA radio stations through out the Pacific. Was it also possible that
all of these radio stations, like PAA, could take a bearing on the
signal? [ see p 62 and page 64 for a Map showing the location of
Hypo, near Heeia, Oahu, east side of Hawaii.]

Both books describe the development and mission of the Intercept and
DF stations. I have no idea of the "specific antenna configuration"
these stations used.

I would believe, and a guess,  that these Intercept stations when
advised of  the missing Electra,would have been told to check out her
frequencies if possible. It seems that Samoa and Honolulu would have
been in a position to have heard any post loss signals. And  was this
technically possible.

   The answer if there was a Navy radio analysis may be found by some
operator coming forth or some decoded or  coded intercepts are
discovered. That is the key, where are they?

I would have thought by now Earhart researchers would have spent a
great deal of time looking for any Japanese radio traffic intercepted
between 2-9 July 1937. Maybe they have.

  As I related some researcher believe she went down in the Marshalls
or in the Gilberts, close enough for the Japanese stations to pick up
post loss signals, if any. If she did go down there,and was found by
the Japanese,  I maintain the they would have been burning up the
shortwave airways to let Tokyo know.

In answer to your last question that assuming we could find a July
1937 radio analysis (decoded and translated)  for Koshu, and stations
at Jaluit, Mili and Saipan, and found only routine,  traffic of an
innocuous nature , I would conclude the Japanese didn't find Amelia
or the Electra.

I intend to check out the National Archives of SAIL at Seattle
Washington.

Thanks for the stimulating questions..

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:21:57
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/  PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Ron Bright misses my point. I'm not asking what methods you will use
to test this hypothesis. I want to know what your null and
alternative hypotheses are. I want you to state them, not me. And in
particular, I want to know what conclusion you will draw if there is
NO spike in messages from the Japanese stations.

--
Paige Miller, #2565
LTM (who never had a null hypothesis)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:42:36
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/  PAA and Navy Listening Posts

A couple of comments on Ron Bright's responses to Bob Brandenburg's
questions:

>Bob asks some good questions regarding my post, same title, on 26
>Dec. I used Layton's "I WAS THERE " and Stinnetts "DAY OF DECEIT"
>for  historical background material regarding radio traffic
>intelligence. The rest was my best guess !

Without cited sources, the allegations in Layton's and Stinnetts'
books is no different from your best guess.

>I intended the post to encourage some ideas on how to check out
>Navy Pacific radio intelligence in 1937, if it exists.

I'm waiting for credible cited sources that document the extent of
Navy Pacific radio intelligence-gathering activity in 1937.

>It could be  "hard" evidence of a Japanese decoded signal such as
>"We have found Earhart near Gardner Island floating, what shall we
>do?". Mayge researchers have tried. I don't know.

At this point I'm aware of no evidence to suggest that there was any
Japanese naval activity in British colonial waters in 1937.

>According to Stinnett, Hypo (H) station on Oahu controlled the mid-
>Pacific network of listening posts with some numerous radio
>intelligence specialist. In addition, 32 specialist manned 5 RDF
>stations-Dutch Harbor, Midway, Samoa, and 2 on Oahu.

Why do you believe him?  That's a lot of detail.  What's his source?

>Both books describe the development and mission of the Intercept
>and DF stations. I have no idea of the "specific antenna
>configuration" these stations used.

Everything that was going on in the Pacific in 1937 is now viewed
through the lens of later events.  It's an understandable error, but
it is an error.  Events must be interpreted in the context of their
own time.

>I would believe, and a guess,  that these Intercept stations when
>advised of  the missing Electra,would have been told to check out
>her frequencies if possible. It seems that Samoa and Honolulu would
>have been in a position to have heard any post loss signals. And
>was this technically possible.

You're speculating about something that is well documented. There
were major U.S. Navy radio stations in Samoa (Navy Radio Tutuila -
call sign NPU ) and Honolulu (Navy Radio Wailupe - call sign NPM).
After Earhart disappeared, both stations monitored her frequencies
and both heard and reported post-loss signals.  Neither station had
DF capability.

>The answer if there was a Navy radio analysis may be found by some
>operator coming forth or some decoded or  coded intercepts are
>discovered. That is the key, where are they?

Again, you're manufacturing mystery.  Of course there was an on-going
navy radio analysis throughout the search.  There are dozens of
messages detailing who heard what and whether or not the signals were
considered credible.  The map used at Fourteenth Naval District
headquarters to plot the radio bearings and manage the search still
exists and is reproduced on the DVD that accompanies Finding Amelia.
Any suggestion that there was an entirely separate shadow operation
that recorded and plotted additional information gathered from secret
sources is based purely on imagination.

>I would have thought by now Earhart researchers would have spent a
>great deal of time looking for any Japanese radio traffic
>intercepted between 2-9 July 1937. Maybe they have.

Where would you look for that?

>As I related some researcher believe she went down in the Marshalls
>or in the Gilberts, close enough for the Japanese stations to pick
>up post loss signals, if any. If she did go down there,and was
>found by the Japanese,  I maintain the they would have been burning
>up the shortwave airways to let Tokyo know.

I've never heard a good reason why, if that happened, Tokyo wouldn't
have notified Ambassador Grew.

>In answer to your last question that assuming we could find a July
>1937 radio analysis (decoded and translated)  for Koshu, and
>stations at Jaluit, Mili and Saipan, and found only routine,
>traffic of an innocuous nature , I would conclude the Japanese
>didn't find Amelia or the Electra.

Interesting logic.
Given - If the Japanese found Earhart it was the vessel Koshu that
found her.
Given - If Koshu found Earhart the vessel would have notified Jaluit
(Japanese administrative headquarters for the Marshalls), Mili (where
there was no military installation at all in 1937), or Saipan
(Japanese administrative headquarters for the Marianas).
Ergo - If radio traffic from Koshu was routine and innocuous, then
the Japanese did not find her.

>I intend to check out the National Archives of SAIL at Seattle
>Washington.

Let us know if you find anything interesting.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:49:28
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/  PAA and Navy Listening Posts

>From Ron Bright
>
>Both books describe the development and mission of the Intercept
>and  DF stations. I have no idea of the "specific antenna
>configuration"  these stations used.

You might find the official Naval Security Group a better source.
For example, you would find that the DF equipment on Oahu in 1937 was
at Wahiawa.

As for antenna configurations, you might find it useful to read the
transcript of the Hart Inquiry testimony of CDR Wesley Wright, USN,
who was Assistant Communications Officer for CINCPACFLT on 7 December
1941.    Wright testified that the DF sets in use at the time of
Pearl Harbor -- and, by extension, in use in 1937 according to the
NAVSECGRU history -- were types DT and DY.    A little further
research would lead you to the fact that these were very primitive
systems, based on a single pair of opposed dipoles, without a sense
antenna for ambiguity resolution, and were not very good for getting
bearings on short transmissions.

>I would have thought by now Earhart researchers would have spent a
>great deal of time looking for any Japanese radio traffic
>intercepted  between 2-9 July 1937. Maybe they have.

If you were an Earhart researcher, how would you go about doing that?

Apropos of your concept of looking for spikes in Japanese radio
traffic, why would you consider the period 2-9 July 1937 to provide
an adequate sample size for detecting spikes at a suitable
statistical confidence level?

>As I related some researcher believe she went down in the
>Marshalls  or in the Gilberts, close enough for the Japanese
>stations to pick up  post loss signals, if any. If she did go down
>there,and was found by  the Japanese,  I maintain the they would
>have been burning up the  shortwave airways to let Tokyo know.

How many messages would constitute "burning up the shortwave
airways"?    How many messages would be needed to "let Tokyo know"?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:50:02
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: Radio intercepts

Without being able to decrypt & translate the Japanese radio messages
'intercepted' the week of July 2nd 1937, it would be impossible to
determine whether any of such radio transmissions were related to the
Earhart search...

We might recall that the Marco Polo Bridge 'incident', triggering  a
much broader Japanese incursion in China, occurred on July 7th 1937,
...which might also explain such a sudden increase (or 'spike') in
Japanese radio traffic with &/or within the Japanese mandated
territories...

Since many post-war historians suggest that the Japanese were quite
suspicious of U.S. intentions with respect to the Japanese mandates,
....should hostilities break-out over very strenuous U.S. objections,
(including strict trade restrictions & embargos for strategic materials,
introduced by the U.S.)  ...to the Japanese 'war' in China, ...it would
only seem reasonable to expect that radio communications with & within
the Japanese mandates might 'increase' the amount of such radio traffic
over what might have been the 'norm' for that region, ...during that
first week of July 1937...

Don N.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:09:26
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/  PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Bob, that was the best point yet. July 2-9 for sampling would clearly
not accomplish anything. One would have to check radio traffic
perhaps for months and on a daily basis. I suggest that because
traffic might "spike" normally near the first of the month for
routine recurring reports. Or maybe at the end of the month for the
same reason. It would take extensive monitoring to filter out what
were recurring normal spikes and what was an unusual one. Again, as I
mentioned to Ron, even an unusual spike on the relevant days might
mean nothing more than they were following and reporting on the
search traffic.

I think it was a commendable idea but I don't see how there could be
a workable analysis. Obviously, traffic in the clear or decoded, if
in fact, a compromised code was used, would answer the question. I
think we would have known about that at the time.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:25:51
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/  PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Regarding spikes in radio message traffic, I have examined the Coast Guard
and Hawaiian (Navy) records that document the number of transmissions at
each station.  These records only show the number of transmissions handled;
nothing else.  During that time that Earhart disappeared, both the Coast
Guard and Naval facilities in Hawaii showed no statistical increase in
volume of radio messages over the couple of months prior and after July,
1937.

If the US Navy and CG didn't show a spike in radio traffic volume, I'd be
very surprised to see any spike in Japanese radio message traffic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:32:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio Intercepts/  PAA and Navy Listening Posts

Randy, that doesn't surprise me at all. If you think about it there
really was no reason for a spike. On the other hand had they found
her there probably would have been BRIEFLY then everyone would have
got back to work. <G>

Alan