Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nina Paxton  (Read 2277 times)

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 645
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2018, 04:35:00 PM »

Several websites claim the price was $750 back in 1936 for the Zenith Stratosphere.

An advertisement for the Zenith 25 Tube Stratosphere Radio, dated 1936, is shown on Pinterest, and it also shows the radio priced at $750.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Leon R White

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2018, 05:28:23 PM »

In Les's post he says he's attached some pdfs of newspaper articles.  Were they attached?  And are newspaper articles of some unique truthfullness that would merit reading them, or are these just regular newspaper articles?
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #32 on: August 04, 2018, 05:42:59 PM »

Hmmmm - I wonder if Philco was considered a low-end brand.  I wonder how the $65 price compared to, for example, the Klenck's 25-tube Zenith "Statosphere"?
The Philco 38-9K was a less expensive and less capable receiver than the Zenith Stratosphere 1000-Z. 

The Stratosphere sold for $750 in its first model year (1934), nearly 14,000 USD in today's money (2017).

A schematic of the Philco's tuning range provides the following specifications:
Tuning Ranges
Two: Range one 530 to 1720 kilocycles
        Range two 5.7 to 18.2 megacycles

By comparison the Zenith 1000-Z Service Manual lists a tuning range of between .53 megacycles and 63.6 megacycles (63,600 kilocycles). Betty's radio was thus capable of receiving up to the 10th harmonic of Earhart's day frequency (6210 kHz). Nina Paxton could receive up to the 2nd harmonic (12420 kHz) of Earhart's day frequency.

Bob Brandenburg has stated in his radio analysis that Nina Paxton's odds of hearing Earhart were "0.003 on 24,840 kHz, the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s daytime frequency (6210 kHz); less than one chance in a quadrillion on any lower frequency."

If Nina Paxton was using an unmodified Philco 38-9K in 1937, and if Bob Brandenburg's analysis of radio propagation and receiving odds by tuning frequency is accurate, Nina Paxton is unlikely to have heard Earhart in 1937.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078R
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5318
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2018, 07:58:21 AM »

In Les's post he says he's attached some pdfs of newspaper articles.  Were they attached?  And are newspaper articles of some unique truthfullness that would merit reading them, or are these just regular newspaper articles?

I can post them if you like but they're just well-known newspaper articles in which Earhart refers to Fred as "Captain Noonan", or "Captain Fred Noonan."  Les missed the point.  She never referred to Noonan as "The Captain."
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • member #4155
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2018, 08:16:11 AM »




Quote from: Joe Cerniglia link=topic=2017.msg42507#msg42507
.

Bob Brandenburg has stated in his radio analysis that Nina Paxton's odds of hearing Earhart were "0.003 on 24,840 kHz, the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s daytime frequency (6210 kHz); less than one chance in a quadrillion on any lower frequency."

If Nina Paxton was using an unmodified Philco 38-9K in 1937, and if Bob Brandenburg's analysis of radio propagation and receiving odds by tuning frequency is accurate, Nina Paxton is unlikely to have heard Earhart in 1937.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078R
In his post Les McKinney quotes Paxton as saying she was listening at 12 mega cycles.

“Since hearing her so well on Saturday, July 3, I have heard a few sentences at times that could have been KHAQQ unless they were KHAQQ," and in a letter to Congressman Vinson on August 12th said, "Sunday August 8, at 10:15 p.m., I heard the word "Earhart" and a few sentences which I could not understand other than the sound "matoe" on 12 megacycles."

Even if she did defy the odds and hear AE one time it really stretches credibility that she would be  picking up further messages on several further occasions well into August.

I know the credible messages were over by July 9, were there other reports after that or was Paxton the only one to claim to be still hearing them?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5318
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2018, 08:27:27 AM »

I know the credible messages were over by July 9, were there other reports after that or was Paxton the only one to claim to be still hearing them?

The last technically-credible message was number Message 170 received by Howland Island on the night of July 8.  There were seven reported receptions after that (not counting Paxton's), five of which were by private citizens.  They are listed in the 2011 Post-Loss Radio Catalog and Analysis
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2018, 12:16:37 PM »

Even if she did defy the odds and hear AE one time
I have to say this is fascinating. Some thoughts:
The official odds that Mrs. Paxton heard Earhart on anything lower than 24840 kHz, as cited in the radio message catalogue, are one in one quadrillion. With all due respect (and respect is due, IMHO), it's really hard for me to see that as just defying the odds. That's more like defying the laws of space, time, gravity, and whatever else remains of physics all at the same time. (I take the number literally, as a mathematically derived probability, as I think I was intended to.)

One quadrillion is a number so huge as to beggar human comprehension. It's the number of stars in about 10% of the entire universe that we can see with the best telescopes. For all practical purposes, the odds were zero.

Yet Nina Paxton wrote to Time Magazine on July 14, 1937 that she was listening on the "band between 12 and 13 mHz" (2nd harmonic of AE's day frequency was 12.42 mHz) and heard Earhart with a reception that was "anything but weak."

Ms. Paxton's official status concerning her report is "not credible." Maybe she heard something that just wasn't there (and got lucky in naming the right harmonic). Maybe she was a hoaxer. We can agree she embellished, invented, over-interpreted, misremembered, and altered her story over time. But Matt, if she "did defy the odds and hear AE one time" her status, in my opinion, is probably closer to "uncertain." And if, however she reported it afterward, if whom she heard was AE that one time, it means that the radio propagation to frequency probabilities might warrant a second look. But those are the possibilities, as I see them. I'm absolutely willing to entertain more if I'm missing some.

Other than that, I agree with everything you've said. (I think identifying the Philco in the photograph was most impressive, btw.)

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078R

Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 721
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2018, 12:33:20 PM »

Describing how far they were from Lae and listing distances  and generic directions of islands really far away does not seem like a good way to describe where you are.  It does seem like chatter she may have heard other operators using to describe the area of Pacific they were in. She may have really thought she heard her, not paying real attention, and then tried to make sense of it after the fact.

edit: I think the one in one quadrillion chance is the nail in the coffin.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 01:11:44 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5318
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2018, 04:46:54 PM »

Bob Brandenburg, referring to the Philco service guide for the model 38-9, says:

"The receiver had 2 tuning bands:
(1) 530 kHz to 1720 kHz  (standard broadcast)

(2) 5.7 MHz to 18.2 Mhz (shortwave)

The schematic shows there was no RF amplifier stage.  The input signal went directly to the mixer stage where the signal frequency was converted to the internal intermediate frequency (IF) of 470 Khz.  The mixer input circuit was tuned, but the absence of a tuned RF amplifier preceding the mixer means the receiver selectivity likely was less than optimum.

The schematic also shows connection points for connection to an antenna.  That could have been an antenna mounted in the radio cabinet, or an external antenna.  It's unknown what kind of antenna Paxton had.

The upper limit of the designed frequency range, 18.2 MHz, was well below the 18.64MHz 4th harmonic of AE's day frequency.  However, the RF selectivity could have been broad enough to allow a 4th harmonic signal to be received at the top end of the tuning dial."


But, of course, Paxton said on more than one occasion that she heard Earhart on the "band between 12 and 13 mHz".
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2018, 01:45:19 PM »

The schematic also shows connection points for connection to an antenna.  That could have been an antenna mounted in the radio cabinet, or an external antenna.  It's unknown what kind of antenna Paxton had.
One question that seems to me worth asking of Northwest Research Associates Inc., which has generously offered to review the reception probabilities pro bono, is: What if any impact would the length, type, and direction of a hypothetical antenna attached to the Philco 38-9 have on the 1/1015 odds that Nina Paxton could hear Earhart? Does this unknown variable affect the confidence interval of the reception probability in a quantifiable way?

Betty Brown told me in 2010 that her dad had strung a 60-foot aerial antenna from the radio to the garage to a telephone pole in the block lot behind her house. This seemed to enhance the reception capabilities of her radio, or at least her dad seemed to think it would. Of course, Betty's radio's tuning frequency range was superior to Nina Paxton's Philco.
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2018, 02:40:58 PM »

BY Les Kinney:
When Nina heard Amelia Earhart on the afternoon of July 3, 1937, she wrote down Amelia's words. "90 ******173 longitude and 5 latitude". If you look on a map, 5 degrees North latitude and 173 East longitude is close to Mili Atoll.
Leslie (Les) Kinney
lgkinney@msn.com
July 25, 2018

Les Kinney is correct in saying that 173 longitude and 5 latitude may be interpreted as close to Mili Atoll. While Paxton's official status is currently "not credible" with regard to her ability to hear Earhart, the fact remains that this is the only instance of map coordinates in the form of a possible latitude and longitude having been provided by a listener. I therefore decided to put together a spreadsheet (attached) analyzing these coordinates.

A significant problem with Paxton's mention of "173 longitude, 5 latitude" is that it lacks compass headings. To avoid confusion, geographical numeric coordinates on a map should always be accompanied by compass headings (or plus and minus signs). In their absence, these numbers could be interpreted in 4 different ways, representing 4 different locations on a map.
a) 173 E, 5 N
b) 173 E, 5 S
c) 173 W, 5 N
d) 173 W, 5 S

I have illustrated these 4 different locations in an attached map, using Apple's Maps app. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website computes that point a) above is 108 statute miles SE of Mili Atoll. It is equally true, however, that point d) above is 107 statute miles ESE of Nikumaroro. Points b) and c) could best be described as open ocean, and not near any recognizable land mass that I can locate.

While these coordinates present intriguing possibilities as to a location, it seems to me that it is not possible to conclude definitively where on a map they should be located.  What is also true is that if these numbers represent a latitude and a longitude, as Ms. Paxton claimed, they can reasonably be inferred to represent no more than 4 locations, one of which is near Mili, and one of which is near Nikumaroro.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078R
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 05:43:55 PM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2018, 02:54:08 PM »

The Excel had a problem in uploading, so I am substituting a screen shot.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078R
Logged

Leon R White

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Re: Nina Paxton
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2018, 09:29:44 AM »

In Les's post he says he's attached some pdfs of newspaper articles.  Were they attached?  And are newspaper articles of some unique truthfullness that would merit reading them, or are these just regular newspaper articles?

I can post them if you like but they're just well-known newspaper articles in which Earhart refers to Fred as "Captain Noonan", or "Captain Fred Noonan."  Les missed the point.  She never referred to Noonan as "The Captain."

Thanks, but don't bother.  "The Captain" and Tenille?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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