Don't you see the difference? Chater used different words in the first paragraph,
The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it. Notice he did not write
We received no reply to this call
as he had in the second paragraph. Different words mean different things. In the second paragraph they "received no reply," that is pretty simple. Since the words Chater used in the first paragraph are different he must have meant something different than than they "received no reply." He said that they contacted the plane and asked her to repeat her message and they heard her reply to their message, they heard something but they "still could not get it."
This shows that she did hear them because she re-sent the requested information in response to their request but it was too weak or covered up by interference to be made out at Lae.
I realize this is an old posting and that GL has gone elsewhere,but I found GL's logic to be faulty and didn't want his claims to go unchallenged.
GL's "evidence" that there was two way radio transmissions with AE from Lae is the fact that Chater
used different wordings in two different instances. Specifically, that in one instance he said "we received no reply" and in the other instance said "we couldn't get it," which, using Gary's mindreading capabilities, means "we received a reply but couldn't understand it." Of course, it means no such thing. "Couldn't get
it" can mean most anything." GL spoils his own argument further when he claims that if they got no reply Chater would have said "we got no reply" in the second instance, being a good, consistent little
operator. But if Chater were as GL claims,why would he say "we couldn't get it" when his alleged consistency would require him to say "she replied, but we couldn't understand her." ? The transmissions
contain not even a hint that AE ever received any transmission - no acknowledgement of any request
transmitted her way. Period. Not one single "Got that. blah blah blah." Not one "Roger, Lae" Not anything.
I find GL's logic both tortured and unconvincing, especially in light of the certified failure of every
other transmission to evoke a response, save the one case of the DF signal she received on 7200 and immediately acknowledged. That, to me, combined with all that went before, is convincing evidence that AE never heard any voice transmissions directed her way during her flight to Howland, irregardless of Chater's exact choice of words.