I think Joe's homemade spreadsheet lists 120 receptions logged from "earhart".
57 he rates as credible
So Joe calculates 47.5% are credible of the 120. WOW.
I don't believe even Bradenburg went there, so like beauty, "credible" is in the eye of the beholder.
Brandenburg did go there. This is the same data TIGHAR has had on its website for months. I'm not aware if the respective databases have been updated independently of each other, but I've seen no inconsistencies. Any slight errors or omissions are mine. However, I did take some number of weeks to build this, it has been reviewed by the same people who worked, tirelessly I might add, on cataloguing the reception data, so I have very high confidence in its rigor. The database includes receptions known to have been sent requesting NR16020 to respond. (You can filter these in or out by selecting 'n/a' in the credibility column.) Your 47.5% does filter these out, so based on the math, that figure is TIGHAR's own interpretation, not Joe's. If TIGHAR disagrees, it should so state. If you disagree, sweeping generalizations won't do. Show us your research on why specific signals can or cannot be viewed as credible. Bear in mind that the only sum total of actual signals that needs to have come from the Electra for it to have been on land somewhere in July 1937 is precisely 1.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
I will say that if you look at even Bradenburg's analysis he changes dependent on the year asked. Take for instance the "281" message supposedly sent by Amelia. First he rated not credible in his study of 4 selected important cases. Then the next study it's rated as credible. I believe he did the same for the Responses to the Hawaii radio broadcasts. First not credible. Then Credible. I have read his reports and some of it conflicts with other parts of his reports. Like the above mentioned 281 transmission.
Credible and not credible is not etched in stone, it's Brandenburg's and Tighar's interpretation.
I have heard of other forum member's concerns with Bradenburg's ratings, and the main theme of the error of Brandenburg is that practically anything received on frequency 3105KHZ, whether a hum of a generator, a carrier wave, a Microphone being keyed, he rated credible. Read the forum, some very good analysis is done right here by pilots, engineers ect. That is what is nice about the Tighar forum. We get both sides of the coin.
Brandenburg rated one signal as credible because a microphone was apparently keyed for 2 straight hours. I believed Gary Lapook debunked that one. I could be wrong on the poster. However, I looked at Bradenburg's charts and indeed His reasoning on most signals he rated credible- Amelia was the only licensed aircraft that could use that aircraft frequency per FCC rules, that was in the area.
That narrow view of the world at the time is problematic.
America is not the world in totality.
I have heard from others on this website and read myself that Howland and other sources picked up Japanese and Russian music on the same frequencies. That is right on this thread, and the OP did a good job of showing that problem. If Japanese music was being sent and heard on the same frequency, how can Brandenburg then pick out a carrier wave, or a microphone clicked a few times and claim that is Amelia?
Therefore FCC rules and regulations had nothing to do with the use of this channel, yet Bradenburg time and again rates signals as "credible" based on it simply being on 3105khz. I am repeating other's postings, but they make sense. These channel frequency business is not a valid reason to mark a transmission credible. I agree with that.
If you cannot see the total illogic in that, then I am sorry, I cannot explain that fallacy in the methodology any better than was already done in the previous pages. It reads like common sense to me. Other nations were using Amelia's frequency.
There was also lot of confusion, people were hearing snippets of other boats or transmitters calling Amelia and thought it was Amelia calling back.
I believe the Navy was correct on this one. Lot's of hoaxers, and misinterpreted signals is what the US Navy thought of these transmissions fairly quickly.
Now I hold out hope ONE signal is correct, but so far I haven't heard of it, and am losing some faith there is such a signal. I would think after a week she would have said "Here I am 350 miles south, come get me".
I have yet to to hear that transcription.
The Norwich was stranded, they called for help, and were heard right away and were rescued. Amelia has a week to call, different times to call, night and day, with the whole Pacific Navy listening. and never gets a clear message through.
Now the excuse of "broke antenna" seems weak in this case.
Lae heard her from 400 miles away. Howland is 350 miles.
So at no time during the entire week, did the atmosphere allow a full sentence saying "Here I am, come get me"
I find that odd to put it mildly.