Joe, I didn’t use a spreadsheet. Your numbers, which appeared unbelievably small, motivated me to look at the post-loss signal catalog. Once there, I scrolled through each page noting the non-Itasca signals that were listed, without qualification, as having a frequency of 3105 kHz. That method constituted my "filter".
If I’d included the 3105 kHz non-Itasca signals with the frequency tagged either “assumed” or “approximately”, the result would have been something like: 67 total, 41 (61%) credible, 16 (24%) uncertain, and 10 (15%) not credible.
Do you draw any conclusions from the ratios you observed?
Yes. The numbers you posted don’t reflect the content of the post-loss signal catalog.
Chuck
Chuck,
I've had a chance to sit down and correct my earlier tally of the 3105 kHz signal receptions on the Signal Catalog spreadsheet. I did a manual count (includes approximates) and came up with the following:
85 total, 44 (52%) credible, 22 (26%) uncertain, and 19 (22%) not credible.
A spreadsheet with minor modifications to reflect the calculations is attached. Note that this iteration of the spreadsheet is not meant to supersede the earlier one, only to reflect my specific purpose in this particular exercise with the 3105 kHz signals.
I double-checked my counts using the DCOUNTA function in Excel at cell E195 in the worksheet titled "Signal Catalog." I also created a column to indicate whether or not I included a given signal as part of my 3105 kHz total. This column may be found at Column R and is labeled "3105 reception (not transmission)." The value for each cell in this column is simply "yes" or "no." By using the arrow in cell R1, you can filter on the "yes" values to view which rows I selected. You can filter on the "no" values to view which rows I did not select. Note that Itasca transmissions were counted as "no."
While my math was wrong earlier (due to a faulty assumption on my part regarding Microsoft Excel filters), the database itself is, to my knowledge, correct and in exact correspondence to the signal catalog that is on the TIGHAR website. If it is not, please tell me about it, and where it diverges, so that I can make the necessary adjustment.
The reason I originally undertook the exercise was to investigate a poster's claim that a signal received on 3105 kHz stood an inordinately high chance of receiving a rating of credible. That nearly half (48%) of the signals received on or near 3105 kHz were assigned a rating other than "credible" seems to indicate to me that numerous other criteria, in addition to the frequency of the signal, were applied to the signal credibility ratings. A quick perusal of the "Qualifying Factors" column (Column L) should confirm this observation. Again, if anyone feels differently, please let me know so that I can reassess if I am missing something.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR