TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: gail underwood on July 01, 2013, 10:06:42 PM

Title: The most perplexing issues
Post by: gail underwood on July 01, 2013, 10:06:42 PM
I've been a regular reader of this forum for some time, but have just finally gotten around to registering so that I can participate. What prompted me was the in-depth article in The New Republic about Amelia Earhart and the work by TIGHAR and others to solve the mystery of her disappearance (http://tinyurl.com/lqyxaz4 (http://tinyurl.com/lqyxaz4)). The article does a good job of summarising some of the more perplexing issues, as follows:

1. "Nikumaroro lies some 350 miles southeast of Howland Island. In order to reach it, Earhart would have had to cover that distance, on top of the nearly 2,556 miles she had already flown from New Guinea in pursuit of Howland. But about an hour before breaking off contact, Earhart had clearly stated that gas was running low. Gillespie argues that Earhart meant she was beginning to burn into her reserve tank, in which case she would have had four or five hours of flying time left. Gillespie’s estimation that Earhart’s plane could have that much fuel left is based on ideal flight conditions, however, and Jourdan reminded me that there are several indications that Earhart’s flight was far from ideal. 'One of the major factors is that she was facing severe headwinds,' says Jourdan. 'They were 20, 25 miles an hour pretty much the whole way.' ”

The question this raises is that, if she knew she was burning fuel at a higher rate than planned, why didn't she abort the flight before it was too late? Surely she would have been doing the calculations necessary to determine where she stood in terms of fuel.

2. "Earhart was also reported to be south of her planned flight path and flying at high altitude quite early in her flight. 'What that meant is that there was a storm and she diverted around it,' Jourdan explained—a diversion that forced Earhart to gain altitude quickly and burn extra fuel in the process. An independent fuel analysis of Earhart’s flight that Jourdan commissioned from a mechanical-engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology validated Jourdan’s belief that Earhart ran out of fuel around the time of her last radio transmission."

Here's a kml file for Google Earth which shows her planned flight path and the actual flight path: http://tinyurl.com/mp54cgs (http://tinyurl.com/mp54cgs). Is a copy of the chart Noonan used for navigation available anywhere?

3. "Earhart told the Itasca she was flying 'north and south' along the line—indicating that she was searching for Howland, not flying south for Nikumaroro."

I tend to agree that at the time of that transmission, she and Noonan were looking for Howland. However, the decision would have had to have been made immediately thereafter to head for Gardner Island. But in their frame of mind, being that they thought they were near Howland but couldn't see it, would they be inclined to risk everything by looking for a more distant island with very little fuel left? Particularly if they had a sense that Noonan's chart was wrong? Successfully reaching Gardner Island would require that their navigation be spot on, and surely they would have known that. Could they have had more confidence in reaching Gardner than in finding Howland?

4. "All the radio operators recall the increasing panic and distress in Earhart’s voice following her report that she was running low on fuel."

Seems to indicate that she was still looking for Howland at this point and panicking.

5. "If she did change her mind and decide to fly south and crash land on Nikumaroro, why didn’t she radio her intentions?"

This is the issue that perplexes me the most. There are two possibilities: (a) they were heading north on the LOP and then decided to head south where they're odds of finding a place to land were greater; or (b) they were flying south on the LOP looking for Howland and stumbled upon Gardner Island, instead. If (a), then why not inform Itasca of the change in plan? Would they make a conscious decision about it and then keep it to themselves? If (b), then why not inform Itasca that the flight turns out to have been off course and, in fact, you don't know where the heck you are? Why wait until after you've landed (judging by Betty's notes)? I would imagine that the sight of Gardner would have prompted at least a sigh of relief and a message to Itasca but, of course, that's just speculation. Perhaps, because of cloud shadows, they didn't recognise Gardner until they were right over it, at which point she would have been intensely focused on finding a place to land. But it seems reasonable to assume that the bright blue lagoon would have been obvious in advance, giving her time to radio information regarding her new circumstances.

6. "When Navy pilots flew over Nikumaroro a week later, why didn’t they see wreckage from the plane or any other evidence that Earhart and Noonan were there?"

I understand that the only land-able part of the reef flat is at the edge, where it is smooth, so it's easy to accept that the plane could have been pulled by the tide over the edge within a week. And signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island were noted during the search. It has been speculated that these signs could have been piles of vegetation that looked like markers, but could have been produced for the purpose of sending up smoke signals, and that the castaways were caught unprepared and inland, unable to signal the pilot from within the dense vegetation. My problem with this is that it requires that both Earhart and Noonan be unavailable, if Noonan was still alive. If he was still alive, then wouldn't common sense dictate that at least one person would always be on the beach in case a ship or plane were to arrive? Of course, I know there are other possibilities, but I try to start with the simplest, most common sensical explanation.

I know these are all woulda, coulda, shouldas, and I'm sure none of them are new to this forum. In the end, there's the sonar anomaly, investigation of which, I hope, will completely dispel these issues and open up entirely new avenues for investigation.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 02, 2013, 12:18:18 AM
I've been a regular reader of this forum for some time, but have just finally gotten around to registering so that I can participate. What prompted me was the in-depth article in The New Republic about Amelia Earhart and the work by TIGHAR and others to solve the mystery of her disappearance (http://tinyurl.com/lqyxaz4 (http://tinyurl.com/lqyxaz4)). The article does a good job of summarising some of the more perplexing issues, as follows:

1. "Nikumaroro lies some 350 miles southeast of Howland Island. In order to reach it, Earhart would have had to cover that distance, on top of the nearly 2,556 miles she had already flown from New Guinea in pursuit of Howland. But about an hour before breaking off contact, Earhart had clearly stated that gas was running low. Gillespie argues that Earhart meant she was beginning to burn into her reserve tank, in which case she would have had four or five hours of flying time left. Gillespie’s estimation that Earhart’s plane could have that much fuel left is based on ideal flight conditions, however, and Jourdan reminded me that there are several indications that Earhart’s flight was far from ideal. 'One of the major factors is that she was facing severe headwinds,' says Jourdan. 'They were 20, 25 miles an hour pretty much the whole way.' ”

The question this raises is that, if she knew she was burning fuel at a higher rate than planned, why didn't she abort the flight before it was too late? Surely she would have been doing the calculations necessary to determine where she stood in terms of fuel.

2. "Earhart was also reported to be south of her planned flight path and flying at high altitude quite early in her flight. 'What that meant is that there was a storm and she diverted around it,' Jourdan explained—a diversion that forced Earhart to gain altitude quickly and burn extra fuel in the process. An independent fuel analysis of Earhart’s flight that Jourdan commissioned from a mechanical-engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology validated Jourdan’s belief that Earhart ran out of fuel around the time of her last radio transmission."

Here's a kml file for Google Earth which shows her planned flight path and the actual flight path: http://tinyurl.com/mp54cgs (http://tinyurl.com/mp54cgs). Is a copy of the chart Noonan used for navigation available anywhere?

3. "Earhart told the Itasca she was flying 'north and south' along the line—indicating that she was searching for Howland, not flying south for Nikumaroro."

I tend to agree that at the time of that transmission, she and Noonan were looking for Howland. However, the decision would have had to have been made immediately thereafter to head for Gardner Island. But in their frame of mind, being that they thought they were near Howland but couldn't see it, would they be inclined to risk everything by looking for a more distant island with very little fuel left? Particularly if they had a sense that Noonan's chart was wrong? Successfully reaching Gardner Island would require that their navigation be spot on, and surely they would have known that. Could they have had more confidence in reaching Gardner than in finding Howland?

4. "All the radio operators recall the increasing panic and distress in Earhart’s voice following her report that she was running low on fuel."

Seems to indicate that she was still looking for Howland at this point and panicking.

5. "If she did change her mind and decide to fly south and crash land on Nikumaroro, why didn’t she radio her intentions?"

This is the issue that perplexes me the most. There are two possibilities: (a) they were heading north on the LOP and then decided to head south where they're odds of finding a place to land were greater; or (b) they were flying south on the LOP looking for Howland and stumbled upon Gardner Island, instead. If (a), then why not inform Itasca of the change in plan? Would they make a conscious decision about it and then keep it to themselves? If (b), then why not inform Itasca that the flight turns out to have been off course and, in fact, you don't know where the heck you are? Why wait until after you've landed (judging by Betty's notes)? I would imagine that the sight of Gardner would have prompted at least a sigh of relief and a message to Itasca but, of course, that's just speculation. Perhaps, because of cloud shadows, they didn't recognise Gardner until they were right over it, at which point she would have been intensely focused on finding a place to land. But it seems reasonable to assume that the bright blue lagoon would have been obvious in advance, giving her time to radio information regarding her new circumstances.

6. "When Navy pilots flew over Nikumaroro a week later, why didn’t they see wreckage from the plane or any other evidence that Earhart and Noonan were there?"

I understand that the only land-able part of the reef flat is at the edge, where it is smooth, so it's easy to accept that the plane could have been pulled by the tide over the edge within a week. And signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island were noted during the search. It has been speculated that these signs could have been piles of vegetation that looked like markers, but could have been produced for the purpose of sending up smoke signals, and that the castaways were caught unprepared and inland, unable to signal the pilot from within the dense vegetation. My problem with this is that it requires that both Earhart and Noonan be unavailable, if Noonan was still alive. If he was still alive, then wouldn't common sense dictate that at least one person would always be on the beach in case a ship or plane were to arrive? Of course, I know there are other possibilities, but I try to start with the simplest, most common sensical explanation.

I know these are all woulda, coulda, shouldas, and I'm sure none of them are new to this forum. In the end, there's the sonar anomaly, investigation of which, I hope, will completely dispel these issues and open up entirely new avenues for investigation.

I read about that MIT work also. Elgen Long mentions this in his epic book. It is puzzling, but I believe the evidence of their presence at Gardner is stronger. I am not a pilot, so I cannot speak to this, but I suspect it is possible to "lean" the engines and compensate for periods of inefficient flight.  And yes, the evidence seems to support the conclusion that, for whatever reason, Earhart opted to turn directly south on the line of position and attempt a single pass search for Gilbert. I say that by elimination: if the evidence is good that they were there and the fuel was obviously strained, that is the only explanation. As for the north/south part, it is possible she turned north briefly but quickly decided to head south. This gets into state of mind so I don't know, I just know where the evidence points.

She probably did radio her intentions several times. Old-timers correct me, but I think there is ample evidence that she followed her radio pattern with discipline. But Itasca was not receiving. And my understanding is that certainty of location is far, bar better on the line of position than for a latitude, so FN may well have been certain that he was on this line.

Therefore, if he can line up two targets on that line he has a good chance of finding one of them, even if his latitude is off. In fact, logically, he would shoot for the most visible landmarks, which were to the south at that time. Howland was much harder to spot. So, yes, he could have been uncertain of his position in latitude, but not so much on his line of position. Navigator’s correct me.

Some have also said that he might not have been able to get sextant shots of celestial objects during the night, which would mean he could only get one after sunrise (the sun). But this should be enough to get a LOP. Some also say drift indication was not very good that night. I don’t know, but if it wasn’t very good, this would mess up his latitude. Also, headwinds, I think, can affect that also. Pilots?

After a week had elapsed, if they remained in the airplane and if the airplane were pulled off the reef by tides and undertow, there would be nothing left a week later. There was precious little fuel/oil to spread. So, that is one possible explanation for why they were not seen at Gardner. Nothing, imo, tells us they ever exited the plane.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Rob Seasock on July 02, 2013, 12:41:04 AM
There is also the RDF headings from Pan Am and the US Navy taken from Wake, Midway, Oahu
(and San Francisco possibly, if I recall correctly) as strong evidence the aircraft made it Gardner (or McKeon) and Lockheed's engineers opinion that an engine was running to allow them to transmit for several days.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 02, 2013, 12:45:04 AM

Seems to indicate that she was still looking for Howland at this point and panicking.


Almost forgot. Three things. I think the part about "panicking" is embellishment (my opinion). Of all the people out there that day she was apparently the calmest of all.

As for turning back, Earhart was a risk taker and I wouldn't expect that, but that is also state of mind. A lot of people who are risk averse, imo, interpret that erroneously as "bad piloting".

Again, my opinion, but allow me to hypothesize. I think FN was in fact uncertain of his latitude for the reasons I gave. But the one thing we know he had was the sun (probably). So, he may have reckoned himself in the proper east/west position but somewhere between Howland and Gardner and made a fateful guess as to which was closer.  He probably chose poorly. But given his exceptional demonstrated talent in this art, I think, again my opinion, that he was in fact about halfway between.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Adam Marsland on July 02, 2013, 12:56:31 AM
Nearly all of these questions have been asked and answered on this site, in quite a bit of detail, but you have to dig for it a bit.

I won't get into all of them (too tired) but one example would be the "why didn't she transmit her intentions?" question.  It has been pointed out that one of the things that she said she was going to do in her very last transmission was change her frequency (which Itasca urged her not to do, but she couldn't hear them).  There's a lot more information about daytime/nighttime propogation, which antennas were on the plane and whether one of them may have fallen off, and prior difficulties on that frequency that goes with that factoid to paint a bigger circumstantial picture of what happened, but the bottom line is she suddenly stops transmitting (or at least stops being heard) right after she changes her frequency.  Why?  Obvious answer:  she kept transmitting, but because of the change in frequency no one heard her. 

There's lots more on this topic, and all the others, if you dig around for them.  TIGHAR have done a very good job anticipating all objections and coming up with reasonable explanations (and evidence to support) to meet them.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 02, 2013, 01:14:03 AM
... but the bottom line is she suddenly stops transmitting (or at least stops being heard) right after she changes her frequency.  Why?  Obvious answer:  she kept transmitting, but because of the change in frequency no one heard her. 
Right, but wasn't this because of the schedule she was using? She was transmitting ... then _waiting_ for an answer 30 minutes later? The military communicated real-time, right? She was changing frequency because she had completed her transmission. Regardless, there were voids in that schedule, in fact, during most of that time, when Itasca heard nothing at all. Even so, they would hear her intermittently later on at the same scheduled interval, as if she had been transmitting throughout that time on that schedule. That was how I understood it.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Tim Gard on July 02, 2013, 04:57:11 AM
As previously said there is a great deal of fine grained well thought out info at this site.
I find each explanation begets another question which has also been answered to the same degree.

Watch "Ask Ric" for a very practical explanation on the radio occurrence  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqS9GXM7nag

It took me a long time to comprehend how the Gardiner Island distance could have been rationally traversed, mostly due to mis-information from non-TIGHAR sources, but Ric has it covered brilliantly in the recent TIGHAR Tracks and in other places in the forum.

Simply put, AE and FN  never reached being any closer than 80 to 210 nautical miles from Howland Island. Ultimately the relief of seeing Gardner (so close to the Howland Line of Position) with ship (Itasca maybe?) and what appeared to be a newly laid concrete runway, made for a welcoming Howland. The Fuel Reserve that persisted until close to the time that the airframe was finally swept from Gardner's reef by rising seas, confirms that.

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2013, 08:46:58 AM
Gail,

As others have pointed out, many if not all of the questions you raise have been addressed in depth on this forum but I'm happy to take a moment to address some of the more egregious errors you quote from the New Republic article.


1. "Nikumaroro lies some 350 miles southeast of Howland Island. In order to reach it, Earhart would have had to cover that distance, on top of the nearly 2,556 miles she had already flown from New Guinea in pursuit of Howland. But about an hour before breaking off contact, Earhart had clearly stated that gas was running low. Gillespie argues that Earhart meant she was beginning to burn into her reserve tank, in which case she would have had four or five hours of flying time left. Gillespie’s estimation that Earhart’s plane could have that much fuel left is based on ideal flight conditions, however, and Jourdan reminded me that there are several indications that Earhart’s flight was far from ideal. 'One of the major factors is that she was facing severe headwinds,' says Jourdan. 'They were 20, 25 miles an hour pretty much the whole way.' ”

There was no "reserve tank" and I never said there was.  Earhart left Lae with roughly 24 hours of fuel. The flight to Howland was expected to take 18 hours.  A 20% fuel reserve was standard for long range flights (see Cooper Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Cooper_Report/Cooper_Report.pdf)).  She had more like 25%.  At 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight she said, "We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low."  She's in the middle of the Pacific, the island she's looking for is nowhere in sight, and she is now burning into her reserve. You're darned right "gas is running low."
 
The airplane's expected 24 hour endurance is not based on "ideal flight conditions."  It's based on the fuel management recommendations she was given by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson.  With 1,100 gallons of gas aboard at takeoff, as long as she follows those procedures, the plane will fly for 24 hours regardless of "flight conditions."  What Dave Jourdan is suggesting (and he gets this from Elgen Long) is that Earhart departed from Kelly Johnson's fuel management program and increased her power settings - and therefore her fuel consumption -  because she ran into headwinds. First of all, that would be a stupid thing to do but, more to the point, there is no evidence that she encountered headwinds.  The presumption that she did is based entirely on the last position report received at Lae at 5:18 pm local time. “POSITION 4.33 SOUTH 159.7 EAST HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS WIND 23 KNOTS”.  (see Chater Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Chater_Report.html))  Is that a headwind, a tailwind, a crosswind?  She doesn't say. Jourdan's unequivocal acceptance of pure speculation as established fact is a classic example of the methodological errors that permeate the case for Crashed and Sank. They stand the scientific method on its head.  They begin with the received wisdom that Earhart ran out of gas within moments of her 08:43 transmission and back into the numbers needed to make that happen by presenting speculation as fact.

The question this raises is that, if she knew she was burning fuel at a higher rate than planned, why didn't she abort the flight before it was too late? Surely she would have been doing the calculations necessary to determine where she stood in terms of fuel.

That sounds reasonable to me.

2. "Earhart was also reported to be south of her planned flight path and flying at high altitude quite early in her flight. 'What that meant is that there was a storm and she diverted around it,' Jourdan explained—a diversion that forced Earhart to gain altitude quickly and burn extra fuel in the process. An independent fuel analysis of Earhart’s flight that Jourdan commissioned from a mechanical-engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology validated Jourdan’s belief that Earhart ran out of fuel around the time of her last radio transmission."

He's doing it again.  To save time I'm attaching Part 1 of a previously unpublished analysis of the flight I did back in 2008.

Is a copy of the chart Noonan used for navigation available anywhere?

Nobody knows what chart(s) Noonan was using.

3. "Earhart told the Itasca she was flying 'north and south' along the line—indicating that she was searching for Howland, not flying south for Nikumaroro."

Huge misrepresentation. People get this wrong all the time.  We don't think she was intentionally flying south for Nikumaroro.  She was searching for Howland.  The sensible way to do that was to go north first as far as you dare and then go south and keep going, hoping that Howland will appear but knowing that the only other islands are to the south.

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 02, 2013, 11:24:35 AM
Gail,
As others have pointed out, many if not all of the questions you raise have been addressed in depth on this forum but I'm happy to take a moment to address some of the more egregious errors you quote from the New Republic article.
re to the south.
Ric,
Thanks for clearing this up. Is there any discussion yet for the next expedition regarding the use of metal detectors? I'm wondering if the higher mass objects might be sought out first in the hope of at least locating the most likely spots for serial number identification? From what I've read here, a separate expedition would be better for any archaeological work but I was thinking of "bang for the buck". In the first (next) expedition, nothing need be recovered, only located as a serial number target. Which component, of everything on the aircraft, would most likely best preserve a readable serial number under the conditions its expected to have endured? If not this way, what would be the most cost-effective way to determine the identity/origin of these debris fields?

The methodical TIGHAR approach is paying off and I'd be interested know what the thinking is.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2013, 11:54:15 AM
Is there any discussion yet for the next expedition regarding the use of metal detectors?

The practicality of using metal detectors for general underwater searching depends upon how close you need to be to detect metal.  We're looking into it.

I'm wondering if the higher mass objects might be sought out first in the hope of at least locating the most likely spots for serial number identification?

I would love to have that luxury but I'll settle for any piece of airplane wreckage.  Very few components of the Electra had serial numbers and few of those were recorded in the records we have. We know the serial numbers for the engines, the prop hubs,and the prop blades.  That's it.  The gear motor, flap motor, radios and autopilot probably had serial numbers but we have no idea what they were.  For that matter, few of the airplane components had part numbers stamped into them.  That practice only became commonplace when aircraft production ramped up with the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 and '40.

On the other hand, any piece of wreckage that could be conclusively identified as coming from a Lockheed 10 would be impossible to explain unless it came Earhart's Electra.  Her's was the only Model 10 that could be anywhere within thousands of miles of Niku.


From what I've read here, a separate expedition would be better for any archaeological work but I was thinking of "bang for the buck".

Here's the problem. The type of ship needed to support a hi-tech underwater search typically goes for about $30,000/day.  A ship to support the land-based and scuba work typically goes for about $10,000/day.  The hi-tech underwater work should only take a few days.  The land-based work will take two or three weeks.  Keeping an expensive boat around to support the land work doesn't get you more bang for the buck. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 02, 2013, 12:33:23 PM

Here's the problem. The type of ship needed to support a hi-tech underwater search typically goes for about $30,000/day.  A ship to support the land-based and scuba work typically goes for about $10,000/day.  The hi-tech underwater work should only take a few days.  The land-based work will take two or three weeks.  Keeping an expensive boat around to support the land work doesn't get you more bang for the buck.

I have some passing familiarity with these costs. I've seen much larger numbers in the petroleum services industry. But I see your conundrum. It sounds like a two-ship expedition is needed as the requirements are quite different. I think you're wise to look for evidence ashore as that could equally-well clinch the case and I had not thought about the Electra 10 components. That's a very good point. I think history would record that as the crash site if all you had were the Electra parts positively identified as such. And at this point we have no way of knowing for sure if they left the plane or not. Some identifiable components could be aground, for any number of reasons.

Given the issues faced before with hardware, your lease/services cost on the marine aspect could be a million by itself (I'm thinking 30 days min). You need some bona fide marine archaeologists and an A-frame, I'm guessing.  I think you do have one on your team now? I would have guessed likewise that the shore party would cost much less but I would think they need more time; like all summer. What would be the pros and cons of having a university run the digs ashore? Offshore? Just curious on your thoughts.

In any case someone needs to get there quickly, imo.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2013, 12:58:00 PM
You need some bona fide marine archaeologists and an A-frame, I'm guessing.  I think you do have one on your team now?

Yes, we actually have two.

I would have guessed likewise that the shore party would cost much less but I would think they need more time; like all summer. What would be the pros and cons of having a university run the digs ashore? Offshore? Just curious on your thoughts.

Experience has shown three weeks to be about the right amount of time for land operations.  By the end of three weeks the people are about used up and you've found enough stuff (or not) so that you don't know what you should do next until you've had a chance to identify what you've found or figure out where you went wrong.   I can't think of any pros to getting a university involved. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Bill de Creeft on July 02, 2013, 01:21:44 PM
Nearly all of these questions have been asked and answered on this site, in quite a bit of detail, but you have to dig for it a bit.

There's lots more on this topic, and all the others, if you dig around for them.  TIGHAR have done a very good job anticipating all objections and coming up with reasonable explanations (and evidence to support) to meet them.

This comment from Adam, in my opinion obviously, is the answer to most of the questions in this thread; In about two weeks we will have a whole new set of new information from the 1938 photographs....
Ric, if you can keep your sanity for just that much longer...liberal use of that proffered beer money may help...save your strength for new questions with new answers!!
Take a line from the FAA medical: "Previously Reported"....This ground has been plowed before, over and over.
I am guilty of that too; I now await new word...and if there is none, then the hue and cry begins anew !?!
Bill
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 02, 2013, 01:22:40 PM

Experience has shown three weeks to be about the right amount of time for land operations.  By the end of three weeks the people are about used up and you've found enough stuff (or not) so that you don't know what you should do next until you've had a chance to identify what you've found or figure out where you went wrong.   I can't think of any pros to getting a university involved.

Okay, I was way off on that. My own thinking on the disadvantages of university involvement is the sheer time it would take them to conclude much of anything. I'm thinking out of the box on how to protect the overall mission from what I perceive to be a "drama queen" phenom where someone thinks we _know_ the plane is there - to such a certainty that we can stop looking. _They_ solved it. Whether we've reached that point or not, might the tendency increase as more data from that area is made available? The latest sonar analysis tells me it might. But what matters, imo, is what _posterity_ thinks. And posterity isn't going to be sold on what we know right now. There will be conspiracy theorists, but the mainstream view won't congeal without a lot more solid evidence.

Additionally, being too quick to closure also denies a proper burial if remains are recoverable. I know this doesn't matter to most, but it matters a lot to me and some others. There has been a lot of talk about what we know or don't know about their activities post-flight. I think the radio intercepts do provide enough corroboration, as I've stated before, to say that something was going on. It's just not clear what and I think we need answers to that as well; just being my opinion again.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 02, 2013, 01:37:17 PM
This comment from Adam, in my opinion obviously, is the answer to most of the questions in this thread;

I didn't get that feeling when I read it or the referenced material. I think this issue of radio communication is being inadvertently twisted to make AE look like an imbecile. The radios at that time were two separate units; they were not transceivers. She wasn't "changing frequency" in the middle of her own sentences. She was switching from transmitter to receiver. The problem is that USCG didn't do what they were told and reply on her _reception_ schedule. They didn't even use the time zone they were told to use. But really, this is minutiae and a side-show right now. We have ample evidence, even where we disagree, to locate the plane. We should focus on that, imo, so in that regard I agree. We need to filter out the drama and focus on the fact. That was why I tried to focus on the core evidence in my reply w/o getting into all that detail ... with a little opinion on my part ;-)

I agree, the photos will be tantalizing, but I'm not a big fan of photo analysis. It will give us good clues, for sure.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Bill de Creeft on July 02, 2013, 09:22:22 PM
mmm.
It's more simple than that, for me...
You are ignoring a lot of evidence (I'm not calling it 'proof') that I believe in...so I mainly don't subscribe to your 'crashed on the reef' theory.
The pictures we are waiting with bated breath to see are new found ones of the island taken in 1938...when AE and FN would have landed on the Island (if they did) and before other people arrived on the island...40 pictures newly found and not yet studied.
All kinds of things to look for !!
I don't believe that Betty was imagining things when she says she heard AE's radio calls ...My own thoughts on all that are back a ways in the forum threads...
So I am just going to hold my tongue, rather than go around in circles, and hope that a lot of conjecture will be avoided when we get some new answers.
I see things in the underwater views that intrigue me, and I see things in the brush that intrigued me until I saw further pictures that disappointed me!
She wrote her last name with a big looping "E" and that spelled in white coral rocks pulls me more than anything else!!
I have been following this for 75 years, and it tires me to posit theories...and my definition of "inconceivable" aligns with that of Martin X's ...
I think the reason she was so far south is because she followed the heading that FN gave her...and that she was where she was she said she was...just didn't have a name for it...and as I have said before; I am comforted that she didn't sink into a cold dark sea...but had her chance at survival, if only people had listened to her.
Nothing personal in any of this; no-one is die-ing now, and we are just trying to solve a mystery...it will be solved, and the solving is fascinating and it is fun to follow all the thoughts and to make the acquaintance of a new circle of kindred souls!

Bill
Two more weeks or so, (maybe)...!?!
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 02, 2013, 10:29:32 PM
You are ignoring a lot of evidence (I'm not calling it 'proof') that I believe in...so I mainly don't subscribe to your 'crashed on the reef' theory.
Can you describe the 'crashed on the reef' theory? I'm not familiar with it. At this point I'm asking questions; namely, is there any evidentiary reason why the crew couldn't have been seriously injured and still operated the radio, even if off of battery power alone? Could the injuries have rendered them non-ambulatory but still able to operate that radio? What has TIGHER (or others) done to eliminate that possibility?

I don't believe that Betty was imagining things when she says she heard AE's radio calls ...
I don't either.

I know everyone is excited about the photos. Maybe they'll give some clues up, but I'm not expecting any smoking guns.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: manjeet aujla on July 06, 2013, 08:20:15 PM
Regarding the original question, there are reams of writings and conjectures here on every conceivable scenario of what could have happened. For instance why she would turn towards Gardner at all.  Most of these are answered somewhere, in some paper, in this site, in a logical, plausible way. The sheer volume of the research done is huge. The radio transmissions, for instance, have been analysed in detail. The effort to address all questions, irrespective of where the conclusions may lead, is the main reason why I believe in tighar's work. Newspaper stories raising questions do not impress me anymore, the more I have delved into the detailed material present here. ( Man, it sounds like I have really partaken of the kool-aid....lol)
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 06, 2013, 08:49:40 PM
Could the injuries have rendered them non-ambulatory but still able to operate that radio? What has TIGHER (or others) done to eliminate that possibility?

We've investigated the story that the remains of a castaway were found who was suspected at the time of being Amelia Earhart. We found evidence that proves that story to be true and we have found the place on the island where the bones were found.  We've recovered artifacts from that site that support the hypothesis that the castaway was indeed Earhart.  That doesn't eliminate the possibility that you describe ( I don't know what would) but it makes it seem highly unlikely.

 
I know everyone is excited about the photos. Maybe they'll give some clues up, but I'm not expecting any smoking guns.

I agree.  It's hard to imagine anything we could see in an aerial photo that would be a smoking gun, except maybe a recognizable Amelia Earhart waving from the beach.  I do hope to see some evidence of the presence of the castaway whom we know was there, although probably already dead.  Some sign of a second campsite would be something we could check out on the ground and see if there were more artifacts there. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 06, 2013, 09:40:44 PM
Could the injuries have rendered them non-ambulatory but still able to operate that radio? What has TIGHER (or others) done to eliminate that possibility?

We've investigated the story that the remains of a castaway were found who was suspected at the time of being Amelia Earhart. We found evidence that proves that story to be true and we have found the place on the island where the bones were found.  We've recovered artifacts from that site that support the hypothesis that the castaway was indeed Earhart.  That doesn't eliminate the possibility that you describe ( I don't know what would) but it makes it seem highly unlikely.

 
I know everyone is excited about the photos. Maybe they'll give some clues up, but I'm not expecting any smoking guns.

I agree.  It's hard to imagine anything we could see in an aerial photo that would be a smoking gun, except maybe a recognizable Amelia Earhart waving from the beach.  I do hope to see some evidence of the presence of the castaway whom we know was there, although probably already dead.  Some sign of a second campsite would be something we could check out on the ground and see if there were more artifacts there.

Ric,

One of the more perplexing issues to me is this question of the 281 message. It seems to comport with a latitude measure made at the site of the remains if we assume FN was referring to the equator in the usual nm measure. I know this could be a lengthy discussion, but how fragile are the chronometers? Could they have been lost or could they simply have "lost" too much time?

Again, if its not too long of an answer, can you tell us the process for getting a latitude measure without chronometers and, say, a typical, mariner's sextant?

Thanks,
Lloyd
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2013, 10:18:10 AM
One of the more perplexing issues to me is this question of the 281 message. It seems to comport with a latitude measure made at the site of the remains if we assume FN was referring to the equator in the usual nm measure.

The 281 message was heard early on the morning of July 5 and, if genuine, had to have been sent from the aircraft.  Everything we know suggests that the airplane was parked on the reef at the west end of the atoll.  The place where the remains were found in 1940 is 281 miles from the equator.  That place is roughly 4 miles away from where the plane was.  I don't think it's reasonable to think that AE and/or FN was camping 4 miles away at that time.  If "281 north" was intended to refer to the distance to the equator in nautical miles, the estimate was a bit off - but that's certainly possible.

I know this could be a lengthy discussion, but how fragile are the chronometers? Could they have been lost or could they simply have "lost" too much time?
Again, if its not too long of an answer, can you tell us the process for getting a latitude measure without chronometers and, say, a typical, mariner's sextant?

I'm not an expert on chronometers or celestial navigation but I would imagine that chronometers are fairly delicate and. without a recent time check, could easily be a few seconds off.  It is also my understanding that a navigator doesn't really need a chronometer to get a rough approximation of latitude at local noon.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 07, 2013, 08:41:27 PM
It is also my understanding that a navigator doesn't really need a chronometer to get a rough approximation of latitude at local noon.

Thanks Ric, same here. Latitude should be no problem. Lloyd
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Adam Marsland on July 08, 2013, 12:05:28 AM
The 281 message is possibly THE most baffling clue in the case, since all signs point to be it being legit, and yet it doesn't make any sense at all.

Ric -- do you have a theory, even a totally speculative one, about what that message was trying to import?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 08, 2013, 02:03:49 AM
The 281 message is possibly THE most baffling clue in the case, since all signs point to be it being legit, and yet it doesn't make any sense at all.

Ric -- do you have a theory, even a totally speculative one, about what that message was trying to import?

Adam,

What are the prevailing currents in the sea around Gardner? I know the currents close-in, but what are the general currents in that area?

Lloyd
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christophe Blondel on July 30, 2013, 06:04:57 AM
The 281 message is possibly THE most baffling clue in the case, since all signs point to be it being legit, and yet it doesn't make any sense at all.

Ric -- do you have a theory, even a totally speculative one, about what that message was trying to import?

In 2011 I put forward a theory, in a thread named "A poorly keyed 281 N", which you will still find at the bottom of "Radio reflections" (Ric was kind enough not to find it too speculative). In short words: since this "281 N" was received in "poorly keyed" Morse code, we must consider the hypothesis there was no "281 N" actually sent on the air, but something that unfortunately sounded like that in Morse code . Please have a look at the original thread for an explicit suggestion.

A question not yet clear for me is whether the "N" was received explicitly as "NORTH" of just letter "N", which would make a difference. Does anybody know?

Christophe Blondel
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 30, 2013, 08:53:34 AM
A question not yet clear for me is whether the "N" was received explicitly as "NORTH" of just letter "N", which would make a difference. Does anybody know?

The only source for the "281 message" (Post-Loss Radio Catalog, entry 125 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html)) is a message received by Itasca from Coast Guard Radio in Honolulu reporting something heard by Navy Radio Wailupe (near Honolulu).  We don't have anything from the operators who actually heard the message.  Wailupe notified the Coast Guard, possibly by telephone, and the Coast Guard notified Itasca.  All we know is what Coast Guard Honolulu told Itasca.  The message was reportedly heard over a period of one hour but does that mean that the reported message - all run together as "281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OF" was heard repeatedly during that time or did fragmentary phrases come in with long gaps of silence between?  We don't know how the various phrases were broken down. Was it "281 N" or "281 North"?  Was it "281 NORTH HOWLAND" or was it "281 NORTH" and then "HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ"?  Without the Wailupe log there is no way of knowing.  We've looked for the Wailupe log but no joy.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dan Swift on July 31, 2013, 11:43:10 AM
"Gardner Island is two hundred and eighty miles south of the Equator.."  Is this just a strange coincidence or am I adding 2 +2 = 5?  The Equator is maybe "281 North"? 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 31, 2013, 12:14:08 PM
"Gardner Island is two hundred and eighty miles south of the Equator.."  Is this just a strange coincidence or am I adding 2 +2 = 5?  The Equator is maybe "281 North"?

That has always been one of the most intriguing things about the "281 message."  You can have a lot of fun parsing the reported words into phrases and trying to figure out where the gaps were and what words are missing.  The only problem is there is no way to know if you're right.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dave Potratz on July 31, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
"Gardner Island is two hundred and eighty miles south of the Equator.." 

"south" is the word IMO that's tantilizingly absent.  Maybe it was a part of the sequence, maybe not...dang that it obviously wasn't reported as heard in conjunction with 281.. THEN we'd have something!  :-\

'Course, then there's also the notion:  why bother saying 281...why not simply "we're 280 miles south of Howland."   Again tantilizing that it might have been said...just not heard.   :(
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 31, 2013, 01:11:40 PM
281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF

For the fun of it.   Remember, this was sent in poorly keyed code. Add or change as little as possible to make it make sense.

LINE (short for equator) IS 281 NORTH.  HAVE or HEARD HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ.

BEYOND NORTH (?)

DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER (Very hard to construct a short grammatical English sentence containing this phrase.  I think DON'T is really WON'T)

CAN'T KEEP RADIO ABOVE WATER  MUST SHUT OFF
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Kevin Weeks on July 31, 2013, 01:56:14 PM
281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF

For the fun of it.   Remember, this was sent in poorly keyed code. Add or change as little as possible to make it make sense.

LINE (short for equator) IS 281 NORTH.  HAVE or HEARD HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ.

BEYOND NORTH (?)


DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER (Very hard to construct a short grammatical English sentence containing this phrase.  I think DON'T is really WON'T)

CAN'T KEEP RADIO ABOVE WATER  MUST SHUT OFF


how deep do you want to delve into this topic?? we could go all the way to the code level??

the received message converted to code is as follows:

..--- ---.. .----   -. --- .-. - ....   .... --- .-- .-.. .- -. -..   -.-. .- .-.. .-..   -.- .... .- --.- --.-   -... . -.-- --- -. -..   -. --- .-. - ....   -.. --- -. -   .... --- .-.. -..   .-- .. - ....   ..- ...   -- ..- -.-. ....   .-.. --- -. --. . .-.   .- -... --- ...- .   .-- .- - . .-.   ... .... ..- -   --- ..-. ..-.


morse code alphabet is:

(http://peoriaseacadets.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/morse_code_alphabet.jpg)


check out any similar letters to ones that are in the code and interpret however you like

should make for an interesting diversion.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Phil T Martin on July 31, 2013, 02:01:37 PM
Ric, after reading your take on the 281 message, it just struck me that maybe the BEYOND NORTH phrase was actually "beyond Norwich City". I'm probably not the first person to think that, but don't recall seeing that notion before...

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: JNev on July 31, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
Fascinating exercise, good cases for possibilities.  Ric's point on use of grammatical construction for sanity check makes sense.  For fun of course - we'll never know, but one huge 'clue' to me is 'poorly keyed' which would fit AE and FN's reputation for radio use - neither was proficient at key. 

I'm not certain of the import of 'behind carrier' as said in the wiki (http://tighar.org/wiki/Post-loss_Radio_Messages--Overview?wwparam=1375301988), but is a carrier wave normally associated with key transmissions?  Isn't a carrier wave a product of keying a voice mic to produce the Morse Code?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Bob Harmon on July 31, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
  Isn't a carrier wave a product of keying a voice mic to produce the Morse Code?
A carrier wave is produced two ways. One is by depressing a Morse code key. A nice, steady carrier wave is produced for as long as the key is held down. You're basically just turning the transmitter on and producing a radio carrier wave that is not modulated in any way. As soon as you release the code key, the transmitter stops transmitting a carrier wave. The second way to produce a carrier wave is to squeeze the mic button as you mention. It does the same thing. It produces a radio carrier wave. If you talk into it while you squeeze the mic button, you are now producing a modulated radio carrier wave.

Bob
TIGHAR #4294R
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: John Balderston on July 31, 2013, 03:33:54 PM
Updated with apology to Phil T Norman - I read Ric's note, and made a reply without reading what came after :P  I appreciate your "Beyond North" thought Phil!

Ric, after reading your take on the 281 message, it just struck me that maybe the BEYOND NORTH phrase was actually "beyond Norwich City". I'm probably not the first person to think that, but don't recall seeing that notion before...

For the fun of it:

Poorly keyed signal, plus Radio Wailupe's reception was fading in and out.  "Beyond North" = [landed on reef] BEYOND NOR[wich city]
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 31, 2013, 06:36:00 PM
And then one can wonder - why would they key like that at all anyway? 

Keying carries a lot further than voice, but they couldn't "key" because they didn't have a key.  The only way to send Morse was by depressing and releasing the push-to-talk button on the the mic.  Very awkward. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Stacy Galloway on July 31, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF

For the fun of it.   Remember, this was sent in poorly keyed code. Add or change as little as possible to make it make sense.

LINE (short for equator) IS 281 NORTH.  HAVE or HEARD HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ.

BEYOND NORTH (?)


DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER (Very hard to construct a short grammatical English sentence containing this phrase.  I think DON'T is really WON'T)

CAN'T KEEP RADIO ABOVE WATER  MUST SHUT OFF


how deep do you want to delve into this topic?? we could go all the way to the code level??

the received message converted to code is as follows:

..--- ---.. .----   -. --- .-. - ....   .... --- .-- .-.. .- -. -..   -.-. .- .-.. .-..   -.- .... .- --.- --.-   -... . -.-- --- -. -..   -. --- .-. - ....   -.. --- -. -   .... --- .-.. -..   .-- .. - ....   ..- ...   -- ..- -.-. ....   .-.. --- -. --. . .-.   .- -... --- ...- .   .-- .- - . .-.   ... .... ..- -   --- ..-. ..-.


morse code alphabet is:

(http://peoriaseacadets.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/morse_code_alphabet.jpg)


check out any similar letters to ones that are in the code and interpret however you like

should make for an interesting diversion.

This has been a very interesting diversion!
I had actually done some exercises with the Morse Code to see if I could shake anything out of the "281" message... The first question I ran into was: Were they using the American or International version of Morse Code? I decided that although the American version was still being widely used in the US at that time, AE and FN would have probably used the International version- which was being used by the US Navy, maritime vessels, and most European countries. Without having seen the actual Morse Code chart available in the plane, we actually have no way of knowing.

However, since their Morse Code message was received and some coherent words were coaxed out of it, I assumed everyone involved was using the same Morse Code version.

The other assumption I made was that SOME of the received words were correct. Words like "Howland and/or KHAQQ". I then ran all the Morse together, without spaces between the 'words', to see what else would come out of it.

I haven't gotten anything really coherent, yet, and I don't want to start switching the 'dashes' and 'dots' around- although I believe some 'dots' and 'dashes' were misinterpreted during the original transmission.

I also Morse coded some words I thought AE and FN might try to send out in code:

. .- .-. .... .- .-. -  earhart

-. --- --- -. .- -.     noonan

--. .- .-. -.. -. . .-.   gardner

-. --- .-. .-- .. -.-. .... / -.-. .. - -.-- norwich city

-. .-. .---- -.... ----- ..--- -----  nr16020

It has been interesting to try to interpret what AE and FN, as amateur Morse Coders, would have been trying to send versus what the professional Morse Coders translated :)

LTM~ Who's accidentally learned Morse Code,
Stacy
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Stacy Galloway on July 31, 2013, 08:35:04 PM
 ..--- ---.. .----   -. --- .-. - ....   .... --- .-- . - .. .- -. -..  -.-..- . -.. .- . .  /-.- (K) ....(H) .- (A)--.- (Q) --.-  (Q)/  -.  ..
 . - . -- --- -. -..  -. --- .-. - ....   -.. --- -. -    .... --- .-.  . -.. .--  . . - . . ..  ..- ...-- /. (E).-(A) -.- (R). ... (H). (E) .-.(R) . (E) - (T)/-- - . - -. . .-.  .- -   ... --- ...  - .   .-- .- - . .-.  ... .... ..- -   --    - ..   -.  . .-. 

Here's a little bit of what I've experimented with... This is one of many starts and stops I've had with the mysterious '281' message... The 'E' that follows the 'H' needs to be '.-' and it would become an 'A'. I've hesitated to start switching dashes and dots around, though. (I've added the '/' to separate the words)

As Ric has mentioned, without the original logs we'll never know what really was received back in those early days, but it's been a fascinating riddle...

LTM~ Who loves those cryptograms,
Stacy
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christophe Blondel on August 01, 2013, 02:31:10 AM
Stacy,

what do you think of my 2011 suggestion (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,279.0.html) that "281 N" was only a mistranscription of "NOONAN" ? The idea is that "OO" is a pair of 3 dashes, very likely to shift the listener's ear to understanding numbers, for so long series of dashes will only be found inside numbers, except for the "OO" case. "28", by the way, is the only pair of numbers that produces adjacent 3-dash series. "1" will then follow as a misreading of "A", if the dash was made too long and/or fragmented, due to the awkwardness of the operator.

I would of course not bet too much on the idea. This is just to insist on the idea that wondering what "281 N" meant may be nonsense, given the probability that no "281 N" was actually sent.

Yet, if I remember properly, Itasca rushed to this supposed position when the message was repeated to them ... Another mystery is why this "poorly keyed" position was considered so reliable by professional operators.

Christophe Blondel
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christine Schulte on August 01, 2013, 04:46:23 AM
Christophe,

I remember reading this in 2011 and finding it a very interesting suggestion. (I actually printed out a Morse code to be able to follow what was said. My son got hold of it and had the idea to use Morse code to "broadcast" correct spellings to his then-best friend, who was a very bad speller, in class. They were very enthusiasic about it for some time and later experimented with Braille, too, because they felt the "tap-tap-tap" was distracting  ;)).
I also experimented around with the message for a while, but felt I got nowhere, and it was much too speculative for my taste. However, I've also wondered if the misspelled part of the message was in fact "281 N". This is a piece of precise information in a message that is otherwise totally garbled and obviously incomplete, and that seemed suspicious :).

I think the message and its interpretation make it very clear that people are heavily influenced by assumptions about what they believe to be true in interpreting anything ambiguous:
The Pro-Nikumaroro interpretation is based on the assumption that the "281 N" part was rendered correctly because that's the only part that makes sense in terms of the hypothesis. (By the way, it just doesn't make sense to me that someone who is to the south of the equator and wants to get that fact across would say "Line is 281 North". Why not say "we're 281 miles south of the equator?" when that's where you know you are? But then I'm neither a native English speaker nor a navigator and the phrasing might make perfect sense to someone who is.)

I, too, find it interesting that Captain Thompson, while he doesn't seem to have been interested in the radio bearings taken by Pan Am, and in any messages received by voice, etc., was immediately prepared to take a message sent in Morse code, which was propably his main means of communication at sea, seriously.The bearing taken by Cipriani is ambiguous - it seems to have pointed to the plane being NNW or SSE - but he developed a total fixation on N(orth) because there's land to the south and he believed, for whichever reason, that the plane was down at sea.

Christine Schulte
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Kevin Weeks on August 01, 2013, 06:39:06 AM
as interesting and fun bit of cryptography as this could be, without the actual logs from the receiving station it is completely bunk. without knowing what was actually received we have to go on what the operator thought was received. code sent poorly without clear context could easily be misconstrued. standard letter coding is done by using a quick succession of dots and dashes with a space or slight pause then continue on.

We need more references to know how reliable the data was.
was the message sent more than once, the same way
was it modified by the operator before being forwarded
were the encoded letters properly spaced (probably not as they say poorly coded)


if you absolutely want to drive yourself bonkers, take the morse code I gave above insert it into the link below. it is a cryptography site that will decipher all possible letter combinations of code without spaces. it will only process 12 unspaced characters at a time because of the sheer volume of combos produced.

http://altamatic.com/crypt
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 01, 2013, 01:32:58 PM
without the actual logs from the receiving station it is completely bunk

Brings to mind the STENDEC/Star Dust mystery.

LTM, who remembers what SOS is in Morse code,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Matt Revington on August 01, 2013, 02:36:34 PM
without the actual logs from the receiving station it is completely bunk

Brings to mind the STENDEC/Star Dust mystery.

LTM, who remembers what SOS is in Morse code,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

for those who don't get the reference this has been discussed here

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1188.0.html
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Kevin Weeks on August 01, 2013, 02:52:37 PM
without the actual logs from the receiving station it is completely bunk

Brings to mind the STENDEC/Star Dust mystery.

LTM, who remembers what SOS is in Morse code,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

or the exact opposite of it!

my guess there is possibly due to some sort of oxygen deprivation. they were flying at 24k feet in a non pressurized cabin... they had just radioed they were 4 minutes out and sent in stendec.... decent..s  possibly some sort of acronym meant to relay they were starting their decent, but confused do to lack of oxygen?? this btw was right before they ran into a mountain...
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 01, 2013, 04:38:28 PM
On the flip side, at least the Star Dust and some of its occupants have been found, God rest their souls. We've still got a bit of work to do before Amelia and Fred can have the same satisfaction.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 01, 2013, 08:04:01 PM
Stacy,

what do you think of my 2011 suggestion (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,279.0.html) that "281 N" was only a mistranscription of "NOONAN" ? The idea is that "OO" is a pair of 3 dashes, very likely to shift the listener's ear to understanding numbers, for so long series of dashes will only be found inside numbers, except for the "OO" case. "28", by the way, is the only pair of numbers that produces adjacent 3-dash series. "1" will then follow as a misreading of "A", if the dash was made too long and/or fragmented, due to the awkwardness of the operator.

I would of course not bet too much on the idea. This is just to insist on the idea that wondering what "281 N" meant may be nonsense, given the probability that no "281 N" was actually sent.

Yet, if I remember properly, Itasca rushed to this supposed position when the message was repeated to them ... Another mystery is why this "poorly keyed" position was considered so reliable by professional operators.

Christophe Blondel

Absolutely, I agree that 281 N could have been a mistranscription of Noonan. As so many have mentioned in the previous posts, there is so much ambiguity to this message that many of the 'dashes' could have been 'dots' and vice versa.

Several of the credible post loss messages were partial messages that faded in and out. Based on that, and the fact that neither AE nor FN were proficient in Morse Code, the chances are relatively high that the message received was garbled, incomplete, and possibly not sequential- especially if they were repeating it over and over.

I do wonder what AE and FN would have thought to put in such an important message.  They know the radio will become unusable soon, yet they want to send something that will be received by someone. Do they put their names? Location? Name the island? The shipwreck? What do you put in such and important-last-ditch-effort of a message?

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the radio rooms while this message was being received... Or better yet, to get our hands on the original log.

LTM~ Who wouldn't swat that fly,
Stacy
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 02, 2013, 01:27:20 AM
without the actual logs from the receiving station it is completely bunk

Brings to mind the STENDEC/Star Dust mystery.

LTM, who remembers what SOS is in Morse code,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

Today is the aniversary of the planes loss.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 02, 2013, 11:52:43 AM
Absolutely, I agree that 281 N could have been a mistranscription of Noonan. As so many have mentioned in the previous posts, there is so much ambiguity to this message that many of the 'dashes' could have been 'dots' and vice versa.

I think it highly unlikely the "281" is actually "Noonan". It is important to remember that the radio crews listening for the messages were experienced CW operators and would be unlikely to make such mistakes very often. It seems far more likely that it was "281" that was sent, since Niku is 281 miles from the equator.  The word "Noonan" was probably never sent, by CW or voice, in any of the transmissions, because there are so many other, better, things to transmit if you want to get rescued. The call sign KHAQQ is the most likely thing to be sent, along with location indicators, and their status at the time (water rising, not much time left, etc). There would really be no reason to transmit "Noonan", especially in crude Morse code.

The "North" after the number 281 was probably received much later.

I am an Extra Class Amateur Radio operator and I operate CW exclusively. My call is WD7J. I know from experience that when copying weak signals, you write down something when you recognize the letters. All the time in between when you can't make out what they are saying, you write down nothing. Most operators leave a small space to indicate this, but nothing more. So it is no surprise at all that the 281 message was reported as "281 North" by the officials reviewing the radio log (who were not themselves CW operators). But it definitely does not mean that the "North" was transmitted immediately after the "281". It could have been from a few seconds, to many minutes later. It could have been 30 minutes later.

Just sayin'

- 73 de Charlie WD7J
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dave Potratz on August 02, 2013, 12:35:21 PM
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the radio rooms while this message was being received... Or better yet, to get our hands on the original log.

Dang, where DID I put those keys to the 'ole Time Machine?!!   ;)

LTM, who loved to take nice long trips to interesting places.

dp
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 02, 2013, 01:28:19 PM
Absolutely, I agree that 281 N could have been a mistranscription of Noonan. As so many have mentioned in the previous posts, there is so much ambiguity to this message that many of the 'dashes' could have been 'dots' and vice versa.

I think it highly unlikely the "281" is actually "Noonan". It is important to remember that the radio crews listening for the messages were experienced CW operators and would be unlikely to make such mistakes very often. It seems far more likely that it was "281" that was sent, since Niku is 281 miles from the equator.  The word "Noonan" was probably never sent, by CW or voice, in any of the transmissions, because there are so many other, better, things to transmit if you want to get rescued. The call sign KHAQQ is the most likely thing to be sent, along with location indicators, and their status at the time (water rising, not much time left, etc). There would really be no reason to transmit "Noonan", especially in crude Morse code.

The "North" after the number 281 was probably received much later.

I am an Extra Class Amateur Radio operator and I operate CW exclusively. My call is WD7J. I know from experience that when copying weak signals, you write down something when you recognize the letters. All the time in between when you can't make out what they are saying, you write down nothing. Most operators leave a small space to indicate this, but nothing more. So it is no surprise at all that the 281 message was reported as "281 North" by the officials reviewing the radio log (who were not themselves CW operators). But it definitely does not mean that the "North" was transmitted immediately after the "281". It could have been from a few seconds, to many minutes later. It could have been 30 minutes later.

Just sayin'

- 73 de Charlie WD7J

I believe they were trying to get the attention of anyone and everyone who may have been able to pick up their signals. So, I beg to differ, but I believe that 'Noonan' and 'Earhart' would have been just as effective to send as 'water rising' and 'not much time left'. Noonan may or may not be a mistranscription of 281 N, but as I stated in my post, I believe several dots and dashes were ambiguous.

I do agree with you that location and call sign would have been a priority to send (along with the simple SOS).

I also believe that part of the problem with the '281' message is that is was sent in crude Morse Code and picked up by professionals.  The professionals might have done exactly what you stated "...that when copying weak signals, you write down something when you recognize the letters. All the time in between when you can't make out what they are saying, you write down nothing..." I didn't realize that operators leave a 'space' to indicate weak or indecipherable signal. I wonder how many spaces were in that log?

I appreciate your experience as a radio operator. Are you part of the group (http://www.wc5c.org/WC5CClub/NikumaroroAmeliaEarhartHamRadioTest/tabid/570/Default.aspx) in Texas who are testing the post loss signals at Niku? It sounds like a fascinating experience for those involved.

LTM~ Who wants to help Dave Potratz find the keys to that time machine,
Stacy
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 02, 2013, 02:43:01 PM
I believe that 'Noonan' and 'Earhart' would have been just as effective to send as 'water rising' and 'not much time left'.

Beg to differ. KHAQQ is much shorter and by itself indicates who is sending the signals. There is no benefit to spelling out the names Earhart or Noonan, especially when we are talking about keying a hand mic to send the code. I've sent code with a hand mic and it's no fun, and more difficult than it seems. The whole reason they were sending code had to be because they either had lost the capability to send voice, such as a waterlogged mic element, or they didn't believe the voice signals were making it through (they may have heard reports in the receiver about people hearing carriers but no voice, or unreadable voice).

I believe several dots and dashes were ambiguous.

I also believe that part of the problem with the '281' message is that is was sent in crude Morse Code and picked up by professionals.

I guess I just give the professional operators more credit for having the ability to recognize when characters were possibly ambiguous or not, and I guess I give the professional operators more credit for being able to take into account the fact that they were dealing with crude code.  I'm sure they took that into account in what they wrote down. They were experienced in copying all levels of code, from fast, perfect 40 WPM code from strong fixed stations, to weak, watery signals from non-professionals. The entire spectrum of skill levels were in plentiful supply in 1937 and I think they were able to take into account the fact they were dealing with an inexperienced operator sending in crude code.

I didn't realize that operators leave a 'space' to indicate weak or indecipherable signal. I wonder how many spaces were in that log?

It would be great to see that log!

Most operators would leave a longer space than a space between words (I do) and some use dots or a very long dash to indicate periods of time when nothing was copyable (I used to). The log if handwritten would show much more and would be invaluable.

The main problem I have with the "281" being "Noonan" is in order to do that, you have to throw away "281". So you are trading away a very strong indication, that they would be likely to send (since they were sitting 281 miles from the equator) for an unlikely possibility that they would take the time and effort to spell out their personal names when not necessary. And in the process throwing the professional operators under the bus and assuming they didn't know what they were doing. It seems like a contortion to get away from what they reported they heard, which is 281.

Sometimes things really are what they seem to be - I think they heard "281".

Not a part of the effort in Texas although that would be one heck of a DXPedition to go on!
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 02, 2013, 04:12:00 PM

The main problem I have with the "281" being "Noonan" is in order to do that, you have to throw away "281". So you are trading away a very strong indication, that they would be likely to send (since they were sitting 281 miles from the equator) for an unlikely possibility that they would take the time and effort to spell out their personal names when not necessary. And in the process throwing the professional operators under the bus and assuming they didn't know what they were doing. It seems like a contortion to get away from what they reported they heard, which is 281.

Sometimes things really are what they seem to be - I think they heard "281".

Not a part of the effort in Texas although that would be one heck of a DXPedition to go on!

This is why I love this forum~ there is so much to learn from everyone :)

I certainly did not mean to throw the professional operators under the bus... I truly believe they did the best they could with the crudely coded message. I was trying to say that they~ receiving a difficult message~ would have known and transcribed what they thought was being sent. For instance the 'N' for North. It was mentioned upthread that we do not know if it was 'N', 'North', or, as you mentioned, a gap between '281' and 'N'. Being professionals an 'N' would be 'North' because that's what is 'usually' means. So, 'N' (gap, weak signal, long pause) becomes 'North'.

I understand what you mean by the trade-off (281 for Noonan). For the purpose of my little Morse Code exercise upthread, I threw everything out except KHAQQ. When asked if I thought 281 could be replaced by Noonan, I absolutely agreed. When dots and dashes get misconstued, of course it can become Noonan. We just don't know. I also believe SOS is somewhere in that message, along with their position and anything that would identify themselves to anyone. Do I think the receivers botched the whole message? No, of course not.

The receivers of this message are to be applauded for getting anything out of it at all. So, to that end, I appreciate that the professionals did receive it, could make something of it, and it became another~ puzzling~ clue to this disappearance.

A more puzzling clue is what was originally sent. Wouldn't that be great to find somewhere on the island? Scribbled Morse Code messages on Fred Noonan's maps... If only paper didn't disintegrate after 70+ years :)

LTM~ Who doesn't want things to disappear,
Stacy
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: John Balderston on August 02, 2013, 06:05:37 PM
The only source for the "281 message" (Post-Loss Radio Catalog, entry 125 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html)) is a message received by Itasca from Coast Guard Radio in Honolulu reporting something heard by Navy Radio Wailupe (near Honolulu).  We don't have anything from the operators who actually heard the message. . .We've looked for the Wailupe log but no joy.

Has anyone been able to take a look at the Navy communications records held by the National Archives, especially the records previously held at Crane Naval Security Group (CNSG) at Crane, Indiana yet?  Several items on TIGHAR website indicate the Crane records hadn't been searched; the "Captain Laurence F. Safford" entry in Ameliapedia  (http://tighar.org/wiki/Captain_Laurence_F._Safford,_U.S.N.)as an example.  Per a related National Archives research paper compendium (in particular see pages 117-119)  (http://www.archives.gov/iwg/japanese-war-crimes/introductory-essays.pdf) the great bulk of the Crane records are declassified, filed under "Office of the Chief of Naval Operations" (Record Group 38) and available for viewing.

If nobody has had occasion to search yet, a quick search of NARA's on-line catalog  (http://www.archives.gov/research/search/)within Record Group 38, refined by date 1930-1939 and the search term "radio" reveals several holdings that might be worth the trip to NARA-College Park, MD have a look - examples:

41. Records of Inactive Naval Stations, 1941 - 1945
National Archives Identifier: 6210255
HMS Entry Number: A1 27
Creator(s): Department of the Navy. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Division of Naval Communications. Communications Intelligence Organization. (10/20/1942 - 07/09/1946)
 or compiled by American naval installations, including naval radio stations (NRS), naval supplementary radio stations (NSRS), naval radio direction finding and high
http://research.archives.gov/description/6210255

5750/1 - Naval Radio Station - Wailupe - General History, Sept. 1927 - Oct. 1943 (1 of 2),
National Archives Identifier: 6229864HMS Entry Number: A1 27
Creator(s): Department of the Navy. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Division of Naval Communications. Communications Intelligence Organization. (10/20/1942 - 07/09/1946)
6210255 File
http://research.archives.gov/description/6229864

If we haven't searched, and the bug doesn't bite anyone I'll see about finding a day to go over next time I'm headed up to DC.

Sincerely, John
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: John Balderston on August 02, 2013, 08:54:19 PM
5750/1 - Naval Radio Station - Wailupe - General History, Sept. 1927 - Oct. 1943

Regarding the potential that the National Archives now holds the Radio Wailupe log book, it's possible that other radio units in Hawaii copied the "281 North" transmission.  To sort out Navy radio in Hawaii circa 1937, in addition to the helpful TIGHAR "Wailupe" Ameliapedia entry (http://tighar.org/wiki/Wailupe_Naval_Station), I dusted off the relevant history on my shelves (most helpful - Layton "I Was There", Carlson "Joe Rochefort's War", Prados "Combined Fleet Decoded" and Holmes "Double-Edged Secrets") and checked out NSA's on-line history of Navy Cryptology, Frederick D. Parker "Pearl Harbor Revisited: United States Navy Communications Intelligence 1924-1941" (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Magic/ComInt-1924-41/ComInt-1.html).

Naval Radio Station Wailupe was in operation from 1925 to 1943.  In 1931 the Navy's communications intelligence department "OP-20-G" established a Communications Intelligence Unit (CIU) co-located with the normal Navy radio crew at Wailupe.  The CIU's job was to analyze radio traffic in the western Pacific, especially movements of the Imperial Japanese Navy.  In 1934 the CIU as well as Wailupe's direction-finding (DF) equipment was moved to Naval Radio Station Heeia at Kaneohe Bay on the windward (north) side of Oahu, a location which was determined to have better reception.  It was also located in close proximity to the Pan American Airways High Frequency Direction Finding (HFDF) station on Mokapu Point.  Bottom line - it's possible that the NRS Heeia and OP-20-G CIU logs, which were classified secret and held at Crane, Indiana until recently transferred to the National Archives at College Park, MD, may also contain entries on the "281 North" message as well as the other potential AE transmissions DF'd by PAA Mokapu.  Definitely worth checking out.

As an anti-climax, to finish sorting out the Hawaii radio story, in 1939 the OP-20-G CIU moved from NRS Heeia to the basement of the old administration building at Pearl Harbor.  NRS Heeia sent a truck morning and evening to deliver radio intercepts for analysis.  The CIU, which became known as "Station Hypo (H for Hawaii or Heeia)" in Washington, stayed at Pearl Harbor until after the Dec. 7 1941 attack, when the Navy decided to consolidate radio operations at Fleet Radio Unit Pacific (FRUPAC) at Wahiawa, in the central valley of Oahu.  At that time the Navy handed Wailupe over to the U.S. Coast Guard (http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/comstaHonolulu/history.asp), which used it as a training facility.  In 1943 the Coast Guard demolished RCS Wailupe and build a new facility, which is still in use today. Eventually OP-20-G was renamed "Naval Security Group", and was later consolidated into the National Security Agency (NSA).

v/r JB
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Scott Doudrick on August 02, 2013, 10:05:38 PM

Like this one in particular?
This item is the original radio log of Amelia Earhart's last communications with the US Coast Guard cutter Itasca. Also included are notes and edits to the log by the radioman Leo G. Bellarts. The last communication occurred on 8:43 am on July 2. 1937, as indicated on the log.
http://research.archives.gov/description/6210268

Or is it just the same as this?

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,479.msg5989.html#msg5989
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christine Schulte on August 03, 2013, 06:26:23 AM
Quote
The main problem I have with the "281" being "Noonan" is in order to do that, you have to throw away "281". So you are trading away a very strong indication, that they would be likely to send (since they were sitting 281 miles from the equator) for an unlikely possibility that they would take the time and effort to spell out their personal names when not necessary. And in the process throwing the professional operators under the bus and assuming they didn't know what they were doing. It seems like a contortion to get away from what they reported they heard, which is 281.

Sometimes things really are what they seem to be - I think they heard "281".

I agree that “281” is a crucial piece of information, but I just re-read the original “Project notes” from 1993 and realized that getting that piece of information involves a relatively unhurt, fully functioning Fred Noonan getting out of the plane with his octant and his navigation handbook, establishing the sun’s position at its highest point and looking up the latitude to go with it. In the light about what has come to light since 1993 about the shape the aircraft and AE/FN seem to have been in, that doesn’t seem very likely, or does it?
(Another crucial piece of information would have been that they followed “the line 157/337”. The person Dana Randolph and Betty heard never mentioned that, and the “281” doesn’t come up in Betty’s transcript, either. The person Betty heard transmitted a lot of figures that no one has been able to make sense of so far, and comes across as having no idea where she is at all. This makes me think that maybe FN was incapacitated in the landing and AE went over his notes and transmitted anything she could find in the hope that somebody listening could interpret it correctly. Of course, that makes it even more unlikely that they had the information about being 281 nms south of the equator.)

Quote
This is why I love this forum~ there is so much to learn from everyone

There really is a lot to learn here and what Charlie and Kevin write makes me realise that my picture of Morse code is wrong. I’ve always pictured it as very technical but it’s obviously much more “alive” and the radio operator receiving code has a very active role. In fact, it sounds a bit like simultaneous translation. I’ve had some impromptu experience with that and relaying information between people who don’t have a language in common has made me realise that it’s sometimes hard to fight the impulse to “improve” a statement - and unconsciously change it - by substituting obvious nonsense with what makes sense in the context. Does that also apply to a Morse code “translator” (and could that have contributed to “North” getting into the message)?

(This is beside the point but the world flight obviously took place at a time when communication technology on long-distance flights was in a period of very rapid transition – in 1927 most competitors for the Orteig Prize thought a radio wasn’t worth taking along; so did the pilots of the Friendship flight in 1928.  By the time the war in the Pacific started a specialised radio operator who handled voice and code communication had become standard. I’d love to know more about the period in between, perhaps somebody could suggest some further reading?)
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 03, 2013, 07:47:19 AM
I’d love to know more about the period in between, perhaps somebody could suggest some further reading?)

Christine, I agree with your assessment. 

For an excellent history of the evolution of aviation communications in the U.S. I recommend Bonfires to Beacons (http://www.amazon.com/Bonfires-Beacons-Aviation-Commerce-1926-1938/dp/0874747279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375537468&sr=8-1&keywords=bonfires+to+beacons).
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Bruce Thomas on August 03, 2013, 10:12:07 AM
There really is a lot to learn here and what Charlie and Kevin write makes me realise that my picture of Morse code is wrong. I’ve always pictured it as very technical but it’s obviously much more “alive” and the radio operator receiving code has a very active role. In fact, it sounds a bit like simultaneous translation. I’ve had some impromptu experience with that and relaying information between people who don’t have a language in common has made me realise that it’s sometimes hard to fight the impulse to “improve” a statement - and unconsciously change it - by substituting obvious nonsense with what makes sense in the context. Does that also apply to a Morse code “translator” (and could that have contributed to “North” getting into the message)?

Christine, I was just looking at some of the old Forum highlights from back in August 2000, and with your post of this morning fresh in mind, I was struck by how it resonates with something in an old post that I encountered. While your thoughts arise from CW messages and the "281 North" matter, the following quote from a post made by Forum member Ross Devitt gives a faint echo of the same idea. (In Ross' case, he was mentioning the matter of whether Itasca's radio operator had heard AE say -- in a voice transmission -- she was "circling" or "listening" or "drifting" ... which tracks back to the TIGHAR analysis of the original Itasca radio room logs that show erasure of the original verb and substitution by another had taken place. Here's a link to a TIGHAR webpage titled "Log Jam" (http://TIGHAR webpage titled "Log Jam") that's simply a transcription of an article in the October 1996 issue of TIGHAR Tracks ... scroll down to "Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 07:58 a.m. July 2, 1937".)

Quote
When somebody transcribes a radio converstion had by other people, and considering the probable lack quality of the reception of that conversation on the equipment of that era and the many distractions of the moment, there is going to be some possibility of error in the transcription.

Under normal circumstances, one would simply ask the other party to repeat the message for the sake of clarity. In Earhart's case, with only one way communications, what was thought to be heard was written, then perhaps after some discussion as to intent of the words, changed. Who knows? The recollections of people who purported to have been there or spoken to someone who supposedly was have been examined albeit inconclusively for what should be obvious reasons.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 03, 2013, 12:29:26 PM
getting that piece of information involves a relatively unhurt, fully functioning Fred Noonan getting out of the plane with his octant and his navigation handbook, establishing the sun’s position at its highest point and looking up the latitude to go with it. In the light about what has come to light since 1993 about the shape the aircraft and AE/FN seem to have been in, that doesn’t seem very likely, or does it?

Sure it's likely, especially right after the landing. There is no real evidence in the radio reports that Noonan was fully incapacitated, although he seems hysterical on the last day.  It's important to understand that Noonan lived and breathed navigation. You can bet your bottom dollar that he would have done absolutely everything he could possibly do to find their position, once they were at Niku. I'm sure he felt responsible for the flight going astray. It was, after all, his job to make sure that didn't happen. With the stable platform of land from which to take measurements, he would be able to much more precisely figure out where they were. The latitude, especially, he would be able to figure relatively easily. The longitude relies on an accurate chronometer, so would be less reliable. But unless he was extremely injured, he would definitely, immediately, try to get those readings. Navigation was his life.

(Another crucial piece of information would have been that they followed “the line 157/337”. The person Dana Randolph and Betty heard never mentioned that, and the “281” doesn’t come up in Betty’s transcript, either. The person Betty heard transmitted a lot of figures that no one has been able to make sense of so far, and comes across as having no idea where she is at all.

Betty's Notebook has 158/338 written all over it, or close approximations to that. Of course, Niku is actually closer to 158 than 157, and Earhart knew the last thing she transmitted about her position during the flight was 157/337, so it would make sense to correct that piece of information with a closer LOP that would lead to their current position.

When you put together 281 miles from the equator, on a coral reef SE of Howland, on the LOP 158/338, near a wreck named Norwich City (copied by Betty as New York City), it becomes clear she had a pretty good idea where she was - she just didn't know the name of the island.

This makes me think that maybe FN was incapacitated in the landing and AE went over his notes and transmitted anything she could find in the hope that somebody listening could interpret it correctly. Of course, that makes it even more unlikely that they had the information about being 281 nms south of the equator.)

There is no evidence in the radio reports that Earhart was transmitting everything she could find, in a haphazard manner. Almost everything anyone copied, had to do with the key information needed to get rescued - call sign, location info, and status. One of the few exceptions is when she seems to be giving instructions about the suitcase in the closet etc, at a time when she was probably presuming she may not be rescued. Extraneous statements such as "take it away Howland" show frustration at not being heard. Again, there is no indication anywhere, that Noonan was incapacitated at the landing. Injured, yes - incapacitated, no. Hysterical towards the end, but no indication of that any time earlier.

Latitude was easier to figure, and the reading would be reliable - he probably did know they were 281 miles away from the equator. And that would be a key piece of information that would help searchers, even if longitude was not known or not known to be accurate. I'm not sure why everyone seems to want to throw away the 281 report - it is one of the strongest indications we have, just by sheer odds. Think about it - of all the possible numbers to be copied, the ONE number that is copied reliable is the number 281 - and they were 281 miles from the equator - what's the odds? To me, it is extremely likely they transmitted the number 281 because that was their location. If it walks like a duck...

There really is a lot to learn here and what Charlie and Kevin write makes me realise that my picture of Morse code is wrong. I’ve always pictured it as very technical but it’s obviously much more “alive” and the radio operator receiving code has a very active role. In fact, it sounds a bit like simultaneous translation. I’ve had some impromptu experience with that and relaying information between people who don’t have a language in common has made me realise that it’s sometimes hard to fight the impulse to “improve” a statement - and unconsciously change it - by substituting obvious nonsense with what makes sense in the context. Does that also apply to a Morse code “translator” (and could that have contributed to “North” getting into the message)?

It is alive - it's a lot like speaking or hearing speech. It's always entertaining to experienced operators when people talk about dots and dashes and how they can be misconstrued. Because CW operators don't hear dots and dashes - they hear letters. When you learn code, you train your brain to recognize a certain sound as being a certain letter - the dots and dashes literally disappear and you hear the letter. Once you get some proficiency, it becomes easier, and you don't have to write down every letter - you can hold the letters in your mind until the end of the word, and just write or abbreviate the word.  At very high speeds, operators actually hear words instead of letters, and it's much more like real speech. That is the level most CW ops want to get to.

At most speeds, it is a lot like simultaneous translation - you hear the letter and write it down and only when you have enough letters, you know what the word is. It's not like hearing a word in your own language - it's like translating, where you hear the sound, translate it into your native language, and then you know what was said.

As for "improving" what you think you heard, it's relatively uncommon with code, since letters are being transmitted and written down, it's much more difficult to change things in your head, like is common with spoken speech. Spoken speech is so fast, your brain is always trying to guess what is being said, so sometimes those guesses are what gets written down in logs. Not so much in CW, except maybe in very fast code - 35 WPM or faster, where it's too fast to write down the letters and you can only write down the word. Then the same brain "guessing" becomes part of the equation. That's not in play here with the crude, slow code - you can bet those operatots are writing down exactly what they think they heard, without embellishment.

- WD7J
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 03, 2013, 01:29:38 PM
Charlie, you make a strong case that Earhart and Noonan knew where they were and that the only piece of information they lacked was the name of the island.  How was that possible?  The only explanation I can think of is that the island was not on any map that they had with them.  Was that possible?  Maybe - and we should be able to verify it.
The attached image is a photocopy of the map that the 14th Naval District HQ at Pearl Harbor used to manage the Earhart search.  The original is now in the National Archives branch in San Bruno, CA.  Note that the map ends at 2.5° South Latitude (I've outlined the borders in red). To plot McKean Island and Gardner Island the Navy had to draw in additional lines of latitude and longitude.  We don't know the name of this map but it shouldn't be hard to find out. It's obviously a standard chart and it seems likely there was one just like it aboard the Electra.   Earhart and Noonan would also need a chart that covers the route from Lae to where this chart begins.  The big question is, what areas are covered in other maps of this same series?  If the next chart south covers the same span of longitude as this chart, then the map that covers the route from Lae should also show the islands of the Phoenix Group. But if the charts are staggered and the next chart south stops at, say, the Dateline (180°), then it seems entirely possible that Earhart and Noonan did not have a chart that shows the name of Gardner Island.  They could know where they were and yet NOT know where they were.

We should be able to find out what charts of the Pacific were available in 1937.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christine Schulte on August 03, 2013, 03:54:13 PM
Charlie, thanks awfully for your long and careful explanations - I really appreciate it and I think I finally get what you're saying: The numbers in Betty's notebook  or in the "281" message may not make sense to a person who looks at this from an armchair perspective like I do, or to Betty or the average person in the street in 1937, but they make sense to someone who is proficient in "Navigationalese" and would have told a Navigationalese-speaking person in 1937 that they were on an island that could only have been Gardner/Nikumaroro.

What you say about "hearing" code and about how a person who is experienced in copying code "hears" slow crude code makes me think of someone learning to read. My daughter is just learning to read and when she practises reading aloud it's a lot like you describe it. It's all painfully slow and some of the letters or combinations of letters are mispronounced but I still get a very clear idea of what she's reading and would probably be able to copy down a sentence correctly. Is that a better comparison perhaps?

Bruce, thanks for the "Log Jam" link, that's actually very close to what I wanted to say.

Jeff, there's unfortunately a huge lot of things that we'll never know even if the Electra is found some day. His Majesty's toilet paper may yet be shown to have  survived several decades in tropical sea water but how about if somebody wrote on it and the writing didn't keep?  ;) And I think I'll need to reconsider my personal pet theory about FN... Before the era of antibiotics and tetanus vaccinations people often seem to have deteriorated very fast even if they had relatively minor injuries by today's standards.

Thanks for recommending the book, Ric - very amazingly, the local university library has a copy. Come to think of it, Elly Beinhorn flew around the world in 1934 and Lufthansa started scheduled flights to Brazil in the same year. I think I'll make a detour to the reading room and see if I can find out something about how they communicated.

I really appreciate all of you taking the time to explain things to a dummy like me! It must be frustrating at times, thanks for your patience.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: John Balderston on August 03, 2013, 04:58:05 PM
Like this one in particular?
This item is the original radio log of Amelia Earhart's last communications with the US Coast Guard cutter Itasca. Also included are notes and edits to the log by the radioman Leo G. Bellarts. The last communication occurred on 8:43 am on July 2. 1937, as indicated on the log.
http://research.archives.gov/description/6210268

Or is it just the same as this?

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,479.msg5989.html#msg5989

Scott, from Ric's description in the link, the Itasca radio logs are essentially the same item, except that National Archives holds the official (smooth) version of the log, and Chief Bellarts' grandson held the original draft (assume he sold it).  Researchers have analyzed both versions of the Itasca radio log. 

New information may be contained in the Naval Radio Station Wailupe log and perhaps in the NRS Heeia and/or CIU logs.  These may be included in the Crane Naval Security Group holdings that were declassified and transferred to the National Archives relatively recently.  Best, John

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 03, 2013, 05:30:11 PM
Charlie, you make a strong case that Earhart and Noonan knew where they were and that the only piece of information they lacked was the name of the island.

They may have known or suspected they were on Gardner, if indeed they had a map showing that.

But in the radio reports they never mention Gardner (at least that we know of), but they do give all kinds of other indications of their location, such as 281 mi from the equator, on a reef SW of Howland, a modified LOP that nearly crosses Niku, repeating Norwich City over and over again (if that's what they did). It points to them not knowing or not being sure of which island they were on. But by giving those other indications, they would be found regardless. Go 281 miles south of the equator and fly that latitude across the area and you find Earhart. Follow the new LOP southwest from Howland and you find Earhart. Look up Norwich City and you know where Earhart is. Give them the incorrect name of the island you think you might possibly be on, not so much chance of being found if you get it wrong.

Something as simple as the incorrect shape of Gardner on an old map may have given them some doubt as to the exact island they were on.

But of course, because of the vagaries of propagation, only a small portion of what they transmitted was probably heard by anybody. We are lucky to have the ones we do, and they do seem valid - there are simply no other reasonable explanations (that we know of) to explain some of the things in the radio logs. Like the call sign for the Hawaii AM radio station written in Betty's Notebook - that's a very strong indication she actually heard that call sign, probably transmitted by Earhart. Hard to explain otherwise.

Since we don't have records of everything they transmitted, it's possible they transmitted the name Gardner and nobody recorded it.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 03, 2013, 06:19:49 PM
Since we don't have records of everything they transmitted, it's possible they transmitted the name Gardner and nobody recorded it.

That's true but it seems to me that if you know you're on Gardner Island you're going to include that in every transmission you send instead of obtuse references to the distance from the equator or the name on a shipwreck. 

Any purveyor of antique nautical charts should be able to tell us what charts of the South Central Pacific were in use in 1937.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 03, 2013, 07:35:36 PM
That's true but it seems to me that if you know you're on Gardner Island you're going to include that in every transmission you send instead of obtuse references to the distance from the equator or the name on a shipwreck.

So you don't think any of the radio reports are genuine, because the word Gardner does not appear?

I still submit it's possible they didn't know for sure which island they were on.

Even today, the first thing people give are lat/lon, not the name of the place they are at.

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 03, 2013, 07:44:42 PM
So you don't think any of the radio reports are genuine, because the word Gardner does not appear?

On the contrary.  I'm convinced that the post-loss messages that we've listed as "Credible" are genuine.  (Remember, I'm the guy who worked with Bob Brandenburg for 12 years to create that catalog.)  What I'm saying is that I don't think they knew the name of the island.

Even today, the first thing people give are lat/lon, not the name of the place they are at.

If I asked you where you live you would give me lat/long?  Especially in a situation where the strength and clarity of voice communication is poor, if you have the option, are you going to give a string of numbers or a one-word description?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ted G Campbell on August 03, 2013, 08:34:13 PM
Guys and Girls,

Question for the navigation grurus out there:

Is it easier and/or more accurate to reference your location as a distance from the equator as opposed how far you may be from your original target i.e. Howland?

What I am asking is; would it be easier (and more accurate) to determine your location relative to the equator as opposed to determining and reporting your location relative to Howland, e.g 3xx, 4xx or 5xx miles south?  Maybe FN figured he didn’t have a very good coordinate location for Howland (he missed it) but he did know where the equator was located and thus a fixed point of reference from Garder to the equator i.e. 281 miles is what was reported.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 03, 2013, 08:40:29 PM
What I'm saying is that I don't think they knew the name of the island.

Sorry, my bad - I thought you were arguing they did know the name of the island because they had maps and a good idea of their position.

If I asked you where you live you would give me lat/long?  Especially in a situation where the strength and clarity of voice communication is poor, if you have the option, are you going to give a string of numbers or a one-word description?

I would give the one word answer if I was confident of my location. If I was not absolutely confident I knew where I was, I would state the readings on my equipment, as well as any other obvious clues around me, like landmarks.

What underlies my view that they likely did not know their exact position "for sure" is the fact that a few hours earlier they definitely did not know their position, or they would have landed on Howland. And from that "lost" position, they then traveled 300 some-odd miles by dead reckoning over open ocean with unknown winds. As GLP has pointed out many times, it's not as easy as it seems. If it were, many early aviation pioneers would have landed where they said they would, but many of them landed many miles, if not hundreds of miles from where they thought they would be. Given all that, I would not be confident of at least my longitude, and I would not have been confident of some of the maps, many of which were based on old information that was incorrect.  New reefs were continuing to be found into the 30's if I remember correctly, and as recently as a year or so ago, the last known phantom island was removed from atlases - it had been on the maps since the early 1800's and only recently removed, because it does not, in fact, exist.

They could figure latitude with relative ease, hence sending 281 miles from the equator would make sense. Longitude was the problem, as evidenced by their failure to reach Howland. They may not have been confident of their longitude, so telling the world they were on Gardner, when they felt that might not be true, would be a mistake. Better to identify latitude, general direction, the fact that it was a reef, landmarks, etc. That's all they really had that they could be reasonably confident in.

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: John Ousterhout on August 03, 2013, 09:38:25 PM
Names of islands depend on the scale of the map they're on. I've given previous examples of small islands about the size of Gardner that were not named on maps known to have been used by Fred.  Even the shape of Gardner was not clearly shown on maps of the time, so I would not expect even an experienced navigator to have known what island he was on, unless he'd been there before.  The large scale maps of the era that I've seen do not list small island names.  Since we don't know what maps Fred had, we cannot say what he had to work with if/when he landed on Gardner/Niku.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 04, 2013, 01:58:46 AM
They may not have known the name of the island but there's a strong possibility that they knew the name of the group of islands they were in, The Phoenix Islands.
That said, when you return to looking at the 281 morse message you won't see anything that comes even close to stating Gardner Island, not so Phoenix though.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: John Ousterhout on August 05, 2013, 07:00:39 AM
Fred's map of the Eastern Atlantic may offer a clue, if it was similar in scale and detail to the map of the Pacific he used.  If I recall correctly, the markings for the Cape Verde islands only named the larger islands.  The smaller islands, roughly the size of Gardner (Iheu Branco and Ilheu Rasu), were shown but not named.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 05, 2013, 07:14:16 AM
I would bet Ric's logic is spot on - that they could have determined 'where they were' in terms of position, at least in relative terms of latitude, but may have not know 'where' in the sense of being able to name the island.  I'll have to keep looking, but somewhere I think there is a chart that shows Gardner at the time - and that it was not terribly accurate in graphically describing the island.

The attached chart is based on an 1872 survey and was the only map of Gardner's shape available in 1937.  HMS Wellington had done a more accurate survey in 1935 but it was not yet published.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: JNev on August 05, 2013, 08:25:28 AM
The attached chart is based on an 1872 survey and was the only map of Gardner's shape available in 1937.  HMS Wellington had done a more accurate survey in 1935 but it was not yet published.

Not terribly accurate, is it?  If FN was working with that then I could see much room for reasonable doubt.  The lagoon is juxtaposed well enough, but the land mass distribution and shorelines are way off, and there is no southern passage to the sea.  This could easily be taken as a different island from Gardner by appearance during an overflight IMO. 

If I were using that (and I can't speak for Fred, of course) and thinking of how to communicate my whereabouts to the searchers, I'd be loath to gamble calling it 'Gardner' and possibly mislead the effort; if I could pin down my latitude and give it in easy terms ('equator 281 north') I think that is what I'd try to do.  Might say '281 SOUTH of equator - but who knows how / why 'north', and not much else makes any sense.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christine Schulte on August 05, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Quote
Any purveyor of antique nautical charts should be able to tell us what charts of the South Central Pacific were in use in 1937.

I seem to remember that some of the charts Fred Noonan used, with his notations on them, got sent back to the US. Somehow, I've always assumed these were part of a series and that if one took them and walked into a library or antique book dealers shop and said "Would you please get me the whole set", they'd just go and get it. If for some reason they couldn't find the South Pacific section, at least the chart Fred Noonan used would give scale, which in turn would help determine the approximate size of Nikumaroro, which would then tell if Nikumaroro would just be depicted as a blob with no distinct contours or in greater detail. Obviously, that's rather naive and it doesn't work that way. Did aviators in the 1930s use "custom-made" charts? Did early airlines have their "own" (private) charts (if so, are there maybe any of these perserved in the Pan Am archives, as Fred worked for Pan Am?)

(I'm just asking out of curiosity and to get a better picture of how things were done in the 1930s - if I'm "in the way", just ignore me please)
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 05, 2013, 11:42:04 AM
TWO EIGHT ONE NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF

Again, the upthread responses are intriguing :)

For the purpose of my little 'at home Morse Code exercise', I'll continue to see what comes up. I hadn't considered "phoenix". I had considered lat and long which brings up some questions.

First, I'd like to clarify (as I tried to do earlier) that this is merely me saying 'what if'- I'm not trying to disavow professionalism or effort from 1937 (or anyone's experience in this matter).

The consesus here seems to be '281' is received as it was transmitted. So, for the purpose of discussion, why '281'? Why not 280 or 285? Would the celestial navigation have been so precise as to transmit '281 N'? And if '281' was indeed transmitted, where is the word 'equator'? Was it not received or was it transposed into something else in the message? Or is it implied in '281 N'?

How about the words 'beyond' and 'water'? And the whole phrase 'don't hold with us much longer'?

I truly am curious as to what folks think about these other phrases.

Also, since this thread is "The Most Perplexing Issues", I'd like to say that one of the most perplexing issues to me is who was or wasn't hurt during the landing.

An injured Fred changes the dynamic of future transmissions. Amelia would likely have been getting location information from written notes. Or, if she was getting info from an injured Fred, she would have had no idea of its accuracy. For instance, a person with a head injury can have lucid moments- but may not have accurate recollections during those lucid moments.

An uninjured Fred changes the directions of the post loss messages. Accuracy and location details would be present (from Fred's navigational skills). I would think extraneous details would be minimal. Even though its been stated that neither were proficient in Morse Code- Fred would have a familiarity with it due to his maritime experience.

If neither were injured or both were injured- that again changes the dynamic.

Either way, the '281' transmission happened a few days after the landing. Food and water may have been scarce. Injuries would have been getting more serious. Infections may have been setting in. The message could have been long and complicated or short and repetitive or a combination of both.

Many factors would dictate the contents of this message. Even the smaller details of 'writing' a message in Morse code to prepare it for transmission would be a factor. Details such as length of time to prepare such a message. Is there paper, pencils, a Morse Code chart for translation? Did everything get wet during the landing? How 'readable' were the charts, maps, etc...

I could go on and on. The '281' message is definitely perplexing.

Thanks everyone, for the fascinating discussion :)

LTM~ Who's looking for a pencil,
Stacy
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 05, 2013, 11:44:46 AM
Quote
Any purveyor of antique nautical charts should be able to tell us what charts of the South Central Pacific were in use in 1937.

I seem to remember that some of the charts Fred Noonan used, with his notations on them, got sent back to the US. Somehow, I've always assumed these were part of a series and that if one took them and walked into a library or antique book dealers shop and said "Would you please get me the whole set", they'd just go and get it. If for some reason they couldn't find the South Pacific section, at least the chart Fred Noonan used would give scale, which in turn would help determine the approximate size of Nikumaroro, which would then tell if Nikumaroro would just be depicted as a blob with no distinct contours or in greater detail. Obviously, that's rather naive and it doesn't work that way. Did aviators in the 1930s use "custom-made" charts? Did early airlines have their "own" (private) charts (if so, are there maybe any of these perserved in the Pan Am archives, as Fred worked for Pan Am?)

(I'm just asking out of curiosity and to get a better picture of how things were done in the 1930s - if I'm "in the way", just ignore me please)

 :) Please keep posting! Your posts open up entire new avenues of discussion! :)
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Bruce Thomas on August 05, 2013, 12:28:58 PM
Stacy, I know you've been doing a lot of reading of the TIGHAR documents. I've been at it for a number of years, and I'm nowhere near done! One of my favorite things to do is to browse through the 28 years worth of TIGHAR Tracks. There are a lot of those that I just haven't gotten to.

So I looked at the nice index of TIGHAR Tracks  (http://tighar.org/wiki/TIGHAR_Tracks) that's available (I happen to be using the one that's in the Ameliapedia), and just now came across one of those I haven't open before (Vol. 9 #3, 9/15/1983 (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1993Vol_9/0903.pdf)). It's from 20 years ago, and there's an article in it that's probably one of the first instances of TIGHAR folks delving into the 281 message. You probably already know a lot more about the message than what's in there, but I thought you might like to look it over.

Enjoy!
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 05, 2013, 12:37:09 PM
From this thread, the maps available at the time show:

The names of groups of islands e.g. Gilberts, Marshall, Carolines etc... Phoenix?
Some name the individual islands, some don't.
Some of drawings of the islands bore little resemblance to the actual island

FN knew the name of the group of islands he was hoping to find, the Phoenix islands, that's about all we can determine from maps available at the time. Is that a fair summary?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 05, 2013, 12:43:19 PM
I seem to remember that some of the charts Fred Noonan used, with his notations on them, got sent back to the US. Somehow, I've always assumed these were part of a series and that if one took them and walked into a library or antique book dealers shop and said "Would you please get me the whole set", they'd just go and get it. If for some reason they couldn't find the South Pacific section, at least the chart Fred Noonan used would give scale, which in turn would help determine the approximate size of Nikumaroro, which would then tell if Nikumaroro would just be depicted as a blob with no distinct contours or in greater detail. Obviously, that's rather naive and it doesn't work that way. Did aviators in the 1930s use "custom-made" charts? Did early airlines have their "own" (private) charts (if so, are there maybe any of these perserved in the Pan Am archives, as Fred worked for Pan Am?)

The chart Noonan used for the South Atlantic crossing, Natal to Dakar, was not an aeronautical chart.  It was a U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office chart called "North Atlantic Ocean, Southeastern Sheet."

The charts Fred (and Harry Manning) used for the Oakland-Honolulu flight in March 1937 were created by Pan Am specifically for aeronautical use.   He used "Pan American Airways System, Pacific Division, California - Hawaii. (East - Half)" and (West-Half).  A notation on the "East-Half"chart says "Compiled from United States and foreign sources. U.S.C & G.S. Chart 5000." (U.S.C & G.S is U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey)

The chart the 14th Naval District used to manage the Earhart search has the same scale and general appearance as the "Pan American Airways System, Pacific Division, California - Hawaii" charts.  It covers from Honolulu (where the "Pan American Airways System, Pacific Division, California - Hawaii (West-Half)" chart stops, to Guam and has the same scale and style as the Pan Am charts.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that it's the next map in the Pan Am series.

Eventually Pan Am created aeronautical charts for the Hawaii-NewZealnd/Australia route which would cover the Phoenix Islands but I don't think they were available yet in July 1937 or else the Navy would not have had to draw in the lat/long for McKean and Gardner Islands.  The first Pan Am survey flight to New Zealand left San Francisco the same day Earhart left Oakland for Honolulu , March 17, 1937.

So if Pan Am Aeronautical charts were not yet available for the South Central Pacific, what charts were?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 05, 2013, 12:51:25 PM
I wonder what type of charts the ships like the Norwich City were using and if they were commercially available?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 05, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
I wonder what type of charts the ships like the Norwich City were using and if they were commercially available?

It would be interesting to find out Chris.

The skipper of the Trongate seemed to know the name and which group of islands the Norwich City ran aground on...

"I, John Harry Swindell, Master of S.S. Trongate, a British ship at present lying in Apia harbour, Western Samoa, hereby solemnly and sincerely declare: 
1. On Saturday 30th November, 1929, at 6 a.m. I received information of the stranding of the S.S. NORWICH CITY at Gardner island in the Phoenix Group..."

Where did he get this information from?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 05, 2013, 01:34:35 PM
I read that as well Jeff.  A thought! With the apparent conflicting claims between GB and USA would the British Naval Charts been readily available?

Why did the NC hit Gardner? Was it the storm pushing it off course?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 05, 2013, 01:39:14 PM
There had to be good nautical charts of the South Central Pacific.  Probably Admiralty, widely available to anyone.   
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 05, 2013, 01:41:17 PM
So could AE\FN used those kind of charts?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 05, 2013, 01:43:29 PM
So could AE\FN used those kind of charts?

Sure.  That's exactly what Fred did on the South Atlantic crossing.  No aeronautical chart available so he used a nautical chart.  Fred knew all about nautical charts.  He was a sea captain.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 05, 2013, 01:50:33 PM
Of course we don't know if he had one of these.  If he had, what was the situation with the Phoenix group and Gardner.  The ships involved seemed to have enough information to identify and find the island.

Does that mean that they were using a non Admiralty chart and relying on a US chart?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 05, 2013, 03:46:36 PM
TWO EIGHT ONE NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF

How about the words 'beyond' and 'water'? And the whole phrase 'don't hold with us much longer'?

I truly am curious as to what folks think about these other phrases.

I think the word BEYOND is the most ambiguous. It's probably not what was actually sent.

The most common mis-readings in Morse code involve extra spaces and lack of a space. For example, when operators want to acknowledge that they heard something correctly, they send the letter "R" for "received". However, it is very common for inexperienced operators to leave a space between the first dit and the dah, so someone copying that would write down en instead of r. And sometimes people run two words together without the required space and it's really hard to know what they are trying to say - you don't hear a pattern of letters that seem to fit into a word so you are left wondering what they were trying to say. Meanwhile, the next set of letters are coming in, so you usually just move on and start copying those. Sometimes you can guess by using the context of surrounding words, but usually you just don't know what they were trying to say.

Not sure if that info helps in figuring out what was meant by "beyond" or the rest of the message, but it could.

Also, since this thread is "The Most Perplexing Issues", I'd like to say that one of the most perplexing issues to me is who was or wasn't hurt during the landing.

An injured Fred changes the dynamic of future transmissions. Amelia would likely have been getting location information from written notes. Or, if she was getting info from an injured Fred, she would have had no idea of its accuracy.

At the time of the 281 message, Noonan was likely in bad shape, but I think Earhart already had the information. Noonan would have likely tried to get a latitude reading immediately after landing, and was probably in much better shape at that time.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 05, 2013, 04:24:21 PM
Also, long Morse characters at the ends of words tend to leave out the space occasionally, like "best" becomes "Bev", which is confusing because your brain is trying to understand generic words but then hears a proper name.

Long Morse characters at the beginning of words tend to add a space, like the letter B becomes ts, which is confusing because no words begins with ts (well, except for tsunami).

Strings of numbers tend to be copied correctly because your brain is anticipating numbers (after it hears the first number).

And any code being sent with a hand mic will tend to have extra spaces, which means it may be copied as two (or more) letters, when they only meant to sent one.

Pro's may be able to sort most of that out, but not all - hence we have "beyond" which I don't believe was what was actually sent. I don't think the pro's knew it was being sent with a hand mic - or did they?

Hope that helps.

Wish I could work on this, but I have a small business and work 12 hrs per day...

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 05, 2013, 05:30:36 PM
Of course we don't know if he had one of these.  If he had, what was the situation with the Phoenix group and Gardner.  The ships involved seemed to have enough information to identify and find the island.

Does that mean that they were using a non Admiralty chart and relying on a US chart?

That's an interesting point.  USS Colorado seems to have no trouble finding its way around the Phoenix Group.  They would use US charts if possible.  Otherwise Admiralty charts.  In any event, there were obviously nautical charts available that showed the islands and their names.  The question is, for flying from Lae to where the (supposed) Pan Am aeronautical chart begins, did Noonan use a nautical chart that also covered the Phoenix Islands?  We need to know what nautical charts of the South Central Pacific were available in 1937.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 05, 2013, 05:57:26 PM
Also, long Morse characters at the ends of words tend to leave out the space occasionally, like "best" becomes "Bev", which is confusing because your brain is trying to understand generic words but then hears a proper name.

Long Morse characters at the beginning of words tend to add a space, like the letter B becomes ts, which is confusing because no words begins with ts (well, except for tsunami).

Strings of numbers tend to be copied correctly because your brain is anticipating numbers (after it hears the first number).

And any code being sent with a hand mic will tend to have extra spaces, which means it may be copied as two (or more) letters, when they only meant to sent one.

Pro's may be able to sort most of that out, but not all - hence we have "beyond" which I don't believe was what was actually sent. I don't think the pro's knew it was being sent with a hand mic - or did they?

Hope that helps.

Wish I could work on this, but I have a small business and work 12 hrs per day...

Thank you, Charlie! Your experience and knowledge in Morse and radio technique is amazing! :)

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ricker H Jones on August 05, 2013, 07:49:08 PM

Following the completion the the Pan American Clipper flight to Hawaii, Noonan corresponded with P.V.H. Weems regarding his navigation methods and equipment, including his chart methods.  The Plotting Sheets (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Potting_Sheet_Example.bmp) he refers to are blank charts with no geographical data.  Whether he used Earhart's prepared charts on the World Flight, or arranged for his own charts, he still may have used the plotting sheets for resolving celestial positions, transferring their coordinates to a marine chart. 
From his letter to Weems:"A set of marine charts, general, coastwise, and harbor, was carried; also aviation strip charts of the California coast.  The actual chart work was carried out on VP-3 and 4 Aircraft Plotting Sheets.  By working along the track from Alameda to the left-hand border of the chart, then transferring that termination of the track back to the right hand border in the same latitude, and continuing in this manner, two sheets sufficed for the entire crossing."
Rick J
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ricker H Jones on August 05, 2013, 08:23:54 PM
An Oct 1922 edition of the U.S. Hydrographic Office chart (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=607.0;attach=1655;image), updated through Jan '36, was used by Noonan on the Atlantic crossing.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: John Ousterhout on August 05, 2013, 10:19:50 PM
Thanks Ricker, that was the chart I was referring to above.  Find the Cape Verde Islands on this map.  Now find Sta. Lusia and St. Nicolao islands in the Cape Verde group.  In between them are two tiny dots.  Those two islands are not named on this map, yet are about the size of Gardner Island.  Now imagine a similar arrangement on a map of the Phoenix islands - the smaller islands, such as Gardner, are little more than dots, but with specific lat/long locations.  How do you tell someone by radio that you're on one of them?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christine Schulte on August 06, 2013, 04:47:02 AM
It occured to me last night that other European nations besides Great Britain must have had nice charts of the Pacific, too ;). There was a lot of Dutch influence in the region, and part of New Guinea was at the time a Dutch colony and had a Dutch (KLM?) airfield at Lae. Fred Noonan mentions having friends there in his letter to Helen Day. Maybe he didn't just spend his time emptying bottles of Genever with them but discussed navigation, too? ("Jaa Freddie, natuurlijk hebben wij een zeekaart... jaa zeker kan du ervon gebruik maken..." ). Of course, Lae seems to have been the easternmost outpost of Dutch influence, but it still might be worth considering.
(I spent a semester at the school of Japanese Studies of Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden in 1989 and was absolutely overwhelmed at the wealth of documents etc. that they had not just about Japan, but the South Pacific, too :)).
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 06, 2013, 08:24:05 AM
It occured to me last night that other European nations besides Great Britain must have had nice charts of the Pacific, too ;). There was a lot of Dutch influence in the region, and part of New Guinea was at the time a Dutch colony and had a Dutch (KLM?) airfield at Lae. Fred Noonan mentions having friends there in his letter to Helen Day.

Fred's letter to Helen Day (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/HelenDay/dayletters3.htm) mentions that he had friends in Batavia (now Jakarta), not Lae.  Airline operations in the Dutch East Indies colony (now Indonesia) were flown by a subsidiary of KLM known as KNILM - Koninklijke Nederlandsch-Indische Luchtvaart Maatschappij. (Say that fast three times.) 

Lae was in the British Territory of New Guinea administered by Australia.  Air service was provided by Guinea Airways.  I'm aware on no Dutch connection.

Other nations may have published charts of the Pacific but Britannia had ruled the waves for a couple hundred years and the His Majesty's Admiralty was the undisputed leader in nautical charts.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christine Schulte on August 06, 2013, 10:52:19 AM
Oh dear, I managed to get every single fact wrong on this. I apologize, and I'm mortified. I really should know much, much better than to just state something without checking the facts. :-[

To summarize what you're saying to make sure I got that right at least,  you think it's very likely that Fred Noonan used essentially the same chart that the searchers used, and the Phoenix group isn't on this chart. The British Admiralty chart, which is a naval chart, might have been used by Fred Noonan to cover the section between Lae and the height of Guam where the Pan Am chart starts. If it could be shown to be the most likely candidate, this would also suggest that Fred Noonan couldn't have been sure they landed on Gardner/Nikumaroro because the shape given on the chart doesn't match the shape they'd have seen from the air. This in turn would make it more likely that they'd only have broadcast their longitude and latitude so as not to mislead the searchers.

I'll go brush up my geography now  :-[.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 06, 2013, 11:28:28 AM
To summarize what you're saying to make sure I got that right at least,  you think it's very likely that Fred Noonan used essentially the same chart that the searchers used, and the Phoenix group isn't on this chart.

Correct.

The British Admiralty chart, which is a naval chart, might have been used by Fred Noonan to cover the section between Lae and the height of Guam where the Pan Am chart starts.

I do suspect that Noonan may have used an Admiralty chart for the western portion of the flight from Lae to Howland but I don't know how large an area that chart covered.

If it could be shown to be the most likely candidate, this would also suggest that Fred Noonan couldn't have been sure they landed on Gardner/Nikumaroro because the shape given on the chart doesn't match the shape they'd have seen from the air. This in turn would make it more likely that they'd only have broadcast their longitude and latitude so as not to mislead the searchers.

I just don't have an information about what the Admiralty chart looked like; whether it extended as far as the Phoenix Group or what the islands look like on the chart but it would not be possible for a chart at that time to have an accurate shape for Gardner Island.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 06, 2013, 01:07:05 PM
'Explore the islands and coastlines of the Pacific with this thorough map of the region. With inset maps of dozens of islands and instructive details such as ship routes, naval bases, time zone boundaries and more, this map makes a wonderful collectors piece. Published in December 1936, it accompanied an article entitled "Flying the Pacific."


http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15967 (http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15967)

Maybe FN bought a copy of National Geographic in 1936?

You can zoom in on any part of the map.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 06, 2013, 01:40:30 PM
Maybe FN bought a copy of national Geographic in 1936?

A cool map but not adequate for navigation.  At some point Earhart did have one of maps.  It's in the Purdue collection.  It has pencil markings the purposes of which are not clear nor is it evident exactly when they were made. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christine Schulte on August 06, 2013, 01:51:30 PM
This (i.e. finding all maps available for a certain region at a given time) is doable if tedious and time-consuming in my experience (limited to books but maps will probably be treated the same as books by librarians).
Is a bibliography of the Central South Pacific available for the pre-war period? It should list maps as primary sources.

If there isn't, you'd have to go through a catalogue of books in print from something like 1920 to 1936/1937. Unless your system is totally different from ours, maps that were available to the public should appear there. Once you've found the maps you're looking for, it shouldn't  be difficult to find out which libraries have them. The Admiralty map should be among the maps you find if it was generally available.

I'd be happy to volunteer but I'm afraid this needs to be done by someone in the United States. I suspect the Internet won't be much use as catalogues this old are possibly not digitalized. If you have contacts at a university, this should be a good exercise for a history major or someone who is studying to become a librarian.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 06, 2013, 02:37:33 PM
'Explore the islands and coastlines of the Pacific with this thorough map of the region. With inset maps of dozens of islands and instructive details such as ship routes, naval bases, time zone boundaries and more, this map makes a wonderful collectors piece. Published in December 1936, it accompanied an article entitled "Flying the Pacific."


http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15967 (http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15967)

Maybe FN bought a copy of National Geographic in 1936?

You can zoom in on any part of the map.

What a sweet map. I would buy one right now if it wasn't 50 bucks for the cheapest version...
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 06, 2013, 04:37:52 PM
'Explore the islands and coastlines of the Pacific with this thorough map of the region. With inset maps of dozens of islands and instructive details such as ship routes, naval bases, time zone boundaries and more, this map makes a wonderful collectors piece. Published in December 1936, it accompanied an article entitled "Flying the Pacific."


http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15967 (http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15967)

Maybe FN bought a copy of National Geographic in 1936?

You can zoom in on any part of the map.

What a sweet map. I would buy one right now if it wasn't 50 bucks for the cheapest version...

Yes, it's a pretty good map but, as Ric said not much use for navigation. On the plus side though it was a map widely available to the general public. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to suspect that admiralty charts and US charts would also have these islands and groups of islands named and, their locations. FN would be aware of the Phoenix Islands and their location in relation to Howland/Baker, he was a naval rating/bosuns mate with 22 years at sea who went on to aeronautical navigation for Pan Am.
We don't know which map they took with them on the Lae to Howland leg but, I would be astonished if it turns out that FN had no idea where, in relation to Howland/Baker, or what the Phoenix Islands were called. The names and locations were widely available.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ted G Campbell on August 06, 2013, 05:52:31 PM
Charlie,
Buy the map and donate it to TIGHAR and take the tax deduction.
Ted
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 07, 2013, 10:30:45 AM
281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF

For the fun of it.   Remember, this was sent in poorly keyed code. Add or change as little as possible to make it make sense.


A question for those more proficient in morse code. Poorly keyed code? What is meant by that?
The words and spellings are complete as are the numbers. The message doesn't make sense though, is that the poorly keyed code part? Charlie?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 07, 2013, 12:31:41 PM
A question for those more proficient in morse code. Poorly keyed code? What is meant by that?
The words and spellings are complete as are the numbers. The message doesn't make sense though, is that the poorly keyed code part? Charlie?

Poorly keyed code is just code where the dit's and dah's are the wrong length or are missing.

So a dot can become a dash, but more often a dash becomes a dot.

It's not hard to see how "don't" can become "can't".

Some of the words are probably wrong, like the word "beyond".

And "DON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER" is probably something similar just stating they can't hold on much longer or can't hold here much longer.

The fact that they state it is poorly keyed code tells us they are not 100 percent sure of what was heard.

Clearly the 281, the two NORTH's, HOWLAND, CALL, KHAQQ, MUCH LONGER, ABOVE WATER, and SHUT OFF are probably exactly what was sent. The rest were probably corrupted to some extent.

In addition the first "NORTH" probably did not immediately follow "281".

The few words we have were copied in a period of one whole hour - many parts of the message could actually have been sent many minutes apart, and I suspect we are also missing quite a bit of what was sent during that hour.

If I get some time I will look at it, but even having a couple minutes to visit the forum is difficult for me to find. I work very long hours...
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dave Potratz on August 07, 2013, 01:17:37 PM
The few words we have were copied in a period of one whole hour - many parts of the message could actually have been sent many minutes apart, and I suspect we are also missing quite a bit of what was sent during that hour.

To flesh that out a bit, and submitted for consideration:  IF the above is true, and IF one were to define "poorly keyed" as say, two-words-per-minute, THEN we're left with upwards of one-hundred words not extant in the "281" message. 

The conundrum I see here is that IF the same short message was repeated more than once, THEN we might see more of the extant words more than once in the string. 

The converse corollary conundrum would be that IF the message was NOT repeated, THEN there might be a good many words in between each of the extant, which, to my thinking, would make it exceedingly difficult to extract much of any context between any two or more words.

Your words-per-minute mileage may vary.

I'm not trying to enlarge the can-o'-worms, I'm just sayin'...

...LTM
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 07, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ok, thanks for the explanation Charlie. That clears up a lot of the mystery around the poorly keyed code. Shame we don't have the actual log of the one hour but, hey-ho what can you do. The main reason I put the question into the arena was because of a very plausible explanation to the mysterious 'stendec' message sent by the Lancastrian Stardust minutes before it vanished. Without adding or subtracting dots or dashes they were able to decipher the message by simply moving the 'gaps' between the letters to form another word. Not stendec but VALP, the call sign of the airport at Valparaiso, the nearest airport to their now 80 kilometres off course approach to Santiago. Seems a very reasonable explanation IMHO.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2010/2010december/december2010.pdf (http://www.ntskeptics.org/2010/2010december/december2010.pdf)

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 07, 2013, 01:23:40 PM
What if it was the same series of short phrases repeated periodically over a period of one hour?  If that were the case we could be fairly sure that the words were more or less accurate as to what was transmitted.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dave Potratz on August 07, 2013, 02:25:04 PM
What if it was the same series of short phrases repeated periodically over a period of one hour?  If that were the case we could be fairly sure that the words were more or less accurate as to what was transmitted.

Agree. IF, as is certainly conceivable, the same short phrase(s) was/were repeated several times over an hours(+/-) time, THEN it might add credence to the accuracy of the words.

However, my surmise is that then there is also an increasing probability that the same word within a given phrase would be heard/recorded more than once.  The singular example of this in the extant "281" series is the word "NORTH" (oh, if it were only "SOUTH"  :-\).  Would we could we not see other words repeated, e.g. we might hear "KHAQQ" more than once over an hour's time, or "LONGER," or any other word within the extant series?

I guess I'm just saying that perhaps the best information to be extracted is that from individual words, not trying to draw to much context from apparent mini-phrases within.  Not that there's anything wrong with the attempt, any of which has the same capacity to bear fruit.  8)

Perhaps viewing the operative words vertically (?this might have already been done elsewhere?) would help mediate the bias we sometimes have in attaching sentence structure to potentially disparate words:

- 281
- NORTH
- HOWLAND
- KHAQQ
- NORTH
- MUCH LONGER  (seem to go together)
- ABOVE WATER   (ditto)
- SHUT OFF          (ditto)

I admit my guesses. I could just be barking up the wrong tree.
Any mathematics probability experts out there?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 07, 2013, 07:26:35 PM
Ok, thanks for the explanation Charlie. That clears up a lot of the mystery around the poorly keyed code. Shame we don't have the actual log of the one hour but, hey-ho what can you do. The main reason I put the question into the arena was because of a very plausible explanation to the mysterious 'stendec' message sent by the Lancastrian Stardust minutes before it vanished. Without adding or subtracting dots or dashes they were able to decipher the message by simply moving the 'gaps' between the letters to form another word. Not stendec but VALP, the call sign of the airport at Valparaiso, the nearest airport to their now 80 kilometres off course approach to Santiago. Seems a very reasonable explanation IMHO.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2010/2010december/december2010.pdf (http://www.ntskeptics.org/2010/2010december/december2010.pdf)

Yes, VAL is probably what was said, the P is ambiguous because of the extra dit, but it was probably VALP that was said. That is a very good example of what can be mis-copied with poor code or poor copying.

The same technique could be used to analyze the ambiguous BEYOND and DONT HOLD WITH US, but the code sent was probably very much worse.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 07, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
What if it was the same series of short phrases repeated periodically over a period of one hour?  If that were the case we could be fairly sure that the words were more or less accurate as to what was transmitted.

The same key phrases probably were repeated many times over. The sender probably knew the code they were sending was in bad shape, so they would send key info first and send it repeatedly, only adding less critical info at the end after they thought all the key info was sent. That seems to be the case here, where the less important comment about not being able to hold out much longer, is at the end of the string. I say less important, but it would be pretty darn important to them to convey the urgency of the situation.

For example in amateur radio, with weak-signal DX, the call signs and signal reports are often repeated as many times as necessary, or as many times as you have time for, while less important info such as names, equipment, etc. are left for the end of the contact. Location used to be sent early in a contact, but nowadays it's less important because you can look up the location of the operation online. When I first started in amateur radio, the location info was near the beginning.


Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 07, 2013, 07:54:51 PM
Perhaps viewing the operative words vertically (?this might have already been done elsewhere?) would help mediate the bias we sometimes have in attaching sentence structure to potentially disparate words:

- 281
- NORTH
- HOWLAND
- KHAQQ
- NORTH
- MUCH LONGER  (seem to go together)
- ABOVE WATER   (ditto)
- SHUT OFF          (ditto)

Any mathematics probability experts out there?

I think you have it right. This leaves only BEYOND and DONT HOLD WITH US as ambiguous.

I would put the word CALL with KHAQQ in some fashion - CALL IS KHAQQ, ITASCA CALL KHAQQ, etc.

Not a probability expert here, but if I get a moment, I will figure out a couple simple formulas to analyze the remaining ambiguous words. Probably better than just hacking at it with a guess meter. Basically do the same sort of thing as the STENDEC to VALP transformation, but take into account all possibilities - could help figure out what they were trying to send instead of BEYOND, and possibly clean up DONT HOLD WITH US into something that makes better sense.

The good thing about doing it that way is when you type all possibilities, sometimes something you didn't consider immediately pops out.

Interesting Note: Ric's comment about DON'T maybe being WON'T actually is a possibility - when CW ops are very tired, they can accidentally invert the dits and dahs in a letter. D (dah dit dit) is the inverse of W (dit dah dah). This tendency to invert when tired was seen in the early days of commercial marine radio at shore stations where ops were required to work long hours of often tedious code to send; and also in modern Amateur Radio contesting in like the 30th hour of being awake and sending CW.

 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 07, 2013, 08:48:35 PM
Remember also that there was no key aboard the airplane. Code had to be sent with the post-to-talk on the mic.  Keying the mic cause the transmitter to spool up.  Releasing the button cause the transmitter to spool down.  This would be an extremely awkward way to send code.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 07, 2013, 09:23:03 PM
Remember also that there was no key aboard the airplane. Code had to be sent with the post-to-talk on the mic.  Keying the mic cause the transmitter to spool up.  Releasing the button cause the transmitter to spool down.  This would be an extremely awkward way to send code.

I don't envy their situation of having to transmit like that, especially when neither one of them was good at code.

I do a lot of code and I really had to struggle to send with a hand mic for a whole week. I bought a new mobile HF radio and it came with a mic, but I didn't have an extra key to hook up to it. So I figured I would try to send using the hand mic. That way, if I was ever in an emergency and had to send with a hand mic, I would know how to do it.

It was horrible, especially at first. My code was way off, and because of being flustered, I made even more mistakes than just because of the hand mic - I was making stupid mistakes because I was flustered. By mid-week I was doing OK, but the extra spaces were confusing the guys I was talking to. It's really hard to get the additional dit on the end of a letter after you just sent a dash with the mic - that damn PTT button has a long, clumsy throw. Finally my key showed up on UPS and I haven't sent with a hand mic since. Oh, well, at least I used a mic for something - I usually just throw any mics I get in a box, since I don't use em. I sold a box of new mics at a hamfest a few years back and got a good price - people were not used to seeing a box of brand new mics for sale!

I can't even imagine how difficult that must have been for them. Shows their strong will to survive.
 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 08, 2013, 05:56:43 PM
Have I got this right?

'The 281 message was heard early on the morning of July 5 and, if genuine, had to have been sent from the aircraft'

And 'The March of Time' radio broadcast dramatization of the Earhart disappearance went out on the 8th July 1937.


So, if anything the dramatization was based on the 281 message rather than the other way round???? ???
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 08, 2013, 05:59:32 PM
Have I got this right?

'The 281 message was heard early on the morning of July 5 and, if genuine, had to have been sent from the aircraft'

And 'The March of Time' radio broadcast dramatization of the Earhart disappearance went out on the 8th July 1937.


So, if anything the dramatization was based on the 281 message rather than the other way round???? ???

Yep.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 09, 2013, 09:35:55 AM

I do a lot of code and I really had to struggle to send with a hand mic for a whole week. I bought a new mobile HF radio and it came with a mic, but I didn't have an extra key to hook up to it. So I figured I would try to send using the hand mic. That way, if I was ever in an emergency and had to send with a hand mic, I would know how to do it.

It was horrible, especially at first. My code was way off, and because of being flustered, I made even more mistakes than just because of the hand mic - I was making stupid mistakes because I was flustered. By mid-week I was doing OK, but the extra spaces were confusing the guys I was talking to. It's really hard to get the additional dit on the end of a letter after you just sent a dash with the mic - that damn PTT button has a long, clumsy throw.

Thank you, Mr. Chisholm, for your real-world experience. Now try to picture Amelia or Fred - it has got to be hotter than you know where in that cockpit, even in the evenings when they transmitted; they are scared, jittery and increasingly desperate to be understood by potential rescuers; one or both of them may be injured; and to top it all off the airplane, their potential ticket to safety, is getting gradually dragged towards the reef edge and obilivion.

Not exactly what I would call ideal conditions. More like Nightmare on Elm Street conditions.

LTM, who keeps his keys on a ring,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dan Swift on August 09, 2013, 11:08:37 AM
Of course total speculation on my part, but I believe the only thing that kept the airplane on the reef with the in and out tides was the landing gear stuck in a groove.  After wrenching back a forth for a few days, it finally broke off and then the plane was lost.  I can imagine the incoming waves pushing the tail in and out and around until "Nessie" let go. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Friend Weller on August 09, 2013, 11:13:21 AM
Not exactly what I would call ideal conditions. More like Nightmare on Elm Street conditions.

Or Nightmare on Sir Harry Luke Avenue!   ;D
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 09, 2013, 04:12:06 PM
Of course total speculation on my part, but I believe the only thing that kept the airplane on the reef with the in and out tides was the landing gear stuck in a groove.  After wrenching back a forth for a few days, it finally broke off and then the plane was lost.  I can imagine the incoming waves pushing the tail in and out and around until "Nessie" let go.

 I can see where if a wheel dropped in a groove and then rotated it could wedge itself in. It seems like something kept the Bevington Object on the reef for 3 months because it is so close to where the waves break. However, at the time Bevington took the photo, it looks like it is in only a few inches of water and the tire does not seem to be in a recess or hole based on how high above the water the axle looks. The tire also looks like it has a tear in it. What could have happened is it wedged itself or otherwise got stuck being dragged sideways and when the assembly failed, the plane came down and flattened the tire. See the impressive TIGHAR Tracks issue article “The Object Formerly Known as Nessie” (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf).
If it was stuck in a groove, once air was released by being punctured from the plane falling on it, it may have freed itself and was able to move again. Still, why it's in that dynamic spot 3 months later is interesting to me. (Probably why there is a lot of speculation on my part)
Note that the “tire” (Attached PDF)in the 2012 Debris Field just S.W. of the Bevington Object also has what appears to be a jagged tear in the membrane.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 09, 2013, 08:57:16 PM
Greg, it's not always a few inches of water on the reef...

"The broad, flat expanse of hard coral which surrounds the island’s shore dries at low tide to provide a very attractive surface upon which to make a forced landing. However, a disabled aircraft on that reef-flat would, at high tide, be partially afloat in 3 to 4 feet of water. Over a period of a few days tidal cycles would move the aircraft inexorably toward and ultimately over the edge of the fringing reef. From there it’s a steep plunge to depths of 2 to 4 thousand feet."

Wasn't it wedged into a groove with the tyre uppermost?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 10, 2013, 02:03:13 PM
Greg, it's not always a few inches of water on the reef...


Jeff,
 "at the time" the Bevington Photo was taken it had a few inches.
The point of mentioning the few inches was that I could see the axle was high above the water and that the tire did not seem to be in a hole or groove (IMHO). Although that doesn't mean it wasn't at some time.

I think the plane may have moved from a high to low area before it sank off the reef. I am considering that wind may have been more of a factor in pushing it west towards the reef edge than water currents or tide floating it. Norwich City debris seems to head South East towards the lagoon which is consistent with the currents. So why might the plane not move South East as well? Perhaps because wind had more of an effect on the plane because it had wheels and Norwich City debris did not.  Maybe a combination of water current twisting the plane off its wheel chocks allowed it to then be pushed west by the wind. (Edit: more speculation- If this happened they may have tied the chocks to the wheels or used something else as chocks and that is what was helping hold the Bevington object there)

I am also considering the "knee deep" phrase in Betty's Notebook and the lower water levels during Betty's signals in considering that the plane may have moved in stages and was in a lower area during Betty's time than in previous days. For the radio to work and there to be movement of the plane, one possible explanation is wind pushed the plane and water never really got high enough to damage the radio until it was forced into even deeper water.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: richie conroy on August 10, 2013, 05:58:53 PM
Hi Greg

I am of the opinion that the knee height comment was depth of water outside plane i have attached image of Amelia next to propeller blade

Thanks Richie 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 10, 2013, 07:05:05 PM
Hi Greg

I am of the opinion that the knee height comment was depth of water outside plane

Thanks Richie

If the premise is that the water outside the plane was knee deep during Betty's reception and conditions were calm then I think the plane moved from the night before.
Say knee deep is about 1.6 feet
Per Time and Tide (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/Time_And_Tide.pdf), during Betty's reception the tide was as low as -.6 meters (even lower but thats where the chart stops)
The night before the tide was +.75 meters, a difference of 1.35 meters or 4.4 feet from Betty's reception.
4.4 + 1.6 = 6' deep water the night before if the plane did not move.
The dry transmitter constraint is 2'-11 7/16". See fig 8.
I'm not saying your premise is wrong, only that if we accept the premise then the plane either moved or the conditions were not calm. My speculation above was that the water was knee deep outside the plane and it had moved from where it was the night before. See attachment in reply 48 in this other thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1178.45.html)
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Matt Rimmer on August 13, 2013, 10:04:25 AM
On the subject of maps/charts http://www.ebay.com/itm/Strategic-Air-Chart-Map-of-the-Pacific-Ocean-1935-/181195684414?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a301aba3e#ht_838wt_880

Matt.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 13, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
On the subject of maps/charts http://www.ebay.com/itm/Strategic-Air-Chart-Map-of-the-Pacific-Ocean-1935-/181195684414?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a301aba3e#ht_838wt_880

Matt.

Whoa!  VERY interesting.  It's a U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office chart so Fred could have had one of these.  Various air routes are depicted including a couple that use Canton Island in the Phoenix Group as a checkpoint. Gardner is not shown. 

I think we need to have this map in the archive.  Anybody want to bid on it as a contribution?  If not, I will.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Matt Rimmer on August 13, 2013, 11:20:40 AM
I can't bid Ric as he's only taking bids from the U.S. and Canada, but I'll put $25.00 "in the pot" who else is with me?.

Matt.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dan Swift on August 13, 2013, 01:56:36 PM
Have to be careful NOT to bid against another member.  Just drive the price up.  Any ideas on how to do that?  Maybe only bid at 15 after the hour and 45 after the hour.  Where have I heard of something like that?  Let me think.  Seriously, don't want to bid each other up.   

6 Days left on this....plenty of time to watch it. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 13, 2013, 03:48:46 PM
I can't bid Ric as he's only taking bids from the U.S. and Canada, but I'll put $25.00 "in the pot" who else is with me?

Matt.

I'll throw down $25.

So how do we do that? When we have enough pledged for whatever it costs, Ric buys it and we send in the money as donations?

- Charlie

Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 13, 2013, 06:30:30 PM
I'll throw down $25.

It's under control.  An anonymous member will do the bidding. Once we know how much it ended up going for I'll let everyone know and you can just make a donation via the website.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Joshua Doremire on August 13, 2013, 06:43:31 PM
I suggest esnipe.com and set a bid for what you think it is worth to go through in the last 2 seconds. It will win you over the high bidder before they can bid more. Used it years ago with good results for things I just had to have. Keeps the pre-bidding amount and interest down. In fact they sold the company and it was bought with an esnipe bidder account...  ;D

You could also directly ask the seller to sell it outside of eBay or a private eBay auction esp. if you say what it is for.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Karen Hoy on August 13, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
It appears the seller has ended the auction because "the item is no longer available."

 :(Karen #2610CER
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Matt Rimmer on August 14, 2013, 04:13:40 AM
Saw that - disappointing.

I agree. I guess it's a lesson learned, in future with such online "finds" it's probably better to send Ric an email or private message, I feel bad that I didn't do that rather than posting on the forum.

Matt.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 19, 2013, 03:23:37 PM
That's good news. Interesting to note that the maps routes correspond to the South Pacific air ferry route which was initially established in the 1920s to ferry Army Air Service aircraft to the Philippines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II)


Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Rich Ramsey on August 20, 2013, 08:40:53 AM
Am I the only one that finds it odd that Howland is listed as a stop? I didn't think they started the strip that soon?
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 20, 2013, 09:23:12 AM
Am I the only one that finds it odd that Howland is listed as a stop? I didn't think they started the strip that soon?

No, that's about right. The "airstrip," such as it was, on Howland was cleared starting in about mid-1935, with the four teen-aged male "colonists" put there to assert the US's claim to the island. But in 1935 it would have been basically an area cleared of large obstructions like the low bushes that abound - maybe good enough for an emergency landing, but almost certainly not for anything more than that. Since that part of the Pacific is largely vacant of land, I suspect that any field, no matter how dubious, would look better to an aviator than an ocean ditching.

LTM, who tries to keep his dates straight,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: C.W. Herndon on August 20, 2013, 11:43:46 AM
Am I the only one that finds it odd that Howland is listed as a stop? I didn't think they started the strip that soon?

Hi Rich. Somehow I have missed the reference to Howland being used as a stop on one of these routes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II). Can you help me find the reference?

Thanks ???

(added link to the routes)
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dan Swift on August 20, 2013, 01:03:38 PM
Interesting that Gardner appears go be on the map in the cluster around Canton.  And a route New Caledonia direct Canton takes you very near it.  So, maybe they were shooting for Canton or any of the known islands around it.
May be my bad eyes, but isn't that Howland just above the "ton" in Canton.  FN may have known pretty much where he was headed, give or take an island.  Then maybe the sputter of an radial running out of gas will make you set it down at the closest. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 20, 2013, 02:58:16 PM
Am I the only one that finds it odd that Howland is listed as a stop? I didn't think they started the strip that soon?
Hi Rich. Somehow I have missed the reference to Howland being used as a stop on one of these routes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II). Can you help me find the reference?

Woody, I think he was referring to the map that was listed on eBay in post number 131. :)

Thanks ???

(added link to the routes)
[/quote]
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: C.W. Herndon on August 20, 2013, 03:53:49 PM
Woody, I think he was referring to the map that was listed on eBay in post number 131. :)

Thanks Jeff. I must have missed that too. ???
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Dan Swift on August 21, 2013, 09:21:28 AM
Great point Jeff.  I too would want to set down for sure and not wait for the "sputter".  Especially in the case as you stated.  And like you said, they probably just sputter and stop.....and at low altitude because you didn't want to spend fuel to climb, you would take the first good spot considering there were no other spots around.  Makes sense to me.  I am landing this airplane before it crashes. 
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ricker H Jones on August 21, 2013, 12:33:29 PM
A sidebar to the use of early aviation charts was told to me by a resident in the adult community where I live.  He joined Pan American in 1942 flying the Boeing 314, and told me of developing the air routes across Africa after the war started.  They used maps procured from National Geographic, and as they surveyed the routes, they would annotate the charts with cultural and natural features which were beneficial for air navigation.
Rick J
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: manjeet aujla on September 10, 2013, 09:42:48 AM
I agree with your reason number 5 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1233.msg25814.html#msg25814), on being perplexing indeed. Why not radio her intentions? Well, this has been addressed in a paper on this site (the location of which escapes me now.) Essentially her antenna(s) ranges were calculated and plotted with her conjectured locations (based partly on the signal strength of her transmission that were being received while airborne), and a plausible theory of why she was not heard was advanced. (She could have been transmitting, but was just not heard then)

I am just paraphrasing from what I remember from the paper, and I urge you to read it for yourself to get the accurate details. It convinced me at that time, and if I find the link to the paper on this site, I will write it.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on September 10, 2013, 01:55:42 PM
281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF

For the fun of it.   Remember, this was sent in poorly keyed code. Add or change as little as possible to make it make sense.

LINE (short for equator) IS 281 NORTH.  HAVE or HEARD HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ.

BEYOND NORTH (?)

DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER (Very hard to construct a short grammatical English sentence containing this phrase.  I think DON'T is really WON'T)

CAN'T KEEP RADIO ABOVE WATER  MUST SHUT OFF

I'm a little late responding, but I think the word 'Luck' fits nicely into the phrase 'Don't hold with us much longer,' if the word 'don't' is actually 'won't.'

LUCK WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER.

Other words may work also, but luck's my favorite.

Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 10, 2013, 02:06:06 PM
CAN'T KEEP RADIO ABOVE WATER  MUST SHUT OFF

I'm a little late responding, but I think the word 'Luck' fits nicely into the phrase 'Don't hold with us much longer,' if the word 'don't' is actually 'won't.'

LUCK WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER.

Other words may work also, but luck's my favorite.

I just thought of this.  If my speculation is correct that the preceding phrase is CAN'T KEEP RADIO ABOVE WATER. MUST SHUT OFF. then we don't need a word before WON'T.  We have three short sentences describing the crisis with the radio.

CAN'T KEEP RADIO ABOVE WATER. MUST SHUT OFF. WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER.
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on September 10, 2013, 02:48:18 PM
The thriftier interpretation works equally as well for me and might even make more sense given it was Morse code.  The 281 North message, when carefully parsed and interpreted, overall seems to make sense in the context of what TIGHAR hypothesizes.

Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
Title: Re: The most perplexing issues
Post by: Christophe Blondel on December 16, 2013, 07:26:53 AM
Not so many news of Amelia these days, so I would like to come back to this (just two pages above):

Perhaps viewing the operative words vertically (?this might have already been done elsewhere?) would help mediate the bias we sometimes have in attaching sentence structure to potentially disparate words:

- 281
- NORTH
- HOWLAND
- KHAQQ
- NORTH
- MUCH LONGER  (seem to go together)
- ABOVE WATER   (ditto)
- SHUT OFF          (ditto)

Any mathematics probability experts out there?

I think you have it right. This leaves only BEYOND and DONT HOLD WITH US as ambiguous.

I would put the word CALL with KHAQQ in some fashion - CALL IS KHAQQ, ITASCA CALL KHAQQ, etc.

Not a probability expert here, but if I get a moment, I will figure out a couple simple formulas to analyze the remaining ambiguous words. Probably better than just hacking at it with a guess meter. Basically do the same sort of thing as the STENDEC to VALP transformation, but take into account all possibilities - could help figure out what they were trying to send instead of BEYOND, and possibly clean up DONT HOLD WITH US into something that makes better sense.

The good thing about doing it that way is when you type all possibilities, sometimes something you didn't consider immediately pops out.

Interesting Note: Ric's comment about DON'T maybe being WON'T actually is a possibility - when CW ops are very tired, they can accidentally invert the dits and dahs in a letter. D (dah dit dit) is the inverse of W (dit dah dah). This tendency to invert when tired was seen in the early days of commercial marine radio at shore stations where ops were required to work long hours of often tedious code to send; and also in modern Amateur Radio contesting in like the 30th hour of being awake and sending CW.

I completely agree on the idea of a reinterpretation of the "281 N" message on the basis of possible miskeyings of the Morse encoded message. I actually launched about three years ago the hypothesis that what was read as "281 N" could actually have been something else (with OO inside, i.e. twice a triple dash like in 28, and an N at the end, see A poorly keyed 281 N (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=279.0).

Along the same line, I disagree with the idea that BEYOND and DONT HOLD WITH US are the only words that need be reinterpreted as ambiguous. The trend for the listeners of Morse code to write down the wrong word may be even stronger for those words that seem familiar. Think of HOWLAND and the number of messages these operators would have heard telling "ARRIVED AT HOWLAND", "EXPECTED AT HOWLAND", "NOT SEEN AT HOWLAND" and so on. Whatever sounded more or less like HOWLAND was very likely to be caught like "Oh, a bit miskeyed, but they are still telling about HOWLAND" ... So in the sequence "281 N HOWLAND", HOWLAND may be as questionable as the senseless 281 N we have desperately tried to link to a latitude, even though it points to the wrong hemisphere.

So what ? There was a lot of discussion recently on whether the idea that Fred was injured in the landing was more than a hypothesis and something that could be tracked in the plausible post-loss radio calls. If so, the question must be raised whether one can detect something in the "281 N" message too. My first suggestion, relying on the observation that "281 N" may be heard as a result from a faulty transmission of NOONAN, was that we had Fred's signature here, and that he made something like a fatal error by miskeying his own name. But everybody more or less agrees that Amelia was the one at the microphone and this is actually more likely. So what could she mean sending Fred's name on the air ? If Fred was injured, wasn't it straightforward to dial NOONAN INJURED ?

I won't explain again how easily NOONAN can be miskeyed and read as 281 N (please see the other thread). Let us only do the test : what can INJURED become, with not too many transformations. INJURED: .. -. .--- ..- .-. . -.. With only two switches, one erased dot and two compactions: .... --- .-- .-.. -.. = HOWLD. May be we are, as usual, lead by what we want to find, but I did not think, when I started the test, that it would work so easily.

If you do not like it please take it only as a winter tale. The probability certainly remains less than 50% that the 281 N HOWLAND message actually was a NOONAN INJURED distress call. On the other hand, let us not forget that the purloined letter may also lie among objects assumed of no importance.

Best wishes to Niku VIII.

Christophe