TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on July 23, 2018, 11:26:29 AM
-
As was reported in yesterday's TIGHARNews and on the TIGHAR Facebook page:
Tomorrow, Amelia Earhart's 121st birthday, TIGHAR will release a new in-depth analysis of the radio distress calls heard during the five days and nights following Earhart's disappearance.
Fifteen year-old Betty Klenck's transcription of the desperate pleas for help she heard on her family radio in July 1937 has been featured in books, articles, and television documentaries as a remarkable record of perhaps the last communication from Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan.
Betty's Notebook describes a scene so clearly authentic and so emotionally powerful that her experience tends to overshadow the other 56 credible signals heard in the days following the Electra's failure to arrive at Howland Island. Those receptions constitute a body of evidence far stronger than Betty's alone.
Similar to the castaway bone measurements analyzed by forensic anthropologist Richard Jantz, the post-loss radio signals constitute historically documented quantitative data that can be scientifically analyzed. The new analysis, four months in preparation by TIGHAR Senior Researcher Bob Brandenburg and Executive Director Ric Gillespie, presents the signals in a graphical and narrative format that makes their significance easier to understand. Newly identified patterns and relationships in the data provide new insights into the situation faced by the lost aviators. The paper is being published in a dedicated special issue of TIGHAR Tracks on July 24, and will also be posted on the TIGHAR website.
I'll be eager to know what all of you think of the new report.
-
Ric,
We are looking forward to your report.
Is Betty’s Notebook and Richard Jantz’s documents “originals” being held in AE’s “museum”? Hmmm!
Ted Campbell
-
Just finished reading the report - makes perfect sense to me. I found it well organized and presented an easy-to-read chronology of the transmissions correlated to the conditions on the island.
Between this and the bones analysis, the evidence strongly supports them meeting their end on Gardner.
Thanks to all who worked putting this together.
-
Is Betty’s Notebook and Richard Jantz’s documents “originals” being held in AE’s “museum”? Hmmm!
SAY WHAT???? Where did you hear that?
-
Excellent article in USA TODAY.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/07/24/amelia-earhart-birthday-distress-call/782617002/
-
A very good presentation of the data, there is so much that I will still have to go through it a couple of more times.
I do have one question, on page 28 in the discussion about why AE never mentioned the name of the island it is suggested that FN may have used the H.O. 5050 chart which ended just below the equator and did not include the Phoenix Islands so they would not have had access to the island names. If the islands were not on their charts then I am not sure if I get how they would have known that Gardner lay to the south on the 357-157 line.
-
Very nicely assembled report. A fascinating read. Thank you.
Alfred
-
If the islands were not on their charts then I am not sure if I get how they would have known that Gardner lay to the south on the 357-157 line.
I don't think they did. I once thought that Noonan saw the Phoenix Group as an alternate if they couldn't find Howland, but when you think about it, it doesn't make sense. Noonan can't head south to find Gardner unless he knows he's south of Howland. If he knows he's south of Howland he should fly north.
I don't think Noonan was ever doing anything but trying to find Howland by "running on line north and south" just like AE said. Later that night, when they're on the ground, he can get their lat/long and know they're "on a reef southeast of Howland."
-
Congratulations on organizing all of this data in a report that explains what happened so clearly.
Listing the signals by active periods makes it easy to see why categorizing some of the receptions as Credible Beyond Reasonable Doubt is justified.
For example, as noted during Period 9, multiple stations heard dashes after the KGMB broadcast asking her to send dashes, and then Pan Am gets a bearing on the signals that is close to Gardner. And as noted during Period 11, DF bearings from 3 different locations were taken and they all cross near Gardner. This report makes those sequences and correlations easy to see now.
The graphics are better than ever. Especially the chart on Page 16 and 17.
Notice that on the first night there are signals before the tide peak but not after until it gets light. The next two nights there are signals before and after the peak, even during darkness after the peak. One theory for this could be that on the first night they could see the water rising (higher than earlier in the day) but don't know yet when it will stop. They may risk going to shore the first night because they think the plane may soon be washed away. On the 2nd and 3rd night they may stay in the plane until morning because they learned it didn’t rise high enough the first night and discovered the risks of crossing the reef in darkness the 1st night.
-
Is Betty’s Notebook and Richard Jantz’s documents “originals” being held in AE’s “museum”? Hmmm!
SAY WHAT???? Where did you hear that?
-
Ric,
Ref. your reply #4. My post was a QUESTION!
Ted Campbell
-
Ref. your reply #4. My post was a QUESTION!
Sorry, I thought you were trying to confirm something you heard. The answer to your question is No.
-
Today’s online Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/07/25/dozens-heard-amelia-earharts-final-chilling-pleas-for-help-researchers-say/?utm_term=.475813fc3802
-
My contact at the Washington Post reports that the radio signals article is one of today's most-read stories.
USA TODAY reports that yesterday's article reached half a million people with an excellent average read time of two minutes.
United Press International (UPI) wire service has also picked up the story https://www.upi.com/Study-Radio-signals-may-prove-Amelia-Earhart-crashed-on-Pacific-island/1351532450804/
-
A long time ago (circa 1998), I did some analysis of the KGMB/KGU broadcasts, but that write-up was lost during multiple computer change-overs. Most of it was based upon the reported responses on the HO chart used by the Navy in Honolulu, along with newspaper reports and some of the telegrams. I'm going strictly by memory here, so I may be off. The idea was to respond first with 4 dashes if on land and 2 if on sea, then another request made for 4 dashes if south of the Equator and 2 if North. I believe the first response was 4, and the second response was three (the signal diminished after the third dash). Long before the radio signal level analyses, I thought that this sequence of events was one of the more credible radio receptions picked up by the Navy/Coast Guard.
Ric: can you look at your copy of the map and verify if my memory is at least somewhat intact? My copy of the map is buried in the closet...
-
Ric: can you look at your copy of the map and verify if my memory is at least somewhat intact? My copy of the map is buried in the closet...
Here's a transcription of the notations on the 14th naval District map:
Additional Dope on
Mokapu RADIO BEARINGS –
3 July FIRST service?, 213 (+-10)
4 July 2nd ‘ 200 –
also illegible and ?80° illegible on / as doubtful –
Wake 115°
5 July 144°
2200 night 2nd Itasca heard weak signals
“ 3rd Itasca heard weak signals?
Night of 3rd –
KGMB Requested & broadcast –
0630 GCT 4th (8pm and? Honolulu to 2:15 AM)
asked for 8 dashes if on water – and got 8 in response
{illegible
{C.G.
{Army [illegible]
{PAA
asked for 4 dashes if north of Howland and 6 if south – [obscured by stain] 6? received
0120 to 0150 evening of 5 July – 3 operators at Wailupe co[obscured by stain] transmission
“ 281 north of Howland beyond north etc - Coast Guar[obscured by stain] but could not copy.
Per O’Connor at San Bruno:
Additional Dope on Radio Bearings
Mokapu
3 July first bearing 213 (+-10)
4 July 2nd bearing 200
also 105o and 180o thrown out as doubtful
Wake 115o
5 July 144o
2200 night 2nd Itasca heard weak signals
night 3rd Itasca heard weak signals?
Night of 3rd-
KGMB request to broadcast-
0630GCT 4th (8PM local Honolulu to 215) Amateur in Maui
CG
Wailupe
Army [unreadable]
PAA
asked for 8 dashes if on water---got 8 in response
asked for 4 dashes if North of Howland and 6 is [sic] South [unreadable] received [unreadable] 105
0120 to 0150 morning of 5 July 3 operators at Wailupe [unreadable] transmission transmission [sic]
-
Thanks.
-
Re: Patterns
Great job! A lot of work and some real payoffs.
The lovely elucidation of the active Periods, most of which show multiple receptions, makes the solitary receptions really stand out. I would argue that the presence of multiple receptions during active Periods significantly enhances the joint and individual credibility of those receptions.
However, as a complement to that, the solitary receptions (receptions which are alone in an active Period) become somewhat less credible, IMO. There are only six (or in my mind seven) solitary receptions out of the 57 credible receptions. Interestingly, many of these solitary receptions are already less credible for other reasons. These solitary receptions include:
- #47 (active Period #4) including the quoted “very dark” when it is 8 AM.
- #55’s “faint carrier” which is one of the least significant receptions. BTW, this reception should be in its own active Period as it is separated from Period #5 by over 90 minutes.
- Mrs. Ernest Crabb’s receptions #140 (active Period #13) and #161 (active Period #15) - both of which had low probabilities and odd content (man and woman talking), and the final reception #175 (active Period #17), whose credibility is already questioned in the commentary in the table. If #175 is incompatible with the hypothesis (false), I wonder if any of her reported receptions can be viewed as credible.
- Betty Klenck’s reception #142 (active Period #14), which is less credible because of the time of day (it is the only real daytime transmission, and in the heat of midday at that) and duration (1.75 hours) so that it could only have been done on battery not engine power because of engine overheating (how long would the battery be able to push the transmitter?) All the talk about rising water when it is near dead low tide MIGHT be explained by the Electra being in a new (lower) location, but then you have to explain the later Period #16’s receptions during a time of much higher water. I recognize that much other data supports the thesis that this reception is genuine, but there are problems with it and it being a solitary reception is another (minor) problem.
Jon
-
However, as a complement to that, the solitary receptions (receptions which are alone in an active Period) become somewhat less credible, IMO.
I agree.
There are only six (or in my mind seven) solitary receptions out of the 57 credible receptions. Interestingly, many of these solitary receptions are already less credible for other reasons. These solitary receptions include:
- #47 (active Period #4) including the quoted “very dark” when it is 8 AM.
Nina Paxton is tough. While the reception on a harmonic was technically possible, the reported content at first seems contradictory. Earhart reportedly says she is “down in ocean” then “on or near little island at a point near….” It’s conceivable that the confused language is an attempt to describe being on the reef "at a point near a shipwreck." There is then “something about directly northeast” which could be the plane’s location relative to the shipwreck. The aircraft's presumed location is northeast (okay NNW) of the shipwreck.
Earhart reportedly said “our plane about out of gas” which is interesting. Paxton couldn't possibly know why Earhart would be concerned about fuel after she was down. Earhart then says, “Water all around. Very dark” “Then something about a storm and the wind blowing.” Squalls are not uncommon at Nikumaroro and when they hit it can get very dark with high winds. However, squalls at Niku are usually an afternoon, not morning, occurrence.
Paxton waited a week to report her experience to the local newspaper and, in later years, made repeated attempts to publicize her story, embellishing it with new and often outlandish details. The Japanese Capture Crowd love her because in 1943 she told syndicated columnist Walter Winchell that she now remembered that “This message contained some 300 to 400 words in which she described Mille (sic) or Mulgrave Atoll, Klee Passage, Knox Island and (Earhart) seemed to be located on a small island of 133 acres directly N.E. of a part of Marshall Island.”
Note that Mrs. Paxton does not say that Earhart named any of those places - only that Amelia “described” them.
- #55’s “faint carrier” which is one of the least significant receptions. BTW, this reception should be in its own active Period as it is separated from Period #5 by over 90 minutes.
We went back and forth about that one and decided to include it in Period #5. It was night and the tide was low so there was no obvious need to shut down. It doesn't really change anything either way.
- Mrs. Ernest Crabb’s receptions #140 (active Period #13) and #161 (active Period #15) - both of which had low probabilities and odd content (man and woman talking), and the final reception #175 (active Period #17), whose credibility is already questioned in the commentary in the table. If #175 is incompatible with the hypothesis (false), I wonder if any of her reported receptions can be viewed as credible.
Mrs. Crabb is another tricky one. All harmonic receptions, by definition, have low probabilities. She's the only private citizen who reported multiple receptions which seems a bit dubious, but her report of hearing "a conversation between a man and woman" echoes what Betty heard. A couple of the phrases she reported hearing also resemble phrases Betty heard. "Are you all right?" and "Oh, oh, oh." But it's hard to imagine a circumstance in which one of them would say "Hold on to this line."
- Betty Klenck’s reception #142 (active Period #14), which is less credible because of the time of day (it is the only real daytime transmission, and in the heat of midday at that) and duration (1.75 hours) so that it could only have been done on battery not engine power because of engine overheating (how long would the battery be able to push the transmitter?) All the talk about rising water when it is near dead low tide MIGHT be explained by the Electra being in a new (lower) location, but then you have to explain the later Period #16’s receptions during a time of much higher water. I recognize that much other data supports the thesis that this reception is genuine, but there are problems with it and it being a solitary reception is another (minor) problem.
All true. If it weren't for the high credibility of the content, Betty's reception would be questionable at best. That's why I felt it was so important to call attention to the rest of the credible signals and especially the Credible Beyond a Reasonable doubt receptions. Throw out anything you feel is doubtful and you're still left with an Electra on the reef at Gardner Island.
-
Jon,
I notice you mention engine overheating in your prior post. I don't recall reading that anywhere else. I don't recall engines responding to 110-120 degree heat in idle. Was there another reference you could point me to?
Read "Patterns", page 6 in the new report.
-
Solid analysis, superbly presented. This will be tough to refute, though some will try.
Regarding travel to/from the beach; if I'm interpreting the satellite imagery on page 8 correctly, the color of the reef at the presumed aircraft location represents the areas of the higher parts of the reef and shallowest water. The path of least resistance from the aircraft to the beach seems to be north to where the brown, speckled area expands to the east, hitting the beach somewhere in that dip or indentation in the shoreline. It doesn't appear as smooth as the landing area but it may well be the safest path.
"Camp Zero" may well have been somewhere under the higher trees (dark green) at the bottom of the satellite imagery. I'm pretty sure that area was included in the ground search last expedition. What are the storm over-wash conditions in that area?
Ric, do you have any photographs taken somewhere in that area of the beach looking towards the presumed aircraft location or of that area in general?
-
The path of least resistance from the aircraft to the beach seems to be north to where the brown, speckled area expands to the east, hitting the beach somewhere in that dip or indentation in the shoreline. It doesn't appear as smooth as the landing area but it may well be the safest path.
See photos below ... and that's at low tide.
"Camp Zero" may well have been somewhere under the higher trees (dark green) at the bottom of the satellite imagery. I'm pretty sure that area was included in the ground search last expedition. What are the storm over-wash conditions in that area?
That area is Buka forest. Yes, it was thoroughly searched in 2015. Nothing there. Storms wash light buoyant objects (like coconut shells) that far inland but no destructive wavs penetrate that far.
The new post-loss radio study provides some new perspective on what AE and FN might reasonably be expected to do in terms of bringing ashore things from the aircraft that might end up at a "Camp Zero." Noonan was "severely injured" so it seems unlikely that he would be able to transport anything ashore, if he could get ashore at all. Earhart seems to have had a lesser injury, but just getting back and forth to the plane with the help of a walking stick might have been a challenge. It seems likely that little, if anything, came ashore beyond the few items that ended up at the Seven Site.
Ric, do you have any photographs taken somewhere in that area of the beach looking towards the presumed aircraft location or of that area in general?
See below.
-
Thanks, Ric. That looks nearly impassable.
-
Ric,
I have two questions that I know you can answer: What are the approx. compass headings for the center line - N/S - for Niku? And, where can I find the Lockheed’s transmitting antenna propagation footprint i.e. was the signal strongest down the centerline of the aircraft or perpendicular to the fuselage?
Ted Campbell
-
What are the approx. compass headings for the center line - N/S - for Niku?
I don't understand your question. Center line of what?
And, where can I find the Lockheed’s transmitting antenna propagation footprint i.e. was the signal strongest down the centerline of the aircraft or perpendicular to the fuselage?
Neither. See below.
-
Ric,
Of the island.
Ted
-
Ric,
Of the island.
Ted
The long axis of the island (from main lagoon passage to SE tip) runs 317°/137° True
-
Based on the same operator (Coast Guard Hawai'i) hearing dashes on frequency 6210 (Number 27) just after hearing dashes on frequency 3105 (Message 26), shouldn't number 27 be listed as "Primary or Second Harmonic".
Number 27 is the only one that lists the frequency as 6210, without the possibility of it also being a second harmonic.
I'm wondering if 6210 worked at all after the plane landed.
-
This is the quote that struck me most strongly:
"In a report written after the search for Earhart had failed, the commanding officer of the Coast Guard cutter Itasca categorically dismissed all of the reported post-loss signals."
We can see how things developed to keep AE and FN's fate so shrouded in mystery and doubt. By the time the islands were searched (flown over), Earhart's plane was not visible to the searchers. Therefore, they concluded she had not landed there. Therefore, if she had not landed, she must have crashed and sunk. Therefore, if she had crashed and sunk, the signals could not have been legitimate. It's a chain of logic resting on that first link of not finding the plane. If not for that first faulty link, these transmissions would have been taken more seriously long ago. The article lays out very well how the transmissions fit into all the other evidence, and why there is a problem with that first link in the chain.
-
Well put Jenn.
-
Thanks Ric.
What I am looking at, is there a correlation between the “harmonic” receptions and the Lockheed’s antennae propagation pattern.
So far, it seems odd that all the harmonic receptions (except Australia) fall in the Latitude range of 20 to 45 degrees N. Australia is 30 degrees S.
If the antennae propagation pattern shows a stronger signal at a right angle to the island’s center line, I think there would be a strong argument supporting the hypothesis that AE did land on the island facing 317 degrees N , the only flat SW shore line. Also, right engine would be up-shore.
Please provide the site’s location of the antennae details.
Ted Campbell
-
So far, it seems odd that all the harmonic receptions (except Australia) fall in the Latitude range of 20 to 45 degrees N.
Where else could they fall? That latitude range encompasses North America. That's where the English-speaking people with radios lived.
If the antennae propagation pattern shows a stronger signal at a right angle to the island’s center line, I think there would be a strong argument supporting the hypothesis that AE did land on the island facing 317 degrees N , the only flat SW shore line.
I don't understand how the island's geographic orientation could in any way effect the plane's radio transmissions.
Also, right engine would be up-shore.
Why would that make any difference?
Please provide the site’s location of the antennae details.
There is no site with the antenna details. Bob Brandenburg created the propagation model for the plane's dorsal vee antenna in 2003.
-
I think Ted is asking if a contour profile has been created for the dorsal vee antenna on the Electra. Bear with me on this for a moment....
Below are two screensnaps of antenna patterns. The first is for a directional AM array. It shows major lobes oriented to the north-east and to the south-west with a minor lobe to the north-west and relatively deep nulls separating the power lobes. Without going into the details of how this array is fed, the orientation and spacing of the towers, the power ratios, and the phase angle, we can see there is pattern where receivers (which are not in the nearfield) distantly to the north-east and south-west would have a better chance of hearing that signal. True, this is not the same as the Electra's setup but again, bear with me for just a little longer....
The second shows a non-directional contour for a low-power FM signal transmitting using a folded dipole antenna. In theory omnidirectional, this signal is shaped by the terrain in the immediate vicinity. This dipole is closer in construction to the Electra's antenna than a simple vertical radiator. (And yes, Niku is essentially flat so there would be no terrain shaping of the signal.)
Though neither of these examples are the same as the dorsal vee antenna on the Electra, I too wonder if the orientation of the aircraft would have any bearing on signal propagation and therefore, signal reception. Given the "donut" in the signal contour which has been previously modeled, was there additionally any phase cancellation due to the off-center feed point of the antenna along with the characteristics of a vee antenna design which could have created a better chance of reception for those listening in certain directions from the aircraft?
Might this have bearing on why the Itasca, though closer (yes - skywave versus ground wave, the harmonics of an unfiltered output circuit, etc.), could only hear a carrier at times while Betty and others heard much more? I'm sure Bob Brandenburg could weigh in on this with much more detail.
(I hope I made sense....)
-
I think Ted is asking if a contour profile has been created for the dorsal vee antenna on the Electra.
This is way beyond my pay grade but isn't that what I posted?
-
Bob Brandenburg has provided the attached propagation models.
"Attached are 4NEC2 output plots showing the pattern for 3105, 6210, 15525, and 24840. I can't find a plot for 12420 in my files, but that would be midway between 6210 and 15525. The 3105 pattern is like a round apple, with the stem "dimple" at the top. That general pattern continues as frequency increases, until at 24840, it gets "squashed" to one side. The 6210 and 15525 plots show a vertical slice through the pattern, to show the interior.
The "PB" suffix means the pattern was computed for phosphor-bronze wire, which was typically used for aircraft antennas. Phosphor-bronze wire resistance is higher than copper, and the model takes the difference into account.
The antenna patterns are oriented with respect to aircraft heading, i.e relative bearing 000 is dead ahead. The model runs assume the plane was parked heading north."
-
For those who prefer pictures to pdfs...
BTW, that "dimple" in the top of the 3105 pattern is what caused the "3205 Donut (https://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2008Vol_24/donut.pdf)."
-
Thanks Ric and Bob! That answered my wonderings about the possibility of any directional wave propagation with regard to the dorsal vee antenna and the aircraft acting as the ground plane. Being able to see the vertical component of the transmitted wave at 3105 (plus the harmonics) was helpful.
-
Bob Brandenburg created the propagation model for the plane's dorsal vee antenna in 2003.
The files indicate the V antenna was modeled with 4NEC2. This is a free antenna modeling program that models everything as 2D segments. Also, antenna modeling programs have come a long way since 2003.
4NEC2 can easily model a wire antenna, and that is what it is used for most. But I'm not sure how well it can model the curved metal structure of the aircraft, wings, and tail as more than a few 2D flat planes. I also believe it can't model the variable resistivity and height (tides) of the water under the aircraft. All of these factors may affect the antenna pattern.
Some quick inquiries on improved antenna modeling might be worth TIGHAR checking into. Especially given the TIGHAR understand of the tides and the radio transmissions since 2003.
-
4NEC2 can easily model a wire antenna, and that is what it is used for most. But I'm not sure how well it can model the curved metal structure of the aircraft, wings, and tail as more than a few 2D flat planes. I also believe it can't model the variable resistivity and height (tides) of the water under the aircraft. All of these factors may affect the antenna pattern.
Some quick inquiries on improved antenna modeling might be worth TIGHAR checking into. Especially given the TIGHAR understand of the tides and the radio transmissions since 2003.
A quick online search doesn't turn up anything moire recent than 4NEC2.
Excerpting Bob Brandenburg from another discussion:
"4NEC2 is such a great tool -- it does the segmentation and field addition/subtraction. It's also important to carefully consider the effect of the antenna being close to ground -- ground in this case being the fuselage. The "2" in 4NEC2 means the second version of NEC. The first version assumed the antenna was high enough that ground proximity was not a factor. Version 2 considers the effect of the antenna being very close to ground. BTW, there are two other versions: V3 which considers antennas lying on ground, and V4 which considers antenna buried in ground."