TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Radio Reflections => Topic started by: Gary LaPook on July 01, 2012, 11:49:55 AM
-
While I must admit that I am somewhat skeptical of Betty's Notebook, not because I do not believe her but rather it is possible that a local hoaxer might have created the broadcast,
Explain how a local hoaxer could create a broadcast that was not heard by hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the local area.
The answer to that one is easy, how many people listen on short wave radios? How many even have short wave radios?
But, on the other hand, why would a hoaxer send out a hoax transmission of a frequency that almost nobody is going to be listening on? And why wouldn't he use 3105 or 6210, frequencies that he might expect people to be listening on, not some high harmonic?
So I agree with you Ric that it was not a hoax transmission that Betty heard. I think she heard several different transmissions as her radio frequency drifted around, as she retuned her radio and she jumbled all that she heard in her notebook. I think Betty is being perfectly honest in what she reported only that she is mistaken about what she had heard.
gl
-
If you believe that Betty heard "This is Amelia" that is a bit of a stretch to think that she heard random transmissions and invented the rest.
Also, we are straying from the topic. ;)
I never said that she "invented" anything. I believe that she heard several different commercial broadcasts as the various signals faded in and out and she retuned her radio and her radio drifted in frequency. One of these broadcasts contained the words "Amelial Earhart" and Betty just wrote down what she was hearing, mixing all of the words from the different broadcasts in her notebook.
Another problem I have with the Betty reception report is that TIGHAR had to come up with the harmonics theory to have any chance of a signal making it from Gardner to Florida. TIGHAR has her listening on 24,840 kcs, the fourth harmonic of 6210 kcs. (And to even get the probability up to one chance in one and a half million, Brandenberg used used an unsupported and unrealistically low signal strength requirement at the receiver and and other unrealistic assumptions of the power of the transmitted signal on the harmonic, but, I digress.) TIGHAR has never explained why Betty would be tuning her radio to such a high frequency. I used to be an avid SWLer (Short Wave Listener) and I have the QSL cards to prove it. (Acknowledgment post cards mailed from the broadcast station in response to reports mailed in by the SWLer.) This was in the '60s and my radio was better than the one that Betty had but all of these radios had the same problem, the sensitivity drops off at higher frequency so you can't hear anything on such high frequencies. I will review my QSL cards but i am certain that I never heard a foreign broadcast on any such high frequency. So why would betty be tuning around up on such a high frequency since she wasn't going to hear anything there and knew it from her prior experience. And, even though in theory, there are such high broadcast bands I don't think any international broadcaster used them because they knew that nobody would be able to hear them on the insensitive radios.
gl
-
As I recall of her story, she said the woman sounded like Earhart and she had heard her voice before so that piqued her interests. I could see how your theory could be reasonable if it were not a hoax however I recall that the woman, that sounded like Earhart, claimed she was Earhart. If this were true, this would be by definition a hoax if it were not Earhart herself saying these words. Also, the story told by what Betty wrote would not seem to fit well with any public discussion on the air waves. In my opinion it is pretty black and white, either it was real or a hoax.
I leave the debate about high-frequency propagation and harmonics to those with a working knowledge of the subject.
-
Betty's notebook is a conundrum. Gary has wisely pointed out the problems concerning the odds against the message being picked up on the fourth harmonic. However a very basic question also remains which is how certain are its proponents that it isn't a fake - besides Betty herself were there other living witnesses? I have read the account of it and it has that certain hook that drags people in about how she was ignored for years etc., which being a bit of an old cynic myself tends always to set my alarm bells ringing.
Is TIGHAR 100% certain that it is all kosher, I ask this because there have been many famous forgeries concerning historic events, a couple of recent ones are - the Hitler Diaries which even took in the great historian Hugh Trevor-Roper; the Jack the Ripper Diary which had Ripperologists all abuzz for a brief spell. What's to say that the Betty notebook isn't a hoax? Just asking.
-
Betty's father ran next dooor to see if his neighbor could hear the transmission. They could not, but then they didn't have the long wire antenna that Betty's radio had. The antenna makes a very big difference in ability to receive weak signals, and tends to be most sensitive in particular directions. The transmissions would have been easy to pick up from near the source, but the inability for the signals to be picked up by the neighbor's radio implies they must have originated some distance away from their neighborhood. That complicates the idea of a hoax, but the ability to pick up more signals than the neighbor's radio actually increases the opportunity to hear a number of transmissions from great distances. I think that most people who've scanned the radio waves have some experience with trying to discriminate mixed signals, especially with old radios that have poor rejection circuitry.
If she was listening to something like parts of a "March of Time" rebroadcast, where did it originate from? Is there a record of known broadcasts of "The March of Time"?
-
If she was listening to something like parts of a "March of Time" rebroadcast, where did it originate from? Is there a record of known broadcasts of "The March of Time"?
The March of Time broadcast was just one part of a 30-minute radio program. Betty's notes span from 4:30 to 6:15 p.m. As Ric has written in Finding Amelia, "March of Time dramatizations were half-hour programs broadcast via the local CBS affiliate and included narration, music, and, of course, commercials." There would have been plenty of clues for Betty of it being a re-creation if she had been tuned into any broadcast or rebroadcast of that program.
Those interested in reading more online about the discussion of the program and Betty's Notes can go to the Ameliapedia article on The March of Time (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_March_of_Time).
-
I don't see anything wrong with healthy skepticism, Malcolm. Fair question I think given all that went historically in the AE case. Also maybe fair to point out other famous hoaxes and frauds, although I doubt Betty's humble case carries anywhere near the import or dark-promises of such things as would have those of Hitler and the 'Ripper'. I also think a bit of cynicism is just human; most of us have some of it, and it is not always such a bad element in our make-up if we keep a healthy balance, of course - just Jeff's HO.
I'm not sure how anyone can be 100% sure that Betty's notebook is 'all kosher' - I guess anything is possible. That said, I personally believe Betty as a hoaxer is probably a stretch. That's one conundrum - if it's important to us, we each just have to decide what we think of it. .......
My question is related to the actual document - did the ink get tested for being within the correct period, was the paper tested etc. As Betty appears to be the only witness then there is always room for doubt, and therefore basic tests like I outlined would be essential.
-
Betty's father ran next dooor to see if his neighbor could hear the transmission. They could not, but then they didn't have the long wire antenna that Betty's radio had. The antenna makes a very big difference in ability to receive weak signals, and tends to be most sensitive in particular directions. The transmissions would have been easy to pick up from near the source, but the inability for the signals to be picked up by the neighbor's radio implies they must have originated some distance away from their neighborhood. That complicates the idea of a hoax, but the ability to pick up more signals than the neighbor's radio actually increases the opportunity to hear a number of transmissions from great distances. I think that most people who've scanned the radio waves have some experience with trying to discriminate mixed signals, especially with old radios that have poor rejection circuitry.
If she was listening to something like parts of a "March of Time" rebroadcast, where did it originate from? Is there a record of known broadcasts of "The March of Time"?
What evidence do we have that her father went next door? Was he interviewed? did he leave any notes? was the neighbor interviewed?
Betty also claims that her father notified the Coast Guard and was told that they had ships in the area. What proof do we have that her father went to the Coast Guard? any documents at the Coast Guard? any notes from her father?
All that we have for this story is hearsay from Betty. She didn't say, "I went with my father to the Coast Guard" so she has no personal knowledge that her father really went to the Coast Gurard. Her statement that her father contacted the CG would be inadmissible hearsay at trial as evidence that her father actually did contact them.
"Daddy, Daddy, did you go to the Coast Guard today?"
"Oh yes, Betty, I did and they told me not to worry about it because they have ships in the area."
What parent hasn't told a story like this to his kid to stop the pestering? So Betty could be telling the truth, that her daddy told her that story while, in fact, he didn't report it because he didn't really accept Betty's story at the time.
So there is no other support for Betty's story than her own words. And the note book contains neither the word "Gardner" nor "Phoenix" words that an authentic emergency message from Amelia on Gardner should have contained.
And why was she tuning such a high frequency as I pointed out before? It is critical to TIGHAR that she tuned 24,840 kcs because none of the lower harmonics or the primary frequencies had any chance at all of being heard in Florida and even Brandenberg only claims a one chance in 1,500,000 that the 24,840 kcs could get to Betty and this only after a thorough massaging of his assumptions. I think it most likely that she was tuned to a much lower frequency and she heard a mish-mash of broadcasts which is what shows up in her notebook.
Could she have been the victim of a hoax, possible but not likely. Could she be a hoaxter, possible but not likely. Could she be honest but mistaken, very probable.
gl
-
The March of Time broadcast was just one part of a 30-minute radio program. Betty's notes span from 4:30 to 6:15 p.m. As Ric has written in Finding Amelia, "March of Time dramatizations were half-hour programs broadcast via the local CBS affiliate and included narration, music, and, of course, commercials." There would have been plenty of clues for Betty of it being a re-creation if she had been tuned into any broadcast or rebroadcast of that program.
Hello, This is my first post, but I can't help but think that only a year after AE disappeared, another famous radio dramatization, was not only heard by thousands but taken very seriously, that being "War of the Worlds" narrated by Orsen Welles. The broadcast was ran without commercial breaks for about an hour, and was in a format that made it appear as breaking news. At the time many people listening in actually believed that the drama was an actual alien invasion. How many of these types of dramatized radio programs existed during the golden age of radio??
Ed
-
How many of these types of dramatized radio programs existed during the golden age of radio??
That's a question you could actually do some research on.
We've dug up the March of Times episodes.
We know how long they lasted.
We know that they were full of musical cues and had a voice-over.
We may, I think, suppose that Betty would have heard some of the fictional radio dramas in her lifetime.
Now, if you can show that there was an Earhart drama on the air a few days after her disappearance that, like the War of the Worlds, deliberately suppressed the elements that helped to identify it as fiction, you would have a case. Of course, as Ric noted in another post, if there was such a clever production intended to fool listeners like Betty, listening on shortwave, there ought to have been a lot of other people fooled, too.
-
Of course, as Ric noted in another post, if there was such a clever production intended to fool listeners like Betty, listening on shortwave, there ought to have been a lot of other people fooled, too.
Whatever the results of that research the question remains was the notebook actually physically checked that the ink is of a type not anachronistic for the period. Forgeries and hoaxes, given that there is no one to give witness to Betty's version of events (as Gary has pointed out), are often done for quite small gains - often just transitory fame.
Certainly testing the ink and other physical properties of the notebook would have been my first step if I was considering the value of the diary. And whatever some say about its role in the hypothesis, it is taken by many to be the main plank in the survived after landing hypothesis. Especially by those using that strange broadcast to argue for Noonan being injured and the aircraft remaining on the outer reef long enough to broadcast a distress call. There is much scepticism outside of TIGHAR regarding the proposed reef landing, especially that it could be done without destroying the aircraft, and it is clear that the Betty notebook transcript is at the heart of the hypothesis that TIGHAR is advancing that such an event occurred.
-
I think Gary's skepticism of the high odds against reception are totally valid. The alternate explanation, though, really doesn't make any better sense. As someone else pointed out -- and again we're back to the issue I keep bringing up about coming up with counter theories where we try to make optimal things happen without thinking through the scenario within the limitations of the actual situations at hand (something that, again, I have found TIGHAR rarely guilty of) -- it was not that easy to make a bunch of sound clips and arrange them in such a way that it would sound like a host broadcast. In fact, it would be nearly impossible. Forget digital recording...tape itself was not invented until World War II. (On the topic of sound, I can claim some expertise) If I was going to try to do such a thing with 1930s technology...well, I imagine it would be within the capability of sound and movie professionals, but not too many others. And why?
But the main issue with the hoax theory is
1. why did no one else hear it? Even if it was a War of the Worlds kind of a thing, a lot of people were freaked out by WOTW. It beggars belief that someone mounted such a hoax and only one person heard it and commented on it/were fooled by it; and
2. why were the messages themselves so garbled if it was a hoax? I think it's significant that all of the known hoaxes contain semi-clear information that any person could dream up, and the possible post-loss messages don't. Again, I submit that this is much more in line with how the real world works. If you're a hoaxer, you broadcast what people expect you to broadcast. But if you're hearing a crummy signal that's fading in and out and threes sound like Z's and fun sounds like 1, you're going to get a transcription that looks exactly like Betty's Notebook. And if the people on land didn't know exactly where they were and, for example, their plane was going over, then something like that might conceivably get broadcast. As unlikely as that might be, I find it more unlikely a hoaxer would dream that particular scenario up and broadcast a bunch of random numbers and letters.
Gary has rightly stated that the odds of receiving the message were on par with winning the lottery. Very fair statement. But I do want to point out that...people do win the lottery! And that's because there are a lot of people buying lottery tickets. Gary has asked how many people were listening on the radio at the time, and I would say that, as it was at that time the primary form of mass communication, the answer is, a hell of a lot, more than we can conceive of now. So yes, the chances of that one person hearing that one transmission is pretty unlikely. But so are the odds of a lot of things if conceived that way....one in a million occurrences happen to most of us each and every day. When considered in isolation, they are miracles. Taken together, it all evens out as just the random skein of God's day-to-day creation.
So do I have a problem believing someone on a Pacific Island sent out a message to the world, and of the whole world one random teenager in Florida stumbled across parts of it? Frankly, no I don't. Because, as is the case with so many other parts of the TIGHAR saga, I find the alternative explanations objectively less convincing. And weird stuff happens all the time. What are the chances another family with the unusual surname of Marsland booked a room at the same hotel the same day my band dropped in to town to play a gig, causing great confusion when we all tried to check in? Pretty low, but it happened to me in 1997. Unlikely stuff happens, and if a statistician calculated the odds of it happening on that particular day it would be astronomically small.
To me, the only two plausible scenarios are either she heard what she heard, or Malcolm is right -- she made up the whole thing.
-
I think Gary's skepticism of the high odds against reception are totally valid....
To me, the only two plausible scenarios are either she heard what she heard, or Malcolm is right -- she made up the whole thing.
Bear in mind that I am not declaring the notebook a fake but it need not have been faked at the time. If in the 50s and early 60s she became aware of the increasing interest in Earhart - especially the Goerner theory it is a possibility (I stress possibility) that she could have taken a notebook she had retained from her childhood and composed the text then. That is why I think it is important to know if proper tests were done on the ink used.
From the TIGHAR references to the notebook it seems to be a genuine late 1930s artifact but do we have an exact time span for the manufacture of these notebooks? The earlier faked texts I mentioned used stationery which was historically correct but fell apart when other features were forensically tested. I am not deliberately attacking this woman - all I am suggesting is that in matters such as this search in which a lot of money has been invested then it is important to establish where ever possible the validity of each material item used as evidence. The Nikumaroro finds have been thoroughly tested and we know the results - this notebook is a key part of the reef landing proposal and needs to be tested thoroughly. Certainly if I was relying on such an artifact I would want it proved beyond doubt.
-
That's a question you could actually do some research on.
I may just do that, and seeing that I too live in St. Pete, I'll see if there might had been a local radio drama program that existed at the time, which might had done such a program on AE
We've dug up the March of Times episodes.
We know how long they lasted.
We know that they were full of musical cues and had a voice-over.
We may, I think, suppose that Betty would have heard some of the fictional radio dramas in her lifetime.
Having been reading this forum for awhile, this is where I have my concerns. Fast forward to today, we have TV, the internet (and we still have the radio) I'm sure that most of us had come across a fictional program designed to dramatize situations or events, sometimes these dramas are intended to appear like the real thing. Now I wasn't around at the time, but my hunch would be these were common techniques designed to draw in listeners when radio was king, and just as today, most people aren't usually fooled into believing that the events are actually taking place. But sometimes people do get fooled, as witnessed by the War of the Worlds broadcast.
Now I don't know if there was some dramatized program about AE, but we do know that interest in AE has existed even before her disappearance. She has been the subject of news since her absence and she has even been depicted in science fiction. (If I recall in a Star Trek episode) We also know that there were dramatized broadcasts in that era.
As for Betty's notebook, I can't help but think that when I read the transcripts, it comes across as a dramatization. In fact if we took away the hypothesis that AE & FN landed on Gardner and go with the "officially" accepted theory of running out of fuel and ditching at sea, which many believed happened, then the transcripts seem to make more sense.... the drama of a heroine in the aftermath of a crash at sea who was trying to control a delirious and injured navigator while the plane was sinking. The only problem of course is that they couldn't transmit if the plane was floating on the ocean. This of course is a matter of fact. Yet, in Betty's transcripts, the water was knee deep and the "voice of the man" was trying to get out of the plane. The whole thing just seems too dramatized.
Now, if you can show that there was an Earhart drama on the air a few days after her disappearance that, like the War of the Worlds, deliberately suppressed the elements that helped to identify it as fiction, you would have a case. Of course, as Ric noted in another post, if there was such a clever production intended to fool listeners like Betty, listening on shortwave, there ought to have been a lot of other people fooled, too.
Just as a speculation (and we all know the worth of speculation) Who gets fooled? Even during the War of the Worlds broadcast there were many people who just weren't fooled, even though the program was designed to sound authentic, but then again, when we look at our contemporary media how many times do we see authentic looking broadcasts on the TV or online and normally we aren't fooled by it? Sadly some people do get fooled by what they see or hear. The question, I guess becomes, was there a dramatized broadcast of AE shortly after her disappearance? As to who would had heard it? There could had been thousands, but it won't be easy to prove. Most of that generation has passed on, and just as today, I think most people if they understood the broadcast to be fictional would had eventually dismissed it or simply forgot about it, but for that one teenage girl who happened to write down what she heard.
Ed
-
I think Gary's skepticism of the high odds against reception are totally valid....
To me, the only two plausible scenarios are either she heard what she heard, or Malcolm is right -- she made up the whole thing.
Bear in mind that I am not declaring the notebook a fake but it need not have been faked at the time. If in the 50s and early 60s she became aware of the increasing interest in Earhart - especially the Goerner theory it is a possibility (I stress possibility) that she could have taken a notebook she had retained from her childhood and composed the text then. That is why I think it is important to know if proper tests were done on the ink used.
From the TIGHAR references to the notebook it seems to be a genuine late 1930s artifact but do we have an exact time span for the manufacture of these notebooks? The earlier faked texts I mentioned used stationery which was historically correct but fell apart when other features were forensically tested. I am not deliberately attacking this woman - all I am suggesting is that in matters such as this search in which a lot of money has been invested then it is important to establish where ever possible the validity of each material item used as evidence. The Nikumaroro finds have been thoroughly tested and we know the results - this notebook is a key part of the reef landing proposal and needs to be tested thoroughly. Certainly if I was relying on such an artifact I would want it proved beyond doubt.
Malcolm, years ago, when the notebook surfaced, this board did not exist, but there was a discussion board disrtibuted by E-mail. The first thing that everybody tried to do, was to ascertain (at least try to) that it was indeed written during the days surrounding AE disappearence. When you look at the notebook, you see that the text concerning AE was preceded and followed by lists of songs that Betty was supposed to have listened to on the radio during the previous and following days. One of the methods used was to recover the dates these song were composed and appeared on the music market. This was a tedious task but some members came with dates for many of these songs. None of these dates conflicted with the fact that the notebook could have been written in 1937.
Of course this is not a definit proof of anything, but if it is a fake, it could not have been produced easily and would have needed a huge effort on the part of the faker.
I think that it is possible to find these discussions by using Google and you will see all the doubts and research that was done at that moment, when the notebook surfaced.
This does not, of course, answer the question of what exactly did she hear, which is a completely other kettle.
-
In the case of WOTW broadcasts, those made the news, as well as people's various reactions and over-reactions. In the case of the transmission Betty recorded, there is no mention in the newspapers that have been discussed in the old forums. I don't know how thorough were those searches of old newspapers, but the evident difficulty of finding evidence of a radio drama that explains Betty's notebook makes it seem unlikely there was any sort of major broadcast. Gary's proposition that she heard combinations of broadcasts, mostly from far away, seems to have a greater likelihood than a single dramatization that got no significant news coverage, although I'm not sure how one would calculate the statistical chance of either.
Betty's antenna increased her likelihood of picking up long-distance transmissions, whether from a downed aircraft in the Pacific, or from distant commercial and private radio stations. If there was a dramatization taking place outside the continental US, it might be difficult to find a record.
I think Betty's notebook is interesting, but contains virtually no useful data, so far. I give much more value to the Pan Am radio operators triangulating signals to the Phoenix Island vicinity. They were not amateurs, they were using professional equipment as it was intended to be used - to determine the location of aircraft flying across the Pacific, a job they had been doing for a few years by then.
-
Certainly testing the ink and other physical properties of the notebook would have been my first step if I was considering the value of the diary.
From Ric in the old Forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200011.txt), 17 November 2000: "All of the entries in the notebook are in pencil. A red pencil was used for some detailing in the portraits (lips, etc.) and for a few song lyric entries. All of the Earhart notes appear to have been made with the same pencil which was apparently a bit harder than the pencil used by Betty later to make the explanatory notes. The brackets coordinates on page 53 are consistent in appearance with the other entries on that page. The bracketed explanatory note on the preceding page is darker and is consistent with the explanatory notes on page 49. All of the entries in Betty's notebook seem to be in her hand but we'll be having a document expert look into that."
TIGHAR Tracks 16:3 (2000) (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/1603.pdf):
"On November 5, 2000 we interviewed Betty on videotape at her home in the Midwest. (We’re not disclosing Betty’s full name and location at this time because she has a heart condition and we don’t want her to be assailed by the press.) She was able to provide us with much more detail about her own history and her recollections about the entries she made in her notebook. One of her neighbors was also able to provide us with correspondence dating from 1970 which documents that he attempted unsuccessfully to interest Earhart author Fred Goerner in Betty’s story at that time.
"The same neighbor also had notes of a conversation he had with Betty’s mother, then still living. Although differing in some minor details, the notes generally agree with Betty’s version of the story. While we were there we also collected handwriting examples from Betty which will be used in an evaluation of her notebook by a recognized expert in document authentication."
Members of the old Forum then did a comprehensive search of all of the identifiable references in the notebook to see if they would disqualify the supposition that it was from 1936-1937. Summary of results (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights108.html#1).
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/frontcover.jpg)
-
... sometimes people do get fooled, as witnessed by the War of the Worlds broadcast.
When you find evidence of an equally competent (i.e., expensive) production that fooled people for more than hour, you will have destroyed the evidentiary value of the notebook.
Now I don't know if there was some dramatized program about AE,
We know there were two March of Time (http://tighar.org/wiki/March_of_Time) episodes. We know that they had plenty of cues (such as commercials, voice overs, music) that pretty firmly identified them as radio drama. You must find one that lacked such framing and that lasted a good deal longer (i.e., cost more money in air time).
Yet, in Betty's transcripts, the water was knee deep and the "voice of the man" was trying to get out of the plane. The whole thing just seems too dramatized.
The tide rises and falls on the reef. If the airplane was there, there is no reason to think it was immune to the kind of storm surges that have reduced the Norwich City to scraps.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/a/a6/Norwich-city.png)
Sadly some people do get fooled by what they see or hear.
Others get fooled by what they imagine.
The question, I guess becomes, was there a dramatized broadcast of AE shortly after her disappearance?
That is a researchable question. Go do the work and let us know what you find.
-
Has it been attempted to transmit and receive a signal on the same frequency between Nikumaroro to St Pete, Fl. ?
Not by TIGHAR.
But the value of the experiment is minimal.
What kind of antenna should you use to transmit? Material? Length? Orientation?
Same questions for the receiving antenna.
What kind of transmitter?
What kind of receiver?
What location on the reef?
Even if you could somehow duplicate all of those initial conditions, you would then have to set the atmospheric and oceanic conditions to be the same as on the time that the transmission was allegedly heard.
If you can't control your variables, you can't consider it a legitimate experiment. If it works, someone would point to the uncontrolled variables as the cause of the success; if it fails, someone could point to those same variables as the cause of the failure.
If this can be successfully done, can you even consider that it's plausible for Betty to had heard AE.
Perhaps you haven't read "Harmony and Power: Could Betty Have Heard Earhart on a Harmonic?" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/HarmonyandPower.pdf) or "Post Loss Signals: Technical Analysis" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/PLRSTechnical.html)? I believe the author wrote them in order to answer the question you have posed.
No one is arguing this, but it does seem to sound very much like a drama when you consider "Knee deep water". If the water was knee deep inside the aircraft, it was impossible to transmit. And it would had been highly improbable to transmit for long if the plane was surrounded by knee deep water, as the prop on the right engine would had been dangerously close to the water, not even considering any surf action.
Gurr calculated that the batteries could run the radios for eight hours after they were fully charged. I think that was optimistic, but there is some time between the end of the last engine run and the last transmission.
We don't know where on the reef or where in the plane the water had become "knee deep." When sitting in a three-point stance, it could be knee deep aft but not yet that deep in the cockpit.
-
Not wishing to appear niggling or willfully contrary but did the handwriting expert (s) confirm that it was indeed Betty's handwriting at the time when she was 15 years old as against what her handwriting as an adult was. I know that when I was 15 my handwriting had yet to lose the school indoctrinated style which was replaced by my notoriously unreadable scrawl that developed in later years. Pencils are very difficult things to verify vis-à-vis pens which use ink. "Betty" may indeed be kosher in regard to what she recalls but as I see it the two important questions remain -
1. Did she hear a transmission or only a garbled March of Time broadcast, and
2. Could this be a later fake using a notebook she retained from her childhood - only handwriting analysis can test that, although graphology is undeniably, like polygraphs, a very very scientifically uncertain area in which to venture.
Within Betty's notebook you would see examples of her '15 year old' handwriting to compare with the notes made about the shortwave radio listening experience and that, along with TIGHAR's other research would confirm Betty's story. The odds of "a garbled March of Time broadcast" that was only reported by one teenager is far less likely than the already long odds of her hearing a genuine transmission from KHAQQ.
I ask these questions because as far as I can ascertain the whole outer reef landing hypothesis hangs upon her notes, not to mention the speculations about Earhart and Noonan's subsequent behaviour on Nikumaroro.
i don't know how you can make the statement that "...the whole outer reef landing hypothesis hangs upon her notes, ..." since many of the other reported receptions, especially those from the professional dedicated HFDF Stations add a lot more weight. Do you completely discount ALL of the other anecdotal discoveries by TIGHAR?
As far as Betty's report of her Radio Receptions in July 1937, my personal experiences would indicate that they were entirely possible. In the late '50's, I had a '1930's Console Radio similar to Betty's with many "Short-Wave" Bands, 'Magic-Eye' fine tuning and a similar long wire antenna and received many transmissions from all around the globe as a teenager.
In the '60's, I was aware that FM Broadcasts were entirely 'line-of-sight' and you never received anything beyond the 'horizon'. I had a cheap record player with an FM Receiver inside a ground floor apartment with no added antenna and the standard 88-108 MHz tuning knob. One afternoon turning that dial and picked up a new station (there were very few FM Broadcast Stations available in Fort Myers Florida in those days) and after listening for a while, found out that it was transmitting from Indiana, which was far beyond any possible line of sight. I listened for several hours and there was a completely clear signal with no interference. In those days a LD Telephone Call cost more than a college students hour's pay, but I made a call to that FM Station, let them hear my reception and received a 'QSL' letter mailed from the Station Engineer explaining how extremely rare atmospheric conditions could allow this reception to happen, the odds against this are far greater than hearing KHAQQ in Saint Petersburg.
The BEST 'evidence' by far of a landing on that reef would simply be that from ANY pilot's perspective looking down on Gardner Island, it would have been the best choice for a successful landing. TIGHAR's reconstruction of Tide conditions for assumed arrival times, as well as reported radio reception times adds to the hypothesis along with Betty's notes on conditions described in her receptions. The less favorable choice of trying to put the Electra down on top of the vegetation or the 'beach' would have left more evidence for the Navy overflight to see, but the reef by the Norwich City allows for no evidence to be seen after a weeks worth of 'High Tides' .
-
Yes the Niku Hypo rests on more sand laden foundations that Betty's diary, a whole host of radio signals over many days of course our critical friends may disagree
-
Although the Navy Experts pointed to the Phoenix Islands as being the most logical place to look on July 2, 1937, they had looked there and found nothing.
This idea was not resurrected until TIGHAR brought it up again long after 1966.
TIGHAR formulated the Niku hypothesis in the late 1980s.
There were five expeditions to the island from 1989 to 1999 (http://tighar.org/wiki/Expeditions), plus the bones search in Fiji, that had nothing whatsoever to do with Betty's notebook, which TIGHAR learned about in 2000.
TIGHAR says that the effect of the story of the notebook prompted further reconsideration of post-loss messages:
"Research into what appears to be a surviving real-time transcription of distress calls from Amelia Earhart (see “The Girl Who Heard Amelia” in the November 2000 TIGHAR Tracks) has prompted a detailed reexamination of all of the alleged post-loss radio transmissions from the lost plane. Over a hundred documented occurrences are being logged in a standardized format, adjusted to Greenwich Mean Time, and plotted on time lines to obtain an accurate picture of what events were happening concurrently and what patterns, if any, are discernible. We hope to have the initial results ready for the next (January 2001) issue of TIGHAR Tracks" ("Betty's Notebook--Update," TT 2000) (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/notebook.pdf).
As things turned out, it took more than a month to produce the "Post Loss Radio Signals Catalog." (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html) Finding Amelia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Finding_Amelia) was published along the way.
The thought that the Niku Hypothesis stands or falls with Betty's Notebook seems to me to be both logically and historically false.
-
TIGHAR says that the effect of the story of the notebook prompted further reconsideration of post-loss messages:
"Research into what appears to be a surviving real-time transcription of distress calls from Amelia Earhart (see “The Girl Who Heard Amelia” in the November 2000 TIGHAR Tracks) has prompted a detailed reexamination of all of the alleged post-loss radio transmissions from the lost plane. Over a hundred documented occurrences are being logged in a standardized format, adjusted to Greenwich Mean Time, and plotted on time lines to obtain an accurate picture of what events were happening concurrently and what patterns, if any, are discernible. We hope to have the initial results ready for the next (January 2001) issue of TIGHAR Tracks" ("Betty's Notebook--Update," TT 2000) (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/notebook.pdf).
As things turned out, it took more than a month to produce the "Post Loss Radio Signals Catalog." (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html) Finding Amelia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Finding_Amelia) was published along the way.
The thought that the Niku Hypothesis stands or falls with Betty's Notebook seems to me to be both logically and historically false.
The emboldened part is why I am asking the questions. Given that by 2000 there would have been increasing publicity about the Nikumaroro hypothesis then that would be a good time for the notebook to be drawn to TIGHAR's attention. That is not to claim it is a fake or a hoax just that it is convenient, to use a gentle term. The claim about it being offered to Goerner is just that a claim, but it does also point to the fact that "Betty" may have had had a long term interest in the puzzle or, to be blunt, it is simply a fiction.
Now as I understand it prior to the outer reef landing hypothesis there were others advanced as to where on the island the Electra may have been landed. But of all these the outer reef landing hypothesis is in itself the best explanation to fit the hypothesis because as we know there are no reports or sightings of what would be an almost complete Electra wreckage if it had been landed on the beach, ditched in the lagoon or even crash-landed in the scrub and trees. Also it offers the best way of fitting the claimed "genuine" post-loss radio messages (and these are best described as a can of worms) to have been possible - running up the engines to provide power, then ceasing as the tide and waves wash the aircraft off the reef.
Next we have the post-landing behaviour of Earhart and Noonan hypotheses which hinge upon the references to Noonan being injured which leads to Earhart eventually succumbing where the skeleton (now missing and only suggested, not proved, to be Earhart by modern analysis) was found by the PISS settlers. So to say that "(t)he thought that the Niku Hypothesis stands or falls with Betty's Notebook seems to me to be both logically and historically false" is I would suggest not entirely accurate. There is a lot riding on that notebook because the purported material evidence so far found is rather scant and subject to continuing debate, not to mention as Gary has consistently pointed out the landing on or near Nikumaroro is not the certainty that the hypothesis demands, which is why I ask about whether proper assessments of it have been done as outlined in my post #41 above. Bear in mind that I am not suggesting it is a hoax I am only asking, given the importance of it, if proper due diligence has been applied.
However if TIGHAR get a positive result, which is to be hoped, from the current trip then any doubts about the notebook's validity will be rendered unimportant except to fringe conspiracy theorists, of which I am not one.
-
I think Betty's notebook is interesting, but contains virtually no useful data, so far. I give much more value to the Pan Am radio operators triangulating signals to the Phoenix Island vicinity. They were not amateurs, they were using professional equipment as it was intended to be used - to determine the location of aircraft flying across the Pacific, a job they had been doing for a few years by then.
I agree with John about the obvious differences between what the PAA operators heard versus what Betty heard and the reliability of each. Betty heard AE talking for an hour and forty-five minutes just by chance one afternoon from 6,000 miles away with a “special” home antenna and came up with five pages of notes on what AE reportedly said (Betty would have had more pages, but Betty said sometimes AE was talking so fast that she couldn’t get it all down). Several PAA operators at three stations in the Pacific listened all night for several nights (and sometimes during the day too) from a distance of around 1800-1950 miles from Gardner with state of the art professional equipment. Here is every comment they and their boss in Alameda made regarding the words they heard in the voice transmissions they received during that time, as culled from the Pan Am Memos (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/PanAmMemos/PanAm.html):
HONOLULU (MOKAPU POINT): "… a faint carrier is hear [sic] approximately on 3105.... Too weak to distinguish any words. Intermittent carrier on and off. No voice distinguishable.... Two long dashes, possible voice transmissions on 3105.... We unable hear any voice.... Wake Island reports been listening 3105 and 6210 all day and evening but has not hear [sic] a thing.... Midway reports been listening 3105 but unable understand voice transmissions.... Occasionally signal strength rises sufficiently to hear voice but still took [sic] weak to distinguish a single word.... Once it seemed as though it was a woman’s voice but may only have been our imagination."
MIDWAY: "… a weak wobbly signal was heard here which sounded like a phone [voice] but was too weak to identify.... A man’s voice was distinctly heard but not of sufficient modulation to be understood or identified."
WAKE: ".... At 1215 heard an intermittent fone of rather wobbly characteristics; which I at first mistook to be a self-excited signal – voice modulated with male voice altho [sic] unreadable thru QRN [static]. ... At 0948 a phone signal of good intensity and well modulated by a voice but wavering badly suddenly came on 3105….at 1223 a very unsteady voice modulated carrier was observed at 94.5 degrees … This signal started in at a carrier strength of QSA5 and at 1236, when the transmission stopped it had gradually petered out to QSA2 during the intervals when it was audible….no identification call letters were distinguished...."
ALAMEDA: ".... The signals Mr. Paulson heard were, undoubtedly, carrier signals modulated with voice although he could not understand the voice part of it. All of the above information was turned over to the Coast Guard officials at Honolulu with emphasis being made at the time that there was nothing definite in what we had heard because of no identifying signals of any nature being received."
That’s right, the several professional operators who were specifically listening with professional equipment in the Pacific for several days and nights heard between them not one single intelligible word from AE or FN, and what they did hear faded out after no more than a few moments or minutes (one signal lasted 13 minutes off and on), but Betty with her homemade antenna just casually listening one afternoon came up with 5 pages of notes on what she heard AE and FN say on a fourth harmonic from a 50 watt transmitter 6,000 miles away. That was one hell of a “special” antenna she must have had. Maybe she was using aluminum foil?
I have reviewed for this post only the PAA logs, but from my general recollection of all of the other logs (Itasca, Navy, Howland, etc), I don’t think all of the professional operators put together ever claimed to have heard more than five distinct words in total from possible Earhart or Noonan post-loss transmissions. Like I said, this is just my general recollection and I am not certain of this, but I will give a coupon good for one dollar off on a McDonald’s Chiller, your choice of flavors, to the first person who can prove otherwise, and I’ll even spot you three words: “31" (heard by Wailupe Navy station), “KHAQQ” (can’t recall who heard it), and “Earhart” (heard by Itasca). Find three more post-loss words heard by any combination of professional operators and the Chiller coupon is yours.
I am even less certain of my recollection on this next point, but I don’t think any of the professional operators ever explicitly claimed to have heard a post-loss woman’s voice (except as noted above by PAA operators who thought maybe it was a woman, but clearly weren’t very sure about this since they also say it could have been their imagination). Nauru said the post-loss voice was similar to that in flight, but didn’t mention any words said by the voice or explicitly state that it was a woman’s voice, and I don’t think it was a professional operator who was listening at the time (per Safford, p. 36). I think Itasca said something like "we hear her now," but no indication if they actually heard a woman's voice or just some faint carrier on 3105 that they assumed was coming from her. I think something similar was reported second hand from Baker. I believe the three words I mentioned above were all in a man's voice or unstated as to gender. No dollar coupons for proving me wrong on this one though as I am not very certain.
I’m not saying that the PAA operators didn’t hear anything potentially related to AE, just that they couldn’t actually discern any words or even a woman’s voice, whereas Betty heard five pages worth of conversation between AE and FN - quite a striking contrast. PAA operators did, however, all report hearing a series of discernible dashes, which I don’t think Betty mentions having heard. One might be able to quibble with my exact word count by a word or two (and win a Chiller coupon in the process), but at any rate, what 15-year-old Betty reportedly heard in Florida was drastically, strikingly, remarkably different in content and signal quality from anything reported at the time by any of the professional radio operators in the Pacific.
I want to believe,
Diego V.
-
I would like to see more of Betty's notebook.
What proof is there that Betty was actually listening to a shortwave signal other than Brandenburg's need for that to be true in order to support his harmonic theory?
I am suspicious that she was actually just listening on the normal broadcast band, 535 kcs to 1,600 kcs, and not on shortwave 24,480 kcs (12.25 meter wavelength.) TIGHAR stated that the pages before and after these notes contain lists of songs that Betty had listened to on the same radio. I used to listen to shortwave broadcasts in the '60s and I remember that international broadcasters did NOT broadcast music, after all, the foreign stations had no interest in selling phonograph records to American teenagers like American radio stations did. The international broadcasts that I heard consisted of news, politics, propaganda, countries' history, language lessons and religion. Not much music except on some cultural shows. I don't remember ever logging any stations on such high frequencies. I checked my QSL cards and the highest frequency that I could find was Radio Budapest on 9,765 kcs. I have attached a sample of some QSL cards (confirmation of reception reports send from the station.)
Since Betty's notebook shows her listening to music then her normal practice was to listen to local normal broadcast band stations and her normal practice was NOT to listen to shortwave. So why was she supposedly listening to short wave on this one occasion?
I posted before that radios lack sensitivity in the high bands so you can't hear anything even if your radio will tune up that high. Propagation is also bad so broadcasters had no reason to broadcast anywhere near the 24,480 kcs that Brandenburg claims that Betty was using. So why should we believe that Betty was tuning around up at such high frequencies?
And just how many shortwave broadcast stations were available for Betty to be listening to? In 1926 there were only two stations that broadcast above 20,000 kcs, the highest one being only 22,209 kcs, nowhere near the 24,480 kcs of the 4th harmonic of Earhart's radio.
List of Shortwave Stations as of 1926 (http://jeff560.tripod.com/1926sw.html) These are principally utility stations, shortwave broadcasting being still in the early experimental stages.
The list of shortwave stations in 1931 also shows only two stations that transmitted above 20,000, the highest being 21,200 (the first station on the list, LSN, wavelength of 14.15 meters which is 21,200 kcs.)
World Shortwave Stations (1931) (http://jeff560.tripod.com/1931sw.html) An International Short Wave Club list including both shortwave broadcast and utility stations.
"Is International Broadcasting Just Around the Corner"? (http://antiqueradios.com/features/aroundthecorner.shtml) This is a 1930 Radio News article by NBC general engineer Charles W. Horn about the prospects for shortwave, focusing on the technical needs of the medium, reception difficulties, and program exchanges.
So, I want to see the whole notebook.
gl
-
I would like to see more of Betty's notebook.
What proof is there that Betty was actually listening to a shortwave signal other than Brandenburg's need for that to be true in order to support his harmonic theory?
The introduction to the relevant pages of the notebook (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) says, "A 15 year old girl – whom we’ll call 'Betty' for now – was living in St. Petersburg, Florida in the summer of 1937. One afternoon in July – the exact date is not known – at about 3 p.m. Betty was sitting on the floor in front of her family’s radio console. She liked to listen to music and kept a notebook in which she jotted the words to her favorite songs, made notes of current movies and drew pencil sketches of glamorous people. She also liked to listen to the 'short wave.' Her father had erected a long wire antenna – perhaps 60 feet in length – across the back yard from the house to a pole near the street. Betty could routinely pick up stations all over the world. "This particular afternoon she was 'cruising' across the dial in search of anything interesting when she came upon a woman’s voice, speaking in English and obviously quite upset. Betty listened for a while and was startled to hear the woman say, 'This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart.'"
I understand that this is human testimony, and therefore not "proof" in the strict sense of the word. When you invent your time machine and can go back and watch historical events like this for yourself, you will have all the "proof" you could desire. Until then, there is nothing to do in dealing with human testimony other than to judge the credibility of the witnesses. If you think they are reliable, ... oh, wait--you're a lawyer. You know about the issues related to credibility of witnesses. So you should know better than to demand a form of "proof" that testimony can't give. ::)
-
I would like to see more of Betty's notebook.
What proof is there that Betty was actually listening to a shortwave signal other than Brandenburg's need for that to be true in order to support his harmonic theory?
The introduction to the relevant pages of the notebook (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) says, "A 15 year old girl – whom we’ll call 'Betty' for now – ...she was 'cruising' across the dial in search of anything interesting when she came upon a woman’s voice, speaking in English and obviously quite upset. Betty listened for a while and was startled to hear the woman say, 'This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart.'"
I understand that this is human testimony, and therefore not "proof" in the strict sense of the word. When you invent your time machine and can go back and watch historical events like this for yourself, you will have all the "proof" you could desire. Until then, there is nothing to do in dealing with human testimony other than to judge the credibility of the witnesses. If you think they are reliable, ... oh, wait--you're a lawyer. You know about the issues related to credibility of witnesses. So you should know better than to demand a form of "proof" that testimony can't give. ::)
It is a simple request that I make. If she was in the habit ... If you are playing poker and a guy says he has a royal flush and reaches for the money and you ask him to show his cards and he refuses then he doesn't get to pick up the money. Showing his cards would be strong evidence and if he won't show them then your, quite sensibly, distrust his weaker eviedence, his verbal statement.
It might be that her notebook will support her story, let's just see it.
gl
The habit of listening is not the habit of writing down what you listened to.
Maybe she only kept a written record that time because she heard “This is Amelia Earhart” and realized the importance, and during the other times she listened, there was not anything as important to write down.
Asking for supporting evidence of non-important stuff she wrote down does not make sense to me if all she wrote before was something that was very important.
Where I would look for supporting evidence is testimony of people she told immediately after she wrote it down. Because that is something you should do if it was important.
-
Quote from Adam Marsland:
"There's a great quote from Sherlock Holmes that goes something like, 'when you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.'
Adam, a bit of a clarification, FWIW, the Sherlock Holmes quote you reference is actually: "When you have eliminated the impossible , whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Your comment is well said sir...and now that you've mentioned the Great Detective, makes me think of what an asset he would be sometimes on this particular forum. ;)
Fair enough, sir! I did cop to paraphrasing it.
Sherlock Holmes would be an asset for sure, for just the reasons I stated. One of the reasons I went off on my little post and that I appreciate TIGHAR is their philosophy towards gathering information is one I totally support, and one that is sorely lacking these days. In these partisan, cable news-dominated days, so many people throw around words like "bias" and bits of intellectual factoids to make totally bogus intellectual arguments, and win because they count on people around them being less informed and less schooled in the art of debate, which they usually are.
My original background was in journalism, where you had to weigh opposing accounts of an event and figure out how to tell a story based on the accumulation of evidence, and knowing what was verifiable, what was heresay, and having objective tests for credibility. It's the difference, perhaps between proof in a court of law, or adhering to the scientific standard of a particular field, vs. just being able to distill a lot of information and come up with the best explanation of an event based on the available information. In a debate, I'm always listening for holes in arguments too. I start listening and taking peoples' opinions and statements seriously when they've anticipated other peoples' arguments and accounted for them. I know at that point that they've really thought their opinion through from all angles. Very, very few people know how to do this anymore. TIGHAR does. Every objection I have ever raised myself to the hypothesis I have found dealt with somewhere on this website in an intellectually honest manner. I respect that greatly.
-
Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?
Oh, Gary! We're all getting too old to remember those golden days of yore. :)
We've got to remember: she was a teenager. That was 75 years ago. There wasn't anything more important than music for her! (And anyway, her iPod was broken!)
And as for Betty sometimes diddling with her Dad's fancy radio with shortwave bands, even if the popular music was usually on the local stations, well, kids are going to be kids. If Woody could stomach reading completely the link I sent him privately, he can confirm that I sure diddled with my own father's stereo hi-fi when I was 15 -- and it turned out to have saved my life! It's sad to imagine that the fates seem to have conspired to prevent AE & FN being saved by Betty's diddling with her father's radio.
-
I keep reading at this site about the “4th harmonic”. Who came up with this theory? I can understand that someone was trying to explain how a transmitter operating on 3105 KC could propagate half-way around the world. But when one looks at a little theory about this thing, the “4th harmonic” is nonsense. Transmitter harmonics (which are considered spurious emission) are undesirable qualities because the power that goes into them is waste. Transmitter design limits harmonics. Also even with some poorly designed transmitter, the power in a 4th harmonic would be so negligible - beyond consideration. After WW2, there was tons of army surplus aircraft transmitters available to ham radio. I converted a BC457 to work on 80 meters. The 80 meter band is 3.5 Mhz - 3.8 Mhz. Amelia was using 3105 KC - which is 3.105 Mhz - pretty close to my 80 meters. I was station W4UZH (also in St Petersburg , FL). In the two years I operated - practically nightly - I never contacted anyone outside if the US. This band of frequencies simply does not propagate well. Anyway, if Betty received something from Amelia, it had to be on 3105 KC. Again, in theory, not probable…. But with all the details she supplied, I’m betting it happened and they will find the Electra.
By the way, I also went on Google Earth to see where 2027 Auburn Street South (Betty’s Address) is located. We were about 4 miles apart - almost neighbors. But I was only 2 years old in 1937. Does anyone know if Betty is still living?
-
The habit of listening is not the habit of writing down what you listened to.
Maybe she only kept a written record that time because she heard “This is Amelia Earhart” and realized the importance, and during the other times she listened, there was not anything as important to write down.
Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?
gl
Gary wrote:
"If all she has is local music in her book then it tends to disprove that she was in the habit of listening to shortwave and makes it more probable, that on this occasion too, she was listening to a local broadcast, not shortwave"
Gary, from your previous statement above you seemed to say that there were two kinds of listening and they were not likley done on the same night.
When I said there was not anything important to write down I was referring to the shortwave listening. I didn't feel the need say that she could easily have been doing that short wave band listening between writing down lyrics from local broadcast. So I am saying it now. I think she easily could have been doing more than one thing on that occasion just like people who use their computers for different things and don't write down what the hear or see for every task (including work, research interest or entertainment,)they use the computer for.
I think Bruce explained the varied interest of a young girl better than me.
Then you asked:
"Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?"
My answer is no. Its not like the importance of writing down songs she heard.
So now I ask, Do you understand the context of why I said she wrote down what she thought Amelia said because it was important? Or are you now asking if writing down songs important to her while listening to the local radio is the same importance as writing down something important to authorities that she heard in her shortwave listening?
-
The habit of listening is not the habit of writing down what you listened to.
Maybe she only kept a written record that time because she heard “This is Amelia Earhart” and realized the importance, and during the other times she listened, there was not anything as important to write down.
Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?
gl
Quote from Malcolm
Well put Gary. This diary, despite some denials, has a lot riding on it. Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario nor the means to conjecture post-landing behaviour on the island. It needs to thoroughly examined.
Malcolm, you said "Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario"
My interpretation of Tighar's "landed on the outer reef scenerio" is that the plane could not transmit if in water for any length of time, that there were several credible radio transmissions, and the props needed to be operable to transmit that long, so a "landed on the outer reef" scenerio best explained the multiple radio transmissions. I also think the outer reef scenario came before Betty's notebook was revealed to Tighar. You can look at Tighars index of dated subjects to see this.
And even before Tighar came up with that scenerio, I think the Navy thought a reef of some kind was a scenario in the 1937 search as well, and I don't think the Navy even talked to Betty. So Betty's notebook is not needed at all to have a "landed on the outer reef scenerio".
-
It is a simple request that I make. If she was in the habit of listening to shortwave broadcasts then she should have notes in her notebook that supports that and, if they are there, adds further credence to her claim.
I posted this link earlier in this thread, but I guess you missed it.
TIGHAR has provided a summary of all of the films and songs referred to in the notebook. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights108.html#1)
It might be that her notebook will support her story, let's just see it.
It seems to me that her notebook does support her story. This chart has been available for 12 years for folks to inspect. Do you doubt the veracity of the report? Do you think TIGHAR is lying about the movies and songs referred to in the book?
There may be other things in Betty's notebook that she would not like to have posted on the internet for all to see. The eight pages shown here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) seem good enough for our purposes here.
Nothing essential to the Niku hypothesis hangs on Betty's notebook. I guess you are thinking that she decided in her old age (78 in 2000, I believe) to make up a story about her childhood that would bring her riches, fame, and glory. If so, she sure worked hard to fake the document.
-
Of course if the devil's advocate was posting on these forums he/she could say that the Electra crashed into the ocean near Howland drifted to Gardner and broke up and sunk on the reef face.
Exactly.
That's why there is no Any-Idiot Artifact (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,757.0.html).
Besides your theory, there are any number more like it.
- The plane was dropped there by the Japanese to throw searchers off the scent.
- The plane was dropped there by the U.S. government after the secret spy equipment was retrieved from it.
- Counterfeit parts were dropped there by TIGHAR.
-
I keep reading at this site about the “4th harmonic”. Who came up with this theory?
Please click on the words in blue that follow this introduction.
It is called a link.
Clicking on a link takes you to material elsewhere on the internet.
In this case, it will take you to a page with three links on it.
Each of those links addresses part of your question.
Here is the opening link:
Harmony and Power: Could Betty Have Heard Amelia Earhart on a Harmonic? (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/30_BettyHarmonic/30_Bettyharmonic.html)
-
The part I find most interesting is the reaction of Bettys father...
The transmissions continued to come in, off and on, for about three hours until 6:15 p.m. At 5:15 her father came home from work and Betty excitedly told him to come listen. After a few minutes her father ran next door to see if his neighbor could also hear it on his radio
Strange reaction to a 'mistaken' broadcast.
He must have felt it was worth the rush next door to check if his neighbour could hear it as well
-
The reef landing is I believe the fourth attempt at this, the previous ones involved landings on the beach or the island.
The beach is on the island.
There is no landing strip elsewhere "on" the island.
Perhaps you meant to say, "on the beach or in the lagoon," which comes closer to the historical documents available from TIGHAR about its early work.
Therefore for things like the "Betty" notebook entry to have validity there must be a reef landing to keep the radio dry, and there is no landing on the island as has been well and truly demonstrated. Accordingly "Betty" must be kosher in order for the reef landing hypothesis to work and there must be a reef landing for "Betty" to be kosher - it's a circular argument. One supports the other.
Even if Betty's notebook were the sole source for the idea of a reef landing, it wouldn't follow from the notebook being a hoax that AE and FN did not land on the reef.
Betty's notebook is only one of dozens of post-loss radio messages that Gillespie and Brandenburg find credible. The historical fact that Betty's notebook got them thinking about this data does not mean that proving Betty to have been in error eradicates the other data.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/2/2c/Bearingmaplarge.gif)
-
So now you are saying that the story http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) that she offered it to Fred Goerner (1925 - 1994) presumably after he published his book on Earhart is not true.
My apologies for forgetting this important event.
So now we have a criminal mastermind embarking on the hoax at age 54 instead.
Having failed to cash in on her investment of time and energy in producing 80+ pages of nonsense to help validate 5 pages of lies, she waits for 11 years after TIGHAR starts searching Niku to cash in.
I don't find this persuasive. I think Betty is honestly reporting how and when the notes in the notebook got there; whether they do, in fact, represent an authentic reception is a different issue, of course.
There is no "scientific" proof that witnesses (or archaeologists (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,748.msg14987.html#msg14987)) are not lying. In the final analysis, you either take them at their word or you don't.
-
Did her father testify to this?
It's difficult to say Malcolm. From the link you posted it is Bettys recollections we are looking at. So it could be possible that not only the messages she heard were not what they first appear to be but also, her recollections of what happened in her house with her father could also be debatable.
Not sure if her father was able to 'testify' as the account given by Betty was taken a number of years later, very much later. He may have still been alive.
Another point to note is that it is her father who set up the radio reciever and antenna so he must have some idea of what he was doing and listening to regarding ham radio. Does that sound like a reasonable summary?
-
Malcolm, you said "Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario"
My interpretation of Tighar's "landed on the outer reef scenerio" is that the plane could not transmit if in water for any length of time, that there were several credible radio transmissions, and the props needed to be operable to transmit that long, so a "landed on the outer reef" scenerio best explained the multiple radio transmissions. I also think the outer reef scenario came before Betty's notebook was revealed to Tighar. You can look at Tighars index of dated subjects to see this.
And even before Tighar came up with that scenerio, I think the Navy thought a reef of some kind was a scenario in the 1937 search as well, and I don't think the Navy even talked to Betty. So Betty's notebook is not needed at all to have a "landed on the outer reef scenerio".
You have forgotten that TIGHAR have had to come up with a scenario that supports their hypothesis for the Nikumaroro landing. The reef landing is I believe the fourth attempt at this, the previous ones involved landings on the beach or the island. Therefore for things like the "Betty" notebook entry to have validity there must be a reef landing to keep the radio dry, and there is no landing on the island as has been well and truly demonstrated. Accordingly "Betty" must be kosher in order for the reef landing hypothesis to work and there must be a reef landing for "Betty" to be kosher - it's a circular argument. One supports the other.
No Malcolm, I did not forget that.
I think you should read what Tighar's hypothesis is. It seems you forgot or don't know alot of what is in the hypothesis.
I think you should read Marty's post to point you in the right direction of what Tighar's hypothesis is.
This link is what I find informative
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html
-
It is a simple request that I make. If she was in the habit of listening to shortwave broadcasts then she should have notes in her notebook that supports that and, if they are there, adds further credence to her claim.
I posted this link earlier in this thread, but I guess you missed it.
TIGHAR has provided a summary of all of the films and songs referred to in the notebook. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights108.html#1)
It might be that her notebook will support her story, let's just see it.
It seems to me that her notebook does support her story. This chart has been available for 12 years for folks to inspect. Do you doubt the veracity of the report? Do you think TIGHAR is lying about the movies and songs referred to in the book?
There may be other things in Betty's notebook that she would not like to have posted on the internet for all to see. The eight pages shown here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) seem good enough for our purposes here.
Nothing essential to the Niku hypothesis hangs on Betty's notebook. I guess you are thinking that she decided in her old age (78 in 2000, I believe) to make up a story about her childhood that would bring her riches, fame, and glory. If so, she sure worked hard to fake the document.
Nothing shown indicates that she ever listened to shortwave broadcasts either before the Earhart event of after. These pages do support my point in that they show she did listen to local commercial broadcast of the current songs and so supports my point that whatever she heard on that day was most likely also on the standard AM broadcast band. See jury instruction 203.
gl
-
No Malcolm, I did not forget that.
I think you should read what Tighar's hypothesis is. It seems you forgot or don't know alot of what is in the hypothesis.
I think you should read Marty's post to point you in the right direction of what Tighar's hypothesis is.
This link is what I find informative
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html
I have read the hypothesis - however the simple truth is that the "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work. Simply because if "Betty" is correct then the engines must be functioning and they cannot have been functioning if the aircraft was somehow parked in a clear spot on land because there is no wreck on the actual island itself. The only other clear spot albeit at low tide is the outer reef. As I said it is a circular argument.
Tighar's hypothesis was off reef landing, before Betty's notebook came to light so how do they need it,
let's be honest Betty's notebook don't have any influence on Tighar's hypothesis either way, it is just another piece of information that Tighar has been made aware ov existing, which like everything else has been posted for all to see
they don't credit or discredit it
-
Tighar's hypothesis was off reef landing, before Betty's notebook came to light so how do they need it,
let's be honest Betty's notebook don't have any influence on Tighar's hypothesis either way, it is just another piece of information that Tighar has been made aware ov existing, which like everything else has been posted for all to see
they don't credit or discredit it
For something they don't need they spend a lot of time defending it. Me, I am as ever rightly sceptical Richie - I suggest that you need to be also.
I think they are showing Betty, who they have met and interviewed a bit of respect and rightly so, We can speculate the notebook is fabricated but what if it isn't, an like those folks in 1937 just dismiss it, like every think else in life, unless it's ourselves that have witnessed an seen for our selves, we will always question other peoples accounts :)
-
No Malcolm, I did not forget that.
I think you should read what Tighar's hypothesis is. It seems you forgot or don't know alot of what is in the hypothesis.
I think you should read Marty's post to point you in the right direction of what Tighar's hypothesis is.
This link is what I find informative
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html
I have read the hypothesis - however the simple truth is that the "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work. Simply because if "Betty" is correct then the engines must be functioning and they cannot have been functioning if the aircraft was somehow parked in a clear spot on land because there is no wreck on the actual island itself. The only other clear spot albeit at low tide is the outer reef. As I said it is a circular argument.
Malcolm, There were several other radio messages listed that are part of their hypothesis. Betty's is not the only radio signal recieved so your statement "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work" is not correct.
There are also photographic parts, the witnesses to aircraft wreckage on the reef part, and found aircraft debris near the reef parts. So the simple truth is the outer reef landing aspect of their hypothesis does not need Betty's notebook.
See this link for the radio message part of the landing on a reef hypothesis. Clearly Betty's is not the only one listed
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html
In the link, look at the radio message Dana Randolf recieved. He reported he heard Amelia Earhart and "ship is on a reef" and what he heard was reported in the local paper at the time.
Dana Randolf said he heard the transmission approx 1500-1525Z, at about that same time Ernest Crabb also reported hearing what she thought was AE and two different Pan Am Direction stations (Oahu and Midway) also logged in recieving signals.
Oahu even got a bearing of 213 degrees at 1515Z (same period Dana Randolf said he recieved "ship is on a reef"). Gardner is on a bearing of 213 from Oahu.
4 different sources in about a 25 minute period. 2 logged by professionals, one of which got a bearing to Gardner. A 3rd logged by newspaper account at the time.
Again we are talking about Tighar's hypothesis of a landing on a reef. It does not need Betty's notebook.
-
Nothing shown indicates that she ever listened to shortwave broadcasts either before the Earhart event of after.
All we have about the shortwave broadcasts is her testimony to that effect.
It's true that what we have seen of the rest of the notebook does not confirm her testimony; neither does it impeach it.
She claims that the five pages are from the shortwave band. You apparently deny that. I'd say that the five pages show she did listen to the shortwave; you would not accept that reasoning. I think she's telling the truth; you think she's mistaken or malevolent.
I certainly do not think she is "malevolent."
In case you have misread what I have said in the past, here is a recap. I have said that Betty did not fabricate that notebook, I believe that she wrote down what she heard coming out of her radio and that what she stated when interviewed is what she remembered and believed was the truth. Is that clear?
Now to get to the point I have been trying to make. There is nothing in the original notes on the Earhart pages in her notebook saying that she was listening on shortwave and no mention of way up on the shortwave tuning dial around 25,000 kcs. So that part of the story is based on her memory when interviewed 60 years later, none of us have perfect memories. And we don't know what questions were asked of her and this is the same problem with the Japanese capture eyewitnesses.
"Do you remember what frequency you were listening on?"
"Not clearly"
"Did the radio cover shortwave?"
"My dad said it did."
"So it is possible that you were listening on shortwave?"
"Yes, I suppose so."
"Are you sure that you were not listening on shortwave?"
"Well, no."
"To be able to hear her you must have been listening on shortwave."
"Oh, so I guess I was listening on shortwave."
IF there are other pages that clearly show that on other occasions that she had listened to shortwave then that would bolster the story that on the Earhart occasion she was also listening on shortwave so that would be strong evidence in favor of that theory. I have no idea if there are such notations but if there are then show us, it can only help your case. Otherwise we have to believe that the one time she happened to try the shorwave bands she hit the jackpot, hearing Amelia.
I also suppose that Betty may have given a complete copy to TIGHAR so maybe this should be directed to TIGHAR and not Betty. Put your cards on the table, show us what you got.
I looked at the list of songs (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights108.html#1) in Betty's notebook and it is obvious that they are all American songs so she didn't hear them on international shortwave broadcasts, just like I said before, this shows that she was in the habit of listening on the normal AM broadcast band.
gl
-
Gary
have u never flicked through the bands/stations looking for songs u like ?
i have on my dads steeple tone radio, and happened on the neighbour over the road talking to her lover on a cordless house phone, yes really
also i have some old newspapers from 1939, radio times to be exact, and they show programe guides for shortwave radio stations all over world :)
Please scan them and share them with us.
gl
Not shortwave, but this site has many old Radio Guide magazines including 2 from July 1937.
http://www.otrr.org/FILES/Magz_pdf/Radio%20Guide/
Radio Index is interesting also, although none from 1937
http://www.otrr.org/Pages/Publications/magz_radio_index.htm
-
I have read the hypothesis - however the simple truth is that the "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work.
Except TIGHAR started searching the reef before it found out about Betty.
Cf. the notes on Niku IIIIP (1999) (http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_IIIIP_%281999%29) and Niku IIII (2001) (http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_IIII_%282001%29), both of which explain TIGHAR's interest in the reef as a function of native stories about seeing airplane parts on or near the reef. No mention is made of Betty whatsoever.
Simply because if "Betty" is correct then the engines must be functioning and they cannot have been functioning if the aircraft was somehow parked in a clear spot on land because there is no wreck on the actual island itself. The only other clear spot albeit at low tide is the outer reef. As I said it is a circular argument.
If any of the post-loss radio messages (http://tighar.org/wiki/PLRM) are authentic, then the plane had to be capable of transmitting.
That is not a circular argument. It is pure logic.
If there are authentic messages transmitted over a long period of time, then the plane had to be capable of recharging its batteries.
Also pure logic.
Now comes a process of elimination.
TIGHAR has searched the landable beach sections and the lagoon. No airplane.
TIGHAR heard stories about airplane parts on or near the reef.
If the plane landed at Niku and if it transmitted authentic messages over several days, then it must have been on the reef.
There is no need to invoke Betty's notebook in particular to reach this conclusion.
-
I thank you, there is no need to apologise but simply to answer the question. Your original statement contradicted what was claimed in the document I referenced - so are you claiming that "Betty" did not offer the document to Goerner who rejected it.
No. I accept that she offered it to Goerner in her 50s. That changes the date, on your theory, of her malicious counterfeiting of her notebook from her late 70s to her early 50s.
When I imagine an evil genius doing all that work, I imagine that their motive is fame and fortune. I find it hard to believe that such an evil genius would wait from 1966 until 2000 to cash in on her handiwork.
You imagine otherwise. I think she's credible; you don't.
-
I taught electronic basics, including transmitters, for many years. I stand by my last post - I can’t accept the harmonic explanation, however, I can accept it happened - I believe!
Strange things do happen with radio signals.
Ric notes that the modifications made by Gurr (http://tighar.org/wiki/Antennas#Gurr.27s_modifications) to try to make one antenna suitable for 500 khz, 3105 khz, and 6210 khz may have made it more likely to radiate on a harmonic: "During repairs back in California the decision was made to eliminate the trailing wire (http://tighar.org/wiki/Trailing_antenna) and lengthen the vee antenna on top of the fuselage to accommodate all three frequencies on the one antenna. The mast that supported the point of the vee was moved forward several feet. It was a terrible compromise that provided no meaningful capability to transmit on 500 Kcs while greatly complicating the problem of putting out a decent signal on 3105 and 6210. There appears to have been, however, another consequence to lengthening the vee. The new length made an excellent antenna for the unintended harmonic frequencies."[8] (http://tighar.org/wiki/Antennas#cite_note-7)
-
I certainly do not think she is "malevolent."
In case you have misread what I have said in the past, here is a recap. I have said that Betty did not fabricate that notebook, I believe that she wrote down what she heard coming out of her radio and that what she stated when interviewed is what she remembered and believed was the truth. Is that clear?
Yes.
Now to get to the point I have been trying to make. There is nothing in the original notes on the Earhart pages in her notebook saying that she was listening on shortwave and no mention of way up on the shortwave tuning dial around 24,000 kcs. So that part of the story is based on her memory when interviewed 60 years later, none of us have perfect memories. And we don't know what questions were asked of her and this is the same problem with the Japanese capture eyewitnesses.
I agree that I am relying on her memory and her testimony 60 years later.
"Do you remember what frequency you were listening on?"
"Not clearly"
"Did the radio cover shortwave?"
"My dad said it did."
"So it is possible that you were listening on shortwave?"
"Yes, I suppose so."
"Are you sure that you were not listening on shortwave?"
"Well, no."
"To be able to hear her you must have been listening on shortwave."
"Oh, so I guess I was listening on shortwave."
I'll bet TIGHAR has a tape of the interview. I don't have one. This is a testable theory.
IF there are other pages that clearly show that on other occasions that she had listened to shortwave then that would bolster the story that on the Earhart occasion she was also listening on shortwave so that would be strong evidence in favor of that theory.
Yes, of course that is true. But the lack of note-taking on (presumably) foreign stations doesn't mean she didn't listen to them. Or if they were local American stations, some of the movie and song titles may have come from shortwave rather than AM stations. I don't think she was in the habit of writing down callsigns as she collected lyrics.
I have no idea if there are such notations but if there are then show us, it can only help your case. Otherwise we have to believe that the one time she happened to try the shorwave bands she hit the jackpot, hearing Amelia.
Or we may believe that she did what she said she did, which was to tune at random from time to time.
I also suppose that Betty may have given a complete copy to TIGHAR so maybe this should be directed to TIGHAR and not Betty. Put your cards on the table, show us what you got.
TIGHAR had the original at least long enough to copy it and have it checked by a document expert. I don't know whether it is still in their possession.
I looked at the list of songs (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights108.html#1) in Betty's notebook and it is obvious that they are all American songs so she didn't hear them on international shortwave broadcasts, just like I said before, this shows that she was in the habit of listening on the normal AM broadcast band.
If they were English stations, they may well have been playing the music of the era.
If they were non-English stations, that might account for the lack of transcription from them.
-
This article is from 1989. The base hypothesis seems to be the same today.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1989Vol_5/testing.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1989Vol_5/testing.pdf)
From that link:
- At 8:44 a.m., 2 July 1937, the time of Earhart’s last confirmed in-flight radio transmission, signal strength indicated that she
- was within 100 miles of Howland Island. In that message she stated that she was “on the line of position 157/337 running
- north and south.”
- Known fuel data for the flight indicated that she had approximately two hours of fuel remaining at that time.
- Four islands fall along that line of position within two hour’s flight time: Howland (we know she didn’t land there), Baker (nor
- there); McKean (maybe, but it’s small, barren and uninviting), and Gardner.
- Over the next three days at least 24 radio transmissions believed to originate from the lost plane were received. Lockheed
- engineers insisted that the aircraft must be on land. Direction Finding bearings were obtained on six of the signals. All cross
- in the area of Gardner Island.
- The U.S. Navy’s initial search in 1937 focused on the Phoenix Islands. The aerial search of Gardner Island reported “clear
- signs of recent human habitation” on an island that was uninhabited at the time. Despite that, no search party was put
- ashore nor has anyone ever searched there for Amelia Earhart since then.
- In later years a small (80 people), abortive Gilbertese colony and a wartime U.S. Coast Guard radio station (25 men) resulted
- in anecdotal evidence which seems to support the hypothesis that Earhart ended up on the island.
- In short, no one ever really looked in the most likely place. The TIGHAR expedition will correct that oversight.
They visited McKean in 1989 (http://tighar.org/wiki/Mckean) and eliminated it as a possible landing site.
-
.... Betty's is not the only radio signal recieved so your statement "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work" is not correct.
...
In the link, look at the radio message Dana Randolf recieved. He reported he heard Amelia Earhart and "ship is on a reef" and what he heard was reported in the local paper at the time.
Dana Randolf said he heard the transmission approx 1500-1525Z, at about that same time Ernest Crabb also reported hearing what she thought was AE and two different Pan Am Direction stations (Oahu and Midway) also logged in recieving signals.
Oahu even got a bearing of 213 degrees at 1515Z (same period Dana Randolf said he recieved "ship is on a reef"). Gardner is on a bearing of 213 from Oahu.
4 different sources in about a 25 minute period. 2 logged by professionals, one of which got a bearing to Gardner. A 3rd logged by newspaper account at the time.
Again we are talking about Tighar's hypothesis of a landing on a reef. It does not need Betty's notebook.
Just reading through what I missed over the weekend and this led me to wonder regarding the Randolph acount - do we know what the "ship is on an reef" is referring to? Was AE known to use the common parlance of referring to her plane as a "ship" or might it possibly be referring to the Norwich City?
-
Post 79 from Malcolm
“This diary, despite some denials, has a lot riding on it. Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario”
Post 137 from Malcolm
“I note that, after this discussion, people who before thought "Betty's" notebook to be the most revealing source of data for Earhart and Noonan's post landing behaviour on the island, are now backtracking to pretend that it really isn't all that important”
Malcolm,
Respectfully,
In post 79 you gave Betty’s notebook more importance than it deserved by incorrectly saying the Reef landing scenario would not exist without Betty’s Diary. Then your post 137 claims others are “backtracking to pretend that it really isn't all that important”
In between your two posts noted above, I and others, responded because you incorrectly tied the entire reef landing hypothesis to Betty’s diary.
The reef landing hypothesis existed long before Betty’s notebook was even included. Also there are more radio signals and additional parts in the reef landing hypothesis than Betty’s diary.
It’s not “backtracking” when we provide the information, with links, to show something you said was incorrect.
Respectfully submitted
-
I don't recall any mention of Betty's notebook being mentioned at the Naval Institute seminar I observed back in 1993. I first learned of Betty's Notebook when I read Mr. Gillespie's book "Finding Amelia." I thought of it as an interesting side note, but not critical to the hypothesis.
I think there is confusion between the post loss radio messages reported by civilians in the United States who were listening to the radio, and the post lost signals detected by Pan Am radio direction finding equipment on Oahu, Midway, and Wake Island. It is the direction finding receptions that support TIGHAR's hypothesis, because they were made after Amelia Earhart's disappearance, cross near Nikumaroro, and could not be coming from the Electra if it was in the water.
The distinction between what Pan Am's direction finders detected and what civilian's heard while listening to their radios at home is critical. Or am I missing something?
-
doc
you Malcolm's clone or side kick by any chance ?
No, don't know him from Adam but I just read his comment. I can see why you would think that.
Malcolm and Adam have very different views on the topic at hand, I assure you.
I like what you said here: "I am a skeptic for sure but I leave nothing to impossibility in this world"
That's the ticket...
-
Thanks for the 'non' answer, i was hoping for an insite on who an Archaeologist has to change hypothysis as more evidence turns up and other professionals data on other sites comes into play. :(
Oh that - of course as evidence is collected it quite often causes one to modify or change the basic premises at the heart of the working hypothesis.
Are you suggesting that I would ignore it and discard it if it didn't fit the hypothesis I had when I started. Hypotheses in general use available data as their starting point from which one gathers new data. A hypothesis that simply sticks with old data to make the same point is not new science it is just useless repetition. So accordingly you start from the known and move into the unknown that is how science moves along. You also metaphorically speaking test the evidence to breaking point to see how robust it is.
That is what I am doing with the evidence cited in this hypothesis - just standard operating procedure - you do no one a favour if you just agree with them, nor do you advance the discussion if you simply reject criticism as sour grapes.
-
here is a couple scans
It is critical to the Betty reception report that she was listening on 24,840, the fourth harmonic of Earhart's 6,210 transmitter frequency, because Brandenburg calculated that no lower frequency had any chance at all, nada, nyet, nien, rien, to make it all the way to Florida. And even for 24,840 Brandenburg calculated only one chance in one million five hundred thousand.
Thanks for those scans since they support my position that Betty did NOT listen to Earhart on shortwave on 24,840 kcs. In image.001 you can see the highest frequency listed is 21,550 kcs, nowhere near the almost 25,000 kcs that Brandenburg needed her to be listening on. This is from 1939 and is the same highest frequency that I posted from 1927, nothing changed.
Image.002 shows the type of music you might hear on short wave and, just as I said, they do not broadcast American "Top 40" popular songs of the type that Betty logged so it appears that she was not in the habit of listening to shortwave radio broadcasts. Even if she did she had no reason to be anywhere near 24,840 kcs.
gl
-
an couple more
These also confirm what I just said about the other two scans. Image004 shows the highest frequency of only 21,550 kcs and image003 also shows no American pop songs.
gl
-
some more
Further support for me, image005 shows the highest frequency is listed as the shortest wavelength of 15 meters which is 20,000 kcs, nothing close to 24,840 kcs.
gl
-
Gary
have u never flicked through the bands/stations looking for songs u like ?
i have on my dads steeple tone radio, and happened on the neighbour over the road talking to her lover on a cordless house phone, yes really
also i have some old newspapers from 1939, radio times to be exact, and they show programe guides for shortwave radio stations all over world :)
Please scan them and share them with us.
gl
Not shortwave, but this site has many old Radio Guide magazines including 2 from July 1937.
http://www.otrr.org/FILES/Magz_pdf/Radio%20Guide/
They do include shortwave listing and they also prove my point that nobody broadcast higher than the 21,000 kcs band so Betty had no reason to be listening up around 25,000. I have attached shortwave section from the issue for July 3, 1937. I have also attached the shortwave sections for all of them from May1, 1937 through July24, 1937, none show any frequencies above the 21,000 band. Also note, none of the programming include American pop songs.
Radio Index is interesting also, although none from 1937
http://www.otrr.org/Pages/Publications/magz_radio_index.htm
They also include shortwave listings. I have attached the shortwave section from the issue closest in time to July 1937, it lists no frequencies above the 21,000 band so this also supports my point that Betty was not listening on 24,840 kcs so Brandeburgs harmonic theory fails.
gl
-
Gary, you're still thinking like a sixty-something. You're looking for music, sweet, sweet music.
Betty was 15 years old at the time. As I've noted before, kids are going to be kids. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,764.msg15774.html#msg15774) Yeah, she loved music. But she probably also loved playing with her father's sleek new radio. Just because there may not be shortwave broadcast stations at the high end of the band doesn't preclude a 15 year-old from spinning that dial as far as it will go. And, "Wow! What's that? It sounds like a voice. It ain't music, but it sounds neat. And it's weak. Must be a long ways off. Let me see if I can pick out what's being said."
-
My hunch/hypothesis? Betty read the St. Petersburg, Florida newspaper headlines on July 3rd 1937, and couldn’t resist joining in on the new fad sweeping the country that day - searching for more "AE radio signals" - like those first reported by the two hoaxers, Walter McMenamy and Karl Pierson.
Read the St. Petersburg Florida “Evening Independent” from July 3rd, 1937 here-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=PZE8UkGerEcC&dat=19370703&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
“AMELIA’S VOICE HEARD IN SOS”
“Pan American Airways and Coast Guard On Other Hand Have Heard Nothing”
“Reports that the voice of tousle-haired Amelia Earhart had been picked up, calling “SOS’ from the mystery spot where she is lost in the mid-Pacific, buoyed hopes for her ultimate rescue today as the U.S. Navy ordered a battleship into the search…..”
On July 5 the same paper reported, [on page 2, col. 2]
“…radio listeners all around the Pacific and far inland sought anew to catch unexplained distress signals, voices and “signals” which for two nights have buoyed hopes the missing aviators might be calling desperately for aid….”
The St. Petersburg Times newspaper of course was reporting the story too-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=feST4K8J0scC&dat=19370706&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
My suggestion to interested TIGHAR’s is to spend time carefully looking over contemporary news reports about Earhart’s disappearance in Google’s incredible archive of newspapers. I think it will become clear that McMenamy and Pierson set off a case of public hysteria that continues to this day.
The complete archive is here.
http://news.google.com/newspapers
Another example –
Ray Havens and Arthur Monsees, two more radio operators later dismissed as hoaxers [even by Tighar] are mentioned in this story-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19370709&id=PEosAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yMoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7052,719990
BTW, McMenamy and Pierson can be seen at work here-
http://lighthouseantiques.net/Photos%20-%20Coast%20Guard.htm
11421. (photo) Radio Amateurs and Coast Guard Cutter Itasca Listens for Amelia Earhart as she makes her 1937 attempt to fly around the world c.1937. Period b/w press photo shows amateur radio operators Karl Pierson and Walter McMenamy at their radio. They were the radio operators who copied Amelia Earhart’s S.O.S. as she attempted her around the world flight in 1937. The Coast Guard Cutter Itasca was the "picket ship" that would provide air navigation andradio links for Amelia Earhart when she made her 1937 attempt to fly around the world. Itasca, stationed at Howland Island in the Pacific, tried to keep in radio contact with her. However, due to a series of misunderstandings or mishaps (the details of which are still controversial), two-way radio contact was never established and Earhart was lost at sea. Photo measures 5” x 7 ½” with date and credit line on back. Chip to one corner. Dated July 5, 1937. A piece of history. (VG). $38.
-
A good observation and very plausible. Obviously then her father was also in on the ruse as he reportedly went next door to the neighbours house to see if they could also hear the transmission. I don't see the point in perpetuating the hoax decades later but, you never know, there may be some reason. So, good point Mark, I hadn't considered that possibility.
-
Jeff, I don't read into Mark's posting an implication that Betty was a hoaxer. Rather, the newspaper reports might have heightened her awareness of the possibility of hearing things on the shortwave frequencies and spurred her interest in scanning those bands. Lo and behold, she heard something, grabbed her notebook and the rest is history.
-
To be clear.... I don't believe Betty's story rings true.
-
My suggestion to interested TIGHAR’s is to spend time carefully looking over contemporary news reports about Earhart’s disappearance in Google’s incredible archive of newspapers.
Go for it.
If you can find reports of alleged post-loss radio transmissions that are not already in the catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html), I'm sure that Ric and Bob would be happy to evaluate them.
There is a "Join the Search" board with the topic, "Does your local paper have stories about messages after July 2, 1937?" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,16.0.html) I created this thread after an EPAC meeting because it is so hard to tell whether all newspaper accounts have been turned up.
-
To be clear.... I don't believe Betty's story rings true.
To be honest I'm not 100% convinced either but, I do put a lot of credence in the Pan Am personnel who logged post loss transmissions. They new a little more about communications than a little girl and her father.
-
Doesn't ring true in what sense?
she made it up?
she was listening to something she mistook?
please describe what and why?
Betty's notebook is not conclusive by any means, but really interesting given the context.
I'd like to hear you elaborate on what exactly doesn't ring true.
amck
-
"I do put a lot of credence in the Pan Am personnel who logged post loss transmissions."
I agree with Jeff Hayden. The Betty Notebook is interesting to me, but I don't put any reliance in it one way or the other. It is the direction finding by Pan Am that convinces me. To fool Pan Am, a hoaxer would have be sitting on Gardner or the vicinity, and transmitting on those frequencies. And a hoaxer sitting on Gardner, transmitting on those specific carrier frequencies is not just plausible to me.
-
I believe Betty's story is an interesting case of what Marty once described rather nicely as the "Helpful Witness Syndrome."
See-
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200710.txt
Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:20:58
"...People get excited about the prospect of becoming The One Who
Solved Aviation's Greatest Mystery and start to "remember" things
that didn't happen..."
-
I tend to believe Betty's Notebook, but I do think Mark has brought forward something that is at least a plausible factor in a hoax, which to my mind we haven't heard thus far. The timing is right, and there could be a suggestibility factor there. It's something to bear in mind...to me, it doesn't go anywhere near covering all the known facts of the matter but as I've said upthread, if the notebook is not authentic, then it's likely the product of a lot of other bizarre and unlikely things interacting, and this could be one of them.
Once, when I was 13, I got up in the middle of the night, turned on the radio, spoke some random words in response to the words in the song, and 15 seconds later I heard those words in my own voice coming back to me on the radio mixed in with the song. I know it's impossible. I also know it happened. I have no explanation why. I'm sure there is one, though. So...who knows.
-
Betty was interviewed in 2007 by Dick Gordon of National Public Radio. Listen to the interview here-
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_325_Listening_For_Amelia.mp3/view
She tells how she went on to earn her private pilot license during World War II; mentions something about working on her commercial license, and also says-
“They wanted me to join the Ferry Command.”
There’s more in the radio interview about how she met her future husband at an airport […where she claims she was also employed if I heard correctly…], after she “dusted him off” with her plane’s prop wash after coming in for a landing.
I hate to be blunt, but I find this last story to be a bit of a stretch to put it nicely. In my mind, it casts doubt on all the other parts of her “personal flight history.” But I will take my lumps if these reports by Betty can be proven true. It seems to me that Betty’s story of obtaining her pilot’s license in World War II could be verified today--- without asking [and offending] her directly. Could anyone here help suggest how to go about that? Would FAA records be filed away somewhere?
If Betty truly was a licensed pilot in World War II, great. If not, I think we have to cast off her notebook as evidence.
More about her story here-
http://thetruthisstrangerblog.blogspot.com/
“…Brown channeled her experience into a life path that helped her somehow connect with the lost aviator: she became a pilot herself. She said "she wanted to do something for her (Amelia)." Brown, possessing some of the same confidence and bravado as Earhart, met her husband, also a pilot, dusting him as he walked into an airplane hangar as she taxied in from a flight. They were married three weeks later. The interview doesn't tell us much about Betty's life past her early flying experiences and the heart-warming story of how she met her future husband. But this is a story deserving to be told.”
-
Betty was interviewed in 2007 by Dick Gordon of National Public Radio. Listen to the interview here-
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_325_Listening_For_Amelia.mp3/view
She tells how she went on to earn her private pilot license during World War II; mentions something about working on her commercial license, and also says-
“They wanted me to join the Ferry Command.”
There’s more in the radio interview about how she met her future husband at an airport […where she claims she was also employed if I heard correctly…], after she “dusted him off” with her plane’s prop wash after coming in for a landing.
I hate to be blunt, but I find this last story to be a bit of a stretch to put it nicely. In my mind, it casts doubt on all the other parts of her “personal flight history.” But I will take my lumps if these reports by Betty can be proven true. It seems to me that Betty’s story of obtaining her pilot’s license in World War II could be verified today--- without asking [and offending] her directly. Could anyone here help suggest how to go about that? Would FAA records be filed away somewhere?
If Betty truly was a licensed pilot in World War II, great. If not, I think we have to cast off her notebook as evidence.
More about her story here-
http://thetruthisstrangerblog.blogspot.com/
“…Brown channeled her experience into a life path that helped her somehow connect with the lost aviator: she became a pilot herself. She said "she wanted to do something for her (Amelia)." Brown, possessing some of the same confidence and bravado as Earhart, met her husband, also a pilot, dusting him as he walked into an airplane hangar as she taxied in from a flight. They were married three weeks later. The interview doesn't tell us much about Betty's life past her early flying experiences and the heart-warming story of how she met her future husband. But this is a story deserving to be told.”
Here you go:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YCpPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fk0DAAAAIBAJ&dq=betty-klenck&pg=4628%2C7712006
(Scroll down to "Wings Sprout")
So she was working on a license. And did get married soon after:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tBtPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jk0DAAAAIBAJ&dq=betty-klenck&pg=5272%2C5609701
-
I agree Jeff. If the Electra is found off the reef of Niku it will neither confirm or debunk anything about the notebooks. Betty may be a sincere old lady and the notes may be an accurate record of an odd thing she heard on shortwave around the time of Amelia's disappearance. Even if she really did somehow hear the real Amelia for the long period she claimed so what, the transcript is cryptic to say the least, maybe it shows a chaotic situation in the cockpit while trying to transmit as the tide comes in on the reef, maybe something else is going on. Unless I'm missing something the only independently testable reference I see was the odd comment about the suitcase, which could have been checked in 1937 or at least as long as George Putnam was alive but not now. I don't really understand all of the effort and emotion being put into this subject. At least the materials found at the seven site will acquire greater relevance if the electra is found, until then they are just intriguing but ambivalent artifacts, Betty's notebook will always be just a curiosity
-
Matt, here is an article on the suitcase (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2003Vol_19/suitcase.pdf)
-
Yes, Jeff- very good discovery. I take my lumps. I will accept that Betty had real flight experience.
Earlier this morning I checked the FAA’s online “Airmen Certification” webpage and found four pilots named “Klenck”-
RAYMOND EDWIN KLENCK
RICHARD GORDON KLENCK
WILLIAM JOHN KLENCK
ROBERT EDWARD KLENCK
Two pilots can be found under the name “Earhart”-
AMELIA MARY EARHART
AMELIA ROSE EARHART
Betty’s records from the 1940’s may have fallen through the cracks. I accept that as a very real possibility.
I do continue to see problems with the notebook however.
-
Thanks Gregory
I had seen that already, its ambiguous just like everything else in regard to Betty's notebook, tantalizing even, but ultimately I still don't see what is added to our knowledge of Amelia by this.
-
Well, it was worth a try.
She did solo in St. Petersburg and did announce her dream of getting a commercial license at the time:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YCpPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fk0DAAAAIBAJ&dq=betty-klenck&pg=4628%2C7712006
(Scroll down to "Wings Sprout")
In the interview she says she got married shortly after meeting her husband (was it 23 days?). She did indeed get married soon after her solo flight:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tBtPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jk0DAAAAIBAJ&dq=betty-klenck&pg=5272%2C5609701
-
Two pilots can be found under the name “Earhart”-
AMELIA MARY EARHART
AMELIA ROSE EARHART
From her website (http://flywithamelia.wordpress.com/about/),
Amelia Rose Earhart is a namesake and distant relative of the original Amelia Earhart. She is a private pilot, flying the Cirrus SR-20 at Independence Aviation at Centennial Airport in Denver, Colorado. She is a reporter at KUSA, the local NBC affiliate where she reports on traffic and breaking news.
-
What did Betty's dad do for a living?
In the May 2002 AE Forum text file, Ric says this about Betty's father:
Betty's father worked for the power company and, in those days, power companies were
eager to encourge consumers to buy electrical appliances to boost demand. To that
end, they had very attractive arrangements with manufacturers which made it possible
for power company employees to buy new high-end appliances at bargain prices.
Getting these fancy new products out into the neighborhoods was an effective
marketing strategy.
-
Gary, you're still thinking like a sixty-something. You're looking for music, sweet, sweet music.
Betty was 15 years old at the time. As I've noted before, kids are going to be kids. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,764.msg15774.html#msg15774) Yeah, she loved music. But she probably also loved playing with her father's sleek new radio. Just because there may not be shortwave broadcast stations at the high end of the band doesn't preclude a 15 year-old from spinning that dial as far as it will go. And, "Wow! What's that? It sounds like a voice. It ain't music, but it sounds neat. And it's weak. Must be a long ways off. Let me see if I can pick out what's being said."
You guys really love that Kool-Aid.
I was expecting Betty's notebook to show that she logged shortwave stations and it apparently doesn't. In her interview she said she wrote down the words to the songs she heard so that she could sing the songs without having to buy the sheet music, remember sheet music? On the day of the claimed Earhart reception, she said that she was doing the same thing and there is no reason that she would try to write down the words for songs heard on a station from, say Poland, since I doubt she spoke Polish or that she had any interest in any foreign language songs.
If there were notations that she had been trying to hear a very rare station from, say Outer Slobovia, that broadcast outside of the normal shortwave broadcast bands on 25,000 kcs, then I could accept that she had tuned the radio up to a point that she might have heard something on 24,840 kcs but her notes only show that she listened to domestic am stations in the normal medium wave broadcast band. And remember, in the whole hour and half tht Betty was listening Earhart never uttered the words "Gardner" nor "Phoenix," words that an authentic emergency message from Amelia on Gardner should have contained.
So I ain't buying it.
gl
-
FAA search results for
Betty Klenck Brown
Elizabeth Klenck Brown
"No records found based on search criteria provided above."
The Airmen Registry does appear to be incomplete. As a test, I searched for licenses for people I know had thme,
Florence Lowe (Pancho Barnes)
Robert Cummings (actor and holder of the first CFI certificate)
Fred Noonan (commercial pilot)
Eleanor Roosevelt (student pilot)
Herbert LaPook (my uncle)
and none of these showed up in the FAA Registry.
Also see:
http://www.cfidarren.com/r-famous.htm
gl
-
Hello,
I'm not sure where the best place is for this post, so moderator please move it as necessary.
The Betty story is told very clearly in various Tighar reports, but I'm hazy on where Tighar's investigations were, pre-Betty. Had the reef landing hypothesis already been put forward? Did Betty put Tighar's thinking in a new direction, or reinforce ideas it already had?
Thanks!
-
Hal
The body of post loss signal receptions pre dates our discovery of Betty's notebook by many years, in fact it was the receptions that caused the Navy to send the Colorado down to the Phoenix Islands in 1937, so the landing on the reef theory is the oldest of all Earhart disappearance solutions.
For any single reception to be genuine, she had to be on land in relatively good shape. That dictates a successful landing somewhere, and the reef flat at low tide is one of the most logical places, so pre Betty we were thinking about her landing on the reef flat.
Betty's notebook pushed us to think about the possibilities of radio propagation and further look into and catalog the overall body of receptions which revealed the patterns that we see. It also spurred a lot of research into what the content might mean.
I hope that helps your understanding.
Andrew
-
It is a simple request that I make. If she was in the habit of listening to shortwave broadcasts then she should have notes in her notebook that supports that and, if they are there, adds further credence to her claim.
I posted this link earlier in this thread, but I guess you missed it.
TIGHAR has provided a summary of all of the films and songs referred to in the notebook. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights108.html#1)
It might be that her notebook will support her story, let's just see it.
It seems to me that her notebook does support her story. This chart has been available for 12 years for folks to inspect. Do you doubt the veracity of the report? Do you think TIGHAR is lying about the movies and songs referred to in the book?
There may be other things in Betty's notebook that she would not like to have posted on the internet for all to see. The eight pages shown here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) seem good enough for our purposes here.
Nothing essential to the Niku hypothesis hangs on Betty's notebook. I guess you are thinking that she decided in her old age (78 in 2000, I believe) to make up a story about her childhood that would bring her riches, fame, and glory. If so, she sure worked hard to fake the document.
Nothing shown indicates that she ever listened to shortwave broadcasts either before the Earhart event of after. These pages do support my point in that they show she did listen to local commercial broadcast of the current songs and so supports my point that whatever she heard on that day was most likely also on the standard AM broadcast band. See jury instruction 203.
gl
This has drawn fresh interest and perhaps time and events can bring us to a fresh view -
Is there truly any harm in TIGHAR releasing the notebook in it's entirety? It is clearly vital reference material as to TIGHAR's report on the contents that are considered germane, but to the point here - Betty, the soul of integrity in my view, could reveal a great deal more to us if the full range of her 'scanning' habits were known. No one would expect embarrassing private comments to be revealed - but that does not appear to be the nature of a document that she would release even to TIGHAR.
Betty is also now deceased, bless her - a lady no doubt of the same fine integrity as that 15 year old girl she was in 1937.
The full context of Betty's listening habits as recorded in the full notebook does appear vital. TIGHAR's attempt to summarize it are appreciated - but even the best such summary cannot convey all the important nuances therein - some of which may even support TIGHAR's view of the weight of this material. Why not release this?
To continue to not release it breeds an unfortunate air of defensiveness, however unintended, as well. It seems this would be a major credibility feather in TIGHAR's cap to step up to this.
-
Additionally, it is noted upon review of Ric's last interview with Betty that TIGHAR is in possession of all of the correspondence that she wrote to people to try to get their attention as to her story / notebook. What Betty said along the way in doing so could tell a great deal about her belief and how it may have evolved as she appealed to others along the way. Can TIGHAR produce that material?