Print

[Dave Potratz]

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

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

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

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

Your words-per-minute mileage may vary.

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

...LTM

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

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

[Ric Gillespie]

What if it was the same series of short phrases repeated periodically over a period of one hour?  If that were the case we could be fairly sure that the words were more or less accurate as to what was transmitted.

[Dave Potratz]

What if it was the same series of short phrases repeated periodically over a period of one hour?  If that were the case we could be fairly sure that the words were more or less accurate as to what was transmitted.

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

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

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

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

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

I admit my guesses. I could just be barking up the wrong tree.
Any mathematics probability experts out there?

[Charlie Chisholm]

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

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

The same technique could be used to analyze the ambiguous BEYOND and DONT HOLD WITH US, but the code sent was probably very much worse.

[Charlie Chisholm]

What if it was the same series of short phrases repeated periodically over a period of one hour?  If that were the case we could be fairly sure that the words were more or less accurate as to what was transmitted.

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

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

[Charlie Chisholm]

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

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

Any mathematics probability experts out there?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ric Gillespie]

Remember also that there was no key aboard the airplane. Code had to be sent with the post-to-talk on the mic.  Keying the mic cause the transmitter to spool up.  Releasing the button cause the transmitter to spool down.  This would be an extremely awkward way to send code.

[Charlie Chisholm]

Remember also that there was no key aboard the airplane. Code had to be sent with the post-to-talk on the mic.  Keying the mic cause the transmitter to spool up.  Releasing the button cause the transmitter to spool down.  This would be an extremely awkward way to send code.

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

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

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

I can't even imagine how difficult that must have been for them. Shows their strong will to survive.
 

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Have I got this right?

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

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


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

[Ric Gillespie]

Have I got this right?

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

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


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

Yep.

[Monty Fowler]

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

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

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

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

LTM, who keeps his keys on a ring,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Dan Swift]

Of course total speculation on my part, but I believe the only thing that kept the airplane on the reef with the in and out tides was the landing gear stuck in a groove.  After wrenching back a forth for a few days, it finally broke off and then the plane was lost.  I can imagine the incoming waves pushing the tail in and out and around until "Nessie" let go. 

[Friend Weller]

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

Or Nightmare on Sir Harry Luke Avenue!   

[Greg Daspit]

Of course total speculation on my part, but I believe the only thing that kept the airplane on the reef with the in and out tides was the landing gear stuck in a groove.  After wrenching back a forth for a few days, it finally broke off and then the plane was lost.  I can imagine the incoming waves pushing the tail in and out and around until "Nessie" let go.

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