3105 2nd Harmonic question

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

To me this reads as though the Operator received a response immediately, not at the next agreed-upon time.  It would also seem to indicate that Amelia was listening at times other than just the half hour, at least this one time.

The key words are "to me" and "it seems."

To me it seems otherwise, given the preponderance of the evidence about how AE set up the communications protocol.

Since the operator couldn't make out what she was saying, I see no reason to think that what she was saying was in response to his transmission.

What seems to me to be superabundantly clear is that the next day, the only transmission she heard was on 7500 kcs (KHz).  Explain it any way you wish, with our without the lost antenna, but that seems to be a matter of fact that does not rely on idiosyncratic readings.

[John Ousterhout]

Marty - fair enough, and I'm glad you understood my caveats.  We only have sparse information to winnow through, and interpretation is hard and indefinite.  Indeed, what the Lae operator heard may have been unrelated to the request, and might simply have been Amelia continuing to transmit without knowledge of Lae's request.  It's a tantalizing puzzle, not unlike 'signs of recent habitation' in another thread.  The response to the 7500 Khz transmission was unambiguous (Quote: "Bellarts states: "KHAQQ clng Itasca we recd ur sigs...", close quotes.  Also Black and Thompson reported similar notes, from Marty's link, above), and immediately following the transmission (not on the hour/half hour).  Wouldn't it be nice to have more information like that record?

[Kent Beuchert]

It also indicates that she [AE] was able to hear Lae at that time/distance when they asked her to "repeat position".  An hour later Lae could hear her pretty clearly."
.... We could hypothesize that she was listening using the DF loop antenna, and not the belly antenna (which we've hypothesized was missing after takeoff), but then we'll have additional reconciliations to make if our story is to remain internally consistent.

I believe  the Lae operator was clearly mistaken, if indeed he even did believe that AE responded to his transmission. The missing antenna hypothesis has additional evidence (puff of dust and later the antenna wire found on the runway, which has been conveniently overlooked). It is also by far the simplest (and in my opinion, the most plausible) explanation which accounts for all of the known radio events, which includes but one reception acknowledged by AE - the attempted DF of 7500. That indicates to me that her receiver, earphones, etc were working.  Considering the enormous number of transmissions at close range, on all frequencies she used, it is inconceivable to me that the problem was anything other than the bottom receiving antenna. To embrace the theory of an OK antenna seems to me to require a very complicated, implausible, and as yet unexplained   scenario in which the receiver is OK early on, but then goes bad on two frequencies but not the third one, all based of an interpretation of what a radio operator on Lae seemed by some to be indicating by his supposed actions.  I believe the evidence and the logic of the missing antenna hypothesis completely overwhelms any other explanation yet advanced.

[don hirth]

Kent (and other Tighar members)
It would be interesting to have members weigh in regarding the shortcomings of the 'belly antenna'. Considering that AE had a 'quality' radio, working properly, how much was lost with the damage of the belly antenna AND in keeping with the upper
antenna? I've been a 'ham' for about a year and have learned about 'strange' gaps
in communications involving atmospheric conditions, elevation of antennas, and even
the great send/receive power of 'simple' lengths of wire strung between poles or trees.
Do we know the individual/combined lengths of AEs wire setup and can we 'guess'
as to the losses in signal strength due to the belly loss?