Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis  (Read 13091 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5615
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2018, 08:08:50 PM »

Ric: can you look at your copy of the map and verify if my memory is at least somewhat intact?  My copy of the map is buried in the closet...

Here's a transcription of the notations on the 14th naval District map:

Additional Dope on
Mokapu RADIO BEARINGS –
3 July  FIRST  service?,  213 (+-10)
4 July    2nd       ‘                200 –
              also  illegible and ?80° illegible on / as doubtful –
Wake   115°
5 July  144°


2200 night 2nd  Itasca heard weak signals
   “       3rd   Itasca heard weak signals?

Night of 3rd –
KGMB  Requested & broadcast –
0630 GCT 4th (8pm and? Honolulu to 2:15 AM)
asked for 8 dashes if on water – and got 8 in response 
{illegible
{C.G.
{Army [illegible]
{PAA
asked for 4 dashes if north of Howland and 6 if south – [obscured by stain] 6?  received

0120 to 0150 evening of 5 July – 3 operators at Wailupe co[obscured by stain] transmission
“  281 north of Howland beyond north etc  - Coast Guar[obscured by stain] but could not copy.

Per  O’Connor at San Bruno:

Additional Dope on Radio Bearings
Mokapu
3 July      first bearing 213 (+-10)
4 July      2nd bearing 200
      also 105o and 180o thrown out as doubtful
Wake         115o
   5 July      144o
2200 night 2nd   Itasca heard weak signals
        night 3rd      Itasca heard weak signals?

Night of 3rd-
KGMB request to broadcast-
0630GCT 4th (8PM local Honolulu to 215) Amateur in Maui
                  CG
                  Wailupe
                  Army [unreadable]
                  PAA
asked for 8 dashes if on water---got 8 in response
asked for 4 dashes if North of Howland and 6 is [sic] South [unreadable] received [unreadable] 105
0120 to 0150 morning of 5 July  3 operators at Wailupe [unreadable] transmission transmission [sic]
Logged

Randy Jacobson

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2018, 08:11:37 PM »

Thanks. 
Logged

Jon Romig

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2018, 08:38:49 PM »

Re: Patterns

Great job! A lot of work and some real payoffs.

The lovely elucidation of the active Periods, most of which show multiple receptions, makes the solitary receptions really stand out. I would argue that the presence of multiple receptions during active Periods significantly enhances the joint and individual credibility of those receptions.

However, as a complement to that, the solitary receptions (receptions which are alone in an active Period) become somewhat less credible, IMO. There are only six (or in my mind seven) solitary receptions out of the 57 credible receptions. Interestingly, many of these solitary receptions are already less credible for other reasons. These solitary receptions include:
- #47 (active Period #4) including the quoted “very dark” when it is 8 AM.
- #55’s “faint carrier” which is one of the least significant receptions. BTW, this reception should be in its own active Period as it is separated from Period #5 by over 90 minutes.
- Mrs. Ernest Crabb’s receptions #140 (active Period #13) and #161 (active Period #15) - both of which had low probabilities and odd content (man and woman talking), and the final reception #175 (active Period #17), whose credibility is already questioned in the commentary in the table. If #175 is incompatible with the hypothesis (false), I wonder if any of her reported receptions can be viewed as credible.
- Betty Klenck’s reception #142 (active Period #14), which is less credible because of the time of day (it is the only real daytime transmission, and in the heat of midday at that) and duration (1.75 hours) so that it could only have been done on battery not engine power because of engine overheating (how long would the battery be able to push the transmitter?) All the talk about rising water when it is near dead low tide MIGHT be explained by the Electra being in a new (lower) location, but then you have to explain the later Period #16’s receptions during a time of much higher water. I recognize that much other data supports the thesis that this reception is genuine, but there are problems with it and it being a solitary reception is another (minor) problem.

Jon
Jon Romig 3562R
 
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 08:41:17 PM by Jon Romig »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5615
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2018, 09:26:08 AM »

However, as a complement to that, the solitary receptions (receptions which are alone in an active Period) become somewhat less credible, IMO.

I agree.

There are only six (or in my mind seven) solitary receptions out of the 57 credible receptions. Interestingly, many of these solitary receptions are already less credible for other reasons. These solitary receptions include:
- #47 (active Period #4) including the quoted “very dark” when it is 8 AM.

Nina Paxton is tough.  While the reception on a harmonic was technically possible, the reported content at first seems contradictory. Earhart reportedly says she is “down in ocean” then “on or near little island at a point near….” It’s conceivable that the confused language is an attempt to describe being on the reef "at a point near a shipwreck." There is then “something about directly northeast” which could be the plane’s location relative to the shipwreck. The aircraft's presumed location is northeast (okay NNW) of the shipwreck.
Earhart reportedly said “our plane about out of gas” which is interesting. Paxton couldn't possibly know why Earhart would be concerned about fuel after she was down. Earhart then says, “Water all around. Very dark” “Then something about a storm and the wind blowing.” Squalls are not uncommon at Nikumaroro and when they hit it can get very dark with high winds.  However, squalls at Niku are usually an afternoon, not morning, occurrence. 
Paxton waited a week to report her experience to the local newspaper and, in later years, made repeated attempts to publicize her story, embellishing it with new and often outlandish details.  The Japanese Capture Crowd love her because in 1943 she told syndicated columnist Walter Winchell that she now remembered that  “This message contained some 300 to 400 words in which she described Mille (sic) or Mulgrave Atoll, Klee Passage, Knox Island and (Earhart) seemed to be located on a small island of 133 acres directly N.E. of a part of Marshall Island.” 
Note that Mrs. Paxton does not say that Earhart named any of those places - only that Amelia “described” them.

- #55’s “faint carrier” which is one of the least significant receptions. BTW, this reception should be in its own active Period as it is separated from Period #5 by over 90 minutes.

We went back and forth about that one and decided to include it in Period #5.  It was night and the tide was low so there was no obvious need to shut down. It doesn't really change anything either way.

- Mrs. Ernest Crabb’s receptions #140 (active Period #13) and #161 (active Period #15) - both of which had low probabilities and odd content (man and woman talking), and the final reception #175 (active Period #17), whose credibility is already questioned in the commentary in the table. If #175 is incompatible with the hypothesis (false), I wonder if any of her reported receptions can be viewed as credible.

Mrs. Crabb is another tricky one.  All harmonic receptions, by definition, have low probabilities. She's the only private citizen who reported multiple receptions which seems a bit dubious, but her report of hearing "a conversation between a man and woman" echoes what Betty heard.  A couple of the phrases she reported hearing also resemble phrases Betty heard.  "Are you all right?" and "Oh, oh, oh."  But it's hard to imagine a circumstance in which one of them would say "Hold on to this line."

 
- Betty Klenck’s reception #142 (active Period #14), which is less credible because of the time of day (it is the only real daytime transmission, and in the heat of midday at that) and duration (1.75 hours) so that it could only have been done on battery not engine power because of engine overheating (how long would the battery be able to push the transmitter?) All the talk about rising water when it is near dead low tide MIGHT be explained by the Electra being in a new (lower) location, but then you have to explain the later Period #16’s receptions during a time of much higher water. I recognize that much other data supports the thesis that this reception is genuine, but there are problems with it and it being a solitary reception is another (minor) problem.

All true. If it weren't for the high credibility of the content, Betty's reception would be questionable at best.  That's why I felt it was so important to call attention to the rest of the credible signals and especially the Credible Beyond a Reasonable doubt receptions.  Throw out anything you feel is doubtful and you're still left with an Electra on the reef at Gardner Island.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5615
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2018, 09:29:48 AM »

Jon,
I notice you mention engine overheating in your prior post.  I don't recall reading that anywhere else.  I don't recall engines responding to 110-120 degree heat in idle.  Was there another reference you could point me to?

Read "Patterns", page 6 in the new report.
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 351
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2018, 12:23:04 PM »

Solid analysis, superbly presented.  This will be tough to refute, though some will try.

Regarding travel to/from the beach; if I'm interpreting the satellite imagery on page 8 correctly, the color of the reef at the presumed aircraft location represents the areas of the higher parts of the reef and shallowest water.  The path of least resistance from the aircraft to the beach seems to be north to where the brown, speckled area expands to the east, hitting the beach somewhere in that dip or indentation in the shoreline.  It doesn't appear as smooth as the landing area but it may well be the safest path.

"Camp Zero" may well have been somewhere under the higher trees (dark green) at the bottom of the satellite imagery.  I'm pretty sure that area was included in the ground search last expedition.  What are the storm over-wash conditions in that area?

Ric, do you have any photographs taken somewhere in that area of the beach looking towards the presumed aircraft location or of that area in general?
Bill Mangus
Researcher #3054SP
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5615
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2018, 09:55:13 AM »

The path of least resistance from the aircraft to the beach seems to be north to where the brown, speckled area expands to the east, hitting the beach somewhere in that dip or indentation in the shoreline.  It doesn't appear as smooth as the landing area but it may well be the safest path.

See photos below  ... and that's at low tide.

"Camp Zero" may well have been somewhere under the higher trees (dark green) at the bottom of the satellite imagery.  I'm pretty sure that area was included in the ground search last expedition.  What are the storm over-wash conditions in that area?

That area is Buka forest.  Yes, it was thoroughly searched in 2015.  Nothing there.  Storms wash light buoyant objects (like coconut shells) that far inland but no destructive wavs penetrate that far.

The new post-loss radio study provides some new perspective on what AE and FN might reasonably be expected to do in terms of bringing ashore things from the aircraft that might end up at a "Camp Zero."  Noonan was "severely injured" so it seems unlikely that he would be able to transport anything ashore, if he could get ashore at all.  Earhart seems to have had a lesser injury, but just getting back and forth to the plane with the help of a walking stick might have been a challenge.  It seems likely that little, if anything, came ashore beyond the few items that ended up at the Seven Site.

Ric, do you have any photographs taken somewhere in that area of the beach looking towards the presumed aircraft location or of that area in general?

See below.
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 351
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2018, 06:48:16 PM »

Thanks, Ric. That looks nearly impassable.
Bill Mangus
Researcher #3054SP
 
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2018, 10:07:56 PM »

Ric,

I have two questions that I know you can answer:  What are the approx. compass headings for the center line -  N/S - for Niku?  And, where can I find the Lockheed’s transmitting antenna propagation footprint i.e. was the signal strongest down the centerline of the aircraft or perpendicular to the fuselage?

Ted Campbell
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5615
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2018, 07:42:26 AM »

What are the approx. compass headings for the center line -  N/S - for Niku?

I don't understand your question.  Center line of what?

  And, where can I find the Lockheed’s transmitting antenna propagation footprint i.e. was the signal strongest down the centerline of the aircraft or perpendicular to the fuselage?

Neither.  See below.
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2018, 10:40:36 AM »

Ric,
Of the island.
Ted
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5615
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2018, 10:53:54 AM »

Ric,
Of the island.
Ted

The long axis of the island (from main lagoon passage to SE tip) runs 317°/137° True
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 754
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2018, 11:19:50 AM »

Based on the same operator (Coast Guard Hawai'i) hearing dashes on frequency 6210 (Number 27) just after hearing dashes on frequency 3105 (Message 26), shouldn't number 27 be listed as "Primary or Second Harmonic".

Number 27 is the only one that lists the frequency as 6210, without the possibility of it also being a second harmonic.

I'm wondering if 6210 worked at all after the plane landed.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 11:21:28 AM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Jennifer Hubbard

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2018, 02:23:01 PM »

This is the quote that struck me most strongly:

"In a report written after the search for Earhart had failed, the commanding officer of the Coast Guard cutter Itasca categorically dismissed all of the reported post-loss signals."

We can see how things developed to keep AE and FN's fate so shrouded in mystery and doubt. By the time the islands were searched (flown over), Earhart's plane was not visible to the searchers. Therefore, they concluded she had not landed there. Therefore, if she had not landed, she must have crashed and sunk. Therefore, if she had crashed and sunk, the signals could not have been legitimate. It's a chain of logic resting on that first link of not finding the plane. If not for that first faulty link, these transmissions would have been taken more seriously long ago. The article lays out very well how the transmissions fit into all the other evidence, and why there is a problem with that first link in the chain.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5615
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New Post-Loss Radio Analysis
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2018, 04:48:17 PM »

Well put Jenn.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP