Print

[Irvine John Donald]

Hi Jeff

I spent some time looking for this type of information to see if there was any review made like this before.  I believe the background paper clearly indicates that only messages reported from July 3 thru July 10 were considered by Brandenburg.  No analysis exists, that I can find, outside of those dates.

I think Jeff that the definition given in the background paper provides the insight into what WAS analysed.  The sentence in bold is where these types of signals you refer to would lie.  I think.  Bob Brandenburg or Ric are much better qualified to answer the question as they are the two principal researchers who undertook the analysis.  Here is the section in question.

"A determination as to whether the evidence supports a conclusion that a signal was sent from NR16020. A signal is rated as Credible if it was heard on 3105 kHz, 6210 kHz, or a harmonic, and positive qualitative factors were present. A signal is rated Not Credible if there are factors precluding a finding of credible. If there is insufficient evidence to decide whether a signal is credible or not credible, it is rated Uncertain."

Thanks Jeff N for your input.  That helps too.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Thank's Irv. I think John has got what I was trying to put across and, he has explained it much better than I did, thank you John.

[Andrew M McKenna]

This is actually an interesting thought.  If we had reported transmissions after the 7th, they would be in the database and categorized as either credible or not credible, but we don't.  Why?

Either all those hoaxers quit after the 7th, or something else happened.  My bet is that something else happened.

Andrew

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

You got it Andrew. They stopped or went back to what they were before the disappearance, if any.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

So we could debate why they started and why they stopped but then  we would be then forgetting the significant point, the dates and times. When they started, when they finshed. What could explain the increase and subsequent decrease in these transmissions?
Is it... They were not monitoring prior to and after these dates, or recording what they heard?

[Irvine John Donald]

Before continuing down that path Jeff H, lets just review the background given for the Brandenburg Post Loss signal Analysis report.  Found here.  http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html

This background summary covers much of what needs to be discussed as you suggest Jeff, while a quick review shows that of the 182 reports analyzed only 12 are after the last "Credible" classified signal (Signal number 175 on page 5 of the report.  Since the report starts on July 3 with 175 calls taking place between the first radio call and the last credible radio call then it seems there was either a sharp drop off in hoaxers and real calls being reported or Brandenburg chose to ignore any additional reports past July 10.  Why then report the 12 calls after the last credible if you are going to arbitrarily cut them off?  Bob has to answer that one but, and here I go with another assumption, I am assuming Bob used all the available reported signals and calls he found related to AE and did not have a start and end period he worked within.

[Irvine John Donald]

BTW.  The reason that July 7th is an interesting date is that the navy overflew the island on July 9th around noon.  If the Electra was able to transmit on July 7th at 2018 and not visible on July 9th then we know when it went over the reef edge.  Or at least thats MY ASSUMPTION.   

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

There are the 2 significant points about the drop off or cut off in radio transmissions Irv...
there was either a sharp drop off in hoaxers and real calls being reported   and...
or Brandenburg chose to ignore any additional reports past July 10.

Did all the hoaxers agree to pack it in at the same time, past July 7th?
Were any additional calls not reported after July 7th? (if any)
Did Brandenburg choose July 10th as the cut off date because there were no more to report, or was it simply an arbitrary date chosen.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

That would explain the cessation of the transmissions Irv for sure, it's just a matter of the times of the last credible transmissions and, the fact that none were picked up thereafter.

[Brad Beeching]

But to play the devil's advocate is it possible that Earhart and Noonan were broadcasting for help continually when circumstances allowed and in a much more logical fashion like "(call sign) on reef (position)" or some other similar but short message. Yet radio faults, poor reception etc. conspired to allow only the rather garbled and desperate plea that Betty picked up. Throughout the efforts to raise help Earhart and Noonan may have had no idea that their transmissions were simply not being picked up so one can expect an a feeling of frustration to creep in, and for one or either of them to get angry, especially if the aircraft was noticeably closer to being swept away. That persistence may have delayed them searching the island for food and water until whatever reserves they had on the aircraft were dangerously depleted, and would make a search for sustenance that bit more difficult. Staying with the Electra was for several days, I would imagine, the best alternative because both would expect a search to be underway - I can't see them running ashore and exploring if the aircraft with a working radio is sitting on the reef.

Don't look now Doc, your starting to get the hang of it! 

I am convinced that working out a possibility of what might have happened in a given situation is essential to working out what actually occured. If thinking out a "scenario" that fits a given set of facts is not a scientific way of thinking about something, then why have scientists and archeologists spent so much time and effort into trying to deduce what happened to Otzi the Iceman , Tutankhamun or even figuring out the Rosetta_Stone. If these learned individuals can look at a set of facts and arrive at a plausable explanation that explains those facts, why can't we?

Brad

[Irvine John Donald]

Jeff H....  The skeptics haven't weighed in yet. There were hoax reports and reports that were probably well meaning but not accurate.  That's why I use the 5 professional operators as my examples. It isn't likely they were a hoax.

I like Brad's point too.  In fact men and women do this everyday. It has been raised in this forum before. It's called the "jury" system. Bits of evidence presented to convince a group of people that events transpired in a specific way. People have lost their freedom and their lives in this system.

[Malcolm McKay]

Malcolm, you say
You also say that it's time TIGHAR produced more proof. I would like to interpret that in a good way by saying you mean this as "given the constraints of time and money allows.". Remember that TIGHAR is under no obligation to prove anything. TIGHAR's name states the mandate which is historical aircraft recovery. Not "responsible for solving the earhart mystery".

No I meant what I said - the reality is that if you rely on donor funds for a particular task (the Earhart search is such a defined task) then you do ultimately reach the point where you have the obligation to either produce results or show why you can't. I am not accusing TIGHAR of malpractice - far from it, but as a person with some familiarity with administration of things funded by donor funds I can say that there are obligations firmly attached.

[Malcolm McKay]

But to play the devil's advocate is it possible that Earhart and Noonan were broadcasting for help continually when circumstances allowed and in a much more logical fashion like "(call sign) on reef (position)" or some other similar but short message. Yet radio faults, poor reception etc. conspired to allow only the rather garbled and desperate plea that Betty picked up. Throughout the efforts to raise help Earhart and Noonan may have had no idea that their transmissions were simply not being picked up so one can expect an a feeling of frustration to creep in, and for one or either of them to get angry, especially if the aircraft was noticeably closer to being swept away. That persistence may have delayed them searching the island for food and water until whatever reserves they had on the aircraft were dangerously depleted, and would make a search for sustenance that bit more difficult. Staying with the Electra was for several days, I would imagine, the best alternative because both would expect a search to be underway - I can't see them running ashore and exploring if the aircraft with a working radio is sitting on the reef.

Don't look now Doc, your starting to get the hang of it! 

I am convinced that working out a possibility of what might have happened in a given situation is essential to working out what actually occured. If thinking out a "scenario" that fits a given set of facts is not a scientific way of thinking about something, then why have scientists and archeologists spent so much time and effort into trying to deduce what happened to Otzi the Iceman , Tutankhamun or even figuring out the Rosetta_Stone. If these learned individuals can look at a set of facts and arrive at a plausable explanation that explains those facts, why can't we?

Brad

Be careful using the word plausible. My archaeology professor way back when I was a student used to say "Very plausible, very plausible" when in fact he was getting ready to completely demolish a very weak hypothesis. I use plausible the same way.

The Rosetta Stone contained a simple inscription in three languages which provided a translation in a known text for another in a text we did not know - elementary code breaking.

Otzi has had his life and his demise reconsidered every time the wind changes but the artifacts are very interesting - if the Neolithic turns you on.

Tutankhamun offered no puzzles, except that it is entirely likely that Carter may have been a little liberal with the truth. However the grave goods have provided us with a snapshot of conspicuous consumption in ancient Egypt.

My interpretation of Earhart and Noonan on Nikumaroro is simply fiction - no more, no less. Remember that the veracity of Betty's notebook relies as much on Earhart and Noonan being on an island as does finding evidence of Earhart and Noonan on Nikumaroro confirms the Nikumaroro hypothesis. That's the problem with complex hypotheses - each part must fit or the whole crumbles.

[Malcolm McKay]

I see a whole body of evidence picked-apart one thread here, another there - when in aggregate it represents a far more 'plausible' reason to have confidence here than any other search party has provided for other places to look.
LTM -

A body of evidence is like a chain - its strength relies on its weakest part. As I said in regard to the Betty notebook, its validity as an account of post loss events rests upon finding that Earhart and Noonan survived on an island like Nikumaroro. And part of the evidence posited for that island being Nikumaroro is the Betty notebook. So they are mutually dependent. Taking two unproven hypotheses and linking them together to create a plausible scenario is always problematic. 

[Gary LaPook]

I keep seeing comments alluding to the idea that if the post-loss radio messages were from Amelia on Gardner, why didn't she give her position? I believe she did every time she keyed the mic. The first report we get is on July 2 at about 9:00 pm Gardner time. If you look at report #30800LE, Mrs. Mabel Larremore reported “On the first night of Amelia Earhart’s disappearance I heard her SOS loud and clear, not on the frequency but on the one President Roosevelt said she might use. Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. Small, uninhabited. The plane was partially on land, part in water. She gave the latitude and longitude of her location. I listened to her for 30-45 minutes.… I heard her message around 2 A.M. daylight saving time from my home in Amarillo, Texas. She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan.” Now I know that Mrs. Larremore didn't come forward until 1990, but as you can see from the link, "Nauru (Identifier #s 30831NA and 30843NA) and Itasca (Identifier 30843IA) reported credible voice transmissions during the time Mabel claimed to have heard Earhart. In 1990, that information had not yet been compiled, let alone published", and as you can see, the report has been deemed "credible". Another example is the report by Dana Randolph #41500RH in which he states he heard Amelia at around 4:00 am Gardner time on July 4th, giving her location before it faded out. What I find interesting is that "This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period." Thelma Lovelace  #71230LC reported " While tuning around a frequency where she usually heard a program of Japanese music every morning, she heard a voice, loud and clear, saying “Can you read me? Can you read me? This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart. Please come in.” Earhart then give her latitude and longitude, which Thelma wrote in a book, and continued: “we have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can’t hold on much longer.” Even Betty Klenck said she heard a series of numbers.

I have a feeling that if it was Amelia Betty heard, she heard latitude and longitude, she just didn't write it down, or misunderstood it. I find it hard to believe that someone with the experience of Amelia and Fred Noonan would have just picked up the radio mic and just start babbling useless information.

Brad

First, for the record, I do not believe even one of the post 2013 Z radio messages originated from Earhart. Nor do I believe that the vast majority of them were hoaxes, they were just the normal background of signals that were occurring every day but that no one took notice of prior to the search for Earhart, nor after.

The  point I was making with the experiment is that the messages claimed to have come from Earhart internally are not the type of messages a person in distress would be transmitting and this is obvious to even untrained people off the street. This is a sufficient reason to reject all of them without even getting into the radio propagation issues (and there are many of those that I will get to later.) The experiment also showed that the same untrained people off the street would appreciate the critical importance of the location information if they happened to hear an emergency radio signal. You pointed to three reported receptions by people who claimed that they heard latitude and longitude, so where are those notes? "Oh, I wrote it on the back of my homework paper and the dog ate the homework." Since the importance of location information is obvious to everyone, as shown by my experiment, why didn't Thelma and Mayble turn their notes over the the authorities at the time? Why did they let such  historically important documents get eaten by the dog?

From the the data base: "The woman then began to give her location, but the signal faded out before it was given. This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period."  This was reported by Dana. So the signal, at the point that the location information was being given, just happened to fade out and it just happened to fade out at that same point many times in the 25 minute period. Right, excuse my skepticism.

Now we get to Mable. She claimed  "Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. Small, uninhabited." Gardner, hardly uncharted since the reason that TIGHAR believes that they proceeded so far south along the LOP was that Earhart and Noonan were heading for the Phoenix islands because they thought they had a better chance of spotting one of those islands than continuing to search for Howland. Obviously for this to be true Earhart and Noonan had to know about the Phoenix islands, they had to be on Earhart's and Noonan's charts. And most of you guys are on record as agreeing with this theory:


 As Jeff Nevil said: LOP is another matter.  Once established and attained it makes sense that FN would have had AE fly along the line NNW (337) first, then not finding landfall after reasonable time (fuel burned) turn to SSE (157) until landfall SOMEWHERE.  If not found at Howland or Baker, then Gardner happens to be next best candidate.  The logic is the lay of the land, literally: there were no reachable lands NNW of Howland, so exhausting reasonable time in that direction one turns 180 to the known lands SSE of Howland and Baker.  The NNW excursion would have to be limited by time lest one lose the opportunity to gain landfall to SSE.  It fits.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5631.html#msg5631


As Harry Howe said: again not spotting Howland, so they continued SSE in accordance with their Alternate Pplan B, i.e. fly to Gardner.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5636.html#msg5636

As Ric said:  The only thing that makes sense is to go northwest as far as you dare first, then turn around and head southeast and just keep going. ...But you do know that all of the other islands are southeast of Howland so you had better just keep going SE, hoping to find Howland but knowing that even if you're headed away from Howland you're headed toward land.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5540.html#msg5540

And: 10. Noonan knows that all of the other islands on or near the LOP are southeast of Howland.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5522.html#msg5522

As Irving said: Noonan has a chart showing the Phoenix island group and knows if he heads south on the LOP then he will "likely" find an island.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5478.html#msg5478




gl