Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance  (Read 62289 times)

Jeff Carter

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2012, 09:51:28 AM »

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


 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2012, 11:46:12 AM »

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) and Niku IIII (2001), 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.

Quote
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 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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2012, 11:49:10 AM »

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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2012, 11:53:25 AM »

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 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 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]
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2012, 12:00:20 PM »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
"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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
I looked at the list of songs 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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2012, 12:04:07 PM »

This article is from 1989. The base hypothesis seems to be the same today.
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 and eliminated it as a possible landing site.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2012, 07:12:24 AM »

.... 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?
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 721
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2012, 10:09:40 AM »

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
3971R
 
Logged

Anthony Allen Roach

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2012, 01:26:34 PM »

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?
"Six the Hard Way."
 
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2012, 01:39:12 PM »

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...
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2012, 07:33:09 PM »


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.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2012, 04:07:51 AM »

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
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 06:35:06 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2012, 04:11:57 AM »

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
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2012, 04:17:45 AM »

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
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 06:35:44 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2012, 05:57:26 AM »

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.
Quote

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
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 03:00:18 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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