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

Author Topic: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance  (Read 62297 times)

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2012, 09:35:22 AM »

In the case of WOTW broadcasts, those made the news, as well as people's various reactions and over-reactions.  In the case of the transmission Betty recorded, there is no mention in the newspapers that have been discussed in the old forums.  I don't know how thorough were those searches of old newspapers, but the evident difficulty of finding evidence of a radio drama that explains Betty's notebook makes it seem unlikely there was any sort of major broadcast.  Gary's proposition that she heard combinations of broadcasts, mostly from far away, seems to have a greater likelihood than a single dramatization that got no significant news coverage, although I'm not sure how one would calculate the statistical chance of either.
Betty's antenna increased her likelihood of picking up long-distance transmissions, whether from a downed aircraft in the Pacific, or from distant commercial and private radio stations.  If there was a dramatization taking place outside the continental US, it might be difficult to find a record.
I think Betty's notebook is interesting, but contains virtually no useful data, so far.  I give much more value to the Pan Am radio operators triangulating signals to the Phoenix Island vicinity.  They were not amateurs, they were using professional equipment as it was intended to be used - to determine the location of aircraft flying across the Pacific, a job they had been doing for a few years by then. 
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2012, 12:11:14 PM »

Certainly testing the ink and other physical properties of the notebook would have been my first step if I was considering the value of the diary.

From Ric in the old Forum, 17 November 2000: "All of the entries in the notebook are in pencil.  A red pencil was used for some detailing in the portraits (lips, etc.) and for a few song lyric entries.  All of the Earhart notes appear to have been made with the same pencil which was apparently a bit harder than the pencil used by Betty later to make the explanatory notes.  The brackets coordinates on page 53 are consistent in appearance with the other entries on that page.  The bracketed explanatory note on the preceding page is darker and is consistent with the explanatory notes on page 49.  All of the entries in Betty's notebook seem to be in her hand but we'll be having a document expert look into that."

TIGHAR Tracks 16:3 (2000):

"On November 5, 2000 we interviewed Betty on videotape at her home in the Midwest. (We’re not disclosing Betty’s full name and location at this time because she has a heart condition and we don’t want her to be assailed by the press.) She was able to provide us with much more detail about her own history and her recollections about the entries she made in her notebook. One of her neighbors was also able to provide us with correspondence dating from 1970 which documents that he attempted unsuccessfully to interest Earhart author Fred Goerner in Betty’s story at that time.

"The same neighbor also had notes of a conversation he had with Betty’s mother, then still living. Although differing in some minor details, the notes generally agree with Betty’s version of the story. While we were there we also collected handwriting examples from Betty which will be used in an evaluation of her notebook by a recognized expert in document authentication."

Members of the old Forum then did a comprehensive search of all of the identifiable references in the notebook to see if they would disqualify the supposition that it was from 1936-1937.  Summary of results.



LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2012, 12:21:11 PM »

... sometimes people do get fooled, as witnessed by the War of the Worlds broadcast.

When you find evidence of an equally competent (i.e., expensive) production that fooled people for more than hour, you will have destroyed the evidentiary value of the notebook.

Quote
Now I don't know if there was some dramatized program about AE,

We know there were two March of Time episodes.  We know that they had plenty of cues (such as commercials, voice overs, music) that pretty firmly identified them as radio drama.  You must find one that lacked such framing and that lasted a good deal longer (i.e., cost more money in air time).

Quote
Yet, in Betty's transcripts, the water was knee deep and the "voice of the man" was trying to get out of the plane. The whole thing just seems too dramatized.

The tide rises and falls on the reef.  If the airplane was there, there is no reason to think it was immune to the kind of storm surges that have reduced the Norwich City to scraps.



Quote
Sadly some people do get fooled by what they see or hear.

Others get fooled by what they imagine. 

Quote
The question, I guess becomes, was there a dramatized broadcast of AE shortly after her disappearance?

That is a researchable question.  Go do the work and let us know what you find.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2012, 07:21:53 AM »

Has it been attempted to transmit and receive a signal on the same frequency between Nikumaroro to St Pete, Fl. ?

Not by TIGHAR.

But the value of the experiment is minimal.

What kind of antenna should you use to transmit?  Material?  Length? Orientation?

Same questions for the receiving antenna.

What kind of transmitter?

What kind of receiver?

What location on the reef?

Even if you could somehow duplicate all of those initial conditions, you would then have to set the atmospheric and oceanic conditions to be the same as on the time that the transmission was allegedly heard.

If you can't control your variables, you can't consider it a legitimate experiment.  If it works, someone would point to the uncontrolled variables as the cause of the success; if it fails, someone could point to those same variables as the cause of the failure.

Quote
If this can be successfully done, can you even consider that it's plausible for Betty to had heard AE.

Perhaps you haven't read "Harmony and Power: Could Betty Have Heard Earhart on a Harmonic?" or "Post Loss Signals: Technical Analysis"?  I believe the author wrote them in order to answer the question you have posed.

Quote
No one is arguing this, but it does seem to sound very much like a drama when you consider "Knee deep water".  If the water was knee deep inside the aircraft, it was impossible to transmit. And it would had been highly improbable to transmit for long if the plane was surrounded by knee deep water, as the prop on the right engine would had been dangerously close to the water, not even considering any surf action.

Gurr calculated that the batteries could run the radios for eight hours after they were fully charged.  I think that was optimistic, but there is some time between the end of the last engine run and the last transmission.

We don't know where on the reef or where in the plane the water had become "knee deep."  When sitting in a three-point stance, it could be knee deep aft but not yet that deep in the cockpit.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

pilotart

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2012, 08:58:20 AM »

Not wishing to appear niggling or willfully contrary but did the handwriting expert (s) confirm that it was indeed Betty's handwriting at the time when she was 15 years old as against what her handwriting as an adult was. I know that when I was 15 my handwriting had yet to lose the school indoctrinated style which was replaced by my notoriously unreadable scrawl that developed in later years. Pencils are very difficult things to verify vis-à-vis pens which use ink. "Betty" may indeed be kosher in regard to what she recalls but as I see it the two important questions remain -

1. Did she hear a transmission or only a garbled March of Time broadcast, and

2. Could this be a later fake using a notebook she retained from her childhood - only handwriting analysis can test that, although graphology is undeniably, like polygraphs, a very very scientifically uncertain area in which to venture.
Within Betty's notebook you would see examples of her '15 year old' handwriting to compare with the notes made about the shortwave radio listening experience and that, along with TIGHAR's other research would confirm Betty's story.  The odds of "a garbled March of Time broadcast" that was only reported by one teenager is far less likely than the already long odds of her hearing a genuine transmission from KHAQQ.
Quote
I ask these questions because as far as I can ascertain the whole outer reef landing hypothesis hangs upon her notes, not to mention the speculations about Earhart and Noonan's subsequent behaviour on Nikumaroro.
i don't know how you can make the statement that "...the whole outer reef landing hypothesis hangs upon her notes, ..." since many of the other reported receptions, especially those from the professional dedicated HFDF Stations add a lot more weight.  Do you completely discount ALL of the other anecdotal discoveries by TIGHAR?

As far as Betty's report of her Radio Receptions in July 1937, my personal experiences would indicate that they were entirely possible.  In the late '50's, I had a '1930's Console Radio similar to Betty's with many "Short-Wave" Bands, 'Magic-Eye' fine tuning and a similar long wire antenna and received many transmissions from all around the globe as a teenager.

In the '60's, I was aware that FM Broadcasts were entirely 'line-of-sight' and you never received anything beyond the 'horizon'.  I had a cheap record player with an FM Receiver inside a ground floor apartment with no added antenna and the standard 88-108 MHz tuning knob.  One afternoon turning that dial and picked up a new station (there were very few FM Broadcast Stations available in Fort Myers Florida in those days) and after listening for a while, found out that it was transmitting from Indiana, which was far beyond any possible line of sight.  I listened for several hours and there was a completely clear signal with no interference.  In those days a LD Telephone Call cost more than a college students hour's pay, but I made a call to that FM Station, let them hear my reception and received a 'QSL' letter mailed from the Station Engineer explaining how extremely rare atmospheric conditions could allow this reception to happen, the odds against this are far greater than hearing KHAQQ in Saint Petersburg.

The BEST 'evidence' by far of a landing on that reef would simply be that from ANY pilot's perspective looking down on Gardner Island, it would have been the best choice for a successful landing.  TIGHAR's reconstruction of Tide conditions for assumed arrival times, as well as reported radio reception times adds to the hypothesis along with Betty's notes on conditions described in her receptions.  The less favorable choice of trying to put the Electra down on top of the vegetation or the 'beach' would have left more evidence for the Navy overflight to see, but the reef by the Norwich City allows for no evidence to be seen after a weeks worth of 'High Tides' .
Art Johnson
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2012, 10:59:37 AM »

Yes the Niku Hypo rests on more sand laden foundations that Betty's diary, a whole host of radio signals over many days of course our critical friends may disagree
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2012, 12:02:43 PM »

Although the Navy Experts pointed to the Phoenix Islands as being the most logical place to look on July 2, 1937, they had looked there and found nothing.

This idea was not resurrected until TIGHAR brought it up again long after 1966.

TIGHAR formulated the Niku hypothesis in the late 1980s.

There were five expeditions to the island from 1989 to 1999, plus the bones search in Fiji, that had nothing whatsoever to do with Betty's notebook, which TIGHAR learned about in 2000.

TIGHAR says that the effect of the story of the notebook prompted further reconsideration of post-loss messages:

"Research into what appears to be a surviving real-time transcription of distress calls from Amelia Earhart (see “The Girl Who Heard Amelia” in the November 2000 TIGHAR Tracks) has prompted a detailed reexamination of all of the alleged post-loss radio transmissions from the lost plane. Over a hundred documented occurrences are being logged in a standardized format, adjusted to Greenwich Mean Time, and plotted on time lines to obtain an accurate picture of what events were happening concurrently and what patterns, if any, are discernible. We hope to have the initial results ready for the next (January 2001) issue of TIGHAR Tracks" ("Betty's Notebook--Update,"  TT 2000).

As things turned out, it took more than a month to produce the "Post Loss Radio Signals Catalog."  Finding Amelia was published along the way.

The thought that the Niku Hypothesis stands or falls with Betty's Notebook seems to me to be both logically and historically false.

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2012, 07:55:45 PM »


TIGHAR says that the effect of the story of the notebook prompted further reconsideration of post-loss messages:

"Research into what appears to be a surviving real-time transcription of distress calls from Amelia Earhart (see “The Girl Who Heard Amelia” in the November 2000 TIGHAR Tracks) has prompted a detailed reexamination of all of the alleged post-loss radio transmissions from the lost plane. Over a hundred documented occurrences are being logged in a standardized format, adjusted to Greenwich Mean Time, and plotted on time lines to obtain an accurate picture of what events were happening concurrently and what patterns, if any, are discernible. We hope to have the initial results ready for the next (January 2001) issue of TIGHAR Tracks" ("Betty's Notebook--Update,"  TT 2000).

As things turned out, it took more than a month to produce the "Post Loss Radio Signals Catalog."  Finding Amelia was published along the way.

The thought that the Niku Hypothesis stands or falls with Betty's Notebook seems to me to be both logically and historically false.

The emboldened part is why I am asking the questions. Given that by 2000 there would have been increasing publicity about the Nikumaroro hypothesis then that would be a good time for the notebook to be drawn to TIGHAR's attention. That is not to claim it is a fake or a hoax just that it is convenient, to use a gentle term. The claim about it being offered to Goerner is just that a claim, but it does also point to the fact that "Betty" may have had had a long term interest in the puzzle or, to be blunt, it is simply a fiction.

Now as I understand it prior to the outer reef landing hypothesis there were others advanced as to where on the island the Electra may have been landed. But of all these the outer reef landing hypothesis is in itself the best explanation to fit the hypothesis because as we know there are no reports or sightings of what would be an almost complete Electra wreckage if it had been landed on the beach, ditched in the lagoon or even crash-landed in the scrub and trees. Also it offers the best way of fitting the claimed "genuine" post-loss radio messages (and these are best described as a can of worms) to have been possible - running up the engines to provide power, then ceasing as the tide and waves wash the aircraft off the reef.

Next we have the post-landing behaviour of Earhart and Noonan hypotheses which hinge upon the references to Noonan being injured which leads to Earhart eventually succumbing where the skeleton (now missing and only suggested, not proved, to be Earhart by modern analysis) was found by the PISS settlers. So to say that "(t)he thought that the Niku Hypothesis stands or falls with Betty's Notebook seems to me to be both logically and historically false" is I would suggest not entirely accurate. There is a lot riding on that notebook because the purported material evidence so far found is rather scant and subject to continuing debate, not to mention as Gary has consistently pointed out the landing on or near Nikumaroro is not the certainty that the hypothesis demands, which is why I ask about whether proper assessments of it have been done as outlined in my post #41 above. Bear in mind that I am not suggesting it is a hoax I am only asking, given the importance of it, if proper due diligence has been applied.

However if TIGHAR get a positive result, which is to be hoped, from the current trip then any doubts about the notebook's validity will be rendered unimportant except to fringe conspiracy theorists, of which I am not one.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 07:57:34 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Diego Vásquez

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2012, 10:36:11 PM »

I think Betty's notebook is interesting, but contains virtually no useful data, so far.  I give much more value to the Pan Am radio operators triangulating signals to the Phoenix Island vicinity.  They were not amateurs, they were using professional equipment as it was intended to be used - to determine the location of aircraft flying across the Pacific, a job they had been doing for a few years by then.

   
          I agree with John about the obvious differences between what the PAA operators heard versus what Betty heard and the reliability of each.  Betty heard AE talking for an hour and forty-five minutes just by chance one afternoon from 6,000 miles away with a “special” home antenna and came up with five pages of notes on what AE reportedly said (Betty would have had more pages, but Betty said sometimes AE was talking so fast that she couldn’t get it all down).  Several PAA operators at three stations in the Pacific listened all night for several nights (and sometimes during the day too) from a distance of around 1800-1950 miles from Gardner with state of the art professional equipment.  Here is every comment they and their boss in Alameda made regarding the words they heard in the voice transmissions they received during that time, as culled from the Pan Am Memos

               HONOLULU (MOKAPU POINT):  "… a faint carrier is hear [sic] approximately on 3105.... Too weak to distinguish any words.  Intermittent carrier on and off.  No voice distinguishable....  Two long dashes, possible voice transmissions on 3105....  We unable hear any voice....  Wake Island reports been listening 3105 and 6210 all day and evening but has not hear [sic] a thing....  Midway reports been listening 3105 but unable understand voice transmissions....  Occasionally signal strength rises sufficiently to hear voice but still took [sic] weak to distinguish a single word....  Once it seemed as though it was a woman’s voice but may only have been our imagination."    
   
      MIDWAY:  "… a weak wobbly signal was heard here which sounded like a phone [voice] but was too weak to identify....  A man’s voice was distinctly heard but not of sufficient modulation to be understood or identified."
   
      WAKE: ".... At 1215 heard an intermittent fone of rather wobbly characteristics; which I at first mistook to be a self-excited signal – voice modulated with male voice altho [sic] unreadable thru QRN [static]. ...  At 0948 a phone signal of good intensity and well modulated by a voice but wavering badly suddenly came on 3105….at 1223  a very unsteady voice modulated carrier was observed at 94.5 degrees … This signal started in at a carrier strength of QSA5 and at 1236, when the transmission stopped it had gradually petered out to QSA2 during the intervals when it was audible….no identification call letters were distinguished...."
   
      ALAMEDA: ".... The signals Mr. Paulson heard were, undoubtedly, carrier signals modulated with voice although he could not understand the voice part of it.  All of the above information was turned over to the Coast Guard officials at Honolulu with emphasis being made at the time that there was nothing definite in what we had heard because of no identifying signals of any nature being received." 

   That’s right, the several professional operators who were specifically listening with professional equipment in the Pacific for several days and nights heard between them not one single intelligible word from AE or FN, and what they did hear faded out after no more than a few moments or minutes (one signal lasted 13 minutes off and on), but Betty with her homemade antenna just casually listening one afternoon came up with 5 pages of notes on what she heard AE and FN say on a fourth harmonic from a 50 watt transmitter 6,000 miles away. That was one hell of a “special” antenna she must have had.  Maybe she was using aluminum foil? 

   I have reviewed for this post only the PAA logs, but from my general recollection of all of the other logs (Itasca, Navy, Howland, etc), I don’t think all of the professional operators put together ever claimed to have heard more than five distinct words in total from possible Earhart or Noonan post-loss transmissions.  Like I said, this is just my general recollection and I am not certain of this, but I will give a coupon good for one dollar off on a McDonald’s Chiller, your choice of flavors, to the first person who can prove otherwise, and I’ll even spot you three words: “31" (heard by Wailupe Navy station), “KHAQQ” (can’t recall who heard it), and “Earhart” (heard by Itasca).  Find three more post-loss words heard by any combination of professional operators and the Chiller coupon is yours. 

   I am even less certain of my recollection on this next point, but I don’t think any of the professional operators ever explicitly claimed to have heard a post-loss woman’s voice (except as noted above by PAA operators who thought maybe it was a woman, but clearly weren’t very sure about this since they also say it could have been their imagination).  Nauru said the post-loss voice was similar to that in flight, but didn’t mention any words said by the voice or explicitly state that it was a woman’s voice, and I don’t think it was a professional operator who was listening at the time (per Safford, p. 36).  I think Itasca said something like "we hear her now," but no indication if they actually heard a woman's voice or just some faint carrier on 3105 that they assumed was coming from her.  I think something similar was reported second hand from Baker.  I believe the three words I mentioned above were all in a man's voice or unstated as to gender.  No dollar coupons for proving me wrong on this one though as I am not very certain. 

   I’m not saying that the PAA operators didn’t hear anything potentially related to AE, just that they couldn’t actually discern any words or even a woman’s voice, whereas Betty heard five pages worth of conversation between AE and FN - quite a striking contrast.  PAA operators did, however, all report hearing a series of discernible dashes, which I don’t think Betty mentions having heard.  One might be able to quibble with my exact word count by a word or two (and win a Chiller coupon in the process), but at any rate, what 15-year-old Betty reportedly heard in Florida was drastically, strikingly, remarkably different in content and signal quality from anything reported at the time by any of the professional radio operators in the Pacific. 


I want to believe,

Diego V.
I want to believe.

Diego V.
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2012, 12:53:35 AM »

I would like to see more of Betty's notebook.

What proof is there that Betty was actually listening to a shortwave signal other than Brandenburg's need for that to be true in order to support his harmonic theory?

I am suspicious that she was actually just listening on the normal broadcast band, 535 kcs to 1,600 kcs, and not on shortwave 24,480 kcs (12.25 meter wavelength.) TIGHAR stated that the pages before and after these notes contain lists of songs that Betty had listened to on the same radio. I used to listen to shortwave broadcasts in the '60s and I remember that international broadcasters did NOT broadcast music, after all, the foreign stations had no interest in selling phonograph records to American teenagers like American radio stations did. The international broadcasts that I heard consisted of news, politics, propaganda, countries' history, language lessons and religion. Not much music except on some cultural shows. I don't remember ever logging any stations on such high frequencies. I checked my QSL cards and the highest frequency that I could find was Radio Budapest on 9,765 kcs. I have attached a sample of some QSL cards (confirmation of reception reports send from the station.)

Since Betty's notebook shows her listening to music then her normal practice was to listen to local normal broadcast band stations and her normal practice was NOT to listen to shortwave. So why was she supposedly listening to short wave on this one occasion?

I posted before that radios lack sensitivity in the high bands so you can't hear anything even if your radio will tune up that high. Propagation is also bad so broadcasters had no reason to broadcast anywhere near the 24,480 kcs that Brandenburg claims that Betty was using. So why should we believe that Betty was tuning around up at such high frequencies?

And just how many shortwave broadcast stations were available for Betty to be listening to? In 1926 there were only two stations that broadcast above 20,000 kcs, the highest one being only 22,209 kcs, nowhere near the 24,480 kcs of the 4th harmonic of Earhart's radio.

List of Shortwave Stations as of 1926 These are principally utility stations, shortwave broadcasting being still in the early experimental stages.

The list of shortwave stations in 1931 also shows only two stations that transmitted above 20,000, the highest being 21,200 (the first station on the list, LSN, wavelength of 14.15 meters which is 21,200 kcs.)

World Shortwave Stations (1931) An International Short Wave Club list including both shortwave broadcast and utility stations.

"Is International Broadcasting Just Around the Corner"? This is a 1930 Radio News article by NBC general engineer Charles W. Horn about the prospects for shortwave, focusing on the technical needs of the medium, reception difficulties, and program exchanges.

So, I want to see the whole notebook.

gl
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 01:00:36 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2012, 09:45:31 AM »

I would like to see more of Betty's notebook.

What proof is there that Betty was actually listening to a shortwave signal other than Brandenburg's need for that to be true in order to support his harmonic theory?

The introduction to the relevant pages of the notebook says, "A 15 year old girl – whom we’ll call 'Betty' for now – was living in St. Petersburg, Florida in the summer of 1937. One afternoon in July – the exact date is not known – at about 3 p.m. Betty was sitting on the floor in front of her family’s radio console. She liked to listen to music and kept a notebook in which she jotted the words to her favorite songs, made notes of current movies and drew pencil sketches of glamorous people. She also liked to listen to the 'short wave.' Her father had erected a long wire antenna – perhaps 60 feet in length – across the  back yard from the house to a pole near the street. Betty could routinely pick up stations all over the world. "This particular afternoon she was 'cruising' across the dial in search of anything interesting when she came upon a woman’s voice, speaking in English and obviously quite upset. Betty listened for a while and was startled to hear the woman say, 'This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart.'"
I understand that this is human testimony, and therefore not "proof" in the strict sense of the word.  When you invent your time machine and can go back and watch historical events like this for yourself, you will have all the "proof" you could desire.  Until then, there is nothing to do in dealing with human testimony other than to judge the credibility of the witnesses. If you think they are reliable, ... oh, wait--you're a lawyer.  You know about the issues related to credibility of witnesses.  So you should know better than to demand a form of "proof" that testimony can't give.  ::)
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 721
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2012, 12:09:14 PM »

I would like to see more of Betty's notebook.

What proof is there that Betty was actually listening to a shortwave signal other than Brandenburg's need for that to be true in order to support his harmonic theory?

The introduction to the relevant pages of the notebook says, "A 15 year old girl – whom we’ll call 'Betty' for now – ...she was 'cruising' across the dial in search of anything interesting when she came upon a woman’s voice, speaking in English and obviously quite upset. Betty listened for a while and was startled to hear the woman say, 'This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart.'"
I understand that this is human testimony, and therefore not "proof" in the strict sense of the word.  When you invent your time machine and can go back and watch historical events like this for yourself, you will have all the "proof" you could desire.  Until then, there is nothing to do in dealing with human testimony other than to judge the credibility of the witnesses. If you think they are reliable, ... oh, wait--you're a lawyer.  You know about the issues related to credibility of witnesses.  So you should know better than to demand a form of "proof" that testimony can't give.  ::)
It is a simple request that I make. If she was in the habit ... If you are playing poker and a guy says he has a royal flush and reaches for the money and you ask him to show his cards and he refuses then he doesn't get to pick up the money. Showing his cards would be strong evidence and if he won't show them then your, quite sensibly, distrust his weaker eviedence, his verbal statement.

It might be that her notebook will support her story, let's just see it.

gl
The habit of listening is not the habit of writing down what you listened to.
Maybe she only kept a written record that time because she heard “This is Amelia Earhart” and realized the importance, and during the other times she listened, there was not anything as important to write down.   
 Asking for supporting evidence of non-important stuff she wrote down does not make sense to me if all she wrote before was something that was very important. 
Where I would look for supporting evidence is testimony of people she told immediately after she wrote it down. Because that is something you should do if it was important.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 01:28:13 PM by J. Nevill »
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2012, 03:19:16 PM »

Quote from Adam Marsland:
"There's a great quote from Sherlock Holmes that goes something like, 'when you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.'


Adam, a bit of a clarification, FWIW, the Sherlock Holmes quote you reference is actually:  "When you have eliminated the impossible , whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Your comment is well said sir...and now that you've mentioned the Great Detective, makes me think of what an asset he would be sometimes on this particular forum. ;)

Fair enough, sir!  I did cop to paraphrasing it.

Sherlock Holmes would be an asset for sure, for just the reasons I stated.  One of the reasons I went off on my little post and that I appreciate TIGHAR is their philosophy towards gathering information is one I totally support, and one that is sorely lacking these days.  In these partisan, cable news-dominated days, so many people throw around words like "bias" and bits of intellectual factoids to make totally bogus intellectual arguments, and win because they count on people around them being less informed and less schooled in the art of debate, which they usually are. 

My original background was in journalism, where you had to weigh opposing accounts of an event and figure out how to tell a story based on the accumulation of evidence, and knowing what was verifiable, what was heresay, and having objective tests for credibility.  It's the difference, perhaps between proof in a court of law, or adhering to the scientific standard of a particular field, vs. just being able to distill a lot of information and come up with the best explanation of an event based on the available information.  In a debate, I'm always listening for holes in arguments too.  I start listening and taking peoples' opinions and statements seriously when they've anticipated other peoples' arguments and accounted for them.  I know at that point that they've really thought their opinion through from all angles.  Very, very few people know how to do this anymore.  TIGHAR does.   Every objection I have ever raised myself to the hypothesis I have found dealt with somewhere on this website in an intellectually honest manner.  I respect that greatly.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 03:20:58 PM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2012, 05:06:44 PM »

Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?
Oh, Gary!  We're all getting too old to remember those golden days of yore.   :)

We've got to remember:  she was a teenager.  That was 75 years ago.  There wasn't anything more important than music for her! (And anyway, her iPod was broken!)

And as for Betty sometimes diddling with her Dad's fancy radio with shortwave bands, even if the popular music was usually on the local stations, well, kids are going to be kids.  If Woody could stomach reading completely the link I sent him privately, he can confirm that I sure diddled with my own father's stereo hi-fi when I was 15 -- and it turned out to have saved my life!  It's sad to imagine that the fates seem to have conspired to prevent AE & FN being saved by Betty's diddling with her father's radio.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Monte Chalmers

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2012, 07:27:04 PM »

I keep reading at this site about the “4th harmonic”.  Who came up with this theory? I can understand that someone was trying  to explain how a transmitter operating on 3105 KC could propagate half-way around the world. But when one looks at a little theory about this thing, the “4th harmonic” is nonsense. Transmitter harmonics (which are considered  spurious emission) are undesirable qualities because the power that goes into them is waste.  Transmitter design limits  harmonics.  Also even with some poorly designed transmitter, the power in a 4th harmonic  would be so negligible - beyond consideration.  After WW2,  there  was tons of army surplus aircraft transmitters available to ham radio.  I converted a BC457 to work on 80 meters. The 80 meter band is 3.5 Mhz - 3.8 Mhz. Amelia was using 3105 KC - which is 3.105 Mhz - pretty close to my 80 meters.  I was station W4UZH (also in St Petersburg , FL).  In the two years I operated - practically nightly - I never contacted anyone outside if the US.  This band of frequencies simply does not  propagate well.  Anyway, if Betty received something from Amelia,  it had to be on 3105 KC.  Again, in theory, not probable…. But with all the details she supplied, I’m betting it happened and they will  find the Electra.

By the way,  I also went on Google Earth to see where 2027 Auburn Street South (Betty’s Address) is located.  We were about 4 miles apart - almost neighbors.  But I was only 2 years old in 1937.  Does anyone know if Betty is still living?
Monte TIGHAR #3597
 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 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