Print

[Adam Marsland]

Thanks Gary for the posts.  Enlightening.  Still not sure why anyone would bother, but I think it's definitely worth keeping in mind in case some other corroborating evidence turns up.  One other thing that occurs to me -- weren't those islands significantly closer to the receiving stations than Gardner?  Would it make sense that such transmissions were unreadable in that case?  Again -- just raising the question for debate, not putting any real weight behind it.

And, of course, there's the issue of the bearings, which I tend to hang my hat on a lot more than any other piece of evidence (and the correlation of alleged post-loss transmissions with the tide being low on Gardner is also pretty compelling).  But that's fine...I think this is a really good question to be raised.  I for one was not aware there were other radios floating around.

Interesting point, too, about off-band transmissions.  I think that might have been addressed elsewhere, but it's an intriguing theory.  As I've said before, if the TIGHAR hypothesis is NOT correct (and regardless of how I or someone else might feel about it, there's an objective truth about what happened -- it either is or it isn't), there's a lot of odd little bits of evidence that have yet to be convincingly explained in a better way.  If TIGHAR is wrong, then the answers to those questions (who was the castaway?  How did Betty's Notebook come to be?  What was the 281 message? etc.) would be just as fascinating, and be the result of a probable combination of circumstances even more bizarre than the TIGHAR hypothesis.

[Gary LaPook]

And, of course, there's the issue of the bearings, which I tend to hang my hat on a lot more than any other piece of evidence (and the correlation of alleged post-loss transmissions with the tide being low on Gardner is also pretty compelling).  But that's fine...I think this is a really good question to be raised.  I for one was not aware there were other radios floating around.

Before you accept the idea that the bearings eliminate the possibility of the transmissions coming from the hams on the islands, look at the attached chart. The green lines delineate the bearing range (+/- 10°) from Hawaii; the purple lines, the same from Wake; the red lines, the same from Midway; and the yellow lines the larger area (+/- 21.25°) from Howland. You will see that all the bearing ranges  include Baker so all of the bearings could have been taken on transmissions from Baker. (I know it looks silly to use the quarter of a degree level of precision but I did that to be consistent with my prior posts. The bearing errors could actually be many degrees greater than the 10° and 21.25° encompassed on the chart.)
 gl

[dave burrell]

So you don't 'buy it' Dave.  That's not a '200 pound gorilla'.  You're still going on about why something just must be a certain way that you feel it should - and continue to offer no specifics.

That amounts to zip.

Same is true for your own possibilities for frequency tinkering, Gary - who cares what they might have done?  Other than what they 'might' have done, what can you show about what they were up to? 

Go into all that oral history and show us one firm example of where the kids were apparently busy tinkering out there to tweak their sets to go about this sinister task and this would get far more interesting.  Until that happens, all this '800 pound gorilla' talk and notions of kids wanking around with amateur sets to ghost for AE amount to nothing but strawmen - there's far less substance in these arguments than the ones you wish to challenge. 

Until there is more substance here to support these phantom transmissions there is no challenge here, just circular speculation.

LTM -

Jeff, you can't have it both ways. Tighars theory is speculation and "what ifs" and "would have dones" with bits of tantalizing evidence.
 
Amelia "would have" turned south
Amelia would have conserved fuel to make it to Gardner
Amelia would have landed on the reef
Amelia would not beach her plane
Amelia might not have had water to live a week
Fred might have a head injury
Amelia might have been inland when the search planes flew over
static received 1000 miles away was close to 3105khz so it must be her
The voices heard 6000 miles away might have been AE and Fred if the planets aligned just right, the ozone layer was just right, and AE was calling George about her suitcase. My favorite by the way.
A keyed mic left on for 2 hours was AE's carrier wave so maybe she tied down the microphone while wading back and forth to the plane.
The plane was not there a week later so it "might" have washed off the reef.

This speculation happens all the time. But that's ok as long as it fits the Gardner theory right? We can speculate without evidence as long as it fits her landing on a reef and calling for help.

Now if someone else comes up with an alternative to these transmissions,with evidence that points to either an accidental or intentional hoaxer then you throw it out as hogwash, and with a wave of the hand, saying "it's all speculation."

Yes, I agree. I wasn't there. Neither were you. I am connecting the dots. We do a lot of speculating.But I am not just throwing out Hockey pucks. Per Gary's analysis, all the bearings of these post loss transmissions could have come from Baker island. Fact. Per the documented logs, there were transmissions coming over on 3105 that were neither from AE or the Itasca. Fact. Per the documented logs, at least one Island operator has a memory of the events that does not match written reports. Fact.

As far as finding firm evidence the land Ham operators were "tinkering" or sending out potentially misleading transmissions, I rather doubt they took photographs of themselves doing it, if sending the US Navy on a wild goose chase. Let's be serious. If you demand that kind of evidence then just have another glass of tea and dismiss all this talk, because that is never going to happen. If someone by accident, or intent, mislead the Navy, he isn't going to confess or leave a written account of doing it.

But if you want the most conclusive evidence that the Brandenburg report was flawed, here you go once again- It was summarized that there were no other possibilites for these post loss signals on 3105KHZ but the Itasca or AE. Yet, we have Japanese Music being played on that same frequency. There is your specific. That proves the brandenburg conclusion is incorrect. http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html

 http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/HowlandRadioLog.pdf
 
There was indeed at least one other source, maybe several, for these post loss transmissions. None of them need come from the electra.
Where did it come from? Well Baker Island Triangulates very nicely, but that is just speculating.
The point is, I found specific examples which PROVE an alternative source besides Earhart. Which proves Brandenburgs summary was flawed. Which means the Post loss transmissions may not be evidence for a reef landing.
If you want to say that is "zilch", to each his own.

[dave burrell]

Japanese Music Jeff. There is your substance.
Explain that and how it fits in with Brandenburgs report.
 http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/HowlandRadioLog.pdf

I see you have put the term "gorilla" in every one of your posts,
but let's talk about Japanese Music transmissions instead, on a frequency that supposedly only could have come from Amelia.
There is your substance.
If you don't want to bother with it, then ignore it of course.

[Bob Lanz]

But if you want the most conclusive evidence that the Brandenburg report was flawed, here you go once again- It was summarized that there were no other possibilites for these post loss signals on 3105KHZ but the Itasca or AE. Yet, we have Japanese Music being played on that same frequency. There is your specific. That proves the brandenburg conclusion is incorrect.

Please post a link to the highlighted summary.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Amelia stopped broadcasting after her “ we are running 158/337 line “. ...

That has not been established.

She was not heard after that last transmission.

Your assumption is: "If she had been transmitting, she would have been heard."

From that assumption, you reason, "She was not heard; therefore, she must not have been transmitting."

But the whole reason for having both daytime and nighttime frequencies was that the ionosphere affects reception.

She said she was changing to her daytime frequency (6210 kcs).  It seems very likely to me that she did what she said she was going to do.  Radios don't always work the way we expect them to.  Skip happens.  Close signals can fail to be heard; distant signals can be received.

She said they were "on the line 157 337.  ... We are running on line N and S."  It seems very likely to me that they were doing what she said they were doing.

[Jeff Carter]

For those interested, Bob Brandenburg discusses some additional possible signal sources in:

Analysis of Radio Direction Finder Bearings in the Search for Amelia Earhart
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/RDFAnalysis/RDFpaper.htm

[dave burrell]

Jeff, I am sure a lot of things are Well known to Tighar and by yourself.
I am sure Ric, and others have forgotten more than I ever care to know.
In no way am I the expert here, nor believe I am covering much new ground.

I do believe there are legitimate concerns with the Brandenburg conclusions given this Jacobson information and the Howland logs,  of not only Japanese Radio but Russian transmissions as well.

There are also areas I can find no information,for instance radios on Baker island. It's like a black hole. No logs, no background investigation of the operators, no exploring whether they had the capability to transmit a hoax. That started my questioning the boys school graduates. Bradenburg goes into how hard it would be to do a hoax on the US mainland, but argues against a localized hoaxer primarily due to logistics. Which really doesn't apply if the radio set is already on site. Now while it may not have been his job to address hoaxers, he started it, then I would expect him to finish it and address Japanese fisherman, Islanders, students, none of which he did. Just a cursory note that the logistics would be hard so for that reason it's implausible. The hoax angle got short attention.

The main problem with Bradenburg, as stated several times, is his conclusion that if something was received on 3105khz  it was most plausible the Itasca or the Electra( I have posted the reference 3 times in this thread alone, if you need it again let me know).Well clearly that is not true. He made a great report showing a count of Russian airplanes, reporting on if Wyoming could receive a transmission, and loads of technical details. Report after report he made. Great stuff.
Except for Japanese radio on 3105 totally destroying any faith we can have on those signals, that was ignored.

In digging deeper I find that not only were there operator logs showing contact with AE on howland(again linked on this thread), that these were not examined by Bradenburg. This study was done for Tighar correct?
Yet none of the land based data of transmissions was examined for a hoax.
Further I find that the Howland log shows Japanese radio on Amelia's Frequency, and now you are saying that Russian radio was heard as well.

So what do I wish for you to do with all this inconsistency? Not a thing. I am sure Tighar knows all about these issues. For me, it is a glaring problem in trusting any post loss transmissions. For you, maybe it is minor details.

This thread is probably geared for others like myself, reading the Bradenburg report and coming away with the impression that all transmissions coming in on 3105khz were AE. I used to believe that. When in fact we have no idea of the Japanese aircraft operating on those days, or the Japanese fishing vessels, and we have clear knowledge of Howland picking up radio signals clearly not AE's on her frequency. Brandenburg counted Russian aircraft. He didn't count Japanese aircraft or fisherman. Maybe that was impossible to count. Then SAY THAT! Say this report is incomplete due to unknowns.

Which in my simple mind, would naturally lead to the conclusion that Bradenburg was wrong(i.e. that all signals received on 3105 were likely AE or the Itasca.). It's too definitive given all the unknown variables.
Call me crazy. That point seems obvious. You have Japanese radio on 3105, then I cannot believe a scratchy transmission of a couple seconds on 3105 has to be Earhart. Common sense.

So instead of asking me over and over for the "evidence", I suggest you know the evidence. You said as much. I am telling you nothing you did not already know apparently. If you know all the evidence you know it doesn't always Jibe with AE doing the transmitting.
Therefore how can a newbie getting started on the gardner theory, trust any of these transmissions? Do we believe the logs, or do we believe Brandenburg? Do we believe Tighar, or do we believe the Navy?
That was rhetorical, your stance is already known.

I would like to ask a question myself since I have spent considerable time explaining my theories to you. If I may of course.
How you reconcile the reports of Japanese signals and Russian signals on the 3105khz frequency with the Bradenburg conclusions? How can you deny Brandenburg was wrong?
How can you trust any voice, dash, or continuous carrier wave, received when so much evidence points out multiple sources for these received transmissions? How can you be sure a Japanese fishing captain wasn't listening to his favorite channel out night trawling, and keyed his mic a few times? I don't see how anyone rational could eliminate these other sources since Japanese music was heard playing.
How can you put faith in these post loss transmissions?

[Adam Marsland]

And, of course, there's the issue of the bearings, which I tend to hang my hat on a lot more than any other piece of evidence (and the correlation of alleged post-loss transmissions with the tide being low on Gardner is also pretty compelling).  But that's fine...I think this is a really good question to be raised.  I for one was not aware there were other radios floating around.

Before you accept the idea that the bearings eliminate the possibility of the transmissions coming from the hams on the islands, look at the attached chart. The green lines delineate the bearing range (+/- 10°) from Hawaii; the purple lines, the same from Wake; the red lines, the same from Midway; and the yellow lines the larger area (+/- 21.25°) from Howland. You will see that all the bearing ranges  include Baker so all of the bearings could have been taken on transmissions from Baker. (I know it looks silly to use the quarter of a degree level of precision but I did that to be consistent with my prior posts. The bearing errors could actually be many degrees greater than the 10° and 21.25° encompassed on the chart.)
 gl

Point taken, Gary, and it's a fair one.

We should not lose sight however, of evaluating probabilities:  is it more likely that the signals came from hoaxers/kids messing around on Baker, or a crash-landed plane on Nikumaroro?  The former is definitely the case if one is determined that they do not believe the latter took place.  But I do question, even if all other evidence is disregarded, that objectively you can say the former is a more likely explanation.  Plausible, perhaps.  But not necessarily more probable.

I think (though I am not one of them, just a someone fascinated by the research) TIGHAR acknowledges that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"; however, the fact that people are skeptical that TIGHAR has the right answer might tend to make people bend over backwards to look for alternative explanations that only seem more plausible because people think the AE hypothesis is far-fetched; but on an objective scale, the alternate explanation is not really more likely.  It's just more mundane, and so seems more likely.

I'm not dismissing out of hand what's been brought up here.  I think it's a good kind of criticism, something that brings constructive new information to the table, and I am in favor of it.  It's just added perspective.  Ahem -- a dash of skepticism for the skeptic, if you will.

[Jeff Carter]

Mixing the Ham Receivers (generally amateurs, with results reported second-hand via press reports) and the Pacific Receivers (generally professionals, with more thorough surviving documentation) tends to obscure how tenuous the Pacific receptions were.

Omitting HAM receivers for the moment, of the 47 Pacific sources rated credible by the Post-Loss Catalog:

• Only two receivers reported a female voice -- Itasca ("we hear her on 3105") and Naaru ("voice not intelligible...  but voice similar to that emitted from the plane in flight the previous night"), and no words were reported in either case.
• The signals were so weak and sporadic, only four words were reported ("Earhart", "31", "I", and "KHAQQ") across all the receptions.  And no reception reported more than two words, although one reported "talk of Earhart".
• Breakdown by type of reception:
  *** VOICE (Which May Also Include Dashes):  24
         ----- Unspecified Gender:14
         ----- Male Voice: 6
         ----- Female Voice: 4 (Itasca, see note above, other 3 are same Naaru event)
         ----- Both Male & Female: 0
  *** CARRIER SIGNAL ONLY:  10
  *** DASHES AND/OR MORSE CODE:  8
  *** NOT STATED OR UNCLEAR:  5
• With one exception when Morse code was received (the infamous "281 North" message), receivers only reported dashes or long dashes.  Never dots.

The remaining 10 HAM receptions rated credible are the exact opposite -- 9 out of 10 reported a woman's voice and one is unclear whether the voice was male or female.  All voice, no HAM reports rated credible reported Morse or dashes.

[Gary LaPook]

Since the local time at the site of the receiver is important in evaluating the radio propagation so be aware that there are some errors in the local time in the data base. All the Wake and all the Midway reports have the wrong local time. There is also an error in message #84 at Makapuu too.

gl

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Since the local time at the site of the receiver is important in evaluating the radio propagation so be aware that there are some errors in the local time in the data base. All the Wake and all the Midway reports have the wrong local time. There is also an error in message #84 at Makapuu too.

If you make up a list of corrections, I'm moderately confident that Ric and Bob will fix the database.

[Gary LaPook]

Since the local time at the site of the receiver is important in evaluating the radio propagation so be aware that there are some errors in the local time in the data base. All the Wake and all the Midway reports have the wrong local time. There is also an error in message #84 at Makapuu too.

If you make up a list of corrections, I'm moderately confident that Ric and Bob will fix the database.

These assume that the ZULU times are correct.

83
Identifier    41512PY
Z Time/Date    1512 July 4
Local Time/Date    1512 GCT July 4 0312 July 4
Gardner Time/Date    0412 July 4

----------------------------------------------------

85
Identifier    41553PY
Z Time/Date    1553 July 4
Local Time/Date    1553 GCT July 4 0353 July 4
Gardner Time/Date    0453 July 4

----------------------------------------------
102
Identifier    50638PY
Z Time/Date    0638 July 5
Local Time/Date    0638 July 5 1838 July 4
Gardner Time/Date    1938 July 4

---------------------------------

77
Identifier    41215WD
Z Time/Date    1215 July 4
Local Time/Date    1215Z July 4        2315 July 4
Gardner Time/Date    0115 July 4
----------------------------------------
121
Identifier    50948WD
Z Time/Date    0948-0952 July 5
Local Time/Date    0948-0952 Z July 5       2048-2052 July 5
Gardner Time/Date    2248-2252 July 4
------------------------------------------
129
Identifier    51223WD
Z Time/Date    1223-1236 July 5
Local Time/Date    1223-1236 Z July 5      2323-2336 July 5
Gardner Time/Date    0123-0136 July 5
---------------------------------------
84
Identifier    41523PU
Z Time/Date    1523-1530 July 4
Local Time/Date    0453-1600 July 4 0453- 0500 July 4
Gardner Time/Date    0423-0430 July 4



gl

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

These assume that the ZULU times are correct.

Thanks, Gary.  I see the problem.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Didn't the credibility factor of some of these transmissions depend on the low and high tides at Gardner on the dates and times concerned?
How do the teenage hoaxers fit in with these tide dates and times?
Coincidental exact match or random?
Or am I talking a load of bull#*#t ?