========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:10:16 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: St. Pete CG station Hats off to Betty! When I think of it all, she has really played a key part in a moment in one history's greatest mysteries and she keeps on tickin! Best regards to Betty and all she has contributed. One day, when we have that smokin gun from Niku, we'll also know that Betty's notes were a short and small glimpse into a tragedy. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:11:40 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: hypoxia Both Penn State and Cambridge anthropology programs had high altitude physiology programs in the 1960's and 1970's. They had research stations at about 5,000 meters (16,00 feet). Before going to the one in Peru, you spent a few weeks in Machu Pichu to acclimate, then went up. There are acute (hours), short term (weeks to months) and long term adaptations to altitude. Even trained athletes cam develop pulmonary edema at those altitudes, but people do live there without supplemental oxygen. There might be published data in the journal "Human Biology" Dan Postellon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:14:00 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Mike Juliano wrote: >By the way was 157/337 magnetic or true?) True. How do we know this? Because the magnetic variation in that area of the world is (and probably was very close to in 1937) 10* east. So a sun line would be 157* true or 147* magnetic at sun rise (you subtract easterly variation to convert from true to magnetic) and for an hour afterwards. Then it would change in a counterclockwise direction to, successively, 156* T / 147* M; 155* T/ 145* M; etc. ... It would never equal 157* magnetic since it was moving in the opposite direction. gl ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:23:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position I think it is commendable some are attempting to understand the LOP concept. Based on some recent postings on the subject, I think the time might be better spent on something simpler and of more significance. That would be anything else. It really makes no difference whether the LOP issue is totally and correctly understood or whether it remains a complete mystery forever. It will not tell anyone anything usable to help resolve the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. It's nice to know information at its best. Whatever understanding one has of LOPs it cannot be applied to the flight of the Electra because there is critical information missing - and missing forever - from the equation. There are other windmills to tilt at. Alan *************************************************************************** From Marty Moleski: Mike Juliano wrote: > Hi guys, Chapman's "Small Boating and Seamanship" has a very > understandable LOP section. A LOP can be entered at 22.5*,45*, or 90* > relative to your course line. The LOP can be advanced or regressed. If you are thinking of an "advanced LOP" --- as described in beautiful detail with exquisite graphics at http://www.tighar.org/forum/navigation.html --- yes, of course you can plan to intersect the LOP at a convenient angle to your course line. We don't know the course line flown by AE and FN because 1) they got lost and took their charts with them and 2) they didn't radio that information before they got lost. > With > out accurate course, speed, wind correction where you are is where you > is- (where-ever that may be). True. The only thing I know about my position on a map is that I am where I am. I have taken no celestial sightings and have done nothing to reckon my course or speed. Presumably Fred was more energetic about these tasks than I have been. > By the way was 157/337 magnetic or true?) True. Look at the beautiful page and the magnificent graphics here: http://www.tighar.org/forum/navigation.html. LTM. Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Understanding the LOP issue is a pre-requisite to any informed discussion of the available information (scant as it is) about the end of the Lae/Howland flight. That's why we went to the trouble of explaining it so carefully on the website. But Alan is also correct in that nobody is going to solve the Earhart mystery with LOPs. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:29:59 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: AE and navigation Someone recently mentioned one of AE's previous off course excursions to Ireland on her solo Atlantic crossing. I also read recently about another incident in the US in 1928 where she landed to ask the way being miles off course. Can you give us a run down of all her unaccompanied wanderings from intended route and an idea of what happened? Regards Angus ****************************************************************** From Ric No. Not at this time. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:34:02 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Who's on 3105?" My posting earlier today referred to an even earlier one, which I "thought" I sent in reply to a message titled "3105 in 1937." My thoughts were relative to who might have had the capability to generate a signal on that frequency, particularly with respect to ham operators. To reprise my response: Most hams of the era operated "home brew" transmitters. While the tuned circuitry of such rigs usually had some overlap and the amplifier stages of a transmitter covering the 80-meter band (3500-4000 KHz) could probably tune down to 3105 without too much difficulty or modification, the most likely problem with actually doing this would lie with the frequency-control stage. 1930s hams were not typically equipped with frequency-measuring devices. Someone who had even a 100-KHz crystal frequency standard, which generates harmonics all the way through the tuning range of one's receiver and allows a check of dial accuracy, was lucky indeed. Most of the receivers used by hams of the time did not incorporate such a device, as did those of 15 or 20 years later. Receiver dial accuracy was generally not all that great either, especially if the receiver was home-brewed (many were). In short, you sorta knew where you were; but you'd be taking a real chance if you operated too near the band edge limits. Crystal controlled transmitters were the norm. Variable frequency oscillators were in use by some, but home-brewing a stable and accurately calibrated VFO was quite a challenge (still is if you don't have some test gear). The design practices of amateur radio in those days were framed by the harmonically-related bands allocated to hams: 160 meters (1.75-2 MHz), 80 meters (3.5-4 MHz), 40 meters (7.0-7.3 MHz), 20 meters (14.0-14.4 MHz), 10 meters (28.0-30.0 MHz, 5 meters (56-60 MHz) and 2-1/2 meters (112-116 MHz). Typically an oscillator would be designed to generate signals in the 160- or 80-meter band, and frequency-multiplier stages were employed to drive a power amplifier on higher bands. Most hams used crystal control, as I explained before. Those who had built a good stable VFO would be reluctant to "fubar" it by trying to pad it down to get output on 3105... but the possibility does exist, however. Consider that 3105 KHz is a respectable distance from the 160-meter band, and still "a ways" from the low end of 80 meters. Very few commercially-built transmitters were used by hams at this time. Those which were on the market were pretty expensive for hard-pressed Depression-era folks. In the 30s it was easy to obtain radio parts, and very feasible to build a rig that was equal to or better than store-bought (VERY unlike today). Most home-brew rigs were optimized for one, two or three bands. Not all were capable of all-band, all-mode operation like the gear of the past 40 or 50 years. Indeed, in the 30s, CW was by far the most popular mode of operation on the ham bands. In summation, it would not be a stretch to get a rig together that was capable of operating on 3105, IF one had access to an oscillator that would control the frequency. My post on crystal grinding addresses that in part. To paraphrase: possible of course to grind one for 3105, but not something done in a hurry, especially if any kind of accuracy was needed. The process was very time consuming. A person who worked around aircraft might conceivably have a 3105 crystal in the home junk box, in 1937... but, crystals for frequencies outside the ham bands were not at all commonly in the hands of amateur radio operators until thousands of such crystals were dumped on the surplus market following World War II (and many were re-ground by hams to get them into the desired frequency ranges, with varying degrees of success). Also consider, that the FCC had much more respect, and a stronger arm then than it now does. They kept a much closer watch on the airwaves then, through a wide network of monitoring stations (many of which, unfortunately, no longer exist). Most hams were in deathly fear of running afoul of the "G-men." If you got nailed for out-of-band operation, it could well cost you your hard-earned license; and if you had a commercial license as well, they'd yank it too. Might even get you time in the slammer. LTM (who has a thousand eyes) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:13:42 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? The patterns we're seeing in post-loss receptions and your explanation of the HAM situation vis a vis transmissions on 3105 make it next to impossible to explain the receptions that were being heard, especially in the search area, as being hoaxes or misunderstood transmissions from HAMs. If the signals were not coming from HAMs, and if they were not coming from Earhart, then the alternative sources are pretty limited. Itasca had transmitters that could be configured to send on 3105, but we have a real good handle on what Itasca was doing because we have the radio logs. What about other ships that were in the area? What kind of transmission capability did they have? Fortunately, we have a copy of the September 1937 edition of "List of Coast Stations and Ship Stations" published by The Bureau of International Telecommunication Union in Berne, Switzerland (usually known as the "Berne List"). The publication lists every vessel in the world equipped with a licensed radio and includes a description of the vessel's transmission capabilities. SS Moorby, for example, was actively involved in helping to check out the "281 north Howland" location interpreted from the 281 message. A brief article appearing in the Fiji Times after the ship docked in Australia later that month mentioned that the radio operator had tried "for 48 hours" to contact the Earhart plane. No frequency is mentioned. Are some of the reported post-loss voice receptions misunderstood interceptions of the Moorby's calls to Earhart? No. Even if the Moorby could reconfigure its transitter to send on 3105, the ship had no ability to send voice transmissions. The farther we dig into this matter of what was heard by whom and where it could have come from, the more interesting it gets. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:45:27 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? In addition to civilian ships, don't you also have to include other military vessels and various military stations throughout the Pacific and civilian stations in your list of non-Earhart candidates? Since the loss was big news, anybody who had any possibility of transmitting on 3105 (even hams, despite all the problems they'd have with frequency control as pointed out by Everette) might be expected to have cranked-up to contact Earhart with no particular overall discipline or coordination among all these sources. Earlier you mentioned a "spike" in activity from, I believe, July 2-5. What is the source of support for this "spike" and how does it compare to usual activity? Is there even a reliable record of usual activity? Otherwise, how do you know it really was a "spike" to which we should attach any particular relevance? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric >In addition to civilian ships, don't you also have to include other military >vessels and various military stations throughout the Pacific and civilian >stations in your list of non-Earhart candidates? Yes. Fortunately, those are easy. Virtually all of the available assets in the region, civilian and military, were mobilized to some degree for the search so we have a very good handle on their activity through the official message traffic. >What is the source of support for this "spike" and how does it compare to >usual activity? I thought I explained that. Anyway, to elaborate: Let's keep it simple and look just at signals that were reportedly heard by professional operators who were located within one thousand miles of Howland. That takes in USCG Itasca; Howland Island; Baker Island; HMS Achilles; U.S. Navy Radio in Tutuila, Samoa; and VKT Radio, Nauru. (It also takes in USS Swan, USS Colorado, USS Lexington, USS Drayton, & USS Lamson, but none of these reported post-loss receptions except Colorado, but the report is too vague to use.) Itasca began listening intently on Earhart's frequencies at 19:00 (7 p.m.) local time on July 1st right after they got the word that AE had departed Lae. They listen all that night and hear: "unreadable fone on or near 3105" at 20:35-40 "unreadable fone on or near 3105" at 21:41-43 "several carriers but unreadable" at 21:45-48 "several unreadable carriers on or about 3105" at 22:03-07 and then nothing until "Heard Earhart plane but unreadable through static" at 02:45-48 After that progressively stronger transmissions from Earhart were heard throughout the rest of the night and into the morning, but no carriers or unreadable voice messages were logged. So, other than the known Earhart signals, we have on the night of July 1/2 a pattern of four receptions between roughy 20:30 and 22:00 and then nothing for the rest of the night. Earhart fails to arrive at Howland and on the night of July 2/3 we have 17 receptions by stations in the search area, all between sunset and midnight. On the night of July 3/4 we have 10 receptions by stations in the search area, 6 between sunset and midnight and 4 more before dawn. On the night of July 4/5 we have 26 receptions by stations in the search area, 17 between sunset and midnight and 9 more before dawn. On the night of July 5/6 we have 9 receptions by stations in the search area (19:28, 20:42, 21:32, 22:42-46, 23:33, 23:39, 23:41-42, 23:44 & 00:25) On the night of July 6/7 we have just two receptions by stations in the search area in a space of one hour (23:43 & 01:10) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of July 7/8, we have 3 receptions of weak carriers (19:40, 19:48 & 22:10) by stations in the search area over a period of about an hour and a half and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of July 8/9 we have 3 receptions of weak carriers (19:42, 21:14 & 22:09) at almost exactly the same times as on the previous night and on the night of the 1st/2nd. We then have a single reception at 02:15 and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of the 9/10 we have 3 receptions (21:10, 21:22, 21:38) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of the 10/11 we have 3 receptions (21:27, 23:30, 01:15) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of the 11/12 we have one reception (22:49) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. On the night of 12/13 we have one reception (23:30) and then nothing else for the rest of the night. No station in the search area or anywhere else logged or reported further signals after that but by that time most stations had stopped listening. With 12 days of data we have eight nights of 4 or fewer ambiguous receptions and four consecutive nights with 17, 10, 26, & 9 receptions. That looks like spikes to me. What does it look like to you? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:48:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position From AlanMy frustration showed through that our explanations of the LOP issue seem not to be working for some. When a subject is so well known and long used it becomes difficult to comprehend it is not equally simple to folks who have rarely if ever been involved with celestial. I really know that but I am still frustrated I can't think of an explanation clear enough to reach everyone. I guess it just takes far more dialog than I have estimated. Alan ************************************************************************ From Mike Juliano Thank you all again. That's what this is about--I'm learning. Maybe someone else will get more out of this too. (Never hurts to check your position or LOP) Mike J. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:49:55 EST From: Herman DeWulf Subject: Re: AE and navigation Angus, My reaction may not exactly be an answer to your question. I think you feel Amelia Earhart was not much of a pilot and had a habit of getting lost. I'd like to remind you that navigation in the Twenties was not what it is today. It was flying by compass, map and stopwatch and nothing else. In 1925 aviation pioneer Edmond Thieffry, while flying from Brussels to Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) in the Congo, got lost several times over the Sahara and on two occasions landed near some Bedouins and ask them where he was. Even today pilots occasionally get lost. Some infringe on TFRs. Others wander into TCA's. Let me tell you that any pilot who says he never lost his way is a liar. We all got lost a couple of times during training when we had to rely on a map, a compass and a stopwatch. If you are flying over known territory you may eventually find a river, a highway or a railroad that is also on your map and give a clue. But all too often there are either none or too many. Fortunately today we have radio and can ask for assistance. VORs, radar and transponders work wonders these days. Back in 1925-28 that was not the case. Also, aircraft were easier to land in a meadow than today's sophisticated airplanes. And as we all know, even today airliners flown be professional ATPL pilots are known to land at the wrong airports occasionally. But that is an other story. LTM (who also used to rely on a map, a compass and a stopwatch) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:56:22 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? I hope everyone is saving Mike's and Ric's notes on the post loss radio messages. Ric has already made it known a full posting will be placed on the web site in due time but in the meantime saving these notes and reading them with careful comprehension may reduce the misunderstandings and endless questions that will surely come. It is clear to me that this information may well be the most powerful and indisputable evidence yet to be presented that Amelia and Fred did not go into the drink at 8:43 L and instead survived on land for many days subsequent to July 2, 1937. For those who might not see one of the subtle benefits of this information it could immensely affect future funding by making it clear the money needs to be poured into more land expeditions rather than pouring it down a 17,000 foot hole full of ocean or for analyzing unearthed rags or scribbles on a grubby detention wall in the Marshall Islands. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric True Confessions: I've intentionally been throwing out some teasers because writing up this study is taking me way longer than I anticipated and I want to reassure everybody that it will be worth the wait. Yes, it will go up on the website eventually but initially it will be a special edition of TIGHAR Tracks that will go only to members of TIGHAR, so if you don't want to be left out, join now. Membership has its privileges. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:57:48 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position For Mike Juliano: Mike, check out the info available at : http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/ and at : http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/ There is more detailed info available there than can be easily conveyed on this forum. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:59:36 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Sorry about that Alan, I didn't mean to upset the apple cart by my ignorance , and I will go back to the FAQs and try to get a better understanding without the crude attempts at humor. Like Ric said it's a new culture with its own set of rules. Just learnin' the rules. Sincerely, Mike J. ************************************************************************* From Ric On second thought, I'm not sure there's a lot of culture going on here. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:02:10 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: AE and navigation Herman De Wulf wrote: > Angus, > > My reaction may not exactly be an answer to your question. I think you feel > Amelia Earhart was not much of a pilot and had a habit of getting lost. I'd > like to remind you that navigation in the Twenties was not what it is today. > It was flying by compass, map and stopwatch and nothing else. It is true that I don't have a great deal of admiration for her as a pilot. I believe that one company actually refused to sell her an aircraft on the basis that they did not think she was competent to fly it. That cost them and I don't believe that they would have taken that line unless they really believed she was a real danger to herself. She did not appear to be a "natural" whilst learning to fly. Most of the Earhart myth appears to be just that. The impression I get is that there were probably better women pilots. I also very much doubt she had any real skills as a navigator. Having few of the sophisticated tools we have today, she would have been well advised to learn as much about navigation and radio as possible but she seems to have had little interest in doing so. This was not a professional attitude, especially in view of the fact that her life and that of others might depend on such knowledge in emergency. Navigational theory was well advanced in her day. You may object that flying solo she was often in no position to make use of such skills but Francis Chichester on his trip to Australia certainly managed to put his knowledge into practice without the benefit of an autopilot. That being said, I have great admiration for her bravery in flying aircraft that today would be regarded as dangerously primitive in terms of their reliability and navigational aids. I believe seven women had been killed attempting to cross the Atlantic at the time she did it. I also admire her for doing all this in what was then very much a man's world with all the inevitable associated prejudice and discrimination. My interest in her navigational skills arose because I wanted to know the sort of mistakes she was prone to make in navigation. Of course often we only have her own account of what happened on previous flights and she would not be the first to add a little spin to cover up any glaring errors. The "blow-out" at Luke Field seems to be a case in point. Whilst Fred was in theory responsible for the navigation, one has to consider what effect, if any, Amelia could have had on navigational matters. For instance she claimed, probably falsely, to have been responsible for the diversion to St Louis in Senegal. On the other hand, had this really been the case, and having been proved wrong, she may well have been considerably inhibited in pointing out anything she perceived might be an error at a later date. This sort of background research may seem a little superfluous but only when one understands the skills and character of an individual can one make any useful prediction about what they might and might not have done in a particular situation. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:10:34 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? Mike Everette's explanations and description of what would have been required to modify crystals was very interesting. It sounds terribly involved, and nearly impossible for anyone less than highly skilled to have accomplished such a modification. Therefore, because of the technical aspects, it seems likely to me that any truly "hoax" Earhart reception reports were more probably a lie on the part of the person who reported hearing the reception, rather than an actual reception of a faked transmission. If that presumption is true, then it also seems logical to me that any time there were instances of transmissions where more than one person reported hearing something during the same time period, that would constitute a very strong argument in favor of those transmissions being legitimate. ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Good observation. Occasions when more than one station heard something at the same time are particularly interesting, but just because multiple stations are hearing a signal doesn't necessarily mean that they're hearing the same signal or that it must be a legitimate distress call. We call these Synchronous Reception Events (SREs) and we look at them very closely in the study. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:12:34 EST From: Peter Subject: Hypoxia Acclimatization to low oxygen levels at high altitudes is due to an increase in the no. of red blood cells circulating in the body. The body responds to a decrease in the oxygen saturation level of the plasma by producing more hormone, erythropoetin in the kidney and this stimulates increased red cell production in the bone marrow. That's why people living at high altitudes, such as Peruvian Indians, have very red complexions. Obviously, this process is not instantaneous and people living at sea level need the time to produce the extra red cells. LTM (who only had a red face after a glass or two) Peter. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:13:48 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Extraordinary claims... Alan says: >It is clear to me that this information may well be the most powerful and >indisputable evidence yet to be presented that Amelia and Fred did not go >into the drink at 8:43 L and instead survived on land for many days >subsequent to July 2, 1937. > There is a saying, which I happen to subscribe to, that goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In my opinion, the post-loss messages as already described by Ric, meet this standard. Well, not just the post-loss messages, but the lack of any other known station that can broadcast voice on 3105 ... except Amelia ...within 1000 miles from Howland, seems a very convincing argument to me. I especially like the fact that the different listening stations corroborate one another. There seems to be no logical explanation other than Amelia broadcasting on 3105. If the "splashed and sank" crowd want to be taken seriously, they have to give a viable alternative explanation for these radio messages. Without such viable alternative explanation, their theory now has a major piece of evidence that it cannot explain. Nice job, Ric (also Mike E.), and I look forward to reading the ENTIRE report. LTM (whose spell checker keeps suggesting Ameba for Amelia) Paige Miller #2565 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:27:53 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Ric - has anyone taken the 157, corrected for mag var, then applied it to Gardner/Niku to backcast / hindcast where AE/FN were approaching from? Lets say, that on a good day you could see Gardner/Niku from 20 miles at 1500 feet. Then picking a point 20 miles east and a point 20 miles west, draw a corrected set of lines back along the course and finding where they would have been likely to have been at the time AE said they were on a line of 157... I don't think you need to include wind as they would/should have corrected for that, meaning that only the actual course needs to be looked at. This might show us something relating to their position and how close they might actually have been to Howland in an east/west orientation if not a north-south one. However, since you think that Betty's diary indicates them being down at a certain time of the day, throw that in to the mix just to get an approximate idea of how far north/south they might have been. LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************************* From Ric As you may recall, we now see July 5th as a more likely date for Betty's transcription if she heard legitimate signals, in which the notebook has no bearing upon possible arrival time on the 2nd. No conversion to magnetic is necessary to see that a 157/337 True line through Howland passes within 15 miles of Gardner. All anyone can say is that IF Noonan's apparent belief that he was on a line through Howland was reasonably accurate, and IF he was actually well south of Howland, and IF he flew that line southeastward fairly accurately, then they should have been able to see Gardner well before they ran out of fuel. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:22:28 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Emotional content Ric wrote: > If Betty's notebook is an authentic transcription of phrases heard from the > Electra, it gives us almost too much information about the mental state of > Earhart and Noonan on whatever day the transmissions took place. None of the > other alleged post-loss receptions has anything like the emotional content > of Betty's notebook. Ric, I would like to know where you stand on this now. Do you feel the content of the other ( Pacific area? ) reports is compatible or not compatible with the content of this particular continental USA report? -Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric As I said, Betty's notebook has far more emotional content than any other post-loss radio event. Most have no emotional content at all but it's hard to hear emotional content if you can't understand what's being said. The only reports that describe any kind of emotional content other than Betty's are the three shortwave listeners - Nina Paxton, Mabel Duncklee and Thelma Lovelace - who came forward in later years. All were older women. All were in North America. None was an Amelia Earhart fan. None of the reported times overlap or coincide. All seem to have been somewhat traumatized by the experience and eager for someone to take them seriously. Their respective reports need to be closely examined for similarities and differences. I don't know where I stand on there credibility until I've had a chance to do that. I expect to get to that part of the study soon. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:25:16 EST From: Craig Knowles Subject: Re: Who's on 3105? Ric wrote: > On the night of the 9/10 we have 3 receptions (21:10, 21:22, 21:38) and then > nothing else for the rest of the night. > > On the night of the 10/11 we have 3 receptions (21:27, 23:30, 01:15) and then > nothing else for the rest of the night. > > On the night of the 11/12 we have one reception (22:49) and then nothing else > for the rest of the night. > > On the night of 12/13 we have one reception (23:30) and then nothing else for > the rest of the night. In light of the above, do you have any thoughts regarding the Colorado searchers not spotting the Electra during their fly-over on the morning of the 9th, but the plane still being intact enough to transmit for several more days? How intact would the plane have to be to still be able to transmit? If the plane got wet even once, would it ever transmit again? That is, if it was covered by tides even once, would it dry out during low tide such that that a transmission could be made, or is one time in the salt water the end of the battery/radio? Where I'm going with this is that if we are to accept the above transmissions, we then (of course) have to assume that the plane is still in condition to transmit on the night of the 12th/13th, this may require new consideration as to what the place was doing and where it was on the morning of June 12th. Craig **************************************************************************** From Ric The point of my posting was that these transmissions appear to fit a consistent pattern of baseline activity on that frequency and probably are not signals from the plane. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:29:20 EST From: Adam Lynch Subject: s.o.b. For Adam Marsland, I have been re-reading your message of Jan. 4/03.. I got this from TIGHAR member Pete Polen. I have read the "Betty" notebook a hundred times... I can't find the alleged " son of a bitch " quote... To whom did Betty later tell that ?... Where did you get it ? I think your analysis of "Betty" is remarkable. .I just have to believe that somehow this 15 year old girl did, in fact, hear what she says she heard. A "fake" Betty would never have written what she wrote. No ? To my mind, ( an old, retired broadcast. amateur-historian/newsman) the "Betty" notebook is one of the most incredible A.E. chapters ever seen. Adam Lynch *************************************************************************** From Ric The s.o.b. quote is an anecdotal recollection by Betty that is in the videotape of TIGHAR's interview with her. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:33:49 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) From Avweb's Newsletter this morning: SHORT FINAL... A pilot was sitting in his seat and pulled out a .38 revolver. He placed it on top of the instrument panel, then asked the navigator, "Do you know what I use this for?" The nav replied timidly, "No, what's it for?" The pilot responded, "I use this on navigators who get me lost!" The navigator proceeded to pull out a .45 and place it on his chart table. The pilot asked, "What's that for?" "To be honest sir," the nav replied, "I'll know we're lost before you will." LTM. Marty #2359 *********************************************************************** From Ric LOL! Sorta lends a whole new dimension to the question of arming flight crews. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:56:31 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: AE and navigation Angus wrote: > I believe that one company actually refused to sell her an aircraft on the > basis that they did not think she was competent to fly it. Lindbergh was refused an airplane before he finally settled on the Ryan for his Atlantic hop - so its not necessarily piloting skills, just the choice of the company. I've had other people picked over me for jobs and that doesn't mean I'm not good, just that someone in an HR position with no knowledge of the job or the requisite skills picked someone that was better at writing a resume' than I am. LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************************** From Ric The two incidents were very different although they both involved Bellanca airplanes. In December 1926 Lindbergh tried to by the Bellanca WB-2 "Columbia" from the Wright Aeronautical Corporation. The airplane's designer and builder, Giuseppe Bellanca, liked the idea but the owners declined to sell because "we do not desire at this time to have Wright Bellanca used for transatlantic flight". (No. It didn't happen like in the Jimmy Stewart movie.) In March 1929 Putnam tried to buy a Bellanca Airbus (single engine, 11 to 14 passengers) for Amelia. Giuseppe, protective of his own reputation, was choosy about who he sold his airplanes to and insisted upon verifying the pilot's ability. Amelia came to the factory at Bellanca Field in New Castle, Delaware (about 15 minutes from where I'm sitting) with a check in her pocket. Perhaps to avoid any allegation of gender prejudice, Bellanca had AE fly with his own female pilot Elinor Smith. Elinor was appalled. When Amelia took the yoke, "our big calm bird suddenly lurched out of control and wobbled all over the sky". She made two flights and flunked both. Bellanca refused to sell the airplane despite considerable pressure from Putnam. (The incident is included in the biographies by both Mary Lovell and Doris Rich.) In fairness, Elinor Smith had lots of reason to dislike George Putnam who saw her as a rival to AE's position as the nation's most famous woman aviator and she only told this story years later, but the fact remains that Bellanca refused to sell the airplane if Earhart was going to fly it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:57:14 EST From: Van Hunn Subject: Glacier Girl FFYI: Tonight at 8 PM (CST) on the History Channel is a program, "The Hunt for the Lost Squadron"--about the attempt and recovery of one of the eight WWII planes forced down on an ice cap in Greenland. This is the P38 named "Glacier Girl." Van ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:53:16 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Extraordinary claims... Paige quotes the statement of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Let me ask you , isn't that an extraordinary claim in itself...got proof? But to your claim. Can you specifically identify which of the 78 post loss receptions (heard by professional operators) until about 12 July are conclusively linked to Amelia Earhart's radio? Did she make all of them, or were some from other sources? And the proof ? Could the batteries sustain power? It is especially unlikely she made transmissions after 9 July from Gardner. For those who make a claim that contradicts the theory that there are no "proved" Earhart receptions, the burden-of -proof should be on you. The foundation of the survival theories, such as Tighar's, depend , but not entirely, on a post loss msg coming from Gardner Island. It seems that for 66 years we have been in search of proof that at least one single transmission could be linked with a "very high" probability to Earhart. One could except as "proof" those receptions heard by Pierson and McMenamy, but those have certain faults. Hence the Tighar Matrix may shed some light on some strong possibilities, perhaps, and that is what we are waiting for. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:45:30 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Extraordinary claims... The question about the post loss messages that I always come back to is once you admit that ALL of them did not come from AE then you are also admitting that there must be some other explanation for THOSE messages. How can you then be certain that the same "other explanation" doesn't explain the rest of the messages? gl ************************************************************************* From Ric Let me give you an example. Among the 184 reported receptions that we have cataloged, some describe characteristics that could not have been produced by Earhart's transmitter - such as a frequency that is neither one of the primaries nor a harmonic of them - or a code signal that was sent in "A2" (a capability she did not have). It is entirely reasonable to eliminate such events from consideration without disqualifying all of the others. Don't you agree? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:47:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary claims... The dialog regarding the post lost messages and that to come will always sound the same tune. Can TIGHAR prove one or more of the post loss messages actually came from Earhart. Those that trumpet that song know full well that is impossible without having Earhart here to confirm her broadcast. Don't waste your time or that of everyone else with that argument. We could just as easily require that it be proven that NO post radio call was from Earhart. At least there is a remote possibility there but the naysayers will not attempt that chore because it actually requires effort. It requires NO effort to dispute. The best I see that TIGHAR can do is show that it is virtually impossible and most certainly not probable that none of the post loss messages could have been from Earhart. That puts the crashed and sankers in the position their theory is one of the least viable of all. They are certainly welcome to stick to it but if they wish to participate in the discussion the ONLY worthwhile offering they could muster up is proof that each of the post loss messages are not from Earhart. Prove them one by one not to be from Earhart. If that sounds like a challenge it is. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:52:53 EST From: Denise Subject: Pacific-based airlines Just remembered where and when I came across the bit about A.E. writing to Pacific-based airline companies for advice ... at least I sorta remember! It was in a glossy magazine - something like Vanity Fair - and it was in the last ten years. It was in an article about Media Stunts that are Waaayyy Past their Used-by Date - and it cited, among others, A.E.'s last flight. From the deepest recesses of my memory, it said something like: pioneering flights at this time were sooo passe that commercial flights operated in each area she wanted to cover and that she was even able to write to those airline companies for support and advice on how to handle that part of her route, and that even the Pacific had airline companies who wrote to help her out ... or something. It may not have been Vanity Fair but it's definitely something very like it: a glossy magazine that publishes long opinion articles. Maybe someone with back copies would like to check that one out? Hey, it might even be Playboy. Does checking that one out have any takers? LTM (who liked passe media stunts) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric If your recollection is anywhere near correct, the article probably referred to Earhart querying Pan American's Pacific Division rather than any carrier in Fiji. Nothing remarkable about that. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:01:43 EST From: Dave Bowman Subject: Startling Earhart Stamps Just ran across these (a set of four postage stamps depicting Earhart's landing and capture in the the Marshall Islands) for sale on e-Bay. (I placed a bid on them.) I was amazed, as the implication of these stamps is tantamount to the Marshall Islands officially endorsing the explanation on the stamps (an explanation I have by no means discarded...) Also, the explanation on the stamps definitely is at odds with TIGHAR's efforts. (I have financially contributed to past expeditions, by the way.) Dave Bowman ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course the Republic of the Marshall Islands endorses the Japanese capture theory. Why wouldn't they? It promotes tourism. I have an Amelia-captured-in-the-Marshalls T-shirt that is sold there. In 2000 Kiribati produced a Nikumaroro/Amelia Earhart set of stamps. We have a whole bunch of them. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:03:43 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: AE and navigation Dave is correct. And it was not only Bellanca. Fokker also refused to sell Lindbergh an aircraft to cross the Atlantic was Fokker. Anthony Fokker did not believe in Lindbergh's project and was afraid the company's image would be damaged if the airplane was lost in the ocean. Eventually Lindbergh turned to Ryan. *************************************************************************** From Ric The point is that Earhart was apparently turned down specifically because she lacked the skill to control the airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:24:05 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: more on continental USA reports Some additional facts and ideas on the Betty story: The call letters "....or WOJ" at the outset of her story - I did not find any listing in the 1930s radio magazines, looking over dozens, to show any receptions of this callsign station. Altho it was licensed to ATT, it appears ATT never exercised their permit for this frequency. I did find reports of ATT stations at Ocean Gate, New Jersey, WOA 6775, "transmits to England nights" and WOA 10550, "transmits to So. America nights", but it seems neither of these possible soundalikes fits the bill for the 16:30-18:00 Florida reception. If we then have to discount "WOJ", I wonder, does this raise the probability of the other callsign, the "W4OK" ? We at least know that one actually existed. Radio News for 4/1935 shows the Zenith Stratosphere. Is this the radio Betty's family owned? If so- I clearly see the idea of the "concave", which is a recessed area flanked by 2 speaker banks. I also note that altho the radio has 25 tubes (active amplifying devices), many of them are "impress the owner and neighbors", such as multiple audio power amplifiers, indicator tubes and such. And I note that in fact the radio is essentially not a better radio than the 9 or 10 tube Hammarlunds, National HRO, and upper models of Hallicrafters, Patterson, RCA and other manufacturers. This I mention, just in case there is any thinking that somehow Betty's radio was super-competent. I furthermore note that it covers the total tuning range in 5 tuning band ranges. This means that each individual tuning band range covers somewhat more than a 2:1 ratio of frequencies, from the top of the dial to the bottom. The reason I belabor this, is that this factor tells a radio person that the radio is guaranteed to drift, this means gradually shift from the tuning setting, on the higher bands, due to circuit heating effects from the vacuum tubes and from room temperature change. Why do I pursue this? Betty says she "never touched the dial" once she tuned in the station. This over a listening period of 1.5 hours. Other radio fans besides me have commented on this; one charitable optimist wrote that "she really didn't mean that". But - she DID say it. The interview indicates she is familiar with listening to "police scannners". Police scanners, which use crystal-control or synthesizer control of frequency, however, are a long shot from 1930's shortwave listening. Police scanners don't have a fine tuning control. Perhaps some of the readers here, not having experience with shortwave, are old enough to remember pre-digital tuned TVs in weak signal areas. Say you were trying to watch the world series, and it was not coming in good, do you just settle for that, or do you fiddle with the fine tuning once in a while to try to improve the grainy picture? The more so with shortwave. What I am saying is NO shortwave listener gets a marginal signal, just sits back and listens to it like that, not EVEN a 15 year old girl. I understand Betty also had some confusion about what she called the "TV hole" in the front of the radio, until this notion was dispelled. ( Coaching? ) How well does Betty remember those days of shortwave listening, I wonder? How reliable is her memory? Now we have a date change to ?? July also - so now we have to recalibrate our discussion somewhat, too. Seeing as an understanding of the events of the AE story as heard by Betty depend on her current explanation, as well as the barebones original notes - the question of the reliability of her memory is not immaterial, I think. As for "Mabel": I scrutinized a bunch of period radio magazines, including 1937. From the reception reports in these, I conclude that at 03:00 Mabel local time, the possible 3x multiple of 6210 could NOT be heard in the early morning darkness USA. The 5x 3105 = 15525 I came to a mixed conclusion: Orient SW broadcast stations were reported all night, but I also read that ham radio communications considered the band becoming unusable after around 20:00 local. Perhaps this is can be accounted for by the difference in transmitter strengths: the SW broadcast operations used commonly 10000 - 50000 watts, and then sometimes directional antennas that magnified this power. The ham radios were limited to 1000 watts and most used a fraction of this. What I am suggesting is that Mabel could not have heard "AE" on Betty's 2 frequency options of 15525 or 18630, at 03:00 her time? So what frequency did she (supposedly) hear AE on? 3105 and 6210 of course, are out, unless one decides that Mabel alone in the USA was selected to hear this. Then- we have left 9315 ( 3x 3105 ) and 12420 ( 2x 6210 ). I believe that for 9315, the harmonic level was too low and the path loss too high for it to work. 12420 ? Maybe- however as the ham experience on 14,000 kcs. band shows, this frequency may have been too high for early-morning transmission for very weak signal. Anyway, more grist for the mill...maybe. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Let me say for umpteenth time that Betty's modern day recollections are ANECDOTAL and neither we nor you should regard them any differently than we do any anecdotal information. People remember stuff wrong and there is no way to be sure how much of a recollection is accurate and how much is not unless you can find a contemporaneous written source, photograph or artifact to corroborate it. Let me be more specific. Betty says she didn't touch the dial after she started hearing AE. If there was a notation in the notebook that said something like, " Have not adjusted dial." we could be pretty sure that her recollection is accurate, but for you to harp on this point in an attempt to show that proves anything is just as futile as it would be for me to claim that her recollection that Earhart used profanity proves that it could not have been a commercial broadcast. As for trying to figure out which harmonic Mabel may have been listening on, I don't know how you'd ever be able to reach a supportable conclusion that it was impossible that she heard a signal from the plane. Improbable yes. We already know that is true for any of the alleged receptions in the U.S., but improbable things happen every day. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:00:02 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Glacier Girl Thanks for the heads-up, Van. William Green wrote an excellent two-volume set of books, Famous Fighters of the Second World War (and two companion books of Bombers), Hanover House, 1958. His chapter on the P-38 contains the following: "...because of the premium on transatlantic shipping space it was decided to take advantage of the Lightning's exceptional range and try flying it across. No fighters had previously flown this hazardous route, but the pilots of the 1st and 14th Fighter Groups successfully pioneered the way, and before the route had closed for the winter 179 out of total of 186 Lightnings that had taken-off from the U.S.A. reached their destination, via Labrador, Greenland and Iceland, escorted by Boeing B-17 Fortresses for navigational direction." ********************************************************************* From Ric Now you're talkin' classic literature. I grew up with Green's books. I still have the copy of "Famous Fighters of the Second World War" that my Dad bought for me when I was 11 years old. It's pretty beat up but it's all original. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:04:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: J. David Goldin & March of Time I have received a very nice letter from Mr. Goldin. In part it reads: "As a former pilot, I would like nothing better than to help you unearth more details about Amelia Earhart. I do not have either 'March of Time' broadcasts you asked about. The closest I can come is July 29, 1937, and I note no mention of her. I have a 1931 and 1932 recording of Amelia Earhart and a 1947 recording of her mother, but they're probably not of much help. Details are on my website, radiogoldindex.com. Good luck!" Mr. Goldin then attached a description of the July 2, 1960, radio broadcast by KCBS which purported to solve the mystery "with documentation and eyewitnesses. Fascinating listening. 47 minutes." I would be happy to buy any or all of these tapes for TIGHAR headquarters if Ric or Pat thinks they'd be at all helpful. At the very least, we could listen to the July 29 broadcast (not about Amelia) to hear how the program was presented on the air. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes indeed. That's very generous of you Marty. Thank you. I wonder if the copyright situation would allow us to put any of it on the website as downloadable audio files? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:38:33 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: J. David Goldin & March of Time Marty, would Mr. Goldin have a broadcast in Dec 1937, reportedly a rerun or synopsis of the original MOT broadcasts on 8 and 19 July 37? I have a partial transcript of that broadcast. Can he search by subject or by program only? The 2 July 1960 broadcast by KCBS, Goerner's station in SF, sounds like his news conference and report of his trip with Akiyama to Saipan held on 1 July, studio E, Sheraton-Palace Hotel, SF. He displayed the Electra's "generator" and witness statements from 13 natives, etc. Mantz was there and "confirmed" that that was indeed Amelia's generator. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:56:03 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: J. David Goldin & March of Time Ric wrote: > ... I wonder if > the copyright situation would allow us to put any of it on the website as > downloadable audio files? First I'll order up the tapes. Then we can ask whether by permission or by "fair use" some short excerpts might be placed on the website. LTM. Marty #2359 ******************************************************************** From Ric I'd be surprised if Goldin holds the copyright. My guess is that either the recordings are now in the public domain or he is in violation of copyright by selling them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:57:29 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: J. David Goldin & March of Time Ron Bright wrote: > Marty, would Mr. Goldin have a broadcast in Dec 1937, reportedly a rerun > or synopsis of the original MOT broadcasts on 8 and 19 July 37? Yes, he does: 40751. The March Of Time. December 20, 1937. NBC net. Sponsored by: Time/Life. "The News Of 1937 In review." The second inauguration of President Roosevelt, labor unrest, a flooded prison in Kentucky, Roosevelt tries to "pack" the Supreme Court, Franco's revolution in Spain, Amelia Earhart disappears, the Hindenburg crashes, business declines, swing music becomes popular . 29:30. Audio condition: Very good. Complete. http://www.radiogoldindex.com/frame1.html > I have a > partial transcript of that broadcast. Can he search by subject or by > program only? Program or artist. > The 2 July 1960 broadcast by KCBS, Goerner's station in SF, sounds like > his news conference and report of his trip with Akiyama to Saipan held on > 1 July, studio E, Sherator-Palace Hotel, SF. He displayed the Electra's > "generator" and witness statements from 13 natives, etc. Mantz was there > and "confirmed" that that was indeed Amelia's generator. That sounds like the tape all right. People have said that it might include some snippets from the original Amelia broadcasts. It may be worth listening to. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:42 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Extraordinary Claims Ron Bright says: >Paige quotes the statement of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary >evidence". Let me ask you , isn't that an extraordinary claim in itself...got >proof? > I don't understand this paragraph. The statement is a belief, or philosophy, that many people use to evaluate evidence, including me. It is not a claim. As such, the concept of proof doesn't apply. You can use whatever beliefs or philosophies you want to evaluate evidence, but I don't think we need to debate different philosophies right here, right now. > But to your claim. Can you specifically identify which of the 78 post loss >receptions (heard by professional operators) until about 12 July are >conclusively linked to Amelia Earhart's radio? Did she make all of them, or >were some from other sources? And the proof ? Could the batteries sustain >power? It is especially unlikely she made transmissions after 9 July from >Gardner. First, let me add that in addition to extraordinary evidence, one can include in the argument logical deductions. One can also never achieve 100% certainty in these historical observations, but one can indeed come to conclusions that are highly likely, and dwarf the likelihood of other conclusions. That's the best you can do. Further, I do not claim that the messages come from Gardner based upon radio evidence ... all I claim that you can deduce from the radio messages is that Earhart was on land. (I believe that other evidence points strongly in favor of Gardner) Although I haven't seen the entire set of post-loss messages, I think there is a lot of evidence to support my conclusion, not just one message. But, as one case in point, let's take the messages heard at 6:04Z and 6:06/6:07Z on July 2, by both Itasca and Achilles, as reported by Ric in this forum on 12/6/2002. There are two possibilities: 1) messages came from Earhart; or 2) message did not come from Earhart. If they came from Earhart, then the best experts in 1937, and now, inform us that to broadcast the plane must be on land. But, of course, could the messages be from someone else? The question is: who else? TIGHAR (Ric) has done considerable research into the logs of naval ships in the Pacific at that time, none indicate in their official message logs any such broadcast (see Ric's post to this forum on 3/2/03). Could anyone else out there in the general vicinity of Howland (say 1000 miles) also be broadcasting? We know of no one in that region with the capability (which was very rare) of broadcasting voice on 3105 ... well, with one exception, that is ... the one station capable of broadcasting voice on 3105 was Earhart. So that's my logic, if there is anyone else out there that night, we don't know about them, and even if they were there, it would be very unusual for them to be capable of broadcasting voice on 3105. Two events are required, both with low probability. Thus the overwhelming probability is that the broadcast was from Earhart. Does this prove it 100%? No, of course not. Does it make the most likely conclusion the broadcast from Earhart? Yes I believe so. Does it make it extremely unlikely that the broadcast was from someone else. Yes I believe so. (You are free to believe something different if you choose, and if so, a clear explanation would always be appreciated.) > For those who make a claim that contradicts the theory that there are no >"proved" Earhart receptions, the burden-of -proof should be on you. There are many camps here. Can TIGHAR do more research and provide more conclusive proof? Yes, if they think it is necessary. What about the splashed-and-sank theorists? Do they have to explain this evidence? Yes, definitely, they have a burden of proof too. This evidence directly supports Earhart on land. It directly contradicts splashed-and-sank. Unless further information is forthcoming. Splashed-and-sank can no longer simply say "someone else was out therein the vicinity of Howland making those broadcasts". Their burden of proof is that they have to say who was out there in the middle of the Pacific broadcasting voice on 3105. They have to provide evidence, they cannot simply say so. LTM (who doesn't believe in mystery ships) Paige Miller #2565 **************************************************************************** From Ric One quick clarification: We do not have message logs from any of the ships in the area except for the Itasca, however, Itasca was part of the official net and was copied on everything that was sent, so it's message logs give us a complete record of the official message traffic during the search. If there was unofficial message traffic - for example, one commercial vessel communicating with another commercial vessel on a frequency that was not monitored by the searchers - we wouldn't know about it, but I don't see how such communications could have any bearing on the post-loss radio receptions. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:34 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: more on continental USA reports Ric wrote: > Betty says she didn't touch the dial after she started hearing AE. If there > was a notation in the notebook that said something like, " Have not adjusted > dial." we could be pretty sure that her recollection is accurate, but for you > to harp on this point in an attempt to show that proves anything is just as > futile as it would be for me to claim that her recollection that Earhart used > profanity proves that it could not have been a commercial broadcast. Perhaps we have different views on the reliability of this contemporaneous document. The curator of this document since whenever it was created, is the the same person revealing and interpreting it, is this not correct? As for contemporaneous evidence, the ONLY date in the document is "July 1937". So the whole account, written and verbal, actually is one whole anecdote, is this not correct? We have already discussed the quality of the penmanship in the notebook - the official view is that Betty was "careful to write neatly the important parts of the messages" -while others have pointed out the comparison to the writing's appearance when she was "only" trying to get down the words of a song going by. Okay, maybe quality over quantity, when you're taking down parts of an emergency message. I note from the interview video, the notebook is also quite a flimsy paper deal, although when Betty leaned back against the radio, and wrote in the notebook, her cursive writing managed to turn out perfect, almost ornamental. > As for trying to figure out which harmonic Mabel may have been listening on, > I don't know how you'd ever be able to reach a supportable conclusion that > it was impossible that she heard a signal from the plane. Improbable yes. > We already know that is true for any of the alleged receptions in the U.S., > but improbable things happen every day. We maybe differ on this also. We can absolutely rule out 3105, 6210, 18630, and perhaps 15525 - because of the local time where heard. Okay, if you prefer probabilities, we could talk probabilities approaching zero. We can also start with a safe assumption, altho it needs further work, that AE's transmitter was not some magic harmonic generator, spewing a range of harmonics like some spectrum generator, with equal viability for each one. In the Mabel case, to summarize my contention, is that the early morning hours rule out the higher harmonics we were previously talking about, and looking at the power / loss situation for the other possibles will do the same. Okay, I need to work on this, and I am, at a glacial pace, but I do expect to have some authoritative input for you, not *my opinion*, eventually, just don't hold your breath. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric The authenticity of any allegedly historic document is worthy of close examination, especially if the document only appears in later years and the curator was a private individual rather than an institution. Other Earhart-related documents which fall into this category include the raw Itasca radio log provided by chief Radioman Leo Bellarts and the Chater letter found in the Placer Dome files. In each case the documents have to be authenticated based upon their appearance and content. When Betty's notebook first came to our attention a great deal of research and discussion was conducted by this forum to authenticate its appearance and content (non-Earhart related content). You'll find all of those discussions in the forum archive. After you have reviewed them, if you have specific challenges to the notebook's authenticity as a historical document based upon facts rather than your own opinions, we'll be happy to hear them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:36 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Thanks for your clarification. The first paragraph is the debater's counterpunch to the old adage that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence by the reply that that is an "extraordinary" claim , what's your proof? I don't understand it either, as no one can define the terms involved. All claims or statements of "fact" require good solid evidence to be proven, no more no less. And what is proof ? The standards? I suggest we hold off on the evaluation of the signal evidence that one or more of the signals on 3105 received by the professional stations during that first few days of AE's loss was from Earhart, or "more than likely" or whatever standard of proof we shall require. Hence the TIGHAR SIGNAL MATRIX comparing frequencies, times, point of origin, reception locations, operator evaluations, and content may be one of the best and significant research projects going in the past 10 years. It could certainly change a lot of minds about what may have happened after her last "known" signal. I don't know of any other source that has put together this matrix. LTM, Ronald Bright 2342S ************************************************************************** From Ric A little more clarification: After careful consideration I decided to drop the term "matrix". It's a nice trendy word but it really doesn't fit what we're doing. We have assembled a "catalog" of all of the known post-loss radio "events" and have used that catalog to conduct a quantitative "study" that charts the "distribution" of the events by time, geography, frequency, station type, and signal type. Where patterns become apparent we look for matching patterns that might explain them. For example, does the number of reported events rise with the number of radio-equipped ships participating in the search? Does the pattern of events over time match the pattern of media coverage of the search? Where corresponding patterns suggest a possible explanation we make a detailed qualitative examination of the events involved to see if the hypothesis holds up. It's a tedious process but it's the only way I know to approach the problem and end up with useful results. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:31:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Ron Bright wrote: > I suggest we hold off on the evaluation of the signal evidence that one or > more of the signals on 3105 received by the professional stations during that > first few days of AEs loss was from Earhart, or "more than likely" or > whatever standard of proof we shall require. Good idea, Ron. Let me go further. I have not seen all the material Ric is about to present but I know in general what the content will be and what the obvious analysis will be. Let me see if I can summarize and if I'm off base Ric will leap in here and straighten things out. I'm doing this as sort of a preemptive strike at the faction who will attempt to put all of this down as they have nothing constructive of their own to offer. I am NOT talking to those who legitimately attempt to show where a mistake has been made or where a radio call should be eliminated from consideration for a specific reason other than someone's mere opinion. The entire body of radio calls will consist of transmissions that TIGHAR has for some reason not been able to get Earhart to confirm emphatically that she was the one who made the radio call. Pity. SO, for those who are all ready to make the point the calls have not been 100% confirmed, don't bother. Please don't waste everyone's time with that response. We already know that. Don't bother trying to say the same thing in a "clever" way. No one is that clever. Along with the body of radio calls there will be information to indicate why the calls were not reasonably attributed to hoaxers or other search units or other broadcast stations. That information will state why it is unlikely the calls can be easily explained away. It will NOT say it is impossible. If you plan on arguing any particular call COULD be explained away with some unlikely reason don't bother. We already know that. Don't bother trying to claim that if one call can be explained away they all can. That's not logical. TIGHAR will no doubt be arguing the calls are MORE probably legitimate than not. Don't bother arguing the calls are LESS probably legitimate than not. Anyone can do that without even knowing what the subject is. The information will probably be presented for your information and consideration not as definite clear proof of anything. Believe it or not. No one cares. There will also be the little game of trying to get TIGHAR to make a specific statement that can then be fired upon. I think everyone is on to that. Don't bother. If, however, someone can clearly see where a specific radio call has been mistakenly included and you can PROVE it was not possibly an AE transmission please tell everyone. Anyone who simply wants to not believe whatever is certainly welcome to do so. All I'm suggesting is the usual opposition is wasteful nonsense. Oppose with good clear reasoning and that is very welcome. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:50:08 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: "Catalog" of Radio Signals Whatever you call it, it will be a nice new addition to the research that someone 60 years ago should have done. It may not yield anything to hang your hat, but who knows. The post loss mess remains a mystery simply because of the huge number and I guess every researcher picks and chooses what he wants. I would suggest that all the message you have be addressed. The claim that the 06-0607Z messages could have been from AE was, I thought , resolved with the comparison of the msg content and the precise time Itasca transmitted and Achilles received. Long, p.219, says that after much discussion between the ships, they realized it was the ITASCA requesting the dashes with the KHAQQ call sign. Or do you have a different interpretation? He adds a cite. ( It was Paige Miller making that conclusion/statement) Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric In a nut shell: Achilles heard somebody say, "Give us a few dashes if you hear us." They then heard a different station send some dashes. Then they heard the first station said "KHAQQ" twice. It was Achilles' opinion that either of the stations might have been the airplane. A look at Itasca's radio log makes it pretty clear that the "first station" was the Itasca. Itasca asked Earhart to send dashes but heard no reply. Achilles heard Itasca ask for the dashes but ONLY ACHILLES heard the dashes that came in reply. Itasca tried to call Earhart (KHAQQ) again and Achilles heard that also before the signal faded out. So the pertinent questions are: - Who sent dashes on 3105 in response to Itasca's call to Earhart? - Whoever it was, why could Achilles hear the dashes but not Itasca? This is an example of the kind of event that gets a detailed examination in the study. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:51:03 EST From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Those damned clips The clips are a puzzle that continues to baffle me. I'm trying to come up with some way to learn more about them. I have seen no recent postings on them. Is there any new knowledge or new thoughts? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:52:38 EST From: Betty Brown Subject: For Hue from Betty Hue, you are at it again... putting things in your emails that use words supposed to belong to me, and shade the truth of what I said .....What do you mean about I called it a "TV hole "in front of the radio until this was dispelled (Coaching?) ....My Dad was told that it was to put a TV in later. Lots of people hadn't even heard of TV at that time....No one coached me to say anything different.. Can't you play fair???? Betty ******************************************** From Ric I think I'm in love. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:09:35 EST From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals Ric writes: > So the pertinent questions are: > - Who sent dashes on 3105 in response to Itasca's call to Earhart? > - Whoever it was, why could Achilles hear the dashes but not Itasca? So, do we know where the Achilles was stationed during these transmissions? ******************************************************************** From Ric Yup. She was enroute from Samoa up to Hawaii. At the time of this event she was at about 10 degrees South, 160.5 degrees West which puts her several hundred miles south and east of the Phoenix Group. This is a very complex and interesting event which we'll cover thoroughly in the study. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:11:50 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims For Alan Caldwell, Question - Why do you find it necessary at times to become the Earhart Forum behavior guardian? - No disrespect intended just curious. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:19:21 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals > Whoever it was, why could Achilles hear the dashes but not Itasca? Not that this is going to tell anyone anything specific but where was the Achilles at that time? I've forgotten. I hate to ask because someone is bound to try to plot the positions and arbitrarily decide the Electra has to be someplace specific due to the transmission being heard by one ship and not the other. Receptions skip all over the place it would appear from my experience. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric See my reply to Bruce Yoho for Achilles' position. It's true that receptions can "skip all over the place" and that's why you can't draw hard conclusions based on a single signal but, as a general rule, the closer you are the better you hear. If you have a whole bunch of receptions over time of similar distinctive signals at varying strengths and at various locations, it should be possible to draw valid conclusions about the general area where the signals must be originating. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:20:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty > Lots of people hadn't even heard of TV at that time.... Before folks jump on Betty for the TV comment let me tell you that the first TV broadcast was in 1908. It was a closed circuit transmission in Chicago by Ken Murray, star of "Blackout" a stage production and later a TV personality. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42:25 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals The Achilles sounds more complicated than I originally thought. On page 70, Donahue reports the Achilles msgs that are quoted in a msg from Tutuila to ITASCA, then adds that the Achilles sent the first signal while the Lockheed was"still airborne." Do we have a time of that first msg? RDO TUTILA was sending msgs to ITASCA about the Achilles' reception. Both Tutulia msgs were included in Thompson's report, but "neither of them evoked any comment by him. Incidental, "Please give us a few dashes of if you get us," was not recorded in the ITASCA communication logs". Just as you said. I imagine you have the ACHILLES radio log. This "dash" msg, coming some 11 hours after her last, seems intriguing and probably will require a lot of analysis. I can't follow it, particularly the time that Donahue claims that the first msg came when the Electra was still flying. I am sure we can all wait for the analysis that is forthcoming. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric I have no idea where Donohue got such nonsense - but then, the same can be said for the rest of his book. We do not have Achilles' logbook. Here's what happened. At 07:30Z on July 3, USN Radio Tutuila, Samoa advises Itasca: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM HMS ACHILLES AT 0730 GMT QUOTE UNKNOWN STATION HEARD TO MAKE QUOTE PLEASE GIVE US A FEW DASHES IF YOU GET US UNQUOTE HEARD GOOD STRENGTH BOTH ON 3105 KCS STOP FIRST STATION THEN MADE KHAQQ TWICE DISAPPEARED STOP NOTHING MORE HEARD OF EITHER AT 0620 GMT UNQUOTE ACHILLES POSITION AT 0700 GMT 10.00 SOUTH 16050 WEST That is the version that appears in Thompson's report. Tutuila also advised Coast Guard San Francisco. When George Putnam heard about this he asked the Navy to ask Achilles if they were sure that they heard the call letters KHAQQ clearly. At 21:05Z Tutuila sent the following to Achilles: FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM COMMANDER HAWAIIN [SIC] STATION USCG HONOLULU TH QUOTE PUTNAM HAS REQUESTED THIS OFFICE MAKE EFFORT CONFIRM HMS ACHILLES GOT CALL LETTERS KHAQQ CLEARLY AND CERTAINLY UNQUOTE PLEASE ADVISE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF CALL WAS RECEIVED CLEARLY AND CERTAINLY IN ORDER THAT REPLY MAY BE MADE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE At 22:00Z HMS Achilles sent the following to USN Radio Tutuila, Samoa: AT 0600/3 GMT AN [SIC] TELEPHONE TRANSMITTER WITH HARSH NOTE WAS HEARD TO MAKE PLEASE GIVE US A FEW DASHES IF YOU GET US. A SECOND TRANSMITTER WAS THEN HEARD TO MAKE DASHES WITH NOTE MUSICAL STRENGTH GOOD. FIRST TRANSMITTER THEN MADE KHAQQ TWICE BEFORE FADING OUT. THE EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT EITHER TRANSMITTER WAS THE AIRPLANE ITSELF. WAVE FREQUENCY WAS 3105 KCS. COMMANDING OFFICER HMS ACHILLES At 23:05Z USN Radio Tutuila passed that message on to COMHAWSEC (Commander Coast Guard Hawaiian Section. At 01:03Z July 4th, COMHAWSEC passed the full message on to COMFRANDIV (Commander Coast Guard San Francisco Division) accurately. ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence), CGHQ (Coast Guard Headquarters), and COM12 (Commandant 12th Naval District) were copied in at the same time. But nobody sent the clarified version of the event to Itasca so Itasca never knew that dashes had been heard. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:43:11 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Guardianship Tom Strang asked of Alan: "Why do you find it necessary at times to become the Earhart Forum behavior guardian?" I was thinking of him more as a hallway monitor. You know, the guy who told the teacher every time you talked or misbehaved. :-) LTM, who mostly obeys Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:45:05 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty Actually, I think the "TV Hole" in the radio is something that Betty mentioned long ago. Perhaps Alan Caldwell just missed it. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************ From David Katz For Alan Caldwell, If you are going to act as the authority for many of the things on this forum, I suggest you endeavor to get your facts straight (something you regularly chastise others for failing to do). The first television broadcast was not in 1908; nor was it closed circuit. The broadcast to which you refer was on August 27, 1930 in Chicago, and it was broadcast, not by closed circuit, but over the airwaves to a few hundred radio dealer showrooms throughout the Chicago area that had been specially equipped with television receivers for the demonstration. The broadcaster was an experimental television broadcast station, W9XAP, that was owned by the Chicago Daily News. The broadcast was picture only (no sound); however, synchronized sound was broadcast through radio station WMAQ. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:21:12 EST From: Joe Weber Subject: Purdue Giving Access to more Papers According to today's Bedford (IN) Times-Mail (p.C1) Monday Purdue University for the first time will 'famed aviatrix Amelia Earhart's most private items, including love letters, fan mail and her last signature will be available for the public to view at an exhibit". The items are part of an almost 500 piece collection her family gave Purdue last spring. The Exhibit is entitled "Flight Trails." "The Flight Trails Exhibit in the new Stewart Center Gallery, closes April 27. Pieces from Palmer Putnam's first gift to Purdue, as well as the most recent gift will be on display at the Indiana Historical Society from April 16-Aug 3" The article give also the urls of : http://www.lib.purdue.edu/aearhart and Indiana Historical Society http://www.indianahistory.org/ There is a good picture of her walking in front of the Electra. Doesn't say where or when it was taken. (My scanner software doesn't do half-tones) Included are : the good-bye letter she wrote her parents in case she did not return from her 1928 trans-Atlantic Trip; A passport from her 1932 Solo trans-Atlantic Trip ; flight logs from the same flight; a draft of a "pre-nup" proposed by Earhart to Putnam expressing her "reluctance to marry" and adhere to the institutions "medaeval (sic) codes"; George Palmer Putnam's correspondence and documentation from the search for his wife. "Purdue is digitizing all of the pieces of the collection and making many available on the internet" per Katherine Markee, associate Prof. of Library Science. You want me to mail you the article, Ric? Joe Weber Bedford, IN ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks for the heads-up Joe. No need to send the article. It will be interesting to see there is anything new in the "Putnam's correspondence and documentation from the search for his wife." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:34:14 EST From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty The very first television picture was transmitted by John Logie Baird in 1926 from one room to another. In 1927 he successfully sent a moving image along telephone wires from London to Glasgow, and the following year he achieved the first trans-Atlantic television broadcast. Baird also applied his genius to many other revolutionary electronic signal fields such as fibre-optics and, during the war, radar. http://www.scotclans.com/clans/1926.htm Dale ************************************************************************* From Ric Alba go bragh. ************************************************************************ From Alan Chris Kennedy wrote: >Perhaps Alan Caldwell just missed it. I was not the one writing about a TV Hole. I think that was Hue. Alan *************************************************************************** From Alan > If you are going to act as the authority for many of the things on this > forum, I suggest you endeavor to get your facts straight (something you > regularly chastise others for failing to do). Katz, if you're incapable of a civil response don't make any at all. I have never claimed to be an authority of anything. Clearly the incident I referred to was not accurate as Murray was only five in 1908. The event however I mentioned was NOT on the airwaves but via wire from one room to another. It was not "aired anywhere. It WAS in 1908 and a simple early experiment. Should I find the source I will be happy to supply it to you. Alan *********************************************************************** From Ric The above posting has been edited for civility. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:36:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Tom Strang wrote: > For Alan Caldwell, > Question - Why do you find it necessary at times to become the > Earhart Forum behavior guardian? Not behavior, Tom. Although I guess you're right to the extent I nick at folks who like to put down ideas instead of offering their own. That always turns out to be a difference of opinion I imagine as the argument is that simply disagreeing is also a positive offering. I just see it as otherwise. We have outstanding people working very hard to research and analyze all the issues this business has to offer. Anyone can then sit back with no effort and simply disagree which they are entitled to do but it doesn't accomplish anything. what I keep fussing about is I would like to see less of that as it takes up a lot of response time. It would be a bigger help for the various critics to give a measured reason as to why something is wrong. Katz, nicked back at me for my 1908 TV comment but at least he offered what he thought the correct information should have been. That's the way it should be to move the search forward. I've been around long enough to anticipate a lot of posting in response to the post loss radio messages that only try to debunk them with the only basis being they haven't been 100% confirmed. We've already started getting those. If I could prove any one of those radio messages a hoax or definitely not from AE I would be the first to do it right behind Ric and a few others. But I can't do it just by claiming they aren't confirmed. We all know that. Maybe none of them are from AE. Who knows. Look at all the postings suggesting the Electra couldn't broadcast all the way to Betty. Did you ever notice any good support for that contention? But a lot of folks worked hard trying to explain why it WAS possible. My complaint is a lack of substance not about behavior. Everyone is welcome to behave any way they want. I appreciate the question, Tom. Although it obviously sounds like I'm chastising I don't mean it that way. I'm pleading. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:38:54 EST From: Bob lee Subject: Small world - pretty off topic I just got off the phone with my Mom and mentioned the Tighar raffle. She said that she met Amelia at Purdue University in '36 or '37 at a parents night. My mom's sister attended Purdue in those years and they traveled from Chicago for the event. I do remember having an Earhart book around our house when I was growing up. I did read it and it probably accounts for my long standing interest in the subject. I couldn't tell you which book -- it's probably been almost 40 years! Bob **************************************************************************** From Ric My guess would be Goerner's best-seller "The Search For Amelia Earhart" 1966 or the much rarer "Daughter Of The Sky" by Paul Briand 1960. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:40:44 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals >Receptions skip all over the place it would appear from >my experience. Alan, are you saying that the extensive ionospheric propagation studies made by/for Tighar are just unscientific -a complete waste of time? I've used simplified propagation software for a few years, and find it a great help. Regards. Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:43:35 EST From: Jim Kellar Subject: Tom King in Hawaii Tonight I attended Tom King's excellent presentation to the Hawaiian Historical Society. I was hoping to hear about the new "discovery" which Tom did in fact mentioned as much as he could. I was dumbfounded when, in response to any questions from the audience, one Gentleman got up and indicated that he was mentioned in Tom's book as "what's his name" and immediately began to attempt to dispel most of the content of Tom's presentation...his initials were R. R. Jim Kellar Honolulu ************************************************************************** From Ric Hoooo Boy. I'm sure Tom appreciated the input. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:47:09 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: refraction variability Ric wrote: > You may believe that Noonan had the capability to do that, and maybe he did. > And maybe he didn't. If he had the capability maybe that's what he did, or > maybe he made a different decision than Gary LaPook would make. If you said that you were going to swim to the bottom of the swimming pool and hold your breath and you didn't say anything more I wouldn't expect to find you still there an hour later. You have to make reasonable inferences from the statements made even when the statements are silent as to the subject of the inferences. My inferences are based on well established navigational techniques used by other navigators of the era and well known to Noonan (in fact he is credited with developing some of them.) Even though the last messages are silent about what they are going to do to locate Howland it is reasonable to infer that they will use the standard navigational techniques in that attempt. gl ************************************************************************** From Ric You can make all the inferences you want but don't confuse them with facts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:52:00 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: refraction variability Ric wrote: > Gary's observation that AE and FN were probably figuring on hitting sun-up > much closer to Howland than they did - and thus had a much longer daylight > run-in to the island than anticipated - was worth waiting for. It's just a > shame that we have to wade through all the manure to find the occasional pony > but that's the way it goes. Come on Ric, not that much "manure." Admittedly I get pretty long winded some times but I just want to give everybody enough information to evaluate the points I am trying to make. Also, I keep in mind that some people are tuning for the first time so I like to divine the terms so that they can follow the discussion too. gl ************************************************************************** From Ric If you're trying to reach first-timers I submit that it is especially important to keep it short and simple. Nothing makes most people's eyes glaze over more quickly than celestial navigation (unless it's radio propagation). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:54:14 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: 157/337 Line of Position Stoker wrote: >What occurs to me is that > unless the heading approaching Howland is 67 degrees, there is an angular > difference from the lop that causes the timing to reach the exact 157/337 > line, (from the initial lop plot), which passes directly through Howland to be > different if north or south. I responded: >Since the LOP that they were on determined by shooting the sun within one hour >after sunrise at Howland runs 157* - 337* it is parallel to the same LOP that >runs through Howland. Since the two LOPs are parallel it is exactly the same >distance between them whether north or south of Howland so there would be no >difference in timing the run to the turn in point. Stoker asked: >Question: when was the last opportunity for FN to >make a 2 or 3 celestial body observation and get both latitude and longitude? Sunrise at Howland was 1746 Z and civil twilight occurred 22 minutes earlier at 1724 Z at which point the sky would have been too bright to see the stars and to obtain a fix. Sunrise and civil twilight would have occurred even later at their position west of Howland by an additional one minute for each 15 NM that they were west of Howland. We can assume that they had arrived close to Howland at 1912Z when they reported "must be on you." This is 1 hour and 48 minutes after civil twilight at Howland. and the Electra would have flown 235 nautical miles in this time at 130 knots. Civil twilight occurred 16 minutes later 235 west of Howland so they could have obtained a fix slightly later than 1724 Z at 1740 Z which would mean that the plane flew one hour and 32 minutes from a 1740 Z fix to the 1912 Z report covering approximately 195 NM. Using Weem's standard for DR accuracy of 5% of the distance flown, this would produce a possible DR inaccuracy of slightly less than 10 NM. Add to this inaccuracy of 10 NM the possible prior fix uncertainty if 10 NM gives a total uncertainty of their DR of only 20 NM. at the time of the 1912 Z report. Using a more conservative estimate of DR accuracy of 10% of the distance traveled then the uncertainty becomes 19.5 NM plus the original 10 NM fix uncertainty for a total uncertainty of 29.5 NM. gl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:54:46 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Alan Thank You for trying to focus our scope. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:41:41 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Alan wrote: > We have outstanding people working very hard to research and analyze all the > issues this business has to offer... It would be a bigger help for the various > critics to give a measured reason as to why something is wrong. What you have is a limited number of people still interested in this arcane topic. If you had the best people of the WHOLE scientific population working on these issues, you might have some additional varying input. For example, to one story I keep coming back to (and it has *not* gotten any stronger, has it, with time? ), the Betty account. If you submitted that story now, with its dates and content, to impartial judges from the science and history (and graphology) communities, what do you believe the overall conclusions would be? An *impartial* jury, not a selected jury of believers. > Look at all the postings suggesting the Electra couldn't broadcast all the > way to Betty. Did you ever notice any good support for that contention? But a > lot of folks worked hard trying to explain why it WAS possible. BS. You have ONE supposed expert analysis of path loss mathematics and then others' opinions yea or nay. And that analysis starts without any firm figure for the actual output of the plate circuit of the vacuum tube transmitter to the actual RF current in the antenna, disregarding power level and antenna matching issues. The nay-sayers have mostly opined from practical experience, which doesn't cut it in this court, and I have no major problem with that, against ONE analysis blinding us with science or mis-science. I travel slowly, but if I have to hire a radio propagation consulting firm, I will do this. I am moving slowly in this direction now. If you think nay-saying posts are actually crowding out good, substantial information from coming through, maybe the rules of the forum should be modified: No more contrary posts, only happy talk! But before that measure is instituted, Alan, what is YOUR opinion of the story line now, that days after the landing on Niku, we have AE and FN back in the plane, panic stricken, water still up to knees, listening to a radio receiver that's been flooded for days, AE fighting to keep FN from using his microphone, while she broadcasts that fight to the world? You don't need an electronics or physics background to have a conclusion on that, so please, make a contribution to our grasp of that issue Or, is having a doubt on that issue too anti-progress? Hue *********************************************************************** From Ric You need to make up your mind Hue. Is this forum just a chorus of believers or is there a nay-saying crowd that puts out good, substantial information ? Your obsessive campaign to discredit Betty's notebook has been going on unfettered for months now and you're still a voice in the wilderness with perhaps one or two adherents. You've tried repeatedly to make your case but your argument keeps coming down to your own opinion that the event is not credible. I think I just heard you make the argument that this forum is not relevant unless it agrees with you. As always, we'll welcome any evidence you can come up with support your case but meanwhile we'll continue to examine this and all the other post-loss radio issues with the best resources available to us. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:46:47 EST From: Tim Henderson Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Has Robert Ballard ever been approached about a search for Amelia's plane? He recently located PT 109 which was a small needle in a haystack. Tim Henderson....still burning the landing lights *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess you're new to the forum Tim. Ballard has no interest in looking for Amelia Earhart and we have no interest in changing his mind. And the claim that he found Pt 109 is bogus. He did not find anything that established that the little bit of wreckage he found was from PT 109. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:48:45 EST From: Rom Corbitt Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty Re: Baird as inventor of television Not true. Baird was one of several early mechanical television inventors, but not the first. Charles Jenkins started working on his system in America in the late 1890's and was transmitting by late1923 (Baird's first wireless tests were mid 1924.) By 1928 Jenkins had sold around 1000+ receiving sets and was transmitting television signals via W3XK. In time over 40 stations would transmit television signals using his standard. Farnsworth, the inventor of what we now consider television, designed his electronic television system around 1923 and was transmitting test patterns via radio waves by 1927. I have a 1930 Radio Physics book that has a section on television, with two electro mechanical plans and an overview of the "promising Farnsworth Image Dissector" television system, which they predict will one day replace mechanical systems. Tom Corbitt ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:35:58 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Great News We have just received word from Fiji that Nai'a (the ship we use for our expeditions to Niku) has enough paying customers to conduct their 2003 Phoenix Rising Expedition to the Phoenix Group of which TIGHAR's Niku V Preliminary Expedition (Niku Vp) is a part. This means that we'll be able to send a small TIGHAR team to Nikumaroro this June to do vital reconnaissance and data gathering in preparation for the major Niku V effort planned for 2004. Of course, this also means that we'll be able to check out the possible Electra component spotted by a marine biologist last year. With the present world situation there was real doubt that Nai'a would be able to find enough passengers who would and could pay the $9,300 charter fee to make the long and arduous trip. As recently as a month ago the chances of an expedition going out this year could best be described as slim to none, but thanks to a few TIGHAR members who recognize how important it is that we get this preliminary work done, the trip is officially on. The dates have been moved very slightly for logistical reasons. Nai'a will now depart Lautoka, Fiji on May 31 and return on June 23. The exact itinerary has not yet been finalized but we know we'll have enough time at Niku to do the work and gather the information we need. At this time, the TIGHAR team will be made up of TIGHAR board of directors member Skeet Gifford ( a veteran of both the 1999 and 2001 expeditions), Walt Holm (a member of the Dive Team on the 2001 trip), and Karin Sinniger (a diver who completed the TIGHAR aviation archeology course and field school at Edwards AFB, CA last October). We very much want to send our Dive Team Leader, Van Hunn, along on this trip. Van is a veteran of the past three TIGHAR expeditions to Nikumaroro and accompanied me on the 2001 archival research trip to Tarawa. Van has also been working very closely with me on researching the identification and, if appropriate, recovery of the suspected Electra component. Raising the $10,000 needed to send Van along is one of the primary goals of the Paradise Now raffle. We also very much want to raise the money needed to send TIGHAR Earhart Project Advisory Council member Marty Moleski to Fiji for six weeks to continue the search for the bones. Marty's special circumstances make it possible for us to send him on that mission for the bargain basement price of about $5,000. It's an opportunity we don't want to miss. So we need to raise $15,000 a soon as possible. The Paradise Now raffle has now covered its administrative costs and is making progress against that goal ($1,675 so far). Obviously we need to keep pushing. Now is the time for all good TIGHARs............ If you haven't bought chances in the Paradise Now raffle please do so. If you have, buy some more. It's easy via TIGHAR secure website at www.tighar.org LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:40:20 EST From: David Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty Holy Cow! Now we are in full-fledged rebuttals about who invented or started inventing or had the first inkling of it! my money is on Leonardo da Vinci . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims > Alan Thank You for trying to focus our scope. Thanks, Ron for the support but I am not really trying to focus our scope though I may come off that way. Communication by email is worse even than face to face. To focus almost implies narrowing the scope which I would certainly not want to do. Nor would I want to discourage dissent. We need all the positive offerings we can get and all the dissent anyone wants to offer IF, IF , IF the dissenters will also provide support for the dissent rather than mere opinion. I don't even have a problem with someone saying for example I don't think Betty's notebook is legitimate but I have no reason other than a gut feeling. The dissenters don't even go that far but rather pretend through what they may think is clever language that they actually are showing evidence to support their position. If that's what you mean by focus then right on. Opinions are fine. Just label them so so we don't have to waste time on them if we don't wish. Many mere opinions can be valuable in sprouting new ideas. I just object to opinions being couched in the cloak of fact or rationale and to the constant putdowns. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:42:34 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: refraction variability Gary wrote > I get pretty long winded some > times but I just want to give everybody enough information to evaluate the > points I am trying to make. Gary, without getting in between you and Ric on this I appreciate this particular "long winded" dissertation on possible error on that in bound leg. Admittedly there are some assumptions involved and errors can also cancel each other out as they are not necessarily all additive but it is still important to have some kind of handle on a possible error at Howland. Alan, who can also be long winded and a creator of long sentences. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:45:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals Christian wrote: > >Receptions skip all over the place it would appear from my experience. > > Alan, are you saying that the extensive ionospheric propagation studies > made by/for Tighar are just unscientific -a complete waste of time? No, Christian, I'm saying "Receptions skip all over the place it would appear from my experience." Alan ******************************************************************* From Ric From my experience it would appear that the sun sinks into the sea every night and is reborn each morning. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:50:51 EST From: David Carmack Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims Sorry Ric-- I respectfully disagree here. I think Hue makes very good points as do others . Just because some don't have the expertise to back up their contrary opinions doesn't make them wrong, or mean that they shouldn't express them. I throw some out myself sometimes in the hope that some here that do have the expertise would use it to prove or disprove it. I don't have any concrete examples but I would bet there have been lots of times in history in many different arenas where some numbskull assistant said something like--hey , why don't you just connect these thingamabobs!! ..and the expert tried it and it worked! like the joke about the members of Mensa in a restaurant---they were trying to figure out how they could get the pepper into the salt shaker and the salt in the pepper shaker only touching them once or something like that-------the waitress came over, asked them what they were trying to do...after they told her, she took the lid off the salt shaker , put it on the pepper and the lid off the pepper onto the salt. I don't have it quite right but you get the idea. I think what Hue and many others would like to see is the same effort put towards proving or disproving anyone's idea...not just what side TIGHAR believes in. I see no more obsession on Hue's part ,and he does try to back up most of his ideas with knowledge, than the obsession you and Alan and others have regarding your own ideas. And it often sounds like no one else's ideas are relevant unless they agree with TIGHAR's unless they have absolute, irrefutable, video tape proof . It seems like there is just too much bias sometimes. Of course all the disagreements do keep things interesting. I know you cant examine every hair-brained idea people have...but at the same time a person can also get to narrow -minded and believe in only their own idea too much. I see no more malicious intent in Hue's postings than I do in some on the other side of the fence, including your own sometimes Ric. I think everyone here wants to see the same result--finding what really happened. I hope no one is looking at it from the standpoint of wanting to be able to say--I told you so. Its so hard to keep personal feelings and egos out of things like this, on both sides, and that's exactly what detracts from the main focus and being able to keep an open mind in a civil manner. It's fascinating and wonderful to see all the people with knowledge and expertise in different fields putting them to use here, but the insinuations, and egos really do weaken the entire effort. Why not just declare sequester everyone with different ideas and suspend the whole forum till one side or the other can come back with either the plane or proof with Gods stamp of approval on it . David C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:47:18 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Winds or errors? Randy Jacobson wrote: >The reason for the northward track of the Oakland to Honolulu flight >relative to the great circle or rhumb line path was due to southerly winds >of a fairly major weather cell, documented in weather charts compiled after the flight from contemporary observations. Whilst you may in a sense be right, this presupposes that Noonan was making either no allowance for wind vector in his headings or far too little. Surely the reason for the northward track is actually navigational error(s) or incorrect forecasts or are we to assume that Noonan didn't bother with wind corrections? The fact that there seems to have been enough weather information to later compile a weather chart rather suggests that there should have been enough for a reasonably accurate forecast. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:56:08 EST From: Mike Juliano Subject: Re: "Catalog" of Radio Signals During that "post signal loss time" there was some pretty severe weather encountered by the PBY out of Hawaii I was wondering if your radio people took into consideration that cold air mass and figured it into "skip" equations? Mike J. ************************************************************************** From Ric There are no "skip" equations and I know of no "cold air mass" in the region. As I recall, Randy found that the severe weather the PBY encountered appears to have been a local condition. Electrical storms can cause locally severe static but the PBY was a long way from the search area. Do any of our radio gurus have further thoughts on this? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:46:07 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Extraordinary Claims For Alan Caldwell, Thank you for your response to my question - I appreciate your candor, it clarifies your previous posts. Respectfully: Tom Strang *********************************************************************** From David Katz > Katz, nicked back at me for my 1908 TV comment but at least he offered what > he thought the correct information should have been. That's the way it should > be to move the search forward. Actually, it was more than the "1908" reference. The incident I cited from 1930 in Chicago was the first commercial "broadcast", that is, it was sent over the airways (as opposed to closed-circuit), it was sponsored by commercial enterprises, and it was aired to the general public. Of course none of this has anything to do with the search for Amelia Earhart (or Betty's notebook, for that matter) so we should drop it entirely. David Katz ******************************************************************** From Jackie Tharp To David Carmack: I'd like to give you one great big THANK YOU for your insights on the forum. I have often thought and felt the same sentiments, and really appreciate the way you've articulated them. I stopped participating in the forum for quite a while for just those reasons... Way to Go.... Jackie Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:48:38 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: For Hue from Betty I rather thought my reply to "Caldwell" was civil. Katz ************************************************************* From Ric I guess civil is in the eye of the subscriber. Everybody is a bit touchy these days. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:56:27 EST From: Jim Preston Subject: A Pilot's Question? Ric, I am new to your web site and find it very entertaining sometimes. Like a bunch of little kids squabbling over whose sandwich is better. As a veteran pilot. I was wondering how many pilots are in your forum as there are a lot, it seems to me, of unprofessional and unknowledgeable statements and questions being made. Jim Preston *********************************************************************** From Ric Yes, there are a lot of unprofessional and unknowledgeable statements and questions appearing on this forum, but pilots have always been like that. Fortunately we have a good balance of people from many disciplines and we all learn from each other. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:05:38 EST From: Paige Miller Subject: Extraordinary Claims Ron Bright says: >I suggest we hold off on the evaluation of the signal evidence that one or >more of the signals on 3105 received by the professional stations during that >first few days of AEs loss was from Earhart, or "more than likely" or >whatever standard of proof we shall require. Why wait? I'm not evaluating the entire mass of data that Ric hasn't yet revealed. I've laid out the logical argument, with the few small facts that Ric has already divulged. For anyone out there, go ahead, take potshots at my logic. Tell me where the logic fails. I've laid out my criterion for coming to the conclusion. Argue with that if you want to. One can certainly take the small amount of data Ric has revealed already and fit it into your logic. I see nothing wrong with that. Now, add in the additional evidence in Ric's study, which has not yet been made public. How will that affect the logic? Not at all. How will it affect the standard for coming to a conclusion? Not at all. Will the as-yet-unrevealed evidence support and reinforce the conclusion I come to? I expect it will, although I also know that very often there are surprises in the evidence that force you to re-think the conclusion, or that not every piece of evidence fits into the puzzle. We shall see. And we shall argue some more. LTM Paige Miller #2565 ************************************************************************** From Ric Something that might actually be quite useful is for everyone to give some thought as to what patterns they would expect the messages to follow if they were mosty hoaxes; mostly misunderstandings; or mostly authentic. For example, if most of the supposed post-loss messages were actually misunderstood transmissions by the search vessels to, or about Earhart, should the number of reported events over time bear some relation to the number of radio-equipped vessels participating in the search? Or, if most of the supposed post-loss messages were actually hoaxes, should the number of reported events over time bear some relation to pattern of media coverage of the search? LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:06:58 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Winds or errors? We do not have the available forecast for this flight, as it was probably verbally given to them in Oakland. Hindcasts are performed based upon land stations and all ship reports, some of which are not radio'ed in. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that FN/Manning/AE/Mantz took the direct route assuming still air, and made adjustments based upon wind drift and set accordingly. Maybe they just didn't trust the weatherman's predictions or it wasn't worth the effort to account for the winds. My suspicion is that they wanted reasonable weather along the route, and that is what they used the forecasts for, not to adjust flight paths. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:23:16 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Other shortwave sources ? Radio guys: The July 5th , 1937 NY Times listed a number of shortwave stations that could reach the South Pacific during that summer. Unfamiliar with "meter bands", kilocycles and megacycles, herewith are what some stations were broadcasting on and their frequencies. Maybe you, Hue or Mike E., can translate them to shortwave kilocycles/ megacyles relating to AE 3105 and 6210 Kilocycles, or harmonics. Japan's station JZK sends on 15.16 megacycles. Japan's stations JVN and JZK send on 10.6 megacycles and 11.3 megacycles. In June and July 1937 Japan was broadcasting in the late afternoon to Eastern US, starting with English. Twin stations in Caracas, Venasuela, are YV-5RA on 960 kilocycles and YV-5R0 on 5600 kilocycles. Fiji Island station VPD-2 sends out on 8.719 megacycles. CQN, Macao, China, sends on 10.02 and 9.94 megacycles. BW-4, Hongkong, sends on 15.19 meg. ZBW-3 sends on 9.53 meg. EAST COAST STATIONS (summer 37) W2XAD Schenectady sends on 15.33 megacycles or 19.56 meters, 10Am to 8PM EDT. W2XAF, Schenectady, sends on 9.53 megacycles ors 31.43 meter band, 4pm to 12pm EST. Both stations send out news, music, etc. Maybe these frequencies have nothing to do with AE's aircraft frequencies. LTM, Ron Bright ********************************************************************** From Ric This is good information Ron. To my inexpert eye, stations JZK in Japan (15.16 Mcs); BW-4 Hong Kong (15.19 Mcs); and W2XAD Schenectady (15.33 Mcs) were all pretty close to 15.52 Mcs (the 4th harmonic of 3105). As far as we know, nobody was surfing the harmoics of 3105 looking for signals from Earhart, but people who regularly listened to these shortwave commercial broadcasts may have stumbled across calls from Earhart. In fact, one of the shortwave listeners, Thelma Lovelace, said: I had the radio on "short wave" as there was a program of Japanese music that I got every morning. As I passed back and forth across the dial near the station (where) I usually got the program, I picked up this voice, loud and clear - the message was "Can you read me? Can you read me? This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart. Please come in." ... LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:32:03 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Purdue Giving Access to more Papers >Was the Putnam/Earhart marriage based on the usual things marriages are >based upon, or was it seen as basically a good business deal? All good marriages are good business deals. I'm no expert on AE's marriage (and neither is anybody else) but I do know that she was very apprehensive about being married at all and even gave Putnam written notice on their wedding day that she would not be faithful to him nor would she expect him to be faithful to her, and that if they had not "found happiness" after one year she would split. Apparently, however, it turned out a lot better than she expected. It was primarily a business arrangement, to be sure, but they seem to have been genuinely happy together and very fond of each other. Frankly, neither one of them sounds like someone I would want to spend more than 20 minutes in the same room with, but I think they were "right" for each other. Mary Lovell's book "The Sound of Wings" has the best treatment of the relationship that I have seen. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:40:16 EST From: Rick Metzger Subject: Re: refraction variability As a mechanical failure and fire investigator along with a pinpoint metal detector builder, I just came on here to find more detailed info on AE and the 10, but it seems like everyone is quick to bad mouth someone for a statement of thought or idea. Sometimes you have to look at the whole picture as opposed to a small item as a piece of metal or fabric. As an investigator sometimes it takes numerous small pieces to make a conclusion. Ric, TIGHAR has done a great service in isolating small bits and pieces that as a whole point to a realistic plan that the plane did come down near Gardner Island. A land search first, shore, then out to the edges of the reef. Exhausted, then you look to the sea floor. With the close proximity of the islands to their route why would they just fly until they ran out of fuel? Would you not circle until you found an island? Then circle it to find the best landing spot, using the best available light. three cents worth.... ************************************************************************** From Ric From the moment that Commander Warner Thompson decided that the plane must have come down in the ocean northwest of Howland, the search for Earhart has been a war of egos, but an adversarial environment is not all bad and is, in fact, necessary if we're ever going to get to the truth. When people's feet get held to the fire there's bound to be some yelling. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:50:19 EST From: Monty Fowler Subject: So how's the raffle going? In the midst of all the minutiae of whether Fred did or did not offset, who heard who and when, whether or not they could have/would have/should have done *insert your favorite topic here*, I have a really important question - How's the raffle going? LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 *********************************************************************** From Ric Pretty good, but it needs to do better. With three weeks left to go we've sold 250 chances and brought in a total of $5,175, but some of that has to go to administrative costs. We need to raise $15,000 to send Van Hunn on Niku Vp and Marty Moleski to Fiji to look for the bones. In a real boost to the campaign, last night we had a pledge from a TIGHAR member for a special grant request to a large Philadelphia-based foundation for $7,500. If we pull together we can reach our goal. Help the expedition and help yourself by buying raffle chances via the TIGHAR website at www.tighar.org LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:56:09 EST From: Harvey Schor Subject: Re: Winds or errors? Randy Jacobson wrote: >The reason for the northward track of the Oakland to Honolulu flight >relative to the great circle or rhumb line path was due to southerly winds >of a fairly major weather cell, documented in weather charts compiled long > but pilots have always been like that. A General friend of mine said his son told him he wanted to be a pilot when he grew up. My friend told his son he couldn't do both. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric True story: When I was working in aviation accident investigation the head of our Claims Department observed that most of our losses were caused by dumb pilots. The head of Underwriting replied, "Dumb pilot is a redundancy." Moving beyond this orgy of self-deprecation, let me say that a good working knowledge of how airplanes work and how pilots ope