[ARC5] Pre-ARC-5 rigs.

[AKLDGUY .]

The flight was 24 hours duration. One wonders what arrangements were made
for basic bodily functions, and whether AE was distracted by an urgency to
perform those functions in the excitement of an imminent landing.

Such matters that are trivial in the normal course of events can assume
huge significance at critical times.

73 de Neil ZL1ANM


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:18 AM, AKLDGUY . <neilb0627 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike
>
> I hope your hip joint operation went well. All the best for a speedy
> recovery and I look forward to your posts as always.
>
> 73 de Neil ZL1ANM
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Mike Hanz <aaf-radio-1 at aafradio.org>
> wrote:
>
>>  On 8/4/2014 11:41 PM, AKLDGUY . wrote:
>>
>>  > It means nothing of the sort.  It simply means that, *if true* (which
>> is unverified by any documentation you have produced),
>> > that she may have obtained it as a loan of a commercial receiver from
>> US Navy sources.
>>
>>  I did not claim it was true. I said:
>> "obtained ... via the US Navy." means (if correct) that it WAS a military
>> radio.
>> Why are you accusing me of claiming that she *did* obtain a Navy RA-1,
>> and castigating me for failing to produce documentation to that effect?
>>
>>
>> I wasn't questioning the supposition that she might have carried that
>> particular receiver.  What I could not understand was the conclusion that
>> it was a military radio simply because it might have been a loaner from the
>> US Navy.  The logic of that pairing simply escapes me, especially when I
>> have a 1941 Bendix brochure here that shows their whole commercial line,
>> led by the RA-1B.
>>
>>
>>  > I'm beginning to understand why Tighar was unresponsive to publishing
>> your theories.  If you have something solid to
>> > hang them on, then fine, but all I have seen so far is butterflies in
>> the wind.
>>
>>  I have not posted my theory (singular) to the group or any individual
>> subscribed to it. I have also made it clear that radio malfunction or radio
>> misoperation by Earhart is NOT any part of my theory.
>>
>>
>> That was an unwarranted presumption on my part, Neil, and I do apologize
>> for not realizing that.  What I perceived was by breaking down your posts
>> into bite size pieces and trying to understand the whole.  Those pieces,
>> like the probably non-existent Navy supplied RA-1B being termed a military
>> radio, were tilting my logic meter.
>>
>>
>>  I believe that both her radio receiver and her transmitter performed as
>> designed. What I have been trying to establish is what type of receiver she
>> carried to determine whether it was inherently prone to mis-setting of
>> frequency due to having a non-direct frequency readout. Meaning that if she
>> had to look at a chart and then she mis-set the numbers on the dial, that
>> would explain why she was unable to hear the "Itasca".
>> If this receiver identification issue had established that the readout
>> was direct, my theory would be a little more likely, since she would have
>> been less likely to have made a mistake.
>> As it turns out, nobody on the group has been able to conclusively
>> identify the receiver, which does not yet diminish my theory.
>> I'd like to think we could remain on good terms without bitterness, and
>> if you really want, I'll make up a written version of my theory and send it
>> to you.
>>
>>
>> No need.  Now that you have explained where you were going with this, it
>> seems as good a theory as anyone else has presented.
>>
>>
>>  Several years ago I promised to send my theory to about 7 people on the
>> ARC-5 group who had requested a copy. I started to write it up, then
>> thought better of it because I felt it would antagonize those people. You
>> need to understand that I'm not an American and cannot afford to antagonize
>> Americans who may leap to the defence of Earhart, who in my theory was
>> guilty of a criminal act, namely the kidnapping and unintended death
>> (manslaughter) of her navigator, Noonan.
>> I'm mindful of the fact that *some* Americans might not take kindly to
>> criticism of one of their own by a foreigner, just as some New
>> Zealanders would undoubtedly be angered by criticism from an American (or
>> anyone else). I'm not singling out Americans here. New Zealand has
>> petty-minded and racist individuals of its own.
>>
>>
>> You certainly won't get any defensive reaction from me because of her
>> citizenship - she was an idiot.  I also apologize for being somewhat
>> prickly last night - I am about to undergo a hip joint replacement this
>> morning and I'm trying to get a zillion things finished.  Not enough time
>> in the day.
>>
>> Have a good day,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>