[Milsurplus] A.E. Project ( If you accept this mission )

[Michael Hanz]

You are not the only one, Hue.  A number of other well qualified folks 
have commented on the papers, and there are legitimate questions about 
some of the conclusions.  I've stayed out of it, other than offering 
historical material (which seems to have been subsequently credited to 
others,) but it seems to me that a proper peer group technical consensus 
was never really achieved.  In the final analysis, it doesn't amount to 
a hill of beans.  There are far more important things in life.

On 10/6/2015 3:31 PM, Hue Miller wrote:
> I seem to find logic problems with some TIGHAR material.
> Here’s something I noticed in just a couple minutes:
> The resultant power ratios for the 2nd through 5th harmonics are:
>
>        H2 H3 H4 H5
>        .0679 0.318 0.057 0.049
>
> The output power at a given harmonic is the product of its power ratio and the WE-13C output power at the fundamental, which was 50 watts (Morgan, 1941). The resultant harmonic output power levels, in watts, for θ=140°, are:
>
>        H2 H3 H4 H5
>        33.96 15.88 2.84 2.47
>
>
> The H2 ratio appears to be a power of ten error. Article was posted in 2006. No one reads this material?  Maybe the appearance of math formulas
> is daunting.
> TIGHAR’s physics professor resource, Bob Brandenburg, states that the aircraft’s antenna was “broadly resonant”. What does “broadly resonant” mean?
> There is a pole of selectivity between the tube plates and free space. I do not believe you can just show some calculus and then claim that there’s enough
> power radiated to reach wherever. You can’t just say, as TIGHAR seems to, that x watts are dumped into the antenna and therefore.....
> It depends on the antenna’s impedance at that harmonic also.  A low impedance at the harmonic is not going to be an efficient match to the tube
> plate. I don’t think TIGHAR wants to investigate this too far; they have their conclusion already, and they’re satisfied with it.
>
> There’s an account under the title “The Girl Who Heard Amelia”. I have watched the interview video ( no longer available? ) and I pointed out at the time
> some questions, such as: How could Betty have heard Amelia talking on the radio while Amelia was listening for signals at the same time?  How likely is
> the phrase “Take it away, Howland?” Does that sound more like a radio show or a distress call? What about Betty’s notes about hearing a station “WOJ”
> calling?  ( Such callsign never reported but may have belonged to AT&T ). And more.
>
> The fact that there was no RA-1 control box does not entirely rule out an RA-1. The RA-1 receiver can be locally OR remote controlled. There is a probability,
> not a surety.
>
> I don’t have a problem with TIGHAR’s hypothesis. But unfortunately, like cults or religions, there’s only so many questions they  allow, because they’re
> so convinced they’re right. Now, how could anyone be so rudely uncooperative as to say, “Hey, wait a minute” ?
> -Hue Miller