Earhart’s “post-loss messages”: Real or fantasy?

Among the most misunderstood themes surrounding the search for Amelia Earhart is that of the so-called “post-loss” messages that were allegedly received in the days following Amelia’s last official message on July 2 to the Coast Guard Cutter Itasca.  These messages, received both in voice and code by a variety of people, were heard mainly in the central Pacific Ocean area and the West Coast of the United States.  Practically since the day of her loss, inquiring minds have asked whether these messages sent by Amelia Earhart, were they the products of the overheated imaginations of earnest ham-radio operators, or were they outright hoaxes? 

While working on Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last between June 2007 and April 2010, I looked into this complex issue as best I could – as a most emphatically non-technical expert on the state of 1930s short-wave radio propagation equipment, capabilities and techniques.  The result of my ad hoc study was a lengthy, 11,000-plus word chapter, “The Search and the Radio Signals,” that later had to be cut out of the book because the manuscript was too long to present a publisher. 

Simply trying to read and understand the technical analysis that’s available is a nightmare for a layman not familiar with the scientific terminology that accompanies such discussions.  And though these posts will barely scratch the surface of this almost inscrutable subject and represent only an unschooled layman’s perspective, I feel it’s important to revisit these messages, if only for posterity and the scant few who might be interested.

Coast Guard Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts led the Itasca radio team during the last flight of Amelia Earhart.

I’ll try to present the most well-known of the post-loss messages, in some sort of timely order, so that readers can become familiar with some of the key people who were involved in this controversy.  Later, we’ll consider what several radio experts have to say about the validity of these messages.  No true unanimity or even consensus about whether any of the messages was legitimate has ever been reached among Earhart experts, but the sheer volume of these messages demands that they not be forgotten.

Twelve-and-a-half hours after Amelia’s last message to the Coast Guard Cutter Itasca, a radio operator at Nauru, which had not been asked to assist in the Earhart flight, sent a “wire note” to KPH, an RCA short-wave station in San Francisco, requesting that it be sent to Itasca:


Commander Warner K. Thompson, Itasca skipper, included this message in his report without comment, but Almon Gray, a former Navy reserve captain and Pan Am Airways China Clipper flight officer, believed the signals, sent on 6210 kc and received at Nauru at 9:31, 9:43 and 9:54 p.m. July 2 (Howland time), merited “serious consideration,” for several reasons, beginning with the fact that 6210 was the correct frequency for the Earhart plane, and that “it was not a commonly used frequency in that area,” Gray wrote.

The McMenamy and Pierson reports

Just before midnight July 2 (Pacific time), the Associated Press reported that amateur radio operators Walter McMenamy and Carl Pierson, both of Los Angeles, claimed to have heard radio signals on frequencies known to have been used by Amelia:

Walter McMenamy said he picked up weak signals on 6210 kilocycles at 6 P.M. (10 P.M. eastern daylight time) and heard the letters “L-a-t” which he took to mean latitude.  The letters were followed by indecipherable figures. The signals continued for some time.  Mr. McMenamy expressed belief they came from a portable transmitter.  He received other signals from a Coast Guard boat, presumably the cutter Itasca, requesting listeners to “stand by and listen on all frequencies.”

At 8 P.M. (midnight Eastern daylight time), Carl Pierson, chief engineer of the Paterson Radio Corporation, picked up similarly weak signals on 3105 kilocycles, Miss Earhart’s daytime frequency.  He said they were erratic and indecipherable.

United Press reported that “the powerful Los Angeles amateur station had been hearing code S O S signals all night. This morning what appeared to be a radioed position of the plane was picked up.  ‘It was a 179 and what sounded like 1.6,’ said McMenamy.  “If that meant latitude and longitude, we calculate it would be somewhere 300 or 400 miles off the coast of Howland Island.”

McMenamy and Pierson reported hearing more signals on 3105 kc on the morning of July 6 that they believed came from Amelia, but could not make out the indistinct words.  The San Francisco Division forwarded McMenamy’s position in its message to Itasca as QUOTE 179 WITH 1 POINT SIX IN DOUBT UNQUOTE POSITION GIVEN AS QUOTE SOUTHWEST HOWLAND ISLAND. Since Itasca was erroneously told in an earlier message that the Electa “could probably use its emergency transmitter [in fact, it had no such equipment] on water, Thompson wrote that this information could not be ignored and proceeded to the westward of the report area and searched 2000 square miles on July 4 without result.

Both Pierson and McMenamy had met Amelia and monitored her messages during the 1935 flight from Honolulu to Oakland, thus their claims of recognizing her voice carried a degree of credibility. The pair had a new rig and tower at Santa Paula in Southern California where they thought reception was the best, wrote Fred Goerner, who interviewed them in the late 1960s.

Unfortunately, McMenamy appears to have fallen victim to the brief notoriety he enjoyed. following his alleged receptions.  “Walter McMenamy is a ding-a-ling,” Goerner told Fred Hooven in a 1971 letter. … “McMenamy claims AE flew directly to an island and landed on time.  They broadcast from the island for several days, and they were picked up by the U.S. Navy. Noonan, he says, ‘is probably still living.’  He says he saw Noonan in 1949 or 1950. That he had changed his name and was ‘still with Navy intelligence.’  AE, he adds was alive until November 6, 1945, when she was killed in a headon [sic] crash of a pair of Navy planes near Guadalcanal.  He said he got his info regarding AE from the FBI.”

The Coast Guard Cutter Itasca was anchored off Howland Island on July 2, 1937 to help Amelia Earhart find the island and land safely at the airstrip that had been prepared there for her Lockheed Electra 10E.

The Coast Guard Cutter Itasca was anchored off Howland Island on July 2, 1937 to help Amelia Earhart find the island and land safely at the airstrip that had been prepared there for her Lockheed Electra 10E.

Karl Pierson was “an entirely different story,” Goerner continued.  “A quiet, brilliant former radio engineer, he is now in charge of several research projects at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute at La Jolla, California, and he lives in San Diego.  He says he is convinced the messages he and McMenamy received in 1937 in the days following the disappearance actually came from AE.  He apologized for McMenamy by saying that McMenamy has ‘gone around the bend.’ Pierson says what puzzles him to this day is the attitude of the Navy toward the messages they received.  He says he still feels the Navy did everything it could to discredit the amateur radio operators who reported possible Earhart messages. Pierson adds that he had a very close relationship with AE at the time of her 1935 Honolulu-Oakland flight, and that he monitored her radio transmissions during that entire flight with great success.

McMenamy and Pierson were soon joined by more amateur operators in the continental United States claiming they heard Amelia’s distress calls on their shortwave radios.  In Rock Springs, Wyoming, 16-year-old Dana Randolph had designed a new antenna to enhance long-distance reception and was listening during the morning of July 4 when he heard, “This is Amelia Earhart. Ship is on reef south of the equator.  Station KH9QQ.” [sic] The transmission quickly faded, but Randolph and his father were directed to a local Commerce Department radio operator, whose investigation revealed that the reception was made at about 16,000 kc, a harmonic of 3105.

In messages to Itasca about the Rock Springs report, the Coast Guard’s San Francisco Division said this information may be authentic as signals from midpacific [sic] and orient often heard inland when not audible on coast” and “investigation reveals signals heard near sixteen megacycles thought to be from khaqq.  Earlier on the morning of July 4, Ray Mahoney, of Cincinnati, claimed he heard a message similar to the one reported by Dana Randolph. “The signals were weak,” Mahoney told the Associated Press. About all I could make out were the call letters of plane and apparently it had hit a reef or was near a reef.  The AP report didn’t specify the frequency of Mahoney’s receptions.

George Angus, a Pan American Airways communications official in Hawaii, was notified about 2 a.m. on July 3 that the Earhart plane was missing, and he immediately set up watches at PAA’s radio stations on Midway Island, Mokapu (Honolulu) and Wake Island on 3105 kc and 6210 kc.  Angus also arranged a plan with Honolulu’s two commercial radio stations, KGU and KGMB, whereby they would interrupt regular programming to make special broadcasts to Amelia, asking her to respond if she heard them.  Immediately after KGU broke into its programming at July 3 at 10:30 p.m. local time, asking her to respond on 500, 3105 or 6210 kc, Mokapu station KNBF reported “a faint carrier on 3105 kc.” About four hours later, PAA station KNBI Wake Island, heard an “intermittent phone of rather wobbly characteristics” on 3105 kc, and Midway Island’s station KNBH reported hearing a “weak, wobbly signal which sounded like a phone” on 3105.

The following night, Angus was at the Mokapu station when KGMB broke into its programming at 8 p.m. local time, asking Amelia to send four long dashes on 3105.  Angus and K.C. Ambler, a PAA communications supervisor, immediately and distinctly heard four long dashes on 3105.  After Angus called KGMB and asked them to repeat their request to Amelia,only two dashes were heard and the second dash trailed off to a weak signal as though the power supply on the transmitter had failed, Angus wrote in his report.  The first four dashes were heard by the San Francisco Coast Guard station, Navy Radio Wailupe, KNBF (Mokapu), KNBH (Midway took bearing of 201, labeled approximate), Baker and Howland Islands, and the battleship USS Colorado (BB-45), soon to join the Earhart search. San Francisco heard the dashes on 3105 for the next six hours at twenty minute intervals, along with unintelligible voice. During the same time frame, Baker and Howland Islands heard a weak carrier NRUI [Itasca’s call letters] from KHAQQ.’”


The 281 Message

Early July 5, Itasca was notified by the Hawaiian Section of the latest possible reception from the Earhart plane:


This was the notorious “281 message,” a continuing source of speculation among researchers who have assigned a variety of interpretations to the number 281 that differ from that taken by Thompson and the Coast Guard.  The message, sent in poorly keyed code on 3105 kc, was heard by three operators at the Navy’s HF/DF station at Wailupe and by the British steamer SS Moorby, 370 miles north of Howland Island, as well as in California by Charles Miguel of Oakland.  Miguel reported hearing 281 … north … Howland … Can’t hold out much longer … drifting … above water … motor sinking … on sand bank 225 miles from Howland.

Thompson believed it was probably a faked message originating in the Hawaiian Islands, and labeled the Oakland reception “clearly fraudulent.”  The Itasca was 200 miles west of Howland when it was informed of the message, “searching down the 4 authenticated amateur reports,” according to Thompson, who wrote that it contained “useless information but the report required immediate check up.”

The message was immediately interpreted to mean the Electra was 281 miles north of Howland.  Itasca arrived at the position by dusk, and as USS Swan and SS Moorby approached the area later that night, two Itasca lookouts and the officer of the deck saw a distinct flare to the northward. It came up from and settled down to the horizon, Thompson wrote.  Itasca headed toward the light and called Amelia, asking her to send up another flare.  Moorby had not seen the flares, but Swan reported lights and considered them meteors, and Howland Island, 280-miles distant, also reported flares to the northeast and burned three drums of gasoline.  The flares were a meteor shower, Thompson concluded, but commercial radio stations had apparently been monitoring Itasca, resulting in a deluge of commercial requests.  An irritated Thompson wrote that the whole incident illustrates the extent to which ITASCA was being monitored by commercial concerns desiring toscoop others.  There is a need to control such matters and the release of such traffic to the press by commercial stations is a violation of law, it is believed.

As Itasca steamed northward to investigate the 281 message, San Francisco Division sent information that changed the whole search problems and virtually eliminated all intercepted radio traffic ideas (unless the plane was on land), according to Thompson:


Until this time the Itasca had considered plane had emergency radio capable of transmitting on water, Thompson wrote.  Although this message corrected misinformation San Francisco provided Itasca on July 2 about the Electra’s radio capabilities – plane may attempt to use radio on water as radio supply was battery and antenna could be used on top of wing – it perpetuated the false idea that the plane might be still afloat after three days in the water.

Fred Goerner reported that Joe Gurr told him the Electra “was absolutely capable of putting out a radio signal whether on the surface of the water, or on a reef or island.  He says he installed an emergency battery in the cockpit, and as long as the top of the plane was above water, a signal could be sent through the antenna on the top of the plane.  He also says that it was possible that Earhart’s signals might have been heard in the U.S. and not heard by vessels in the immediate Pacific area because of skip characteristics.”

Most others disagree, and insist that once in the water, the Electra would have been incapable of transmitting for a very simple reason: Seawater would have short-circuited her electrical system, Paul Rafford Jr. wrote.

Fred Hooven, the brilliant engineer whose inventions included the modern aircraft radio direction finder, a short-range radar set for World War II bombers, and the first successful heart-lung machine, thoroughly analyzed the post-loss transmissions during his longtime collaboration with Fred GoernerI have only two points of very minor disagreement with Gurr — one of which concerns the ability to transmit while in the water,Hooven told Goerner in a 1982 letter.  I have no doubt that some possibility existed of the transmitter operating with the plane in the water but am quite certain that the battery would not have provided the current to operate it for as much as an hour.  So that it is impossible to suppose that the signals that were heard over three days could have been transmitted from a floating plane.  It is for that reason that I absolutely agree with Lockheed’s verdict that there was no way for the plane to transmit from the water without the opportunity to run an engine to charge the battery.

The Electra’s potential flotation time is also unclear.  San Francisco Division’s statement that no fears felt for safety of plane on water on the third day after a possible water landing was clearly erroneous.  In 1998, researcher Bill Prymak, a pilot and engineer whose work in the Marshall Islands is presented in Truth at Last, studied the problem, plotting the Electra’s center of gravity from Lockheed documents and blueprints of the plane.  Prymak said hecame to the conclusion that within seconds of a no-damage (a miracle in itself) water landing, the nose would immediately tilt down into the water at a 50 degree angle.  For the empty cabin tanks to become buoyancy-effective they would have to be totally submerged, at which point the plane might float for a short while, but the cockpit would be nearly submerged even before the wing tank vents began filling with water. . . . There were no radio transmissions from Earhart’s plane if it was in the water.

Prymak estimates the Electra would be completely submerged within an hour or so.  Paul Rafford Jr. agrees, and writes, “had Earhart ditched, the Electra would have sunk shortly thereafter. An Electra that ditched off Cape Cod a few years later sank in a matter of minutes.”

Other alleged messages were reported in the days following Amelia’s loss, some more believable than others, but I have no desire to tax readers further than has already been done.  In my next post, we’ll take at more of what Hooven and other radio experts believed about their possible validity.

15 responses

  1. Fascinating details. I am left disappointed at the tens of thousands of pages that had to be omitted from Truth at Last – please consider compiling some kind of companion book that includes all that we readers missed!


    1. Well, not “tens of thousands of pages,” but a few hundred anyway. Those “lost pages” will come out in the wash someday, in some way.


  2. Many of the post-loss messages have to be categorized as real based upon the frequency used, the time transmitted, and the credibility of he multiple receiving stations reporting the same transmission. There was no one else in the mid-Pacific capable of transmitting on those frequencies.

    Yes, the McMenamy and Pierson reports were hoaxes. McMenamy said so many years later.

    Obviously, the plane was not floating on the water during these transmissions. The plane had to be either high on a reef or in shallow water along the beach where transmissions could be made.


  3. It’s worth the time to required to study the “Post loss Transmissions. Solved?” thread at Tighar. Messages were heard, yes, but they didn’t come from Earhart.



    1. Sorry, I respectively disagree.

      I believe some of those messages did come from Earhart. TIGHAR did a good job cataloguing, and analyzing all those post loss reports. It is one of the few times that I agree with their research.

      Please tell me who else was transmitting in the mid-Pacific on those frequencies?


  4. Which messages do you believe came from AE?
    Doubts circle around every one of them IMHO.


  5. As stated above, those messages dissected by TIGHAR and which they believe came from Earhart appear to be genuine.

    Now, as I asked above, and which you didn’t answer, please tell me who else was transmitting in the mid-Pacific on those frequencies in July 1937?


  6. You believe ALL the messages listed as ‘credible’ by Tighar [57 in total??] are genuine, including those reported by Dana Randolph, Mrs. E. Crabb, and Betty Klenck?

    To answer your question, we know the Itasca was attempting to contact AE on 3105kHz. Those messages could have been misinterpreted at other locations as coming from AE. Howland Island reported hearing Japanese music on 3105kHz. Signals were also picked up from radio stations in Nicaragua, possibly from Russia, and possibly from aircraft flying on the US west coast.

    Capt. Wilhelm Friedell’s report summed up the situation this way–

    “There was no doubt that many stations were calling the Earhart plane on the plane’s frequency, some by voice and others by signals. All of these added to the confusion and doubtfulness of the authenticity of the reports.”


    1. Nicaraguan transmitted code – no voice – that rules them out – period.

      The Itasca could transmit on 3105 but could not transmit voice on 6210. There were no, none, nada, Pacific ground stations transmitting on 3105 or 6210kHz

      Listening to short wave radio broadcasts on an old Hallicrafter as a kid in northern Michigan I often heard Asian stations overlap on the frequencies. I often heard Japanese radio signals bleed in and out from other tuned frequencies. So what’s unusual about that?
      As TIGHAR stated, there were no other central Pacific source of voice transmissions on 3105 other than the Itasca and Earhart emanating from the central Pacific.

      Notice, I said central Pacific. Since the Itasca logged all of their transmissions, the Colorado logged all their transmissions, Hawaii Coast Guard and Navy logged all their transmissions, just who was it that was transmitting on 3105 that Wilhelm Friedell was referring?

      Randolph’s report appears to be credible and why not? What Randolph exactly heard might be subject to debate but not the fact that he heard broken voice transmissions. Randolph’s report coincides with one heard by Mrs. Crabb in Toronto and from Pan-Am’s listening station at Midway and Honolulu – both of which also heard the broken voice transmissions at the same time coming from the 3105 harmonic. Both Midway and Honolulu reported the signals coming from the central Pacific.

      Regarding Betty Klenck’s notebook. – I don’t know what to think.


  7. Sorry, but not one of the reported ‘post-loss’ signals was positively identified as coming from Earhart. Even Bob Brandenburg over at Tighar admits- “All of the bearings were approximate at best, due to weakness and short duration of signals… And none of the signals included conclusive evidence as to the source identify.” [sic]

    It is tempting to believe AE was sending out distress calls, but there is absolutely nothing besides speculation to support the suggestion. You say you “often heard Japanese radio signals bleed in and out from other tuned frequencies. So what’s unusual about that?”

    I didn’t say that was unusual. It does on the other hand help to explain where signals heard on 3105 may have come from- they were not necessarily coming from the Central Pacific.


  8. “Sorry, but not one of the reported ‘post-loss’ signals was positively identified as coming from Earhart”

    Dave, if there had, we would not be having this discussion.


  9. Pierson / McMenamy Report:

    The spelling in your blog of KARL … is wrong. You have it as Carl.

    I just finished looking him up in the 1940 census… spelled with a “K”… and his wife was Irene. He was renting a house in Inglewood (L.A. County).

    Could not find his fraudster buddy, Walter McMenamy, which makes me think that Walter was not his actual first name. Perhaps his middle name.

    The two of them were human garbage creating the false reports that they did. “Walter” later admitted his false reporting. Everyone was trying to find AE and Noonan alive and these clowns were messing with the search.


    1. Well Jason, thanks. Many others made the same mistake. Most news accounts also spelled it with a “C,” but of course they could be wrong as well. Along this same line, with you obvious attention to detail, perhaps you can tell me whether Charles McGill and Charles Miguel, both of Oakland and both named in national wire stories from July 6 and July 6 in connection with the “281 message,” are the same person. To me is looks like McGill is the incorrect spelling, then they got it right the second time. Could such an incredible coincidence be possible? I suppose stranger things have happened. Your thoughts?


      1. I actually know very little about the overall story detail. My first read of “Finding Amelia” was my first exposure to details.

        However, news accounts are notoriously error prone whereas the census data tends to be accurate because the interviewer was either gaining data directly from the citizen or because the citizen himself filled out census data. In the case of Pierson, the census data showed (as a confirmation of identity) that he was employed in the
        radio field. So, in his case, his age, etc, all pointed to the correct person. And correct spelling.

        (His son, Donald, would today be 80 years old. His sons Allen & Richard would be 76).

        I mention this as such information eliminates chasing the information on the wrong person. I even viewed the residential house he was renting via Google streets. The house still stands and is descent even by today’s standards.

        As for the two you ask about, 300 different people show up with that name (McGill) and an approximate age is needed to narrow it down. I guessed the approximate age for Pierson with a photo from the book. If you have more than just their names, get back to me & I’ll try to track them for data.


      2. Thanks Jason, I’m sure you’re right about Karl Pierson, as this a name that can be easily misspelled by a reporter who fails to get it right the first time. After that it’s just repeated by others. I’m going to change that in the new edition.

        As for Miguel vs. McGill, you know as much as I do and “Miguel” seems to be the name reported by all news orgs after July 6. My original source was a 1971 letter from Goerner to Fred Hooven, and could have easily been wrong. But further checking showed that Miguel was the dominant spelling.

        BTW, Finding Amelia is good book as a reference for the search, but its title is about as incorrect as one can imagine. “Looking for Amelia,” or “Searching for Amelia” would be appropriate, but “Finding Amelia” is something Gillespie and TIGHAR will never do as long as they keep insisting on Nikumaroro. But that’s where the money is, so they won’t cease until it dries up.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: