Author Topic: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?  (Read 4561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18326
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2018, 02:32:04 PM »
My big item is that all the other evidence indicates that she did not land or crash on Nikumaroro.
Best evidence is that she crashed somewhere north of the Itasca's position.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7693
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2018, 02:34:14 PM »
Sounds like people have made up their minds not based on the analysis of the evidence or even reading the article but more of a knee-jerk reaction to any report about the topic.

While others are ready to believe every claim out there, as long as it goes against the mainstream.

I think in this case it is fair to be skeptical because we are talking about an extraordinary claim. The evidence needs to be equally extraordinary. Open-minded skepticism. Open-minded to the possibility that this could be true but skeptical until more evidence is available.

What makes this claim extraordinary ?
The history of false claims to the same thing.  That and it is a needle in a haystack problem.

And the fact that there is actual evidence from the radio signal that she was nowhere near there at the time.

... If that's the case, then a number of those "false claims" may not have false at all.

Only one of the "We found Earhart" claims could possibly be true. All the others must be false. And there's no special reason to believe that any of them is true.

I am open to changing my mind if evidence is presented. Comparing an analysis of lost bones to a photograph is not evidence. It's certainly not convincing evidence in the face of the myriad other such claims, no more than one of which could possibly be true.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7693
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2018, 02:37:02 PM »
... The remains and other evidence were discovered contemporaneously, they were thought to be her remains until the 1940 study ruled them out.

"Were thought to be her remains" by whom? I suppose by some guy who decided some random bones in the wrong place were hers.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4314
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2018, 02:59:42 PM »
I'll believe it when they find her plane.  Or another body with DNA... I assume that could be matched with a relative or something.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9858
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #34 on: March 08, 2018, 03:14:40 PM »
... The remains and other evidence were discovered contemporaneously, they were thought to be her remains until the 1940 study ruled them out.

"Were thought to be her remains" by whom? I suppose by some guy who decided some random bones in the wrong place were hers.

Read the article in the journal.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9858
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #35 on: March 08, 2018, 03:15:53 PM »
Sounds like people have made up their minds not based on the analysis of the evidence or even reading the article but more of a knee-jerk reaction to any report about the topic.

While others are ready to believe every claim out there, as long as it goes against the mainstream.

I think in this case it is fair to be skeptical because we are talking about an extraordinary claim. The evidence needs to be equally extraordinary. Open-minded skepticism. Open-minded to the possibility that this could be true but skeptical until more evidence is available.

What makes this claim extraordinary ?
The history of false claims to the same thing.  That and it is a needle in a haystack problem.

And the fact that there is actual evidence from the radio signal that she was nowhere near there at the time.

... If that's the case, then a number of those "false claims" may not have false at all.

Only one of the "We found Earhart" claims could possibly be true. All the others must be false. And there's no special reason to believe that any of them is true.

I am open to changing my mind if evidence is presented. Comparing an analysis of lost bones to a photograph is not evidence. It's certainly not convincing evidence in the face of the myriad other such claims, no more than one of which could possibly be true.

All of the claims relating to these remains and this evidence found on this island could be true.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9858
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #36 on: March 08, 2018, 03:20:32 PM »
My big item is that all the other evidence indicates that she did not land or crash on Nikumaroro.
Best evidence is that she crashed somewhere north of the Itasca's position.

They hypothesis is that they thought they were north of the Itasca's position and headed south to Gardner Island, where the landed (crash landed) on a reef or the beach.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting that is plausible, including radio signals and search planes reporting signs of recent habitation on the island not realizing it hadn't be inhabited for decades.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7693
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2018, 04:05:30 PM »
All of the claims relating to these remains and this evidence found on this island could be true.

Yes. They could be true. Or they could be false. There's no actual evidence either way. In the absence of evidence, the null hypothesis seems more likely to me: It wasn't her.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18326
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2018, 04:21:23 PM »
My big item is that all the other evidence indicates that she did not land or crash on Nikumaroro.
Best evidence is that she crashed somewhere north of the Itasca's position.

They hypothesis is that they thought they were north of the Itasca's position and headed south to Gardner Island, where the landed (crash landed) on a reef or the beach.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting that is plausible, including radio signals and search planes reporting signs of recent habitation on the island not realizing it hadn't be inhabited for decades.

If they started north of Itasca, they would not have enough fuel to reach Nikumaroro.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

The longest record for unpowered flight for an airline is Air Transat Flight 236 at 75 miles. Aircraft typically fall as something like 2,000 feet per minute. At maximum altitude, which I suspect that they were not, the Electra would need to be within 40 miles of the island when it ran out of fuel. 
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9858
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #39 on: March 08, 2018, 04:38:24 PM »
My big item is that all the other evidence indicates that she did not land or crash on Nikumaroro.
Best evidence is that she crashed somewhere north of the Itasca's position.

They hypothesis is that they thought they were north of the Itasca's position and headed south to Gardner Island, where the landed (crash landed) on a reef or the beach.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting that is plausible, including radio signals and search planes reporting signs of recent habitation on the island not realizing it hadn't be inhabited for decades.

If they started north of Itasca, they would not have enough fuel to reach Nikumaroro.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

The longest record for unpowered flight for an airline is Air Transat Flight 236 at 75 miles. Aircraft typically fall as something like 2,000 feet per minute. At maximum altitude, which I suspect that they were not, the Electra would need to be within 40 miles of the island when it ran out of fuel.

They (Earhart and Noonen) thought they were north of Itasca. They weren't, according to the hypothesis.


The Earhart Project

Quote
Having failed to find Howland Island, Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan continued on the navigational line Amelia said they were following.
That line led them to uninhabited Gardner Island where Amelia landed the Electra safely on the island’s fringing reef.

TIGHAR: The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Shibboleth

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8540
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #40 on: March 08, 2018, 04:51:08 PM »
It is statements like these that drive me nuts.

Quote
Based on this information, Jantz concludes that "until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers."


No. You have the burden of proof. You are not the null. You don't have the bones so you are going off the measurements that someone made half a century ago and you don't have the size of Amelia's bones just inferences from pictures and clothes. All that you can say is that the size of the bones look to be the size of Amelia Earhart's bones based on what we know and a few inferences. Great. That is interesting information. I still think that it is entirely possible, even probable, that the bones belong to someone else. Before I am willing to accept that they are Amelia I need more conclusive evidence.
common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18326
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2018, 05:19:58 PM »
My big item is that all the other evidence indicates that she did not land or crash on Nikumaroro.
Best evidence is that she crashed somewhere north of the Itasca's position.

They hypothesis is that they thought they were north of the Itasca's position and headed south to Gardner Island, where the landed (crash landed) on a reef or the beach.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting that is plausible, including radio signals and search planes reporting signs of recent habitation on the island not realizing it hadn't be inhabited for decades.

If they started north of Itasca, they would not have enough fuel to reach Nikumaroro.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

The longest record for unpowered flight for an airline is Air Transat Flight 236 at 75 miles. Aircraft typically fall as something like 2,000 feet per minute. At maximum altitude, which I suspect that they were not, the Electra would need to be within 40 miles of the island when it ran out of fuel.

They (Earhart and Noonen) thought they were north of Itasca. They weren't, according to the hypothesis.


The Earhart Project

Quote
Having failed to find Howland Island, Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan continued on the navigational line Amelia said they were following.
That line led them to uninhabited Gardner Island where Amelia landed the Electra safely on the island’s fringing reef.

TIGHAR: The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery

May I recommend finding sources other than somebody with motivated reasoning?
I did think that Itasca had a D/F on the Electra which they appear to have not.
I did also find that her radio skills seem to be poor as hell
http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/earhart/a955/
As well, with her signal strength when she ran out of fuel she had to be close. That kind of precludes the traveling 350 nautical miles to Nikumaroro.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7693
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2018, 05:56:24 PM »
... They (Earhart and Noonen) thought they were north of Itasca. They weren't, according to the hypothesis.

According to the hypothesis that some bones that were roughly the right size were hers because, gosh it would be cool if we found them, so let's hypothesize that Earhart and Noonan didn't actually know where they were...

Come on, get real: Somebody found some bones. No evidence whatsoever to connect them to Earhart and they're in the wrong place. But, hey, one guy mistakenly thought they were a man, so maybe everything else we know might be wrong also and they could be hers. Sure, they could be hers. My birthday could be the winning number in next week's lottery, too, but I wouldn't bet a dollar on either.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9858
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2018, 06:15:09 PM »
My big item is that all the other evidence indicates that she did not land or crash on Nikumaroro.
Best evidence is that she crashed somewhere north of the Itasca's position.

They hypothesis is that they thought they were north of the Itasca's position and headed south to Gardner Island, where the landed (crash landed) on a reef or the beach.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting that is plausible, including radio signals and search planes reporting signs of recent habitation on the island not realizing it hadn't be inhabited for decades.

If they started north of Itasca, they would not have enough fuel to reach Nikumaroro.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

The longest record for unpowered flight for an airline is Air Transat Flight 236 at 75 miles. Aircraft typically fall as something like 2,000 feet per minute. At maximum altitude, which I suspect that they were not, the Electra would need to be within 40 miles of the island when it ran out of fuel.

They (Earhart and Noonen) thought they were north of Itasca. They weren't, according to the hypothesis.


The Earhart Project

Quote
Having failed to find Howland Island, Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan continued on the navigational line Amelia said they were following.
That line led them to uninhabited Gardner Island where Amelia landed the Electra safely on the island’s fringing reef.

TIGHAR: The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery

May I recommend finding sources other than somebody with motivated reasoning?
I did think that Itasca had a D/F on the Electra which they appear to have not.
I did also find that her radio skills seem to be poor as hell
http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/earhart/a955/
As well, with her signal strength when she ran out of fuel she had to be close. That kind of precludes the traveling 350 nautical miles to Nikumaroro.

That was simply the source for explaining what the hypotheses is. The first step should be to fully understand what the claims being made are.

While the Wings Over Kansas page makes for interesting read, that's not exactly high quality evidence either.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18326
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2018, 06:59:18 PM »
That was simply the source for explaining what the hypotheses is. The first step should be to fully understand what the claims being made are.

While the Wings Over Kansas page makes for interesting read, that's not exactly high quality evidence either.

Signal Strength Five is supported by many sources

http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2012/07/itasca-the-search-for-amelia-earhart/
The original log use the description "Signal Strength Very Good" when discussing the Electra circling (0758)
Personally I think the Coast Guard article is the most plausible of what occurred.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 07:02:07 PM by Desert Fox »
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

 

personate-rain