Author Topic: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?  (Read 7554 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11942
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2018, 07:39:28 PM »
According to the hypothesis that some bones that were roughly the right size were hers ...

Not roughly, they're fairly precise.

Quote
gosh it would be cool if we found them, so let's hypothesize that Earhart and Noonan didn't actually know where they were...

That's actually not something that needs to be hypothesized. They didn't have a clue.

They were lost because they got lost.

(I don't think there's much doubt about that, the questions are how far off course were they and is it possible they made it to Gardner Island, and died there.)
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.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11942
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2018, 07:45:44 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.

The Coast Guard article indicates the search area reached as far as Arorai Island, which is a lot further from Howland than Nikumaroro.

EDIT: And as far west as Tarawa Island, which is even further away.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 07:47:56 PM by CarbShark »
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.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11942
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2018, 11:46:13 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.

Actually by the British officer on the island who first gathered the remains and reported them:

https://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/tarawa.html.
Quote
From The Officer-in-Charge, Phoenix Scheme, Gardner Is.,

To   The Resident Comissioner, Ocean Island.

No. 71.......................................... (Date) 23rd Sept., 1940.

Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it.

Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,
(b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,
(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stencilled) and 1542 - sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.
Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull.

There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the "Norwich City".

Gallagher.
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

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9047
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #48 on: March 09, 2018, 09:47:08 AM »
According to the hypothesis that some bones that were roughly the right size were hers ...

Not roughly, they're fairly precise.

There can be no precision when Earhart's bone sizes are being estimated from a photograph of her. "Roughly the same size" is the best they can do with what they have.
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

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11942
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #49 on: March 09, 2018, 10:04:01 AM »
According to the hypothesis that some bones that were roughly the right size were hers ...

Not roughly, they're fairly precise.

There can be no precision when Earhart's bone sizes are being estimated from a photograph of her. "Roughly the same size" is the best they can do with what they have.

OK, it seems like they're within 5mm, so not terribly precise



Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques | Jantz | Forensic Anthropology

Quote
Estimation of Humerus and Radius Length

Among the many photos of Amelia Earhart is one showing her standing with right arm fully extended holding a can of Mobile Lubricant (Figure 6). An exemplar of the can was obtained by Jeff Glickman of Photek. A known dimension of the oil can provides a scale allowing the pixel coordinates of points on Earhart’s arm to be converted to linear distances (Glickman 2017). The major difficulty is identifying osteological points underlying the soft tissue. Figure 6 shows the locations for proximal and distal humerus and radius estimated to correspond to measuring points on dry bones. It is not possible to locate these points exactly, but they should provide reasonable approximations. The points shown in Figure 6 yield a humerus length of 321.1 mm and a radius length of 243.7 mm, compared to 325 and 245 for the corresponding Nikumaroro bones. The brachial index obtained from these estimate is 75.9, which compares favorably to the 76 obtained by Glickman on a different photograph (Glickman 2016b)
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: 8734
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #50 on: March 09, 2018, 11:52:23 AM »
It is interesting data. I am not saying that it is not but it isn't 99% proof that it is Earhart at this point. Not to me. While it is good that it has been reviewed that just is not enough. We need other experts in the field to weigh in on this and if they feel like the methodology is valid they need to recreate the findings. It is just not great evidence at this point. If someone had a study that said, "I have found with 99.9% statistical significance that when rats eat graham crackers they get cancer." I would not stop eating graham crackers. The study would have to be assessed and repeated and a number of other things.
common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11942
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #51 on: March 09, 2018, 01:12:13 PM »
It is interesting data. I am not saying that it is not but it isn't 99% proof that it is Earhart at this point. Not to me. While it is good that it has been reviewed that just is not enough. We need other experts in the field to weigh in on this and if they feel like the methodology is valid they need to recreate the findings. It is just not great evidence at this point. If someone had a study that said, "I have found with 99.9% statistical significance that when rats eat graham crackers they get cancer." I would not stop eating graham crackers. The study would have to be assessed and repeated and a number of other things.

I think that's perfectly reasonable and pretty much my opinion here.

When I first saw coverage of these articles I assumed they were going to be easily debunked hoaxes (my own knee jerk reaction).

When I saw it in Science Daily and followed the link to a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal in the field by an expert in the field, that led me to more carefully review the claims and evidence.

I do have a few questions:

How reliable is the radio signal strength estimates of distance?

How reliable is Earhart's and Noonen's estimate of fuel remaining, and is that based on actual gauges reporting amount of fuel in tanks, or did they estimate based on time and speed.

It's safe to assume they never ran out of fuel on that trip in that aircraft, so even if they had a good idea about how much fuel was left, would that give them an accurate estimate as to how much flight time they had left?

This article raises criticisms of the previous analysis of the original study of the bones that are based, in part, at least, on the writer's own authority. Are those criticisms accurate? (This includes disagreeing that specific techniques used in 1940 are still used to this day).
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

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9047
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #52 on: March 09, 2018, 05:14:56 PM »
... OK, it seems like they're within 5mm, so not terribly precise ...

How many people died in that general region during a time frame that could have left bones there? How many of those might have had the same length arm as Earhart? I think it would be reasonable to give these bones a 1% chance of being hers if there were not other evidence suggesting she probably didn't die anywhere near there. When we factor in the probability that having successfully navigated almost all the way around the world they would have gone that far off course so suddenly, I'll say there's (IMO) about a 0.02% chance these bones are hers.

I think the most likely explanation is that Earhart and Noonan navigated correctly and were where they thought they were, but had a mechanical failure with their airplane. These were two extremely experienced and competent aviators. The hypothesis that they were way off course is a claim that requires more evidence than "We found some bones on this island that we think might be the right size."
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

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19416
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #53 on: March 09, 2018, 06:13:47 PM »
I read that they were flying into the sun. . . It is very possible that they were very close to the Itasca but missed their target in the glare. I doubt they missed their traget by much but when they did, they were screwed.
"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 Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4508
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #54 on: March 09, 2018, 06:33:17 PM »
By the way, you know a tramp steamer wrecked on  Nikumaroro?

I didn't know that - here are the important bits from Wiki:

Quote
During a storm on 29 November 1929, the unladen freighter was carrying a crew of 35 men when it ran aground on Nikumaroro.

In total, 11 men lost their lives. The survivors camped near collapsed structures from a late-19th century coconut-planting project and were rescued after several days on the island.

The devastated wreck of the Norwich City was a prominent landmark on the reef for 70 years, though by 2007, only the ship's keel, engine, and two large tanks remained. By 2010, only the engine remained above water on the reef.

Earhart crashed in 1937, and they found the bones in 1940. So if they were her bones, they were only a few years old when they found them.  Would they still have a little flesh on them?  Or something to distinguish them from an 11 year old skeleton?

If they were from the steamer incident, they would've been from somebody who died in the few days before the rescue... maybe the rescue operation didn't want to take bodies of the dead?
Amend and resubmit.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11942
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #55 on: March 09, 2018, 06:36:47 PM »
... OK, it seems like they're within 5mm, so not terribly precise ...

How many people died in that general region during a time frame that could have left bones there? How many of those might have had the same length arm as Earhart? I think it would be reasonable to give these bones a 1% chance of being hers if there were not other evidence suggesting she probably didn't die anywhere near there. When we factor in the probability that having successfully navigated almost all the way around the world they would have gone that far off course so suddenly, I'll say there's (IMO) about a 0.02% chance these bones are hers.

I think the most likely explanation is that Earhart and Noonan navigated correctly and were where they thought they were, but had a mechanical failure with their airplane. These were two extremely experienced and competent aviators. The hypothesis that they were way off course is a claim that requires more evidence than "We found some bones on this island that we think might be the right size."

Again, you're not reading the article. The island was uninhabited at the time. Very few people in the region would have had her physical makeup, that was a very sparsely populated part of the Ocean, if people were missing they generally would have been reported.

It seems that you're pulling your number0.2% no based not on the evidence, but on the knee-jerk reaction to yet another story about Earhart. 
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.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11942
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #56 on: March 09, 2018, 06:42:12 PM »
I read that they were flying into the sun. . . It is very possible that they were very close to the Itasca but missed their target in the glare. I doubt they missed their traget by much but when they did, they were screwed.

Based on what do you doubt they missed their target by much? They're flying by night, over ocean with no lights or landmarks to guide them. The antenna used for navigation wasn't working (they couldn't hear broadcasts from the Itsca). The navigator (Noonen) was not that good or experienced.

Only a slight deviation (a degree or less) from their intended course could put them far off by sunrise.

Plus, if they were close, thought they were north of the ship but were south, then when they turned south (as they said they were doing) that would have taken them directly to the island. That would have been the first land they would have encountered.
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.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11942
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #57 on: March 09, 2018, 06:46:10 PM »

Earhart crashed in 1937, and they found the bones in 1940. So if they were her bones, they were only a few years old when they found them.


Crabs. Giant crabs. (Seriously)

Quote
Or something to distinguish them from an 11 year old skeleton?

If they were from the steamer incident, they would've been from somebody who died in the few days before the rescue... maybe the rescue operation didn't want to take bodies of the dead?

Covered in the article. (It's not that long, and it's an interesting read.) Also, the British official on the island when the bones were discovered also indicated they were not associated with the shipwreck.
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.

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19416
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #58 on: March 09, 2018, 07:26:36 PM »
I read that they were flying into the sun. . . It is very possible that they were very close to the Itasca but missed their target in the glare. I doubt they missed their traget by much but when they did, they were screwed.

Based on what do you doubt they missed their target by much? They're flying by night, over ocean with no lights or landmarks to guide them. The antenna used for navigation wasn't working (they couldn't hear broadcasts from the Itsca). The navigator (Noonen) was not that good or experienced.

Only a slight deviation (a degree or less) from their intended course could put them far off by sunrise.

Plus, if they were close, thought they were north of the ship but were south, then when they turned south (as they said they were doing) that would have taken them directly to the island. That would have been the first land they would have encountered.

Visual horizon at 10,000 feet is 122 miles. . . They don't have to be perfect as long as they get close enough to see the island and/or vessel.  Even at 1,000 feet, there is almost a 40 mile visibility.
"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

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9047
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
« Reply #59 on: March 09, 2018, 07:58:37 PM »
... Again, you're not reading the article. ...

Pooh. The article talks about estimates of her bones from the photograph, and of a seamstress estimating her limb length from measurements of her clothing. If you estimated my bone lengths from my wardrobe you'd be lucky to get within an inch of the correct measurements. The article says that some people suggested it was people who died after the wreck, or a Pacific Islander, and they answer "we have no evidence of survivors or islanders." I remind you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

They have a pet theory, that this is Earhart, and they've got some extremely weak arguments (not actual evidence, just arguments about photographs and seamstresses and a report of the examination of bones that no longer exist and might never have existed) and basically they're saying there's so little evidence that "...you can't prove it ain't so."

Sounds a lot like flying saucers to me.
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