Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Skepticism / Science Talk => Topic started by: CarbShark on March 07, 2018, 02:29:21 PM

Title: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 07, 2018, 02:29:21 PM
This may not be a hoax...

New forensic analysis indicates bones were Amelia Earhart's -- ScienceDaily]
 (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180307115506.htm)
Quote
Bone measurement analysis indicates that the remains found on a remote island in the South Pacific were likely those of legendary American pilot Amelia Earhart, according to a UT researcher.

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

 (http://journals.upress.ufl.edu/fa/article/view/525)
Quote
Bone measurement analysis indicates that the remains found on a remote island in the South Pacific were likely those of legendary American pilot Amelia Earhart, according to a UT researcher.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Billzbub on March 07, 2018, 03:27:34 PM
If that is a hoax, then someone went to an awful lot of trouble to perpetrate it.  It looks legit to me.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on March 07, 2018, 03:42:41 PM
When I see one of these I talk a long deep breath and put it on the shelf. I check back every few months.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Friendly Angel on March 07, 2018, 03:57:11 PM
They're hypothesizing that the plane landed on the island and then the tide washed it away?  That doesn't sound very likely.

The other stuff sounds believable though.  If so - she may have been alive for quite a while before an infection or something finished her off.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 07, 2018, 06:56:19 PM
Almost certainly no
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4295
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2016/11/01/even-more-amelia-earhart-nonsense/
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on March 07, 2018, 07:00:37 PM
I caveat'd my posts on this with "possibly". The final results will be the ones I'm interested in.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 07, 2018, 07:03:40 PM
Almost certainly no
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4295
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2016/11/01/even-more-amelia-earhart-nonsense/

Read journal article, I think he makes a pretty good case that the remains are hers.

And directly counters the argument that they belonged to a  "stocky male."

Personally I don't believe we need the hypothesis that she survived as a castaway to make these bones her.

Her body and the wreckage could have washed up on shore.

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on March 07, 2018, 07:22:03 PM
Let's see if there is any DNA to test.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 07, 2018, 07:40:21 PM
I read a book, I can find it if people wish, that supports the issues with the radio signals that indicates that she was to the northwest of Itasca while Nikumaroro Island is in a southerly direction.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on March 07, 2018, 07:42:26 PM
So they found a photograph of her (with clothes on, of course) and from that they determined the length of her bones. They found a skeleton on an island which has the same size bones as they determined from the photograph. And so these are the remains of Amelia Earhart? Yeah, right. Sorry, not convinced. I want more evidence than the size of bones as determined from an old photograph.

They claim that only 1% of people have bones of this size. How many people died in the Pacific ocean during the time that the bones might have been left there? (And a war going on!) If 100,000 people died in the area during the time these bones might have gotten there, and only 1% were the right size to match Earhart, then there's one chance in a thousand that these bones are hers.

https://youtu.be/nO2-VmgjVbM
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 07, 2018, 08:04:43 PM
Let's see if there is any DNA to test.

There is no DNA to test. They are examining records from the examination of the remains that were made in 1940. The remains have since been lost.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 07, 2018, 08:08:50 PM
By the way, you know a tramp steamer wrecked on  Nikumaroro?
Title: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 07, 2018, 08:13:03 PM
So they found a photograph of her (with clothes on, of course) and from that they determined the length of her bones. They found a skeleton on an island which has the same size bones as they determined from the photograph. And so these are the remains of Amelia Earhart? Yeah, right. Sorry, not convinced. I want more evidence than the size of bones as determined from an old photograph.

They claim that only 1% of people have bones of this size. How many people died in the Pacific ocean during the time that the bones might have been left there? (And a war going on!) If 100,000 people died in the area during the time these bones might have gotten there, and only 1% were the right size to match Earhart, then there's one chance in a thousand that these bones are hers.

No, they didn't find a photo or a skeleton. They are examining records and evidence from the past with a Forensic Anthropology approach.

Basically they are looking at the methodology that was used to reject the bones as belonging to her in 1940 and the second look at that evidence more recently (1988ish?) and finding flaws. But there were excellent records kept during the 1940s examination and using numerous photos of Earhart they are able to get an accurate estimate of the dimensions of her bones and compare that to measurements taken of the remains.

They find the remains are consistent with the sizes of her bones; other artifacts found with the remains are consistent with them being hers.

Not sure I'd be so quick to dismiss this.

By the way, you know a tramp steamer wrecked on  Nikumaroro?

Yes. And I was reminded of that when I read the article and that was discussed in depth.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on March 08, 2018, 07:02:47 AM
Earhart was declared missing before WWII started. JAN. 5, 1939, is the official date of death.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on March 08, 2018, 08:47:27 AM
So they found a photograph of her (with clothes on, of course) and from that they determined the length of her bones. They found a skeleton on an island which has the same size bones as they determined from the photograph. And so these are the remains of Amelia Earhart? Yeah, right. Sorry, not convinced. I want more evidence than the size of bones as determined from an old photograph.

They claim that only 1% of people have bones of this size. How many people died in the Pacific ocean during the time that the bones might have been left there? (And a war going on!) If 100,000 people died in the area during the time these bones might have gotten there, and only 1% were the right size to match Earhart, then there's one chance in a thousand that these bones are hers.

No, they didn't find a photo or a skeleton. They are examining records and evidence from the past with a Forensic Anthropology approach.

Basically they are looking at the methodology that was used to reject the bones as belonging to her in 1940 and the second look at that evidence more recently (1988ish?) and finding flaws. But there were excellent records kept during the 1940s examination and using numerous photos of Earhart they are able to get an accurate estimate of the dimensions of her bones and compare that to measurements taken of the remains.

They find the remains are consistent with the sizes of her bones; other artifacts found with the remains are consistent with them being hers.

Not sure I'd be so quick to dismiss this.

By the way, you know a tramp steamer wrecked on  Nikumaroro?

Yes. And I was reminded of that when I read the article and that was discussed in depth.

So they have no evidence at all. They have a report of an examination of the bones, and they think they know the length of her bones because they have a photograph. Somebody thought it was maybe her, but that was rejected because the examiner thought the bones belonged to a man. Now they've read the examiner's report and decided he was wrong, and the remains might not have been from a man. Ergo they must be from the most famous person lost in the Pacific around that time, in spite of other evidence strongly suggesting she was not lost anywhere near there.

Give me a break! The chances of this being Amelia Earhart, the most famous person to have been lost under mysterious conditions in that century, the person everybody wants to find, the person who is the subject of a new "We have now discovered her" report every year, are vanishingly slim.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Ah.hell on March 08, 2018, 09:34:59 AM
75% chance its BS. I bet that would increase if I actually look into the story and who's behind it.  Daniel is correct, every year or so there's a new press release by the same cast of characters along the lines of, "We've found Amelia Earhart!" and it turns out to be BS.  So, odds are, same here.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on March 08, 2018, 10:08:09 AM
Interesting review of data but I don't think that they can claim it is her in any way what so ever. Imagine if this was a potential murder case and they claimed they found the body by these criteria. Ridiculous. Without the bones themselves and DNA type information you cannot know for sure. Plus she is living in Brazil with Hitler. It can't be her bones.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on March 08, 2018, 10:18:48 AM
Plus she is living in Brazil with Hitler. It can't be her bones.
And Elvis. She's having a ball.  >:D
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 08, 2018, 10:30:32 AM
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.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Ah.hell on March 08, 2018, 10:44:44 AM
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.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that's reasonable in this case.
A.  These stories come up a lot and are usually BS.
B.  It really doesn't matter enough to do much critically thinking, unless this is a topic you're really interested in then, cool, have at it. 

Its sorta like a story about the latest flying car.  Its not implausible except there have been hundreds of such stories that didn't pan out.

Edit to add, the evidence is that the bones are the right length based on comparisons to old photos, meh, not very compelling.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on March 08, 2018, 10:46:30 AM
I have reserved stating an opinion until better information is available, as usual. I'd rather be right than first.
Title: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 08, 2018, 11:00:45 AM
75% chance its BS. I bet that would increase if I actually look into the story and who's behind it.  Daniel is correct, every year or so there's a new press release by the same cast of characters along the lines of, "We've found Amelia Earhart!" and it turns out to be BS.  So, odds are, same here.


Here’s a quote from the primary researcher’s wiki page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jantz

Quote
Richard L. Jantz is an American anthropologist. He served as the director of the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility from 1998–2011 and he is the current Professor Emeritus of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His research focuses primarily on forensic anthropology, skeletal biology, dermatoglyphics, anthropometry, anthropological genetics, and human variation, as well as developing computerized databases in these areas which aid in anthropological research. The author of over a hundred journal articles and other publications, his research has helped lead and shape the field of physical and forensic anthropology for many years.

Not one of the usual suspects. Also the article was peer reviewed and published in a well respected journal in the field.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 08, 2018, 11:12:49 AM
I have reserved stating an opinion until better information is available, as usual. I'd rather be right than first.


I understand that reluctance.

But there is noting wrong with being wrong as long as you’re open to that possibility and when faced with evidence that casts your position in doubt, you give it the same credibility as evidence that supports your position.

And be ready to change your position and admit you were wrong. Nothing wrong in that.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on March 08, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on March 08, 2018, 11:17:28 AM
I have reserved stating an opinion until better information is available, as usual. I'd rather be right than first.


I understand that reluctance.

But there is noting wrong with being wrong as long as you’re open to that possibility and when faced with evidence that casts your position in doubt, you give it the same credibility as evidence that supports your position.

And be ready to change your position and admit you were wrong. Nothing wrong in that.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True, but not the way I work. I'm not an early adopter of electronics, for instance. My phone had a wire on it until '08.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Ah.hell on March 08, 2018, 11:53:05 AM
75% chance its BS. I bet that would increase if I actually look into the story and who's behind it.  Daniel is correct, every year or so there's a new press release by the same cast of characters along the lines of, "We've found Amelia Earhart!" and it turns out to be BS.  So, odds are, same here.
He seems reliable, I still have my doubts about the methodology.  Comparing bone length to old pictures.

I also gave it a 75% chance of being BS, so room for doubt. I'd say, revisit in a few months and see what holes other experts have poked in the story.   

Here’s a quote from the primary researcher’s wiki page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jantz

Quote
Richard L. Jantz is an American anthropologist. He served as the director of the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility from 1998–2011 and he is the current Professor Emeritus of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His research focuses primarily on forensic anthropology, skeletal biology, dermatoglyphics, anthropometry, anthropological genetics, and human variation, as well as developing computerized databases in these areas which aid in anthropological research. The author of over a hundred journal articles and other publications, his research has helped lead and shape the field of physical and forensic anthropology for many years.

Not one of the usual suspects. Also the article was peer reviewed and published in a well respected journal in the field.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 08, 2018, 12:21:03 PM
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 ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Ah.hell on March 08, 2018, 12:53:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 08, 2018, 01:27:18 PM
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.

The root of this claim is that the contemporary (1940) analysis of the the evidence was faulty, which meant for decades that evidence was ignored.

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

As for the needle in a haystack, that's pretty well addressed. The remains and other evidence were discovered contemporaneously, they were thought to be her remains until the 1940 study ruled them out.

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Billzbub on March 08, 2018, 01:57:06 PM
To me, there are two issues.  One is whether the author did a good job with his research comparing the actual bone measurements to her photos.  The other is whether the remains are actually hers.

Based on the author's credentials and my reading of the story, it sounds to me that the bone measurements reported would fit her.  Do any of you disagree with this part?  It would put you in a position of challenging a complicated expert opinion with your arm-chair diagnostics.

However, the second part is much more contested.  Just because the bones fit doesn't mean they are hers.  The author addresses this, too, but having not read anything else about this like the report someone mentioned here that she may not have even been in the area, I'm not ready to believe they are "probably" hers.  Still, I'm not ready to dismiss the idea, either.

Those of you who like looking at studies, data, and statistical analysis may enjoy reading it if you haven't already.  It's free!
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Friendly Angel 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox 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. 
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr1.html)
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 (https://tighar.org/)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox 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 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr1.html)
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 (https://tighar.org/)

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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr1.html)
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 (https://tighar.org/)

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.

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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.)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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


(http://journals.upress.ufl.edu/fa/article/viewFile/525/519/1343)
Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques | Jantz | Forensic Anthropology (http://journals.upress.ufl.edu/fa/article/view/525/519)

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)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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).
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 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."
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Friendly Angel 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?
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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. 
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 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.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 09, 2018, 08:24:23 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.

That suggests that they weren't all that close, as not only should they have seen the ship, but the ship was also using smoke to help them.

(https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/MapsandPhotos/maps/LOPmap.jpg)

They thought they were north of Howland, but if they were a 100 miles south, and headed south, then Niku would be the first land they encountered.

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 09, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
You are then arguing that they were at least 6 degrees off course?
Otherwise, if we assume one hour of fuel, only talking 165 miles at most economical speed.
If they were only one degree off, they would not be within range of Nikumaru.

That is why I argue the exact same thing the Coast Guard article argues
Earlier radio transmission from Earhart indicated they flew through cloudy and overcast skies throughout the night. Due to the conditions north and west of Howland and the fact that the plane obtained no fix during the latter part of its flight due to cloudy weather, it was assumed the plane might have missed Howland due to flying into the glare of the rising sun.



Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 09, 2018, 10:10:48 PM
You are then arguing that they were at least 6 degrees off course?
Otherwise, if we assume one hour of fuel, only talking 165 miles at most economical speed.
If they were only one degree off, they would not be within range of Nikumaru.

That is why I argue the exact same thing the Coast Guard article argues
Earlier radio transmission from Earhart indicated they flew through cloudy and overcast skies throughout the night. Due to the conditions north and west of Howland and the fact that the plane obtained no fix during the latter part of its flight due to cloudy weather, it was assumed the plane might have missed Howland due to flying into the glare of the rising sun.

The other alternative is the the cloudy weather could have well prevented Noonen from doing astronomical sightings required for navigation, plus they seemed to be unable to receive transmissions from the Itasca, suggesting they could not use radio transmissions for navigation.

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 09, 2018, 11:07:45 PM
The other alternative is the the cloudy weather could have well prevented Noonen from doing astronomical sightings required for navigation, plus they seemed to be unable to receive transmissions from the Itasca, suggesting they could not use radio transmissions for navigation.

By the comments on the log that the signal is very strong indicates that they were pretty close.
You also realize that the cloudy weather was more to the north?
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 10, 2018, 07:29:01 PM
 
How reliable is that as an indication that the source is nearby?


They were reporting overcast skies throughout the night, which prevented astronomic navigation. Which is probably how and why they got lost.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 10, 2018, 07:42:06 PM

How reliable is that as an indication that the source is nearby?


They were reporting overcast skies throughout the night, which prevented astronomic navigation. Which is probably how and why they got lost.

Aircraft have flown over the oceans for years in cloudy conditions, even before modern navigational aids. They still almost always got close enough to find the runways. Noonan was suppose to be really good as well. Missing by 5 degrees or more seem doubtful.

While there is wiggle room, I doubt that they could have been greater than 300 miles away at the time. The last communication would have been when they were almost out of fuel and would have been ditching soon.   
Title: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 10, 2018, 08:14:35 PM
People hadn’t be flying that far over that ocean at night for years at that time. That was such a rare thing the navy sent a ship to meet them with fuel for the next leg.

I’ve heard Noonen wasn’t that good or experienced. 

I think the hypothesis is they thought they had gone too far and thought they were too far north, so they turned south, but instead they hadn’t gone far enough and were too far south.

The last communication was not loud and clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 10, 2018, 08:58:26 PM
The first transpacific airline flight was in 1936 and they had been carrying mail for almost a year before that.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/first-transpacific-passenger-flight

The article also mentions that Noonan was one of the best navigators.

I know it is hard to read but actually read the log
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/files/2012/07/Earhart_001.jpg
0758 Very Good Reception
0843 Good reception
Good reception still means loud and clear
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on March 11, 2018, 08:38:54 AM
I wonder about the idea that experienced aviators would have trouble with the early morning sun.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 11, 2018, 09:19:06 AM
I wonder about the idea that experienced aviators would have trouble with the early morning sun.

According to Amelia Earheart: The Mystery Solved, visibility in such a case is reduce to 15 miles. In addition, the actual position of Howland Island is 6 miles to the east of where it was on her chart.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on March 11, 2018, 10:25:31 AM
I wonder about the idea that experienced aviators would have trouble with the early morning sun.

According to Amelia Earheart: The Mystery Solved, visibility in such a case is reduce to 15 miles. In addition, the actual position of Howland Island is 6 miles to the east of where it was on her chart.

So she missed her target by six miles due to a defective chart. Not incompetence. A tragedy caused by a bad map. This is a much more likely explanation than that these two experienced aviators didn't know where they were.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 11, 2018, 10:29:03 AM
The first transpacific airline flight was in 1936 and they had been carrying mail for almost a year before that.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/first-transpacific-passenger-flight

The article also mentions that Noonan was one of the best navigators.

I know it is hard to read but actually read the log
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/files/2012/07/Earhart_001.jpg
0758 Very Good Reception
0843 Good reception
Good reception still means loud and clear
Thanks for that link, I worked at the NASM in the 80s and that brought back memories.

My understanding is that she was the first to attempt that leg of the flight.

There were other log entries from the Itasca that were very weak that came later. Those were not confirmed to be her.

I think it was the PBS special where they showed noonen wasn’t as good as his reputation. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 11, 2018, 10:54:10 AM
I wonder about the idea that experienced aviators would have trouble with the early morning sun.

According to Amelia Earheart: The Mystery Solved, visibility in such a case is reduce to 15 miles. In addition, the actual position of Howland Island is 6 miles to the east of where it was on her chart.

So she missed her target by six miles due to a defective chart. Not incompetence. A tragedy caused by a bad map. This is a much more likely explanation than that these two experienced aviators didn't know where they were.
Navigation in flight is not easy. You can use a compass to maintain a heading, but from the air you can’t know how strong head, tail or crosswinds are, so that’s not enough.


It’s done using visible sights on the ground, with a map; The stars; or radio stations with a known location. On that night they couldn’t use the stars and they couldn’t use radio and they couldn’t see anything on the ocean to help. For hours. Even the best navigator wouldn’t have known where they were.

Plus, visibility at Howland the next morning was just fine. At 1000 feet a 6 mile difference wouldn’t have mattered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 11, 2018, 03:47:54 PM
I wonder about the idea that experienced aviators would have trouble with the early morning sun.

According to Amelia Earheart: The Mystery Solved, visibility in such a case is reduce to 15 miles. In addition, the actual position of Howland Island is 6 miles to the east of where it was on her chart.


Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved: Elgen M. Long, Marie K. Long: 9781439164662: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439164665?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div)

Near the bottom of this page is an extended excerpt from that book describing what the author speculates happened on that last flight.

The TIGHAR hypothesis is slightly different. They suggest that Noonan would have been unable to make astronomical observations for a good part of the journey; that she had more fuel than assumed here; that she headed south looking for a spot to land, rather than continue circling.
Quote
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Chapter One: Tragedy Near Howland Island

Friday morning, July 2, 1937, Lae, New Guinea. It was not yet ten o'clock, but the tropical sun already beat down unmercifully on the twin-engine Lockheed Electra. Inside the closed cockpit, Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, could feel the heat build as they taxied away from the Guinea Airways hangar.

The heavily loaded plane lumbered slowly across the grassy airfield toward the far northwest corner. Soon they would take off southeastward toward the shoreline, to take advantage of a light breeze blowing off the water. When they reached the jungle growth at the end of the field, Earhart swung the plane around to line up with the runway for departure. Only 3,000 feet long, the grass runway ended abruptly where a bluff dropped off to meet the shark-infested waters of the Huon Gulf.

...
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 11, 2018, 09:37:11 PM
Going directly by the log,
At 0345, Itasca was able to get a signal but signal weak and fragmentary.
At 0602, Earhart reported being 200 miles away with reception poor.
At 0645 Earhart reported being 100 miles away with reception fair
At 0742, reception very good but reported low on fuel.
At 0843, reception good. That is probably just before she ran out of fuel.

By that, she would have been really close to Itasca, within maybe 30 or 40 mile at 0742. If she was closer to Nikumaroro, her signal strength would not improve like the longs indicate. If she had gotten more than around 100 miles from Itasca, she would have been at "fair" reception.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 11, 2018, 10:47:13 PM
Going directly by the log,
At 0345, Itasca was able to get a signal but signal weak and fragmentary.
At 0602, Earhart reported being 200 miles away with reception poor.
At 0645 Earhart reported being 100 miles away with reception fair
At 0742, reception very good but reported low on fuel.
At 0843, reception good. That is probably just before she ran out of fuel.

By that, she would have been really close to Itasca, within maybe 30 or 40 mile at 0742. If she was closer to Nikumaroro, her signal strength would not improve like the longs indicate. If she had gotten more than around 100 miles from Itasca, she would have been at "fair" reception.

All that tells us is that she thought she was 200 miles away; 100 miles away and, when she was running low on fuel, expected to be right on top of Itasca. If the TIGHAR hypothesis is correct, that is expected.

If she was headed for a point south of Itasca, somewhere between Itasca and Nik, then yes, she would be getting closer to Itasca and her signal strength could be increasing.

And, again, I don't think it's certain that a clear strong signal always means close proximity. When you are close you will have a clear strong signal, usually, but you can also have a clear strong signal from further away depending on specific atmospheric conditions and other physical things (like altitude)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 12, 2018, 12:26:58 AM
All that tells us is that she thought she was 200 miles away; 100 miles away and, when she was running low on fuel, expected to be right on top of Itasca. If the TIGHAR hypothesis is correct, that is expected.

If she was headed for a point south of Itasca, somewhere between Itasca and Nik, then yes, she would be getting closer to Itasca and her signal strength could be increasing.

And, again, I don't think it's certain that a clear strong signal always means close proximity. When you are close you will have a clear strong signal, usually, but you can also have a clear strong signal from further away depending on specific atmospheric conditions and other physical things (like altitude)

Signal strength is the best evidence they have and seems consistent. Besides, if anything they should have been picking up signals better at night, aka 0354. That is when such signals can propagate thousands of miles.

Otherwise, you failing at geometry here. According to Google maps, Howland to Nikumaroro is almost 400 miles.
I don't really have good angles so I am going to use right angles here. It is close, maybe about eighty degrees.

Assume for sake of argument that their course ended up making their course about halfway between Howland and Nikumaroro
about 400 miles  away from crossing point 200 miles from Itasca, they would be about 450 miles from Itasca (fragmentary)
about 200 miles away from crossing point 200 miles from Itasca, they would be about 280 miles from Itasca (poor).
About 100 miles away from crossing point 200 miles from Itasca, they would be about 220 miles from Itasca (fair)
The closest they will get is right around 200 miles from Itasca yet it jumps from fair to very good with a 20 mile change in distance.

According to this, the highest AM powered stations often have trouble transmitting much over 100 miles during the day.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/am-stations-at-night
That would fit with her being on a course basically towards the Itasca. At right around 100 miles, the signal is fair. As she gets closer, it continues to rise to very good.

Also, according to this, the best reception should have also been at night
https://www.dxing.com/tuning.htm
She seems to have been using 90 meter band (Lower end of shortwave and close to modern AM bands)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 12, 2018, 11:42:19 AM
I wonder about the idea that experienced aviators would have trouble with the early morning sun.

According to Amelia Earheart: The Mystery Solved, visibility in such a case is reduce to 15 miles. In addition, the actual position of Howland Island is 6 miles to the east of where it was on her chart.

So she missed her target by six miles due to a defective chart. Not incompetence. A tragedy caused by a bad map. This is a much more likely explanation than that these two experienced aviators didn't know where they were.
That is not a more likely explanation, because even inexperienced aviators, as long as they weren't both inexperienced and blind, would have been able to see Howland from the air even if they were off by (a lot more than) six miles.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 12, 2018, 11:48:54 AM
That is not a more likely explanation, because even inexperienced aviators, as long as they weren't both inexperienced and blind, would have been able to see Howland from the air even if they were off by (a lot more than) six miles.

It is more that it adds to already existing problems than the outright causes.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 12, 2018, 01:09:20 PM
That is not a more likely explanation, because even inexperienced aviators, as long as they weren't both inexperienced and blind, would have been able to see Howland from the air even if they were off by (a lot more than) six miles.

It is more that it adds to already existing problems than the outright causes.

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.

As they approached where they thought Itasca was they descended (from 10,000?) to 1,000.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 12, 2018, 01:56:39 PM
As they approached where they thought Itasca was they descended (from 10,000?) to 1,000.

Biggest problem I read is the rising sun effectively making the island hard to see, reducing the ability to see the island to as little as 15 miles and when you are off by 6 miles due to the charts, that creates a huge problem.

According to Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved, Noonan should have been able to make multiple fixes even with the clouds and should not have been much more than 31 miles west, 19 miles east, and 52 miles to the north and south at 0742.

The author thinks that there is a 90% that the Electra was greater than 20 miles to the west of Howland Island. It reads like if they had gone maybe 10 more miles to the east and tried a north / south course they would have found Howland.

Should note that the author's qualifications are important
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgen_Long
Quote
In 1971, Captain Long flew solo around the world over both the North and South Poles, setting fifteen world records and firsts. Long was the first man to have crossed Antarctica alone via the South Pole. He was also the first to use inertial navigation in crossing the Antarctic Continent. For those feats, he was awarded the Federation Aeronautique International "Gold Air Medal" as the world's outstanding sports pilot, the Institute of Navigation Superior Achievement Award for outstanding performance as a practicing navigator, and the Airline Pilots Association Award for Outstanding Airmanship.

Since 1971, Captain Long, and his late wife Marie, interviewed and collected data from over a hundred surviving individuals that had a direct connection with Amelia Earhart's last flight. Using the data they collected, Captain Long - a former accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association and Member of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators - used his special expertise in radio communications, navigation, and aircraft operational performance to collaborate with his late wife Marie in writing the book about Amelia Earhart's last flight.

A Navy veteran who flew in seaplanes throughout the Pacific during World War II, Elgen retired as Senior Boeing 747 Captain from The Flying Tiger Line in 1987, after serving for over forty years as pilot, examiner, instructor, radio operator and navigator. With a lifetime of aviation experience behind him he has devoted most of his retirement years to researching and writing about Amelia Earhart's last flight. He has led two expeditions to the mid-Pacific Ocean where Earhart disappeared, and in 2006 participated in a search that attempted to locate Amelia's downed aircraft on the ocean floor near Howland Island.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 12, 2018, 02:56:56 PM
As they approached where they thought Itasca was they descended (from 10,000?) to 1,000.

Biggest problem I read is the rising sun effectively making the island hard to see, reducing the ability to see the island to as little as 15 miles and when you are off by 6 miles due to the charts, that creates a huge problem.

According to Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved, Noonan should have been able to make multiple fixes even with the clouds and should not have been much more than 31 miles west, 19 miles east, and 52 miles to the north and south at 0742.

The author thinks that there is a 90% that the Electra was greater than 20 miles to the west of Howland Island. It reads like if they had gone maybe 10 more miles to the east and tried a north / south course they would have found Howland.

Should note that the author's qualifications are important
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgen_Long
Quote
In 1971, Captain Long flew solo around the world over both the North and South Poles, setting fifteen world records and firsts. Long was the first man to have crossed Antarctica alone via the South Pole. He was also the first to use inertial navigation in crossing the Antarctic Continent. For those feats, he was awarded the Federation Aeronautique International "Gold Air Medal" as the world's outstanding sports pilot, the Institute of Navigation Superior Achievement Award for outstanding performance as a practicing navigator, and the Airline Pilots Association Award for Outstanding Airmanship.

Since 1971, Captain Long, and his late wife Marie, interviewed and collected data from over a hundred surviving individuals that had a direct connection with Amelia Earhart's last flight. Using the data they collected, Captain Long - a former accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association and Member of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators - used his special expertise in radio communications, navigation, and aircraft operational performance to collaborate with his late wife Marie in writing the book about Amelia Earhart's last flight.

A Navy veteran who flew in seaplanes throughout the Pacific during World War II, Elgen retired as Senior Boeing 747 Captain from The Flying Tiger Line in 1987, after serving for over forty years as pilot, examiner, instructor, radio operator and navigator. With a lifetime of aviation experience behind him he has devoted most of his retirement years to researching and writing about Amelia Earhart's last flight. He has led two expeditions to the mid-Pacific Ocean where Earhart disappeared, and in 2006 participated in a search that attempted to locate Amelia's downed aircraft on the ocean floor near Howland Island.

His analysis is based on the interpretation of her report that it was partly cloudy, assuming that meant enough clear sky to get an accurate astronomical reading. The TIGHAR hypothesis is that she made those reports because clouds interfered with Noonan's ability to get a location fix based on the astronomical readings. Without seeing the stars and without getting radio fixes they could only roughly navigate using dead reckoning.

If they were able to good readings, why report clouds? All of here reports were very brief, no superfluous information (part of what prevented Itasca from getting a fix on her position).

 It seems that the weather information is only important if it interferes with the ability to navigate.

(I don't doubt the author's ability as a pilot, but I wonder if he's not susceptible to flaws in his reasoning. Is he beginning from a null hypothesis, or is he looking at various bits of evidence that suggest that a specific outcome, then finding a way to get to that outcome? His description and conclusions do not seem very skeptical. )

We don't know if they were able to determine their position using the stars or not. We do know they could not use the radio for navigation (or to receive at all)

We know that they were lost. At first they were lost in the sense that they were not where they thought they were. Then they were lost in the sense that they had no idea where they were.

The plausibility of this part of the issue depends on how far off they were from where they thought they were (and what their actual position was, of course).

It is also dependent on how much fuel they had left and if they were in range of Nikumororo.

At the time, based on areas searched and the efforts taken, they thought it was plausible she was that far off target, but the areas searched the most, were to that for to the west of Howland.

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: John Albert on March 12, 2018, 04:13:32 PM
All that tells us is that she thought she was 200 miles away; 100 miles away and, when she was running low on fuel, expected to be right on top of Itasca. If the TIGHAR hypothesis is correct, that is expected.

If she was headed for a point south of Itasca, somewhere between Itasca and Nik, then yes, she would be getting closer to Itasca and her signal strength could be increasing.

And, again, I don't think it's certain that a clear strong signal always means close proximity. When you are close you will have a clear strong signal, usually, but you can also have a clear strong signal from further away depending on specific atmospheric conditions and other physical things (like altitude)

Signal strength is the best evidence they have and seems consistent. Besides, if anything they should have been picking up signals better at night, aka 0354. That is when such signals can propagate thousands of miles.

It's true that radio reception is generally better at night, absent the interference from the solar wind interacting with the ionosphere. But even at night, radio propagation across the surface of Earth is not always smooth and consistent.

Frequencies below about 40 MHz at long distances (http://www.waves.utoronto.ca/prof/svhum/ece422/notes/20c-ionosphere.pdf) are subject to pronounced ionospheric effects. Beyond reach of the "ground wave" (radio waves traveling in a line-of-sight directly from the radio antenna), the "sky wave" (radio waves traveling upward) is subject to "skipping" or "hopping" as the signal gets reflected between the surface and the ionosphere. That skipping effect causes inconsistencies in reception strength after the signal leaves the line-of-sight radius. Ionospheric propagation can even cause total drop-outs of radio signal at specific intervals of distance.

(https://i.imgur.com/p3n4nvh.jpg)

To complicate matters even further, weather conditions also effect the shape and density of areas in the ionosphere that affect skip propagation.

Does the communication record contain any reports of her altitude and heading at various points in the transmissions? If so, then we might use trigonometry to calculate the point at which  Earhart's Electra would have left the range of the ground wave transmissions and possibly encountered spotty reception due to ionospheric effects.


Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 12, 2018, 05:27:20 PM
Does the communication record contain any reports of her altitude and heading at various points in the transmissions? If so, then we might use trigonometry to calculate the point at which  Earhart's Electra would have left the range of the ground wave transmissions and possibly encountered spotty reception due to ionospheric effects.

Most of her flight would have been at 10,000 t0 12,000 feet and I don't they would descend too early. You get more efficient flight at higher altitudes.

Having a bit of trouble organizing everything together but doing the best I can. I do not know how well I am presenting this.
Important things to remember though that at 10,000, radar (and I think radio as well) would be 144 miles (visual 122 miles) and at 1,000 feet radar (again I think radio as well) would be 45 miles (visual 39 miles)

Going to try to use my previous "table" and just add a few thing in italics.
At 0345, Itasca was able to get a signal but signal weak and fragmentary.
Basically there is no way to get a "line of sight" at around 400 miles.
At 0602, Earhart reported being 200 miles away with reception poor.
Unless she was flying at 19,400 feet (Service ceiling of the Electra), there was no ability to be direct "line of sight."
At 19,400 feet, radar horizon is 197 miles.

At 0645 Earhart reported being 100 miles away with reception fair
I think at 100 miles, she would have been flying at 10,000 feet or so. That should have allowed a direct "line of sight"
At 0742, reception very good but reported low on fuel.
By this time, she probably descended to around 1,000 feet to prepare for landing. Would have had line of sight at around 45 miles still.
At 0843, reception good. That is probably just before she ran out of fuel.

I think all the evidence is that at 0742 was that she was within maybe 40 miles of Itasca and could not see Howland island, Baker Island, or Itasca. Reasons given by a very experienced aviator (and navigator) are that the islands themselves are hard to see much beyond 20 miles due to their comparatively small size, glare of the sun, and misplaced position of Howland Island on the charts she was using.

If we assume that they were closer to Nikumaroro, they would not have been within a direct "line of sight" to Itasca.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 12, 2018, 06:07:10 PM
Does the communication record contain any reports of her altitude and heading at various points in the transmissions? If so, then we might use trigonometry to calculate the point at which  Earhart's Electra would have left the range of the ground wave transmissions and possibly encountered spotty reception due to ionospheric effects.

Most of her flight would have been at 10,000 t0 12,000 feet and I don't they would descend too early. You get more efficient flight at higher altitudes.

Not quite. Fuel efficiency depends on multiple factors, but for the most part it's weight. There's an entire table to follow for each aircraft that provides the specific attitude and wind speed for a particular weight. Presumably she would have planned to fly at the most efficient altitude as they burned fuel and lost weight. But early in the evening they encountered clouds and had to climb higher than optimal efficiency would allow, and for some unknown amount of time, had to burn more fuel.

As for descending too early, they descended to 1,000 feet when they thought they were "right on top" of Itasca. Whether that was too early, too late, or just in the wrong place at the wrong time, we don't know.


Quote

Having a bit of trouble organizing everything together but doing the best I can. I do not know how well I am presenting this.
Important things to remember though that at 10,000, radar (and I think radio as well) would be 144 miles (visual 122 miles) and at 1,000 feet radar (again I think radio as well) would be 45 miles (visual 39 miles)

At 0345, Itasca was able to get a signal but signal weak and fragmentary.
Basically there is no way to get a "line of sight" at around 400 miles.
At 0602, Earhart reported being 200 miles away with reception poor.
At this point all we know is they think they are 200 miles away
Quote
Unless she was flying at 19,400 feet (Service ceiling of the Electra), there was no ability to be direct "line of sight."
At 19,400 feet, radar horizon is 197 miles.

I think it's safe to assume she would not have claimed that high at any point in this flight.



Quote
At 0645 Earhart reported being 100 miles away with reception fair
I think at 100 miles, she would have been flying at 10,000 feet or so. That should have allowed a direct "line of sight"

Again, she thinks she's 100 miles out, but we don't know that. Her altitude would have been based on her most efficient fuel use, not her distance remaining. Whether that was 10,000 or not, we don't know. At that distance the ship, and even the island, would have been hard to spot, which is why the ship started using smoke. Either way, she never saw the ship.

Quote
At 0742, reception very good but reported low on fuel.
By this time, she probably descended to around 1,000 feet to prepare for landing. Would have had line of sight at around 45 miles still.
At 0843, reception good. That is probably just before she ran out of fuel.

At this point she thought she was "on top" of the Itasca and descended to 1,000 feet. But she wasn't.


Quote
I think all the evidence is that at 0742 was that she was within maybe 40 miles of Itasca and could not see Howland island, Baker Island, or Itasca. Reasons given by a very experienced aviator (and navigator) are that the islands themselves are hard to see much beyond 20 miles due to their comparatively small size, glare of the sun, and misplaced position of Howland Island on the charts she was using.

Itasca was using smoke, and that makes it a lot easier to see.


Quote
If we assume that they were closer to Nikumaroro, they would not have been within a direct "line of sight" to Itasca.


That's correct, but if they were ever within a direct "line of sight" to Itasca, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 12, 2018, 06:59:23 PM
According to Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved, Noonan should have been able to make multiple fixes even with the clouds and should not have been much more than 31 miles west, 19 miles east, and 52 miles to the north and south at 0742.
And yet according to the Coast Guard searchers at the time, the most logical area to look was more than 40 miles from the island. And based on the fact that there was survival equipment on the plane, they expanded the search to other places farther from Howland than Nikumaroro.

But fortunately now a bunch of people on a forum are smarter than that and so have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that making it to Nikumaroro itself would have been nigh impossible.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 12, 2018, 09:37:22 PM
And yet according to the Coast Guard searchers at the time, the most logical area to look was more than 40 miles from the island. And based on the fact that there was survival equipment on the plane, they expanded the search to other places farther from Howland than Nikumaroro.

But fortunately now a bunch of people on a forum are smarter than that and so have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that making it to Nikumaroro itself would have been nigh impossible.

Not exactly. . . .It is the most common opinion, from what I have read, from experienced aviators that Nikumaroro would not have been within ranged.

Of note, there was an issue with the Electra - the pilot and navigator did not shoulder harnesses. . . And it gets worse, the remote control box for the Bendex receiver was in a position where Ms Earhart would have likely hit it when she crash landed in the water.

Besides, it is not as if we had had aviators disappear after crash landing in the water anyway. How about Fight 19?
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 12, 2018, 09:53:56 PM

Not exactly. . . .It is the most common opinion, from what I have read, from experienced aviators that Nikumaroro would not have been within ranged.

I'm wondering if you've seen any comments like that from experts in various fields in the last week, after the paper about the bones was published and publicized.

I've looked and I haven't seen any. In fact the only places where I've seen any doubting has been in comments (and here in this thread).

Maybe it's the paper published in peer review journal is making people not so quick to dismiss.

In order to make the claim that Nikumaroro was not in range, you would first have to accept that you knew her position and headings at various points in her journey (even though it's pretty clear that she didn't).
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 12, 2018, 10:00:20 PM
(click to show/hide)

It am not going to go point for point but try to address as a whole. . . .I wish I could save to answer later.
I might work on this partially and then continue later.

Of note, the log that I have been able to find online seems to be a ship's log for the Itasca and there appears to have been a separate radio log. There appears to have also been a separate notes from some of the radio operator. I would like to get a hold of copies because they seem to go into more details.

She appears to have gone into more details of her fuel for example, stating that she was down to 1/2 hour fuel at 0742 (which she managed to get an hour out of.)

Her radio was a 50 watt unit and the radioman of the Itasca thought that she could be no more than 100 miles away at 0843. The strength of the radio signal during the day is suppose to go down by the inverse to the distance traveled According to the book, during the day, her transmitter was able to be received by Darwin during the day at 250 miles at signal strength 3 at 3105 k (The frequency she was using.) This is an important issue, that during the day there is far less ability to bounce signals off the atmosphere and is far more likely to be garbled if it is.

I would argue that the radio evidence is that she was close. As well, all evidence was that Noonan, no matter what his personal issues were, was a very good navigator. To miss by 200 miles or more does not seem to likely.

As far as smoke, I think you are overly optimistic about how visible it is.  The engines of the ship were only 2,500 hp. That is only like 5 tractor trailers. They make smoke by altering the fuel / air mixture. In addition, did it just lay down like I have seen with the video of a destroyer laying smoke (Destroyers have 60,000 so can produce a lot more smoke as well)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 12, 2018, 11:06:23 PM
And yet according to the Coast Guard searchers at the time, the most logical area to look was more than 40 miles from the island.

This would actually be consistent with Desert Fox's account.

When Earhart  believes she's right on top of Itasca, she reports she's dropped to 1,000 feet. And her signal was loud and clear. That hypotheses believes that the strong signal indicates line of sight radio transmission which would be 40 miles.

Later broadcasts were significantly weaker which suggests she flew beyond the 40 mile line of sight for that altitude.

The TIGHAR theory is that she was further away, but due to ideal atmospheric conditions her broadcast was loud and clear.

When she turned south, on a direct heading toward Nikumororo, her signal grew weaker.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 12, 2018, 11:33:12 PM

Not exactly. . . .It is the most common opinion, from what I have read, from experienced aviators that Nikumaroro would not have been within ranged.

I'm wondering if you've seen any comments like that from experts in various fields in the last week, after the paper about the bones was published and publicized.

I've looked and I haven't seen any. In fact the only places where I've seen any doubting has been in comments (and here in this thread).

Maybe it's the paper published in peer review journal is making people not so quick to dismiss.

In order to make the claim that Nikumaroro was not in range, you would first have to accept that you knew her position and headings at various points in her journey (even though it's pretty clear that she didn't).

To start with, I used to know an amateur aviator.  I was a believer in the Nikumaroro hypothesis at the time. He pretty much scoffed at it. Since then I have spoken to a number of (mostly former) naval pilots, the retired captain of the USS Milwaukee for one, and they also thought the idea of them being so off course was pretty crazy as well.

Edit: Another one
Tom D. Crouch, senior curator at Aeronautics Department, National Air and Space Museum.
he wrote this in 2015:
Quote
“I think if Ric proved anything, it’s that [Earhart and Noonan] never were close to that island,” says Tom Crouch, senior curator of aeronautics at the National Air and Space Museum. “Otherwise he would have found something definitive. Ric is in the business of taking wealthy people on an archaeological adventure, Indiana Jones-style.”
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 13, 2018, 12:02:58 AM
Of note, the log that I have been able to find online seems to be a ship's long for the Itasca and there appears to have been a separate radio log. There appears to have also been a separate notes from some of the radio operator. I would like to get a hold of copies because they seem to go into more details.


I know you disagree with their conclusions, but TIGHAR has an excellent online library of original documents, logs etc.


Navigation FAQ (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/navigation.html)
Quote
What is the significance of Earhart’s statement “We are on the line 157/337”?

That phrase, heard at 08:43 a.m., was part of the final inflight radio transmission received by the Coast Guard cutter Itasca. It was the only meaningful position report received from Amelia Earhart on the morning of July 2, 1937. In it is contained a wealth of information about what she and her navigator knew – and what they didn’t know – about where they were, what they had done to get there, and what options were available to them to try to save their airplane and their lives. Understanding those few words is essential to solving the riddle of their disappearance.

Radio logs - TIGHAR (https://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_logs)

The Earhart Project (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr1.html)

Finding Aid to the Earhart Project Archives by Subject (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archivessubject.html)

Category:Final Flight - TIGHAR (https://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Final_Flight)

Earhart FAQs (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/EarhartFAQs.html)

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 13, 2018, 12:08:08 AM

Not exactly. . . .It is the most common opinion, from what I have read, from experienced aviators that Nikumaroro would not have been within ranged.

I'm wondering if you've seen any comments like that from experts in various fields in the last week, after the paper about the bones was published and publicized.

I've looked and I haven't seen any. In fact the only places where I've seen any doubting has been in comments (and here in this thread).

Maybe it's the paper published in peer review journal is making people not so quick to dismiss.

In order to make the claim that Nikumaroro was not in range, you would first have to accept that you knew her position and headings at various points in her journey (even though it's pretty clear that she didn't).

To start with, I used to know an amateur aviator.  I was a believer in the Nikumaroro hypothesis at the time. He pretty much scoffed at it. Since then I have spoken to a number of (mostly former) naval pilots, the retired captain of the USS Milwaukee for one, and they also thought the idea of them being so off course was pretty crazy as well.

It all boils down to cloud cover at night. If the clouds were thick enough that they could not see stars long enough to get an accurate fix (which is not easy using a sextant on a bumpy flight) then they could easily be that far off and further.

If they could get fixes (the later the better) then they were probably pretty close.

But I'm wondering if your aviator friend knows how to navigate at night using the stars. That's very much a lost art.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 13, 2018, 12:18:47 AM
And yet according to the Coast Guard searchers at the time, the most logical area to look was more than 40 miles from the island.

This would actually be consistent with Desert Fox's account.

When Earhart  believes she's right on top of Itasca, she reports she's dropped to 1,000 feet. And her signal was loud and clear. That hypotheses believes that the strong signal indicates line of sight radio transmission which would be 40 miles.

Later broadcasts were significantly weaker which suggests she flew beyond the 40 mile line of sight for that altitude.
Ah right, I must have skimmed over the "0742" part of the statement and thought he was talking about where she went down.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 13, 2018, 12:25:19 AM
As they approached where they thought Itasca was they descended (from 10,000?) to 1,000.

Biggest problem I read is the rising sun effectively making the island hard to see, reducing the ability to see the island to as little as 15 miles and when you are off by 6 miles due to the charts, that creates a huge problem.

According to Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved, Noonan should have been able to make multiple fixes even with the clouds and should not have been much more than 31 miles west, 19 miles east, and 52 miles to the north and south at 0742.

The author thinks that there is a 90% that the Electra was greater than 20 miles to the west of Howland Island. It reads like if they had gone maybe 10 more miles to the east and tried a north / south course they would have found Howland.

Should note that the author's qualifications are important
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgen_Long
Quote
In 1971, Captain Long flew solo around the world over both the North and South Poles, setting fifteen world records and firsts. Long was the first man to have crossed Antarctica alone via the South Pole. He was also the first to use inertial navigation in crossing the Antarctic Continent. For those feats, he was awarded the Federation Aeronautique International "Gold Air Medal" as the world's outstanding sports pilot, the Institute of Navigation Superior Achievement Award for outstanding performance as a practicing navigator, and the Airline Pilots Association Award for Outstanding Airmanship.

Since 1971, Captain Long, and his late wife Marie, interviewed and collected data from over a hundred surviving individuals that had a direct connection with Amelia Earhart's last flight. Using the data they collected, Captain Long - a former accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association and Member of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators - used his special expertise in radio communications, navigation, and aircraft operational performance to collaborate with his late wife Marie in writing the book about Amelia Earhart's last flight.

A Navy veteran who flew in seaplanes throughout the Pacific during World War II, Elgen retired as Senior Boeing 747 Captain from The Flying Tiger Line in 1987, after serving for over forty years as pilot, examiner, instructor, radio operator and navigator. With a lifetime of aviation experience behind him he has devoted most of his retirement years to researching and writing about Amelia Earhart's last flight. He has led two expeditions to the mid-Pacific Ocean where Earhart disappeared, and in 2006 participated in a search that attempted to locate Amelia's downed aircraft on the ocean floor near Howland Island.

His analysis is based on the interpretation of her report that it was partly cloudy, assuming that meant enough clear sky to get an accurate astronomical reading. The TIGHAR hypothesis is that she made those reports because clouds interfered with Noonan's ability to get a location fix based on the astronomical readings. Without seeing the stars and without getting radio fixes they could only roughly navigate using dead reckoning.

If they were able to good readings, why report clouds? All of her reports were very brief, no superfluous information (part of what prevented Itasca from getting a fix on her position).

 It seems that the weather information is only important if it interferes with the ability to navigate.

(I don't doubt the author's ability as a pilot, but I wonder if he's not susceptible to flaws in his reasoning. Is he beginning from a null hypothesis, or is he looking at various bits of evidence that suggest that a specific outcome, then finding a way to get to that outcome? His description and conclusions do not seem very skeptical. )

We don't know if they were able to determine their position using the stars or not. We do know they could not use the radio for navigation (or to receive at all)

We know that they were lost. At first they were lost in the sense that they were not where they thought they were. Then they were lost in the sense that they had no idea where they were.

The plausibility of this part of the issue depends on how far off they were from where they thought they were (and what their actual position was, of course).

It is also dependent on how much fuel they had left and if they were in range of Nikumororo.

At the time, based on areas searched and the efforts taken, they thought it was plausible she was that far off target, but the areas searched the most, were to that for to the west of Howland.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 13, 2018, 12:35:13 AM
I added a bit more to the post I stated that I planned to.

Until recently, maybe 2000, the sophisticated equipment you might find in a commercial airliner was too expensive for the average amateur pilot and much of it was also pretty bulky. As such, they had to learn to fly more with dead reckoning. I think that his argument would be that just by dead reckoning, you should not be 5 degrees off (or 10 degrees if they made straight for Nikumororo.)

let me try a different tact. . .You know I am interested in innocence cases, correct? There was a big issue with forensic bite mark being used to convict people and there are cases of people that went to death row from such evidence and later proven innocent through dna. What if, for sake of argument, this bone measurement thing is similar? Let us assume that the bone evidence is garbage, what evidence is there really for an aircraft ending up 400 miles off of planned location? Would you then go back to the default that she probably crashed somewhere in the water around Howland Island?

On my side,
1. I can argue that aircraft navigate all around the Pacific including to Howland Island during World War II and did not have issues finding the island. This would have included under cloudy conditions
2. That Noonan was at least a good navigator. He would have been able to shoot the sun after it rose and it seemed to support his course. The time it rose would be evidence of latitude and its position compared to a compass would give longitude. 
3. That signal strength during the day, when there were not upper atmospheric effects are not a major factor, indicates that she was close to Howland Island?

If there was actual bone found and there was DNA of her and/or verifiable parts from THAT Lockheed Electra, I would be willing to change my mind.

PS: Thanks for the radio log. . .To me, they support the crash and sink hypothesis.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 13, 2018, 12:05:00 PM

Until recently, maybe 2000, the sophisticated equipment you might find in a commercial airliner was too expensive for the average amateur pilot and much of it was also pretty bulky. As such, they had to learn to fly more with dead reckoning. I think that his argument would be that just by dead reckoning, you should not be 5 degrees off (or 10 degrees if they made straight for Nikumororo.)

No. Not at all. The equipment used for navigation from basically the start of aviation was a simple radio set-up with dual antennas to provide direction.  In the US radio stations have to announce their call letters every half hour (used to be every 15 minutes). Pilots have maps that locate every radio tower on their flight path. You get direction on one tower and you know your bearing. You get direction on two towers and you know your location.

Earhart had a directional antenna onboard, but it was damaged and they could not receive, and could not use that to get a bearing or location. Without radio they only had the stars, and if the night were cloudy they were sunk (literally).

Quote

let me try a different tact. . .You know I am interested in innocence cases, correct? There was a big issue with forensic bite mark being used to convict people and there are cases of people that went to death row from such evidence and later proven innocent through dna. What if, for sake of argument, this bone measurement thing is similar? Let us assume that the bone evidence is garbage, what evidence is there really for an aircraft ending up 400 miles off of planned location? Would you then go back to the default that she probably crashed somewhere in the water around Howland Island?

Actually, that's exactly what's happened in this case, just the opposite. The bones and artifacts were found on the island and they thought they could be Earhart's. They were taken to a scientist and he did an analysis and concluded they couldn't be hers.  Since they decided they weren't hers I don't think they even publicized finding them at the time and the evidence was discarded,.

Later the case was revisited using modern scientific methods and they determined that the analysis used to exclude Earhart was faulty, that the bones could have come from a female of her height, with her bone length etc.


What you're suggesting is that modern forensic anthropological methods are wrong, and the analysis by a non expert using methods no longer employed were correct.



Quote
1. I can argue that aircraft navigate all around the Pacific including to Howland Island during World War II and did not have issues finding the island. This would have included under cloudy conditions

Anyone who  tries to fly 2500 miles, a good part at night with a good part of the night so cloudy they could not get a astronomical fix, and no radio location capability, would be lost.

Ask any of your pilot friends that.  We have pilots here, we should invite them to comment.

Quote
2. That Noonan was at least a good navigator. He would have been able to shoot the sun after it rose and it seemed to support his course. The time it rose would be evidence of latitude and its position compared to a compass would give longitude. 

The sun only gives you a line, and you know you are somewhere on that line. It does not give you longitude or latitude, just the line of the sun. In this case the line they followed would have taken them directly over Nikumororo. The only question is where were they when they started following that line?

Quote
3. That signal strength during the day, when there were not upper atmospheric effects are not a major factor, indicates that she was close to Howland Island?

I'm not certain how convincing that evidence is or how conclusive. That argument hinges on two factors: how far they were from Howland and how much fuel they had remaining.

It's clear that Earhart did not know the answer to either of those questions.

Quote
If there was actual bone found and there was DNA of her and/or verifiable parts from THAT Lockheed Electra, I would be willing to change my mind.


Are those the only things that would falsify your hypothesis?

The hypothesis that the bones are hers could be falsified by further study of the evidence and finding errors in the reasoning, measurements or statistical analysis. (or DNA, of course, but that's not gonna happen)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: John Albert on March 13, 2018, 12:26:11 PM
You get more efficient flight at higher altitudes.

I was under the impression that the opposite is true, that flying at higher altitudes requires more fuel consumption because the airfoils on the propellers and wings are much less effective at generating lift in the thinner air.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 13, 2018, 01:38:22 PM
It's a balancing act, as discussed above. The prop may provide less forward thrust per revolution, but at the same time it and the plane as a whole don't need as much force to maintain a given speed through thinner air.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 13, 2018, 01:54:24 PM
It's a balancing act, as discussed above. The prop may provide less forward thrust per revolution, but at the same time it and the plane as a whole don't need as much force to maintain a given speed through thinner air.

Yes. As they burned fuel, and lost weight, they were able to climb higher during the flight. I believe 10,000 feet was the ceiling, and most of the flight should have been 8,000 feet for optimum fuel consumption, but, due to low cloud cover early in the evening, they had to climb above the clouds, and use more fuel than planned.

This is the report Lockheed produced for long range pilots in this aircraft. Figure IV likely illustrates the curves she intended to follow.


https://tighar.org/Publications/Books/FindingAmeliaNotes/Reports/LockheedReport487.pdf (https://tighar.org/Publications/Books/FindingAmeliaNotes/Reports/LockheedReport487.pdf)
 
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: John Albert on March 13, 2018, 01:56:18 PM
It's a balancing act, as discussed above. The prop may provide less forward thrust per revolution, but at the same time it and the plane as a whole don't need as much force to maintain a given speed through thinner air.

But the wings are also less effective at generating lift, hence they require faster airspeed (hence greater engine power and fuel consumption) to maintain altitude.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 13, 2018, 01:58:56 PM
It's a balancing act, as discussed above. The prop may provide less forward thrust per revolution, but at the same time it and the plane as a whole don't need as much force to maintain a given speed through thinner air.

But the wings are also less effective at generating lift, hence they require faster airspeed (hence greater engine power and fuel consumption) to maintain altitude.
Okay, so it's a balancing act that includes some factors my single-sentence summary didn't include. I'm not sure why you're nitpicking this (or even what exactly you're nitpicking), because there's obviously some reason planes tend to fly higher rather than lower, even over oceans (so it's not a matter of noise control), and I doubt it's so they can waste more fuel.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: John Albert on March 13, 2018, 02:05:11 PM
Am I nitpicking?

I was just addressing the idea that flying at maximum altitude maximizes efficiency and saves on fuel. Flying higher may be a good way to avoid high winds and turbulence, but it doesn't generally save on fuel. That observation should affect some of the other assumptions that have been made in this thread. 
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 13, 2018, 02:12:36 PM
What assumptions? No one's saying she flew at maximum altitude the whole time, and the specific altitude recommendations from Lockheed were just linked to above.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 14, 2018, 12:50:58 AM
(click to show/hide)

I was trying to simplify things a little bit. I thought I read somewhere but cannot remember where that Earhart had spent most of her trip at 10,000 feet.  Could of course be wrong.

That said, I found a chart that indicates that the most economical altitude for a P-39 fighter (Allison V1710 engine) - a near contemporary with the Lockheed Electra - is 9,000 feet. I think we can be reasonably sure that 1,000 feet it not going to be the most economical altitude.   

With respect to forensic archaeology, it is funny that you mention that. I have been listening to the Archy Fantasy podcast. From what I have seen, it is doubtful that the archaeologists that host the show would accept this evidence without additional evidence. It simply is too scant.

There may be a simple way to resolve this discussion. I assume that you do agree that they must have been near Nikumororo at around 0842 because that is around when they ran out of fuel? That means that at around 0842, they also needed to be about 400 miles from Itasca. If during the day you could not get a signal strength 5 at 400 miles, the whole Nikumororo landing is torpedoed, correct?

There is a skeptic who is also a ham radio officianto. That is Sam Mulvey of Ask an Atheist. I gave him all the basic details - 1930s tech, 50 watt transmitter, 3105 khz, 1000 ft altitude, over water and asked if such a signal could be received as good or signal strength 5. I did not tell him what it was about except it is skepticism related.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 14, 2018, 10:52:39 AM
All we know is that at some point in her flight she climbed above 10,000 to get above clouds, and at that point in her flight that would have been burning more fuel than optimum efficiency. We don’t know how long she stayed at that altitude.

We also don’t know when she ran out of fuel. It was some time after 8:42.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 14, 2018, 10:53:54 AM
Also, I’m not sure a shortwave radio expert would also be an expert on AM band aviation radio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 14, 2018, 10:57:16 AM
There are also conflicting reports about how much fuel she had remaining. At one point she said half an hour, but that was clearly wrong. With no headwind and optimum fuel use she would have had four hours of fuel. With the headwind and less than optimum use we can only guess about when she ran out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on March 14, 2018, 11:52:28 AM
I think that it is also important to note that she could have pulled her chairs apart and fashioned a flying suit and glided out of the plane to an island in the distance.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Friendly Angel on March 14, 2018, 11:59:07 AM
I think that it is also important to note that she could have pulled her chairs apart and fashioned a flying suit and glided out of the plane to an island in the distance.

Or murdered her navigator, and has been living a secret life in Argentina for the last 80 years.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Ah.hell on March 14, 2018, 12:21:57 PM
I think that it is also important to note that she could have pulled her chairs apart and fashioned a flying suit and glided out of the plane to an island in the distance.

Or murdered her navigator, and has been living a secret life in Argentina for the last 80 years.
She might have been scouting locations for a secret NAZI base in Antartica.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on March 14, 2018, 12:25:08 PM
I think that it is also important to note that she could have pulled her chairs apart and fashioned a flying suit and glided out of the plane to an island in the distance.

Or murdered her navigator, and has been living a secret life in Argentina for the last 80 years.
She might have been scouting locations for a secret NAZI base in Antartica.

It is statements like these that make me hate DST.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Friendly Angel on March 14, 2018, 12:32:05 PM
I think that it is also important to note that she could have pulled her chairs apart and fashioned a flying suit and glided out of the plane to an island in the distance.

Or murdered her navigator, and has been living a secret life in Argentina for the last 80 years.
She might have been scouting locations for a secret NAZI base in Antartica.

It is statements like these that make me hate DST.

A LCHF diet will cure that.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 14, 2018, 01:09:48 PM
A LCHF diet will cure that.

Wrong thread. That should have gone here:

Two months in my prevention program.  I asked my coach how I will know if it's really working and she said A1C would be the best measure... I had two A1Cs in the barely pre-D zone a few years ago and haven't been tested since.

The program suggested I lose 14 pounds, so my coach said after I achieve my target weight and hold it for 3 months, the A1C at that time should give my doctor a good foundation for evaluating future risk.  So I figure I'll be scheduling a physical for September.

-6 pounds in 8 weeks and I feel pretty good.



My insurance company sent out the link to this place which recommends specific programs for people based on a questionnaire.
http://soleranetwork.com
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 14, 2018, 01:13:34 PM
I think that it is also important to note that she could have pulled her chairs apart and fashioned a flying suit and glided out of the plane to an island in the distance.
Except, we know from her own transmissions that she didn't know where she was or how much fuel she had left (as evidence by her being wrong about having half an hour).

Also, I’m not sure a shortwave radio expert would also be an expert on AM band aviation radio.
You may be right about that, but 3105 kHz is shortwave.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on March 14, 2018, 02:28:28 PM
Also, I’m not sure a shortwave radio expert would also be an expert on AM band aviation radio.

 :deadhorse:
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 14, 2018, 05:02:37 PM
He would have been able to shoot the sun after it rose and it seemed to support his course. The time it rose would be evidence of latitude and its position compared to a compass would give longitude.
I fiddled around with this site (http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/astronomy/ephemerides.html) a bit to determine that the sun rose at Nikumaroro about 49 seconds after it rose at Howland, and 0.08 degrees farther north compared to a true compass reading (meaning the difference on a magnetic compass could have been slightly more or less than that depending on how much the magnetic field varied there, which I don't know how to even look up for dates 80 years in the past).

They were hours to the west of Howland when the sun actually rose, and knowing when that happened only told them a particular great (semi)circle they were on. I have no personal experience with shooting the sun under any circumstances, but I find it hard to believe that from a moving plane you're going to get anything like tenth-of-a-degree precision.

However likely you find their account of the precise location of and decisions made aboard the plane that day, TIHGAR's navigation FAQ (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/navigation.html) does a good job of explaining what information they would have had and what information they would have lacked.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on March 14, 2018, 05:04:42 PM
I fiddled around with this site (http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/astronomy/ephemerides.html) a bit to determine that the sun rose at Nikumaroro about 49 seconds after it rose at Howland, and 0.08 degrees farther north compared to a true compass reading (meaning the difference on a magnetic compass could have been slightly more or less than that depending on how much the magnetic field varied there, which I don't know how to even look up for dates 80 years in the past).

Forgive a possibly stupid question but wouldn't the fact that they are at altitude affect the time of sunrise?
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 14, 2018, 05:09:30 PM
I fiddled around with this site (http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/astronomy/ephemerides.html) a bit to determine that the sun rose at Nikumaroro about 49 seconds after it rose at Howland, and 0.08 degrees farther north compared to a true compass reading (meaning the difference on a magnetic compass could have been slightly more or less than that depending on how much the magnetic field varied there, which I don't know how to even look up for dates 80 years in the past).

Forgive a possibly stupid question but wouldn't the fact that they are at altitude affect the time of sunrise?
Sure, but in a way fairly easy to predict assuming they knew their altitude. They'd see sunrise at the same time as someone on the horizon in the direction of the sun, and the distance to the horizon is easy to calculate from their height.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 14, 2018, 06:36:54 PM
I fiddled around with this site (http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/astronomy/ephemerides.html) a bit to determine that the sun rose at Nikumaroro about 49 seconds after it rose at Howland, and 0.08 degrees farther north compared to a true compass reading (meaning the difference on a magnetic compass could have been slightly more or less than that depending on how much the magnetic field varied there, which I don't know how to even look up for dates 80 years in the past).

Forgive a possibly stupid question but wouldn't the fact that they are at altitude affect the time of sunrise?
Sure, but in a way fairly easy to predict assuming they knew their altitude. They'd see sunrise at the same time as someone on the horizon in the direction of the sun, and the distance to the horizon is easy to calculate from their height.

Yes, you'll see the sun sooner from the air, but, Noonan was a good thorough navigator (apparently) so he would have known before they took off what time and where the sun would rise on Howland Island that morning. So he didn't have to figure out its position or time right at sunrise.

Once the sun has risen he can compare it's path to his compass and get a line of the sun. With no other navigational aid (seeing an island that's on his chart or direction to a radio source on his chart) all he could know for certain is when he is in parallel to or on top of that line.  He just doesn't know where he is on that line. It doesn't give him longitude or latitude.

This is why Earhart indicated she was flying on that line, which went from Howland Island 400+ miles to Nikumororo.

Had she been north of Howland, that path should have brought her right over the island. If she was south of Howland that would have put her directly on a heading toward Nikumororo (where the bones were found). The big question is did she have enough fuel to make it there? We don't know.  (Of course, is those bones were hers, then yes.)

What we do know is that if they had been able to fly in the most fuel efficient manner without too much headwind they would have had enough fuel.

We also know that for a time (and we don't know how long) they had to fly above the most fuel efficient altitude in order to navigate.

We also know that an hour before her last message, she said she had only half an hour of fuel left. (she obviously had more, but we don't know how much more.)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 14, 2018, 09:40:53 PM
Once the sun has risen he can compare it's path to his compass and get a line of the sun. With no other navigational aid (seeing an island that's on his chart or direction to a radio source on his chart) all he could know for certain is when he is in parallel to or on top of that line.  He just doesn't know where he is on that line. It doesn't give him longitude or latitude.
Apart from at the equinoxes (when sunrise is due east everywhere), I think the precise direction and time actually would get you a particular point (or two) on Earth's surface, because the terminator is a great circle at an angle to meridians, so it doesn't maintain the same bearing everywhere. It's more or less sinusoidal on a map that maintains bearings (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?month=7&day=1&year=1937&hour=17&min=50&sec=0&n=&ntxt=&earth=0), so a particular precise azimuth to the sun at sunrise puts you at one (of two) particular latitude(s), and a particular sunrise time puts you at a particular longitude. (Both that latitude and that longitude depend on the time of year, as they'd change with the axial tilt relative to the Sun's position.)

The problem is that near the equator it's close to linear, so the difference in azimuth from one point along the terminator to another is minuscule. If they could have measured down to 0.01 degree precision, they could have located themselves to within about 50 miles and been fine. Unfortunately, that's not doable on a plane with handheld equipment, considering 0.01 degree is a fiftieth the width of the Sun itself.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 14, 2018, 09:53:36 PM
Actually, even if they could measure with arbitrary precision, it only tells them distance from the equator, not direction. Since Howland is only about 55 miles north of the equator, the exact azimuth to sunrise another 50 miles north of Howland is the same as if you went 105 miles into the southern hemisphere. Even with magical exact measurements they wouldn't have had enough information to know exactly where they were.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 14, 2018, 09:59:21 PM
The problem is that in order to be closer to Nikumororo, you would have to be flying something like 10 degrees off course.
Even just simple dead reckoning, that is pretty bad.

Tigher seems to take a quantum stance when ti comes to the course, sometimes arguing that they flew direct for Nikumororo while other times argue that they flew for Howland and then went south to Nikumororo

Personally, I think the smoking gun that they were not near Nikumororo is simply radio strength

On her way to Darwin, she was able to be picked up at signal strength 3 (Poor) at 250 miles out during the day. At that time, she would have also been flying at 8,000 to 10,000 feet because they tend to be around the most fuel efficient altitudes.

At 0843, when most people assume that she ran out of fuel, she would have had to have been basically very close to Nikumororo Island. That is around 400 miles from the position of the Itasca. Was also at around 1,000 feet at that time.

Her signal strength was 5 (Good) at the time, indicating that she could not have been 400 miles away from Itasca.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 14, 2018, 10:06:50 PM
The problem is that in order to be closer to Nikumororo, you would have to be flying something like 10 degrees off course.
Even just simple dead reckoning, that is pretty bad.
Where are you getting this 10 degree number from?
Also, how accurate do you suppose windspeed estimates are when you're over water at night?

Quote
Tigher seems to take a quantum stance when ti comes to the course, sometimes arguing that they flew direct for Nikumororo while other times argue that they flew for Howland and then went south to Nikumororo
Where do they say she flew direct for Nikumaroro, apart from after supposing she turned south and headed at 157 degrees?
---
Personally, I agree that the radio strength evidence is fairly compelling, but I also think a lot of people are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the Nikumaroro hypothesis entails.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 14, 2018, 10:15:50 PM
The problem is that in order to be closer to Nikumororo, you would have to be flying something like 10 degrees off course.
Even just simple dead reckoning, that is pretty bad.
Where are you getting this 10 degree number from?

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4295

Quote
From a navigational perspective, the fundamental assumption of TIGHAR's theory is almost inconceivable. Fred Noonan was one of aviation's top experts in using the latest navigational techniques and equipment, including the then-new E-6B flight computer, which (among other things) corrects for the effects of wind on speed and course. Nikumaroro is a full five and one half degrees of latitude south of Howland. That's a massive, massive error; it's simply not plausible that Noonan could have been that far wrong. Earhart was no slouch of a navigator either. Could they have made such an error without either of them catching it?

Moreover, the bearing from Papua New Guinea to Howland is about 79° true. To Nikumaroro, it's 89° true. Nikumaroro was about 4272 km away, only slightly farther than Howland, which was 4160 km. The Electra's maximum's range did allow them to make it to either island, but only if they flew an absolutely direct course. The TIGHAR hypothesis suggests that they made their entire flight at a full 10° off course, without catching it, while following their compass and homing in on the Itasca's direction-finding signal, and were as much as five degrees of latitude too far south. Even for 1937, this size of an error strains credibility. Either the E-6B or the sextant would have caught either of these errors easily.

Clarification: The above paragraph has given many readers the impression that I've wrongly interpreted Gillespie's hypothesis. Gillespie does not claim the Electra flew 10° off-course, and does not claim they headed straight for Nikumaroro. Gillespie's basic claim is that they arrived at Nikumaroro, one way or another. The fuel analysis makes his hypothesized dogleg path impossible; this straight line off course is mathematically the only way to make his basic claim workable. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was misrepresenting his hypothesis.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 14, 2018, 10:21:33 PM
So you quoted Dunning's explanation of how he isn't misrepresenting the hypothesis, but you yourself did so misrepresent it. Ten degrees is to arrive at Nikumaroro. To be closer to it than to Howland, they'd only need to have been 5 degrees off. (Plus, is that where you got the idea of flying direct to Nikumaroro? Or is there actually anything in the TIGHER account that says that?)

And I thought part of that explanation was that they never got clear skies above them for long enough to measure star positions.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 14, 2018, 10:36:54 PM
So you quoted Dunning's explanation of how he isn't misrepresenting the hypothesis, but you yourself did so misrepresent it. Ten degrees is to arrive at Nikumaroro. To be closer to it than to Howland, they'd only need to have been 5 degrees off. (Plus, is that where you got the idea of flying direct to Nikumaroro? Or is there actually anything in the TIGHER account that says that?)

And I thought part of that explanation was that they never got clear skies above them for long enough to measure star positions.

According to Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved, it was broken cloud cover so could have gotten at least some fixes at night.  The author thinks they got some and he was a Pacific aviator during WW2 so knows what is possible.

As far as being five degrees off, it appears as if she did not just travel constantly south once she reached the calculated position but instead back and forth north and south.

Let us say for argument sake they were 5 degrees off, they would still be abut 200 miles from Nikumororo at 0743. They ran out of gas at 0842. The Electra only cruises at 190 mph. You can see the numbers are very marginal even if they traveled a straight south course and not going back and forth. Might have also slowed down to below cruising speed to try to save fuel.

Edit: Their trip to Howland was suppose to take about 20 hours. Covering km to miles and diving by 20, you get 130 mph ground speed. That argues that they probably could not have made  Nikumororo at their average speed even if they were basically at the five degree course line.

Edit: Remember this is my supporting argument where my main argument is radio strength
Title: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 14, 2018, 10:39:43 PM
So you quoted Dunning's explanation of how he isn't misrepresenting the hypothesis, but you yourself did so misrepresent it. Ten degrees is to arrive at Nikumaroro. To be closer to it than to Howland, they'd only need to have been 5 degrees off. (Plus, is that where you got the idea of flying direct to Nikumaroro? Or is there actually anything in the TIGHER account that says that?)

And I thought part of that explanation was that they never got clear skies above them for long enough to measure star positions.

According to Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved, it was broken cloud cover so could have gotten t least some fixes at night.

As far as being five degrees off, it appears as if she did not just travel constantly south once she reached the calculated position but instead back and forth north and south.

Let us say for argument sake they were 5 degrees off, they would still be abut 200 miles from Nikumororo at 0743. They ran out of gas at 0842. The Electra only cruises at 190 mph. You can see the numbers are very marginal even if they traveled a straight south course and not going back and forth. Might have also slowed down to below cruising speed to try to save fuel.
What’s the evidence they ran out of gas at 8:42 ? 
As I understand it that’s just an assumption made since that was the  last transmission received.

Also what’s the evidence they went back and forth? They got to where they thought Itasca was, then circled (an unknown number of times) then headed toward Nikumaroro

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 14, 2018, 10:48:57 PM
What’s the evidence they ran out of gas at 8:42 ? 
As I understand it that’s just an assumption made since that was the  last transmission received.

Two things. . .
1. At 0743, said she was down to half an hour of gas. She somehow squeezed it to an hour. Assuming that she got much better than that is basically fantasy
2. Was suppose to be switching to 7500 kilohertz to see is she could get a bearing to Itasca, that was never done.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 15, 2018, 07:28:46 PM

According to Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved, it was broken cloud cover so could have gotten at least some fixes at night.  The author thinks they got some and he was a Pacific aviator during WW2 so knows what is possible.


BTW, that directly contradicts this:

That is why I argue the exact same thing the Coast Guard article argues
Earlier radio transmission from Earhart indicated they flew through cloudy and overcast skies throughout the night. Due to the conditions north and west of Howland and the fact that the plane obtained no fix during the latter part of its flight due to cloudy weather, it was assumed the plane might have missed Howland due to flying into the glare of the rising sun.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 15, 2018, 08:01:35 PM
What’s the evidence they ran out of gas at 8:42 ? 
As I understand it that’s just an assumption made since that was the  last transmission received.

Two things. . .
1. At 0743, said she was down to half an hour of gas. She somehow squeezed it to an hour. Assuming that she got much better than that is basically fantasy

Here's what TIGHAR hypothesis says about that:

The Final Flight, Part 3: 1415 to 1930 GMT (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Worldflight/finalflight3.html)

Quote
A couple of odd discrepancies appear from the content of Earhart’s messages. First, at 1744GMT, Earhart reports that she is approximately 200 miles out from Howland, and at 1811GMT, reports that she is only 100 miles out from Howland. The time interval of 27 minutes to fly 100 nautical or statue miles seems unreasonable. Many previous Earhart researchers have speculated that she had extremely powerful engines installed beyond her Pratt & Whitney R1340 power plants. It is more likely that the positions provided did not correspond exactly to the times of the information provided, but were positions sometime in the recent past. This concurs with our analysis of the Oakland to Honolulu leg, and will be discussed later on. Also, between the two time periods, it is probable that Earhart experienced the sunrise, whereby Fred Noonan could obtain a sun-line and correct his longitude estimates accordingly, accounting for the possible discrepancy of distance.

Another odd discrepancy is the report at 1912GMT that Earhart had only a half hour of gas left. Only one radio operator stated this; the other stated that gas was running low. We doubt the literal interpretation of only 30 minutes of gas remaining, as Earhart is still on the air at 2013GMT, nearly one hour later. It is more likely that she is referring to the fact that gas is running low relative to her reserve fuel. Lt. Cooper stated that a reserve of 20% is usually required. Earhart stated in Last Flight that during her trip from Oakland to Honolulu, “...we arrived in Hawaii with more than four hours’ supply of gasoline remaining, which would have given us over 600 miles of additional flying, a satisfactory safety margin.” Based upon Kelly Johnson’s fuel consumption figures applied to Earhart’s fuel load of 1100 gallons, the plane would have a nominal endurance of 24 hours, 9 minutes. Given a reserve capacity of 152 gallons, at 38 gallons/hour consumption rate, or four hours of reserve time, or 20 hours, 9 minutes of non-reserve flight time. Thus, at 1912GMT, Earhart would begin to become concerned about using her reserve fuel. Interestingly, Thompson states that “The Army Air Corps report computes her reserve gasoline as 7% or about 160 miles (one hour) flying.”2 While this figure is inaccurate and misleading, if Thompson believed it at the time, then it is another reason for him to leave Howland long before the 24 hours of total flight time endurance for Earhart.


Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 15, 2018, 09:30:05 PM
Yeah, whether or not you agree with TIGHAR's conclusions (or even any of their specific answers to your questions), it turns out they have already addressed a lot of the most obvious rhetorical questions newly-minted "experts" on web forums are likely to come up with.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 15, 2018, 09:48:12 PM
Yeah, whether or not you agree with TIGHAR's conclusions (or even any of their specific answers to your questions), it turns out they have already addressed a lot of the most obvious rhetorical questions newly-minted "experts" on web forums are likely to come up with.

The only reason we have bones to discuss is because TIGHAR investigated an apocryphal story about her skeleton being found, and the Island's governor was going to transport them by rowboat 600 miles to be studied, but the boat sank and some other BS.

Realizing that some rumors actually had a basis in fact they found the records kept by the British administrators of the islands, which included mention of the bones; then they tracked down the doctor on Fiji and found his records.

I'm never sure what to make of TIGHAR. Sometimes they come across as a bunch of propeller headed nerds pushing some conspiracy theory; but other times they come across as a bunch of propeller headed nerds pushing for appropriate scientific and academic study of fascinating subjects (their portfolio extends beyond just this case, but for now this is where the action is).
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 16, 2018, 06:25:59 AM
I am going to type out multiple pages of explanation but as a quick answer, there are many reasons why fuel consumption is not as cut and dry as Tighar is arguing here. Kind of like arguing the range of your car based on driving exactly at your most fuel efficient speed for the entire trip on perfectly smooth blacktop while you are actually driving a variety of speeds and road conditions.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on March 16, 2018, 07:58:40 AM
I'm not sure what you need pages for.

If she did in fact say half an hour, she either had at least 100% more fuel than she thought, or she wasn't talking about the amount of time until they ran bone dry. Neither possibility gives a strong reason to suppose she ran out exactly an hour later.

Sure she might have used some of her reserve, but supposing she had used all of it doesn't seem any more reasonable than supposing she'd used none of it.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 16, 2018, 08:03:54 AM
Um, no. . .When you add various factors, it is pretty damn sure that she ran out of fuel right around 0843

Posting these under fair use

(http://kitsunesden.xyz/images/Earhart_Pg_231.jpg)

(http://kitsunesden.xyz/images/Earhart_Pg_232.jpg)

(http://kitsunesden.xyz/images/Earhart_Pg_233.jpg)

Alternate version of Page 233, hopefully clearer
(http://kitsunesden.xyz/images/Earhart_Pg_233-a.jpg)

Basically, panic in her voice when she reported running out of fuel, multiple witnesses that states she said "Half an hour", and a variety of reasons why flight time was less than "By the book" numbers.
Title: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 16, 2018, 10:36:38 AM
The problem With that analysis and probably the TIGHAR hypothesis is they’re both doing a version of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. They each have an end point and make assumptions and estimates that get the plane where it needs to be at the right time with the right amount of fuel to be consistent with their predetermined end point.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 16, 2018, 02:40:30 PM
The problem With that analysis and probably the TIGHAR hypothesis is they’re both doing a version of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. They each have an end point and make assumptions and estimates that get the plane where it needs to be at the right time with the right amount of fuel to be consistent with their predetermined end point.

No, what I posted was (and the author actually simplifies it some for those might have trouble understanding otherwise, some of the factors that effect aviation. I have red about most of them in other contexts, mostly having to do with World War II. One of my hobbies is WW2 Naval aviation, I prefer it over army aviation. I am also actually old enough to have own a carbureted car and have had friends who have had really old carbureted cars.

The author also flew aircraft with similar engines (P&W radial engines were really nice engines for their time) in that environment. As such, he has the requisite experience.

In no way to I see it as a Texas Sharpshooter issue.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 16, 2018, 03:10:48 PM
The problem With that analysis and probably the TIGHAR hypothesis is they’re both doing a version of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. They each have an end point and make assumptions and estimates that get the plane where it needs to be at the right time with the right amount of fuel to be consistent with their predetermined end point.

No, what I posted was (and the author actually simplifies it some for those might have trouble understanding otherwise, some of the factors that effect aviation. I have red about most of them in other contexts, mostly having to do with World War II. One of my hobbies is WW2 Naval aviation, I prefer it over army aviation. I am also actually old enough to have own a carbureted car and have had friends who have had really old carbureted cars.

The author also flew aircraft with similar engines (P&W radial engines were really nice engines for their time) in that environment. As such, he has the requisite experience.

In no way to I see it as a Texas Sharpshooter issue.

We know the outcome, but we have missing information about what led up to the outcome, so the outcome itself is biasing the reasoning. That's the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in a nutshell.

I do not doubt the author's expertise. What I'm saying is there is a bias built in to his approach.

It seems as if he starts from the premise that Earhart and Noonan almost made it to Howland, but came up just short. It's as if he plotted the course for her to arrive at Howland without any more fuel.

To get there he has to assume that Noonan was able to navigate despite reporting clouds (At the time, the Coast Guard believed he had been unable to do so); that they flew at less than optimum altitudes and speeds for most of the flight, in order to not have any reserve. And he would have to accept that she was fairly accurate when she reported that she was 200 miles out, and again, then 30 minutes later, when she reported she was 100 miles out (even though the plane would have to fly appx. 200mph to do that) and had to bee pretty close to the ship when she reported she thought she was right on top of them, even though she never saw Itasca and no one on the ship ever saw her.

I would suggest that his description is perfectly plausible, but it is just as plausible as the TIGHAR scenario, where she's reporting she running out of fuel, because she knows if she can't find Howland soon, the entire journey is a bust and her only hope is to make it to another island on reserve fuel and ditch.

Both scenarios are making assumptions about things we don't know for certain, like if Noonan was able to navigate at later at night through the clouds. There is a good and plausible argument both ways on that one issue.

No matter how experienced your expert is, it still comes down to make assumptions about things like that based on insufficient information, and the outcome itself biases his reasoning. (And TIGHAR's reasoning would be equally biased).



 
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 16, 2018, 05:15:43 PM
The book is not about Tighar and it is about his decades of research into Amelia Earhart and her last flight.  As far as I can tell, he does not mention Tighar at all. In addition, I am pretty sure that he has actually been researching the case for longer than Tighar has been in existence.

While I am not an aviator, I have been around a number of them and enjoy shows such as "Air Crash Investigators." As such, I can see where I think he is dumbing it down for the non aviator.  Even though I find his arguments compelling, I think he could take it to another level which would lose most of us. 

If he has a bias, it is due to those decades of research, not any kind of preconceived ideas. I think that if there really was a compelling case for a landing on Nikumororo, he would accept it. Don't forget, I once thought the Tighar hypothesis was correct but discussions over the years and research has caused me to change my mind.

Being that the Itasca never received another call from the Electra, it is almost certain that they ran out of gas soon after. You could easily give them ten or fifteen minutes and it still would not matter.

The thing is that with a signal strength of 5, they were almost certainly within about 100 miles of the Itasca. They were still at signal strength 5 at 0843 (They were at 5+ at 0742.) At best that would make them around 300 miles from Nikumororo, or about two hours flying time.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 16, 2018, 06:58:49 PM
The book is not about Tighar and it is about his decades of research into Amelia Earhart and her last flight.  As far as I can tell, he does not mention Tighar at all. In addition, I am pretty sure that he has actually been researching the case for longer than Tighar has been in existence.

Just for clarity I wasn't claiming the book was about TIGHAR or in response to TIGHAR or anything like that. My point was that I think both positions were arrived at influenced by the final outcome.

The author (who's name escapes me) believed Earhart was close to Howland that morning, but with little fuel left in her tanks, and designed a narrative, complete with unproven and subjective assumptions that fit that outcome.

I also think that TIGHAR is guilty of the same thing. They believed Earhart was close to Howland (south west), but with only reserve fuel left, which was enough to get her to Nikumororo and survive the crash landing, and they designed a narrative that would match that outcome.

Both theories are plausible. Neither is provable and neither disprovable with the information we know now.

Beyond that, we're doing little more than the back and forth with no new information or arguments at this point.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 16, 2018, 07:15:47 PM
The author (who's name escapes me) believed Earhart was close to Howland that morning, but with little fuel left in her tanks, and designed a narrative, complete with unproven and subjective assumptions that fit that outcome.

I don't see anything about the fuel consumption descriptions that can really be considered subjective.
1. Due to temperature, she had less potential energy energy in her fuel tanks than she might at a lower temperature.
2. That wind speed will reduce over the earth speed
3. That traveling faster than ideal speed will increase fuel consumption
4. That real world performance rarely equals "By the book" performance. 
Otherwise, I agree taht I don't think I am going to change your mind.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 16, 2018, 07:36:29 PM
1. Due to temperature, she had less potential energy energy in her fuel tanks than she might at a lower temperature.

An insignificant difference.

Quote
2. That wind speed will reduce over the earth speed

Actually, no. In order to maintain optimum fuel use when faced with a headwind the pilot will actually increase land speed, but...

Quote
3. That traveling faster than ideal speed will increase fuel consumption

This is true, and it's also true that for part of her flight she flew faster than ideal speed and she flew higher than ideal altitude.

Quote
4. That real world performance rarely equals "By the book" performance. 

Yes, which Earhart well knew and it's clear in other correspondents on other flights and other legs of this trip that she was very mindful of that and planned for just such occurrences. On her first attempt she had 4 hours of fuel in reserve after her flight to Hawaii.

Quote
Otherwise, I agree taht I don't think I am going to change your mind.

True, not with the evidence provided so far, at least. I've pretty much concluded the same.

Now that the bones story has been out there for a while, we should soon be seeing some expert response, to both the aviation issues and the forensic archeology issues.

Could be interesting.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 16, 2018, 07:54:27 PM
Now that the bones story has been out there for a while, we should soon be seeing some expert response, to both the aviation issues and the forensic archeology issues.

One should note hat there already was a paper in 2015 supporting the original conclusions  that they are not hers.
It is paywalled unfortunately.

I would have liked to have seen this expert tested in a double blind fast where he is presented pictures of bones but doe not know which ones are suppose to be from her.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 16, 2018, 08:01:16 PM
Now that the bones story has been out there for a while, we should soon be seeing some expert response, to both the aviation issues and the forensic archeology issues.

One should note hat there already was a paper in 2015 supporting the original conclusions  that they are not hers.
It is paywalled unfortunately.

I would have liked to have seen this expert tested in a double blind fast where he is presented pictures of bones but doe not know which ones are suppose to be from her.

That's the one Dunning cited and the one disputed in this paper. I'll see if I can get access.

I'd like to see something similar. That he gets measurements of bones (he didn't have pictures of bones) and photos of people (he didn't have her measurements) and see if he (or his algorithm) can identify which bones come from which people in the photos; or what their height, build or gender are.

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 16, 2018, 08:16:14 PM
I'd like to see something similar. That he gets measurements of bones (he didn't have pictures of bones) and photos of people (he didn't have her measurements) and see if he (or his algorithm) can identify which bones come from which people in the photos; or what their height, build or gender are.

I think this is a good comment in the Guardian by  Dr. Kristina Killgrove
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/16/have-we-really-found-amelia-earhart-bones

Solving the mystery of Earhart’s disappearance would be a fantastic bit of forensic archaeology -- if it were possible. I think that people are fascinated with her disappearance, as Earhart was a fascinating woman, and who doesn’t love a mystery? But I remain skeptical of the whole endeavor. The new statistical analysis is based on 7 measurements taken in 1941 by Dr. Hoodless. In his new article and in past publications, Dr. Jantz tries to discredit Hoodless’s visual assessment of the bones as male, yet apparently has no problem accepting Hoodless’s measurements without question. In order to buy into Jantz’s new publication, we have to assume that Hoodless in 1941 took accurate, precise measurements of these bones the way a forensic anthropologist would do today and to assume that we can fairly compare those measurements to estimates of bone length from photographs and clothing of Earhart’s. As the search for the missing bones has been ongoing for more than two decades at this point, I don’t think the likelihood of anyone ever finding them is high.

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 16, 2018, 09:42:41 PM
One should note hat there already was a paper in 2015 supporting the original conclusions  that they are not hers.
It is paywalled unfortunately.

I think this is it:

https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10454/7286/cross_nikumaroro_bones_journal_of_archaeological_sciences.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10454/7286/cross_nikumaroro_bones_journal_of_archaeological_sciences.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
Quote
The Nikumaroro Bones Identification Controversy: First-hand Examination versus Evaluation by Proxy – Amelia Earhart Found or Still Missing?
Pamela J. Cross and Richard Wright

Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 20, 2018, 01:16:19 AM
Just listened to the Science or Fiction of last week and it is obvious that none of the SGU crowd is real familiar with the issues actually involved.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Billzbub on March 20, 2018, 09:18:08 AM
Just listened to the Science or Fiction of last week and it is obvious that none of the SGU crowd is real familiar with the issues actually involved.

If they were, it wouldn't be a very suspenseful science or fiction.
Title: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on March 20, 2018, 10:44:39 AM
Just listened to the Science or Fiction of last week and it is obvious that none of the SGU crowd is real familiar with the issues actually involved.

They followed up this week. Steve agrees with you, that the bones are not hers and she certainly ditched in the ocean, so you’re right. They’re not that familiar with the issues actually involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on March 20, 2018, 01:16:14 PM
Just listened to the Science or Fiction of last week and it is obvious that none of the SGU crowd is real familiar with the issues actually involved.

They followed up this week. Steve agrees with you, that the bones are not hers and she certainly ditched in the ocean, so you’re right. They’re not that familiar with the issues actually involved.

Either that, or they prefer to go with the preponderance of evidence rather than taking the latest fad as Gospel.  ;)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on March 24, 2018, 08:17:39 PM
Either that, or they prefer to go with the preponderance of evidence rather than taking the latest fad as Gospel.  ;)

Listened to it and Steve did not go into many details.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on February 06, 2019, 08:08:04 PM
Kickstarting a dead topic, this guy has a completely different theory...


Projectblueangel | ABOUT (https://www.projectblueangel.com/about)
Quote
For the past 13 years, Bill Snavely has been studying and researching a reported aircraft wreck site in the near coastal waters of Buka Island near Papua New Guinea. This site is approximately 100ft [35m] below the ocean’s surface and appears to be an aircraft debris field consistent with the Lockheed Electra 10E in which Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan disappeared on July 2, 1937.


I don't find this plausible. Evidence suggests she was near Howland when she made radio contact and indicated she was low on fuel. She would not have been able to do a U-turn and go most of the way back to her last stop.

In this case there seems to be evidence that can be analyzed conclusively.


Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on February 06, 2019, 09:30:33 PM
Amelia Earhart was an inspiring person, and her tragic end was so deeply felt and so widely remembered that there will be no end to crackpot theories about her end for many years or centuries to come. The truth is most likely that her plane went down in deep waters and its precise location will remain forever a mystery.

I haven’t gone back over the whole thread to see if this was already posted.

https://youtu.be/M9KLJsvjPXM
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on February 07, 2019, 09:27:48 AM
She was a badass. She flew an autogyro coast to coast in the USA in 1931. This predates the first successful helicopter. Imagine the sight of such a machine in an era where you'd never seen anything like it.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/ba/4e/8bba4e143fd6b1cbace9c76dd4bee337.jpg)
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on July 24, 2019, 07:57:23 PM
Resurrecting a long dead thread for an interesting update....


Robert Ballard found the Titanic. Can he find Amelia Earhart's airplane? (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/07/bob-ballard-found-titanic-can-find-amelia-earhart-airplane/)
Quote
Robert Ballard, the man who found the Titanic, is planning to search for signs of the missing aviators. On August 7, he'll depart from Samoa for Nikumaroro, an uninhabited island that’s part of the Micronesian nation of Kiribati. The expedition will be filmed by National Geographic for a two-hour documentary airing October 20.
 
The National Geographic Explorer at Large brings a state-of-the-art research vessel, the E/V Nautilus, and extensive underwater expertise to this historic search. In addition to locating the Titanic, Ballard discovered the remains of John F. Kennedy's World War II patrol boat in the Solomon Sea, the German battleship Bismarck in the Atlantic, and many ancient ships in the Black Sea, as well as hydrothermal vents near the Galapagos.

...

One prevailing theory, proposed by The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), is that Earhart and Noonan landed on Nikumaroro. The coral atoll is located 350 nautical miles southeast of Howland, near the line of flight (157 SE 337 NW) that Earhart identified in her last confirmed radio message. The island features a flat reef where Earhart could have landed the Electra during low tide.


It looks like Ballard is going to Nikumaroro.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on July 24, 2019, 08:37:59 PM
I doubt it very much if he is looking there.
Needs to look in the seas around Howland Island
Even then it is tiny and pretty flimsy.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on July 24, 2019, 08:51:01 PM
I doubt it very much if he is looking there.
Needs to look in the seas around Howland Island
Even then it is tiny and pretty flimsy.

That's where he's going, why would he go there if that's not where he's looking? It's hundreds of miles from Howland.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on July 24, 2019, 10:27:57 PM
"One prevailing theory..." among the nut jobs, that is. But you can be certain that he'll find something they can use to make yet another bogus TV show about. Maybe they'll find a scrap of cloth that's the same color as what she was wearing. Or maybe they'll find a footprint of the right size. Or maybe they'll interview a bigfoot who will tell them that it had tea with her after she crash-landed there. I'm hoping for the bigfoot interview but it will probably be a footprint in the sand, proving that she's still alive.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: arthwollipot on July 24, 2019, 10:45:30 PM
Incidentally, I follow E/V Nautilus on YouTube. They've got some absolutely fantastic deep-sea video on their channel.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on July 25, 2019, 06:12:11 AM
I doubt it very much if he is looking there.
Needs to look in the seas around Howland Island
Even then it is tiny and pretty flimsy.

That's where he's going, why would he go there if that's not where he's looking? It's hundreds of miles from Howland.
Your answer does not make any sense.

I should state that what I mean is that the Lockheed Electra is thin and flimsy. How much of it might be left on the sea bed is debatable. This is not like looking for Yorktown, Titanic, Bismarck, or another large ship. Even something like the Grunion is far larger.

Speaking about found sunken vessel, a sunken French Submarine was recently found
https://navaltoday.com/2019/07/22/french-submarine-la-minerve-found-50-years-after-disappearance/
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on July 25, 2019, 07:39:28 AM
How does the answer not make sense?

You "doubt it very much" that Ballard is looking near Nikumaroro, but the article says Nikumaroro is where he's heading. Why go there if that's not where he's going to look?
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on July 25, 2019, 01:08:43 PM
How does the answer not make sense?

You "doubt it very much" that Ballard is looking near Nikumaroro, but the article says Nikumaroro is where he's heading. Why go there if that's not where he's going to look?

I was answering the question "Can he find Amelia Earhart's airplane?" posted by the article in the context of Nikumaroro not that Robert Ballard is going there. I was arguing that is is extremely unlikely to find the Lockheed Electra if he is looking there. He has a much better chance if he looks in the waters around Howland Island.

For better or worse, I evaluated CabShark's answer based on that. I was trying to see some kind of meta answer out of CarbShark that just was not there.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on July 25, 2019, 01:37:51 PM
How does the answer not make sense?

You "doubt it very much" that Ballard is looking near Nikumaroro, but the article says Nikumaroro is where he's heading. Why go there if that's not where he's going to look?

I was answering the question "Can he find Amelia Earhart's airplane?" posted by the article in the context of Nikumaroro not that Robert Ballard is going there. I was arguing that is is extremely unlikely to find the Lockheed Electra if he is looking there. He has a much better chance if he looks in the waters around Howland Island.

For better or worse, I evaluated CabShark's answer based on that. I was trying to see some kind of meta answer out of CarbShark that just was not there.

Ok, I was responding to the idea that you doubted he was "looking" there. But it certainly reasonable to express doubt that he would find anything there.

I suggest we keep an open mind. 

I'll set my Tivo to record that on Sept. 20
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: The Latinist on July 25, 2019, 04:53:39 PM
The problem is the ambiguity of the phrase, "I doubt it very much if he is looking there."  Dessert fox intended it to mean, "I doubt very much that he will find the wreckage if he is looking there."  Carbshark interpreted it to mean, "I doubt very much that he is looking there."
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Awatsjr on July 26, 2019, 10:57:21 AM
It could also means he's looking at A while telling everyone he's looking at B. No sense in giving away where he thinks the plane might be.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on August 13, 2019, 03:51:14 PM
More details from the new expedition:


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/science/amelia-earhart-search-robert-ballard.html


As Dr. Ballard squinted at the blur, Mr. Campbell handed him a second, digitally enhanced image. Mr. Campbell said the smudge was landing gear from a Lockheed Model 10-E Electra. And the reef in the picture was part of tiny Nikumaroro Island, in the mostly uninhabited Phoenix Islands.

There it was, a precise place to look for Earhart’s plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on August 13, 2019, 04:25:02 PM
A blurred, smudgy image is evidence? Oh, and digital enhancement can produce "evidence" from a smudge? I guess now anybody with a working knowledge of Photoshop can produce evidence for anything they like.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: seamas on August 13, 2019, 05:17:13 PM
I thought blurry smudges in photos were evidence of Sasquatch.
 ???
What the fuck is going on????
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on August 13, 2019, 05:47:51 PM
A blurred, smudgy image is evidence? Oh, and digital enhancement can produce "evidence" from a smudge? I guess now anybody with a working knowledge of Photoshop can produce evidence for anything they like.


Photoshop has nothing to do with this




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on August 13, 2019, 08:49:55 PM
A blurred, smudgy image is evidence? Oh, and digital enhancement can produce "evidence" from a smudge? I guess now anybody with a working knowledge of Photoshop can produce evidence for anything they like.

Photoshop has nothing to do with this

It's a blurry photo that someone has "enhanced" to the point where you can kind of see that maybe it's the right kind of landing gear. Of course, nobody but Earhart ever flew that model plane before.

I thought blurry smudges in photos were evidence of Sasquatch.
 ???
What the fuck is going on????

You are right. He didn't find Earhart's plane. He found a sasquatch.
Title: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on August 13, 2019, 09:14:31 PM
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/08/13/science/12SCI-EARHART6/merlin_159010662_cce4736c-ec08-4b76-ac31-3a0930293a4e-jumbo.jpg)


Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Awatsjr on August 13, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
I seriously doubt Ballard would take something that vague as a serious clue but would at least put it in the "maybe" deck. He's not a fool. It would be so easy to look and toss it out.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on August 13, 2019, 10:13:40 PM
I seriously doubt Ballard would take something that vague as a serious clue but would at least put it in the "maybe" deck. He's not a fool. It would be so easy to look and toss it out.

So... he's lying?
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Awatsjr on August 14, 2019, 11:09:11 AM
I seriously doubt Ballard would take something that vague as a serious clue but would at least put it in the "maybe" deck. He's not a fool. It would be so easy to look and toss it out.

So... he's lying?

No, I think there is more to his beliefs and response to the photo than the article says. We will see.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: The Latinist on August 14, 2019, 11:14:47 AM
Or maybe he's just gotten a little bit carried away with himself.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on August 14, 2019, 11:28:05 AM
I seriously doubt Ballard would take something that vague as a serious clue but would at least put it in the "maybe" deck. He's not a fool. It would be so easy to look and toss it out.

So... he's lying?

No, I think there is more to his beliefs and response to the photo than the article says. We will see.


But that was a direct quote from Ballard in that article and others.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/07/bob-ballard-found-titanic-can-find-amelia-earhart-airplane/

Quote
Two strands of evidence compiled by TIGHAR convinced Ballard that Nikumaroro is the most promising place to look. A photograph of the island from October 1937 shows a blurry shape that could have been part of the Electra’s landing gear. And radio messages logged in the days after Earhart disappeared suggest that she ended up a castaway on Nikumaroro.

He’s taking that seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on August 14, 2019, 11:31:19 AM
Or maybe he's just gotten a little bit carried away with himself.


That may we’ll be. But it’s not germane to the question of is he taking that photo seriously.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on August 14, 2019, 01:21:05 PM
Whenever this comes up I remind myself of the Malaysian flight 370. With all of the tracking tools we have today and all of the information we can't find a 777 that crashed into the ocean a day later with an enormous amount of resources involved. Finding Amelia Earhart's small plane while not impossible is going to be extremely difficult to say the least.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on August 14, 2019, 02:28:35 PM
Or maybe he's just gotten a little bit carried away with himself.

That may we’ll be. But it’s not germane to the question of is he taking that photo seriously.

Understanding the limits of being able to enhance a photo is a skill set. As skeptics, we are exposed to it both from people seeing lost Mayan ruins in satellite photos to the face on Mars and pyramids on the Moon. Robert Ballard, as much as we may respect him, may not understand that. We can add in that he may want to find the aircraft.

Whenever this comes up I remind myself of the Malaysian flight 370. With all of the tracking tools we have today and all of the information we can't find a 777 that crashed into the ocean a day later with an enormous amount of resources involved. Finding Amelia Earhart's small plane while not impossible is going to be extremely difficult to say the least.

He has had a pretty good track record of finding lost ships although he always at least has had a final approximate location. Problem is that he needs to look closer to Howland Island.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: gmalivuk on August 14, 2019, 03:21:26 PM
Whenever this comes up I remind myself of the Malaysian flight 370. With all of the tracking tools we have today and all of the information we can't find a 777 that crashed into the ocean a day later with an enormous amount of resources involved. Finding Amelia Earhart's small plane while not impossible is going to be extremely difficult to say the least.
We have found pieces from MH370, though.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on August 16, 2019, 01:12:46 PM


He has had a pretty good track record of finding lost ships although he always at least has had a final approximate location. Problem is that he needs to look closer to Howland Island.

I wish him luck. It would be awesome to find. It seems like her aircraft is quite a bit smaller than most ships especially if it came apart upon impact.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on August 16, 2019, 01:29:32 PM


He has had a pretty good track record of finding lost ships although he always at least has had a final approximate location. Problem is that he needs to look closer to Howland Island.

I wish him luck. It would be awesome to find. It seems like her aircraft is quite a bit smaller than most ships especially if it came apart upon impact.
The evidence that he’s following  suggests that is crash landed mostly intact. But after decades in the ocean the thin aluminum body has probably broken up.

They’re hoping to find the engines and landingear and frame parts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on September 25, 2019, 09:05:18 PM
Looks like they haven't found anything.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/08/tantalizing-clue-marks-end-amelia-earhart-expedition/#/01-amelia-earhart-search-final.jpg
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on September 26, 2019, 11:27:06 AM
Looks like they haven't found anything.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/08/tantalizing-clue-marks-end-amelia-earhart-expedition/#/01-amelia-earhart-search-final.jpg

No surprise there. But the expedition was "a success" because they managed to pluck something (that definitely didn't come from her plane) from the ocean floor.  ;D
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Desert Fox on October 06, 2019, 02:37:40 AM
There was I know at least one shipwreck on the island
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: seamas on October 07, 2019, 12:25:05 PM
Pretty sure they will keep looking in the wrong place, blithely unaware that the Loch Ness monster temporarily moved the Bermuda triangle to capture her plane so that she could help teach Sasquatch to pilot a crashed flying saucer he discovered at Stonehenge.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on October 07, 2019, 02:40:17 PM
Pretty sure they will keep looking in the wrong place, blithely unaware that the Loch Ness monster temporarily moved the Bermuda triangle to capture her plane so that she could help teach Sasquatch to pilot a crashed flying saucer he discovered at Stonehenge.

Do you really think that the Illuminati would allow that to happen?
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on October 07, 2019, 05:41:23 PM
Pretty sure they will keep looking in the wrong place, blithely unaware that the Loch Ness monster temporarily moved the Bermuda triangle to capture her plane so that she could help teach Sasquatch to pilot a crashed flying saucer he discovered at Stonehenge.

Do you really think that the Illuminati would allow that to happen?

Nessie is not afraid of a bunch of upstart villain-priests! They wouldn't even know what hit them.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: Shibboleth on October 08, 2019, 12:51:49 PM
Pretty sure they will keep looking in the wrong place, blithely unaware that the Loch Ness monster temporarily moved the Bermuda triangle to capture her plane so that she could help teach Sasquatch to pilot a crashed flying saucer he discovered at Stonehenge.

Do you really think that the Illuminati would allow that to happen?

Nessie is not afraid of a bunch of upstart villain-priests! They wouldn't even know what hit them.

I think that even Nessie would fall to their Tesla weapon.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on October 08, 2019, 04:18:07 PM
Pretty sure they will keep looking in the wrong place, blithely unaware that the Loch Ness monster temporarily moved the Bermuda triangle to capture her plane so that she could help teach Sasquatch to pilot a crashed flying saucer he discovered at Stonehenge.

Do you really think that the Illuminati would allow that to happen?

Nessie is not afraid of a bunch of upstart villain-priests! They wouldn't even know what hit them.

I think that even Nessie would fall to their Tesla weapon.

The Illuminati have no Tesla weapon. They're too stuck in the past to even drive a Tesla car, much less build something Nicola Tesla is supposed by the wackaloon crowd to have invented. Nothing can stop Nessie. Certainly not a bunch of pissant conspirators.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 08, 2019, 06:58:32 PM
Pretty sure they will keep looking in the wrong place, blithely unaware that the Loch Ness monster temporarily moved the Bermuda triangle to capture her plane so that she could help teach Sasquatch to pilot a crashed flying saucer he discovered at Stonehenge.

Do you really think that the Illuminati would allow that to happen?

Nessie is not afraid of a bunch of upstart villain-priests! They wouldn't even know what hit them.

I think that even Nessie would fall to their Tesla weapon.

The Illuminati have no Tesla weapon. They're too stuck in the past to even drive a Tesla car, much less build something Nicola Tesla is supposed by the wackaloon crowd to have invented. Nothing can stop Nessie. Certainly not a bunch of pissant conspirators.

That's what they want you to think.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: daniel1948 on October 08, 2019, 09:24:07 PM
Pretty sure they will keep looking in the wrong place, blithely unaware that the Loch Ness monster temporarily moved the Bermuda triangle to capture her plane so that she could help teach Sasquatch to pilot a crashed flying saucer he discovered at Stonehenge.

Do you really think that the Illuminati would allow that to happen?

Nessie is not afraid of a bunch of upstart villain-priests! They wouldn't even know what hit them.

I think that even Nessie would fall to their Tesla weapon.

The Illuminati have no Tesla weapon. They're too stuck in the past to even drive a Tesla car, much less build something Nicola Tesla is supposed by the wackaloon crowd to have invented. Nothing can stop Nessie. Certainly not a bunch of pissant conspirators.

That's what they want you to think.

The Illuminati want us to think they're secretly running everything because it makes them feel important. But Nessie is controlling them, which is why they have to hide behind the theory that it's all a conspiracy theory, theory.
Title: Re: Amelia Earhart's remains identified -- For real?
Post by: CarbShark on October 16, 2019, 05:25:44 PM
Explorer Robert Ballard scours the Pacific for clues to the fate of famed aviatrix Amelia Earhart in in the new docu-special “Expedition Amelia.”  National Geographic Channel 8 p.m. (Pacific time, check local listings).