New Earhart hunt

Not sure why it is so hard to understand that back in that era, occasionally an aircraft was lost at sea ?
 
Because there is enough circumstantial evidence that indicates what the history books contain isn't necessarily what happened.
 
What circumstantial evidence?

TIGHAR has found remnants of a campsite on the island where they uncovered shards of a cosmetic jar and other items of the time period. They also found a shoe sole which matches a style worn by Earhart. An earlier expedition discovered an aluminum box which resembled a battery box from the plane. Given the last radio transmissions about their position and the location of the island on the line they were running north and south on in an attempt to find the island they were trying to land on, I think TIGHAR has a preponderance of evidence. If you want to know more visit their website. They do not claim to have definitive proof, but their case gets stronger with each year's expedition.

At the risk of thread creep, there uesd to be a high tone line of luggage bearing her name........WHO would buy luggage named after someone who disappeared without a trace???:dunno:
 
Last edited:
TIGHAR has found remnants of a campsite on the island where they uncovered shards of a cosmetic jar and other items of the time period. They also found a shoe sole which matches a style worn by Earhart. An earlier expedition discovered an aluminum box which resembled a battery box from the plane. Given the last radio transmissions about their position and the location of the island on the line they were running north and south on in an attempt to find the island they were trying to land on, I think TIGHAR has a preponderance of evidence. If you want to know more visit their website. They do not claim to have definitive proof, but their case gets stronger with each year's expedition.

I believe the shoe sole was confirmed to have come from a shoe several sizes larger than Earhart's, and the rivet pattern on the aircraft part that was found proved it did not come from an Electra.
 
Well if Clinton is behind it, then it must be good! :rolleyes:

What a waste of money and resources. What about the children? :D
 
So what if they found her, what then? A bunch of well oxidized bones that will sit in a box in some museum for years, or perhaps a huge multi million dollar state funeral, then they will sit in a box under the dirt for years?

What's the point?

-John
 
So what if they found her, what then? A bunch of well oxidized bones that will sit in a box in some museum for years, or perhaps a huge multi million dollar state funeral, then they will sit in a box under the dirt for years?

What's the point?

-John

Politicians will stop at NOTHING to get their name in the press..:yesnod::yesnod:

To he11 with common sense...:nono::nono:
 
Maybe to correct the history books? That is if reality turns out to be different than what is published in the history books.

History records that Earhart disappeared in the central Pacific Ocean in 1937 during an attempted circumnavigational flight. If that history is wrong it cannot be corrected by searching the central Pacific Ocean.
 
Interesting cover story for a military salvage/survey operation that happens to be in the same general vicinity. :idea:
 
TIGHAR has found remnants of a campsite on the island where they uncovered shards of a cosmetic jar and other items of the time period. They also found a shoe sole which matches a style worn by Earhart. An earlier expedition discovered an aluminum box which resembled a battery box from the plane. Given the last radio transmissions about their position and the location of the island on the line they were running north and south on in an attempt to find the island they were trying to land on, I think TIGHAR has a preponderance of evidence. If you want to know more visit their website. They do not claim to have definitive proof, but their case gets stronger with each year's expedition.

Interesting how different people assimilate the same set of facts (or claims) differently. I've read all of Tighar's releases over the years and have concluded that the organization hasn't found anything of substance, but keeps churning out press releases and news events to drive fundraising so they can continue to tilt at windmills on someone else's nickel.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we'll see something in July.
 
She picked out her own grave, wherever that may be. It is the one she selected, her remains should be left where she put them. Attempts to find her after so many years are nothing but scams to raise money or get publicity for one charlatan or another.

She should be left alone. She worked hard, she displayed incredible courage to earn her place in history, and our hearts. We should not encourage anyone to cash in on her hard earned fame.

Let her rest.

-John
 
Last edited:
Interesting cover story for a military salvage/survey operation that happens to be in the same general vicinity. :idea:


She's just fulfilling the intent of her original mission.
 
Interesting how different people assimilate the same set of facts (or claims) differently. I've read all of Tighar's releases over the years and have concluded that the organization hasn't found anything of substance, but keeps churning out press releases and news events to drive fundraising so they can continue to tilt at windmills on someone else's nickel.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we'll see something in July.
I'm aware of a number of folks that share the same opinion. You were polite in the way you stated that!

Ryan
 
Finding their final location may answer looming questions that have not been answered since 1937. Of course it would depend on what, if anything is found, and would certainly reopen the case so far as theories are concerned. I do agree, however with the notion to leave the grave alone unless surviving family members of Earhart or Noonen have different wishes.
Hopefully July will be informative.
 
Wasn't there a "grassy knoll" on that island somewhere.

Dale
 
some of this doesn't make sense to me.

from a story today on cnn:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/reports-new-search-planned-for-amelia-earhart/?hpt=hp_t2


the photo clearly shows an object sticking out of the water, and it is close to shore. Supposedly this photo was 3 months after the crash. BUT the article goes on to say "a University of Hawaii research vessel to try to find that plane in the deep waters off a flat reef on Nikumaroro"

Is it in the shallows as the photo depicts or is the wreckage in deep water? Are the researchers suggesting currents or other forces moved the wreckage from the site show in the photo to a deep location?
 
Maybe to correct the history books? That is if reality turns out to be different than what is published in the history books.

Greg -- have you read any of the texts purporting to be "history books"?

They barely mention the Constitution, the Revolution, or Apollo.

Anyway, the change will be "Miss Earhart's airplane was lost for 75 years until researchers located the remains."
 
I'll bet money she's still dead. Her navigator bolluxed the job, she missed her target, crashed, and died. Does it really matter precisely where?
 
I'll bet money she's still dead. Her navigator bolluxed the job, she missed her target, crashed, and died. Does it really matter precisely where?

There is quite a difference between dieing in the Pacific ocean somewhere in 1937 and dieing in a nursing home in New Jersey in 1982.
 
There is quite a difference between dieing in the Pacific ocean somewhere in 1937 and dieing in a nursing home in New Jersey in 1982.

Sure there is... dying during the crash was short and painless.. dying in NJ.. well, you can draw your own conclusions.. But I think torture comes to mind.:yesnod::wink2::lol:
 
There is quite a difference between dieing in the Pacific ocean somewhere in 1937 and dieing in a nursing home in New Jersey in 1982.


Or a Japanese Prison camp, or worse during WWII.
 
There is quite a difference between dieing in the Pacific ocean somewhere in 1937 and dieing in a nursing home in New Jersey in 1982.

The difference between crashing in the ocean and drowning, and crashing on a deserted island and starving to death is really that great to be worth all this effort?

I would understand if it were the difference between ditching at sea and completing the voyage and living incognito in New Jersey. But Elvis she wasn't.
 
Elvis isn't dead. Don't you guys got to convenience stores late at night?
 
who is Elvis? :wink2:
 
Elvis isn't dead. Don't you guys got to convenience stores late at night?

15459888_BG2.jpg
 
At the risk of thread creep, there uesd to be a high tone line of luggage bearing her name........WHO would buy luggage named after someone who disappeared without a trace???:dunno:

D.B. Cooper?
 
There is quite a difference between dieing in the Pacific ocean somewhere in 1937 and dieing in a nursing home in New Jersey in 1982.

Yes, but they wont prove she died in a nursing home in New Jersey in 1982 by searching the central Pacific today.
 
I wonder why she did not pull out her back up GPS and hit "Direct To". :dunno:
That's what I was wondering. :dunno: Maybe her CFI was making her follow her navlog. Dang CFI's. :nonod:
 
Back
Top