Amelia Earhart's May Have Been Discovered

[ZiprHead]

"A newly discovered photograph suggests legendary aviator Amelia Earhart, who vanished 80 years ago on a round-the-world flight, survived a crash-landing in the Marshall Islands.

The photo, found in a long-forgotten file in the National Archives, shows a woman who resembles Earhart and a man who appears to be her navigator, Fred Noonan, on a dock. The discovery is featured in a new History channel special, "Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence," that airs Sunday."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amelia-earhart-may-have-survived-crash-landing-never-seen-photo-n779591

ETA: Dammit! That was supposed to be "Amelia Earhart's Fate May Have Been Discovered".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That it is on History Channel almost immediately indicates it is bullshit.

That this is on the History Channel and not the news confirms it is bullshit.

HEre is the photo that blows this whole thing open.

Show

I know, OMG, right?!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've been reading about the photograph and the story. It could certainly be accurate. It all comes down to the provenance of the photograph. If it can be demonstrated that it is actually a photograph from 1937 and not a fake, I'll have more confidence in the account.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've been reading about the photograph and the story. It could certainly be accurate. It all comes down to the provenance of the photograph. If it can be demonstrated that it is actually a photograph from 1937 and not a fake, I'll have more confidence in the account.

What account?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've been reading about the photograph and the story. It could certainly be accurate. It all comes down to the provenance of the photograph. If it can be demonstrated that it is actually a photograph from 1937 and not a fake, I'll have more confidence in the account.

What account?

I want to know about the photograph. Who found it? When? Where and under what conditions was it found? Who has looked at it and dated it? It's pretty easy to make fake photographs.

There is lots of evidence in this case about Noonan and Earhart, but this is something new and potentially a game changer. But the photo looks exactly what someone wishing to perpetrate a hoax would manufacture for believers. So the photo is where all the interest and attention should at this point be directed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What account?

I want to know about the photograph. Who found it? When? Where and under what conditions was it found? Who has looked at it and dated it? It's pretty easy to make fake photographs.

There is lots of evidence in this case about Noonan and Earhart, but this is something new and potentially a game changer. But the photo looks exactly what someone wishing to perpetrate a hoax would manufacture for believers. So the photo is where all the interest and attention should at this point be directed.

That it is on History Channel pretty much disqualifies it in my opinion of having any value whatsoever.

It'd like Science Channel having a special on a 'massive breakthrough' for the unifying theory without a whiff of such a thing in science journals.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I want to know about the photograph. Who found it? When? Where and under what conditions was it found? Who has looked at it and dated it? It's pretty easy to make fake photographs.

There is lots of evidence in this case about Noonan and Earhart, but this is something new and potentially a game changer. But the photo looks exactly what someone wishing to perpetrate a hoax would manufacture for believers. So the photo is where all the interest and attention should at this point be directed.

That it is on History Channel pretty much disqualifies it in my opinion of having any value whatsoever.

It'd like Science Channel having a special on a 'massive breakthrough' for the unifying theory without a whiff of such a thing in science journals.

I agree that the History Channel has become anything but History. Maybe Noonan and Earhart were hijacked by a clan of oceangoing bigfoot and the History Channel ought to check this out.

Before I give any credence to anything contained in a story or a photograph I want to examine the primary source. Remember Piltdown? How about the Jesus Box? Lots of fakes. Lots and lots of fakes.

 

[blastula]

This is great, I had been looking for that hat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is great, I had been looking for that hat.

 

[repoman]

Have there been cases like Earhart where the disappearance has been truly solved, either by remains or finding the person alive?

This article says her remains were likely found in 1940.

https://www.seeker.com/culture/history/bone-sniffing-dogs-are-helping-in-the-hunt-for-amelia-earharts-remains

Same type of info in the wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#Speculation_on_disappearance

 

[fast]

I want to know about the photograph. Who found it? When? Where and under what conditions was it found? Who has looked at it and dated it? It's pretty easy to make fake photographs.

What you're saying sounds reasonable to me (to me, I say), but to others (um, let's make that some others--not too terribly many but others), such a pursuit of the truth is pointless.

See, that you would even want to get to the nitty gritty is a fools errand. That you would even consider analyzing the evidence is dim witted. Trying to properly weigh the evidence in every meaningful form or fashion should be stained with ridicule. I'm not espousing that view; just expounding. But why?

Why jump to the conclusion that any evidence brought forward should be readily ignored, and why chastise those that should endeavor to give it a good Perry Mason once over? Sherlock Holmes himself must refrain from examining any portion pertaining to the ordeal. Wanna know why?

It's because this is a particular kind of case that demands an ostrich's head in the sand approach. There's little chance of winning in cases like these. Bring me unimpeachable proof after your examination, and what you get in return is ridicule. That's how it works with anything resembling a hoax.

Me, well, I'm with ya, let's take a look and let the plentiful of naysayers laugh at will, but hey, if we're lucky and find the truth, someone may find our writings generations later.

 

[SLD]

Where are her captors? This shows two people casually hanging around a dock. There are no guards, no Japanese at all in sight. They seem to be hanging out with the natives. Maybe the Japanese hadn't decided what they were going to do with them yet. So they let them run around the island free. But that seems suspicious because people would be bound to notice and word would get out.

I'm intrigued by the photo and story but a bit skeptical. It certainly could be true and a big break through.

SLD

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Where are her captors? This shows two people casually hanging around a dock. There are no guards, no Japanese at all in sight. They seem to be hanging out with the natives. Maybe the Japanese hadn't decided what they were going to do with them yet. So they let them run around the island free. But that seems suspicious because people would be bound to notice and word would get out.

I'm intrigued by the photo and story but a bit skeptical. It certainly could be true and a big break through.

SLD

Those are legitimate questions if she is a prisoner. But that hardly looks like Fred Noonan. Also, Emilia Earhart's hair is much too long in that photo. There are pictures of her the day she took off and her hair is much shorter.

Too Many Holes in the Picture. It is not a picture of Earhart and Noonan.

Ric Gillespie, author of Finding Amelia and executive director of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), is certainly unconvinced.
He told the BBC: "This photograph has people convinced. I'm astounded by this. I mean, my God! Look at this photograph... Let's use our heads for a moment. It's undated. They think it's from 1937. Okay. If it's from July 1, 1937 then it can't be Amelia, because she hadn't taken off yet.
"If it's from 1935 or 1938 it can't be her.... This photograph has to have been taken within a very narrow window - within a couple of days of when she disappeared."
He notes that the photograph came from an Office of Naval Intelligence file, saying it was "very natural" the US would want a picture of this Japanese naval asset.
"And what does the photo say that it shows? ... Jaluit Atoll - Jaluit Island. It doesn't say 'Amelia Earhart in Japanese custody'!
"If this is a picture of Amelia Earhart in Japanese custody, where are the Japanese? There are no soldiers in this picture. Nobody in uniform," he observes.

"The person who they say is Amelia Earhart might be a white woman. But her hair is way too long to be Amelia's. We have many pictures of Earhart taken the day before she took off, and her hair's a lot shorter than that."

He adds that the man identified as Fred Noonan does not, in his view, resemble the navigator. Further, his shirt is the wrong colour.
"The man is dressed in white. Noonan always wore dark shirts and dark slacks. Amelia didn't have a shirt like that with her on the trip either. So the Japanese have apparently given them new clothes.
"Everything about this is wrong," he concludes. "I'm astounded."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why jump to the conclusion that any evidence brought forward should be readily ignored, and why chastise those that should endeavor to give it a good Perry Mason once over? Sherlock Holmes himself must refrain from examining any portion pertaining to the ordeal. Wanna know why?

It's because this is a particular kind of case that demands an ostrich's head in the sand approach. There's little chance of winning in cases like these. Bring me unimpeachable proof after your examination, and what you get in return is ridicule. That's how it works with anything resembling a hoax.

What the fuck are you talking about? It is called chain of command, and legitimate claims would go through a different chain of command, not through the History Channel. Like I said, this would be like the Unifying Theory being proven in a "documentary" on the Science Channel.

 

[fast]

Why jump to the conclusion that any evidence brought forward should be readily ignored, and why chastise those that should endeavor to give it a good Perry Mason once over? Sherlock Holmes himself must refrain from examining any portion pertaining to the ordeal. Wanna know why?

It's because this is a particular kind of case that demands an ostrich's head in the sand approach. There's little chance of winning in cases like these. Bring me unimpeachable proof after your examination, and what you get in return is ridicule. That's how it works with anything resembling a hoax.

What the fuck are you talking about? It is called chain of command, and legitimate claims would go through a different chain of command, not through the History Channel. Like I said, this would be like the Unifying Theory being proven in a "documentary" on the Science Channel.

Stranger things have happened. The point is there is no guarantee that unorthodox paths contain truth bearing evidence. If you were to speak as if your conclusions were born of inductive reasoning, that would be one thing, but you bath the sources with such ridicule as to project your reasoning as if deductive with not even a minuscule potential of containing error.

 

[blastula]

Those are legitimate questions if she is a prisoner. But that hardly looks like Fred Noonan. Also, Emilia Earhart's hair is much too long in that photo. There are pictures of her the day she took off and her hair is much shorter.

Too Many Holes in the Picture. It is not a picture of Earhart and Noonan.

Ric Gillespie, author of Finding Amelia and executive director of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), is certainly unconvinced.
He told the BBC: "This photograph has people convinced. I'm astounded by this. I mean, my God! Look at this photograph... Let's use our heads for a moment. It's undated. They think it's from 1937. Okay. If it's from July 1, 1937 then it can't be Amelia, because she hadn't taken off yet.
"If it's from 1935 or 1938 it can't be her.... This photograph has to have been taken within a very narrow window - within a couple of days of when she disappeared."
He notes that the photograph came from an Office of Naval Intelligence file, saying it was "very natural" the US would want a picture of this Japanese naval asset.
"And what does the photo say that it shows? ... Jaluit Atoll - Jaluit Island. It doesn't say 'Amelia Earhart in Japanese custody'!
"If this is a picture of Amelia Earhart in Japanese custody, where are the Japanese? There are no soldiers in this picture. Nobody in uniform," he observes.

"The person who they say is Amelia Earhart might be a white woman. But her hair is way too long to be Amelia's. We have many pictures of Earhart taken the day before she took off, and her hair's a lot shorter than that."

He adds that the man identified as Fred Noonan does not, in his view, resemble the navigator. Further, his shirt is the wrong colour.
"The man is dressed in white. Noonan always wore dark shirts and dark slacks. Amelia didn't have a shirt like that with her on the trip either. So the Japanese have apparently given them new clothes.
"Everything about this is wrong," he concludes. "I'm astounded."

Though he has his own theory that he has invested a lot into.

Mr Gillespie, who backs the Nikumaroro theory, has led 11 expeditions in the South Pacific to research Earhart's fate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What the fuck are you talking about? It is called chain of command, and legitimate claims would go through a different chain of command, not through the History Channel. Like I said, this would be like the Unifying Theory being proven in a "documentary" on the Science Channel.

Stranger things have happened.

You mean like former documentary channels having specials about animals and mermaids that don't exist, trying to prove the Flood or Exodus, or follow along idiots digging holes in Nova Scotia? Or are you talking about Pop science channels presenting ground breaking findings? Because the later... hasn't happened.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Those are legitimate questions if she is a prisoner. But that hardly looks like Fred Noonan. Also, Emilia Earhart's hair is much too long in that photo. There are pictures of her the day she took off and her hair is much shorter.

Too Many Holes in the Picture. It is not a picture of Earhart and Noonan.

Though he has his own theory that he has invested a lot into.

Mr Gillespie, who backs the Nikumaroro theory, has led 11 expeditions in the South Pacific to research Earhart's fate.

He's done his homework and seems quite informed. His take on the photo makes sense. I can't argue with anything he says wrt the photo.

 

[blastula]

Have you seen the other photos?

 

[Bronzeage]

Find Amelia's plane and you'll find Amelia.