Last year, the show Undiscovered History on the National Geographic Channel showcased a story on her for the 70th anniversary of her disappearance. In the show, they presented all of the possible theories as to what happened to her as well as another theory that was not mentioned on UM. This theory states that she faked her disappearance and the government helped her in doing so. She was successful in completing her flight around the world, then secretly came back to America. She then legally changed her name, remarried, moved to New Jersey, and assumed a new identity as Irene Craigmile Bolam. She worked as a banker there in the 1940s. This claim was made by a man named Joe Klass in his 1970 book Amelia Earhart Lives. Irene refuted the claim, sued Klass, took him to court and won and was set to receive $1.5 million. All she had to do was submit a blood sample to be tested for analysis and confirm she was who she said she was, but she refused. Why? What was she trying to hide? Her refusal to provide a blood sample was probably a giveaway that she was Amelia Earhart. If that was me, I would have gladly given a blood sample to prove to everyone that I'm not a person they think I am. Anyway, she never got the money and passed away in the late 1970's or early 80's, taking her secret, if she had one, to the grave. Comparisons were done between Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam through a computer and I have to say they did look similar, especially in the face. Maybe Irene was Amelia, but I don't know for sure. We'll probably never know the true fate of Amelia Earhart. This mystery is destined to remain unsolved. What do you believe happened to her?

I watched that program. I thought it was really interesting. I believe it was fingerprints they wanted her to submit & she wouldn't. I thought that was so strange that this woman who claimed she was not Amelia would not submit her fingerprints.

I did some research on this cause I was curious on what all I would find & IMO after reading what I have read, I don't think this woman was Amelia. There are just too many differences with the 2.

I watched that program. I thought it was really interesting. I believe it was fingerprints they wanted her to submit & she wouldn't. I thought that was so strange that this woman who claimed she was not Amelia would not submit her fingerprints.

I did some research on this cause I was curious on what all I would find & IMO after reading what I have read, I don't think this woman was Amelia. There are just too many differences with the 2.


What was Amelia's motive if this was indeed her? Why change her identity?
Very intersting show, which I could have caught it.

After all the theories on this, including the ones posed on UM, I apply the "Occam's Razor" principle and say she got lost, ran out of gas, and crashed.

That is the most plausible explanation. Everything else, while interesting, is too far fetched in my opinion.

I'd be nervous making that flight today with modern equipment and a GPS. What they did was very brave considering the technology then. A small error in navigation in the middle of the Pacific can easily mean certain tragedy.

I think they just made a few small errors that made them miss the island and that they probably crashed somewhere near the island.

After all the theories on this, including the ones posed on UM, I apply the "Occam's Razor" principle and say she got lost, ran out of gas, and crashed.

That is the most plausible explanation. Everything else, while interesting, is too far fetched in my opinion.

I'd be nervous making that flight today with modern equipment and a GPS. What they did was very brave considering the technology then. A small error in navigation in the middle of the Pacific can easily mean certain tragedy.

I think they just made a few small errors that made them miss the island and that they probably crashed somewhere near the island.

I completely agree with you, that is what I think happened.

As for the woman not wanting to be fingerprinted. She may have been on the run from the law, or something similar. Thus making it less then likely she would consent to fingerprinting.


TB24

I completely agree with you, that is what I think happened.

x2. Completely agree that she went down in the ocean. The only other theory that might be plausible (in my opinion) is the Saipan theory. There was some eyewitness testimony in that case that seemed pretty compelling.

Anyone think she was marooned on that island Nick-a-mur-r-oo (more or less phonetic there, I don't know the actual spelling)? This was the theory proposed in that update on UM that we've all seen a million times. I think this is another example of starting with a theory and than finding facts to support it - generally not the best approach to an investigation, and how a lot of conspiracy theories are born. The fact that Gillespie found a piece of metal that he claimed was from the plane yet could find nothing else speaks volumes. Who knows where that thing came from.

What was Amelia's motive if this was indeed her? Why change her identity?
Very intersting show, which I could have caught it.

I didn't see the particular program the OP was referring to but this theory was proposed on the "In Search of" episode about Earhart. Proponents of the theory believe the purpose of her flight was a spy mission to photograph military installations in Japan.

x2. Completely agree that she went down in the ocean. The only other theory that might be plausible (in my opinion) is the Saipan theory. There was some eyewitness testimony in that case that seemed pretty compelling.

Anyone think she was marooned on that island Nick-a-mur-r-oo (more or less phonetic there, I don't know the actual spelling)? This was the theory proposed in that update on UM that we've all seen a million times. I think this is another example of starting with a theory and than finding facts to support it - generally not the best approach to an investigation, and how a lot of conspiracy theories are born. The fact that Gillespie found a piece of metal that he claimed was from the plane yet could find nothing else speaks volumes. Who knows where that thing came from.

Yep, that is another good theory. In reality we will never know what happen to her,Fred Noonan, and her plane. Unless by some grand circumstance someone finds her plane at the bottom of the ocean, or on an uncharted Island someone in the Pacific.

There was also a rumor floating around on some program ( sorry can;t recall the name ). That suggested her and Noonan were having an affair and stage the disappearance in order to be together. I don't believe that one either.

I believe she simply got lost (as she couldnt read the radio signals from the carrier) , ran out of gas, and plunged into the Pacific

I believe she simply got lost (as she couldnt read the radio signals from the carrier) , ran out of gas, and plunged into the Pacific

As do I.

http://listverse.com/2016/03/17/10-things-school-didnt-tell-you-about-amelia-earharts-disappearance/

It'd be interesting to know what the Saipan people saw if their story is legit. Not to mention the air force guys who claimed to find her papers and plane.

Saw a program where a man found human skeletal remains on an uninhabited island, and years later two boys found bones in a box under his former home. http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/amelia-earhart-resting-place.htm Unfortunately the remains have not turned up for possible testing as being those of Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan.

I don't believe the Saipan story and I also don't believe the "she lived " theory .

There are many explanations as to why she may not have wanted to turn over fingerprints or blood samples. Could be simple distrust of civil liberties and what would happen if she did that and lost possession of them? She could have been a legit criminal in another matter and felt like she didn't want her prints out there or the authorities were trying to trap her in that other matter? Lotsa other possibilities as well.

She got lost, ran outa fuel, and crashed. I have little doubt on that.

I believe she simply got lost (as she couldnt read the radio signals from the carrier) , ran out of gas, and plunged into the Pacific
I think many investigators that have researched this for long periods came to that conclusion. If she ran out of fuel which is the common opinion she most likely had to ditch in the ocean not over an island. What's interesting is that with sophisticated navagation data we cannot find missing jumbo airliners flying over the ocean at times. Theories are all we can go with some times. soon we will see improvements with navagation/identification even after years of upgrades In Nav aides for pilots and ATC.

I think the coordinates were wrong, they crashed but survived, and then were alive for a few days or weeks, transmitting signals before the radio died or the plane slipped into the ocean. A little girl somewhere heard some communication and wrote it down. It fit the timeline and all made sense sourcing from the Amelia Earhart plane. I've mentioned it previously on this forum although I don't remember the specifics. The little girl mentioned it to family and friends early. This wasn't one of those claims that surfaces for the first times decades later and is obviously phony. That little girl lived a full life and died within the past few years.

I think the coordinates were wrong, they crashed but survived, and then were alive for a few days or weeks, transmitting signals before the radio died or the plane slipped into the ocean. A little girl somewhere heard some communication and wrote it down. It fit the timeline and all made sense sourcing from the Amelia Earhart plane. I've mentioned it previously on this forum although I don't remember the specifics. The little girl mentioned it to family and friends early. This wasn't one of those claims that surfaces for the first times decades later and is obviously phony. That little girl lived a full life and died within the past few years.

Yeah, I saw her or some guy who spoke to her or both on some program about the event.

Yeah, I saw her or some guy who spoke to her or both on some program about the event.

I wish I had seen that program. I sampled a related website many years ago, but that's about it. There was so much detail that seemed to tie directly to the Earhart event that I was shocked it hadn't become more well known, and the leading theory.

Not many variables required in that version, and all logical: Plane misses a tiny island, pilot scrambles to land before losing fuel, and then frantic distress signals are sent before that capability is lost. Those signals are picked up from afar, but not by the people who would have known what to do with them.

Contrast to all the bizarre versions, requiring one unlikely twist and coverup after another. Lots of luck. An ongoing frustration of mine is that the bizarre theories often win favor. Obviously the DB Cooper/Richard Floyd McCoy connection is where I've devoted plenty of time here. Not many people even know about McCoy's weird wee hour drive from Provo to Las Vegas during the timeline immediately preceding the Cooper event. That trip makes no sense unless it is tied to the Cooper jump, especially since McCoy apparently disappears for a day and a half. No credit card activity, etc. As I've mentioned here, the DB Cooper Wikipedia page won't even allow me to post specifics of that McCoy trip. Every time I've tried it is zapped away quickly.

People want to believe the fantastic versions, the ones that sell books and inspire additional oddball attachments. I've stopped posting and debating as frequently as previous, largely due to that dynamic. Frankly it's not the caliber of debate I'm accustomed to in Las Vegas. In that environment you have to place yourself on the correct side of 50/50 as often as possible, or leave town broke on a bus. The internet too often prefers the 1% angle, and 1% is being generous.

Yeah, the girl was a ham radio operator and the thing was Earhart herself either didn't know exactly where she was or if she did say where she thought she was it was not, I believe, part of what the girl heard. What she wrote down was about how high the water was coming up inside the plane and so on. She had no way of knowing where these messages came from, how far away or in what direction. These signals can carry long distances and this girl was the only person who reported hearing any such thing. If they had known where to take the information, a search party may have gone out and at least found the plane and the bodies of Earhart and Noonan before the remains were lost or scattered. Last I heard, someone was looking for the plane based on this information and her last known whereabouts. They did seem to have found where Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's plane went down but so far no remains.

http://people.com/human-interest/does-this-photo-prove-amelia-earhart-survived-her-final-flight/?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_peoplemag

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD-vhINV0AAZGuP.jpg

Anyone else disappointed this photo of someone's back is being offered as proof positive that Earhart survived?

while i think the Amelia discussion is always interesting i think there's actually very little mystery involved. much like Richard McCoy 70% most likely being DB Cooper i think there's about a 70% chance Amelia drifted off course/got lost and ran out of gas and crashed somewhere in the pacific. there is about a 25% chance she crashed landed somewhere and was taken up by the Japanese and died in a Japanese prison.

as for the OP theory people want to maintain their privacy, dna, or finger prints all the time seemingly without reason. a lot of people do it simply out of not wanting there to be any record of that stuff anywhere or even some sense of government/police paranoia.

Amelia was trying to make a name for herself doing something nobody else had done. Why would she all of the sudden decide she wants privacy and discretion after doing it? Its just not plausible.

I'm surprised she wasn't mentioned as a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey case yet.

"Amelia flew her plane to the Ramsey's roof, that's why there wasn't any prints in the snow"

i think there's about a 90% chance Amelia drifted off course/got lost and ran out of gas and crashed somewhere in the pacific.

Amelia was trying to make a name for herself doing something nobody else had done. Why would she all of the sudden decide she wants privacy and discretion after doing it? Its just not plausible.

But yeah, this. Excellent point, why bother making a name for yourself doing a large feat that no one else had done only to shy about from the publicity? It's obvious she just crashed. People love clinging onto these mysteries though.

****, the JonBenet snow thing is gonna haunt me for the rest of my life, I'll never live it down.

You're right about Amelia though. I doubt the islanders saw her execution. Sad as it is she drowned most likely

****, the JonBenet snow thing is gonna haunt me for the rest of my life, I'll never live it down.

I was poking fun of the fact that every 2 years there's another suspect in the Ramsey case that leads nowhere.

I'm surprised she wasn't mentioned as a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey case yet.

"Amelia flew her plane to the Ramsey's roof, that's why there wasn't any prints in the snow"

.

That's crazy. Clearly Judge Crater killed JBR. :lol: :wave:

http://people.com/human-interest/does-this-photo-prove-amelia-earhart-survived-her-final-flight/?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_peoplemag

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD-vhINV0AAZGuP.jpg


OMG :lol: :crazy: :lol: :crazy:

I looked at this several times before I noticed Christie.


Bravo, Arnold, bra-fecking-vo. Well done.

Also, I have promptly stolen this, in the fine tradition of internet jokes.

Anyone else disappointed this photo of someone's back is being offered as proof positive that Earhart survived?

Only that it isn't neognosis posting it.

Only that it isn't neognosis posting it.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

OMG :lol: :crazy: :lol: :crazy:

I looked at this several times before I noticed Christie.


Bravo, Arnold, bra-fecking-vo. Well done.

Also, I have promptly stolen this, in the fine tradition of internet jokes.

It took me FOREVER to see Christie in the picture. Now I can't un-see it. And I laugh everytime. :)

Anyone else disappointed this photo of someone's back is being offered as proof positive that Earhart survived?

Yes.

And the man looks nothing like Noonan either. Just assuming that the picture is Earhart and Noonan, it opens a whole can of worms that cannot be answered. Why are they leisurely hanging around with some Japanese folk (Japan has denied repeatedly that they were ever taken as prisoners)? And how exactly did they survive and how were they found? And why didn't they make any attempt to flee or contact relatives? The photo doesn't show any military personnel, so who are the people with Noonan and Earhart? Makes no sense.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


Well played. :lol:

Only that it isn't neognosis posting it.

you can't prove he didn't post it :eek: :eek: :eek:

(I'm stealing freakbook's material but it was too good to pass up... :lol: )


Why are they leisurely hanging around with some Japanese folk (Japan has denied repeatedly that they were ever taken as prisoners)? And how exactly did they survive and how were they found? And why didn't they make any attempt to flee or contact relatives? The photo doesn't show any military personnel, so who are the people with Noonan and Earhart? Makes no sense.

I totally agree. If they were Japanese prisoners, why are they sort of just hanging out? They would also be a long way off course. These stories are interesting but I'm pretty solid in the belief that they crashed and died at sea.

WARNING: History Channel Docs such as this often bend facts and find "experts" to go along with the narrative of the show. Case in point the Alcatraz show that tried to convince us the Anglins escaped safely.

I'd really take with a grain of salt these type docs especially on the History Channel.

New pic has been debunked as it appeared in a magazine in 1935

New pic has been debunked as it appeared in a magazine in 1935


OMG, that's why they never found her, she flew back in time!!!


:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

LOL, knew it.

freakin History Channel and their sensationalistic biased narrative of these type shows.

LOL, knew it.

freakin History Channel and their sensationalistic biased narrative of these type shows.

I would say they've lost all their appeal and credibility, but I cannot ignore the wonder that is competitive bladesmithing. Forged in Fire FTW

Next up on the History Channel's Lineup of Complete BS...

Jack The Ripper in America. They will now present to us all the "facts" with facial recognition experts and all.

Laughable episode. Everything is easily summarized, to borrow and torture from Macbeth:

"Plausible and Plausible and Plausible...Signifying Nothing"

***

I didn't realize the picture was proven unrelated. I would have wagered anything along those lines. But this is the type of thing that galls me to no end. People in every area of deception and profit have come to sense that all you have to do is string together 40 chunks of garbage point by supposed point and a sizeable percentage of the populous will fall for it. I'm convinced we're still in the very early stages.

History Channel has sadly become a major offender, and often a parody of the channel name, but their versions are gold compared to what is peddled in other areas.

Next up on the History Channel's Lineup of Complete BS...

Jack The Ripper in America. They will now present to us all the "facts" with facial recognition experts and all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2yVZCVLK3E

More strength for the Saipan theory.......

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/25/amelia-earhart-and-and-fred-noonan-were-prisoners-saipan-and-killed-according-uncles-tale/894412001/

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-05CL5yjTSpI/UTGpSbcZIsI/AAAAAAAAHuo/clwYdBA6TjEsAGaYsFceTJJKrtWHpFKYACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/EARHARTphotoalbum.jpg

I was surprised to see newspapers from the era reported on the marines finding Earhart's things. I was always kind of skeptical of the testimony given on UM as more "tall tales" made up after the fact.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/07/scientist-99-percent-sure-bones-found-belong-to-amelia-earhart/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

First I heard of more than one person hearing Amelia's distress signals.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/dozens-heard-amelia-earhart%e2%80%99s-final-chilling-pleas-for-help-researchers-say/ar-BBL24de?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

I think its pretty evident that Earhart died stranded on Gardner Island.

The fact that they find HUMAN bones on a deserted island that NOBODY had been known to really go to, and an island that was the ONLY nearby spot to where she likely went down should lead any reasonable person to believe it was likely her or Noonan's bones. The updated forensic analysis suggests those bones did belong to a woman, and that the height and skull size match those of Amelia. So just those things considered, what are the chances that those bones are someone elses? Very slim.

As the article suggests, there is a possibility the plane was still close to the island or maybe even hit the shores and was taking on water until the point at which the radio finally couldn't function anymore.

IMHO the latest findings really kinda seal the case for her demise being at Gardner Island and not being some prisoner of the Japanese.

Didn't they also find the remains of what appeared to be her shoes at Gardner (heels in particular), or am I confusing the discovery with someplace else?

Didn't they also find the remains of what appeared to be her shoes at Gardner (heels in particular), or am I confusing the discovery with someplace else?

On the island of Nikumaroru.

https://www.npr.org/1998/12/02/1032135/bones-shoes-may-have-been-amelia-earharts

Didn't they also find the remains of what appeared to be her shoes at Gardner (heels in particular), or am I confusing the discovery with someplace else?

On the island of Nikumaroru.

https://www.npr.org/1998/12/02/1032135/bones-shoes-may-have-been-amelia-earharts

Gardner Island and Nikumaroro are the same place. It's just a hell of a lot easier to type Gardner.

I think its pretty evident that Earhart died stranded on Gardner Island.

The fact that they find HUMAN bones on a deserted island that NOBODY had been known to really go to, and an island that was the ONLY nearby spot to where she likely went down should lead any reasonable person to believe it was likely her or Noonan's bones. The updated forensic analysis suggests those bones did belong to a woman, and that the height and skull size match those of Amelia. So just those things considered, what are the chances that those bones are someone elses? Very slim.

As the article suggests, there is a possibility the plane was still close to the island or maybe even hit the shores and was taking on water until the point at which the radio finally couldn't function anymore.

IMHO the latest findings really kinda seal the case for her demise being at Gardner Island and not being some prisoner of the Japanese.

Here's the problem with this theory. well, before I get into the scientific problems.. TIGHAR is my big problem with this theory. I'm not a fan of that organization and their sensationalizing. Putting out news releases that the mystery has been solved and the like.

But.. Outside of that. There's about 400 miles between Nikumaroro and Howland Island. Her last radio transmission put her very close to Howland, at least, the signal was very strong.

One of her last transmissions stated she was flying Northwest and was very low on fuel. Based on where she thought she was, and assuming that she was in the general vicinity of Howland.. She would have had to have another 2 hours of fuel to get to Gardner. Impossible? No. In fact, I think this is the second strongest theory.. Right behind crashed into the middle of the ocean.

The bad part.. The skeleton recovered in the 40's from Gardner that was said to be a man, but then reinterpreted to possibly be a woman, has been lost. If that hadn't happened, the Gardner theory would likely have been able to be confirmed or shot down by now.

Some reasons to not believe this theory, other than the fact that it would have been a stretch to make it on fuel (though perhaps not impossible).. Her husband and the Navy searched Gardner separately shortly after she went missing. One of the aluminum panels they found, thought to come from Earhart's plane, matches a C47B aircraft (NOT Earhart's Electra) and a C47B crashed in the Phoenix chain in the 40's.

Other items found there are a womans heel, the proper size for Earhart. A sextant, which would be something without question salvaged from the plane. A container of freckle cream that Earhart was known to use. A piece of plexiglass with the same curvature as an Electra window. The bones being re-interpreted (based on notes) to belong to a woman about Earhart's height. There are a number of reports of her transmitting after being lost, which could only be done on dry land.


Again, I say Gardner is the best theory outside of 'crash and sink'..

the good news.. While the aircraft would have disintegrated years ago.. The engine should survive quite some time. So, in theory, that should be somewhere off the coast of this island.

Shouldn't Josh Gates get on this?

There is one thing I have become curious about after rewatching the Amelia Earhart segment. If she and Fred Noonan had decided to reverse their route (go across the Pacific first, then Asia, Europe, then the Atlantic), hence getting the most difficult leg of the journey complete first, is there a greater possibility they would have successfully completed their circumnavigation?

There is one thing I have become curious about after rewatching the Amelia Earhart segment. If she and Fred Noonan had decided to reverse their route (go across the Pacific first, then Asia, Europe, then the Atlantic), hence getting the most difficult leg of the journey complete first, is there a greater possibility they would have successfully completed their circumnavigation?
Actually, the trip that Amelia and Noonan disappeared on was their second attempt. On their first attempt, they did have a westward flight plan. But they only got as far as Hawaii before they received damage to the plane in takeoff that required them to cancel that trip. By the time they did it the second time, the weather patterns had changed and going east was the optimal route. Interesting to consider whether it would have mattered. Westward trips are usually significantly harder because of the impacts of going against the jet stream. With a primitive plane crossing the pacific going west could take hours (maybe even days, I’m not knowledgeable enough on the physics of the plane to know for certain) than going east. So while it may be getting the hardest part out of the way first, it would have been significantly harder and more treacherous doing it that way

^ Tend to agree. When I read the question and had not yet seen the response, the impacts of going against the wind on a western trajectory were the first thing I thought of. I can't imagine flying in a southwesterly direction from California to Hawaii and then down toward Australia would be any easier; in fact, it might be even more difficult than a straight west path.
As a general point, though, I am inclined to agree that once that part was out of the way, everything else would have been much easier, especially a hop across the Atlantic at the end, whether in the northern hemisphere or southern.

Actually, the trip that Amelia and Noonan disappeared on was their second attempt. On their first attempt, they did have a westward flight plan. But they only got as far as Hawaii before they received damage to the plane in takeoff that required them to cancel that trip. By the time they did it the second time, the weather patterns had changed and going east was the optimal route. Interesting to consider whether it would have mattered. Westward trips are usually significantly harder because of the impacts of going against the jet stream. With a primitive plane crossing the pacific going west could take hours (maybe even days, I’m not knowledgeable enough on the physics of the plane to know for certain) than going east. So while it may be getting the hardest part out of the way first, it would have been significantly harder and more treacherous doing it that way


There's also this.. Earhart wasn't the greatest pilot.. Your mention of the first attempt, it's contested as to whether that crash was caused by a blown tire or pilot error. She's looked at through rose colored glasses now. Or, perhaps she wasn't as bad a pilot in those times as she'd be considered today.

And Noonan wasn't a top of the line navigator, either and as I recall reading, was a bit of a drunk.

The above are the two reasons that I say they were not sent on a spying mission by the government, which is a part of a couple of theories as to their disappearance.

Mysteries at the Museum just devoted an entire segment to this. They went at length into the Gardner and Saipan theories as well as plunging into the Pacific, but did not at all mention the young girl operating the ham radio who claimed to pick up calls for help from Earhart after her last official transmission.

The guy who claimed to have found a picture of Earhart and Noonan taken in 1937 in a book published in 1935 stuck to his story. The book was bound only in string and appears to have had pages taken out and added, and the picture shows power poles which would not have been there in 1935 as well as a ship known to have been there in July 1937. They mentioned numerous witnesses backing up the Saipan story that she either died there of dysentery or was executed. There was also one I had never heard, of a man grabbing a case full of Earhart's papers which he turned over to a high naval official. This man said Earhart absolutely did not go into the ocean--her documents had little to no water damage.

[I]
The guy who claimed to have found a picture of Earhart and Noonan taken in 1937 in a book published in 1935 stuck to his story.

What else was he going to say? "Duh, i'm a complete idiot who didn't do his research"

Is there any chance the Japanese did in fact capture Amelia and Fred, then ditch the plane in the ocean to make it look as if she just crashed?

Is there any chance the Japanese did in fact capture Amelia and Fred, then ditch the plane in the ocean to make it look as if she just crashed?

There's a chance for everything. But, some people say they saw the Japanese burn the plane on Saipan.. If they ditched it in the ocean to make people think she crashed.. Don't you think they'd do it where people would find it?

The Japanese, my opinion, got blame because they were the enemy at the time. I can't imagine they had anything to do with it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amelia-earhart-plane-possibly-detected-sonar-underwater-deep-sea-vision/

Is this the final update? Found less than 100 miles from Howland Island via Sonar, in 16,000 feet of water, outline of an airplane.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amelia-earhart-plane-possibly-detected-sonar-underwater-deep-sea-vision/

Is this the final update? Found less than 100 miles from Howland Island via Sonar, in 16,000 feet of water, outline of an airplane.

"The final update"? Absolutely not.

However.. It's very intriguing. Obviously, followup needs to happen with submersibles.. Be they manned or not to see just what that is on the bottom of the ocean.

For all we know right now.. It could be another plane that crashed in the vicinity.

To me, the wings don't look right, but.. I can come up with at least 5 excuses for that right away.. From the wings being bent back during the water impact to disintegration of the structure of the aircraft after it came to rest at 16k feet or through time since.

The concern I have here.. The plane was aluminum.. For there to be THAT intact a sonar image after nearly 100 years.. Seems... Wow.. That's a stroke of luck, huh?

I'd just expect to see more.. Scattered wreckage.. Just from the fact that it's spent 87 years in saltwater and the currents, regardless of the fact that it crashed... Even that deep where the currents aren't as strong, I'd think you wouldn't get such a clear picture.

So.. I'm not sold on this yet.. but.. It certainly needs to be followed up on. It's.. Perhaps the best evidence since 1937. However.. That doesn't mean its' right.

And.. My respect for this guy is well above TIGHAR.. What this guy said.. Which.. Admittedly.. Is still a little 'clickbaity'

Deep Sea Vision, a Charleston, South Carolina-based team, said this week that it had captured a sonar image in the Pacific Ocean that "appears to be Earhart's Lockheed 10-E Electra" aircraft.

I'd prefer that be dialed back just a bit.. but, note the phrasing "Appears to be".. Not Is.. Again.. It's still a TOUCH too strong on the wording for my tastes, but.. It does dial itself back.. Unlike TIGHAR.. let's look at things they have said

Ric Gillespie, who has researched Earhart's doomed flight for decades, told CBS News in 2018 that he had proof Earhart crash-landed on Gardner Island — about 350 nautical miles from Howland Island — and that she called for help for nearly a week before her plane was swept out to sea.

"proof".. BULL XXXX! He has interesting theories, but he has NO proof whatsoever.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amelia-earhart-plane-possibly-detected-sonar-underwater-deep-sea-vision/

Is this the final update? Found less than 100 miles from Howland Island via Sonar, in 16,000 feet of water, outline of an airplane.

It does feel like this might be it this time.

There's also this.. Earhart wasn't the greatest pilot.. Your mention of the first attempt, it's contested as to whether that crash was caused by a blown tire or pilot error. She's looked at through rose colored glasses now. Or, perhaps she wasn't as bad a pilot in those times as she'd be considered today.

And Noonan wasn't a top of the line navigator, either and as I recall reading, was a bit of a drunk.

The above are the two reasons that I say they were not sent on a spying mission by the government, which is a part of a couple of theories as to their disappearance.

She was also known to overrule Fred Noonan at times.

She was also known to overrule Fred Noonan at times.

I've not heard that, particularly, but.. Regardless.. I would be hard pressed to say whether that was a good or bad thing.

Looks like a Non-TIGHAR expedition to Gardner Island is scheduled

This one to be led by Purdue University, where Earhart was employed and who sponsored some of her flights.

A satellite 'anomaly' that people think looks like it could be her plane off the coast of the island was discovered back in 2022 after, I believe a tropical cyclone.

This is Gardner Island/Nikumaroro.. I am just using Gardner Island because it's far easier to spell.

I don't see it.. You can see the article at https://www.foxnews.com/travel/researchers-zero-amelia-earharts-disappearance-after-88-years

It has the image.. To me.. This looks like a long, long shot, not only due to the image but also because... It's just a very long shot for them to make it to Gardner. While it was in their flight path, the fact that they seemed to be really close to Howland.. It'd.. Be a long shot for them to make it to Gardner on a turnaround.

I'm not as hopeful about this as the image from a year or two ago that was proven to be.. Rocks in the shape of a plane.

I've not heard that, particularly, but.. Regardless.. I would be hard pressed to say whether that was a good or bad thing.

Amelia Earhart: The Final Story by Vincent V. Loomis is one of the best books I've read on the subject. The author's conclusion that she died at the hands of the Japanese aside (which I find very plausible) he provides one of the more transparent assessments of Earhart as a pilot that I've seen. Many books and documentaries tend to portray her as a very good pilot for whatever reasons but this is far off the mark.

She was actually a poor pilot that was engaged in an attempt that by any objective measure was well beyond her capabilities. Her inability to navigate being one shortfall that Noonan was supposed to make up for. He certainly had numerous shortcomings but was at least generally qualified to do his job when sober. Her overruling him in the past was generally not to her credit, although its of course impossible to say if she did so on the final flight and if that was a contributing factor to her failure.

I get the general impression that most contemporary portrayals of the two put Noonan in a relatively unforgiving light while making her out to be a pilot of Lindbergh's stature which she clearly was not.

Also, thanks to this thread, I learned that the woman that was supposedly Amelia Earhart was proven not to be by public records, and she sued the publisher of the book that claimed she was. But we know how crazy alternate theories are. One man I knew, who I'm no longer in contact with, spread the Internet theory that Elvis is really alive and a pastor named Bob Joyce.Joyce has categorically denied that he is Elvis. https://mythdetector.com/en/is-elvis-presley-alive-and-what-does-he-have-to-do-with-a-preacher-from-arkansas/. So everyone can write what they want in nonfiction books--but that does not make it true.

Also, thanks to this thread, I learned that the woman that was supposedly Amelia Earhart was proven not to be by public records, and she sued the publisher of the book that claimed she was. But we know how crazy alternate theories are. One man I knew, who I'm no longer in contact with, spread the Internet theory that Elvis is really alive and a pastor named Bob Joyce.Joyce has categorically denied that he is Elvis. https://mythdetector.com/en/is-elvis-presley-alive-and-what-does-he-have-to-do-with-a-preacher-from-arkansas/. So everyone can write what they want in nonfiction books--but that does not make it true.

Oh, you're talking about Irene Bolam.. That theory was put out in the 70's by Joe Klass to sell books.

She was none too pleased about it. Sued the piss out of him as I recall.. Basically forced the books to be pulled.

That's been debunked.. Since about 5 minutes after the book was released. It was a total crackpot theory to start with.. Even the slightest bit of research would have debunked it.

I suppose the author thought that he could tie this theory to a little old lady from New Jersey and.. Make some money. She wasn't having any of it.. Well, I think she had some of the money he thought he'd get.. But.. She tore him and the publisher a new one.

Oh... And Elvis had a fondness for "Fool's Gold" Sandwiches.. Those consisted of a hollowed out loaf of bread, a jar of peanut butter, a jar of blueberry jelly and a pound of bacon.

Elvis would be turning 90 in August. NO ONE can eat the above and live to 90.

I finally dug Amelia Earhart: The Final Story out of storage since I had not read it in a while.

Of the Irene Bolam theory, Loomis writes "That this jumbled logic was ever printed as serious research gives some idea of how far people will go to prove their theories."

With respect to Earhart's flying ability, or lack thereof, Loomis indicates that in the year prior to the circumnavigation attempt Earhart was engaged in a crash course to become a proficient IFR pilot while also learning how to fly a multi-engine aircraft. This ought to give some idea of how limited her experience at the time of the circumnavigation attempt.

On the initial westbound attempt Earhart flew from Oakland to Hawaii only with considerable assistance from Mantz who was concerned by the amount of fatigue she exhibited by the end of the leg. She did not takeoff independently (Mantz operated the throttles for her) and played no role in the landing (which Mantz also accomplished).

Regarding the takeoff from Hawaii for what would have been the second leg, Loomis also dispels any confusion as to the cause of her crash. He quotes her own account directly "Suddenly the plane pulled to my right. I reduced power on the opposite engine...there was nothing to do but let the plane ground loop as easily as possible." Mantz (who had served as her instructor) had repeatedly tried to get her to stop jockeying the throttles on the Electra on takeoff prior to this and was watching from outside the aircraft and immediately realized what had happened. Thus her first fully loaded takeoff of this attempt with her at the throttles ended in disaster.

Manning (who was supposed to be her navigator for the entire trip, with Noonan only being along for the Pacific portion) made clear after the Hawaii incident that he did not want to be part of the trip any longer. News reports claiming his leave was up were circulated, but incorrect. As Loomis writes (quoting Manning) "Amelia was responsible for the crash...over-corrected to the left, then to the right, gas leaking, sparks. We were all just damn lucky it didn't catch fire. AE was something of a prima donna–had an ego and could be tough as nails. I got very fed up with her bullheadedness several times."

Loomis further details how cavalier Earhart was with navigation, and both she and Noonan were ambivalent about the use of radio navigation even going so far as to refuse assistance from Pan Am on the matter.

Regarding Noonan, he had been the inspector for Pan Am bases and navigator for the China Clipper before being given the job of mapping the Far East-Pacific routes for the company in 1935. He was unemployed in 1937 however due to his alcohol use, and thus available for the circumnavigation attempt. But as a navigator he was regarded as "better than most."

What is clear from this is that unlike Lindbergh or Alcock and Brown Earhart was really not a very proficient pilot, particularly in relation to what they were attempting to do. Noonan on the other hand was a proficient navigator, but only if he remained sober.

Nothing to do with the controversy, but Brad Meltzer's "Ordinary People Change the World" series for children includes a book titled I AM AMELIA EARHART, in which he details her courage and determination to fly at a time when women didn't do that. I'm not saying she didn't make mistakes, but can we please acknowledge that she broke barriers for women in aviation, and it was a true tragedy what happened to her?

Nothing to do with the controversy, but Brad Meltzer's "Ordinary People Change the World" series for children includes a book titled I AM AMELIA EARHART, in which he details her courage and determination to fly at a time when women didn't do that. I'm not saying she didn't make mistakes, but can we please acknowledge that she broke barriers for women in aviation, and it was a true tragedy what happened to her?

My first exposure to Earhart was also as a kid through similar books directed at children, of which there have been a great many over the years. Needless to say, works directed at children tend to be written to suit that audience which sometimes leads to disappointment later in life.

That she had courage and determination is not up for debate, as several of her flights, and particularly her final circumnavigation attempt, required determination and courage to undertake.

As to "to fly at a time when women didn't do that" that simply is not supported by the historical record. Earhart didn't even get her license until shortly before the 1929 Women's Air Derby which as the name implies consisted of other aviatrixes all or most of whom had had licenses longer than Earhart. Her taking 3rd in the race despite flying the fastest aircraft also says something about the skills of her contemporaries, who have been all but forgotten today.

Likewise, I'm really not sure of any barriers that she broke for women in aviation. She was certainly the most well publicized aviatrix of the time, thanks to her publisher turned husband Putnam. But she was hardly the first aviatrix and arguably faced fewer barriers than most pilots at the time in her circumnavigation attempt which benefited from significant government and private support.

What is sometimes mentioned, but often overlooked is her interest in social work and helping others, which in many ways is more admirable than her flying skills. She had a difficult upbringing due to alcoholism in the family and would later work in a variety of roles serving others. Unfortunately this part of her biography often takes a second role to the flying career.

Her final flight was indeed a type of tragedy, the sort where someone has undertaken a difficult task in the hope of advancing some cause or feat and fails in the process. The Scott expedition would be a similar example. In this kind of tragedy the victim has chosen to put themselves in harms way, but for some greater purpose, and looses the gamble.

I finally dug Amelia Earhart: The Final Story out of storage since I had not read it in a while.

Of the Irene Bolam theory, Loomis writes "That this jumbled logic was ever printed as serious research gives some idea of how far people will go to prove their theories."

With respect to Earhart's flying ability, or lack thereof, Loomis indicates that in the year prior to the circumnavigation attempt Earhart was engaged in a crash course to become a proficient IFR pilot while also learning how to fly a multi-engine aircraft. This ought to give some idea of how limited her experience at the time of the circumnavigation attempt.

On the initial westbound attempt Earhart flew from Oakland to Hawaii only with considerable assistance from Mantz who was concerned by the amount of fatigue she exhibited by the end of the leg. She did not takeoff independently (Mantz operated the throttles for her) and played no role in the landing (which Mantz also accomplished).

Regarding the takeoff from Hawaii for what would have been the second leg, Loomis also dispels any confusion as to the cause of her crash. He quotes her own account directly "Suddenly the plane pulled to my right. I reduced power on the opposite engine...there was nothing to do but let the plane ground loop as easily as possible." Mantz (who had served as her instructor) had repeatedly tried to get her to stop jockeying the throttles on the Electra on takeoff prior to this and was watching from outside the aircraft and immediately realized what had happened. Thus her first fully loaded takeoff of this attempt with her at the throttles ended in disaster.

Manning (who was supposed to be her navigator for the entire trip, with Noonan only being along for the Pacific portion) made clear after the Hawaii incident that he did not want to be part of the trip any longer. News reports claiming his leave was up were circulated, but incorrect. As Loomis writes (quoting Manning) "Amelia was responsible for the crash...over-corrected to the left, then to the right, gas leaking, sparks. We were all just damn lucky it didn't catch fire. AE was something of a prima donna–had an ego and could be tough as nails. I got very fed up with her bullheadedness several times."

Loomis further details how cavalier Earhart was with navigation, and both she and Noonan were ambivalent about the use of radio navigation even going so far as to refuse assistance from Pan Am on the matter.

Regarding Noonan, he had been the inspector for Pan Am bases and navigator for the China Clipper before being given the job of mapping the Far East-Pacific routes for the company in 1935. He was unemployed in 1937 however due to his alcohol use, and thus available for the circumnavigation attempt. But as a navigator he was regarded as "better than most."

What is clear from this is that unlike Lindbergh or Alcock and Brown Earhart was really not a very proficient pilot, particularly in relation to what they were attempting to do. Noonan on the other hand was a proficient navigator, but only if he remained sober.

To be fair.. it was 1937.. We're talking about 30 years since the Wright bros first flight.. There were.. Quite a number of pilots who were not overly proficient.

Not only that.. Planes weren't exactly great at the time, either. Lindbergh had the advantage as well of hitting a continent on his flight vs a tiny speck of an island in the Pacific.

The Electra was highly modified, which.. Throws another wrinkle in. But.. You do also have to acknowledge that even today.. The Electra is looked at as a great aircraft.

Nothing to do with the controversy, but Brad Meltzer's "Ordinary People Change the World" series for children includes a book titled I AM AMELIA EARHART, in which he details her courage and determination to fly at a time when women didn't do that. I'm not saying she didn't make mistakes, but can we please acknowledge that she broke barriers for women in aviation, and it was a true tragedy what happened to her?

Well.. This is where you have to balance things. As it stands, she's portrayed as this trailblazing great pilot.. She was only one of the two. If you don't acknowledge that, then you're not telling the entire story.

There were quite a few women pilots at the time. Earhart had the advantage of being married to George Putnam which opened a number of doors for her and is likely what made her a household name.

Without that marriage.. It's possible that Blanche Scott or someone like her would be the name that comes to mind when thinking of women pilots.

Not to take anything away from her. She did have many successes and her failure on her final flight had nothing to do with her being a woman. That was a difficult flight for anyone of the time, male or female.

But... You can't ignore the fact... She was involved in a number of incidents that show her piloting skills were likely not at a level sufficient for the trip. The push to be first.. Was likely much of her undoing.

She also had the advantage of living in a time where newspapers were the main form of news distribution and.. They wrote their stories on her with a positive spin to sell newspapers.

Remember about 20 years ago.. There was a 7 year old girl who was trying to be the youngest to fly around the world, I believe it was.. Actually, it was 30 years ago.. 1996. Jessica Dubroff.. It was across the US, not around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Dubroff

The news reports were far different here. Part of that is due to her age, but, also due to the times.

To be fair.. it was 1937.. We're talking about 30 years since the Wright bros first flight.. There were.. Quite a number of pilots who were not overly proficient.


It had been 34 years since Kitty Hawk. It would only be another 32 years to Tranquility Base. Aircraft development moved at an absurd pace over this period, especially thanks to the First World War. Certainly there were plenty of non-proficient pilots as there are today. But flying as a practice had advanced by orders of magnitude since the Wright Brothers and there were plenty of qualified pilots around.

Also, most of those pilots were not attempting to circumnavigate the globe.


Not only that.. Planes weren't exactly great at the time, either. Lindbergh had the advantage as well of hitting a continent on his flight vs a tiny speck of an island in the Pacific.

The Electra was highly modified, which.. Throws another wrinkle in. But.. You do also have to acknowledge that even today.. The Electra is looked at as a great aircraft.


There were some incredible aircraft in existence by that time though, and the Electra was one of them. Clarence "Kelly" Johnson was a contributor to the design. In terms of performance the Electra is on par with many GA aircraft flying today.

Lindbergh certainly had a simpler navigational exercise, and indeed he put little effort into navigation for that trip. But he was a very proficient pilot and was using a significantly less capable aircraft.



Well.. This is where you have to balance things. As it stands, she's portrayed as this trailblazing great pilot.. She was only one of the two. If you don't acknowledge that, then you're not telling the entire story.

There were quite a few women pilots at the time. Earhart had the advantage of being married to George Putnam which opened a number of doors for her and is likely what made her a household name.

Without that marriage.. It's possible that Blanche Scott or someone like her would be the name that comes to mind when thinking of women pilots.

Not to take anything away from her. She did have many successes and her failure on her final flight had nothing to do with her being a woman. That was a difficult flight for anyone of the time, male or female.

But... You can't ignore the fact... She was involved in a number of incidents that show her piloting skills were likely not at a level sufficient for the trip. The push to be first.. Was likely much of her undoing.


Basically agree with all of this, although I would actually wager that there were a good number of Pan Am and military pilots that could have done it without taking an outsized risk.



She also had the advantage of living in a time where newspapers were the main form of news distribution and.. They wrote their stories on her with a positive spin to sell newspapers.

Remember about 20 years ago.. There was a 7 year old girl who was trying to be the youngest to fly around the world, I believe it was.. Actually, it was 30 years ago.. 1996. Jessica Dubroff.. It was across the US, not around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Dubroff

The news reports were far different here. Part of that is due to her age, but, also due to the times.

My impression is the news was positive until the accident happened, then turned sour when people realized that this has always been a fraud (no 7 year old is actually capable of piloting an aircraft to that extent).

It had been 34 years since Kitty Hawk. It would only be another 32 years to Tranquility Base. Aircraft development moved at an absurd pace over this period, especially thanks to the First World War. Certainly there were plenty of non-proficient pilots as there are today. But flying as a practice had advanced by orders of magnitude since the Wright Brothers and there were plenty of qualified pilots around.

Also, most of those pilots were not attempting to circumnavigate the globe.


Yes.. But.. When things move that fast.. There's often many problems that come with them.

And.. There were a TON of crashes in the early days and even up to Earhart's time. Not all of which were due to the pilots.. But.. Don't forget as well.. one of the Wrights crashed and killed a.. I think it was a Lt Col on the parade grounds at Ft Myer in Virginia, which is just outside Arlington National Cemetery. It was Orville, and the officer was a Lieutenant.

Maybe the better way to say it is.. She was a fine pilot for her time. Not great. Not terrible. But.. With modern eyes.. She slips quite a bit. Fair? Maybe not. And I'm not taking modern advancements in aviation into account with that statement.


Basically agree with all of this, although I would actually wager that there were a good number of Pan Am and military pilots that could have done it without taking an outsized risk.

We'll never particularly know for sure.. One thing I will say.. IIRC, her initial route, which she crashed on.. Was flying west to east.. And, IIRC.. Was a much 'safer' route. At least in theory.


My impression is the news was positive until the accident happened, then turned sour when people realized that this has always been a fraud (no 7 year old is actually capable of piloting an aircraft to that extent).

The difference I suppose being that Earhart's coverage never turned negative, or, if it did, that's been glossed over by history.. I'm sure someone of the time put out an op-ed in some paper saying "See, flying isn't womens work".. Today's world, there'd probably have been backlash against Putnam for 'putting her up to it'.

And the coverage of Dubroff really wasn't negative towards her, ever, I don't think.. It was negative towards her father and the flight instructor.. Who.. Yes.. If we're being honest, was the one flying the plane. She was a glorified passenger. She was as much a pilot as people on the Titan were "Mission Specialists". All of them were just along for the ride.

Yes.. But.. When things move that fast.. There's often many problems that come with them.

And.. There were a TON of crashes in the early days and even up to Earhart's time. Not all of which were due to the pilots.. But.. Don't forget as well.. one of the Wrights crashed and killed a.. I think it was a Lt Col on the parade grounds at Ft Myer in Virginia, which is just outside Arlington National Cemetery. It was Orville, and the officer was a Lieutenant.



Yes, I believe he was the first to die in a Wright Airplane. Mr. Rolls, of Rolls-Royce, also died in a Wright plane around the same time.

But such pre-war aircraft have little bearing on the state of aviation by 1937. Aircraft had gone from wood and cloth biplanes with wing warping controls, no instruments, and absurdly under powered motors to high powered all metal monoplanes with full IFR and radio capabilities.




Maybe the better way to say it is.. She was a fine pilot for her time. Not great. Not terrible. But.. With modern eyes.. She slips quite a bit. Fair? Maybe not. And I'm not taking modern advancements in aviation into account with that statement.



I think the way to break this down is not to think about modern vs 1937, but to look at her specific skill sets. Until training for this flight she had no experience with either instruments or multi-engine aircraft. Instruments were relatively rare in 1937, but there were skilled pilots in the airlines and military who had experience with both. So while she might have been in the majority of pilots in not having such experience, it also meant she was not at the top of her field even in 1937.

The ground looping wreck in Hawaii is a bit more concerning, because essentially all aircraft were conventional landing gear in 1937 so any pilot would have had to be good at avoiding ground loops which based on her instructor she still had issues with.

Measured against all pilots she might have been middle of the road, and considering her loss in the Air Derby and other factors it would be fair to say she was at best an average private pilot of the time.

Relative to what she was attempting to do, she was well short of the skillets with instruments, radio, and multi engine aircraft that would have been advisable.




We'll never particularly know for sure.. One thing I will say.. IIRC, her initial route, which she crashed on.. Was flying west to east.. And, IIRC.. Was a much 'safer' route. At least in theory.



I've seen different statements on the shift from west to east. Some of it seems to be related to monsoon season in parts of the world and a belief that one direction or the other is appropriate depending on season.

As far as hitting Howland Island, not sure which way would be safer. Hawaii to Howland is a shorter flight, but with essentially nothing between them as a waypoint. Lae to Howland is longer, but has numerous island chains that can be used to fix a position in route, helping the approach.

For what it is worth, Loomis makes no mention of the route change other than it being to avoid less favorable Atlantic weather later in the season and that it was not announced to the public until the last minute.




The difference I suppose being that Earhart's coverage never turned negative, or, if it did, that's been glossed over by history.. I'm sure someone of the time put out an op-ed in some paper saying "See, flying isn't womens work".. Today's world, there'd probably have been backlash against Putnam for 'putting her up to it'.

And the coverage of Dubroff really wasn't negative towards her, ever, I don't think.. It was negative towards her father and the flight instructor.. Who.. Yes.. If we're being honest, was the one flying the plane. She was a glorified passenger. She was as much a pilot as people on the Titan were "Mission Specialists". All of them were just along for the ride.

Basically agree with all of this. Dubroff of course was thought of as a victim. Her father was the real instigator. Honestly I think the flight instructor was vilified a bit more than he should have been, he was a guy trying to make a living, knew the record was a fraud, and was being hounded by rich daddy to make his kid into a record. I have to think if he didn't need the money he would have told them to find someone else. He made a mistake as PIC that killed all of them, but he was pressured to do so.

Ultimately, although Earhart was not a particularly special pilot in terms of accomplishments or skill, her disappearance was likely not due to her failure to aviate, but due to her failure to communicate and, with Noonan, her failure to navigate.

I've seen different statements on the shift from west to east. Some of it seems to be related to monsoon season in parts of the world and a belief that one direction or the other is appropriate depending on season.

As far as hitting Howland Island, not sure which way would be safer. Hawaii to Howland is a shorter flight, but with essentially nothing between them as a waypoint. Lae to Howland is longer, but has numerous island chains that can be used to fix a position in route, helping the approach.

For what it is worth, Loomis makes no mention of the route change other than it being to avoid less favorable Atlantic weather later in the season and that it was not announced to the public until the last minute.



My understanding is that Howland wasn't even part of the equation in the original route.

It was.. Really a completely different route as I recall. I've searched for evidence to either prove that is right or that I'm wrong about it.. All I have been able to quickly dig up is that the original route was far more equatorial.

Might have found it.. And.. It seems that I am wrong.

https://blogs.lib.purdue.edu/asc/2017/03/13/remembering-amelia-earharts-round-the-world-flight-the-80th-anniversary-of-her-shining-adventure-part-1-of-2/

So.. Yes, if Howland was still in the plans.. I don't necessarily know that flying a southwesterly vs a northeasterly route to it would matter a whole lot. But.. Thinking it through.. Maybe it is..

Howland is.. Not insignificantly closer to Hawaii (Honolulu) than New Guinea. It's about 1700 vs 2300 nautical miles.

2300 miles was.. Really pushing the distance of the Electra. There was far, far less margin for error going that way.

Now, of course, we can't say what winds she would have faced or anything of that nature. We know there were some significant headwinds she faced on the actual flight. In theory, at least, she'd have had ~600 more miles of range flying from Hawaii to Howland.. Which would give much more time to locate the island.

Then, the leg from Howland to New Guinea, assuming that remained the same, New Guinea is much easier to hit than Howland. Not as easy as Europe, going back to Lindy's flight, but.. Still.. Much easier.

So.. Looking at it from that perspective. And.. ignoring possibilities of differing winds/conditions and the like.. Certainly seems that it would have been much safer, at least, going from Hawaii to Howland.

now.. Of course, as that page mentions, there was another variable there. They would have had Manning on the flight from Honolulu to Howland. You can look at that as a positive or a negative. An extra person would have affected fuel consumption at least somewhat. I couldn't tell you how much on that plane and that flight, but.. It would have had an effect. But.. On the bright side. You would have had two navigators who could have put their heads together to verify their route.

So.. All told, and not knowing what we don't know.. It does seem to me that Hawaii to Howland was the 'better' route..

My understanding is that Howland wasn't even part of the equation in the original route.

It was.. Really a completely different route as I recall. I've searched for evidence to either prove that is right or that I'm wrong about it.. All I have been able to quickly dig up is that the original route was far more equatorial.

Might have found it.. And.. It seems that I am wrong.

https://blogs.lib.purdue.edu/asc/2017/03/13/remembering-amelia-earharts-round-the-world-flight-the-80th-anniversary-of-her-shining-adventure-part-1-of-2/

So.. Yes, if Howland was still in the plans.. I don't necessarily know that flying a southwesterly vs a northeasterly route to it would matter a whole lot. But.. Thinking it through.. Maybe it is..

Howland is.. Not insignificantly closer to Hawaii (Honolulu) than New Guinea. It's about 1700 vs 2300 nautical miles.

2300 miles was.. Really pushing the distance of the Electra. There was far, far less margin for error going that way.

Now, of course, we can't say what winds she would have faced or anything of that nature. We know there were some significant headwinds she faced on the actual flight. In theory, at least, she'd have had ~600 more miles of range flying from Hawaii to Howland.. Which would give much more time to locate the island.

Then, the leg from Howland to New Guinea, assuming that remained the same, New Guinea is much easier to hit than Howland. Not as easy as Europe, going back to Lindy's flight, but.. Still.. Much easier.

So.. Looking at it from that perspective. And.. ignoring possibilities of differing winds/conditions and the like.. Certainly seems that it would have been much safer, at least, going from Hawaii to Howland.

now.. Of course, as that page mentions, there was another variable there. They would have had Manning on the flight from Honolulu to Howland. You can look at that as a positive or a negative. An extra person would have affected fuel consumption at least somewhat. I couldn't tell you how much on that plane and that flight, but.. It would have had an effect. But.. On the bright side. You would have had two navigators who could have put their heads together to verify their route.

So.. All told, and not knowing what we don't know.. It does seem to me that Hawaii to Howland was the 'better' route..

Distance, winds, the extra navigator all favor Hawaii to Howland yes.

Incidentally, New Guinea is well over 2x as large as England and Ireland combined, its just as easy to hit as Europe. Its a vast landmass.

But the lack of waypoints between Hawaii and Howland is a major shortcoming of that route. One basically has to fly a single 1700 mile shot all the way to Howland with no waypoints.

Nauru which is only 1100 miles from Howland was suggested by Loomis to have been a waypoint for Earhart. At the time it had a lighthouse and major mining complex that at night would have cast light visible for 35 miles at Earhart's cruising altitude. That gives a 70 mile disc on the map that you can hit and know where you are mid route. Then, having fixed your location, you only have to fly another 1100 miles.

So compared to Hawaii-Howland the longest leg of navigation on the Lae-Howland route is significantly shorter. That one factor would override most considerations since deviation from a course is a product of the distance traveled.

Regarding the range of her aircraft, when flying a significantly shorter distance its likely less fuel would be put in the tanks before departure. So although the route is shorter from Hawaii the actual reserve may have been similar either way. The only advantage at that point is lower takeoff weight and a somewhat lighter aircraft in the opening phase of the flight.

Perhaps less fuel, but still.. At least I would think and hope.. A larger margin than they had from new Guinea to Howland. I get your point, tho.. safety.. seemed to not be as big a priority as it likely should have been.

I'm actually really enjoying this discussion, to be honest. I see it as a good, logical discussion.. I hope you see it the same. You bring in some good points, I hope i'm bringing in decent counterpoints.

Obviously.. as I said before.. We don't know what we don't know. so, most all of what we have is theory and speculation. Whether it be our own or others. But, at leas that we can have this discussion.. it's civil.. At least that's how I view it from my end.. I can't poke holes in any of your thoughts. I might not agree with them or consider them as much or as little as you do, but.. That's fine. You're also giving me good things to think about that I haven't before. And again, I hope you see it the same. I'm really having a great time with this..

it's a lost art.. Hell. It's probably an art that has never been developed on the internet. the Civil Discussion. lol.


So.. Unless you have something else.. I suspect we've probably beat the topics of where her skills were as a pilot. Which route likely would have been the safer/better route and.. Other things that I can't even think of right now.

So.. I throw out this one to you. Now, I am assuming that, like me, you put crash and sink at the tippity top of the likely outcomes. Over 90% i'd say.. And.. Probably.. Much higher than that, at least, that's how I feel.

But.. Of the other theories. And by that, I mean the.. 'mainstream' theories.. And yes, that's in quotes. We've got

1) Japanese Capture
2) Tokyo Rose
3) New Britain turnaround
4) She became Ms Bolam
5) Gardner Island

Which of those would you put, no matter how small a chance, as the next most likely outcome? I hesitate to put Ms Bolam and Tokyo Rose up there as they are pretty thoroughly debunked.. But.. When has that stopped people? So.. In fairness. I included them, but I'll be so honestly disappointed if you choose one. Though.. On the other hand.. I think I'd look forward to the debate.

Perhaps less fuel, but still.. At least I would think and hope.. A larger margin than they had from new Guinea to Howland. I get your point, tho.. safety.. seemed to not be as big a priority as it likely should have been.

I'm actually really enjoying this discussion, to be honest. I see it as a good, logical discussion.. I hope you see it the same. You bring in some good points, I hope i'm bringing in decent counterpoints.

Obviously.. as I said before.. We don't know what we don't know. so, most all of what we have is theory and speculation. Whether it be our own or others. But, at leas that we can have this discussion.. it's civil.. At least that's how I view it from my end.. I can't poke holes in any of your thoughts. I might not agree with them or consider them as much or as little as you do, but.. That's fine. You're also giving me good things to think about that I haven't before. And again, I hope you see it the same. I'm really having a great time with this..

it's a lost art.. Hell. It's probably an art that has never been developed on the internet. the Civil Discussion. lol.


So.. Unless you have something else.. I suspect we've probably beat the topics of where her skills were as a pilot. Which route likely would have been the safer/better route and.. Other things that I can't even think of right now.

So.. I throw out this one to you. Now, I am assuming that, like me, you put crash and sink at the tippity top of the likely outcomes. Over 90% i'd say.. And.. Probably.. Much higher than that, at least, that's how I feel.

But.. Of the other theories. And by that, I mean the.. 'mainstream' theories.. And yes, that's in quotes. We've got

1) Japanese Capture
2) Tokyo Rose
3) New Britain turnaround
4) She became Ms Bolam
5) Gardner Island

Which of those would you put, no matter how small a chance, as the next most likely outcome? I hesitate to put Ms Bolam and Tokyo Rose up there as they are pretty thoroughly debunked.. But.. When has that stopped people? So.. In fairness. I included them, but I'll be so honestly disappointed if you choose one. Though.. On the other hand.. I think I'd look forward to the debate.

Re safety, there were many aspects of the planning and training that certainly cut corners on safety, but its at least worth noting that when it came to pace the attempt did not suffer from trying to fly in inappropriate weather in an attempt to make time, which does a lot of pilots in. At least in that respect they were not pushing their luck.

I would not put crash and sink at 90% though. Perhaps 50% if that. At one time I considered it a fairly obvious outcome, but the theory put forward by Loomis makes a compelling case for the Japanese theory.

Tokyo Rose and Ms Bolam are patently absurd and don't warrant further consideration.

Gardner Island I find less compelling than crash and sink because unlike the crash and sink theory its reasonable to expect evidence to have been found on land. The fact that it has not seems to make this theory less compelling.

As to New Britain, the turnaround theory is central to what Loomis proposed for the Japanese encounter. But New Britain itself fails because Earhart could not have turned around at the halfway point and had her radio broadcasts received by Itasca at the strength they were.

The theory Loomis proposed is, essentially, that after sighting Nauru en route to Howland, Earhart drifted off course to the left (as her instructor had seen her do before) and ended up significantly north of Howland. She was still on 157–337 degrees however, as indicated in her radio message.

Loomis, using the work of others before him, proposes two key axioms at this point. First is that a loud and clear reception of her radio broadcast did not require her to be immediately next to Itasca, but merely within a reasonable distance (which he puts at ~150 miles). Second, that although she thought she was running low on fuel, she in fact still had a significant amount left for flight.

Both of these are based on various simulations and tests done by others that Loomis relies on. Given both conditions, he proposes that she reversed course and attempted to fly to the Gilberts which, at ~500 miles, were perhaps within range still and easier to spot than Howland. However, because she was off course to the north, this reversal brought her into the Marshall where she then landed and was captured by the Japanese.

Until I read his book I considered the Japanese theory far fetched because she would have had to be far off course to end up in the Marshall islands. But by combining the turnaround theory with a modest navigational error and an assumption about using Nauru as a waypoint it becomes quite reasonable to end up in the Marshall islands.

Other circumstantial evidence has always pointed to a Japanese capture and imprisonment/death on Saipan. There are various witness accounts and unexplained actions on the part of Japan that suggest involvement. The combination of this with a plausible flight path makes the Japanese theory viable in my mind, at least alongside crash and sink.

I can't believe I never noticed this thread until now. I certainly never got into the details to the extent that you guys have, but from what I know about the subject, it's relatively simple.

Earhart was an incompetent pilot who was made a big deal out of because she was a woman. She got lucky a few times because she had more guts than brains. It caught up with her on her last flight. They got lost, ran out of fuel, and crashed. Exactly where? It doesn't make much of a difference, but I doubt any of these fanciful tales about where she wound up are true. I think she ignominiously crashed into the ocean in the middle of nowhere.

Re safety, there were many aspects of the planning and training that certainly cut corners on safety, but its at least worth noting that when it came to pace the attempt did not suffer from trying to fly in inappropriate weather in an attempt to make time, which does a lot of pilots in. At least in that respect they were not pushing their luck.

I would not put crash and sink at 90% though. Perhaps 50% if that. At one time I considered it a fairly obvious outcome, but the theory put forward by Loomis makes a compelling case for the Japanese theory.

Tokyo Rose and Ms Bolam are patently absurd and don't warrant further consideration.

Gardner Island I find less compelling than crash and sink because unlike the crash and sink theory its reasonable to expect evidence to have been found on land. The fact that it has not seems to make this theory less compelling.

As to New Britain, the turnaround theory is central to what Loomis proposed for the Japanese encounter. But New Britain itself fails because Earhart could not have turned around at the halfway point and had her radio broadcasts received by Itasca at the strength they were.

The theory Loomis proposed is, essentially, that after sighting Nauru en route to Howland, Earhart drifted off course to the left (as her instructor had seen her do before) and ended up significantly north of Howland. She was still on 157–337 degrees however, as indicated in her radio message.

Loomis, using the work of others before him, proposes two key axioms at this point. First is that a loud and clear reception of her radio broadcast did not require her to be immediately next to Itasca, but merely within a reasonable distance (which he puts at ~150 miles). Second, that although she thought she was running low on fuel, she in fact still had a significant amount left for flight.

Both of these are based on various simulations and tests done by others that Loomis relies on. Given both conditions, he proposes that she reversed course and attempted to fly to the Gilberts which, at ~500 miles, were perhaps within range still and easier to spot than Howland. However, because she was off course to the north, this reversal brought her into the Marshall where she then landed and was captured by the Japanese.

Until I read his book I considered the Japanese theory far fetched because she would have had to be far off course to end up in the Marshall islands. But by combining the turnaround theory with a modest navigational error and an assumption about using Nauru as a waypoint it becomes quite reasonable to end up in the Marshall islands.

Other circumstantial evidence has always pointed to a Japanese capture and imprisonment/death on Saipan. There are various witness accounts and unexplained actions on the part of Japan that suggest involvement. The combination of this with a plausible flight path makes the Japanese theory viable in my mind, at least alongside crash and sink.

I put Gardner as the second most likely.. And.. It's really small because.. I just don't see them having the fuel to make it there. We can extrapolate her fuel usage based on he flight level as reported and the weather conditions of the day and.. She certainly would have been very low on fuel when making it to Howland, period.

The theory that she could get to Gardner island.. It requires suspension of disbelief.

I look at the Japanese capture much the same way. With even less of a chance of it.

If she had been killed by the Japanese.. First off, she'd have been a HELL of a lot more useful as propoganda. If you legit catch her spying or even can build the story that she was.. Do you quietly execute her and hide all the evidence of it? Or.. Do you parade her across, what I guess would have been news reels and newspapers at the time?

US/Japan relationships were deteriorating rapidly at that time. She would have been a huge bargaining chip for the Japanese.

The other thing.. The women on Saipan that were 'eyewitnesses' to her and Noonan's executions.. They all described a woman who was wearing man's clothes.. And that's one of the big pieces of evidence, supposedly for it being her.. But.. Anyone who was visiting that area.. Likely would have been dressed much the same. Pith helmet and khaki type clothes. Few women on that trip would be out there in a dress and heels. at least, that's how it seems to me.

Then there's the branch of marines who supposedly saw the plane on fire on Saipan. So, now.. You not only have a successful coverup from the Japanese but also a coverup by americans.. Let's just say that everything happened.. she was captured and executed on Saipan.. When the American forces find her plane.. That would be a rallying cry for the US. "Avenge Amelia" could have turned into a battle cry. Why would you cover that up? Because maybe you DID actually send her as a spy? Cover THAT part up, ok, I can understand it..

So, for me.. When you have to twist things to fit that much.. You have to step back and say.. Hey.. ONE of these things happening is a stretch.. ALL of them happening? That gets tough to swallow.

and.. again.. I'm not putting Gardner out there as a great theory. There's just about as many hoops you have to jump through to say that they made it there. That's why I have crash and sink as an overwhelming favorite as to the 'real' outcome. All the evidence for it is there. And.. You don't have to get into any wild and crazy conspiracy theories or overcome the laws of physics to get to that outcome.

The Tokyo Rose idea.. If it weren't completely debunked, because we know exactly who Tokyo Rose was.. Well.. at least some of them, as we basically know there was no one person. Iva Toguri is kinda the 'face' of Tokyo Rose. In a way.. That would make sense, the Japs capture her and force her to do propoganda broadcasts.. I could see that. But.. You'd have her do them as Amelia Freakin' Earhart.

I'll have to read up on the turnaround theory more. I'm not fully versed on that.. but.. I don't see how that works when she's broadcasting near the Itasca.. Even if 'near' is 150 miles away.. there's no chance a turnaround is a success. and if they turned around earlier, where they would have fuel to get back.. How do we get such a clear signal at the Itasca and why wouldn't they mention they had turned around?

I can't believe I never noticed this thread until now. I certainly never got into the details to the extent that you guys have, but from what I know about the subject, it's relatively simple.

Earhart was an incompetent pilot who was made a big deal out of because she was a woman. She got lucky a few times because she had more guts than brains. It caught up with her on her last flight. They got lost, ran out of fuel, and crashed. Exactly where? It doesn't make much of a difference, but I doubt any of these fanciful tales about where she wound up are true. I think she ignominiously crashed into the ocean in the middle of nowhere.

Not to take any of the fun out of it, because the theories can be fascinating, but at the end of the day this is the story and has been for 88 years even if not enough people want to admit it.
She made some basic mistakes and ultimately cost her and Fred Noonan their lives.

Not to take any of the fun out of it, because the theories can be fascinating, but at the end of the day this is the story and has been for 88 years even if not enough people want to admit it.
She made some basic mistakes and ultimately cost her and Fred Noonan their lives.

I'd argue the failure wasn't solely hers. She had the least responsibility on that plane so far as the reason they went missing.

Of course.. There were only two. and, she does share in responsibility because she didn't know how to use the radio and direction finding equipment properly.. But.. Noonan was the one responsible for navigating them to Howland. So, he is the most at fault.. At least, under the most accepted 'crash and sink' theory.

There's only one thing that shuts up all the various theories, tho.. And that's finding the plane. I don't really buy into anything other than crash and sink.. But.. It is fun to think other scenarios through. Even if its just to debunk them.

As a Kansan I first learned about Amelia Earhart in the third grade. She was both a Heroine to be admired and a cautionary tale of what not to do. Believe it or not most of the topics related to her career and ultimate failure were discussed. Just not in this much detail. She had the fast initial learning curve which led to her biting off more than she could chew on more than one occasion. Her husband was generally blamed for this. By the time of her final flight she no longer enjoyed it and was doing it for the money and prestige. She went on various publicity tours when she should have been perfecting her skills as a pilot, navigator and radio operator. She allowed herself to be pressured to make the attempt when the seasonal winds and weather were no longer in her favor. Reversing her original course. It was generally thought she would have been successful if she delayed the attempt until conditions were favorable again. It also would have given her more time to train and learn. Again the blame game focused on her husband. Ultimately it was her responsibility. She took the risk and her luck ran out. I was taught and still think she sank. Japanese capture is a possibility though. The Pacific is dotted with tiny islands that are submerged seasonly or even daily by the tide. Ie Shima island where Ernie Pyle was killed is a low level island of this type, shinking in size during the day. Coral formations and submerged land masses can appear to be dry islands under certain conditions. So the research and debate/ discussion continues. Labonte18 is consistent with imforative and civil discussions that I find interesting and enjoyable.

As a Kansan I first learned about Amelia Earhart in the third grade. She was both a Heroine to be admired and a cautionary tale of what not to do. Believe it or not most of the topics related to her career and ultimate failure were discussed. Just not in this much detail. She had the fast initial learning curve which led to her biting off more than she could chew on more than one occasion. Her husband was generally blamed for this. By the time of her final flight she no longer enjoyed it and was doing it for the money and prestige. She went on various publicity tours when she should have been perfecting her skills as a pilot, navigator and radio operator. She allowed herself to be pressured to make the attempt when the seasonal winds and weather were no longer in her favor. Reversing her original course. It was generally thought she would have been successful if she delayed the attempt until conditions were favorable again. It also would have given her more time to train and learn. Again the blame game focused on her husband. Ultimately it was her responsibility. She took the risk and her luck ran out. I was taught and still think she sank. Japanese capture is a possibility though. The Pacific is dotted with tiny islands that are submerged seasonly or even daily by the tide. Ie Shima island where Ernie Pyle was killed is a low level island of this type, shinking in size during the day. Coral formations and submerged land masses can appear to be dry islands under certain conditions. So the research and debate/ discussion continues. Labonte18 is consistent with imforative and civil discussions that I find interesting and enjoyable.

There's so many things just interesting about this.. I don't know if i've brought it up here before or not.. but Amelia's sister was a pretty interesting woman herself.. And died not too long ago in 1998. In fact, she spoke out against the Japanese spy theory during her lifetime.

This, like DB Cooper and other cases.. We don't have a solution on. So.. Theories abound. And.. Many of them cannot be disproven, so.. While *I* may not think that is what happened.. I can't disprove it, so.. While I can say why I don't put much faith in something being the outcome.. I still have to acknowledge.. It's possible. Unlikely in my mind, but..

As I've said many times before.. I sure didn't have Hantavirus and natural causes anywhere on the board when it came to Gene Hackman. Not sure anyone did. And I wouldn't have ranked that outcome very high on my list of possibilities if someone brought it up. So.. I always have to leave that possibility out there that.. As much sense as something makes for me.. Doesn't mean i'm right.

Plus.. It's just human nature. All of us love a good mystery.. but.. We also all want it solved.

There's so many things just interesting about this.. I don't know if i've brought it up here before or not.. but Amelia's sister was a pretty interesting woman herself.. And died not too long ago in 1998. In fact, she spoke out against the Japanese spy theory during her lifetime

Here is a decent article from 1983 to prove his point:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/1983/03/25/earharts-sister-sees-no-mystery/62851717007/

Here is a decent article from 1983 to prove his point:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/1983/03/25/earharts-sister-sees-no-mystery/62851717007/

That article is interesting. Her sister may have been the family member that debunked the shoe sightings. I only knew a couple of people that believed She was Eleanor Roosevelt's personal spy. The Japanese capture theory was based on her wandering into their territory and triggering paranoia. If the Japanese recovered them alive and interogated or tortured them it would be a delicate situation to explain if they were to return them. Easier to just dispose of them. Japanese officers were also known to lose their temper and execute people in their custody. I find it plausible but not probable. As someone pointed out the Malaysian airliner a much larger aircraft with modern flight tracking systems and black boxes disappeared. The Pacific is unbelievably huge.

I have to add the Soviet downing of the KAL airliner in the 1990s for those who can't accept a military overreaction to "invasion" of their airspace.

I put Gardner as the second most likely.. And.. It's really small because.. I just don't see them having the fuel to make it there. We can extrapolate her fuel usage based on he flight level as reported and the weather conditions of the day and.. She certainly would have been very low on fuel when making it to Howland, period.

The theory that she could get to Gardner island.. It requires suspension of disbelief.



Or just a different fuel analysis. I find Gardner unconvincing because nothing has been found there and it would be reasonable to expect something to be found. But in fairness to the theory, the same fuel analysis used for the Japanese theory permits her to fly to Gardner.





I look at the Japanese capture much the same way. With even less of a chance of it.

If she had been killed by the Japanese.. First off, she'd have been a HELL of a lot more useful as propaganda. If you legit catch her spying or even can build the story that she was.. Do you quietly execute her and hide all the evidence of it? Or.. Do you parade her across, what I guess would have been news reels and newspapers at the time?




Quietly execute and hide the evidence. There would be zero propaganda value to capturing her.
Consider this, who would the propaganda be for?
Japan? They already had total propaganda telling exactly what they wanted, factual or not, they had no need of her.
The US? That would only incite the US to act against Japan, which is exactly what Japan was trying to avoid.
Third party countries that Japan wants to align with itself against America? The only one that might have any use, but its hard to foresee what states those would be that it would be meaningfully useful for, and in any case it would never outweigh getting the ire of the US.



US/Japan relationships were deteriorating rapidly at that time. She would have been a huge bargaining chip for the Japanese.


I see no value whatsoever as a bargaining chip. Holding her ransom might extract a short term concession, but that would be meaningless victory given how it would expose Japan's activities in the Marshall Islands.

Loomis addressed the geopolitical situation in his book, and in essence the Japanese activities on the Marshall Islands were highly secretive and against prior agreements. The primary goal would simply be to maintain that secrecy. Earhart materializing in those islands would contravene that. Either alive, with knowledge of the military presence, or dead, which would invite questions and demands for answers Japan didn't want to provide.



The other thing.. The women on Saipan that were 'eyewitnesses' to her and Noonan's executions.. They all described a woman who was wearing man's clothes.. And that's one of the big pieces of evidence, supposedly for it being her.. But.. Anyone who was visiting that area.. Likely would have been dressed much the same. Pith helmet and khaki type clothes. Few women on that trip would be out there in a dress and heels. at least, that's how it seems to me.



I would not characterize the man's clothes as the big piece of evidence, its a minor point. Its more that a Caucasian woman was there at all. This was not an area that any foreigners were permitted in as a matter of course. No one was visiting, especially not American women. That aspect of the testimony makes it highly reliable.



Then there's the branch of marines who supposedly saw the plane on fire on Saipan. So, now.. You not only have a successful coverup from the Japanese but also a coverup by americans.. Let's just say that everything happened.. she was captured and executed on Saipan.. When the American forces find her plane.. That would be a rallying cry for the US. "Avenge Amelia" could have turned into a battle cry. Why would you cover that up? Because maybe you DID actually send her as a spy? Cover THAT part up, ok, I can understand it..



I'm on the fence about the Marines story. On the one hand, I would have expected Japan to destroy the plane long before then.
But the US did not need an "Avenge Amelia" in 1944 at any rate, Pearl Harbor was plenty and the war was well underway. It would have had little propaganda value.
As to covering it up, that may have been expedient because if it was found she had been there in 1937 there may have been awkward questions of the Roosevelt Administration as to why nothing was done.




I'll have to read up on the turnaround theory more. I'm not fully versed on that.. but.. I don't see how that works when she's broadcasting near the Itasca.. Even if 'near' is 150 miles away.. there's no chance a turnaround is a success. and if they turned around earlier, where they would have fuel to get back.. How do we get such a clear signal at the Itasca and why wouldn't they mention they had turned around?

I would like to find the original analysis Loomis referred to on fuel. That would help me understand its plausibility.

The radio analysis does show 150 miles is plenty for the radio signal as it came in. As to why she didn't say she was turning around...that could be any number of reasons. One was likely panic setting in and desperation, she had never had full communication with Itasca and may have given up, realized that she needed to act decisively to reach some landing location, and been focused on that instead of notifying Itasca which would not have helped at that point anyway. Or it may have been she did, but due to the ongoing frequency issues it was not received. Really, we don't know what messages were not received that trip, but given the issues, I would not be surprised if she broadcasted some messages on a frequency that Itasca did not hear.

The radio analysis does show 150 miles is plenty for the radio signal as it came in. As to why she didn't say she was turning around...that could be any number of reasons. One was likely panic setting in and desperation, she had never had full communication with Itasca and may have given up, realized that she needed to act decisively to reach some landing location, and been focused on that instead of notifying Itasca which would not have helped at that point anyway. Or it may have been she did, but due to the ongoing frequency issues it was not received. Really, we don't know what messages were not received that trip, but given the issues, I would not be surprised if she broadcasted some messages on a frequency that Itasca did not hear.

I don't agree with the rest.. But this part..

Ok.. remember the final transmissions. Or, at least, the final official transmissions.

They broadcasted that they were on the line 157/337.. Which I can't see them doing that if they turned around.

But, also, "We must be on you now but cannot see you"

Why would you transmit to the Itasca that you couldn't see them if you had turned around, or had bailed to Gardner?

Now.. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that the Itasca started sending up smoke from the engines and she was unable to see that as well.


You mentioned no evidence on Gardner island but.. There has been SOME evidence recovered from there.. However.. None of it can conclusively be tied to her. It's all very circumstantial and there could be many other explanations.

There was a jar of 'freckle cream', which.. Seeing how big a concern weight would be.. I don't know she would have brought that, though, it was only an ounce or two. There was the shoe heel that is consistent with her shoe size. There was the skeleton that was examined and concluded to be a man, but, it disappeared so no modern analysis can be done on it. And there was a part of what is believed to be an Electra found there, but.. It can't be matched up to her plane.

I think.. Most of that is likely TIGHAR buffeting up the theory and hoping to get more money for more expeditions, but..

It's.. Really difficult to fathom the distances between places in the Pacific. The Gardner theory is about like they were flying to Omaha, NE from the south and crashed in Charlotte, NC.


Plus.. IIRC.. Putnam actually did send a search team to Gradner island. It was.. I think a year or so later, but..

I'll also add. Roosevelt sent 10 ships out searching for her.. That.. Doesn't really help back up the 'spy' theory.

So.. There's another one out there. This is a paywall article.. I can't find one that's not, though I read one earlier today..

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a65603272/a-pilot-is-pretty-sure-he-found-amelia-earharts-plane/

It's just a random guy who says he's found her plane using Google Earth off of Gardner Island.

Ah.. Here you go.. Non-paywall of the article

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/pilot-pretty-sure-found-amelia-100000272.html?guccounter=1

not putting much faith it it.. This is, apparently, different than what Purdue University will be going to Gardner island to investigate later this year or next..

I doubt either turns up anything substantive.. But.. You never know.

I don't agree with the rest.. But this part..

Ok.. remember the final transmissions. Or, at least, the final official transmissions.

They broadcasted that they were on the line 157/337.. Which I can't see them doing that if they turned around.

But, also, "We must be on you now but cannot see you"

Why would you transmit to the Itasca that you couldn't see them if you had turned around, or had bailed to Gardner?

Now.. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that the Itasca started sending up smoke from the engines and she was unable to see that as well.



Its important to make a distinction here. The Gardner theory requires them to turn around earlier I think, so your reasoning would correctly cast doubt on it.

However, what Loomis proposed was based on that transmission being correct, insofar as they were at that line at that time. So no disagreement there.

He proposes that they turn around after that transmission, and based on the fuel analysis he had plus them being on that line but to the north they are within reach of the Marshall Islands.

That also fits with the Itasca smoke not being seen. They were 150 miles north on that line of longitude and thus out of visual range for the smoke.



You mentioned no evidence on Gardner island but.. There has been SOME evidence recovered from there.. However.. None of it can conclusively be tied to her. It's all very circumstantial and there could be many other explanations.

There was a jar of 'freckle cream', which.. Seeing how big a concern weight would be.. I don't know she would have brought that, though, it was only an ounce or two. There was the shoe heel that is consistent with her shoe size. There was the skeleton that was examined and concluded to be a man, but, it disappeared so no modern analysis can be done on it. And there was a part of what is believed to be an Electra found there, but.. It can't be matched up to her plane.

I think.. Most of that is likely TIGHAR buffeting up the theory and hoping to get more money for more expeditions, but..

It's.. Really difficult to fathom the distances between places in the Pacific. The Gardner theory is about like they were flying to Omaha, NE from the south and crashed in Charlotte, NC.


Plus.. IIRC.. Putnam actually did send a search team to Gradner island. It was.. I think a year or so later, but..

I'll also add. Roosevelt sent 10 ships out searching for her.. That.. Doesn't really help back up the 'spy' theory.

Can't say I would disagree with this, although in summation there isn't really any evidence on Gardner, certainly not what would be expected of an entire aircraft landing there.

Likewise I don't put any weight on the spy theory. But there are explanations for them ending up in the Marshall Islands which are independent of the spy theory that can account for the Japan angle.

That article is interesting. Her sister may have been the family member that debunked the shoe sightings. I only knew a couple of people that believed She was Eleanor Roosevelt's personal spy. The Japanese capture theory was based on her wandering into their territory and triggering paranoia. If the Japanese recovered them alive and interogated or tortured them it would be a delicate situation to explain if they were to return them. Easier to just dispose of them. Japanese officers were also known to lose their temper and execute people in their custody. I find it plausible but not probable. As someone pointed out the Malaysian airliner a much larger aircraft with modern flight tracking systems and black boxes disappeared. The Pacific is unbelievably huge.

I have to add the Soviet downing of the KAL airliner in the 1990s for those who can't accept a military overreaction to "invasion" of their airspace.


KAL 007 was 1983. Incidentally, I find it interesting that UM never did a KAL 007 segment. It would have made for a very good subject. Multiple theories about what happened with that one.

Its important to make a distinction here. The Gardner theory requires them to turn around earlier I think, so your reasoning would correctly cast doubt on it.

However, what Loomis proposed was based on that transmission being correct, insofar as they were at that line at that time. So no disagreement there.

He proposes that they turn around after that transmission, and based on the fuel analysis he had plus them being on that line but to the north they are within reach of the Marshall Islands.

That also fits with the Itasca smoke not being seen. They were 150 miles north on that line of longitude and thus out of visual range for the smoke.



Can't say I would disagree with this, although in summation there isn't really any evidence on Gardner, certainly not what would be expected of an entire aircraft landing there.

Likewise I don't put any weight on the spy theory. But there are explanations for them ending up in the Marshall Islands which are independent of the spy theory that can account for the Japan angle.

I can't make the math work for Gardner. Saying that "We must be on you.." to me is slam dunk that they are, or at least THINK they are in the area of Howland.. I just can't see any math that works that gets them to Gardner.. Not without considering just astounding luck.. Good or bad, i'm not sure.. That they screwed up the navigation so bad going to Howland and then just so happened to 'find' (accidentally or otherwise) Gardner.

I mean, I do think it's the best theory outside of crash and sink.. But, it's still a poor theory.

And.. Yes.. I doubt any of the 'artifacts' found on Gardner were from Earhart..

KAL 007 was 1983. Incidentally, I find it interesting that UM never did a KAL 007 segment. It would have made for a very good subject. Multiple theories about what happened with that one.

Did they not? I must be thinking of another show.. I've seen several on that incident. Seems fairly straightforward to me. The plane went off course, the pilot who shot it down realized it was a civilian aircraft, but.. Fired anyway.

This.. Happens. I mean within the past 10 years or so another plane was shot down over one of the former soviet republics.. You have the Iranian passenger plane that was shot down by the US Navy, and, perhaps that's the one I'm thinking of that was certainly covered by UM.. Not the shooting down, but the bombing of the captain's minivan..

If I had a dollar for every time this plane was supposedly found over the last 30 years...

If I had a dollar for every time this plane was supposedly found over the last 30 years...

You'd have a dollar. The only one I know of is the recent rock formation that.. Let's be honest. DID look like a plane, until better imaging was taken.

Now, if you had a dollar for every time TIGHAR or someone else said they had 'solved' the mystery.. You'd at least be able to get a Starbucks Coffee.

Hi -- I made an observation that likely won't shed light on Amelia Earhart's disappearance, but I still found it interesting. According to several websites, Earhart (and a few travelling companions) took off for that around-the-world flight attempt on May 20, 1937. This is 10 years to the day that Charles Lindbergh left New York for Paris on his historic flight.

BREAKING NEWS - President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/trump-orders-release-of-records-related-to-amelia-earhart/

Spoiler alert: She crashed and sank.

Also, "Earhart" is a weird way to spell "Epstein."

BREAKING NEWS - President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/trump-orders-release-of-records-related-to-amelia-earhart/

That will take attention away from all his b ullshit for about a fraction of a nanosecond.

Also, "Earhart" is a weird way to spell "Epstein."

🤣🤣 For real.

BREAKING NEWS - President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/trump-orders-release-of-records-related-to-amelia-earhart/

Spoiler alert: She crashed and sank.

Also, "Earhart" is a weird way to spell "Epstein."

That will take attention away from all his b ullshit for about a fraction of a nanosecond.

🤣🤣 For real.

Please allow me to direct you all to a place where you can talk politics to your hearts content.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/

Please allow me to direct you all to a place where you can talk politics to your hearts content.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/

My post "President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart"

Was NOT political, and was in the appropriate place. As it was about Amelia Earhart, NOT politics

My post "President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart"

Was NOT political, and was in the appropriate place. As it was about Amelia Earhart, NOT politics

No, you didn't.. But dealing with political people is like dealing with 5 year olds. The next thing said would probably have been "Well, they started it!"

No, you didn't.. But dealing with political people is like dealing with 5 year olds. The next thing said would probably have been "Well, they started it!"

The quote was "President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart"

Explain how that sentence is political

The quote was "President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart"

Explain how that sentence is political

Explain what you didn't understand about the previous post where I said no it wasn't.

Explain what you didn't understand about the previous post where I said no it wasn't.

YOU are the one who is saying this quote below

"President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart"

Is political. Since YOU are the one that is making that claim, YOU need to explain why it is politcal.

YOU are the one who is saying this quote below

"President Trump says he’s ordered the declassification and release of all government records on Amelia Earhart"

Is political. Since YOU are the one that is making that claim, YOU need to explain why it is politcal.

I think he's saying your post wasn't political. It was just a link to a news article. It really wasn't necessary for him to have quoted it, but he probably just did for context. He was referring to the other three replies.

If people want to discuss politics, there's other forums out there. Let's keep this thread focused on Amelia Earhart.

I think he's saying your post wasn't political.

No, he made it clear my post was political. and it is up to HIM to explain how the post was political if HE is making that accusation.

No, he made it clear my post was political. and it is up to HIM to explain how the post was political if HE is making that accusation.

I think he meant to say "No, it wasn't" a political post instead of "No, you didn't" make a political post. He could have been a bit more clear to avoid any confusion.

I think you are overreacting here. He wasn't making an accusation.

Did they not? I must be thinking of another show.. I've seen several on that incident. Seems fairly straightforward to me. The plane went off course, the pilot who shot it down realized it was a civilian aircraft, but.. Fired anyway.

This.. Happens. I mean within the past 10 years or so another plane was shot down over one of the former soviet republics.. You have the Iranian passenger plane that was shot down by the US Navy, and, perhaps that's the one I'm thinking of that was certainly covered by UM.. Not the shooting down, but the bombing of the captain's minivan..

At least per the wiki no, they never addressed KAL 007.

As to the incident, no, it was anything but straightforward. Plenty of contradictory evidence, cover up, secrecy, and conjecture as to what happened. I don't even know if I would say I have a theory, other than the government explanation (from either the US or Soviet side) was clearly not what happened.

It would have been an excellent UM segment.

The "Star Trek:Voyager" episode "The 37s" had a wild take on Earhart: she got abducted by aliens, put in stasis, and got rescued by Voyager in the 24th century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A448A6R6sBM

A fun interview/pod on the various theories

The Unsolved Couple podcast did a deep dive into the show. If you have not listened to them (I found the link on this UM board), you are missing something special.

They don't believe that the Japanese were holding Amelia Earhart, a beloved American figure and worldwide celebrity, as a prisoner. It just made no sense to them. I think I have to agree, especially based on the dubious scholarship of the theories.

The Unsolved Couple podcast did a deep dive into the show. If you have not listened to them (I found the link on this UM board), you are missing something special.

They don't believe that the Japanese were holding Amelia Earhart, a beloved American figure and worldwide celebrity, as a prisoner. It just made no sense to them. I think I have to agree, especially based on the dubious scholarship of the theories.

It also makes no sense that if it did happen, and the American government/military found out about it, that THEY would then cover it up.

If the Japanese captured her, it would have been used for propaganda big time. If the US found out they captured her, THAT would have been used for propaganda.. There's just zero reason that either side would keep it quiet. In the US.. "Avenge Amelia" would have been a rallying cry to sell war bonds, no doubt.

The US/Japanese relationship was pretty crappy at the time, as evidenced by the fact that 4 and a half years later, Pearl Harbor happened.. So, the Japanese taking her as a spy from that standpoint is certainly believable.. However.. There's next to no chance that she went off course THAT bad. She would have had a more difficult time reaching Saipan - which is the place the plane was supposedly found - than reaching Gardner island.

While her skills as a pilot were not great.. I have a hard time believing they were that bad.. Which leaves the only possibility that she actually was spying.. Which makes little sense, because the area she would have flown, there wasn't an area that she could safely get to.. So, it would basically have been her flying knowing that she'd either be captured or crash into the ocean.

I just don't buy it.. I've learned never say never, but.. That whole idea really pushes the boundaries of belief.

Remember also that the ocean depths around Howland island are really deep. Like 17k feet.. Nearly 50% deeper than the wreck of the Titanic. The Titanic we actually had a halfway decent idea of the area where it went down, and it still took 70 years to find it. And it had a wreckage area of about 15 square miles.. Pending on how the plane landed - or crashed - into the ocean.. There could be next to nothing other than the engine. If it soft crashed.. Perhaps it could still be rather intact.. But, it really isn't overly surprising that we haven't found the plane. Even modern tech.. We can't find MH370

It also makes no sense that if it did happen, and the American government/military found out about it, that THEY would then cover it up.

If the Japanese captured her, it would have been used for propaganda big time. If the US found out they captured her, THAT would have been used for propaganda.. There's just zero reason that either side would keep it quiet. In the US.. "Avenge Amelia" would have been a rallying cry to sell war bonds, no doubt.

The US/Japanese relationship was pretty crappy at the time, as evidenced by the fact that 4 and a half years later, Pearl Harbor happened.. So, the Japanese taking her as a spy from that standpoint is certainly believable.. However.. There's next to no chance that she went off course THAT bad. She would have had a more difficult time reaching Saipan - which is the place the plane was supposedly found - than reaching Gardner island.

While her skills as a pilot were not great.. I have a hard time believing they were that bad.. Which leaves the only possibility that she actually was spying.. Which makes little sense, because the area she would have flown, there wasn't an area that she could safely get to.. So, it would basically have been her flying knowing that she'd either be captured or crash into the ocean.

I just don't buy it.. I've learned never say never, but.. That whole idea really pushes the boundaries of belief.

Remember also that the ocean depths around Howland island are really deep. Like 17k feet.. Nearly 50% deeper than the wreck of the Titanic. The Titanic we actually had a halfway decent idea of the area where it went down, and it still took 70 years to find it. And it had a wreckage area of about 15 square miles.. Pending on how the plane landed - or crashed - into the ocean.. There could be next to nothing other than the engine. If it soft crashed.. Perhaps it could still be rather intact.. But, it really isn't overly surprising that we haven't found the plane. Even modern tech.. We can't find MH370

Just a funny note on that last one. Don Lemon said MH370 was sucked into a black hole. That's one of those TV moments that has you checking your hearing.

They don't believe that the Japanese were holding Amelia Earhart, a beloved American figure and worldwide celebrity, as a prisoner. It just made no sense to them. I think I have to agree, especially based on the dubious scholarship of the theories.

Sounds like the podcasters don't really have much historical background.

"Worldwide celebrity" yeah...maybe US plus a few places in Europe. Earhart was far from noteworthy to Japan in 1937. The odds that a random officer on some island would even know who she was, let alone care, are poor to say the least. If they thought she had been engaged in espionage she would be lucky to be a prisoner.

This sounds like someone who is looking at this from a 2026 view with the internet and a deeply interconnected world that is heavily influenced by the western media. 1937 was a totally different world.

It also makes no sense that if it did happen, and the American government/military found out about it, that THEY would then cover it up.

If the Japanese captured her, it would have been used for propaganda big time. If the US found out they captured her, THAT would have been used for propaganda.. There's just zero reason that either side would keep it quiet. In the US.. "Avenge Amelia" would have been a rallying cry to sell war bonds, no doubt.


Nope, all of this is just ahistorical.

For the Japanese side.
They were not at war with the US in 1937 and did not want to be. Not only did they not need the propaganda, they absolutely would have to keep it quiet to avoid conflict with the US.

For the US side.
If the Japanese had captured her it was in 1937. Most agree the Americans didn't know until 1944 or so when they got into the islands as part of the war. 7 years had passed and Pearl Harbor happened. There was zero need for additional propaganda against Japan or selling war bonds. We already had a rallying cry, it was the Arizona.

Revealing it would just embarrass the administration for failing to do more in 1937. Furthermore, even if it did direct more attention against Japan that was the opposite of what the administration wanted. FDR wanted war so he could go meddle in Europe, he didn't want to be focused on the Pacific theater (hence why he made no real effort to keep the Philippines or prepare for war there).



The US/Japanese relationship was pretty crappy at the time, as evidenced by the fact that 4 and a half years later, Pearl Harbor happened.. So, the Japanese taking her as a spy from that standpoint is certainly believable.. However.. There's next to no chance that she went off course THAT bad. She would have had a more difficult time reaching Saipan - which is the place the plane was supposedly found - than reaching Gardner island.


US relations with Japan were very different in 1937 than 1941. That said, relations have little do do with how they would have treated a spy.

Her ending up in Saipan is accounted for, not by her going off course, but by her turning back and flying towards the Marianas after failing to locate Howland Island. As best I can tell, no proponent of the Japan theory ever claimed that she ended up there by being absurdly off course.



While her skills as a pilot were not great.. I have a hard time believing they were that bad.. Which leaves the only possibility that she actually was spying.. Which makes little sense, because the area she would have flown, there wasn't an area that she could safely get to.. So, it would basically have been her flying knowing that she'd either be captured or crash into the ocean.


I don't think she was spying, nor is that integral to the Japan theory. The idea that they would send her as a spy is far fetched. Rather, she turned back toward the Marianas in an attempt to reach land after failing to find Howland as intended and was mistaken for a spy by the Japanese.

Nope, all of this is just ahistorical.

For the Japanese side.
They were not at war with the US in 1937 and did not want to be. Not only did they not need the propaganda, they absolutely would have to keep it quiet to avoid conflict with the US.

For the US side.
If the Japanese had captured her it was in 1937. Most agree the Americans didn't know until 1944 or so when they got into the islands as part of the war. 7 years had passed and Pearl Harbor happened. There was zero need for additional propaganda against Japan or selling war bonds. We already had a rallying cry, it was the Arizona.

Revealing it would just embarrass the administration for failing to do more in 1937. Furthermore, even if it did direct more attention against Japan that was the opposite of what the administration wanted. FDR wanted war so he could go meddle in Europe, he didn't want to be focused on the Pacific theater (hence why he made no real effort to keep the Philippines or prepare for war there).




US relations with Japan were very different in 1937 than 1941. That said, relations have little do do with how they would have treated a spy.

Her ending up in Saipan is accounted for, not by her going off course, but by her turning back and flying towards the Marianas after failing to locate Howland Island. As best I can tell, no proponent of the Japan theory ever claimed that she ended up there by being absurdly off course.




I don't think she was spying, nor is that integral to the Japan theory. The idea that they would send her as a spy is far fetched. Rather, she turned back toward the Marianas in an attempt to reach land after failing to find Howland as intended and was mistaken for a spy by the Japanese.

Okay, this is good historical context, thanks. Even though the original proponents of the theory have come under fire, this historical background at least suggests why Amelia Earhart being a prisoner might be plausible.

I don't think she was spying, nor is that integral to the Japan theory. The idea that they would send her as a spy is far fetched. Rather, she turned back toward the Marianas in an attempt to reach land after failing to find Howland as intended and was mistaken for a spy by the Japanese.

So.. The Marianas are about 1800 miles East of Howland island. The Electra flies at about 200mph.. Did you mean the Marshall Islands? That would.. At least be much closer to possible. The Marshalls are about 800-1000 miles WEST of Howland. That.. Holds about as much water as making it to Gardner Island. A little further, but much closer than the Marianas.

So.. That's.. 9 hours away for the Marianas.. Okay.

Are you saying she made it that far? I mean, good, strong radio signal at Howland saying she was low on fuel.. admittedly, there was far less radio traffic back in the day, so a signal could fly further without interference.

Or.. Did she head that direction, do a soft landing in the ocean - remember that she wasn't all that good at landing on LAND - and was picked up by a Japanese patrol?

There's another angle here.. Relations were not good between the US and Japan.. Just how bad, well.. We weren't being bombed by them in a sneak attack yet, but.. Japan would have a whole lot of motivation as well to be the heroes that came to her rescue. At that time, to an extent, air travel was.. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but it was at least mildly comparable to the space race. Let's say in the 60's that a US spacecraft wound up stranded in space.. If the Soviets were able to mount a rescue mission, it'd be a PR coup for them.. Same thing here with the Japanese, if they managed to rescue Earhart.. That'd be a pretty big feather in their caps. At the very least, that outcome would be better for them than the risk of an execution becoming known.

I don't know if I posted it here or elsewhere, but I went back and did a dive on contemporary newspaper records.. The theory of her being captured by the Japanese actually started.. Well.. The first record of it I could find was in the early 40's, after Pearl Harbor.. Earhart's mother was the one who was saying that's what she believed. There's two things there.. First off.. A theory that didn't exist, started after we went to war.. The other..

Very much reminds me of someone like Noreen Gosch. Just can't accept the obvious. It's understandable.. but..

I kinda think that if Earhart's mother were alive in 1970 - she died in '62 - when the whole crazy theory about her being Irene Boman came about.. It'd be one of those situations where she'd buy into it.

Most times, answers are the simplest things. So.. I'm still all-in on crash and sink, don't get me wrong. Alternatives can be fun to think about.. but the overwhelming odds remain that she's in the same spot she's been since 1937.. On the bottom of the ocean.

The only theory that you really don't have to jump through hoops for is.. Crash and sink. Fred Noonan was considered one of the top navigators in the world.. However... He was also known as being a drunk.. and celestial navigation is.. Well, I would consider it fairly difficult.

One other thing.. The part about her being a global celebrity.. Certainly in the aviation world, she was. How much did the 'common man' overseas know her name? Not quite sure.. In the US.. Most everyone knew of her. Putnam, through his publishing company and her endorsements, made sure of that. In today's world, she'd probably most be considered as an 'influencer'.

So.. The Marianas are about 1800 miles East of Howland island. The Electra flies at about 200mph.. Did you mean the Marshall Islands? That would.. At least be much closer to possible. The Marshalls are about 800-1000 miles WEST of Howland. That.. Holds about as much water as making it to Gardner Island. A little further, but much closer than the Marianas.

So.. That's.. 9 hours away for the Marianas.. Okay.



Yes, my apologies, a bit of a typo there. Her destination would have been the Marshalls (they are actually both west of Howland, but as you point out the Marshalls are closer). Part of the reason for the typo is that Saipan is in the Marianas, and thus the theory is that she was eventually transported there, but yes initially she would have been aiming to land in the Marshalls.



Are you saying she made it that far? I mean, good, strong radio signal at Howland saying she was low on fuel.. admittedly, there was far less radio traffic back in the day, so a signal could fly further without interference.



I would not agree that radio signals could propagate any more or less then than now, that is affected by many other factors. Shortwave broadcasting today still regularly covers thousands of miles.

But yes, the theory is that she could have flown there. This is based on analysis that was done after the fact that concluded she had sufficient fuel. Her only statement on fuel is extremely vague, and could be interpreted as she was running too low on fuel to continue trying to land at Howland.



Or.. Did she head that direction, do a soft landing in the ocean - remember that she wasn't all that good at landing on LAND - and was picked up by a Japanese patrol?



Doubtful it was a ditching in open water, both due to the pilot skill issue and the lack of appeal of such an option. In a lagoon perhaps.




There's another angle here.. Relations were not good between the US and Japan.. Just how bad, well.. We weren't being bombed by them in a sneak attack yet, but.. Japan would have a whole lot of motivation as well to be the heroes that came to her rescue. At that time, to an extent, air travel was.. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but it was at least mildly comparable to the space race. Let's say in the 60's that a US spacecraft wound up stranded in space.. If the Soviets were able to mount a rescue mission, it'd be a PR coup for them.. Same thing here with the Japanese, if they managed to rescue Earhart.. That'd be a pretty big feather in their caps. At the very least, that outcome would be better for them than the risk of an execution becoming known.



I would posit that Japan could not have cared less about a "feather in their caps" from the western colonial powers they despised and were planning to eject from Asia to form their Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Even if someone in Tokyo was thinking in such a manner, the garrison commander of wherever she showed up would have seen a spy and dealt with her accordingly.




I don't know if I posted it here or elsewhere, but I went back and did a dive on contemporary newspaper records.. The theory of her being captured by the Japanese actually started.. Well.. The first record of it I could find was in the early 40's, after Pearl Harbor.. Earhart's mother was the one who was saying that's what she believed. There's two things there.. First off.. A theory that didn't exist, started after we went to war.. The other..



I don't find it unusual that the theory showed up once the war started. Until that time few people in the US saw the Japanese as threatening or adversarial. And the main evidence for the theory came about following the occupation of these territories from Japan, which of course only happened as a result of the war. It would be more shocking if the theory had come out in 1937.



Very much reminds me of someone like Noreen Gosch. Just can't accept the obvious. It's understandable.. but..

I kinda think that if Earhart's mother were alive in 1970 - she died in '62 - when the whole crazy theory about her being Irene Boman came about.. It'd be one of those situations where she'd buy into it.



A separate discussion on Gosch should be worth having, but as far as Earhart is concerned I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever since I have never once seen a theory regarding Japanese capture which cited her mother as a source. The evidence for the theory came from GIs in the 40s and was in no way related to her mother.



Most times, answers are the simplest things. So.. I'm still all-in on crash and sink, don't get me wrong. Alternatives can be fun to think about.. but the overwhelming odds remain that she's in the same spot she's been since 1937.. On the bottom of the ocean.

The only theory that you really don't have to jump through hoops for is.. Crash and sink. Fred Noonan was considered one of the top navigators in the world.. However... He was also known as being a drunk.. and celestial navigation is.. Well, I would consider it fairly difficult.



This seems like an attempt to formulate it via Occam's Razor. However, what one defines as simple is often a matter of how assumptions are counted. Crash and sink ceases to be simple when contradictory evidence then has to be explained. If not Earhart, who was the woman dressed in mens clothing that showed up in Japanese captivity in the late 30's? Why, despite a massive search and an airplane that should have floated and had a raft was nothing found? Why did the Japanese have a file on Earhart if she crashed well outside their territory and sank in the ocean?

I would say to explain away all of the other evidence requires at least as many hoops as her flying back to a large and easy to hit island chain after realizing that Howland was not going to work out. Even she could have set a bearing and flown it that would have put them in the chain without any particularly good navigation skill.

Why, despite a massive search and an airplane that should have floated and had a raft was nothing found?

A while back, I saw a video in which the claim was made that researchers in recent years found evidence of what may have been Earhart's plane having been dragged away from its landing site. Of course all of that may well have been a stretch in support of a theory.

But I find it interesting to speculate on any explanation pointing to no visible plane (or raft) for the U.S. Navy or whomever to spot simply because of its removal, soon or shortly after its landing. And such theories, which do not contradict the belief that Earhart did not crash into the ocean, could be confirmed if transmissions believed to be of hers after landing could somehow be verified: it's been claimed she reported being on an island, but not knowing its name.

I don't find it unusual that the theory showed up once the war started. Until that time few people in the US saw the Japanese as threatening or adversarial. And the main evidence for the theory came about following the occupation of these territories from Japan, which of course only happened as a result of the war. It would be more shocking if the theory had come out in 1937.



A separate discussion on Gosch should be worth having, but as far as Earhart is concerned I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever since I have never once seen a theory regarding Japanese capture which cited her mother as a source. The evidence for the theory came from GIs in the 40s and was in no way related to her mother.



This seems like an attempt to formulate it via Occam's Razor. However, what one defines as simple is often a matter of how assumptions are counted. Crash and sink ceases to be simple when contradictory evidence then has to be explained. If not Earhart, who was the woman dressed in mens clothing that showed up in Japanese captivity in the late 30's? Why, despite a massive search and an airplane that should have floated and had a raft was nothing found? Why did the Japanese have a file on Earhart if she crashed well outside their territory and sank in the ocean?

I would say to explain away all of the other evidence requires at least as many hoops as her flying back to a large and easy to hit island chain after realizing that Howland was not going to work out. Even she could have set a bearing and flown it that would have put them in the chain without any particularly good navigation skill.

Here's some contemporary accounts..

1938 Philly Inquirer reports that Australia - of all people - were putting out the idea that the US Search for Earhart was used to spy on Japan.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-philadelphia-inquirer/197456907/

So.. Saying that people didn't find Japan 'adversarial' until the war started.. Well, if you're talking the general population, perhaps.. But newspapers were reporting on the tensions, so.. Certainly they were seen that way by leadership

Here is one of the first mentions i can find of the Japanese capture/execution theory.. Seemingly put forward by her husband.. The wording of the article is a tad confusing as they seem to refer to him as both Palmer and Putnam.. Palmer being his middle name

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-evening-advocate/197457227/


That article is from 1942.. The US didn't take Saipan until June of 1944, the Marshall Islands earlier that same year.

Here's another from 1943 where Earhart's mother pushed the theory that she was a captive of Japan

https://www.newspapers.com/article/jg-tc-journal-gazette-and-times-courier/197457465/

So.. The whole idea of her capture didn't start, at least, didn't make the news, until after Pearl Harbor.

Here's one from Earhart's mother from 1949 putting forward the 'secret government mission' theory.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/pasadena-star-news/197457589/

More from 1944

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ogden-standard-examiner/197457702/

This one.. From 1970.. Seems to combine the Bolam and Japan theories.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-berkshire-eagle/197457839/

That's rather hilarious.. Reminds me of the craziness that people tried to tie 9/11 to some grand conspiracy.

It also makes no sense that if it did happen, and the American government/military found out about it, that THEY would then cover it up.

If the Japanese captured her, it would have been used for propaganda big time. If the US found out they captured her, THAT would have been used for propaganda.. There's just zero reason that either side would keep it quiet. In the US.. "Avenge Amelia" would have been a rallying cry to sell war bonds, no doubt.

The US/Japanese relationship was pretty crappy at the time, as evidenced by the fact that 4 and a half years later, Pearl Harbor happened.. So, the Japanese taking her as a spy from that standpoint is certainly believable.. However.. There's next to no chance that she went off course THAT bad. She would have had a more difficult time reaching Saipan - which is the place the plane was supposedly found - than reaching Gardner island.

While her skills as a pilot were not great.. I have a hard time believing they were that bad.. Which leaves the only possibility that she actually was spying.. Which makes little sense, because the area she would have flown, there wasn't an area that she could safely get to.. So, it would basically have been her flying knowing that she'd either be captured or crash into the ocean.

I just don't buy it.. I've learned never say never, but.. That whole idea really pushes the boundaries of belief.

Remember also that the ocean depths around Howland island are really deep. Like 17k feet.. Nearly 50% deeper than the wreck of the Titanic. The Titanic we actually had a halfway decent idea of the area where it went down, and it still took 70 years to find it. And it had a wreckage area of about 15 square miles.. Pending on how the plane landed - or crashed - into the ocean.. There could be next to nothing other than the engine. If it soft crashed.. Perhaps it could still be rather intact.. But, it really isn't overly surprising that we haven't found the plane. Even modern tech.. We can't find MH370

MH 370 is an interesting case in itself, would definitely merit a large thread with a lot of discussion on this board had it been on Unsolved Mysteries.

But as it is, a few general comments with regards to how it makes it relevant in the discussion of Amelia Earhart suffice.

We often hail the technology we have today as the mechanism that can make good outcomes more likely and bad outcomes less likely. But sometimes we forget that its a double edge sword, that when used a certain way it can do the opposite. And I think in the case of MH370 that's what likely happened. Its widely believed the pilot flew it into the southern Indian Ocean, and it seems he was able to use the plane's modern navigation systems, an at home flight simulator, and perhaps Google Earth, and his vast experience as a pilot to take that plane to a placed remote enough to where it has yet to be found. Its hard to believe that there could have been a place on Earth in 2014 that was more remote and hard to reach than the Howland Island area of the Pacific Ocean in 1937. But the Southern Indian Ocean is probably just that. In short, I think Captain Zahari was able to use the plane's technology to beat the outside world technology just long enough to make that plane disappear. The only reason we know where it went is because of the Inmarsat satellite data. And the debris washing up in Africa confirmed that even though we have yet to find the main part of the plane.

Amelia Earhart's case was just the opposite. You had a pilot who was not nearly as experienced as Captain Zahari, who did not have ENOUGH technology and it resulted in a bad outcome. An outcome that would be unlikely to happen today with modern navigation systems. Earhart was probably decent as a pilot but her Achilles heal was clearly the radio and proper use of it. Its unknown why she didn't take the time to learn to use it properly but such was the case.

But I do agree that for whatever reason, people just want a sexy explanation in this case, when in fact the explanation is just simple. She missed a very hard to hit target in Howland Island, likely not by more than 15-20 miles or so and went down in the ocean. But then, its like this in a lot of cases. Just hard to believe for so many people such a simple explanation can be the answer in such a high profile case.

Why they picked Howland Island though, is still not clear to me. Since there were no other islands close to it you literally had nothing but ocean to go on for landmarks if you missed it by a fuzz. Seems like an island chain with nearby neighbors would have made way more sense, that way if you missed it, you'd have landmarks to tell you where you were.

MH 370 is an interesting case in itself, would definitely merit a large thread with a lot of discussion on this board had it been on Unsolved Mysteries.

But as it is, a few general comments with regards to how it makes it relevant in the discussion of Amelia Earhart suffice.

We often hail the technology we have today as the mechanism that can make good outcomes more likely and bad outcomes less likely. But sometimes we forget that its a double edge sword, that when used a certain way it can do the opposite. And I think in the case of MH370 that's what likely happened. Its widely believed the pilot flew it into the southern Indian Ocean, and it seems he was able to use the plane's modern navigation systems, an at home flight simulator, and perhaps Google Earth, and his vast experience as a pilot to take that plane to a placed remote enough to where it has yet to be found. Its hard to believe that there could have been a place on Earth in 2014 that was more remote and hard to reach than the Howland Island area of the Pacific Ocean in 1937. But the Southern Indian Ocean is probably just that. In short, I think Captain Zahari was able to use the plane's technology to beat the outside world technology just long enough to make that plane disappear. The only reason we know where it went is because of the Inmarsat satellite data. And the debris washing up in Africa confirmed that even though we have yet to find the main part of the plane.

Amelia Earhart's case was just the opposite. You had a pilot who was not nearly as experienced as Captain Zahari, who did not have ENOUGH technology and it resulted in a bad outcome. An outcome that would be unlikely to happen today with modern navigation systems. Earhart was probably decent as a pilot but her Achilles heal was clearly the radio and proper use of it. Its unknown why she didn't take the time to learn to use it properly but such was the case.

But I do agree that for whatever reason, people just want a sexy explanation in this case, when in fact the explanation is just simple. She missed a very hard to hit target in Howland Island, likely not by more than 15-20 miles or so and went down in the ocean. But then, its like this in a lot of cases. Just hard to believe for so many people such a simple explanation can be the answer in such a high profile case.

Why they picked Howland Island though, is still not clear to me. Since there were no other islands close to it you literally had nothing but ocean to go on for landmarks if you missed it by a fuzz. Seems like an island chain with nearby neighbors would have made way more sense, that way if you missed it, you'd have landmarks to tell you where you were.

Interesting and.. I agree for the most par.t But.. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. In the 80's, I believe it was, an airliner went down in the Atlantic and has never been located. Give me a bit and I'm sure i'll find that... Crashed heading to South America as I recall..

Then, of course, there's Flight 19, which is something of a contemporary case alongside Earhart.. And.. Didn't UM cover this one? The "Bermuda Triangle" flight of 5 Avenger aircraft that disappeared in the waning days of WWII. That one.. When it was apparently they were lost.. Why they didn't just fly towards the setting sun, because.. Land had to be west... I think the sun had probably set by the time they realized they were lost. Plus, there was a whole lot of 'following orders' there that also likely played a large part in the whole situation.

Maybe I'm thinking of Air France 447 on the first one.. But that doesn't seem right. Seems there was another one.

Not to mention Alaska. You'd be surprised, or not, on how many missing aircraft there are there.. And that's on land. There's even a then-sitting US Representative or Senator who is still missing. Nick Begich.

We don't know the mindset of the pilot of MH370, but.. It's pretty hard to dismiss the facts.. The transponder was intentionally tuned off.. The route being on his flight simulator.. There's the theory that the plane lost pressurization.. but.. That'd be a hell of a coincidence. I suppose you COULD say the loss of pressure led to the pilot being confused and maybe he thought he was on his simulator rather than the plane.. but.. That doesn't explain the transponder. Or the fact that if it were an complete pressure loss, he'd only have had seconds, and if it was a slow loss of pressure, they'd have had plenty of time to realize it and get masks on. So.. Yeah, it's pretty hard to deny that was intentional.

Remember Payne Stewart.. That private jet lost pressurization and was a ghost flight over the US until it crashed.

Technology does make it less likely. Remember, the only way we have any idea of where MH370 went down is because of the system that 'pinged' a satellite once an hour or so. Well, and the debris that washed up a few years later gives a few clues as well.

Tech isn't infallible.. And tech can be outwitted or disabled.


Anyway.. as to Howland Island and why it was selected.. I guess the answer there is.. Well.. Where else would they have gone? Even on her first attempt, when she was going west to east, and she crashed at Ford Island in Hawaii.. Technically, maybe not a 'crash', as the landing gear collapsed from the weight of the plane.. But, she was flying from Ford Island to Howland. Or planning to.

That was.. Likely a safer route. At least.. Think of it this way.. Going from Hawaii to Howland is only about 1900 miles while Lau to Howland is about 2550.

So, going west, and keeping Howland as a destination - I presume that tensions with the Japanese likely had something to do with the selection of Howland - you had a much better safety margin on fuel. And, going from Howland to Lae would be much easier as well as.. well, it's much easier to hit the second largest island in the world than it is Howland.

I believe the reason for the direction change on the second attempt was due to wind patterns.

I believe, and don't quote me on this.. Howland had been used before and had a landing strip on it. ah, looking it up, the airstrip was created on the island for her. So.. I would guess that was the best option so far as being flat and 'easiest' to construct an airfield at in the time allowed and at a feasible distance. Remember.. There's not a whole lot out there in the Pacific. As they say, it's a big-ass ocean.

Howland is very flat as well.. Which made it excellent for constructing an airstrip, but.. Also made it very difficult to spot from the air. It's only about 20 feet above sea level. At 7000 feet or so, from 25 miles away.. It'd just look like the horizon. Which is why the Itasca was.. "Rolling Coal" as we'd say today.

Also.. Remember that the US first put radar on a ship in 1937. If her flight happened a year or two later.. I think it's likely that the Navy would have sent a ship that was equipped with radar. Or.. Coast Guard, because I believe the Itasca was a USCG ship.

We do tend to learn from every failure. Problem is.. We tend to forget them after a while as well.

Interesting and.. I agree for the most par.t But.. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. In the 80's, I believe it was, an airliner went down in the Atlantic and has never been located. Give me a bit and I'm sure i'll find that... Crashed heading to South America as I recall..

Then, of course, there's Flight 19, which is something of a contemporary case alongside Earhart.. And.. Didn't UM cover this one? The "Bermuda Triangle" flight of 5 Avenger aircraft that disappeared in the waning days of WWII. That one.. When it was apparently they were lost.. Why they didn't just fly towards the setting sun, because.. Land had to be west... I think the sun had probably set by the time they realized they were lost. Plus, there was a whole lot of 'following orders' there that also likely played a large part in the whole situation.

Maybe I'm thinking of Air France 447 on the first one.. But that doesn't seem right. Seems there was another one.

Not to mention Alaska. You'd be surprised, or not, on how many missing aircraft there are there.. And that's on land. There's even a then-sitting US Representative or Senator who is still missing. Nick Begich.

We don't know the mindset of the pilot of MH370, but.. It's pretty hard to dismiss the facts.. The transponder was intentionally tuned off.. The route being on his flight simulator.. There's the theory that the plane lost pressurization.. but.. That'd be a hell of a coincidence. I suppose you COULD say the loss of pressure led to the pilot being confused and maybe he thought he was on his simulator rather than the plane.. but.. That doesn't explain the transponder. Or the fact that if it were an complete pressure loss, he'd only have had seconds, and if it was a slow loss of pressure, they'd have had plenty of time to realize it and get masks on. So.. Yeah, it's pretty hard to deny that was intentional.

Remember Payne Stewart.. That private jet lost pressurization and was a ghost flight over the US until it crashed.

Technology does make it less likely. Remember, the only way we have any idea of where MH370 went down is because of the system that 'pinged' a satellite once an hour or so. Well, and the debris that washed up a few years later gives a few clues as well.

Tech isn't infallible.. And tech can be outwitted or disabled.


Anyway.. as to Howland Island and why it was selected.. I guess the answer there is.. Well.. Where else would they have gone? Even on her first attempt, when she was going west to east, and she crashed at Ford Island in Hawaii.. Technically, maybe not a 'crash', as the landing gear collapsed from the weight of the plane.. But, she was flying from Ford Island to Howland. Or planning to.

That was.. Likely a safer route. At least.. Think of it this way.. Going from Hawaii to Howland is only about 1900 miles while Lau to Howland is about 2550.

So, going west, and keeping Howland as a destination - I presume that tensions with the Japanese likely had something to do with the selection of Howland - you had a much better safety margin on fuel. And, going from Howland to Lae would be much easier as well as.. well, it's much easier to hit the second largest island in the world than it is Howland.

I believe the reason for the direction change on the second attempt was due to wind patterns.

I believe, and don't quote me on this.. Howland had been used before and had a landing strip on it. ah, looking it up, the airstrip was created on the island for her. So.. I would guess that was the best option so far as being flat and 'easiest' to construct an airfield at in the time allowed and at a feasible distance. Remember.. There's not a whole lot out there in the Pacific. As they say, it's a big-ass ocean.

Howland is very flat as well.. Which made it excellent for constructing an airstrip, but.. Also made it very difficult to spot from the air. It's only about 20 feet above sea level. At 7000 feet or so, from 25 miles away.. It'd just look like the horizon. Which is why the Itasca was.. "Rolling Coal" as we'd say today.

Also.. Remember that the US first put radar on a ship in 1937. If her flight happened a year or two later.. I think it's likely that the Navy would have sent a ship that was equipped with radar. Or.. Coast Guard, because I believe the Itasca was a USCG ship.

We do tend to learn from every failure. Problem is.. We tend to forget them after a while as well.

Good point about Howland Island being flat. Ironically, I always thought the Phoenix Islands to the South where some people thought Earhart might have ended up may have been a better initial target. The Phoenix Islands actually has one island called Canton Island don't know if you are familiar with it but it actually has an airport and did at that time, it has some distinct features like trees so it is easier to spot from the air, and it has closer neighbors that even if you miss it the landmarks can help you get there easier. I always wondered why they did not target it instead of Howland. In fact it is still inhabited today around 40 people or so live there which Howland is not, the one settlement attempt there Itascatown was abandoned in the mid 40's, but a handful of people did actually live there at the time. I am assuming they were managing the airport and preparing it for Earhart's arrival which unfortunately never happened.

As for Zahari's mindset on MH370, it does seem the Malaysian government was not forthcoming with a lot of info, not only was he was going through a divorce at the time and estranged from his family, but apparently a major political figure he supported was convicted of some crimes. He was apparently isolated in the weeks before the incident. But assuming that this is all they are covering up about him, seems like overkill to feel they had to do that. Millions of people go through what he was going through and don't do anything crazy, though those are just the factors we know. Just goes to show that anyone who gets on a plane is putting their lives in someone's hands, someone who they do not know what is on their mind, what they are going through, or anything else about them. Works out find 99.9% of the time, but its still a little scary for some I guess. Still whether or not anyone could have reasonably predicted Zahari would do something like that based on the info they had is debatable. Of course we can't be 100% sure he was behind it, but all the facts point that way.

I don't know as much about the other cases you mentioned but might look into them when I have time.

But that technology has failed to find either I suppose is just a testimony for the vastness and mightiness of the oceans.

Good point about Howland Island being flat. Ironically, I always thought the Phoenix Islands to the South where some people thought Earhart might have ended up may have been a better initial target. The Phoenix Islands actually has one island called Canton Island don't know if you are familiar with it but it actually has an airport and did at that time, it has some distinct features like trees so it is easier to spot from the air, and it has closer neighbors that even if you miss it the landmarks can help you get there easier. I always wondered why they did not target it instead of Howland. In fact it is still inhabited today around 40 people or so live there which Howland is not, the one settlement attempt there Itascatown was abandoned in the mid 40's, but a handful of people did actually live there at the time. I am assuming they were managing the airport and preparing it for Earhart's arrival which unfortunately never happened.

As for Zahari's mindset on MH370, it does seem the Malaysian government was not forthcoming with a lot of info, not only was he was going through a divorce at the time and estranged from his family, but apparently a major political figure he supported was convicted of some crimes. He was apparently isolated in the weeks before the incident. But assuming that this is all they are covering up about him, seems like overkill to feel they had to do that. Millions of people go through what he was going through and don't do anything crazy, though those are just the factors we know. Just goes to show that anyone who gets on a plane is putting their lives in someone's hands, someone who they do not know what is on their mind, what they are going through, or anything else about them. Works out find 99.9% of the time, but its still a little scary for some I guess. Still whether or not anyone could have reasonably predicted Zahari would do something like that based on the info they had is debatable. Of course we can't be 100% sure he was behind it, but all the facts point that way.

I don't know as much about the other cases you mentioned but might look into them when I have time.

But that technology has failed to find either I suppose is just a testimony for the vastness and mightiness of the oceans.

One would think.. There'd be some way to find metal in the oceans. I'm sure there is, but perhaps discrimination is the problem.. Maybe we just can't really detect it reliably or differentiate between minerals and an airplane/ship/whatever.

My dad was stationed on Oahu back in the 90's.. I spent a summer out there after I graduated high school and we'd spend the mornings out on the beach with metal detectors. He has a collection of rings he found while he was out there. But.. Finding rings on shore or in 5 to 6 feet of water is significantly different than finding something at 15k feet or deeper.

all these searches pretty much rely on the black boxes of aircraft or EPIRBs in the case of ships - at least initially. Then it falls back to sonar, which.. Is good, but certainly has limitations. Look at the pile of rocks they found a few years back. I mean, that sure looked like an airplane. To me, that was the most likely find since the plane was lost. But.. It was still just a pile of rocks.

Sadly, I suspect that much of the logic in choosing Earhart's route has been lost to time. It's really hard to find any talk about it, at least, I searched and didn't really come up with too much.