451
submitted 2 years ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

That sonar image is very compelling, but I'm no expert in such things and claims about Earhart's plane, or at least wreckage from it, being discovered have been made before.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's clear that it's a plane, and I'm sure they've compared the size of the sonar image to the size of an Electra. To say that it could be Earhart's plane must mean that the size of the sonar image doesn't exclude that plane.

Then the question becomes "Which other plane could it be, for the size and shape, and for where it is?" Now, obviously it's a wreck, and it's been at the bottom of the ocean for a long time, but based on that sonar, it looks pretty intact. That suggests that whatever plane it is was ditched in the ocean relatively intact, as opposed to suffering a catastrophic impact. Just based on the sonar, though, those wings look to be swept back more than an Electra's are.

Electra is a bit over 38 feet long. A MiG-15 is 36 feet long, and an F-86 Sabre is 37 feet. Both seem to match that wing sweep more accurately, though I have no idea if either of those aircraft were ever lost in the area of Howland Island.

If it's true that the bones found on Gardner Island "are almost certainly" from Earhart and/or Noonan, I find it highly unlikely that they could have landed at Gardner, and then the plane be swept all the way from there to Howland, while remaining so intact the whole way.

No, I don't think this is Earhart's Electra.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

If it’s true that the bones found on Gardner Island “are almost certainly” from Earhart and/or Noonan, I find it highly unlikely that they could have landed at Gardner, and then the plane be swept all the way from there to Howland, while remaining so intact the whole way.

Keep in mind that the scientists who claim the bones are hers simply performed updated forensic osteology methods against the bone measurements and body measurements extrapolated from physical records and photographs. They said:

The bones are consistent with Earhart in all respects we know or can reasonably infer. Her height is entirely consistent with the bones. The skull measurements are at least suggestive of female. But most convincing is the similarity of the bone lengths to the reconstructed lengths of Earhart’s bones. Likelihood ratios of 84–154 would not qualify as a positive identification by the criteria of modern forensic practice, where likelihood ratios are often millions or more. They do qualify as what is often called the preponderance of the evidence, that is, it is more likely than not the Nikumaroro bones were (or are, if they still exist) those of Amelia Earhart. If the bones do not belong to Amelia Earhart, then they are from someone very similar to her. And, as we have seen, a random individual has a very low probability of possessing that degree of similarity.

This is certainly a good estimate, and the methodology tracks, but a) the actual bones cannot be measured/studied further, b) it's possible the bones were from a female of her same size, c) no other corroborating evidence is possible. They did a DNA analysis of some bones they found in the Tarawa archives in 2019(ish) which they thought might be the long lost bones, but tests concluded that they were not. So in this case I think it's safe to say these bones have a high probability of being hers, but not to extrapolate that because those bones were hers, other theories must be ruled out. It's suggestive that the bones were hers, but not proof that any other hypothesis should be confirmed or rejected.

this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
451 points (97.3% liked)

News

37999 readers
547 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS