Okay, this Amelia Earhardt stuff is officially over the cliff . . .

Ugh. Everyone knows that she is alive and well, living here in Denver and working as a traffic and weather reporter for KUSA-TV.


:D
 
IMG_4475.JPG
 
I'm not sure why its so hard to believe that she just crashed in a large, vast ocean. We cant even find a 777 with all the tech we have now (or did we finally find it), not surprising a small plane could vanish without a trace in 1937.
 
Kingairer said:
I'm not sure why its so hard to believe that she just crashed in a large, vast ocean. We cant even find a 777 with all the tech we have now (or did we finally find it), not surprising a small plane could vanish without a trace in 1937.
Click to expand...

A few bits and pieces washed up on a beach in the West Indian Ocean. Never saw any confirmation though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Military expert casts doubt on Earhart photo claims
Excerpts;
  • "From the Marshallese visual background, lack of Japanese flags flying on any vessels but one, and the age configuration of the steam-driven steel vessels, the photo is closer to the late 1920s or early 1930s, not anywhere near 1937," he told AFP.

  • He added that by January 1937 the Japanese had closed most of Micronesia to foreign vessels, "including Marshallese commerce, which is obviously flourishing in this photo.

  • "Additionally, there are no Japanese sailors to be seen."

  • "This is just a picture of some people on Jaluit wharf," he said. "Where are the Japanese? Where are the soldiers?"
 
Doesn't explain the eyewitness accounts that put her on Saipan in Japanese custody, long before this picture was found, and some of her papers that were found in a Japanese officer's safe at a prison by a US Marine after they liberated Saipan.

Seems sort of curious that the picture supports both of those stories.

They state her aircraft didn't have the range to make Saipan, but that doesn't rule out her surviving a ditching at sea and being rescued by the Japanese and then taken to Saipan, possibly by the boat in the picture.

This is the vessel they claim is in the picture and it does look nearly identical to the one in the picture. This vessel was sunk in WW2 in 1944 by the USN, so it certainly existed in 1937.

http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?138323
 
I've yet to see corroboration of the papers-in-the-safe story. Only one person made the claim, and he had nothing to validate the story. And if you're going to go with the eyewitness accounts, then you have to also consider that one of the witnesses claim Mr. Noonan discussed with him the leg he broke in the crash. Don't see Mr. Noonan standing on any broken leg in that photograph.

As with the vast majority of conspiracy theories, the "previously undiscovered" evidence starts contradicting itself.
 
RDoug said:
I've yet to see corroboration of the papers-in-the-safe story. Only one person made the claim, and he had nothing to validate the story. And if you're going to go with the eyewitness accounts, then you have to also consider that one of the witnesses claim Mr. Noonan discussed with him the leg he broke in the crash. Don't see Mr. Noonan standing on any broken leg in that photograph.

As with the vast majority of conspiracy theories, the "previously undiscovered" evidence starts contradicting itself.
Click to expand...

As opposed to quoting supposed military experts who are clearly wrong in at least one of their points that 30 seconds worth of Googling would have confirmed?

I mean, if you've got a confirmation bias and you want to believe what you want to believe, by all means. I'm going to keep an open mind. The photo is congruent with at least two long running eyewitness accounts and seems to be the most credible piece of evidence found yet.
 
That's your option, but one of your cites is directly contradicting the photographic evidence.
 
I think it's a picture that will be used throughout the show to build interest, only to be debunked at the end.
But, in the meantime they're using it create " buzz " and get a few more viewers.

I'll save everyone the suspense...they're dead, the circumstances will probably never be known to any of us, meh.

:)
 
The big difference here is History Channel's theory has been supported by a number of independent witness accounts, where Ric Gillespie and TIGHAR found a few pieces of trash that could have come from anywhere and declared that Earhart died at that location without any other corrobating evidence.
 
RDoug said:
That's your option, but one of your cites is directly contradicting the photographic evidence.
Click to expand...

That's not what was said.

One of the eyewitnesses was a now deceased medic who stated he treated Noonan for a wound on his forehead and "bruised knees" from the crash. Nothing was ever said about "broken legs".

(The HC special included excerpts from a video interview with this medic taken in 1983...)
 
Bunch of old guys with too much free time desperately seeking fame through association. Sad, when one considers the many constructive things one can accomplish in life.
 
Last edited:
The same station as "well we can't prove it wasn't aliens, so aliens" is now doing "well we can't prove it's not Earhart, so Earhart"
 
FlyingAccountant said:
That's not what was said.

One of the eyewitnesses was a now deceased medic who stated he treated Noonan for a wound on his forehead and "bruised knees" from the crash. Nothing was ever said about "broken legs".

(The HC special included excerpts from a video interview with this medic taken in 1983...)
Click to expand...

One of the Marshall Island "witnesses":

Bilimon Amram went to his grave insisting he not only saw Earhart and Noonan on the Koshu Maru, but also spoke to the navigator about the leg he broke when the plane crashed.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top