Here we go again with the Earhart stuff… It’s the same people with the same vague results. Be skeptical.
A grainy sonar image captured off an uninhabited tropical island in the southwestern Pacific republic of Kiribati might represent the remains of the Electra, the two-engine aircraft legendary aviator Amelia Earhart was piloting when she vanished on July 2, 1937 in a record attempt to fly around the world at the equator.
Released by The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), which has long been investigating Earhart’s last, fateful flight, the images show an “anomaly” resting at the depth of about 600 feet in the waters off Nikumaroro island, some 350 miles southeast of Earhart’s target destination, Howland Island.
The anomaly appears to be the right size and shape to match the Electra wreckage and lines up nicely with the Bevington Object and Jeff Glickman’s debris field.
The only way to be absolutely sure that the anomaly is indeed Amelia’s plane is by sending another expedition to the island, but that will depend upon the ability of TIGHAR, a nonprofit institute that relies on sponsorships and contributions from the public, to raise the needed funding.
And there you are… more funding needed. For an anomaly that could be many things. They are attempting to keep the money coming in with the hype. This is what they found last time if you recall – not very impressive.
HERE is why you should be very skeptical of the TIGHAR claims: Amelia Earhart certainly went to Howland, not Nikumaroro; There are perfectly rational explanations for all of Gillespie’s “evidence” at Nikumaroru.
It has been argued that Discovery Channel, and other news agencies, should report Gillespie’s theory the way they are; in the interest of balance, considering all angles to a story, competing theories, and so on. I don’t agree; not by a long shot. That’s fine to do when a new theory has validity or there are indeed questions worth exploring, or when a theory is presented properly in its context as a fringe suggestion. It is not appropriate to trumpet headlines about new evidence, new discoveries, etc., that are both false and fringe, while making only a mute footnoted reference to the fact that an evidence-based consensus exists which remains unshaken. This pandering to sensationalism erodes the public knowledge, and encourages the curious to lend more credence to fancy than to fact.
Tip: @TheKeis on Twitter