TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Matt Revington on July 08, 2017, 06:50:36 AM

Title: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 08, 2017, 06:50:36 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/forensic-dogs-amelia-earhart-spot-where-died/

As well as describing the dogs Tom King is quoted as wanting to investigate a story that the bones from 1940 ended up the Tarawa post office.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 08, 2017, 08:33:46 AM
Nice story.

Was the carin from 2015 found and did the doggies get a chance to visit?
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 08, 2017, 10:02:58 AM
Was the carin from 2015 found and did the doggies get a chance to visit?

They found something that they thought might be the "cairn" but I don't think they ever put the dogs on it or investigated it further. 
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 09, 2017, 07:27:51 AM
Ric, Tom, and Matt...Good Sunday morning! I too just finished reading the nice article National Geographic put out about the hits on the seventh site beneath the ren tree. My question and please remember I'm no anthropologist...but my question is how are they able to get a breakdown from soil samples and are able to collect DNA after 80 years? Also, let's just say for example that indeed she died beneath the ren tree and the snow crabs carried some of her remains away. Is it feasible to this day to retrieve such bones with the dogs? Would there be enough DNA left on the bones, or is there something else that the dogs pick up. Really curious and this is truly exciting for Tighar!
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 09, 2017, 09:56:36 AM
...but my question is how are they able to get a breakdown from soil samples and are able to collect DNA after 80 years?

A recent news article, about being able to extract Neanderthal DNA from ancient cave dirt (http://mentalfloss.com/article/500469/scientists-extract-neanderthal-dna-cave-dirt),  tells about exciting advances in being able to study about those ancient peoples even in the absence of human bones. There's no telling what might be discovered in analyzing that matter put in those Ziploc® bags from under the ren tree at the Seven Site!
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 09, 2017, 02:27:45 PM
The searching for DNA in the soil is a long shot but if that Neanderthal DNA was identified it is worth it to try this.  However the conditions for preservation of DNA on  Niku are much worse than in dark cool cave.  Heat and UV light are very bad for DNA .  This quote is from a review of forensic DNA recovery,admittedly it is from2004 and techniques have improved greatly since then.

"The results obtained from the analysis of DNA from ancient human bone tissue, horse bones, and mummified soft tissues (from 40 years to 50,000 years old), indicate that all samples with low levels of damage and from which the DNA could be amplified originated from regions where low temperatures have prevailed throughout the burial period of the specimens.29,33"


While it was very cool to hear that all the cadaver dogs selected the same depression near the Ren tree  what does it mean for the Niku hypothesis.  In my opinion it confirms the quality of the work of previous expeditions in identifying the seven site and eliminates any reasonable doubt that the seven site is also the bones site. That is important as many of the most significant artefacts have been found there and tying the bones and artefacts together gives a more complete picture but it doesn't advance efforts to prove it was AE or FN who died there.  Hopefully  DNA can be found that would do this.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 09, 2017, 05:15:27 PM



As well as describing the dogs Tom King is quoted as wanting to investigate a story that the bones from 1940 ended up the Tarawa post office.
[/quote]

Can the source of the story be told yet?

Jim
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on July 09, 2017, 09:28:41 PM
Ric,

Getting back to the finger/turtle bones, if DNA can be extracted from the soil why can't DNA be extracted from the bones we have in storage?  How much would it cost to pursue this research?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Jon Romig on July 11, 2017, 04:24:24 PM
Apologies for taking the easy way out instead of looking in the archives:
Is the site under the ren tree where the dogs alerted the same site as previously identified by TIGHAR?
Is it where the bones were suspected of being found by Gallagher,  or is it the "empty grave"?

The question is potentially interesting (if I have my facts straight) because the site of a reburial of weathered, 3 year old bones is likely to have less DNA than the soil that was beneath a decomposing body.

Jon
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 11, 2017, 04:53:40 PM
I don't know of any "empty grave."  Gallagher found the bones under a Ren tree.  There's a big Ren tree on the site. We have no way of knowing whether it's the same tree that was there in 1940, but I doubt it.  However, the tree that is there know could have grown from seeds of the tree that was there then.  So, yes, the dog alerted on the spot where we have speculated that the body's found.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Jon Romig on July 11, 2017, 05:00:32 PM
Thanks, Ric.
Is any information related to the National Geographic story still embargoed?
Is/was there a moment when we were/are allowed to fully discuss/disclose findings? Or is TIGHAR prohibited from saying?
Thanks again,
Jon
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 11, 2017, 05:04:39 PM
Is any information related to the National Geographic story still embargoed?
Is/was there a moment when we were/are allowed to fully discuss/disclose findings? Or is TIGHAR prohibited from saying?


We can't say anything about what the dogs found but Nat Geo has publicly said they didn't find any bones.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Steve Lyle Gunderson on July 21, 2017, 07:20:21 PM

As well as describing the dogs Tom King is quoted as wanting to investigate a story that the bones from 1940 ended up the Tarawa post office.


Has anyone returned from the Tarawa Post Office yet?
[/quote]
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 22, 2017, 07:39:02 AM
Has anyone returned from the Tarawa Post Office yet?


Yes, everybody is back home.  No bones came back with them.  That's about all I know.  Tom King has yet to make his report.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 29, 2017, 05:46:39 AM
The other day I was sitting here at home and pondering if its feasible after 80 years to extract DNA samples from coral or sea shells that might have been where Amelia or Fred died. We know the dogs made a significant hit on the same spot where the bones were found...but lets just say that blood and fluids covered the ground and shells and coral as well. You would think that with those kind of temperatures on Nikumaurro that blood in itself would have easily baked on anything. And we know from watching crime shows and forensics that its very hard to get rid of blood. So would this be the case?
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 29, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
Soil samples were collected and there is an effort underway to see if DNA can be extracted. It's admittedly a long shot but it has worked before in other cases.

My question is this:
Suppose a reputable lab is successful in getting DNA from soil taken from where the dogs alerted, and suppose the DNA matches a reference sample from an Earhart relative.  Will the public accept that as smoking gun proof that Amelia Earhart died on Nikumaroro?
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 29, 2017, 08:21:55 AM
My guess is, probably not.  While most people understand what DNA is from TV/movies, in this case it's not something you can see and hold, like an identifiable part of the airplane.  To accept the Tighar hypothesis, most will require extraordinary proof.

Heaven knows what holders of the other theories would say.

Just my unscientific opinion.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: John Klier on July 29, 2017, 09:05:32 AM
With 6-7 percent of Americans (significantly higher in other countries)  thinking the moon landings were fake, even with overwhelming evidence, I would vote no. If the evidence is purely scientific it's like voodoo to these people.  They will only believe in what they gather with their eyes and only to the limit of their understanding so they ignore scientific facts.

Using the moon landings as an example. Many of the hoaxers say that it was obviously shot in a studio since you can't see stars in the photographs. The fact is the stars are extremely underexposed because the lunar surface is so bright. They think since they see stars in a dark sky it should be so in the photos.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 29, 2017, 09:23:06 AM
Using the moon landings as an example.

I can think of others, but I won't go there.

Most people get their news from the media, so the real questions are;
• Would the media accept DNA from soil as proof?
and
• Would the public accept what the media said?

In answer to the first question, I would expect major mainstream media to accept scientific proof if presented in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
The second question is more difficult to answer.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Brian Tannahill on July 29, 2017, 09:37:48 AM
I'm thinking of the recent coverage of the History Channel's "photo of Fred and Amelia".  A lot of people seem to have been swayed by the media coverage, which was generally respectful and presented the Fred-and-Amelia-in-Jaluit-harbor story as a serious possibility.

If it's presented to people as a solid scientific finding, and if plausible counterevidence doesn't surface shortly after, I think a lot of people will accept it.

For what it's worth, I am not good at predictions.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 29, 2017, 09:57:43 AM
I'm thinking of the recent coverage of the History Channel's "photo of Fred and Amelia".  A lot of people seem to have been swayed by the media coverage, which was generally respectful and presented the Fred-and-Amelia-in-Jaluit-harbor story as a serious possibility.

Good point.  Pre-broadcast, the media were, for the most part, woefully derelict in their journalistic duty. A few of the more respected outlets - the BBC and the Washington Post - sought out opposing viewpoints and even the less-than-well-respected Daily Mail was openly critical of the claims.
The History Channel show itself was, to any rational observer, pure entertainment. And yet many - probably most - viewers swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.  If there's a lesson in all this it's that most of the media and most of the public will buy anything.  (I again refrain from citing further examples.) :-)
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: John Klier on July 29, 2017, 10:44:58 AM
.]
I can think of others, but I won't go there.
.

I can name that tune in one note! ;)

(I loved that show when I was a kid!)
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 29, 2017, 01:24:48 PM
Soil samples were collected and there is an effort underway to see if DNA can be extracted. It's admittedly a long shot but it has worked before in other cases.

My question is this:
Suppose a reputable lab is successful in getting DNA from soil taken from where the dogs alerted, and suppose the DNA matches a reference sample from an Earhart relative.  Will the public accept that as smoking gun proof that Amelia Earhart died on Nikumaroro?

My guess is probably not either. This possible evidence sure would put another "arrow in our quiver" as sales managers used to say, but I think something more tangible, like what has been said many times on this forum, a piece of aircraft with a serial number on it. But even that is not going to convince everybody.

Jim
 
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 29, 2017, 01:56:04 PM
I think those with other theories will work it into their theory. (They moved the body).The media will exploit. The scientific community will accept. The public will be all over the place. Some won't care, some will make OJ jokes or work it into a political statement and some will accept
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 29, 2017, 03:50:36 PM
a piece of aircraft with a serial number on it.

As far as I know, the only things on the aircraft that had serial numbers were:
• the aircraft itself (for that we would need the data plate from the cockpit).
• the engines (need the data plate from the back of the case).
• the prop hubs (need the hub)
• the prop blades (need the blades)
• the radios (no record of the serial numbers)
• probably the gear motor and flap motor (no record of the numbers)

But any identifiable piece of a Lockheed 10 should be sufficient.  Hers was the only Electra that could possibly be within thousands of miles of that place.
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Jim M Sivright on July 29, 2017, 04:09:39 PM
a piece of aircraft with a serial number on it.

As far as I know, the only things on the aircraft that had serial numbers were:
• the aircraft itself (for that we would need the data plate from the cockpit).
• the engines (need the data plate from the back of the case).
• the prop hubs (need the hub)
• the prop blades (need the blades)
• the radios (no record of the serial numbers)
• probably the gear motor and flap motor (no record of the numbers)

But any identifiable piece of a Lockheed 10 should be sufficient.  Hers was the only Electra that could possibly be within thousands of miles of that place.

Well, I guess we'll just have to keep looking, wish  I could do more, but I am in it for the duration.

Jim
Title: Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
Post by: Jon Romig on August 04, 2017, 12:08:06 PM
If the dogs detected the remains of a cadaver they were sensing the still-extant chemicals typically given off by a decomposing body called cadaverines. Cadaverines include carboxylic acids, aromatics, sulfurs, alcohols, nitro compounds, aldehydes and ketones. Most of these chemicals are relatively small molecules with as few as 4 atoms each. But it is amazing that even these molecules remain detectable at the site after 80 years.

For DNA it is a different story. Each "letter" or nucleotide (C, G, A or T) in a strand of DNA has 13 or more atoms, and it takes between 76 and 80,000 pairs of them linked together to create a single gene. So simply to detect DNA we are looking for molecules (or at least parts of them) that are a multiple orders of magnitude bigger than a cadaverine molecule. And very large molecules like DNA are much more fragile than small ones. Entropy, you know.

It seems unlikely to me that we will be successful in detecting DNA in the samples, never mind associating the DNA with a single individual, but we can hope.

Jon