I've been a regular reader of this forum for some time, but have just finally gotten around to registering so that I can participate. What prompted me was the in-depth article in The New Republic about Amelia Earhart and the work by TIGHAR and others to solve the mystery of her disappearance (
http://tinyurl.com/lqyxaz4). The article does a good job of summarising some of the more perplexing issues, as follows:
1. "Nikumaroro lies some 350 miles southeast of Howland Island. In order to reach it, Earhart would have had to cover that distance, on top of the nearly 2,556 miles she had already flown from New Guinea in pursuit of Howland. But about an hour before breaking off contact, Earhart had clearly stated that gas was running low. Gillespie argues that Earhart meant she was beginning to burn into her reserve tank, in which case she would have had four or five hours of flying time left. Gillespie’s estimation that Earhart’s plane could have that much fuel left is based on ideal flight conditions, however, and Jourdan reminded me that there are several indications that Earhart’s flight was far from ideal. 'One of the major factors is that she was facing severe headwinds,' says Jourdan. 'They were 20, 25 miles an hour pretty much the whole way.' ”The question this raises is that, if she knew she was burning fuel at a higher rate than planned, why didn't she abort the flight before it was too late? Surely she would have been doing the calculations necessary to determine where she stood in terms of fuel.
2. "Earhart was also reported to be south of her planned flight path and flying at high altitude quite early in her flight. 'What that meant is that there was a storm and she diverted around it,' Jourdan explained—a diversion that forced Earhart to gain altitude quickly and burn extra fuel in the process. An independent fuel analysis of Earhart’s flight that Jourdan commissioned from a mechanical-engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology validated Jourdan’s belief that Earhart ran out of fuel around the time of her last radio transmission."Here's a kml file for Google Earth which shows her planned flight path and the actual flight path:
http://tinyurl.com/mp54cgs. Is a copy of the chart Noonan used for navigation available anywhere?
3. "Earhart told the Itasca she was flying 'north and south' along the line—indicating that she was searching for Howland, not flying south for Nikumaroro."I tend to agree that at the time of that transmission, she and Noonan were looking for Howland. However, the decision would have had to have been made immediately thereafter to head for Gardner Island. But in their frame of mind, being that they thought they were near Howland but couldn't see it, would they be inclined to risk everything by looking for a more distant island with very little fuel left? Particularly if they had a sense that Noonan's chart was wrong? Successfully reaching Gardner Island would require that their navigation be spot on, and surely they would have known that. Could they have had more confidence in reaching Gardner than in finding Howland?
4. "All the radio operators recall the increasing panic and distress in Earhart’s voice following her report that she was running low on fuel."Seems to indicate that she was still looking for Howland at this point and panicking.
5. "If she did change her mind and decide to fly south and crash land on Nikumaroro, why didn’t she radio her intentions?"This is the issue that perplexes me the most. There are two possibilities: (a) they were heading north on the LOP and then decided to head south where they're odds of finding a place to land were greater; or (b) they were flying south on the LOP looking for Howland and stumbled upon Gardner Island, instead. If (a), then why not inform Itasca of the change in plan? Would they make a conscious decision about it and then keep it to themselves? If (b), then why not inform Itasca that the flight turns out to have been off course and, in fact, you don't know where the heck you are? Why wait until after you've landed (judging by Betty's notes)? I would imagine that the sight of Gardner would have prompted at least a sigh of relief and a message to Itasca but, of course, that's just speculation. Perhaps, because of cloud shadows, they didn't recognise Gardner until they were right over it, at which point she would have been intensely focused on finding a place to land. But it seems reasonable to assume that the bright blue lagoon would have been obvious in advance, giving her time to radio information regarding her new circumstances.
6. "When Navy pilots flew over Nikumaroro a week later, why didn’t they see wreckage from the plane or any other evidence that Earhart and Noonan were there?"I understand that the only land-able part of the reef flat is at the edge, where it is smooth, so it's easy to accept that the plane could have been pulled by the tide over the edge within a week. And signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island were noted during the search. It has been speculated that these signs could have been piles of vegetation that looked like markers, but could have been produced for the purpose of sending up smoke signals, and that the castaways were caught unprepared and inland, unable to signal the pilot from within the dense vegetation. My problem with this is that it requires that both Earhart and Noonan be unavailable, if Noonan was still alive. If he was still alive, then wouldn't common sense dictate that at least one person would always be on the beach in case a ship or plane were to arrive? Of course, I know there are other possibilities, but I try to start with the simplest, most common sensical explanation.
I know these are all woulda, coulda, shouldas, and I'm sure none of them are new to this forum. In the end, there's the sonar anomaly, investigation of which, I hope, will completely dispel these issues and open up entirely new avenues for investigation.