Thanks for posting Randy.  I saw that recently and wondered if anyone else noticed it.  Using Goggle's measuring tool its about 10' by 5' by my best estimate.  It also shows up around the same spot for several GE historical images.  Wonder if the November expedition folks would want to have a gander?

Good spotting.  About 10 feet across, by my estimate?

This morning I was glancing at Nikumarro from Google Earth to see if anything has changed in the past several weeks and months. As many of you know the world is keeping their eye on the upcoming expedition to Niku to answer questions in regards to the Taraia Object. As many of you can tell it appears that Niku has gone through a significant drought in the past several months. I personally don't know what protocol Google follows on how often they update their satellite imagery but their is something that I've never seen before and would like some input as to what this object is. From my standpoint it appears out of place and doesn't look like any rock formation. Their are two pictures that I'm posting from one side of the island and from the other side of the island to give insight as to what this might be... but this is something I've never seen before...Up for answers...thanks!!!

I, too, agree with Marty about all the work Randy did.

It always amazed me that Earhart would take on this difficult trip, making all these arrangements and having the best of everything, but NOT learn how to use the one most vital piece of equipment on her aircraft that she would need finding this needle in the Pacific haystack on this leg of the trip. Was it hubris? Or was she so used to always making do that she didn't want to bother learning. I also wondered if Fred really new of her lack of skill and understanding of the planes radios. We will never know!

Such kind words!  Thank you!

I second that Marty. Randy did an amazing job of collating and analyzing an astounding amount of disparate raw data and turning it into an incredibly useful and searchable product that has benefited all of us researchers, both dilettantes and professionals alike.  Thank you Randy!

I have the most profound gratitude for the work you did on the radio traffic, Randy -- among many other notable contributions to the discussions in the Forum.

I think you provided indisputable evidence that the reason for the loss of the aircraft and crew was their ignorance about how their radios worked. They were doomed from the time they took off because they did not know how the direction-finding equipment onboard the aircraft and in the hands of the Coast Guard were mismatched.

"Oh, the humanity!"

When I was actively searching the National Archives, I was able to see any classified documents as I had a Secret clearance at the time.  The only items I saw were related to the WWII transportation of items to/from Canton to the other Phoenix Islands.  They were still classified simply because of the backlog of records still to be declassified.

The primary reason for classification of Earhart records at the time was the US Coast Guard requirement that any radio transmissions to/from private citizens were to be classified as Confidential.  Since most CG radio transmissions used US Navy facilities, the Navy copies were also classified as Confidential.  And there were A LOT of radio transmissions to/from Earhart's team in 1937.

Quote from: Arthur Rypinski on September 27, 2025, 11:39:48 AMHowever, Mr. Romig's essential insight is that Bayes' Theorem shows that if it is one's opinion that there are several artifacts that each have a non-zero (subjective) probability of originating with Amelia Earhart, the (subjective) probability that AE landed on Niku is greater than the probability of any particular artifact originating with her, and that more plausible artifacts raise the overall probability of the Niku Hypothesis being correct.

Thanks so much for the clarification of how people can use Bayes' Theorem and decision trees to guide their research.

I was persuaded by the Niku Hypothesis on my first reading of the TIGHAR website in 2000. Without doing any diagrams of what convinced me, I just had an overall feeling that the hypothesis made good sense. In the 25 years since then, there have been many changes in the data available to support or discredit the hypothesis. 

I understand that this kind of circumstantial case, in which every piece of alleged evidence is dubitable, is very weak. The fact that it is a weak case does not mean that it is false. In 2009 I had high hope that underwater searches would turn up the Any Idiot Artifact, but now I understand how misplaced that expectation was. The search area under and around Niku is not like that around the Titanic. If there are any pieces left, they are almost certainly lost to us, given the state of the art in saltwater metal detecting.

Life is like that.

The navigation logic and the pattern of the radio transmissions give me a great deal of confidence. Neither of these had been studied in detail in 2000. I put a lot of trust in these to lines of argument, even though they amount only to probabilities, not certitudes.

Mr. Romig is adopting a Bayesian approach to the problem of Earhart's final resting place.  We have a bunch of artifacts that might (or might not) originate with Amelia Earhart.

One can assign a subjective probability to the likelihood a particular artifact being from Earhart and/or her plane.  That probability, as Marty points out, is an opinion. There are a range of views on what that probability might be. With each new fact we uncover about each item, one's opinion is likely to change.

However, Mr. Romig's essential insight is that Bayes' Theorem shows that if it is one's opinion that there are several artifacts that each have a non-zero (subjective) probability of originating with Amelia Earhart, the (subjective) probability that AE landed on Niku is greater than the probability of any particular artifact originating with her, and that more plausible artifacts raise the overall probability of the Niku Hypothesis being correct.

The Niku Hypothesis does not stand or fall on the provenance of any particular artifact, and conversely, if any one artifact originates with Earhart with certainty, then the Niku Hypothesis is true.

Bayes analysis has several uses.  If one constructs a decision tree, it helps define which uncertainties have the biggest impact on the probability of the Niku Hypothesis being correct, which can be useful for resource allocation. It can also illustrate the impact of new information on overall (subjective) probability of the truth of the Niku Hypothesis.