The AE POW theory in the news today....

[Bob Smith]

Good point, Monty! But now I have to go back and review somewhere in the distant past to rediscover what the mystery is (or was). Is it that AE disappeared, or that the government knew something that they had classified, or that they didn't, or that nobody really knows the answer to any of these "mysteries"? If anything about Amelia was classified, how would we know? If anybody wanted to know what was classified and what was not, we would have to be JE Hoover himself, and I doubt if he would know!
All we really KNOW is that the mystery of Amelia and her navigator goes on, and whether or not anything about the disappearance was classified or de-classified wouldn't seem to matter, would it? There is a theory now on the books that states Amelia somehow managed to land on the island of Nikumaroro in the middle of nowhere, and that's what we have to go on. Prove it or dis-prove it. That to me is the problem and the other mystery is why hasn't this been solved?

[Ric Gillespie]

... the other mystery is why hasn't this been solved?

Define solved.

[Bob Smith]

Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.



solve
   (sŏlv, sôlv)
v. solved, solv·ing, solves

v.tr.
To find an answer to, explanation for, or way of dealing with (a problem, for example).

v.intr.
To solve an equation: Insert the values of the constants and solve for x.


[Middle English solven, to loosen, from Latin solvere; see leu- in Indo-European roots.]


solv′er n.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

[Ric Gillespie]

Based on that definition the mystery of what happened to Amelia Earhart has been solved multiple times. The trouble is, the answers/explanations do not agree, so we must somehow decide which, if any, of the solutions is most likely correct.
Next question:  How do you do that?

[Bob Smith]

More research! To the bottom of the sea!! Where do airplanes go when they fall off a cliff? We know, and I think it has been proven that: 1. aluminum is heavier than water. 2. aluminum disintegrates and oxidizes on land and in the ocean. 3. If Tighar or anybody else haven't found it by now on land, its a good bet it could be in the ocean, either in pieces or whole out in the open or under some Debri Field placed on top of it either inadvertenly or on purpose, say around 1945. 4. Is there more research to do? You betcha. 5. Has Amelia or her plane been found yet?  No! Does anyone care anymore? There's one of us born every minute!

[Ric Gillespie]

1. aluminum is heavier than water.

True.

2. aluminum disintegrates and oxidizes on land and in the ocean.

Not true. It depends on the environment.

3. If Tighar or anybody else haven't found it by now on land, its a good bet it could be in the ocean, either in pieces or whole out in the open or under some Debris Field placed on top of it either inadvertenly or on purpose, say around 1945.

Aha! A new conspiracy theory!

4. Is there more research to do? You betcha.

Agreed.

5. Has Amelia or her plane been found yet?  No! Does anyone care anymore? There's one of us born every minute!

What will it take to declare her found and who will make the declaration?
[/quote]

[Bob Smith]

I think the term "conspiracy theory" is mis-used and over-used. Just because a different theory is presented doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. Sometimes "new" or "different" is a good thing. And if there are open minds available, the new different theory can sometimes be easily associated with and infused into the older theories. There will always be new theories, and so. Some will be conspiracies, but when any theory is automatically treated as a conspiracy inspired theory simply because its different, a lot of possibilities will also be lost. It's just one thought to keep in mind: is there more under all that debri that we need to know about??

[Bob Smith]

Let's not call this one a conspiracy theory, or even an alternative to the Niku Hypothesis, but rather a different area to seek relative information for furthering the examination of the Niku Hypothesis.?! And as a Bonus we could say there are places still left to investigate if we can drag ourselves away from the same old trampled areas that have shown little promise in solving the Big Question.

[Ric Gillespie]

Let's not call this one a conspiracy theory, or even an alternative to the Niku Hypothesis, but rather a different area to seek relative information for furthering the examination of the Niku Hypothesis.?

We call it a conspiracy theory because it alleges a conspiracy.  We do not call Crashed & Sank a conspiracy because it does not allege a conspiracy.  Both Japanese Capture (with all of it's many permutations) and Crashed & Sank are alternatives to the Niku Hypothesis because both are incompatible with the Niku Hypothesis.
We are open to considering any theory that is supported by real evidence.  Neither Japanese Capture nor Crashed & Sank meets that criterion. 

And as a Bonus we could say there are places still left to investigate if we can drag ourselves away from the same old trampled areas that have shown little promise in solving the Big Question.

If you believe that the mountain of multi-faceted evidence TIGHAR has uncovered in 28 years of research and eleven expeditions amount to "old trampled areas that have shown little promise in solving the Big Question"  I think you're on the wrong Forum.

[Bob Smith]

I don't believe in the Japanese Capture theory, Crashed and Sank will always be a possibility until no evidence is found to prove otherwise. I also believe there are areas in and around Niku that have not been explored adequately until TIGHAR or somebody else goes to greater depths. I'm not contradicting anybody, just go about it logically. There are a whole gaggle of people and organizations that either have or would like to visit the Phoenix Islands for a variety of reasons. If we start with the easiest methods of hunting for artifacts, wouldn't that be to scour the surface? Then go to more complicated and expensive methods, wouldn't that include the deeper exploration that has not been yet done? Which of these two methods would seem more likely to find artifacts that have not been trampled by tourists, fishermen, conservationists, etc?
Sometimes I believe you have to physically dig, push, or shove to find something, rather than researching it to death, (as long as it follows proper guidelines and regulations, of course.)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Sometimes I believe you have to physically dig, push, or shove to find something, rather than researching it to death, (as long as it follows proper guidelines and regulations, of course.)

TIGHAR has been doing that for roughly 27 years.


Here are 31 articles on TIGHAR's expeditions since 1989.


In the early reports, much was learned about guano. 

[Bob Smith]

Guano doesn't exist at the depths I'm interested in! Or does it? I would rather find an aluminum airplane landing gear, or gas tank!

[Ric Gillespie]

Crashed and Sank will always be a possibility until no evidence is found to prove otherwise.

I think that sentence says the opposite of what you intended. Lose the "no."
In fact, evidence HAS been found to prove otherwise.  The post-loss signals, wherever they came from, could not have been sent from a floating/sinking Electra. Crashed & Sank has crashed and sunk.

I also believe there are areas in and around Niku that have not been explored adequately until TIGHAR or somebody else goes to greater depths.

That's certainly true.  That's why we're gearing up to go back with the Pisces subs in 2017.

I'm not contradicting anybody, just go about it logically. There are a whole gaggle of people and organizations that either have or would like to visit the Phoenix Islands for a variety of reasons. If we start with the easiest methods of hunting for artifacts, wouldn't that be to scour the surface?

Who are these whole gaggles of people and organizations who would want to spend months scouring every inch of the surface of that island, hacking and crawling through impenetrable bush in 100° heat?  And how do you propose to get them there and support them while they scour?

Then go to more complicated and expensive methods, wouldn't that include the deeper exploration that has not been yet done?

It's the deeper underwater exploration that needs doing.

Which of these two methods would seem more likely to find artifacts that have not been trampled by tourists, fishermen, conservationists, etc?

You have a very strange impression of Nikumaroro.

Sometimes I believe you have to physically dig, push, or shove to find something, rather than researching it to death, (as long as it follows proper guidelines and regulations, of course.)

Whereas I believe that the intelligent way to conduct a search is to research the subject to death so that you stand the best chance of looking in the right place rather than flailing about blindly. 

Ric

[Bob Smith]

Today is a day of rest. Or should be. I'm going to rest. If Ms Earhart shows up let me know. Meanwhile, I'm going to do some more research about Baker Island and surrounds. It looks interesting!