Amelia Earhart captured by Japanese, didn't crash in the sea

[_AmyJo]

I am happy for any person who visits this board to read my posts and those of Amyjo, and to decide which one of us in thinking more clearly on the points at issue.

[_Chap]

I am happy for any person who visits this board to read my posts and those of Amyjo, and to decide which one of us in thinking more clearly on the points at issue.

You're breaking the fourth wall here. Just mentioning.

??

[_Jersey Girl]

This is being live streamed if anyone is interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4rryt--lyQ

[_Jersey Girl]

Show is a little cheesy (suspense factor) but not horribly so.

ETA: Apparently I have no clue. What I saw was the end of the show.

[_Jersey Girl]

Watched the entire program, AmyJo. I don't quite know what to say. On the surface it seems compelling. I need to watch it again to see what holes I can poke into it given what was presented. I don't know much about the photographic overlays, for example, but the presentation did make me take the photo more seriously. I'll explain how.

The two people in the photo are Caucasian. I didn't notice the different skin tones prior. I have to ask myself, if that photo isn't related to Earhart, then what was it doing in the archives labeled as an ONI document? What was the alternative purpose of the photo? In other words, why was it an ONI document to begin with? I don't recall the man who found it saying in what context it was filed.

I don't understand the bit about the woman in 1968 saying she witnessed the executions, I believe she said she was 8 years old. That doesn't seem to add up to me. Maybe I've got it wrong or I hurried through? I'll watch it again.

But yes, it was compelling.

[_Quasimodo]

I just finished watching it. I think I would have to say that it ended as inconclusive.

I wouldn't call it a documentary. It was too sensationalized for good journalism. The photograph that formed the basis for the presentation was interesting and may warrant more investigation as to whether there is some still existent documentation out there to back up their theory, but not much else is compelling. Their "archeological" excavations at the end were a scientific nightmare. Totally amateur and left a huge mess if anyone else wants to follow up.

They did seem to find some wealthy sponsors, so I imagine it was a financial success. Overall, I was unimpressed. I think there is a very good chance that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan are still sitting in their plane somewhere at the bottom of a very large Pacific Ocean.

[_Jersey Girl]

I just finished watching it. I think I would have to say that it ended as inconclusive.

I wouldn't call it a documentary. It was too sensationalized for good journalism. The photograph that formed the basis for the presentation was interesting and may warrant more investigation as to whether there is some still existent documentation out there to back up their theory, but not much else is compelling. Their "archeological" excavations at the end were a scientific nightmare. Totally amateur and left a huge mess if anyone else wants to follow up.

They did seem to find some wealthy sponsors, so I imagine it was a financial success. Overall, I was unimpressed. I think there is a very good chance that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan are still sitting in their plane somewhere at the bottom of a very large Pacific Ocean.

The "dig" was the part I referred to above when I said it was cheesy!

I wonder what the significance of that photo was to the ONI? That's what interests me on first viewing. I wasn't in awe of the photographic overlay. But I do find it interesting that those were 2 Caucasians where I didn't notice it the first time I saw it.

I think at least some of the witnesses were credible. I want to know more about them. I'm still not sure who that woman was dated 1968, the math didn't add up for me the first go round. I'll run through the whole thing again as I have time tomorrow.

I also want to know more about the investigators. That one worked for the FBI? I have to look him up tomorrow.

I'm happy someone else watched it and commented!

[_Quasimodo]

I just finished watching it. I think I would have to say that it ended as inconclusive.

I wouldn't call it a documentary. It was too sensationalized for good journalism. The photograph that formed the basis for the presentation was interesting and may warrant more investigation as to whether there is some still existent documentation out there to back up their theory, but not much else is compelling. Their "archeological" excavations at the end were a scientific nightmare. Totally amateur and left a huge mess if anyone else wants to follow up.

They did seem to find some wealthy sponsors, so I imagine it was a financial success. Overall, I was unimpressed. I think there is a very good chance that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan are still sitting in their plane somewhere at the bottom of a very large Pacific Ocean.

The "dig" was the part I referred to above when I said it was cheesy!

I wonder what the significance of that photo was to the ONI? That's what interests me on first viewing. I wasn't in awe of the photographic overlay. But I do find it interesting that those were 2 Caucasians where I didn't notice it the first time I saw it.

I think at least some of the witnesses were credible. I want to know more about them. I'm still not sure who that woman was dated 1968, the math didn't add up for me the first go round. I'll run through the whole thing again as I have time tomorrow.

I also want to know more about the investigators. That one worked for the FBI? I have to look him up tomorrow.

I'm happy someone else watched it and commented!

I will try to keep an open mind if anything else comes up, but right now, I have doubts. Witness testimony is always a little dicy. Especially after so much time has passed. Most of what I saw was recollections of what someone's parents or grandparents had to say. Hearsay evidence.

The thing that is always in the back of my mind with these types of programs is that the major factor for producers of shows like this is that it will draw an audience and sponsors.

I'll wait to see if something else surfaces in the area of real evidence to support it. I'm not saying it can't be true, just that I will need a lot more to believe that it is.

[_Jersey Girl]

Quasi can you comment about the techniques that were used on the photos by that one man? The ones where he showed how a photo was added to the main photo and also those overlays? The overlays looked kind of contrived to me. For example, the measuring of Earhart's body seemed "iffy". And what is purported to be Noonan's face, his face in the photo in question seemed far more filled out than the photo of Noonan whose cheekbones were narrow and more defined.

Just when and if you feel like it...

p.s. Who the heck took that dock photo, why and how did the ONI get it? Don't know!

[_Quasimodo]

Quasi can you comment about the techniques that were used on the photos by that one man? The ones where he showed how a photo was added to the main photo and also those overlays? The overlays looked kind of contrived to me. For example, the measuring of Earhart's body seemed "iffy". And what is purported to be Noonan's face, his face in the photo in question seemed far more filled out than the photo of Noonan whose cheekbones were narrow and more defined.

Just when and if you feel like it...

p.s. Who the heck took that dock photo, why and how did the ONI get it? Don't know!

Sure. As you know, image enhancement is something that I've done both professionally and just for fun. All the techniques I saw in the program are valid, but there is wide area that is susceptible to conscious and subconscious manipulation. It's very easy to make a result reflect what one is hoping to achieve. I usually take that kind of analysis with a grain of salt unless several photographic analysts do a study of the same image with no knowledge of the particulars of what is being analysed.

I have heard (somewhere in the flurry of media coverage of this) that the photographer was later executed as a spy by the Japanese. There was a lot of tension between the US and Japan at this time and I think that it's reasonable to assume that the US was paying locals to provide intel.