Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Robots To Search for Amelia Earhart's Lost Plane

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the robot-sea-monsters dept.

Robotics 98

raque writes "Following up on an earlier story, a group of aviation archaeologists will use underwater robots along with submersibles and sonar to search for Amelia Earhart's plane. The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery will search this July for the aircraft, which went down 75 years ago. 'If there's wreckage there that can be recovered, we need to know what it is, how big it is, what it looks like, and what it's made of so we can prepare a recovery expedition that has equipment to raise whatever's there,' said Richard Gillespie, the group's executive director."

cancel ×

98 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (-1, Flamebait)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450899)

Because she's a woman!

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450917)

aaaaaaaand
over in 1

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

andy16666 (1592393) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450989)

Queue the sexism. :( A very disappointing first comment.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451007)

lol, poor women... they can't drive or fly

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451043)

Bullshit! [youtube.com]

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (2)

andy16666 (1592393) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451073)

Actually, there's science refuting this. Ask any insurance company.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451107)

The science purely says that it is cheaper, not that it is less likely.

Science is great and all, but it's useless if you're incapable of interpreting the data.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (2, Informative)

andy16666 (1592393) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451235)

The science purely says that it is cheaper, not that it is less likely.

Science is great and all, but it's useless if you're incapable of interpreting the data.

Not that what's less likely? The science shows that women are much less likely to be involved in serious accidents, and much less likely to die in those accidents. In short, their driving is less likely to result in serious and costly accidents. By any reasonable measure, a good driver is one who gets safely from A to B. The science tells us that women do this better than men by a significant margin. And since we're talking about a serious accident, I think the science is very applicable in this case.

In other news, men certainly have bigger egos than women when it comes to driving. :)

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451359)

If you look at statistics per kilometer driven, there is little difference between the genders. Men tend to drive a lot more than women (at least in the US, I don't know about internationally). It seems both genders have their stereotypes that are unfounded.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451919)

Well, internationally I think that it's mostly man that drive. In Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage#Saudi_Arabia) women cant drive a car at all, and most other muslim countries I have been it is rare (at least) to see women driving cars. There is an exception to that in former Soviet muslim country's like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan where Ive seen relatively lots of females driving. In India and China Ive seen some women in the big city's, but not that many. Europe, Australia, NZ, US is about 60/40 I guess, taking into account that most 'professional drivers' (lorry drivers, truck, taxi and so forth) are male.
South America... no clue.
That is why I guess that males are more driving around than females if you look at the world at large.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#40460085)

Anecdotal evidence from NZ: My wife has her own car but when we're both in it, she prefers I drive it. There is little difference in insurance premiums for gender when you're over 25. My 3rd-most stolen turbo charged car was cheaper to insure with lower excess and higher value than my wifes old toyota starlet when she was 24 and I was 28.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451409)

> The science shows that women are much less likely to be involved in serious accidents, and much less likely to die in those accidents.
Which has nothing to do with cost.

> In short, their driving is less likely to result in serious and costly accidents.
This is your conclusion, not theirs.

Again - science is useless if you're incapable of interpreting the data, as you seem to be.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452093)

Personal experience and observations. In the people that I know there have been 34 serious accidents. 28 of those a woman was driving at the time. Serious is the car/truck being driven was totaled. Of those 28 4 times the driver was killed. I sort of say those were serious. In the 6 male driver accidents, no one killed. The car/truck being driven was also totaled.

If you count non serious the numbers go way up for the women that I know. Hell my sister has been in 12 accidents so far. Only 1 serious. The rest minor. But still. The science is tainted and biased by the insurance companies. Simply put historically, men got their drivers license first (not true today but back in the 1940s,50s,60s, 70s it was). So men got into accidents since there were more male drivers. Men can have a temper. So do women, but that is ignored. Men have a reputation of being aggressive drivers. Women can be aggressive drivers too, but that is ignored. So men have higher insurance rates then women. And people keep on telling the myth that women are safer drivers.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

Sillyoli Mahlikyool (2673651) | more than 2 years ago | (#40500269)

Obviously 34 accidents is too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions from, and your sister does not represent all women but only herself. You cannot make generalizations about the general population based on only the women (and men) that you know. Maybe you surround yourself with idiots, for all I know. Secondly, responding also to earlier posters, having more male than female drivers on the road is irrelevant, because I assume insurance companies base their rates on the percentage of male/female drivers that have accidents and not the total number. Furthermore, I doubt insurance companies include statistics from the mid-20th century when analyzing their data. All that being said, I still am not making a claim as to which gender is better at driving. I'm a woman, and I believe I'm an exceptional driver, especially because others have told me so much. Perhaps I'm just an all around exceptional woman, because I also excel in mathematics, sports, and woodworking. My senior year of high school, out of 422 seniors, I won the Calculus Award AND I was the prom queen ha ha.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40503757)

It's a shame that you don't write in a manner to indicate how smart you feel you are.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (3, Informative)

mister_dave (1613441) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453027)

The! Science! Says!

Women drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident [dailymail.co.uk] , according to scientists.

Researchers looked at 6.5million car crashes and found a higher than expected number of accidents between two female drivers.

The scientists also found that women were more likely than men to crash at a junction

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40453381)

It's because women find it more difficult to get their head out of the cockpit, unless they're on their cellphone talking about it... :P

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40461005)

Hey, fuck the Daily Heil.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451271)

lol, poor women... they can't drive or fly

Or load a dishwasher properly.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452913)

There's a special rack for the bowls. Why are the god-damned bowls on the cup rack?

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454715)

ok, I'll not agree on the driving or flying... but loading the dishwasher is a fact. The general female rule of thumb seems to be "stuff as many dishes in as possible, and then complain to husband that it doesn't get anything clean we need a new one." I just don't get that. Look, if you stack 10 plates on top of each other, the bottom of the bottom plate will get clean. and the top of the top plate will get clean, but everything in between will still be dirty. This is just common sense! GAH!!!

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451211)

Queue the sexism.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to get one of those numbered ticket dispensers? Then all the sexism could do something other than standing in line while waiting for its turn to come up.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

andy16666 (1592393) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451269)

Queue the sexism.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to get one of those numbered ticket dispensers? Then all the sexism could do something other than standing in line while waiting for its turn to come up.

I wonder if there's a patent out for the "sexism queue".

"Queue" means there'll be a lot of them (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451279)

On the other hand, "queue the sexism" could just mean that there are so many bigots waiting for their cue that they'll have to stand in line.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (4, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451717)

Queue the sexism. :( A very disappointing first comment.

I think you mean cue the sexism.

Maybe a woman would've known the difference.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451809)

Confusion of cue and queue seems as /. specific as hot grits or goatse. I have yet to see a poster confuse the two on any other site.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451999)

Confusion of cue and queue seems as /. specific as hot grits or goatse.

or vagina

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453921)

That's because on most other sites, they don't know "queue" is actually a word.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454599)

Maybe in the US but our neighbors across the pond tend to use queue a lot.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455997)

Sounded like a pun to me.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40459883)

How do you know that OP isn't a woman?

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40465321)

This IS slashdot.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452207)

Queue the sexism. :( A very disappointing first comment.

Actually, seventy five years ago, airplanes were sexist, so his comment is not sexist at all. It took decades of hard work of equality-minded folks to make airplane designers design non-sexist airplanes that would let themselves get controlled by women. That's recorded history, mate.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452885)

she was too busy yaking on about How good women at multitasking to fly.

Re:Why Did Amelia Earhart's Plane Crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452719)

Gravity probally. It is true she is vastly overrated

Imagine if somehow she was still alive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450935)

And then seeing robots looking for her!

Re:Imagine if somehow she was still alive (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450979)

The Doctor has picked her up by now.

There's your next companion.. right there. Moffatt.. that's a freebee.

Re:Imagine if somehow she was still alive (1)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451053)

Following a companion called Amelia with one called... Amelia. That probably wouldn't work long term but having two Amelias running around for an episode or two could be amusing.

Of course, with all the doppelgangers and whatnot it could just get confusing.

Re:Imagine if somehow she was still alive (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452547)

There's your next companion.. right there. Moffatt.. that's a freebee.

What? You're saying she landed in Springfield? [google.com] And here I thought aliens abducted her and took her to the Delta Quadrant!

Re:Imagine if somehow she was still alive (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451595)

Imagine her sense of betrayal.

Survived a plane crash and forgotten, only to be hunted by robots.

It's OK (3, Funny)

JCCyC (179760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452239)

She has a robots.txt file. They'll leave her alone.

Re:It's OK (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452505)

On what? A stone slab? A punch card?

typical /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450965)

http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/1312-robots-hunt-amelia-earhart.html

The site has been heavily /.'d that all of the article's text has been turned into dashes...

Can't people write anymore - did the robots volunteer or something? Jeezz....

CAPTCHA = resell

Nuclear Submarines (0)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450973)

'If there's wreckage there that can be recovered, we need to know what it is, how big it is, what it looks like, and what it's made of

Funny thing when we went to pull up Amelia's airplane, we found something that's a Submarine, 150' long, long black and slender, and made of steel! Glomar Explorer was dispatched to the area a few months before the secretary of state, seemingly at random, and to the bewilderment of the press, announced from the whitehouse that they would be assisting in this "exploration of America's heritage".

Cover for a military operation? (0)

andy16666 (1592393) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450975)

I can't help but wonder if they're using this search for her plane as a cover for a secret military operation like they did with the Titanic. Seems like those robots would cost a little more than your typical academic research grant would cover.

Not that it's a bad thing: the researchers get funding from the military to quietly carry out their secret missions and in exchange they get to spend some time doing what they actually want to do which is investigate this remarkable person's fate. If it hadn't been for such arrangements, it's unlikely we ever would have found the Titanic.

In this case it's sheer speculation though.

Tech demo? (2)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451011)

It could be a technology demonstrator, with or without the backing of the miliitary. It's easy to imagine using the same technology to recover more precious materials from pirate ships and what else. Who knows, maybe even NASA would be interested in knowing something they can send to the bottom of the presumably liquid Europa.

Re:Tech demo? (1)

andy16666 (1592393) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451047)

It could be a technology demonstrator, with or without the backing of the miliitary. It's easy to imagine using the same technology to recover more precious materials from pirate ships and what else. Who knows, maybe even NASA would be interested in knowing something they can send to the bottom of the presumably liquid Europa.

No doubt the technology is intended to be highly reusable. Having written grant applications, the broader the application, the greater the chance of funding, secret or otherwise.

Who cares? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451003)

I don't understand the obsession with Amelica Earhart. It's pounded into kids in public schools as if she was so important. Seems to me the feminist movement is trying to rewrite history or at least emphasize what they deem more important to push their agenda. She crashed her plane and died, whoopee!

Re:Who cares? (2)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452283)

I hate to agree with that viewpoint but you're right. She was not even an average pilot by all accounts, she was in it for the publicity, so yes she was a feminist pioneer in that sense but there were lots of women in the 20s and 30s that were making changes for women. Earhart had a sugar daddy who constantly pushed her name into the press and I think in all reality she was the first "Pia Zadora." So-So Talent, bought publicity and she couldn't operate a radio. What happened was an accident brought on by the need to be the first woman to go around the world, this in a time when the Airplane was less than 30 years old.

Why everybody is spending this kind of money to find her lost Electra is amazing. Exploration is good but what are we going to see, museum exhibits of "Earhart" and her found items, just like has been done with all the Titanic memorabilia once this is over?

To Paraphrase SNL from the 70s.. "Amelia Earhart is still dead."

Re:Who cares? (1)

joelsanda (619660) | more than 2 years ago | (#40462031)

She was not even an average pilot by all accounts

LMAO. Average by what measure? Because the average pilot at that time flew all the way around world, meaning she is not average because she didn't make it?

really? (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451025)

"and what it's made of "

I can tell you what it's made of right now. it was a Lockheed Electra 10E was built at Lockheed Aircraft Company to her specifications. Information about her plane was highly documented before it took off. Really scientists, have you not discovered the internet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Model_10_Electra [wikipedia.org]

And I am certain that Lockheed will be glad to tell them what they made it of.

Re:really? (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451159)

I can tell you what it's made of right now. it was a Lockheed Electra 10E was built at Lockheed Aircraft Company to her specifications. Information about her plane was highly documented before it took off. Really scientists, have you not discovered the internet?

So, you're saying that there is ZERO chance that they'll find something that is NOT Amelia Earhart's plane?

I take it you've already spent enough time searching that area that you know everything to be found there?

Re:really? (4, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451487)

If its in anaerobic mud or water there will be steel. If in aerobic aerated water there will be little more than rust. Also the effect of galvanic corrosion in general is well known, but in this specific example its not too clear exactly what will be down there.

Anecdote time is I've removed stuff like anchors and gas tanks from freshwater lakes (this is actually pretty exciting salvage ops for a teenager) and its unpredictable how much above vs below the mudline corrosion will be found. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how anchors end up on the bottom of a lake, often with a short broken length of chain, but I could never figure out why I found gas cans down there. Those things are not cheap so its not simple littering. They just fall off occasionally and sink, or whats the deal with that, maybe junkyards won't accept them so they get sunk? I believe I found one propeller. Oh and I found sailboat rope cleats too, lots of them, apparently they rip right out of the hull. I never salvaged anything really interesting, unfortunately. As a hobby its very much like being a poor fisherman in that it takes a lot of time on the lake to find anything at all.

Before anyone gets all excited about WWII sunken battleship anecdotes from roughly the same era, corrosion is sorta linear not a percentage, so 6 inch thick battleship armor that has had a 1/16th of an inch corroded away looks untouched from far away, but something like 20 gauge sheet steel might look a bit different after the same 1/16th of an inch of corrosion.

Re:really? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40457309)

I'm pretty sure airplanes were made of aluminum back then, not steel.

Re:really? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40465793)

Engine blocks (old fashioned internal combustion, you know), panels, instruments, landing gear, steel hydraulics (if a plane that old had hydraulic brakes), steel brake calipers (aluminum brakes would be an epic fail, see difference in melting points and more importantly high temp strength), steel control cables, steel pulleys. I would have to think for a bit if they had advanced from wood propellers to steel propellers yet. There's a lot of steel, even in modern airplanes

If you want to get picky I know some old MIGs were made entirely of steel; admittedly for aerodynamic heating reasons, plus probably manufacturing logistics. Germans made some steel planes too.

Also aluminum corrodes pretty well. Maybe not quite as fast as steel. Different chemistry too. But not enough difference to matter much.

Re:really? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452291)

Sugar and Spice and everything nice?

Re:really? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452749)

Seriously, by "what its made of", they are referring to the composition of any unidentified object located in the area. They'll compare its composition to that of a Lockheed Electra to evaluate the probability of them having found Earhart's plane.

The 37's (5, Funny)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451085)

We should all know already that Amelia Earhart and her plane were discovered by the Voyager crew in the Delta Quadrant!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708976/ [imdb.com]

Re:The 37's (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451119)

This episode made me hate Voyager. Between that and making the Borg into a completely weak opponent and turning the Q into an incompetent race, it was an utter blight on the Star Trek genre.

Re:The 37's (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451285)

Fortunately Abrams destroyed that timeline blowing up Vulcan. however he couldn't kill archer off as well

Björn of Borg (3, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451327)

making the Borg into a completely weak opponent

Borg was [wikipedia.org] "a completely weak opponent", not winning a single set in nine matches in 1991 and 1992.

Re:Björn of Borg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451875)

The only advantage the Borg ever had was that the Federation was almost as useless as the Borg.

"Hmm, our Klingon has killed 50 of these with his bare hands, but they adjust every time we change our phaser frequency. While we could replicate some ballistic projectile launchers (even one that uses a teleporter to snipe through walls), lets just keep cycling our phaser frequency in the hopes that they run out of drones before we run out of frequencies."

IQ less than shoe size the whole lot of them.

Re:Björn of Borg (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455093)

making the Borg into a completely weak opponent

Borg was [wikipedia.org] "a completely weak opponent", not winning a single set in nine matches in 1991 and 1992.

You kind of missed the whole story there.

Between 1974 and 1981 he won 11 Grand Slam singles titles.

That can't be easy.
Borg hadn't played professional tennis in ten years after being nearly unbeatable between 78-81 and had a 41 match winning streak until his upstart rival McEnroe was finally able to stop him in the 81 Wimbledon final. Though he assimilated a huge number of fans by 1983, the pressures of the constant drive to win took its psychological toll, and he shocked the world with his early retirement. He actually went more than a few years without playing any tennis whatsoever. Even though he came back fit and fast, his comeback was a disaster possibly because of his age and his decision in his final tournaments to ignore the advantages of the newer universally adopted technology; he insisted on playing with a wooden racket. Björn was not of Borg... iirc he was of Sweden.

Re:The 37's (1)

jheath314 (916607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454639)

The degradation of the Borg started earlier, with the movie First Contact and the introduction of the stupid Borg queen concept. They went from being an adaptive collective consciousness that could keep going after taking enormous damage, to a bunch of mindless morons with a massive single-point-of-failure. I'm guessing the writers simply did not know how to handle such an awesome enemy realistically after The Best of Both Worlds, so they resorted to making them dumb and adding a giant Achilles heel.

Re:The 37's (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454949)

The original concept for the Borg was pretty awesome. Originally they were to be an insectoid species without the idea of individual worth. It would have been a tremendous thought experiment on how an individual-oriented viewpoint would have collided with a species that has no such concept. The bottom line is the budget wouldn't allow for the insect species and we ended up with a watered down "help me, I'm an individual trapped by an oppressive queen". Not nearly the same tension as we could have had.

So you are right about First Contact (time travel sucks in Science Fiction anyhow). Voyager certainly accelerated this.

Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451087)

I never really understood why people still care about her. Can someone here enlighten me?

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451095)

Because she's a woman, period. Now shut up and go read the diary of anne frank.

Re:Who cares? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452675)

Hurr...TV....drama....derp.

Yes, really.

Funding problems (3, Insightful)

anonymousNR (1254032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451427)

A little skepticism kicks in for me, is this an attempt to raise donations for an otherwise non-funded archaeological expedition ?
Given the letters from little girls with $2 donation being displayed in their "most important sponsors page".
I am not making the expedition wrong, just throwing what came to my head, after all this is the Internet, where I can say what ever I want and get away.

Re:Funding problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452153)

There's also been a lack of evidence confirmation sufficient to escalate the search, but hey finding needles in haystacks is a lost art.

Re:Funding problems (1)

bobbied (2522392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452439)

A little skepticism kicks in for me, is this an attempt to raise donations for an otherwise non-funded archaeological expedition ? Given the letters from little girls with $2 donation being displayed in their "most important sponsors page". I am not making the expedition wrong....

You are correct, this is an attempt to raise money... However I think they are wrong about the location by about 350 miles.

Earhart and her copilot would have to be really bad at navigation to end up 350 miles away from their destination. A sextant, compass and a watch are going to get you to within 10% of 350 miles, even for a beginner. I would not consider Earhart a beginner and her copilot was a professional airline pilot who did this for a living.

If they really found her remains, she and her copilot were incompetent fools that did a number of very stupid things... Earhart was neither incompetent or foolish and not prone to stupid mistakes. She may not have been the best pilot of her age, but her achievements up to this point prove she had above average skills and experience. I find it very hard to believe that this could be where she ended up.

Cover story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452621)

It's a cover story. They hope to find lots of other wrecks and make money/fame/etc.

Re:Funding problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456841)

after all this is the Internet, where I can say what ever I want and get away.

But only as an Anonymous Coward.

I just felt I had to say it!

I found her (5, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451493)

Since her crash, I believe she's been on Stargate, Star Trek, The Outer Limits, Dr Who, and at least 5 other shows. So she could be just about anywhere by now lol.

Re:I found her (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452685)

I smell an EA franchise coming:

Where in the world/galaxy/TV show is Amelia Earhart?

Re:I found her (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453159)

Too late. They already sold the rights to her story to hollywood so they can make a movie painting her as a secret vampire slayer.

Found it! (0)

crivens (112213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451937)

I did all the hard work for you:

http://goo.gl/maps/jMYi [goo.gl] ;)

Re:Found it! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453597)

Goo dot gl? Let me guess... she's hiding in goatse? Why else would you post a shortened link? Especially one that someone who's been drinking too much might mnistake for google?

Re:Found it! (1)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40461137)

Notice that it says goo.gl/maps

Re:Found it! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40466525)

So? It's still a shortened url, completely unneeded at /. unless you're trying to trick someone into visiting somewhere they don't want to go -- especially something like goo.gl/maps or bi.ng/maps. If it wasn't some sort of scam or troll, it would simply be maps.google.com.

Give me one good reason why goo.gl would be legit?

She is not there.... (4, Interesting)

bobbied (2522392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452165)

The group doing this search are (in my opinion) looking in the wrong place. This island is about 350 miles away from Earhart's intended destination, Howard Island, and not on the "line of position" she would have been flying. In order to be anywhere near this island, Earhart and her copilot would have to be really horrible navigators and/or not following the standard navigation procedures of the day. I don't think either of them would have been this bad, even with the tools available at the time. Her copilot was a professional, who had a lot of experience doing this kind of navigation and I'm sure Earhart had some proficiency with the techniques.

Further, there is no way to know that the items found belonged to Earhart. There is no DNA to test in the bones and the cosmetic items where in common use. Nobody documented what personal items Earhart might have with her so there is no real reason to expect that this has to be where she ended up or that this is her stuff.

Another reason to doubt that this is Earhart is that it is unlikely anybody could survive a landing that puts the aircraft on the reef. Ditching aircraft of the day is going to kill you (by blunt impact or drowning) 99 times out of a 100. Making a difficult landing on a narrow beach and ending up on a reef in the process is even less likely.

Finally, there is some interesting evidence based on some measurements of the aircraft and radio configuration and various trained radio operators who logged hearing Earhart during the last few hours. This evidence puts Earhart fairly close to Howard Island before she ran out of gas. This evidence also shows that Earhart was navigating fairly well and following standard procedures in her attempt to find Howard Island. All this evidence supports the conclusion that Earhart was following standard procedures and was close to Howard Island and NOT 350 miles away.

What happened is simple. The radios on her plane didn't work either being broke or not properly tuned. Adjusting the tube radios of the day is a technically difficult task that's easy to get wrong and Earhart didn't have a lot of experience using them because they where not common equipment on aircraft of the day. With the radios not working Earhart couldn't hear the folks who could hear her and where trying to help her Earhart got close to her destination a few times and was flying a standard search pattern in somewhat unfavorable conditions and simply ran out of luck and gas. In my opinion she is within about 30 min of flight time of Howard Island on her reported line of position (give or take 10 miles or so) which is a huge search area of mostly water. If she didn't die on impact with the water, she would have drowned as the aircraft sank only moments after it came to rest on the surface.

Where it is nice to think Earhart survived as a castaway, it is nearly impossible for this location to be where she ended up.

Re:She is not there.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452593)

Wasn't she a spy? Whatever happened to that theory? At least its more mature than the stupid typical slash idiot sexist jokes.

Re:She is not there.... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453111)

Wasn't she a spy? Whatever happened to that theory? At least its more mature than the stupid typical slash idiot sexist jokes.

You mean that she was just using this flight as a cover story, and really intended to snoop on the Japanese who where invading China in 1937? Seems pretty far fetched.. I don't know how somebody as well known as Earhart was going to engage in spying activity during a well known publicity stunt where she was going to be the first woman to fly around the world. I suppose that being in Lae puts her close to Japan's military build up in P.N.G., but the invasion of P.N.G doesn't start until 1942...

No it's more likely she just got a bit lost, ran out of luck and gas just before she became fish food....

Re:She is not there.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40453213)

Well that and the other theory was she was a spy for the Japanese. I know its far fetched but that used to be kicked around in the old days. I guess no one could admit they weren't that great at navigating.

Re:She is not there.... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453913)

This is not about being good or bad at navigating... They where fine at that task, they got pretty close if you believe the radio operator's logs. The logistics and coordination of the radio equipment was horrible and that played more of a role in the accident than their navigation skills. Earhart could transmit voice on aircraft frequencies and receive elsewhere, but the ship assigned to assist her could not transmit voice, only Morse code where she was listening. Earhart had documented difficulties with the direction finding radio equipment on her aircraft and didn't likely know Morse code.

They where looking for a tiny (barely large enough to land on) island in a vast ocean with no way to contact their ground support crew. Weather reports indicate broken to scattered cloud cover which would make it pretty difficult to spot small islands in the broken shadows. Heck, it would be hard to do with a fully functional GPS with broken clouds at 1,000 feet today...

Re:She is not there.... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453511)

One correction to my previous post... It's Howland Island.. NOT Howard Island.... Sorry...

Re:She is not there.... (1)

TDO48 (248810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455619)

boring, we can't make a movie out of a "standard search pattern".

but I feel you're close to something....

Re:She is not there.... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40457417)

boring, we can't make a movie out of a "standard search pattern".

That's how flying is... Hours and hours of boredom that ends in a few seconds of shear terror. It never makes a good movie...

I guess they might be able to gin up enough oomph to make a TV show out of the search, but only if they can get a good narrator and some really good script writers. The only problem is that unless they find something, who's going to watch a show named "Earhart is still missing!"

Re:She is not there.... (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40459991)

Actually, since they ultimately died on the island, it's not a nicer thought. An infection would've been the most likely cause of death. Just imagine how long that would've taken, and under what conditions.

Grant Hunting FTW! (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452637)

Props to anyone who can pull off getting funded for such a telegenic venture!

Just as the sinking of Titanic was more valuable to society in terms of delicious romantic fappery than the ship and lives lost, so too will be the recovery of soggy Lockheed bits from the depths.

Re:Grant Hunting FTW! (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453393)

And they'll make the obligatory Big Budget movie out of it. With the requisite romantic subplot.

I figure they'll get Ellen DeGeneres to play Amelia.

When I read the title... (1)

qzjul (944600) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452985)

When I read the title first, I thought it said "Robots to Search for Amelia Earhart's Lost Phone"

... and then was thinking that I could use a robot like that.

However... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40453021)

There are more interesting things to look for in the deep blue... Os bin laden, the wtc....

link to the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40453067)

I tried to read the story, but I had to answer a silly question regarding dating to see it. Well I am back now, without reading the article. Wonderful marketing idea.

better idea (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453891)

instead of looking for a single object, why not build an obscenely large army of bots with lots of different sensors to map the ocean floors. you would find plenty of cool stuff in the process like new sea creatures, lots of lost aircraft/seacraft and sunken treasure.

A good waste of money (1)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40461703)

With all the people starving to death in Africa, it is nice to see that someone can find ways to waste money in something absolutely useless
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?