No, it said, “Gillespie’s organization, the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, has also claimed that it found forensic evidence, including bones on the island, that were likely Earhart’s.” That’s an entirely different group than Deep Sea Vision, who conducted the deep sea exploration that’s highlighted by the article.
And the study that made the claim back in 2018 said the bones, “have more similarity to Earhart than to 99 percent of individuals in a large reference sample.” That was based on documented measurements of the bones, rather than the bones themselves, which have long since been lost. “Most certainly”, in this case, should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
You missed again that the bones aren’t in the plane. Those bones were found in a place where bones could still be after this amount of time, not in the water.
They wrote “all that” because it included details important to read rather than skip over.
No mention of water or planes in the comment thread I replied to. We don’t know she died at the bottom of the ocean in a plane. There could be bones, as stated in the video.
Ok, at least that explains what you are saying. The comment however was made on an article about potentially finding the plane, leading to the unneeded explanation that they are indeed referencing the plane when asking if there could still be bodies… not just in general.
No, it said, “Gillespie’s organization, the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, has also claimed that it found forensic evidence, including bones on the island, that were likely Earhart’s.” That’s an entirely different group than Deep Sea Vision, who conducted the deep sea exploration that’s highlighted by the article.
And the study that made the claim back in 2018 said the bones, “have more similarity to Earhart than to 99 percent of individuals in a large reference sample.” That was based on documented measurements of the bones, rather than the bones themselves, which have long since been lost. “Most certainly”, in this case, should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I don’t know why you bothered writing all that. The dude asked if there would be bones left, and the video says bones might be hers.
Which means yes it’s possible for bones to potentially still be there. Doesn’t matter if it’s her bones or who says so, you missed the point.
You missed again that the bones aren’t in the plane. Those bones were found in a place where bones could still be after this amount of time, not in the water.
They wrote “all that” because it included details important to read rather than skip over.
No mention of water or planes in the comment thread I replied to. We don’t know she died at the bottom of the ocean in a plane. There could be bones, as stated in the video.
Ok, at least that explains what you are saying. The comment however was made on an article about potentially finding the plane, leading to the unneeded explanation that they are indeed referencing the plane when asking if there could still be bodies… not just in general.
It is quite literally impossible for bones to survive 87 years at the bottom of the ocean. The commenter said:
The answer is an unequivocal “no.” Even the ones from Nikumaroro which were referenced in the video which you quoted, disappeared decades ago. There could absolutely, positively not be bones at this site, because bones at the bottom of the ocean are completely broken down within a few years. I responded with detail because you were clearly mistaken.
Where did I say there’d be bones at the bottom of the ocean after 87 years? Youre just arguing with yourself at this point.