If it’s true that the bones found on Gardner Island “are almost certainly” from Earhart and/or Noonan, I find it highly unlikely that they could have landed at Gardner, and then the plane be swept all the way from there to Howland, while remaining so intact the whole way.
Keep in mind that the scientists who claim the bones are hers simply performed updated forensic osteology methods against the bone measurements and body measurements extrapolated from physical records and photographs. They said:
The bones are consistent with Earhart in all respects we know or can reasonably infer. Her height is entirely consistent with the bones. The skull measurements are at least suggestive of female. But most convincing is the similarity of the bone lengths to the reconstructed lengths of Earhart’s bones. Likelihood ratios of 84–154 would not qualify as a positive identification by the criteria of modern forensic practice, where likelihood ratios are often millions or more. They do qualify as what is often called the preponderance of the evidence, that is, it is more likely than not the Nikumaroro bones were (or are, if they still exist) those of Amelia Earhart. If the bones do not belong to Amelia Earhart, then they are from someone very similar to her. And, as we have seen, a random individual has a very low probability of possessing that degree of similarity.
This is certainly a good estimate, and the methodology tracks, but a) the actual bones cannot be measured/studied further, b) it’s possible the bones were from a female of her same size, c) no other corroborating evidence is possible. They did a DNA analysis of some bones they found in the Tarawa archives in 2019(ish) which they thought might be the long lost bones, but tests concluded that they were not. So in this case I think it’s safe to say these bones have a high probability of being hers, but not to extrapolate that because those bones were hers, other theories must be ruled out. It’s suggestive that the bones were hers, but not proof that any other hypothesis should be confirmed or rejected.
Keep in mind that the scientists who claim the bones are hers simply performed updated forensic osteology methods against the bone measurements and body measurements extrapolated from physical records and photographs. They said:
This is certainly a good estimate, and the methodology tracks, but a) the actual bones cannot be measured/studied further, b) it’s possible the bones were from a female of her same size, c) no other corroborating evidence is possible. They did a DNA analysis of some bones they found in the Tarawa archives in 2019(ish) which they thought might be the long lost bones, but tests concluded that they were not. So in this case I think it’s safe to say these bones have a high probability of being hers, but not to extrapolate that because those bones were hers, other theories must be ruled out. It’s suggestive that the bones were hers, but not proof that any other hypothesis should be confirmed or rejected.