Garak and Jetronic:
You guys both really summed it up. In different ways, but together capture the whole picture of the problem.
Garak pointed out how we think the internet is the answer to everything and if it's not there quickly revealed by a simple search, which has been tuned to commercials and necked down by Bing/Microsoft or Google, it doesn't exist. As Garak points out, there's more to the world than what Bing and Google want to sell you.
Jetronic points out what I tried to say near the top - the whole premise makes no sense (besides pointing out it had been discredited years before). At some point, you have to run a common-sense filter on what you are being sold by the paid media, and without evidence. In the case of something sensational like Earhart. Or think of the Lindbergh kidnapping, or JFK assassination, or 2016 Russian collusion. You have to stick your head up and ask if it makes sense at the macro level before you start assuming weird conspiracy spins make sense.
Doing history is not rocket science. It's not brain surgery. But it requires a really steady mind that tosses aside answers that fit a preconceived notion (intentional bias or observer bias). A lot of people who claim to "do history," - like this nonsense photo and hoopla about it, want to prove their point and cash in. They don't want to sit down and parse out the details and possibilities. Real historians looked at this a long time ago and tossed it aside. The History Channel brought this up now to consciously cash in on other media buzz about Earhart; no question, no other logical explanation.
History is about drilling down to the truth as best you can, dispassionately, objectively. Law used to be about that, and so did a lot of science. Law lost that mantle around 1550 to 1600, and science did the same about 1970. History and archaeology still hold some credibility and might for a while, but obvious sh$te like the History Channel puts out will ruin it in the public mind if not challenged.
says it is.
