A Restored Radio From 1937 Might Have Finally Located Amelia Earhart’s Lost Plane 19%

By Michael Natale18%

6/26/2026, 6:49:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Optimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 23.9% saturation with 171 hits. Analysis detected 1,229 faulty-reasoning hits from 714 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.8% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,250 of 21,175 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.50% of the article peer group.

This story is a collaboration with Biography.com. 
Amelia Earhart’s disappearance in the summer of 1937 has remained one of aviation’s greatest mysteries for nearly 90 years. 
Since then, explorers and researchers have searched land, reef, lagoon, and deep ocean for any trace of the plane she flew with navigator Fred Noonan. 
One team has spent years looking west of Howland Island. 
Its newest lead comes from a strange place for a deep-ocean search: the airwaves. 
In 2020, the deep-sea exploration and historical research organization Nauticos procured and restored a radio system identical to the one that Earhart and Noonan used on their final flight: a Western Electric 13C aircraft transmitter and Bendix Model RA-1A aircraft receiver. 
In 2025, Nauticos announced that after a series of tests using that restored radio system, its researchers had estimated the approximate position of Earhart’s Lockheed Electra L-10E around 8 a.m. on the day she and Noonan disappeared. 
Armed with the new data, Nauticos says its next expedition will focus on a smaller search area than its earlier attempts. 
In a 2025 press release, Nauticos President Dave Jourdan said the team had “narrowed the search area dramatically” and called the planned mission its “best chance yet” to locate Earhart’s plane. 
That expedition, however, remains the next step—not the answer. 
In a February 27, 2026, WBUR interview, Jourdan said Nauticos had worked out roughly where Earhart was around 8 a.m., but the location hadn’t been publicly shared. 
He also said the group was raising $6 million to $10 million and hoped to mount the expedition as early as 2026. 
On July 2, 1937, Earhart and Noonan took off from Lae, New Guinea en route to Howland Island. 
They were receiving communications from a vessel off the shore of Howland, the U.S. 
Coast Guard cutter Itasca. 
But radio reception was poor; the radio log from that fateful day indicates that at 7:42 a.m., Earhart told Itasca, “We must be on you, but we cannot see you. 
Fuel is running low. 
Been unable to reach you by radio. 
We are flying at 1,000 feet.” 
The Itasca tried to reach the Electra L-10E, but every attempt failed; if Earhart or Noonan heard those messages, the records show no sign of it. 
Around 8 a.m., Earhart reported that she needed bearings. 
The Itasca was sending navigation signals, but she wasn’t receiving them clearly enough to fix her position. 
At 8:43 a.m., she radioed the Itasca again, saying the Electra was “on line 157-337 and running north and south,” a reference to degrees on a compass. 
That line runs between 157 degrees (southeast-to-south) and 337 degrees (northwest-to-north). 
It was her final transmission. 
Neither she nor Noonan were ever heard from again. 
Earhart gave the Itasca a compass position—likely thanks to Noonan aligning their course with the rising sun—but she couldn’t provide exact coordinates. 
That’s why Nauticos’ radio experiment could prove crucial. 
As of June 2026, Nauticos has not publicly released the exact coordinates or search box it says the analysis produced. 
Nauticos’ tests used two vessels: one in the air and one on the water. 
Aboard the aircraft—a stand-in for the lost Electra fittingly named Miss Amelia—they carried a Bendix receiver and a Western Electric transmitter. 
On the water, their boat Nellie Crocket had its mast extended to match the antenna height of the Itasca, and carried an RCA Model CGR-32-1 receiver, the same model used on the Itasca. 
The researchers used this equipment to run Radio Direction Finding (RDF) and Range vs. 
Signal Strength tests on the 3105 kHz frequency, replicating the conditions of Earhart’s final flight as closely as possible. 
They compiled and analyzed the results into an 88-page report titled Statistical Analysis for Highest Probability Areas. 
The researchers’ radio-informed expedition would not be their first. 
Nauticos first gained attention in the 1990s for helping discover the I-52 Japanese World War II submarine and has since mounted three Earhart expeditions, in 2002, 2006, and 2017. 
On the 2006 expedition, the team came up empty, with nothing more than scrap cables. 
But every search added to Nauticos’ stockpile of data. 
Now, with radio-based location estimates in hand, the researchers believe they could finally crack the Earhart mystery once and for all. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Michael Natale: 5.5%Popular Mechanics: 4.3%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 6.7%Michael Natale: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Anchoring Bias6.7%This article: 4.2%Michael Natale: 3.3%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic4.2%This article: 7.7%Michael Natale: 1.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic7.7%This article: 2.9%Michael Natale: 2.8%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Hindsight Bias2.9%This article: 5.2%Michael Natale: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 8.1%Michael Natale: 3.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.7%Framing Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Michael Natale: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect2.5%This article: 17.2%Michael Natale: 2.8%Popular Mechanics: 3.2%Optimism Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Michael Natale: 6.0%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Negativity Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Michael Natale: 1.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error2.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Michael Natale: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Michael Natale: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 1.3%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.3%Michael Natale: 4.1%Popular Mechanics: 5.7%Appeal to Authority20.3%This article: 2.9%Michael Natale: 2.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.1%Michael Natale: 2.3%Popular Mechanics: 4.1%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.3%Michael Natale: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 2.7%Michael Natale: 1.9%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion2.7%This article: 1.1%Michael Natale: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 2.4%Michael Natale: 4.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.6%Michael Natale: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof6.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.1%Michael Natale: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division4.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.6%Michael Natale: 1.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.7%Michael Natale: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading2.7%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.3%Michael Natale: 2.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote4.3%This article: 4.3%Michael Natale: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.3%This article: 23.9%Michael Natale: 6.1%Popular Mechanics: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice23.9%This article: 4.1%Michael Natale: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.9%Indoctrination4.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Natale: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Michael Natale: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.0%

714 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers40%attributed speech429writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageNauticos • 41 words • 0.0% coverageNauticos • 37 words • 0.0% coverageNauticos • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDave Jourdan • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDave Jourdan • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDave Jourdan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageItasca • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageItasca • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageNauticos • 20 words • 0.0% coverageNauticos • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNauticos • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dave Jourdan

100%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words28% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote+38.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dave Jourdan: 38.8%38.8%Quote-first Misdirection+38.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dave Jourdan: 38.8%38.8%Biased Writer Voice+6.1 ptsWriter: 32.6%Dave Jourdan: 38.8%38.8%Indoctrination-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Dave Jourdan: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Dave Jourdan: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.