Talk:Amelia Earhart

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Archives

---

1. Archive 1 Myths and conspiracy theories
2. Archive 2 Myths sub-article vote, Neta Snook
3. Archive 3 Vandalism
4. Archive 4 - Disappearance theories
5. Archive 5 - Continuing discussion on various Disappearance theories

Please Note: This talk page is not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about the sometimes controversial issues surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. This is a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the m:Wikibate proposal.) For more information about how to use this talk page, please see WP:TALK#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. Please also try to keep commentary here as civil as possible and be aware that personal attacks will not be tolerated.

---

Edits regarding the Saipan theory - the page is protected

Further to AKRadecki's comments above, I have also been asked by Bzuk to provide an external opinion. First and foremost, I have fully protected the page IN THE VERSION THAT I FOUND IT (note that this is not an endorsement of either version). Hopefully, this will encourage the resolution of the dispute.

Now, there are major issues on both sides of the discussion. I advise all concerned users to calm down ever-so-slightly. I am prepared to assume good faith on all sides (including Matt, who I am sure is only trying to improve the article). The dispute should, however, be resolved as soon as possible, since the rest of the article seems to be very well written and informative.

It seems that Matt is trying to include information that is believed to be improperly sourced by the other editors. Reading through the information that has been added, I am inclined to agree with the other editors here: videos on YouTube (unless themselves taken from an independent and reliable source) are not reliable sources. Just because something is recorded, doesn't mean it is true.

There are several arguments for and against that appear to be original research. In this case, the issue at hand is not whether the Saipan theory is correct or not, it is whether it is verifiable, and this should be kept in mind by all concerned. Trying to refute it or prove it correct does not make any difference - if it is believed and reported on by reliable independent sources, it can be included here as an alternative theory.

Sources such as the New York Times and Time magazine are reliable and independent. Videos on Google or YouTube are not. That is pretty much the bottom line.

Wikipedia does not make facts, it reports on facts from elsewhere. It can and should, as Matt said, present a variety of viewpoints to maintain neutrality, and this is possible because it is not made of paper. But these viewpoints MUST, to maintain the encyclopedia's credibility, be verifiable and taken from a reliable source.

As it is, the consensus is clearly to keep the old version of the page, not to make Matt's revisions. I encourage all sides to weigh up the points that I have presented. You are of course welcome to ignore them if you so wish, but I do not recommend it since they follow policy. I'll leave this for a day in order to establish consensus, and during that time, as the previous admin did, I insist that you discuss all changes on this talk page. This is, of course, necessary now that the page is protected. Discussion, or perhaps more simply, a straw poll should be used to establish consensus, and at the end of the time, one of the users familiar with the article should make the changes. If the dispute continues after this, I will be forced to temporarily block the user who continues to edit war and push a point of view for disruption.

I hope that my comments will help. Thank you. ck lostsword•T•C 00:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for the protection, ck lostsword. For the record, Matt clearly violated my instructions and edited without discussion, and I clearly told him that this would be considered disruptive editing and a violation of our consensus policy, and so I have blocked him for 48 hours.

Now for the business at hand: we need to establish by consensus that, as ck lostsword noted, the version without Matt's revisions is the desired one, for the reasons well documented above. This is the version that existed before Matt made his major changes. Since the straw poll method worked so well at the Battle of Washita River, I therefore propose:

Seems like a sensible straw poll. I'll extend the protection till then. ck lostsword•T•C 01:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no verifiable support for the Saipan tale. None. As for sources, there is a difference between a magazine like Time reporting an unsupported assertion and a magazine like Time reporting documented evidence. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a final comment, further edit warring after an arrival at consensus will result in an indefinite block, since the user will have directly contravened the instructions of both AKRadecki and myself. In the mean time, I will abstain from the straw poll as an independent observer, and independently establish the consensus at the end, since all of the other parties will presumably (and necessarily) have taken part in the discussion. ck lostsword•T•C 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt is riding a hobby horse. Nothing will alter his view and I doubt he can be moderated.Mark Lincoln 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I just checked Matt's revisions out. He cites an article in Time from Sept. 1966 where Goerner claims Nimitz told him that Earhart was a captive. Of course when Goerner made that statement Nimitz had been dead half a year and could not deny the claim - which the book reviewer in Time noted. Matt seems to have little critical thinking skills.Mark Lincoln 15:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I am very aware of the gap between Nimitz's death and the appearance of the quote in Goerner's book and Time magazine. Matt605 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal/straw poll

1. This version be restored as the consensus-approved version
2. Any major changes by Matt be proposed here on this talk page and accepted by consensus before they are implemented
3. This straw poll be left open until August 28, to give everyone time to respond. This length also allows Matt's block to expire and allows him to participate as well.

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement:

• Agree AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree and pls Speedy that owing to the blatant disruption (which can happen even in good faith), Gwen Gale 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree This has taken too long already IMHO. Let's get past this and GA it! Maury 19:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree The original article was extremely well referenced and provided a complete and accurate appraisal of the life and times of an iconic aviation pioneer. However, her mysterious disappearance has engendered a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists but the majority of these have not been considered credible and that is exactly what the article reflected. IMHO Bzuk 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC).
• Agree Possessing and having read most of the "conspiracy" theory books I can admit to being a bit of a "Earhart disappearance theory buff." I also must state that years of interest in the subject have left me with enough knowledge of the 'last flight' to easily rule them all out. This does not mean that mention does not belong in the article. Were it not for her 'disappearance", and starting in the late 1950s the many conspiracy theories, Amelia Earhart would be as little known today as Helen Ritchey or Dick Merrill.Mark Lincoln 14:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of, there's not article on Merrill... I'm starting one if anyone wants to help out. Maury 12:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I have a copy of the Atlantic Flight starring "Dick" Merrill which was shown on late night TV in my part of the world. Apparently the film was intended to showcase Henry Tyndall "Dick" Merrill, but he never took the project seriously. This film was conceived as a low-budget feature meant to capitalize on Dick Merrill's and Jack Lambie's historic "Coronation Flight", which made them household names. I'll certainly help, Maury. FWIW Bzuk 13:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

• Agree Revert, please. Binksternet 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Funny how persons who have gone missing after some spectacular stunt attempt always generate heaps of conspiracy-theory rubbish. Couldn't there be some "Amelia Earhart, different disappearence theories"-article established, where the kindergarten can tumble freely? Islander(Scandinavia) 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Other editors and I have strongly suggested the creation of an Amelia Earhart disappearance myths (or, if need be, Amelia Earhart alternate disappearance claims) article. I still think this is a helpful notion. Gwen Gale 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. The coverage of the various disappearance myths should be proportionate and should if necessary be split off into a daughter article of this one. --John 05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Also with John's comments. --Red Sunset 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Just like the Saipan theory, there is no physical evidence to support either Crash-and-Sink or Gardner/Nikumaroro after numerous search efforts for decades. And like the Saipan theory, neither CaS nor G/M have direct eyewitnesses. What Saipan theory DOES have is people who say they saw things indicating that Earhart's plane didn't sink, and that Earhart and Noonan may have been on Saipan at some point between July 2, 1937 at 9 a.m. and 1944.

There's also the Chester Nimitz quote and the Goldstein and Dillon biography that details why Earhart's mother believed the Japanese had rescued Amelia. These cites and quotes seem to keep getting edited out too.

People have been trying for decades to prove CaS and G/M without success, and now the allegedly uncredible witnesses for Saipan are online and there is space in cyberspace for the inclusion of their statements. Numerous, repeated efforts to prove them wrong have failed. That makes their statements more valid than CaS and G/M, objectively speaking.

The statements by the WW2 veterans that contradict CaS and G/M are in a copyrighted video owned by Richard Martini, who is producing a documentary on the subject this year. His credentials appear on IMDB, and they will be viewed by people even if they are ignored by Wikipedia.

The TIGHAR researchers just returned from another search without producing anything promising. The ocean floor has been searched in 2002 and 2004 and has produced nothing.

Saipan has grown in credibility as CaS and G/N advocates have failed to produce any hard evidence after decades of searching. Be fair. Be balanced. Be honest. Crash-and-Sink is sunk. Gardner/Nikumaroro can't be rescued. Saipan theory lives on. It is in fact now better established than the other theories, and it should not be counted as a theory for which there is no evidence. Matt605 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - All that rationalizing is irrelevent. The only thing that is relevent here is to include text that is backed up by citations that meet WP:V and WP:RS. You simply have failed to do this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That is untrue. The Nimitz quote, the Amy Otis Earhart belief of Japanese involvement, and the eyewitnesses to contradictory evidence on Saipan are all verfiable. Others have tried for decades to find Earhart and her plane and failed -- as recently as 2002, 2004, and 2007. The Saipan witnesses may provide clues to the eventual solution. Matt605 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Are the statements below your comments, Gwen? If so, please use the Comment identifyer and sign them.

Comment

• Lots of stuff gets said about dead celebrities. "The Saipan witnesses" may claim to be witnesses but there has never been a shred of physical evidence or independent documentation found to support that they ever witnessed anything having to do with the disappearance of AE and FN.
• Nobody can yet claim to have eliminated the vast floor of the Pacific ocean as Earhart and Noonan's final location and a wide range of artifacts and documentation also support the the Gardner Island hypothesis. Either way, the outcome of other searches in no way affects the likelihood of AE and FN having landed at Saipan.
• Matt605's Saipan related edits so far have no support among the eight editors who have participated in the straw poll. Gwen Gale 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I concur with Gwen Gale's summation. As for any verification: The Nimitz quote is deprecated on the very next page of the Goerner book when the admiral refuses to allow the quote to be used. Chester Nimitz died six months before Goerner's The Search for Amelia Earhart is published and the quote is meaningless. After being added back into the section, a note regarding the validity of the quote was extended. The note about Amy (Otis) Earhart was my statement from the Goldstein/Dillon biography and clearly is related to the origin of the Japanese involvement which was traced to Amelia's mother making unsubstantiated statements in her distraught condition following the disappearance of her daughter. There was NO colloboration from official sources which Amy sought out. Amelia's mother subsequently went on to repudiate the statement which was also not supported by any other member of the family. Amelia's sister, Muriel wrote an account of the life and times of her sibling and discounts all the theories about Japanese or other involvement. Captain Safford of USCG Itasca authored an authoritative work on the aftermath of the Itasca search and was privy to a "classified" US Navy report concerning the Saipan connection. Nimitz was likewise aware of the document which conclusively closed the chapter on this conspiracy theory. That is why any mention of Nimitz is questionable as throughout the entire Goerner book, every encounter with Nimitz describes the admiral's tacit humouring of the reporter. The only instance of a supporting statement is an uncorroborated telephone conversation that the admiral immediately disavows. FWIW Bzuk 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. Gwen, the proposal set forth in the straw poll does not directly mention my changes to the Saipan section of the article. It endorses a previous version and lays out a process for future revisions.

The Nimitz quote is directly from Time Magazine. You can have your own opinion Bzuk, but it isn't NPOV to delete the quote. Likewise with the Amy Otis Earhart belief of Japanese involvement. The 1997 biography details much of it. It isn't your place to decide for the reader that Amy was distraught or wrong in her impressions. Cite her retraction if you choose.

Actually, on the very next page of the Goldstein and Dillion book the biographers do a rather entertaining psychoanalysis of a person they knew nothing about -- said a woman dreamed hearing distress calls in a quasi-conscious state of mind. It is highly unusual to see historians dismiss a woman's claims as if she were incompetent due to her sex, i.e., a hysterical woman given to hallucinations during emotional distress. But at least they included some facts with their psycho-babble spin.

A good article does not deep six controversy. Bzuk my friend, you're just advancing your own point of view. Matt605 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fred Goerner did have an evolving opinion on the disappearance of Earhart/Noonan. Quote: "Safford's criticism was a factor in Goerner continuing his intensive research into the Earhart disappearance until the day of his death in September 1994. As a result, he later reversed his opinion about the survival theory and joined Safford in his belief of a crash-landing into the sea." (Safford, Warren and Payne 2003, p. 149.) Amy Otis Earhart's conviction in a Japanese connection was based on "an unnamed friend listening to a shortwave broacast from Tokyo claimed to have heard that 'they were celebrating there with parades etc. because of Amelia's rescue or pickup by a Japanese fisherman.'" "On this slim foundation, Amy based her belief that Amelia was in Japanese hands in Tokyo."(Goldstein and Dillon 1997, p. 260.) Amelia's sister and biographer, Grace Muriel Earhart Morrissey is quoted as "I believe she just ran out of gas and went down off Howland Island... it is a tragedy of the sea. What the sea has taken, the sea will keep... Amelia is at rest." (Strippel 1995, p. 58.) In her final years, Amy Otis Earhart "later consoled herself with a vague theory that Amelia must have been serving her government is some fashion or other." (Rich 1989, p. 272.)

For the record, the original edits merely indicated that two Earhart/Noonan disappearance theories were predominent in academic research while other theories did not have the same support and these statements were substantiated by credible and authoritative reference sources. These edits were the result of an extensive period of writing and editing that received consensus from a group of knowledgable editors and administrators.

Matt605, am I to understand from your recent comments that you intend to edit the article to your viewpoint despite the results of the above poll? FWIW Bzuk 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Comment I must change my opinion. While I see the various 'conspiracy' theories as part of the Earhart mystique and story, the nature of the Wikipedia makes it impossible to keep conspiracy nuts from vandalizing the Earhart article to advance their own hobby horses. The conspiracy theories should be removed to a separate site and labeled as such.Mark Lincoln 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus of 8 9 editors to wrap this up and 28 Aug is now upon us. Gwen Gale 13:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The process was begun by Akradecki after he blocked me into silence for 48 hours, so I was unable to present my viewpoints while others were making their decisions. Consequently, it is not a consensus process that any reasonable person would respect, and being a reasonable person I do not respect it. Beyond that, it is clear from the comments made by those voting that there is no consensus on the article itself. However, their votes of agreement to the proposition are enough for Akradecki to block me indefinately if I make any changes to the article that are not to his liking. The proposition requires consensus from all the voting editors of which he is one, and so all changes must effectively be submitted to him. Rather than risking a permanent block on all my contributions to Wikipedia I will never make another change to the article. Matt605 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Upgrades to article

While I was blocked from using Wikipedia at all except for my talk page, I was able to develop further text for inclusion in the Amelia Earhart article. Since some feel that sourcing a YouTube video isn't a good way to go, and I agree that YouTube can be unstable with videos being taken offline intermittentnly, one possible solution is to reprint the statements of the WW2 veterans in the article. So here is the text of those statements and people can judge for themselves whether they are conspiracy theorists, lunatics, profiteers, or just honest Americans.

"My name is Thomas E. Devine. I lived in West Haven, Connecticut. I was involved in Earhart Matter on the island of Saipan on four instances. I saw her plane. I saw the person who was in charge of destroying her plane. I saw markings on a Japanese jail cell indicating her presence. I was shown a grave site by a native island woman that contains the remains of a white woman and a white male who had come from the sky."

"My name is Robert E. Wallack, and, um, I‘m going to talk to you about Amelia Earhart and me finding a briefcase in 1944... And one of the guys knew quite a bit about demolition. He was a demolition guy, and, we had some explosives, and we packed the door of the safe, and, uh, blew the doors off. And, um, Wallack was probably the first one at that when the smoke cleared off, and, uh, I looked in and grabbed a briefcase. I thought, well, [it’s] full of money, I’m going to be a rich Marine! But it wasn’t. It was just as good or better. I grabbed it and ran off with it, and opened it up, and lo and behold, it was Amelia Earhart’s papers, off her airplane. Her briefcase she had off her airplane. I may have been just 18 or 17 just turned 18 that month and, uh, I says “there’s something’ wrong, Wallack.” These things are bone dry. 1938 they told us she crashed in the ocean off the Howland Islands. They would have been wet. They’re not wet. They’re dry. I could see passports and visas and everything else."

"I’m Julious Nabers, from Ballmer, Missisippi. I want to tell you some, a little bit about what I done in the Marine Corps in World War Two time… That’s when the message came from over the radio and I went and got it and decoded it, and it said that we had found Amelia Earhart’s airplane at Asilito Airfield. And I carried it to the colonel. He signed it. I brought it back and put it in the… That evening, about six o’clock or somewhere along in there, I was on the message center, and said uh, there’s a message come over from the island, I mean, the people over in charge of the place there had sent back or something’. It said tomorrow afternoon at 2 o’clock they’re going to fly Amelia Earhart’s airplane. I said, well this is history, we gotta see this. I told my guy I was pretty close to in the message center. So we said George, that George Gibbers, he’s in the wire section cause, and he could get a jeep, cause they had the wire to run the wire lines. So we got around and we left. Went out, went out down around the hangars, and they some tall grass grew there. So we put the jeep out in this grass and we covered it up, where it couldn’t been seen by an airplane fly-over. Then we crawled out to the airfield, the edge of the airfield, and laid down. We waited, oh, about two, two or three hours there, and we decided they weren’t going to. The next day there, this message came over that said “Tomorrow at 2 o’clock, we’re going to destroy Amelia Earhart’s airplane.” Well that was still pretty interesting news. So we did the same thing. Went down, hid our jeep. Got out, crawled out. And down to our right, about a hundred yards, a hundred and fifty yards, there were some guys, that appeared who were Marines. Had on the Marine uniform, the utilities of the day, and they had four or five five-gallon cans sitting around. And a little while then, here came a jeep, pulling this airplane out that was in the hangar. They pulled it across, there was a little bit of slope, I presume there was somebody in it, there had to be. Pulled it across the airfield, pulled it down and parked it. [Can you describe what it looked like?] Well, yeah, it was, well, that scene I was, what I seen was a single wing airplane, best I can remember it. But they crawled up on top of it, and poured three or four cans of gasoline on it, wings, motors, I mean from just one end of it. Then directly here come a P-38, and every so many bullets are tracers, and it come down behind the plane and the plane was headed towards where we was at. He come the opposite direction, firing from the back of the plane and when it hit that fluid and everything, these other guys had gotten out of the way, it went up in a big smoke, fire. It made a humongous fire; and smoke. Well, we weren’t supposed to be there and we realized there was a lot of secrecy about it, so we got out. I have no doubt that what it was Amelia Earhart’s airplane because of the circumstances, and the way it was brought about, the way it was handled. … I don’t know the cause of why they didn’t make it public. There’s a lot about, a lot about those operations that were never made public."

These individuals are referenced in the article already and their words are in published books. These particular statements appear on YouTube under in this location and will apparently be included in a documentary film soon:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pyED99gnxy4

Martini, Richard. 2006. "Eyewitnesses to Amelia Earhart's Plane on Saipan in 1944: T.E. Devine, R.E. Wallack, J. Nabers." posted as "What Happened to Amelia Earhart" on YouTube.com. Accessed August 2007.

It's a tricky cite. They are interviews inside an online video clip on a video sharing site, but they will also be included in a documentary that is forthcoming. It's also in bibliography style when maybe it should be in footnote style. Any suggestions on how to improve the style of the citation is appreciated.

And for the record, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, lunatic, or profiteer. There are two types of flaws people tend to make on Wikipedia when approaching a controversial subject. First, they tend to want to re-create what's already in the established encyclopedias, which are limited in space. Second, they try to fight the 9/11 conspiracy profiteers by squelching any non-conformist viewpoints on anything. Both errors simply slow the progress of making Wikipedia the really useful site it is growing into.

Folks, you can't exclude these statements from the article if there's a documentary that will include them in production by a guy whose credentials are listed on the IMDB. Matt605 17:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph is a copy of what I previously posted to Matt605's talk page. Gwen Gale 22:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I wouldn't characterize any good faith edit to a WP article as an "upgrade." This aside, the approach you suggest doesn't seem to follow WP policy. Raw dumps of unedited quotations from any source are unencyclopedic (WP is not a data dump). Moreover, Youtube is fun and helpful but it is not considered a reliable secondary source and is generally not citable for article text. Lastly, these are all verbal assertions which have never been supported by physical evidence or documentation contemporary with Earhart and Noonan's disappearance (WP:V). Let me say that in another way: Aside from a handful of anecdotes and verbal claims, there is not one shred or hint of physical evidence or documentation that Earhart and Noonan ended their world flight anywhere near Saipan. However, in full NPoV, the article narrative suggested by editor consensus does contain a full paragraph which describes the Saipan claims along with their provenance and a summary of the consensus about them among historians. Gwen Gale 14:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On top of what Gwen said, there's another very important policy that Matt doesn't seem to get: Wikipedia is NOT the place for original research, and that's what inclusion of such eyewitness reports would be. If anyone can find a reputable, modern-day publication, which has reported on this in an academically responsible manner, then I would take this more seriously. The fact that there are so many history publications out there, and they haven't picked this up shows, to me, the lack of respect that this theory holds within academia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these statements are not original research. They are research someone else conducted and recorded with a video camera. It is copyrighted, verifiable, sourced on YouTube -- today actually, and is material to be included in a documentary by a professional whose credentials are found on the IMDB. The Earhart article includes news stories on TIGHAR announcements as sources. Their work has not been peer reviewed or verfied either, but their claims are used to bolster the Gardner/Nikumaroro theory. So we again see editors advancing their own agendas, and not producing a good quality article. Matt605 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This was my response to Gwen on my talk page while the Straw Poll was underway and I could not post comments to this page:

Thank you for your input Gwen. Let's not let ourselves be constrained by the limits of dead-tree encylopedias. There is ample room to include well-sourced material. Some people have complained that the material cited isn't a good source. I've even had a well-sourced quote from Chester Nimitz deleted and a cite deleted one day followed by its fact being deleted for failure of a cite the next. So your belief in my good faith is well founded.

Managing controversy well and avoiding the mind-dead groupthink of dead-tree encylopedias is where Wikipedia can really differentiate itself. Making use of all media types available online is another. Google Video and YouTube are not in themselves bad sources. In fact, they're not sources at all, just places where content exists.

Just like the Saipan theory, there is no physical evidence to support either Crash-and-Sink or Gardner/Nikumaroro after numerous search efforts for decades. And like the Saipan theory, neither CaS nor G/M have direct eyewitnesses. What Saipan theory DOES have is people who say they saw things indicating that Earhart's plane didn't sink, and that Earhart and Noonan may have been on Saipan at some point between July 2, 1937 at 9 a.m. and 1944.

There's also the Chester Nimitz quote and the Goldstein and Dillon biography that details why Earhart's mother believed the Japanese had rescued her.

People have been trying for decades to prove CaS and G/M without success, and now the allegedly uncredible witnesses for Saipan are online and there is space in cyberspace for the inclusion of their statements. Numerous, repeated efforts to prove them wrong have failed. Saipan is more valid than CaS and G/M, objectively speaking.

I would once again request from the more experienced editors their opinions on how I have cited these statements.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pyED99gnxy4

Martini, Richard. 2006. "Eyewitnesses to Amelia Earhart's Plane on Saipan in 1944: T.E. Devine, R.E. Wallack, J. Nabers." posted as "What Happened to Amelia Earhart" on YouTube.com. Accessed August 2007.

It's an interview inside a video clip on a video sharing site that will be included in a forthcoming documentary by a professional whose credentials are listed on the IMDB. Is the way I have cited the material okay for Wikipedia standards? Should it use a footnote style rather than a bibliography style? Help from the more experienced editors would be appreciated here. Matt605 23:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Once the documentary is complete and published (ie, Discovery Channel, History Channel, PBS, etc), then you can quote it, but it doesn't meet our criteria until then. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your cable channel standard is highly unusual. Matt605 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask again for the assistance of the more experienced editors for their opinions of how these statements should be cited. They are interviews in a video posted on an online sharing site that will be included in a forthcoming documentary by a professional whose credentials appear on the IMDB. Matt605 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point here...it's not "how can they be cited?", but "how can they be included?". IMDb is not considered a reliable source...in AfD discussions, minor non-notable folks with IMDb listings are frequently deleted from Wikipedia. One of the elements of WP:RS is that there needs to be an element of fact checking in the process of publishing. Anyone can post a vid to YouTube, but it takes a higher level of research and fact checking to get something published in an academic journal or a magazine such as Air & Space. It's that independent review of facts that we rely on to provide the level of accuracy at Wikipedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, please stop your argumentative manner and please help me with forming the citation in the correct style for Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Matt605 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When did entertainment become valid historical reference? Have standards sunk that low? How soon will outright fiction be acceptable?Mark Lincoln 12:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Have I got this right? Three men telling a story that cannot be vouched for other than they look/sound honest? If that's any standard for authenticity then I think you can prop up any three people to tell you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, how JFK was shot, why Nixon covered up Watergate, where the WMDs were located, why FDR was in cahoots with the British to allow Pearl Harbor and, drum roll here... why Amelia's Electra was on Saipan. FWIW Bzuk 12:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't matter. I mean, so what if I thought Kennedy was killed, quite literally as it happens, by a wife-beating lone jerk through one of history's (many) wildly tragic windows of opportunity, that FDR did bait a highly nationalist, militaristic Japanese government into the 1939-45 war, that Abraham Lincoln was a bright, charismatic but neurotic, genocidal tyrant who dragged the states into civil war for economic reasons which had nothing to do with slavery (which was a failed and fading system anyway)? Who knows what mainstream scholarship will have to say about these topics in 100 years?

None of this would change WP:V: It's ok, even helpful, to cite the existence of these anecdotal claims (though not anything on YouTube, which I don't think is a reliable secondary source) and it's ok to note that there is zero independent confirmation of these verbal claims along with no meaningful support among historians.

Anyway. contrary to what Matt605 implies, these unsubstantiated claims are indeed mentioned in the suggested revision of the article. There's a whole section for them. Maybe they did land on Saipan (disclosure - I don't think so, agreeing with most historians on this one). Maybe FDR did send them on a spying mission and the Japanese killed them. Plausible, yeah (politicians do dumb stuff all the time) but there is no physical or documented evidence for it at all. If such documentation ever shows up, I'd suggest putting it into the article. Until then, if the Earhart article were to lend weight to the Saipan claims, I'd only think of this article more as I do Wikipedia's Abraham Lincoln which is to say, misleading but this public wiki is spun and held together by consensus with some sway given to WP:V. There is neither consensus for Matt605's suggested edits, nor support through WP:V. I happen to agree with the consensus on this one. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the French Bombardier Committee. As stated I feel that the various 'theories' are part of the Earhart 'story.' But if they are to be given elaborate coverage then they must be rebutted as they are presented because of the very tenuous nature of the 'evidence' and the often preposterous nature of the allegations.Mark Lincoln 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, answer just one question: Earhart was heard on Howland Island the morning of 2 July broadcasting at 3120 Kilocycles using a 50 watt transmitter on a 1/8 wave length center feed V-shaped dipole antenna from an airplane at 1,000 feet using A3 (amplitude modulated voice) near the equator and was heard 5/5 by the Itasca. She was broadcasting during daylight with consequent heavy "D" layer absorption. The square law being what it is, and 50 watts not being much power, and with the inherent inefficiency of the antenna set up to be heard 5/5 Earhart HAD to be close to Howland Island. If she had been 1,000 miles, or even 500 miles distant on 3120 Kc, her signal could have not been heard 1/1. In her last transmissions she stated she was "low on fuel" and circling.

How Matt, did the she and the Electra get anywhere near the Marshal Islands with the fuel remaining?Mark Lincoln 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, she did say she was low on fuel (which likely meant eating into her still hefty reserve) but the original logs don't support any assertion she said they were circling. They may have had enough fuel to fly the LOP to Gardner but I have never read a single account by a published aviation historian which asserts AE and FN had enough fuel to get back to Saipan from Howland and yes, I believe your opinion that they were spot on within a few miles of Howland is wholly supported by the published evidence and shared by most historians. Noonan was relying on the technique he'd more or less invented for Pan Am, celestial navigation for the long jump and then radio navigation to "home" in once he was within 50 miles or so. My personal, more speculative opinion (nonetheless shared by some historians) is that when they couldn't get a radio bearing with new equipment with which they were only superficially familiar (and possibly missing an antenna), they couldn't tell the difference between that flat brown speck of an atoll and the hundreds of cloud shadows that day. Gwen Gale 16:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, what "Hefty Reserve"? They had been bucking a stiff headwind the whole time. When flying into a headwind to gain maximum range you have to increase airspeed, which increases fuel consumption. Do not confuse 'still air' range with the real world. I am well aware of how Noonan navigated. I also am quite aware that the problems of using DF loops for for taking bearings (the ADF was much better). Noonan complained in a letter to his wife that AE could not use the DF to take a bearing on Dakar. There was a sound technical reason why and it involves a 'murphy' in the band settings on the receiver and the band settings on the coupling box for the DF loop. Could be the shadows Gwen, but also consider that they were at 1,000 feet and the visibility over tropical oceans is usually not so many miles due to haze.Mark Lincoln 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fuel capacity of the Electra and its fuel consumption are still controversial topics (within certain parametres). I don't agree with Long that they ran out of fuel and ditched seconds after her last transmission but no need to go on about it here. Gwen Gale 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pacific Ocean is a big place, and trying to hit a small island by a combination of daytime celestial and dead reckoning is dicy. So dicy that the only safe way is to intentionally miss by your circle of probable error. If you miss in a known direction, you know which way to turn. That is why they flew to a Sun Line and then down it. You still have the problem of depending upon deducted reckoning for your speed line. Add the fact that though the Sun was in the right place, the Island was in the wrong place on the maps. . . Mark Lincoln 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told there is no evidence Noonan navigated by offset but again, this has nothing to do with the Saipan myth. Gwen Gale 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to Mark's comments, British aviation historian Roy Nesbit published his research on the last flight of Earhart/Noonan and referred to documents available through the British Records Office. Earhart had to apply to British authorities for permission to fly from New Guinea and had to specifically detail her flight preparations. In the documents she filed, she listed the fuel load at Lae to be 1,000 gallons, significantly less than the 1,200 gallons that could theoretically be carried. The reason for the fuel load being reduced was that the Lockheed L10E Electra could not have lifted off from the grass strip on Lae with a full fuel load. (On Amelia's takeoff from Hawaii to Howland in the earlier world flight attempt that had been carefully prepared by her flying consultant Paul Mantz, she only carried 948 gallons.) Nesbit and later William L. Polhemus, the navigator on Ann Pellegrino's memorial flight in 1967 which recreated the Lae takeoff in a nearly identical Electra, claimed that a 950 gallon fuel load would have been the most that would be possible for takeoff safety and yet would provide the range to reach Howland Island 2,556 miles away and still leave a two hour reserve at optimum cruising speeds. Nesbit also obtained contemporary journalists' accounts of the fuelling operation at Lae where the figure of 950 gallons is given. (The fuel drums labelled "Amelia Earhart" were present at the Cecil Hotel in Lae, New Guinea for two months and were identified and part of the official record. The most contentious statement that Nesbit makes is that the fuel left in open storage, but under shade trees, evaporated at a set rate and the 1,000 gallons was reduced by a factor of .93 to leave Earhart considerably less than what she had planned to have as an ideal fuel load. The figure of 950 gallons used by both Nesbit and Polhemus is indicative of "topping" up the available fuel still left in the Electra's tanks.) Noonan was a skilled navigator both in the air and at sea but the charts available at the time were notoriously inaccurate and Howland Island had been located incorrectly. Combined with errors made in shooting a line approach, variable winds at altitude, poor radio transmission protocol by Earhart and a tiny island obscured by cloud cover, the tragedy seemed inevitable. FWIW Bzuk 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Both the Collopy letter and the Chater report confirm that the fuel load on takeoff at Lai was 1100 gallons (US). Since the likelihood of "crash and sink" is inversely proportional to how much fuel they took off with, authors like Long have strenuously asserted (not too convincingly, with dodgy math and sundry assumptions) that fuel onboard was lower rather than higher. Truth be told, they may have plopped into the drink near Howland but the documented evidence does not support any assertion that they must have run out of fuel moments after (or soon after) the last recorded transmission. The pith is, no way did they have enough fuel to navigate to Howland and back to Saipain. Gwen Gale 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fuel load is still up in the air despite conflicting figures- I have read 800, 950, 1,000, 1,150 and 1,200 gallons given. She did fly with a fuel mix of 100 octane and lower octane avgas that was the only fuel available at Lae. Since they could have only picked up 100 octane earlier, the smaller 81 gallon tank would not have been filled with a lower grade fuel, so it is probable that a full fuel load was not on board. Reporters on the scene specifically noted 950 gallons. Regardless, it's the fuel burn that is the most important element in the flight. When Earhart/Noonan believed they were in close proximity of Howland Island and still could not make contact, the search pattern they may have adopted is the key to the mystery. Was there a conservation of available reserves? did they fly a "square loop" quadrant or did they set off for an elusive island or atoll in the distance? Don't know, nobody knows? but its the stuff of dreams and has made the legend of Earhart and Noonan one of the world's great mysteries. FWIW Bzuk 18:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

We don't know where she ended up, but we do know that to be coming in 5/5 with the radio and antenna rig she had, she was close to Howland. I think (speculate) that Noonan was counting on the HF DF set that had been sent to Howland as he apparently was aware that a 500 Kc DF hack by AE was out of the question.Mark Lincoln 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to appear a fanatic, I am all for containing a brief description of the various 'conspiracy' theories in the article. If, however, they are to be expanded to the point of being stuffed with all of the "evidence" and speculation in the various books, then they need to be refuted in situ.

That is possible, but that would turn the "Earhart" article into the "Earhart Conspiracy Theories" article.Mark Lincoln 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark and Gwen, great points, and I agree that a "Disappearance Theories" sub-article would be suitable. Let's wait till the strawpoll begun by ck lostsword•T•C ends today before taking it to the next step. FYI, Earhart scholar, Dr. Alex V. Mandel, who has contributed previously to this article, has corresponded with me but has not added his comments to this forum as yet. He was on a foreign trip and only recently returned home but has some pressing family concerns that need his attention. Needless to say, he is in agreement with both of you and others who have already registered their votes in the above poll/survey. FWIW Bzuk 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

The issue of fuel load is an open one. One tank was reserved for 100 octane which was not available at all locations. The only way to use full throttle on takeoff, which was necessary with an overload, was to use 100 octane. The Gardner Island scenario is not totally out of question but unlikely.

If they had the fuel a box search pattern would have been the best bet. An alternative would be a ladder search IF you were certain you were short or long. I must take the words of Earhart at face value. They were low on fuel, not fat. They thought they were very close. They at one time were "circling", and on the sun line 157/337. Which is to say they were lost and knew it. I find it hard to believe that AE would not have said something if they decided to head for Gardner instead of searching for Howland. Besides, if you don't know where you are, then you have are starting a dead heading leg from an area, not a place. . . Mark Lincoln 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been an interesting time. I had to drag out some old ARRL Handbooks to check into antennas and radiation patterns.Mark Lincoln 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, there is very wide consensus that the 81 gallon (high octane) tank was not full when they took off from Lai. Some of us think an experienced former sea captain and pioneering aerial navigator like FN could likely have taken stock of their plight over Howland and more or less said, "Look, do we waste our reserve on a search pattern or follow this sun-line I've already plotted on a heading of 157 degrees which happens to pass within sight of Gardner?" Lots of folks at the time thought they could have wound up in the Phoenix group and radio transmissions were received from the area. Gwen Gale 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Although Noonan was technically a copilot, he was physically separated from Earhart and as pilot-in-command (PIC), she would have made all the decisions as to the operation of the aircraft.

Erm, Noonan was not the co-pilot, he was the navigator, he was in truth not separated from her physically all that often (he spent most of his time in the co-pilot's seat) and as her navigator, she was known to have listened to his advice (one of the times she didn't they wound up 100 miles off course). Gwen Gale 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Noonan had a commercial pilot's ticket but when he was in the navigator's compartment, which is where he was situated on the Lae to Howland run, he could only communicate with notes hung out on fishing rod that was inserted up to the front cockpit. Bzuk 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC).

The problem with those arguments Gwen are why didn't AE communicate what would be a drastic change of plans? And, the nature of the 'sun line' as a navigation tool. This was no Iron Compass that you could follow to the next railroad station. If when they turned to that heading it did not cross Howland and just east of Baker it wasn't going to cross near Gardner either. That 'line' is just 90 degrees to the azimuth of the sun. When to turn on the Line of Position to approach Howland depended upon dead reckoning since what ever last time he could have made a night celestial fix. Even that "fix" would not give a "point" but rather a triangle within an area of uncertainty. On a good day from 1,000 feet you might have decent visibility for 10-20 miles, but if your flying a couple of hours from a zone of uncertainty 20 miles wide, flying dead reckoning where they error might be 3 to 10 percent (good to average) and flying at 150 mph then your error from that dead heading leg alone could be 8-30 miles. Add (and subtract) 1/2 the original area of uncertainty and if your "sun line" misses Howland it will miss Gardner. With GPS it is easy to be just a few yards off and you can keep asking the satellite constellation as often as you like. But that isn't how the game was played at the time.

At the core of all trans-ocean flying at the time, and up until around 50 years ago was "deducted reckoning". You start out with a known point. You look up your compass deviation, magnetic deviation, and true direction then add and or subtract to determine your compass heading. You calculate your cruise speed and wind component, then you head in the direction you calculated. Fun is just beginning. You fly that direction for as long as you have calculated it will take to get there. But actually holding the exact heading is almost impossible. It is unlikely the winds will be constant in speed and direction. So when you arrive at the point on your calculated direction which the flight time indicates is "X" you are incredibly lucky if you are at "X" but generally you will be somewhere near "X."

So you add some gimicks, a drift meter to get a good idea of what the winds are - fine during the day when there is enough wind to make white caps, not so good at night or when there is an undercast. You add tables telling you where the sun and stars will be at any time - and a clock or two that is real accurate so you actually know what time it is. Those allow you to use a Bubble Octant to 'shoot' the sun, moon and stars. Pretty good. At night in still air with a really smooth pilot you can shoot one star, then another and another, and draw three lines on your map - except they are minutes apart. Thus all you have is a triangle, but that is better than a guess. On top of that there are problems with the accuracy of the instrument and calculations which make even that triangle 'fuzzy". But at least you have a an area of uncertainty that you can be pretty certain about to adjust your deducted reckoning.

During the day, you have your deducted heading, your calculated time of arrival, and a sun line which you hope will cross the destination, so you aim off to one side or the other and turn at the sun line at the correct time. That is how you use the area of uncertainty to know which way to turn.

As you go cheerfully east in the night, the magnetic deviation changes. Likewise your true airspeed, plus or minus your wind component produces your ground speed,. Your airspeed on the gauge is indicated and you must correct for altitude to get true airspeed.

No matter how good the navigator or the pilot, navigation by dead reckoning and celestial navigation is not precise.

They were both professionals Gwen, and being lost in an airplane is like being lost in the woods, but faster. Rule number one is if your lost, don't get more lost, and that is all they would have been doing going from one too large area of uncertainty to an even bigger one named "Gardner Island."Mark Lincoln 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making any arguments at all. I'm here only to talk about the Saipan edits and out of courtesy tried to answer your question about the change of direction.

As for the LOP, she broadcast it. Given what we know about Noonan's navigation techniques (and he was considered the world's leading civil aviation navigator at the time), by taking shots of stars and the sun Noonan used prepared angles and tables to plot a position on his map. In daylight hours only an LOP could be plotted but with this at least AE and FN knew they were somewhere on that resulting sunline but not where in terms of north or south. Given Noonan's known technique, the LOP was "advanced" on the map until it ran through Howland Island (the destination). When run through Howland Island, the LOP also passes to the east of and within sight of Gardner .[1] Cheers, Gwen Gale 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are both right in all your arguments each way as you have fully explained the various theoretical rationalizations but as GG has accurately summed it up, the current issue is not in resolving how and why Amelia got lost but whether the present article should be restored. But I am enjoying the ripostes, parries and thrusts (any idea what my sport was in University??), FWIW. Bzuk 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Again, I ask for the assistance of the more experienced editors on whether the way I have cited the statements is correct style for Wikipedia. Matt605 22:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

YouTube statements are not accepted as verifiable sources.Bzuk 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

The article should be restored. Sorry if Gwen and I digress. I had, or chose, to learn a lot of stuff which was going out of date when I was young. One effect of that was to give me a very real feel for the situation Earhart and Noonan were in. I think it DOES have bearing. The only 'theories' which have a shred of viability are that she ditched or that she made it to Gardner Island. So far no credible evidence has come from Gardner Island. I actually would welcome some.

Matt, I don't disagree that some of what men remember from the past, particularly what gets them attention now, might not have some basis in the past. I sit here now with Brink's book "Lost Star" and I am looking at a photo, the caption of which includes the words "This USAAF rreconnaissance photograph, taken during the bombing of the island in 1944 shows the distinctive twin-tailed monoplane, with one wing mission , sitting on a concrete revetment. The Japanese built no twin-tailed monoplanes, either before or during World War II." Matt that caption shows either ignorance or mendacity. The Japanese built more L-14 'Super Electras" than did Lockheed. What are the chances that some one ordered a Tachikawa build LO or Ki-56 destroyed because it was just trash or that some vast government conspiracy reaching to the white house knew that a L-10E had been discovered in a combat zone and deemed it must be destroyed?

The question is to we revert from Matt's revisions. Well, Matt has not answered my question concerning radio reception on the morning of 2 July 1937.

When he has a coherent and plausible answer, then we can consider letting his edits stand.

Otherwise we have to go with what is known, what WAS known, by those concerned at the time. The various conspiracy theories grew up only after a certain war time "rah-rah" film went on television regularly.

In the Summer of 1937 those responsible for investigating the 'disappearance' of AE and Fred Noonan had a pretty clear understanding of the series of planning errors and execution follies which led to their loss. Earhart could not - because of her own disinterest in radio technology and techniques - get a direction hack one the Itasca. The radio plan was flawed to the extent that the Itasca and Earhart were not even on the same time, in fact they were half an hour off on the hour. And the Itasca's HFDF batteries had run down. . .

It was a big ocean folks, and they were in a small plane, running out of gas and begging for the DF hack that could never come.Mark Lincoln 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, when you present something other than hazy recollections from old folks who can't even produce a scrap of other evidence, then your passion can be fulfilled. Find AE and Fred, or their airplane, and have at it. Otherwise, you have nothing but passion.

Revert the article. If Matt wants to start an "Amelia Earhart in Saipan" Wikiopedia article, and the Wikiopedia will allow it, then he should.

The various wild 'theories' that started over a decade after WW II and have sold lots of books and made lots of money since then ARE part of the Amelia Earhart legacy.

But without a shred of tangible evidence they cannot be considered valid and should not be treated as such.Mark Lincoln 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, none of the more popular theories have ANY proof. They searched the ocean floor in 2002 and 2006 and found no Electra. They've searched Nikumaroro dozens of times and have found nothing. They've found nothing on Saipan too. But they have found some veterans who weren't old when they began telling their stories. They don't appear to be profiteering or lying. Matt605 10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why go the wrong way?

The original flight plan was to head with the prevailing winds and gain the advantage of the longer days by heading west. I do not recall ever reading why they changed to the east bound Pacific crossing. Anyone know?Mark Lincoln 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

She ground looped the Electra in Hawaii on the first attempt (whilst taking off for the first jump to Howland). The plane required extensive repairs back in California and by the time these were finished seasonal prevailing winds were more fit for a flight in the other direction. Moreover Earhart's confidence level had dropped slightly and she waited until they reached Florida before announcing publicly that the second world flight attempt was underway. Gwen Gale 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it is a minor consideration, considerable resources had already been deployed throughout her world flight route and Earhart may have been under some financial constraints that required her to complete the flight as quickly as possible. FWIW Bzuk 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Where did the prevailing winds shift? Certainly not over the Pacific.Mark Lincoln 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In looking through some sources, the quote I have is that "seasonal weather conditions had changed" which reflects the monsoon period. Safford explicitly states that the "...West-east courses introduced two new factors that constantly operated against her. First, the most dangerous and difficult leg (Lae to Howland) would have to be flown when both pilot and navigator would be fatigued from having flown 20,000 miles already. Second the Electra would be bucking prevailing head winds instead of being aided by tail winds." (Safford, Warren and Payne 2003, p. 11.) Safford also analyses the haste in preparing for a second flight predicated on the need to finish the flight in 1937 wherein negative weather reports had begun to come in. Earhart had called in a weather forecaster before she decided to take a chance on a second flight that year. She did try to reduce her risks by using the flight to Miami as a "shakedown" flight but the haste putting the Electra back together ended in making some decisions in the sake of expediency, especially in regards to the radio communications and proper training to master the equipment. FWIW Bzuk 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Sorry Mark, I should have said seasonal weather conditions and patterns (this was a flight which would take many weeks to complete). I also recall there were other reasons and among these, for the second attempt GP set up a "syndicated" publishing thing wherein AE would report her progress back to the states by telephone. There were a lot more telephone connections early on in the eastward direction than the westward. Finally, given the failure of the first attempt, going east gave them a kind of jump start, to work out any kinks over the continental US before announcing they were already on their way in Florida. Gwen Gale 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, why go the wrong way to Howland? I don't believe any one story on what happened to Earhart and Noonan. One thing that concerns me though is why they chose Lea to Howland, a 2500 mile shot at a speck of an island, when Samoa was only 1000 miles from Howland. Had they flown Lea:Samoa:Howland, then they would have had 1000 miles out, 500 miles to fly in circles finding Howland, and 1000 miles back to Samoa if they didn't. Of course, your point about getting lost in an airplane is highly valid, and that could explain why an island-hopping route northward from Lae toward Saipan and then east to Howland may have made safer sense over a shot in the dark. Imagine trying to find Howland after 18 hours in a noisy plane with the sun glaring into your eyes and clouds casting shadows across the water. Matt605 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article should be restored. Sorry if Gwen and I digress. I had, or chose, to learn a lot of stuff which was going out of date when I was young. One effect of that was to give me a very real feel for the situation Earhart and Noonan were in. I think it DOES have bearing. The only 'theories' which have a shred of viability are that she ditched or that she made it to Gardner Island. So far no credible evidence has come from Gardner Island. I actually would welcome some.

Matt, I don't disagree that some of what men remember from the past, particularly what gets them attention now, might not have some basis in the past. I sit here now with Brink's book "Lost Star" and I am looking at a photo, the caption of which includes the words "This USAAF rreconnaissance photograph, taken during the bombing of the island in 1944 shows the distinctive twin-tailed monoplane, with one wing mission , sitting on a concrete revetment. The Japanese built no twin-tailed monoplanes, either before or during World War II." Matt that caption shows either ignorance or mendacity. The Japanese built more L-14 'Super Electras" than did Lockheed. What are the chances that some one ordered a Tachikawa build LO or Ki-56 destroyed because it was just trash or that some vast government conspiracy reaching to the white house knew that a L-10E had been discovered in a combat zone and deemed it must be destroyed?

The question is to we revert from Matt's revisions. Well, Matt has not answered my question concerning radio reception on the morning of 2 July 1937.

When he has a coherent and plausible answer, then we can consider letting his edits stand. Otherwise we have to go with what is known, what WAS known, by those concerned at the time. The various conspiracy theories grew up only after a certain war time "rah-rah" film went on television regularly.

In the Summer of 1937 those responsible for investigating the 'disappearance' of AE and Fred Noonan had a pretty clear understanding of the series of planning errors and execution follies which led to their loss. Earhart could not - because of her own disinterest in radio technology and techniques - get a direction hack one the Itasca. The radio plan was flawed to the extent that the Itasca and Earhart were not even on the same time, in fact they were half an hour off on the hour. And the Itasca's HFDF batteries had run down. . .

It was a big ocean folks, and they were in a small plane, running out of gas and begging for the DF hack that could never come.Mark Lincoln 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, when you present something other than hazy recollections from old folks who can't even produce a scrap of other evidence, then your passion can be fulfilled. Find AE and Fred, or their airplane, and have at it. Otherwise, you have nothing but passion.

Revert the article. If Matt wants to start an "Amelia Earhart in Saipan" Wikiopedia article, and the Wikiopedia will allow it, then he should.

The various wild 'theories' that started over a decade after WW II and have sold lots of books and made lots of money since then ARE part of the Amelia Earhart legacy.

But without a shred of tangible evidence they cannot be considered valid and should not be treated as such.Mark Lincoln 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Imagine trying to find Howland after 18 hours in a noisy plane with the sun glaring into your eyes and clouds casting shadows across the water." - Matt

I imagine myself dog tired peering through the typical haze at 1,000 over tropical waters and wondering why those guys on the Itasca are not giving me the DF hack I need.

That is besides the point Matt. Flying to Saipan or the Marshall Islands would have put them out of range of Howland and flying to Howland would have put them out of range of the Marshall Islands. The idea that there was some recce mission underway is pretty absurd unless the premise is that they thought they could land at some Japanese airfield, pop the film out of their cameras and hitch a ride to Washington.

The Commerce Department was actively promoting the development of airfields and seaplane facilities across the Pacific Matt. Howland had been "occupied" for exactly that purpose. Eugene Vidal was one of the folks in the Commerce Department responsible for promoting aviation - I have read many accident reports signed by him - and he was a close friend of Earharts.

There was a 'covert' government mission involved Matt, but it wasn't spying. I suggest you read Grooch, "Skyway to Asia" to get a clue how extensive the effort by the Commerce Department and Pan American to extend both sea and land facilities for commercial aviation across the pacific was.Mark Lincoln 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, folks, PLEASE remember to indent your threads...reading the above without indenting is a real pain! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I think you've been flying too long. You're the guy who says he's read all the material on the subject. Why not Lea to Samoa and then Samoa to Howland? Samoa is only 1,000 miles from Howland, not 2,500. Or why not island-hop north to maintain visual contact with a known landmark and then shoot east? Matt605 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, why not tour Australia and then do a round robin in Asia as well? The world had been circumnavigate by air. The 'gimic' with the Earhart flight was to do it at the equator. They were not rolling in money. Ask them. What is your point? Matt?Mark Lincoln 10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have a point. It was a question. Howland is a pretty tiny target to hit after a 2,500 mile flight. Samoa or a northerly route that used islands as markers would have been safer. Diverting to Samoa would have increased the total distance, which was the gimmick -- flying New York to London to Moscow, etc. is a shorter route. Lea to Howland is a shorter route. Lea to Samoa to Howland is longer but safer. Matt605 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV and Accident Reports

I have been thinking about the similarity between the NPOV stance of the Wikipedia, the alternative theories dispute, and the approach used in investigating airliner accidents. An accident investigation starts with all of the interested parties collecting the 'facts' of the accident, aircraft, crew, weather, etc. Everything is suspect until eliminated. The inclusion of a broad spectrum of 'interested parties' such as the NTSB, aircraft manufacturer, Air Line Pilots Association, the airlines, FAA, engine and instrument manufacturers, etc., promotes an open and sometimes intense investigation. On a few occasions it is easy to eliminate possibilities and arrive easily at a "most probable cause." In a few cases it is very difficult to do so. Most airliner accidents, particularly ones involving pilot error or system failures have multiple contributing factors. This is where the 'interested parties' contribute strongly.

The major difference is that the Wikipedia strongly seeks a neutral point of view whereas the NTSB wants to identify causes, problems and fix them.

The events of 2 July 1937 near and at Howland Island, as well as the search afterwards left most participants firmly believing that the 'most probable cause" for the loss of the Electra and it's crew was that they missed Howland and took a swim. Subsequent inquiries showed that there were sever flaws in the planning and execution of the critical radio navigation phase of the flight.

Now we have another "mystery" to deal with. Well after WW II new and exciting theories were put forth concerning what transpired before, during and after AE's last flight.

Our 'mystery" is how do we tell the story of Amelia Earhart in accordance with the methods, purposes and goals of the Wikipedia?

More specifically what is the importance of the various "alternative" (NPOV compared to "conspiracy") theories to informing readers about Amelia Earhart?

Were we to present each of those theories in full, and then rebut them to maintain a NPOV, we would end up with an entirely different article than was needed.

Is it possible to limit the amount of memory allocated to each of those stories? Excuse me if I seem ignorant of the process and all, I am a nugget around here.Mark Lincoln 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Opa Locka?

Why is there a link to Opa Locka Airport on the AE page? She flew out of the old Miami Municipal field which was south of Opa Locka and west of Masters Field. Miami Municipal was renamed Amelia Earhart Field after Miami switched airline operations to Eastern's 36 st Airport which is now MIA.

I don't know for certain when Amelia Earhart Field closed, apparently in the 1950s, but it was just abandoned runways and a few decaying hangers in the mid-1960s. I snuck onto it once and drove the old VW up and down the runways. It was fenced off, unlike Masters field which was wide open.

Masters Field was closed in the 1950s, though many buildings were still in use in the late 1960s, and most of it became Miami-Dade Jr. College North Campus in the 1960s. A small non-Navy hanger was on the SE corner of the campus until about 1969, it was reputed to have been the one she used and had been moved from AE Field. I have my doubts.

I would recommend that the Opa Locka link be replaced with this one, or a page for Miami Municipal http://www.airfields-freeman.com/FL/Airfields_FL_Miami_N.htm#miamimuniMark Lincoln 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Redacted Text

Text removed from the current article that is just a lengthy quote in support of a paragraph that was disputed is as follows (around page 268):

The reference from the 1997 Goldstein and Dillon biography cited is as follows:

“Amy began to believe Amelia was being held in Japan when, ‘a few days after Amelia’s S.O.S,’ an unnamed friend listening to a shortwave broadcast from Tokyo claimed to have heard that ‘they were celebrating there with parades etc. because of Amelia’s recue or pickup by a Japanese fisherman.’ The individual must have heard something, as Amy wrote to Neta Southern, the former Neta Snook, who had taught Amelia to fly, ‘This young girl drove 27 miles at 11 o’clock at night and through a horrid part of Los Angeles to tell me.’

“Of course, the Japanese would have been pleased and proud to have rescued Amelia. But parades? Possibly she heard a garbled account of Japan’s participation in the search or perhaps some ceremonies connected with the popular Star Festival, a happy occasion to be held on July 7. Patriotic fervor was running high in Japan, and July 8 would see the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, usually considered Asian portion of World War Two.

“The next day Amy went to the Japanese Consulate, where she was received courteously. But when she returned two days later, the former consul had been replaced, and the new incumbent knew nothing about the matter. George came back the next day and telephoned the consulate. Getting no satisfaction over the phone, he ‘insisted on a personal interview and saw the consul but got nowhere and came home very angry and upset.’ “ Goldstein and Dillon, 1997

Matt605 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

An 8:1 majority would generally automatically form a consensus. However, voting isn't necessarily everything, so I will try to weigh up the consensus on the merits of the arguments used. Overall, the argument is whether Matt's revisions and additions are verifiable and whether his sources are appropriate (incidentally, whether the saipan theory is true or not is irrelevant; all that matters is if it can be sourced).

Reading up, it is my strong opinion that though Matt's revisions are 'verifiable' in that it is possible for them to be verified by independent sources, but they are not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense: they cannot be attributed to a reliable published source. It appears that this is the consensus amongst all of the editors apart from Matt.

As they currently are, the sources provided by Matt do not match WP:V or WP:CITE. They are not reliable or independent. That is not to say they will never be - the documentary mentioned above, if screened on say the BBC or a Sky channel, would perhaps constitute reliability or independence. A video on YouTube quite simply does not, and I see no other reliable sources mentioned above (and nor do any of the other editors). Therefore, the information cannot be included.

Although I am certain that Matt is acting in good faith, the continuation of the discussion when the consensus amongst the editors (based on the application of policy) is clearly against him is unnecessary disruption. Based on his current arguments, Matt's viewpoint will never be accepted by the others, and this is justifiable and reasonable.

I encourage Matt to find other, more reliable sources for his information, but until then he must stop prolonging the inevitable. Following the consensus above, I encourage the others to apply the revert and further develop the article from there.

I will not say that Matt's argument can never be included, in case better sources come to light, but at the moment it CANNOT. Continuing to argue, revert or edit war will result in him being blocked for more extended periods for disruption. ck lostsword•T•C 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments:

• The version supported by consensus in the straw poll does/did already contain a somewhat lengthy summary of the Saipan claims.

• That these unsupported Saipan claims have been made is wholly verifiable and for this reason, since the article has a section dealing with unsupported claims and myths, they are in the article.

• However, the substance or pith of the Saipain claims, that Earhart and Noonan landed in Saipan and were executed by the Japanese, although verbally asserted, has never been independently verified (even on YouTube or anywhere else) with any shred or hint of physical or documented evidence. Thus they are claims which have indeed been made, but which have what amounts to null support among published, reliable historians.

• Hence, to succinctly include these claims in the article, if the article is to contain a section about popular myths and other unsupported claims, is helpful so long as the narrative also explains that these claims have no historical or evidentiary basis at all beyond sheer verbal assertion (WP:WEIGHT), with no appreciable support in the academic or aviation communities.

• Lastly (and contrary to what an editor here has repeatedly asserted), there has been significant documented evidence and wide support among the historical community that AE and FN ditched and sank in the open Pacific. Moreover, during the past 20 years, a substantial range of physical and documentary evidence has emerged to support a hypothesis that they landed on Gardner Island and perished there, such that significant support for this hypothesis as a plausible alternative has emerged both among historians and the public. Under WP policy there is no basis by which the article can give the Saipan claims anything approaching equal narrative weight.

Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, while the Gardner Island hypothesis is within the realm of the possible, i.e., if they took off with full fuel tanks they might with incredible luck have flown that far, there is NO credible evidence of them having done so. Every year or two TIGAR has their headline raising discovery only to have the evidence refuted upon investigation. There is exactly the same problem as Saipan. No airplane, no bodies, nothing. Gardner Island is at least possible, if highly unlikely. I would welcome any resolution of the 'mystery' though the only mystery is exactly where they went down.Mark Lincoln 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Happily, there is no need to discuss our personal, meaningless opinions on what in truth happened. Instead, we have WP:V and WP:WEIGHT with which to include and balance verifiable secondary sources within the narrative. All the best. Gwen Gale 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, PS, I do so agree with you about the word "mystery" in this context. Gwen Gale 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, Gwen, I think the article does take a neutral position in stating that two disapearance theories/hypothesis predominate among Earhart scholars and researchers. There does not seem to be an overwhelming predeliction or emphasis to either of the two theories in the article as rewritten and all statements have a corresponding, corroborating reference citation. FWIW my 2¢ Bzuk 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Comment None of this much matters now. Requiring an 8-person unanimity for my revisions effectively gives anyone else veto power over my changes and any change I make can be deemed major enough by Akradeki to block my ID and IP forever.

That 8-person posse was formed while my participation was blocked. Even though the article was protected, I was blocked and could not participate in the discussion while others were making up their minds on the proposal in the straw poll. No reasonable person would respect that sort of trick of process, and I do not. However, the comments of the voting editors show that beyond their unity in opposition to me, there is no actual consensus on the article itself.

Many, many improvements to the article that I have made remain intact. So let us not, for the record, forget that the article came a long way while I participated and yet still has a far way to go. But, unlike the veterans of Saipan, I will not grow old waiting for others to be fair and balanced. Matt605 22:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly encourage Matt to continue to make constructive edits to the article and participate in discussions on this talk page; my advice was merely to leave the topic of Saipan until more evidence or better sources come to light. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal in the straw poll has not changed. Akradeki has unanimous support from 8 Wikipedians to permanently block my ID and IP if I make any change to the article that does not meet with his liking. I will never make another change to the article. It was an abuse of process to block me while voting on the straw poll occured. No reasonable person would respect that sort of trick, and I do not. However, it is the article that ultimately suffers. Matt605 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Radio Signals

Though there were people who 'heard' what they thought were radio signals from AE after she disappeared, some were the results of hoaxes, and the rest were not particularly credible.

A ditched Electra could send no signals. Had the aircraft landed intact upon any near by island the search would have found it. Had the aircraft belly landed it would have been seen but could not have transmitted for long. The propagation characteristics of the frequencies she was using were not good for DX - long distance - work using a V-type 1/8 (or 1/16) wavelength antenna and a transmitter of only 50 watts B+ (final amplifier tube output).

The article makes it seem as if radio signals from AE were definitely heard which is simply not the case.70.248.242.6 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, working from another computer, forgot to sign in, I am the mysterious 70.248.246.6Mark Lincoln 17:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is strong, documented evidence from 1937 that multiple post-loss signals from Earhart and Noonan were indeed heard. You may want to have a look at this exhaustive and thorough study of the post-loss radio signals published this year by the Naval Institute Press. Gwen Gale 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article at present does make a statement, "David Jourdain, a former Navy submarine captain and ocean engineer specializing in deep-sea recoveries, has claimed any transmissions attributed to Gardner Island were false." The Earhart biographers have also indicated that the last two confirmed radio transmissions that were made, were at Strength 5, the highest and loudest signal that the human ear can tolerate. Captain Safford, a cryptology expert who studied the Lae airfield, USG Itasca, USN Swan, USN Ontario and Nauru Island radio logs indicated that there was no evidence that any message received after 0844-46, 2 July 1937 was sent by Earhart (Safford 2003, p. 140- 145). FWIW Bzuk 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

There are published sources which do not share Captain Safford's take, although if he limited his research to those logs I can more or less see why he might have come to that conclusion. Never mind cryptologists are not radio propagation engineers. Gwen Gale 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Safford also had access to all the radio transmissions that were sent throughout the flight and search period. Again, none of us will be able to solve the mystery of Amelia and Fred's disappearance here but the issue at hand is to make sure that the article information is properly presented and verifiable which I believe is the case. FWIW Bzuk 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Yep, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT :) Gwen Gale 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The R-S-T scale for signal readability defines a '5' readability as "perfectly readable" as opposed to "4" which is 'readable with practically no difficulty. Ref: American Radio Relay League, " The radio amatures's handbook," West Hartford, Connecticut, 1961, pg 580.

The information in the Itasca logs is not very suspect.

All other communications recorded after that point are suspect for several very good reasons. Earhart was only equipped to operate on two frequencies, and those two frequencies were in common aviation use. The reason they were in common aviation use for amplitude modulated voice transmissions "A3" in radio jargon, is that they were SHORT ranged. Thus aircraft would not offer great interference with each other at a long distance. Ground wave propagation at 3120 kc is pretty much a matter of line of sight given the height of the antennas. 3120 is about 95-98 meters in wavelength. The Wikipedia gives a good clue as to the characteristics of this wavelength in it's article on the 80-meter band: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_meters. Please notice the line "As the maximum usable frequency for long distance communication seldom sinks below 3.5 MHz anywhere on the planet," That is 3500 kc.

Now, bear in mind that Earhart only had a very inefficient 1/8 wave length folded V-type antenna and then consider this statement from that article: "During the daytime, a station in middle or high latitudes using 100W and a single element antenna would likely have a maximum communication range of 500–800 km, perhaps extending to 1500 km for a station using a kilowatt and antennas with some gain. These ranges are lower closer to the equator due to higher solar radiation which produces D-layer absorption."

On the more suitable 80 meter band, a 100 watt transmitter might range between 300 and 500 miles. At best with a very efficient antenna and 1,000 watts it might reach 900 miles. Now remember that radio emissions are subject to the 'square law" which is to say they weaken as the square function of the distance. Amelia Earhart had only a 50 watt transmitter, and a low, inefficient transmitter. Miracles happen, but... Mark Lincoln 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant low, inefficient antenna.Mark Lincoln 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, your submission above may serve as a new addition to the Earhart article. If you wish to elaborate some of these points, provide them as cited statements within appropriate sections of the main article. The detail you are providing may even be the basis of a sub-article, say on aerial navigation or oceanic navigation by air. FWIW Bzuk 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

WP:OR. Gwen Gale 22:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with going too far into the technical aspects Bzuk. Most of the references are technical and not clear to the general user. The information tends to be presented for technical use. For example, the antenna being used on the Electra was a V-antenna, a form of bent dipole. It is very directional in two directions ahead and behind the airplane. This means two widely separated DF stations would have drastically different signal strengths (ref: ARRL "The radio amateur's handbook, 1945 edition", pg 216). Had Howland Island's HFDF been working they would have been taking a hack on an airplane coming head on, and thus could have made a good reference. But for two distant and widely separated stations to have both had good hacks on the same signal from a low power transmitter are slim.Mark Lincoln 23:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are both probably right, let's leave it as is for now, other than if any statements are to be introduced, make sure that they are adequately researched and properly cited. Thanks again, everyone, now let's look at the article to get it ready for a Good Article submission. FWIW Bzuk 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC). Sorry for that last aside, it made me sound like Mickey Rooney talking to Judy Garland, "Hey gang, golly gee, let's make a musical!!" (Mark will know my reference, I am not sure Gwen will [:¬) ) Bzuk 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC) .

I must have missed something. What is the significance of "WP:OR." I understand QRN or QRM, which are natural and man-made interference, but what is "WP:OR"? I am not arguing that the article be drastically revised or technically complicated. All I am saying is that there are VERY compelling technical reasons why any assertion that communications were heard from AE after fuel exhaustion or landing on Garner, Baker or Shangri La, had been achieved. Who else besides the Itasca monitored her final known transmissions? I feel the article should be simply modified to make the assertion of communications a distant possibility, not a certainty.Mark Lincoln 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR refers to original research. If you stick with second-hand sources and cited statements than this doesn't apply. I think Gwen was just introducing a caution that your opinion/understanding needs other verification. FWIW Bzuk 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

It is not 'original research'. It is simply the results of an adolescent hobby. The 80 meter band is a play ground for radio amateurs and the radio equipment available on the Electra is well documented. I am not even asking that a lot of electrons be expended on the subject.

All I am trying to point out is that there is little technical reason to believe any of the communications after the last recorded by the Itasca.

Thus it is quite reasonable that the assertion plainly made in the article that such communications were from Earhart should be treated as very doubtful and speculative instead of certain.

It is not a matter of the issue of the capabilities of radio communications at the time being in question. Nor is it a matter of whether a 50 Watt transmitter could have been heard thousands of miles away. Nor is it a matter of whether the efficiency of a 1/8 wave antenna is not documented. Nor - go and read it, the article in the Wikipedia on the 80 meter band - is it a question of whether the ranges of such radio transmissions are not a matter of physics, as are the "D" layer absorption problem, the E and F layer reflection abilities on those frequencies, or the 'square law' a fact of radio transmission.

What is important to the article is that the FACTS of radio transmission were the same then as now. Just physics. There is a very, very low probability of any transmission from Earhart being received beyond a few hundred miles, much less a thousand, by anyone if she was down on an island in the central pacific The article should reflect that, and not the position that transmissions were definitely heard from her.

I brought this up on the discussion page rather than go around writing a volume of information because I am not on a soap box.

I was presenting data from a book I received as a birthday present and another that I bought used because I have a great interest in the development of radio technology. I guess if you demand it I can write a detailed piece revealing the state of radio communications in aviation at the time. But that is not necessary.

Until then just consider whether the statements that radio communications were probably heard from Earhart do not cross the line between what is a technically probable neutral point of view.

For that line not to be crossed, find some evidence that the Chapters 9 and 10 of the Radio amateur's handbook for 1945 does not give a good representation of the state of the art in 1937 concerning Wave Propagation (chapter 9) and Antenna Systems (chapter 10).

The probability that stations thousands of miles from a 50 watt transmitter connected to a 1/8 wave antenna would hear a signal are very low. That two RDF stations trying to take a hack on a highly directional V-type 1/8 wave length antenna and getting anything useful is even lower.

That everyone at Pan Am and elsewhere were willing to grasp at any straw cannot be taken as 'evidence' that Earhart was heard after the morning of 2 July any more than we can be 'certain' because folks have tried to locate those miners in Utah, that they are alive today.

The article, if it is to have a NPOV, cannot assert that communications were heard after the morning of 2 July.

The technology of the time, and the physics of today argue strongly against it.Mark Lincoln 01:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I believe a case has been been built for either of the two most-widely accepted theories and since there is some controversy over the issues of fuel on board as well as post-crash messages, that is reflected in the text. Since there is no resolution to the differences that various researchers have advocated, that information is presented. Carefully writing that section is also key. FWIW Bzuk 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is ok Bzuk. I am not going to alter anything. That some folks wished in early July 1937 that AE might be found is true. That some were fiends of Fred is also true. That those who thought that they had heard the last of it were those near Howland hearing her last hours of communications felt that they HAD heard the last of it is also true.

If you wish the article to state that communications were heard from AE after the morning of 2 July, so be it. If you wish to pretend that Pan Am radio operators were able to make DF hacks on frequencies she could transmit with the power she had, do so.

Gwen wins I guess. The Gardner Island hypothesis - for there is no proof - is the accepted one.

That the Pacific is a large place and the Islands in the central pacific are few and far between is a fact. That radio communications are subject to the square law is also a fact. The propagation of radio signals in the equatorial regions on various frequencies are a fact.

This is not "original research."

Any argument that fundamental facts of physics and the known configuration of AE's plane are not reason to question whether there were definitely radio communications heard from her after the last heard by the Itasca - and no one else - is simply absurd.

Have a good time getting that 'Great Atta Boy" on the article. I will change nothing. It is pointless if the idea that there were communications definitely heard from Earhart for days after 2 July 1937.

I can only speak of physics and technology. I cannot argue against wishes or disprove them. Anyone who has had a class in logic knows you cannot prove a negative. Therefore I cannot PROVE that any communications from Earhart after the fuel exhaustion time of the Electra did not happen anymore than someone can prove that an airplane sitting on Baker Island could not have sent communications for days afterwards.

What I can ask is this - why did ariel searches of those Islands not detect the presence of a Lockheed L-10E sufficiently intact to send those messages which you and Gwen seem so determined to state were fact?

Have a nice one! Mark Lincoln70.248.231.174 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice summation of the issue, Mark. FYI, I do not advocate the view that post-crash messages were viable or not viable, I am simply stating that the information presented on both "Crash-and-Sink" and Gardener Island disappearance theories are the most commonly accepted theories/hypothesis. Gwen had mainly written the Gardener Island Theory section, while I had written the "Crash-and-Sink" Theory. If you carefully read my submissions on this talk page, you will surmise where my personal views actually lie. Like yourself, I am more of a "Occum's Razor" proponent. As I said before, an addition to any of the theories is encouraged but careful writing, referencing research sources and proper citation is the key to making the submission work. IMHO Bzuk 02:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

William of Occam was a clear thinking man. What would he have said to the idea that despite the FACT that physics are physics, that AE only had a 50 watt transmitter, that on the morning of 2 July 1937 she and Fred Noonan had missed their objective, that the range of her transmissions at that time was such that no one other than the Itasca heard her last transmissions -- and that therefore the answer is that she must have been transmitting signals for days after she would have had to ditch or land and that they were heard all over the world?

Ok, I understand. Have a nice one but the AE article will be nothing more than a bleat for what amounts to the theory that not only did AE fly to Gardner Island but the USN refused to rescue her. She just MIGHT have made Gardner Island, but if she arrived in condition to transmit for days, then the USN had to have deliberately left her to die.

Did ANY pilot checking Gardner Island see an Electra standing proud on it's landing gear, able to run it's engine for days after the landing so that AE could send desperate pleas to the world? Ok, why did none of those pleas mention the USN airplanes that refused to help?

I know, you can't prove a negative.

But the fact are that no one can prove that AE landed on Gardner, that she sent messages for some time after that landing, that for some unknown reason the Electra disappeared after that, or the USN deliberately left he to die.

That is the situation with Gardner Island. Either the Electra suddenly disappeared or the Navy left her to die.

What would Willam of Occam say?

I never rewrote the radio messages twaddle. All I asked was that you and Gwen consider amending it.

That you consider such a move beyond reason is clear.

Give Gwen a hug and bye.Mark Lincoln70.248.231.174 03:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, that's not the issue. Rewriting the radio messages "section" is fine. You or anyone can rewrite it. All that is asked is to have reference sources cited. I had already included the statement that the majority of research predicates against any post-crash radio transmissions. If you want to elaborate or rewrite this section to emphasize it, please do so, but also ensure that the sources you use are verifiable, second-hand references. I do not have an opinion as to which disappearance theory is predominate although it is clearly stated in the article that two theories have the most support and that the majority of researchers are of the opinion that the Electra was probably lost at sea. Other research, mainly TIGHAR champions a crashed on land theory. I think your recent elaborations of the complexities of 1937-era radio transmissions and especially the peculiarities and uniqueness of the Earhart transmissions needs to be addressed. FWIW we are both arguing the same case. Bzuk 03:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, I could have pursued academic history had I wanted to. I had seen enough enough of the academic world in 4 years to know I didn't care for it. The radio signals section was clearly written by someone who is enamored with the Gardner Island hypothesis. It is also clear that any reference to the actual physics of radio communications as well as procedures and equipment will be deemed "Original Research." That is why I argued here and asked for someone else to consider mitigation what are pretty blatant claims based upon very weak evidence. I never have figured out why Earhart and Noonan didn't go out and wave when the Corsairs of the Colorado were buzzing Gardner Island. I guess they slept right through it. I also do not know why they decided to hide the Electra. I can't prove they could not have made it there, though if Earhart is to believed in her last few transmissions, she couldn't. One thing I do know is that a 50 watt 80 meter ham transmitter 25 years later, using a full wave center feed dipole at a height of 50 feet could work a distance of under 500 miles, was not a "DX" rig by any means, and the idea of the transmissions being heard in Hawaii or in Florida. Even on 40 meters it would be pretty iffy to be heard in Hawaii with that power. Certainly not with a 1/16 wave length antenna. You might be amused by the discussion of being a ham in Hawaii on this site: http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/hfop.html. Notice he says nothing about 80 meters, only the higher frequencies - and remember that Earhart was up around 98 meter wave length: http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/hfop.html. Pay particular attention to what he has to say about antenna systems. Also note that he is usually talking about CW, A1, transmissions which Earhart lacked the ability to do.You might also see what a complex antenna he has to use to work DX on 40 meters while on field days: http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/kh6bant.html.

The radio signal section needs to take into account the improbability of signals from an airplane on the ground on Gardner Island being received at locations which claimed to have heard them, instead of emphasizing that they were heard. The issue of why AE and Noonan were not there when the Navy went looking is another matter. I repeat, I cannot "PROVE" that they didn't go to Gardner Island, but the chances are more a possibility than a probability. I just don't think that given the editorial situation that efforts at editing on the AE article are a productive use of time. There are other articles to work on.Mark Lincoln 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) If the issue here is a statement that it is very unlikely a signal could be heard on Hawaii, I do believe that is worth mentioning, as it casts the issue into doubt, which I think is very much warranted. Sadly, this is precisely the thing that is likely to be challenged! Surely it can't be that hard to find a ref for this?

Wait, that took all of about 30 seconds... from here I quote "Daytime communication range is typically limited to 400 km, primarily via ground-wave propagation. At night, signals are often propagated halfway around the world." The articles here, 160 meters and 80 meters are also useful. Nothing I read in these suggests it's impossible however, and nighttime might have been doable. Maury 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Maury, of course the question of night time propagation depends upon skips - there are regions where no signal will be heard - and the 'square law." I guarantee you that a kilowatt will get a lot farther than 50 watts.

Lots further. Then there is another problem. DF at this time depended upon the use of "loop" antennas. See pictures of Earhart's airplane for an example. The method involved finding a 'minimum' signal. The point where the loop presented the least receiving aspect. This could give you the direction towards TWO points. One 180 degrees the opposite to the other.

I am glad to see people considering the physics of radio reception. Now we need to consider the technology of the time and the technology of the radio set up on the Electra. Recently it has been suggested that Earhart lost her reception antenna on take off from Lae. Ok, I don't know why I never read that someone found it.

Let us forget the folded dipole antenna on the bottom of the aircraft. Look at the top. There is a mast with a V-type antenna connected to the vertical stabilizers.

Let us then consider the signals which Pan Am received in Hawaii. They were 1/1. Barely heard and unable to be made sense of. Then consider that they came from either in roughly the direction of Gardner Island or perhaps Howland, OR they came from 180 degrees the opposite direction. How many radio frequency emitters in each direction?

Gwen, are you so certain that PAA received really sound signals that indicated AE was sending from where she landed on ground on Gardner Island and PAA was able to gain a totally accurate fix on them? Or could folks at PAA have tried to help by doing their best with what might have been very weak signals that they could not identify except that they MIGHT come from somewhere south of Howland?

The Garner Island hypothesis is a house of cards Gwen. I am not saying it should not be presented. It is, just within the realm of possibility. I would rather it be presented by an advocate than an opponent.

But float planes from the Colorado were sent - in response to the PAA reports - to check all of the Islands south of Howland. Those planes were flown by men who wanted very much to find AE. They went in low, so low as to be threatened by birds flushed by their appearance. They even landed when people were seen (Hull Island).

Tell me Gwen, where did AE and Noonan hide the silver and orange Electra to hide if from those who were trying to find them?

And, Gwen, why did Earhart and Noonan not try to gain the attention of those so eager to rescue them?

I can point out how Long loaded his book to promote his 'solution."

I have no "solution." It is a very big ocean. And there isn't much land to land on.

"ditch and sink' is not just a hypothesis, it is a probability. Because there is no evidence to disprove it, it is a theory. Yet it is a theory which is notmore than a possibility, it is by the simple fact that over 99% of the world in range of the Electra at then point where Earhart said 'we must be upon you' is water, and therefore it is a 'probability.' They didn't find Howland, and if Howland wasn't on the "line 157-133" then none of the other islands were either.

They were either east or right of that line. They were probably north and possibly south of Howland.

Someone who does not know where they are will be very lucky to set out in any direction to a place which they do not know where it is.

Iif you don't know where you are, you can't know where you are going.

Sic gloria transit mundi. Which is an old way of saying, "you pay your money and you take your chances - and in the long run it doesn't matter."Mark Lincoln 00:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, just look at a map Mark. Finding any beach within range isn't as difficult as finding Howland specifically. So the fact that 99.99 percent was water isn't such a big fact when you recognize that there was a pilot and a navigator controlling where the aircraft set down. Flying at 150 mph would give them a good range, which of course was part of the problem with where to begin the search.

When the Itasca said that they were close because the radio signal was strong, did that mean Earhart was one mile away or 100 miles away? How come the traidional story has never defined this distance for the reader? Matt605 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Signal strength 5 marked the last Earhart radio transmission and is so loud that it is the loudest a human ear can tolerate. The radio transmission meant that the Electra was in close proximity. Contemporary accounts of the transmission indicated that the radio operators had to remove their headsets when the radio message came in. FWIW Bzuk 17:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

Matt, I have looked at the map. Samoa is 2300 miles SSW of Hawaii. I doubt if AE was 1 mile from Howland because at that range she could have seen them and they could have heard her engines. Given she was on 3105 Kcs and it was daytime, and her altitude was 1,000 feet, then it had to be ground plane for it to be '5' signal strength. Most certainly under 100 miles. Probably far less than 100 miles. (check out the concept of 'ground plane" reception at 96.6 meter wavelength). How far away the L-10E engines could have been heard would have been somewhat dependent upon winds, but I have often heard SNJs 4-5 miles, the SNB could also be heard at that range. Good guess that Noonan didn't miss by much. Matt, all of the beaches in 'range' were checked in the first week by planes from the Colorado. No one has yet explained how AE and Noonan hid the airplane. Unless, of course, Elvis took it away in his UFO.Mark Lincoln 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The exact fuel load onboard the L-10E is given differently by different sources. We know that the fuel added at Lae was 785 US gallons. We know that the right main wing tank (97 gallons) was 'half-full" and would have been used for what was a perilous take off. The original flight plan had been made (as it should have been) with 'still air" calculations. The the morning before they took off the USN in Hawaii was predicting roughly 15 mph headwinds. After they took off they were informed that reports of winds aloft from Nauru and Howland led the USN to change the forecast to 26 mph headwinds. That means they were going to have to fly something like 450 additional miles through the air. Instead of flying 2,556 miles, they would have to fly something over 3,000 miles. We also know that early in the flight AE reported they had climbed to 10,000 feet. That meant the dragged a lot of gas way above the optimum fuel consumption altitude for that stage of the flight - and that would drastically increase fuel consumption for that part of the flight. Because there is a base fuel consumption required to keep the airplane in the air, the only way to get where you are going with a headwind without digging deep into reserves is to increase your airspeed to keep your ground speed up. This unfortunately increases your fuel consumption, but not as much as flying hours longer. The upshot of it all Matt is that Noonan appeared to be using a "sun line approach" method to locate Howland, that requires an offset in a known direction so as to 'miss' in azimuth and turn at the proper distance to fly in the direction you know the target should be. Thus the actual flying distance given head winds for AE from Lae to Howland would have been about 3,000 miles, and the still air range with 1,100 gallons about 3,375 miles. Thus had AE flown precisely to Howland instead of using a 'sun line approach" to it she MIGHT have just had fuel to fly to Gardner. Given that she was probably offset to the north - there were sound reasons why the Itasca searched northwest, then northeast and further northwest before chasing fairy tale signal reports - then it is very unlikely she could have made it to Gardner Island. As a 50 year old flying song goes "the bastard won't fly, when the tanks they run dry."Mark Lincoln 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't 'know' what happened to AE and Noonan. I have a pretty good idea what the factors at work were, an understanding of the aircraft, navigational and radio technologies of the time, and abundant real data to give structure to my understanding.

From 1,000 feet with perfect visibility the horizon is something like 45 miles away. In the real world your lucky to see half that. The 'point' they were headed towards was, we now know, some five miles from where Howland Island actually is. They left flares and smoke bombs in Lae, so much of the time Noonan would have been navigating without a good drift reading. Matt, shit stacks up against you. Most airplane accidents don't have a 'single' cause, but are a compilation of things that cause people to make mistakes. How efficient are you after over 24 hours of continuous hard work? Both AE and Noonan were good at what they did for a living. What they were attempting required a RDF or lots of reserve to fly a box search to be certain of success. For reasons of their (mostly Earhart's) own, they did not have the ability to send transmissions at the wavelengths the Itasca's Low Frequency Radio Direction Finder could home on. The Itasca had deployed an experimental High Frequency Direction Finder but the batteries powering it went dead. The L-10E had a DF loop antenna that could be switched into the receiver, but a "murphy" in the design of the coupling box meant it could not be used on all the frequencies the receiver could hear. The plan for radio communications and RDF was confused, the Itasca and AE were on different time schemes, changes had been made in the equipment available and techniques to be used between when Capt. Manning briefed the Coast Guard in the Spring and when the flight was flown. They might - just might - have reached Gardner. They didn't make Howland, and checks of Baker and the Phoenix Islands - including Gardner - in the days immediately after their flight, produced NO evidence that they had landed on any of them. It is a very big ocean Matt, and those parts where they could have landed had no airplanes upon them in early July, 1937.Mark Lincoln 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bzuk, the fact that the radio men did not log a second number says much. The first number is "readability" and the second is "signal strength." 5/5 would be easy to read and very strong. They could barely hear her at 2:45 (Itasca time) she is readable by 3:45, by 7:45 she thinks she must be right on them, and they thing she is very close. This all indicates that the last 700 miles or so of the flight she was getting closer and that the night time propagation (lower D layer) was good, and by day time when the "D" layer would prevent skip she was close enough for ground wave reception. By 7:42 the pucker factor in the L-10Es cockpit had to be pretty high.Mark Lincoln 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys selling books

I have no forthcoming or past publication on AE.

I have no intention of ever writing one.

Does it not stir your curiosity that so many of the "alternative" theories to the long accepted one are clear efforts at commercial promotion of a product?

I collect them, but. . . Mark Lincoln 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Gwen"

You seem most taken with the TIGHAR vision.

I would like to ask a few questions.

Why does TIGHAR disparage the examination of Gardner Island from 400 feet (to avoid bird strikes) and yet emphasize that evidence of "prior habitation" was seen?

Then why does TIGHAR ignore the FACT that a shipwreck had happened in late 1929, the SS Norwich City, and according to the Wikipedia "the survivors camped near collapsed structures from the abortive Arundel project and were rescued after several days on the island.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikumaroro#SS_Norwich_City_wreck?

Why does TIGHAR make much over the fact that there were signs of previous habitation and NOTHING about the fact that there were NO signs of current habitation?

Why would TIGHAR have us believe that certain communications by Earhart were made for days after 2 July, and never mention that the signals received by Pan Am at Hawaii and Wake on 3105 Kc, were so weak as to be unintelligible, and impossible to make an accurate RF hack upon? Why do they not mention that the possible carrier wave noted to the SE (not the SSE) from Howland was not on 3105 Kc?

TIGHAR is a business, and I don't want to squelch their business, but why do they still tout "Amelia Earhart's Shoe (claimed to be exactly like the ones she wore on the flight) long after that claim has been discredited?

How did a skeleton of an old and stocky man which has become lost suddenly become the skeleton of a middle aged and thin woman after the description of that skeleton was reviewed? Did Bill Frist do that analysis just after he diagnosed Mary Schavio?

Gwen, you are clearly in love with the Gardner Island hypothesis.

That hypothesis can be easily tested by asking a simple question.

Did the pilots from the Colorado find anything on Gardner Island to indicate the Electra had landed on that Island, that it had continued to operate long enough to send several days of signals, and that Earhart or Noonan tried to signal the pilots of the Colorado when the Island was searched?

The answer is simple. When Gardner Island was searched, there was no Electra and no Earhart and Noonan waving frantically to be rescued.

All there was was evidence of prior habitation that TIGHAR would rather you not know about.

They are not 'dishonest' in the criminal sense Gwen. They are simply dishonest.

But every year or two they can launch another 'expedition' which will produce 'evidence' which will turn out to be false. And the funding will role in.Mark Lincoln 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So Gwen, why would anyone who simply wanted to out the facts as best they could be determined about Amelia Earhart and her ill fated last flight bother to butt heads with your romantic belief?Mark Lincoln 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

B-Class

Anyone want to confront why the Amelia Earhart entry into the Wikipedia is 'B' class?

How can a person who was very important for the better part of two decades in American Aviation and Feminism be 'B' class?

Is it because my first grade teacher wasn't a 'feminist' of the suffragette variety? No, she was.

Was it because Amelia Earhart was a war monger who would welcome her name upon an instrument of aggression?

Nope.

It is 'B' class because it is the hobby horse of children such as Matt and Gwen.

Because they cannot let Amelia Earhart occupy the place in history that she earned thus to satisfy their egos she must be relegated into the 'b' class.

Not my fault. AE was a competent if not superior pilot. She worked very hard at what she did. Fred Noonan was not a hopeless drunk, but rather he worked very hard at what he did.

The situation they confronted in early July 1937 was both of their manufacture and beyond their ability.

There is not a shred of evidence that they died on Gardner Island. There is abundant evidence they never arrived at Gardner Island.

The might have survived if they managed to ditch safely and get into their life raft with all their supplies.

But then there were people who imagined - honestly - that they heard transmissions from shangri-la that other people deemed necessary to pursue.

Thus the search where those most informed wished to search had to be abandond, and the search for shangril La had to begin.

What ever chance AE and Fred Noonan had to survived IF they managed to ditch and get out of the aircraft, disappeared as the ship commanded by the man who best understood the situation was commanded to go to places where they could not be.

One thing is certain. They were not upon any particle of soil or any reef within range in the week after they disappeared.

Sic gloria transit mundi - as the slave was commanded to whisper into the ear of the Roman general parading his spoils of war.Mark Lincoln 02:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Busy, busy day, Mark. So the Electra had to be on the ocean floor within 100 miles of the Itasca, but two searches in the 21st century have found nothing. Yet everyone else is still lying.

The 1937 searchers who searched Gardner a solid week after July 2 may have found no aircraft or life on Gardner because Earhart may have been rescued by Japanese civilian or military people, a possibility documented in the Goldstein and Dillon text from the 1997 biography quoted above and deleted from the article. Matt605 02:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What Goldstein and Dillon said in an examination of various claims is "the sort of story, told by alleged witnesses, complete with incident and conversation, that can beguile the unwary." (Goldstein and Dillon 1997, p. 269.) FWIW Bzuk 03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

I asked you before to provide the cite for your claim that Amy Otis Earhart refuted her belief of Japanese involvement, and you did not. What we do know is that she believed this as a possibility for well more than half a decade. Also, the 1997 authors decided for themselves that the person who reported the Japanese celebrations was wrong about the reason for the celebrations. Maybe that's true. Maybe the reported parades were normal holiday parades that were especially festive because a Japanese fishing boat had rescued Earhart. Why do the authors not consider that possibility? Matt605 13:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep smoking that suff Matt, rolling it in copies of Gorner's book helps the high.Mark Lincoln 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat folks, there is a very sound reason why the Amelia Earhart article will never be anything but a B-Class article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Lincoln (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do the authors not consider that possibility? (of a Japanese involvement) Mainly because they are not unwary... the fact that Amy clung to her beliefs was sad. She believed hearsay from a total stranger and had no shred of evidence to support her notions of a Japanese rescue and tried vainly to interest government, GP and others to investigate. All efforts proved fruitless including Putnam's trip to the Pacific in wartime, Amy's presence at the Tokyo Rose trials and Jackie Cochran's mission to Japan. I do not have Muriel's account but in other literature, she describes her mother's reluctant acceptance of Amelia's loss. Amelia's sister who was a preeminent Earhart scholar staunchly maintained throughout her life that there was no basis in the Japanese connection.

Capt. Safford in a latest published work on Earhart also has examined the claims and found no evidence in Japanese records, especially those files from Saipan to substantiate any Japanese involvement. Safford indicated that the popular impression that the US government did not take the rumours, broadcasts and letters it received seriously is completely false. There are voluminous files that indicate careful examination of all these theories and a lack of any supporting evidence to substantiate even one of them. One case in point, the hangars that Thomas Devine describes from a second-hand report were destroyed by 1944 which was a simple matter of record. Safford also had access to classified documents of interviews conducted by the US Navy DIO Joseph M. Patton who examined each of the Devine claims. This 1960 report went through every possible Japanese connection and found there was none. The Patton report conclusively ended with the words, "The information advanced by Devine is inaccurate and cannot be supported by this investigation."

The fact that Amelia's mother held on to a vain belief in a conspiracy has no relevance; thousands who watched Flight for Freedom convinced themselves of similar scenarios. Everyone who reads supposedly authoritative but completely unsubstantiated accounts and believes them also has fallen prey to the siren call of the Earhart mystery. IMHO Bzuk 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Being held prisoner during war is not a conspiracy. It is a fact of war. How does a person's belief that their un-accounted-for loved one transform into a conspiracy theory? Why are Amy Otis Earhart's beliefs excluded from the article while AE's step-son Putnam is quoted twice? Why is a fellow aviatrix and friend to AE included as a historical scholar? What experience and education did she draw upon when searching the Japanese archives? Could she even read Japanese? Matt605 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Amy Otis Earhart's reaction to her daughter's disappearance triggered the so-called "Japanese involvement." She had been told by a stranger of a radio broadcast of Amelia's rescue. That conversation added to her own belief that Amelia was "secretive" about her world flight was all she had to go on. After years of campaigning for government investigations which Richard G. Strippel in Amelia Earhart: The Myth and the Reality documents, there was no evidence uncovered of a Japanese involvement. His "Researching Amelia: A Detailed Summary for the Serious Researcher into the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." November 1995 provides Muriel Earhart Morrisey's rebuttal to the various spy stories. She indicated from the family's perspective, "we feel she ran out of gasoline and has been laid to rest with many of our New England ancestors...I believe she ran out of gas and went down off Howland Island."" (Strippel 1995, p. 58)

Matt, put the same sort of cynicism that you have for all the Earhart family, colleagues, legitimate Earhart scholars and reputable authors to others who have made wild-eyed, baseless claims. FWIW Bzuk 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

How did Amelia Earhart become a Japanese POW? The US was not at war with Japan. There were no Japanese ships in the area. Her airplane could not have flown to Japanese controlled territory. The fundamental premise of so many of the silly stories which have grown over the years is fatally flawed. No, wait, Elvis Yamamoto in his flying saucer abducted them (and mutilated a few cattle) and swept them off to Roswell Prefect on the secret Japanese Island of Animee.Mark Lincoln 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We do know a good deal about Amelia Earhart's last flight. We have her broadcasts received as she flew away from Lae and as she approached Howland. They convey a good deal of useful information. Six or seven ear witnesses to her last broadcasts say she expressed the opinion (of the person with the gauges) that she was low on fuel and had perhaps 1/2 hour left. He last broadcast showed great stress in her voice. The navigational data she conveyed in her reports during the flight indicated that she was meeting headwinds as the forecast sent AFTER she took off indicated she would of a little over 26 mph. The L-10E manual indicates that for maximum range she would have had to increase airspeed and thus consumed more fuel - leaving a fuel exhaustion time within half an hour or so of her last broadcast.

So folks, who do we believe, Amelia Earhart who had the deepest personal reasons for being truthful, or a collection of book pimps and promoters? When did she transmit - 'screw you guys for not telling me what direction to fly, I am headed for Siapan!"?

There were absolutely NO broadcasts which could be identified as coming from Amelia Earhart following the last one heard on Howland.

Vague suspected carrier waves and 1/1 (unintelligible and too weak to get a clear null on) heard by Pan Am stations which MIGHT have come from the Phoenix Islands do not qualify a certain communications.

There was no deep "mystery" until years later when folks invented it.Mark Lincoln 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Saipan witnesses on YouTube do not say how she got there. Mark, your advocacy of a point of view is very clear. Matt605 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Go watch YouTube Matt, you are in over your head trying to do history. There is Matt, not a shred of evidence the Japanese ever held Amelia Earhart, which is not surprising because there is absolutely no way she could have ended up in Japanese controlled territory.

Run along Matt you know nothing of airplanes, navigation, radio or how to do historical research.Mark Lincoln 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for any other claim either, except for the Saipan witnesses on YouTube. Yes, I know less about airplanes, navigation, and radio in comparison to your claims, and yet you cannot persuade me or accurately answer my questions. In fact, your style and behavior persuades me against your own claims. If everything you knew were wrong, how could you ever admit it? Matt605 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, go back to YouTube, it is entertaining and will not tax your abilities.

You might consider and compare the definitions of knowledge and belief:

Knowledge is: 1 : obsolete : COGNIZANCE 2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a man of unusual knowledge> 3 : archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by mankind b : archaic : a branch of learning synonyms KNOWLEDGE, LEARNING, ERUDITION, SCHOLARSHIP mean what is or can be known by an individual or by mankind. KNOWLEDGE applies to facts or ideas acquired by study, investigation, observation, or experience <rich in the knowledge of human nature>. LEARNING applies to knowledge acquired especially through formal, often advanced, schooling <a book that demonstrates vast learning>. ERUDITION strongly implies the acquiring of profound, recondite, or bookish learning <an erudition unusual even in a scholar>. SCHOLARSHIP implies the possession of learning characteristic of the advanced scholar in a specialized field of study or investigation <a work of first-rate literary scholarship>.

Belief is:1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION

I am interested in what can be known Matt, and am careful to separate it from what can only be believed in.Mark Lincoln 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The article in general

I am not an AE fan, my particular interest is in aviation at the time, and the "Freak Show" of various conspiracy theories concerning her disappearance.

I am not certain that the article conveys to a reader the media carnival that was the United States in the '20s', or just how crucial 'stunt flying' and air races were to keeping the American public "Air Minded".

Nor does it mention that AE was one of the founders of National Airways, which operated the Boston-Main and Central Vermont airlines, which eventually morphed into Northeast Airlines in 1940. (Boston-Main operated L-10As).

One of the men involved in "National Airways" was Eugene Vidal, later Chief of U.S. Department of Air Commerce, and instrumental in building the runways at Howland, as well as helping AE get support from the USN and Treasury Dept.Mark Lincoln 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting facts, but widening the context of any subject is a tactic of conspiracy theorists. Are you suggesting that the purpose of the round-the-world flight was to put Howland on the map? Could be an interesting idea but it doesn't explain why Lae:Howland was selected over the safer Lae:Samoa:Howland route. Matt605 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you can't comprehend what is required of a Wikipedia article. My personal criteria is I will use no source or variety of information that would have been rejected had I used it in my historiography thesis. A blurb on YouTube by a guy peddling a book he wrote would not qualify. Nor would unsubstantiated non-source material in most cases. I could use some of the stuff you spout were I writing a thesis on the various conspiracy theories about Amelia Earhart, but ONLY because they would be the subject.

The words of Amelia Earhart reported by those tasked with communicating with her during her last flight are not acceptable to you. The fact that for example 6-7 persons ALL of whom were present on the Itasca ALL reported that she claimed she was low on fuel, and had only about 1/2 hour left does not matter. That she was CLEARLY near the Itasca after hours of her transmissions growing stronger when she made that claim does not matter. All that matters to you is a couple of clowns on YouTube and your profoundly held belief that the utter lack of source material and any verifiable evidence Amelia Earhart was somehow transported to Siapan.

Matt, just because you believe it does not make it fact, or knowledge, or anything besides an obsession. My suggestion is you join the cottage industry of "Amelia Earhart Conspiracy Books" and cash in like a number of others already have including Mr. Devine who learned the craft from Mr. Goerner. Or get creative! Go to the local American Legion bar and find some old duffer who looks thirsty. Ask him if he was on Siapan during the war and when he says yes buy him a drink. Start feeding him what you want to hear and pretty soon you'll be hearing it. Then go to Siapan, find some old lady and slip her some money and ask if she saw Amelia Earhart executed. If that doesn't do it just make it up like Klass did. Put your tale on YouTube and start raking in the cash.Mark Lincoln 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks the kid has a half-track mind.Mark Lincoln 20:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Better one track than no track, Mark. The Saipan witnesses that appear on YouTube don't say how she got there. In fact, only one said he saw markings in a prison cell which indicated she was there. The others say the plane awas there and that her briefcase was found in safe and that it was not water damaged. Mark you add more so that you can refute it all, but those who see the video will immediately see your crusade, although they may not understand your motivations. Why do you wrongly impugne the character and motives of those with whom you disagree? Isn't that what conspiracy theorists normally do? Matt605 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with the initial points I made in this section, I have added several lines to give her credit for her role in National Airways, and effort to make America "air minded." I will wait on remediating the unsupported and unsupportable claims of radio communications after the morning of 2 July 1937.Mark Lincoln 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How to invent a reference

How to invent a reference.

Not hard. Invent a quote by a dead Admiral. Quote it in your book. Then tell reviewers that the Admiral had never told that to anyone else - and - ooooeeee ooo - he told you to not quote him (it must be really serious stuff right?).

Then, when the reviewer mentions it, doubtingly, cite part of his comments to prove it is a valid reference!

"Sources close to the late Admiral Nimitz report that. . . "

Sound familiar?

One thing we ALL have to watch out for is the half-truth, the self-created reference, the planted quote. This is not only a problem with the "Mystery" of AE's "Disappearance", but her entire career. Who did coin the term "First Lady of the Air"? ;-0!

There was a very real person beneath the publicity, propaganda, and doubts. She was a generally respected pilot, but by no means a great one. She had accidents, but so did almost everyone. Many of her accomplishments - such as her ride across the Atlantic in a tri-motor were largely twaddle - though the courage was real. Others were significant promotions of not only Amelia Earhart, but aviation as well.

When dealing with a subject who was a self-promoter, and who married a shameless self-promoter, and who has become the target of fawning biographers, shady hucksters and dubious saviors, EVERYTHING must be considered for it's veracity, bias and intent. Things need to be cross checked whenever possible. If only one person had heard and wrote it down that AE said she had only 1/2 hour of fuel left, I would not consider it a 'fact." There were at least 6 or 7 who did. I would never consider the feeble and unintelligible signals that Pan Am radio operators reported "were deemed authentic." Rather they were grasp at as possible leads worth investigating. The line in the article: "Signals from the plane were heard intermittently for four or five days following the disappearance; however, none of these transmissions yielded any understandable position for the downed Electra." contains only one truth - "none of these transmissions yielded any understandable position." There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that they were "Signals from the plane."

"Incredibly, a couple of short wave radio listeners on the US mainland may have heard distress calls on upper harmonic frequencies." - Amelia Earhart Article, Wikipedia

Yes, it is incredible. The word incredible means that it is NOT credible.

If this article is ever going to be anything but a B-Class article we need to be very, very careful about our scholarship.

We must above all else be very suspicious of folks who are making money off Amelia Earhart to this day. Not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with making money, but because they have a stake in what they write which is different from the standards which are required.Mark Lincoln 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Time magazine review of Groener's book does not refute the Nimitz quote. Matt605 01:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor does Time magazine substantiate whether the Nimitz quote is accurate. Goerner on the very next page of his book, devalues the comment by revealing that the admiral did not permit him permission to use the quote. Admiral Nimitz passed away six months prior to The Search for Amelia Earhart and was the only one who could verify the accuracy of the quote since it reputedly came in a telephone conversation. Capt. Safford states that Fred Goerner had changed his position regarding the Earhart disappearance and prior to his death, was working on new research that closely approximated the "Crash-and-Sink" Theory advocated by Elgen and Marie Long. (Safford, Warren and Payne 2003, p. 149) Originally, in Safford's first manuscript, he had devoted a chapter to rebutting Goerner's claims but when the two came to a resolution of Safford's concerns, he dropped the chapter and only referred to Goerner's change of opinion in a two-page summary of the Goerner publication. FWIW Bzuk 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Matt, the 'crash and sink" "Theory" was not invented by some writers in the last part of the 20th century.

It was accepted by the people involved in the Earhart flight and subsequent search and rescue operations. It was never questioned outside of the realm of fiction until 1960.

For the accepted understanding of the events of 2 July 1937 to be questioned there would have to be at least a shred of verifiable evidence that some other outcome occurred. There is NONE.

Were all those involved in the Earhart flight and the subsequent search part of a 'conspiracy so vast' Matt?

Why would everyone engage in a conspiracy for the rest of their lives Matt? Even the "Ultra Secret" leaked when men grew old. There has not been one single shred of evidence to appear in US or Japanese records to suggest there was a spy mission, an abduction and subsequent execution. We were breaking lots of Japanese codes Matt, most of them. Why NOTHING? Nothing is a hard thing to deny. It is very hard to conceal a conspiracy involving two waring governments for 8 years and every year since Matt.

No airplane was found anywhere during the search operations. No records were found in Japanese files. All the 'documents' in the government "files" show that even the most unlikely lead was investigated until it proved baseless.

Saying that Admiral Nimitz told him something which he had told no one else and forbid Goerner to tell anyone tells me something about Goerner and that is about all.

PROVE Nimitz said such a thing to Goerner Matt. Contact the Medium of your choice. When that Medium has contacted Admiral Nimitz in the After World, allow me a chance to offer a bigger bribe to the Medium. See what the Medium says: "Admiral Nimitz says 'knock, knock, knock' which means . . . "

The L-10E could NOT have overflown Japanese controlled airspace and still arrived near Howland Island when it did. Hell it could not have arrived at Howland at all. It could not have flown to Howland, not found it's objective, and flown back to Japanese controlled airspace. The Japanese did not have a UFO located near Hull or Gardner Island which could have abducted Earhart and Noonan. The Japanese had no REASON to abduct Earhart and Noonan. Why would the Japanese abduct them Matt? Why can't you comprehend that if they had flown the longer route to Samoa that they would have been far saner to simply fly on to Hawaii than backtrack to Howland? Why can't you comprehend that the Earhart flight was WHY the commerce department built the airstrip on Howland? Why do you think the US (and England) were trying to 'colonize' certain strategically located (for air commerce) atolls in the Pacific during the mid to late 1930s Matt?Mark Lincoln 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know where in thousands of square miles of the Pacific Earhart and Noonan landed Matt.

I do know what Atolls and Islands the DID NOT land upon.

I do know that there is absolutely NO evidence in the records of the United States, Japan or any other nation which supports the idea that Earhart and Noonan were for reasons unknown taken prisoner by Japan and executed years later on Siapan.

One thing I can also say with certainty is that those who have repeatedly stated that they knew where the graves of Earhart and Noonan were have ALWAYS been proven wrong.

Wish in one hand Matt, crap in the other, guess which will get full first.Mark Lincoln 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, when you have something intelligent to add, when you have a shred of evidence instead of obstreperous obfuscation, bop back by.

Otherwise go somewhere in fantasy land and live out your obsessions.Mark Lincoln 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in the real world, when navigating by deducted heading (aka DEAD Reckoning) and the first sight of a Caribbean Island (say a big one like Abaco) is a few minutes late, the pucker factor starts in. Things start feeling a bit tense. One looks for the light colored rim of shallows around the island. . . One does not imagine how much fun it would be to go spy on the Cubans (or Japanese) with that reserve fuel in your tanks. It can only be less attractive when your looking for a small place.Mark Lincoln 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you've stepped over the line here. The world is perfectly safe from conspiracy theories creeping into this article without you going around calling people names. The wikipedia isn't the Usenet, this is a place to write articles, not debate them. If you want to engage in flame fests, do it elsewhere. Maury 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lincoln's been entertaining me with his extended balloon-bursting rebuttals. I have no sympathy for unlikely alternate scenarios given undue weight in the article itself but I do love to see a good skewering on the talk page. Let the talk page be what it is... Binksternet 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but that will not fly. The talk page is for discussions about the article it's attached to. It's not a Usenet thread. If you want to be entertained by people yelling at each other, watch Fox. Maury 03:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wishing Mark. I don't have an agenda. And I am prohibited from making any change to the article under penalty of permanent banishment of my ID an IP from AKRadecki. So you can say whatever you want about me and my improvements without any fear that I can do anything about it. Matt605 03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No agenda? Yet you constantly insinuate the article requires your improvements? The onus was to find a consensus for these changes. The first changes that you instituted to the article on August 4 were challenged initially by Gwen Gale and since then you have had virtually a single-minded obsession with putting your stamp on the article which is perfectly fine if you had consensus from other editors. That was not forthcoming and in the three weeks that followed, yours was the only "voice" that championed a singular opinion. FWIW Bzuk 04:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

My changes were improvements, and didn't improve just one sub-section of the article. Many of those improvements remain in the current version. I also took great pains to provide cites and direct quotes. I further had the unique experience of seeing a reference disappear one day and then seeing the fact it supported deleted the next day for lack of a proper cite! So as always, the situation is murkier than you would believe to be in your own mind, Bzuk.

The whole process of the straw poll was just a sham where an administrator manipulated some people into giving him the power he wanted. He blocked my ID for 48 hours before beginning the poll and not one person said let's hear from Matt before voting. By the time I had a chance to present my side, there was an 8-person posse united against me. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to join an 8 on 1 melee on the side of the 1, but I do note that beyond opposition to me, there was no consensus on the article found in the comments made during the straw poll.

But let's not get lost... the ocean floor has been searched twice in the last decade and no Electra has been located. So there's no proof of the crash or the sink portion of crash and sink. Matt605 10:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have obviously misread the consensus. No one was voting for or against you; editors were making a decision as to the status of the article and that was conclusive. FWIW Bzuk 11:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, you prove my contention that AKRadecki manipulated you and the others. But even in that endeavor, there is no consensus about the article found in the comments to the straw poll. I will never make another change to the article for fear of being banned for life from all of Wikipedia by the power vested in AKRadecki by the article editors during the straw poll. Matt605 11:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus clearly reflected nine editors' opinions about the article not about you or anyone else; the strawpoll was administered by an admin who took an impartial and independent stand. FWIW Bzuk 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

AKRadecki is not an impartial administrator. A view of his page will show that he is a crusader against conspiracy theorists. I am not a conspriacy theorist, but AKRadecki is such a zealot that he crusaded me anyway. He placed no warning on my Talk Page before blocking me. Then he blocked me and started the straw poll to give himself the power to block my ID and IP permanently if I made any change not approved by eight others. It was just a trick of process and no reasonable person would respect it. I certainly do not. Matt605 12:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the consensus over carefully, a different admin administered and supervised the strawpoll. Any editor who wished to cast a vote was given that opportunity and nine editors subsequently registered a vote. The overwhelming consensus was to return the article to an earlier version. FWIW Bzuk 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

I have been asked by someone on a back channel why I do not just make changes and let the chips fall. The answer is that I have crossed swords with several people in the discussions, and would rather get a feel for what could be considered acceptable before I jerk the article around. I am acutely aware that it is the "Amelia Earhart" article, not the "Conspiracy Theories About Amelia Earhart" article. I suggested someone add information about her time and role as an airline VP. I do not have a biography and suspect that some of the editors do and could footnote it more easily than I might. I have suggested two areas where I felt the article did not convey enough information about the age she lived and flew in to put what she did in best perspective. My goal was feedback before doing anything.

The thing which disturbs me most about the article is the outright assertion that transmissions were definitely heard from Earhart for days after fuel exhaustion time. In various books, particularly the conspiracy theory books, the background and nature of the situation after Earhart failed to reach Howland is obfuscated or ignored. There were people broadcasting false SOS signals. There were people calling for her on her last known frequency. There were people hoping to hear a faint signal. There were people thinking they heard one. There is, however, absolutely NO communication which can be stated to have come from AE. I feel it would be best if the article were edited to better represent that. To say that some signals were "deemed authentic" is to deceive by omission. For those 'deemed authentic' were pursued by searches. There was no new island 281 miles north of Howland. There was no L-10E landed in the Phoenix group. As I have been somewhat outspoken I feel it would be better if someone else edited that section if there is anyone who agrees.Mark Lincoln 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, what would improve your position against the post July 2, 1937 8:55 a.m. transmissions would be any evidence of hoaxed distress calls before the Lae:Howland segment or even before the doomed world flight. Short wave in the days of Earhart was the internet of its age. Lots of hoaxes, jokes, and others pioneering the hysteria experience created by Orson Wells and War of the Worlds in 1938. Given the times and her feminist image, I would expect there would be a lot of fake distress calls every time Earhart appeared in movie newsreels. Matt605 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, Short Wave was NOT the internet of her age. Radio was where nerdy kids in the 1910s, through the 1950s congregated, just as many did in being "air minded." Orson Wells was on one network, and that some idiots panicked is illustrative of the power that radio had in the minds of Americans at the time. There were "fake" distress calls Matt. There were many, many more where it is probable that people heard a faint word "Earhart" and assumed it was here and not a communication mentioning her. There may have been cases where people - legally as in the case of the Itasca, or illegally but with best intentions where people were calling Earhart using A3 on 3105 or 6210. There probably were cases where men were wishing to hear something and thought they did. I cannot rule out that signals were being transmitted from AE on some island in the central pacific. What I can say is that any island within range was searched and she was not found. That being said, I can say that the possibility of she landing, transmitting, and disappearing into thin air before the islands were searched is not credible.

William of Occam gave man one of the most potent logical tools ever devised. All things being equal, the simplest solution is the probable one. The most complex solution is the least likely.Mark Lincoln 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah, there!

I am slightly concerned about the nature of the discussions on this page. It appears that some of the editors have taken to attacking the others. Can I put this really simply? Comment on content, not contributors. The whole of the above thread appears to be an attack on Matt. The whole of the thread before that appears to be an attack on the article and its contributors. All users should calm down a little. Don't complain about each other, and don't troll.

Meanwhile, if Matt wants to take a time out from editing the article, he is completely free to do so. Please, however, don't make a big fuss about it. Leave the article and the talk page for a while, and don't make constant comments such as 'Rather than risking a permanent block on all my contributions to Wikipedia I will never make another change to the article.' There was no posse against you. I agree that it would have been unreasonable if you had been blocked for the whole discussion, but there were three more days afterwards. The consensus, as I impartially read it, was to maintain the former edition of the article.

IMHO, too much discussion has been wasted on this and if it continues it will just go round in circles. There is no more evidence. When there is, please carry on. I hope that helps. ck lostsword•T•C 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not used to being part of a french bombardier committee. I'll try not to jack with anyone's rate line or jossle their elbow. I do have a bit of trouble dealing with the concept that speculation is equally valid as known fact. Nor is it easy to adapt to the idea that when writing history (which is what we are doing on this article) one be expected to NOT attempt to discern between the two. It must have been a bad upbringing by some good professors.Mark Lincoln 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They have searched the ocean floor twice in the last decade. No Electra. They have searched Nikumaroro dozens of times in the past decades. No Earhart, Noonan, or Electra. Matt605 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thread seems to be open to comment and corrections. Mark errantly spelled "adapt" as "adopt". People "adapt to" not "adopt to". Matt605 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the note above, this discussion thread is closed. Bzuk 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

If the thread is closed, then why do you continue to post to it? Matt605 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Threads might be closed Matt, but minds are not. Sorry about the vowel.Mark Lincoln 00:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture references

In her lifetime and after, a whole range of dolls, trinkets and souvenirs were created to exploit the Earhart image. Is there need to remark on this marketing ploy? FWIW Bzuk 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

I think so. It might seem unsavory, but it certainly wasn't. She was a self-promoter, she was doing what it took to keep flying. Endorsing Amelia Earhart, this and AE that, and cigarettes, was part of the game (scam?)Mark Lincoln 21:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't disparaging her and her husband (promoter/manager)'s afforts at increasing public awareness or in selling a very saleable image, I was looking for an appropriate place to include a comment- perhaps in "Celebrity image". FWIW, there is still a range of products sold to this day with the Earhart image, including her luggage. I noted that a few years ago, Corgi Toys turned out a very passable fascimle of her Lockheed Vega as a Christmas collectable. Flick the prop and a small electric motor would spin the propeller; it made a nice souvenir. Bzuk 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Edit of radio transmissions

I have waited for several days for someone to edit the radio transmissions section of the article to conform with what is known from events at the time. I decided to act. I would rather that those who I have communicated with would have done it as I feel that I am too closely identified with the traditional view of events for my efforts to go unchallanged. I have tried to not go into the signals which were 'heard', who heard them, the political and press situation, and the response of the various officials and agencies. We are not editing the "AE search and rescue circus article." I am aware that if AE and Noonan were down near Howland, the hoax about them being down 281 miles north west of Howland reduced their chances of rescue fatally. I am also aware that the Colorado's floatplanes searched without results the Phoenix Islands instead of more probable regions near Howland. The people at the time were doing what they could to locate and rescue the aviators. The people relaying reports of hearing signals were in most cases certainly trying to help. Despite the best efforts of everyone, the situation was grim. There were some folks who were no doubt engaged in hoaxes. There were also some folks calling AE on her favored frequency and might have been heard - garbled - by others as well intentioned. One thing is clear. There was no island 281 miles NW of Howland and no one saw an Electra down on the land in the Phoenix Islands.Mark Lincoln 23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The search

I have participated in both air and ground searches. The people looking for Earhart did a pretty good job given their assets and their very politically and media driven directives.

I cannot know how the guy overflying Gardener Island "felt". I can say that he reported he had to climb above 400 feet to avoid bird strikes. 400 feet isn't much and you can clearly see an airplane, wreckage, or a person waving their hands. Perhaps AE and Noonan had hidden the Electra and were sleeping in. I doubt it. I would have been out in the open at the sound of an airplane engine and making all sorts of obvious and probably embarassing motions. But then I never wanted to be a legend and never wished to disappear in a "mystery."Mark Lincoln 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job in your revisions but I do have one unsourced statement for you to look at. "Official reporting of the search effort was influenced by individuals wary about how their roles in looking for an American hero might be reported by the press." FWIW, probably quite true but I will look for some verification. Bzuk 00:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

Check the record, those are not my words. I had no reason to delete them, so I left them in. It was a matter of NOT asserting anything I could not prove. I will say this. The failure of AE to arrive at Howland was a shock to America. The public and press seemed to think that the Navy/Coast Guard should find them. The argument about influences, though unsupported, was not unreasonable. I would have been wrong in my estimate to remove it. For the men tasked with the search, the realities of the situation seem to have been clear. The captian of the Itasca immediately started searching to the NNW of Howland on a line of 157/337. It seems to me he understood the line of approach that Noonan was attempting and wished to use it as the basis of his search. He next sailed to the east, to search the area NE of Howland where AE and Noonan would have arrived if they had overshot before turning SSE on to their approach heading. Again a quite reasonable decision given that they had seen nothing NNW of Howland.

It was only after people thousands of miles away and under intense "Press"ure started to give orders based upon radio transmissions reported to them that the search started taking on bizarre and unreasonable dimensions.Mark Lincoln 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Under any circumstances I feel it would be wrong to describe the search for AE as either negligent or incompetent. The fact is that most aircraft sink within minutes of landing and that given the great number of radio reports the searchers were not wrong in pursuing those possibilities rather than the possibility that AE and Noonan were in a raft where the Itasca had already searched. This is my opinion. We used to fly out to Abaco, one guy in a Pawnee to spray crops, two in a Citabria with a raft to throw to that guy if he had to ditch. The thought crossed my mind I might need the raft myself.Mark Lincoln 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've found where the original statement was derived. It was quite a tenuous period wherein the media and government critics relentlessly criticized the efforts made by the Navy, especially after they took over command of the search. The search was unprecedented in that part of the world and drew considerable attention. Contemporary reports indicate that the search was extensive and carried out carefully. In the first days, a storm prevented the launch of a Navy search aircraft from Hawaii, but the USCG Itasca continued its work, despite the inclement weather. After a massive expenditure in resources, the search was called off when no material evidence was found of the aviators or the Electra. With more "flak" directed to the efforts, FDR was personally involved in defense of his "beloved" Navy. If anything, the Navy, USCG and other searchers were too compliant in "running down" many illogical leads, including a number of hoax messages. FWIW Bzuk 00:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

What was a search and rescue problem for a few people near Howland Island grew like Topsy. I have read that Paul Mantz 'heard' a message from Amelia. Seems that someone told him that three long dashes had been heard, and he said that was an agreed signal. Amelia had no morse key aboard, so. . . . There are a million stories in the Naked City, and several million in the naked society. There is a purported in depth study of the search to be published this month. I have read so many blatantly obscured reports of the search that I welcome the efforts of someone who has tried to cut through the BS and get to the source material. Over 40 years ago a South Vietnames AF A-1 went down on a navigation exercise from Eglin to Homestad AFB. We searched high an low for him. I have never read of him being found out in the Everglades. The A-1 was painted camo, and the everglades is a big place. At least the L-10E would have stood out in silver and orange. At least if it was intact upon a beach, the occupants would have been trying to get someone's attention.

At least we didn't have a nation, it's press, and concerned politicians telling us where to look next.Mark Lincoln 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Mantz was besieged by the press in the aftermath of the disappearance and a number of unfortunate and ill-considered statements were attributed to him. He later made a concentrated effort to "think before he spoke." He would subsequently disavow a number of the statements he made in those first days of frenzy. He was reluctant to speak of Amelia in later years but in one of his last interviews, he revealed that he intended to write a book on his years with Earhart. Sadly, he left right after for work on Flight of the Phoenix. FWIW Bzuk 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

I have a picture of myself standing next to the XP-85 in the storage area at the Talmantz Museum in early 1964. It was taken by Mr. Mantz. It is my understanding that when he botched the fly-by with Billy Rose, he was under the influence of alcohol. Sic gloria transit mundi.

It is most certain that Amelia Earhart, Fred Noonan and the L-10E failed to arrive at Howland Island. It is most probable that they died within 100 or so miles of their objective. The failure seems to have been related to errors in the planning for radio communications and radio direction finding. I have often wondered if they had been appraised of the most recent forecast of winds aloft BEFORE they took off if they would have left. I will never know. Noonan might have liked a drink as much as the hard drinking crowd that composed avation at the time, but I have seen no evidence he was drunk when they took off. Earhart might not have been a 'natural' pilot but clearly she was a very competent one. There was great confusion about what radio frequencies could be used, what would be used, when, and about what capabilities had been retained upon the L-10E. The folks on the Itasca had been briefed about the capabilities while Captain Manning would have been handling the radios. He was qualified to operate in both A3 and A1 (morse). The trailing antenna had not been discarded, as the morse key had not been when he briefed the Coast Guard. They both had been before the final flight. To lighten the ship for what was clearly the critical leg of the flight the decision was made to leave both flares and smoke bombs behind when leaving Lae. I can only assume Noonan made the decision. The lack of them could have left him with no way besides whitecaps to determine drift. And thus which way the wind was carrying them as they searched for Howland. I wish I could place the blame upon a singel action by a single person. I cannot. The mission was cobbled together ad hoc by well intentioned people. They were all working on budgets either limited by fact, or by the necessity to bury it within greater appropriations. They all meant well, of that I have no doubt.

Some days you get lucky, other days the shit stacks up against you.Mark Lincoln 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, two searches of the ocean floor in the past decade have failed to produce the Electra, and the pilot who searched Gardner in 1937 didn't arrive there for a solid week after the plane went missing. The search for Earhart is widely considered to have been incompetent at best and certainly badly coordinated, poorly executed, and unplanned. Mark, you did everything you could for the pilot of the AF A-1 that you couldn't find 40 years ago. No one is categorizing you along with those who failed Earhart and Noonan. Matt605 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that the search effort was incompetent, unplanned and poorly executed? Safford categorizes this as another of the "hoaxes" (Safford et al 2003, p. 70.) that appeared in the aftermath of the Earhart disappearance. He devotes an entire chapter to the account of the search from personal perspectives of the pilots involved. The only disclaimer he makes is that the US Navy was derelict in not placing the USN Swan and Pelican as picket ships prior to the Earhart/Noonan flight. FWIW Bzuk 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

Penguins

Recently a documentary about Penguins achieved a certain political correctness in the USA. I did not understand this as Penguins are birds and respond to far more fundamental forces than Political Correctness.

Penguins tend to bunch up at the edge of the ice and wait for another Penguin to dive in and find out if an Orca or Sea Lion is waiting for lunch. If no one dives in, the ones in back press until someone falls in.

Nice guys. Very "Family Values."Mark Lincoln 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

? Bzuk 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

? Someone could have done what I did. Instead it was put off until I decided to dive in.Mark Lincoln 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for diving in. I wasn't waiting because I was timid; I was waiting because I wasn't as expert in the subject. Interested, yes; expert, no. The article fairly shines now. Binksternet 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that, not that I didn't want to do it but I was waiting for a new source which was delayed in the mails. However, you did make the plunge! Bzuk 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blimey. I've just waded through all of the above verbiage and can't really see what all the fuss is about. Anyone pilot who knows the basic parameters of this flight and has an appreciation of the technology of the time can very clearly see what happened. - Of course, there are other theories that suggest that they didn't simply take an unplanned swim a trifle out of their depth. So; Why not just list them all without bothering to analyse their veracity, - and link them to the various sites outside of Wiki that specialise in such speculation and let the 'surfers make-up their own minds? If they want to believe that they were 'beamed-up to the mothership' - fine.

All the passionate argument and speculation as to exactly how much fuel they had or what exactly went awry is utterly pointless and not a little inane. The witnesses are dead. Pilots of they day were good enough at hitting continents or following line-features. Even the best DR relied on an element of luck. Even with todays 'accurate' (lol..!) weather forecasts DR is still pretty hit-and-miss. To find a tiny island in the middle of the Pacific after many, many hours in the air and an exponentially increasing circle of uncertainty would be a fools errand by DR alone. That the radio aids they carried didn't do the job is self evident, - whatever the reason. They ran the odds and they paid the price.

For my own part, I'm surprised that many of the aviators from the 'Golden Age' lasted as long as they did. Many were not, frankly, the best, and many (Perhaps most...) were, it has to be said, ruthless self-promoters who could afford to indulge in this glamorous road to fame. Many died in obscurity and most were simply forgotten very shortly after their demise anyway. The technology of the time was pretty basic too. If the E&N machine made it to land, it would almost certainly have been found in the intervening decades. Had they seen ANY land, with a rapidly diminishing fuel supply, they would have made for it - with tightly-puckered sphincters no doubt. As for the contention espoused above, that the fact that 'the a/c has not been found on the sea-bed' is of any relevance, - one can only chuckle at it's naive illogicality. It's difficult enough to find huge steel/iron ships on the sea-bed without and exact DGPS position-fix, let alone the small and very corroded remnants of a frail aluminium a/c that could be anywhere in many, many hundreds of square-miles of sea-bed...

They ran out of luck and they ran out of fuel, - and they died and it's very unlikely in the extreme that the remains will ever be located. Those are the known facts and no mystery whatever. I can live with that.

PP. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PontiusPilot (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PontiusPilot, those paragraph indents freak the template out.Mark Lincoln 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Golden Age" was really an age of hope and desperation for aviators. Hard for folks now days to realize that the fastest air racers in America were often "home built." Things were different, very different.Mark Lincoln 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you Mark. I wondered what was causing the glitch...! PP. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PontiusPilot (talk • contribs) 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Search Efforts, Winslow Reef

Someone added ", later identified as Winslow Reef.[88] " to the line about the reported signals from AE claiming to be on an uncharted island 281 miles NW of Howland. I realize that this helps with the argument that she was transmitting as said broadcast was the only one giving a precise location but the person making the post overlooked a few vital facts:

Winslow Reef is at 01°36'S, 174°51' W.

Howland Island is at 00°13' N, 176°38' W.

Thus Winslow Reef is SE of Howland, and could not be the "unknown" (and non-existent) island specified in the broadcast giving AE's alleged position. Nice try, but no cigar. Get a map.Mark Lincoln 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, that was me, Winslow Reef was indeed part of the search but I may have placed the note about it in the wrong location. The location of Winslow Reef had been marked on charts as an undetermined position and resulted in a frustrating search as the carrier pilots could not locate the reef that may have been submerged. I am at my office and do not have any references so I may just take out the reference to Winslow Reef out of the equation. FWIW Bzuk 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

That is typical of those sneaky reefs, they hide under water and catch unsuspecting ships. ;-)Mark Lincoln 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio Signals addition

I added a paragraph explaining reasons for errors in radio direction finding and limitations on the range of the Electra's radio.Mark Lincoln 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, besides Howland Island and Lae, were there other stations that were tuned into Earhart? I wasn't sure if there were other stations- Naru? Itasca? Swan? or Pelican? FWIW Bzuk 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

There were other stations. The point is that with 50 watts on 96.6 meters at night from a relatively high altitude, optimum conditions, neither Lae or Howland could possibly hear her although they were only 1,000 miles away. What about if she was on the ground on Shangri La Island, thousands of miles from Hawaii, Midway and Wake? Even with 'skip' (much less daytime "D" layer absorbtion) ALL radio communications are subject to the "square law" which simply put says that every time you double the distance from the transmitter, you quarter the amount of energy available for reception at any point.Mark Lincoln 22:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bubba Texas knows that his CB can't hear beyond a certain distance. That The White Knight will come in weak, get stronger fast, come in 5/5 for a while, and then rapidly drop into the distance. Citizens Band, which is VHF, 11 meters, CB is limited to 4 watts output A3 (which is the mode AE used). A station intended for use in transcontinental communications, or intercontinental from the coasts using the Amateur 80 meter band would be typically 500 or 1,000 watts.

Earhart liked 3105 kilocycles (3.1 Mc) which was 96.6 meters wavelength. Essentially anything under 3.5 Mc (3500 Kc) is not a DX (long distance) frequency. Read all about the "80 meter band" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_metersMark Lincoln 22:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The added paragraph assumes that only Americans were on the frequencies in the Pacific. "Restricted to aviation use by the FCC" does not exclude use by non-Americans in the middle of an ocean, but let's not permit reality to interfere. Matt605 22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, do you really have a clue? We are talking about AE and communications in English on 3105 Kc, in the A3 (radiotelephone) mode.

Did anyone report some yahoo jabbering in Farsi? Did anyone say that they were Amelia Earhart in Erdu? Did anyone say they had homed in on Evis Yamamoto in his UFO hovering over Hull Island ordering Earhart to land so he could abduct her? I know folks get upset when I respond to your foolishness, but. . . Mark Lincoln 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there are no reports of other radio traffic in the region at all, but expanding the context is a tactic of conspiracy theorists and I will not stoop to suggest it. Matt605 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone who considers the reality of communications on the wavelengths involved will understand that the chances of Amelia Earhart sending signals with a 50 watt transmitter from an airplane which managed a perfect normal landing and was on the ground using a poorly matched sub-1/4 length V-type antenna and being heard 2,000 miles that location is slim. I am not accusing well intentioned men of doing something wrong. I cannot tell you what they heard, or if they heard it. I can tell you the physics is hard to ignore. I can say that I have no reason to doubt they wanted to help and might well have heard something. In several cases they might have heard others of them calling Earhart. It was a real goat rope out there.Mark Lincoln 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe there were only reports of heavy static on July 2, 1937. Earhart's 10E was nicknamed the "Flying Laboratory" because of all the sophisticated equipment in it, and yet so many are certain of what she could not do. Matt605 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, the "Flying Laboratory" stuff was PR bullshit. She didn't have 'all the sophisticated equipment on it." There was no 'secret" equipment on board the aircraft. The closest thing to the bleeding edge of technology was the experimental High Frequency Direction Finder which the US Army borrowed from the US Navy to send to Howland Island where the USCG considered it unreliable as it turned out to be.

Matt there are no deep dark secrets being kept in a hidden dungeon beneath the Roosevelt White House about the 1937 flight. There is one single unencrypted message between two employees of the Commerce Department and that is ONLY because the cipher has been lost.

One BIG difference between today and the heyday of conspiracy theories - 1960-1995 - is that there has been SERIOUS scholarship done and the extent of what we know about what we know is certain.

Matt you need to take some classes in logic and critical thinking. This is not an insult. It is an honest recommendation. The first time I read Goerner's book I thought he might be on to something. I have been reading AE disappearance books since. I have considered them carefully and I have considered what I read in view of my lifetime interests and learning.

I really don't give a damn Matt if you agree with me. But for your own sake, consider what a guy once told me as we were flying in a Stearman. He was an "old head" and I was a young buck. I was in hog heaven wearing cloth helmet with "gosport tubes" and flying a rag-wing, round engined, biplane! He got exasperated with the young romantic in the back seat and said - "Son, I can teach a monkey to fly, but damned if I can teach you to think." Then he pulled the gosport tube away from his helmet and tossed it into the wind.Mark Lincoln 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there also a small USCG or USN boat directly in the flighpath toward Howland? Did this ship hear the aviators as they crossed on their route? This sentence seems to neglect the additional boat: "mid-way between Lae and Howland, (over 1,000 miles from each) neither station heard a scheduled transmission by her at 0815 GCT."

I hope they don't disconnect your tube, Mark, but you need to give us some hope. Matt605 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wasn't there also a small USCG or USN boat directly in the flighpath toward Howland?" -- Matt

Yes Matt, there was a small USN seaplane tender, The AVP-7 Swan, formerly the MV-34 Swan.

What about it Matt? Did it affect the range of AE's transmissions? I doubt it. I can't see how.Mark Lincoln 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well is there some reason why a radio positioned mid-way between Lae and Howland would not hear the 10E flying directly over it? Obviously, the extra receiver would not impact the 10E's ability to transmit, but since it was closer than Howland and Lae, then at least it should have heard any transmission. Matt605 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The five en route radio stations: Nauru, Ocean Island, Butaritari, Tarawa and Beru did not transmit specifically for radio bearings unless they were called first on 500 kc, which Earhart and Noonan did not have as an option. As for passing overhead, the Electra overflew Nukumanu Islands, the USN Ontario and the cruise yacht Yankee, near Tabiteuea and reports were received by all these sites. In terms of the intended flight path and if you connect these points on a map, you will see each of these points was "right on the nose," indicating no possibility of straying as far out of range as Saipan, Mili Atoll, the Phoenix Islands or any other distant locations. (Safford et al 2003, p. 113-114.) The next picket station was the USCG Itasca which did not see the Electra. FWIW Bzuk 03:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

I said nothing of the flight path in my question, Bzuk. So you knock down a straw man that you yourself brought into the discussion. Whatever gets you through the night. To re-cap, I asked why what we now know (thanks to Mark) was the Swan did not hear the 10E. However, I now understand Mark's point that the 10E's transmitter was weak. Not being heard by Lae, Howland, or the Swan, if that was in fact the case, and we have not established that in this thread, could indicate that the 10E missed a scheduled transmission at the mid-point.

I also have a question about the strength of the transmitter compared to other transmitters. At night, the AM radio stations from thousands of miles away can be heard because their signals are not blocked by the local stations that are more powerful in the daytime. So isn't signal strength of radio waves actually a question of signal strength relative to everything else? I mean, theoretically, shouldn't aliens in other galaxies now be viewing original broadcasts of "I Love Lucy" that were first transmitted in 1952 and that have continued to travel through space? Matt605 10:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ships were on the way and Earhart passed over them and was observed even though radio contact was not made. FWIW Bzuk 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

First Matt, Lae heard her transmissions grow weaker and then nothing, hours later Howland heard her faintly and then as time went on much more strongly. This is not surprising as the range of her transmitter/antenna combination was limited. She was using 3105, something like 96.6 meters, which is too low a frequency for reliable long distance communications. Consider this line from the Wikipedia "80 Meters" (Band) article:"During the daytime, a station in middle or high latitudes using 100W and a single element antenna would likely have a maximum communication range of 500–800 km, perhaps extending to 1500 km for a station using a kilowatt and antennas with some gain. These ranges are lower closer to the equator due to higher solar radiation which produces D-layer absorption." Twice the power and an efficient antenna and you can expect 300-500 miles, using 20 times the power she had and you might get 900 miles. She was out of communications with both ends of her flight because of physics Matt, not some wierdness.Mark Lincoln 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the distance to the nearest galaxies and the speed of light the aliens there will have to wait another 169,000 years to laugh at Lucy. Even then given the "square law" they had would need something better than a 1949 Muntz TV and a pair of rabbit ears to pick up the signal. Radio propagation depends upon many factors. The reason that AM radio can be heard over longer distances at night is a function of the improved 'skip' off of ionization layers for the wavelength they are transmitting on. To keep down interference, many have to reduce power at night. The FCC handled that range problem with aviation radios in the US during the 1930s by having aircraft use 6210 Kc, which skips fairly well at night) during the day and 3105 Kc which does not skip as well at night, they also restricted the power of the transmitters.Mark Lincoln 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Separating fact and opinion

I have been doing a lot of work on the Earhart article the last day. I have tried to confine my 'opinion" to the discussion and what could be "known' to the article. I would rather discuss what I intend to do with the other editors on the discussion page FIRST, before I act. This is just the way I would rather work. I have spent most of my life as an independent business man. That does not mean I have been a dictator. Only a big business can afford to operate with a dictator who has contempt for what its clients want and his employees know 'in charge'.

I think the Wikipedia is a GREAT idea. I have written an article and edited on others. I work largely from my own library. I can say that I have reached the point in life where I wish I had invested more in securities and less in books. But when I reach up and pull down the volume I need it seems not such a horrible mistake.

I am going to take a few days off of the AE Article and consider the feedback. I have avoided totally editing in the various 'conspiracy theories' even though I feel very confident I could blast them into nothingness. The point is that I feel editing those conspiracy theories should be given over to those who believe them. Matt should have some reasonable say over what goes into the Saipan part of the article. Why? Because he believes. Not that the Saipan Theory should be allowed to overwhelm the Article. Those whom have paid attention know that I have said that we are not working on the "Radio Theory" page or the "Blast the Conspiracy" article.

There was a point where I felt it necessary to add - at the end - a few caveats and cavils about the FACTS of RDF technology at the time and the PHYSICS of radio transmission as well as what was available to AE if she was down on some shangri la and trying to get the word out.

I feel I owed it to readers to give them the leads necessary to comprehend what was being stated concerning the various communications and intercepts reported in the days after Earhart said she was switching to 6210 to repeat her message. In the end, the Wikipedia is about several things to me. First it is for the good of humanity. To make knowledge available to anyone who can log on. Second it is about being as honest as possible with those who did what we report. Third, it is about giving those who read the the leads which would enable them to continue on and learn more.Mark Lincoln 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is a clear lack of ability of some of the interested parties to discriminate between real facts, hearsay, and opinions. I took a good look at the TIGHAR site after reading some of the Wiki on Earhart. The TIGHAR people don't seem to have turned up a single shred of real tangible evidence whatever to support their hypotheses for Gardner Island. Just a handful of crap that could have belonged to anyone, either washed-up, left by a visiting yacht or from the known shipwreck. That doesn't mean to say that they can't possibly be right. Just that the evidence is not even circumstantial and is overshadowed hugely by the known aeronautical facts. There are a number of theories of varying credibility, but the basic facts tell all one really needs to know. I would surmise that the advocates of the more imaginative theories are not pilots..... Anyone who has flown for a few years will know what I mean. Many of the theorists are obsessed with the idea that there is a 'mystery', - when in fact there is none whatever. E&N simply pushed the limits of the technology and their abilities - and paid the price. Boring to some maybe, - but pretty scary if you have been even a mere 100nm from a body of land in a 1930's a/c, even WITH GPS, - let alone looking for a tiny islet in the vastness of the worlds largest ocean on DR (>shudders<..!). Even if any evidence were found, as to the exact location of their machine, what difference would it really make? Not one jot, except perhaps to end the pointless speculation. Their kite lies within a calculable area of uncertainty, and that's all one needs to know. The seemingly endless panoply of theories could all be listed - and readers could be directed off-site if they wish to indulge their interests in these theories. PP —Preceding unsigned comment added by PontiusPilot (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TIGHAR has done much good in the area of Earhart scholarship. They backed Ric Gillespies book "Finding Amelia," and the companion CD is a font of source material. TIGHÅR seems to have latched on to Amelia Earhart as a fund raising device. Every year or two they send an 'expedition' to 'find AE." All they find is junk, but it gets them a lot of press, keeps the public interested, and the money coming in. Given that the motives of AE as she set on on her final flight were the same, it is, in a way, a fitting tribute.Mark Lincoln 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The TIGHAR research is privately funded, promotional in nature, but balanced, adventurous, and honest. Like the two sweeps of the ocean floor in the past decade, TIGHAR's research has repeatedly failed to shout down those who postulate that Earhart and Noonan ended their voyage elsewhere. Matt605 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The last two days I have been reading my copy of "Finding Amelia" which I had purchased but not read. I have been pleasantly surprised. Gillespie certainly is making his argument, but he is doing so in a scholarly manner. The CD even contains materials which go to disprove the official TIGHAR position. I wish they would spend more trying to recover the TBD and less grandstanding. Still raising money is necessary and both TIGHAR and AE have/had the knack.

Matt you and I have fundamentally different approaches to the problem of 'what happened." You have taken a position and seek information to prove it. I have taken the approach used in aircraft accident investigations. After I read Goerner's book I started considering the various possibilities. When an aircraft accident is investigated ALL possibilities are on the table, they are eliminated systematically until a most probable cause is found. Engine failure is considered until it can be eliminated. Structural failure is considered until it can be eliminated, and so on. What is left is the 'most probable cause.'

I have read the range study that Kelly Johnson prepared for Earhart. It is thorough, and it reads like what it is, an aeronautical engineer describing precisely with attendant graphs and formula, exactly how to squeeze every bit of range out of the L-10E. Aeronautical engineers are always a tat frustrated with pilots for wrecking perfectly fine airplanes. Pilots all seem to suspect Engineers live in ivy covered towers.

Kelly Johnson took a theoretically perfect L-10E (which could not be manufactured at the time and certainly didn't exist after a major accident), and on paper 'flew it" in a perfectly still air environment, with no bugs smeared on the leading edges causing drag, a 'standard day,' everything working perfectly, no bad weather, no headwinds, no cross winds, no tired pilot, no turbulence, weather, etc. We know pretty precisely how long and/or far the Electra could have flown if EVERYTHING was perfect. Thus I can eliminate ANY proposed course for the airplane which has it taking off from Lae and arriving near Howland 19 hours later which would require it to fly faster than it could have, and longer than it could have, if it cruised that fast.

I hope you understand what I am saying. It isn't that 41 years ago I was not willing to entertain Mr. Goerner's arguments. It is that what he argued was impossible. Because it was impossible, it could be eliminated - had to be eliminated - as a possible cause for the loss of of Earhart's Electra.Mark Lincoln 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As for TIGHAR's "Gardner Island" hypothesis. The problem with a probable cause of the Electra landing intact upon Gardner Island is that when the Navy searched the Island from the air no Electra was present and there was no effort by AE and Noonan to signal the airplane searching the island. Thus, because nothing was found, it is possible to eliminate as a probable cause, a landing on Gardner Island.

At the end of the process of elimination there is only one 'probable cause' which cannot be eliminated, and is highly probable given the geographic situation and range of the Electra.Mark Lincoln 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your commentary regarding Gardner island's topography and acoustics appears to be original research. All the best. Gwen Gale 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen I am reading Gillespies book. On pg 85 he engages in a misrepresentation when he footnotes a transmission from Earhart. He tries to make it seem that she is flying with an optimum fuel burn by saying that it is 'speculative' to consider her report of wind 23 knots speed of 140 knots were referring to headwinds and ground speed. Those are the important figures that people tracking the flight would need to know. Her indicated and true airspeeds would be meaningless to them. Headwinds are a critical factor, why would she mention the 'wind' if it didn't matter? Moreover she reports her altitude less than half way into the flight as 8,000 feet. I am looking at Lockheed Report 487, specifically the chart prepared by Kelly Johnson showing "Recommended Flight Proceedure" "Data for Obtaining Optimum Range." It clearly shows that until almost 1,500 miles into the flight she should have been at 2,000 feet. She was to then climb to 4,000 feet until almost 2,500 miles into the flight and ONLY then would she climb to 8,000 feet. Gillespie had to try and ignore that Earhart had burned a lot of fuel dragging a lot of fuel to 8,000 feet and argue that there was no headwind so that she would be 'fat' when she got to Howland. All of the folks pushing 'theories' tend to shade their books Gwen. You have to pay attention.Mark Lincoln 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen I did not alter a statement in the Gardner Island part of the article. The article states the TIGHAR party line that "For example, in 1940, Gerald Gallagher, a British colonial officer (also a licensed pilot) radioed his superiors to inform them that he believed he had found Earhart's skeleton, along with a sextant box, under a tree on the island's southeast corner." If one reads Gallagher's report it turns out that is a misrepresentation. He states clearly "Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to very slight chance that they may be remains of Amelia Earhardt (sic)." That is far from stating he thought they WERE AEs. Note that TIGHAR is always happy to point out that a 'sextant' box was found, but that was not all. Gallagher said "(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stencilled) and 1542 -- sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel." (Emphasis mine) Needless to say mentioning the sextant - not a modern 'bubble' sextant as would be needed for navigation of an airplane - makes it clear that the sextant and box had nothing to do with Noonan. You have to pay attention Gwen.Mark Lincoln 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking carefully at pictures of Gardner Island in published sources is merely paying attention Gwen. Critical thinking, watching for inconsistencies and bias on the part of authors, considering all the facts available and noting what is omitted in making arguments as well as what is used, are all skills that anyone can learn and apply. If that is rejected as "original research' then we all might as well close our books and go home.Mark Lincoln 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. If one puts any of those interpretations in the article without direct support from a verifiable and independent source, they will most likely be deleted as original research. 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull--this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,

(b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10,

(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."

- Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

Is that an 'interpretatin' by me Gwen? Is that "Original Research" on my part Gwen?Mark Lincoln 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we need to get the A?

As a Wikipedia "nugget" I would appreciate any guidance from some of the experienced editors as to what this article needs to get an "A."

My library has both shelves and stacks. If all we need is a few more citations, or a bit more detail, I might have what we need within reach.Mark Lincoln 10:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, the process has already been started. I asked some experienced editors to evaluate the article two weeks ago. Their comments have already been used to improve the article. Briefly, they included the following:

• Reduction of the Popular culture section. This is always an area of contention, as trivial and non-notable entries do tend to creep in. A number of submissions were revised, with at least five of the original entries removed.
• Consolidation of some honours/memorials. One admin noted that the extensive list of individual schools was unnecessary and there would be no way to mention every shrub, flower and pebble that had ever been named in Earhart's honour.
• Consistency in format for reference sources was to be maintained. I have mainly taken on that dubious task as my life-long background as an academic librarian has equipped me to be a pedantic, "by-the-book" (at least one outside observer constantly refers to me as "The Anorak") reference cataloger.
• Tone and tenor. This was one area that has now been "banged" away on especially since the last major rewrite of the disappearance theories section. Up until the recent revision that was in question, the admins were universally in agreement that the article dealt with the controversial aspects of the story in an objective and academically consistent manner. IMHO, the original tenor has been re-established and made even stronger by your additional rewrites and edits of what was a contentious issue (at least to one editor).
• Length and scope of the article was considered sufficient and one admin even commented that the article was superior to what was traditionally available on this subject, mainly due to the extensive footnoting and references provided. Your comment that we may need a bit more detail and citations- nope, if anything the article was considered extensively cited and provided the kind of detail not normally found in a biographical article on Wikipedia. Just drop over to any other major historical figure, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, or others to see the comparison, e.g. Alexander Graham Bell is 55 kb long, Amelia Earhart is 81 kb.

Other admins will soon chime in, but at this juncture, we have not only a "A" grade or "Good article" but also a featured article, as one admin indicated. FWIW Bzuk 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

One of the criteria is "stability". Given the emotions of some of the more strident editors here, that is about all I see lacking. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I have addressed the issues I saw as weaknesses in the article.Mark Lincoln 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What this talk page is for

I have a worry that discussions on this talk page are veering too far into general discussions and personal opinions about the topic rather than ways in which the article can be helped through independent and verifiable citations. Some editors may wish to review what a Wikipedia talk page is for. Thanks and all the best. Gwen Gale 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, if your running out of facts and into trouble, don't whine about it. We are discussing the most disputed parts of the article. Do you want me to fix the factual errors I pointed out in the Gardner Island hypothesis Gwen? I can make the changes and have the source material available as published by TIGHAR in "Finding Amelia", to document it.Mark Lincoln 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you write that stuff Gwen? It is not "original research' to repeat half-truths and outright distortions. It is just sloppy research.Mark Lincoln 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, thanks. Gwen Gale 12:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to fix the factual misrepresentations by omission in the Gardner Island Hypothesis Gwen?Mark Lincoln 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to provide a citation from a reliable and independent, published secondary source which directly asserts "factual misrepresentations by omission in the Gardner Island Hypothesis." Gwen Gale 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You want 'independent and verifiable citations' Gwen? Try the "Epilogue" page (241) of "Finding Amelia" by Ric Gillespie where he publishes Gallagher's telegram to Resident Commissioner Barley. The statement that he told Barley that he thought the skeleton was Earhart's is clearly a misrepresentation Gwen. As is the omission of the fact that within the box was a "sextant being old fashioned. . ."

That telegram is the entire foundation for the Gardner Island Hypothesis. With no likely Amelia Skeleton 'found' and an 'old fashioned' sextant in the accompanying box, that is a very flimsy foundation.

If I am so damned determined to violate a NPOV then why have I let it stand without challenge Gwen?

Or does reading Ric "the head of TIGHAR" Gillespie's book carefully constitute "Original Research"?Mark Lincoln 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR has nothing to say about carefully reading anything. Gwen Gale 14:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would endorse what Gwen says about the purpose of this talk page. It is for discussing article, not theories. It is for proposing new text, discussing specifically that text and whether it is supported by cites, and objecting to text that isn't. It is not this talk page's place, nor is it our place as Wikipedians, to be discussing merits of theories. We report what other reliable sources say, not what our personal views are. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but the facts mam

There seems to be a misunderstanding that because I have and state opinions and arguments on the discussion page I am determined to 'slant' the article against the various speculative theories.

I have not edited those theories. I have stated my opinion that they are part of the story and that they might best be written by people who hold those positions. Thus if I am guilty of violating a NPOV, it is in favor of those theories by omission.

Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed. I have stated my position, and proven it by what I have not done.

Do the various alternative views need to be rebutted in the article as they by inclusion in the article rebut what has been the generally - overwhelmingly - accepted view for 70 years?

I can whip out the books and start blasting, but I do not think it is the "Blasting Conspiracy Theories about Amelia Earhart's Disappearance Article."

Some folks will not be happy until Bolam's secret diary turns up, the cave on Gardner Island that AE and Noonan hid the Electra in is discovered, or Elvis Yamamoto returns from Shangri La Prefect in his UFO and confesses to offing them on Saipan.

I have no "pet" theory, I do see what has been the accepted "most probable cause" for the loss of the aircraft and occupants for over 70 years as just that and nothing more.Mark Lincoln 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand you're writing here in good faith Mark. However, this is not a forum. If you want to include your interpretations in the article, you must back them up with verifiable citations from independent sources which directly support your assertions. Moreover, you cannot assemble citations for the purpose of constructing your own interpretation. If you dispute the conclusions of a cited source in the article, you must cite a specific criticism of that conclusion in a verifiable source. Please read WP:OR thoroughly if you haven't done and no, with all due respect to your helpful intentions, this public wiki is not Dragnet, it is Wikipedia, WP:V. Cheers. Gwen Gale 14:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen. I take it that you are just dense. I have supplied verifiable sources for what I have contributed. You are the one who insists that your opinion should be taken as fact, not I. Is Ric Gillespie's "Finding Amelia" unaccetable to you? Why? Because at the end he was honest enough to put the whole telegram in, even though he must have understood that someone reading it carefully would catch the part about the sextant in the box? Why is that reference so threatening to you that you wig out Gwen? I think now that the other editors have a verifiable reference - and it is hard to claim that Mr. Gillespie is Hostile to the Gardner Island hypothesis - and if you suffered from a degree of intellectual honesty, you would alter the article to reveal the extreme doubts expessed in the telegram that the skeleton was Earharts, and include the information that the sextant box contained a sextant that Noonan could not have used for navigating an airplane. I will not change it Gwen. I am not going to make a big stink over it. Are you going to be honest and maintain a NPOV Gwen?75.50.215.92 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Mark Lincoln

No need to go on about it, please provide the citations, is all. As for your kind and helpful question, Why is that reference so threatening to you that you wig out Gwen? thank you for trying to help me cope with my many and sundry emotions, however there are no worries. I am neither threatened nor wigged out by your posts. Meanwhile, you might want to have a shufti at WP:NPA if you haven't already. All the best. Gwen Gale 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull--this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,

(b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10,

(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."

- Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

Is that an 'interpretation' by me Gwen? Is that "Original Research" on my part Gwen?Mark Lincoln 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, the person I see lacking citations is you. You start spouting OR, and OP, but where are your citations to justify allowing this line to stand as 'proof' that Amelia was found: "For example, in 1940, Gerald Gallagher, a British colonial officer (also a licensed pilot) radioed his superiors to inform them that he believed he had found Earhart's skeleton, along with a sextant box, under a tree on the island's southeast corner." - Wikipedia

How can we say "he believed he had found Earhart's skeleton" Gwen? He clearly didn't. He stated "a very slight chance." A long, long way from believing he had.

Why do you think the folks at Tighar usually forget to mention the sextant found in the box Gwen? Do you wish to be honest in the Gardener Island section and state that the sextant box contained an 'old fashioned' sextant that would have been useless to Noonan?

Or will you just leave a lie by omission in place?

I won't fiddle with it Gwen, it is yours, do as you see fit.

I keep any 'speculation' and 'opinion' to these discussions and stick to what can be known for the article.

Just because I have plenty of books to reference - including one by Mr. TIGHAR himself, Ric Gillespie, doesn't mean you can reject my references without having checked them. Nor does it mean you can keep screaming "no references." Just because you refuse to read them. Had you bothered to read Fred Noonan's memo which discussed the problems he had with RDF bearings? I cited it Gwen.

Have you read Lockheed Report 487, specifically the chart prepared by Kelly Johnson showing "Recommended Flight Proceedure" "Data for Obtaining Optimum Range." ? Are you suggesting the detailed instructions written for Earhart to follow when trying to achive optimum range should be disregarded just because it is source material? Would it help to say it has been published on the CD accompanying Gillespie's book, "Finding Amelia"? Is that book not a valid source of reference?

The Gardner Island section states "Earhart and Noonan may have flown for two-and-a-half hours along the standard line of position Earhart noted in her last transmission received at Howland." What is a "standard line of position"? Damned if I know. A "Line of Position" is just a line. It expresses a line on a map which is related to the position of a celestial object at a particular moment in time. Chances are you are at some point on or near that LOP when you took the sighting. There are no "standard" LOPs.

I am not suggesting a change Gwen. But at least I have a clue.

You accuse me of 'picking' my references - I guess because you don't like them. I think I have added signifcantly to the article. And my sources are the source of that. I didn't speculate or opine, about the inherient inaccuracies of RDF, I cited the work of Fred Noonan and a history of aircraft navigation up to 1941. I didn't give an opinion of Fred Noonan by myself, or cite barroom gossip. I cited one of the top Captains with Pan Am at the time as to what Noonan was doing and how just months before the flight.

You favor an opinion for which not one single piece of evidence exists. Ok by me, but do not scream 'no references' when I have cited plenty. And I was not able to cite Grooch on Noonan and Wright on aircraft navigation BECAUSE I had them, had read them, and understood where they could assist the reader in undestanding the article. It might interest you that the guy who does the radio analysis for TIGHAR also cites an old "Radio Amatuer's Handbook" as a source for information on antenna designs and propagation. . .

I keep my opinion out of what I edit. Do you?75.50.215.92 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Some folks think a 28 year old British civil servant (and licensed pilot) on Gardner who found a woman's skull associated with European artifacts 3 years after Earhart's disappearance and thought it might be hers, would likely have been exceedingly circumspect and cautious in how he, as a responsible colonial officer in the British foreign office, communicated that opinion to his superiors in Fiji but whatever. If you knew more about how British civil servants working for the FO dealt with each other during the 1930s, you might understand what I mean.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Your apparent assertion that Gardner was so thoroughly searched in 1937 that AE and FN could not possibly have landed there is not supported, either by citations provided by you on this talk page or by any other sources I'm aware of. If you knew more about Nikumaroro (never mind its tide-swept NW reef flat in 1937, looming wreckage of the SS Norwich City and all), you might understand what I mean.

Meanwhile for all I know they wound up 5 miles below the surface of the Pacific within 100 NM of Howland. Happily, my personal opinion doesn't matter here and neither does yours. It's all about building articles from verifiable sources, WP:V, WP:RELIABLE, WP:WEIGHT, that's the pith.

You're new here. Welcome. Your use of the terms "spouting" and "dense" in describing my attempts to help you understand WP policy is, I think, not helpful. For the third time, I respectfully ask you to thoroughly review (not skim) WP:NPA. You do have my best wishes, but you're the one making the assertions here and unless you can provide meaningful citations to support those many assertions, I'm afraid you're using this talk page as a forum, which is not supported by the written policies of this public wiki. Thanks. Gwen Gale 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, for the third time. My citation is the complete telegram frrom Gallagher to Barley as published in Ric Gillespie's book "Finding Amelia" on page 241. What is yours?

I cite something twice and you ignore it both times. That is not a lack of citation on my part.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

As you have not cited any source that Gallagher "believed he had found Earhart's skeleton," and refuse to consider my specific citation and twice posting the entire telegram which makes it clear he did not believe that.

This is tiring Gwen. You go right ahead toss in a third claim I have no citations.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Folks, I said enough, and rose to Gwen's bait. I intend to go work on the Air Racing article as it badly needs a transfusion from my library. I am to young to be a member of Quiet Birdmen, but I will play one for a while on the internet.

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough said

If there is an editor who insists upon inserting opinion into the factual body of the article and that is ok with the rest of the editors then I am not going to have anything further to say.

Just one observation: It would be wrong for the Article to not state that there were report of radio signals which were felt at the time might have - even did -originated from AE.

A great deal of effort was made to search the Phoenix Islands in no small part because of possible radio intercepts from that area.

It would be wrong for the Article to state that there WERE signals definetly heard from AE. The reasons for this are simple. She could not transmit from the water and all possible places for her to land were searched and the airplane never found.

There will always be grey areas. The Article caters to those who wish to see black cats in the grey areas by expending electrons on the various alternative theories. Those who favor those theories should ensure that their opinions are (in proportion) expressed in the appropriate section.

What would do harm to the veracity of the story is to have facts misrepresented or suppressed by opinion in the factual body of the article.

It is up to you guys.

I have nothing more to say75.50.215.92 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

You haven't provided any citations. Gwen Gale 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull--this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,

(b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10,

(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."

- Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

For one last time, OK?75.50.215.92 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

In reviewing the latest revisions, it appears that there are citations but the format used was inconsistent so that the reference source did not always appear first, making it seem that the note or quote provided was the source. I have corrected the format of the citations to reflect the source and additional information follows. FWIW Bzuk 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Does anyone else out there have the book and CD "Finding Amelia"?Mark Lincoln 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have it on order. Gwen Gale may have it. FWIW Bzuk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

I have had it for a while, but just got around to reading it. I was wondering what would be the best way to cite materials included on the CD? What about when they have created a link on the CD to later material on their web site? That CD has a wealth of information some of which, I know from personal experience, was very hard to track down. One question which I had not considered but seems to have been raised recently is what we used to call "Source Material." The "Lockheed Report 487" written by the aircraft designers Clarence "Kelly" Johnson and W.C. Noland for AE is probably the definitive source on what techniques had to be followed to achieve optimum range/duration in the L-10E. If I cite it, am I guilty of "Original Research"? What if I cite the report by he Senior Aviator on the Colorado to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, about his search of Gardner Island? If these have been used by the authors of books cited in the AE article, is it still "Original Research" if someone cites their source material?Mark Lincoln 19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia you do not have the freedom of a Ric Gillespie or an Elgin Long to interpret sources and synthesize your own conclusions (original research) like they did. If you wish to do that, write a book and get it published by a reliable publisher, then cite it here. It's original research if you assemble and cite these sources in support of an interpretive conclusion of your own (WP:OR). On the other hand, if you directly cite what these sources say about what folks said or did, or what an aircraft or a radio was like, or did, or could do, that's WP:V. So far as how to technically cite something from the FA DVD, listing the primary source document title, page number if any within that PS and the DVD itself should do it. Gwen Gale 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not Gwen. Any such analysis has been confined to discussion, not editing.

Have you checked page 241 (epilogue) of Gillespies book?Mark Lincoln 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, this talk page is for discussing edits. You have yet to provide a single citation to support any of your assertions, which if they are not proposed edits, do not belong here under Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, this is my proposal for an edit, although I have stated I did not want to do it. Gillespie quoted the text of the telegram and it shows that the man who reported the skeleton thought it a very small possibility it was Earharts. The "Gardner Island" portion of the article should be edited to make it clear that the man responsible for calling attention to the skeleton doubted it was Earharts, that the sextant box was not evidence one could connect to AE and Noonan.Mark Lincoln 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Gwen, my citation, once again is Gillespie, "Finding Amelia", page 241. Why can't you just look it up Gwen? Why do you just repeat like an automat that: "You have yet to provide a single citation to support any of your assertions, which if they are not proposed edits, do not belong here under Wikipedia policy." I have provided MANY citations Gwen. What about you?

Would I be out of line to ask for a vote on the issue of whether the evidence supports the assertion that Amelia Earhart's skeleton and Fred Noonan's sextant box were found on Gardener Island and was so reported by Gerald B. Gallagher, Officer-in-Charge, Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, to Resident Commissioner Barley, Gilvert and Ellice Islands Colony, September 23, 1940, and quoted in Gillespie, "Finding Amelia," page 241, "Epilogue," or it supports that assertion the author of that telegram doubted the skeleton was Earharts and considered the sextant box "old fashioned"?

This seems silly, but Gwen clearly rejects as a valid citation what Mr. Gillespie considered important enough to end his book with, and does so categorically, without consideration, or knowledge.Mark Lincoln 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already responded to your remark about GG's characterization of the bones.

Meanwhile a vote cannot change original research into a supported assertion. If you have (or can find) a citation in an independent and verifiable source which has interpreted Gallagher's telegram as meaning that in his heart of hearts he didn't think the bones belonged to Earhart (never mind if he felt that way, why he would have even bothered to mention the possibility at all, it's not like he'd been sent there to find AE and FN) then by all means, please bring it up here.

I am only responding to your assertions as they come, and am taking them as proposed edits. Hence, since you're the one making the assertions on this talk page, it's up to you to support them with citations (WP:V, please read it thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks). If your assertions are interpretive original research, you have the freedom of an author like Elgin Long or Ric Gillespie to put them in a book and get it published. If you try to include your personal opinion in the article, it will likely be removed as original research (WP:OR, please read it thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks).

Again, as you have now been asked repeatedly, please try to tone it down and be less combative with other editors (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, please read these thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks). All the best. Gwen Gale 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Differences in interpretation

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007

Gwen the article states that he believed he had found Earhart. The telegram clearly indicates that he did not believe he had, but there was 'very slight chance," that it might be Earhart.

The other editors can read it for themselves.

"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull--this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that (a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman, (b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10, (c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City." - Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

That is not 'original research' at all Gwen.

It is the man's own words to his boss. He did not think he had found Earhart. Your position that he did think he found Earhart is far closer to what Jimmy Wales was speaking of would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Moreover Gwen, it is published in a book written by the head of TIGHAR, who it seems cares more for veracity than you do. Thus it does not meet the criteria of unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

It takes a totally "novel narrative or historical interpretation" to turn "Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard," (Galligher to Barley) into him believing he had found Earhart, and thence to the positive assertion it was Earhart.

Gwen, I think you are a obstreperous and determined to bias the article as Matt was.Mark Lincoln 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lying? Mark, I've have tried to help you understand how things work here. Meanwhile, you are now in violation of WP:NPA. Please stop. Thank you. Gwen Gale 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, ML. Binksternet 22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, flame thrower off.

When I see someone removing lines from an article - not ones inserted by me - simply on the basis that it is their opinion that there was no evidence any search was that thorough, I find it odd they do not cite that statement. It is Especially odd when it is clear that person is not acquainted with either the source material or scholarship on that point. I find it most curious when two words from an entire sentence are used to create the appearance that the author meant exactly the opposite of what he wrote as was done with Lt. Lambrecht's report. Which I might add IS the source material on that search, and used by many authors on the subject. I also find it very curious that someone would so misrepresent the telegram of Galligher as to make it appear that he thought he had found AE's skeleton. It is also annoying to have someone insist that providing the entire text of his telegram - with a citation as to it's source, and acceptance by other scholars - is "original research' and not a citation at all. One does not - in my estimate - come to a scholarly awareness of a subject by apparently reading a web page and refusing to even consider what the head of the organization that puts up that web page considered source material important enough to quote in toto in his book, a valid reference. Mr. Gillespie and I might disagree on points of analysis, but he does try to be thorough and honest.Mark Lincoln 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One other point. I see the page developing. Juices are flowing, book pages are flipping. People are contributing. I agree, this is discussion is not a forum. It is a discussion page about the Amelia Earhart Article. However many electrons we are expending in shooting it out, it seems to have had a stimulating effect on contributors. As I pointed out to someone we have a far better understanding of what we know now than we did 40 years ago. This is because for a number of reasons - most of all controversy. A great deal of scholarship has been done on Amelia Earhart and her disappearance in the last 20 years. I have done NO 'original research' on AE if it means coming up with new explanations, or novel theories. I have gone over 40 years from strongly questioning the accepted knowledge to having accepted it. This does not mean that I am not eager for new knowledge. The discovery of the Collopy Letter was a great thing. I had to reconsider a number of things because of it. Perhaps we will have a 'final answer,' some day. I doubt it.Mark Lincoln 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited material which is questioned or disputed may be removed. WP:V, WP:OR. Cheers. Gwen Gale 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen is a broken record, record, record. I have citations Gwen, what about you? I even read the Wikipedia concerning "Original Material."

Turns out your description seems at variance. Citing source material IS NOT original research. Nor is citing source material cited by other authors.

You just keep playing your broken record Gwen. The rest of us will continue to make valid and cited contributions to the article.Mark Lincoln 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I take this taunting as a personal attack. Given that, where did I ever say you can't cite source material? Erm and oh, by the bye that's original research, not "original material." Cheers anyway. Gwen Gale 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gwen. I trained as an engineer and minored in history. I never was a fiction writer, and seldom read it. The reason I seldom read fiction is that I find so much more of the real world in fact. I have what many would see as an unreasonable attachment to facts, engineering, reality and non-fiction. You have a nice evening.Mark Lincoln 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I read mostly non-fiction myself, have for donkeys' years. I deal with engineers professionally almost every day. Moreover, there are a few in my family. Why did you bring up fiction? Have you been talking to a little birdy? Thanks and have a nice evening yourself. Gwen Gale 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Birdy talk is cheep. I spend much of my time reading technical manuals and such. That is seldom cheap, nor is it usually pleasant reading. I never could write fiction. I just don't have a good fantasy in my life. Well, not since I was 15 and had a copy of Playboy. . . Mark Lincoln 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

TMs, I've written a few. Gwen Gale 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a guilty party. My motto is "when everything else fails, read the manual." Actually not. I usually read it at least three times. Once without trying to comprehend, just to find out what is there. The second time to make sense of it. The third is to figure out what part of it applies to my problem. My most important 'research facility" is the back yard hammock.Mark Lincoln 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

---

It is now a juncture where all editors should take a deep breath and look seriously at a "cool off" period. Everyone is acting in "good faith" but emotions around a controversial issue can get heated. The "talk page" of an article is intended to provide a forum to talk about the article, let's keep that in mind. FWIW, I am about to archive some of the discussions as we are running at 230 kb, IMHO, waaaay beyond the usual file size. Bzuk 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Evaluation for A-Class

I would recommend waiting for any effort to have this article reevaluated. There is supposed to be a serious history of the search for AE coming out this month. As this would be an account about the search, not necessarily tied to any authors personal theory of where she ended up, it might be very helpful to our efforts.Mark Lincoln 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I entirely agree, as one of the major elements to address is "stability" which until recently was manifest but now the article will have to work out all contenious issues and achieve a consensus-driven appraisal by all editors who have significantly contributed to the development of the Amelia Eahart article. BTW, my intention was actually to recommend the article as a "Good Article" candidate. FWIW Bzuk 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Each author of a 'theory' book has had reasons to shade the coverage of the search. An author dedicated to covering the search might well make an important contribution. I don't know what the order of march to Wiki-article Sainthood is. You guys will have to take care of that.Mark Lincoln 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Chilling revelations

I typed "Original Research" into the search bar of the Wikipedia.

It returned the following definition: "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form."

Citing source material is not 'original research unless it fulfills the conditions of the second sentence, "to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form." Thus citing source material used by other authors in "summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research," is NOT original research unless it is used to present a novel concept or knowledge.

The charge of "Original Research" is not a cure-all for facts that one does not like. Nor is someone who cites source material guilty. Especially if that source material is used by other authors which have already made it part of the body of knowledge on the subject. Most certainly we cannot exclude a scholar's quotation and attribution of source material under the definition of the Wikipedia.

Controversy is not necessarily an evil - that is to say destructive - thing.

I will continue to cite Mr. Gillespie, and the source materials he has used. I will also continue to cite source material used by other authors.

How can we evaluate the veracity of those authors we cite unless we occasionally compare their statements with their sources?

Mr. Gillespie was honest enough to end his book with a citation which a romantic reader could read one way and in which a critical reader could find quite different meaning. If he was dishonest he would have not quoted it at all, for he is a proponent of the Gardner Island Hypothesis - unless he was a fool, and I have read nothing in his book to make me think that.Mark Lincoln 00:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Final approach

I included a quote from the Captain of the Itasca to convey the tension in the last broadcast received from AE. I did NOT include it because it ended with the word "incomplete" because such an assertion would support the position of Elgen Long. I disagree !!!OPINION!!! with Mr. Long. The fact that AE indicated she was switching to 6210 and was never heard again does not prove she ran out of gas at that moment. My reasons are two-fold - MORE OPINION NOT INSERTED INTO THE ARTICLE - I have no idea of her exact fuel state at that time, and it is unlikely that the Itasca could have heard her because of limitations of it's receiver. In MY OPINION Mr. Long has evidenced more understanding of the navigation methods in use at the time and how they would have been utilized by Mr. Noonan than any other author. Still there are IN MY OPINION, instances in his book where he clearly shades the arguments and evidence in favor of his theory.

There were other people in the radio room of the Itasca who had similar opinions of the tenor of Earhart's last certain broadcast. I could have cited those references - from the same source - but did not ONLY because of the conciseness of the Captains description.Mark Lincoln 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrast and perception

I spent almost 20 years of my life profoundly dependent upon an understanding of color, perception and contrast to make my living. I did lots of high resolution scanning of photographs, as well as color correcting and retouching them. I was using PhotoShop before it became a common concept (PS 2.0).

Someone removed reference to the colors of the Electra and it not being seen on Gardner Island. In page 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2 and 3 of his report Lt. Lambrecht reported that "Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll. . . (his elipsis) a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coranodo's silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms."

It is clear that an airplane mostly colored silver (but as I understand it also with orange on the top of the wings) would present a most striking contrast to the island or it's surrounding waters. What was it about the mention of the aircraft (indisputably silver) that cause the reference to it not being found? I am not rushing to replace it. But I do ask why the idea of a silver airplane not being found on a mostly green Island, or mostly beige (above water) or blue (underwater) reef or green Island that made it necessary to remove it? Why in a natural world of curves and fractals would not a harsh silver and angular airplane stand out?

I am not using my 'experience" at color correction as "original research" or "qualification" for an entry in the article. At what point do the rules of Wikipedia overrule those of common sense?Mark Lincoln 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was bright unpainted aluminium (silver) with orange bands here and there. If they landed on the vast, tide swept NW reef flat and the Electra got knocked about by the rising tides before Lambrecht got there for the overflight, the partially submerged aircraft's proximity to the looming wreckage of the SS Norwich City could have easily caused searchers to muddle it with debris from the ship (never mind the Electra would have been more or less but a speck in comparison) [2]. Oh and the reef flat is not green, it's light brown and polished aluminium reflects light which is to say, at certain angles it could have taken on the same colour as the coral and blended right in with reef, waves and wreckage. Lastly, Nikumaroro is a lot bigger than it looks. Gwen Gale 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I might add that from almost the earliest arrival of Gilbertese colonists (along with Gallagher) in late 1938, there were rumours of aircraft wreckage on the island. Children were told to stay away from it, the stories sometimes related that the skeletons of a man and a woman were somehow involved, the Gilbertese made all kinds of stuff out of scavenged Alcoa aircraft aluminium and at least one living witness who was raised there as a child says she saw bits of airplane wreckage out on the reef flat several times. Gwen Gale 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding - and I have seen NO photograph which shows it, that it had orange upon the top of the wings inset from the edges as was the pattern used by PAA. Under any circumstances such would be quite visible. If they landed on the reef they could not have sent messages. The reef is shown in photos from Gillespies book and it shows quite distinct differences in depth. (the density of the photo varies with the depth of the water). The chances of the Electra landing in shallow water with the gear down and not flipping over are slim, a conventional gear, know known rudely as a "tail dragger" is very prone to nosing over when undue breaking or drag is induced (witness AE flipping her Vega at NAS Norfolk some years before), the chances of it landing on such an uneven surface while exposed are equally slim.

.:::Rumors are worth about 10 cents at any fact swap meet.Mark Lincoln 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bright aluminum should have stood in sharp contrast to eight years of rust and growth on a shipwreck. The sun reflecting off the waves, though; that would have been tough competition for shiny metal at certain angles of viewing. One would expect that searchers in aircraft would have criss-crossed the island, lessening the likelihood of viewing angle phenomena messing with their results. BTW, Gilbertese folk must have guessed what the curious foreigners wanted to hear. Did they ever take a researcher out to see the remaining plane bits or did they show off their collection of silvery metal Electra remnants? Binksternet 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about more than rumours here and Gilbertese kids were told by their Gilbertese parents to stay away from the wreckage and they gave these parently warnings without a European in sight. Whatever might have been on that tide-swept reef couldn't be found by 1992. Moreover, Nikumaroro is a much bigger and far more complicated place than it appears to be from a satellite photo or a map. Everything you brought up is reasonable and possible and has been deeply and thoughtfully discussed by hundreds of researchers but given the wide range of documented evidence and artifacts, the possibilities you raise don't eliminate the possibility of the wreckage having been there. The article cites the Gardner Island hypothesis not as fact, but as a hypothesis which is widely cited as credible. Our personal opinions can't go in the article. Only the interpretations of writers in verifiable, published sources can go in the article according to policies like WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Cheers. Gwen Gale 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As a number of editors have already said, all this musing about the possibility of the Electra crashing on Gardner (Nikumaroro) is fine on the discussion page because it is relevant to topics already established in the main body of the article. The original statements that were honed after a long period of editing and discussion were that two Earhart/Noonan disappearance theories predominate with researchers and historians. These theories involve crashing at sea in close proximity to Howland Island or on land at Gardner Island. Other theories do not have the same support from Earhart scholars. FWIW Bzuk 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Helpfully said, Bzuk. Though after a few dozen kilobytes, uncited musing can easily be taken as proposed edits expressing only original research. The Gardner Island hypothesis runs much deeper than the summary in the article (which I think is of a helpful length and need not necessarily be expanded): It seems to me that some editors have started off by "arguing" against the limited, superficial summary of the GIH carried in the article without understanding that their questions have been addressed at length in the hypothesis itself and that the article is only citing published sources for the purpose of encyclopedic summary. I don't think this talk page is the place for general discussion and debate of the topic, but only for discussing how specific, verifiable sources might be used to make the article more helpful to readers and... I humbly suggest WP policy wholly supports what I'm saying:

Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the m:Wikibate proposal.)

All the best! Gwen Gale 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio options when running out of gas

When the engine started sputtering and running out of fuel, what radio transmission options were open to Earhart? Of course she'd be busy trying to set the machine down as safely as possible but would the radio still be working right after the engine ran out of gas? Would it have remained working as long as the propellor was windmilling? Did the charged battery allow radio operation for a time after fuel was spent? If so, how long a time? Binksternet 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Only from memory here, not long, the battery drain was fast and the transmitter and receiver were wholly separate valve devices but... from what I understand she certainly could have transmitted for a minute or two on the remaining charge. I've read a full description of how the battery in her Electra was charged however I don't know if the dynamo would have spun along with a windmilling propeller. Either way I'm sure that if everything was working as it should she could have made a last transmission whilst readying to ditch (and that this can be supported with some kind of a cite). Gwen Gale 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary purpose of the Battery was to start the engines. That fact alone indicates that it also had some reserve when not required for that drain. There was a secondary battery intended to give an alternative - if less substantial - source of power for instruments and radios if the first one was exhausted. We do know that they blew the fuse on the generator flying to Hawaii, by 4:50 HST they were on battery power. They landed at 5:55 with everything working. I do not know if they had to use the backup battery. Thus we can know that she had at least an hour of both radios left when the engine quit. I have never been able to determine just how long the primary or secondary batteries would support operation of the Transmitter and Receiver. I would need to know more about how many amp hours, and voltage of the batteries as well as how many amps the transmitter and receiver both drew. I do know that operating the engine at the required 900 rpm would use almost 6 gallons per hour. I also am quite aware that a dead stick (engines off) landing on land is not something one choses if one has an option. I also know that a dead stick ditching is even less attractive, Would Earhart have chosen to actually run out of fuel or land first. I cannot say. I am not a "psychic psychiatrist."

I guess the ultimate questions are how much fuel did she have, how accurate were her fuel gages, and what was her switchology at the time. IF she switched to 6210 and tried to transmit she might well have simply not been heard. As I have stated before the pucker factor had to be intense. She had been up for over 24 hours. I can 'estimate' from prior example that she had at least 1 hour of time to talk and listen if she was not in the water. Shit stacks up.Mark Lincoln 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about an hour, the two radios took lots of amperes but it may have been more than a few minutes. Remember, they never did establish two-way voice contact with Howland. Who knows what frequencies they tried (yes, we can speculate as to what they were) or what they were thinking after that. I would characterize some discussions I've seen on their fuel supply as approaching the character of a religious debate. That said, the argument that they were totally out of fuel near Howland requires an unsupported assumption of headwinds and other speculations. In general, the notion is that when she said they were low on fuel, this meant she was cutting into what she perceived as her reserve and I've read convincing arguments they had plenty of fuel to fly the LOP to Gardner. Gwen Gale 03:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What I know as I have not been able to find out how many amps the receiver and transmitter drew is what happened on the flight to Hawaii. We know about when the generator went off line and we know when they landed. The rest is deduction. What I cannot tell you is if they were down on an island on their belly, (see Lambrechts opinion of landing chances on Gardener) how long they could operate their radios. Or if their electrical system would have been intact enough to function. I grew up in the age of the vacuum tube and know that it would take a minute or two - to 'warm' up the dynamotor and transmitter to the point where it would achieve full power. This is all assuming they had no serious damage to the airplane. My 'best guess" (OPINION, don't ask me to put it in the article) is that they probably had at least one hour of operation. The other question is how much "gain" they would have gotten from a "less than optimum" (to quote the TIGHAR radio guy) length under 1/8 wave, V-type antenna sitting less than six feet off the ground. The answer is probably - but not definitely - not much. We are looking at an actual output from the antenna of perhaps 10-20 watts with a horizontal polarity and bad angle. Perhaps they were heard. Odds are they were not. (I repeat this is OPINION). Still we need to consider these things. My guess is that Earhart (OPINION) could have transmitted and received for at least 1 hour. That she could have done one or the other longer. One must remember that a dynamotor was a pretty inefficient means of turning low DC voltage into high voltage AC for radio communications, thus the receiver alone would have more operational life than the transmitter (once again, we do not know how many minutes the xmitter or receiver were on during the Hawaii flight, but a good guess is that they both ran all the time). That the propagation characteristics of her antenna and the frequencies she was able to operate on severely limited any possible range. I find it far easier to think that reports of a 'weak carrier" or 'feeble and unintelligible" communications being hear are far more likely than someone who claimed to hear her 4/5.

The bottom line - in my humble (and we all know how humble I am) - opinion is that given the best of circumstances, they would have had at least one hour of radio time left if they were out of fuel.Mark Lincoln 03:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The question of head winds. Both the last forecast sent to Earhart and Noonan and their reported conditions agree. It is most likely that they were encountering headwinds as high as 23 knots. It is also certain from her reports that they had climbed considerably above the optimum altitudes early in the flight and thus had to have had considerable additional fuel consumption. I would refer you to Kelly Johnson's instructions prepared for Earhart on the flight profile necessary to achieve optimum range. Given the variables which we cannot know, I would imagine that she had 1-2 hours reserve by the time she reached the vicinity of Howland - but that might be optimistic. I cannot know how much fuel she had. One radio log indicates she stated 1/2 hour (but did that include the remainder of 100 octane?). One thing for certain is that she did state she was "low on fuel" and that cannot be reasonably interpreted as meaning she was "fat." This is OPINION, but given the anxiety she seemed to have in her voice and her use of the term 'low on fuel," coupled with the forecast and reported (by her) winds, it is probable that they were far less than the optimum 4-5 hours given still air and best altitude operations would have made possible.

Mr. Gillespie can dismiss her report of ground speed and winds aloft as well as the far higher than optimum altitude she reported less than half way into the flight with the term "speculation" (in a foot note). No one did at the time, nor can I. (OPINION- but) Though this is my Opinion, I CAN document several aspects of it including the airplane designers instructions and how his instructions for an optimum profile differed from her report. Her reports and how they coincided with the last forecast the USN sent her from Hawaii. And thus how if Kelly Johnson was right, True had not incompetently read the information about winds aloft from reporting stations near her path, and she was not lying; then she MUST have had significantly higher fuel consumption than the optimum profile would have produced. How much, that is a question I cannot specifically answer. But for all three to be totally wrong, for there have been still air, for True to have been incompetent in his interpretation of winds aloft reports, and Earhart to have been lying about the "winds" she reported and her "speed" takes a bit of "speculation" I cannot indulge in. Mistakes were made, but I can't imagine everyone made exactly the right combination of mistakes and deceptions to allow the Electra to have achieved it's optimum performance on the flight. Given the time which they apparently (from reports and signal strength) spent searching for Howland Island, it is unlikely that they had a big reserve when the last signal was heard (OPINION).Mark Lincoln 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Options when running out of gas.

You have two. One is to pick the spot where you want to land, the other is to let Sir Isaac Newton pick it for you. Mark Lincoln 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Revising estimate. I have been flipping through a number of books to try and determine how much they actually transmitted during that last hour of the flight into Hawaii. It appears they were mostly using the receiver with the DF loop and thus were not 'communicating." Therefore I must say that we know the battery could keep the equipment running, but we don't know how fast it would be drained by extensive transmission.Mark Lincoln 10:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)