Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 1

Initial text
Is a flight from Honolulu to California truly a flight across the Pacific Ocean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 October 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, what would you call that body of water separating them, which you have to cross to get from one to the other? - Montr&eacute;alais

Seems to me the question was not about the name of the body of water, but about the use of the preposition "across". Maybe a flight that is not "across" something (meaning spanning it from edge to edge) could still be "over" it if it traverses some part of it. Is this helpful? JackofOz 05:24, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, the page refers to the "first person to fly solo across the Pacific Ocean from Honolulu to Oakland, California" - restrictive clause, i.e. the first person to fly that route, not the first person to traverse the whole Pacific. - Montr&eacute;alais 05:32, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe modify it to "across the eastern Pacific Ocean" to be precise. --Menchi (Talk)ü|â 05:49, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the bit about AE possibly, unwittingly mis-navigating by 100 miles to the north: Firstly, Noonan was the navigator and the possibility of his making that sort of uncorrected error was way low, and secondly it's unsupported by any hard evidence. - Wyss

I deleted the following:

" Earhart probably didn't know that Noonan was an alcoholic; incredibly, she didn't know how to operate a radio or Morse Code -- factors which may have played a role in what was to happen."

There is no evidence Noonan was an alcoholic, certainly no evidence that alcohol consumption ever intefered with his performance as a professional navigator.

Earhart knew how to operate a radio. However, she had extremely limited ability to send or read Morse Code.

- Wyss

Success?
Is it too speculative to mention, had she N changed direction, but flown out of HI as planned, by making the longest, most difficult leg first, rather than last, she'd have made it? Trekphiler 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's pure speculation. I've heard it, though. Don't know how helpful it would be to include it. Wyss 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is, based on Goerner, fatige played a part in the loss. From his description of her state at Lae, she was exhausted, far from sharp; no surprise, considering the conditions & how far they'd flown. If she'd started with the hardest leg, fatige wouldn't have entered the picture. Trekphiler 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Kio34's addition
This was the content of a newly created page entitled Amelia Earhart Life Summary:

Amelia Earhart was born in Atchison, Kansas on July 24, 1897. When she was born, Amelia didn’t really like airplanes all that much, but all that changed when she saw an air show. Amelia Earhart got her first plane ride from a pilot named Frank; she then wanted to fly more and more. Amelia got her flying license in 1921 after taking lessons from Neta Snook. Amelia’s first plane was a Kinner Airstar, which she used to cross the Atlantic Ocean. In 1932 she sold her plane and worked in the government for the next four years. She then bought another plane known as an Avro Avian. She used this plane to cross the country and break a world record for the first women to ever fly alone across the nation. Later on in her life, she married a fellow named G.P. Putnam.

own name. After their marriage, G.P. and Amelia started to plan stunts and to break more flying records because they were both pilots. Then, in 1932, Amelia flew alone across the Atlantic in a Lockheed Vega to break another a record. That made Amelia famous. That same year, she received the Distinguished Flying Cross by the US Congress. Then, four years later, Amelia Earhart was given a Lockheed 10E Electra courtesy of Perdue University; She used this plane to attempt to fly around the world along the equator. Unfortunately, Amelia’s first attempt to fly around the world was shattered after the wheel was broken on her plane and was to be repaired. Her next attempt ended in disaster when the radio contact was lost between the plane and the tower. The plane seemed to disappear out of thin air because no wreckage of their plane was ever discovered. Amelia’s hard work and effort towards flight inspired females to be pilots too. That opened up a whole new generation of flight.

&lt; K F &gt;  23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This contains various contridictions to what's in the article, and as it has no sources to back it up, should be regarded as inaccurate. I've redir the article, and we can just ignore the text above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, for one thing, there was no "tower" on Howland island. The above contains many conflations and inaccuracies. Uhm, in fact, about everything it says has some sort of factual problem. Wyss 08:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct Category
Should she be in Category:1937 deaths? Although 1937 is the most likely year of her death, it’s not absolute fact and perhaps Category:Year of death missing would be more appropriate. Philip Stevens 07:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is fleeting, documented archaeological and British archival evidence (put no proof) she may have survived on Nikumaroro until sometime in 1938. The likelihood is overwhelming that she did die in either 1937 (most likely) or 1938 (a possibility). Although this is still controversial among aviation historians, many believe that a skeleton found on the island in October 1940 was hers (which was also the opinion of the British colonial officer who first saw it). Wyss 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1937 is the widely accepted year of her death. The 50th anniversary was held in 1987, etc. 23skidoo 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, 1937 is supported by most reputable sources and is most likely the year she died. Wyss 16:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mind you, there are probably a few conspiracy theorists who'd be happy to add her to the infamous Living People category! ;-) 23skidoo 16:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, if not for them I wouldn't mind putting her in Category:Year of death missing but with all the unsupported fringe babbling and urban legends floating about it would be far too misleading. She was most likely gone by the end of 1937 and there is, in effect, zero evidence to indicate she made it past sometime in 1938. Wyss 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Anybody else get the impression some teacher out there gave their class an assignment on Amelia Earhart, and they've all come here one by one to vent their annoyance? --Calair 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's spot on what I was thinking. These vandal visits come in waves and every time, I imagine her (the teacher) saying without end how wonderful AE was, then assigning the wonted "Internet research report" or whatever while the sniggering monkey boys in the back row plan their revenge. Wyss 22:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whose Grandfather?
In this sentence: "She sent the girls to private schools using money from a trust fund set up by her grandfather Alfred.", "she" refers to Amy, Amelia's mother. Yet Amelia's grandfather was also named Alfred. Are these the same Alfred? If so, the sentence should read something like "She sent the girls to private schools using money from a trust fund set up by the children's grandfather Alfred.". --Riordanmr 00:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Classified?
At the end of the section on her world flight is the comment, "To this day, US government documents concerning Earhart and her disappearance remain classified." Is there any documentation to back this up? The web page http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEmyths.html calls this a myth and cites the FoIA request number 9105146 as finding no evidence of any classified files in 1991. --12.47.49.97 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why there MUST be classified papers so secret that they kill you if you know about them! How else can we explain why the government has been covering up the TRUTH for 70 years! ;-) Sorry, I needed that, I been looking at too many different Earhart conspiracy books the last few days.Mark Lincoln 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

FAI pilot license
Hi. There seems to be a bit of incongruency as to weather AE was the first, 16th or the 22nd woman to receive an FAI pilot license. The text here says she was 22nd, but the official AE site says she was the first, according to Answers.com, 16th, and so does this page. Can anybody clarify, perhaps with a trustworthy quote? --Erwinwessels 06:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As ameliaearhart.com is run by her family, we should look elsewhere for confirmation of the claim. The answers.com article is mirroring an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. The statement that she was the 16th woman to receive a pilot's license was changed in Wikipedia on May 30 without any comment by an anonymous IP with no other edits. I'm changing it back and using the u-s-history.com web page as the source. -- Donald Albury 12:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Strange how things like these slowly disappear into the mysts of time. I might see if I can drop somebody at the FAI a line to see if they are willing and able to clarify. -- Erwinwessels 09:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Any reply you receive from them would be OR, and not usable as a source. If they can point you to a reliable published source listing the early licensees, that would be wonderful. -- Donald Albury 12:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I did receive a response: According to NAA's book on our history, Amelia Earhart was the first woman and the 17th pilot to receive an NAA's pilot license (this happened in 1923). NAA issued pilot licenses until the government took over in the 1920's. I'll see if I can find a verifiable, preferably print source that we can quote. --Erwin Wessels 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I did find what appears to be the book the lady referred to, but can't find a copy in a library in Holland. If anybody would care to check in a US library, I'd be much obliged - the isbn is 1560981873 and at least the LoC seems to hold a copy. Thanks, --Erwin Wessels 18:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Captain Harry Manning
According to Lost Star by Patricia Lauber, on the world flight, Captain Harry Manning was originally AE's navigator, and couldn't accompany AE and Noonan after the flight had to be rescheduled because of the technical difficulties in Hawaii... Yet this article doesn't seem to mention him. PBuG
 * There seems to be very little mentioned in the documents about him, only some photographs. (A photograph assumedly from the day of the first departure). As it looks like, Paul Manz was her navigator on that leg, and Manning possibly had helped plan the route and stayed behind, or he was the mysterious "passenger" due to leave in Honolulu (Quite likely actually, because there is also a picture of him viewing the wreck in Honolulu. (my personal conclusion)). Some sources say that Manz had doubts about Earhart's flying skills, and therefor didn't participate in the second attempt, but that is mainly speculation.
 * By the way, why can't I see a date when the above question was entered? So I don't actually know if I'm way out of date with my answer... Islander(Scandinavia) 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Further reading states quite clearly (In TIGHAR's investigations) That all four of them was on the flight to Honolulu, but Manz was the one to stay in Hawaii, and Manning planned to be on the plane to Australia. Islander(Scandinavia) 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Manning was a captain for the American President Lines whom Earhart had met returning from Europe in 1928. At that time he had explained the fundamentals of celestial navigation to her. A test flight over the Pacific left BOTH Manning and Earhart dissatisfied (they blamed each other). The fact is that celestial navigation of an airplane is more complicated than that of a ship. The decision was made to have a second navigator aboard for at least the Hawaii to Australia legs. Manning quit after the near disaster on the attempted takeoff from Hawaii.

I have spent over 40 years interested in the the disappearance, I have not a clue where she is, nor do I entertain any of the lurid conspiracy theories.

I have some major issues with the article and am posting several comments now so as to solicit responses of concerned parties before starting work on what is at several points a very flawed effort. Lets talk, about things or I will drag out my books and get to work.Mark Lincoln 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom of the Pacific
Could the plane not have crashed into the sea? The Pacific Ocean is many miles deep and her body may be lying far down in the ocean. XPhile2868 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Amount of water around Howland Island, lots and lots. Amount of land, zilch.

Go figure.Mark Lincoln 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories etc
Here are some comments regarding the theories of disappearance of Amelia Earhart

It is written in the article: "A photograph supposedly of Earhart during her captivity exists, though skeptics have pointed out that it looks like it was taken at the same time as other photos shot before her final flight" -

- yes, such a photographs exist... most frequently two of them are presented - with Earhart near the car and the "oriental" facebehind. Actually that photo was made in January 1935 just before the Earhart's flight from Hawaii to California, and that oriental person is not a "Japanese guard" as some conspiracy theorists suggested but just some airport worker. Identically, the photo of Earhart as if "made in Japanese captivity" - presented in the Randall Brink's book - was actually made after the failure (groundloop) of her first World Flight attempt in March 1937.

--Actually, no, it wasn't. The photo was taken on Saipan and sent from Saipan. I have the original, along with the envelope.--Randallbrink (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is written in the article: "Possibly the strangest suggestion is that Earhart was forced to make propaganda radio broadcasts as one of the many women known as Tokyo Rose" -

- personally, i would remove this phrase at all, because this "theory" - really strangest as the article fairly says - is completely discredited and debunked since long ago. So today the mentioning of this "Tokyo Rose stuff" together with Earhart's name only baselesly tarnishes Earhart in some sense, creating a "wrong connection" in the minds and memory of modern readers. It was really a strange, bizarre rumor, that appeared in a special wartime atmosphere - together with hundreds of other equally bizarre rumors created by increased secrecy and deficit of information. Obviously it was completely illogical from very beginning. If about Earhart herself, there is absolutely no any legitimate base to guess that she could be a traitor. All that is known about her strongly suggests that she was a loyal and patriotic American. If about Japanese, it was absolutely no sense for them to force Earhart to broadcast for them anonymously (as all the propaganda effect would be in WHO the broadcaster was! - so what for to use Earhart for this??). But it would be equally absolutely no sense for them to use her voice openly - because it would disclose her presence in Japanese hands, the thing that Japanese Government furiously denied all the time - both before and afterthe World War 2. Despite its obviously enough bizarre nature (or maybe - paradoxally - just because of it!), this rumor could exist for some time - until there was no complete postwar investigation of the Tokyo Rose case.

This investigation was open, very detailed, and included an interrogation of many participants and witnesses of the Japanese propaganda radio broadcasting efforts, including some VIPs - like Colonel Shigetsugu Tsuneishi. The published materials of the Tokyo Rose trial includes more then 7000 pages of text. NO any slightest connection to Amelia Earhart (or any base to suspect such a connection) was ever found. So - in fact - the myth about this alleged connection is dead since long ago. The problem is that this myth - being once launched - already continues to "live" regardless to facts... However it seems reasonable not to "help" the distribution of such a sort of baseless myths... especially in educational projects (like encyclopedias). This is why i would remove the mentioning of Tokyo Rose from the Earhart page.

There is written in the article: "Yet another school of thought suggests that Earhart later managed to return to America where she changed her name and lived out her life quietly" -

This theory was enough popular in early 70s, and now some "old admirers" of it still tries to "re-vitalize" it... however, in fact it is completely baseless. Moreover, it is in strict controversy to many documented facts that are firmly established about Earhart.

In contrary to some modern claims, alas until today still no shade of factual proof for this was ever presented. Particularly, recently Mr. Tod Swindell, an enthusiastic supporter of this theory, prepared a set of photographic overlays that he consider as proof that Amelia Earhart (AE) survived as Irene Bolam (IB).

However it is worth to consider that Mr. Swindell is not a professional in forensic research, and any supportive official verdict of the forensic research professionals never followed. Moreover, at close examination of the photos it is obvious for any non-biased view that in reality Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam had many differences, both in bodial and facial characteristics.

It is also worth to remember that Major Joe Gervais - the father of this theory - never meet Earhart in person before 1965 (when he saw Irene Bolam and 'decided' that she 'must be' Earhart). So the value of his 'recognition' of Earhart in Irene Bolam has at least highly doubtful level of credibility.

Actually, the fact is that there were many people who knew BOTH women personally, and they all were firmly convinced that Earhart and Bolam were different persons.

There are many obvious stretches in this theory, and the questions without a proper and reasonable answers.

First of all: WHY at all would Earhart abandon her identity to become a New Jersey housewife? No fact or even believable theoretical reasons for this idea have ever been presented, only speculative guesses in contradiction with many credible historical sources about Earhart's personality have been offered.

How it was possible for Earhart to abandon her family, especially her mother and sister, to whom she was extremely close? Also, how it was possible for her to abandon and never contact her husband George Putnam, as well as her numerous friends? Earhart's dedication and loyalty to family and friends was really legendary.

Where was Earhart between 1937 and 1945? In contrary to the concept of Irene Bolam theory, no evidence has ever been found in Japan to indicate AE's presence there that appears minimally credible in any way. Some statements of the theory, like about Earhart's secret life in Japanese Imperial palace with Emperor Hirohito, are obviously beyond a reasonable belief for any historically aware person.

What happened to the real, original Irene Bolam? As it was found by historical researchers, she certainly existed between 1934 and 1945, and was working in the banking business in New York City.

Why would the Government use the name and identity of a real person, known by many people and living an active, normal life, in a plot to transform this individual into another, discrete individual (Earhart) without these people becoming aware of it?

How and why could such an immense and long-lived conspiracy, with hundreds or even thousands of people necessarily involved, be organized and kept secret for decades? It has been proposed that AE's family and friends were aware of the conspiracy, but were all somehow persuaded to remain silent about it. But nothing of substance has ever been offered to support this idea, and it's virtually impossible to assume that so many people, by some 'secret agreement', successfully concealed this plot from entire world for many decades. It is extremely hard to keep such a stuff in secrecy - for both 'technical' and emotional reasons. If even to guess that the 'price of secrecy' that AE was compelled to pay included abandoning her family and friends, why then would AE, as IB, go on to live such a documented, semi-public lifestyle, attending aviation-related public events, joining organizations like Zontas and 99s (where AE was a former member) and meeting numerous people who personally knew AE?

Finally - if it was a 'great conspiracy' with a governmental interests involved - why would the U.S.Government allow the personal meeting of IB and Mr. Joe Gervais, who was already well known as a persistent AE researcher?

Considering all he above, it seems very difficult to accept seriously the concept of Amelia Earhart's secret repatriation as Irene Bolam. It looks like just a theory, and enough far-fetched, bizarre and radical one, at that. There is no any serious reason to consider it as real solution of AE disappearance mystery.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, Ph.D. Naval and aviation historian, author; member of US Naval institute and Association of Naval Aviation.

Amelia Earhart historian and enthusiast since 1982. SOURCES: 1. Amelia Earhart. The Fun of It. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1932 (republished by Gale Research Company, Book Tower, Detroit, 1975). 2. Amelia Earhart. Last Flight. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1937 (republished by Orion Books, New York, 1975). 3. Amelia Earhart. 20 Hours and 40 Minutes. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1928. 4. Muriel Earhart Morrissey, Carol L. Osborne. Amelia, My Courageous Sister. Biography of Amelia Earhart. Osborne Publisher, Incorporated. Santa Clara, California, 1987. 5. Jean L. Backus. Letters From Amelia 1901-1937. An Intimate Portrait of Amelia Earhart. Beacon Press, Boston, 1982. 6. Mary S. Lovell. The Sound Of Wings. St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1989. 7. Susan Butler. East to the Dawn. The Life of Amelia Earhart. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997. 8. Doris L. Rich. Amelia Earhart. A Biography. Dell Publishing, NY, 1989. 9. Sally P. Chapman. Whistled Like A Bird. Warner Books, NY, 1997. 10. Nancy Shore. Amelia Earhart. Aviator. Chelsea House Publishers, Philadelphia, 1987. 11. Donald M. Goldstein, Katherine V. Dillon. Amelia. A Life of The Aviation Legend. Brassey’s, London – Washington. 1997. 12. Fred Goerner. The Search For Amelia Earhart. Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, New York, 1966. 13. Donald M. Wilson. Amelia Earhart: Lost Legend. Enigma Press, Florida. 1999 (Revised and expanded edition). 14. Mike Campbell with Thomas E. Devine. With Our Own Eyes. Eyewitnesses to the Final Days of Amelia Earhart. Lucky Press, LLC. Ohio, 2002. 15. Joe Klaas. Amelia Earhart Lives. McGraw Hill, NY, 1970 16. Rollin C. Reineck. Amelia Earhart Survived. The Paragon Agency, Orange, California, 2003 17. James A. Donahue. The Earhart Disappearance: The British Connection. SunShine House, Incorporated. Terre Haute, IN, 1987. 18. Randall Brink. Lost Star. The Search for Amelia Earhart. W.W. Norton Co., Inc. NY, 1994. 19. Thomas F. King. Amelia Earhart Shoes. AltaMira Press, California, 2001. 20. Shirley D. Gilroy. Amelia: Pilot in Pearls. Link Press Publishers. McLean, Virginia, 1985. 21. Jacqueline Cochran. Stars at Noon. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1954. 22. Louise Thaden. High, Wide and Frightened. Stackpole Sons, NY, 1938. 23. Roxane Chadwick. Amelia Earhart – Aviation Pioneer. Lerner Publications Company, Minneapolis, 1987. 24. Patricia Lauber. Lost Star: The Story of Amelia Earhart. Scholastic Incorporated, New York, 1988. 25. Valerie Moolman. Women Aloft. Time–Life Books. Alexandria, Virginia, 1981. 26. Carl M. Dunrud. Let’s Go! 85 Years of Adventure. Words Worth, Cody, Wyoming. 1998. 27. Mary V. Nickerson. The Decoy and the Dove. 1st Books Library, USA, 2002 28. AES Newsletters – Volumes I, II. Proceedings of AES prepared, processed and composed by Bill Prymak. 2003. 29. Amelia Earhart Discussion Group Internet Website. 30. Woodbridge News – the set of articles from newspaper from 1982, dedicated to investigation of IB theory soon after her death. 31. TIGHAR TRACKS - Newsletter of the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery. 32. Virginia Morell. Amelia Earhart. National Geographic, Jan. 1998, pp.112-135. 33. John P. Riley. The Earhart Tragedy: Old Mystery, New Hypothesis. Naval History, Aug. 2000. 34. Ronald Bright. Amelia Earhart: the Marshall Islands Evidence. Unpublished manuscript. Bremerton, 2001. 35. Ronald Bright, Pat Gaston. The Monsignor James F. Kelley’s Evidence. Unpublished manuscript. Bremerton, 2004. 36. Bruce D. Hoy. Amelia Earhart Remembered. Paradise Magazine. Boroko, Papua New Guinea, No. 63 – 1987.

Bold textTo this "Fringe theories" Chapter, i would add the fact that the professional criminal forensic expert invited by National Geographic - Mr. Kevin Richland - conclusively debunked this "Bolam myth", pointing the attention to many factual "anatomic" facial differencies between Earhart and Bolam.

As Mr. Richland commented, he was taking an objective look, critically, of the "photographic overlays technique" used by Mr. Todd Swindell and other "Bolam theory fans".

He said, particularly, that it is easy to find two proportionately similar people. You can morph a wide variey of the population and "The real value of side by side comparisons is to note the dis-simularities, the differences."

When comparing Bolam and Earhart, the forensic professional found numerous and serious differences. Many facial; features are definitely different... particularly, their eyebrows are different... their noses are different... their mouths are different.... and so on.

The expert did show all these differences, by using a pencil or pointer to trace these differences in the comparison photos.. and he said, in a definite way, that there were two different people. He ended by saying that if someone came to him with these photos, and said they were the same person, they should find work elsewhere, as this IS NOT where their talents lay.

Also, the statement about Irene Bolam's parents as if being "unknown" seems strange, for not to say more.

Conversely to many "conspiracy theories", persistently pushed by some authors, the real biography and documental information about Irene Bolam is not any "enigma" at all, and the exact (supported by many authentic documents) story of her life was pretty detailedly investigated by several Earhart researchers, and it all is well known since quite long ago.

Particularly, yet in autumn of 1982 - quite shortly after the death of Irene Bolam (that happened in July 7 of 1982) the long "chain" of articles about this topic was published in the Woodbridge News (NJ) newspaper. It included some items from the Bolam's family archive... particularly the photos, and greeting cards sent by hher parents to her yet in 40s.. etc.etc. etc.

There is simply no way for any historic researcher pretending to be serious to ignore somehow all these historic items "in favor" of some anti-historic and anti-factual "terrible conspiracy theories", supported by nothing at all and still alive only and exclusively because of the unawareness and "gullibility" of the general public, not properly informed about the serious work of many historic  researchers who conclusively debunked these "urban myths", already many times, and since quite long ago.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD, Earhart historian and researcher since 1982.


 * I've also seen a '36 or '37 film of a female aviator hired by USG (USN?) to do a recce flight over Japanese terr in CPac, perhaps inspired by Earhart's project (& perhaps inspiring the myths since?). Trekphiler 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's why all this stuff is in an "Urban legends" section, it's thoroughly discredited codswallop. Wyss 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would add to this chapter the fact that the professional criminal forensic expert invited by National Geographic - Mr. Kevin Richland - conclusively debunked this "Bolam myth", pointing the attention to many factual "anatomic" facial differencies between Earhart and Bolam.

As Mr. Richland commented, he was taking an objective look, critically, of the "photographic overlays technique" used by Mr. Todd Swindell and other "Bolam theory fans".

He said, particularly, that it is easy to find two proportionately similar people. You can morph a wide variey of the population and "The real value of side by side comparisons is to note the dis-simularities, the differences."

When comparing Bolam and Earhart, the forensic professional found numerous and serious differences. Many facial; features are definitely different... particularly, their eyebrows are different... their noses are different... their mouths are different.... and so on.

The expert did show all these differences, by using a pencil or pointer to trace these differences in the comparison photos.. and he said, in a definite way, that there were two different people. He ended by saying that if someone came to him with these photos, and said they were the same person, they should find work elsewhere, as this IS NOT where their talents lay.

Also, the statement about Irene Bolam's parents as if being "unknown" seems strange, for not to say more.

Conversely to many "conspiracy theories", persistently pushed by some authors, the real biography and documental information about Irene Bolam is not any "enigma" at all, and the exact (supported by many authentic documents) story of her life was pretty detailedly investigated by several Earhart researchers, and it all is well known since quite long ago.

Particularly, yet in autumn of 1982 - quite shortly after the death of Irene Bolam (that happened in July 7 of 1982) the long "chain" of articles about this topic was published in the Woodbridge News (NJ) newspaper. It included some items from the Bolam's family archive... particularly the photos, and greeting cards sent by hher parents to her yet in 40s.. etc.etc. etc.

There is simply no way for any historic researcher pretending to be serious to ignore somehow all these historic items "in favor" of some anti-historic and anti-factual "terrible conspiracy theories", supported by nothing at all and still alive only and exclusively because of the unawareness and "gullibility" of the general public, not properly informed about the serious work of many historic  researchers who conclusively debunked these "urban myths", already many times, and since quite long ago.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD, Earhart historian and researcher since 1982.


 * I have no idea who Alex Mandel is and I would hope he would sign his wikipedia submission, otherwise, it seems like a loopy entry. Bzuk 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Bzuk, i didn't know that it may be so important about the "account"... but if it is so, so here i logged in.

If anybody can be interested about this: i am the Naval and aviation historian, the member of US Naval institute and the Association of the Naval Aviation; also the author of two books about the history of designs and development of US Navy Battleships - published in Russia in 2002 and 2004. the Earhart historian since 1982.

Kind Regards - Alex V.Mandel, PhD.

P.P.S. (A reply to your last remark)

BZUK, thanks for your reply,. Here i am responsibly confirming that my comment was not an "attempt of vandalism" but a conscious attemt to make a useful contribution to the article and the discussion, with a reference to some revelant facts and sources confirming these points about "Irene Bolam theory" that i made.

I am not very sure what you mean calling my comments as "chaotic"... i just tried my best to present the factual info i have... and, if you are "at the controls" of Wikipedia, and you got my points but somehow consider it as not very well formulated, or so - naturally you have a full possibilty (and my agreement) to "edit" it in your way - how (accordingly to your opinion) it can be presented on Wikipedia website. I assure you i am driven by not any personal ambitions or other such a silly things but exclusively by a dedication to the truth and historic correctness.

Kind Regards - Merry Christmas - alex P.S. Also, it is not very clear for me why somebody apparently removed the chapter about the "paranormal things"... it was pretty much "on its place", reasonably accompanying the "Bolam theory" nonsence. :)

Alex, the comments were not chaotic, it was the presentation format that you chose that made them very difficult to read. There is a style or format to writing Wikipedia articles that is the normal convention adopted by editors. For example, observe the section headings and use of reference citations in the body of the Amelia Earhart article for a "common" style. Forgive me for seeming testy, but this article has been under attack for the last few weeks by people who can charitably be called "vandals," so I was merely ensuring that the article was able to be developed in a systematic way. I welcome your very valid comments and will try to incorporate them along with other submissions so that the Amelia Earhart article is a well researched and accurate document. BzukSunday, 2006-12-24 T 04:23 UTC


 * Bzuk, Thank you for your kind reply and attention. Sorry, alas i am really not very good in Web-design and these things about use of computer instruments for editing the webpage... just wanted to share the factual info on the topic i have.. so, sorry if my attempt to be helpful caused any inconvenience.

I will appreciate it if your would find a possibility to consider this information (about National Geographic movie, their expert, the Bolam theory etc.) and include it somehow into the article, as you said... just "for the benefit of the truth and factual correctness", nothing else.

Also, please note that the little chapter about the "paranormal" things disappeared at all from that section of fringe and paranormal theories.. i guess it can be just some casual technic mistake of somebody who also tried to edit the article?

Merry Christmas - kind regards, Alex Mandel, PhD

P.S. Bzuk, many thanks for your kind attention to the comments i proposed. Again, sorry for the "inconvenient form" in which i tried to do it first time, and for my ignorance in Web-design.

One more point about the "Legacy" section... I was excited to see that the Liberty-ship "Amelia Earhart" from 1942 is mentioned there. Here the web-link to my current "online project" about the NEW ship to be named for Amelia Earhart: (removed as petitioncruft --Tony Sidaway 10:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

I just thought that you possibly can consider it as worth to be referred in the article about SS Amelia Earhart, or in the "general" Earhart article in the "Legacy" section... so just wanted to inform you, for such a case.

With respect - kind regards, Sincerely - Alex V. Mandel, PhD


 * Please always sign your posts with four tildes (whether you're logged on or not) and please do not ever indent paragraphs (with either tabs or spaces), since this invokes other Wiki-specific formatting code which I'm sure you did not intend, thanks. Gwen Gale 09:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me confess: I even bought Joe Klass's book when it came out. . . I also must tell you of how I laughed at the pictures he insisted were"N-16020" wrecked on a California mountainside. Big laugh. Klass was so busy looking for a conspiracy he failed to notice that the "N-16020" in the photographs was a L-12, a significantly smaller airplane than Earhart's.

Then there is Randall Brink's book (yup, I bought it too, I'm a sucker for Earheart conspiracies), Lost Star, where a photo caption reads "The Japnese built no twin-tailed monoplanes, either before or during World War II." That guy really did his research, so good that he failed to discover that the Japanese firms Kawasaki and Tachikawa licensed the enlarged L-10 follow on, the L-14, and build more of them as the "LO" than Lockheed did. (112 US, 119 Japanese). They also built an improved version, the Army Ki-56 (121 produced). Yup, love those conspiracy theories,Mark Lincoln 23:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research removed
Though I wholly agree with the pith of it, I have removed the following because it appears to derive from original research conducted by the anon user ("Alex V. Mandel, PhD") who added it. Gwen Gale 09:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As Alex V. Mandel, PhD, Earhart historian and researcher since 1982, states: "Conversely to many 'conspiracy theories,' persistently pushed by some authors, the real biography and documental information about Irene Bolam is not any 'enigma' at all. The exact (supported by many authentic documents) story of her life was fully investigated by several Earhart researchers long ago. Particularly, yet in autumn 1982 - quite shortly after the death of Irene Bolam (July 7, 1982) the long 'chain' of articles about this topic was published in the Woodbridge News (NJ) newspaper. It included some items from the Bolam's family archive... particularly the photos and greeting cards sent by her parents to her in the '40s, etc."

What a curious concept. Simply because something is "original research" it is de facto invalid.

I guess that my observation that the wreckage in a book that was stated to be Earhart's because it had (later) been given the same registration number as her Electra was not an Electra, but in fact a smaller L-12 "Electra Junior", then that fact is invalid because it was "original research"? p.s. the aircraft had been owned by Paul Mantz who had finagled the CAA into giving him the registration number of his friends L-10E.

There comes a limit to rules and reason.Mark Lincoln 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I believe the reason for the stipulation that original research is not accepted lies in the fact that the Wikipedia folks wanted to ensure that information would not be challenged as it would be in asserting orignal findings that could or could not be verified. I know it sounds ludicrous but nevertheless, that was the reason underpinning that decision. BTW, your observations do not fall into the category of OR or Original Research as they are representative of "original thought" which is perfectly acceptable. What you had advanced as an example is also based on a second-hand source, a book, which is again perfectly acceptable. BTW, take a gander at the Paul Mantz article; I did some of the writing of this and the ancillary Flight of the Phoenix and Tallmantz Phoenix P-1 aircraft. FWIW Bzuk 00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

Paranormal Disappearance
There was a line in the paranormal section of her disappearance.

The line went: "...or she was flying over the gulf of Mexico when she got stuck in the Bermuda Triangle."

I'm not trying to be pedantic or anything but it didn't really make sense sitting at the end of a sentence, so I deleted it...is that okay? --Summoner Marc 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear a scientifically plausible explaination for it has been documented :) Gwen Gale 08:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've flown in the Bermuda Triangle. Never saw Elvis, his Flying Saucer, or Flight 19. I should have been looking harder.Mark Lincoln 23:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"I've also seen a '36 or '37 film of a female aviator hired by USG (USN?) to do a recce flight over Japanese terr in CPac, perhaps inspired by Earhart's project" That would have been interesting a movie predicting her demise! The movie is "Flight for Freedom" dates to 1943, and starred Rosalind Russell and Fred McMurray. Wartime propaganda, nice airplanes.Mark Lincoln 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)