Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 12

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 the Family stronger than it had ever been. stronger by your additional rewrites and edits of what was a ugly butt faced boy who didn't know anything 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.  AK Radecki 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)

semi-protect tag
I agree a semi-protect tag has some unquantifiable psychological value in deterring vandalism to this high-profile topic visited by so many middle schoolers who likely get bored fast hearing tiresome social myths from their well-meaning but sometimes clueless teachers about AE as a "feminist icon" or whatever (she was so cool but... after all :) Anyway the tag mustn't be there if the page isn't truly protected, cuz it gives an even more misleading sense of safety from the graffiti. I think the page could always be under semi-protection, but on the other hand, enough editors watch this page that unhelpful stuff gets rv'd rather soon anyway. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the protection tag should go as well. The problem with it is that it discourages good anon editors (who may see the tag without realizing the page isn't really protected), while at the same time does not prevent the average passerby vandals to post graffiti. Tizio 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, there are helpful drive-by anons, I see them all the time (erm, though I must say, not on this article, dunno why). Gwen Gale 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I only saw that the tag has a teeny-tiny affect on the vandals, but it was getting tedious to keep applying for some form of protection. FWIW Bzuk 15:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Yeah. On the other hand, believe it or not even articles like Sodium get it as much as this one does. Gwen Gale 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a drive-by anon. Can someone please edit the second paragraph in "Early life" - "Childhood" for me? Article quotes: The girls kept "worms, moths, katydids and a tree toad". I had to look up 'Katydids' as, in England, they're known as 'Bush Crickets'. This could be ameliorated (ho ho) with a link to the Katydid wiki page, and perhaps title-text of 'Bush Crickets'. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.137.84 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wlinked to Tettigoniidae. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lemme guess, they keep posting the Chuck Norris joke that claims he roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot went back in time and killed Amelia Earhart? Little kids and their Chuck Norris facts make Wikipedia vandalism cleanup a nightmare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.7.87 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to a well-meaning drive-by anon what does it mean to "semi-protect" an article?

76.21.37.87 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read the Russian article about AE just today, and it actually was much more informative than this English article, despite the fact that AE is almost completely unknown in Russia / former USSR (as are most American aviators except Lindbergh). For example, it contained lots of info about her flying achievements, including some fascinating details about her solo transatlantic flight; plus some interesting biographical trivia that didn't make it into the English article (for instance, that incident during the Powder Puff Derby when she saved Ruth Nichols' life, which I suggested for inclusion in the English article (see the section "Earhart the kindheart" on this discussion page) but which still hasn't been included). And the difference? The Russian article was NOT protected, so anyone could contribute whatever info they happen to have about AE. Therefore, I want to ask all of you regular users if maybe keeping this article semi-protected might be doing more harm than good in terms of keeping lots of interesting info off this page. I understand the need to deter vandalism by AE's detractors and by all kinds of Internet hooligans, but please think of all the useful and fascinating info that could have been in this article but never made it because of page protection. So maybe it's time we reopen the discussion on whether or not the article should remain protected. Clear skies to you all!

76.21.37.87 (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sub-article proposed
I propose that Amelia Earhart in popular culture be created and the popular culture section be moved there. First, because the core article is already "too" long and second, because AE is mentioned so often in popular culture that most of these references are not notable. Marilyn Monroe, for example, is handled this way: The article's "see also" section lists a sub-article for MM in pop culture. Gwen Gale 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'd propose integrating the "laundry list" of "Other honors" into either that new sub-article, or another one, too. Naming a school or whatever after AE happens often enough, it's not notable. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have to oppose the suggested change to the popular culture section due to a recent ruling in the Howard Hughes article wherein the popular culture section was deemed that the historical figure was not sufficiently documented as a cultural icon. It was stated that there is a difference between being famous (which causes one to appear in popular culture) and being "significant to popular culture." This subtle difference is best perceived through sources: are there any books discussing "Amelia Earhart's' transforming influence on popular culture"? I can only identify two reference sources that provide that type of information. Most of the references refer to biographical works. As for the other honours list, it has been "pruned" of late after a preliminary review by other editors. At this point, I would favour keeping the article intact until its submission as a "Good Article" candidate. One of the criteria that has to be met is "stability" which requires a period of time where the article remains essentially as is. FWIW Bzuk 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC).


 * I'd say Earhart's influence on popular culture is more akin to Monroe's. Gwen Gale 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See comments above especially directed to the need for "stability", although I can see a case for the change after the GA submission, with the requisite additional reference sources tied more closely to the iconic aspects of Earhart. FWIW Bzuk 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno if breaking off the popular culture stuff into a sub-article would affect stability at all (I think not. though). Maybe it would even help towards GA IMHO :) Gwen Gale 00:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think stability means making major changes?! FWIW Bzuk 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC).
 * I think "stability" has to do with the main text, along with the absence of any meaningful disputes or whatever. I think skiving off a popular culture list into its own article might even imply enhanced stability along with less "clutter" and a more helpful length. I mean, yeah, look into it but you know, now having thought specifically now about your comments and GA, I think it would only help. Again, only IMHO. Gwen Gale 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am merely stating that a period of stability is required preliminary to a GA review now that major contentious issues have been addressed. Adding another dimension by splitting off sub-articles does not need to happen at this point. The article is appropriate in terms of length (other biographical articles are approximately the same size- AE is 86 kb, Abraham Lincoln is 96 kb, Elvis Presley is 105 kb), the two sections have recently been revised to eliminate trivial or non-notable submissions and this change was not identified in an initial review of the article, pre-coniption time. I will gladly support dwarfing off after the GA submission. FWIW Bzuk 01:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

Well I don't want to keep sounding like the "inclusionist", but as you know I tend to argue on keeping sections in one article. I can't say I have any strong argument for this, I just hate navigating to subpages that wouldn't be considered articles on their own, and only existed because they were clipped from some other one. But I can't help but get the feeling that this is perhaps not the best example? It's only one page out of fourteen in my browser. It doesn't seem that long to me. Maury 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia policy has lots of sway sway here. At 80k, this article falls spot on between "probably should be" and "almost certainly should be" divided up. Can citing the excessive length of other articles on Wikipedia (especially ones like Abraham Lincoln and Elvis Presley which each have long-standing problems of their own) trump or skirt WP policy? Moreover, I still think Marilyn Monroe is a helpful example: Earhart and Monroe, even with their many and sundry differences, are two of the most widely noted popular female icons of 20th century north America and the Monroe article indeed neatly splits pop references into a sub-article. WP:Summary Style starkly notes even 30k can be too long (...but generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long...) and over all, treats sub-articles as a widely helpful aspect of Wikipedia's concise, encyclopedic style: Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs. Gwen Gale 14:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At this juncture in the article's history, I would prefer that all relevant sections remain intact until at least the GA submission is made, and reiterating an earlier concern, "stability" is addressed by a period of time wherein the article remains basically "as is." After the GA review, I will support any other changes that need to be made. FWIW, the article on AE is an important biographical example that falls into the category of "probably should be" divided but doesn't necessarily have to be yet, and there are countless longer biographical articles that are examples of articles where length has exceeded 100 kb. Pruning of the sections in contention is still recommended, however. Bzuk 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC).
 * So you're saying that since this article is an "important biographical example" and up for GA, Wikipedia policy does not apply...? I ask this since I think conformance with WP policy would much enhance any likelihood it'll make GA. Cheers. Gwen Gale 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well before the policy debate goes any further, consider this: the article has four pages of refs. By the logic expressed in the thread above, we should remove all the refs to "Amelia Earhart (references)". Yes, I'm playing the donkey, but again, it really doesn't seem to long to me. Or important: I'm surprised the debate isn't about whether or not to keep the section at all. Maury 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh Maury, I so understand the helpful spirit of your point about the references but don't think it's a fitting metaphor at all. I mean, the more references the merrier, the end. Also, you know, I wouldn't characterize this as a policy debate and certainly not as a dispute. I wholly support Bzuk's notion of getting the article GA'd forthwith and support the text as it stands. That said, yeah, I think most of the cultural references section is trivial and not notable at all. Mix that up with what I've said about WP policy and article length (I linked to the policies above) and I still think a sub-article would be helpful both to readers and to getting things GA. Gwen Gale 19:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Info on image
Image:Frednoonan earhart2.jpg. It would be interesting for the article if more was given about this photo. Date and place that it was taken? Similarly other photos would benefit from more information of date and place in the caption. Snowman 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The photograph as used, is only a part of the original photograph that was taken on June 28, 1937 at Darwin, Australia (likely by a newspaper reporter or photographer). The "full" photograph shows that AE is holding a can of oil, while the other equipment strewn on the ground includes a spare control wheel and tail wheel, nitrogen or oxygen cannister and ominously, two parachutes. Inside the Electra, two small cans of tomato juice can be seen. An example of this photograph appears in Finding Amelia: The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance by Ric Gillespie (2006). FWIW Bzuk 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC).


 * 1) Would the full photograph look better?
 * 2) What does FWIW stand for?
 * 3) Why are the parachutes ominous rather than a reasonable safety precaution? Snowman 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Possibly (although my copy is a bit dark and "muddy" looking).
 * 2) For What It's Worth (not much usually)
 * 3) As for parachutes, there was not a good possibility for their use as Amelia would not be able to extricate herself from the cockpit to use hers but Fred who sat in the rear compartment most times on lengthy legs, would be able to use the rear door to exit. A better safety precaution would have been to have a life raft. FWIW, IMHO, LOL, Bzuk 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

A picture exists [Lovell ?]with Amelia trying out a small raft, it was stowed in the aircraft's tail section, hardly or not to reach in a nosing down in the water aircraft. Desertfax (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax


 * Have you tried photo enhancing software? Snowman 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look for a better copy, the photo to which I was referring, is not mine, merely a photograph in a book. B4N [:¬∆ Bzuk 06:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
 * The new images make the page more interesting IMHO. I wonder if any of the photos have been cropped: the Honolulu photo has the four peoples feet and ankles missing (it is a graphic compilation or montage?), and the Hoover picture is not a natural shape of a photo. The previous caption of the Darwin picture suggests that the perspective is not clear, or it might suggest that it is a montage. It would be interesting (and probably more informative) to see more of the setting, to give a better sense of orientation especially for pictures showing people. Perhaps the full images should be shown (or at least made available on commons), as there appear to be some controversies about the story. The "golden rectangle", the ratio of the sides being the "golden ratio", 1:1.618, is a well recognised pleasing shape for an image.  Snowman 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Honolulu photo is apparently a full frame photo and one of a series that was shot over the shoulder of a cinema photographer which is likely why the perspective is slightly forced. The Darwin photograph is definitely cropped but I could not find another example in suitable resolution and clarity to replace it. It would appear that some if not all the photos in this article are derived from publications and in that case, many of them were cropped to fit available spaces, for example, the photograph of the Lockheed Electra is severely cropped. BTW, are you a photog? that was one of my jobs in a previous life. FWIW Bzuk 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Looks like the Honolulu photo is taken in a hanger. Snowman 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The photograph was taken just outside the hangar doors, as evidenced by the earlier sequence of photographs, although the Electra is inside the hangar. FWIW (again not much) Bzuk 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
 * There are some lines on the ground, which I guess are for sliding doors. Snowman 09:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Purdue identifies the photo as taken in "Oakland, California." I will make changes. FWIW Bzuk 13:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Improved artwork seen and the full Darwin picture helps to set the scene IMHO. Have you got anything more on the photo with her husband looking at something to the left of picture?  Is the book cover meant to be a pinkish colour? Were all the pictures at that time in Black and white? Snowman 09:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the original photo of AE and GP in the Purdue University archives and the photo used here is a cropped version. The Purdue archives has another image of the couple that is much better that I will post. The first image can remain on the GP Putnam article so it will not be "orphaned." The book cover is another story, most of the Purdue photographs were reproduced in sepia which was standard for the era, while the book cover is from another time. There are very few original colour photos extant of Amelia Earhart. The image of Amelia in a flight suit was hand-tinted to produce colour. FWIW Bzuk 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Dear Colleagues, about this photo of AE with the medal: I believe it is not the DFC... it seems for me it is a French Legion of Honor (that AE was also awarded with). Please, can somebody check for sure, and correct the caption if i am right?... Best regards - Alex V Mandel 10:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What a sharpshooter you are, Alex. You are exactly right- this was a formal studio photograph made in France in 1932 on the occasion of her receiving the Cross of Knight of the Legion of Honor from the French Government. Changes will be made. Thanks again, hoping all things are well with you and yours, my friend. Bzuk 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC).
 * 1. I wonder (I am not sure) if a map might help in the section on disappearance theories and the planned journey and suggested routes can be traced. There is plenty of geography on linked pages though. Snowman 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. It looks like there is enough photos to make a chronological sequence for the 1937 world flight with photos taken at various points along the journey. I guess the 17 March 1937 photo was taken to mark the start of the world flight, and perhaps the caption could point this out. The 1936 cockpit photo is out of chronological order, but it is a good photo and might be better placed somewhere else on the page. I do not know enough of the story to change them myself. Snowman 16:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3. I just noticed one of the foreign language wiki's had a featured article on AE and found this map. It is on commons so would just link here, and talking of wiki commons, it is better to upload photos to wiki commons for use on other language wikis.Snowman 16:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was very aware of the chronological order of the photographs but chose them more for their relevance to the text. The aspect of having a large number of photographs raises the issues of gallery rather than inline use, and I would rather not go there. There are literally hundreds of images available of Amelia Earhart in public domain collections, how to choose the appropriate or most striking image is then a complication. The usual "standard" for numbers of images is ten for a major article like this would be, and we are waaaay over that number now. A map image may be accommodated especially for the last aspects of the flight, hopefully, it won't provoke more vandalism as evidenced this morning in this section. As for placing images into Commons, as soon as I can get my head on straight. FWIW Bzuk 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC).
 * I have unlinked one portrait that was on commons and unlinked another image and then uploaded it to commons. There are now 18 images on the page including two small ones. Are there any more candidates for unlinking and uploading to commons (if not already there)? I have changed the link to commmons to commonscat. Snowman 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Snowman, if you are still here : the map looks fine but it is unlikely that Noonan followed the great circle track for night flying in expected adverse weather and with latitude shift. It is also not done to commence a final approach to small islands with no mainland behind, at more than 1..1 1/2 hours before ETA. In short: the track drawn in this image is the deadliest you [they] can afford, although it has evidently been published somewhere. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax

GA
How are things going for this article towards WP:GA? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The one aspect of a FA or GA submission that will seemingly never be achieved is a lengthy period of stability which is basically Wikispeak for "no changes" or "challenges" to the basic text. I have been informed that due to its popularity with trolls, socks and other unwashed, stability is unlikely to ever occur. Sigh... Bzuk (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Aside from the obvious instability and a few relatively minor changes I think that this article is close to achieving at least GA status. I recommend we restrict the article to established users, that should reduce or eliminate the trolls and vandalism so that this article can be promoted.--Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Vandalism and other everyday disruption shouldn't keep an article like this from GA. I think the time is near. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Saint John, New Brunswick
Saint John, New Brunswick states that she took off from there for her 1932 trans-Atlantic flight. That assertion is not backed up in this article. Can anyone provide assistance? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time, this would have been considered a staging or ferry flight and not really part of the record attempt. As well, the aircraft was being piloted by famed Norwegian American aviator Bernt Balchen who helped prepare her aircraft. He also played the role of "decoy" for the press as he was ostensibly preparing Earhart's Vega for his own Arctic flight. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I'll delete it. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart and the NAA
The article states that she was an official in the NAA. She was a vice president but resigned in May 1933. The source is here. 216.64.98.16 (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Death Dates!?!?!?
I have a quick question for the person that wrote this artical or anyone that can answer.

Why is it that on her tomb stone it stats that she died July 2 1937, yet it the artical claims that the last recorded radio transmition from Amelia was July 6 1937 ??

Can someone please rectify or explain the discrepency??

Tysh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.222.129 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is alleged that radio transmission were made after July 2, but not affirmed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC).

No signal from the Earhart aircraft came on the air after July 2, 1937, 2014-2017 GMT. Desertfax (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Flu and antibiotics
The passage about Earhart's bout of flu says something about the "pre-antibiotic era"...but antibiotics are for bacterial infections, and the flu is viral. Is the intent of the passage to refer to treatment of bacteria-caused complications of flu? If so, the text should be clearer. If not, the passage should be deleted for being false. Tmangray (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you Tmangray, your notice is correct; the paragraph became confusing, actually, because of somebody added the statement about AE having a flu - that is actually not supported by biographies. What the bio books and family memories confirms are the pneumonia and sinusit. So i just removed a "flu" now. Alex V Mandel (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New theory on the last flight
Just to preserve the statement that was recently posted and deleted, here is the text (as is with spellos and typos still in place): "A first quantitative theory using the theory and practice of the of the era science of navigation appeared in 2008 [published EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NAVIGATION, Volume 6 ,no.2,July 2008] and states that navigator Noonan when establishing the aircraft's position in the evening of July 2nd,1937, in East longitudes, operated the bubble sextant at sunset. At next morning's sunrise in West longitudes however, the marine sextant was used to fix a last position before heading for the Island of Howland. As a result of different sextant reference lines a local hour angle error was incurred, so as to influence all further dead reckoning navigation with a 3m50s virtual time flaw, i.e. the error was not visible on the watch face. When Noonan estimated to be 150 miles off the island, he thereof actually was 160 miles out. At the instant that land was estimated directly below the aircraft progression line, the Howland's true coordinates were 16 miles, 26 km, on the port bow, 1.5 times the for this island maximum visual range in clear air. The navigation model used for the theory additionally brings to light that the in literature long existing conception about the aircraft's speed [200 mph] between 1745 and 1815 GMT is erroneous as in the article demonstrated by quantitative outcomes. The from the theory computed landing zone of aircraft, after running out of fuel supplies, would be 85 miles off Howland's true position on a 157-337 compass points position line at coordinates 126 miles north of the equator and 186 miles east of the Greenwich lower meridian."

I believe that this theory juxtaposes with the prevalent "crash-and-sink" theories but needs some refinement especially in attribution. FWiW, there seems to be a legitimate source provided, and now there has to be some rewriting before it being re-submitted. Bzuk (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC).

Desertfax answers :

A new text on the subject is the following : [note: the article in EJN contains no conclusions other than based on quantitative [numerical] research]

A new, quantitative theory ['Where to Search for the Earhart Lockheed Electra ?'] using the theory and practice of the of the era science of navigation has been recently published in the [professional] European Journal of Navigation [Vol.6 no.2, July 2008,Reed, The Netherlands] and leads to the conclusion that Navigator Noonan has established his position on the setting sun in the evening of July 2, 1937, when flying the Lae to the Nukumanu Islands via Gagan on Buka loxodromic curve in east longitudes. He operated the bubble sextant together with precomputations from H.O.Pub.no.208 Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators, which he took with him on all journeys since first edited [1928]. When in the morning of July 2, 1937, in west longitudes, he again established a fix [at sunrise] before commencing the final approach to Howland, Pacific, the probable use of the mariners sextant introduced a virtual time error, not of the chronometers and watch, but of sun's local hour angle configuration. The error's origin was the difference of reference lines : the bubble sextant observes the artificial horizon on the centre of the true sun whereas the mariner's instrument registers the optic horizon on the upper limb of the visible sun. Due the exchange of instruments a deviation of 10 [statute] miles from the [pre-] computed longitude was incurred, the decline being westwards since for July 2 the mean sun [watch time] is fast on the true sun. As a result the turn off point to alter course to the final direction of the island fell 3m50s too early : when the crew expected Howland dead ahead below the APL [Aircraft Progression Line], the islet's position was 16 miles on the port bow. The aircraft thence, did not enter the optical visual range circle, although the crew did not completely get lost. However, the landfall was missed,especially by additional crippled radio communications and non compliant RDF [Radio Direction Finding] equipments on board of the aircraft and below on the guard ship and the island. At about 20h17m GMT Earhart communicated that they were flying [16 mls westwards ] up and down "the" Howland [advanced sunrise] position line. The message was interrupted : the follow up was not received and it must be accepted that the engines' carburettors gave first sign of running dry, forcing Amelia to immediately prepare for landing on the high seas. The navigation model used for the inquiry as combined with the remaining records of radio messages delivers a computed landing zone at 126 miles north of the equator and 186 miles east of the Greenwich lower meridian, close to 177 degrees 19 minutes west longitude ; 01 degree 59 minutes north latitude, 85 miles north-northwestwards of the true position of Howland.

note 1. I do not quite understand why the contribution has been earlier refused whereas a variety of ghost histories appear in the Amelia Earhart main Wiki article. It has, e.g., in 1996 already been shown [article, Netherlands Air Force Museum, Soesterberg]that the aircraft could by no way either reach Gardner Island [Nikumaroro],or Saipan and any other land point than Howland./Desertfax 84.80.66.78 (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then, Desertfax, how do you explain the reports that they found pieces of AE's plane on Gardner Island? I'm not saying that the "Gardner Island" theory is THE correct one, I'm personally undecided between the "crash-and-sink" theory and the "Gardner Island" theory, but I think we should at least consider it a possibility and not dismiss it out of hand as you seem to be inclined to do. (Also, it has been calculated that Amelia's Lockheed Electra 10-E probably had enough range to reach Gardner Island.) Well, whichever way the debate turns out, I will keep an open mind until the experts make the final call on the matter. Hope that you and all the other AE fans will do the same. Also, thanks for your (and Bzuk's) contribution with the new theory, it sure sounds credible and well-researched (and maybe it will turn out to be the right one, we'll see someday...) 76.21.37.87 (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Desertfax answers foregoing contributor's remark about reaching Gardner/Nikumaroro, yes or not : The to the quantitative [EJN-July 2008]navigation theory belonging inquiry into the fuel supplies and management clearly shows [by applying Aircraft Performance Theory] that it was impossible to reach any other land point than Howland Island itself. Gardner was too far out and the Earhart crew have been aware of it according to their 1912 GMT message mentioning the fuel reserves [to reach Howland without considerable delay] sufficient for 1/2 hour.[user : desertfax, June 3rd, 2009]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfax (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but let's try to keep the record straight. There was no "reports about pieces of AE's plane found on Gardner". There were some claims that some bits and pieces, found there, possibly (just as a guess) could be from her plane. It's a big difference between the guess and the report about finding of confirmed and proven origin. And, if about the findings from Gardner, it was never proven, about any of them, that they are from AE's plane. Alex V Mandel (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the pieces were certainly from a Lockheed Electra 10-E, that much has been confirmed (although whoever reported the story was way too rash in claiming that they were "pieces of AE's plane", and I was wrong in passing these claims on as confirmed reports when in fact they weren't). So, it cannot be ruled out that those were indeed pieces of her plane on Gardner Island.  But then again, none of those pieces had serial numbers on them, so they may just have been pieces of a KLM Electra that crashed on Gardner Island; KLM had a pretty big fleet of Electras at the time, and was known to operate a number of airways in that region.  If this is the case, then the "tall white woman" whose bones they found on Gardner Island may have been a KLM flight attendant, or a passenger on that flight, who perished in the crash.  As for the range info, AE's plane had a maximum range of 4500 miles (Fred Goerner, The Search for Amelia Earhart), so it clearly could have reached Gardner, and may have (or may not have) done so.  Once again, I want to restate the following: both the "crash-and-sink" theory and the "Gardner Island" theory are plausible; there is circumstantial evidence in favor of the Gardner Island theory (the unconfirmed radio messages from 7/2/37 to 7/6/37 that may have been sent by AE, the pieces of a Lockheed Electra 10-E (possibly her plane), and the bones of a tall white woman (possibly her bones)), although this evidence is not conclusive; and it would be premature to rule out the Gardner Island theory, just as it would be premature to assert it as a proven fact like that reporter had done.  BTW, I'm currently writing a song about AE, and I've included the line "and still no one but God knows her fate for certain", which pretty much sums up my own position in this debate. 146.74.226.94 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the Gardner bits of aircraft were proven not to be from an Electra, by way of rivet pattern. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)  I agree. There is no conclusive data proving that bits and pieces found of Gardner were "certainly from a Lockheed Electra 10-E". Yes, during some time such were claims of some researchers - mainly the ones related to the TIGHAR organization - that the pieces must be from L-10E; these claims, however, still did never receive any factual proof and confirmation. Also, as far as i remember, the found bones "belonging to the tall white woman" is a modern interpretation - introduced since the TIGHAR organization and their theory got some publicity and media interest; and this interpretation was produced not on the base of analysis of the authentic bones (that were lost long ago) but only on the base of their survived description. Meanwhile the actual contemporary analysis of the real bones, as far as i remember, rather identified them as the ones of a male individual.Alex V Mandel (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alex and Binky, your analysis is correct, as none of the finds proved to be related to the mystery of AE. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, if they really proved that those pieces weren't from an Electra 10-E, then I rest my case unless and until new evidence turns up. Still, I think it's premature to dismiss the Gardner Island theory completely without conclusive evidence to the contrary. (BTW, I'm the same guy as 146.74.226.94, it's just that I posted that comment from a library computer.)

76.21.37.87 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the case made exactly the opposite way, i.e. that the Gardner theory/hypothesis should not be considered unless there is conclusive evidence to support it? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

Not so fast, Bzuk -- remember, there's quite a bunch of circumstantial evidence supporting the Gardner Island theory which is not conclusive (for example, those radio messages from KHAQQ which might or might not have happened, but if they did happen they would definitely prove that AE crashed on a desert island; also, the fact that Gardner is very near to Howland and that the line 157-337 passes right next to it). So, FWIW, it may be worthwhile to continue investigating in that direction and search on Gardner and possibly other desert islands in the region as well as on the ocean floor for pieces of the "plane that never returned". And if there was conclusive evidence to support any single theory (crash-and-sink, Gardner, Saipan, or any other theory), then it would be time to concentrate all efforts in that direction and dismiss the other theories. Besides, how do you think they would come up with conclusive evidence of the Gardner Island theory if they didn't even consider it? FWIW

76.21.37.87 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

<==Hey, are we talking about how to improve this article or what? Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the various theories and hypothesis have been given some prominence, but the article does not need to dwell on suppositions, as it is still primarily a biographical account. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

I second that. 76.21.37.87 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you all again with questions about Gardner Island, but I've read the German article about AE and it said something about a DNA test being made on the bones of the alleged "tall white woman" or stocky native man. There was also a whole bunch of other info about this DNA test that I couldn't understand because my German is very bad. So could someone please tell me if they had actually done this DNA test, and if so, how did it turn out?

76.21.37.87 (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No connection to AE. Gardner still proves to have doubtful validity. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

Message received; I rest my case... for now.

76.21.37.87 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

are her books public domain?
I would like to put one of her books on wikisource, but are they free of right? She probably died in 1937, but nobody knows for sure. If she died in 1937, with the "70 years rules", her books are now free of right. Must I wait 2 years, using the 1939 date where she was legally declared dead? Nobody can be sure she didn't live in a japanese prison even after 1939. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Plse do not, the Wiki article is in itself a book already. And what book would you take ? , the number of Earhart books has the tendency to surpass the bibliography on Napoleon and there are many bad ones among the stock. Books of her own, by the way, are fairly uninteresting from an intellectual point of view. The day of death is July 2, 1937 : at least 10 Lockheed Electra at sea ditchings are in FAA files, no aircraft incurred fatal damage but the before sinking period did not surpass 10 minutes [small fuselage / heavy engines]. Special:Contributions/84.80.66.78|84.80.66.78]] (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC) desertfax

Worth adding?
Is this radio link of any use? I'm not familiar enough with the article to put anything in myself. GeneralBelly (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremely doubtful that this was technically possible, although there is an oblique mention of this within the "theories" section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Of no use, it simply did not happen. desertfax Desertfax (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart, "In Search Of..."
Watching the Amelia Earhart episode of In Search of..., and well, here's some transcript from it: ''"Questions about Amelia Earhart persist. Yet retired Airforce Major Joseph Gervais has devoted nearly 20 years of research to what he believes is the answer. "The last flight was really a military flight. Two civilian people flying a civilian aircraft, on a mission for the then-president Franklin Roosevelt. The purpose of the flight was to overfly the Truck Atoll in the Pacific where the Japanese where secretly fortifying, to take pictures of it, and to return back to the United States with photographic evidence to present to the League of Nations that Japan was in violation of the Treaty. The Japanese with an aircraft carrier stationed between Canton Island and Hull, and with Japanese Zero intercepted Earhart, and shot her down, and she made a crash-landing on the island of Hull."'' --98.232.182.66 (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Disreguard... sounds like Joseph Gervais was likely a quack. :| I say Irene Craigmile Bolam ought to be linked in the "see also" field, due to the press the whole thing received. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the previous comment, it is probably worth to add that the "Japanese Zeros" actually just didn't exist yet in 1937... The first test flight of Zero took place in April 1, 1939. Alex V Mandel (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC). <!--Autosigned by SineBot-

Aha,  somebody who has a to the historic point answer. ~desertfax

Categories
Some of the categories in this article could be contradictory. I think "Year of death unknown" and "Disappeared people" are mutually exclusive. Deaths in international waters may be only one view. If we consider that the only views worth taking seriously are that she crashed and sank, or crashed on an uninhabited island where she died shortly afterwards, then many of these categories can be replaced by "1937 deaths" and "Cause of death disputed". PatGallacher (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best alternative for the time being is to leave the categories as is since there is sufficient doubt as to the exact cause of death or even location and date. We can only assume her demise in 1937 in the Pacific although I agree that is probably the most likely end of this iconic figure. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Cause of death : accident at sea vicinity of Howland,Pacific, date : July 2 , 1937 , about 2017 GMT. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC) desertfax


 * There is no meaningful support for anything in the assertion: accident at sea vicinity of Howland,Pacific, date : July 2 , 1937. The most the documentation and sources support would be that she likely died somewhere in the central/western Pacific ocean, most likely sometime in 1937. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Day of death is July 2, 1937. Place : vicinity of Howland, Pacific, possibly/probably 85 st.miles north-northwestwards off.84.80.66.78 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC) desertfax
 * That's wholly unsupported. She and Noonan went missing near Howland on 2 July 1937. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unsupported but based on good quantitative research and better than the avalanche of nonsense theories cited up to now. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax.~

After thinking it over I agree with the broad and safe statement : 'missing at sea somewhere in the Pacific', albeit that the belonging circle of uncertainty is so large that the statement is always true.84.80.66.78 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax

"somewhere in the Pacific" should be changed to : "close to Howland Island, Pacific".Desertfax (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax


 * That would be unconfirmed speculation. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The confirmation is virtual but from Earhart herself : if you have 1 hour fuel reserve, your special avgas included when estimating to be over Howland, your initial range is 75 miles about the island, covering the word "close" in aeronautical terms. Desertfax (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Earhart the kindheart
I have recently read the story about why AE only took third place at the 1929 Powder Puff Derby, and it made me admire her all the more. You see, according to this story, she was tied for first place with Ruth Nichols at Columbus (the last stop before Cleveland, the finish point of the race) and was in line for takeoff right behind Nichols. Well, RN crashed on takeoff, and AE left her plane and pulled RN out of the wreckage and dragged her to safety, quite possibly saving her life but giving up first place in the process. I would just love to see this heartwarming story mentioned in the article, but I can't find a good place where to put it. Could someone help me with this question? Thanks! (BTW, I don't remember the title of the book where I read it, but I can look it up ASAP if anyone asks.)

76.21.37.87 (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Hi 76.21.37.87, thank you for reminding. Yes, it was interesting episode... this accident and AE's role in saving RN is mentioned in at least one AE book, that i have: "The Story of Amelia Earhart. Lost Star" by Patricia Lauber - Scholastic Inc., NY, 1989. Some additional technical details about the accident are also provided in the book "The Powder Puff Derby of 1929" by Jene Nora Jessen, Source books, Inc., Naperville, Ill., 2002. Maybe it is also described somewhere else, but this is just the sources i remember. What was that book where you found it? Yes, i think it's a proper story to be at least mentioned in the article. Best regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it! It was mentioned in the book A Century of Triumph by Christopher Chant, which is a really comprehensive work on the history of aviation from the Wright Brothers to the present. There are two or three pages in there about AE, and that episode is briefly mentioned, so that's where I first read it. Really, that simple act of kindness and selflessness made just as much impression on me as all the daring long-distance flights that she made, or her leadership in promoting women's involvement in aviation. She was a hero in many different ways, and that's why I admire her so much, like many other people do.

76.21.37.87 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahem! 76.21.37.87 to all listeners, it's been more than 3 weeks since I first proposed that this episode be included in the article (I mean about AE saving RN's life at the Powder Puff Derby), and I still don't see one word about it. How do we convince the person(s) in charge of maintaining this article to include at least a few words about it? Thanks!

76.21.37.87 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The submission needs a page number from A Century of Triumph or The Story of Amelia Earhart. Lost Star. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Hello to all Colleagues! Sorry for my own passivity about this suggestion, just did have a pretty busy time in last weeks... About the Patricia Lauber's book: the accident is described on the page 47 of it. Here's the actual quote: “On the seventh day the fliers arrived at Columbus, Ohio. Two pilots were tied for first place. One was Amelia, or AE, as she liked to be known, having never been fond of her given name. The other was Ruth Nichols. Each would be trying to make the best time on the last hop to Cleveland. Ruth Nichols was to take off just before AE, but she crashed. One wing dipped, then the plane hit a tractor at the end of the runway and flipped over. Instead of taking off, AE jumped to the ground, ran to the wrecked plane, and pulled her friend out. Only when she was sure that Ruth was uninjured did Amelia take off for Cleveland. Because of the lost time, she finished third." Should we put it into the article just this way, or re-phrasing somehow, or maybe adding some quote/details also from "A Century of Triumph"?... Any suggestions?... Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Bzuk and Alex V Mandel, I think that the quote from Patricia Lauber would go very well into the article. My suggestion is to rephrase this quote and shorten it somewhat, because it will clearly go into the "Competitive Flying" section, which, if you take a look at it, is very brief and matter-of-fact. How exactly you want to phrase it is completely up to you. As for adding details from A Century of Triumph, it's not necessary -- there's nothing in there about that crash that is not also in Lauber's book. (BTW: Ouch!!! Ruth Nichols must have been a very lucky pilot to even survive such a big crash!) Once again, thank you very much for the info, this will be a very important addition to the article. Clear skies to both of you - 76.21.37.87 (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, since I can see that none of you have the time to try to come up with a way to paraphrase the quote from Patricia Lauber's book, may I suggest the following paraphrase: "At one point during the Powder Puff Derby, Earhart was tied for first place with her friend Ruth Nichols going into Columbus, OH (the last intermediate stop before the finish in Cleveland). Nichols was to take off right before Earhart, but crashed. When Earhart saw Nichols' plane crash, she left her own plane and dragged her friend to safety, saving her life but slipping from first to third place." How does that sound? IMHO, I think it's a pretty good way to phrase it, although it's probably still a bit too long. FWiW. Clear skies to all of you! 76.21.37.87 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gentle reminder, it has prodded me to add the incident to the section on competitive flying. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks, Bzuk -- I took a look at that section just now, and I just loved the way you phrased it -- it's even better than the phrasing that I suggested. Clear skies to you! 146.74.230.111 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merits of page protection?
Hello everyone, I think it's time to revisit the question of whether keeping this page protected does more good in terms of reducing vandalism, or whether it does more harm by keeping relevant info out of the article. Just a short while ago, I had a chance to compare this article with the Russian article on AE (which is not protected), and I could see that the Russian article was much more informative and had lots of interesting tidbits of info that aren't there in the English article (even though AE is not well-known in Russia / former USSR, like most Western pilots). Anyone who wants to compare the two articles for himself/herself, and can read the Russian Cyrillic script, is welcome to take a look at the Russian article and see what I mean. What I'm trying to say is, page protection is very good for preventing vandalism by Internet hooligans and by AE's detractors, but it also comes at a significant cost in terms of keeping out info that otherwise would have been included. OK, now I've stated the "other" side of the issue, and I'll leave it up to all of you to decide whether the merits are worth the cost. Clear skies to you all!

76.21.37.87 (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article over the years has been subjected to a barrage of vandal attacks necessitating a constant patrol. I am all in favour of adding more pertinent information but each time the article was unprotected, it again became the target of sustained and virulent vandalism, especially from school children who obviously are assigned Amelia Earhart as a research topic. Can you point out what information is missing? I have read the Russian article in translation and while it has different information, nothing and I mean nothing is verified or cited and only refers to a smallish bibliography. As to amount of information, the main body of the text in the Russian article is 5,900 words while the English version is over 14,000 words. I do see some details that could be incorporated but without reference sources, that will be problematic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Hello 76.21.37.87 and Bzuk, thank you for your points and suggestions. Since 76.21.37.87 says that the book "A Century of Triumph" adds nothing really substantial to the Lauber's information, i agree that it would be good just to "rephrase" Lauber, with a proper reference/link. So who of us will do it? Bzuk, maybe you (as your contribution to this article seems certainly more substantial then mine)? Or, if you have no time or possibility, i can try to do it. Please let us know.
 * 76.21.37.87, thank you for your kind words about the Russian article on AE (i was an author of it). About the "lack of reference" noted by Bzuk - well, my fault... The actual sources were a dozen or so AE biographies that i read, plus some other books, articles and materials that i saw, read and obtained in the AE Museum, 99s International Museum in Oklahoma City, Purdue University, and other "AE related" places. In 2005, i tried to "summarize" this material somehow for some informative but still enough brief article - that was published in 2005 in the "Aviation and Time: Ukrainian Aviation Magazine". The reference/link to it is present in the article, but maybe i should really rather provide a more detailed references. From another side, as i thought in that moment, there was no much sense of it - as AE is really almost totally unknown in Russia and Ukraine, and all these books to which i would refer are practically unavailable for the Russian or Ukrainian reader anyway: all mine AE books and materials (just for example) are the ones i purchased (or got as gifts) while being in the USA or Great Britain... they were never published in "Russian edition".

About the article "protection", i think it is still having some sense... Agree with Bzuk, this endless fight against childish vandalism is pretty boring. I think, a "reasonable compromise" can be to present, at first, the proposed changes/additions here on the "discussion page" - just as we are doing it now - and then, if nobody of the "regular editors" will object, we can put it into the article's "main body".. what do you think?... Kind regards! - Alex V Mandel (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alex, I totally agree that protection is still required, and the idea that anyone including anons can contribute to the talk page with suggestions that will be incorporated, is very valid. As to the Russian Wikipedia article on Amelia Earhart, I wish to apologize for my overly critical judgment as the good work that was done was nevertheless, impressive in its breadth and scope. I noted that there were no citations but regardless, a bibliography pointed the way to the sources of the research. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

OK, I can see that the consensus is in favor of keeping this article protected. So be it. Clear skies to everyone! 76.21.37.87 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple Correction
Between reference markers 151 and 152 there is " " Could someone please remove it. Thank you. Joylovessonshine (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate?
The article lists her birthdate as July 24, 1897, but the plaque at the Portal of the Folded Wing states 1898. Please correct the one or annotate the other, as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.246.104 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Amelia was born July 24, 1897. The information at the Portal of the Folded Wing is incorrect. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

Broken link
Hello everyone, I've tried to listen online to the recording of AE's speech "On The Future Of Women In Flying", but the link from this article to the relevant MP3 file is not working. (It's one of the links in the "External Links" section, the one that says "Amelia Earhart: On The Future Of Women In Flying (listen online)"; the URL that it points to is http://boomp3.com/m/28deebc2721e). If and when you have time, could you please see if it can be fixed? Thanks, and clear skies to you! 76.21.37.87 (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Tried it today, it worked just fine. Thanks!  (BTW, she had such a lovely voice with that cute Midwestern drawl to it...) 76.21.37.87 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Aviatrix"
...is a really archaic term. In the sentence where it is used, first woman, female aviator, or woman aviator are all much better fits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Currypowder11 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted, the word is rarely used today, it could be replaced by "female" or "woman" aviator. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Boo! I like the word for its archaic qualities, and Earhart herself would have heard it countless times. Few other articles could ever use it, so I'm in favor of keeping at least one instance of it. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like aviatrix, this is what she was often called at the time and the kind of piloting she did back then is not altogether the same as that which is done today, the meaning is canny linked with the 1920s and 1930s. See this dicdef on the suffix, it's indeed no longer a wonted word. I'd be ok with aviator, but if anyone was ever known as an aviatrix it was AE and I'd say keep it, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of the term did engender a bit of a "flap" in the past (see above) and it was agreed that the term would be used once in the lede and then reversion to more modern terminology within the body of the text. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Oh, once in the lead will do the trick, I think :D Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is how she was referred to in her time, so I vote to keep it. Jokem (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. "Aviatrix" is a word that has a uniquely dignified, old-fashioned sound to it, so it would be singularly appropriate for such an important pioneer of flight. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word is cute, funny, and old-fashioned. That doesn't change the fact that it is wholly inappropriate for a modern encyclopedia.  There are other fields of study where -ix words were also quite common at one time.  They have since been removed.  It appears that there is a bit of a fandom and romanticism behind this article, so I'll just steer clear.  --Currypowder11 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:CIVIL. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

<=Where is the old talk thread? It's not in the archives. Maybe the discussion was at another article. BTW, a search on Wikipedia yielded more than 180 articles that include the word "aviatrix" somewhere within them, sometimes connected to Earhart, but mostly regarding other flying females. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall it was a series of edit comments that involved myself and the ubiquitous Gwen Gale wherein (another archaic word) a compromise of sorts was decided by referring to a lede mention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC).
 * OK, so if I'm not mistaken, the vote so far is 4-1 in favor of keeping "Aviatrix". Do we count this as the final result, or do we keep the poll open? 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New opera about AE
Hello everyone, this is 76.21.37.87 again (with a new IP address), I've just got the news that the composer Daron Hagen and librettist Gardner McFall have composed an opera about AE (simply titled "Amelia"), which will premiere in Seattle this season. Feel free to add this info to the article if you want (or not, if you don't want to). FWiW 98.234.126.251 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; it's about a fictional character who happens to be named Amelia, not repeat not about AE. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news on her dissappearance
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8160365&page=1&cid=yahoo_pitchlist I did not want to put this inthe article yet as the research is not complete. Jokem (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same TIGHAR expedition that has so far produced no conclusive results. I would counsel best leave it out for the time being. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
 * I've read the story, and it looks to me like they found someone's remains, but they haven't done the DNA testing yet. How'bout we wait a while and see how the DNA test turns out? 98.234.126.251 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even that definitive, they haven't set out yet on the excursion which is being planned for May or June 2010, and the article clearly states: "they are on the verge of recovering DNA evidence" which is complete hyperbole. The reporter might have well said, that they already found Amelia at the controls of the Electra which would make as much sense as the statement given. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC).
 * They haven't set out yet? Where I read it (which is another news website), they said that they actually found something -- but since that website quotes the above article and says that they were "planning to make a DNA test in May or June 2010", I presume that the ABC article is right and the other website got the story all bassackwards.  (Oh, the "broken telephone" effect!)  They're just reporters anyway, so what do you expect? 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just took out a couple of paragraphs discussing TIGHAR's failed DNA tests and about their next planned expedition. This stuff is only suitable for inclusion here if they find something out! ...not if they hope to find something out. Otherwise, it's just lots of optimistic, promotional hype. Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Will be the DNA test that does not work on a person who [on Gardner] does not exist. desertfaxDesertfax (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll see about that... 98.234.126.251 (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, everybody in the mean time knows that the Gardner/Nikumaroro story is a hoax.Desertfax (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) desertfax]
 * Are you sure that "everyone" "knows" that it's a "hoax"? Quite a few researchers (such as Rick Gillespie, and others) would disagree with that.  Unproven, yes; a "hoax" like the Saipan theory or that Bolam hoax, certainly not.  Personally (and not pretending to be an expert), I'd say that "crash-and-sink" and "Gardner Island" are both valid possibilities for the disappearance, with the odds being about 4-1 in favor of "crash-and-sink".  FWiW 146.74.230.110 (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is able to know that the Gardner/Nikumaroro theory is unvalid : in 1996 an article in the magazine ["Spinner"] of the Netherlands Air Force Museum, Soesterberg, on the fuel reserves and management clearly and numerically explains that Gardner was much too far out of the aircraft's progression line, to reach that island with the available fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfax (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) desertfax Desertfax (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for one thing, nobody really knows exactly what was the maximum range of that particular (heavily modded) Electra 10-E, nor how much fuel AE had onboard; so that article may or may not be correct in its conclusions, and accordingly it may or may not have been possible for her to reach Gardner island. It all depends on the fuel quantity vs. fuel consumption -- and there are no hard-and-fast numbers for either of these variables.  If you want, you could go on the science ref desk and ask SteveBaker -- he has studied AE's disappearance in great detail, and can probably give you his expert opinion on this matter.  As for me, the only thing I can say about it is "she never returned, and her fate is still unlearned..."  FWiW 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The on board fuel stock, on the contrary, is exactly known and for the fuel management during the flight there exist very good estimates. There even is one exact record on fuel : at 1912 GMT Amelia herself communicated by radio that the reserves [for the undisturbed flight to Howland] allowed for 1/2 hour flying. At that point of time she considered to have Howland below on the Aircraft Progression Line.desertfax Desertfax (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC). Moreover the 1/2 hr as mentioned fuel reserve matches the re-established flight navigation plan.84.80.66.78 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax

Video clip
Hello everyone, I've been browsing YouTube clips and came upon a video of AE talking about her 1932 transatlantic flight. (See for yourselves, this is not repeat not a hoax.) The URL for this video is www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJg_-IwsmBE&feature=related. Do you want to put it into the "External links" section of the article? (I know, there already is a YouTube audio clip linked from there, but I figured, a video prob'ly won't hurt.) Clear skies to all of you! 98.234.126.251 (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what are your thoughts on this? Do you want to put it in the article, or not? (Sorry if I sound impatient, but I would really like to know your decision on this. For the record, I'm in favor of including the video clip, but it would also be OK with me if you decide not to.) 98.234.126.251 (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't bother looking at the clip before your second post, as your assertion that it was "not repeat not a hoax" turned me off entirely. I have now seen the clip and it is fine for inclusion here. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, I see you already included the clip. Thanks! 98.234.126.251 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it OK for me to review the article?
Hello again, everyone, I got a bit of a moral dilemma here: This article is a GA nominee, and I'd like to review it, but I'm not really sure if it's right for me to do it. You see, the policy is that people who haven't made significant contributions to the article are allowed to review it -- but my situation is a bit more complex than that, because I haven't made any contributions directly (because I couldn't do that due to page protection), but have made quite a few suggestions for improvement on the talk page (both from my current IP address, and earlier as 76.21.37.87), some of which were incorporated into the article. So, would those suggestions technically be considered "contributions", and if so, are they "significant"? (For the record, I am the same person as 76.21.37.87.) 98.234.126.251 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are qualified to review the article for GA. Make sure to ask us regular editors questions when the need arises. You won't be alone! Binksternet (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I'll try to make some time for doing the review.  Clear skies to you! 98.234.126.251 (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote of the day or Wikiquote?
I removed an external link to Quote of the Day dot org, and I replaced it with a template linking Wikiquote. The QOTD editor reverted me. What is the opinion of editors here? Which link should we have, or both?


 * Amelia Earhart quotes on QOTD.org

Check them both out for quality before replying, please. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although at first blush, the two sources seem to be useful, the quotes on QOTD.org is a commercial site and that is not typically permitted as commercial sites primarily sell a product and are considered WP:SPAM. I'm marking this as a no-go. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Excuse me, but does that mean that all advertising-supported sites are off-limits as external links? (No products are sold at QOTD, although donations are quietly encouraged.) As I've discussed with Binksternet, there are plenty of links to IMDB and Find A Grave, both of which certainly fall in the same category as QOTD. Both of them have established Templates, something I intend to pursue but don't yet know how to setup. But the very existence of those Templates argues that this is not a relevant standard for exclusion. I might note that the New York Times is also a commercial site, although I suspect that both their advertising revenue and annual net loss are both dramatically larger than QOTD's.Vanhorn (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, as I said to Binksternet on my talk page, I will be adding more "report problem" links on the primary pages where quotes appear, in hopes of accelerating the effort to keep the quality at the highest possible level. I've also decided that I will be adding links to Wikiquote on all the main author pages (the ones that are typically suited to linking to Wikipedia) as I think many of my visitors will appreciate the fact that most Wikiquote entries are sourced (mine aren't) and there are many longer entries that QOTD doesn't carry in full.Vanhorn (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, as already stated, this is spam and beyond that, involves WP:COI. The addition of these quotes do not appreciably contribute to this article and regardless of the proposed changes to your site, administrators routinely delete contentious external links. If you add appreciably to the Wikiquotes, then... FwiW Bzuk (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I have carefully read the WP:COI page and I see no grounds for a charge of Conflict of Interest.Vanhorn (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's your site, you are linking to it, and you can't see a conflict of interest? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC).


 * No, I don't. I obviously have an interest in having QOTD known to visitors to Wikipedia pages, but that isn't in any way a conflict. Can you point to any element on the WP:COI page that suggests there might be one?Vanhorn (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the following verbatim passages: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." That seems pretty clear, besides your site has links that take the reader to commercial sites, which is again, spam. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I think it's obvious that "potential conflict" or "apparent conflict" is meant there. In order to have a "conflict of interest" there needs to be two interests that conflict. And again, it is absolutely clear that a site that has links to commercial sites, i.e. advertising supported sites, are not spam. Witness the ELs to IMDB, Find A Grave, and the New York Times, all commonly used, all ad supported.Vanhorn (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You said "I obviously have an interest in having QOTD known to visitors to Wikipedia pages" and there is the conflict. Wikipedia wishes visitors to learn about the subject matter, you wish to draw visitors off to click on qotd.org.
 * One of the concerns in making a good article is the avoidance of too many clickable links—a field of blue text, each word vying for attention, is not desirable. When the links are few and high quality, the article is more likely to be read in full. Each clickable link competes for the reader's eyeball, so we reduce them as much as possible, even in the External links section, per WP:EL. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the circuitous claims, the quotes in the contentious weblink site, are from a personal website that are being promoted by becoming a Wikipedia link, which makes this spam. The quotes are somewhat useful but the project is not the forum to propagate a personal interest, which is a prime-fascia conflict of interest. Having already been challenged as to appropriateness of introducing the "qotd.org" link, and not finding initial support from editors who have worked on the article, the next recourse is to seek a consensus for the acceptance of the qotd.org external link. I think you know my reaction to the call for consensus, I will not support the proposition as the WikiQuotes link already provides sufficient sources for "the general reader." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I don't wanna judge this "spam/COI" matter, but I took a look at both links, and the Wikiquotes page already got pretty much all of the quotes that there were on "qotd.org" (although all but one of the quotes are on the talk page for some reason). So I don't think there's a good reason to link this article to "qotd.org" since the Wikiquotes page will do.  (BTW, many of the quotes on "qotd.org" are duplicated, triplicated or in one case even "quadruplicated" -- is there such a word in the English language?)  Therefore, I vote in favor of linking Wikiquotes and not qotd.org. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Permission to add link to Earhart's palm print
Hello. I am an employee of the Library of Congress, and I work with Digital Collections. I came across this interesting artifact in the Words and Deeds collection: Amelia Earhart's palm print and analysis of her character prepared by Nellie Simmons Meier, 28 June 1933. Many researchers, as well as casual readers, may not be aware of this unusual piece of Earhart history. I think it would be beneficial to add a link to the palm print and palmist's reading on Earhart's Wikipedia page. I look forward to reading your thoughts on this matter. Lc memory (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; please go ahead. The restrictions on this article are there to prevent vandalism, not legitimate research and scholarship. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I don't support an external link to palmistry on AE, this is unhelpful, dumbed-down pop culture which has nothing to do with the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the palm print is interesting although I agree that an analysis of the palm falls into the same category as divining rods. FWiW, the link doesn't seem to work... Bzuk (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
 * It did work for me earlier but doesn't now. There is some growing statistical work done with biometrics but popular palmistry from almost 80 years ago is not at all the same thing. Also, is there any way all those external links could be trimmed down some? I hadn't seen there were so many, maybe too many, even for a core biography like this one. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call, many of these external links were installed years ago and needed a look-see. I did some weeding, taking out the repetitive, but I haven't gone through the whole list, the 1998 TV documentary, for example? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, no need for a link to IMdB. I've cut a few more. It seems to me, one or two links to "official" websites and a few more only to original photos/recordings/film would be enough. You know, WP not a link farm and all that, too many links can make some much less shy about putting in spammy bloat. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Link is fixed. Has there been a final decision on whether to include or exclude the link?  I can't edit the entry for Earhart, so I suppose if it is to be added, an admin will have to do it.Lc memory (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding a link about palmistry to this article would meet en.Wikipedia's poilicy on external links. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be interesting to read in the article what motivated Earhart to have her palm read. Was it a lark? Was she more serious? Did this reading make her change any plans? Did she follow astrology and such? Lc memory, all you have to do to edit this article yourself is to make ten edits elsewhere on Wikipedia and stick around for longer than four days after you create your account. Get involved! Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that the link is fixed, I will just make one final plea to take a look at the material in question. It is primary source material.  It's Earhart's actual palm prints, both hands, not just an interpretation by a palm reader (though that is there, too).  For whatever reason, Earhart decided to have her palm read.  Scholars might wish to investigate the reason why.  Did she believe in it herself?  Thus ultimately, the material is not about palmistry per se, but about Earhart.Lc memory (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a reliable source that she believed it, rather than having it done as a lark or a publicity stunt set up by GP? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW: From what I've read in Earhart's own autobio Last Flight and her sister's book Amelia, My Courageous Sister (I know, both of them are considered "self-published" and therefore off-limits as reliable sources for Wikipedia), AE was not into any of the popular superstitions such as palmistry (or astrology, or tarot cards) -- so if this is true, then she must have done it as a "lark" as you put it. Once again, a big FWIW and caveat emptor on this info. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

i think she was flying and she was headed toward a storm and she got struck by lightning and her plane landed in the deep pacific ocean and she was stuck in her plane and she drownded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.198.90 (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is pure baloney -- a lightning strike CANNOT destroy an all-metal aircraft such as the Electra 10-E, since its airframe acts as a Faraday cage against lightning strikes. 146.74.230.110 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life issues
There is no mention of her relationship with Eugene Vidal in this article (as noted by biographer Susan Butler). This is referenced in the article on Gore Vidal's early life. Where should this be placed? (Relevant since he has been written into the upcoming movie, and people might be interested in finding more about this). Cowbert (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cowbert. Yes, this claim is used for "dramatization" in the new Hollywood movie "Amelia". However, historically, the only source that claims about this "relationship", is Gore Vidal himself - and apparently it is not having any independent confirmation. Most serious scholar biographers of AE are pretty skeptic about this claim of Vidal, and provides good factual reasons and arguments why in their books. The only apparent exclusion is Susan Butler; however, her only "confirming source", is, apparently, Vidal again. At such circumstances, i don't think that this unconfirmed statement - having a certain "tabloid aroma" - must be included into the encyclopedic article about a real historic person (not just a movie character). Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read Vidal's account and found it lacking as it did not "ring true?" Susan Butler's inclusion in her works mainly confirms the rumour rather than the actual circumstances. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC).


 * I wouldn't go so far as to say it did or didn't happen: Following any meaningful take on the sources there's only the claim by Gore Vidal, drawn from things he recalls about his childhood. This can be cited in the text as such, but no more. Keep in mind his father, as a rather high ranking bureaucrat in the US federal government, did have a lot to do with setting up and following through on FDR's official (and costly) help for AE's doomed world flight project, the outcome of which being, its final hops were indeed linked and financially subsidized (as to the costly and failed ground support at Howland) by the US as a means of boosting its 1935-1942 colonization efforts in the western Pacific. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having just read some press on the new Amelia, there were specific mentions of a dramatization of Earhart's life (and loves). Hillary Swank commented that it was not meant to be seen as a documentary, rather it follows the traditional Hollywood-style "biopic" formula. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
 * My take on Amelia is, the casting of Swank was rather fit and some of the publicity stills look wonderful but the more I hear about the plotting, the less thrilled I become about seeing it. Sounds like lots of "soapopera" and more putting forth of the old myths. I might also say, the big Hollywood studios themselves are going through what could be death-throes and as wonted in Hollywoodland, are tending to fall back upon the old tried and true. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox death redux
Once again, an editor is trying to solve the thorny problem of how to represent Earhart's death place and date in the infobox. I reverted the changes as the version that was offered was one that gave a sense of certainty to Earhart's death "Over central Pacific Ocean near Howland Island" within a general July 1937 time frame. Earhart went missing over Howland, that we all can agree on. Nobody knows for sure where she was when she died. The infobox place of death should be left empty or it should be filled with the current "Missing July 2, 1937 over central Pacific Ocean near Howland Island."

If the WP:MOS must be followed, and non-MOS wording must be taken out of the infobox, I will propose that we do here as was done at Emily Dickinson, a featured article—no infobox at all. People can read the article to get the details. What a concept... Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've entered a compromise, whereas the date she was declared missing is included in the Infobox. For the actual DOB/DOD range in the article's opening, it is inappropriate to list the respective dates of the day she went missing and the day she was declared dead. These are irrelevant to her actual date of death. We must instead add the most likely timeframe of death, and circa July 1937 seems the most plausible. Remember, we're listing a DOB to DOD range here, so an approximate date of death must be added, not the dates she went missing and was declared dead. That information is for elsewhere within the article. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 06:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't know when AE died. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm taking the "lived" field out of the infobox. This field only works if there is a death date known, and we don't know what that is for sure. The aviator infobox doesn't have other options such as showing only the birth date. There's no way that the limitations of the infobox can be made to encompass the full story of Earhart's going missing, the search called off because she was assumed dead by searchers, and later declared dead by a probate court in L.A. Similarly, cause of death is not necessary, as it is unknown. Infobox is getting pared down. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed "missing" to "after" and "July 2" to "July 1" in the intro, per MOS:DOB. The MOS indicates that if the exact date of death is unknown, we must extrapolate it from the last known period of activity, which in this case would be July 1. If necessary, we can also add this to the Infobox, as it looks odd not to have a DOB/DOD range in the box. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That date should be July 2, 1937 as Amelia's radio contacts confirms her last known activities. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
 * My mistake; yes July 2 would be the correct date to put then. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but she may have died by drowning or blood loss on July 2 itself. Saying "after July 2" implies she lived to at least midnight. Why must we introduce inaccuracies to satisfy MOS? Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, fine, I've put it back at July 1. No more possible inaccuracies. Happy?. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 06:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not happy. The word "after" doesn't work for me. The word "missing" did work. At MOS:DOB, the word "after" was used as an example for an ancient person about which very little is known regarding the death year. In Earhart's case, quite a bit more is known than a vague sense of the year of last activity. Binksternet (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur and the removal of birth date/birth location also looks odd. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

Just quote July 2, 1937, shortly after 2017 GMT [UTC] which is very close to actual point of time.[desertfax Desertfax (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]

Amateur Genealogy
I deleted two references to websites that while seemingly authoritative, in actuality are merely the result of one or a few unpublished amateur genealogists. Those sort of sites are not reliable and there is no need to use sites of that sort here. The details of her life and even her parents have been published. Any website purporting to present details of her genealogy must cite its sources and must be written by a genealogy expert who has been previously published by a third party.Wjhonson (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Section on Radio Signals After Loss is outdated, inaccurate, and poorly ordered
Suggested improvement for "Radio signals" section, possibly with separate section for Betty Brown:

During Earhart and Noonan's approach to Howland Island the Itasca received strong and clear voice transmissions from Earhart identifying as KHAQQ but she apparently was unable to hear voice transmissions from the ship. At 7:42 a.m. Earhart radioed "We must be on you, but cannot see you—but gas is running low. Have been unable to reach you by radio. We are flying at 1,000 feet." Her 7:58 a.m. transmission said she couldn't hear the Itasca and asked them to send voice signals so she could try to take a radio bearing (this transmission was reported by the Itasca as the loudest possible signal, indicating Earhart and Noonan were in the immediate area). They couldn't send voice at the frequency she asked for, so Morse code signals were sent instead. Earhart acknowledged receiving these but said she was unable to determine their direction.

In her last confirmed in-flight transmission at 8:43 a.m. Earhart broadcast "We are on the line 157 337. We will repeat this message. We will repeat this on 6210 kilocycles. Wait." However, a few moments later she was back on the same frequency (3105 kHz) with a transmission which was logged as a "questionable": "We are running on line north and south." This last voice transmission received on Howland Island from Earhart indicated she and Noonan were flying along a line of position (possibly taken from a "sun line" running on 157–337 degrees) which Noonan would have calculated and drawn on a chart as passing through Howland. Earhart's transmissions seemed to indicate she and Noonan believed they had reached Howland's charted position, which was incorrect by about five nautical miles (10 km). After all contact was lost with Howland Island, attempts were made to reach the flyers with both voice and Morse code transmissions. The Itasca used her oil-fired boilers to generate smoke for a period of time but the fliers apparently did not see it. The many scattered clouds in the area around Howland Island have also been cited as a problem: their dark shadows on the ocean surface may have been almost indistinguishable from the island's subdued and very flat profile.

Several people within the continental U.S. reported hearing post-loss radio signals from Earhart and Noonan. Some of these reports were deemed to be inaccurate or hoaxes, but others have been deemed more probable and authentic. The most compelling report of post-loss transmissions from Earhart and Noonan, which went ignored and unknown for many decades, came from Betty Klenck Brown. Brown wrote down the transmissions she heard on her father's shortwave set as a teenager in Florida.

Research by The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) and others initially cast doubt on the possibility of Brown hearing Earhart due to stronger, more proximate radio traffic on the same frequencies. (Earhart's day and night frequencies were used by US aviation and the signal path to Brown's location was entirely in daylight at the time of the transmissions Brown recorded.)  This frequency was not thought to be fit for broadcasts over great distances. When Earhart was at cruising altitude and midway between Lae and Howland (over 1000 mi from each) neither station heard her scheduled transmission at 0815 GCT. Moreover, the 50-watt transmitter used by Earhart was attached to a less-than-optimum-length V-type antenna. However, after communicating with Brown herself, TIGHAR reported in 2006 that "since Betty’s notebook was too credible to be dismissed out of hand, it was decided to consider alternative explanations." This led to their conclusion that it was possible "that Betty could have heard Amelia on a harmonic of 3105 kHz or 6210 kHz."

Bearings taken by Pan American Airways stations suggested signals originating from several locations, including Gardner Island. It was noted at the time that if these signals were from Earhart and Noonan, they must have been on land with the aircraft since water would have otherwise shorted out the Electra's electrical system. Sporadic signals were reported for four or five days after the disappearance but none yielded any understandable information. The captain of the USS Colorado later said "There was no doubt many stations were calling the Earhart plane on the plane's frequency, some by voice and others by signals. All of these added to the confusion and doubtfulness of the authenticity of the reports."

(talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On first reading, the issue of Wp:Weight must be considered, where the suppositions of post-downing signals are given credence while refutations are left in the notes and not in the main text. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC).
 * The section is about signals potentially heard, not refutations of them. The salient point is that TIGHAR now supports the Brown reports as certainly authentic and has done so since 2006. The documentation here completely misrepresents that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dknauss (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence to support the Brown report other than a notebook. TIGHAR is the only organization giving any credence to the signals; no one else has ever substantiated that report.FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they didn't have tape recorders back then. Written documentation with internal evidence nobody could have faked is pretty good. TIGHAR and their people are used extensively in this article as sources, so why cast doubt on them? What other experts and sources post 2006 deal with TIGHAR's recent research re. Brown? Include them if they exist. TIGHAR reversing their own position is significant here. But answer the main point: corrections are required because the current text has dated and broken links; it is simply misleading. It refers to research papers from TIGHAR that further research from them has expanded and revised. Dan Knauss (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the edit protected request for now, whilst discussions continue; please reinstate a request once there is a clear consensus here. Also, some of the suggestion is not cited - I cannot see the source for paragraph two, from Earhart's transmissions seemed to indicate... onwards. In the next para, the reference to thestory.org does not confirm the facts - ie that Several people ... reported hearing post-loss radio signals, that Some of these reports were deemed to be inaccurate or hoaxes, that The most compelling report ...went ignored, etc. These are specific claims, and need references. I have not, at this time, checked the other referenced facts, but before making a further request, please ensure that the references cover the assertions.  Chzz  ►  12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

article and new findings
this article is being headlined today at yahoo.com. at some point, we should include this material in this entry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is succinct in summarizing the main points of the Gardner Island theory, and the evidence for it that has been found so far. Unfortunately, it contains no new evidence that is not already in the Wiki article, and still offers no conclusive proof for this theory.  You may put it in the ref list if you want, but all the stuff that's in this news article is already on Wikipedia.  (BTW, it makes me shudder when I picture AE being eaten alive by those giant crabs.  I really hope she died in a more merciful way, e.g. swept out to sea and drowned...) 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, I think the article implies that she passed away due to exposure, and then any local fauna, if any, found her later. I understand your feelings, so i wanted to reply. I think we all feel a sense of empathy with both of these heroic and noble explorers. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If Earhart and Noonan had encountered giant crabs, the question of who would enjoy a meal after the meeting favors the humans, I should think. Another reason why The Insistent Gardner Hypothesis Advocate Redoubt gets it all wrong. I do not want to see the Discovery article put into the list of references here, as it brings no new information about Earhart. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 98.234 here (new IP address assigned, again): Now that I think of it, I can't help thinking that Dr. Gillespie must've had too much Halloween on his mind when he wrote that article (after all, it was that time of the year), so that part about the giant crabs might have been inspired by some horror film that he'd seen shortly before he got down to writing. Another (and less innocent) possibility may be that the giant-crab hypothesis could have been there to fulfill some deep psychological desire on RG's part (after all the vile things he'd written about AE, I think maybe he deeply hated her for some reason or another, and wanted to think that she'd been eaten).  LOL 24.23.197.43 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition to the Gardner Island Hypothesis
It may be of note that TIGHAR is conducing another investigation (Niku VI) in May/June 2010.

Abistokes (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All that means is that TIGHAR finds a need to keep itself alive. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Discovery is serving some thin gruel these days. Where's the substantive news? The whole article is a retread of past highlights of TIGHAR's pet theories. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * hmm, wow, okay. good critique of Discovery. you can feel free to send that to them in a letter to the editor. :-) in the meantime, what we do here is to utilize objective material from credible sources in an objective manner. anything else is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Sorry, don't mean to sound in any way snippy, but I just wanted to make a few basic points here and to lay them on the table. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that they haven't set out on this expedition yet, and will not do so until next May at the earliest. Now if and when they actually do the search and find something they haven't found already, then it would be time to put that information in the Wiki article.  Until then, it would be sufficient to make the statement that "According to discovery.com, TIGHAR is planning an expedition to Gardner Island in May/June 2010 to search for Earhart's remains", because that's pretty much all that the article says. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Like for the Mayerling Affair [1889, suicide of Austrian crown prince Rudolph together with girl friend Mary von Vetsera, was she pregnant?] there are for the Earhart incident parties existing of the magic : while searching for the truth , they hope that the legend stays alive by finding nothing.Desertfax (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax


 * well, not eactly. it also says:
 * " A tiny coral atoll, Nikumaroro was some 300 miles southeast of Earhart's target destination, Howland Island. A number of artifacts recovered by TIGHAR would suggest that Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, made a forced landing on the island's smooth, flat coral reef...We know that in 1940 British Colonial Service officer Gerald Gallagher recovered a partial skeleton of a castaway on Nikumaroro. Unfortunately, those bones have now been lost," Gillespie said. The archival record by Gallagher suggests that the bones were found in a remote area of the island, in a place that was unlikely to have been seen during an aerial search...."Propagation analysis of nearly 200 radio signals heard for several days after the disappearance make it virtually indisputable that the airplane was on land,"...the partial skeleton found by Gallagher.


 * "The skeleton was found to be consistent in appearance with females of European descent in the United States today, and the stature was consistent with that of Amelia Earhart," said Burns.


 * According to Burns, another piece of documentary evidence comes from the accounts of Lt. John O. Lambrecht, a U.S. Naval aviator participating in the search for Earhart's plane. Lambrecht reported "signs of recent habitation" on what was an officially uninhabited atoll.


 * Lambrechet's report begs the question: Why did no one follow up?


 * "I have stood in plain sight on Nikumaroro in a white shirt waving wildly as a helicopter flew over me and was not noticed until the video tape of the flight was examined," Burns said.


 * --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm missing something. What are you trying to tell us by adding the blockquote above? Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * simply that the discovery.com article does contain information about hard evidence, factual data, and tangible findings, so it IS notable. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gwen Gale already established that the Discovery article gave notability to the expedition planned for May and June 2010. So what do you think we should take from this magazine article put in our Amelia Earhart article? Something like In May 2010, TIGHAR, loathe to let pass any chance to use the recent flurry of interest in Earhart to flog the disappearance theory they've been espousing since 1988, will mount yet another in a series of unexceptional expeditions.[ref] TIGHAR hopes to uncover more than just the circumstantial evidence they've encountered to date.[ref]?  The TIGHAR expedition is notable in relation to TIGHAR, not in relation to Earhart. If there were an article about The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, rather than a redirect, the Discovery magazine piece could be used to good effect. Here, we can see clearly that the magazine piece adds absolutely nothing to what we already have in the article about Earhart. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry, why are you treating a serious question with sarcasm? I already answered this question; the article contains tangible findings and data. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all ears: what new findings and data did the Discovery article give us? Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned them in my reply directly above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All I can see there is old news, and no reason to edit the Amelia Earhart article to reflect the Discovery piece reporting the upcoming expedition. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unhelpful. See WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your style of phrasing makes it almost impossible for me to follow the statements or the question, due to the circuitous manner. thanks anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gwen, you're right, it is absolutely unhelpful. The magazine article, that is! As verifiable as the Discovery cite is, it adds nothing to this article. TIGHAR trots out its old circumstantial evidence that we already have listed. TIGHAR mounts a new expedition because even they know they don't have anything good yet. So what? Verifiability is not the sole measure of whether information should be added to this article. How about WP:UNDUE, for one? The weight accorded to any of the fringe theories should be moderated in relation to the primary crash and sink theory. When TIGHAR finds a new circumstantial piece of evidence, or actually finds some hard evidence after 72 years of not-so-pacific weather and decay, we can put that in. Until then, the recent Discovery announcement is important to TIGHAR only, not to our Amelia Earhart page. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for your own outlooks or original research. en.Wikipedia does not draw upon any editor's or source's notion of truth but rather, upon verifiability. In other words, please start citing some sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC).

Yes, but why the constant looking back to sources that have shown over years that they are unreliable if not hoaxes. What use it is to hold to aircraft parts evidently not belonging to any Lockheed 10E, wrong size shoes and sextant boxes, the latter having in the mean time been found at the roots of every palmtree bordering the Pacific ? Such policy will lead to everything, verification excepted. Desertfax (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax


 * Binksternet and Desertfax, I'd like to remind you both to please keep a civil tone and disagree respectfully, as the tone of your replies in this particular thread is somewhat rude. That said, you DO have a valid point, since none of the artifacts that the TIGHAR team found on Gardner Island thus far have been unambiguously linked to AE or to the "plane that never returned".  The jury is still out, and so far TIGHAR has not supported their theory by preponderance of the evidence.  Moreover, as far as the article is concerned, I'd like to say that yor criticism is exactly point-on -- the article is mostly a rehash of all the old evidence for the Gardner Island theory, and the only thing new is that horror story about the giant crabs (which I think was more inspired by Halloween horror films than by any hard evidence).  FWiW 146.74.231.35 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

Halloween horror or hallucination, which is worse .. ? Desertfax (talk)desertfax. —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

I am less rude than the giant crabs, I swear.Desertfax (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax

X-D 24.23.197.43 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nikumaroro "theory" delivers its own impossibility by quoting a distance of 300 miles, or 2 hours flight time with a 1/2 hour fuel supply. Desertfax (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)desertfax


 * Have you considered the possibility that when the Itasca crew heard AE say "only one-half hour's fuel remaining", she might have actually said "one-and-a-half hour's fuel" instead? I'm not trying to claim that this is what actually happened, only that this might be a possibility, considering the heavy static, plus AE's own Midwestern drawl that might easily cause similar types of garbles (like for example when she is claimed to have said "We are circling but cannot hear you").  For what it's worth, I personally think that the crash-and-sink theory is the more likely, but the Gardner Island theory cannot yet be decisively ruled out.  76.103.104.108 (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Earhart's 1912 GMT signal contains a section "..gas is running low.." , which one does not mention if one considers te be close to destination with 1 1/2 hours additional fuel. BTW, Gardner Island was more than 1 1/2 hours distance flying from Howland. The Gardner theory was obsolete from the beginning.Desertfax (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Amelia Earhart (White paper) - Modeling the Range Performance of the Electra 10E
I have never posted on Wikipedia before so I don't know the proper way to edit the initial article to include anything new and interesting. Hopefully this post will be read by someone that can add the information below if they feel it's useful to Wikipedia.

There is an interesting White Paper modeling the range performance of the aircraft used by Earhart. It is a downloaded .pdf at this link: http://www.mantaro.com/resources/tech_talk.htm

--Mantaropds (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The mentioned W.Paper [ like Johnson, Nelson, 1936] assumes a zero wind condition on a straightforward flight to Howland. Neither the one, nor the other actual flight circumstance existed. Good fuel reserves and management figures as inserted in the navigation flight path have been published in 1996, 2008 , see above Desertfax (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

The White paper, by the way says that the Earhart 10E Electra carried fuel for between 4,034 and 4,100 miles. For that case, at between 1912-2014 GMT on July 2,1937 [2,600 mls made good], another 1434 miles could have been flown.In that event Noonan would have deployed a Fixed Square Search by which he would have securely found the island. He avoided the square search due to its fuel diseconomy so that he let continue - the dwindling supplies given - on the sunline. It is clear that the W.paper's outcome is by far too optimistic on the maximum flight endurance and distance. Desertfax (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC) desertfaxDesertfax (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax

FWiW, I should also add that the white paper also assumes a "standard atmosphere" (as opposed to the hot-and-humid conditions actually encountered in the South Pacific at that time of the year), perfect calibration of the mixture control/gas analyzer (which was unlikely to be the case -- in Last Flight, AE herself reported experiencing repeated problems with the mixture controls), and perfect adjustment by the pilot of both the mixture and propeller controls (which is possible but not certain). Also, the 1200 gallon fuel load is incorrect -- official records indicate that only 1100 gallons were supposed to be loaded at Lae (possibly due to overload/short-field takeoff limitations), and even this figure does not take into account any possible evaporation that may or may not have taken place after the fuel had been delivered to the Lae airstrip. It's also noteworthy that in the report, on page 12 it says "Perhaps both these curves are somewhat hypothetical", and again, on the last page, that "specific fuel consumption data seem somewhat soft". In short, my point is that mathematical modeling of AE's last flight can give only the roughest ballpark estimates possible. I take no position on the "crash-and-sink" vs. "Gardner Island" debate, but the estimates in the above-mentioned white paper appear to include a good deal of wishful thinking. 146.74.231.35 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Remark : the 1100 U.S.gallons fuel load was not a by accident reached number.It is the by Earhart/Noonan precomputed quantity, 10% included for equivalent headwinds on the Lae to Nukumanu track as communicated by the Pearl Harbor metro forecast. The headwinds however, overruled the forecast figures [with abt.10 mph] as a result of which the aircraft reached the roads of Howland with marginal fuel reserves only.Desertfax (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax

The volumetric temperature expansion coefficient for gasoline is 1.06 from 20 deg C. The difference of actual fuel load may have been minus 63 U.S.gals. for abt. 1 1/2 hours flying. This [surplus] endurance would not have saved the crew and aircraft : if a flown along position line is close to [10 mls West or East of] the genuine line the celestial observation results [sun's altitude]are the same, with a very small time shift [18 seconds for 0.7 mile distance for Noonan's case]. When proceeding over the wrong line a navigator gets the more and more convinced that he proceeds along [up and down] the right one until the engine's carburetors surge if the target does not run in sight. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax


 * Please restrict comments to whether or not the white paper should be integrated into this article. See WP:NOTFORUM. It's all very interesting, but... Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The "White Paper" adds no new vistas to either the theory, or the practice of fuel management during the specific to Howland flight since the prior and posterior conclusions, separated from the followed algorithm with too much simplification, do not match actual flight circumstances like athmospheric conditions, flight path and from aboard aircraft radio communications. I would for that non relevancy advise not to integrate the Paper in an up to date article on the subject.Desertfax (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax

The book of E. & M.K. Long [1999, Ch.I pp.13-31] on the subject contains very good estimates on fuel supplies and management. The results, independently acquired, reasonably comply with the above mentioned 1996 analysis. Generally, outcomes of calculations possess the tendency of reliability when acquired by straightforward proceeding in the algorithm, i.e. in the direction of the target. As soon as results only appear after reckoning backwards, i.e. in the direction of the suppositions and away from the target, a desired outcome given, conclusions acquire the tendency of suspicion. Desertfax (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax

A closer look to the White Paper's algorithm delivers the impression that the outcomes of inquiry must support [by the ferry distance(s) acquired] the "Gardner / Nikumaroro" theory which must be considered false. No intricate [and not shown] computer integration of variables would be necessary if from the separately found efficiency values [figures not shown] and the to zero falling fuel stock, Breguet's Formula for range and/or endurance were inserted. Namely the first half of the journey [875 mls] with the airplane heavily loaded and the headwinds powerful, evades straightforward calculation of specific fuel consumptions and lift versus drag coefficients. If however, the second part of the trip, from Nukumanu [617 US gals remaining] to Howland is analyzed on fuel consumption, the range/endurance distance to time group, conventionally recomputed, reasonably gives 12 h 55 min for 1896 mlles to finish at 2015 GMT by fuel starvation after 2771 miles flown from Lae.Desertfax (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax

How'bout we just put in a link to the white paper in the external links section, and leave it at that? Clear skies to y'all 24.23.197.43 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Found?
Earhart's Final Resting Place Believed Found. Amelia Earhart mostly likely crash landed near a tropical island in the southwestern Pacific. http://news.discovery.com/history/amelia-earhart-resting-place.html 69.115.39.30 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blah. More of the same old conjecture by TIGHAR. We don't need to parrot this stuff here. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good, the mentioned island being Howland, northwestern Pacific.Desertfax (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Have they considered the possibility that another plane might have crashed in the ocean near Gardner Island some years later and some of the debris washed onto shore by the waves? All the evidence they mention is a high-heel shoe and a sextant box, both of which might have belonged to anyone. And as for the skeleton, it was only partially recovered, lost a long time ago, and there are a couple different hypotheses on whose skeleton it is. Some say that it was the skeleton of a stocky male, in which case it could have been a passenger or crew member who died in the later plane crash (assuming that it had taken place), or a sailor from the Norwich City (a ship that was wrecked on Gardner Island a long time before AE's world flight), or even a native fisherman who drowned in the ocean and later washed up on the island. (Note that it could not have been Fred Noonan, because he was tall and thin, not stocky.) Or it could have really been the skeleton of a tall white woman, in which case it could have been Amelia, or a passenger or stewardess on the other plane that crashed (once again, assuming that it had done so). And since the skeleton was lost, there's no real way to make sure. In short, the only thing we know about Amelia's disappearance is that we don't know... 24.23.197.43 (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Other honors
Hi there,

I have an addition to make under Legacy >> : There is an Amelia Earhart Playhouse on the Wiesbaden, Germany US Army Base that is missing in the list.

Please check the following link for accuracy of that information: http://www.wiesbaden.army.mil/sites/mwr/amelia_earhart.asp

Sorry, I can't edit the article myself as I am too new to the editor's group -- would someone mind doing that for me?

Thanks a lot :-)

Sehneede (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Add *Amelia Earhart Playhouse, at Wiesbaden Army Airfield.
 * As soon as someone can verify the information - I'm getting a timeout on the link Josh Parris
 * ✅ Algebraist 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction: Earhart Foundation (Ann Arbor, MI) mentioned in the article has been named after Harry Boyd Earhart, a Michigan entrepreneur and philanthropist. While this Earhart was related to Amelia Earhart (first cousin, once removed), the foundation does not seek to preserve or somehow build on Amelia Earhart's legacy. Instead, their goal is "the support of research into economic freedom as the sine qua non of a truly free society."

For this reason I suggest removing the reference to Earhart Foundation from the "Other honors" section.

Sources:

The Earhart Mansion (Ann Arbor Observer) http://aaobserver.aadl.org/aaobserver/18380

Earhart Foundation at First Principles http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=561&loc=r

Note: There are several other places in Ann Arbor bearing the name "Earhart" (i.e. Earhart Road), but, as far as I know, they, too, have been named after the philanthropist, not the great aviator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.182.24 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aside, it should be noted that AE was also an entrepreneur and philanthropist (although on a small scale), as well as a pioneering aviator. FWiW 24.23.197.43 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Final approach to Howland Island is poorly written
I had recently read a history of Amelia and the last leg of her flight to Howland Island and I looked it up here to read it. The section of the last leg is just written so poorly it is difficult to follow. It needs a rewrite. The article wanders about her approach to Howland Island then jumps into radio signals and it doesn't read well in terms of when it is understood where she discovered that she was lost. If it is unknown when that happen then there ought to be a map drawn or something to indicate where it was certain that she flew and where she may have been.

The text of the article is just awful.

Wikipedia editors do this frequently. A map with context would do so much better than the text that is written so vaguely.

The map above of the Howland Island is poorly descriptive and shows no geographical context. How about a link to a google maps location? What a jumbled mess this section is.
 * You are certainly welcome to make changes as you see fit but in rereading the section, I do not see any of the problems that seem to have you so vexed. The section appears to be eminently readable and well-organized in direct contrast to the query above. No one would be able to determine the exact timing of the end of the flight, nor when Amelia begins to carry out a search for Howland other than interpreting the radio signals, her last communications with the USCGC Itasca. The last flight is a "mystery" so there is bound to be conflicting theories as to the downing of the aircraft. As to a new map, if you go to the Howland Island article, you will find a google map coordinate. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC).
 * There is still some controversy as to what happened as they neared Howland. The US Goast Guard later "smoothed" the radio logs, stirring in yet more muddle and taken altogether, the reliable (published, secondary) sources don't match up, because of everything from the sloppiness that comes with wide, sensationalistic coverage (AE was a celebrity) to authors with sundry outlooks, some of which are quite supported, others not. Hence, the article text in that section is not weakly written, so much as it echoes both the unknown and the muddle brought forth by that. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the chronicling of Amelia's last flight is not an easy task as the information from various contemporary sources was often in conflict. Many researchers have tried to sort out the puzzle of the last radio messages and relate that back to the known entities of her last recorded position, amount of fuel on board, the setup for long-range cruise in a Lockheed Model 10E Electra and atmospheric conditions that were encountered. Given these parameters, there are still many scenarios that are possible and there cannot be any conclusive writing of the last chapter of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan's lives until a final determination through conclusive archaeological and forensic discoveries is made. That possibility seems more remote given the passage of time. FWiW, G, nice seeing you still "on the beat." Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This section does not get to the point. If the point is that it is a mystery it ought to say that.  It just wanders around with heading inserts.  Bad writing.  I have seen some pretty good images of her flight and the potential accumulated error.  The map given is poor in color contrast with huge text and zoomed in on the marshal islands.  Should be two images, one showing Indonesia with a zoom in box.  Then a better version of the image above with the "error band" indicated.  I have no persistent interest in this subject and just finished reading a book and thought I'd check out wiki's version.  It is just so disjointed particularity in this section that describes the end of the flight.  It is just so badly written.  I had to read this section several times to get at what was being said.  Terrible job guys.
 * ...and you are perfectly within your rights to hold a contrary opinion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC).
 * You know, I can't agree the section is "bad writing." There are no easy answers for what happened, even speaking as someone who has some notions as to what likely did happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is not bad writing in the sense of authorship. It however follows the lines of theories that do not for the same time and flight tracks comply. As a result the section is, in the best case, only readable for those having extensive insight in the ins and outs of the accident. The mentioned theories should be separated and given [ an intricate work ] their own texts to avoid interfering conclusions leading to confusion of readers. All theories having no numerical outcomes should be omittedDesertfax (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)desertfax
 * What exactly do you mean by "numerical outcomes"? 24.23.197.43 (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gardner Island "hypothesis" continues appearing in the article's text. Probably that story originates from a nonsense book publication from the eighties. A young "navigator" [if he ever existed], Paul Rafford jr, "falls off his chair" when "discovering" that the 157-337 degrees position line "runs over Gardner". I possess the mentioned book but was unable to locate it up to now.Desertfax (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Is the book's title "The British Connection" or something alike ? Can somebody remember this publication ? Desertfax (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Answer to question, April 2 - 2010. "numerical outcomes" are quantitative conclusions within the theory and practice of of the era science of navigation, using algorithms in a relevant for the flight New Guinea - Howland navigation model and avoiding conclusions acquired by verbal determination only.Desertfax (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC) desertfax
 * So in other words, it means that you try and put yourself in AE's and FN's shoes, and try to figure out what they would have done at each stage of the flight considering numerical variables such as airspeed, fuel level, wind, etc., etc., right? I think that this is the best approach for a solid, convincing conclusion, but it's pretty hard to do in this case, considering how many variables are unknown/uncertain.  The headwind speed, for example, is only known with reasonable certainty at a couple of points along the planned route (New Guinea, the Itasca and Howland); fuel consumption estimates for the Electra 10-E vary widely; and even if all numerical variables were known, the two aviators' actions at any given stage could have been very different (Fred would have wanted to turn back or divert, while Amelia would have wanted to press on regardless and try to find "that darned island in th' middle of nowhere", as she might have put it).  In other words, until we actually find the pieces of that plane, we can't be sure of anything.  FWiW 76.103.104.108 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No. By first reconstructing a good navigation model by exact recomputation of the one known sunset position report and consequently infer the remaining radio communications into the model, the time schedule of the flight comes to light. Noonan established his position by observing sunrise before commencing a single line of position approach to Howland. By using the bubble sextant at sundown and the mariners sextant at sunrise without correcting for the difference of reference lines, a local hour angle error was translated to a virtual [invisible on watch face] time error by which eventually the island, its true position 16 miles on the port beam when erroneously estimated below the aircraft progression line [157-337 compass points] did not run in sight. For the algorithm followed, it is not necessary to use verbal statements : the calculation results follow straightforward from the combination of navigation model, time schedule and radio reports, giving [re-]computed conclusions only. It is true that on the subject, any theory can only show relevancy by in the end finding [parts of] the aircraft. See European Journal of Navigation, July 2008 issue, for full scan article.Desertfax (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)desertfax


 * But how do they know that he introduced that hidden error in position by forgetting to compensate for altitude when using the mariner's sextant? They couldn't very well ask him after the fact, could they?  :-D 67.170.215.166 (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Answer : Compensation for time, not for altitude. There is, of course, no hard evidence that Noonan committed the sextant change fault, but it is remarkable that, this error supposed, all radio communications records versus flight's time and distance schedule acquire an exact mathematical match, inclusive the explanation of the seemingly high speed [200 mph] from 1745 up to 1815 GMT, the outcomes showing that between those time points the aircraft's speed was 150 mph as usual during the to Howland flight. After establishing position at sundown near Nukumanu with the bubble sextant, the aircraft at high altitude, the consequent next morning position, the aircraft at low altitude [1,000 ft, radio message], was usually checked by the mariner's sextant on the sun's upper limb since the bubble sextant is considerably less accurate. The phenomenon is mentioned in of the era textbooks [Cuggle, etc.], but without warning for the bubble versus mariner's sextant difference of reference line, which is sun's upper limb [in the morning, due refraction] for the latter and, alternatively, sun's centre for the first.Desertfax (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Desertfax (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax


 * Sounds reasonable to me. All that remains to be seen is whether they actually find pieces of that plane at the location predicted by this theory. :-) 67.170.215.166 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned : 125 stat.mls north of equator ; 186 mls east Greenwich anti meridian at [for practice near] 117 deg 19' W Long. / 01 deg 49'N lat., 85 mls NNW of Howland's true position accng to theory's outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfax (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Plans for after the world flight
Hello everyone, this is 24.23.197.43 with a new IP address. I've recently read in The Thrill of It by Susan Wells that AE had planned to become a flight instructor after flying around the world. Is it true? Thanks in advance for the info! 67.170.215.166 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Never read or heard of in any biography, article, or press release. It is known that Noonan planned the foundation of a navigation institute after finishing the world flight, but no intention in any comparable direction is attributed to Amelia, evidently excepted the Susan Wells contribution as by you cited.Desertfax (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax By the way, it would for Earhart not have been very easy to apply for instructorship : she was neither skilled in theory of aeronautics, nor was she exceptionally good, to say the least,  in general aircraft piloting, thereupon she was getting on in years. Desertfax (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse ; a record of planning a flight school, together with P.mantz, appears in Amelia Earhart, book by E.Long, 1999. Desertfax (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Desertfax, I think i read it in more then one source that Earhart planned to operate the flying school after returning from the World Flight, and also she planned to participate in some practical research in aeronautics. Sorry - I'm now abroad and out of my house and files and archives, but after returning (mid-May) i hope to provide some reference to actual published sources to confirm this. Also, i respectably disagree with your criticism of Earhart as a flier, and her skills. It is quite a popular opinion today but in fact it is based almost exclusively on claims of two sources: Earhart's too obviously jealous rival Elinor Smith (who never lost a tiny chance to spread some negativistic comment on Earhart and "planted" this attitude for decades), and Paul Mantz - who started to express some criticism after he was in fact fired from the Earhart's team (and there are different versions about why exactly it actually happened). Meanwhile a majority of contemporary top class pilots and other aviation professionals who really knew Earhart and flew with her, did have (and expressed) high respect to her skills and professionalism: some examples are Jackie Cochran, General Leigh Wade, Kelley Johnson, Paul Collins, and others. At the face of their evidence, i don't think that the opinions of some modern writers who prefers to repeat the stories of Elinor Smith (some of them definitely proven as fakes) are worth of any special respect and attention. (They would better at first try to cross the ocean alone in a small plane in nighttime through a thunderstorm, then maybe their opinion would be worth of some respect... if they would survive...). Don't want now to go deep into this topic again, as it was already extensively discussed on the Talk Page of this article, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amelia_Earhart/Archive_3     Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC).

Well said, Alex V Mandel: if AE was a bad pilot like Desertfax says, she wouldn't have made it across the Atlantic (I've read the full account of that flight -- she was actually flying in zero-vis conditions and extreme icing with an iced-up static port [which meant that her altimeter and VSI were both non-operational and the airspeed gauge was giving inaccurate readings] and at one point recovered from a tailspin using only her turn and bank indicator [her Lockheed Vega didn't have an artificial horizon installed at the time]). I'll tell you one thing, she might have lacked experience specifically in flying multiengine aircraft (as her crack-up in Hawaii seems to show), but her instrument flight skills were nothing short of superb! 67.170.215.166 (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I have the information on pilotage etc. from, several, biographical sources and there is, between being an excellent and alternatively a mediacre pilot, enough space for the ability to fly an aircraft safely. Therefore, classifications about skills are neither of no predominant importance, nor do they necessarily reject the statement that applying for a professional aeronautical instructor was less difficult in the era but however, like now a harsh enterprise.Desertfax (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax

BTW, Desertfax, do you by any chance play Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 on your computer? If you do, and you have some time to spare on the weekend, then why don't you try the following experiment: From the "Select a Flight" menu, select "Amelia Earhart's Solo Flight Across the Atlantic" and read the briefing; once the flight launches (placing you in the Vega's cockpit on the runway at St. Johns), hit Alt to call up the main menu; open the Aircraft menu and from the Realism option select at least medium difficulty, select "Detect Crashes" and "Aircraft Stress Causes Damage", and also check "Gyro Drift" and uncheck "Unlimited Fuel", "Automixture" and "Autorudder"; from the Failures option, select Attitude Indicator: Failed and Altimeter: Armed, Failure between 0 and 600 minutes (it won't let you set a time beyond 600 minutes); and then go ahead and take off, and see how far you get. Clear skies to you, and Godspeed. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC) On second thought, disable the ADF too -- Amelia did not use it on that flight, and I think the ADF would make it too easy to find the Londonderry airfield. 146.74.231.34 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What is that long of no use lath, disturbingly turning and roaring in front of me without hitting anything, can I for safety get rid of it like that stick between my knees already out of the window, or is it the ADF ? Desertfax (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Well seriously, if you got time, why don't you try making this flight in FlightSim'04 and let me know how it goes for you? Just remember, for the sake of realism: Difficulty, at least Medium; Crashes, Detect, enable Stress causes damage; Gyro drift, On; Unlimited fuel, Off; Automixture, Off; Autorudder, Off; Attitude indicator, Failed; ADF, Failed; Altimeter, Armed, Failure between 0 and 600 minutes. (Anything else would be too easy compared to how it was for Amelia.) And if you do make it all the way to Ireland, let me know if your opinion of AE's flying skills has changed in any way. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Itasca to Desertfax, Itasca to Desertfax, can you read me, over? Desertfax, come in. Desertfax, come in! Quick, alert the Coast Guard, we've lost contact with Deserfax over the Atlantic, he's missing and presumed lost. ;-) 67.170.215.166 (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I will once try and report, but do not forget that early aviation even up in the thirties was a hazardous enterprise with strong coefficients of good or bad luck, these latter qualifications mainly depending on Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica [the book by I.Newton wherein he considered the laws of gravity ].As compared to a pilot's skill the rate of danger was so high that outcomes were, occasionally, ruled by the latter, not the first. Desertfax (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Just so you all know, I've already taken my own double-dare and tried it once, just to get some idea of how it was for AE. Oh man, it's a lot harder than even I thought it was! I mean, I'm actually a pretty good pilot, with a private license and an instrument rating and several hundred hours worth of experience (including in taildraggers), but this was something else again. For one thing, the Vega is a very demanding plane to fly -- with a full load of fuel, it barely climbs even with full power -- so I used up most of the runway at St. Johns before finally struggling into the air at the very end. Worse, at takeoff the controls are very sloppy (it didn't help that I had to use the keyboard instead of a joystick), so for a moment I was in danger of losing control and crashing (the way to avoid crashing on takeoff is to use a very gentle touch on the stick and rudder, just like AE -- which I did, and brought the plane under control). Also, the P-factor is extremely strong, especially at low speed and high power setting, like during the climb-out: this means that the plane wants to go around in cirles, and it's very hard to hold it on course. The briefing for this flight says to make 1-degree or 2-degree course changes on the hour, well, the best I managed (without the autopilot) is to hold a given course +- 5 degrees -- and that was in cruising flight, after I burned up enough fuel that I could throttle back. Of course the thunderstorm was just awful, the plane was being tossed around every which way completely out of control, and at one point I got caught in a downdraft and barely recovered just above the waves with maximum power (meaning throttle to the firewall and to hell with the red lines on the gauges). I also drifted quite a bit to the north of my course, landing at Aberdeen instead of Londonderry, and I was very fatigued from having to constantly correct the course and watch the instruments for more than 15 hours. By the way, the Vega's cockpit gives an almost nonexistent visibility on landing, which means that I was landing more-or-less blind. This, plus my fatigue, and the sloppy controls, forced me to go around twice before attempting to land; and when I did finally line up with the runway, I came in too high too fast for to maintain better control, and just barely stopped the plane before running off the far end. I'll say one thing in conclusion: Amelia, you were a much better pilot than me. :-) 67.170.215.166 (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You most probably followed a great circle course by separate tracks with the everlasting tendency to decline from the precalculated trail. But what you see from your overall experience from this virtual over ocean trip, is that flying [in the troposphere] an of the era airplane was inherently hazardous. At one moment your luck will run out and that is what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew in 1937. I think you will agree with the statement that good pilotage increases safety but no more than that, as long as the single goal is to reach a destination. I in my course, agree that criticism [i.e. by Elinor Smith, your quote, cited in biography by Lovell] about Earhart's style of flying an aircraft, does not have a strong base from an incidental observation only. It is by the way clear that a [relatively small] navigation error, not pilotage was the initial cause of not getting Howland in sight.Desertfax (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax
 * Yeah, luck was definitely a factor back then. However, a good observation is that good pilots going on dangerous flights can have either good luck or bad luck, while bad pilots generally have either all bad luck or no luck at all.  :-)  67.170.215.166 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I believe that most of the course deviation on my simulated trans-Atlantic flight was due to my failure to adequately control the left-turning tendency of the aircraft. FWiW 67.170.215.166 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Best regards to everybody. I'm back home so could re-check some books and files, and can confirm that the intention of AE and Paul Mantz to operate a flying school and participate in some aeronautic research is mentioned in several sources. Some examples (in addition to Susan Wells) are D.M.Goldstein and K.V.Dillon's "Amelia"- p.144, J.Backus' "Letters from Amelia" (pp.177-178), M.Lovell's "The Sound of Wings" - pp.219-220, S.Butler's "East to the Down" - p.340. Also mentioned is their (AE and Mantz's) intention to "putting on an air circus" (that reminds the early years of AE's aviation activities - when she participated in the "air rodeos" in California in early 20s). "Aeronautic research" plans are also mentioned, for example, in AE's book "Last Flight", in the book "High Times - Keeping'em Flying" by A.Kennedy and J.A.Ridley, and others. Sincerely, Alex V Mandel (talk)

Agreed, also Elgen Long in "Amelia Earhart" [1999] reports Amelia to enter into a partnership with Mantz, to operate a flight school [at United Air Services, Burbank]Desertfax (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax

BTW, Elgen Long's work contains good estimates about fuel reserves when closing in to Howland, apparently independent of a 1996 investigation on the subject. The book also gives a good display of the one line approach to the island. However, Long's work does not contain numerical calculations, as a result of which no definite conclusions come to light.Desertfax (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax

P.S. About the possible causes of the Hawaii groundloop, there is an interesting statement in the book "Amelie Earhart-Case Closed" by W.Roessler and L.Gomez. Accordingly to them enroute to Hawaii one of the Electra's propellers became stuck in the wrong pitch. Mantz noted this and had the propeller pitch mechanisms checked by mechanics on Hawaii. The one stuck in the wrong pitch was totally dry of lubricant, and the metal partly damaged. Here is where Mantz (as a technical advisor) should have stopped the flight until a new pitch propeller mechanism could be supplied by Lockheed. Instead they hand sanded the badly galled pitch mechanism and re-lubricated it. So upon takeoff the propeller again went into the wrong pitch. George H.Miller, the mechanic at the Hawaiian Depot, said that to him one propeller seemed to be running faster than the other, causing the Electra to start to turn to one side. AE tried her best but in the overloaded Electra was not able to pull it off and the plane finally ground-looped. Photos taken right after the Electra lay wounded show (pp. 89-90 of the book) that one propellor was in the wrond pitch. So, accordingly to this version, the cause of the groundloop was not AE's flying but rather a technical problem - and Paul Mantz was at fault about it, as (being a "technical advisor") he should have known better. If this version is correct, it may also explain the "cooling" of friendship and business relationships between AE and Mantz in the period after the "first attempt" of World Flight, and the manner in which AE and GP virtually excluded Mantz from the decision making process before the second attempt. Being not a professional pilot myself i cannot judge with confidence about credibility of this version, but i showed it to several professional pilots and they found it reasonable, believable and quite convincing. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk)
 * I've read somewhere (can't remember the source, could be Gillespie) that the ground crew at Honolulu used the wrong kind of grease on the pitch mechanism and that's what caused it to seize. FWIW 67.170.215.166 (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The propellors got damaged beyond repair by scratching the runway, but the hubs were unscathed ; it was not necessary to exchange them for new ones aferwards. This makes a wrong grease statement doubtful.Desertfax (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Desertfax, the point in this version is that the pitch propeller mechanism worked improperly (and was "repaired" in improper way on Hawaii) before the groundloop, not after it; so i can't see the contradiction. Kind regards, Alex V Mandel (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Mandel, your comments are of value certainly, but the chronology is intricate : after the Honolulu [groundloop 1st attempt] incident the propellor hubs were found to be in excellent condition [viz. E. Long, pp.103-105] as a result of which only all four curled propellor blades had to be replaced , no adjacent work was done to both hubs with the pitch control mechanisms. It is therefore safe to follow the official records stating that the right hand tire, the right hand entire gear, the right hand shock absorber or a combination of the three by giving way worked out to deliver a to port groundloop. Regards, desertfax Desertfax (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Desertfax, thank you for your comments. I re-checked in the Elgen Long's book and found the quote to which you probaly refer. It is on the page 113 in my edition of the book, and it says: "Hamilton Standard Propellers reported that both of the propeller hubs were found to be in good [not "excellent" - A.M.] condition." It also says, however: "The changes vere made to provide better lubrication and prevent future sticking or freezing of the propeller blades". The need for such "changes", IMHO, indicates that the situation was not so perfectly clear, so it rather still remains an "open question" about the possibility of a scenario like Roeesler/Gomez version. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but a major malfunction of the pitch mechanism would have certainly appeared in the accident investigation report. We however, do not find anything concerning, which indeed does not include that the occurrence escaped attention.Desertfax (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Hello Desertfax, agreed too... but, sometimes, big consequences can be caused by not so "major" malfunctions, as it is known from the history of technique... so (yes) the whole version can be wrong - or, the posible malfunction could escape attention (or to be omitted in the official report - as technically unproven, or because of some other reason). I suspect, we may never know for sure. Kind regards, Alex V Mandel (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible. However, if left and right hand propellors are out of pitch synchro the engines revs gauges immediately respond by strongly indicating different numbers on their scales, and the pilot would at the same instant be alarmed. Neither Amelia herself, nor later first line biographers have communicated out of phase propellor angular speeds for the concerning incident, so there are no other than circumstantial references by Roessler/Gomez.Desertfax (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Hello Desertfax, yes i agree that the scenario presented by Roessler/Gomez is rather a version, not something that can be proclaimed with full confidence as a final verdict on the case. Maybe (i'm just guessing) the situation during the accident developed so quickly that AE - "struggling" with the aircraft - just did have no time to see, understand and interprete correctly what the devices "said" and what was the real primary cause. It could be understood later... but the opinions of participants and witnesses of the accident that are usually cited are their very first impressions right after it, or just guesses. For example Mantz thought that the accident could be caused by AE "jokeying the throttles". However he was not in the cabin to see it himself - so this statement remains just a guess/opinion of him. I'm not a pilot myself, so cannot have a definite judgmental opinion here. Can only say that i did show the Roessler/Gomez version to several experienced pilots of senior generation who flew different planes in their careers (including props), and their opinions were that the scenario looks pretty realistic and possible to them. Also, certainly agree with you that the financial aspect could be a serious factor why the Mantz's services were discontinued; AE and GP were really in a tough financial situation after the groundloop. Yes, correct, apparently there is no known records confirming that Mantz was not prolonged because of his possible guilt in the accident, so i never proposed something like to include such statement into the article. It was just my guess, that can be correct or not - depending or how correct is the version presented by Roessler and Gomez. We may never know this for sure, i suspect. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Elgen M. Long in "Amelia Earhart" extensively reports [ pp. 90, 91] about the groundloop and records that both propellor hubs, even after the accident, showed no damage. Only the propellor blades had to be exchanged for new ones. Also, there is no record that Mantz was not prolonged because of the accident. It is more probable that his services were discontinued due to the cost [ $ 1,000,- per day]. Earhart's own view was that the r.h. wheel strut gave way, upon which she gingerly eased the l.h. engine when the A/c initiated soaring to starboard. As a result the r.h. power plant, maintaining revs, pulled the A/c to port. Desertfax (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)desertfax


 * Maybe she saw one of the tachometers suddenly changing by a large amount and at the same time felt the plane pulling strongly to one side, and overreacted by throttling back one of the engines too much to compensate. I don't really know, I've never flown a twin-engine taildragger, but it seems reasonable to me... 67.170.215.166 (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically and theoretically a good supposition [May 25, 06:21] , but , the unsynchro scenario being a generic alibi against pilot error , where does it appear in the of the era records ? Desertfax (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture- Air
When the article is unlocked, it might be worth mentioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_%28comics%29 in the literature section; Earhart appears as a supporting character and her disappearance is explained as a fantasy phenomenon, where as part of an experimental method of transport (hyperpraxis), she was displaced in time and space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.2.116 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Banjo question (answer)
Somebody asked some time ago about AE playing banjo but i can't find that question here on the page anymore... Anyway: yes, AE played banjo, and used this for some time to make some money to pay for her flying lessons. This is mentioned in several bio books, and the time when AE taught herself to play it was 1919 - a period of her recuperation after the pneumonia and maxillary sinusitis problems she has in 1918. She also played piano, since her childhood. Apparently there is no mentioning anywhere about any surviving records of AE playing music and i have big doubts such records exists... she played for her own pleasure and in some small music halls and other such places - not some professional sound record studios, and those were days before the effective and non-expensive sound recording technologies for mass use became common and widely available... Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC).