Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 5

Protected
Why is this article semi-protected? And why is there no blatant box saying it is, with links for requesting unprotection and the like?

More generally, why are a lot of pages semi-protected, apparently chronically rather than just until something blows over, these days? It didn't used to be this way and it dishonors honest anonymous users -- the vast majority of all Wikipedia's users. 
 * Read the past history of this article to find that it is under constant attack by vandals. FWIW, If you want some credibility instead of using an anon, sign up as an editor Bzuk 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Aren't all articles under constant attack by vandals? Apparently one even had this IP address before I got it (another customer of my ISP?) since I just got a message that a change "I" made to a page was reverted, that I don't recall making.

Aren't all articles under constant attack by vandals? No, only a small subset. "I" made to a page was reverted Sign up for an account! Problem solved. You don't have to use your real name, although I've never seen any need for a "handle". Maury 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have sworn an oath to resist to my dying breath all attempts by any website or its operators or users to pressure me into "registering", signing up for anything, handing over any information (especially a working email address), or paying actual money, ever. I've run into far too much of that kind of crap to ever wish to do anything to encourage or subsidize it. I also have way too little time to manage the job of keeping ten million userid/password pairs for ten million different sites straight, which is where the slippery slope swiftly leads if I start knuckling under to this sort of thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.10.64 (talk • contribs).


 * If you don't want to become a community's member, then do not complain about not being treated as one, either. For keeping passwords straight: become an alpha or beta tester for Passpet (passpet.org) - it's based on a peer-reviewed security scheme, and free (as in beer). --Ronja Addams-Moring 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to Add Information
I would like to add something to the Biography page regarding the yellow Kissel Roadster. The Forney Museum of Transportation http://www.forneymuseum.org has this car on display. It also has a wax figure of Amelia in the car. Could this information be added to the section describing the vehicles? I might be able to create a page about the car and have a link to "Goldbug" or "Yellow Peril" since Kissel and Roadster have their own wiki pages.

Thanks, Directingcars 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. You want to do it? I can certainly help you. I see the additional information as a citation note. FWIWBzuk 07:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

New Search
May I please add the latest July 12 2007 search.

--Florentino floro 07:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's searching, where and have the found her diary yet? ;-)Mark Lincoln 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Error in content under Family fortunes
How is it that Earhart's father Edwin lost his job in 1914, spent time in treatment trying to get reinstated, then spent a long time searching for work, and then finally found a new job in 1913? Either he knew something about physics we don't or there's a typo in there.

151.201.47.145 12:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the passage: "While the family's finances seemingly improved with the acquisition of a new house and even the hiring of two servants, it soon became apparent Edwin was an alcoholic. Five years later (in 1914), he was forced to retire, and although he attempted to rehabilitate himself through treatment, he was never reinstated at the Rock Island Railroad. At about this time, Amelia's grandmother Amelia Otis died suddenly, leaving a substantial estate that placed her daughter's share in trust, fearing that Edwin's drinking would drain the funds. The Otis house, and all of its contents, was auctioned; Amelia was heart-broken and later described it as the end of her childhood.


 * In 1913, after a long search, Amelia's father found work as a clerk at the Great Northern Railway in St. Paul, Minnesota, where Amelia entered Central High School as a junior. Edwin applied for a transfer to Springfield, Missouri in 1915 but the current claims officer reconsidered his retirement and demanded his job back, leaving the elder Earhart with nowhere to go. Facing another calamitous move, Amy Earhart took her children to Chicago where they lived with friends. Amelia was enrolled in Hyde Park High School but spent a miserable semester where a yearbook caption captured the essence of her unhappiness, "A.E.- the girl in brown who walks alone." "


 * A rewrite is necessary if you missed the dates involved, others may also be confused. FWIW Bzuk 13:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Relevant research
The Amelia Earhart article is now being considered for "Good Article" status. In the next while, a peer review will take place that will focus on the article's strengths and recommend areas to address. One of the areas that will be evaluated is the strength of research evident in not only the writing but also in the use of corroborating and authoritative reference sources. Can all editors who have contributed to the article to date, please review their submissions and make sure that citations are present for any major passage or contentious issue. Thanks. FWIW [:¬} Bzuk 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC).


 * This edit of yours contains inaccurate and unsupported information. Please stop edit warring, thank you. I would also like to mention that you're the one on the verge of violating 3rr, not me. Cheers! Gwen Gale 17:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, is it the notation that GP's son supported the TIGHAR work? He is quoted in other sources as saying, "I wish people would just leave this all alone. They can't see seem to grasp that she ran out of gas and crashed in the sea." or is it the note by entertainment reporter Linda O'Connor where she repeats what is said in books, not provides a viable statement? She is not an aviation reporter, historian or researcher. BTW, check the record, I did not begin an edit war, you hit 3R first; I merely rearranged the paragraph and removed one questionable reference source. I can certainly see the reason for changing back the original wording on the Putnam passage as this can be misleading to a reader. However, check back a paragraph or too and there is another contridictory statement attributed to him, so I wanted to remove the ambiquity. However,I do see your point here. FWIW Bzuk 17:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

Here's all I've done with the article in the past 24 hours:

My first revert A minor date change My second revert

Please notice that my two reverts of this wholly inaccurate and unsourced material which may also be OR were separated by almost a day and that my previous edit to this article was on 24 July, almost two weeks ago. As you can see (and with all due respect, since I assume you are mistaken in good faith), I think you're the one who has been edit warring and misrepresenting my editing activity. Edit warring bores me to tears, so I've removed this article from my watch list. I may start watching it again in a few weeks, I don't know. All the best though. Gwen Gale 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to the topic at hand, can all editors interested in this article, please check to see if references are suitable. Thanks. Bzuk 21:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

I will see what I can document. This can get laborious.

So much of what has been written about Earheart is either hagiography or drivel.Mark Lincoln 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Widely Independent
The Saipan theory has never been corraborated but its sources are widely independent of one another, which is often considered a type of corraboration in other instances. Japanese and U.S. military people have added their own stories. The people who are fuelling (no intentional pun) interest in Earheart generally are those that contribute their honest beliefs to the disappearance story.

The people who failed Earheart aren't those who espouse, believe, or consider the stranger theories. The people who failed Earheart are the people who failed to find her. Either she and Noonan were on Gardner Island or they were captured by the local Japanese despot who Tokyo had sent to the furthest reaches of the Empire.


 * The term "widely independent" is what I questioned, it is not a common descriptor regardless of its importance to "corroboration" of theories or hypotheses. Perhaps a rewrite of the note on Earhart's disappearance can note that proponents of the Saipan theory are diverse and unrelated including witnesses on Saipan as well as US military veterans who first advanced their recollections. FWIW Bzuk 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

Widely independent sources are considered to be corraborating in many circumstances. In an over-simplified example, if Democrats and Republicans agree on an issue, then it is seen as exceptionally valid. Likewise, GI's from WW2 and the children of Japanese officers are providing detailed accounts of things they saw -- not uniform accounts from sources that knew each other at the time.

Besides, the Gardner Island theory, which people forward as responsible, has its weaknesses too. The 1940 bones can't be verified, and even the measurements can't be conclusively linked to Earheart. The place found as a campsite on Gardner/Nikomororo had bones of turtles, birds, and fish, yet the researchers theorize that sea storms overwashing the site or big crabs carried away the bones of Earheart and Noonan.

They could easily have been both marooned on the island and then captured and executed as spies. Or maybe Noonan killed Earheart in anger, was rescued by the Japanese, and lived the rest of his long life out in anonymity in Australia. With Earheart as a feminist icon, is there some active cover-up that will not allow such a misogynistic conspiracy theory to find its audience?
 * And your point is? just because there is unverified data from divergent sources that it corroborates a theory? and that "crackpot" theories have credence? FWIW Bzuk 23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

The point is that the Saipan theories aren't conclusively crackpot. Look at the YouTube video statements from the old GIs. They seem credible and their accounts are detailed and not grandiose. They are narrowly focused and don't draw big conclusions. Maybe the Japanese woman was lied to by her father. Maybe the GIs were victims of a briefcase hoax. Maybe the Electra they burned was not Earheart's. Those talking don't appear to be crackpots, liars, or profiteers. Credible historians should never discourage honest efforts to place uncorraborated facts into a record.

All the other theories are not well substantiated either. Earheart with known fuel levels also that knew survival depended upon dry land and a healthy radio, so the crashed and sank theory is as weak as any other.
 * I'm assuming the above submissions are from Matt (please sign your posts). Theories are just that, however there are virtually no historians or researchers that have supported anything other than a "crashed at sea" or "crashed on land" scenario. There is also no such thing as "uncorroborated facts" – facts being undisputed and verifiable beyond doubt. If you read the notations carefully, the authors have explained that two theories predominate among Earhart scholars, all others are not considered credible. FWIW Bzuk 07:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

Many facts are uncorraborated. I ate a potato chip before writing this paragraph, but that fact, while true, is uncorraborated. The Saipan theory doesn't exclude either of the other scenarios (ditched at sea or landed on Gardner). The aviators could have survived hours, days, or weeks and then been rescued or captured by Japanese military. We know that no Americans rescued them or even checked twice at Gardner Island.

The witnesses of the Saipan stories could also be victims of hoaxes themselves. The historical record claims that false distress messages were heard by many people in the days after the disappearance, so the Earheart hoaxes began immediately. We have never heard anything about false distress messages before the disappearance, but the route and risks were well known to the general public.

The military veterans in the YouTube videos appear credible. Their stories aren't coordinated. They don't make grandiose conclusions. They state what they saw and believed. Their langugage isn't stuff like "white powdery substance" instead of "cocaine" like cops would say. So maybe the briefcase and the Electra were not the real things as they were led to believe at the time. That doesn't make them liars, or crackpots, or profiteers. They appear to make their statements in good faith despite the criticism and ridicule they receive for doing so. Matt605 09:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the "allegation" that you ate a potato chip, that is not a fact, merely, a claim. These witnesses may have accurately recalled what they have been told or observed but that information does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the Saipan theory is even credible.


 * These are the facts:
 * During her intended round-the-world flight in 1937, the first to be attempted along the equatorial route, Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan took off from Lae, New Guinea, in her twin engine Lockheed 10E Electra, heading eastward toward their next stop, Howland Island, a tiny dot of land in the vastness of the Pacific, 2,556 miles away. Once out of range of New Guinea, the American Coast Guard ship Itasca was to serve as her radio contact near Howland. Her twin engine Electra carried about 1,000 gallons of fuel, enough for 20-21 hours of flying. She expected to reach Howland in 18 hours.


 * At 19 hours, 12 minutes Earhart radioed that she thought she was upon the Itasca but that she couldn’t see it and had only a half hour of fuel left. Some heard “low on fuel.” But her signal was too weak for the Itasca to take a bearing, and she wasn’t able to see the smoke the ship was sending up.


 * Twenty hours and 14 minutes into her flight, Earhart radioed her last transmission: “We are on a line of position 157-337, running north and south…”


 * Then the Lockheed Electra vanished.


 * Immediately following Earhart's last transmission, the Itasca set off on a search in the Howland area, based on the theory that her radio transmissions were loud and clear at some point indicating proximity. This is the basis of the #1 "Crash-and-sink" theory. An extensive naval and coast guard search takes place for nine days, combing ocean and nearby islands. (At least one of the searches concentrated on Gardner Island due to a message received after Earhart would have run out of fuel. This message is now considered a hoax. This is the basis of the #2 "Gardener Island Hypothesis" or theory, also bolstered by the US Navy's reporting of "recent habitation" on the island.)


 * A series of hoax messages are received in the weeks following Earhart's disappearance. Various theories are first proposed as to her fate, including the #3 "Spy" theory first advanced by Amy Otis Earhart, Amelia's mother, the "Gardner Island" theory initially proposed by the USCG and then repudiated, her aviation consultant Paul Mantz who also first supported then disavowed the theory and finally Amelia's mother who convinced George Putnam to finance a private expedition to the Pacific.


 * Much later, other theories began to surface including the "Saipan" theory that had been the product of Fred Goerner's research, based on the supposition that the Marshall Islands had been the crash site and that Earhart and Noonan were transported to Saipan. It is often characterized as "3B" because it links the "Spy" theory with a type of "crash on land" scenario. A number of other "witnesses" have come forth with variations on the theory. The #4 "Other Identity" theory also was proposed by researcher Joe Gervais wherein Irene Craigmile Bolam was an alternate identity of Amelia Earhart. #5 is the "New Britain" theory that centers around the claim by researcher David Billings that a Wasp engine had been found in 1945 in New Guinea that matched one of the lost Electra's engines.


 * Fact-finding expeditions have taken place to the Pacific in order to find evidence supporting any of the theories. No scientifically verifiable evidence has been found.


 * After these facts, comes "articles of faith" and more theorizing, not evidence. FWIW Bzuk 14:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

Not so bad, except that the Saipan theory is based on widely independent claims from witnesses who didn't know each other at the time and whose claims cannot be refuted by the existing evidence. YouTube shows their statements, except for the claim by the Japanese woman who said her father was involved in the execution. Whatever the case, those who fuel interest in the disappearance haven't failed Earhart and Noonan. Those who failed to continue the search did.

Wikipedia is not an encylopedia for children. Wikipedia does not sit in its own bookcase in the family living room. Wikipedia is not sold door-to-door throughout the small towns of the American Midwest. It's a phenomenon of the internet. As such, it can and should include a wider range of viewpoints and a wider range of viewpoint quality than the dead tree encyclopedias of the past.

The widely independent uncorroborated claims remain unrefuted by the existing evidence. Matt605 17:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither are these claims verifiable and the two main theories that continue to have support from scientists, researchers and historians remain the "Crash-and-Sink" theory and the "Gardner/Nikumaroro Island" hypothesis. The other theories are noted in the article but undue weight to the other theories is not given. Wikipedia has the same standards as all reference works and attempting to "slant" opinion is not considered appropriate. Let it go. BTW, the Saipan claims have been refuted by many historians; one of the keys is that the four Chamorro women interviewed on Saipan in 1977 did not have the same story, some of them had faulty or sketchy memories and two related "someone told me" stories. Thomas Devine's statements continue to be elaborated, now he claims other witnesses to bolster his "evidence." It a great mystery, perhaps one of the most long-standing in aviation annals and one that may never be resolved conclusively. Why do these "widely independent" witnesses come forward? Who knows? Maybe it's a combination of ego, vanity, clouded memories? I don't begin to fathom the human mind or the intricacies of psyches.  Bzuk 17:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

The Saipan claims have been rejected by historians but not refuted by the evidence. Crashed-and-Sank assumes great inexperience by both on board, which isn't plausible, and a big modern search failed to find the aircraft in a search area much smaller than Titanic's. The death on Gardner/Nikomaroro theory requires that we believe sea storms or big crabs removed the human bones but left the bird, fish, and turtle bones in place. Saipan requires only that we believe that some Saipan accounts are true (see YouTube). Researchers believe that some distress calls among many heard in July 1937 were true and some were hoaxes. Why can't we apply the same standard to the Saipan theory?

Let them find Earhart, Noonan, and the Electra. Then we will know who is telling us the truth. Until then, why silence some views when there is amble space to include the fact that the Saipan theory is supported by claims from "widely independent" sources?

This is the perfect example of where Wikipedia is weak. On controversial topics, article editors wish to produce a version that is good according to Britannica standards. Well Wikipedia doesn't have its own bookcase in the family living room and it isn't sold door-to-door as the first and last authority. Produce an article that is good and relevant according to modern, cyberspace standards of inclusiveness and balance. Matt605 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the Earhart "disappearance" theories have irrefutable evidence, however, what is indicated in the Amelia Earhart article is that two disappearance theories have received greater credence while others have not. No one is censoring these other views but to insist that they have as much support is to refute the extensive research and expert opinion that have been lined up behind the "Crash-and-sink" and "Gardner/ Nikomaroro Island" theories. If reputable historians, archivists and authors have not supported the Saipan theory, then that is a telling sign. Regardless of what you believe are credible witness statements, that is great for an opinion, but the standards of an encylopedia do not allow for opinion as fact. All your ideas, beliefs and commentary are fine on a "discussion" page but I and other editors will continue to challenge them as an example of providing ambiguous and "weighted" statements that do not represent contemporary research on the disapperance of Earhart and Noonan. Whenever scientifically verifiable evidence is discovered, then the "true" story can be known, until then, there are two existing theories that the majority of Earhart scholars identify as possible scenarios and a number of others that do not have that widespread support. FWIW Bzuk 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

The Crashed-and-Sank theory and the Gardner/Nikomaroro theory both have their problems, as does the the Saipan theory. The Saipan theory has eyewitnesses to evidence. We can see the YouTube statements easily, however, the Japanese woman's statements are probably more important. Imagine coming forward to help solve the deaths of heroes in a more powerful foreign country by admitting that your parent executed them. That took more courage than most people have, and so it is a mistake to say that the Saipan theory's witness statements are not credible.

The Saipan theory does not exclude either of the other two more popular theories -- the aviators could have been rescued before sinking at sea or before dying on land. It's just a mistake to give it short shrift simply because its implications are more damaging to government officials. Not only did they fail to rescue the Americans from the sea, they also failed to resuce them from the Japanese military.

I don't see any other people on this topic opposing my inclusion of the words "widely independent" except you, Bzuk. You did propose an alteration to the tone and substance of the paragraph on the Saipan theory which I don't object to, but a more responsible policy would be to include it with the other theories that have persisted through time because no evidence to the contrary can be located. Matt605 02:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I contested the use of the term as it was an uncited and unattributed description and it was "nested" within another cited statement. I do not question that the individual Saipan witnesses were singular and unrelated but there is a wide body of controversy over the validity of the stories that were advanced, and the books that have been written that centre around the Saipan theory including the Goerner work have been discredited. Earhart's friend, Jacqueline Cochran had travelled to postwar Japan specifically to examine Japanese records related to the Earhart World Flight; as well, she had been granted permission to see US Navy and War Department documents related to Earhart and had publicly declared that the no Japanese or US files shed any light on AE's disappearance. Various other scholars have had access through Freedom of Information requests to the extensive Earhart files that are archived in Washington, and have come to similar conclusions. Purdue University is the site for the Putnam/Earhart archives and also is a major source for researchers. No legitimate author, historian or researcher has validated any aspect of the Saipan theory. Devine and Campbell's latest book could not satisfy publishers as to the veracity of their evidence and ended up being self-published. As an author and historian, I have been responsible for vetting all sources within my research and that is the established standard for all published works. They could not meet that standard. Another concern that you raise is that only one person disputes your interpretation, but if you check back through the edit history and the discussion page related to Amelia Earhart, you will note an on-going dispute that is now nearly a year old regarding various disappearance theories. There are a number of major contributors who have already been on record who have made significant contributions to shaping the article and whose commentary on the disappearance theories is already acknowledged. My suggestion: post on this page first before you work your contention into the main body of the article, that the Saipan theory has the same importance as other theories.  I would love to debate the point further with you but I will elicit two of my favourite editors, Gwen Gale and Dr. Alex V Mandel to assist me. Both of these Earhart scholars have an extensive background in the life and times of AE as well as being completely conversant with all the controversial and sensationalist theories that surround this iconic aviation pioneer. FWIW Bzuk 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC).

The 1966 book on the subject was authored by a reputable journalist, and not all the facts included have been refuted. The Saipan theory does not reject the either two more popular theories, but actually completes them -- Crash-and-Sink has no plane, Gardner/Nikomaroro has no human remains.

The Saipan theory has statements of people visible on YouTube who appear credible, honest, and sane. Only the Saipan theory has eyewitnesses to artifacts that appeared to belong to Earhart. The other theories have nothing, no plane, no bones, no debris.

Goerner is a "reputable journalist"?

How the heck did Earhart manage to fly from where she could be heard 5/5 at Howland Island on 3105 kc to Sipan on zero fuel?

Let me guess. She and Noonan were smoking dope and the pot fumes supplied enough lift to cover the distance.

Ok, she didn't fly the L-10E to fuel exhaustion near Howland, she flew a course 90 degrees off and Fred never noticed.

She didn't notice either. After all, that old sun sets in the South and rises in the North right?

Deep draughts kido, and hold it in a long time. Pretty soon the silliest of things become funny and make sense.Mark Lincoln 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am amused that now YouTube is a 'credible source" and "source material." Lots of hoots on YouTube folks, but wow.Mark Lincoln 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Matt, despite your contention that the Saipan theory is the most credible, that belief is not supported by contemporary researchers and that is exactly what is expressed in the article. It basically states there are two widely accepted theories and a number of other theories. If you want to introduce the Saipan theory as the most believable Earhart/Noonan disappearance theory, that would be challenged. What other sources do you have, irrespective of your observations of a YouTube interview? Are you aware of the commentary of the other editors on this subject? A cursory appraisal of this talk page will equip you with many of the issues that have been debated in this forum for over a year. None of the Saipan theory books has had any scientific, historical or other backing. Most have been withdrawn from publication, out-of-print or available only as "vanity" press editions. Your observations of witnesses notwithstanding represents a personal view that is not shared by the vast number of Earhart scholars. Every expedition to Saipan and its surrounds to obtain confirming evidence has been fruitless. The Saipan witnesses over the years have changed, altered, embellished and redone their accounts numerous times. With no bonafide paper or other record other than witness statements which you may categorize as credible but other observers have had the opposite reaction, that does not constitute a valid basis for acceptance of the Saipan theory as anything other than another theory, and one that does not even have widespread support. None of the theories have corroborating evidence but I follow the precepts of Ockham's Razor wherein the best way to understand something is getting unnecessary information out of the way for the fastest way to the truth. In the case of the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan, given all the possible scenarios, Ockham's Razor would lead you to accept the simplest explanation, she got lost and ran out of gas, ditching in the ocean. FWIW Bzuk 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

"Maybe the Electra they burned was not Earheart's." Probably wasn't even an Electra. The Japanese built hundreds of slightly larger Lockheed 14s (called "Super Electras" by Lockheed), under the designations "LO" and "Ki-56." The USN used L-14s as R4Os and the US Army as C-111. Whether the guys could identify the differences between any of those aircraft is questionable. To assume that it was Earharts L-10E is a big leap of faith.

The problem you refuse to address is how it could have gotten there. Earhart was close to Howland and so low on fuel she could not have made it to the Marshalls. Perhaps Elvis in his flying saucer gave her a ride.Mark Lincoln 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your quick responses are appreciated, but they do not persuade. Saipan as the location of their imprisonment, execution, and burial does not contradict the Crash-and-Sink or the Gardner/Nikomaroro theories -- except for the sink and die part. NEITHER of the long-accepted theories has any hard evidence, which in that respect makes them the equal of the Saipan theory. However, the Saipan theory does have eyewitnesses that are sane, credible, and viewable on YouTube.

Even the TIGHAR web site admits to receiving tons of anecdotal evidence for the Saipan theory. They cannot confirm the reports and therefore do not pursue them, but their efforts to confirm the other alternatives have produced nothing. Shouldn't each failed attempt to prove the dead tree encyclopedia fairy tale cause rational people to add more weight to eyewitness and anecdotal evidence of the Saipan theory? I say yes, be fair, be balanced. Matt605 10:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Matt, nothing seems to sway you, neither rational arguments nor the weight of countless years of research. Let me put it succintly: the SAIPAN THEORY IS CRAP. The witnesses were mistaken or deluded. They are not credidble and have long ago been discredited. Kothera, Goerner, Richart, Devine and all the other so-called historians have been seduced by the obsession that has surrounded Earhart. The simple evidence is that the USCG Itasca picked up Earhart's radio transmissions "loud and clear" at a decibel frequency that indicated she was in close proximity. She could not have flown to the Marshall Islands from that point in time in her flight. The one major witness, Thomas Devine is an absolute fraud. Devine's allegations were completely debunked in a DIO Intelligence Report in October 1960 conducted by Naval Special Agent Joseph M. Patton. Not only was Devine's memory faulty, the map he concoted did not even resemble the Saipan geography plus his linking of the "gravesite" was again in error. The report concluded that Earhart could not have ever been on Saipan, nor her airplane. The most telling note in the report is that the local Saipan witnesses were also completely unbelievable. This US Navy report was confidential but would have conclusively ended all the nonsense about Saipan spewed up by Henson, Burks, Goerner, Klaas and Briand; many of these people went on to write trashy, flimsy books on the Earhart disappearance. Get it- they were in it for the fame, glory and money! Captain Laurance Safford deals with all the various hoaxes and conspiracy theories in his book: "Earhart's Flight into Yesterday: The Facts without the Fiction"- read it, it comes from the man who commanded the Itasca. FWIW Bzuk 13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

I've been very reasonable. Remember, this began as a disagreement over including the two simple words "widely independent" in a sentence. The Saipan witnesses speak for themselves on YouTube. The other theories, along with the Saipan theory, have no hard evidence either. But decades of failing to prove the other theories should make fair-minded people wonder why.

The Japanese archives that yielded no evidence is truly evidence in itself. Who believes that the Imperial Japanese Navy was not watching with profound interest? Nothing found in the file box about Earhart though, and the dead-tree encyclopedia fairy tale believers cite absence of records as evidence. The Imperial Japanese Navy was completely unware and disinterested in a media event that was as sensational as 9/11 in its day? That's not credible.

Let's be fair. Let's be balanced. All of the theories have their problems. None of the theories have hard evidence. Just a few of Saipan theory's witnesses are on YouTube and seem rational, honest, and credible. Matt605 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Matt, You seem to be a fine fella but have you not read anything above? The Saipan Theory proponents are not considered credible, have not been considered credible and probably never will be considered credible witnesses. Are they rational, probably not, because delusion is incipient. Are they honest, possibly but still deluded, is being the most charitable I can muster. Observers of the local residents offered that they were pleasant and tried to please the interviewers. The stories they told are inconsistent, filled with errors and indicative of muddled memories at best. The others- authors, historians, researchers who forwarded the Sapian theory have been catagorized as charlatans, frauds, at best, merely fame seekers but they are not anything more. The Japanese files to which you alluded are explicit in describing the Saipan years. No Earhart, no US military or civilian aircraft- nothing. Safford describes the archives as another concusive piece of evidence that the Saipan Theory is impossible. Now with no independent sources other than disputed, discredited and unreliable witnesses. What else have you got- your own observations on a YouTube interview? If that's it, you ain't got 'nothin'. FWIW Bzuk 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

It's funny that you must resort to personal attacks against the witnesses. They've searched for the Electra and never found it. They cannot even find the bones that were originally not identified as Earhart's. So how is that better than Saipan, where the witnesses describe what they saw but don't posit how or why they saw it? The witnesses on YouTube seem honest and sane. They're not the only ones with Saipan stories.

Now we learn that the failed search of the Japanese archives wasn't a full search at all. The Japanese are more into American culture than most Americans and always have been.

I'm more convinced than ever that the aviators landed on Gardner/Nikomaroro and then were rescued by the Japanese, and then things went bad during routine questionings. Even the search aircraft pilot that scanned Gardner said he saw signs of recent habitation. Why could that not be an indicator that the Japanese had rescued them first?

The reason is because all the scholars and researchers suffer from groupthink and mindless conformity to the dead-tree encyclopedia fairy tale. They are too heavily invested financially and psychologically in a fantasy to see how reasonable the YouTube witnesses are.

It's the same mind trick that happens with kids who are molested by priests -- experiencing the truth will create such trauma that their minds will not permit them to remember or see the simple facts. Matt605 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Matt, read this again, this is not my opinion; this is the established opinion of every independent researcher who has reviewed the witness statements, the few paper documents presented (a map drawn by Thomas Devine) and eventually every other source of information from American, Japanese or other sources. No Earhart scholar backs the Saipan Theory- NO, NONE, NADA, NICHO, not one. Talk about "planted memory syndrome" the Saipan witnesses literally regurgitated everything the interviewers wanted to hear. Unlike yourself, I have mainly been interested in Earhart as a pilot and iconic figure, however, the reason for her continuing fame is the unsolved mystery that surrounds her disappearance. I bought every Earhart-related book, good or bad and I must confess that I even read Goerner and Brink but found them singularly unconvincing. The Joe Klaas book however seemed to be complete nonsense. A simple phone call to folks that knew both Amelia and Irene would have solved the "mystery" of whether "Amelia Lives." The landmark Mary Lovell biography, The Sound of Wings: The Life of Amelia Earhart, however, deals with the accumulated dross of the theories in a scholarly and thoroughly researched manner. The "late" message apparently from Gardner Island that would have arrived after the Electra was out of fuel apparently sparked an order from USCG Headquarters in Honolulu to Captain Safford to abandon his original search in the waters adjacent to Howland Island and set off in a southeasterly course to Gardner Island. Lovell very acccurately labels this message as a hoax that had been traced to a mainland USA location, but this sole message is the underpinnning of the eleborate and drawn-out TIGHAR expeditions (along with a cryptic "signs of recent habitation" note made by US Navy searchers who overflew the island. My guess is that they spotted the 1929 wreckage of the SS Norwich City.) The "island" is basically an atoll with no permanent dwellers then or now. The $2 million spent by the TIGHAR organization includes some of my hard-earned money but after observing their operation, I gave up on them. Every person closely associated with the round-the-world flight from her close confidant Jackie Cochran, consultant and one-time copilot Paul Mantz and even the family itself, with husband, sister and grandchild reluctantly but ultimately subscribed to the only realistic possibility: Amelia was lost at sea. FWIW Bzuk 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

You come across like the Ayatollah of Earhartism. If Crash-and-Sink and Gardner/Nikomaroro are so solid, where is plane and where are the bones? They've searched for decades and have found nothing. Shouldn't that give more credence to whose who say the plane and aviators met their demise on Saipan? YES.

The truth is that none of the theories have solid evidence, but only the Saipan theory has eyewitnesses that can be seen on YouTube. The YouTubers don't say Earhart was a spy or that she flew the plane to Saipan -- just that they found evidence that contradicts the traditional story. Let's put an end to the dead-tree encylopedia fairy tale about Earhart. Be honest. Be fair. Be balanced. Matt605 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you certainly are persistent. Okay, poker time. I've called, what do you have? FWIW Bzuk 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

The problem with the "Saipan" theories is the fact that the L-10E had limited fuel endurance and neither Earhart or Noonan were fools.

While their takeoff might represent 'got to get there itis," a known killer, it is highly unlikely that either would believe that they should see the setting sun out the left window, or the rising sun out the right. Nor could they have flown to Howland and then back to the Marshal Islands.

When you are headed towards an Island, there is lots of water and nothing else in sight, the pucker factor grows. When the only thing you have is a sun line predicted by a night of deducted heading, and the programmed error intended to leave you with a guess as to which way to turn when the Island isn't there the pucker factor gets tighter. When you announce that you have a half hour of fuel to the world, you are wishing it is one. When an hour later you say that you are changing frequency, and ask the folks you are hoping for guidance to listen for a repeat, you mean it.

Why should I reject the words of Amelia Earhart to the folks waiting at Howland, for the feverish speculation of folks who seem to have never sweated out the declining reserve on a long flight into headwinds?Mark Lincoln 23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To this day one of the most common causes for the loss of light aircraft is fuel exhaustion. I can think of several jetliners which have been lost that way. It is hard to think of any airplane that magically ended up in enemy hands because if flew half again or more further than it ever could have.Mark Lincoln 23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Stupid things happen to experienced pilots all the time. Ever hear of the guy that parked his helicopter on the train tracks to answer the call of nature? You can imagine how that turned out. So then he did it again. He had all sorts of experience (1000s of hours PIC) and was completely qualified. He simply made one bad math mistake (as detailed in a recent Canadian DOT safetly letter -- lesson to the kids, learn your math, it might kill you if you don't).
 * Matt's entire argument comes down to this quote from earlier in the thread "Crashed-and-Sank assumes great inexperience by both on board". This statement is obviously untrue. Crashed-and-sank requires nothing more than limited visibility. You can have the best pilot and navigator in the world and still miss an island in the middle of the pacific. There is no reason to suspect it's not what happened, but as this thread will attest, there's all sorts of reasons to eliminate the other possibilities. It is, quite simply, a perfect example of Occam's razor in use.
 * This entire too-long thread is nothing more than personal opinion backed by a faulty claim. Any pilot reading this, which includes at least myself and Mark (I'm guessing) simply won't find anything remotely odd about crash-and-sink, and everything about making it to Siapan absolutely nuts. I'm sorry Matt, but your argument remains as unconvincing as it was when it started, and no matter how many times I watch the video, my opinion doesn't change. Maury 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to weigh in here, as an "independent" outside voice. I've read through the thread above, but haven't yet reviewed the edit history (will do that in a few), but first and foremost I want to address to serious concerns I have with Matt605's repeated arguments: First, I don't care how many YouTube videos of old folks trying to remember you pull up, they simply don't count as a reliable, independent non-trivial source. Yes, interview information can be the basis of reliable sources, but they themselves are not reliable sources as far as Wikipedia policy and guidelines go. Matt605, therefore, please back off on these.


 * Second, Matt605 tried to argue that we're not a "kid's encyclopedia", neither are we sold door-to-door. I'm so tire of editors who want to grind their particular axe trying to redefine what Wikipedia is in order to accomodate themselves. Sorry, but you don't get to tell us what Wikipedia is nor how you want it to work. Accept the system and work within it, or go build your own website with your own rules. Forgive me if I sound rude in saying that, but that's how things are. Wikipedia simply is not the place for people with wild theories to promote them. Therefore, Matt605, you have now been put on notice. Any further excessive pushing of your personal favorite theory above all others will be viewed as more than simply a content dispute, and will be considered disruptive editing. Now...off to review edit histories....  AK Radecki Speaketh  21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've now reviewed the edits as well...in my estimation, after the recent cleanups, the article looks reasonable, except for the lack of sourcing for some of the unsupported theories sections; if proper sourcing is not found, removal of the entire sections is appropriate per our policies. What I'm going to insist on is that any changes that Matt605 (or anyone else strongly trying to use Wikipedia to advocate a position) want to make in regards to the Saipan theory be first proposed here on the talk page. If you don't know how to do this, please review Talk:Battle of Washita River (specifically the straw polls towards the bottom of the page), another highly contentious article that was protected, and has since been the scene of remarkable cooperation and civility.  AK Radecki Speaketh  22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started
I guess the fine description of the unique problems of celestial navigation of aircraft given by Gatty's ghost writer eluded everyone.

I have started. I will admit that I figure that both she and Noonan did a pretty good job and had a bad day. The article need not have suggestive wording to implant in the mind of the reader an 'answer' when - as in the case of the ground loop in Hawaii - there is less than certainty. I also changed wording that made it appear that the greatest chance was that Earhart and Noonan survived the day they failed to land at Howland. I would love to add a bit of feel for the ear and her position in it - I am not a hagiographer - but she was significant in keeping the public 'air minded."Mark Lincoln 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work, Mark, remember to provide as many citations as possible. I value your contributions and will try to support them in any way I can. FWIW Bzuk 02:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, my library is loaded towards two areas concerning Earhart, the subject of her disappearance and the 'Golden Age of Aviation" in general. I am not in possession of any general biographies of Earhart.

We are venturing into - as you are aware - emotional waters when dealing with the various 'theories.'Mark Lincoln 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bzuk, Grooch's book was dated 1936 but covers Noonan's activities in LATE 1936. including being navigator on the first commercial transpacific flight by the China Clipper (departing 22 Nov. 1936).Mark Lincoln 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)