Talk:Nikumaroro

29 settlers from where?
Twenty-nine islanders were settled there - from where? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These were copra workers recruited from sundry Polynesian islands. Arundel had operations on many central Pacific islands during this period. Wyss 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The American Polynesia referrence says that they were from Niue, and called the island "Motu oonga" or island of the coconut crabs. The book also quotes Albert F. Ellis, saying that Arundel and Co. planted coconuts there in the 1880's.

Pustelnik (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They did indeed. One can still see remnants of the groves on the island's northwest corner. The coconut crabs are still there and are, as ever, very nettlsome to visitors. Historically, Pacific islanders visiting the island would catch and eat them. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I took out this sentence: Guano deposits weren't found and the US claim was given up in 1882. It needs citation.
 * American Polynesia states that it was claimed uner the Guano Act of 1856 (added to article) "But there is no record of guano having been dug." Nothing about the claim being given up. Pustelnik (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These claims would lapse if guano wasn't mined. Moreover, claims to islands in the Pacific had to be backed up (in practice) by some kind of occupation and development. By the early 1880s, when Americans had done nothing to further the decades-old guano claim to Gardner, the British swooped in and claimed the island themselves, this time for Arundel's coconut/copra production business. Although this project failed, nobody else laid claim to the island (it is off the shipping routes, very isolated, had no guano, very hot and although something to behold, not too friendly to people, unlike many Pacific islands) and when the British came back in the late 30s to develop the island for transplanting Gilbertese colonists there the Americans still had no meaningful interest in the island. There was a bit of diplomatic back-and-forth between the UK and the US about a handful of other islands (notably Kanton) during this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gardiners_Island Gardiners_Bay Gardner_Island Nikumaroro
Gardiners_Island Gardiners_Bay Gardner_Island Nikumaroro

Hopiakuta 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Gardner_Pinnacles

Hopiakuta 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Earhart stranding
Amelia Earhart stranded on Nikumaroro? http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/01/earhart.mystery.ap/index.html 24.199.153.73 12:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Nikumaroro theory" on the Earhart incident is sheer nonsense, held up for publicity about "expeditions". Earhart´s aircraft would have flown to the island via a "position line" (that did not exist) with for 1 hr fuel reserves (whereas the flight would take 2 3/4 hrs). There is also a "Betty´s notebook" with "post loss messages" from the Earhart-Noonan crew, heard in Florida by "a 15 year old girl". An entire kitchen unit "having belonged t Earhart" has been " found" on the island, but no single artifact has been identified as such. A hoax from the beginning.80.56.50.56 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To anyone else who encounters this talk page, the dismissal of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis by the anonymous user above is unwarranted and the reasons given are distorted. For example, Line of Position navigation likely to have been used at the time supports the possibility that Earhart/Noonan flew SE to Niku. In addition, the remaining fuel would have been more than adequate and many more people than "a 15-year-old girl" recorded the post-loss messages. An objective review of the data and analysis would not rule out this hypothesis. --SquidBay (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidBay (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose behind including a snippet about what Brian Dunning thinks on the article page? I read Brian Dunning's article on Skeptoid, and it misstates TIGAR'S hypothesis, evidence and arguments.  Misstating your opponents argument so that you can easily defeat it isn't a form of logic at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.56.118 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Dunning's observations and analysis of the TIGHAR organization is extremely telling and well documented. In 30 years, the organization not been able to substantiate any of its claims and other researchers, Richard G. Strippel in "Researching Amelia: A Detailed Summary for the Serious Researcher into the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." Air Classics, Vol. 31, No. 11, November 1995, NASM Curator Thomas D. Crouch in "Searching for Amelia Earhart." Invention & Technology, Volume 23, Issue 1, Summer 2007 as well as Commander Laurance F. Safford along with Cameron A. Warren and Robert R. Payne in Earhart's Flight into Yesterday: The Facts Without the Fiction, McLean, Virginia: Paladwr Press, 2003. ISBN 1-888962-20-8, had similar concerns. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

No it's not telling or even well documented. Brian Dunning clearly misstates the navigation analysis that TIGHAR uses, claiming that TIGHAR assumes that Noonan and Earhart flew off course directly to Gardner (now named Nikumaroro Island.) That has never been TIGHAR's claim. TIGHAR assumes that Noonan and Earhart flew a dead reckoning course toward's Howland Island, and then flew down a line of position that should have intersected Howland Island and been near to Gardner Island further to the south. It is clear to me, as someone educated in celestial navigation, that Dunning does not understand how sun sights were used prior to modern navigation, or what a line of position is. So he misstates the argument and then shoots it down. His new updated article released yesterday, erroneously refers to TIGHAR'S dot dash photo as the new photographic evidence of landing gear. That's not the photo that TIGHAR is relying on. TIGHAR clearly stated years ago that the dot dash photo was of ship debris from the wreck of the Norwich City, and that photo is not the photo released during yesterday's press conference. Again, this is a misstatement of the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.56.118 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of Lae, Noonan set a heading approximately 20 degrees right of the direct track to Howland, flying east to Choiseul island, immediately south of Bougainville, to avoid the dangerous weather further north. At Choiseul Island, Earhart turned back to the northeast with a plan to rejoin the direct track from Lae to Howland at Nukumanu Island, which would provide an excellent and visible checkpoint for their location. Her pleas for radio contact were heard by a radio operator at Nauru Island. This report was filed with Coast Guard Headquarters in San Francisco. Radio Nauru recognized Earhart's voice on three separate transmissions approximately 11 hours out. Once radio transmissions were received by the picket ship near Howland Island, the UCG Cutter Itasca, the intensity and loudness of Earhart's transmissions indicated proximity to Howland, close to 200 miles out, with the actual location indeterminate.


 * Arriving in the Howland area in the 20th hour of flight covering 2,200 nautical miles computes to 110 knots per hour ground speed. The true air speed Earhart was instructed to maintain was 130 knots, thus Earhart was bucking a 20 knot headwind on the Howland leg of the flight. Naval officers on board the aircraft carrier Lexington computed a maximum of four hours of fuel remaining if Earhart was in the Howland area as the last broadcast was received, "2013 GMT – “We are on the Line of Position 157‐337, will repeat this message on 6210 KCS. Wait listening on 6210 KCS ... We are running north and south.” The Itasca did not begin its search of the waters in a quadrant north of the Howland area until high noon or 12:00 o'clock Howland time at the 24th hour of the Earhart flight, when its captain calculated that her fuel was exhausted. Earhart's emergency plan if Howland was missed was to try to reach the British-held Gilbert Islands. Considered standard procedure in case of emergency, she would have tried to back track and reach the Gilbert Islands after the failed attempt at Howland.


 * Earhart had previously backtracked on the world flight in the vicinity of Burma as the result of a tropical monsoon. To reach Gardner Island, 404 nm away, there had to be sufficient fuel to last at least 3-4 hours flying time, yet 61 minutes had already elapsed with Earhart searching for Howland, when her final transmission was made. Earhart could not have reached any landfall with the fuel remaining. FWiW, Dunning does make an error in stating that TIGHAR's hypothesis is that setting a course to Gardner was accidental, it really was based on the premise that Gardner was the likely landing spot because so-called "post-loss" radio transmissions were made, up to six days later. I sincerely hope that TIGHAR's hypothesis somehow proves correct and that a conclusive piece of evidence is found in the Niku 7 expedition departing this summer, that finally solves the mystery of Earhart and Noonan's disappearance. With renowned undersea explorer, Dr. Robert Ballard aboard, TIGHAR may have its best shot yet. Bzuk (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

The claim that there is documented evidence of Earhart and Noonan crash-landing on Gardner Island
It is merely a claim and as stated, there is no collaborated evidence to back it up so it is therefore only a theory and should be considered just that. Bzuk 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Collaborated? You more likely meant corroborated. Speaking of word usage, evidence can support a hypothesis but not prove it. The Gardner island hypothesis is supported by much confirmed documentation and evidence, but has not been proven. Gwen Gale 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also say that the Gardner island hypothesis does not specify a crash landing, but a more or less successful landing on the reef flat. Gwen Gale 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a hypothesis that is not supported by corroborated scientific analysis at this point and does not rise to the level of a theory. We are both expressing the same views, merely semantics is the issue. Bzuk 12:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Glad to hear we seem to agree. However, I must say, the hypothesis is indeed supported by scientific analysis but this support has not yet resulted in what a consensus of professional historians would characterize as proof. Moreover, the term theory simply doesn't apply here: This is neither a scientific model meant to explain a naturalistic process, nor popular speculation. Gwen Gale 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for correcting the date in the reference, my botch, meant to fix it but got distracted. Gwen Gale 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No "seem"– we agree here. My contention is that it is an interesting, even fascinating hypothesis and that it would be amazing if there would eventually be evidence to support the claims of Earhart and Noonan surviving, albeit even for a brief period, following the harrowing end to their World Flight attempt. Bzuk 12:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * We don't know (opinions about likelihoods are another tale), but there is some evidence that, if they did land on Gardner, Noonan may have died of injuries within days or weeks while Earhart may have survived much longer. There is even an open possibility she was still alive when a survey party from New Zealand arrived there in 1938 (ironically, to check into whether or not the island was suitable for a landing strip). Nikumaroro is bigger than it looks: A few members of the New Zealand team almost got into deep trouble trying to walk around the atoll. By the time they passed near where the skeleton of a white, northern European female was later found, they were struggling with thirst and fatigue. She may have been alive when they staggered by the "castaway's" campsite (this is a stretch to utter speculation though, harrowing nevertheless). Gwen Gale 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart / F.Noonan have never been on Nikumaroro, their fuel supplies were by far not sufficient to reach the island from the Howland-Baker region , let be that they were able to set course to this land point , from a by them not established departure position about the original destination. The s.c. " clues" by certain visitors never showed any connection with aircraft & crew once investigated afterwards. It is a very safe assumption that @ Nikumaroro will never be found proof of the fliers having been present, so called "hypotheses" and "post loss" radio messaages are far beyond reality .80.56.50.56 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would need to be cited to a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

By an article in European Journal of Navigation, Dec 2011 , Vol. 9 No.3 , it is shown that due to insufficient fuel reserves when in the Howland vicinity , it was impossible to reach any other land point than the island itself , or Baker @ 45 miles alternatively. A US Marines Corps party explored Baker in July 1945, nothing about A/c or crew was found. The publication inviolably shows that Earhart´s 1912 GMT radio statement "Fuel running low, (only 1/2 hr left)" was an exact verification of the remaining supplies .77.250.101.214 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)i

What does the Marine Corps search of Baker Island have to do with Nikumaroro? Baker Island is a different island entirely. Radioman Galten's log recorded the transmission as "KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT A 1000 FEET." (Itasca Log, 0742, local time.) There is a difference between the statement that gas is running low, and the statement that a 1/2 hour of fuel was remaining. The time in the radio logs of Itasca are different than the GMT time Earhart was using because the cutter was on local time for Howland Island, which was a 1/2 hour off. To convert Howland local time to GCT, you add 12 hours and then subtract 30 minutes, which would be 1912 GMT. The last transmission was "KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337. WE WILL REPEAT MESSAGE.  WE WILL REPEAT THIS ON 6210 KILOCYCLES, WAIT." The last transmission was logged at 0843 Howland time, which is an hour later than the purported 1/2 hour of fuel remaining message. If Earhart had only a 1/2 hour of fuel left at 0742, how is she still flying and transmitting an hour later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.56.118 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides Howland, Baker Isl. was within the range & endurance of the aircraft after 1912 GMT. The 1/2 hour fuel supply left concerned the 87-oc avgas to finish the trip according to the flight plan. The on board remaining 25 USG 100-oc avgas, added to the 87-oc accounted for 45 USG , sufficient for 1 hr plus endurance. Source : European Journal of Navigation, Dec.2011 imprint. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gwen Gale, There is either no confirmed documentation , nor evidence concerning the TIGHAR "hypothesis". Their "researchers" continuously show off with the qualification "scientific" for their findings, to gain authority. Actually however, no sliver of their statements touches the field of any genuine speculation , let go science. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Norwich city debris
The debris has been widely scattered at least since 2004 and this article has described it as such since February 2004. To describe the debris as scattered "by 2006" implies that it was not scattered before that time. Gwen Gale 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement: "although by 2006 only scattered heavy debris including the ship's massive steam boilers and hull fragments remained." does not imply anything other than when the observation was made in 2006, the boilers and hull fragments were still visible. FWIW, we may be arguing over the same point. The vessel was beached in 1929 and the remains are still in place, whether it will still be possible to see them in 2007, is not determined; however, the ship's boilers and pieces of the hull were seen recently in 2006. Bzuk 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
 * With all due respect Bzuk, your take on this (including your own writing) is mistaken and moreover, I'm so sad to see you edit warring over it. Please have a shufti at WP:POINT. Meanwhile, all the best to you! Gwen Gale 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The date is merely the most recent confirmation of a significant landmark. When and if the '07 expedition reports on the sighting of the Norwich wreckage, then it would be appropriate to update the date again. FWIW Bzuk 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
 * You're mistaken is all, as is the text you've written, which will mislead readers. Gwen Gale 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The passage states that the wreck took place in 1929, was prominent for 70 years and after that only debris remained and that by 2006, only the boilers and hull fragments were still present. FWIW Bzuk 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

Underwater structure?
I called up Nikumaroro in Google Earth to look at the imagery. In the lagoon waters, there appears to be some sort of underwater structure there that does not look natural (no it doesn't look like Earhart's plane, nor a ship for that matter). Any idea what that is? Go to 4°39'59.35"S latitude, 174°31'44.61"W longitude and zoom in.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are digital artifacts, very common at that level of resolution in Google geo imaging. --SquidBay (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See above remark on insufficient fuel reserves from 1912 GMT, the Earhart crew and/or aircraft never were in the vicinity of Gardner , let go that they managed to "land on the reef" .77.250.101.214 (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * TIGHAR themselves explain they got fooled by appearances in sonar data.
 * FTR, I do not accept fuel analyses without thorough checking, I found gaps in factors and logic. RationalKeith (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Dunning statement
The Dunning statements about TIGHAR] do not belong in this article and should be removed. I removed them, but another editor reinserted them.

Dunning is not mentioned at the main section on the Amelia Earhart. I have no stake in TIGHAR's hypothesis, but Dunning does not appear to be a reliable source but rather a self-published blog. Dunning is a primary source that does not have a secondary evaluation. Who tells WP it should believe the pearl diver info? Or even give Dunning's views some reasonable weight.

Dunning seriously misstates the TIGHAR's theory as a 10 degree navigation error ("The TIGHAR hypothesis suggests that they made their entire flight at a full 10° off course, without catching it, while following their compass"). That misstatement alone shows that Dunning is incompetent on this matter. Dunning stupidly believes Noonan, the "prince of navigators", flew "by mistake" rather than a rational plan for a second leg to avoid ditching in the ocean. TIGHAR's hypothesis has Noonan near Howland with two hours of fuel. Failing to find Howland, Noonan then heads to the Phoenix Islands. It's easier to find one of 8 islands rather than one. Dunning just asserts that Noonan could make Howland or Gardner but not both.

Dunning confuses TIGHAR's "tirelessly promoting their hypothesis" with some sort of failure to use a scientific method. Dunning shows that TIGHAR claims that some artifacts are "consistent with". TIGHAR is not claiming proof of its hypothesis; in fact, the expeditions are searching for proof. Recent articles show that TIGHAR wants to find the plane -- something that would prove the issue. The phrase "consistent with" does not mean is. Dunning has also made it unreasonable for someone to question the results of an earlier autopsy, but repeatable results is a cornerstone of science. In contrast to the desire to continue to search for evidence, Dunning has concluded the null hypothesis must be true -- that Earhart lies "well hidden, deep in the peaceful darkness thousands of fathoms".

TIGHAR's hypothesis may be wrong, but it seems the only way to prove it wrong is to actually find the wreck somewhere. Until then, many hypotheses are viable. Certainly ditching at sea is highly probable. Even TIGHAR appears to have several inconsistent hypotheses. In one, the Elektra is in the water with the radio still working but washed out to sea a few days later; a photo may show a solitary landing gear sticking out of the water. In another, the Elektra, wings intact, is parked in the jungle and missed on a fly-by. Later, the plane is visible by a plantation, but nobody connects it to AE. Some of TIGHAR's hypotheses are going to wrong. Maybe all of them.

Searching for evidence of her existence on the island is not unscientific. Whatever TIGHAR finds, they must present to the world, and the world can decide if the evidence is too thin or too suspect. Right now, some major corporations are supporting the continued search. Maybe they're behaving reasonably, or maybe they're just foolish. Dunning is certainly entitled to question TIGHAR's work, but WP need not report Dunning's views. Given Dunning's minimal understanding of the hypothesis, WP should not report it here. WP:UNDUE

Dunning's skeptoid blog does not belong in this article on Nikumaroro. If anywhere, it should be in the AE article where it can be supported by Putnam's view of insufficient fueling at Lae, but even there his self-published work may lack the requisite seriousness.

Glrx (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Brian Dunning is an expert source whose opinions matter to this topic. As much as you don't like them, as much as you may find errors in them, they are still part of the topic. I endorse the Dunning bit added by Bzuk. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

TIGHAR, as always , will find nothing connected to the incident , the new "landing gear" theory is a next concoction to keep up publicity for commercial reasons : every year new promises just to keep within the limits of law , and no results. The maximum ferry range of NR 16020 was 2,820 SM, the endurance 20-plus hours. Both figures do not cover flying the 400 SM distance Howland-region to Gardner. TIGHAR´s "hypothesis" does not need to be proven for being wrong since it is based on a nonsense theory that will never find consistency, let go relevancy. 24.132.31.124 (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)24.132.31.124 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Brian Dunning's statements should be removed. Wikipedia itself points out that Brian Dunning runs his own blog and has been indicted for fraud after an investigation by the FBI. In addition to purposely misstating TIGHAR's hypothesis, he misstates the fuel and range calculations of the Electra. In 1936, while the Electra was under construction, Lockheed published a thirty-seven (37) page document titled "Lockheed Report No. 487 - Range Study of Lockheed Electra Bimotor Airplane." This was authored by Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson and W.C. Nelson. The study concluded that it was possible to fly the Lockheed Electra Model 10E non-stop with 1200 gallons of fuel for a distance of between 4100 and 4500 miles. That range prediction was for no wind. According to the study, an Electra with a fuel load of 1100 gallons (which Earhart left Lae, New Guinea with) would give the Electra between 24 and 27 hours of endurance at airspeeds between 135 and 150 miles per hour. With a headwind of 15 miles per hour, she could arrive in the vicinity of Howland Island 19 hours after takeoff, and still have a 5 hour reserve. Brian Dunning isn't an expert on the Lockheed Electra's fuel capacity and endurance, Kelly Johnson was. Anthony Roach, Esq. (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Anthony Roach, Esq.


 * Dunning's statement is a very valid critique; that TIGHAR is unscientific in ignoring all but the one explanation they want to have. TIGHAR's treatment of circumstantial evidence is ridiculous, and Dunning points this out. He is necessary and significant. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a valid critique. Saying so doesn't make it so. You can't argue against someone who cites primary source authority by misstating things and making up facts. TIGHAR has never claimed that the evidence they have found is conclusive, that comes from media articles. TIGHAR has been very honest that none of its evidence is conclusive. They were quite clear that aluminum debris found on Nikumaroro was from aircraft other than the Electra. Your claim that TIGHAR ignores other explanations. They are simply looking for evidence to support their explanation. Brian Dunning's blog article misstates TIGHAR's hypothesis, falsifies the fuel range capabilities of the Lockheed Electra, and contains numerous historical inaccuracies. This is what causes Wikipedia to be an unreliable source. Including the reference to Brian Dunning causes this article to lack a Neutral Point of View. It should be flagged. Anthony Roach, Esq. (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Anthony Roach, Esq. Wp:DFT is a good precept. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC).

That is an arbitrary and contrary decision to not seek consensus and flies in the face of recognized authorities such as Richard G. Strippel in "Researching Amelia: A Detailed Summary for the Serious Researcher into the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." (1995), the Smithsonian curator Thomas Crouch and nearly every other historian whose observations of the TIGHAR efforts are exactly like those espoused by Dunning. The edit will be left in place but I do decry the use of such tactics. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Well, I still think Dunning is a poor source. I've replaced him with a recent The New Republic article that does not misquote the TIGHAR hypothesis but does offer serious criticism. It includes info about a continual headwind, evading a storm that would consume more fuel, and a prominent critic. I hope that satisfies all sides. Glrx (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the edit. It allows constructive criticism of TIGHAR'S hypothesis from real experts, and not criticism by an arm chair amateur that does not know what he is talking about. It gives the article a more neutral point of view while presenting both sides. Thank you. Anthony Roach, Esq. (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Anthony Roach, Esq.

That wasn't the point, there was no consensus to replace the quote with a "puff piece" article that celebrates Gillespie and his work rather than challenges the TIGHAR hypothesis. There is not one scientist, researcher or historian who has supported the TIGHAR work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC).


 * I thought that using the NR article would satisfy all sides. I was happy with it, and it satisfied Anthony. The edit kept the criticism of TIGHAR but used a reliable source to do it. I don't consider the NR article a fluff piece that celebrates Gillespie (yes, it's not a scientific journal, but neither is Dunning's blog). Many comments about Gillespie are unflattering. It points out that he makes dubious/premature claims.
 * A major point of this section was that Dunning is not a reliable source; he got significant details wrong. The WP article did not use Strippel or Crouch as sources for TIGHAR criticism, so those comments are out of the blue wrt the Dunning challenge. Strippel is in the bibliography, but it has no inline citations. Crouch is cited in a footnote discussing the history of Niku rather than TIGHAR faults.
 * Glrx (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I found TIGHAR to become cautious after the first few years of false leads and alternate explanations for things. RationalKeith (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The article on Nikumaroro is probably not the place to argue the validity of the TIGHAR expeditions nor their scientific prowess. A mere mention that they have taken place and that whatever revelations that transpire that are universally accepted as bon fide evidence should suffice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC).

Girx. "TIGHAR´s hypothesis may be wrong, but it seems the only way to prove it wrong is to actually find the wreck somewhere". Somewhere else, it should be supposed .The evidence of the " hypothesis" being wrong can also be derived from theory and empirics of A/c´s peformance during the concerning flight , and thereupon by finding no trace of crew & A/c on Nikumaroro. It is definetely not so that finding the aircraft somewhere else is necessary to overcome the speculation about Gardner. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Bones now determined to be Amelia Earhart's
theysem2b.pretysure:81.11.206.47 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Happened to see this: Bones Found 76 Years Ago Could Actually Be Amelia Earhart’s. By Nina Golgowski. Nov. 1, 2016. Huffington Post. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good info thanks, but exaggerated.
 * TIGHAR probably cover the analysis of old measurements and different conclusions. Unfortunately bones were misplaced somewhere, TIGHAR and others have not been able to find them.
 * TIGHAR has become cautious.
 * Example of 'interesting but does it check out?' is the sextant box - is it one that Noonan would have used given his background and the mission? May be not. But even if not could it have been used to stow some things like cosmetics to protect against sun? RationalKeith (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Better satellite photo available


I added a new satellite photo from NASA, with the supposed Earhart crash site ID'd by them. Another editor reverted, commenting "no need to advertise AE theories here". Which seems odd, since the article already discusses these theories, and also mentions the "Seven Site" called out on the NASA satfoto. Comments? --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * NASA has not identified any AE crash site. TIGHAR has many ideas. This article is about the island and only incidentally about the GIH. Glrx (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, how about
 * "Seven Site" is a focus of the search for Amelia Earhart's remains. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This article is about the island; it is not about the Gardner Island Hypothesis or TIGHAR's beliefs. The images's inclusion of the Seven Site makes it non-neutral. The description on the File: page is TIGHAR-centric. Glrx (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor GIRX, after multiple reverts, is now complaining about the "totally non-neutral descrip" on the parent NASA satfoto page, which is copied verbatim from https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=91889&src=eoa-iotd Apparently their beef is with NASA? Who knows? Getting silly, imo. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Many supposed editors play games, some are just trashy people. RationalKeith (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)