Jump to content

Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Electra endurance - why not mentioned in the article?

I can't find any reference to the endurance of the Electra 10E in the Earhart article. Is there a particular reason for this? I know about the disputes about how much fuel could have been remaining when the aircraft was in close proximity to Howland, but what is not in much if any doubt is the timings of the Lae departure and the "arrival" at Howland. Based on the 1100 US gal of fuel on board giving a maximum 24 hour endurance, the known flight times suggest that as much as 3.5 hours further flight was possible. Can anyone state categorically why this information isn't included? If it were then it provides additional explanation of why the Gardner hypothesis exists and how further radio transmissions might have been made if an engine could still be run after the suggested reef landing. I know that Elgen Long believes that climbing to a higher altitude cut into the fuel reserves, but there seems little certainty about the altitude message referring to 10,000 feet that I can find. 78.33.159.137 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is a summary of Earhart's life, not a piece-by-piece breakdown of what went wrong on the last flight she took. I think it is enough to quote experts who briefly mention the fuel situation. Roy Nesbit does not think the Electra was fully fueled. Elgen Long thinks the fuel and other evidence points to Gardner. These two are plenty as they voice the main two arguments. Further details are not necessary; the curious reader can buy a book or two.
At any rate, we are not here to argue the case, we are here to present the various findings. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Endurance and Range are not synonymous. The maximum 'endurance' of an aircraft is usually figured upon optimum lean cruise airspeed. Range is usually figured based upon 'Still Air', which is to say no winds.

An aircraft is moving in a fluid which itself is moving. In the case of the Electra 10E, it was against prevailing and actual winds of significant force. The difference in 'range' i.e. the distance over ground, and the distance actually flown through the air may be VERY significant. in the case of a very long distance flight the ACTUAL distance flown through the air may exceed the theoretical range possible at the cruise speed/power settings for maximum endurance. Headwinds may require an increase of airspeed to make sufficient distance over the ground to reach the destination before fuel exhaustion.

The theoretical endurance of the Electra 10A is of little significance. Nor for that matter is the distance between two points on the globe.

Anyone who has flown has had a laugh reading the 'specifications' presented for aircraft. The numbers given are often mutually exclusive. The range is often for ferry in still air. The payload is often maximum which would preclude full tanks. The speeds are clean under perfect conditions. The F-00 might be able to go a zillion miles per hour, fly a distance of a million miles, achieve a maximum altitude of almost infinity, and carry an impressive load. It cannot, however, do more than one at a time. Citing the 'maximum speed' of an airliner is purile as what matters is it's cruising speed (or now days mach number which may amount to different True Air Speeds depending upon density altitude)

The article is about a person's life and career. It is not just about a navigation problem, nor the theoretical capabilities of the aircraft.

For navigational information in general try Guy Murchison's classic "Song of the Sky." Wiley Post's "Around the World in Eight Days." or more specifically Elgen Long's "Amelia Earhart."Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this is going to be fun... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

The contents of an article in European Journal of Navigation , Vol.9 No.3 , Dec 2011 , unconditionally show that the maximum ferry range of Earhart´s aircraft occasionally was 2,740 st.mls : it was from 1912 GMT impossible to reach other islands than Howland itself and Baker @ 45 mls off . Article verifies that radio message "fuel low ..(1/2 hr left)" concerned actual o/b situation @ 1912 GMT .77.250.101.214 (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

[1]Please add to the 'Movies and television' section that Amelia Earhart was portraied by [Lawrence] in the Star Trek Voyager episode 'The 37's'. --Eladner (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This reference was removed, the reason being "single episodes are generally not considered significant". Is this the case? I was about to add the reference when I saw it commented out with this explanation. I don't want to start an edit war, but I think this was significant. just Eleos 19:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Seeing no reply, and seeing that a single-page webcomic is accepted as significant, I am putting the reference to the Voyager episode back in.just Eleos 15:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Note that there was a purging of many of these entries lately, and this addition may not last. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Amelia Earhart in Media (Mike Oldfield)

Mike Oldfield wrote a song called "5 Miles Out". While some cite the lyrics to be about Mike's own near-death experience during an undocumented flight, the song is more generally considered to be about Amelia Earhart. The album itself (containing the song) is also named "5 Miles Out", and the cover of the album shows a vintage Lockheed Model 10 Electra aircraft (with similar markings to the one flown by Amelia Earhart in 1937) flying through a bank of clouds. Several passages in the song most assuredly make reference to Amelia Earhart's last flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.49.192 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Unless a WP:RS makes that deduction, we can not use it. Collect (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

typo

Under the "Move to California" section, there is a typo of the subject's name. It reads "While Eahrart was away..." where two letters of her name are transposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.73.175 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting it! Acalamari 19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Other honors section

The cafe in the Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering at Purdue University, which houses the school's Aeronautics and Astronautics Department, is called Amelia's after Amelia Earhart. The name of the cafe was chosen by way of a contest open to all students and staff at Purdue University. The cafe's logo is a rotor; symbolic of the Lockheed Electra aircraft. [2] Pseudomoksha (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)pseudomoksha

Identification of Lockheed Electra Landing Gear in 1937 Photo at Gardners Island

I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with TIGHAR and the various trials and tribulations of poring through Amelia Earhart speculation, but this cited source plainly states that the State Department, in a blind review, identified the landing gear in the 1937 photo at issue as being that of a Lockheed Electra. I have no idea why this is not appropriate content for this article, as it is plainly salient to the topic at hand, and we already include all sorts of speculative information. Please note, I am not suggesting we say that Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra's landing gear are in the photo, as that is not supported by the source. Thoughts on this? This seems like an incredibly restrictive application of WP:NOTNEWS. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

On further review -- that is, after taking about 30 more seconds to review -- Buzk's assertion here is very well-taken. The only truly substantiated piece of information here is the identification of a pair of Lockheed Electra landing gear in a 1937 photo on a reef off Gardner's Island. Give that we are not in a rush, I understand the objection to including it. That said, I personally think it's a salient piece of the story whether the gear can be conclusively identified as coming from her plane or not, so I'll retain my assertion that it should be included here, even as I mollify it a bit. Curious to know what others who are closer to/more knowledgeable of this area than myself think. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the "find" might be significant but at this point, it is only a peripheral aspect of the long and storied saga of the Earhart disappearance. I have amended the "invisible note" accordingly and have left it in place, with the hope that the future expedition to Nikumaroro will bring back some conclusive evidence to support the hypothesis that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan had been there in 1937. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC).
State throwing its weight behind the search, with Clinton giving a speech no less, pulling in Ballard for the press conderence and the assertion that government photographic forensic folks have said the photo does seem to show the landing gear of a 1937 Electra are all highly notable to this topic and easily, reliably sourced, whatever the outcome of the search may be and should be put in the article now without further wrangling. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Waaaay too speculative, the photograph actually taken in 1937 shows a very tiny image, and the experts are now hedging a bit saying only it may be a landing gear common to the 1937 Electra. I would caution waiting until the story develops into something conclusive before delving into more supposition, as evidenced by all the other recent declarations that have proved to be false leads. FWiW (I finally saw the photo, see photo.) Bzuk (talk 15:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC).
HuffPo characterizes the enhanced photo as circumstantial evidence. Past experience (and healthy skepticism) indicates that this will turn out to be nothing, so it is too early to be crowing about it. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NotNews does not mean that we don't use newspapers as sources, the WP:N nutshell notes, "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published...newspapers.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone would doubt that the event of March 20, 2012, is a part of the enduring record of Amelia Earhart.  The story of the exhibition and what Hillary Clinton had to say IMO deserve at least a paragraph.  In the US I know from personal experience that the story was carried on both ABC Evening News with Diane Sawyer, and NPR.  WP:NOTNEWS does not explain the removal.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
What she said was that she lent moral support to a privately-funded expedition to find the answer to a disappearance of someone who was a personal heroine. Anything else? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
I think I'm coming to a view that's somewhat in opposition to my original one on this. I'm convinced of the idea that we should, at the very least, be extremely cautious/selective in terms of covering this. It ultimately becomes transient meaninglessness if it amounts to nothing -- rather akin to encyclopedic coverage of a highly successful PR event. That said, it does seem to be a bit much -- almost, in a roundabout way, a NPOV violation -- to not include anything on this out of doubts that it will amount to anything and skepticism surrounding TIGHAR efforts in the past (all of this based, mind you, on my own total unfamiliarity with the relevant players here :). Both those things said: I have absolutely no idea how to have half of one and half of the other, if that makes sense. Perhaps if we limit our coverage to one sentence and explicitly make this a TIGHAR announcement -- that is, cover the announcement, less so the find -- we are finding effective compromise. Again, I have at the very least been convinced that breathlessly covering the photo itself seems a bit off target. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I concur. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC).


First of all, the idea that this is "nothing", is WP:CRYSTAL that history will be disappointed by what is discovered in June.  If the expedition in June fails to explain the photograph, the story of the photograph doesn't end.  What we should be considering is the timelessness of what we already know about what happened in March.  Following the sources, the major news services think this is worthy of notice, the US Department of State thinks that it is important.  In a one-hour radio show this morning ref, Diane Rehm called the news of this week about TIGHAR, Earhart, Clinton, Kiribati, and $500,000; one of "the week's top international stories".  Kiribati is an ocean neighbor of the U.S., whose EEZ zones meet near Winslow Reef, but a neighbor that most Americans have never heard of.
Here is Courtney Kube of NBC speaking on the Diane Rehm show today about Clinton's speech on Tuesday, "I have to admit, as a critical journalist, it was somewhat inspiring. She talked about being a little girl who wanted to be an astronaut and how she admired Amelia Earhart and her drive to be the woman who flies around the world by herself and her spirit and how she was so excited to be involved in searching for her plane 75 years later."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That's flipping CRYSTAL on its head, the tactic of saying that we should put something in the article because we do not know it will fail in the future! CRYSTAL is about not putting things in the article.
Why don't we concentrate on what the State department said they were interested in accomplishing in that part of the world, and the good thoughts that Clinton expressed regarding Earhart? The photo is circumstantial to all of this, and the expedition will not be a disappointment if its goal is establishing greater contact between the US and the distant island nation. It will not be a disappointment if the goal is getting more people interested in the history of Earhart. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That is absolutely the reverse of WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, nobody here is actually saying that "this is 'nothing'". What is being said is that this is, until proven otherwise, speculation. We do not know yet whether this is something or nothing. Asserting that it is something is closer to a violation of WP:CRYSTAL -- although that essay doesn't apply that well here in either case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what is happening on this page, but denial is a bit much when someone said, "It ultimately becomes transient meaninglessness if it amounts to nothing".  The two sentences in the article now are not timeless, they use Wikipedia's voice to talk about future events.  I think that the key word "re-evaluation" is incorrect (when was it previously evaluated?), the source says "enhanced".  There is an unclear reference to "Niku-7".  There is no mention of the unusual event in Washington DC, nor of the amount of press given to Amelia Earhart.  Come to think of it, the uniqueness of the event, and the amount of press coverage that already exists is enough for a separate article, it just needs a title.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: the photograph has been in existence since 1937 and was well-known but was RE-evaluated in 2010 when high-resolution enhancement was used to examine a particular detail of the photograph. The expedition is Niku 7 and mentioned in a number of sources. FWiW, feel free to write an article about a news conference, should be enlightening?! Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
Do you really think that Hillary Clinton appeared at a "news conference"?  Is that what Hillary Clinton called it?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I inserted a "just the facts, ma'm" statement into the appropriate section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Perceived truth and personal experience are not substitutes for the verifiability requirement in WP:V.  No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Numerous sources including the Washington Post have described the event where Hillary Clinton was speaking, as a "press" conference. In the removal of a reference source as a concern over verifiability has been made? The Orange County Register is a verifiable and authoritative source that is being quoted; however only for the note indicating a change in date of the TIGHAR expedition and that it is called NIKU 7. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

Orange Count Register, Entertainment section

A discussion exists at WP:RS/N#Orange County Register, Entertainment section.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

TIGHAR

I see that Bzuk has asked me on my talk page to acquaint myself with the history of TIGHAR.  Actually, NPR and ABC News did that yesterday.  I think Bzuk is missing the point that it doesn't matter if the landing gear was photo-shopped and counterfeited into a 1937 piece of paper with such skill that it fooled the US Dept of State.  The story is ipso facto of importance to the Amelia Earhart story.  The juxtaposition of two of the most iconic women in the history of the US creates a compelling and timeless impression.  The large amounts of donated money, the connection with the Titanic, the attention drawn to an ocean neighbor of the US, Kiribati, so little known that an ABC News reporter misspelled the name of the country, every aspect of this story draws attention.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the TIGHAR stories are an endless parade of optimistic conjecture followed by hopes dashed. There is never anything concrete found, never any real development that adds to the fund of knowledge building the story of Earhart. By now, TIGHAR has become a self-serving group focused on self-survival rather than on an objective assessment of the Earhart case. Like all previous TIGHAR press releases, we skeptics are ready to have it mentioned in the Earhart biography article if it yields a significant find, and not until. Prior to that point, the photo is conjecture and circumstantial evidence at best. Per NOTNEWS, we don't report such bread-and-butter press releases from TIGHAR. We will wait for positive results, if any, from exploration and research. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There are no press releases being discussed, maybe you should take another look at what reliable sources are saying, including what Hillary Clinton has to say about another US female icon.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Please wait until there is actually an event here; the information is already being walked back by the "experts" and there has not been evidence that this is a connection to the Earhart disappearance. Listing all the speculative press releases would be unproductive, with the article filled with constant "what if" mentions. FWiW, I am supportive of a brief, factual note identifying the basis of the latest Niku 7 expedition. Bzuk (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
There are no press releases being discussed.  There was an event in Washington, DC with representatives from two governments.  We know that Hillary Rodham Clinton talked about Amelia Earhart.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to insert some good thoughts from Clinton about Earhart's life and legacy. I just don't think it is time to talk up TIGHAR. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrongly Attributed Record

Earhart was not the first woman to fly at 14,000 altitude. Both Ruth Law and Raymonde De Laroche had done it before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.246.130 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The records that are recognized have to include the use of a sealed barograph, while the other attempts were likely considered "unofficial". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

News item, June 2012

There is a News item about her location. I am not sure where it should go. Someone familiar should add it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, possibly, may be, might be, could be?? Just more speculation from easily-duped Rossella Lorenzi, who has written breathlessly about other so-called finds. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC).
A Big Nothing of a news item. No news, just rehash. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
A very big leap of logic in finding a piece of a freckle creme jar to concluding it was a sign that Earhart owned it, and left it behind. See Rossella Lorenzi's cottage industry: another article, and another, and another, more, and ... etc, etc etc ad infinitum. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC).
I'm not sure i understand what the problem with this information (or the science journalist who reports it) exactly is...? There seems to be an ever-piling heap of evidence and artifacts pointing toward a very strong possibility that Nikumaroro was her final home. If Lorenzi has written a lot about the modern search for Earhart, and her credentials are valid, one might be inclined to think she is capable of understanding and reporting facts... perhaps even that she may in fact be doing so as we speak. Were it not for the missing remains, this whole matter would have been cleared ages ago; however, as it is now, researchers can only get closer and closer to the truth until they're reliably certain. That moment certainly appears to be getting closer and closer to now. ~transmothra (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The "ever-piling heap" is a pile of discarded refuse. None of the individual bits found by TIGHAR have anything except inconclusive connotations. Together they do not add up to more than the sum of the parts unless you are tabulating TIGHAR's gumption in continuing to hammer at the same unyielding nail over and over. Lorenzi has shown her hand, and it is obviously biased in favor of TIGHAR. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You did read that NONE of the "discoveries" that were announced were proven out. There is, however, an "ever-piling heap ..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

The encyclopedia doesn't generally care about future events, we simply wait until the future arrives.  However, I'm seeing some WP:OWN problems on this page.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Not so much OWN as "we already hashed that out, repeatedly". The puff piece news item really has nothing new, though you would not guess it from the tone. All of the old stuff is inconclusive. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
A single report (or reporter) does not fact make. I can quote many publications that tell us "gas mileage pills" will give me 125 MPG. Personally, I'll feel a lot more comfortable when I read in multiple news publications that Amelia's final whereabouts have been discovered--and, believe me, such news will be widely disseminated. Until then, we have a duty to the encyclopedia to only include information from verifiable, reliable sources. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 23:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
...and carrying out our duty as editors to follow policy isn't an ownership issue. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 23:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe I missed it, but I don't see where in this article that the collection date for the five shards is reported.  That doesn't make the information unreliable, it means that there is an absence of information.  Whatever this is about, I'd think it would need to be reported with more detail elsewhere to be useful.  However, I do see a date of March 20 for a "special press event", the point being that the "special press event" of that date continues to attract attention more than two months later.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am glad I did not know where to add that item.... Did not even read it carefully enough I guess, just saw it. Anyway, this topic seems pretty lively, so I will say no more. I was just passing through. History2007 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

REJECTED SUBMISSION

FBI FOIA FILES

Amelia Earhart from the FBI FOIF(freedom of imformation files)

The files at the link below clearly show and state that many radio operators intercepted Earhart's radio transmissions.
These files on pages 49 thru to 54 establish that Earhart landed in the Marshall Islands and was taken prisoner by the Japanese.
After reading the files it is obvious that Earhart and Noonan were both alive and had landed safely, however into or near a secret Japanese base.
Due to the planes altitude the radio transmissions misled those waiting to intercept Earhart as planned.
Off course far north of Howland Island, Earhart is said to have actually landed on Knox Island nearer to the Marshall Islands.
This is outlined by the FBI files.
The files document often repeated and frantic requests by radio operators to get FBI assistance in finding Earhart, even many years after her disappearance.
Here is the FBI link: http://vault.fbi.gov/amelia-mary-earhart/amelia-mary-earhart-part-01-of-01/view

--Atomic49er (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read the files and note that J. Edgar dismissed all of the theories as being implausible and that the radio transmissions were hoaxes. The letters that are included have long-since been dismissed by historians and researchers as nothing but examples of delusional or disingenuous individuals wanting to insert themselves into the popular cultural phenomenon of the Earhart disappearance. The FBI played no role in the search efforts that were directed immediately after the circumnavigational flight's failure but what are more telling are the the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy files that are extensive and document the search efforts that took place in 1937. None of the files reveal anything new in the ongoing search for answers in one of aviation history's enduring mysteries. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

These files are a primary source and do not prove anything. Wikipedia's preferred WP:Secondary sources are what is necessary to comment on the FBI files, and all of our responsible sources say that the radio traffic was confused by other radio traffic—the searchers were hearing other searchers. There is nothing about the radio traffic that establishes Earhart and Noonan living more than a few minutes in the middle of the ocean as their aircraft sank to 17,000-foot depth. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I hear you
My read was that there sources were credible on those pages cited
I feel that since there is "myths" part of the article, that these notes do suggest something.
Mainly these notes "the FOIA files" contain heretofore unknown information
This information and the fact that such a file even exists lends some credit to speculation about Earhart
I feel that since this material is from the USA FBI that it is noteworthy
after all why be the one who stops such things from becoming truly public
I FLAT OUT BELIEVE SHE WAS TAKEN PRISONER,AND USED BY THE JAPANESE, AND THAT THE FACT WAS COVERED UP

(after I read the files)

--Atomic49er (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Join the procession, there are a number of claimants to this theory, starting with Fred Goerner, Thomas E. Devine, Joe Gervais, Rollin Reineck, Genevieve Cabrera, Monseignor James F. Kelley, Ron Bright, Patrick Gaston and now, Wally Earhart, a distant cousin who all claim that Earhart and Noonan fell into Japanese hands. No credible evidence exists that indicates Earhart’s presence in Japanese captivity in Saipan, the Marshall Islands or any other Pacific island/atoll, least of which being the FBI files. FWiW, the theories surrounding Earhart and Noonan's disappearance began shortly after the last searches in 1937 and continue unabated to this day; I particularly like Steven Spielberg's "aliens captured her" theory that appeared as part of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.Bzuk (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

well really, these are the FBI files, and an introduction to their contents
the files are about her and only her
the text is articulate
the link is good
It seems beyond debate
the AE story, bio, whatever, includes some heresy

again not unreasonable to include in the proper context

--Atomic49er (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The FBI files represent nothing new and only confirm the conspiracy theorists were at work from an early stage, and were summarily dismissed as cranks. Hoover never placed any store in these claims as is evidenced by his comments to the letter writers. FWiW, J. Edgar amassed files on everyone and everything and the Earhart files were just another example of his obsession in widespread information gathering. Bzuk (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

They are primary sources, not to be used here without interpretation by experts. Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

bump

6.3 Myths, urban legends and unsupported claims
whatever

--Atomic49er (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

All been covered, the FBI files are inconsequential and represent unsuitable and unusable material, even discounted by the FBI director. No credible researcher places any store in this jumble of letters and reports. J. Edgar comments: “Although I would like to be of assistance in connection with your letter, the FBI does not have any material for distribution concerning Amelia Earhart. She was not the individual known as ‘Tokyo Rose.’ You may be able to find data regarding both of these people in your local library. Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover.” Perhaps take his heed. Bzuk (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC).

Last discussions archived

Discussions from January to early June 2012 have been archived. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC).

Polyamorous?

There is a discussion as to whether Ms. Earhart belongs in List of polyamorists and Category:Polyamorous people at Category talk:Polyamorous people#Category and list. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorous people have all sex partners agree to the arrangement, not just two. We know of only two: Earhart and Putnam. The others? We don't know about them. Some may not have been willing partners in the arrangement, especially if there were women having sex with Putnam but not knowing who he is; not knowing he is married. Earhart was less likely to have had sex without a partner knowing she was married. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere near sufficient reliable sources using the term about her. Collect (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with other editors. There are no credible sources confirming that Earhart belonged to the category of Polyamorous people, thus there is no reason to attribute this category to her. An encyclopedic article must be based on solid sources and firm factual data, not rumors and speculations. Alex V Mandel (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
There are many authoritative sources that dispute the claim that Amelia Earhart was polyamoral. The following sources suffice: Whistled Like a Bird: The Untold Story of Dorothy Putnam, George Putnam, and Amelia Earhart by Sally Putnam Chapman with Stephanie Mansfield (Warner Books, 1997), Amelia: The Centennial Biography of an Aviation Pioneer by Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon (Brassey's, 1997) and The Sound of Wings by Mary S. Lovell (St. Martin's Press, 1989). What sources did you use to establish the opposite view? FWiW, If you make a claim, be prepared to back it up with authoritative, verifiable resources. As well, once a BRD is instituted, it is bad form to reinsert the disputed edit. Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC).

Dab page needed?

There are enough articles about both 'Earhart' and 'Earheart' to warrant a dab page, in my view, as there's room for quite some confusion (see the filename of the picture of Amelia's signature, for another example). I'm thinking of creating Earhart (disambiguation) and make both Earhart and Earheart redirect to such dab page, instead of being redirects to two different articles. Any objections? --Giuliopp (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would rather you wouldn't. Even using the misspelling of Earhart's name would be confusing. FWiW, the USS Earheart does not relate to Amelia Earhart. Bzuk (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC).
What do you mean with 'using Earheart would be confusing'? To clarify any confusion is precisely the point of a single dab page, to which both spellings would redirect to. Thinking of all the readers who put 'Earhart' or 'Earheart' in the search engine, I'd say that possibly a significant number of them have made a spelling mistake and as a result are taken to the wrong article (e.g. they put 'Earheart' while looking for the aviatrix). Also, there are two ships named Amelia Earhart, so both should be mentioned in the hatnote, as it currently stands, which would make the hatnote cumbersome; better to move everything to a dab page. --Giuliopp (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Earheart does not and should not direct to Amelia Earhart, there is only one U.S. naval ship at present named after Earhart. There is an article directing readers to Private First Class James E. Earheart, Jr., the namesake for the U.S. Navy destroyer escort USS Earheart (APD-113/DE-603), in commission 1945–1946. FWiW, using the original logic of trying to assist readers with incorrect spelling would lead to Airheart, Airhart, Airhard, Ear Heart, Earherd, ad infinitum ... Bzuk (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC).
To me the hatnote on this article and the whole disambiguation of Earhart, Eearheart and Amelia Earhart is sub-optimal and not very logical, as it currently stands, but am not sure how to sort it out properly, so am going to leave it for now. --Giuliopp (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Saipan theory

The statement that "In 1966, CBS Correspondent Fred Goerner published a book claiming Earhart and Noonan were captured and executed when their aircraft crashed on the island of Saipan, part of the Mariana Islands archipelago, while it was under Japanese occupation" is inaccurate. I have a copy of this book and read the whole thing. Although in the beginning Mr. Goerner believed that the Electra crashed at Saipan, he revised his belief by the end of the book. By the end of this book, Fred Goerner's hypothesis was that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan went down at Mili Atoll, and then were taken by the Japanese to Saipan. I could care less about the arguments for and against Mr. Goerner's work, but lets at least get his theory right.Anthony Roach, Esq. (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Anthony Roach, Esq.

Death?

I think we can reasonably consider Ms. Earhart to be dead, given the length of time since her birthdate, but the question still remains where and when. So is death on Nikamaroro the prevailing hypothesis, or was it something else? Can it reasonably be presumed that her airplane crashed and killed her? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Edit request on 25 July 2012

Burbank is spelled wrong in the First Attempt subsection of the 1937 World Flight section. It has been spelled "Burbabnk," in the last sentence of the noted section.

Algargalad (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Radio signal date

THe times under Radio signals are for July 2. --69.111.215.41 (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So take-off was at 00:00 hours, i.e. morning of July 2, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
But why is the take-off time given in GMT? Were they flying on GMT? The time makes sense as New Guinea in Indonesia is +6 - +8 GMT, so a morning take-off would have maximised daylight hours (although they could have taken off a bit earlier). Would it not make more sense to give all times as local? Or were all radio transmissions logged in GMT? 800 miles east of New Guinea how far was she from the International Date Line? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems, in fact, that Earhart had planned and was flying on GCT = "Greenwich Civil Time". The scheduled transmission, midway between Lae and Howland, is given as 0815 GCT. But Civil time does not seem to explain why GCT would have been different to GMT in July 1937. Surely there was no daylight saving in force in that year? So how did the two differ. And why are the two both used in the article?
Howland is at 176°36′59″W, i.e. about 200 miles east of the IDL. If Earhart and Noonan were as close to Howland as they thought they were, wouldn't they already have passed eastwards over IDL, making the date "officially" 1 July? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

or not ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC).

It seems rather unlikely that anyone will ever know exactly where and when the plane went down, or even on which "day". But it does seem that it was probably in the afternoon? So at that Latitude, in early July, it was probably not yet dark, I suppose.. or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Van Pelt reference

The reference #129 say "Van Pelt 2006, p. 205" but in bibliography they are two books from Van Pelt, none of them of 2006:

  • Van Pelt, Lori. Amelia Earhart: The Sky's No Limit. London: Macmillan, 2005. ISBN 978-0-7653-1061-3.
  • Van Pelt, Lori. Amelia's Autogiro Adventures. Aviation History, March 2008.

Someone can fix this reference? --Moroboshi (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Likely a typo, fixed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

Further Data

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190099/Amelia-Earhart-Underwater-video-reveals-evidence-solves-75-year-mystery-aviators-flight.html

Debris located off Nikumaroro island in the southwestern Pacific republic of Kiribati. Forensic imaging analyses of the picture found the objects consistent with the shape and dimension of the upside-down landing gear of an Electra. The photo shows what appears to be four components of the plane: a strut, a wheel, a wom gear and a fender. In the debris field there appears to be the fender, possibly the wheel and possibly some portions of the strut, located distinctly apart from the debris field of the SS Norwich City, a British steamer which went aground on the island's reef in 1929 80.5.101.158 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

More of TIGHAR's hopeful noises and empty conjecture—nothing substantive for this article to use. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New paper on the Capture hypothesis

A new paper has been published investigating claims that Amelia Earhart ended up on the Marianas Islands (for full text of the paper see http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/AEinMarianas.html). This paper is rather comprehensive in scope because it reviews all claims pertaining to the Capture hypothesis (e.g. the claims that Earhart's plane was destroyed at Saipan airport and that Earhart and Noonan died of malnutrition in the Garapan prison), and TIGHAR does everything in its power to reject those claims in order to sustain a positive view of Amelia Earhart as an aviator who braved many atmospheric obstacles while flying across the oceans (that is, she had no genuine experience in aerial reconnaissance and it's unlikely that she would have been caught spying on the Japanese). Unfortunately, in his latest book Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last, Mike Campbell continues to stick to the theory that the Electra was burned on Saipan and that the US government covered up the evidence of the Electra's description, when in fact the US government refuses to take any position on Earhart's disappearance. Given the vast majority of variations to the Capture Hypothesis (take for example, the now-disproven hypothesis that Earhart died on Tinian), and the fact that there are no verifiable reports of plane crashes on Saipan before WW2, I would stick to the Nikumaroro hypothesis because the artifacts found there that support the hypothesis date to the time of Earhart's last flight and Elgen Long didn't say whether any human remains would have survived in deepwater if Earhart did crash her plane into the sea west of Howland Island. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

None of the best known hypotheses has proved to be supported by concrete evidence, including that of Nikumaroro. FWiW (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The absence of any human remains (yet found) at 17,000ft doesn't really support any particular hypothesis? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Aviatrix

The word "aviatrix" in the introduction should be replaced with "aviator", to conform to wikipedia's guidelines on gender neutral language. Earhart and other female aviators are already referred to as "aviators" in the main article, and aviatrix does not appear other than once in the intro RichTBiscuit (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The term is used exactly once, as period accurate, and was the result of a discussion on this talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
There are two problems with this: 1) The wikipedia manual of style states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision", and "Examples of non-neutral language that can often be easily avoided are... Uncommon gender-marked terms (conductress, career woman, male nurse, aviatrix), with the possible implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate". 2) The fact that it is period accurate is irrelevant as wikipedia is a modern encyclopedia for a modern audience, not an attempt at an accurate representation of a period article. There is therefore no need to include an anachronistic term when a better, clearer and more modern term is already being used for the rest of the article. RichTBiscuit (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless there is some groundswell of other support, this is essentially a "non-issue" as it is only used once, does not predominate and is there to provide context. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the term Aviatrix should be completely expunged from this page because there seems to be very few reputable sources that use the term. These sources all use either pilot or aviator - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18670292, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175680/Amelia-Earhart, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/305255/Amy-Johnson, http://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/discover/hull_history_centre/our_collections/hull_people/amyjohnson.aspx, http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/amy_johnson.aspx. If neither the BBC or Encyclopedia Britannica is using the term then I don't see why it should be on wikipedia. I also think that pilot should be used in reference to Amy Johnson because she worked for the Air Transport Auxiliary, and her designation would have been as a pilot. the Air Transport Auxiliary page itself describes 166 pilots (female) not 166 aviatrices. RichTBiscuit (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichTBiscuit (talk • contribs)

So, "completely expunged" = remove one instance? How exactly does the enforcement of gender-free language detract from the achievements of Earhart, or of female aviators in general? Is the thrust of your argument based on gender-discrimination or on unwanted archaism? You may wish also to consider this bizarre POV claim, at the opening section of Aviator: "These terms were used more in the early days of aviation, before anyone had ever seen an airplane fly, and it was used to denote bravery and adventure." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than being archaic, the term "aviatrix" is still in use to this day, and appears in all dictionary definitions, as a "female pilot" with no distinction as to its use being "archaic" or not contemporary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are arguing for my position or against. You say," How exactly does the enforcement of gender-free language detract from the achievements of Earhart". I'm not saying that, I'm saying that gender-specific language in this instance is a cause for potential confusion and is not clear and concise when it could easily be. The gender-neutral term in this instance is more desirable than the gender specfic term. The thrust of my argument is both, that the use of the anachronism adds nothing to the article, and thus seemingly betrays some gender stereotyping and as you say detracts from the fact that first and formost she was a pilot. Term aviatrix seems to suggest that her profession was a female pilot, not simply a pilot. The sentence that contains the term aviatrix could be made more clear and precise by following a similar line to this article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18972529, that Amelia Earhart was the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic, in 1932. RichTBiscuit (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite glad you can't tell. I know that English was never meant to be Latin (even, or perhaps especially, American English). But I see nothing confusing about aviatrix or even aviatrices. And I wholly disagree that either suggest any such "profession". It's a shame that such wonderful words are being lost from the vocabulary (of the average internet encyclopedia reader). Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no confusion whatsoever in calling Earhart an aviatrix. In the 1920s, "Earhart" and "aviatrix" were used together more often than not. Like Martin, I appreciate words. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from but my point is that it is not 1920. I have nothing wrong with creative language but wikipedia isnt really the place for it, the whole point, at least as i see it, is to put forward facts clearly and concisely, which using overly obscure language does not achieve. Most of the women in the Category:Female aviators are referred to as aviators or pilots. If everyone was as sentimental at the words passing out of common usage we would still be speaking old english. RichTBiscuit (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that it's "creative" or "overly obscure" or "sentimental" to use the word aviatrix. It just means "female aviator". It's one word instead of two. This is a bit of a paradox - people recognise that Earhart's gender is significant, but then don't want to use a gender non-neutral word? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Addition to "Other Honors" (Schools named after Earhart)

Amelia Earhart Intermediate School (Dept. of Defense Education Activity) in Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. http://www.earhart-is.pac.dodea.eduBpettitt (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

July 2012 more debris identified at Nikumaroro

[1] TIGHAR carried out an extensive underwater survey off the western end of the tiny Pacific atoll of Nikumaroro, which was formerly a British colony known as Gardener Island, in July 2012. The expedition was dogged by technical problems but photographs of a debris field show a number of components of the landing gear, including a wheel, a strut and a fender, consistent with a photo taken in October 1937. Coulld this be added? 86.145.40.82 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

More of TIGHAR's hopeful noises and empty conjecture—nothing substantive for this article to use. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the repetition your own personal view of TIGHAR, the fact that it made the pages of The Daily Telegraph suggests that the 2012 search, which included quite sophisticated technology, is notable in itself, apart from any findings. So a brief factual statement could easily be added to show that Nikumaroro is still the focus of attention. 86.145.40.82 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The expensive and widely reported search is relevant to the continued existence of TIGHAR, not the story of Earhart. They regularly make such searches and just as regularly find nothing concrete.
If we had an article on TIGHAR, the search could be described there. TIGHAR is worthy of an article written about it but nobody here has seen fit to do so. You could write that article, if you wish, and include information about each one of their searches.
The moment TIGHAR (or anyone else) finds something new and concrete about Earhart's disappearance we will change this article to include it. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does the Gardner Island section keep going back & forth between calling it Gardner & calling it Nikumaroro? It's confusing. Pick and name & stick with it. 75.241.247.201 (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree. But which shoud be preferred? Are there not considerations of historical correctness here? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Earhart relative's claim regarding capture hypothesis

Regarding the claim that the Japanese chopped the Electra into pieces and threw the wreckage into the ocean:

"In 2009, an Earhart relative stated that the pair died in Japanese custody, citing unnamed witnesses including Japanese troops and Saipan natives. He said that the Japanese cut the valuable Lockheed aircraft into scrap and threw the pieces into the ocean."

Now it seems that all Earhart relatives have disagreed with each other in trying to reveal Earhart's last moments. Like Tom Devine, the Earhart relative doesn't provide any photos to back up the claims by Japanese soldiers and Saipan natives that the Electra was cut up into scrap and tossed into the ocean. Given that a purported picture of AE's Electra on Saipan is actually a Tachikawa Ki-54 that crashed on Agrihan (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/55_WreckPhotoResolved/55_WreckPhotoResolved.htm), it's possible that Saipan natives may have actually seen the Japanese destroy one of the Tachikawa Ki-70 prototypes to prevent it from falling into the victorious US forces in Saipan. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Full disclosure: I am the author of The Puzzle as a Literary Genre (niquette.com/books/sophmag/puz-lit.htm), which has received many thousands of visitors over the past three years. Featured prominently in this essay are ten interconnected entries, which offer a closely-reasoned solution to the greatest mystery in aviation history, concluding with "Which Way Amelia" (http://niquette.com/puzzles/ameliap.html). It seems to me that an External Link would be appropriate in this article. Of course, I shall be pleased to support research on this subject by experts. Paul Niquette (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Will a link to your puzzle help the reader comprehend the life of Earhart? I am skeptical. I don't think the link is needed here. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the question. My answer is yes, and here are my reasons why. Most but not all of the Amelianna literature is flattering for Amelia Earhart (AE). A number of her flying skills are the subject of criticisms by aviation experts including lack of communications knowledge and also her deportment in making vital in-flight decisions. "Which Way Amelia" http://niquette.com/puzzles/ameliap.html is really a collection of ten interconnected investigations in the form of puzzles and their solutions. Six are particularly pertinent in comprehending the life of AE as vividly revealed during the last 20 hours of her round-the-world flight -- thus not confined to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_earhart#Theories_on_Earhart.27s_disappearance. Permit me to summarize:
[1] http://niquette.com/puzzles/clockwtp.html highlights AE's unusable -- misleading -- position reporting;
[2] http://niquette.com/puzzles/liverckp.html supports the likelihood that AE rejected navigation recommendations from Fred Noonan (FN), for example, taking a direct course instead of applying landfall navigating;
[3] http://niquette.com/puzzles/simplexs.htm clearly shows AE's incompetence in radio telegraphy and protocols;
[4] http://niquette.com/puzzles/gatherp.htm reinforces observations made by several authors about poor decision-making aloft;
[5] http://niquette.com/puzzles/wagefltp.html analyzes AE's mismanagement of fuel consumption after consultation with FN;
[6] http://niquette.com/puzzles/ameliap.html applies information from earlier than the last 20 hours of the round-the-world flight, most significantly a demonstrated rejection of navigational expertise of FN headstrong selection of headings, which is arguably contributed most to the tragedy and the main legacy of AE, which endures as the greatest aviation mystery in history.
Standing by respond to questions. Paul Niquette (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK, the proposed entry fails on the point of WP:COI, as it is basically advertising a product. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this is a product, and that we should not promote it. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible find?

[2]. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like the spate of other recent "discoveries", it may be prudent to wait until there is definitive proof that the latest find is not another speculative and ultimately erroneous pronouncement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Since the article mentioned that group stating they planned to go back and look closer at that image, I added in an update on what they found as soon as that news story appeared. [3] Dream Focus 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Not to be obtuse, but what exactly did they find? The news release does not show anything other than murky underwater sonar images; hardly conclusive of anything. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's more to do with the fact that people are still sending out expeditions to find where she crashed than how likely it is that this is actually her. Related to this addition though, could someone that can edit this page please move the last paragraph of 'crash and sink theory' to 'Gardner Island hypothesis'? I think it belongs there as it is about activities by the TIGHAR lot, who seem to believe that she crashed on the island, from the 'Telegraph' link you can see that it's very close to the island, and from this link you can see that they don't think that she crashed and sunk but that she landed on the island and the plane got washed into the sea by the tide. Anyway, just seemed to fit better with the other paragraph.122.61.157.138 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense, as the "crash and sink" theory stems back from the very first search and rescue efforts that concentrated on a northern quadrant not far removed from Howland Island itself. The Gardner Island/Nikumaroro area is nowhere near that original search area. Again, reiterating, what did they actually find? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. TIGHAR is the "Jerry Springer" of the science world and absolutely ignored by serious researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.57.130 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Or maybe you consider yourself a "serious researcher"? And is that a big nothing, or just real nothing? lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

More speculation about finds of photographs that may or may not prove to be anything, simply needs another place. Why not consider putting them into the TIGHAR article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Characterization of the Clinton speech as part of an event to honor Earhart

Regarding a recent edit to the article, IMO the words that call Clinton's speech an honor to Earhart have been taken out of context and put in Wikipedia's voice to say that the event itself was about Earhart.  This was never an event to honor Earhart, rather one used to honor Earhart.  As [4] this secondary source titles it, "Hillary Clinton blesses renewed search for Earhart plane".  This primary source states it as:

REMARKS
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
At an Event Celebrating Amelia Earhart and the United States’ Ties to Our Pacific Neighbors

I would say that the part of the event that celebrated Earhart is part of the enduring "Legacy" and continuing influence of Earhart on our world 75 years after her disappearance.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The entry is now found in the sub-section under the main heading of "legacy". IMHO, it is not a very significant tribute but ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that is an improvement.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
We've had part of this discussion before.  The Diane Rehm Show described the event as one of the top events of the week.  Hillary Clinton is currently the leading candidate in polling for president in 2016.  As for the event, she said, "We’ve had all kinds of ceremonies here – treaties have been signed, awards have been given, major speeches delivered – but I don’t think we’ve ever had an event quite like this one..."  As for Amelia Earhart, "...there was this woman, Amelia Earhart, who, when it was really hard, decided she was going to break all kinds of limits – social limits, gravity limits, distance limits...I do think it’s important as Americans...to keep our eyes on the stars and to keep our minds set on what we are able to do that keeps pushing the boundaries of human experience."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

All that it amounts to is a statement; not an award, honor or major achievement. Yes, nice to hear, but ...

I agree that it is not an award, honor, or major achievement.  IMO it shows an enduring legacy.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that the premise of the entire article??? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
That is an interesting question, but I'll leave it at that.  I've created a stub at TIGHAR, which needs a section on the State Department event of March 2012.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

--203.118.148.116 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Myths, legends and unsupported claims

I wonder what exactly is meant by "unsupported". Not just the hypotheses dealt with under this heading but all hypotheses formed so far can be said to be unsupported. After all there is no hard evidence for any of them. While Goerner's Saipan hypothesis is certainly not without problems, characterizing it as "unsupported" is not entirely fair. There were 13 or 14 locals whose testimonies essentially supported that of the central witness. On the other hand, while it perhaps seems most likely that Earhart and Noonan disappeared somewhere in the ocean not too far from their destination, this hypothesis also is no more than an unsupported claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.254 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I will remove "unsupported". Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

New Britain Theory

If the the serial numbers written on the map do indeed represent a Pratt & Whitney R-1340-S3H1 engine, this engine could not have come from the B-17E "Why Don't We Do This More Often". All B-17's subsequent to the initial prototype, Model 299, were equipped with Wright R-1820 "Cyclones".

108.76.176.54 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I think Ric Gillespie's dismissal of the New Britain theory is the much better fact to give the reader. Gillespie said that Earhart had only four hours of fuel left at her last know position: about 200 miles from Howland Island. New Britain was 2000 miles away which would have taken Earhart more than 13 hours of flight. That fact completely blows up the New Britain theory. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Birth date is wrong.

She was born in 1898 not 1897 is say so on her pilots license written specifically by herself. The picture is attached. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6jto17Bt41qeoxw2o1_1280.jpg TiffLovato (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it appears that the 1898 date pops up a number of other places, including a memorial plaque. However, I'm inclined to go with the biographers' research; we've got two biographies cited for her birth, and I don't see any indication that they say other than 1897. Further, the image has two issues: what's the source of the image, and how do we know it was written in her own hand? —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not done for now: that is a very interesting find. But I agree with C.Fred. This source (ref 10 in the article) gives the dob as 1897, and so does this page on the official website. It would be interesting to learn how the discrepancy arose. --Stfg (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The discrepancy started when AE herself (being already an adult, in 1920s) started to specify the 1898 as her birth year just to be considered a bit younger, so some documents includes this wrong date. The correct year is 1897 and it is confirmed by the family records and the records of the Trinity Episcopal Church in Atchison, KS, where she was baptized and which she attended as a child. Since this discrepancy makes quite many people curious it is also specially noted in the self-guided tour guide leaflet (that is given to every visitor of the Amelia Earhart Birthplace Museum) that the correct year is 1897, the 1898 is wrong. Alex V Mandel (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Earhart's schedule

If you listen to old time radio programs, check out the Lux Radio Theater's broadcast of "The Front Page" on June, 28, 1937. Earhart was announced to be at the CBS Studio in Hollywood during that broadcast - they even were expecting her to show up at any moment. Does anyone know why the delay? She would have been around Dawson, Australia or Papua, New Guinea. Does anyone have any idea when Earhart was so far off schedule or was CBS just out of the loop on her progress? Jtyroler (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for article improvement? That is what this talk page is for. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

More details on 2013 discovery

I added a good bit more on the details of the 2013 discovery, with links to the most recent documents and photographs of the sonar scan. The latest information posted came from a site dating sometime in early 2014. Though already mentioned some in the article itself, I felt that as this was not yet proven, it best fit in the theory area. However, if at such time it is confirmed or denied, I will update the page to reflect that. Far as I know, the expedition is returning in 2014 (June or July) to explore the sonar contact. Kitsunedawn (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Language correction to New Britain section

The last line reads, "when there was only 4 hours of fuel remaining,” but should read, "when there were only 4 hours of fuel remaining.” Oloverc (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

First Deep Water Search for the Earhart airplane

In 1999 Dana Timmer in association Williamson & Associates conducted the first ever deep water, (in up to 18,000 feet of Pacific Ocean) sonar search for the Earhart aircraft in the vicinity of Howland Island. The search was conducted over a 30 day period and approximately 600 square miles of ocean floor was covered. Several targets were discovered which require high resolution sonar imaging which will be conducted during the upcoming mission, "ExpeditionAmelia" planned for the Fall of 2014. ExpeditionAmelia (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC) <ref>www.Expeditionamelia.com

First deep water search near Howland Island

Dana Timmer in cooperation with Williamson & Associates performed the first ever deep water sonar search for the Earhart Lockheed Electra airplane near Howland Island. A follow on search and target verification expedition is planned to get high resolution sonar images of several targets discovered during post processing of all sonar data acquired near Howland Island to date.

www.expeditionamelia.com www.wassoc.com http://searchforamelia.org/

~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpeditionAmelia (talk • contribs) 09:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I have registered on you can not trust this site cause it dose not tell all of the truth i just worte this wikipedia, but do not seem to be able to edit this page for some reason. Therefore, could someone with editor access, please update the 'Popular Culture' section.

Heather Nova's 2005 "Redbird" album contains a song called 'I Miss My Sky (Amelia Earhart's Final Days)'. In the sleeve notes, Heather writes: "One of the theories about Amelia Earheart's death is that rather than crashing into the sea, she managed to land on a tiny atoll in the Pacific. Artifacts and debris have been found that suggest she and her navigator lived out their days as castaways on this tiny deserted island. I wrote 'I Miss My Sky' imagining her in this situation..." ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theharshjudge (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The article contains the s.c.Gardner Hypothesis of which it is known since long that it is a nonsense theory , or phantasy at best . None of the "found" objects have something to do with aircraft or crew . In Wyoming US an in court complaint against the so-called researchers is running for ´racketeering´. From the vicinity of Howland where the aircraft arrived it was with the remaining fuel impossible to reach the 410 miles away Gardner Island .~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.177.234 (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Baker Island.

There are two islands here, the Howland and Baker Ils. Baker Is. appears to be the one that had the airfield, not Howland. There's clearly a runway and some signs of a significant facility on Baker Is. Baker is larger, and allows an for E-W runway, well suited to the prevailing Trades.~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.77.97 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Lae_Airport_(Papua_New_Guinea)

Hello,

Can approved editors please include a link to Lae and specifically Lae_Airport_(Papua_New_Guinea). I have suggested the below.

I am in the process of updating the Lae and subsequent pages for Papua New Guinea and have included some more photos including the Amelia Earhart memorial Amelia_Earhart_monument.jpg

Anyone interested in PNG / German history / ww2 history / Earhart / editing - please assist and value add

Departure from Lae[edit] On July 2, 1937, midnight GMT, Earhart and Noonan took off from Lae_Airport_(Papua_New_Guinea) in Lae in the heavily loaded Electra. Their intended destination was Howland Island, a flat sliver of land 6,500 ft (2,000 m) long and 1,600 ft (500 m) wide, 10 ft (3 m) high and 2,556 miles (4,113 km) away. Their last known position report was near the Nukumanu Islands, about 800 miles (1,300 km) into the flight. The USCGC Itasca was on station at Howland, assigned to communicate with Earhart's Lockheed Electra 10E and guide them to the island once they arrived in the vicinity.

Phenss (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

George Palmer Putnam Jr passed away in 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.253.19 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note, the current airport at Lae is Nadzab. Earhart departed from the old field in town, near the wharf. It was heavily bombed during WW2, and no buildings survived. The 1930s Guinea Airways hangars were adjacent to the beach, on the west side of 14-32 runway. The town field was closed in 1994, nearly 70yrs after opening in 1926.220.244.77.97 (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The article says the Howland Is was the destination. The nearby Baker Is had a runway and facilities maintained by the USN. It is unlikely that Howland ever had such facilities, as it's a good bit smaller and runs N-S.220.244.247.120 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice

I have added nowiki wrapping to two unclosed "ref" tags.  Several edits that had been rendered invisible are now visible.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Howland and Baker Ils.

The article says that Howland Is was the destination. The nearby Baker Is had an E-W runway and facilities maintained by the USN. Howland Is is too small, and runs N-S. I'm not aware that Howland Is ever had any sort of facilities.~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.247.120 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a reference found in Howland and Baker islands:
Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Also note that the reason the article Howland and Baker islands is named with Howland first is because Howland is the larger of the two islands.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of Her Remains

Someone who feels like it, could incorporate the most recent findings.

"A fragment of Amelia Earhart's lost aircraft has been identified to a high degree of certainty for the first time ever since her plane vanished over the Pacific Ocean on July 2, 1937, in a record attempt to fly around the world at the equator." http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/aluminum-fragment-appears-to-belong-to-earharts-plane-141028.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.225.123 (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Refs for Nikumaroro : [5] [6] It's not her bodily remains, just a metal plate. TGCP (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Geez more of the Rossella Lorenzi suppositions; she is either the most naive or the silliest reporter ever assigned to the Amelia Earhart discoveries. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The metal plate's already been mentioned in the main article; I put it in there the day after it was reported. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw that Bzuk removed all mention of this from the main article. I undid that change (for now), as I believe we need to discuss it further. First, at minimum, the claim does need to be mentioned in the main article due to the widespread publicity it has seen - dozens if not hundreds of news outlets have published it as factual. Second, this does not seem to be a "typical" Rossella Lorenzi finding, as several groups including TIGHAR have stated the plate belonged to Earhart's Electra "with a high degree of certainty". It is not Lorenzi's supposition, in other words. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The item was not removed, but merely placed into a note to the editor with an "invisible". Please leave that in place until a propoer discussion has taken place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The "invisible" tag is what I object to. It is not appropriate to render something that has been in the article for several weeks, and covered in hundreds of news outlets, invisible until discussion has taken place. Rather I believe it should have remained visible pending discussion. However I have no interest in an edit war. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Need some votes here, folks. Bzuk hid a significant portion of the Amelia Earhart article - part of which has been in place for months without prior challenge, and part for weeks - due to his objection that it is a "Rosella Lorenzi supposition". I would argue that publication of this news in hundreds of media outlets (online and print), and direct quotes from multiple persons from TIGHAR and elsewhere, supports continued inclusion of this section. The contested section revolves around the aluminum panel found on Gardner Island, a photo found that shows a similar panel on Earhart's Electra, and matching of the rivet pattern in the found aluminum panel to the rivet pattern shown in the photo. The vote is on whether we support OMISSION of that section. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Too much emphasis on this odd panel which in the hypothesis is said to be a non-standard patch over a window hole on the Electra, a piece of aluminum riveted on securely, so why would it be found without the rest of the plane? It makes little sense, but TIGHAR thinks they have something special. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a lot of emphasis because of the newly discovered photo which clearly shows the panel, including its rivet pattern, and the pattern, shape and size of the found panel precisely matching the photo. The manufacturing specs are a match too. Perhaps TIGHAR is getting overly excited but it is new and compelling evidence, even if it's still circumstantial. As for why it wasn't attached to anything - it's not difficult to believe the rivets would corrode/wear away after decades of weathering and/or that they would fail during a crash. Anyway, I'd be fine with a shorter section on it but I still don't support complete omission. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Under what conditions was the plane subject to weathering? If the panel's rivets corroded so much that the panel fell off, where is the rest of the plane, ostensibly more visible on a higher elevation? If the panel separated in a crash (which is highly unlikely... it would tear first) then where is the rest of the plane? It should be right near by, but it is not. I see wishful thinking here, researchers convincing themselves. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Just my personal musings, but if the rest of the plane was pounded by waves and swept out to sea, as seems to be TIGHAR's supposition, it's not hard for me to imagine the riveted plate being torn loose through wave action and salt water corrosion, assuming it wasn't deliberately torn off by the aircraft occupants for some purpose. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. There is neither proof that it was weathered, nor that it wasn't weathered. But it is no stretch of the imagination to think of likely scenarios where the panel could have been separated from the plane's hull and left in the condition TIGHAR found it in. The lack of material attached to the panel is, in my opinion, a Red herring argument, especially given the three other ways in which it matches. Besides, I am not arguing that the article needs to state as fact that the panel definitively came from the Electra; it simply needs to give coverage to the panel matching the amount of coverage seen in media. To wit: at least 2 other editors have tried to add passages to the article regarding the panel, despite it already being addressed in the article, due to that media coverage. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Any further comment from anyone? If not, I'd propose that we jointly work on a shortened & modified reference to the aluminum panel here, and once everyone's satisfied, replace the ghosted passage with that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? I find the argument posed thus far unsatisfactory for ghosting of this topic in the main article - the premise that "it is merely another Lorenzi supposition" being both incorrect and an invalid reason for ghosting in light of widespread media coverage and TIGHAR analysis - but am willing to work toward an abbreviated alternative. If no one else is interested in posing stronger arguments for ghosting then I will de-ghost the original passage in its entirety. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bink already made the point that TIGHAR makes these annual announcements of a "Find of Great Importance" only to rescind the notice later when it was found to be inaccurate. See the women's shoe, map case, bones, ad infinitum. Regardless, I have altered the entry to reflect what was found. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart truly was an exemplary woman; she is remembered for being the first woman to fly over the Atlantic Ocean by herself. She is an inspiring American because she did what no woman and very few men had done before. I hope that Amelia Earhart will inspire lots of other people and that I can be inspired to try new things and to not be afraid to do anything. “The most effective way to do it is to do it.” Amelia Earhart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuki03 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits

Hi Editor,

I was hoping that I could be allowed to edit this Amelia Earhart page and add a summary of her life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuki03 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015

Can I please edit/add onto you amazing and well written biography? Tuki03 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tuki03. The semi-protected edit request is for requesting specific changes to articles (eg "Change X to Y"). If you post the changes here we could take a look at it. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

200-km lunar crater just named after Amelia Earhart

BBC News

Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is important enough to be mentioned here, so I did. Ellywa (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amelia Earhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Howland Is.

Baker Is is just southwards form Howland Is, and was called the Howland-Baker group. Baker Is had the 5000' E-W strip and substantial facilities during WW2. One or two of the fighter plane and AA revetments (horseshoes) can still be seen on GE. There's no evidence of a runway on Howland, which runs N-S, on GE. Was Baker Is the objective?27.33.243.74 (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative theories

Some of the "alternative theories" about the disappearance would benefit from more Facts. Saipan, for example, is 4400 km from Howland Island. This immediately discredits the theory completely, and should be mentioned in connection with the Saipan theory. (unsigned edit by User:130.233.179.227 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2015‎ (UTC))

Authors and researchers who support the Saipan theory does not claim that AE flew her plane all the way from the Howland area to Saipan; of course that would be a nonsense. Their theories suggest that the plane reached the Marshall Islands and crash-landed there; the crew was arrested by Japanese as suspected spies and then delivered by them to Saipan aboard the Japanese plane or ship.Marcus Lind (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The majority of atolls in the Marshall Ils (now FSM) are populated. (Polynesians will live wherever there is a store of freshwater, and taro will grow.) If Earhart crashed near an atoll the chances are that she would have been rescued. A crash at high altitude on New Britain or Bougainville would mostly likely go unnoticed by local villagers. The a/c wreckage would have been consumed by a massive fire considering it was a flying gas tank.27.33.243.74 (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Orona theory should be added to the alternative theories. The Orona-Saipan theory includes a Google Earth image of Amelia's plane in the lagoon of Orona. The Orona theory speculates that pro-Axis Japanese Army forces perpetrated a hoax after the capture of the American flyers. The target of the spy hoax was the Imperial Navy leadership and was an attempt to convince Yamamoto, Nagumo, and other IJN admirals that the US was planning for war and the IJN must move to an offensive strategy. This and other political pressures lied to the Pearl Harbor Attack plan. The hoax was so well executed that many investigators today think Amelia was spying for the US.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

Amelia Earhart landed at Pwll in Carmathen Bay, not Burry Port see http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3540051

109.158.132.113 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, I have adjusted the text and added a link to the image as a source. I don't think this contradicts the existing source (Bryan, 1979, p.132). I'm not sure there is enough room to also add the image of the plaque itself, although as it's a geographic.org picture, it should be at Commons. However, the competing claims seem to have been the topic of some dispute back in 2008. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Time Conversions

Am I the only one that thinks some of the times listed don't compute correctly? It seems like all the times are being reported as if they are GMT+12.5. I think the Itasca was keeping time at GMT+11.5,I read somewhere that Howland island was on GMT+10.5, and I think that region (the Phoenix islands specifically) is now considered to be at UTC+13:00 (also known as GMT+13; Phoenix Islands Time or PHOT) or GMT-12 or GMT-11 or GMT+12 . . . ?! 73.50.177.43 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I raised a related point of discussion in the last archive (14). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Earhaert

So she just disappeared so we don't know that she died Sunshine183 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

First Deep Water Search for the Earhart Airplane

In 1999 Dana Timmer in association Williamson & Associates conducted the first ever deep water, (in up to 18,000 feet of Pacific Ocean) sonar search for the Earhart aircraft in the vicinity of Howland Island. The search was conducted over a 30 day period and approximately 600 square miles of ocean floor was covered. Several targets were discovered which require high resolution sonar imaging which will be conducted during the upcoming mission, "ExpeditionAmelia" planned for the Fall of 2014. ~~~~ <ref>www.Expeditionamelia.com

So she lost control and drowned Sunshine183 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

I would like to add a comment to the Garner Island Hypothesis: The search for Amelia Earhart continues on Nikumaroro Island (formerly Garner Island). TIGHAR continued their exploration in 2015 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/niku8directory.html), and TIGHAR's Dr. Tom King plans on continuing the exploration on the 80th anniversary of her disappearance in 2017 (http://niku2017.strikingly.com/#research-plan). 162.250.209.129 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  •  Not done. Ongoing activity by TIGHAR is not important to this topic. Only conclusive and newsworthy findings are important. At the minimum, you would need a WP:SECONDARY source for the TIGHAR plans, not websites related to the investigation. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ IMDB Star Trek: Voyager (TV series 1995–2001)
  2. ^ http://www.union.purdue.edu/html/diningservices/Amelias.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amelia_Earhart/Archive_14&oldid=1136513479"