Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 6

Edits regarding the Saipan theory - the page is protected

Further to AKRadecki's comments above, I have also been asked by Bzuk to provide an external opinion. First and foremost, I have fully protected the page IN THE VERSION THAT I FOUND IT (note that this is not an endorsement of either version). Hopefully, this will encourage the resolution of the dispute.

Now, there are major issues on both sides of the discussion. I advise all concerned users to calm down ever-so-slightly. I am prepared to assume good faith on all sides (including Matt, who I am sure is only trying to improve the article). The dispute should, however, be resolved as soon as possible, since the rest of the article seems to be very well written and informative.

It seems that Matt is trying to include information that is believed to be improperly sourced by the other editors. Reading through the information that has been added, I am inclined to agree with the other editors here: videos on YouTube (unless themselves taken from an independent and reliable source) are not reliable sources. Just because something is recorded, doesn't mean it is true.

There are several arguments for and against that appear to be original research. In this case, the issue at hand is not whether the Saipan theory is correct or not, it is whether it is verifiable, and this should be kept in mind by all concerned. Trying to refute it or prove it correct does not make any difference - if it is believed and reported on by reliable independent sources, it can be included here as an alternative theory.

Sources such as the New York Times and Time magazine are reliable and independent. Videos on Google or YouTube are not. That is pretty much the bottom line.

Wikipedia does not make facts, it reports on facts from elsewhere. It can and should, as Matt said, present a variety of viewpoints to maintain neutrality, and this is possible because it is not made of paper. But these viewpoints MUST, to maintain the encyclopedia's credibility, be verifiable and taken from a reliable source.

As it is, the consensus is clearly to keep the old version of the page, not to make Matt's revisions. I encourage all sides to weigh up the points that I have presented. You are of course welcome to ignore them if you so wish, but I do not recommend it since they follow policy. I'll leave this for a day in order to establish consensus, and during that time, as the previous admin did, I insist that you discuss all changes on this talk page. This is, of course, necessary now that the page is protected. Discussion, or perhaps more simply, a straw poll should be used to establish consensus, and at the end of the time, one of the users familiar with the article should make the changes. If the dispute continues after this, I will be forced to temporarily block the user who continues to edit war and push a point of view for disruption.

I hope that my comments will help. Thank you. ck lostsword•T•C 00:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for the protection, ck lostsword. For the record, Matt clearly violated my instructions and edited without discussion, and I clearly told him that this would be considered disruptive editing and a violation of our consensus policy, and so I have blocked him for 48 hours.

Now for the business at hand: we need to establish by consensus that, as ck lostsword noted, the version without Matt's revisions is the desired one, for the reasons well documented above. This is the version that existed before Matt made his major changes. Since the straw poll method worked so well at the Battle of Washita River, I therefore propose:

Seems like a sensible straw poll. I'll extend the protection till then. ck lostsword•T•C 01:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no verifiable support for the Saipan tale. None. As for sources, there is a difference between a magazine like Time reporting an unsupported assertion and a magazine like Time reporting documented evidence. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a final comment, further edit warring after an arrival at consensus will result in an indefinite block, since the user will have directly contravened the instructions of both AKRadecki and myself. In the mean time, I will abstain from the straw poll as an independent observer, and independently establish the consensus at the end, since all of the other parties will presumably (and necessarily) have taken part in the discussion. ck lostsword•T•C 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt is riding a hobby horse. Nothing will alter his view and I doubt he can be moderated.Mark Lincoln 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I just checked Matt's revisions out. He cites an article in Time from Sept. 1966 where Goerner claims Nimitz told him that Earhart was a captive. Of course when Goerner made that statement Nimitz had been dead half a year and could not deny the claim - which the book reviewer in Time noted. Matt seems to have little critical thinking skills.Mark Lincoln 15:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I am very aware of the gap between Nimitz's death and the appearance of the quote in Goerner's book and Time magazine. Matt605 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal/straw poll

1. This version be restored as the consensus-approved version
2. Any major changes by Matt be proposed here on this talk page and accepted by consensus before they are implemented
3. This straw poll be left open until August 28, to give everyone time to respond. This length also allows Matt's block to expire and allows him to participate as well.

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement:

• Agree AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree and pls Speedy that owing to the blatant disruption (which can happen even in good faith), Gwen Gale 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree This has taken too long already IMHO. Let's get past this and GA it! Maury 19:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree The original article was extremely well referenced and provided a complete and accurate appraisal of the life and times of an iconic aviation pioneer. However, her mysterious disappearance has engendered a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists but the majority of these have not been considered credible and that is exactly what the article reflected. IMHO Bzuk 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC).
• Agree Possessing and having read most of the "conspiracy" theory books I can admit to being a bit of a "Earhart disappearance theory buff." I also must state that years of interest in the subject have left me with enough knowledge of the 'last flight' to easily rule them all out. This does not mean that mention does not belong in the article. Were it not for her 'disappearance", and starting in the late 1950s the many conspiracy theories, Amelia Earhart would be as little known today as Helen Ritchey or Dick Merrill.Mark Lincoln 14:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of, there's not article on Merrill... I'm starting one if anyone wants to help out. Maury 12:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I have a copy of the Atlantic Flight starring "Dick" Merrill which was shown on late night TV in my part of the world. Apparently the film was intended to showcase Henry Tyndall "Dick" Merrill, but he never took the project seriously. This film was conceived as a low-budget feature meant to capitalize on Dick Merrill's and Jack Lambie's historic "Coronation Flight", which made them household names. I'll certainly help, Maury. FWIW Bzuk 13:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

• Agree Revert, please. Binksternet 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Funny how persons who have gone missing after some spectacular stunt attempt always generate heaps of conspiracy-theory rubbish. Couldn't there be some "Amelia Earhart, different disappearence theories"-article established, where the kindergarten can tumble freely? Islander(Scandinavia) 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Other editors and I have strongly suggested the creation of an Amelia Earhart disappearance myths (or, if need be, Amelia Earhart alternate disappearance claims) article. I still think this is a helpful notion. Gwen Gale 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. The coverage of the various disappearance myths should be proportionate and should if necessary be split off into a daughter article of this one. --John 05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Also with John's comments. --Red Sunset 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Just like the Saipan theory, there is no physical evidence to support either Crash-and-Sink or Gardner/Nikumaroro after numerous search efforts for decades. And like the Saipan theory, neither CaS nor G/M have direct eyewitnesses. What Saipan theory DOES have is people who say they saw things indicating that Earhart's plane didn't sink, and that Earhart and Noonan may have been on Saipan at some point between July 2, 1937 at 9 a.m. and 1944.

There's also the Chester Nimitz quote and the Goldstein and Dillon biography that details why Earhart's mother believed the Japanese had rescued Amelia. These cites and quotes seem to keep getting edited out too.

People have been trying for decades to prove CaS and G/M without success, and now the allegedly uncredible witnesses for Saipan are online and there is space in cyberspace for the inclusion of their statements. Numerous, repeated efforts to prove them wrong have failed. That makes their statements more valid than CaS and G/M, objectively speaking.

The statements by the WW2 veterans that contradict CaS and G/M are in a copyrighted video owned by Richard Martini, who is producing a documentary on the subject this year. His credentials appear on IMDB, and they will be viewed by people even if they are ignored by Wikipedia.

The TIGHAR researchers just returned from another search without producing anything promising. The ocean floor has been searched in 2002 and 2004 and has produced nothing.

Saipan has grown in credibility as CaS and G/N advocates have failed to produce any hard evidence after decades of searching. Be fair. Be balanced. Be honest. Crash-and-Sink is sunk. Gardner/Nikumaroro can't be rescued. Saipan theory lives on. It is in fact now better established than the other theories, and it should not be counted as a theory for which there is no evidence. Matt605 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - All that rationalizing is irrelevent. The only thing that is relevent here is to include text that is backed up by citations that meet WP:V and WP:RS. You simply have failed to do this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That is untrue. The Nimitz quote, the Amy Otis Earhart belief of Japanese involvement, and the eyewitnesses to contradictory evidence on Saipan are all verfiable. Others have tried for decades to find Earhart and her plane and failed -- as recently as 2002, 2004, and 2007. The Saipan witnesses may provide clues to the eventual solution. Matt605 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Are the statements below your comments, Gwen? If so, please use the Comment identifyer and sign them.

Comment

• Lots of stuff gets said about dead celebrities. "The Saipan witnesses" may claim to be witnesses but there has never been a shred of physical evidence or independent documentation found to support that they ever witnessed anything having to do with the disappearance of AE and FN.
• Nobody can yet claim to have eliminated the vast floor of the Pacific ocean as Earhart and Noonan's final location and a wide range of artifacts and documentation also support the the Gardner Island hypothesis. Either way, the outcome of other searches in no way affects the likelihood of AE and FN having landed at Saipan.
• Matt605's Saipan related edits so far have no support among the eight editors who have participated in the straw poll. Gwen Gale 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I concur with Gwen Gale's summation. As for any verification: The Nimitz quote is deprecated on the very next page of the Goerner book when the admiral refuses to allow the quote to be used. Chester Nimitz died six months before Goerner's The Search for Amelia Earhart is published and the quote is meaningless. After being added back into the section, a note regarding the validity of the quote was extended. The note about Amy (Otis) Earhart was my statement from the Goldstein/Dillon biography and clearly is related to the origin of the Japanese involvement which was traced to Amelia's mother making unsubstantiated statements in her distraught condition following the disappearance of her daughter. There was NO colloboration from official sources which Amy sought out. Amelia's mother subsequently went on to repudiate the statement which was also not supported by any other member of the family. Amelia's sister, Muriel wrote an account of the life and times of her sibling and discounts all the theories about Japanese or other involvement. Captain Safford of USCG Itasca authored an authoritative work on the aftermath of the Itasca search and was privy to a "classified" US Navy report concerning the Saipan connection. Nimitz was likewise aware of the document which conclusively closed the chapter on this conspiracy theory. That is why any mention of Nimitz is questionable as throughout the entire Goerner book, every encounter with Nimitz describes the admiral's tacit humouring of the reporter. The only instance of a supporting statement is an uncorroborated telephone conversation that the admiral immediately disavows. FWIW Bzuk 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. Gwen, the proposal set forth in the straw poll does not directly mention my changes to the Saipan section of the article. It endorses a previous version and lays out a process for future revisions.

The Nimitz quote is directly from Time Magazine. You can have your own opinion Bzuk, but it isn't NPOV to delete the quote. Likewise with the Amy Otis Earhart belief of Japanese involvement. The 1997 biography details much of it. It isn't your place to decide for the reader that Amy was distraught or wrong in her impressions. Cite her retraction if you choose.

Actually, on the very next page of the Goldstein and Dillion book the biographers do a rather entertaining psychoanalysis of a person they knew nothing about -- said a woman dreamed hearing distress calls in a quasi-conscious state of mind. It is highly unusual to see historians dismiss a woman's claims as if she were incompetent due to her sex, i.e., a hysterical woman given to hallucinations during emotional distress. But at least they included some facts with their psycho-babble spin.

A good article does not deep six controversy. Bzuk my friend, you're just advancing your own point of view. Matt605 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fred Goerner did have an evolving opinion on the disappearance of Earhart/Noonan. Quote: "Safford's criticism was a factor in Goerner continuing his intensive research into the Earhart disappearance until the day of his death in September 1994. As a result, he later reversed his opinion about the survival theory and joined Safford in his belief of a crash-landing into the sea." (Safford, Warren and Payne 2003, p. 149.) Amy Otis Earhart's conviction in a Japanese connection was based on "an unnamed friend listening to a shortwave broacast from Tokyo claimed to have heard that 'they were celebrating there with parades etc. because of Amelia's rescue or pickup by a Japanese fisherman.'" "On this slim foundation, Amy based her belief that Amelia was in Japanese hands in Tokyo."(Goldstein and Dillon 1997, p. 260.) Amelia's sister and biographer, Grace Muriel Earhart Morrissey is quoted as "I believe she just ran out of gas and went down off Howland Island... it is a tragedy of the sea. What the sea has taken, the sea will keep... Amelia is at rest." (Strippel 1995, p. 58.) In her final years, Amy Otis Earhart "later consoled herself with a vague theory that Amelia must have been serving her government is some fashion or other." (Rich 1989, p. 272.)

For the record, the original edits merely indicated that two Earhart/Noonan disappearance theories were predominent in academic research while other theories did not have the same support and these statements were substantiated by credible and authoritative reference sources. These edits were the result of an extensive period of writing and editing that received consensus from a group of knowledgable editors and administrators.

Matt605, am I to understand from your recent comments that you intend to edit the article to your viewpoint despite the results of the above poll? FWIW Bzuk 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Comment I must change my opinion. While I see the various 'conspiracy' theories as part of the Earhart mystique and story, the nature of the Wikipedia makes it impossible to keep conspiracy nuts from vandalizing the Earhart article to advance their own hobby horses. The conspiracy theories should be removed to a separate site and labeled as such.Mark Lincoln 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus of 8 9 editors to wrap this up and 28 Aug is now upon us. Gwen Gale 13:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The process was begun by Akradecki after he blocked me into silence for 48 hours, so I was unable to present my viewpoints while others were making their decisions. Consequently, it is not a consensus process that any reasonable person would respect, and being a reasonable person I do not respect it. Beyond that, it is clear from the comments made by those voting that there is no consensus on the article itself. However, their votes of agreement to the proposition are enough for Akradecki to block me indefinately if I make any changes to the article that are not to his liking. The proposition requires consensus from all the voting editors of which he is one, and so all changes must effectively be submitted to him. Rather than risking a permanent block on all my contributions to Wikipedia I will never make another change to the article. Matt605 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Upgrades to article

While I was blocked from using Wikipedia at all except for my talk page, I was able to develop further text for inclusion in the Amelia Earhart article. Since some feel that sourcing a YouTube video isn't a good way to go, and I agree that YouTube can be unstable with videos being taken offline intermittentnly, one possible solution is to reprint the statements of the WW2 veterans in the article. So here is the text of those statements and people can judge for themselves whether they are conspiracy theorists, lunatics, profiteers, or just honest Americans.

"My name is Thomas E. Devine. I lived in West Haven, Connecticut. I was involved in Earhart Matter on the island of Saipan on four instances. I saw her plane. I saw the person who was in charge of destroying her plane. I saw markings on a Japanese jail cell indicating her presence. I was shown a grave site by a native island woman that contains the remains of a white woman and a white male who had come from the sky."

"My name is Robert E. Wallack, and, um, I‘m going to talk to you about Amelia Earhart and me finding a briefcase in 1944... And one of the guys knew quite a bit about demolition. He was a demolition guy, and, we had some explosives, and we packed the door of the safe, and, uh, blew the doors off. And, um, Wallack was probably the first one at that when the smoke cleared off, and, uh, I looked in and grabbed a briefcase. I thought, well, [it’s] full of money, I’m going to be a rich Marine! But it wasn’t. It was just as good or better. I grabbed it and ran off with it, and opened it up, and lo and behold, it was Amelia Earhart’s papers, off her airplane. Her briefcase she had off her airplane. I may have been just 18 or 17 just turned 18 that month and, uh, I says “there’s something’ wrong, Wallack.” These things are bone dry. 1938 they told us she crashed in the ocean off the Howland Islands. They would have been wet. They’re not wet. They’re dry. I could see passports and visas and everything else."

"I’m Julious Nabers, from Ballmer, Missisippi. I want to tell you some, a little bit about what I done in the Marine Corps in World War Two time… That’s when the message came from over the radio and I went and got it and decoded it, and it said that we had found Amelia Earhart’s airplane at Asilito Airfield. And I carried it to the colonel. He signed it. I brought it back and put it in the… That evening, about six o’clock or somewhere along in there, I was on the message center, and said uh, there’s a message come over from the island, I mean, the people over in charge of the place there had sent back or something’. It said tomorrow afternoon at 2 o’clock they’re going to fly Amelia Earhart’s airplane. I said, well this is history, we gotta see this. I told my guy I was pretty close to in the message center. So we said George, that George Gibbers, he’s in the wire section cause, and he could get a jeep, cause they had the wire to run the wire lines. So we got around and we left. Went out, went out down around the hangars, and they some tall grass grew there. So we put the jeep out in this grass and we covered it up, where it couldn’t been seen by an airplane fly-over. Then we crawled out to the airfield, the edge of the airfield, and laid down. We waited, oh, about two, two or three hours there, and we decided they weren’t going to. The next day there, this message came over that said “Tomorrow at 2 o’clock, we’re going to destroy Amelia Earhart’s airplane.” Well that was still pretty interesting news. So we did the same thing. Went down, hid our jeep. Got out, crawled out. And down to our right, about a hundred yards, a hundred and fifty yards, there were some guys, that appeared who were Marines. Had on the Marine uniform, the utilities of the day, and they had four or five five-gallon cans sitting around. And a little while then, here came a jeep, pulling this airplane out that was in the hangar. They pulled it across, there was a little bit of slope, I presume there was somebody in it, there had to be. Pulled it across the airfield, pulled it down and parked it. [Can you describe what it looked like?] Well, yeah, it was, well, that scene I was, what I seen was a single wing airplane, best I can remember it. But they crawled up on top of it, and poured three or four cans of gasoline on it, wings, motors, I mean from just one end of it. Then directly here come a P-38, and every so many bullets are tracers, and it come down behind the plane and the plane was headed towards where we was at. He come the opposite direction, firing from the back of the plane and when it hit that fluid and everything, these other guys had gotten out of the way, it went up in a big smoke, fire. It made a humongous fire; and smoke. Well, we weren’t supposed to be there and we realized there was a lot of secrecy about it, so we got out. I have no doubt that what it was Amelia Earhart’s airplane because of the circumstances, and the way it was brought about, the way it was handled. … I don’t know the cause of why they didn’t make it public. There’s a lot about, a lot about those operations that were never made public."

These individuals are referenced in the article already and their words are in published books. These particular statements appear on YouTube under in this location and will apparently be included in a documentary film soon:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pyED99gnxy4

Martini, Richard. 2006. "Eyewitnesses to Amelia Earhart's Plane on Saipan in 1944: T.E. Devine, R.E. Wallack, J. Nabers." posted as "What Happened to Amelia Earhart" on YouTube.com. Accessed August 2007.

It's a tricky cite. They are interviews inside an online video clip on a video sharing site, but they will also be included in a documentary that is forthcoming. It's also in bibliography style when maybe it should be in footnote style. Any suggestions on how to improve the style of the citation is appreciated.

And for the record, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, lunatic, or profiteer. There are two types of flaws people tend to make on Wikipedia when approaching a controversial subject. First, they tend to want to re-create what's already in the established encyclopedias, which are limited in space. Second, they try to fight the 9/11 conspiracy profiteers by squelching any non-conformist viewpoints on anything. Both errors simply slow the progress of making Wikipedia the really useful site it is growing into.

Folks, you can't exclude these statements from the article if there's a documentary that will include them in production by a guy whose credentials are listed on the IMDB. Matt605 17:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph is a copy of what I previously posted to Matt605's talk page. Gwen Gale 22:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I wouldn't characterize any good faith edit to a WP article as an "upgrade." This aside, the approach you suggest doesn't seem to follow WP policy. Raw dumps of unedited quotations from any source are unencyclopedic (WP is not a data dump). Moreover, Youtube is fun and helpful but it is not considered a reliable secondary source and is generally not citable for article text. Lastly, these are all verbal assertions which have never been supported by physical evidence or documentation contemporary with Earhart and Noonan's disappearance (WP:V). Let me say that in another way: Aside from a handful of anecdotes and verbal claims, there is not one shred or hint of physical evidence or documentation that Earhart and Noonan ended their world flight anywhere near Saipan. However, in full NPoV, the article narrative suggested by editor consensus does contain a full paragraph which describes the Saipan claims along with their provenance and a summary of the consensus about them among historians. Gwen Gale 14:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On top of what Gwen said, there's another very important policy that Matt doesn't seem to get: Wikipedia is NOT the place for original research, and that's what inclusion of such eyewitness reports would be. If anyone can find a reputable, modern-day publication, which has reported on this in an academically responsible manner, then I would take this more seriously. The fact that there are so many history publications out there, and they haven't picked this up shows, to me, the lack of respect that this theory holds within academia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these statements are not original research. They are research someone else conducted and recorded with a video camera. It is copyrighted, verifiable, sourced on YouTube -- today actually, and is material to be included in a documentary by a professional whose credentials are found on the IMDB. The Earhart article includes news stories on TIGHAR announcements as sources. Their work has not been peer reviewed or verfied either, but their claims are used to bolster the Gardner/Nikumaroro theory. So we again see editors advancing their own agendas, and not producing a good quality article. Matt605 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This was my response to Gwen on my talk page while the Straw Poll was underway and I could not post comments to this page:

Thank you for your input Gwen. Let's not let ourselves be constrained by the limits of dead-tree encylopedias. There is ample room to include well-sourced material. Some people have complained that the material cited isn't a good source. I've even had a well-sourced quote from Chester Nimitz deleted and a cite deleted one day followed by its fact being deleted for failure of a cite the next. So your belief in my good faith is well founded.

Managing controversy well and avoiding the mind-dead groupthink of dead-tree encylopedias is where Wikipedia can really differentiate itself. Making use of all media types available online is another. Google Video and YouTube are not in themselves bad sources. In fact, they're not sources at all, just places where content exists.

Just like the Saipan theory, there is no physical evidence to support either Crash-and-Sink or Gardner/Nikumaroro after numerous search efforts for decades. And like the Saipan theory, neither CaS nor G/M have direct eyewitnesses. What Saipan theory DOES have is people who say they saw things indicating that Earhart's plane didn't sink, and that Earhart and Noonan may have been on Saipan at some point between July 2, 1937 at 9 a.m. and 1944.

There's also the Chester Nimitz quote and the Goldstein and Dillon biography that details why Earhart's mother believed the Japanese had rescued her.

People have been trying for decades to prove CaS and G/M without success, and now the allegedly uncredible witnesses for Saipan are online and there is space in cyberspace for the inclusion of their statements. Numerous, repeated efforts to prove them wrong have failed. Saipan is more valid than CaS and G/M, objectively speaking.

I would once again request from the more experienced editors their opinions on how I have cited these statements.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pyED99gnxy4

Martini, Richard. 2006. "Eyewitnesses to Amelia Earhart's Plane on Saipan in 1944: T.E. Devine, R.E. Wallack, J. Nabers." posted as "What Happened to Amelia Earhart" on YouTube.com. Accessed August 2007.

It's an interview inside a video clip on a video sharing site that will be included in a forthcoming documentary by a professional whose credentials are listed on the IMDB. Is the way I have cited the material okay for Wikipedia standards? Should it use a footnote style rather than a bibliography style? Help from the more experienced editors would be appreciated here. Matt605 23:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Once the documentary is complete and published (ie, Discovery Channel, History Channel, PBS, etc), then you can quote it, but it doesn't meet our criteria until then. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your cable channel standard is highly unusual. Matt605 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask again for the assistance of the more experienced editors for their opinions of how these statements should be cited. They are interviews in a video posted on an online sharing site that will be included in a forthcoming documentary by a professional whose credentials appear on the IMDB. Matt605 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point here...it's not "how can they be cited?", but "how can they be included?". IMDb is not considered a reliable source...in AfD discussions, minor non-notable folks with IMDb listings are frequently deleted from Wikipedia. One of the elements of WP:RS is that there needs to be an element of fact checking in the process of publishing. Anyone can post a vid to YouTube, but it takes a higher level of research and fact checking to get something published in an academic journal or a magazine such as Air & Space. It's that independent review of facts that we rely on to provide the level of accuracy at Wikipedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, please stop your argumentative manner and please help me with forming the citation in the correct style for Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Matt605 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When did entertainment become valid historical reference? Have standards sunk that low? How soon will outright fiction be acceptable?Mark Lincoln 12:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Have I got this right? Three men telling a story that cannot be vouched for other than they look/sound honest? If that's any standard for authenticity then I think you can prop up any three people to tell you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, how JFK was shot, why Nixon covered up Watergate, where the WMDs were located, why FDR was in cahoots with the British to allow Pearl Harbor and, drum roll here... why Amelia's Electra was on Saipan. FWIW Bzuk 12:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't matter. I mean, so what if I thought Kennedy was killed, quite literally as it happens, by a wife-beating lone jerk through one of history's (many) wildly tragic windows of opportunity, that FDR did bait a highly nationalist, militaristic Japanese government into the 1939-45 war, that Abraham Lincoln was a bright, charismatic but neurotic, genocidal tyrant who dragged the states into civil war for economic reasons which had nothing to do with slavery (which was a failed and fading system anyway)? Who knows what mainstream scholarship will have to say about these topics in 100 years?

None of this would change WP:V: It's ok, even helpful, to cite the existence of these anecdotal claims (though not anything on YouTube, which I don't think is a reliable secondary source) and it's ok to note that there is zero independent confirmation of these verbal claims along with no meaningful support among historians.

Anyway. contrary to what Matt605 implies, these unsubstantiated claims are indeed mentioned in the suggested revision of the article. There's a whole section for them. Maybe they did land on Saipan (disclosure - I don't think so, agreeing with most historians on this one). Maybe FDR did send them on a spying mission and the Japanese killed them. Plausible, yeah (politicians do dumb stuff all the time) but there is no physical or documented evidence for it at all. If such documentation ever shows up, I'd suggest putting it into the article. Until then, if the Earhart article were to lend weight to the Saipan claims, I'd only think of this article more as I do Wikipedia's Abraham Lincoln which is to say, misleading but this public wiki is spun and held together by consensus with some sway given to WP:V. There is neither consensus for Matt605's suggested edits, nor support through WP:V. I happen to agree with the consensus on this one. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the French Bombardier Committee. As stated I feel that the various 'theories' are part of the Earhart 'story.' But if they are to be given elaborate coverage then they must be rebutted as they are presented because of the very tenuous nature of the 'evidence' and the often preposterous nature of the allegations.Mark Lincoln 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, answer just one question: Earhart was heard on Howland Island the morning of 2 July broadcasting at 3120 Kilocycles using a 50 watt transmitter on a 1/8 wave length center feed V-shaped dipole antenna from an airplane at 1,000 feet using A3 (amplitude modulated voice) near the equator and was heard 5/5 by the Itasca. She was broadcasting during daylight with consequent heavy "D" layer absorption. The square law being what it is, and 50 watts not being much power, and with the inherent inefficiency of the antenna set up to be heard 5/5 Earhart HAD to be close to Howland Island. If she had been 1,000 miles, or even 500 miles distant on 3120 Kc, her signal could have not been heard 1/1. In her last transmissions she stated she was "low on fuel" and circling.

How Matt, did the she and the Electra get anywhere near the Marshal Islands with the fuel remaining?Mark Lincoln 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, she did say she was low on fuel (which likely meant eating into her still hefty reserve) but the original logs don't support any assertion she said they were circling. They may have had enough fuel to fly the LOP to Gardner but I have never read a single account by a published aviation historian which asserts AE and FN had enough fuel to get back to Saipan from Howland and yes, I believe your opinion that they were spot on within a few miles of Howland is wholly supported by the published evidence and shared by most historians. Noonan was relying on the technique he'd more or less invented for Pan Am, celestial navigation for the long jump and then radio navigation to "home" in once he was within 50 miles or so. My personal, more speculative opinion (nonetheless shared by some historians) is that when they couldn't get a radio bearing with new equipment with which they were only superficially familiar (and possibly missing an antenna), they couldn't tell the difference between that flat brown speck of an atoll and the hundreds of cloud shadows that day. Gwen Gale 16:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, what "Hefty Reserve"? They had been bucking a stiff headwind the whole time. When flying into a headwind to gain maximum range you have to increase airspeed, which increases fuel consumption. Do not confuse 'still air' range with the real world. I am well aware of how Noonan navigated. I also am quite aware that the problems of using DF loops for for taking bearings (the ADF was much better). Noonan complained in a letter to his wife that AE could not use the DF to take a bearing on Dakar. There was a sound technical reason why and it involves a 'murphy' in the band settings on the receiver and the band settings on the coupling box for the DF loop. Could be the shadows Gwen, but also consider that they were at 1,000 feet and the visibility over tropical oceans is usually not so many miles due to haze.Mark Lincoln 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fuel capacity of the Electra and its fuel consumption are still controversial topics (within certain parametres). I don't agree with Long that they ran out of fuel and ditched seconds after her last transmission but no need to go on about it here. Gwen Gale 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pacific Ocean is a big place, and trying to hit a small island by a combination of daytime celestial and dead reckoning is dicy. So dicy that the only safe way is to intentionally miss by your circle of probable error. If you miss in a known direction, you know which way to turn. That is why they flew to a Sun Line and then down it. You still have the problem of depending upon deducted reckoning for your speed line. Add the fact that though the Sun was in the right place, the Island was in the wrong place on the maps. . . Mark Lincoln 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told there is no evidence Noonan navigated by offset but again, this has nothing to do with the Saipan myth. Gwen Gale 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to Mark's comments, British aviation historian Roy Nesbit published his research on the last flight of Earhart/Noonan and referred to documents available through the British Records Office. Earhart had to apply to British authorities for permission to fly from New Guinea and had to specifically detail her flight preparations. In the documents she filed, she listed the fuel load at Lae to be 1,000 gallons, significantly less than the 1,200 gallons that could theoretically be carried. The reason for the fuel load being reduced was that the Lockheed L10E Electra could not have lifted off from the grass strip on Lae with a full fuel load. (On Amelia's takeoff from Hawaii to Howland in the earlier world flight attempt that had been carefully prepared by her flying consultant Paul Mantz, she only carried 948 gallons.) Nesbit and later William L. Polhemus, the navigator on Ann Pellegrino's memorial flight in 1967 which recreated the Lae takeoff in a nearly identical Electra, claimed that a 950 gallon fuel load would have been the most that would be possible for takeoff safety and yet would provide the range to reach Howland Island 2,556 miles away and still leave a two hour reserve at optimum cruising speeds. Nesbit also obtained contemporary journalists' accounts of the fuelling operation at Lae where the figure of 950 gallons is given. (The fuel drums labelled "Amelia Earhart" were present at the Cecil Hotel in Lae, New Guinea for two months and were identified and part of the official record. The most contentious statement that Nesbit makes is that the fuel left in open storage, but under shade trees, evaporated at a set rate and the 1,000 gallons was reduced by a factor of .93 to leave Earhart considerably less than what she had planned to have as an ideal fuel load. The figure of 950 gallons used by both Nesbit and Polhemus is indicative of "topping" up the available fuel still left in the Electra's tanks.) Noonan was a skilled navigator both in the air and at sea but the charts available at the time were notoriously inaccurate and Howland Island had been located incorrectly. Combined with errors made in shooting a line approach, variable winds at altitude, poor radio transmission protocol by Earhart and a tiny island obscured by cloud cover, the tragedy seemed inevitable. FWIW Bzuk 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Both the Collopy letter and the Chater report confirm that the fuel load on takeoff at Lai was 1100 gallons (US). Since the likelihood of "crash and sink" is inversely proportional to how much fuel they took off with, authors like Long have strenuously asserted (not too convincingly, with dodgy math and sundry assumptions) that fuel onboard was lower rather than higher. Truth be told, they may have plopped into the drink near Howland but the documented evidence does not support any assertion that they must have run out of fuel moments after (or soon after) the last recorded transmission. The pith is, no way did they have enough fuel to navigate to Howland and back to Saipain. Gwen Gale 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fuel load is still up in the air despite conflicting figures- I have read 800, 950, 1,000, 1,150 and 1,200 gallons given. She did fly with a fuel mix of 100 octane and lower octane avgas that was the only fuel available at Lae. Since they could have only picked up 100 octane earlier, the smaller 81 gallon tank would not have been filled with a lower grade fuel, so it is probable that a full fuel load was not on board. Reporters on the scene specifically noted 950 gallons. Regardless, it's the fuel burn that is the most important element in the flight. When Earhart/Noonan believed they were in close proximity of Howland Island and still could not make contact, the search pattern they may have adopted is the key to the mystery. Was there a conservation of available reserves? did they fly a "square loop" quadrant or did they set off for an elusive island or atoll in the distance? Don't know, nobody knows? but its the stuff of dreams and has made the legend of Earhart and Noonan one of the world's great mysteries. FWIW Bzuk 18:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

We don't know where she ended up, but we do know that to be coming in 5/5 with the radio and antenna rig she had, she was close to Howland. I think (speculate) that Noonan was counting on the HF DF set that had been sent to Howland as he apparently was aware that a 500 Kc DF hack by AE was out of the question.Mark Lincoln 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to appear a fanatic, I am all for containing a brief description of the various 'conspiracy' theories in the article. If, however, they are to be expanded to the point of being stuffed with all of the "evidence" and speculation in the various books, then they need to be refuted in situ.

That is possible, but that would turn the "Earhart" article into the "Earhart Conspiracy Theories" article.Mark Lincoln 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark and Gwen, great points, and I agree that a "Disappearance Theories" sub-article would be suitable. Let's wait till the strawpoll begun by ck lostsword•T•C ends today before taking it to the next step. FYI, Earhart scholar, Dr. Alex V. Mandel, who has contributed previously to this article, has corresponded with me but has not added his comments to this forum as yet. He was on a foreign trip and only recently returned home but has some pressing family concerns that need his attention. Needless to say, he is in agreement with both of you and others who have already registered their votes in the above poll/survey. FWIW Bzuk 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

The issue of fuel load is an open one. One tank was reserved for 100 octane which was not available at all locations. The only way to use full throttle on takeoff, which was necessary with an overload, was to use 100 octane. The Gardner Island scenario is not totally out of question but unlikely.

If they had the fuel a box search pattern would have been the best bet. An alternative would be a ladder search IF you were certain you were short or long. I must take the words of Earhart at face value. They were low on fuel, not fat. They thought they were very close. They at one time were "circling", and on the sun line 157/337. Which is to say they were lost and knew it. I find it hard to believe that AE would not have said something if they decided to head for Gardner instead of searching for Howland. Besides, if you don't know where you are, then you have are starting a dead heading leg from an area, not a place. . . Mark Lincoln 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been an interesting time. I had to drag out some old ARRL Handbooks to check into antennas and radiation patterns.Mark Lincoln 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, there is very wide consensus that the 81 gallon (high octane) tank was not full when they took off from Lai. Some of us think an experienced former sea captain and pioneering aerial navigator like FN could likely have taken stock of their plight over Howland and more or less said, "Look, do we waste our reserve on a search pattern or follow this sun-line I've already plotted on a heading of 157 degrees which happens to pass within sight of Gardner?" Lots of folks at the time thought they could have wound up in the Phoenix group and radio transmissions were received from the area. Gwen Gale 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Although Noonan was technically a copilot, he was physically separated from Earhart and as pilot-in-command (PIC), she would have made all the decisions as to the operation of the aircraft.

Erm, Noonan was not the co-pilot, he was the navigator, he was in truth not separated from her physically all that often (he spent most of his time in the co-pilot's seat) and as her navigator, she was known to have listened to his advice (one of the times she didn't they wound up 100 miles off course). Gwen Gale 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Noonan had a commercial pilot's ticket but when he was in the navigator's compartment, which is where he was situated on the Lae to Howland run, he could only communicate with notes hung out on fishing rod that was inserted up to the front cockpit. Bzuk 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC).

The problem with those arguments Gwen are why didn't AE communicate what would be a drastic change of plans? And, the nature of the 'sun line' as a navigation tool. This was no Iron Compass that you could follow to the next railroad station. If when they turned to that heading it did not cross Howland and just east of Baker it wasn't going to cross near Gardner either. That 'line' is just 90 degrees to the azimuth of the sun. When to turn on the Line of Position to approach Howland depended upon dead reckoning since what ever last time he could have made a night celestial fix. Even that "fix" would not give a "point" but rather a triangle within an area of uncertainty. On a good day from 1,000 feet you might have decent visibility for 10-20 miles, but if your flying a couple of hours from a zone of uncertainty 20 miles wide, flying dead reckoning where they error might be 3 to 10 percent (good to average) and flying at 150 mph then your error from that dead heading leg alone could be 8-30 miles. Add (and subtract) 1/2 the original area of uncertainty and if your "sun line" misses Howland it will miss Gardner. With GPS it is easy to be just a few yards off and you can keep asking the satellite constellation as often as you like. But that isn't how the game was played at the time.

At the core of all trans-ocean flying at the time, and up until around 50 years ago was "deducted reckoning". You start out with a known point. You look up your compass deviation, magnetic deviation, and true direction then add and or subtract to determine your compass heading. You calculate your cruise speed and wind component, then you head in the direction you calculated. Fun is just beginning. You fly that direction for as long as you have calculated it will take to get there. But actually holding the exact heading is almost impossible. It is unlikely the winds will be constant in speed and direction. So when you arrive at the point on your calculated direction which the flight time indicates is "X" you are incredibly lucky if you are at "X" but generally you will be somewhere near "X."

So you add some gimicks, a drift meter to get a good idea of what the winds are - fine during the day when there is enough wind to make white caps, not so good at night or when there is an undercast. You add tables telling you where the sun and stars will be at any time - and a clock or two that is real accurate so you actually know what time it is. Those allow you to use a Bubble Octant to 'shoot' the sun, moon and stars. Pretty good. At night in still air with a really smooth pilot you can shoot one star, then another and another, and draw three lines on your map - except they are minutes apart. Thus all you have is a triangle, but that is better than a guess. On top of that there are problems with the accuracy of the instrument and calculations which make even that triangle 'fuzzy". But at least you have a an area of uncertainty that you can be pretty certain about to adjust your deducted reckoning.

During the day, you have your deducted heading, your calculated time of arrival, and a sun line which you hope will cross the destination, so you aim off to one side or the other and turn at the sun line at the correct time. That is how you use the area of uncertainty to know which way to turn.

As you go cheerfully east in the night, the magnetic deviation changes. Likewise your true airspeed, plus or minus your wind component produces your ground speed,. Your airspeed on the gauge is indicated and you must correct for altitude to get true airspeed.

No matter how good the navigator or the pilot, navigation by dead reckoning and celestial navigation is not precise.

They were both professionals Gwen, and being lost in an airplane is like being lost in the woods, but faster. Rule number one is if your lost, don't get more lost, and that is all they would have been doing going from one too large area of uncertainty to an even bigger one named "Gardner Island."Mark Lincoln 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making any arguments at all. I'm here only to talk about the Saipan edits and out of courtesy tried to answer your question about the change of direction.

As for the LOP, she broadcast it. Given what we know about Noonan's navigation techniques (and he was considered the world's leading civil aviation navigator at the time), by taking shots of stars and the sun Noonan used prepared angles and tables to plot a position on his map. In daylight hours only an LOP could be plotted but with this at least AE and FN knew they were somewhere on that resulting sunline but not where in terms of north or south. Given Noonan's known technique, the LOP was "advanced" on the map until it ran through Howland Island (the destination). When run through Howland Island, the LOP also passes to the east of and within sight of Gardner .[1] Cheers, Gwen Gale 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are both right in all your arguments each way as you have fully explained the various theoretical rationalizations but as GG has accurately summed it up, the current issue is not in resolving how and why Amelia got lost but whether the present article should be restored. But I am enjoying the ripostes, parries and thrusts (any idea what my sport was in University??), FWIW. Bzuk 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Again, I ask for the assistance of the more experienced editors on whether the way I have cited the statements is correct style for Wikipedia. Matt605 22:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

YouTube statements are not accepted as verifiable sources.Bzuk 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

The article should be restored. Sorry if Gwen and I digress. I had, or chose, to learn a lot of stuff which was going out of date when I was young. One effect of that was to give me a very real feel for the situation Earhart and Noonan were in. I think it DOES have bearing. The only 'theories' which have a shred of viability are that she ditched or that she made it to Gardner Island. So far no credible evidence has come from Gardner Island. I actually would welcome some.

Matt, I don't disagree that some of what men remember from the past, particularly what gets them attention now, might not have some basis in the past. I sit here now with Brink's book "Lost Star" and I am looking at a photo, the caption of which includes the words "This USAAF rreconnaissance photograph, taken during the bombing of the island in 1944 shows the distinctive twin-tailed monoplane, with one wing mission , sitting on a concrete revetment. The Japanese built no twin-tailed monoplanes, either before or during World War II." Matt that caption shows either ignorance or mendacity. The Japanese built more L-14 'Super Electras" than did Lockheed. What are the chances that some one ordered a Tachikawa build LO or Ki-56 destroyed because it was just trash or that some vast government conspiracy reaching to the white house knew that a L-10E had been discovered in a combat zone and deemed it must be destroyed?

The question is to we revert from Matt's revisions. Well, Matt has not answered my question concerning radio reception on the morning of 2 July 1937.

When he has a coherent and plausible answer, then we can consider letting his edits stand.

Otherwise we have to go with what is known, what WAS known, by those concerned at the time. The various conspiracy theories grew up only after a certain war time "rah-rah" film went on television regularly.

In the Summer of 1937 those responsible for investigating the 'disappearance' of AE and Fred Noonan had a pretty clear understanding of the series of planning errors and execution follies which led to their loss. Earhart could not - because of her own disinterest in radio technology and techniques - get a direction hack one the Itasca. The radio plan was flawed to the extent that the Itasca and Earhart were not even on the same time, in fact they were half an hour off on the hour. And the Itasca's HFDF batteries had run down. . .

It was a big ocean folks, and they were in a small plane, running out of gas and begging for the DF hack that could never come.Mark Lincoln 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, when you present something other than hazy recollections from old folks who can't even produce a scrap of other evidence, then your passion can be fulfilled. Find AE and Fred, or their airplane, and have at it. Otherwise, you have nothing but passion.

Revert the article. If Matt wants to start an "Amelia Earhart in Saipan" Wikiopedia article, and the Wikiopedia will allow it, then he should.

The various wild 'theories' that started over a decade after WW II and have sold lots of books and made lots of money since then ARE part of the Amelia Earhart legacy.

But without a shred of tangible evidence they cannot be considered valid and should not be treated as such.Mark Lincoln 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, none of the more popular theories have ANY proof. They searched the ocean floor in 2002 and 2006 and found no Electra. They've searched Nikumaroro dozens of times and have found nothing. They've found nothing on Saipan too. But they have found some veterans who weren't old when they began telling their stories. They don't appear to be profiteering or lying. Matt605 10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why go the wrong way?

The original flight plan was to head with the prevailing winds and gain the advantage of the longer days by heading west. I do not recall ever reading why they changed to the east bound Pacific crossing. Anyone know?Mark Lincoln 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

She ground looped the Electra in Hawaii on the first attempt (whilst taking off for the first jump to Howland). The plane required extensive repairs back in California and by the time these were finished seasonal prevailing winds were more fit for a flight in the other direction. Moreover Earhart's confidence level had dropped slightly and she waited until they reached Florida before announcing publicly that the second world flight attempt was underway. Gwen Gale 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it is a minor consideration, considerable resources had already been deployed throughout her world flight route and Earhart may have been under some financial constraints that required her to complete the flight as quickly as possible. FWIW Bzuk 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Where did the prevailing winds shift? Certainly not over the Pacific.Mark Lincoln 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In looking through some sources, the quote I have is that "seasonal weather conditions had changed" which reflects the monsoon period. Safford explicitly states that the "...West-east courses introduced two new factors that constantly operated against her. First, the most dangerous and difficult leg (Lae to Howland) would have to be flown when both pilot and navigator would be fatigued from having flown 20,000 miles already. Second the Electra would be bucking prevailing head winds instead of being aided by tail winds." (Safford, Warren and Payne 2003, p. 11.) Safford also analyses the haste in preparing for a second flight predicated on the need to finish the flight in 1937 wherein negative weather reports had begun to come in. Earhart had called in a weather forecaster before she decided to take a chance on a second flight that year. She did try to reduce her risks by using the flight to Miami as a "shakedown" flight but the haste putting the Electra back together ended in making some decisions in the sake of expediency, especially in regards to the radio communications and proper training to master the equipment. FWIW Bzuk 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Sorry Mark, I should have said seasonal weather conditions and patterns (this was a flight which would take many weeks to complete). I also recall there were other reasons and among these, for the second attempt GP set up a "syndicated" publishing thing wherein AE would report her progress back to the states by telephone. There were a lot more telephone connections early on in the eastward direction than the westward. Finally, given the failure of the first attempt, going east gave them a kind of jump start, to work out any kinks over the continental US before announcing they were already on their way in Florida. Gwen Gale 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, why go the wrong way to Howland? I don't believe any one story on what happened to Earhart and Noonan. One thing that concerns me though is why they chose Lea to Howland, a 2500 mile shot at a speck of an island, when Samoa was only 1000 miles from Howland. Had they flown Lea:Samoa:Howland, then they would have had 1000 miles out, 500 miles to fly in circles finding Howland, and 1000 miles back to Samoa if they didn't. Of course, your point about getting lost in an airplane is highly valid, and that could explain why an island-hopping route northward from Lae toward Saipan and then east to Howland may have made safer sense over a shot in the dark. Imagine trying to find Howland after 18 hours in a noisy plane with the sun glaring into your eyes and clouds casting shadows across the water. Matt605 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article should be restored. Sorry if Gwen and I digress. I had, or chose, to learn a lot of stuff which was going out of date when I was young. One effect of that was to give me a very real feel for the situation Earhart and Noonan were in. I think it DOES have bearing. The only 'theories' which have a shred of viability are that she ditched or that she made it to Gardner Island. So far no credible evidence has come from Gardner Island. I actually would welcome some.

Matt, I don't disagree that some of what men remember from the past, particularly what gets them attention now, might not have some basis in the past. I sit here now with Brink's book "Lost Star" and I am looking at a photo, the caption of which includes the words "This USAAF rreconnaissance photograph, taken during the bombing of the island in 1944 shows the distinctive twin-tailed monoplane, with one wing mission , sitting on a concrete revetment. The Japanese built no twin-tailed monoplanes, either before or during World War II." Matt that caption shows either ignorance or mendacity. The Japanese built more L-14 'Super Electras" than did Lockheed. What are the chances that some one ordered a Tachikawa build LO or Ki-56 destroyed because it was just trash or that some vast government conspiracy reaching to the white house knew that a L-10E had been discovered in a combat zone and deemed it must be destroyed?

The question is to we revert from Matt's revisions. Well, Matt has not answered my question concerning radio reception on the morning of 2 July 1937.

When he has a coherent and plausible answer, then we can consider letting his edits stand. Otherwise we have to go with what is known, what WAS known, by those concerned at the time. The various conspiracy theories grew up only after a certain war time "rah-rah" film went on television regularly.

In the Summer of 1937 those responsible for investigating the 'disappearance' of AE and Fred Noonan had a pretty clear understanding of the series of planning errors and execution follies which led to their loss. Earhart could not - because of her own disinterest in radio technology and techniques - get a direction hack one the Itasca. The radio plan was flawed to the extent that the Itasca and Earhart were not even on the same time, in fact they were half an hour off on the hour. And the Itasca's HFDF batteries had run down. . .

It was a big ocean folks, and they were in a small plane, running out of gas and begging for the DF hack that could never come.Mark Lincoln 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, when you present something other than hazy recollections from old folks who can't even produce a scrap of other evidence, then your passion can be fulfilled. Find AE and Fred, or their airplane, and have at it. Otherwise, you have nothing but passion.

Revert the article. If Matt wants to start an "Amelia Earhart in Saipan" Wikiopedia article, and the Wikiopedia will allow it, then he should.

The various wild 'theories' that started over a decade after WW II and have sold lots of books and made lots of money since then ARE part of the Amelia Earhart legacy.

But without a shred of tangible evidence they cannot be considered valid and should not be treated as such.Mark Lincoln 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Imagine trying to find Howland after 18 hours in a noisy plane with the sun glaring into your eyes and clouds casting shadows across the water." - Matt

I imagine myself dog tired peering through the typical haze at 1,000 over tropical waters and wondering why those guys on the Itasca are not giving me the DF hack I need.

That is besides the point Matt. Flying to Saipan or the Marshall Islands would have put them out of range of Howland and flying to Howland would have put them out of range of the Marshall Islands. The idea that there was some recce mission underway is pretty absurd unless the premise is that they thought they could land at some Japanese airfield, pop the film out of their cameras and hitch a ride to Washington.

The Commerce Department was actively promoting the development of airfields and seaplane facilities across the Pacific Matt. Howland had been "occupied" for exactly that purpose. Eugene Vidal was one of the folks in the Commerce Department responsible for promoting aviation - I have read many accident reports signed by him - and he was a close friend of Earharts.

There was a 'covert' government mission involved Matt, but it wasn't spying. I suggest you read Grooch, "Skyway to Asia" to get a clue how extensive the effort by the Commerce Department and Pan American to extend both sea and land facilities for commercial aviation across the pacific was.Mark Lincoln 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, folks, PLEASE remember to indent your threads...reading the above without indenting is a real pain! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I think you've been flying too long. You're the guy who says he's read all the material on the subject. Why not Lea to Samoa and then Samoa to Howland? Samoa is only 1,000 miles from Howland, not 2,500. Or why not island-hop north to maintain visual contact with a known landmark and then shoot east? Matt605 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, why not tour Australia and then do a round robin in Asia as well? The world had been circumnavigate by air. The 'gimic' with the Earhart flight was to do it at the equator. They were not rolling in money. Ask them. What is your point? Matt?Mark Lincoln 10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have a point. It was a question. Howland is a pretty tiny target to hit after a 2,500 mile flight. Samoa or a northerly route that used islands as markers would have been safer. Diverting to Samoa would have increased the total distance, which was the gimmick -- flying New York to London to Moscow, etc. is a shorter route. Lea to Howland is a shorter route. Lea to Samoa to Howland is longer but safer. Matt605 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV and Accident Reports

I have been thinking about the similarity between the NPOV stance of the Wikipedia, the alternative theories dispute, and the approach used in investigating airliner accidents. An accident investigation starts with all of the interested parties collecting the 'facts' of the accident, aircraft, crew, weather, etc. Everything is suspect until eliminated. The inclusion of a broad spectrum of 'interested parties' such as the NTSB, aircraft manufacturer, Air Line Pilots Association, the airlines, FAA, engine and instrument manufacturers, etc., promotes an open and sometimes intense investigation. On a few occasions it is easy to eliminate possibilities and arrive easily at a "most probable cause." In a few cases it is very difficult to do so. Most airliner accidents, particularly ones involving pilot error or system failures have multiple contributing factors. This is where the 'interested parties' contribute strongly.

The major difference is that the Wikipedia strongly seeks a neutral point of view whereas the NTSB wants to identify causes, problems and fix them.

The events of 2 July 1937 near and at Howland Island, as well as the search afterwards left most participants firmly believing that the 'most probable cause" for the loss of the Electra and it's crew was that they missed Howland and took a swim. Subsequent inquiries showed that there were sever flaws in the planning and execution of the critical radio navigation phase of the flight.

Now we have another "mystery" to deal with. Well after WW II new and exciting theories were put forth concerning what transpired before, during and after AE's last flight.

Our 'mystery" is how do we tell the story of Amelia Earhart in accordance with the methods, purposes and goals of the Wikipedia?

More specifically what is the importance of the various "alternative" (NPOV compared to "conspiracy") theories to informing readers about Amelia Earhart?

Were we to present each of those theories in full, and then rebut them to maintain a NPOV, we would end up with an entirely different article than was needed.

Is it possible to limit the amount of memory allocated to each of those stories? Excuse me if I seem ignorant of the process and all, I am a nugget around here.Mark Lincoln 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Opa Locka?

Why is there a link to Opa Locka Airport on the AE page? She flew out of the old Miami Municipal field which was south of Opa Locka and west of Masters Field. Miami Municipal was renamed Amelia Earhart Field after Miami switched airline operations to Eastern's 36 st Airport which is now MIA.

I don't know for certain when Amelia Earhart Field closed, apparently in the 1950s, but it was just abandoned runways and a few decaying hangers in the mid-1960s. I snuck onto it once and drove the old VW up and down the runways. It was fenced off, unlike Masters field which was wide open.

Masters Field was closed in the 1950s, though many buildings were still in use in the late 1960s, and most of it became Miami-Dade Jr. College North Campus in the 1960s. A small non-Navy hanger was on the SE corner of the campus until about 1969, it was reputed to have been the one she used and had been moved from AE Field. I have my doubts.

I would recommend that the Opa Locka link be replaced with this one, or a page for Miami Municipal http://www.airfields-freeman.com/FL/Airfields_FL_Miami_N.htm#miamimuniMark Lincoln 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Redacted Text

Text removed from the current article that is just a lengthy quote in support of a paragraph that was disputed is as follows (around page 268):

The reference from the 1997 Goldstein and Dillon biography cited is as follows:

“Amy began to believe Amelia was being held in Japan when, ‘a few days after Amelia’s S.O.S,’ an unnamed friend listening to a shortwave broadcast from Tokyo claimed to have heard that ‘they were celebrating there with parades etc. because of Amelia’s recue or pickup by a Japanese fisherman.’ The individual must have heard something, as Amy wrote to Neta Southern, the former Neta Snook, who had taught Amelia to fly, ‘This young girl drove 27 miles at 11 o’clock at night and through a horrid part of Los Angeles to tell me.’

“Of course, the Japanese would have been pleased and proud to have rescued Amelia. But parades? Possibly she heard a garbled account of Japan’s participation in the search or perhaps some ceremonies connected with the popular Star Festival, a happy occasion to be held on July 7. Patriotic fervor was running high in Japan, and July 8 would see the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, usually considered Asian portion of World War Two.

“The next day Amy went to the Japanese Consulate, where she was received courteously. But when she returned two days later, the former consul had been replaced, and the new incumbent knew nothing about the matter. George came back the next day and telephoned the consulate. Getting no satisfaction over the phone, he ‘insisted on a personal interview and saw the consul but got nowhere and came home very angry and upset.’ “ Goldstein and Dillon, 1997

Matt605 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

An 8:1 majority would generally automatically form a consensus. However, voting isn't necessarily everything, so I will try to weigh up the consensus on the merits of the arguments used. Overall, the argument is whether Matt's revisions and additions are verifiable and whether his sources are appropriate (incidentally, whether the saipan theory is true or not is irrelevant; all that matters is if it can be sourced).

Reading up, it is my strong opinion that though Matt's revisions are 'verifiable' in that it is possible for them to be verified by independent sources, but they are not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense: they cannot be attributed to a reliable published source. It appears that this is the consensus amongst all of the editors apart from Matt.

As they currently are, the sources provided by Matt do not match WP:V or WP:CITE. They are not reliable or independent. That is not to say they will never be - the documentary mentioned above, if screened on say the BBC or a Sky channel, would perhaps constitute reliability or independence. A video on YouTube quite simply does not, and I see no other reliable sources mentioned above (and nor do any of the other editors). Therefore, the information cannot be included.

Although I am certain that Matt is acting in good faith, the continuation of the discussion when the consensus amongst the editors (based on the application of policy) is clearly against him is unnecessary disruption. Based on his current arguments, Matt's viewpoint will never be accepted by the others, and this is justifiable and reasonable.

I encourage Matt to find other, more reliable sources for his information, but until then he must stop prolonging the inevitable. Following the consensus above, I encourage the others to apply the revert and further develop the article from there.

I will not say that Matt's argument can never be included, in case better sources come to light, but at the moment it CANNOT. Continuing to argue, revert or edit war will result in him being blocked for more extended periods for disruption. ck lostsword•T•C 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments:

• The version supported by consensus in the straw poll does/did already contain a somewhat lengthy summary of the Saipan claims.

• That these unsupported Saipan claims have been made is wholly verifiable and for this reason, since the article has a section dealing with unsupported claims and myths, they are in the article.

• However, the substance or pith of the Saipain claims, that Earhart and Noonan landed in Saipan and were executed by the Japanese, although verbally asserted, has never been independently verified (even on YouTube or anywhere else) with any shred or hint of physical or documented evidence. Thus they are claims which have indeed been made, but which have what amounts to null support among published, reliable historians.

• Hence, to succinctly include these claims in the article, if the article is to contain a section about popular myths and other unsupported claims, is helpful so long as the narrative also explains that these claims have no historical or evidentiary basis at all beyond sheer verbal assertion (WP:WEIGHT), with no appreciable support in the academic or aviation communities.

• Lastly (and contrary to what an editor here has repeatedly asserted), there has been significant documented evidence and wide support among the historical community that AE and FN ditched and sank in the open Pacific. Moreover, during the past 20 years, a substantial range of physical and documentary evidence has emerged to support a hypothesis that they landed on Gardner Island and perished there, such that significant support for this hypothesis as a plausible alternative has emerged both among historians and the public. Under WP policy there is no basis by which the article can give the Saipan claims anything approaching equal narrative weight.

Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, while the Gardner Island hypothesis is within the realm of the possible, i.e., if they took off with full fuel tanks they might with incredible luck have flown that far, there is NO credible evidence of them having done so. Every year or two TIGAR has their headline raising discovery only to have the evidence refuted upon investigation. There is exactly the same problem as Saipan. No airplane, no bodies, nothing. Gardner Island is at least possible, if highly unlikely. I would welcome any resolution of the 'mystery' though the only mystery is exactly where they went down.Mark Lincoln 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Happily, there is no need to discuss our personal, meaningless opinions on what in truth happened. Instead, we have WP:V and WP:WEIGHT with which to include and balance verifiable secondary sources within the narrative. All the best. Gwen Gale 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, PS, I do so agree with you about the word "mystery" in this context. Gwen Gale 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, Gwen, I think the article does take a neutral position in stating that two disapearance theories/hypothesis predominate among Earhart scholars and researchers. There does not seem to be an overwhelming predeliction or emphasis to either of the two theories in the article as rewritten and all statements have a corresponding, corroborating reference citation. FWIW my 2¢ Bzuk 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Comment None of this much matters now. Requiring an 8-person unanimity for my revisions effectively gives anyone else veto power over my changes and any change I make can be deemed major enough by Akradeki to block my ID and IP forever.

That 8-person posse was formed while my participation was blocked. Even though the article was protected, I was blocked and could not participate in the discussion while others were making up their minds on the proposal in the straw poll. No reasonable person would respect that sort of trick of process, and I do not. However, the comments of the voting editors show that beyond their unity in opposition to me, there is no actual consensus on the article itself.

Many, many improvements to the article that I have made remain intact. So let us not, for the record, forget that the article came a long way while I participated and yet still has a far way to go. But, unlike the veterans of Saipan, I will not grow old waiting for others to be fair and balanced. Matt605 22:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly encourage Matt to continue to make constructive edits to the article and participate in discussions on this talk page; my advice was merely to leave the topic of Saipan until more evidence or better sources come to light. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal in the straw poll has not changed. Akradeki has unanimous support from 8 Wikipedians to permanently block my ID and IP if I make any change to the article that does not meet with his liking. I will never make another change to the article. It was an abuse of process to block me while voting on the straw poll occured. No reasonable person would respect that sort of trick, and I do not. However, it is the article that ultimately suffers. Matt605 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)