Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Guys selling books 2 "Gwen" 3 B-Class 4 The article in general 5 How to invent a reference

[edit] Guys selling books

I have no forthcoming or past publication on AE.

I have no intention of ever writing one.

Does it not stir your curiosity that so many of the "alternative" theories to the long accepted one are clear efforts at commercial promotion of a product?

I collect them, but. . . Mark Lincoln 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Gwen"

You seem most taken with the TIGHAR vision.

I would like to ask a few questions.

Why does TIGHAR disparage the examination of Gardner Island from 400 feet (to avoid bird strikes) and yet emphasize that evidence of "prior habitation" was seen?

Then why does TIGHAR ignore the FACT that a shipwreck had happened in late 1929, the SS Norwich City, and according to the Wikipedia "the survivors camped near collapsed structures from the abortive Arundel project and were rescued after several days on the island.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikumaroro#SS_Norwich_City_wreck?

Why does TIGHAR make much over the fact that there were signs of previous habitation and NOTHING about the fact that there were NO signs of current habitation?

Why would TIGHAR have us believe that certain communications by Earhart were made for days after 2 July, and never mention that the signals received by Pan Am at Hawaii and Wake on 3105 Kc, were so weak as to be unintelligible, and impossible to make an accurate RF hack upon? Why do they not mention that the possible carrier wave noted to the SE (not the SSE) from Howland was not on 3105 Kc?

TIGHAR is a business, and I don't want to squelch their business, but why do they still tout "Amelia Earhart's Shoe (claimed to be exactly like the ones she wore on the flight) long after that claim has been discredited?

How did a skeleton of an old and stocky man which has become lost suddenly become the skeleton of a middle aged and thin woman after the description of that skeleton was reviewed? Did Bill Frist do that analysis just after he diagnosed Mary Schavio?

Gwen, you are clearly in love with the Gardner Island hypothesis.

That hypothesis can be easily tested by asking a simple question.

Did the pilots from the Colorado find anything on Gardner Island to indicate the Electra had landed on that Island, that it had continued to operate long enough to send several days of signals, and that Earhart or Noonan tried to signal the pilots of the Colorado when the Island was searched?

The answer is simple. When Gardner Island was searched, there was no Electra and no Earhart and Noonan waving frantically to be rescued.

All there was was evidence of prior habitation that TIGHAR would rather you not know about.

They are not 'dishonest' in the criminal sense Gwen. They are simply dishonest.

But every year or two they can launch another 'expedition' which will produce 'evidence' which will turn out to be false. And the funding will role in.Mark Lincoln 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So Gwen, why would anyone who simply wanted to out the facts as best they could be determined about Amelia Earhart and her ill fated last flight bother to butt heads with your romantic belief?Mark Lincoln 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-Class

Anyone want to confront why the Amelia Earhart entry into the Wikipedia is 'B' class?

How can a person who was very important for the better part of two decades in American Aviation and Feminism be 'B' class?

Is it because my first grade teacher wasn't a 'feminist' of the suffragette variety? No, she was.

Was it because Amelia Earhart was a war monger who would welcome her name upon an instrument of aggression?

Nope.

It is 'B' class because it is the hobby horse of children such as Matt and Gwen.

Because they cannot let Amelia Earhart occupy the place in history that she earned thus to satisfy their egos she must be relegated into the 'b' class.

Not my fault. AE was a competent if not superior pilot. She worked very hard at what she did. Fred Noonan was not a hopeless drunk, but rather he worked very hard at what he did.

The situation they confronted in early July 1937 was both of their manufacture and beyond their ability.

There is not a shred of evidence that they died on Gardner Island. There is abundant evidence they never arrived at Gardner Island.

The might have survived if they managed to ditch safely and get into their life raft with all their supplies.

But then there were people who imagined - honestly - that they heard transmissions from shangri-la that other people deemed necessary to pursue.

Thus the search where those most informed wished to search had to be abandond, and the search for shangril La had to begin.

What ever chance AE and Fred Noonan had to survived IF they managed to ditch and get out of the aircraft, disappeared as the ship commanded by the man who best understood the situation was commanded to go to places where they could not be.

One thing is certain. They were not upon any particle of soil or any reef within range in the week after they disappeared.

Sic gloria transit mundi - as the slave was commanded to whisper into the ear of the Roman general parading his spoils of war.Mark Lincoln 02:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Busy, busy day, Mark. So the Electra had to be on the ocean floor within 100 miles of the Itasca, but two searches in the 21st century have found nothing. Yet everyone else is still lying.

The 1937 searchers who searched Gardner a solid week after July 2 may have found no aircraft or life on Gardner because Earhart may have been rescued by Japanese civilian or military people, a possibility documented in the Goldstein and Dillon text from the 1997 biography quoted above and deleted from the article. Matt605 02:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What Goldstein and Dillon said in an examination of various claims is "the sort of story, told by alleged witnesses, complete with incident and conversation, that can beguile the unwary." (Goldstein and Dillon 1997, p. 269.) FWIW Bzuk 03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

I asked you before to provide the cite for your claim that Amy Otis Earhart refuted her belief of Japanese involvement, and you did not. What we do know is that she believed this as a possibility for well more than half a decade. Also, the 1997 authors decided for themselves that the person who reported the Japanese celebrations was wrong about the reason for the celebrations. Maybe that's true. Maybe the reported parades were normal holiday parades that were especially festive because a Japanese fishing boat had rescued Earhart. Why do the authors not consider that possibility? Matt605 13:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep smoking that suff Matt, rolling it in copies of Gorner's book helps the high.Mark Lincoln 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat folks, there is a very sound reason why the Amelia Earhart article will never be anything but a B-Class article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Lincoln (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do the authors not consider that possibility? (of a Japanese involvement) Mainly because they are not unwary... the fact that Amy clung to her beliefs was sad. She believed hearsay from a total stranger and had no shred of evidence to support her notions of a Japanese rescue and tried vainly to interest government, GP and others to investigate. All efforts proved fruitless including Putnam's trip to the Pacific in wartime, Amy's presence at the Tokyo Rose trials and Jackie Cochran's mission to Japan. I do not have Muriel's account but in other literature, she describes her mother's reluctant acceptance of Amelia's loss. Amelia's sister who was a preeminent Earhart scholar staunchly maintained throughout her life that there was no basis in the Japanese connection.

Capt. Safford in a latest published work on Earhart also has examined the claims and found no evidence in Japanese records, especially those files from Saipan to substantiate any Japanese involvement. Safford indicated that the popular impression that the US government did not take the rumours, broadcasts and letters it received seriously is completely false. There are voluminous files that indicate careful examination of all these theories and a lack of any supporting evidence to substantiate even one of them. One case in point, the hangars that Thomas Devine describes from a second-hand report were destroyed by 1944 which was a simple matter of record. Safford also had access to classified documents of interviews conducted by the US Navy DIO Joseph M. Patton who examined each of the Devine claims. This 1960 report went through every possible Japanese connection and found there was none. The Patton report conclusively ended with the words, "The information advanced by Devine is inaccurate and cannot be supported by this investigation."

The fact that Amelia's mother held on to a vain belief in a conspiracy has no relevance; thousands who watched Flight for Freedom convinced themselves of similar scenarios. Everyone who reads supposedly authoritative but completely unsubstantiated accounts and believes them also has fallen prey to the siren call of the Earhart mystery. IMHO Bzuk 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Being held prisoner during war is not a conspiracy. It is a fact of war. How does a person's belief that their un-accounted-for loved one transform into a conspiracy theory? Why are Amy Otis Earhart's beliefs excluded from the article while AE's step-son Putnam is quoted twice? Why is a fellow aviatrix and friend to AE included as a historical scholar? What experience and education did she draw upon when searching the Japanese archives? Could she even read Japanese? Matt605 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Amy Otis Earhart's reaction to her daughter's disappearance triggered the so-called "Japanese involvement." She had been told by a stranger of a radio broadcast of Amelia's rescue. That conversation added to her own belief that Amelia was "secretive" about her world flight was all she had to go on. After years of campaigning for government investigations which Richard G. Strippel in Amelia Earhart: The Myth and the Reality documents, there was no evidence uncovered of a Japanese involvement. His "Researching Amelia: A Detailed Summary for the Serious Researcher into the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." November 1995 provides Muriel Earhart Morrisey's rebuttal to the various spy stories. She indicated from the family's perspective, "we feel she ran out of gasoline and has been laid to rest with many of our New England ancestors...I believe she ran out of gas and went down off Howland Island."" (Strippel 1995, p. 58)

Matt, put the same sort of cynicism that you have for all the Earhart family, colleagues, legitimate Earhart scholars and reputable authors to others who have made wild-eyed, baseless claims. FWIW Bzuk 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

How did Amelia Earhart become a Japanese POW? The US was not at war with Japan. There were no Japanese ships in the area. Her airplane could not have flown to Japanese controlled territory. The fundamental premise of so many of the silly stories which have grown over the years is fatally flawed. No, wait, Elvis Yamamoto in his flying saucer abducted them (and mutilated a few cattle) and swept them off to Roswell Prefect on the secret Japanese Island of Animee.Mark Lincoln 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We do know a good deal about Amelia Earhart's last flight. We have her broadcasts received as she flew away from Lae and as she approached Howland. They convey a good deal of useful information. Six or seven ear witnesses to her last broadcasts say she expressed the opinion (of the person with the gauges) that she was low on fuel and had perhaps 1/2 hour left. He last broadcast showed great stress in her voice. The navigational data she conveyed in her reports during the flight indicated that she was meeting headwinds as the forecast sent AFTER she took off indicated she would of a little over 26 mph. The L-10E manual indicates that for maximum range she would have had to increase airspeed and thus consumed more fuel - leaving a fuel exhaustion time within half an hour or so of her last broadcast.

So folks, who do we believe, Amelia Earhart who had the deepest personal reasons for being truthful, or a collection of book pimps and promoters? When did she transmit - 'screw you guys for not telling me what direction to fly, I am headed for Siapan!"?

There were absolutely NO broadcasts which could be identified as coming from Amelia Earhart following the last one heard on Howland.

Vague suspected carrier waves and 1/1 (unintelligible and too weak to get a clear null on) heard by Pan Am stations which MIGHT have come from the Phoenix Islands do not qualify a certain communications.

There was no deep "mystery" until years later when folks invented it.Mark Lincoln 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Saipan witnesses on YouTube do not say how she got there. Mark, your advocacy of a point of view is very clear. Matt605 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Go watch YouTube Matt, you are in over your head trying to do history. There is Matt, not a shred of evidence the Japanese ever held Amelia Earhart, which is not surprising because there is absolutely no way she could have ended up in Japanese controlled territory.

Run along Matt you know nothing of airplanes, navigation, radio or how to do historical research.Mark Lincoln 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for any other claim either, except for the Saipan witnesses on YouTube. Yes, I know less about airplanes, navigation, and radio in comparison to your claims, and yet you cannot persuade me or accurately answer my questions. In fact, your style and behavior persuades me against your own claims. If everything you knew were wrong, how could you ever admit it? Matt605 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, go back to YouTube, it is entertaining and will not tax your abilities.

You might consider and compare the definitions of knowledge and belief:

Knowledge is: 1 : obsolete : COGNIZANCE 2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a man of unusual knowledge> 3 : archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by mankind b : archaic : a branch of learning synonyms KNOWLEDGE, LEARNING, ERUDITION, SCHOLARSHIP mean what is or can be known by an individual or by mankind. KNOWLEDGE applies to facts or ideas acquired by study, investigation, observation, or experience <rich in the knowledge of human nature>. LEARNING applies to knowledge acquired especially through formal, often advanced, schooling <a book that demonstrates vast learning>. ERUDITION strongly implies the acquiring of profound, recondite, or bookish learning <an erudition unusual even in a scholar>. SCHOLARSHIP implies the possession of learning characteristic of the advanced scholar in a specialized field of study or investigation <a work of first-rate literary scholarship>.

Belief is:1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION

I am interested in what can be known Matt, and am careful to separate it from what can only be believed in.Mark Lincoln 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article in general

I am not an AE fan, my particular interest is in aviation at the time, and the "Freak Show" of various conspiracy theories concerning her disappearance.

I am not certain that the article conveys to a reader the media carnival that was the United States in the '20s', or just how crucial 'stunt flying' and air races were to keeping the American public "Air Minded".

Nor does it mention that AE was one of the founders of National Airways, which operated the Boston-Main and Central Vermont airlines, which eventually morphed into Northeast Airlines in 1940. (Boston-Main operated L-10As).

One of the men involved in "National Airways" was Eugene Vidal, later Chief of U.S. Department of Air Commerce, and instrumental in building the runways at Howland, as well as helping AE get support from the USN and Treasury Dept.Mark Lincoln 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting facts, but widening the context of any subject is a tactic of conspiracy theorists. Are you suggesting that the purpose of the round-the-world flight was to put Howland on the map? Could be an interesting idea but it doesn't explain why Lae:Howland was selected over the safer Lae:Samoa:Howland route. Matt605 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you can't comprehend what is required of a Wikipedia article. My personal criteria is I will use no source or variety of information that would have been rejected had I used it in my historiography thesis. A blurb on YouTube by a guy peddling a book he wrote would not qualify. Nor would unsubstantiated non-source material in most cases. I could use some of the stuff you spout were I writing a thesis on the various conspiracy theories about Amelia Earhart, but ONLY because they would be the subject.

The words of Amelia Earhart reported by those tasked with communicating with her during her last flight are not acceptable to you. The fact that for example 6-7 persons ALL of whom were present on the Itasca ALL reported that she claimed she was low on fuel, and had only about 1/2 hour left does not matter. That she was CLEARLY near the Itasca after hours of her transmissions growing stronger when she made that claim does not matter. All that matters to you is a couple of clowns on YouTube and your profoundly held belief that the utter lack of source material and any verifiable evidence Amelia Earhart was somehow transported to Siapan.

Matt, just because you believe it does not make it fact, or knowledge, or anything besides an obsession. My suggestion is you join the cottage industry of "Amelia Earhart Conspiracy Books" and cash in like a number of others already have including Mr. Devine who learned the craft from Mr. Goerner. Or get creative! Go to the local American Legion bar and find some old duffer who looks thirsty. Ask him if he was on Siapan during the war and when he says yes buy him a drink. Start feeding him what you want to hear and pretty soon you'll be hearing it. Then go to Siapan, find some old lady and slip her some money and ask if she saw Amelia Earhart executed. If that doesn't do it just make it up like Klass did. Put your tale on YouTube and start raking in the cash.Mark Lincoln 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks the kid has a half-track mind.Mark Lincoln 20:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Better one track than no track, Mark. The Saipan witnesses that appear on YouTube don't say how she got there. In fact, only one said he saw markings in a prison cell which indicated she was there. The others say the plane awas there and that her briefcase was found in safe and that it was not water damaged. Mark you add more so that you can refute it all, but those who see the video will immediately see your crusade, although they may not understand your motivations. Why do you wrongly impugne the character and motives of those with whom you disagree? Isn't that what conspiracy theorists normally do? Matt605 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with the initial points I made in this section, I have added several lines to give her credit for her role in National Airways, and effort to make America "air minded." I will wait on remediating the unsupported and unsupportable claims of radio communications after the morning of 2 July 1937.Mark Lincoln 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to invent a reference

How to invent a reference.

Not hard. Invent a quote by a dead Admiral. Quote it in your book. Then tell reviewers that the Admiral had never told that to anyone else - and - ooooeeee ooo - he told you to not quote him (it must be really serious stuff right?).

Then, when the reviewer mentions it, doubtingly, cite part of his comments to prove it is a valid reference!

"Sources close to the late Admiral Nimitz report that. . . "

Sound familiar?

One thing we ALL have to watch out for is the half-truth, the self-created reference, the planted quote. This is not only a problem with the "Mystery" of AE's "Disappearance", but her entire career. Who did coin the term "First Lady of the Air"? ;-0!

There was a very real person beneath the publicity, propaganda, and doubts. She was a generally respected pilot, but by no means a great one. She had accidents, but so did almost everyone. Many of her accomplishments - such as her ride across the Atlantic in a tri-motor were largely twaddle - though the courage was real. Others were significant promotions of not only Amelia Earhart, but aviation as well.

When dealing with a subject who was a self-promoter, and who married a shameless self-promoter, and who has become the target of fawning biographers, shady hucksters and dubious saviors, EVERYTHING must be considered for it's veracity, bias and intent. Things need to be cross checked whenever possible. If only one person had heard and wrote it down that AE said she had only 1/2 hour of fuel left, I would not consider it a 'fact." There were at least 6 or 7 who did. I would never consider the feeble and unintelligible signals that Pan Am radio operators reported "were deemed authentic." Rather they were grasp at as possible leads worth investigating. The line in the article: "Signals from the plane were heard intermittently for four or five days following the disappearance; however, none of these transmissions yielded any understandable position for the downed Electra." contains only one truth - "none of these transmissions yielded any understandable position." There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that they were "Signals from the plane."

"Incredibly, a couple of short wave radio listeners on the US mainland may have heard distress calls on upper harmonic frequencies." - Amelia Earhart Article, Wikipedia

Yes, it is incredible. The word incredible means that it is NOT credible.

If this article is ever going to be anything but a B-Class article we need to be very, very careful about our scholarship.

We must above all else be very suspicious of folks who are making money off Amelia Earhart to this day. Not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with making money, but because they have a stake in what they write which is different from the standards which are required.Mark Lincoln 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Time magazine review of Groener's book does not refute the Nimitz quote. Matt605 01:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor does Time magazine substantiate whether the Nimitz quote is accurate. Goerner on the very next page of his book, devalues the comment by revealing that the admiral did not permit him permission to use the quote. Admiral Nimitz passed away six months prior to The Search for Amelia Earhart and was the only one who could verify the accuracy of the quote since it reputedly came in a telephone conversation. Capt. Safford states that Fred Goerner had changed his position regarding the Earhart disappearance and prior to his death, was working on new research that closely approximated the "Crash-and-Sink" Theory advocated by Elgen and Marie Long. (Safford, Warren and Payne 2003, p. 149) Originally, in Safford's first manuscript, he had devoted a chapter to rebutting Goerner's claims but when the two came to a resolution of Safford's concerns, he dropped the chapter and only referred to Goerner's change of opinion in a two-page summary of the Goerner publication. FWIW Bzuk 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Matt, the 'crash and sink" "Theory" was not invented by some writers in the last part of the 20th century.

It was accepted by the people involved in the Earhart flight and subsequent search and rescue operations. It was never questioned outside of the realm of fiction until 1960.

For the accepted understanding of the events of 2 July 1937 to be questioned there would have to be at least a shred of verifiable evidence that some other outcome occurred. There is NONE.

Were all those involved in the Earhart flight and the subsequent search part of a 'conspiracy so vast' Matt?

Why would everyone engage in a conspiracy for the rest of their lives Matt? Even the "Ultra Secret" leaked when men grew old. There has not been one single shred of evidence to appear in US or Japanese records to suggest there was a spy mission, an abduction and subsequent execution. We were breaking lots of Japanese codes Matt, most of them. Why NOTHING? Nothing is a hard thing to deny. It is very hard to conceal a conspiracy involving two waring governments for 8 years and every year since Matt.

No airplane was found anywhere during the search operations. No records were found in Japanese files. All the 'documents' in the government "files" show that even the most unlikely lead was investigated until it proved baseless.

Saying that Admiral Nimitz told him something which he had told no one else and forbid Goerner to tell anyone tells me something about Goerner and that is about all.

PROVE Nimitz said such a thing to Goerner Matt. Contact the Medium of your choice. When that Medium has contacted Admiral Nimitz in the After World, allow me a chance to offer a bigger bribe to the Medium. See what the Medium says: "Admiral Nimitz says 'knock, knock, knock' which means . . . "

The L-10E could NOT have overflown Japanese controlled airspace and still arrived near Howland Island when it did. Hell it could not have arrived at Howland at all. It could not have flown to Howland, not found it's objective, and flown back to Japanese controlled airspace. The Japanese did not have a UFO located near Hull or Gardner Island which could have abducted Earhart and Noonan. The Japanese had no REASON to abduct Earhart and Noonan. Why would the Japanese abduct them Matt? Why can't you comprehend that if they had flown the longer route to Samoa that they would have been far saner to simply fly on to Hawaii than backtrack to Howland? Why can't you comprehend that the Earhart flight was WHY the commerce department built the airstrip on Howland? Why do you think the US (and England) were trying to 'colonize' certain strategically located (for air commerce) atolls in the Pacific during the mid to late 1930s Matt?Mark Lincoln 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know where in thousands of square miles of the Pacific Earhart and Noonan landed Matt.

I do know what Atolls and Islands the DID NOT land upon.

I do know that there is absolutely NO evidence in the records of the United States, Japan or any other nation which supports the idea that Earhart and Noonan were for reasons unknown taken prisoner by Japan and executed years later on Siapan.

One thing I can also say with certainty is that those who have repeatedly stated that they knew where the graves of Earhart and Noonan were have ALWAYS been proven wrong.

Wish in one hand Matt, crap in the other, guess which will get full first.Mark Lincoln 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, when you have something intelligent to add, when you have a shred of evidence instead of obstreperous obfuscation, bop back by.

Otherwise go somewhere in fantasy land and live out your obsessions.Mark Lincoln 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in the real world, when navigating by deducted heading (aka DEAD Reckoning) and the first sight of a Caribbean Island (say a big one like Abaco) is a few minutes late, the pucker factor starts in. Things start feeling a bit tense. One looks for the light colored rim of shallows around the island. . . One does not imagine how much fun it would be to go spy on the Cubans (or Japanese) with that reserve fuel in your tanks. It can only be less attractive when your looking for a small place.Mark Lincoln 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you've stepped over the line here. The world is perfectly safe from conspiracy theories creeping into this article without you going around calling people names. The wikipedia isn't the Usenet, this is a place to write articles, not debate them. If you want to engage in flame fests, do it elsewhere. Maury 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lincoln's been entertaining me with his extended balloon-bursting rebuttals. I have no sympathy for unlikely alternate scenarios given undue weight in the article itself but I do love to see a good skewering on the talk page. Let the talk page be what it is... Binksternet 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but that will not fly. The talk page is for discussions about the article it's attached to. It's not a Usenet thread. If you want to be entertained by people yelling at each other, watch Fox. Maury 03:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wishing Mark. I don't have an agenda. And I am prohibited from making any change to the article under penalty of permanent banishment of my ID an IP from AKRadecki. So you can say whatever you want about me and my improvements without any fear that I can do anything about it. Matt605 03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No agenda? Yet you constantly insinuate the article requires your improvements? The onus was to find a consensus for these changes. The first changes that you instituted to the article on August 4 were challenged initially by Gwen Gale and since then you have had virtually a single-minded obsession with putting your stamp on the article which is perfectly fine if you had consensus from other editors. That was not forthcoming and in the three weeks that followed, yours was the only "voice" that championed a singular opinion. FWIW Bzuk 04:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

My changes were improvements, and didn't improve just one sub-section of the article. Many of those improvements remain in the current version. I also took great pains to provide cites and direct quotes. I further had the unique experience of seeing a reference disappear one day and then seeing the fact it supported deleted the next day for lack of a proper cite! So as always, the situation is murkier than you would believe to be in your own mind, Bzuk.

The whole process of the straw poll was just a sham where an administrator manipulated some people into giving him the power he wanted. He blocked my ID for 48 hours before beginning the poll and not one person said let's hear from Matt before voting. By the time I had a chance to present my side, there was an 8-person posse united against me. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to join an 8 on 1 melee on the side of the 1, but I do note that beyond opposition to me, there was no consensus on the article found in the comments made during the straw poll.

But let's not get lost... the ocean floor has been searched twice in the last decade and no Electra has been located. So there's no proof of the crash or the sink portion of crash and sink. Matt605 10:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have obviously misread the consensus. No one was voting for or against you; editors were making a decision as to the status of the article and that was conclusive. FWIW Bzuk 11:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, you prove my contention that AKRadecki manipulated you and the others. But even in that endeavor, there is no consensus about the article found in the comments to the straw poll. I will never make another change to the article for fear of being banned for life from all of Wikipedia by the power vested in AKRadecki by the article editors during the straw poll. Matt605 11:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus clearly reflected nine editors' opinions about the article not about you or anyone else; the strawpoll was administered by an admin who took an impartial and independent stand. FWIW Bzuk 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

AKRadecki is not an impartial administrator. A view of his page will show that he is a crusader against conspiracy theorists. I am not a conspriacy theorist, but AKRadecki is such a zealot that he crusaded me anyway. He placed no warning on my Talk Page before blocking me. Then he blocked me and started the straw poll to give himself the power to block my ID and IP permanently if I made any change not approved by eight others. It was just a trick of process and no reasonable person would respect it. I certainly do not. Matt605 12:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the consensus over carefully, a different admin administered and supervised the strawpoll. Any editor who wished to cast a vote was given that opportunity and nine editors subsequently registered a vote. The overwhelming consensus was to return the article to an earlier version. FWIW Bzuk 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

I have been asked by someone on a back channel why I do not just make changes and let the chips fall. The answer is that I have crossed swords with several people in the discussions, and would rather get a feel for what could be considered acceptable before I jerk the article around. I am acutely aware that it is the "Amelia Earhart" article, not the "Conspiracy Theories About Amelia Earhart" article. I suggested someone add information about her time and role as an airline VP. I do not have a biography and suspect that some of the editors do and could footnote it more easily than I might. I have suggested two areas where I felt the article did not convey enough information about the age she lived and flew in to put what she did in best perspective. My goal was feedback before doing anything.

The thing which disturbs me most about the article is the outright assertion that transmissions were definitely heard from Earhart for days after fuel exhaustion time. In various books, particularly the conspiracy theory books, the background and nature of the situation after Earhart failed to reach Howland is obfuscated or ignored. There were people broadcasting false SOS signals. There were people calling for her on her last known frequency. There were people hoping to hear a faint signal. There were people thinking they heard one. There is, however, absolutely NO communication which can be stated to have come from AE. I feel it would be best if the article were edited to better represent that. To say that some signals were "deemed authentic" is to deceive by omission. For those 'deemed authentic' were pursued by searches. There was no new island 281 miles north of Howland. There was no L-10E landed in the Phoenix group. As I have been somewhat outspoken I feel it would be better if someone else edited that section if there is anyone who agrees.Mark Lincoln 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, what would improve your position against the post July 2, 1937 8:55 a.m. transmissions would be any evidence of hoaxed distress calls before the Lae:Howland segment or even before the doomed world flight. Short wave in the days of Earhart was the internet of its age. Lots of hoaxes, jokes, and others pioneering the hysteria experience created by Orson Wells and War of the Worlds in 1938. Given the times and her feminist image, I would expect there would be a lot of fake distress calls every time Earhart appeared in movie newsreels. Matt605 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, Short Wave was NOT the internet of her age. Radio was where nerdy kids in the 1910s, through the 1950s congregated, just as many did in being "air minded." Orson Wells was on one network, and that some idiots panicked is illustrative of the power that radio had in the minds of Americans at the time. There were "fake" distress calls Matt. There were many, many more where it is probable that people heard a faint word "Earhart" and assumed it was here and not a communication mentioning her. There may have been cases where people - legally as in the case of the Itasca, or illegally but with best intentions where people were calling Earhart using A3 on 3105 or 6210. There probably were cases where men were wishing to hear something and thought they did. I cannot rule out that signals were being transmitted from AE on some island in the central pacific. What I can say is that any island within range was searched and she was not found. That being said, I can say that the possibility of she landing, transmitting, and disappearing into thin air before the islands were searched is not credible.

William of Occam gave man one of the most potent logical tools ever devised. All things being equal, the simplest solution is the probable one. The most complex solution is the least likely.Mark Lincoln 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)