Talk:Amelia Earhart

Fringe theories etc

Here are some comments regarding the theories of disappearance of Amelia Earhart

It is written in the article: "A photograph supposedly of Earhart during her captivity exists, though skeptics have pointed out that it looks like it was taken at the same time as other photos shot before her final flight" -

- yes, such a photograps exists... most frequently two of them are presented - with Earhart near the car and the "oriental" facebehind. Actually that photo was made in January 1935 just before the Earhart's flight from Hawaii to California, and that oriental person is not a "Japanese guard" as some conspiracy theorists suggested but just some airport worker. Identically, the photo of Earhart as if "made in Japanese captivity" - presented in the Randall Brink's book - was actually made after the failure (groundloop) of her first World Flight attempt in March 1937.

It is written in the article: "Possibly the strangest suggestion is that Earhart was forced to make propaganda radio broadcasts as one of the many women known as Tokyo Rose" -

- personally, i would remove this phrase at all, because this "theory" - really strangest as the article fairly says - is completely discredited and debunked since long ago. So today the mentioning of this "Tokyo Rose stuff" together with Earhart's name only baselesly tarnishes Earhart in some sense, creating a "wrong connection" in the minds and memory of modern readers. It was really a strange, bizarre rumor, that appeared in a special wartime atmosphere - together with hundreds of other equally bizarre rumors created by increased secrecy and deficit of information. Obviously it was completely illogical from very beginning. If about Earhart herself, there is absolutely no any legitimate base to guess that she could be a traitor. All that is known about her strongly suggests that she was a loyal and patriotic American. If about Japanese, it was absolutely no sense for them to force Earhart to broadcast for them anonymously (as all the propaganda effect would be in WHO the broadcaster was! - so what for to use Earhart for this??). But it would be equally absolutely no sense for them to use her voice openly - because it would disclose her presence in Japanese hands, the thing that Japanese Government furiously denied all the time - both before and afterthe World War 2.

Despite its obviously enough bizarre nature (or maybe - paradoxally - just because of it!), this rumor could exist for some time - until there was no complete postwar investigation of the Tokyo Rose case.

This investigation was open, very detailed, and included an interrogation of many participants and witnesses of the Japanese propaganda radio broadcasting efforts, including some VIPs - like Colonel Shigetsugu Tsuneishi. The published materials of the Tokyo Rose trial includes more then 7000 pages of text.

NO any slightest connection to Amelia Earhart (or any base to suspect such a connection) was ever found. So - in fact - the myth about this alleged connection is dead since long ago. The problem is that this myth - being once launched - already continues to "live" regardless to facts... However it seems reasonable not to "help" the distribution of such a sort of baseless myths... especially in educational projects (like encyclopedias). This is why i would remove the mentioning of Tokyo Rose from the Earhart page.

There is written in the article: "Yet another school of thought suggests that Earhart later managed to return to America where she changed her name and lived out her life quietly" -

This theory was enough popular in early 70s, and now some "old admirers" of it still tries to "re-vitalize" it... however, in fact it is completely baseless. Moreover, it is in strict controversy to many documented facts that are firmly established about Earhart.

In contrary to some modern claims, alas until today still no shade of factual proof for this was ever presented. Particularly, recently Mr. Tod Swindell, an enthusiastic supporter of this theory, prepared a set of photographic overlays that he consider as proof that Amelia Earhart (AE) survived as Irene Bolam (IB).

However it is worth to consider that Mr. Swindell is not a professional in forensic research, and any supportive official verdict of the forensic research professionals never followed. Moreover, at close examination of the photos it is obvious for any non-biased view that in reality Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam had many differences, both in bodial and facial characteristics.

It is also worth to remember that Major Joe Gervais - the father of this theory - never meet Earhart in person before 1965 (when he saw Irene Bolam and 'decided' that she 'must be' Earhart). So the value of his 'recognition' of Earhart in Irene Bolam has at least highly doubtful level of credibility.

Actually, the fact is that there were many people who knew BOTH women personally, and they all were firmly convinced that Earhart and Bolam were different persons.

There are many obvious stretches in this theory, and the questions without a proper and reasonable answers.

First of all: WHY at all would Earhart abandon her identity to become a New Jersey housewife? No fact or even believable theoretical reasons for this idea have ever been presented, only speculative guesses in contradiction with many credible historical sources about Earhart's personality have been offered.

How it was possible for Earhart to abandon her family, especially her mother and sister, to whom she was extremely close? Also, how it was possible for her to abandon and never contact her husband George Putnam, as well as her numerous friends? Earhart's dedication and loyalty to family and friends was really legendary.

Where was Earhart between 1937 and 1945? In contrary to the concept of Irene Bolam theory, no evidence has ever been found in Japan to indicate AE's presence there that appears minimally credible in any way. Some statements of the theory, like about Earhart's secret life in Japanese Imperial palace with Emperor Hirohito, are obviously beyond a reasonable belief for any historically aware person.

What happened to the real, original Irene Bolam? As it was found by historical researchers, she certainly existed between 1934 and 1945, and was working in the banking business in New York City.

Why would the Government use the name and identity of a real person, known by many people and living an active, normal life, in a plot to transform this individual into another, discrete individual (Earhart) without these people becoming aware of it?

How and why could such an immense and long-lived conspiracy, with hundreds or even thousands of people necessarily involved, be organized and kept secret for decades? It has been proposed that AE's family and friends were aware of the conspiracy, but were all somehow persuaded to remain silent about it.

But nothing of substance has ever been offered to support this idea, and it's virtually impossible to assume that so many people, by some 'secret agreement', successfully concealed this plot from entire world for many decades. It is extremely hard to keep such a stuff in secrecy - for both 'technical' and emotional reasons.

If even to guess that the 'price of secrecy' that AE was compelled to pay included abandoning her family and friends, why then would AE, as IB, go on to live such a documented, semi-public lifestyle, attending aviation-related public events, joining organizations like Zontas and 99s (where AE was a former member) and meeting numerous people who personally knew AE?

Finally - if it was a 'great conspiracy' with a governmental interests involved - why would the U.S.Government allow the personal meeting of IB and Mr. Joe Gervais, who was already well known as a persistent AE researcher?

Considering all he above, it seems very difficult to accept seriously the concept of Amelia Earhart's secret repatriation as Irene Bolam. It looks like just a theory, and enough far-fetched, bizarre and radical one, at that. There is no any serious reason to consider it as real solution of AE disappearance mystery.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, Ph.D. Naval and aviation historian, author; member of US Naval institute and Association of Naval Aviation.

Amelia Earhart historian and enthusiast since 1982.

SOURCES:

1. Amelia Earhart. The Fun of It. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1932 (republished by Gale Research Company, Book Tower, Detroit, 1975). 2. Amelia Earhart. Last Flight. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1937 (republished by Orion Books, New York, 1975). 3. Amelia Earhart. 20 Hours and 40 Minutes. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1928. 4. Muriel Earhart Morrissey, Carol L. Osborne. Amelia, My Courageous Sister. Biography of Amelia Earhart. Osborne Publisher, Incorporated. Santa Clara, California, 1987. 5. Jean L. Backus. Letters From Amelia 1901-1937. An Intimate Portrait of Amelia Earhart. Beacon Press, Boston, 1982. 6. Mary S. Lovell. The Sound Of Wings. St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1989. 7. Susan Butler. East to the Dawn. The Life of Amelia Earhart. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997. 8. Doris L. Rich. Amelia Earhart. A Biography. Dell Publishing, NY, 1989. 9. Sally P. Chapman. Whistled Like A Bird. Warner Books, NY, 1997. 10. Nancy Shore. Amelia Earhart. Aviator. Chelsea House Publishers, Philadelphia, 1987. 11. Donald M. Goldstein, Katherine V. Dillon. Amelia. A Life of The Aviation Legend. Brassey’s, London – Washington. 1997. 12. Fred Goerner. The Search For Amelia Earhart. Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, New York, 1966. 13. Donald M. Wilson. Amelia Earhart: Lost Legend. Enigma Press, Florida. 1999 (Revised and expanded edition). 14. Mike Campbell with Thomas E. Devine. With Our Own Eyes. Eyewitnesses to the Final Days of Amelia Earhart. Lucky Press, LLC. Ohio, 2002. 15. Joe Klaas. Amelia Earhart Lives. McGraw Hill, NY, 1970 16. Rollin C. Reineck. Amelia Earhart Survived. The Paragon Agency, Orange, California, 2003 17. James A. Donahue. The Earhart Disappearance: The British Connection. SunShine House, Incorporated. Terre Haute, IN, 1987. 18. Randall Brink. Lost Star. The Search for Amelia Earhart. W.W. Norton Co., Inc. NY, 1994. 19. Thomas F. King. Amelia Earhart Shoes. AltaMira Press, California, 2001. 20. Shirley D. Gilroy. Amelia: Pilot in Pearls. Link Press Publishers. McLean, Virginia, 1985. 21. Jacqueline Cochran. Stars at Noon. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1954. 22. Louise Thaden. High, Wide and Frightened. Stackpole Sons, NY, 1938. 23. Roxane Chadwick. Amelia Earhart – Aviation Pioneer. Lerner Publications Company, Minneapolis, 1987. 24. Patricia Lauber. Lost Star: The Story of Amelia Earhart. Scholastic Incorporated, New York, 1988. 25. Valerie Moolman. Women Aloft. Time–Life Books. Alexandria, Virginia, 1981. 26. Carl M. Dunrud. Let’s Go! 85 Years of Adventure. Words Worth, Cody, Wyoming. 1998. 27. Mary V. Nickerson. The Decoy and the Dove. 1st Books Library, USA, 2002 28. AES Newsletters – Volumes I, II. Proceedings of AES prepared, processed and composed by Bill Prymak. 2003. 29. Amelia Earhart Discussion Group Internet Website. 30. Woodbridge News – the set of articles from newspaper from 1982, dedicated to investigation of IB theory soon after her death. 31. TIGHAR TRACKS - Newsletter of the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery. 32. Virginia Morell. Amelia Earhart. National Geographic, Jan. 1998, pp.112-135. 33. John P. Riley. The Earhart Tragedy: Old Mystery, New Hypothesis. Naval History, Aug. 2000. 34. Ronald Bright. Amelia Earhart: the Marshall Islands Evidence. Unpublished manuscript. Bremerton, 2001. 35. Ronald Bright, Pat Gaston. The Monsignor James F. Kelley’s Evidence. Unpublished manuscript. Bremerton, 2004. 36. Bruce D. Hoy. Amelia Earhart Remembered. Paradise Magazine. Boroko, Papua New Guinea, No. 63 – 1987.

I've also seen a '36 or '37 film of a female aviator hired by USG (USN?) to do a recce flight over Japanese terr in CPac, perhaps inspired by Earhart's project (& perhaps inspiring the myths since?). Trekphiler 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's why all this stuff is in an "Urban legends" section, it's thoroughly discredited codswallop. Wyss 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autogyro

I deleted "forerunner of the helicopter". It isn't. The autogyro's rotor was unpowered. This is a persistent myth that has no place in an encyclopedia. Trekphiler 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Success?

Is it too speculative to mention, had she N changed direction, but flown out of HI as planned, by making the longest, most difficult leg first, rather than last, she'd have made it? Trekphiler 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's pure speculation. I've heard it, though. Don't know how helpful it would be to include it. Wyss 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kio34's addition

This was the content of a newly created page entitled Amelia Earhart Life Summary:

Amelia Earhart was born in Atchison, Kansas on July 24, 1897. When she was born, Amelia didn’t really like airplanes all that much, but all that changed when she saw an air show. Amelia Earhart got her first plane ride from a pilot named Frank; she then wanted to fly more and more. Amelia got her flying license in 1921 after taking lessons from Neta Snook. Amelia’s first plane was a Kinner Airstar, which she used to cross the Atlantic Ocean. In 1932 she sold her plane and worked in the government for the next four years. She then bought another plane known as an Avro Avian. She used this plane to cross the country and break a world record for the first women to ever fly alone across the nation. Later on in her life, she married a fellow named G.P. Putnam.

When Amelia married G.P, she kept her own name. After their marriage, G.P. and Amelia started to plan stunts and to break more flying records because they were both pilots. Then, in 1932, Amelia flew alone across the Atlantic in a Lockheed Vega to break another a record. That made Amelia famous. That same year, she received the Distinguished Flying Cross by the US Congress. Then, four years later, Amelia Earhart was given a Lockheed 10E Electra courtesy of Perdue University; She used this plane to attempt to fly around the world along the equator. Unfortunately, Amelia’s first attempt to fly around the world was shattered after the wheel was broken on her plane and was to be repaired. Her next attempt ended in disaster when the radio contact was lost between the plane and the tower. The plane seemed to disappear out of thin air because no wreckage of their plane was ever discovered. Amelia’s hard work and effort towards flight inspired females to be pilots too. That opened up a whole new generation of flight.

<K F> 23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This contains various contridictions to what's in the article, and as it has no sources to back it up, should be regarded as inaccurate. I've redir the article, and we can just ignore the text above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, for one thing, there was no "tower" on Howland island. The above contains many conflations and inaccuracies. Uhm, in fact, about everything it says has some sort of factual problem. Wyss 08:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Category

Should she be in Category:1937 deaths? Although 1937 is the most likely year of her death, it’s not absolute fact and perhaps Category:Year of death missing would be more appropriate. Philip Stevens 07:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is fleeting, documented archaeological and British archival evidence (put no proof) she may have survived on Nikumaroro until sometime in 1938. The likelihood is overwhelming that she did die in either 1937 (most likely) or 1938 (a possibility). Although this is still controversial among aviation historians, many believe that a skeleton found on the island in October 1940 was hers (which was also the opinion of the British colonial officer who first saw it). Wyss 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1937 is the widely accepted year of her death. The 50th anniversary was held in 1987, etc. 23skidoo 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1937 is supported by most reputable sources and is most likely the year she died. Wyss 16:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, there are probably a few conspiracy theorists who'd be happy to add her to the infamous Living People category! ;-) 23skidoo 16:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, if not for them I wouldn't mind putting her in Category:Year of death missing but with all the unsupported fringe babbling and urban legends floating about it would be far too misleading. She was most likely gone by the end of 1937 and there is, in effect, zero evidence to indicate she made it past sometime in 1938. Wyss 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]