Talk:Operation Highjump

message: And what is in reality? Do not resemble?--Nixer 12:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where, it was then believed, physical and climatic conditions resembled those in Antarctica 

message: I may have missed it, but i didn't see a number of total people involved. It says that it is the largest Antartic operation but gives no figures. I think that it should be added in. Maybe at least an estimate. Sirtrebuchet 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found multiple newspaper sources that cite the task force as having 4,700 men, 13 ships. However, the number of aircraft in the multiple sources I check varied from 23 to 33. So, I simply noted "multiple aircraft" in the article. Fishdecoy 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of poeple involved? 

message: Article seems to concentrate more on who died as opposed to what the operation accomplished.
The Wiki article on Richard Byrd asserts the operation terminated 6 months early for unknown reasons, a point not addressed in the operation's article.
The Hitler link at the bottom is dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accomplishments, early departure 

message: The "George 1 crash" section seemed out of place to me and I didn't understand how it fit within the article.  Looking at other web pages out there about Operation Highjump I now understand that it was one of the flying boats/sea planes that was part of the project.  I could not find verifiable sources to make edits myself, but would suggest that someone who can find some sources may want to provide a bit more of an explanation here about what part the George 1 played and why it is mentioned here.  Just my opinion. Dyork (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  George 1 crash section needs more description 

message: User Lt. Specht recently added a paragraph about conspiracy theories to the article, which appears to be copied directly from  . I got a very large number of results from search a sentence out of the paragraph; most of them are Wikipedia mirrors, but the aforementioned blog post does not seem to have been copied from Wikipedia. Some guy (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Specht pointed out he copied the text from Richard Evelyn Byrd. I still believe it is copyrighted and shouldn't have been in that article either. Some guy (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio text? 

message: Can someone please explain to me why the conspiracy/nazi ufo section even exists at all? 
Apparently nobody seems to want any facts in there - anytime anything of note is added it gets deleted.  Or is it a simple case of the same user under multiple wiki pseudonames taking offence and deleting any hard facts in there because they wrote the original fantasy section?
At the moment the only thing in there is some fanciful flying saucer fairy tale section with no references, and including some completely random comment about some science fiction series by Robert Doherty,  and some fable about Hitler retiring to the South pole to become a painter once again with no references.   How exactly is this relevant or even notable?
Here is the part I really cant understand - the above still remains 100 edits later, but any time someone adds any hard facts to this section  WITH references they went to the trouble of finding to back it up, or it seems when someone who WAS ACTUALLY THERE is quoted, people feel obligated to go into deleting spree's on entire sections, even user "Chrisahn" who himself claims to be an "inclusionist" decided to just delete everything with references and just leave the fairy tale sections too. 
:I just deleted bogus, i.e. not WP:RELIABLE, 'references'. But you are right, I probably should have deleted the whole conspiracy cruft. I just wasn't WP:BOLD enough, didn't want to get into an edit-war. Anyway, I'm glad it's gone now. Chrisahn (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's a bunch of unsourced nonsense.  Perhaps an "In Popular Culture" section could be made for the Area 51 books, but using science fiction books as if they were fact is ridiculous. ScottSteiner (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

text: disagree, the conspiracy angle is easily the most well-known aspect of operation highjump. I would guess most hits on this page will be coming from that direction. If a particular incident has dubious but well-known and widely promulgated associations simply ignoring them (as is being done now) is not the way to proceed. Especially not to preserve "the traditions of United States Naval Service" - tosh. Corella (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

text: That is why I came to the page.90.244.85.192 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably true that many readers land here looking for references to the conspiracy-stuff.  Perhaps a mention is in order, along with some critical evaluation.  IMHO, a summary of the abstract from the PDF (but not my summary) as mentioned in the Conspiracy theory talk section above, would not be out of line.  The theory exists.  Is it valid?  That is the question that many readers coming to this page are wondering.  There should at least be some reference with reliable information that a reader can access from here. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

text:  List it as a popular urban myth or misconception. The theory is culturally real, but it's believers may be deluded and/misinformed by lyres and/or Nazi-lovers back in 1946-487.90.244.85.192 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy -  what is the go here? 

message: If this is a historical article; I propose the deletion of all references to conspiracy theories. The inclusion of such theories in this article is not in keeping with the traditions of United States Naval Service.Tjlynnjr (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's a bunch of unsourced nonsense.  Perhaps an "In Popular Culture" section could be made for the Area 51 books, but using science fiction books as if they were fact is ridiculous. ScottSteiner (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

text: disagree, the conspiracy angle is easily the most well-known aspect of operation highjump. I would guess most hits on this page will be coming from that direction. If a particular incident has dubious but well-known and widely promulgated associations simply ignoring them (as is being done now) is not the way to proceed. Especially not to preserve "the traditions of United States Naval Service" - tosh. Corella (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

text: That is why I came to the page.90.244.85.192 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably true that many readers land here looking for references to the conspiracy-stuff.  Perhaps a mention is in order, along with some critical evaluation.  IMHO, a summary of the abstract from the PDF (but not my summary) as mentioned in the Conspiracy theory talk section above, would not be out of line.  The theory exists.  Is it valid?  That is the question that many readers coming to this page are wondering.  There should at least be some reference with reliable information that a reader can access from here. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

text:  List it as a popular urban myth or misconception. The theory is culturally real, but it's believers may be deluded and/misinformed by lyres and/or Nazi-lovers back in 1946-487.90.244.85.192 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubbish

message: *The whole Operation High Jump "conspiracy" theory appears to have started because:
#In the final stages of the war a sighting was reported by members of the nearby British Antarctic base of what appeared to be NAZIs in a nearby ice cave, (apparently a glacial cave)  ] 
#This was reported back to military intelligence who following up on other sightings of U-boats and Nazis near Argentina (and a quote from Hitler himself) suspected the Nazis had an organized facility in the area. (Although chances are it was just some officers from a scuttled U-boat and nothing else.) http://www.scribd.com/doc/7867899/Richard-Evelyn-Byrd-and-Operation-Highjump 
#When this is also considered along side the fact that several German U-boats http://www.scribd.com/doc/7867899/Richard-Evelyn-Byrd-and-Operation-Highjump, a large amount of building supplies and German scientists http://www.beyondweird.com/ufos/Bruce_Walton_The_Underground_Nazi_Invasion_18.html]http://www.think-aboutit.com/Omega/files/omega20.htm identified by Operation Paperclip were still unaccounted for, theoretically added the then credibility of a possible remote Nazi base in the region http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/esp_tierra_hueca_3.htm which the Americans wanted to check out  
#Subsequently both the British and US mounted missions to check out the area and toss in a bit of research and exploration as a bonus.
#On December 30, 1946, aviation radiomen Wendell K. Hendersin, Fredrick W. Williams, and Ensign Maxwell A. Lopez were killed when their PBM Mariner George 1 crashed during a blizzard on Mission High Jump.
#The mission ended a bit early and many of it's crew were heavy injured, not just frost bitten and/or snow blinded.
#Some aspects of what they found still remains classified to this day; which isn't helping matters; while others (such as the military promo video) are on the public record.http://thelastoutpost.com/video-1/alternative-science/the-secret-land.html
#Several popular sifi books are written about such a base.
#So many people began to believe the urban myth about "real motivation" for the subsequent operation, not the facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.85.192 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Operation High Jump conspiracy theory

message: Inline citations removed on this page. The inline citations were preventing new section entry. See history Tjlynnjr (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations removed on this page. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Highjump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060112131937/http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2004/020705thurston.shtml to http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2004/020705thurston.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I looked this up on bing (yeah, I know) because some crazy dude was telling me about how operation highjump was launched to find secret alien bases. I was fantastically surprised to discover that bing summarizes this article as "This operation was to find the alien bases located there. Operation HIGHJUMP, officially titled The United States Navy Antarctic Developments Program, 1946–1947, (also called Task Force 68), was a United States Navy operation to establish the Antarctic research base Little America IV."
The article doesn't really seem to list sources for secret alien bases, or even mention them. I don't know how to fix the summary, or I'd simply do so myself. 174.4.222.89 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently this mission was to find alien bases 

message: Should be added. The fact the conspiracy exists or existed should be noted. 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:94D3:BF83:EAE:660B (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories