Talk:Fred Noonan

message: I've put back "celestial" navigation skills to differentiate this method from the "radio" navigation they planned on using once they were in the vicinity of Howland. Noonan was an expert in "celestial", and apparently did get them to within miles of Howland, however it was the failure of the "radio navigation" element that thwarted their final approach.
Probably (European Journal of Navigation , vol.6 no2 , July 2008) the use of the ship´s sextant (which he also used when flying with PanAm) to obtain a sunrise fix in the roads of Howland ,after having used the air (bubble) sextant the evening before to fix the position near the Nukumanu islands , triggered in first instance a hidden time error (false local hour angle)by which Howland did not run in sight at ETA. In second resort the crippled radio communications and RDF failure configured the laesio enormis.80.56.50.56 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Celestial navigation

message: Noonan's importance in the aviation industry is as the navigator who mapped several commercial routes throughout the Pacific for Pan Am during the 1930s. His apparent demise as Amelia Earhart's navigator is noteworthy but not central to his contribution to aviation, and in my opinion it would be misleading to mention his famous association with her in the first line of the article. Wyss 03:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance to aviation

message: According to TIGHAR's website, the Noonan born in Illinois was Fred C. Noonan.  They believe that Fred J. Noonan was born in Norwich, England.  If this is true, and it turns out that Noonan perished on Gardner Island, then this would be ironic, because the name of the ship that was wrecked there was the SS Norwich.
::In around 1998 a TIGHAR researcher/member did find a birth certificate for a Frederick Joseph Noonan born July 14, 1891 in Norwich, England. It's also true that there's a birth certificate in existence for a Fred C. Noonan born in Warren Co., Illinois in 1899 (almost certainly not the navigator, for a few reasons). The commonly accepted date and place of birth for the Pan Am navigator Frederick Joseph Noonan, is still April 4, 1893 in Cook County, Illinois, but there's no US birth certificate. I'll look into this a bit more. Re the Norwich City, yes, it could be ironic. I've also long had a "funny" feeling that if Noonan landed on Gardner, he may very well have been aware of the Norwich City's earlier fate and had likely even seen her in service when he was serving on merchant ships. Wyss 23:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth certificate

message: I have never come across Noonan as being referred to as JoJo. I wonder if the author might clarify this by providing a reference? (Jackie Ferrari 19:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also read reams of material about FN, have never seen this nickname and was startled to notice it here. Moreover, I can't find even a shred of support for this and have removed it pending a reliable citation. Gwen Gale 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway it seems to have been added by an anon IP which has been warned in the past about vandalism and is responsible for serial additions to pop culture articles, many of which seem more than dubious to me. Too bad this wasn't spotted earlier, the dodgy nickname's already been cloned onto dozens of scrapper sites across the web. Gwen Gale 03:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-nickname "JoJo"

message: The boson is a subatomic particle. The term 'bosun' is not included in most dictionaries as it is considered slang. The properly spelled rating is "Boatswain's Mate."
67.128.188.29Don Granberry.
:Webster's 1913 edition defines boson as a boatswain with no hint of any deprecation. However a couple of  modern dictionaries I looked at don't list this contraction of boatswain as boson, but as bosun and there's already a redirect of Bosun's mate to Boatswain so I've changed the article text to follow these leads. I must also say that in my experience the term bosun's mate is heard far more often than boatswain's mate but nonetheless your comment has helped point out a definite spelling issue in the article, deriving I believe, from the original source which does use the apparently archaic spelling boson's mate. Gwen Gale 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from MY experience in the US Coast Guard.. it's real simple, Gwen. it's SPELLED, 'boatswain's mate' , but pronounced? said, heard as... 'bosun's mate'.. And even, in the course of conversation.. 'Boats'. 2600:1700:A760:C10:5443:BD0:1D93:9CA (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling nitpick

message: I'm not aware of any content disputes concerning this article, so I removed the cite requests because their presence could imply a wider dispute, for which there is no evidence, or a certain PoV, which is so far unasserted here much less supported here. If an editor wishes to add some completed citations, wonderful! Moreover, if an editor would like to dispute any contents in the article, I suggest discussing it here on the talk page, or editing content directly into the article narrative with supporting citations from reliable secondary citations. Gwen Gale 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cite requests

message: In the references I have checked, the first Pan Am Clipper (Sikorsky S40 American Clipper) flew in October 1931 not March 1935 with Charles Lindbergh aboard, and no mention of Fred Noonan. Anyone shed light on this discrepency? Is it just a date mixup or have I missed Noonan on an earlier flight? The article states that he flew in San Francisco in 1935 which would make this a Sikorsky S42 (NC-824M) that was often grouped with the other "Clipper" fleet but was actually unnamed. Bzuk 1:01 5 February 2007 (UTC).
:No, it's not a discrepency. The Lindbergh flight was almost entirely overland (via Alaska) for survey purposes and because of diplomatic troubles Tripp was unable to pursue far eastern routes for another 3 years or so and by then they were preparing for flights across the Pacific. Noonan was on the first Pan Am flight from San Francisco Bay to Honolulu. Gwen Gale 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Pan Am Clipper

message: 1. Is the licensed sea captain known for carrying a ship's sextant on flights, Noonan?
2. Why did he resign from Pan Am? I cannot find a reference for a date of leaving or any indication of why he left Pan Am. Could he have left specifically to join the Earhart World Flight?
3. Was he really a drinker? Only Goerner mentions this and only in the context of an automobile accident report where it is noted that one of the occupants of Noonan's car was drinking. Some of the film features about Earhart notably the Diane Keaton vehicle play up Noonan's drinking problem. Bzuk 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questions

message: Added an info box as per bio template. Also, I changed the picture for the following reasons:
#existing picture was poorly exposed.
#he was partially obstructed by A. Earhart
#Noonan's face was in shadow and difficult to discern
#another picture of Fred and Amelia is already included lower in the article.
#new picture is of much better quality and doesn't detract from article as the existing picture does.
I have provided fair use citation for this picture. Ronnotel 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, Fred and Josephine were divorced and he married Mary. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a clarification, both spouses could be listed in the infobox. Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Info box

message: Thanks. That's fine.
On a minor note, WP:Date includes the text "Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article." I don't care much one way or the other, but I think it reads more cleanly with it in the paragraph rather than b/d. Up to you. Ronnotel 21:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told I was thinking the same thing, I'm gonna fix it now. Gwen Gale 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: I just finished reading the book Amelia Earhart Lives by Joe Klaas. In it Major Joe Gervais claims that he did meet Fred Noonan years after the plane went down and that he went by the name of William Van Dusen. According to Gervais, Van Dusen offered him a cigarette from a case which he claims he saw written on the inside: "A Salute, to the man who showed us the way across the Pacific, Frederick J. Noonan." Interesting book to read and also furthers the theory that Amelia Earhart was Irene Craigmile Bolam. Koolbluecat 06:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory of an alternate identity for Amelia Earhart now has been considered very discredited as the following note from Earhart researcher, Dr. Alex Mandel indicates: "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 considering 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 body and facial characteristics.
It is also worth noting 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, a 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.Bzuk 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between celebrity codswallop made up and mass marketed in the hope of making a profit from the gullible and scholarship, which tends to lean on verifiable sources. The Irene Bolam thing has been thoroughly debunked and the publisher settled with her out of court for a substantial sum. Gwen Gale 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've taken out (or I should say, left out) the boldest speculation which, although published, indeed cited and carried in the article without dispute for the past three years, is so extrapolated as to be of questionable worth to some readers. However, I think it would be more helpful to allow Noonan's biographical article to expand on this somewhat further, given the navigational aspects of the hypothesis that Noonan, a pioneering aviation navigator, found Gardner after they missed Howland, along with further published details about the evidence which has been found in archives and on Nikumaroro. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However the note on the skeletal remains that are reinserted refer to Earhart and were not conclusively tied to anyone in the end. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Earhart and Noonan disappeared together. A later, blind anthropological/forensic study of measurements taken of the remains by a British colonial doctor at the time concluded the bones were the remains of a European female of Nordic descent (which describes Earhart) and there are a number of published and verifiable sources (including those used as citations in the article) which conclude the bones were likely hers. However, please do add any published disagreement or criticism, which, truth be told, would only stabilize the article content even further. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ric Gillespie discounts the Gallagher find (Gillespie 2006, p. 241); Gallagher's own record indicates that the bones were likely "more than four years old... there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt (sic)." FWiW, no contemporary research attributes the Gallagher find to Earhart. Bzuk (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Amelia Earhart's Shoes  and Finding Amelia discuss the skeleton and the possibility that it belonged to Earhart. Moreover, the scholarly paper cited in the article does likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a direct, cited quote from the scholarly paper to the section. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly conclusive to have only TIGHAR materials and sources since they are mainly repetitive. Strippel whose work has touched on all the disappearance theories has disagreed with almost all of the TIGHAR findings which remain, as you have noted, highly speculative. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add some other, dissenting sources. I want you to. Meanwhile I didn't say the Tighar research was speculative at all, I was only talking about some cited musings as to whether Noonan might have died more or less straight off, whilst Earhart may have survived for many months (musings which were in the article for three years until today). Although plausible, these extrapoloations alone are highly speculative and could greatly mislead readers in such a short article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I probably missed the story where Earhart's bones were found since the discoverer himself in 1940 didn't think the skeletal remains were conclusive. Thomas King, the archaeologist of the TIGHAR team also did not have the bones to examine since they are nowhere to be found, reputedly lost in Fiji. I have read all the TIGHAR books and publications on the subject and had been a member of the organization myself, joining when the organization was searching for l'Oiseau Blanc, the missing transatlantic aircraft. The Earhart project on Nikumaroro came afterwards and while the TIGHAR efforts are interesting, 16 years worth of expeditions to the South Pacific have been unsuccessful in recovering evidence that resolves the mystery of Earhart's disappearance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As cited in both this article and at Amelia Earhart, there is much meaningful evidence to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Again, please feel free to add citations from reliable, independent sources which are in disagreement with the Nikumaroro hypothesis: As you know, any unsourced commentary about this (in agreement or not in agreement, from me, you or any other editor) is original research and doesn't have any sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Strippel 1995, p. 60 is devoted to the well-meaning efforts of the TIGHAR projects, under the banner heading of "Go Get 'Em TIGHAR!" and generally relegates the evidence found as unreliable and the product of "Earhart trekkies." Not a very charitable analysis while Dr. Tom Crouch, the curator at the Smithsonian whose research embodies the Early and Golden Age eras, has written that TIGHAR has based all of its initial hypothesis on the supposed "distress calls" received after July 2 and has concluded that the calls were correctly identified as hoaxes at the time (Crouch 2007, pp. 20–21). Equally emphatic in that TIGHAR is "on the wrong track" is the team of Elgen (deceased) and Marie Long, Captain Laurance F. Safford, as well as a host of other researchers.  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, please do cite any sources from reliable, independent publishers which either directly disagree with the Nikumaroro hypothesis or offer evidence for other outcomes. It will only stabilize the article and be helpful to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Please check the date of the last edit previous to the above comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Based on the US Coast Guard transmissions, the consensus on the USCG Itasca was that Earhart had overshot Howland and directed their search to the N within an approximate 100 mile radius. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are, I'll have to check sources rather than the memory bank... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: No offense taken, just was pretty sure that the first search was to the N but not exactly sure, unless I check some of the references, as to the exact quadrant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, M. 80...; I have a message for you at User talk:80.56.50.56. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory again

message: Recently, an edit was made that introduced the following statement: "Today, the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan remains a mystery. No wreckage of Earhart's aircraft, or the bodies of her and Fred Noonan have ever been found."
Rather than getting into an edit war over it, I would suggest the following revision:
"Today, the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan remains a mystery. No wreckage of Earhart's aircraft, or the bodies of her and Fred Noonan have ever been found although one theory postulates that having run out of fuel, Earhart ditched the Electra in the ocean where she perished with her navigator. Another hypothesis based on a range of documented, archaeological and anecdotal evidence asserts that Earhart and Noonan may have found Gardner, which at the time was uninhabited, landed the Electra on a flat reef near the wreck of a large freighter and sent sporadic radio messages from there.The TIGHAR Hypothesis, November 2001 FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken out (or I should say, left out) the boldest speculation which, although published, indeed cited and carried in the article without dispute for the past three years, is so extrapolated as to be of questionable worth to some readers. However, I think it would be more helpful to allow Noonan's biographical article to expand on this somewhat further, given the navigational aspects of the hypothesis that Noonan, a pioneering aviation navigator, found Gardner after they missed Howland, along with further published details about the evidence which has been found in archives and on Nikumaroro. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However the note on the skeletal remains that are reinserted refer to Earhart and were not conclusively tied to anyone in the end. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Earhart and Noonan disappeared together. A later, blind anthropological/forensic study of measurements taken of the remains by a British colonial doctor at the time concluded the bones were the remains of a European female of Nordic descent (which describes Earhart) and there are a number of published and verifiable sources (including those used as citations in the article) which conclude the bones were likely hers. However, please do add any published disagreement or criticism, which, truth be told, would only stabilize the article content even further. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ric Gillespie discounts the Gallagher find (Gillespie 2006, p. 241); Gallagher's own record indicates that the bones were likely "more than four years old... there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt (sic)." FWiW, no contemporary research attributes the Gallagher find to Earhart. Bzuk (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Amelia Earhart's Shoes  and Finding Amelia discuss the skeleton and the possibility that it belonged to Earhart. Moreover, the scholarly paper cited in the article does likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a direct, cited quote from the scholarly paper to the section. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly conclusive to have only TIGHAR materials and sources since they are mainly repetitive. Strippel whose work has touched on all the disappearance theories has disagreed with almost all of the TIGHAR findings which remain, as you have noted, highly speculative. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add some other, dissenting sources. I want you to. Meanwhile I didn't say the Tighar research was speculative at all, I was only talking about some cited musings as to whether Noonan might have died more or less straight off, whilst Earhart may have survived for many months (musings which were in the article for three years until today). Although plausible, these extrapoloations alone are highly speculative and could greatly mislead readers in such a short article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I probably missed the story where Earhart's bones were found since the discoverer himself in 1940 didn't think the skeletal remains were conclusive. Thomas King, the archaeologist of the TIGHAR team also did not have the bones to examine since they are nowhere to be found, reputedly lost in Fiji. I have read all the TIGHAR books and publications on the subject and had been a member of the organization myself, joining when the organization was searching for l'Oiseau Blanc, the missing transatlantic aircraft. The Earhart project on Nikumaroro came afterwards and while the TIGHAR efforts are interesting, 16 years worth of expeditions to the South Pacific have been unsuccessful in recovering evidence that resolves the mystery of Earhart's disappearance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As cited in both this article and at Amelia Earhart, there is much meaningful evidence to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Again, please feel free to add citations from reliable, independent sources which are in disagreement with the Nikumaroro hypothesis: As you know, any unsourced commentary about this (in agreement or not in agreement, from me, you or any other editor) is original research and doesn't have any sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Strippel 1995, p. 60 is devoted to the well-meaning efforts of the TIGHAR projects, under the banner heading of "Go Get 'Em TIGHAR!" and generally relegates the evidence found as unreliable and the product of "Earhart trekkies." Not a very charitable analysis while Dr. Tom Crouch, the curator at the Smithsonian whose research embodies the Early and Golden Age eras, has written that TIGHAR has based all of its initial hypothesis on the supposed "distress calls" received after July 2 and has concluded that the calls were correctly identified as hoaxes at the time (Crouch 2007, pp. 20–21). Equally emphatic in that TIGHAR is "on the wrong track" is the team of Elgen (deceased) and Marie Long, Captain Laurance F. Safford, as well as a host of other researchers.  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, please do cite any sources from reliable, independent publishers which either directly disagree with the Nikumaroro hypothesis or offer evidence for other outcomes. It will only stabilize the article and be helpful to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Please check the date of the last edit previous to the above comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Based on the US Coast Guard transmissions, the consensus on the USCG Itasca was that Earhart had overshot Howland and directed their search to the N within an approximate 100 mile radius. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are, I'll have to check sources rather than the memory bank... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: No offense taken, just was pretty sure that the first search was to the N but not exactly sure, unless I check some of the references, as to the exact quadrant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, M. 80...; I have a message for you at User talk:80.56.50.56. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disappearance edits

message: Recently added to the article: "Some researchers bring up an at takeoff broken (port) belly aerial wire , thereby reasoning the erratic radio voice communications . Radio transmission and reception were by one V-shaped aerial from a cabin mast to the rudder tips . Most probably the belly antenna was used by an RDF installation with a s.c. sense aerial against forwards-backwards bearing ambiguity . Loss of this belly aerial had no influence on the one channel radio communication with a send-receive relay operated by the microphone switch , by one single aerial . A close up picture of the "belly antennas" exists, but it is not completely reliable: part of the broken wire would have been "found back" on a Pacific island to support an "evasive action" by landing on the island after the destination was not found.80.56.50.56 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio transmissions

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fred Noonan. 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/20070828035025/http://www.dataquality.com/999bkrv1.htm to http://www.dataquality.com/999bkrv1.htm
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) 15:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This edit by an IP back in 2013 added the following claim:
 Further recent research has indicated that on July 2, 1937, Earhart´s aircraft was not (contrary to current literature) flown over the great circle New Guinea-to-Howland.European Journal of Navigation, Vol. 9, no. 1, 2011.
Note that there's no hyperlink, and no reference to a specific paper in that journal.
That's a real journal, with a web site. So I went to the website and searched the archives of the European Journal of Navigation for "Earhart" and found no mention at all.
I suspect this edit was a prank, and the reference was a fake. I propose deleting the sentence. Does anyone object? NCdave (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me ...(take a look at the IP's edits around that time). Shearonink (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. NCdave (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim: "Earhart´s aircraft was not (contrary to current literature) flown over the great circle New Guinea-to-Howland"