|WikiProject Antarctica||(Rated Start-class)|
I hope someone eventually explains whether this expedition really had as much military hardware and manpower as the theorists claim. Kwantus 22:11, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
- 1 where, it was then believed, physical and climatic conditions resembled those in Antarctica
- 2 Number of poeple involved?
- 3 Accomplishments, early departure
- 4 Conspiracy Theories
- 5 George 1 crash section needs more description
- 6 Copyvio text?
- 7 Conspiracy - what is the go here?
where, it was then believed, physical and climatic conditions resembled those in Antarctica
And what is in reality? Do not resemble?--Nixer 12:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Number of poeple involved?
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)
- 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)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0wxkqjfDb8&mode=related&search= Is this a hoax? 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Accomplishments, early departure
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.
Can anyone cite a reference to the lost NAZI science convoy legend? I have heard this one a few times, but cant find anything written on it? (ie, the mystery convoy sighted going south in the later stages of the war thought to have been heading to the "secret" base, some say it was by train, presumably loaded onto naval vessels and then went to antartica via south america - (more likely just to south america), be interesting to read some detail on it) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best critical evaluation of the subject can be found here: Polar Record 43 (224): 1–21 (2007). Printed in the United Kingdom. doi:10.1017/S003224740600578X
- Summary (greatly shortened by me, emphasis mine) of abstract:
- ABSTRACT. In January-February 1939, a secret German expedition visited Dronning (or Queen) Maud Land, Antarctica, apparently with the intention inter alia of establishing a base there. Between 1943 and 1945 the British launched a secret wartime Antarctic operation, code-named Tabarin. ... [O]peration, code-named Highjump, was classified confidential. ... another classified US operation, code-named Argus.... it is not, perhaps, surprising that some people would connect them to ... construct a myth of a large German base existing in Antarctica and of allied efforts to destroy it. ... Activities that were classified have subsequently been declassified and it is no longer difficult to separate fact from fancy, despite the fact that many find it attractive not to do so. ~Eric F 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
George 1 crash section needs more description
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)
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)
- 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)
Conspiracy - what is the go here?
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)
Apparently fairy tales, and science fiction books are now more notable than actual facts and references? What is so special about the fairy tales that it can survive over 100 edits with no facts or references? Perhaps I should jump into the WICCA or PAGAN sections and add big sections into history articles with references to Harry Potter books and Anne Rice books? No? so why is that allowed in THIS historical article?
Here is a reality check - If there is to be a conspiracy section at all - it should contain verifiable facts, there are plenty of intersting ones without making up fairy tales ie -
The whole "conspiracy" over this started because:
A: 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)
B: this was reported back to military intelligence who following up on other sightings of Uboats and nazis near argentina (and a quote from hitler himself) suspected the Nazis had an organised facility in the area. (Although chances are it was just some officers from a scuttled uboat and nothing else.)
C: 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.
D: 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
E: apparently one ship was still unaccounted for; some suspected it continued to patrol the area (suggesting they found nothing but were playing it safe) the same ship turned up mysteriously years later having been decommissioned at some point and towed to a salvage yard. Other evidence seems to suggest the boat was accounted for and never patrolled at all, instead it's paperwork was simply miss-filed in the excitment at the end of the war; and was never missing at all. No mystery there.
All points above are verifiable, and if anyone can be bothered to do a google search or a FOI request this would become apparent. I guess random deletions are more fun for the lazy.
What is factual however, is the above was blown totally out of proportion; resulted in several research articles. Unfortunately most of these were published by alternate media; ie "hard evidence" and "nexus" magazine. These don't enjoy a lot of credibility. The articles suggested links between NAZI research on flying disks, Hitlers comment about a secret "new homeland" colony and the "Aryan" eugenics program. True or not; real research went into these articles even if the conclusions are missguided.
Below is some pastes from previous random deletes of entire sections - can someone perhaps explain how these are less notable than fairy tales about flying disks, science fiction books and Hitler the "painter" ?
They stick to facts, and generally neutral in tone, and usually include references to back them up - grammer could be improved but at least they dont make any giant leaps of fantasy (like aliens and flying saucers) and are relevant to the article in a historical context. Judge for yourself -
" ...Many conspiracy articles and discussions examine a postwar encounter reported near a British Antarctic camp with uniformed Germans in an ice cave; this when considered in the context that several German U boats, a large amount of building supplies and German scientists identified by Operation Paperclip were still unaccounted for added credibility to the possibility of a Nazi base; and the real motivation for the subsequent operation.
Operation Highjump remains one of the few post war operations with documents still "classified" by the military. 
"The material above indicates that little is known of the reason for the central group to leave the Bay of Whales in February of 1947. As one who was actually on that expedition and serving in the US Navy aboard the USS Merrick, I can assure any serious investigator that the reason the group of ships left the Bay of Whales much earlier than had been anticipated was that the bay, which was formed by barrier ice, began to close up and threatened to trap the group of ships. When we entered the bay in January the opening was perhaps a mile or more wide. As we left it was about three ship widths wide. The expedition was a well organized exploratory operation including this central group and two other groups at other places on the continent. The information gained is readily available. The conspiracy theories are fantasy." - Lawrence A Haines ..."
Looking over previous random deletions of other sections in many wiki topics I am beginning to wonder if it is simply a case of any change made by someone "ip address only" is just deleted without even trying to check the references, and if this deletion is done by someone with an account, nobody else with an account even bothers to check the facts to see if it shouldn't have been deleted to begin with.
This is absurd. Check the references first! Delete should be a last resort only! Dont be LAZY! Don't assume other members are right just because they registered as a user.
If this is an 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).
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The Operation High Jump conspiracy theory
- 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.) 
- When this is also considered along side the fact that several German U-boats, a large amount of building supplies and German scientists identified by Operation Paperclip were still unaccounted for, theoretically added the then credibility of a possible remote Nazi base in the region  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.
- 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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I tried to add this to the article page today and it was blocked as vandalism.188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)