Marshalls release is latest twist in photo travesty

Lest those who might have thought the latest chapter of the continuing Amelia Earhart disinformation campaign had come to a neat and tidy close with the July 11 report from The Guardian online that the photograph of the dock at Jaluit in the Marshall Islands had been found in a Japanese travel book published in 1935, we now have another, not unexpected, loose end. You might recall that The Guardian reported that “The image was part of a Japanese-language travelogue about the South Seas that was published almost two years before Earhart disappeared.”

“Does it get any worse than this?” I wrote in my July 12 review of the latest History Channel propaganda effort, “Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence.” “If the report is true, whatever the photo claims that began with NBC’s Wednesday, July 5 promotion barrage, are now entirely destroyed, discredited and defunct.” 

I didn’t need a report from a Japanese blogger to convince me that the claims made by Les Kinney, Morningstar Entertainment and the History Channel, first broadcast nationwide by NBC News on July 5, were false and totally without substance. I was the first to publicly denounce Kinney’s assertions for the delusions (at best) that they were, and I’d known about this shameless plot to grab headlines under false pretenses for many months, since a reader from Pennsylvania procured the same photo from the National Archives in College Park, Md., and sent it to me. 

Now Karen Earnshaw, a journalist who lives in the Marshall Islands and wrote June 26, 2015 and July 9, 2015 stories in the U.K.’s Daily Mail online about Dick Spink’s discoveries at Mili Atoll’s Endriken Islands, has informed me in a July 16 email about a Marshallese government press release she found on Rich Martini’s blog.  Here is the release:

I

It’s not easy to read this rather fuzzy document, so here is its content:

The Republic of the Marshall Islands is following your investigation of the Amelia Earhart mystery with great interest. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, confirms that the photograph found in the US National Archives is the dock at Jabor on Jaluit Atoll.

Jabor Dock was built in 1936. The events of this period are still recalled by our eldest citizens.  The claim that Jabor dock was already built in 1935 does not match the historical record. Therefore, it would not have been possible for any photos to have been taken of the Jabor dock in 1935.  The dock simply did not exist. The elders who confirmed that Amelia and her navigator were brought to Jabor are of the highest standing and reputation in our community.

The ministry hopes this helps the record straight.

It’s interesting to note that there is no Internet site for the Republic of the Marshall Islands; the closest I can find to an online presence is a website for the Embassy of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to the United States of America.

The obvious question is, who are the “your” referred to in the first line of the press release? Closely following that, we can ask who besides Rich Martini and TIGHAR, who I’ve been told also has posted it, was this release sent to? Surely they weren’t the only recipients of this highly significant statement from the Marshallese government.  I think it’s perfectly obvious that the Marshalls statement was sent to many, if not every major player in the American media. How Martini and TIGHAR obtained it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that no one else in our media has paid any attention to it.

Joel Freedman, of Canandaigua, N.Y., who writes letters and editorials to newspapers locally and nationally in support of the truth, contacted the Marshalls Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was informed that the press release did originate with the Marshallese government. So at least we know this is a legitimate document.

So what does this latest revelation, which so directly contradicts The Guardian report about the 1935 origin of the photo, really mean? It must be insignificant, based on the complete silence emanating from our esteemed media, and indeed it does mean little. But the media isn’t interested in it for entirely different reasons. They’ve already played their roles with the phony photo claims in advance of the History Channel’s Earhart special. As far as the establishment media is concerned, the Marshalls-Saipan truth has been discredited, and the public is once again flummoxed and confused about all aspects of the Earhart case. Mission accomplished.

This is the photo that began the current furor, with NBC News breathlessly announcing on July 5 that the Earhart mystery may soon by solved, and which was the cornerstone of the July 9 History Channel special, “Amelia Earhart:  The Lost Evidence.” In the program, Les Kinney falsely claimed the photo actually revealed the lost fliers. In the right background is the ship Kinney says is the Japanese survey ship Koshu, with a mass of metal on its stern that could well be a salvaged airplane, possibly the Electra, but impossible to confirm because the definition is lacking.

It’s more than likely that the Republic of the Marshall Islands, an independent nation that doesn’t answer to the United States on all matters related to its Earhart propaganda program, was simply not informed by the appropriate parties that the current operation was over. Some in the Marshallese government might actually have been trying to be helpful and set the record straight about the provenance of the photo in relation to the dock at Jaluit. I’m sure their efforts were not appreciated, judging by the overwhelming media silence that has greeted the press release.

Meanwhile Martini has now joined the vision-challenged Les Kinney in insisting, despite all evidence, that the photo does indeed reflect the presence of Earhart and Noonan, in effect doubling down on the insanity most thought had been put to rest — and seemingly has been, with the exception of these two luminaries. Martini has apparently decided that he has nothing better to do than to team with Kinney on his grave-digging detail to incoherence and irrelevance in the Earhart chase. But is this really a case of the blind leading the blind, or is it something altogether different, something far more sinister than mere incompetence?

On his blog, Martini further muddles the picture by injecting the interesting but complex and unverifiable tale of the “bottle message” found on a beach in France in October 1937 that some have unsuccessfully tried to tie to Earhart by way of French explorer Eric De Bisschop. I decided long ago not to venture into these very murky waters that demand too much speculation to ever be accepted as fact. If you want to be thoroughly confused, I suggest you visit Rich Martini’s blog, where you will come away with far less clarity than you arrived with.

For those who still fail to understand what has recently transpired despite my best efforts to explain this deviously planned disinformation exercise as clearly as possible, I can only suggest that you carefully re-read the previous posts on the History Channel travesty, and to review Dave Martin’s Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression to see how many of them fit nicely into the despicable drama we’ve seen unfold since NBC News kicked it all off with their promotion blitz on July 5. 

The bottom line is that “Earhart Fever,” a condition I’ve seen work its insidious ways on far better than these two, is alive, well and highly contagious. Its victims can be identified by their abject willingness to say or do anything that will bring them a moment’s more attention than they otherwise deserve, which is little or none at all. 

Readers of this blog can continue to trust that this correspondent will always tell them the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. My integrity and credibility are all I have, and they are infinitely more valuable to me than a few minutes on a third-rate History Channel Earhart special.

Advertisements

36 responses

  1. Sadly the Earhart story is awash with disinformation which seems to float to the surface like flotsam and jetsam, hold tight to the truth it will see all this out in the end though maybe not in our lifetimes . . .

    Like

  2. Reblogged this on What’s All This, Then? and commented:
    Hey readers, if you are into Amelia as I am and are insulted by the constant line of bull# emanating from officialdom then this man will save your mind some stress by presenting the truth. Pay attention…

    Like

  3. Could someone produce this Japanese travel book? Where can a copy be found and could someone reproduce the copy-write page, the photo, etc.?

    Overall though it seems that the Jaluit photo is irrelevant given the overwhelming evidence corroborating the events from July 1937 up to the execution of EA in 1938 or 1943, whichever.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. From Rich Martini’s ad for his latest book:
    “However, it’s the 4th book in my Flipside series – talking to people no longer on the planet – and in this case, includes 20 questions submitted to three different mediums who claimed Amelia was “asking them” to talk to me.”
    Good luck trying to get media attention when you claim to be talking to the dead about Amelia. My own opinion is the media jumped in head first, like they always do, and got burned. They won’t be touching Earhart for awhile, and certainly will go nowhere near this guy.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. More confirmation that the “Japanese travel book” claim was Japanese deep state disinformation all along and that the history channel’s claims are still valid. I’m surprised that Mike fell for the “Japanese travel book” claim and I can’t understand, Mike, why you continue to attack the history channel’s excellent work, work that actually confirms and strengthens the claims made in your book.

    And, Mike, you still have yet to answer how a top-secret ONI photograph happened to appear in the “Japanese Travel Book.” Somebody is lying and I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t the ONI. The more logical conclusion is that this Japanese “blogger” is Japanese intelligence and is continuing the cover-story that has been in place since Amelia disappeared, a cover story that became mutual between Japan and the United States following WWII.

    Like

    1. Richard,
      I never said I believed the claims made by the Japanese blogger. I only presented the information that The Guardian reported and everyone in the media fell in line with immediately. Even now I don’t care where this travel book claim came from, especially with the recent Marshalls release. From the start I’ve said that I don’t need anyone, Japanese or American, to tell me what is in the ONI photo; I can see with my own 20/20 corrected vision that the fliers are not in it. You might be right that it came from Japanese disinformation sources, but I have enough trouble tracking American disinformation sources. So what if the false photo claim happens to support the Marshall-Saipan truth? Don’t you understand that bad evidence — the ONI photo — can’t be used to support truth, something I’ve been screaming since this whole flap began? You’ve gotten lost in the weeds, like many others who refuse to keep it simple.
      MC

      Like

  6. David Atchason | Reply

    There are so many conflicts in my mind concerning the History Channel show already, and now the Marshallese government throws in another monkey wrench, I don’t know what to believe anymore. But here I go again, making a comment. I just reread the 2015 post with many references to Loomis, and the upcoming search by Kinney and Spinks of the Endrikens. So where did the photo of the Koshu in that post come from? It looks nothing like the ship in the now famous picture. So how could Kinney claim it was the Koshu? I have not heard anyone raise this issue, yet. It looks like the ship that Mike sent a picture of that was built in 1911 under another name. Yet Gillespie claims Jap records show the Koshu was never anywhere near the Marshalls at that time. Who is right? Loomis? Why, if that dock was not built until 1936, did some commentators say it looks like a 1920s picture? When I first read the story from the Guardian newspaper it said the book was published in Palau. To me, this sounded peculiar, I understand Palau was an island of some importance in those times, but how would it have publishing or printing facilities? Who were they going to distribute the book to on Palau? It also seemed peculiar that within days this debunking came out. Now it “turns out” that the book was published in Tokyo supposedly which sounds more believable. If that picture was taken after 1936 “when the dock was built” who could the tall white man be? Is the dock still there? Did Kinney ever actually visit this dock? Where is his evidence that proves that ship in the picture is the Koshu? After reading the other post, it does say the Koshu picked them up at Mili. What was the purpose of the Koshu sailing to Jaluit? Did the Koshu and Amelia and Fred stay at Mili until the plane was put on the barge? Did the Koshu just happen to have a barge for the purpose when she sailed from Ponape? It almost seems like there is a mastermind behind this whole HC show and the following debunking to produce in the public’s mind and mine too, a “lack of clarity.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Koshu was in the Marshalls at the time. Gillespie is dead wrong about that. See Loomis book for detailed information gleaned from Koshu’s logs and witness testimony. Not everything here is false, David. So what if the book was published at Palau? What does that have to do with anything? You’re even more in the weeds than Richard!
      MC

      Like

    2. @David Atchason, for me there is no provenance regarding the Marshallese piece of paper, why would an official, in any capacity, go to the trouble of posting such information and not name themselves or even sign the paper?

      No provenance, not court admissible evidence; imagine that in a court of law?

      No hypothesis has added any new proof since 1937…and that includes splash-and-sank.

      Like

      1. Did you miss the part about Joel Freedman calling the Marshallese government and getting confirmation that the document was legit? I suggest you read a bit more closely. Your other comment isn’t worthy to be on this forum. Go elsewhere with your worthless relativism.
        MC

        Like

  7. Mr. Campbell,
    Might it be helpful to explain to your readers that you procured the photo from a reader who has communicated with you extensively and who enticed a schoolteacher friend of mine to divulge enough details about the photo to find it in the National Archives?

    I found this photo in 2012. I am confident of its authenticity and am confident of it’s provenance.
    There is no question there are two Caucasians on that dock, and one of them looks a lot like a woman with short hair. The other significant person on that dock is most definitely a white male with a prominent widows peak. There is no question the ship is the Koshu and that a similar identifying photo exists in Navy ONI files of the Koshu. You might deny that behind the Koshu is a barge with an airplane on the barge. But all the experts I have spoken to believe there is an airplane on that barge.

    Considering the photo has multiple points of interest that completely correspond to the local Marshalese accounts in the Marshall Islands who: witnessed a white woman and tall white man at Mili Atoll, a white woman and a white man on board a ship in 1937 at Jaluit, a ship coming into Jaluit towing a barge with an airplane on the barge, the logs of the Koshu indicating it was at the port of Jaluit in July 1937, just what are your detailed specific arguements against this picture?

    For those readers not informed, there was more than one Japanese ship in 1937 named the Koshu. The ship in the picture is the Japanese survey ship Koshu built in Germany and originally named the Michael Jebsen.

    For your information, there was not a large military presence on Jaluit in 1937. I have a picture of that contingent and it’s quite small. There is also no reason to believe that when Earhart and Noonan arrived in Jaluit they were under duress. In fact, as you know, Tokyo papers initially reported the American flyers had been rescued.

    The “book” used to disparage the photo that I found in the National Archives is nothing more than a scrapbook whose pages are held together by a two hole punch with cloth twine binding the loose pages. There is no bound pages with a spine. In other words, like any scrapbook, each page can be added or removed at will. The page numbering appears to have been digitely added
    at the time of scanning. A page has been repeated and one page is missing.

    There is no question the Japanese copy is the same photo I found in the National Archives, yet it is cropped differently than the ONI copy on both sides. How did that happen? Remember this was taken in the 1930’S.

    As I write this report on my phone (there are typing errors), I am in Tokyo and hope to examine this scrapbook and pursue other Earhart matters. Things are being made dificult by our Government. There is so much more. Eventually, truth will prevail.

    Les Kinney

    Like

    1. Well, Mr. Kinney, nice to hear from you. Let’s cut to the chase, Sir, about this photo that you feel so strongly about that you’re now in Tokyo!

      You write: “I found this photo in 2012. I am confident of its authenticity and am confident of it’s provenance. There is no question there are two Caucasians on that dock, and one of them looks a lot like a woman with short hair. The other significant person on that dock is most definitely a white male with a prominent widows peak. There is no question the ship is the Koshu and that a similar identifying photo exists in Navy ONI files of the Koshu. You might deny that behind the Koshu is a barge with an airplane on the barge. But all the experts I have spoken to believe there is an airplane on that barge.”

      “Two Caucasians on the dock”? From this you get Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan? Don’t tell us that there were no other Caucasians who could possibly have been in the Marshalls, specifically Jaluit, in 1937. That’s so wrong as to be as ludicrous as your claim itself. Many Europeans not only lived in the Marshalls, others did business there, coming and going with the permission of the Japanese government. Saipan Historian Don Farrell recently explained this rather prosaic fact to a local TV station there. Here is the link for interested viewers: https://vimeo.com/224613340.

      You, a former federal investigator, have refused to grasp the first principle of evidence, which is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nobody cares what your paid “experts” have said about this ridiculous photo. Earhart and Noonan cannot be identified in it, period, end of story. Everything else, including the possibility, even likelihood, that the Koshu is in the photo, means nothing at all. It wouldn’t have been at all unusual for Koshu to be seen at the harbor in Jabor, Jaluit Atoll. So what? But to then take the gigantic leap to making the claim that the fliers are in the photo is another story altogether.

      You seem determined to play out a hand that’s truly a dead letter. At this point, I’m actually beginning to feel sympathy for you, so desperately wedded have you become to your delusions about this photo. If you find an actual photo of the fliers at Jaluit, one that we can all see With Our Own Eyes, please let us know. We will be glad to see it.

      MC

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Hi Mr. Kinney,

      I’m not convinced that the photo shows anything. Neither Earhart nor Noonan can be positively identified in the picture and the object on the barge cannot be identified as an aircraft with any certainty.

      The context of the photo seems wrong also. Where are the Japanese naval personnel? Bilimon Amaron made it quite clear they were in Japanese custody and unlikely to be allowed to wander about a jetty and join what appears to be a group of people setting off on a pleasure cruise; note the boat to the left of the group has a sun shade like a pleasure cruiser or water taxi. And since no foreigners had been allowed in the Marshalls since 1936 the nonchalance shown by the group of people towards the “two Caucasians” is suspicious. Many of the Saipanese witnesses noticed Earhart precisely because they had never seen a white person before, not so this group of people.

      The figure identified as Earhart looks as though they are tying or untying the nearby boat’s mooring rope and the person identified as Noonan appears to be holding a sign as if touting for business.

      I’m with Mike on this and I’d add that the timing of the photo’s release could be construed as nothing more than a publicity stunt intended to coincide with the 80th anniversary of her disappearance. There is nothing here to support the contention that Earhart, Noonan or the Electra are in the photo.

      Like

  8. David Atchason | Reply

    All I meant was that the almost immediate “debunking” story in the Guardian seemed suspicious and “too good to be true” , I felt. But of course my first take on the photo was that it didn’t show anything in particular and it was a stretch to believe that was Fred and Amelia. However, I don’t think the picture proves it’s NOT Fred and Amelia, either. Let’s suppose Kinney steps forward and demonstrates proof that the ship in the picture is the Koshu. Then it is shown that the Koshu was never at Jaluit previous to 1937 and therefore the picture being in a Japanese book of 1935 showing the Koshu and a not yet built dock is a false plant no matter how convincing those pictures of the book’s pages look. Wouldn’t that do something to retrieve his reputation? I hardly think it would make the MSM and the majority of people would have no idea what to think if they thought at all, just like now. So why doesn’t Kinney do that? Is he conceding defeat? I would think the History Channel might look better, too, although I suppose their main purpose is making money, not doing meticulous research into any of their subjects. And that’s OK with me, I understand that’s how the world is. Most people don’t understand that whatever appears in the mainstream news should never be taken as the gospel truth, but only that any particular story MAY be true but not CERTAINLY true. Even when all the “secret government files on Amelia Earhart” are released there will still be contradictory details and questions unanswered so that we will only conclude 100 years later, this is what “most likely” happened to her, at best.

    Like

  9. David Atchason | Reply

    Just read Les Kinney’s “rebuttal” and he is making the points that I have raised. When I made a perfunctory search on Google, I became confused as I pointed out to you, because there did seem to me to be more than one and perhaps many Koshus and/or Koshu Marus. That point was never addressed when I sort of asked that question of you. I don’t blame you for not searching the complete Japanese records, I never expected you would. But that would explain why the ship in the picture does not resemble the picture you have posted on this blog previously showing a Koshu built in 1911. I was perplexed by Kinney’s silence on these points for the last 20 days, now I see why. I was apparently right to feel suspicious about the “too good to be true” debunk and the Palau mention, which later changed, was one of the reasons for my suspicion. Maybe Gillespie is right about one of the Koshus or Koshu Marus, because one of them was nowhere near Jaluit and he picked that one disingenuously to prove his case, never mentioning the whereabouts of the other one. I know this is getting very complicated, but right now my hopes are raised. What if Kinney does demonstrate that the debunk was false? Then that will strengthen his whole HC story and at the same time reveal that the Japanese would resort to this trick to keep the true story from coming out. Maybe that’s why the HC is being silent while Kinney does further research.

    Like

    1. Wrong again, David. The Koshu or Koshus, plural, is not the point here, it’s the absurd claim about the fliers. You are really getting bogged down in BS, and I refuse to take the bait. I see the situation quite clearly, and if I’m wrong I’ll be the first to admit it. So what if the Koshu is in the photo? I’ve never even disputed that aspect of this. It means nothing relative to the claim about the fliers. You are tremendously overthinking the situation.
      MC

      Like

  10. David Atchason | Reply

    I just watched that video clip you linked. Who is that guy who denies AE was on Saipan? To me he comes across as about as believable as Hillary Clinton. From what I have read about the mandates by 1937 any gaijin (foreigner) who showed up there was lucky to escape with his life to say nothing of being free to relax on a pier viewing Japanese military vessels. Another odd point, the video they show of AE and Fred, he is not facing the camera and his hairline looks much more like the hairline of that dude in the picture than the one they used on HC. Instead of disputing that could be Fred in the foto, I’m now leaning more in the direction that it could be him. About the Koshu, if it’s actually the KOshu and actually the new Jaluit pier and the Koshu only visited Jaluit in July 1937 then that demonstrates that was the exact time when AE and Fred were there. So to say there was by coincidence a guy on the pier at that very time who does strongly resemble Fred with a woman who does resemble AE who just happened to be there lounging but the real Fred and AE were being held on the Koshu, well, that’s just too much of a coincidence for me. Moreover , there is also the strong possibility that there is a barge behind which could hold a plane. Now I’m overthinking towards the belief that the foto could be genuine.
    You know, after I viewed the show, I could not help but think TPTB would quickly strike back with a strong blow, they would never let this show pass without a peep. And that’s exactly what happened. Only took what? 2 days?

    Like

    1. You’re lost in your own hyperactive brain, David. I can’t help you anymore.
      MC

      Like

  11. David Atchason | Reply

    You are right, I am hopeless case. I’m going to seek help.

    Like

  12. I think we can agree on one fact here. The assertions of the government of the Marshall Islands and those of the “Japanese blogger” presenting what is purported to be a photograph from a page of a 1935 Japanese travel book cannot both be true. I have also noticed that the Japanese person has only a Twitter handle and has not been named. I must wonder why that should be the case and why a news organ like The Guardian or NPR http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/11/536620463/japanese-blogger-points-out-timeline-flaw-in-supposed-earhart-photo would be satisfied simply to repeat the claims of an anonymous Japanese. It certainly does look like someone in Japan, perhaps connected to the government, is engaging in disinformation and the major news media are quite content to let them get away with it.

    Like

    1. Thanks Dave. Finally a voice of reason here. I’m sure you’ve also noticed that nobody in the media has followed up in even the smallest way any of the legitimate Earhart research that was presented on the History Channel program. This in itself is a huge tell that disinformation was the guiding purpose of the program, the History Channel being among the most active of players in the establishment propaganda machine.

      Mike

      Like

    2. I see that I have an error in my comment. I say that the Japanese blogger is anonymous, but upon rereading the Guardian article I notice the following passage:

      Kota Yamano, a military history blogger who unearthed the Japanese photograph, said it took him just 30 minutes to effectively debunk the documentary’s central claim.

      “I have never believed the theory that Earhart was captured by the Japanese military, so I decided to find out for myself,” Yamano told the Guardian. “I was sure that the same photo must be on record in Japan.”

      Yamano ran an online search using the keyword “Jaluit atoll” and a decade-long timeframe starting in 1930.

      “The photo was the 10th item that came up,” he said. “I was really happy when I saw it. I find it strange that the documentary makers didn’t confirm the date of the photograph or the publication in which it originally appeared. That’s the first thing they should have done.”

      The passage might call into question the blogger’s historical acumen, but he is apparently not anonymous. Futhermore, the error does nothing to undermine my main point. If the story from the Marshall Islands government is true, then the story from Japan must be a ruse, just a more elaborate ruse than I assumed in my comment. I notice further that the Guardian uses the voice of Yamano to reinforce their own bugus conclusion, that is, that debunking the photo debunks the notion that Earhart was captured by the Japanese.

      Like

      1. Among those who have reported Kota Yamano’s claims without comment, as if his conclusion is the definitive word in “debunking” the “Japanese capture theory” are our always-reliable friends at Coast to Coast AM. Always reliable to do the wrong thing, that is.
        MC

        Like

  13. I’m keeping an “open mind” about this photo. Call me an idiot if you like, but some things just seem right about it to me. I even made a nice Photo Collage including it and some other AE Pics I have saved over the years.

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0qcAcfEF-SMdW0ya21LeVFIWXM

    Like

  14. David Atchason | Reply

    https://www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+amelia+earhart+in+Lae+New+guinea&rlz=1C1CHBH_enUS710US710&tbm=isch&imgil=CWWnvdRk6GKT3M%253A%253BKQJvp6P53 This should be a picture of Amelia just before take-off from Lae. Notice the dark colored pants and light short sleeved shirt. Consistent with the image of the “white woman” in our famous picture. A coincidence? Whoever it is, and it looks like a woman to me, the native women wore no such outfits. Why on earth would this picture be chosen for a Japanese book to illustrate Jaluit? With obvious white people in it. I just don’t think they would use it. OK, proves nothing, I know.

    Like

    1. Wrong, David. In the photo most accepted as the last one taken at Lae, Amelia is wearing a dark plaid, short-sleeved shirt that looks nothing like the one worn by the person sitting on the Jaluit dock. The wordpress program will not let me post this photo, but you can find it easily enough in a search of the blog.
      Mike

      Like

  15. I just wanted to add my comments about THE PICTURE. If you go back and scroll through the pictures of that travelogue book, page by page, as I did….. more than once….you will notice that the only people wearing white pants are the missionaries, the visitors, the merchants. The young men wearing dark pants and light shirts are most likely dock workers. They are hanging around the dock in THE PICTURE waiting for the ship to come in so they can go to work and unload. It is most likely a YOUNG MAN sitting on the dock, waiting around just like the others in the picture. And his skin color is simply a lighter tone, as the travelogue shows pictures of natives/islanders with different skin tones, some lighter, some darker.

    As far as the FN look-alike, it’s just another missionary or merchant waiting for the ship to dock. FN in white pants….I don’t think so. A documented picture of the last leg of flight from Darwin/Lae, shows him wearing DARK PANTS. (pg. 34 of THE TRUTH AT LAST.) And as far as THE PICTURE ending up in ONI files, well, most likely it had some significance because of all the merchant marine activity going on in the area with the Japanese buildup prior to WWII. It simply provides more evidentiary documentation to support what ships were coming and going at that time.

    Like

  16. I’ve noticed, the white, sleeve length is the same on man wearing a head band, the man wearing a hat and the individual sitting on the dock. Amelia wore a shorter sleeve length and a plaid, striped, red shirt. Fred Noonan would have been wearing either a large bandage or wrap around his head, due to the injury he sustained from the rough landing on the Barre Island reef. Plus his leg was also cut and injured. Plus Amelia wore a black, banded, wrist watch with the face facing downward or underneath her wrist.

    When I first saw this photo, dated 1937 and Marshall Islands, Jaluit ONI – I was convinced it must be Fred Noonan & Amelia. I thought WOW, Les Kinney has truly sTuMbLeD upon a *MAGNIFICENT FIND/ *EVIDENCE and *PROOF of Amelia & Fred in a photo actually there. Like many, I jumped to conclusions, believing this must be them…But the more I studied this photograph, the less & less I was convinced it was them??

    As Mike informed us all or those who have read his BOOKS. Bilimon Amaron, the young medic, was with them the entire time aboard the ship. Had they been out and about afterwards he surely would have mentioned that in his interview & testimonies over the years. This wasn’t the case….THANKS to Mike for keeping those of us on the straight and narrow path of the *TRUTH.

    I would like, for Les Kinney to prove us all WRONG and provide us with more EVIDENCE & DATA that would support his [photo]. But to me, these two individuals just don’t match up to being Amelia Earhart & Fred Noonan. Les we *APPLAUD your research, insight, knowledge, travels, dogged determination in this search for HARD EVIDENCE of Amelia & Fred in the Marshall Islands & on Saipan.

    I *APPLAUD Mike’s scholarly work, updates, weekly data and most importantly the *TRUTH he has provided us all with. Keep up the *GREAT WORK Mike, as we are so much more informed, educated and enlightened by your thoroughness and objectivity.

    Doug

    Like

  17. Doug,
    Please think this through.
    Earhart and Noonan arrived at Jaluit at least five days after they landed at Mili.
    They had suitcases, they had changed of clothes.
    Would you wear the same ripped sweaty clothes for 5 or 10 days?
    Amaran has said repeatedly the cut on Noonan,s head was very minor.

    For Mr. Campbell, Arman also said in several interviews that this was the first time he had seen white people.
    The only white person on Jaluit was Carl Heine.
    Naval intelligence reports list the westerners in the Marshall Islands.
    This is sourced. Only Heine was there.

    Les Kinney

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Mr. Kinney,
      I doubt all your contentions now, as you have painted yourself into a completely untenable position. But for the sake of argument, even if your points are all true, you still cannot then deduce that the person sitting on the dock, whose sex is even impossible to determine, is therefore Amelia Earhart. You just can’t get there from here.

      Nobody except those with skin in the game, like you, Morningstar and History Channel (and I wonder about the latter two), will accept such a ludicrous proposition. A photo that is the subject of such a monumental claim as you make must be clean, clear and indisputable — not this ridiculous, unfocused image. The torturous reasoning you employ to arrive at your conclusion is simply unacceptable to anyone without an agenda. What you are essentially saying is that the people in the photo should be Earhart and Noonan, therefore we must accept that they are. This is absurd, and you really should know that.
      MC

      Liked by 1 person

  18. David Atchason | Reply

    I was wrong about Amelia taking off wearing a light colored shirt. One picture I saw which was underexposed or some such reason made her shirt look almost white. Well, I suppose she had a few shirts with her so she could have changed by the time she sat on the dock. But the pants certainly look the same.

    A curiosity which I noticed is that the Marshalls stamp issue has the wrong Koshu. It has the one built in Japan in 1911 presumably. That one has a derrick which the artist construed as hoisting the plane on board. The Koshu in our picture, which I assume to be the one (the German ship) which picked up AE and Fred has no such derrick and may not have had the means to hoist an airplane onto the deck. So could a skeptical viewer question the accuracy of the stamp issue? Yes, I say. The scenario shown on those stamps could be partially an artist’s fantasy. Not to say, though, that they aren’t an honest effort to show the gist of AE’s plight.

    Maybe I missed the story, but is the Koshu’s log available? Wouldn’t the actual genuine log relate the operation to pick up the flyers and their plane? Don’t records exist of at least where she went and when? Did she visit Jaluit frequently? What does a survey ship in the Navy do?

    I suppose there is a possibility that the Koshu visited Jaluit in the 20s and at that time there still were a few white people as residents or tourists who then appeared in the picture, but if the jetty was really not built until 1936 then that was not possible. Another couple of oddities, why is the boom of the sailboat sitting on the dock nearly at Fred’s feet? It seems and odd way to tie up a boat, but I am not a sailor, so what do I know? Also just behind the boat in the foreground is what looks like a rowboat with one man holding an oar, probably to pick up Fred and AE after their questioning at the office in Jaluit. The rowboat is going to drop those passengers off and pick up the people on the dock and take them out to their anchored boats. Fred’s cut and infected knee has ruined his dark slacks so a pair of white pants was procured for him or maybe he carried an extra pair on their plane.

    Like

  19. William H. Trail | Reply

    Folks, we all know the truth here. AE and FN brought Electra NR16020 down on Mili Atoll, were taken prisoner by the Japanese and died gruesome deaths at the hands of their captors on Saipan, period. Irregardless of it’s origin, real or photo-shopped, this photo is essentially meaningless. It doesn’t prove or disprove anything, and it absolutely doesn’t change the Marshall Islands-Saipan truth in any way. The photo is, in essence, an unimportant distraction that has no bearing on the case.

    Like

    1. I have to agree with William H. Trail. Why this photo was the centerpiece of the HC show I can’t quite figure out. Possibly HC figured this would lure the most eyeballs and that’s all it was. My recent thinking tells me that the whole show was a deception. What the public is being deceived into believing isn’t exactly clear to me. I should probably view the show again, but it may be that the purpose was to tacitly admit that yes, she landed in the Marshalls, and was captured by the Japs.

      However, the lie that is being perpetuated is that it was an “accident.” That she got off course by a very understandable mistake. This lie was presented as being self-evident. In my view, it was not a mistake at all. Even if they did get off course, they certainly recognized when it was too late that they were flying west into the Marshalls. She had plenty of time to radio that she had blundered and was flying to the Marshalls where they hoped to land on a beach. But she didn’t. All it took was a sextant (or octant) sighting and they would have known where they were going.

      One thing I am certain of is that the History Channel is controlled by the “Deep State” apparatus or CIA/NSA and whatever is broadcast has their stamp of approval, as do all the major networks and newspapers, etc. That doesn’t mean that it’s 100% false, no, lots of their product contains truth. Maybe the purpose was to stir up controversy and pit one set of beliefs against another set which differs in only the fine details. One thing that has happened is that the gist of the true story has become a more respectable position to take. I don’t think that the debunking of the picture and the little known debunking of the debunk has much importance.

      Anybody with a clear mind can see that the identification of the picture as AE and Fred was only an opinion to begin with, so what was debunked was not something which was presented as a FACT. What we discerning students of the AE story all should know and agree on is that the History Channel may and probably does contain disinformation. What is being covered up could very well “stagger our imagination.” I just don’t think preserving the reputation of FDR quite rises to that level. I think it is something bigger than that.

      Like

  20. If the object behind the ship is an airplane it appears the view is from the right rear with the main portion being the fuselage, the portion on the right being the right wing, and possibly some sort of vertical stabilizer at the rear; if all of that is true, where is the left wing? Without question it would be visible in that photo but it is not.

    Like

  21. Les – # 2 message –

    This man who is leaning against pole/sign who is wearing all white. I’ve yet to see a photo of Fred Noonan dressed in white? In photo’s I seen of Fred, his shirt is nearly button to the top, this man in picture, has more neck line showing and more relaxed. I can’t see if this man is wearing a wrist watch? I do find it usual, that he is not wearing a hat, in such a warm, sunny climate? The other three men are wearing hats. Another thought, why would Fred be wearing white pants, if his leg had been cut and the possibility of bleeding?

    This individual sitting on the dock, the sleeve length is too long for Amelia’s arms. Her sleeves were shorter, as was her hair in the back of her head, even from the photo’s taken in Lae New Guinea or Venezuela.

    I continue to study the details of these individuals in this [photo]. Les I would like you to PROVE me WRONG and I will be the first to APOLOGIZE, ADMIT WRONG, and SAY YOU WERE 100% CORRECT! (I HOPE YOU DO!)

    Doug Mills

    Like

    1. you really cant see much of her right arm because its behind the tie-up bollard. There is something on the dock directly behind her almost looks like a little dog because there is a shadow underneath it. There are no other shadows so the sun must be directly overhead. Not that it means anything…

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: