Martin’s analysis continues to bolster Earhart truth

The erudite news analyst David Martin ( has been alone among all media operatives large and small in recognizing and supporting the truth from the beginning of the fading media flap that erupted July 5 when NBC News announced that an unclassified Office of Naval Intelligence photo found at the National Archives in College Park, Md., by former federal investigator Les Kinney might be the smoking gun in the Earhart disappearance.

Bringing you up to date, the photo was the centerpiece of the two-hour July 9 History Channel propaganda exercise, Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence.”  I lost no time in becoming the first to publicly denounce the false claims made by Kinney and  Morningstar Entertainment operatives who descended upon network airwaves to promote the coming History Channel program.  Later July 5, I published July 9 Earhart special to feature bogus photo claims.”  Two days later, Martin, who shared my pessimism about a documentary predicated on such a shaky foundation as the ONI Jaluit photo, published “Press Touts Dubious Earhart Photo.”  Meanwhile, the media had already begun their blanket denunciations of the photo claims, seemingly on cue.

A day after posting my July 12 review of the History Channel special, History’s ‘Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence’: Underhanded attack on the Marshalls-Saipan truth, which included  this report from The Guardian online that claimed the  photograph had been found in a Japanese travel bookthat allegedly was published in Japanese–held Palau on 10 October 1935, Martin published Earhart Photo Story Apparently Debunked.

Now Martin has added his own perspective to my July 28 article that discussed the Marshallese government’s statement that the ONI photo could not have been taken in 1935, as claimed by the Japanese blogger, Marshalls release is latest twist in photo travesty with his Earhart Photo’ Debunker Debunked?published on Martin’s website Aug. 2, following forthwith:

“ ‘Earhart Photo Debunker Debunked?”

Perhaps everyone should have been a bit more skeptical when the British Guardian came out with its article with the confident sweeping headline, “Blogger discredits claim Amelia Earhart was taken prisoner by Japan.”  (Bold emphasis Campbell’s throughout.)  As we noted in our previous article in which we accepted the discovery of the photo in a 1935 Japanese travel book as valid, the apparent discrediting of the photo did absolutely nothing to undermine the wealth of evidence that Earhart was, indeed, captured by the Japanese, in spite of The Guardian’s major overselling of the new purported evidence: But serious doubts now surround the film’s premise after a Tokyo-based blogger unearthed the same photograph in the archives of the National Diet Library, Japan’s national library.(Italics emphasis added.)

A recent photo of news analyst and world traveler David Martin at Jeju (Cheju) Island, South Korea.  (Photo courtesy David Martin.)

The Guardian did go to some length to give the discovery quite an appearance of authenticity.  They provided links to the travel book including the photo and page numbers.  In addition, they gave us these quotes from the blogger himself:

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 initial impression one gets—the impression that The Guardian clearly wanted us to take with us—is that this Yamano is quite an enterprising researcher.  But the impression does not bear close scrutiny well.

Yamano claims that the motivation for his effort was the belief that the Japanese military did not capture Earhart.  The main problem of the supposed evidence presented by the photo is that it is not strong enough to convince any skeptical person that it actually shows Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan in the custody of the Japanese.  The natural reaction of a predisposed doubter is simply to reject the photo out of hand.

The second paragraph in the Yamano quote, then, amounts to a non sequitur.  From the outset, what could conducting a search for a copy of the photograph presented in the History Channel program have to do with anything?  It really looks like a waste of time.  Did Yamano have some premonition that he might find evidence that would apparently prove that the photograph had been taken well before Earhart’s disappearance?  Going in, the endeavor looks like a wild goose chase.

To read the rest of Dave Martin’s analysis, see “Earhart Photo Debunker Debunked?”

For Dave Martin’s reviews on both editions of  The Truth at Last, as well as a summary of that evidence and the press (and Wikipedia) treatment of it, see Hillary Clinton and the Amelia Earhart Cover-up,” Amelia Earhart Truth Versus the Establishment,” and Wikipedia’s Greatest Misses.”

24 responses

  1. With all due respect, I find your entire line of reasoning in this matter to be bordering on “the (blogger) lady doth protest too much methinks”.

    TIGHAR is a money making scam. Les Kinney shares most of your views and mine as well. Devoting pages and pages of your blog trying to discredit this photo (when it has been shown that this could have been a valid photo since the dock was not built at the time of the Japanese “book’s” publication) is making you and your buddy DCDave look like raving mad conspiracy theorists.

    It may be them. It may not be them. It’s no smoking gun, but it does provide some interesting insight supporting YOUR ultimate theory.

    Does the US or Japan Government want the truth to come out? No.

    Since when do the Free Press and Wikipedia conspire with Government(s) to suppress the truth in a Free Society? For me, that is a bridge too far to follow.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. You seem to have a problem reading for comprehension, Fly. My problem is not that I protest too much, but that too many others blindly accept bad evidence because it’s in the service of the truth in the Marshalls-Saipan scenario. You see what happens when bad evidence is touted by the media — it’s soon shot down along with the rest of the truth.

      Contrary to your statement, the photo does not provide any interesting “insight” into the truth. The whole dreary scene this photo has inspired provides insight only into the basest motivations of those who initially made the absurd claims about it. Further, I have no “theories,” about the Earhart case. We have the truth that’s been surrounded and distorted by lies that have been glorified as theories for 80 years. You write as if you haven’t read Truth at Last, or if you have, you need to read it again.


    2. flyxlsa, I agree with you completely and I could not have said it better. I too cannot figure out why Mike is so upset about that photo and like you said it points to the theory of the Japaneses capture of Earhart a theory that Mike has worked on for a very long time.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. See my 10:05 a.m. comment. Neither of you sees this story clearly. It’s not my fault that you don’t get it. I do all I can to explain, but you see only Marshalls-Saipan, and anything, even a ridiculous photo put forward to obviously discredit the truth, should be accepted, in your views.


    3. I agree with your take on this, TIm. Les Kinney did solid work and deserves credit for that work. The “Japanese blogger” disinformation campaign quickly fell apart. The photo is the smoking gun as far as I am concerned and when it surfaced I thought Mike would be the first to applaud it’s discovery. His subsequent attacks upon the photo are highly irrational and caught me completely off guard.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “Highly irrational,” Richard? You are the one who is highly irrational, if you think anyone should embrace lies about bogus photos in order to advance the truth. Why is it such a huge mental leap for you to understand that because I reject the photo, I don’t therefore reject the truth that I’ve spent 30 years studying and writing about? It’s readers like you and Tim, who exhibit zero critical thinking ability, that move me to fear there’s no hope at all for the truth to prevail in the Earhart case. Further comments from either of you in this vein are not going up on this blog.


  2. This story has more twists and turns than the famed Lombard Street in San Francisco. What a mess!


  3. I tried to run a search as the Japanese blogger dig using Jaluit Atoll as the keywords and the decade time frame as he did. After several different search engines…nothing even remotely like the photo came up.


  4. “Since when do the Free Press and Wikipedia conspire with Government(s) to suppress the truth in a Free Society?”

    I’m not sure what to make of that question, what with the capitalization of “Free Press” and “Free Society,” but assuming that those are just errors, I think the rhetorical question reflects an exraordinary degree of naivete here in the year of our Lord 2017. When does the mainstream press Western press not conspire with the dominant governments in the Western world to suppress the truth would be a better question. If anyone thinks we’re getting the straight scoop from our media on, say, the JFK assassination or 9/11, to name just two major questions, I can’t imagine why they would even bother to read about what happened to Amelia Earhart on an independent truth-seeking web site such as this.

    The truth about Earhart is a taboo subject to the mainstream media. Any halfway informed person on the subject knows this. When they gave their big build-up to the History Channel program with the very ambiguous photograph as its centerpiece you had to know that it was not because of any burning love of the truth on their part. To the contrary, you really had to suspect an ulterior motive behind it, and it didn’t take them very long to show just what that was.

    As for Wikipedia, please see my article “Wikipedia’s Greatest Misses” at

    Liked by 3 people

    1. JFK and 9/11? Next you’re going to start discussing false flags and UFO abductions Dave.

      I read Earhart Truth, TWICE. As for theory vs. fact, I agree that without a doubt the “preponderance of the evidence” points toward Saigon, but I’m not about to bet my life on this theory being established FACT until we have some physically tangible evidence to collaborate the oral testimony.

      As for my use of capital letters on some words… OMFG!


      1. Yo Flyshit,
        Or whoever you are: Are you a troll? Not stating your real name isn’t a good start, and a reader whose opinion I respect has suggested that you are being paid to disrupt the discussions on this blog. I thought not, that you were just a dumbass. But your latest comment seems to lend more weight to the idea that you are indeed a troll. As for your other obtuse comment, it didn’t make the cut, nor will any further agitating remarks from you. My blog, my rules, and I don’t give a damn what you or others might think.


      2. If it’s false flags that interest you, there’s quite a good article on the subject on today and they don’t even mention the USS Liberty attack. For that see And the word you want is “corroborate,” not “collaborate.” Before I read that I thought that “Saigon” instead of “Saipan” was just a typo, but for that to be the case, not one but two letters must be mistyped. Looks like it’s about time they gave this assignment to a more capable person.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Flyshit’s real name is Tim Ruhl and I live in Hershey, PA.
        flyxlsa stands for FLY BY LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT.
        That is my real face and my wordpress profile detail has my name listed.
        @biztechrx Twitter

        I’m not sure why you all seem to freakin’ attack someone who simply expresses another viewpoint?

        I receive no compensation, nor am I “egged on” by any third party, for posting here.

        I admittedly trolled the TIGHAR Facebook page and was promptly kicked off.

        I have a casual interest in Amelia Earhart, just like many folks here.

        Name calling is NOT necessary IMHO?


      4. Well Tim, thanks for that. Perhaps we might take you more seriously if you knew the difference between Saigon and Saipan, and collaborate vs. corroborate.


      5. I had a brain fart on the Saigon thing and made a mistake on my word choice on a word/term I rarely use in my world of Math and IT. You guys are the writers/wordsmiths – certainly and admittedly not me!

        I’m NOT perfect… nobody is!


  5. William H. Trail | Reply

    The simple fact is that you cannot fight for the truth with lies. To do so is to cast honor and integrity on the trash heap. That is unacceptable. It is non-negotiable. We must hold fast to this principle.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Mike & Dave are absolutely correct in their assertions on the matter. There has been a CHARADE played upon the American public for the last 80 years. It’s objective is to continuously mislead, misinform and distract from the *TRUTH. So many fall pry to these DiStRaCtIoNs and so few have the intellect & insight to see it.
    I commend & praise Mike’s integrity, truth and objectivity on this analysis.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. “…few have the intellect & insight to see it.”
      Say what?
      Is this a blog about Amelia Earhart or a “cult following” of the absolute, final and indisputable Earhart Truth as espoused by your “Great Leader(s)”?
      Both my intellect and insight abilities are quite fine thank you.
      Apparently I simply missed drinking the proper Kool Aid.
      It seems cognitive bias is strong on this blog.


      1. “JFK and 9/11? Next you’re going to start discussing false flags and UFO abductions Dave.”

        This is not the tone of a person who is seriously interested in the truth. It reeks of the ignorant swagger of the schoolyard bully who wants to intimidate people who have the audacity to question the conventional wisdom. It reflects precisely the sort of herd-think appeal of what I have called the “Children’s Fantasy Writers” of the mainstream media:

        At the very least Mr. Ruhl has demonstrated that he is out of his depth outside the world of Math [sic] and IT, but yet he would weigh in on a subject, filled with bluster, attacking people who he must concede know a great deal more about that subject than he does. You must forgive me for suspecting that what we see at work here is an example of the very last of the Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression:


      2. Dave,
        Thanks so much. Your Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression: should be mandatory reading for anyone who would claim any understanding of the depths to which our media would sink to deceive us about the most important stories of our time. No one has ever said it better or more succinctly.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Flyxlsa –

    You’re jumping to conclusions and letting your imagination run away from you. Nobody on this site is drinking purple cool aid, nor following some great leader. The photo Les Kinney found, has some PrObLeMs with it. If the History Channel cared about the *TRUTH, they would have included Mike Campbell in their production, they didn’t. Instead they decided to promote their own agenda and have left the public even more CoNfUsEd?

    If you’re going to profess what happened to Amelia Earhart, at least GET IT *RIGHT! Back it up with *PROOF – *HARD EVIDENCE – *FACTS and *TESTIMONIES as Mike has.

    There is no cult following, no secret brotherhood, unbroken circle, foot stomping, unusual handshake, nor chairs formed in a triangle. If anything, those of us who comment on Mike’s wordpress, are FREE THINKERS taking COMMAND under the *RIGHT conditions.

    This picture looks like it was made by an unskilled photographer and at a carnival.



  8. Getting to the heart of what’s at issue here, let’s go back to the most objectionable thing in Mr. Ruhl’s opening sally: “Since when do the Free Press and Wikipedia conspire with Government(s) to suppress the truth in a Free Society? For me, that is a bridge too far to follow.”

    It’s very hard for me to believe his claim that he has read “Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last” at all, because my reaction to it prompted me to lead off my review of the first edition with the following poem:

    Chilling Awakening

    Few things are more unsettling,
    From experience I know,
    Than to feel a building shaken
    By quaking ground below.

    But I’ve felt one discomfiture
    Of almost comparable size,
    Discovering that our “free” press
    Purveys official lies.

    Media dissimulation is at the very heart of the story.

    For anyone thinking that the media can be trusted to inform us about important matters, check out one of my more recent articles on the subject, “Vince Foster, Tommy Burkett, and Fake News” at On the media generally, see


  9. You missed the recent death of Seth Rich. Dead bodies seem to pile up around the Clintons. That being said…

    I’ve read multiple books on Amelia Earhart. At the moment I’m reading “Amelia” by Doris L. Rich. I’ve read “Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last” TWICE, despite the fact you find this “hard to believe” in your infinite wisdom.

    I think the MSM ignoring a story like Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s IT Scandal, while at the same time turning a blind eye towards HRC’s many crimes and running around screaming “Russia!” at every turn, is very troubling.

    Conspiracy? I’ll let you run with that one.


    1. Welcome back to the office, Tim. I hope you had a nice, relaxing weekend.

      Your work week started poorly. though, what with that first sentence. In fact, the Seth Rich matter has not escaped my attention as one can read in my May 25th article, “Seth Rich Equals Vince Foster?”

      You might want to read that article at least three times, because, taking you at your word, TWICE doesn’t seem to do the job for you.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: