In like a lion, out like a lamb. Thus ends yet another Nikumaroro-Amelia Earhart boondoggle. This time the perp was the famed Robert Ballard, who discovered the Titanic, but the result was the same as always, as predictable as death and taxes. Nothing related to Earhart was found, but an old lie was resurrected to keep the scam viable for future paydays. (Boldface and italic emphasis mine throughout.)
As is always the case with these bogus Nikumaroro searches, you had to actually do a search to find any news about the latest failure. Yesterday (Aug. 26) I awoke early enough to beat the news sent to my inbox by the first of a few intrepid readers. “‘Tantalizing clue’ marks end of Amelia Earhart expedition,” National Geographic magazine whispered. “While the location of the aviator’s plane remains elusive, an artifact re-discovered after 80 years may spark new avenues of inquiry,” NatGeo’s subhead cunningly adds.
In like a lion, out like a lamb. As of post time for this story, not a single media organization besides NatGeo, which initiated this current round of deceit — a bandwagon that most of mainstream media immediately and gleefully jumped aboard — has informed its readers that they have once again been had. This too, is so redundantly typical of these media vermin.
The “tantalizing clue” in the headline is no such thing, but another lame pretext based on already debunked “evidence,” the alleged bones found on Nikumaroro in 1940 that were analyzed by the only real medical professionals to have ever examined them, and found to be those of a male individual.
“The bones were eventually shipped to the High Commissioner’s Office in Suva,” Les Kinney wrote in a March 19, 2018 post on this blog, “Les Kinney joins ‘The Truth at Last’ conversation, Shreds TIGHAR’s latest false Earhart claims.”
“An initial report was completed by the Acting Senior Medical Officer,” Kinney continued. “The medical examiner concluded ‘they are part of a skeleton of elderly male of Polynesian race, bones having been probably in sheltered position for upwards of 20 years possibly much longer.’:
The bones were then brought to the Central Medical School and examined by Dr. D. W. Hoodless. Hoodless took careful measurements of the bones and skull. He noted the remains only included one half of the pelvic bone. Hoodless obviously took into consideration the pelvic bone is symmetrical and said that in his professional opinion, the bones were that of a skeleton of “total height of 5 feet 5 and ½ inches approximately.“ Hoodless went on to write “it may be definitely stated that the skeleton is that of a [MALE.]“ Hoodless emphasis. Hoodless added, “he was not less than 45 and more probably older.”
The good news, if we can call it that, is that Ballard himself is not making any false claims to stir the pot, as TIGHAR always does, and is likely finished with this farce, as NatGeo’s designated hack Rachel Hartigan Shea reports, though she doesn’t quote him directly:
Ballard doesn’t plan on returning to Nikumaroro unless the land team finds definitive evidence that Earhart and Noonan perished there. Yet he already knows where he’d search if he did go back to the island: Beaches further south where it’s flat enough to land and the underwater topography is much smoother—perfect for sonar, he says.
Is Ballard embarrassed about his involvement with the Nikumaroro fraud, that he would be roped into this ongoing hoax, or was he in on the fix from the start, knowing the truth but going along to get along, make some extra green and please the establishment by distracting the sheeple for another news cycle? It certainly doesn’t help his sterling résumé to have this failure attached to it. Can Ballard actually be so uninformed about the history of Earhart research that the work of Fred Goerner, Vincent V. Loomis, Thomas E. Devine, Bill Prymak and others is completely unknown to him? Is that possible?
My guess is there’s no way Ballard can be that ignorant, and though we may never know for sure, Hartigan Shea might offer a clue. “[H]e doesn’t consider the search to be over,” she wrote. “Indeed, after this expedition, Nautilus is heading to Howland and Baker islands to map the waters off of these U.S. Territories for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Perhaps something will be discovered off the shore of the island where Earhart intended to land.”
Sure it will, and pigs will fly at farms and county fairs nationwide at the precise moment that happens. To read the rest of NatGeo’s Aug. 26 claptrap, please click here.
SUMMARY OF LATEST EARHART DISINFORMATION OPERATION
This time it started, media-wise at least, with the National Geographic’s July 23, 2019 story: “Robert Ballard found the Titanic. Can he find Amelia Earhart’s airplane?” subheaded, “Ocean explorer Robert Ballard will lead a major expedition to the remote Pacific in hopes of discovering the famed aviator’s fate.”
With the same breathless tones that accompanied countless stories that preceded TIGHAR’s Nikumaroro money-wasters over the past 30 years, National Geographic’s “Now Robert Ballard, the man who found the Titanic, is planning to search for signs of the missing aviators. On August 7, he’ll depart from Samoa for Nikumaroro, an uninhabited island that’s part of the Micronesian nation of Kiribati. The expedition will be filmed by National Geographic for a two-hour documentary airing October 20.”
Unsurprisingly, Ballard’s make-believe search for Amelia Earhart has mirrored the 13 (officially) visits by The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) to Nikumaroro since 1989 in many ways. These fiascos always start with some new fabrication, some slightly different excuse to waste all the money they’ve somehow managed to glom from sources that are never really clear, to take the hype as far as they can.
Not to be outdone, Smithsonian magazine, home of the anachronistic crashed-and-sank, official government-line apologists, responded with a July 31 tantrum, “Why the Much-Publicized Mission to Find Amelia Earhart’s Plane Is Likely to Come Up Empty,” subheaded, “The explorer who discovered the ‘Titanic’ is searching for the lost aviator. A Smithsonian curator doesn’t think he’ll find it.”
On Aug, 12, sometime after Ballard and Nautilus had arrived at Nikumaroro, National Geographic led it off with Hartigan Shea’s “Inside Robert Ballard’s search for Amelia Earhart’s airplane.” Within the piece, in a 1:35 embedded video preview of “Expedition Amelia,” a two-hour NatGeo special set to air Oct. 20, Ballard puts his foot in it, telling us with supreme arrogance, “It’s not the Loch Ness Monster. It’s not Bigfoot. That airplane exists, which means I’m gonna find it.” Really?
The left-wing Bible New York Times soon followed that same day, with “Finding Amelia Earhart’s Plane Seemed Impossible. Then Came a Startling Clue”; and the always-deceitful where Earhart is concerned Fox News chipped in with “Amelia Earhart mystery: The man who discovered the Titanic is searching for the doomed aviator’s plane.” The rest of the usual media suspects fell right in behind the leaders, like the good monkeys they are.
Just over a week later, reality had set in — on and off Nikumaroro. NatGeo’s Aug. 20 story, “Coconut crabs may hold clue to Amelia Earhart fate,” subheaded, “Does the secret of the famed aviator’s disappearance lie in the underground haunts of the world’s largest land invertebrate?” simply reeked of desperation. To this observer, to mention the crabs with five days still left on Ballard’s search schedule seemed like a tell that signaled defeat, even before the final results were in.
This wasn’t the first time we’ve heard about how coconut crabs on Nikumaroro were going to lead TIGHAR to the Holy Grail — the bones of Amelia Earhart. Our reliable friends from Smithsonian Magazine did a story on Dec. 26, 2013, “Coconut Crabs Eat Everything from Kittens to, Maybe, Amelia Earhart,” which declaimed, “According to one theory, Earhart did not drown in the Pacific but instead crashed on the remote Nikumaroro atoll, where she was eaten by coconut crabs”:
In 1940, researchers discovered a fraction of a skeleton on the island that matched the description of Amelia Earhart. Now, even more interesting clues are arising that seem to substantiate the idea that this is where she met her demise. The most compelling hypothesis currently under consideration is that coconut crabs overwhelmed her where she lay.
Researchers carried out an experiment to validate whether the coconut crabs had a part in her demise. Back in 2007, they used a small pig carcass to assess what the coconut crabs might have done. The bones were removed very quickly and scattered, according to Patricia Thrasher, TIGHAR’s president.
This ludicrous meme has redounded throughout our agitprop media ever since, thrown up against the wall to see how well it might stick when nothing else was available. When it comes to Earhart, anything except the truth has always been fair game, to keep the masses watching the shiny object.
In an Aug. 22 blog comment, I wrote, “I’ve read this absurd story, and if this is all they have, they might be preparing to announce the truth for a change, that nothing related to Earhart was found by Ballard and company.”
But I added: “I could be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe they’re preparing us for a brand-new grandiose claim by first softening up their readers with this garbage, published as if no one knows anything at all about the history of Earhart research. . . . NatGeo treats its readers as if they’re hopeless morons, and sadly, in many cases they are right. But this deal with the crabs, like last year with the dogs, is pushing the ridiculous far beyond credulity.”
It didn’t take long for NatGeo to post the next installment of its 2019 Earhart Reality Show, as Hartigan Shea’s Aug. 23 report, “Amelia Earhart search crew shares personal theories on her disappearance,” brought a sliver of clarity to this spectacle:
Back on the Nautilus, Robert Ballard, the man who found the Titanic, is searching the waters off Nikumaroro for the Electra’s remains. But that doesn’t stop him from speculating in his off hours about where else she might have landed. Could she have touched down on the windward side of the island or possibly on another island altogether? Based on how much gas she had left, he wondered, “What other islands were reachable and uninhabited and haven’t been searched?” He crunched the numbers and the answer is very few.
The answer is simple, unless you have an agenda to spew propaganda in support of the official government lie. It’s available in several books, including Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last, wherein all due credit is given to researcher and author Vincent V. Loomis and his 1985 book, Amelia Earhart: The Final Story, the definitive Earhart-Marshall Islands-landing work.
Multiple witnesses saw Earhart’s Electra crash-land near Barre Island, in the northwest quadrant of Mili, and she and Noonan were later seen at Jaluit, where Japanese hospital corpsman Bilimon Amaron treated Noonan for a gash on his knee while crewmen stood by and addressed Earhart as “Meel-ya, Meel-ya.”
But that and a mountain of evidence too massive to mention here aren’t good enough for Ms. Hartigan Shea, who finishes her Aug. 23 entry with this insipid paragraph:
The search for Amelia Earhart is an endless puzzle, and a challenge that Ballard relishes. So do the other members of the expedition, who have puzzled over how long Earhart could have survived on the island, what she ate, whether the coconut crabs consumed her, if her plane could have floated intact over the reef, whether rescuers tried hard enough to find her and, most poignantly, how the ardent feminist and pacifist might have changed the world if she had lived. We may never know the answers to some of these questions but the speculation will continue as long as the mystery remains unsolved.
Never hint at the Marshall Islands-Saipan truth — that’s the ticket for these artists of disinformation, these cockroaches of deceit. Will someone please cue the violins? A high school freshman could write a better close than this clichéd, transparent trash. In its laughable screed, NatGeo is not only lying to its readers, but it’s reached new lows in its contemptible hypocrisy.
To wit: This crew of National Geographic propagandists pretends to know nothing about the National Geographic Channel’s Amelia Earhart special in late 2006, which was the debut of its short-lived Undercover History series. In that program, several aspects of the truth were presented, including Marine Pvt. Robert E. Wallack’s discovery of Amelia’s briefcase in a blown Japanese safe on Saipan in summer 1944, and Bilimon Amaron’s encounter with the fliers on a Japanese ship at Jaluit. Just the slightest trace of that program can now be found on an Internet search, an IMDb entry that’s been swept clean of any meaningful information. Care to guess why?
People and organizations cover their tracks because they don’t want you to know something important that will expose their scheme, and this is just another example of big-media duplicity in the Earhart story. For new readers who may believe that the “Amelia Earhart Mystery” actually exists, please see “July 2, 2018: 81 years of lies in the Earhart case.”
Refusing to accept what is true, Hartigan Shea closes her Aug. 26 article with a final mendacity, informing us that “An expedition land team led by National Geographic Society archaeologist Fredrik Hiebert may have found fragments of the skull in the Te Umwanibong Museum and Cultural Centre in Tarawa, Kiribati. . . . This, too, is a fitting end to an Earhart expedition. Just when it seems to be over, a tantalizing clue appears to lure the searchers onward.”
Referencing NatGeo’s description of a “fitting ending to what was in many respects a successful expedition,” Calvin Pitts, who retraced Wiley Post’s solo 1933 world flight in 1981 and is an honored, regular contributor to this blog, wrote: “I was stunned in disbelief that grown men could participate in such a national hoax, without embarrassment. Please join me in a moment of levity. They were looking for an Electra, the remains of which are buried in Saipan. They FOUND NOTHING, but they had the gall to say with a straight face, “THIS WAS A SUCCESSFUL EXPEDITION” — translated, ‘At least, we didn’t have a major malfunction of our equipment.’ Childishness on display.”
Or far worse, I would add.
As for the photo taken by British colonial officer Eric Bevington in October 1937 of the British freighter SS Norwich City, in the right background, and an indistinct speck on the far left side of the frame, which is presented in the Aug. 26 NatGeo story as TIGHAR’s idea of “compelling evidence” that “resembles the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra,” Calvin also had a few choice words.
“Wrong,” Calvin wrote. “It looks more like the horn of a unicorn. They have just discovered the first remains of an extinct animal in the annals of history. Imagine grown men, professionals no less, acting like children in a sandbox. It’s worse than laughable. It is pathetic. And to think that NatGeo would spend money on this long-known hoax. Will the real Gillespie please stand up, take a bow, and go home. Stop polluting a serious story with BS, please. You’ve had your sick moment in the sun. Now tend to your sunburn and leave the Earhart history to the sane and the serious.”
There you have it, dear reader. There will be no end to the Earhart-on-Nikumaroro travesty, despite the fact that if anything in this world is known to be certain, it’s that neither Amelia Earhart, Fred Noonan nor the Electra were ever anywhere near Nikumaroro. Now, in addition to Ric Gillespie and TIGHAR, the great Bob Ballard has performed this public service for us, as if it were actually necessary.
Who was it that said, “You can’t get blood out of a stone”?
The late Bill Prymak’s abundant contributions to Earhart research, though ignored and unappreciated everywhere else in our know-nothing media, are gifts that keep on giving to readers of this blog and Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last. Bill, the founder and former president of the Amelia Earhart Society, who passed away in July 2014 at 86, was the central hub and repository of the writings, reports, analyses and speculations of a wide variety of Earhart researchers.
This material’s accuracy, also quite variable, must be carefully sifted to separate the wheat from the chaff, and was compiled in his two-volume Assemblage of Amelia Earhart Society Newsletters, covering Prymak’s AES Newsletters from December 1989 to March 2000.
The following treasure appeared in the January 1997 issue of the Amelia Earhart Society Newsletters, and concerns a familiar face among the Saipan witnesses, Joaquina M. Cabrera, and a revealing interview she did with Joe Gervais, Capt. Jose Quintanilla, Guam chief of police; and Eddie Camacho, Guam chief of detectives, during their 1960 Guam interviews. (Boldface emphasis mine throughout.)
“THE STRANGE STORY OF INTERVIEW #23”
When Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas presented their manuscript of Amelia Earhart Lives  to McGraw-Hill, it was bulging with some 650 pages of research work. Much good material had to be trimmed to meet the publisher’s mandate not to exceed 275 pages in final form, and it has always bugged Gervais that one of his most profound witnesses had a crucial part of her testimony stricken from the book by the editors. Major Gervais recreates that scene for us, the way it should have been presented in the book:
At Chalan Kanoa, a village on Saipan, the investigators located Mrs. Joaquina M. Cabrera, fifty-one, who during 1937 and 1938 had been employed as a servant in the [Kobayashi Royakan] hotel.
“l used to have to take a list of the persons staying in the hotel to the island governor’s office each day,” Mrs. Cabrera remembered. “One day when I was doing this I saw two Americans in the back of a three-wheeled vehicle. Their hands were bound behind them, and they were blindfolded. One of them was an American woman.”
Gervais showed her a photo of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. “Are these the two you saw?”
She squinted at the photograph. “They look like the same people I saw, and they are dressed the same way.”
“What happened to them?”
“I only saw them once in the three-wheeled truck. I don’t know what happened to them.”
The threesome, Capt. Jose Quintanilla, Guam Chief of Police; Eddie Camacho, Guam Chief of Detectives, and Capt. Gervais, were shocked when, after finishing the above interview, she suddenly came forward to Gervais and deliberately spat on the ground, in front of his feet.
Capt. Gervais regained his composure and asked Capt. Quintanilla
“Why is this woman so enraged at me? I had never met her before?”
Capt. Quintanilla, in a quiet voice, asked Mrs. Cabrera to explain her actions, and after a lengthy exchange of words in Chamorro, Quintanilla turned to Gervais with an ashen face and slowly, deliberately told him what Mrs. Cabrera had said:
“You Americans are two-faced people! What are you doing here in 1960 investigating what happened to Amelia Earhart 23 years ago when all the time you Americans knew she was here and none of you lifted a finger to help her?
“What kind of people are you?” (End Strange Story of Interview #23)
Amelia Earhart Lives author Joe Klaas, who passed away in February 2016 at 95, was a pilot and World War II hero, a POW and a talented writer with 12 books to his credit. But sadly, Klaas fell victim to the insane delusion that Joe Gervais had birthed and spread to other witless sheep over the years, that New Jersey housewife Irene Bolam was actually Amelia Earhart returned from Saipan via the Japanese Imperial Palace in Tokyo, determined to live out her life in obscurity and isolation from her family — something Amelia was incapable of doing.
It was a shame, because the eyewitness interviews conducted by Gervais, Robert Dinger and the detectives on Guam and Saipan in 1960, on the heels of Fred Goerner’s arrival on Saipan, were some of the most compelling ever done. The above incident is another example of important witness testimony that most will never see.
If you’d like to get reacquainted with all the sordid details of the long-debunked, worm-eaten Earhart-as-Bolam myth, I did a four-part series on this dark chapter of the Earhart saga, beginning with “Irene Bolam and the Decline of the Amelia Earhart Society: Part I of IV,” on Dec. 29, 2015.
Fred Goerner also interviewed Joaquina at length in 1962, and later wrote in The Search for Amelia Earhart, “Mrs. Joaquina M. Cabrera brought us closer to the woman held at the Kobayashi Royokan [Hotel] than any other witness.” See my April 17, 2018 post, “Revisiting Joaquina Cabrera, Earhart eyewitness“ and pages 101-102 of Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last for more on Goerner’s interview with Joaquina.
(Editor’s note: “I was surprised to learn what Joaquina did after she was interviewed,” Marie Castro wrote from Saipan just after this post was published. “But I can also understand Joaquina’s reaction to Gervais, it was out of frustration because of the way Amelia suffered as a detainee. Joaquina noticed the bruises around Amelia’s arm and neck, so did Matilde.”)
(Editor’s note No. 2: In an Aug. 21 comment, Les Kinney wrote: “I don’t believe Cabrera’s statement. It’s inconsistent with remarks made to other researchers and out of character for a Chamorro woman to speak in this manner. Sadly, at times, Joe Gervais embellished and flat out lied to further his argument. It’s a shame since some of his reporting was sound. Goerner’s account is probably more credible. Don Kothera and the Cleveland group interviewed Cabrera twice – there is no mention of anything close to what Gervais reported.”
After Marie Castro was told about Les’s comment, she responded with this in an Aug. 22 email: I also believed with Les Kinney, spitting at a person is unheard of in our culture. It is highly unlikely that a Chamorro woman would ever do such a thing. I was really surprised of that reaction on Joaquina. I would rather skip that comment of Joe Gervais, it was a made up story.”
As I wrote to Les, “Gervais, on balance, did far more harm than good for the truth in the Earhart disappearance. Bill Prymak obviously believed it, or he wouldn’t have included the story in his newsletters, but Bill was far too trusting of Gervais, and even kept the lid on the truth in the Bolam case to protect Gervais.” I should have picked this up before posting the story, and expressed at least some skepticism about it, but it slipped my attention. Now you have the rest of the story.)
As if we need more evidence that Smithsonian magazine is among the vanguard in the U.S. government-media complex’s ongoing program of deceit in the Earhart disappearance, the following is submitted for your information. (Boldface and italics emphasis mine throughout.)
On Aug. 2 a reader sent me the link to the Smithsonian’s July 31, 2019 screed, “Why the Much-Publicized Mission to Find Amelia Earhart’s Plane Is Likely to Come Up Empty,” subheaded, “The explorer who discovered the ‘Titanic’ is searching for the lost aviator. A Smithsonian curator doesn’t think he’ll find it.”
Here we have the incompetent advising the accomplished and misguided. Dorothy Cochrane, the Smithsonian’s Air and Space curator, has taken over from Tom Crouch as that institution’s selected mouthpiece about all things Earhart, but this is the same gibberish we heard from Crouch, and will continue to hear from the Smithsonian until Judgment Day. We know that the famed Bob Ballard, who found the Titanic, is out of his depth in the Earhart search, but we certainly don’t need an overpaid PR hack to tell us why.
The author of the current Smithsonian drivel, one Brigit Katz, writes that “Dorothy Cochrane, a curator at the aeronautics department of the Air and Space Museum, doubts that the upcoming expedition to Nikumaroro, will turn up any tangible signs of Earhart’s plane. It’s highly unlikely, she says, that Earhart and Noonan ever ended up on the island.”
Cochrane, who in a better world would be arrested for impersonating an Earhart expert, is right about that, but not for any legitimate or coherent reason. In her government-apologist role, Cochrane remains stuck back in July 1937, connected at the hip to the Navy-Coast Guard verdict that the Earhart Electra “landed on the water within 120 miles of Howland Island” — volumes of evidence to the contrary be damned.
As a trusted, highly placed representative of the U.S. establishment, that’s her story and she’s sticking to it, just as her predecessor so stubbornly did. But does the reality-challenged Cochrane really believe the garbage that she’s forced to disgorge by her masters, given, that is, that she’s ever read anything at all except her marching orders?
The “crashed-and-sank” canard, a natural assumption without a single trace of supporting evidence in 1937, was soon overwhelmed by evidence and events, including the 1944 discovery of the Earhart Electra in a hangar on Saipan, if not long before. “Crashed and sank” became so ludicrous and untenable by the mid-1980s that it forced the Powers That Be to commandeer the current Earhart lie, the only slightly less ridiculous Nikumaroro theory, dressed up as a “hypothesis,” by its TIGHAR proponents.
Unknown to most, the Nikumaroro fiasco is itself a third-hand idea initially conceived by famed inventor Fred Hooven, who presented his research paper, Amelia Earhart’s Last Flight at the Amelia Earhart Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute’s National Air and Space Museum in June 1982. Hooven called it the “McKean-Gardner Island landing theory,” but was later convinced by Fred Goerner that Amelia and Fred Noonan could not have possibly landed there. (See Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last, pages 56, 303 and 304 for more.)
Note also that unlike the National Geographic story touting Ballard’s upcoming visit to Nikumaroro, which mentioned Saipan in passing, the Smithsonian story assiduously avoids anything that hints at the hated truth.
Though Jerry Adler’s January 2015 Smithsonian cover story,“Will the Search for Amelia Earhart Ever End?,” attacked and attempted to undermine Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last with a flotilla of lies, at least Smithsonian editors referenced the book along with their litany of falsehoods. I responded appropriately, with a 5,000-word rebuttal, Smithsonian mag throws “Truth at Last” a bone: Says, “it’s possible . . . Campbell is on to something,” that I hope you will take the time to read, if you haven’t already.
The below was my second of three attempts to post my comment on Aug. 2, despite being convinced it had no chance for approval:
Why did you delete my below comment, as if I don’t know that you are among the leaders in the campaign to keep the masses ignorant about the truth in the Earhart disappearance. I think I’ll do a blog post about this. If you change your mind, you can delete this paragraph and post the original as sent. Fat chance.
The very idea of the “Earhart Mystery” in itself is one of the most enduring lies of the 20th, and now 21st century. Neither Nikumaroro nor Crashed and Sank have a shred of evidence to support them, while Earhart’s landing at Mili Atoll in the Marshalls and later death on Saipan are supported by mountains of evidence in the forms of eyewitness and witness accounts, letters, documents, and the words of three flag officers — Adm. Chester Nimitz and Generals Graves Erskine and Alexander A. Vandegrift — and much more, attesting to the presence and deaths of Earhart and Fred Noonan on Saipan.
For more, please see www.EarhartTruth.com
According to my Discus account profile, the above comment was in “Pending” status until about 7 p.m. Saturday night, Aug. 3, when it unceremoniously disappeared without explanation, as did the others. But on the afternoon of the next day, Aug. 4, the comments mysteriously showed again as “Pending.”
Monday, Aug. 5 has now passed and my comment has been pending for four days. Instead of rejecting my comments outright, the Smithsonian magazine editors have chosen to do nothing, a non-action that seems quite appropriate for these unsavory characters. While permanent pending status is the same as deletion or rejection, I do wonder how long they’ll wait before actually deleting it — like cowardly thieves hiding and waiting for the coast to clear. Or could this post shame them into finally approving it? Not if they have no shame, which has pretty well been established. Be sure I will keep you updated.
I’m not a lawyer, but it occurs to me that as a publication of the U.S. government, the Smithsonian magazine’s editors, by not allowing my comment to stand, are in direct violation of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The comment of publisher Doug Westfall, whose Special Books, a vanity press that has historically provided a platform for authors with certifiably crackpot ideas about the Earhart case, was allowed to stand. This isn’t surprising, since Westfall’s statement is an insipid, meaningless aside, promoting another lunatic fringe theory that only serves to militate against anyone taking legitimate research about the Earhart matter seriously. The Smithsonian magazine is quite happy to publish comments such as Westfall’s, as it makes their own propaganda sound less absurd:
I whole-heartedly [sic] agree. “They are looking in the wrong place!” (Salah to Indiana in Raiders of the Lost Arc [sic].) We published William Snavely’s book, Tracking Amelia Earhart — and he shows how she turned back and splash landed off Buka Island — see the map in this article. As well, he found a plane. Smithsonian Magazine published Snavely’s story in the January 2015 issue. Since then there have been two more dives.
So what? People go diving all the time. “He found a plane,” Westfall says, but he doesn’t tell you it wasn’t Earhart’s. Westfall has always been part of the problem, and neither he nor Snavely even bothered to put Tracking Amelia Earhart on Amazon.com, where 30 million books are available in the world’s largest book marketplace — such is their confidence in their unsellable fish wrapper.
Lies and Deceit: Thy names are Legion. Thy names are the American Media.
UPDATE: At about 3 p.m. Aug. 7, I see that my comments, all three, have gone up on the Smithsonian page. A considerate editor would have deleted two of them, because they are all the same with one slight exception, but consideration is the last thing I expect from them. I’ve now changed the headline on this post accordingly.